Regular Session - April 30, 2001
6182
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
April 30, 2001
3:07 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
6183
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
please come to order.
I ask everyone present to please
rise and repeat with me the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
THE PRESIDENT: In the absence of
clergy, may we bow our heads in a moment of
silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Friday, April 27, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Thursday,
April 26, was read and approved. On motion,
Senate adjourned.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
6184
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Madam
President.
On behalf of Senator LaValle, Madam
President, I move that the following bill be
discharged from its respective committee and
be recommitted with instructions to strike the
enacting clause. That's Senate 3910.
THE PRESIDENT: That's so
ordered, Senator.
SENATOR FARLEY: I offer the
following amendments to the following third
reading bills:
Senator Rath, page 18, Calendar
137, Senate Print 1457.
On behalf of Senator Saland, on
page 18, Calendar 145, Senate Print 396.
On behalf of Senator Maziarz, on
page 21, Calendar Number 184, Senate Print
6185
1899.
On behalf of Senator Padavan, on
page 28, Calendar 333, Senate Print 1815.
And also on behalf of Senator
Bruno, on page 29, Calendar 348, Senate Print
2373.
And also for Senator LaValle, on
page 33, Calendar 391, Senate Print 3292.
Madam President, I move that these
bills will also retain their place on the
Third Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received and adopted, Senator Farley, and
the bills will retain their place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
I hereby give notice that I will
move the Senate, pursuant to Rule XI, to add a
new rule, XV, to the Senate Rules, which will
deal with ethical standards for members,
officers and employees of the Senate.
If that notice could be recorded in
the Journal, Madam President.
6186
THE PRESIDENT: The notice has
been received, Senator Dollinger, and will be
filed in the Journal.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
would you please take up the noncontroversial
reading of the calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
269, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 3187A, an
act to amend the General City Law and others.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
270, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 3326A, an
act to authorize the Gingerbread Learning
Center, Incorporated.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
6187
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
289, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 391, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
334, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 2212, an
act to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay that
aside, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
354, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 2590, an
act to amend Chapter 246 of the Laws of 1916.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
418, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 14, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law and the
Education Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
6188
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
419, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 1552, an
act to amend the Town Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
432, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 4095, an
act to amend the Local Finance Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
434, by Member of the Assembly Weinstein,
Assembly Print Number 4248, an act to amend
Chapter 729 of the Laws of 1994.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
456, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 1967, an
6189
act to amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
463, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 3236, an
act to amend the Penal Law.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Lay it
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
Senator Kuhl, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR KUHL: Thank you, Madam
President. Can we return to the order of
motions and resolutions.
I believe that there's a privileged
resolution at the desk by Senator DeFrancisco.
And could we have the title of that read at
this time.
THE PRESIDENT: We'll return to
motions and resolutions.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
6190
DeFrancisco, Legislative Resolution Number
1551, honoring the OCM BOCES Health New Vision
Class in Syracuse for its participation in the
"Good News! Good Kids!" Youth Responsibility
Program.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes. Could you
recognize Senator DeFrancisco to speak on the
resolution, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I will,
Senator.
Senator DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I'm very
honored to have twelve young people who have
done great things in Onondaga County. They're
with OCM BOCES.
And basically this group are all
very highly motivated, educated people. And
many of them, the members will be happy to
know, are going to pursue nursing careers,
because we've all talked about the shortage of
nurses and what we can do to fill that gap.
6191
But these are high school people
that are going off to college, most of them;
some to the military. But the fact of the
matter is they all did great things for our
community, and most of them centered around
recognition of veterans. And being a veteran,
such as myself and many of us in the chambers,
we really appreciate their work. They did
charity work for veterans.
They got recognition for some of
the work that they've done, but not nearly as
much recognition that they should have. And
they were selected among many other high
school students who did other good deeds in
our community, and they won and came here to
Albany.
And the whole point of this
program -- and these students definitely
exemplify this -- is despite all the media
events that we hear about that are negative
about young people, these are the quality in
my community, the quality people who are all
going to be the leaders of tomorrow.
And I recognize each and every of
them and thank them from the bottom of my
6192
heart. And we wish you the success in
whatever field that you ultimately choose to
go into. And they are our future leaders.
Congratulations.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolution. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Madam
President. Now we would like to take up the
controversial reading of the calendar,
starting in regular order, with number one
being Senator McGee's bill.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read number one on the Calendar, Number
269.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
269, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 3187A, an
act to amend the General City Law, the Town
Law, and the Village Law, in relation to
6193
walls.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER:
Explanation.
SENATOR KUHL: Can we lay that
bill aside temporarily.
And I would ask the members who are
within the hearing of my voice, if you have a
bill on the calendar, let's be ready to debate
it when it's called. If not, it may be passed
over.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator Kuhl.
The bill is laid aside temporarily.
The Secretary will read the regular
calendar. I believe we're at 270.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
270, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 3326A, an
act to authorize the Gingerbread Learning
Center, Incorporated.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER:
Explanation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Marchi,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR MARCHI: Madam President,
the Gingerbread Learning Center is a preschool
6194
that serves autistic children.
And I'm sure many of you are
familiar with the severe problems that
autistic children have and the daunting
challenge that confronts those who try to help
them make their way. These are autistic
children between the ages of birth and five
years.
The school entered into a lease in
1990 with the BK-AR Construction Company to
lease the property at 80 Woodrow Avenue in
Staten Island. And at that time, the
developer applied for a tax abatement upon
completion of the building.
The school moved into the facility
in 1992 with a temporary certificate of
occupancy. However, by 1994 the developer had
not received the tax abatement yet, the
facility had not received the permanent
certificate of occupancy, and the developer
declared for bankruptcy.
Now, we have a rather difficult
situation confronting the Gingerbread Learning
Center that had purchased the facility from a
developer and completed the necessary work for
6195
the permanent certificate of occupancy and
applied for a tax exemption as a
non-for-profit corporation. And that
exemption was granted in 1995.
However, since the tax exemption
was granted by the City of New York in March
of '95, the center missed the January 15th
deadline to be exempt from property taxes for
the 1995-1996 fiscal year. This bill would
permit to the City of New York to waive this
deadline.
Now, the amount of the taxes, that
originally approximated $22,000, with penalty
and interest is now close to $60,000. This
would be a massive and most unwelcome and
inappropriate charge to levy against this
non-for-profit corporation carrying on,
against great adversity, the mission of the
Gingerbread Learning Center.
So I would hope, Madam President,
that this bill meets with your approval, since
I think that a very good case has been made
for the equitable definition of wholesome
policy in the face of these circumstances.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you,
6196
Senator Marchi. I think I'm going to support
this bill, but there are just some -- I just
have a couple of short questions that I just
don't understand what's happened here.
According to what I read, the
sponsor's memo says that they got the
certificate of occupancy of the building in
1995. And they didn't receive the tax
exemption status, tax-exempt status until
then. Okay, so I can see them -
SENATOR MARCHI: They're clearly
liable at this point.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Let me just
finish this question.
I can see them coming in and asking
for it in 1995, but they hadn't even applied
for it or received it until '95, and yet
they're asking for it for '94, '93, '92. If
you could explain.
SENATOR MARCHI: I'm informed,
Madam President, that that issue was covered
in '91 and '94. It did not -- they were not
eligible for it until the certificate of
occupancy had been delivered. So they're out
there with this liability. I don't think
6197
there's any question about the liability of
Gingerbread at this stage.
But they would apply to the City of
New York -- the developer had applied for the
tax abatement but had not received it. So
these people who had purchased it would appear
to be liable.
This would allow the City of New
York to accept an application for a waiver in
this case, because they're not ready to take
on a $60,000 hit at this point. It's just one
year, it's not . . .
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If the
Senator would yield for -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Marchi,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes, Madam
President.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Because I
just want to make sure.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: They only
received the tax exempt status as of '95.
SENATOR MARCHI: Right.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: But they
6198
had applied earlier in '94, '93, '92, '91?
SENATOR MARCHI: No, they applied
in 1995. I don't think there's any question
about the liability here.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Well, then
I have another question -
SENATOR MARCHI: But on the other
hand, there is the awesome responsibility they
carry to meet this charge. They would -- they
would otherwise -- they are a genuine
non-for-profit. Hopefully, by their own
judgment, a very desirable facility, and in
the public interest to have it operate. But
they have this great debt now facing them.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: No, no,
I -- and that's why I applaud so much the work
they do. My heart goes out to them. I mean,
they have to worry about financial things when
they have this other huge burden.
SENATOR MARCHI: So this gives
them the authority to apply for the waiver.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: The only
other question I have -- and I will be
supporting the bill, but I'm trying to
understand.
6199
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Marchi,
will you yield for an additional question?
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes. Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay, this
is my last question.
