I have learned that Joe Ogden, the Deputy Mayor has resigned.  This is a real loss for the city.  My interactions with Mr. Ogden were consistently good.  Although he was aware of my critical posts about Mayor Yepsen, he was always cordial and solicitous.  In the two circumstances where we discussed substantive matters I found him well informed, focused, and constructive.

Too often, the public is dismissive of the people they employ in their government.  With a wide brush they characterize the people who work in government as inept and lazy.  While there is an unfortunate corps of such people, there are others, such as Mr. Ogden who take their work very seriously.  Mr. Ogden worked many, many hours in his capacity as Deputy and had to endure the marathon meetings of our City Council late into the night.

I have been advised by Mr. Ogden that he will be assuming the position of budget director of the State University of New York. It sounds like a great job and he told me he was very excited about the new position.

I asked Mr. Ogden if he wanted to share any thoughts with the community regarding his experience as the mayor’s deputy. Here is his statement:

“Being deputy mayor of our city has been nothing short of a dream job for me.  Many thanks to Mayor Yepsen for this fantastic opportunity; it has been a privilege to work alongside her on our many accomplishments in City Hall. A heartfelt thank you to all of my fellow citizens who have shown not just me, but my family as well, tremendous warmth and kindness over the years. And a very, very sincere thank you to all of my fellow city employees for showing me an extraordinary level of patience, respect, and cooperation during the last two and half years.   At a time when government service is too often looked down upon or relegated to something that is dirty or undesirable, our citizens should take heart that this city has excellent people who are passionate about their community, give 100%, and do great work each and every day – often at the expense of pursuing more lucrative opportunities in the private sector.  It has been my great privilege to work in their ranks, and I am forever grateful.”

[It appears that the governor is trying to maintain his control over the horse racing industry while syphoning off money to the state general fund rather than invest in maintaining horse racing]

John Hendrickson resigns as Cuomo’s racing advisor

Hendrickson file photo

By Paul Post, The Saratogian

Posted: 06/07/16, 4:43 PM EDT | Updated: 8 hrs ago

SARATOGA SPRINGS >> John Hendrickson has sent a loud, clear message to Gov. Andrew Cuomo, whom he said hasn’t been listening lately – I quit.

Hendrickson, Marylou Whitney’s husband, resigned his post Tuesday – four days before the Belmont Stakes – as Cuomo’s special advisor on matters relating to Saratoga racing.

He has grown increasingly frustrated over Cuomo’s handling of New York Racing Association, which has been under state control since October 2012.

“I was appointed to help give a voice to Saratoga, but it’s clear the governor is not listening,” Hendrickson said. “Marylou and I are sorely disappointed. We hope the governor finds some newfound enlightenment soon.”

Instead of advising Cuomo, Hendrickson said his role turned out to be a “nightmarish job of Whack-a-Mole” as he constantly tried to stop Cuomo from doing things to hurt racing.

One of the latest episodes was the state’s approval, in an omnibus bill, of 1,000 new gaming machines at Aqueduct Racetrack to benefit Nassau Regional Off Track Betting.

The slot-like video lottery terminals will be located at Aqueduct’s casino, which generates revenue for racing. But none of Nassau OTB’s machines will benefit racing.

“We thank Mr. Hendrickson for his service and wish him well. The Governor and the Legislature saved NYRA from yet another bankruptcy in 2012 and installed a Board and management team that, by every metric, has been a success. We seek to continue this progress,” Gov. Cuomo spokesman Rich Azzopardi said in a statement.

Former NYRA board member Charles Wait of Saratoga Springs said Hendrickson’s resignation is a “disaster for Saratoga, a disaster for racing and a disaster for the governor.”

Saratoga is losing an important voice, he said.

“This is the governor’s hand-picked advisor and he’s quitting because he can’t get anywhere,” Wait said. “I hope this gives the governor pause about the advice he’s getting or his own direction.”

Hendrickson and Whitney are highly respected in the world of thoroughbred racing and have done a great deal to improve the lives of Saratoga’s many backstretch workers. Hendrickson said he and Whitney plan to continue sponsoring their annual Backstretch Worker Appreciation Program, which provides daily activities during the 40-day meet, this summer.

But Hendrickson’s split from Cuomo is clear evidence of their disapproval with the governor’s racing policies.

In October 2012, Cuomo reorganized a 17-member NYRA board with 12 state appointees, and charged the group with returning the firm to private hands within three years.

But early last year, after NYRA President and CEO Chris Kay developed such plans, Cuomo instead extended state control of NYRA until this fall.

Most recently, it’s believed he favors a plan that would effectively keep a majority of state appointees on the board, while at the same time taking some of the money NYRA gets from Aqueduct’s casino and transferring it to the state general fund.

Under NYRA’s latest franchise agreement, the contract called for NYRA to get a share of gaming revenue in return for giving the land, worth $1 billion, at its three tracks – Saratoga, Belmont Park and Aqueduct – to the state.

Hendrickson said it’s now apparent that Cuomo wants to control the money generated by VLTs.

“Maybe this was his original course all along,” Wait said. “Racing is one of the greatest upstate industries there is. The governor says he’s open for business. This sends a message that he’s shutting upstate down.”

The group Concerned Citizens for Saratoga Racing is extremely upset at Cuomo, charging that taking money from NYRA will hurt Saratoga Race Course, one of the Capital Region’s most important economic engines. Maureen Lewi, the group’s chair, said Hendrickson’s resignation is a setback for Saratoga and racing.

“John is one of only a few notable figures that speak the truth, regardless of personal consequences, a virtuous asset in today’s society,” she said.

Only a few years ago, the best horses and stables in the country began moving to New York, attracted by the lure of higher purses resulting from gaming revenue at Aqueduct’s casino. Now, the reverse could happen if Cuomo takes money from NYRA, Wait said.

“I can’t imagine anybody investing in any business if they don’t have certainty about what the state is going to do,” Wait said. “It was his (Cuomo’s) word that he would privatize NYRA in three years. He has not lived up to his commitment.”

Last year, Wait resigned from the NYRA board when it became apparent that Cuomo’s plan was to continue state control over the firm.

Hendrickson’s departure leaves Georgeanna “Georgie” Lussier of Saratoga Springs as the lone local representative on NYRA’s board, a position she’s held since last September.

