03-18-2021_City Council Minutes
Roll Call
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CONDUCTED AS AN ON-LINE ZOOM MEETING
Northampton, MA
_______________
A regular meeting of the City Council was called to order by Council President Gina-Louise Sciarra. At 8:43 p.m. on a roll call the following City Councilors were present:
At-Large Councilor Gina-Louise Sciarra At-Large Councilor William H. Dwight
Ward 1 Councilor Michael J. Quinlan, Jr. Ward 5 Councilor Alex Jarrett
Ward 2 Councilor Karen Foster Ward 6 Councilor Marianne LaBarge
Ward 3 Councilor James B. Nash Ward 7 Councilor Rachel Maiore
Ward 4 Councilor John Thorpe
Announcement of Audio/Video Recording
Councilor Sciarra announced that the meeting was being held by remote participation and audio and video recorded.
Public Hearings
Public hearing concerning the Northampton Capital Improv-ment Program for FY2022-FY2026 –
Public hearing to consider FY 2022 Water and Sewer Rates
Public Hearings
Public hearing concerning the Northampton Capital Improvement Program for FY2022-FY2026
Councilor Sciarra introduced the hearing by reading the legal notice.
Councilor Dwight moved to open the public hearing. Councilor Jarrett seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote. The hearing was opened at 8:46 p.m.
Mayor Narkewicz said he is proud this evening to present the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for FY2022-2026. This is the 10th and final CIP that he’ll be presenting. The City Charter
requires the mayor every year to create essentially a five-year road map of all potential capital needs of the city across all departments and schools. The program includes buildings,
vehicles, repairs to infrastructure, technology and equipment. The goal of the CIP is to map out and be able to show a blueprint for how the city could fund those capital needs over
a five-year period.
The capital program this year consists of 101 projects totaling $76,628,290 spread out over five years with projects across all city departments plus the two school districts.
Mayor Narkewicz screen-shared pg. 9 of the CIP, showing an overview of projects from different areas and funding sources, including cash capital, Free Cash, stabilization funds, borrowing
and enterprise funds.
Appendix A contains a color-coded summary of each project broken down by fiscal year. It is important to note that Central Services seems to have a lot of projects in this particular
capital program. As the facilities department, they are often the leader in the city’s capital projects. A chart presents a summary of spending across different departments, including
the Office of Planning and Sustainability, Information Technology, Parks and Recreation, Fire/Rescue, etc. and on enterprise fund projects. In some cases, enterprise projects are some
of the largest projects spanning the whole five years of the program.
Appendix B includes a more detailed breakdown. The chart breaks out each individual project and tells where the funding is coming from. As an example, the 2011 flatbed truck replacement
is coming out of the Parking Receipts Reserved Fund. Each fiscal year has a breakdown show-ing where funding comes from.
Appendix C shows the CIP2 form for each project with a description of the project and the reason for the project.
Some are continuations of projects they have been working on for several years, such as the upgrade to the sewage treatment plant and a review of city and school buildings as part of
a project around climate resiliency, namely, a facilities assessment for greenhouse gas emissions.
As part of the city’s efforts to become carbon neutral, he issued an executive order several years ago calling for assessing all city’s buildings for greenhouse gas emissions. Over 2022
and 2023, assessments of the JFK Middle School, Ryan Road Elementary School, Leeds Elementary School, etc., will take place. Associated projects range from replacing critical HVAC components
to securing the building envelope by roof replacement, repairs to windows and chimney repairs.
While city officials focus on the operating budget, it is important they also focus on maintaining the city’s capital infrastructure which is critical for carrying out the operating
mission of the city, Mayor Narkewicz asserted. The capital plan is an important tool for making sure they are constantly assessing their infrastructure and planning for future investments.
He thanked department heads and staff for submitting narratives and helping to formulate the program and Finance Director Susan Wright for her work on her 10th and final CIP.
Significant projects across a lot of different departments are intended, among other things, to preserve open space, work on rail-trail networks, fulfill the city’s commitment to sustainability,
fulfill its commitment to the schools and making sure children are learning in sound buildings with good facilities, and provide modern, functional equipment to city employees so the
city ultimately is not spending thousands of dollars trying to keep vehicles and equipment repaired.
He would ask the City Council to adopt the program, he concluded.
Councilor Sciarra opened the floor to public comment, offering to entertain comments in favor of the CIP.
Mayor Narkewicz clarified this is not an actual spending or borrowing order, it is a planning document. Actual spending or borrowing to fund projects will come later. What the council
is voting on tonight is really a planning document and does not authorize borrowing or spending.
Councilor Sciarra asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Hearing none, she opened the floor to questions from councilors.
Councilors asked questions and offered comments. Councilor Jarrett said he really appreciates seeing the energy efficiency improvements. He noted the program proposes replacement of
a boiler in one of the school buildings and specifies they are looking at heat pumps. The narrative for the Smith Vocational boiler does not mention energy-efficient options. He asked
if they are thinking about alternatives there as well.
Mayor Narkewicz said he believes they will be looking at alternatives. He acknowledged the narratives are slightly different. They don’t have a shared facilities department for Smith
Voke but certainly they will be working with them and talking about energy-efficient and all electric alternatives. They have more of an immediate problem with one of their boilers
that they’re trying to address. They did do an energy analysis for Smith Voke as part of the ConEdison evaluation so that will be part of their analysis as well.
Regarding lighting, Councilor Jarrett noted that they have guidelines for outdoor lighting. When upgrading indoor lighting, he asked if thought is given to public health recommendations
around the color temperature of the lighting.
They definitely focus on that for indoor lighting as well, Mayor Narkewicz confirmed. Outdoor lighting was dark-sky rated and they tried to follow AMA guidance. As part of LED replacement
they will make sure they are using the most up to date standards, including the right temperature and tone of lighting.
Moving on to planning and sustainability, Councilor Jarrett asked about money earmarked for multi-use trails. He said he knows many of these need to be resurfaced. He doesn’t think enough
is allocated for that. He asked if grants can be leveraged for repairs. He expressed his understanding that grants could often only be used for establishing new trails rather than ongoing
maintenance.
They do look at the condition of the trails and have gone back and done some repairs to some of their oldest trails. These are also now CPA eligible projects. They definitely are monitoring
the age and condition of the rail trails and making investments, he assured. They did some sections of the trail near Earl Street where they had some heaving and damage.
Councilor Jarrett referred to the big ticket item, namely, $6 million for radio communications upgrade, and asked about $3 million listed as ‘other.’ He asked the mayor to describe the
project.
This has been a long, slow-developing project funded in the capital plan two or three years ago, Mayor Narkewicz related. They have a lot of aging radio equipment as well as aging networks
and systems. The system includes Police, Dispatch, Central Services, Fire/Rescue, schools, etc. As they are looking at investing and changing radios, they are finding dead spots in
many areas, including the school buildings.
The earlier capital plan basically commissioned a study. The study recommended a series of investments in equipment and communication towers. The project estimate is $6 million but it
is actually going to be broken up into $3 million over two years and will probably be borrowed. The bids for the project have been received but not opened yet. He thinks they will have
a clearer understanding of the costs when they are bringing forth orders. The other $3 million reflects that the investments are being broken up.
Councilor Jarrett said he noticed the parking department is using electric vehicles and the building department is using hybrid vehicles. He wondered if electric vehicles would be appropriate
for the building department as well.
The building department puts a lot of miles on their vehicles, Mayor Narkewicz said. They used to have big SUV-type vehicles. The Building Commission and building inspectors often have
to respond 24/7.
They have moved towards Subaru’s because they are more fuel efficient and have all wheel drive capability. Also, inspectors carry equipment. They have transitioned from SUV’s. They like
the Subaru’s at this point but he could certainly see them moving toward all electric at some point in the future.
About sidewalks and traffic calming, last year, they didn’t allocate anything directly in the capital plan, although he knows it was part of some projects, Councilor Jarrett said. He
was wondering if that means there is more deferred maintenance and more might be needed there.
They took a break last year because they felt they could, Mayor Narkewicz confirmed. They did do traffic calming projects this year. North Farms Road was an example where they did some
installations using traffic-calming money. He doesn’t think they’ve fallen behind. They are restoring the commitment to it this year and going forward. He doesn’t think they need to
double it this year because they fell behind. It’s true projects were a little bit less this year because of the pandemic. He thinks they have sufficient funding in there to handle
all the different projects that will be happening.
Councilor LaBarge mentioned the situation at the Ryan Road School where teachers brought to her attention that a small bathroom in the nurse’s office was being used for a couple of children
in wheelchairs who needed a Hoyer lift. Two staff are needed for the safety of the child and staff. She asked Superintendent Provost and he said they had applied for $40,000 for capital
improve-ments. She asked if he had an update on that project.
Mayor Narkewicz said he knows they talked about this last year. School administrators have been looking at this along with other projects. Initial engineering and design work estimated
the cost as over $200,000 because of substantial renovations needed to plumbing and removal of masonry walls. It didn’t make the program that year and the schools have not resubmitted
it. The schools have been in a different posture this year, being closed. They did not resubmit it, so he doesn’t know the status of the project.
There being no further comments, Councilor Dwight moved to close the public hearing. Councilor LaBarge seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote. The hearing closed
at 9:20 p.m.
Public hearing to consider FY 2022 Water and Sewer Rates
Councilor Jarrett moved to open the public hearing. Councilor Dwight seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote. The hearing opened at 9:21 p.m.
The order before them would essentially maintain water and sewer rates at the FY2021 level, Mayor Narkewicz presented. He deferred to Director LaScaleia for background.
The DPW has forecast and analyzed personnel and operating expenses, capital expenses and proposed capital projects, inclusive of existing anticipated debt service in the water and sewer
enterprises, as part of the FY22 budgeting process, Director LaScaleia reported. Their analyses and recommendations are predicated on maintaining a commitment to consistent and adequate
investment in infrastructure, maintaining adequate stabilization balances and insuring long-term rate stability.
For the water enterprise, the DPW is responsible for operating, maintaining and improving 160 miles of water mains, including two transmission mains, Director LaScaleia presented. They
operate, maintain and improve a 6.5 million gallon per day water treatment plant, three active surface water reservoirs and dams, two active wells, two pump stations, the 200,000-gallon
Audubon Road storage tank, a corrosion control facility and over 3,000 acres of watershed land. All operations are closely monitored and regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) at the federal level and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) at the state level.
The DPW has requested $4.5 million to continue water line replacement in locations that were identified in the 2013 Water Asset Management plan, including Atwood Drive, Winter Street
- where they have had two catastrophic water main breaks in five years - the Masonic Street parking lot, Damon Road and North King Street. Damon Road and North King both include non-participating
Transportation Infrastructure Program (TIP) work, meaning it is city funded. The proposed Main Street reconstruction, which is currently slated for FY2025, requires extensive non-TIP
work totaling $2.5 million. The city has two water mains running down Main Street from 1871 and 1914 so they can’t engage in any reconstruction of Main Street without dealing with some
very aged water infrastructure there. They have also requested $14.1 million to fund drinking water reservoir and dam spillway repairs and relocation of a water transmission main from
1901 which runs cross country through a swamp into the city.
In FY2022, debt service in the water enterprise fund will be nearly $2 million, representing more than 30% of total revenue, as a result of a $25.8 million bond issuance for construction
of the water treatment plant in 2006 that doesn’t clear the debt schedule until FY 2028. The level of existing debt service does not allow for the assumption of additional debt to support
remedying the currently known infrastructure deficiencies, many of which were just mentioned.
The pandemic has disrupted water consumption levels with revenue down roughly 6%. Given the difficult economic environment in which they are operating, they are recommending water rates
be unchanged for FY2022 with the caveat that they will need to continue to carefully manage the enterprise and carefully manage capital projects given continuing capital demands.
For the sewer enterprise, the city operates, maintains and improves more than 110 miles of sewer lines, seven pump stations and a 15-million gallon per day waste water treatment plant
(WWTP). As with water, all of their operations are closely monitored and regulated by the EPA and MassDEP. They have requested $4.3 million through FY2026 for sewer line replacement.
This funding will most immediately support the reconstruction of the Masonic Street parking lot cross-country sewer main which serves many Main Street residents and businesses and is
in very poor condition. At the WWTP, in 2017 and 2018 projects were completed there to replace sludge pumps and to convert the plant’s effluent disinfection process from chlorine gas
to sodium hypochlorite. These projects together represent an investment of more than a million dollars. As required by Mass. general law, the city obtained an owner’s project manager
(OPM) and designer for the next phase of upgrades, which focus on upgrading the plant’s electrical power, emergency power and treatment processes. The contract for these services totals
about $2.5 million. In June of 2020, they signed a construction contract for more than $10 million, and work on these upgrades is ongoing now. Funds for this project were borrowed through
the Massachusetts Clean Water Trust and in FY2023, they will see debt service in this enterprise swell to a million dollars. They have requested $12.2 million over the next five years
for design of the next phase of WWTP upgrades and upgrades of remote pumping stations. Based on planning, they anticipate more than $50 million in needed funds to support future capital
projects beyond FY2026 for both treatment and collection. As in water, COVID-19 has disrupted consumption levels, and revenue is down 8% over the last eight months. Given the difficult
environment in which they are operating, they are recommending that rates be unchanged for FY2022. Again, this will require them to continue to carefully manage this enterprise and
carefully execute and plan capital projects.
Councilor Sciarra opened the floor to public comment.
Members asked questions and offered comments.
Councilors Maiore, LaBarge and Jarrett all expressed appreciation for hearing that water and sewer rates would not be increasing. Councilor Jarrett took the opportunity to ask the director
if the city’s water and sewer infrastructure is prepared to handle additional homes that may result from proposed zoning changes.
Director LaScaleia said the DPW reviews plans received on a case-by-case basis. If the question is about capacity in a certain neighborhood in a certain area on a certain street, the
DPW would have to review the project to see if it is possible to maintain fire flows and for existing infrastructure to accommodate the addition. Any time development is proposed anywhere,
they have a review process they go through.
Councilor Jarrett noted that a lot of development is a house here and a house there.
Generally, what he describes is not problematic for their infrastructure but, again, it’s something they review on a case by case basis, the director reiterated. The addition of multiple
units is something they have to look at more closely than a single house, but a lot depends on where it is in the system. There are a lot of factors that go into whether it could potentially
be a problem for them but generally it’s not.
There being no further comments, Councilor Dwight moved to close the hearing. Councilor LaBarge seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote. The hearing was closed
at 9:38 p.m.
Public Hearings
Public hearing concerning the Northampton Capital Improv-ment Program for FY2022-FY2026 –
Public hearing to consider FY 2022 Water and Sewer Rates
Public Hearings
Public hearing concerning the Northampton Capital Improvement Program for FY2022-FY2026
Councilor Sciarra introduced the hearing by reading the legal notice.
Councilor Dwight moved to open the public hearing. Councilor Jarrett seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote. The hearing was opened at 8:46 p.m.
Mayor Narkewicz said he is proud this evening to present the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for FY2022-2026. This is the 10th and final CIP that he’ll be presenting. The City Charter
requires the mayor every year to create essentially a five-year road map of all potential capital needs of the city across all departments and schools. The program includes buildings,
vehicles, repairs to infrastructure, technology and equipment. The goal of the CIP is to map out and be able to show a blueprint for how the city could fund those capital needs over
a five-year period.
The capital program this year consists of 101 projects totaling $76,628,290 spread out over five years with projects across all city departments plus the two school districts.
Mayor Narkewicz screen-shared pg. 9 of the CIP, showing an overview of projects from different areas and funding sources, including cash capital, Free Cash, stabilization funds, borrowing
and enterprise funds.
Appendix A contains a color-coded summary of each project broken down by fiscal year. It is important to note that Central Services seems to have a lot of projects in this particular
capital program. As the facilities department, they are often the leader in the city’s capital projects. A chart presents a summary of spending across different departments, including
the Office of Planning and Sustainability, Information Technology, Parks and Recreation, Fire/Rescue, etc. and on enterprise fund projects. In some cases, enterprise projects are some
of the largest projects spanning the whole five years of the program.
Appendix B includes a more detailed breakdown. The chart breaks out each individual project and tells where the funding is coming from. As an example, the 2011 flatbed truck replacement
is coming out of the Parking Receipts Reserved Fund. Each fiscal year has a breakdown show-ing where funding comes from.
Appendix C shows the CIP2 form for each project with a description of the project and the reason for the project.
Some are continuations of projects they have been working on for several years, such as the upgrade to the sewage treatment plant and a review of city and school buildings as part of
a project around climate resiliency, namely, a facilities assessment for greenhouse gas emissions.
As part of the city’s efforts to become carbon neutral, he issued an executive order several years ago calling for assessing all city’s buildings for greenhouse gas emissions. Over 2022
and 2023, assessments of the JFK Middle School, Ryan Road Elementary School, Leeds Elementary School, etc., will take place. Associated projects range from replacing critical HVAC components
to securing the building envelope by roof replacement, repairs to windows and chimney repairs.
While city officials focus on the operating budget, it is important they also focus on maintaining the city’s capital infrastructure which is critical for carrying out the operating
mission of the city, Mayor Narkewicz asserted. The capital plan is an important tool for making sure they are constantly assessing their infrastructure and planning for future investments.
He thanked department heads and staff for submitting narratives and helping to formulate the program and Finance Director Susan Wright for her work on her 10th and final CIP.
Significant projects across a lot of different departments are intended, among other things, to preserve open space, work on rail-trail networks, fulfill the city’s commitment to sustainability,
fulfill its commitment to the schools and making sure children are learning in sound buildings with good facilities, and provide modern, functional equipment to city employees so the
city ultimately is not spending thousands of dollars trying to keep vehicles and equipment repaired.
He would ask the City Council to adopt the program, he concluded.
Councilor Sciarra opened the floor to public comment, offering to entertain comments in favor of the CIP.
Mayor Narkewicz clarified this is not an actual spending or borrowing order, it is a planning document. Actual spending or borrowing to fund projects will come later. What the council
is voting on tonight is really a planning document and does not authorize borrowing or spending.
Councilor Sciarra asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Hearing none, she opened the floor to questions from councilors.
Councilors asked questions and offered comments. Councilor Jarrett said he really appreciates seeing the energy efficiency improvements. He noted the program proposes replacement of
a boiler in one of the school buildings and specifies they are looking at heat pumps. The narrative for the Smith Vocational boiler does not mention energy-efficient options. He asked
if they are thinking about alternatives there as well.
Mayor Narkewicz said he believes they will be looking at alternatives. He acknowledged the narratives are slightly different. They don’t have a shared facilities department for Smith
Voke but certainly they will be working with them and talking about energy-efficient and all electric alternatives. They have more of an immediate problem with one of their boilers
that they’re trying to address. They did do an energy analysis for Smith Voke as part of the ConEdison evaluation so that will be part of their analysis as well.
Regarding lighting, Councilor Jarrett noted that they have guidelines for outdoor lighting. When upgrading indoor lighting, he asked if thought is given to public health recommendations
around the color temperature of the lighting.
