PW 8/31/15

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

OF THE

SUFFOLK COUNTY LEGISLATURE

MINUTES

A meeting of the Public Works Committee of the Suffolk County Legislature was held in the Rose Y. Caracappa Legislative Auditorium of the William H. Rogers Legislature Building, 725 Veterans Memorial Highway, Smithtown, New York, on August 31, 2015.

Members: Legislator Al Krupski - Chairman Legislator Tom Muratore - Vice-Chair Legislator Tom Barraga Legislator Kate Browning Legislator Steven Stern

Also In Attendance: Jason Richberg – Chief Deputy Clerk of the Legislature George Nolan - Attorney for the Legislature Garry Lenberger - Director of Operations, Suffolk County Transit Gil Anderson - Commissioner, Suffolk County Department of Public Works Steve Couzzo Paul Pressman - SILO Michael Leclerc Carolyn Palermo Ecaderina Henter Denise Coleman - SILO Michael Bosco Victor Neisch Tammy McLaughlin Andrea Mullen Devin Fernandez Denise Linkau Marie Contona - VIPS Charles Contona Marilyn Tucci Helen Dale Nicholl - Shinnecock Neighbors Steven McClury - FREE Dawn Cookler - SILO Chantal Benjamin - VIPS Robin Mayor Meesha Johnson Ajay Ashok - FREE Jayette Lansbury - NAML Jeffrey Kerwin Donald Gomez - VIPS Lou Giordano Bernard Ferracane - VIPS Jessica Campbell - SANYS

PW 8/31/15

Bryan Solomon Noel Hazel - SILO Nick LaMorte - CSEA Long Island Jennifer Juengst - Shinnecock Neighbors Linda Jones Keven McAllister - Defend H20 Maude Kramer Hope Sandrow Rose Colucci Robert Colucci Judith Cohen Jerry Cohen Claire Miller - FREE Alice Young - SILO Yvette Boisnier - SILO Kevin Lane Robert Liner Nancy Benito - VIPS Susan vonFreddi Gassman Krista Giannak Michael Jordan Brenda Berntson All Other Interested Parties

Minutes Taken By: Gabrielle Severs - Court Stenographer Diana Flesher - Court Stenographer

Minutes Transcribed By: Gabrielle Severs - Court Stenographer Alison Mahoney - Court Stenographer Denise Weaver - Legislative Aide

PW 8/31/15

(*The meeting was called to order at 2:01 p.m.*)

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: All rise for the Pledge of Allegiance led by Legislator Browning.

(*Salutation*)

Welcome to the meeting of the Public Works Transportation and Energy Committee. We will start our public portion here, we have a number of cards and as you fill them out our Deputy Clerk will be collecting them and bringing them up here. You'll have a -- please come up to the podium, you'll have three minutes to address the Committee. Number one is Steve Couzzo and on deck Paul Pressman.

MR. COUZZO: Once again, hello, Legislators and attendees. My name is Steven Couzzo, I'm here representing ADAM and working with SILO to make SCAT accessibility for the disabled in our community better.

I'd like to speak to you today about the three-quarter mile guideline. I made available an article that ran in Newsday last week to all of you for -- that had Linda Jones, who is here today, and Donald Gomez who's here today and myself, who has to be speakers at the Helen Keller National Center for the Deaf-Blind in Sands Point and we arranged SCAT and NICE in Nassau transportation to get there and the article explains our experience.

Legislator William Spencer has a constituent that lives at Carillon Nursing Home, he would also like to be able to go to Sunken Meadow State Park and just sit on the boardwalk and be able to spend a day or two a week there -- a week there and he's unable, like all of us, to access any of the parks, Vanderbilt museums, or any of the beaches on the North Shore due to the three-quarter mile guideline.

There's a young lady that's a member of us, just got a job beginning of the month at Verizon in Commack, she lives in Stony Brook, she was hired Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday and when I spoke to her picking up her phone there she was very distraught because on Sunday the routes change and there was no transportation for her to be able to go to her job because three-quarter mile guideline.

This is something we can fix and this is something we need to fix and should fix. I don't think it would take more than a committee here telling the bus company that no longer do we have a three-quarter mile guideline but we're going to extend it to five miles. You can monitor the expense on a monthly basis from month to month, I can guarantee you it will be minimal, not millions.

I would also like to invite the Committee to next month to the meeting at the transportation committee at SILO at the new location Holtsville and I'd like you to all know that we are well aware of your efforts on behalf of the disabled in the community and we'd like to thank you for your service. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. Paul Pressman and on deck Michael Leclerc.

MR. PRESSMAN: Good afternoon gentlemen and ladies. I just had a nice meeting with a couple gentlemen that has to do with the Public Works and Public Transportation and I came out of that meeting with a lot of positives and I appreciate everything and the only thing I want to say as far as the three-quarter

PW 8/31/15

rule is I know for a fact because I've spoken to senators and the federal government, that that's a federal law. I know that that's something that you Legislators cannot change. What needs to be done is it has to go through the ADA regional offices and I'm willing to go up to Cornell where the regional office ADA is and to speak with all the federal people that are necessary to get this thing changed. I already have spoken to and have actually gotten phone calls from Mr. Cuomo, I have a meeting with State Senator, Mr. Boyle on Wednesday, I've gotten letters back from state senator -- U.S. Senator Schumer and U.S. Senator Gillibrand who happens to be on the Senate Subcommittee meet for all disabled and senior citizens. I know money is an issue as well. I'm offering my services as a retired disabled person that I will help get that money and get these laws changed. I just need help from you Legislators to give me the right places of where to go. Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you, Paul. Michael Leclerc and on deck Carolyn Palermo.

MR. LECLERC: Good afternoon. My name's Michael Leclerc, I'm legally blind. I'm a member of SILO transportation committee board, I'm also a member of Third Eye Insight and ADAM, American's with Disabilities Awareness Movement. I'd like to discuss -- I have a SCAT membership, I'd like to discuss the SCAT extended hours as well as the Suffolk County buses.

I'm a musician and I work at night and often I can use the buses and SCAT to get to my performance, be it a winery or a restaurant, but not back and the extended hours would help out a lot. And it's not only for the disabled community but a lot of the restaurant workers, fellow -- you know, fellow restaurant workers, they need it as well, it's just -- it's basically too short, it's -- not all of us work in the morning, some of us work nights and I know it's -- I don't know whether it's a money issue or whatever but we're working, we're, you know, it's not only the disabled community, we want to work, we want to generate money for ourselves and taxes and the whole -- make the whole system work and we can't do that if we work at night and having to rely on rides and cabs are not an option, it's just too expensive, I can't use half of my pay for the evening for transportation.

So that's basically my point. I'd really appreciate if we could look into extending the hours. I know now we're looking at ten, midnight would be better for me, 24 hours would be a dream come true but baby steps. Thank you very much for your time.

(*Applause*)

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. Carolyn Palermo and on deck Ecaderina Henter.

MS. PALERMO: Good afternoon, Legislative committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today regarding additional hours on SCAT.

My name is Carolyn Palermo, I live in West Babylon and I'm a SCAT user. I also go to Suffolk County College and I mentioned to you the last meeting that, you know, it's impossible for me to take a night class because there's no transportation for me at night. Since I'm looking to retool and go back to work in a different capacity, because I can't do what I was currently doing, socializing is also important to enhance the quality of life and if we're busy during the day in school or work we need the opportunity to go out in the evening and many times if I can't get anyone to go with me my plans are cut short because I need to get back on the SCAT bus at 8:30. I'd like to go to a coffee house, Little Samantha's in Northport, again, I could get there one way on the SCAT but I can't get a ride home after 8:30.

Also sometimes I go into New York City. It's very safe to cross streets in New York City because

PW 8/31/15

they're used to seeing people walk around. Here in Suffolk County I already got hit by a car because it's dangerous, people don't see you coming, so I really need to rely on -- on the SCAT service and the streets here are just so busy, it's impossible to walk around independently so it's important to have extended service at night -- at 8:30 at night.

So I ask you to please reconsider your position and look into extending the hours for us. Thank you very much.

(*Applause*)

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: All right, thank you.

Just before the next speaker, we have almost 50 cards here for public portion, just to let people know that if everyone gets three minutes apiece plus the time it takes people to, you know, get up and sit down, we're in for about three hours with the public portion before we even get into the meeting so everyone's got to be really patient and -- and -- that you're all prepared. Ecaderina Henter and on deck Denise Coleman.

MS. HENTER: Hello, everyone. Thank you so much for having me here and giving me the chance to talk. And I just want to say what everyone else already said that we would like late night service. It's running only until 8:30 and last week I was making my reservation for 8:30, they told me they can give me only an 8:00 and the bus showed up at 7:40. Now that's very early for someone and this -- I would like to be changed and as soon as possible because it looks like we're coming and there is not much change yet and we're looking forward to have that.

Also Sunday service. I can't go anywhere on Sunday unless if someone is driving me. And I'm looking for a job. A lot of the jobs; social work positions are in the afternoon, in the evening. Some of them I could apply for and I supposed to work until ten, 11:00 but I can't even apply because knowing that SCAT is not running. We should have all the opportunities like anyone else who can see, it should be no difference, we are all the same. And I'm here to talk for everyone who is disabled. In my case, I'm blind, and so I -- because I can't use public transportation all the time I rely on SCAT so it would mean a lot for me and for so many of us if you could please do something about this. Thank you so much.

(*Applause*)

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. Denise Coleman and on deck Michael Bosco.

MS. COLEMAN: I hope that you can hear me I can't stand at the microphone.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: I think we can accommodate you, ma'am.

MS. COLEMAN: I'm very sorry for the delay.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: No problem.

MS. COLEMAN:

PW 8/31/15

I apologize for the delay. I really -- I can yell.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Okay. We're gonna -- what we're going to do -- we're going to ask -- while he's -- are you close, Jason, or should we go to the next speaker?

MS. COLEMAN: I'd rather -- I have a van coming in a few minutes. It's the only time they could pick me up.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: No, I understand that.

MS. COLEMAN: Why don't I go over there and just pull that down. I'm sorry. Thank you very much. Can you hear me now?

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Very good.

MS. COLEMAN: Okay. I'm here to speak about what I was here for last time and that is giving a large part of Suffolk County community the same rights as everyone else and that large constituency is the disabled constituency. We deserve to live the same normal life that other people live and that affects us in many ways not being able to get places or being able to get there and not being able to get home affects us socially, religious, work, volunteer, school, family -- and my computer doesn't want to work, and many other ways. I want -- and school, as I think I said.

I moved from Manhattan four years ago where I had transportation 24/7 either on the bus, the New York City bus, which could take me up on the lift and it ran 24 hours or Access-A-Ride, which ran 24 hours. I lived a good life. I went to the theater, I went to Carnegie Hall, I went all over the place and I didn't have to worry about how I was getting home.

Now, I moved here four years ago to be near family, and half the time I can't get to see the family because I can't afford the taxi back to them. So it's -- it's -- independence is a big thing for people with disabilities and we've lost a lot by not being able to get around where we want to go.

I'm here today to ask you to let's work on the subcommittee we spoke about, let's get that subcommittee started, let's get it going and let's plan what we need to do and plan the agenda for that subcommittee because without that we're going to keep coming here and we're never going to go anywhere so we need to put it together, we need to have a project that is not something in the distant future, it needs to be something that is now.

And I'm asking you from my heart to make this now a project that we can all work on together and make happen. Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. And just -- just for a little bit of information for the people who are interested in longer hours for the SCAT system, after our public portion, it should be around 5:00, we'll get into the agenda. After the agenda, which is going to take a while because there's some interesting items on it, if you'd like to stay, Garry Lenberger from DPW is going to give a brief presentation about some of the work that we've been on -- we've been taking on in response to a lot of the comments that we've been receiving.

MS. COLEMAN:

PW 8/31/15

It's too bad we didn't know about this in advance so we could of made plans to stay because the SCAT vans are already lined up to take us. Is there any way that can be set up at a different time and can he be here?

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Absolutely, we'll meet again in two weeks. But the problem is the public portion normally comes before any presentations and if we have three hours of public portion then it -- what's that?

MS. COLEMAN: I promise to make it short if you have him here.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: That sounds like a good compromise. But everyone has to be heard. You know, everyone deserves to be heard first though. All right. Michael Bosco and on deck Victor Neisch.

MR. BOSCO: Good afternoon. My name is Michael Bosco and I am the President of Vision Impaired Persons of Suffolk and I'm here asking for extended services with SCAT and public transit and also for the Sunday service. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. Victor Neisch and on deck Tammy McLaughlin.

MR. NEISCH: Good afternoon. My name is Victor Neisch, I'm from East Marion and I'm here to thank the Legislators that were involved in the retrofit of the 1500 and the 1400 buses. I have a long ride on these buses and the modified the seats so they're much better than they were and I thank you for listening to us and that, you know, you did -- you did listen to us and you did do something with the seats.

The next item is extended hours. We haven't done very much with extended hours. I have public -- public transportation with the fixed route and that ends at 6:30, so therefore, that's almost totally useless in the evening. And SCAT, when I go to ask for an 8:30 pick up they say, well, you know, you live on the other end of the world, it might be easier, you know, if you took a 7:00. Well, at 7:00 I can't participate in the affairs that are being held. So with that I'd hope you would take a look at the -- the transportation problems that we have here and do something for it. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you, Victor. (*Applause*)

Tammy McLaughlin and on deck Andrea Mullen.

MS. McLAUGHLIN: Hello. I'm the stubborn one and I'm back. I really can't think of anything else to say but to reiterate the dire need for extended services both on weekdays and on Sunday. So since I can't think of anything else I'm going to talk about my shirt. Look at my shirt. We vote. Each one of us. There are many, many, many more of us and we are your community. We are your constituents. Do you know what happens to elected officials who don't take care of the needs of their constituency? They're voted out. If the ones that are sighted that are here, if you can look around you'd be proud, there are many yellow shirts here. I really can't think of anything else to say, I just hope you heard me. Remember we all vote. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI:

PW 8/31/15

Thank you, Tammy.

(*Applause*)

Andrea Mullen and on deck Devin Fernandez.

MS. MULLEN: Hi. I would just like to say it would be nice to have extended hours on the bus especially in the evening because I'm going to back to college at night and coming home at night I got to take a cab or sit at the college campus waiting for my husband to come pick me up after work. So it would just be more convenient to have more hours so I can get around without waiting for people to drive me around. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. (*Applause*)

Devin Fernandez and on deck Denise Linkau.

MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, good afternoon. My name is Devin Fernandez, I've been a Suffolk County resident for over 40 years, I've been a licensed contractor with Suffolk County for over 30 and a -- a licensed contractor with the State for over 17 years.

As you know doing business in Suffolk County is extremely competitive and in order to stay competitive and stay up-to-date and in the spotlight with everything going on I need to be at these meetings that take place late at night. I'm sure many of you on the board here have gone to meetings at 8:00 at night, they're supposed to start at 8:00, don't start till 8:30, if it's a dinner meeting your dinner's not till 9:00, by the time you're walking out the door it's 10:00; 8:15 I'm out the door. I don't even get to see the introductions. It's, you know, because SCAT is there and rarely if you ask for an 8:30 appointment do they get there at 8:30 or 9:45, which is the window from -- 8:45, from 8:15 to 8:45, they're always there early and if you miss that ten minute window you're screwed. I mean, excuse me, but you -- you are and to be some place, you know, further east from your house it's extremely expensive to get back home again.

What I did want to say is, and you took the bluster out of my sail, when you said you guys have been making progress in what's going on here, we need to get a better communication to hear what you guys have come up with, what you're thinking and then this way we can save a lot of time coming up and asking for the same request.

One thing I did want to say is; we're back, and you can see we have new faces here and we're not going away, okay, so if anything we're getting stronger with every person that's here there's four or five people who couldn't make it here today. With all of those people there's ten, 12 family members who support them. So, as Stanley said before, we are all voters and we don't want anything special, we wanted to be treated equal.

And the last thing us standing up, you know, with the -- reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and the last line is with liberty and justice for all. That's all we're asking for. Thank you.

