After a decade of little activity on moving the Geyser Road Trail project forward, it looks like somebody kicked the city into high gear on the project this year.

It was in the Capital Improvement Project budget this year for an engineering study to get the project "shovel ready" in the hope that funding would come along like it did for the Spring Run Trail years ago. In that case, it was stimulus funds. In this case, it looks like they are hoping for some grant funding.


"It's been too long and we're finally moving forward," Mayor Scott Johnson said Monday morning at the City Council agenda meeting.

Tuesday night, the City Council will be voting to apply for a few different state grants for the $1.7 million project. The grants would each require the city to match up to $425,000, but Economic and Planning Director Bradley Birge said some of that could come out of the$150,000 that was applied to the engineering study.

If the city were approved for the grant, Birge said it would take about a year for the engineering and a season for construction.

Called it.

Mayor not running for Re-election

Just heard some more rumors from credible sources contradicting something from a previous post.

Word is, Dave Patterson will not be running for mayor as he will soon not be a full-time Saratoga Springs resident.

I had heard credible talk about him running and blogged about it a few weeks ago. A little while after that post I caught up with him and while he didn't confirm the talk, (some of which was from the GOP Chair Dave Harper, who said "I think Dave is definitely a candidate" though didn't say for what) he said he was considering his options and would get back to me.

I have it on very good authority, though, that he is house hunting in Florida and plans on only being a six-month-a-year Spa City resident (I wonder which six months he'll choose?). That wouldn't make him a very effective mayor, at least half of the time, so it seems he won't be making a run.

On the other side of the ticket, rumors still persist about Joanne Yepsen's imminent declaration of her intention to go for the mayor's seat.

I blogged about this one too here and here and I haven't gotten her to budge any further on whether she will be running or not. I've heard it will be announced this month — the 20th is one rumor out there — but today she told me "I don't have that on my calender" and that she is "no further along in my decision."

As for whether the mayor will be running for reelection, I have a call in to him now and will ask him when I speak with him.

Mayor Scott Johnson will not be at the City Council meeting Tuesday night after undergoing "emergency surgery" Tuesday, according to Deputy Mayor Shauna Sutton.

"He's ok, which is what is most important. It was nothing serious," she said. "He just wasn't expecting it."

She said the mayor has not told her or administrative assistant what the surgery was about or many details. Sutton said "I got the impression it was an outpatient procedure."

Either way he will not be in attendance tonight, but she said the things on his agenda will still come up. I don't know if she will bring them up or not. Finance Commissioner Michele Madigan will be running the meeting.

*UPDATE*

Just so everyone knows, Mayor Johnson is fine now and said he has been back to work all week.

"To borrow a saying from Mark Twain: The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated," he said. 

It's been a month since I wrote about the upcoming November election and some of the rumors going around the city have changed and some have become a little more than just rumors.

First, Mayor Scott Johnson has not publicly announced whether he will run for re-election in November, but he told me last week he made up his mind about it "some time ago."

He said he is waiting until it is the right time for him personally and "the right time for the office" to announce his decision.

Johnson also emphasized the fact that when he makes this announcement, to bear in mind that his decision was made long ago.

When I said it sounded an awful lot like he wasn't planning on a run at reelection, he said "I didn't say that."

Other people in the community have said that, though. I've heard from a number of people involved in Spa City Politics that Johnson is calling it quits, but to be clear, that is just speculation until he says one way or the other, as City GOP Committee Chair David Harper pointed out.

"I've heard that rumor as well," he said Monday. "I've also heard the rumor that he IS running."

As for a replacement Republican candidate, the name I hear most out there is Dave Patterson, the former 8th grade Social Studies teacher, one of the guides of historic Saratoga Tours and all-around nice guy (not to editorialize).

Harper would not confirm whether Patterson would be running for mayor if Johnson doesn't run, but he did say he has spoken to him and "I think Dave is definitely a candidate."

Another name floating around is that Ken Ivins may take a run at office again — though perhaps not for the same one he held. There's been talk about him running for city supervisor or Accounts Commissioner, but I don't know which.

In the same vein, Rick Wirth is another name that has become more and more solidified in the discussion about a run for office. Of course, in his case it is for the same one he left, Public Safety Commissioner.

On the other side of the aisle I have heard on pretty good authority is that Joanne Yepsen is, indeed, running for mayor.

When  I talked to her Jan. 24 she wouldn't say which position she is planning to run for in November — mayor or supervisor. "There are several options on the table," she said, adding that she is having "preliminary conversations," about which she would choose. 

I didn't reach her Monday for comment about it, but I've heard from a number of people that it is just a matter of time before she announces (I hear early March). 

There was talk (particularly by Republicans) that Yepsen could technically hold both her supervisor position and be mayor at the same time, but — and this is purely my take — that would probably not go well for her during the race.

 City Democrat Chair Charles Brown would not confirm Yepsen's intention's Monday, saying "until it is announced, that is not official."  He said "It wouldn't disappoint me if she was (running)."

