Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (End of Session Press Release, June 20, 2003): "Over the last two weeks..., we were able to reach a historic three-way agreement on brownfield remediation and refinancing of the Superfund; an agreement the Majority has been fighting to achieve for years.  This agreement provides the necessary standards for protecting public health, holds polluters responsible, and will infuse the Superfund with $120 million annually to clean up up our most dangerous, contaminated sites.  This is a major public health victory for New Yorkers as well as a major victory for local governments that are unable to develop these brownfields into job-producing sites.  It is also another achievement coming out of the Assembly Majority's decision to take the wheel of leadership abandoned by the governor and keep this state on the right course toward a brighter future."

The New York Times ("Time Running Out, Albany Is Stymied on Major Measures," June 20, 2003): "After two years of failed negotiations, the chambers were close to a deal today on revamping the state's program to clean up toxic-waste sites and to encourage the redevelopment of urban wastelands.  Yet the bill had not been printed at midnight, and it remained unclear whether it could be passed before dawn."  "As dusk enveloped the gothic Capitol building Thursday evening, Albany leaders said they had put the finishing touches on a bill that would resolve a long-running dispute over replenishing the depleted state Superfund program, which oversees cleanup of the most hazardous waste sites.  The bill would create a voluntary cleanup program for abandoned industrial sites known as brownfields.  The outlines of the deal, according to people close to the negotiations would set aside more than $100 million for the Superfund program.  Assembly Democrats and Senate Republicans also agreed that the stringency of the cleanup would be based on whether the site would be used for future commercial and industrial development or residential developments.  The state would also create a new inner-city brownfield redevelopment program modeled after its business redevelopment areas, known as Empire Zones.  Developers would be offered tax incentives for developing brownfields in these areas."

Albany Times-Union ("Last-minute rush to do more," June 20, 2003): "Legislative leaders worked to pass laws that would set up $120 million a year for cleaning up polluted sites, but the two chambers were at odds on many key measures, including expiring rent control laws."  "Although details remained sketchy late Thursday, a deal that would set up a method to clean former industrial sites, or brownfields, and put money into the state Superfund was approaching final approval in the two chambers.  The cleanup programs would be funded with $120 million a year in borrowing."

Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin ("Old divisions return as legislative session ends," by Yancey Roy and Erika Rosenberg, Gannett Albany Bureau, June 21, 2003):
"On two issues--rent control and environmental cleanups--lawmakers reached reluctant deals nearly overshadowed by lingering bitterness between Republicans Gov. George E. Pataki and Senator Majority Leader Joseph Bruno on one side and Democrat Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver on the other." "Some could be near a resolution. The Senate, Assembly and Pataki said they agreed on a bill to provide money to clean up abandoned industrial sites, called brownfields, and toxic-waste sites. But the two houses didn't pass matching bills before leaving town, largely because the disagreement over rent-control laws disrupted negotiations.  That left bad feelings on the only major issue that got resolved and postponed final passage of a bill until lawmakers return for an expected special session in September. 'Unfortunately in their haste to leave town, the Senate passed the wrong version of the bill,' Silver complained.  The bill would refinance the Superfund program for toxic-waste sites, providing $120 million annually for 10 years. To get the agreement, Republicans dropped their demand to have taxpayers fund a bigger portion of the program. The brownfields program would provide $135 million in grants and tax incentives to encourage redevelopment of polluted, dormant land. 'It's enormously important to our economy and to our environment,' Pataki said."

"This is in the 'there's got to be a better way' category: After another of its infamous last-minute all- night sessions, the State Legislature was still trying to figure out Friday morning what it had done. After months of intense negotiation, even the sponsors of 'brownfields' legislation - one of the session's most important issues - were not sure if the two houses had passed identical bills.  The latest we hear is that the Senate actually passed the wrong bill. Now it has gone home. Which means yet another year without agreement. Incredible. And it speaks volumes for what is wrong about the whole system in Albany."  James Klurfeld

On Monday (June 23rd), phone calls to key Senate and Assembly staffers indicated that they shared much of the confusion about what had occurred and where matters stand.  The Assembly website provided no information (other than the Speaker's Press Release) on brownfields action.  The Senate website indicated that A. 9120 (DiNapoli) had been enacted by the Assembly and that S. 5694 and S. 5702 [see: http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S05702&sh=t] had been enacted by the Senate.  These bills can now be retrieved through the Assembly and Senate public websites.

Report by Assemblyman DiNapoli.  Click here.

My best reconstruction of events: A three-way agreement was reached in the wee hours among the Assembly, Senate, and Governor.  The Assembly passed the agreed-upon bill.  The Senate then passed the wrong bill, but ran out of time in attempting to pass the correct bill.

Observers expected that the Senate would pass the correct compromise bill when it reconvened in September.  This occurred.

See New York Times account of June 24, 2003 for their analysis.