Month: June 2024

New York State Attorney General Letitia James has issued the city an Assurance Of Discontinuance (AOD) proposal. It would be part of the settlement growing out of the AG’s investigation of the Saratoga Springs Police Department. If implemented, it would require that the city allow not just Black Lives Matter but any group, including the Proud Boys, to block city streets and disrupt City Council meetings. It is quite stunning. It basically precludes the city’s police department from enforcing key codes essential to the city’s functioning.

It provides wide immunity from arrest for any demonstrators who violate city codes.

Among other provisions to hamper the city from exerting its authority, Attorney General Letitia James’ proposed agreement would grant demonstrators the right to block streets and sidewalks at their discretion. According to James, any group that wants to demonstrate can now control the city’s streets. The document reads:

A Deep Dive Into The AOD Proposal

This is the cover letter for the AOD. As readers will observe, it asserts, “The AOD would restrict the city of Saratoga Springs, the SSPD, and those acting in concert with them [emphasis added], from seeking criminal charges for most non-violent violations of law.” It is hard to believe that lawyers drafted this. “Those acting in concert with them” could be the New York State Police, the Saratoga County Sheriff’s Department, the FBI, or Homeland Security, as we saw during the Belmont Stakes. How does the Attorney General expect to enforce this AOD on these organizations? Does the Attorney General plan to go after these other law enforcement groups to restrict their operations when they occur in Saratoga Springs?

General Prohibitions

The AOD lays out a series of general prohibitions. Keep in mind these prohibitions would apply to any demonstration whether it be BLM or the Proud Boys.

No horse-mounted police.

No officers on bicycles.

Any arrest related to a demonstration must be made during the demonstration.

The city is precluded from enforcing parade requirements or from enforcing the requirement to fill out a demonstration declaration.

The city cannot enforce its rules for decorum at its Council meetings or “other official city function” except in the case of violence, physical injury, or significant property damage.

There are sound reasons for delaying the arrest of persons involved in the protest until after the event. Arresting someone during a demonstration is an extremely provocative act that logically has the potential to produce a scrum. It is reasonable for the police to refrain from arrests during a demonstration where possible. In fact, the AG’s insistence that the police can only make arrests during a demonstration is at odds with their requirement that the police use all means possible to de-escalate.

There is also the real possibility that someone may have committed a crime that was not apparent at the time. The fact that the original crime was unobserved and not acted upon during the demonstration is no reason to place the perpetrator beyond culpability.

Police on horseback are a key element in dealing with crowds. The rider’s elevation allows them to see things that a person on the ground would not. Officers on horseback are also an effective tool for separating demonstrators and counter demonstrators in a crowd. The AG’s proposal offers no explanation as to why the use of officers on horseback is prohibited nor do they explain why they are prohibiting police on bicycles.

The AG Authorizes Demonstrators To Disrupt City Council Meetings

Item #55 prohibits the police “…from investigating, arresting, or seeking charges against any individual for expressive conduct at any city council meeting or other city function in the absence of particularized allegation of violence, physical injury, or significant property damage caused by such individual.” The AG appears shockingly unconcerned about the need to maintain order at Council meetings that have been repeatedly shut down by demonstrators.

The Proposed Tier System

The AOD lays out four “tiers” of response to demonstrations they want the police to follow. The first tier is for demonstrations that involve no violence or the “significant” destruction of property.

The second tier is appropriate if the police are “aware of a specific and credible threat that violence or significant property damage may occur at the demonstration.” However, there is no guidance on distinguishing “significant” from “not significant” property damage.

In this case, the police can only act if a person has committed a felony. They are precluded from acting on persons committing violations or misdemeanors. (In a subsequent section and in conflict with item c, they are allowed to arrest for misdemeanors as well.) This still precludes the police from acting on violations such as disorderly conduct.

AG Indulges In Catch 22 Logic

More problematic are the prohibitions in the AOD that significantly restrict investigations into the pre-activities of the group demonstrating.

The police are allowed to go to Tier 2 if they have overwhelming evidence that a crime will occur at the demonstration. This becomes meaningless if, as #56 details, they are virtually precluded from any type of surveillance prior to the demonstration.

They are also precluded from recording the demonstration, so no pictures or videos are taken, which further hinders the police from proving a crime.