What is official is that John Franck is running for his fifth term as Accounts Commissioner. He told me that, unequivocally, last week.

Brown said Finance Commissioner Michele Madigan is holding an event on Friday where she will make an announcement (the subject of which is still a mystery).

He also said that while Public Safety Commissioner Christian Mathiesen hasn't officially announced, he is confident he will run for re-election.

As for the candidates who are not official, Brown said he "I think within a month all of this will be decided on our side."
Harper, on the other hand, said he couldn't offer a firm timeline. In fact, he sent out a press-release Monday looking for candidates (see below).

                                      Saratoga Springs GOP seeks candidates

SARATOGA SPRINGS – the City of Saratoga Springs Republican Committee is seeking registered Republicans who reside in the City of Saratoga Springs and are interested in being interviewed and selected as the endorsed Republican candidates for the City Council or for City Supervisor(s) in the November 5 general election.

Those interested in an interview and endorsement for these public offices must submit a letter of intent stating the office they are seeking along with a resume to: David Harper, City of Saratoga Springs Republican Chairman, 480 Broadway, Suite 214, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866.

All letters of intent and resumes must be received no later than March 6th. Interviews will be conducted on March 13 beginning at 7:00 pm at the ITAM at 247 Grand Avenue.

Any questions regarding this announcement can be directed to Dave Harper, Chairman at 518.727.1499

 

Though it hasn't been on many agendas lately, the formation of the Comp Plan Committee in the city has been getting a good deal of discussion as of late by the members of the City Council, but they aren't the only ones.

Four people spoke out against the Comprehensive Committee that has been formed by Mayor Scott Johnson over the objections and without the input of the four other members of the City Council. If you'll recall, Johnson formed the vast majority of the committee by himself without formally informing any of the City Council members in late2012.

In his State of the City Address in mid-January, he informed the City Council they could have some say in the committee, but later clarified that the four of them could submit recommendations for the13-member committee, after already choosing 11 members. (He also suggested they choose one of the people he had already picked.)

Only Public Works Commissioner Anthony “Skip” Scirocco submitted a recommendation (from the list of suggestions). The other three Commissioners (all Democrats, unlike Johnson and Scirocco, which I'm sure is just coincidence), did not submit recommendations. They also tabled a vote on hiring a consultant for the process, later calling the whole thing “Dead on arrival.”

I'm planning a follow-up on the whole thing this week to see whether the committee is going to be meeting without the consultant or not, but I figured while I wait for this executive session to be over I'd post some of the public comments for the meeting to the blog.

The first to voice concerns about the formation of the committee was City Democratic Committee Chair Charles Brown.

He said “If all of the commissioners had a say in how that board was picked, it would be a different board, but perhaps not that drastically,” but he said what would be different would be the sense in the city that everyone had played a role in the formation of what everyone agrees is perhaps the second-most important document in the city.

“I would think the democratic process would dictate that we would bend over backwards to ensure all of the voices were heard, since we all live in the city,” he said.

Two others also spoke in general terms, one chastising the mayor and asking he be more conciliatory, and the other saying more renewable energy interests should be included.

In a very eloquent appeal to inclusion, Theresa Cappozola called on City Council to disband the current committee and enact another “in a more democratic manner.”

Capazola pointed out that “the overwhelming majority of members represent development interests or rely on development interests.”

She said she and others who do not support development in the city's “Green Belt” have “become powerless against development because they always seem to be in control and we don't have a seat at the table.

“This is a comprehensive plan,” she said, “not a development plan.”

She also asked the rest of the City Council not to vote for any consultants for the project because it would “merely legitimize” the committee which she said is “overly and improperly weighted to development interests.”

The way the committee was formed, she said, has stripped the public of “our small amount of power at the polls” since four of the city's five commissioners were not involved in the process. “This is history repeating itself,” she said. “This is the same fight and the community never wins.”

Anyway, I'll be following up on this, since the last I talked to the mayor about it he said he didn't know if they were going forward with meetings without a consultant.

Former Mayor Valerie Keehn says she doesn't know what is going on with current Mayor Scott Johnson's formation of his Comprehensive Plan Committee.

After some contentious politics, Johnson named all 13 members of the committee, breaking with precedent.

Keehn was the last mayor to appoint a committee to review the Comp Plan. She called the other day to clear up the debate about how many people she appointed.

Johnson said she had appointed 11 and each of the commissioners had appointed 1 each.

Keehn said that's not what happened. "It's incomprehensible to me why he wouldn't look up the info or just ask someone who was on the committee at the time," she said.

Of course, to be fair, I tried that. No one I talked to could remember with certainty (not even one of the commissioners who made the appointment). And I couldn't find it anywhere in the minutes, coverage of the City Council or in the Comp Plan they came up with.

It's clear Johnson didn't form the committee the way mayors before him had, though.

Johnson started forming the committee in November. It was in The Saratogian a couple times, but he never communicated directly to the other members of the City Council that the committee formation was underway. 

