HOST COMMUNITIES STANDING COMMITTEE MEETING

MINUTES OF:

Friday, February 22, 2008 – 12:00 Noon 

Niagara County Department of Economic Development

6311 Inducon Corporate Drive

Sanborn, New York 14132

1.          Call to order

          Chairman Granto called the meeting to order at 12:20 p.m.

2.          Roll Call

Staff Present:

Charles Miller, President, NPC

John Baird, Treasurer, NPC

Mary Melloni, Recording Secretary                                                              

Stan Widger, Esq., NPC Counsel, Nixon Peabody 

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

3.       Pledge of Allegiance

Chairman Ross led the Pledge of Allegiance.

4.       Approval of Minutes

4.1         January 18, 2008

Mr. Newlin made a motion, seconded by Mr. O’Donnell, to approve the Minutes of the January 18, 2008 meeting.  Motion passed.

5.    Discussion:

5.1         Town of Niagara Veteran’s Memorial Park Project

Chairman Granto requested direction from the Board regarding the course of action to be taken.  He stated that he recalled previously that the group agreed that if protocols were not agreed upon by all parties, the committee would proceed with projects based on the Host Community protocols.  Based on that, Mr. Granto stated this would be the first meeting of the project where the group would determine if there are any comments/critiques and if satisfied that the project meets all the criteria, including consistency with the Greenway, then a final acceptance would come sometime in March.  Chairman Granto stated that the group can proceed this way, or continue discussion of the protocols.

Mr. Daly stated he recalled members of the committee who did not agree with proceeding without protocols in place.  He stated that in order to progress as a committee, they need to get the protocols in place. 

Mr. Burgasser stated that the Committee does not have protocols or a procedure, and he disagreed with proceeding with their own protocols.  Following this input, Chairman Granto turned the meeting over to Mr. Widger for discussion of the protocols.

­Discussion of Protocols:

Mr. Widger referred to the draft protocols that incorporated comments based on discussions and additional input received from members and some items that required clarification submitted by Mr. Burgasser. 

Mr. Burgasser asked if the items left to discuss should be covered in Executive Session.  Mr. Widger stated that there are some items that could be discussed in Executive Session; however, he stated it would be appropriate to return to the regular session of the meeting to identify what had been determined in Executive Session.  Without everyone having provided full feedback on it, he would like to receive more input to go forward in finalizing the document. 

After some discussion, it was decided that the protocols would not be discussed in Executive Session. 

­Discussion of Protocols:

Mr. Burgasser handed out a set of protocols with the County’s suggested revisions.   Mr. Widger stated that he sent out a redline and clean version of the protocols from him with a cover email explaining the location of the changes on February 19^th.  The County’s version has some additional changes to his, some of which are just removal of questions and notations that were previously addressed and some that will be addressed in these protocols.  Mr. Widger stated the group will work off the County’s clean version and if needed, refer to Mr. Widger’s redline version.  [To be attached hereto and made a part hereof these minutes.]

Mr. Widger reviewed the preamble to the consistency determination on page 3, General.    Mr. Daly stated that the second sentence ‘“Consensus” shall require the presence of a quorum as stated above.’  He suggested either adding “consensus shall require the participation of all standing committee members or their designated alternates” or if this is not added, take the other line out. 

Mr. Newlin expressed concern that a project would not go through if just one person cannot attend or is not available, and a lengthy discussion ensued. 

Mr. Daly stated that he has not seen language that covers consensus regarding the adoption and amendment of the protocol or establishment of the funding process.  Mr. Widger explained that it would be changed to read, under General, delete the second sentence
beginning “Consensus;” and beginning with the second sentence to read “For matters other than (a) determining the consistency of proposed projects with the criteria described in “Background,” above; (b) adoption and amendment of this Protocol, and (c) establishment of the funding process.  If the members cannot in good faith achieve consensus on their first attempt to decide on a particular matter, the decision at issue shall be made by majority vote of all members, not simply a majority of those present. In the event of a tie vote on any matter, such tie shall be deemed a negative result.”

It was decided that as long as it is made clear what the exemptions are, a simple majority vote will cover all other items. 

Mayor Dyster stated that much emphasis is being placed on the potential collapse of the organization.  He stated that if people are determined to sabotage a cooperative process, rules cannot be written to prevent that. 