The Third Tier

Given how poorly written and organized this document is, annotating it is a bit of a challenge. The third tier is triggered by actual acts of violence or property destruction. What constitutes significant versus insignificant property damage is never addressed. Similarly, what constitutes an “imminent” threat is never clarified. The document does tell us it is ok for demonstrators to throw water bottles in spite of the fact that Water bottles as projectiles are potentially dangerous.

This tier cautions that the police may only deploy “a limited number of officers sufficient to address the specific individuals engaged in the acts of violence or property damage (snark warning: for some reason, they left out the word significant, which qualifies every other reference to damage in the document).”

How many officers represent a “limited number” is anyone’s guess.

As the AOD proposal precludes the city from requiring a demonstration declaration that would provide the time of the event and the organizer’s estimate of the number of people involved, the police chief’s ability to prepare for the demonstration in terms of bringing in additional officers or other organizations such as the sheriff’s department is made all the more difficult.

This is real madness. Contrary to the AG’s approach to crowd control, if there is violence or property destruction, it is time to request that the “crowd” disperse. Dear reader, imagine for a moment that you are the city’s chief of police and members of a demonstration are acting violently or destroying property. Wouldn’t you consider it time to try to arrest the perpetrators and ask the crowd to disperse?

Tier 4

Here, the situation is that protesters “are seeking to gain unauthorized entry, or physically blocking others’ entry, into a sensitive location. A sensitive location includes, but is not limited to, a police precinct, courthouse, other government building, hospital, clinic, medical facility, or medical provider.”

For some reason, the authors felt the need to remind the city that the demonstrators may take over the street, block traffic and throw water bottles and still must be “accommodated.” This section appears to be a case of cut-and-paste.

The police must give the protesters three warnings to disperse, allowing five minutes for each warning. So the crowd can block access or remain in a “sensitive area” for fifteen minutes. Given the history of BLM demonstrations, it is reasonable to assume that they will occupy the area until just before the fifteen minutes are up and potentially move to another sensitive location and start the countdown again.

How Is This For Craziness?

Let’s assume the protesters simply block the “sensitive” location for fifteen minutes and decline to disperse. What can they be charged with? Typically, the charge would be for disorderly conduct, which is a violation. According to the AOD, the police are precluded from charging protesters for violations. So what are the police to do? The AOD conveniently doesn’t address this.

The AG’s Standards Proposed Here Would Apply to Any Group Including the Proud Boys Or the Ku Klux Klan

I am a strong civil libertarian and believe the government should enforce its laws uniformly. It should not consider ideology, race, religion, or nationality in its actions. I expect, though, that many of the creators and supporters of the hands-off standards being proposed by Attorney General Tish James would be outraged if these were applied to a Proud Boys demonstration blocking the intersection of Broadway and Lake Avenue and shouting racist slogans.

In effect, the proposed restrictions in Letitia James’s proposal would attract any group that wants to make a splash and get attention for whatever cause they are pursuing. As the proposal also restricts police intelligence operations regarding potential demonstrations, the city will operate in a black box regarding threats. A surprise action would leave the police department and community vulnerable in terms of having adequate staffing resources to protect demonstrators and the public.

James appears either indifferent or ineptly blind regarding the potential for explosive conditions that her proposal would cause. Consider the Belmont concert that drew crowds to Broadway. What if the Proud Boys decided to have a demonstration and waded into the crowd, yelling racist and homophobic slurs? What would the potential be for a riot, and how could the police address this, given Tish James’ prohibitions?

This AOD is clearly not the result of attorneys carefully considering the protection of First Amendment rights. Apparently, a group in the AG’s office sat around a table and carelessly tossed out ideas packaged as the AOD proposal, which she then authorized. While it is an opening proposal from James, it is an extreme position to start negotiations from and must be taken seriously by the city and replied to at a great cost of time and money. Interestingly, the original AG report listed only a half dozen reasonable demands, many of which the city was already practicing. This new proposal is quite bizarre, and unfortunately, the press is not covering this for whatever reason. One can only wonder how this fits into James’ political ambitions. Would she really support this kind of policing of a Proud Boys demonstration? The citizens of Saratoga Springs and New York deserve better.

This blogger was a guest on the Saratoga Podcast on Wednesday, June 19, 2024, where we discussed Saratoga Springs Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran and his Deputy, Stacy Connors, dropping a $49,946.60 bill for their $1,250.00 per hour Manhattan attorney on the city. The still unnamed attorney is representing them in the on-call scandal.

