Newton City Council - November 17, 2025

Thank you.

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!

Thank you.

Thank you for watching!

Thanks for watching!

Thank you.

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!

Thank you.

Thanks for watching!

Thank you.

.

.

.

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks for watching!

The United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right, colleagues, thank you. We are being both audio taped and video taped this evening. We have three councillors online. I have Councillor Downs, Councillor Wright, and Councilor Lipoff. and with us in the chamber we have several members-elect who I'm thrilled to see here. I have Councilor-elect Roach, Councilor-elect Irish, elect Gordon. I have Councilor elect Silber. And did I miss anyone? I don't think so. That's pretty good. All right. Well, welcome. Councilor Alex are welcome to come in and sit inside the rail if they'd like, but not required to if you'd prefer to remain in the audience. All right, we are going to start off.

We have a number of matters on second call this evening. I think we're going to have A fairly lengthy evening, so I'm going to urge everyone to be patient. I'm also going to urge that Please do your best to keep your remarks short. And if counselors have said something already, then you're simply going to be repetitive. I just ask that you try to keep it to acknowledge what someone else has said and keep it moving because we will have, I think, a fairly late evening. So with that said on first call, I'm going to recognize the chair of the Land Use Committee, Councilor Kelley.

Thank you, Mr. President. I don't see the report for the most recent meeting in here. Am I mistaken about that? So I do want to request some special hearings.

You do not have a recent meeting to report out, but you do have some other items.

I do have some public hearings to request.

Please do.

I'd like to set public hearings for items number 241-25, which is on page 270. of your docket item. And listed here are a few other items that actually aren't public hearings. Oh, sorry, the next one is 340-25. which is at 15 Clinton Place and these are all for November 25th and number 339-25 at 112 Garden Road. Those are all on page 270 for November 25th. And we have a few other ones.

They don't require a public hearing.

I was just going to say, we have a few others that don't require a public hearing that are on the list. So thank you very much. That's it.

Thank you, Chair Kelley. Next, we have Chair Baker for Zoning and Planning Committee.

Thank you, Mr. President. And the Zoning and Planning Committee report is found on page 2, starting on page 262. The first item is 181.24. This is a request for discussion and possible amendments to remove or reduce parking minimums for commercial uses in commercial centers. That was approved 701. um item 181 24 2 request for discussion and possible amendments to reduce remove or reduce parking minimums for commercial uses and commercial centers involving the table The other involved business one, excuse me, business use one and business use two districts. That was approved 8-0. we had item 2324 which was an update on short-term rental ordinance compliance and enforcement and that was voted after discussion no action necessary eight zero um then we uh had item

269.25 requests discussion and possible amendments to policies for a butter notifications for proposed large projects. After discussion, we voted no action necessary, 8-0. There's item 293.25 requesting amendments to chapter 30 zoning relating to creating an adult daycare use. We had a public hearing and approved that item eight to zero. and then on 3-28-25 reappointment of Scott Friedman's the Newtonville Historic District Commission and the committee approved that 8-0. The item relating to proven alterations as of right is on second call. and we have an item that's carried over regarding inclusionary zoning, which is also on second call. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Chair.

Let me just make one announcement. For those who are following the whole question of our climate action, we had anticipated taking that up in the last meeting of this month, but it's actually going to be Now on December 8th. So those who are interested in that discussion, I would encourage you to come to that conversation with the committee. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Baker. Next for Programs and Services Committee, Chair Krintzman.

Thank you, Mr. President. Report begins on page 264. I believe that the only item which was not held is on second call. And so I would move the report. All set? Yeah, I think the only item not on second call is, I mean, the only item not held was on second call.

So I'll move to the point. Thank you. Next, I have Chair Grossman for Public Safety and Transportation. Thank you, Mr. President.

There's no report this evening.

Next, I have Chair Albright for public facilities.

Thank you, Mr. President. The report begins on page 265. The first item was held. Second item is 3-12-25 appropriation of $1,650,000 from June 30, 2025 certified free cash for a vehicle replacement program and that was approved 7-0. The next item is 320-25, Eversource Energy petitioning for a grant of location to install and maintain approximately 120 feet of conduit in Armory Street northerly from Washington Street. and 30 feet of conduit in Washington Street northerly from the manhole. And that was approved 7-0. The next item was 338-25. or honor the mayor requesting authorization to provide access to electrical equipment at the West Armory, West Newton Armory. That was approved 7-0 and the last item was held. I'd like to assign a public hearing.

Go ahead, please, Chair Albright.

So on November 19, this coming Wednesday, there will be public hearing on item 308-25, which was Councilors Farrell, Lucas, Laredo, Wright, Lobovits, and Block requesting a public hearing and approval to rename 18 roadways in Oak Hill Park to commemorate fallen veterans who have served during their military conflicts. and that's it.

That concludes your report? Yes, thank you. Thank you. I neglected to mention that Councilor-elect Dhammabed is also online and welcome. And Chair Gentile for the Finance Committee, please.

Thank you, Mr. President. The Finance Committee report begins on the page, bottom of page 266. The first item was 281-25. Councilors Down and Grossman requesting to amend city ordinances to modernize parking fines in line with surrounding communities and to deter unsafe parking. Proved seven to zero. Next item was held. 312-25, the run of the May requesting authorization to appropriate and expend the sum of $1,650,000 from June 30th, 2025 certified free cash to support the city's vehicle replacement program. This was approved 7-0, 313-25, the run of the mayor reappointing Sean Murphy as a constable for the City of Newton, approved 7-0, 316-25, the Community Preservation Committee

recommending the appropriation of $1,997,000 in Community Preservation Act historic resource funding from the unrestricted prior year reserves to control of the planning and development department for a grant to the West Newton Cinema Foundation for their building stabilization project. This was approved 7-0. 318-25 was held. Next item is 322-25. We're on the May requesting authorization to expend $17,290 in 73 cents from the legal claims settlements account for full and final settlement of an insurance claim approved 7-0.

Ron and the Mayor requesting authorization to transfer and expend $8,000 from the H Handicapped Finds Disability Commission to the Operation Disability Commission to conduct holiday targeted enforcement of the accessible parking violations. approved 7-0, 334-25, Her Honor the Mayor requesting the correction of Council Order 165-25, It was a sum of $450 that was transposed and this will correct that regarding some inflow and infiltration projects approved 7-0, 365-24. Downs, Grossman, Leary, Farrell, Oliver, Danberg, Lipof, Lobovits.

Requesting a discussion and possible ordinance change on residential parking programs and fee structures and whether they need to be adjusted. This item was approved seven to zero. I'd also like to ask for a suspension of the rules in order to take up an item that was discussed earlier, which is the 2026 tax classification hearing for which there is no written report.

All in favor of allowing for suspension of the rules to allow this late filed report, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, go ahead please, Councilor Gentile.

The item was heard earlier this evening. Our Director of Assessment Administration, James Shaughnessy, gave a PowerPoint presentation along with a booklet of with an awful lot of information about current taxes, values, classification steps that we've taken in the past. That was followed by a presentation by Chief Financial Officer Maureen Lemieux. There was a public hearing open. There was one speaker. Public hearing was closed. The strong recommendation from the administration was to support what is commonly known as a factor of 175%.

However, what we actually vote is a decimal residential factor of 0.937074. So that motion was made and seconded. There was very little debate and a No, excuse me, it wasn't a roll call. It was a vote taken in finance, and that item was approved by a vote of seven to zero, and I would move the report.

Thank you, Chair Gentile. Baker. Excuse me, Mr. President.

I should have reported, but I wanted to wait for finance. The zoning and planning also acted on item 316.25, the CPA funding for the of Historic Resources for the West Newton Cinema. And that was approved 8-0 by the committee.

Thank you. I'm going to recognize Chair Grossman for Public Safety and Transportation.

Thank you, Mr. President. I need to report that public safety and transportation took up 281-25, the parking fine revision. on October 22nd and approved that seven to zero. And I think you'll all recall on 365-24 that Public Safety and Transportation had approved that. Subject to second call, which we heard on second call at our last meeting. Also voted that 7-0 to make the referral to finance. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Grossman. Chair Danberg for real property reuse.

Thank you, Mr. President. There's no report tonight.

Thank you very much. Madam Assistant Clerk or Mr. Clerk, will you call the roll, please? Councilor Albright.

Aye.

Baker. Aye. Councilor Bixby.

Aye.

Councilor Block. Aye. Councilor Danberg.

Aye.

Councilor Downs. Farrell. Aye. Councilor Gentile. Aye. Councilor Getz. Aye. Councilor Greenberg.

Aye.

Councilor Grossman.

Aye.

Humphrey. Aye. Councilor Kalis. Aye. Councilor Kelley.

Aye.

Councilor Krintzman. Aye. Councilor Leary.

Aye.

Lipof. Aye. Councilor Lobovits. Aye. Councilor Lucas.

Aye, with the exception of 321-25, for which I vote no.

Councilor Malakie.

Aye.

Councilor Micley. Councilor Oliver. Aye. Councilor Wright.

Aye.

President Laredo.

Aye.

The ayes are 22. The So the vote is 22 to 0 with the exception of no vote on 321-25.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. We are now moving on to second call. We have five items on second call. We're going to start with our unfinished business from the last council meeting. The first item is 267-25, the Walk, Roll, and Bike Network Plan. We're going to recognize the chair of the Public Facilities Committee, Chair Albright.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. So I will give a brief report on this item. This is Item 267-25, Her Honor the Mayor requesting approval of the walk, roll, bike network plan as part of the city's comprehensive plan. Mr. President, should I make a motion about the change in the docket item first?

I think you should make a motion first on the change of the docket item, and then depending on how that goes, we can take up discussion of the rest of the items so go why don't you complete your report okay then make the motion I'll take any other motions and we'll go from there okay sounds good

So this plan, as described in our report, only provides a roadmap for how Newton will plan, prioritize, and deliver improvements through a citywide network of walking, rolling, and biking. It's a set of prioritization frameworks based on safety, demand, balance, and feasibility. It lays out consistent design and policy guidance to ensure all projects meet the same standards, coordinates implementation across departments and tracks progress annually for transparency and accountability. The goals of this plan as stated in our report are to enhance safety and comfort, connect people to key destinations, build out a core network, manage speeds for safety, Advance accessibility for all and encourage active travel. Today, as we all know, there's been a great deal of controversy in our email about the plan.

and we got a memo.

Make sure you speak into the microphone a little more.

Sure. We got a memo from Jen Martin, who's the director of .

That was not what I was asking for, Councilor Albright.

I was just trying to practice my singing. So we got a memo today from Jen Martin, who's the director of transportation planning, saying what this plan is not. It does not commit the city to any specific projects for funding and I think there's been a great deal of confusion abroad in the land about that. this plan was really developed for what we all say that we want which is transparency so that The residents of Newton and the citizens and the representatives of our board would know how decisions are made with respects to biking and pedestrians and rolling the scooters and things like that.

This plan mentions the Washington Street pilot program in a couple of places. as a project that is ongoing and somehow that became the modus operandi for everybody to think that's what this plan was all about. The reducing bike lanes and as a matter of fact we got a

Chair Albright, would you restrict yourself to the item and then if you want to advocate, please do so afterwards?

Yes, I want to say what the word reduce is important and what this plan tries to reduce. Besides these goals, it tries to reduce maintenance burdens in roadways. It tries to reduce transportation emissions. It plans to reduce travel by automobile. It plans to increase way finding by reducing uncertainty in signage. It tries to reduce greenhouse emissions. It tries to reduce the risk of fatal crashes, to reduce conflict points, to reduce crash and to reduce speed at mid block crossings. That's all, that's all this plan is trying to reduce. The vote in committee was eight in favor and none against, and it was approved.

Do you have a motion to make before we proceed on further discussion?

I do. So an error was made when creating the docket item.

