Author: John Kaufmann

Saratoga Springs Mayor Ron Kim seems to go from one self-inflicted wound to another.

The debacle of his conflict with Judge Jeffery Wait has now been superseded by his new campaign regarding the alleged need to redo the UDO.

At the March 1, 2022, City Council meeting, Mayor Ron Kim asserted to his colleagues and the public that the city’s adoption of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) was so flawed by the actions of the previous administration that it now requires a redo of the process. Unfortunately for Mayor Kim, none of his allegations are true.

Here is a video clip that includes Mayor Kim’s allegations. I have gone through them one by one and what follows is the documentation of his folly.

Video of Mayor Kim’s Allegations

Kim’s Allegations

1. The UDO lacks an implementation date

In the video of the Council meeting, Mayor Kim alleges that the UDO has no implementation date.

There is an implementation date as indicated from this screenshot from the first page of the UDO posted on the city’s website. There are two items in the UDO document in which the implementation date is also referenced. Clearly, Mayor Kim did not carry out due diligence in studying the document.

2. The UDO was not filed with the New York State Department of State

I have to grant Mayor Kim points for chutzpah. The UDO landed in his lap on January 1, and there it sits. It is his administration that failed to meet the deadline to file. If he is looking for someone to blame, he might consider his own culpability.

The UDO was adopted on December 21, 2021, in the final days of the previous administration. According to the city charter, it was then the responsibility of then Accounts Commissioner John Franck to see that the secretary to the City Council, Lisa Ribis, who works in his office, filed it with the Department of State. By law, the city was required to file the document with the state within twenty days (see below).

When Mayor Kim and the new Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran took office on January 1, the filing had not yet been done. The city still had ten days left to do the filing. Why didn’t the Mayor and Commissioner Moran see that the UDO was properly filed? How is it Vince DeLeonardis’ fault that they failed to fulfill the responsibility that was left to them?

Here is the relevant section from the state’s handbook published to assist municipalities.

Each local law shall be filed with the Secretary of State within 20 days after its final adoption or approval as required by Section 27 of the Municipal Home Rule Law. The cited statute provides that a local law shall not become effective before it is filed in the office of the Secretary of State.

From the NYS Department of State’s handbook Adopting Local Laws in New York State

3. The UDO was adopted by a simple motion rather than a written resolution.

Mayor Kim claimed that the previous administration was required to adopt the UDO through a written resolution rather than a verbal one.

It is true that Mayor Kelly, as recorded in the minutes of the Council meeting, simply verbally moved the adoption of the UDO document as published on the city website. There was no written resolution. New York State Law, however, allows a local ordinance to be adopted by an oral motion. There is nothing in New York State statute that requires a written resolution according to the handbook the Department of State provides local municipalities.

If Mayor Kim has a legal basis for this claim, he is welcome to document that on this blog site.

4. The previous zoning was not repealed when the UDO was adopted

Mayor Kim claimed that the city was required to rescind the previous zoning when adopting the UDO and it was required to be in the resolution that adopted it.

Neither is true.

Effect of local laws on acts of legislature or prior local laws or ordinances.

1. In adopting a local law changing or superseding any provision of a state statute or of a prior local law or ordinance, the legislative body shall specify the chapter or local law or ordinance, number and year of enactment, section, subsection or subdivision, which it is intended to change or supersede, but the failure so to specify shall not affect the validity of such local law.

In fact, the city has until the implementation date (April 4, 2022) of the UDO to rescind the previous zoning.

In September of 2021, the city placed a legal advertisement in Saratoga Today announcing their plan to rescind the zoning and the scheduling of a public hearing on it which they held, setting the required groundwork for rescinding.

The actual action to rescind was put off because it was unclear until the last moment in December whether the UDO would even pass. Bear in mind that if the existing zoning were rescinded and then the UDO did not pass, the city would be without zoning regulations!

The central point is that Mayor Kim is simply wrong about the timing of rescinding the zoning. The city has until the implementation date (April 4, 2022) to rescind the zoning. It does not require voiding the UDO decision to address rescinding the zoning. The city still has a month to take this action.