“I’m clearly upset,” she said. “I relied and depended on John’s input throughout this process. As long as I’m on the board I will represent his views and thoughts to the rest of the board.”

The board is not scheduled to meet again until August in Saratoga Springs.

Saratoga Springs enacts ban on sidewalk-sitting

Lake Lonely has been experiencing what is called an algae bloom.  Basically, when excessive nutrients such as fertilizer or phosphorus enter a still water area as a result of runoff, it creates an environment in which microscopic life, typically phyloplanktin, multiply rapidly.  When these small organisms die and decay they absorb large amounts of oxygen.  This loss of oxygen serves to threaten the animals and fish who rely on the body of water.

I am a fisherman and I have heard anecdotally that the fishing in Lake Lonely has experienced a steep decline.  This lake had been rich in perch, bass, pickerel, pike, and sun fish.

The increasing scarcity of potable water has become a growing concern for public health officials both nationally and internationally.  An extreme example is the situation in Flint, Michigan.

All of us should be concerned when any body of water has its quality threatened.

It is unclear what the source of the Lake Lonely problem is.  The obvious suspects are:

1. Saratoga National Golf Course.  This project was controversial from the beginning due to its proximity to wetlands in general and Lake Lonely in particular.  In the minutes of the Planning Board meetings when the original application was under consideration, SNGC promised to monitor the water to insure their pesticides and fertilizers had no adverse impact.  It is unclear how long they were obligated to continue their monitoring.  I have been told that a class from Skidmore did some sort of study that found no problems early in the process.  In my meeting with the Mayor’s office, no one was knowledgeable as to what was required of Saratoga National Golf Course in terms of continued monitoring of Lake Lonely’s water quality.
2. Spring Run Brook dumps into Lake Lonely.  Much of the runoff from our city ends up in Spring Run Brook which in turn ends up in Lake Lonely.

In early May when I met with the Mayor’s staff, they said they would discuss with Mayor Yepsen contacting the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to try to determine who is responsible for evaluating the water quality in Lake Lonely and what action the city might take to address what appears to be a growing problem there.

I received an email from the Mayor on May 11 saying that they wanted to pursue this issue.  Unfortunately, in spite of the fact that I had been told I would be advised of any actions they took, I have heard nothing since.

For months I repeatedly emailed Mayor Yepsen regarding a number of issues and during this time  I  either received no reply or the reply I received did not address my question.

With this in mind I decided to make a last try by meeting with Mayor Yepsen.  I emailed her the following:

I am writing to request a meeting with yourself, Tony Izzo, and Vince DeLeonardis.  The subjects are related to requests for information that I have requested but not received.

These involve Saratoga National Golf Course and the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Thank you for responding at your earliest convenience.

I pointedly left out of the proposed agenda the issue of the hospital and her recusal in an attempt to make the idea of the meeting less threatening.

On May 3^rd I received the following email from her:

Hi John.  I’ll ask Vince to give you a call or email to set that up. Thanks.

On that same day, I received the following email from Trish Bush, executive assistant to Mr. De Leonardis (City Attorney).

Mr. Kaufmann, I have been asked to invite you to come to City Hall on Monday May 9th at 3:30 PM to discuss the items in the email you sent to the Mayor on May 2nd.  Please let me know if this time is convenient for you. Thank you, Trish Bush Executive Assistant City Attorney’s Office City of Saratoga Springs (518) 587-3550 x2516

So on May 9^th, I went to city hall for the meeting.  It turned out that the Mayor was driving to Kentucky that day to pick up her son from college and did not attend the meeting.

I met with Vince DeLeonardis (City Attorney), Tony Izzo (Assistant City Attorney), Joe Ogden (Deputy Mayor).  I was accompanied by my friend Jerry Luhn who is an attorney with decades of experience working as counsel for several state agencies.

I wrote briefly about the meeting in an earlier blog.  I described the meeting as cordial and thoughtful.  I specifically left out the substance of the meeting as I hoped that by doing so, it would provide the Mayor with the opportunity to appear to act on the issues pro-actively and not appear as having responded due to hectoring.

I sent to the participants and the Mayor this follow-up summary:

From:  John Kaufmann

Sent:    Tuesday, May 10, 2016 4:20 PM

To:       Vincent DeLeonardis; ‘Tony Izzo’; ‘joe.ogden@saratoga-springs.org’

Cc:      ‘Joanne Yepsen’; ‘jerry luhn’; ‘jerry luhn’

Subject:           Meeting Summary

I want to thank you all for being so generous with your time and for the courtesy you showed

Jerry Luhn and me.  The following is a summary of what I believe transpired:

• Ex Parte Communication between public board members and applicants having business before them. Tony acknowledged that the training session by Mark Schachner and the materials by the New York Department of State Committee on Open Government would indicate that the nature of what constitutes an ex parte communication in this context is considerably broader than a constrained understanding of the term to merely the “merits” of an application. On that premise, it was his sense that the Ethics Board would be willing to revisit this issue, drawing from the definition expressed in their recent opinion, to better articulate the meaning of ex parte. He saw no reason why a discussion of this issue should not be carried out in an open meeting of the Board and agreed that I could be notified of the meeting at which this matter would be taken up.

Shortly after I received an email back from Mayor Yepsen :

From: Joanne Yepsen [mailto:joanne.yepsen@saratoga-springs.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 12:09 PM To: John Kaufmann Cc: Vincent DeLeonardis; Tony Izzo; <joe.ogden@saratoga-springs.org>; jerry luhn; jerry luhn Subject: Re: Meeting Summary

Thanks for the summary John. I’m glad you and Jerry found the meeting helpful. I would like to follow up with you and my staff especially on the last two items. 

We have a tremendous amount progressing forward in open space, complete streets, sustainability efforts and affordable housing issues. Much to share!

Thanks, 

Joanne 

I then responded with:

From:  John Kaufmann [john.kaufmann21@gmail.com]

Sent:    Thursday, May 12, 2016 6:49 AM

To:       ‘Joanne Yepsen’

Cc:      ‘Vincent DeLeonardis’; ‘Tony Izzo’; ‘<joe.ogden@saratoga-springs.org>’; ‘jerry luhn’; ‘jerry luhn’

Subject:           RE: Meeting Summary

 Thank you for your note.  I would hope that item #5 would be of particular concern to you.  You have placed the need for transparency and open government as a priority for your administration.  Item #5 is particularly disturbing both in terms of the continued message of a lack of sensitivity regarding inclusion and respect for the public conveyed through the ZBA’s seating plan but particularly by the apparent violation of the open meetings law in terms of the way the ZBA determined the new policy.  I know it would be very disturbing to many in this community were these issues to go unaddressed by your administration.  Adherence to the principle of the open meetings law would seem to be the bedrock of the kind of healthy government that seems increasingly rare these days.  It is my hope that you will show the leadership so badly needed in working to find a resolution for this matter.  Given the fact that Mr. Moore was reappointed by you, he should be cooperative.