(*Applause*)

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. Denise and then Marie Contona.

PW 8/31/15

MS. LINKAU: Hi, I'm Denise Linkau. I was born sighted. I lost my vision at age 42. I know there's life beyond 8:30. I'd like the buses to run, the supermarkets are open 24 hours, 7-Eleven is open 24 hours, a lot of places are open 24 hours. I haven't been to my church since I had my stroke in 2009. I can't get a bus on Sunday. I'd like Sunday service and additional hours in the evening. Like everybody else has said, we need to have a social life and a lot of people work so social life comes after 8:30. We can't do the matinee and the early bird special.

So please consider extending the hours during the week and adding service on Sunday with all the lines. Thank you.

(*Applause*)

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. Marie Cantona and on deck Charles Cantona.

MS. CANTONA: Good afternoon. I know that what I'm going to say is just, you know, quite repetitive of everything that's been said today and has been said in the past. I am sighted, however, my husband is blind and he needs -- he needs help. He needs to get back to, you know, to restoring the quality of life that he had prior to losing his sight three years ago and the way he can do that is with SCAT taking him out to doctors when I can't. I am -- I have a disability as well, I have lupus and there are many times that I can hardly move out of the house and I need to help him and sometimes I cannot and he needs to get to doctors, he needs to socialize, he needs to have his quality of life back so I please ask -- I know that I see many faces here, I don't know what is going on in your minds and when you all meet together hopefully, hopefully with the help of God, you guys can reconsider and take this position and run with it and get us what we need. Thank you.

(*Applause*)

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. Charles Contona and on deck Marilyn Tucci.

MR. CONTONA: Thank you. Good afternoon everyone, thanks for listening to all of us to this point. My name is Charlie, I am retired from the MTA, have been for the past 27 -- have worked for the past 27 years as a driver, bus driver that is. And with that, knowing that, I know they did have concerns and issues and I was always there to help provide whatever I can at the time.

Now, we know that not only the handicapped rely on the SCAT system but the other riders as well ride on the main system as well, so we realize that things don't happen overnight but there are many, many, many, many people that do feel it's very vital of importance that we do hope that you will work on this and make this one of the major things that we're all looking for.

Once again, I want to thank everyone for listening and have a great day. (*Applause*)

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. Marilyn Tucci and on deck Helen Dale Nicholl.

MS. TUCCI: Good afternoon. I work for SILO, Suffolk Independent Living Organization, I'm the Advocacy and Outreach coordinator. I don't have my shirt on today because as soon as I got home my bus was

PW 8/31/15

already waiting for me. But, as you know, we are all voters and taxpayers here. We are asking you to please put pressure on our governor to get us the funding we need the in this County. We have missed out on so much funding it's really very sad. And I have been on the phone with my senator, with their office and my congressman. This morning, as I was writing this, I was talking to one of the aides. We're going to set up meetings. All of you will be invited to these meetings at SILO, hopefully.

I found out a lot of things and it really just -- it makes you stop and think like what are you politicians thinking about us, we're human beings, we have every right that you have to want to go someplace. You know, yesterday I went out with friends and if it wasn't for them having cars, I couldn't go out on a Sunday. It's so unfair that if I want to go to the claw festival, or Blue Claw Festival in Mastic Beach, I can't go because there's no transportation. I am limited. But you people are making us limited. We have every right just like you do to get out and do things. We're human beings. We pay taxes, we buy things, we want to enjoy things. I had a great time yesterday going out East with friends, why, cause they're able to drive and they were able to take me and my dog.

So I did write something I'm asking Bernie to please read this.

MR. FERRACANE: Good afternoon, all. Bear with me because Marilyn's handwriting is very good for a blind person and I'm gonna have fun reading it.

Disabled or able-bodied, we all have the power and responsibility to make society more inclusive for everyone. We are trying to make our world more acceptive of people with disabilities. We have the right to go out on Sunday and the right to stay out after 8:30 p.m. Funding is needed and the governor's office must direct it to Suffolk County. We need to become the voices of change and everyone here today is here today as taxpayers and voters. We fought for our rights with the Power of 504 of the 70's and it's gotten better. But the right still continues. Thank you.

MS. TUCCI: Fight. Thank you.

MR. FERRACANE: The fight still continues; like I said.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. There's a question for you ma'am.

LEG. BROWNING: Marilyn.

MS. TUCCI: Yes.

LEG. BROWNING: It's Kate. How are you?

MS. TUCCI: Okay.

LEG. BROWNING: I know that I -- I had asked my office to send you some information, we got some information from Gil Anderson, our DPW Commissioner, with the -- the numbers, how much money we would need versus Nassau. Did you receive that? I believe you did.

1 PW 8/31/15

MS. TUCCI: Umm.

LEG. BROWNING: Well, we'll resend it.

MS. TUCCI: I might have got something from you.

LEG. BROWNING: Yes.

MS. TUCCI: But I was on -- with the -- that's what inspired me to write this --

LEG. BROWNING: Right.

MS. TUCCI: -- while I was talking to my congressman's office today.

LEG. BROWNING: Yeah, we mad a request and I know Legislator Barraga did the same thing.

MS. TUCCI: Yes.

LEG. BROWNING: And that information was sent to you and as you can see the numbers and how much money Nassau gets in comparison to what Suffolk gets --

MS. TUCCI: What New York City gets.

LEG. BROWNING: -- is horrendous, and New York City, yes.

MS. TUCCI: And Westchester.

LEG. BROWNING: Cause the gentleman talking about coming from the City, look at their budget for public transportation and that's why they are able to do a 24/7 service.

But, again, you know, I appreciate that you guys come but our budget problem comes from not from here it comes from outside, it comes from the State and the Federal and I love to see you, happy to see you every week that you come. But have you collectively started to organize yourself with our State and Federal representatives?

MS. TUCCI: I have.

LEG. BROWNING:

1 PW 8/31/15

Good.

MS. TUCCI: And it's just taking a little while because, you know, you get kind of pushed to the side because they're all so busy. Like I said, I'm a thorn in peoples' side sometimes.

LEG. BROWNING: Never, never.

MS. TUCCI: That's why I'm such a good advocate. (*Laughter*) But I don't give up, you know, and, I mean, I sent e-mails and I got an auto reply and I said, you know, I will give you time to contact me. Oh, we lost you're e-mail, okay fine, you found my e-mail now, you found me, I'm on the phone with you. I will come to your office if I have to. I mean, you know, like I said, what inspired to write this this morning while I was talking to the congressman's office, who somebody I happen to know and who knows me very well, and, I just said, you know what, all these things that he was telling me is something I knew. You know, I told him where I was coming today, and I told him, every month we are inviting more and more people here, we want to put pressure on you so you put pressure on the governor.

LEG. BROWNING: We're trying, and however, again, there's not one of us sitting here that disagrees with one word you -- any of you have said. My concern is is that are you making enough noise with those State and Federal representatives who have the ability when they do their budget next year to put that money in that budget because if they don't put the money in the budget for us, we can't do it.

MS. TUCCI: Well, they told me they do put it in, it goes back to the State where it's sent, you know, this is what, like I said, you know, you get the run around talking to politicians. (*Laughter*) But I will, you know, stand my ground with them and I already told them, I said, we're going to set up a meeting, tomorrow when I go to work we will be writing letters and it was their idea, you know, they told me, Marilyn, do it. Get us all together, let us see how we can go forward. But it all seems to go back to the governor. Now, do we have to all go to the governor or is he going to come, should we invite him here?

LEG. BROWNING: That's your call. I would say, go ahead and do it.

MS. TUCCI: Okay, I will.

LEG. BROWNING: What have you got to lose. Right?

MS. TUCCI: Right.

LEG. BROWNING: But again, Marilyn, it's always good to see you all but I hate that you come and we sit here and say, well, this is how much money we have, we have that small pot versus what Nassau's big pot is and that's not fair. It's not fair to you.

And, so again, I think like collectively I see as many of you here, go put the pressure on them because they participate in the budget process. They're the ones who can say, our Suffolk

1 PW 8/31/15

representatives are the ones who can go and say, hey, we need more money in Suffolk County and start advocating for more money for us. I think it's -- it's unfair for us to have to listen to all of this when they're really not getting the pressure. You know, you've already -- the pressure's on us, we want to do it. But -- and I know it --

MS. TUCCI: -- pressure the governor -- because you're going to get tired of seeing us.

LEG. BROWNING: We can pressure the governor but your State representatives can do it more than we can.

MS. TUCCI: I'm working on that.

LEG. BROWNING: Thank you, Marilyn. Keep doing it. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Okay, Kate, no more questions. (*Laughter*) Helen Dale Nicholl and on deck Steven McClury.

MS. NICHOLL: I would just like to start by saying to those of you who spoke on SCAT today you all are an inspiration to me. Legislator Krupski, Members of the Committee, I'm going to speak on a different subject, the subject of transferring County land into private hands.

I'm against resolution 1619-2015 on several points. First and foremost, I don't think it has been vetted properly or enough with regard to the issues of congestion, danger and the nearsighted transfer of this land. The traffic light that was installed on the west side of the canal recently has caused terrible congestion during rush hour. Changing the North Road traffic entrance and egress to a T, I am told will necessitate a traffic light on the east side of the canal further adding to congestion. The change will make egress from Old County -- Old Canoe Place Road going south onto North Road almost impossible as we will have to concern ourselves with traffic from both directions. Right now there is an island between the northbound and southbound traffic that gives us a buffer. This proposal gives away land that potentially would be better used to widen North Road or install a traffic circle at some time in the future. It represents nothing more than a land grab on the part of the developers with cooperation from the Town of Southampton. The developers need the land because their site plan is already overdeveloped. They're going from a 17 percent density to a 73 percent density. Why else would they need to build a townhouse five feet from the edge of the canal if it weren't to dense to being with? After the cost of Sandy to Suffolk County one has to wonder how any government official in the County could approve such a plan. Current zoning does not permit it, yet the Town of Southampton approved a MPDD to allow it, despite the fact that the property is in a flood zone, and the above objections from the community that ran ten to one against it, any politician would love ten to one odds in their favor, yet the citizens of Southampton were ten to one against this and we lost. There is no public benefit here. The developers claim they need the land to provide five parking spaces for public access to a path to canal. They claim this is a public benefit. Five parking spaces is not much of a public benefit when the public is providing the land, especially when the parking spaces will be available to guests of the townhouse residents.

Also the proposal states access to the canal will only be available during certain hours; daylight. This limitation renders the proposed viewing platform useless to fisherman. Once again, the proposal favors a few future residents who can afford million dollar townhouses at the expense of the many current residents and tourists who bolster the economy of our maritime community. The PDD process is being hijacked by developers to circumvent longstanding, well founded zoning codes.

1 PW 8/31/15

Every recent PDD in Southampton wound up in our courts with the taxpayer paying to defend both sides of the issue. The benefits of these PDD's to the community are spurious at best, in this case they are downright highway robbery.

I respectfully urge you to reject this resolution outright and maintain public land for the benefit of the entire community and I thank you for your time and listening to me.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Well, thank you. (*Applause*)

And just -- a brief response to that. I'm not familiar with the area, I don't know if my colleagues on the Committee are, so I've asked Bill Hillman from Department of Public Works to come in with maps so when the item comes up on the agenda he can explain to us and can show us with clarity what the proposal is for.

Steven McClury and on deck Dawn Cookler.

MR. McCLURY: Good afternoon. My name is Steven McClury, I'm a member of the Speakers Bureau at Family Residences and Essential Enterprises. I'm here today to speak with you about extending the SCAT services.

Up until a few years ago I had my driver's license. I could go where -- wherever I wanted and whenever I wanted. Then my life changed. My health began to decline and now I'm unable to drive and -- and I walk with the assistance of a walker. The freedom to travel on my own will has been taken away. Now I must rely on SCAT and the services that they provide. How will you feel when your health declines and you have to rely on services for transportation? I'm a baseball fan and I enjoy going to Long Island Ducks games. Unfortunately, I have to leave in the middle of the game so that I can catch the last SCAT bus route at 8:30 p.m. I respectfully ask that you extend SCAT services to 10 p.m. during the week so that I can see the rest of the baseball games.

Sunday services should also be extended because the weekends are time for fun and recreation. I also have -- I missed out on many events including -- sponsored by Suffolk County because I do not have transportation on Sunday. I should have the opportunity to attend these events and support the place I call home. Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. (*Applause*)

Dawn Cookler and on deck Shantal Benjamin.

MS. COOKLER: Good afternoon. My name is Dawn Cookler, I'm on the board of directors for SILO and I'm also on the Special Needs Task Force for the Town of Brookhaven.

You've heard me before but I recently went back to work last month and my work shift is from 5:00 to 10:00 but I can only work till 8:00 because I have to be outside at 8:15 for my bus so I leave my house at 3:30 to get to work at 5:00, I can only work three hours and then I have to take another bus ride home at 8:30. To work three hours, a lot of effort to get to work for three hours, but I love my job so I do it, but if you extended the work hours till 10:00, they actually gave me off today because they said if you extend the work hours till 10:00 then you could work till 10:00, so go to that meeting, it's very important. A lot of people at my job take the bus that don't have disabilities,

1 PW 8/31/15

take the regular bus.

Also, I'm Jewish and I go to temple, or I would like to go to temple, the services for temple are on Friday nights because Jewish people, their services are on Friday night and it's not like a church, you can't walk into a temple any time and pray, you could only walk into temple when they're open, which is Friday night. I can't get to services Friday night. They wanted me to be in the choir and the choir rehearsals are on Sunday. The new temple's in Mount Sinai, I live in Coram, the temple is literally ten minutes from my house. I cannot get to temple. And I can get to Southampton, which would take about an hour to get to, but I can't get ten minutes from my house and I really don't understand why there's no buses in Port Jefferson and Mount Sinai on Sundays at all because the ferry's there and the trains are there so I think the buses should be there too. And I would really like to be part of the temple more than I am and the high holidays are coming up, the Jewish holidays are on Sunday night, can't go, can't take SCAT, there is not SCAT bus running to Mount Sinai on Sunday night. Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you, Dawn.

MS. COOKLER: Thanks for listening. (*Applause*)

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Shantal Benjamin and on deck Robin Mayor.

MS. BENJAMIN: My name is Shantal Benjamin, I'm here with ADAM's group. As all of us are saying we do need an extension of time for SCAT bus. I do appreciate the services that the SCAT bus does for all of us, gets us door to door and, I mean, the price, I also understand the financial needs of the SCAT bus, if they need to charge at least $5 to extend our times, I mean, let that be but at least all for the action of extending times because all of us have a social life and it doesn't end at 8:30 like all of us are saying. I'm a young adult and 8:30 is an early cutoff, it's like telling a child to go to bed at 6:00 at night.

So, again, I am just pushing towards getting extended time. If they need to charge us more or at least consider it and see how they could do it a little bit easier. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. Robin Mayor and on deck Meesha Johnson.

MS. MAYOR: Good afternoon. I'm Robin Mayor, I am a Suffolk County resident, have been for, oh gee, 36 years, and I've been riding the SCAT buses since 1997. I have to say, they were terrible, the service is now a 100 percent better than it was but there's a long way to go.

And I -- I understand that some of the issues that people have been discussing before me, I understand those issues, especially the three-quarter mile issue is a Federal issue and that, you know, there's very little that you can do about it. I know that several groups are advocating with State issues for extended mileage routes and hopefully that will happen, you know, I mean, but we do have to take baby steps and I have spoken -- I'm on other committees, I'm on the Disabilities Advisory Board, I'm on their transportation subcommittee. So I have spoken with Garry Lenberger, and I know that there are good things in the works and hope -- unfortunately, because we take SCAT and the reservations have to be made in advance, I can't be there this afternoon to hear what you guys have to say, I would of loved that.

