SUFFOLK COUNTY LEGISLATURE GENERAL MEETING SEVENTEENTH DAY by wuxiangyu

VIEWS: 44 PAGES: 335

									             SUFFOLK COUNTY LEGISLATURE

                   GENERAL MEETING

                   SEVENTEENTH DAY

                   DECEMBER 5, 2006




 MEETING HELD AT THE EVANS K. GRIFFING BUILDING IN THE

       MAXINE S. POSTAL LEGISLATIVE AUDITORIUM

         300 CENTER DRIVE, RIVERHEAD NEW YORK

                   MINUTES TAKEN BY

LUCIA BRAATEN AND ALISON MAHONEY, COURT STENOGRAPHERS
                       (*The meeting was called to order at 9:34 AM*)

                       (*COURT STENOGRAPHER - ALISON MAHONEY*)

P.O. LINDSAY:
Could I have all Legislators to the horseshoe please? Okay.
Mr. Clerk, would you call the roll, please?

MR. LAUBE:
Yes, sir. Good morning.

                              (*Roll Called by Mr. Laube - Clerk*)

LEG. ROMAINE:
Present.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Present.

LEG. BROWNING:
Here.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
(Not Present).

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Present.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Present.

LEG. MONTANO:
Present.

LEG. ALDEN:
Here.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Here.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Here.

LEG. NOWICK:
(Not Present).

LEG. HORSLEY:
Here.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Here.

LEG. STERN:
Here.



                                                                        2
LEG. D'AMARO:
Here.

LEG. COOPER:
(Not Present).

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Present.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Here.

LEG. NOWICK:
Here.

MR. LAUBE:
16 (Not Present: Legislators Caracappa & Cooper).

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. If we could all rise for the pledge led by Legislator Montano.

                                              Salutation

Before you sit down, if everybody could -- we could have a moment of silence for our troops that are
in harm's way this morning as we head into the holiday season; if we could all remember them in
our prayers and pray that they come back to us safe and sound.

                                    Moment of silence observed

The first order of business, I'd like to call Legislator Losquadro for the purpose of introducing the
visiting Clergy.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. It's my pleasure to introduce our Clergy today, Deacon Joseph
Bartolotto from St. Louis DeMontfort Church in Sound Beach.

Many of you might know St. Louis DeMontfort as the parish that Father Frank Pizzarelli from Hope
House Ministries associated with, but
St. Louis DeMontfort Parish is so much more than that. They are one of the larger parishes in the
6th Legislative District and they're renowned for the charitable work that they do throughout the
community. So without further ado, it's my pleasure to introduce Deacon Bartolotto.

DEACON BARTOLOTTO:
Thank you so much. Why don't we all sit down and be comfortable, please; the Lord wants you to
be comfortable and relaxed.

It is with trepidation and a little anxiety that I offer these thoughts and prayers for our wonderful
Legislature. Holy Father, Creator of the Universe and the spirit that is within each one of us, we
request today that what our Founding Fathers asked and prayed for, they prayed for wisdom,
understanding, courage, guidance and vision for this dignified body of Legislators and officers. May
these leaders be guided by the values and morals taught to them in their youth by their parents and
what they live by today. May they be positive in their outlook, compassionate in their choices,
empathetic in their dealings with constituents, wise in their decisions.

May they always be aware of the general good of our beloved communities. May they strive for


                                                                                                        3
consensus and peaceful atmosphere in the community at large. Bless them, oh Devine Creator,
architect of our souls and personalities, to find the strengths and talents of others and encourage
them to excel in making our community a better and productive society than we found it.

Bless each leader who is elected and chosen to make the best of decisions for the good of all. Let
them realize that they are your instruments of love here on Earth and responsible for the good
welfare, rapport and sound development of our society. Search us, oh God, and know our hearts
and minds today. Show us your guidance, your light and your way. Guide us in our serious
deliberations and discussions. May the values and visions of our forefathers be ours today and
always.

And to the fine elected men and women in this Legislature and those working for you, let your basic
humanitarian goodness, compassion and unity shine forth and may your light shine on the mountain
top of his glory. May your positive endeavors bless you tenfold and may you and your loved ones be
blessed with peace, happiness, good health and family harmony in this beautiful season of joy, light
and happiness. May God bless America and protect her. Amen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I would like to thank the good Deacon for those kind words. To the press that's in the audience, he
used an adjective that isn't very often used about this Legislature, dignified.

I would like to call Legislator Alden to the podium for the purposes of a proclamation.

LEG. ALDEN:
I would like to call Mr. Arnold up from the Bay Shore/Brightwaters Little League. Actually, it's not
really a proclamation, although we should be honoring this gentleman who has put in thousands and
thousands of hours grooming the field and putting together the
Bay Shore/Brightwaters Little League Program, and I want to personally thank you for all the effort
that you've put in there. But actually, it's because of a news story where the Bay
Shore/Brightwaters Little League was cut $1,000 from Suffolk County funds that we're here today
because a gentlemen -- he's not even from my Legislative District, he's actually from Legislator
Barraga's District -- he played in the
Bay Shore/Brightwaters Little League years ago, he's just a working guy from Bay Shore. He came
into my office and he said, "I don't want the kids to have to suffer and I'm coming up with" -- he
wrote a check for $1,000 to give to the Bay Shore/Brightwaters; and in this day and age and this
season, that's one heck of a sacrifice. So he was ready, willing and able to put it on the line to
sacrifice to make the Bay Shore/Brightwaters Little League whole and that's who we're paying honor
to today. Charles Prygocki came into my office -- again, he want's a -- he's not a resident that lives
in my district -- but he wanted to give $1,000 to the Bay Shore/Brightwaters Little League.


So I'm presenting you with that check and thank you for your efforts and thank Mr. Prygocki for his
sacrifice. Thank you.

                                              Applause

P.O. LINDSAY:
Next, Legislator Schneiderman for the purpose of a proclamation.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Good morning. I actually have two proclamations this morning and the first goes to one of Long
Island's star athletes. Can I have Gardner Lever come forward; he's here? And I think he's being
joined by his Mom Diane and his sister Retta. Gardner lives out in Montauk, the same place where I
live, and Gardner is the son of Diane and Gardner -- or Rusty Lever of Deep Hollow Ranch out in
Montauk. Deep Hollow Ranch leases some land from the County, people may be familiar with that
operation. Gardner received news the week of November 16th that he has been awarded a baseball


                                                                                                         4
scholarship at the University of Rhode Island which he'll attend next fall. He was recruited as a
right-hand pitcher. The university is one of the top five Division I baseball teams in the northeast
and it's ranked nationally.

According to his mother, he was pretty heavily courted and he also received similar offers at
Quinnipiac, Fairfield University and other Division I schools elsewhere. So I wanted to congratulate
him and offer a proclamation of congratulations on behalf of myself and the County.

MR. LEVER:
Thank you.

                                              Applause

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Next I'd like to call up James McMahon of Sag Harbor. How are you doing, James? Good to see
you. And I think you're joined by some family as well, so I will bring them up in a second.

A quick story about James. James is a lifesaver. We throw the term hero around a lot, James is one
of those people that clearly qualifies. Let me tell you quickly the story. On his way to New Palls,
New York to visit SUNY, the SUNY school up there, James saved a man's life. On October of 2006,
James exited a deli in Ronkonkoma, New York, when he saw two women attempting to revive an
unconscience man lying on the sidewalk. However, they didn't have the stamina to properly
administer CPR. Recalling the resuscitation procedures he learned in high school in his health class
and the training he received as a lifeguard, James began chest compressions while others he
directed handled the respiratory elements of CPR. After three minutes James succeeded in
restarting the victim's heartbeat and continued until the paramedics arrived. James lives in Pine
Neck and Noyac, that's just outside of Sag Harbor, with his mother and step-father. So I'd like to
congratulate James, offer him a proclamation of congratulations. Here you go, this is for you.

                                            Applause
Let me also point out who's here with James; if they could stand up. We have Joseph and Elizabeth
Cassone, his mother and stepfather. We also have Olivia and Sophia who are his sisters, the little
ones.

                                              Applause

And his father James is here as well.

MS. CASSONE:
No, no, no.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
No, he's not here, okay. And how about Martha and Jerry Buffo, the grandparents are there, too.
Oh, and his brother Nicholas as well.

                                              Applause

All right, so we've got a lot of the family here. Congratulations. Thank you all.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Thank you, Legislator Schneiderman. And congratulations, James.

Okay, what I would like now, we have a presentation from Chief Rau of the Detective Division of our
Police Department and we're going to set up a screen on this side of the room. So I would ask the
Legislators on this side of the room, we have chairs on this side, if you could just move while we set
up the screen. Ed? Ed, if you could move to this side so we could set up the screen. And if you just


                                                                                                         5
give us a minute to put in the audio/visual equipment, we'll have the presentation.

CHIEF RAU:
Good morning. I'm here to ask for the Legislators help in passing a bill, a Local Law establishing
crime prevention requirements for scrap metal dealers. I will try to be as brief is possible and go
through this as quickly as I can.

LEG. ALDEN:
Just pick it up a little bit.

CHIEF RAU:
Is that better? Thank you. Due to the inadequacies of the Section 6-C of General Business Law, it is
necessary to enact legislation on a County level in order to combat the tremendous rise in the
number of thefts related to scrap metals and their subsequent disposition.
Scrap metal is at an all-time high and has become a national theft problem.

I'm going to just give you -- this is the number of scrap metal thefts excluding vehicles that have
been reported in the Suffolk County Police Department; 2004, 2005, 2006. We're having a dramatic
increase as it can be evidenced by the graph, and these are only the reported crimes where we have
values. A large percentage of these crimes go unreported. We have people that are losing
everything from lawn furniture to the gutters off the side of their house to siding, anything that's
aluminum or copper that may be on their properties.

The value of scrap metal thefts -- and I guess it closely follows the number of scrap metal thefts.
Again, this is excluding vehicles in 2004, 105,000; 190 in 2005 and 772,000 in reported, excluding
vehicles, in 2006. I'm going to just basically skip through the graphs, but it just shows by month,
we have fairly consistent numbers being reported. And again, these are the ones that are coming
into the Detective Division that are major thefts of scrap metal.

From January to November -- again, three-quarters of a million dollars worth of reported theft. I'm
going to just discuss a few of these types of crimes to give you an idea of what we're looking at. On
9/22/06, a person stole a truck to commit a burglary of scrap metals. He brought a generator and
chop saw to the location, those were going to be left at the location; in other words, that was the
cost of doing business to steal it. The items taken were copper tubing, a 55 gallon drum full of
scrap, titanium rods, tools and a heat exchanger. That was the truck that was stolen to facilitate the
theft, that was the chop saw and generator he brought to cut the things out of the building. That's
the defendant who was arrested during the commission of the crime; he had an extensive criminal
record for theft prior to this.

During month of September, there were a total of five thefts of metals from this location. The total
value of these thefts were in excess of $150,000 copper and titanium. And it goes beyond the public
-- I mean the private sector. Brookhaven Town Pool in Mastic Beach, there's a building under
construction; 11/16/06, they smashed a chain-link gate to gain entrance, the value of the stolen
copper tubing was a thousand dollars. The value of the damage to the building in obtaining this
thousand dollars in copper was $60,000; the copper has not yet been recovered and this was one of
the reasons that we're hoping to have this Local Law enacted. Smashed the gate, broke in through
the front door. The copper pipes were insulated, they cut them at both ends and just pulled the
copper pipes out. As I say, $60,000 in damage but we're estimating approximately by weight a
thousand dollars in copper. Again, if you look down the ceiling tiles, they were pulled out of almost
every part of the interior of the building.

This is an operation that's going to gear to the second part of the law that we're looking at, the theft
and subsequent of sale of vehicles that are being sold at scrap. As it stands right now, an average
vehicle in Suffolk County sold for scrap is bringing anywhere from 150 to $250. This is an operation
we conducted from 2000 -- I believe 2004 on, Brad?



                                                                                                           6
DETECTIVE LANSER:
Yes.

CHIEF RAU:
To 2006. We had a tow truck operator, Quarter Flash Towing who gave us information, we executed
a warrant at a recycling plant which led to the following. We arrested 127 people, 498 charges; 442
charges of falsified MV-35's, that is a miniscule number compared to the actual number. The District
Attorney's Office stopped us at four charges per individual because we had individuals that were
selling multiples.

An MV-35 is a form that is completed by an operator -- by somebody that brings in a vehicle to be
scrapped that's over eight years old valued under $1,250 that they don't have a title for, they
basically just fill it out. What happens is we have incorrect VIN's, improper information on these.
And again, when it says 442 falsified, we had literally thousands that were falsified as to VIN's.
Eighty-eight companies were involved, ten independent operators, we impounded 30 trucks. This
operation is still ongoing now as we're reviewing MV-35's for falsified VIN's.

Recently, during the past year, a lot of the scrap metal dealers have instituted policies where they're
double checking the VIN's. Where in other words the person just wrote down the VIN, now they're
supposed to check the VIN and they actually re-recorded the VIN on the MV-35.
Mr. Figueroa, in the last five months, has falsified 12 VIN's at a location that double-checked the
VINs and basically just copied his VINs and they're coming back. And again, if anybody has any
questions, I can provide them information where they will come back -- the vehicle is a '93, it comes
back a 2003 by the VIN; the country of manufacture might be Germany, it's coming back Japan.
And most of the other numbers are undecipherable.

What this does is we get a VIN and we can't check, we cannot verify if the vehicle is stolen, we can't
even verify that the year of the vehicle being crushed is correct. So this is one of the reasons we're
hoping that this Local Law is enacted. Go ahead.

When we went in just to seek compliance, and some of the Legislators on public safety have seen
these before, this is an undercover officer walking into a recycling plant with obviously an item that
is not in the common course of commerce that would be -- it's underground utility cable, only used
by a utility company. What you're going to notice is that at no time during this presentation has the
undercover officer asked for identification, where he got the items; and again, these are pretty
unique. I'm sorry for the quality of the video but the camera turned on the undercover's jacket.
He's being handed a ticket right now, not asked a name and going in for payment; hands in his
ticket, handed the cash, walks out, no questions asked.

The second location, again, with these items that are -- I'll bring them in. Again, the consistency
you're going to see here is at no time is the undercover officer challenged, at no time is the
undercover officer requested to provide identification, and I think in this particular case he was
handed $300 cash and walked out. That's the undercover officer being paid, no questions asked,
walking right out. That's it. Thank you, Brad.

Somebody can turn on the lights. Just to show, this is the type of item we brought in. And one of
the things that was recommended by the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, in prior to doing
this type of a sting, we reviewed their recommendations for regulations of scrap metal dealers and
they recommended they don't purchase certain unique items that are used, one of the things they
mentioned was cable that is only being used by a utility company. This is not something that you
would have in the normal course of business. We walked in, in actually, in trying to conserve time,
we did do a couple of other undercover stings where we had people turn around and say, "We can't
buy that, we'll get arrested because it's under -- you know, it's under water utility cable, the only
people that have that are utilities." But there are dealers that will still purchase with now questions
asked and it has become a tremendous problem.



                                                                                                          7
Now, I'll talk briefly about the genesis of this law, recommended law. We came in with a proposal,
we have subsequently met with Legislators who wanted to make sure that it was business-friendly,
industry-friendly and still gave the Police Departments the tools they need. It has undergone
several revisions, we have done away with certain things that were objectionable but the law is still
effective as written. The only hole that we're going to look for in the particular law is on scrap metal
vehicles that are not titled; in other words, when somebody goes in and has a vehicle that is not
titled on an MV-35, that they will hold that vehicle for three days giving my Detectives the
opportunity to check that VIN on-line to find out if that VIN number is correct to give the person
who's car is stolen the opportunity to report it.

Many times these vehicles are scrapped prior to the person even knowing that the vehicle is stolen.
And the bottom line is do we wind up making an arrest? Yes, but the scrap metal dealers, in this
particular case they get the benefit of taking the vehicle in, scrapping the vehicle, we get the benefit
of the arrest, the only person that winds up suffering is the ultimate owner of the vehicle who may
need that vehicle for transportation who loses the vehicle. So that's why we're holding vehicles for
three days. Everything else, you know, they have the opportunity to either tag and hold or
photograph and provide the information to us. And that's basically it. I'll try to answer any
questions and I did it within my ten minutes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Thank you, Chief. I know there are several questions. The Legislators can move back on that side
of the room, if they'd like. I know -- Legislator Eddington, do you want to ask a question or do you
want to move? You've got to use the mike.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Thank you, Chief, for that presentation. So that you identified two sites, Arrow Scrap and Gershow
Recycling that are taking stolen properties.

CHIEF RAU:
On this particular thing, yes. The problem is with this, we feel that all of the scrap metal dealers,
either knowingly or inadvertently, are taking stolen scrap in. We recently had a case just, I believe,
Thursday where we had soccer goal posts taken; they're made out of aluminum, they're valued at
$1,800. We reached out to every scrap metal dealer in Suffolk County and put them on notice that
we're looking for these particular items, they may come in in another form;
I mean, if you remember, we had the bleacher discussion and whatever.
So we actually, we reached out to everybody.

One of the dealers goes, "Geez, I've got two persons who appear to be involved or appear to be
under the influence of drugs. They're in my driveway right now with some copper, I'm not going to
buy it from them." I said, "Did you get their license plate?" Yes, they did.
Got the license plate, we check out the license plate, that license plate comes back to a known
burglar, people that are actually residing in a car. Less than four-tenths of a mile from the scrap
dealers location, we have a residential burglar where all the copper pipes are taken out of a house
that was unoccupied. We then contacted every scrap metal dealer in Suffolk County to put them on
notice that we're looking for this particular individual and this particular scrap metal. That was put
out at two o'clock, at 4:47 PM those persons showed up at a scrap metal dealer in Suffolk County,
Gershow's. Gershow purchased the scrap metal for I believe was $45, which keeps them under the
6-C Business Law, and they don't report it to us until the following day. When we ask them, "Do
you have the material," they had already crushed and disposed of the material which was promptly
followed by a correspondence for their attorney advising us that they cooperated to an extent, if we
have any other questions to deal with their attorney.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
So basically you're saying then, Chief, that there are some recycling centers that are in compliance
and trying to help you with your investigations. And then there is, of course, the other one,
Gershow that's buying things and telling you later?


                                                                                                           8
CHIEF RAU:
Well, in this particular case, yeah, we were told later. We have people -- I mean, let's face it, these
are honest businessmen, for the most part, but a lot of times the people that are coming into
them -- it's very difficult to ascertain whether something was stolen. I mean, you could have a
piece of crushed copper pipe, what we need to do and what we need the tools to look at the people
that are selling this. I mean, if we have people that are selling copper pipe and they're not in the
construction industry, they have no reason to get it, they're doing it on a regular basis or they're
showing up with specified items, we need the ability to cross-reference that and to track that and
hopefully make a criminal case on it.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Well, I'd like to report a theft of my mother's aluminum garbage can last Tuesday.

CHIEF RAU:
I knew that was coming.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
I can't believe it but it's gone. Thank you, Chief.

CHIEF RAU:
But that shows -- again, what the Legislator is showing, we have a lot of people, when they lose
these items, they don't report it. And we didn't find the Legislator's garbage can.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Stern.
LEG. STERN:
Thank you. Good morning, Chief Rau, good to see you.

CHIEF RAU:
Yes, sir.

LEG. STERN:
Like all of my colleagues, we want to make sure that we give all of the necessary tools to law
enforcement to fight crime, but also I think we'd all agree important to a cost benefit analysis of
implementation of these tools and how effective ultimately it's going to be. Can you tell me how --
what kind of personnel do you think would be required in the department to have this kind of
oversight, to make this kind of effort effective?

CHIEF RAU:
Excellent question. With our Article Tracking System that we have right now, I can implement this
program with no additional personnel because it's all done via computer link and analysis. So in
other words, the people that are in place right now will be doing the analysis, similar to what we're
doing with the precious metal dealers at this particular time. The Detectives are in the computer, it
actually force-multiplies their ability to check items, we cross-reference it to reported thefts. We are
not going to be here, you are not going to hear me requesting additional personnel. As a matter of
fact, our Article Tracking System, as it stands right now, Nassau County Police and New York City
Police are going to be using our Article Tracking System, we're going to have those jurisdictions
on-line as well and hopefully we'll be able to have a regional impact in this arena. There will be no
additional cost to implement the program.

LEG. STERN:
And approximately how -- what kind of personnel is devoted to that oversight right now, how many
people are looking?

CHIEF RAU:


                                                                                                           9
Right now I have a Sergeant -- how many?

DETECTIVE SERGEANT HAACK:
We have six Detectives.

CHIEF RAU:
A Sergeant and six Detectives are working on the Article Tracking System and they're the Property
Recovery Section. They're responsible for a number of things other than property, we do tax
compliance with these people, we also do burglary investigations, we do reverse stings to ensure
compliance and they will be doing -- the videos you saw were actually done by the Property
Recovering Section, going in and doing reverse strings in order to ensure compliance.

LEG. STERN:
And if implemented, does the department have any idea of the kind of numbers? How many
reports, how many entries would have to be reviewed over a month, over six months, over a year?

CHIEF RAU:
We've had different reports from the various scrap metal dealers. Again -- Bobby, how many do we
do on --

DETECTIVE SERGEANT HAACK:
It's thousands, thousands of transactions daily.

MS. MAHONEY:
What is his name?

CHIEF RAU:
That's Detective Sergeant Bob Haack, he's the Commanding Officer of the Property Recovery
Section. But as far as reviewing the transactions, we review them for specificity, in other words, if
we have a theft and it's 70, 80 pounds of copper that might be in an average household, we're
looking for that particular type of theft at that particular type of time. We're also going to be looking
for individuals that are involved in the sales. A lot the link analysis that we do now is done via
computer. In other words, the Detectives aren't actually doing the analysis, the computer does the
analysis, provides the Detectives with leads and the Detectives follow-up on those leads. That
enables us to check these thousands of transaction records a day.

And again, I will use a policy or a procedure in law that is in place with the precious metal dealers
right now. We may get in a thousand entries a day from various precious metal dealers, but we
have ten burglaries without a reported -- that have items that have distinct identifiers; i.e., a
diamond ring, round, 1.6 carrots, VS-1 quality and they have a certification, or it may be
laser-engraved. These are the ones we will hone in on and look for, or we'll look for individuals, I
mean, that may be an anomaly; the 18 year old boy that is selling four Rolex Watches.

In this particular case, if you're looking for people that are involved in scrap metal, we have people
that are making repetitive sales. The person I talked about falsifying MV-35 forms, has falsified 12
forms since January 2nd of this year, so it's a person that we would see a person of interest and we
would put an investigative hold on that particular property, hopefully not impacting on the business
because the number of investigative holds will be minimal. We can discuss this with the County
Attorney about doing preemptive, you know, in other words, flagging a certain individual, he thought
that might be problematic, but we do have the availability of corp processes to do that if we need to.

LEG. STERN:
One last question. If I understand the newest version correctly, it's a reporting requirement really
for raw materials but it's a tag and hold for scrap metal vehicles for three days.

CHIEF RAU:


                                                                                                            10
That's what it is, and it's only scrap metal vehicles. Again, we have spent time, we went to the
scrap metal yards, some of the Legislators went to the scrap metal yards. We stayed away from
things that would have been problematic. The ferrous metals that are paying less than five cents a
pound that they have -- you know, that the reports would have been impossible for them to get
involved in, we tried to make this as business friendly as we possibly could. But the tag and hold is
only on vehicles that a person brings in that they do not have a title, they don't have ownership.
And you have them coming in on a fairly regular basis and the guy just fills it out and says, "Yes, I
own this vehicle," signs it, by the time anybody either discovers that it's stolen or it's reported, that
vehicle is, you know. Crushed in a thousand pieces. That's the only tag and hold that we do have
that's mandatory, it's a three day tag and hold, we will check every VIN that is reported to us and
we will be able hopefully to recover the vehicles before they are crushed and disposed of.

LEG. STERN:
And I think with those kind of numbers that personnel will be able to make the investigation, have
that kind of turnaround within the three day time period?

CHIEF RAU:
Well, again, now -- again, I'll have to expand upon that because that will be checked by our Vehicle
Theft Unit, so those VINs are going to be checked not by Property Recovery but by Vehicle Theft.
The 16 number VIN, each digit has a significance, it's engine number, model, where it was
manufactured, make, year of manufacture, so they check those things. And again, we can do that
via computer and hopefully we will be able to do that with the existing personnel and I am fairly
confident we will.

LEG. STERN:
Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Browning.

LEG. BROWNING:
Well, I have a good reason to support this. My office building, not too long ago, I'm sure you
probably are aware of it, every air-conditioning unit at the office building was busted into it and all
the copper piping was stolen. My question is on the cars, on VIN numbers, because I know when
you sell a car you have to turn over the-- what do you call it, the piece of --

CHIEF RAU:
The title.

LEG. BROWNING:
The title, okay.

CHIEF RAU:
Unless it was prior to 1973, then you turn over a copy of the registration.

LEG. BROWNING:
Okay. So when -- say like, for example, my daughter had a car accident and when we had the guy
take the car we had to sign over the title to him. So with these places like Gershow, do they require
a title when they take those junk cars?
CHIEF RAU:
No, they require either a title or an MV-35. An MV-35 is a form that's completed. If a vehicle is
over eight years old and valued at less than $1,250, you can complete this form and certify that you
own the vehicle. Now, most of the tow truck operators that pick up these vehicles just sign-off on
this, it then goes to the scrap metal dealer, the scrap metal dealer is supposed to look at the VIN
and verify that the VIN number, the vehicle identification number, is the same as being reported by
the individual. I brought a number of cases where that is absolutely not the case. And as I say,


                                                                                                            1
going back to 2002, we had well over a thousand cases where VINs have been falsified.

So they complete this form and the scrap metal dealer holds the form. Many of our charges have
been on falsifying the MV-35 form because the vehicles are already crushed, we can't establish what
type of vehicle it was, who owns the vehicle because our paper trail in this particular case is a VIN
number that does not exist. So they can fill out this form. That's why we are requesting that the
hold be put on the scrapped vehicles for three days, allow our guys in Auto Theft to check and verify
identify that these VINs are appropriate and that the vehicles are not, in fact, stolen.

LEG. BROWNING:
Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Horsley.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Detective, I was just curious, and just a little afog here.
The whole method of paying by cash --

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Is that mike on?

LEG. HORSLEY:
The whole method of paying by cash, is there any capability of making it illegal over a certain dollar
amount that they have to pay by check so that there's a whole auditable trail towards these issues;
is that something that's been explored?

CHIEF RAU:
It's one of the recommendations of the industry that they pay other than by cash. Unfortunately,
this has become, for lack of a better term, the business practice in the industry to pay by cash.

LEG. HORSLEY:
I understand that, right.

CHIEF RAU:
And a lot of the purchases are -- especially a lot of the purchasers that we would be interested in are
below the State $50 threshold. And if you create a dollar threshold, for the sake of argument, we
sold those copper pieces, we went to one scrap dealer, sold two, got $300; went to another scrap
dealer, sold three or four and got $160. The disparity that people are paying, they pretty much
judge the individual, I guess the individual's need. There is no regulation on the amount of money
they pay for a particular time. Copper, No. 2 copper right now should be getting probably $2 a
pound; in some of our scrap yards they're paying a dollar, they're paying $1.25, they'll pay pretty
much what the market will bear and what the desperation of the person selling it is. I would love to
see them pay by check, but a lot of the people that are involved in this that are doing it legitimately
may not have a methodology for cashing checks, they may go to people that are not --

LEG. HORSLEY:
But it would certainly leave an auditable trail and they would bring forth a whole host of other
crimes, too, as soon as you're dealing with --

CHIEF RAU:
Well, hopefully, if this law is --

LEG. HORSLEY:
-- financial instruments.



                                                                                                          12
CHIEF RAU:
Right. If this law is enacted as is, we will have the people identified that sold the items. Now,
again, they're going to be providing documented identifications, we're going to have license plates,
we're going to have addresses. If this is all verifiable, it would be a secondary audit trail. Is it
absolutely necessary for our investigations? It would be helpful and if you want to amend it to
include that, I would be very happy.

LEG. HORSLEY:
You would feel that would make sense?

CHIEF RAU:
Again, I would be very happy having them pay by check because I think a lot of the people that are
involved in the illicit portion of this business right now are taking that cash and they're going right
out and they're, you know, going to a neighborhood and probably buying crack or --

LEG. HORSLEY:
Oh, I'm sure. Yeah, that makes sense.

CHIEF RAU:
So you're giving another step, that they're going to have to stop at the local bank or they're going to
go to the check-cashing place and pay 10%.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Then you're dealing with a bank and you've got bank regulations and you've got bank laws.


CHIEF RAU:
Then I'm going to need more Detectives.

LEG. HORSLEY:
I was just -- that's the reason I bring it up as a question. Is it something that makes sense?

CHIEF RAU:
No, I'm only kidding. It's something that we would like to see. Actually, it is one of the
recommendations from the industry to pay by other than cash. But again, that is something -- we
tried to make something that was business friendly, we tried not to alter a lot of the standard
business practices that they do right now. I think it's an excellent idea, I would be more than happy
to discuss it. And it would provide us with, you know, additional investigative avenues as far as
verifying identification of people.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Particularly if you have a big-timer out there that's doing it repetitively and you're much more -- it
seems like it would be much more auditable, much more traceable.

CHIEF RAU:
Well, we have a number of people, especially in the car industry, that do do multiple sales. You're
going to have people that are -- you know, this is their living, they drive around, they go to
neighborhoods and they see somebody that's got a car on the side and they either ask them for it,
try to purchase it or steal it; so hopefully we'll be able to find an audit trail on these people. But
again, we can track them with the MV-35's, with the Article Tracking System that automatically
performs link analysis and cross-references for us. So hopefully it would not be necessary, it would
be nice to have, though. Thank you, sir.

LEG. HORSLEY:
One step at a time. Thanks.



                                                                                                          13
P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Barraga.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Just one question. With reference to the Detective who had the tubing, I was trying to follow your
presentation; is that tubing -- because it's indigenous to utilities, is it illegal for a scrap metal dealer
to purchase that or is it not recommended that they purchase it?

CHIEF RAU:
It is not recommended, it is not illegal.

LEG. BARRAGA:
It is not illegal.

CHIEF RAU:
It is not illegal to purchase that. It's something that should put up a flag, though, that it is
something that is not normally available through business channels. What we were attempting to do
was to illustrate, you can bring in an item that's not copper tubing, that's not coming from
somebody. We brought it in in the back of a van and actually one of the dealers said, "Hey, that's
utility cable, they're the only people that have that. We want no part of that, we're going to get
arrested." We had another dealer, we walk in, we hand it to them, they walk out and they hand us
the cash.

LEG. BARRAGA:
But the bottom line, it's not illegal.

CHIEF RAU:
What's not illegal, sir?

LEG. BARRAGA:
To purchase that tubing.

CHIEF RAU:
It's a violation of the law not to take identification.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Well, I mean, realistically -- I'm not defending any of these people. What I'm saying is that the
people in the film don't look as if they have mass degrees in criminology. You know, they're there
for whatever reason.

CHIEF RAU:
Yes, sir.

LEG. BARRAGA:
You bring it in, it's not illegal, they buy it and they'll pay you cash.

CHIEF RAU:
Yes, sir.

LEG. BARRAGA:
And the question is, you know, how do you really change that in the future? I mean, for example, if
somebody rips out copper tubing in my home and you put out some sort of a warning, but yet the
thieves go to some sort of scrap metal dealer and he buys it, it's not illegal; he doesn't know where
it's coming from.

CHIEF RAU:


                                                                                                               14
That's what the dilemma is, sir. But what our problem is is right now you could walk in with
something like that --

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

CHIEF RAU:
-- or the scrap that's taken from your home, and we have certain dealers that are not recording
information as to who's selling it as required. The business law requires recording purchases I
believe over $50, so we have a lot of purchases coming in at 45. The most recent burglary was -- I
forget the exact weight, but they paid $45, and once criminals are aware that there's a certain
weight requirement, they're going to be bringing it in piece meal, they're going to go to multiple
dealers.



So this law that we're recommending right now, it is not illegal to purchase scrap, it's illegal to steal
the scrap. And we're looking for people that are involved in the thefts and this will give us the tools
we need to identify those people, the people that are involved that are engaged in the cottage
industry of stealing scrap and selling it. A lot of these parcels are not identifiable. If we put an
investigative hold, forensically would I be able to match a copper pipe that was stolen from your
house? If I had the reported burglary and I had the exact copper pipe, yes I would. Realistically
what happens, 98% of this copper is beaten with a hammer, it's cut up into 15 different pieces, its
mixed with other lots; it is next to impossible for us to reasonably identify it. It is a possibility, but
what we will be able to do is track the people that are engaged in this activity. We can either via
surveillance or via court intervention investigatively hold devices that they sell to these individuals,
or product rather, and hopefully would be able to make criminal cases against these individuals.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Against the people who stole the item.

CHIEF RAU:
Yes, sir.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Now, what about the owner of the scrap dealer facility? You can only go after him or her if the
paperwork --

CHIEF RAU:
We have gone after him. We have gone after scrap metal dealers. I mean, the case that they
talked about recently with the motor vehicle thefts, the particular scrap metal entity involved paid a
$300,000 fine; that $300,000 fine is a cost of doing business.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Is that with vehicles?

CHIEF RAU:
Yes, that was with vehicles, sir.

LEG. BARRAGA:
No, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking other than vehicles --

CHIEF RAU:
Yes, sir.

LEG. BARRAGA:


                                                                                                             15
The tubing that you just talked about or the soccer poles.

CHIEF RAU:
Right.

LEG. BARRAGA:
I mean, how do you deal with that? I mean, this law seems to put in place a methodology where
the scrap dealer would have to ask certain questions, you know, in order to track these people. But
certainly it still would not be illegal for him to purchase those items and destroy them and make
money on them.

CHIEF RAU:
No, it is not illegal, sir. It is not illegal for a person to purchase the item. But what --

LEG. BARRAGA:
All right, thank you very much.

CHIEF RAU:
Okay.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Losquadro.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Thank you. And I'm glad I got to follow Legislator Barraga because -- guys, excuse me a minute?
Sorry, just getting a little loud over here.

The piece of cable that was mentioned before, for those who were not on the Public Safety
Committee, I'll just give a bit of background. One of the gentleman who was here who owned one
of the scrap metal yards who said he would not purchase that item happened to be very familiar
with that particular industry because he does business with some of the subcontractors that do those
installations. Now, in all fairness, Chief Rau, he did say on the record that sometimes, depending on
the type of contract, that the subcontractor is entitled to the scrap left over from the installation. So
there would be instances where a contractor would have pieces of that type of cabling and not just
the utility, is that correct?

CHIEF RAU:
There are circumstances where -- that particular cable I am not familiar with, but yes, there are
contracts where there would be additional pieces. These were cut into four foot lengths which would
not be a scrap length, but there are instances where a contractor may come in with what would
appear to be new items or unique items. What we're trying to do -- it's not the contractor that we're
looking at.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
No, I understand that. I just wanted to make that point. And that individual, obviously being very
familiar with that process, would know that if that scrap was coming in, that it would only be coming
from a utility or from a contractor. That perhaps an individual bringing it in just by himself in the
back of a van would raise a red flag to them, but it would be someone pretty familiar with that
process. I just wanted to touch on that because Legislator Barraga had brought it up.

Like so many other problems that we see, it seem that a lot of this stems from us trying to solve
short-comings in the State law; is that a fair assessment?

CHIEF RAU:
Well, it is a short-coming in the State law, yes, sir.



                                                                                                            16
LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Well, I just wanted to bring to your attention, I'm sure your Detectives are aware of it, when driving
around -- I happen to be a rock fan so I listen to WBAB a lot -- so on WBAB you have scrap dealers
from outside of Suffolk County advertising on the radio saying they'll even come and pick stuff up.
So I'm sort of getting the feeling that dealers outside of the boundaries of Suffolk County are getting
wind of this and are now trying to make in-roads into Suffolk County. I was sort of heartened to
hear you say that Nassau County and the city were interested in going on-line with our Article
Tracking System because I think this is something that has to be regional. As well intentioned as we
are in trying to put something into place in Suffolk County, as you very clearly pointed out, when
done in volume, the value of this type of material is such that it will travel past geographic
boundaries to circumvent the law; would you agree with that?

CHIEF RAU:
I would agree. Any time there's an enforcement measure that is put into place that there's got to be
an -- that there will be an associated displacement. That being said, I don't think that we can sit
back and say we're worried about displacing crime to another jurisdiction.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Not at all. I think our focus has to be on making sure that this is done regionally to make sure that
these crimes don't continue to happen, yet just see the material travel elsewhere, as a displacement
as you said.

Unfortunately, I haven't really had sufficient time to review the entirety of this bill, being that it was
only filed -- the amended copy was only filed late yesterday and I only received a copy this morning.
But some of the provisions that I saw and you and I had discussed seem in line with what
discussions between the industry and the Police Department and lawmakers had in mind. I'm just
curious, at the last meeting that I attended between the industry and the Police Department, did any
further communication take place? I know at that meeting it was sort of ended with you would get
back to the industry with some of your findings as to what the items that were -- the 90 or so items
that you're reporting, what those items were and they would get back to you on a potential
threshold of non-ferrous metals to be included in the Article Tracking System; did any of that further
discussion take place?

CHIEF RAU:
The information they provided at that meeting is what we utilized in considering the proposed
amendments to the law. I am unaware of conversations directly with me, but I believe there was --

DETECTIVE SERGEANT HAACK:
We did have conversations but we had no other formalize meeting.

P.O. LINDSAY:
No, you can't do that, he's got to go to the mike if he's going to talk.


CHIEF RAU:
All right.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
County you just ask Detective Haack just to answer briefly? I'm sorry.

CHIEF RAU:
The is Detective Sergeant Robert Haack, Commanding Officer of Property Recovery.

DETECTIVE SERGEANT HAACK:
We had no formal meetings. We used the information that was provided us during that meeting that
you're referring to and we tried to implement changes that were requested by the industry, and


                                                                                                             17
that's what -- the information that we used, but we never had another meeting after that.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Okay. Thank you, Detective. I apologize, I was under the impression that there would be some
additional discourse as to what some of these requirements would be prior to amended legislation
being filed. But as I said, without having the chance to review it fully, it seems like many of the
items or most of the items that were discussed are included here. But I'll be interested in taking a
further look at it and if I have any other questions, I certainly know how to get in touch with you.
But I just wanted to bring a couple of those items to people's attention who may not be members of
this committee. When Detective Haack talked about thousands of transaction, we're probably
talking in the neighborhood of half a million transactions annually throughout Suffolk County by all
of the scrap metal dealers across Suffolk County, whether large or small. So it's a significant
number of transactions we're talking about.

CHIEF RAU:
That is not -- that's including ferrous. We excluded --

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Right, right.

CHIEF RAU:
We excluded non-ferrous -- I mean, we excluded ferrous metals. This is -- you know, we're dealing
specifically with the non-ferrous at this particular time.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
And automobiles.

CHIEF RAU:
The definition was amended. Non-ferrous and automobiles that require an MV-35. Again --

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Now --

CHIEF RAU:
If I could just finish?
LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yeah, sure.

CHIEF RAU:
When we met with the industry, we were of the opinion that we wanted to be accommodating as
best as we can, but we were not going to allow the industry to formulate the law. Because again,
what they're looking to do, of course, is the most efficacious and monetarily beneficial methodology
for themselves, they're in business, and we had to try to accommodate that as well.

But we did have an extensive meeting, we did have conversations with them, we did review all of
their procedures. Extensive notes were taken on what they would find difficult to implement and we
did consider the industry's input. We have had contact with members of the industry outside of
Suffolk County that Detective Sergeant Haack is not aware of, including the industry -- the Institute
of Scrap Recycling Industries. And we've also been in contact with other jurisdictions as well as to
how they're attempting to handle this national problem where you have -- and again, one
jurisdiction we contacted was Pittsburgh where, again, they're experiencing a large number of thefts,
and one gentleman just recently invested into apartment buildings in Pittsburgh and he basically
figured out the amount of time it would take to remove all of the copper from his two apartment
buildings which were under renovation and he figured these gentleman were making about $5 an
hour. And, you know, he would have gladly paid them to renovate the building for that rather than
have them lose the copper and sustain what he estimates to be damage in the building of about


                                                                                                        18
$75,000. This is not a Suffolk County problem, as you pointed out, it is a national problem. And as
members of this Legislature have always done, I'm hoping they take the lead in attempting us to
address -- in helping us to attempt to address this problem here.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Thank you. Just one more question. The current -- again, back to the beginning of my statement
which was short-comings in the State law, right now, beyond obviously falsification of documents or
failure to check whether or not a vehicle identification number matches documents presented. An
MV-35 is, as you pointed out, over eight years, less than $1,250; is that correct?

CHIEF RAU:
Yes, it is.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
So an MV-35 is acceptable under State law for those instances.

CHIEF RAU:
Yes. And there are requirements that if there are falsifications of that, that it is a misdemeanor.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Right.



CHIEF RAU:
And that's what we're winding up with in a lot of these case. But the unfortunate biproduct is we
find about -- we find out about this after the fact when we check the MV-35's, we run the VINs, we
find they come back to vehicles that are non-existent, we can't determine if the vehicles were
stolen. I'm saying these VINs are so bad I can provide you with copies of information where the
VIN -- the vehicle is a 1993, the VIN comes back to a 2003, or the vehicle is a Chevy and the VIN
comes back to a Dodge. These things are so -- some of them don't even have the right number of
digits; I mean, it is that egregious. So we're hoping that we will be able to stem that. If people
know that they can't just go down to the local Home Depot where there are 15 cars for sale, pick
one that's got -- you know, that's older than eight years, hook it, take the plates off, scrape the
stickers off, write some bogus VIN and take it to somebody and have it scrapped and walk out with
$200 cash, that's what we're hoping to avert.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Okay. I just wanted to make just a couple of those points about the way that the current State law
operates. Are there formal discussions with Nassau County and New York City --

CHIEF RAU:
There are discussions --

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
-- currently as to --

CHIEF RAU:
The Article Tracking?

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.

CHIEF RAU:
Yes. Actually, we're hopeful that that will be on-line fairly shortly for the precious metals. Again,
one of our other crimes, again, with scrap metal being up, silver and gold are also through the roof,


                                                                                                        19
as everybody this holiday season, when they go out to buy jewelry, will find. So we have
experienced an increase in these type of thefts which, again, they spike during holiday season.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
I was also interested to hear -- some of the details of the conversation that was had between the
industry and the Police Department are coming back to me now. I was also interested to hear that
your time for notification seems to have gone down significantly. One of the pervasive complaints
from the industry is that they were not getting information from the Police Department in a timely
enough fashion to facilitate their recognition of material as well. So that time frame for notification
has gone down also?

CHIEF RAU:
Well, what we're hoping to do, when we get a theft that is identifiable and unique -- for sake of
argument, the bleachers or the soccer poles or some other type of utility pole -- where we have a
large-scale theft, we will be notifying the industry of that and what to look out for, you know, that
we're looking -- we have an interest in this particular item or items. Hopefully, when this is all set
up we have another program that we're going to be implementing in Suffolk County -- and again,
this is aside from this law -- where we will have industry leaders, industry business community
on-line where we will be able to community law enforcement notifications to them directly. We're
hoping to announce the beginning of that program in January, it will alert businesses to potentially
hazardous conditions, roadway conditions and we will have the dealers, scrap metal dealers and all
types of other businesses on-line that they will receive hopefully timely notification of anything that
we are, you know, interested in the Police Department or may be of interest to them as a business
operator.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
I should have you come sit back here. Back to my question which was has the timeframe for
notification to the dealers decreased?

CHIEF RAU:
We -- as soon as we get something in, I have Property Recovery, again with identifiable. We
received a notification on the burglary of the -- excuse me, on the theft of the aluminum goal posts,
we had information out to every industry representative within 24-hours.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
That's a significant improvement on what we had heard in the past. That's all I was looking for.

CHIEF RAU:
The problem that we have is when we don't have a reported theft; in other words, when you have a
vehicle that was parked in a location and the theft has not been reported, of course we can't put
that notification out. But eventually what I envision happening is that we will be able to do e-mail
notifications that will be able to be dispatched from our Property Recovery or our Vehicle Theft
Section as soon as we receive the information, as soon as it's inputted.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Again, that brings up another question which was --

CHIEF RAU:
That's what I hoped to avoid doing.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
The industry told us that there is -- the industry currently has an on-line notification system; have
you taken advantage of that system?

CHIEF RAU:
That's national. And again, we have not -- the industry also employs McRuff the Crime Dog. We


                                                                                                          20
have not been able to -- we've researched that system. We find that for us it's better to notify
directly. We will be implementing that system, the nationwide system once everything is in line and
in place. But again, to find something that's identifiable, as you said, if you steal a bleacher and you
cut it up into a thousand pieces and then you intermingle it with other items, it's very difficult to
identify it. Aluminum tubing that was once a soccer goal, it's cut into one-foot lengths, it's very
difficult to reconstruct that soccer goal, especially if all of the parts are not in there. We will put out
any large-scale thefts that we feel are material and that would be traceable, we will notify the
industry of that, yes, sir.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Okay, thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Chief Rau, your presentation has raised a lot of questions, I still have some more on the list. This
revised bill is subject to a public hearing this afternoon.

CHIEF RAU:
Yes, sir.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Are you fellas going to be here this afternoon?

CHIEF RAU:
I assume we will be now, yes, sir.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Well, the only reason I ask you that is because I'm sure the industry is going to be here and it would
be very helpful, you know, if they want a definition of certain parts of the bill, it would be helpful if
you guys could be here.

CHIEF RAU:
Yes, sir, we will be here.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Legislator Kennedy.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Chief, for coming down. I had a general awareness of the bill, but
like Legislator Losquadro and some of the other Legislators, I'm reading this bill really for the first
time and scanning it. Many of the questions that I had you've addressed with Legislator Losquadro.

Just a couple of areas, I guess, I'd go to, though. One of them, I guess, is just what your
experience has been. You'll recall, I guess, a business in the 12th Legislative District, electrical
supply, AC Electrical Supply had a whole wheel, a whole cable wheel stolen out of the yard, I guess
it was probably about 18 months ago. With something of that value, if -- and it's a good thing to
network, I think, with Nassau and the city. But if thieves get that on a truck, won't they just try to
move up to Connecticut or Jersey? It's still not that far away to go to. How extensive does your
interaction or connection go?

CHIEF RAU:
Well, again, the unfortunate thing is our interaction right now will be Suffolk County, in the future
hopefully Nassau and New York City. We're hoping to make it not cost efficient for somebody to
steal something. I mean, let's face it, if they steal a hundred dollars worth of copper they're not
going to go to New Jersey. But if they steal something of significant value, yes, that's when the
National Notification System would have to come into place.



                                                                                                              2
The problem you run into with an item such as that is it's not readily identifiable, and a lot of times
that's sold within the industry. That's new goods and a lot of times it may be worth more to another
electrical contractor or somebody else to sell that directly or to use it within the industry rather than
just scrap it. We do see a lot of new items going for scrap, but for the most part there's such a
demand for it within the industry, and unfortunately within the industry there are people that would
buy things at a discount.

LEG. KENNEDY:
So it's just as to where things would bear. Looking at the bill, I'm just curious; let me see if I can
refer to a particular section. Section 3, it goes to F, it talks about for the time periods described
above a law enforcement officer may inspect any scrap metal purchased during the regular business
hours of a scrap metal dealer.

CHIEF RAU:
Yes, sir.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Does that mean at this point then -- and maybe this may be in place now, I'm unaware -- but does
this give any greater ability to Suffolk County Police to actually enter a business now or enter a yard
just under the general purpose of observation or inspection? Generally, if you have personnel going
there, it's for a particular type of a reason, or you're going into some criminal type of investigation
and there's a warrant and things such as that. Does this give a broader right to the department now
to be in the yard?

CHIEF RAU:
It gives us a right during normal business hours to inspect purchases. So in other words, this would
enable us to do compliance checks, it would enable us if we have a person of interest. For sake of
argument, you have a subject that has an extensive criminal record and he or she is involved in
gathering copper or something and we happen to be on a surveillance and we surveille them to a
particular yard; it would enable us to go into the yard at that particular time and examine the metal
being sold and possibly seize that particular metal. Is it giving us a little bit broader power? Yes, it
is. The General Business Law allows us to examine records, it does not allow us to examine the
product; this allows us to examine the product, sir.

LEG. KENNEDY:
So this is going beyond the rights that you have now to go ahead and move about in a particular
business.

CHIEF RAU:
Well, as far as it goes, if the business is open to the general public I can send Detectives in there at
any given time, this just allows us to do it formally. We have Detectives that have gone into these
locations and, again, we've done our research as to the numbers of, for sake of argument, vehicles
coming in, transactions that are being done, and this just allows us -- in a case such as that, they
were not -- when we dealt with the County Attorney's Office, the preemptive, in other words, I could
not say, sir, that "John Smith is a person of interest; anything that John Smith does, hold." They
would not allow us to do that prospectively. This would give us the ability to follow John Smith into
the yard and inspect whatever he is selling once, you know, the transaction is in place.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Okay, we may be able to get some more of that this afternoon. Just two other, I guess, questions.
And again, Legislator Losquadro made reference to some of this as far as the on-line tracking and
notification that goes on. If the system or the industry has kind of evolved to that level, and I know
that the department is extremely so sophisticated as far as its computer abilities on some sides, why
are we proposing actual paper filing for these records? Why aren't we looking to some type of an
e-file or electronic file that allows for input of the information by the dealers and the ability then for
you folks to automatically upload?


                                                                                                             22
CHIEF RAU:
That's what we are doing, sir.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
We are doing that.

LEG. KENNEDY:
So we're not doing -- we will not have what's shown in the bill here as a paper filing?

CHIEF RAU:
That's the form that they're going to have to fill out and they dispatch that via e-mail to our Property
Recovery Section, it goes right into our computer.

LEG. KENNEDY:
So it will be uploaded.

CHIEF RAU:
It's uploaded.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Okay, great. Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Stern, you had a follow-up?

LEG. STERN:
Yes, thank you. Very quickly, Chief. Like my colleagues, I'm just looking at the amended version
now. I'm looking at Section 3, D and E, so there seems to be a differentiation here between the
type of material that we're talking about coming into the dealer.


Before I had asked the question where the tag and hold requirement was going to be, you had
stated that that was going to be a three-day tag and hold period on the scrap metal vehicles, which
under --

CHIEF RAU:
Right.

LEG. STERN:
-- this provision would be any time you're filing a motor vehicle form MV-35, that would be a
three-day tag and hold.

CHIEF RAU:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Okay. In Section D prior to that, it's going to those materials that are not subject to that filing
requirement, so I'm assuming that it's any other material other than the scrap metal vehicles.

CHIEF RAU:
Yes, sir, it's the non-ferrous metal, or the scrap metal as defined; yes, sir.

LEG. STERN:
So here I'm seeing that there is a five day tag and hold requirement --



                                                                                                           23
CHIEF RAU:
Or.

LEG. STERN:
Or, right, I say that, or you have to take the picture and hold it for five days.

CHIEF RAU:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
So I guess my question here is, and maybe to follow-up on what Legislator Kennedy had asked,
what, if any, greater rights are we giving, the ability to fight this crime to law enforcement? Here I
get down at letter F that, "During these time periods, a law enforcement officer may inspect any
scrap metal purchased during the regular business hours of the scrap metal dealer." But here, with
materials that are subject to D, it's not the actual material itself but it's really the computer records,
it's the pictures that are going to be taken and kept on computer drives. So I guess my question to
you is pursuant to Section D, that would also give authority to the Police to come in and inspect not
just the actual material on the site but computer records as well.

CHIEF RAU:
The computer records that you're talking about, sir, is that we would be able to look at the
photographs or the materials. One of the things when we met with the industry that they objected
to was the five day hold. They said due to the quantity of the materials that they were purchasing,
it would be next to impossible for them to -- well, one of the dealers said difficult and I believe there
was a correction made that it would be next to impossible for them to comply. We're giving them
the option -- and again, this is a recommendation from the industry -- either to tag and hold
depending on the size, if they're a small concern, or the larger concerns to photograph. Those
images would be available to us and records are currently available to us under the General Business
Law, so we didn't duplicate that.

LEG. STERN:
So just to follow-up, on that requirement of the General Business Law, I understand that, but here
we're going beyond the General Business Law because we're dealing with different dollar amounts
and value then is provided under General Business Law; is that correct?

CHIEF RAU:
What we're looking at, a lot of the purchases that are of concern and of interest to us would be a
person that goes in and steals copper piping out of a house; they may only get $30 or $45 from it.
They may do 2,500 to $3,000 worth of damage in getting that, but that's not subject to the General
Business Law whereas this would make the person -- anybody that is selling defined scrap metal or
a scrap metal vehicle requiring MV-35 is going to be required to provide certain information which
we will be able to track.

LEG. STERN:
Okay. So just to be clear, then, to follow-up on Legislator Kennedy's point, not only does it give
greater abilities to law enforcement to go in to the businesses to take a look at the actual material,
but it also expands their authority to take a look at things like pictures and computer-based
formation as well, beyond the General Business Law.

CHIEF RAU:
Yes, sir.

LEG. STERN:
Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:


                                                                                                             24
Legislator Losquadro, another follow-up?

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Again, just having an opportunity to review some of the details of this legislation, I see in Section D
that Legislator Stern was referring to, it's a tag and hold or electronic documentation.

CHIEF RAU:
Or.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
But when I go to E, Section 2 of E there, "Segregated and separately maintained in an unaltered
state, except to repair anything likely to cause serious bodily injury, death," here's the one that gets
me, "or environmental contamination."

CHIEF RAU:
Right.
LEG. LOSQUADRO:
As we've discussed, and you've kiddingly said is there an industry I haven't been around, but
because of my background in the automotive industry, I know that when vehicles are brought to a
processing facility, generally the first thing that's done, because of the very serious fines that they
can incur from the DEC, is that these vehicles are processed to remove all fluids so that they do not
contaminate the site. So it says to repair any condition likely to cause environmental contamination;
again, when these vehicle first come in, I would imagine that they're going to -- and again, as we
discussed, this is not a surgical process -- you're going to tear the radiator out, drain the fluids or
remove the engine so that it's processed separately with transmission, puncture and drain the gas
tank. Again, are we getting into a situation where we're trying to protect the individual's vehicle,
but as soon as it's brought in, because of mitigating these environmental concerns, that this vehicle
is going to be useless to that person anyway.

CHIEF RAU:
The requirements on the industry, to my understanding, they have to engage in that behavior as far
as making the vehicle safe, and it reads, "Prior to vehicle crushing or shredding, the following
potential"; so prior to them actually engaging in the activity of crushing or shredding is their
mandate.

I mean, the vehicles coming in, what we were trying to do -- and again, this was in response to
industry concerns. What they indicated to us is sometimes a vehicle will come in that obviously has
a hazardous condition. The one condition that was brought to our attention was leaking; in other
words, a leaking gas tank, a leaking anti-freeze or something like that; this would enable them to
render that vehicle safe. Again, it's not a surgical process, but I would assume that they would be
able to then remove a source of ignition, i.e., cut the battery cables and remove any fluids that
would potentially be explosive or environmentally hazardous.

We had to give them the out in this particular arena because a lot of the vehicles, let's face it, that
are being brought in are in a state of disrepair and they need to take care of that and safety is a
primary concern, and the primary concern in this particular -- you know, section was to ensure that
there would be safety. As I'm sure that members of the Legislature heard, we had a number of
explosions at these facilities and we want to stop these types of explosions from occurring. So this
was an industry-raised concern, that we were able to -- that if they saw something, based on their
experience, that they were able to go in and render that particular vehicle safe. And one of the
discussions we had, I mean, if you go to a shopping mall now, there are thousands of cars in that
shopping mall and I'm sure there's going to be one that's leaking gas or one that's leaking
anti-freeze, that's something that happens. But in an industry where you have vehicles that may
have a higher propensity for having repair needs, this was giving them the opportunity to render a
vehicle safe. And if a vehicle is damaged that is rendered safe, that's just going to have to happen
because, you know, safety is our paramount concern.


                                                                                                           25
LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Okay. Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Eddington.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Chief, you mentioned explosions and I happen to live approximately half a mile from the Gershow
Recycling Center, and over the last ten years there's been many, many explosions, one about a
month ago. And when I went to the recycling center, what the fire department has told us is that
it's gasoline still in the tank. When I went to the recycling center about 15 minutes after the
explosion, they said nothing happened. I went up and down the block, asked about ten businesses
and 20 families, they all said, "Yeah, there was another explosion over at Gershow's." So they have
the policy of denial.