Keehn said when she was mayor, the first thing she did when forming the comp plan committee was request recommendations from the City Council for who should be on the committee: She took two recommendations from each of the commissioners and she appointed the remaining seven seats.

"I didn't say 'Maybe I'll accept your appointments," she said, which is a contrast to Johnson's assertion that recommendations would have to come through him to get to the committee.

He also initially chose 11 names, said he wanted to keep the committee to 13 members, and suggested the commissioners choose someone he had already chosen to be on the committee.

Before Keehn, Ken Klotz (who formed a committee in 2000) appointed five members of the committee and let each of the commissioners appoint one as well. He told me he based that on previous precedent.

Klotz's plan was the last to be adopted. Johnson said Keehn's plan "died on the vine," the committee did, in fact, generate a plan — it was just never voted on.

The required vote of the City Council for adoption would have come when Johnson was in office. It just didn't.

"He probably tossed it in his garbage can," Keehn said.

She said she considered it "an insult" to the work and time the 15-member committee had put in that the plan was never voted on.

"I'd like to know specifically why he decided it wasn't worth him even looking at," she said.

Johnson has not yet returned calls looking for comment. I'll add his comments to the story when I hear back from him.

And while Keehn say's Johnson "probably tossed (the Comp Plan) in his garbage can," someone kept it and here it is:

The 2006 Comprehensive Plan update by

Like Christmas, the election season seems to start earlier every year. We're barely into 2013 and already people are speculating about who is running for City Council in November.

"Usually you don't hear about these things until April," Mayor Scott Johnson said in his office Tuesday. 

I've heard all sorts of rumors at this point: that the mayor is not running again; that a certain supervisor is looking to unseat him if Johnson does run again; that Ken Ivins is returning from his term off to take a run not as finance commissioner, but as Accounts Commissioner; that Bill McTygue is planning a campaign for supervisor; that Cuomo is running for president.... oh wait, wrong election, though that is probably the same level of foresight we are talking about here.

Well, I'm going to be calling around on these. Actually, I called around on these (with the exception of Cuomo) and I'll post their responses as (if) they call me back.

Ivins said he hasn't made up his mind about what he is going to do another half-year from now (I can relate, I still haven't finalized my plans for this evening). As for the idea that he would not go for Finance Commissioner again, he said "I haven't made up my mind yet A) whether I'm running and B) what I would be running for." So that doesn't exactly sound like "No."

McTygue also didn't discount the idea. "It's early," he said, adding "no decision have been made at all in that regard."

He said people have been speculating because he has been making more appearances at City Council meetings and speaking up about issues. "I've been getting a lot of encouragement," he said.

Johnson, too, said he hasn't "publicly decided yet" about whether he would be running for reelection, but in our conversation about who a potential opponent would be referenced a quote he attributed to Joe Bruno, saying "I don't pick my opponents, I just beat them." 

Well, on the mayoral race I did catch up with Joanne Yepsen as well, who wouldn't say what position she is planning on running for in November. "There are several options on the table," she said, adding that she is having "preliminary conversations," about which she would choose. She wouldn't comment, either, on whether she was just evaluating city positions or if she was looking outside.

Those aren't the only rumors running around, obviously, but those are the ones I thought I'd address today. If anybody else hears others, let me know and I'll try to get non-committal answers from those people.

For anyone who missed the article, the first shots of the battle over the Comprehensive Planning Committee were fired Tuesday at the City Council meeting Tuesday when a vote on hiring a consultant to help with the review of the Comprehensive Plan was tabled until the appointment of the committee was addressed.

I was off yesterday, so one of the editors put a call into Mayor Scott Johnson to see if he would be naming the committee at the State of the City Address tonight, but he played it coy it seems.

From the article:

On Wednesday, Johnson called the recent opposition to his naming the committee a “wrinkle, but not insurmountable.”

“I will be addressing this during the State of the City tomorrow evening,” he said, though he declined to give details ahead of the speech, which is set for 7 tonight in the City Center.
 

I'll be there with bells on tonight, so I guess we'll see how this plays out.

 

A fight may be brewing over the appointment of a Comprehensive Planning Committee, expected later this week at the State of the City Address.

Mayor Scott Johnson had originally been planning to unveil the committee by the end of last year, but he said he was still waiting on commitments from some members when New Year's came and went, so he decided to wait until Jan. 17th for the State of the City.

"It seemed appropriate," he told me last week.

Well, he might have waited too long for his own good.

At the Monday morning City Council meeting, the seeds of discontent were planted by two members of the City Council.

Finance Commissioner Michele Madigan and Public Safety Commissioner Christian Mathiesen both questioned the mayor's role in appointing a Comprehensive Planning Committee, which will be charged with reviewing the city's (wait for it) Comprehensive Plan. That document is basically a blueprint of how the city would like itself to look in the next decade or so.

"It's one of the city's most important documents," Madigan told me a couple hours after the meeting.

She and Mathiesen expressed their concerns about the fact that the mayor is appointing the entire committee.