1 PW 8/31/15

The system is broken. Basically the system's broken. And if you go with, if, you know, I don't think it can be made better until the things that are wrong with it now are addressed. It's not just service on Sundays, it's not just later hours, it's the whole -- it's the whole part of it. It's like the reservation issues are a problem. The fact that drivers don't show up where they're supposed to show up is a problem. The whole system is broken. And it's -- it's not all a Legislative issue, that's the problem. You know, we're sitting, we're standing here advocating to you, but a lot of it you can't do anything about, Public Works has to do something about it, Suffolk Transportation has to do something about it. Who we give the contract to is a big issue. The service is broken.

So if you can just be allies with us and fix it. That's all we're asking, be our allies. Be the voices that we can't be. Although, you know, we're trying to do a good job screaming here but we need you to be our allies. Thanks.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. (*Applause*)

Meesha Johnson and on deck Ajay Ashok.

MS. JOHNSON: Hi, everyone. My name is Meesha Johnson and actually I'm just coming here from my first day of classes at St. Jo's so -- and one of the, you know, I too am here to talk about, you know, the extended hours and service on Sunday.

You know, I'm also a single mom and have a 14 year-old and her going school shopping with her dad is just totally out of the question so, you know, with my schedule and her schedule, you know, I need to get to, you know, at least the Tanger Outlet or Marshall's and, you know, at this point I can only do that on Sunday, you know, so my daughter has to go without school clothes for the first day of school, oh well, sucks for her, but, you know, it's just something that she has to do and she shouldn't have to because of, you know -- you know, like the young lady just said, a system that, you know -- I'm not gonna to say it's totally broken but it can definitely use some, you know, some patches in the tire.

You know, like I said, I am a student at Saint Jo's and I do -- I'm coming from Southampton so, you know, my class on Wednesday and I still haven't figured out how I'm going to get home from class this Wednesday from 6:00 to 9:00, you know, I may have to leave early, you know, I don't know yet, but, you know, that shouldn't even be -- that shouldn't even be an issue. I mean, here I am, I'm a single mom, I'm a student, you know, I'm trying to be a great example for my daughter, you know, just trying to let her know that, you know, whatever these obstacles that we have there's a way to overcome them and I think that, you know, again, like the young ladies just before me just said, you know, we need you guys to be our allies and, you know, as opposed to sitting here, you know, complaining about the situation, we'd like some solutions. I mean, does that mean that we know that the SCAT service, the paratransit mirrors the regular bus service, does that mean that we have to get, you know, petitions going and, you know, get people to sign to let everybody know that it's not just a room full of people who are disabled that are not happy with this service but people who are taxpayers who take the buses to go to their jobs, who need to get to their jobs, you know, at 9:00 and after 9:00, you know. So, you know, we don't want to just be here complaining, we want some solutions as well. Thank you.

(*Applause*)

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI:

1 PW 8/31/15

Thank you. Ajay Ashok and on deck Jayette Lansbury.

MR. ASHOK: My name is RJ and I am a member of Speakers Bureau at Family Residences and Essential Enterprises Incorporated; FREE.

I am here today to speak to you about extending SCAT services. I would like to address two issues today: First, I believe that SCAT services should be extended during weekdays and Saturdays until 10:00 p.m. Second is that SCAT services should extend bus routes on Sundays. When you have a disability there is a constant struggle to overcome obstacles. One of the biggest obstacles is overcoming the stigma that people with disabilities are seen as second class citizens. This is evident in the fact that SCAT only runs until 8:30 p.m. with minimal hours on Sundays. People with disabilities have the right to be out past 8:30 p.m. and to travel on Sundays.

I am fortunate in that I have a wonderful family and every weekend and sometimes during the week I spend time with my mother who also resides in Suffolk County. My mother is getting older and she is making plans -- plans to eventually sell her house. Currently my mother's neighbor helps to provide my transportation when SCAT is unavailable but soon this will be gone. When my mother moves I will have to rely on SCAT and I know that my time with her would be limited to 8:30 on weekends -- weekdays and Saturdays. This will cut short family dinners and an occasional matinee at the theater.

I ask that you extend SCAT services during the week and Sundays -- during the week Saturdays and Sundays for the simple fact that my time with my family is just as precious and valuable as your time is with your family. Thank you.

(*Applause*)

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. Jayette Lansbury and Jeffrey Kerwin is on deck.

MS. LANSBURY: Good afternoon and thank you for this chance to speak about the problems. I'm Jayette Lansbury, I represent a group of consumers and families that suffer from serious mental illnesses, autism and cross disabilities. Without SCAT, these people would not be able to get to their jobs, which are very important to them, their day programs, treatment, the community treatment that they need. Families that age out, you know, can no longer provide this transportation, or have disabilities themselves, leave their loved ones to the hands of SCAT. We're also asking for later buses so they can get to their jobs or social events or the social programs that are so important to their social inclusion. And also for them to visit families that can't drive for whatever reason or a family may be on one end of the Island where their housing is at another.

We want them to be productive members of society but we're like countering that issue by not providing accessive transportation especially in the Town of Huntington. Huntington HART does not run on Sunday and it doesn't run after 7:00 at night, their paratransit. We need paratransit that runs later, all day Saturday and all day Sunday, not only for our loved ones but for our families so they can get to their houses of worship, they can do their shopping or their little jobs that they have on the weekend to support themselves. Nobody should have to be without transportation in this day and age and especially if we call ourself one of the modern communities of the world. Thank you.

(*Applause*)

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Jeffrey Kerwin and on deck Lou Giordano.

1 PW 8/31/15

MR. KERWIN: Good afternoon, Legislators. I too would like to voice my support for extending the hours and also extending the hours on Sundays. Now, I hope I could ask one of you a question, who is that established those particular hours and how long have they been that particular way?

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: That's what a lot of people have come here in the last few months to ask about extended hours but in order to get back to, you know, your question is what I wrote down, and I just asked Garry Lengerber to make that part of his presentation, after the public portion, is to explain how the bus runs and how the SCAT system is -- scheduling is based on that -- on those hours. So that'll give you a baseline of how -- of why where -- where are we at today.

MR. KERWIN: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: But I need to go through the public portion first here.

MR. KERWIN: Okay. And one other thing I would like to add that I don't know would be possible is it -- if they could have, like if you booked it for the ride, if you would know how long you were going to be or how many people were going to be on the bus because a lot of times when I've gone to work I've been on that bus ride for almost close to an hour-and-a-half, two hours.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Well, that's a scheduling thing. That I couldn't answer you, you know, right here.

MR. KERWIN: All right. Thank you very much, gentlemen and ladies.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Lou Giordano and on deck Donald Gomez.

MR. GIORDANO: Hi, my name's Louis Giordano. I worked for the State 38 years. I'm a retired TSDA officer, Local 418, member of the Local 920 retirement union, I'm on Islip Lions. I work with the TSDA Vets and a couple of other blind, SILO, I don't work for SILO, but I'm a part of them.

I'm also here to -- the extended hours. And my question is, I don't know, Suffolk County has more population than Nassau County, it's a bigger land surface, so how could they get away with getting more money than we get? Nobody ever explains that. When you have a meeting, don't you say anything about that? Or --

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: We ask that question all the time. Nassau gets about three times what Suffolk County gets. There's a big disparity. That comes from the State government and that is a big problem for Suffolk County.

MR. GIORDANO: Again, a lot of people living in Suffolk County have to work. You know, taxes are outrageous around here and you have to get a job just to support, you know, to pay the taxes and that should be part of transportation or something along that line too. Thank you.

1 PW 8/31/15

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. (*Applause*)

Go right ahead.

LEG. BARRAGA: Just as a follow up that gentleman's question. Right now Nassau County receives from the State of New York $65 million for bus service. We get about $24 million. That's about a 40 million dollar difference. What has to happen here is that members of the assembly and the senate representing Suffolk County have to be spoken to in terms of promoting additional funding for Suffolk County on bus service from the State of New York. You have to remember, even though we're sitting here, and this is a major topic this afternoon, in the eyes of a State assembly person or State senate, it's just other issue among many, many important issues. When you pick up a Newsday at the end of a session, a Legislative session in the State assembly and the State senate, you will see three or four key priorities that they're always talking about that must be done. You don't see this issue. Is it an important issue? Yes, it is. Does it fit into the top 15, top 20 when it comes to State assembly persons and senators and the governor of the State of New York? The answer is so far, no. But there is a disparity that the Suffolk County delegation, assembly and senate can key in on with reference to getting more funding for Suffolk than Nassau -- well, when we compare Suffolk to Nassau. There should not be a 40 million dollar disparity. Remember, all -- the geographics of Nassau County, the entire County of Nassau could be fit into Brookhaven. So why are they getting 40 million dollars more than we are? That's a good question to ask the State assembly persons, State senate. Not to blame them one way or the other. But what they got to do is all of a sudden ration it up in terms of priority. So when they have a six month session in Albany, at the end of the session, more money is now coming to Suffolk for bus service.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Donald Gomez and on deck Bernard Ferracane.

MR. GOMEZ: Good afternoon. This is Donald Gomez. I'm really proud to be among this group that's sitting behind me. I'm the President and board member of VIPS, Vision Impaired Persons of Suffolk. I'm also a board member at SILO, a board member at Third Eye and I have a union service ministry for the deaf. Every time I come I bring at least two, three deaf people with me. And it's a shame because they really don't know what's going on but hopefully next time an interpreter will be here.

I, you know, we've been talking about extended services and Sundays services. It's so needed that, for a good example, my daughter came last month and spoke to you guys, she is a college student, she just started today, as a matter of fact, for the first day for a graduate program up at Connecticut State. I'm going to miss her because it's just me and my wife Teacha at home right now and I'm not in great health right now and it's going to be hard because I have to depend on a system that really is not there for me at the times when I really need them. If something happened to me after 8:00, I'm in trouble. I remember when I was at Costco and I was having a heart attack and I called SCAT and asked them could they come get me early, they told me no. So I was stuck. I had to call somebody else to get me to the hospital. Thank God I got somebody to take me.

But this is -- it's a problem, it's definitely a problem because we are just like you guys that can drive, who -- you guys could see, but we -- we can't. So we have to depend on SCAT. And, you know -- you know, it hurts me just thinking about, you know, what happened to me in the past, what can happen to anyone of us sitting behind me, you know. You know, I'm shaking inside knowing that this really is a serious matter, you know, and it's not like you guys don't care, I don't believe that, I think that you guys have your hands tied, in a way, but, like Marilyn said, things can be changed, we have to do it together, and I hope we can do that.

1 PW 8/31/15

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you.

MR. GOMEZ: Thank you. (*Applause*)

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Bernard Ferracane and on deck Jessica Campbell.

MR. FERRACANE: Good afternoon and thank you. I just heard that Jessica Campbell had to leave because the bus just came so we can scratch Jessica Campbell. Give us more time for something else.

You know, I appreciate all what everybody said about money and, I guess, that's the basic gist of why everybody is here because to find out why, as you said before, that we're not getting the same amount of money. I mean I didn't realize that it's that amount of money so different from what we are getting in Nassau County -- in Suffolk County, so.

We have all written letters, and I would love for all of us to get together and take a bus ride and go up to Albany and say, here look, here's the problem here, how come Nassau County is getting all this money? I think maybe because there's more power and there's more politically attached people, I don't know why. There's more powerful people in Nassau, I don't know why, but it just doesn't seem right whatsoever that Nassau County is getting more money.

I know we are all members of VIPS and all the yellow shirts and ADAM and everything else that we are really reaching out to you people so you can reach out to them and make sure that we're getting the -- the funds that we need so we can extend the hours of SCAT.

I'm a disabled Vietnam Vet, blind in one eye and deaf in one year. I can still drive, thank God, but somewhere along the line I might need SCAT services and hopefully, you know, I'd like to go to church on Sundays. I'm speaking on behalf of my friends who are here from SCAT. I'm a docent for the Guide Dog Foundation, a puppy raiser, I am President of the Lions Club of the Islips. I'm a lifetime member of AMVETS and most important a caregiver for a disabled wife of 48 years.

So, as I said before, I just want to reach out to all of you to realize that we have to get more money and to help us get the funding that we need. Thank you so very much.

(*Applause*)

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. So the next speaker was Jessica Campbell and she left. After that is Bryan Solomon and on deck Noel Hazel, I'm sorry, I'm struggling with that -- Noel Hazel, okay. Go ahead, Bryan.

MR. SOLOMON: I'm Bryan, I'm also a member of VIPS, Visually Impaired People of Suffolk and I'm here to ask your help in increasing the hours of SCAT during the week and on Sundays. Thank you very much.

(*Applause*)

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. Okay. Noel Hazel and an deck Nick LaMorte.

2 PW 8/31/15

MR. HAZEL: Hi, good afternoon. My name is Noel Hazel. I'm a retired Navy Veteran. I also worked in {inaudible} ship, eastern seaboard but I got sick, you know, I got sick, I'm mentally ill and I can't drive, I use public transportation to get around. I went back to school. I became a peer counselor and by 8:00, I can't travel. Can't do nothing, you know, and there's a lot of guys like me with mental illness who are getting better who would like get jobs and Suffolk -- Suffolk's transportation is horrible, you know, and this -- I wouldn't trade Long Island for anywhere in the world, I love Long Island. So could you help us out with the bus transportation? Thank you.

(*Applause*)

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. Nick LaMorte and deck Jennifer Juengst.

MR. LaMORTE: Good afternoon. My name is Nick LaMorte, I'm the Long Island President for CSEA and I'm here to advocate for those members, and Louis Giordano is one of them, that use the SCAT system and it's very necessary and is, of course, very needed for those people as you've been hearing that can't get around, whatever disability they might have.

So I just wanted to go on record that CSEA supports their cause and if I can help out with, as Tom Barraga said, so {admirably} as a former assemblyman, to reach out to the State side to try to equalize and get our fair share for Suffolk County in this program. Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you.

MR. LaMORTE: And thank you all for your public service.

(*Applause*)

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Jennifer Juengst and on deck Linda Jones.

MS. JUENGST: Good afternoon, Members of the Committee. My name is Jennifer Juengst, the law firm of Gordon and Juengst. I represent the Shinnecock Neighbors, some of which are here today to speak to you with regard to resolution 1619 of this year.

I represent these people in a pending lawsuit against the Town of Southampton with regard to a zone change that was done in January. And one of the major issues in that lawsuit is the precise topic that is the subject that you are being asked to look at today and that is the transfer of County parcels, some of which are intended to go to the Town of Southampton and then be diverted onto a developer and parcels that are also intended to be directly deeded with a quitclaim deed to a developer.

The lawsuit claims, we haven't gotten there yet, we do have a judge assigned, that this is an illegal transfer and you may have heard this sitting in the Legislature as often as you have and for the extended time that many of you have, it's a violation of Article 8 of the New York State Constitution. We do not give away public assets for free. There's no money being changed hands here for this particular transfer.

Some of the major points that I would like the Committee to focus on when they look at this

2 PW 8/31/15

Memorandum of Understanding that you're being asked to -- to pass onto the Legislature for a full vote, is that there are no significant public benefits here. There's a walkway that's going to be constructed, a viewing platform and five parking spaces. Under SEQRA and the Town of Southampton's PDD law, these do not satisfy the standard for significant public benefits. They've also recently been limited without public notice during the SEQRA process to daylight hours. This PDD privatizes nearly one-third of the eastern shoreline of this canal, which people have had access to for 300 years. This is devastating to the maritime center, the largest maritime center in the Town of Southampton.

The parcels are not surplused right now yet they're being poised to be surplus but they won't become surplus parcels, which the County can turn over to municipalities but for consideration. Right now they're not surplus until certain things happen, until the development is constructed, until the public benefits have been constructed and not until the County votes on and accepts the survey. And they won't be surplus even afterwards so this is a fiction. They're not surplus even the deal is done because the County is maintaining an easement, a permanent easement to reach the parcels it is going to need to repair and do maintenance on the overpass of the canal that's a roadway and a bridge and for this County to consider giving up permanent ownership to those parcels that speaks volumes, we really must be careful what we're talking about here when we give up surplus land. Is it really surplus? No. The -- everyone's going to get something here except the public. The town's going to get a permanent easement, is going to give one to the developer. The County's going to get a permanent easement, the developer's going to get a quitclaim deed. The County's going to get a permanent easement from the town.