My question is, then, how can we be sure that they are taking out these fluids? Because obviously
the fire department tells us the explosion is a result of crushing a car that has gasoline in it.

CHIEF RAU:
Well, there are a number of different things that could cause explosions, we talked to our arson
squad on that. We can't deal with a policy of denial; I mean, if somebody says there was no
explosion and everybody believes there was an explosion, we did dispatch the fire department -- and
again, they happen after the fact. A lot of times it may come from propane tanks that they're
bringing in there that are mixed in with scrap and they also, when they're crushed they have a
potential for explosion. It may be gas left in a vehicle. They are required, again, by law to drain all
fluids prior to crushing and render the vehicle safe; if they're not doing that we'll investigate that,
we'll have our environmental people from the DA's Office look at that.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Great. Thank you, Chief.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I have several questions but I'm going to hold them for the public hearing this afternoon. However,
the revised bill still has the same basic purpose and that's to license scrap metal dealers.

CHIEF RAU:
Yes, sir.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. And I see the Director of Consumer Affairs, Charlie Gardner in the audience; do you want to
comment on this, Charlie? I mean, what role will your department be playing in this process and is
everybody on board with this? Wrong mike, Charlie.

DIRECTOR GARDNER:
Thank you. As far as I know, the amended one, I think on the recommendation of the County
Attorney, has removed our office from the license report, it's now registration with the PD.
P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, so Consumer Affairs is out of it, okay. So we don't need you this afternoon.

DIRECTOR GARDNER:
Not for this one. Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Before you left, I just wanted to make sure you were okay with everything. Okay. No other
questions? Legislator Nowick.


                                                                                                          26
LEG. NOWICK:
Just one thought. Thank you for bringing this to our attention because I really had no idea scrap
metal was such a big business. And I can't help thinking that you might have all of the insurance
companies looking to help you out on this a little bit also. What does it cost; would you have any
idea what it costs the insurance companies? Because I see these buildings destroyed and I would
imagine you go to your policy and collect on that.

CHIEF RAU:
Ma'am, I can only approximate what the cost is. As I say, the damage is done in some cases it's
60-to-1 to value, in some cases -- I mean, $150,000, they're doing multiple millions of dollars in
damage. To a homeowner, the damage can be -- a lot of times they'll go into a house that's like a
summer home or a home that people are away, the water isn't even turned off so the people come
in and they have water flowing all over the place.

LEG. NOWICK:
That's exactly what I was thinking, it's got to do more damage than a hurricane.

CHIEF RAU:
It does more damage, it is unbelievable. They rip them out of walls. I mean, you require almost a
total reconstruction in some of the houses that we've been in.

LEG. NOWICK:
And I think this is a good start, but I just can't help thinking, I'm on the Internet and I'm looking
here and it says, "We buy, we sell, come to Astoria, we'll do anything." It needs to be --

CHIEF RAU:
It has to regional because the --

LEG. NOWICK:
It has to be regional. It has to go from here to Nassau. This particular, ANA Scrap Metal, is
Brooklyn, Astoria, Nassau County; I don't see Suffolk, but I guess it's pretty easy, huh?


CHIEF RAU:
Well, if the industry is here later, they're going to talk to you about junk being a four letter word; it
is a four-letter word, it's cash. And scrap translates to money because there's a tremendous,
tremendous profit potential in this, I mean, the amount of money that is being made on this scrap,
it's phenomenal.

LEG. NOWICK:
I see that.

CHIEF RAU:
Again, when you go from dealer to dealer with the same item, the disparity can be as much as -- on
the rods that we sold, from $160 to $300, it's what the market will bear, and people will go in and
buy this. It has developed into a cottage industry and it --

LEG. NOWICK:
And it does have to be regional because it's really easy to click on and say, "You know what, I'm
going to drive ten miles."

CHIEF RAU:
The whole thing is what we're hoping to do, if we can make it regional, is to make it less cost
efficient. With the cost of gas and everything else, for somebody to drive all the way into Astoria,
the thing that we would have to worry about is if people have large quantities, these industry


                                                                                                            27
representatives would come out and pick it up in a large quantity purchase. But the people that are
doing it for the most part, other than the guys that are in it for a business with the chop saws and
the generators, the ones we're looking at are the people that are burglarizing local establishments,
pools, taking air-conditioners, stealing garbage cans.

LEG. NOWICK:
But if they come -- if they came here to Suffolk County to pick it up then the purchase would be
here in Suffolk County; would they then have to have a license to come to Suffolk County to pick it
up and then they would be not in compliance with the law.

CHIEF RAU:
They would not be in compliance --

LEG. NOWICK:
As soon as they crossed the line.

CHIEF RAU:
Yes, as soon as they crossed the line if they come here. But we have to worry about -- and again,
why we went regional with the article tracking is that, again, we are very efficient out here in
tracking our items, we've developed a relationship with the precious metal dealers that is, you know,
unparallel. They originally were opposed to their legislation as well. That being said, what we have
to do is protect the industry because we can't put these guys out of business by having the guy just
drive into Massapequa or go across the line, that's why we're attempting to go on-line there. And it
has been very successful, as I say, I'm hopeful that both New York City and Nassau will be up
on-line with us using our facilities and we'll be able to have real-time exchange with the information.

LEG. NOWICK:
Thank you.

CHIEF RAU:
You're welcome, ma'am.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, I thank you, Chief Rau. We'll see you this afternoon and talk about it some more.

At this particular time, I want to make a motion to extend the public portion.

LEG. ALDEN:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Alden. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MS. ORTIZ:
16.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Next I have Holly Rhodes-Teague, the Director of Suffolk County Office of the Aging for the purpose
of a presentation.

DIRECTOR RHODES-TEAGUE:
A very short one. At the Senior & Vets Committee last week they asked me if I would come down
and just talk a little bit about the changes to Medicare Part-D.

As most of you know, the open enrollment period for Medicare Part-D, which is the prescription drug
coverage, is November 15th to December 31st, and there have been major changes. The most


                                                                                                          28
important message I would like to give to you, if you're talking to constituents, is that just because
they were happy with their coverage in 2006, they still need to look at their coverage because there
are major changes to coverage -- to plans in 2007.

Many of the plans have changed their premiums, they've gone up and coverage is not necessarily
what it was last year. Several plans last year had coverage for {brand names through the donut
hole}, there are no plans now that have coverage for {brand names through the donut hole},
however there are 17 plans that do have generic drugs through the {donut hole}.

So the message to get out there to the public, if you're out and about, is that they need to really
look at their plan, because come January 1st they're stuck with it for another year. An example is
the plan that was the least expensive last year at $4.10 is now 14 and change. The cheapest plan in
Suffolk County is $9.50, those are for less coverage but, you know, if you're not taking a lot of
drugs, it might be beneficial for people. So I just want to get the word out that they need to look at
this because I think a lot of the people who are Medicare beneficiaries, they're just not looking at it,
they figure they got a plan in 2006 where the coverage came through and they said, "I just don't
want to deal with it," and they're leaving their plan as is and that really isn't the way to go.

One of our Senior Directors in one of the towns went through 25 to 30 plans for seniors who had
asked her to look at them and she said only two were in plans that were really what they needed;
you know, the plans in 2006 for 2007 changed that much. So it's kind of important to get that
message out.

The other thing is Medicare Part-D, the one for the doctor's coverage, this is going to be the first
year that there will be an income criteria for anybody over $80,000, they will be paying more than
the standard premium for that. Generally they pay for -- in 2007 they'll be paying 93.50 per month
if you're under 80,000 individual, 160 for a couple; in 2007, over those amounts they would be
paying more depending on what their income is. So I just wanted to get that word out there.

In 2007 there will be 26 providers of Medicare Part-D plans and there are 61 plans, so there is a lot
to choose from.

Now that I've told you that whole miserable story, just so you know where they could get help,
there's the Medicare.gov website, there's 1-800-MED-ICARE which is the two places they would go
24/7. In our office we have the Health Insurance Information Counseling and Assistance Program
which is a volunteer program that we have working with volunteers throughout Suffolk. We took
that back into our office last year, we have a HIICAP Coordinator, Joanne Gallagher is with us who's
sitting over, she's doing a great job, she coordinated meetings throughout the County and she also
is answering questions on the phone and getting the volunteers to work with people individual.

So if you have constituents, they could call our office and we will do everything we can to help them
before December 31st.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
That's not a lot of time.

P.O. LINDSAY:
We'll still under presentations so I'll allow any questions. Does anybody have any questions of Ms.
Teague?

LEG. STERN:
Just a quick comment. Thank you. Holly, thank you for being here today. Yeah, that's just such a
critical point, that for all the hard work that your office has done, all the great information that has
gotten out there, all the people that have done their investigations, the critical message here that
we need to get to all of our constituents is that it's all changed.



                                                                                                           29
DIRECTOR RHODES-TEAGUE:
Correct.

LEG. STERN:
And they literally need to start all over again.

DIRECTOR RHODES-TEAGUE:
Sadly, it's all true.


P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, Legislator Viloria-Fisher.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Thank you, Holly, this is really important for us to be aware of this, vis-a-vis our constituents.
Regarding Medicare Part-B, and you said the income restrictions.

DIRECTOR RHODES-TEAGUE:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
How does that differ next year from this year?

DIRECTOR RHODES-TEAGUE:
In 2006 and prior, everybody paid the same premium per month. It didn't matter what your income
was, if you had Medicare Part-B you paid the same premium, and that premium in 2006 was 88.50.
In 2007, if you have -- if you're an individual with an income over $80,000 you will no longer pay
just the 93.50 per month which is what it is in 2007, it would be based on your income, what you
pay.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
And how high does it go, Holly?

DIRECTOR RHODES-TEAGUE:
That -- I don't have that information, but I could get it for you.
But it will be going up in increments depending on your income.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
And is that a nationwide level?

DIRECTOR RHODES-TEAGUE:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
And so there's no differential for the cost of living here in Suffolk County.

DIRECTOR RHODES-TEAGUE:
No, there isn't, correct.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
So our seniors, in reality, will be penalized.

DIRECTOR RHODES-TEAGUE:
Yeah, it's a Federal program.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:


                                                                                                     30
Okay. Thank you, Holly.

DIRECTOR RHODES-TEAGUE:
Sure.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Seeing none, thank you, Holly.
DIRECTOR RHODES-TEAGUE:
Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, going into the public portion, Bob DeLuca.

MR. DE LUCA:
Good morning, Presiding Officer Lindsay, Members of the Legislature. My name is Bob DeLuca and I
am the President of Group for the South Fork. Group for the South Fork is an environmental
organization based in Bridgehampton and we represent the planning and conservation interests of
about 2,500 member households, families, businesses and individuals.

I'm here today to ask for your support of IR 2373 which would amend the 2006 Capital Budget and
reappropriate about $20.5 million into the Suffolk County Land Protection Program. This bill is
currently in committee and I've spoken there briefly before, but I just want to say two things,
basically. One is I want to come here and thank the Legislature for the extensive work that it's done
on the environmental protection side of open space preservation for many years; my constituents in
the area that I live in have benefitted greatly from your work.

And the second thing that I want to say is that I can tell you with somebody who deals very
frequently with village boards and town boards and many of the local decision makers who look to
the County for partnership in terms of open space preservation, whether it's 10 or 15 acres or 150
acres. The posture of the County and its ability to have this program be robustly funded is critical to
our work to get the towns and the villages to basically spend the money that they have.
So I just wanted to let you know that the commitments that the County have seem to be running
fairly close to fully committed. This appropriation would allow more money to go into that funding
and basically at my local level, I can mobilize and motivate these local boards and villages to do
their part to contribute to these open space acquisitions.

So again, just briefly, I hope that you'll take a look at this bill.
I think it makes sense for the Open Space Program, I think it's needed. And I believe that your
efforts and having it discharged from committee and having it voted on successfully will help the
Land Protection Program for the future. Thank you.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Thank you, Bob. Alex Strauss.


MR. STRAUSS:
Good morning, Presiding Officer Lindsay and the Suffolk County Legislature. I'd like to speak on
three different resolutions that are coming up. The first one is 2199, the addition of the Tanger Mall
Project into the Southwest Sewer District. And Legislator Alden, I agree with some of the stuff that
you said the last Legislative meeting that we had, that it's not right that somebody that lives outside
the district should not pay more or should be brought into the district. But I think that the whole
idea of the sewer district is to keep the groundwater clean, and I think if somebody wants to come in
to that district, they should pay a higher cost but still should be able to do it because otherwise it's


                                                                                                           3
just going to pollute the water for everybody else.

I think that it would be a good idea that they brought into it if I'm not mistaken, we still have plenty
of excess --

LEG. ALDEN:
No.

MR. STRAUSS:
You don't. Not 1.5 million gallons extra? No. Okay, so I must have gotten that information wrong,
but that's what I was told at the last meeting.

The other bill I'd like to bring up would be 2406 which is the Capital Budget for rehabilitation of the
Yaphank Correctional Complex. I think this is well-needed, it's something that has to be done and
the longer it waits, the more costly it's going to be.

And the same thing with 2411, that is the start of the jail.
And that, if you keep waiting on that, it's not going to go away and I think that it would behoove us
that we pass these things and get it started. Thank you very much.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Thank you, Alex. Richard Amper.

MR. AMPER:
Yes, Presiding Officer, Members of the Suffolk County Legislature,
I'm Richard Amper, I'm the Executive Director of the Long Island Pine Barrens Society and we, too,
support 2373. This Legislature is second to no one in terms of your efforts to protect drinking water
and preserve open space. This critical $20 million, $20.5 million allocation will help the County
continue to do that in 2007 when the challenges will grow even greater.

I absolutely agree with my colleague, Bob DeLuca in terms of how you're helping local communities
leverage dollars, but I would remind you of something perhaps even more significant. I spent the
better part of a month during November insisting that the State of New York meet its obligation to
protect the Pine Barrens along with the Town of Brookhaven and the County of Suffolk, and in that
process what this Legislature committed to protecting Long Island's premier ecosystem in terms of
the AVR acquisition, the 400 acres at the headwaters of the Peconic River, that resulted in
leveraging 30, count them, $30 million in town and State money, money that would in the case of
the State not have ever been spent on Long Island had we not had the capacity to meet that. So
what you're doing here is not being penny-wise and pound foolish but the opposite, the pennies
relative to the overall budget that you're investing in this open space program will not only leverage
State money and allow the towns to do what they're doing, but they will also help control over
development and the taxes for government services that go with that.

So again, this Legislature has continued -- is continuing a policy of commitment to the environment
that is second to none in this nation and we urge you to continue to do it, you're doing a great job.
Thank you very much.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Thank you, Mr. Amper. Donald Fiore.

MR. FIORE:
Good morning, Presiding Officer Lindsay, distinguished members of the Legislature. My name is
Donald Fiore and I reside at 31 Jenny Lane in Holtsville and have lived there for the past 38 years.
I'm currently the business manager of Local Union No. 25 and the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Works and we are about 2,500 members strong.



                                                                                                           32
I've also been asked by John M. Kennedy of the Nassau-Suffolk Building Trades to speak on behalf
of the following resolutions. I rise in support of IR 2411, 2406 and IR 2199. IR 2411 appropriates
fifty-eight million, two hundred and thirty-two dollars -- two hundred and thirty-two thousand, four
hundred and ten dollars which represents the first phase of the much needed new Suffolk County
Jail. The project is a long-time coming and all the trades need the work. Our members have been
too long unemployed and when we're unemployed our spending is curtailed and that has a
trickle-down effect for consumable items and the tax money that goes hand in hand with that. I ask
the Legislature to act prudently and without haste to appropriate this funding.

Coupled with this is IR 2406 which appropriates an additional $300,000 for the renovation of the
Yaphank DWI Facility; all that work is needed and appreciated by the trades. At the November 21st
meeting, I personally spoke, along with John M. Kennedy, on IR 29 -- 2199 which will allow the
Tanger Mall Project to tie into the Southwest Sewer District. Now, this tie-in only makes sense. If
this is not allowed, then a leaching field system will be installed and by doing this we would be
dumping waste water into the ground, and again, that makes no sense at all. The demolition is
moving along and for too long our tax-paying members have been trying to find work, trying to
make ends meet. Our members, as well as my members -- my brothers and sisters of the building
trades, are all part of this dilemma, not because we don't want to work, it's because there is no
work. The approval of IR 2199 will move this project.

I also ask you to reconsider IR 2418 which would appropriate $150,000 for water-proofing on the
County buildings, and also IR 2215 which would appropriate $1.5 million for County Road 100 for
needed improvements.

Distinguished members of the Legislature, we ask for your help today, it is really needed by the
trades. Please give us your help with a positive vote. Thank you very much.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Thank you. Gene Parrington?
MS. PARRINGTON:
Good morning, Presiding Officer Lindsay, distinguished Legislators. My name is Gene Parrington,
business rep for Local 25/IBW, I will be brief in order not to be redundant.

I'm here this morning to appeal to you to move forward with IR 2411, the construction of the new
jail, and IR 2406, renovations at the Yaphank Correctional Complex. Both these resolutions were
approved by the Suffolk County Public Works & Transportation Committee.

Also on the IR, 2199 resolution, commonly known as the Tanger Mall sewer hook-up bill; well, this is
a no-brainer. When you get this far in the process and the decision is between hooking up to the
Southwest Sewer system or using leach lines to distribute waste into the soil, the decision is clear.
Let's stop wasting time and money and move forward with this legislation. Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Thank you, Mr. Parrington. Tony Pirozzi?

MR. PIROZZI:
Good morning, Presiding Officer Lindsay and the Legislature.
My name is Tony Pirozzi, I have resided at 10 Court Avenue in West Babylon for 35 years. I'm also
a Business Agent Trustee for Local 282, the Teamsters. I'm here on behalf of the 4,400 members of
our local and 700 signatories that employ our members.

Our members work for local merchants that deliver plumbing supplies, brick and block, ready-mix
concrete, asphalt, lumber, demo removal and also office trailers to these job sites. We are in
support of IR 2199, the sewer hook-up which, like Gene Parrington said, should be a no-brainer
environmentally wise, and IR 2411, IR 2406. And I'd also like to reconsider 2215 regarding County
Road 100 Project.


                                                                                                        33
To conclude on a personal note, being a western Suffolk resident with the rising fuel costs, it would
be economically feasible for my family to shop in Deer Park at Tanger Mall instead of driving a long
distance to other malls. Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Thank you, Tony. Ernie Mattace?

MR. MATTACE:
Good morning, Presiding Officer, Members of the Legislature. My name is Ernie Mattace, I am
Vice-President and Political Director of Local 338. This morning I'm here on behalf of President John
{Arduso} and Executive Director Roger {Claimans} from the Long Island Federation of Labor.

I'm here to oppose 2413. We feel that any restrictions to union or a member to participate in the
political process is a concern to us and our members. I'm concerned the law can leave the ability to
bridge the right for freedom of speech. I thank you for your time and have a good day.


P.O. LINDSAY:
Thank you, Ernie. Pamela Hogrefe.

MS. HOGREFE:
Good morning. My name is Pamela Hogrefe and I live on Riverside Drive in Riverhead. I am
co-chair and I'm here today representing the Riverside Drive Association and Friends of Riverside
Drive.

I first would like to thank you very much for your support on the 55 acres known as River Club and
asking for your continued support to that acquisition. However, there's one more parcel and that's
resolution IR 1662 sponsored by Legislator Edward Romaine to begin the planning steps for the
possible purchase of Riverside Meadows, a 7.7 acre parcel which abuts the 55 acre parcel and is the
recommendation of the County Planning Department to move to purchase.

This purchase will complete and finally safeguard that beautiful, broad expanse of acreage which
welcomes our friends, neighbors and guests into Riverhead. It also furthers the County's long-range
goals towards the absolute protection of environmentally critical lands. Thank you very much for
your time and your support.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Thank you. Chief Ponzo.

CHIEF PONZO:
Good morning, Mr. Lindsay and the County Legislature. My name is Bob Ponzo, I'm the Assistant
Chief of Patrol for the Suffolk County Police Department. And Commissioner Dormer asked me to
come here to kind of set the record straight.

During the Public Safety Committee meeting of November 28th of this year, the PBA 1st
Vice-President made the comment that in 2003 there were 1,913 officers assigned to Patrol and that
today, on the 18th of November, there are 1,814; that was a misstatement on Mr. Muratore's part.
In January of 2004, he was kind of close, there were 1,902 officers, Police Officers in the
Department, and as of October 18th there were 1,834 Police Officers. However, in January, 2004,
970 of those patrol officers were on actual patrol answering 911 calls; as of October 18th of this
year, there are 1,033 officers on patrol actually answering 911 calls. This was accomplished through
a combination of civilianization, redeployments and other initiatives and I hope this clears up any
confusion on the matter. Mr. Romaine, yes, sir?

P.O. LINDSAY:


                                                                                                        34
I can't take any questions during the public portion. I apologize, Chief Ponzo, if you were -- if I
knew you were going to make a presentation, we would have put you in the earlier part.


CHIEF PONZO:
It doesn't matter. Thank you. Thank you for your consideration.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Alpa Pandya.


MS. PANDYA:
Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Alpya Pandya with The Nature Conservancy on Long Island. I'm
here in support of IR 2373, moving about $20.5 million into the Open Space Program.

As you know, open space needs are increasing, unfortunately, as the time pressure goes on to
develop land in Suffolk County. This land -- this money is very much needed at this time to close
the funding gap so we can purchase important properties like ABR and other important properties all
across Suffolk County. Please transfer the money. Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Laura Mansi.

MS. MANSI:
Good morning, Legislators. My name is Laura Mansi, I am President of the Four Town Civic
Association. We are here again today to urge you to table Resolution 2199 as you did two weeks
ago. We understand that the unions are bringing pressure to bear on you to support this resolution,
they say it means their jobs; not so. I believe you all know this, as Mr. Broomfeld clearly said that
the Tanger Mall is going to be built no matter what. There are no lawsuits and the time has expired
to bring one.

We are asking each of you, on behalf of all the people who live in the vicinity of this project and all
the commuters expected to travel in their cars to this site and sites nearby and who are your
constituents, to wait until we have a true picture of the traffic impacts and until Mr. Bloomenfeld is
willing to offer more to mitigate the impacts this mall will certainly bring to the roads and to the
Southwest Sewer District; it is not a lot to ask. If you truly care about being a representative of the
people of Suffolk County, you will put aside politics and be concerned about the safety of those
people.

In addition, you have a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers whether they are paying taxes to the
Federal, State, County or local governments. We know unions help to pay for campaigns, but I
remind you once again, Tanger has been approved by the Town of Babylon and it will be built by
union personnel. In fact, additional road mitigation funding will provide more work for union
workers; I repeat that, additional road mitigation funding from the developer will provide more work
for union workers. Table this resolution and let's get a safer and better deal for Suffolk County
residents. Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Thank you, Ms. Mansi.


MS. MANSI:
You're welcome.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Cesar Malaga.


                                                                                                          35
MR. MALAGA:
Good morning, Presiding Officer. Good morning -- good afternoon, Legislators. My name is Cesar
Malaga, I'm the President of Hispanic American Association, Suffolk and Nassau Counties. I'm here
talking about many people from Wyandanch who are not able to come because of the distance and
they are working.

Now, one thing, IR 1854, a Local Law to increase collection fee for sewer district contractees located
outside the geographical boundaries of the Sewer District. IR 1854, if approved, it will give the right
for Tanger Mall to connect to Southwest Sewer District. I indicated November 21st that there are
many homes in the district including the Hamlet of Wyandanch that are not connected to the
Southwest Sewer District. The Southwest Sewer District was built to care for the homes in that
area, not the sewer connection of homes, of shopping centers outside the district.

2199 calls for authorizing the execution of an agreement by administrative head, Suffolk County
Sewer District 3, Southwest, 455 Commack Road which Tanger Mall introduced by Legislator
Horsley. Public Works and Transportation, Tanger Outlet should not be connected to Southwest
Sewer District because the developer indicated at the four standing-room only hearings that there
will be septic tanks on the site. They never said that they plan to connect to the Southwest Sewer
District.

I also indicated that the Vice-Chair of the Public Works and Transportation Committee is the former
member of the Babylon Town Board that approved this Tanger Outlet, even though residents of the
Town of Babylon objected. The developers of the site donated money to the Democratic Party and
the campaigns of the board members. It is a direct conflict approving this outlet which in my
opinion is a payoff of money contributions that they received. Suffolk County Legislators should care
for the quality of life of the residents of Suffolk County, not for special interest groups that
contribute money to the party.

I mentioned November 21st that there was a request to connect the shopping centers in Huntington
to the Southwest Sewer District. This Legislature denied the connection because the shopping
center was outside of the Southwest Sewer District and there were many homes in the district which
were not connected to Southwest Sewer District.

This Tanger Outlet should not have been given the right to build, but Babylon Town is for sale; if you
pay the money you get what you want. We have various shopping centers nearby.

Legislator Alden said, "For every dollar we give away, we shortchange development and growth
within the sewer district"; he's right, but IR 1854 should not be approved for the same reason.

Legislator Horsley, he said, "The Tanger project is a boon for Suffolk County and it is an
environmental problem to run cesspools in that area." Why did he vote as Babylon Town
Councilman to approve the project if there was a problem? The developer said he had the approval
of the DEC to build septic tanks. The Tanger project is not a boon for Suffolk County --

P.O. LINDSAY:
Could you wrap up, Mr. Malaga?

MR. MALAGA:
I will. And it's an eyesore to the community which will cause many traffic problems.

Legislators, I ask you not to approve IR 1854 nor the sewer connection to the Tanger Outlet to the
Southwest Sewer District. Remember, the Southwest Sewer District was built for Southwest area
and there are many homes not connected to the Southwest Sewer District, including the hamlet of
Wyandanch. Thank you very much.



                                                                                                          36
P.O. LINDSAY:
Charles Gardner, the Director of Consumer Affairs. Charles Gardner?
Did Charlie leave? Okay, I'll skip over him in case he's outside. John McHugh?

MR. McHUGH:
Good morning. I didn't think I would get to speak today. I would like to urge the Legislators to
turn down the sewer connection for its item 2199. This project should have not --

P.O. LINDSAY:
Mr. McHugh, I don't mean to interrupt you, just lift it up.

MR. McHUGH:
Can you hear me now?

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yeah, you've got to really talk right into it, okay?

MR. McHUGH:
Yes, all right. I'd like you to turn this down. Mr. Bloomenfeld has not been very cooperative with
the people of Deer Park, of course he has been with the Democratic Party of the Town of Babylon.
He's given them tens of thousands of dollars, and he's continuing to give them money as of this day,
to make sure this project goes forward. He's going to build a union project, so all these union fellas
here don't have to worry. The sewer connection, we could stop him. There was a sewer treatment
plant there. When Mr. Horsley was the Director of the IGA he knew this, he let him tear it down; it
should have been upgraded. The sewer treatment -- there are sewage treatment plants all over
Sayville that worked perfectly well in the Town of Islip. The Town of Babylon wants this fella to
connect a sewer connection to the Southwest Sewer District from a district, Deer Park that has no
sewers, we have cesspools. We've gone along with it for 50 years, as far as I remember, and we'll
get along with it for another 50. He could have used the sewer treatment plant he had, but instead
he tore it down or he's tearing it down, so he says.

The IDA is another problem in itself. They helped this builder get the financing for this, he put down
$3 million for this property; would you believe, $3 million on a $29 million loan. Seventeen million
was with Fleet National Bank, so three million is his money, another nine million is AIL's money.
Now, AIL, the Town of Babylon, IDA again, let them move to a tax-free zone. Isn't that wonderful?
They're doing us all these favors. They're going to create more industry for Deer Park, we get less
school State aid, we get 20 million where North Babylon where Mr. D'Amaro lives gets 35 million.
Why is that? He has no industry where he lives. So they make sure that the people of Deer Park
are going to be tied down with this Tanger Mall, Bloomenfeld hits other people's money, he's a
money manger, that's all he is. He's not creating any wealth, he's creating low paying jobs, all this
traffic. Why should we have to put up with it?

If you go into, like I say again, areas where there are -- we have no sewer hook-ups in Deer Park,
he will set a precedent that other developers that come to Deer Park, we have a lot of industrial
property who want to also connect to the sewer district that has 5,000 people, like Mr. Cesar here
said, that are not connected that are entitled to it and if they ever did connect like they did in
Nassau County, they passed a law where the people had to connect. So what are we going to do
then? We're going to build a bigger treatment plant where Mr. Horsley is the Legislator in that
district, so he's pretending he's protecting those people where he's creating a bigger sewer
treatment plant for the poor people that live in West Babylon and near that plant.

So I want you to turn it down now. Mr. Bloomenfeld is going to build his project, he has the money,
he's tied in with all kinds of money that none of us could even imagine. He's so rich but he's going
to pay no -- he's not even going to pay a mortgage transfer tax because he got the IDA money. But
you believe every one of us, we buy a house we have to pay a mortgage, not Mr. Bloomenfeld, he's
going to get it for free.


                                                                                                         37
P.O. LINDSAY:
Could you wrap up, Mr. McHugh, you're out of time.

MR. McHUGH:
Well, thank you very much.

P.O. LINDSAY:
You're welcome.

MR. McHUGH:
Turn this down.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Chris Robinson. I should mention, while Mr. Robinson is coming to the microphone, that Director
Gardner has waived his time, he's going to speak at the public hearing this afternoon. Okay, Mr.
Robinson.

MR. ROBINSON:
Yeah, good morning. Chris Robinson from RMS Engineering, 355 New York Avenue in Huntington,
here in favor of 2199, a connection of the Tanger Mall to the Southwest Sewer District.

A lot has been said about the fact that we could build a ceptic tank and leaching pool systems versus
connecting to the Southwest Sewer District. We are within full compliance of the Suffolk County
Sanitary Code, Article VI; we certainly have the full right to build a septic and leaching pool systems
with no adverse impact to the environment. My developer, my client wanted to go above and
beyond and take that sewerage and bring it to the Southwest Sewer District approximately two
miles away and to spend more infrastructure to connect there, provide another over million two in
connection fees for outside contractees into the County and really to do the right thing to connect to
the sewer district.
Again, if it's not approved, we will still build the same 805,000 square foot Tanger Mall with multiple
septic systems at a significant savings. At this point, we've committed to the town that we'd like to
connect to the sewer district, we'd like to do the right thing environmentally.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Thank you, Mr. Robinson. I see Alan Schneider getting up. If you would hang around because we're
getting close to the agenda and I would like to take your resolution out of order. Jimmy Rogers.

MR. SCHNEIDER:
Thank you.

MR. ROGERS:
Good morning, Presiding Officer and Members of the Legislature. My name is Jimmy Rogers, I'm
with District Council 9, Painters and Allied Trades Union.

The past couple of meetings I came here with a prepared statement on the pros pertaining to the
Tanger and the Southwest Sewer District hook-up. I'm not going to do that today, I'm just going to
go over exactly the time frame of what's been going on here. I came to the Public Works &
Transportation Committee meeting knowing about the project itself and the benefits that it would
have to the community.
I didn't know much about sewer hook-ups and sewer flow and all that kind of stuff, just like a lot of
you didn't. At the end of the day, after a lot of questions back and forth in that committee, I think it
was made quite clear that it would be financially beneficial to the County and beneficial
environmentally to Suffolk County.

The vote was seven nothing and I figured when it got to the full body there would be no problem.


                                                                                                           38
All the questions were answered. Ben Wright, the Chief Engineer from the sewer department in the
County, pretty much testified and supported all the testimony that the engineer from Bloomenfeld
said. It came before the full body, unfortunately on that day there was some partisan politics going
on. I know that happens, I know it's a part of the business, but unfortunately we got held hostage
in the middle of that and so did the developer. So this is something that we don't need to happen
again today. Hopefully it will be voted on on the merits of the developer's presentation and what it
has to do with the sewer flow, not traffic, not all the other stuff that's being brought up, just on the
sewer flow and the benefits to the County and the benefits to the environment, financially and
environmentally.

That being said, I also support IR 2411 for the construction of the jail, and also IR 2406 for the
renovations at the Yaphank Correctional Complex. Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Thank you, Mr. Rogers. I have another card, Christopher Robinson; did you fill out two cards or is
there another Christopher Robinson?

MR. ROBINSON:
No, I filled out one card.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, it must have been a duplication of cards. Okay, I don't have any other cards, providing there
isn't another Christopher Robinson. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Legislature
under the public portion? Please come forward and identify yourself.

MR. DEJOSEPH:
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Michael DeJoseph.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I don't think that's on.

MR. DEJOSEPH:
My name is Michael DeJoseph, I reside at 300 Robins Lane and I work for the entity 300 Robinson
Lane Entity which is Deer Park Enterprises who is representing the Tanger Mall.

I'm just here to reiterate that I am in favor of the connection. I've heard a lot of testimony
regarding traffic and road -- you know, off-site roadwork and for the record, the developer is putting
in $10 million of off-site roadwork and we have done everything possible for the Town of Babylon
and Deer Park. I am also a long time resident of Deer Park, I grew up there, my family is there and
we've done pretty much everything we could to inform the people of Deer Park what was going on,
that we were connecting to the sewer district and, you know, some of the stuff that was said was
just not true.

Again, I'm in favor of connecting to the sewer district, it's right for the project and it's right for the
County. Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the body before I close the public
portion? Seeing none, I'll accept -- entertain a motion to close the public portion by Legislator
Losquadro, seconded by Legislator Barraga. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
17 (Not Present: Legislator Caracappa).

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Mr. Chairman, are we going to start the agenda?


                                                                                                             39
P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes. Go ahead, Legislator Losquadro.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
In the interest of expediting it and getting a County employee back to work, I'd like to make a
motion to take Resolution 2401, reappointing Alan Schneider, out of order.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I was just going to do that.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Viloria-Fisher. All in favor? Opposed on taking it out of order? Abstentions?
Okay.

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, 2401 is before us (Approving the reappointment of Alan Schneider as Personnel
Officer of the Suffolk County Department of Human Resources, Personnel and Civil Service
(County Executive).

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Second the motion to approve.

MR. NOLAN:
You need a motion to approve.

P.O. LINDSAY:
We need a motion to approve; motion to approve by Legislator Losquadro, seconded by Legislator
Viloria-Fisher. Mr. Schneider, it's on page 12 under Labor & Workforce Housing, it was approved
unanimously. Does anybody have any questions; no? All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Congratulations, Mr. Schneider.

                                             Applause

LEG. ALDEN:
Now go back to work.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Motion to approve the Consent Calendar, Mr. Chairman.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, turn to page five, the Consent Calendar. We have a motion by Legislator Caracappa to
approve.

LEG. ROMAINE:


                                                                                                     40
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Romaine. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, page nine, Resolutions Tabled to December 5, 2006:


IR 2022-06 - Making a SEQRA determination in connection with the proposed Francis S.
Gabreski Airport redevelopment of Long Island Jet Center East, Inc., Town of
Southampton (Presiding Officer).

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Motion to table.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Schneiderman to table and I'll second that.
All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
1073B-06 - A Bonding Resolution of the County of Suffolk, New York, authorizing the
issuance of $100,000 in bonds to finance the cost of a sound wall study at CR 97 Nicoll's
Road, between Montauk Highway and Furrows Road (CP 5114). I'll make a motion.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Motion to table.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I made a motion to approve and there's a motion to table.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
I'll second the motion to approve.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Viloria-Fisher to approve.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Second to table.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second to table by Legislator Romaine, the tabling motion takes precedent. I tell you, I'm going to
withdraw my motion and I'll second the motion to table.

LEG. ALDEN:
On the resolution, though?



                                                                                                      4
P.O. LINDSAY:
On the resolution.

LEG. ALDEN:
Have you considered going with -- back to cash on this? Because I think basically we were under
the assumption that this year, meaning '06, was going to be very tight and that's why we tried to
bond a few things. But at this point in time, it looks like we've got a huge surplus and a project like
this seems like it would lend itself to, you know, a cash -- I'm just making a suggestion, you know.

P.O. LINDSAY:
This resolution was taken up earlier in the year, it was vetoed by the County Executive, the regular
resolution, it was overridden by this Legislature. At that time, the bond wasn't put forward which
was vetoed I believe as well? Because we had intended on doing the study in-house which I was
fine with, but the study has never moved forward, that's why the necessity of moving the bond. And
as far as paying for this out of --

LEG. ALDEN:
Pay-as-you-go.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Pay-as-you-go, we didn't look into that to see if there's some available money there, primarily
because there's a lot of other things going on as far as land acquisition and other programs. But I
would be happy to check on that between now and the next meeting.

LEG. ALDEN:
Good. Thanks.

P.O. LINDSAY:
We have a motion to table and a second. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
1157-06 - To promote fuel efficiency by requiring the purchase of hybrid vehicles for
Legislative use (Cooper).

LEG. COOPER:
Motion to table.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to table, I'll second the motion. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
1522-06 - Authorizing planning steps for the acquisition of land under the New Suffolk
County Drinking Water Protection Program (Peter's Property - Town of East Hampton)
(Schneiderman).

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Motion to table.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Second.


                                                                                                          42
P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to table by Legislator Schneiderman, seconded by Legislator Viloria-Fisher. All in favor?
Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
1525-06 - Adopting Local Law No, a Local Law to establish responsible euthanasia
standards at animal shelters (Alden).

LEG. ALDEN:
I just have a parliamentary inquiry. Did I get my changes in on this in time to vote on it, or no?

MR. NOLAN:
This was last amended in August.

LEG. ALDEN:
Okay, so you didn't -- motion to table.

LEG. COOPER:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to table on 1525.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Losquadro. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
IR 1586-06 - Amending the 2006 Capital Budget & Program and appropriating funds in
connection with planning and improvements at Raynor Beach County Park (CP 7175.111
and 7175.313)(Kennedy).

LEG. KENNEDY:
I will make a motion to table.

P.O. LINDSAY:
To table?

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I'll second the motion to table. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
18.



                                                                                                     43
P.O. LINDSAY:
1880-06 - To require the percentage of recycled paper used to be indicated on all
publications of the County of Suffolk (Losquadro).

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Motion to table, I'm still working on it.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to table by Legislator Losquadro.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Eddington. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
1885-06 - Implementing sales and compensating use tax exemptions for clothing and
footwear sales in 2007 to celebrate the Memorial Day Holiday, Thanksgiving Day Holiday
and Labor Day Holiday (Presiding Officer Lindsay). I'll make a motion to table.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Caracappa. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
IR 1894-06 - Electing a cents per gallon rate of sales and compensating use tax on motor
fuel and diesel motor fuel in lieu of the percentage rate of such taxes pursuant to the
authority of Article 29 of the Tax Law of the State of New York in a fiscally responsible and
prudent manner (County Executive). I will make a motion to table.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Viloria-Fisher. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
IR 2008-06 - Appropriating funds in connection with the modification to warehouse at the
Board of Elections (CP 1461) (County Executive).

LEG. COOPER:
Motion to table.




                                                                                                44
P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to table by Legislator Cooper. Do I have --

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Losquadro. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2052-06 - Amending the 2006 Capital Budget & Program and appropriating funds in
connection with the purchase of 4-poster machines for Tick Eradication Pilot Program on
Shelter Island (CP 4085)(Romaine).

LEG. ROMAINE:
Motion to table.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to table by Legislator Romaine.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
All in favor -- oh, I'm sorry. Second by Legislator Losquadro.
All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
IR 2199-06 - Authorizing the execution of an agreement by the Administrative Head of
Suffolk County Sewer District No. 3 - Southwest with 455 Commack Road (Tanger
Mall)(BA-1456)(Horsley).

LEG. HORSLEY:
Motion to approve.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to approve by Legislator Horsley, second by Legislator Viloria-Fisher.

LEG. ALDEN:
On the motion?

P.O. LINDSAY:
On the motion, Legislator Alden.

LEG. ALDEN:
I'm just going to renew some of the objections that I make in regard to almost any hook-up outside
the Southwest Sewer District. And I've never asked for the study, but I believe somebody on Public


                                                                                                     45
Works asked for a study and I've been saying all along that the fee should actually be about $30;
well, I was wrong. The study came back and said it should be $29 and 80 something cents, so I
stand corrected on that.

The other part of it was also that -- and I make the same statement, that I think the bottom line on
actually building a sewer treatment plant is about $50 per gallon per day. So when we have
something to look at here, and that's to weigh out economic development and really it's a precious
resource that we have, the Southwest Sewer District. When we look at are we enhancing some
private industry and making almost like a gift of County funds or County property, I think that the
argument can be made and I make it every time that yes we are, because if they're going to pay
$15 per gallon per day to hook up to our Southwest Sewer District and the cost should actually be
about 30 and their alternative is to spend $50 per gallon per day to construct an on-site treatment
plant, I think that that developer is getting one hell of a great deal, but it's at the expense of who?
Not the full County of Suffolk but the people that are in the Southwest Sewer District and have been
paying for the construction, the maintenance and the rebuild of the Southwest Sewer District for 40
years.

So in fairness, when somebody comes up and says that their company would like to hook-up and it's
the right thing to do; well, I'm not so sure, in fairness to them, it's a great deal, and I would
probably say the same thing if I was paid to come up here and do that. But if you look at the overall
benefit to Suffolk County, I'm not so sure we're going in the right direction there. I think we're
shortchanging the people in the Southwest Sewer District. And I think what we're doing also, and
I've said it before, we're stifling the development in the Southwest Sewer District because in the
future, if there's a plan to build a mall or to build even affordable houses, it wasn't on the original
plan when we built the Southwest Sewer District. Where are we going to get that gallonage? We
don't have it.

And I want to correct something else because I think it's been stated incorrectly. For eight years
I've been saying all along that we really do not have the excess capacity that some people are
coming forward. Well, guess what, we don't have the excess capacity, that's a reserve that's
required by New York State for us to operate our sewer district and the reserve is there because
there's people in the Southwest Sewer District that haven't hooked up and there's also commitments
that we made with New York State when we built the Southwest Sewer District. So when we come
up with this million gallons a day excess capacity, there might be a million dollars -- a million gallons
per day capacity, but that's part of our reserves that are required by law. Now, can we tap into
those? Yes. And how are we going to tap into those? Because we're going to expand by over a
million gallons per day the plan at Bergen Point which we haven't done. So on a future promise that
we will expand, we are going to be allowed to tap into that reserve that is reserved for the people in
the Southwest Sewer District.

So I think that we have gone about this completely backwards. We should have established a little
better policy, I have some legislation pending that would establish, number one, the amount of
money that would be paid for outside hook-ups. But also I have more of a policy issue piece of
legislation pending that would give some kind of preference to people in the Southwest Sewer
District of course, but economic development and also we have to look at affordable housing. We
have very precious few gallons to give away, and I'm going to give some other examples. And over
my protesting, this Legislative body, it's prior Legislative bodies also, have hooked up things like
sand mining operations up in Huntington. We actually have people that live in Nassau County that
got hooked up to our Southwest Sewer District; now, that took gallonage away from the people that
live in the Southwest Sewer District for future development. It also is stifling the ability -- and the
Southwest Sewer District was built by taxpaying people in the Southwest Sewer District. You can't
do the projects that are going to be necessary five, 10 and 15 years from now to ensure economic
viability of Suffolk County and that portion of the County.

So I think that really the question has to be asked of DPW, and it's a broad question, should we
build a separate sewer district for that Huntington, Deer Park, Commack area? Maybe the answer is


                                                                                                            46
yes, maybe the answer is no. Maybe the answer is to increase Southwest by tenfold, maybe that's
the answer, but those questions haven't even been addressed by our DPW and they haven't been
addressed by the Sewer Commission. So I really think that you go back to why the Southwest
Sewer District was originally built and it was -- Elie will tell you, Maxine fought for years to get that
extended to where it was supposed to be extended, Wyandanch, Amityville, North Babylon. Those
were the areas that the Southwest was designed to actually sewer, and instead we've gone and
we've hooked up places in Huntington. Now, some of those did lead to economic development, no
doubt about it. Some of them led to the development of economic whatever, stability in Nassau
County and some were outright gifts to some developers.

So I am opposed to this now and will continue to be opposed to hook-ups to outside of the
Southwest Sewer District until the dollars are actually more aligned with what the actual cost should
be. Because I do believe, and I think it's not right to anybody, we are making a gift. And there
were some accusations made before by Mr. McHugh and I hope somebody follows up on that
because if this development moved through because of some kind of pay-offs or things like that,
that's not something that we want to be a part of either and I think that that really calls for an
investigation.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Stern.

LEG. STERN:
Thank you. This issue is back before us and really the larger issue is something that I've been
working hard on really since taking office over this past year, and I agree with so many of the points
that Legislator Alden makes. And we are doing it backwards, that too often developments are
approved, not just throughout the Commack Road corridor but all throughout Suffolk County,
without the critical infrastructure in place. And too few questions have been asked and there's really
been a lack of vision and an ability to create some kind of formal policy on how we develop as we go
forward into the future. But I think we are starting to make some serious headway. Today's
Newsday reports that yes, representatives from all levels of government are finally coming together
to try and implement a much more regional approach to planning on how we build for our future.

So at this point, I think it remains to be seen how we can still bring all parties together, all levels of
government together to improve upon the infrastructure for the residents of Deer Park and the
surrounding areas and continue to work on that going forward. But I would join Legislator Alden in
going forward on how we formulate policy -- and this is not just a traffic issue -- but infrastructure
overall throughout Suffolk County. And again, it's time to start making some headway to ensure
that future growth is smart growth.

P.O. LINDSAY;
Legislator Barraga.

LEG. BARRAGA:
I think regardless of this particular vote this morning, the Tanger Mall is going to be built. The
question is, and it does concern me a great deal, there are many homeowners in the Southwest
Sewer District who have never hooked up to the system, but for many years, year after year they
pay for sewers. And here you have a developer coming along who's never really contributed
anything as far as the sewer district is concerned, is outside the district and now wants to hook-up.
And the question is, you know, if you allow this person to do it and this developer to do it, how do
you say no to any other developer outside the sewer district who comes forth and wants to hook-up?
I mean, there's only so much gallonage. And you do have some sort of responsibility to the people
in the district, the ones who have hooked up and the ones who haven't who have paid year after
year.

The bottom line on this, from a union perspective this project is going to be built, but from my
perspective I'll be voting against it because I just don't think this developer should be able to


                                                                                                             47
hook-up to this system. Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Kennedy.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the point's been made by the representative, the applicant, Mr.
Robinson, that if there is not connection today then the developer will seek to go forward with the
leaching ring set up and there will be build-out of this project.

Each of us I think has a responsibility to go ahead and move towards conservation and groundwater,
and unfortunately at this point Southwest is the only entity that's got capacity to take this
connection. But I agree with Legislators Alden, and to a certain extent Legislator Stern, in that we
are trying to address piecemeal environmental concerns where we're being asked to go ahead and
allow for 82,000 gallons per day of gallonage going into a system, but yet we walked away from the
responsibility of the end product associated with the replacement at the {Burn Plant} and the {Burn
Facility}, a $40 million project that we ran from. So we are connecting and enhancing sewage flow
going in and at the same time promoting spending millions of dollars a year to ship our sludge
off-island. We don't do it systematically, we don't do it comprehensively. And I think it points out
again how we're making these decisions on one end and we're shooting our foot on the other by not
addressing the whole matter.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I'd like to weigh in on the issue. I don't object to Legislator Alden's bill about adjusting the fees, I
think it's something that absolutely needs to be done and a fair market value should be put on the
fee structure if it isn't correct now. I know over the years we have collected tens of millions of
dollars of hook-up fees from mostly commercial entities outside the district that have helped fund
different improvements to the sewer district. We have over and over again received testimony from
Public Works and the Sewer Agency that the plant operates more efficiently when it's closer to
maximum capacity. The -- when you under utilize the plan it isn't operating at its most efficient
point.

This is not a new application for this body. We have been approving sewer hook-ups to the
Southwest Sewer Plant for as long as I've been here, and I know it precedes me. As a matter of
fact, I think the economic engine that has caused 110 to become a vital part of our commercial
business entities in Suffolk County was generated by or would certainly help to generate by the
hooking up of numerous buildings, facilities, malls along the 110 corridor, and it has caused
tremendous economic development for this County over the years.

Right now we're embroiled in a dispute with Suffolk County, with Nassau County over whether or not
Suffolk County Water Authority should be allowed to drill in the Lloyd Aquifer, and it's something
that for one I have proposed that it be done scientifically, that the Long Island Regional Planning
Board set up a task force of scientists to set the rules and regs of when and if we should drill into
that. But if we continue to pump our waste into the ground, eventually we're going to contaminate
the water underneath us.

We spend tens and tens of millions of dollars in preserving open space to protect our groundwater.
To allow a commercial development or a retail development of this magnitude to use cesspools
rather than to hook-up to a sewer agency is counterproductive to our Land Preservation Program.

As far as the comments on pay-offs or political contributions, I mean, this is -- you know, people
have been allowed to hook-up to the Southwest Sewer District for, as I said, some time, certainly
long before this majority was in power. Why is that accusation coming up now? Before it even gets
to us, it goes through a whole series of regulatory applications between the Sewer Agency and Public
Works on whether this is a feasible project to hook-up or not to hook-up, whether it will cause
economic development or it won't cause economic development.


                                                                                                           48
And I know we've received a tremendous amount of testimony about the traffic impact of this
development on that area and I think that's what's got everybody abuz, but that isn't something
within our immediate purview as far as this resolution is concerned. I applaud the County Executive
and Congressman Israel for finding the funding to do a regional traffic study of this area to find out
what kind of infrastructure we need to do to accommodate these facilities. We haven't up to now,
and I reiterate this, to my knowledge said no to any kind of development that can show that it can
produce economic development along in this area.

As far as hooking up Wyandanch, I mean, if this Legislature is intent on hooking up Wyandanch in
the areas outside of the Southwest Sewer District where the infrastructure, the pipes are in the
ground, then let's appropriate the money and hook them up and stop using that as an excuse. The
reason we're not hooking up those homes to my knowledge is we don't have the infrastructure, the
pipes to go into those communities. So if you don't hook this up, that doesn't mean a whole section
of Wyandanch is going to get hooked up, we have to approve more infrastructure money to hook-up
that other portion of the district that's never been hooked up before. That's all I've got to say.

                                               Applause

Anyone else? Yes, Legislator Mystal.

LEG. MYSTAL:
I was going to remain silent, but since Wyandanch has become part of the problem. We have been
trying to hook-up Wyandanch for years and the basic problem has been yes, it's the infrastructure --

UNKNOWN AUDIENCE MEMBER:
We can't hear you.

LEG. MYSTAL:
We have been trying to see if we can get Wyandanch hooked-up along with North Babylon into the
other section of the Town of Babylon to the Sewer District and the basic point has been the last time
we did a study and it would cost about $250 million to lay the pipes from Southern State Parkway up
to Wheatley Heights. The basic problem with the Sewer District, a lot of avenues of the Town of
Babylon, also the Town of Islip, the reason why they are not hooked up is because when they built
the Sewer District they never laid the pipes for those areas. So we would -- also about four years
ago, I reserved some gallonage for Wyandanch and they're still there sitting in the reserve.

The other part of the problem, I think the other part of the problem to me is that we need to start
waking up to the idea that Suffolk County needs more sewer districts. We have been talking about
development of Suffolk County as an economic engine and we've been talking about affordable
housing and bringing in more businesses to Suffolk County. But as we -- everybody around here
knows, is that if we were to propose a sewer district in any one of your guys district, we will hear
the cries. One day we're going to have to sit as a body and decide that we need to build more sewer
districts in Suffolk County, not just in District No. 3 in the Town of Babylon, in Islip and Babylon, but
sewer districts everywhere, in Ms. Browning's district, she's pointing at me, in Huntington. Unless
we have that infrastructure, a sewer district, we will stop development in this County, it will stop.
So we have to give up on NIMBYism, we have to give up our parochial idea that somehow we cannot
have anything of that sort in our district.

And I hope this is a wake-up call for all of us who said let's look at the development, the future
development of our County in terms of housing, businesses, industry. We keep talking about we
want to alleviate our tax problem, we cannot alleviate the tax problem unless we have more
businesses coming in to take the tax roll off of the property; we can't have it both ways. We can't
have it, "Okay, I want my little area to stay the way it was 30 years ago, but God, I don't want to
pay all that taxes." We are in government, all the money we spend come from the taxes, we don't
make anything, we don't produce anything. That's what we do as a government, we spend the


                                                                                                            49
taxpayers dollars. Where we find the taxpayers from their pocket. Whether we take it from this
pocket or the other pocket, it's still the same dollar. So somehow we're going to have to start
talking about depositing infrastructure, road and sewer district for the County. Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Anyone else? Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor?

LEG. STERN:
Motion to table.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to table. Is there a second to the tabling motion?

LEG. ALDEN:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Alden. The tabling motion takes precedence. All -- this is on tabling. All in
favor? Opposed? You want a roll call? Roll call. Roll call on the tabling motion.

                              (*Roll Called by Mr. Laube - Clerk*)

LEG. STERN:
Yes.


LEG. ALDEN:
No, vote it up or down.

LEG. ROMAINE:
No.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
No to table.

LEG. BROWNING:
No.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
No.


LEG. LOSQUADRO:
No to table.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
No.

LEG. MONTANO:
No.

LEG. BARRAGA:
No.

LEG. KENNEDY:
No.


                                                                                                     50
LEG. NOWICK:
No.

LEG. HORSLEY:
No.

LEG. MYSTAL:
No.

LEG. D'AMARO:
No.

LEG. COOPER:
No.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
No.

P.O. LINDSAY:
No.

MR. LAUBE:
One.


P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, motion to approve. You might as well do a roll call on that, too.

                              (*Roll Called by Mr. Laube - Clerk*)

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. MONTANO:


                                                                          5
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
No.

LEG. BARRAGA:
No.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
No.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
15 (Opposed: Legislators Alden, Barraga & Stern).

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, IR 2277A, a Bonding Resolution, Amending the 2006 Capital Budget & Program and
appropriating funds for aviation utility infrastructure at Francis S. Gabreski Airport (CP
5734)(County Executive).

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Motion to approve.


P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to approve.

LEG. COOPER:
Motion to table.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to table. Do I have a second to either motion? Second the motion to table. Is there a
second to the motion to approve?

LEG. CARACAPPA:
I'll second, why not.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second the motion to table.


                                                                                               52
LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
On the motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
On the motion, Legislator Schneiderman.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
What this bill is offering to do is take money specifically that's been allocated for construction at
Gabreski and shifted over to planning, it's for some projects that have been conceived and are
largely agreed upon. And I know Ms. Fahey is here from Economic Development who perhaps could
explain the timeliness of this, if we could have her step forward.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Ms. Fahey, if you don't mind answering Legislator Schneiderman's question.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Again, Carolyn, if you could explain what the necessity of this bill is and if there is a reason why it
would have to move forward today rather than at a later period.


MS. FAHEY:
The Capital Program laid out a study to bring utility infrastructure to the Aviation Section along the
airport. We had a study going on for two years out of this Capital Program. Because of the plans
for the redevelopment of the industrial park, the planning took on a lot more than what was initially
planned for and initially budgeted for. So we're asking to move 50,000 to cover the additional costs
of laying out the infrastructure for the aviation utility that needs to come through the proposed
industrial park. So when they did the study to lay out what utilities were needed around the aviation
sections, they also needed to take into account what utilities and the capacity that we would need
for the future industrial park. So this money just helps us kill two birds with one stone.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
So to move forward with the industrial park, we have to move forward with the utilities first that
may service any future aviation development.

MS. FAHEY:
Right, the planning for them, correct.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Is there --

LEG. COOPER:
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my tabling motion.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Okay, thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, Legislator Cooper withdrew his tabling motion. Does that help with the question?

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
There's no further questions.

P.O. LINDSAY:
We have a motion to approve and a second. Can we do all in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?



                                                                                                          53
MR. NOLAN:
You have to do a roll call, it's a bond.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Oh, it's a bond, I'm sorry. Roll call.

                                 (*Roll Called by Mr. Laube - Clerk*)

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
No.

LEG. ALDEN:
No.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.



                                                                        54
D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
16 (Opposed: Legislators Alden & Barraga).

P.O. LINDSAY:
On 2277, same motion, same second, same vote.

Going to page 10, Introductory Resolutions for December 5, 2006:

2306-06 - To readjust, compromise and grant funds and chargebacks on real property
correction of errors by: County Legislature (Control No. 759-2006)(County Executive).
Counsel informs me that we have to table this for further correction?

MR. NOLAN:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. So I'll make a motion to table.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
I'll second that.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Viloria-Fisher. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2317-06 - To readjust, compromise and grant funds and chargebacks on real property
correction of errors by: County Legislature (Control No. 760-2006)(County Executive).