The building appeared, through the
memo, the sponsor's memo, to be owned by BK-AR
Construction prior to 1995. Wasn't the
construction company liable for the taxes
during the years that we're offering this
rebate?
SENATOR MARCHI: Well, again, as
I stated earlier, they went into bankruptcy,
the builder. So this kicked in just a little
too late for tears. That's what they're left
with.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay.
Well, on the bill.
It's just a series of circumstances
that really have brought us to this point.
And I can think of no more difficult work than
working with autistic children. And these
people should not have the added -- these
6200
added financial burdens of making back that
taxes when they have this enormous burden to
carry on their -- the really blessed work that
they do.
So I'm voting for it. I hope
everybody will.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes. Through
you, Madam President, will the distinguished
Senator yield for another question, based upon
previous questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Marchi,
will you yield?
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes, Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: What I don't
understand is why should they be asking for a
tax abatement -- and this is similar to
Senator Oppenheimer's question, which wasn't
fully answered -- prior to their taking over
ownership of the building. In '92, '93, '94,
they didn't own the building. They obviously
gained control of the building in '95, '96,
according to the sponsor's information.
6201
So why should they be asking for
this tax abatement during a three-year period
when they were not in control of the building?
SENATOR MARCHI: The '92 to '94
had been resolved, and the builder had gone
into bankruptcy.
So when they took over and they
were certified, their occupancy was certified,
it was just too late to comply with the
requirement for the request for an exemption
for that one year.
SENATOR LACHMAN: One final
question, Madam President, with your
permission.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: So are you
saying, then, that they're not asking for a
tax abatement for years '92, '93, '94 -
SENATOR MARCHI: No. No.
SENATOR LACHMAN: -- but they're
6202
just asking for a tax abatement -
SENATOR MARCHI: That's correct.
SENATOR LACHMAN: So the
sponsor's memo was not clear on that, as I
read it.
SENATOR MARCHI: They're
bankrupt, the prior developer. And so when it
did kick in, it was just too late to -
SENATOR LACHMAN: On the bill.
As Senator Oppenheimer said, it's a
wonderful institution. I've heard of it. It
does great work with autistic children, and
more work has to be done. And I will be
supporting the bill, though I'm not certain or
completely sure of some of the issues relating
to it. It's a wonderful institution and
should be supported.
Thank you.
SENATOR MARCHI: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
6203
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
289, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 391, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to increasing.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
SENATOR KUHL: Lay it aside
temporarily.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
The Secretary will continue.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
334, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 2212, an
act to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law,
in relation to the producer referendum.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kuhl, an
6204
explanation has been requested by Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR KUHL: This is a very
simple bill.
There's a requirement for a vote to
be taken in certain circumstances under the
Agriculture and Markets Law. This bill would
change the current law which requires for a
percentage of all people who are members to be
changed to a successful vote being a certain
percentage of all those casting their vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Would the
sponsor yield to a question or two?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kuhl,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR KUHL: Be happy to.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Is there any
minimum number of votes that would be
necessary to establish a quorum?
SENATOR KUHL: No. No.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Again through
you, Madam President, generally, how many milk
6205
producers would be eligible to participate in
this type of vote?
SENATOR KUHL: There's no,
really, basis for an answer to you, Senator.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Again through
you, Madam President -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kuhl, do
you yield for a question?
SENATOR KUHL: Be happy to.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Then there runs
the possibility that if there was only one
milk producer who voted, then that vote by
that milk producer would then become the
establishment of the different price; is that
correct?
SENATOR KUHL: That's correct.
SENATOR BRESLIN: And again, one
final question, would -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, would
you yield for a final question?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Breslin.
6206
SENATOR BRESLIN: And if that one
vote in fact did happen, would then that be
the price established for milk throughout the
State of New York?
SENATOR KUHL: No. It deals with
marketing orders, and marketing orders vary
throughout the state. So what you're
dealing -- and that's why I couldn't give you
a definitive answer to the first question you
asked, Senator.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Okay. Thank
you very much, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Senator Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Yes,
just one question, Madam President. If in
fact the -
SENATOR DUANE: Senator Kuhl,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR KUHL: I'll be happy to
yield, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Hassell-Thompson.
6207
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Having
grown up in an urban city, I would know
nothing about dairy farming. So I would like
to just ask you this one question.
Through you, Madam President, what
are the procedures to implement an emergency
milk pricing using the Rogers-Allen law?
SENATOR KUHL: Well, there has to
be a petition by a number of people who
actually ask for a vote to be taken, as my
recollection is, Senator.
As you may know, there are several
milk -- it's what they call a milk marketing
order. It's in a geographical area that's
established currently by federal legislation.
That holds true throughout the entire country.
Over the past several years, there
has been an attempt by the federal government
to minimize those orders in number. And
they -- but they still exist. What those
orders do is establish a minimum price to be
paid for certain classifications of milk
that's sold.
Some classifications are fluid milk
that you drink; that's Class 1. There are
6208
others established for cheese and other kinds
of situations that exist.
Several years ago, there was what
was called the RCMA, it was an organization
that was established to create a better than
minimum order price, so that the farmers would
get paid at least their cost of production.
What this -- one of the downfalls of the
current law was that the farmers could not get
a large enough vote to continue that order.
Over-order pricing is what they called it.
And one of the reasons was exactly
this reason, and that is because a higher -
66 2/3 percentage of all people who were in
the position in that -- of those orders were
required to vote in the affirmative. And what
you found was that it's very, very difficult,
as you know, Senator, having been just
elected, to get all people to vote.
And so we only require, for us to
be successful, 50 plus 1 percent to actually
vote in the affirmative. If we were all
required to get 66 2/3 of all those people who
were registered, there probably wouldn't be
many of us sitting here in this chamber. We'd
6209
have a lot of void seats.
So what this is is a practical
approach to a problem to allow a group of
individuals who are looking for a price higher
than what the federal government establishes
as their minimum to actually set that price.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, through you, Madam President. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Kuhl, the acting
Majority Leader, would yield for a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kuhl,
will you yield?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, I'd be happy
to.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. You
may proceed with a question, Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
thought you made a good point. Any
possibility of changing what would be the
threshold that the farmers would actually have
to meet in order to vote in some of the
ordered pricing?
SENATOR KUHL: Well, that's -
6210
essentially, that's what this bill does,
Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: In other
words, Madam President, if the Senator would
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
continue to yield? Senator Kuhl, I assume -
SENATOR PATERSON: Beyond this
bill, that would actually -
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: I'm sorry,
Madam President.
Beyond this bill, that would
actually cure the -- I wasn't clear that this
would actually cure that actual situation.
SENATOR KUHL: This is one
approach, Senator. As you may remember, about
I think three years ago we passed in this
house, and we had a very difficult time
getting the Assembly to agree, what we call a
bill that would allow New York State to enter
into what's called the Northeast Dairy
Compact. And I think that's probably what
your question was entailing.
6211
The Northeast Dairy Compact now
stands waiting for the federal government to
allow us to join the other Northeastern
states -- states like Vermont, Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, Maine, that have already joined.
There are a couple of other states like
Pennsylvania and New Jersey who would join
right with us, but it would have to be
contiguous. So we stand as a roadblock to the
entrance of those states into the Northeast
Dairy Compact.
We're very, very hopeful that in
fact the federal government will recognize our
request and allow us to join that. That in
effect would allow for a price to be
established through that mechanism for
farmers.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you very
much, Madam President. On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: I'm satisfied.
I thought there were a couple of other
measures that would need to be taken, and
Senator Kuhl has satisfied me that that's
6212
actually the case, his answer to me and his
response to Senator Thompson's question, who
he rightly pointed out is in her first year.
And incidentally, Senator Kuhl many
times has acted as the Temporary President,
Madam President, and in those days never ruled
me out of order, because I've never broken the
rules here in the house. And as you know,
Madam President, my points are always
well-taken. I would never even think of being
out of order.
If I were out of order, I would say
something like the fact that Helene McFarland
is here all the way from St. Thomas today, but
I didn't say that because that would be out of
order. The fact that her mother, Senator Ruth
Hassell-Thompson, is in the chamber, it's her
first time she's come to visit her, I would
never mention anything like that, Madam
President, because -
THE PRESIDENT: And thank you so
much for your observance of the rules.
SENATOR PATERSON: -- that would
be out of order.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
6213
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Madam
President. May we now return back to Calendar
Number 269, by Senator McGee.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar Number 269.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
269, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 3187A, an
act to amend the General City Law, the Town
Law, and the Village Law.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER:
Explanation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee,
Senator Oppenheimer has asked for an
explanation.
6214
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly. Thank
you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR McGEE: This bill extends
the authority of a town or village to permit
the street encroachments exceeding 6 inches
the public right of way on local streets and
roads.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If the
Senator would yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR McGEE: Absolutely.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Why?