I urge you to look at pages six, eight and nine of this memorandum -- the Memorandum of Understanding. This PDD violates every comprehensive law that the Town of Southampton has ever approved. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Excuse me, I have a question for you. Times up and I have a question for you, if you could. First of all, as far as the PDD goes, this is a matter of local zoning and land use.

MS. JUENGST: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: And the town really has, you know, that's their right and that's their obligation and what they'd decided on there really we can't -- we can't have an impact on because that's a local matter.

As far as the transfer goes and, I think -- that's what concerns, that's why we're here today, that's what concerns this Committee. We got a question about the lawsuit; do you have any idea of a timeframe on when that would be settled?

MS. JUENGST: An answer hasn't been put in yet. It's pending before Judge Rebolini. We have a motion that's coming back on October 28 and I believe the developers in the town have until October, November to put an answer in. At that point we'll -- the plaintiffs will have an opportunity to reply so we're looking at some -- some significant time forward.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Okay, thank you. We will get into more discussion, and like I said, we do have the chief engineer here from the County to give us a better understanding of exactly where this is proposed and how it's going to --

MS. JUENGST:

2 PW 8/31/15

I appreciate your position on the town zoning, however, I don't -- I don't want to see the County come part of a bad deal and make an illegal move.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Well, one of the -- I think one of the questions is, you know, procedurally and like mechanically in a PDD, and the town's made a decision here to approve this, at what point would the County -- how important is this land transfer and what part -- why is the County coming in at the very end of it as far as the land -- the transfer of ownership? That's what -- that's what I'm not clear of and that's what I'm going to ask, you know --

MS. JUENGST: Our position it's premature. It's premature if you rule on it now and the Legislature rules on it now because a court could come in and say no, the PDD was wrong and it was wrong for the County, it's an issue in the lawsuit whether or not the County can give up this land. If I get a ruling on it in our favor that will buttress your position. If you also feel it's not right for us to do and that's why I'm simply asking for you to table the resolution until we can get a decision from the court.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: All right. Thank you. All right. Linda Jones and on deck Kevin McAllister.

MS. JONES: Good afternoon, Legislators and attendees. I'm not going to repeat what you've been listening to all day because it's the same story but what I'm curious about is the -- the times, you know, like we want later hours and we want to have the bus on Sunday, is that -- is that also handled by the State or is it just the three-fourths of a mile rule?

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Three-fourths of a mile is a federal rule.

MS. JONES: Right.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: And the -- as far as the hours go they're tied into their regular bus service but Garry Lenberger's going to give a brief presentation on that, and I'm stressing brief, at the end of the public portion.

MS. JONES: Right. But like they said before, our SCAT buses -- we could of got our buses later but we didn't know so if you could let us know we could get the buses and be here on time.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: We had no way of knowing we'd have 50 cards for the public portion for our 2:00 meeting so that we -- you know, where the public comes in they -- we're a democracy, everyone needs to be heard and some of the items on the agenda. We're not -- we can't -- we can't have -- be on a schedule, we have to be here to -- whatever comes in, we have to take care of. So we didn't -- people walk in and fill out the cards.

MS. JONES: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Sure. Kevin McCallister and on deck Hope Sandrow.

MR. McCALLISTER:

2 PW 8/31/15

Good afternoon, Legislator Krupski and colleagues on the Committee. My name's Kevin McCallister, I represent the Defend H2O.

I've been intimately involved in this project as it pertains to water quality, specifically the wastewater treatment systems. On the western portion, the Canoe Place Inn proper, the approach for wastewater was a permeable reactive barrier, this is in lieu of, I'll say bona fide sewage treatment system. The permeable reactive barrier, PRB's, as they are known, is a new technology and an improving technology. So there's a great deal of interest in following closely certainly the -- the monitoring of existing groundwater and ultimately the performance of the system. And you will hear PRB's being proposed throughout this County and I would caution you, do not proceed carelessly with this system without a factual and bona fide water quality monitoring. You heard Miss Juengst talk about the Memorandum of Understanding and this piqued my interest because there's an item within that memo that talks about the transfer of lands as it -- adjacent to Newtown Road, so again, this would be abutting the CPI proper -- CPI project proper. Ultimately, this includes the PRB installation or a portion thereof of the PRB, the question is, does the County then become responsible for performance of this PRB based on the promises that were made by the developer? So that's a -- a key question.

I'll go very briefly to public access. I'm a strong proponent of access to the waterfront. Of all people, Mr. Krupski, you are certainly well versed in local waterfront revitalization plans, which is underway right now within the town. Within that document, you know, there's a strong support for maritime use, which the canal obviously provides, the County is a principal owner of much of that property. What was encouraged to the developer was providing a promenade for public access. That was dismissed in the form of very limited public access through the platform, which is, in essence, a -- a short floating dock. With respect to the actual time use now, my understanding as I've been recently informed, that now it's being limited to daylight hours only. This is an erosion of public use and they're coming before you to ask for basically your consideration on transfer of property when I would argue they're not being forthcoming in the promises that they made to the public. So I ask you to scrutinize this very closely, the PRB, public access. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. Hope Sandrow and on deck Maud Kramer.

MS. SANDROW: Hello, we travelled here to impress upon you how important this issue is to our community. I did e-mail you this PDF that I'm handing out just because I want you to notice the photographs that I made of the roadways. I appreciate your being an expert but these are roads that we travel daily and we don't need experts to tell us what is safe. That's something that we know from living -- my husband and I know from living near these properties for 40 years and the 1200 people that signed the petitions that I circulated saying no, clearly, no, to these proposed road changes and to the transfer of public owned -- lands our lands, which you are the steward of, you're elected to ensure our health and safety and we're telling you that these road changes in our neighborhoods will not promote that. When I discussed this with a local policeman he said, you're kidding, aren't you? As Kevin well stated and Jennifer, access to the canal has been a start. This is the first time that it's been revealed to us in the resolution before you that our access will be limited to even less than we thought we had. When I spoke to Eric -- town trustees, Eric Shultz and Ed Warner they immediately were upset that this would eliminate fishing and the whole idea of a maritime development is to foster water related uses and access. It makes no sense to eliminate the people whose livelihood depends on the quality of our waters from access to this historic side of the canal.

I'm very emotional and passionate about this. I'm sorry, I could be moved to tears when I think that this issue can be dealt with so cavalierly because for us it's a daily issue. In fact, the transparency in this whole resolution has been so clouded that my FOIL request on this very

2 PW 8/31/15

resolution was denied. I've appealed that. That should give you a sense of how left out my neighbors and I have been from this entire process that we have been fighting for eight years. Please all 1200 and I -- people and I, ask you to table this, if not vote no. We want you to send a strong message to all government officials their elected to serve our interest and keeping us out of the process is not democracy. Thank you.

(*Applause*)

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. Maud Kramer and on deck Rose Colucci.

MS. KRAMER: Yes, sir, I'm Maud Kramer, I did e-mail you a letter earlier on and I, of course, strongly object to the County -- can you hear me -- the County approving this Memorandum of Understanding.

This project has not maritime benefit and it is a very -- the densest development in the Town of Southampton going from allowing 73 percent buildup instead of 17.

To answer your question, Mr. Krupski, before you said you don't understand too much about this. From the beginning, the developers came in with a plan of 40 townhouses, three-story townhouses, and they did not have enough property there so they were building out to the roads, there was only 17 and 20 foot setbacks instead of 50 feet, which is really zoning and they were going -- and then they are going to flatten the property so they're going to change the topography totally on the canal side but moreover on the other side where they are pumping out the waste cause that's a very hilly and wooded lot and they're going to take out ten feet of excavation, so much in fact, that they have to do a retaining wall there. That's just the backup. Then they came back with a better plan. Instead of 40 townhouses, now they had 37, but they had also figured out that they didn't have enough land so they came up with the idea of if they could get the County land, then they could propose the project better so without the County land the project was without landscaping at all. There was no part -- there was no -- not enough space for it.

So I feel that the County helping the town and the town helping the developers is not the way the system should work. And I think you really have to, perhaps, even visit the area to really look at it. And since we are in a lawsuit I think that if you decide now, that's like putting the cart before the horse, because we don't know what's going to happen. And, Supervisor Anna Throne-Holst and the board members, yes, they did vote for it, but the planning department voted against it. The majority don't want it. So I feel that they have willfully turned a blind eye to the town's own expertise and already adopted guidelines. That is the supervisor and the board. And obtaining this five parking places, it's a very long walkway to the canal and it really doesn't make sense at all, there's no benefit here. The reckless propose to spend 1,550,000 to redesign the property and that really is not a community benefit.

So I really urge you, please do not -- do not -- I urge you to reject the resolution outright, really not even table it, but look at carefully and don't facilitate this bad development that we're fighting. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: I've got a question for you. You said when did they -- you said they figured that they could get the County land. What -- I don't know, when did that happen? I mean, that's what one of my questions going to be for DPW is how does this -- how is this structure that at the very end of this long, you said years of process --

MS. KRAMER: Yes.

2 PW 8/31/15

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: -- that this comes down to only the County having the authority to do, in the end, bless or reject this offer -- this proposal.

MS. KRAMER: Well, the -- they need the land to landscape now, they figured out they didn't have enough land to landscape, they still have all the buildout except for 40 they have 37 townhouses now. So by getting adjacent land to their property, they can now landscape it and put in this walkway. If you don't transfer that land they don't have the five parking places. That's -- because that's where have -- that's where they're going to put it, on the County land that they don't even have yet. So I don't think that's fair.

(*Applause*)

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Okay, thank you. Rose Colucci and on deck Robert Colucci.

MS. COLUCCI: Good afternoon, Committee Members. My name's Rose Colucci, I'm here to -- to register my objection to introduction -- intro resolution 1619-2015. My husband and I have also sent letters to everyone stating our objection to this resolution. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. And we have received -- everyone who said they sent a letter, we certainly have received and reviewed those letters.

MR. COLUCCI: Good afternoon, Members. My name is Robert Colucci. I'm here to record my objection to intro resolution 1619-2015, please either table it or reject it. Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. Judith Cohen and on deck Jerry Cohen.

MS. COHEN: Good afternoon, Committee Members. I wish I could speak as eloquently as some of the people before me but I'm here on behalf of Shinnecock Neighbors to please ask you to -- well, to register my objection to intro resolution 1619 and if you don't reject it to at least table it until the court ruling. Thank you very much.

(*Applause*)

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. Jerry Cohen and on deck Claire Miller.

MR. COHEN: Good afternoon, Committee Members. My name is Jerry Cohen. I'm here to record my objection to intro resolution 1619. Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. Claire Miller and on deck Alice Young.

MS. MILLER: Good afternoon, Legislative Committee Members and attendees. My name is Claire Miller and I'm

2 PW 8/31/15

advocacy coordinator for Family Residences and Essential Enterprises, also known as FREE. FREE's network of agencies are privileged to support 4000 individuals with varying abilities on Long Island and New York City. Most of our men and women live in Suffolk County and are deeply impacted by the transportation challenges they face every day.

Today I ask you to work in partnership with us in extending SCAT hours for the individuals of Suffolk County. As the present paratransit availability is restricted 8:30 p.m. on Wednesdays while, as others have said, in Nassau service runs until 11:00 p.m. and in New York City it runs 24/7. The individuals of Suffolk County need extended SCAT service on weeknights and Sunday to participate in educational, social, professional, spiritual and community involvement opportunities, which are often adjourned after 8:30 p.m. I personally have been at many social events like dinners and dances when individuals have had to leave early because of SCAT restrictions. Individuals from FREE are here to share from their own experience why they support extending SCAT service in Suffolk County.

We look forward to the opportunity to work towards a solution we need in Suffolk County for this transportation challenge. Thank you so much.

(*Applause*)

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. Alice Young and on deck Yvette Boisnier.

MS. YOUNG: Would it be possible, we have somebody who requested assistance to fill out a card and it isn't here -- the card wasn't there, her name is Krista Giannak.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Oh, absolutely. Sure. Instead of you speaking?

MS. YOUNG: I'm going to go last. I'll go after Yvette.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Fine, we'll accommodate everyone.

MS. YOUNG: Thank you.

MS. GIANNAK: Yeah, I did request -- I spoke with a woman at the counter. She took my name, my phone number, my e-mail and I guess she didn't -- I don't know maybe the card got lost or something.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: No problem, go right ahead.

MS. GIANNAK: Okay. Hi, I'm Krista and I'm as a SCAT rider and I'm here to advocate for extended transportation hours for the fixed buses and for SCAT. I have a number of friends, as well, who use SCAT and who use the fixed buses and I'd also like to advocate for some smaller baby steps that maybe we might consider here. I understand the budgetary issues, I understand that Suffolk County needs more money in general. So I would like to advocate for some other smaller steps as well. What about some programs that incentivize people who can't drive, especially people with disabilities or even people on welfare who maybe want to work but can't because they don't have transportation. What

2 PW 8/31/15

about some sort of transportation program initiative to get them transportation options, I don't know if maybe that's an option, but it's just something I had thought of. Or maybe, you know, it could be called, you know, the transportation to jobs act or something like that, you know, or what about some way of having maybe certain functions that the County provides maybe allowing for bus service to extend for some of those options, maybe a pilot and, you know, some advertising and making -- reaching out to disability services organizations to make sure people know about it.

And the other thing is what about some of the inefficiencies in the bus route services and in SCAT that maybe prohibit some of that funding to go to extended services on Sundays and until 10 p.m. You know, some of those inefficiencies may be taking funding away from people who really need it, especially when SCAT sends multiple buses to the same address or when drivers are paid overtime, you're saying that there can't be any part-time drivers hired instead to save money or that the schedules can't be worked out better so it's clear that drivers will get in on time or sometimes little savings can make a huge difference. I mean, I imagine there's a lot of funding that can be saved in other parts of the government as well. I don't know all of those things but I just know what I see on a day-to-day basis. So that's all I can speak to. Thank you so much.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. Those are good ideas and I see Garry Lenberger writing things down.

MS. GIANNAK: Oh, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Appreciate your comments.

MS. GIANNAK: Thank you. I'd love to hear of your responses to them and what's going to happen to them. Is there a public -- is there a way for us to access the presentation because obviously we can't be here because we all have to make plans in advance cause we all have buses. So is there an -- can you tell us how we can access this presentation either live or, you know, maybe some streaming options or --

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Yes, one of my aides will give you the details.

MS. GIANNAK: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Okay. Thank you.

MS. BOISNIER: Good afternoon. My name is Yvette Boisnier and I am a social worker and work for Suffolk Independent Living Organization. I've been a geriatric social worker and an advocate for disabled communities and in -- and I'm part of the transportation committee at SILO. I take the minutes. And in researching this issue, I just came across, I went t Suffolk County -- to the website looking at the Office for the Disabled and came across a link that brought me to the ADA -- an ADA website. And from the U.S. Department of Justice, the Civil Rights Division in October of 2002, regarding Anderson v. Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority it states that the United States on behalf of the Department of Transportation respectfully submits this letter brief in response to the courts July 2002 order requesting the department's views on the meaning of its regulatory provisions governing complementary paratransit services required by Title II of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990. And it states specifically the court requests the department's views on these

2 PW 8/31/15

issues. And, you know, I'm not an attorney, I'm a social worker, I'm just going to read -- one -- just one piece, one small piece. The ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in the provision of public services and specifically provides that it shall be considered discrimination for purposes of section 12132 of this Title in section 794 of Title 29 for a public entity which operates a fixed route system other than a system, which provides solely commuter bus service, to fail to provide with respect to the operations of its fixed route system in accordance with this section paratransit and other special transportation services to individuals with disabilities including individuals who use wheelchairs that are sufficient to provide to such individuals a level of service one which is comparable to the level of designated public transportation services provided to individuals without disabilities.

So I just wanted to bring that to your attention.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you.

MS. BOISNIER: And thank you very much for allowing me to speak today.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. Kevin Lane and on deck Robert Liner.