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Same.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I have been told the same explanation, that it needs to be tabled for further work. So I'm going to
do same motion, same second, same vote.

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2397-06 - Authorizing the County Comptroller and the County Treasurer to transfer funds
to cover the unanticipated expenses in the 2006 Adopted Discretionary Budget (County
Executive). I'll make a motion --

LEG. MONTANO:
Motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:


                                                                                                      55
Motion by Legislator Montano and I'll second the motion.

LEG. ALDEN:
Just on the motion?

P.O. LINDSAY:
On the motion, Legislator Alden.

LEG. ALDEN:
This is mainly just cleaning up the books for the end of the year, but can we have just the amount
and if there's any one glaring area that needed a lot of money transferred to; if we could have that
for the record.

MS. VIZZINI:
This is the customary end of the year housekeeping resolution. The first one before you is for the
mandated portion of the budget, it pertains primarily to the transport of prisoners out of County,
there was a cost overrun of roughly $2 million. The transfer is consistent with the estimates in the
'07 recommended budget for the '06 year.

LEG. ALDEN:
Thank you.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Mr. Chair?

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Kennedy.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Thank you. Gail, can I follow-up with that just so that I understand? Transport means the actual
movement and the per diem fee for housing prisoners out-of-County?

MS. VIZZINI:
It's the fee, yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
And do we have varying rates when we go to the different counties for the housing of prisoners?

MS. VIZZINI:
Yes, they do, the counties charge us different rates. When we last looked at this it varied anywhere
between 85 and 150; ironically, the closer they are the higher the daily rate. The city will charge us
more than other --

LEG. KENNEDY:
And so for '06 actual we're incurring two million in addition to what had been projected when we
adopted the budget last year.

MS. VIZZINI:
Yeah, we only adopted 1.5 million.

LEG. KENNEDY:
That's all that was included?

MS. VIZZINI:
Yes. For '07 we have brought it up to close to three and a half million commencement with what
we're spending for '06.


                                                                                                         56
LEG. KENNEDY:
We're going to have a jail built, no problem. Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Anyone else? Okay, we have a motion and a second, right?

MR. LAUBE:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I'm going to do one more and then I'm going to ask that you take the tax warrant out of order so we
can give it to the Clerk so he could finish his work with it.

2398-06 - Authorizing the County Comptroller and the County Treasurer to transfer funds
to cover the unanticipated expenses in the 2006 Adopted Discretionary Budget (County
Executive).

LEG. MONTANO:
Motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Montano. I'll second the motion.

LEG. ALDEN:
Just on the motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Alden.

LEG. ALDEN:
Through the Chair, to Budget Review, could you just give us the dollar amount and is there one or
two items that are like the predominant features in this?

MR. REINHEIMER:
This is a quite detailed resolution that covers many appropriations in different funds, but in general it
covers -- it reduces expenditures to cover about an $893,000 shortfall in the General Fund to --
move appropriations, I should say, a total of 893,000. It also increases costs for gasoline based on
Public Works' estimates and does a minor increase in the health insurance for the Airport Fund, 625.
It also has -- there were no appropriations for Cornell Cooperative Extension and for one of their
programs dealing with water quality, I think it was the Peconic Bay Scholar Project and it's $169,000
for that based on their voucher.

LEG. ALDEN:
There's no one item that's over a million dollars in this?

P.O. LINDSAY:
No, the whole thing was only 800,000, isn't it?

LEG. ALDEN:


                                                                                                            57
I just want to make sure.

MR. REINHEIMER:
Well, no, it's 800 in that one area, right.

LEG. ALDEN:
And what's the total of the whole resolution?

MR. REINHEIMER:
Well, it's different funds so there's different totals for different funds. That's what I'm saying, it's
893,000 for the General Fund; there's also $578,000 for the Police District for their share of
gasoline; $422,000 for the General Fund for gasoline increases; Water Quality is 169,000 for
Cooperative Extension; for 625, which is the airport fund, was $50,000 for health insurance and --

LEG. ALDEN:
So we're moving approximately, what, five million, a little less than five million, four million?

MR. REINHEIMER:
Yeah, it's less than five. Yes, definitely less than five million.

LEG. ALDEN:
Okay, thank you.

MR. REINHEIMER:
And most of this is consistent with the estimates in the recommended budget.

LEG. ALDEN:
For '07.

MR. REINHEIMER:
For the '06 estimates in the '07 recommended budget, correct.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Do we have any other questions? We have a motion and a second.
All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
What I would like to do now is go to the manilla folder that was just passed out, there's five
resolutions having to do with the Tax Warrants and the Tax Levies. I can take them one at a time.

Tax Warrants:

2528-06 - Levying unpaid water rents.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Caracappa.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
I'll second it.



                                                                                                           58
P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Viloria-Fisher. Any questions?

LEG. KENNEDY:
Mr. Chair?

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Kennedy.

LEG. KENNEDY:
I've got to ask it; what is a water rent? Why is Smithtown involved in this with the water rent?

LEG. HORSLEY:
Because you get a lot of water.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Anybody.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Ms. Vizzini, can you elaborate on that?

MR. LIPP:
These are back payments that weren't made in prior years.

LEG. NOWICK:
For?

MR. LIPP:
For water rents.

LEG. NOWICK:
What is that?

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Water districts.

MR. LIPP:
For the various water districts.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Robert, can you speak closer to the mike? It's hard to hear you.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Water district properties.

MR. LAUBE:
If somebody doesn't pay a bill.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, let --

LEG. KENNEDY:
I didn't hear him.

LEG. ALDEN:
I know, I didn't hear it either.


                                                                                                   59
LEG. KENNEDY:
I'm sorry, Robert, can you go through it one more time? I heard you say --

MR. LIPP:
These are unpaid rents from water districts that are being put on the levy.

LEG. KENNEDY:
That is including the Suffolk County Water Authority or this is individual water districts like the St.
James Water District or other discrete water districts?

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Fire Island.

MR. LIPP:
I'm not sure.

LEG. KENNEDY:
You're not sure. Well, I'm not sure and you're not sure.
Do we have anybody who's sure?

LEG. ALDEN:
I'm not sure. I can give you a little --

P.O. LINDSAY:
Do you want to answer this, Legislator Caracappa?

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Is it my responsibility to answer?

P.O. LINDSAY:
No, no, but it seemed like you had the answer.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
No, it's all outside water districts such as -- all the outside minor districts, Fire Island, the ones that
were mentioned in the various villages and things of that nature. And if I'm wrong, Budget Review
or the Clerk's Office, just tell me I'm wrong, but that's how I've always understood it over the years.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Alden.

LEG. KENNEDY:
I'll yield.

LEG. ALDEN:
If Legislator Kennedy would suffer just one interruption, I think it's the Suffolk County Tax Act that if
you don't pay your water bill it actually falls to your property tax and becomes a lien on the
property. So --

LEG. KENNEDY:
Ah.

LEG. ALDEN:
And that operates as -- it's either a function of the Suffolk County Tax Act or New York State Law.
And these would cover everything I think other than the Suffolk County Water Authority.



                                                                                                              60
LEG. HORSLEY:
So these would be private enterprises?

LEG. ALDEN:
Some of them might be.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I think -- I'm going to ask Legislator Nowick, our resident expert on tax collections.

LEG. NOWICK:
No. My question is I see this as unpaid; does this mean -- and forgive me because I don't
remember last year, do we pay -- do we do this every year, levy unpaid water rents --

MR. LAUBE:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
-- or is this new.

MR. LAUBE:
No.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
We do it every year.

LEG. NOWICK:
We do it every year, okay. So this is not a surprise on our tax bill which is going to raise it just this
year.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
No, absolutely not.

MS. VIZZINI:
No. I think generally speaking, the County makes everybody whole, every district whole, so these
were unpaid and it has to be relevied.

LEG. NOWICK:
So if you don't pay your water bill you don't get a letter from the water company, Suffolk County
Water that says, "We're going to shut your water off"?


MS. VIZZINI:
You do that as well.

LEG. NOWICK:
Okay.

MS. VIZZINI:
And if you don't pay your property taxes you get encouraging letters from the Treasurer's Office.

LEG. NOWICK:
Right.

MS. VIZZINI:
But the Levies are the Levies.



                                                                                                            6
LEG. NOWICK:
Well, a year later. Okay, thank you.

LEG. KENNEDY:
And then it gets added?

LEG. NOWICK:
We've done this before.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Any other questions? We have a motion and a second.
All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
IR 2529-06 - Implementing budget staff and taxes for the fiscal year 2007
(Discretionary). I'll make a motion.

LEG. MONTANO:
Second.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second; who made the second?

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
It doesn't matter to me.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Montano. Anybody have a question?

LEG. ALDEN:
I have a question.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Alden.

LEG. ALDEN:
Didn't we vote on the Discretionary Tax Levy at the last meeting?

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Levy, this is the Warrant.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
One is the Warrant and one is the Levy.

MR. LAUBE:
One is the Levy and one is the Warrant. You mean at the last meeting?

LEG. ALDEN:
Right.



                                                                            62
MR. LAUBE:
No, those were the resolutions that we used to send to the town to put together what we call a
Schedule B and that's what they send back to us, the information so we can build these documents
with the accompanying backup.

P.O. LINDSAY:
It's a two-step process. First we approve the one, it goes to the towns, then the towns have to
figure in, you know, any kind of tax certiorari.

LEG. ALDEN:
That was my question.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Tax certiorari is included in this one, it's not included in the one we voted on last time.

MS. ORTIZ:
Right.

MR. LAUBE:
Correct.

LEG. ALDEN:
Okay.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Right.

LEG. ALDEN:
And we get those numbers, the outstanding certiorari cases from the towns?

MR. LAUBE:
Yes, all the -- there's backup that comes with the towns that they feed to my department.

LEG. ALDEN:
I know, I get it.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay? Everybody all right? All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

LEG. ROMAINE:
Abstain.

MR. LAUBE:
17 (Abstentions: Legislator Romaine).

P.O. LINDSAY:
IR 2532-06 - Implementing budget staff and taxes for the Fiscal Year 2007 (Mandated).
I'll make the motion.

LEG. MONTANO:
Second it.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Montano. One question, Legislator Eddington.

LEG. EDDINGTON:


                                                                                                   63
Yes, I look at page five with the Town of Brookhaven and it says "School Districts, nine hundred and
eight thous -- eight hundred, nine thous -- nine hundred and eight million dollars, is that the money
that's allocated for schools in Brookhaven; am I reading that correctly?

MR. LIPP:
Yeah, the school districts for Brookhaven, just to double check on my file -- no, this is -- the
problem is it should be on the mandated side. School district total is 300 and -- 359 is the number;
yes, that's the amount raised for all school districts in the town.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
You're saying 359? I'm seeing $908 million.

MR. LIPP:
I'm sorry, for which town?

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Page five, Brookhaven Town.

MR. LIPP:
Sorry about that.

MR. LAUBE:
Brookhaven.

MS. ORTIZ:
Page five.

MR. LIPP:
Okay, yes, 908.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Okay, great.

MR. LIPP:
Yes, Brookhaven is $908 million.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Thank you very much.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

LEG. ALDEN:
Abstain.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Abstain.

MR. LAUBE:
16 (Abstentions: Legislators Alden & Romaine).

P.O. LINDSAY:
IR 2530-06 - Authorizing that the Tax Warrants be signed by the Presiding Officer and
Clerk of the County Legislature and they be annexed to the tax rolls for the collection of
taxes. I'll make a motion.



                                                                                                        64
LEG. MONTANO:
Second.

LEG. NOWICK:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Nowick. Legislator Romaine.

LEG. ROMAINE:
A quick question for Budget Review. Is the total amount of the Tax Warrant equal to the average
amount of reduction discussed during the budget process by the Legislature, or is it at variance?

MR. LIPP:
Well, the Warrant is for all districts, it's not just the County portion, it includes schools, towns and
everything. Is your question what is the total Warrant across all our municipalities?

LEG. ROMAINE:
As it applies to the County General. Thank you.

MR. LIPP:
Yeah, the Warrant is consistent with what we adopted with the budget.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Any other questions? All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

LEG. ROMAINE:
Opposed.

MR. LAUBE:
17 (Opposed: Legislator Romaine).

P.O. LINDSAY:
2533-06 - Correcting Resolution No. 1274-2006 and authorizing amended Levy of
assessments and charges within the Towns of Babylon, Islip and Huntington for the
Southwest Sewer District in the County of Suffolk for Fiscal year 2007. Who wants to
explain what 1274 is? I'll make the motion.

LEG. COOPER:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Cooper.

MR. LIPP:
This is a correction to the Levy resolution for the Southwest Sewer District. There was a problem
with the adopted budget that wasn't recognized until after the budget was both recommended and
adopted and when we saw that there was a disconnect between the Levy and the actual budget
itself. So what this does is it makes the correction so that the proper amount of taxes can be
raised; just a technical correction.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Anyone have any questions on it?


                                                                                                           65
LEG. ALDEN:
I have one more question.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Alden.

LEG. ALDEN:
On the second RESOLVED clause, that number down at the bottom is 42,320,000?

MR. LIPP:
Correct.

LEG. ALDEN:
That's what's going to be assessed upon the people that live in the Southwest Sewer District.

MR. LIPP:
Correct.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Right.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay? We have a motion and a second, All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

LEG. ALDEN:
Opposed.

MR. LAUBE:
17 (Opposed: Legislator Alden).

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, looking at the hour --

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Perfect timing.

P.O. LINDSAY:
It was perfect timing. I'll entertain a motion to recess for the lunch break.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
So moved.

P.O. LINDSAY:
A second -- motion by Legislator Viloria-Fisher, second by Legislator Mystal.

LEG. ALDEN:
Back at 2:30?

P.O. LINDSAY:
2:30. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:


                                                                                                66
We stand adjourned.

     (*THE MEETING WAS RECESSED AT 12:27 P.M. AND RECONVENED AT 2:30 P.M.*)

        [COURT STENOGRAPHER - LUCIA BRAATEN].

P.O. LINDSAY:
Madam Clerk, would you, please, call the roll, please?

      (Roll Called by Ms. Ortiz, Chief Deputy Clerk)

LEG. ROMAINE:
Present.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
(Not Present)

LEG. BROWNING:
(Not Present)


LEG. CARACAPPA:
(Not Present)

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
(Not Present)

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Here.

LEG. MONTANO:
Here.

LEG. ALDEN:
Here.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Here.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Here.

LEG. NOWICK:
(Not Present)

LEG. HORSLEY:
Here.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Here.

LEG. STERN:
Here.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Here.


                                                                              67
LEG. COOPER:
Here.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
(Not Present)

LEG. LINDSAY:
Here.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Legislator Losquadro is here.

MS. ORTIZ:
Fifteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. We're in public hearings. First public hearing is I.R. 1791 - A Local Law to require
gasoline service stations to install emergency generators for fuel pumps. I have no cards
on this subject. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this subject?

MR. ZWIRN:
Just recess it.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. I'll make a motion to recess.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Eddington. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MS. ORTIZ:
Fourteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I.R. --

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
You got me, Renee?

MS. ORTIZ:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I.R. 1792 - A Charter Law to ensure a nonpartisan, fair and objective process by which
Legislative Districts are reapportioned. And I have one card, Katherine Hoak. Hello, Katherine.

MS. HOAK:
Hello, Legislator Lindsay. I'm Katherine Hoak from the League of Women Voters. I have a quote
from the Shape of Representative Democracy, which appears on the National League's website.

"The Nation's political landscape has endured more than the usual turmoil in the years following the
2000 census. Reapportionment and redistricting of Congressional districts strained the country's
political fabric and were the occasion for a variety of practices designed to eke a marginal advantage


                                                                                                         68
for one party or candidate or incumbent, or sometimes conversely to reach an accommodation that
protected both sides' interests and incumbents. Whenever Legislators have sole authority in crafting
political boundaries, it risks disempowering voters and undermining democratic accountability.
Legislators are picking their constituents, and it's supposed to be the other way around. There are
growing reasons to place redistricting powers in the hands of an independent authority that is
structured to prevent partisan abuse." And that's the end of the quote.

There is a new -- there is now a nationwide movement to develop redistricting commissions to
rectify this serious threat to our democracy. According to research done by the Rose Institute of
Local and State Government at Claremont McKenna College in California, there are two keys to
effective redistricting reform, the selection of independent people for the Commission and the
inclusion of clear effective criteria to guide the Commissioners.

The amended copy of 1792-2006 is legislation which is set up to construct an independent
reapportionment commission, which is importantly bipartisan. This legislation has had the input of
Common Cause, NYPIRG, and the League of Women Voters. Our Legislative Committee, through the
National League, was put in contact with two League redistricting specialists, Douglas Johnson, a
fellow at the Rose Institute, and Chris Carson from the League of Women Voters of California. Both
gave significant feedback on our original redistricting legislation, most of which has been
incorporated into the amended bill. This is truly bipartisan, a Commission formed with equal
participation by both major parties. It states clearly who can serve and who cannot, and removes
conflicts of interests as much as is possible. This legislation is vitally important to Suffolk County's
need to redistrict after the census in 2010. The League's specialists will continue to be available to
make certain the amended legislation is fair to our citizens and will provide equitable representation
for all of the people of Suffolk County. Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Thank you, Katherine. I don't have any other cards. Is there anyone in the audience that would like
to speak on 1792?

MR. ZWIRN:
Just that the County Exec had asked this be closed today.

LEG. COOPER:
Motion to close.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Cooper and seconded by Legislator D'Amaro to close.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Motion to recess.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to recess. Is there a second to recess? No second?

LEG. KENNEDY:
I'll second that.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Kennedy. The recess motion takes precedent. All in favor of recessing? One,
two, three, four, five. Opposed? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:


                                                                                                           69
So then it's closed.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
We've got to -- we've got to take the vote.

MR. LAUBE:
Ten.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Motion to --

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
What was the vote count on the motion to recess?

MR. LAUBE:
Wait a minute. Wait, wait. I didn't see --

LEG. ROMAINE:
Wait. Let's get everyone's vote counted.

MR. LAUBE:
Do a roll call, please.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. I think it was nine-five, but --

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
I voted to recess.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Roll call, please.

LEG. NOWICK:
What are we voting on?

MS. ORTIZ:
To recess.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Recess. Roll call on recess.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes to recess.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes to recess.

LEG. COOPER:
No to recess.

LEG. D'AMARO:
No.

LEG. STERN:


                                                   70
No.

LEG. MYSTAL:
No.

LEG. HORSLEY:
(Not Present)

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yes.

LEG. MONTANO:
No.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
No.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
(Not Present)

LEG. BROWNING:
No.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes to recess.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
No.

P.O. LINDSAY:
No.

MR. LAUBE:
Seven. (Not Present: Legs. Caracappa and Horsley)

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Motion to close was by Legislator Cooper and D'Amaro. Roll call.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. COOPER:
Yes to close.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:


                                                                         7
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
(Not Present)

LEG. NOWICK:
No.

LEG. KENNEDY:
No.

LEG. BARRAGA:
No.

LEG. ALDEN:
No.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes to close.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
No.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
(Not Present)

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
No to close.

LEG. ROMAINE:
No to close.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes. Horsley's back in the room.

MR. LAUBE:
Legislator Horsley.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Ten.



                                   72
D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Good timing.


P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. The motion to recess -- to close is carried. I.R. 1854 - A Local Law to increase
connection fees for sewer district contractees located outside the geographical boundary
of the sewer district. We have one card, though, from a Eugene Wishod?

MR. NOLAN:
Not on this one.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yeah, 1854.

MR. WISHOD:
Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully request that this public hearing be further recessed for the
following reasons: At the August 15th meeting of the Public Works Committee, Legislator
Schneiderman, as the Chairman of that committee, requested the Department of Public Works to
prepare a written report regarding this doubling of connection fees, addressing various aspects of it,
the amount of the increase --

P.O. LINDSAY:
Mr. Wishod, we're having trouble hearing you. If you could take that mike right in close.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
It's on. Just put your mouth closer.

P.O. LINDSAY:
It's on. You just have to get right up to it.

MR. WISHOD:
Is that better?

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes, much better.

MR. WISHOD:
In any event, requested a report addressing various aspects of it that I had raised before the
Legislature in the Public Works Committee. It had to do with grandfathering, it had to do with
phasing in of the increase. It had to do with its effective date and other aspects. We understood
that such a report was prepared and we FOILed it. We received it yesterday. It's a November 29th
report signed by Ben Wright. And I don't know if you've seen it, but it substantially revises the
proposed Local Law, and it attaches a report of a consultant that justifies the doubling of the
connection fee based on a study of the Southwest Sewer District, and it was based on two
rationales, one, an avoidance of costs, namely, what the developer would avoid by not having to
build a sewage treatment plant, and two, the cost and replacement cost of the facilities at the
Southwest Sewer District. We would like the opportunity to respond to this report in writing, which
we just received yesterday.

Just very briefly, the rationale to double the connection fee is a very, very slippery slope, as I
pointed out to the Public Works Committee. In the first instance, this bill is applicable to the 20
other sewer districts, not just the Southwest Sewer District, and two more districts about to be
formed. In most of those districts, the sewage treatment plants were built and dedicated without
cost by the developers. By way of example, the Talmage Sewer District, which is on the verge of
being formed, was about a 7 million dollar plant built by a consortium of developers that is now


                                                                                                         73
being dedicated free of charge to the County. I mean, for the County to justify a doubling of the
connection fee based on the avoidance of those developers, the cost avoidance not to have to build
a plant when they've just built a plant at a cost of 7 million dollars, doesn't really make a lot of
sense.

Secondly, the cost to build a Southwest Sewer District was borne 10% by the County of Suffolk and
90% by the State and Federal Government. So I'm not at all sure, and we would like to address in
writing, whether that's a good justification for doubling connection fees.

Finally, I don't believe this is a Type II action exempt from SEQRA. There are a lot of ramifications
to this bill, including its impact on affordable housing. And frankly, I think there ought to be a
positive declaration and an environmental impact statement. But, principally, I think there's more
for the Legislature to consider at a subsequent public hearing, from our point of view. As I say, we'd
like to address the report that we received yesterday in writing. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I believe Legislator Alden might have a question for you.

LEG. ALDEN:
Counselor, it's nice for you to come down, but are you suggesting you'd like to see me amend my
bill?

MR. WISHOD:
Well, that's what the Department of Public Works proposed. Yeah, I would like to see it amended.

LEG. ALDEN:
Oh, you would?

MR. WISHOD:
Yeah, to see it --

LEG. ALDEN:
Okay. Because -- I'll amend it, but it's going to hurt your client, because right now I grandfather in
your client. But, if you want, I'll remove that and I'll just charge him the 30 dollar fee.

MR. WISHOD:
Well, is that a new -- is that a new version of it?

LEG. ALDEN:
It was amended. I amended the bill. But if you want me to amend it back, I will, if that's what you
want me to do.

MR. WISHOD:
Well, I haven't seen the amendment.

LEG. ALDEN:
And, you know what, the other thing is, if you want time to respond, you have plenty of time,
because if this closes today, if the Legislature wishes to close it, it goes back to committee, and
you'd have plenty of time to draft what other kind of response you want. And I would suggest
reading the bill before you --

MR. WISHOD:
Well, I'd like to see it. How do we get the amended bill?

LEG. ALDEN:


                                                                                                         74
The Clerk's Office right in front of you, and they'd be more than happy to supply you with a -- with
the most recent version of the bill. And if you want me to amend it, then just call me up. I'll give
you my number and you can call me up and I'll amend it then.

MR. WISHOD:
I don't want you to amend it until I've seen how it's been amended now, and I have not seen it.

LEG. ALDEN:
Well, you just asked me to amend it on the record.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
He didn't know it was amended.

LEG. ALDEN:
So what? He asked you to amend it.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Let me ask the --

MR. WISHOD:
When was it amended, yesterday or the day before, or --

LEG. CARACAPPA:
You want to debate this?

LEG. ALDEN:
It's been a few days, whatever.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Could I ask the sponsor something? Did you -- I haven't seen the latest version either. Is -- based
on the study, there's hard numbers in it now on what we're going to increase the fees to?

LEG. ALDEN:
Well, the numbers are what I said six months ago or a year ago, that it's going to go to 30 dollars,
but I -- in the interest of fairness, things that were in the pipeline and had received conceptual or
actual approval and you had asked me to do that. Those were exempted from the increase in fee.
So if we're going to eventually I think go with what the -- and I didn't ask for this study, I think
Legislator Horsley asked for it, but it bore out what I was saying all along, that, number one, the
cost would be about $30 per gallon per day, and number two, if somebody goes out there and builds
one, there's probably a bottom line of about $50 per gallon per day. So taking all those things into
consideration --

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Alden, don't get defensive. I'm just --

LEG. ALDEN:
No, I'm not defensive, I'm just --

P.O. LINDSAY:
I'm just asking if --

LEG. ALDEN:
Just giving the information.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I knew we were waiting for some -- a body of work to come back to establish the number, and


                                                                                                        75
whatever.

LEG. ALDEN:
Right, and they did it.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I didn't see that.

LEG. ALDEN:
Okay.

P.O. LINDSAY:
And that's the only thing that I'm asking you. And the number is based on what they came back
with, is that --

LEG. ALDEN:
They actually said that it was probably about $29.82, and I had said it should be about 30. But they
did say that that was the actual, but they agreed with the $30 per gallon per day, the consultants,
and so did Mr. Wright and others from the Department of Public Works.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay.

LEG. ALDEN:
But I did what you asked me to do. I --

P.O. LINDSAY:
I don't -- you know, I'm getting old. I don't remember me asking.

LEG. ALDEN:
Well, you asked me about grandfathering, and you said it would be fair to grandfather in.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I probably did, but I don't remember.


MR. WISHOD:
Legislator Alden, I think your amendments are very, very positive, but I think they were -- it was
amended within the last couple of days. I was not aware of it, and I don't know if the other
Legislators were aware of it. I certainly would not want to interfere with the grandfathering, which
is, of course, very fair and was a prime concern.
I've also indicated to you in the committee, the Public Works Committee, that I think an increase is
justified, whether it should --

LEG. ALDEN:
But not to be argumentative with you --

MR. WISHOD:
Yeah.

LEG. ALDEN:
-- because we did get into it a little bit at one hearing about three, four months ago, but, you know,
my office is always open and you can give me a call and we could have talked about it, but, you
know, you didn't do that either. And I would have told you what I was planning on doing with the
new information that I got, but, you know, whichever way you want to do it. But you do have -- still
have an immense amount of opportunity to respond, if you want to do it in writing, or if you want to


                                                                                                         76
come down and testify, because if it's closed today, which I don't know if it will be or won't be, but if
it is closed today, it goes back to the Public Works Committee. And that certainly is an opportunity
to go there and address the Public Works Committee.

MR. WISHOD:
All right. Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Thank you, Mr. Wishod, for your comments.

LEG. NOWICK:
Can I just ask a --

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes. Legislator Nowick has a question.

LEG. NOWICK:
Mr. Wishod, I'm just a little confused right now. I understand the -- and with due respect to
Legislator Alden, the amendments were made yesterday, was it? Do you still want the -- were you
still requesting a recess, or do you want us to close it? I'm not sure now what you're requesting, if
you've changed it or --

MR. WISHOD:
Well, I requested that it be -- that it be recessed, so I could address these in writing. If I'm going to
have an opportunity to do that before the Public Works Committee, it may not be necessary to
recess it.

LEG. NOWICK:
I just wanted to know that.

MR. WISHOD:
I don't know. I have to read the amendment. I don't know how many of our concerns have been
addressed. Certainly, the amendments that Legislator Alden has indicated are contained in the
amended bill are very, very positive and go a long way. Whether it ought to be -- whether the
amended bill phases in the increase, whether it does some other things, I don't know, not having
read it. But, you know, not being that familiar with the Legislative process, I thought the
appropriate thing to do with an amendment this new that we just received yesterday was to recess
the public hearing. But if that's not the will of the Legislature and we have an opportunity to go
back to Public Works, so be it.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Before you leave, Mr. Wishod, Legislator Kennedy, do you have a question?

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Counselor, thank you again. As a matter of fact, you've been
here. My question is that when you're speaking here at this point to us and you're asking for this,
are you asking based on an attorney who's skilled and expert in this field of sewage treatment
approvals and processing, or are you representing a group of developers? What role do you have,
as you come to the podium, for us now at this point?

MR. WISHOD:
Well, I can only answer that by saying, quoting what my wife said, if you're the sewer king, what
does that make me? And --

LEG. KENNEDY:
Counselor, you'll note that I noted your expertise in the field.


                                                                                                            77
MR. WISHOD:
Yes, so it would be the former. I do an awful lot of work in this area. I represent a lot of
developers.

LEG. KENNEDY:
You've been here before us before on behalf of Galleria.

MR. WISHOD:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
And, as a matter of fact, we've spoken at length.

MR. WISHOD:
And several other matters. I represent consortiums of developers who have entered into
public/private partnerships with the County to increase the capacity of various sewer districts of
sewage plants to accommodate their projects, which are then -- you know, and they get a credit for
their connection fee. I've represented several consortiums of developers in District 14. There's one
ongoing in District 11. There's one ongoing in the Windwatch STP, which is being expanded from
400,000 gallons to 750,000 gallons. So I think, yeah, I do have expertise in this area, at least in
terms of my experience.

LEG. KENNEDY:
No doubt. As a matter of fact --

MR. WISHOD:
So I'm here in that former capacity, rather than representing any interest group.

LEG. KENNEDY:
No particular client, just, in other words, actually more than a party in interest, somebody who's
versed and expert in the field.

MR. WISHOD:
Well, I'm very concerned about the impact of this on some of my clients. I don't know what that's
going to be. And my clients are concerned about it, those who have received formal approval, those
who have received conceptual certification. That's why I'm delighted to hear Legislator Alden's
amendment with respect to grandfathering.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Well, I think each one of us. As a matter of fact, you'll have an opportunity to go ahead and speak
with the sponsor as well. You'll recall that some of the conversations I've had with you in the past,
you've actually schooled me and some of us in the difference between conceptual and formal
approval with the Sewer Agency. And I think the two have widely differing significances. And that's
certainly an area that I'm going to want to speak with the sponsor about, because I think it portends
some huge consequences, depending upon which we choose to embrace and not embrace. I
appreciate it. Thank you.

MR. WISHOD:
I just think it would make a lot more sense if it's kept at $30 a gallon to phase it in over a period of
a few years, maybe go to 20 and 25, maybe phase it in faster before you get to 30. I think there
ought to be an increase. I think it's been 15 for a long time, and I think developers would -- you
know, wouldn't be pleased, but, you know, would pay an increase.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Well, developers wouldn't be pleased, and your clients, as a matter of fact, I guess I can understand


                                                                                                           78
that they might express some concern or hardship. Nevertheless, if we have something that
actually demonstrates to us now that the actual cost for the connection is pretty close to $30, then
we've got the obligation, if you will, to go ahead and frame the actual charge now properly, or
recognize, if we do phase in, the enhanced benefit the developers are going to get from this point
forward based on what that connection charge is. And, again, it's up to the sponsor as far as what
he chooses to embrace.

MR. WISHOD:
Yeah. I just would point out that the demonstration that you say has been made is based on the
Southwest Sewer District, and that's not a particularly good example, because this is going to apply
to 20 or 22 other districts that are quite unlike the Southwest Sewer District. Southwest Sewer
District was built largely with public money. The other sewer districts, many, if not most of them,
were built by developer and dedicated for nothing to the County. I mean, cost avoidance in those
two situations seems to me quite different, and yet, I think there ought to be some increase phased
in over a period of time. I think I'm repeating myself.

LEG. KENNEDY:
No. Yes.

MR. WISHOD:
Yeah, yeah.

LEG. KENNEDY:
As a matter of fact, you've made those points. I think all of us now have the responsibility to read
this most current information, and I guess the dialogue is going to go forward, but --

MR. WISHOD:
Right. And I think the impact on affordable housing projects may be quite severe. If developers are
going to have to pay a double connection fee, they may opt for less density and not -- you know,
rather than build sewage treatment plants, which is going to affect affordable housing. There are a
lot of ramifications here to doubling of the connection fee.

LEG. KENNEDY:
And I don't think that it's -- again, I'm not going to speak on the part of the -- on behalf of the
sponsor. He's here and he articulates very ably and very well. But I don't think anybody who sits
around this horseshoe wants to work a hardship on affordable housing initiatives or other
public-minded or municipal initiatives that we identify. And even as we attempt to go ahead and
promote a private entrepreneurial development, or whatever, in the particular districts, there may
be some merit or value to it. But the fact goes back to we've got a hard and fast figure now, even if
it's only out of Sewer District 3. Perhaps we have to ask that DPW give us a little bit more as far as
the model goes. But we've got an obligation, from a municipal perspective, to recognize and
characterize the actual price and then make the decision-making that we want to going forward from
there. But you've answered very well the first question I posed to you, which I appreciate. And hail
to the "Sewer King". Thank you.

MR. WISHOD:
Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Thank you, Mr. Wishod. Say hello to the Queen for us, will you? Is there anyone else here who
would like to speak on 1854? Seeing no one, what's your pleasure, Mr. Alden?

LEG. ALDEN:
I make a motion to close.

P.O. LINDSAY:


                                                                                                         79
Motion to close.


P.O. LINDSAY:
I'll second the motion. All in favor of closing? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Seventeen. (Vote Amended to Eighteen)

P.O. LINDSAY:
I.R. 1973 - Authorization of rates for the Fire Island Ferries, Incorporated. I have no cards.
Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on 1973?

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Is the report done?

MR. NOLAN:
Has to be recessed.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Has to be recessed, so I'll make a motion to recess, second by Legislator Viloria-Fisher. All in favor?
Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I.R. 2045 - A Charter Law to provide for fair and equitable distribution of public safety
sales and compensating use tax revenues. I do not have any cards on this subject. Is there
anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this subject? Seeing none --

LEG. ROMAINE:
Motion to recess.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to recess by the sponsor, I'll second that. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I.R. 2117 - A Local Law to ensure contractor compliance with anti-discrimination
requirements.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Motion to recess.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Let me just see if there's anybody who wants to talk about it. Is there any -- I have no cards.
Anyone in the audience like to speak on 2117? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion from the
sponsor, Legislator Viloria-Fisher, to recess. Do I have a second to the recess motion? I'll second it.
All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?


MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.


                                                                                                          80
P.O. LINDSAY:
I.R. 2173 - A local law establishing crime prevention requirements for scrap metal
dealers. I do not have any cards on this subject. We heard a lengthy presentation from Chief Rau
this morning. I'm sure you don't want to speak anymore, right?

CHIEF RAU:
Not necessarily, sir.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Although I do have a question.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. If you don't mind coming to the podium, Legislator Viloria-Fisher has some more questions.
And then you want to be recognized, Legislator Losquadro?

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yeah.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Hi. Thanks for coming back.

CHIEF RAU:
No problem, ma'am.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Legislator Barraga had asked you a question this morning about those specific pipes that are used
for just certain types of connections that --

CHIEF RAU:
Yes, ma'am.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
-- should be recognized. And you said that some scrap metal dealers, when they see them, say,
"Well, I'm not going to deal with this person, because I don't want to get myself arrested," you
know, when you described the situation. But then Legislator Barraga asked is it illegal? Can you
just explain why someone would be afraid of being arrested if, in fact, buying that type of material is
not illegal?

CHIEF RAU:
Okay, ma'am. What we were looking at, we had -- other than the two videos that were shown, we
did visit other scrap metal dealers. It is not against the law to purchase that item. It is not
fundamentally against the law to possess that item. Certain dealers are aware that there are only
certain commercial channels that would use that. And if you have somebody showing up in the back
of a, you know, van who doesn't have identification, they're concerned that this may be somebody
that acquired the materials illegally, and then making a responsible decision as a business owner not
to purchase that, to turn it away. We've had business -- scrap metal dealers turn purchases away
where they suspect that the person selling it may have acquired the material illegally and, you
know, might be stolen property, so they -- you know, they turn it away.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
So then they're making their judgment based on the ethics of it --

CHIEF RAU:
There are ethics at this particular time.



                                                                                                          8
D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
-- rather than the fear of arrest themselves?

CHIEF RAU:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Okay, because that wasn't clear to me this morning. I just wanted to clarify that.

CHIEF RAU:
Well, what we're looking at, ma'am, is not -- I mean, the seller -- and I'll equate it to our precious
metal dealers. If an 18 year old kid walks into a precious metal dealer with a $35,000 diamond
bezel gold Rolex and wants to sell it and the dealer wants to buy that, there is nothing
fundamentally wrong with him buying it, he is not violating a law. But he is looking at this 18 year
old kid and he may wonder where he got it. Now, when it's entered into our article tracking system
and we all of a sudden say, well, there may be something that was an 18,000 -- a $35,000 Rolex
reported stolen, and we go down there, he is not subject to violation for purchasing it, because he
complied with the terms of the law. That being said, he loses the investment that he put in that
when we seize it, if it is identifiable stolen property.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
So he runs the risk of losing --

CHIEF RAU:
Yes, ma'am.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
-- the investment, rather than being concerned about the legality.

CHIEF RAU:
Yes, ma'am.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
And with regard to other questions that were asked by -- I believe by Legislator Losquadro, I'm on
the Public Safety Committee, as you know, and some of the issues that came up were that if
materials had to be held for five days, if items had to be held for five days, this is the kind of
operation where materials come in and materials go out and that space would be a factor.

CHIEF RAU:
Yes, ma'am.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
A lot of other factors would become involved. And you feel that the current form of the resolution or
the law would mitigate that problem, in as much as the scrap metal dealer could take a digital photo
of the material --

CHIEF RAU:
Rather than holding it.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
-- and keep that?

CHIEF RAU:
Yes, ma'am. When -- actually, we visited several sites and we were in contact with scrap metal
dealers outside of the jurisdiction, and that's why we went away from the ferrous metals. The
ferrous metals are they're less -- you know, they're approximately five cents a pound, and they're


                                                                                                         82
the ones that had these tremendous piles of storage problems and difficulty in segregating it. When
we went -- and again, one of the directions was to make this as business friendly as we probably
can, we're trying to form a partner slip with the business in making everybody's, and serving
everybody's interests. So this amendments or these changes to the law were based on meetings
that we had with the scrap metal dealers and their attorneys, and we were attempting to
accommodate these particular changes. We went for specifically nonferrous metals of high value.
We went for the vehicles that are identifiable. Each and every concern down to if there is a
hazardous condition created has been addressed. It will accommodate most of the police officers'
needs -- I mean, most of the police department's, the law enforcement needs, and it mitigated
every concern that was brought to my attention. And Legislator Losquadro was at the meeting, so, I
mean, if he has any --

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
There's only one more that hasn't been mentioned, and I'm working on memory and that meeting
was quite a few months ago at this point, and it was that some of the dealers indicated that the
system the police use wouldn't integrate well with the software systems or the computer systems
that they use for their payroll. Do you recall that, and was this addressed?

CHIEF RAU:
Yes, ma'am. This system that we are putting -- that is in place, it is not difficult. It is not going to
require substantial investment or time. We've had the same issues raised with the precious metal
dealers, and a lot of them have been able to integrate. We provide the training. It is not very
difficult for people to make the entries, and it's a much more accommodating law that we have in
place now, and I don't believe that it is going to be an undue burden on the respective business
concerns.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
And the business people with whom you sat to have the discussions regarding these issues, are they
on board with that? Do they understand that they can integrate it and not have to do a lot of
training, especially, you know, if someone doesn't have a great deal of staff?

CHIEF RAU:
Ma'am, I can't -- I can't speak for them. As I say, we've sat down, each and every -- their main
concerns were the tag and hold, the storage potential problems that they were going to run into.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yeah, I remember that at the meeting.

CHIEF RAU:
And that that was their main concern. The logistics of reporting are something that can be
integrated and overcome. We've had that happen with all of our precious metal dealers, and there
are I think several hundred of them. It is --

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
And they were able to integrate it without --

CHIEF RAU:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
-- a great deal of difficulty.

CHIEF RAU:
And we're dealing with similar numbers of sales.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:


                                                                                                           83
Okay.

CHIEF RAU:
So I don't think it's going to be a problem.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Okay. Very good. Thank you very much.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I have a list. Legislator Losquadro, and then I have -- I have both of you down.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Thank you. And, yeah, I was present at that meeting, as we discussed earlier this morning. And
part of the -- part of the concern that I have, I brought it up this morning about the environmental
concern with the cars. And something else has occurred to me and that's in the actual handling of
these vehicles when they come in. Many of them may not be in operating condition or not have
keys with them, and they tend to be moved, as was pointed out that day, with forklifts and other
heavy equipment that is going to cause probably significant damage to them in just the normal
course of moving them throughout the facility, even if just to hold them for that -- for that three-day
period.

It's just something that I want to bring up, because I see it as a real concern when moving, you
know, what essentially becomes product at that point around your facility. You know, I kiddingly
said this morning that it's not a surgical process to drain the -- you know, the fluids and things out
of them. Well, moving them around for storage, you know, isn't exactly Mayflower Movers with
padded blankets either. It's -- you know it's going to be a difficult process. And, for the most part,
I would imagine, with the number of vehicles that we're talking about here, they're probably I
stacked, I would imagine. Obviously, in this case, that might be a little bit of a problem if we're
looking to perhaps, you know, have these vehicles recovered by individuals and -- I mean, maybe if
we're just looking at them from an evidence standpoint, that they're still whole and haven't been,
you know, torn apart in a shredder, that's a different story, but that three-day hold, I would still
imagine that these vehicles would be most likely beyond the condition where the owner would want
them back. What are your thoughts on that?

CHIEF RAU:
Well, sir, that's a logistic problem that the businesses are going to have to deal with. Now, when we
looked at it and we were at the site and we listened to their concerns, we specifically went for MV35
forms.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Right.

CHIEF RAU:
Vehicles that were showing up there without a title or a registration title for transfer of ownership.
Now those vehicles could be parked at a location, they do not have to be stacked. It exempts the
vehicles that are coming in from the other processors that have already been gone through and
parts taken off. This is the ones that are being brought in by tow truck operators for the most part
and in a location. It is not the ones that are already -- have already been through another facility.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Well, that actually leads me to another question, unfortunately. I apologize. Everyone's probably
sick of hearing about scrap metal, at this point, but --

CHIEF RAU:
I love scrap metal, sir.



                                                                                                          84
LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Dismantling -- dismantlers --

CHIEF RAU:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
-- are they -- would they currently still be allowed to accept vehicles under the existing State Law,
or would they be included in this as well?

CHIEF RAU:
They are not included in this lawsuit.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
So dismantlers could still accept the vehicle with the current State Law --

CHIEF RAU:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
-- filing an MV35?

CHIEF RAU:
Yes, sir. And the dismantler would then take the vehicle, after he has removed whatever parts,
basically the skeletal remains of the vehicle, crushed, whatever, to the scrap facility without an
MV35.

As far as your concerns, yes, most of these vehicles are moved without the utmost in care. But,
again, this is what we're looking to do, is to try to save some of these vehicles that may be going
back to people that had them stolen. And for the bottom line is, if the vehicle is stolen and the
person does have right and title to it, and it is on the property and it hasn't been already scrapped
and disposed of, they own that vehicle. And at that time, if it's damage beyond repair, they could
choose to sell it, scrap it, or do whatever they want with it, so it's giving the owner some type of
remuneration as well.

And, as far as locating the vehicles within a facility, if they're aware that the 35 vehicles go to a
certain location, they could be parked in a certain location, they don't have to be moved with a
forklift. Most of these facilities have the ability to tow or move the vehicles without using a forklift
through the doors, and without breaking out glass, and without doing extensive damage to the
vehicle. We were going to ask for cooperation from the scrap metal dealers and, hopefully, we'll
achieve that degree of cooperation, and, hopefully, we'll -- you know, we'll achieve that degree of
cooperation, and, hopefully, with the concessions and the amendments that were made based upon
their recommendations at a meeting that you attended, hopefully, we will be able to get their
cooperation in this, sir.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Well, I would like to hear their response to this, and I would like to have them have this
conversation with you about -- well, I was just going to bring that up. I tried to reach out to some
of the individuals who were present at that meeting, and, unfortunately, today is a regional
conference for members of the industry in New Jersey. So poor timing, perhaps, but these
individual -- many of these individuals but throughout the industry, not just, you know, one, or two,
or a few that we had had conversations with are not available to come and comment today. I would
have liked to have seen them. I tried to contact them earlier, but, unfortunately, they're not able to
make it today. So I guess we'll go from there.

P.O. LINDSAY:


                                                                                                           85
There's a whole list. You've generated a lot of interest again, Chief. Before I go further down the
list, I just wanted to piggy-back on something that Legislator Viloria-Fisher talked about. If you get
caught buying stolen property, that's a felony, right?

CHIEF RAU:
Depends on the value of the property, sir.

P.O. LINDSAY:
It depends. And is -- I mean, are we -- when you mentioned before certain dealers don't want to
touch something that they think is suspicious, you know, is it possible that they could be charged
with buying stolen property?

CHIEF RAU:
It depends on the circumstances, sir. When we do, and I won't use scrap metal, I'll use other areas,
our Property Recovery Section does conduct compliance stings. We go to a number of locations, for
sake of argument, precious metal dealers, and we will walk into a precious metal dealer. If we walk
in with a diamond ring that we have a certified appraisal for, $35,000, and we don't say a word, we
say we want to sell this ring, and that person buys the ring and gives us $1,000 for the ring, and
that would be optimistic, in some cases $200 for the ring, that is not a theft, that's not a crime. If
my undercover walks in there and says, "Yeah, my boyfriend works in construction, he was just over
a bedridden lady's house and he took this ring off her nightstand, and she passed away and we have
this ring, and then he buys it, then he's in violation of the law, because it's knowing possession of
stolen property, sir.

P.O. LINDSAY:
So the burden of proof is pretty high --

CHIEF RAU:
Yes, sir.

P.O. LINDSAY:
-- in trying to prove those kind of cases.

CHIEF RAU:
Yes, sir.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay.

CHIEF RAU:
In other words, it's the knowing possession.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Romaine.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Thank you. Unfortunately, I do not serve on the committee, nor have I been privy to any of the
meetings concerning scrap metal, so let me just go through this very quickly with you. Every
purchase of scrap metal, there is no threshold in terms of monetary value? So, if I bring in a little
piece of metal about that big of copper for which I might be paid five cents, that would have to be
tracked.


CHIEF RAU:
Yes, sir.



                                                                                                         86
LEG. ROMAINE:
Every -- okay. Because at least --

CHIEF RAU:
And let me explain why, sir.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Okay.

CHIEF RAU:
If I may.

LEG. ROMAINE:
That would be helpful, because it would seem onerous to do exactly that and not set a threshold.

CHIEF RAU:
Well, part of the problem, sir, is we don't have a lot of people walking into scrap metal dealers with
a five cent purchase. And the problem again, when you set a threshold, what you're going to do,
the State has a threshold right now of $50. I see a number of purchases that we've seen that we've
tracked that come in at $45. And one dealer may pay $75 for something, another dealer would pay
$45 for the same amount of copper. Going beyond that, if you set a threshold, sir, and let's say it's
100 pounds of copper, and the threshold you set is -- I don't know. They're paying $2 a pound and
you set it $50. I'm going to wind up with a lot of forty -- you know, 24 pound sales where people
are going to come in with $48 worth of copper and go to multiple dealers. So we're not setting a
threshold, we're not seeing a lot of it, and we do see some people that come in with not a
tremendous amount of copper for sale. I mean --

LEG. ROMAINE:
Of course, the counter-argument -- right.

CHIEF RAU:
-- you know, the routine homeowner breaks down a boiler or something, he may come in with $25
worth. But what we're looking for is a person that may come in repetitively, 15, 20, 30 times
without explanation where they're getting these materials.

LEG. ROMAINE:
The counter-argument, of course, being, is that when you don't set a threshold, some of the small
items that people might bring in, the scrap metal dealer may say, "You know what, in terms of
personnel, in terms of key entry, in terms of taking a digital photo, in terms of making sure it's six
megapixels and it has the date and time, it ain't worth it, good-bye." And what happens is that
recycling of smaller items suffer as a result, and that's the counter-argument.

CHIEF RAU:
Yes, sir.

LEG. ROMAINE:
And what your bill is doing, I can understand repeat people that do that, but your bill doesn't
address that. It simply says, in a very blanket way, every piece of scrap metal. It's poorly crafted,
from at least my perspective, because there's a better way to craft that to prevent the smaller items
from not being recycled. So that's my first problem with it.

Let me move on to some other things that I want to have a clearer understanding of with this bill.
Is this bill going to require scrap metal dealers to purchase new computer software, or do systems
integration with the police tracking system?

CHIEF RAU:


                                                                                                         87
Not to my knowledge, sir. The existing connections, we instruct them how to set it up, and it's
reporting online. And I have computer people here that can answer that more specifically, if you'd
like.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Well, I would like that answer, because I'd like to know if there's a cost involved with that and what
that cost might be.

CHIEF RAU:
Identify yourself.

DETECTIVE SERGEANT HACK:
Detective Sergeant Robert Hack, Suffolk County Police Department, Commanding Officer of the
Property Recovery Section.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Okay.

DETECTIVE SERGEANT HACK:
Good afternoon, Mr. Romaine.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Sergeant, if you could speak into the mike directly. We can't hear you.

DETECTIVE SERGEANT HACK:
Okay. Is this a little better?

P.O. LINDSAY:
Much better.

DETECTIVE SERGEANT HACK:
You have to be right up there. Okay. The way this system is designed, all they need is internet
access. So, if they don't have a computer, they have to buy one.

LEG. ROMAINE:
So they have to purchase a computer.

DETECTIVE SERGEANT HACK:
If they don't have a computer.

LEG. ROMAINE:
If they don't have a computer, which -- well, most of the larger ones would, but not some of the
smaller ones. And since you're affecting every article, that obviously is going to have some impact.
Now, you also require them to buy a digital camera if they don't have one of six megapixels, with a
date and time; is that correct?

DETECTIVE SERGEANT HACK:
That's correct.

LEG. ROMAINE:
And you can give them models that would meet or integrate with the system, you could provide that
information?

DETECTIVE SERGEANT HACK:
Yeah. It's not a -- I would not consider that the criteria that was established, to be
overburdensome.


                                                                                                         88
LEG. ROMAINE:
Well, it's -- I'm reading what the bill says, so --

DETECTIVE SERGEANT HACK:
I understand. It's just an industry standard, quite frankly, and the cost of those cameras are
minimal.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Four, five hundred dollars for a decent one.

DETECTIVE SERGEANT HACK:
I wouldn't even consider four or five -- I would consider four or five hundred dollars to be excessive.
I think you can get a model camera for --

LEG. ROMAINE:
A six megapixel camera with a date and time?

DETECTIVE SERGEANT HACK:
Yeah. I believe that you could do it for 150, $200.

LEG. ROMAINE:
I'm going to go right down to P.C. Richards to check that out. I'd like to see that happen.

DETECTIVE SERGEANT HACK:
It's industry standard now in terms of pixels. The price is coming down as technology is advancing.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Right. And they just have to enter this simple form for every piece of scrap metal that comes in.
How many pieces on average -- and let me go back to the Chief of Detectives, if I may. How many
pieces on average, Chief, does a scrap metal dealer take in? Because now you're entering a report
for every piece. So maybe I come in, I have some copper, I have some brass, I have, you know,
parts of a boiler, whatever. Obviously, I'd have to develop several tracking reports from maybe $50
worth of scrap. How many pieces on average does a scrap metal dealer do per day?

CHIEF RAU:
By pieces, sir, what are you talking about?

LEG. ROMAINE:
Well, you say for every purchase of scrap metal. How many purchases of scrap metal on average
would the average scrap metal dealer have to enter into your system daily?

CHIEF RAU:
That's going to depend on the individual scrap metal dealer, sir, and you could ask them that
question. As far as we've done from our independent research, it's going to vary, because we
actually limited the non -- excuse me, the ferrous metals.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Right.

CHIEF RAU:
We took everything out.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Right.



                                                                                                          89
CHIEF RAU:
So how many are actually going to be covered, we can only hypothesize and guess, and we've asked
industry people and we have not come up with an exact number.

LEG. ROMAINE:
They haven't given you any numbers.

CHIEF RAU:
They have not given me an exact number, but --

LEG. ROMAINE:
So you don't know if it's a hundred, a thousand, or whatever, per day.

CHIEF RAU:
A day? Again, it's going to depend on the dealer and on the day. And I can tell from our
observations, we can observe how many people are going into the place a day. Now, if that's how
many people are committing transactions, we can go with that.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Does every piece of metal -- let's say I bring in several pieces of metal on one vendor that I'm
selling. Does every piece that I bring in have to be individually tagged?

CHIEF RAU:
No, sir.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Just the whole lot, the lot would get a tag.

CHIEF RAU:
Most of the purchases, when they go -- I mean, if you go into the scrap metal yards, they break
them down into ferrous and nonferrous. When you get into the nonferrous area, if it's straight up
aluminum, or if it's stainless steel or something, it goes to one area. Most of the Number 2 copper
and things go into one bin and they pay a certain price, and they're mixing metals, for the most
part, in that -- those lots, and we're looking at the lot purchase. In other words, they'll describe it
as miscellaneous metal, copper and brass fittings, and they will give a weight and a price.

LEG. ROMAINE:
It also says, "All records and books described herein shall at all times be open for inspection by a
Law Enforcement Officer." What is the current rule of law regarding this?

CHIEF RAU:
Well, Article 6(C) already says, "Such records shall be available for inspection by the Police
Department of the state of the municipality in which the establishment is located."

LEG. ROMAINE:
So this is just a reaffirmation of what the current law is.

CHIEF RAU:
It is a bit of a reaffirmation, but it is inspecting --

LEG. ROMAINE:
How does it differ?

CHIEF RAU:
What you're doing, sir, you're saying records.



                                                                                                          90
LEG. ROMAINE:
I'm reading --

CHIEF RAU:
The records are under 6(C).

LEG. ROMAINE:
I'm reading the bill, so I'm asking. Is this simply a reaffirmation of existing law --

CHIEF RAU:
I believe you're --

LEG. ROMAINE:
-- or is this a departure from existing law?

CHIEF RAU:
I believe you're missing the -- we are saying we can inspect the scrap metal. The Business Laws
says --

LEG. ROMAINE:
Okay, right.

CHIEF RAU:
The Business Law says the records.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Right.

CHIEF RAU:
We already can inspect the records.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Okay. So it's a reaffirmation. That's what I was asking.

CHIEF RAU:
No. One is records --

LEG. ROMAINE:
Okay.

LEG. ROMAINE:
-- one is metal.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Okay. It also says, "A Law Enforcement Officer may issue an order to a scrap metal dealer to hold
scrap metal for the purposes of investigation upon reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred."

CHIEF RAU:
Yes, sir.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Is that in addition -- is that in existing law currently?

CHIEF RAU:
No, sir. That's an addition, that's an enhancement to the law.



                                                                                                      9
LEG. ROMAINE:
Right. And currently, how would you -- if a law enforcement order -- official had a reasonable
suspicion, how would he enforce such an order currently against a scrap metal dealer?

CHIEF RAU:
As it stands right now, sir?

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yep. Would you have to get a court order, or would you have to get a warrant?

CHIEF RAU:
As it stands right now, we would have -- we have no regulatory authority to hold that metal. We
would probably have to do it via court process. The standard would probably be probable cause
versus reasonable suspicion. What we're looking to do is if we have, based on our crime analysis,
an identified individual who has made numerous sales to various scrap metal dealers, and this is
what we're hoping to establish through our link analysis when everyone goes up online with this
system, should it be enacted, we would -- we establish people that are of interest. We then conduct
surveillance on those persons of interest. If we have that person walking or driving into one of the
scrap metal facilities, and through our crime analysis we find there was a burglary, for sake of
argument, I'll use the Brookhaven Town Pool where several hundred pounds of copper were taken --

LEG. ROMAINE:
Right.