SENATOR McGEE: Why? Because
many times in the rural areas -- and as a
matter of fact, in the olden days, if you
will, before roads became paved, before roads
became the thoroughfare that we actually have
nowadays, buildings were built and now, as the
roads have widened, they've become
encroachments on those roads. So there is a
6215
6-inch wall right now that says if a building
is 6 inches in an encroachment, then they are
in fact in an encroachment and have to be
moved.
This extends that and gives the
municipality the opportunity to extend that
6 inches beyond. So, you know, the old corner
drugstore doesn't have to be moved back
6 inches.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Through
you, another question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR McGEE: Sure.
Absolutely.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I think
maybe I was interpreting this the reverse way,
that there was going to be permission to
extend that 6-inch encroachment even further.
SENATOR McGEE: Yes, that's
exactly what I said, only I must have said it
differently.
If the building is 6 inches right
6216
now in an encroachment, rather than having to
move that building back 6 inches to comply
with the current law, this gives the
municipality the authority, and the
municipality can do it themselves, they can
give it to the county DPW, whichever way they
want to -- it gives that agency the authority
to extend that 6 inches out maybe to 7, to 8,
to 9 inches, wherever that building stands
right now, so that that old corner drugstore
or the old corner buildings don't have to be
moved back.
This happened because in many -
you know, in the olden days, many times these
buildings were built without the right of way
even coming into consideration.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay.
Well, I think I'm getting it.
Through you, Madam President, is
this because the street is being widened
rather than the building is being expanding?
SENATOR McGEE: I'm sorry, yes,
Madam President, yes, I certainly will.
Through you, Madam President. And
I suspect in many cases it's when they're
6217
coming in to do a repair job, a construction
job on the road itself and find out, all of a
sudden, whoa, this building is 6 inches into
an encroachment.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay, I do
have it now.
Another question or two.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee,
will you yield for an additional question?
SENATOR McGEE: Absolutely.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Is this
going to apply to all buildings? In other
words, it wouldn't matter whether it was
commercial or residential or -
SENATOR McGEE: Yes, ma'am.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: It's all
buildings.
SENATOR McGEE: Yes, ma'am.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: And I think
that the only other question -- but, no, I
think I've answered them all.
You've done a fine job, Senator.
Thank you very much.
6218
SENATOR McGEE: You have too,
Senator. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you,
Madam President. If the sponsor would yield
for a question or two.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee,
will you yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Absolutely.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you,
Madam President, through you.
I'm curious, in reading the
sponsor's memorandum here in justification, it
indicates that the property, should it be over
the 6-inch encroachment which is now allowed,
faces very dire consequences; i.e., few would
buy the property, no lending institution would
take a mortgage relating to the property,
often the property is abandoned.
Are we might be overstating the
case a little bit, or is this situation that
serious?
SENATOR McGEE: No, the situation
6219
is that serious on many occasions. On many
occasions, if the building is deemed to be in
the encroachment, in an encroachment area,
many banks and lending institutions will not
back up a mortgage of any type.
So that it is -- we are not
overstating that. I suspect it doesn't happen
that much in a metropolitan area or a suburban
area, but it does happen in our rural areas,
yes.
SENATOR GENTILE: Through you,
Madam President, if the Senator would -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield for another question?
SENATOR McGEE: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: So there have
been actual cases of property that falls into
this realm that have either been abandoned or
mortgages have not been able to be obtained on
these properties?
SENATOR McGEE: That's correct,
yes.
6220
SENATOR GENTILE: I see. And on
the bill, Madam President.
Thank you, Senator.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you.
Not, as Senator McGee so aptly
states, being in an urban area, this might not
be as severe a problem as in other parts of
the State of New York, and that's why I
questioned Senator McGee as to the severity of
this problem.
And given the fact that she was
so -- articulated so well the problem in other
parts of the state, it seems clear that this
is something that we need to do in order to -
it's a reasonable approach to this problem.
So certainly, Senator McGee, this
is a good bill, and it's a good bill even
because -- it's added to because of the fact
that we have several Democrats on this side of
the aisle that are sponsors of this bill in
addition to your name on the sponsorship. So
we congratulate you for that, and we thank you
for that.
And certainly I will be voting in
6221
favor.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator McGee would yield for a
question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield for a question?
SENATOR McGEE: I most certainly
will. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. I'm just curious as to
whether or not this license runs with the
property or with the owner. If the property
is reconveyed, does the new owner have to
apply for the license? Or is the variance
caused by the license running continually in
perpetuity with the property?
SENATOR McGEE: The license
exists until the -- until there's a need
for -- until there's a question as to whether
it impedes traffic or transportation or any
kind of safety thing. So the license goes
with the property.
6222
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes. Could you
now call up Calendar Number 354 and continue
in regular order then.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar Number 354 and continue in
regular order.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
354, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 2590, an
act to amend Chapter 246 of the Laws of 1916.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER:
Explanation.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Explanation,
please.
6223
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle,
Senator Lachman and Senator Oppenheimer have
asked for an explanation.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes. Thank
you, Madam President.
This legislation would increase the
budget and the amount that can be spent by the
Orient mosquito district. This district is in
the town of Southold, was established in
September of 1916. And on a regular basis
from 1916 forward, we have increased the
amount, the last being Chapter 196 of the Laws
of 1996, and that amount was to $50,000. We
are asking this body to increase that to
$80,000.
That's the legislation, Madam
President.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If Senator
LaValle would yield.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I'm really
6224
interested in this. We have the same problem,
I think. So I'm going to ask a few questions.
Number one, I'm not quite sure why
the town has to come to us for legislation to
spend additional money in their budgets.
SENATOR LAVALLE: It's not,
Senator. And I'm glad you asked that question
in order for me to clarify this.
The -- there is a hamlet called
Orient in the township of Southold Town. By
statute, we created a special district called
a mosquito district. And so this is a
separate district just the way we create -
this Legislature has created ambulance
districts, sidewalk districts, lighting
districts.
The only one of its kind, I
believe, is in the town of Southold, which is
a special district that has its own budget,
called the Orient mosquito district. And it
was created in the fine year of 1916.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If Senator
LaValle would yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle,
will you yield?
6225
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Senator
LaValle, we don't have separate budgets for
our sewer districts where we come up here and
ask for permission, or for our water districts
or for our garbage districts. We all know
what special districts are. Why is this
different?
SENATOR LAVALLE: That's a good
question.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Why is this
different from all other districts?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Why is this
district different from every other district?
Because we, by statute, because the good
people of the town of Southold, being very
frugal and very mindful that you can only
spend what you have, statutorily put into
place that you can only spend what your budget
is -- under the present statute, $50,000.
In the fine year of 1916, it was
established at $800. And all these years
between 1916 and today, we went from $800 to
6226
$50,000. So we are asking for an increase in
the amount that can be spent to $80,000.
Now, I know that your question,
which is a good one, is that we should just
take off the handcuffs. But the good people
of Southold, that are New Englanders by stock
and tradition, want these caps and these
limits so that people don't get carried away
and spend a lot more money than they want to
spend.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Through
you, Madam President, if the Senator would
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle,
will you yield?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Now, as I
understand it, this is being paid by the
municipality.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator -
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Yes? No.
SENATOR LAVALLE: -- let's take
6227
another step back. This is -
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay. By
the district, all right. By the district.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Thank you. By
the people who live in the district.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Right.
Now, this is really such a unique
circumstance, this particular district, that I
don't think it applies to almost any other
district in the state. But -
SENATOR LAVALLE: That is
correct.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Let me
question, has the county thought to do
mosquito control and research as a county
endeavor? Because mosquitos are not clever
enough to know that they should stay in X
municipality or X district. They have a
tendency to fly all around. And therefore,
would it not be something that your county
might be interested in handling?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, as you
know, that counties throughout the state
handle this matter through their health
departments. And so on the other side of the
6228
hamlet of Orient, the county is handling
mosquito control.
And as you know, in this these 84
or so years, 86 years of time that has gone
by, people have handed down this tradition of
serving on the district, mosquito control
district, and coming before this Legislature
and asking for a dollar amount. And there's
great debate within the hamlet of Orient as to
what should we go and ask the Legislature to
increase the amount that can be spent.
And so there's something else
that's very, very important, Senator. And I
think many of the members in this chamber
know, because of the West Nile virus, there
has been great debate in each of our counties
as to how do you deal with and what should be
applied and what methodologies and what times
of the day.
And that's the very reason why the
people in Orient will always want to keep this
district, because -- and I've talked to the
people who do the applications and so forth,
is they go literally from house to house and
they talk to people. And they let them know
6229
that they're using larvicide. And they say -
they tell them the times that this is going to
be applied. And everyone understands what's
going on.
