FINAL REPORT

CURRENT CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE

CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

SARAROGA SPRINGS, NY.

MARCH 16, 2017

Members of the Current Charter Review Committee:

Ann Bullock

Devin Dal Pos

Elio Del Sette

Bahram Keramati (Committee Chair)

Robert Kuczynski

Robert Turner (Commission Chair)

1 Report of the Current Charter Review Committee

Saratoga Springs Charter Review Commission

March 15, 2017

Introduction

The goal of the Current Charter Review Committee of the Saratoga Springs Charter Review Commission (CRC) was to study the current charter of the city from a variety of perspectives. In addition to reading, digesting, and understanding the current city charter, the committee undertook the task of determining how it really works in practice. To this end, the committee used information and data obtained from various sources, as follows:

• Testimony from present and past elected city officials who have had direct experience in working under the current charter. • A survey of selected community leaders conducted to assess their willingness to run for office under the current charter vs. alternative charters. • A survey of city employees to assess their experience in how the charter contributes to or detracts from their job functions, and to solicit their views about the charter itself. • One-on-one interviews with business leaders and agencies that routinely work with the city.

This report presents the information from the above sources and the committee’s conclusions. Although the committee and the entire commission members did review and study the broader literature regarding forms of city government, this report does not represent this broader perspective. The report is focused on the information we have obtained specific to Saratoga Springs, all of which have been newly obtained in the last several months.

A. Testimony of Past and Present Elected City Officials

In the context of the entire CRC’s work (i.e., outside the immediate scope of the Current Charter Review Committee), all available present and past elected city Commissioners and Saratoga County Supervisors were invited to testify regarding their experiences, and specifically their views regarding the city’s charter. Tens of hours of testimony were collected which can be found, verbatim, in the formal minutes of the Commission’s meetings. For the purpose of this report, below we cite some of the comments made by these past and present officials that directly relate to the evaluation of the current charter, its strengths and weaknesses. As these were public testimonies, the sources of the statements and the date of the testimony are identified as they appear in the minutes of the commission meetings.

A. C. Riley (Former Mayor – August 9, 2016)

• C. Riley stated that the public’s expectations do not match the formal powers under the charter. The public thinks that the Mayor is in charge although there are 4 others on the City Council and each of the five members has one equal vote.

• She likes the idea of a legislative City Council and is neutral regarding a strong Mayor or whether to have a City Manager who will be a professional full time manager.

2 Ray Watkin (Former Mayor – August 9, 2016)

• He does not believe there is the correct combination of checks and balances under the current city charter; the problems have changed and someone has to steer the ship. Under the current city council format, no one takes the blame.

• In response to the question 5, instead of deciding whether a provision of the charter is good for the city or not, he advises the Commission to start over and examine the needs of the city and the ability to enforce each provision in the Charter. The goal should be to get more done with less money.

• R. Watkin said it is time to modernize the City’s form of government because more can be done, more service can be accomplished without a cumbersome government that is hard for the people to understand. It is not that the current system hurts the City, but it should be made better without a lot of red tape for the people.

• … The City attracts people because of its economic well-being; there were many problems in the 1970’s including a problematic downtown and almost losing exclusive racing and empty store fronts. The system has served its purpose and there is always a need for efficiency and change.

Ken Klotz (Former Mayor – August 9, 2016)

• K. Klotz noted that any system would work if you have good people in it. A strong Mayor works if they have good vision and good projects, but if not, it could be treacherous. A City Manager as a technocrat might mechanically run better but the unique qualities of this City might get lost.

• You can talk about weaknesses and strengths of every system; this City has gotten this far with this system and it might be because the Council stayed out of the way and let business leaders and others carry something forward. This is a successful City so the good things in the government should be preserved.

• Regarding public expectations, the Mayor is expected to do things that are not his purview and he/she must be able to work the building to get things done, a response of “it is not my job” is not acceptable. One must rise above the politics; it is not relevant whether or not public expectations match the duties of the Mayor. It is up to the Mayor to educate and to get things going regardless whether it involves his/her or another commissioner’s department.

• He believes the 2001 Charter is more explicit but is not particularly adhered to and does not seem to be treated as sacred. There is no one to make a final decision or enforce the charter except possibly the City Attorney. He cannot speak knowingly about whether provisions are good for the city or not because he has never worked under this Charter.

• K. Klotz said most of his time was spent on positive productive things and since the 2001 Charter allowed for a Deputy Mayor, he was able to appoint a Deputy for his second term. He said there was plenty of conflict at the City Council table but they accomplished what they could.