CHIEF RAU:
-- and we have a person showing up the next day at a scrap metal dealer with several hundred
pounds of copper, we know from our researcher that person is a painter who may not have access to
several hundred pounds of copper, he's not a contractor that would have it, or make it -- make it he
owns a grocery store, or something like that. We would then look at that particular person as a
person of interest. We may be conducting surveillance on that person, and without going into all
investigative avenues that we may employ, we may be able to track that that person was at a
particular location at a particular time -- God Bless you, sir -- that would give us reasonable
suspicion that that person may or may not have been involved in a crime. If we go to that location,
we follow that person into the location, and we can hold, based on reasonable suspicion, I would
then attempt to do forensic analysis to link that particular metal being sold to the particular crime,
which we could do.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Here's a little bit of my problem, and I had to think about this for awhile, but I did want to mention
it. We put the tracking system in, you get the photos daily of the uplink. I'm sure you're going to
have the staff, because I had heard someone ask you that question and you said that you would
have sufficient staff to do this, and you're going to review this all the time, and you're going to have
a list of known people, at least that you know now, currently in our records that have attempted
crimes using scrap metal in the past. That being the case, you're now substituting the Police
Department's discretion for that of a court by going in and ordering the scrap metal dealer to hold
scrap metal, as opposed to convincing a judge, with all the information that you'll have at your
command, that, you know, "Your Honor, here we have the photo, here we have the guy, here's his
past record, here's the tracking information, we want to order that scrap metal dealer to hold this,"
as opposed to having no requirement to appear in front of any type of magistrate to -- with all the
additional information that this bill would give you, to convince a magistrate of this. You now are
substituting the Police Department, which, you know, I'm not an attorney, but, from a Constitutional
point, raises some concern with me. I'm not saying it's a killer for this bill, but, obviously, raises
some concern.

CHIEF RAU:
Well, sir, I'm very happy that you raised that issue.


                                                                                                           92
LEG. ROMAINE:
Good.


CHIEF RAU:
And I'd love for you to come with me and attempt to get a warrant in an expeditious fashion prior to
this particular thing being closed. It takes on average approximately four hours to five hours to get
a search warrant. Now, if you've been at any of these facilities, in four or five hours --

LEG. ROMAINE:
I haven't.

CHIEF RAU:
-- that stuff is in a bin, it's crushed, it's compact, it's gone. They bring it in, it's processed almost
immediately. This gives us the ability to hold it, and that's what we need. Is it an extension? Yes.
Is it something that we're trying to avoid, court process? Without a doubt. One of the things that
we wanted to do, and after consultation with the County Attorney on this bill, we wanted to be able
to prospectively hold, and the County Attorney said that would be problematic. On a prospective
hold, we will go before a magistrate and get that type of process. But on these types of holds, if I'm
following somebody into a facility, and we may employ investigative methodologies where we'll be
able to ascertain where a person may or may not have been through any period of time, and we
may be on that person for an extended period of time, and we follow them to a facility and they
make a purchase, I need the ability to go into that facility and not say, "Guys, can you do me a favor
and hold this?" I need to be able to say, "Hold this," and for, you know, a period, we will confirm it
in writing and then we will obtain whatever necessary process we may have to get at a later date.
But without it, I can tell you this right now, we're not going to get a warrant in an expeditious
fashion, and without the ability to mandate a hold, that stuff is going to be crushed.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Chief, thank you for answering my questions. I'm obviously going to consider this bill very carefully.
And I'm sure, as I think about it and reflect, as my colleagues, and we hear from the industry
spokesmen, we'll have additional questions. Thank you.

CHIEF RAU:
Sir, I'll answer all the questions I possibly can. Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Kennedy.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chief, this is a -- I don't know if there's an answer to this question or not, but
one of the things that you talked about before, I guess, made me wonder whether it's just a cost of
doing business now that dealers are going to bear. If it becomes -- if we identify that material that
they've purchased is, in fact, stolen goods or goods that are obtained illegally, they forfeit that
material. I think that was one of the statements that you made before.

CHIEF RAU:
They can forfeit that material. They would have a cause of action against the seller, yes, sir.

LEG. KENNEDY:
And it doesn't even necessarily have to be something as suspect as something like titanium or
aluminum goal posts. I mean, if I bring --

CHIEF RAU:
No. It could be a vehicle that comes in, yes, sir.


                                                                                                            93
LEG. KENNEDY:
How about if I bring in a keg of brass elbows, or something like that, and it turns out that I took
them out of the back of a warehouse or something and that can be tracked, then -- and I take 200,
300, 500 bucks, whatever the price of brass is, that's going to be a cost then that that dealer bears,
because you'll then take that keg as stolen goods for the purpose of the prosecution.

CHIEF RAU:
If I could prove the item is stolen, sir, that item is owned by the rightful owner from whom it was
stolen.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Right.

CHIEF RAU:
And if the person purchased it unknowingly, they would have legal recourse against the seller, they
could have it made as part of any subsequent plea arrangement. Do I think that their chances of
recovering that expenditure are particularly high?

LEG. KENNEDY:
Certainly not.

CHIEF RAU:
Considering the people that they're dealing with, I'd say you're slim to none is probably inaccurate.
That's going to be a cost of doing business. But, again, when you understand what the cost of doing
business is in this industry, we had in excess of, and I'm trying to think of the exact number, but
millions of dollars worth of vehicles that were stolen that we were tracking, you know, and --

LEG. KENNEDY:
I think the arguments and the issues that you present associated with the vehicles, by and large, to
me anyhow, being a layman and knowing very little about this, other than what we're talking about
today, appears very sensible to me.

CHIEF RAU:
Thank you, sir.

LEG. KENNEDY:
And you're articulating well, and it's very helpful with what you're doing for us. I guess I get into a
little bit more confusion or concern or gray areas when we're talking about the metals area.


CHIEF RAU:
If I can talk real world, sir, and, you know, sometimes -- I mean, I'm not trying to go to a level, but
I will go from an experienced point of view.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Please do, Chief. You're the one that has.

CHIEF RAU:
When we deal with precious metal dealers, what we find in the industry, when we deal with a
precious metal dealer, and I have my gentlemen in the -- and ladies in the Property Recovery
dealing with them on a regular basis, if somebody comes in and they think that there's a problem,
and they get a nose for this after being in the business for years, you know who you're dealing with.
If the gentleman is coming in and he's got his three kids and they're in a van and they're selling $20
worth of copper and they're coming from, you know, "I just replaced my sink", that's different than
a couple of people that are coming in with a crack pipe in their hand, in a car that may be stolen,


                                                                                                          94
with no license plates on it, they get a sense for it. The precious metal dealers, the way that they're
reacting to that, should that 18 year old kid come in with the Rolex that may be worth $35,000,
they're not giving that kid what they would give a gentleman such as yourself, if you came in with
that. They're looking at it as it's a risk. They're going to buy it. It's not against the law, as
Legislator Barraga talked about, to strictly buy it without knowledge. They will buy it, but they will
probably pay less, and then they're going to hold it for the required period in the Precious Metal Law.
And if they happen to eke through, they eke through, but that's their business. But they look at it
as a cost of doing business, should we have to come in and seize that particular property.

LEG. KENNEDY:
There's one other thing that you've mentioned a couple of times that I'm just curious. I don't think
you're advocating this, but I guess, obviously, I need to go ahead and ask. You talk about the
variances amongst individual dealers and what, in fact, they will pay for the same type of a thing, a
brass fitting that, A, may go ahead and get five, and at B, may get three. Are you advocating that
there be some kind of standardization as far as rates amongst the dealers?

CHIEF RAU:
No, I'm not advocating, sir. That's their business. They pay what they want to pay for the
individual items.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Okay.

CHIEF RAU:
And I'll tell you, you know, again, you'll see, for sake of argument, there's a concentration of
precious metal dealers in the downtown Patchogue area. And you may see a guy go from one
location to another location to another location and shop it. In this particular arena, you may see
people shopping it, but, for the most part, if they go to one dealer and they're turned away, they'll
go to another dealer. What we need is to regulate or to find the information when they go to those
dealers to enter it into our system, and to be able to do the crime analysis and link analysis that we
need to do to find out if this items -- these items are stolen, if they're part of a patter of continuing
behavior.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Okay. Thank you, Chief. Mr. Chair, thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Stern.

LEG. STERN:
Thank you. Chief, you had stated earlier that working with Nassau County, New York City, and, of
course, this is a national problem that is trending upwards, if we -- and I think we also said before
that if we enacted this kind of a structure here in Suffolk County, that will be in the forefront and
we'll be doings some good things, and set an example not just for other local municipalities, but
maybe the rest of the nation. So, my question is what, if anything, in your experience, has Nassau
County considered, or New York City considered, or some of the outlying areas? And I ask the
question, because, if we are here on our own, and if the main focus here is to curtail criminal
activity, aren't we just sending a signal to those that are taking the materials that, well, sure,
Nassau County is still open for business, and, ultimately, doesn't that hurt legitimate Suffolk County
businesses if criminals are just going to take the materials next door?

CHIEF RAU:
Okay. What you're talking about, sir, is where criminals are going to take their materials. Now what
you have to ask is what percentage of the business is involved with criminal behavior, and are we
going to address that? You're going to have there large scale, the people that are involved with
them on a regular basis, the businesses they deal with regularly, the people that are involved in the


                                                                                                            95
scrap metal industry on a regular basis. They're not going to go -- they're going to go where their
dollar tells them. Are we going to displace some criminals until other jurisdictions have the foresight
to do something about it? We may. For any type of -- any type of law or restrict that's put into
place, you're going to experience some type of criminal displacement. But again, what we're making
them do, and I'll go back to Legislator Romaine's example, if the guy's got $20 worth of copper, he
doesn't want to drive from Speonk into Massapequa. Would they go over the line? Would we some
displacement? I would have to say we may see some criminal displacement, which I don't think
accounts for a tremendous proportion of the overall revenue or overall purchases, unless these
dealers are dealing only with criminals. So I think we have to look at it from a point of view, do we
want to lead, or do we want to react to the criminals? And I think what we have to do is we have to
say in Suffolk County, "We're not going to tolerate it here." And, hopefully, it will restrict the
number of thefts in Suffolk County. Maybe we'll displace the people that are stealing it. Let them
go into Nassau to steal it as well.

LEG. STERN:
But, at the same time, we also run the risk that those who are operating legitimately, not wanting to
deal with some of the requirements of this legislation, will also take their business elsewhere.

CHIEF RAU:
I don't know that that's necessarily going to happen, sir, because what you're looking at is the cost
of doing business. Now, people that are advertising in -- and I forget, I think it was Legislator
Nowick brought up that she had heard on a radio station, or Legislator Losquadro --

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
That was me.

CHIEF RAU:
-- that a Queens firm was advertising that they would purchase and send somebody out. They have
to be making a profit on that, and it has to be, you know, competitively priced they're not going to
come out here for a small amount. So I think what we have to look at is are we displacing criminal
activity? There's a potential. Is that displaced criminal activity going to have a significant
measurable impact on legitimate businesses in Suffolk County? That I do not believe is going to
happen. Is it going to deter honest people from going to their dealer on the corner, because they
may have to give their driver's license and say they sold $45 in copper? I don't think so.

LEG. LINDSAY:
Okay. Legislator Barraga.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Just one real quick question. Chief, with reference to the scrap metal transaction record, and I'm
sure, you know, you've dealt with this, what is the I.D. type that's provided? You know, if I come in,
I'm a seller, and we were filling out this form and you need I.D. from me, what do I give you?

CHIEF RAU:
Generally, it's a driver's license, sir.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Okay. Is that a photo I.D. that's taken of the driver's license?

CHIEF RAU:
Yes, sir.

LEG. BARRAGA:
All right. I've got my driver's license in my pocket, it's got my picture on it, but it says, "John
Kennedy, 222 Main Street, Smithtown, New York.



                                                                                                          96
CHIEF RAU:
Yes, sir.

LEG. BARRAGA:
It's a phoney.


CHIEF RAU:
Yes, sir.

LEG. BARRAGA:
I could fill out the rest of the form, you could take a photo -- you'd still take the photo I.D.?

CHIEF RAU:
In other words, if it's obviously a fake?

LEG. BARRAGA:
Well, the dealer doesn't know it's a fake.

CHIEF RAU:
Well, sir, you don't look like Mr. Kennedy.

LEG. BARRAGA:
No, but my license says his name.

CHIEF RAU:
Okay.

LEG. BARRAGA:
But you definitely take a photo I.D.?

CHIEF RAU:
Yes, sir.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Because it isn't stipulated here.

CHIEF RAU:
As long as there is a viable form of identification, sir, and a lot of these people are not going to have
it, if you, you know, wish to add photo I.D., we would, you know, be more than happy to do it.

LEG. BARRAGA:
But it's not -- is that part of the legislation, photo I.D.? I don't see it.

CHIEF RAU:
I don't believe it is, sir.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Because it seems to me that if I can show you anything, if you're not making a photo I.D. of it, it
could be phoney in and of itself. I can fill out the form. You get the metal, you take the picture of
the metal and I take a walk with the money. You don't know who I am.

CHIEF RAU:
It's a very valid point, sir. We were of the opinion that there was an identification requirement in
there that was a little bit more specific and it's obviously been missed.



                                                                                                            97
LEG. BARRAGA:
Yeah, you need a photo I.D. in there.

CHIEF RAU:
Well, the problem is, too, sir, sometimes --

LEG. BARRAGA:
Even if the license has Kennedy's name on it, at least the picture is me; okay? But right now, I
could show you anything. Put it back in my pocket, walk off, take my money. You get pictures of
the metal, whatever it is, but you don't know who I am.

CHIEF RAU:
Sir, if you'd like, I'd have it amended for a photo I.D.

LEG. BARRAGA:
I think you should do that, point of suggestion.

CHIEF RAU:
Sir, I appreciate the suggestion. I think it's an excellent idea and I thank you.

CHIEF RAU:
Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Barraga, until Chief mentioned that, you do look like Legislator Kennedy. The two of you
could be twins.

LEG. BARRAGA:
They tell me I look like you, which always kind of frightens me.

P.O. LINDSAY:
That would frighten me, too. I don't have -- I think everybody's had their fill of scrap metal.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
No scraps left.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Even though it's going make me an unpopular person, I will make a motion to recess, pending
perhaps an amendment to the bill, and to give opportunity for some individuals from the industry to
perhaps come and comment at the next opportunity for the public hearing.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I'm going to second that motion with this proviso, that we move this at the next meeting. And,
Chief, I would appreciate it if any modifications that were suggested, if you could prevail on the
Executive to make those changes to the bill, so we can get this thing done.

CHIEF RAU:
I will attempt to. And the modification you're looking for is photo identification, sir, right?

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yeah, I think that's a good idea.

LEG. BARRAGA:
It's a good suggestion.

CHIEF RAU:


                                                                                                      98
Okay.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. So we have a motion to recess and a second. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
17. (Not Present: Leg. Montano)

P.O. LINDSAY:
I.R. 2268 - A Local Law establishing -- a Local Law to strengthen ATV seizure for forfeiture
provisions. I have one card, Arthur Pendzick. One of our Park Police Officers, Sergeant Pendzick.
Thank you for coming.

SERGEANT PENDZICK:
Okay. Good afternoon, Chairman, Legislators.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
I think you got to get closer to that mike. Is it on?

SERGEANT PENDZICK:
Okay. My name is Arthur Pendzick. I'm a Sergeant with the Suffolk County Park Police. I've been a
member of the Department for more than 35 1/2 years. I've been actively involved in ATV
enforcement since its inception 20 years ago. Currently, I serve as Chairman on the Pine Barrens
Law Enforcement Council, which consists of 25 different police and public safety agencies, and I'm
here as their spokesman today. For the past four years, I've also headed up the Council's
multi-agency ATV Task Force details, which have been responsible for almost 700 ATV impounds and
some sixteen hundred ATV related summonses.

At our Council's last monthly meeting, the proposed ATV seizure bill was brought up and discussed
in some length. Some of the representatives at our meeting expressed great concern on the
possible consequences this bill might have if forfeiture is implemented on a first offense. First, we
feel a first offense forfeiture is much too extreme for most ATVers. Once they are apprehended,
impounded and have to pay close to $1,000 or more in fines and redemption fees, we rarely ever
see these people again. In fact, according to our Task Force estimates, only about 5% are repeat
offenders. But the main problem is that there are many different agencies impounding under their
own Local Laws, and second offenses are rarely implemented. Some sort of centralized system
needs to be set up to address this problem.

But getting back to the question in hand, most important, what the Council is really concerned about
is officer safety. Apprehending illegal ATV's has always been difficult and gets harder and more
hazardous each and every day. Apprehension is usually a matter of luck, but when caught, ATVers
facing impound and heavy fines have tempers that can run very high. Officers are often verbally
and physically abused. When trying to apprehend a fleeing ATV, stupid and dangerous actions are
too often commonplace. Just this past year, one of our Suffolk County Park Police Officers was
struck and run over by a fleeing ATVer and he sustained many multiple serious physical injuries.
Once word gets out that a forfeiture can result on a first offense, we fear that incidences may get
worse and become more frequent.

Last, as the spokesman for the Law Enforcement Council, we ask the Legislature to be very careful
in the wording of this bill in regards to the first offense. For the record, we would wholly endorse a
forfeiture for any second offense in increased monetary penalties. Also, as mentioned previously, if
some sort of centralized data base for ATV impounds and violations could be set up, this would
greatly assist us in law enforcement.

I'd like to thank you all for your time. If there are any questions, I'll try to answer.



                                                                                                         99
P.O. LINDSAY:
Yeah, I have some questions, Sergeant. I am the sponsor of the bill and I appreciate your input.
It's not that I'm an expert on this subject, but we were contacted, myself, and Legislator Losquadro,
I believe, was at the meeting, by LIPA, which has a lot of the right-of ways where you see a lot of
the ATV illegal riding and P.D., it wasn't Park Police, it was regular P.D., and they more or less
indicated to us that they wanted some stronger enforcement and they wanted this, if I -- my
recollection's correct. But I would be most happy to take your suggestions into -- into the case, and
maybe compromise and tone it down a bit. But this really came out of that meeting, this bill.

SERGEANT PENDZICK:
Well, like I say, sir, I'm speaking mostly for the officers in the field that are actually doing this
enforcement. What they have to go through now, just when we do impounds, and, like I say, if
people realize that they're going to be losing their ATV's, you know, on a forfeiture on a first offense,
situations get very volatile out in the field. Like I say, we have officers that have been hurt and
many near misses, so to speak.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Mr. Chairman, if I may.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Please.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Out of that meeting, and I raised it at the last public hearing when this was discussed, my question
has consistently gone back to constitutionality of without a prior offense for forfeiture of property.
So, if taking this firsthand information from those who are out in the field, and we've heard many of
these arguments before, I would -- and, by the way, I very much like the idea of creating a
centralized clearing house in which we could establish through the various municipalities and
agencies that are performing these seizures for impounds, so we could more accurately determine
when people are having a second offense or a third offense, or what it is, because, right now, we
hear that based on the information, the best information that we have, we're only seeing about a
5% repeat offender rate. So, if we could create some sort of clearing house to better analyze that
data, and perhaps, at the same time, address the constitutionality issue of asset forfeiture, I think
that would -- that would probably be a very good idea. And I'd like to go back to the P.D. and to
LIPA and work with the Pine Barrens enforcement, perhaps get everyone together here to come up
with something that's really workable and can sustain a legal challenge.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Sergeant, one of the arguments that we heard, and, again, Legislator Losquadro was there as well,
is that under the current law, I think, what, it's a third offense it could be a forfeiture now?

MR. NOLAN:
Third.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Third.

SERGEANT PENDZICK:
Yeah, that's true.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Third. That even on a first offense, many times the -- you know, the person that's breaking the law
flees and create a dangerous situation, and the rationale was, "If we're going to chase them down,
at least give us some teeth to increase the enforcement." But we appreciate your coming forward
and with your suggestions, and we will certainly take them into consideration. Legislator Eddington,
you had a question?


                                                                                                            100
LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes. I would certainly support, you know, expanding it to the second time for seizure, but when
you're arguing, as the Chair of Public Safety, when you're arguing that when you do stop somebody,
it becomes a hassle, basically, and they get physically or verbally abusive, I can't buy that
argument. That's why I want you to do your job. If they are that type of person, I don't want them
on those ATV's. So I would buy that maybe we should give them a slide on the first time, or
whatever you want, a fine, but the argument that because it's a tough arrest, I'm not supporting
that piece, so -- because I know that goes with the job, and we then have to get you more troops,
then. But I'm not going to buy that because it's a bad arrest and it's difficult, that we should back
off for that reason.

SERGEANT PENDZICK:
Well, when they go to the extremes, like I said, we have had officers hurt, get into fights, then, of
course, then you got into the criminal law aspects of it and they are arrested and they are charged
appropriately. The average ATVer, like I say, is just a common, you know, "Joe Blow" citizen that's
out for a little fun, he doesn't really mean any harm. Sometimes they don't even realize they're
breaking the law, and we don't have too much problem with them. But almost every ATVer, like I
say, when he learns that he's being impounded, like I say, emotions get very hot, they -- sometimes
they do very irrational things and things can get very volatile. And like I say, what we're worried
about is on a first offense, if they're aware, or once they find out they're going to be losing their
ATV's on that first offense, then the situations could become much harder.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Are you all done?

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Motion to recess.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Motion to recess, and I'll second the motion. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Seventeen. (Not Present: Leg. Montano) (Vote Amended to 18)

SERGEANT PENDZICK:
Okay. Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Next is I.R. 2285 - A Charter Law transferring certain selected functions of the Department
of Human Resources, Personnel and Civil Service, Division of Human Resources to the
Department of Law. I have no cards on this subject. Is there anyone who would like to speak
on this subject? Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Caracappa. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I.R. 2290 - A Local Law to require landlords to register with the Department of Probation
prior to renting to sex offenders. I have no cards on this subject. Is there anyone in the


                                                                                                        10
audience who would like to speak on this subject? Seeing none, Legislator Browning, what would
you like to do?

LEG. BROWNING:
Still working on some language. Motion to recess.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to recess, I'll second the motion. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.


P.O. LINDSAY:
I.R. 2298 - A Local Law to exempt certain positions from residency restrictions. I have no
cards on this subject. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this subject?
Please, come forward, Mr. Wishod.

MR. WISHOD:
I did put a card, a separate card in.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I have 20 -- I have you on 2299.

MR. WISHOD:
Oh, I'm sorry, I understood.

P.O. LINDSAY:
This is about appointments. They have to reside in --

MR. WISHOD:
I'm sorry, I misunderstood.

P.O. LINDSAY:
That's okay.

LEG. ALDEN:
For the Commissioner of Health.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Does -- okay. Nobody wants to speak on 2298. Do I have a motion?

LEG. COOPER:
Motion to close.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to close. Do I have a second? Second by Legislator Eddington. All in favor? Opposed?
Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I.R. 2299 - A Local Law strengthening the policy for connections by premises outside of the sewer
districts.



                                                                                                    102
LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Excuse me. What happened to 2298?

P.O. LINDSAY:
Closed.

LEG. ROMAINE:
I make a motion to reconsider.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yeah. I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I was --

P.O. LINDSAY:
You weren't paying attention.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
I was in the midst of a side conversation.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
And I would, as --

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Talking in class.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
I would like to make a motion to reconsider that.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Caracappa, reconsider. All in favor of the reconsideration? Opposed?
Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, it's carried. It's back before us. 2298.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
I apologize. You moved through that one very quickly. I would like to make a motion to recess that
public hearing.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I don't think I was that quick.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
You're not giving yourself enough credit.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
I'll second the motion to recess, Mr. Chairman.



                                                                                                     103
P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to recess, and we still have a valid motion to close. First on the motion to recess, goes first.
Okay. All in favor? Okay.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Roll call.

MR. LAUBE:
Legislator Losquadro.


P.O. LINDSAY:
To recess.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes to recess.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yes to recess.

LEG. COOPER:
No. No to recess.

LEG. D'AMARO:
No.

LEG. STERN:
No.

LEG. MYSTAL:
No.

LEG. HORSLEY:
No.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yes.

LEG. MONTANO:
No.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
No.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yeah -- no. Sorry.



                                                                                                          104
LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I knew we'd wind up with 19 Legislators.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Steve is waiting.

MR. LAUBE:
Legislator Romaine.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes to recess. I'd like to keep people from Suffolk County working for us, not from other places.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
No.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I'm going to vote no, but it's not necessarily I agree with the concept, but I don't know what else
could be gained to keep it in hearings.

MR. LAUBE:
Eight.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Motion to close is pending now. Do you want a -- do you want a roll call again, or do you
want to --

LEG. CARACAPPA:
For closing? Why bother.

LEG. ALDEN:
Just do same motion, same second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay.

LEG. ALDEN:
Hey, right?

P.O. LINDSAY:
No. Let's try it. All in favor of closing the hearing?

MR. LAUBE:
You need a motion and a second on this.

P.O. LINDSAY:
We had a motion.

MR. LAUBE:
You reopened it, though.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Reconsidered, okay.



                                                                                                      105
LEG. COOPER:
Motion to close.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to close. Who was --

LEG. D'AMARO:
Second.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
I'll second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
D'Amaro was a second. Okay. Roll call on close.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
No to close.

LEG. BARRAGA:
No.

LEG. ALDEN:
No.

LEG. MONTANO:
To close, yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
No to close.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
No.



                                                  106
LEG. BROWNING:
I think this one's a yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
No.

LEG. ROMAINE:
No.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes to close.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Eleven.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Did you call the vote?

MR. LAUBE:
Yes, I did, 11.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Okay. I.R. 2299 - A Local Law strengthening the policy for connections by premises
outside of the sewer district. Mr. Wishod, this is the one that you signed up for.

MR. WISHOD:
Legislator Alden, I had no knowledge of this until a couple of days ago, so --

MR. MONTANO:
Can't hear you, sir.

MR. WISHOD:
Can you hear me now?

         (Affirmative Response From Legislators)

MR. WISHOD:
I had no knowledge of this. I have a question about just language, and I would ordinarily maybe
have written a letter, and I intend to do it anyway, but let me address it. I'm concerned about the
interplay between Factor 3 and Factor 5. You list five factors to be considered on a connection to a
sewer district. Factor 3 is whether the applicant demonstrate that an economic benefit will accrue
either through an increase in jobs or an increase in tax revenue to the County as a result of the
sewer connection. Factor 5 is whether the proposed applicant shall provide an economic benefit to
the area in addition to affordable housing for the community. Are these separate economic benefits?
I mean, does that mean such as affordable housing or --

LEG. ALDEN:
Right.

MR. WISHOD:
It says in addition to affordable -- I mean, you meant as an example affordable housing.

LEG. ALDEN:


                                                                                                       107
Right.


MR. WISHOD:
I mean, because the way it reads literally, it would have to be affordable housing, plus something
else. I was just confused. I just wonder whether you need 5 in light of the fact that you have 3,
and whether you might list affordable housing in 3 as an example of an economic benefit. That's all.
I don't know if I'm making sense, but it's just confusing to read two factors that refer to economic
benefits.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yeah. And part of it is just in drafting preference. Former Legislator Nolan might draft it one way,
you might draft it another way, so it's just -- you know, you take a concept. And what I wanted to
open up was a debate on, you know, how we go about connecting people that are outside a sewer
district to a sewer district, because we are giving them a benefit that they normally wouldn't think
that they would get, because the --

MR. WISHOD:
I understand completely.

LEG. ALDEN:
So I'm trying to establish, you know, affordable housing. And a big economic benefit, if you can
demonstrate it, an economic benefit to all the people in Suffolk County, not just to the sewer
district, because the way the law reads now, you have to actually show that it's going to be some
kind of an economic or fiducial benefit to the sewer district. So I thought that that's an improper
way to really -- to maybe categorize people and the projects. So, you know, I wanted to give it
another -- and actually underline the fact that we'd like to look at affordable housing. Even though
it doesn't directly give an economic benefit, it provides a much needed source of people to be able to
live in Suffolk County.

MR. WISHOD:
I would agree wholeheartedly that that's a good example. I'm not questioning draftsmanship, per
se, I'm just questioning possible ambiguity, because I read the two and I didn't understand the
difference between 3 and 5.

LEG. ALDEN:
I mean, I'd be -- if you want to get us a letter on it, then I'd be real happy to look at it.

MR. WISHOD:
I'll be happy to. I would have sent it, but I wasn't aware of it.

P.O. LINDSAY:
And I have a question of the sponsor. Why wouldn't you combine both bills to raise the fees and to
set up a preference? Couldn't you do that all in one.

LEG. ALDEN:
I guess you could, but there's a policy in Suffolk County right how, and this speaks to the policy,
whereas the other bill --

P.O. LINDSAY:
Just speaks to the fee.

LEG. ALDEN:
Speaks just to the connection fee. And five years, I think it was about five years ago when Maxine
Postal and I sponsored the one that raised it from basically nothing to the $15, we had decided at
that time to keep them both separate, rather than, you know, go into the whole deal, because this


                                                                                                         108
really -- this is the thing we've got to talk about for years, basically, because that's going to be the
economic viability of Suffolk County, sewer districts, I think.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Is there anyone else that want to -- are you done, Mr. Wishod?

MR. WISHOD:
Yes, I'm through.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. I.R. 2299, is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on it, because I don't
have anymore cards? What is your pleasure, Legislator Alden?

LEG. ALDEN:
I'd like to see it closed. Motion to close.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to close. Is there a second? I need a second. I'll second it.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Oh, I'm sorry.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I was moving it too quick again, I know.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
No. I didn't hear what you were saying. I'd be happy to do it.

P.O. LINDSAY:
All in favor? Opposed? Abstention? It's closed.

MR. LAUBE:
16. (Not Present: Legs. Caracappa and Mystal)

P.O. LINDSAY:
I.R. 2336 - A Local Law to require posting of video game ratings at retail establishments.
I don't have a card, but I know Director Gardiner from Consumer Affairs did want to talk to us about
this.

MR. GARDINER:
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This law would impose two requirements on the retailers of these
video games. One is that they would have to display a sign. That would be displaying the relevant
rating symbols and content descriptors of each game, and second, that each of the retailers would
have to have available written information for all consumers concerning the content descriptors and
the rating symbols.

My concern is based upon the enforcement capability of my office and the perception of the
Legislature, or the perception that the Legislature might have as what our level of enforcement
would be, and I hope you would take that concern into consideration as you deliberate this.

I have 18 investigators in the office, eight of whom are Occupational Licensing Investigators, home
improvement, electricians, plumbers, etcetera, eight of whom are weights and measures inspectors,
all of the scales, and the 11,000 gasoline pumps, and the 800 meters on the home heating oil
trucks, precious metals dealers, etcetera. I have two General Consumer Affairs Investigators on
staff, two people. And on average, they carry -- right now, they each have about 60 to 65 open
cases of consumer complaints. That is their main task. So, again, that is my concern.


                                                                                                           109
You know, automatically, we think about Best Buy, and Circuit City, and P.C. Richard, and Sears,
and Macy's, but -- WalMart, and K-Mart and Kaybee Toys and the electronics, all the small electronic
stores and electronics retailers. From people that I have spoken to, there are other types. There
are drug stores, etcetera, that sell these games. So that's simply my concern, is about the
enforcement capability that I have and what the perception would be.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Well, I -- Charlie, I got a solution. The Police have left the room, so what if we lump this under the
scrap metal dealer and let them enforce it?

MR. GARDINER:
I could go for that.

LEG. NOWICK:
Bill.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Viloria-Fisher.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Charlie, currently, just to refresh my memory, aren't there laws that the videotapes themselves
have to have the ratings on them?

MR. GARDINER:
I have yet to find one that does not have it. The ESRB, the Entertainment Software Ratings Board,
it's a voluntary standard. But if you look at -- I mean, I always hesitate to say all, but, again, I have
yet to see, in going around to the stores, any of the games that do not have it. On the front is the
ratings.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Right, yeah.

MR. GARDINER:
On the back is the content descriptors. The content descriptors are, you know, violence, sex,
nudity, gore, blood, etcetera, blah, blah, blah, or there's a list about that long. Those are on the
back of every game. On the front is "E" for everyone, or, you know, "M" for mature, "T" for teen,
17-plus, etcetera.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
So that a parent who was looking for a game would be more likely to, when they pick up the game,
look at the game for the descriptor and the rating.

MR. GARDINER:
I would hope so.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Rather than try to find in a -- on a long list posted somewhere.

MR. GARDINER:
It's on the game, it's on -- yes, it's on the front of every game, yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Okay.

MR. GARDINER:


                                                                                                            110
The ESR -- the Entertainment Software. You can also download it. All of that information is here.
Many of the big chains do have. For instance, they'll have -- here are the ratings on the front, here
the back -- on the back is the content descriptors, and they'll describe their policies. They'll say, for
instance, we reserve the right to request photo I.D. of anyone purchasing an "M" game, which is
mature, etcetera, yeah.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Okay. Okay. I thought I had seen that, but I don't buy a lot of video games.

MR. GARDINER:
Also -- neither do I. I also found out that the game manufacturers themselves also have information
in the boxes about the games and the ratings, so --

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Right. Okay. Thank you, Charlie.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Cooper.

LEG. COOPER:
Charlie, to address the question of investigators, do you feel that you have sufficient number of
investigators right now if the Legislative intent was to have you primarily follow up either on
consumer complaints, or maybe to do spot checks of stores, not to require you to visit every single
establishment, but, once again, to either to spot checks, or if there's a complaint, let's say, from a
parent.

MR. GARDINER:
Yes, we could handle complaints. And that's why I phrased my concern the way I did, what is the
perception of the level of enforcement of this law, because it does require that -- in other words, I
always have the concern when there could be the appearance of favoritism, or, you know, "You gave
him a violation, how come you didn't do that one?" Or this guy doesn't have a sign up. You got me
last week. How come you didn't get him?" "You went to Smithtown," or "You left Smithtown alone,
because you're from Smithtown. How come you didn't go over to Southold?" That kind of stuff,
that's my concern. Because the law clearly states that all retailers will display this sign and all
retailers will have the written information available to consumers. So it's that perception of the level
of enforcement that I am concerned about. Yes, I could handle complaints only, but the law doesn't
say that, that's my concern.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Nowick?

LEG. NOWICK:
No. My question has been asked and answered.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Charlie.

MR. GARDINER:
You're welcome.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Thank you, Commissioner.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Cooper, what's your pleasure?



                                                                                                            11
LEG. COOPER:
Motion to recess, please.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to recess. We have a second?

MR. MONTANO:
I'll second it.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Montano. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Seventeen. (Not Present: Leg. Mystal)

P.O. LINDSAY:
I.R. 2349 - A Local Law amending the Domestic Partner Registry Law. I don't have any
cards on this subject. Anyone in the audience want to speak on this subject? Seeing none, what is
your pleasure, Legislator Cooper?

LEG. COOPER:
Motion to close.


P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to close. Do I have a second?

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Motion to recess.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second to recess. I'm still looking for a motion -- a second to close.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
I'll second it.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second to close by Legislator Viloria-Fisher. Okay. Recessing takes precedent. Roll call.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes to recess.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes to recess.

LEG. COOPER:
No.

LEG. D'AMARO:
No.



                                                                                                    112
LEG. STERN:
No.

LEG. MYSTAL:
No.

LEG. HORSLEY:
No.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes to recess.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yes.

LEG. MONTANO:
No.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
No.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yes.

LEG. BROWNING:
No.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
No.

P.O. LINDSAY:
No.

MR. LAUBE:
Eight.

P.O. LINDSAY:
What was the count?

MR. LAUBE:
Eight.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Eight. So it failed. Okay. Motion to close. Roll call.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)



                                                         113
LEG. COOPER:
Yes to close.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
(Not Present)

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
No.

LEG. KENNEDY:
No.

LEG. BARRAGA:
No.

LEG. ALDEN:
No.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
No.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
No.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
No.

LEG. ROMAINE:
No.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.


                         114
LEG. ALDEN:
You have a cameo appearance by Legislator Mystal.

MR. LAUBE:
Ten.

P.O. LINDSAY:
What was the count?

MR. LAUBE:
Ten.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Next, 2414. No. 2413 - A Charter Law creating a program for public financing of County
campaigns and the banning of certain donations to curb potential conflicts of interest. I
have one card, Robert Tuerlings.

MR. TUERLINGS:
Good afternoon, Mr. Presiding Officer.


P.O. LINDSAY:
Hi, Bob.

MR. TUERLINGS:
Good afternoon, Legislators. How is everybody.

P.O. LINDSAY:
How are you?

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
John, speak into the mike.

MR. TUERLINGS:
Okay. Sorry about that. For those who don't know me, my name is Bob Tuerlings. I'm the
Executive Vice President from the Association of Municipal Employees. I'm here today to ask for
your opposition vote to I.R. 2413. A written statement is going to be mailed to every one of the
Legislators here today explaining in detail why we oppose it. But very quickly, today, briefly, I
would like to say that any restrictions or changes to our current Political Action Committee policy
would severely hamper the union's ability to get the needs of our membership, or also Suffolk
County taxpayers, achieved.

As most of you know, AME has had a very active PAC, Political Action Committee, and this is the way
our messages have been relayed through lobbying and through our PAC Committee. Our PAC has
supported elected officials that have supported and stepped up to the plate for AME's needs. We
also believe that by changing the current policy, the level of communications between the union and
the elected officials would be strained. Therefore, the interests of our members would be hurt. The
eighty-five hundred or so of our members, the interests would be not heard. So, again, we urge you
to oppose I.R. 2413. Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Thank you. I don't have any other cards. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in the
audience? Mr. Zwirn, you want to comment?

MR. ZWIRN:


                                                                                                      115
Just that the County Exec would ask that you would move to close this hearing at this time and send
it to the committee.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
I'll make a motion to close.

P.O. LINDSAY:
We have a motion to close.

LEG. COOPER:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Cooper. Do you want to speak on the motion, Legislator Kennedy?

LEG. KENNEDY:
I was going to make a motion to recess.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to recess, second to recess. Recessing takes precedent.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Roll call.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Roll call.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
No.

LEG. D'AMARO:
No.

LEG. STERN:
No.

LEG. MYSTAL:
No.

LEG. HORSLEY:
No.



                                                                                                      116
LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yes to recess.

LEG. MONTANO:
Pass.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
No.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes to recess.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yes.

LEG. BROWNING:
No.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
No.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I'm going to vote no, but with this proviso. I want to get this bill out of the way, because I don't
agree with it.

LEG. MONTANO:
Ditto, no.

MR. LAUBE:
Eight.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to close. Roll call.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.


                                                                                                       117
LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes, with the same proviso.

LEG. KENNEDY:
No.

LEG. BARRAGA:
No.


LEG. ALDEN:
No.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
No.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
No.

LEG. BROWNING:
Like Bill said, yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
No.

LEG. ROMAINE:
No.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Eleven.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. 2415 - A Charter Law to expand -- oh, 14, I'm sorry. I'm one ahead of myself. (2414) A
Charter Law requiring Legislator line item Budget Amendment Identification.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Do we have to fill out cards?

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yeah, right.


                                                                                               118
D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Photo I.D.?

LEG. COOPER:
Motion to recess.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I don't have any cards on this. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this
subject? Seeing none, I ever a motion by Legislator Cooper to recess. I'm going to make a motion
to close.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Me, too.


D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
I'll second that.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Second that.

MR. MONTANO:
I'll second that.

LEG. ROMAINE:
I'll second that. Get rid of this one.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Just so I got my facts straight, maybe we could get an explanation, Counsel, on what this does.

LEG. ALDEN:
I know what it does, too. It makes it more identifiable for veto purposes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yeah. Oh, he introduced it. Let's kill it.

P.O. LINDSAY:
You've been very good. You've been very good all day.

MR. NOLAN:
It just states that the surname of the Legislator sponsoring each line item amendment in an omnibus
resolution will be stated.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. We have a motion to recess and a motion to close. Did we get a second to the recess?

MR. LAUBE:
No, you don't have a second on either one.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Anybody want to second the recess?

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Second the motion to close.



                                                                                                      119
P.O. LINDSAY:
No. We have multiple seconds to close. We don't have a second to the recess.

LEG. COOPER:
I withdraw the recess.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
He said he didn't have a second to close.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Oh, you didn't have a --

MR. LAUBE:
You don't have a second on either one. You haven't selected anybody.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Oh, God, we had more seconds to the closing motion.

MR. LAUBE:
You have to pick one.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
You didn't name one.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Oh, I didn't name one.

MR. LAUBE:
Pick a lucky winner.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Pick a winner.

LEG. MYSTAL:
You and Daniel.

LEG. COOPER:
Pick me, pick me.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Ooh, ooh, Mr. Kotter, Mr. Kotter.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
We'll take the Minority Leader.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Losquadro is the second.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
So it's bipartisan.

MR. LAUBE:
You need a second on the motion to recess, though.

P.O. LINDSAY:
But we didn't get one.


                                                                               120
D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
We didn't get one.

LEG. COOPER:
I withdrew it.

MR. LAUBE:
You withdrew it?

LEG. MYSTAL:
It was withdrawn.

MR. LAUBE:
Then that's that.

P.O. LINDSAY:
All in favor? Opposed?

LEG. ALDEN:
Of what?

P.O. LINDSAY:
Closing. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. So it's closed.

MR. LAUBE:
It's closed.

LEG. ALDEN:
Boy, am I glad this wasn't in place the last year.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2415 - A Charter Law to expand sex offender notification requirements I have no cards on
this subject. Legislator Eddington, what's your pleasure?

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Motion to close.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to close.

LEG. COOPER:
Second.

LEG. BROWNING:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Cooper. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?



                                                                                           12
MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2431 - A Local Law to reduce emissions of pollutants from diesel fuel motor vehicles
operated on or behalf of Suffolk County. And I have one card, Michael Seilback.

MR. SEILBACK:
Good afternoon. My name is Michael Seilback, Senior Director of Coalitions and Policy for the
American Lung Association of New York State. I'm here to speak on behalf of the Lung Association
to urge the Legislature to pass I.R. 2431, the Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Bill. The intent of the
legislation would be to mandate the use of ultra low sulfur diesel and best available retrofit
technology for the fleet of on-road and non-road heavy duty vehicles owned or under contract by
Suffolk County. Similar bills have already been enacted into law in New York City, Westchester, and
Rockland Counties. Nassau County Legislature also recently unanimously passed similar legislation.

Before I go into the merits of this legislation, I'd like to urge you to make a couple of technical
amendments to this bill. As the bill is currently written, it is not accomplishing the intent of the bill
as written in Section 1. Specifically, Section 3 only applies to County-owned vehicles, but does not
deal with the vehicles under contract with the County. Section 4 deals with non-road vehicles under
Public Works contracts, but does not deal with County-owned not -- County-owned non-road
vehicles. To accomplish the written intent of this legislation, and to make it conform with the laws
passed in our surrounding counties, the bill must apply to all on-road and non-road vehicles owned
or under contract. Right now, it's only accomplishing half of that intent.

To the merits of this bill, once the bill is amended, I wanted to mention that, as you might be aware,
the County Executives of Suffolk, Nassau, Putnam, Rockland, and Westchester signed a Statement
of Intent with New York City, the New York State Department of Transportation, the Federal
Highway Administration, and the EPA declaring that they'd work altogether to curb diesel emissions.
The passage of this legislation with the technical amendments would allow Suffolk to deliver on one
of its commitments. This bill will reduce exposure to a pollutant that is listed by the USEPA as a
human carcinogen, which is shown by a wealth of science to trigger asthma attacks, that's linked to
deaths in senior -- premature deaths in seniors, and it's associated with both ambient levels of
ozone and fine particle matter.

The American Lung Association State of the Air 2006 Report found failing ozone levels in Suffolk
County, and ranked its air the second most unhealthy in New York State. For Suffolk County
residents whose health is impacted by air pollution, there truly is no escape.

According to data by the Clean Air Task Force, Suffolk County ranks in the 95th percentile for worst
in the nation for counties under the most risk from diesel soot. Exposure to these pollutants could
be attributed to almost 2,000 asthma attacks and 80 premature deaths annually within the County
alone. The American Lung Association of New York State strongly supports the passage of this
legislation with the suggested technical amendment. But until that point, we urge you to recess this
hearing until those amendments could be added. Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Thank you, Mr. Sielback. I don't have any other cards on this subject. Is there anyone else in the
audience that would like to speak on this subject? Seeing none, Legislator Cooper, what's your --

LEG. COOPER:
Motion to recess.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to recess. Do I have a second?



                                                                                                            122
LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Second.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Second that.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Losquadro. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
That concludes the public hearings for today's agenda.

MR. LAUBE:
That was 17. (Not Present: Leg. Kennedy)

P.O. LINDSAY:
I'd like to set the date for the following public hearings of Tuesday, December, 19th, 2006, at 2:30
P.M., at the General Meeting of the Legislature at the Rose Caracappa Auditorium, Hauppauge, New
York. I.R. 2441 - The Charter Law strengthening Legislative oversight of real property donations
and transfer of development rights; I.R. 2442 - A Charter Law transferring certain functions of the
Department of Human Resources, Personnel and Civil Service, Division of Human Resources, to the
Department of Audit and Control; I.R. 2527 - A Local Law conforming Article 2 of Chapter 712 of the
Suffolk County Code for implementation of Workforce Housing Projects, and I.R. 2531 - Adopting an
official map for Suffolk County.

MR. NOLAN:
You need a motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I'll make a motion. Do I have a second?

LEG. MYSTAL:
Second.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Mystal. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Seventeen. (Not Present: Leg. Kennedy)

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. I think we left off on Page --

LEG. MYSTAL:
Ten.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Ten.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:


                                                                                                       123
Mr. Chair.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
I apologize. I have a request just to take a very brief five-minute recess, if we could, from a couple
of members, if we could just -- I'll be back in here in five minutes, even if they're not.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Five-minute recess.

  [THE MEETING WAS RECESSED AT 4:17 P.M. AND RESUMED AT 4:30 P.M.]

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Mr. Clerk, you want to call the roll?

MR. LAUBE:
Yes.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. ROMAINE:
Present.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Here.

LEG. BROWNING:
(Not Present)

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Still here.

MR. LAUBE:
Losquadro.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Losquadro.

MR. LAUBE:
He's here.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Are you here?

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Present. Yes, I'm here and accounted for.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
I'm here.

MR. MONTANO:
I'm here.

LEG. ALDEN:


                                                                                                         124
Here.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Here.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Here.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Here.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Here.

LEG. STERN:
Here.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Here.

LEG. COOPER:
Here.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Here.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Here.

MR. LAUBE:
And there's Kate. 18.

        ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION AND ENERGY

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. I.R. 2365 - Accepting and appropriating a grant award from the State University of
New York for a --

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
-- Community College Workforce Development Training Grants Program for Innovative
Stone --

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
What does that mean?

P.O. LINDSAY:
I have no idea. Eighty-eight percent reimbursed by State funds at Suffolk County
Community College. I will make a motion.

LEG. MONTANO:


                                                                                           125
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second.

LEG. ALDEN:
Name is Innovative Stone.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Oh, okay. Okay. Any other questions about it? All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2366 - Accepting and appropriating grant award amendment from the State University of
New York for a Community College Workforce Development Training Grants Program for
the Alliance of Long Island Agencies, Incorporated, 56% reimbursed by State funds at
Suffolk County Community College.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Motion.

MR. MONTANO:
Motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Montano.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Horsley. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

          ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING AND AGRICULTURE

P.O. LINDSAY:
1662 - Authorizing planning steps for the acquisition under Suffolk County Multifaceted
Land Preservation Program, Riverhead Meadows Property, Town of Riverhead.


LEG. ROMAINE:
Motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Viloria-Fisher. Any questions? All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?


                                                                                          126
MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2303 - Approving the acquisition of the assets of the Ocean Bay Park Water Corporation
by the Suffolk County Water Authority. I'll make a motion.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Losquadro. All in favor?

LEG. ALDEN:
I'm sorry.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Go ahead.

LEG. ALDEN:
Bill your the sponsor on this. That includes the liabilities and the accounting, and they've had Legal
look at this? Sometimes they have outstanding lawsuits and other types of --

MR. NOLAN:
The Water Authority asked for this resolution.

LEG. ALDEN:
Fine.

P.O. LINDSAY:
We're assuming that they looked at all that, you know.

LEG. ALDEN:
Okay.

P.O. LINDSAY:
We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2355 - Approving planning steps for the acquisition of Farmland Development Rights. It
just says December 2006.

LEG. COOPER:
Motion to approve.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to approve.

LEG. STERN:
Second.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:


                                                                                                         127
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second. Is there someone from the Exec's Office in the audience that can explain? It's just
usually --

MR. NOLAN:
It's like a bunch.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yeah, it's a -- okay.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
It's the recommendation of the Farmland Committee on a number of properties --

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
-- that would be farmland acquisitions.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Is that incorrect, or correct me if I'm wrong, somebody back there. I saw people jumping up.

MR. BIELANSKI:
Ben Zwirn will be right here.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
I'll look at the bill. I thought that's what -- isn't this the bill that we saw the list?

MR. NOLAN:
Yes. It's 208 acres. It's a list. It's all been approved by the Farmland Committee.

P.O. LINDSAY:
But it's -- why it didn't mention a specific site, because it's multiple sites.

MR. NOLAN:
Multiple sites.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. We have a motion and a second.

MR. LAUBE:
Who was the second? Several people said second.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
I'll second.

MR. LAUBE:
Jay.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Schneiderman.


                                                                                               128
MR. LAUBE:
Gotcha.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
List me as a cosponsor, please.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
And I've been listed as a cosponsor, Mr. Laube?

MR. LAUBE:
Yes, sir.

P.O. LINDSAY:
All right. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Would the Clerk please list me as a cosponsor, please.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Me also.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
I think you already are.

LEG. COOPER:
And me as well.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
You are already, Ed.

LEG. ROMAINE:
You can never be careful enough.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
I'm looking at the legislation.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I.R. 2377 - Authorizing the acquisition of Farmland Development Rights under the Suffolk
County Save Open Space (SOS), Farmland Preservation and Hamlet Parks Fund for the
Benner Farm.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Town of Brookhaven.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Viloria-Fisher, second by Legislator Eddington.


                                                                                           129
LEG. COOPER:
Wait, wait. I want you to read all those numbers.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I try to avoid that. I'm liable to put the period in the wrong place.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Okay.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Motion and a second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I.R. 2378 - Authorizing the acquisition of Farmland Development Rights under the Suffolk
County Save Open Space (SOS), Farmland Preservation and Hamlets Parks Fund for the
Apostel- Stevenson Farm. Town of Southold.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Motion.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
And, Legislator Romaine, you are a cosponsor.

P.O. LINDSAY:
We have a motion by --

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
I'll second it.

P.O. LINDSAY:
-- Legislator Romaine.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Viloria-Fisher. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2379 - Authorizing the acquisition of land under the Suffolk County.
Save Open Space Preservation Program - Abel and Delarue property Patchogue River
wetlands addition Town of Brookhaven.



                                                                                           130
LEG. EDDINGTON:
Motion to approve.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Eddington.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Second.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Losquadro. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2380 - Authorizing the acquisition of land under the Suffolk County Drinking Water
Protection Program - Open Space component - for the Roehrich property - Gould Pond
addition - Town of Brookhaven.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to approve.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
I'd like to second that. And on the motion, I would just like to say something quickly. I'm very
happy to see this happening. Legislator Caracappa, you remember years ago I tried to introduce
this. That was when Lake Grove was divided into three parts.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yes, I know that very well.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
And I discovered it wasn't in my district, and so we thought it was in yours. You tried to introduce
it. We discovered it wasn't in your district either, it was in Legislator Holst's district at that time.
And so it's good to finally see it done.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Well, on that motion. As a matter of fact, lo and behold, the 12th comes along and this expands the
total amount of holdings through Gould's Pond now to a total of 10 acres, including the water body
itself and about 4 acres of open grass and a wooded area adjacent to it. So it's a good purchase.
Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Does it flood?

LEG. KENNEDY:
No. As a matter of fact, fortunately, this end of the district is high, Bill. We don't have to worry
about what basement's here. Most other places, but not here.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I.R. 20 -- oh, we didn't vote on it. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed?
Abstentions?



                                                                                                           13
MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I.R. 2427 - Authorizing planning steps for acquisition of land under the first 1/4% Suffolk
County Drinking Water Protection Program, Town of Smithtown - Caldria property.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes. As a matter of fact, I'll make a motion to approve on this one. This is actually property that's
adjacent to the Lilly Pond Preserve in Lake Ronkonkoma, vacant.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Viloria-Fisher. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
1952 - A Local Law to require proper supervision at hotel and motel swimming pools.

LEG. COOPER:
Motion to approve.


P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to approve by Legislator Cooper.

LEG. STERN:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Stern. On the question.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Just to notify the Clerk that I'm recusing myself from this vote.

MR. LAUBE:
Yes, sir, got it.

LEG. ALDEN:
On the motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Alden.

LEG. ALDEN:
We had a number of people that came down and spoke to this issue. Has modifications been made
to the bill or --

LEG. COOPER:
Yes. I worked with their association and I revised the surface area for the pools, changed it to
fifteen hundred square feet. So it basically only covers the larger swimming pools, which are
primarily at the larger hotels in Western Suffolk County, because I agree, that it could have had an


                                                                                                        132
inadvertent impact on the small mom and pop motels on the East End, where it's very difficult for
them to find lifeguards and -- so, anyway, the Association now is in support of the resolution.

LEG. ALDEN:
Is there still and economic impact on anybody that would fall under this? Because some of them,
even the larger operations, came down and said that, you know, they post regulations and they
don't allow certain age children to be unaccompanied by a parent to go swimming. So they also said
that it would be fairly onerous on them to hire people that were required under this bill. Have you
taken into consideration what the --

LEG. COOPER:
Well, I mean, a copy of the revised resolution, the final resolution went to the Long Island
Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Long Island Association, all the groups I had been working with,
and no one objected to the --

LEG. ALDEN:
So they all support this?

LEG. COOPER:
They had it for several weeks and there were no objections. And the Motel and Hotel Lodging
Association, which expressed the greatest concerns, worked with me very closely in drafting the
revised resolution.

P.O. LINDSAY:
And just again to the sponsor, this would be enforced by the Health Department?

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Do we have a manning problem there as well?

MR. NOLAN:
I actually spoke to the Health Department while drafting this and I believe they are supportive.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Legislator Nowick.

LEG. NOWICK:
Legislator Cooper, this means only certain size hotel/motels?

LEG. COOPER:
Well, no, it's the size of the pool.

LEG. NOWICK:
The size of the pool.

LEG. COOPER:
So, if the --

P.O. LINDSAY:
Could be one room, but a big pool.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes. So --



                                                                                                       133
LEG. COOPER:
So, for -- it only applies to swimming pools that are at least fifteen hundred square feet, which is a
large pool.

LEG. NOWICK:
Well, what is that in length and width?

LEG. COOPER:
Oh, I don't know.

LEG. NOWICK:
Gees, I don't know. Okay. Fifteen hundred, that's a big pool?

P.O. LINDSAY:
It's Olympic.

LEG. COOPER:
That's what, 40 by 40 --

LEG. NOWICK:
That's Olympic size?

LEG. COOPER:
-- approximately.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Fifteen hundred.

LEG. NOWICK:
Well, just quickly, so I know, this would mean that the operators or owners would have to hire
somebody all day long to sit at the pool in the summer, or whenever it's open.

LEG. COOPER:
Right. Whenever the pool -- whenever a pool of that size or larger is in operation, they would have
to have someone who is qualified Level 2A or a Level 3 --

LEG. NOWICK:
I see that.

LEG. COOPER:
-- supervision.

LEG. NOWICK:
And you're saying that the Association, the Hotel/Motel Associations are in favor of this and support
this?

LEG. COOPER:
The primary concerns were expressed, and I can't remember the name of the association, but it
was -- Jay, you may know, but I think it was the Hotel and Motel Lodging Association. Anyway, it
was primarily the smaller motels on the East End that explained that, number one, they didn't have
as many guests, so it might be cost prohibitive for them to have to hire a lifeguard for the relatively
small number of people that would be guests at their locale.

LEG. NOWICK:
So the answer is yes?



                                                                                                          134
LEG. COOPER:
And, number two, that it's much harder to hire lifeguards on the East End, because of the distance
that they have to commute. So it was less of a problem at the larger hotels on the West End, let's
say the Huntington Hilton.

LEG. NOWICK:
Okay. I just --

LEG. COOPER:
And they have no problem.

LEG. NOWICK:
I understand that. I just want to know. So the answer is yes, that the Hotel/Motel Association is in
favor of this?

LEG. COOPER:
I can't remember the name of the association, but the association representing the motels on the
East End that expressed the greatest concern. They had several people that came out to testify --

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
I think it's the Montauk Chamber of Commerce.

LEG. COOPER:
-- to express their concerns before the Legislature and they contacted me. I addressed their
concerns.

LEG. NOWICK:
Okay. Thank you.

LEG. COOPER:
Jay, do you remember the name of the --

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
I think it was the Montauk Chamber of Commerce that most --

LEG. COOPER:
Well, no, no. That was another organization. I was contacted by a lot. But I think that everyone is
satisfied with the current version of the resolution. As I said, I haven't heard any objections to the
revised bill.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. I could close the --

LEG. COOPER:
But, no, look. I will say, I mean, if anyone -- if someone has concerns and if you have ties to an
organization and if you wanted to double check with them, I'd be willing to table this for a couple of
weeks. I mean, I really think I've addressed everyone's concerns, but it's not time sensitive, so --

LEG. NOWICK:
I wouldn't mind --

LEG. COOPER:
-- if you feel that strongly.

