Charter Review

200 S. Hamilton Road City of Gahanna Gahanna, Ohio 43230 Meeting Minutes Charter Review Sheila P. Vitale- Chair Ellen T. Zehner- Vice Chair Ross Beckmann Bill Dutton Shane W. Ewald Alvin J. McKenna Isobel L. Sherwood Tuesday, April 6, 2021 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Meeting Call-in Details: Tel 513-306-4583 Conf. ID 715143203# 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Vitale called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Present 6 - Alvin J. McKenna, Sheila P. Vitale, Ross Beckmann, Shane W. Ewald, Ellen T. Zehner, and Isobel Sherwood Absent 1 - Bill Dutton 2. MEETING MINUTES FOR APPROVAL 2021-0059 Meeting Minutes for Approval CRC 3/23/2021 A motion was made by Ewald, seconded by Sherwood, that the Minutes be Approved and Filed. The motion carried: Yes: 6- McKenna, Vitale, Beckmann, Ewald, Zehner and Sherwood Absent: 1- Dutton 3. DISCUSSIONS: - Items from City Council Members Chair Vitale welcomed City Council and requested they present their ideas and thoughts on changes to City Charter. Michael Schnetzer had a few points of suggestions; asked that the commission review and compare the following; 4.03, qualifications, could clarification be added to the language, which would not preclude Council Members from serving on boards of other organizations in other communities such as ODNR or Metro Parks; something like a non-compensated committee. Section 4.10, regarding Regular City of Gahanna Page 1 Charter Review Meeting Minutes April 6, 2021 Meetings, it states that the Organizational Meeting will be held on January 2 unless that date falls on a Sunday; would like to also include Saturdays; if changed, would also need to change 11.01, 12.01, and 13.01 to reflect that date. Sections 4.18 and 5.01 may be in conflict; wondering if those sections which establish Departments, if those could be created by Administration rather than Charter; can envision where two people may do one job; would allow the City to be more agile. Section 11.05, relating to Public Hearings, are those deadlines reasonable; can the Commission check with other communities. Section 18.01, related to nominating positions, curious why there is a cap on signatures; for those who want to get a few more signatures, would like to allow them the liberty to do so. Section 22.01, regarding Charter Review Commission frequency, five (5) years seems to frequent; City Charter is like a Constitution; would suggest more like seven (7) years. Brian Larick said he could elaborate on 4.18, there is a significant amount of detail about the Departments and responsible parties; by delineating those it can cause confusion; perhaps it was not intended to make those be individual roles; for the creation of public responsible roles, it should be made clear who is responsible. Rather than delineate all that detail under Directors, that there be clarity in the charter that a responsible party be identified. Vitale said it would be a change to the Charter to allow for flexibility. Larick said it would seem that we have established in the Constitution, a bureaucracy, and that is what does not make sense. Schnetzer asked if Larick’s intent is to just remove all of those. Larick said in some form, just simplify the language so that we don’t have all that delineated in the Charter; if there is a need for delineation, it should be within an ordinance or an administrative action . Larick provided an example: the Emergency Management position is currently held by a person in the Department of Public Safety, and there ’s all this detail about how it is in the Department of Emergency Management; Larick would remove all that volume, but include language that responsible parties are delineated for critical roles. Schnetzer added that some may recall that early on in the Mayor’s term, this desire to create a Department of Administrative Services, is an example of where being flexible and agile may make it more efficient; a Mayor may want to restructure their staff and yet the Charter could get in the way. Larick said there is confusion and this does not have logic; it should be the spiritual direction for the community, not volumes of detail. McKenna asked if that would also change for the Commissions. Larick said the Commissions have not changed and there are some Commissions that may be more appropriate under Administration, but Larick has not looked too much into detail with the Commissions. Mularski said Commission are under Administration and Commissions City of Gahanna Page 2 Charter Review Meeting Minutes April 6, 2021 are not; Commissions are a bridge between Mayor, Administration and Council that’s why there are Member appointments from both Mayor and Council. Mularski said there is a form for listing changes to the charter, that would help with organizing these thoughts. Karen Angelou thanked the Commission Members for their service and asked for a summary of what they have already discussed in previous meetings. Vitale stated the Commission reviewed the following sections 4.13, public