Please speak into the microphone, Chair Albright. Thank you.

Yes. An error was made in creating the docket item that this plan would be part of the city's comprehensive plan. And we would have had this discussion back at our last meeting, but of course, we put this on second call for this meeting. So I would like to the motion is to amend the docket item to remove as part of the city's comprehensive plan from the docket item. And that's the first thing we need to do.

Are there any other motions that you then intend to make in connection with this item?

Only the motion that was made by the committee, which was to approve the plan.

All right. So there is a motion by Councilor Albright to amend the docket item to eliminate the reference to the comprehensive plan. Is there a second for that motion? Seconded by Councilor Danberg. Discussion on the motion. Hold on. Councilors Gentile, Block, Lucas, and I'll get everyone else's. All right, Councilor Gentile, please, and Block.

First of all, I just wanted to correct the... The vote, because I did not vote for this in committee. So it should either be 701 or 702. seven to zero to one. So that's the first thing. Secondly, there's no doubt in my mind that at some point here in the near future, that this plan is going to be approved by either this city council or the next city council. I mean, that's inevitable. It could look a little bit different. If in fact what many of us want happens tonight, which is to simply send this back to committee and the committee to hold a public hearing, which is what many people want.

But if you care about process, whether it is a mistake or not, the docket item is clear. It was docketed to read requesting approval of the walk, roll, and bike network plan as part of the city's comprehensive plan. That was what was docketed. That was what was taken up in committee. That was what was approved in committee. And if that is in fact not the case, I don't see how anybody can change it at this point because of the way it went through the process to this point. So in respect for the process, please do not vote this out tonight. Send it back to committee. There's never a harm or a danger in having a public hearing. And that's really what we're, arguing about tonight.

And I think it could go peacefully if people would just agree to have a public hearing.

Thank you, Councilor Gentile. Next. Anybody who's attended a meeting that I preside over knows that we don't have any applause. All right, next, Councilor Block.

Thank you, Mr. President. was my understanding that this was intended to be an amendment to the comprehensive plan. And I have a question for the chair. Through the president? Maybe it's just to you, which is whether this was referred to the proper committee. It's my understanding that comprehensive plans are supposed to be taken up by the zoning and planning committee. and I'm wondering if that's correct.

So, Mr. Clerk, do you want to comment on what law advised you earlier today? Oh, Deputy Clerk, please, Flynn.

So we can vote it on in the PF committee. This can be voted on in the PF committee.

even though those even though it's designated an amendment to the comprehensive plan?

We are removing that amendment can be made the motion can be made to remove that piece of it from the comprehensive plan.

I think Councilor Block's question though wasn't properly referred to the Public Facilities Committee in the first instance.

Mr. President, I think I can shed some light on this problem.

Go ahead, please, Chair Albright.

The thing that gets a plan into the comprehensive plan is that it's reviewed by the Planning and Development Board. and it was not intended to be reviewed by the Planning and Development Board. That's why this was an error.

Well, my understanding, Chair Albright, is that every change in the comprehensive plan typically goes through zoning and planning and not facilities.

i'm not sure that's correct at all but i do know that it's correct that the planning and development board was supposed to have is supposed to review things on the conference i'm going to recognize chair Oliver vice chair Oliver of zoning and planning because i think he has a comment on that

Great. Thank you, Mr. President. And if you wouldn't mind, if we could have the clerk pull up the document that our own city rules, city council rules to the page and reference that I spoke about earlier today. It very clearly in paragraph three calls out that any change to or modification to comprehensive planning does belong to ZAP. period. And that is what the item said. It was very confusing when we went through this because it's also my understanding that PF has substantive, I can't stand that word, say over items that are streetscape and so forth. So it would be my recommendation that we not

Just send this back to PF, as Councillor Gentile was talking about, with the intent of a public hearing. but to send it back to PF and ZAP jointly because our own city council rules right there, right? Paragraph C, is that what I'm looking at here, right? on the third line community development authority comprehensive planning are to be assigned to zoning and planning that's all I'm asking for I think that's the appropriate modification here send this back to committee. Let's do exactly what you were talking about. Let's be as transparent as we possibly can. There's a group of people who just want a hearing.

I appreciate that. Councilor Block, did that answer your question?

Yes, there was a similar question about the planning board and whether we need to have a recommendation from the planning board before we take this up.

If this is going to be an amendment to the comprehensive plan, you do. If this is just going to be a plan and there's lots of plans that float out there all through the city, the answer is no, you do not. Thank you. OK. We're still on the motions. So next, I have Councilors Lucas, Malakie, and I'm sure there's others. Go ahead, please.

Thank you. If there is a vote to remove that language of comprehensive plan, I will vote against it. But I'm going to ask the clerk to also share the screen. Because this goes to what Councilor Block was getting at with his last comments. And it has to do with the city charter. And I would like to read that into the record. So if you could share that, please. Yeah. So we're in Article 7 Planning, Section 7-2, Comprehensive Plan, Paragraph B, Adoption. I want everyone to read this.

Every reorganization plan shall upon receipt by the clerk of the council be referred to the appropriate committee of the city council, which shall not more than 30 days hold a public hearing on the matter and shall not and shall not later than the second regular meeting of the city council following the hearing report either that it approves or disapproves the plan. a reorganization plan shall become effective 90 days after the date it is received by the city council unless the city council has a prior uh wait I was reading the wrong section. I apologize. Really, I do. I do. I was reading at the top of the page, B, adoption. I apologize, everyone. Really, I do. Yurok, and Article 7, Section 7.2, Paragraph B, Adoption. Sorry about that, everyone.

I apologize.

Go ahead, Councilor Lucas.

Upon receipt from the mayor of the proposed comprehensive plan or proposed modification of the existing plan, the city council shall refer the proposed... the proposal to the Planning and Development Board, which within the time specified by the City Council report its recommendation on the proposal. After receipt of the recommendations of the Planning and Development Board, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed comprehensive plan. or the proposed modification of the comprehensive plan and shall by resolution adopt the same with or without amendments. um so what i believe the reason why the mayor wants this out of the comprehensive plan is because They don't want to go through this process, the transparency process, the process that we received an email blast later this afternoon. and Newton residents gathered signatures asking us to hold a public hearing.

That is it. This has not been a transparent process at all. the only public communication to and from the Newton residents from City Hall occurred two and a half years ago. and then it was in the mayor's newsletter a couple months ago and then there was one 45-minute discussion.

You're on a title, Councilor Lucas. How much more do you need?

One minute, please.

All in favor of an additional minute and 30 seconds for Councilor Lucas, please say aye. Go ahead, please.

Thank you. So this has not been a transparent process at all. And all I am asking and what others are asking is let's hear from everyone, not just the people who you agree with. We represent everyone on this side of the railing. So let's send this back to either PF or ZAP. It probably should be ZAP because it's still as of right now part of the comprehensive plan or proposed to the proposed comprehensive plan and let's hear from everyone and let's get this right and make sure every question is answered because I know many people on ZAP do have questions about this particular plan that they did not have a chance to ask in committee. So I'm going to, if there is a vote, I will respectfully vote against taking out this language. And I do want to see this back in ZAP or PF. Thank you.

So I have Councilors Malakie, Albright, Leary, and Lobovits and Wright in that order. Go ahead, please, Councilor Malakie.

OK, I think a lot of what I would be saying on this motion has already been said. I have substantive reasons for putting it on second call two weeks ago, I guess it was, which I can go into later. I absolutely agree that I'm just appalled at the thought that we would be changing docket language basically to circumvent the desire for a public hearing. That's the kind of thing I expect out of the, you know, Democratic leadership in the state legislature and the Republican leadership in Washington DC trying to shut down public discussion by and I have to ask also, what are we afraid of from a public hearing? This is not a time critical thing to do. We've been told over and over again that it's not about particular projects.

Each project would need its own vetting and approval and so forth. So there's nothing to be lost by allowing time for a public hearing and helping the public have faith in our allegiance to process and not trying to do things behind their back.

Thank you, Councilor Malakie. Councilor Albright. Again, folks, we're just speaking on the motion, not anything else.

Thank you, Mr. President. And if you've read this plan, so-called plan, you will know that it really isn't a plan. It is a description of the networks. It is descriptions of gaps in networks. It has policies for safety related to safety and describes ongoing projects. There is no planning involved. There is no description of what will come over the next year, five years, 10 years. It is not a typical plan. I don't know why, when I first read it, I spoke with Ms. Martin and I said, why are you calling this a plan? And she said, because it is sort of a plan. But as you will all know if you have read it, it is just a description of policies, the network, the gaps in the network, with no recommendations for future. So it never should have been sent as a comprehensive plan because it isn't one.

If you've read it, you would know that. Please do not. I don't mind a public hearing. It's fine. I mean, 2,400 people commented on this plan within the last year. That's also if you had read the emails and the reports, you would have seen that 2,400 people commented on this. and there were plenty of public meetings, lots of public meetings. Maybe you weren't notified, Councilor Lucas, I don't know, but please, this is not a plan and it didn't belong in the comprehensive plan.

All right, next I have Councilor Leary.

Thank you, Mr. President. So on the motion, I would vote to take the language out out referring to the comprehensive plan. and I would like to comment specifically on the plan itself and I can wait to do that.

Please wait to do that.

Okay.

Thank you, Councilor Leary. Next, I have Councilor Lobovits.

So Councilor Albright addressed in part my question. So it's really a question. I'm not sure how whether you call this a plan or not, whether it would be considered a modification of the comprehensive plan, and I would just ask someone to speak to that point only because I'm not familiar with the definition of a comprehensive plan and how something like this would relate to that.

I'll try to answer the question, Councilor Lobovits, and I, of course, defer to my other experienced colleagues if I get it wrong. The comprehensive plan is a formal city document prepared under the charter. it is updated periodically through a variety of amendments the comprehensive plan is used as a formal planning tool by the city including the planning department so that for example in land use hearings will often hear that something is consistent with or not consistent with the comprehensive plan. What Chair Albright is suggesting is that this was never really intended to be a change to the comprehensive plan. I can't speak to the accuracy of what the administration thought it was doing or not.

and I really can't if it's just a plan I'm not sure why it was presented to us in the first instance to be quite honest I mean if it's a plan it plans typically don't require city council approval if they're just internal plans. But I'll defer to Councilor Albright if she wants to differ.

So I'm not sure that Ms. Martin would want me to say what I'm about to say, but I'm going to say it anyway. You just made a comment of you're not sure why it was given to us in the first place. and what Ms. Martin said was, I thought transparency was important. I wanted the council to know how we will make decisions in the future on bikes Pedestrian Access, and the scooters. And so I wanted to be transparent and to provide all this information. She said, I've learned my lesson the hard way.

Well, I'm not going to... Let me be very clear. I have no doubt that staff was completely well-intentioned in how it presented. We are faced with a verbiage that says a change to the comprehensive plan. that's what we have there's a motion pending to amend that i have a number of people wish to speak on that still i have council right Then I have Councilor Downs, who's online, and then I have Councilor Baker, and I'm sure there may be others. Councilor Wright, go ahead, please.

I have a point of inquiry. So I've been emailing back and forth with Ms. Jen Martin, director of transportation planning, on this plan. and I've had multiple questions and comments and things like that. And what she told me today is that this plan is not the final plan. It's not the final version. There's going to be updates to it, including the document and on the website. So how can we be voting on something that isn't a final version? Because I can't. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, Councilor Downs.

