Author: John Kaufmann

[Many thanks to Barbara Lombardo for contributing her research and commentary to this blog. Barbara has owned a home on Park Place for over 40 years and until2015 was the longtime editor of the Saratogian]

Vincent and Katherine LaTerra are seeking approval to build a massive structure on the corner of Park Street and Cottage Street in a neighborhood of modest homes. For the neighbors, to say the least, this oversized project is not welcomed.

Neighbors Object

Although there are other design issues, the neighbors’ main concern is the mass and scale of the proposed building. Neighbors have appeared regularly before both the Planning Board and the Design Review Board and others have written to the Boards to urge that the project be reduced in size to be more consistent with the other homes adjacent to it. It is opposed by pretty much everyone living in the neighborhood surrounding the project.

An Elephant Squeezed Into a Shower Stall

The LaTerras are proposing to put up a three story 6 unit 18,500 sq foot condo building. The following is a list of homes on the adjacent properties in the neighborhood along with their respective square footage (sf). The numbers were researched by neighborhood resident Jason Thorud who lives immediately across the street from the proposed project. The chart below provides a sense of the extreme size of the project in relation to its neighbors.

• 21 Park Street 566sf
• 20 Park Street 1865sf
• 22 Park Street 1621sf
• 23 Park Street 2264sf
• 24 Park Street 1559sf
• 31 Park Street 2357sf
• 7 Cottage Street 3828sf
• 10 Cottage Street 1806sf
• 12 Cottage Street 1900sf
• 14 Cottage Street 1504sf
• LaTera Project 18,500 sf

An Abuse Of Comparisons

The applicant went to great lengths to have a building designed that echoed the architectural style of Victorian era buildings scattered around Saratoga Springs. He argued that the size and mass of his proposed building is consistent with other similar buildings in the city. The problem is that none of the examples offered of buildings of similar architectural style and size are comparable because they exist in surroundings very different from the neighborhood where the LaTerra’s wish to build.

Neighborhood resident Barbara Lombardo took the time to visit all the buildings that were supposed to demonstrate that this project was perfectly appropriate for the Park Street parcel. Her photos below document that the comparability asserted by the developer is not credible. All the other buildings of similar scale, whether historic or contemporary, are situated in very different surroundings from the neighborhood the LaTerra’s building would be plopped down in the middle of.

A Troubling Role Performed by Samantha Bosshart, the Executive Director of the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation

In response to the neighbors’ concern about the mass and scale of the project, the Planning Board referred the project to the city’s Design Review Board for an advisory opinion on whether the scale and mass of the proposed building was appropriate for the neighborhood. The Board received Ms. Lombardo’s photographs and comments, Jason Thorud presented his sq ft analysis and all the other neighbors who spoke were all in agreement that the project as designed was problematic.

In the two meetings that the project was discussed by the DRB, only one person spoke in favor of the building proposal-Samantha Bosshart , the executive director of the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation. Vince LaTerra, the owner of the property, is on Ms. Bosshart’s board.

It would seem odd that Ms. Bosshart would weigh in on this project other than the fact that LaTerra is on her Board which she freely admitted. The location is not in a historic district. While the neighborhood has some historic homes dating back to the nineteenth century some are more contemporary, and there are a wide variety of architectural styles. Yet Ms.Bosshart felt the need to weigh in as the only voice in support of the LaTerras, repeating all the arguments the applicant had made even though the Design Review Board did not ask for her opinion.

Clearly her unsolicited opinion carried weight, however, as five of the seven DRB members ignored the comments and evidence presented by the neighbors and asserted they were just fine with the mass and scale of the LaTerra’s proposed building.

The Project Is Consistent With The Zoning

The property is situated in a UR-4 district, which permits multi-family zoning. The issue is not whether the owners should be allowed to build a multi-family structure, but whether squeezing every inch out of the property to construct a massive building is appropriate to the neighborhood. The proposal now goes back to the Planning Board which has some latitude in making adjustments to the site plan. Hopefully, it will see fit to address the neighbors’ concerns.

Here Are Ms. Lombardo’s Photos Exposing the Dubious Analysis Promoted by Ms. Bosshart and the DRB that the Scale of the Project Is Compatible with the Neighborhood and Her Analysis of the Proposal

Woodlawn Avenue

Near Van Dam St, across from a parking lot. 

Nelson Avenue

Behind Brook Tavern. It’s on its own block, north of Brook Tavern, and much less deep than the proposal. The Regent Street ones are also less deep.

