Author: John Kaufmann

[JK: The conflict over the arming of monitors in the Saratoga Springs School District  is rooted in the fact that the lives of people’s children are at stake.  People on both sides of the issue can easily interpret their opponents in this matter as implicitly threatening their families.  In this blog I take the risk of alienating or even angering those who take a different view.   I offer my opinion using my best judgment and with the best of intent but I also acknowledge that there are valid arguments to the contrary and  I respect those who will disagree with me.

While I have an opinion on the monitor issue and while it is important, it is not the only issue that will determine  my vote.  Ensuring that we have the best educational services for our children goes beyond whether to arm monitors.] 

The Controversy Over Arming Monitors

While there has been much discussion nationally and locally over the best way to keep students and staff safe in schools and proposals for so-called “soft protection” have been part of the conversation, much of the public debate in the Saratoga Springs School District has focused on the question of whether the use of armed grounds monitors provide more safety for students or pose an additional threat to their safety.

Many people are understandably frightened by the level of gun violence in America and they react in very different ways to that fear. In many cases that fear results in the inability to listen to opposing views. School Board meetings where the arming of monitors was discussed often saw members of the audience speak in anger and with contempt of those who disagreed with them. In the most extreme cases those opposed to arming the monitors viewed those who wanted them armed as “gun nuts” and advocates for the NRA. On the other side there were some who angrily viewed their opponents as being unconcerned with the safety of their children.

Complicating the discussion of the role of the monitors is the issue of guns themselves that often triggers strong reactions.  For many people whose only contact with guns is through observing the mayhem that regularly appears on the television news, thinking about guns often generates visceral fear. The assumption often is, if guns are present, someone is going to get hurt. This often makes it difficult to have a constructive discussion about the use of guns and gun safety. The reaction to guns in general is a strong factor in the consideration of whether grounds monitors in the Saratoga Springs School District should be armed.

Opposition To Arming Monitors

 One of the main fears often expressed by those who oppose the arming of grounds monitors is that a gun will be accidently discharged and cause innocent people to be injured. Shafer Gaston makes this point in a recent post on this blog.

Gaston noted that there are approximately 500 deaths per year attributed to gun accidents. He adds that even trained police have accidents.  To support this he links to a web site associated with Police Magazine which is a police trade journal.  The web page has anecdotal reports of police accidents but regrettably provides no statistics.  The incidents appear to all be from the last two years  and some occurred in other countries. Not all involve actual wounding or death.   Only one documented incident occurred in a school and no one was injured.

Mr. Gaston is on the mark when he asserts that the availability of guns introduces the risk of accident.  Nevertheless, I would expect Mr. Gaston would acknowledge that the issue is not that simple.   He asserts that “weapons should only be introduced when the risk of accident is outweighed by the needs of security.” So the challenge lies in assessing both the risk of accidents if monitors are armed and the risk to students if monitors are not armed and an active shooter incident occurs. Statistics can help in trying to make these assessments but they are not the only source of information to consider.

One candidate for the School Board told me that the risk of arming the monitors was such that at the recent community meeting on safety, the District’s insurance agency had recommended against it. This turned out not to be true. The insurance representative instead told the audience “I can lean either way…..It’s a governance issue.” Here is a link to the video of the meeting. The insurance representative can be heard discussing the issue between 1:11:33 and 1:13:33

 

So what are the factors that increase or decrease the potential threat of an accidental discharge of a gun?

It would seem it is not necessarily the number of guns present that may increase the risk of an accidental shooting but the degree to which those handling the guns are trained to handle them safely.  I would argue that a gun in a home where none of the family members are trained in gun safety poses a greater risk of an accidental shooting than in a police station even though there are many more guns present but where there is a culture of gun safety and on-going and extensive training in the handling of guns.

 In fact, Mr. Gaston acknowledges that there are mitigating factors regarding the risk of guns.  I exchanged emails with Mr. Gaston and learned that he supports having armed SROs at the high school and the middle school.  In fact, the school board members who voted to disarm monitors also voted to add an additional SRO to the school district.  So the actual policy being debated in the school district is not whether any armed personnel should be allowed in our schools but who and how many should be armed. [JK: The issue of SROs and their training is complicated and will be discussed in a future blog post]

I asked Mr. Gaston if he supported SROs at all the Saratoga Springs School District schools.  He responded that he did not.  He believes that there is less need for a law enforcement presence with elementary aged children and that those schools are very secure. He also believes that the interaction between the elementary schools and the local police is both frequent and positive.  He also believes that the cost associated with supporting that many SROs is prohibitive and makes no sense.

 So Mr. Gaston and School Board members do not oppose having armed personnel in the schools. They are only on the record for opposing arming the school monitors.

Who Should be Armed?

