HOST COMMUNITIES GREENWAY FUND

STANDING COMMITTEE MEETING

Wednesday,  September 19, 2007

Niagara County Department of Economic Development

6311 Inducon Corporate Drive

Sanborn, New York 14132

Staff Present:

Charles Miller, President, NPC

Mary Melloni, Recording Secretary                                                        

Stan Widger, Esq., NPC Counsel, Nixon Peabody 

Samuel M. Ferraro, Executive Director/Commissioner - Niagara County Center for                                                                                                                                                                          Economic Development

1.0          Call to Order

Chairman Granto called the meeting to order the Host Communities Standing Committee meeting. 

2.0          Roll Call

Ms. Melloni called the roll; a quorum was established.

3.0          Pledge of Allegiance

4.0          Approval of Minutes – September 7, 2007

Minutes will be reviewed and approved at the next HC Greenway Fund Standing Committee meeting.

5.0          Host Communities Greenway Fund Standing Committee Report

Mr. Granto stated that he participated in a meeting  via teleconference that included Mr. Daly, Mr. Widger, Mr. Miller, Mr. Chase and Mr. Sullivan.  An open, frank discussion was held and the results of that discussion are contained in the Standing Committee Protocol dated 9/19/07 distributed by Mr. Burgasser.  Mr. Granto stated that the Committee has just received NYPA’s response and their understanding of the results of the meeting.   Mr. Granto stated he would like to compare the two documents and see if there are any differences. 

Mr. Widger explained that major issues were discussed, along with some of the language.  The issue of consensus was discussed in length, as the decision-making process is critical to having effective procedures for adopting projects for funding, etc.  He stated they worked vigorously on trying to come up with a means of establishing how the consensus language of the HC Settlement Agreement would be implemented.  The HC’s view of it was that after attempting to reach consensus, if that turned out not to be possible, then voting was the appropriate way to go.  The NYPA had developed a few different approaches to it, the last one being an alternative dispute resolution if consensus could not be achieved on two separate attempts separated by 30 days.  The HC’s therefore developed language that has a three-tiered approach to it; see page 4 of the 9/18/07 draft. [Attached hereto and made a part hereof these minutes.] 

Mr. Widger stated that the approach seemed to be acceptable to the parties who discussed it and language to implement that would also include a declaratory judgment action as a final resort could not be achieved and the voting process resulted in a result that an individual member could not live with.  The burden would be on that member to implement or institute a declaratory judgment action and to take the chance on being wrong about it.  Therefore if that member turned out to prevail on the issue of whether a project is consistent with the Greenway Plan, then that member would not bear the cause for that declaratory judgment action.  If that member turned out to be wrong, the member would bear the cost of it.  The converse is true.  Some of the language reflected in the document is to note clearly that time frames are things still open for discussion.  There are other issues that warrant attention, i.e. , if there are two sets of protocols, which would override the other.  The HC’s view of that is that the individual HC Standing Committee protocol should override anything that is inconsistent in a generic protocol.  The issue of funding has also been left open, which warrants discussion (the question of how the funding payments are made, approach to that).  The overall feeling was that the consensus issue and how to address that is the central issue that needs to be addressed.  Mr. Widger stated that the 9/18/07 document is intended to reflect these issues. 

6.0          Standing Committee Protocol

Mr. Daly stated that the NYPA has some concern that the Standing Committee is not dealing with the Host Communities and the Niagara Power Coalition as a whole, in that the comments they received has the disclaimer that essentially says it may or may not be the position of all of its members. Mr. Daly stated he does not know if this is going to be constructive if they are not dealing with all of the members in order to move forward.  He stated he would encourage the NPC to speak in one voice and would encourage everyone to attend the next meeting on September 26^th to talk about the protocols and provide their concerns.

Mr. Widger stated that the language was put in there not to reflect any dissent or differing views, but simply as a function of putting those comments together in a short amount of time, not having the benefit of everyone on the HC side providing input before doing so.

Mr. Daly stated that they would like comments from the NPC. Mr. Granto stated that the HC also needs time to review the comments just provided by the NYPA. 