MR. LANE: Hi, thank you for letting me speak today. My name is Kevin Lane, I'm from Selden and I'm 22 years-old. I feel that the SCAT bus should be extended during the week because the longer the SCAT bus is extended the more we'll have an opportunity to work and we'll be able to make more money that way, that's up to ten hours a week if you -- if you lengthen it more two hours longer. So and I think that you should -- you should extend the SCAT bus on Sundays too for people who want to go to church. Maybe they have a job they want to go to or they could go see their friends and family. So I feel they should be able to do things like that and vote for extending the SCAT bus longer is a vote more mobility for those who can't drive.

So that's my take on it. Thank you for listening to me today.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you, Kevin.

MR. LANE: You're welcome. (*Applause*)

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Robert Liner and on deck Stephanie Baldwin.

MR. LINER: Good afternoon, Committee Members. My name is Bob Liner, my family has been a resident of Hampton Bays for over 40 years, I've been a practicing real estate attorney for over 40 years. As a member of the community, my family and I have actively and strongly supported the CPI project, which is involved in resolution 1619 for numerous reasons. It is the linchpin for the revitalization of the town -- rather the Hamlet of Hampton Bays.

On a jurisdictional basis or on a substantive -- rather on a substantive basis this hearing is for the purpose of this Committee to recommend the Memorandum of Understanding to the full Legislature for the land transfer. The redesign of the roads was suggested by the County, not the developers, it

2 PW 8/31/15

would result in two problematic intersections being brought up to the higher standards of transportation as suggested by the respective transportation experts engaged by all parties. This will result -- and after completion will result in the maintenance of those areas being maintained by the sponsor. The zoning matter was before the town board for years. Every aspect and implication of this zoning change was reviewed in detail by the town board, which unanimously approved it; not only unanimously, but every single member of the town board took time and effort and wrote a well thought out opinion. Having appeared before town boards for many years, it is rare that you see such a support for a project, which is so crucial for a community.

The issue of the appropriateness or legality of the passing of the resolution, adopting the plan, is before -- is in judicial review now and is before the courts, it is not the subject of this hearing. As a long-time resident, I know both these roads well. I travel them all the time. In particular, I travel Newtown Road, which leads to a restaurant that I go to all the time, it serves the best lobster roll in the East End of Long Island. Coming back though, you run into Montauk Highway, it's a mess. It's a very difficult intersection. The North Shore Road, which I do not travel as frequently, is another mess. But to verify that, this past weekend I drove it deliberately to see how it was, going both directions, it's a difficult roadway to navigate. Both these intersections need to be redesigned. The redesign of both these intersections should be the responsibility of this Committee and its experts who will then pass it onto the full vote. The appropriateness of the CPI project was the responsibility of the town under the appropriate zoning laws, which, once again, they invested years, possibly eight years in vetting this process, and then that resulted in a unanimous decision. The legality of that decision is now before the courts and that will be determined. This board's jurisdiction should be limited to -- to the appropriateness of the resolution. It should not be used, as members of the opposition said, as another way to interfere with the reckless plans, rather this board should remove any speed bumps to those plans. And I respectfully request that this board place this matter before the full Legislature for hearing.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. Stephanie Baldwin and on deck Nancy Benito. Stephanie Baldwin? No, okay. Nancy Benito.

MS. BENITO: Good afternoon. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to with you. My name is Nancy Benito, I am deaf and I live in Amityville, senior citizen housing complex. I am here to talk about extending service during the week and Sunday too. But I want to go on Sundays to church or go to shopping but I have no ride. Some places in Amityville have ride, but I don't know why my area don't have ride. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. Susan vonFreddi and on deck Krista Giannak. You're Susan? Oh, okay, there's Susan. Okay. Krista already spoke, okay. Thank you. Okay.

MS. vonFREDDI: Thank you for letting me come up and speak, Chairman Krupski and Members of the Committee. My name is Susan vonFreddie and I'm -- Susan vonFreddie-Gassman and I'm here to speak in support of resolution 1619-2015.

I have lived in Hampton Bays since 1963 and I'm a business owner on Main Street since 1973. I'm speaking to you as a resident and a business owner. Hampton Bays is a community of about 14,000 residents and I have lived there a very long time. I have served on the Suffolk County Downtown Revitalization Committee for the last nine years and have been very involved in helping Suffolk County downtowns realize their dreams. I'm a president of the Hampton Bays Beautification Association since 2009 and I served as the vice president from 1997 till 2007. I have been involved in the planning and revitalization of Hampton Bays for over 20 years and having lived there most of

3 PW 8/31/15

my life I'm very proud of how Hampton Bays has transformed itself.

We are very grateful for the County and the town grants that have enabled us to improve our gateways and our streetscapes of our hamlet. I recently helped lobby for a traffic light at the intersection of Canoe Place Road and Montauk Highway after one of our members died in a car crash there. Suffolk County installed a traffic light at that intersection and there have been numerous traffic studies on the East End of Hampton Bays and have been done showing the needs for safety. Contrary -- contrary to some of the negative comments I've heard, everything has been done by the book and according to the law. The suggested plans to realign North Road and Newtown Road are a major improvement and I feel it will make it safer for all who travel on Montauk Highway. The fact that the County suggested this realignment and the developers had agreed to pay an estimated $1.5 million is an example of public and private cooperation. I was pleased to hear that Bill Hillman will be here to show you the maps and explain to you the changes, it will certainly help you understand the issues.

Please approve resolution 1619, please do not table it. It is very important for our community and the improvement. The new project will certainly help revitalize the whole eastern end of our township and I ask you to please not table it but to approve this resolution. Thank you.

(*Applause*)

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. So that's, believe it or not, all the cards I have. And I know Alice would like to speak and there's a gentleman in the back who'd like to speak and there's another gentleman in the back who'd like to speak, so, and a young lady in the back who'd like to speak so if anyone would like to come up and speak and then fill out a card, please start the process.

MR. JORDAN: Hi, good afternoon. My name is Michael Jordan, I'm from Calverton, New York. I'm here to speak on -- I spoke to a couple of my leaders in the State, State Assembly Ken LaValle's office who is the first district whom I'm part of and their office said they put in funding for an extra $10 million and it got denied for transportation and they're going to put in another -- ask for another $10 million this year for transportation. There also -- wasn't aware of that Nassau County got more funding than Suffolk County and also I was told by the office, I called the Albany office of Ken LaValle, that the governor's office thought Nassau County had more people than Suffolk County and there was no need for extra funding in Suffolk County. This came from Ken LaValle's office, Senator Ken LaValle. And also talked to my Assemblyman Fred Thiele's office and they also said the same thing. He's been lobbying for years for extra funding for transportation in Suffolk County and they also said the senators in this district, in Suffolk County, are well aware of the transportation needs and I also put a point to the aide of Mr. LaValle's office, like if you guys are well aware of it, why wasn't the issue pushed a little further. And I said, also, do you know that you're still giving more funding then Nassau County and they're eliminating some of their transportation routes, such as most affluent areas, they don't send transportation in those areas, such as the Syosset area and regions like that; Sands Point, they just took those routes right off, but they're still getting the same funding.

And also I want to add that, yeah, this is all about funding but we would like to work with you guys to come up with better solutions and, you know, to make this more efficient because I know, as Schneiderman has said to Thiele's office, that's it's all about is it busy enough to do all of this, do we have enough ridership to make this, you know, feasible.

So there's a lot of suggestions I have in my head. I know I only have three minutes and I don't want to take up anymore of your time. But, you know, I would like to get in touch -- and I think, Mr. Krupski, I'm in your district, Calverton, and I would like to get in touch with your office and talk about some of the ideas that I have in my head that would make this more efficient, that'll make it

3 PW 8/31/15

run a lot better.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Please do.

MR. JORDAN: Right. Thank you, guys.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Okay, thank you.

MS. BERNTSON: Good afternoon, everyone. I'm sorry, I did fill out a card, I'm not quite sure what happened to it.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: Okay.

MS. BERNTSON: I have another one here. My name is Brenda Berntson and I am a resident of Hampton Bays. As President of the Hampton Bays Historical Society, I could provide you with the many details of the campaign to save the Canoe Place Inn and the PDD which will allow that to happen. However, I am not sure if this is actually under your purview. I will say that for over eight years, or seven years or five years depending on when you want to say it actually began, the majority of our community has supported this project; a fact which can be verified by contacting the Town Clerk to see the outcome of the various ripe Coast Guards and petitions and all that stuff, or by talking to any of the five Town Board members. The Southampton Town Board voted unanimously to support this project because they understood that this is what the majority of the community wants and it is what's best for our community.

With regards to IR 1619, it is my understanding that the County initially approached the {Wrecklers} with this idea. Personally, I as a taxpayer would be glad to have this property on the tax rolls and being maintained by private owners rather than the County and my tax dollar. As to the reconfiguration of the road, this is your area of expertise and I trust that you'll have all the information necessary to make an informed decision. Thank you very much for your time.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. Alice?

MS. YOUNG: Good afternoon, everybody. I know most of you. My name is Alice Young and I'm the Director of the Government Relations and Community Relations for SILO.

I will -- I thought I might start today by being the first speaker, but I will end up being the last speaker. What I want to say is, first of all, that I appreciate very, very much the work that Legislator Krupski, his group, working with me to achieve what the ridership of Suffolk County is looking for, and that includes his staff, willingly to meet with us, have meetings and doing. The next step is part about going forward of what we will do. And this is where I want you to, please, in understanding that extended services and Sunday hours are really just the start. The goal and my goal as the Chairperson, I have many people who work underneath and do research and find out information. Many of these people who spoke to you today, they're really just here, but it's important of understanding that we are looking to achieve this goal that we've talked about every single month, and we are -- I am seeking and searching for a win/win situation that will create efficiency within the transportation system.

3 PW 8/31/15

We also must all realize and be available to a transportation system that is lower for a ride, that I am told cost $52 a ride. I receive information from numerous sources from Nassau County, from Suffolk County. I'm amazed -- I think you are just as surprised as I am when you hear the disparities which I have before me -- what Nassau county gets, what Westchester County gets, how we as a County have contributed sometimes 29 percent, and they've contributed seven to 17 percent. It just doesn't make really any kind of sense.

So what I'm here to say is that as we move forward, number one, I have numerous organizations, educational, community-based, that are more than able and willing to support. This is really somewhat become a campaign for the extended services and Sunday services, all right? I will be sending, at the end of the week, a proposal for the sub-committee that I hope we will be able to move forward on this. I am in touch with the State Assembly, with the Senate as well, and will be setting up meetings.

Interestingly enough, the only gentleman I really don't know is Legislator Barraga too, too much, but you seem to have the answers of knowing the numbers and percentages that count for these people. The SCAT really only counts for about 5 percent of this total ridership, so why there is such an issue with it.

My only really role, to a great degree, is for people to have somewhat of a hope, which this has gone on way before I came on in February. So we don't look to take up the time. People who are going to speak today, they're already gone because two are legal advocates and lawyers. That's what I'm trying to make an understanding. People are tired of being placated and want to have some type of results, and this is what we are looking for. So I will be sending the proposal for the subcommittee and will look for a response back from here. But please do know that there are many organizations who are very interested in the -- this whole issue of transportation, and it goes from Stony Brook University all the way to AARP. Suffolk County is the largest County of the aging population.

So I ask you respectfully, as we will work together, to please take it seriously, to please be an ally in getting these services. Regardless of what you do, where it tells me that Nassau County is $60 a ride, they still have seven day service, and that's really what we're looking for. All right? So I thank you very, very much and I look forward to continually working with you. CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. All right, is there anyone else who hasn't spoken who would like to address the committee? All right.

So I did offer Garry Lenberger's expert advice here on the progress that he's making and a little bit of historical information on why the system runs the way it does, so we're all looking forward to that. Garry.

MR. LENBERGER: Good afternoon. Hi. My name is Garry Lenberger, I'm the Director of Suffolk County Transit, the Director of Operations. Just as a quick overview of the system, the system costs, the Suffolk County Transit particularly costs roughly $70 million, the SCAT portion of this system costs $25 million. . It serves -- the SCAT system serves 580,000 trips per year, the average trip cost is $43 based on dividing those two numbers out. The fixed-route portion of our bus system serves roughly six-and-a-half million trips per year.

The comment regarding the HART buses and the SCAT service related to it, we do not have any jurisdiction over the HART system and their service hours.

The SCAT system is mandated by the ADA, which is -- and the transit system is overseen by the USDOT Federal Transit Administration, otherwise known as the FTA. The FTA mandates a three-quarter mile limitation on the fixed service side, whereas the ADA routes would have to

3 PW 8/31/15

terminate within three-quarters of a mile from the nearest fixed-route bus route. Regarding the fare, the fare cannot be set at $5, as it can only be twice the normal fixed-route fare of $2.25.

Contrary to popular belief, the SCAT system is not a dial-a-ride service. It's supposed to mimic, in the FTA's eyes, essentially the same trip times as the fixed-route service. So essentially, if you're taking a fixed-route bus that has two transfers on it with some slack time in-between for the transfer, you may have wait times of 20 minutes, a half-hour between bus service. Essentially, you may have a fixed route with two transfers that runs you two-and-a-half hours, and we have many constituents that complain that the SCAT service, you know, for a half hour trip takes me an hour-and-a-half. Well, essentially, it actually is getting you to the point of service faster than the fixed-route service.

The comments regarding the reservations on the pick-up times. If you have a reservation at 2:00 PM, the pick-up time that the bus company is required to commit to, per FTA regulations, is fifteen minutes prior to 2:00, which would be 1:45, and 2:15 on the high side. So that's why you may see the same -- different buses in the same location picking up different passengers. And people complain continually about this, but essentially a bus may show up at 1:45 for a 2:00 pick-up and the bus also may -- another bus may show up at 1:45 for a 1:30 pick-up. If anybody has any questions about that, I'll be glad to answer them.

Regarding subsidizing disadvantaged, economically disadvantaged passengers, the Social Services Department issues DSS tokens that are actually distributed to our bus operators for a full-fare ride. And they are actually distributed back to our department and then we give them back to DSS and there's a chargeback within the County.

As far as up and coming system enhancements, regarding the SCAT system, we are going to purchase, we already have the funds available for it and we will be purchasing an on-line reservation system for anybody that can utilize a computer. It is -- has various enhancements for visually-impaired and hearing-impaired people and they can make reservations on-line at any particular time up to five days in advance. So this will be a 24-hour operation as opposed to utilizing the phone lines, which I know there is some wait times, occasionally up to somewheres between five and seven minutes in the AM peak loads. We have 25 reservationists right now, this should be able to cut down on the amount of reservationists that we do have.

Just one note, on the 8:30 cap time on the SCAT service, there are eight routes that run past 8:30; those routes have to have SCAT service up to their stop times. So you may have a route that runs till 10:00 at night, the SCAT service will run until 10:00 at night.

Additionally, we have 41 routes that terminate prior to 8:30, so the SCAT passengers will actually get a little bit more service on those particular routes than the general public on the regular fixed-route service. Any other questions? Any questions?

LEG. BARRAGA: Mr. Lenberger, do you have an estimate as to what the total cost would be to go right across the board and go from 8:30 to 10:00 on SCAT?

MR. LENBERGER: I did some calculations a couple of months ago, I think the number was in the neighborhood of about three to $400,000, and that was based on the last hour of ridership between 7:30 and 8:30; we took those riders and extrapolated it out.

LEG. BARRAGA: The only reason I ask, I'm wondering if -- you know, one of the previous speakers indicated that one of the State Senators to put in $10 million for bus service. I'm wondering if it's a better strategy to

3 PW 8/31/15

go for less money in total, but specifically key the monies in for SCAT service instead of asking for 10 million for bus service where, you know, an average Legislator doesn't know where that money is going to. All the emphasis we're getting is from people who basically want the service to go from 8:30 to 10 or from 8:30 to midnight. And if we could calculate approximately what the cost would be, say from 8:30 to midnight, say it's like $3 million, just go for the 3 million with the State Assembly and Senate and specifically key it in for that particular group. This way it's basic and it's understandable on the part of the Legislator, this way he doesn't say, Well, you know, I'm going to support something, but $10 million? We don't even know where that money is going. And there's a political overtone associate with getting money for bus service.