Let’s understand that monitors have been providing the basic security for the school district for three decades.  They oversee the arrival and departure of students to insure their safety given the presence of moving buses and other vehicles.  They spend much of their time patrolling the school grounds to intercept persons who should not be on the school grounds and occasionally to intercept students inappropriately trying to leave the school.  Over the decades they have dealt with petty theft, broken up fights, and dealt with contraband drugs.  Their efforts have helped create an environment that has allowed the teachers to focus on teaching.  In fact, they continue to perform this function today.  The fact is that the monitors have encountered conflict in the course of their work for years.  The difference now is that they are no longer armed.  As far as I can tell, no one has suggested eliminating their positions.

It is my understanding that the district also involves them in some training programs to provide them with support.  They will be participating in a training program focused on “de-escalation” which I take to be how to calm potentially volatile events.

The Saratoga Springs Police Department began addressing active shooting issues decades ago.  “Active Shooter” incidents involve everything from domestic violence to robberies.  Given the increasing incidents of shootings at schools, this began to be a significant focus.  This training which often involves simulations often at schools, occurs multiple times each year.

Since most of the monitors currently employed at the district are retired police officers they have been extensively trained during their careers in dealing with armed threats.  While people may legitimately argue over the extent that they should go through refresher training, as retired veterans these men/women are not rookies.  During their long careers they have had to carry a side arm and be prepared for its potential use on a daily basis.  As active police they were required to re-qualify to carry their weapon annually.

The fact that the monitors have a record of thirty years without unholstering a gun let alone discharging it, reflects the vigorous culture of gun safety in which they trained and lived.

This, however, is not the only consideration regarding whether they should be armed.

The grim reality is that most school shootings unfold quickly.  Given the lethal nature of weapons currently available to the public, an assailant operating in a school with its dense population is able to inflict a great deal of harm quickly.

 I recently spoke with a highly respected retired police officer whose career included serving in a management capacity.  He shared with me the difficulties that police would encounter trying to address an on-going shooting at a school.  First, they would need to find a secure place to park their car that would not impede other police and emergency vehicles that might follow them.  They would then need to find and put on their helmet and locate and secure their tactical weapon.  In spite of the fact that they may have participated in exercises at the school, they would not be highly familiar with it.  They would need to approach the school with great caution both to protect themselves and to insure that they did nothing to jeopardize the lives of the students and staff.  He emphasized what a challenging environment a school is.  His essential point was that even if they were near the school when they got the call, it would take them some time to effectively engage the threat.

He noted that the monitors would already be at the school.  The monitors are intimately knowledgeable about the geography of the school.  They also know many of the people in the school and while they may not know everyone, they will be able to distinguish quickly many people who are not a threat whereas the police responding to the call will have no way of easily assessing anyone they encounter with the exception of the monitors who are dressed to indicate their role as safety staff.

In life there are many things that involve risk. As stated before, the choice before the community is essentially which risk they are willing to live with. Reasonable people will disagree  on how to answer this question.  While additional  “soft protections” should be explored and implemented, in the end these measures may mitigate the chance of a shooting incident but they will not eliminate it. The critical need for a rapid response should a shooting incident occur outweighs for me the risk of having armed monitors on site on a regular basis.

 How Many Should Be Armed?

 In addition to the question of whether to re-arm the monitors,  the other question facing the district is how many armed officers should the district employ?

The district currently employs two armed SROs who are stationed at the High School and Middle School. This provides coverage during the school day to the high school and middle school but leaves the elementary schools uncovered. The SROs do not provide  coverage for events occurring outside of the school day such as sports events which the monitors still cover unarmed.

Mr. Shafer reflects many in the community who oppose extending coverage to include these other areas.

Others such as Saratoga Parents for School Safety are seeking comprehensive coverage of all schools.

Ed Cubanski who is a candidate supported by Saratoga Parents For Safe Schools advocates employing SROs in all the schools.  He estimates the cost to be roughly $500,000.00.

There are some who would like to rearm the monitors and have them make up the coverage which would potentially be less expensive.

How this would be paid for is unclear.  There has been some discussion about the use of grants but it is rare that grants cover ongoing costs.  [JK: I will be discussing the funding issue in a separate post].

To be continued…

 

 

Tim Holmes has been circulating petitions seeking the Republican mayoralty line in the November election.  Mr. Holmes was active on the city’s Open Space Advisory Committee.  He lives in the vicinity of the proposed Saratoga Hospital expansion.  Mr. Holmes is the author of the book, A Brief History of Saratoga Springs.  He serves on the Board of Directors of the Friends of the Saratoga Battlefield.

The legislation that banned guns on school property for people other than police officers and sheriffs unless authorized by a school district was not the Safe Act but the Federal Legislation titled “Gun Free School Zones Act” which was passed in 1990.

New York State Insurance Reciprocal which insures the Saratoga Springs School District did not recommend against rearming the school  monitors.  They consider whether the monitors should or should not be armed a decision that should be made by the school board.

