[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6496942,"mediaKeyId","5545831-6f770e6d48267199423a883804c3fc7e","parentId",5545831,"title","Council splits on legal indemnification: payment for one legal bill approved, a larger invoice and appeal motions fail","audioSeconds",4541,"startMs",3600000,"endMs",8141000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5545831-6f770e6d48267199423a883804c3fc7e&start=3600&end=8141","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5545831-6f770e6d48267199423a883804c3fc7e/thumbnail_3600000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6496942/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Council-splits-on-legal-indemnification-payment-for-one-legal-bill-approved-a-larger-invoice-and-appeal-motions-fail","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6496942-da44c134562b0556f247f32a67d021e4/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445560&Signature=fOrV2JsyiZaPVyO6MzEavRXYkbzihvJ~AjiMBjiK6dCidBB1WOtJmXbIGGgYU2yI0cNSIW8rbbNUJuaHy6SQTAMAchfefBr4t8rXOjhpdEg4X7fUk6bx6EI6jbK0Kchnal67dZWfPKqpqtHhPgSGWVvuoVqAlzv-A34zK4lzExMJOHmeaYJmNveeiCuGqKK3ih4DLM-bMbJr3IniAqBM3aJaKrJyQtu0yd1a4pRcB6NfXo9qR9VCHiEIVL4Oag-0aBpMcDahHj0ZIVTmkH64NXZIZ7mKSzCnQGDynAh0Pw4OuFNrNIlSjXthLsRFnQDE8UiPuIB92qaAHG3wm7M~Rw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Saratoga","date","2025-08-05T00:00:00Z","article","Saratoga Springs City Council spent substantial time discussing legal indemnification, counsel payments and whether to pursue an appeal of a court decision about a records subpoena. The debate followed public comments urging the council to indemnify city officials and employees who faced legal costs arising from government work.

Multiple members of the public urged the council to authorize payment of legal bills for officials who were involved in recent investigations and subpoenas. Speakers said the city code (Chapter 9) and customary indemnification principles support reimbursement so that citizens will continue to serve in city positions. Otis Maxwell and BK Karamati urged the council to approve indemnification and warned of chilling effects if volunteers and employees may be left without legal support. Other speakers framed the legal actions as politically motivated; some councillors disputed that characterisation and said the underlying complaints originated with city employees and whistleblower referrals.

On the floor, the mayor’s office brought a motion to authorize payment to Goldberg & Kremer for legal services for labor issues in the amount stated on the agenda; council members approved that payment by council vote. Separately, a motion to approve payment of an invoice (invoice number 26904-0001) to Lipsmatis (named on the agenda for legal work) in the amount of $47,270.97 was put to a vote and failed 1–3. Council discussion referenced differing legal advice, insurance/deductible considerations, and the city attorney’s guidance; some members said portions of the total billed fees had been covered pro bono by outside counsel or otherwise are not city liability.

A related motion to authorize the city to file a notification of appeal in the case Walsh v. Brandy (a judge’s ruling affecting the council’s prior authorization to hire counsel) was offered and debated; the motion did not pass (vote 1–3). Supporters of filing argued the judge’s decision misread municipal law and that an appeal or an amicus brief could protect municipal authority; opponents said prior guidance from the city attorney and other legal counsel counseled against an immediate appeal and that the council lacked unanimity.

Later in the evening, the finance director presented a use-of-assignment resolution to cover a different legal bill (Goldberg & Kremer) drawn from an existing assignment of fund balance for legal liability; that resolution passed on council vote. The council also advanced other routine vendor payments and budget actions at the same meeting.