For those of you without the patience to read through these emails, I was basically promised that they would finally respond to my requests for information.  In at least two cases they were to do so before the end of May.  It is now June and it has been approximately a month since the meeting.  Tony Izzo, to his credit, sent me an email confirming that he had spoken to Mark Schachner and that Mr. Schachner admitted to misspeaking regarding the need for land use board members to recuse themselves when they had a contractual relationship with an applicant.  The sad reality of our current ethics code is that this behavior would not be a violation..

As regards all the other issues, I have heard nothing.  I think, dear readers, I have made a yeoman’s effort on behalf of you all to get answers out of Mayor Yepsen’s office and sadly at this point it is reasonable to assume that further efforts to get information on these issues from that office are simply pointless.

[The following is a press release from Michele Madigan and the Finance Office.  The highest rating by the S & P is AAA and the next highest is AA+]

MEDIA ANNOUNCEMENT: June 1, 2016 Contact:  Commissioner of Finance, Michele Madigan Telephone:  (518) 587-3550 ext 2577; (518) 526-9377 Email:  michele.madigan@saratoga-springs.org

Re: STANDARD & POOR’S SAYS SARATOGA SPRINGS IS AA+ AGAIN!

Commissioner of Finance Michele Madigan is pleased to report that Standard & Poor’s Rating Services (S&P) awarded the City a “AA+” for 2016 and affirmed its “AA+” rating on the City’s outstanding bonds.  An exceptional rating for a municipality, this is the fifth consecutive year that the City has received AA+, all during Madigan’s tenure as Commissioner of Finance.  Likewise, S&P retained the City’s “stable outlook”, as well as its Financial Management Practice Assessment of “good”.

S&P describes the City as a “commercial and industrial center for the surrounding areas”.  In the course of its analysis of the City, S&P considered the following qualities:

Very strong economy;

Strong management conditions, with “good” financial policies and practices;

Strong budgetary performance, with operating surpluses in the general fund and at the total governmental fund level in fiscal 2015;

Very strong budgetary flexibility; Very strong liquidity, as well as strong access to external liquidity;

Strong institutional framework.

S&P states “The city has exhibited strong budgetary performance with positive operating result in each of the last six fiscal years. … Given the city’s strong historical results, and management’s expectations for fiscal 2016, we expect the city’s budgetary performance to remain strong. …Saratoga Springs’ budgetary flexibility is very strong, in our view. … the sewer fund has fully paid back its loan [to the general fund] and…the water fund will complete paying back its loan in fiscal 2016. … The city has consistently had very strong liquidity and we do not expect a change to these ratios.”

S&P expressed faith in the City’s management, stating “we believe management will continue to make the necessary budget adjustments to maintain balanced operations.  As such, we do not anticipate changing the rating during the two-year outlook horizon.”  It also anticipated raising the bond rate if the City continues to maintain its strong budgetary performance (and economic indicators increase) while mitigating the effects of fixed costs associated with long term liabilities (such as pension and other postemployment benefits (OPEB)).

Commissioner Madigan states: “The City and its taxpayers are benefiting from the excellent policies, practices, budgeting and fiscal management of my administration.  I will continue to lead with the conservative fiscal practices and sustainable City budgeting that protects the City’s AA+ rating.  It is critical to all departments and our constituents as we strive to improve City infrastructure, maintain beautiful historic buildings, provide trails, recreation and open space, and keep the City safe.  I am very proud of this outstanding bond rating and pleased to bring it home to the City of Saratoga Springs.”

Michele Madigan

Commissioner of Finance

City of Saratoga Springs

474 Broadway

Saratoga Springs, NY 12866

518-587-3550 ext. 2557

518-526-9377 Cell

Readers may have noted a slowdown in postings on my site.  As the picture documents, I have been rather absorbed over on Cape Cod.  Still, when not eating, sleeping, and fishing, I do find time to follow local events.  I have just posted a major story and am working on another one… Whoa!  Hooked up!  Gotta Go!

Introduction

I recently received an analysis and narrative that documents the history of the hiring of Anita Daly, ex-Supervisor for the town of Clifton Park to a position with the Saratoga County Mental Health Department.  Before publishing the piece I sent copies to Peter Martin and Matt Veitch who are the Supervisors from Saratoga Springs giving them an opportunity to respond.  I also sent a copy to Dr. Frank Arcangelo who chairs the Saratoga County Community Services Board.  The only one to respond was Matt Veitch.  The apparent use of the Saratoga County Department of Mental Health as a vehicle for partisan political appointments is deeply troubling particularly given the extremely vulnerable population that they serve.   The history of the hiring Dr. Prezioso as director of this agency was thoroughly documented on this blog earlier.  In fact, it was one of the reasons I started this blog.  The New York State Department of Mental Hygiene  cited Dr. Prezioso  at his previous job for sexual harassment and his present administration of the county agency has been severely criticized by many staff members. It seems the same players, the Supervisors and Arcangelo and CSB, who were involved in securing a position for Prezioso at the County Mental Health Department are now also responsible for the Daly hiring.

  The author of the piece prefers to remain anonymous.  I include below his original piece along with his response to Matt Veitch’s response.  I thought it was interesting that while Veitch defended the Board of Supervisors in this matter, he pointedly declined to address the ethics of Anita Daly’s  behavior.

Analysis / Narrative

A Case Study: Saratoga County Government in Action

The recent appointment of a sitting member of the Board of Supervisors to a newly created $66,234 title in the County Mental Health Department presents as an interesting case study of the internal operation of Saratoga County government and the contrasts between its adopted policies and their selected application.

And a story published in the Monday, May 16, edition of the Albany “Times Union” serves to remind how many members of the political class, at all levels, abuse their offices for personal gain and, in so doing, further erode public trust and confidence in government.