[JK: This is the first in a series of posts on the safety/gun issues in the Saratoga Springs School District.  This post deals with some history and background to the controversy.  Upcoming posts will explore the different sides of the controversy and who is running for school board and how these candidates plan to address the issues.]

 Monitors: The Basics

On Thursday, March 14, 2019, I met with Saratoga Springs Superintendent Michael Patton and several of his staff to try to better understand the history and role of the district’s “monitors.”  These are the staff members who are part of the Saratoga Springs School District’s safety program and who, until recently, carried concealed weapons.

The monitor program began in the early 1970’s.  They are utilized on an as need basis for large events and for beginning and end of the day logistics at the schools.  Originally actively employed police officers and sheriffs worked part time as monitors on their days off.  As active law enforcement officers, they carried side arms that were not concealed.  As active duty officers they were certified in a variety of ways including for carrying guns.

Over the years there was a gradual transition from active to retired police officers and sheriffs.  Today all the monitors are retired law enforcement officers.   For example, in addition to retired Saratoga Springs Police Officers, the retired police chief from Ballston Spa and a retired detective from New York City are currently employed as monitors.

The monitor program employs thirteen part time and three full time monitors.  There is a full time 12 month person for the high school.  The full time staff person for the middle school works for ten months.  The head grounds person works ten months and then works during summer school.

All monitors wear clothing that identifies them as monitors.

The monitors ensure traffic safety at arrival and dismissal times and check student ID’s when seniors leave for lunch.  They are tasked with monitoring building grounds and vetting students, staff, and visitors who wish to gain entrance to the High School.

Grounds monitors are also deployed to evening events throughout the district.  Some examples of events they cover are:

athletic events, school plays and concerts, continuing education, Board of Education meetings, outside user groups, etc.

It is important to understand how the monitors fit into the culture of the school.  They were not armed sentinels guarding school grounds.  Their role was very different from that of police patrolling the city.  They worked closely with students, faculty, administrators, and other staff in ways that integrated them into the school community.  This is not to under play the significance of the fact that they were equipped/armed to deal with a lethal threat were it to arise but to understand that this was just one of the sides of their work in keeping students safe.  Many enjoyed personal relationships with a large number of students and staff in the buildings where they worked.

Currently, John Thuener who is director of Facilities and Operations, along with Mark Leffler who is the Head Grounds Monitor manage the monitor staff.  The two review the coming activities for the week in the District such as sports events and determine what staffing will be needed and who to assign.  Mark Leffler recently retired from the Saratoga Springs Police Department.

Monitors are paid $17.50 per hour.

Recent History

 During the thirty odd years that the monitors carried side arms they were always concealed and very few people knew they were actually armed.  During that period no gun was every discharged and in fact, no gun was ever unholstered.

In January of 2013,  New York State passed the Safe Act.  In 1990 Congress passed the “Gun-Free School Zones Act.”  It made it a felony to be in possession of a gun on school property if you were not actively employed by a law enforcement organization or explicitly authorized to carry a weapon by the school board.  Strictly speaking, the retired armed police officers employed by the school district became subject to prosecution.

When the Saratoga Springs School District hired Michael Patton as its Superintendent in the fall of 2017, he became aware of the fact that the monitors were armed and that this required an affirmative action by the school board.

On October 9^th in a 5 to 4 vote the Saratoga Springs School District Board of Education voted against allowing monitors to carry guns.

At the time of that vote a School Resource Officer (SRO) who was also armed worked in the district.  The New York State Insurance Reciprocal provides insurance to approximately half the school districts in New York including Saratoga Springs.  NYSIR  recommended that the Saratoga Springs School District  not rearm the monitors but NYSIR recommended that the District should employ two SROs.  The representative of NYSIR that spoke at a public meeting raised the need to insure that the monitors are properly trained in light of the potential liabilities but made it clear that how to address the monitor issue was up to the District’s school board.  In January the School Board unanimously voted to hire a second SRO.

The School Resource Officer

New York State established the employment category School Resource Officer (SRO)” in 2000.  An SRO had to be an active law enforcement professional meaning, for example, a sheriff or police officer.  According to the National Association of School Resorce Officers (NASRO) recommends at least 40 hours of training as to how best to serve the schools they are assigned to.  This is a link to the Frequently Asked Questions at the NASRO website.  A Google search I made provided no requirements for SROs in New York other than they had to be an active duty law enforcement officer.  There are references to training but I could find no certification or other standardized requirements.

Originally the positions were managed by the New York State Police.  State Troopers were underwritten by the state and assigned to local schools across New York in the wake of the Columbine shooting.  As a cost saving measure, the state subsequently eliminated funding for the troopers.  Some schools, including the Saratoga Springs School District, opted to maintain SROs and replaced the troopers with officers from local police and sheriff departments.