Mr. Widger stated that the “Consistency Determination” section has been revised after discussion from previous meetings and the subject has been addressed thoroughly.  Mr. Massaro stated it has been approved by the Committee and should not be addressed again.  Mr. Daly claimed nothing has been approved; it was only put into the protocol.  He had some minor grammatical changes to the section:  (b) on the 4^th line delete “either of” and after “the remaining” replace two (2) with “member or”…  On page 5, 5^th line from top of page, change “then it will” to “then it shall.” 

In Section (c), at the end of the first paragraph, after “furnished by the American Arbitration Association” delete the remainder of that sentence and replace with “and such arbitrators shall follow the Commercial Rules of the American Arbitration Association to the extent not inconsistent with this Protocol and the Host Communities Settlement Agreement.”

­

Discussion of Protocols:

Mr. Widger explained that on page 6, Effective Period, is based on the changes agreed to at the same time as the consensus procedures.  The only change to be pointed out there is because changes were made to the beginning of that section, it was more appropriate in the Further Selection and Funding paragraph on page 7, to refer back to the previous determination as being about consistency rather than confusing it with the eligibility for funding. 

Mr. Burgasser referred to page 8, under Sponsorship and Funding of Proposed Projects, on line 11, “or over the objection of any Host Community having an acceptable project of its own, the funding for which would be diminished by a project sponsored by an entity other than a Host Community; provided, however, that, in cases where a Host Community’s only objection is to the contribution of funds otherwise available to such Host Community, such project may be approved by decision of the remaining Standing Committee member if they determine to use other funds for such project.”  Mr. Burgasser stated that this is extra language that should be removed. 

After a lengthy discussion, it was decided to replace that section with “In the case of the County of Niagara, such authority to object shall not apply where the proposed project is located within the geographical boundaries of any of the other six (6) Host Communities.”  And after further discussion it was agreed to add, after this statement, as a new paragraph: “Nothing contained in this Protocol shall be construed as authorizing any diminution in the percentage funding allocations established in the by-laws of the Niagara Power Coalition.”

It was also agreed that under Sponsorship and Funding of Proposed Projects, the third sentence beginning “Entities other than…” would be made a new paragraph.

Mr. Daly, referring to page 11, step 6 under Steps and Schedule for Review Process, stated that he rewrote number 6 and he provided a written copy to the members [a copy of which will be attached hereto and made a part hereof these minutes].  Mr. Burgasser asked if any of the old language from number 6 is included; Mr. Daly stated some of it is.  Mr. Daly read the revision to the members. Mr. Burgasser stated that this was discussed and that is why the phrase “if required” was put into the protocol which obviously means if the Greenway Commission does not exist, they fall back on what was discussed if consistency had to be done without the Greenway Commission.  He stated that in discussing the written part, he is going to refer to the general protocols and he is not sure why they would go to such further extent than what is already involved in the general protocol that have been agreed to by the NYPA and two or three other standing committees as to what is going to be required for submission to the consulting parties. The language was put in, in order to include what the NYPA wanted originally and Mr. Burgasser feels there is much additional language in Mr. Daly’s submission that is unnecessary.  Mr. Daly pointed out that some of the language comes right out of the settlement agreement. Mr. Granto asked Mr. Daly what changes he is recommending to Step 6.  Mr. Daly stated he would like to add in the other consulting parties, if the Greenway Commission is talked about, eliminate “if required” and put in “providing it has not been terminated,” and sixty days needs to be 90 days.  Mr. Hapeman stated that if you have submitted everything required and you receive no answer in the 90 days, it should state that you can still go forward.

­Discussion of Protocols:

After further discussion, Step 6 was revised as follows:

“Written evidence of consultation with Niagara River Greenway Commission, but only if such Commission is still active in accordance with the purpose for which it was created, chief elected official or designated representative of any affected municipal, county, tribal entity and appropriate State and Federal agencies (collectively “consulting parties”), submitted no later than ten (10) business days before meeting identified in step 7.  In such consultation, applicant shall have provided (a) description of proposed project, (b) description of how proposed project is consistent with Greenway Plan, and (c) maps and/or drawings with included past or subsequent phases.  Consultation period shall end ninety (90) days after consultation initiated by project proponent, regardless of whether a response is received or not and consultation shall be considered complete.  If project proponent receives comments from consulting parties, project proponent shall indicate how comments were addressed.  (In “addressing” comments, project proponent should demonstrate that it has understanding of comments and should indicate whether proponent agrees or disagrees with comments and why.  Not required that proponent agree with consulting parties; but, if proponent has changed proposal to accommodate comments, accommodation should be noted.)”

