Select Committee on the Size and Election of Council — Charleston, WV
Date: 2023-11-09
Time: 17:30

CITY OF CHARLESTON
 West Virginia
 Council Member – AT-LARGE
 Jennifer Pharr Planning, Streets and Traffic Committee, Vice Chair
 209 52nd St. SE Environment and Recycling Committee
 Charleston, West Virginia 25304
 304-615-7574
 jennifer.pharr@cityofcharleston.org


 AGENDA
 SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE SIZE AND ELECTION OF COUNCIL
 November 9, 2023 5:30 PM
 AV ROOM #308, CITY HALL
 501 VIRGINA ST. E.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

1. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES

 10-25-2023

2. UPDATES/DISCUSSION

 Update from City Attorney Kevin Baker regarding data from the Municipal League concerning the size of other
 municipalities

 Memo presentation from Councilmembre Pepper concerning the size of other municipalities

 Discussion regarding cost of Charleston City Council

 Discussion regarding bipartisan elections

 Updates from Committee Members

 Next date to meet and potential topics for next meeting

3. ADJOURN

4. THE AGENDA WAS AMENDED ON 11-6-2023



JP/ns


 *Meetings may be recorded and broadcast via internet https://charlestonwv.civicclerk.com




 City Council | 501 Virginia Street, East | Post Office Box 2749 | Charleston, West Virginia 25330
 www.charlestonwv.gov | 304.348.8179 | 304.348.8038 fax

CITY OF CHARLESTON
 West Virginia
 Council Member – AT-LARGE
 Jennifer Pharr Planning, Streets and Traffic Committee, Vice Chair
 209 52nd St. SE Environment and Recycling Committee
 Charleston, West Virginia 25304
 304-615-7574
 jennifer.pharr@cityofcharleston.org


 AGENDA
 SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE SIZE AND ELECTION OF COUNCIL
 November 9, 2023 5:30 PM
 AV ROOM #308, CITY HALL
 501 VIRGINA ST. E.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

1. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES

 10-25-2023

2. UPDATES/DISCUSSION

 Update from City Attorney Kevin Baker regarding data from the Municipal League concerning the size of other
 municipalities

 Memo presentation from Councilmembre Pepper concerning the size of other municipalities

 Discussion regarding cost of Charleston City Council

 Discussion regarding bipartisan elections

 Updates from Committee Members

 Next date to meet and potential topics for next meeting

3. ADJOURN

4. THE AGENDA WAS AMENDED ON 11-6-2023



JP/ns


 *Meetings may be recorded and broadcast via internet https://charlestonwv.civicclerk.com




 City Council | 501 Virginia Street, East | Post Office Box 2749 | Charleston, West Virginia 25330
 www.charlestonwv.gov | 304.348.8179 | 304.348.8038 fax

 Page | 1 of
 MINUTES
 SELECT COMMITTEE ON SIZE AND ELECTION OF COUNCIL

 THE MEETING WAS HELD IN THE AV ROOM #308 IN CITY HALL.

 5:30 P. M., OCTOBER 25, 2023

Mayor Goodwin called the meeting of the Select Committee on Size and Election of
Council to order at 5:30p.m., October 25, 2023.

Committee Members Present:
Mark Davis
Mary Beth Hoover
Sam Minardi
Chuck Overstreet
Emmett Pepper
Jennifer Pharr
Chad Robinson


Members Absent:
Jonathan Frazier
Karen Williams


Other Councilmember Present:
Joe Solomon
Beth Kerns
Chelsea Steelhammer



A roll call was taken, and it was determined that a quorum was present.




 October 25, 2021

 Page | 2 of
 1. Welcome

Mayor Goodwin stated that the size of Council has been an ongoing conversation for at
least the past 25 years. She expected the Committee to elect a Chair and Vice Chair,
and to discuss what their goals should be. The members were selected because they
represent a range of opinions on the subject.

City Attorney Kevin Baker added that Charleston has always had Wards, with a
representative elected to those Wards. The size of Council has changed a lot during its
history. In 1907, there was a Board of Affairs with 20 Councilmembers and a Board of
Affairs, who essentially functioned as At-Large. Bills had to pass both elected bodies.
That lasted about 8 years, but there has always been a combination of Ward Council
and At-Large Council after that. There were 15 Wards in 1919, and 21 Wards by 2010
(6 At-Large). In 2014, Council eliminated one Ward.

Councilmember Minardi asked if there was a ballot initiative each time the size, etc. of
Council was changed. Baker replied that to amend the Charter, there would be a bill
and a public hearing. If no members of the public voiced their opposition at the public
hearing, it would be a vote of Council. If there were opposition, the bill would be put on
the ballot. There was not a ballot initiative in 2014, as it did not change the Charter.

Councilmember Pepper added that he would like for the members to introduce
themselves and state their current position on the subject:

 • Mark Davis stated that he has recently retired from City National Bank, and has
 served on several non-profit boards. He is currently thinking that Council is too
 large.
 • Councilmember Pharr (At-Large) is currently thinking that Council is too large.
 Additionally, she wants to discuss term limits, attendance, etc.
 • Councilmember Pepper (At-Large) is currently thinking that Council size should
 not change. He is interested in discussing attendance, etc.as well.
 • Councilmember Minardi (Ward 15) is currently open to changing Council size. He
 is interested in discussing term limits and non-partisan races.
 • Councilmember Robinson (Ward 20) is currently undecided.
 • Councilmember Hoover (Ward 9) is currently undecided.
 • Councilmember Overstreet (Ward 2) is currently thinking that Council size should
 not change. He is interested in At-large members being tied to a Ward or specific
 area. He wants to educate the public more on what Councilmembers do.



 2. Election of Chairs

Davis inquired about the possibility of Co-Chairs. The Mayor replied that a Chair and
Vice Chair that are on either side of the debate would be a good choice.



 October 25, 2021

 Page | 3 of
Davis nominated Councilmember Pharr as Chair. Councilmember Minardi seconded.

Councilmember Overstreet recommended that one of those positions be a citizen.
Councilmember Robinson agreed.

With the members present having voted unanimously in the affirmative, Councilmember
Pharr was approved as Chair.

Councilmember Pepper added that he thought the Vice Chair should have an opposite
opinion from the Chair, and that it should be one of the Ward Councilmembers.

Councilmember Minardi nominated Councilmember Overstreet as Vice Chair.
Councilmember Papper seconded.

With the members present having voted unanimously in the affirmative, Councilmember
Overstreet was approved as Vice Chair.



 3. Discussion of goals for committee/Review of Resolution 561-21

Mayor Goodwin added that she has discussed Council size with other Mayors. She
would be willing to do more specific research if the Committee found that helpful.
Councilmember Overstreet added that he would like to know if those Councils had full
time/had dedicated staff, and how they were paid (per meeting, etc.). Councilmember
Pepper added that he would like to know how many people there are per Ward. Davis
suggested that citizens be appointed to serve on Committees. Councilmember Pepper
added that he would like to know if other cities have Boards with mandatory
Councilmembers assigned to it (similar to the Spring Hill Cemetery Commission).

