Saratoga Springs Politics

Sometimes the most significant events are overlooked when they occur and their importance only becomes evident much later.  This post is about one such event. The topic of this posting probably will not appear in any of our newspapers or on television but its far reaching repercussions make this one of the most important blogs I have written.

This post is about Mayor Yepsen’s appointments to our land use boards at Tuesday night’s meeting.

Under the existing City Charter the Mayor of our city enjoys the unrestricted power to make appointments to our land use boards.  There are no requirements that the Mayor advise the public of the choices prior to their appointment.   No approval from the other members of the City Council is required

The enormous power of our land use boards only becomes apparent to many in the community when they find themselves affected by a major land use decision.  The neighbors of Moore Hall have had that  education.  The neighbors of Saratoga Hospital are starting down that road to enlightenment.  Those who have been involved in the conflict over the attempts to commercialize the city’s greenbelt have learned this lesson.

While the City Council  plays a major role in many aspects of land use issues, the boards are just as, if not more, powerful.  If the hospital gets its approval for their expansion from the City Council, the Planning Board will be affecting how traffic will flow.  They will decide whether to accept proposals for blasting in the area.  They will make similar decisions about what happens with Moore Hall and they will decide many, many issues if Saratoga National Golf Course gets approval to become a resort.

The terms for the members of both the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board are seven years.  Scott Johnson who served for multiple terms was able to fill both these boards with his appointments.  He chose people whose loyalty to the real estate industry was beyond reproach.

It was the hope of many of us that when Mayor Yepsen was elected  she would reconstitute the boards with people who were independent of the zealous development industry and whose decisions would show greater sensitivity to the citizenry at large.  It was understood that given the terms of these board members the changes in their composition would take many years.

Last night  Mayor Yepsen announced her latest appointments and any illusions that her reelection would result in a shift in the make-up of these boards were dashed.

Mayor Yepsen Reappoints William Moore to Continue as Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals for Seven Years

Mr. Moore was originally appointed to the Zoning Board Of Appeals by Scott Johnson.  Moore is a real estate appraiser.  Like many of the real estate people who serve on the land use boards, the people who come before him are often potential clients.  As should be obvious, this places Mr. Moore in an interesting position.  Were he to routinely rule against the people in the real estate industry coming before him, it would do little good for his business.  On the other hand, being a good old boy who regularly assists them places him in a particularly good situation for later business.

I was able to observed Mr. Moore first hand as he chaired the meetings regarding the Bonacio application for variances for Moore Hall.  Mr. Moore’s bias towards well connected applicants was stunning.  Mr. Moore has the applicants for variances sit at the table with the ZBA members.  In contrast, any who oppose the variances are relegated to the seats beyond the railing.  If you sit in the “gallery” you immediately understand your status as compared with those who are privileged to sit up close and personal with the board.

Mr. Moore made no attempt to limit the time of the attorney representing Bonacio at the meetings in spite of the fact that the attorney’s remarks were often not germane to the specific standards of the variance under consideration or were wholly redundant.   In contrast, when it came time for the public to comment, Mr. Moore sternly advised them that they would be limited to two minutes each. He then attempted to cut off the attorney representing the neighbors when he had used up his two minutes.  Only an angry response from the many neighbors at the meeting along with some who offered to give up their time to the attorney allowed the neighbor’s representative to finish his remarks.

During each of the meetings Mr. Moore took the opportunity to praise Mr. Bonacio’s proposal.  In hindsight, this pandering was particularly disturbing because Mr. Bonacio had recently completed building Mr. Moore’s house.  Not only did Mr. Moore not recues himself from a decision affecting someone he had so recently had a business relationship with but he saw no need to advise the public of the potential conflict of interest.  Even later when this was brought to his attention he did not see any problem with his relationship with Mr. Bonacio and his review of Mr. Bonacio’s projects.

After it was disclosed that one of the members of the ZBA had joined Mr. Bonacio and his attorney for drinks following one of the meetings about the Moore hall project, Mr. Moore  showed a complete indifference to the concerns of the neighbors.   In fact, he publically shared a laugh with the lawyer for Mr. Bonacio over the incident.

