At a press conference on Januray 31st, area legislators spoke in support of the Momentive workers on strike.
There was little surprise that Neil Breslin, a Democratic state senator who represents Albany, spoke. Nor was it surprising that Democratic Assembly representatives Carrie Woerner (Round Lake) whose district includes Saratoga Springs, and John McDonald (Cohoes) were there. Bravo to them for standing with the Momentive workers.
The big surprise to me, though, was the presence of Kathy Marchione, the Republican Senator whose district includes our own city. Senator Marchione told those present, “The strike is hurting many of our families in the community, and it is hurting our community at large. That’s why it is so important that the company return to the negotiating table and bargain in good faith.” Well, good for you Senator Marchione!
Maureen Curtin is a real trooper to whom we all owe our appreciation. For years she has worked to help protect neighborhoods in our city from the pressures to build projects that threaten their character.
The Unified Development Ordinance is an extremely ambitious undertaking that is supposed to incorporate the city’s zoning ordinances, plus design review, and pretty much everything else associated with regulating development into one grand document.
The original contract to develop the UDO , as Maureen notes below, called for a technical advisory committee made up of representatives from the city’s departments, representatives of the land use boards and the city’s planning department to both monitor and contribute to the document’s development. As Maureen describes, this part of the process has been badly abused. Instead of having an on-going role, this committee has only recently (after over a year) been created. Maureen does an excellent job of describing the dubious character of what has emerged.
Most troubling in this UDO process has been the development of something called a “diagnostic” that was supposed to lay out what issues needed to be addressed. The original document that Behan Planning submitted to the Planning Department was rejected and the Planning Department then rewrote it.
To give you a flavor of what they came up with I will identify a couple of items. Of particular interest is that these items came out of some mysterious ether. Comments that had been submitted and the outcome of the one community event that was held were posted on the UDO website. None of the following items were identified as problems in the public process.
The “diagnostic” calls for an end to specific footage height limits for structures. They want to change the height requirements from being measured in feet to floors. This, they say, is to address the problem of buildings being too uniform in height. Aesthetically, they think it would be better if there were variations. Now I am sure, dear reader, that this has been a sore point for you. You probably are appalled as you walk through the city at the boring uniformity of building heights (my attempt at humor). Apparently, the drafters of the diagnostic were not concerned about the kind of abuse that some developers might exercise when they design their “floors.”
There is indeed a problem with building heights. A central theme in today’s urban planning has to do with human scale. In the case of building heights this has to do with avoiding the canyon effect when a narrow street is wedged between very tall buildings. There is little sunlight and the street is extremely pedestrian unfriendly. Most planners understand the need for proportionality between the width of the street and sidewalks and the height of the buildings.
Compare Railroad Place with Broadway. Railroad Place is a poster child for bad streetscapes. You would think that high on the list of concerns for the “diagnostic” would be this height problem rather than the need for uneven roof lines.
Railroad PlaceBroadway Downtown
The diagnostic also wants to dispense with the current minimum lot size in our zoning laws and replace it with some sort of average for some sort of so far undefined “neighborhood.” Again, no one brought this up as a problem in any of the submitted comments or the community meeting.
Here is yet another hitherto unknown problem. There is currently no transitional building height between zoning areas. At the risk of sounding cynical, where will the transition buildings that will be higher than one zone and lower than the other be built? Might this be used as a wedge to build large buildings in our neighborhoods adjacent to downtown?
Continuing to sound cranky, I would guess that the development community quietly asserted itself in the crafting of the “diagnostic” by the planning staff.
Here is Maureen Curtin’s email:
February 1, 2017
To: Members of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Technical Review Advisory Committee (TRAC)
From: Maureen Curtin, On Behalf of Residential Homeowners and Neighborhoods
Re: Understanding the purpose of the TRAC
We do not understand the purpose of the UDO Technical Review Advisory Committee (TRAC) that was set up by the Mayor’s office. The voting members of this TRAC include six members of the Mayor’s staff and three members from the Land Use Boards, who the mayor appoints, for a total of nine votes.
The chair of TRAC is Bradley Birge, the director of the Planning Department for Saratoga Spring. Three of his staff members serve as voting members: Kate Maynard, Susan Barden and Tina Carton. The Deputy Mayor and City Attorney are voting members. All six of these people work in the Mayor’s Department.
It would be one thing to state that the Mayor’s Office is setting up an internal committee to address the UDO, but that does not appear to be what is being portrayed. The TRAC committee’s purpose and responsibilities in their By-Laws state (See link above for UDO Agenda for link to the TRAC By-Laws):
“The TRAC provides the technical input to carry out the continuing, cooperative and comprehensive planning process for the UDO. The TRAC provides technical review and guidance on draft regulations. The members of the TRAC will participate as representatives from and technical experts of their department and/or Land Use Boards; and as a whole the TRAC shall serve as the technical advisor to the City Council and the Contractor.”