3 Valerie Keehn (Former Mayor – August 9, 2016)

• She stated that the public has no idea what the formal powers of the Mayor are under the Charter and they are not expected to. People here and in most cities believe that is the Chief Executive Officer, the head administrator of City operations, the ceremonial figurehead of the City and presides over City Council meetings. People believe that the Mayor has complete control over things that happen in this City.

• She said if the Charter was different, if the form of government was different, there would be more qualified people running for office in this City. She questioned how qualified she was as a Special Education Teacher, yet she was elected. She loved the experience and learned a lot.

• Innovation and changes have occurred and the form of government should keep up with the changes; the way the City manages its business, employees, and the major issues should change.

• The phrase if it is not broken do not fix it does not match the situation. We do not use quills and ink wells as primary tools to write or horses and buggies as our main transportation. No one takes notes at the Council table anymore; they have laptops. It is time to make the City’s form of government more user-friendly.

• V. Keehn explained that the administrators of each department administers and legislates their budget and it is a mangled up mess. It is not five budgets of five commissioners and a mayor; it is the entire city government’s budget. There are no checks and balances to this form of government. There is no separation of powers. How can Commissioners vote on budgets that directly affect them?

• V. Keehn said that this form of government is unconstitutional because there is no separation of powers; there is a mangled mess occurring every two weeks at the City Council table and it bogs down progress and operations within the walls of City Hall.

• She implored the Commission to consider a change in the form of government, there is nothing that can be done with the current form of government to improve it except change it.

• V. Keehn said that the way the Charter is written now does not hinder the job the Mayor does but what does hinder the mayor from doing what he/she should be doing is that there are heads of other departments that are at odds with the things the Mayor may want to achieve. The Council is at odds with each other too much and this form of government creates this. She compared it to allowing all school principals to weigh in on the decision to have a snow day rather than just the Superintendent.

• Keramati asked if they believe that under the current charter that the citizens feel they are well represented in City Hall. V. Keehn does not know how they would feel represented. There are people serving whose main concern is what goes on in their department. There are areas of the City that are not represented; there is no legislative body. The Commissioners only care about their departments and getting things passed to benefit only that department.

• V. Keehn said that she honestly does not have the confidence that a big change proposed would pass. It may take a whole new generation to make that happen. She was pleased to hear that R. Watkin has changed his attitude and now advocates a complete change in government and ten years ago he was adamantly opposed to change. A small vocal minority can get things done; recruit people that have had a change of heart to share it with the public. You can tweak and change the Charter and it is not going to make a difference. There

4 must be significant changes made and the administrative and legislative branches should be separated.

Joanne Yepsen (Current Mayor – August 9, 2016)

• When people say things are going really well so don’t change the charter, it is not relevant because when they say it is not broken so do not fix it, they are taking about the economic impact of this city, not the charter.

• It is not to say that the city government has not had an impact on that, but it is the collaboration between private and public sector; it is the incorporation of everyone’s input and ideas into this City. There is room for improvement within City government and within city Hall and that is what the charter dictates.

• The Charter runs City government. The number one purpose for all of us is to serve the public and she reminds her staff of this every day and we should be finding better ways to serve the public and the taxpayers first and foremost and we should have a new charter that improves on how we do this.

• Most people do not understand this commission form of government including her fellow Mayors with whom she meets on a regular basis.

• She is not sure that the City gets taken as seriously as others and that troubles her because she works hard to represent the city on a Federal, State and local level and we deserve the most serious consideration. Often this city does not get the appropriate funding or recognition as being one of the most important cities in upstate New York. We need to find ways to include ourselves in the discussions with the big boys.

• Mayor Yepsen does not believe that most people pay a lot of attention to the charter or understand it. They do not understand how it impacts their lives.

Matthew McCabe (Former Commissioner of Finance – August 23, 2016)

• He did not believe that experience was necessary to run for the Office of Commissioner of Finance. He said the voters would make the decision on whether experience was important or not.

• Beth Wurtmann asked what the Commissioners believed were the pros and cons of going to another form of government. Matthew McCabe said if there was a change in the form of government, he believed that the section in the existing charter describing the duties of the Commissioner of Finance could probably be lifted from the exiting charter and dropped into a new charter. He believed that it would likely be a seamless transition for that department.

• Matthew McCabe said most people do not understand this form of government. He said the Commissioner must appoint the best Deputy Commissioner as possible. He said much of the duties of the Commissioner are “on the job” training, but he believed that was true of many jobs.

• Jeff Altamari asked if having a professional background might give a candidate some advantage. Matthew McCabe said that having a background and a connection with City Hall might be an advantage, but it certainly did not make other candidates unqualified.