"I can't find anything specific in our charter that the mayor appoints," Mathiesen said. Both he and Madigan cited Department of State documents which say it is the responsibility of the "legislative body" to appoint a committee or review the Comp Plan themselves.

On Page 16 of the Dept. of State's Guide to Planning and Zoning Laws, it defines the prepreation as follows:

"The legislative body of the city, or by resolution of such body, the
planning board or a special board, may prepare a proposed city
comprehensive plan and amendments thereto. In the event the planning board
or special board is directed to prepare a proposed comprehensive plan or
amendment thereto, such board shall, by resolution, recommend such
proposed plan or amendment to the legislative body of the city. "

 In the city charter, it says:

"The Planning Board shall have and exercise the powers and duties as follows:

A. At the direction of the City Council, to prepare a City Comprehensive Plan for the development of the entire area of the city."

 Both Madigan and Mathiesen said they would like the issue to be looked at, though Johnson seemed a little perturbed by the whole thing.

"I can tell you at this point in time the committee has already been constituted," he said, but added "we can talk about it."

Madigan later said while she hopes the issue can be sorted out "amicably," that "If (City Council members) are legally allowed to appoint members to any commission, I would be surprised if (other City Council members) give that right up lightly. I would not give my right to choose someone so easily." 

Of course, in the city code that outlines the mayor's responsibilities (Section 3) has this little tid-bit:

F. Initiation of reviews. The Mayor shall cause a review of the City Comprehensive Plan and City Charter to be conducted periodically. The City Comprehensive Plan shall be reviewed at least every five years, commencing with the effective date of this Charter. The City Charter shall be reviewed at least every 10 years commencing with the effective date of this Charter.

That, to me, muddies the water a little.

Madigan said she was unaware of the law until it was pointed out to her last week (I don't know by who) and that she was unaware that Johnson was planning to unveil his committee members at the State of the City.

I have been talking about his plans to appoint the committee for a couple of months now, but then sadly not everyone reads my blog or articles...

Johnson did not return a call for comment, but Mathiesen evidently did Tuesday morning. I was not yet in to get his call and he is now unavailable, so we'll just have to wait and see what happens at tonight's City Council meeting.

"Nothing to report at this time," Mayor Scott Johnson said Tuesday night when I asked him about whether he has decided to assemble a mayoral commission to explore charter change or not.

In the briefest of synopses: After two years, thousands of signatures and two court cases, Saratoga Citizen has a measure on the ballot in November to change the city's form of government from a commission form to a council-manager form.

That would take the current City Council, which consists of five commissioners who are in charge of specific departments within the city government and change it to a standard legislative body, stripping them of their day-to-day responsibilities in their departments. It would put a city manager in charge of the day-t0-day operations of the city.

The only thing that could stop people from voting on that change in government at this point would be if Mayor Johnson formed a commission to explore how to change the city's government.

Recommendations from that commission could bump Saratoga Citizen's proposal from the ballot if it comes up with recommendations before Oct. 1, which of course doesn't give it much time.

The mayor left the door open for the commission back in May when the City Council put the Saratoga Citizen proposal on the ballot (sort of, see here for more details on why that isn't exactly accurate)

I've asked the mayor about the commission virtually every time we've talked since then, and I am no closer than I was in May to knowing whether it is going to happen. At the end of June he said “I don’t want to unduly delay it. There are reasons why I’ve delayed my announcement.” He wouldn't tell me the reasons.

With a scant six weeks and five days until any proposal needs to be submitted to the Board of Elections to be put on the ballot, the possibility of it coming together in time seems to be getting slimmer by the day. The mayor said in June that he believed some commissions had been formed as late as August.

But with that decision yet to be announced Saratoga Citizen is pressing forward with its educational campaign to let voters know what they will be deciding in November.

"The only way people can be for or against it is if they know what it's about," said Pat Kane, one of the groups primary organizers.

Wednesday night at 7 p.m. in the Saratoga Springs Public Library, the group will bring another speaker in to discuss what they see as the benefits of the council-manager form of government.

Bob McEvoy, a professor at SUNY Albany with a specialty in Local Government Management
Department of Public Administration & Policy, as well as the former president of the New York State Association of City and County Managers will be discussing the proposed system of government.

However, I wanted to put Mayor Scott Johnson's response to the Compliance and Communication Plan (memo, suggestion, whatever we're calling it now) from the SSHA. If you recall, I hadn't heard from him when I wrote the last story about it, but of course I hear from him the day after the story ran.

He got back to me June 28 (Thursday). He was out on Monday and Tuesday and didn't get the letter until Wednesday, which is why I hadn't heard from him.

*Also, as an aside, I never published a blog post that I wrote a week ago. I just published it. It's about Ed Spychalski's salary, if anyone still cares, but it published in the order it would have originally appeared. You can find it here.