Regent Street

Between Phila and Caroline – green space on one side, tall multi-family on the other.

Clinton Street

Near Church Street, across from a parking lot and a commercial building.

Circular Street

At Swanner Lane, north of Lake Ave, past the funeral home. Note green on sides, parking in rear, less deep than the proposal. 

Ellsworth Condos

These are on Division. Less tall, less deep, less wide – there is a space between buildings after three units. Less imposing. 

Barbara Lombardo’s Analysis

The city Planning Board is considering two related applications down the block from me: First, to subdivide a .9-acre property on the corner of Park Place and Cottage Street into two lots, with the back .5 acres containing a house accessed via Cottage Street. Second, to fill the vacant .4 acres fronting Park Place end-to-end with an 18,500-square-foot, three-story, six-unit condo building.

The brick row-house-style proposal is handsome – but not for this location, or at least not without resolving addressing significant site plan issues, some of which are tied to its mass.

What recourse do we neighbors have?

The application by Vince and Katherine LaTerra develops every inch of the property as  permitted by the site’s UR-4 multi-family zoning for that block. So no Zoning Board involvement is required. However, they do need approval from the Planning Board, whose role is to consider mundane but highly significant site plan details for new, multi-family development.

Nothing on this residential part of the three-block-long Park Place and one-block-long Cottage Street approaches the proposal’s mass, scale and height. More than two dozen neighbors, including me, have written and spoken out against it, primarily for those reasons, along with raising site plan concerns about trash storage and removal, National Grid transformers, snow removal, parking, traffic flow and landscaping. 

The Planning Board asked the Design Review Board for an advisory opinion on the mass, scale, height and neighborhood compatibility. The DRB last month issued a 5-2 opinion in favor of the applicant. The vote followed objections by neighbors and my presentation of photos showing that none of a handful of similar buildings around the city are plopped in the middle of a residential street. The vote also followed one neighbor’s letter, which apparently went unread or at least unheeded, citing the enormity of the project compared to the square footage of neighboring residential structures.

More persuasive to the DRB was the Preservation Foundation’s full-throated endorsement of the project’s design, mass and scale – along with the acknowledgement that one foundation board member recused himself from the matter: Vince LaTerra, the project applicant. Also, the applicant made some design modifications to the DRB’s overall satisfaction: promising four entries instead of just two on Park Place, and reconfiguring the mansard roof windows.

Still, not everything is totally hunky-dory, even with the DRB members.

The DRB “encourages” the applicant to make the side and back façade more visually appealing. And it calls it “imperative” that high-quality materials be used to “further enhance and promote the look of individual residences.” Hopefully, the Planning Board will address these points and the DRB will follow up on them.

When they bought the property a couple of years ago, they immediately installed a tall, sight-blocking vinyl fence around the entire site, shutting themselves off except for their driveway on Cottage Street. They failed to keep the sidewalks free of snow, allowed brush to overgrow on the sidewalks, and removed trees. And they proposed a structure as wide as legally allowed, knowing the west side of the building will overwhelm a historically renovated adjacent single-family house. So I’m skeptical when the owners claim to care about the neighborhood.

I’m also skeptical about their application drawings, which show trees on Park Place, when in reality the street will have power poles and wires. What else in the plans are merely aspirational?

Many questions remain regarding Cottage Street. Where are trash and recycling containers for six units going to lined up for pickup? Where will the transformer pad for electrical service be located? How will ice and snow be handled for the sidewalks and for the ramp to basement-level parking in the U-shaped building? Where will plowed snow be placed? How will parking spaces fit, and how will vehicular access in and out of Cottage Street look and work? How will the owner physically and visually separate the newly subdivided property?

Though the zoning indicates this block is right for multi-family housing, there is no pressing demand to “enhance” the neighborhood with million-dollar-plus condos. It would be regrettable to have a building with basically no green space, unlike almost every existing residence on Park Place and Cottage Street. I’ve been cautioned that what could be built there could be worse, but let’s set a higher bar.

I remain hopeful that the Planning Board will address the site plan issues, and that the applicant, whose drawings demonstrate thought and suggest quality work, will modify their project to better fit on this block, where I’ve lived for more than 40 years.

Barbara Lombardo

Former Saratoga Springs Public Works Commissioner Jason Golub and his lawyer, Karl Sleight, have promoted the narrative that City Court Judge Jeffery Wait’s recent dismissal of the case against Golub for “Official Misconduct” exonerated Golub and that Golub was a victim who, for unknown reasons, was the subject of a great injustice. This is hardly the case.