“The Technical Review Advisory Committee will review consultant draft documents as well as public comments and then provide advice to the consultant. If the TRAC cannot reach agreement on a particular issue or if a significant policy change is being considered, the committee will request direction from City Council as the legislative body to pursue.”
“Each [TRAC] Member shall vote on all agenda items….” “…if a quorum is present, an agenda item must be approved by a majority of the Committee Members present at the meeting.”
Since six of the nine votes are from the Mayor’s Office, what is the purpose of a vote? It could hardly be considered democratic.
We appreciate the Mayor’s Office trying to move the UDO process forward.
We appreciate the meetings discussing the proposals being open to the public and the public being able to make comments.
However, voting on issues when the votes are stacked, and presenting these votes and decisions to the other city council members and the public as anything other than internal agreements by the Mayor’s Office is simply unfair and misleading. Thank You.
cc: Mayor Yepsen,TRAC members for whom email addresses are available: Vince DeLeonardis, Megan Kelly, Brad Birge, Kate Maynard, Susan Barden, and Tina Carton,Michael Allen, Behan Planning, City Council Members
The next TRAC UDO meeting will be held on February 7, 2017. The Agenda is provided at the link below. The meeting will be held from 4-6 PM in the Music Hall of City Hall. The public is welcome to attend and may speak for two minutes each at the opening of the meeting.
Well, John Faso has apparently read the order and now comes out against it.
Several quotes from Faso:
“I believe that the order was neither well drafted nor well implemented.”
“There is no doubt that we need to thoroughly vet people coming from countries where there are strongholds of ISIS and al-Qaida. At the same time, we have to balance our security with the need to respect the rights of US citizens and people who are subject to valid immigration proceedings, including lawful permanent residents.”
According to a January 29th posting on the Times Union web site, U.S. Congressional Representative Elise Stefanik (R-Essex County) offered the following at the New York Conservative Party’s PAC conference on Sunday:
“I think it is rushed and overly broad. I’ve been supportive on the House Armed Services Committee (of) giving precedence [JK:I think she meant preference] to Afghans and Iraqis who have worked with us as translators. I think it was misguided. And I do think any type of immigration reform when it comes to our visa program should come through Congress.”
In contrast, Congressman John Faso (R-Kinderhook) said he did not know enough to offer an opinion on President Trump’s executive order.
In 2014 the city entered into a complex transaction to purchase land out Union Avenue to provide emergency services to the eastern plateau. The land is owned by the congregation of Yeshiva Pardes Yosef D’Chasidei Belz which is defined under New York law as a religious organization. The transaction involved the city simultaneously selling the parking lot adjacent to the Algonquin Building, the Collamer parking lot, and acquiring the Union Avenue property.
In order for a religious institution to sell property, New York State law requires the approval of the Attorney General.
Attorney Michael Toohey represented Joel Aronson, the president of the congregation, in its petition to the Attorney General.
In a letter to attorney Michael Touhey dated January 17, 2017, Assistant Attorney General Nathan M. Courtney, on behalf of Attorney General Eric Schneiderman denied the petition.
AAG Courtney wrote that “undisclosed in the petition is the fact that the Yeshiva’s sale of the Union Avenue lot to the city was made contingent on the sale, by the city, of a valuable piece of real estate to a related third party. During the course of our investigation of this matter we learned that a third party, The Algonquin Building LLC (LLC), owned by Ben Aronson (“Ben”), Joel’s son, was a party to a three way transaction among the yeshiva, the city, and the LLC involving the Union Avenue lot, as well as the parking lot next to the Algonquin Building, owned by the LLC, on Broadway, known as the Collamer Lot (‘the three way transaction’). ”
As I read this, the Attorney General was troubled by the fact that the petition failed to divulge that the president of the congregation (the formal petitioner) was negotiating a deal that would benefit his son who would personally acquire a valuable piece of property if the deal went through.
As I read the letter, the sale must be based on benefiting the religious organization or its members. It cites the following Federal code,
“[a]n organization is not organized or operated exclusively for one or more of the purposes specified in subdivision (i) of this subparagraph unless it serves a public rather than a private interest. Thus to meet the requirements of this subdivision, it is necessary for an organization to establish that it is not organized or operated for the benefit of private interests such as designated individuals, the creator, or his family, shareholders of the corporation, or persons controlled directly or indirectly, by such private interests.”
Basically, it appears that Joel Aronson and the congregation was selling the property in a way that would benefit Mr. Aronson’s son and the Attorney General did not see how this sale fit into the religious mission of the congregation.
As noted by this opinion, denying this petition puts an end to the sale of the Union Avenue property for the proposed public safety building meant to provide emergency services.