5 • He (Robert Turner) said there are no requirements that the Deputy be “qualified”. Matthew McCabe said that politics will never be removed from this process. He said if a Commissioner does not select the right Deputy, the Commissioner would likely not be in office long.

Michelle Madigan (Current Commissioner of Finance – August 23, 2016)

• Michele Madigan said there are the right amount of checks and balances. The departments must work together to get things done. The Finance Department has a 128-page manual of policies and procedures that guides her department as well as the other departments. She said, though, that as long as there are human beings as Commissioners, there will be gridlock and political gamesmanship.

• She suggested that the charter include the position of Director of Finance. She believed though, that the existing charter has served the City well, is detailed enough to let everyone know who is in charge and it requires the Council members to work together. She said the existing charter could be reviewed and strengthened but she believed the current charter worked well.

• Elio DelSette asked what they believe are the strengths of the existing form of government. He said with the Commission form there seems to be an ease for residents to contact Commissioners directly to deal with their concerns. Matthew McCabe said there is nothing in the charter that makes it easier for residents to contact Commissioners or the Mayor. He said it was up to the Commissioners or Mayor on how accessible they are to the public. He believed as part of the job of being a Commissioner, they should make themselves available.

• Elio DelSette asked if they believed that this form of government is responsible for the success of the City. Michele Madigan said that there are sections of the charter that serve the City well. She believed that this Commission should do their due diligence in reviewing the charter and perhaps there were areas that could be strengthened.

• Beth Wurtmann asked what the Commissioners believed were the pros and cons of going to another form of government. Michele Madigan said it is up to whatever the residents want. She said the existing form of government is somewhat decentralized, however is still dependent on one another. She said the existing charter and the language concerning the Finance Department works well. • Jeff Altamari asked if the existing charter somehow limited people from running for office because of the time commitment. She said there is good staff here that keeps the day to day operations running. She said, though, that she would like to see more people run for office but was not sure whether a larger salary or simply making the duties legislative would make a difference.

• Jeff Altamari asked if having a professional background might give a candidate some advantage. Michele Madigan said she did not believe so. She said that running for office depended on your platform.

• He (Robert Turner) said there are no requirements that the Deputy be “qualified”. Michele Madigan agreed that the Deputy need not be “qualified”; however, it would behoove the Commissioner to appoint someone who was somewhat qualified.

6

John Franck (Current Commissioner of Accounts – August 23, 2016)

• BK Keramati said that residents don’t understand this form of government. He asked what Commissioner Franck hears from people about the City government. Commissioner Franck said that most of his dealings are with people who have concerns with their assessments or some type of license (fishing, marriage, etc.).He said there is confusion from residents because of the title “Accounts”. He said a lot of people believe that it covers the City’s finances.

• Devin Dal Pos asked if Commissioner Franck believed that the City was successful because of this form of government or in spite of it. Commissioner Franck believed that at least some of the success is due to this form of government, however, there are a lot of outside forces that make this great as well.

• Robert Kuczynski asked if Commissioner Franck believed that some of the duties in other departments should be shifted to his department or other departments. Commissioner Franck said there is some vagueness in the charter, but he believed that the duties in his department were appropriately placed. He did say that he believed that all “insurances” should be in one department, whether it was his or the Finance it didn’t much matter – but they should be all together.

• Elio DelSette said that most people seem to think that the Accounts Department houses the finances of the City. Commissioner Franck agreed.

• Ann Bullock said it seemed that the Finance Department really had the power in City Hall. Commissioner Franck disagreed. He said the real power is in getting three votes. He said we are in difficult times, with tight budgets, tax cap and the need to grow our tax base. He said it makes the budgeting process difficult. He again said the real power is in having three votes.

• BK Keramati said it seemed that in this form of government, the work eventually gets done, but there is often the question of who wants to take the work on. He asked if things happen because a Commissioner does or does not take something on. Commissioner Franck said that he learned early on that if it is a popular topic, everyone wants to take it on. He said sometimes things get delayed because it may not be as easy or clear. He said things are difficult and sometimes the Council meetings can be difficult. The difference now is that meetings are televised.

• Pat Kane asked what was the total assessed value of the City. Commissioner Franck said he was not sure of the exact number. Pat Kane said Geyser Crest is a large portion of our City and it seems as though there is a lack of representation from that area. Commissioner Franck said that Geyser Crest is about one fifth of the voters. Pat Kane said that people from that portion of the City tend not to run. He said there are other large portions of the City that are not represented. He asked Commissioner Franck how that could be improved. Commissioner Franck said in some cases, people are intimidated about running because they don’t believe that they are qualified. He said DPW and DPS are good examples. He said there has never been a woman as a Commissioner in those departments and women are 52 percent of the voting population. He said more than half of the voters have been here less than ten years. He said that if the positions were strictly legislative, it might open it up for people to run.

