Charter Commission Meeting
June 29, 2016
Attending: Josh Krintzman (Chair), Bryan Barash (late), Jane Frantz, Howard Haywood, Anne Larner, Brooke Lipsitt, Karen Manning
Not Attending: Rhanna Kidwell, Christopher Steele
Approval of Minutes: Approval of April 27th minutes
Public Comments:
Kathleen Hobson: applaud the work the CC is doing; support preliminary vote on size and composition of City Council—came after huge study and debate. Don’t start second-guessing yourselves. Work is grat and can sell it. Everett legislature recently shrank, and they are still doing a good job. Encourage the CC to keep going in the direction they have.
Phil Herr: Mayor’s newly released housing strategy—remarkable package of “stuff” that he hasn’t seen quite like it before. Package is not being put up for approval—it belongs to the Mayor. Is encouraging people to come along with ideas…will compare that package with comprehensive plan so see if things left out or in conflict. Found a lot of consistency so far—important to be aware of differences if they are there. There is value in that kind of checking—maybe take looking at the relationship between the two into consideration with Article 7.
Lois Levin: Phil Herr is saying that the work of the Charter Commission is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Impressed with thoroughness and diligence of the Charter Commission—been in many different meetings at City Hall and they haven’t all been as thoughtful. Recommendations so far make a whole lot of sense and the majority will agree (despite a vocal minority.) Supportive of the CC efforts.
Ernest Lowenstein: speaking for the vocal minority: the size of the City Council is essentially settled because heard unanimity. Letter to the TAB sees comments that the Council is too big—24 is too many. Where is that written? No reasonable argument why a number has to be stated. The process of voting for 2 out of 4 is grotesque, considering staying with 24, but putting them one-on-one.
Article 7: Planning
Looking to make sure the language reflects the decisions have been made and that there is nothing unaddressed. It’s an opportunity to raise other questions and last minute thoughts.
KM: CC benefited from a panel of experts on May 4th, with input from experts in other municipalities and Phil Herr. Removed reference to special permits, since under MGL. Utility to the article for Newton, even though it is rare to see a planning statement in city charters. Support for the comprehensive plan in this article—backed up by experts. This is hopefully more streamlined than before. Choice was to focus on structural components. Karen then led everyone through the important changes (see documents—discussion is below.)
7-2b: Add that Mayor can make minor modifications. Discussion: concern about the lack of definition. Who is to determine what is minor? Maybe approve without that word? Minor sends a signal to the Council that a modification can’t be major. Intent that it’s not a reworking of the Comprehensive Plan. What change triggers a hearing? What change doesn’t? Bigger issue was to insure that there was the ability to modify the plan without redoing the whole thing. Whatever language is used would be up for interpretation. Why would you avoid having a public hearing on any change? Realistically, want some way to modify to keep it up-to-date? How about take out “minor” and provide for a public hearing for any modification? Doesn’t matter if it is a minor or a major change…How about “there shall be a public hearing” and leave it to the City Council to determine if one is needed? Or have a hearing, and if no one shows up, everyone goes home. That is a less efficient way…should it be mandated in the charter?
Proposal: remove the word “minor” and don’t include public hearings because the Council is likely to ask for one if the change is controversial. Approved 6-0.
NOTE: Word “shall” in the last sentence means that the Council is required to take some action, even if it is to remove the changes.
Also agreement to change the “and” in the first sentence to “or” to read “within 2 years of the swearing in of a new mayor or not less frequently than every 8 years….”
7-3: Nothing mandates that the Planning Board needs to report back to the City Council in a timely fashion. The planning board can effectively veto something before the City Council by holding up its report. Language currently requires recommendation of the planning board. State statute has some specific limits on time—that’s why the CC added info on Section 5 of Chapter 40A.
(Straw vote) Motion to approve Article 7: Vote 7-0 to approve.
Article 5: Financial Procedures
Looking to make sure the language reflects the decisions have been made and that there is nothing unaddressed. It’s an opportunity to raise other questions and last minute thoughts.
AL walked the CC through the article (see document for changes). Discussion is below.
Section 5-4a: last sentence. Seemed appropriate to add description about what things are included in the capital budget—this is an option to the more general statement about inventory. Discussion: in favor of being specific so that it is easier to understand the document; others feel less specific is better, but not strongly. Sense of group is to add the more specific language.
Does the CC want to talk about the rationale, rather than the specific content, for the CIP or the City Budget? Is a sentence at the beginning of 5-4a talking about stewardship of city’s assets. Switch 5-4b to 5-4a after the first sentence. Then the rest of 5-4a moves to 5-4b.
