Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Sale 5 William Street topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Saratoga Springs council begins discussion on possible sale of 5 William Street, considers using proceeds for homelessness services
Summary
Council members debated steps to authorize and condition a potential sale of 5 William Street, including whether sale proceeds could be reserved for homeless services and what legal and procedural limits apply; no vote was taken.
Saratoga Springs City Council members opened a prolonged discussion July 15 about whether to pursue sale of 5 William Street and how any proceeds might be used, including setting aside funds to support homelessness services.
Council members said the discussion was preliminary and procedural: the council must first determine whether the property is “no longer needed for a public purpose” before a sale can proceed under state law and the city charter. Council members discussed options including a public auction or private sale, imposing deed restrictions or reverter clauses that would require specific future uses, and awarding preference points in an RFP to bidders who would provide community services.
The issue matters because council members raised competing priorities: several said they want proceeds used to support local homelessness programs or shelter operations, while others said selling a capital asset to fund ongoing operations would be financially inappropriate. Council members also noted possible interested parties — the senior center, the Saratoga Housing Authority and local nonprofits were mentioned as potential users — and that any sale could be conditioned to require certain future uses.
During the discussion, the council asked staff to check the deed for any restrictive covenants or reverter language, to review state-law sale requirements and to consider sending the matter to the Real Estate Committee for fact-finding and recommendation. Council members said the Real Estate Committee can review details but that the ultimate determination about public purpose is a council responsibility.
Council members referenced a 2024 appraisal figure discussed in the meeting of about $1,500,000 for the property and noted the parcel’s size was referenced as roughly 0.8 acres. Staff also reported an inventory of other city-owned parcels: a list of properties 0.2 acres and larger suitable for new construction and a separate list of smaller “interstitial” parcels that may carry liability and could be candidates for transfer to adjacent owners.
No motion or vote was taken during the July 15 meeting. Council members agreed to continue fact-finding — including a financial review and legal check of deeds and restrictions — and to return with more detail before any formal decision to list or sell the property.
Looking ahead, council members discussed possible next steps: referral to the Real Estate Committee for analysis, a legal review to confirm whether the property is needed for a public purpose, and development of an RFP or sale document that could include use restrictions or preference points for proposals that provide specific community benefits.