• Elio DelSette said some Commissioners have more duties than others, however, the salary is the same. He asked if Commissioner Franck believed that the Mayor and the DPW

7 Commissioner should have higher salaries. Commissioner Franck said if there is no Deputy Mayor and the Mayor is full time, the salary should be increased. He said under this charter only three types of people can run for office – they have to be rich, retired or in business for themselves. He said because it is necessary to be one of those types, the pool of candidates is smaller.

Skip Scirocco (Current Commissioner of Public Works – September 27, 2016)

• At one point he believed the City needed a new form of government, however, he now believes differently. He said that Council members are held accountable and responsible by their constituents.

• While Commissioners may not always get along, this form of government has worked well.

• The jurisdictional overlap among departments provides the checks and balances and forces Council members to work together.

Tom McTygue (Former Commissioner of Public Works – September 27, 2016)

• He said there are things that should be done by the Department of Public Works that are not being taken care of.

• Tom McTygue said this is a seven-day a week position, however, a Commissioner can put in as much or as little time as he/she likes.

• Gordon Boyd asked if there were instances when the administrative functions of this department were impeded by other departments. Tom McTygue said yes. He said there were occasions when Purchasing would stall purchases, but it was up to the Commissioners to figure out how to work together.

• Tom McTygue said there needs to be some changes. He said there need to be professionals in the departments to maintain continuity. He said changing the form of government could be difficult though.

• Tom McTygue said there needs to be a professional in DPW to do that planning. He said the legislators should vote on the budget and there should be professionals to administer the budget. He said when a Commissioner loses an election, the City will not lose the expertise if there are professionals on board.

• He said there is sometimes a struggle with both administrative and legislative functions.

• Tom McTygue said there are no qualifications, but a strong political person could upset the department. If there is a qualified professional director to maintain the continuity, it might be easier. There needs to be long term expertise and probably someone with an engineering background in that position.

• Robert Turner asked about jurisdictional conflicts among the departments. Tom McTygue said it happens.

• BK Keramati asked that in this form of government there might be things that are good for the City but are not pursued because of the political climate. Tom McTygue said that

8 happens. He said a Commissioner needs to think long and hard before “stepping into” someone else’s department for fear of retaliation.

Lew Benton (Former Commissioner of Public Safety – September 27, 2016)

• He said the Commission failed in not addressing the fundamental flaws of the commission form. Those flaws included the separation of power that results in inherent conflict of the dual roles of legislative and administrative.

• This form of government impedes oversight and promotes territories. This form was designed for extreme crisis management and not designed for a stable community.

• He said it is difficult for a Commissioner to serve both administrative and legislative roles.

• He said, for example, a Commissioner prepares his/her budget and then votes on his/her budget. He asked in that capacity who was the Commissioner representing – the general public or the internal constituency.

• He said deputy commissioners are political appointments. His preference would be for a Mayor and a Council as a legislative body with subcommittees focusing on certain areas. He said the existing employees would fit into a new government.

Chris Mathiesen (Current Commissioner of Public Safety – September 27, 2016)

• He said he was initially skeptical of this form of government and now having served five years, is even more skeptical. He said it is time to look alternatives. He does not believe that it is possible for a Commissioner to wear two hats of legislator and administrator.

• There should be a separate legislative body, which would make it possible for more interested parties to run.

• He said there is great talent in the City but many do not think they can run because of the lack of knowledge of a particular department and because the jobs are so demanding. He said anyone running needs to be retired or have a flexible job. He said someone with an average 9:00 to 5:00 job could run, but they typically don’t because of the demands.

• Many residents simply do not understand this form of government.

• Currently there are five people who have far too much power running the City. He said the magic number is three – because it only takes three votes to get something done.

• Chris Mathiesen said he tries to get out into the community but the demands of the job are high. He said he also has a professional career. The job of Commissioner is a 52-week year job.

• Much of his time is taken up with administrative functions and sometimes he feels guilty that he cannot spend more time on legislative matters.

• Christ Mathiesen said there are currently five powerful people in charge who run everything with little checks and balances except in the election process.

9 • He said depending on the party there is a great amount of influence that can be exerted on a Commissioner. He said if the Commissioner does not do what the political party wants, then maybe that Commissioner does not get the support of the party during the next election.

• Barbara Thomas said that there does not seem to be a good process for strategic long range planning. Lew Benton disagreed saying there was great progress within the capital budget planning and inherent in that is prioritizing. He said sometimes politics get involved because there are competing forces for limited resources. Chris Mathiesen agreed saying the capital budget process does a good job of addressing our long-term needs.