It is clear based on the legal notice above and on the contents of the project management software that was used (this will be discussed further below) that Mayor Kelly’s team was fully aware that the old zoning needed to be rescinded and that it had to be done by April 4.

The Root of the Problem

A large and complex institution like the city government of Saratoga Springs has ongoing legal issues. It is routine when administrations change, for the incoming City Attorney to meet with the outgoing City Attorney to discuss current legal matters with a particular eye to items that will require prompt action by the incoming administration.

As Mayor Kim had not chosen a new City Attorney, it became incumbent on him to meet with outgoing attorney Vincent DeLeonardis to go over these matters. While DeLeoanrdis was more than willing to sit down with the Mayor to bring him up to speed on ongoing issues facing the city, Kim was never interested in doing this. As has been made clear by his repeated attacks on DeLeonardis, Kim considers DeLeonardis incompetent and so apparently had no plan to engage him in a conversation about what the city’s pressing legal obligations might be.

The termination of both the City Attorney and Assistant City Attorney meant that Mayor Kim entered his first term utterly ignorant of any pressing legal matters the city may have been facing.

Two months into his new term, unburdened by any informed insights he might have gotten from a discussion with the previous administration, Mayor Kim suddenly announces that the UDO was never properly adopted.

In a better world where there was real transparency, I would write Mayor Kim and ask why he had not met with DeLeonardis prior to taking office, and he would have provided some kind of answer. Regrettably, in our brave new world here in Saratoga Springs, simple forms of transparency and courtesy are the exception rather than the rule.

A Document Exists But No One In The Mayor’s Office Cares

The management staff under Mayor Kelly utilized project management software to establish an orderly system of tasks to guide them in their work on the UDO. Their planning included a timeline and steps that would need to be taken to implement the UDO after the Council vote.

Below is the timeline they set for completing the UDO. These documents are readily available to Mayor Kim.

Tony Izzo’s Stamp of Approval?

An article in the Foothills Daily Review indicated that Interim Attorney Tony Izzo was on board with Kim’s characterization of the misdeeds of the previous Council. Steve Thurston wrote:

…when the vote took place later than planned last December, the city council did not follow the full and proper procedure, and the law was never technically implemented.

This was the claim made by Mayor Ronald Kim and verified by acting City Attorney Tony Izzo…

Foothills Business Daily Review

The Foothills Business Daily Review is an excellent news source, but the public record does not support this characterization of what Tony Izzo said. Here is a link to a video of what Tony Izzo actually said when called upon by Kim.

https://youtu.be/Ip2otS6gq-A

I would say that Tony Izzo is doing a bit of equivocating here to avoid committing to anything. I expect that Mayor Kim will probably press Tony to be a team player and say something more helpful. I don’t envy Tony.

Public Hearing Gobbledygook

Mayor Kim announced that there would be some kind of hearing related to moving his redo of the UDO forward. The hearing is scheduled for the next Council meeting on March 15. The Mayor and Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran agreed to provide ten minutes for the public hearing.

Mayor Kim then announced that the “actual document that will be considered [at the public hearing] will be posted tomorrow [Wednesday, March 2, 2022] on the city’s website because someone will ask.”

I am unclear what will be in this document and have been so far unable to find it anywhere on the city website as promised.

I wrote to the Mayor on Friday asking what the name of the document is and where it can be found. To date [March 7, 2022], he has not responded.

Times Union Watch

In an example of the worst kind of journalism, in the March 2, 2022, edition of the Times Union, Wendy Liberatore not surprisingly provided Mayor Kim a platform for his latest attack regarding the UDO.

The Times Union regularly boosts Mayor Kim by uncritically publishing his often wildly false pronouncements. Such drama draws clicks for the newspaper at the expense of misinforming the public and holding elected officials accountable.

In Ms. Liberatore’s latest story that hypes Kim’s false claims, she reports that she called former Mayor Meg Kelly for a response. This is how Ms. Liberatore operates. Meg Kelly never returns her calls. Ms. Liberatore knows she will not get a callback.

Why does she bother to call Ms. Kelly? Rather than look for other sources to balance Kim’s remarks, she uses Kelly’s silence to create the appearance that she tried to write a balanced story. It is hard to know with Ms. Liberatore whether her appalling reporting is the result of the limited time allowed her by the TU or some other less flattering motivation.