It's not being done by, in quotes,
some big government outside of the hamlet of
Orient. And so they all are basically
communicating and taking care of their problem
and have done so for these more than 80 years.
And it's worked.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay. I
think this is my last question, if the Senator
would yield.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you will
yield.
You may proceed, Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Outside of
this one district, is most of the rest of
Suffolk handled by the county government as
far as mosquito control?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, this
is an anomaly in the entire state. So the
answer to your question is outside of this
6230
hamlet, the County of Suffolk, through their
health department, takes care of mosquito
control.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay.
Thanks a lot. I appreciate that.
On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: This is a
really important issue for us downstate. In
Suffolk and in Westchester County, we have the
two highest incidences of West Nile virus
being transmitted. And we have put a lot of
effort and study into this in my county of
Westchester, and I just wanted to know how
things were handled in Suffolk.
And the concept of having counties
control obviously is, I think, self-evident,
that the mosquitos don't stay in just one
small district, they tend to move around and
you have to have one coordinated policy.
Because you can't have different policies
every few miles, it won't be effective.
So I'm happy to hear that the
county basically has control and that this is
6231
sort of an anomaly. And if the anomaly has
been there for all these years, we'll permit
the anomaly, with my vote, at least, to
continue. But it is very unique.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: There's a home
rule message at the desk.
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
418, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 14, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law and the
Education Law, in relation to the taxable
status.
SENATOR ONORATO: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright,
an explanation has been requested.
6232
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Madam
President.
The bill this afternoon amends the
Real Property Tax Law and provides for an
optional alternative procedure to establishing
values of nuclear generating assets throughout
the state and the methodology by which they
pay revenues to local governments.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Madam
President, will the sponsor yield for a couple
of questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator, what's
the procedure that they use to assess nuclear
power plants at the present time?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Well, at the
present time they are treated as specialty
properties, so they are subject to advisory
opinions and evaluation from the New York
6233
State Office of Real Property Tax Services.
But aside from that, they are
placed on the assessment rolls by the local
assessors like any other parcel of real
property in New York State.
SENATOR ONORATO: If the Senator
will continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright,
do you yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I do, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR ONORATO: How many power
plants in the state would be affected by this
legislation right now?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Well, at the
current time it would affect three in
Westchester County, three in Oswego County,
and one in Ontario County.
SENATOR ONORATO: If you'll
continue to yield, Senator.
SENATOR WRIGHT: I'll continue to
yield, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
6234
Senator.
SENATOR ONORATO: Now, has the
sale agreement with the nuclear plants to
purchase Nine Mile River facilities, including
the tax agreements or PILOTs, such as the
legislation would apply?
SENATOR WRIGHT: If the question
is, Senator, does those sale agreements change
or is it affected in any way by this bill, the
answer is no. They are separate and distinct.
By virtue of the local governments
having negotiated those agreements, they are
seeking legislation that will provide for
long-term stability and being authorized by
the Legislature as opposed to a one-year
series of -- excuse me. As opposed to 15
one-year agreements, they would like to have
one 15-year agreement.
SENATOR ONORATO: One last
question, Madam President, if the Senator
would continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright,
do you yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Yes, Madam
President, I will.
6235
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. You
may proceed.
SENATOR ONORATO: I'm sure that
you think this is probably good. If it's good
for the nuclear power plants, would it also
not be good for the rest of our power
generating plants throughout the state?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Well, we chose
not to predetermine that, Senator. Actually,
the original bill sent over the Office of Real
Property Tax Service provided a similar
procedure for all electrical generating assets
in the state.
Frankly, because of the difference
between those assets and their varying
differences of assessed value, the differences
in the markets themselves between, say,
hydropower versus fossil fuel versus nuclear,
and because nuclear had the single largest
impact on any of the tax bases, it was decided
to treat nuclear first, start with that, and
see if that in fact would serve as a model.
And, if that was effective, then perhaps
extend it to the other generating assets from
the state.
6236
But rather than take everybody on
and have such a combination of assets coming
on at one time under a new formula, we decided
to isolate it to a limited number and start
with that.
SENATOR ONORATO: One final
question.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Yes, Madam
President.
SENATOR ONORATO: Has any of the
counties or areas raised any opposition to
this particular legislation?
SENATOR WRIGHT: No. In fact,
Senator, the county that I represent has
provided a local resolution supporting the
need for having an alternative system. They
recognize that that needs to be done. So
that's the only formal response that we have.
There are other versions that have
certainly been discussed. But at this point
I'm not aware of any formal opposition, as
opposed to a high degree of formal support.
SENATOR ONORATO: Thank you,
Senator.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you,
6237
Senator.
SENATOR ONORATO: On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR ONORATO: I want to
compliment Senator Wright for the bill. I
think it's a pretty good bill, and I certainly
do intend to vote for it. And I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 418 are
Senators Duane, Hassell-Thompson, Hevesi, and
LaValle. Ayes, 54. Nays, 4.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
419, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 1552, an
6238
act to amend the Town Law, in relation to
permitting.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle,
an explanation has been requested by Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator
Paterson, this bill would add to the Town Law
in allowing fire districts to not only
purchase equipment for purposes of fighting
fires, but also allow them to lease, still
being consistent with all of the finance laws
that -- the General Municipal Law that applies
to the purchasing of equipment.
So this merely allows them to lease
equipment rather than purchase it. That's it,
Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: I'm
overwhelmed.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
6239
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, was Senator Hassell-Thompson trying
to be recognized? I wondered if you might
have missed that.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't see her
if she was, Senator Paterson.
Senator Hassell-Thompson, do you
wish to be recognized?
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, I appreciate that.
If the Senator will yield, I did
have a couple of questions. Oh, the bill is
passed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, we would need unanimous consent to
6240
withdraw the roll call if we had unanimous
consent. Otherwise, we don't.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the roll call is withdrawn.
Hearing no objection, going once, going -- the
roll call is withdrawn.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: I believe we
have to reconsider the vote by which the bill
was passed, and then we can -- if you would
call the roll on reconsideration, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll
upon reconsideration.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
419, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 1552, an
act to amend the Town Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll
upon reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The roll call is
now withdrawn. The bill is before the house.
Senator Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
6241
you, Madam President. And thank you to my
colleagues.
I just had a quick couple of
questions if the Senator will yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR LAVALLE: If I said no,
it would have made that whole process quite in
vain, wouldn't it, Senator?
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: It
wouldn't have invalidated the process, but I
thank you for not saying no.
Through you, Madam President.
Senator, I notice that Article 11 of the Town
Law authorizes town boards of one or more
towns to establish this district. Does this
also effect city law, is my question. For
municipalities -- for cities.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, I
would say no. Because the process that
establishes a fire district is what is
followed. So within the city, you have a
6242
citywide district, I believe.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: I
think you're relating to New York City. If
you will, Madam President, through you. I
think what you're describing is New York City.
But I also represent Westchester, a portion of
Westchester County, which is under the
county's jurisdiction.
And in those cities -- what I
wondered is if this law applies to those
cities outside of New York City.
SENATOR LAVALLE: I would assume,
if there's an established fire district, that
it would.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you. If the Senator will continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Would
there be limitations on the types of equipment
that could be leased?
SENATOR LaVALLE: Yes. It talks
6243
about -- while we talk about those pieces of
equipment that are in the extinguishment -
and if you read the bill right along, it talks
about may purchase or lease apparatus and
equipment for the extinguishment and the
prevention of fires, and for the purposes of
emergency rescue and first aid and fire/police
squads.
So that could include, for
instance, an automobile for the police chief,
or it could include various computerized
equipment that we use in mapping out routes
for the fire trucks. So there are some
tangential pieces of equipment that go beyond,
let's say, a fire truck, but are used as part
of the fire-fighting apparatus.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: On the
bill, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Senator.
One of the reasons that I asked the
question is because, having come from the city
of Mount Vernon and being a city council
person, we had some equipment that probably
6244
was the first piece that they bought after
they took horses off. And we continue to use
those primarily because to pass the bond in
order to purchase new equipment becomes very,
very difficult.
So I recognize for townships it has
to be equally, if not greater in difficulty in
posting bonds for trucks that at this point
may cost as much as $600,000 or better. And
without some matching funds from the feds,
this becomes very difficult.
So I am in support. I just needed
to be sure that this would in fact be
something that would allow municipalities
other than towns to be able to participate in.
Because I certainly know that when you have to
replace major pieces of equipment at better
than a half million dollars apiece, it really
becomes burdensome for most of our
municipalities.
Thank you again, Madam President.
Thank you, Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
6245
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
432, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 4095, an
act to amend the Local Finance Law, in
relation to statutory installment bonds.