At the time of the original agreement there was a very heated controversy with a variety of accusations about the legality of the city’s role and whether or not the deal made financial sense. A local group led by among others, my friends Tom and Bill McTygue and Raymond Watkin, went to court to block the deal unsuccessfully. I must say that in one of the early posts of this blog, I pointed out that the relationship between the Aronsons and their congregation seemed problematic and was the weakest link in this business. Even a blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut.
Press Release From Charter Commission [January 27, 2017]
Saratoga Springs Charter Review Commission Endorses Dynamic Mayor; Rejects Ceremonial Mayor Role
The Saratoga Springs Charter Review Commission discussed the powers of the mayor under their proposed new charter. The Commission was unanimous that it wanted a dynamic mayor elected by voters to represent the city rather than ceremonial mayor.
At their January 24th meeting the Commission voted 14-0 in favor of a council manager form of government. Under traditional council manager form, the mayor is selected by the council and has the same powers as other council members and plays more of a ceremonial role. However, the Commission felt strongly that Saratoga Springs needed a mayor who could provide dynamic leadership and rejected the weak mayor model.
Commission Chair Bob Turner, who is also an associate professor of Political Science at Skidmore, pointed out that very few city governments are a pure strong mayor or council manager model. “The vast majority of cities have a hybrid form that combine the political leadership and coalition building of the strong mayor model with the professional expertise and administrative efficiencies of a city manager or administrator.””
The Commission supported direct elections for the mayor and four year terms. Laura Chodos said, “I think we want a mayor who is accountable to the voters.” Mike Los said he felt that the mayor would be more effective in collaboratively working with stakeholders to address city challenges if he or she were not bogged down with the details of managing the city’s staff.
Barb Thomas said, “I think Saratoga Springs voters want a visible leader who can reach out to the community and build consensus on a vision for the future.” Under the proposed charter, the mayor would have the power to create ad hoc committees, as they can now, as well as appointment to land use and ethics boards. However, the Commission felt that the appointment to city boards should be subject to a confirmation vote by the city council since many have a 7 year long term.
The Commission did not decide whether the mayor should be full time or not. Bob Turner pointed, “Every former mayor who has spoken to us said it was a 50+ hour a week job with part time pay.” Gordon Boyd said, “I think Saratoga Springs needs someone who can articulate the city’s interests to outside stakeholders like NYRA, the State government, and the business community.”
The commission also reviewed the research of New York’s preeminent constitutional scholar and SUNY Professor Gerald Benjamin on the appointment and removal of city managers. The commission supported having the city council be able to appoint and remove the city manager,
Pat Kane said, “I like having a 1 year contract for the city manager to keep him or her on toes working to meet the needs of the city and city council.” The Commission also supported having clear qualifications in the charter for the manager/administrator, covering the education and experience of the city manager in the charter. Professor Turner said, “Both law professors I have spoken with said this prevents a city council from hiring an unqualified political crony to do their bidding.”
The Charter Review Commission will hold its next two meetings on February 2nd and 6th from 7-9pm at City Hall, where they will discuss the role of county supervisors, ethics provisions, the city attorney’s office, the identification of departments and land use boards, vacancies, the Recreation commission, and the city clerk.
The Commission is expected to finish their draft of the revised charter by the middle of February. Voters will have a vote in a Charter Referendum on May 30th. For more information, see Saratogacharter.com. If you wish to share a comment with the Commission or to ask a question, send an email to: saratogaspringscharter@gmail.com.
Bob Turner
Associate Professor of Political Science and Environmental Studies and Sciences
Director, Environmental Studies and Sciences Program
According to New York State municipal law, local governments are required to fund charter commission expenses. Charter commissions are also meant to be able to operate freely without interference from the local governments that establish them.
These were the arguments put forward by our own local charter commission when they voted to have a special election on May 30th for the referendum on whatever they finally decide on and to ask the City Council for funding.
The problem is that the law is often more nuanced than laymen think when they read statutes. Implicit in the charter commission’s right to spend money crafting a charter is reasonableness. For example, the courts might not respond favorably if the commission chartered a Lear Jet to fly them to the Bahamas to a conference on government organization. While that is an extreme example, it is meant to point out that the power for a commission to spend is not unlimited. As attorneys will tell you, it is always risky to bet the house on what judges or juries will do.
Whether it is reasonable to spend $37,000.00 on a special election when it could be done without additional cost to the city in November is subject to controversy. The charter commission has put forward some thoughtful reasons for choosing May 30 for their vote. Thursday’s Gazette Newspaper editorialized against their plan. I am not going to go over the arguments on both sides as I have posts that I think fairly represents both of these arguments.
If the Council votes not to fund the May 30 vote, it seems it is possible that the Mayor could then certify that the expense is reasonable and necessary if she is asked to do that by the charter commission. What happens after that is unclear.