The May 16 story reports on the soon to be made Clifton Park Town Board appointment to fill the unexpired term of Anita Daly who recently resigned her seat on the Saratoga County Board of Supervisors to take a newly created job in the County Mental Health Clinic along with a 250% salary increase and a proportionate increase in pension benefits.

But we get ahead of ourselves.  Let’s go back to the beginning of this story, which seems to have its start in December 2015, shortly after Daly was re-elected Clifton Park Town supervisor and even before she took her oath of office.

It is now well reported that the Chair of the County Board of Supervisors has acknowledged  Daly’s desire to find full time government employment and was willing to resign from the Board of Supervisors to take advantage of a more lucrative appointment. “We don’t make a lot of money working at the county,” Chairman right said of the annual salaries paid to the part-time county supervisors. Daly was paid $18,580 in 2015. “That’s not a lot of money to try and live on. You can’t really hate somebody for trying to better themselves.”

Fair enough, but the chair neglected to note that all but four members of the Board also receive substantial compensation as members of their respective town boards and many also enjoy private or other public sector employment.  And if a potential elected officials cannot “make a lot of money working for the county” perhaps they should not run for office.  It it not “public service” and not “service the politician?”

To his credit the chair acknowledged in a “Times Union” story that the February resolution that will allow the Clifton Park Town Board to appoint Daly’s successor was directly a result of Daly’s well known interest in quitting her elected position and gaining a full-time job. Thus he seems to admit that at least as early as February the County administration had set in motion a strategy to create a job tailored for Daly, ensure that no Civil Service examination would initially be necessary and allow her soon to be vacant seat on the Board of Supervisors to be filled by the Town Board.

Chairman Wright further referenced discussions to vest the appointment with the Clifton Park Town Board were only recently fast-tracked after county officials told the Republican-controlled Board of Supervisors that if it did not pass the provision, the appointment would rest with the governor.

The Public Record:

What Is Known (and Not Known) The available public record on Daly’s appointment begs several unanswered questions regarding the role and function of various officials and committees of the Board of Supervisors, the defined statutory role of the County Community Services Board and the propriety of a legislator voting to create a title for which she was a candidate.

More on all that later, but first let’s present the case details in a non-value laden form, as they are known from existing public records.

On April 13, 2016 Supervisor Anita Daly of Clifton Park announced her resignation effective April 19.  Her resignation statement was memorialized in the Board of Supervisor’s  April 13 Agenda session minutes and specifically referenced “… weeks  of  discussions  with  you (the chair of the Board).”

These acknowledged “ … weeks of discussions … “ with the chair of the board preceding her resignation and appointment would suggest that such discussions began in mid-March at the latest and perhaps much earlier.

It is also known that Daly was to become the Mental Health Clinic’s Education and Community Relations Coordinator effective April 22, a few day following her resignation.  It remains to be determined when the actual appointment was made and who signed the required documents.

Prior to her resignation much was taking place in Clifton Park and at the County Seat to ensure a seamless, quiet transition.  Paramount, of course, was the need to make sure her seat on the Board of Supervisors would be filled by the Republican hierarchy.

The chronology below presents the significant actions taken by the County Administration, key committees of the Board of Supervisors and the Clifton Park Town Board to accommodate Daly and ensure that her successor possessed the required political pedigree.

The chronology also references the meetings of the Public Health Committee of the Board of Supervisors and the County Community Services Board which were held during the same time frame – January through April – but at which NOTHING was presented or said about the then proposed deletion of one job and the creation of the one Daly would be appointed to.

This appears particularly interesting because both the Public Health Committee and the County Community Services Board seem to have MANDATED roles in the creation of the new title and appointment.  Roles they did not play because, apparently, they were never advised of what was taking place until after the fact.

The role of the Public Health Committee is described in the Rules and Regulations of the Board of supervisors and includes the following language: “ … and to have general supervision over the  operations and programs of the Saratoga County Public Health Nursing Service and the Saratoga County Mental Health Center.”  Certainly “general supervision” would pertain to abolishing and creating job titles in the Mental Health Center.

And what of the County Community Services Board?  This Board is a “local government unit” as defined in the NYS Mental Hygiene Law and its members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors and specifically vested by State Law with the “full powers necessary for the administration and execution of its duties to appoint and employ … full and part time officers, employees and consultants …” of the County Mental Health Clinic (see NYS Mental Hygiene Law, Section 41.13 (a) and (d).

Yet, in spite of this apparent statutory role in the administration of County Mental Health staffing, the Community Services Board – according to its published meeting minutes – was not even made aware of the creation of the Daly job until after the fact.  At its February 24 meeting the Community Services Board  was simply advised of the new job by the Mental Health director. Here is how that announcement was noted in the minutes of the Community Services Board’s February meeting.

“DIRECTOR’S REPORT/OLD BUSINESS“

“Staffing”

“Regarding the Nurse Practitioner  item – there  is  a  provision  in  the  contract  with  the  hospital  that  would  make  the  NP  item  a  hospital  employee.  The  hospital  is  not          willing  to  change  the  wording of the contract which prevents the County from hiring for  this position.”  [JK: This would interfere with the County patronage system]

“The funds for the Nurse Practitioner item will be used to fund a new position-Education and Human Relation Coordinator.”

Chronology January 11, 2016

Public Health Meeting:  No mention or discussion of   abolishing Nurse Practitioner in Mental Health and establishing “Education and Community Relations Coordinator.”

January 17, 2016

County Community Services Board Meeting:  No mention or discussion of abolishing Nurse Practitioner in Mental Health and establishing “Education and Community Relations Coordinator,” although it alone is  vested by NYS Mental Hygiene Law with the power to “…appoint and employ … “  [JK: Echo of Prezioso hiring]

February 3, 2016

Personnel and Insurance Committee Meeting: Recommends creation of “Education and Community Relations Coordinator” title in Mental Health and sends recommendation to Law and Finance Committee, bypassing \Public Health Committee.

February 8, 2016

Public Health Meeting: No mention or discussion of abolishing Nurse  Practitioner in Mental Health and establishing “Education and Community Relations Coordinator.” Note:  While the  Rules of the Board of Supervisors require the PUBLIC  HEALTH COMMITTEE  “To  oversee  generally  all County  health  programs, including the Physically Handicapped Children’s program;  to consult with the County Community Services Board;  and to have general supervision over the  operations and programs of the Saratoga County Public Health Nursing Service and the Saratoga County Mental Health Center,” the Committee never took up or acted to recommend the action initiated at the February 3 Personnel and Insurance Committee meeting.

