The council devoted significant time to the charter review committee’s report, emphasizing the need to separate the committee’s work from any election-related activities. Concerns were raised about public perception, as the timing of the report’s release coincided with the election season. A member underscored the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between the committee’s duties and political activities, asserting that the review should not serve as an election tool. They clarified that delays in the committee’s progress were due to the work’s complexity rather than any electoral motivations.

Within this context, the council examined non-voted charter revisions, focusing on unresolved issues that required further discussion. A spreadsheet was presented, highlighting items needing additional consideration before involving legal counsel. A specific proposal to reduce the eight-week lame duck period for newly elected counselors was debated, with concerns raised about adequate preparation time for incoming members. The vote was split, reflecting differing views on the ideal transition period for new council members.

Further deliberation occurred regarding the finance committee’s role and authority. The council examined proposals to clarify the committee’s function and the inclusion of resident members. While there was consensus on allowing resident participation, granting them voting rights sparked debate. Some members argued that appointed residents should not have voting power, emphasizing the accountability of elected officials to the public. The council ultimately agreed to include residents without voting rights.

The meeting also addressed the appointment process for resident members of committees, with a proposal suggesting the town manager assume this responsibility. However, the majority opposed this delegation, preferring council involvement in appointments to ensure continuity and oversight. Additionally, the council voted in favor of staggered terms for committee appointments, extending them from two to three years to enhance stability.

A substantial portion of the meeting was dedicated to discussions on the budget process and the JCPC’s role. Members debated the origin of capital improvement plans, with some advocating for initial proposals to come from the JCPC rather than the town manager. Despite differing opinions, the council agreed to seek clarification from legal counsel to better understand the implications of any proposed changes.

The council also explored the timing of the budget forum, with suggestions to move it earlier in the year to facilitate meaningful public engagement. The idea received support, prompting a decision to consult with legal experts on the feasibility of amending the forum’s schedule. Members expressed a desire for greater transparency and public involvement in the budget process, emphasizing the importance of community input.