They definitely focus on that for indoor lighting as well, Mayor Narkewicz confirmed. Outdoor lighting was dark-sky rated and they tried to follow AMA guidance. As part of LED replacement
they will make sure they are using the most up to date standards, including the right temperature and tone of lighting.
Moving on to planning and sustainability, Councilor Jarrett asked about money earmarked for multi-use trails. He said he knows many of these need to be resurfaced. He doesn’t think enough
is allocated for that. He asked if grants can be leveraged for repairs. He expressed his understanding that grants could often only be used for establishing new trails rather than ongoing
maintenance.
They do look at the condition of the trails and have gone back and done some repairs to some of their oldest trails. These are also now CPA eligible projects. They definitely are monitoring
the age and condition of the rail trails and making investments, he assured. They did some sections of the trail near Earl Street where they had some heaving and damage.
Councilor Jarrett referred to the big ticket item, namely, $6 million for radio communications upgrade, and asked about $3 million listed as ‘other.’ He asked the mayor to describe the
project.
This has been a long, slow-developing project funded in the capital plan two or three years ago, Mayor Narkewicz related. They have a lot of aging radio equipment as well as aging networks
and systems. The system includes Police, Dispatch, Central Services, Fire/Rescue, schools, etc. As they are looking at investing and changing radios, they are finding dead spots in
many areas, including the school buildings.
The earlier capital plan basically commissioned a study. The study recommended a series of investments in equipment and communication towers. The project estimate is $6 million but it
is actually going to be broken up into $3 million over two years and will probably be borrowed. The bids for the project have been received but not opened yet. He thinks they will have
a clearer understanding of the costs when they are bringing forth orders. The other $3 million reflects that the investments are being broken up.
Councilor Jarrett said he noticed the parking department is using electric vehicles and the building department is using hybrid vehicles. He wondered if electric vehicles would be appropriate
for the building department as well.
The building department puts a lot of miles on their vehicles, Mayor Narkewicz said. They used to have big SUV-type vehicles. The Building Commission and building inspectors often have
to respond 24/7.
They have moved towards Subaru’s because they are more fuel efficient and have all wheel drive capability. Also, inspectors carry equipment. They have transitioned from SUV’s. They like
the Subaru’s at this point but he could certainly see them moving toward all electric at some point in the future.
About sidewalks and traffic calming, last year, they didn’t allocate anything directly in the capital plan, although he knows it was part of some projects, Councilor Jarrett said. He
was wondering if that means there is more deferred maintenance and more might be needed there.
They took a break last year because they felt they could, Mayor Narkewicz confirmed. They did do traffic calming projects this year. North Farms Road was an example where they did some
installations using traffic-calming money. He doesn’t think they’ve fallen behind. They are restoring the commitment to it this year and going forward. He doesn’t think they need to
double it this year because they fell behind. It’s true projects were a little bit less this year because of the pandemic. He thinks they have sufficient funding in there to handle
all the different projects that will be happening.
Councilor LaBarge mentioned the situation at the Ryan Road School where teachers brought to her attention that a small bathroom in the nurse’s office was being used for a couple of children
in wheelchairs who needed a Hoyer lift. Two staff are needed for the safety of the child and staff. She asked Superintendent Provost and he said they had applied for $40,000 for capital
improve-ments. She asked if he had an update on that project.
Mayor Narkewicz said he knows they talked about this last year. School administrators have been looking at this along with other projects. Initial engineering and design work estimated
the cost as over $200,000 because of substantial renovations needed to plumbing and removal of masonry walls. It didn’t make the program that year and the schools have not resubmitted
it. The schools have been in a different posture this year, being closed. They did not resubmit it, so he doesn’t know the status of the project.
There being no further comments, Councilor Dwight moved to close the public hearing. Councilor LaBarge seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote. The hearing closed
at 9:20 p.m.
Public hearing to consider FY 2022 Water and Sewer Rates
Councilor Jarrett moved to open the public hearing. Councilor Dwight seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote. The hearing opened at 9:21 p.m.
The order before them would essentially maintain water and sewer rates at the FY2021 level, Mayor Narkewicz presented. He deferred to Director LaScaleia for background.
The DPW has forecast and analyzed personnel and operating expenses, capital expenses and proposed capital projects, inclusive of existing anticipated debt service in the water and sewer
enterprises, as part of the FY22 budgeting process, Director LaScaleia reported. Their analyses and recommendations are predicated on maintaining a commitment to consistent and adequate
investment in infrastructure, maintaining adequate stabilization balances and insuring long-term rate stability.
For the water enterprise, the DPW is responsible for operating, maintaining and improving 160 miles of water mains, including two transmission mains, Director LaScaleia presented. They
operate, maintain and improve a 6.5 million gallon per day water treatment plant, three active surface water reservoirs and dams, two active wells, two pump stations, the 200,000-gallon
Audubon Road storage tank, a corrosion control facility and over 3,000 acres of watershed land. All operations are closely monitored and regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) at the federal level and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) at the state level.
The DPW has requested $4.5 million to continue water line replacement in locations that were identified in the 2013 Water Asset Management plan, including Atwood Drive, Winter Street
- where they have had two catastrophic water main breaks in five years - the Masonic Street parking lot, Damon Road and North King Street. Damon Road and North King both include non-participating
Transportation Infrastructure Program (TIP) work, meaning it is city funded. The proposed Main Street reconstruction, which is currently slated for FY2025, requires extensive non-TIP
work totaling $2.5 million. The city has two water mains running down Main Street from 1871 and 1914 so they can’t engage in any reconstruction of Main Street without dealing with some
very aged water infrastructure there. They have also requested $14.1 million to fund drinking water reservoir and dam spillway repairs and relocation of a water transmission main from
1901 which runs cross country through a swamp into the city.
In FY2022, debt service in the water enterprise fund will be nearly $2 million, representing more than 30% of total revenue, as a result of a $25.8 million bond issuance for construction
of the water treatment plant in 2006 that doesn’t clear the debt schedule until FY 2028. The level of existing debt service does not allow for the assumption of additional debt to support
remedying the currently known infrastructure deficiencies, many of which were just mentioned.
The pandemic has disrupted water consumption levels with revenue down roughly 6%. Given the difficult economic environment in which they are operating, they are recommending water rates
be unchanged for FY2022 with the caveat that they will need to continue to carefully manage the enterprise and carefully manage capital projects given continuing capital demands.
For the sewer enterprise, the city operates, maintains and improves more than 110 miles of sewer lines, seven pump stations and a 15-million gallon per day waste water treatment plant
(WWTP). As with water, all of their operations are closely monitored and regulated by the EPA and MassDEP. They have requested $4.3 million through FY2026 for sewer line replacement.
This funding will most immediately support the reconstruction of the Masonic Street parking lot cross-country sewer main which serves many Main Street residents and businesses and is
in very poor condition. At the WWTP, in 2017 and 2018 projects were completed there to replace sludge pumps and to convert the plant’s effluent disinfection process from chlorine gas
to sodium hypochlorite. These projects together represent an investment of more than a million dollars. As required by Mass. general law, the city obtained an owner’s project manager
(OPM) and designer for the next phase of upgrades, which focus on upgrading the plant’s electrical power, emergency power and treatment processes. The contract for these services totals
about $2.5 million. In June of 2020, they signed a construction contract for more than $10 million, and work on these upgrades is ongoing now. Funds for this project were borrowed through
the Massachusetts Clean Water Trust and in FY2023, they will see debt service in this enterprise swell to a million dollars. They have requested $12.2 million over the next five years
for design of the next phase of WWTP upgrades and upgrades of remote pumping stations. Based on planning, they anticipate more than $50 million in needed funds to support future capital
projects beyond FY2026 for both treatment and collection. As in water, COVID-19 has disrupted consumption levels, and revenue is down 8% over the last eight months. Given the difficult
environment in which they are operating, they are recommending that rates be unchanged for FY2022. Again, this will require them to continue to carefully manage this enterprise and
carefully execute and plan capital projects.
Councilor Sciarra opened the floor to public comment.
Members asked questions and offered comments.
Councilors Maiore, LaBarge and Jarrett all expressed appreciation for hearing that water and sewer rates would not be increasing. Councilor Jarrett took the opportunity to ask the director
if the city’s water and sewer infrastructure is prepared to handle additional homes that may result from proposed zoning changes.
Director LaScaleia said the DPW reviews plans received on a case-by-case basis. If the question is about capacity in a certain neighborhood in a certain area on a certain street, the
DPW would have to review the project to see if it is possible to maintain fire flows and for existing infrastructure to accommodate the addition. Any time development is proposed anywhere,
they have a review process they go through.
Councilor Jarrett noted that a lot of development is a house here and a house there.
Generally, what he describes is not problematic for their infrastructure but, again, it’s something they review on a case by case basis, the director reiterated. The addition of multiple
units is something they have to look at more closely than a single house, but a lot depends on where it is in the system. There are a lot of factors that go into whether it could potentially
be a problem for them but generally it’s not.
There being no further comments, Councilor Dwight moved to close the hearing. Councilor LaBarge seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote. The hearing was closed
at 9:38 p.m.
Public Hearings
Public hearing concerning the Northampton Capital Improv-ment Program for FY2022-FY2026 –
Public hearing to consider FY 2022 Water and Sewer Rates
Public Hearings
Public hearing concerning the Northampton Capital Improvement Program for FY2022-FY2026
Councilor Sciarra introduced the hearing by reading the legal notice.
Councilor Dwight moved to open the public hearing. Councilor Jarrett seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote. The hearing was opened at 8:46 p.m.
Mayor Narkewicz said he is proud this evening to present the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for FY2022-2026. This is the 10th and final CIP that he’ll be presenting. The City Charter
requires the mayor every year to create essentially a five-year road map of all potential capital needs of the city across all departments and schools. The program includes buildings,
vehicles, repairs to infrastructure, technology and equipment. The goal of the CIP is to map out and be able to show a blueprint for how the city could fund those capital needs over
a five-year period.
The capital program this year consists of 101 projects totaling $76,628,290 spread out over five years with projects across all city departments plus the two school districts.
Mayor Narkewicz screen-shared pg. 9 of the CIP, showing an overview of projects from different areas and funding sources, including cash capital, Free Cash, stabilization funds, borrowing
and enterprise funds.
Appendix A contains a color-coded summary of each project broken down by fiscal year. It is important to note that Central Services seems to have a lot of projects in this particular
capital program. As the facilities department, they are often the leader in the city’s capital projects. A chart presents a summary of spending across different departments, including
the Office of Planning and Sustainability, Information Technology, Parks and Recreation, Fire/Rescue, etc. and on enterprise fund projects. In some cases, enterprise projects are some
of the largest projects spanning the whole five years of the program.
Appendix B includes a more detailed breakdown. The chart breaks out each individual project and tells where the funding is coming from. As an example, the 2011 flatbed truck replacement
is coming out of the Parking Receipts Reserved Fund. Each fiscal year has a breakdown show-ing where funding comes from.
Appendix C shows the CIP2 form for each project with a description of the project and the reason for the project.
Some are continuations of projects they have been working on for several years, such as the upgrade to the sewage treatment plant and a review of city and school buildings as part of
a project around climate resiliency, namely, a facilities assessment for greenhouse gas emissions.
As part of the city’s efforts to become carbon neutral, he issued an executive order several years ago calling for assessing all city’s buildings for greenhouse gas emissions. Over 2022
and 2023, assessments of the JFK Middle School, Ryan Road Elementary School, Leeds Elementary School, etc., will take place. Associated projects range from replacing critical HVAC components
to securing the building envelope by roof replacement, repairs to windows and chimney repairs.
While city officials focus on the operating budget, it is important they also focus on maintaining the city’s capital infrastructure which is critical for carrying out the operating
mission of the city, Mayor Narkewicz asserted. The capital plan is an important tool for making sure they are constantly assessing their infrastructure and planning for future investments.
He thanked department heads and staff for submitting narratives and helping to formulate the program and Finance Director Susan Wright for her work on her 10th and final CIP.
Significant projects across a lot of different departments are intended, among other things, to preserve open space, work on rail-trail networks, fulfill the city’s commitment to sustainability,
fulfill its commitment to the schools and making sure children are learning in sound buildings with good facilities, and provide modern, functional equipment to city employees so the
city ultimately is not spending thousands of dollars trying to keep vehicles and equipment repaired.
He would ask the City Council to adopt the program, he concluded.
Councilor Sciarra opened the floor to public comment, offering to entertain comments in favor of the CIP.
Mayor Narkewicz clarified this is not an actual spending or borrowing order, it is a planning document. Actual spending or borrowing to fund projects will come later. What the council
is voting on tonight is really a planning document and does not authorize borrowing or spending.
Councilor Sciarra asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Hearing none, she opened the floor to questions from councilors.
Councilors asked questions and offered comments. Councilor Jarrett said he really appreciates seeing the energy efficiency improvements. He noted the program proposes replacement of
a boiler in one of the school buildings and specifies they are looking at heat pumps. The narrative for the Smith Vocational boiler does not mention energy-efficient options. He asked
if they are thinking about alternatives there as well.
Mayor Narkewicz said he believes they will be looking at alternatives. He acknowledged the narratives are slightly different. They don’t have a shared facilities department for Smith
Voke but certainly they will be working with them and talking about energy-efficient and all electric alternatives. They have more of an immediate problem with one of their boilers
that they’re trying to address. They did do an energy analysis for Smith Voke as part of the ConEdison evaluation so that will be part of their analysis as well.
Regarding lighting, Councilor Jarrett noted that they have guidelines for outdoor lighting. When upgrading indoor lighting, he asked if thought is given to public health recommendations
around the color temperature of the lighting.
They definitely focus on that for indoor lighting as well, Mayor Narkewicz confirmed. Outdoor lighting was dark-sky rated and they tried to follow AMA guidance. As part of LED replacement
they will make sure they are using the most up to date standards, including the right temperature and tone of lighting.
Moving on to planning and sustainability, Councilor Jarrett asked about money earmarked for multi-use trails. He said he knows many of these need to be resurfaced. He doesn’t think enough
is allocated for that. He asked if grants can be leveraged for repairs. He expressed his understanding that grants could often only be used for establishing new trails rather than ongoing
maintenance.
They do look at the condition of the trails and have gone back and done some repairs to some of their oldest trails. These are also now CPA eligible projects. They definitely are monitoring
the age and condition of the rail trails and making investments, he assured. They did some sections of the trail near Earl Street where they had some heaving and damage.
Councilor Jarrett referred to the big ticket item, namely, $6 million for radio communications upgrade, and asked about $3 million listed as ‘other.’ He asked the mayor to describe the
project.
This has been a long, slow-developing project funded in the capital plan two or three years ago, Mayor Narkewicz related. They have a lot of aging radio equipment as well as aging networks
and systems. The system includes Police, Dispatch, Central Services, Fire/Rescue, schools, etc. As they are looking at investing and changing radios, they are finding dead spots in
many areas, including the school buildings.
The earlier capital plan basically commissioned a study. The study recommended a series of investments in equipment and communication towers. The project estimate is $6 million but it
is actually going to be broken up into $3 million over two years and will probably be borrowed. The bids for the project have been received but not opened yet. He thinks they will have
a clearer understanding of the costs when they are bringing forth orders. The other $3 million reflects that the investments are being broken up.
Councilor Jarrett said he noticed the parking department is using electric vehicles and the building department is using hybrid vehicles. He wondered if electric vehicles would be appropriate
for the building department as well.
The building department puts a lot of miles on their vehicles, Mayor Narkewicz said. They used to have big SUV-type vehicles. The Building Commission and building inspectors often have
to respond 24/7.
They have moved towards Subaru’s because they are more fuel efficient and have all wheel drive capability. Also, inspectors carry equipment. They have transitioned from SUV’s. They like
the Subaru’s at this point but he could certainly see them moving toward all electric at some point in the future.
About sidewalks and traffic calming, last year, they didn’t allocate anything directly in the capital plan, although he knows it was part of some projects, Councilor Jarrett said. He
was wondering if that means there is more deferred maintenance and more might be needed there.
They took a break last year because they felt they could, Mayor Narkewicz confirmed. They did do traffic calming projects this year. North Farms Road was an example where they did some
installations using traffic-calming money. He doesn’t think they’ve fallen behind. They are restoring the commitment to it this year and going forward. He doesn’t think they need to
double it this year because they fell behind. It’s true projects were a little bit less this year because of the pandemic. He thinks they have sufficient funding in there to handle
all the different projects that will be happening.
Councilor LaBarge mentioned the situation at the Ryan Road School where teachers brought to her attention that a small bathroom in the nurse’s office was being used for a couple of children
in wheelchairs who needed a Hoyer lift. Two staff are needed for the safety of the child and staff. She asked Superintendent Provost and he said they had applied for $40,000 for capital
improve-ments. She asked if he had an update on that project.
Mayor Narkewicz said he knows they talked about this last year. School administrators have been looking at this along with other projects. Initial engineering and design work estimated
the cost as over $200,000 because of substantial renovations needed to plumbing and removal of masonry walls. It didn’t make the program that year and the schools have not resubmitted
it. The schools have been in a different posture this year, being closed. They did not resubmit it, so he doesn’t know the status of the project.
There being no further comments, Councilor Dwight moved to close the public hearing. Councilor LaBarge seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote. The hearing closed
at 9:20 p.m.
Public hearing to consider FY 2022 Water and Sewer Rates
Councilor Jarrett moved to open the public hearing. Councilor Dwight seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote. The hearing opened at 9:21 p.m.
The order before them would essentially maintain water and sewer rates at the FY2021 level, Mayor Narkewicz presented. He deferred to Director LaScaleia for background.
The DPW has forecast and analyzed personnel and operating expenses, capital expenses and proposed capital projects, inclusive of existing anticipated debt service in the water and sewer
enterprises, as part of the FY22 budgeting process, Director LaScaleia reported. Their analyses and recommendations are predicated on maintaining a commitment to consistent and adequate
investment in infrastructure, maintaining adequate stabilization balances and insuring long-term rate stability.
For the water enterprise, the DPW is responsible for operating, maintaining and improving 160 miles of water mains, including two transmission mains, Director LaScaleia presented. They
operate, maintain and improve a 6.5 million gallon per day water treatment plant, three active surface water reservoirs and dams, two active wells, two pump stations, the 200,000-gallon
Audubon Road storage tank, a corrosion control facility and over 3,000 acres of watershed land. All operations are closely monitored and regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) at the federal level and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) at the state level.
The DPW has requested $4.5 million to continue water line replacement in locations that were identified in the 2013 Water Asset Management plan, including Atwood Drive, Winter Street
- where they have had two catastrophic water main breaks in five years - the Masonic Street parking lot, Damon Road and North King Street. Damon Road and North King both include non-participating
Transportation Infrastructure Program (TIP) work, meaning it is city funded. The proposed Main Street reconstruction, which is currently slated for FY2025, requires extensive non-TIP
work totaling $2.5 million. The city has two water mains running down Main Street from 1871 and 1914 so they can’t engage in any reconstruction of Main Street without dealing with some
very aged water infrastructure there. They have also requested $14.1 million to fund drinking water reservoir and dam spillway repairs and relocation of a water transmission main from
1901 which runs cross country through a swamp into the city.