February 8, 2016

Clifton Park Town Board Meeting: Res. 27 of 2016 sets public hearing on Local Law to establish procedures for filling vacancy in the office of County Supervisor.

February 10, 2016

Law and Finance Committee Meeting: Recommends amending  compensation  schedule to abolish one  position  of  Psychiatric Nurse  Practitioner  and  create  one position of Education and Community Relations Coordinator in the Mental Health Clinic and passes same to Board of Supervisors Agenda  which met 30 minutes later.

February 10, 2016

Agenda Meeting, Board of Supervisors: Moves recommendation to amend compensation schedule to abolish one  position  of  Psychiatric Nurse  Practitioner  and  create  one position of Education and Community Relations Coordinator in the Mental Health Department.  Supervisor Daly votes  in favor of the proposed change.

February 23, 2016

Board of Supervisors Meeting:  Board adopts resolution amending the County compensation schedule by abolishing one position of Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner and creating the new title of Education and Community Relations Coordinator.  The title now exists and is funded.

February 24, 2016

Saratoga County Community Services Board Meeting:  The Board is advised by the Director of Mental Health that “The funds for the Nurse  Practitioner item will be used to fund a new position-Education and Human Relation Coordinator.”

March 7, 2016

Clifton Park Town Board Meeting: Res. 58 of 2016 adopted Local Law No. 1 of 2016.  Once filed with the Secretary of State’s Office it will go into effect and the Town Board will be able to appoint Daly’s successor.

April 13, 2016

Agenda Meeting:  Daly reads letter addressed to the chair of the Board announcing her resignation from the Board of Supervisors effective at the end of the April 19 meeting.  Daly says:  “After  weeks  of  discussions  with you,  I  am  here  today  to  announce  my  resignation  from  public office as a member  of  the  Saratoga  County  Board  of  Supervisors, rrepresenting  the  people  of  Clifton  Park  effective at  the close of the April 19, 2016 County Board Meeting.” Presumably those “ .. weeks of discussion … “ dealt with the minutia of all this but apparently failed to address the potential application of the County Code of Ethics adopted by the Board of Supervisors  (which Daly voted for) that would seem to have prohibited her from voting to establish the very job she was to fill, and require disclosure of her interest in it (see below).  She neither disclosed nor recused from voting to create the position. The pertinent sections of the County Ethics Code follow. Section 42-3 Prohibited activities; disclosure of interest; Prohibited activities. All County officials, employees, appointees and volunteers must avoid conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest. A conflict or potential conflict exists whenever such person has knowledge, actual or constructive, that he or she has or will foreseeably have any interest, direct or indirect, which conflicts with his or her duty to the County or which could adversely affect the individual’s judgment in the discharge of his or her County responsibilities.

Disclosure of Interest.  Any official, employee, appointee or volunteer who at any time during the last two years had or now has, or who will have or intends to acquire a direct or indirect interest in any matter being considered by the County of Saratoga or by any official, board, agency, officer or employee of the County of Saratoga, and who participates in any discussion with or gives an opinion or advice to any board, agency or individual considering the same, shall publicly disclose forthwith on the official record the nature and the extent of such interest.”

April 19, 2016

Resignation effective April 23

New job

So there it is in a nutshell.

Matt Veitch Responds

From: Matthew E. Veitch [mveitch@saratogacountyny.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 11:15 PM
To: John Kaufmann
Subject: RE: Comment

Hi John-here’s my comment-

The Personnel and Insurance committee is the committee for the
abolishment and creation of positions at the County, and
almost all Personnel decisions (for all departments) for
consideration for the Board of Supervisors go through this
committee.  Public Health does not have to (and likely would
not) originate the process to create the position, or be very
much involved in it, except to be made aware that the
personnel committee was working on it.  The record spells that
out.  Public Health was not ‘bypassed’ since that is our
process.  Perhaps the wording on the role of Public Health and
other Committees in the Board’s Rules should be changed in
references to staffing or positions. Nothing precludes Public
Health from proposing a position, but if that were to occur,
it would be referred to Personnel & Insurance for evaluation,
and then if approved by Personnel, referred to Law & Finance.

As far as the Community Services Board is concerned, I’m not
sure if statutorily they have the power to block or reject a
decision the County makes in regard to staff positions at the
Mental Health Center.  So I have no comment on that part of
your blog post.

As far as discussions regarding the position: Former
supervisor Daly and I never had any direct discussions
regarding her interest in this position.  As Chairman of the
Board last year, this was not discussed in any meeting that I
can remember.  Of course, Supervisor Wright was the incoming
Chairman, so as has been reported and public statements made,
she was discussing it most likely with him at that time or
early this year.

I can tell you that when the resolution creating the Mental
Health Coordinator position was presented, I supported moving
forward with this position, as how it was explained to me made
sense in terms of serving our residents
better.  Potential candidates for the job were not discussed.

As far as the resolution to change how County Supervisors are
appointed for the Town of Clifton Park-There is the
legislative function of what they did, and what the purpose
was.  Basically their local law and the County resolution
match the process for both the City of Saratoga Springs and
City of Mechanicville, the other communities with ‘County
only’ Supervisors.  The City’s process (which now matches
Clifton Park) would have the exact opposite effect if I were
to resign-a Democratic City Council would get to appoint my
replacement, most likely a Democrat.  My guess is that the
City got its approval in a past year when a resignation of a
Supervisor was imminent and the City’s Party in power at the
time wanted ‘their person’ appointed.

Also-it is not customary at the Board of Supervisors or my
place as a Supervisor from a neighboring community, to dictate
how another town wishes to do their ‘process’.  You would need
to ask the Town Supervisor or board members from the Town why
they needed to pass the resolution when they did.  I voted in
favor because it was something that the town wanted.  If it
was fast tracked to make the appointment process more
convenient for the town because of Supervisor Daly’s goals-
well again I didn’t know for certain that she would be getting
the job.  If it was known, then it’s unfortunate that it was
not shared at that time with the Supervisors.

As I recall, the resolution was presented to The Board as
‘cleaning up the record’ to make the appointment process match
for all ‘County only’ Supervisors, on the Town’s initiative
after a review of their policies.  The statements made by the
Chairman to the press as to why we moved forward with the law
do not match what was presented to me as a Supervisor voting
on the items that came before me.  Maybe we remember it
differently.