Thank you. And I would love to be there, but not able to be. So I have just a couple of comments. I really wish this were going to go in the comprehensive plan. But it is not. And I will also recall my colleagues that in 2018 public facilities passed the street design guide which is very similar to this and it says these are the kinds of things we're going to be using when we are This is a very similar document. It tells us what our priorities are, where the gaps are. It tells us where children are having trouble

Downs, we're speaking to the motion right now. I am speaking to the motion because

because it is not a comprehensive plan type plan. When I look at the rules that Councilor Oliver mentioned, I do not see things like street design or street planning as something that goes under the zoning and planning committee. That is things from the, I just don't see that language. and if this is not in the comprehensive plan, the charter amendment that Councilor Lucas mentioned, the charter language also does not apply to this. So I fail to see why this is a problem on both of those. And to Councilor Wright's comment, this is a living document. It will never be final. The point is that once you hit a priority and it is done, you aren't going to be going back again. You're going to be going back again and removing that from your priority list.

It's like the... Capital Improvement Plan. Yeah, you have a plan, but once you've built the school, it goes back down to the bottom of the list rather than being on the top.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Downs. Councilor Baker. Councilor Baker.

So part of the challenge that this poses is that if you go to the public facilities report from October 22nd, attached to it is the whole description of the work and the document that's involved. And at the very end of the presentation, it says, implementing the plan over time is one page. And then the final is ask, adopt into comprehensive plan. So in the document itself, it speaks to this particular purpose. And it says, formal adoption ensures consistency, coordination, and smarter long-term investment. so part of the difficulty I think is that ultimately a document like this for its intended purpose is supposed to be approved by the city council the question is what's the proper mechanism to get to that approval

I'm loath to given the work the committee has undertaken and will continue I hope to undertake in the future to take on extra responsibilities but it does seem to me that if the objective here is to get to an approved document that can guide the city going forward even if it's a work in progress there's an advantage to having another committee take a look at it So I'm going to respectfully dissent from the motion and support the recommendation that come to the Zoning and Planning Committee.

So anyone else wish to be heard on the motion? Councilor Farrell.

Mr. President, I'm new and easily confused. I hear people saying that this is a living document that will change over time. Is the Comprehensive plan, not a living document that will change over time?

The comprehensive plan is a living document that can be changed through the city council mechanism. It can be amended or modified only by city council vote.

Thank you. Then why wouldn't something like this, as comprehensive as it is, be part of or reference to the comprehensive plan? Thank you.

Hold on. Anyone else wish to be heard who hasn't spoken? I'm going to recognize Councilor Albright and then Gentile again.

So I think Councilor Downs talked about the street design guide that was done by public facilities many years ago. This is exactly the same kind of document. so that's why I don't know why zoning and planning is another committee that I sit on but I don't know why this like the street design guide certainly you wouldn't have wanted that in zoning and planning and it's the same kind of document So I don't think it belongs in zoning and planning.

Thank you. Councilor Gentile and then Councilor Kalis.

Look, I don't have the street design guide in front of me, but I'm willing to place a bet that when it was docketed, it was not docketed to be part of the comprehensive plan. That's a big difference. Let's cut the BS. The thing was docketed to be part of the comprehensive plan for a reason. And it's probably a good reason because it's a plan that you might want to have. But that's the way that it was docketed. I've never in 36 years seen an item docketed a certain way go through a committee and then because they're faced with having to have a public hearing all of a sudden we're hearing that well it wasn't meant to be docketed that way that's not credible folks and if you vote for it boy oh boy What the heck is going on? We know what's going on.

But the bottom line is, as Councilor Malakie said, what are we afraid of? Why are we fighting to have a public hearing, whether it be by zoning and planning or whether it be by public facilities? What are we afraid of? Are we afraid that somebody might come up with an idea that others didn't think of that will make it a better plan? Because I think that's a good thing and we should be open to that. My colleague from Ward 2, I think she heard her own cause by relaying what Jen Martin said. Jen Martin, according to Council Albright, said that this was going to be a plan to show how we were going to be making decisions in the future

about bike paths and other things that are under this subject. Well, people want to weigh in on how those decisions are going to be made and they should have the right to be able to weigh in. So please, Let's not continue to beat this up and fight about whether or not it's going to go to a committee. Just send it to a committee, have a public hearing, and at the end of the day, You'll have a better document, in my opinion, and I won't be around for it. So it doesn't matter to me in that respect. But it's the right thing to do. And if you really care about transparency. But it wasn't a mistake that it was docketed this way. It was docketed this way because someone, and I don't know if it was transportation, the mayor's office or whatever,

felt that it was a worthy enough cause that it should be added to our comprehensive plan. So don't try to say it was a mistake that we're now going to correct on the floor of the city council. That's not the way we do business.

All right, before I recognize Councilor, hold on, before I recognize Councilor Kalis and Albright and Leary, I do want to recognize the Councilor-Elect, Hume Charm is among the attendees. I believe online, am I correct? Online. So welcome. Now, Councilor Kalis, then Councilor Albright, then Councilor Leary.

Gentile. I believe it was a mistake. Okay? I believe it was a mistake. I think the words comprehensive plan should be removed. I also think it needs to go back to the committee. nobody is afraid and Councillor Albright already just said this she's not afraid of having a public hearing I think everybody here knows that it takes a lot to build up trust but one action to destroy it so we're going to send it back I mean, this isn't even on the motion, but it should be sent back. But to believe that it's a mistake is not a big thing. It was a mistake. And we all looked at it, read it, discussed it for many months, and then it was, nobody really, saw that so either way I believe the word should be taken out it should be corrected go back to PF where I think that's where it should be debated but we should have public hearings

Thank you, Councilor Kalis. Councilors Albright and Leary. And then unless someone has something really important to say, I'm going to ask that we vote on the motion before we go back to the main item.

Okay, just to be clear, the motion to remove the words comprehensive plan was part of the docket that would have been discussed two weeks ago. It has nothing to do with the fact that some folks are asking for a public hearing tonight. nothing to do with that and I Deputy Clerk Cassidy Flynn. I think you know that that was part of the motion that was to be made two weeks ago. So when it came to the council, we were going to remove that. because it was done in error. Now that's the first thing. So that has nothing to do with the fact that people are asking for a hearing. and what Councilor Kalis suggested just now is fine. If you want to send it back to committee for a public hearing, I hope there's time and we can fit it in. We can have an extra meeting. Come on, folks. We don't have enough meetings.

A friendly suggestion, Chair Albright, if you are willing to send this back for a public hearing, I would suggest that we not take up the motion in the full council, that this go back to public facilities for a hearing, that at that time the docket item is amended, that you hold a public hearing if you can do so this term and then if you're able to it comes back before the full council having been properly labeled with a full hearing that deals with the objections folks had about the lack of process and everybody knows when it comes to the council what we're voting on.

I think that's a fine suggestion.

So will you withdraw your motion to amend and make a motion instead to refer this back to public facilities?

I will do so. And my colleague from Ward 4 will be very happy for that. So I will withdraw my motion and ask for a motion to send it back to PF Republic here.

All right. So Councilor Albright, hold on. Albright's motion to amend is withdrawn. The substitute motion is to send it back to public facilities. Councilor Danberg. Councilor Danberg has seconded the motion. All right. We are going to do this on a roll call. Is there any, I'm sorry, Councilor Leary, go ahead. You're right. We still need to discuss, hold on. There's a motion to send it back to committee. Do you wish to speak on that motion?

I will speak with that on that motion, which I agree with, but I waited on my comments because I thought we were going to talk about the substance of it, and I wanted to respond to that a little bit.

I will, even though it's not directly on point, Councilor Leary, I will indulge you and let you speak to the general concept.

Well, thank you for indulging me for being able to raise my voice and comment on this.

Procedurally, Councillor Albright, there's a motion pending, but go ahead.

I just wanted to respond to some of the comments you made tonight. I'm totally in favor of a public hearing. That's not what the issue is. If people want a public hearing, I'm happy to send it back to committee. I had been waiting for this plane for years and was so happy when it was finally talked about. But I'm sitting here thinking, are we going to put a nuclear power plant in Newton Center with all this ruckus that's coming up and concern? I mean, the plan, it just aims to... create low stress routes for walking, cycling throughout the city, identifying priority corridors and future projects to improve key connections to schools, parks, transit stops, and that's sort of what we're doing here. We're just working to improve the city's transportation. And I'm just shocked at the real

On happiness and sort of accusations, there's something else going on here. It's simply, it is a working document. It's a resource. It's basically full of data. And we had meetings Like March 17 and May 8, 2023, there was advisory committee meetings. There was a public meeting June 13. There were stakeholder meetings. And if that wasn't enough discussion, then let's have a public meeting as well. But what we're doing here is something that I think is really important that a lot of people in the city care about. And it's like we're trying to like pull something over on people. And I really, really resent it.

All right. Is there any other comment? on the motion by Councillor Albright to send this back to the Public Facilities Committee. Seeing none, I'm going to ask us to call the roll, please. An aye or yes vote is to send it back. and no or nay vote is to keep it here. Go ahead, please. Councilor Albright.

Councilor Baker. Aye. Councilor Bixby.

Aye.

Councilor Block.

Aye.

Danberg. Aye. Councilor Downs. Aye. Councilor Farrell. Aye. Councilor Gentile. Aye. Councilor Getz. Greenberg.

Aye.

Councilor Grossman.

Aye.

Councilor Humphrey. Aye. Councilor Kalis.

Aye.

Councilor Kelley. Aye. Councilor Krintzman.

Aye.

Larry.

Aye.

Councilor Lipof.

Aye.

Councilor Lobovits. Aye. Councilor Lucas. Aye. Councilor Malakie.

Aye.

Councilor Micley. Councilor Oliver. Aye. Councilor Wright.

Aye.

President Laredo. Aye. The ayes are 22, the nays are 0. Motion passes. All right. Mr. President.

Yes, Councilor Gentile.

I rise to make a point of personal privilege that I promise will take no more than 60 seconds. It's similar to Council Larry. And I'm rising to make it because I don't think I'm going to have an opportunity to comment, or there's a good likelihood.

Go ahead, please.

So the one point I wanted to make tonight was this. Northland, Riverside, Riverdale, Charlemont, Destiny, Sunrise, 528 Boylston, 78 Craft, 160 Stanton, 771 Winchester, Haywood House, 2-4 Los Angeles, 15-21 Lexington Street, 429 Cherry, 136 Hancock, 114 Beacon, Walker & Walsh, 114 Walnut. I think that's, no, that's right. The Highland Ave, 1314 Washington Street, West Newton Armory, Rice Valley, and several other small developments. There's roughly in the last, Three to four years, there are 3,700 units that we as a city council and the ZBA have approved. The MBTA Communities Act, I think it was 8,600. We always argued about how many.

It's not going to be 8,600, but it's not going to be zero. We are embarking on the most comprehensive change that the city has ever seen when it comes to increasing our housing stock and the people that will fill that housing stock. With all due respect, They're not going to all come here with bikes and they're not going to come here planning to walk the city to do their chores. They're going to come here with cars. and all I wanted to comment on last meeting and tonight is you got to please, you have to be realistic and you have to keep that in mind that you have to work to do both. work together to improve our bike lanes, to improve pedestrians. But you also have to keep in mind that we have an awful lot of people. It's like over 11%. Thank you, Councilor Wright. of an increase that's going to have a profound effect.

Please don't lose sight of that.

Thank you, Councilor Gentile. That concludes our discussion on that item. We have four more items to go. Next, again, Chair Albright.

uh this one i hope goes a little bit easier i hope so too mr president so this item is by the way the vote on the last item was eight to zero in the report so

We'll correct the report if need be, but that's not a problem. I'm sure Mr. Williston will speak to the question.

is 317-25, which is, it's Councilor Albight requesting review and discussion of the conceptual plan for the Newton Highlands Village Improvement Project prior to advancing to final design phase. This came about because the mayor and the commissioner were concerned that there was not enough support for this project and they wanted to be sure that the council was interested in moving forward towards final design. and that's how that docket item came about. We discussed this at two meetings, one on October 22nd and one on October 29th. and the plan began as an accessibility project, interestingly enough, because the Newton Highlands T Station was being renovated.

and to match the accessibility that was planned for that Newton Highlands station, the decision was made that we should go to Newton Highlands as the next village that was enhanced after I guess West Newton was the one right before this. The commissioner explained in the meeting that the initiative began as an accessibility project focusing on overcoming the steep topography the long crossing distances and other barriers that make it difficult for people with mobility challenges to navigate the Newton Highlands area. It then evolved into a broader vision that addresses not only accessibility but also traffic, economy, safer bicycle and pedestrian connections, improved parking, beautification, traffic signals, and expanding the green infrastructure. And by green infrastructure, they mean the issues having to do with water retention and stormwater retention. We had two meetings where the consultants presented their plans.