In FY2022, debt service in the water enterprise fund will be nearly $2 million, representing more than 30% of total revenue, as a result of a $25.8 million bond issuance for construction
of the water treatment plant in 2006 that doesn’t clear the debt schedule until FY 2028. The level of existing debt service does not allow for the assumption of additional debt to support
remedying the currently known infrastructure deficiencies, many of which were just mentioned.
The pandemic has disrupted water consumption levels with revenue down roughly 6%. Given the difficult economic environment in which they are operating, they are recommending water rates
be unchanged for FY2022 with the caveat that they will need to continue to carefully manage the enterprise and carefully manage capital projects given continuing capital demands.
For the sewer enterprise, the city operates, maintains and improves more than 110 miles of sewer lines, seven pump stations and a 15-million gallon per day waste water treatment plant
(WWTP). As with water, all of their operations are closely monitored and regulated by the EPA and MassDEP. They have requested $4.3 million through FY2026 for sewer line replacement.
This funding will most immediately support the reconstruction of the Masonic Street parking lot cross-country sewer main which serves many Main Street residents and businesses and is
in very poor condition. At the WWTP, in 2017 and 2018 projects were completed there to replace sludge pumps and to convert the plant’s effluent disinfection process from chlorine gas
to sodium hypochlorite. These projects together represent an investment of more than a million dollars. As required by Mass. general law, the city obtained an owner’s project manager
(OPM) and designer for the next phase of upgrades, which focus on upgrading the plant’s electrical power, emergency power and treatment processes. The contract for these services totals
about $2.5 million. In June of 2020, they signed a construction contract for more than $10 million, and work on these upgrades is ongoing now. Funds for this project were borrowed through
the Massachusetts Clean Water Trust and in FY2023, they will see debt service in this enterprise swell to a million dollars. They have requested $12.2 million over the next five years
for design of the next phase of WWTP upgrades and upgrades of remote pumping stations. Based on planning, they anticipate more than $50 million in needed funds to support future capital
projects beyond FY2026 for both treatment and collection. As in water, COVID-19 has disrupted consumption levels, and revenue is down 8% over the last eight months. Given the difficult
environment in which they are operating, they are recommending that rates be unchanged for FY2022. Again, this will require them to continue to carefully manage this enterprise and
carefully execute and plan capital projects.
Councilor Sciarra opened the floor to public comment.
Members asked questions and offered comments.
Councilors Maiore, LaBarge and Jarrett all expressed appreciation for hearing that water and sewer rates would not be increasing. Councilor Jarrett took the opportunity to ask the director
if the city’s water and sewer infrastructure is prepared to handle additional homes that may result from proposed zoning changes.
Director LaScaleia said the DPW reviews plans received on a case-by-case basis. If the question is about capacity in a certain neighborhood in a certain area on a certain street, the
DPW would have to review the project to see if it is possible to maintain fire flows and for existing infrastructure to accommodate the addition. Any time development is proposed anywhere,
they have a review process they go through.
Councilor Jarrett noted that a lot of development is a house here and a house there.
Generally, what he describes is not problematic for their infrastructure but, again, it’s something they review on a case by case basis, the director reiterated. The addition of multiple
units is something they have to look at more closely than a single house, but a lot depends on where it is in the system. There are a lot of factors that go into whether it could potentially
be a problem for them but generally it’s not.
There being no further comments, Councilor Dwight moved to close the hearing. Councilor LaBarge seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote. The hearing was closed
at 9:38 p.m.
T
Updates from Council President/ Committee Chairs
Updates from Council President and Committee Chairs
The City Council received the Northampton Policing Review Commission’s (NPRC’s) final report this afternoon, Councilor Sciarra announced. A special joint meeting with the mayor and full
commission for presentation of the report has been scheduled for Tuesday, March 30th at 6 p.m. She is deeply grateful for the time that has gone into writing this report and is looking
forward to taking the time to carefully read it. The report will be posted to the city website on the NPRC page under boards and committees.
The City Services Committee will hold its next regular meeting on Monday, April 5th at 4 p.m., Councilor LaBarge reminded. In addition to taking up two reappointments to the Planning
Board, members will be having a general conversation with Mayor Narkewicz about his selection and appointment process for volunteer boards and committees.
.
Recognitions and One-Minute Announcements by Councilors
Recognitions and One-Minute Announcements by Councilors
Councilor Foster said she wanted to take a moment to acknowledge the Asian American community living in Northampton following the hate crimes yesterday in Georgia. It has been a year
of increasing xenophobic activities targeted at Asian Americans living in the United States. “We like to think it’s an outside problem but it’s in Northampton as well.” There will be
a vigil sponsored by the women’s march tomorrow at Pulaski Park at 6 p.m. Thursday, March 25th will be a statewide Town Hall from 6 to 7:30 p.m. at which the Asian American caucus will
share its efforts to combat anti-Asian racism. It is an opportunity for all people to hear what is being Asian led and to sign on as allies. She said she would share a link on her Facebook
page.
Councilor Maiore said she appreciated Councilor Foster’s comment and the public comment received tonight and wanted to take a moment as well to be faithful to the resolution passed last
year denouncing anti-Asian, anti-Asian American and Xenophobic discrimination. The resolution calls on the community to condemn and denounce all manifestations of anti-Asian sentiment
and xenophobia and to show solidarity with Asian American family, friends and community members. The horrific murders of eight people in Atlanta, the majority of whom were Asian American
and women, were no doubt outrageous acts of misogynism and hate. Sadly, all of this is part of a significant rise in anti-Asian American hate crimes. To their Asian and Pacific Island
community members, she is confident she speaks for the entire council in saying their hearts are with them and they unequivocally stand with them.
Recognitions and One-Minute Announcements by Councilors
Recognitions and One-Minute Announcements by Councilors
Councilor Foster said she wanted to take a moment to acknowledge the Asian American community living in Northampton following the hate crimes yesterday in Georgia. It has been a year
of increasing xenophobic activities targeted at Asian Americans living in the United States. “We like to think it’s an outside problem but it’s in Northampton as well.” There will be
a vigil sponsored by the women’s march tomorrow at Pulaski Park at 6 p.m. Thursday, March 25th will be a statewide Town Hall from 6 to 7:30 p.m. at which the Asian American caucus will
share its efforts to combat anti-Asian racism. It is an opportunity for all people to hear what is being Asian led and to sign on as allies. She said she would share a link on her Facebook
page.
Councilor Maiore said she appreciated Councilor Foster’s comment and the public comment received tonight and wanted to take a moment as well to be faithful to the resolution passed last
year denouncing anti-Asian, anti-Asian American and Xenophobic discrimination. The resolution calls on the community to condemn and denounce all manifestations of anti-Asian sentiment
and xenophobia and to show solidarity with Asian American family, friends and community members. The horrific murders of eight people in Atlanta, the majority of whom were Asian American
and women, were no doubt outrageous acts of misogynism and hate. Sadly, all of this is part of a significant rise in anti-Asian American hate crimes. To their Asian and Pacific Island
community members, she is confident she speaks for the entire council in saying their hearts are with them and they unequivocally stand with them.
Communications and Proclamations from the Mayor
Communications and Proclamations from the Mayor
None.
Resolutions
21.201 Resolution in Opposition to State Incentives for Biomass Plants-2nd reading
21.207 Resolution Decriminalizing Controlled Substance Possession as well as Cultivation and Distribution of Psychedelic Plants - 1st reading
21.208 Resolution to Adopt the Capital Improvement Program for FY2022-FY2026 Submitted to City Council on February 24, 2021 - 1st reading
21.209 Resolution Expressing Gratitude to Northampton Health Department, First Responders, Ancillary Staff and Volunteers for Efforts to Vaccinate Our Community - 1st reading
Resolutions
21.201 A Resolution in Opposition to State Incentives for Biomass Plants – 2nd reading
Councilor Dwight moved to approve the resolution in second reading. Councilor LaBarge seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
The following resolution passed two readings:
Passed two readings and enrolled.
21.207 A Resolution Decriminalizing Controlled Substance Possession as well as Cultivation and Distribution of Psychedelic Plants - 1st reading
Councilor Dwight read the resolution.
Councilor Dwight deferred to the resolution’s principal author, Councilor Maiore.
Councilor Maiore thanked the residents who brought this to their attention, Dan Bensonoff and James Davis of Bay State for Natural Medicine. Northampton, like cities across the country,
is in the process of examining and reimagining its public safety system, so she thinks it’s the ideal time to finally cast off the burden of the drug policy of the war on drugs that
offers nothing toward their health, safety or community wellbeing but by design disproportionately harms people of color, people of limited financial means and other marginalized and
targeted communities. To her, this is a racial justice issue. Black Americans make up only 15% of drug users in the U.S. but account for 37% of those arrested for drug offenses. Black
defendants will serve on average the same amount of time for federal drug offenses that white defendants do for violent crimes. Of those in federal prison for drug-related offenses,
nearly 80% are black or Latinx. It’s time to discard what’s not working and lead with what is, therapeutic and harm reduction programs that treat drug use as the public health problem
that it is. Decriminalization actually eases the load of law enforcement. Portugal, which decriminalized in 2000, has seen no surge of drug use while the number of people being treated
for drug addiction rose 20%.
What if here they used their resources for drug treatment instead of providing for jail cells? She asked rhetorically. It’s time to get out of the way of breakthrough drug treatments
currently made inaccessible through the criminalization of psychedelic plant therapies. Many veteran’s organiz-ations support their study and legalization. A 2017 study of 44,000 Americans
found that psych-edelic use was associated with a 40% reduction in opioid use. A November 2020 study in the Journal of the AMA study found 1 in 3 patients put their major depression
in remission after only two psilocybin therapeutic sessions. Drugs like psilocybin are in a Catch 22 because they are classified as Schedule 1 drugs because they allegedly have no acceptable
medical use but Schedule 1 status means researchers are prevented from fully investigating psilocybin for its medical therapeutic value. She shared a quote from Vermont representative
Brian Cina, including, “It’s long past time we allow science and lived experience experts to lead on substance abuse disorder.”
Councilor Dwight said he is grateful to Councilor Maiore for approaching him on this so he could include this in his swan song package. This is an issue close to his heart. For years,
he has been studying the development and creation of drug laws and this culture’s understanding and approach to drugs. He has a sense of context that’s frequently missing. The fact
is that all of them seek out mind-altering behavior. As kids, spinning around in a circle multiple times just to get dizzy is something they do and, for the most part, historically
this isn’t something [society] tries to manage and control. The management and control of drugs and, in fact, all drug laws in the United States, including originally the alcohol prohibition,
were predicated on racism; they were based and built and argued and debated and moved forward on racism. Subsequently, the nation’s involvement in drugs was dependent on which area
of the world troops were embedded. The ‘golden triangle’ gave them the heroin epidemic during the Vietnam War because troops were in the golden triangle. Cocaine was connected directly
to their adventures in South America overthrowing democratically-elected governments. It’s always been politic. Marijuana prohibition was literally argued on the Senate floor with overt,
unabashed racist testimony. Alcohol and tobacco are drugs. They are allowed, yet they are also the two most lethal drugs that can be consumed. Psychoactive drugs by and large do not
kill you; in fact, they have benefits. He recommended reading Michael Pollan’s book ‘Changing your Mind.’
Psilocybin and peyote are all directly linked with indigenous peoples who use it for their religion. They need to understand that punitive measures to deal with these mind-altering substances
clearly do not work. It creates a criminal industry that is the best free market around. It is a profound perverse distortion that results in the destruction - the systematic and systemic
destruction - of hundreds and thousands and millions of people that is allowed to flourish because they’ve created this functional and oppressive structure and response.
This is a resolution. The City Council doesn’t have the authority to direct the police department to adhere to these policies. They cannot create a law in this respect, they are trumped
by state and federal laws. But as they all noted, the legalization of marijuana, which was trumpeted as being the signalization of the end times, was not realized.
Behaviors committed while under the influence, i.e. - driving, violence and abuse, etc., are actionable. The mere possession and consumption of alcohol is not. Psychoactive drugs in
particular were in the process of being studied and analyzed for their efficacy of any number of identified psychological disorders. That was all arrested; that was all stopped. In
fact, the federal government made it against the law to study the impacts and effects of any of these drugs.
The hope is that there will be a cultural shift. This resolution is an appeal for a cultural shift, an understanding of how they can best treat and respect each other and diminish the
pressures this 1) puts on law enforcement, and 2) puts on communities that have experienced a great imbalance in enforcement. “If we’re going to continue to lobby for the things we
say we care about. . . we have to understand that we need some serious work and some serious movement to. . . become more enlightened about how we treat the use and consumption and
distribution of these very varied items.” The fact that marijuana was scheduled along with methamphetamine was patently absurd, he asserted.
He’s really grateful this is being advanced and really grateful to actually send this off. He hopes the house bills start to come out of committee and be engaged, discussed and voted
on and that, barring that, a referendum is put on. He really hopes they can get people to back them up on this.
Councilor Nash thanked the sponsors for taking the lead. Clearly, they are the folks better equipped to sponsor this with their knowledge and expertise. It’s been an education for him.
He is completely on board with supporting this tonight. He thanked the sponsors and two constituents.
Councilor Jarrett thanked the sponsors for taking it up. The constituents also asked him to work on it but he didn’t have the time. The war on drugs is definitely a failed approach and
very much a failed public health approach.
Councilor Quinlan echoed his colleagues’ thoughts. When he read the resolution there was so much there he agreed with. There was a little bit of a queasy feeling about leaving this to
the discretion of the police to enforce. He’s not sure it’s fair to the police to charge them with enforcing laws but then to say not all of them. That said, he is in support and thinks
legalization is a great idea, particularly for medical use. He believes that three to five years down the road doctors will be prescribing these non-addictive medicines for people’s
relief.
Councilor LaBarge thanked sponsors and said she agrees with everything heard. She fully supports this resolution 100%. Using what’s described here, plants have helped many people with
different kinds of medical problems. She is happy to see this as a resolution and would love to see it go to the state house. “Let’s make it happen.”
Councilor Thorpe thanked the sponsors and Dan Bensonoff. He had a nice conversation with him and he provided a lot of information. He explained to Dan that, with his employment and his
employer, he probably would abstain from this and he will be abstaining, he confirmed.
Councilor Quinlan suggested two small technical amendments. The act to establish a task force is H3829, not HD3439 and the resolution should reference the Hampshire County district attorney
(DA) instead of Hampden.
Councilor Dwight accepted both as friendly amendments. Councilor Maiore said she had a friendly amendment herself. Sponsors are not proposing to send a copy to DA Sullivan or the Northampton
police and she believes they should. Councilor Dwight asked the administrative assistant to add Northwestern District Attorney David Sullivan and Police Chief Jody Kasper to the list
of recipients.
Northampton has been in the forefront of harm reduction for the Commonwealth for over two and a half decades, Councilor Dwight noted. He cited the needle exchange program as an example.
Councilor Sciarra thanked sponsors and said she supports harm reduction strategies in general and strongly agrees it is a racial and social justice issue. She appreciates Councilor Dwight’s
call for a cultural shift. The statistics Councilor Maiore cited about the positive therapeutic impacts substances can have on depression, opioid addiction, etc. are really quite remarkable
and quite hopeful. She appreciated one speaker noting that these are substances indigenous people have used forever and that should be remembered and recognized.
The other friendly amendment is to change ‘adults’ to ‘individuals’ in every occurrence. That was the language in the state bill but if they are asking police to make it a low priority
for enforcement they can’t ask them to determine someone’s age.
Members agreed to bundle the amendments for voting purposes.
Councilor Maiore moved to approve the amendments as proposed. Councilor Dwight seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
Councilor Sciarra wondered if the resolution was checked by Northampton’s city solicitor since the resolution says Cambridge and Somerville passed resolutions following approval of their
legal departments.
Cambridge and Somerville have different structures of government so they can actually create policy for the police department, so it required being vetted because it was enacting law
or policy, Councilor Dwight pointed out. That’s not the case here. However, he said he has no problem referring it to the city solicitor in the intervening two weeks.
The resolution as amended passed unanimously 8:0 by roll call vote with one abstention (Councilor Thorpe).
See minutes of April 1, 2021 for second reading.
21.208 A Resolution to Adopt the Capital Improvement Program for FY2022-FY2026 Submitted to City Council on February 24, 2021 - 1st reading
Councilor Sciarra read the resolution.
Councilor Dwight reminded folks it is a plan, not a budget. It is a long-term plan that evolves over the years. It provides a road marker, if you will, and lays out issues needing to
be addressed down the line.
Councilor Quinlan moved to approve the resolution in first reading. Councilor LaBarge seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
See minutes of April 1, 2021 for second reading.
21.209 A Resolution Expressing Gratitude to Northampton Health Department, First Responders, Ancillary Staff and Volunteers for Efforts to Vaccinate Our Community - 1st reading
Councilor Sciarra read.
Councilor Dwight moved to approve the resolution in first reading. Councilor Quinlan seconded.
When she and her husband got their first shot, they were talking to fire department members and they were telling them how they work four on and three off and not on city time, Councilor
LaBarge related. It is just amazing how well the Mayor, Board of Health Director Merridith O’Leary and her entire team have the entire senior center running so smoothly. Many people
she knows who went to have their vaccines there were very, very happy. The health director has done an incredible job. On Facebook, many people were upset when the website came down.
It wasn’t her fault at all but she still continued making it a safe, smooth road for everyone. Many, many volunteers were there to save many, many lives. Yes, they did lose some in
their city and also some veterans. She thanked co-sponsors Councilors Sciarra and Quinlan. To her, it is a huge shout out to those who have worked together saving lives.
The two other sponsors (Councilor Quinlan and Councilor Sciarra) and Councilors Foster, Dwight, Jarrett and Maiore spoke in support of the resolution and in praise of the health department’s
operation of the vaccination and testing programs.
The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
See minutes of April 1, 2021 for second reading.
Resolutions
21.201 Resolution in Opposition to State Incentives for Biomass Plants-2nd reading
21.207 Resolution Decriminalizing Controlled Substance Possession as well as Cultivation and Distribution of Psychedelic Plants - 1st reading
21.208 Resolution to Adopt the Capital Improvement Program for FY2022-FY2026 Submitted to City Council on February 24, 2021 - 1st reading
21.209 Resolution Expressing Gratitude to Northampton Health Department, First Responders, Ancillary Staff and Volunteers for Efforts to Vaccinate Our Community - 1st reading
Resolutions
21.201 A Resolution in Opposition to State Incentives for Biomass Plants – 2nd reading
Councilor Dwight moved to approve the resolution in second reading. Councilor LaBarge seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
The following resolution passed two readings:
Passed two readings and enrolled.
21.207 A Resolution Decriminalizing Controlled Substance Possession as well as Cultivation and Distribution of Psychedelic Plants - 1st reading
Councilor Dwight read the resolution.
Councilor Dwight deferred to the resolution’s principal author, Councilor Maiore.