Mr. Burgasser asked for some clarification on Steps 9, 10 and 11.  Mr. Daly stated that the way it is written and the way consistency review and possible dispute resolution and consensus vote, it is not practical.  It was decided to delete steps 9, 10 and 11. 

Under Implementation of Projects (Disbursement of Funds and Monitoring), Mr. Daly stated that under number 1, the parenthetical needs to be deleted.  This was agreed to.

Number 3, was revised to read “Costs associated with the approved construction and/or rehabilitation of the projects.”

Number 4 was revised to read “Operation and maintenance costs, including but not limited to project-related and Standing Committee administrative costs, on a case-by-case basis for approved projects.

On page 13, in the first paragraph under number 4, before the third sentence, add “Use of funds for ongoing costs, such as debt service, that have previously been approved as part of project costs, shall not require separate approval before each release.”

Chairman Granto asked if the administrative costs could be built into the funding after the project is approved.  Mr. Granto stated that the Committee itself is going to face various charges including mailings, secretarial, meeting venue, etc.  Mr. Widger stated that there are two categories, one being strictly project-related administrative costs that should be allocated to the project.  The other is Standing Committee costs to monitor the projects.  Mr. Widger stated that unless there is some reason for allocating it to a particular project, it should be based on the percentages of the bylaws.  Chairman Granto stated that the projects need to be audited and it should be built into the cost of the projects and is asking if this can be done.  Mr. Hapeman stated that there is already a section that reads “these administrative costs may be paid by the interest in the fund…” and just needs the sentence to read broad enough that the choices are clear, i.e. interest, principal, paid directly by the sponsor, or included as administrative costs.  Mr. Rappold stated that if someone is taking on the responsibility of getting approval for a project, they are also taking on the responsibility of those administrative costs.  Mr. Granto stated that the Host Communities are going to need a lawyer and that will cost.

­Discussion of Protocols:

After a discussion regarding how to collect administrative costs and where the money will come from, the following sentence was revised to read,”Administrative costs of the Standing Committee not otherwise recovered or part of project costs described above, shall…”

The second paragraph on page 13, first sentence, “and for a period of three (3) years after completion” was deleted.

Mr. Newlin asked if a project is approved, does the Standing Committee then issue one check for the total cost of the project, or are checks given against the cost of the project as per contracts.  Mr. Burgasser stated that somewhere it is stated that invoices on the projects will be paid within 30 days of receipt and review.  Mr. Burgasser stated that he understands that the money stays in the account and is disbursed as each part of the project is approved and invoices submitted.  Mr. Newlin stated he did not understand that it was going to happen that way, but if it does it will require more staffing requirements.  Mr. Burgasser stated it would resolve issues on setting up of the funding.  Mr. Newlin stated his perception was he was going to receive one check per project.

Mr. Granto stated when the school district dealt with the Power Authority they had to submit every invoice and received payment within 30 days.  Chairman Granto stated that if the HC pays on invoices they will need the staff to handle it; but if they go with one check per project, how will there be checks and balances and will NYPA agree to that.   Mr. Daly stated that conceptually they saw invoices come in and money going out.  He stated that he thinks they have since moved away from that model, but perhaps the Committee could pay on benchmarks. 

Mr. Newlin stated that for simplicity it is easier to allow one check per project and either each month or bi-monthly the controlling entity submits to this body and NYPA a summary of all expenditures.  Mr. Newlin stated that his municipality has good checks and balances on public monies.  It was agreed that this process seemed workable.  The last sentence on page 13 of the protocols covers responsibility for improper use of funds being the project sponsor.  Chairman Granto stated that if a third party was involved, and there were problems, the sponsor of that third party would be responsible. 

Mr. Fluskey had a question regarding the statement on page 4 of the protocol that states “If any three members of the Standing Committee decide that the proposed project is inconsistent with the Greenway Plan, and not further considered, without modification, nor shall it be eligible for consideration by a panel of arbitrators as hereinafter provided.”  Mr. Fluskey asked for an explanation of that.  Mr. Massaro stated it means it shall not be considered further unless it is modified.

Mr. Fluskey stated that on page 4-5, paragraph (b), he recalled that previously, regarding the cost shifting mechanism, it was agreed that this did not include attorney’s fees and he would feel more comfortable putting that in parenthesis.  It was decided to add, on page 5, section (b), line 3, after “the cost of the arbitration” the phrase “(not including attorneys’ fees).”   Also put this phrase after “cost of the arbitration” on line 7 of page 5.