Councilmember Pharr asked if this sort of data could also be collected nationally from
cities the size of Charleston. Councilmember Pepper added that he had done research
on the subject. Charleston has the 7th largest Council size in the country (most of the
largest are in New England). Mayor Goodwin added that the typical Council size in West
Virginia is 6-11. Councilmember Pepper added those numbers are typical nationally as
well.

Councilmember Pharr added that some of the goals that had already been stated were:
 • Size
 • Attendance
 • Term limits
 • Partisan
 • Regional At-Large

Councilmember Pharr asked if there was a deadline for a possible ballot initiative. Baker
replied that due to the requirements and deadlines of the County, the Committee would


 October 25, 2021

 Page | 4 of
need to have everything ready by July for the November 2024 election. He added that a
ballot initiative would not be needed to change the number of Wards as that is not
specified in the Charter (the number of At-Large and the requirement of one
Councilmember per Ward is). He added that the City would need the County to be
willing to help with redistricting outside of the normal cycle.

Councilmember Pepper added that Resolution No. 561-21 required that the Committee
report to Council by the end of the year. Baker replied that it didn’t need to be a final
report, but some sort of update.

Councilmember Pharr added that they should have listening sessions/public hearings
for input. Councilmember Pepper added that he would like to have speakers from other
cities, especially from those that have larger Councils. Councilmember Minardi added
that they could also have speakers from cities that have recently reduced or increased
their Council size.

From the audience, Councilmember Kerns added that she agreed with Councilmember
Overstreet’s suggestion that At-Large be associated to a specific region if the number
were to remain the same. This would prevent the possibility that the majority of the At-
Large Councilmembers be from the same area. From the audience, Councilmember
Steelhammer agreed.

Councilmember Pharr stated that they will review the information and come up with
questions/comments for the next meeting.

A member of the audience asked if this was something that had to be done.
Councilmember Pharr answered that it was not. This is an opportunity to have a
conversation openly about it to determine what is best for the City.

Councilmember Pharr added that the At-Large roles probably need to be discussed.

Councilmember Robinson added that the Committee needed to first decide to either
move forward with the July deadline in mind, or to decide to take more time. They would
also need to decide what the implementation date of any changes would be.



 4. Discussion of future meetings dates

The Committee decided that it would be best for now not to have a standing meeting
date. The Committee decided that the next meeting would be November 9, 2024, at
5:30.


Councilmember Minardi motioned to adjourn the meeting.
Meeting adjourned.



 October 25, 2021

 Page | 5 of
Full Name City Population Council Population per Council Member
Town of Anmoore 513 5 102.6
City of Hinton 2,245 4 561.25
Town of Hundred 255 5 51
City of Huntington 46,842 11 4258.363636
City of Hurricane 6,961 5 1392.2
Town of Huttonsville 163 5 32.6
Town of Iaeger 257 5 51.4
Town of Jane Lew 408 5 81.6
Town of Junior 384 5 76.8
City of Kenova 3,033 5 606.6
Town of Kermit 317 5 63.4
Town of Ansted 1,303 5 260.6
City of Keyser 4,864 6 810.6666667
City of Keystone 176 5 35.2
Town of Kimball 145 5 29
City of Kingwood 2,980 5 596
Town of Leon 137 5 27.4
Town of Lester 338 5 67.6
City of Lewisburg 3,922 5 784.4
Town of Lost Creek 359 5 71.8
Town of Lumberport 717 5 143.4
Town of Mabscott 1,341 5 268.2
Town of Athens 962 5 192.4
City of Madison 2,913 5 582.6
Town of Man 772 5 154.4
City of Mannington 1,952 5 390.4
Town of Marlinton 998 5 199.6
Town of Marmet 1,504 5 300.8
City Of Martinsburg 18,777 7 2682.428571
Town of Mason 866 5 173.2
Town of Masontown 510 5 102
Town of Matewan 412 5 82.4
City of McMechen 1,697 6 282.8333333
Town of Auburn 79 6 13.16666667
Town of Meadow Bridge 324 5 64.8
Town of Middlebourne 717 5 143.4
Town of Mill Creek 560 5 112
City of Milton 2,811 5 562.2
Town of Mitchell Heights 314 5 62.8
Town of Monongah 965 5 193
City of Montgomery 1,275 5 255
Town of Montrose 145 5 29
City of Moorefield 2,524 5 504.8
City of Morgantown 30,347 7 4335.285714
Town of Bancroft 387 5 77.4
City of Moundsville 8,093 7 1156.142857



 Page | 6 of
City of Mt. Hope 1,125 5 225
City of Mullens 1,480 4 370
City of New Cumberland 1,020 6 170
Town of New Haven 1,476 5 295.2
City of New Martinsville 5,204 6 867.3333333
Town of Newburg 259 5 51.8
City of Nitro 6,624 7 946.2857143
Town of North Hills 834 5 166.8
Town of Northfork 231 5 46.2
Village of Barboursville 4,456 5 891.2
Town of Nutter Fort 1,493 5 298.6
City of Oak Hill 8,179 7 1168.428571
Town of Oakvale 133 5 26.6
Town of Oceana 1,449 5 289.8
City of Paden City 2,541 5 508.2
City of Parkersburg 29,738 9 3304.222222
City of Parsons 1,327 6 221.1666667
Town of Paw Paw 410 5 82
Town of Pax 136 5 27.2
City of Pennsboro 1,054 4 263.5
Town of Barrackville 1,201 5 240.2
City of Petersburg 2,284 5 456.8
City of Peterstown 448 5 89.6
City of Philippi 2,929 5 585.8
City of Piedmont 718 5 143.6
Town of Pine Grove 363 5 72.6
Town of Pineville 645 5 129
City of Pleasant Valley 3,498 7 499.7142857
Town of Poca 874 5 174.8
City of Point Pleasant 4,070 10 407
Town of Pratt 483 5 96.6
Town of Bath 753 5 150.6
City of Princeton 5,872 7 838.8571429
Town of Pullman 135 5 27
Town of Quinwood 222 5 44.4
Town of Rainelle 1,190 6 198.3333333
Corporation of Ranson 5,433 6 905.5
City of Ravenswood 3,865 5 773
Town of Reedsville 530 5 106
Town of Reedy 150 5 30
City of Richwood 1,660 7 237.1428571
Town of Ridgeley 591 5 118.2
Town of Bayard 201 5 40.2
City of Ripley 3,079 5 615.8
Town of Rivesville 828 5 165.6
Town of Romney 1,724 6 287.3333333
City of Ronceverte 1,572 5 314.4