Councilor Maiore thanked the residents who brought this to their attention, Dan Bensonoff and James Davis of Bay State for Natural Medicine. Northampton, like cities across the country,
is in the process of examining and reimagining its public safety system, so she thinks it’s the ideal time to finally cast off the burden of the drug policy of the war on drugs that
offers nothing toward their health, safety or community wellbeing but by design disproportionately harms people of color, people of limited financial means and other marginalized and
targeted communities. To her, this is a racial justice issue. Black Americans make up only 15% of drug users in the U.S. but account for 37% of those arrested for drug offenses. Black
defendants will serve on average the same amount of time for federal drug offenses that white defendants do for violent crimes. Of those in federal prison for drug-related offenses,
nearly 80% are black or Latinx. It’s time to discard what’s not working and lead with what is, therapeutic and harm reduction programs that treat drug use as the public health problem
that it is. Decriminalization actually eases the load of law enforcement. Portugal, which decriminalized in 2000, has seen no surge of drug use while the number of people being treated
for drug addiction rose 20%.
What if here they used their resources for drug treatment instead of providing for jail cells? She asked rhetorically. It’s time to get out of the way of breakthrough drug treatments
currently made inaccessible through the criminalization of psychedelic plant therapies. Many veteran’s organiz-ations support their study and legalization. A 2017 study of 44,000 Americans
found that psych-edelic use was associated with a 40% reduction in opioid use. A November 2020 study in the Journal of the AMA study found 1 in 3 patients put their major depression
in remission after only two psilocybin therapeutic sessions. Drugs like psilocybin are in a Catch 22 because they are classified as Schedule 1 drugs because they allegedly have no acceptable
medical use but Schedule 1 status means researchers are prevented from fully investigating psilocybin for its medical therapeutic value. She shared a quote from Vermont representative
Brian Cina, including, “It’s long past time we allow science and lived experience experts to lead on substance abuse disorder.”
Councilor Dwight said he is grateful to Councilor Maiore for approaching him on this so he could include this in his swan song package. This is an issue close to his heart. For years,
he has been studying the development and creation of drug laws and this culture’s understanding and approach to drugs. He has a sense of context that’s frequently missing. The fact
is that all of them seek out mind-altering behavior. As kids, spinning around in a circle multiple times just to get dizzy is something they do and, for the most part, historically
this isn’t something [society] tries to manage and control. The management and control of drugs and, in fact, all drug laws in the United States, including originally the alcohol prohibition,
were predicated on racism; they were based and built and argued and debated and moved forward on racism. Subsequently, the nation’s involvement in drugs was dependent on which area
of the world troops were embedded. The ‘golden triangle’ gave them the heroin epidemic during the Vietnam War because troops were in the golden triangle. Cocaine was connected directly
to their adventures in South America overthrowing democratically-elected governments. It’s always been politic. Marijuana prohibition was literally argued on the Senate floor with overt,
unabashed racist testimony. Alcohol and tobacco are drugs. They are allowed, yet they are also the two most lethal drugs that can be consumed. Psychoactive drugs by and large do not
kill you; in fact, they have benefits. He recommended reading Michael Pollan’s book ‘Changing your Mind.’
Psilocybin and peyote are all directly linked with indigenous peoples who use it for their religion. They need to understand that punitive measures to deal with these mind-altering substances
clearly do not work. It creates a criminal industry that is the best free market around. It is a profound perverse distortion that results in the destruction - the systematic and systemic
destruction - of hundreds and thousands and millions of people that is allowed to flourish because they’ve created this functional and oppressive structure and response.
This is a resolution. The City Council doesn’t have the authority to direct the police department to adhere to these policies. They cannot create a law in this respect, they are trumped
by state and federal laws. But as they all noted, the legalization of marijuana, which was trumpeted as being the signalization of the end times, was not realized.
Behaviors committed while under the influence, i.e. - driving, violence and abuse, etc., are actionable. The mere possession and consumption of alcohol is not. Psychoactive drugs in
particular were in the process of being studied and analyzed for their efficacy of any number of identified psychological disorders. That was all arrested; that was all stopped. In
fact, the federal government made it against the law to study the impacts and effects of any of these drugs.
The hope is that there will be a cultural shift. This resolution is an appeal for a cultural shift, an understanding of how they can best treat and respect each other and diminish the
pressures this 1) puts on law enforcement, and 2) puts on communities that have experienced a great imbalance in enforcement. “If we’re going to continue to lobby for the things we
say we care about. . . we have to understand that we need some serious work and some serious movement to. . . become more enlightened about how we treat the use and consumption and
distribution of these very varied items.” The fact that marijuana was scheduled along with methamphetamine was patently absurd, he asserted.
He’s really grateful this is being advanced and really grateful to actually send this off. He hopes the house bills start to come out of committee and be engaged, discussed and voted
on and that, barring that, a referendum is put on. He really hopes they can get people to back them up on this.
Councilor Nash thanked the sponsors for taking the lead. Clearly, they are the folks better equipped to sponsor this with their knowledge and expertise. It’s been an education for him.
He is completely on board with supporting this tonight. He thanked the sponsors and two constituents.
Councilor Jarrett thanked the sponsors for taking it up. The constituents also asked him to work on it but he didn’t have the time. The war on drugs is definitely a failed approach and
very much a failed public health approach.
Councilor Quinlan echoed his colleagues’ thoughts. When he read the resolution there was so much there he agreed with. There was a little bit of a queasy feeling about leaving this to
the discretion of the police to enforce. He’s not sure it’s fair to the police to charge them with enforcing laws but then to say not all of them. That said, he is in support and thinks
legalization is a great idea, particularly for medical use. He believes that three to five years down the road doctors will be prescribing these non-addictive medicines for people’s
relief.
Councilor LaBarge thanked sponsors and said she agrees with everything heard. She fully supports this resolution 100%. Using what’s described here, plants have helped many people with
different kinds of medical problems. She is happy to see this as a resolution and would love to see it go to the state house. “Let’s make it happen.”
Councilor Thorpe thanked the sponsors and Dan Bensonoff. He had a nice conversation with him and he provided a lot of information. He explained to Dan that, with his employment and his
employer, he probably would abstain from this and he will be abstaining, he confirmed.
Councilor Quinlan suggested two small technical amendments. The act to establish a task force is H3829, not HD3439 and the resolution should reference the Hampshire County district attorney
(DA) instead of Hampden.
Councilor Dwight accepted both as friendly amendments. Councilor Maiore said she had a friendly amendment herself. Sponsors are not proposing to send a copy to DA Sullivan or the Northampton
police and she believes they should. Councilor Dwight asked the administrative assistant to add Northwestern District Attorney David Sullivan and Police Chief Jody Kasper to the list
of recipients.
Northampton has been in the forefront of harm reduction for the Commonwealth for over two and a half decades, Councilor Dwight noted. He cited the needle exchange program as an example.
Councilor Sciarra thanked sponsors and said she supports harm reduction strategies in general and strongly agrees it is a racial and social justice issue. She appreciates Councilor Dwight’s
call for a cultural shift. The statistics Councilor Maiore cited about the positive therapeutic impacts substances can have on depression, opioid addiction, etc. are really quite remarkable
and quite hopeful. She appreciated one speaker noting that these are substances indigenous people have used forever and that should be remembered and recognized.
The other friendly amendment is to change ‘adults’ to ‘individuals’ in every occurrence. That was the language in the state bill but if they are asking police to make it a low priority
for enforcement they can’t ask them to determine someone’s age.
Members agreed to bundle the amendments for voting purposes.
Councilor Maiore moved to approve the amendments as proposed. Councilor Dwight seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
Councilor Sciarra wondered if the resolution was checked by Northampton’s city solicitor since the resolution says Cambridge and Somerville passed resolutions following approval of their
legal departments.
Cambridge and Somerville have different structures of government so they can actually create policy for the police department, so it required being vetted because it was enacting law
or policy, Councilor Dwight pointed out. That’s not the case here. However, he said he has no problem referring it to the city solicitor in the intervening two weeks.
The resolution as amended passed unanimously 8:0 by roll call vote with one abstention (Councilor Thorpe).
See minutes of April 1, 2021 for second reading.
21.208 A Resolution to Adopt the Capital Improvement Program for FY2022-FY2026 Submitted to City Council on February 24, 2021 - 1st reading
Councilor Sciarra read the resolution.
Councilor Dwight reminded folks it is a plan, not a budget. It is a long-term plan that evolves over the years. It provides a road marker, if you will, and lays out issues needing to
be addressed down the line.
Councilor Quinlan moved to approve the resolution in first reading. Councilor LaBarge seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
See minutes of April 1, 2021 for second reading.
21.209 A Resolution Expressing Gratitude to Northampton Health Department, First Responders, Ancillary Staff and Volunteers for Efforts to Vaccinate Our Community - 1st reading
Councilor Sciarra read.
Councilor Dwight moved to approve the resolution in first reading. Councilor Quinlan seconded.
When she and her husband got their first shot, they were talking to fire department members and they were telling them how they work four on and three off and not on city time, Councilor
LaBarge related. It is just amazing how well the Mayor, Board of Health Director Merridith O’Leary and her entire team have the entire senior center running so smoothly. Many people
she knows who went to have their vaccines there were very, very happy. The health director has done an incredible job. On Facebook, many people were upset when the website came down.
It wasn’t her fault at all but she still continued making it a safe, smooth road for everyone. Many, many volunteers were there to save many, many lives. Yes, they did lose some in
their city and also some veterans. She thanked co-sponsors Councilors Sciarra and Quinlan. To her, it is a huge shout out to those who have worked together saving lives.
The two other sponsors (Councilor Quinlan and Councilor Sciarra) and Councilors Foster, Dwight, Jarrett and Maiore spoke in support of the resolution and in praise of the health department’s
operation of the vaccination and testing programs.
The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
See minutes of April 1, 2021 for second reading.
Resolutions
21.201 Resolution in Opposition to State Incentives for Biomass Plants-2nd reading
21.207 Resolution Decriminalizing Controlled Substance Possession as well as Cultivation and Distribution of Psychedelic Plants - 1st reading
21.208 Resolution to Adopt the Capital Improvement Program for FY2022-FY2026 Submitted to City Council on February 24, 2021 - 1st reading
21.209 Resolution Expressing Gratitude to Northampton Health Department, First Responders, Ancillary Staff and Volunteers for Efforts to Vaccinate Our Community - 1st reading
Resolutions
21.201 A Resolution in Opposition to State Incentives for Biomass Plants – 2nd reading
Councilor Dwight moved to approve the resolution in second reading. Councilor LaBarge seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
The following resolution passed two readings:
Passed two readings and enrolled.
21.207 A Resolution Decriminalizing Controlled Substance Possession as well as Cultivation and Distribution of Psychedelic Plants - 1st reading
Councilor Dwight read the resolution.
Councilor Dwight deferred to the resolution’s principal author, Councilor Maiore.
Councilor Maiore thanked the residents who brought this to their attention, Dan Bensonoff and James Davis of Bay State for Natural Medicine. Northampton, like cities across the country,
is in the process of examining and reimagining its public safety system, so she thinks it’s the ideal time to finally cast off the burden of the drug policy of the war on drugs that
offers nothing toward their health, safety or community wellbeing but by design disproportionately harms people of color, people of limited financial means and other marginalized and
targeted communities. To her, this is a racial justice issue. Black Americans make up only 15% of drug users in the U.S. but account for 37% of those arrested for drug offenses. Black
defendants will serve on average the same amount of time for federal drug offenses that white defendants do for violent crimes. Of those in federal prison for drug-related offenses,
nearly 80% are black or Latinx. It’s time to discard what’s not working and lead with what is, therapeutic and harm reduction programs that treat drug use as the public health problem
that it is. Decriminalization actually eases the load of law enforcement. Portugal, which decriminalized in 2000, has seen no surge of drug use while the number of people being treated
for drug addiction rose 20%.
What if here they used their resources for drug treatment instead of providing for jail cells? She asked rhetorically. It’s time to get out of the way of breakthrough drug treatments
currently made inaccessible through the criminalization of psychedelic plant therapies. Many veteran’s organiz-ations support their study and legalization. A 2017 study of 44,000 Americans
found that psych-edelic use was associated with a 40% reduction in opioid use. A November 2020 study in the Journal of the AMA study found 1 in 3 patients put their major depression
in remission after only two psilocybin therapeutic sessions. Drugs like psilocybin are in a Catch 22 because they are classified as Schedule 1 drugs because they allegedly have no acceptable
medical use but Schedule 1 status means researchers are prevented from fully investigating psilocybin for its medical therapeutic value. She shared a quote from Vermont representative
Brian Cina, including, “It’s long past time we allow science and lived experience experts to lead on substance abuse disorder.”
Councilor Dwight said he is grateful to Councilor Maiore for approaching him on this so he could include this in his swan song package. This is an issue close to his heart. For years,
he has been studying the development and creation of drug laws and this culture’s understanding and approach to drugs. He has a sense of context that’s frequently missing. The fact
is that all of them seek out mind-altering behavior. As kids, spinning around in a circle multiple times just to get dizzy is something they do and, for the most part, historically
this isn’t something [society] tries to manage and control. The management and control of drugs and, in fact, all drug laws in the United States, including originally the alcohol prohibition,
were predicated on racism; they were based and built and argued and debated and moved forward on racism. Subsequently, the nation’s involvement in drugs was dependent on which area
of the world troops were embedded. The ‘golden triangle’ gave them the heroin epidemic during the Vietnam War because troops were in the golden triangle. Cocaine was connected directly
to their adventures in South America overthrowing democratically-elected governments. It’s always been politic. Marijuana prohibition was literally argued on the Senate floor with overt,
unabashed racist testimony. Alcohol and tobacco are drugs. They are allowed, yet they are also the two most lethal drugs that can be consumed. Psychoactive drugs by and large do not
kill you; in fact, they have benefits. He recommended reading Michael Pollan’s book ‘Changing your Mind.’
Psilocybin and peyote are all directly linked with indigenous peoples who use it for their religion. They need to understand that punitive measures to deal with these mind-altering substances
clearly do not work. It creates a criminal industry that is the best free market around. It is a profound perverse distortion that results in the destruction - the systematic and systemic
destruction - of hundreds and thousands and millions of people that is allowed to flourish because they’ve created this functional and oppressive structure and response.
This is a resolution. The City Council doesn’t have the authority to direct the police department to adhere to these policies. They cannot create a law in this respect, they are trumped
by state and federal laws. But as they all noted, the legalization of marijuana, which was trumpeted as being the signalization of the end times, was not realized.
Behaviors committed while under the influence, i.e. - driving, violence and abuse, etc., are actionable. The mere possession and consumption of alcohol is not. Psychoactive drugs in
particular were in the process of being studied and analyzed for their efficacy of any number of identified psychological disorders. That was all arrested; that was all stopped. In
fact, the federal government made it against the law to study the impacts and effects of any of these drugs.
The hope is that there will be a cultural shift. This resolution is an appeal for a cultural shift, an understanding of how they can best treat and respect each other and diminish the
pressures this 1) puts on law enforcement, and 2) puts on communities that have experienced a great imbalance in enforcement. “If we’re going to continue to lobby for the things we
say we care about. . . we have to understand that we need some serious work and some serious movement to. . . become more enlightened about how we treat the use and consumption and
distribution of these very varied items.” The fact that marijuana was scheduled along with methamphetamine was patently absurd, he asserted.
He’s really grateful this is being advanced and really grateful to actually send this off. He hopes the house bills start to come out of committee and be engaged, discussed and voted
on and that, barring that, a referendum is put on. He really hopes they can get people to back them up on this.
Councilor Nash thanked the sponsors for taking the lead. Clearly, they are the folks better equipped to sponsor this with their knowledge and expertise. It’s been an education for him.
He is completely on board with supporting this tonight. He thanked the sponsors and two constituents.
Councilor Jarrett thanked the sponsors for taking it up. The constituents also asked him to work on it but he didn’t have the time. The war on drugs is definitely a failed approach and
very much a failed public health approach.
Councilor Quinlan echoed his colleagues’ thoughts. When he read the resolution there was so much there he agreed with. There was a little bit of a queasy feeling about leaving this to
the discretion of the police to enforce. He’s not sure it’s fair to the police to charge them with enforcing laws but then to say not all of them. That said, he is in support and thinks
legalization is a great idea, particularly for medical use. He believes that three to five years down the road doctors will be prescribing these non-addictive medicines for people’s
relief.
Councilor LaBarge thanked sponsors and said she agrees with everything heard. She fully supports this resolution 100%. Using what’s described here, plants have helped many people with
different kinds of medical problems. She is happy to see this as a resolution and would love to see it go to the state house. “Let’s make it happen.”
Councilor Thorpe thanked the sponsors and Dan Bensonoff. He had a nice conversation with him and he provided a lot of information. He explained to Dan that, with his employment and his
employer, he probably would abstain from this and he will be abstaining, he confirmed.
Councilor Quinlan suggested two small technical amendments. The act to establish a task force is H3829, not HD3439 and the resolution should reference the Hampshire County district attorney
(DA) instead of Hampden.
Councilor Dwight accepted both as friendly amendments. Councilor Maiore said she had a friendly amendment herself. Sponsors are not proposing to send a copy to DA Sullivan or the Northampton
police and she believes they should. Councilor Dwight asked the administrative assistant to add Northwestern District Attorney David Sullivan and Police Chief Jody Kasper to the list
of recipients.
Northampton has been in the forefront of harm reduction for the Commonwealth for over two and a half decades, Councilor Dwight noted. He cited the needle exchange program as an example.
Councilor Sciarra thanked sponsors and said she supports harm reduction strategies in general and strongly agrees it is a racial and social justice issue. She appreciates Councilor Dwight’s
call for a cultural shift. The statistics Councilor Maiore cited about the positive therapeutic impacts substances can have on depression, opioid addiction, etc. are really quite remarkable
and quite hopeful. She appreciated one speaker noting that these are substances indigenous people have used forever and that should be remembered and recognized.
The other friendly amendment is to change ‘adults’ to ‘individuals’ in every occurrence. That was the language in the state bill but if they are asking police to make it a low priority
for enforcement they can’t ask them to determine someone’s age.
Members agreed to bundle the amendments for voting purposes.
Councilor Maiore moved to approve the amendments as proposed. Councilor Dwight seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
Councilor Sciarra wondered if the resolution was checked by Northampton’s city solicitor since the resolution says Cambridge and Somerville passed resolutions following approval of their
legal departments.
Cambridge and Somerville have different structures of government so they can actually create policy for the police department, so it required being vetted because it was enacting law
or policy, Councilor Dwight pointed out. That’s not the case here. However, he said he has no problem referring it to the city solicitor in the intervening two weeks.
The resolution as amended passed unanimously 8:0 by roll call vote with one abstention (Councilor Thorpe).
See minutes of April 1, 2021 for second reading.
21.208 A Resolution to Adopt the Capital Improvement Program for FY2022-FY2026 Submitted to City Council on February 24, 2021 - 1st reading
Councilor Sciarra read the resolution.
Councilor Dwight reminded folks it is a plan, not a budget. It is a long-term plan that evolves over the years. It provides a road marker, if you will, and lays out issues needing to
be addressed down the line.
Councilor Quinlan moved to approve the resolution in first reading. Councilor LaBarge seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
See minutes of April 1, 2021 for second reading.