­

Discussion of Protocols:

Mr. Daly asked for changes on page 1, remove italics from “Greenway.”  Number (1) the insert “Niagara River” Greenway plan.  On page 2, under Host Communities – Vehicle for Participation and Inter-Community Relations, add to the end of the first sentence, “Provided, however, that the joint service agreement does not prevent NYPA’s ability to fulfill its obligations under the Settlement Agreement or this Protocol.”  Mr. Rappold asked that Mr. Widger look into the consequences of adding this statement.  Mr. Daly stated they do not know what the “Joint Service Agreement” is.  Mr. Hapeman explained that NYPA does not want the HC’s Joint Service Agreement saying we are going to ignore everything.   Mr. Daly also asked that under Meetings, second sentence, that it read …regular schedule of meetings or unless otherwise agreed by ten (10) days notice…”

At 2:50 p.m. Chairman Granto called a 10 minute break.  Meeting to resume at 3:00 p.m.

Subcommittee Report – Funding

The committee consisted of Mr. Burgasser, Mr. Rappold and Mr. Newlin.  Chairman Granto stated this is the third critical issue that needs to be resolved. 

Mr. Burgasser stated that back in December the Committee had come in with a proposal to go to a local lending institution to have the account set up within Niagara County.  At that time it was suggested setting it up with a master account that would receive the funds and one clearing account (checking account).

Mr. Burgasser indicated that the committee was to meet with HSBC, First Niagara and M&T banks to discuss having one master account, one master statement monthly that would reflect the interest, have pro-rated interest for each one of the accounts, and a checking account to pay the day-to-day bills.  Additionally, there would be 7 separate fund accounts for each individual Host Community.  In order to establish it correctly, it would be necessary for each account to have the appropriate ID number and the individual percentage of the money would be set for each host community.  The appropriate interest would be put into the checking account to pay the operating and administrative expenses of the Standing Committee.  It was also proposed that for public relations purposes, the sponsoring host community and NYPA would be signatories on the checks when presented.  It was also requested that the lending institution have 7 signatories on the clearing account or each account; and finally to ask each of the institutions what they were willing to do for the Standing Committee.

Mr. Burgasser stated he met with HSBC and their Public Municipal Department and local branch (North Tonawanda branch). They are willing to satisfy and go further than that on each and every requirement that was presented.  They will be able to set up the clearing account, start out with one checking account for ordinary expenses with 7 signatories of which any two can be designated at any given time; each separate fund account can have the individual host community’s public ID number on it.   The money would be deposited in Niagara County, it would stay in the branch and be credited to the branch, however there would be the availability of the Public Municipal Department in assisting in setting up the public entities.  The fund accounts can be set up into savings accounts, money market accounts, CD’s and they would be very aggressive, although they cannot guarantee any kind of interest rate at this time with the volatility of the reserve at this point.  There will be no fees whatsoever, no charges for the checks or drafts that will be drawn; no deposit fees.  Each entity will be able to monitor their account on line, internet banking (no charge for these).  There will also

Subcommittee Report – Funding

be a collateral custodial agreement that guarantees, not only by HSBC, but by securities that they will put up and keep in effect, that no monies will be lost on the accounts, even over and above $100,000.  Some changes would have to be made to the collateral custodial agreement because it does talk about certain fees and charges which they will remove.  Mr. Burgasser stated he has copies of the agreements.  He stated they are also willing to accept and set up separate specific resolutions that can be done per our directions.  They will accept those and put them on the accounts.  They can be time-controlled and set up in almost any manner the Committee requests.  Because of some concerns expressed by NYPA, Mr. Burgasser asked how specific or how much direction can be put into each resolution and they did fax copies of municipal resolutions to him. They do allow for any kind of direction/limits to put on the accounts.  If any directions or limitations are not met a flag goes up and it will stop the transaction.  Mr. Burgasser stated that he is assuming if HSBC can meet these requirements, other banks can also do it. 

First Niagara sent in some questions that can be answered.  Mr. Newlin stated that First Niagara’s terms are generally the same, signatories can be flexible.  The account structure was okay with them, but they asked several interesting questions that the committee will have to come to an agreement on:

·         May need a new Tax ID number for this account

·         Does the Municipal Finance Law apply to this

·         Is this a not-for-profit corporation

·         Investment structure -- CD, money market -- needs to be determined (how long can the money be tied up for (30 days, 6 months, 1 year)

Mr. Newlin stated that there will be a better deal on fees if there is only one check per project per year.  If there are 60 checks going out a month, the terms may change. 