 Page | 7 of
Town of Rowlesburg 438 5 87.6
Town of Rupert 877 5 175.4
City of Salem 1,529 6 254.8333333
Town of Sand Fork 180 5 36
Corporation of Shepherdstown 1,531 5 306.2
City of Shinnston 2,328 7 332.5714286
City of Beckley 17,286 7 2469.428571
City of Sistersville 1,412 8 176.5
City of Smithers 754 5 150.8
Town of Smithfield 103 4 25.75
Town of Sophia 1,130 5 226
City of Spencer 2,063 5 412.6
City of St. Albans 10,861 12 905.0833333
City of St. Marys 1,831 6 305.1666667
Town of Star City 1,779 5 355.8
City of Stonewood 1,798 5 359.6
Village of Beech Bottom 553 6 92.16666667
City of Summersville 3,431 7 490.1428571
Town of Sutton 863 5 172.6
Town of Sylvester 171 5 34.2
Town of Terra Alta 1,415 5 283
City of Thomas 611 5 122.2
Town of Thurmond 5 3 1.666666667
Town of Triadelphia 669 6 111.5
Town of Tunnelton 296 5 59.2
Town of Union 419 5 83.8
Village of Valley Grove 275 7 39.28571429
City of Belington 1,805 8 225.625
City of Vienna 10,652 5 2130.4
City of War 623 5 124.6
Town of Wayne 1,443 5 288.6
City of Weirton 19,163 7 2737.571429
City of Welch 3,590 5 718
City of Wellsburg 2,450 8 306.25
Town of West Hamlin 524 5 104.8
Town of West Logan 399 5 79.8
Town of West Milford 449 5 89.8
Town of Belle 1,169 5 233.8
Town of West Union 653 5 130.6
City of Weston 3,952 4 988
City of Westover 3,955 6 659.1666667
City of Wheeling 27,052 6 4508.666667
Town of White Hall 597 5 119.4
City of White Sulphur Springs 1,806 5 361.2
Town of Whitesville 361 5 72.2
City of Williamson 3,083 4 770.75
City of Williamstown 2,997 4 749.25



 Page | 8 of
Village of Windsor Heights 361 5 72.2
City of Belmont 875 5 175
City of Winfield 2,393 5 478.6
Town of Worthington 179 5 35.8
Town of Falling Spring 170 5 34
City of Benwood 1,252 7 178.8571429
Town of Bethany 781 5 156.2
Village of Bethlehem 2605 7 372.1428571
Town of Beverly 622 5 124.4
Town of Blacksville 118 6 19.66666667
City of Bluefield 9,658 5 1931.6
City of Dunbar 7,480 8 935
Town of Wardensville 269 5 53.8
City of Logan 1,439 5 287.8
Town of Bolivar 1,036 5 207.2
City of South Charleston 13,647 8 1705.875
Town of West Liberty 1,454 5 290.8
Town of Bradshaw 207 5 41.4
Town of Bramwell 276 5 55.2
Town of Brandonville 129 5 25.8
City of Bridgeport 9,336 7 1333.714286
Town of Bruceton Mills 63 5 12.6
City of Buckhannon 5,186 5 1037.2
Town of Buffalo 1,211 5 242.2
Town of Burnsville 394 5 78.8
Town of Cairo 176 5 35.2
Town of Camden-On-Gauley 126 5 25.2
City of Cameron 861 6 143.5
Town of Capon Bridge 420 5 84
Town of Carpendale 860 5 172
Town of Cedar Grove 718 5 143.6
Town of Ceredo 1,408 5 281.6
Town of Chapmanville 1,020 5 204
City of Charles Town 6,534 8 816.75
City of Charleston 48,864 26 1879.384615
Town of Chesapeake 1,335 7 190.7142857
City of Chester 2208 5 441.6
City of Clarksburg 16,061 7 2294.428571
Town of Clay 396 5 79.2
Village of Clearview 472 6 78.66666667
Town of Clendenin 854 5 170.8
Town of Coalton 189 5 37.8
Town of Cowen 487 5 97.4
Town of Danville 672 6 112
Town of Davis 600 6 100
Town of Davy 209 5 41.8
Town of Addison 731 5 146.2



 Page | 9 of
Town of Delbarton 422 5 84.4
Town of Durbin 231 5 46.2
Town of East Bank 822 6 137
Town of Eleanor 1,542 5 308.4
Town of Elizabeth 724 6 120.6666667
Town of Elk Garden 212 5 42.4
City of Elkins 6,934 10 693.4
Town of Ellenboro 221 5 44.2
City of Fairmont 18,416 9 2046.222222
Town of Fairview 373 5 74.6
Town of Albright 249 5 49.8
Town of Farmington 392 6 65.33333333
Town of Fayetteville 2,887 5 577.4
Town of Flatwoods 264 5 52.8
Town of Flemington 309 6 51.5
City of Follansbee 2848 6 474.6666667
Town of Fort Gay 675 5 135
Town of Franklin 495 5 99
Town of Friendly 101 5 20.2
Town of Gary 773 5 154.6
Town of Gassaway 759 5 151.8
Town of Alderson 975 5 195
Town of Gauley Bridge 553 5 110.6
Town of Gilbert 333 5 66.6
Town of Glasgow 703 5 140.6
City of Glen Dale 1,496 5 299.2
City of Glenville 1,129 5 225.8
City of Grafton 4,722 5 944.4
Town of Grant Town 685 5 137
Town of Grantsville 494 5 98.8
Town of Granville 1,355 5 271
Town of Hambleton 218 5 43.6
Town of Anawalt 165 5 33
Town of Hamlin 1,039 5 207.8
Town of Handley 223 5 44.6
Town of Harman 95 5 19
Corporation of Harpers Ferry 269 6 44.83333333
Town of Harrisville 1,631 5 326.2
Town of Hartford 503 5 100.6
Town of Hedgesville 300 5 60
Town of Henderson 228 5 45.6
Town of Hendricks 228 5 45.6
Town of Hillsboro 232 5 46.4




 Page | 10 of
 Note




(Mayor elected from the body)




 Page | 11 of
Page | 12 of
Page | 13 of
(five seated as council, two elected from body as Mayor and Recorder)




 Page | 14 of
(Mayor elected from the body)




 Page | 15 of
 CITY OF CHARLESTON
 West Virginia
 Councilmember – AT LARGE
 Emmett Pepper Environment and Recycling Committee
 8 Hale Street, Charleston, WV 25301 Ordinance and Rules Committee
 304-309-0500
 emmett.pepper@cityofcharleston.org


TO: Select Committee on the Size and Election of Council, Mayor Goodwin, Chief Sutton, City
Attorney Baker, City Manager Mishoe, City Clerk’s Office
FROM: Emmett Pepper, Councilmember
DATE: November 6, 2023
SUBJECT: Survey of U.S. city councils in cities with a population of 25,000 or more.