It's a significantly larger project than either West Newton or Newtonville. because it has Lincoln Street and Walnut Street going up into the new intersection onto Center Street and then a few of the side streets. So it's a significantly larger project. The project which became part of the issue has been funded with ARPA funds. Approximately $500,000 has already been spent. I'll speak about this in a minute, but a little bit more than the 500,000 has already been spent. And the question is, should the rest of the money be spent to continue to final design? and a reminder that the final design does come back to the Council at 25%, 50% and 100% design. um counselors ask questions about the time frame for the final design and it's that this ARPA money has to be spent by next December

and the idea, it related to the fact that the money is only here for planning, but not for operations. So the question was raised, where's the operations money going to come from once we have a final design? and the Mass Works. We've had a great deal of success with Mass Works grants. And the idea would be to be able to give an indication of our interest to apply for a MassWorks grant in the spring. And then a final design would be submitted as a grant to MassWorks in the early winter next year, but probably November, December timeframe. Let's see. I'll make sure I'm covering everything I need to cover. So there were several points of contention that were brought up frequently with the Newton Highlands Area Council.

Undergrounding the wires in Newton Highlands was something that was greatly desired by the area council. There was a bit of a controversy over how much it costs to do the undergrounding. There were members of the area council who felt that the plan could be developed for $75,000. Unfortunately, there was a memo from a meeting with the commissioner and some of her engineering staff with Eversource to show that it costs $750,000 to do a design. but there is a controversy over the cost of this plan to do the planning even and that the undergrounding itself would probably cost in the neighborhood of six or seven million dollars which just adds to the amount of money that could be spent on this project.

This is an ongoing controversy, has not yet been settled, but I note that there is a meeting with members of the Area Council with Town of Weston, which did a project similar to this. that they redid their town center and they undergrounded the wires. And so members of the town of Weston will be meeting to discuss this and the town of Weston did have a significant override to pay for all of that. um okay was there enough public input was another question that the area council raised significantly that councillors raised and there were a number of public meetings, but for many, for various reasons, members felt that there wasn't enough public input. Let's see, we funded it with, yep, yep, yep.

So after the second meeting, the vote of the committee was, let me get the vote right. No, that's the wrong one. I don't know if it's seven or eight.

The committee approved subject to conditions 5-0.

Yes. So we developed a motion. There were two choices that were presented to the committee at our October 29th meeting. one was to reject the plan have it stop and the second one was to move the plan forward but with a series of conditions and I hope that the memo with all those conditions there were 22 of them were in the packet and I hope you had a chance to review it and that was voted 7-8-0 in favor of moving this forward After that meeting on October 29th, there was still concern by some of the Ward 6 counselors that the conditions were not strong enough and that there was concern that this plan was not really exactly what we wanted. We had a meeting this morning with a representative of our incoming mayor. Josh Morse was there. Jonathan Yeoh was there.

The commissioner was there along with her deputy. and the three ward six counselors were there along with Councilor Farrell and I was there. and we discussed is this plan, is this Newton Highlands plan going to be something that we will all be proud of and is this the right way to spend ARPA money? The end, I will let Councilor Bixby tell you the final condition that was added to to the conditions that were on the approval of this plan. And if you call on her next, she will tell you what that was.

That's the report, Chair Albright, correct?

Yes, I just want to make sure that everyone knows that the vote was a sense of the committee to move forward. And that was the 8-0 vote. So we're not approving any design. It was a sense of our committee. And if we choose this as a council, it would be a sense of the council that we would like to move forward. and I think if you call in Councilor Bixby, she will tell you how this was qualified.

My records indicate that was a 5-0 vote. Five.

Thank you very much. It's wrong here.

But that's fine. So that's the report. I'm going to entertain a motion by Councilor Bixby. I expect a motion to amend the proposal. Go ahead, please, Councilor Bixby.

Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you, Chair Albright, for the report and for facilitating this process. Before I start, I don't think I've asked for extra time so far in my term on the council. Can I have three minutes, please?

We'll give Councilor Bixby three minutes more from her initial three minutes. All in favor, please say aye.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

OK, so I'm rising to introduce a condition to the vote, as Chair Albright just outlined, which came out of an agreement this morning to establish a working group. and to charge this group with an initial report on whether to continue the current project scope or redirect the remaining planning funding to another ARPA funded contract. Up until moments before this meeting, I have heard questions and concerns about the project from residents and from business owners. I've also heard over the past three years a lot of support for the goals of this project, accessibility, environmental benefits, beautification. I am hopeful that the working group can use the next few months to weigh the concerns, questions, and worthwhile overarching goals and determine the best way to proceed. As Chair Albright outlined, what we as a council are voting on tonight is a conceptual plan, goals of accessibility, environmental benefits, and neighborhood enhancements, and areas of the Village Center that could see work.

I believe there's broad consensus on these goals both in the neighborhood and the council and I support moving forward on them tonight. Now many of us both in the neighborhood and on the council have seen slides depicting what the scale, phasing, and contents of a project in Newton Highlands may ultimately look like. And there's definitely less consensus on these pieces. and that's why we're proposing adding in the working group to ensure neighborhood representation from the very beginning of these next planning stages. The working group will first make an initial report on whether or not this project should go forward at all at this time. If they recommend not to go forward for now, the consensual plans can sit on a shelf until such time as both the city and the neighborhood are ready. If they determine it is worthwhile to proceed, this will give time to express interest in grants, and there will be a dedicated representative group incorporated into the remaining planning process

to bring their perspective and the perspective of the various interested parties in the neighborhood into the planning and to bring plans and ideas back to the neighborhood for feedback over the course of that process. I'm grateful for the flexibility and creativity of our DPW leadership, my fellow Ward 6 counselors, and our colleague from Ward 8 and Public Facilities Chair Albright for creating this path which allows for neighborhood input and decision making. The exact text is up there. I can read it if needed.

So your motion is to add that language to the docket item proposal. All right. Is there a second for that motion? Seconded by Councilor Kalis. Is there any discussion on this amendment? Wright. Discussion on the amendment only. Go ahead please, Councilor Wright.

Thank you, President. Who and how is going to be on the working group? That's part of the amendment.

I think that's directed through the president to the maker of the motion. Go ahead, please, Councilor Bixby.

So the text above says the working group shall include appropriate city staff, elected officials, and representatives of the Newton Highlands community as designated by the mayor in consultation with the mayor-elect. So I think some of these details are still to be determined, but there's a established process for creating working groups that I was assured by many people who've been through this from different parts of the city would happen very quickly.

Okay, thank you. Does that answer your question? Okay, anyone else? Yes. Councilor Malakie, Kalis, Lucas, Block. Hold on, I'll get you out. Malakie, Kalis. Councilor Kalis might have been before me. Kalis.

I appreciate that, Councilor Malakie. So I would just suggest for the working group that you make it larger than usual just to make sure that there's more voices there. I would also suggest that you think about on the working group a cap for the dollars spent in the budget because We are years into this. There's 22 plus, I think, four new conditions from the neighborhood group. So 26, it's almost like we're starting over. So I feel like there needs to be some reining in of what actually is going to happen and what can be done with the with the remaining 400 and something thousand dollars. So that's my suggestions, thank you.

Just to be clear here, These are ARPA funds. The mayor, current mayor, and then myself as a future mayor have control over the funding and how the money is spent. I appreciate the suggestion, Vice President Kalis, which is to be very sensitive about using consultant time and therefore city or ARPA money on this work. And I think that that is well stated and at least acknowledged by me. Okay. Councilor Malakie, Lucas, Block, and Danberg. And then Farrell, sorry.

Yeah, so I had a kind of similar question. I was going to ask and hope that this would sort of free spending on the consultant while the working group discusses whether What has been done so far is what they want to pursue. Is there no chance of that?

Could you speak into the microphone a little bit more, Councilor Malakie?

I was hoping that this would sort of freeze spending on the consultant while the working group looks at the plan so far rather than continuing to spend money on it.

Again, I think that's all suggestions for the working group and the administration, the current and the future administration, and that's very well noted.

and I just wanted to also suggest make sure to include representatives of the businesses in the Highlands.

Of the whom?

Make sure to include representatives of the business community in the Highlands on the working group.

Bixby, I think the intent with the use of the word community is to be fairly broad. Is that right? And the suggestion for the mayor and the mayor-elect myself is to reach out broadly to the community. All right. Thank you, Councilor Malakie. It is a little awkward to speak about oneself in the third person. Councilor Lucas.

I have no problem with the, I have a little problem with the wording up there. I have a question to Councilor Bixby through the chair. Will members of the Newton Highlands Area Council be on the working group?

Bixby. I mean, I can respond to that, Councilor Lucas. I think that's certainly appropriate. I'm not going to commit At least I wouldn't commit to the exact composition, but that's the type of suggestion that's very well noted and makes a lot of sense.

I hope you will consider it.

Fair enough. It's on the record, so I note that. Councilor Block, Danberg, Farrell, forgive me.

Well, Councilor Lucas stole my question. I'm a little surprised that the Newton Highlands Area Council is not specifically mentioned in this item. And I think that's a weakness. That's all I'll say on the matter.

Okay. Councilor Danberg.

Thank you. Yes, by all means, the business community and the area council will be members of this working group. I'm just, in the interest of time, I'm going to mention a couple of things that were either details that I could add that weren't spoken about or other things that other people have not said. I think that Bixby and Albright have done a very good job in explaining what the issue is and what the working group will be and what this motion is all about. I believe the number that we spoke about this morning in the meeting

as having been spent, actually I've got the number that is left and that was $389,000 left. The report will have a 90-day deadline. It actually says there and says that in the last line I now see. The deadline would be March 31 because If this working group decides that they want to move forward with it, we need to have enough time that would be three quarters of the year to be able to encumber and spend the funds because the ARPA funds must be spent by the end of the year 2026. And another important thing is that

In regards to how would we fund the actual project, the administration and planning department and DPW feel strongly that because of the improvements in the T that the MBTA is doing with accessibility at the Newton Highlands T-Stop, that there is a very good chance that we would be able to get state funding to do this project once we have a plan. So we have a concept plan now. We're going to give three months to decide whether We're going to move forward. We hope we do. We certainly in Ward 6 hope we do, and we're unanimous in that. And when we have a plan,

We've got the three quarters to develop the plan, to spend the money, and then the city would start to go for grants.

Thank you, Councilor Danberg. I have Councilor Farrell, then Lobovits. I don't see anyone else after that.

Thank you, Mr. President. Many of the issues have been covered, but I just want to be clear because there's been A lot of conversations have been confusing about this. The working group that will be established will work on no budget. It may be necessary, according to the group that met this morning, to use some of the remaining $380,000, but it is clear that the intent of this is not to use the overwhelming amount of the remaining dollars and that The part of the intention of the working group is to look at the existing plan which has grown over time and try to come to a consensus

And we are asking the administration and the mayor-elect to make certain that all appropriate agencies are represented. so that we can finally have one conversation at the same time with everybody in the room. That's been a bit of the problem over the past three years. So I think and I'm hopeful that this meets the interests that have been expressed particularly by the Newton Highlands Area Council, and that have been quietly expressed by some of the other organizations and groups that have been involved in this. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Councilor Farrell. Next, Councilor Lobovits, and then I think we'll take this up in a vote.