The Saratoga Springs School District presently employs two SROs. A Saratoga Springs police officer operates out of the High School and a Saratoga County sheriff works out of the Middle School.  There is a technical/jurisdictional issue because the school district extends beyond Saratoga Springs proper.  Both of these individuals are armed.  They still report to someone in their department rather than the school although obviously they work closely with the school administration.  Think of SROs as similar to police officers assigned to an event like a parade.  They still operate under the leadership of their department but work closely with the organizers of the parade.

The sheriff stationed at the Middle School costs the district $72,000.00 a year.  I believe the Saratoga Springs police officer costs roughly the same. The city and the county both contribute an additional amount to the salaries of their respective officers.

Pending Legislation

Recently the New York State Legislature passed legislation that continues to address the issue of who can be armed on school property.  The legislation is awaiting the Governor’s signature.

Bills introduced in the New York State Legislature have memorandum attached to them describing the provisions in the bill in more accessible language.  The following is an excerpt from the memorandum attached to this recent bill:

Requires that no educational institution shall issue written authorization to carry a firearm to any person who is not primarily employed as a school resource officer, law enforcement officer, or security guard.

This language would preclude teachers, administrators, and staff like janitors and aids from carrying guns on school grounds.

It does however allow for a “security guard” to be armed.  In order to be a “security guard” as defined in New York, an individual must participate in a vigorous training program and receive a certificate and participate in additional training following receiving the card.

My understanding is that the requirement for having a certificate is waved for retired law enforcement officers.

It is my understanding that if the Governor signs this bill, should the school decide in the future that it wanted the monitors to carry weapons again in addition to their regular duties; they would need to change the job title, description, and requirements to meet the “security guard” status.

Additional Safety Measures

The Saratoga Springs School District has devoted considerable resources in a broad plan to protect its students.

This is a link to a more extensive discussion of what they currently are doing.

Among the programs the District has implemented are:

1. A Visitor Management System with photo ID called BadgePass.  All people seeking access to a school building must register.  The software generates a temporary photo identification badge with their picture.  The software incorporates Predator Barrier which checks the National Sex Offenders Registry which would generate an alert if the person seeking entry is a level 2 or level 3 predator.
2. The district has completed a project that enhanced door hardware to all classrooms.
3. DERT is the District Emergency Response Team.  Each building has a Building Emergency Response Team (BERT).
4. Members of the BERT teams have attended a variety of training and education programs such as Mental Health First Aid offered by the Mental Health Association of New York State.  The district training has involved representatives from Four Winds, Saratoga Center for the Family, the Saratoga County Mental Health Department, and private practices.
5. The district has implemented an extensive surveillance system with high resolution cameras.
6. The district has carried out drills to train staff and students on what to do in the event of an active shooter event.
7. The district has initiated a variety of programs meant to proactively deal with mental health issues which can contribute to minimizing the danger of violence in general.

 

 

 

I received the following release from the Kendall Hicks Campaign

Please join us this Friday Night, 3/22 at the Frederick Allen Lodge at 69 Beekman Street as we kick off Kendall Hicks Campaign for Commissioner Of Public Safety.  Have a chance to speak with the candidate, enjoy good community, live music and refreshments.  Event begins at 7PM.  Here is link to the Facebook Event.  Share with your groups and bring your friends.  Thanks for your support.

https://www.facebook.com/events/252658398955717/?active_tab=about

 

On March 21^st at 5:30 at the City Recreation Center (15 Vanderbilt Avenue) the City’s Design Review Commission and the City’s Planning Board will meet to hear a presentation by the LA Group regarding the plans to develop the Flat Rock Centre Parking Structure.  Saratoga Today has an informative article about the latest iteration of the project.

Link To Story

 

 

New York State is one of the few states in the country that allows candidates to appear on multiple ballot lines in a practice called “fusion voting” or “cross-endorsements”.  Candidates will often seek multiple party endorsements to attract voters who might not vote for them on say the Republican line but might cast a vote for them on say the Independence Party line. Votes on all the party lines are tallied to determine the winner of a race.

While there has been some talk in Albany about ending fusion voting, so far the NY State Legislature has not included this in their changes to the voting system.

I have not yet been able to obtain the endorsements, if any, made by the Green Party.  The Republican chair, Matt Hogan, tells me it is his understanding that the local Conservative Party has endorsed the four candidates on the Republican slate and no Democrats.  I will report on any additional endorsements as I learn of them.

Here is a list of the candidates endorsed by the Working Families Party and the Independence Party.

