City Council - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress

can we uh start moseying to our seats please um Hey, Josh. I know I take a lot of grief for trying to hurry us along, but maybe we should try and start on time, huh? All right, Councilor Block, would you mind leaving us in the Pledge of Allegiance, sir?

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

Thank you, sir. uh so uh tonight uh we are being both audio and video recorded uh joining us online i see counselors right demo bed gordon i believe that's it fantastic for everyone who's got their laptops on in the chamber. Obviously, if you wouldn't mind muting your microphone and your speakers, that would be greatly appreciated. Tonight, we've got two items on second call. We have a land use item, and we also have a an item that came out of programs and services, the review of city council rules. Without further delay, let's go through the first call items. Councillor Kelly for land use, please.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'm just getting organized a little bit late here. The Land Use Committee did, however, meet on May 19th. I'm just looking for that again. Unfortunately, clerk, I'm going to say again, I'm missing pages from my book. Yes, could I take a peek at yours too if it opened to you? I apologize. I was trying to find out a little more about a second call item as I came in late. So here we go. May. Sorry, Drew, can you give me a hand? If you can? What?

May 19.

Thank you.

Yes.

Yes. Got it. Thank you. Councilor Block. Land Use Committee report starts on page 110. We did meet on May 19th. At that time, we took up item number 173-26, which was a request to extend nonconforming FAR at 22 Winslow Road. That was approved, seven to zero. We also took up item 174-26, request to further extend nonconforming FAR at 38 Morseland Ave. That was also approved. We have the next item on second call, which I'll talk about when we get to that. We had item 176-26, which was a request to further extend FAR at 54 Bonad Road. That was also approved. And our final item was 177-26, request to extend FAR and facade ratio at 5 Rose Drive. And that was approved, 8 nothing. Additionally, I would like to request some public hearings.

Please proceed.

Thank you. On page 116 and 117 of your docket, I'd like to set a public hearing for items 189-26, 190-26, 191-26, and 118-26. I'd like to set those public hearings for June 2nd. Could you also read? I'm not prepared to do that tonight. I meant to mention to you. I don't have that. I was trying to let you know ahead. I do not have the information right before me, last minute to do that. I know that you want that and we'll do that going forward. Well, going forward, I'll do that, but I'm not prepared to do that tonight. Additionally, on page 117, I would like to request a public hearings for item 207-26 and 208-26 for June 16th. So those are the public hearings, and they will read more information, including addresses in the future for these. Thank you.

Thank you. For zoning and planning, Councillor Baker.

Thank you, Mr. President. There's no report this evening.

Great. Programs and Services, Councillor Krintzman.

Thank you, Mr. President. Report begins on page 112. Programs and Services Committee met on May 14th. On that evening, item 139-26, this is the authorization to appropriate and expend $550,000 from June 30th, 2025 certified free cash for SIN replacement was approved by a vote of six to zero. and item 146-26, the appropriation of $150,000 from June 30th, 2025 certified free cash for netting was approved six to zero. There was another programs and services committee meeting because we meet all the time and do all the work of this council. And if you're not coming to programs and services, then you're not doing it right. And that was on May 20th. On that night, item 163-26, the appointment of Mark Welch as Commissioner of Parks and Recreation was approved by a vote of seven to zero. And then we took up the city council rules. We split these into three items. One of them is on second call, but the other two, item 78-26, parens one, was approved by a vote of seven to zero. And 78-26, parens two, was approved by a vote of seven to zero. Those two items, for what it's worth, were clarifying to whom the 180-day rule applied, which is docket items from councilors and the mayor. And it also clarified the... or a change to the financial composition of the financial audit committee that it can be either the chair of finance or the vice chair of finance. The final item is on second call. With that, I would move the report.

Great. Thank you, sir. For PS&T, Councillor Lucas.

There is no report this evening.

Fantastic. And I believe we are without Vice President Kalas this evening. So, Councillor Goetz.

Or public facility yeah there is no report for public facilities, but I would like to ask for a suspension of the rules to report to report out too late file docket items.

Great. Do you want to tell us what those items are, please?

Yeah. Item number 210-26, an appropriation of $135,000 from the June 30th, 2025 certified free cash for fuel stations. And then number 212-26, an appropriation of $577,175 from the June 30th, 2025 certified free cash for snow vehicles.

Fantastic. We need a quick suspension of the rules to have those two items brought forward on the docket. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Abstain. None. Motion passes. Thank you very much. That's the end of the report, correct?

Fabulous.

For the Finance Committee, Councillor Grossman.

