Blogs > Saratogian Newsroom

The Saratogian Newsroom blog, complete with thoughts and commentary from our newsroom staff and regular posts on happenings around town.

Wednesday, June 12

Release from the Yepsen camp:

Building Momentum, Yepsen Picks (Up, I think belongs here) Two  New Endorsements
Adding to her endorsements by the Democratic and Working Families Parties, in the past two weeks, Saratoga Springs Mayoral Candidate Joanne Yepsen has been endorsed by the Independence Party and the RFK Club.
Saratoga County Independence Party Chairman Ed Miller released the following statement following the endorsement of the Independence Party:
"If hard work, integrity and vision for the future of Saratoga Springs are important, Joanne Yepsen is the best choice for Mayor.  The Saratoga County Independence Party is pleased to endorse Supervisor Joanne Yepsen as the 2013 Mayoral candidate for Saratoga Springs.  Our committee recognizes Joanne's tireless advocacy for our horse racing industry and our local economy.  Joanne has a plan to strengthen our horse racing and agriculture industry and plans to work with all levels of government on both sides of the aisle to tackle the multitude of critical issues facing the growing city of Saratoga Springs.  She is  a genuine public servant with an strong independent voice,  remarkable record of accomplishment,  and passionate leader for all the people of Saratoga."
This Independence Party is the third established political party to endorse Yepsen in her bid for Mayor.
The Capital Region RFK Club, a good-government Democratic organization also recently endorsed Yepsen’s candidacy, with Co-Chair Matt Peter releasing the following statement:
"The RFK Club is proud to endorse Joanne Yepsen because of the commitment she has displayed to serving her constituents and to the Values we share.  We look forward to supporting Joanne in her election and working with her as Mayor to bring continued progress to Saratoga Springs."

Labels: , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hard work, integrity and working with both parties are good traits. They seem to fit her opposing candidate better than Joanne Yepsen. Anyone tied to the Mctygues has never worked with the other party. Joanne has little or no knowledge concerning generating budgets, union contracts or overseeing the planning department while Shauna Sutton has always met or showed a surplus in the Mayor's dept. budget, has completely overhauled the Planning Dept. and has been extremely tough with union contracts. City government has little or nothing to do with saving the racing industry or any industry for that matter. The poor planning of the State Governor and NYRA has created the major problem with the breeding industry and has severely hurt the quality of racing. Aqueduct Raceway - a loser from year to year should have been closed years ago to provide a short winter break for horses to recover the the racing season which has created endless breakdowns and a major hole in the system. A mayor cannot fix those problems. I don't think I have ever seen Joanne at either track as a patron and her knowledge of the racing business is minimal. This is just another case of the relationship between Eddie Miller and Gordon Boyd with the Mctygues. They hav always placed themselves before the city and serve no useful purpose in this debate.I believe this endorsement although in good faith is flawed and a embarassment for the Independence Party.

June 13, 2013 at 4:56 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lucian - Have you seen the S&P report or were you handed a press release? Have never heard of S&P discussing union contracts when discussing ratings. It ddoesn't effect the rating and quite honestly isn't their business to judge. Think the Dems are playing you for a fool. You are quite aware there are numbers that state EMS did not and will not make a dime? Even their proforma was an absolute misrepresentation not even caught by the people we rely on to check these issues closely which would be the Finance Dept.

June 13, 2013 at 5:39 AM 
Blogger Lucian said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 13, 2013 at 11:11 AM 
Blogger Lucian said...

Obviously, 5:39 a.m. Anonymous (do you people sleep?), you probably misunderstood what this post was about, since it doesn't mention the S&P report.

I was actually handed both, and in fact, if you read the article, you would realize that I quoted the S&P report's reference to unsettled union contracts.

I'll post it in another blog post so you can see for yourself the references to unions and to the EMS report, which you were clearly misinformed about.

Hang tight.

June 13, 2013 at 11:12 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The first post would have us believe that Sutton "has always met or showed a surplus in the mayor's budget."

Well, that is not quite true. Let's just look for a moment at her management of the legal fees portion of the budget.

Outside Legal Costs: 2009 & 2010

According to various reports prepared by the then Finance Commissioner Ivins, Sutton & Johnson spent a minimum of $5804,581 on outside legal services during 2009 and 2010., nearly $180,000 more than was budgeted.

In 2009 and 2010, the Finance office reported in its adopted operating budgets for 2010 and 2011, that $294,846 was spent by the mayor’s office on outside law firms in 2009 and Finance projected that $209,735 would be spent in 2010.

In short, Finance reports that Johnson spent $504,581 on contract legal services in 2009 and 2010 alone and nearly $180,000 MORE than was originally budgeted.

The 2009 adopted City Comprehensive Budget appropriated a total of $175,000 for contract legal services and the 2010 appropriation was $150,000. According to Finance, then, Johnson overspent original appropriations for 2009 and 2010 by over 55% ($180,000).

2011& 2012

In 2011, the rate of expenditures on outside law firms was even greater than in the two previous years. Commissioner Ivins notes in his first 2011 Quarterly Financial Report for the period ending March 31, that the mayor’s office had already exceeded its entire 2011 expenditure. Through the end of March a total of $103,778 had been spent or encumbered and an additional $91,778 had already been transferred into the account.


Cost of Outside Legal Services and Authorized Original Expenditures

Year Original Budget Reported Actual Expenditure Difference
2009 $175,000 $294,846 + $119,846/ +68%
2010 $150,000 $209,735 + $ 59,735/ +40%
2011 $96,000 $103,778 (inc. encumbrances) + $ 7,778 / + 8%
2012 $75,000 $102,691 (as reported by Finance in Nov. proposed 2013 Budget)

TOTALS $496,000 $711,050

Of course, as we shall see,after three full years of operation now, the Indoor Rec. Facility which she oversees has not even come close to meeting the revenues that she and Johnson budgeted. So where does the difference come from? Our pockets, of course.

June 13, 2013 at 12:53 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So 4:56, you are saying that Shauna Sutton completely overhauled the Planning Dept. and has been extremely tough with union contracts? What planet have you dropped in from? All this time the Mayor has been getting credit for the Planning Dept, and tough negotiating of union contracts. Have you ever heard of election year bull? As far as creating her Departments budget, I wouldn't want her to create one for me. I agree with 12:53. If one takes the time you can go to the City's website and look under the Transparency button which Commissioner Madigan added so all taxpayers can see openly the income and expenses for each department and sub department. The Rec Center is a huge loser; it is bleeding taxpayer money, far from the hundreds and hundreds of thousands in income we were promised by Deputy Mayor Sutton when it opened. Nice Center, Yes/ tax Bleeder, Big Time.

By the way 4:56, are you at both tracks every day looking all over for Yepsen? I think you need a hobby.

June 13, 2013 at 3:43 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has anyone out there able to distinquish that direct and indirect income to the city play a major portion the the Rec Center's contribution to the city.The City Center barely breaks even on a yearly basis but how much indirect income does it generate for the city. Same apllies to the Rec Center which by the way was approved by a democratic Council and bonded twice illegally prior to the Johnson administration. The talking points are getting tired. try something different. You're beginning to sound like a retread tire.

June 16, 2013 at 2:40 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home