The Working Families Party has endorsed:

Meg Kelly for Mayor

Michele Madigan for Commissioner of Finance

John Franck for Commissioner of Accounts

Tara Gaston for Supervisor

 

The Independence Party has endorsed:

Meg Kelly for Mayor

Michele Madigan for Commissioner of Finance

John Franck for Commissioner of Accounts

Robin Dalton for Commissioner of Public Safety

Skip Scirocco for Commissioner of Public Works

Matt Veitch for Supervisor

Steve Mittler for Supervisor

The Saratoga County Chair of the Independence Party, Eddy Miller, expressed enthusiasm for their candidates: “We have endorsed five  excellent incumbents who have been doing a great job for Saratoga Springs and are confident that the newcomers we have endorsed will work well with those currently serving as Saratoga races into a new decade, the 100th year anniversary of the Roaring 20’s!”

Members of all the parties are currently circulating petitions to get endorsed candidates on the ballot. Petitions are due to be filed April 1-4.

 

 

 

 

 

Last week I posted a release from Finance Commissioner Michele Madigan’s office announcing that the city would be changing its health insurance contract and would be saving $300,000.00 this year and more in coming years.

An anonymous commenter who goes under the name “Bartelby” attacked Commissioner Madigan for failing to do this earlier.  This is not the first time this person has tried to post a comment containing misinformation that was meant to damage the credibility of Commissioner Madigan.  In the past I have just put the comment in the trash rather than post it, but in this case I am publishing the text in order to make a point.  I expect this person has taken their name from the great Herman Melville short story “Bartleby, The Scrivener” but in a wonderful example of irony, the person misspelled the name.  In other words, he/she cannot get his/her own name straight.

Here is Bartelby’s (sic) comment:

“So the taxpayers have been missing out on a $300,000 savings because Madigan was holding out for a promise to, if cheaper, convert back to a community-rated plan? This was completely unnecessary, as a proper competitive bid would have allowed for both options because there would have been more than one insurer competing.”

This comment is so inaccurate and misleading in so many ways that it is hard to  know whether Bartelby is just  ill informed or consciously malicious.

The following is a an account of how this policy change evolved.  I think it is worthwhile going into the weeds on this.  Most people are appropriately cynical about their elected officials and not without reason, but it is a mistake to assume that all are self serving, incompetent, and lazy.  The effort that went into this project is very much worth understanding and acknowledging.

The History:

There are two general methods used to determine the cost of health insurance to employers. In “Experience Based” plans premiums are based on the actual costs incurred by the insured group compared to what was expected.  For instance, if you were a modest size firm and you had more employees undergo expensive procedures than expected, you were at risk of a major hike in your insurance.  The other method used is referred to as “Community rated.”  In this case the insurer identifies a pool of companies and sets the premium rate based on their overall utilization.  By expanding the pool theoretically one minimizes the potential for hikes.

Prior to the Obama Affordable Care Act (ACA), heath care companies were under no obligation to allow employers who had changed from a “Community” plan to an “Experience”  plan to change back to a “Community “ plan.  In 2018 the State of New York issued a directive requiring providers allow both options as required under ACA.

Still, the issue remained complicated.

1. There are only a handful of providers in the area, limiting the city’s ability to make such jumps.
2. Not every community-rated plan is the same, and a new provider would almost certainly include different doctors.  Any change could expose the City to grievances from employees based on the union contracts.

So the new found flexibility to change plans provided the city with the potential for greater savings but actually determining what changes would be best both in terms of cost and consistency with union contracts was not simple.

Like most individuals and families the City uses brokers to get insurance and to assist in claims and general support.  You may have an insurance agent who you buy your house insurance through, for example.  They provide you with support in selecting the actual insurance company and in addressing any claims you may have.

So the City first issued an RFP requesting brokers to submit proposals for a package that included their support to the city for its insurance issues, claims, etc. along with an actual health provider who would deliver the service.

Eleven brokers submitted proposals.  A committee to review the proposals was established and they whittled the potential brokers down to four.  In the end, Amsure which is operated by Adirondack Trust was selected.   As part of that decision, Amsure was directed to pursue creative solutions to address the City’s increasing healthcare burden. Moving to an “Experience Based” plan was one option presented by Amsure, at which point the City asked them to approach medical providers in the area. MVP ultimately came up with the lowest price.

Interestingly, MVP had been the existing health provider for the city.  Since MVP had been servicing the city, it was a good sign that their low bid reflected a realistic understanding of the city’s employees and usage.

One of the benefits of the change was that MVP Experience Based plan included out of network benefits to employees which would not have been allowed under the “Community” pool model.

The City then sought out agreements from its unions.  The city has seven different bargaining units.  The City met with all seven groups.  The range of services in the new contract would be the same as the old with the one added benefit of additional out of network coverage.

One union offered to accept the plan but only if the existing contract (which includes an annual 2% raise) was extended for an additional year.  The City had already reached agreements with a number of units but it then went back to the all of them, whether they had agreed already or not, with the one year extension proposal.  As of this writing five had signed.  The bargaining unit for the police needed more time because a number of its union officers were away.  The Department of Public Works bargaining unit rejected the deal.