So I just want to make one additional point. The March 31st date in part is because at that point, as I understand it, If there is money left over, we would be able to, meaning the new mayor, would be able to shift that money to another project in the city. and if we went beyond that, it would be either impossible or very difficult to shift the money. So that's in part why the March 31st date is there. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Lopez. Councilor Albright.

Thank you, Councilor Lobovits. The other reason that that date was important was that an indication for the MassWorks grant is due in the spring. So this was an indication of knowing whether or not a grant was going to be applied for. So that's a perfect date for that as well.

Thank you. All right. Seeing no other discussion, we are voting on the motion to amend first. and then we'll come back if that's approved and vote on the full item so let's call the roll on the motion to amend a yes or an aye vote is in favor of the amendment a no or a nay vote is against it

Councilor Albright.

Aye.

Councilor Baker. Aye. Councilor Bixby.

Aye.

Councilor Block.

Aye.

Councilor Danberg. Aye. Councilor Downs. Aye. Farrell. Aye. Councilor Gentile. Aye. Councilor Getz. Aye. Councilor Greenberg.

Aye.

Councilor Grossman. Aye. Humphrey.

Aye.

Councilor Kalis.

Yes.

Councilor Kelley.

Aye.

Councilor Krintzman. Aye. Larry. Aye. Councilor Lipof. Aye. Councilor Lobovits. Aye. Councilor Lucas. Aye. Malakie.

Aye.

Councilor Micley. Aye. Councilor Oliver. Aye. Councilor Wright.

Aye.

President Laredo.

Aye.

The ayes are 22, the nays are zero. The amendment is adopted.

All right. With three more items to go, our new colleagues-elect may be wondering what they signed up for. Pardon? Oh, thank you. I'm just trying to move us along so quickly, Councilor Humphrey. So we are going to take up the main item. Is there any further discussion on the main item? All right, again, I think we, yes, Councilor Lucas. See, I was trying to avoid this, Councilor Lucas, and now Councilor Humphrey made me go through this motion.

Oh, good, sitting back there. Maybe I'll... Anyways. I am not going to support the main item. I'm going to vote no on it. I've had... I attended the last two... Newton Highlands Area Council meetings, and they are not fans of any part of this planning process. They are not fans of the actual design and what they any part of this. They have not liked any part of this at all. And when you don't have buy-in from the local community, in this case, this is the Newton Highlands Area Council, it is time to start over. It really is. What I understand what a yes vote does is that a yes vote continues the process. And A no vote essentially kills the project or the process, it kills the planning, and it would be appropriate to start over.

In gambling terms, you're chasing good money after bad. And I don't think we should be doing this. So I am going to vote no on the main item.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Lucas. Councilor Farrell?

I think this gives the community the opportunity to have a serious discussion about what they want to do in Newton Highlands. It is not throwing good money after bad because we have clearly said the only money of the remaining $380,000 that we agreed to expend is if the working group itself says We need a specific amount of money to bring somebody in to answer a particular question. And we are not throwing that money after. There may be several thousand dollars, but it's not going to be all 380. Secondly, and more importantly, I don't believe that the Newton Highlands Area Council is, they are concerned about what the process has been without question. but they are not concerned or they don't disregard all of the advancements that have made with the plan.

There are aspects of this plan that they do think are good and can be useful to the community. the area. So I'm going to vote yes to give all interested groups in Newton Highland the opportunity to come together over a very structured process or a very structured amount of time with a clear intent to come back to us and say, OK, we think there's a way to move forward or we don't think there's a way to move forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Farrell. I have Councilor Kalis, Danberg, Leary.

I fully agree with Councilor Farrell there. One other point is that the funding, there are things that need to be done in and Newton Highlands. And whether the working group decides it's going to be minimal work or they're going to try to maximize the work, I want these dollars going to Newton Highlands so they can improve that area. If we stop the process right now, The mayor takes that money. It can be spent anywhere. And I'm just saying, I think it should be focused on Newton Highlands right now.

Thank you. Councilor Danberg, then Leary.

Thank you, Councilor Farrell, for articulating exactly what I have in my mind also. and Councilor Kalis. This is not throwing good money after bad. I'm very sorry to hear that comment because it could not be less of a correct characterization The process that we have just voted on, which is creating a working group. is what is going to bring this community together and allow what should have been done from the very beginning. And that is that a working group, if we had had a working group from the very beginning, we would not be here arguing this right now. So I will be voting yes. This is something that the Newton Highlands

It has many problems with pedestrian safety. with bike safety, with car safety. And if you've ever gone into Newton Highlands and been behind the car that made a U-turn in front of Rodney Barker Square, you'll agree with me. So let's move this forward and be done with it.

Thank you, Councillor Danberg. Councillor Leary.

Thank you, Mr. President. I want to associate my comments with Councilor Farrell. Those were very eloquent and thoughtful comments. And I also feel like If this is important that we move forward, it is a process. Newton Highlands is one of my favorite villages, and I certainly love their village day. and I want to have the area council also involved and I think the working group is an excellent idea but this is a good project there's a lot of good things in it and to say that it's good money after bad, I also think is not right at all. So I will be voting yes. Thank you.

Anyone else wish to be heard on the main item? Seeing none, now we will take a vote on the main item. Please call the roll, Mr. Clerk.

Councilor Albright.

Aye.

Baker. Aye. Councilor Bixby. Aye. Councilor Block.

Aye.

Danberg, Aye. Councilor Downs, Aye. Councilor Farrell, Aye. Councilor Gentile, Aye. Councilor Getz, Aye. Councilor Greenberg, Aye. Grossman.

Aye.

Councilor Humphrey.

Aye.

Councilor Kalis. Aye. Councilor Kelley. Aye. Councilor Krintzman. Aye. Councilor Leary. Aye. Lipof. Aye. Councilor Lobovits. Aye. Councilor Lucas.

No.

Councilor Malakie.

No.

Councilor Micley. Oliver.

Aye.

Councilor Wright.

Aye.

President Laredo.

Aye.

In this motion, the ayes are 20, the nays are two. Motion carries.

We next go to the third item of unfinished business. This comes out of the Zoning and Planning Committee. This is item 44-24. And let me note at the outset, colleagues, this requires 16 votes to pass. Two-thirds of the entire council, not two-thirds of those present and voting. and I do note that we have two members absent this evening so in order to pass this evening of the 16 of the 22 members who are here, we will need 16 affirmative votes. I want everyone to be clear on that from the outset. Go ahead, Chair Baker.

Thank you, Mr. President and colleagues. This is one of those items that the Zoning and Planning Committee has spent a considerable amount of time working over with the assistance of the planning department and a consultant to the department. We've had seven meetings as the docket item will indicate spread over the year. And we concluded our deliberations with a recommendation for a variety of changes to our inclusionary zoning ordinance. I'd asked the planning department to prepare a memo when it was submitted. It was supposed to be in the packet again this time, but it was. prepared for the last meeting that went into the substance of these amendments in detail. Unless any member of the council wishes me to go into that detail orally,

I propose not to do so, but to report the item as the committee recommended it with these various changes that are outlined in the memorandum dated October 29th to the Council from Barney Heath, Director of Planning and Development. My understanding from what happened at the last meeting because of the postponement, there is an amendment that is going to be proposed to a component of the recommendation of the committee. And the maker of that amendment is entitled to be heard. and to make the recommendation that she feels warranted. However, I should indicate at the outset because of the length of this meeting and the degree to which members wish to be able to discuss the substantive items that if the motion is made to amend and then is made to recommit the item

I would accept that motion and take it back into committee to deal with at our next meeting at the end of the month so that we could report it out because it is an item, excuse me, it is an amendment that we did not discuss in the committee itself we discussed a different framework and I think that that might be fruitful so I'll leave it at that but the committee report is again on page 262 and the final vote was 503 abstentions.

Who is making this motion?

Councilor Wright, I believe.

All right. Councilor Wright, go ahead, please.

I agree with Councilor Baker. And this is something that we didn't discuss specifically. back in committee. And doing it here on the floor, it's going to be a much longer later night. So I move to recommit it. My amendment was at the last page of the planning department. which is what we would like memo, which we'd like to.

So you've made a motion to recommit to the Zoning and Planning Committee. Is there a second for that motion? and Councilor Lobovits is second to that motion. Is there any discussion on the motion to recommit? All right, seeing none, I think we can do this on a voice vote, colleagues. All in favor of recommittal, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? It's unanimous, it's recommitted to the Zoning and Planning Committee. The expectation, Chair Baker, is it will come back to us hopefully on our December 1st meeting.

That's correct. I don't want to have a situation where we're taking up a matter of great substance like this item at our last meeting. I want to make sure that we do it at the first meeting in December.

I fully agree with that sentiment. And just as a word to all of us, I would hope that we take up really all substantive items if we can at our December 1st meeting. and holding over to the December 15th meeting either things that could not be resolved on the 1st or what I'd call more routine items that we could just pass along quickly. We don't want to end at the end of the term with items that are somewhat in limbo and then have to be restarted again. Okay, we have two more items to go. 20624, Chair Krintzman for Programs and Services.

Thank you, Mr. President. This is the changes to the rules of the city council. And in a moment, I'm going to defer to Councilor Oliver. who led the subcommittee. But I will report out that the vote in programs and services was 7-0 subject to second call. Again, I'm going to defer to Councilor Oliver, who led the subcommittee. If you don't like the changes, please understand that it was Councilor Oliver who led the subcommittee. And if you do, please understand that it was I who appointed Councilor Oliver.

I hope he gets the credit too, Chair Krintzman. Go ahead, Council Oliver.

Great. Thank you for that wonderful introduction to the item, Councillor Krintzman. I will point out, however, you you did vote for most of them. But anyway, So colleagues, before I go through the process here of reading to you what it is has already been written in the packet, I'm going to forego that and I'm going to assume that everyone here or trust that everyone here has read through them. I know that we are or I am expecting an amendment for an additional edit to the rules. But before we get to that, Mr. President and Chair Krintzman, Are there any other comments or questions on the items that are here? Because there's only one that I really wanted to kind of speak to myself.

Why don't you speak to the item you want to speak to, and then if there are questions for you, Chair Oliver, they can be directed through me as the president, and I think if... Humphrey, I know wants to make an amendment. If we could hold that till we deal with the other stuff, that'd be great.

Go ahead, please. Fantastic. So the item that I wanted or the change that I wanted to direct everyone's attention to is on page 23. of the rules document itself. And that has to do with this little thing called the City Council Caucus. During which the city council elects both of our both our president and our vice president. We discussed a change in edit that would allow or the presiding officer of that elections process to allow for a recess between what I'm calling the series of votes, as opposed to the rounds of votes that happen between two or more candidates. And for those of you who have been through this process, I think you know what I mean.

There is a pause between rounds as I'm calling it to accommodate for a recess to allow new nominations to happen. but this change is going to allow the presiding officer to accept or to allow a recess to happen between these series of votes between the same candidates because we take three votes each round with the same candidates. Thank you. trying to explain that the best way I can because I think it's kind of a slightly confusing process. But I think Councilor Humphrey has an interesting perspective on this because this happened exactly while he was one of the candidates.

Hold on a second. Are you all set with the report?

I am.

I'm going to recognize Councilor Humphrey, then Councilor Albright, then Councilor... Kelley, and anyone else who wish to speak. Councilor Humphrey, go ahead. On the main report, we'll save the amendment to later.