Thank you, Mr. President. There is no report this evening. I just want to point out to committee members that there are quite a number of items that have been docketed to us this evening that we're accepting into the docket tonight that need to be dealt with. and back to this full council by our June 15th meeting. So please be aware that even though budget season is behind us, our work for the fiscal year is not done. Thank you.

So I'm understanding that between finance and P&S, we have a competition for the busiest committee?

I don't get into those kinds of arguments. No beef here. But I do want the committee to know we are going to have some significant meetings ahead. It's possible we would have to add one very short meeting before our full council meeting on the 15th if we have any lingering business to make sure that everything is done in time for the June 30 close of the fiscal year. Thank you. Thank you.

Great. For real property use, Councillor Maliki.

There is no report. Thank you.

All right. Why don't we run through roll call on the first call items.

Councillor Albright.

Aye.

Councillor Baker. Aye. Councillor Bixby. Aye. Councillor Block.

Aye.

Councillor Charm. Aye. Councillor Damabud. Aye.

I accept no on numbers one seventy four dash twenty six and one seventy six dash twenty six.

Councillor Farrell. Councillor Goetz.

Aye.

Councillor Golden. Councillor Gordon. Councillor Greenberg.

Aye.

Councillor Grossman. Aye. Councillor Eyrich. Aye. Councillor Kalis. Councilor Kelly. Aye. Councilor Krintzman.

Aye.

Councilor Leary. Aye. Councilor Lucas. Aye. Councilor Malachy. Aye. Councilor Mickley.

Aye.

Councilor Roach.

Aye with the exceptions of 174 26 and 176 26 which President Oliver are both land use items special permit applications. I have given my reasons in committee.

Councilor Silber. Aye. Councilor Wright.

I believe Councilor Donovan needs to publicly reason why no on the two menus items. Thank you.

Yeah, that's OK. What was it, 174.26 and 176?

Yeah, 176.26. My reasons for both are that I didn't feel that the explanations provided merited an extension of the non-conforming FAR.

In both cases?

Yes.

All right, thank you. Councillor Wright, your vote.

Aye. President Oliver. Aye. On this vote, the ayes are 21. There are three members absent. There are no no votes with the exceptions of two no votes on 174-26 and 176-26. On those items, the absences are three. The ayes are 19. The nays are two. Motion passes with those exceptions. Great.

Bless you.

Thank you, sir.

City Council Chambers, They hear something no okay great so now we have two items on second call. City Council Chambers, First item just going to go in the order that they're in it up here for me land use item 175 dash 26 counselor Kelly.

Thank you, Mr. President. On this, I might take a little direction from you. I did prepare a brief report to give to the full council on the background of this project. However, we approve this subject to second call pending the submission of some material that as far as I know, we have not gotten. In which case, I think perhaps I would instead make a motion to hear this at a date certain and go through all the details later and not give you the report, whichever way you would prefer.

I would concur. I think we just hold it to a date certain. And have we, by any chance, spoken to the petitioner about the materials we're looking for?

I have not heard from the petitioner. I tried to reach planning just now. That was part of why I was harried at the beginning. I didn't hear back from them. I tried to reach them now. It's item 175-26, as you said. So if we could just hold that to a date certain until we have more information, I think that's probably the best way to proceed.

Great. I believe then date certain would push us to June 15th, correct? All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Well, yeah. Second. Great. We have a motion to hold this till date certain. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Abstained. Nope. That's unanimous. So I believe that's what, 21-0? Great, thank you, sir. Item 78-26, parens 3, review of city council rules. Councillor Krintzman.

Thank you, Mr. President. 78-26 parens 3 was taken up by the rules subcommittee. This rule change is essentially to the order of our roll call votes in full council. The rules currently say that the order of roll call votes will be alphabetical and presumably starting at the beginning of the alphabet. The proposed change to the rules was to rotate that order from meeting to meeting. So the order remains the same, the sequence remains the same, but we would start at a different point So for example, if Councillor Albright is first and Councillor Greenberg is second, on the first meeting, we would start with Councillor Albright and proceed alphabetically through the roster of councillors with the president going last. The rule change would say that on the second meeting, we would start with Councillor Greenberg, proceed alphabetically through the roster of councillors, wrap back around to Councillor Albright, and again, the president would go last. That rule change was approved by the Programs and Services Committee by a vote of four to three and was placed on second call.

Thank you, sir. I believe, Councillor Baker, you have this on second call.

Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, colleagues. I realize this is a matter of not cosmic consequence, but I think it is an interesting decision that should be made by the council as a whole. And as you can see, there was a division in committee and it passed narrowly. This is a change that as the chair of the committee has indicated, would not change the alphabetical order, but would change which counselor is asked to vote first, and then everyone else would follow in order, except that the president would vote last. I did not support this for several reasons, and I'd like to just explain those to you. And obviously, the full council has to make a decision. It seems to me that one of the issues that is difficult enough for us is to have the public understand what we're doing. And the issue of changing the voting order is going to make it, I think, confusing to the public. It also risks being somewhat confusing. The clerk's office is very able, but I don't know of any other body that does this kind of change of order, depending on which meeting is going to be held. And I think that the value of having a consistent Standard practice is that we all are able to focus on what we're doing and not necessarily where we are in the roll call vote. We know that from enough experience over time to be able to understand where we will be. I happen to be near the top of the alphabet. The advantage of the current arrangement is that you have two former presidents at the beginning of the alphabet. And when we make mistakes, we have all the rest of you to correct us, which I personally appreciate. So I'm not going to support this change. It's not a matter of great moment in the cosmic scheme, as I say. But I think tradition matters. And unless there's a really powerful reason to make a change, we shouldn't make a change. So I will not support this. And I hope that members of the council who are of like mind will agree with me and vote the same way in alphabetical order. Thank you.

Great. I have councillors Roach, Albright, followed by Wright.

As the original proponent of this, I would feel slighted by my colleagues describing this as of no great moment, except for the fact that I completely agree with him, that it is of no great moment. Nonetheless, I think that it is a... valuable exercise because institutions need to change. Institutions need to look at what they're doing occasionally and say, what's the why behind this? And can we do this better? Can we do this more modern way? Can we do this less arbitrarily? It strikes me, it has always struck me as a longtime observer of the council, that there's no great point in having an alphabetical order that doesn't shift other than logistics, which can be easily overcome. And I have every confidence that the clerk can manage this in any number of clever ways. But every once in a while, we need to step back and say, why are we doing something? And is there a way that maybe makes a little bit more sense? And I think this is a case. And I think this is a good exercise to show the public that we as a body grow and modernize. So I urge you to vote yes, not withstanding my 100% agreement with my colleague from Ward 8 that this truly is of no great moment.

Ward 7, I believe, but that's okay. Councilors Albright followed by Wright.

Thank you, Mr. President. So I hope that the residents of Newton think we're a little bit better than just modernizing by changing the way we vote at the end of a discussion, but that's for another discussion. If we really wanted to modernize, what we would do, and I did find out from the clerk that Civic Plus who the whole city is moving to for the website and now for our docket management system, has a module for electronic voting. And I think every other body like ours is using electronic voting and we should too. That would be totally modernizing and it would take away the whole issue of who votes first, last, or whenever. So I've asked the clerk if he would find out, no matter what happens tonight, I've asked the clerk if he would find out how much it would cost to use that module, and then we can decide if we're interested or not, if there's money for it or not. I kind of think that changing the way the order we vote, and I'm... I'm not sure I want to use this metaphor, but it's a little bit like rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. I'm not sure what difference it makes. It's certainly really not modernizing. So I probably won't vote for it.

Councillor Wright.

Thank you, President. I think this is a solution in search of a problem and this and I agree with any chance you could speak up. Oh OK, I'll try to speak louder. Is this any better?

Not yet, it might be on our end. Hang on one second.

Councillor? Yep, can you hear me now? Is this any better or no? Okay, I'll take out my headphones. I'm calling in, my flight got canceled. I'm calling in from Australia. So we'll see if this is any better. Can you hear me now?

Just do your best. It's hard to hear you and it hasn't gotten any better since you tried the first time. Please proceed.

Okay, can you hear me now at all? Is it any better?

It's still the same, Councillor.

Okay, sorry. So I think this is a solution in search of a problem, and this doesn't fix anything. I agree with Councillor Albright, and it would be different if it was simultaneously voting, and that's something that I would consider. But for this item, I will be voting no. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Leary, followed by councillors Lucas, Block, Grossman and Mickley.

I was also looking at the why behind this. Kids today and their newfangled ideas. I actually completely agree with Councillor Albright that electronic voting is something that I would really like to see, and I would prefer that. I actually like the certainty of when I vote. You know, I just know when it's my turn to vote. I guess I'm a person of habit, so I wouldn't support this either. Thank you.

Councillor Lucas, followed by Councillors Block, Grossman and Mickley.