It is important to note that Commissioner Madigan’s office involved the unions early in the process.  While the city can unilaterally change health plans, the unions can grieve the actions if they believe the changes violate their agreements with the city.  In the past, administrations had unilaterally made these kinds of changes and in so doing generated bad feelings on the part of the unions.  Since the health care change represented no loss of benefits, it appears likely that the change will survive a challenge by the DPW bargaining unit.

On February 27 the City Council convened a special meeting to authorize the Mayor to sign the updated healthcare rate renewal forms with MVP Health Care.

A Lesson

If you waded through this narrative regarding what it took to save  money on the City’s health insurance it should be clear that Commissioner Madigan and her deputy Mike Sharp deserve praise and acknowledgement for their initiative.  People in general forget that in the commission form of government, elected officials need to work hard as administrators.  The public is usually acutely aware when their leaves are not picked up when they think they should be or when their taxes go up, but they are often unaware of other work or lack thereof of their elected city officials.   It is fully understandable. Who but geeks like me spend time sorting through this stuff?   Still, I wish efforts like this were better understood and acknowledged.

It is unfortunate that misleading and inaccurate  comments such as “Bartelby’s” often resonate with the public and  that it has become common for comments such as this to be  uncritically circulated and amplified on social media.   I would not have posted his/her comment normally.  Comments that are as inaccurate as this do not contribute to a constructive dialog about issues and are trashed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I met with Angelo Calbone at his invitation to discuss the Saratoga Hospital’s plans to build an office facility and parking lot on land currently owned by D.A. Collins but under option to the hospital.

An earlier proposal by the hospital to expand was the source of considerable controversy several years ago with strong opposition from the neighbors in the area.

At present, the land the hospital wants to build on is undeveloped and quite charming.  While this land is subject to development now under current zoning, the hospital proposal would involve a much more intensive use of the land than is currently allowed and raises concerns about the impact it would have on traffic in the affected neighborhoods.

The Comp Plan that was in effect before the adoption of the current 2015 Comp Plan designated the area to the north of Morgan Street and the west of Seward Street (includes all Birch Run, the apartments on Morgan Street and the two vacant parcels the hospital intends to purchase from D.A. Collins – see map above) as HDR-2.  HDR-2 stands for High Density Residential which allows for 10-15 units/acre.  The condos at Birch Run and apartments in that area are examples of what is  allowed under HDR-2.  The two vacant parcels along Morgan Street where the hospital intends to build were never rezoned as called for in the pre-2015 Comp Plan. Arguably, the zoning for these two parcels was more or less compliant with the old comprehensive plan because the UR-1 zone (four units per acre) is less dense than the directive in the old comprehensive plan that called for zoning that would allow residential units with 10-15 units per acre.  In any case, that all changed with the adoption of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan that now designates this area to be INST which stands for Institutional.  This designation contemplates the re-zoning of this property  for, among other things, health related facilities like a medical office building. The Institutional designation does not contemplate zoning for single family or multi family units. The actual language from the Comprehensive Plan that describes the INST designation is “the Institutional designation includes areas that provide services such as religious, educational, health, cultural and tourism”.  The change in designation for these parcels came at the behest of Saratoga Hospital’s request of the Comprehensive Plan Committee in November 2014 when Hospital Vice President Kevin Ronayne described the hospital’s need for more medical office space in close proximity to the main hospital building. He urged the committee to re-designate this area in a manner that would accommodate zoning to allow for medical offices. The committee agreed and the Council ultimately adopted this designation as part of the overall Comprehensive Plan when it voted in June 2015.

In February 0f 2016 things got very messy when the city council addressed the actual rezoning.  Both Mayor Joanne Yepsen and Commissioner Franck recused themselves from voting on the rezoning asserting that they had conflicts of interest.  The vote to rezone required a super majority and without Yepsen’s and Franck’s participation a super majority was not possible.

Now with a different Mayor and a different Public Safety Commissioner, the zoning change vote is slated to come before the Council again, once the Council has reviewed the zoning map and comprehensive plan alignment recommendation, currently scheduled for March 12. This recommendation will presumably affect many city parcels, not just the land of interest to the hospital. If the zoning map is amended, the hospital will be able to make a site plan application to the Planning Board.

Mr. Calbone, Saratoga Hospital CEO, and I had a very thoughtful conversation which I found helpful in understanding better the hospital’s rationale for their proposal.

First of all I had thought that the proposed office facility was a kind of medical building simply providing space to interested doctors.  In fact, the medical offices that would be located there are offices of the hospital’s medical group, all employees of the hospital. It is beyond the range of this post to address the trend but essentially independent medical practices are becoming increasingly rare.  The full gamut of the medical profession from family practitioners to surgeons are opting to work directly for hospitals.  The hospital already has a very large employed medical group and given the national trends it is reasonable to expect the staffing of the hospital to continue to grow.