Scott Johnson (Former Mayor – October 25, 2016)

• He said much of the work at the Council table is dependent upon personalities. Sometimes it works and sometimes not. He said no matter what kind of government there is, it is dependent on the elected officials. Politics will always be part of the equation.

• He did not believe that having a City Manager would have the same accountability to the residents.

• The power of the Mayor should be strengthened by adding more weight to that vote, or there should be a “member at large”.

• He said it is equally difficult for outside communities to recognize who speaks for the City. By default, the Mayor’s Office is often the first point of contact.

• BK Keramati asked what were Scott Johnson’s thoughts on the combined dual roles of executive and legislator. Scott Johnson said it is difficult to wear two hats, however, Council members are dependent on their deputies to handle the managerial side of the duties. City. By default, the Mayor’s Office is often the first point of contact.

• He believed the elected officials should direct policy of the City.

• Scott Johnson said that outsiders of the City do not understand this form of government so naturally contact the Mayor’s office first.

Stephen Towne (Former Commissioner of Accounts – October 25, 2016)

• He said the human piece is 75 percent of the success of this government. He did not believe that the form of government played a big piece of it.

• He believed the current charter is workable and should continue.

• He said having a managerial background is essential – it could be learned, but the skill set needs to be there to do so. He said anyone can run for office, but to manage a department is completely different.

• He said the government is dependent upon who is sitting at the Council table and they must learn to get along.

• He believed that people running for office should have some managerial background. The legislative portion could be learned on the job.

10 Peter Martin (Current County Supervisor – October 25, 2016)

• He said Scott Johnson suggested this form of government is reliant on personalities and he agreed to a certain extent. He said it is the quality of people. He said Skip Scirocco suggested that the City works more efficiently in this form and he agreed to a certain extent that items may get done in a more timely fashion but disagreed that it might not as cost effective.

• He said he is a proponent of having a City Manager. The complexities of the day-to-day governmental operations continue to grow.

• The City government is sometimes constrained by and intertwined with the federal and state governments and to ask part time people to handle these complexities was not fair. He said he did not want the future of the City to rely on “lucking out” with Council members who may be able to handle those complexities.

• A City Manager with a master’s degree in public administration and years of experience could provide great advantages to the City. The County has 23 supervisors, but the reality is that none of the 23 have authority over the administrator and that would hold true for the City with a City Manager.

• The power over the County Administrator is diffused because there are 23. It would be more concentrated with 5 Council members. He said with the stature of this City it would be easy to find a City Manager.

B. Leadership Survey

One of the considerations of the commission was the available pool of candidates for political offices established by the city charter. As it is desirable for city residents to be involved in the city’s political processes, including willingness to run for office, the commission conducted a survey to assess this willingness under different forms of government.

We used Saratoga Springs’ current commission form as baseline, where commission members are not only the city’s legislative body, but they are also responsible for running designated city departments. To this baseline, we added the possibility of a City Council form where council members would only have legislative duties. The actual running of the city departments would be the responsibility of an elected Mayor, or a City Manager hired by the Council. The focus of the survey was to delineate any distinctions between willingness to run for office under the two scenarios.

We tapped a variety of sources to identify survey respondents, including members of the city citizen boards (Planning, Zoning, etc.), alumni of Leadership Saratoga who live in Saratoga Springs, Saratoga Springs Board of Education members (2005 to present). In addition, we reached out to political party chairs, Downtown Business Association, Chamber of Commerce, Sustainable Saratoga to forward the survey to people considered as viable candidates at some point in the future.

Surveys were sent by email in mid-November 2016, with reminders sent in late November. The surveys were anonymous, but the composition of the 180 responders is as follows:

• Gender: Men 55%, Women 45% • Age: 26 to 83, average of 55 • Average of 24 years residency in Saratoga Springs • Education level: 54% professional/advanced degrees, 26% college degrees, and 8% some college/high school degree.

11

We focus on the responses that indicate civic participation as measured by the willingness of the responders to run for office. Survey results are shown in Figure 1. Of the total responders, nearly 28% (50 out of 180) indicated that they would be somewhat likely or extremely likely to run for a City Council position, as indicated in the chart below. The willingness to run for office is significantly lower for the available positions in the current commission form of government, where the highest score is for the Mayor position at a willingness level of 11% (20 out of 180).

Figure 1. Number of respondents (out of a total of 180) indicating that they are somewhat likely or extremely likely to run for office under current commission form and under a city council form.

Willingness to run for office is significantly lower for the other commission form positions, as shown in Figure 1, consistent with the answers to the other questions, all shown in Figure 1.