We also discussed a proposed order by the Attorney General’s office that, among other things, would prohibit the police from charging demonstrators for any misconduct below a misdemeanor. For example, the city could not charge them for blocking traffic or disrupting a City Council meeting. I am working on a long post analyzing this bizarre document.

At the June 18, 2024, Saratoga Springs City Council meeting, Finance Commissioner Minita Sanghvi pulled the item from her agenda that proposed to give Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran and his Deputy Stacy Connors $49,946.50 “to be used in responding to the subpoena served on them by the District Attorney’s office.”

They were apparently supposed to give this money to an unnamed attorney for performing unknown tasks. No bill or invoice for services was presented with this unusual resolution. As of today (June 19, 2024), other members of the Council and the public have yet to see an accounting of what this money will pay for.

My sources tell me Moran and Connors have engaged a Manhattan attorney who is charging a “discounted” rate of $1,250 an hour. This bill seems to be only for services provided to answer a subpoena. Sanghvi’s resolution also provides that “Dillon Moran and Stacy Connors may continue to request additional reasonable legal fees or expenses from time to time….”

It is my understanding that it is unprecedented for the Council to give money to individuals to pay their legal fees rather than to directly pay the bill submitted by an attorney. While public officials are allowed to hire a lawyer of their choice, note that the fees are required to be “reasonable.” This means not only an evaluation of the hourly fee but also, for instance, a review of the tasks performed and the number of hours billed to carry out that task. To my knowledge, no such review has taken place by the City Attorney, yet the Council was asked by Finance Commissioner Sanghvi to give the money to Moran and Connors anyway.

It is also unclear if the city requires any kind of vetting process before city officials hire private attorneys. In any case, it was revealed at the Council meeting that the scope of the State Police investigation of the on-call pay scandal has expanded to include members of the Finance and Public Works Departments as well as former Deputy Mayor Angela Rella. This will ensure that more legal bills will be coming before the Council for approval. The Public Safety Department has not been involved, as then Deputy Jason Tetu was the only deputy not to take advantage of the on-call pay offer.

It is ironic that both Moran and Sanghvi have bitterly complained about paying former Mayor Meg Kelly and former Public Safety Commissioner Robin Dalton’s legal bills that have been a fraction of the bill Moran and Connors have already presented at what may be only the beginning of the legal process against them. Sanghvi even argued at a recent meeting for a cap to be put on the amount public officials should be reimbursed for legal fees.

She did not bring up a proposal to cap fees again at last night’s meeting.

Minita Sanghvi has an item on her agenda for the June 18,2024, Saratoga Springs City Council meeting to pay $49,946.60 to an attorney to represent Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran and his deputy, Stacy Connors, related to the on-call scandal. Sanghvi also has a resolution to transfer the city funds to pay for this. The language of Sanghvi’s resolution also authorizes more payments to the attorney in the future.

An actual bill or contract from the attorney or even the attorney’s name is missing. As the cost seems excessive on its face, it is disturbing that, as far as one can tell, the City Attorney has not reviewed a bill to determine if it is reasonable. It is even more disturbing that Sanghvi would put this forward for payment given the lack of documentation of the work that was done and a breakdown of the fees that were charged.

Readers may forbear my skepticism, but it seems more than coincidental that neither Sanghvi nor Moran attended the pre-agenda meeting this morning (June 17), at which they would have had to explain all of this. When Sanghvi’s deputy was questioned about the resolution and transfer of city funds to pay this bill, she declined to answer, telling the Council members present that Sanghvi would address the resolution at the Tuesday night meeting.

This is part of an ongoing pattern where Moran and Sanghvi add items after the pre-agenda meeting. This deprives the Mayor and other Commissioners of the ability to prepare for the Council meeting and denies the public of notification of the actions they are going to bring forth.

Here is a press release from Saratoga Springs Republican Chairman Mike Brandi and Sanghvi’s resolution.

SSSGOP Calls on City Council to Reject Moran’s Request for Taxpayer Funds for Private Attorneys to Respond to Criminal Subpoena

June 17, 2024

The Saratoga Springs Republican Committee is calling on the city council to reject the proposed resolution advanced by Commissioner of Finance Minita Sanghvi, which would provide $49,946.60 to pay the bill of a private attorney retained by Commissioner of Accounts Dillon Moran and Deputy Commissioner Stacey Connors in their defense against the criminal investigation related to the on-call scandal.