Some Concluding Thoughts

What is clear is that Mayor Kim and his fellow newly elected colleagues on the Council bear a kind of fanatical hostility toward their predecessors. This is just the latest example of their propensity to blindly dismiss anything done by the past administration.

It also seems apparent that this move on the UDO is part of Kim’s intention to try to reverse the approvals for Saratoga Hospital’s expansion. As is so often the case with this Mayor, rather than just take the necessary steps to achieve his policy goal, he resorts to operatic drama wherein he adopts the role of the hero rescuing the city from the crimes of his predecessors. Unburdened by facts or law he sets himself up to be embarrassed by dramatizing his own ignorance.

[JK: My friend Jim Martinez has written an interesting piece dealing with safety and sidewalks. I am publishing it as a guest post]

At last week’s City Council Meeting (3/1), I was particularly interested in the address by residents of two neighborhoods regarding safety and sidewalks. Both individuals referenced their inability to walk safely along the roadways because of a lack of pedestrian sidewalks. While their concerns were similar, the neighborhoods are different. 

One near an elementary school was developed over a half-century ago, and the homes were constructed without the installation of curbs or sidewalks on the public right-of-way (ROW). This was reflected in the original developer’s costs passed on to the purchasers. I imagine at the time the new owners relished the more rural aspect of country roads while also living within the city (country in the city). 

The other neighborhood is much newer, and its initial promotion featured a multi-use “New Urban” neighborhood, dense with activity, both residential and commercial, and illustrated on the presentation panels with smiling families, children holding balloons, and birds flying across balmy blue skies. This was exaggerated to be our city’s first “New Urbanism” neighborhood on the Excelsior Avenue ‘commercial spine’ to the greater central city. The planners would approve a median divided narrow entry roadway that suggested a portal to Elysian Fields. 

The owners of properties in both neighborhoods were not aware of the city’s ordinance of ROW maintenance as noted in the City Code. Regardless of whether a sidewalk exists or not, the property owner is required to maintain clear ambulatory access across the ROW year-round. With the required compliance of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) this would become an issue and potential liability for the municipality and the residents should a tragic occurrence befall a pedestrian and a vehicle. This is from the City Code:

Paragraph 203-2 Snow and Ice Removal

The owner, occupant, or person in charge of an improved or unimproved lot adjoining a City street shall remove the snow from the sidewalks in front of such lot within 12 hours after each snowstorm and shall keep the sidewalks clear of snow and ice and, when slippery, keep the same safe by sanding. The portion of the sidewalk required to be kept free from snow and ice is the portion thereof which is paved if any, and if no portion thereof is paved, a space at least four feet in width shall be kept free and clear as above stated. A storm ceasing after 7:00 p.m. shall be considered as ceasing at 7:00 a.m. the following morning.

Complicating this predicament, the city in 2017 published a road (sidewalk) map of the city and all its streets whose ROWs had sidewalks and those that did not. Memorialized, this document now provides the city with accountability and a difficult decision. It could notify its residents to recognize section 203-26 of the City Code, and it could also propose that all properties comply requiring construction of sidewalks, planting strips, and curbs. The planting strips are not only for trees and dogs but serve the purpose of a repository for snow during the winter. The city could establish a moratorium to put in sidewalks (while the property owner maintains a 4-ft wide access during the winter) or the option that the city will do it and charge the parcel owner.

On a similar note, another neighborhood recently protested development in their neighborhood railing that their streets “be saved” from the arguable resulting increased traffic and would become dangerous for their residents. Incidentally, these neighbors have encroached on the ROWs and subsequently, have no curbs or sidewalks forcing them at present to navigate in the street all year long. The developer of this project would be extending new sidewalks and curbs from their adjacent facility to meet the new project site. 

Bottom line, it’s the parcel owner’s responsibility to maintain an ambulatory path or provide a sidewalk for safety, and it is the city’s responsibility to bring that to the attention of the public, given most aren’t familiar with the City Code (a published public document). Ignorance is not necessarily bliss. 