Regrettably, the media has provided them an uncritical venue to spread this false narrative.

The Times Union quoted Sleight: “As I said from the beginning, these charges were completely baseless. Today’s decision confirms that fact.”

WNYT television featured Golub saying, “These trumped-up charges have been a heavy burden for me and my family to carry for the past 10 months. The weaponization of law enforcement against me for political or personal reasons should be gravely concerning to everyone.”

However, even the most cursory reading of Judge Wait’s decision exposes the futility of their attempt at spin.

A Faulty Criminal Charge That Can Easily Be Corrected Is No Exoneration

The charges against Golub stem from a December 2023 incident when city workers performed work on their boss’s, Jason Golub’s, private residence. Golub was charged with “Official Misconduct”, a misdemeanor.

City Court Judge Jeff Wait’s decision asserts that the document charging Golub was “deficient” because it didn’t address whether Golub knew that the city employees working on his sink were on city time.

In legal terms, Judge Wait’s dismissal was “without prejudice.” If it had been dismissed “with prejudice,” then Golub would be cleared because no further legal action could be taken against him. As it was “without prejudice,” it meant that Saratoga County District Attorney Karen Heggen could simply resubmit the charge, amending it to explain why the prosecution believed Golub was aware of the impropriety of using the city plumbers.

So the basis of the dismissal was an easily corrected technical error.

While Heggen told the press that she believed her original complaint was legally correct, she declined to resubmit a corrected complaint for some unexplained reason. To say that her decision was deeply disappointing would be an understatement. Golub’s lawyer did not introduce any new evidence that would have provided some rationale for her decision not to pursue the case. If DA Heggen believed the charges were justified, it is difficult to understand why she did not continue to carry forward the prosecution.

Golub Never Paid The Plumber

Like the telltale question in the Sherlock Holmes story- why didn’t the dog bark in the night?-The prosecution might have asked Golub at trial, “Why didn’t you pay the plumbers?”

If Golub believed the city employees working on his sink were not on the clock, and thus not being paid by the city, why didn’t he offer to pay them? Did Golub think that the work being done on his house was free? Why did Golub think that Ken Dooley, whom he didn’t know, would fix his sink for free?

Ken Dooley, the city plumber, told the police he was ordered to appear at the Golub house not once but twice. We know that Golub was present both times.

In fact, on one of the visits there, Dooley was accompanied not only by Deputy Commissioner O’Neil but also by another DPW employee.

Are we to believe that Golub, who has a law degree from Columbia University, had three city employees come to his home to fix his sink, yet it never crossed his mind that they might be on city time? Why did he not bother to ask? If he just assumed they were not on the clock and being paid by the city, why didn’t he offer to pay them?

There are two possibilities. One possibility is that he felt so privileged that he never thought he was responsible for paying anyone. I guess that would make him innocent of the charge, but it would reflect poorly on him first as a lawyer who should have known better and second on being a thoughtless, ungenerous, and privileged human being.

The second possibility, of course, was that he knew they were there under O’Neil’s direction, were on city time, and were being paid anyway, so he did not need to reach into his own pocket. Of course, that would make him guilty of official misconduct.

Whatever the truth of his motivation for not paying for the work done at his private residence, the basic fact is that he should never have had Dooley and the others come to his house to perform a repair in the first place. A more ethical person in Golub’s shoes would have at least conceded that he used poor judgment in not inquiring about whether his employees were on the clock, and the entire matter should never have happened. Instead, he and his lawyer have dared to play the victim in all of this. They blame everyone but Golub for being charged.

Golub dismisses the idea that he bears any responsibility for this mess.

He and his lawyer continue to claim that Tim Coll somehow magically convinced state agencies to investigate false claims against Jason vindictively.

He blames his deputy, Joe O’Neill, for what happened. According to Golub’s logic, it was O’Neill’s fault for not warning him that Dooley was helping him on city time.

I guess Golub should also blame Dooley for irresponsibly coming to his home on city time and fixing his drain without warning Golub.

Golub’s arrogance in playing the victim reflects very poorly on him and again testifies to his sense of privilege and arrogance.

Jason Golub is, apparently, unfamiliar with the concept of responsibility.

Judge Wait’s Ruling

The blogger and his editor would like to thank all of you who have made this project successful.

This blog was first published on June 21, 2015, with a story about a SPAC Little Theater performance by the Lincoln Center Chamber Society.