Yeah, this is just briefly to help clarify again. for those, some people weren't in the room for that and some people were, but may have forgotten. I'll just recap that last time we had, three consecutive rounds of voting between two candidates. Then we recessed. There were new sets of candidates, three consecutive rounds of voting there, no break. and so on, right? And so the proposal here is just to allow for at least some possibility of break and deliberation with the same set of candidates after one of those rounds has become clear. It's also potentially useful in a scenario where you actually and so on.

you know maybe it doesn't prevent the possibility of deadlocking but it might help avoid some of that and it just seems sensible to let people now that they know where Everyone has shook out on something. You know, let's have another discussion about who's going to get what patronage. All right.

There's not much patronage from this city council, Councilor Humphrey. Councilor Albright.

Humphrey just answered my question.

Great, thank you. Councilor Kelley and then Krintzman.

Thank you, Mr. President, through you to either Councilor Oliver or Baker. A related question to the changes if I missed it. Does it also allow for voting by phone or remotely at the caucus? Because in the past, when I was elected, it was not allowed. I was out of town becoming a grandmother for the first time. and I was not allowed to participate, have a voice or a vote. So is that something that you folks looked at this time?

Go ahead, Councilor Oliver.

As far as I'm aware, there is no accommodation in the rules that either, and correct me if I go astray because I have not seen this. I see nothing that precludes someone from participating remotely nor have I seen anything that explicitly says the opposite.

Can I ask a question to Councilor Kelley? Was this prior to COVID? Yes. That's probably why. Mr. Clerk, am I correct that Post-COVID, given the changes in state law that remote participation would be permitted?

That is correct. Specifically for the caucus. For the caucus. Mr. President.

Go ahead, Councilor Baker.

I think it's worth clarifying that the caucus is different from the council. Let me, if I can explain a little bit. If I can, is that agreeable?

Go right ahead.

OK. So for those new members elect of the council, you're about to enter a process that It sounds a little strange to you, and it is strange because it was designed to remedy a difficulty in which I personally was involved. Many years ago, the city council has to elect a president by tradition by 13 affirmative votes. However, because there is nothing in the charter that says that you need 13 affirmative votes, Council adopted as a rule of decision in the prior election as part of the caucus that you would need 13 votes. and is a way of making sure that whoever is going to be the council president has 13 votes. We have a process where if the election takes place in the council itself, not in a caucus, but in the formal council itself, The council goes into a committee of the whole. and the Committee of the Whole conducts the deliberations and the vote.

And if and only if the Committee of the Whole reaches a conclusion of 13 affirmative votes, does it report out to the full council, which the full council then votes for. In the full council, because as the clerk has indicated, when we're operating in the regular council, you have remote meetings. But the practice and the tradition has been that in the caucus, you need to be present personally. Now, this is an interesting question we could refer to the law department for resolution because the caucus is not in fact meeting of the council formally because it is a caucus. The caucus elect is all of those folks who are elected to office, but you're not yet fully sworn to take on that role. So it is not formally a meeting of the city council. However, the law department ruled that the open meeting law applied in terms of the requirement for votes to be open and public. In the past, they used to be secret ballots.

So I just want to indicate that at least the tradition for the caucus is that everyone has to be present in order to count. because that would have been a very interesting conversation in a different way. But as far as the role of the specific recommendation to allow some opportunity for Gentile, Remembers, We had a long conversation about who should be president went almost 80 days into the council, the formal council. So that is why this particular rule exists. The only other thing that I would indicate that if the Conversation occurred in the full council. Normally speaking, the chair votes last.

The presiding officer and the president is voting votes last. and I would think that it might be useful for what happens in the caucus for that to occur too but that's not formally part of the rule of recommendation.

So I think based on Councilor Baker's statement One ought to assume that you do need to be present at the caucus in order to vote. unless, A, the caucus says that's not necessary, in which case it's fine, or B, there's some change to the rules. And right now, the rules is silent on that, just to be clear. So, Councilor Kelley, your comment is noted. I've got Councilor Oh, I'm sorry. Did you want to speak to the point, Councilor Humphrey? Go ahead, Councilor Humphrey, and then I'll recognize.

Yeah. So, you know, I'll just this is my sort of advisory opinion, for lack of a better term, since I'm not going to be part of this caucus. I don't necessarily know that it does need to be formally changed. If we think there's some ambiguity that should be corrected and that's the will of the council to make that correction, I think that makes a lot of sense. I think our practices have changed overall as a result of COVID. But the other thing is, I could be wrong on this, but technically the function of the caucus is to basically work out an informal agreement ahead of inauguration day. and if that's the rationale which then allows people to technically miss inauguration day without worrying about you know oh someone's going to change the outcome from the caucus because they counted up and realized someone was going to be absent on January 1st which would be kind of a ridiculous way of doing things. I don't think there's a real prohibition on participating virtually. I think there's no reason to say that going forward that that's not allowed.

Maybe we should clarify it in the text of the rules. Personally, I would recommend if you can be there in person, it's going to be much more effective to be there in person. But I think we should be allowing people to participate remotely if need be. in part because this is a unofficial sort of We're not taking a partisan, so to speak, vote on January 1st because of the decision at the caucus. obviously someone who's absent for the caucus unless they are deliberately not participating, you know, because they don't want to vote. their opinion still matters for the purposes of deciding what happens on January 1st. So I think we should allow remote participation going forward. If that needs to be in writing, we can do that I think relatively quickly right now.

Krintzman, and then Albright.

Thank you, Mr. President. I want to speak to, I'll get to that through my initial comment, which has to do with the effectiveness of the rules. One of the reasons the subcommittee reported out in the programs and services and so on. explicitly stated an effective date. But again, the intention was always for the next council. The way that actually happens is that at the beginning of the council term, the city council adopts rules. And usually it's about something about continuing the rules as they, you know, came from the last council. In this case, it would essentially be either as they came from the last council or as amended by the last council. My suggestion, because the caucus takes place even before that, is that at the beginning of the caucus, or let me first say that at the beginning of the caucus, there is a similar vote, that the caucus takes a vote

about the rules that are going to govern the caucus proceedings, which are taken from the council rules. I would suggest that at that time, it is the appropriate time for any member of the caucus, a councilor, councilor-elect, all councilors-elect, to specify in that motion that the rules governing the council-elect, I will also say that. nowhere in the rules is remote participation contemplated, including by the committees. And we all know that that's allowed by the full committees. So I think we should have taken it up as a subcommittee. I blame Councilor Oliver obviously for the fact that we didn't. as a member of the subcommittee. But I do think it's an appropriate consideration for the next council.

All right. Councilor Albright.

Because we don't have 100% agreement on whether remote participation is allowed or not at the caucus, I would like to make the motion that we include that language in the rules for the caucus, that we allow remote participation.

OK. So is there a second? Hold on. Hold on. First, I'm going to entertain a second for the motion. Seconded by Councilor Humphrey. Then I'm going to recognize Councilor Baker. Then I'm going to recognize Councilor Danberg on the motion. Go ahead, please.

It's a small point, but the caucus has to adopt its own rules. And so if you want to do that, that would be appropriate to do at the caucus. You can't bind the caucus until the caucus actually acts. You create the rules for the council, The council will operate with remote participation if it comes to the council, but the caucus doesn't have any rules until it adopts them. So I just want to clarify that I think that's an appropriate motion, but it's not for amending the rules because that's not It's already built into the rules if we are actually in the full council when we do this.

Councillor Danberg.

Thank you. Although I also will not be participating in the caucus, I'd like to bring up that I think it would be important to deal with this prior to that time because I'm sure there are people here that would like to make plans. So I would just encourage us to take this up prior to the caucus. or tonight if possible.

Do you want to respond, Councilor Oliver?

Well, my comment, again, I'll start with the fact that Councillor Krintzman didn't remind me to take up this particular item.

You know, this infighting doesn't seem to happen in any other committees. Duly noted. Go ahead.

Hey, we have a lot of fun in programs and services, let me tell you. So I'm happy to work with not only Councilor Baker and whomever else who wants to participate and work with the clerk's office to ensure that at the onset of the caucus, the rules that if they are indeed adopted specific to the caucus, that that item is included. meaning that remote participation is allowed. I'm happy to take that on. It feels to me like it's slightly separate from the rules, but obviously clearly related.

Okay, hold on. Okay, thank you. I have Councilor Lucas and Humphrey.

Well, I'm confused. I'm sorry. I agree with Councilor Albright's and Councilor Humphrey's motion to include remote participation in our city council rules for the caucus. But if I understood correctly, Councilor Baker says that is not appropriate. Is that correct?

Question to the President and to Councilor Baker.

Remote participation in the council is not part of our rules in the first place. If you want to have it in the caucus, I think the sense of the meeting tonight would be that it should be in are available, but it's not a rule. It's just part of the way. In other words, the rules that are being made here, you can't make rules for the caucus. You can only make rules for the council. I want to make that distinction. But I think the sense of what I'm hearing around the room is that people should be able to participate remotely. And I hear the chair of the rural subcommittee saying that he would work to that end.

So Councilor Baker, I just want to ask you a question on this procedurally. Oliver's promulgator set forth a series of changes to our rules. One of those changes changes the way we allow proposed changes, changes the way we allow for breaks between certain rounds of voting for president. That would seem to me to be a caucus procedural rule, not a city council rule. Am I missing something?

It would be a city council rule. What would happen, just to be clear, what is being amended is the city council rules.

Can I just add that I'd like to resign as the chair of the rules subcommittee at this point in time?

Pardon? Can I suggest this? Rather than having a debate back and forth, I'm going to ask for a five-minute recess. Let everyone stretch. I'd like a quick consultation with Councilors Humphrey, Baker, and Oliver. I want to get clarity on this, and then we'll move forward. Do we have all in favor of recess, please say aye. Aye. We're in recess for five minutes.

and so on.

Thanks for watching!

Thank you.

Thank you for watching!

and so on.

All right, colleagues, I did say five minutes, but we've resolved the issues, so let's try to move it on since it's quarter of 10. You can all take your seats, please. So I will try to summarize where I think we are. After consulting with counselors Humphrey and Baker and Krintzman and Oliver, I think the consensus is as follows. The rules of the council are just that, the rules of the council. the rules relating to the caucus are meant to be in place so that at the caucus there's not debate about what goes in the rules

or how you process it and instead you can have a very simple motion to adopt what is in the rules of the council regarding the caucus as the caucus rules. Theoretically, A caucus could change its rules if it so chose, but the idea is not to have that kind of fight or deliberation in the caucus itself, but rather to set it out impartially before there's some kind of vote on the president and vice president in a manner that seemingly is fair to everyone. So with that, we have a motion to amend Albright. Councilor Humphrey, do you want to take a shot at just adding the language you had suggested and see if Councilor Albright will adopt that as a friendly amendment?

A little reluctant to spot the specific spot that it needs to go in at this point. And I know we have other stuff to take up as well. But I think somewhere it basically says shall convene and then say in person or remotely. So we can we can. Hammer out, obviously, the exact spot that it goes.

Well, I think what we would do is the motion is to add language regarding the caucus to allow participation remotely or in person. And we'll add that language, Mr. Clerk and Deputy Clerk appropriately. All right. Okay, so can we do, I think we can do the amendment on a voice vote. All in favor of the amendment, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Are there any other? Oh, Councilor Grossman.

I have a question through you to the Sub-committee chair. So I brought up quickly the point about deliberation at the caucus. And I understand that there was some Discussion and the Rules Subcommittee about that. Part of my question comes out of my experience in the last four caucuses where there's not A clear moment where deliberation is called for. And there's, I think, usually sort of an awkward moment where some folks wonder if discussion is merited or not merited. and where this rules change that we're talking about is talking about permitting a recess to my mind that's essentially saying so we're talking about going off and talking privately and then you know sort of resolving things out of the public eye

but Councilor Baker also reminded us tonight that we have to cast these votes publicly because of open meeting law considerations. So the implication that we would go off and deliberate privately versus how we would debate publicly is something that I'm trying to wrestle with in my own mind. I don't even know that I have a clear view. I just was curious based on this little interaction we had. what the discussion was in the- Councilor Oliver, through the president.