Need to include risk analysis in CIP. Purpose is to keep the good practices that the City does, but not to be so detailed as to not allow any changes/improvements. Could go with “prescribed by ordinance” language used in other articles. Is there language that is more general?
Result:
- Restructuring Article 5-4 (see above)
- Switch the last sentence of 5-4a to more specific language
- Add “and rationale” to contents of CIP
Straw vote next meeting.
Article 11 (originally 11-8): Designer Review Committee
AL: Increased substantially the number of building projects and the projection is that the capital program will be active. Big part of that is the school building projects, especially with MSBA and their review of building decisions. Designer Review was set up by ordinance.
Issues:
- Capacity: so many project and schedules are determined by state (for school projects)—difficult to gather a large group of professionals who volunteer their time when there are no set meeting times (scheduled driven by projects). Difficult to get a robust membership to be available.
- Changing scene: School building process means they meet in conjunction with the school building committees—not meeting just as a professional group. Therefore a lot of changes in how the designer review committee operates.
Therefore needs to be a review of the ordinances to give the group more flexibility to deal with capacity issues and with the changing scene of how they interact with school building committees. Extremely important committee and function—needs clarity and capacity to function properly.
Also, technically, there is a requirement that any project that requires an architect is under the aegis of the Design Review Committee. Needs to be updated—some small project could benefit, some others with architects isn’t necessarily. Requires that the Council have some requirements to revise the Design Review and Designer Selection Committees. Charter Commission could be helpful to push a review of the ordinances to make these bodies as effective and helpful as can be and to deal with the capacity issues.
Discussion: What are the real roles and authority of these bodies? Do they belong in the charter? Details should not be in the charter—all that is in there is that they should exist. Why, specifically, these committees? For a sense of transparency and public process. [From Collins Center: Other communities don’t have anything like this in their charters.] The current language does not reflect current industry practice. AL is suggesting that there be a periodic review of these specific ordinances.
What does the CC do with this section? Remove it? The ordinance still exists and the committee will still exist. Are the problems charter-related? Does the current language give it enough flexibility? Why not generalize it a bit more? Problems are not about language, but about using best practices—put recommendations in the supplemental report of findings (NOT the charter). It exists in the ordinances.
Should it be required in the charter to address these issues, or should the language be entirely removed?
Motion is to remove the language in the city charter: what effect does this have on the ordinances without the mandate in the charter? Still needs the cooperation of the Mayor to work. This could be the anchor to have these committees—eliminating the requirements leaves a “floating” ordinance without an anchor. These committees at the local level are pretty rare. If have regulatory authority, should be anchored in charter. Motion withdrawn.
Want an ordinance that allows the City council to establish the committees and their functions by ordinance. Desire to make it more modern and to fit into the building review. Current charter language is vague.
Will revisit this in the fall when there is more information.
City Council Compensation:
BB led the discussion: In some cases, it’s spelled out (usually when change the form of government); on other cases, it isn’t. See chart used in discussion. Compensation is not competitive with other communities and should rise. Can address this in the supplemental report or in the charter. Could set base level and then anything beyond set by ordinance, or could be in the supplemental report.
Discussion: Since already making many changes, would be a mistake to increase salaries in the charter. Considering the average income, the salaries are quite low. Does this play into the type of people who run? Do we get the best talent? Should recommend a salary increase (especially since the overall compensation could stay the same with fewer councilors) in the supplemental report? Could recommend a review of salaries at certain intervals. What is the point of that, if the council is uncomfortable voting for its own raise?
Will develop recommendations in the report, and not in the charter. Language to be developed.
Summer Work: Not meeting as frequently over the summer, but work should continue. Think about next year, in particular about how they will explain the process, work and substance of the commission and the language to use. Have article leaders compile some materials and review them.
Collins Center: other communities haven’t put together much at this point. Preliminary report comes in the newspaper, take the temperature of the response, and then put together the final report (and then work on a “marketing campaign”). There might be “friends of the charter” campaign groups registered, lawn signs, etc.
Pull together what they have so far and think about the preliminary report. Think about ways of analyzing or highlighting things.
Still need to have the term limits discussion (July 12th).
Area Councils—work on that as a committee, since there is nothing statewide as an example.
Can work on items not appropriate for the charter, but should be presented to the public.
Preview of Term Limits Discussion:
Will send out a recommended structure for the conversation before the meeting.
Next meeting: July 12th, 7 p.m.