Council members said they would seek to clarify city indemnification language (chapter 9 of the city code) and consider possible changes to ensure clarity about when the city will pay legal fees for officials and employees. Several council members asked staff and the city attorney to return with clarified policy language and to identify whether changes should follow state public officers law provisions to reduce future ambiguity.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Saratoga - City Council","oneSentenceSummary","Saratoga Springs council debated indemnifying city officials and paying several legal invoices tied to recent investigations and subpoenas; it approved some payments but rejected a $47,270.97 invoice and voted not to pursue an immediate appeal of a judge’s decision.","taxTitle","Saratoga Springs City, Saratoga County, New York","taxId",7807,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6496948,"Interns present 'missing middle' housing tools; council approves Liberty and Beacon pilot agreements",5442,2374000,7816000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5545831-6f770e6d48267199423a883804c3fc7e&start=2374&end=7816","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5545831-6f770e6d48267199423a883804c3fc7e/thumbnail_2374000.jpg","/articles/6496948/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Interns-present-missing-middle-housing-tools-council-approves-Liberty-and-Beacon-pilot-agreements","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6496948-02440d1ddef8fe347530e4a72bc2e39c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445560&Signature=B6Eqz5pKstevPXQFhUbhuHIP0XPa~01MUehxRvHy-Jrf~Jjw7pnXK2LHayOqJOBRBV4yIn7kwkVDbuZ2Oh6fSo~mtB5WayKrL5~YP5Ggc0L6cm4KLLTuLFQH1H1gYhJXEYGLY7zck5zarMJGfkBq4Dk5DHtVkL1RAVR4arQLuVOyrY7JfKUtl2WUI8rd4BxFbjBLTN2DNLijQp0Wb6a1NttnEkRAkgXMQ0Y6BKlNQBRjei6DFJQRzdN0qZKX~0CiPxjuiW7U9HaGkEHgcF2k1aLiZmMuxry~N~YcrzE9ddbdqX-JpOmMzJNeCLvbPU28PCTcTtZI1U40ONofK0sYJg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Saratoga Springs City Council received a presentation from two summer planning interns on policy tools to address the city’s “missing middle” housing gap — starter homeownership and workforce housing for incomes above traditional subsidized tiers.

Intern Kara and Franchesca summarized research into three tools: a revolving loan fund to finance mixed-income developments, community land trusts to create long-term shared‑equity ownership and preserve affordability, and land-bank-style policy levers to allow public acquisition or control of land for housing. They cited examples in Montgomery County, Md., Kingston (Taproot), and regional community land trusts and noted practical limits in Saratoga: the city’s strong real‑estate market and few blighted properties make a conventional land bank a poor fit. The interns suggested policy options that would not require new entities but would replicate land-bank functions through city programs or partnerships.

The interns also flagged a short-term possibility: a developer request from the Navy for 200 rental units. They proposed the city could retain land ownership (community land trust model) and lease to a developer or tenanting entity to assure long-term affordability if the site later returned to private use.

After the presentation the council considered two housing-related agenda items. First, the council voted to adopt an amended resolution and pilot agreement for Liberty Affordable Housing Incorporated. The amendment increased the project’s unit count from 212 to 216 and raised the maximum allowable AMI for certain units to 130% (the revised unit mix included units at 30% AMI, 60% AMI, 90% AMI and 130% AMI). A roll-call vote showed Mayor Safford, Commissioners Marshall, Cole and Moran voting yes; Commissioner Sangmi was absent. The motion passed unanimously among those present.

Second, the council approved a revised pilot and payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) proposal from Beacon Excelsior Park LLC for a revised plan that reduced units from 65 to 50 and removed planned ground-floor commercial space. The sponsor said the changes responded to neighborhood concerns; the resolution passed on council vote.

Council members and staff said the projects try to balance financing realities and local affordability needs; the Liberty amendment reflects a federal funding shortfall that required Liberty to restructure unit mixes and raise some AMI levels to preserve the project’s financial feasibility. Several council members said they would welcome further work to translate the interns’ policy models — especially revolving loan funds or land trust arrangements — into county‑ or region‑level partnership opportunities.