Mayor Yepsen has decided that Mr. Moore is the best person in this city to lead the Zoning Board of Appeals for the next seven years.

Mayor Joanne Yepsen appoints Jamin Totino to a seven year term on the Planning Board

Mr. Totino is  Director of Student Academic Services at Skidmore College. Link to Skidmore Profile

Mr. Totino was originally appointed to the Planning Board by Democratic Mayor Valerie Keehn.  With Keehn’s defeat, Mayor Johnson began filling vacancies to the city’s land use boards with appointments who had ties to the real estate and development  industry.  Mr. Totino, an affable man, developed a cordial relationship with his new colleagues.  In fact, he cooperated with them so well on votes and  connected socially so well them that he became the development community’s favorite Democrat I am told.   He apparently was considered so reliable that Mayor Johnson chose to reappoint him when Totino first term was up.

Totino resigned before his second term ended.  Eventually the long and often dull meetings became too much for him.  He did not have the incentives of business opportunities that his other friends on the board enjoyed.

More recently, Commissioner Scirocco  appointed Totino to the Comprehensive Plan Committee.  As the readers of this blog may recall, the Committee had a series of votes meant to facilitate more intense development in the greenbelt by allowing Planned Unit Developments (PUDs).  This proposal was repeatedly defeated in seven to six votes.  This article by Tom Dimopoulos gives a good overview.  Link To Story

Then  Mr. Totino, Todd Shimkus, president of the Chamber of Commerce, and Jaclyn Hakes, the consultant working with the Comp Plan committee met together at the Mayor Yepsen’s invitation. At the next Comp Plan meeting, Mr. Totino, who had consistently voted against opening the greenbelt to more development suddenly and surprisingly changed his vote.

The public outcry at this Comp Plan Committee vote was so intense that it prompted Commissioner Mathiesen to introduce legislation banning PUDs in the greenbelt.  At a standing room only meeting the Council unanimously adopted Mathiesen’s resolution.

Shimkus was furious. He complained bitterly that the Mayor could not be trusted which simply reaffirmed the rumors about her involvement.  To say the least, it was an embarrassing moment for Totino.  Nevertheless, he sent out an email in which he defended his vote using the exact argument put forward by the Chamber that PUDs provided the tools needed for flexible development.

Mayor Yepsen believes that he is the best person that she can find in our city to serve on the Planning Board for the next seven years.

 

I received this from the Code Blue folks:

 

Friends, In case you can either help or can forward on to others who may be able to help.  Thanks, mb Michele Brumsey The Salvation Army 518-463-6678 Ext. 17/518-463-0138 fax 518-229-2548 cell Michele.Brumsey@USE.salvationarmy.org Website TwitterFacebook

Dear Steering Committee, The Program Committee held an emergency meeting Sunday afternoon to address the issue of overnight volunteers. If you have looked at the schedules lately you would see that we are sorely lacking in overnight volunteers. The 1:30am-5am shift is especially hard to fill. We have the paid overnight staff person from 12midnight – 8:30am but we still need at least 2-3 volunteers to complete the staffing for the night shifts from 10pm-1:30am and 1:30am-5am.  The sign ups for these shifts is very minimal and so we are staffing with a few volunteers from the program committee and myself. This can’t continue for the rest of the season. We must have additional help. As members of the steering committee we need your help. Immediate needs require us to ask you to sign up for a shift or two. We need you to also promote Code Blue in your respective agencies and recruit volunteers for the overnight shifts. Code Blue Saratoga is growing and in order to continue to meet the needs of our community and guests we must have volunteers. As our steering committee we are relying on you to help solve the issues Code Blue is facing. Thank you, Cheryl Ann Cheryl Ann

Cheryl Ann Murphy-Parant

Code Blue Saratoga Director

Saratoga County Continuum of Care Coordinator

(518) 812-6886 – cell

www.codebluesaratoga.org

Office Address:

Nolan House

Presbyterian-New England Congregational Church

24 Circular Street, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866

 

A real stunner of a City Council meeting tonight.  Much more will follow but it is late (are any City Council meetings not long and drawn out?)

