SCHENECTADY — A proposed amendment to the city charter by Mayor Gary McCarthy of Schenectady, which aims to solidify the city’s budget timeline, hit a roadblock during the city council’s meeting on Monday night. The council decided against scheduling a public hearing for the proposal.
At the meeting, Mayor McCarthy accused City Council President Marion Porterfield of opposing his charter proposal due to unresolved animosity from his victory over her in the Democratic mayoral primary last summer. Porterfield promptly refuted McCarthy’s claim.
The proposed amendment to the charter, which would need voter approval in a public referendum, seeks to streamline the city’s budget timeline. This comes in the wake of last fall’s drawn-out budget process, which saw the city council pass the final budget on its third attempt on Dec. 21, weeks past the city’s Nov. 1 budget deadline.
As per the existing city charter, the mayor is required to submit a proposed operating budget to the city council each year on or before Oct. 1, and the council is required to adopt a budget by Nov. 1.
The charter does not specify the repercussions if the council fails to approve a budget by the deadline. McCarthy’s charter proposal suggests that if the council does not pass a budget by Nov. 1, the mayor’s original proposed budget would automatically be adopted.
Under the proposed charter amendment, if a council passes a budget by Nov. 1 in a given year that modifies the mayor’s original budget, the mayor will have until Nov. 10 to issue a veto or the council’s budget would stand. The council would then have until Nov. 20 to override the mayor’s veto with a five-vote supermajority or the mayor’s budget would be adopted.
McCarthy pointed out during Monday’s Government Operations Committee meeting that following last fall’s extended budget process, he and the council had publicly agreed to address the gap in the city charter that does not specify the consequences of the council not adopting a budget on time.
“This council has shown a lack of leadership,” he said. “For 50 years, this legislative body has been able to navigate a budget process, formulate a budget and adopt it in a timely manner. Last year was an embarrassment, it didn’t happen. We made a commitment when we voted through the budget that we would put something before the voters to tighten up that system.”
Porterfield countered that during the budget negotiations last fall, the council had proposed using $2.5 million in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding previously rescinded from the Capital Region Aquatic Center project to balance the 2024 budget. However, they were told by the city administration that the fund could not be allocated for the budget. In February, the council allocated the $2.5 million in ARPA funds to help finance the construction of the Mohawk Harbor Arena, which is slated to open in the fall of 2025.
“We wanted to spend the $2.5 million to do something in the budget,” Porterfield said. “We weren’t able to and it was being rejected because the money was being held for a project that ultimately got done. That was part of the problem.”
Porterfield reiterated on Monday that she does not support McCarthy’s proposed charter change as presented, preferring that if the budget is not adopted on time in a given year that it would revert to the prior year’s budget.
“I would be supportive of reverting to the prior year’s spending and amend as we need to,” she said on Monday. “Because part of the council’s responsibility is to make sure that we’re passing a budget and we have some input into what that budget looks like.”
The proposed charter change would not take effect until the 2026 budget process if the measure gets on the ballot and is approved by voters in November.
The city will not have any ARPA funds to utilize in the upcoming 2025 budget process, with the city’s final allotment of $7.4 million in ARPA funding used in the 2024 plan.
Councilman John Mootooveren said during Monday’s meeting that he was in favor of a more comprehensive approach that would see the city form a charter committee to explore potential changes to aspects of the entire city charter.
“Have we ever considered creating a charter commission to look at the entire charter?” Mootooveren asked. “The commission could come back to us with a final recommendation to make a comprehensive change if possible. I’m not against doing one piece at a time here, but it would be nice if we could address the entire charter.”
McCarthy said that the formation of a charter committee would not require the approval of voters through a public referendum or city council approval, with the mayor’s office having the authority to form the committee.
“I wasn’t looking at that scenario,” McCarthy said on Tuesday. “That’s a much more complicated process. You have to have broad-based community support to undertake that, with the goal of actually doing something with substance.”
During a discussion about the concept of a charter committee, Porterfield noted during Monday’s meeting that the council may be cautious in pressing for a charter committee, as McCarthy would name the members of the committee, with the council having no input.
Several minutes later, McCarthy contended that Porterfield was harboring ill feelings towards him in connection to last summer’s Democratic primary.