I. Background

In preparation for the City Council Size and Election Committee meeting, I took the time to
briefly look through the websites of every city or town in the country with a population of 25,000
or more. Chair Pharr asked me to pass along what I found, so I created this summary of my
findings. My main focus was to try to get a general sense of what other cities around the country
are doing regarding the structure of their city council.1

II. Council size

There is no question that the City of Charleston has a large city council, compared to others in
the U.S. In a survey of cities across the nation above 25,000 population, 85% of all cities have a
city council of less than 10 members2, as exhibited by the chart below:



1
  I created a fairly messy working document where I took fragmented notes and crunched numbers, in
order to create this report and to speak about my research at our meetings. The working document is a
predecessor draft of this report to the committee and supplements my own memory and recollection from
reading through the websites.
I think that this broader report is more appropriate than emailing the Excel, because I would need to put a
bit more time nailing down specifics, if I wanted to provide more granular details. In other words, this is
not an exhaustive survey. But I am confident that the overarching trends and broad points that are
included in this document are accurate.
Many websites were not clear about how members are elected, but many were not. One extreme example
is the Village of Kiryas Joel, NY. I was unable to determine the governance of that village at all. I assume
I could have found out through some digging, but it did not seem to be a good use of time to be
researching those details. My methodology is described in further detail at the end of this report.
2
  One aspect that I did not get to fully research was state laws regarding council size. For example, I
noticed that nearly all (~85%) of the 260 cities in California with populations between 25,000 and
250,000 have city councils with exactly 5 members (including mayor), which leads me to believe that
there is some sort of policy in place that either greatly incentivizes or requires them to be that size, but I
was unable to identify what that policy was in the time that I had. I did find a statute that said that

 City Council | 501 Virginia Street, East | Post Office Box 2749 | Charleston, West Virginia 25330
 www.charlestonwv.gov | 304.348.8179 | 304.348.8038 fax


 Page | 16 of
 Council size for councils for
 cities w/ pop. 25k+
 16+
 10-15 4% 3-5
 11% 20%



 8-9
 17%




 6-7
 48%
 3-5 6-7 8-9 10-15 16+


Just looking at councils for cities with populations similar to Charleston’s doesn’t yield
significantly different results. For cities with populations between 25,000 and 100,000, about the
same percentage, 91%, have fewer than 10 members of council:

 Council size for councils
 between 25k to 100k
 10-15 16+
 7% 2%

 8-9
 13% 4-5
 38%




 6-7
 40%
 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-15 16+


So, it is clear that we are not similar to most other cities in this regard. The question, though, is
whether that is a good or bad thing for our city and its residents. If there are perceived
shortcomings that come from this, we should be clear about what those are and whether the best
and most effective way to address them is by reducing the number of decisionmakers that our
citizens elect, or some other way.


councils in California needed to be of “at least five members,” but nothing mandating they be exactly that
amount. CA Govt Code § 36501(a) (2022).
 2


 Page | 17 of
A. What are the largest city councils in the U.S.?

Establishing that we are definitely in the top 4% of councils in the U.S., how do we rank? It’s a
more difficult question than one might think.

For municipalities that have governing bodies they call councils, we rank tied for 7th:

 Pop./
 # of
 Municipality name Pop. mems mem.

 1. New York, New York 8,804,190 51 172,631
 2. Chicago, Illinois 2,746,388 50 54,928
 4. Nashville-Davidson, Tennessee 689,447 40 17,236
 4. Stamford, Connecticut 135,470 40 3,387
 5. New Haven, Connecticut 134,023 30 4,467
 7. Louisville/Jefferson County, Kentucky 386,884 26 14,880
 7. Charleston, West Virginia 48,864 26 1,879


However, that does not tell the full story, due to the tradition of town meetings in New England.
For centuries, many towns in New England had an annual meeting when every voter in the town
could come to a certain location and vote on the policies of the town. To this day, that method of
governance is in use in many towns in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and perhaps
other states. Over time, the town meeting method had morphed in some places into a
Representative Town Meeting (RTM), where there are large numbers of individuals who are
selected by voters to represent them in the policies voted on. These tend to have between 100 and
400 members in each town, sometimes regardless of population, though some have between 30
and 50 members. For populations of 25,000 to 100,000, here are the RTMs that I found3:

 Municipality name Population # of members Population/member

 Belmont, Massachusetts 27295 297 92
 Brookline, Massachusetts 63191 281 225
 Milton, Massachusetts 28630 279 103
 Norwood, Massachusetts 31611 266 119
 Milford, Massachusetts 26971 260 104
 Needham, Massachusetts 32091 254 126
 Arlington, Massachusetts 46308 252 184
 Falmouth, Massachusetts 32517 244 133
 Billerica, Massachusetts 42119 240 175
 Shrewsbury, Massachusetts 38325 240 160

3
  Some of these were difficult to nail down in terms of the actual size, given that there are some members
that are culled from local government, and sometimes there were vacant seats. I did my best, however,
and I think these are all certainly very close to the correct numbers.
 3


 Page | 18 of
 Wellesley, Massachusetts 29550 240 123
 Greenwich, Connecticut 63518 230 276
 Reading, Massachusetts 25518 192 133
 Lexington, Massachusetts 34454 189 182
 Natick, Massachusetts 37006 180 206
 Stoughton, Massachusetts 29268 168 174
 Chelmsford, Massachusetts 36392 165 221
 Plymouth, Massachusetts 61217 162 378
 Walpole, Massachusetts 26383 152 174
 Danvers, Massachusetts 28087 149 189
 Burlington, Massachusetts 26377 126 209
 Fairfield, Connecticut 61512 40 1538
 Westport, Connecticut 27141 36 754
 Branford, Connecticut 28273 30 942


However, many of these RTMs function more similarly to how the town meetings previously
operated. They meet once a year or maybe three times a year. Sometimes these “meetings” are
spread out over several evenings. So, while we meet about 25 evenings each year as a full
council in Charleston, many of the above meet between 1 and 9 evenings each year. To me, that
is not really the same as a city council, and it isn’t fair to compare it as such. Additionally, some
of the RTMs have limited scope as to what they can do, such as only repealing or amending laws
already established, approving a submitted budget, etc.

But some of these RTMs meet monthly and are the primary body that establishes laws for their
municipality. In my view, those RTMs should be counted as being comparable to a city council,
as apples-to-apples. Including just those RTM municipalities, and the city councils that are larger
than ours, I think the best ranking is as follows:

 Municipality name Population # of mems Population/member
 1. Brookline, Massachusetts 63,191 281 225
 2. Greenwich, Connecticut 63,518 230 276
 3. New York, New York 8,804,190 51 172,631
 4. Chicago, Illinois 2,746,388 50 54,928
 5. Groton, Connecticut 38,411 45 854
 8. Nashville-Davidson, Tennessee 689,447 40 17,236
 8. Stamford, Connecticut 135,470 40 3,387
 8. Fairfield, Connecticut 61,512 40 1,538
 9. Westport, Connecticut 27,141 36 754
 11. New Haven, Connecticut 134,023 30 4,467
 11. Branford, Connecticut 28,273 30 942
 13. Louisville/Jefferson County, Kentucky 386,884 26 14,880
 13. Charleston, West Virginia 48,864 26 1,879



 4


 Page | 19 of
Again, there is no question that we are among the largest municipal policy-making bodies in the
country. Most of those larger bodies are for municipalities with populations larger than ours, but
some are not. Either way, the question is not whether we have a large council, it is whether that
serves us and how our governance structure can best serve our citizens.

B. Population per Councilmember

An obvious metric for assessing the accessibility of council members would be the amount of
population per councilmember. Given that council sizes are essentially the same throughout the
country, regardless of population, it should be no surprise that population per ward is mostly
simply a function of population. The table below shows the average population per
councilmember for various population ranges:

 Average population per
 Population range
 councilmember
 750,000+ 116,029

 500,000 – 749,999 69,428

 250,000 – 499,999 44,269

 100,000 – 249,999 23,482

 25,000 – 99,999 8,077



This means that the larger the city, the less accessible members of its council are.