21.209 A Resolution Expressing Gratitude to Northampton Health Department, First Responders, Ancillary Staff and Volunteers for Efforts to Vaccinate Our Community - 1st reading
Councilor Sciarra read.
Councilor Dwight moved to approve the resolution in first reading. Councilor Quinlan seconded.
When she and her husband got their first shot, they were talking to fire department members and they were telling them how they work four on and three off and not on city time, Councilor
LaBarge related. It is just amazing how well the Mayor, Board of Health Director Merridith O’Leary and her entire team have the entire senior center running so smoothly. Many people
she knows who went to have their vaccines there were very, very happy. The health director has done an incredible job. On Facebook, many people were upset when the website came down.
It wasn’t her fault at all but she still continued making it a safe, smooth road for everyone. Many, many volunteers were there to save many, many lives. Yes, they did lose some in
their city and also some veterans. She thanked co-sponsors Councilors Sciarra and Quinlan. To her, it is a huge shout out to those who have worked together saving lives.
The two other sponsors (Councilor Quinlan and Councilor Sciarra) and Councilors Foster, Dwight, Jarrett and Maiore spoke in support of the resolution and in praise of the health department’s
operation of the vaccination and testing programs.
The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
See minutes of April 1, 2021 for second reading.
Brief Recess
The City Council recessed briefly at 10:43 p.m. The City Council reconvened at 10:50 p.m.
FY2020 Independent Audit
FY2020 Independent Audit
Presentation by Scanlon and Associates, LLC (Thomas J. Scanlon, CPA)
The audit went very well, Mr. Scanlon reported. Needless to say, it was kind of a difficult year; trying times. Auditors tried to remain focused with the same consistency as in all of
the prior years. He thanked the staff in the city. It put a lot of pressure on them because they did a hybrid of half-remote, half-onsite where they are usually on site pulling their
own invoices.
He referred to three separate reports: the FY2020 Management Letter, the Single Audit Report and the Report on the Examination of Basic Financial Statements.
Since it is a financial audit, people expect its sole purpose to be to find fraud, but that’s not the sole purpose. One of the main objectives is to opine on the city’s financial statements,
Mr. Scanlon explained. They use a risk-based assessment of the city’s financial statements to design their audit procedures.
The city has significant internal controls over its major financial areas such as cash receivables, he confirmed. One of the controls is that they balance out the real estate and personal
property accounts receivable to the general ledger on a monthly basis. From a firm approach, his company puts a lot of emphasis on bank reconciliations and accounts receivable reconciliations.
They deem those areas substantial and do a lot more detailed procedures in those areas.
The city received a clean audit opinion (pg. 3 and 4), which is what bond companies will look at, so it will result in a good bond rating. The city should be commended for that.
The city’s financial policies are working, he continued. He drew attention to pages 18 and 19, the city’s fund financial statements. This is what councilors can relate to as management.
It shows where Free Cash is coming from.
The Unassigned Fund Balance of $23 million represents the balance of Free Cash and the stabilization funds. It’s a key number bond rating agencies look at as representing the financial
health of the city from a current perspective approach.
Free Cash was certified at $5.7 million in 2020 and the city has approximately $15 million in its four stabilization funds. So, “your financial policies are working; you’re building
up reserves,” he opined.
Also, on page 19, they’ll see that the city’s general fund increased $2.7 million. That’s another component bond rating agencies will look at to show that the city’s financial policies
are working. The city has $52 million in the general fund.
From there, looking at bank reconciliations and the accounts receivable, auditors can see that the city has $1.5 million outstanding in real estate property taxes as of June 30, 2020.
Auditors will make sure that the collector is keeping detailed records and that they match the general ledger. “The controls over your significant areas are definitely working,” he
pronounced.
Page 22 shows where the Free Cash of $5.7 million came from. $464,000 is from receipts and $2.7 million are turnbacks of appropriations. The budget generated about $3.7 million of the
$5.7 million Free Cash. It was kind of an unusual year. He’s seeing that communities are taking a hit on the revenue side and that Free Cash is coming back from returns of appropriations.
He expressed the opinion that FY2021 will be the big year for downturns due to COVID. “That’s where you want your sound financial policies really working for you,” he suggested.
Councilor Jarrett asked about Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB), something the Massachusetts Municipal Association (MMA) flags as something that can be a very significant liability
for them in the future. He expressed his understanding that municipalities haven’t funded these fully yet. He asked how Northampton is doing in terms of getting to where it needs to
be.
Page 16 is considered the entity-wide statements. Government is very unique; it actually has two sets of financial statements: full accrual which is entity-wide and fund financials.
On the entity-wide statements, OPEB liabilities are shown under Net Position. The unrestricted line item is $180 million in deficit. “You really don’t want to see deficits in your net
position.” The main drivers of that is shown under ‘Liabilities’ as $125 million in Net OPEB Liability.
The city did adopt an OPEB trust and, as of June 30th, it had $2.5 million. The two are quite wide apart compared to the liability. He always tells people that OPEB should be long-term
thinking in that it should be in their thought process in developing future budgets.
Every time the city hires someone there is a hard cost in money going out but there is also a promise made to the employee that the city is going to pay their health insurance when they
retire. That’s what this is tracking. The only way for the OPEB liability to go down is through the expiration of people. It’s really the long-term thinking of putting money away now
to factor into the future. He referred to a town out east that actually has one position with eight health insurance costs associated with it because it has seven retirees and one active.
One position is causing eight costs of health insurance. He wouldn’t get too focused on the $125 million but more on the long-term thinking, he advised.
Councilor LaBarge quoted from “Basis for Qualified Opinion on Coronavirus Relief Fund (CFDA No. 21.109)” on pg. 5 of the “Independent Auditors’ Reports Pursuant to Governmental Auditing
Standards and Uniform Guidance,” as follows:
“As described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs, the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, did not comply with requirements regarding CFDA No. 21.109, Coronavirus
Relief Fund, as described in finding number 2020-001 for allowable costs/cost principles. Compliance with such requirement is necessary, in our opinion, for the City of Northampton,
Massachusetts, to comply with the requirements applicable to that program.”
She asked Mr. Scanlon to explain.
This is the single audit report required if a community expends over a certain amount in federal funds, Mr. Scanlon advised. The city received some CARES Act funding. It is a high risk
program which is new. When auditors tested it, the city had some hazard pay in there and the hazard pay is disallowed under the CARES Act.
Since the program first came out, the rules have changed, he noted. It is a constantly changing environment which from an audit perspective and finance director perspective is very frustrating.
The city had hazard pay but when they tested it, they felt it did not meet the definition of hazard pay. The City Council took a vote a couple of weeks ago to fund some expenses from
Free Cash. The wording sounds scarier than it actually is but they did have a finding under the Single Audit Act for charging disallowed spending to the CARES Act funding.
The city has a letter with the decision from CARES Act administrators disallowing the hazard pay but they do admit in the letter that they gave them advice that it was allowed in the
beginning, Director Wright said. When COVID is done, there will be expenses that are disallowed. The city will need to true up accounts because there will be things that FEMA and the
CARES Act will reject. They’re going on the best guidance they have at the time. What they’re using as a guiding principle is whether they would incur the expense whether they were
getting grant funds or not.
Mr. Scanlon confirmed it is a tough environment to operate in. Administrators have to make decisions based on the advice they have at the time. They have a generic finding in the management
letter. The city does have controls in place to properly account for grants. It’s really important to stick to the controls they have in place to get them through times like this. It’s
easy to override a control and say, hey, we’re in a COVID environment. A lot of equipment is being purchased to do remote work and it is going to have to be inventoried.
What happens is the fraudsters come out. Cities and towns are receiving a lot of fraudulent claims for unemployment. They are getting invoices with fraud on there and they have to make
sure they are getting credits back.
Councilor Nash expressed his understanding that what he is describing is that the city has been dealing with crisis and pressures but that it has really stuck to its guns and followed
its procedures. Under circumstances like this, it is tempting to break the rules but the city has done a terrific job through all of this.
Mr. Scanlon agreed.
With audit reports, you don’t give ‘A’s,’ you give reports like, “there’s nothing bad,” Councilor Nash noted facetiously.
The management letter emphasized reviewing special revenue funds. Especially now, there are a lot of funds not being used, especially revolving funds. Programs may be suspended because
of COVID. It may be a good time to review special revenue funds. He expressed his understanding that financial officers are going to start that this summer.
Councilor Nash congratulated Finance Director Wright on her ‘A.’
They deem those areas substantial and do a lot more detailed procedures in those areas.
The city received a clean audit opinion (pg. 3 and 4), which is what bond companies will look at, so it will result in a good bond rating. The city should be commended for that.
The city’s financial policies are working, he continued. He drew attention to pages 18 and 19, the city’s fund financial statements. This is what councilors can relate to as management.
It shows where Free Cash is coming from.
The Unassigned Fund Balance of $23 million represents the balance of Free Cash and the stabilization funds. It’s a key number bond rating agencies look at as representing the financial
health of the city from a current perspective approach.
Free Cash was certified at $5.7 million in 2020 and the city has approximately $15 million in its four stabilization funds. So, “your financial policies are working; you’re building
up reserves,” he opined.
Also, on page 19, they’ll see that the city’s general fund increased $2.7 million. That’s another component bond rating agencies will look at to show that the city’s financial policies
are working. The city has $52 million in the general fund.
From there, looking at bank reconciliations and the accounts receivable, auditors can see that the city has $1.5 million outstanding in real estate property taxes as of June 30, 2020.
Auditors will make sure that the collector is keeping detailed records and that they match the general ledger. “The controls over your significant areas are definitely working,” he
pronounced.
Page 22 shows where the Free Cash of $5.7 million came from. $464,000 is from receipts and $2.7 million are turnbacks of appropriations. The budget generated about $3.7 million of the
$5.7 million Free Cash. It was kind of an unusual year. He’s seeing that communities are taking a hit on the revenue side and that Free Cash is coming back from returns of appropriations.
He expressed the opinion that FY2021 will be the big year for downturns due to COVID. “That’s where you want your sound financial policies really working for you,” he suggested.
Councilor Jarrett asked about Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB), something the Massachusetts Municipal Association (MMA) flags as something that can be a very significant liability
for them in the future. He expressed his understanding that municipalities haven’t funded these fully yet. He asked how Northampton is doing in terms of getting to where it needs to
be.
Page 16 is considered the entity-wide statements. Government is very unique; it actually has two sets of financial statements: full accrual which is entity-wide and fund financials.
On the entity-wide statements, OPEB liabilities are shown under Net Position. The unrestricted line item is $180 million in deficit. “You really don’t want to see deficits in your net
position.” The main drivers of that is shown under ‘Liabilities’ as $125 million in Net OPEB Liability.
The city did adopt an OPEB trust and, as of June 30th, it had $2.5 million. The two are quite wide apart compared to the liability. He always tells people that OPEB should be long-term
thinking in that it should be in their thought process in developing future budgets.
Every time the city hires someone there is a hard cost in money going out but there is also a promise made to the employee that the city is going to pay their health insurance when they
retire. That’s what this is tracking. The only way for the OPEB liability to go down is through the expiration of people. It’s really the long-term thinking of putting money away now
to factor into the future. He referred to a town out east that actually has one position with eight health insurance costs associated with it because it has seven retirees and one active.
One position is causing eight costs of health insurance. He wouldn’t get too focused on the $125 million but more on the long-term thinking, he advised.
Councilor LaBarge quoted from “Basis for Qualified Opinion on Coronavirus Relief Fund (CFDA No. 21.109)” on pg. 5 of the “Independent Auditors’ Reports Pursuant to Governmental Auditing
Standards and Uniform Guidance,” as follows:
“As described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs, the City of
FY2020 Independent Audit
FY2020 Independent Audit
Presentation by Scanlon and Associates, LLC (Thomas J. Scanlon, CPA)
The audit went very well, Mr. Scanlon reported. Needless to say, it was kind of a difficult year; trying times. Auditors tried to remain focused with the same consistency as in all of
the prior years. He thanked the staff in the city. It put a lot of pressure on them because they did a hybrid of half-remote, half-onsite where they are usually on site pulling their
own invoices.
He referred to three separate reports: the FY2020 Management Letter, the Single Audit Report and the Report on the Examination of Basic Financial Statements.
Since it is a financial audit, people expect its sole purpose to be to find fraud, but that’s not the sole purpose. One of the main objectives is to opine on the city’s financial statements,
Mr. Scanlon explained. They use a risk-based assessment of the city’s financial statements to design their audit procedures.
The city has significant internal controls over its major financial areas such as cash receivables, he confirmed. One of the controls is that they balance out the real estate and personal
property accounts receivable to the general ledger on a monthly basis. From a firm approach, his company puts a lot of emphasis on bank reconciliations and accounts receivable reconciliations.
They deem those areas substantial and do a lot more detailed procedures in those areas.
The city received a clean audit opinion (pg. 3 and 4), which is what bond companies will look at, so it will result in a good bond rating. The city should be commended for that.
The city’s financial policies are working, he continued. He drew attention to pages 18 and 19, the city’s fund financial statements. This is what councilors can relate to as management.
It shows where Free Cash is coming from.
The Unassigned Fund Balance of $23 million represents the balance of Free Cash and the stabilization funds. It’s a key number bond rating agencies look at as representing the financial
health of the city from a current perspective approach.
Free Cash was certified at $5.7 million in 2020 and the city has approximately $15 million in its four stabilization funds. So, “your financial policies are working; you’re building
up reserves,” he opined.
Also, on page 19, they’ll see that the city’s general fund increased $2.7 million. That’s another component bond rating agencies will look at to show that the city’s financial policies
are working. The city has $52 million in the general fund.
From there, looking at bank reconciliations and the accounts receivable, auditors can see that the city has $1.5 million outstanding in real estate property taxes as of June 30, 2020.
Auditors will make sure that the collector is keeping detailed records and that they match the general ledger. “The controls over your significant areas are definitely working,” he
pronounced.
Page 22 shows where the Free Cash of $5.7 million came from. $464,000 is from receipts and $2.7 million are turnbacks of appropriations. The budget generated about $3.7 million of the
$5.7 million Free Cash. It was kind of an unusual year. He’s seeing that communities are taking a hit on the revenue side and that Free Cash is coming back from returns of appropriations.
He expressed the opinion that FY2021 will be the big year for downturns due to COVID. “That’s where you want your sound financial policies really working for you,” he suggested.
Councilor Jarrett asked about Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB), something the Massachusetts Municipal Association (MMA) flags as something that can be a very significant liability
for them in the future. He expressed his understanding that municipalities haven’t funded these fully yet. He asked how Northampton is doing in terms of getting to where it needs to
be.
Page 16 is considered the entity-wide statements. Government is very unique; it actually has two sets of financial statements: full accrual which is entity-wide and fund financials.
On the entity-wide statements, OPEB liabilities are shown under Net Position. The unrestricted line item is $180 million in deficit. “You really don’t want to see deficits in your net
position.” The main drivers of that is shown under ‘Liabilities’ as $125 million in Net OPEB Liability.
The city did adopt an OPEB trust and, as of June 30th, it had $2.5 million. The two are quite wide apart compared to the liability. He always tells people that OPEB should be long-term
thinking in that it should be in their thought process in developing future budgets.
Every time the city hires someone there is a hard cost in money going out but there is also a promise made to the employee that the city is going to pay their health insurance when they
retire. That’s what this is tracking. The only way for the OPEB liability to go down is through the expiration of people. It’s really the long-term thinking of putting money away now
to factor into the future. He referred to a town out east that actually has one position with eight health insurance costs associated with it because it has seven retirees and one active.
One position is causing eight costs of health insurance. He wouldn’t get too focused on the $125 million but more on the long-term thinking, he advised.
Councilor LaBarge quoted from “Basis for Qualified Opinion on Coronavirus Relief Fund (CFDA No. 21.109)” on pg. 5 of the “Independent Auditors’ Reports Pursuant to Governmental Auditing
Standards and Uniform Guidance,” as follows:
“As described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs, the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, did not comply with requirements regarding CFDA No. 21.109, Coronavirus
Relief Fund, as described in finding number 2020-001 for allowable costs/cost principles. Compliance with such requirement is necessary, in our opinion, for the City of Northampton,
Massachusetts, to comply with the requirements applicable to that program.”
She asked Mr. Scanlon to explain.
This is the single audit report required if a community expends over a certain amount in federal funds, Mr. Scanlon advised. The city received some CARES Act funding. It is a high risk
program which is new. When auditors tested it, the city had some hazard pay in there and the hazard pay is disallowed under the CARES Act.
Since the program first came out, the rules have changed, he noted. It is a constantly changing environment which from an audit perspective and finance director perspective is very frustrating.
The city had hazard pay but when they tested it, they felt it did not meet the definition of hazard pay. The City Council took a vote a couple of weeks ago to fund some expenses from
Free Cash. The wording sounds scarier than it actually is but they did have a finding under the Single Audit Act for charging disallowed spending to the CARES Act funding.
The city has a letter with the decision from CARES Act administrators disallowing the hazard pay but they do admit in the letter that they gave them advice that it was allowed in the
beginning, Director Wright said. When COVID is done, there will be expenses that are disallowed. The city will need to true up accounts because there will be things that FEMA and the
CARES Act will reject. They’re going on the best guidance they have at the time. What they’re using as a guiding principle is whether they would incur the expense whether they were
getting grant funds or not.
Mr. Scanlon confirmed it is a tough environment to operate in. Administrators have to make decisions based on the advice they have at the time. They have a generic finding in the management
letter. The city does have controls in place to properly account for grants. It’s really important to stick to the controls they have in place to get them through times like this. It’s
easy to override a control and say, hey, we’re in a COVID environment. A lot of equipment is being purchased to do remote work and it is going to have to be inventoried.
What happens is the fraudsters come out. Cities and towns are receiving a lot of fraudulent claims for unemployment. They are getting invoices with fraud on there and they have to make
sure they are getting credits back.
Councilor Nash expressed his understanding that what he is describing is that the city has been dealing with crisis and pressures but that it has really stuck to its guns and followed
its procedures. Under circumstances like this, it is tempting to break the rules but the city has done a terrific job through all of this.
Mr. Scanlon agreed.
With audit reports, you don’t give ‘A’s,’ you give reports like, “there’s nothing bad,” Councilor Nash noted facetiously.
The management letter emphasized reviewing special revenue funds. Especially now, there are a lot of funds not being used, especially revolving funds. Programs may be suspended because
of COVID. It may be a good time to review special revenue funds. He expressed his understanding that financial officers are going to start that this summer.
Councilor Nash congratulated Finance Director Wright on her ‘A.’
21.212 An Order to Set Preliminary Municipal Election Date - 1st reading
21.212 An Order to Set Preliminary Municipal Election Date - 1st reading
With the consent of the council, Councilor Sciarra took agenda item #14B out of order.
She read the order.
Councilor LaBarge moved to approve the order in first reading. Councilor Foster seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
See minutes of April 1, 2021 for second reading.
21.212 An Order to Set Preliminary Municipal Election Date - 1st reading
21.212 An Order to Set Preliminary Municipal Election Date - 1st reading
With the consent of the council, Councilor Sciarra took agenda item #14B out of order.
She read the order.