McCarthy defeated Porterfield in the Democratic mayoral primary in June 2023 before the mayor earned his fourth term in the office with a win over Republican challenger Matt Nelligan in last November’s general election balloting.
“The timeline is running, so I put forth a proposal which I think addresses the needs of the community as a whole in the budget process, and you’re locking into it because I think there are still remnants of the Democratic primary for mayor last year,” McCarthy said to Porterfield. “You don’t want the mayor, which happens to be me, to have some say that you perceive to be more influential than it should be.”
Porterfield responded to McCarthy that he was incorrect in asserting that politics played a role in the debate over the charter.
“I never brought up the primary and now you have,” Porterfield replied. “You and your team said some very ugly things and talked about my deceased mother. But I’m not holding that against you. I put that behind me. In addition to that mayor, since you really want to talk about this, when I first became council president [in 2022], I made a point of every single week almost coming to your office and saying, ‘Let’s have a conversation.’ That was not reciprocated.”
Porterfield said on Tuesday that she was surprised that McCarthy would bring up the 2023 primary campaign during a city council meeting.
“I was shocked that he even said that,” Porterfield said of McCarthy’s comments during the meeting. “To me that meant that he’s been carrying this for at least a year, because the primary was last June. So he has been carrying this grudge for a year. Elections are like this – somebody wins and somebody loses. After it’s all said and done, whatever the outcome is and whatever your respective roles are, you play those roles and do what you need to do for the people.”
Mootooveren said that he had not made a final determination on whether he supported the mayor’s proposed charter change, with Mootooveren preferring to address that component within a comprehensive study of the charter.
Assistant Corporation Counsel Sean O’Brien told the council that in order to get the proposed charter amendment on the Nov. 5 general election ballot, the council must approve the referendum by Sept. 5.
O’Brien said on Monday that in order to keep to that timeline, the council would need to advance a measure during Monday’s meeting that would put the council on track to hold a Aug. 12 public hearing on the proposed charter change before a potential Aug. 26 council vote on the referendum.
Councilman Damonni Farley proposed during Monday’s meeting that the charter change could revert to the previous year’s budget if a given year’s budget is not passed in time, with inflation and cost of living increases factored in for city employees.
Farley noted that the charter does not adequately address the next steps if a budget is not passed by Nov. 1, but that he did not agree with McCarthy’s solution that would revert the budget to the mayor’s spending plan.
“Once effectively the clock runs out, then our decision and our ability to add input to the budget is gone and it would just go to the proposed budget,” Farley said during Monday’s meeting. “What I really don’t think we should do is have something where we just run the clock out and compromise the checks and balances that have been put in place.”
O’Brien noted during Monday’s meeting that the council could hold a public hearing on the mayor’s charter proposal on Aug. 12 and make council amendments to the proposal before the council voted to send the issue to taxpayers for a Nov. 5 vote.
Farley, who serves as the chair of the Government Operations Committee, called for a public hearing on Aug. 12 for McCarthy’s charter proposal during Monday’s meeting, but with fellow committee members Porterfield and Mootooveren declining to second the motion, the measure was not sent to the full council to approve the public hearing.
Councilmembers Doreen Ditoro, Joseph Mancini and Carmel Patrick each noted during Monday’s meeting that they supported McCarthy’s charter proposal as presented by the mayor.
Mancini will participate in his first city budget process this fall after he was elected to his first term on the board last November to replace outgoing Councilman John Polimeni.
“It’s a safeguard so we avoid what happened last year,” Mancini said of McCarthy’s charter proposal.
McCarthy said on Tuesday that after the public hearing for the charter amendment was not moved forward on Monday that he is uncertain if the council will adopt it before the Sept. 5 deadline.
“I have no idea what direction the city council is going in,” McCarthy said. “Last night was a total embarrassment.”
–
I agree with the roadblock, McCarthy’s proposed budget timeline needs to be carefully reviewed for potential flaws and improvements before moving forward.
I agree with the roadblock, it’s important to carefully review and improve the budget timeline before proceeding.
Disagree with the roadblock, McCarthy’s proposed budget timeline seems well-thought-out and should be approved without delay.