State Law and Public Officer Indemnification

Firstly, under state law, public officers are only entitled to indemnification in criminal matters after charges are dismissed or they are found not guilty. Taxpayers should not be burdened with the costs of a public official’s defense if there is potential for guilty conduct. This principle ensures that public funds are used judiciously and not in defense of potentially criminal actions.

Locally, Section 9-1 of the City Code provides for indemnification and defense of city officers in legal actions arising out of their official duty or scope of employment. It is an absurd proposition for one to claim that their official duty includes potentially criminal conduct. Certainly, the city would not be paying for a criminal defense attorney if an elected official were driving drunk in a city vehicle. This situation is no different.

Lack of Transparency and Adherence to City Policy

Secondly, neither Commissioner Moran nor Deputy Commissioner Connors have disclosed the identities of the attorneys they have hired. Nor have they provided a copy of the bills that are to be paid with this $49,946.60. Moreover, the city’s purchasing policy has not been followed to ensure that the city is obtaining a fair rate for these legal services or that the city is protected in the case of vendor misconduct. Attorneys retained by the City are required to produce evidence of certain insurance requirements, which has not occurred here. Finally, Section 8.1 of the City Charter makes it clear that only the Council may engage legal professionals. Moran has no independent right to retain counsel for himself at the cost of the City. Transparency and adherence to established procedures are fundamental to maintaining public trust and fiscal responsibility.

No Demonstrated Conflict or Incompetence in City Attorney’s Office

Thirdly, there has been no demonstration that the City Attorney’s Office is conflicted or incompetent in handling the subpoena. Precedents such as the cases of former Mayor Kelly and former Commissioner of Public Safety Dalton only involved the allocation of outside counsel after it was clearly established that there was a conflict of interest in them sharing counsel with the city. This crucial step has not been met in the current situation.

Chairman’s Statement

“Commissioner Moran’s brazen attempt to siphon taxpayer funds for his personal legal defense slush fund is not just inappropriate, it is an outright abuse of his position,” said SSGOP Chairman Mike Brandi. “The residents of Saratoga Springs should not be forced to bankroll his legal troubles, especially when there is no legitimate reason to bypass the City Attorney’s Office. Moran should not be allowed to play fast and loose with the law and then expect taxpayers to bail him out when he is found with his hand in the cookie jar. This blatant disregard for protocol and transparency is a slap in the face to every taxpayer and yet another blight on Moran’s already tattered record.”

Background on Investigation

The Saratoga County District Attorney has initiated a probe related to on-call pay for Saratoga Springs Deputy Commissioners. On April 24, 2024, Saratoga County Judge James Murphy III authorized subpoenas that were served on the city on April 25, 2024. The investigation is looking into misconduct regarding the claiming of thousands of dollars of on-call pay by certain city officers.

The SSGOP stands firm in its commitment to fiscal responsibility and transparency in government. We urge the city council to reject the request for taxpayer-funded private attorneys for Moran and Connors. It is imperative that taxpayer money is protected and used appropriately, ensuring that public trust is upheld.

Please contact Mike Brandi at this email with any questions. 

The Resolution

[An error was made. I put up a map of Saratoga Battlefield rather than the state park. This is the state park.]

Saratoga Springs Planning Board members Bill McTygue and Mark Pingle received major media coverage when in a report, they circulated, they proposed building a truck bypass through the southern end of the state park to remedy the problem of trucks traveling through the residential neighborhood of Van Dam Street.

I was surprised by Bill’s involvement in such a proposal. He was active in the city working for his brother, Public Works Commissioner Tom McTygue, when this bypass was proposed back in the ’90s. The state dismissed the idea for basically the same reasons as the points made in a recent paper written by Sustainable Saratoga.

I have sympathy for the Van Dam neighbors who must contend with the trucks that pass by their homes. It seems unfair, though, to offer them the illusion that the state would finance the huge project of a truck bypass through a state park given not only the cost but all the other issues raised in the Sustainable piece.

The following are excerpts from the Sustainable paper along with the paper itself.