SENATOR HEVESI: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath, an
explanation has been requested by Senator
Hevesi.
SENATOR RATH: Madam President,
this bill allows for local governments and
public corporations to issue and sell
statutory installment bonds rather than only
serial bonds to the New York State
Environmental Facilities Corporation, in a
principal amount in excess of a million
dollars at either a fixed rate of interest or,
6246
if the bond provides for serial maturities, at
a rate set for each maturity which is fixed on
the date of the issuance.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President. Would the sponsor please yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath -
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath does
yield. You may proceed, Senator.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, I
have a few questions on this issue. I read
the sponsor's memo, so I believe I have a
fairly good understanding of what you're
attempting to accomplish here.
My first question for you, Senator,
is the -- one of the reasons, according to the
memo, that this is necessary is that there are
twenty different debt instruments which have
to be issued right now, if you're issuing
serial bonds as opposed to installment bonds.
And so this is simply a mechanism that would
reduce clerical errors or other -- or, you
know, using extra paper. Is that -
6247
SENATOR RATH: That's it.
SENATOR HEVESI: Am I correct?
SENATOR RATH: That's it,
Senator. You have it.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President. Would the sponsor continue to
yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath,
will you yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President. What I'm a little bit less clear
on is the issue of the one million dollar
limit. So could you explain the implications
of lifting the $1 million cap right now and
maybe explore the reason why that limit
existed in the first place and why it's not a
problem to lift it now?
SENATOR RATH: The limit of a
million dollars was available before, but it
was not done -- couldn't be done before -- I
mean before, which is right now, in just one
bond. It had to be in more than one bond if
it was more than a million dollars.
6248
This way -- and you were right on,
and your first answer was correct, in that it
would alleviate all the paperwork because of
the multiple people who are involved in a deal
like that and the -- as the bonds mature and
giving the payouts, et cetera, it's a very
clerically intense kind of activity.
But the million dollars was -
which is at level right now, was never -
well, not a cap as such. My counsel is
advising me, and he's right. It was just a
mechanism for how it could be disbursed, how
the debt could be disbursed.
SENATOR HEVESI: Okay. Thank
you, Madam President. If the sponsor would
yield to an additional question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: My understanding
is that there are a great many projects that
are financed through this mechanism here which
we're adjusting here today. What kind of
6249
projects are we looking at, and have we seen
an expansion in the financing of these types
of environmental projects where we're seeing a
trending upwards in the issuance of debt to
support those projects?
SENATOR RATH: Well, let me point
out a couple to you. And you've hit a very
important point.
And I believe the reason that we
were requested to introduce this legislation,
the EFC has issued 5.3 billion in bonds under
the Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund and
530 million under the Drinking Water Revolving
Loan Fund. And it's critically needed.
Obviously these projects are critically needed
for localities as they attempt to improve
their environmental circumstances.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Madam President, if the sponsor
would yield to a final question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Hevesi.
6250
SENATOR HEVESI: I can see if we
pass this legislation how it would ease the
bureaucratic burdens for EFC. Does the
passage of this bill have a similar effect for
local governments who are winding their way
through this process? Are we easing their
burden right now if we pass this bill?
SENATOR RATH: Absolutely,
Senator. It will be a much easier process for
the local governments.
SENATOR HEVESI: Okay. Thank you
very much. Thank the sponsor. Thank you,
Madam President.
SENATOR RATH: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
6251
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
434, by Member of the Assembly Weinstein,
Assembly Print Number 4248, an act to amend
Chapter 729 of the Laws of 1994.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Farley,
an explanation has been requested by Senator
Stavisky, I believe.
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes. This is a
one-year extender of Chapter 729 of the laws
of 1994, which was previously extended in
2000, 1999, '98, '97, '96, and '95. Chapter
47 of 2000 currently expires on May 15th, in
just a few days. And this bill continues for
one year, until May 15, 2002, the protection
of health insurance benefits granted to
retired school employees.
Basically, this companion bill
passed the Assembly unanimously on March 19th.
Under the 1994 law, which was
extended by this bill, retirees of school
districts and BOCES are guaranteed
continuation of their existing health
insurance coverage unless the school
negotiates a corresponding change in benefits
6252
with the active employees.
This particular piece of
legislation protects senior citizens and
retired people -- bus drivers, teachers,
everybody that works for the school system -
from changes in their health insurance unless
they change it for all the employees.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: If the sponsor
would yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you yield,
Senator Farley?
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR STAVISKY: This bill has
seen a lot of sunsets, I see. Can you,
Mr. Farley, explain why the bill has so many
sunsets and not a permanent provision?
SENATOR FARLEY: There is a
permanent bill currently -- I think it's on
the Senate calendar right now. Let me see if
I can give you the number of it. Well, 377.
Legislation is currently on the Senate
calendar. It's been introduced in both
6253
houses. It's on third reading here in the
Senate. It's 377 to make it permanent.
But as we approach this May 15th
date, we've got to do at least this. Now, if
we pass the permanent one, which I would -- I
certainly would support and like, then it has
no bearing on this particular bill because -
but we cannot let it expire.
And this bill -- this is a bill -
we do a lot of bills here, but this is one
that's on its way to the Governor, which would
be signed in the next few days.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Oh. I'm happy
to hear that, Mr. Farley.
On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Senator
Farley. I apologize.
SENATOR FARLEY: That's all
right.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I apologize.
SENATOR FARLEY: Apology
accepted.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I forgot the
6254
title for a second.
I think this bill is crucial. And
I think it's crucial because it's unfair to
have older people in the situation of
uncertainty and flux. They have to know that
their health coverage is preserved, that it's
going to be protected, and that -- they
shouldn't have to come to the Legislature each
year, hat in hand, asking for this
legislation.
This sort of, to me, goes along
with the COLA that we based last year to make
it permanent. Each year the older adults -- I
hate the word "seniors" -- the older adult
population has to come and beg. And I think
that's demeaning, and I think it's wrong, and
I think we certainly ought to make this
permanent.
My father was a retiree from the -
a teacher who had retired -- lived 30 years
beyond his retirement date, 25 years beyond
the date he retired. And each year he would
ask, "Are they going to pass the COLA?" And I
think the seniors who are covered by this bill
are in the same situation.
6255
It's something that we ought to
make permanent, and I certainly hope that that
happens very soon.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
456, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 1967, an
act to amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules,
6256
in relation to authorizing.
SENATOR BROWN: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Larkin,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR LARKIN: By who?
THE PRESIDENT: By Senator Brown.
SENATOR LARKIN: Senator Brown,
this is a bill that was requested by the
Attorney General, Mr. Spitzer.
Basically, this bill permits the
law enforcement officials to retain electronic
equipment that has been seized and forfeited
during criminal proceedings. This equipment
can then be utilized by such law enforcement
officials for their law enforcement use.
This bill was passed in '97 and
'98. And the bill actually just amends
something that we're doing to add this in so
that they can take advantage of this equipment
to be used by law enforcement, and it saves
them and their money.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Through you,
Madam President, would Senator Larkin yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
6257
yield?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Senator, I'm in
favor of this. But I'm wondering, through
this seizure would the municipality, separate
from the police department, also be able to
use the equipment?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes. There's a
procedure in here about how you go about
getting it. The law operates that the
claiming agent -- in other words, if the town
is the one that's involved in it, they get
first bids on that equipment. If not, it goes
back in to the district attorney or the
attorney general. If there's no use for it
there, then it will go to auction.
SENATOR BROWN: Okay. Thank you.
That's all I have.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
6258
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
463, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 3236, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
unlawful defilement.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Leibell,
Senator Duane has requested an explanation.
SENATOR LEIBELL: Thank you,
Madam President.
This bill would add a new article,
270.08, to the Penal Law, to create the new
crime of the unlawful defilement of a water
supply. A person would be guilty of this new
crime if they intentionally introduced,
placed, or caused to be introduced or placed
into the water supply a defiling agent, with
the intent to cause or with the reckless
6259
disregard of causing the sickness, physical
injury, severe disfigurement or death of
another human being, or with the intent to
cause irreparable harm to such water supply or
to disturb the public peace.
Pursuant to this legislation, the
term "water supply" would mean any public or
private transmission facility, treatment
facility, source of supply facility, well, or
reservoir which provides potable water for
residential, commercial, industrial and/or
fire service needs.
A defiling agent would be defined
as any chemical, biological, or radioactive
agent or substance which is capable, when
introduced or placed into a water supply, of
causing the sickness, physical injury, severe
disfigurement, or death of a human being, or
causing irreparable harm to such water supply
or causing a disturbance to the public peace.
Pursuant to this legislation, a
defiling agent would not include a substance
which is introduced or placed into a water
supply by any municipal or state entity or by
any agricultural or industrial entity as a
6260
result of its ordinary, lawful operations.