MR. LENBERGER: I understand, yeah. That, I assume, would have to take some kind of separate -- some type of different resolution or whatever. I do know that the STOA, the State Operating Assistance is comprised of sales tax, long line tax, petroleum tax and -- I'm sorry, and a corporate surcharge tax, and that money is allocated to the NYMTC/MPO which includes Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, MTA, the various portions of MTA Bus and Transit and ferries, there's Putnam and Rockland County also in that NYMTC region. And the allocations that I have seen over the years since I've been the Director here is essentially it's been a flat percent across the board. So obviously if Suffolk County is getting $24 million a year and it gets a 2 percent increase or a 9 percent increase, it actually got 2 percent last year that was mandated by the Governor's Office, and Nassau County got a 2 percent hike also, but obviously they're based on a higher number. So I strongly disagree with that, I think that, you know, we deserve a little bit more of an allocation. But I do also want to point out that our ridership is in the neighborhood of around 22,000 people a day, whereas Nassau County serves somewhere around 100,000 people a day.

LEG. BARRAGA: I just have a sense that you're making it very complicated.

MR. LENBERGER: I'm sorry?

LEG. BARRAGA: I just have a sense that you're making it very complicated, predicated on certain percentages and certain different agencies and what they get, what they don't go. MR. LENBERGER: I apologize.

LEG. BARRAGA: If you go into a State Assembly person or a State Senator, explain the situation that we need to provide SCAT service to midnight, we need two-and-a-half million dollars, they'll take care of it. They'll take care of it. Don't worry about how it's done, they will pass legislation to take care of it, and that money will be relegated to SCAT service from 8:30 to midnight. They will figure out the formulas, as they do on education formulas, they figure them out.

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Would that be something we would be able to put in like as a Home Rule Message or -- usually at the beginning of the year we send recommendations for Home Rule Messages up to Albany.

LEG. BARRAGA: Well, we could pass something locally here and sent it up, as long as we have an accurate figure, but the money has to be earmarked for SCAT service between 8:30 and midnight. This is what we need to provide this service; nice, clean and simple. Let them take care of it at their end.

3 PW 8/31/15

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: We'll try to put that number together for you.

LEG. BARRAGA: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Thank you. And I think as a companion to that also, I know that SILO has been reaching out to us and trying to work on the efficiencies of the system. I know you and your staff have been being doing a great job trying to work on those efficiencies. And I think if we combine that with plowing anything -- any savings you can get, you know, into trying to increase hours would be the way to go as opposed to, as one speaker said, you know, the taxes are so high; well, if you just spend the money in the County, you're going to have to increase taxes in order to pay for that service, obviously. So if you can find -- you know, working together, and we had a lot of people this afternoon reach out to us, to your department, to our committee, with ideas, they're going to reach out to us to try to increase the efficiency of the system or changes to it; you know, those savings then could be used to help increase the hours. But thank you for that. You have a question?

LEG. STERN: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Nassau runs until when?

MR. LENBERGER: Some of their service, or a good portion of it -- you mean the fixed route or the --

LEG. STERN: Well, let's start with their SCAT.

MR. LENBERGER: Their SCAT service I believe runs till 11, somebody may have some better information than I do, I don't have the exact time off the top of my head. But essentially, you have to accommodate whatever -- whatever route you're running till whatever times, and they could have routes running until 2:00 in the morning. You will have to have paratransit service accommodating that.

LEG. STERN: Right. MR. LENBERGER: But it may only be a few different routes, you know, that may be the subway stops or whatever.

LEG. STERN: Right. So it is as long as the fixed routes are running, you have to provide SCAT-type services.

MR. LENBERGER: Correct. And --

LEG. STERN: But there's nothing that prohibits the County from offering a more expansive service on the SCAT side than on the fixed side.

MR. LENBERGER: You could always go over as far as the FTA is concerned.

LEG. STERN: Do you know how long -- how many years, approximately, Nassau has run those, what seem to be longer extended hours?

3 PW 8/31/15

MR. LENBERGER: They've been probably doing it for probably 20 years or so.

LEG. STERN: That's really -- for the most part, it's always been part of their system.

MR. LENBERGER: Yes.

LEG. STERN: All right, thank you.

MR. LENBERGER: You're welcome.

CHAIRPERSON KRUPSKI: Do we have any other questions for -- go right ahead.

LEG. BROWNING: Can you repeat the number on the ridership again for the SCAT, Nassau versus Suffolk?

MR. LENBERGER: SCAT -- well, I never gave you Nassau's, but the SCAT ridership for Suffolk County is 580,000 trips per year. So if you -- you know, if somebody's taking a round-trip, obviously that's going to be two trips right there. Nassau County, I don't have the numbers in front of, me right now, but I believe they run in the 300,000 range.

LEG. BROWNING: Okay. But -- okay, the number of riders in Suffolk versus Nassau.

MR. LENBERGER: You mean the number of registered riders?

LEG. BROWNING: Well, I mean, I know you have registered riders, but you don't have the numbers of how many, you know, actual people that are riding it.

MR. LENBERGER: We have about 15,000 registered SCAT users. There are -- the regular users are roughly three to 4,000 regular users, where they use the service maybe twice a month or more.

LEG. BROWNING: So --

MR. LENBERGER: We have many riders that are registered but never use the system.

LEG. BROWNING: Oh, okay. No, it's just trying to figure out -- you know, again, people complain about not -- you know, not being able to ride the bus and not having the access to the bus, not even just the SCAT bus, but the public bus. So, you know, just out of curiosity, I mean, I think if the service was more available, more people may use it. But as you know, you can't survive in Suffolk County if you don't have a car.

3 PW 8/31/15

MR. LENBERGER: Just one thing I would like to point out, and I know most people are aware that we do have the new AVL system. Right now we're on a beta-testing phase, but once that is fully installed and we develop an app along with that, people will be able to see where the bus is and anticipate when it's going to be arriving and that will be on the fixed-route side and with the total intention to do it, you know, in some capacity on the SCAT side also, which will make it much more efficient. And I would like to point out that we also are purchasing a new fare collection system that will make it easier for passengers to purchase, you know, say like a single debit card where they can actually store maybe $50 on their card, they can use that, you know, in the future. And it also has a mechanism to -- if you say, threw, a $5 bill into the fare box, you will actually get not so much change back, but you will get credit back in the form of a stored value card. So we'll be buying that later on this, it should be installed sometime next year.

LEG. BROWNING: Okay. Well, I know you're trying to do the best you can to be efficient. And I had opportunity, I went and met with Suffolk Transportation and they showed me what they do and how they do things, which gave me a better understanding of, you know, the scheduling, which is another issue for another time because I don't want to talk about it anymore because I know we have someone else here, not because I don't want to talk about it. But at the same time, you know, I think, again, we need to look at trying to get more funding, because I think we would have a bigger ridership. And I guess, Tom, you understand these State people better than anybody, that I don't see why they cannot come up with more money in the next budget.

LEG. BARRAGA: Just to reiterate, so if you get that figure as close as you possible can as to what the cost factor would be from 8:30 to midnight, have SCAT service for the people of Suffolk County, then let's see what we can do because I think that it's clean, it's simple. The average assemblyperson or senator who's not that well-versed on SCAT -- believe me, take my word for it. I knew very little about SCAT until I got here. It wouldn't be on my top 50. When something comes in and now the resolution is designed in such a way that you're helping the disabled and it's going to cost 2.5 million, not too many legislators would not support something like that. I can't speak for any senator, but if some senator put in for 10 million for bus service, I think you'd rather stand much better chance getting 2 million for SCAT service.

MR. LENBERGER: Understood.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: Okay. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate the effort.

Okay. So we are going to the regular agenda, and I would like to make a motion to take IR 1619, Authorizing a Memorandum of Understanding among the County of Suffolk, the Town of Southampton, R Squared INV HB LLC and Canal Properties LLC in connection with County road improvements, Public Benefits, a Maritime Planned Development in Hampton Bays, and transfer of County surplus property (County Executive), out of order. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So moved. We're taking IR 1619 out of order. I would like to invite, for the purposes of discussion, Southampton Supervisor Throne-Holst to be be part of the discussion just so we have a clear understanding of the project. The resolution is authorizing a memorandum of understanding among the County of Suffolk, the Town of Southampton, R Squared IMV, HBLLC and Canal Properties, LLC, in connection with county road improvements, public benefits, maritime plan development in Hampton Bays and transfer of county surplus property. Would someone like to make that motion? We need a motion to have a discussion, so you can make any motion you would like and then we'll have that discussion.

3 PW 8/31/15

MR. NOLAN: We have to get a motion and then we discuss.

LEG. MURATORE: Don't we need a motion to approve, disapprove, or we can have a motion to discuss?

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: Right, that's the -- all right -- that's the agenda item, then let's have the discission now. So I'm going to ask Supervisor Throne-Holst, if you could, to explain the project, keeping in mind that I think we do understand that really land use and zoning is in the domain of the town and not the county, so what you've done with the Marane PDD is really not something that we have any decision-making powers over. But if you could give us a history of it just so that the committee would have an idea, where you started and why we're all here today.

SUPERVISOR THRONE-HOLST: Okay. I appreciate that. PDDs, Planned Development Districts, are a land-use tool that are solely -- rests solely in the authority of the town board to make a zone change. We take that authority very, very seriously, and we consider any land use application that falls under PDD, under the purview of how do we do better than what the as-of-right would allow as part of one of those applications, and that's the sole reason we would look at something like that: how do we better, how do we serve the community, how do we create the optimum use of this land better than what the as-of-right would allow. The plan development district that we know is Canoe Place Inn is one that has been before the town board since before my time on that town board, which is now coming up on eight years. So it was a process that went on for a very long time, and it went on for a long time for very good reasons. In other words, we worked with the applicant and developer very, very thoroughly and sent them back to the drawing board, if you will, several times to make sure that the project was one that was absolutely optimum to meet the needs of the community as well as the area where this is being proposed.

One of the things that was most important to us was that it seed to the economic development needs of the town as a whole but certainly of that particular hamlet, most specifically. It also had other implications. One was -- and you've heard the head of the historic organization society that represents that area how important it was to the community to preserve this historic landmark and that otherwise would have been torn down and removed, and I welcome you to look at if you haven't seen it. It's a beautiful, beautiful project. It's a beautiful part of our history. I somewhat affectionately said at the time of approval that this is one of those things where everyone short of George Washington actually slept there back in the day. That is the historic significance that it had in the area.

We're also very short of that type of public assembly place in the town of Southampton. We tend to go to the North Fork or west for our fire department dinners and things of that sort because we don't have that kind of facility anywhere really on the east end, so it provided an important public benefit from that perspective. As part of the project, then, we look, then, most importantly at how did this improve from a community perspective, the use of this property, and one of the things that was very important to us was public access to the canal, which, again, as of right wasn't there and wouldn't be there if developed as-of-right, and when the project was being proposed, your DPW spoke to us about the idea of this piece of property being made available, then, for public access, and unlike some of the testimony that you heard earlier, this is not a question of making it so that the developer was providing adequate or required parking, landscaping, et cetera. They already did that. That was part of our approval, was the requirement for that. But because this piece of property adjoins it, it created public access that is not there otherwise.

The developer is providing a 250-foot public dock that makes it then possible for people to go down

3 PW 8/31/15

there at no expense. They can park there, there will be public parking spots. They can go there, they can fish, they can bring a picnic basket. They can spend time accessing the waterways which is now not available to them and would not be as-of-right.

Previous to this, and what is permissible as-of-right, nightclub, restaurants, hotel, motel, marinas; in other words, uses where the public would have to pay or be members to get the public access and access to the waterway, so this was a very important part to us.

Then as was also pointed out, and we all know this to be a reality, traffic and traffic congestion is a growing problem for us and safety as a result of that. The light that was being referred to earlier is a light that many, many members of the public petitioned us, the town board, and you, the county, to put in for safety reasons because it was a high accident area and those accidents have now being curtailed as a result of that light. This project, then, again as proposed by your DPW department was one that would create safety and traffic alleviation and a better project then at the cost of the developer rather than public moneys.

So this is a public-private partnership. It is one that serves very important purposes here. It provides for public access. It provides for traffic and public safety. It is part of a partnership that we have enjoyed now for several years with the county. As you may know, the repaving of Main Street in Hampton Bays is on the docket as a partnership between the town, the state, and yourselves. The Good Ground Park is one where we are also partnering with all of you and the state, and several of the historic renovation projects that are going on in the hamlet. So this is our most populous hamlet. Revitalization and economic development is hugely important, and this is a project that was overwhelmingly supported by the community. It's very easy to go out on the internet and get people to sign petitions knowing nothing about a project, and I will submit to you that that's what was done here. What you need to look at, if you're interested, is the record that we have through our clerk's office that overwhelmingly supports this project. It was a 5-0 vote, not an easy thing to get, but it was one, and as you heard, too, where all of us put a lot of careful thought and spoke to that.

So this is something that was long in coming and I want to answer a question that you had, Legislator Krupski, on the timing of this and perhaps a sense that this came in late. The county asked that you not have to opine on this until the town board had actually voted on the project, so that's why it being brought before you was put off until after we had voted on the project, and then the MOU was one that we wanted to make sure, as did your county attorneys, that the same level of scrutiny, care, and transparency was put into it, which is always always a lengthy process and that's why it took a little bit of time, but it is an excellent MOU and again it sees to the needs of the public and this project in economic development in Hampton Bays.

LEG. BROWNING: It's a very simple question: If we don't approve this, what happens to the project? It's still going to move forward?

SUPERVISOR THRONE-HOLST: The project has been approved.

LEG. BROWNING: So, yeah, so basically if we don't approve this, the changes are not going to be made, the infrastructure improvements are not going to be made; is that correct? But the project will still happen, it's just nothing is going to change, as far as what the county is saying; am I correct, or am I not being fair?

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I think the answer to your question is correct. Just to reiterate what the supervisor said, this was a

4 PW 8/31/15

DPW initiative. We had been looking at this intersection for some time, planning, albeit somewhat in the future, not too far out, to do this work, but this opportunity came up. We reached out to the town and to the developer, and we worked with them to develop the plans that are there now.

LEG. BROWNING: Yeah, if we don't make those changes to that intersection, it's not changing that project.

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Correct. LEG. BROWNING: It's going to continue to move on whether we approve this or not.

SUPERVISOR THRONE-HOLST: But the public access is then curtailed to the canal.

LEG. BROWNING: Right, but it does not stop the project.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: I have a couple questions before we look at the maps. Who’s going to monitor the water quality? Who's going to do the testing beforehand? Whose responsibility is that?

SUPERVISOR THRONE-HOLST: It's an independent contractor that is doing it. We have similar protocols at a couple of our golf courses where we contract with independent water quality monitors, and that was part of our approval process too was that monitoring would be done before the project and before the wastewater treatment as well as a permeable barrier would be put in so that it served an important data collection process as well, which, as you know, we were partnering with the county on several projects to do this, and so this provided an important data collecting opportunity, and I just want to speak to that too.

In terms of the wastewater treatment here, again as-of-right, that was something we could never ask for. It is taking away what our antiquated and entirely inadequate cesspools that service the restaurants that are there at the moment so it is a huge improvement in terms of how we're dealing with the wastewater flow into the canal, and, yes, the permeable barrier is perhaps not the most tried and true, but it is one that so far has shown itself to be effective and better than nothing, and that was where we worked with the developer on this, that it was something that was very doable there and again much better than nothing or what's there today.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: The town will pay for the monitoring?

SUPERVISOR THRONE-HOLST: No, the developer has to pay for it, but we oversee it, and we are the ones who contract with -- which is the same as we work with golf courses, et cetera. The developer has to pay for it, but it's entirely -- we choose who does the monitoring, and we oversee it, and if it is not working, we can change the protocol for it.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: For what length of time?