Councilor LaBarge moved to approve the order in first reading. Councilor Foster seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
See minutes of April 1, 2021 for second reading.
Package of Zoning Amendments to Allow Two-Families by Right in All Residential Zoning Districts – 2nd reading
Package of Zoning Amendments to Allow Two-Families by Right in All Residential Zoning Districts – 2nd reading
Councilor Sciarra stated her intention to take this package of zoning ordinances out of order.
There being no objection, Councilor Dwight moved to approve the ordinances as a group in second reading. Councilor Jarrett seconded.
Councilor Dwight noted that the raft of public comment at the beginning of the meeting focused on points brought up by Bill Ryan. The comments covered the breadth of all zoning issues
but he asked if she could frame the discussion in that light.
Taking a step back, Ms. Misch referred to the package of changes above and beyond the two-family package. The multi-pronged approach is all about different strategies to encourage housing
to meet the needs at different levels. In total, they are talking about strategies to meet attainable housing. One is about two-family housing, another deals specifically with affordable
housing and with incentives for smaller units.
At the last meeting, she presented data on median home size and councilors asked about the mean house size and whether that had changed over time. Overall, the median single-family home
is about 1,600 square feet (s.f.) while the mean house size is about 1,800 s.f. (1,779 s.f.)
For two-families, it is much smaller. Median unit size is estimated at 1,175 s.f. and mean slightly higher at 1,240 s.f.
They looked at the numbers for units built in the last 10 years, and they have gone up for single-family homes but not gone up much for two-families. The median is 2,160 s.f. and the
mean is 2,300 s.f. for single-family homes. It does show an increase of a couple of hundred square feet. That relates to the conversation and concern about large units being built as
part of the two-family proposal. “We’re not really seeing that as a trend,” she concluded.
Regarding other questions related to size, affordability and where units can be built, particularly relating to large-scale units being built in the backyards of properties, this concern
is originating in the URB and URC districts where detached units are already allowed by site plan review, she pointed out. There was a comment that this is only allowed on properties
which already have a single-family home. In reality, there are multiple ways to develop a property. Zoning allows two principal structures on a property and allows townhouses, which
can be multiple structures on a property. There are still minimum open space and setback requirements in the context of all the districts. Where there is flexibility to have multiple
structures on a property, those open space and setback requirements would be the constraining factor for where buildings could go and the scale of those buildings.
Since two detached structures are already allowed in URB and URC districts, what they are talking about is expanding this to URA, RR, SR and WSP districts. For the most part these will
be opportunities for people who currently own homes to add a second unit. Right now, they have an accessory dwelling provision, but this adds more flexibility because instead of having
the constraint of a 900 s.f. unit, it could be larger. It doesn’t necessarily mean it will be larger.
Ms. Misch showed pictures of a detached structure and accessory dwelling unit that have already been built under the existing ordinance. She cited these as examples of how the zoning
change would help property owners who already own homes in these districts.
She clarified that the ordinance is not intended to provide houses meeting the technical definition of ‘affordable housing,’ which is housing affordable to people earning 80% or less
of the Area Median Income (AMI), but is part of an attainable housing strategy throughout the city. It is one way of providing an opportunity for lower cost housing for people.
Councilor Jarrett said he is getting a lot of questions from constituents specifically around an element of URB zoning and the change which will occur in going from allowing “the addition
of a principal structure to a parcel where one already exists” by site plan approval to allowing “two single-family dwellings per lot.”
He expressed his understanding that, if this is literally interpreted, it could mean there now has to be a principal structure there already before someone can build a second one while,
under new zoning, someone will be allowed to build two single-family dwellings from scratch on an empty lot.
There isn’t a change to the existing provisions in the zoning where someone could currently come in for site plan review and build two principal structures on a lot, Ms. Misch responded.
That is allowed now. There is no change to the current condition. That is a misreading of how all the components fit together in the zoning to allow different variables, primarily in
the URB and URC districts. Really, this is about adding the ability to create a second unit in the rest of the city where it’s now only allowed in the URB and URC district unfettered
as to size.
Councilor Jarrett asked her to walk him through how a developer would currently be allowed to build two principal structures on an empty lot. “Starting with a lot with nothing on it,
how do you build two principal structures on a lot at once?” He asked. Where is that enabled?
They haven’t really had too many of those proposals, Ms. Misch said. Usually, it is three or more units that come in at once. Further down, it says a developer can do townhouses or other
multi-family dwellings of up to six units by site plan review. If someone were proposing that scenario, planners would say this is your path.
Townhouses do not have to all be attached, she confirmed.
Councilor Jarrett said he wants to be clear that they are not changing that for URB or URC; that is remaining the same. It is rightly very important to his constituents. He thanked her
for the clarification,
Because these conditions exist already, Councilor Dwight asked if there has been a demon-strated land rush that has been projected or described or prophesied with developers buying up
properties and madly developing.
No, Ms. Misch said. They’ve seen a few projects come forward very time. She referred to one on Hawley Street, the redevelopment of Shaw’s Motel and a couple of others. Periodically,
single-family home lots are also created.
Councilor Dwight noted that they are currently in a very super white hot market. One would presume this is the peak of the type of speculative development that people are very concerned
about. Since there already is existing zoning for developers to come in and take advantage of, it doesn’t sound like it is Filene’s basement. These conversations are always driven with
passions. Things that are beyond your control and are in your backyard would in anybody inspire concern and distress. He did want to know as of now, during this very active period of
development if they are seeing any evidence of this
Councilor Foster said she wanted to lift up some of the concerns that she’s heard about demolition of existing structures to allow larger structures in their place. She is sympathetic
to the concerns around seeing some of those torn down and new larger structures put in. Most of the concerns heard today is around smaller houses coming down and bigger houses going
up. She is wondering if there is anything in zoning to address that situation.
She sees how a package of zoning works together to create different opportunities. Is there any answer in zoning around the concern around tearing down existing structures? She asked.
She doesn’t think they are in a position as a community that there is so much demand that it is more cost efficient to demolish a structure in order to build new units, Ms. Misch reflected.
It is not a tear down craze. There are structures sometimes that need significant investment in order to make them livable and that becomes part of the calculation for anyone looking
at a property. It is something they might look at in the future if it appears they are at a point that the demand for housing is so high and they’re not meeting that demand. “I don’t
think we’re there yet.”
Part of the issue that is driving up cost is not enough supply at different levels to meet demand. She is hopeful that allowing different ways for people to build houses addresses some
of that demand and helps relieve some of that pressure.
DISCUSSION
Members continued to ask questions and offer comments. Several councilors, in turn, expressed their reasons for supporting the package of amendments.
With regard to concerns about large structures in peoples’ backyards, Councilor Dwight pointed out that nothing is going to happen to anyone’s backyard unless they themselves change
it or sell it. He has always said that every political conversation, everything they debate and deliberate, is a territorial conflict, the desire to manage and maintain that which one
knows and is comfortable with and the dread of changes beyond one’s control. His neighborhood has not changed significantly in terms of structures, he observed. It is former workforce
housing for the railroad. His neighbor two doors down listed his house in the middle of a blizzard. There was a line down the street to go through it and it sold for $50,000 over asking.
It is partly COVID flight and partly really favorable interest rates. They’re talking about trying to provide opportunities for housing at every level.
This zoning is a comprehensive package. When people debate it, they use terms that are malleable and not appropriate, such as ‘affordable’ and ‘attainable.’ They are talking about a
comprehensive package that creates and provides opportunity for people who are currently excluded. Wealthy people have always been able to come here and buy.
They had the same fight some years back about changing the setback requirements to promote more development of ADU’s and provide more affordability, he related. The comments were pretty
much the same. There was concern about a massive land grab by rapacious developers. That’s not what’s happening and is not what’s likely to happen. They know that there are fights to
come. There will be the same types of concern. They are legitimate concerns.
There was a development built a few years ago that had tremendous resistance from the neighbors. Now, some of the new people are complaining about development near them. The issue is
controlling and managing places we hold dear. It is his hope that they study this package in the context of the comprehensive package going through and that hopefully the other portions
will be less controversial, he concluded.
Councilor Jarrett said he wanted to expand on the point he calls, ‘Rich people win.’ New moderately-sized homes are $600,000 and older ones range from the mid-$250’s to $500,000. Of
the people who want to buy here, rich people win. It’s absolutely not fair. There is extreme wealth inequality. It’s logical that increasing supply will reduce demand, but demand is
so much higher. There is also something of the ‘signaling’ effect in which people with money go some-where and that attracts more people with money. The question is, does that overcome
the supply and demand problem. In general, it’s not shown to be true. It’s generally people who can pay cash for the whole thing that are getting homes which is generally developers
or people with money – rich people again. And developers will fix a home up and sell it for 5 or $600,000.
The argument that zoning that prevents more housing would make housing more affordable doesn’t hold true because of the extreme demand and who’s getting the houses in bad shape, he suggested.
Second, some of them have won the lottery. Those of them who bought homes before the current rise in demand have houses worth more and it’s not because they put more work into them.
Also, zoning changes can make their properties more valuable. It’s people who have won the lottery that are the most concerned. As homeowners, they have a role in this gentrification;
it’s not just developers. There are ways to put systems in place to create more permanently affordable things.
With regard to neighborhood character, it changes, he pointed out. Prior to zoning, more buildings were built close together because more people wanted to live in an area, so neighbor-hoods
changed to reflect that need. People needed to live close together because most people didn’t use cars. Then, zoning came along with larger lots and that stopped it. “I think what we’re
trying to do in this whole package is to bring back the ability to have neighborhoods where we can meet our needs more locally” and in an updated fashion, he opined. Things they need
to think about are how much they want to legislate and how much yard people want to have and whether attainable housing is worth it. He thinks so. Multi-family homes are cheaper to
build than single-families so these will be attainable to people.
He thinks affordable housing is only going to come from subsidy or goodwill at this point. They have seen that subsidies at all levels of government are sorely lacking but subsidy is
the only way to create affordable housing unless a homeowner builds a second unit and chooses to rent or sell it at an affordable price. The only other option is if fewer people want
to live here, then prices would go down.
Lastly, does this zoning make for a more livable city? Are they so attached to large lot sizes that they’ll never actually get to sufficient density to live without cars? He asked rhetorically.
Urbanism makes a lot more sense to him than suburbanism. Even though it hurts each time a tree comes down, it’s so much better than the suburban sprawl alternative. He believes that
basic form is correct.
Piecing all this together, including how the URA and WSP zones are close enough to the down-towns in Northampton, Florence and Leeds that having more units there meets sustainability
goals and that, in SR and RR, it meets affordability and energy efficiency goals, he thinks it’s worth supporting these ordinances.
Councilor Nash said what he likes about this package is the range of options. They’re really allowing for a lot of flexibility. They can only hope that by allowing smaller units, attached
units and two families, they are actually going to end up with more affordability. He thinks that for families, these options are really great. It allows people to age in place and
have children live on their properties. It takes all of their structures and makes them more flexible, and he thinks that in itself makes them very worthy. Based on that, he’s going
to support it.
Councilor Jarrett proposed an amendment. At his request, the administrative assistant screen-shared an amendment to 20.166, Section 4 Screening. Councilor Jarrett reviewed the proposed
changes.
The Urban Forestry Commission has weighed in on this amendment and suggested some of the changes, he confirmed. UFC members prefer the three-inch (3”) threshold. He and Ms. Misch agreed
together on a five-inch (5”) threshold, but he would certainly support a three-inch (3”) threshold as well. The concern about the 3” is there could be a large number of three-inch trees.
This proposal requires trees to be planted, if not on the property, than in the right-of-way nearby.
Councilor Jarrett moved the amendment as presented. Councilor Dwight seconded.
There was a lot of discussion about not being overly burdensome to property owners given that single-family home owners don’t have any restrictions about cutting trees to install a deck
or a pool, Ms. Misch volunteered.
She said she had a few other housekeeping items on other ordinances.
Councilor LaBarge voiced concern about dictating what people can and can’t plant on their own property. She cited potential conflicts with trees, such as long driveways and trees planted
near septic systems. A lot of people are saying they’ve had it with the city telling them what to do with their property, she reported.
In this case, they are allowing something that normally is not allowed (two-family housing) and so are asking not to have a net loss of trees, Councilor Jarrett responded. Given the
city’s climate goals and all the benefits trees provide in terms of shade and cooling, it’s necessary to think about the long-term future of Northampton. He thinks this is a good compromise.
If some-one really isn’t able to plant on the property, they have the option of planting on the street nearby.
This is sort of a relief valve to accommodate property owners who can’t plant because they have a septic system or driveway in the way, so it addresses that, Ms. Misch confirmed.
The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
Ms. Misch presented an amendment to 20.166, Section 611 a (1) related to the heating system being required to be fossil fuel free. She recommended striking the term ‘building permit’
and replacing it with ‘site plan.’ Also, to clarify what fossil-fuel free means, she proposed striking the phrase ‘fossil-fuel free’ and stating that ‘all space heating must be powered
by either wood, wind, solar or grid-sourced electricity.’
Councilor Dwight moved those amendments. Councilor Maiore seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
Ms. Misch presented an amendment to 20.167 to delete the reference to detached accessory dwellings to clarify they are getting rid of this term throughout the tables of use.
Councilor Dwight so moved. Councilor LaBarge seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
CAPPING SIZE OF SECOND UNIT TO 1,800 SQUARE FEET
Councilor Maiore proposed an amendment exploring a size cap on the second unit to 1,800 s.f. in areas newly affected by the second unit.
The administrative assistant screen-shared the text of the amendment.
Councilor Maiore voiced her perception that the fear is a 3,000 s.f. second unit, and this would discourage that without preventing it by requiring a special permit for a unit over 1,800
s.f.
Councilor Maiore moved to amend. Councilor Jarrett seconded.
Councilor Jarrett asked Ms. Misch what the implications of requiring a special permit would be.
It would be difficult for the Planning Board to approve a special permit without a defined slate of criteria, Ms. Misch responded. A special permit creates potentially different voting
requirements and allows the board to say no. Zoning does have some standard special permit review criteria but they don’t speak specifically to this issue.
Councilor Jarrett asked her to describe the general special permit review criteria.
Ms. Misch reviewed the criteria, including protecting adjacent properties from serious detriments, promoting convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement to the site and
on adjacent streets, harmonious relationship to existing structures and the natural landscape, etc.
To her, it does sound like there are some parameters for permitting, Councilor Maiore said. She said she doesn’t know how Ms. Misch feels about the number. It sounds to her like kind
of a clear guideline for the Planning Board.
Another criteria is that the project meets special criteria set forth for specific uses, Ms. Misch added.
Councilor Dwight said he gets the sense this is not something she’s enthusiastic about. One criteria on special permit that seems to be most salient is whether it conforms to the neighbor-hood.
Talk about ‘amorphous,’ he observed. Citing the Lumber Yard as an example, “It didn’t look like the one-story white cinder block gas station so it didn’t conform to the rest of the
neighborhood,” he noted. He asked if she could expand on her feelings about the suggestion.
From the beginning, they weren’t recommending a cap of any kind, they were recommending lifting the 900 s.f. cap, Ms. Misch reminded. She thinks the ordinance would be fine. Given that
they are not getting huge two-families, it would be a rarity that they would see a special permit application like that. It’s not a deal breaker by any means. In general, they think
pretty hard about setting a special permit threshold for any use because it does become a barrier for people just because of the ability of the board to say no. It could have some chilling
effect, she acknow-ledged. She said she is not sure how often it would come up.
If he is hearing this is not particularly harmful or deleterious to any other dimension of the proposal, he’s fine with it, Councilor Dwight concluded. He understands the reason this
is being proposed is the expressed concerns of people who have suggested that is a possibility. “If they wanted to nail it shut, then let’s do it,” he proposed.
It comes up in the Leeds area where they have really large properties, Councilor Maiore shared. She said she doesn’t want to actually make things more difficult. She is hoping it would
be a rarity. She thinks in her ward it might actually come up. It’s a fear. She thought if it wasn’t too much of a detriment, it could add to this.
Councilor Nash said his one thought is why they don’t just go for a hard cap rather than a special permit. His fear around a special permit is they are inviting a meeting where people
are going to show up and “kind of handing the discussion off to the Planning Board. If we really don’t want 3,000 square foot structures, let’s create that cap.”
He expressed the understanding that if they created a cap of 2,000 s.f., they could always lift it in the future. He voiced the perception that they couldn’t go from unlimited to limited,
but Ms. Misch said they could.
This is double the ADU size they’re getting rid of and is just about the average single-family home size, Councilor Jarrett pointed out. Large buildings are likely not to be consistent
with their resilience goals. He feels comfortable establishing this level of review and listening to people who are concerned about what might happen.
Councilor Foster said one of the requests that she has heard resoundingly is that they take a big picture approach. To her, this amendment makes sense looking at their climate goals
and their goal to provide housing options that may be more financially in reach for people.
She thinks it’s harder to revisit zoning in a reactionary way than to put in a limit in to begin with. That’s an approach that she would feel more comfortable taking, she said.
There being no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
The motion to approve the package of ordinances as amended passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
The following ordinances passed two readings:
Passed two readings, ordained and enrolled.
element of URB zoning and the change which will occur in going from allowing “the addition of a principal structure to a parcel where one already exists” by site plan approval to allowing
“two single-family dwellings per lot.”
He expressed his understanding that, if this is literally interpreted, it could mean there now has to be a principal structure there already before someone can build a second one while,
under new zoning, someone will be allowed to build two single-family dwellings from scratch on an empty lot.
There isn’t a change to the existing provisions in the zoning where someone could currently come in for site plan review and build two principal structures on a lot, Ms. Misch responded.
That is allowed now. There is no change to the current condition. That is a misreading of how all the components fit together in the zoning to allow different variables, primarily in
the URB and URC districts. Really, this is about adding the ability to create a second unit in the rest of the city where it’s now only allowed in the URB and URC district unfettered
as to size.
Councilor Jarrett asked her to walk him through how a developer would currently be allowed to build two principal structures on an empty lot. “Starting with a lot with nothing on it,
how do you build two principal structures on a lot at once?” He asked. Where is that enabled?
They haven’t really had too many of those proposals, Ms. Misch said. Usually, it is three or more units that come in at once. Further down, it says a developer can do townhouses or other
multi-family dwellings of up to six units by site plan review. If someone were proposing that scenario, planners would say this is your path.
Townhouses do not have to all be attached, she confirmed.
Councilor Jarrett said he wants to be clear that they are not changing that for URB or URC; that is remaining the same. It is rightly very important to his constituents. He thanked her
for the clarification,
Because these conditions exist already, Councilor Dwight asked if there has been a demon-strated land rush that has been projected or described or prophesied with developers buying up
properties and madly developing.
No, Ms. Misch said. They’ve seen a few projects come forward very time. She referred to one on Hawley Street, the redevelopment of Shaw’s Motel and a couple of others. Periodically,
single-family home lots are also created.