Thank you, President Oliver. I kind of agree with Councilors Baker and Roach in their reasons, although they're each going to vote differently. But going back to what Councilor Roach said, we do need to change. But I think Councilor Albright got it right. I would like to see electronic voting. But what I haven't heard is the why we are doing this other than we just need to change um so i went to the committee report and it says there was a belief that this static order of voting meant counselors at the end of the voting order could be influenced by those at the beginning of the order and would wait to see what their colleagues voted for before coming to their own decision. So my last name is Lucas. You would think I would vote in the middle, middle of the alphabet, but I looked it up. Historically, I'm voting 17th, excuse me, 17th, 19th and 18th. So my average voting position in my five years on a council has been 18th, near the end. I have never once ever voted yes or no based upon how someone who votes earlier on has voted. I might go into a discussion on a second call item not knowing if I'm gonna vote yes or vote no, and I'll listen to the arguments. But once the voting starts, I know how I'm gonna vote. So I don't know why there is this belief that those who vote near the end are influenced by those who vote in the beginning. I have never heard anyone change their vote based upon how those vote early on in the process. So I would like to see electronic voting. but I'm gonna vote no on this because I do not see a reason as to why we should change the order of voting. Thank you.

Councilor Block, followed by Councilor Grossman.

Thank you, Chair. I have a question for legal if they're available. I'm wondering if by some accident, we would start with the wrong person. And that was later discovered. Would that invalidate the vote for that session? Thank you.

Councilor Crenshaw, can you take it? Thank you.

Yep. If I may, I can answer the gentleman's question because we did take this up in council. And part of the rule change was also a clarification that a inaccuracy in the order or a mistake in the order shall not invalidate an action of the council.

Does that answer your question.

Fantastic thank you sir.

Councillor Grossman followed by councillors Mickley Maliki and now Farrell.

Thank you, Mr. President. I also have a question through you to the chair, although I think Councillor Albright's suggestion was much more elegant than what I was thinking in my brain. I do think that the order can influence how folks vote, and I do think that having a name at the beginning of the alphabet can sort of place undue pressure or influence on some and allow others to think a little longer or see what the outcome might be. I don't think it's an enormous problem, but I am interested in the discussion. I was wondering if there was any discussion about rather than having a systematic way of changing the order, randomizing the order with some sort of randomizing platform. Because to my mind, having a predictable order, but a different predictable order still has many of the same problems just on a different vote in a different week, depending on what order that happens to be.

Councillor Krinsman, I don't actually recall if that came up during our conversation.

Thank you, Mr. President. I don't recall that specifically coming up. I think, if anything, it was a notion of sort of Making it so it would be more equitable if different people could go last each time. But also keeping it easy enough that you could switch one day to the next, and you know, for example, the clerk has a list of all the counselors of. 24 counselors in alphabetical order they don't need a new list they just start at a different point each night, so it was sort of administratively easier to facilitate that equitable solution.

Does that address your question. If not, answer it.

No, it does. I guess I'm just... I'm open-minded to different ways of doing this. I think a solution of either everyone voting at the same time or having an unpredictable order, to me, speaks to the problem that some believe exists more so than the solution. With my own question, I'm also battling in my mind if we had a random order. I can't even imagine what kind of a mess

would create among us.

And, you know, I suppose it would be a brain teaser moment to keep us all sharp and on our toes. But personally, at right now, I think the suggestion I'm hearing from Councillor Albright sounds like the most elegant. Thank you.

Great. I have councillors Mickley, Maliki, Farrell, and then Chauncey.

Thank you, Mr. President. First, I definitely empathize with the issue that Councilor Grossman raised where the order could have some influence. My issue is we're trying to make something fair that ultimately will still be quite arbitrary and unfair. The order will shift, and maybe you'll be lucky, and you'll be first when it matters, and maybe you'll be unlucky, and you'll be first when it doesn't matter. There's many times when the votes are 24-0, And there's a few times when the votes are closer, 12, 12, 13, 11. So it's a slippery slope where we try to make something fair that ultimately really can't be controlled and how fair we make it. Should we weigh the importance of the vote relative to where you are in the order and make sure everyone gets a certain scoring of being first on a certain number of important votes? Are there other things we could do? Maybe we should... rearrange our seating every meeting. I mean, that's not that crazy, right? Some seats are better than others, depending on what you're trying to achieve in any given meeting. You know, a lot of stuff to move. We can make it happen. We have a president once every two years. Maybe we should switch the president once every quarter, once every half year. I don't know. Not challenging this current one, but just saying. Um, I definitely appreciate the idea. I just think that once we go down this path, we're trying to control and create a sense of fairness. And then end result, it still will be quite arbitrary. So I'm going to vote no, but I do find the conversation fascinating. So appreciate it being raised.