To the surprise of the other Council members, Joanne Yepsen and John Franck recused themselves from any further involvement with the Saratoga Hospital expansion.  This seems particularly bizarre because they have participated in the two previous (and very long) public hearings on the expansion.  What suddenly prompted their action tonight is simply unknown.  I will review the video tomorrow but Joanne Yepsen said that she either has had or expects to have Saratoga Hospital as a client.  She is a consultant for fundraising.  John Franck, as best I understood him, has been the accountant for the housing complexes by the hospital.

The City Charter requires that in order to pass legislation a majority of the Council must vote affirmatively.  This means that any legislation must have at least three affirmative votes.  Commissioner Mathiesen asked City Attorney Tony Izzo what would happen were he to recuse himself on this issue.  Mathiesen noted that his father lives in Birch Run.  Tony admitted that he really did not know.  Nothing of this sort has ever come up.  Commissioner Mathiesen then indicated that he did not plan to recuse himself.

Basically, if any of the three were not to vote for the Hospital’s PUD application, it would fail.  My take on this is that Michele Madigan is very much in support of the hospital.  It is unclear how the other two Council members will vote.

 

Alice Smith has been active with the group opposing Saratoga Hospital’s proposed expansion.  She has asked me to post the following statement from her:

A Public Hearing will be held on Tuesday (Jan 19th) re: the hospital’s expansion plan.

The hospital advocates have told the public it is a necessary addition to provide better care to the the community and to save money.   The hospital currently provides excellent care to the community, and the emergency room is staffed with doctors trained to handle emergencies.

When doctors have an office full of patients with scheduled appointments, it is hard to believe they are constantly running out to take care of emergencies at the ER.  The hospital (through their representative law firm) has made various statements to the public which are very misleading.

They have minimized the adverse effects it will have on the surrounding area, such as damage to the environment, potential flooding, parking lot lighting, and traffic.  Additionally, they have lied about working with residents of the area.

As I have stated before, they have not been communicating with residents.  Most of the area residents have very limited knowledge of the proposed plan.

The Saratoga hospital has been trying to attract more business (evident by the constant adds on TV) and they would no doubt make more money with the proposed addition  -but this can be done by looking at other options, without violating the rights of residents who have worked very hard to own and maintain their homes and their neighborhood.

Jones Law Firm has also stated that they have not found any loss of value of the properties surrounding the area.  This is something that happens AFTER

The loss of property value happens after the area is rezoned and building is started. I do hope our Planning Board and City Council carefully evaluate the information provided by the hospital and realize that it  fails to guarantee the preservation of the surrounding area.

Thank you.

 

Saratoga County government has developed a reputation for indifference to the quality of services it delivers . We have a Public Defender guilty of DWI and caught on camera trying to get Saratoga Springs police officers to do him a favor and not charge him.  We have the case of Michael Prezioso, director of the county Department of Mental Health. You will recall that Prezioso  was found guilty of sexual harassment at his previous place of employment by the NYS Department of Mental Hygiene. At his present county post he has been the subject of many complaints about his management of the county facility.  

Now we have a new scandal in Saratoga County covered in the article below in the Times Union.  I have emailed both Saratoga Springs Supervisors asking  what actions they plan to take in response to these revelations.

Link to TU story with pictures

---

$3 million Saratoga project big loser before closure

Saratoga County leaders, told of shortfalls, deflect blame

By Dartunorro Clark

Published 6:32 pm, Saturday, January 16, 2016

Ballston Spa

A $3 million co-generation plant built by Saratoga County and Siemens Building Technologies lost hundreds of thousands of dollars even though county leaders publicly touted the success of the project, which was designed to provide self-sustaining energy to a county-run nursing home.

A Times Union review of engineering studies and other records for the project — which were never made public — indicate county leaders were informed of the project’s failures even as they publicly blamed energy-market conditions for the losses.