LEG. NOWICK:
-- tabling and hearing from some of the associations.


                                                                                                         135
LEG. COOPER:
Okay. But I would just ask that, you know, if you have any concerns, if you can reach -- I mean, I
don't know who to reach out to. As I know, I was contact by a lot of people initially who had
concerns. I don't remember everyone that called my office or wrote to my office. I do know that we
sent a copy of the revised resolution to I think everyone that contacted us, and I never heard back
from anyone with -- expressing concerns about the revised bill. So I'm not -- I'm not going to make
an effort to contact every single person that's called my office. I'm assuming that if they had any
issues, the revised bill --

LEG. NOWICK:
But, at this point, you have letters from associations that are saying, "Yes, we agree with you, we're
in favor of it"?

LEG. COOPER:
Again, the one that expressed the greatest concern is the Motel and Lodging Association, or
whatever it's called.

LEG. NOWICK:
Okay.

LEG. COOPER:
But I don't -- I don't recall the name. But they -- as I said, I worked with them, we came up with
the fifteen hundred as a compromise. It also used to have a height restriction, that was eliminated
working with them. So, again, they had the primary objections and they're fine with the resolution
as it now stands.

LEG. NOWICK:
Well, I would support a tabling motion. I'm just so uncomfortable about over-governing.

LEG. COOPER:
That's really fine. I'll try to reach out to at least a couple of the key organizations like the Long
Island Convention and Visitors Bureau, that one organization, and I'll try to get something in writing
from them by the next meeting. So I make a motion to table the resolution.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. A motion to table. Legislator Nowick, are you going to second the tabling motion? Legislator
Nowick?

LEG. NOWICK:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? (Vote: 18)

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2259 - Approving the appointment of Norma Downey as a member of the Suffolk County
Community Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities and Alcohol
and Substance Abuse Planning and Advisory Board.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Motion to approve.



                                                                                                         136
LEG. HORSLEY:
Motion to approve.


P.O. CARACAPPA:
Motion by Legislator Mystal, seconded by Legislator Horsley.

LEG. ALDEN:
Just quickly, on the motion, through the Chair. She came down and she has the time to serve and
all that?

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2287 - A Local Law expanding income eligibility limits for real property tax exemption for
people with disabilities.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Motion to approve.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion.

LEG. STERN:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Romaine, and Legislator -- second by Legislator Stern. All in favor? Opposed?
Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Would the Clerk please list me as a cosponsor?

MR. LAUBE:
Yes, sir.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2374 - Amending the 2006 Adopted Operating Budget to transfer funding for the
reimbursement of malpractice insurance paid by the Peconic Bay Medical Center for
Physicians at the Riverhead Health Center.


                                                                                                     137
LEG. MYSTAL:
Motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Mystal. Do I have a second?

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
I'll second it.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Eddington. On the question, Legislator Alden.

LEG. ALDEN:
This actually was an issue with the Bay Shore Health Center and Southside Hospital. Was this done
for all the health centers or just for this one?

LEG. MYSTAL:
The Riverhead Health Center.

P.O. LINDSAY:
If you'd permit, would the Administration like to answer that?

LEG. ALDEN:
Oh.

MR. KOVESDY:
Thank you.

LEG. ALDEN:
I didn't see him there. I'm sorry.

MR. KOVESDY:
Allen Kovesdy for the County Exec's Office. The Health Department --

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
That mike can't be on.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yeah, it's on. He's just got to get real close to it.

MR. KOVESDY:
Thank you. This is a pseudocode for the Peconic Bay Hospital. It was underfunded, and there was
no place within the appropriation to move money into it to pay the bill. Therefore, being a
pseudocode, we had to take money from someplace else in the Health Department to pay it. It's a
one-time expense. The malpractice insurance will not be in the budget next year, so it's just to pay
an existing bill.

LEG. ALDEN:
I'm not sure I follow you. This is for malpractice insurance.

MR. KOVESDY:
Yes. There's a line in the contract with the Peconic Bay for malpractice insurance. The line was
insufficient to pay the bills. In order to pay it, we have to transfer money. You cannot transfer
money from -- into a pseudocode without a resolution, that's why it's being done that way.



                                                                                                       138
LEG. ALDEN:
Now, I know this was an issue with Southside running both the Brentwood Health Center and also
the Bay Shore Health Center. Is this in line with? Is there parity between the treatment here and --
as opposed to the treatment at Bay Shore and Southside -- I mean, Brentwood?

MR. KOVESDY:
There'll be complete parity between all the health centers next
January 1st. This was an exception this year.

LEG. ALDEN:
This was an exception. This is above and beyond what we paid at the other ones.

MR. KOVESDY:
No. This is a one-time event that the account was underfunded, and they had to move money, and
there was no money to move. There was no money within the appropriate -- within the pseudocode
to move into the right account, so they had to move money from outside a different line in the
Health Department, and in order to do that, you needed a resolution, because this is a contract
agency. That's the only reason why.

LEG. ALDEN:
But malpractice insurance was an issue from Southside Hospital's point of view for the Bay Shore
Health Center, the Brentwood and the C.I. Health Centers.

MR. KOVESDY:
I can't answer that question. I can just -- I can address this one, because I'm familiar with this
particular case.

LEG. ALDEN:
So you don't know how much was paid to Southside for their -- the malpractice insurance covering
those health centers, or even over to Good Sam for the one in --

MR. KOVESDY:
No. All I can tell you, this is a legitimate bill that has to be paid, and they're just moving money
from one account in the Health Department into another account in the Health Department, and it
has to be done by resolution.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Legislator Kennedy.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Kovesdy, you said that this is a one-time expense -- I'm sorry, one time
to pay the bill for this year. Is there going to be malpractice insurance in place in '07 with this
contract or no?

MR. KOVESDY:
First of all, next year, there's additional money put into all the health centers, so all the health
centers will have enough money to call cover all their expenses in their budget.

LEG. ALDEN:
By the Legislature.

MR. KOVESDY:
So it shouldn't be an issue next year. I can't answer your direct question, John, but I know that
there's sufficient money in all the contracts next year, so it won't be an issue.

LEG. KENNEDY:


                                                                                                       139
You have to add Legislator Alden's comment to that, thanks to us, Allen, but --

MR. KOVESDY:
Okay.

LEG. KENNEDY:
But -- so you can't answer me as to whether or not there's going to be malpractice insurance in
place --

MR. KOVESDY:
I think they're --

LEG. KENNEDY:
-- for this clinic or any other clinic in '07?

MR. KOVESDY:
No. I think they're all indemnified, indemnified, if I pronounced that correctly, next year in the
contracts.

LEG. KENNEDY:
This is a conversation, unfortunately, I get to have too frequently in a different committee in a
different venue, and I don't particularly choose to have that conversation again. I was glad to see
that we had malpractice, but now I'm confused.

MR. KOVESDY:
I think -- there is malpractice. Everybody is covered. This is a unique case where there wasn't
enough money this year to pay a bill. And that's all -- that's all it accounts to.

LEG. KENNEDY:
I'm underwhelmed, Allen. Thank you.

MR. KOVESDY:
You're welcome.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Romaine.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes. Good morning -- afternoon, Mr. Kovesdy. I understand that this is a legitimate bill. I
understand that we're moving money from the Health Department from somewhere else in the
Health Department to pay for this. And you're saying that we did not have enough money in this
account.

MR. KOVESDY:
This particular line item, yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
And this is part of the contract.

MR. KOVESDY:
Yes. It's one of a large number of items in a contract.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Right.

MR. KOVESDY:


                                                                                                      140
Right.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Okay. How does something get underfunded in a contract?

MR. KOVESDY:
There's a million lines in a contract. We could have transferred, hypothetically, money from a salary
account to pay this bill and then the salary account --

LEG. ROMAINE:
Would have been short.

MR. KOVESDY:
-- would have been short. So we're just identifying where the true expense is and we're paying the
bill. We could -- they could have moved the money from anyplace to cover this bill, but it would
have been short someplace else.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Don't get me wrong, I'm voting for this resolution. This is my concern, and I'll -- the hour is late, so
I'll make it quick. My concern is malpractice insurance is -- the rate at which you pay that insurance
is known usually at the time that you draft these contracts. And unless there was some outside
increase that affected this contract, someone underfunded this contract in the Budget Office by not
adequately describing the money that was needed. If there's some other explanation, let me know,
because, at this point, I'm just putting this on the record, because someone deliberately
underfunded this line when they knew what the malpractice insurance was, and now it's trying to
clean up, because the bill is coming due before the end of the year. Is that the case or is there
another explanation here?

MR. KOVESDY:
I really don't want to get into this. Basically, the --

LEG. ROMAINE:
Sure.

MR. KOVESDY:
The line was underfunded. We've identified where they're underfunded and we're correcting it.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Allen, I'm not going to pressure you. I'm just going to state for the record, someone deliberately --

MR. KOVESDY:
I don't think it was --

LEG. ROMAINE:
-- underfunded this line. And when they presented this contract in the Legislature, and this is my
complaint, when they presented this contract to the Legislature, represented it to us that this was an
adequate funding line for malpractice insurance. And now, at the end of the year, with the bill due,
has to come back and move money. I don't like, when we rely on the Executive, for the Executive's
Branch to misrepresent the adequate cost of things in a contract. Point taken and that's --

MR. KOVESDY:
Thank you.

LEG. ROMAINE:
That's it. Thank you.



                                                                                                           14
P.O. LINDSAY:
I mean, it is possible that we got a bill that, you know, increased the malpractice insurance. You
know, maybe the claims were up or the experience was up? I don't know the first thing about
malpractice insurance, but I'm sure that's possible.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Possible, but not probable. Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Thank you.

MR. KOVESDY:
You're welcome.

P.O. LINDSAY:
We have a motion and a second; am I correct, Mr. Clerk?

MR. LAUBE:
Yes, you are.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

LEG. ALDEN:
Abstain.

MR. LAUBE:
Seventeen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2399 - Approving the Vector Control Plan of the Department of Public Works, Division of
Vector Control, pursuant to Section C8-4(B)(2) of the Suffolk County Charter.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Motion.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Motion to approve.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Viloria-Fisher. And the second was?

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
He can make the motion, I'll be the second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Oh, okay. Motion by Legislator Mystal, second by Legislator Viloria-Fisher. And before we even
have any questions, we have some answers.

MR. JEFFREYS:
Thank you, Members. From the County Attorney's Office, my name is Chris Jeffreys. I've been
involved in the Vector Control Program since 2002. I've presented each year from 2003 up until the
present. In front of you all, I hope that you have had the opportunity to take a look at what went
through the Health Committee. We've reprinted the entirety of the CEQ testimony from both
occasions at CEQ. We had an entire presentation at the Health Committee to get the requisite hard
look to make certain that the issues that were presented in opposition to this plan were thoroughly


                                                                                                      142
addressed. We've attempted to insert as many environmental concerns into this plan as possible
while we're awaiting the completion of the long-term plan.

As I've said to I believe everyone along the way who's been involved in this, this is, hopefully, the
last annual plan of work that we'll have without a long-term plan in place. The long-term plan is
fairly far along. My understanding is that it should be coming up shortly for the full Legislative body
to consider. That should be sometime in calendar year 2007. But because our Vector Control Plan
does expire December 31st of 2006, we have to do something to make certain that the preventive
measures that Vector Control does, even in the off-season, the surveillance, the larviciding, before
we get to the heart of the mosquito season from June through September and October, that we
have those measure in place. That's what this plan does. We've worked with everybody in this
body and in CEQ to attempt to reduce all potential environmental impacts. There was a negative
declaration voted by CEQ and approved by the Health Committee, and I would encourage a similar
vote here. If any has any questions concerning this plan or anything that's gone on with Vector
Control, Dominick Ninivaggi is here. I'm here to discuss any litigation issues.

LEG. ALDEN:
Call the vote.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Thank you very much for our anticipated questions. Does anybody have any questions? No? Okay.
We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
I'll abstain. Tim, list me as an abstention.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Mr. Jeffreys, stand there. Next one.

LEG. KENNEDY:
I'm in.

MR. LAUBE:
Got you, Jay.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Did we have one abstention?

MR. LAUBE:
Seventeen.

MS. ORTIZ:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Wait. John Kennedy's not here.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Just one abstention; is that right? Okay.

MR. LAUBE:
Sixteen. Oh, no, there he is, 17. Seventeen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
No. I think you had 17, didn't you?



                                                                                                          143
MR. LAUBE:
I do have 17.

LEG. KENNEDY:
You have me, Mr. Clerk.

MR. LAUBE:
Yes, sir.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. 2408A is a bonding resolution for Capital Budget and Program, and appropriating
funds in connection with the purchase of equipment for the Arthropod Borne Disease
Laboratory.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Arthropod.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Arthropod, okay.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Whatever.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Do we have a motion?

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Motion to approve.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Eddington.

LEG. COOPER:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Cooper. On the question. Go ahead, Legislator Alden.

LEG. ALDEN:
The reason why this is a 14-voter is because we're changing the method of payment. We were
supposed to pay for this with cash and now we're going to bond. And how much is the amount on
this one.

MR. NOLAN:
Forty-one thousand dollars.

LEG. ALDEN:
Probably the cost to print the material to bond this is getting close to doubling the price of this
project. I would suggest leaving this just in the Pay-As-You-Go Account. Forty-something thousand
dollars makes a lot of sense to just pay for it and get on with it. I won't support this.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Anyone else?

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Can we ask the County Exec?


                                                                                                      144
P.O. LINDSAY:
Go ahead yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
I just wanted to ask why we are bonding this.

MR. JEFFREYS:
Legislator Viloria-Fisher, on this particular project, ordinarily, Walter Dawydiak is the person who
would speak why we would be bonding and what this particular equipment is. I was not involved in
that particular aspect of this.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
I thought somebody from the County Executive's Office could respond to that.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Do we have anybody here from the Exec's Office in a policy role that could answer some of these
questions?

MR. JEFFREYS:
Let me see if I can find Mr. Zwirn.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. What I'm going to do is I see Jimmy Dahroug to get someone, so let's skip over this and we'll
go to the next one.

      LABOR, WORKFORCE, AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING

2307 - Authorizing the sale of County-owned real property pursuant to Section 72-h of the
General Municipal Law to the Town of Brookhaven for affordable housing purposes. I'll
make a motion.

LEG. BROWNING:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Browning. On the question, anybody? All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2309 - Authorizing the sale of County-owned real property pursuant to Section 72-h of the
General Municipal Law to the Town of Brookhaven for affordable housing purposes. Would
it be all right if we do same motion, same second, same vote?

LEG. BROWNING:
Good idea.

LEG. MYSTAL:
The next few.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2310 - Authorizing the sale of County-owned real property pursuant to Section 72-h of the
General Municipal Law to the Town of Brookhaven for affordable housing purposes. Same
motion, same second, same vote.


                                                                                                       145
2311 - Authorizing the sale of County-owned real property pursuant to Section 72-h of the
General Municipal Law for the Town of Brookhaven no affordable housing purposes. Same
motion, same second, same vote.

2312, authorizing the sale of County-owned real property pursuant to Section 72-h of the
General Municipal Law to the Town of Babylon for affordable housing purposes.

LEG. STERN:
Motion.


P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Stern made a motion, second by Legislator Mystal. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2314 - Authorizing the sale of County-owned real property pursuant to Section 72-h of the
General Municipal Law to the Town of Riverhead for affordable housing purposes. Does
Legislator Romaine want to make this motion?

LEG. ROMAINE:
Make a motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Romaine. Second? Anybody want to second it?

LEG. ALDEN:
I'll second it.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
I'll second it.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Alden. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

LEG. ROMAINE:
Clerk, list me as a cosponsor.

MR. LAUBE:
Yes, sir. Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2316 - Authorizing the sale of County-owned real property pursuant to Section 72-h of the
General Municipal Law for the Town of Islip for affordable housing purposes.

LEG. MONTANO:
Motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Montano.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Second.


                                                                                                   146
P.O. LINDSAY:
Seconded by Legislator Eddington. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

LEG. MONTANO:
List me as a cosponsor.


MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2362 - To approve the lease of vehicles in the Suffolk County Department of Labor in
compliance with Local Law No. 20-2003. I'll make a motion.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
I'll second it, but I just wanted just to comment as to what the make and model of the vehicles was.

P.O. LINDSAY:
They're Humvees.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Do we need a --

P.O. LINDSAY:
They're all Humvees.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Humvees?

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yeah.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Do we need an MV35 on these? Do we need to hold them for three days?

P.O. LINDSAY:
Is there someone available to answer Legislator Losquadro's question?   Thank you.

MR. O'ROURKE:
Ray O'Rourke from the Department of Labor. They're Chevy Impalas.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Okay. Very good. Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2368 - Amending the Suffolk County Classification and Salary Plan and the 2006 Operating
Budget in connection with new titles in the Department of Information Technology, Public
Works and Parks.



                                                                                                       147
LEG. BROWNING:
I make a motion.


P.O. LINDSAY:
Make a motion by Legislator Browning, and seconded by Legislator Viloria-Fisher.

LEG. KENNEDY:
On the motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
On the motion.

LEG. ROMAINE:
On the motion. Okay, Legislator Romaine, you go first, and then Kennedy, and then Alden.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes. I'd like to ask Counsel or Budget Review, whichever, how many new positions are being
created in the budget, and where they're being funded from?

P.O. LINDSAY:
Gail, if you permit me. Ben Zwirn, I see you joined us. Do you know what these positions are?

MR. ZWIRN:
Yeah. I'm here with Allen Kovesdy from the Budget Department. These are positions that will be
funded out of existing appropriations in the Department. They were requested by the Commissioner
of I.T., Sharon Cates-Williams, and the money is in the budget within the existing appropriations.

LEG. ROMAINE:
How many new positions are being created?

P.O. LINDSAY:
It looks like seven.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Seven new positions are being created. And how many positions are being abolished, if any?

MR. KOVESDY:
There will be -- there will be three positions abolished and --

LEG. ROMAINE:
And seven are being created.

MR. KOVESDY:
Let me just deal with one thing, please, Mr. Romaine.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Okay.

MR. KOVESDY:
In I.T., there are three people who have left. They had titles that were generic titles over the years.

LEG. ROMAINE:
All right.

MR. KOVESDY:


                                                                                                          148
Mrs. Williams has asked that they have specific titles which are more to the 21st Century than the
other ones.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Uh-huh.

MR. KOVESDY:
So, as these get filled, the Project Manager, the Systems Coordinator will be abolished and won't be
in next year's budget. It will be a direct trade-off, no additional funds are necessary. We can't
abolish the positions until we hire somebody. But you have the commitment that the positions that
the people have left will not be refilled. So it would be new in name, but there will not be an
addition to the number of positions within the department.

LEG. ROMAINE:
So, when this process is finished --

MR. KOVESDY:
In I.T., it will net out.

LEG. ROMAINE:
We will abolish three jobs?

MR. KOVESDY:
Three titles.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Three titles, and we will create seven.

MR. KOVESDY:
No. I'm talking about I.T.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Okay.

MR. KOVESDY:
I'm talking about the Information Project Coordinator, the Security Coordinator, the Website
Manager.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Okay.

MR. KOVESDY:
And the Website Specialist.

LEG. ROMAINE:
So we're going to trade --

MR. KOVESDY:
Those four positions. Those will be a trade-off, Ed.

LEG. ROMAINE:
What were the -- what were the old grades, what were the new grades for the titles involved? The
titles that you're abolishing, could you give me the grades for those?

MR. KOVESDY:
I think they were all above Grade 30.


                                                                                                       149
LEG. ROMAINE:
Okay. I see Information Project Coordinator was a 27. There's one here for 28.

MR. KOVESDY:
One's a 33, one's a 31. I don't know the other two off the top of my head.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
The Website Specialist?

LEG. ROMAINE:
Okay. Now -- right. Now --

MR. KOVESDY:
The ones that are -- that the people have left was Ray Gontasz, who left, John Ebeling, who retired,
and a lady who moved to the Health Department. They're taking those three positions that are high
level and they're going to put specialized titles. But it will be no -- it will net out to zero.

LEG. ROMAINE:
It will net out to zero.

MR. KOVESDY:
In I.T.

LEG. ROMAINE:
And what about in Works, will it net out to zero there?

MR. KOVESDY:
Basically, I don't want to speak for the Commissioner, but, basically, a gentleman was promoted to
Deputy Commissioner. This is back-filling his --

LEG. ROMAINE:
His position?

MR. KOVESDY:
His position.

LEG. ROMAINE:
And Parks?

MR. KOVESDY:
The gentleman or the lady who will be --


LEG. ROMAINE:
Parks Foundation Director?

MR. KOVESDY:
The position will be used for grants, to go after grants and to bring grants into the department.

LEG. ROMAINE:
But this is a net plus there.

MR. KOVESDY:
Yes, it is.



                                                                                                       150
LEG. ROMAINE:
And how is that being funded?

MR. KOVESDY:
Existing funds.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Okay. Now let me ask you about the Civil Service status of these positions. Are they all open
competitive Civil Service status positions?

MR. KOVESDY:
I wouldn't know the answer to that. I know that the ones in Civil Service will be tested. The one's
coming out of I.T. will be tested. I don't know the other ones off the top of my head.

LEG. ROMAINE:
The Parks Foundation Director, is that an appointed position? Is that -- is there a Civil Service test
for that position?

MR. KOVESDY:
I don't know the answer to that one.

MR. NOLAN:
Which position?

P.O. LINDSAY:
The Parks Foundation Director. We might have the answer here.

LEG. ROMAINE:
And Assistant Director of Buildings Operations and Maintenance, is that --

MR. KOVESDY:
They'll have to meet -- they'll have to meet certain qualifications for that one.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Well, that's for any government job. Allen, I'm asking, do they -- are they eventually going to be
required to take a test?

P.O. LINDSAY:
I think -- I think we have the answer over here. Counsel has the answer for some of your
questions.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Okay. Thank you.

MR. NOLAN:
I think that position is indicated as noncompetitive.

LEG. ROMAINE:
So, which means that there will be no test.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Right.

LEG. ROMAINE:
And it will be appointed.



                                                                                                         15
P.O. LINDSAY:
Right.

MR. NOLAN:
I believe that's correct, yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Thank you. Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. We have a motion, Mr. Clerk, and a second?

LEG. KENNEDY:
Mr. Chair.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Oh, I'm sorry. I have a list here. What's the matter with me? Legislator Kennedy.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Kovesdy, I heard you just go through the representations.
My interest goes to the Parks Foundation Director in particular. Is this a position that was requested
by the Department?

MR. ZWIRN:
Yes.

MR. KOVESDY:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Because I sat through the budget hearing, as a matter of fact, when the Commissioner,
Commissioner Foley was there. And, as a matter of fact, we had quite a discussion about his need
for a Grants Technician and for a budget person. As a matter of fact, he was assigned a Grade 36
from the Health Department. But at no time did he ever mention that he had a need for a Grade 30
Parks Foundation Director.

MR. ZWIRN:
Well, Legislator Kennedy, what this individual is -- hopefully they'll be doing is looking for donations,
going around getting whatever sponsorships they can to try to, you know, bring more revenue into
the parks, give a lesser burden to the taxpayers of the County. I mean, just look for other ways to
fund and bring other revenues in.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Well, I think that, as a matter of fact, you know, those are all admirable categories. But, at this
point right now, I don't think we have -- what is the salary associated with a Grade 30? Maybe BRO
can tell me. What's entry level on a Grade 30.

MR. KOVESDY:
About 70-odd thousand.

LEG. KENNEDY:
So 70-odd thousand. So the taxpayers of Suffolk County right now, as a matter of fact --

MR. KOVESDY:
He said entry level.



                                                                                                            152
LEG. KENNEDY:
-- have that gain, they have that savings of 70 grand. We're prepared to go ahead and spend at a
minimum 70 grand, plus the 28% overhead that's going to take it close to 100 grand on the chance
that we might get some relief to the Parks Department. I'm going to make a motion to table,
because I'd like to hear from the Parks Director.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Second.

LEG. KENNEDY:
I am not convinced that this is warranted.

MR. ZWIRN:
With all due respect, the only criticisms that we often hear from the -- at the County Exec's expense
is that there are not enough people in the budget. You need more people. You need more people to
write grants, you need more people to get revenue in. We don't have enough people. And here we
are adding people and most of them are competitive out of the -- I think two of them are
noncompetitive and here we are --

LEG. KENNEDY:
I think we just heard, as a matter of fact, that this one in particular is not. Perhaps -- I'm not taking
issue. I know the --

MR. ZWIRN:
This is the first time that you've taken this position, and it's novel, you know, from my point of view.

LEG. KENNEDY:
No, I don't think it's the first time I've ever taken this position when it comes to advanced --

MR. ZWIRN:
Hiring more personnel?

LEG. KENNEDY:
No. Advanced hiring is Grade 30, entry level, 70,000 for a Grants Contract Specialist. As a matter
of fact, Grade 19's are usually what Grants Contract Analysts are. I know it, I did it. So I take issue
with the fact that the Executive's Office is electing to go to a Grade 30 starting at 70 grand, plus the
overhead to a hundred grand in an environment where we can't get Grade 9's hired. That's where I
take issue.

MR. ZWIRN:
Well, he's looking for somebody to handle this position and be good at it, so they can bring money
in.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Are you done, Legislator Kennedy?

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Alden.

LEG. ALDEN:
I just have a couple of questions maybe Budget Review could answer, or through the Chair, Ben.
We just went through a quite lengthy process for the '07 budget and it seems to me that we're in
early part of December. If you're planning on hiring somebody in this year, the '06 calendar year,


                                                                                                            153
there's not really a lot of time left to do that. But was this addressed during the budget process, any
or all of these positions?

MR. KOVESDY:
The ones in I.T. were known as the people were retiring. They had to go through Civil Service to get
unique titles.

LEG. ALDEN:
So we did that in the budget process, we don't need to do it now. How about the rest of them?

MR. KOVESDY:
No. We discussed it and we funded it during the budget process. We knew -- we knew about that
we're going to need specific titles.

LEG. ALDEN:
Okay. So we did it for '07, it's all taken care of, so we don't really have to do it now, then.

MR. KOVESDY:
The resolution enters these into the budget, so these positions can be hired in '06 or in '07. It
amends the Salary and Classification Plan, so the positions can be hired when they find a person.
It's not saying that you're going to hire somebody in the next two weeks, they can be hired next
year at any point in time.

LEG. ALDEN:
Well, what's -- but today's December 5th. This is amending the '06 budget. This is December 5th.

MR. KOVESDY:
Right.

LEG. ALDEN:
In reality, all we've heard like all year long and all last year is how long it takes to -- the County
Executive to actually authorize and hire somebody, so it's not going to get done in the next two or
three weeks. Then you have holidays thrown in there, too. So part of the time we're closed and
that's not going to be done during those periods of time. But the question still remains. This is
amending the '06 Operating Budget. Did we take care of it in the '07 Operating Budget?

MR. KOVESDY:
No, you didn't.

LEG. ALDEN:
Well, then why didn't you bring this to our attention when we were looking at the '07 Operating
Budget? This is an insult really to bring it over now.

MR. KOVESDY:
No. The ones -- the positions --

LEG. ALDEN:
You didn't find out about this yesterday, or you did?

MR. KOVESDY:
I'll try to be specific. The ones in Information Technology were for people who left after the budget
was presented. One person is on extended leave, another person was just transferred, and another
person left. So those positions --

LEG. ALDEN:
Wait a minute.


                                                                                                          154
MR. KOVESDY:
Bear with me, please, Mr. Alden.

LEG. ALDEN:
No. But when you say they left, could you give me the dates that they left or --

MR. KOVESDY:
Yes. The person who went to the Health Department went to the Health Department two weeks
ago.

LEG. ALDEN:
Okay.

MR. KOVESDY:
John Ebeling is using up his sick time and he will be off the County payroll in -- on December 31st,
retiring. He's a Grade 33. And
Mr. Gontasz retired due to getting cancer and decided not to come back to work. These are the
three titles that they're looking for specific people to -- in I.T. We didn't know.

LEG. ALDEN:
With all due respect, though, when you put your papers in, it's 30 days, so that he had to have
those papers in earlier.

MR. KOVESDY:
No, not if you use up sick time.

LEG. ALDEN:
Two weeks ago, we were still going through the budget process, and somebody's using up their sick
time, that would have had to have been known by the Commissioner probably a month ago if they
were going to run it out to the end of the year. So, with all due respect, you know, you're coming to
us with information that you should have and could have come to us with when we were doing the
budget, and that's not fair to do either.

MR. KOVESDY:
The point's well taken.

LEG. ALDEN:
So, to cut right to the bottom line, this is --

LEG. MYSTAL:
Uh-oh, no argument. Wow.

LEG. ROMAINE:
We're taking care of somebody at 70 grand --

LEG. ALDEN:
Well, that's with a couple of people, but --

LEG. ROMAINE:
Whose qualifications are a heart beat --

LEG. ALDEN:
The bottom line is --

LEG. ROMAINE:


                                                                                                        155
-- and being part of Steve's breakfast club.

LEG. ALDEN:
This wasn't put in the '07 budget?

MR. KOVESDY:
Please, Mr. Alden I can address -- I can address the --

P.O. LINDSAY:
He didn't know. He said he didn't. It wasn't put in.

MR. KOVESDY:
I can address the ones in I.T.

LEG. ALDEN:
No, but Budget -- I asked either Budget Review or him, and I'm not badgering him for the answer.

P.O. LINDSAY:
But, Legislator Alden, in all due respect, the Executive's budget comes to us in September, and, you
know, some of these positions could have opened up until September. Your point is why didn't
somebody tell the Legislature about it so we could have added it before we approved the budget; is
that what your point is?

LEG. ALDEN:
That's only one point, because --

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay.

LEG. ALDEN:
-- we had hearings, and as late as two weeks ago, we were still debating what should and shouldn't
be in the budget. So I don't see any of those as something that, you know, could have slipped by.
But the other point is, was any of this taken care of for '07? And that would have to go, I guess, to
Budget Review.

MS. VIZZINI:
What exactly is your question, Legislator Alden?

LEG. ALDEN:
We're amending the Classification and Salary Plan, so we're creating jobs, we're creating positions.
Were any of them looked at for the '07?

MS. VIZZINI:
No, not during the 2007 adoption process.

LEG. ALDEN:
So when you -- when you amend the '06 Operating Budget and you put new classifications and you
fill those, what happens to '07? That -- actually, December 31st, the persons job ends and now you
have to amend the '07 budget; is that not correct? Because this can't -- this can't amend the '07
budget.

MS. VIZZINI:
No, but it does -- it does carry through. In other words, this authorization would not stop December
31st, this would carry through.

LEG. ALDEN:


                                                                                                        156
So you could amend the '07 budget now?

MS. VIZZINI:
Well, this, this is an unusual resolution. The top part where --

LEG. ALDEN:
To say the least.

MS. VIZZINI:
Where we're amending the Classification and Salary Plan, and recognizing these titles, which Civil
Service has determined is one thing. The other part, typically when we create new positions, we
have a portion of the resolution that will abolish an equal number of positions, and that's not clear in
this resolution. Or, at a minimum, we see where there may or may not be a transfer of
appropriations. Since Mr. Kovesdy indicated that this will be addressed by existing appropriations,
I'm surprised not to see an equal number of positions abolished.

LEG. ALDEN:
Abolished, right. In your opinion, over what you've seen over the course of many years, can these
seven positions be filled by the end of the year?

MS. VIZZINI:
No, probably not. What this would accomplish, though, is amending the Salary and Classification
Plan and amending the Operating Budget, and it would carry over into the '07 Operating Budget.

LEG. ALDEN:
Then my first point would actually be more operative, that we should have done this when we did
the '07 budget and not come in at the last second with some kind of an add-on, or whatever this is.
All right. Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Viloria-Fisher.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Gail, I agree with you, that this particular resolution is a little bit difficult to decipher because of the
way it's structured. However, I do want to speak in defense of the Parks Foundation Director.
During the years that I was Chair of the Parks Committee of the Legislature, I attended the Park
Trustees' meetings every month, and it was a unanimous position among the Park Trustees that we
should have a Parks Foundation Director, that it would be a position that would pay for itself very
quickly, that there is money out there that we should be accessing and were, in fact, not accessing.

When we broke the Environment Committee away from the Parks Committee and I was Chair of
Environment and Ginny Fields was Chair of Parks, she discovered the same thing, as she attended
the Park Trustees meetings, and she had put in legislation to create a Foundation Director to handle
grants throughout the County. And we really should not be pound wise dollar foolish with this. A
Foundation Director, if we have the right person in the job, could certainly bring in a great deal of
money, and there are parks monies out there and we should do everything we can to access it. Our
parks deserve that.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Losquadro.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Thank you. For this Parks Foundation position, Mr. Zwirn, was this name given to the Park Trustee
Board back in the early summer, June or July, it's my understanding?

MR. ZWIRN:


                                                                                                               157
The name of an individual to serve in this capacity?

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yeah, for this position.

MR. ZWIRN:
Not that I'm aware of. I don't know.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
That's what I was -- that's what I was told. I'm surprised you weren't aware of that. It seems as
though this individual has been known to have been wanting to place in this position for sometime.
So I have to sort of agree with Legislator Alden, that I'm surprised this couldn't -- didn't come before
us as part of the budget process.

MR. ZWIRN:
I am not aware that there's a person that's been identified to take this spot --

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Oh. Well, if you could --

MR. ZWIRN:
-- at this time, that you said --

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
If you could look into that and see which --

MR. ZWIRN:
And that would have been when?

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
-- which name was presented to the Parks Trustee Board and maybe get back to us with that.

MR. ZWIRN:
For this position?

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.

MR. ZWIRN:
Did they identify a position as -- in a Parks Foundation title? And this --

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
To my understanding, yes. I'm not sure which name, but, to my understanding, this was put before
the Parks Trustee Board back in early summer, June or July.

MR. ZWIRN:
I would put that name in a lock box and then we'll see. I don't know.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Mystal.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes. I don't exactly have a question for you, but just an observation. As a government employee
myself, we are always asking for people to be hired by the County Executive, because we feel that
sometimes some department's are shortchanged. And I find it very dubious and somewhat
disingenuous that now we are arguing over the fact that we are going to hire certain people to do


                                                                                                           158
their. And I just don't understand. I'm trying to, you know, me and my four year old mind, trying
to put them together. On the one hand, we're saying the County has to hire more people to do the
work that we have to do. On the other hand, when we're hiring the people to do the work that we
have to do, I'm hearing we shouldn't hire them.

LEG. NOWICK:
That was it?

LEG. MYSTAL:
That was it. Short and sweet.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. We have a motion and a second on 2368. All in favor?

MR. LAUBE:
Wait, excuse me. You had a motion to table before when you were out of the room.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Oh, it was a motion to table. Okay.

MR. LAUBE:
Legislator Kennedy was the motion, and Legislator Romaine was the second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
And we also have a motion to approve, right?

MR. LAUBE:
Yes, you do.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Motion to table goes first. Roll call.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
No.

LEG. D'AMARO:
No.

LEG. STERN:
No.

LEG. MYSTAL:
No.

LEG. HORSLEY:
No.

LEG. NOWICK:


                                                                                                    159
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
No.

LEG. ALDEN:
To table? Yes.

LEG. MONTANO:
No.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
No.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes to table.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Nope.

LEG. BROWNING:
No.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
No.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
No.

P.O. LINDSAY:
No.

MR. LAUBE:
Five.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. A motion to approve. Roll call.

       (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:


                                           160
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Abstain.

LEG. KENNEDY:
No.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
No.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
No.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
No.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Thirteen.


P.O. LINDSAY:
I.R. 2369 - Amending the Suffolk County Classification and Salary Plan in connection with
a new position title in the Suffolk County Police Department (Evidence Control Clerk III).
Do I have a motion?

LEG. MYSTAL:
Motion to approve.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Mystal.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Second.



                                                                                             16
P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Eddington.

LEG. ALDEN:
On the motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Alden.

LEG. ALDEN:
Was this -- and I don't know who to ask, but I guess Budget Review through the Chair. Was this
considered in the 2007 Operating Budget, this need?

MS. VIZZINI:
Not to my recollection, particularly -- I mean, this is an addition of the Evidence Control Clerk III
level to the Classification and Salary Plan, so that means it's new. And as you can see in this
resolution --

LEG. CARACAPPA:
That's being abolished.

MS. VIZZINI:
They're actually deleting, although just the title, the lower level, the Evidence Control Clerk II title.

LEG. ALDEN:
Actually, I think Legislative Counsel has input.

MR. NOLAN:
I would just -- it looks like the language of the resolution suggests there might have been a desk
audit here and that's why they created this title.

LEG. ALDEN:
If it's on a desk audit, I can support it. If not, I think it should have been addressed in the '07
Operating Budget.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

LEG. ALDEN:
Abstain.

MR. LAUBE:
Seventeen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2375 - To Approve the purchase of six previously leased vehicles in the Suffolk County
Department of Labor in compliance with Local Law
No. 20-2003. I'll make a motion.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:


                                                                                                            162
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
We already did 2401. 2409 - Amending the Suffolk County Classification and Salary Plan in
the 2007 adopted budget.

LEG. COOPER:
Motion to approve.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Do I have a motion?

LEG. COOPER:
Motion to approve.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Cooper.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Seconded by D'Amaro. Explanation.

MR. NOLAN:
It amends -- this resolution amends the Suffolk County Classification and Salary Plan to create an
Assistance Deputy Commissioner of Health Services, Public Affairs, Grade 33, in the '07 Operating
Budget.

LEG. ALDEN:
Wait. The '07 Operating Budget can be amended in '06?

MR. NOLAN:
If this is -- I think we've done it in the past. But, generally, we should wait until '07 to amend the
'07 Operating Budget. But this is amending the Classification and Salary Plan.


LEG. ALDEN:
But, through the Chair.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Go ahead.

LEG. ALDEN:
This creates another position? George, this creates a position?

MR. NOLAN:
It creates it, creates the title.

LEG. ALDEN:
Okay. To Budget Review, did we go over this in the --

MS. VIZZINI:
This we absolutely did.

LEG. ALDEN:


                                                                                                         163
Okay.

MS. VIZZINI:
And, as a matter of fact, this is the one where we actually -- this position is created in the '07
budget. This is the one where, even though we had it in our omnibus, there was a typographical
error with the bargaining unit, rather than being Bargaining Unit 2, which would be AME, should
have been excluded. So this corrects, corrects the bargaining unit and it amends the Salary and
Classification Plan, since our omnibus was not correct in doing that.

LEG. ALDEN:
Okay. So it doesn't really amend the budget, then, this corrects a -- whatever you want to call it,
typo?

MS. VIZZINI:
The title does say it is amending the '07 Operating Budget.

LEG. ALDEN:
That could be defective then, because I don't think you can -- I don't think by Charter we can amend
the '07 budget in '06.

MS. VIZZINI:
Yeah. Interestingly enough, it references the -- oh, it does say adopted.

MR. NOLAN:
The Resolved Clause says that the plan is amended as follows, as to positions in the recommended
'07 Operating Budget. So, if it's in the Operating Budget, then we would not be amending the
budget, then we could do this resolution.

LEG. ALDEN:
Okay. But -- so then it's a defective title.

MS. VIZZINI:
The title does reference --

LEG. ALDEN:
Yeah. I don't have a problem with that, I know we brought this up when this did come up in the
work group, there was a problem with the designation. Okay.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes, Legislator Romaine.

LEG. ROMAINE:
I know this resolution is going to pass, and I realize what this resolution does, is create Assistant
Deputy Commissioner of Health Services for Public Affairs. Some people in Public Affairs,
occasionally called, in a derogatory sense, spin masters, because they kind of get the facts out there
and present them in the best possible light.

From a policy point of view, I'll make it very quick, I don't think we need another Assistant Deputy
Commissioner of Health. I think we need Public Health Nurses. I think we need people in our
clinics. I think we need a lot more of the Indians and a lot less of the chiefs in the Health
Department. And this may pass tonight, but you have to ask yourself, if this department was fully
staffed, if we had our Public Health Nurses, if we had our clinics fully staffed, if we had all the Health
Department personnel that is needed to accomplish a job done and they wanted to put this in, I
probably would have no problem with it. But I'm going to vote no, not because I'm against this
position per se, but as a protest to the fact that before we fill positions like this, let's start filling the
Indians in the department that we need and not add more chiefs. Thank you.


                                                                                                                 164
P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Kennedy.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just one quick question for BRO. What is the salary with a Grade 33, not
entry level? Give me a Step 4 or a Step 5. Pick one.

MR. REINHEIMER:
Ninety-two thousand.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Ninety-two thousand? Ninety-two thousand for spinning. Okay, thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Anybody else? We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

           [OPPOSED SAID IN UNISON BY LEGISLATORS]

LEG. ROMAINE:
Roll call.


LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Abstention.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Roll call, roll call.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Roll call.

       (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
No.

LEG. KENNEDY:
No.

LEG. BARRAGA:


                                                                                                 165
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
No.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
No.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
No.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Abstain.

LEG. ROMAINE:
No.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
No.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Make mine a no.

MR. LAUBE:
Ten.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I.R. 1482B is a bonding resolution, Bond Resolution of the County of Suffolk, New York,
amending the bond resolution heretofore adopted on May 16th, 2006, authorizing the
issuance of $720,000 in bonds to finance the cost of the reconstruction of the former Gatr
site at the Theodore Roosevelt County Park for use as a maintenance and operations
facility.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Schneiderman. Is there a second? I'll make the second. Roll call.

       (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.



                                                                                             166
P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Stern -- oh, D'Amaro, I'm sorry. Skipped a box.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yes.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yes.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.


                                                  167
P.O. LINDSAY:
Did you call the vote, Mr. Clerk?

MR. LAUBE:
Yes, I did, 18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I was just asking Counsel why we didn't have an accompanying resolution, but he told me that we
already passed it and this was reducing the amount of the bond. That's why we had to vote on
again. I.R. 2304 - A bond, appropriating funds in connection with the renovation of Long
Island Maritime Museum.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
A motion?


LEG. COOPER:
Motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Cooper, seconded by Legislator Schneiderman. On the question? Roll call.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:


                                                                                                  168
Yes.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yes.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I want to go back -- oh, yeah, we have a same motion, same second, same vote on the
accompanying 2304. Okay. You got that Mr. Clerk?

MR. LAUBE:
Yes, sir.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Before we forget about it, I want to go back to 2408A under the Health and Human Services. Mr.
Zwirn, we had some questions about this and nobody could seem to answer it. It was about the
laboratory.

MR. ZWIRN:
Right.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Arthropod.

MR. ZWIRN:
It's laboratory equipment.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yeah. Who had the question? You did? Go ahead, Legislator Alden.

LEG. ALDEN:
It's for 30 or $40,000. Why wasn't it just paid -- we do have a surplus of about 130, 140 million
dollars. Why wouldn't we --


                                                                                                    169
MR. ZWIRN:
We waived. We waived.

LEG. ALDEN:
No, no, no. That gives us the ability to.

MR. ZWIRN:
Right. And we're --

LEG. ALDEN:
This actually changes --

MR. ZWIRN:
Right.

LEG. ALDEN:
Changes the financing. So --

MR. ZWIRN:
That's correct.

LEG. ALDEN:
Why wouldn't we just go and pay cash for this?

MR. ZWIRN:
Because we felt that it would be less strain on the budget this year.

LEG. ALDEN:
This is $40,000.

MR. ZWIRN:
Correct. There were a number of -- there were a number of projects that were funded at these
levels. It was a policy decision that was --

LEG. ALDEN:
But the cost --

MR. ZWIRN:
-- taken by the entire Legislature with the --

LEG. ALDEN:
No. To give us the --

MR. ZWIRN:
And the County Executive.

LEG. ALDEN:
No. To give us the ability not to go and pay cash when we thought that that was a prudent thing.
But this is a small thing that -- it's actually almost going to double the cost of the purchase of the
equipment by the time we're paying off the bonds, but --

MR. ZWIRN:
At the time that -- and the time and at this time, I think this was an easier way, to not have a major
impact. Even though it's a small amount, we had decided to take the small projects and bond them.



                                                                                                         170
LEG. ALDEN:
Oh, the County Executive decided to bond all the small projects.

MR. ZWIRN:
Well, we did that in conjunction with the Legislature by waiving the 5-25, giving us the option, and
he's putting this forth in that form. If you disagree with it, then you vote against it, but --

LEG. ALDEN:
No, I intend to, but there's a two-part process here.

MR. ZWIRN:
That's fair, it's your prerogative.

LEG. ALDEN:
But, Ben, there's a two-part process that you seem to be combining. When we passed that
legislation, it was, if there was an emergency, that we had the ability to go and pay out of bonded
indebtedness for projects that we normally would have paid cash for. And, actually, what we're
hearing now at the end of the year is that things are looking better than what we thought even a
month or two months ago.

MR. ZWIRN:
Well, we won't know when the books are closed for several months after --

LEG. ALDEN:
No. And we --

MR. ZWIRN:
After the calendar year. But, in addition, it depends on where you want to put your cash, where it
will be better spent. There will be a CN coming before you at the end of the day to take some of the
cash. We were in a better cash flow situation this morning than apparently we were in or we were
aware of earlier this week, and we're going to take that money that we have in the cash flow and
prepay some of the pension costs, so that we will have a savings next year of over a million dollars.
So I think we try to use our cash in the most wise and prudent way, and I think that's probably a
better way to go. I think you would agree, or maybe not. I don't know.

LEG. ALDEN:
But this project actually ends up doubling the cost of a few pieces of equipment for $30,000.
Thanks.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. I have a question of Budget Review. We have some money in Pay-As-You-Go yet?

MS. VIZZINI:
Well, in 2006, we adopted 7.5 million, but we authorized that to fall to address the anticipated
budgetary shortfall. So I think you're thinking of 2007, Mr. Presiding Officer.

P.O. LINDSAY:
So we don't -- we already appropriated the money for '06.

MS. VIZZINI:
It fell to the fund balance.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay.

LEG. CARACAPPA:


                                                                                                        17
Mr. Chairman, a quick question.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes, Legislator Caracappa.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Budget Review, what have we budgeted for in '07 as an unaudited fund balance for '06?

MS. VIZZINI:
Well, the recommended budget included a 122 million dollar fund balance in the General Fund, but
after everything was all said and done, it was about 131 million.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
A hundred and thirty-one million is what we're anticipating for next year already as a fund balance,
and we're talking about bonding a $40,000 piece of equipment Ladies and Gentlemen. And that's
unaudited. Add another ten mill to that next year.

MR. ZWIRN:
Yeah. But that money, in all fairness, goes to the fund balance and goes back to the taxpayers to
keep taxes stable. I mean, it's not as if that money disappears, it goes back to the taxpayers.

LEG. ALDEN:
Actually, in answer to what you just said, through the Chair.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Go ahead.

LEG. ALDEN:
And by bonding more and more of these things, more and more of that future revenue that the
County would be taking is going to go to pay for bonded indebtedness. So are we doing the
taxpayers a favor? I don't know. I don't think so, actually. We're hocking their future, or we're
making sure that there's going to be tax increases someplace in the future by this kind of spending.

MR. ZWIRN:
I think the County Exec would disagree with that, but --

LEG. ALDEN:
Not when he was sitting over here, he didn't.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Anybody else? Roll call.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.



                                                                                                       172
LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
No.

LEG. KENNEDY:
No.

LEG. BARRAGA:
No.

LEG. ALDEN:
No.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
No.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
No.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
No.

LEG. ROMAINE:
No.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Ten.

P.O. LINDSAY:
It fails. You needed 12 votes. Okay. Go back to Page 12, 2351A - A bonding resolution
amending the 2006 Capital Budget and Program, Appropriating funds in connection with
the Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation's Computerized Reservation
System and security equipment to enhance the oversight of revenue collections at Park
facilities. Do I have a motion?

LEG. ALDEN:
Motion to approve.

P.O. LINDSAY:


                                                                                        173
Motion by Legislator Alden.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Viloria-Fisher. On the question? Roll call.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. ALDEN:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
No.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:


                                                                   174
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Seventeen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. 2351, same motion, same second, same vote. 2356 - Authorizing the use of County
historic buildings known as the Bald Hill Schoolhouse and Elijah Terry House by the
Farmingville Historic Society -- Historical Society.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Motion, Mr. Chair.

P.O. LINDSAY:
We have a motion from Legislator Caracappa, second by Legislator Losquadro. Any discussion? All
in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2357 - Authorizing the use of Coindre Hall at West Neck Farm -- West Neck Farm County
Park by Splashes of Hope. Legislator Cooper?

LEG. COOPER:
Motion to approve.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to approve, second by Legislator Stern. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

LEG. COOPER:
And cosponsor, please.

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen. Yes, sir.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2358 - Accepting the donation of a flag pole at the Suffolk County Vietnam Veterans
Memorial Park in Farmingville from Symbol Technologies, Inc.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Motion to approve.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Caracappa makes a motion, seconded by Legislator Eddington. All in favor? Opposed?
Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.



                                                                                                  175
P.O. LINDSAY:
2359 - Accepting the donation of one "Gem Car" from the Town of Babylon to the Suffolk
County Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Explanation. What is a Gem Car?

P.O. LINDSAY:
A Gem Car is like one of them golf carts, it's one of them fast golf carts.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
It's electric, electric buggy.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Who wants to make a motion? Or you don't want to take the thing for nothing?

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
I'll make the motion, sure.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Mystal.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Stern. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
It's electric car -- cart.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2382A, bonding resolution, amending the 2006 Capital Budget and Program and
appropriating funds in connection with the reconstruction of spillways at Brookside
County Park, Town of Islip. I'll make a motion.

LEG. MONTANO:
I'll second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Montano.

LEG. ALDEN:
I just have a question on this one.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Go ahead.

LEG. ALDEN:
This was originally determined that we would pay cash for this. Is that why we're amending the
2006 County Budget -- or Capital Budget?

MR. NOLAN:


                                                                                                 176
Yes, it's a change of financing.

LEG. ALDEN:
How much was this for?

MR. NOLAN:
Eighty thousand.

LEG. ALDEN:
Is this for -- is this for a study, or is this for the actual construction?

MR. NOLAN:
Reconstruction.

LEG. ALDEN:
See, again, I don't know if I can go along with bonding this. And this is -- this is something that
actually might have fallen into the 477 Account where we have money to do actual bricks and
mortars type of job. So, again, I think we're hocking the people's future. I'm going to not support
this.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Anybody else on this? Roll call.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
No.

LEG. KENNEDY:
No.

LEG. BARRAGA:
No.

LEG. ALDEN:


                                                                                                      177
No.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Nope.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
No.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
No.

LEG. ROMAINE:
No.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Ten.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Although the bond failed, Counsel's advising me to take the same motion, same second,
same vote on the underlying resolution. So if that's okay with everybody?

2391A, pending bond resolution, appropriating funds in connection with the
demolition/construction of maintenance facility at Indian Island golf course. Do I have a
motion?

LEG. COOPER:
Motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Cooper.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Mystal.

LEG. ALDEN:
On the motion.


P.O. LINDSAY:
On the motion, Legislator Alden.

LEG. ALDEN:
This is just appropriating fund, right? This was part of the our --



                                                                                              178
MR. NOLAN:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
We already borrowed the money? Is this Capital Program or this was cash?

MR. NOLAN:
It's in the Capital Program.

P.O. LINDSAY:
It's in the Capital Program. We haven't bonded it yet.

LEG. ALDEN:
Right.

P.O. LINDSAY:
You don't want to ask how much it is?

LEG. ALDEN:
I think I remember.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay.

LEG. ALDEN:
But it was part of our Capital Program.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Okay. Roll call.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
No.

LEG. KENNEDY:
No.

LEG. BARRAGA:
No.



                                                                           179
LEG. ALDEN:
Pass.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
No.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
No.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
No.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Abstain.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Abstain.

MR. LAUBE:
Ten.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. 2391 fails. And -- A. And I'm going to do same motion, same second, same vote on 2391,
and that should have failed as well. And I am going to go back, because again -- what was the
number, 24?

MR. NOLAN:
2408.

     (*COURT STENOGRAPHER - ALISON MAHONEY*)

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, we're up to 2440-06 - Amending the County Policy for Park Police hiring (Presiding
Officer Lindsay). I'll make a motion.

LEG. COOPER:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Cooper.



                                                                                                180
LEG. LOSQUADRO:
On the motion?

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes, Legislator Losquadro.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
I know we had a discussion regarding this and I was wondering, does this also change the method of
calculation to take into account the PDR, Purchase Development Rights as we had discussed?

MR. NOLAN:
That's what this resolution does, it changes the policy where right now for every 500 acres we
purchase, we're supposed to hire another Park Police Officer; this would change it probably just to
exclude farmlands because there's no need to patrol that.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
But it would account, as we do acquire more land, that we have to hire more officers.

P.O. LINDSAY:
It --

MR. NOLAN:
Exactly, but it just excludes when we purchase farmland that it would not be included in the
calculation. Right, the policy remains the same except we're excluding farmland from the
calculation.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Okay, very good.

P.O. LINDSAY:
It's something that came up in the budget.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yeah, I remember the discussion. I just wanted to make sure that's what it was, I'm not on that
committee.

P.O. LINDSAY:
All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions.


MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Public Safety & Public Information:

2264-06 - Adopting Local Law No. 2006, a Local Law prohibiting sex offenders from
loitering on or about the grounds of playgrounds and day care centers and other locations
where minors gather (Cooper).

LEG. COOPER:
Motion to approve.

LEG. STERN:
Second.



                                                                                                      18
P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Cooper, second by Legislator Stern.

LEG. ALDEN:
On the motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Alden.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
On the motion.

LEG. ALDEN:
I'm not on this committee so I wasn't privy to the debate on this, but are we altering criminal law,
because I don't think we have the power to create or alter criminal law. And if this is covered by
criminal law or a Judge's Order of Release or Order of Confinement and then Order of Release after
that, Parole or Probation, then we don't really have any Constitutional right to fool with this. So if
somebody can answer that question about the Constitutionality and whether we have the right to go
into the criminal area.

LEG. COOPER:
Well, I'll let Counsel answer that, but we're not the first County to enact a law like this, certainly not
in the country, but at least one County Upstate, {Seneca} County has a similar law in place. But I'll
let Legislative Counsel address the question.

MR. NOLAN:
I don't think that is of particular concern, I think we can pass a law like this restricting where Level
II, III -- II and III sex offenders, that they cannot loiter in certain areas where youths may tend to
gather. Other municipalities have done this, including I believe one on Long Island is doing
something similar.

I have looked at case law from around the country on this type of law and what I've seen so far
generally have been upheld around the country. So at this point, I think the Legislature may enact
this. There is the presumption of irregularity, there being no case law or any other thing I could find
that would state that we should not or could not pass it constitutionally, I think we could proceed.

LEG. ALDEN:
In the past, almost every one that I've seen, and actually every one that I've seen, as far as the
conditions of probation or the conditions of parole, excluded these individuals from going or entering
a place that's mentioned in here. So this might be a belt and suspenders, is that what you're
saying? So this is the civil side of it, because it can't be a criminal side because -- so you can't
arrest the person for being in there because we don't have the power to do that.

MR. NOLAN:
We pass laws all the time that could be classified as misdemeanors or something else that are
criminal violations and this would be as well. That if somebody is loitering where they shouldn't be
under this law, they would be subject to punishment; it's an unclassified misdemeanor and this is
pretty typical of something that we pass.

LEG. ALDEN:
Oh, because in the past where it's dealt with criminal activity, like for instance the cell phones, we
couldn't do a criminal prohibition, we had to do a civil prohibition and a civil fine and then New York
State picked up on it and they corrected the VNT Law. So -- all right, you're saying that there's no
preemption, you don't feel there's a preemption on it?

MR. NOLAN:


                                                                                                             182
No, I don't think there's a preemption problem, that is not an issue that has come up.

LEG. ALDEN:
Oh, so this ends up as a belt and suspenders.

LEG. NOWICK:
I have a question.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Caracappa.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My concern isn't about the new law, my concern is about using the term
loitering. In the past, loitering laws, they were very broad in scope and over the years I think --
correct me if I'm wrong, Counsel -- through the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States,
they have been narrowed dramatically to only include very limited areas of loitering as it pertained
to laws being broken, prostitution, drug dealing to be two of the prime examples.