Mr. Burgasser stated that HSBC will not charge fees in any situation.  They were aware there may be numerous amounts of checks and they are also aware that some of the money may be in and out within ten days.  In making them aware of that they were still willing to help. Mr. Burgasser understands that each of the municipalities will provide their own tax ID number and a resolution from the Standing Committee. 

Mr. Burgasser stated he does not envision this being part of the protocols due to the fact that the Committee may want to change banks, requirements may change from the banks. 

Mr. Burgasser explained that from what he understands, the money will go into one account; the bank will divide it pursuant to the percentages.  The resolution would set up a master account, with a checking account, seven fund accounts under that, and it needs to be decided who is going to sign on each of those accounts, and there will be 8 signatories on the checking account.  It was originally proposed in December that the NYPA and the entity would be signing checks in the checking account, and that can be changed.  For the separate 7 fund accounts the Committee needs to designate who the signatories will be on those; and those accounts will require resolutions for specific projects, the amount, and the date of release of the funds.

Subcommittee Report – Funding

Mr. Daly stated that if Mr. Burgasser is referring to a large check at a press conference that is not what Rick Chase agreed to.  Mr. Burgasser indicated that is only a symbolic check, but he is referring to the actual check.  Mr. Daly stated that the agreement was that all 8 members should be signatories, NYPA plus the sponsoring host community on project checks; administrative management checks would require HC chairman and one other designee, NYPA.  All interest earned would be equally divided among the 7 members and distributed after having costs.  There would be a finance committee to oversee the funds, consisting of two HC members and NYPA. 

Mr. Granto asked if anyone had an objection to NYPA being a signatory of the project checks from individual HC accounts.  Mr. Fluskey stated that he is not even sure that can be done—it doesn’t seem that you can have a bank account in the name of a municipality with NYPA as a signatory.  This issue was discussed in detail.  It was suggested that one check goes to the clearing account, all monies stay in the clearing house until it is approved by the Committee and then the check gets signed over to the municipality and then the municipality has sole rights to the signing of checks from that account.  Mayor Dyster stated that from experience with the City of Niagara Falls in dealing with casino revenue, it is necessary to be careful where you have money in interest bearing accounts, because then the question of when money gets released for a project starts to get affected by the fact that the money is in an interest-bearing account.

Mr. Burgasser stated that the 7 accounts are still a part of the Standing Committee.  Mr. Massaro asked why it cannot be kept in the clearing house account until ready to disburse it to the host community for a specific project.  It would be signed by NYPA and two others from HC to the entity and then the entity disburses the individual checks; there would be one check per year per project.  For those who are debt service, they would still get the one check per year.  Mr. Burgasser stated that this would be complicated; it should go into the clearing account and then split by percentages into the separate accounts and use the same procedure on the separate accounts and then if there is a project that is a 3^rd party and bills are coming in and being approved, the account is set up for that purpose.  Mr. Burgasser stated it is an extra level of protection that we are not involved with each other’s money.

Mr. Hapeman stated that if the money is kept in the large account, will the bank be able to keep track of each entity’s interest; it needs to be kept separate.  Seven accounts prorated, when project is approved NYPA and the HC will sign that check for the project.  Add a provision that says for example Niagara Wheatfield can only get funds from Account number 1, etc. 

Mr. Richards stated that the Committee Counsel should check with the State Comptroller regarding the fiduciary responsibilities should be on the accounts. 

A separate ID number is needed for the Greenway Recreation/Tourism Fund; therefore a legal entity needs to be formed for that ID number.  The bank will then split the monies according to the percentages of the by-laws.  The 7 HC funds are sub-funds of the Greenway Recreation/Tourism fund with the ID number of the main fund.  To get the money from the 7 entity funds for projects, there should be NYPA, Chairman, and Treasurer of this group as signatories.  The money can be moved the same day it is deposited. 

Subcommittee Report – Funding

Chairman Granto stated there is agreement on the consistency, basic principle agreement on the protocol, and rough agreement on the banking which will be brought back to the Committee.  The Chairman asked if there is a consensus on his assessment of where the Committee stands at this time and hopefully the protocol can be voted on at the next meeting.  Mr. Massaro will work with Mr. Widger on the Comptroller’s opinion.

Mr. Daly stated that regarding the fund portion of it, will the general structure of the fund be written into the protocol.  If so, he will not need the exclusion and if the particulars can be done by resolution that will be agreeable to NYPA.  His preference would be to put the general structure of the fund in the protocols in order to eliminate the exclusion and the protocols can be adopted as such.  The resolution would only need a simple majority to identify which bank, and other details.