SUPERVISOR THRONE-HOLST: For the length of the project, I mean into the future. With the golf courses, we have that into the

4 PW 8/31/15

future too. For as long as they're active projects, they have to be monitored.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: Okay. And the last question I have, and other committee members might have questions, there is something in the MOU restricting access to the docks. How could you -- I was just wondering how that could be put in there that you would actually restrict public access to public lands.

SUPERVISOR THRONE-HOLST: I actually have to ask all of you that because that was not part of the town's approval. That's in your resolution, and the only thing I can think of is that you're treating it as public parkland where access is restricted from sundown to sunup for public safety reasons.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: All right. Can we look at the maps? Does anyone else have a question before we take a look? Legislator Stern.

LEG. STERN: Just as to terminology here, I'm looking at -- this is from the planning board. The planning board -- the title here is to adopt a referral to the town board. It then goes on about halfway down, probably the last "Whereas" clause, the planning board cannot endorse the application, but then it does go on to adopt the resolution. I just want to make I have my terminology down. The planning board is not adopting what's going on here. They're simply adopting the resolution to pass it on for your consideration procedurally.

SUPERVISOR THRONE-HOLST: They have no jurisdiction over this. This was part of the SEQRA review, and, you know, status on that, again, they didn't have it. We had the status on it, and it bares noting, too, that the county planning commission did approve this, including the Southampton representative on the planning commission.

LEG. STERN: All right. So I just want to be clear again on the terminology. Here it says, "Therefore, it's resolved that the planning board hereby adopts the resolution. But I'm gleaning from the conversation the only thing that the planning board adopted here was making some determination and passing it on to you. It was not adopting --

SUPERVISOR THRONE-HOLST: As a referral.

LEG. STERN;. It was not approving --

SUPERVISOR THRONE-HOLST: No, 'cause that's not their jurisdiction. This was as a referral as part of SEQRA.

LEG. STERN: They're adopting the referral?

SUPERVISOR THRONE-HOLST: Yes.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: Kate, any questions? Anyone else? I'd like to come up and take a look and see if you could explain to us, because the maps that were sent to me were very difficult to understand what's there and

4 PW 8/31/15

what's proposed.

MR. HILLMAN: This first map is the CPI property where CPI is located in this corner of the property. Presently, there's a, what we call, a "slip ramp" for making a right turn to go west. This slip ramp, from a geometric standpoint, we've always had issue with -- as you're approaching to merge, you're sort of looking over your left shoulder, becomes problematic. Back in the day, this geometry was sort of, I guess, approved. In today's thinking, we want vehicles to come up to a corner and be able to look, without contorting their body, look left.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: Because the horse could look easier.

MR. HILLMAN: The horse could look easier, yes. So we really wanted to get rid of this slip ramp, and we did do that. That's the property. I think we have a construction plan in here. So this would be the new configuration of the roadway where they'll come up and make a right turn and merge over. We also had a problem with speeds because you had such an angled roadway and acceleration, cars would be able to accelerate in a much greater fashion, and then we would have a -- if there was an accident conflict point, it would be much greater due to the increased speeds. So in this configuration, a car comes up, looks left, makes the right-hand turn and merges.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: Can they make a left there also?

MR. HILLMAN: No. Under this configuration, under the present configuration or the proposed configuration, you cannot make a left to go east. I'll go to to --

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: This is the land that would be transferred?

MR. HILLMAN: Yes. It's right in here, approximately, yes.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: Twenty-five thousand square feet?

MR. HILLMAN: Correct. So this is on the Shinnecock side. So very similarly, we have another slip ramp. Here's Montauk Highway. This is heading north. The development is in this quadrant of the property, so motorists coming from the east heading west to go north utilize this slip ramp. You can see you have this roadway here all come in place. These motorists are at a high rate of speed. We have a conflict point here again, high rates of speed. We'd like to eliminate them. Very similarly, this slip ramp is not as bad but we still have some issues with it. This roadway in between is something, again, we'd like to eliminate. You can get stacking issues in here. There's all kinds of bad things that can happen with this type of configuration so this dark line here is the property that would be excess once our -- once the roadway configuration is complete, so this would be the new configuration of the roadway: Again, more traditional, simple T intersection, eliminate all the slip ramps. I think it speaks for itself. A picture is a thousand words. This is much more traditional and we believe a lot safer.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: What's the land use on either side of Old Canoe Place Road?

4 PW 8/31/15

MR. HILLMAN: I don't know. My guess would be residential. I believe there's several homes.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: So where's the access to -- oh, I'm sorry. Can you answer that? Thanks.

MR. COLLINS: Yes, I can. On this, with reference to the northeast corner, this is actually a motel site. It's called "The Hampton Maid." To the north of Old Canoe Place Road is residential. I believe it's zoned R60, but it's developed with residential homes.v Kyle Collins, town planning and development administrator for the Town of Southampton.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: All built out for current zoning. The motel zone actually has -- is currently developing this portion here so yes it is planned to be developed out. It has a site plan approval for the new portion of the old -- of The Hampton Maid. Further to the east, they have continuous holding which is currently developed with motel use. Just to rectify my previous statement, the portion of the road that fronts on North Road is actually zoned motel, and the lands further to east up Old Quogue Road is in fact the R66.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: So what is the access -- looking at both of these, where is the access to the canal? I haven't seen that.

MR. HILLMAN: Okay. Before we flip back, I'd like to make one more point. There is a driveway/roadway that services some residential properties on this side that was in conflict or did not line up well with the existing configuration. Again, one of the, in our minds, one of the things that we were able to do successfully here is line that up so that this will actually not be a T intersection, more like a traditional four-legged intersection. You can't really see it here. It is a fairly small road, but I believe that maybe some future some development planned for that, so we were able to line those up. Just another safety point.

With regard to the property and access, this is my understanding that this will lead you to the dock, and I don't know, Kyle, maybe you can speak to it a little bit better.

MR. COLLINS: If you'll see this, actually, indentation here, this projection that goes out here being the canal, this actually is the old foundation of the old Montauk Highway bridge. It used to go out. This is still developed as part of the PDD, and the proposal for the access is to provide a -- where you saw on that previous plan, there was some public-private space parking spaces with a trail that will be constructed down to the old foundation of the old Montauk Highway bridge. From this Montauk Highway bridge is where the approximately 200-foot floating dock is located, and there will be access from here ramp going down to this existing dock that is currently in that location.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: So who owns the -- between the current Montauk Highway and the old Montauk Highway, who owns that section? There's two parcels there?

MR. HILLMAN: This is presently all owned by Suffolk County right now. We wanted to be able to maintain -- this is the toe of slope. Montauk Highway is elevated at this point, and we have a bridge going over the canal, and we wanted to be able to maintain that toe of slope, so that's why we kept all this portion

4 PW 8/31/15

of property. We also wanted to be able to get under and maintain from underneath the structural integrity of the bridge, so what's why we kept right-of-access along here, so hopefully that answers your question.

LEG. STERN: Are you able to quantify approximately what the value is, the dollar value, of the road improvements that is being provided by the developer of the project?

MR. HILLMAN: The construction value is roughly 1.55 million. The engineering associated with developing that is probably another additional 150,000. The construction inspection that we will require will probably be in the order of another 150,000, so in total about 1.85 million.

LEG. BROWNING: Have we put a value on that property the county owns?

MR. HILLMAN: Roughly 1.5 million.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: So the county owns this today, right?

MR. HILLMAN: Correct.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: So it's not zoned.

MR. HILLMAN: No, it's right-of-way. It's not zoned for anything. It's right of way.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: How do you put a value on it if it's right of way?

MR. HILLMAN: I believe, and I would defer to our property appraisers, but I believe what they did was they looked at its highest and best use, and I don't know what that would be, but they do but also because it has access to the water, although be it I don't know what that is, maybe 25 feet, but it's really waterfront property, so that increases the value tremendously. I don't see it that way, but that's not my job. This particular piece of property, I believe, was valued at $1.3 million. In my personal opinion, if we look to sell that, I don't think we're getting $1.3 million, but it's, again, not my job so...

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: Okay. So the issue of public access, what is actually the condition here? I mean, because this just doesn't show, is it a drop-off? Can people access the water here? What's happening right at the edge of the canal?

MR. HILLMAN: Again, Kyle, maybe you could answer that.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: I do plan on going to take a look at it because I'm not familiar with it. That's a lot of the concern

4 PW 8/31/15

that I got. What's happening right here. So this old bridge abutment is not public access currently or is public access?

MR. COLLINS: No, that is not -- the county no longer owns that portion. It's part of the development parcel itself and the portion of the county property that is the subject of the hearing today would provide -- these are the five spaces, and they're going to construct a trail that you would access that foundation there. I don't know, Bill, you may want to talk about what the condition is going under the bridge here, the existing platform here that you're going to also access underneath.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: I'm sorry but just to be clear, so the county residents currently could come down here and access the canal from only this section here between the old abutment and the current bridge?

MR. COLLINS: That's correct.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: Okay.

MR. HILLMAN: And I would submit that under the existing bridge is not really set up for public access. Improvements would need to be made for that to happen, so we're not encouraging people to go under the bridge.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: It's just that it's county land -- LEG. STERN: Can you point out here on the map exactly what portion of the currently county-owned property is being transferred to the town and was being transferred to the developer?

MR. HILLMAN: That, I don't have. We don't have a large-scale version of this map, but the gray area here for the five spots -- five parking spots would be quick-feeded to the town as would this area and this area (indicating). The remainder would be going to the developer.

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: So effectively --

LEG. STERN: This area in here is going to the developer, and do you know what that's going to be used for?

MR. HILLMAN: From this map, it appears to be land bank parking.

LEG. STERN: Okay. It's right now, which preliminary, anyway, won't be developed.

MR. HILLMAN: Correct.

LEG. STERN: Okay. Thank you.

4 PW 8/31/15

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: So today, tonight, right, the tide's running out and I got some bunker this morning because I got up early and I want to go fishing. Can I park somewhere here and walk down there?

MR. HILLMAN: It's my understanding that these --

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: Today, tonight.

MR. HILLMAN: No, you may be able to park on private property, but I don't believe there's -- Kyle may be --

MR. COLLINS: If you're parking on that property there, you'd be parking on private property.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: So what does the county own today, though? We have to go back to a different map. Go back to today, yeah. So this is a road here and the county owns this part of it.

MR. HILLMAN: We own everything outside of this line presently. So does anyone use that for access for fishing?

MR. HILLMAN: They very well may, but they have no safe place to park. We would not encourage anyone to park along any of these roadways. They may do that in today's world, but we would not condone it.

MR. COLLINS: If anybody is accessing that, they are probably parking on the opposite side of the canal, walking over the sidewalk to the bridge if they're accessing this at all, and then they would access -- I mean, they could access along the existing county land now without going onto private property. It dead-ends down to a little escarpment here and then the bridge foundation, the existing bridge foundation of the new bridge.

MR. HILLMAN: Several years ago, we went down to see this bridge for structural reasons, and my recollection is that we parked on a private parcel, walked on that private parcel and then traversed across. You can see this is a definition of shrubs and trees. I think it was pretty vegetated and unaccessible presently.

SUPERVISOR THRONE-HOLST: You cannot get to the floating dock, which is 250 feet right on the river -- I mean on the canal where you can stand and fish. You can canoe and kayak up to it. You can put a boat there. You can sit there and enjoy the water. You can dip your toes in the canal. There's no other place to do that along the canal as far as it is today.

UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Do we get a chance to answer some of these things that we feel are not true because the dock's in such bad conditions? That's why no one can go on it.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: Before we get into a long debate, are we satisfied here? Can we go back to our seats? Does anyone on the committee have any other questions for the Southampton town or DPW?

4 PW 8/31/15

LEG. STERN: I have a question for our counsel but it's probably best asked while everybody is here in case they need to chime in. And I asked the question before because this is -- the MOU considers transferring really to two entities, right, to the town and to the owner to use different parts of the property for different purposes. Know that we make these types of transfers for public purposes to the towns all the time with or without consideration because there is a public benefit and that is usually clear. My question to our counsel is here as to portion that we are transferring not to the town but to the -- what would be the private owner, what if any legal ramifications are there in doing that and is that something that we have the ability to do? Because here it's something we do have the opportunity to do if there is a public benefit in terms of -- not just public benefit but some type of fair market exchange or for fair consideration. So my question to our counsel is based on the discussion that we are having today and everything before us, does this rise to the level of their being fair and appropriate consideration that allows us to make this transfer?

MR. NOLAN: I'll just preface my remark by saying that this resolution doesn't do that yet. We're not declaring the property surplus. We're not transferring the parcels yet. The agreement that we're approving kind of sets us down that course, but I wanted to put that on the record. In terms of the transfer of the land, in terms of a transfer to a town or a village or any municipality. We can transfer that on any terms that we like, and we do that all the time where we transfer surplus properties for no consideration or minimal consideration. In terms of the transfer to a private entity, once we declare it surplus, we can transfer it by direct conveyance to a private entity, but there has to be reasonable consideration received by the county, and I think the administration's position is that the improvements of roadways, which amount to between 1.5 and 2 million bucks is fair and adequate consideration for the land that's being conveyed out to the private entity. So I think as long as those things are happening, then it's okay for us to do.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: All right. And I did, because it's -- people came here a long way and sat for a long time, very briefly, one of the woman asked to make a comment. If you could very briefly.

UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Thank you so much for your further consideration. I also want to add that I spoke to County Legislator Jay Schneiderman, who is totally against this resolution. He's against the restricted access. He's against the transfer of the lands. He lives in Hampton Bays. He travels the roads like we do, and we all agree that those of us that live there that these changes are not for our good. They solely benefit the developer and this project that he has that's way too big. It's 72,000 square feet of townhouses. That's four times the density of anything in our town on the shore of the historic site, the canal. It breaks all conservation laws, all comprehensive town plans, every law that we have which is why the town planning board voted no. Jay Schneiderman agrees with us. He told me that.

We live there. We travel those roads. I've lived there 40 years. As far as the petitions, the petitions had all the links to every -- including the developer's website, all the plans. I went to the town hall. I talked to town planners. They showed me the regular site plans. I included them in the petition for people to look at, as I did you in the PDF that I sent you. They pointed out that this townhouse development is going to be seven feet to the edge of the canal. Our access was always unlimited when it was following the zoning for motel, restaurant, marina, and recreation because anyone -- when you went to those restaurants, no one asked you, Are you here to buy something? You could just walk on the dock. Any person that came in the canal could bring their boat, hook it up in the marina that's right by what was called "Tide Runners" and use it. That will forever change. All those boat slips that were by Tide Runners are forever going to be made private, and that's county land, and it's underwater, and so it's disingenuous for the folks here to tell us, who don't live

4 PW 8/31/15

in our neighborhood, that we didn't have total public access to those areas. No one ever stopped us.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: All right. Thank you. Wait one second, ma'am. No, we're not going to go back into public portion. I just extended a courtesy for one comment, but I'd like to hear from the supervisor.

UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Things erroneous have been said here, and I think the record needs to be corrected.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: Just one second. I'd like to hear from the supervisor, and then I'll give you a minute.

UNKNOWN SPEAKER: That's fine.

SUPERVISOR THRONE-HOLST: I'm just going to emphatically state that the dock and everything that was there was and remains in private ownership. In other words, if Tide Runners or anyone else that owned the property before this wanted to restrict anyone from tying up a boat there coming and going, they could do so, and it was also implicit that when you tied up a boat there that you were going to Tide Runners to have a meal, and that was the only way to get to that property. What is different in this application is that the dock is now a floating dock out there and because of this proposed land transfer and the access that is being afforded both through what will be town property as well as part of the development and where the easements speaks to that it will provide in perpetuity the public access. That is materially different than what the reality is today and what would remain as an as-of-right development.

As far as the implication that Legislator Schneiderman is opposed to this, I will say to you, A, I would suggest you speak to him directly, but I spoke to him as late as this weekend, and that absolutely not the conversation. It was quite the contrary that I had with him on this.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: Thank you for clearing that up.