• The value of protected wild lands and public support for their preservation is greater than ever. The proposed route through the park would cross 2,000 feet of high-quality wetlands, as well as tributaries to Kayaderosseras Creek, including Geyser Creek. Undisturbed forests and wetlands provide essential habitat for wildlife and mitigate the effects of climate change. Wetlands reduce downstream flooding, a benefit ever more important as the frequency and severity of storms steadily increase. A renewed push for the construction of
  a major highway through the park would be met with a strong public outcry.
• The construction of a truck bypass highway, where proposed, would violate the New York State Open Space Conservation Plan. The Open Space Plan calls for actions to further protect the streams and wetlands in the Kayaderosseras corridor. The acquisition of nearby upland areas, as proposed by the planning board members, is not an objective of the Open Space Plan and would not compensate for the impacts to Kayaderosseras tributaries and the extensive destruction of valuable wetlands that would result from highway construction.
• The bypass project would be very costly and would have to clear several governmental hurdles. The construction of a bypass highway through the state park would have enormous financial and environmental costs. The source of funding has not been determined. The project would involve a transfer of jurisdiction from State Park land to a State or local highway department. It would involve the New York State Department of Transportation and likely require approval by the New York State Legislature. Members of the Assembly and Senate, many with State Park lands in their districts, would have a hard time justifying the alienation of parkland with uncertain benefits for a distant city. The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, which has jurisdiction over the park, opposed the proposal last time and, based on the similarity of this proposal, would be confronted with the same environmental concerns.
  
  

[JK: The Daily Gazette published an editorial on June 1, 2024, in which the editor ranted about the city’s failure to act on the scourge of truck traffic in downtown Saratoga Springs.

“After decades of inaction, it’s time for city, state and federal officials to stop ignoring this problem and come up with an acceptable solution.”

“Elected officials need to end the decades of procrastination and finally do something about it.”

Before denouncing the many concerned people who have struggled to find a solution for truck traffic in our city, the editorialist might have had the courtesy to do a little research. A simple Google search would have been helpful to the editor in writing a more accurate and thoughtful piece. A search might have revealed former County Planner and Public Safety Commissioner Lew Benton’s numerous writings addressing this issue. Lew has documented both the problems with truck traffic and the many attempts over the years to find a solution. It is a frustrating story, but it is not a story of procrastination and inaction, as the Gazette asserts.

Finance Commissioner Sanghvi was so enthusiastic about this editorial that she publicly passed around copies to her colleagues at the June 4, 2024, City Council meeting. She promised to bring the issue up at the next meeting. She, too, might have benefited from a similar Google search.

Commissioner Sanghvi would have better served the people who are currently expressing frustration about truck traffic by handing out Lew Benton’s two thoughtful analyses of the history of truck issues and some actions that the city could take and is taking to mitigate the truck problems.

The following are additional thoughts by Lew.]

ADDENDUM TO APRIL 2024 REPORT “TRUCK TRAFFIC IN SARATOGA SPRINGS: A Brief History of Problems, Possibilities and Progress”

In April, I completed and shared with the city council and other interest groups a report titled Truck Traffic in Saratoga Springs:  Brief History of Problems, Possibilities and Progress (hereinafter the Report).

That Report included a summary of the several traffic studies conducted over the past 40 years,  a look at the truck bypass initiatives during the same period and a brief discussion of Vehicle and Traffic Law enforcement before and after the establishment the city’s Traffic Safety Division (TSD) in 1988.

This Addendum to the April Report expands on its Enforcement History and Alternate Routing Proposal sections. The Addendum’s intent is threefold: (1) promotion of a re-established Traffic Safety Division within the Police Department, (2) re-visiting previously approved and established weight limited streets that are still not appropriately signed and policed, and (3) to encourage a strategic approach to identifying potential alternate Church Street/VanDam Street and Washington Street routings, finalize the approved Lake Avenue (Route 29) alternate route and examine the several previously considered “bypass” alignments and access their current feasibility.  Perhaps such tasks could be performed by a city council appointed “working group.”

1.         Re-establish Traffic Safety Division

The April Report also quantified loss of enforcement generated revenue, likely in the range of $2 million to $3 million, since the early 2010’s.  Those familiar with the Report may recall that during the years the Traffic Safety Division operated, total traffic and truck safety inspection citation revenue averaged $221,000 annually.

Immediately following the demise of a staffed, trained and disciplined Traffic Safety Division, average annual enforcement revenue fell to under $100,000.  Over the last five years average annual revenue has further declined to $31,000.

The lost annual revenue alone would have funded 40% to 60% of a three or four officer TSD, including indirect costs.