So the SSHA's response, in the words of John Franck, basically "flipped (the City Council) the bird." It covered topics high and low (though I won't get into the author's recollection of how the bedbug controversy, executive director's salary and general operation of the SSHA actually worked), but it declined to address the approval process for employe salaries (about half of what the City Council asked them to address).

Mayor Johnson, though, wasn't surprised.

"I almost expected that kind of a response," he said. "The request was essentially asking them to admit they were wrong."

Just for a (really) quick recap, state law requires that the SSHA submit its employee salaries to the City Council for approval. The SSHA hasn't done it in more than a decade. The city Council asked them to — all of them since they stopped. That, Johnson said, was one of the problems he saw with the "request or demand" that the Council issued.

However, he said he expects the issue to be addressed in the audit being conducted by the State Comptroller's office — or at least the process which the SSHA used to come to the executive director's $152k compensation in 2011.

With that, I will wash my hands of the SSHA news... until the next scandal.

Stay classy Saratoga.

"Not yet..." Mayor Scott Johnson told me a week or two ago when I asked him if he was going to be making his statement about whether to form a mayoral commission for charter change.

When I asked him about it shortly after Saratoga Citizen's proposal was voted on by the City Council, he was non-committal but said that he would be making a statement about it in the near future (at that point).

If he creates a charter change commission and it comes up with suggestions for change before the November ballot (I think two months before), it will bump the proposed Saratoga Citizen change off.

I previously had thought that would mean voters would weigh-in on the Saratoga Citizen brand of charter change next year, but SC Organizer Pat Kane told me recently that is not the case. He says it means SC charter change goes away (at least until they circulate another petition).

Anyway, I can't imagine that the big announcement will be that he will not be forming a charter change commission, but I've been wrong about these things before. Maybe he just likes to keep us all in suspense.

I'd ask him again today, but I've left him three messages in three days to talk about the SSHA and I haven't heard back.

Saratoga Springs Housing Authority Board of Commissioner Chairman Dennis Brunelle's (That's not a title. Now THAT'S a title) ears must be ringing after the City Council meeting Tuesday night.

Read about the full discussion in tomorrow's Saratogian. For now, I'm just going to put up this little tidbit because I've been sort of following Brunelle's imminent reappointment (or lack thereof) in the blog as of late.

Now if you'll recall, Mayor Scott Johnson said he does not expect Brunelle to request re-appointment to the Housing Authority board when his term expires in April.

Johnson said he has met with Brunelle "a number of times regarding (his tenure on the board)" and said "I think he is interested in doing other things."

That sounded a lot to me like a person stepping down to "spend more time with his family" but I let it go. I then tried to confirm it the next week with Brunelle, who seemed a little offended by the whole thing.

"I never said that," he said. "I told the mayor I would give it some serious thought and that's what I'm doing. I haven't gotten back to the mayor yet."

Well, at Tuesday's meeting it was much of the same from Johnson, who said he had talked to him "as recently as today" about the reappointment.

"I have made recommendations to him and I am still awaiting his decision," Johnson said during the meeting.

"Isn't it your decision not his?" asked John Franck.

"I'm giving him the option of deciding," Johnson replied.

It seems what he meant to say was he was giving him the option of stepping aside "to pursue other interests" or being just being told to go "pursue other interests."

Well, Mayor Scott Johnson just returned my call and left me a message (while I was on the phone with Housing Authority board member Eric Weller, whose story will also come soon) saying the legal opinion on who is in charge of the Housing Authority will, in fact, not be released until Monday.

See the post below that I wrote yesterday for some context (and the one I wrote the day before if you want to know what's up with Eric Weller)

Johnson originally said at the City Council meeting last Tuesday it would be released within the week, then last Thursday he said it would be out by the middle of this week and now it will be out by Monday.

"There were some outstanding issues," Johnson said in the message, but said it will clear up a lot of issues.

"It really is comprehensive on all issues raised to date," he said, "including the validity of (Ed Spychalski's) contract, salaries, how the city has any authority over the Housing Authority. It is not cut and dried."

Meanwhile, Eric Weller said that may not be the end of the conversation.

"It is going to take a lot of legal advice and possibly legal action to answer it," he said. I asked him if he would be challenging the decision, if indeed it does indicate the City Council has to approve Housing Authority salaries. "It's something we would certainly question."

The story is obviously not done and there will be more to come, but that's all for now.

Well, looks like public safety employees will be drug tested after all, "in the very near future," according to Public Safety Commissioner Christian Mathiesen in Tuesday night's City Council meeting.

That is different from where he was on the issue last week when he said he was not in favor of the tests. At the City Council meeting, though, Mathiesen said he still didn't think it was necessary, but "if it would make the community at large would feel safer" for having drug tests, he would look into it.

That comes after comments online and elsewhere against his position (probably from people who get drug tested at their own jobs and don't carry guns or drive at high rates of speed).

The commissioner said he would be evaluating how to implement random drug testing in the Saratoga Springs Police Department, because both the chief and the union said they were in favor of the idea.