Over the decade, this blog has had:

• 1.3 million views
• 332,100 visitors
• 1,600 likes
• 7,500 comments
• Most viewed: 4,495 views for “A Kind of Lynch Mob at Skidmore.”

Saratoga Springs Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran’s belligerent and toxic behavior has been documented repeatedly in this blog over the past three-plus years he has been in office. Still, his out of control behavior at the June 16, 2025, City Council pre-agenda meeting descended to new lows.

The trigger for Moran seemed to be an item Mayor John Safford had placed on his agenda removing the language that authorized on-call pay for the city’s deputies. The on-call pay debacle has been documented in earlier posts. It involved among other issues allegations that city documents had been altered, a State Police investigation, and Moran hiring a lawyer for $1,250 an hour that he expected the city to pay for. Safford’s proposal to take on call pay off the books was something Finance Commissioner, and Dillon ally, Minita Sanghvi had called for months ago making Moran’s fury even more bizarre.

Moran: “I am Beyond Rage”

In this excerpt from the meeting Moran makes snarky and opaque references to some kind of collusion and other alleged grievances he suffered related to the State Police On Call Pay investigation. Don’t worry if you can’t follow everything he is saying.

Dillon Ain’t Sayin’

Resolutions and actions to be considered at City Council meetings are supposed to be posted on the city website the Friday before the Tuesday meeting. This is supposed to give both the members of the Council and the public time to read and digest the proposed actions to prepare for the Tuesday meeting.

Council members convene on the Monday morning before the Council’s Tuesday night meetings for a “pre-agenda” meeting. At this meeting, they are supposed to be prepared to answer questions about and/or clarify items they have placed on their agendas to further help members prepare for the regular meeting’s deliberations.

Moran has been a serial violator of this policy, presenting resolutions at the Council table that the public and his colleagues are unaware of til the last minute.

At the June 16 meeting, Moran taunted his colleagues (and, in effect, the public) saying that he will not reveal his plans for the regular Council meeting ahead of time. In his fury, he seems oblivious to his responsibility to be transparent so that citizens are adequately informed, and he has no concept of how important courtesy is in properly carrying out the people’s business.

The Unedited Dillon Moran

Here are the full unedited sections of Dillon Moran’s rants at the meeting.

Post Script

There were no fireworks at the Tuesday night, June 17, Council meeting.

At Moran’s request, Mayor Safford pulled from Tuesday’s agenda the resolution to remove On-Call. Moran has indicated for a year and a half that he would craft a repeal of on-call pay. He will get the opportunity to do that at the next Council meeting. Stay tuned.

The thing that is most disturbing about the leadership of the Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee is how cavalier they are about the truth especially when it could damage their target’s personal or professional reputations.

A case in point is a release issued by city and state Democratic Committee member Gordon Boyd. The release announces that he has supposedly discovered, in reviewing election documents, that the signatures of Joe Suhrada, who chairs the county Republican Party, and Jennifer Weaver, secretary of the County Republican Committee, appear to him to be identical. The logic being that the signatures may have been forged. He also writes that Charles A. Foehser, the First Deputy Clerk of Saratoga County, notarized these signatures, meaning that Froehser may have falsely claimed to have observed the signing of the documents by the named officials.

Boyd’s release included letters to the New York State Attorney General’s and Secretary of State’s offices asking them to investigate. The purpose of those letters is to amplify his story and get press coverage.

In an article in the Daily Gazette, Boyd told Tom Dimopoulis:

“When I looked at them, the signatures jumped out to me as way too similar. Being a notary myself, I know you’re not allowed to have signatures on something you didn’t see signed. You have to see a human being sign it and then you can notarize it,” said Boyd. “To my eye, it appears that the same hand signed for both the chairman and secretary of the party. It also appears that the purported signature of the chairman does not look like his official signature on file with the Board of Elections.

The reality is that if Boyd could find a newspaper or television station to publish his unsubstantiated claims, these grave accusations would raise doubts with the public about the integrity of Suhrada, Weaver, and Foehser, and by extension, the candidates named in the documents they signed.

It is no coincidence that three of the documents referenced in his release refer to candidates endorsed by One Saratoga, whom Boyd opposes.

Here are four of the documents that Boyd submitted to the state agencies.

The first two contain what he claims may be forgeries, along with the notarization by Froehser.

I don’t claim to have expertise in handwriting. I would observe, though, that Weaver ends her initials with a long horizontal slash, which is simply my untutored observation.

Mike Brandi, chair of the Saratoga Springs Republican Committee, has written to Boyd, demanding that he retract his letters and release and issue a formal apology.