Since the TSD’s abolition, V and T Law enforcement revenue fell to a low of $26,000 in 2022. The city’s 2024 Revenue Budget anticipates an anemic $30,000. Clearly, the city’s once muscular traffic safety and Vehicle and Traffic Law enforcement program has been abandoned. 

By 2013 Traffic Safety Division had fallen victim to budget cuts, subsequent police layoffs and a policy decision to transfer TSD staff to the Patrol Division.  However, as it became clear that the  FY 2010 budget cuts had been largely unnecessary and the city entered a multi-year period of large general fund balances, no action was taken to restore the TSD.

Enforcement must be seen as an integral part of any renewed effort to reduce heavy and Special Dimension Vehicle (SDV) through traffic and as a disincentive to running overweight and unsafe trucks on city streets, including designated “Access” roads.

Even if the city is ultimately successful in re-routing heavy trucks and SDVs from Church Street, Van Dam and other residential and historic district streets, enforcement of posted limitations must be enforced.  Lake Avenue, for instance, has been posted against vehicles over 5 tons since October 1993 but lack of enforcement now allows SDVs and heavy construction vehicles to ignore with impunity the posted limits, even though an alternate route has long been established.

During the early years of the TSD’s targeted commercial vehicle inspection program (see Chart 1 below) over 36% were removed from service. The dearth of commercial vehicle inspections during the last several years does not allow a measure of the condition of the heavy truck fleet using city streets.  However, if a valid correlation exists, then 1 in every 3 heavy commercial vehicles traveling through the city is in violation of safety, size, weight, or other standards.

Chart 1:

Truck Tickets Issued by TSD & Vehicles Removed from Service, 1991 – 1994   

This data was presented by specific Vehicle and Traffic Law violations: for example, log book violations, unsecured loads, overweight, over length, over width, and out-of-service violations.  Annual tabular summaries included number and type of citation by month. (See tabular summary below).

Of course the end of a dedicated and disciplined traffic safety program in 2013 did not negatively impact on the city’s ability to police commercial and SDV traffic alone, but rather all vehicular movements.

Chart 2 grafts the dramatic increase in Vehicle and Traffic Law enforcement following the establishment of the TSD and the precipitous decline after its dismantling.  In fact, Chart 2  clearly shows that recent enforcement as measured by citation output, is significantly less than in the years prior to  TSD creation.

The most recent Saratoga Springs Police Department’s Annual Report includes four 2024 Department Goals.  The first is “Create a Traffic Safety Unit to enhance vehicular and pedestrian safety in the city.” 

Now – in anticipation of FY 2025 budget preparation – is the time to give definition to the role and function, and the equipment, training, staffing and budgetary needs necessary to re-establish a strong TSD.   A rededicated, disciplined commitment to Vehicle and Traffic Law enforcement is the single most immediate step that can be taken to address the very legitimate truck traffic safety concerns and the running of SDVs and heavy trucks on posted city streets.

Define the Status of Previously Approved and Codified Alternate Routes

The April Report also found that certain alternate heavy commercial traffic re-routings, previously approved by NYS Department of Transportation and codified by City Council action, are no longer enforced. Lake Avenue, for example, has been posted against vehicles over 5 ton since October 18, 1993,  For many years now heavy truck and Special Dimension Vehicles well in excess of 5 tons run free, both east and west bound, without fear of interdiction.

Table 1 below lists all city street segments off limits to all trucks in excess of 5 tons but there is no evidence (truck fines or truck tickets)  that these restrictions have been routinely enforced in recent time.

Table 1: City Charter § 225-79 Schedule XIV, Trucks Over Certain Weights Excluded.

In accordance with the provisions of § 225-22, trucks in excess of the weights indicated are hereby excluded from the following streets or parts of streets, except for the pickup and delivery of materials on such streets:

            Street                                  Weight Limit (Tons)                  Location

Adams Road [Added 2-16-2016]                    5                 Cady Hill Boulevard to City limit

Buff Road                                                        5          Between Church St. & Washington Street

Circular Street                                                 5          Between Broadway & High Rock Avenue

Circular Street                                                 5               Between Spring Street & Broadway

Congress Avenue                                           5              Between West Avenue & New Street

Congress Street                                              5           Between Franklin Street & Federal Street

Denton Road                                                  5       Between Seward Street & Locust Grove Road

Empire Avenue                                               5         Between Congress Avenue & Joseph Street

Excelsior Springs Avenue                              5          Between Lake Avenue & Excelsior Avenue