Some cities have recognized this lack of accessibility as an issue and taken actions to formalize
methods to improve citizen engagement. These cities have created boards or commissions that
allow more direct accountability to city government. For example:

 • Washington, DC, has 53,000 people per member of their city council, but for 50 years
 have had Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs). There are 46 Commissions,
 with 345 commissioners in total. Each commissioner represents a single-member district
 that, by law, has a population of about 2,000. The ANCs have formalized power, and the
 city government has to give credence to the input from the ANCs.
 • Portland, OR, has 163,000 residents per councilmember, but has created 94 official
 “Neighborhood Associations” that have formalized power and must be given notice of
 upcoming council actions.
 • Helena, MT, has 8,000 residents per councilmember, but also has an elected 28-member
 Citizens Council (4 members per 7 wards; ~1,150 residents per member). The Citizens
 Council meets monthly to make recommendations for policies and budget items.




 5


 Page | 20 of
While these citizen boards are not common in West Virginia, it is quite common to have small
numbers of residents per councilmember. All of the municipalities in Kanawha County have
fewer people per councilmember than Charleston:

 # of Population per
 Municipality Population members member

 Charleston 48,864 26 1879

 South Charleston 13,639 8 1705

 Nitro 6,618 7 945

 Dunbar 7479 8 935

 St. Albans 10,861 12 905

 Montgomery 1,280 4 320

 Marmet 1,501 5 300



While Charleston does not need to do what other cities do, it is not out of the ordinary to have
1,500 to 2,000 residents per councilmember (or fewer) in West Virginia. Cities with larger
numbers per councilmember are the exception, not the rule, due to the fact that most city
councils are about the same size regardless of population.

III. At-Large versus Wards

The question of at-large members versus ward members is interesting and has already arisen in
the first meeting of the Committee. There is a wide variety of approaches that cities have taken to
that aspect of council structure.

A. At-Large versus Wards: The Numbers

Nearly half of the city councils I surveyed have no at-large ward members, only utilizing ward-
based representation, but most do have at least some number of at-large members. Remember,
nearly all of these cities have fewer than 10 members of council:




 6


 Page | 21 of
 # of at-large members on council
 for cities with 25k+ population
 7%
 11%



 8% 46%



 12%


 7%
 6% 3%

 0 at-large 1 at-large 2 at-large 3 at-large
 4 at-large 5 at-large 6 at-large 7+ at-large


But there are many city councils that are all elected at-large, with various numbers of members.
Occasionally those councils have residency requirements within certain areas (Morgantown does
that, for example), but I believe that most do not do so. The chart below, which shows the
percentage of at-large members on council, demonstrates that about 80% of councils are either
all elected at-large or all elected from wards:

 % of at-large members for cities
 with 25k+ population



 34%
 46%



 0% 12%
 5%
 3%

 0% <=20% 21%-40%
 41%-60% 61%-99% 100%


Again, since most councils are smaller than 10, I do think there is some logic to those cities
having one method of election, since having different voting methods for different members may
seem overly complicated when you’re just talking about a few members.



 7


 Page | 22 of
Focusing on the councils where they have a blend of at-large and ward-based members, it seems
that councils that have a blend of ward-based and at-large members, like we do, usually find the
21-40% range to be a sweet spot. Twenty-three percent (23%) of councilmembers in Charleston
are at-large, so we are on the lower end of that range.

 % of at-large, w/ a blend of
 ward & at-large members,
 for cities of 25k+ pop.
 1%

 17%
 24%




 58%




 <=20% 21%-40% 41%-60% 61%-99%


Again, while I don’t think we necessarily need to follow what other cities have done, there may
be some logic to 20-40% of Council being elected at-large, especially for a council our size. It
requires some members to have a broader view than the hyperlocal representation that ward
representatives have. The at-large members have to consider the needs and desires of the entire
city, not just their specific neighborhoods. While most of the power should lie in the collective
wisdom of local ward-based members, having some at-large members emphasizes a city-wide,
broader perspective.

B. At-Large versus Wards: Different Ways of Structuring

There are a surprising number of ways that at-large members can be elected. In looking at
various council websites around the country, I found that people do things different ways, which
I tried to capture here, for the committee’s consideration.

1. Residency requirements

Sometimes, individuals can be elected at-large, but are required to live in a certain location,
which can be based on ward – where everyone in the city votes for all of the members of council,
but people run for each ward.4 That is how Morgantown does it, with seven wards, all elected at-
large. Some places will put a requirement that no more than x number of individuals will come
from a certain area. Our school board is elected that way, with no more than two members being

4
 Morgantown, WV, and Cape Coral, FL do this, with all seven wards members elected at-large, from
people who live in one of each of the wards. Plano, TX, also does this with 2 members from each of 4
wards, but all are elected at-large. DeSoto, TX, has 6 districts, with people elected at-large.
 8


 Page | 23 of
allowed to come from the same magisterial district; there are five board members, but only four
magisterial districts. As discussed below, a few places have multiple members per ward, with
some elected at-large and some elected from within the ward.

2. Multi-member wards

Several cities have smaller numbers of wards, but 2 or 3 members elected from each ward.5 At
least one even has one ward member elected by ward residents and one ward member elected
from the entire city, at-large, making the multi-member ward partially at-large, partially ward-
based.6

3. “Super wards” or “super districts”

Some cities will combine wards and allow people to elect someone from the combined districts,
which they sometimes call “super wards” or “super districts.”7 Those are, I think, normally



5
  A (likely) non-comprehensive list of cities with combined wards :
8 wards, 2 members each: Wauwautosa WI, Belleville, IL, and Wildwood, MO,
7 wards, 2 members each: Danbury, CT (+ 7 at-large); Elmhurst, Danville, Quincy, and West Chicago, IL.
5 wards, 3 members each: Waterbury and East Haven, CT
6 wards, 2 members each: Overland Park, KS, Missoula, MT, Hendersonville, TN, and Rochester, NH
5 wards, 2 members each: New Britain, CT (+5 at-large); Amherst, MA (+3 at-large); Broomfield and
Lakewood, CO; Ann Arbor, MI; Billings, MT; East Orange, NJ; West Allis, WI; Roswell, NM; Jefferson
City and Raytown, MO; Benton and Jacksonville, AR; O’Fallon, Belvidere, and Granite City, IL; Ithaca,
NY; and Homewood, AL
3 wards, 3 members each: Cheyenne, Laramie, and Casper, WY; Neenah, WI; and Rome, GA;
4 wards, 2 members each: Meriden, CT (+ 4 at-large); Dover, DE (+1 at-large); Carlsbad, Clovis and
Santa Fe, NM; Medford, OR; Bentonville, Conway, North Little Rock, Sherwood, Springdale and Rogers,
AR; Brighton, Loveland, Northglenn, and Wheat Ridge, CO; Chesterfield, Liberty, Maryland Heights,
and St. Peters, MO; Derby, Lanexa, and Leawood, KS; Spring Hill, TN; Moorhead, MN; Kearny, NJ;
Shelton, CT; Grants Pass, OR; Ballwin, De Pere, Fitchburg, and Sun Prairie, WI; College Park, MD;
Aberdeen, SD; Winchester, VA; Anderson, SC; and Muskogee, OK; and Victoria, TX (+ 2 “super district”
members)
3 wards, 2 members each: Mount Vernon, Pullman, Puyallup and Spokane Valley, WA; and Austin, MN
(+1 at-large); Albany, Hillsboro, and McMinnville, OR; Moore, OK; Bristol, CT; Blue Springs and
Grandview, MO; University City and Wentzville, MO; Milton, Newnan, and Tucker, GA; Gillette, WY;
Bella Vista, AR; and Walker, MI.
2 wards, 3 members each: Juneau, AK; Spokane, WA; Blaine, MN; LaGrange, GA;
2 wards, 2 members each: Canton, GA, Laurel, MD (+ 1 at-large)
6
  Kansas City, MO, has this, with 6 wards, with 2 members each. One of the members is elected only by
the ward residents and one is elected by the full city. So each voter would vote for 7 people each election.
7
  Burlington, VT, has 8 wards, with “districts” that are comprised of 2 wards each. Instead of numbers,
they give descriptive names for the districts: North, Central, East, and South.
We could do something similar with Kanawha City, South Hills, West Side, and East End/Downtown, if
we wanted to, either as a “super ward” or as a residency requirement for at-large.
Victoria, TX, similarly has 4 wards, with 2 “super districts” containing 2 wards each.
Norfolk, VA, has five wards, with two “super wards” that are not coterminous with the wards, in fact,
only one ward is completely contained within one of the super wards.
 9


