The Home Rule Study Commission reached the finish line on Thursday, formally approving the charter it has been drafting for Lancaster — but not before making some last-minute changes.
Over the course of about an hour and a quarter, the commission voted on a series of amendments, addressing criticisms and recommendations made by city officials and members of the public during recent information sessions and a formal hearing. Among the revisions implemented before the final vote:
- The number of City Council members remains at seven, rather than increasing to nine;
- City Council members would not receive a raise from $8,000 to $12,000; their compensation would remain as-is, with any future change being made by City Council itself via ordinance;
- City Council members would no longer be eligible for benefits.
The vote to approve the charter was 7-0. Two commission members were absent: Darlene Byrd and Elizabeth Elias.
Three related votes were 7-0 as well: Approval of the ballot question that city voters will see on Nov. 5; the commission’s official report documenting its work; and a required omnibus vote approving the charter, the ballot question and the report collectively.
“We have a charter and it is on the ballot,” Home Rule Study Commission Chair Brian Adams said afterward, to applause from an audience of two dozen or so gathered in Polite Council Chambers.
Lancaster Home Rule Referendum
The text of the ballot question that will appear before city voters on Election Day, Nov. 5:
Shall the Home Rule Charter contained in the Report, dated August 8, 2024, of the Government Study Commission, prepared in accordance with the Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law, be adopted by the City of Lancaster?
A “yes” vote means that you are voting to adopt the proposed Home Rule Charter for the City of Lancaster, which will change the existing form of government. A “no” vote means you favor retention of the present form of government.
Source: Home Rule Study Commission
About the charter
The charter includes provisions that Mayor Danene Sorace has said will bolster Lancaster’s financial stability if voters approve it and it takes effect in January: A longer and more transparent budget process; enhanced oversight powers for the elected city controller; and, crucially, the ability for City Council to raise the earned income tax, or EIT, above 0.6%, the current cap. (The School District of Lancaster receives another 0.5%, for a total EIT of 1.1%.)
After a transition period, revenue increases would be limited to 6% a year unless City Council overrides that limit with a supermajority vote. The charter also provides for an Ethics Commission and eliminates the role of elected treasurer, a role superseded by the city’s Treasury Department staff.
Sorace praised the charter’s fiscal oversight and budgetary provisions at the commission’s Aug. 8 hearing, but spoke against increasing City Council’s size or allowing benefits. Other speakers at the hearing said the same.
On Thursday, City Council President Amanda Bakay and Councilmen John Hursh and Jaime Arroyo added their voices to the chorus.
Expanding City Council and increasing its cost runs counter to the charter’s overall purpose of bolstering Lancaster’s financial stability, they said. City Council has always had the power to raise council members’ compensation, but it doesn’t seem to be an issue, Bakay said: no raise has been requested for decades. As for benefits, they should be foregone in the spirit of cost savings, she said.
Pennsylvania has only two cities with more than seven council members, Arroyo said, and they are the state’s two largest: Pittsburgh (nine members) and Philadelphia (17 members).
“More does not necessarily mean better,” he said.
Commission member Tony Dastra said a larger City Council allows for closer grassroots engagement with citizens and would set the city up better for elections by district, an idea he has championed. He reiterated his view that council’s size should be defined as a ratio of the Lancaster’s population, so it could grow (or shrink) as the city does.
Member Carl Feldman, conversely, contended that expanding council could dilute its power vis a vis the mayor by necessitating a larger group to achieve consensus. Ultimately, the vote to restore City Council’s size to seven was 6-1, with Dastra the sole “nay.”
Limiting cost exposure
As for the benefits question, health insurance costs the city about $32,000 a year per participant and payouts for treatment can reach up to $175,000 per person before the city’s stop-loss insurance kicks in, said John McGrann, chair of the commission’s Finance Subcommittee, citing information provided by city Director of Administrative Services Tina Campbell. No city employee working fewer than 20 hours a week is eligible for benefits, he said.
Commission member Maxine Cook said she doesn’t want anyone to go without health insurance, but that she was floored at the current arrangement, under which City Council members who decline insurance receive a payout of more than $20,000. The idea of offering city benefits as a fallback was intended as a reasonable compromise, but given the existence of other options, such as Pennsylvania’s insurance exchange, “it seems it’s not necessary,” she said.
Dastra, echoing public comments made by resident John Gouveia, argued that keeping the fallback option would remove a potential barrier for people with nontraditional jobs, such as gig-economy workers, to serve. His motion to keep it failed to earn a second, however. He then voted with his colleagues on a single amendment, proposed by McGann, eliminating both council’s eligibility for benefits and the raise to $12,000. It passed 7-0.
At the hearing, Sorace had also urged the commission to consider term limits for elected officials, and to remove a provision requiring City Council approval for department heads to live outside Lancaster. The commission did not take up either suggestion.
City engineer
After a lengthy discussion, the commission restored language mandating that Lancaster have a designated city engineer, a provision championed by former city Chief Planner Paula Jackson.
Dastra said a single individual charged with signing off on all engineering plans would provide accountability, and argued for restoring a full set of provisions from the Third Class City Code defining the position and its duties. Sorace, however, urged “caution,” saying the city has multiple engineers dealing with streets, stormwater, sewage, broadband and more — all very different areas of expertise.
Adams, the chair, was trained as a nuclear engineer. He emphasized the importance of respecting areas of expertise, saying if he were to sign off on a storm drain plan, “it would not be appropriate.”
Eventually commissioners settled on a compromise requiring City Council to provide for the “manner of appointment,” compensation and role of a city engineer. The vote was 6-1, with Adams voting “no.”
What’s next
With the commission’s votes Thursday, the focus now shifts to voter education. Accordingly, Adams dissolved the public engagement subcommittee and appointed its chair, Amy Ruffo, to head a new public education subcommittee.
Between now and Nov. 5, it will direct the commission’s efforts to inform city residents: Holding public outreach sessions, distributing flyers and so on. Under Pennsylvania’s home rule law, the commission must provide the “widest possible public information and discussion” of its work.
Sorace and the Pennsylvania Economy League, the nonprofit consulting organization that assisted the commission, say expanding the EIT will allow revenues to grow along with incomes with less need for rate increases, allowing the city to shore up its finances without resorting to constant property tax hikes. Several residents expressed skepticism in public comments Thursday, with one, Gary Hopkins, calling it “one more tax on my income.”
Resident Henry Tober said other jurisdictions have fallen into financial distress despite home rule and asked if Lancaster could rescind it if it doesn’t work out. (Under state law, a new form of government such as home rule must be kept in place for at least five years once implemented, but a new study commission can be formed thereafeter; and aspects can be amended in the meantime.)
Resident Alex King praised the expansion of options in the charter for citizens to petition City Council and enact legislation through referendums. He cautioned, however, that special interests could hire paid canvassers to collect signatures and suggested an amendment barring that practice. Another resident, Matt Kroll, suggested raising the age minimum for mayor above 18, citing psychological research on brain maturity. The commission did not act on either suggestion.
The commission has one more meeting scheduled, on Thursday, Aug. 29. With no business to transact, Adams argued for canceling it, but commission members decided not to, just in case a last-minute action is needed or there is more public comment.
