The board of the the Montgomery-Otsego-Schoharie Solid Waste Management Authority set a 30-day deadline today to make a decision on whether to sue Montgomery County for not paying its annual bill.

Members of the MOSA governing board clashed during the meeting when discussing Montgomery County's refusal to pay $171,369 the county owes as a shortfall penalty.

The public authority, created by the state Legislature, is responsible for getting rid of roughly 117,000 tons of garbage created in the three counties.

Montgomery County in 2007 fell 1,731 tons short of its obligations to deliver 90 percent of the estimated waste generated in its borders, but the service agreement binding the three counties requires full payment for that waste regardless.

Citing "years prior" in which they believed a portion of transportation and disposal costs were forgiven in some instances, the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors earlier this week resolved to pay only $69,621. That action represented a violation of the service agreement, MOSA bond attorney Christine Chale said today.

Chale said the service agreement, created at MOSA's inception, is a contract that bankers needed for assurance they would be repaid the money they loaned MOSA to close Montgomery County landfills and establish facilities to collect garbage.

MOSA board Chairman Ed Wesnofske presented resolutions for the board's review, one of which called for MOSA administrators to take "the necessary legal steps to enforce the service agreement terms against any party in any breach of the party's obligations."

The resolution was modified to require that a bond attorney other than Chale review whether or not the service agreement requires the counties to pay shortfall bills in their entirety or not.

Further straining the authority's standing as it relates to bondholders was another resolution the board ultimately voted down. The resolution called for board members to acknowledge the service agreement itself is legal and valid.

Chale said Thursday's actions are so serious as they relate to MOSA's guarantee to bondholders that the law requires she report them to the bankers.

John Thayer, a Montgomery County representative on the MOSA board who argued for allowing the county to pay only a portion of its bill, said he did not like the fact that the resolution was presented. Schoharie County representative Phil Skowfoe said he felt like he was being bullied into agreeing the service agreement was legal and valid.

Chale cautioned MOSA board members that the resolutions declaring the validity of the service agreement and that of the trust indentures securing the bonds were not necessary because they were simply stating fact.

Skowfoe, one of four board members voting "no," said Chale's statement that the resolutions were not necessary were behind his decision.

"I voted no because [the vote] wasn't needed," Skowfoe said. "The chairman of the board put us all in an awkward position without any forewarning."

Wesnofske said any board member can make motions as well as ask to amend resolutions.

Montgomery County representatives John Thayer, Olga Podmajersky and John Mattas all voted no on the resolution, and they did the same in the next resolution "acknowledging and declaring the legality and validity of the authority's trust indentures."