As far as the ethics of it all…you would have ask Supervisor
Daly about why she voted for the creation of the positon or of
any subsequent votes or statements she has made about it.  All
ethics decisions made by any elected official to recuse or
disclose (or not to) or vote on items that come before them
need to be weighed by the individual. I won’t comment on the
ethics decisions of others, and I don’t feel it is my place to
do so.

Speaking for myself, I recuse or disclose in situations where
I decide I need to, and do my best to be up front about any
conflict of interest I may have with matters that come before
the Board of Supervisors.  If I were in the same situation,
and a position at the County became available or was created
that I (or a close relative) might be interested in, I would
make sure to be up front with the public regarding my interest
in it or relationship to it and recuse, disclose or abstain
from voting on anything pertaining to it.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to respond.

Matthew E. Veitch
Supervisor-Saratoga Springs
474 Broadway
City Hall
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
(518) 587-2198

Anonymous Author Responds

We appreciate Supervisor Veitch’s response to the piece on the recent resignation of then Supervisor Daly and her virtually simultaneous appointment to a newly established County Mental Health Clinic job, one which she voted to title and salary while still a member of the Board.

The original piece noted the role and function of County Public Health Committee as detailed in the most current Rules and Regulations of the Board of Supervisors.  Those rules are unequivocal and exclusively assign to the Public Health Committee  the ” … general supervision over the  operations and programs of the Saratoga County Public Health Nursing Service and the Saratoga County Mental Health Center.”  Certainly “general supervision” would pertain to abolishing and creating job titles in the Mental Health Center.

He seems to argue that the clear language of the Committee’s mandate to have “general supervision” over the operations and programs of the Mental Health Center does not include recommending new program content and its appropriate staffing pattern.  Such an argument turns logic on its head, for how can the Public Health Committee play its statutory role in program design if it is not even made aware of the concept until it has been advanced to the full Board of Supervisors?  It can not.

To overcome this obvious contradiction he simply suggests that the rules be retroactively changed.  Common sense dictates that if the Public Health Committee is to have supervision over, in this case, programs of the Mental Health Center then it should be the starting point for a program design that includes a needs analysis, cost benefit review and program design.  This should, as we shall see, be a role played in consultation with the County Community Services Board.  Instead, the Daly job proposal went straight to the Personnel and Insurance Committee and was passed immediately to Law and Finance and  then – and literally –  a few minutes later to the Agenda Session of the Board of Supervisors.  The minutes of those meeting reference ABSOLUTELY NO discussion, comment, question, etc.

Next, and perhaps more troubling, is the fact that the County Community Services Board – established by and given its authority in NYS Mental Hygiene Law – was, according to its minutes first told of this new job by staff on February 24, AFTER the Board of Supervisors had already  established it.  This although state law vests the Community Sevices Board with the “full powers necessary for the administration and execution of its duties to appoint and employ … full and part time officers, employees and consultants …” of the County Mental Health Clinic (see NYS Mental Hygiene Law, Section 41.13 (a) and (d).

Veitch dismisses all this by spinning the issue.  He says that he does not know if the Community Services Board can ” … reject or block a decision the County makes in regard to staff positions at the Mental Health Center.”  In so doing he admits that it was the  “County” and not the Community Services Board, solely vested with the appointing authority, that filled the title.  Time does not here permit other issues related to ignored role of the CSB to be explored.

He responds to the curious matter of the parallel course traveled by the Board of Supervisors and the Clifton Park Town Board to assume the authority to appoint a successor to Daly at the same time that her new job was being created by ‘guessing’ the motive but then, in a matter of fact manner affirms that this manipulation was “fast tracked” beginning in January as a ‘convenience’ to the Clifton Park because of Daly’s know ‘goals.’  Of course, the real issue is not what the Town and County did to allow Daly’s successor to be appointed by the political hierarchy, but rather that the action telegraphed what has all the appearances of a tailor made job created for a sitting member of the Board of Supervisors and employing an abbreviated process.  That seems the real issue and  one that we can’t fault Supervisor Veitch for avoiding.

Finally, we appreciate Matt’s comments on the issues raised by the apparent failure of Daly to “disclose” and “recuse” her interest in the job – as seemingly required by the County Ethics Code – that she was then about to vote to create and salary.  He says, to his credit,  that – in the same position – he would have followed the Ethics Code mandates.

So we appreciate Matt’s response to the post, particularly because he makes so little effort to challenge any of its content and, in fact, seems to affirm most of it.  The Board of Supervisors and particularly its standing and appointed committees and boards really need to take control of their own agendas and be responsible for their defined responsibilities.  Allowing staff and the administration to manipulate or dictate is no longer acceptable because it becomes an embarrassment at best and something far more problematic at worst.  Time for some to get off their duffs and start asking questions.

Too bad we no longer have a press willing or able to review these matters for the public. This kind of legislative and political game playing to benefit one of their own is only made easier by a weak press and a lazy political opposition.

THIS MONDAY EVENING – MAY 23 – ZONING BOARD – “DOWNTON WALK” – LIKELY FINAL VOTE.

EVERY COMMENT IS CRUCIAL

Hi folks,

Hang in there, and please come to the next (and possibly final) meeting. We need you!

Thanks to all who attended the last ZBA meeting.

The zoning board will vote on our appeal (and, we fear from their comments at the last meeting, not in our favor). They will then go right back, the same night, to considering the “Downton Walk” proposal, and may vote, then and there, to approve the whole project. This could be a done deal in one shot, so we need to get as many people in the room to make a quick comment. John Witt will have supporters in the room. Without as many of us as possible attending and speaking, we will lose.

Again, this is about more than just this particular proposal. If it is approved, it will set a disastrous precedent for this city.

The agenda for this Monday’s meeting is here:

The two items are “#2887 DOWNTON WALK APPEAL” and “#2759.1 ANW HOLDINGS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT”

While we don’t want to overwhelm with detail, there are two sets of crucial points below (“A COUPLE OF IMPORTANT POINTS TO STRESS” and “THE 5 CRITERIA THE BOARD CONSIDERS”) that will be helpful to forming our comments to the board and in how they will make their decision. Below that is complete background info on the project.