The project began in 2002 when Saratoga County officials were eager to upgrade the utilities at Maplewood Manor, a 277-bed nursing home. The county struck a deal with Siemens Building Technologies to install a cogeneration plant for $3 million to produce heat and electricity, which at the time was touted as a way to save money by cutting the facility’s annual utility bill in half.

Nearly 15 years later, however, the plant has been decommissioned, the equipment sold and the nursing home privatized.

Documents obtained by the Times Union through a Freedom of Information Law request, and interviews with people familiar with the project, show the county’s estimated losses reached $180,000 a year by the time the facility was proposed for decommissioning.

The revelations come as other government projects involving Siemens have come under scrutiny. In October, the Warren County Sheriff’s Department released records from a multi-year criminal investigation that said there was probable cause to consider criminal charges against a Siemens engineer, and that a company representative may have falsified documents related to a cogeneration plant built for that county’s nursing home in 2004.

The sheriff’s report suggested Warren County Administrator Paul Dusek could have faced a misconduct charge for his role in advising, and allegedly misleading, county leaders about his understanding of the deal.

The sheriff’s investigation found Siemens officials may have inflated energy savings. Internal documents obtained by the investigators included a spreadsheet labeled “Contract $” with savings listed at $118,512. But another entry labeled “Actual $” calculated the savings at $68,262, according to the sheriff’s report. An investigator characterized the discrepancy as “intentional deception.” The sheriff’s investigators also found evidence a Siemens supervisor chided an engineer who complained about the alleged fraud and encouraged him to be a “team player.” The employee later quit.

In November, the Times Union reported that Rensselaer County officials took part in a “fact-finding” meeting with members of state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman‘s Taxpayer Protection Bureau on the county’s use of so-called “energy performance contracts,” including $56 million in energy performance projects with Siemens. The attorney general’s office declined to discuss the scope of the inquiry.

In Saratoga County, county officials commissioned a $37,000 study on the cogeneration plant as the end of a 10-year maintenance agreement with Siemens approached in 2012. An engineering firm, New York-based Guth DeConzo, and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, which paid half of the cost of the study, were hired to assess the performance of the facility. But, at the insistence of county officials, the scope of the study was limited to one year and did not examine prior years of performance.

Still, the study recommended county officials decommission the plant and re-connect the nursing home to National Grid because it was losing hundreds of thousands of dollars, at least at the time it was proposed for decommissioning, according to documents.

When it was announced, the project was expected to trim Maplewood’s $264,000 annual electricity and gas bill to $131,000 — the cost of the natural gas needed to fuel three natural-gas-fired generators — and the project was expected to pay for itself within 10 years of operation.

When questioned about the cogeneration plant two months ago, Spencer P. Hellwig, the Saratoga County administrator, said the cogeneration plant became “budget neutral” and the county saved hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years. Hellwig also said Medicaid rates and elderly cost-of-care concerns were the reasons to privatize the nursing home, which was sold to Zenith Health Care Group in January 2015 for $14.1 million. He also said the new owners had no use for the plant.

In the study commissioned by the county, the cogeneration project was characterized as economically unsuccessful.

“Cogeneration isn’t necessary to provide heating and cooling to your clients. Cogeneration is an economic proposition,” a Guth DeConzo presentation said. “If cogeneration isn’t (saving money), there (are) limited additional benefits. … It does not appear that continued operation of cogeneration plant is economically feasible, as compared to re-connection to National Grid.”

In an interview last week, Hellwig backpedaled when asked about the documents revealing the money lost by the cogeneration plant. Hellwig said the cogeneration plant became financially unsuccessful due to a number of factors, including market changes and energy costs. But his comments marked a shift from November, when he characterized the plant, overall, as successful but said decommissioning it had to be done prior to privatization. He said at the time of the original agreement in 2002, however, the county felt assured in the savings proposed.

“The expectations that were in place are why the decisions were made,” he said.

Still, county officials, including Hellwig, and the outside engineering company hired by the county to oversee the decommissioning, previously said falling electricity rates were reasons for decommissioning the cogeneration plant, which worked by converting natural gas to electricity and using the “waste heat” generated in the process.

But according to historical data from NYSERDA, natural gas and electricity rates showed annual decreases on average statewide for residential, industrial and commercial customers over the period in question.