Jim Martinez

I received a release from Saratoga Hospital promoting a podcast they have launched. These podcasts are literally the voices of the people of Saratoga Hospital. They are articulate and thoughtful. I highly recommend these recordings.

---

Voices of Saratoga Hospital Podcast

Our community has so many stories to tell.

We’re excited to share with you our new podcast series: Voices of Saratoga Hospital. It is a series of stories, a collection of shared moments and insights to help us all understand a little bit more about health—and care—close to home.

Our first four stories:

• Being a Nurse During COVID
• A Story About Addiction and Hope and Recovery
• Palliative Care, in the Hospital and at Home
• A Sister and a Brother Walk into the Operating Room: A Story of Two Surgeons

These stories shine a light on the extraordinary work we do every single day at Saratoga Hospital.

I was invited to join Dan De Federicis, Robin Dalton, and Adam Israel as a guest on their recently launched podcast “Talking Saratoga.” A great experience with laughs and yuckin’ it up and substantive talk on what’s going on in the city!

In addition to my segment on Mayor Kim’s most recent follies, they discuss the controversy over safety at the Caroline Street Elementary School, the Whistler Court neighbors’ complaint about John Witt’s plan for expanding his project out there in light of the logistical problems of access to the development, Adam Israel’s planned trip to Poland to support the Ukrainians, and Commissioner Montagnino’s unfortunate gaffs over rap music and more.

Take a look:

This is a link to a story from 2011 regarding the Massachusetts Attorney General suing a company owned by Robert Mosher. Mr. Mosher is attempting to build a large office building adjacent to St. Peter’s Church.

I have been an observer of and a participant in local politics in Saratoga Springs for almost fifty years. In all that time I have never observed a more blatant waste of public money than Mayor Ron Kim’s decision to hire a private law firm to appeal Judge Jeffery Wait’s decision in City v Church Street Trust.

The principal of Church Street Trust is Jeffery Dumont. He had been cited for initiating work on a property without the required building permit.

Here is a link to the details of the case. This is a link to the conflict between Mayor Kim and the city court.

Judge Wait, citing the failure of the city to appear at the hearing regarding this case, reversed a guilty plea by Mr. Dumont and dismissed the stipulations against him.

The reality is that the decision had no material impact on the case. Mr. Dumont did not have a building permit and in spite of the decision, is not now entitled to a building permit. He has yet to get approval from the Design Review Commission, and the city’s code enforcement could simply issue citations against him regarding the same issues.

In spite of this, Mayor Kim has engaged the law firm Miller Mannix to appeal the decision.

I sent an inquiry to Commissioner of Finance Minita Sanghvi asking how much this appeal is going to cost the city. To her credit, she did partially respond to my inquiry, but she apparently did not bother to inquire as to what the estimate would be for this court action. Rather, she informed me that the city has the law firm under retainer “for land use issues up to $50,000″ providing Mayor Kim with a sizeable piggy bank to dip in to. Miller Mannix bills $230 an hour. Kim could burn through that account fairly quickly if not checked.

Your Tax Dollars= Mayor Kim’s Piggy Bank

Readers might ask, why would Mayor Kim expend public moneys on pointless litigation. The only rationale I can come up with is that Judge Wait’s decision embarrassed Mayor Kim. The Mayor would like to use your tax dollars now to embarrass Judge Wait by overturning his decision.

One Last Try

So your trusted blogger decided to brave the snow and cold to attend last night’s council meeting (March 1, 2022).

The checks and balances in the commission form of government in this case rest with Mayor Kim’s fellow Council members so I courteously asked them to assist by asking the Mayor the two questions he would not answer when I asked them:

1. Can the purpose of this appeal be resolved without expensive litigation?
2. How much is this litigation estimated to cost?

Commissioners Sanghvi, Moran, and Montagnino ignored my request (Commissioner Scirocco was not present due to illness).

It is important to note that the issue here is not just the gross waste of public money but the cavalier dismissal of the central question of transparency. These two questions are simple, and the public has a right to know how their money is being spent and why.

So That’s It

So that’s it. No one on the Council is rising to the defense of the taxpayers. Eventually, we will find out what this fiasco has cost us.