I bring this up because we've been trying to deal with loitering issues, of course, in certain
communities throughout our districts and the County of Suffolk as it relates to, for one instance, day
laborers. We have not been able to use loitering laws, loitering statutes due to the fact that the
Supreme Court has been very strict with this term and it has been struck down across the country
by way of using it in different types of laws. So it's my deep concern that we're using the term
loitering as we're describing those who have committed the crime done their time and are now out
as basic free citizens, though being monitored; can we use the term loitering?


MR. NOLAN:
Well, you're right, loitering laws have been struck down by the Supreme Court and other courts and
you have to be careful with loitering statutes. I think the way this law survives is because it's
narrowly tailored to a certain group of individuals who this County may determine are particularly
dangerous and to certain locations. I don't think there was any other way to get around phrasing it
other than loitering, them be in a place where they're not supposed -- where they are for no
particular reason in which this Legislature may determine poses a risk to the public.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
All right, just to take it a step further, let's bring in hypothetically my least favorite group, the ACLU,
and they come in and they -- we go to court based on the loitering term within the statute; do we
win or lose, Counselor?

LEG. ALDEN:
They win.

LEG. ROMAINE:
They win, we lose.

MR. NOLAN:
Who's going to win?

LEG. ALDEN:
The ACLU.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Can we win in court with the term loitering?

MR. NOLAN:


                                                                                                              183
Yes. I think if you called it something else I don't think it would make any difference. If all we're
doing is saying we don't want these people to hang out at these places when they have no reason to
be there, whether we call it loitering or something else, it's the substance of the law that it would
really come down to.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Then I've got a bill for you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
But if I might, I mean, I have a long list and I'll get to everybody, but just to jump in the middle of
this. I mean, we've passed similar legislation as far as hanging out in the vicinity of schools, haven't
we; don't we have on the books now.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Living, living, placement.


LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Living a quarter mile.


LEG. MYSTAL:
Living, not loitering.

MR. NOLAN:
But the State -- there is a -- while I was researching this, there is a State statute which prohibits
loitering on school property. If you're hanging out on school property for no apparent -- for no
reason, that law is on the books in the State of New York, this is similar. Is it -- could it possibly --
could this law be challenged? Yes, it could be challenged, it could be challenged for a lot of different
reasons.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
I certainly agree with this bill and I support it wholeheartedly. I just -- I'm a little frustrated, to be
quite honest with you, with the term loitering that we're using it so easily within the title and within
the text of the bill when it's been said to me for a decade now through a series of counselors that
have sat in that chair it's absolutely undoable in other instances of the things I mentioned earlier.

MR. NOLAN:
Legislator Caracappa, if we called it something other than loitering, I think that doesn't really
matter. I think the courts are going to look at it, they're probably going to look at this, if they do
look at it, carefully because they do not smile upon loitering statutes in general. Our hope is that
it's narrowly tailored to a certain group that this Legislature has a rational basis to determine, pose a
particular danger to the public and that's where the hope for this law surviving is, if it's challenged.
We're presuming a challenge that may not come.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Okay, thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
You know, it might be -- we might be challenged for the first time on something that we've done.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
No.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Nowick.


                                                                                                             184
LEG. NOWICK:
You know, I am in agreement with the theory behind this legislation. But practically speaking, I'm
thinking more in terms of how would we really enforce this? I'm trying to think of the parks maybe
in my district. And of course as a Mom, I'm with you all the way, understand that, but I'm trying to
think, there are children playing in one corner, how -- and somebody wants to sit at a picnic table
and have a sandwich; is that loitering? And how do you know that it's a sex offender? I mean,
there's no big S; how do you know? How do we -- it's probably more --
LEG. COOPER:
That's actually my next bill.

LEG. NOWICK:
Although I understand this, it's probably more lip service. Yes, I'm sure that is your next bill, the
Scarlet S.

LEG. COOPER:
Right on the forehead.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes. That's the problem, I find that that is the problem with this, how can you tell someone you
cannot sit and have a sandwich at a picnic bench?

LEG. COOPER:
I'd like -- well, I know --

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, Legislator Cooper.

LEG. COOPER:
I think practically, the way I envision, one way I envision this being enforced -- actually, first let me
respond to the questions from Legislator Caracappa. And I don't want to get into the issue of
anti-loitering for day laborers because I think that's a different situation.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
I just used that as an example, Jon.

LEG. COOPER:
I realize. And I'm not an attorney, I can't comment.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Neither am I.

LEG. COOPER:
I haven't been here for the full Legislative history of debate on this issue. But we were very careful
to draft this law, it only applies to the most dangerous sex offenders, the most likely to re offend,
and I'll address that in a minute. I'm sorry, but if there's a Level III sex offender that raped a five
year old girl or a seven year old boy and, you know, if he's living in a community, chances are that
the neighbors know who he is and know what he looks like. And I know that I get notification, there
are six registered sex offenders who live in my community and you can go to a website, you can get
full information about them, certainly Level II and Level III. So if a parent notices that there's a
known Level III sexual predator hanging out at a playground where her kids are playing and there's
no other purpose for them to be there except to loiter and watching the kids, right now there are no
resources available to that parent, it's not illegal. But I think on the face of it, any impartial
observer should say that that's not right.




                                                                                                            185
And once again, I'm not an attorney, but talking about the Constitutional issue, I mean, I'd love to
argue or George or Christine, whoever it would be that would argue this, if someone challenges us
and say that it's not constitutional, if you could be a felon and you go to jail for a non-violent crime,
let's say tax evasion, you get out of jail and you lose your right to vote for the rest of your life, I
mean, can you think of a more important right as American citizens for the right to vote? Well, you
lose that for the rest of your life. So that's okay, but someone's going to argue that a Level III sex
offender that raped a five year old kid has a right to hang out at a playground and loiter at a teen
center?

LEG. NOWICK:
I'm --

LEG. COOPER:
I mean, I'd love to make that argument.

LEG. NOWICK:
I'm not arguing with you about it. I don't know how somebody that raped a five year old is out
anyway and not put away for life, but that's another story. I'm just saying, how do we make the law
better and make it work?

LEG. COOPER:
Well, but I think it is workable because I think that there -- not that we would catch all of them, but
I know that if you're a concerned parent and if there's a Level III sex offender living in your
neighborhood, you're going to know where he lives, you're going to know what he looks like. And
it's -- you know, this will give a tool to parents if that offender, if that sexual predator is hanging out
at a playground or a day-care center or a teen center or a swimming pool where kids are. And
there's no other reason for them to be there, now at least they'll have a tool to do something about
it whereas in the past they didn't.

So I think that this can be implemented practically and I think that if challenged -- and so far we
looked at a number of laws across the country, none of them have been successfully challenged.
It's not to say that there will not be a court challenge and then we'll see where it ends up, but I'd
love for us to argue this case.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Schneiderman.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Whatever happened to me?

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
You know, certainly conceptually --

P.O. LINDSAY:
I got you here, I've got people in front of you.



LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Certainly, conceptually I support this bill. I do have a question, too. I think it's similar to what
Legislator Nowick is getting at and it really gets down to the definition of loitering which is to remain
in a certain place for no apparent reason or purpose, and one specific provision of this bill regarding
public swimming pools. Because people hang out at public swimming pools, they sit in lounge
chairs, there's adults, there's kids. I don't see how you go to one of these facilities without meeting
your definition of loitering because that's what you do. And you know, maybe Counsel can answer
that question, but I can't differentiate. Now, if the bill is to prohibit sex offenders from going to


                                                                                                              186
public swimming pools, that's a different thing, I don't know that we can do that, but I think this
effectively does that because that's what you do at a public swimming pool.

P.O. LINDSAY:
And what happens if the sex offender is the lifeguard.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
That's a separate law; that sounds like a good bill.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Kennedy.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Maybe I can get a response from Counsel on that. Because the definition of loitering seems like it
would apply to anyone who goes to a public swimming pool.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Mr. Chair, I'm going to reserve my time, if I can, but I'm going to yield to Legislator Mystal because
I do believe he was in front of me.

LEG. MYSTAL:
That's all right, I'm pissed off.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Schneiderman has a question of Counsel, we're waiting for the answer.

MR. NOLAN:
People do keep asking that, how do you know when somebody is going to loiter; I think it depends
on the circumstance. It will be a question, let's say it goes to a law enforcement official is going to
have to make a determination and if it goes before a court, then they'll have to make a
determination on the facts. You know, it may be a difficult case to prove, but it depends on the
circumstances and the facts prevailing at the time.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
If the purpose is to go swimming, is that valid enough to not be loitering at a public swimming pool?

MR. NOLAN:
I think if somebody goes to a pool, perhaps with their family to swim in a pool, that is not loitering.
LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
What if they don't have a family, they just go to go swimming?

MR. NOLAN:
I'm sorry?

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
What if they don't have a family? An individual, let's say a male --

MR. NOLAN:
Then it could still be -- again, it would depend on the circumstances. I can't give you a yes/no
answer on what it's going to be, it's going to depend on the circumstances in each particular case.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
I certainly could see with the playground example, particularly an individual with no children hanging
out at a playground, I certainly wouldn't want that, you know, a sex offender at a playground. But
the swimming pool is -- and it's in the law, I think that it could have used a little more clarification.
When push comes to shove I'm going to vote for this, but I think that provision is a little unclear as


                                                                                                            187
it relates to public swimming pools.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I've been told that I slighted Legislator Mystal.

LEG. MYSTAL:
That's right, you're being racist again.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Mystal, I recognize you.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Oh, you finally saw me, huh? Thank you. The one subject I wanted to touch on is that I am
probably older than most of you guys around here and I went to school in the 60's and I do have a
history as to why the loitering laws were struck down, because it was used heavily against black
folks when they were gathering anywhere and they used it at any street corner where three young,
black men were standing to arrest them, so that's why they were struck down.

The number two part of my argument, I do remember Legislator Caracappa, for the past ten years,
trying to use the loitering law against people who are gathering in a certain community in Suffolk
County, you know, Farmingville and was told repeatedly that he could not use that by Counsel
Sabatino who was then the Counsel. I am -- you know, this is what I call feel-good legislation and it
puts you in a position where you have to vote for something because you don't want Newsday to go
out there and say, "Oh, Legislator Mystal did not vote for the sex offender," and so you vote for
something like that. But I am very much afraid for two reasons; one, because we have been told
repeatedly we could not use it for Farmingville or for Wyandanch for that matter because I have a
bunch of kids hanging around the block and I wanted to get rid of them and the Police told me I
cannot use the loitering law against them. And the second reason that I'm totally afraid of it is the
fact that, you know, if we take that step, if we take that step, how far away are we from saying, A,
let's go to Brentwood because there's a bunch of Hispanic kids hanging on the corner in Brentwood
and we want to get rid of them and we passed a law saying that if they have any office which is not
unreal if you understand how this country is working nowadays, that we have young black men who
are being -- and young Hispanic men who are being processed through the system just so they get a
record and you say anybody who has a record cannot loiter in a certain area.

So I am here -- and I don't like being put in a position where I have to vote for something that I
know is dangerous, but if I don't vote against it I'm going to get newspapers and everybody saying,
"Oh, he voted" -- they won't say why I didn't vote for it, "He voted against sex offenders." And I'm
looking at the bill, it says you have to have a purpose; now, who determines the purpose? You
know, if I'm standing somewhere and I'm having a cigarette, my purpose is to smoke a cigarette or
having lunch, that's my purpose, but who's going to define what is a proper purpose or an unproper
process -- purpose? So this is to me a very dangerous precedent on a feel-good resolution, which I
hate those God damn feel-good resolutions because they get on my nerve because they may put me
in a position for me to vote on something that I don't want to vote on, but if I don't I get lambasted
by the newspapers.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
That's why you get paid the big bucks.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Okay. Can you -- what is it that you hated? I'm sorry, I couldn't understand the word that you
said.

LEG. NOWICK:
Lambasted.



                                                                                                         188
LEG. MYSTAL:
Lambasted.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
No, before that, you said --

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Feel-good legislation.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Oh, feel good; oh, okay, I couldn't understand it. Okay, Legislator Kennedy.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.

LEG. MYSTAL:
I'm going to loiter outside.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
I'll come with you.

LEG. KENNEDY:
I don't know what I can add to this dialogue other than at this point I respectfully disagree with our
Legislative Counsel. And as a matter of fact, I'm going to stumble into something that, you know, is
a long ways back, but there's Constitutional principles. One of them was called vague and
overbreadth and when I look at this definition of loiter, it is essentially impossible to objectively
quantify what this means. Therefore, as Legislator Caracappa brought up quite a while ago, this is a
piece of legislation that is almost guaranteed to put us in court. And unlike the sponsor, I don't
necessarily relish at passing things that will be challengeable and may be void on their face.

I more than anybody, as a parent and all the parents around here, abhor and want to take the most
stringent measures possible to contain sex offenders. I've seen the notification for the sex offender
in my district, and as Legislator Alden says, the New York State Division of Parole was very specific
in the prohibitions and the stay-away conditions associated with this individual's parole, and it does
include some of the locations and ideas that are set out here.

So A, I'm concerned about the fact that we're attempting to preempt what State Statute says; and
B, I think we definitely has something that doesn't pass Constitutional muster. All due respect,
Counselor, that's my opinion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Eddington.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Thank you. And I agree with most of what I've been hearing. I mean, certainly I'm concerned with
sex offenders and I think you're right on, this tell us that something needs to be done. And I think
you're right, you're a little to the right of the bulls eye, but this is something that we have to look at,
whether they're monitored. Because I have a concern with the word loitering and I am working on
some legislation to try to deal with that also.

My other concern is the identification of a sex offender. Unless we put a red S T-shirt on them, I'm
not so sure that everybody in the neighborhood knows. I knew more when I was a school social
worker where they were than I do now. So I am concerned about that and I agree with the
Legislators that this is going to be challenged. But I think you're almost there, we have to tighten,
we have to look at this a little bit more. You found a hole where we need some help, but I would
like to -- maybe we can work on this a little bit more and that would be my plea to you. Because I


                                                                                                              189
don't want to lose this, but I hear what Legislator Mystal says. I wouldn't want to vote against this,
but I do respect Legislator Kennedy that I don't want to vote for something that we know is going to
end up in court; and I'm not a lawyer, but it does -- everybody has made a pretty good case that
that could happen. So that's my concern, Legislator.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Legislator Alden.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Alden.

LEG. ALDEN:
Realistically, when you look at this realistically, what are we actually doing? We're making a
statement that we don't -- once again, we don't want sex offenders in these areas. As far as the
constitutionality, I think there is a major problem with it because I too lived through a period of time
when this type of -- or these type of laws were used by all the local municipalities to break up
groups of kids and they use it to discriminate against certain ethnic groups, too. So as far as that
goes I think, you know, we're on weak ground.

I think we took some major steps when we went with the monitoring and that's 24-hour/full-time
monitoring, and that's to work with the courts because the courts, when they release these people,
they do put restrictions on them and that will make sure that we identify who they are and whether
they're in an improper place. And I think if we go and -- you know, something -- and I'm going to
agree with Legislator Eddington, I think that maybe some middle ground between there and here
might be the way to go with this because you're right, you don't have a sex offender T shirt or
sweater that you're wearing so that a cop can go by and readily identify, "Hey, wait a minute" --

LEG. CARACAPPA:
That's the next bill.

LEG. ALDEN:
-- "that's a sex offender hanging out in there, I'm going to go and bust him." That could be what
Elie Mystal fears most, four black kids just hanging out playing basketball and then the cop is going
to take that opportunity to go in and hassle some kids that really maybe should have just been left
alone. So can this law be abused? Yeah, and that's why for the most part these type of pieces of
legislation were stricken down. So I think that, you know, we're on the right track.

And realistically, if I do end up voting for it, it would be to send the statement out that we do not
want, nor will we tolerate, sex offenders being in and around children. So if you take it in that
regard, yes. But I agree with Legislator Eddington and all the rest that have spoken before this, I
think it needs a little bit more work, but I don't mind making the statement either, the political
statement, I'll take the lawsuits.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Legislator Browning.

LEG. BROWNING:
Well, I think everybody knows how I feel on this issue. You know, I understand what you're talking
about as far as the loitering. However, when I look at sex offenders, they're convicted felons and
most likely they commit their crime again.

I understand what you're saying about your day laborers, but they're not convicted, they have not
yet been convicted of a crime. So I think that's two totally different subjects. These are people who
are most likely to commit the crime again. I see the possible need to make some changes and to
kind of fix this bill a little bit better, however I look at public swimming pools and I don't want a
pedophile coming to the swimming pool where my children are; it's a real concern of mine.


                                                                                                           190
So, you know, I do support what he's doing. And Lynn, as far as you're talking with going to parks
and various areas, I've had constituents call me that they've seen sex offenders in the library,
they've seen sex offenders at the playground, because in my district people pay attention because
we have so many of them. So people do -- we get the notices, they check out the websites; and
believe me, in my district, because of the numbers, especially in Gordon Heights, they know every
sex offender that walks the streets and they pay attention.

So, you know, I know it would be possibly a hard bill to enforce, you know, for the Police
Department and not everybody is going to know, but there are certain areas where people do know
who they are.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Stern.

LEG. STERN:
Yes, thank you. I appreciate all of the comments of my colleagues and I suppose with so many
pieces of legislation there's always an opportunity for a slippery slope, but I have to tell you, I agree
with the comments of Counsel. I think that these are definitions that, sure, are open to
interpretation, but like so many other statutes at all levels, you know, so much of it is open to facts
and circumstances and I think that is ultimately the case here.

I think that there are many situations where in the community there are concerned citizens who do
the research on the web, they get the mailings, and many times they do know who the sex
offenders are in their community. And if it works even one time where there is a sex offender where
he or she should not be so close to our children, I think that this is a system that can work for our
community. I'm a parent of young children myself, I view this as a tool in the box; I'll support any
tool in the box.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Mystal.

LEG. MYSTAL:
I do understand the feeling of people when they are talking about rapists and people who molest
young children. I do understand the feeling of Legislators and parents when they're talking about
their young children. I had a young child of 14 years old who got shot through a window because he
was a gang member and he walked in to a party and they won't let him in the party or they were
playing a song which he thought was offensive to him and his gang, so he went outside, pulled a gun
and shot through the window and shot a 14 year old girl. Now, this young man was also in the
system before, yes, he killed somebody, but I could not get rid of him because he was loitering
around the party, and that's what he was doing.


And I know everybody is harped on the fact that sex crimes are somewhat very important to us, but
there are other crimes in our community, in my community, in my district such as killing that
happens on a regular basis that are a lot -- you know, not that they are any worse than the
molestation of a young child, but that 14 year old girl lost her life. And nobody says, "Okay, why
don't we use a law where we can say anybody who has committed a crime before who would most
likely commit that crime again such as a mugger or a killer or a home invader or anybody else," why
can't we say the same thing about them and use the same kind of reasoning that we are using now
to exclude them anywhere from our community? Because if you think a sex offender is a very bad
person, how about a murderer who killed a 14 year old child?

You know, we do not make that distinction because sex offenders are the crime de jour, so to speak,
nowadays. But I do not want to use a law in this County where I know you cannot enforce it
because there are so much loopholes in terms of how somebody can go around and having a


                                                                                                            19
sandwich, like Legislator Nowick said, and you say, "Well, he's not supposed to be there." I would
love to use a law where I can exclude everybody from the community who might commit a crime,
who may have committed a crime before he gets out of jail; the chances of him being a recidivist
are probably 90% and I know it because I meet them every day. I don't know if we are -- if we
want to get on that -- to use your word, on that slippery slope.

LEG. ALDEN:
It's a death penalty you're talking about.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Put me on the list, Mr. Chairman.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, Legislator Barraga.

LEG. BARRAGA:
When I take a look at a piece of legislation I never take a look at the sponsor, I take a look at the
merits of the bill and whether or not the people I represent want this piece of legislation. In my
history, we've never -- I've never really gotten bogged down too much from a legislative perspective
in terms of individual adjectives, verbs and nouns, whether or not the term loitering is going to
stand up; 18 different lawyers, 18 different opinions. It's the issue itself, it's the concept of the bill
that you have to make the decision on, whether or not your people want it or not. If you certainly
dislike it and it doesn't reflect what your people want you vote in the negative. You shouldn't vote
for a bill or against a bill, from my perspective, because the paper wants it or doesn't want it. What
happens to the bill afterwards, that's for the courts to decide, that's for lawyers to decide.

From the Legislative perspective, the issue, is in my mind, do your people want this; do you want to
vote no on this or do you want to vote yes? What do the people of the 11th Legislative District, my
people want this bill. They're not concerned about adjectives, verbs and nouns, they want this bill.
And I would suggest that this Legislature not fool around with a tabling, you don't want to do that,
you don't want to appear indecisive, either you're up or you're down on this, but vote on it. No
tabling, because if you table it it will be interpreted by your constituency and the presses that you're
weak on the issue and you don't want that kind of interpretation to take place, not on an issue like
this.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
There you go.

LEG. ROMAINE:
There you go.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Cooper.

LEG. COOPER:
I wanted to make a few comments. First of all, the difference between a Level II or a Level III sex
offender and a mugger or a bank robber or what have you is that all the experts have testified
repeatedly that those sexual predators have much higher recidivism rates and we have to factor that
in to our decision making.

The idea for my bill grew out of an event that I did in Legislator Browning's district where the Police
announced the first evictions under the Residency Restriction Law that we had enacted earlier this
year, and a parent came up to us after the press conference thanking us thanking us for that law but
she said, "You know, that's great, but what's to stop these same sexual predators? Okay, they live
more than a quarter of a mile from the school, but what's to stop them from hanging out at my kid's
playground and putting my child at risk?" Now, you can rest assured she knew who the Level II and


                                                                                                             192
the Level III sex offenders were in her neighborhood and if she saw one of those guys hanging out
at the playground, it would be easy for her to identify that individual and this would allow her a tool
where she could call the Police. And the example that Legislator Mystal gave of a sexual predator
having a sandwich at a playground and should we allow that; well, no, we shouldn't allow that.
There's no reason for a Level III sex offender -- Level III, that's a horrible offense against a child, a
brutal rape or a violent act against a child -- they should not be hanging out at a playground or a
video arcade having a sandwich, I'm sorry, they shouldn't.

And if anyone hasn't noticed it yet, Suffolk County has become a dumping ground for sex offenders
in this State. If you compare the number of registered sex offenders in Suffolk County to Nassau
County, we have twice as many here. And they're not homegrown, it's not that it's in the water,
we've got people from Nassau County, Westchester County, Oneonta County, Upstate, New York
that are relocating to Suffolk County. We have sex offenders that are leaving prison Upstate, it's
difficult for them to find a place to live and they're told by other sex offenders, "Hey, check out
Suffolk County. There's a lady called Mary Dobson, she's got a few dozen homes down there, she'll
rent to sex offenders. And go the Suffolk DSS and you'll get Public Assistance, they'll help you find a
place to live." So we have sex offenders from other parts of New York State that are relocating to
Suffolk County and that's not right.
And I differentiate between the homegrown sex offenders and those that are being imported from
other parts of the State, it's a real problem. This really needs to be addressed ultimately by the
State, but they're not doing anything so that's why it's incumbent upon local municipalities to take
action. But number one, I do think that this can be practically enforced, I think it's providing an
additional tool to parents and the Police, but on top of that, it sends a message to sex offenders that
they're not welcome here in Suffolk County. And I urge you, I urge you to do the right thing and
approve this bill.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Caracappa.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and I'll just try and wrap this up. Once this Legislature chooses to ban a
certain group from loitering in certain places, we go down, as Legislator Mystal says, a very slippery
slope. Once we apply loitering statutes beyond the scope of what the highest courts in this country
have said we can adhere to, I hope that this Legislature is consistent and that we do not pick and
choose who we can say can loiter where, who can loiter where and for what purposes. After this
vote be consistent, be consistent with the nature of what we're doing here, because if we don't then
that's just hypocritical. This is why loitering has been struck down the way it's been, as Legislator
Mystal has mentioned in his comments, year after year after year. If you do this, which we should
do it, be consistent; when you see another bill come before you for loitering, to ban loitering on
certain County properties or wherever it may be by certain people, support it.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Do you want to respond, Legislator Cooper?

LEG. COOPER:
Yeah. I'm sorry, I have to respond. As you may know --

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Of course you have to respond because you'll back out the next time you see a loitering bill you
don't like.

LEG. COOPER:
All five of my kids are Hispanic and if anyone tried to arrest one of my kids for hanging out in
Huntington Station for loitering, you know, they'd have to deal with me. I'm sorry, you cannot
compare that to a law that's targeting Level II and Level III child sexual predators. And I think that
we can differentiate -- and if I gave it some more thought, I'm sure I can come up with some more


                                                                                                            193
examples where it's appropriate to treat a certain class of citizens who in this case committed a
violent, abhorrent crime against children; I'm sorry, I think that we do have a right to treat them
differently than other citizens. And for you to try to -- Joe, I'm sorry.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
No, I'm not trying to do anything but be consistent, Legislator Cooper.


LEG. COOPER:
Well, but I'm --

LEG. CARACAPPA:
And I don't want to cut you off, but how about people that clog up a busy County roadway, create a
dangerous traffic condition, clog up a right-of-way through a very -- near a school because they're
gathering for a certain purpose; why can't we stop that type of loitering and why won't you?

LEG. COOPER:
But Joe, please, but I hope you're not comparing that to --

LEG. CARACAPPA:
You have to compare it --

LEG. COOPER:
Excuse me, Joe.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
-- because once you set the precedent of loitering in this County you have to stick to it, that's my
point. You cannot pick and choose when it comes to loitering.

LEG. COOPER:
Excuse me, I think that you fairly can.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
You cannot.

LEG. COOPER:
And I'm sorry, you cannot compare --

P.O. LINDSAY:
All right, all right.

LEG. COOPER:
You cannot compare that individual to --

P.O. LINDSAY:
All right, I think you both made your point, okay?

LEG. COOPER:
-- a man who raped a five year old child, I'm sorry.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
(Inaudible).

P.O. LINDSAY:
We have a motion to approve on this, Mr. Clerk?



                                                                                                       194
MR. LAUBE:
Yes, you do.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Roll call.
P.O. LINDSAY:
That's the only motion before us is to approve.

MR. LAUBE:
Correct.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Roll call.

                                (*Roll Called by Mr. Laube - Clerk*)

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Pass.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Pass.

LEG. KENNEDY:
No; the Bill of Rights says this doesn't go.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yes.

LEG. MONTANO:
Pass.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Absolutely.

LEG. BROWNING:


                                                                       195
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes and please list me as a cosponsor.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes. Legislator Barraga's argument influenced me; succinct, direct and to the point.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
I'm going to say yes, but I've been floating on this Internet for 15 minutes and I can't find them.

LEG. MONTANO:
Sure.

MR. LAUBE:
17 (Opposed: Legislator Kennedy).

LEG. COOPER:
Thank you very much.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2289-06 - Adopting Local Law No. 2006, A Local Law expanding real property tax
exemptions for unremarried spouses of deceased members of volunteer firefighters and
volunteer ambulance workers (County Executive). Do I have a motion? Do I have a motion?

LEG. ROMAINE:
Motion.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes, you do.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Barraga, second by Legislator Romaine.
All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Mr. Chairman? I apologize, but I recently was able to --

MR. LAUBE:
18.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
-- dig back a little bit and I would like to make a motion to reconsider 2368 for the purposes of
offering some new information that I had referenced when I spoke with Mr. Zwirn. I'd also like to
ask him to come back to answer this information that I found.

P.O. LINDSAY:


                                                                                                      196
What page are you on?
LEG. LOSQUADRO:
IR 2368, my agenda is marked up.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
The grant writer.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Twelve, page 12.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
It was in Labor, Workforce & Affordable Housing.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
You can't make a motion to reconsider, you voted no, I believe.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Page 12.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. So you're --

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Was I not on the prevailing side, Mr. Clerk?

MR. LAUBE:
What bill was it?

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
2368. I believe I may not -- I may not have been on the prevailing side on that, so.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
What do you want to do?

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Well, I would like for somebody to make a motion to reconsider because I have --

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
I think I voted in favor of this, I'll make a motion to reconsider.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Well, first we've got to get on the right page; once we get on the right page we've got to find the bill
and we've got to figure out did you vote on the prevailing side or not.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
It's Labor, Workforce & Affordable Housing.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yeah, I got that far, we're trying to find out if Legislator Losquadro was on the prevailing side or on
the negative so he can make a motion to reconsider.

LEG. ALDEN:
Tim's doing due diligence over there.
MR. LAUBE:
You voted yes.



                                                                                                           197
LEG. CARACAPPA:
You can make the motion.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Then I make the motion.

MR. LAUBE:
Wait, you want the one that approved, just a second, that was the one that failed. Yes, in both
cases you voted yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Okay. Motion to reconsider, please.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to reconsider 2368 by Legislator Losquadro. Is there a second?

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Schneiderman. Okay. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? This is the
reconsideration.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Thank you.

MR. LAUBE:
18.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
I believe the bill is now back before us?

P.O. LINDSAY:
It's back before us. First I need a motion. We need some kind of motion to reconsider, you can't
reconsider nothing.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
I'll make the motion to table for purposes of discussion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to table. Is there a second?

LEG. ALDEN:
Second for the purposes of discussion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, I'll make a motion to approve.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
I'll second that.



P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Viloria-Fisher, so we have both motions before us. And now you wanted to ask
a question.


                                                                                                    198
LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes. Is Mr. Zwirn from the County Executive's Office still here?

LEG. MYSTAL:
He went home.

MR. LAUBE:
I think they're in the back.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I don't know that, they're going to look.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Well, in the interim, I have the minutes from the July --

P.O. LINDSAY:
Why don't you just hold up your comments for a minute; if you want to question him, he'll be with
you in a minute. Could I -- oh, here he comes, okay.

MR. ZWIRN:
Sorry.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Mr. Zwirn, there was a motion to reconsider 2368, it was about the Classification & Salary Plan of
the Technology, Public Works and Parks, and it has been reconsidered and Legislators Losquadro has
some new dialogue he wants to present on this issue.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Mr. Zwirn, I didn't have the information in front of me at that moment, but when I asked you if
there was a name that was being considered for this, I knew that it had been referenced in the
Board of Trustees for the Department of Parks. I have before me the minutes of the July 20th
meeting held at Cupsogue Beach County Park in Westhampton and on page three of those minutes,
under the title of Suffolk County Parks Foundation, the Commissioner reported, and I quote, "We are
working with Civil Service to establish a title to have Tom Hroncich serve as the Executive Director."
So obviously a name --

MR. ZWIRN:
Okay. Well, Mr. Hroncich works for the Parks Department now.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
He currently is a Marketing Specialist, is that correct?

MR. ZWIRN:
I don't know what his title is, but --

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Well, I have that listed as his title here.

MR. ZWIRN:
Well, I'm telling you I don't know what his title is, so.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Because he was present at that meeting, as was Commissioner Foley and other members that are
appointed by the County Executive. So I was just a bit surprised to hear --



                                                                                                         199
MR. ZWIRN:
I wasn't at the Parks Trustees meeting; you asked me if I knew who the person was and I would
have -- I didn't know. I know who Mr. Hroncich is, though, because he comes to a lot of the
committee meetings, but I didn't know about -- I don't go to the Parks Trustees meetings.

P.O. LINDSAY:
If I could interject; I thought he was Deputy Commissioner over there in Parks or something.

LEG. ROMAINE:
A Marketing Specialist.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
I have him -- as of July 20th he was listed as a Marketing Specialist. As to previous questions as to
whether or not these were going to be open-competitive positions, it seems very clear that from the
Commissioner's own report at the meeting that they were working with Civil Service to --

P.O. LINDSAY:
I think in a prior testimony, that was referring to the IT people.
I don't think -- I think it was made clear on the record before, either by Mr. Zwirn or by Allen, that
that was an appointed position, it wasn't a --

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Correct.

MR. ZWIRN:
Yeah, that would be a non-competitive position, but we still go to Civil Service to get the title
approved and the qualifications also have to be approved.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
I'm sorry, I was referring to Legislator Alden's point.

MR. ZWIRN:
I was referring to Legislator Alden's point, I apologize, that this should have been put before us as
part of the budget process because in July it was very clear that they were working towards not only
creating this position but already having an individual in mind to serve for this appointed title.

So I just wanted to give my colleagues this information. I feel it was bit disingenuous to put before
us this -- the way that it was and I think Legislator Alden had made a very good point, that this
should have come before us as part of the budget process. Do with it what you will, but I knew I
had seen something regarding this and the fact that it had been addressed as early as July, even
with a person in mind to fill the spot, I think bears some consideration.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Mr. Chair?

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Kennedy.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Through the Chair, can I just ask Legislator Losquadro, do you have there with the description of the
individual as he currently is, a Marketing Specialist, what that grade is?

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
No, unfortunately just listed is the attendance. But I can inquire with the Budget Review Office as to
what the current grade for a Marketing Specialist is.



                                                                                                         200
LEG. KENNEDY:
I don't even know if it makes that much difference what the current grade is. I think it's just -- you
know the representation was this was an attempt to go ahead and solicit and bring an individual into
the department to go ahead and pursue grants alternatives, grants options and bring funding in.
And now it becomes apparent that it is an individual who's in the department who I don't think is
going to go ahead and all of a sudden develop a whole new skill set in the next 30 days. One would
suspect this individual has this capability now and I guess in order to go ahead and have that
individual do it now is of such a priority, we've got to give him another 20 or 30 or 40 grand; that's
the part that I object to.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Budget Review, what was that, the grade for a Marketing Specialist in the Parks Department?

MR. REINHEIMER:
Currently he's a Grade 21 -- I mean, 27, Step 9 which is an annual salary of $78,000.

LEG. NOWICK:
How much?

MR. REINHEIMER:
Seventy-eight thousand dollars, scheduled to go up to 81,000 and change next year.

MR. ZWIRN:
And just for the record, I don't know that this individual is the one that they're considering now for
this position. I mean, you've got something on the record going back several months where they
considered him, but I can't tell you today that that's the individual who they were thinking about to
fill this spot.


P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Legislator -- are you done, Legislator Losquadro?

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
I was just going to say that it seemed very clear that that's who they intended to have serve in this
position.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yeah, but I think what Mr. Zwirn is saying is he wasn't aware of the minutes that you're referring to.
Legislator Romaine.

LEG. ROMAINE:
I understand that Mr. Zwirn wasn't aware of that; don't worry, I'm not asking you any questions.

MR. ZWIRN:
Oh {snapped finger}

LEG. ROMAINE:
I realize he wasn't and I'm sure he still isn't aware, but the appointment of this person will be made
under Civil Service Law by the Parks Commissioner. And I'm sure the Park's Commissioner, if I'm
not missing my bet, will consult with the County Executive and he is aware. And he was the one
that submitted the budget and he was the one that on the third week of September submitted the
County budget and this is a position that they knew they were going to fill, that the Parks Trustees
talked about in August, and while Mr. Zwirn may not be aware of it, the Executive was. And we're
asking to buy into the fantasy that, you know, it wasn't submitted in the budget because no one
knew about it at the time.



                                                                                                         20
Look, I think that this should be tabled. You know, I think it should be tabled, it should be
recommitted to committee. I'll make a motion to table and recommit it to committee.

P.O. LINDSAY:
We already have a motion to table.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Oh, okay, then I don't want to add to that. The hour is late, I won't discuss it any longer.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay.

LEG. ALDEN:
Terry told me I was going to be home by five o'clock, so.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Liar, liar.

MR. PEARSALL:
I lied.

P.O. LINDSAY:
We have a motion to table and a second. Roll call.
                             (*Roll Called by Mr. Laube - Clerk*)


LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes to table.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
No.

LEG. D'AMARO:
No.

LEG. STERN:
No.

LEG. MYSTAL:
No.

LEG. HORSLEY:
No.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.



                                                                                                202
LEG. MONTANO:
No.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
No.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Sure yes.

LEG. BROWNING:
No.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
No to table.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes to table.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
No.

P.O. LINDSAY:
No.

MR. LAUBE:
Seven.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, motion to approve. Roll call.

                              (*Roll Called by Mr. Laube - Clerk*)

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes -- ah, abstain.



                                                                     203
LEG. KENNEDY:
No.

LEG. BARRAGA:
No.

LEG. ALDEN:
No.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
No.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
No again.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes again.

LEG. ROMAINE:
No.

MR. LAUBE:
Eleven.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. IR 2291-06 - Adopting Local Law No. 2006, A Local Law to permit polygraph
examinations of civilian applicants to the Suffolk County Police Department, Sheriff's
Office and District Attorney's Office (Losquadro). Legislator Losquadro, what's your pleasure?

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Motion to approve.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to approve. Is there a second?

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Eddington. Any discussion? No discussion.
All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2315-06 - Accepting the donation of a box truck to the Suffolk County Sheriff's Office


                                                                                                 204
(County Executive).

LEG. MYSTAL:
Motion to approve.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to approve by Legislator Mystal.

LEG. STERN:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Stern. Any discussion? All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2360-06 - Requesting Legislature approval of a contract for Remote Payment Services for
the Sheriff's Office at the Suffolk County Correctional Facility, Riverhead, New York
(County Executive).

LEG. MYSTAL:
Motion to approve.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to approve by Legislator Mystal. Is there a second?

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Eddington. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2400-06 - Accepting and appropriating grant funds from the Office of Justice Programs for
the operation of the Suffolk County Police Department's 852-COPS Non-Emergency Phone
Hotline (County Executive). Who wants a grant? Legislator Eddington makes the motion, second
by Legislator Losquadro. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2402-06 - Establishing a special --

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Interest, I think.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yeah, it can't be imprest -- interest petty cash travel expense account for the Suffolk County
Police Department (County Executive). Motion by Legislator Eddington to approve, second by
Legislator Caracappa. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?


                                                                                                 205
LEG. BARRAGA:
Negative.

P.O. LINDSAY:
One negative.

MR. LAUBE:
17 (Opposed: Legislator Barraga).

P.O. LINDSAY:
2403-06. On the advice of Counsel, because some of the bonds take more votes than the actual
resolution, I'm going to reverse the order and take a vote on 2403 first, it's amending the 2006
Capital Budget & Program and appropriating funds in connection with the acquisition of
Disaster Recovery Project (CP 1729)(County Executive). Do I have a motion? Motion by
Legislator Stern, second by Legislator Losquadro. Could I get an explanation on this one?


MR. NOLAN:
Well, this is a 14 voter because it changing the method of finance.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, but what is the Disaster Recovery Project, does anybody know?
I missed this at the committee.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Trying to revive the Legislature.

MS. VIZZINI:
That's the back-up system --

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Just joking.

MS. VIZZINI:
It's the back-up for the computer files, it's in the event of a disaster.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Caracappa, a little levity at this hour cannot hurt.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
I tried.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Alden.

LEG. ALDEN:
On the motion, I think this is the back-up generator to the back-up generator and the back-up
batteries for the police system; I believe that's true.

MS. VIZZINI:
No, this is not a generator. This is in the event that there is some sort of domestic bio-terroristic
hurricane or some sort of disaster of that nature, that the Criminal Justice System can keep
operating, the Police computers can keep operating, those types of things, that storage be off-site.

LEG. ALDEN:


                                                                                                        206
It's a generation system, though.

MS. VIZZINI:
It's not a generator system to keep the -- it's a plan and the purchase of the necessary software and
hardware so that the County can keep operating its critical functions.

LEG. ALDEN:
So how much was this for?

MS. VIZZINI:
It's 250,000.


LEG. ALDEN:
Everything is bondable, so are the paper clips, but I don't know if I agree with that. But this was --
we approved, I think it was a half of million or three-quarters of a million not that long ago for a
backup system for this.

P.O. LINDSAY:
But Legislator Alden, the resolution talks about for the purchase of --

LEG. ALDEN:
Software.

P.O. LINDSAY:
-- accessory, hardware, software, right? And storage equipment.

LEG. ALDEN:
But my point --

P.O. LINDSAY:
It's not a backup generator, it's off-site storage.

LEG. ALDEN:
And I misspoke a little bit, it was a generator but it was also for outside storage because it was
either a half a million or three-quarters of a million dollars which I didn't agree with at that time
either.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I thought that was for a generator.

LEG. ALDEN:
But it also -- they have storage units for -- this was part of that IT upgrade that we did not that long
ago.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I thought that was for the UPS system. Go ahead, Allen; you've got an explanation here?

MR. KOVESDY:
Hopefully.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Everybody else is stymied.

MR. KOVESDY:
This came to the Steering Committee in the beginning of the year as a Capital Project. Last year in


                                                                                                           207
the Capital Program many different departments, the Police, the Health Department --

LEG. ROMAINE:
Clerk.

MR. KOVESDY:
Clerk, most definitely, asked for a Disaster Recovery Program. What the IT Committee decided was
rather than to do it segmented, we would do one for the whole County, we would take the money,
we would start and do it in a logical sequence. The Police Department wanted to use the 3rd
precinct as a backup, the Clerk wanted their own off-site, the Health Department wanted it, so it
was decided and put in the Capital that we do this in a logical sequence. This is the first step, this is
some money, the Police Department has some additional money also we're going to be using this
year out of the operating funds. So this is the first step in a County-wide Disaster Recovery
Program, so if the computers were to go down in any particular department and the records were
lost, we have some other system that would work; it's the first step in it.

LEG. ALDEN:
Is it okay if I --

P.O. LINDSAY:
Go ahead, Legislator Alden.

LEG. ALDEN:
Through the chair. So this was part of the Capital Budget?

MR. KOVESDY:
Yes, it was.

LEG. ALDEN:
Last year or the year before?

MR. KOVESDY:
I know it was in this year's Capital, it came to the Steering Committee and it was voted out 4-0.

LEG. ALDEN:
Well, why is it amending the '06 Capital Budget?

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
It's appropriating.

LEG. ALDEN:
No, it's amending.

MR. NOLAN:
It's changing the method of finance.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yeah, so --

MR. NOLAN:
That's the amendment.

P.O. LINDSAY:
The same amount was in the Capital Program but it's changing it from --

LEG. ALDEN:


                                                                                                            208
No, it was pay-as-you-go.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Right.


LEG. ALDEN:
So obviously when we went and did the Capital Program we wouldn't have left this hanging out there
so we appropriated -- or not appropriated, but we budgeted the proper amount of money to pay for
this. This is B Funds, right?

MR. KOVESDY:
In all due respect, when the recommended Capital comes out we put some things in bonding and the
Legislature, in their wisdom, makes it pay-as-you-go or a different way. So originally this was
supposed to be bonded, the Legislature made this pay-as-you-go, we're acting that there's a need to
get this done as the first step and this is what -- this is what has to be done.

LEG. ALDEN:
Originally this was bonded?

MR. KOVESDY:
No, the County Executive recommended that it be bonded, the Legislature put it in as pay-as-you-go
money.

LEG. ALDEN:
Do you remember if this was a new project last year that was put in?

MR. KOVESDY:
This has been requested for the last five years by different departments, this is finally getting off the
ground.

LEG. ALDEN:
Right, because I remember it three, four years ago being in the Capital Program, but not as a
bonded resolution, this was always as pay-as-you-go.

MR. KOVESDY:
We have always requested that it be bonded because -- this is the first step of many. It's the first
time we're actually doing something, it's been requested for, I'll take your word, four years, but we
didn't want to do it in a half-assed method so we're trying to do it right this time.

P.O. LINDSAY:
That's a legal term.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yeah, I recognized it.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
It's not very fast, it's only half-fast.

MR. KOVESDY:
Sorry about that, it's late.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, roll --




                                                                                                            209
MR. NOLAN:
It's an underlying resolution, you don't need a roll call with underlying resolutions.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, we have a motion and a second? All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MS. ORTIZ:
Roll call, there has to be a roll call.

P.O. LINDSAY:
No, I'm not voting on a bond, I'm voting on a resolution. If you want a roll call we'll do a roll call.

LEG. MYSTAL:
No, no, no.

LEG. ALDEN:
Abstain.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, we have one abstention. That's it?

LEG. BARRAGA:
Negative.

P.O. LINDSAY:
And one no.

MR. LAUBE:
16 (Opposed: Legislator Barraga - Abstention: Legislator Alden).

      [COURT STENOGRAPHER - LUCIA BRAATEN].

LEG. ALDEN:
Abstain.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. We have one abstention. That's it?

LEG. BARRAGA:
Negative.

P.O. LINDSAY:
And one no.

MR. LAUBE:
Sixteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. On the accompanying bond, same motion, same second. Roll call.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)


LEG. STERN:
Yes.



                                                                                                          210
LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
No.

LEG. ALDEN:
No.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yes.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Sixteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. 2404. Oh, this is a good one. Amending the 2006 Capital Budget and Program and


                                                                                       21
appropriating funds in connection with the acquisition of a Cluster Replacement (CP
1789).

LEG. ROMAINE:
I think they left a word out.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
You set yourself up for that one, Bill.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Do I have a motion? I knew Legislator Mystal would make the motion.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Any time, any time.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Do I have a second?

LEG. STERN:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Stern. Do you want to know what a cluster is?

LEG. ALDEN:
Absolutely.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. I want another legal term.

MR. NOLAN:
This is another change of method of financing. Fourteen votes for the underlying resolution,
$95,000.

LEG. ALDEN:
Explain cluster, whatever.

MR. NOLAN:
This system supports core application networking services, etcetera, servers.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. So we're voting on the underlying resolution, not the bond at this moment. All right? We
have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed?

      [OPPOSED SAID IN UNISON BY LEGISLATORS]

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Let's do a roll call, because I don't have them all. And it's a 14-vote resolution.


      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:


                                                                                                 212
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
No.

LEG. KENNEDY:
No.

LEG. BARRAGA:
No.

LEG. ALDEN:
No.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
No.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
No.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
No.

LEG. ROMAINE:
No.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Ten.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Being that fails, then I don't even have to vote on a bond.



                                                                    213
P.O. LINDSAY:
I.R. 2405 - Amending the 2006 Capital Budget and Program and appropriating funds in
connection with the acquisition of a Fiber Optic Cable Backbone Project (CP 1794).

LEG. MYSTAL:
Is that a 14-voter?

MR. NOLAN:
Fourteen votes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. I'll make a motion.

LEG. MYSTAL:
I'll second it.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Mystal. On the question? Nobody? Okay. We're going to do -- we're going to
vote on the underlying resolution first. Roll call.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
No.

LEG. KENNEDY:
No.

LEG. BARRAGA:
No.

LEG. ALDEN:
No.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:


                                                                                                  214
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
No.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
No.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
No.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I'll make a motion to table.

LEG. MONTANO:
I'll second.

MR. LAUBE:
Who's the second?

LEG. MONTANO:
I'll second it.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Montano. Okay. Roll call.

       (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yeah.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:


                                           215
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
No.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes, table.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
No.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
No.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
16 -- no, excuse me, 15.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. The bonding resolution isn't applicable and the motion is tabled. 2412 - Establishing a sex
offenders Residence Policy. Legislator Losquadro, what's your pleasure?

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Motion to approve.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to approve. Is there a second?

LEG. BROWNING:
I'll second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Browning. Could we just do all in favor, opposed, abstentions?

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
I'm going to recuse on this vote.

MR. LAUBE:
17.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Tim, cosponsor.


                                                                                                    216
P.O. LINDSAY:
2428 - Reappointing Pascal M. Covello as a member of the Suffolk County Vocational,
Education, and Extension Board. And I -- Legislator Eddington will make the motion, second by
Legislator Losquadro. And I'll ask for -- did he appear before your committee and --

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes, he did.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Is that okay, Legislator? That's what you were going to ask, right? All right.

LEG. ALDEN:
Thank you, thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
All right. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Tim, list me as a cosponsor.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2435. Again, I'm going to deal with the underlying resolution and then do the bond secondly.
Amending the 2006 Capital Budget and Program, accepting 100% grant funds in the
amount of $58,000 from the New York State Department of Education and appropriating
funds for a Geographic Information System --

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Motion or second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
-- Needs Assessment Study for Suffolk county Government.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
I'll second that.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Who made the motion?


LEG. LOSQUADRO:
I thought you did.

P.O. LINDSAY:
No, I didn't.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Then I'll make it.

MR. MONTANO:
I'll second it.

P.O. LINDSAY:


                                                                                                217
Motion by Legislator Losquadro, second by Legislator Montano. It's 14 votes. Why is it 14 votes to
accept a grant?

MR. NOLAN:
Because it does two things, it accepts the grants and amends the Capital Program, changes the
method of financing, so it's a 14-voter.

P.O. LINDSAY:
But how could we be financing if we're accepting 100% grants?

MR. NOLAN:
Because it goes to the overall amount of 208,000.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I see.

MR. NOLAN:
Fifty-eight thousand dollars is a grant amount, but there's a -- involved in this is an amendment of
the Capital Budget and Program to change the method of financing --

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay.

MR. NOLAN:
-- of $150,000 of it, so it's 14 votes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. We have a motion and a second. Roll call.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:


                                                                                                       218
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yep.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. 2435A, the accompanying bonding resolution, same motion, same second. Roll call.

       (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.


LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.



                                                                                         219
LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yes.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. 2059B - Bond resolution of the County of Suffolk, New York, authorizing the
issuance of $12,150,000 bonds to finance a part of the cost of the construction of
improvements to County Road 39, North Road, Town of Southampton.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Motion. Motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I'm shocked that you wanted to make that motion. Legislator Schneiderman makes a motion. Is
there a second?

LEG. EDDINGTON:
I'll second it.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Eddington.


                                                                                              220
LEG. ALDEN:
On the motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
On the motion, Legislator Alden.

LEG. ALDEN:
Just in light of the fact that we do have hundreds of millions of dollars worth of construction projects
that have been approved, the bonding's been approved, when did they say they were going to
actually start this? And can they start it this year? Can they -- because this is a lot of money,
twelve million one-fifty. That would almost indicate that the engineering's done, and everything else
will be done and be able to go forward with it in a fairly quick manner, but --

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
I'll let --

LEG. ALDEN:
Ah-hah.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
-- Mr. Anderson answer. This, but this is -- basically, there's two parts of this. First is the Saint
Andrew's Bridge, and I believe they're ready to go with the Saint Andrew's Bridge as soon as we do
this. And then the widening of the road, that won't happen until sometime next year.

LEG. BROWNING:
Correct.

MR. ANDERSON:
Right, correct.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Or the following. We are accepting bids next week for the widening of Saint Andrew's Bridge, and
the -- we have the engineers on board for the actual road redevelopment, and that will be going to
construction early Fall, late Summer.

LEG. ALDEN:
Next fall?

MR. ANDERSON:
Yes, 2007.

LEG. ALDEN:
2007. Now, and this is through the Chair, but he left, so through the Vice-Chair, would it be
possible for you to come in, and again, I'll just ask, if it's okay with you, but before the end of the
year, I think that all Legislators should have a little better handle on what we have outstanding,
where a lot of those projects are. And every day -- or not every day, every session, we're voting on
projects that are adding to that two, three, four hundred million dollar overhang of approved
projects. If you could tell us where they are, which projects are being pushed aside to go with this
one, because there are other construction projects that haven't started, now we're going to start this
one. You know, if you can tell us a little bit of the workings of how you prioritize and why this one
might be ready to go, and another one that we approved four or five years ago might not be ready
to go. And through the Chair, if that's okay with you, I think it would be time worth for -- well
spent.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:


                                                                                                           22
Status.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yeah, the status of all that, maybe before the end of the year, if that's okay.

MR. ANDERSON:
Sure, absolutely.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Sounds good?

MR. ANDERSON:
Yep.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Okay.

MR. ANDERSON:
Sure.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Legislator Romaine.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes. I just want to reiterate the point that was made by Legislator Alden. It would be good to get a
status report, because what I find is that this Legislature appropriates money for these capital
projects, and some of them move forward and some of them don't. Now, I wasn't here last
December, but I know Legislator Kennedy and Legislator Alden were, and they were urged, because
we needed to build a jail, appropriate this money, money was appropriated, and the jail didn't get
underway this year, it's 12 months later. And you understand our concern, because if we're voting
to appropriate, we're thinking, okay, in the next 12 months, something's going to be done, not that
it's not going to be done, it's going to be added to the overhang. And we also are concerned, I know
as a Legislator I'm concerned, about who makes the decisions over which projects go forward and
which ones don't, and are those decisions adequately conveyed to the policy-makers of this County.
And my experience is very limited, back 11 months, but it just doesn't look like that happens in an
organized fashion.

And lastly, I want to give a compliment to your department. My understanding is, if we had gone
out and got a private consultant to work on Saint Andrew's Bridge, it would have taken many, many
more months. Instead, you went in-house, took someone off the waterways, the dredging,
unfortunately, and assigned them. And this, whoever the gentleman was who did this got this done
in like three months. And, I mean, that's a compliment to some of the people you have on staff and
I just wanted to give a compliment when it was well deserved. Thank you.

MR. ANDERSON:
Thank you.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Thank you. If there are no other questions, we have a motion and a second. Can everyone return
to the horseshoe, please?

LEG. ROMAINE:
Roll call.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Okay. Who was the motion, though? Was it -- Jay? Okay. Roll call.


                                                                                                       222
      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Cooper.

LEG. ALDEN:
Go slow.

MS. ORTIZ:
He's coming.

LEG. ALDEN:
Just go slow.

MR. LAUBE:
Legislator Cooper.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
(Not Present)

LEG. ALDEN:
Who was the last one you called?

MR. LAUBE:
Mystal.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Mystal.

LEG. ALDEN:
Okay. I couldn't hear, that's all.

MR. LAUBE:
Is he coming? We'll come back.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.


                                          223
LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yes.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yes.

LEG. BROWNING:
(Not Present)

LEG. ROMAINE:
Oh, yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Legislator Browning. Not here?

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Just hold on one second. I know she wants to vote on this. Here she is.

MR. LAUBE:
Legislator Browning.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I.R. 2076 - Directing the Department of Public Works to solicit proposals to provide a
temporary lane and traffic safety equipment in personnel along County Road 39 on Friday
evenings during peak traffic times in 2007.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
I'm going to make a motion to table.


                                                                                          224
P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to table.

LEG. ALDEN:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Alden. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2383, and again, we'll take the resolution first, appropriating funds in connection with the
County share for participation in engineering for the reconstruction of County Road 67,
Motor Parkway, Town of Islip (CP 5172). Is this --

MR. NOLAN:
Ten votes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Mr. Chair, I'm going to make a motion to table on this one, if I can. This is a project that's in my
district. I do have some questions as far as what the impacts are associated with that section.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. We have a motion and a second to table. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
The accompanying resolution is tabled as well, or is not applicable. 2383 - Appropriating funds in
connection with the -- no --

MR. LAUBE:
No. 2384.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2384 - Amending the 2006 Capital Budget and program and appropriating funds for the
acquisition of land for improvements to County Road 80 Montauk Highway, between New
York State Route 112 and County Road 101, Patchogue Yaphank Road/Sills Road, Town of
Brookhaven (CP5534).

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Motion to approve.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to approve by Legislator Eddington. Is there a second?

LEG. D'AMARO:
Second.



                                                                                                       225
P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator D'Amaro.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
On the motion to table.

P.O. LINDSAY:
On the motion.

LEG. ALDEN:
Wasn't 2384 a project that --

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Motion to table.

LEG. ALDEN:
-- I think the County Executive excluded from the budget when we did the Capital Budget Program?
Maybe Budget Review can answer that. Either vetoed it or --

P.O. LINDSAY:
So he vetoed it, we overrode the veto, now he's appropriated the money and we're going to say no.

LEG. ALDEN:
No, no, I just -- I just want to refresh, you know, like my recollection of --

MR. REINHEIMER:
This resolution amends Resolution 945 of 2005 to reflect the acceptance of 80% Federal funds. So
this is amending a resolution that was adopted in 2005, 2005 Capital Budget, so it's not --

LEG. ALDEN:
2384? I don't think there was any funds for this.

MR. REINHEIMER:
I got the wrong one, sorry.

MS. VIZZINI:
Well, yeah. This is to acquire land. It's land acquisition for $250,000. The offset is another capital
project.

LEG. ALDEN:
Wasn't the problem with this originally that -- this is through condemnation, right? And if we
haven't even started the condemnation, appropriating funds right now is not only just a little bit
premature, but the condemnation, like the time frame of that is somewhere between --

P.O. LINDSAY:
Maybe Mr. Anderson could shed some light on that.

LEG. ALDEN:
-- three -- you know, three to five years.

P.O. LINDSAY:
All right?

LEG. EDDINGTON:
I could respond to that also, because the condemnation has begun. Go ahead, finish.



                                                                                                         226
MR. ANDERSON:
Yeah, it's the -- actually, the acquisition process right now. We're at a point where we've made --
we've been in discussions with the appropriate landowners to pick up the -- you know, the portions
of the parcels that we're looking for for this project.