Brandi included the following documents in his response to Boyd.

Does Boyd have suspicions that Weaver or Suhrada forged each other’s Driver’s licenses?

Does Boyd suspect that Weaver had Suhrada sign her passport?

Did Weaver sign Suhrada’s tax form?

An Inquiry To Gordon Boyd

I wrote to Gordon Boyd asking what research he did to substantiate his suspicions other than observing a handful of forms.

His disingenuous response:

I have made no such determination. I have merely asked the Secretary of State to investigate.  If you were a real journalist and not such a party activist, you probably would have read more carefully.

gmb

It’s Called Being Responsible

One key question that Boyd might have considered was what the motive would have been to forge these documents. The fact that there was no apparent explanation should have at least raised the need for further investigation before going to the press if Boyd’s concerns were sincere.

It is not totally unreasonable for him to seek help from state agencies if he was indeed truly concerned about these signatures. The logic, then, would have been, though, to wait for their opinion before going to the press

Of course, this would mean he was interested in the truth rather than an opportunity to smear these three people and make it into the news cycle. It also would have meant that he maintained a high ethical standard by not wishing to bring undue embarrassment to these people if they were innocent.

It should be noted that Michele Madigan immediately enthusiastically congratulated Boyd on his press release, praising him, saying, “Nothing gets by Gordon Boyd.”

This incident is just another example of why this city needs One Saratoga.

Another Example Of The Failure of Today’s Journalism

Tom Dimopoulos wrote a story for the Daily Gazette in which he quoted Boyd on his “suspicions.” He also quoted city Republican chair Mike Brandi, who asserted that Boyd’s allegations were false.

Journalists are not supposed to be uncritical stenographers. Good journalists investigate so they can assist their readers in determining the truth between conflicting claims.

In this case, all Boyd had was a suspicion. It is incredible that the Daily Gazette would print a story with virtually no serious proof to support it. This is not journalism. It is a quest for clicks.

According to the article, Dimopoulos’s only additional investigation was an unsuccessful attempt to reach Joe Suhrada. What about the other two people being accused? Didn’t they deserve to tell their side of this story? Couldn’t Dimopoulos have asked for other documents with signatures that might have shed light on this story?

It is instructive that no other major media newspaper or television station viewed Boyd’s allegations as deserving of coverage. Even Wendy Liberatore didn’t bother. Only the Gazette.

Brandi has provided the documents disproving Boyd’s claim to the Daily Gazette, which was once an excellent newspaper. It is discouraging that they will leave Boyd’s story standing without printing Brandi’s rebuttal and evidence.

On May 22, 2025, Courtney DeLeonardis, chair of One Saratoga, filed petitions with the Saratoga County Board of Elections to get a ballot line for its endorsed candidates to run in the upcoming November city elections. The following day, May 23, 2025, Otis Maxwell, chair of the Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee, filed a general objections form, challenging the validity of One Saratoga’s petitions. Maxwell had six days to register specific challenges to individual petitions. Dillon Moran began telephoning people who had and signed or witnessed One Saratoga petitions questioning them in an attempt to uncover fraud. He failed. On May 29, Ms. DeLeonardis was advised by the Saratoga County Board of Elections that no challenges to individual petitions had been filed. One Saratoga’s seven candidates would be on the ballot.

Gathering Petition Signatures Is Not Easy

Gathering signatures has become increasingly difficult every year. Ring doorbells and the general degrading of civil society has meant that citizens are increasingly reluctant to open their doors. [Full disclosure I participated in gathering signatures, and I can testify to how many doorbells one must ring to get a signature, so the success of One Saratoga is truly extraordinary.]

Here are the total number of signatures collected by the city’s two major political parties and those collected by One Saratoga.

Democrat 641

Republican 375

One Saratoga 1,156

So, One Saratoga’s fifty volunteers gathered more signatures than the two main parties combined. This is further proof of One Saratoga’s strength and commitment.

Press Release From One Saratoga

For Immediate Release

June 2, 2025

Courtney DeLeonardis

One Saratoga Secures an Independent Line on November Ballot

One Saratoga chair Courtney DeLeonardis announced that more than 50 volunteers from all political persuasions gathered nearly 1,200 signatures to successfully secure an independent line on the November 2025 ballot for the Saratoga Springs city elections. The number of signatures gathered far exceeds the 631 required to secure the line and was more than that obtained by the major political parties in the city combined.