Presently there is currently no
crime which addresses the unlawful defilement
of a water supply. Although other criminal
conduct may cover such action, such as
criminal tampering, a Class D felony, there is
no direct criminal sanction for an activity
that can cause such severe potential harm.
Clean, safe, potable water is
indispensable to our society and our state.
Because of natural conditions and the
quantities consumed, our water supplies are
often publicly exposed and readily accessible
to those who might wish to cause mass harm.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. If
the sponsor would yield for a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Leibell,
will you yield?
SENATOR LEIBELL: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. You
may proceed, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. What
happens now if someone defiles water?
SENATOR LEIBELL: It's
6261
conceivable that it would be covered under a
criminal tampering statute.
The reason for this bill is there's
not a specific statute that would cover it.
Depending on the conduct, it could conceivably
not be covered.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Leibell,
will you yield for another question?
SENATOR LEIBELL: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: If you put
cyanide in the water, would that be covered
under this bill or preexisting law?
SENATOR LEIBELL: Yes, it would.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR LEIBELL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
6262
SENATOR DUANE: Is there an
amount of cyanide being put in the water that
might cause one of these bills to be -- this
bill or present law to be used?
SENATOR LEIBELL: It's a
biological agent, so it would be covered under
this legislation. Not by amount.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR LEIBELL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane?
SENATOR DUANE: Is there anything
in New York State law or regulation right now
that covers cyanide being in water?
SENATOR LEIBELL: There may be
regulations.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President. But no law?
SENATOR LEIBELL: I'm not aware
of any.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
6263
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes, Madam
President, can we call at this time Calendar
Number 289.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar Number 289.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
289, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 391, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to increasing.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
6264
Senator Duane has requested an explanation.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you, Madam
President.
This bill provides for a mandatory
license suspension for repeat drunk driving
offenses, a mandatory five-year revocation of
a driver's license when a person is convicted
of a DWI or DWAI drugs for the third time in
ten years.
It also would provide for a
five-year license revocation when a driver is
convicted of a DWI, DWAI drugs, or DWAI,
having been previously convicted twice within
five years under Section 1192 of the Vehicle
and Traffic Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering if
the sponsor has a breakdown on the number of
6265
drivers convicted for DWI that it's repeat -
in other words, not their first DWI offense -
what the percentage is, say, per year.
SENATOR SKELOS: In response, no.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
do you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Does the
legislation allow for mandatory treatment
instead of mandatory license suspension or
revocation?
SENATOR SKELOS: If I may
respond, Madam President, no.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Madam
President.
6266
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Does the sponsor
see the possibility of including mandatory
treatment as one of the options which a judge
could use in a case like this, whether it's
the second or third time of being before the
court on a DUI or a DWI?
SENATOR SKELOS: If I may
respond, just -- are you asking me to explain
the bill or are you asking me about
possibilities of other legislation?
SENATOR DUANE: To explain the
bill, how the bill came to be.
SENATOR SKELOS: The bill is very
simple, Madam President. If I could continue,
it basically is my explanation.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
6267
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: How was the five
years -- how did you come to the five years'
suspension? Why not six or three or 4½? Why
five?
SENATOR SKELOS: Are you asking
me how I came up with the five-year number?
SENATOR DUANE: How and why,
Madam President.
SENATOR SKELOS: How what?
SENATOR DUANE: How and why.
SENATOR SKELOS: How and why?
You know, Senator Duane, like much
legislation, you know, why do we have three to
five, two to six, a lot of it is what you
think is appropriate legislation in our own
individual minds. And I think this is a
natural progression in terms of punishing
individuals that are repeat alcohol and drug
offenders on the roads. And what we're trying
to do is make our roads safer for all of our
constituents.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
On the bill.
6268
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: It's not the
first time I've raised the issue of treatment
instead of just punishment for DWI and DUIs.
I noticed, I believe it was in the
New York Times this weekend, a couple of
letters about two very prominent people who
are suffering from the disease of alcoholism
and drug abuse. One is Darryl Strawberry, and
the other is Robert Downey, Jr. And
interestingly, despite incarceration and
threats of incarceration, that really hasn't
done anything to treat the underlying disease
of alcoholism and drug addiction which seems
to afflict them so greatly.
I think that we do ourselves a
disservice by only looking at the issue of
drug addiction and alcoholism as criminal
justice issues. If we don't also, on the
other hand, look at the underlying disease
part of the havoc that alcoholism and drug
addiction causes in our society, I don't think
that we're doing a good job.
I would be interested to see -- and
6269
I've been here now for almost three years, and
I actually basically gave up on the Alcoholism
and Drug Addiction Committee to actually get
breakdowns on, for instance, the efficacy of
just punishment and not treatment. Many of
you have heard in this body the debate that
we've been having around the Rockefeller Drug
Laws and mandatory sentencing that goes along
with that and how more recent thinking on that
is that mandatory terms are not really in the
best interests either of society or the
criminal justice system or those victimized by
drug addiction and drug abuse.
And so now to pass legislation
which doesn't even talk about an option of
mandatory treatment seems like it's really
not -- really just isn't making much sense
right now.
I'd like to know, whether it's in
our state or other states, when it is that
people are sentenced to mandatory treatment,
if that is as effective as incarcerating
people. I don't know the answer to that
question. I would like to know the answer to
that question. I would ask those questions,
6270
but I didn't get the sense that I was going to
get a lot of answers on those questions right
here. So what I'll do is I'll just try to
answer the questions myself as best as I can.
One of the things that even the
Governor's Rockefeller Drug Law reforms talks
about is the ability of judges to sentence
people to treatment. That certainly seems
like a good idea. In California, the people
of that state just passed a referendum which
requires that judges send people to treatment
on their first and second convictions for drug
offenses. This I know is repeat; I believe it
starts with three.
Well, three is just one more time
than two. What are we doing at the first-time
convictions and second-time convictions or,
for that matter, third-time convictions?
I'm in no way trying to apologize
for or in any way decrease the severity of
someone who's driving under the influence or
driving while intoxicated. And in fact, I
tend to vote for laws that have to do with the
person responsible losing their license to
drive.
6271
I generally vote against bills
which say that you lose registration for the
car, because I think that negatively or could
negatively impact an entire family who may
need a car to get to work or to get to school
or something like that. So I don't think that
that's fair.
But I do think that there are
consequences for the irresponsible use of
alcohol or the illegal use of drugs while
driving. And so clearly, we do have to do
something. But maybe for the first two times
it should be a mandatory treatment with
suspension of the license while the treatment
is going on. And maybe that would be
appropriate for the third time as well.
It also occurs to me that one of
the problems that we had with, for instance,
the Rockefeller Drug Laws are the mandates.
And that maybe what we need to do is to leave
some options open to the judge in a case like
this.
One of the things that I've been
objecting to in the -- I'm sorry. One of the
things that I have been objecting to about the
6272
Rockefeller Drug Laws and even the Governor's
reform package of the Rockefeller Drug Laws is
that it still leaves too much authority in the
hands of the district attorney. I think that
in most cases it's best to give discretion to
the judges as well, who can also act with the
advice or maybe the consent of a district
attorney.
In cases having to do with alcohol
and drug convictions, even when it applies to
people who are behind the wheel, maybe that
needs to rest in -- the decision-making needs
to rest in the hands of judges and DAs, and
maybe we should have social workers or alcohol
and substance abuse professionals involved in
a situation like that.
You know, I want to go back to the
bills that we've also had which have to do
with taking away a person's registration for
their car and how that might impact what
happens with the family. For instance, a
family that can't get to work anymore, a
husband who's convicted of drunken driving and
then would lose their registration and the
wife needed to get to work but couldn't get to
6273
work because they don't have a car anymore,
because the registration has been lifted. And
in many parts of our state, of course, we
don't have very good public transportation.
Maybe they would lose their job. Maybe they
would get evicted from their home. And I
certainly know how that feels. While I've
never been evicted from my home, I am about to
be evicted from my office, and I can tell you
that doesn't feel too good.
So I think in a lot of these cases
what we need to do is to really look to the
experts on these things. I don't know whether
anybody in this body is a licensed social
worker -- or actually, I guess we don't
license social workers. But I think that
social workers should be licensed. And if
they were licensed, I would hope that we would
have some in the body. I don't know whether
we do.
But I also think that it would be
good to have someone here who's an expert in
alcohol and drug addiction. Now, since none
of us are experts in that field, as far as I
know, maybe what would be good is if we had a
6274
hearing where we called in alcoholism and drug
counselors to find out what the professionals
think.