The survey also provided information regarding gender differences. Figure 2 shows responses to a question regarding having the professional expertise and experience to run for the various positions, separated by gender. One remarkable conclusion from this data is that self-perceived differences between genders is the least for a City Council position compared with the commissioner and mayor positions. This would suggest that there would be more equivalent numbers of men and women who would seek the City Council positions than any of the other positions.

Figure 2. Percent responders who “somewhat or strongly agree that they have the professional skills, education, and experience to successfully serve in respective positions.”

12

The results of this survey suggest that a City Council form of government would greatly expand direct citizen involvement in the government, compared with the current Commissioner form.

The complete survey results can be found at: https://saratogacharter.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Candidate-Study-Slides.pdf. Figures 1 and 2 represent the overall result in summary form for the purposes of this report.

C. City Employee Survey

This committee considered it very important to obtain views of the employees of the city who have direct knowledge and experience working in the system. The committee considered identifying and directly interviewing city employees. However, a variety of factors led the committee away from this option. These included: any bias implied in which employees would be interviewed; the degree to which employees would offer candid responses; possible repercussions from airing positive or negative views; and the time and effort required to interview a sufficient number of employees. To overcome these obstacles, the committee, with support and help from the entire Commission, decided to conduct an anonymous survey of the City Hall employees. Of the approximately 120 employees who received the survey, 75 responded. To our knowledge, this was a first-ever city employee survey in Saratoga Springs. Neither the city itself, nor any previous charter commission has conducted such a survey.

We also note that another committee of the CRC, the Drafting Committee, conducted interviews with about a dozen city employees and department heads for the purpose of understanding how the current charter works, and how the wording of the charter could be simplified. The Drafting Committee’s report offers some insight into what was learned from these interviews.

The entire survey results can be found at: https://saratogacharter.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/City-Hall-Employees-survey- results.pdf. We offer some highlights below.

It is important to understand that the commission form of government does not have an overseer that adjudicates or decides how issues between the various commissions are resolved or addressed; it is up to the commissioners themselves to work this out to the best of their abilities. Figure 3 shows that the majority of employees do, in fact, work with employees outside their departments quite often.

Figure 3. Percent of responders showing how often they work with employees outside their department in the performance of their jobs.

13

Almost half of the employees surveyed have such interactions several times a day, as the figure shows. This fact indicates that employee interactions across department boundaries impact much of the work of the city, not a surprising fact. However, it brings into question how well these interactions across the departments work. The answer to this question is evident in Figure 4. Although the question and the response are both qualitative, it is clear that the work of the city is affected by the political and personal relationships between the commissioners involved. It is not possible, with any degree of certainty, to quantify the implication of this fact for the city, but what is clear is that political tensions and personal conflicts among commissioners get in the way of city employees’ work.

Key:

None/Little = 2-3 times/week;

Moderate amount = Once a day;

A lot/Great Deal = Several times a day.

Figure 4. Percent responses to the question: “How often does political conflict or tensions between your department’s commissioner and another department’s commissioner affect your ability to do your job?”

One feature of the current commission form of government is that the actual day-to-day work of the commissioners and the mayor is actually performed by a deputy hired at the pleasure of the elected official. The current charter of the city leaves the qualifications for these appointments to the elected officials. In actually evaluating city employees’ opinions of their work environment, the survey asked a few questions regarding these deputies. Figures 5, 6, and 7 give an indication of the city employees’ attitudes toward the deputies.

Figure 5. Employee attitude toward Deputy Commissioners.

14

Figure 6. Employee attitude toward Deputy Commissioners.

Figure 7. Employee attitude toward Deputy Commissioners.

It is clear that the results of this survey, so far, do not paint a picture of a city government operating at maximum efficiency, but the degree of any waste or lack of efficiency is not clear. We really cannot expect to examine such issues without a carefully planned audit of the city’s operations. However, the judgment of the employees of the city does have significance. At least, the survey results show where problems and opportunities for improvement may exist that could benefit the entire city.

To get at the issues of management, spending and accountability, a series of questions was asked and the responses appear in Figures 8, 9, and 10. What these figures indicate is a clear lack of adequate leadership, efficiency and accountability from the point of view of the city’s employees.

15

Figure 8. Effective Management.

Figure 9. Preventing Wasteful Spending.

Figure 10. Accountability.

16

The survey also sought to determine the work environment of the city in terms of career and professional development and morale. It must be pointed out here that in the current charter, the various elected commissioners and the mayor each manage their own employees with essentially no common human resource coordination or interaction. For example, a clerk in the Public Works Department would not be promoted to a higher-level position in Public Safety, or the Mayor’s office, even though he or she may qualify. Figures 11 and 12 below show the results of the survey regarding morale and professional development.