Councilor Dwight noted that they are currently in a very super white hot market. One would presume this is the peak of the type of speculative development that people are very concerned
about. Since there already is existing zoning for developers to come in and take advantage of, it doesn’t sound like it is Filene’s basement. These conversations are always driven with
passions. Things that are beyond your control and are in your backyard would in anybody inspire concern and distress. He did want to know as of now, during this very active period of
development if they are seeing any evidence of this
Councilor Foster said she wanted to lift up some of the concerns that she’s heard about demolition of existing structures to allow larger structures in their place. She is sympathetic
to the concerns around seeing some of those torn down and new larger structures put in. Most of the concerns heard today is around smaller houses coming down and bigger houses going
up. She is wondering if there is anything in zoning to address that situation.
She sees how a package of zoning works together to create different opportunities. Is there any answer in zoning around the concern around tearing down existing structures? She asked.
She doesn’t think they are in a position as a community that there is so much demand that it is more cost efficient to demolish a structure in order to build new units, Ms. Misch reflected.
It is not a tear down craze. There are structures sometimes that need significant investment in order to make them livable and that becomes part of the calculation for anyone looking
at a property. It is something they might look at in the future if it appears they are at a point that the demand for housing is so high and they’re not meeting that demand. “I don’t
think we’re there yet.”
Part of the issue that is driving up cost is not enough supply at different levels to meet demand. She is hopeful that allowing different ways for people to build houses addresses some
of that demand and helps relieve some of that pressure.
DISCUSSION
Members continued to ask questions and offer comments. Several councilors, in turn, expressed their reasons for supporting the package of amendments.
With regard to concerns about large structures in peoples’ backyards, Councilor Dwight pointed out that nothing is going to happen to anyone’s backyard unless they themselves change
it or sell it. He has always said that every political conversation, everything they debate and deliberate, is a territorial conflict, the desire to manage and maintain that which one
knows and is comfortable with and the dread of changes beyond one’s control. His neighborhood has not changed significantly in terms of structures, he observed. It is former workforce
housing for the railroad. His neighbor two doors down listed his house in the middle of a blizzard. There was a line down the street to go through it and it sold for $50,000 over asking.
It is partly COVID flight and partly really favorable interest rates. They’re talking about trying to provide opportunities for housing at every level.
This zoning is a comprehensive package. When people debate it, they use terms that are malleable and not appropriate, such as ‘affordable’ and ‘attainable.’ They are talking about a
comprehensive package that creates and provides opportunity for people who are currently excluded. Wealthy people have always been able to come here and buy.
They had the same fight some years back about changing the setback requirements to promote more development of ADU’s and provide more affordability, he related. The comments were pretty
much the same. There was concern about a massive land grab by rapacious developers. That’s not what’s happening and is not what’s likely to happen. They know that there are fights to
come. There will be the same types of concern. They are legitimate concerns.
There was a development built a few years ago that had tremendous resistance from the neighbors. Now, some of the new people are complaining about development near them. The issue is
controlling and managing places we hold dear. It is his hope that they study this package in the context of the comprehensive package going through and that hopefully the other portions
will be less controversial, he concluded.
Councilor Jarrett said he wanted to expand on the point he calls, ‘Rich people win.’ New moderately-sized homes are $600,000 and older ones range from the mid-$250’s to $500,000. Of
the people who want to buy here, rich people win. It’s absolutely not fair. There is extreme wealth inequality. It’s logical that increasing supply will reduce demand, but demand is
so much higher. There is also something of the ‘signaling’ effect in which people with money go some-where and that attracts more people with money. The question is, does that overcome
the supply and demand problem. In general, it’s not shown to be true. It’s generally people who can pay cash for the whole thing that are getting homes which is generally developers
or people with money – rich people again. And developers will fix a home up and sell it for 5 or $600,000.
The argument that zoning that prevents more housing would make housing more affordable doesn’t hold true because of the extreme demand and who’s getting the houses in bad shape, he suggested.
Second, some of them have won the lottery. Those of them who bought homes before the current rise in demand have houses worth more and it’s not because they put more work into them.
Also, zoning changes can make their properties more valuable. It’s people who have won the lottery that are the most concerned. As homeowners, they have a role in this gentrification;
it’s not just developers. There are ways to put systems in place to create more permanently affordable things.
With regard to neighborhood character, it changes, he pointed out. Prior to zoning, more buildings were built close together because more people wanted to live in an area, so neighbor-hoods
changed to reflect that need. People needed to live close together because most people didn’t use cars. Then, zoning came along with larger lots and that stopped it. “I think what we’re
trying to do in this whole package is to bring back the ability to have neighborhoods where we can meet our needs more locally” and in an updated fashion, he opined. Things they need
to think about are how much they want to legislate and how much yard people want to have and whether attainable housing is worth it. He thinks so. Multi-family homes are cheaper to
build than single-families so these will be attainable to people.
He thinks affordable housing is only going to come from subsidy or goodwill at this point. They have seen that subsidies at all levels of government are sorely lacking but subsidy is
the only way to create affordable housing unless a homeowner builds a second unit and chooses to rent or sell it at an affordable price. The only other option is if fewer people want
to live here, then prices would go down.
Lastly, does this zoning make for a more livable city? Are they so attached to large lot sizes that they’ll never actually get to sufficient density to live without cars? He asked rhetorically.
Urbanism makes a lot more sense to him than suburbanism. Even though it hurts each time a tree comes down, it’s so much better than the suburban sprawl alternative. He believes that
basic form is correct.
Piecing all this together, including how the URA and WSP zones are close enough to the down-towns in Northampton, Florence and Leeds that having more units there meets sustainability
goals and that, in SR and RR, it meets affordability and energy efficiency goals, he thinks it’s worth supporting these ordinances.
Councilor Nash said what he likes about this package is the range of options. They’re really allowing for a lot of flexibility. They can only hope that by allowing smaller units, attached
units and two families, they are actually going to end up with more affordability. He thinks that for families, these options are really great. It allows people to age in place and
have children live on their properties. It takes all of their structures and makes them more flexible, and he thinks that in itself makes them very worthy. Based on that, he’s going
to support it.
Councilor Jarrett proposed an amendment. At his request, the administrative assistant screen-shared an amendment to 20.166, Section 4 Screening. Councilor Jarrett reviewed the proposed
changes.
The Urban Forestry Commission has weighed in on this amendment and suggested some of the changes, he confirmed. UFC members prefer the three-inch (3”) threshold. He and Ms. Misch agreed
together on a five-inch (5”) threshold, but he would certainly support a three-inch (3”) threshold as well. The concern about the 3” is there could be a large number of three-inch trees.
This proposal requires trees to be planted, if not on the property, than in the right-of-way nearby.
Councilor Jarrett moved the amendment as presented. Councilor Dwight seconded.
There was a lot of discussion about not being overly burdensome to property owners given that single-family home owners don’t have any restrictions about cutting trees to install a deck
or a pool, Ms. Misch volunteered.
She said she had a few other housekeeping items on other ordinances.
Councilor LaBarge voiced concern about dictating what people can and can’t plant on their own property. She cited potential conflicts with trees, such as long driveways and trees planted
near septic systems. A lot of people are saying they’ve had it with the city telling them what to do with their property, she reported.
In this case, they are allowing something that normally is not allowed (two-family housing) and so are asking not to have a net loss of trees, Councilor Jarrett responded. Given the
city’s climate goals and all the benefits trees provide in terms of shade and cooling, it’s necessary to think about the long-term future of Northampton. He thinks this is a good compromise.
If some-one really isn’t able to plant on the property, they have the option of planting on the street nearby.
This is sort of a relief valve to accommodate property owners who can’t plant because they have a septic system or driveway in the way, so it addresses that, Ms. Misch confirmed.
The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
Ms. Misch presented an amendment to 20.166, Section 611 a (1) related to the heating system being required to be fossil fuel free. She recommended striking the term ‘building permit’
and replacing it with ‘site plan.’ Also, to clarify what fossil-fuel free means, she proposed striking the phrase ‘fossil-fuel free’ and stating that ‘all space heating must be powered
by either wood, wind, solar or grid-sourced electricity.’
Councilor Dwight moved those amendments. Councilor Maiore seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
Ms. Misch presented an amendment to 20.167 to delete the reference to detached accessory dwellings to clarify they are getting rid of this term throughout the tables of use.
Councilor Dwight so moved. Councilor LaBarge seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
CAPPING SIZE OF SECOND UNIT TO 1,800 SQUARE FEET
Councilor Maiore proposed an amendment exploring a size cap on the second unit to 1,800 s.f. in areas newly affected by the second unit.
The administrative assistant screen-shared the text of the amendment.
Councilor Maiore voiced her perception that the fear is a 3,000 s.f. second unit, and this would discourage that without preventing it by requiring a special permit for a unit over 1,800
s.f.
Councilor Maiore moved to amend. Councilor Jarrett seconded.
Councilor Jarrett asked Ms. Misch what the implications of requiring a special permit would be.
It would be difficult for the Planning Board to approve a special permit without a defined slate of criteria, Ms. Misch responded. A special permit creates potentially different voting
requirements and allows the board to say no. Zoning does have some standard special permit review criteria but they don’t speak specifically to this issue.
Councilor Jarrett asked her to describe the general special permit review criteria.
Ms. Misch reviewed the criteria, including protecting adjacent properties from serious detriments, promoting convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement to the site and
on adjacent streets, harmonious relationship to existing structures and the natural landscape, etc.
To her, it does sound like there are some parameters for permitting, Councilor Maiore said. She said she doesn’t know how Ms. Misch feels about the number. It sounds to her like kind
of a clear guideline for the Planning Board.
Another criteria is that the project meets special criteria set forth for specific uses, Ms. Misch added.
Councilor Dwight said he gets the sense this is not something she’s enthusiastic about. One criteria on special permit that seems to be most salient is whether it conforms to the neighbor-hood.
Talk about ‘amorphous,’ he observed. Citing the Lumber Yard as an example, “It didn’t look like the one-story white cinder block gas station so it didn’t conform to the rest of the
neighborhood,” he noted. He asked if she could expand on her feelings about the suggestion.
From the beginning, they weren’t recommending a cap of any kind, they were recommending lifting the 900 s.f. cap, Ms. Misch reminded. She thinks the ordinance would be fine. Given that
they are not getting huge two-families, it would be a rarity that they would see a special permit application like that. It’s not a deal breaker by any means. In general, they think
pretty hard about setting a special permit threshold for any use because it does become a barrier for people just because of the ability of the board to say no. It could have some chilling
effect, she acknow-ledged. She said she is not sure how often it would come up.
If he is hearing this is not particularly harmful or deleterious to any other dimension of the proposal, he’s fine with it, Councilor Dwight concluded. He understands the reason this
is being proposed is the expressed concerns of people who have suggested that is a possibility. “If they wanted to nail it shut, then let’s do it,” he proposed.
It comes up in the Leeds area where they have really large properties, Councilor Maiore shared. She said she doesn’t want to actually make things more difficult. She is hoping it would
be a rarity. She thinks in her ward it might actually come up. It’s a fear. She thought if it wasn’t too much of a detriment, it could add to this.
Councilor Nash said his one thought is why they don’t just go for a hard cap rather than a special permit. His fear around a special permit is they are inviting a meeting where people
are going to show up and “kind of handing the discussion off to the Planning Board. If we really don’t want 3,000 square foot structures, let’s create that cap.”
He expressed the understanding that if they created a cap of 2,000 s.f., they could always lift it in the future. He voiced the perception that they couldn’t go from unlimited to limited,
but Ms. Misch said they could.
This is double the ADU size they’re getting rid of and is just about the average single-family home size, Councilor Jarrett pointed out. Large buildings are likely not to be consistent
with their resilience goals. He feels comfortable establishing this level of review and listening to people who are concerned about what might happen.
Councilor Foster said one of the requests that she has heard resoundingly is that they take a big picture approach. To her, this amendment makes sense looking at their climate goals
and their goal to provide housing options that may be more financially in reach for people.
She thinks it’s harder to revisit zoning in a reactionary way than to put in a limit in to begin with. That’s an approach that she would feel more comfortable taking, she said.
There being no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
The motion to approve the package of ordinances as amended passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
The following ordinances passed two readings:
Package of Zoning Amendments to Allow Two-Families by Right in All Residential Zoning Districts – 2nd reading
Package of Zoning Amendments to Allow Two-Families by Right in All Residential Zoning Districts – 2nd reading
Councilor Sciarra stated her intention to take this package of zoning ordinances out of order.
There being no objection, Councilor Dwight moved to approve the ordinances as a group in second reading. Councilor Jarrett seconded.
Councilor Dwight noted that the raft of public comment at the beginning of the meeting focused on points brought up by Bill Ryan. The comments covered the breadth of all zoning issues
but he asked if she could frame the discussion in that light.
Taking a step back, Ms. Misch referred to the package of changes above and beyond the two-family package. The multi-pronged approach is all about different strategies to encourage housing
to meet the needs at different levels. In total, they are talking about strategies to meet attainable housing. One is about two-family housing, another deals specifically with affordable
housing and with incentives for smaller units.
At the last meeting, she presented data on median home size and councilors asked about the mean house size and whether that had changed over time. Overall, the median single-family home
is about 1,600 square feet (s.f.) while the mean house size is about 1,800 s.f. (1,779 s.f.)
For two-families, it is much smaller. Median unit size is estimated at 1,175 s.f. and mean slightly higher at 1,240 s.f.
They looked at the numbers for units built in the last 10 years, and they have gone up for single-family homes but not gone up much for two-families. The median is 2,160 s.f. and the
mean is 2,300 s.f. for single-family homes. It does show an increase of a couple of hundred square feet. That relates to the conversation and concern about large units being built as
part of the two-family proposal. “We’re not really seeing that as a trend,” she concluded.
Regarding other questions related to size, affordability and where units can be built, particularly relating to large-scale units being built in the backyards of properties, this concern
is originating in the URB and URC districts where detached units are already allowed by site plan review, she pointed out. There was a comment that this is only allowed on properties
which already have a single-family home. In reality, there are multiple ways to develop a property. Zoning allows two principal structures on a property and allows townhouses, which
can be multiple structures on a property. There are still minimum open space and setback requirements in the context of all the districts. Where there is flexibility to have multiple
structures on a property, those open space and setback requirements would be the constraining factor for where buildings could go and the scale of those buildings.
Since two detached structures are already allowed in URB and URC districts, what they are talking about is expanding this to URA, RR, SR and WSP districts. For the most part these will
be opportunities for people who currently own homes to add a second unit. Right now, they have an accessory dwelling provision, but this adds more flexibility because instead of having
the constraint of a 900 s.f. unit, it could be larger. It doesn’t necessarily mean it will be larger.
Ms. Misch showed pictures of a detached structure and accessory dwelling unit that have already been built under the existing ordinance. She cited these as examples of how the zoning
change would help property owners who already own homes in these districts.
She clarified that the ordinance is not intended to provide houses meeting the technical definition of ‘affordable housing,’ which is housing affordable to people earning 80% or less
of the Area Median Income (AMI), but is part of an attainable housing strategy throughout the city. It is one way of providing an opportunity for lower cost housing for people.
Councilor Jarrett said he is getting a lot of questions from constituents specifically around an element of URB zoning and the change which will occur in going from allowing “the addition
of a principal structure to a parcel where one already exists” by site plan approval to allowing “two single-family dwellings per lot.”
He expressed his understanding that, if this is literally interpreted, it could mean there now has to be a principal structure there already before someone can build a second one while,
under new zoning, someone will be allowed to build two single-family dwellings from scratch on an empty lot.
There isn’t a change to the existing provisions in the zoning where someone could currently come in for site plan review and build two principal structures on a lot, Ms. Misch responded.
That is allowed now. There is no change to the current condition. That is a misreading of how all the components fit together in the zoning to allow different variables, primarily in
the URB and URC districts. Really, this is about adding the ability to create a second unit in the rest of the city where it’s now only allowed in the URB and URC district unfettered
as to size.
Councilor Jarrett asked her to walk him through how a developer would currently be allowed to build two principal structures on an empty lot. “Starting with a lot with nothing on it,
how do you build two principal structures on a lot at once?” He asked. Where is that enabled?
They haven’t really had too many of those proposals, Ms. Misch said. Usually, it is three or more units that come in at once. Further down, it says a developer can do townhouses or other
multi-family dwellings of up to six units by site plan review. If someone were proposing that scenario, planners would say this is your path.
Townhouses do not have to all be attached, she confirmed.
Councilor Jarrett said he wants to be clear that they are not changing that for URB or URC; that is remaining the same. It is rightly very important to his constituents. He thanked her
for the clarification,
Because these conditions exist already, Councilor Dwight asked if there has been a demon-strated land rush that has been projected or described or prophesied with developers buying up
properties and madly developing.
No, Ms. Misch said. They’ve seen a few projects come forward very time. She referred to one on Hawley Street, the redevelopment of Shaw’s Motel and a couple of others. Periodically,
single-family home lots are also created.
Councilor Dwight noted that they are currently in a very super white hot market. One would presume this is the peak of the type of speculative development that people are very concerned
about. Since there already is existing zoning for developers to come in and take advantage of, it doesn’t sound like it is Filene’s basement. These conversations are always driven with
passions. Things that are beyond your control and are in your backyard would in anybody inspire concern and distress. He did want to know as of now, during this very active period of
development if they are seeing any evidence of this
Councilor Foster said she wanted to lift up some of the concerns that she’s heard about demolition of existing structures to allow larger structures in their place. She is sympathetic
to the concerns around seeing some of those torn down and new larger structures put in. Most of the concerns heard today is around smaller houses coming down and bigger houses going
up. She is wondering if there is anything in zoning to address that situation.
She sees how a package of zoning works together to create different opportunities. Is there any answer in zoning around the concern around tearing down existing structures? She asked.
She doesn’t think they are in a position as a community that there is so much demand that it is more cost efficient to demolish a structure in order to build new units, Ms. Misch reflected.
It is not a tear down craze. There are structures sometimes that need significant investment in order to make them livable and that becomes part of the calculation for anyone looking
at a property. It is something they might look at in the future if it appears they are at a point that the demand for housing is so high and they’re not meeting that demand. “I don’t
think we’re there yet.”
Part of the issue that is driving up cost is not enough supply at different levels to meet demand. She is hopeful that allowing different ways for people to build houses addresses some
of that demand and helps relieve some of that pressure.
DISCUSSION
Members continued to ask questions and offer comments. Several councilors, in turn, expressed their reasons for supporting the package of amendments.
With regard to concerns about large structures in peoples’ backyards, Councilor Dwight pointed out that nothing is going to happen to anyone’s backyard unless they themselves change
it or sell it. He has always said that every political conversation, everything they debate and deliberate, is a territorial conflict, the desire to manage and maintain that which one
knows and is comfortable with and the dread of changes beyond one’s control. His neighborhood has not changed significantly in terms of structures, he observed. It is former workforce
housing for the railroad. His neighbor two doors down listed his house in the middle of a blizzard. There was a line down the street to go through it and it sold for $50,000 over asking.
It is partly COVID flight and partly really favorable interest rates. They’re talking about trying to provide opportunities for housing at every level.
This zoning is a comprehensive package. When people debate it, they use terms that are malleable and not appropriate, such as ‘affordable’ and ‘attainable.’ They are talking about a
comprehensive package that creates and provides opportunity for people who are currently excluded. Wealthy people have always been able to come here and buy.