You know, we often hear from MADD,
which is a terrific group, Mothers Against
Drunken Driving. And I actually don't see a
memo connected to this bill. They probably
are in favor of this bill, although I didn't
see any memos from them on it. But I think it
would be terrific to have a hearing and have
Mothers Against Drunken Driving come and
testify on it. I think it would be terrific
if we had people that worked in the field of
alcoholism and substance abuse come and talk
about what is most effective.
My first year here, I believe, one
of the things that we saw was a demonstration
of the -- I believe it's called an interlock
device, where a person has to blow into
something in order to get their car door open
or the ignition started, I believe it was.
Well, maybe that's something that should be
mandated as well. Maybe that's what should
happen after the first time so we never get to
a third time after the first time someone is
6275
convicted of drunken driving or driving under
the influence, that it would be mandated that
they put an interlock device on their car so
that there would be no chance that it would
happen another time. Or maybe an interlock
device and a mandate that they go to treatment
as well. That might be the way that we should
go.
And, see, there's so many
possibilities, so many possibilities and so
many questions about what to do about cases
where people get behind the wheel they're
under the influence of alcohol or drugs. I
wish that there were more people here that
could actually hear this debate, although
there wasn't really much of a debate, although
there wasn't really much of a debate.
Although I was willing to debate. But there
really wasn't much of a debate about this
particular bill, and that's too bad.
So let me just recap the things
that I thought were so very important. I
think it would be interesting to know what the
statistical breakdown is in the state for this
year, or maybe we could look at the past five
6276
years -- just to pick a number randomly, five
years -- on the number of people in the state
who have been convicted a second or a third
time of driving under the influence or driving
while intoxicated.
I'd be interested to see what other
states do, how many years they suspend
licenses if -- or revoke licenses, for how
many years they revoke licenses in similar
situations to this. Do they all choose five
years? Did some of them have a rationale for
the number of years they chose? It would be
interesting also to see if they actually
debated these things in committee or on the
floor. Maybe we could pull together
transcripts of what other legislatures have
done, hearings that they've had, experts that
they've talked to, see what their states,
Mothers Against Drunken Driving thought about
the bills that they voted on having to do with
this issue.
And of course, as I've mentioned
before, to have treatment professionals come
in to tell us what is really the thing that is
working the best to stop drunken driving and
6277
driving under the influence on our roads.
Because it is a terrible thing when someone
does that. And as I say, they should be held
responsible.
Although, as I also believe,
prevention is probably the best thing. And so
why don't we look to the interlock device, see
whether or not that would work. That way, if
someone's been caught drunken driving once or
driving under the influence once, it would be
virtually impossible for them to do it again
if they're required to have an interlock
device on their car.
I hope that I've provided some food
for thought for the few colleagues of mine who
are actually here in the chamber to hear this.
Because, you know, we're constantly voting on
these drunk driving bills. Time after time,
we have bills about drunk driving, which is a
terrible thing. But as I say as I started
this, and to go full circle, yeah, I suppose
in this day and age we'll always be looking at
substance abuse as something that needs
attention by the criminal justice system.
But to only consider things from
6278
the point of view of the criminal justice
system and to not look at it from the disease
model and to talk to people who actually treat
the disease of alcoholism and drug addiction,
I think we do ourselves an enormous
disservice.
I don't claim to be an expert in
that field. I don't think we have any CACs
here in the body who know about that sort of
thing. But I would certainly be interested in
hearing what their point of view is on the
bill. And I look forward to having a further
discussion or debate about this. Personally,
though I was going to say shockingly, that's
what I get paid for. Of course, I'm not
getting paid now, because we don't have a
budget, which is pretty shameful in and of
itself.
In fact, even if I wanted to pay
the rent on my office space, I don't have any
money right now, because, you know, I'm not
getting paid. So I couldn't even pay the rent
on my office space, small though it is, small
and hot, crowded though my office space is.
Did I mention that it was small and hot and
6279
crowded? Dusty. We have no cleaning service.
I do pay for the water there. It's about
drunk driving, I know, this bill, so I
wouldn't put vodka in the cooler or anything,
but I couldn't afford it. I can barely afford
the water cooler, which I keep there for my
employees so that they can drink water since
we have no water source in it. But I may not
even be able to afford for the water for them
now, because as I -- did I mention, we're not
getting paid. So I couldn't even pay the rent
on that.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
Senator Duane.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: I have been
sitting and listening, as I do for most of the
time on most of the debate, and I find most of
the questions enlightening and good. But in
this case we seem to be off the tangent here.
We were on repeat offenders for DWI. We're
now off to somebody's office, district office.
All interesting; if he wants to talk about it
in the lounge, be happy to hear it, but not
here.
6280
THE PRESIDENT: All right. I'll
just remind Senator Duane, with all due
respect, please keep your remarks germane to
the substance of the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm sorry, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
SENATOR DUANE: The anxiety of
the situation in my office was getting to me.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you for the
apology, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: But anyway, so I
just think that a further, broader, a wider
discussion on the issue of DWI and DUI and how
that could best be worked on in our state,
whether it's strictly criminal justice or
whether it's also a treatment situation, is
certainly worth our time and effort.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome,
Senator Duane.
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President. Would the sponsor please yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
6281
will you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: I certainly
will, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
You may proceed.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President. Senator Skelos,
are you aware at that if your legislation here
today passes, and subsequent to its passage an
individual on his third conviction for DWI or
DWAI has his license suspended for five years,
that that individual can still get 14
convictions for driving with that suspended
license before that individual is eligible for
felony-level penalties?
SENATOR SKELOS: I'm aware of
what is in this legislation in terms of at
least suspending the license.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
would the sponsor continue to yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Madam
President.
6282
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President. If it were
true, which I'm contending it is, Senator
Skelos, that you can reoffend on a suspended
license 14 times before you get a felony
offense, wouldn't it seem that this
legislation, though it goes absolutely in the
right direction and I'm going to support it,
doesn't really have the teeth to be
efficacious?
SENATOR SKELOS: It does have the
teeth in terms of suspending a person's
license, improving on the law that exists
right now. And I'm certain that there is
other legislation that other members have that
would deal with the situation that you're
raising in a very effective and a very swift
manner through additional punishment.
The problem that we face, quite
honestly, Senator Hevesi, is that the Assembly
leadership will not allow bills like this out
onto the floor, and other pieces of
legislation that are looking to crack down on
6283
people that are killing other people on the
roads because they're driving while
intoxicated or driving with suspended
licenses. And I think your effort and the
effort of many should be in the other house,
in getting them to pass this type of
legislation.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you. I
thank the sponsor for bringing this
legislation and for the thoughtful answer.
My problem is that though we may
have some difficulties passing a more strict
bill with regards to driving with a suspended
license in the other house, I know, because we
had a discussion on this issue about three
weeks ago, Senator Marcellino brought a piece
of legislation which attempted to address this
issue. But again, I thought that even Senator
Marcellino's well-intentioned effort was -
did certainly not go far enough.
Because what his legislation did
6284
was it kicked aggravated unlicensed operation
in the second degree to the first degree on
the third conviction as opposed to the fourth,
but didn't touch the issue of the fact that
you are still only eligible for
misdemeanor-level penalties up until the 14th
time that you reoffend on a driving with a
suspended license charge.
And so why we don't take another
step forward -- and I believe Senator
Marcellino, in that debate, was certainly open
and willing to going further. I don't think
that anybody in this house or even in the
other house would argue that 14 times is
necessary and is a prudent thing to do.
So this legislation is good.
Somebody who reoffends on a DWI conviction
three times within ten years certainly should
have their license suspended for a period of
five years or even more.
But if we have nothing on the books
right now that prevents somebody who gets the
additional penalty provided under Senator
Skelos's bill of license suspension for five
years, if we don't have something to make the
6285
license suspension enforceable and to deter
people from violating their license
suspension, then I suggest to you that this
legislation today is really not going to have
a tremendous impact. It will only have an
impact with those individuals who hold
sacrosanct the law and would never drive with
a suspended license.
But the people we're talking about
are people who have reoffended three times on
a drunk driving charge. So to give them the
benefit of the doubt just seems that it's not
the prudent thing to do.
So, you know, and if it's true,
Senator Skelos and Senator Marcellino, that
the Assembly wouldn't -- won't pass another
version, a more stringent version, then let's
pass the bill as we did earlier this year,
Senator Marcellino's version, and let's pass
the tougher one also, and then present them
with both pieces of legislation. And if
they'll only act on the less stringent one,
then we'll know for sure what the situation
is.
But for us not to act puts us in
6286
the position of being responsible for drunk
driving and driving with suspended license
recidivists. And I don't want to be in that
position.