Figure 11. Effect on Morale.

Figure 12. Effect on Professional Development.

Finally, the survey sought to understand which alternate form of government the city employees prefer. Figure 13 shows that, by a small margin, the city employees prefer a City Manager form of government.

17

Figure 13. Form of government preferred by city employees.

In addition to the direct questions, the City Employee Survey allowed for comments with no specific format. Rather than choosing selected comments from employees for this report, the entire list is presented in Appendix B.

D. Business and Agency Interviews

Members of this committee conducted about a dozen interviews with business leaders, agency heads, non-profit groups to assess their views of how the city currently operates. The interviews focused for the most part on issues that may relate to the charter, i.e., department-to-department communication and coordination. We list below brief points that were made in these interviews.

• An individual from a community agency who had organized a statewide conference in Saratoga Springs found working with the city difficult and cumbersome. The main issue was coordination among the city departments involved. There was no “one person” who would assume responsibility for the city. The form of government here made no sense. Had they known about this, they would not have held their conference here. • An individual who frequently work with the city in land use matters found that each department waits for the other departments to complete their part before doing anything. Little happens over long periods of time. Although each function is willing to do its part, there is no overall coordination or authority to focus on the needs of the customer. • Commissioners don’t always work together. • Personality clashes between commissioners make it hard to work with them. • Commissioners are always in campaign mode. • Each commissioner tries to take credit for projects. • If an applicant takes the time to learn about how the city functions, then he/she will be able to move his/her project forward. But the form of government is not clear to a new applicant to the city. Not user-friendly. • Would like to see City Council approval of appointments to land use boards.

18 • Everything with the city takes a long time (planning/zoning/building), costing time and money for the applicant and for the city. • Building and Zoning do not communicate well (e.g., Building Inspector did not know variance was issued.) • No “one person” recourse to get problems resolved. Do not want to bother the Mayor with everything. • Nobody seems in charge; pointing fingers at other departments. • Lot of good people, but no direction, management and leadership. • Every project takes a long time and lots of effort. • Every capital project takes three commissioners to coordinate their efforts; no one person you can speak to. So, an applicant has to repeat the same story over and over. • Volunteers working with the city do the brunt of the work. It should not be so hard. We are losing volunteers. They get burnt out. • Everything takes five meetings. • We have missed opportunities. It is an incredible opportunity with so much good going on. We are missing things. For example, the Greenbelt trail- the only reason it is going forward is a citizen led community effort led by (name removed). He has pulled the departments together, writing the grants, providing private money. Lots of volunteer time. These things are usually done by staff in other cities. All the inter-staff interagency coordination is led by citizens. • The citizens love the city and want to contribute, but they are exhausted. • We are working in spite of the system. For example, we passed an Open Space Bond act for $5 million with a 74% majority. It took almost 10 years to spend it. All the work was done by the Open Space Project - land acquisitions, no staff work. Even with 5 departments can’t get stuff done. We rely on citizens and philanthropy. • Any intersection is problematic. The curbs, handicap access, and streets are done by Public Works. The signs and striping are done by Public Safety. The funding comes from Finance. The Mayor has the planning department. There is not one common head. Repeating oneself, going back to departments, getting burnt out dealing with it. It’s like working with 5 different cities. It makes it a lot harder. • Amazing how few public functions there are that the city provides. All the playgrounds are organized by schools. The Pool is done by state park. Things that make the city great, Skidmore, Race Track, SPAC, Broadway, Congress Park City Park built in 1800s, are done by private sector or volunteers. What new thing done has been done by city government? Which of those actions are done by City Government - what did they do to make it happen? They are done by volunteers, philanthropy, and business. • Complete Streets Program- example of failure- Lake Ave- Public Works paves the street. Public Safety puts the stripes down in the same place. No one had talked to city planning about how to improve crossings, make bike lanes. 3 agencies, but they are not working on same page. Citizens say we have a complete street policy- but, functionally, multiple agencies acting as separate governments. • No one is in charge. • The existing form of government worked fairly well for years before the current Commissioners were elected. Previous Commissioners accepted and respected their fellow Commissioner’s position as head of their respective department and collaborated with each other for the benefit of the City to get things done. The current Commissioners do not share or exhibit respect for their fellow Commissioners and think they can do the other Commissioner’s job better than that person can. • There is no collaborative vision for the City by the City Council. • Each Commissioner has their own Committees that they have formed around issues which are now political hot potatoes and Commissioners are highly influenced by special interest groups without an overall regard for a shared vision for the interests of the City as a whole. • The current City Council consists of 5 different opinions on the direction of the City which creates uncertainty and negatively impacts potential investment by the Business Community