For instance, according to NYSERDA, from 2011 to 2012 residential rates decreased from $13.64 to $12.87 per 1,000 cubic feet for natural gas, and 18.26 to 17.62 cents per kilowatt-hours for electricity, respectively.

Commercial rates fell from $9.28 to $7.79 for natural gas and 15.81 to 15.06 cents for electricity. Industrial rates decreased from $8.15 to $6.87 for natural gas and 7.83 to 6.69 cents for electricity.

Also, the county’s study noted the energy capacity that the cogeneration was built for was largely underutilized, which indicated it was inefficient for the nursing home at the onset. And when the 10-year maintenance deal expired in 2012, and the plant was proposed for decommissioning, Siemens was proposing a new $168,000 annual maintenance contract with an “escalation rate” of 4 percent, which the study concluded was “exceptionally high.”

Coupled with lack of savings, sources said, it became advantageous for the county to cut its losses.

“This is largely due to the reality that a large percentage of the equipment is idle for a good portion of the year, and has to still be maintained,” the study said.

Siemens stands by its project and its role in providing upgrades to the county and the cogeneration project.

“Siemens is proud of the work completed at Maplewood Manor, which added further protection from potential power failures at the facility,” said Amanda Naiman, a company spokeswoman.

There is no indication the Saratoga County project with Siemens is being reviewed any agency.

More Information

Timeline

• 2000 Saratoga County sought proposals to upgrade equipment at the 277-bed Maplewood Manor Nursing Home and to improve energy efficiency. The Saratoga County Board of Supervisors recommended that a proposal submitted by Siemens for the construction of a cogeneration project be accepted, according to documents, with the intent to have the project paid for over a 10-year period with no cost to the county. The cost of the project was approximately $3 million.
• 2002 The county home went off the grid and the cogeneration plant was installed.
• 2012 The Saratoga County Board of Supervisors voted to commission a $37,000 study, produced by NYSERDA and outside engineering firm Guth DeConzo, to assess the performance of the cogeneration plant at the end of the 10-year agreement. The study revealed the cogeneration plant was underperforming and losing about $180,000 a year by not being connected to the grid. The committee voted unanimously to pay $20,000 to Guth DeConzo to decommission the cogeneration plant and reconnect the facility to National Grid to provide electric service. The committee also voted to resell the cogeneration equipment, which at the time had an estimated fair market value of $60,000 to $100,000, to recoup some of the investment.
• 2015 The county’s Maplewood Manor Local Development Corp. voted to sell the nursing home to Zenith Health Care Group for $14.1 million. Zenith renamed the Ballston Avenue facility Saratoga Center for Rehabilitation and Skilled Nursing Care. The company’s newly formed entity, Saratoga Center for Care LLC, is licensed to operate 257 beds, down from the former 277.

 

dclark@timesunion.com • 518-454-5008 • @DartDClark

 

 

I was contacted by the neighbors being impacted by the hospital’s proposed expansion.  They are encouraging people in the community to speak at this Tuesday’s January 19^th Council meeting.   The public hearing is normally the first item on the agenda which should be at 7:00 PM. 

 

 

To Mayor Yepsen’s credit, her office’s response to FOIL requests is a vast improvement over that  of the previous Mayor, Scott Johnson. Under the Johnson administration  requests to access  records were regularly  denied and ignored.    In contrast, the current City Attorney, Vince DeLeonardis, and Trish Bush, his executive assistant, have been very cooperative.

In her campaigns Mayor Yepsen strongly promoted the need for accessibility and transparency.  She is to be commended for carrying out these campaign promises in the way her office allows access to documents.

It is in this context that her failure to respond to a simple question is deeply disappointing.

In a comment published on the Unified Development Ordinance website, the Chamber of Commerce alleged that during the crafting of the city’s Comprehensive Plan, they met with the “Mayor’s office” and reached an agreement to amend the proposed language of the Comprehensive Plan.  The basic change was to replace words such as “require” or “implement” which call for concrete action with squishier words such as “consider” and “encourage”. The full list of agreed upon changes is below but just as one example they changed  “establish” guidelines for stream buffers to “review” guidelines for stream buffers.   The Chamber used the euphemism “more flexible” to describe the effect of the changes.