As Police Benevolent Association President Paul Veitch said “I believe there should be a drug-testing policy because I don’t want someone with a narcotics problem working next to me," particularly when they are carrying guns.

"I haven't had anyone come up to me and say they were happy about that article in the paper," Accounts Commissioner John Franck said to Mathiesen at the City Council meeting. He was referring to my recent article regarding the public safety commissioner's stance on random drug testing. "I don't think anyone is going to be with you on this."

Of course all of the people at the table said they did not believe there is a drug problem in the department. "But if that is the case they shouldn't have a problem with it," Franck said.

Mathiesen reiterated his stance that the system in place works. That is, when the officers of the departments see a problem, they address it.

He didn't specifically name Justin Moran, but he said "I saw how well the department worked with the other situation." Being the only drug case in recent history in the department, I have to figure it was that (also based on previous comments he made in the story I already linked to). "I knew the background," he said. "I knew how effectively it was taken care of."

Franck pointed out that he had to submit to a drug test when he was hired at his accounting firm and that people at Walmart are drug tested.

"That doesn't make it ok, just because Walmart does it," Finance Commissioner Michele Madigan said. She advised caution because of false-positive tests that could end a person's career.

"We don't want to kill anyone either," Franck said.

Mayor Scott Johnson also agreed with Franck (someone mark it down on the calender) about the need for drug testing. He said when firefighters are racing to the scene in their 20 ton (fire trucks range from 15 to 30 tons, I read) truck, "they are basically driving weapons."

When Franck kept citing Mathiesen's comments in The Saratogian's article, Mathiesen seemed to want to back away from it, saying something about how Franck should know not everything in the newspaper is accurately quoted. Of course, he didn't deny anything in the newspaper.

He said "I was asked if I supported random drug testing," something he said he does not. He said he was surprised by the question. "My reaction was 'What about cost? What about methods?'"

Mathiesen said he still doesn't support it, but "If the community feels otherwise we can look at it."

I did not cover the State of the City this week, but my colleague Michael Cignoli did and reported that the mayor is eying south South Broadway to potential re-development.

The mayor said the stretch of Route 9 between Adirondack Northway Exit 13 and Lincoln Avenue is “vastly underutilized, underdeveloped.”

That is something I will be following-up on in more detail later in the week, as it seems to be the tip of some unknown iceberg involving the city's comprehensive plan.

At the City Council's agenda meeting Monday morning, the mayor said that the city's comprehensive plan needs to be reevaluated. The word "scrapped" was used, but he said the city would be looking at how to proceed with it.

Public Safety Commissioner Christian Mathiesen said he doesn't think the mayor was talking about the overall plan, but rather the latest portion of it added in 2007.

He said a reevaluation of the entire Comprehensive Plan "would make all the sense in the world."

Mathiesen pointed out that the "Green-belt" that surrounds the city and is outlined in the 2001 Comprehensive Plan would be impacted, "which is why I want a Comprehensive Plan Committee to take a look at it."

In addition, the charter requires the city review its plan every five years, which means it is just about due.

So I'll be following up on that this week, but in the mean-time, here is Michele Madigan's response to the mayor's speech Sunday.


"The Mayor’s speech today contained many eloquent words urging cooperation and an end to partisanship. While he may not have completely heeded his own advice (subsequently deriding the “tax and spend mentality of the past”) I believe that we all are public servants with the best interests of the City of Saratoga Springs at heart.
I was encouraged by the tone and content of the Mayor’s remarks on casino gambling in New York. We must first and foremost be concerned with the impact this would have on the horse racing industry and must vigorously defend our quality of life and our city finances from any deleterious impact of casino gambling in our backyard. I was also very pleased to hear the Mayor demand both an increase in our share of the VLT revenues generated by our racino and a guarantee from Albany that we will receive those funds each and every year.
VLT aid is a revenue source that has become critical, albeit still difficult to rely upon, to this City. The Mayor stated – rightly – that “it would be financially irresponsible to rely on those funds to simply balance an annual operating budget”. Unfortunately, this is precisely what the previous Council did in the 2012 Budget that it devised and adopted. Despite uncertainty as to the existence or amount of any VLT revenue provided by Albany for this year, despite past experience with this issue, the previous Council relied on the VLT revenue to balance the 2012 Operating Budget. We must continue our vigilance with our Albany compatriots to retain and increase amounts to offset our significant expenses as host City. We must continue to look for ways to most effectively utilize VLT revenue.
The Mayor’s remarks on the unappropriated unreserved fund balance also require clarification. The Mayor stated that this fund balance increased by $4.2M in 2010. In fact, the fund balance grew by roughly $1.35M from 2009, a substantial difference that we must understand and be aware of in order to accurately plan and budget for the future of the City. Moreover, as Finance has discussed with the Mayor, we are not yet in a position to state that an increase in the fund balance was achieved in 2011. While an increase would be welcome, the City’s 2011 books do not close until the end of February and this number will not be finalized for several weeks. Good planning dictates that we use solid, accurate data to make important statements about the City’s finances.
The current administration has just closed its first month of duty with a truly remarkable set of projects and much progress to show for it. I look forward to the State of the City 2013 and I have confidence that it will resound with the success of this year.
Thank you,
Michele Madigan
Commissioner of Finance"