Great. Let me, I'll kind of continue if I may. I highly recommend someone, running the rules subcommittee. It is a lot of fun. And if I may.

Councilor Krintzman's volunteered that session.

Yeah, exactly. Actually, I might volunteer him. But I'll do my best to recap the conversation that we had about the ability to have what I will call conferences on the side. within the structure of open meeting law because it is, according to our law department, relevant during the caucus. And it's just that. that small conversations on the side are in limited numbers acceptable. were there to be a group of 13, for example, or more counselors stepping to one side to have a conversation clearly off camera outside of the public eye, for example, that would be frowned upon. That would be a violation of open meeting law. And from that perspective, I'm certainly welcomed to any other perspectives there.

My understanding of the open meeting law, Councilor Grossman, is that If you have a quorum, which is more than 50%, 50% or more, you violate the open meeting law if you meet. three councillors want to talk about something and they're not a quorum that does not violate the open meeting law. Councillor Lucas.

Question on that particular instance, you could have Councilor-elects who have not been sworn in. Is that still an open meeting law violation?

You know, I don't know the answer to that. I would err on the side of assuming that councilors elect for this purpose would be part of the open meeting law process. Councilor Humphrey?

I think we discussed and sort of concluded it is very hard to figure out the answer to this and I think there had previously historically been back and forth between the law department and the League of Women Voters and who knows who else and it is hard because one of the things that I brought up in the discussion we had in committee is You're basically having serial deliberation all the way up until the point of the meeting, right? As to how many votes do I have or you have or somebody else have, right? So if we were being super strict about it, the whole entire thing doesn't make sense. And how would you be able to conduct your business on January 1st either, unless it's supposed to be a purely magical process by which someone obtains a majority without ever talking to anyone? So I think that the compromise essentially is that you have your votes publicly recorded by name, and that's about the best you can do under the situation.

Anybody else wish to be heard, Councilor Krintzman?

Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I think that the esteemed chair of the subcommittee stated it well, as I knew he would when I appointed him chair of the subcommittee.

What we've all seen- The love of this committee is just amazing. Go ahead.

um the what we've all seen is that you have three successive votes nothing changes and it it's kind of like the definition of insanity and so this change in the rules was intended to address that by saying, OK, we don't need to take three votes in a row, boom, boom, boom, where nothing changes. And if it's a deadlock tie, it's a deadlock tie all three times. So to allow for some discussions in between each of those votes without having to get new candidates necessarily. It is not an invitation to violate the open meeting law. but it is an invitation for folks to think about what they're doing and perhaps have a conversation with a couple of their colleagues.

Okay. Councilor Baker, then Kalis.

Let me just make one other comment. I think the thrust of Councilor Grossman's question was about deliberation, whether you could have deliberation in the caucus. and I think that the caucus allows conversation in the caucus about the candidates. I don't think it is that you are nominated and then vote. And deliberation has been sparse in the past, but it doesn't mean I think it's precluded as far as I'm concerned.

So. Councilor Kalis?

So what I'm concerned about is the specificity here, the details. Is the conversation, and this might be through the president, a question to the subcommittee chair, is the conversation by Dunn, led by the clerk where people are called on? Is it people just clumping up? And then for those who are not yet counselors and haven't been exposed to open meeting law, how are they supposed to know what open meeting law is? And it makes me just feel like we need to really figure this out with law So we don't have challenges after this and confusion to make sure we're doing it correctly.

So let me offer a suggestion here, Councilor Kalis. And I can't remember who mentioned this. It may have been Councilor Grossman. We have struggled with how the open meeting law interacts with the practicality, as it were, of trying to elect leadership of this council. because as Councilor Humphrey said, if you really avoided all serial communications, literally no one could put their name out there and say I'm running until the day of the council there'd be no discussions and it would that just logically doesn't make sense so what I would suggest is between now and the time of the caucus that President Emeritus, who is a senior member of the council,

confer with the law department and try to get some basic guidance as to what is permissible and what's not permissible at the caucus. that be provided to the councilors elect. And that way there's some form of legal guidance here rather than us trying to hash it out on the floor of the council. Councilor Krintzman?

fully support everything you just said. I just want to be clear. What the actual amendment in the rules says is that nothing prohibits the person presiding from calling up to a 10-minute recess during those votes. That's it. Okay, the rules formerly read as these must be consecutive votes. They must take place in succession. Nothing else is to happen. Boom, boom, boom, vote, vote, vote. that's where I thought we got into insanity we don't have to take a recess we don't have to pause but the rule allows explicitly now allows the presiding officer to call a recess up to 10 minutes and then everybody's back in. Now I think the discussions with the law department about what is or is not permissible, if perchance a recess is called, fully within the realm that we can get some clarity before December 4th on that.

Okay, anyone else before I entertain? So we have the motion to add the language. We've approved that by voice vote. We now, I think, are there any other questions on the rules before I turn to Councilor Humphrey, who I know has an amendment to offer as well? Pardon? We did just, didn't we just do the voice vote? We just did a voice vote on the amendment. Councilor Baker, you want to speak to one other item?

Just to be clear, for those who are new to the council, The tradition is the rules to elect is the presiding officer, the senior member of the council at the time of the council elect. As long as I'm still standing, I think I qualify. But I just want to be clear that There's no requirement that that be the case. I think that the rules of the caucus have to be adopted. I'll be glad to do some informal inquiry on the presumption that I'm still standing and the senior member are going to preside, but I don't want anybody to get any illusions that I'm automatic, so that's all.

Thank you, Councilor Baker. I can speak from experience that you've done an exemplary job on that role among many others. So thank you. Councilor Humphrey.

Thank you. So this is a motion to add an amendment to the overall reform package here. This is something that we didn't get worked in at a previous stage. And in fact, Councilor Oliver and I were still working out the exact language this afternoon on this. There's a copy on your desk. It's a short paragraph with red and strikethrough. So this is in section city committee reports. Everything that's not in red, plus the part that struck through is the current language. That is not well enforced currently, but it basically says that you're supposed to get the stuff dealt with in committee one way or another within a year. But then there's also a kind of vague thing that says or to ask for further time. It does not actually specify who you're asking for further time from. So that seemed like it needed to be cleaned up.

I was also suggesting that we tighten that down from one year to 180 days, approximately six months, on the basis that that is a quarter of the term. I think it's better than having an entire blackout year where you could docket something January 1st of the second year of the term and never have it come up to the city council. I think in most cases people would be pretty reasonable in committee if they felt like the work is not done on this item we need some additional time but it at least puts some pressure on the chair to not lose track of an item either right again you could have an item that's docketed in like June of the first year of the term and you might think oh I have plenty of time to get to that and then pretty soon it's June of the next year and oh shoot I forgot to deal with this and so if we shorten that to six months or 180 days, I think that would improve the processes. Again, there is a safety valve option here. And the other thing is,

If you knew at the beginning like this item is something that cannot possibly be dealt with in 180 days, you would be within your rights at the time it is docketed to move to suspend the rules to pre-extend that time and the full council could vote on that. So that's not, you know, affected by this as well if you knew in advance like this is just too big of an item. I'm not going to be able to get this done in my committee within the amount of time that is specified by the normal rules. so again there's sort of two components here but it's the 180 days change and then also that you are specifying that you are asking for further time from a majority of the committee and also keeping the language that is there now that indicates that the council actions approved, denied or no action necessary. You're at least the chair and the committee are at least discussing with the primary docket or before that's happening. So it's not just getting rammed through.

and this is sort of a step down compromise from an earlier discussion we had about possibly having a discharge petition system or something like that. There wasn't a lot of enthusiasm for that. So this is an alternative mechanism of just making sure that things are somewhat moving through and that there's some safeguards procedurally for democratic process. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Humphrey. There's a motion by Councilor Humphrey. Is there a second to the motion? seconded by Councilor Lobovits. Is there a discussion on the motion to amend? Councilor Baker.

So I want to applaud Councillor Humphrey for both thinking fresh about this issue and also including someone to whom the request can be made because the request was in our rules without anybody to whom it could be made. So I think that's a significant improvement. I just would prefer to keep it as a year simply because of the summer breaks and other things that may make it I think better to stay with what we currently have. That would be my preference if there's an opportunity to amend or that Humphrey would consider that a friendly amendment and just leave it a year, but make the other addition that he suggested.

So that's a request for a friendly amendment. That's up to you, Councilor Humphrey.

Yeah, I'm not really interested in considering that, although, of course, you know, the council is free to vote however they want on that. Again, I think there is some merit to saying that within 180 days the committee at least needs to put it on the agenda have a discussion and if the committee at that point says Yes, you can have more time or no, this item is done. And maybe it's even a no action necessary, but something gets dealt with at that point. Again, I think committee members will be reasonable if they feel that there is a genuine effort being made. This is a worthwhile item. We just need to do some more work on it. And I think that would address situations like oh this is falling within the summer and maybe we should deal with this in September or something like that.

So the request for a friendly amendment is rejected. What I'm going to suggest is we have the Amendment before us has been seconded. We're going to discuss it further if needed. We can vote on it. There can always be a motion to further amend after that. Any discussion on the motion by Councilor Humphrey? Yes, Councilor Leary.

I think Councillor Humphrey's motion is very appropriate and I do agree with the 180 days. That's just a time for the committee to sort of check in and they could also extend the time at that point. I do think that it behooves us to be as efficient as possible while still taking the time to do good work.

Thank you, Councilor Leary. Councilor Lucas?

Thank you. I will be brief. I would prefer the second change in red to from a majority of the committee and keep it at one year. So an agreement with Councilor Baker. So that is my preference.

But right now, we're still dealing with the motion. Anyone else in the motion? All right, let's see if we can do the motion to amend on a voice vote, and then any further motions to amend, of course, are in order. All in favor of Councilor Humphrey's motion to amend, please say aye. I opposed, two, three opposed, four opposed. Okay. All right, so we should do a roll call then if we're going to have that many opposed. So could you call the roll, please, on the motion to amend? Councilor Albright.

Aye.

Councilor Baker. No. Councilor Bixby. Aye. Councilor Block.

No.

Councilor Danberg. Aye. Downs. Aye. Councilor Farrell. No. Councilor Gentile. Councilor Getz. Greenberg. Aye. Councilor Grossman. Aye. Councilor Humphrey. Aye. Councilor Kalis.

No.

Councilor Kelley.

Aye.

Councilor Krintzman. No. Councilor Leary. Aye. Councilor Lipoff. Aye. Councilor Lobovits? Aye. Councilor Lucas? No. Councilor Malakie?

Aye.

Councilor Micley? Aye. Councilor Oliver?

Aye.

Wright.

Aye.

President Laredo.

Aye.

The ayes are 16, the nays are 6. Amendment is adopted.

Motion passes. Councilor Baker, do you want to make a further amendment?

Yes, I just think I want to be clear about it. I'd like to move that the year period as opposed to 180 days.

So you want to further amend what we just passed to strike six months or 180 days and change that to a year?

That's what our current rule provides. That's fine.

Just want to be clear. Is there a second for that? Seconded by Councilor Lucas. Is there any discussion on that further motion? Councilor Humphrey.

I just respectfully, I think we did just vote substantively on that question and the result was clear. I don't know why we would go back through and vote it again.

There's a motion and a second, so we're going to vote it one way or the other. Okay. Anyone else wish to discuss it? Councilor Krintzman?

Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. This was, to me, the objection part. I just think six months is very quick. I think a lot of things get docketed in the committees. There are things I know. that I take at least a year, if not 18 months to get to. And in part, that's because the sponsor's not ready. The sponsor has filed it. I keep checking in with the sponsor. Hey, do you want to discuss this? Do you want to discuss this? No, no, no. So a year felt better to me.

OK. All right, Councilor Kalis.