Table 1: Continued

Street                              Weight Limit (Tons)                         Location

Gilbert Road                                                    5          Between Lake Avenue & Union Avenue

Glenmore Avenue                                           5     Between West Circular Street & Grand Avenue

Grand Avenue                                                 5            Between Franklin Street & City Line

Grand Avenue                                                 5         Between West Avenue &Franklin Street

Joseph Street                                                  5    Between West Circular Street & Empire Avenue

Kirby Road                                                      5      Between Church Street & Washington Street

Lake Avenue [Added 10-18-1993]               5               Broadway to Weibel Avenue

Lincoln Avenue                                               5        Between Broadway & Ballston Avenue

Lincoln Avenue                                               5         Between Broadway & Nelson Avenue

Locust Grove Road                                         5           Between Church Street & City line

Pine Road                                                       5     Between Washington Street & Grand Avenue

Seward Street                                                 5           Between Church Street & City line

Slade Road                                                     5     Between Washington Street & Grand Avenue

Spring Street                                                   5           Between Circular Street & Broadway

Union Avenue                                                 5        Between Henning Road & Circular Street

West Circular Street                                       5         Between Broadway & Glenmore Avenue

The Weible Avenue alternate truck route must be finally addressed.  I am of the view that the city can unilaterally act to direct heavy west bound Lake Avenue truck traffic to Weibel Avenue because all of Weibel is a NYS DOT designated “Access” highway.  To deny its use as the alternate route defies the very reason that Weibel was improved and extended as part of the original Northway construction and subsequently designated an “Access” highway by DOT.

A July 29, 1993, letter (following page) from then DOT Regional Director Richard A. Maitino to the then city public safety commissioner, attests to what was then thought to be final step necessary to designate Weibel as the alternative westbound route and the posting of Lake: i. e., review by DOT’s Office of Legal Affairs.  No final DOT legal opinion is found in the record. 

Not to allow commercial traffic to run on a designated “Access” highway (Weibel Avenue) turns reason on its head.  The burden falls on the commissioner of transportation to explain and justify why a local roadway, long designated as an “Access” highway pursuant to state law (V & T Law, Section 1627, p. 7)), rule and regulation, cannot serve as an alternate truck route simply because it spills into an adjacent municipality.

Presumably, the adjacent community in this case (the Town of Wilton) did not exercise its statutory right (see V & T Law, Sec. 1627, p. 7) to object to the original “Access” designation.

Conversely, Lake Avenue is NOT an access road.  Dominate land uses along the two mile corridor include single and multi-family residential uses, two elementary schools, a nursery school, churches, the city’s largest recreation field and related facilities.  Additionally, the city has installed and signed designated east and westbound bicycle lanes on Lake which further argues against SDVs and other heavy commercial traffic on the corridor.

Vehicle & Traffic Law Section 1627

Designation of qualifying highways and access highways

(a) The commissioner of transportation shall, for the purposes of this chapter, by rule or regulation, designate qualifying highways which shall be highways on the national system of interstate and defense highways or federal-aid primary highways.

(b) The department of transportation, for the purposes of this chapter, shall develop criteria to determine a highway providing access between qualifying highways and terminals, facilities for food, fuel, repairs, and rest and, in addition, for points of loading and unloading for household goods carriers. The department may, by order, rule or regulation, designate public highways within the state as access highways. The department of transportation, upon the request of the legislative body of any city or village, or of a county superintendent of highways, or of a town board may, by order, rule or regulation, designate other city or village streets, or county roads, or town highways, respectively, as access highways. Before designating any county, town, city or village, street or highway as an access highway, the commissioner of transportation shall notify the municipality having jurisdiction over such street or highway of the need for such local access road and solicit comments thereon. If objections to the designation are filed by the municipality having jurisdiction over a particular street or highway, the commissioner of transportation shall set, as soon as practicable, a public informational meeting. If the commissioner of transportation finds, after holding a public informational meeting, that his proposed designation is proper and reasonable, prior to filing a notice of agency action he shall so notify the municipality in writing setting forth his findings and justifications for such designation. The municipality shall have the right of judicial review pursuant to article seventy-eight of the civil practice law and rules.

(c) In order to implement the provisions of this section, the commissioner of transportation may issue a permit pursuant to subdivision fifteen of § 385 (Dimensions and weights of vehicles) or may sign such public highways.

end

May 23, 2024

Lew Benton