Since its formation in 2019, One Saratoga has always endorsed the best qualified individuals to govern Saratoga Springs, regardless of their party affiliation.  With their non-partisan line on the ballot, they seek to provide an alternative for those who may be discouraged by the divisiveness and rancor of partisan politics.

One Saratoga has always held firm to the idea of “City before Party” and their endorsed candidates include Democrats, Republicans, and a candidate with no party affiliation.  

DeLeonardis said, “It is not because of their political affiliation that we chose them but, instead, because they are the best individuals to lead, and because they will always put service to our great City before any political party.”

One Saratoga’s endorsed candidates are:

John Safford for Mayor;

JoAnne Kiernan for Commissioner of Finance;

Jessica Troisi for Commissioner of Accounts;

Chuck Marshall for Commissioner of Public Works;

Tim Coll for Commissioner of Public Safety;

Sarah Burger for County Supervisor; and

George Ehinger for County Supervisor.

More information about One Saratoga’s endorsed candidates can be found at realonesaratoga.org.

Michele Madigan’s campaign for Mayor of Saratoga Springs has focused on a narrative that Mayor John Safford wants to imprison the homeless rather than work with RISE and other groups to address their condition.

In an email blast, Madigan wrote, “…our email that went out today calling out Mayor Safford for believing incarceration is the best cure for our homeless.”

This is a stunning allegation for which Madigan has been unable to provide any documentation.

When pressed by this blogger to substantiate this very serious accusation, the best she could do was to text me a reference to a Wendy Liberatore article from the May 8, 2025, Times Union. She wrote:

You are deliberately being obtuse on this issue. Here is the quote from the Times Union and I know you’ve had this corroborate off the record,but that’s not good enough for you.

Times Union May 8: “On Tuesday, however, the mayor said at the City Council meeting that he was only in favor of incarceration if an unhoused person was not willing to get help from RISE after appearing in homeless court.”

Text from Madigan

The homeless court referred to is the Outreach Court presided over by Judge Francine Vero. This court exclusively deals with homeless persons who have committed some kind of violation or crime. The court’s goal is to link the defendants with RISE services rather than send them to jail. Unfortunately, it is not always possible for RISE to assist defendants. In a case on the day I observed the proceedings, the RISE representative told Judge Vero that her organization had tried to work with a person but without success, and therefore, a referral to them was not possible. Judge Vero then had no choice but to sentence the person to jail. The defendant has the right to refuse to work with RISE, but that would mean Judge Vero sentencing them to jail.

So Madigan’s claim that the TU reference she cites proves Mayor Safford believes that “incarceration is the best cure for our homeless ” is just bizarre and doesn’t make sense. Is Madigan critical of Judge Vero for resorting to sending people to jail who have committed some kind of crime, who, for some reason, RISE cannot help because this is exactly the process the TU quotes the Mayor being in favor of?

I don’t see how you get from the Times Union quote to the idea that Safford wants to just put all the homeless in jail. This quote does not support her claim that Safford is a heartless official who just wants to punish the homeless, yet this is the only evidence they have produced to support the theme being repeated by Madigan and her campaign.

For me, the best response to Madigan’s campaign came from her fellow Democratic Committee member, Patty Morisson.

I’ve been very quiet on this issue, sitting back and watching the misinformation. I did myself the favor of picking up the phone and asking Mayor Stafford his position as the word on the street is Mayor Stafford aligned with incarceration.

In our conversation I learned nothing could be further from the truth. In fact he wants to see more services available for those who are incarcerated for short intervals. They need help when they get out.

I’m not here to pick sides. I’m commenting because I don’t like when I know the truth and it’s not reported correctly. Call me principled, but the facts and truth matters to me.

The mayor is committed to providing housing and services that support long-term stability for our most vulnerable residents.

If you have any doubt please do us all a favor and call the Mayor yourself, and stop politicizing this topic. Thank you.

Patti Morrison responding to Michele Madigan and Gordon Boyd on Boyd’s Facebook Page

Text Exchange Between Madigan and Blogger

Blogger: You have repeatedly made accusations like this: “…our email that went out today calling out Mayor Safford for believing incarceration is the best cure for our homeless.” Can you cite where Safford has advocated jail over RISE or other services? And you wrote: “I mean I’m not the one who believes homeless should be incarcerated for at least thirty days so they’re forced into the county substance-abuse program, that would be Safford.” Could you cite supporting evidence that Safford advocated this?