Time to move on, I guess.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 1, 2022

STATEMENT ON SNAKE HILL

Stewart’s Shops has decided to withdraw the application to build four homes on 30 acres of Snake Hill due to the need for a  24’ wide road that has generated much greater construction and costs than anticipated.

The Towns and their Planning Boards have done an excellent job of balancing “preservation with progress” and have regulations on drainage, tree cutting, access, etc. that preclude most of the development problems people perceive.

Due to the hill’s shape and steep sides, which come from layers of shale that were tipped up vertically and can be seen from the water, this area has remained undeveloped. The rest of the lake has progressed dramatically over the last 50 years. The Sewer District corrected a serious water problem and 25’ lots with seasonal camps were transitioned into attractive year-round homes.

According to Stewart’s Shop chairman of the board, Bill Dake, “We had hoped to construct four attractive homes on 30 acres that would’ve had very minimal visual impact and may have symbolized the tremendous progress the lake has made over the past 50 years.  Some say Saratoga Lake has been over-developed, but I would encourage you to drive around the lake today, with the leaves off the trees, and you will see, there is still much to be done.”

Media Contact:

Erica Komoroske

Director of Public Affairs

Stewart’s Shops

The City Council continues to have problems properly notifying the public regarding what will transpire at their meetings. Accounts Commissioner Moran’s campaign to take full control over outdoor dining has been plagued by missteps and the confusion continues with tonight’s agenda.

At Moran’s request, the city began in January to schedule public hearings on extending public dining, but as there was no actual proposal posted anywhere, no one showed up to comment. It was basically a waste of time to schedule them.

Finally, last Friday night Commissioner Moran included an actual proposal in the preliminary agenda for Tuesday’s meeting. It immediately ran into problems. His proposal, as readers may recall, gave him sole authority over outdoor dining. Unfortunately, as Public Works Commissioner Skip Scirocco was quick to inform him, this violated the city charter as the Department of Public Works has authority over the city’s streets and sidewalks.

At Monday morning’s agenda meeting Moran referenced an amended document that would give both Moran and Public Works authority over the establishment of outdoor dining. This change to the code was substantive and interim City Attorney Tony Izzo seemed to be saying that this would require new notices for a hearing on a new document.

So tonight’s agenda indicates there will be yet another public hearing on Moran’s proposal and his agenda no longer includes a vote on his proposal, only a discussion.

The problem is the document that is supposed to be the focus of Moran’s discussion and the public hearing is not the one that includes Public Works.

So we have the worst of two worlds. The document for the hearing is still the obsolete one from Friday night so the public does not have the benefit of accessing the current proposal, and the city still has a hearing scheduled. Some innocent person may attend tonight’s meeting to react to a proposed amended code that is not the one that is actually being considered.

Commissioner Moran has modified his proposal to authorize himself as the arbiter of outdoor dining. The revised amendment to the city code would now require the “advice and consent” of the Commissioner of Public Works on any plan to establish outdoor dining on city properties.

In our commission form of government, the Department of Public Works has the responsibility of maintaining the city’s roads and sidewalks. The Commissioner of Accounts cannot usurp that authority.

At this morning’s pre-agenda meeting Commissioner Moran asked Tony Izzo, the interim City Attorney, if the changes to his proposal would require a new public hearing. Tony responded that if the change were substantive then there would need to be a new notice and a new hearing. Unfortunately, technical problems with Zoom interrupted the discussion. When the Zoom meeting was able to continue Mayor Kim told the participants that Commissioner Moran would talk further with Tony and resolve the issue later. At this point it is unclear whether there will be a vote on this issue at tomorrow (Tuesday, 3/1/22) night’s City Council meeting.

I found it interesting that the Commissioner of Public Safety, James Montagnino, offered no pushback regarding the marginalization of his department from the permitting process for outdoor dining. Public Safety used to be represented by the Battalion Chief of the Fire Department on the committee that oversaw the expansion of restaurants onto city streets and sidewalks. Other members of the original committee, the Director of Risk and Safety and the City Attorney have also not been reinstated.

Fees and Decorations

The proposal also institutes fees now for permits for outdoor dining and now allows “decorations” which were previously prohibited. There is no indication of any standards for the “decorations.”