HOST COMMUNITIES

STANDING COMMITTEE MEETING

Friday, December 14, 2007 – 12:30 p.m.

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  (via Teleconference)

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

1.0          Call to Order

Chairman Granto called the Host Communities Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:38 p.m. 

2.0          Roll Call

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

4.0          Host Community Standing Committee Protocol

Mr. Massaro referred to the documents #1 and #2 [attached hereto and made a part hereof these minutes].  He indicated that he had conversations with each of the members and after reaching agreement with everyone it was forwarded to Mr. Daly and Mr. Chase and at the NYPA.  Mr. Daly and Mr. Chase forwarded some minor changes (basically typographical and spelling). 

Mr. Massaro reviewed the changes on document #2:

On page two, paragraph two:

·         inserted or between Member (or) Members;

·         Further in the paragraph the spelling of the word “conciliation” was corrected;

·         Changed “…90 days from the determination of the member” to “…90 days from the final determination of a member.”

·         Changed the word “completed” was changed to “selected”  in two places (referring to the panel of arbitrators);

·         After second “selected,” the spelling of the word “failing” was corrected.

Mr. Massaro stated that these were the only two changes made on the two documents.  Mr. Massaro stated that the document indicates that if there are three members who agree that a project is inconsistent with the NG Plan then the project fails at that point and does not move forward unless it is modified.  If six (6) members or more agree that it is consistent, the project is funded and it moves forward unless the remaining one or two members elect to go to arbitration.  If it goes to a panel of arbitrators, if the arbitrators decide that it is CONSISTENT with the plan, then the one or two members who elected arbitration will then have to pay the costs from the arbitration.  If the panel of arbitrators determines that it is INCONSISTENT with the plan, then the six members who determined that it was consistent will pay the arbitration costs. 

Mr. Massaro went on to state that the selection of the arbitrators will be one from either or both of the two members who elect arbitration, and one from the member who is the project sponsor.  The two arbitrators they select will select a third arbitrator, all from the Panel of American Arbitration Federal Mediation and Conciliation, or from any other service that those two may agree with in the future.  Mr. Massaro stated that the majority of the panel of arbitrators has to decide within 90 days from the final determination of the two members who say it is inconsistent.  The arbitrators have to be selected within 30 days from the date of the determination.  If the selection is not completed in 30 days due to the fault of the member or members selecting the arbitrator, then the plan will be considered consistent and move forward.  This prevents a delay by the parties selecting the arbitrator.  If the delay is the fault of the project sponsor, the project will be considered inconsistent and nothing further will be done for it. 

4.0          Host Community Standing Committee Protocol  (Continued…)

Regarding the sunset provision, Mr. Massaro stated that Mr. Newlin presented a concept of two years, a concept was presented by the NYPA and others that there should be something ongoing until it is negotiated, therefore, this is an attempt to combine the two concepts.  The initial agreement, should it be approved, will be effective for two years from the date of the approval of all the protocols of which this would be a part of.  The provision would then automatically be renewed every two years thereafter and hopefully for fifty (50) years; however, if there are the five members who feel they want a different procedure they serve a notice to negotiate at least 90 days before the conclusion of the initial period or each renewed period itself.  If they then move into negotiations, there will be a year to complete negotiations.  If the negotiations are not completed within a year, then ANY member will have the ability to take it to court to commence an action to determine what consensus means under the Host Community Agreement.  The cost of such action (as to what consensus would mean) including reasonable attorney’s fees, will be borne by the member or members against whom the determination is made.  Pending the negotiations for one year and the Court’s determination, should it occur, this procedure will remain in effect to avoid a hiatus. 

Mr. Massaro stated that he feels this expresses the views of the members and it is a settlement to end the impasse the Committee is at concerning this phase.

Mr. Kahn stated that on page three of the #2 document, three lines from the bottom, there should be quotation marks around the word “consensus.”  Mr. Massaro stated he has no problem with that revision.

Mr. Fluskey asked if the word “cost” in referring to the arbitration process includes attorney’s fees.  Mr. Massaro stated he did not include attorney’s fees in that portion, but did include them in the portion dealing with Court action. 

Mr. Anello made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ross, to adopt the language in Document #2 as Committee procedures under the overall protocols once they are approved.

Mr.  Burgasser stated that one Page 2, before the first full paragraph that starts “The member…” he suggests it should be stated “The arbitration procedure is as follows….”.  He feels it should be stated for clarification.  He also stated that the very first line on the first page reads “The project must meet the consistency criteria described in the Host Community Settlement Agreement,” and in another place on the document it reads “consistent with the NG Plan,” or if the plan has been terminated it should probably state that, or use the term “consistency criteria described in the Host Community Settlement Agreement” which would include it being consistent with the NG Plan.  He explained that if for some unknown reason the NRG plan is terminated, it should be in there.

4.0          Host Community Standing Committee Protocol  (Continued…)

Mr. Massaro stated that he feels that if there is no plan it would automatically kick back to the Agreement, therefore, he does not feel it is necessary to include that in the document.  He suggested that this document be accepted as it is at this point.

A roll call vote was taken.

Motion was carried.

7.0          Next Meeting

Mr. Ross scheduled a meeting of the NPC for Wednesday, December 19, 2008 at 12:30 p.m.

The Host Community Standing Committee will meet on Friday, December 21, 2007 – 9:30 p.m.

8.0          Adjournment

Mr. Newlin made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rappold, to adjourn the Host Community Standing Committee.  Motion passed.  Meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.

Respecfully submitted,

__________________________

Mary P. Melloni

Recording Secretary