Thank You

Please feel free to contact:

Sam Brewton (206 Lake Ave)

sambrewton@earthlink.net

—-

A COUPLE OF IMPORTANT POINTS TO STRESS:

*In 2013, Mr. Witt was granted the same variances he is re-applying for now (the variances lapsed, so he has to re-apply). He and the board have leaned heavily into “well, we passed this before, so let’s do it again”. However, in 2013 we were dumbstruck when the board granted approval. We feel they made a bad decision. Today is a new day, a new application, and a chance for the board to look more closely at the massive variances Mr. Witt is asking for.

*We do not oppose Mr. Witt per se, or that he should build on this parcel. We are opposed to the mass and scale of the proposal and want our zoning laws to be enforced.

*We agree the old building should be replaced, but that is not reason to grant these massive variances and allow this project to depart radically from zoning. A reasonable project would still accomplish the goal of replacing the old building.

*We are NOT at odds with the few neighbors who have supported this project based on their desire to see the old building gone. We just want it to be replaced by something reasonable. The developer is counting on our fear of “getting nothing” if we don’t allow “everything”.

*Witt has stated that he will sell these homes for $700,000 to $1,500,000. He has also stated that in order to make a profit he has to build and sell seven. We believe that a reasonable proposal of five homes could certainly still be profitable for him.

*Our aim is to make the Zoning Board require Mr. Witt to come back with a more reasonable proposal, more in line with the zoning laws that were intended to protect us from projects like this.

THE 5 CRITERIA THE BOARD CONSIDERS (and some of our possible answers):

1. WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY ANY OTHER MEANS.

The core benefit to the city and neighborhood is eliminating the current structure. This can be accomplished by building fewer homes and requiring minimal area variances. Whether or not this is as economically advantageous to Mr. Witt is not a zoning issue.

2. WHETHER GRANTING THE VARIANCES WILL PRODUCE AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR A DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES.

These huge, tightly packed-in homes are out of character with this historic neighborhood. The square footage of the proposed homes is clearly greater than the existing surrounding homes, in some cases double and triple. Rather than creating privacy as claimed, this proposal produces a walled environment, which separates the new homes from less expensive housing next door.

3. WHETHER THE VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL.

It is blatantly inaccurate to describe this project as minimal. All the variances being requested (variances listed below) by the applicant are very substantial.

4. WHETHER THE VARIANCE WILL HAVE ADVERSE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ON NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT

5. WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED.

The difficulty was self-created by the developer by asking for too much.

. . . For those who want more background, read on:

OVERVIEW – IN A NUTSHELL

-One home is allowed on this lot, or five, if the property is subdivided. But space would be needed to accommodate an access road, so four homes seem more likely if the proper route, in line with zoning, were taken.

-Witt is asking to NOT subdivide yet be allowed seven buildings instead of one (a massive departure from zoning).

-He is calling them “individual condominiums”. He needs the land to be commonly owned, since, if not subdivided, who would own the property?

-Each home will be selling for between $700,000 and $1.5 million

-Our zoning allows 30% of the parcel to be covered by buildings. He wants to be allowed to cover 46% (a 52% increase from what is allowed).

-By not being required to subdivide and calling these “condominiums” he relieves himself of the setback and maximum coverage requirements of our zoning laws and can arrange the seven buildings any way he wants, tightly packing them in.

-On the north side of the parcel he is required by zoning to leave 25 feet between the backs of his buildings and the adjoining properties. He wants to be allowed to reduce that requirement to only six feet. The backs of these 32 foot high buildings would be virtually on, and towering over, the property line, with no room for buffer or trees. All existing trees would be cut down.

-These buildings will be large (see below), and out of character with the neighborhood.

-As of yet, Mr. Witt has not made any concessions or compromises to his plans. He has stated that if he is not allowed the full extent of what he is asking, this project would not be profitable enough for him. We feel this is a false claim – that he could certainly make a profit with a more reasonable project, more in line with zoning.

OUR APPEAL

Our appeal challenges Mr. Witt’s claim that he needs only AREA variances (listed below) to build these seven “individual condominiums” on this one lot. We believe that a USE variance is required, since he is not subdividing the parcel and wants his seven buildings (instead of the ONE legally allowed) to reside on one commonly owned property in “multi-family” fashion. But multi-family, by definition, is not allowed in our zoning district (UR-3). We oppose the scale of the AREA variances as well; but, in filing this appeal, we want the board to address our belief that a USE variance is needed for a condominium development of this sort. It is important to understand that a USE variance requires a very different approval process in our city.

SIZE OF THE PROPOSED HOMES

So far there are no actual measurements per unit, only Witt’s very generalized predictions.

The (rounded) square footage (reflecting all living space – not just footprint) of some of the existing houses on Jumel are: 1400, 900, 1200, 1300, 1500, 1200, 1500, 1900, 1600, 2000.

Witt’s footprints (footprint=first floor only) are: 2,449, 1357, 1472, 2099, 2739, 2340, 2070. A guess-timate of second stories would lead us to predict Witt’s proposed homes to be clearly larger — and possibly double or more — than most of the other existing houses on the street. Even his footprints alone are larger than the full square footage of a good number of the surrounding homes. From his rendering of the facades it looks as if the homes will also have a third story (see attached pdf).

overhead

overhead angle 2

overhead angle 1

heights and facade

“AREA” VARIANCES WITT IS REQUESTING

1) The maximum building coverage allowed on this lot is 30%. The applicant is asking to be allowed to cover 46%, or 52% more than what is allowed. Granting this request would be a massive increase from what is allowed by zoning.

2) The applicant is asking for maximum principal buildings on one lot to be increased from one to seven, a 600% increase. Only five single-family units are allowed by law on this property — BUT ONLY after the property is subdivided. Why is this property not being subdivided? To go from one to seven houses is a massive increase.

3) The rear yard setback required for each unit is 25 feet. The applicant is asking that this requirement be eliminated by 100% for five units, going from the 25 feet required to zero (0) feet. For the remaining two units he is asking for a 76% reduction in the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 6 feet.

4) The front yard setback required for the two front units is 10 feet. The applicant is asking for only a one (1) foot setback, a 90% reduction in the front yard. The applicant claims that this is so “our (2) front porches [can] be placed on the unit.” However, his drawings show that he is not proposing porches, only overhangs.

