Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
1
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Saratoga Springs, NYWHEREAS
, the Saratoga Springs Housing Authority (SSHA) was created in 1951 whenthe NY State legislature enacted Chapter 331 of the" Laws of 1951 (the enactment is preservedin section 450 of the Public Housing Law) and chartered under State Law in 1953; and
WHEREAS,
pursuant to New York State (NYS) Public Housing Law, Article 3, Section30, the SSHA is governed by a seven member Board, of which five members are appointed bythe City’s Mayor and two are elected by SSHA tenants; and
WHEREAS,
in its Mission Statement, SSHA states “The Saratoga Springs Housing Authority (SSHA), under the auspices of the Mayor of the City of Saratoga Springs, is a federallysubsidized government agency founded in the early 1950’s for the purpose of providing housingto persons of low and moderate income. . . . The mission of the SSHA is to assist low andmodest income individuals and families by providing opportunities for safe, decent, andaffordable housing. The SSHA is committed to operating in an efficient, economical and ethicalmanner as it provides resources for its residents and as they strive to achieve social andeconomic opportunities in order to improve their quality of life.” (Personnel Policies &Procedures Handbook for the Saratoga Springs Housing Authority, Revision 3 Dated 12/06; seealso Saratoga Springs Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Bylaws, Revision 4 Dated7/10); and
WHEREAS,
the City of Saratoga Springs (City) and SSHA share the ideals of bringingsafe, affordable housing options to citizens; and
WHEREAS,
on or about September 2011 it was brought to the SSHA’s attention thatthe Stonequist apartments (managed by SSHA and located at 1 S Federal St SaratogaSprings, NY) had a bed bug infestation. The SSHA response to this infestation brought tenantand public outcry, media attention, and concerns were ultimately brought to the City Council(Council) on numerous occasions from 2011 through 2012; and
WHEREAS,
throughout this time period, numerous other SSHA issues were brought tothe Council, including but not limited to excessive amounts spent on travel, training, andconferences, personal use of SSHA vehicles, the formal and financial inter-relationship betweenSSHA and the Affordable Housing Group; and the failure per NYS Public Housing Law Article 3,Section 32 to obtain Council approval of compensation since the year 2000; and
WHEREAS,
throughout this time period, it was also brought to the City’s attention thatthe executive director of the SSHA received annual compensation in an amount exceeding$150,000 under rolling multi-year contract that was improved from $78,874 in 2006 to $151,956by 2012. These amounts are greater than other Capital Region public housing authoritydirectors responsible for considerably more units, including both Schenectady and Albany; and
WHEREAS,
the Council made numerous requests for information, updates, reports, andaction regarding these matters. SSHA was a subject of discussion at no fewer than sixteen2012 Council meetings, including an SSHA workshop hosted by the Commissioner of Accountson January 31, 2012. SSHA board members were invited to speak with the Council on thatdate. Three attended in person, and one attended by way of video conference. The currentSSHA Chair, Eric Weller, was unable to be at the workshop, but attended the subsequentFebruary 7, 2012 Council meeting by way of video conference; and
 