They had the same fight some years back about changing the setback requirements to promote more development of ADU’s and provide more affordability, he related. The comments were pretty
much the same. There was concern about a massive land grab by rapacious developers. That’s not what’s happening and is not what’s likely to happen. They know that there are fights to
come. There will be the same types of concern. They are legitimate concerns.
There was a development built a few years ago that had tremendous resistance from the neighbors. Now, some of the new people are complaining about development near them. The issue is
controlling and managing places we hold dear. It is his hope that they study this package in the context of the comprehensive package going through and that hopefully the other portions
will be less controversial, he concluded.
Councilor Jarrett said he wanted to expand on the point he calls, ‘Rich people win.’ New moderately-sized homes are $600,000 and older ones range from the mid-$250’s to $500,000. Of
the people who want to buy here, rich people win. It’s absolutely not fair. There is extreme wealth inequality. It’s logical that increasing supply will reduce demand, but demand is
so much higher. There is also something of the ‘signaling’ effect in which people with money go some-where and that attracts more people with money. The question is, does that overcome
the supply and demand problem. In general, it’s not shown to be true. It’s generally people who can pay cash for the whole thing that are getting homes which is generally developers
or people with money – rich people again. And developers will fix a home up and sell it for 5 or $600,000.
The argument that zoning that prevents more housing would make housing more affordable doesn’t hold true because of the extreme demand and who’s getting the houses in bad shape, he suggested.
Second, some of them have won the lottery. Those of them who bought homes before the current rise in demand have houses worth more and it’s not because they put more work into them.
Also, zoning changes can make their properties more valuable. It’s people who have won the lottery that are the most concerned. As homeowners, they have a role in this gentrification;
it’s not just developers. There are ways to put systems in place to create more permanently affordable things.
With regard to neighborhood character, it changes, he pointed out. Prior to zoning, more buildings were built close together because more people wanted to live in an area, so neighbor-hoods
changed to reflect that need. People needed to live close together because most people didn’t use cars. Then, zoning came along with larger lots and that stopped it. “I think what we’re
trying to do in this whole package is to bring back the ability to have neighborhoods where we can meet our needs more locally” and in an updated fashion, he opined. Things they need
to think about are how much they want to legislate and how much yard people want to have and whether attainable housing is worth it. He thinks so. Multi-family homes are cheaper to
build than single-families so these will be attainable to people.
He thinks affordable housing is only going to come from subsidy or goodwill at this point. They have seen that subsidies at all levels of government are sorely lacking but subsidy is
the only way to create affordable housing unless a homeowner builds a second unit and chooses to rent or sell it at an affordable price. The only other option is if fewer people want
to live here, then prices would go down.
Lastly, does this zoning make for a more livable city? Are they so attached to large lot sizes that they’ll never actually get to sufficient density to live without cars? He asked rhetorically.
Urbanism makes a lot more sense to him than suburbanism. Even though it hurts each time a tree comes down, it’s so much better than the suburban sprawl alternative. He believes that
basic form is correct.
Piecing all this together, including how the URA and WSP zones are close enough to the down-towns in Northampton, Florence and Leeds that having more units there meets sustainability
goals and that, in SR and RR, it meets affordability and energy efficiency goals, he thinks it’s worth supporting these ordinances.
Councilor Nash said what he likes about this package is the range of options. They’re really allowing for a lot of flexibility. They can only hope that by allowing smaller units, attached
units and two families, they are actually going to end up with more affordability. He thinks that for families, these options are really great. It allows people to age in place and
have children live on their properties. It takes all of their structures and makes them more flexible, and he thinks that in itself makes them very worthy. Based on that, he’s going
to support it.
Councilor Jarrett proposed an amendment. At his request, the administrative assistant screen-shared an amendment to 20.166, Section 4 Screening. Councilor Jarrett reviewed the proposed
changes.
The Urban Forestry Commission has weighed in on this amendment and suggested some of the changes, he confirmed. UFC members prefer the three-inch (3”) threshold. He and Ms. Misch agreed
together on a five-inch (5”) threshold, but he would certainly support a three-inch (3”) threshold as well. The concern about the 3” is there could be a large number of three-inch trees.
This proposal requires trees to be planted, if not on the property, than in the right-of-way nearby.
Councilor Jarrett moved the amendment as presented. Councilor Dwight seconded.
There was a lot of discussion about not being overly burdensome to property owners given that single-family home owners don’t have any restrictions about cutting trees to install a deck
or a pool, Ms. Misch volunteered.
She said she had a few other housekeeping items on other ordinances.
Councilor LaBarge voiced concern about dictating what people can and can’t plant on their own property. She cited potential conflicts with trees, such as long driveways and trees planted
near septic systems. A lot of people are saying they’ve had it with the city telling them what to do with their property, she reported.
In this case, they are allowing something that normally is not allowed (two-family housing) and so are asking not to have a net loss of trees, Councilor Jarrett responded. Given the
city’s climate goals and all the benefits trees provide in terms of shade and cooling, it’s necessary to think about the long-term future of Northampton. He thinks this is a good compromise.
If some-one really isn’t able to plant on the property, they have the option of planting on the street nearby.
This is sort of a relief valve to accommodate property owners who can’t plant because they have a septic system or driveway in the way, so it addresses that, Ms. Misch confirmed.
The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
Ms. Misch presented an amendment to 20.166, Section 611 a (1) related to the heating system being required to be fossil fuel free. She recommended striking the term ‘building permit’
and replacing it with ‘site plan.’ Also, to clarify what fossil-fuel free means, she proposed striking the phrase ‘fossil-fuel free’ and stating that ‘all space heating must be powered
by either wood, wind, solar or grid-sourced electricity.’
Councilor Dwight moved those amendments. Councilor Maiore seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
Ms. Misch presented an amendment to 20.167 to delete the reference to detached accessory dwellings to clarify they are getting rid of this term throughout the tables of use.
Councilor Dwight so moved. Councilor LaBarge seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
CAPPING SIZE OF SECOND UNIT TO 1,800 SQUARE FEET
Councilor Maiore proposed an amendment exploring a size cap on the second unit to 1,800 s.f. in areas newly affected by the second unit.
The administrative assistant screen-shared the text of the amendment.
Councilor Maiore voiced her perception that the fear is a 3,000 s.f. second unit, and this would discourage that without preventing it by requiring a special permit for a unit over 1,800
s.f.
Councilor Maiore moved to amend. Councilor Jarrett seconded.
Councilor Jarrett asked Ms. Misch what the implications of requiring a special permit would be.
It would be difficult for the Planning Board to approve a special permit without a defined slate of criteria, Ms. Misch responded. A special permit creates potentially different voting
requirements and allows the board to say no. Zoning does have some standard special permit review criteria but they don’t speak specifically to this issue.
Councilor Jarrett asked her to describe the general special permit review criteria.
Ms. Misch reviewed the criteria, including protecting adjacent properties from serious detriments, promoting convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement to the site and
on adjacent streets, harmonious relationship to existing structures and the natural landscape, etc.
To her, it does sound like there are some parameters for permitting, Councilor Maiore said. She said she doesn’t know how Ms. Misch feels about the number. It sounds to her like kind
of a clear guideline for the Planning Board.
Another criteria is that the project meets special criteria set forth for specific uses, Ms. Misch added.
Councilor Dwight said he gets the sense this is not something she’s enthusiastic about. One criteria on special permit that seems to be most salient is whether it conforms to the neighbor-hood.
Talk about ‘amorphous,’ he observed. Citing the Lumber Yard as an example, “It didn’t look like the one-story white cinder block gas station so it didn’t conform to the rest of the
neighborhood,” he noted. He asked if she could expand on her feelings about the suggestion.
From the beginning, they weren’t recommending a cap of any kind, they were recommending lifting the 900 s.f. cap, Ms. Misch reminded. She thinks the ordinance would be fine. Given that
they are not getting huge two-families, it would be a rarity that they would see a special permit application like that. It’s not a deal breaker by any means. In general, they think
pretty hard about setting a special permit threshold for any use because it does become a barrier for people just because of the ability of the board to say no. It could have some chilling
effect, she acknow-ledged. She said she is not sure how often it would come up.
If he is hearing this is not particularly harmful or deleterious to any other dimension of the proposal, he’s fine with it, Councilor Dwight concluded. He understands the reason this
is being proposed is the expressed concerns of people who have suggested that is a possibility. “If they wanted to nail it shut, then let’s do it,” he proposed.
It comes up in the Leeds area where they have really large properties, Councilor Maiore shared. She said she doesn’t want to actually make things more difficult. She is hoping it would
be a rarity. She thinks in her ward it might actually come up. It’s a fear. She thought if it wasn’t too much of a detriment, it could add to this.
Councilor Nash said his one thought is why they don’t just go for a hard cap rather than a special permit. His fear around a special permit is they are inviting a meeting where people
are going to show up and “kind of handing the discussion off to the Planning Board. If we really don’t want 3,000 square foot structures, let’s create that cap.”
He expressed the understanding that if they created a cap of 2,000 s.f., they could always lift it in the future. He voiced the perception that they couldn’t go from unlimited to limited,
but Ms. Misch said they could.
This is double the ADU size they’re getting rid of and is just about the average single-family home size, Councilor Jarrett pointed out. Large buildings are likely not to be consistent
with their resilience goals. He feels comfortable establishing this level of review and listening to people who are concerned about what might happen.
Councilor Foster said one of the requests that she has heard resoundingly is that they take a big picture approach. To her, this amendment makes sense looking at their climate goals
and their goal to provide housing options that may be more financially in reach for people.
She thinks it’s harder to revisit zoning in a reactionary way than to put in a limit in to begin with. That’s an approach that she would feel more comfortable taking, she said.
There being no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
The motion to approve the package of ordinances as amended passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
The following ordinances passed two readings:
Passed two readings, ordained and enrolled.
Ordinances
20.181 Ordinance Relative to Affordable Housing (350-6-12) - 1st reading
21.189 Ordinance to Create an Incentive for Smaller Houses by Allowing Two Half-Scale Units to Count as a Single-Family for Density Purposes - 1st reading
Ordinances
20.181 An Ordinance Relative to Affordable Housing (350-6-12) - 1st reading
21.189 An Ordinance to Create an Incentive for Smaller Houses by Allowing Two Half-Scale Units to Count as a Single-Family for Density Purposes - 1st reading
Councilor Sciarra said she thinks these other zoning ordinances are really important, and she would like to have an extensive conversation on them when they’re not at this state at one
o’clock in the morning. She suggested the possibility of continuing this discussion to the next meeting on April 1st.
Councilor Dwight moved to continue the agenda item to April 1, 2021. Councilor Foster seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
See minutes of April 1, 2021 for first reading.
Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda
Councilor Sciarra reviewed the consent agenda, offering to remove any item for separate discussion upon request. Councilor Dwight moved to approve the consent agenda as presented. Councilor
Jarrett seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
The following items were approved as part of the consent agenda:
Minutes of February 18, 2021 City Council Meeting
21.210 Appointment to Planning Board - for referral to City Services Committee
Planning Board
Samuel Taylor (Full Member), 245 North Street, Northampton
Term: July 2020-June 2023
Reappointment
Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda
Councilor Sciarra reviewed the consent agenda, offering to remove any item for separate discussion upon request. Councilor Dwight moved to approve the consent agenda as presented. Councilor
Jarrett seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
The following items were approved as part of the consent agenda:
Minutes of February 18, 2021 City Council Meeting
21.210 Appointment to Planning Board - for referral to City Services Committee
Planning Board
Samuel Taylor (Full Member), 245 North Street, Northampton
Term: July 2020-June 2023
Reappointment
Recess for Committee on Finance Meeting
At 1:10 1.m., the City Council recessed for the Committee on Finance. The Committee on Finance adjourned at 1:13 a.m. The City Council reconvened at 1:13 a.m.
Financial Orders (on 1st reading pending Finance)
21.205 An Order to Establish Water and Sewer Rates for FY2022 - 1st reading
Financial Orders (on 1st reading pending Finance review)
21.205 An Order to Establish Water and Sewer Rates for FY2022 - 1st reading
Councilor Dwight moved to approve the order in first reading. Councilor LaBarge seconded. The order passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
See minutes of April 1, 2021 for second reading.
Financial Orders (in 2nd reading)
21.202 An Order to Authorize Acceptance of Gifts of Labor and Materials for Sidewalk Repair or Replacement – 2nd reading
21.203 An Order to Discontinue a Portion of Sherman Avenue – 2nd reading
Financial Orders (in 2nd reading)
21.202 An Order to Authorize Acceptance of Gifts of Labor and Materials for Sidewalk Repair or Replacement – 2nd reading
Councilor LaBarge moved to approve the order as amended in second reading. Councilor Dwight seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
The following order passed two readings:
Passed two readings and enrolled.
21.203 An Order to Discontinue a Portion of Sherman Avenue – 2nd reading
Councilor Dwight moved to approve the order in second reading. Councilor Maiore seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
The following order passed two readings:
Passed two readings and enrolled.
Financial Orders (in 2nd reading)
21.202 An Order to Authorize Acceptance of Gifts of Labor and Materials for Sidewalk Repair or Replacement – 2nd reading
21.203 An Order to Discontinue a Portion of Sherman Avenue – 2nd reading
Financial Orders (in 2nd reading)
21.202 An Order to Authorize Acceptance of Gifts of Labor and Materials for Sidewalk Repair or Replacement – 2nd reading
Councilor LaBarge moved to approve the order as amended in second reading. Councilor Dwight seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
The following order passed two readings:
Passed two readings and enrolled.
21.203 An Order to Discontinue a Portion of Sherman Avenue – 2nd reading
Councilor Dwight moved to approve the order in second reading. Councilor Maiore seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
The following order passed two readings:
Passed two readings and enrolled.
Financial Orders (in 2nd reading)
21.202 An Order to Authorize Acceptance of Gifts of Labor and Materials for Sidewalk Repair or Replacement – 2nd reading
21.203 An Order to Discontinue a Portion of Sherman Avenue – 2nd reading
Financial Orders (in 2nd reading)
21.202 An Order to Authorize Acceptance of Gifts of Labor and Materials for Sidewalk Repair or Replacement – 2nd reading
Councilor LaBarge moved to approve the order as amended in second reading. Councilor Dwight seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
The following order passed two readings:
Passed two readings and enrolled.
21.203 An Order to Discontinue a Portion of Sherman Avenue – 2nd reading
Councilor Dwight moved to approve the order in second reading. Councilor Maiore seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
The following order passed two readings:
Passed two readings and enrolled.
Orders
21.211 An Order Further Extending 20.062, Temporary Suspension of Certain Ordinances to Reopen Restaurants - 1st reading
Orders
21.211 An Order Further Extending 20.062, Temporary Suspension of Certain Ordinances to Reopen Restaurants - 1st reading
Councilor Sciarra read.
Councilor Dwight moved to approve the order in first reading. Councilor LaBarge seconded.
This was the order allowing them to set up temporary outdoor dining, Mayor Narkewicz reminded. They already have establishments downtown that have gone to the License Commis-sion including
this afternoon to apply for the necessary permits to stand that up again. The goal is to try to get outdoor dining set back up, weather permitting, April 1st on Strong Avenue, Market
Street, Upper Main Street, and some side streets like Packards, etc. This will allow them to do that. They are asking for an extension to November 1st because they are assuming people
will want to keep it up through summer and fall. That was effectively when they pulled the blocks and took everything up last year.
Councilor Jarrett said he noticed last year the addition of mask-free zones in Pulaski Park. He asked if they planned to do that again.
That was an initiative the health director tried, Mayor Narkewicz confirmed. Depending on where they are on mask wearing and vaccinations, he assumes the health director will try to
do that again.
Councilor Nash said he thought the one-way traffic flow on Market Street was effective. He noticed it is not on the table.
Mayor Narkewicz said he has been talking to Meg Sullivan at Joe’s. He is not sure they are thinking of doing something as extensive, so they’re thinking it won’t impinge on traffic.
The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
Councilor Dwight moved to suspend rules to allow a second reading. Councilor LaBarge seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
Councilor Dwight moved to approve the order in second reading. Councilor Foster seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
The following order passed two readings.
Rules suspended, passed two readings and enrolled.
Orders
21.211 An Order Further Extending 20.062, Temporary Suspension of Certain Ordinances to Reopen Restaurants - 1st reading
Orders
21.211 An Order Further Extending 20.062, Temporary Suspension of Certain Ordinances to Reopen Restaurants - 1st reading
Councilor Sciarra read.
Councilor Dwight moved to approve the order in first reading. Councilor LaBarge seconded.
This was the order allowing them to set up temporary outdoor dining, Mayor Narkewicz reminded. They already have establishments downtown that have gone to the License Commis-sion including
this afternoon to apply for the necessary permits to stand that up again. The goal is to try to get outdoor dining set back up, weather permitting, April 1st on Strong Avenue, Market
Street, Upper Main Street, and some side streets like Packards, etc. This will allow them to do that. They are asking for an extension to November 1st because they are assuming people
will want to keep it up through summer and fall. That was effectively when they pulled the blocks and took everything up last year.
Councilor Jarrett said he noticed last year the addition of mask-free zones in Pulaski Park. He asked if they planned to do that again.
That was an initiative the health director tried, Mayor Narkewicz confirmed. Depending on where they are on mask wearing and vaccinations, he assumes the health director will try to
do that again.
Councilor Nash said he thought the one-way traffic flow on Market Street was effective. He noticed it is not on the table.
Mayor Narkewicz said he has been talking to Meg Sullivan at Joe’s. He is not sure they are thinking of doing something as extensive, so they’re thinking it won’t impinge on traffic.
The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
Councilor Dwight moved to suspend rules to allow a second reading. Councilor LaBarge seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
Councilor Dwight moved to approve the order in second reading. Councilor Foster seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
The following order passed two readings.
Rules suspended, passed two readings and enrolled.
20.182 Ordinance Relative to Demolition Review for Historically-Significant Buildings – 2nd reading
20.182 An Ordinance Relative to Demolition Review for Historically-Significant Buildings – 2nd reading
Councilor LaBarge moved to approve the ordinance in second reading. Councilor Dwight seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
The following ordinance passed two readings:
Passed two readings, ordained and enrolled.
20.182 Ordinance Relative to Demolition Review for Historically-Significant Buildings – 2nd reading
20.182 An Ordinance Relative to Demolition Review for Historically-Significant Buildings – 2nd reading
Councilor LaBarge moved to approve the ordinance in second reading. Councilor Dwight seconded. The motion passed unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
The following ordinance passed two readings:
Passed two readings, ordained and enrolled.
New Business
New Business
None.
Information (Charter Provision 2-7)
& Study Requests
Information (Charter Provision 2-7) and Information Study Requests
Appointment of committee to review and recommend changes to council rules.
Councilor Sciarra said this would be on the agenda April 1st in the form of a resolution.
Motion to Adjourn
Upon motion made by Councilor Dwight and seconded by Councilor Nash, the meeting was adjourned at 1:24 a.m. The motion carried unanimously 9:0 by roll call vote.
Attest: Administrative Assistant to the City Council