Mayor Scott Johnson later found some areas he wanted to respond to regarding Madigan's response.
"No one is using the VLT funds to balance the 2012 budget," he said. Johnson pointed out that $1 million of the $1.5 million was placed into a reserve account as a rainy-day fund.
He also took issue with her statement regarding his statement in 2010 that the "fund balance increased by $4.2M in 2010. In fact, the fund balance grew by roughly $1.35M from 2009, a substantial difference," she said.
"The point was that the amount at the end of 2010 would be $4.2 million," Johnson said.
In addition, he said he was a little confused at the beginning for why Madigan had drafted the response in the first place.
"I don't recall anyone ever writing a response to the State of the City address," he said.

Remember the days when I used to blog? For those of you who don't, I think I'm with you-- it seems like a lifetime ago.

Believe you-me, it's not because I don't like to blog. Indeed, it's a lot easier than writing a story — unfortunately, lately if I want to blog that would mean a story does not get written.

For those who don't know, we've been down a reporter ever since Suzanna Lourie left us. Add to that another reporter's January schedule which seems to have more vacation days than working days and you get an equation that equals a dead blog (and an unprecedented amount of overtime at The Saratogian).

What is particularly terrible about that situation, is there has been a lot to blog about.

For instance, I started a blog post (which will appear at the bottom of this blog post) two weeks ago and didn't finish it. In fact, I stopped in the middle of a sentence. I don't remember why. Undoubtedly I had to run off to a meeting, accident, fire, scandal, investigate an anonymous tip, etc.

But I want to ensure the world wide web out there, I will return to cyberspace with a vengeance whenever my workload slows enough to allow it.

But here, to at least give the loyal dozen or so people who still check in on the blog from time to time a little something to read, here is a two-week old blog I finally found time to finish.

11:39 p.m., Tuesday, Jan. 17. City Hall.
Mayor Scott Johnson sat in his desk, loosened his tie and said "If I heard it once I heard it 1,000 times about the need for transparency in government. Is that what happened here tonight?"

Johnson seemed to be the last person in the City Council chambers earlier that night to know that the vote was coming on assigning the Fire Department to take over ambulance transport service in the city.

"I haven't decided that yet," the mayor said moments before the vote. "Am I the alone here in terms of not understanding this was going to be the vote this evening? We have a lot of unresolved issues that have been raised even tonight."

After a pregnant silence, Accounts Commissioner John Franck responded. "It was my understanding, going into tonight, that it wasn't a definite answer that we were going to vote on this this evening, but after the workshop I feel that the votes are there and that isn't going to change.

Franck said "I think everyone has some unanswered questions," but voted for the measure provided there was a "sunset clause" that would require the City Council to vote to continue with the program after a two-year trial period.

And despite the mayor's opposition to the plan, (here's where I stopped) the council passed the fire department's takeover of EMS service at a vote that came after deadline (11 p.m. — our print story said the vote was coming).

Mathiesen, days later, responded to Johnson's claims. "There was nothing opaque about the vote," he said. He pointed out it had been on the agenda. It wasn't a late add.

However, I will point out that in a conversation the day before with Deputy Commissioner Eileen Finneran, she said the vote was "just to get the ball rolling," on the fire department taking EMS over.

"The ball is rolling," Johnson said. "In fact the ball is gone."

"It seems very blatantly political -- it's the last City Council meeting and the contracts would not be renewed until after the next election," said Finance Commissioner-elect Michele Madigan leaving the City Council meeting Tuesday night.

She had just watched four contracts with law firms and one contract with the city's human resource company, Pinnacle Human Resources, LLC. extended to two-year contracts, something sources in City Hall said is unprecedented.

Accounts Commissioner John Franck spoke out on the city council about just that.

"We've never done this as far as I can remember," he said.

"I think they are good services, but this is bad government" Franck said of the contracts with the HR company as well as the law firms of Harris Beach which handles labor and collective bargaining and Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker and Firth PC which is currently litigating lawsuits on charter challenge and civil service. "I don't think these contracts should go more than a year," Franck said.

He was the sole council member to vote no on all of the contracts except the contract to continue litigating the appeal of the Saratoga Citizen petition, which Kenneth Ivins Jr. also voted against.

Mayor Scott Johnson said the rationale behind extending the contracts is that they locked in the price for the next two years and could avoid any cost increase (something Franck said hasn't happened since 2006), but Madigan saw a different motivation.

"It appears that the rationale behind these amendments may be to solidify them until after the next election so that the incoming council members will have no say in them," she said in a prepared statement she read to the council during public comment.

Franck said that if the City Council were going to award extended contracts to the law firms and Pinnacle, they should put out requests for proposals. "It doesn't make sense to me, I don't see the prices going up dramatically," he said, adding he would expect even better prices if the city put out a request for bids.