Mr. Miller stated that he feels the last meeting went well.  He stated that his concern is with the Applicant; there has to be a streamlined process for the applicant.   Mr. Miller suggested that another meeting be held in a week to ten days after reviewing the protocols and in the meantime have another meeting with NYPA after looking at the protocols.

Mr. Granto stated that one variation is the HC’s  protocol with what the HC’s summary was of the meeting; and the one from NYPA is also the HC’s protocol with their understanding of what was discussed along with their concerns.  He asked that the members to review and compare what the differences/similarities are.  He suggested that Mr. Daly provide comments on what the similarities/differences are, followed by comments from Mr. Widger and Mr. Miller. 

Mr. Daly stated that the issue of determining what level of support is needed in order to determine consistency, i.e. the consensus issue.  He also stated that NYPA does not see the protocols as ruling protocols; they see them as general protocols that serve as an umbrella over all four standing committees and the product that the HC has developed being something that more defines the Host Community Standing Committee. 

Mr. Daly stated that NYPA’s critical interest is to insure that all projects that are funded through HC Protocol are consistent with the Greenway Plan.  Therefore they believe consensus amongst the Standing Committee is the best decision-making tool to use.  That means all 8 members must come to an agreement that a project is consistent.  Once that is determined, the committee would then undertake whether or not to fund the project and at what particular levels.  Mr. Daly stated that those are issues that would not have to meet consensus. 

Mr. Daly stated that the comments submitted with respect to the dispute resolution, NYPA can see a general protocol referring to a dispute resolution process in the Standing Committee vote.  Mr. Chase’s proposal was that if you cannot reach consensus, if the Chair of the Standing Committee and NYPA can reach consensus, then the project is consistent and could then go to a two-thirds vote.  Another variation was to ask the Greenway Commission for a determination.  If they do not provide one, move forward with a two-thirds vote.  If they affirmatively state the project is not consistent, then the required consensus must be met.  Mr. Daly stated NYPA is also open to other concepts.

6.0          Standing Committee Protocol

Mr. Daly stated NYPA’s  critical concern is that these are dollars that are going to be subject to a great deal of scrutiny and to ensure they reach and attain the level of commitment they have made they want to make sure the dollars are spent on projects consistent with the Greenway Plan.

Mr. Kahn asked if Mr. Daly could define consensus for him.  Mr. Daly stated that consensus is something everyone can live with. 

Mr. Granto stated that it is significant that NYPA stated that the general protocol can say that there will be a dispute resolution; but particular standing committees may have variations on what that resolution is.  Mr. Daly stated that this committee could adopt a process by which the Chair and NYPA reach consensus and Erie County could adopt a process using the Greenway Commission as their determination.  Mr. Granto asked that if they reach agreement on this specific dispute resolution, would NYPA have an objection.  Mr. Daly stated they would not as long as they are part of that determination. 

Mr. Daly referred to the 9/19/07 version of the HC protocol, page 2, Item V. INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE CONSULTING PARTIES…He explained that the second paragraph was changed to identify that consultation will begin upon “submission” of documents and set a 90 day limit. 

Mr. Granto stated that he understands from the last meeting that the final determination of funding, consistency, and consultation is up to the HC Standing Committee.  Mr. Daly stated that the final determination of consistency and funding is within this group; however consultation is not talked about.

Mr. Granto asked members to review all three documents (the HC Protocol with HC Comments; the HC Protocol with NYPA Comments; and the NYPA Protocol and get their comments to Mr. Widger by Monday, September 24, 2007. 

7.0          Next Meeting

It was decided that the Standing Committee would meeting again on Wednesday, October 3, 2007, following the 12 noon meeting of the Niagara Power Coalition. 

8.0          Adjournment

Mr. Newlin made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rappold, to adjourn the meeting.  Meeting adjourned at 3:21 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,                                                                               Reviewed by,

_____________________________                                            _____________________________

Mary P. Melloni                                                                                                Donald Rappold

Recording Secretary                                                                       Secretary