So, Madam President, I'm going to
support this legislation, but I would implore
the Majority to take some further action on
this very well-intended legislation that
really can be broadened to have a positive
impact, that's really going to have the effect
of stopping drunk driving and driving with
suspended licenses in New York State.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Madam President,
I hesitated to speak, but since this has been
brought up -- and as somebody been involved in
this issue for a long time, I was chairman of
the subcommittee on alcoholism, which was the
only subcommittee of the Mental Health
Committee since its inception back in 1974,
and until it became -- it lapsed because the
committee was set up for alcoholism and drug
abuse.
And I was fascinated to listen to
6287
the discussion about proof of whether these
laws had done any good, because New York is a
model state in DWI. No state in the union
that any of us know have ever seen such an
enormous drop in DWI deaths, such an enormous
drop in DWI injuries.
We do not have the most people in
the country in jail -- I thought we did. We
have about 850 people that go on to a
correctional facility just out -- it's in my
district. It was partly at my behest. We
wanted to put all the people involved in DWI
at one facility, because they are what you
would -- most of them are what you would call
genuine nonviolent offenders. But a lot of
them are alcoholics that go on to -- they
receive treatment, they receive all sorts of
special kind of operations that are there.
Not well known, because of course
good news in this state, just like, you know,
shock incarceration that has been extremely
successful in this state, where this state has
had the greatest success in the drop of inmate
population in any of our times.
Senator, the only thing I got to
6288
respond to you about when you say somebody can
do it 14 times, I don't know where that is.
You do in that upstate New York, you're in
jail. Remember, you can go to jail. Three
DWIs, and I got to tell you, in Western
New York and virtually anyplace in upstate
New York, you are in jail.
In fact, today you don't even, for
the most part, although what sometimes people
do -- I mean, and most of the people that are
arrested under these things, this .08 stuff
and all that, I mean, you don't get arrested
on .08. I mean, most of people are .15 to
.25. That's where the accidents are. I mean,
I investigated thousands of accidents in my
time when I was a police officer. I worked
nights. We didn't see any .10. The people
who were in the accidents were a lot higher,
I'll tell you that.
But, Senator, I guess I'm a little
baffled. I think what Senator Skelos is
trying to do is he's trying to deal with the
driving part of it, the issue of driving, and
the issue of after you get out of jail.
Because if you're busted that many times, you
6289
either are in jail or you've been in jail in
virtually any county in this state. Now,
maybe not in New York City, I don't know. And
remember, I'm the guy who has tried to pass
aggravated unlicensed operation, primarily for
New York City, for years, and we cannot get
the Assembly to pass it.
And by the way, Senator, you talk
about tough legislation, we just reported out
of my committee Senator Wright's bill, which
used to be a piece of mine and so forth, which
is tough DWI legislation. And I expect that
that bill will be on a calendar very shortly;
that is, you know, here. If it's on the
floor, it's on the calendar. And I agree with
you.
But I must agree with Senator
Skelos. And that is that for various reasons
the Assembly has not wanted to pass tough
criminal legislation involving DWI or, in
fact, even traffic legislation involving DWI.
And on the other hand, we can't get them to
pass the so-called aggravated unlicensed
operation bill, which will deal with people
who multiply drive their cars without having a
6290
license, and after it's been suspended or
whatever.
So, you know, I can only say that
yeah, we want to pass tough legislation.
Senator Skelos has had, I think, even tougher
legislation than this. The problem is we've
got to get it through the other house. And
there is a bill on this calendar that I expect
we're going to be doing fairly shortly -- and
by the way, I see Senator McGee's here, and a
piece of that bill is hers, because what we
did was merge it all together in one bill,
which often we like to do, rather than have
it, you know, in a series of bills.
That bill, I expect this house will
send it over to the Assembly. But I have to
be honest with you. The chances of that
passing the Assembly are very slim.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
6291
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi,
to explain your vote.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President.
One point that I neglected to make
when I was speaking on the bill regards
something that Senator Duane alluded to and
he's spoken about a number of times. And I
spoke about this I believe last week. And
it's a mandatory treatment option which -- and
I'll just repeat what I said the last time -
if we're not doing it for moral reasons,
because we recognize that some individuals are
afflicted with the disease of alcoholism, then
we should be doing it as a matter of public
safety.
Because we have statistics and
studies which show that of people who received
treatment subsequent to a driving-while
intoxicated-related crime, only -- and this
sounds high, but 25 percent of those receiving
treatment subsequent to a conviction reoffend.
Of those individuals who did not receive
6292
treatment, 70 percent reoffend.
And that in and of itself and alone
should tell us that we need to spend some
money in order to impose a mandatory treatment
option (a) because it's right and (b) because
it's smart.
I vote aye on this legislation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi,
you will be recorded as voting in the
affirmative on this bill.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President, may we return now to the reports of
standing committees. I believe you have a
report of the Rules Committee at the desk.
May it be read.
THE PRESIDENT: Reports of
standing committees, Rules Committee.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
6293
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bill direct to third reading:
Senate Print 5152, by Senator Lack, an act to
amend the Tax Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Move to
accept the report of the Rules Committee,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is
carried.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Can we now
take up the Rules report, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
566, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 5152, an
act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to
extending authority.
6294
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack, an
explanation has been requested by Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President.
This is the Suffolk County sales
tax extender and restoral. The county would
like to change the sunset date on their sales
tax to November 30, 2003, to extend the
three-quarter-percent sales tax as well as to
increase it, as a result of current economic
conditions, by one quarter, which is actually
a restoral back to what it was in 1995.
There's a home rule message at the
desk. There was an 11 to 6, with one
abstention, vote in the county legislature.
Both the majority leader, who is a Republican,
and the minority leader, who is a Democrat,
voted for the home rule message and the bill
that's before us.
In fact, the bill that's before us
is being carried in the Assembly at the
request of the Majority Democrats who
6295
represent the Assembly from Suffolk County,
and there's a three-way agreement on putting
this into effect as soon as possible.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just through
you, Madam President -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: -- will
Senator Lack yield just to one question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack,
will you yield?
SENATOR LACK: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: We have done
these bills on a number of occasions, and we
do them for two-year periods. Was there any
consideration given just to making it
permanent?
This is obviously a revenue that
the county is going to anticipate both now and
in the future. Does it make any sense to just
permanently memorialize this and not have
people voting both in Suffolk County and here
6296
for tax increases or tax restorals or whatever
we want to call it?
Doesn't it make good sense? These
sales tax revenues are indispensable to the
functioning of county government. Wouldn't it
make sense to just make it permanent?
SENATOR LACK: Well, Madam
President, as Senator Dollinger certainly
knows, as a former member of the Monroe County
legislature, nobody wants to be in the county
legislature at the time something is made
permanent for which you then vote on.
Of course, as Senator Dollinger
also knows, as a former member of that
legislature, this is a two-tiered process for
any county legislature, and that certainly
includes Suffolk. There's a home rule request
which they have already voted on. If we have
enacted that, assuming we do today, and it's
signed into law by the Governor, then they
have to pass it again.
This is a reelection year for the
Suffolk County legislature. I don't think
that the Suffolk County legislature or, I
would daresay, any county legislature that I
6297
know -- or city council. I don't mean just to
pick on counties -- would want to make
permanent this type of measure.
And indeed, at this point in time,
Madam President, there's a quarter-percent
increase which everybody has agreed to, which
I said was really a restoral. It's been taken
off and put on again.
So in terms of the economic
conditions in Suffolk County, which enjoys a
very good tax rating, it is certainly
conceivable in the not too distant future that
the extra quarter-percent levy would not be
utilized by the county. So having, as it
were, a temporary, transient nature with
respect to the entire additional tax is still
not a bad thing to have at this time.
And while you might say there's an
institutionalization of at least
three-quarters of a penny, I certainly
understand the political ramifications from
both major political parties in Suffolk County
that this is something to be done on a
biannual basis and not on a permanent basis.
But I will be glad to pass, Madam
6298
President, Senator Dollinger's recommendations
on to Suffolk County. And if anybody in the
county legislature has the chutzpah and wants
to follow up on it, I'll be glad to let
Senator Dollinger know.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation
satisfactory, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57. Nays,
2. Senators Dollinger and Gentile recorded in
the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President, is there any housekeeping at the
6299
desk?
THE PRESIDENT: We do have
housekeeping, Senator.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Would you
please clean the house.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Fuschillo, housekeeping.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome,
Senator.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: On behalf of
Senator Saland, on page 40 I offer the
following amendments to Calendar Number 467,
Senate Print Number 4233, and ask that said
bill retain its place on Third Reading
Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received and approved, Senator, and the
bill will retain its place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
Senator Marcellino.
6300
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President, if there isn't any more business
before the house, I would recommend that we
adjourn until Tuesday, May 1st, at 3:00 p.m.
THE PRESIDENT: On motion, the
Senate stands adjourned until Tuesday,
May 1st, 3:00 p.m.
(Whereupon, at 5:11 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)