It is clear that the Chamber is claiming that they have the Mayor’s support in their campaign to weaken the city’s land use ordinances during the UDO process.

There was supposed to be an advisory committee set up to work with the consultants on the rewriting of the city’s ordinances.  This has not happened and the only group that the consultants have met with has been the Chamber of Commerce.  The Mayor is the project manager for the Unified Development Ordinance.  The only oversight currently appears to be through the Mayor’s office.

I emailed the Mayor on December 27 with the text of the Chamber’s statement and asked her if the characterization made by the Chamber was accurate.  Her first response appeared to miss the point of my question because she simply said that she had not met with the Chamber regarding the UDO.  When I wrote back the same day asking her to read my email (the emails are all included below) more carefully and respond, I received no response.  I then emailed her again on January 6 and then again on January 11 but to date, she has not responded.

If the Chamber’s description of working with the Mayor to make the language of the Comprehensive Plan “more flexible” is accurate it raises some disturbing issues that could undermine the public’s confidence in the fairness of the UDO process. It would be helpful  to know the following:

1. Who in the Mayor’s office met with the Chamber and agreed to the changes in the Comprehensive Plan’s wording?
2. How did this language find its way into the Comprehensive Plan and what role did the Mayor’s office play in getting it in?  Was it inserted by the consultants?  Was it inserted while the Comprehensive Plan Committee was still meeting or was it inserted after the Committee collapsed and sent the unfinished plan to the City Council?
3. Most importantly, it would be helpful if the Mayor explained her reasoning for each of the edits her office agreed to.

I still hope that she will realize how important it is to respond to these emails and to inform the public about what transpired.

 

Emails

——————————————————————————————————————————————

From:    John Kaufmann

Sent:     Monday, January 11, 2016 3:36 PM

To:          ‘Joanne Yepsen’

Subject:               Comprehensive Plan and Meeting With Chamber of Commerce

I know how busy you are being Mayor along with your own firm and your family.  This may have contributed to the delay in answering my query.  Still, this is my fourth attempt to get an answer to a question that should not require significant research.  I am including below the previous emails.  According to the Chamber of Commerce memo, you met with them during the drafting of the Comprehensive Plan  and agreed to revise some sensitive language advocated by them in the document (I have included their memo below).  Most of the changes had to do with the greenbelt.  Is their description below accurate?

————————————————————————–

From:    John Kaufmann

Sent:     Wednesday, January 06, 2016 6:12 PM

To:          ‘Joanne Yepsen’

Subject:               Follow up

Joanne:

This is a follow up to my earlier email.  I would be very appreciative if you could find the time to address my question.  Is the description of a meeting with the Chamber (see below) an accurate characterization of the events they describe?

Much thanks for responding.

JK

————————————————————————–

From: John Kaufmann

Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 11:25 PM

To: ‘Joanne Yepsen’

Subject: RE: UDO And Chamber of Commerce

The comment from the Chamber was in reference to the Comprehensive Plan.  They allege that they met with you during the crafting of the Comprehensive Plan and that you agreed with wording they wanted.  If you will review their comments you will see the wording that they say you agreed to.  Did you meet with them during the crafting of the Comprehensive Plan and agree with the wording that they were advocating  (see below)?

From: Joanne Yepsen [mailto:joanne.yepsen@saratoga-springs.org]

Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 9:31 PM

To: John Kaufmann

Subject: Re: UDO And Chamber of Commerce

Hi John. My staff has not met with the Chamber regarding the UDO. Our consultant Behan Planning and my staff have recently met to regarding outreach and plan how to best engage the public in coming months. I do believe Behan is also starting to meet with major stakeholders such as the Chamber, Sustainable Saratoga, Saratoga PLAN… They will be using this input for the diagnostic review.