It was the last council meeting for two of the men around the table Tuesday. Madigan will replace Finance Commissioner Ivins and Christian Mathiesen will replace Public Safety Commissioner Richard Wirth in less than two weeks and the remaining members offered their praise and farewells to their two departing comrades.

Franck said Wirth has "always been a gentleman who looked past party lines," and he thanked him for his "tireless service" running the city's largest department seven days a week, something Franck knew he did because he frequently saw Wirth coming and going from City Hall on the weekends while he hung out at Compton's.

He said Ivins was dealt a tough hand over the last few fiscal years but said "in your four year period you have brought us back."

Scirocco thanked the both of them as well, though made eye-contact with Ivins (whom he has publicly disagreed with on frequent occasions) when he said "You both in your heart made the right decisions I'm sure."

Johnson commended them for their community service and "dedication to our city."

"Those of us who serve in these capacities know it is no easy chore to undertake," he said. And while he hoped they would continue to be involved in city politics and service, he had one parting lighthearted(?) request:

"Don't come to public comment please."

To drive that point home, here's Madigan's comments to the council in full:
I see that this evening's agenda includes discussions and votes on the Pinnacle Human Resources contract and the Harris Beach contracts. It is my understanding that the current Pinnacle HR contract runs until May 2012 and the amendment seems to merely extend the contract to December 2013. The Harris Beach contracts are also being amended tonight to extend from December 2012 to December 2013. All of these contracts are being amended until after the next election. Absent a pressing need to amend these contracts, it seems premature to even discuss these tonight. Again, a new council will be seated in 12 days, and there are 5 months remaining in the current Pinnacle HR contract and a full 12 months remaining in the Harris Beach contracts. It appears that the rationale behind these amendments may be to solidify them until after the next election so that the incoming council members will have no say in them.
While I have briefly reviewed the specifics of the proposed amendments, and must wait to find out more in tonight’s discussion and possible vote, I must point out the possibility that a majority of the new council may not agree with the wishes of the majority of the current council on such important matters. If this is the case, what will it cost the city to once again change, amend or terminate these contracts? I would respectfully request, in the interests of good governance, fiscal prudence, and transparency, that this council postpone discussion of these items until the next meeting, when the new council will be seated.
Of particular concern to me is the contract being amended that relates to Human Resources. Local governments are facing unprecedented challenges; whether we are addressing fiscal challenges, environmental issues, public safety, or a crisis, having the right people in the right jobs will pay off for our city. It is not clear to me, especially since I have been unable to review the contract in question, that outsourcing Human Resources – in violation of the City Charter - is in the best interest of our city. Since this is such an important issue, I believe it is unreasonable for the current council to take any action on this contract, thereby encumbering the new council which will be seated in 12 short days. We can take this matter up in just a few weeks, and I humbly ask you to allow us to do so.
Thank you,
Michele Madigan, Commissioner of Finance-elect

The City Council decided not to vote on a measure to add the Woodlawn Avenue Parking Deck to the 2011 Capital Improvement budget Tuesday night citing a lack of time to review the proposal.
Mayor Scott Johnson withdrew the discussion and vote from his agenda. “I want to give people more time to absorb it and vote Dec. 6,” he said.
Johnson said adding it to the 2011 Capital Budget is necessary because "the process is unfolding and the bids are coming in. The goal here is to not interfere with a tight timeline.”
A public hearing was held on the parking deck, which will be located on the city-owned Woodlawn Avenue parking lot. It will start as a single additional floor of parking above the ground floor but will be designed to accommodate a third level.
Requests for bids for the design/build project were put out Nov. 16 and are due to be opened Monday. The projected timeline has the parking deck being open before racing season.
The decision to put off the vote to Tuesday came a week after a meeting of potential bidders on the project complained about too little time to work on the project and only moments before a series of people speaking at the public hearing on the topic said the overall timeline is too rushed.
“The rush this is being put under has a lot of implications,” said Pat Kane, who said it could be inadequately planned out. He said it is a “winner of an idea,” but that it was on too accelerated a timeline. “August will be August with or without this parking deck.”
Public Safety Commissioner-Elect Christian Mathiesen echoed Kane’s concerns. He said it would not be his first priority and would like to see a more mixed-use proposal, though he admitted parking is an issue that needs to be addressed.
Both men said construction should be delayed until September. “I think it will have less of an impact on our tourist season,” he said. Mathiesen said he is concerned about the potential for the project to be delayed into racing season. “Take time for the design process,” he said.
Others in the audience at the public hearing had an alternative opinion.
“If you look back in the Chambers’ file on parking decks, this has been talked about for 30 years,” said President of the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce Todd Shimkus. “I think it has been delayed enough.”
He said getting the lot complete to be used during racing season “makes the most sense.”
Bids will be opened in the City Council Chambers Monday, Dec. 5, a deadline that was extended to allow designers an additional weekend to work on the project.