5) The fence height allowed in this UR-3 residential area is six feet. The applicant is asking for an eight-foot fence, a 33% increase in height over what is allowed. Why is this necessary only for this development? Is the applicant trying to exclude the rest of the neighborhood? A fence this high would create an exclusive walled enclave shutting out the existing neighborhood.

OUR STANCE

-We do not oppose Mr. Witt per se, or that he should develop this property.

-We all agree that the existing building is an eyesore and should be replaced

-But, first and foremost, we contend that this multi-family proposal (he is asking to build 7 homes as “condominiums” on one non-divided lot) requires a USE variance, as multi-family is not allowed in our zoning district (UR-3)

-And, at the same time, we are opposed to the massive scale of the AREA variances he is requesting and of the project as currently designed.

-We feel that the current design and density of the proposal and the number and size of the proposed homes are out of character with this historic neighborhood.

-We want a revised more reasonable proposal MORE IN LINE WITH OUR ZONING LAWS.

Saratoga Springs seeks solutions when dealing with vagrants

A speaker comes to the microphone during Thursday’s Public Safety Forum. Jennie Grey — jgrey@digitalfirstmedia.com

By Jennie Grey, The Saratogian

Posted: 05/20/16, 5:37 PM EDT |

The audience gathers at Thursday’s Public Safety Department Forum in the Music Hall. Jennie Grey — jgrey@digitalfirstmedia.com

SARATOGA SPRINGS >> With aggressive panhandlers becoming a challenge downtown, the city council is actively seeking solutions. Public Safety Commissioner Chris Mathiesen, whose department is the most affected by the issue, held an open forum titled “Vagrancy in Saratoga Springs” Thursday in the Music Hall.

“Our downtown was reinvented in the ’80s and is now doing extremely well,” he said. “We owe this to the active Chamber of Commerce, the tourism bureau and the Saratoga Performing Arts Center. But as wonderful as things are now, it’s still a fragile miracle. People are concerned.”

The issue

Citizens have come forward with public comments, letters and petitions against the aggressive acts of some panhandlers, who yell abuse, physically block or pull on passers-by, and misuse public and private property.

Children’s Museum of Saratoga Executive Director Michelle Smith said she’d had eight recent instances of vagrants troubling the museum. These ranged from a man shaking his fist at a driver who wouldn’t roll down her window to finding human feces in the stairwell leading to the basement.

“It’s very difficult; very concerning,” she said. “We would like the police to come by more often. It’s very unsettling to be so unsafe.”

“No city is exempt from homelessness,” said Shelters of Saratoga (SOS) Executive Director Michael Finocchi.

The homeless who come to SOS are victims of domestic violence, have mental illness, lack affordable housing options, are underemployed, have chronic health conditions, have chemical dependency or were recently incarcerated.

The definitions

One of the first points of clarity Mathiesen raised was that vagrants and homeless people have rights, just like any other citizens. He called Assistant City Attorney Tony Izzo to the microphone to speak on this.

Izzo said that first, it’s important to understand the issue here. Vagrants can be defined legally as idle people without visible means of support, as tramps or beggars. Vagrants may well have homes and cars, whereas homeless people lack housing.

“If you follow a vagrant at the end of the workday, you might see him get into his car and drive home,” Finocchi said.

The rights

People have the right to panhandle, Izzo said, since asking for money is a form of free speech. Being drunk in public is also not a crime. Loitering is not a crime.

“So we are limited in the types of laws that can be written that pass a constitutional test,” he said. “We are working on writing a city law against sitting or lying on the sidewalk. There are lots of reasonable exceptions, such as sidewalk sales.”

The solutions

Wellspring Executive Director Maggie Fronk said that one of the wonderful things about this community was that everyone works together to brainstorm ideas. Her organization helps support people fleeing domestic violence and sexual abuse. Wellspring has given 15,000 bed nights annually for such individuals.

“We all want to make the city safe and thriving for everyone,” she said.

Police Chief Greg Veitch said people should call the police whenever they felt uncomfortable or threatened by vagrants.

“But you can’t confuse the police with being a solution to the problem,” he cautioned. “We can’t arrest our way out of this issue.”

He said the police did not do homeless sweeps or roundups, which would be illegal. The homeless have the right to be in public places.

Finocchi said, “You need services in place for the homeless.”

SOS runs a 35-bed case-managed shelter, the only one in three counties. It’s a drug- and alcohol-free environment where the onus is on the individual to do the right thing. SOS also runs the emergency shelter Code Blue and a street outreach program.

The shelters run a drop-in center one day a week. Finocchi said having that center open more days would help SOS build relationships with the homeless and get people the services they need.

He shared success stories: In 2014, SOS sheltered 400 individuals. Some 44 percent of guests left with an income of their own. Some 109 were permanently housed, and four graduated to affordable housing units.

“We do ask people not to give money directly to the homeless,” Finocchi said. “Many of these individuals have mental-health issues, which they self-medicate with alcohol or drugs, and that’s where the money from panhandling often goes. In Schenectady or Troy, panhandlers can make $200 in a week. In Saratoga Springs, they can make $200 in a day.”

Educating the summer tourists is also key, he said. SOS recommends buying the homeless a meal instead of giving them money.

The nonprofit is also working with downtown businesses to install locked drop boxes where people can place money to be donated to the shelters. That way, the funds will be used for good instead for drugs.

One man who stood up to speak at the forum said the city ought to aggressively address the problem and help our neighbors to real independence.

“We need to make sure we aren’t giving money to support people’s vices,” he said.

Brian Farr, a substance abuse counselor, took the microphone and said, “Hats off to everyone who is here and cares about this community.”

He said that for 17 years, he had worked with thousands of people with addiction issues: rich, poor, those who owned mansions, those on the street. Farr emphasized the importance of recognizing substance abuse and addiction as diseases, not merely vices or bad habits.

“Part of what you’re seeing in the homeless is the results of addiction,” he said. “And Saratoga is an awesome place to get sober.”

Farr is currently chair of Recovery Advocacy in Saratoga.

The successes

A former shelter resident came forward to speak. On his own since age 8, he was employed steadily until he was hit by a truck. Now, after his time in SOS, he is working for a local philanthropy and living in his own apartment.

“The past five years have been heaven,” he said. “This city is a miracle. And everyone who comes can get help if he just asks.”

Nancy Black told of her arrest for driving while intoxicated and how the consequences changed her life. She warned against giving the panhandlers money.

“Positive changes can come with proper services and help,” she said.