19 in the City. • The City Council’s pliability as a result of special interests has resulted in the Council becoming a de-facto 4th land use board without any authority thus meddling in the affairs of the 3 official land use board’s purview. • There is no leadership by the City Council via a shared vision or direction which past Councils exhibited and successfully managed the City - the current Council broke the system and has become highly political and not acting in the best interests of the City as a whole but as servants to special interests. • The Saratoga Hospital project is a case study in how the City Council has not served the Citizens as a whole. • The dysfunction by the current Council and their meddling into the realm of the land use boards is impacting the decision making process of large City employers on staying in the City, expanding or relocating to a more friendly environment. • The Council should sit in a room, come to a consensus on a vision and direction and stick to it. • What is most important is the people in power in government rather than the form of government. • They have worked with all forms of government and in their experience - none of them work and there is no efficient form of government on the local level - it’s all about the people With the right people in power, the current form can be easier to work with because you wouldn’t have to work with more than one person to get things done as that person would carry the ball and get the votes lined up for you if they support what you are looking to do. • That being said, their experience with the prior administration (Scott Johnson era circa 2010+) was the easiest government that they had worked with which all changed with the change in regime whereupon everything fell apart. • They now have to circumvent the Commissioners as they interfere too much with the workings of the City. They don’t let their staffs do the work - they try and run the show and they are incompetent. • There were specific references to each individual Commissioner and their idiosyncrasies but the gist is that they are hyper sensitive to lawsuits from each other and they hate each other, which renders it completely dysfunctional. • Many personnel changes over the years and deputies sometimes are another vote on the City Council. • The process of getting things done with the City have become more onerous - more time, more money and most importantly; less surety that things will get approved which is a detriment especially for attracting companies looking to possibly locate here. • There is no shepherd wearing the economic development hat that is reaching out to companies to stay here let alone come here. • The City needs an Ambassador to support things that promote the overall economic development effort - parking garages for instances. • There is no consistent economic development message - it is really done on an all-volunteer basis and through the business community. • City Government doesn’t do anything unless it has to - the 2-year term is a problem because of the paralysis it causes due to the need to get re-elected every other year. • Need a dialogue of civility on the Council - it isn’t there. • In other Villages, Towns and Cities, you meet with the Planning staff and the City Manager paves the way with the City Council. • There is a disconnect between the Office of the Mayor and the DPW and the City Engineer - they are not aligned to make things happen. • For years the City relied upon the Chamber of Commerce and the SEDC for actual economic development. • "The Village of Saratoga Springs is growing up” and there is a lack of consensus on what we want to be when we grow up and there is no focus, direction or shepherding to get us there. • The city is very accommodating and responsive. Thinks this is because he has worked hard

20 at familiarizing himself with the levers of the local government. He views it as his job to know the ins and out of our city. • A current issue with this government is that who is in office and how long they've had to learn the job affect the efficiency of service. • Certain mayors and commissioners seemed to run a tighter ship and continuity in those elected positions leads to more effective leaders. • 4-year terms would help. • City council members seemed to be susceptible to pressure from small groups of activists and special interests because they can constantly threaten primary or general election challenges with elections always around the corner.

E. Conclusions

It is the conclusion of the Current Charter Review Committee that, based on the information cited in this report the current commission form of government in Saratoga Springs is facing several challenges. Given the opinions of past and present city officials, those who may run for office, the city employees, and a sampling of the businesses that work with the City, it is apparent that these challenges cannot be addressed by making incremental improvements to the current charter. Issues that seem to be at the root of these challenges include:

• No clear leadership for the city to resolve operational issues; • People outside the city and many citizens in the city do not understand how the city government works; • Politics getting in the way of Commissioners working for the good of the city; • Inaccessibility of the current political positions for most people to consider running for office; • The comingling of legislative and executive functions in the same body, requiring the commissioners to make decisions for the entire city but naturally caring more for the department they are heading; • The lack of uniform human resource policies and practices citywide; • Lack of required professionalism in city functions, which are left to the preferences of the elected officials; • Lack of Long-term planning for the city government across all departments; • The city functions as 5 separate entities with 5 separate leaders with their primary focus on their specific areas of responsibility rather than one cohesive entity providing services to the residents and visitors of the city in the most efficient manner possible using best practices;

It has been suggested by many past and present city officials that any government is, ultimately, as good as the people who are in it. This committee accepts this observation but also realizes that the current commission form of government readily allows personal, political and other individual differences among the commissioners to get in the way of doing the city’s service work for the citizens. The only remedy that addresses this problem is to change the form of the government to allow for more efficient, streamlined city operations.

21