 Page | 24 of
elected only from within the super wards/districts, but could also be elected at-large with
residency requirements based on some larger districts or wards.

4. At-large “seats” versus cumulative voting

One election detail that I think we definitely get right in Charleston is using cumulative voting
rather than “seats” for at-large members. Cumulative voting refers to how the top six candidates
with the most votes for the at-large positions win and are elected to the council.8 By contrast, a
“seats” system is where at-large candidates have to choose a specific “at-large seat” that they are
running for.9 Running for a specific seat makes it harder to have a diversity of candidates to win,
because it is a binary choice for each seat, instead of a situation where all candidate compete
against all others,10 plus I believe it is overly complicated for voters and candidates. In my
review of cities, I noticed that Texas had a fair amount of all seat-based at-large councils, though
I did not track or compile statistics about that.

IV. Conclusion

The City of Charleston very clearly has a larger council than others, but we are not alone in West
Virginia in having small numbers of residents per member of council. There are also plenty of
other councils around the country that have a blend of at-large members and district/ward-based
members, though most councils are small and elect members by one method or the other.
Ultimately, I believe we should not base our decisions on the lowest common denominator for
how councils are structured. We should base it on what will best serve our citizens. I look
forward to working collaboratively within this committee to determine what that is.




Memphis, TN, has seven wards, with a member elected from each ward, and 2 “super districts” with three
members in each super district. The super district boundaries are also not coterminous with ward
boundaries, with only one ward per super district that is fully contained within the super district.
8
  This is how multi-member districts were also handled when the legislature had them in West Virginia.
9
  This is how judicial races are handled in West Virginia, both the Supreme Court and Circuit Judge races.
10
 When I lived in Westchester County, NY, I was aware of litigation over the Village of Port Chester’s at-
large “seat” election system. This "seat" method of at-large elections in the Village of Port Chester, New
York, was challenged in court by FairVote back in the early aughts. In Port Chester, there was (and still is,
I think) a large population of Latino residents, but not a majority. The "seat" method of elections resulted
in no Latinos ever winning an election for city council. FairVote, as I recall, wanted to have ward-based
elections. However, the remedy was determined to be that a "cumulative" system, as opposed to the "seat"
system, was a fairer result. After cumulative voting was adopted, the first Latino member of city council
was elected. Here's information about that from the Brennan Center: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-
work/court-cases/united-states-v-village-port-chester.
 10


 Page | 25 of
Methodology

I downloaded a document from the U.S. Census Bureau that showed all municipalities and
Census-Designated Places (CDPs) in the U.S. I sorted them into groups of population (<25,000,
25,000 to 100,000, and >100,000), and began the process of going through websites for the
municipalities. Frustratingly, part of the way through the process, I found that some of the CDPs
are actually incorporated towns, while most were simply areas that the Census Bureau had
created. So I went back and looked at them to determine if they were incorporated or not and
added in government information if any existed. In my experience, I know that the northern and
northeastern states tend to have incorporated towns throughout the state.11 I thought that some
of the towns with populations of 25k+ were not in the spreadsheet. Since part of my goal was to
figure out where we ranked nationally, I looked at municipalities (towns, cities, etc.) in the states
that tended to have the largest governing bodies, such as Massachusetts and Connecticut. Some
of the towns in those states were not listed as CDPs in the document I had, so I added them in if
they were in the population range. But I did not do this for every state, and many other states
have townships.12 So, it is possible that there are other towns in states like Michigan, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, New York, and others, that have a population greater than 25,000 that were not
included in my survey. It is possible, but unlikely, that any of those councils are larger than
Charleston’s, but it is one squishy area with this data. Also, I am not 100% confident that I am
using the exact correct number for population for all of these municipalities. The populations
could be up or down a little, if you count estimates, etc. I thought I was using the 2020 census
numbers, but it seems that there are various numbers that the Census Bureau uses and, rather
than fret over a small change between the numbers, I figured it was better to just use the best
numbers I could quickly find. As stated above, I am confident that the data presented here is
within a margin of error that is acceptable and is useful for us, as we consider how we fit into
the nation and what aspects of other cities’ governance we should adopt, if any.




11
 NY, CT, MA, and others are carved up into towns – every area in the state is either in a town or city,
with a town or city government. NY also has carved up the states into counties that overlay the towns,
with county governments, but I know that CT does not have governments for its counties.
12
 I think it is somewhat fraught for the Census Bureau to make a distinction between cities and towns
when the distinction between them is not consistent. Many towns are quite urban, while some cities have
rural areas (including Charleston!). So I think that, for this exercise, it is fairer to simply count all
incorporated municipalities the same way and sort/filter by population.
 11


 Page | 26 of
 CITY OF CHARLESTON
 OFFICE OF THE FINANCE DIRECTOR
 501 VIRGINIA STREET EAST
 CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA 25301
 304-348-8014




TO: Members of Select Committee on the Size and Election of Council

FROM: Andy Wood, Finance Director

DATE: November 8, 2023

RE: Cost of Charleston City Council

In FY 2024, the City has budgeted $438,243 to pay for the cost of the 26 members of Charleston City Council.
These costs are primarily for the salary and benefits of the members. In FY 2023 the actual expenses were
$411,463. The FY 2024 budget pages related to Council and a report of the FY 2023 actual expenses are
enclosed with this memo.

The City budgets $169,000 for City Council salaries. That equates to $6,500 budgeted per City Council member
in salary. Members are paid $250 per City Council meeting they attend, so the actual amount spent will be less
than that due to members missing meetings. The minimum number of meetings in a year is 25, as City Council
meets twice a month for regular meetings and then there is a special meeting in April required by state code to
lay the levy. The budgeted amount allows for 26 meetings to accommodate a special meeting, if required.