As explained to me by Mr. Calbone, the medical group’s offices are now scattered about the area in a variety of locations.  In order to be eligible for certain reimbursement streams, medical facilities in New York State must adhere to standards set under Article 28 of the New York State Public Health Law.  The process to certify these facilities is apparently extensive and rigorous.  Given that these facilities are meant to address health needs of a vulnerable  population, it is not surprising the requirements in areas such as safety, ventilation, and sanitation are extensive..

As explained by Mr. Calbone, the cost of retrofitting these off site offices to meet these standards is high as, I expect, is the cost of maintaining them.  My impression is that most of these facilities are leased.  He made a compelling argument as to the value of having a centralized medical facility in the city which would be owned by the hospital and designed specifically to meet these requirements

He also raised an oddity in the Medicare reimbursement formula.  For some reason, Medicare has a higher reimbursement rate for services provided at the hospital than at other offices.  Apparently their definition of what is “at a hospital” is that the operation must be within 250 yards of the main building.  He provided links to the Medicare regulations in support of this.  I will admit to the readers of this blog that I found the arcane nature of these links beyond my ability to decipher.  In correspondence from Mr. Calbone, he asserted that the savings would be in the order of $1.5 million dollars a year if the offices were situated adjacent to the hospital.  I am in no position to verify this number but it seems reasonable that whatever the figure is it would be significant given the magnitude of Medicare.  If there is someone out there that challenges Mr. Calbone on the Medicare regulations, I would welcome it but barring that I am willing to give Mr. Calbone the benefit of the doubt on this. A consistent theme in Mr. Calbone’s commentary is that increased revenue or money saved through any hospital initiative is money that can be redirected to patient care.

Mr. Calbone emphasized to me that the hospital is a not-for-profit institution.  The moneys saved by the success of the proposed facility do not go to share holders. They are invested in the improvement and expansion of patient care.

We also discussed the option of building the offices above the existing hospital structure.  He offered that the hospital will in the future expand space by building up but that he felt strongly that this future space needed to be reserved for anticipated patient care.  He noted that his own administrative offices are under consideration to be moved to provide additional space for patient care.

I asked him about the possibility of expanding the parking facility at the hospital.  The following was his description of the problems with this option.

A combined parking garage/office building structure on the hill

Regarding your question about a combined parking garage/office building structure, as reference, I’ve included below the excerpts from the letter we sent to our neighbors.

To specifically address the idea of a combined parking garage/office building structure, there are additional constraints and considerations we have explored:

• Traffic concerns would not be mitigated, in fact, would still be compounded if we were to build “on the hill”
• Current employee and visitor parking would still be displaced for upwards of two years during construction
• A combined building structure would likely conflict with the current PUD and city building height restrictions, requiring additional zoning modifications
• Our current office building on the hill is a two-story structure, in part, due to these considerations
• A combined building structure would interfere with the medical transport helicopter flight pattern to and from the helipad located on the west corner of the property
• Placing a helipad on top of any building is cost prohibitive, from a construction as well as, more significantly, an insurance perspective
• We maintain that all costs committed to building any parking structure, upwards of a projected $10 million, is money wasted, money better committed to patient care

From the letter [JK: A letter sent to the hospitals neighbors]

…If the hospital does not move forward with this project on this parcel of land, we may revisit the concept of building adjacent to the hospital’s main campus, on the hill on the west side of Myrtle Street where our current employee and visitor parking is located. If this concept were to move forward, we would still be bringing staff and patients to the main campus. If another developer purchases the land at the top of Myrtle Street and expands the neighborhood, that will increase traffic and compound the traffic concerns.

Building “on the hill” was fully explored and determined to be the less viable solution on many levels. Building on the hill would require constructing an 800-space, multilevel parking garage to accommodate the employee and visitor parking displaced by the new office building and parking garage, as well as for the additional parking needed for the new building.

In this scenario, all of the current parking demands would be dispersed throughout the surrounding neighborhood for upwards of two years during construction. This redistributed parking would account for hospital staffing and shift changes, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Constructing a parking garage is estimated at $10 million dollars above the cost of the office building. We believe that would be an irresponsible use of the community’s resources, money that should be directed to patient care and patient safety….

The major vexing issue remains how to address the increased traffic that would result from the Hospital’s expansion.  To his credit, Mr. Calbone did not try to minimize the traffic concerns nor did he offer glib solutions.  In the end, if this project goes forward, finding a solution will rest with the cooperation between the city and the hospital.  During the last few years the makeup of the city’s Planning Board has improved in terms of its independence in critically assessing projects.  I have great respect for Mark Torpey, its chair.  The citizens of this city will have to rely upon the Planning Board to protect the neighborhoods affected by this project by insisting on a workable traffic plan.

Assessing this project has not been easy for me.  I have friends who live in the affected neighborhood who adamantly oppose the hospital’s plans.  It is a beautiful piece of undeveloped land and in the best of all possible worlds I would greatly prefer that the city bought it and turned it into a park.  The reality is that this is not going to happen.