UNKNOWN SPEAKER: I spoke to him last night.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: No, please, please. Just a minute, please.

SUPERVISOR THRONE-HOLST: Besides, he'll have an opportunity to vote, right, in the legislature.

SUPERVISOR THRONE-HOLST: First of all, as recently as two months, I was down on that walkway with friends. There's never been anybody there to stop us. We've always been able to do that. Secondly --

SUPERVISOR THRONE-HOLST: Trespassing.

MS. DEALNICKEL: -- with regard to my going through, through a FOIL, all of the e-mails, petitions, going through every public meeting, records, et cetera that came up with 10 to 1, I called out those who lived in Southampton from those who were in Long Island and New York City, from those who were from the

4 PW 8/31/15

world at large, and in the town of Southampton, people who wrote down their names, signed things, and put down where they lived, it was 10 to 1 against this project, and when I spoke to any supervisor about it, all I heard was, Well, we get phone calls that aren't recorded. Well, I'm sorry, I cannot believe that only people who are for this project did phone calls without writing letters or signing petitions. It just doesn't make sense. 10 to 1, the town is against this project, which may be why the supervisor's no longer running.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: Excuse me, ma'am. First of all, we need your name for the record.

Helen Dealnickel (ph).

UNKNOWN SPEAKER: I will be brief. I will not address this. I just want to address something else: the reconfiguration of the intersections; because when I was the president of the beautification, in 2005, I sat down with, then, Mr. Shannon, and it was about the intersection of Canoe Place and Montauk Highway where there's now traffic light, and Mr. Clovito (ph) and some other people were in the same meeting, and they said to me the safest intersections are the roundabouts or ramps. The traditional intersections are not safe. They're not as safe, and that is -- I mean they're experts here, but anyway, it is more congestions with their traditional intersections, back gaps, and the traditional intersections experience more vehicle collisions, more injuries, and more fuel consumption. In addition, transitional intersections have more pollution with emissions from carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, and hydrocarbons. That's a fact. And so to rearrange -- to reconfigure the roads may not be to our advantage, either. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: All right. Anyone have any other questions, or would someone like to make a motion?

LEG. BARRAGA: Mr. Chairman, with all due to respect to those who attended this afternoon, both pro and con on the issue, you've all been here for several hours and my personal feeling is that you're entitled to a vote, a determination by this particular committee. As far as Mr. Schneiderman is concerned, he could've been here today, but most certainly next week he will have ample opportunity to express his point of view oon this particular when we meet in general session. I'd like to a motion to approve.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: Motion to approve, Legislator Barraga. Is there a second?

LEG. MURATORE: I'll second.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: Second by Legislator Muratore. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So moved.

IR 1157, Establishing a Green Roof Pilot Program (Hahn). Motion to table. Second by Legislator Muratore. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So moved. Tabled (VOTE: 5-0-0-0)

IR 1434, Authorizing the Energy Utility Legislative Oversight Committee to intervene in the Public Service Commission proceedings relating to PSEG-Long Island’s proposed rate increase (Hahn). I'll make that motion to table. Second, Legislator Muratore. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So moved. Tabled (VOTE: 5-0-0-0)

The next two, do we have to table again?

5 PW 8/31/15

IR 1516, Approving Ferry License for Beachcomer Freight Service, LLC d/b/a Coastline Freight (P.O. Gregory). I'll make a motion to table for public hearing. Same motion, same second. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So moved. Tabled/Public Hearing (VOTE: 5-0-0-0).

IR 1517, Approving Ferry Freight rates for Beachcomber Freight Service, LLC (P.O. Gregory). Same motion, same second. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So moved. Tabled/Public Hearing (VOTE: 5-0-0-0).

IR 1566, Appropriating funds in connection with Building Safety Improvements (CP 1603) (County Executive). Does anyone have any questions for the commissioner?

MR. RICHBERG: Mr. Chair, before we go forward, 1516 and 1517, tabled public hearing?

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: Yes.

MR. RICHBERG: Yeah, I have that, just making sure.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: If there's no questions for the commissioner on public safety -- building safety improvements, is there a motion to approve? Motion by Legislator Muratore. Second by Legislator Barraga. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So moved. Approved (VOTE: 5-0-0-0)

IR 1567, Appropriating funds in connection with modifications for compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (CP 1738). Same motion, same second. On the motion, commissioner, a brief description.

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: This requests appropriating $50,000 for construction modifications to county facilities in compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA. Currently, we're using funding to rehabilitate and renovate bathrooms in the labor department, but we'll also be looking to make improvements to curbs and sidewalks including supreme court and the North County Complex. The work in supreme court will also including installation of an automatic door opener at the building. All that work in compliance with ADA.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: Thank you. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So moved. Approved (VOTE: 5-0-0-0) Since no one put their hand up that time, I assumed they all were in favor of it.

IR 1576, Amending the 2015 Capital Budget and Program and appropriating funds in connection with Planning and Design of Nitrogen Reduction Projects (CP 8197)(County Executive). Same motion, same second. On the motion.

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: This resolution requests authorization of $2 million to initiate design phase of the four nitrogen reduction projects that Suffolk County has received $383 million in federal aid to design and construct. The four areas that make up the project are located in and along the Forge River, the Carlls River, the Connetquot River, and the Patchogue River. The aide to be received requires work be completed in accelerated timeline. The total design costs are estimated at $22.1 million. This initial $2 million is offset from CP5855, bridge replacement at Horse Block Road over Long Island Railroad. The project was reduced in size after the county decided not to pursue funding portions of

5 PW 8/31/15

work on the bridge that fall, actually, under the jurisdiction of the MTA.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: Thank you. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So moved. Approved (VOTE: 5-0-0-0)

IR 1581, Amending the Adopted 2015 Operating Budget to transfer funds from Fund 620- Suffolk County Ballpark, amending the 2015 Capital Budget and Program, and appropriating funds in connection with improvements to the Suffolk County Ballpark (Bethpage Ballpark), Central Islip (CP 6425). Same motion, same second.

CHAIRMAN STERN: Just a quick question: The particular improvements that have to be made here, are these improvements that have been made at some point since the stadium was built or is this first time stuff?

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: They are raising the mound and pushing the fences out. There's too many homeruns being hit.

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: This is work that is larger capital projects. Usually the day-to-day maintenance is under the responsibility of the ballpark -- the team, I'm sorry. This looks to make electrical and HVAC upgrades. We're going to be repainting and chipping away rust and whatnot, super structure improvements along the concourse area, steel beam supports, and roof deck, and then we're also going to be making some site improvements in the forms of sidewalk and curbs that need to be replaced in various locations throughout the site. LEG. STERN: So you're saying that much of that work has not be done in the past?

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Correct.

LEG. STERN: Okay. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: You're welcome.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So moved. Approved (VOTE: 5-0-0-0)

IR 1592, Appropriating funds in connection with Bulkheading at Various Locations (CP 5375). Same motion, same second. Any questions? All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So moved. Approved (VOTE: 5-0-0-0)

IR 1593, Appropriating funds in connection with Reconstruction of Culverts (CP 5371). Same motion, same second. Could you give us a lengthy description of which culverts?

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Yes, the culverts that are in question are the Carlls River culvert in the Town of Brookhaven; CR65 over Stillman's Creek; Tuttle's Creek, West Lake, and Division Street culverts in the Town of Brookhaven; Brown Creek West, Brown Creek East, Corey Creek, and Lotus San Souci culvert in the Town of Islip; and headwaters of the Saw Mill Creek culvert in the Town of Riverhead; East Seatuck

5 PW 8/31/15

Creek, East River, Speonk River, Gunkhole (ph) Pond, Brinkley Pond culverts at the Town of Southampton.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: Are these straight replacements, or is there any consideration for stillwater treatment at these locations or fish ladders?

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: These are generally -- this is specific to the actual structure of the culvert, so it's the concrete -- we go out there. We have an engineer that actually accompanies a contractor out there, and they start to essentially work on the culvert to see exactly what needs to be done, so in most cases, they're concrete headwalls, things like that. If they are specialized, like a fish ladder or stormwater improvement, those would be handled by a separate capital project.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: Okay. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: You're welcome.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: All right. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So moved. Approved (VOTE: 5-0-0-0) IR 1594, Appropriating funds in connection with reconstruction of Shinnecock Canal Locks, Town of Southampton (CP 5343)(County Executive). Same motion, same second? Straight-forward explanation?

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Yeah. We just completed a phase of the rehab. We just took the tide gates, and when working on the tide gates, we drained and opened up the bottom of the gates, and we found that there was damage that required immediate replacement. We're asking for the 1.5 million for the next phase, but that would involved rehabilitation of the lock gates, but we're also looking to go back in and do another $300,000 of repair to the actual tide gates as well.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: Thank you. All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So moved. Approved (VOTE: 5-0-0-0)

IR 1595, Appropriating funds in connection with Replacement of Dredge Support Equipment (CP 5201)(County Executive). Motion by Legislator Browning. Second by Legislator Stern. I think it's self-explanatory. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So moved. Approved (VOTE: 5-0-0-0)

IR 1596, Appropriating funds in connection with Construction of Sidewalks on Various County Roads (CP 5497) (County Executive). Same motion, same second. Would anyone like a description? All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So moved. Approved (VOTE: 5-0-0-0)

IR 1597, Appropriating funds in connection with Improvements to Environmental Recharge Basins (CP 5072). Motion by Legislator Muratore. Second by Legislator Stern. A quick description, please.

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: This resolution requests appropriating $305,000 for construction and $20,000 for equipment. We're looking to rehabilitate five recharge basins under this project including, and it may change depending on the amount of work, and if something else becomes a priority, but it would be CR 16

5 PW 8/31/15

at Horseblock Road at Oakdale Avenue, CR 93, Lakeland Avenue at Piper Lane, CR46 William Floyd Parkway at Winston Drive, CR47 Great Neck Road at Edmunds Place, CR2 Straight Path at CR95, and Little East Neck Road.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: Thank you. All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So moved. Approved (VOTE: 5-0-0-0).

IR 1598, Appropriating funds in connection with Dredging of County Waters (CP 5200) (County Executive). I'll make a motion. Second by Legislature Browning. Is this a general fund for funding the county dredge?

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Correct. This is in connection with dredging the county dredge program. In this particular case, we're looking at during 2015 to 2016 dredging Shinnecock Inlet East Cut, Champlain Creek, and various other Great South Bay locations. CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: Thank you. All right. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So moved. Approved (VOTE: 5-0-0-0).

IR 1599, Appropriating funds in connection with Equipment for Public Works Material Testing Laboratory (CP 5141) (County Executive). Same motion, same second. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? Approved (VOTE: 5-0-0-0).

IR 1601, Appropriating funds in connection with Stormwater Remediation to the Yaphank Lakes and Carmen’s River at CR 21, Main Street/Yaphank-Middle Island Road (CP 8241)(County Executive). Motion by Legislator Browning. Second by Legislator Muratore. A description. Please.

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: This resolution requests appropriating $750,000 of construction for stormwater improvements primarily at the intersection of where CR21 comes into Main Street in Yaphank but also extending further north up towards 25 along various locations.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: Thank you. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So moved Approved (VOTE: 5-0-0-0).

IR 1616, Calling a public hearing for the purpose of increasing and improving facilities for Suffolk County Sewer District No. 23 – Coventry Manor (CP 8149)(County Executive). Same motion, same second. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So moved. Approved (VOTE: 5-0-0-0).

IR 1617, Calling a public hearing for the purpose of increasing and improving facilities for Suffolk County Sewer District No. 18 – Hauppauge Industrial (CP 8126)(County Executive). Same motion, same second. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So moved. Approved (VOTE: 5-0-0-0).

We have voted on IR1619 already.

IR 1631, Amending Resolution No. 511-2015, authorizing the sale of one surplus County Para Transit Bus to St. Michaels (Schneiderman). Is there a motion? I have a motion by Legislator Browning. Second by Legislator Barraga. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So moved. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So moved. Approved (VOTE: 5-0-0-0).

5 PW 8/31/15

IR 1632, Amending Resolution No. 512-2015, authorizing the sale of one surplus County Para Transit Bus to Camp Soulgrow (Schneiderman). Same motion, same second. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So moved. Approved (VOTE: 5-0-0-0).

IR 1638, Transferring Assessment Stabilization Reserve Funds to the Capital Fund, amending the 2015 Operating Budget, amending the 2015 Capital Budget and Program, and appropriating funds for improvements to Suffolk County Sewer District No. 2 – Tallmadge Woods (CP 8188) (County Executive). Do I have a motion? Motion by Legislator Muratore. Second by Legislature Browning. Briefly, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: This resolution requests 200,000 to -- from the ASRF to install internal odor control systems at the treatment facility.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: Thank you. No one's objecting. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So moved. Approved (VOTE: 5-0-0-0).

IR 1645, Appropriating funds through the issuance of Sewer District Serial Bonds for the improvements to SD No. 7 – Woodside/Farber expansion (CP 8194)(Browning). Motion by Legislator Browning. Second by Legislator Muratore. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So moved. Approved (VOTE: 5-0-0-0).

IR 1653, Authorizing funds, amending the 2015 Capital Budget and Program, amending the 2015 Operating Budget, and accepting and appropriating Federal and State Aid in connection with an on board origin to destination survey for the Suffolk County Transit Bus System (CP 5655)(County Executive). Motion by Legislator Muratore. Second by Legislature Browning. This is a good program. Thank you for taking care of this. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So moved. Approved (VOTE: 5-0-0-0).

IR 1654, Authorizing funds to upgrade the Paratransit Reservation System for the Suffolk County Accessible Transportation (SCAT) Program, amending the 2015 Capital Budget and Program, amending the 2015 Operating Budget, and accepting and appropriating Federal and State Aid (CP 5659)(County Executive). Same motion, same second, same vote. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So moved. Approved (VOTE: 5-0-0-0).

IR 1655, Amending the 2015 Capital Budget and Program and amending the 2015 Operating Budget, authorizing the purchase of 3 Support Vehicles for the Suffolk County DPW/Transportation Division and accepting and appropriating Federal and State Aid and County funds (CP 5658). (Co. Exec.) Same motion, same second. On the motion.

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: This resolution requests $75,000 to purchase three new support vehicles for our transportation staff. The transportation division will use these not only to attend meetings but to conduct site visits, carry supplies, do field visits, do inspections, transport visiting contractors and employees of other agencies as well as conduct surveillance and transit busses during the normal yearly operating season. This will not increase the fleet. This is just a replacement of three vehicles which have aged, and I would just make note, too, that there is the federal and state cost share, the federal being 80 percent, 10 percent by the state, and 10 percent by the county.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: Thank you. All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So

5 PW 8/31/15

moved. Approved (VOTE: 5-0-0-0).

IR 1656, Authorizing an Intermunicipal Agreement with the Town of Southampton to accept funds associated with the strengthening and improvement of CR 80, Montauk Highway, Hampton Bays and amending the 2015 Capital Budget and Program (CP 5014)(County Executive). Motion by Legislator Stern. Second by Legislator Muratore. Is this in connection with the project that we discussed previously?

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: No, this is a separate project. Under this project, the county will be repaving and reconstructing County Road 80 Montauk Highway between New York State 24 and Bittersweet Road. The cost -- we opened bids, actually, on August 20, and the low bidder came in at $1.7 million, so this 600,000 from the town will be used to offset the cost of some of that construction.

CHAIRMAN KRUPSKI: Thank you. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So moved. Approved (VOTE: 5-0-0-0).

IR 1657, Adopting Local Law No. -2015, A Local Law to clarify affordable housing requirements at developments connecting to a County sewer district (Calarco). I'll make a motion to table for a public hearing. Second by Legislature Browning. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? So moved. Tabled/Public Hearing (VOTE: 5-0-0-0)

I would just like to say in connection with IR 1619, there was a question on the MOU that restricted hours to public access. I'm going to send you a memo asking, if I could, why those hours would be restricted because I come from a place where, you know, if it's public land, it should be open to the public, so you will receive that.

Does anyone have any other business? We're adjourned.

(The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.)

5