Yeah, I agree with Councilor Krintzman, and I'd love to hear from more of the chairs that have quite a bit of items that are in front of them. I mean, it... It seems to me that many items actually don't come up for quite a while because there's just a lot going on. And I'd rather allow for time instead of having these votes with the majority of the committee for the chairs to actually or plan out what they're planning for the year and have their own decision on when things come up. Otherwise, I think you're forcing things to happen and it could actually be more disjointed for committees because the chair is kind of hamstrung by this timing.

Councilor Oliver?

Well, my comments are going to be focused on the timeframe here. I think there's also there's a there's an additive element to this in my opinion and we talked about this fairly significant it's been a fair amount of time talking about it and that is simply This could drive other behaviors that everyone on the council needs to pay attention to. I think that Councilor Kalis just brought up one of those elements that's pretty important, as did Councilor Krintzman. If it does come to a point where there is a particular committee that has 50 items on their docket that they have to dispose of one way, shape, or form of the other, We as a body need to recognize that, as would the committee, because they're being asked to vote.

Should we extend the time here? Should we not? There has to be flexibility on both ends of this. I think that Councillor Humphrey's intent here is correct. but as a group, this is likely going to modify how we behave not only in committee, but as individual counselors. The intent here is not to, I think the term we were using was gum up the system, but to ensure that docket items are heard. in a relatively, you know, you name the timeframe, that's what we're doing right now. It does seem to me that it is important that any councilor here who dockets an item has the right to have that docket item heard. After all, they're representing residents.

They're representing the will of the people, so to speak. So I think that it's really kind of, this does come with a responsibility, not only as a committee member, but a counselor. But I do think that regardless of the timeframe, This does make sense. And as to the question, I'm not a chair of a full committee, but I have seen Councillor Baker go through the process routinely every two weeks What's in front of us? How are we going to parse these out? Are these big ticket items, small ticket items? Are they going to take a lot of time? Are they going to take a little bit of time? And involving the committee members in a bit of that process I think only makes sense. So thank you.

Anyone else wish to be Councilor Albright?

I was just wondering if you know I think I may have a docket item at programs and services that I wasn't ready to discuss yet. So I'm wondering if this language could be amended either further time from approved by the majority of the committee or with the approval of the docketer. Because sometimes if the docketer doesn't have it ready, doesn't have the research ready, I do, on the other hand, understand that there are some people who said I documented an item and it hasn't been taken up and I feel that the people I'm representing want this to be taken up. So I like the six months, the 180 days, but I think it might be nice to involve the approval of the docketer.

You're not making a motion yet because we have a motion on the floor, but that Further motion would be in order after that's done. Councilor Grossman.

I don't have a problem with any of these particular rules and I don't have strong feelings about six months for a year. Part of that is probably because the committees that I've chaired have always been pretty, you know, we don't have these big drag out issues that go on for very long. periods of time. So I'm more sensitive to committees like ZAP and land use that that's different. My question, and it's not really to anybody specific, it's just sort of for the group to consider is who's enforcing this? Because I know as the chair, I'm looking at the list. I'm looking at the various items, what we've taken up, what we haven't. I don't know exactly what date it's all been documented. Nobody's counting six months. And I guess the one thing that I'm Wary of is adopting more rules that we don't actually pay attention to because I think we do a fair amount of that currently.

Thank you, Councilor Grossman. Councilor Leary, you've been very patient. I apologize for not getting to you earlier.

Thank you. Just on the answer to Councilor Grossman's question is nobody, nobody is following this or how long we take. and I don't understand why the word hamstrung was used because it says it's referred you can ask for further time for a majority of the committee so so it could easily go a year I just think it sets a Thank you. absolute freedom to do what you want in your committee. It really won't make that much difference. Sometimes I think we really overthink things in this chamber. We've really got into a lot of detail tonight. So I'm in favor of fewer words and make it more simple.

Larry, thank you. I think some might say we don't think enough, so I'm glad you think we overthink here. Councilor Krintzman, then Baker.

Thank you, and I actually appreciate the sentiment behind this, which is get the items heard, get things moving, and I agree with that. My concern is in this rule, it also says in report thereon. And so if we actually took out and report thereon, I'd be fine. Here within six months, and that gets the committee full knowledge of everything that's coming up because you can bring it up and say, here's docket item 123-26. We're not ready to take it up yet. It was filed within the last six months. We'll be taking it up at the time when we're ready. Anyone have an objection to that in committee? Okay, we'll hold. So it's a report they're on that I have a concern with.

Councilor Humphrey and then Baker. Because Humphrey was first, I apologize.

Okay, just some quick clarifications. Again, part of this is about the existing rule that as Councilor Grossman and I previously mentioned is not well enforced currently either before any amendments. So I did communicate with the clerk earlier today that I think there could be some changes made procedurally on the clerical side to make sure that we don't lose track. I think having six months personally would help with not losing track of things. It's a lot easier to keep track of something for six months than for a year. but they could potentially put in things like we have for the mayor's appointments that have a specific deadline from the day it's docketed, like written right there. I don't think that requires a change in the rules. Again, I'm not saying that they have to do it that way, but I think there are options for that. I would also just note, in terms of discussing with the primary doctor, that is in the existing rule. That's a component there. So I think that safeguard is already built in.

and then to Councilor Krintzman's point, I think, again, the current rule is report thereon. We should be trying to stick to the intent of the current rule and just make it work better. and it's giving you the option right it's saying okay this at least has to go on the agenda one time for sure so that you can have a discussion with your committee and they can take a vote on whether or not you need more time and then if they say no, well, I guess you're going to either vote approved, denied or no action necessary. If they vote yes, they give you more time and it's not a problem, but at least you got it heard within six months. So I think that's a sort of implied additional benefit to this system. And then that's also why I think six months makes a lot more sense than a year, because you're guaranteeing that there's going to be at least one time it gets put on the agenda within that six-month period, even if it's just a fairly brief discussion to say we need more time. Also, I think this would help some docketers actually get their stuff together in a more reasonable amount of time so they don't spend 18 months thinking about their docket item.

Baker. Thank you, Councilor Humphrey. Councilor Baker.

So I think that Councilor Albright's question is resolved by having the year. I just have to say that part of the The burden of being a chair is to try and manage the business of the work of the committee. And I think those of you who've been on zoning and planning can attest to the degree to which we've had to take up items multiple times to get them done. I think that the problem is I can't imagine reporting some of the items that we dealt with within six months. We've taken a full year on a number of these because of the complexity, one of which is coming up back to committee tonight on the inclusionary zoning. so if also I think the tradition and perhaps even the responsibility of the chair has been to set the agenda for the committee meetings and I just think it's going to be important to

have the chairs of the new council have the ability to do the work they need to do within the time they need to do it so I hope members will support the retention of one year not six months that's going to be a very short time to actually act on and report on an item.

All right. So colleagues, any further discussion on the motion to change it from six months to a year? All right, seeing none, we're going to call the roll. If you vote yes or aye, you're voting to change the six month period to one year. If you vote no, you're voting to keep it at six months. Go ahead, please.

Albright.

No.

Councilor Baker. Aye. Councilor Bixby. No. Councilor Block. Aye. Councilor Danberg. No. Councilor Downs.

No.

Councilor Farrell. Aye. Councilor Gentile. Getz, Greenberg, Grossman, Humphrey, Kalis, Councilor Kelley?

No.

Councilor Krintzman? Aye. Councilor Leary? No. Councilor Lipoff?

No.

Councilor Lobovits.

No.

Councilor Lucas.

Yes.

Councilor Malakie. No. Councilor Micley. Councilor Oliver.

No.

Wright.

No.

President Laredo.

No.

The yeas are six, the nays are 15.

So the amendment fails. Are there any further amendments before we vote on the full item as amended? and I'll just remind people this gets done every couple of years. If there's other things that are not working out or you want to change, there's always an opportunity to do that. Okay, with that, we're going to vote on the full item as amended. We're going to call the roll. Councilor Humphrey.

Just during the recess, we had a brief conversation about the effective date of this. Does that need to be clarified? I would personally like it to be effective immediately, just because that would address the caucus issue.

Councilor, through the president to Councilor Oliver.

Thank you. I think what I just heard a few minutes ago is that the caucus would vote to adopt these rules, right? So as far as I'm concerned, we can make these edits either effective immediately or first of year. My personal preference would just be to make them effective immediately.

Is there any, hold on, do you want to make a motion to include that they shall be adopted effective immediately?

Yes, and hopefully on a voice vote.

Is there a second for that motion? Seconded by Councilor Leary. Can we do this in a voice vote, folks?

I have a point of information. Sure. Doesn't the charter require new ordinances to wait 20 days before they're effective?

These are rules, not ordinances. So am I correct, Councilor Baker?

All right.

I can opine, but then I go to the source to get affirmation. Any other questions or comments? Let's see if we could do this on a voice vote with the amendment first, and then we're going to take a roll call vote. Humphrey made the motion to amend to make this effective immediately. Councilor Leary seconded. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Now we are going to vote on the full item. As amended, please call the roll.

Councillor Albright.

Aye.

Councillor Baker.

Aye.

Councillor Bixby. Block.

Aye.

Councilor Danberg. Aye. Councilor Downs.

Aye.

Councilor Farrell. Aye. Councilor Gentile. Councilor Getz. Greenberg. Aye. Councilor Grossman. Aye. Councilor Humphrey. Aye. Councilor Kalis. Aye. Councilor Kelley.

Aye.

Councilor Krintzman.

Aye.

Leary. Aye. Councilor Lipof. Aye. Councilor Lobovits. Aye. Councilor Lucas. Aye. Councilor Malakie.

Aye.

Councilor Micley. Councilor Oliver. Aye. Councilor Wright.

Aye.

President Laredo. Aye. The ayes are 21, the nays are 0.

Great. And I just want to, on behalf of the council, thank Chair Oliver of the subcommittee and members of the subcommittee for really very good work, very thorough work, and important work. Last item is a zoning and planning item. We'll recognize Chair Baker.

So thank you, Mr. President. The last item is item 375, 24-2 requesting discussion of amendments to Chapter 30 zoning to allow certain residential alterations by right. And this would be to allow additions to buildings with existing non-conforming height that increase the non-conforming height but do not get higher than the existing ridgeline. This is an item that the planning department brought forward and we heard initially in September and then brought back into the committee because it had not been discussed in committee before the planning department brought it to a public hearing. The committee voted 7-0-1 in which I abstained. The item is explained in an attachment to the zoning and planning committee report. But at the conclusion of my report, I'm going to move that we recommit this item so that we can clarify the impact by the next meeting.

I would prefer to vote for this item if I can have it clarified. But if I can't, I'm going to have to vote against it. and given the number of counselors who are absent and the fact that we need 16 votes, I think it would be prudent to send it back, not the least of which reasons being the lateness of the hour tonight. I'm sure the council doesn't want to get into a substantive discussion about how you measure height and winter should be measured at 10 30. we do need a two-thirds vote for this we are now at

21 councilors here, which means we need 16 of the councilors who are present to vote for it. Councilor Lucas.

Thanks. I have no problem referring this back to committee, but why don't we just hold the item, get your answers, and we'll vote out on December 2nd.

because I prefer to have that discussion in committee and then we can bring it back. I intend to bring it back after a discussion in committee.

For a procedural question, is your intent to take it up at the next zoning and planning committee meeting?

Again, I want to make sure we do all our substantive business on the first meeting.

So there's a motion by Councilor Baker to refer it back to the committees for a second. Seconded by Councilor Danberg.

Yeah, well, I just hope the chair takes it up right away.

I think the chair has represented that he will take it up before we come back for the next council meeting. And I'm sure that will be done. Okay, can we do this in a voice vote? All in favor of referring it back to committee, please say aye. oppose, the ayes have it. It's referred back to committee. We are adjourned at 1026 PM. Thank you, colleagues, for a productive evening.