Joanne

————————————————————————–

On Dec 27, 2015, at 5:32 PM, “John Kaufmann” <j> wrote:

2. Through the Mayor’s office, there was one effort made to find common ground that resulted in the use of some specific words in various recommended actions that we believe specifically indicates a clear preference to create flexibility including:

a. “Update” the open space plan not implement.

b. “Review and update” the City’s Historic Preservation plan not implement.

c. Adopt “reasonable” guidelines that “encourage” restoration not require.

d. “Review” guidelines for stream buffers not establish.

e. “Encourage” the development of residential and commercial buildings that exceed minimum state level energy efficiency not require or establish or implement.

f. Ensure an adequate size and width for public right of ways “wherever feasible.”

g. “Consider” establishing a Generic Environmental Impact Statement to address citywide traffic impacts not establish or implement.

h. “Evaluate” form-based zoning not establish or implement.

i. “Consider” establishing dedicated funds for affordable housing not create.

Thank you for your prompt response.

 

Why is the UDO important?

Saratoga Springs has received a grant from the New York State Energy and Research Development Authority to develop a Unified Development Ordinance.  According to the grant, the city will rewrite all the city’s ordinances, resource management goals, and design standards into one massive document with an emphasis on sustainability.  The current major conflicts in our city surrounding such issues as Moore Hall, the Saratoga Hospital expansion, the development of the High Rock parcel, the expansion of Saratoga National Golf Course, and the rewriting of the city’s solar ordinances could be impacted.  For example, can a club house include 100 hotel rooms?  Can density bonuses be circumvented by arcane maneuvers involving redefining the footprint of a building?  How will design decisions be made over buildings like the City Center Garage?  These are all questions with serious implications that could be decided on in the coming months by the UDO.

Make no mistake.  The real estate industry will be in overdrive to shape this document.

A Breakdown In Transparency and Structure

The city has contracted with Behan Planning and Design (BPD) to craft the UDO.  Their contract is for $128,955 and began on September 1. It is to run for one year.  This means that the final phase of this project will happen during the racing season.

The Disappearing “Advisory Committee”

According to their contract, BPD was supposed to set up an “Advisory Committee.”  This committee was to be comprised of “approximately six to eight representatives of the relevant city departments or boards.”  The committee was to meet “periodically” to “review draft project materials.”

This committee would not only have provided much needed oversight but it would have insured that the ongoing work of the consulting firm was fully transparent to the public.

Recently, I tried to find out who was on this committee and what records they were keeping.  As it turns out, this committee was never formed.  Michael Allen of BPD told me that in spite of the fact that the committee was required in the contract “it” was decided that such a committee would be too cumbersome and instead BPD wanted to report to the City Council directly.  Who decided “it” was unclear.

I pointed out to him that it was now over four months into the contract.  I asked if they had submitted any document formally asking for this change in oversight.  No, he told me.  He said he was trying to meet with the members of the Council to get their approval.  He conceded that he had only met with Commissioners Madigan and Mathiesen so far and that he had been unable to arrange meetings with the other Council members.  In hindsight, I think he probably met with the Mayor.  I find it difficult to believe that he was unable to meet with Commissioners Franck and Scirocco over the last four months.

Subsequent to my conversation with Mr. Allen, I attempted to contact Michele Madigan and Chris Mathiesen.  Ms. Madigan responded that she had checked with her deputy, Lynn Bachner, and neither of them had any recollection of discussing the issue of changing the method of overseeing the work on the UDO by eliminating the “Advisory Committee”.  Chris Mathiesen was away but I spoke to his deputy, Eileen Finneran, who attended the meeting with Mr. Allen.  She too had no recollection of discussing the removal of the “Advisory Committee” from the contract with BPD.

Michele Madigan was the sole dissenting vote authorizing the contract with BPD.  One of her prime concerns was the issue of oversight and transparency.  She advocated that the work of overseeing the UDO process be done by a committee of volunteers appointed by the members of the City Council. Judging by recent events, her concerns appear to have been prescient and justified. Given the many responsibilities of Council members it would seem unlikely that they could exercise sufficient oversight over such a huge and detailed task as developing a UDO. This is a task better left to an Advisory Committee as called for in the contract but so far not implemented.