2
WHEREAS
, the Council received inadequate, incomplete, or inappropriate responses toits requests for information, updates, reports, and action regarding the aforementioned matters;and
WHEREAS,
on or about early February 2012, the Mayor requested that the NYS Officeof the State Comptroller conduct an audit of the SSHA. This request was granted; and
WHEREAS,
on or about May 17, 2012 the Commissioner of Finance delivered to theSSHA Board a Memorandum (Memo), approved unanimously by Council on May 15, 2012,regarding “Compliance and Communication: Article 3, Section 32, Saratoga Springs Housing Authority”, therein requesting that SSHA bring forth to the City for approval informationregarding all employee compensation from May 2000 through June 2012 and recommendingregular communication between the Council and the SSHA; and
WHEREAS
, in a letter dated June 21, 2012 signed by Eric Weller, SSHA Board Chair,the SSHA defended its actions on all counts, addressing 1) SSHA’s response to the discoveryof bed bugs at Stonequist Apartments; 2) The contract, salary and compensation for theExecutive Director; 3) SSHA’s Performance Rating by the Federal Department of Housing andUrban Development; 4) Tenant Leases; 5) The relationship between SSHA and the AffordableHousing group-both formal and financial; and 6) What may be fairly concluded at this pointregarding the responsibility of ‘due diligence’ that the Board of Directors bears for the conduct of the operations of the SSHA. SSHA further stated that “until the state audit of the SSHA iscompleted and made public, we respectfully decline to comment further or address any other issues the Council raised in its communication from Commissioner Madigan.”
WHEREAS,
on September 18, 2012, the SSHA Board Chair Eric Weller, presented anSSHA annual report to the Council regarding its activities for fiscal year 2012 and including theFY 2013 detailed salary budget. Approval was neither requested nor received. No further substantive response to the Memo has been made; and
WHEREAS
, in November 2012 the Office of the NYS Comptroller (Division of LocalGovernment & School Accountability) released its audit, entitled “Saratoga Springs Housing Authority, Board oversight and Internal Controls over Payroll and Employee Benefits” (Audit),Period covered July 1, 2010– February 21, 2012; and
WHEREAS
, the Audit addressed the following questions:
•
Does the Board adequately monitor financial activities, including disbursements,to ensure that Authority assets are safeguarded?
•
Are internal controls over payroll and employee benefits appropriately designedand operating effectively to adequately safeguard Authority assets?
WHEREAS,
the Audit results are summarized as follows:
“….
While the Board was involved in overseeing Authority operations, we found areas for improvement. The Board did not institute the appropriate internal controls in regards to theapproval of travel to conferences and the process of approving claims prior to payment. Thisresulted in the payment of nearly $12,000 in questionable travel costs.
 
3
We tested 75 vendor payments totaling $449,333 and found that claims were nearly always paid without any review by Board members. We also determined that the Authority violated its ethics policy when using a business owned by the Director’s brother to service itsvehicles.The Board did not compensate the Director – whose 2011-12 salary was $144,921 – inaccordance with the Authority’s personnel policy or at an amount similar to other Directors of neighboring housing authorities. Board members indicated that they paid him a higher salary amount because they did not back-fill his prior position as project manager, effectively combining the two positions. The Director’s Board-approved five year rolling contract  potentially exposes the Authority to pay four years’ salary if it decides not to continue hisemployment.We found that the Director’s use of an Authority vehicle was authorized and in compliancewith contract 
ual provisions, and this benefi
t was not unusual by industry standards. We alsodetermined that the Accountant’s salary compares favorably with the City’s Finance Director and with the chief 
 financial offi
cers in other housing authorities. Although the Accountant controls the entire payroll process with little or no oversight, our review of her payroll recordsdisclosed no deficiencies
.…….
The results of our audit and recommendations have bee
n discussed with Authority offi
cialsand their 
 
comments, which appear in Appendix C, have been considered in preparing thisreport. Except as
 
specifie
d in Appendix C, Authority offi
cials generally agreed with our recommendations and indicated 
 
they planned to take corrective action. Appendix D includesour comments on issues raised in the
 
 Authority’s response letter.Good management practices dictate that the Board has the responsibility to initiatecorrective action. As such, the Board should prepare a plan of action that addresses therecommendations in this report and forward the plan to our office within 90 days.
(Pages 3-6)”
WHEREAS
, the SSHA Board has not submitted a plan of action within the 90 dayperiod.
WHEREAS,
the SSHA Board met in executive session on February 21, 2013 to discussits response to the Audit, but took no action on a draft response written by the SSHA Chair, EricWeller. Weller is quoted in the February 21, 2013 edition of City’s newspaper of record, TheSaratogian: “I don’t feel any compelling reason to rush to responding,” adding that thecomptroller’s office “sat on it for ages.”
WHEREAS
, the Assistant City Attorney has determined that there are at least threespecific provisions in New York law that allow a city to exercise some control over authorityoperations: 1. Public Housing Law Section 30 gives the mayor of a city the power to appointauthority members; 2. Public Housing Law section 32 gives a local legislative body approvalauthority over certain salaries paid by the housing authority; and 3. Public Housing Law section34 authorizes the mayor of a city or village, or the town board of a town, to remove a member of a housing authority for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct in office"; and
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more