City Council: A New Order Soon?

At the special end-of-year Saratoga Springs City Council meeting on December 28, the Council’s deliberations were marked as usual with improper proposals, confusion over resolutions, and, of course, acrimony.

Finance Commissioner Minita Sanghvi’s agenda included a proposal to fix what she referred to as the “human error” in the 2024 city budget that resulted in her budget improperly exceeding the New York State Property Tax Cap. Apparently, a miscalculation having to do with a program called “payment in lieu of taxes” (PILOT) was the cause of the problem. The Commissioner did not explain how the error occurred or why she had just noticed that her budget violated the state’s tax cap (this blog indicated the tax cap was an issue weeks ago) and how she planned to avoid such events in the future.

The remedy Sanghvi proposed involved the Council approving changes in the 2024 budget. Kim repeatedly and forcefully stated that amending the 2024 budget in 2023 was in violation of the city charter and that he was “aghast” that she was proposing this.

In the end, no action was taken, and the problem was kicked over to the incoming Council.

At the same meeting, Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran offered a resolution to award a bid to a company for, as far as I can tell, setting up a registry for short-term rentals in the city.

Moran acknowledged that his resolution did not include an actual contract with the firm as was usually the case. He told his colleagues that changes in the insurance market had become a barrier to the city’s standard contract. He assured his colleagues he would work things out and that a contract would be ready for action at the next Council meeting. He told his colleagues that rather than use the city’s contract, he would use one from the vendor. This vendor had, apparently, already gotten the city to sign a non-city contract with the firm previously.

The city purchasing policy restricts the use of non-city contracts. Such contracts are only to be used in unusual circumstances and, most importantly, must include all the city’s requirements.

The normal procedure would have been for Moran to present all the items related to an award bundled together for action. These would have included the contract. 

Why Moran could not wait until he had all the documents ready to present this to the Council is unclear, but this is part of an unfortunate pattern. There is, of course, the possibility that the successful bidder could not comply with the city’s policies, so prudence would have had Moran wait on the matter.

This is especially odd because he was introducing his resolution at a special meeting of the Council on December 28, and the new Council would be meeting in only five days. He never explained why there was a rush on the matter nor why he felt the need to bifurcate the process over two meetings.

In fact, the agenda for January 2, 2024, is on the city’s website, and there is no item on his agenda for this proposed agreement.

Pardon the play on words of the title of this post, but hopefully, this new council will combine the fact that it is a new order (group) and hopefully will bring a new discipline (order) in how this city does business.

As far back as I can remember, previous Councils have utilized their City Attorneys to review resolutions to be brought before the Council first to ensure that they met all the legal requirements both of our own charter and of all related other institutions.

Hopefully, on January 2, 2023, when the new Council convenes, Moran’s proposed contract will be tabled if it appears on his agenda and, along with the documents he presented on the 28th, they will be reviewed by the new City Attorney before any further action is taken.

In fact, I am optimistic that the free-for-all of chaotic resolutions submitted, withdrawn, resubmitted, etc., will be history, and the new Council will move forward with a more disciplined and deliberative approach to legislation, and it will indeed be a Happy New Year for the city.

6 thoughts on “City Council: A New Order Soon?”

  1. Happy New Year, John.

    It is my understanding that the reward of bid and the motion to have the mayor sign a contract for that bid are two seperate actions that do not necessarily need to occur at the same meeting. While it make perfect sense to do them both at the same time, I think there are instances where it might not be expedient to do so. This current bid may be one of these exceptions but I will not know for sure until the pre-agenda meeting. Am I incorrect in my thinking?

    John Safford

    Like

    1. Bifurcating the process does not violate the charter or any state or federal laws that I am aware of. I am not clear why Moran found it necessary to move forward without resolving any potential issues with the contract. We have had two years of helter skelter approach to legislation. It is clear that flawed legislation has been rushed through without the professional scrutiny of resolutions and supporting documents by the city attorney. It is revealing that after rushing the adoption of this company’s proposal on December 28, the follow up resolution promised by Moran was not on the agenda posted on the city’s webite for Tuesday’s meeting. If history serves me, Moran will produce it at the Tuesday pre-agenda meeting when careful scrutiny will not be possible.
      I am of the old “keep it simple stupid” school. Proposed legislation should be the result of a careful deliberative process. All resolutions should be vetted by the city attorney prior to being placed on the agenda (as had been the policy under past administrations). As the agenda is supposed to be published on the city’s website on the Friday before the council meeting, this gives all the members of the council the weekend to study proposed resolutions and prepare any questions for the pre-agenda meeting. If all goes well, thorny issues are resolved before the regular council meeting or the issues sufficiently distilled to have a constructive debate on any problematic questions.
      Should Moran attempt to place the contract on the agenda at this late date, I hope the council will defer action until the January 16 meeting to allow an unrushed and thoughtful deliberation.

      Liked by 3 people

    2. Mayor Safford,

      The award of bid and contract do not have to occur in the same meeting. However, in order to award a bid the bidder must meet the requirements of the City.

      This bidder didn’t have insurance that satisfied the City requirements per Commissioner Moran. That means they wouldn’t have been able to sign the required Risk and Safety Agreement in the RFP or if they did, they understood the City’s requirements of them yet didn’t comply. Purchasing and Risk and Safety should not sign off if the documents do not satisfy all procedures to award a bid. The city attorney should not allow it. In fact, if any document is not complete or requirements are not met it shouldn’t even make it on the Commissioner of Accounts’ agenda.

      That is the a consistent problem which will continue to jeopardize the integrity of the Risk and Safety program of the City. Ignoring procedures and protocols needs to stop starting with the January 2, 2024 meeting.

      No more friendly amendments to the awards of bid or the signing of contracts when documents are missing, requirements have not been met, especially the ever so important insurance requirements, or money is not available. It is sloppy and the liability is far too great.

      I hope this clarifies the true concerns and will encourage you to encourage all Council members to do their jobs and stop violating City policy.

      Liked by 3 people

Leave a reply to henry37 Cancel reply