Councillor Maliki.

Okay, well, like some of us have said, I guess, this is not the most crucial issue we're going to vote on, and I certainly wouldn't sort of have brought it up as something to do, but now that it's here and before us, I supported it in committee. My feeling is that keeping alphabetical but starting at a going down one each meeting, keeps it simple for our clerk, it's still alphabetical, not hunting and pecking or where's his name, and makes things a little fairer in that everyone gets a chance to be first, everyone gets a chance to be second, everyone gets a chance to be third and so on. I actually would like to be first sometimes because I'm always near the end and, I can actually give you an example of when my vote seemed to affect other people's votes. Back when we were voting on the word description of the cartoon City Hall, City Seal, as part of First Call, I voted no as an exception in First Call. And at the very end, I believe it was two people said, I want to change my vote to no too. And I felt great. So I'd like to... give people the opportunity to be influential going first as opposed to, many people seem to think it's an advantage to go last and get to hear how everyone else is voting. I don't know how often that matters, but it seems to me like how often do we get a chance to do something that doesn't cost us any money and is gonna make life a little more interesting and fair? So I'll be voting yes.

Councillor Ferrell. Followed by Councillor Charm. And I believe, unless there are additional hands, that's it. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate this. It was recently pointed out that my name is on the item to be discussed in committee, even though, and it is there because I, like Councillor Mickley, enjoy an interesting conversation. But I am also one of the people who voted against it because I do think there's a lot to be said, not only for tradition. We've been doing this for 250 years in this country at both the federal, both, at all three, federal, state, and local levels. In addition to which, I was scared out of my pants at the notion of rearranging the chairs on the Titanic. So I will be voting against this also.

Just two quick thoughts here.

I'm not quite sure how this body is actually the Titanic, but got you.

And we're also joined in the chamber by Councillor Gordon. Councillor Charm, you're up.

So I have the privilege of having been in the Rules Subcommittee and then also in the Programs and Services Committee. So I've heard this debate now three times. So I'm so glad that we were spending so much time on something that we all agree is really material. But I support this because I do think that the order, as Councilor Malachy has said, as Councilor Grossman has said, I think there are moments when the order can influence where the beginning We've heard examples of where the beginning could be advantageous. I also think that there are times, they are rare in this chamber, but there are times when the votes are close and therefore those who are toward the end of the alphabet actually have, I would say, undue weight and that the ability to make that evenly spread so that you would have maybe twice a year or once a year, yes, roughly once a year, when you would be first, once a year when you would be last, is just one way of sort of making that a little bit more equitable. I think that the randomizing, we didn't wanna get too crazy. We felt like alphabetical is like a nice, keep it orderly, keep it calm, but to be able to make it more creative. And I agree with the idea of voting all at once, having some sort of electronic voting. I think if folks are interested in that, I would just ask you, why? Think about what are the actual benefits of like, what would be the benefit of having everyone vote at the same time that is different? um than having it be a little bit more randomized and if the the sentiment is the same then um i would you know urge you to um to vote for this is is one way of us experimenting with that as counselor maliki said we can try this for free um so i'm all for going for you know electronic uh simultaneous balloting um but uh this would be one step in that direction

Thank you. I don't see any further hands or comments. Going once, going twice. I don't see any online. So I believe that means we are prepared to vote. Mr. Clerk, may we have a roll call vote, please?

Councillor Albright. No. Councillor Baker.

No.

Councillor Bixby. Councilor Black.

No.

Councilor Charm. Yes. Councilor Damabud. Yes. Councilor Farrell. Councilor Goetz.

Yes.

Councilor Golden. No. Councilor Gordon.

No.

Councilor Greenberg.

Aye.

Councilor Grossman.

No.

Councilor Irish. No. Councilor Kalis. Councilor Kelly. No. Councilor Krintzman.

Aye.

Councilor Leary. No. Councilor Lucas.

No.

Councilor Malachy. Aye. Councilor Mickley.

No.

Councilor Roach.

Aye.

Councilor Silber.

No.

Councilor Wright. No. President Oliver. No. On this vote, the ayes are seven, the nays are, forgive me, I just lost my place. Nays are 15, the absences are two. Motion fails.

Motion fails.

Fantastic.

Any other business here? I think we're all set. So I just need a motion.

Councilor Block?

Motion to adjourn. Fantastic. Thank you, folks. Have a lovely night.

or do you hate it