5.       Town of Niagara Veteran’s Memorial Park Project

Chairman Granto stated that today is the actual day that Mr. Richards submitted his project.  Mr. Daly stated it was submitted back in February.  Chairman Granto stated that was the pre-application screening that Mr. Daly is referring to.  Mr. Richards then submitted 12 copies to the Chairperson, the Chairperson reviewed for completeness and it was sent out to the members.  This meeting is to acknowledge that Mr. Richards resubmitted his project with revisions, and then it is to be voted on no less than 20 days later at a second meeting to reach a consensus. 

Chairman Granto stated he will review the submission again, however, he did read it and it looks as though all the changes requested were incorporated and it is compliant with goals and objectives and they do have evidence of their consultation with the Greenway Commission.

6.       Any Other Matters

Mr. Burgasser stated that it needs to be determined what kind of vote it will take to change the protocol.  Chairman Granto asked that if the protocol were adopted, what kind of vote it would take to amend it.  Mr. Daly and Mr. Massaro would prefer consensus on changing any part of the protocol--that would require eight votes. 

The Town of Lewiston, Town of Niagara, Niagara County, Lewiston-Porter and Niagara Wheatfield will not agree to eight votes.  The Niagara Falls School District, City of Niagara Falls and NYPA all agree with eight votes to change the protocol. 

Chairman Granto asked for suggestions from the entities who voted no.  Mr. Burgasser suggested 6 votes, Niagara Wheatfield suggested 7 votes.  Mr. Newlin agreed with 6 as a super majority.  Mr. Fluskey referred to page 6 on the protocol, pointing out the dispute resolution process, and asked if this vote is to amend the entire protocol, including that.  The answer was no, the dispute resolution process has its own amendment process. 

A lengthy discussion followed on the issue of consensus.  Mayor Dyster stated that there is a protection by requiring 8 votes, since his council could tell him no if he were to sign an agreement where the rules could be changed without their consent.  Mr. Burgasser stated they did not buy into consensus when they signed this agreement.  One or two people should not be able to hold up a good change.  Mr. Massaro stated the risk for him is to have an entity tell the school district that it has to do something a certain way because 6 or 7 members said so, and that is the greater risk.  Mr. Newlin pointed out that he and the Town of Niagara have voted against budgets that were approved by the other members and had to go back to their councils with it.

After more discussion, it was suggested that no changes be made to the protocols for a period of two years and then at that time the consensus issue be revisited.  Mr. Newlin made a motion that for the next two-year period the protocol can be amended with a vote of 7 members; after two years it will be revisited.  Mr. Hapeman seconded the motion.  A roll call vote was taken.

                                Town of Lewiston                            Yes

                                Lewiston-Porter School                                Yes

                                City of Niagara Falls                        No

                                Town of Niagara                               Yes

                                Niagara Wheatfield                        Yes

                                Niagara County                                 Yes

                                NYPA                                                     No

                                Niagara Falls Schools                     No

Motion passed.

Chairman Granto suggested that if there are changes to be made to the protocols, the Committee refer to 7.3 in the Host Community Agreement that the members will strive for consensus.  7.3 states that “The parties agree that the HC Committee shall work in a cooperative manner and shall make a concerted effort to achieve consensus on all decisions.”   Chairman Granto stated that he feels this is an excellent way to proceed until something arises and they have to deal with it. 

Mr. Newlin made a motion to reconsider the prior motion that passed 5 to 3.  Mayor Dyster seconded the motion.  Motion passed.

Mr. Newlin made a motion to that for the first two years the members will abide by 7.3 in the Host Community Agreement to guide the Committee in amending protocols for the next two years – to work in a cooperative manner and make a concerted effort to achieve consensus.  Mr. Ross seconded the motion.  A roll call vote was taken:

                                Town of Lewiston                            Yes

                                Lewiston-Porter School                                No

                                City of Niagara Falls                        Yes

                                Town of Niagara                               Yes

                                Niagara Wheatfield                        No

                                Niagara County                                 Yes

                                NYPA                                                     Yes

                                Niagara Falls Schools                     Yes

Motion passed.

7.0          Next HCSC Meeting

The next meeting of the Host Communities Standing Committee will be on Monday, March 3, 2008 at 12 noon.  At that meeting Chairman Granto stated the Committee will vote on the protocol, the draft agreement and receive additional information on the account fund. 

8.0          Adjournment

Mr. Newlin made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ross, to adjourn the meeting.  Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________

Mary P. Melloni

Recording Secretary