The matching benefits of FICA and PERS are based on the formulas established for the benefits, 7.65% and 9%
of wages, respectively, and total $28,139. Members have the option of joining PERS at the time they begin on
Council. Currently 21 members are contributing to PERS. If a member elects to join PERS later and elects to
include their time on City Council as service credit, the City and the member must each contribute the
amounts that would have been matched during the time being retroactively applied for.

Medical, life, dental, vision, and workers comp insurance are allocated using the City-wide average for all 26
employees whether the benefits are elected by all members. Net of the employee insurance contribution, the
budget is $240,604 for FY 2024 for those benefits. For budgeting purposes, it is assumed that medical premiums
are $746 per employee per month and dental/vision premiums are $41 per employee per month.

Currently 18 Council members are enrolled in medical benefits through PEIA – 12 are enrolled in Plan A and 6 in
Plan C. Premiums for medical benefits provided by PEIA range from $389 to $1,384 per month depending on
plan and policy tier. In addition, those 6 members that elect PEIA Plan C receive a contribution into a Health
Savings Account in the amount of $1,500 for single or $3,000 for family plans.

Council members’ employee insurance contribution is the same as active full-time employees and ranges from
$43 to $227 per month depending on plan and policy tier. As a comparison, the elected members of the WV
Legislature are not entitled to employee rates and have a separate premium table. Enclosed is a comparison
of those tables.

There is a small budget ($500) for Materials and Supplies to purchase items needed to conduct Council
meetings like name plaques, business cards, and supplies.

Using the budgeted amounts, the cost for each individual Councilmember is $16,856, primarily with the cost
being benefits. A table and chart of those costs is enclosed.


 Page | 27 of
expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report Page: 1
10/10/2023 5:06PM
Periods: 0 through 14 City of Charleston
 7/1/2022 through 6/30/2023


001 GENERAL FUND


 Adjusted Year-to-date Year-to-date Prct
Account Number Appropriation Expenditures Expenditures Encumbrances Balance Used
410 CITY COUNCIL

410-00 *** Title Not Found ***

410-00-1 PERSONAL SERVICES

410-00-000-1-101 SALARIES ELECTED OFFIC 169,000.00 153,867.50 153,867.50 0.00 15,132.50 91.05
410-00-000-1-104 FICA 12,929.00 11,669.23 11,669.23 0.00 1,259.77 90.26
410-00-000-1-105 MEDICAL & LIFE INSURAN 202,852.00 206,001.60 206,001.60 0.00 -3,149.60 101.55
410-00-000-1-106 RETIREMENT 15,210.00 11,252.70 11,252.70 0.00 3,957.30 73.98
410-00-000-1-111 DENTAL/OPTICAL INSURAN 13,598.00 12,036.09 12,036.09 0.00 1,561.91 88.51
410-00-000-1-112 INSURANCE-PAYROLL DED -29,484.00 -52,833.52 -52,833.52 0.00 23,349.52 179.19
 Total PERSONAL SERVICES 384,105.00 341,993.60 341,993.60 0.00 42,111.40 89.04
410-00-2 CONTRACTUAL

410-00-000-2-214 TRAVEL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
410-00-000-2-219 BLDG AND EQUIP RENTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
410-00-000-2-226 INSURANCE - WC AND UC 26,858.00 25,210.44 25,210.44 0.00 1,647.56 93.87
410-00-000-2-230 CONTRACTED SERVICES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
 Total CONTRACTUAL 26,858.00 25,210.44 25,210.44 0.00 1,647.56 93.87
410-00-3 COMMODITIES

410-00-000-3-341 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 500.00 1,043.25 1,043.25 0.00 -543.25 208.65
 Total COMMODITIES 500.00 1,043.25 1,043.25 0.00 -543.25 208.65
 Total GENERAL FUND 411,463.00 368,247.29 368,247.29 0.00 43,215.71 89.50

 Grand Total 411,463.00 368,247.29 368,247.29 0.00 43,215.71 89.50




 Page: 1

 Page | 28 of
 City of Charleston
 Municipal Budget
 Health Plan Premium Summary
 Fiscal Year 2024

 Active Employee Premium State Elected Official Premium
 PEIA Plan A PEIA Plan A
Monthly Premium Standard Non-Tobacco Standard Non-Tobacco
Employee Only 108.00 83.00 718.00 693.00
Employee + Children 200.00 150.00 970.00 920.00
Family 227.00 177.00 1,578.00 1,528.00

 PEIA Plan C PEIA Plan C
Monthly Premium Standard Non-Tobacco Standard Non-Tobacco
Employee Only 68.00 43.00 589.00 564.00
Employee + Children 103.00 53.00 820.00 770.00
Family 139.00 89.00 1,371.00 1,321.00

Disclaimer: This is a summary of the plan coverages. Any conflict between this table and the actual insurance policy, the policy
provision will prevail.




 Page | 29 of
 Cost per Councilmember
 Total Budget Per Member


Wages 169,000 6,500


FICA 12,929 497


PERS 15,210 585
Medical/Dental/Vision (Net
Contribution) 216,242 8,317


Workers' Compensation 24,362 937


Materials & Supplies 500 19
Total 438,243 16,856



 PER MEMBER
 Medical/Dental/
 Vision (Net Workers'
 Contribution) Compensation…
 49% Materials &
 Supplies
 0%




 Wages
 PERS FICA 39%
 3% 3%




 Page | 30 of
 City of Charleston
 Municipal Budget
 FY 2024
Fund 001 General Fund Full Time Employees 26
Department 410 City Council
Unit 00 Administrative

 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2023 YTD FY 2023 FY 2023 YTD FY 2024
Expense Object Actual Original Amend. Current Dec. Actual Approved
Personal Services
000-1-101 Elected Officials Salaries 146,390 169,000 169,000 64,055 169,000
000-1-104 FICA 11,006 12,929 12,929 4,842 12,929
000-1-105 Medical & Life Insurance 188,731 202,852 202,852 103,960 232,856
000-1-106 PERS 20,799 15,210 15,210 4,692 15,210
000-1-111 Dental & Optical Insurance 11,140 13,598 13,598 5,813 12,636
000-1-112 Employee Insurance Cont. (49,775) (29,484) (29,484) (23,576) (29,250)
 Total Personal Services 328,291 384,105 - 384,105 159,786 413,381

Contractual Services
000-2-226 Insurance - WC & UC 17,283 26,858 26,858 9,768 24,362
 Total Contractual Services 17,283 26,858 - 26,858 9,768 24,362

Commodities
000-3-341  Materials & Supplies 208 500 500 55 500
 Total Commodities 208 500 - 500 55 500


 Total City Council 345,782 411,463 - 411,463 169,609 438,243




City of Charleston - FY 2024 Municipal Budget 54
 Page | 31 of
 City of Charleston
 Municipal Budget
 FY 2024
Fund 001 General Fund
Department 410 City Council
Unit 00 Administrative

 Authorized Full Time Positions & Salary Schedule

 FY 2023 Current FY 2024 Approved
 Title FLSA/Paygrade FTE Title FLSA/Paygrade FTE
 Council Member E/002 26 Council Member E/002 26




 Total 26 Total 26


 FY 2023 Current FY 2024 Approved
 Pay Type Amount Pay Type Amount
 Elected Wages & Salaries 169,000 Elected Wages & Salaries 169,000
 Regular Wages & Salaries - Regular Wages & Salaries -
 Irregular Part Time (IPT) - Irregular Part Time (IPT) -
 Overtime - Overtime -
 Tool Allowance - Tool Allowance -
 Total 169,000 Total 169,000




 Projected Capital Equipment Acquisitions

 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026
 Direct Lease New Lease Total Lease
 Unit # Equipment Purchase Purchase Payment Payment1 Estimate Estimate


 Total - - - - - -



1
 Total Lease Payment includes all payments from outstanding lease purchase cycles that will be paid in FY 2024.




City of Charleston - FY 2024 Municipal Budget 55
 Page | 32 of

MINUTES
 SELECT COMMITTEE ON SIZE AND ELECTION OF COUNCIL

 THE MEETING WAS HELD IN THE AV ROOM #308 IN CITY HALL.