Michele: Yes, the Times Union. You may also wanna call RISE. I have nothing more to say on the topic. It’s true he believes incarceration is the right way forward for our homeless. Thank you. Goodbye.

Blogger: Where in the Times Union? Please identify the date of the article. Do you have some document from RISE?

Michele: On Tuesday, however, the mayor said at the city council meeting that he was only in favor of incarceration if an unhoused person was not willing to get help from RISE after appearing in homeless court. RISE sent a letter to all elected officials about elected official believing incarceration of the homeless is the answer.

Blogger: There is nothing in the Times Union that says the mayor believes “incarderation is the best solution for the homeless.” No where in the RISE letter is this claim made. The mayor did observe that if a defendant in Vero’s court declines RISE services she will, if appropriate, sentence them to jail. This is a fact. This has nothing to do with promoting jail time over RISE.

Michele: That’s your opinion, thank you. What he s says is clear. You can talk to RISE for more info and ask them for the letter they sent to council. Wanting to lock people up because they refuse services also isn’t the answer.

I have long admired the work of Rise Housing and Supportive Services in addressing the needs of the most vulnerable in our community. I was stunned when Sybil Newell, the executive director of RISE, issued an ultimatum to the city on April 29, stating that unless the city committed to funding them in 2026, they would shutter their shelter on June 3. This is despite its contract with the city that runs until the end of 2025 and requires a sixty-day cancellation notice. Of course, June 3 is the day before the “Belmont Stakes Festival” begins in Saratoga Springs.

As observed by a May 10, 2025, Daily Gazette editorial, RISE was, in effect, weaponizing its clients. They also stumbled into a partisan mess, as evidenced by how Mayoral candidate Michele Madigan grabbed and abused the issue. (Madigan’s involvement in this matter will be covered in a future post)

Ms. Newell was not shy about why she chose June 3 to abruptly close the RISE shelter.

Sybil Newell, executive director of RISE, told the Gazette:

“…Newell said, deciding on a June 3 closure date was intentional in part because it wouldn’t potentially leave unhoused individuals scrambling during the winter months, but also because of the proximity to the Belmont Stakes Racing Festival and coverage of the event.”

Daily Gazette May 8, 2025

The optics of this are bad enough, but worse, it entangled RISE in Michele Madigan’s campaign for Mayor. Madigan has gone over the top, falsely attacking her opponent, current Mayor John Safford, through social media, accusing him of prioritizing jail rather than services for the homeless. Madigan’s intemperate and outlandish representations will damage her credibility and the mud-generated splatters on RISE.

As if all of this were not bad enough, RISE seemed oblivious to the city’s requirements set forth by its charter and procurement policies. These provisions guaranteed that their threat would fail to achieve their goal of obtaining a commitment from the city to fund them through 2026.

A Demand the City Cannot Meet

As Department of Public Works Commissioner Chuck Marshall observed, any pledge the city might make now to fund RISE in 2026 will not be enforceable.

The city charter requires that the city identify the funding for any item before it can be purchased or contracted for. This process is typically done through the budgeting process for the following year.

Section 4.4.13 of the city charter reads:

Payments prohibited. 

It shall not be lawful for any City employee to incur or contract any expense or liability for or on behalf of the City, unless the Council has made an appropriation concerning such expenses. No payment shall be made or obligation incurred against any allotment or appropriation except and unless the Commissioner of Finance first certifies that sufficient funds are or will be available to cover the claim or meet the obligation when it becomes due and payable. Any authorization of payment or incurring of obligation in violation of the provisions of the Charter shall be void.

So, to be clear, the city cannot simply pass a resolution funding RISE for next year. The City Charter requires the Commissioner of Finance to certify that the city will have the funds to pay RISE for whatever amount they seek in 2026. At the May 6, 2025, City Council meeting, Mayor John Safford asked Finance Commissioner Minita Sanghvi if she could provide a guarantee.

At the Council table, Commissioner Sanghvi attempted to confuse the issue by reeling off all the income she thought (hoped?) the city would have next year to cover the cost of what RISE is asking for. Unfortunately for Sanghvi, when pressed by the Mayor on whether she could guarantee that the city would have the money in 2026 to fund RISE and meet the city’s other obligations, she admitted she could not give such an assurance.

Sanghvi’s response, as seen in this video from the meeting, is to oddly try to put words in the Mayor’s mouth, suggesting he doesn’t want to fund RISE in 2026. After admitting that he had said no such thing, she concedes that she will not be making any financial projections until she makes the budget in October.

In this second video, City Attorney Tony Izzo explains the charter provision.