LEG. ALDEN:
I think, Mr. Anderson, I think you have to actually speak like real into it, close into it.

MR. ANDERSON:
Oh, sorry. Okay.

LEG. ALDEN:
Sorry.

MR. ANDERSON:
No, that's okay. We're at a point right now in negotiations with the various landowners to -- you
know, to purchase these properties, and we're at a point where we really have to either acquire the
land or it can become a legal situation. We've been in negotiation for at least a year now, if not
more.

LEG. ALDEN:
So we don't pay into court when we start a condemnation? Because that's usually the more prudent
way to do it is you establish a value by whatever. You go out and get some appraisers. You pay
into court. Now the person you're condemning, they can either accept that or they can accept that
as a first --

MR. ANDERSON:
Right. We're at the point right now where we're not at the condemnation point, we're at the point
we're with some of the parcels, not all of the parcels. Some of the parcels, we're at a point where
we've been in negotiations and they've accepted the offers, and we have to, you know, basically
proceed with it, I believe.

LEG. ALDEN:
But that's only for part of it. Where's the condemnation for the other pieces that would need to be
filled in to actually go forward with the project?

MR. ANDERSON:
That, as far as I understand, we haven't gotten to that point yet. We're at -- we're just at that point
now.

LEG. ALDEN:
Where you're going to file the condemnation?

MR. ANDERSON:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Okay. Now, what's our procedure, do we pay into court or we don't pay into court?

MR. ANDERSON:
Honestly, I don't know.

LEG. ALDEN:
Okay.

P.O. LINDSAY:


                                                                                                          227
Okay. Two things. First, Legislator Schneiderman, you're making a tabling motion?

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
I'm going to hold off on that for now.

P.O. LINDSAY:
You're going to hold off. Legislator Romaine.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes. I'd like to direct this question to Budget Review, if I may. Yes, Gail, thank you. Is there -- this
resolution is being amended. Are we taking funds from another project to fund this resolution?

MS. VIZZINI:
Yeah, the offset --

LEG. ROMAINE:
Could we go over the offsets, please?

MS. VIZZINI:
There's one -- there's one offset.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

MS. VIZZINI:
It's reconstruction of CR 48 Middle Road, from Horton Avenue to Main Street.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Okay. Reconstruction of County Road 48, Middle Road, from where?

MS. VIZZINI:
Horton to Main.

LEG. ROMAINE:
From Horton to Main Street. County Road 48, Middle Road, is in Riverhead. It is the alternative
road to County Road 58, which is the bottleneck to the North Fork, and we're going to take it out of
my district to give it to you another district. I have no problem with other Legislators getting what
they need for their districts. I have a problem when it comes at the expense of my district. I'm not
going to be voting for this resolution.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Mr. Anderson, could you shed some light on it?

MR. ANDERSON:
Yeah. With regard to the County Road 48 project, we have not gone to public hearing, because we
haven't advanced that far. It was our belief that if we were ready to go to construction next year,
we would look for an offset then, or put it in the Capital Budget of 2008.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Through the Chair, if I could ask Mr. Anderson a question.
Mr. Anderson, when was County Road 48 originally put in the Capital Budget?

MR. ANDERSON:
I don't --

LEG. ROMAINE:


                                                                                                           228
Can I ask that to Budget Review, then?

MS. VIZZINI:
It has a long history, but I don't have that information available.

LEG. ROMAINE:
But would you say it was several years ago? Would that be an accurate description?

MS. VIZZINI:
Yes. I mean, we have pretty --

LEG. ROMAINE:
Okay, thank you. That's an accurate description, that it's been there for several years. It raises the
question as to why some capital projects move forward and others don't. While I understand all
capital projects are equal, some obviously are more equal than others. I am not voting for this
resolution.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Eddington.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
I think if you look in your book, you'll see that this project was started in 1997, and we've still been
waiting to get this funding so you could get it to go. So it has been there a long time and we've
taken all this time to get to this point, and I believe that that's why you worked at your magic, not
that you're giving up on any project; is that correct?

MR. ANDERSON:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
It's just that this one is ready for the shovel. Okay, thank you.

MR. ANDERSON:
Yes, it's ready for the acquisition, yeah.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. We have a motion and a second on the underlying resolution. This is not on the bond, this is
to approve.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
It's to approve.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yeah. Roll call.

MR. LAUBE:
Legislator Eddington.

MR. MONTANO:
There was a motion to table.

MR. LAUBE:
No, no.

P.O. LINDSAY:
There is no tabling motion before us.


                                                                                                           229
MR. LAUBE:
He withdrew it.

P.O. LINDSAY:
The only motion on the floor was a motion to approve.

MR. LAUBE:
That was withdrawn.

LEG. MONTANO:
We need 12 votes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Ten votes for the underlying Resolution, 12 for the bond.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Motion to table.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to table by Legislator Losquadro.

LEG. NOWICK:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Nowick. Roll call on the tabling.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes to table.

LEG. NOWICK:
Table, yes.

LEG. COOPER:
No to table. I'm sorry. This is a 10-vote.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

MR. MONTANO:
This is to table.

MR. LAUBE:
This is to table.

LEG. MYSTAL:
To table.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes, but if it goes to -- the motion to approve, it's a ten-vote.

LEG. MYSTAL:
No, it's twelve votes.


                                                                    230
MR. NOLAN:
The underlying resolution is 10 votes, the bond will require 12.

LEG. COOPER:
Right.

      (Roll Call Continued by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. D'AMARO:
I vote no to table.

LEG. STERN:
No to table.

LEG. MYSTAL:
No.

LEG. HORSLEY:
No.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yes.

LEG. MONTANO:
No to table.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
No to table.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yes.

LEG. BROWNING:
No.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes to table.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes to table.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
No.

P.O. LINDSAY:
No.

MR. LAUBE:
Eight.


                                                                   23
P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Motion to approve. Roll call.

MR. NOLAN:
This is the underlying resolution.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Underlying resolution.

LEG. ALDEN:
This is a 10-voter.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Right.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
No.

LEG. KENNEDY:
No.

LEG. BARRAGA:
No.

LEG. ALDEN:
No.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes to approve.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
No.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Nope.


                                          232
LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
No.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Eleven.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Motion on the bond is 12 votes. Same motion, same second. Roll call.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Motion to table.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion?

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
To table.

P.O. LINDSAY:
To table. We have a motion to table the bond.

LEG. NOWICK:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Nowick.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Question.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Question from Legislator D'Amaro.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Just on the motion to table on a bond, does that require the same number of votes as a motion to
approve, to Counsel?

MR. NOLAN:
It's a 10-vote, 10 votes to table.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Ten votes to table, 12 to approve; is that correct?



                                                                                                   233
MR. NOLAN:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Roll call on tabling.

MR. LAUBE:
I need a second to the tabling motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Huh?

MR. LAUBE:
Who was the motion to table?

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
I made the motion to table.

MR. NOLAN:
Legislator Nowick.

P.O. LINDSAY:
No. The tabling motion was made by Legislator Schneiderman, the second was by Legislator
Nowick.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes to table.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes to table.

LEG. COOPER:
Pass.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Okay. I'm going to vote yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.


LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:


                                                                                           234
No.

LEG. MONTANO:
Pass.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
No.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes to table.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yes.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes to table.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes to table.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes to table.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yes for me, too.

MR. LAUBE:
Seventeen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Motion is -- the resolution is tabled. Next is 2385, and it's the underlying resolution,
amending the 2006 Capital Budget and Program and appropriating funds in connection
with the County share for participation in dredging of County waters.

LEG. COOPER:
Motion to table.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Second.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Motion to approve.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to approve.

LEG. ROMAINE:


                                                                                                 235
Second to approve.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second to approve. We have a tabling motion and an approval motion.

MR. NOLAN:
Can I explain something, Bill?

P.O. LINDSAY:
Go right ahead. Counsel wants to explain something.

MR. NOLAN:
I just want to point out that this -- the County has to lay out the $500,000, but it will be reimbursed
100%.

LEG. ALDEN:
By who?

MR. NOLAN:
According to the resolution, the State of New York.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. We have -- the motion to table takes precedent.

MR. LAUBE:
Who was the motion to table? I'm sorry.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Tabling motion was by Legislator Cooper, and D'Amaro was the second. Roll call.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. COOPER:
Yes to table.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
No to table.

LEG. KENNEDY:
No to table.

LEG. BARRAGA:
No.



                                                                                                          236
LEG. ALDEN:
No.

LEG. MONTANO:
Pass.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
No to table.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
No. It's a half a million dollars of free money. What are you guys thinking?

LEG. BROWNING:
No.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
No to table.

LEG. ROMAINE:
No to table.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Oh, no, we lost a grant. Oh, no.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
We voted down a half a million dollars.

LEG. ALDEN:
We lost a half a million bucks.

MR. LAUBE:
Nine.


LEG. ALDEN:
How can we do that?

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
No, it didn't -- the tabling didn't pass.

LEG. NOWICK:
Table fails.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:


                                                                               237
Tabling fails.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Stop playing games, that's what happens. Okay. That failed. There's a motion to approve.

LEG. ALDEN:
Oh, we have a second bite at the 500?

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to approve, I believe, is still on the table.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Pass.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Pass.

LEG. STERN:
Pass.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
It's a yes?

LEG. MYSTAL:
That was a yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Pass.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:


                                                                                           238
Pass.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yes.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
No.

LEG. ALDEN:
It's either yes or no to no free money.

LEG. COOPER:
Those are the only choices? Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
No.

MR. LAUBE:
Sixteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Change my vote to a yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Seventeen.


MS. ORTIZ:
Eddington, too.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. The accompanying bond resolution --

MR. LAUBE:
Eddington, too? Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
-- 2385A, roll call. We need a motion and a second.


                                                      239
LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Schneiderman. Does Legislator Romaine want to second this motion?

LEG. ROMAINE:
Absolutely.

LEG. BROWNING:
I'll second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Roll call.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Pass.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Pass.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Motion to table.

MR. LAUBE:
Mystal.

LEG. COOPER:
Motion to table.

P.O. LINDSAY:
You want to table the bond?

LEG. COOPER:
I think so.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Is there a second to the tabling?

LEG. D'AMARO:
I'll second it.

LEG. ALDEN:
That's a good move.


                                                                                         240
LEG. COOPER:
Just tabling it for two weeks.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Roll call.

LEG. ALDEN:
Don't take the money.

P.O. LINDSAY:
This is the bond to the dredging resolution.

LEG. COOPER:
This is not time sensitive, right, George?

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Maybe Mr. Anderson could answer the question about time sensitivity. On the motion. If I could ask
our Deputy Commissioner to answer any questions about time sensitivity that were asked.

MR. ANDERSON:
We are in the process of awarding the contract. I mean, if it's done before the end of the year, it's
not -- but, you know, it isn't time sensitive immediately.

LEG. NOWICK:
It is.

MR. ANDERSON:
It isn't time sensitive immediately, as far as I know, but again, I'm --

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Did you say it is or isn't? I couldn't hear you.

MR. ANDERSON:
To the best of my knowledge, it is not time sensitive, as long as it gets passed before the end of the
year. We're in the process of awarding and processing the contract to the contractor right now.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Mr. Chairman.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
If I may, for Mr. Anderson. I'm sorry.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Go ahead.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
As I recall, from the dredging that took place at Mount Sinai and up at Stony Brook, generally, there
are environmental windows that must be adhered to. So, if we're looking to award these contracts,
generally, the dredging has to take place before a date specific. As I recall, April usually is?

MR. ANDERSON:
Yes.


                                                                                                         24
LEG. LOSQUADRO:
So, by the time we get contracts into place, and considering this is a County portion, that we'll be
getting this money back, I would certainly say that there is a degree of urgency here, since we have
a time sensitivity window in when environmentally this dredging is allowed to take place prior to
next season. So, again, just from my experience and what I've seen in the past year up in -- up
along the North Shore, I would say that this is --

P.O. LINDSAY:
I think Mr. Anderson said as long as we award the contracts before the end of the year, he's okay.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Just saying.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Mr. Chair, if I can follow up with him.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Go ahead.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Okay. My recollection, when we talk about the dredging issues, is that, at this point, we only have
one outfit or one entity that we presently are able to contract with. It's a southern outfit, I think,
and much of the work that they agreed to do depends upon the physical location of the dredge, as
far as how they're staggering it; is that correct?

MR. ANDERSON:
I'm not certain. I thought the -- I'm not certain. I don't know who the company is that's actually
doing the work. I thought it was a local company to the area. The question was, on the 500,000,
was, and I believe you all know this, but was to the ability -- the 500,000 gives us the ability to
place the spoils at Sunken Meadow Park, rather than on -- in the Short Beach area.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Well, that's because the State of New York, as a matter of fact, advanced that and agreed to go
ahead and purchase it and reduce the overall cost, offset it to a significant extent. But that
notwithstanding, the proximity and physical location of that dredge and the ability to keep it in this
area at this point by having the resolution passed and being able to negotiate the contract, isn't that
a time sensitive matter?

MR. ANDERSON:
Yes, I believe it is, but I don't --

LEG. KENNEDY:
Oh, so it is time sensitive.

MR. ANDERSON:
But to the extent that, as I believe, as long as we get it, again, before the end of the year, I think
we're covered. Believe me, I'd love to have it now, to be honest with you. I'm not, you know -- but
I'm just telling you, this is --

LEG. KENNEDY:
Well, I appreciate your candor and honesty. I think we would love to, too. Unfortunately, not
everybody's of the same mind. Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Alden.


                                                                                                          242
LEG. ALDEN:
Mr. Anderson, when is the DEC permit for the dredging?

MR. ANDERSON:
I don't know. I can find out.

LEG. ALDEN:
Because I was wondering if it's for this year or if it's for early '07.

MR. ANDERSON:
It would have to -- well --

LEG. ALDEN:
No. Because they only award them like a real short period of time.

MR. ANDERSON:
Yeah, I don't know. I wouldn't --

LEG. ALDEN:
Okay. Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Viloria-Fisher.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Mr. Anderson, these projects are, you said, Sunken Meadow and Short Beach?

MR. ANDERSON:
I'm sorry?

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
This dredging project, where is it?

MR. ANDERSON:
The dredging project is on -- is on the Nissequogue. It was from taking material from the
Nissequogue originally to be placed on Short Beach. The State came up with the 500,000 to give us
the ability to place it at Sunken Meadow.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
At Sunken -- okay, that's what I thought you said. Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Anyone else?

LEG. MYSTAL:
Call the vote.

LEG. COOPER:
I withdraw my tabling motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. The tabling motion is withdrawn. The motion to approve, I believe, is still active. We have a
motion and a second.

MR. LAUBE:


                                                                                                      243
I can pick it up where I left off.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay.

MR. LAUBE:
Or do you want me to start over?

LEG. HORSLEY:
Start over.

MR. LAUBE:
Start over.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
This is on the motion to --

MR. LAUBE:
To approve.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
For the bond.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)


LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
This is to approve? Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Correct.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.



                                          244
LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yes.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yes.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. 2386. There's no bond on this, it's just --

MR. NOLAN:
No.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Amending Resolution Number 945 of 2005 for participation in engineering in connection
with the reconstruction of County Road 58, Old Country Road, Town of Riverhead.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Romaine.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Schneiderman. I'm going to make a motion to table.

LEG. STERN:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:


                                                                                        245
Second by Legislator Stern.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
We don't have to call the roll on this.

P.O. LINDSAY:
We don't have to call the roll, but I'm going to withdraw my tabling motion. Okay. All in favor?
Opposed? Abstentions?

LEG. KENNEDY:
This is to approve?

P.O. LINDSAY:
Approve.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Approve.

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. 2387 - Appropriating funds in connection with the reconstruction of County Road
58, Old Country Road at Pulaski Street, Phase II (CP 5543).

LEG. COOPER:
Motion to table.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to table by Legislator Cooper.

LEG. STERN:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Stern.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
This is on the bond?

P.O. LINDSAY:
No, this is on the underlying resolution. Okay. All in favor?

LEG. ALDEN:
Roll call, please.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Roll call.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. COOPER:
Yes to table.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.


                                                                                                   246
LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
No.

LEG. KENNEDY:
No to table.

LEG. BARRAGA:
No.

LEG. ALDEN:
No.


LEG. MONTANO:
Yeah.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
No.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
No.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes to table.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Nope.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Eleven.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. And that -- being that the resolution was tabled, there's no sense in taking a vote on a bond.
I.R. 2388 - Amending the 2006 Capital Budget and Program, transferring funds from the


                                                                                                       247
Assessment Stabilization Reserve Fund, and appropriating funds in connection with the
improvements to Suffolk County Sewer District No. 3 - Southwest.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Motion to approve.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Motion to approve.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to approve by Legislator Caracappa.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
No.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Seconded by Legislator --

LEG. CARACAPPA:
It wasn't me.


LEG. LOSQUADRO:
I said it.

MS. ORTIZ:
Legislator Mystal.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Oh, Legislator Losquadro, second by Legislator Mystal.

LEG. ALDEN:
Explanation.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yeah. Maybe, Mr. Anderson, you'd be the best one to give us an explanation on this.

MR. ANDERSON:
This project involves a total of 28.1 million dollars, 18.8 million dollars of which are going to be paid
through serial bonds, and 9.3 would be paid through the Assessment Stabilization Reserve Funds.
It's for improvements to the grid system reconstruction, security improvements, as well as
engineering assistance in those as needed.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Alden.

LEG. ALDEN:
So 9 million comes from the Sewer Stabilization?

MR. ANDERSON:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Twenty -- how much, 20 something million we're going outside and bonding?

MR. ANDERSON:


                                                                                                            248
No, 18.8 million goes to -- comes from serial bonds.

LEG. ALDEN:
From -- I'm sorry, I couldn't hear it.

MR. ANDERSON:
It would be 18.8 million would come through serial bonds, and 9.3 million would come through the
Assessment Stabilization Reserve Fund.

LEG. ALDEN:
So 18.8, we're go out to the market and borrow that money?

MR. ANDERSON:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Okay. After January 1st, we can't even contemplate that. Why are we doing that now? Because
there was a referendum, I believe, that doesn't have us do that.

MS. VIZZINI:
Mr. Presiding Officer.

P.O. LINDSAY:
No. This is --

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
It's within the sewer district.

P.O. LINDSAY:
It's within the sewer district. This isn't the --

LEG. ALDEN:
No. I just asked him. It's outside bonds, he said.

MS. VIZZINI:
He means sewer district serial bonds.

MR. ANDERSON:
Sewer district bonds. I meant --

P.O. LINDSAY:
It's a sewer district bond.

LEG. ALDEN:
Oh, all right.

MR. ANDERSON:
Yeah.

LEG. ALDEN:
Then that's a different answer. Fine.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Romaine.

LEG. ROMAINE:


                                                                                                   249
Yes, very quickly. When you come forward with capital projects, I'm sure you have a construction
schedule. When are the things that this 27 million dollars, are they scheduled all to begin
construction sometime within the next 12 months?

MR. ANDERSON:
I don't know, but I can find out for you.

LEG. ROMAINE:
I wish I could know, and I'll tell you why. Because I want to vote for this, but I want to make sure
that my vote to go in and borrow this money, that this money's going to be spent, at least, or at
least some of it's going to be started or these projects will be started within 12 months. I don't want
to continue to vote for projects that we just add to the debt overhang and we don't start. And they
hang out there for years and years. Thank you.


P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Alden has a follow-up.

LEG. ALDEN:
This project is to improve what, or increase our capacity down at Southwest?

MR. ANDERSON:
The work involves various treatment processes. Primarily, the grid separation system and security
improvements on the site itself.

LEG. ALDEN:
So without this, we really shouldn't be hooking up outside parcels to the Southwest Sewer District at
all, right?

MR. ANDERSON:
Well, the system's working right now. This is to improve the system.

LEG. ALDEN:
Okay. But what does this do then? If the system is working right now, why are we spending 30, 40
million dollars to do something different?

MR. ANDERSON:
Again, it's -- the facility has been there for -- you know, since the '70's. I mean, they do have to be
reconstructed just for serviceable life, and this is, you know, part of that process.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. We have a motion and a second. Roll call.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Mystal, come on.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.


                                                                                                          250
LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yes.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yep.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. 2388A, the bonding -- the accompanying bonding resolution. Same motion, same second.
Roll call.

     (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. LOSQUADRO:


                                                                                             25
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
He said yes.

MR. LAUBE:
I'll take that as a yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yes.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yep.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.



                           252
P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. I.R. 2389 - Transferring Assessment Stabilization Reserve Fund to the Capital Fund
amending the 2006 Capital Budget and Program, and appropriating additional funds for
the improvements to the Suffolk County Sewer District No. 22 - Hauppauge Municipal.
How many votes, Counsel?

MR. NOLAN:
Ten.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Ten-voter. Do I have a motion?

LEG. KENNEDY:
I'll make a motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Kennedy.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Romaine. Roll call.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yeah.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.



                                                                                           253
LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yes.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yes.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. The accompanying bonding resolution, 2390A, same motion, same second. Roll call.

MR. LAUBE:
No, no, no, no. Wait a minute. 2389 was an individual.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Oh, I'm sorry. 2389 didn't have a bonding -- a bond with it, right? It was just a transfer. Okay.
We're at I.R. 2390 - Amending the 2006 Capital Budget and Program, transferring funds
from the Assessment Stabilization Reserve Fund, and appropriating funds in connection
with the improvements to the Suffolk County Sewer District No. 23 Coventry Manor
(CP8149).

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Motion to approve.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to approve by Legislator Losquadro. Do I have a second?

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:


                                                                                                    254
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Kennedy. Ten votes?

MR. NOLAN:
Ten votes on the underlying, 1 2 on the bond.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Maybe we can do this with a voice vote? We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Seventeen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Did you get --

MR. LAUBE:
That's 18. I see Elie, I see Lynne.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. And the accompanying bond, 2390A, same motion, same second. Roll call.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yes.



                                                                                             255
LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yes.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2392 - Appropriating funds in connection with the renovations to Surrogate's Court
(CP1133). Do I have a motion?

LEG. MONTANO:
Motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Montano.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Second.

LEG. STERN:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Viloria-Fisher.

LEG. ALDEN:
On the motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
On the motion.

LEG. ALDEN:
Is this ready to go?

MR. ANDERSON:


                                                                                     256
This is actually for planning money, for design money.

LEG. MONTANO:
This is what?

MR. ANDERSON:
This isn't for construction.


P.O. LINDSAY:
Planning money.

MR. ANDERSON:
This is for planning money, not for construction.

LEG. ALDEN:
And when would the project actually move forward?

MR. ANDERSON:
Again, I can find out. I don't know off the top of my head.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Probably not until '08, if they're just looking for planning money now.

MR. ANDERSON:
I think it was in like later years.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Romaine.

LEG. ROMAINE:
How much is this for again, please?

MR. ANDERSON:
A hundred and twenty-four thousand.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Any other questions? Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

      [OPPOSED SAID IN UNISON BY LEGISLATORS]

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Motion to table.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Motion to table.

P.O. LINDSAY:
There's a motion to table. I'm going to call a roll call on it. Who is the second to the tabling
motion?

LEG. BROWNING:
I'll second it.


                                                                                                   257
P.O. LINDSAY:
This is a ten-voter, right?

MR. NOLAN:
To table.


P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay.

MR. LAUBE:
To table, it's ten.

P.O. LINDSAY:
And still ten to approve, right?

MR. NOLAN:
Ten to approve it, and 12 if it's bonding.

P.O. LINDSAY:
All right. Okay, roll call.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Pass.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Pass.

LEG. STERN:
I'm going to pass, too.

LEG. MYSTAL:
No to table.

LEG. HORSLEY:
No to table.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:


                                             258
Yes to table.

LEG. MONTANO:
No.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
No.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
No.

P.O. LINDSAY:
No.

LEG. COOPER:
No to table.

LEG. D'AMARO:
No to table.

LEG. STERN:
No to table.

MR. LAUBE:
Eleven. Eleven, no. Sorry, check that. Nine.

P.O. LINDSAY:
What?

MR. LAUBE:
Bad bath. Nine.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. So the tabling failed. The approval resolution, you have an approval resolution; am I right?

MR. LAUBE:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Roll call.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:


                                                                                                     259
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
This is to approve?

MR. LAUBE:
Correct.

LEG. ALDEN:
Ten-vote.

LEG. COOPER:
No, no.

MR. LAUBE:
D'Amaro.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Come on, guys, yes or no?

LEG. COOPER:
Change my vote to a yes.

MR. LAUBE:
To a yes?

P.O. LINDSAY:
Go.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
No.

LEG. KENNEDY:
No.

LEG. BARRAGA:
No.

LEG. ALDEN:
No.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.



                            260
LEG. LOSQUADRO:
No.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
No.


LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Abstain.

LEG. LINDSAY:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Did you get me?

MR. LAUBE:
Yes, I did get you. No.

LEG. ROMAINE:
I was a no.

MR. LAUBE:
Yes, sir. Ten.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. The motion passes. The accompanying bonding Resolution is 2392A.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Motion to table.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Do I have a motion?

LEG. D'AMARO:
Motion to approve.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to approve by Legislator D'Amaro.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Viloria-Fisher.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Motion to table.

LEG. ALDEN:
No, don't do it.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:


                                                                         26
No.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Roll call.


LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Motion to table. Motion to table.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to table by Legislator Schneiderman. Is there a second?

LEG. NOWICK:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Nowick. Tabling motion comes first. Roll call.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes to table.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
No.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.



                                                                      262
LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes to table.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Nope.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
No.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Fifteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2393 - Appropriating funds in connection with the movable bridges needs assessment
rehabilitation (CP5806). Do I have a motion?

LEG. BROWNING:
Motion to approve.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Who made the motion? Legislator Browning made the motion, second by Eddington.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
On the motion?

P.O. LINDSAY:
On the motion.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Could I ask Mr. Anderson to give us an explanation of where these bridges are?

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Over water.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Well, actually, today it's a bridge over troubled water.

MR. ANDERSON:
The resolution is for $300,000 of engineering for in-depth inspection evaluation of Beach Lane Bridge
and West Bay Bridge. Beach Lane is in Westhampton, and West Bay, I'm not -- is in Westhampton,
too. Okay.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Both in Westhampton. Maybe I shouldn't have asked.


                                                                                                        263
P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. On the motion.

LEG. ALDEN:
So, when you say "movable bridges", you mean drawbridges?

MR. ANDERSON:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yeah, okay. Not that they're going to end up in my district later on.

P.O. LINDSAY:
So we have a motion to approve and a second?

MR. LAUBE:
Correct.

P.O. LINDSAY:
All right. Roll call.

       (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
No.

LEG. ALDEN:
Pass.


                                                                        264
LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Sure.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes, and cosponsor, please.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Seventeen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. The accompanying bond resolution, 2393A, same motion, same second. Roll call.

     (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.


                                                                                      265
LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
No.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yes.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Sure, yep.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Sure.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Seventeen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2394 - Appropriating funds in connection with improvements to the Suffolk County Farm
(CP 1796).

LEG. BROWNING:
I make a motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Browning. Do I have a second?

LEG. COOPER:
Second.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
On the motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Cooper. On the motion, Legislator Losquadro.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Again, to echo some of the comments from Legislator Alden, we're bonding $17,500. It's just --



                                                                                                 266
LEG. ROMAINE:
Seventeen thousand five hundred dollars would go to bond.

MR. NOLAN:
It was always in as a capital project. This is just appropriating the money.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
As a bonded project.

MR. NOLAN:
Always was, yeah.

                        (*COURT STENOGRAPHER - ALISON MAHONEY*)

P.O. LINDSAY:
Did you want to say something, Legislator Romaine?

LEG. ROMAINE:
No, Legislator Losquadro asked a question that I was going to ask, why would we be bonding
$17,500 when we have over $130 million surplus?
I don't get it.

P.O. LINDSAY:
So the best solution is vote against it.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Okay, thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Roll call.

                                (*Roll Called by Mr. Laube - Clerk*)

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
No.

LEG. KENNEDY:
No.


                                                                                             267
LEG. BARRAGA:
No.

LEG. ALDEN:
Nope.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
No.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
No.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Motion to table.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Jay, this is just on the underlying.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
All right, no.

LEG. ROMAINE:
No.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Well, being that this is in my district, I don't care about it, no.

MR. LAUBE:
No?

P.O. LINDSAY:
No, the answer is no.

MR. LAUBE:
Nine.

P.O. LINDSAY:
The accompanying bonding resolution is moot.

2395-06 - Amending the 2006 Capital Budget & Program and appropriating funds in
connection with the reconstruction of culverts (CP 5371) (County Executive). Do we have
a motion?

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Motion, Mr. Chairman.



                                                                                          268
P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Caracappa.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
I'll second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Eddington. I hate to do this to you,
Mr. Anderson, but would you please come back to the mike.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
I withdraw my motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
This will take 14 votes, it's underlying. Legislator Caracappa withdrew his motion, I'll replace it; I'll
make the motion for the purposes of information. Could you tell us, describe this project a little bit
to us?

CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON:
This resolution is for $600,000 in construction for the replacement of culverts at three location --
three locations, pardon me; Robertson Pond Culvert, San Soussie Lake Spillway and Culvert under
County Road 85, and at County Road 94, Nugent Drive Culvert.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Do we have any other questions? Legislator Alden.

LEG. ALDEN:
Why is it amending the 2006, is this a -- we're going from cash to bonding, that's why?

MR. NOLAN:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Okay. Oh, just one other quick one. Do you know when this -- this project is actually going to take
place?

CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON:
That will occur during 2007, this is for the actual construction of it.

LEG. ALDEN:
This is for the construction?

CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
And it's all set, ready to go?

CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON:
It's all designed and ready to go.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Any other questions? Roll call.

MR. LAUBE:


                                                                                                            269
You need a second.

MS. ORTIZ:
Eddington.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
I did.

MR. LAUBE:
Okay.

P.O. LINDSAY:
He seconded. 14 votes.

                         (*Roll Called by Mr. Laube - Clerk*)

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yep.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
No.

LEG. KENNEDY:
No.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
No.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
No.

LEG. CARACAPPA:


                                                                270
No.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
No.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
12.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, 2395 fails which makes the bonding resolution moot.

2406-06 - Amending the 2006 Capital Budget and Program and appropriating funds in
connection with the renovations at the Yaphank correctional Complex - Rehabilitation of
existing DWI Facility
(CP 3009)(County Executive).

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Caracappa.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Romaine.

LEG. ALDEN:
On the motion?

P.O. LINDSAY:
On the motion, Legislator Alden.

LEG. ALDEN:
First, is this ready to go? And secondly, I remember one time this was supposed to be part of the
jail project; is this actually part of the jail project or separate from?

CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON:
This is separate from the jail project. This is essentially to keep the DWI facility in operation for the
next three years, it involves roof repairs, HVAC repairs and general carpentry to support the bill.


LEG. ALDEN:
And then where does the DWI facility go; into the new jail when it's constructed, right? When we
build, we build a new DWI facility.



                                                                                                            27
CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON:
We're building a new -- yes, yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
So this is just -- how much is this for?

CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON:
This is for $300,000.

LEG. ALDEN:
And this keeps it going for the next three years.

CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON:
Three to four years, yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Any other questions? Okay, we have a motion and a second. Roll call.

                                (*Roll Called by Mr. Laube - Clerk*)

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yes.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.



                                                                       272
LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2406A, the accompany Bonding Resolution; same motion, same second.
Roll call.

                           (*Roll Called by Mr. Laube - Clerk*)

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.


LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:


                                                                     273
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
No.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
17 (Opposed: Legislator Alden).

P.O. LINDSAY:
2407-06 - Amending the 2006 Capital Budget and Program and appropriating funds in
connection with the safety improvements at various intersections (CP 3301)(County
Executive).
No motion?

LEG. COOPER:
Motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Cooper. No second?

LEG. BROWNING:
I'll second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Browning.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
On the motion?

P.O. LINDSAY:
On the motion.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
I'd like to know where the intersections are.



                                                                                    274
CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON:
It's actually one intersection in this case, this is the intersection of County Road 48 at Coxneck Road
in Southhold.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Okay. And how are we paying for this?

CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON:
This is for $100,000 that will be bonding for engineering.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
We're bonding this also.

CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Okay, thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
We need 14 notes votes. Okay, roll call.

                               (*Roll Called by Mr. Laube - Clerk*)

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Pass.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
No.

LEG. KENNEDY:
No.

LEG. BARRAGA:
No.


LEG. ALDEN:
Pass.

LEG. MONTANO:


                                                                                                          275
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
No.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
No.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
No.

P.O. LINDSAY:
No.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
11.

P.O. LINDSAY:
The resolution fails, the accompany Bonding Resolution is moot.

2410-06 - Amending the 2006 Capital Budget and Program and appropriating funds
through the issuance of Serial Bonds for engineering the expansion and improvements to
the Suffolk County Sewer District No. 18 - Hauppauge Industrial (CP 8126)(County
Executive).

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
That is sewer bonds.

LEG. KENNEDY:
I'll make a motion to approve, but I want to confirm that it's sewer bonds.

P.O. LINDSAY:
There's a motion. Is there a second?

LEG. ROMAINE:
I'll second.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Second it.

P.O. LINDSAY:


                                                                                         276
Second by Legislator Losquadro.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Through the Chair, can we ask Mr. Anderson to --

P.O. LINDSAY:
Absolutely.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Thank you. Sorry about the voice, but you're the man of the hour. These are Sewer District Bonds
that are being let in order to go ahead and go through this phase of the project?

CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Okay, good. Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, roll call.

                             (*Roll Called by Mr. Laube - Clerk*)

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yes.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.



                                                                                                   277
LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yes.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Same motion, same second. Roll call on the bond.

                             (*Roll Called by Mr. Laube - Clerk*)

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.



                                                                    278
LEG. ALDEN:
Yes.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yes.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2411-06 - Amending the 2006 Capital Budget and Program and appropriating funds in
connection with the construction of the new jail --

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Question; do we do the bond first?

P.O. LINDSAY:
Let me finish reading it, all right -- correctional replacement facility at Yaphank (CP
3008)(County Executive), and this is the underlying resolution.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Caracappa. What was your comment?


LEG. LOSQUADRO:
I just thought we should do the bond first on this one to save time.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Well, Counsel is advising me to take the vote on the underlying resolution first.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Okay.


                                                                                          279
P.O. LINDSAY:
We have a motion by Legislator Caracappa.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Romaine.

LEG. ALDEN:
On the motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
On the motion.

LEG. ALDEN:
Through the Chair; Mr. Anderson, is this project ready to go?

CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON:
We are moving forward with the project, we anticipate -- we are looking to award the first phase of
it, we're moving in -- the intent is to get into the major portion the beginning of next year.

LEG. ALDEN:
Wait a minute, I'm sorry, you're looking to award the contract and start construction when, in '07?

P.O. LINDSAY:
The first phase has been bid already and is waiting to be awarded, the second phase is scheduled to
go out to bid in '07.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
If I may, Mr. Chairman?

LEG. ALDEN:
Okay, so this is for the first phase or the second phase?

CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON:
This is essentially so the money is in place so the remainder of the project can be bid in the
beginning, it's going to be broken into phases.

LEG. ALDEN:
Okay. So the money -- and I'm going to have to -- through the Chair. Budget Review, last -- right
before Christmas last year we had a Special Meeting; was it last year? Yeah, it was last year, it was
in '05. So it was in '05, we had a Special Meeting to appropriate -- I forget how many millions of
dollars it was.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Ninety-three.

LEG. ALDEN:
How much was that?

MS. VIZZINI:
Ninety-three million.

LEG. ALDEN:


                                                                                                        280
Ninety-three million. You're going to use up all of this 93 million? Well, first off, the comment would
be, "Oh, guess what? It's almost Christmas time again and not one penny of that money has
actually been spent, nobody has been put to work." So I guess maybe we rushed a little bit in doing
that last year. My question is how much is that going to get spent and how soon?

CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON:
The -- in response to your questions, we went out to bid in July to award the precast sell, the first
phase of the project, we received no bidders. We went back out after interest from general
contractors, we received a bid, we're in negotiations with that bid, we should and we feel very
confident that we're going to be awarding the bid --

LEG. ALDEN:
Okay. But --

MR. ANDERSON:
-- within the next week. I understand what you're saying, but --

LEG. ALDEN:
Well, I feel, you know, not vindicated but I feel bad that we actually did that because people were
screaming at me and accused me of ruining their Christmas and all those kind of things. Now, I also
want to point out that prior to that, there's 40 million I think that we approved that was just sitting
around ready to be used; is that not so too? I'll ask Budget Review.

MS. VIZZINI:
There's 42.7 million in the 2006 Adopted Capital Program for the jail.

LEG. ALDEN:
Did we spend that yet?

MS. VIZZINI:
That's before you, that's a piece of this.

LEG. ALDEN:
Oh, that's this one. And we're not going to spend this till late '07, maybe '08?

CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON:
No, we're looking to actually --

LEG. CARACAPPA:
You have to appropriate it within the budget year.

MR. ANDERSON:
We have to begin breaking ground by June of next year.

LEG. ALDEN:
But we have ninety something million and we have -- there's 20 or 30 million or 40 million that was
sitting around, it was already approved prior to that, so we've got over $100 million to start the
project and get going on it.

CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON:
I don't understand your question.

LEG. ALDEN:
You know, I don't mean to put you on the spot either because, you know, I think there were other
things afoot. But when are we going to spend this again? And this is for 40 --



                                                                                                          28
CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Mr. Chairman, can I just interject? Maybe I can clarify since the reference was made to a meeting
that Mr. Anderson wasn't at last year.

LEG. ALDEN:
My question is when are we going to spend the money from this resolution?

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
This money is going to be spent in accordance, as you recall, with the State CEO deadlines. If you
recall, we put together the program to provide the funding over a three year period of time because
the feeling was that if you tried to displace 150 or $160 million of Capital money in one fell swoop,
too many projects would fall by the wayside. The debate that we had last December with respect to
the $92 million appropriation was all about getting money in place, the appropriations with the full
disclosure and representation that the actual work for the construction would be in accordance with
the State guidelines and deadlines of June 10th of 2007, but there's a process to get to that point.
We also represented at the final stage --

LEG. ALDEN:
I have to --

P.O. LINDSAY:
Let him finish.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
-- those appropriations would take place in 2006 which included the $42 million that was already in
the Capital Budget, that was fully disclosed. The monies aren't borrowed until it's time to go out and
do the project. So it was fully, totally, completely disclosed that the $92 million wasn't going to be
spent on January 1st of 2006.


LEG. ALDEN:
But Paul, with all due respect, I will refer you to the record that was made that day where we had
testimony after testimony, and I believe you might have even come up and said that that money --
we're putting the shovel in the ground in '06, and that's why those people were screaming at me last
Christmas.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
No, the point that I made, and I repeated it over and over again, was that there would be no way for
find $92 million in offsets in the year 2006. Because we had budgeted $92 million for 2005 --

LEG. ALDEN:
But then I have to stop you there, Paul.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
There would be no way to get -- let me finish. There would be no way to get $92 million of offsets
in 2006, ergo the project would fall by the wayside.

LEG. ALDEN:
No, au contraire, au contraire. There is a way to get the $96 million.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
The State would crank down and say, "You're going to lose the variances," and you never would get
to the point of being able to construct.

LEG. ALDEN:
We just went through, not that long ago we went through a Capital Program and that's when we


                                                                                                         282
could have approved that $96 million in that Capital Budget process.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
No, because you can't --

LEG. ALDEN:
Oh, you can't in a Capital Budget process?

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
No, because in the Capital Budget process that you just went through in 2006, that would be for
2007, it would be too late.

LEG. ALDEN:
Right. Oh, that's true, because all that construction took place in '06; you're right. Paul, you're not
responding.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Caracappa.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
I am absolutely right. And number two, it was fully disclosed.
You can't distort and rewrite the record, it was fully disclosed.

LEG. ALDEN:
You're not responding to the question I asked.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, fellows, I'm going to cut that off.

LEG. ALDEN:
I give up.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Caracappa.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Mr. Sabatino was getting around to it, I think. The reason why we did the Special Meeting last year
and the reason why we're doing this money now is because we have to appropriate the dollar
amount within the budget year, and it usually happens like that on big projects towards the end of
the year. Because we wait as long as we can to appropriate in case we don't need and, and in this
case, since it's a big project and we did break it up into certain years within the Capital plan and the
program, we did '06 money at the end of '05 and now we're doing the '07 money for the '06 at the
end of '06; correct me if I'm wrong, Paul.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
You're absolutely correct.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
We have to do it by statute.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Kennedy.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The only other piece I'll add to this was, because I was the other vote last
December, in December '05, and my issue -- and I want to make very certain, Paul, that we


                                                                                                           283
understand where things went. When we sat there and voted, I did not object to the 71 million that
was included in the '06 Capital Project that we had adopted, my objection was the 21 million in
excess that was swept from the balance of the year for projects that had not been done. And here
we are 12 months later and we're engaging in a similar process where we're looking at 42 million
that was adopted in the Spring and now we're sweeping another 16 million. And so my issue goes
to is it an exercise in futility in May to adopt a Capital Project because those things aren't going to
get embraced, they're going to get balances left and a surplus in December and we'll pool it so we
can do a jail. Why bother going through a Capital Program in May then?

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Okay, if you're talking about the Capital Budget & Program in general, this is just -- this is just the
philosophy and the reality of a Capital Budget & Program process which is that put the jail aside,
make believe there's no jail, this happens every year, it's happened all the 30 years I've been in
County government which is that you adopt an overall Capital Budget & Program for hundreds of
millions of dollars. The laws of nature being what they are, not every project comes to fruition in
the course of the year that you originally budgeted for for a variety of reasons; it could be reasons
ranging from --

LEG. ALDEN:
Political to --

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
-- the planning steps or the engineering work find, something you didn't contemplate in terms of the
work or another project becomes more important, becomes an emergency, weather setbacks, a
dredging project, whatever the case might be. But we never ever, in the history of the time I've
been in the County, have completed 100% of the projects budget at the beginning of the Capital
Budget cycle before the end of the year.

What happens at the end of the year, and it happens every Christmas time, is we sit here in the
month of December and we look at the overall County-wide impact of all of the Capital Budgets and
Projects; we sit down and we look at which ones have progressed to a point where we're getting a
recommendation from the department to appropriate the budget because something is going to
actually happen in the next cycle. The projects that didn't make it to that point are generally utilized
as offsets at the end of that year, or if they're not utilized as offsets, I hate to tell you this, but if
you look back over the years, there are lots of projects that were either not used as offsets or
appropriations weren't made and the projects simply fall by the wayside; not because anybody sat
down with a Machiavellian scheme not to make that project happen, it's just that you can't do 200 or
$300 million worth of projects in the course of a year. It happens every year, irrespective of
whether there's a jail project or not.

So the short answer to your question is that, yes, not every project comes to fruition in the year in
which you budget it.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Again, through the Chair, I appreciate the explanation, but when I voted for this this time in
committee, there was also a request I made to Mr. Anderson. Because in December of '05, there
was a representation that the project here with the renovation of the County Riverhead Center was
in jeopardy depending upon what was going with the funding for the jail. So I ask Mr. Anderson to
go ahead and -- and I know your voice is going, I don't want you to give a long thing, just give it to
me simple; is there a GC that's been selected now and a contract thing for the balance of this
center? Tell me that. Because we keep hearing about we can't do these big projects, but labor gets
told they're going to get these big projects; give me the reality.

CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON:
A GC hasn't been selected, we're about 65 to 70% complete with the plans. We expect to go to
construction early next year, April, March, that's our intention right now.


                                                                                                             284
LEG. KENNEDY:
Fine. The hour is late.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. We have a motion and a second on 2411? Roll call.

                            (*Roll Called by Mr. Laube - Clerk*)

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
(Not Present).

LEG. MYSTAL:
He'll be right in.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Skip him.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yes for the super jail.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.


                                                                   285
LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. 2411A, the accompanying Bonding Resolution; I'll make a motion. Do I have second?

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second. Roll call.

                            (*Roll Called by Mr. Laube - Clerk*)

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.


                                                                                          286
LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yes.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yes.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, we have Resolution 2438-06 - Appropriating funds in connection with the Memorial for
the Victims of the Terrorist Attacks on September 11th (CP 1773)(County Executive).

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Motion to approve.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I'll make -- second that motion; motion by Legislator Losquadro and a second by myself. It's a 10
voter, right?

MR. NOLAN:
It is.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. I'm going to try to do this without a roll call. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, the accompanying Bonding Resolution, 2438A, same motion same second. Roll call.

                              (*Roll Called by Mr. Laube - Clerk*)



                                                                                                    287
LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.


LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yes.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yes.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:


                         288
18.


P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Veterans & Seniors:

IR 2286-06 - Adopting Local Law no. 2006, a Local Law expanding income eligibility
limits for real property tax exemption for seniors (County Executive).

LEG. COOPER:
Motion to approve.

LEG. STERN:
Motion to approve.

LEG. COOPER:
Second.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Stern to approve, second by Legislator Eddington. All in favor? Opposed?
Abstentions?

LEG. MYSTAL:
Cosponsor.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Cosponsor.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Cosponsor.

LEG. COOPER:
Cosponsor.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Cosponsor.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Cosponsor.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
I'll take a cosponsor, too.

LEG. BROWNING:
Everybody.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Does anybody not want to cosponsor it? Let's do it that way. Okay, somebody doesn't want to
cosponsor? You don't want to cosponsor?

LEG. KENNEDY:
No, I want to be added to it.



                                                                                                289
P.O. LINDSAY:
I said somebody does not want to cosponsor.

LEG. KENNEDY:
I'm not paying attention then.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2288-06 - Adopting Local Law no.        2006, a Local Law expanding tax exemptions granted
to veterans (County Executive).

LEG. ROMAINE:
Motion.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Romaine, second by Eddington. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?
LEG. COOPER:
Cosponsor.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Cosponsor.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Cosponsor.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Cosponsor.

MR. LAUBE:
Who doesn't want to cosponsor?

LEG. CARACAPPA:
The only one not running next year. I'm kidding, I'll cosponsor.

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2346-06 - To authorize the flying of the Merchant Marine Flag at Armed Services Plaza at
the H. Lee Dennison Building, Hauppauge (Cooper).

LEG. STERN:
I'll make a motion to table.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay.

LEG. COOPER:
Yeah, I was going to say, I understand that the site screening committee hasn't met yet, so we need
to table this.

P.O. LINDSAY:
All right. Motion to table by Legislator Stern, second by Cooper for the site selection committee to
meet.


                                                                                                       290
LEG. STERN:
On the motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
On the motion.

LEG. STERN:
Through the Chair, if I may. Yes, we were able to -- according to Counsel's interpretation, we were
able to pass it out of committee but it has to be tabled at this time because it has not been approved
by the site committee.

P.O. LINDSAY:
All right. On the tabling motion, all in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? 365


MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2432-06 - Establishing an East End VA Clinic Feasability Committee (Romaine).

LEG. ROMAINE:
Motion.

LEG. COOPER:
Motion to table.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second the motion to table. You have a second to the approval?

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yeah, I'll second it.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Do you want to comment on this, Mr. Zwirn?

MR. ZWIRN:
If I can. We have found a location, the Space Management Committee. The County Executive has
engaged them to be looking for a spot for some time. He's been in conversation with the VA in
Northport for some time as well and we are currently looking for Federal and State aid to assist in
this. The location is in the County Center, it is the old methadone clinic on the second floor in the
north wing which will be moving over to the health center over, I guess, in the south wing, and that
space on the second floor is approximately 3,000 square feet. The County Executive expects before
the end of this week to have a walk-thru with the VA representatives. So we think if we went ahead
with this at this time, it's only going to delay us, we're not going to be able to get any Federal or
State grants if we're telling them we don't have a site yet. But we have a site specific, it's in
Riverhead on the east end. As I said, it's just short of 3,000 square feet, it will cost about 850,000,
they estimate, to a million dollars to renovate it, to get the elevators working properly, to make it
ADA accessible; the County Executive thinks the veterans are certainly worth that investment. And
we have the site, so at this point we don't think this is necessary to go forward, it would only delay
any chance we have of getting Federal or State grants.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Romaine.



                                                                                                          29
LEG. ROMAINE:
A couple of comments. First of all, before Mr. Zwirn sits down, a quick question for him. Could you
please have the County Executive advise my office when that walk-thru will take place since I'd like
to join that tour?

MR. ZWIRN:
I will mention it to the him. What? I said, I'm sure your invitation is probably in the mail as we
speak. I'm just saying, I'm sure it is, he's very thoughtful and careful about those things.

LEG. ROMAINE:
And secondly, the Feasibility Committee has not only representatives and veterans from the east
end and from the Director of the County's Veterans Service Agency as the Chairman, but a Director
from the VA in Northport and a representative from Congressmen Bishop's Office. I'm very anxious
to acquire Federal funding. Here's my concern at this time. My concern is at the Veteran's
Committee, and Mr. Stern will remember, that they talked about renovating the County Center and
spending a million dollars on I think it was 2,700 square feet at the time was discussed; that's a lot
of money.

I think the Feasibility Committee makes sense, and certainly I'd be the first one to disband it if a
decision was made by the VA and we were going to go ahead. But then without Federal or State
funding, if it doesn't come through or if there isn't funding, then we're going to be asked to vote for
a million dollars. I think a better possibility, and that's why I think this Feasibility Committee should
go ahead, a better suggestion is possibly to lease space on Main Street where there's a lot of vacant
stores in Riverhead, help downtown revitalization and spent considerably less than a million dollars
because you have the landlord do the renovations, and as a result, you may be paying 50, $60,000
a year in rent and it's a second alternative; certainly far more cost effective. And we all don't want
to be big spenders here and we don't want to act --

MR. ZWIRN:
I think for our veterans, I don't think there will be any problem even in this climate getting the
requisite votes to spend the money for an east end clinic.

LEG. ROMAINE:
No, I understand that, but if there's a -- if a more cost effective and nevertheless alternative
situation that is a similar situation -- and I really didn't want to debate you, Mr. Zwirn, because
you're not a member of this --


MR. ZWIRN:
I'm just saying, we don't think the bill is necessary.

LEG. ROMAINE:
You're not a member of this Legislature and I happen to have the floor.

MR. ZWIRN:
You asked me -- I was prepared to sit down, you asked me to stay here.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Point of order, Mr. Chairman; I think I have the floor.

MR. ZWIRN:
You asked me to stay here.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I have the floor, Mr. Zwirn is interrupting, I'm not directing any
questions to him. I'm trying to explain why I think the Feasibility Committee would work because


                                                                                                            292
there may be other alternatives that we should explore. I mean, if the County goes ahead and
decides to do this, I'll be the first one to agree providing that there are Federal and State funding.
So if there's going to be a tabling, so be it. I'm going to vote for it, let the votes fall where they
may.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Anybody else want to comment on this? I believe we have a tabling motion and a --

MR. LAUBE:
And I need a second on the tabling motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Did we have a second on the tabling motion? There is no second, so the tabling motion fails. We
only have a motion for approval.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
I'll second the tabling motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
You second the tabling motion. Okay, on the tabling first; roll call.

LEG. COOPER:
I'm sorry, this is to --

MR. LAUBE:
To table 2432.

                                  (*Roll Called by Mr. Laube - Clerk*)

LEG. COOPER:
No to table.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes to table.

LEG. D'AMARO:
No.

LEG. STERN:
No.

LEG. MYSTAL:
No.

LEG. HORSLEY:
No.

LEG. NOWICK:
Pass.

LEG. KENNEDY:
No to table.

LEG. BARRAGA:
No to table.



                                                                                                         293
LEG. ALDEN:
No to table.

LEG. MONTANO:
No.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
No.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
No to table.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
No to table.

LEG. BROWNING:
No.

LEG. ROMAINE:
No to table.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Nope.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I'm going to vote yes to table for the simple reason it gives you another option; the Executive's
program, if it doesn't work you have a second chance to look at it.

LEG. BROWNING:
Change my vote to a yes.

LEG. MONTANO:
Change mine to a yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Four. Legislator Nowick, I'm sorry.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes to table.

MR. LAUBE:
And that's five.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, it fails. Now we have a motion to approve; roll call.

                               (*Roll Called by Mr. Laube - Clerk*)

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes to approve.


LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:


                                                                                                    294
No.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Pass.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
No.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yes.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yes.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
No.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.



MR. LAUBE:
14, so it should be 16. (Actual Vote: 15-3-0-0 Opposed: Legislators Lindsay, Cooper & Mystal).

P.O. LINDSAY:


                                                                                                 295
Ways & Means:

2305-06 - Sale of County-owned real estate pursuant to Section 72-h of the General
Municipal Law (Lindenhurst Fire Department)(SCTM No.
0103-003.00-007.000) (County Executive). We need a motion.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Horsley.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Come on, pay attention. We're almost through, let's go.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Motion to approve.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Horsley makes a motion, second by Legislator Mystal.
All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2308-06 - Sale of County-owned real estate pursuant to Local Law No. 13-1976, Alwin
James (SCTM No. 0100-151.00-01.00-045.000) (County Executive). I'll make a motion. Do
I have a second?

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Eddington. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2381-06 - Authorizing that Resolution No. 22-1988 be rescinded due to lack of payment of
prior fee owner (County Executive). I'll make a motion for the purpose of an explanation.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Losquadro. Counsel, you want to give us a shot at explaining this?

MR. NOLAN:
Yes. Back in 1998 the Legislature passed a resolution authorizing a Certificate of Abandonment for
parcel that the County had taken for back taxes. However, the person who was supposed to pay the
County has not done so, so the Department of -- Division of Real Estate has requested this
resolution to rescind the prior resolution and we will not be abandoning the property.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:


                                                                                                     296
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2416-06 - Amending Resolution No. 612-2006, to provide further direction to the Suffolk
County Attorney in regard to Public Service Commission Proceedings (Horsley).

LEG. HORSLEY:
Motion to approve.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Horsley.

LEG. KENNEDY:
I'll second.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Viloria-Fisher. Explanation.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Okay, in the -- as intervenors in the PSC Hearing, our intended intervenor status, there is an issue
that has come up that there are what's called manufactured gas plants across Suffolk County, there
are ten of them. One is particularly noxious and what it is, there are actually pollutants that are
being placed into the groundwater which KeySpan is to clean-up. They have, according to their --
according to their PSC Hearing comments, that they are going to levy the cost of the clean-up of
these MGP's on the ratepayers. We're amending the resolution to be -- in our intervenor status to
say no, the ratepayers should not pay for the clean-up of the MGP's and that's what the amendment
is.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Good.

LEG. ALDEN:
Can I ask a question?

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Alden.

LEG. ALDEN:
One of those is in my former district which is now Legislator Barraga's district.
LEG. HORSLEY:
Absolutely.

LEG. ALDEN:
But there was already a plan in place and they already had a plan to pay for that, not pass it off to
the --

LEG. HORSLEY:
According to the National Grid/KeySpan merger, they intend to have that passed off to -- they're
first going to go to the insurance companies, the insurance company is going to pay a portion of it,
the rest of it would go to the ratepayers and all we're doing is saying no, that they should not be
levied on the ratepayers.

LEG. ALDEN:


                                                                                                        297
So that's a new plan that they have.

LEG. HORSLEY:
That is a new plan in front of the PSC; this is National Grid now.

LEG. ALDEN:
Right. So if the merger doesn't take place then it's a moot point, but if the merger --

LEG. HORSLEY:
I'm not so sure about that.

LEG. ALDEN:
KeySpan is proposing to pass it off?

LEG. HORSLEY:
I think it's as much -- they are complicit in this arrangement, that's my opinion.

LEG. ALDEN:
Okay. Thanks, Wayne.


LEG. HORSLEY:
George has been involved with this as well.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
18.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Cosponsor.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2436-06 - Amending the 2006 Capital Budget & Program and appropriating funds in
connection with the Optical Disk Imaging System (CP 1751) (County Executive).


LEG. KENNEDY:
Motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Kennedy.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Romaine.

LEG. COOPER:
Motion to table.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to table by Legislator Cooper. Do I have a second to the tabling motion?



                                                                                          298
LEG. MONTANO:
I'll second it.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Eddington. Tabling motion goes first; roll call.

LEG. ALDEN:
Just on the motion?

P.O. LINDSAY:
On the motion.

LEG. ALDEN:
What project is this?

P.O. LINDSAY:
It's the Optical Disk Imagining System.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yeah, but what does that -- I think it speeds up the processing of documents? I'm trying to think
back to the testimony when this was in the Capital Program. And I'll ask Budget Review -- through
the Chair, I'll ask Budget Review if this is an enhancement of revenue.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Why don't you let Legislator Kennedy answer because I believe it was in the Clerk's Office and he
has familiarity with the operation.