My assessment is that there could possibly be three votes on the Council against paying for the May 30 election whereas there would be unanimity to pay for the commission’s other expenses. When Commissioner Madigan requested the meeting for January 25, she expected that the full Council would discuss and decide these issues. When it turned out that John Franck, whose office would be in charge of running the special election, would not be able to attend that threw a wrench in the gears.
Between the grayness of the law and the passions of the players this is one very testy question. Had Madigan and Scirocco attended the meeting and opposed the resolution to pay for the election it would have failed on a tie with Yepsen and Mathiesen probably voting in favor. It appears to me that on such a serious decision, Madigan and Scirocco were not comfortable having it made by a minority. The decision needed to be made by the full five member council.
It remains to be seen how John Franck will vote on paying for a special election.
As Franck only made known his inability to attend the meeting that morning, it put Madigan on the spot since she had requested the meeting. She contacted the Mayor asking that the meeting be canceled and that the issue be decided at the next Council meeting. Her statement citing her reasons for this action is below. Commissioner Scirocco also contacted the Mayor to say he would not be attending the meeting for the reasons cited in his statement below.
So it was now the Mayor’s move. The Mayor, knowing that there would not be a quorum present could have canceled the meeting. She chose not to. In response to an email from me as to why, she responded, “…I felt it important for transparency that I live stream and report to the full room of people who came to participate in public comment why we couldn’t have an official meeting [See full text below].” If you have spent any time around city politics you know that the supporters of charter reform who attended knew that there would be no quorum. The Mayor told the audience: “It’s a shame that we will not be having an official meeting. It’s unfortunate our colleagues are not here to uphold their duty.”
The charter members present then voiced their frustration over the delay.
I leave it to the readers to apportion blame in all this if they are so inclined.
I received a release from Commissioner Michele Madigan. The release asserts that she advised you this morning (January 25, 2017) that in addition to John Franck, that she and Commissioner Scirocco would not be attending today’s council meeting. Would be helpful to know why, since there would not be a quorum, you went forward with the meeting?
JK
Mayor Yepsen responds Wed 1/25/2017 9:11 PM
Commissioner Madigan asked for the meeting. I rearranged my schedule to accommodate. The Charter Commission needs funds to operate. I didn’t hold the meeting However I felt it important for transparency that I live stream and report to the full room of people who came to participate in public comment why we couldn’t have an official meeting. I asked for role call and read the public agenda for the record and left the council table. I feel it’s Important as the presiding officer of the council to do everything possible to conduct the people’s business. Every Commissioner had to make a decision today. I sent an email this morning that “I was not cancelling the meeting and I hoped they would make every effort to attend”. Each Commissioner had a choice today.
Commissioner Scirocco’s Release
Earlier this morning I alerted the Mayor that without full representation by the City Council I would not be in attendance for the meeting and would prefer discussing the Charter Review Commission’s budgetary matter at the next council meeting. It had been indicated that both Commissioner Madigan and Commissioner Franck would not be in attendance this afternoon. I feel it only fair that when voting on an important issue that impacts all City Residents, and our future as a city, that all members of the council are in attendance. No matter what their position on charter change or a special election, the entire council should vote on this important issue as it involves spending taxpayers hard-earned dollars. People have a right to know how their money is being spent. If you have any further questions please call my cell: -Skip
Michele Madigan’s Release
Members of the Press,
Earlier this morning it was communicated to the Mayor that Commissioner Franck would not be able to attend the special meeting today at 4:00 for professional reasons. As a result, I asked that the meeting I requested regarding the Charter Commission Budget Amendments be cancelled as I want all 5 members of the City Council to weigh in and vote on these important budget amendments from the Charter Review Commission. Commissioner Scirocco agreed and also stated that he wanted all 5 members of the City Council to weigh in and vote on this important matter.
I personally called the Mayor’s office and emailed the Mayor’s office asking for the special meeting to be cancelled.
Therefore, there was not going to be a quorum for this meeting. I expect that Mayor decided not to officially cancel the meeting as was expected and requested of her to do once she realized there would be no quorum. It is unfortunate that this occurred and that many of you came to this meeting as notice should have gone out informing you there would be no meeting.
As a result I will bring the budget amendments on the February 7, 2017 City Council Meeting in order to avoid this happening again in the future. I am the Commissioner who requested this meeting and I am the Commissioner who requested it be cancelled if all members could not be in attendance. There was no reason for the situation that occurred today at 4:00 pm.
Thank you and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.
I suppose in the future I will send out notice of cancellations when it will be known that there will not be a quorum necessary to hold a City Council Meeting. I did my best to communicate with all Commissioners and the Mayor regarding the cancellation of this meeting today.
Saratoga Springs Politics 