 5:30 P. M., NOVEMBER 9, 2023

Jennifer Pharr, Chair, called the meeting of the Select Committee on Size and Election
of Council to order at 5:30p.m., November 9, 2023.

Committee Members Present:
Mary Beth Hoover (over Zoom)
Sam Minardi
Emmett Pepper
Jennifer Pharr
Chad Robinson
Jonathan Frazier


Members Absent:
Chuck Overstreet
Karen Williams
Mark Davis


Other Councilmember Present:
Joe Solomon
Beth Kerns



A roll call was taken, and it was determined that a quorum was present.




 November 9, 2023
 1. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES

Councilmember Robinson motioned to approve the previous minutes from 10-25-2023.
Councilmember Minardi seconded the motion. With those being present having voted
unanimously in the affirmative, the Chair declared the minutes as approved.



 2. UPDATES/DISCUSSION

 • Update from City Attorney Kevin Baker regarding data from the Municipal League
 concerning the size of other municipalities
Baker shared the information gathered by the Municipal League that listed cities in West
Virginia, their population, Council size and population per Councilmember. There are
about 8 cities that have a higher population per Councilmember than Charleston.


 •  Memo presentation from Councilmember Pepper concerning the size of other
 municipalities
Councilmember Pepper added that Charleston has a larger than average City Council,
regardless of population size (being the 7th or 13th in the country). Of interest are the
“Neighborhood Advisory Commissions” that cities like DC have. These groups do not
have voting power, but do have some amount of power and formal recognition. He
added that Charleston has the highest population per Councilmember in the County.
Councilmember Pepper added that most Councils are either all At-Large or all Ward-
based.

From the audience, Councilmember Kerns asked if he had done any research on full-
time versus part-time Councilmembers and pay. Councilmember Pepper replied that he
didn’t specifically focus on that.

Councilmember Pharr added that she found the Super Districts to be interesting, as well
as the data from Massachusetts and Connecticut.


 • Discussion regarding cost of Charleston City Council
Baker shared a memo from the Finance Director, Andy Wood, showing the various
costs of City Council. He noted that insurance was the highest contribution the City
made.

Chief of Staff, Matt Sutton, added that the budget assumes that every Councilmember
will take the City’s insurance. Presently 18/26 currently have City insurance.
Councilmember Pepper confirmed that Councilmembers who did not take City
insurance would therefore cost less than those that did. Baker added that the cost
would also depend on which insurance plan was chosen. Councilmember Pharr
confirmed that the current budgeted cost for each Councilmember was $16,856.


 November 9, 2023
Councilmember Pharr asked if other cities in West Virginia provided health insurance to
Councilmembers. Baker did not know, and Sutton replied that they probably did not.

Councilmember Pepper confirmed that changing the insurance provided to
Councilmembers could be done with it going on a ballot. Frazier asked how funds
allocated in the budget for insurance that were not used worked. Baker replied that
unused funds would go in the Unassigned Fund Balance (surplus). Frazier confirmed
that Councilmembers have been given the opportunity to take City insurance for a very
long time.

Councilmember Pepper added that Councilmembers felt different than employees in
that they received what was basically a stipend for their service. Councilmember
Minardi added that Councilmembers weren’t doing this to make money, but the City
would want to attract quality people to run for office, insurance being an enticing perk.
Councilmember Robinson pointed out that Councilmembers with insurance do pay
premiums just like every other employee. Councilmember Hoover added that the
previous City insurance was more expensive, and that most of her paycheck went to the
premium. She doubted that anyone was running for City Council for the insurance/pay.
However, she thought it was a great perk that they should not get rid of. It doesn’t
bother her if Councilmembers take the insurance or not. Councilmember Pharr agreed
that she liked that insurance was an option. Councilmember Pepper confirmed that
approximately 84% of insurance costs are covered by the City for all employees,
including Councilmembers.

Councilmember Pharr agreed that it would be helpful to look into full-time versus part-
time pay as well as any other benefits with other municipalities.


 • Discussion regarding bipartisan elections
Baker added that the cost of the last election was approximately $70,000 for the
Primary Election and $77,000 for the General Election. Councilmember Robinson
pointed out that there would only be savings with a bi-partisan election if every elected
position was changed to be non-partisan, including the Mayor, City Treasurer, etc.
Councilmember Minardi added that cost savings was only one part of the consideration.
Mayor Goodwin added that it is widely agreed that Party politics does not usually play a
role in this level of government.

From the audience, Councilmember Solomon added that one of the benefits of parties
is that that can offer accountability of voting within that Party’s platform.

Councilmember Pepper added that Detroit had an open Primary Elections. Baker
replied that would require a West Virginia State Law change, but might be possible
through Home Rule.




 November 9, 2023
 • Updates from Committee Members
Councilmember Minardi added that term limits was brought up at the last meeting.
Councilmember Pharr agreed that it would be a good topic to discuss. Councilmember
Pharr confirmed that the Legislature did not have term limits. Baker added that the only
term limits in West Virginia are the Governor and Sherrif, which is 2 terms. Baker added
that adding term limits would require a change of the Charter. Councilmember Robinson
added that term limits are usually set for Congress etc., not lower-level elected officials.
Councilmember Pepper agreed that he wasn’t a big fan of term limits for Council
positions. Frazier added that he was in favor of some type of term limits, and it would
prevent a stagnant city.

Councilmember Solomon added it would be good to have resources on the City’s web
page that explained how to run for office.

Councilmember Phar added that they needed to hear from the public. Councilmember
Minardi added that they should also accept written comment or polls as well.
Councilmembers Pharr and Pepper agreed that there should be specific topics when
gathering public opinion. The Committee decided to have at least one more meeting
before any public hearings. Councilmember Robinson added that he would prefer
written forms over public ones. Councilmember Pharr added that there needed to be a
way to ensure actual residents were filling out the forms.

Councilmember Pepper motioned that the Chair give Council a report on the Committee
by the last Council meeting of the year. Councilmember Minardi seconded the motion.
With those being present having voted unanimously in the affirmative, the Chair
declared the motion approved.



 • Next date to meet and potential topics for next meeting

The Committee decided that the next meeting would be January 11, 2024, at 5:30.




Councilmember Minardi motioned to adjourn the meeting.
Meeting adjourned.




 November 9, 2023