LEG. ALDEN:
Sure.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Optical Imaging 1751 has been a Capital Budget project actually since 1996 or '97. It's the
mechanism that's actually been put in place to go ahead and do the Optical Imaging Program for
County Clerk's records. At this point there are I believe -- well, two years ago there were 14 million
images, I'm sure by now it's up to 25 million imagines. This final extension of the project allows for
backfilling, if you will, of deed histories and mortgage documents as well. So really what it's doing is
it's culminating what's been a ten year process that was authorized by this Legislature time and time
again.

LEG. ALDEN:
Is there any revenue associated with the accessing of these documents? Any revenue associated
with accessing the documents?

LEG. KENNEDY:
Well, I'll yield to the County Clerk, former County Clerk.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes and that, of course, depends on the administration. There's all types of ways to ven revenue,
one is to do a subscription service which is a very limited service that would be available to about --
at this point they would allow about 200 people. You'd have to give a -- you'd have to pay a fee of
at least $7,000 per year, so that's a $1.4 million revenue, they have people waiting to do this. The
optical imaging will allow us to go back to 1969, so we will have at some point 40 years, by 2009 40
years on-line which means that you can do -- you can practically do a title search on-line because 40


                                                                                                           299
years is the given standard.

The revenue is unlimited because the more -- the greater the capacity the more you can get a
subscription service. For example, if you're a title company you buy a subscription service, you have
one computer; if you want to service other computers you've got to buy additional subscription
services. And you have to identify who you are, when you log on they know who's using this and
you search the records as if you were searching here, you know, 30, 40 years ago when the original
records because the original records come up on computer.


LEG. ALDEN:
Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
We have a motion to table and we also have a motion to approve, so let's start with the tabling
motion. Roll call; call the roll.

                               (*Roll Called by Mr. Laube - Clerk*)

LEG. COOPER:
Yes to table.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.
LEG. MYSTAL:
Pass.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
No to table.

LEG. KENNEDY:
No.

LEG. BARRAGA:
No.

LEG. ALDEN:
No.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
No to table.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
No.


                                                                                                        300
LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
No.

LEG. ROMAINE:
No.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
10.

P.O. LINDSAY:
That makes the Bonding Resolution moot.

Memorializing Resolutions:

M-078-06 - Memorializing Resolution requesting United States Congress to authorize the
Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2006 (Romaine).
LEG. ROMAINE:
Motion to approve.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Do I have a second?

LEG. ALDEN:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Alden. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
M-079-06 - Memorializing Resolution in support of establishing community housing
opportunity funds in the Peconic Bay area (Browning).

LEG. BROWNING:
I'll make the motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Browning.

LEG. COOPER:
Second.


                                                                                         30
P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Cooper.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Just an explanation, please, from the sponsor.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Losquadro, explanation.

LEG. BROWNING:
This is in support of Assemblyman Thiele's bill. Basically what it is, it's saying that if you build a
large home and it's in excess of a certain square footage, you'll pay additional -- I believe $8 a
square foot, Counsel? I don't have it up.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
It's a mansion tax.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
A mansion tax?

LEG. BROWNING:
It's like a mansion tax and that money goes towards affordable housing.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
What's the threshold?


LEG. ALDEN:
Who keeps the money?

MR. NOLAN:
Twenty-five hundred square feet on this.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
That's it?

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Forty-five hundred?

MR. NOLAN:
Twenty-five hundred square feet.

LEG. ALDEN:
I have a question.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Alden.

LEG. ALDEN:
I guess it's to the sponsor; who keeps the money?

LEG. BROWNING:
Let me double check.

LEG. ALDEN:


                                                                                                         302
Because if it's New York State, they're not really big on affordable housing.

LEG. BROWNING:
Well, Assemblyman Thiele is.

LEG. ALDEN:
Well, they haven't spent a dime that I know of, not directly but, I mean, through some of the
Community Development Agency grants, yes. But if that's the way it's going to be thumbed down,
then that might be a good thing.

LEG. BROWNING:
I believe if I'm not mistaken it goes towards -- no, it doesn't say it. I believe the towns get the
money, if I'm not mistaken. I'm trying to remember it; am I correct?

LEG. ALDEN:
All ten towns?

LEG. BROWNING:
I believe the towns get the money towards affordable housing.

LEG. ALDEN:
Some towns don't build affordable housing, though.

LEG. BROWNING:
Well, this is the Peconic Bay Region.
LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
It's only on the east end.

LEG. ROMAINE:
It's like the transfer tax, Cameron.

LEG. ALDEN:
But some of the east end towns don't build affordable housing either.
It's got to be divided up by --

LEG. BROWNING:
This is an incentive for them to do that.

LEG. ALDEN:
But how is it divided up, then; automatically it goes like one-fifth, one-fifth, one-fifth?

LEG. ROMAINE:
No, no, no, where the house is built; pit originates in the town, it goes to the town where the house
is located.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
It's prospective in nature.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
It's only new.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Prospective in nature. Fred Thiele has his pending in the Assembly, God knows if it's going to pass.
I don't think it has a Senate sponsor yet.

P.O. LINDSAY:


                                                                                                        303
Any other questions on the resolution? We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed?
Abstentions?

LEG. BARRAGA:
Opposed.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
I'll abstain; I just don't know enough about it yet.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Abstain.

LEG. ALDEN:
Abstain.

MR. LAUBE:
14 (Opposed: Legislator Barraga - Abstentions: Legislators Caracappa, Losquadro & Alden).

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to make a motion to reconsider 2404 for the purposes of tabling.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
What page is it on?

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Page 13.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
What committee?

LEG. COOPER:
I'll second the motion.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
It's in Public Safety.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, we have a motion to reconsider 2404 which failed, right? Okay, both the motion failed and we
didn't take a motion on the bond, right? Okay. Do I have a second on the reconsideration? Cooper
reconsidered?

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, second on the reconsideration. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

LEG. ROMAINE:
Opposed.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Opposed.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Opposed.



                                                                                                       304
LEG. ALDEN:
To reconsider?

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
Opposed to reconsidering.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
It's to table it.

LEG. BARRAGA:
Opposed.

P.O. LINDSAY:
One, two, three, four, five, six; you got the six opposed?

MR. LAUBE:
No, just a second.
LEG. CARACAPPA:
Keep your hands up.

MR. LAUBE:
Keep your hands up; 12 (Opposed: Legislators Barraga, Nowick, Kennedy, Alden, Caracappa &
Romaine).

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, so it's back before us.

2404-06 - Amending the 2006 Capital Budget & Program and appropriating funds in
connection with the acquisition of a Disaster Recovery Project (CP 1729)(County
Executive).

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
I'll make a motion to table.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion to table by Legislator Schneiderman, second by Legislator Cooper. All in favor? Opposed?
Abstentions? Same opposed? Same six Legislators.

MR. LAUBE:
12 (Opposed: Legislators Romaine, Caracappa, Alden, Barraga, Kennedy & Nowick

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
And just one more, I'd like to make a motion to reconsider 2382 for the purposes of tabling.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2318 --

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
No, 2382 for the purposes of tabling; it's the last one.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
2382, the top of page 13.



                                                                                                  305
P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, we have a motion to reconsider 2382. Do I have a second?

LEG. COOPER:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Cooper. On the question, Legislator Romaine.

LEG. ROMAINE:
I think when this was under discussion, Legislator Cameron Alden made an excellent point, that this
is something that should not be bonded out. That this is something that certainly is suitable for 477
Funds and we should not be considering going to bond on this type of a resolution, that this would
be more appropriate for 477 Funds. We don't need to go into debt when we don't have to, we
should be fiscally responsible, avoid being big spenders and doing the right thing here.
P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay, we have a motion and a second on the tabling.

MS. ORTIZ:
No, to reconsider.

MR. LAUBE:
That's to reconsider.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Oh, reconsider. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

LEG. ROMAINE:
Opposed.

LEG. ALDEN:
I'm opposed.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Opposed.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Opposed. Romaine Caracappa Losquadro Alden Barraga Kennedy Nowick.

P.O. LINDSAY:
One, two, three, four, five, six, seven.

MR. LAUBE:
11 (Opposed: Legislators Romaine, Caracappa, Losquadro, Alden, Barraga, Kennedy & Nowick).

P.O. LINDSAY:
All right, it's back before us.

2382-06 - Amending the 2006 Capital Budget and Program and appropriating funds in
connection with reconstruction of spillways at Brookside County Park, Town of Islip (CP
7099)(County Executive).

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Motion to table.

P.O. LINDSAY:


                                                                                                        306
Motion to table by Legislator Schneiderman.

LEG. COOPER:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator Cooper. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

LEG. ROMAINE:
Opposed.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Same seven? Okay.

MR. LAUBE:
11 (Opposed: Legislators Romaine, Caracappa, Losquadro, Alden, Barraga, Kennedy & Nowick.

P.O. LINDSAY:
It's been tabled.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Go to your red packets of CN's. The first one is 2373 - Amending the 2006 Capital Budget &
Program and appropriating an additional $23 million in connection with the Suffolk County
Multi-faceted Land Preservation Program. Do I have a motion?

LEG. COOPER:
Motion to approve.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Cooper, second by Legislator Viloria-Fisher.

LEG. ALDEN:
On the motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
On the motion, Legislator Alden.

LEG. ALDEN:
There's -- through the Chair; Budget Review, what are the offsets for this, where is this money
coming from?

P.O. LINDSAY:
They're all listed there, you've got them in front of you.


LEG. ALDEN:
It's faster for them to read it to me at this hour.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay.

MS. VIZZINI:
There are several offsets; it's rehabilitation of parking lots, drives and curbs, the 311 and Emergency


                                                                                                          307
Response System, the upgrading of the court minutes, the reader printers, the water supply
systems, the Legislature's infrastructure improvements in traffic safety, the monies available in the
helicopter project, the Public Works Highway Maintenance equipment, the Highway Maintenance
facilities, the information system and equipment for Public Works, intersection improvements at
Patchogue-Holbrook Road, the County share of Vanderbilt Motor Parkway, the County share for
Nicoll's Road, equipment for transit vehicles, the bus shelters, certain projects at the airport and the
workforce housing incentive and the southwest incinerator project.

LEG. ALDEN:
So there's a sewer district offset?
MS. VIZZINI:
Yes, 7.7 million from the -- available in the incinerator project.

LEG. ALDEN:
That was just subject to, I believe, a voter referendum this November.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Back in January.

LEG. ALDEN:
Basically the voters told us they didn't want us to use that as an offset for any other projects; wasn't
that the --

MS. VIZZINI:
Yes, there was the proposition that indicated that Sewer District Capital Projects were not to be used
to offset General Fund; however, I believe the effective date was intended to be in '07.

LEG. ALDEN:
Right, January 1st, '07. Now, all these other projects that we're actually -- you know, and we did
similar projects today, we approved them. So we're going to take all those projects, gut them and
use the money on this $22 million to purchase, what, open space?

MS. VIZZINI:
That's correct.

LEG. ALDEN:
And we're going to spend this within the next how long, or it's anticipated by the resolution?

MS. VIZZINI:
I'm not sure that I can answer that question.


LEG. ALDEN:
Because I don't know if we would be closing property --

P.O. LINDSAY:
If you would permit me, Legislator Alden, I'm interested in this as well. If we could let Mr. Sabatino
tell us why we don't have any money left that we need to do this.

LEG. ALDEN:
Sure.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Oh, I want to hear that.

LEG. ALDEN:


                                                                                                           308
I always liked listening to Paul.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Well, let me try to respond to some of other implicit questions that were in that statement.


As a starting point, let me compliment the Presiding Officer for, in fact, putting that referendum up
to a vote this past year. The administration believes that strengthening and tightening the offset
law was one of the most important things that we could do in terms of the Capital Budget process
and we fully supported that amendment.
What that amendment does, quite frankly, is today it crystalizes the trade-offs that you have to
make. It basically shows you that you have to prioritize when you go to look at Capital Projects and
it's sort of like a look into the future in terms of 2007 when, in fact, that law will begin to have an
impact on offsets.

We had submitted a bill in the last cycle which got us to the 20 or so million dollars that we need for
land acquisitions this year by using General Fund offsets. However -- and we felt comfortable with
all the offsets, we have an explanation for each and every one. However, with dialoguing with
Legislators, there wasn't the requisite number of votes to support the bill as crafted. So in the spirit
of compromise -- and again, I want to thank those Legislators who reached out and spoke with our
office to come up with alternative offsets -- we've put together this bill which has a combination of
the General Fund and the Sewer District offsets. However --

LEG. ALDEN:
Paul, can I just stop you for one second?

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
-- we were fully prepared to go with the original version.

LEG. ALDEN:
Could I just stop you for one second, before I forget?

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Having said all of that -- okay.

LEG. ALDEN:
You said that the process was certain Legislators reached out and said that they wouldn't mind using
certain offsets for this?

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
No, Legislators --

LEG. ALDEN:
I didn't understand, I didn't hear you, I'm sorry.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Okay. As you recall, the bill was filed, all Legislators were looking at the bill, the bill was tabled in
the committee process last week. The bill was tabled, some Legislators reached out to our office
and talked about not doing certain offsets that were being proposed. In the spirit of compromise
and trying to get to the requisite twelve votes that we need to adopt the legislation, we've reached
what we believe is a reasonable compromise on the offsets. So A, we're in compliance with the law;
B, we had a proposal that would do the full $20 million --


LEG. ALDEN:
You reached out to all Legislators?


                                                                                                            309
CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
-- with General Fund but were willing to, again, make this happen --

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Not to me.

LEG. ALDEN:
And again, I'm sorry, I didn't hear; you reached out to all Legislators? Because I --

P.O. LINDSAY:
No, I think he said Legislators reached out to him after they read the resolution.

LEG. ALDEN:
Okay.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
The resolution -- when the resolutions are filed they're circulated to everyone, the committee tabled
the bill, the committee sent a clear signal.

LEG. ALDEN:
But whatever committee this is, I never saw it, though.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
The Environment Committee.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
The committee sent a clear signal that they had problems with the legislation, certain Legislators,
responding to what they saw in that particular bill, reached out and spoke to us. I can't control
which Legislators chose to look at the bill and look at each one of the projects and contact me, but
we had that dialogue, we had that conversation, this is a compromise proposal and I'm thanking
those people that participated in that process for helping us make that happen.

Part two then, to answer the second question, is that the reason this is important is that under the
current -- under the current situation where because of streamlining, I believe, of the land
acquisition process; and I believe, number two, because we've thrown more resources into the Law
Department, Real Estate Section in terms of trying to get closings done; and part three, I think
because with the real estate market softening, I think people are starting to look at land in a slightly
different view than they may have had four or five or six months ago. So what we're seeing is that
more of those offers that are in the pipeline are starting to receive responses.

I think it's important for you to know this just in terms of the big picture which is that, again, every
month when the Environmental Review Trust board meets they're authorizing 20 or $25 million
worth of offers. Now, that doesn't mean that $25 million of offers are necessarily going to be
accepted, but the trend seems to be moving towards more people accepting based on what's
happening in the real estate market. Which brings us to this point which is that there are two
significant acquisitions that we would like to close before the end of the year. AVR which is the 400
acre parcel in the Town of Brookhaven and there's a -- that's roughly 17 million and some change,
that's going to be a three-party acquisition, the Town of Brookhaven is putting up a share -- in fact,
I got an e-mail when I was in the audience before, the Town of Brookhaven approved its share
tonight and they're waiting to hear back from us -- and the State is going to kick in a one-third
share which will be about 17 or $18 million. And then the other big project right now, or the big
acquisition I should say, is River Club which is in Riverhead and that's, again, a little bit over $5
million. So those two projects alone bring us right about to the $23 million that we're talking about.

In order to be able to close those transactions in a timely fashion, we need to get the authorization


                                                                                                           310
in place today so that then the contracts can be fully executed. Because right now we have the
written offers of acceptance and the contracts are out there to the proposed sellers, but we can't
sign on the County's side and we can't bring you that resolution then to authorize the final price until
we have the money in place and there's not currently enough money in the program to fund it. So
then you have to schedule the closings, you know, all the things that are associated with that. We
need to get the resolution adopted today if we want to be able to complete those transactions. I
know somebody is going to say, "Well, what if you roll it over?" If you roll it over to next year,
again, with the new referendum in place and the difficulty of finding offsets and the possibility that
we could lose a transaction, it would not be a wise thing to do.

LEG. ALDEN:
What other funding was looked at then? Because basically it looks like the rush to do this is to beat
the implementation of the new law, so -- and that's a good portion of the cash. So that other $9
million --

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
No, the rush is to close the deals. The AVR people want to close before the end of the year, I think
what's going to happen is we're going to wind up closing the first week of January. If you don't pass
the Bond Resolution, if you don't pass the appropriating resolution, there's no way we're going to be
able to close this year or the first week of January.

LEG. ALDEN:
Well, when would this be offered? Because the last timeline for offering any of this kind of stuff is
like 30 days minimum; you couldn't go out and bond this in 30 days. So how would --

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
What's going to happen is we need to have the appropriation and the bond in place. What's going to
be happening, because land acquisitions have been accelerating this year, what's going to be
happening is the bonds would be going out in the spring, what will happen is the bonds will repay
the General Fund, we'll be using cash that will be available --
LEG. ALDEN:
So the cash would come from what, there was $20 million for the interest stabilization or bond
stabilization, something like that; is that the cash that you would use?

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
No, it's not going to come from stabilization.

LEG. ALDEN:
Yeah, where would the cash come from?

P.O. LINDSAY:
Are you done? Because I still have a question that hasn't been answered.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
I'm sorry, it's from the Tax Anticipation Note.

LEG. ALDEN:
If you want me to yield, I'll -- just put me back on the list.

P.O. LINDSAY:
No, I don't want you to yield, I want you to finish because I want to get my question answered, too.

LEG. ALDEN:
Okay, just put me back on the list because I've got a whole bunch of questions.

P.O. LINDSAY:


                                                                                                           31
No, finish. Go ahead, keep going.

LEG. ALDEN:
All right. So where was the cash coming from?

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Tax Anticipation Note will be the cash, it will be repaid from the bond.

LEG. ALDEN:
Okay. What other major funding sources were looked at, then, for this. Because you said you have
a majority in the front page here, you said a majority of Legislators, there's six that are cosponsors,
so what other suggestions were made or what else did you look at for funding? And also, how much
is the balance in our Acquisition Fund?

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
If you had looked at --

LEG. ALDEN:
Because a lot of those haven't closed and there's cash in it; how much, like 20 or $30 million still.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
No. If you looked at the original --

LEG. ALDEN:
Maybe some of it's spoken for, but --

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Well, you want the revenue sources first or you want the --

LEG. ALDEN:
Any way you want to do it, Paul.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
All right. Well, first of all, if you had looked at the original bill that was filed, there were additional
Capital Projects that were identified. For example, the minority incubator was one, that was a big
one; there was a Vanderbilt Museum Project, that was a second one; there were a couple of
Highway Maintenance projects, highway equipment projects.

LEG. ALDEN:
Paul, I'll just express my disappointment. Because you know what, I'm not on the committee, I did
have the original bill and now I'm seeing this for the first time, you know, like maybe an hour ago or
something like that, but I've been voting on stuff. So I'm very disappointed that, you know, you
didn't reach out to every Legislator and get their opinion on it. You reached out to it looks like
select, majority, whatever you want to call it. But fine, I was never contacted --

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
No, let me --

LEG. ALDEN:
-- I was never asked and I'm very disappointed that I didn't get a chance to look at this and give
you my input on what I would feel would be very, very good offsets. And I'll let it go at that
because the Presiding Officer has a whole bunch -- or a question.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
But I just want to clarify the record; I did not reach out to Legislators, we felt that the legislation
that we had submitted had appropriate offsets. We did the normal thing which is that we


                                                                                                              312
responded, okay.

LEG. ALDEN:
I thought this was going to go through the committee process and it was tabled in committee, so I
had no idea that it would be here in front of me, you know, a little while ago, dropped like that.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
I know, but with all due respect -- with all due respect, you make it sound like there's a new process
out there. A Legislator can read the bill and contact my office, it happens all the time. I don't
preclude people from calling --

LEG. ALDEN:
But you said you reached out to other Legislators, so that's why I take issue with that.

LEG. MONTANO:
He didn't say that.

LEG. ALDEN:
I take issue with that, Paul.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
No, I didn't, I was very clear; I said I had a nice dialogue with Legislators who reached out to me.

LEG. ALDEN:
That's fine.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
And by the way, I will, once again, invite you and everybody else on the Legislature to call me any
time of the day, seven days a week, to talk about any legislation. I have open access, open door
policy, it's been my motto for 30 years, it's going to continue to be my motto as long as I'm in
County government, feel free to call me.

LEG. ALDEN:
Thanks, Paul.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Really, while you're there, Paul, I wanted to talk to Budget Review. Did you do an analysis -- I'm --
what really has me concerned about this is how quickly we ran out of money. You know, earlier in
the fall it was apparent that we had enough money to do whatever we wanted, we approved another
$50 million in the Capital Program in June, I think the first 20 kicks in after January 1. Budget
Review, did you do an analysis of land acquisition funding?

MS. VIZZINI:
Yes, we did. As you know, each of the programs have specific criteria in terms of what type of
parcel can be acquired. We're using Multi-faceted for these two and Multi-faceted is oversubscribed,
so you would need an offset if you're going to use Multi-faceted to acquire these properties in '06.
The alternative is whether or not these -- you know, in '07 you're going to have another 13.3 million
in Multi-faceted monies. You also have the Legacy Fund, but we are unclear in terms of what the
criteria are for the Legacy Fund, there has not yet been a resolution presented.

P.O. LINDSAY:
The Legacy Fund is what we approved in the Capital Budget?

MS. VIZZINI:
Yes.



                                                                                                         313
P.O. LINDSAY:
The 50 million, okay.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
How much is in the Drinking Water?


P.O. LINDSAY:
How much is in the Drinking Water Fund?

          [COURT STENOGRAPHER - LUCIA BRAATEN]

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
If you want me to interject --

P.O. LINDSAY:
Do you know?

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
I could help -- I can give you the global picture, because I think it will be helpful, because I had the
same kind of questions that you did as we moved through the process. Just globally, when you look
at January 1st of 2007, you start off with the 20 million dollars, which was the Legacy Fund money,
which is in the Capital Budget. The theory was to condition that upon matching participating shares
from the, you know, Towns or State government, or whatever. So that 20 could, you know, in
theory become 40, if we hold the Towns and the State's feet to the fire in terms of trying to match
that. And I think one of the things to keep in mind on that is something that Budget Review had
pointed out in their Capital Budget report, which is that the East End towns have about, I think it's
350 million dollars of the Land Transfer Tax money that's still hanging out there. The problem is,
though, just to explain, we can't unilaterally impose, you know, access to that money, so it's there
on a piece of paper. And the theory was that with our Legacy Fund, we would try to, you know, get
access to that to take the 20 and make it into 40. And then, as you pointed out, there's 10 each of
the subsequent to years.

There's about -- there'll be 13 million dollars in the Multifaceted Account next year, but 5 million of
that will be suggested for workforce housing, which means you've got about 8 million dollars coming
out of that. Then there's going to be about 8 million dollars coming out of the Quarter Percent
Program. Then you've got -- there's an oddball item, which there's about 1.2 million dollars for the
settlement fund that we got from Northville Industries years ago. But the problem with that 1.2
million dollars is that you can only use it for properties that are going to be acquired in the East
Setauket/Setauket areas. So on paper you see the 1.2 million, but you really can't count it. And
then there's probably about another three-quarters of a million dollars worth of Open Space
Greenways money that's out there, so --

P.O. LINDSAY:
How about SOS and the Clean Water?

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
SOS will -- SOS is -- SOS is exhausted. Believe it or not, SOS has been so successful that we've
got -- SOS is basically -- we've exhausted it in terms of what's out there in the pipeline.

P.O. LINDSAY:
When you say "exhausted", is that real money or what's in the pipeline that you're accounting for?

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Well, what we're doing tonight is real money, these are real transactions. When I talk about the
pipeline, I threw the theory out before, which is that right now, what we're seeing happening, just


                                                                                                           314
because -- this is my own theory, you know, I mean, not -- I can't confirm it in terms of, you know,
empirical data, other than anecdotal evidence, but it appears that those the properties that are in
the pipeline, people are starting to respond. What's happening is every meeting -- every month
when there's the meeting of the Environmental Trustee Review Board --

P.O. LINDSAY:
Could I -- could I ask the conversations to go outside, so I could hear what he's having to say?

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
They're authorizing -- they're authorizing between 20 to 25 million dollars per month. What's
significant about that is that when that Board authorizes that, that means that they're directing the
Real Estate Director to now, using the appraised value that comes out of that committee, to send
out the written offers, so you've got 20 to 25 million dollars of offers going out. If you just use like
a 50% response rate, you're talking about a significant amount of money. So it's not -- you know,
when I say it's pipeline money, it's money that's out there with offers coming back, and it appears to
be headed in the 50% range.

P.O. LINDSAY:
The two major acquisitions that are part of this resolution, what is our share?

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
On the AVR, which is the big one, that's the 17 million, we're paying a one-third/one-third/one-third.
The Town tonight approved their one-third, Town of Brookhaven, and the State's going to kick in
their one-third. So that's a good one from the standpoint of leveraging money. That's a one
third/one third/one third. And the one in Riverhead --

P.O. LINDSAY:
So that's a little more than 5 million, between 5 and 6 million our share.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Yeah, that's a little over 5 million. That's County.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Right.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
We're doing the whole deal.

P.O. LINDSAY:
And the other one, the Riverhead one?

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
The Riverhead one is the -- well, no, no, no. The 17 million is the County share on AVR.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Oh. So it's a 50 million --

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
No. We're putting 17. The Town authorized 17, and the State's authorizing like 18.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
That's a huge transaction. It's 400 acres and --



                                                                                                           315
P.O. LINDSAY:
So, it's over 50 million dollars, the acquisition.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Yeah, absolutely, right, that's big. So our share is 17 million. Then there's five and change --

P.O. LINDSAY:
And the Riverhead piece --

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
That one, my understanding, is 100% County.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Hundred percent County. So there's -- the whole 23 million is accounted for with those two.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
That's exactly right.

P.O. LINDSAY:
In this, then what is Resolved Clause Number 9? Seems like generic, but if we're spending the
whole 23 million, what does that mean?

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Because what's going to happen is next -- in fact, if it hasn't happened already, it will probably
happen after today. We're going to have Real Estate reach out to Legislator Viloria-Fisher, as
Chairman of the Environment Committee, and come before the committee to bring the resolution
that we're going to vote on --

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
On the actual property.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
-- hopefully, two weeks from today to authorize both of them, because we have to get the money
place first. Then that's making reference to the fact that we won't actually spend the money unless
that resolution get's adopted, which authorizes the actual transaction.

P.O. LINDSAY:
And last question. If we don't approve this, will this effectively kill these two deals?

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Well, the AVR deal, it will have the effect of killing. The River, you know, Park deal in Riverhead
would -- you know, they want to close before the end of year as well. My understanding from Real
Estate is that either they'll walk away or it will be stuck with next year and no 5 million dollars to
pay for it.

P.O. LINDSAY:
All right. Legislator Viloria-Fisher.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
I just wanted to go back and ask Gail the question. Gail, how much is left in SOS? Because I know
there's --

MS. VIZZINI:
SOS --

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:


                                                                                                         316
-- that it's subscribed regarding what's in the pipeline, but I don't think we've literally run out of SOS
money.

MS. VIZZINI:
Well, there's 11.2 million in negotiations. So, you know, Real Estate would say it is oversubscribed,
if you --

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
We're always oversubscribed.


MS. VIZZINI:
Right. But of that, 11.2 is in negotiation.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
So how much is left after that?

MS. VIZZINI:
It's either number. In other words, the way Budget Review looks at it, we don't necessarily always
believe that if you're in negotiation, that the money spent.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
That you're going to close.

MS. VIZZINI:
So there's 11.2, but Real Estate would believe that that's committed.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Okay. So it's between zero and 11.2. What about Old Drinking Water, any money left there?

MS. VIZZINI:
Is that 25 -- 12(5)A?

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yeah.

MS. VIZZINI:
That's oversubscribed on both --

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
In all of the programs?

MS. VIZZINI:
-- balance sheets. Again, that money is very selective. 12(5)D, there's --

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Well, it's different towns.

MS. VIZZINI:
Exactly, and that doesn't --

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Different towns.

MS. VIZZINI:
Brookhaven is not --


                                                                                                             317
D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
And none of the -- Riverhead doesn't have anything?

MS. VIZZINI:
Well, Brookhaven doesn't.


D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
That's only the -- that's only the western towns --

MS. VIZZINI:
Correct.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
-- that would have anything. Okay. And SOS, okay, Drinking Water. We have the Legacy is 20
million. We have 13 million left of -- what was the 13 million, Paul?

MS. VIZZINI:
2007.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Thirteen is Multi-faceted. But I said --

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
That's the Multi-faceted.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Subtract 5 million, which we project for -- like we did this past year, we used eight for
environmentally sensitive, and we used five for the Workforce Housing, so I'm assuming the same
break-out.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yeah. But right now, we're not going to use 5 million of that 13 million.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Well, I'm using this past year as a track. I'm trying to estimate conservatively, so I'm doing it as
eight and five.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Okay. And when you say that things are happening quickly, I think it has to be very clear that these
are not the only projects that are before us, because you're saying we need to have 23 million to
close on these two. I think you need 23 million, because there are so many other pieces of property
that are imminent.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Right.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
The closing on those properties is imminent.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
That was the point I was going to articulate, but --

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Otherwise, it makes it --


                                                                                                       318
CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Right.


D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
What happens is we've been asking the question in the Environment Committee, and it's been
covered over and over again, and there was no imminent threat of running out of money. And so, if
you're saying we need 23 million to cover these two pieces of property, I would prefer not to couch
it in quite that way, because we have the 23 million to cover these two pieces of property, but we
don't know which of our other negotiated items are going to close, and so we might run up against a
problem while we're in negotiations.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Right. The reason I mentioned it was I was --

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
It's not -- you know it's not a clear scale where you have these two pieces and we need this much.
There are other things in play.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Everything you stated is correct. I only tried to articulate those two, because I wanted to put a face
behind the properties -- behind the proposal, because, you know, people say, "Well, you know, show
me what we're actually doing," and I just wanted to emphasize that these two happen to be, as you
said, imminent.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Okay. And just to clarify regarding the use of the sewer money, as the people in the Environment
Committee know, I had been opposed to using that, and so I have -- because of concerns that
people brought to you regarding a number of offsets, I wasn't one of the people who had a problem
with the offsets, but in the spirit of compromise, when you said that there was a problem, I'm willing
to make the compromise, because this was the money that was -- that was earmarked for the
incinerator in Babylon; is that correct?

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
That's correct, it was the incinerator money.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
The Sewer District money I'm talking about is the money that was earmarked for the incinerator. So
it wasn't money that was specifically for Sewer District operations or Sewer District capital
improvements on --

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Yes. In fact --

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
-- Sewer Districts and capacity.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
In fact, just to make the point, when the Capital Budget was, you know, adopted earlier this year, it
contemplated -- it was adopted without changing, you know, that component with respect to, you
know, the Southwest Sewer District, so the money was clearly known to be out there and available.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Legislator Romaine.



                                                                                                         319
LEG. ROMAINE:
Thank you. I have no questions for Mr. Sabatino, but I do want to address my fellow colleagues.

This summer, June, I had a meeting in my office with several of the environmental groups, and they
expressed a concern about many aspects of the Land Acquisition Program, the length of time it
takes, some of the other things. One of the things that were mentioned is the lack of funding, that
we were going to have a funding problem.

Before I convened the second meeting in July, Mr. Deering's memo came into my possession, which
everyone on the Environment Committee is fully aware of, and that memo clearly stated that we
would have -- just if things in the pipeline, as well as things that we were acquiring, took place in
2006, we would have a 39.3 million dollar deficit in all of our land acquisition programs. Based on
that and there being money left over in the sewer project for the incinerator, I introduced a
resolution to commit 39 million dollars to land acquisition. Repeatedly, time and time again, people
came forward and said, "Oh, this isn't necessary", "This is doom and gloom", "Where are you getting
those numbers from", and I clearly point to Mr. Deering's memo, his spread sheet and it was
constantly rejected. Then, in the Fall, the County Executive used 13 million dollars of that sewer
district money to fund County Road 39, at which point I amended my resolution and made it 25
million dollars and I urged adoption. And Executive representatives and others said, "Not
necessary." And everyone on the Environment Committee is fully aware of it. And I said, "Well, I
hope we don't run out of money."

Then the election came and we had the wonderful vote the day after the election, and then we went
back into committee cycle. And at committee cycle, people said, "Don't do this, because now we
have a referendum. The people have spoken. Don't take money from the sewer." And I said, "You
know what, you're right," and I withdrew my resolution. And the next week the County Executive
introduced the identical resolution for 22.5 million dollars and it was shot down in environment, and,
thus, we have the Certificate of Necessity.

We have a lot of disagreements around this body, and some people might say I may have some
disagreements from time to time with the County Executive, although I maintain a 95% voting
record for his resolutions. The one thing I do agree with, strongly support the County Executive on,
is land acquisition. But I've got to tell you, this is a resolution I really have to hold my nose on,
because we have a referendum that the people voted on. And what we're trying to do is say, "It
doesn't matter what you feel or think, we're going to try to beat the deadline." Forget the spirit of
the law. Technically, we're still under that deadline and we're going to move this money, despite the
fact they had all the opportunities to do this prior to that, but they would not sign on to my bill. But
now that there's a referendum, how do we do this? I want to vote for this. I want to vote for land
acquisition, but how do we say, "Well, whatever the people voted for in November, it doesn't matter,
we're still under this deadline, so we're going to do this any way"? It's going to be a difficult thing
for me to reconcile, but something to think about, and something this Administration should think
about, and I hope the members of the Environment Committee, because they know for about four or
five months, I beat this resolution to death, and the Administration said, "No, no, no, no." And now,
at the last second, they're before us. And we all know this is true. And you know what, it's not
what we want to do. We all want to do the right thing, we all want to preserve land. It's the way
it's getting done. This really stinks. Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Anybody else?

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yeah.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Schneiderman.



                                                                                                           320
LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
No long speeches here. You know, we have to do something here to make these properties happen.
I just have one question for you, Mr. Sabatino. The two properties that you're targeting primarily in
this resolution we haven't authorized yet, they haven't been before this body.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Right. The reason you can't --

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
And I don't want to be a rubber stamp here. I take my job seriously. So, you know, I just really
think we've put the cart in front of the horse here. We should be approving the purchases first and
then putting the money in place. That's not what you're asking to do. So, if you could respond to
that.

The other thing is you want these two properties to close before the end of the year, and that's all
well and good, but I also know there's a bunch of properties that we have authorized that haven't
closed yet, and people are waiting to close, and maybe because the money is not in place or maybe
there's other issues. But I would hope that we would try to close things somewhat in the order that
we have passed them, because you have people who have agreed to sell their property to the
County and they may be appreciating, maybe they're not, but they're waiting patiently to close. And
I would just hope that we would have a priority system for closing these properties.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Just a brief answer. On your first point, a technical one, you can't authorize the acquisition without
the money. You have to have the money in the budget. The other ones that you have been
authorizing, you have been authorizing based on there was money available. So we're doing it the
right way, just to reassure you. You're putting the money in place first, then you're voting -- if you
vote to reject the acquisition, this money won't be spent, so you're not rubber-stamping anything.
But if you don't have the money in place, if you don't have the money in place, you can't vote for
the authorization.

With respect to -- we're closing the deals as rapidly as we can, and it's not a question of -- it's not
the order in which they're authorized, it's the order in which they come together. So, I mean, quite
frankly, this thing with AVR was very unusual, because we got the opportunity to leverage 38
million -- 34 million dollars of other people's money. That's what really made the thing come
together a little bit faster. But the answer is, yes, we're moving on all of them.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
You know, and these acquisitions are all, I believe, partnerships, right, AVR and the Riverhead Club?

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
AVR is for sure.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
River Club.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
I happen to know the figures by heart.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
So they would --

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
I thought the River Club was County, but okay.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:


                                                                                                          32
Those are -- but I think there's a --

LEG. ROMAINE:
To the north --

P.O. LINDSAY:
Hold on, hold on.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
So there is a --

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Schneiderman has the floor. Go ahead.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
And I'm just saying that these are good candidates for that Legacy Fund that requires the leverage.
But I'm not saying we shouldn't move forward, but I'm just saying those would qualify under that
program pretty well. And it seems in a sense a waste to use this money on things that would qualify
in that other program, because there may be a lot of acquisitions that don't qualify with
partnerships.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Yeah. But what we've just done, though -- no, no. I understand what you're saying, but what we've
just done is by passing this, you've just freed up the full 20 million dollars of Legacy money for next
year, because we've managed -- or at least 17 of it, because we've just managed in the
Multi-faceted to achieve the goal of Legacy, which was to leverage 34 million dollars. So that means
you're not going to have to draw down that money in 2007, so you just freed up 34 million dollars --

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
I think you're missing my point. The Legacy --

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
-- knowing there's no way you're going to be able to find 34 million dollars in offsets next year. So
we've done a really good think consistent with what you just articulated.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes. You have more money in the Legacy Fund. What I'm saying is that there's a contingency in
that Legacy Fund that there be partners and these parcels all have partners. So we may no have
money available to purchase properties when we don't have partners. I guess that's my point. But
it's the end of the year and this money's going to go into the void.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Anyone else? Legislator Caracappa.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Just very quickly for the record, Mr. Chairman. I'll abstain on this, it's the first I'm seeing it, I'm not
on the committee, and seeing that not one acre of these acquisitions are within my district. But the
offsets --

P.O. LINDSAY:
Mine neither.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
-- are gigantic within my district, especially Nicolls Road Corridor project. I will be abstaining.

P.O. LINDSAY:


                                                                                                              322
Legislator Sabatino -- Legislator Sabatino.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
You got it right.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Mr. Sabatino, would you go over some of the offsets? Does this effectively kill all these projects
moving into the future?

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
I'm sorry, I missed the last part. Were the projects --

P.O. LINDSAY:
Well, Legislator Caracappa's --


CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
We can go over them.

P.O. LINDSAY:
-- comment was that some of the offsets, the biggest one, the Nicolls Road project is in his district,
and he can't support -- he can't support it, because it will effectively kill the project.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
No, it's not going to -- one thing, just to -- I mean, to reassure everybody, on the original list that
we did, even though I know some of the offsets have been taken out, every one of the offsets had a
justification from Public Works or Economic Development, whatever the pertinent department was,
they were projects that were not going to be adversely affected, because either they weren't ready
to progress at this point, and would be progressing at a future date, or there was an alternative way
to do it.

With respect to the road project, I'm sensitive to what Legislator Caracappa is stating, that's a
situation where those road projects are going to be -- I believe it's 80% Federal funded. So there's
not going to be an offset issue. If we get to the point where the Federal money actually
materializes, my understanding from Public Works is that the Federal money has not been
materializing with the degree of repetity that it did in the past and the same level. But, if the
Federal money materializes, there won't be an offset problem.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Mr. Chairman.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Go ahead.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
We've been through this dance with the Federal funds. It used to be that the Federal funds were
first instance. We, the County, first-instance all of our road projects now, and we put -- when we
pulled major dollars out of a major corridor project such as Nicolls Road, which is one of the most
heavily traveled roads within Suffolk County, one of the biggest problems by way of traffic
northbound from the Expressway all the way up to Stony Brook, we jeopardize the Federal funds
when we don't first-instance with our County dollars. So maybe the Federal funds aren't -- maybe
they're slow in coming around and discussing their project with the County, but that's because we
have not given put up our fair share first.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Do you want to respond to that?


                                                                                                          323
CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
I mean, the brief response is that the money has been in the Capital Budget. The project simply
hasn't progressed, because there's not the Federal money. I mean, I've got Gil Anderson here, if
you want to get into a higher level of detail. But these -- we specifically asked Public Works, if we
took these projects as offsets at this particular juncture, would it have an adverse impact on future
funding, and we were advised no, so, I mean --

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Viloria-Fisher would like to hear from Mr. Anderson.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Can you respond to this, Mr. Anderson, regarding the --

P.O. LINDSAY:
Nicolls Road.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
-- status of the Nicolls Road project? Because that really is an artery that affects many of our
districts. And it was my understanding when I saw this that it wouldn't be -- that having these
offsets wouldn't be jeopardize these projects.

MR. ANDERSON:
Right. This -- and bear with me for a second, I've got to -- this project is over 50% Federally
funded. In talking with my Chief Engineer, he's advised me that the funds and the projects has not
progressed to the point where those funds are available.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Because we haven't put ours up yet.

LEG. ROMAINE:
That's right.

MR. ANDERSON:
I don't know -- I don't honestly know whether it's at that point, or it's because we haven't
progressed the work to that point. But Bill Hillman has assured me that the money will be there
when we need it, and, you know, at that point, we can appropriate the funds legally. I mean, it's
not a --

P.O. LINDSAY:
Are you satisfied?

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Satisfied with the --

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Kennedy has been waiting patiently.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
I also have our Budget Director, who used to work in Public Works. He can shed some light on it.

MR. BORTZFIELD:
The availability of putting up County funds to star this project has nothing to do with it. The 80% --
the funding requirement that the County has to, you know, prefund the Federal portion is -- it's just
a standard in all our projects now that are funded projects. That does not delay our doing it, that's
just a cash, you know, a cash problem. You know, when the project progresses, when the Federal


                                                                                                         324
funds are made available, you know, it's cash. We've still got to put up the cash beforehand and
we'll get reimbursed at a later date. It has nothing to do with the prepayment of County funds to be
able to make us eligible.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Not true. I respectfully disagree. I've been through it many times.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Kennedy.

LEG. KENNEDY:
I guess I've just got, you know, like several of us that are sitting around here who have concerns
with some of the things they see in here. You know, replacement of reader-printers, I mean, that
was something that we did on a routine basis that was done every year. Those things get chewed
up, kind of like they get beat on and thumped on, and, you know, to replace them is something
that's fairly standard. Is it -- the reader-printers are not being used at this point anymore, Paul? Is
that how it goes to zero?

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Well, I'll give you the technical answer in a minute. But, again, just -- I've got to make -- I've got to
make the global statement one more time, which is that there are competing interests out here with
all of these Capital Budget, you know, programs and projects. You can't -- you can't do everything
at one time. A, there's not enough money to go around, and B, there's not enough time. So the
fact that we might displace something that's not ready to progress at this point doesn't mean that
we're saying kill or nullify the project. I think there's a misnomer out there that if you take
something as an offset this year because it's available at the end of the year based on where it sits
in the progression of projects, that somehow we're saying kill the project. That's not the case.

I just want to reassure everybody that, again, it's like I said before on the earlier conversation with
the Jail. At the end of the year, this has happened every year for 30 years. The only difference now
is that we have tough offset laws in this County. They were tough from 1989 to the present date,
which made the need to always calibrate where you're going to be looking for the offsets the
following year really important. It's going to be even tougher now. I mean, when you voted for the
referendum, you voted to make a really stringent tough Capital Budget process take place and we
support that. That's a good thing.

And to answer Legislator Romaine's question, the voters knew when they voted on it that it was
going to take effect on January 1st of 2007. So nobody here is violating any kind of a compact with
the voters, we're actually adhering to what they voted on. But respect to the specifics of this one
little project, I'll defer again to Gil. I think there's money available for that one.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Paul, Paul, Paul, hold on, hold on, listen. You know, the hour's getting real late and I don't want to
jerk everybody around over 50,000 with the reader-printers. But it goes to what some of my
comments were before. I think -- I can say I appreciate what you come to us with. But I also would
say to you it almost becomes why do we waste our time going through adopting policy decisions,
promoting projects and trying to put forward what we collectively vote for as far as policy? It almost
gets to the point where it's like we've got to go with, you know, where the wind goes.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Absolutely not true. And with all due respect, I've got to respond. If you don't understand what I
said before, then we really have to get back to the fundamentals of the Capital Budget process. If
you adopt a 200 million dollar Capital Budget for the Year 2006, on day one, yes, in a perfect world,
you would hope that all 200 million dollars worth of projects would materialize. But in the real
world, you don't get an environmental permit, somebody comes up with an historical designation for
a piece of property you weren't aware of.


                                                                                                            325
LEG. KENNEDY:
Parties take extensions to negotiate, I understand.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Right, things happen; okay? So it's not wasting your time. Number two, the projects don't get
changed whimsically by Executive fiat, they get changed by Legislative vote. So the same group of
Legislators who said, "Let's do 200 million dollars worth of Capital Projects" at the beginning of the
year, at the end of the year have to reprioritize. That's your job, it's the job of the County
Executive. Working collectively together, you reallocate and reprioritize based on available
resources, a change in the law, which the referendum achieve, and number three, what's actually
happening in the marketplace. If you can't move a projects because somebody stalled it for lack of
getting an environmental permit, the fact that you're voting to move another project into its place
doesn't mean that you wasted your vote back in May. It's the very essence and heart of how a
Capital Budget and Program is adopted and implemented.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Again, all I would say is you're here now asking us to go ahead and step away from a variety of
them. As many of the rest of the colleagues that sit around the horseshoe here, I am very much in
favor of land preservation as well. And, as a matter of fact, we've collaborated on a number of
initiatives that have just passed. And I'm getting a little nervous and concerned hearing about the
ability to close by the end of the year, because you know one in particular that we've made a
representation on. So I'm relying on what Gail said, that, hopefully, that's in part of that 11.2 that's
committed. I guess I just wonder about, you know, the way some of the selection went on here and
where these projects are.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Let me just one more time for the record. It's important. I want to state categorically that the way
the list was put together, I sat down and spent over a dozen hours with our Budget people and with
representatives from Public Works and Economic Development to ascertain with very careful
planning and due diligence which projects could progress, which projects could not. We had a list
that we thought was the perfect list. But, in the real world, when you have to compromise and work
with other elected officials, what we thought was the perfect list had to be adjusted. But I can
categorically state to you that every one of those projects was based on professional advice and
information from the Budget Office, from the relevant departments, and again, factoring in what,
you know, the change in the law is and what the realities are of projects being balanced one against
the other at the end of the year.

LEG. KENNEDY:
I'll yield.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Legislator Alden.

LEG. ALDEN:
I just need clarification on a couple of points, and one of them is one point that you made. The
Southwest Sludge Treatment and Disposal Project, is that a sewer district project or is not a sewer
district project?

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Which one?

LEG. ALDEN:
Sewer District No. 3 Southwest Sludge Treatment and Disposal Project.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:


                                                                                                           326
Southwest Sewer District, it's a sewer project, right.

LEG. ALDEN:
Okay, it's a sewer project. And also, from Budget Review, the one above that project, No. 64-11,
and that's infrastructure improvements for Workforce Housing/Initiative Fund?

MS. VIZZINI:
Yes.

LEG. ALDEN:
That goes to a zero balance?

MS. VIZZINI:
From 5 million to zero.

LEG. ALDEN:
So the 5 million is taken out of that account, zeroed out, so we have zero money for infrastructure
improvements for workforce housing after -- if this passes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
The next year we'll have --

LEG. ALDEN:
Well, next year is next year, and the year after is the year after, but I just wanted a point of
clarification. That takes 5 million out of the Workforce Housing Infrastructure Improvement Fund.
Okay, thank you.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Legislator Eddington.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes. I just want to add to you, Paul, that what you're saying is crystal clear to me, so that's making
me a little nervous, because it seems to me -- I'm new at this, but you're saying that at the end of
the year, this process takes place over year for 30 years. And you're saying that no program that is
ready to go is going to be cannibalized, and that the funding will be available for these ones that
have been put to the side when they are ready to go, and that you're using offsets that we won't be
able to use after this year, that's why it's important that we use them now and then honor our
commitment that we made to the taxpayers; is that what you're saying?

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
You did a much better and briefer, concise job than I did, but that it's, yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Okay. Thank you very much.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Roll call.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Legislator Stern, you want to make a comment?

LEG. STERN:
Very quickly. Just to follow up on Legislator Alden's point, 5 million dollars was taken from
affordable housing initiatives. But maybe you can explain whether or not that 5 million dollars was
going to be used for any type of affordable housing initiative at this time.



                                                                                                         327
CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
That's an excellent point. First of all, that's the infrastructure money, not the land acquisition
money. Earlier this year, we appropriated the 5 million dollars I mentioned before for the land
acquisition, because that part of the program is, in fact, progressing.

We've got two applications out right now for actual infrastructure monies, but based on our
conversation with Economic Development, nothing's ready to go this year. That's why we don't need
to use it this year, but there's 5 million dollars next year and there's
5 million dollars the year after, and what we'll do is in the Capital Budget Program in the 2007 when
we vote in May, we'll put 5 million dollars at the back end for 2009 to play catch-up. But that will
be -- that will be showing how the money will track the progress of the program, so that the money
matches up with what you're actually doing.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. All right. We have a motion and a second to 2373. Because it's
a CN, it's 12 votes, and then behind that, if that passes, we have the bonding resolution, which is
also 12 votes. So roll call.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Could we ask Legislators to report back to the horseshoe?

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay.

LEG. COOPER:
Motion to approve.

P.O. LINDSAY:
I didn't realize we were losing anybody.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
We're good.

P.O. LINDSAY:
All right? You all right now? Okay. Roll call.

      (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. COOPER:
Motion to approve.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.



                                                                                                        328
LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
No.

LEG. ALDEN:
Abstain.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Abstain.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Fifteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. The accompanying bond resolution, can I do the same motion, same second, and roll call?

     (Roll Called by Mr. Laube, Clerk)

LEG. COOPER:
Yes.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Yes.

LEG. D'AMARO:
Yes.

LEG. STERN:
Yes.



                                                                                                329
LEG. MYSTAL:
Yes.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Yes.

LEG. NOWICK:
Yes.

LEG. KENNEDY:
Yes.

LEG. BARRAGA:
No.

LEG. ALDEN:
Abstain.

LEG. MONTANO:
Yes.

LEG. EDDINGTON:
Yes.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Yes.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Abstain.

LEG. BROWNING:
Yes. I said yes twice.

LEG. SCHNEIDERMAN:
Yes.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Yes.

MR. LAUBE:
Fifteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
All right. I.R. 2544 - Accepting and appropriating 100% Federal Grant passed through the
New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services to the Department of Health Services,
Division of Medical, Legal Investigations and Forensic Sciences for the Forensic Casework
DNA Backlog Reduction Program.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Motion to approve.

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Second.


                                                                                             330
P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Losquadro, seconded by Legislator Viloria-Fisher. On the question? Legislator
Romaine.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Quick question. How great is the backlog for our DNA casework?

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
I don't know. But the issue -- this is a grant, 100% Federal funding. They're giving us money to
help --

LEG. ROMAINE:
No. But I asked the questions of -- I'm obviously going to vote for it, because it is a grant, but I
asked the question to determine the operation of County government, because it's stating right on
black and white, we have a backlog in our casework for forensic casework for DNA, and I just
wanted to know how great that backlog was.

P.O. LINDSAY:
He said he don't know.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
I don't know.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Still don't know.

LEG. ROMAINE:
That's okay.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
I honestly don't know.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
2546 - Directing the County Attorney to challenge SEQRA determination in Public Service
Commission Proceeding.

LEG. HORSLEY:
Motion to approve.

LEG. COOPER:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Horsley to approve.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:


                                                                                                       33
Second by Legislator Romaine. No discussion? All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. 2547 - Amending the 2006 Operating Budget to reduce the pension cost by
advancing the 2006/2007 pension payment.

LEG. MYSTAL:
That should make Alden happy, we're paying cash.


P.O. LINDSAY:
Do I have a motion?

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Motion.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Motion by Legislator Caracappa.

LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Do I have a second? Second by Legislator Losquadro. Is there any questions? My question -- yeah,
go ahead, Legislator Romaine.

LEG. ROMAINE:
I'll defer to you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Well, where are we getting -- do we have the money to pay the tab in December?

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Yeah. This is the third consecutive year that we'll be able to beat the December 15th deadline,
which was established by the State Comptroller, that if you make a payment no later than December
15th, you can get an 8% -- well, you get a discount, which will translate into, I think it's 8%, but it
will translate in this case to like a 1.1 million dollars worth of savings. What will happen in January
is you'll have to strike the appropriations, like we've done the last two years in the Operating
Budget. The cash was -- apparently, the Treasurer's Office just contacted our Budget Office today
saying that there was more cash -- this is just cash. This is cash flow. There was more cash
available than contemplated, so we can take advantage of the --

P.O. LINDSAY:
So, it's 112 million dollars, right?

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
It's 117 million dollars total.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. Legislator Alden.

LEG. ALDEN:
Paul, and through the Chair, maybe you know the answers to this. Two years ago, didn't we bond


                                                                                                          332
this?

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
No. What we've --

LEG. ALDEN:
The one payment.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
This is the third consecutive year that we've been able to get the prepayment before the December
15th deadline. What happened, the first year, we didn't know the State Comptroller was going to
issue the rules and regulations. If you remember, we did it at the absolute last minute. It was,
again, something that came down on the actual day of the vote and then --

LEG. ALDEN:
But it was Tax Anticipation Notes, so that's not bonding, but --

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
Not bonding.

LEG. ALDEN:
But it was Tax Anticipation Notes that we paid. I don't think it was cash that one time.

MR. BORTZFIELD:
No, it was cash. We had authorized bonding --

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Right.

MR. BORTZFIELD:
-- at that point in time, but we never used the bonds, we had cash available.

LEG. ALDEN:
So you paid it in cash.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Yeah.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? You're shaking your
head.

MR. LAUBE:
Eighteen.

P.O. LINDSAY:
You want a roll call, Legislator Romaine?

LEG. ROMAINE:
No.

P.O. LINDSAY:
It's only 117 million.

LEG. ROMAINE:
I was going to ask about offsets. I was going to say that I hope that when the press release is


                                                                                                    333
written, that the County Executive gives credit to the Legislature for working with him.


LEG. ALDEN:
Oh, yeah.

LEG. ROMAINE:
Yeah. I'm sure we'll see 18 names added to the one in that press release.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Okay.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Let's move on.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
I want to thank everyone for their cooperation on the CN's. Thank you very much.

P.O. LINDSAY:
What.

CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE SABATINO:
I want to thank everyone for their cooperation on the CN's. Thank you.

P.O. LINDSAY:
We have late-starters. Don't disappear. We have 2531 - Adopting an official map for Suffolk
County, assigned to EPA. 2534 - Authorizing planning steps for acquisition under Suffolk County
Save Open Space Farmland Preservation, and Hamlet Parks Fund, North Street Properties, Town of
Brookhaven, to EPA. 2535 - A Local Law to facilitate screening of hotline employees, assigned to
Public Safety -- Public Health. Oh, Public Safety, okay. 2536, assigned to Labor, Workforce and
Affordable Housing. 2537, assigned to labor. 2538, assigned to Ways and Means. 2539, to EPA.
2540, assigned to EPA. 2541, to Public Works. 2542, assigned to Parks. 2545, assigned to Ways
and Means. 45. I missed 43, I'm sorry. 2543, is that Public Works?

MR. ANDERSON:
Yes.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Assigned to Public Works. 2548, assigned to Public Works. 2550, assigned to Public Works.

P.O. LINDSAY:
They're sticking together over here. Okay. I missed 2549. It's assigned to Public Works. 2551,
assigned to Public Works. And Procedural Motion Number 10, assigned to Public Works.

MR. NOLAN:
Economic development.

P.O. LINDSAY:
All right, Economic Development. Okay. I make a motion to waive the rules and lay them on the
table. Do I have a second?


LEG. LOSQUADRO:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:


                                                                                                   334
Second by Legislator Losquadro. All in favor?

LEG. MYSTAL:
Aye.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Opposed? Abstentions? I've got one more.

MR. LAUBE:
16.

P.O. LINDSAY:
One of them, we have a public hearing on 2535. That's assigned to Public Health. The public
hearing 12/19 at 2:30 in Hauppauge. Motion to set that public hearing. Do I have a second?

      ["Second" said in Unison by Legislators]

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
Second.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Second by Legislator D'Amaro All. In favor? Opposed?

D.P.O. VILORIA-FISHER:
And to all, a good night.

LEG. MYSTAL:
Motion to adjourn.

P.O. LINDSAY:
Abstention? Motion to adjourn by Legislator Mystal. All in favor? I'll second. Opposed?
Abstentions? It carries.

MR. LAUBE:
Sixteen, and sixteen for these last two.

      [THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 9:42 P.M.]

{ } Indicates Spelled Phonetically




                                                                                              335

								
To top