Charter panel, council leaders agree BET should recommend capital cap; council would set limit

Charter Vision Commission members and Common Council leaders met on March 18 to discuss proposed revisions to Article 10 of the city charter that govern the city’s budget process, focusing on the role of the Board of Estimate and Taxation in recommending a cap on the capital budget.

Why it matters: The commission is finalizing charter language that frames which body proposes and which body sets limits on city spending. That division affects transparency, who formally justifies recommendations, and how the city’s debt and bond ratings may be exposed to political changes.

Attorney Steven Mednick, counsel for the Charter Vision Commission, said the CFO had asked for language that would preserve the BET’s ability to offer a recommended cap while leaving final authority with the Common Council. "The CFO has recommended that we modify that so that the BET does not have a fixed, maximum limit. They can make a recommendation for a limit on the cap. It will be the council’s responsibility to establish the cap," Mednick said.

Common Council President Barbara Smith pressed for clearer wording in the draft. Reading existing text aloud, she cited Section 10:16(a): "Upon receipt of the recommendations of the Board of Estimate and Taxation, the Common Council may approve, reject, reduce, or reinstate any item in the proposed capital budget within the maximum limits." Smith said the phrase reinstate is unclear and urged the commission to simplify the verbs to avoid ambiguity.

Council members on the commission said they want BET recommendations to appear in writing and to include the rationale behind any suggested cap. "Having those recommendations in writing and spelling out the reasons by which they are recommending what they're recommending is a really important document, not only for the public to understand where the BET is coming from," one council member said, adding the paper trail aids public transparency and council deliberations.

CFO Michael Schmidt (identified in the meeting as the city CFO) told the panel that the BET will transmit its formal recommendations in writing in line with charter requirements and existing deadlines. "They will do that. They have to do that. The deadline happened," Schmidt said, noting the BET’s transmittal schedule and the council’s subsequent vote timetable.

Several commissioners and council members asked the commission staff to remove or rework language that suggested the BET could impose a binding cap. The chair said he would revise Article 10 to reflect the discussion and to make explicit that the BET’s role is to recommend; the council retains authority to adopt any cap.

What’s next: Counsel and the CFO will continue drafting. The commission chair said he will revise Article 10 text for review at upcoming meetings so the panel can vote on final wording over the next month. The commission also discussed further clarifications to the budget preview and joint meeting procedures with the Board of Education and finance committees.

Ending: Commissioners emphasized written BET recommendations, clearer charter language removing ambiguous verbs such as "reinstate," and explicit assignment of final cap-setting authority to the Common Council as the next drafting steps.