Looking For Support

In her letter on behalf of RISE, Sybil Newell wrote

Despite public declarations that addressing homelessness is a priority, it has since been made clear to RISE that the City either will not or cannot continue funding the Adelphi Street shelter past this year.

Sybil Newell April 29, 2025

I could find no public record of any of the Council members precluding funding for RISE for next year.

I spoke to Mayor Safford about this. He told me that he met with Ms. Newell and conceded that he expressed reservations to her about how much, if any, the city could fund RISE for next year.

Mayor Safford told me he was reluctant to commit for next year outside of the budgeting process because of his concerns. This is consistent with Commissioner Sanghvi’s unwillingness to certify that there is money until the budget for next year can be crafted.

Oh, Yes, There is Also the Problem With The Contract

RISE has a contract with the city that runs through 2025. Unfortunately, the contract has no renewal clause. Without such a clause, city purchasing practices require that when the contract ends, to continue the services, the city must issue a new Request For Proposals (RFP)to select a vendor competitively.

This means that the city cannot commit to RISE until it has published a Request for Proposals (RFP), received proposals from interested vendors, and selected a winner.

RISE’S Precarious Situation

Making matters even more fraught, RISE’s lease for its current shelter location expires on December 31, 2025, and it does not contain a provision for a renewal. In fact, at the May 20 council meeting, Dillon told his colleagues that RISE would be unable to use its existing site next year. It would make no sense for the city to contract with RISE without some assurance that they have a secure location for next year.

RISE’s Threat Makes No Sense

So without:

• A lease on a facility for next year,
• Commissioner Sanghvi’s certification that the city will have the hundreds of thousands of dollars being requested,
• the RFP process being completed to select a vendor for a shelter,

the city cannot agree to RISE’s ultimatum. This blogger cannot understand why Ms. Newell would create this level of controversy and tension when any thoughtful analysis would have made clear her demands could not be met.

Moran’s RFP

At the May 20 Saratoga Springs City Council meeting, Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran announced that he had issued an RFP for an agency to operate a shelter for 2026. The worst-kept secret in the city is that the RFP is designed for RISE, but because an RFP is supposed to be competitive, Moran plays fast and loose in describing it.

The ten thousand pound guerrilla in the room is that RISE has no location to run a shelter after the end of this year. The RFP says that the city will select a location. Public Works Commissioner Chuck Marshall asks Dillon where this location is. The result of his question is classic Dillon Moran. Moran responds with a series of non-sequiturs and then simply tells Marshall the conversation is over. He never addresses Marshall’s question.

It is important to note that the city’s RFP, which has just been issued, has a response due date of June 10. Without a secured facility beyond December 31, how can RISE calculate the costs of maintaining a future facility? If there is rent, how much would that rent be? If they were to own a building, how much would it cost for electricity, heat, etc.? How can they submit a budget responding to the RFP with so many unknowns?

RISE Tries To Spin All This

At the meeting, the Council members talked about working toward a solution, but no one stated that the city would agree to RISE’s demand to fund them in 2026.

Despite this, RISE claims a victory lap. It told the Saratogian:

“RISE extends our sincere gratitude to the City of Saratoga Springs for hearing our concerns and taking meaningful action at a critical moment,” RISE said in the release. “RISE is also appreciative of the community for standing behind this essential work. Together, we are shaping a more inclusive and compassionate future for all.”

Saratogian May 20, 2025

City Council Members Try To Find A Way Forward

Representatives from the Mayor’s Department and the City Council have been meeting with representatives from RISE and Shelters of Saratoga (SOS) to try to develop a sustainable program for 2026 to meet the complex needs of the homeless. SOS has an agreement to provide emergency housing to the homeless in the winter as part of the Code Blue program. Code Blue was set up by the state following the death of a young woman in Saratoga Springs who died of exposure during a winter some years ago. Saratoga County has purchased land across from Market32 on Ballston Avenue for the SOS shelter. SOS has successfully raised money to build a facility on the land. The county has agreed to fund the operation during the winter using funds received from the state. The hope is to bring these two organizations together to develop a comprehensive solution that the Council can work with.

RISE Needs To Show More Prudence

It pains me to criticize RISE. Their work is enormously important. I want them to continue this important work, especially with Judge Vero’s Outreach Court and their help in embedding peer to peer counselors with the police who interact with the homeless.

I encourage readers to look beyond this unfortunate business and to continue to support RISE. They have helped so many people recover their lives. They provide critical housing to an important population.