Few Public Comments In Four Months And Those Comments Were Anonymous and No Quarterly Report

The contract with the city requires that BPD report their activities to the public through their website.

Here is a link to their website.  As of today (January 13, 2016) there are only five comments published and these comments are all anonymous.  They are dated from October 21 to November 16.

The agreement requires quarterly reports.  A quarterly report has not been posted.

UDO Web Site

A Failed Timeline On Meeting With The “Stakeholders”

The time line on the UDO website calls for BPD to meet with the “stakeholders” during October and November.  According to Mr. Allen, there has been only one meeting with stakeholders to date and that was with the Chamber of Commerce.

The Chamber of Commerce Has Been the Only “Stakeholder” BDP has met with

There is no question that BPD would need to solicit input from the Chamber of Commerce but it is extremely troubling that in four months they are the only group he has had a conversation with.

The Chamber’s executive director was one of the most outspoken supporters of casino gambling.  He has been very aggressive in advocating opening up the greenbelt to commercial development. The Chamber director has every right to advocate for these positions but they do not represent the views of major segments of this community.

Mr. Allen explained that the reason he met with the Chamber was that they contacted him asking for a meeting.

What About The Other Stakeholders?

Mr. Allen said that he had been overwhelmed by requests by groups wanting to meet with him and that BPD lacked the resources to accommodate them all so they were rethinking how to meet with people.  Apparently he is meeting with the Mayor who is the designated Project Coordinator to figure this out.

I found it interesting that there was this overwhelming interest in a project that doesn’t seem to have been that well advertised. I asked Mr. Allen if he could provide me with a list of all these groups that were seeking to meet with him but he declined.  It is worth considering why he found time to meet with the Chamber but could not find time to meet with any of the other groups that allegedly requested meetings.

Where Is The First Key Document: The Diagnostic Review?

At the end of November Behan Associates was supposed to publish something called a “diagnostic Review.”   According to their contract this was meant to review “the latest Comprehensive Plan, zoning ordinances, and subdivision regulations.  This review will serve to identify what changes are required to bring the city codes into compliance with the new Comprehensive Plan, synchronize related city policies and standards, and identify other recommended changes which would improve the sustainability of the city.”   It is now January, four months after the start of the contract and nothing related to this has been published on their site.

Why The Lack Of Adherence To Proper Procedures Is A Threat

As stated earlier the UDO has the potential to have wide ranging effects on the future development of Saratoga Springs. Without a fully transparent process there is great potential for mischief. Special interests such as the Chamber of Commerce have the time and resources to monitor and affect policy that the average citizen does not have. Proper procedures that insure transparency and accountability help to level this playing field and shine light on the degree and kind of input being received by decision makers.

 

The fact that the Chamber was able to secure a meeting when no other group could is a perfect example of the potential for abuse.

 

What Needs To Happen

1. BPD needs to establish the “Advisory Committee.”  The meetings with this “Advisory Committee” need to be open to the public and minutes of these meetings properly posted.
2. BPD needs to establish a schedule to meet with other stakeholders in the community besides the Chamber. They need to publish when these meetings are to take place and with whom
3. Comments sent to BPD should be published on their website and attributed to the persons submitting them.

These steps would help to make this important UDO process more transparent and accessible to the public and help to insure the outcome is fair and reflective of the values of the community.

An Invitation To Respond

I emailed a copy of this post to Behan Planning And Design and offered to post any response they would like to make.

 

 

 

Alice Smith who lives near the proposed hospital expansion is hosting a meeting tomorrow night of people from the area affected by the expansion to strategize and organize.

Here is her notice:

Saratoga Hospital has expansion plan which was not adequately discussed with neighbors/area residents.  Next public hearing is Jan 19 -7 pm at City Hall Will have open house tomorrow at my home:  Wednesday, at 6 pm.  All neighbors are welcome:  8 Woodland Ct ( street right behind hospital) -so that we can discuss situation and be informed.  We all need your support

Sustainable Saratoga continues its important work on tree plantings in our city.  They are looking for volunteers.  Here is a link to their campaign