The council asked staff to continue coordinating with county entities and local development corporations to explore funding and land‑acquisition pathways that could support the missing‑middle housing models presented by the interns.","City planning interns presented policy tools aimed at expanding middle‑income homeownership and workforce housing; the council approved an amended Liberty Affordable Housing pilot (216 units; max AMI adjusted to 130%) and a revised Beacon Excelsior Park pilot agreement.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6496954,"Council opens public hearing on citywide 25 mph limit; no vote, officials cite enforcement questions",1974,35000,2009000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5545831-6f770e6d48267199423a883804c3fc7e&start=35&end=2009","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5545831-6f770e6d48267199423a883804c3fc7e/thumbnail_35000.jpg","/articles/6496954/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Council-opens-public-hearing-on-citywide-25-mph-limit-no-vote-officials-cite-enforcement-questions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6496954-e61365940fbeed78190fca231e17bd27/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445560&Signature=Yk6NjrR2mm0UHqBW7X7V2kv20bhHjGIK9ZzuYK-ufam0O04DEt0BHZBPvlB0HJdmDTrlFWhoxAUJnSOU3Fn0yGc9igSx3Yu0VhvPpU~LBRmZZ3pzUF2azt4ajHmLC~9vMTSvoh5H6S6jbKuy7DQOoYirRIs2xnhGRF2tWOInOZkR-G9vStf8~t9arHL2ay35~3GSL7RC33xOo5CxtSbqrmnWL-M1wxBOt5U7j6LFANSsS344v9woZMsaF2W3EJJtzKkPUNRm3TzKgj5Yt8GJcwrOakizOdNZEpx8D13mDoGPP7VFkFo-uLUlpDpnVwJuGqk7AXsz59nj1TeJEiEsdw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Saratoga Springs City Council held a public hearing on proposed amendments to city code that would lower most local speed limits from 30 mph to 25 mph, with exemptions for joint-jurisdiction roads, arterial streets and school zones.

The council combined three proposed ordinances into a single hearing: an amendment to chapter 225-12 (inside/outside speed limits) and two schedule amendments (225-68 for the inside district and 225-69 for the outside district). Commissioner Cole opened the hearing by citing a 2022 change to New York law that allows municipalities to set local limits as low as 25 mph. He said an engineering study by Stantec recommended the reduction and that the lower limits “make roadways safer.”

Ted Ors, vice chair of the Complete Streets Advisory Board, presented the board’s findings and the engineering rationale. Ors cited crash-survival statistics used in the study and explained differences in stopping distance and injury risk at different speeds. “Each 1 mile an hour reduction in average speed can result in a 5% reduction in crashes,” Ors said. He said the initiative would begin in the Inner Tax District where sidewalks and pedestrian activity are concentrated, then be expanded and refined for outlying streets and state routes with additional engineering study.

More than a dozen residents addressed the council during the public comment portion. Speakers said they walk and bike regularly and described near-misses and speeding on local roads. Several urged the council to add enforcement tools, automated speed displays, or portable speed-calming devices. Kirk Kimmel, a Washington Street resident, said he supported the ordinance but warned the limit “without any enforcement ... will not be really very useful” and cited data from a temporary radar trailer showing many vehicles far above the existing 30 mph limit.

Commissioners and staff acknowledged the enforcement concern. Commissioner Cole said the city reinstated a traffic safety unit earlier in the year but that it currently has three officers focusing on school zones and commercial traffic. He said the city would seek to coordinate enforcement with the county and emphasized that sign installation and some implementation steps would not occur immediately: new speed limit signs in the inner district are expected after track season and a public education campaign would precede enforcement changes.

Council members also flagged the complexity of joint-jurisdiction roads such as Route 9 and Route 50 and Crescent Avenue, which involve county or state control; city staff said those corridors will require separate coordination and additional engineering study before any change. The council left the hearing open and did not vote; the mayor’s office said a vote would be scheduled at a subsequent meeting to allow more time for public input and interagency coordination.

The Complete Streets board proposed a phased rollout (inner district first), signage and public outreach, targeted enforcement, and follow-up engineering for arterial and state routes. Council members asked staff to return with implementation timelines, cost estimates for signs and education, and a plan for enforcement resources before a final vote.

The hearing record includes repeated community requests for stronger enforcement (automated or camera-based options and speed-trailer deployments) and for further study of particular corridors identified by residents (for example, the Route 9/Church Street/Crescent corridor and the bridge area near the lake).","Saratoga Springs held a combined public hearing on three ordinances to set a 25 mph citywide speed limit with limited exemptions. Complete Streets Advisory Board presented safety data and broad public comment favored the change; council left the hearing open for a later vote and emphasized enforcement and jurisdictional issues.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council splits on legal indemnification: payment for one legal bill approved, a larger invoice and appeal motions fail

Interns present 'missing middle' housing tools; council approves Liberty and Beacon pilot agreements

Council opens public hearing on citywide 25 mph limit; no vote, officials cite enforcement questions