During my conversation with Mr. Calbone I noticed aerial photos on the walls of his office that serve as a documentary history of Saratoga Hospital.  Similar to many other hospitals, it has experienced enormous physical expansion over the years.  The fact is that if I were Mr. Calbone thinking strategically, I would be coveting the D.A. Collins land as probably the last major property to use for future growth.  If this land were sold and developed as residential property, the cost for acquiring it from multiple homeowners in the future would probably be both financially and logistically problematic.  I can only assume that this is probably an important element in his pursuit of his project.

Hospital Ratings

The Medicare website periodically issues a report card evaluating the nation’s hospitals.  They recently issued a report that showed a decline in the ratings for New York hospitals.  Disturbingly, New York State’s hospitals rated 50^th out of 50.  Bucking that trend has been Saratoga Hospital [https://www.medicare.gov/hospitalcompare/results.html#dist=50&loc=12866&lat=43.0964412&lng=-73.7242486].  Saratoga Hospital increased its rating from a 3 to a 4 (ratings range from 1 to 5).

A Cautionary Tale

This is a story that was published in the Glens Falls Post Star Newspaper in its March 3rd edition.  It is headlined “Glens Falls Hospital CEO Describes Dire Financial Situation To Local Leaders.”  It is a sobering story and it reinforces the poverty of what passes for our health care “system” and how critical the role money plays in the survival of our most essential institutions.

 

 

[JK: I invited Alice Smith to be a guest writer on my blog to respond to my piece on Saratoga Hospital’s planned Medical Office Building.  Alice lives in a neighborhood that will be impacted by the project.  She is a person of high integrity with a strong sense of social justice]

John

Thank you for reaching out to me.

A couple of years ago, when the expansion plan was defeated, the neighbors were not only upset about the plan itself, but also about the fact that the hospital never communicated with the neighbors, despite telling the public and the press that they “were working closely with the neighborhood”.   The whole project was kept very quiet.  Then we learned about the plan and there was an uproar.  The attitude of the hospital was “we’re going to build, no matter what yout think or how you are affected”.

This time around they realized that was a mistake and they are doing a tremendous public relations campaign to gain support.

The facts are still the same, except that they are being more professional in dealing with the neighbors and the public.

Beginning with the Comprehensive Plan, Chris Mathiesen is right.  The part referring to this re-zoning was passed at the end of the day, after a long tedious discussion about many changes in the city, and the impact of this change was (conveniently) not even noted.  Yes, it should be revised.

Second,  the proposed building is for doctor’s offices, as noted above.  I have no doubt it is more practical for the hospital to have them all in one building where they can collect the rent and have a much higher profit.

The fact that it costs money to meet certain standards to certify facilities for Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement is just one of the expenses that the medical business has to deal with, and I’m sure they would have to reach similar standards for patients with private insurance as well.  With that said, they still have to  figure out how to make the highest profits.  I’m sure their financial experts consideredl those calculations when they chose the site on Morgan St for their expansion .

The hospital is a big corporation that needs to make money, whether it is for profit or not-for-profit,   which is fine,  – who doesn’t?

However, there are other options, such as building on the hill, which might not be as cost effective, but this does not entitle them to break rules and violate the rights of neighborhood residents.   The biggest assett a person has is his/her home.  Some homeowners are paying high mortgages to live in a nice neighborhood and their rights should be respected.

You mention the probability that D.A.Collins could sell the land for residential development.  We are not opposed to this.  The area is residential and we have no problem with anyone building residences.  If the purchase from multiple owners would be logistically and financially too complicated   -there are financial advisers who can handle those matters.

There are many other negative issues that were previously raised by neighbors, such as the need to add sidewalks,  street lighting, traffic, and flooding in the lower areas, but I won’t go into those details here.

There is a purpose for Zoning laws, and these laws should be respected  -even if  a big corporation such as the hospital thinks that the only way it can be more profitable is by rezoning.  Other options should be considered more seriously, such as building on the hill, but they have not been willing to even consider it and are telling the public there is no other way this can be done.  They will turn down possible every alternative.

John, the fact that the hospital is now reaching out to the community makes their proposal more appealing, but this does not change the reality that they are stepping on the rights of residents who don’t have the money or the political power to fight this, and I do hope that our elected officials can see clearly.   By the way, patients will not be saving money, they will be paying the same price for medical care.

Lastly, regardless of whether any corporation wants to build a  mall, or a roller coaster, a condo, or a hospital (profit or non-profit)-  this does not change the fact that certain rights should still be protected.

Although there has been a big change in their public relations approach, it is appreciated, but  civility does not mean “meet in the middle”.

Will end here for now.  I’m sure there will be a lot more about this in the near future, and I appreciate that you look at both sides of the issue.