notice, and considered adding the ability for Council to post in other means; 11.01 appointments to Planning Commission Members being made on Jan. 2; 12.01 for BZBA appointments being made on Jan. 2; and clarifying 3.02. Angelou asked the Commission to review BZBA; conflicted because in the past 4-5 years there have been appeals to BZBA that had great impact to economic development, especially off Hamilton Rd. Angelou said we could send different items to Council from Planning Commission rather than BZBA; to have a small group of people stop something that would bring a lot of positive economic development is concerning; after speaking with the City Attorney, found that appeals could go to the County instead of BZBA; there are other options; we have had to deal with referendums for these things in the past. After speaking to Beggerow, Angelo felt that there could be language added to refer some items to Council and could instead be housed in City Code rather than Charter. Ewald asked Mularski if there’s a possibility to tighten the standard of review for cases so that only certain items go to BZBA. Mularski said he would have to research further; but in the Charter you can determine how you want those appeals handled; there is always a recompense in Ohio Revised Code to appeal to court. Leeseberg said it is costly to take downtown to court, but these appeals are like mini court cases; there are attorneys involved; rather than go downtown before a judge; if they don’t like the results locally they can still appeal downtown, but this may cause people to be more hesitant to appeal, for good or bad. The last few appeals were NIMBY related, and it seems a few were thrown out over technicalities; would be fine keeping BZBA, just tweak what goes before them. Larick looked at Article XXI regarding submission to electors; questioned whether the 10% threshold was still appropriate or if that number should be higher. Angelou said that dated back to 1966. Vitale said they had their homework and appreciated Council’s input; stated that they are on a tight schedule for reviews and changes; would be meeting again in April and weekly in May. Ewald asked if Larick would also change the threshold under Section 19.01-10.03 as well. Larick said it was not in his scope of review but doesn’t mean it’s not worth looking at; for that section it is a 20% threshold, which is significantly higher. Ewald said that’s also addressed in state law and constitution. Angelou City of Gahanna Page 3 Charter Review Meeting Minutes April 6, 2021 recalled the referendum being difficult; said the Mayor recall was one of the first in the country. Ewald said he would review these sections . Sherwood asked Schnetzer about 11.05 and 11.06; said it was discussed briefly at the last meeting; did not come to any type of resolution; asked if there were any suggestions for the timeframe differences. Schnetzer said he did not at this time; just made bullet points for the Commission; there have been several instances where there ’s a hard deadline for a Public Hearing and Council has to count back from the meetings to ensure that the hearing is held within the correct time; would suggest looking at other communities to see if the City is in line with them. Sherwood cited a line that said at the end of 90-days, it must be extended by 60-days, but what does “take action” mean; has been interpreted different ways during her tenure. Schnetzer said he believes “take action” was a yes or no vote. Larick confirmed. Sherwood said some tweaking could be made to clarify; said in the past holding a Public Hearing was considered “taking action.” Mularski said make that clearer so that it does not get interpreted differently. Larick said 4.13 for Public Notice; states posting in municipal building but that is not very public and should be expanded; thinks it should be placed in other accessible locations. Vitale said they also looked at adding an ability for Council to by whatever additional means, place it somewhere. Larick said it is not limiting how it is worded now, but the de facto minimum seems to be a low standard. Angelou said it is now right by the entrance to Council Office outside of Chambers. Vitale said especially over the past year, we have all been thrown into the digital world. Angelou said City Hall has been closed for almost a year now. Larick said it could be worded “in the Municipal Building and in a defined legislative action or notice page” or something along those lines. Zehner said they have discussed keeping it posted there, and in other locations to be determined by Council. Schnetzer stated that he looked back at his notes and wanted to go back to 4.18 under Council; looking at Council Boards and Commissions; may be simpler if those subsequent sections would defer to 4.18. Angelou said that would clear things up for a new Mayor. Gonchar stated that she believed there was something spelled out in the Ohio Revised Code regarding a timeline for rezoning’s. Mularski said he’s aware about the Public Hearing, but not timeframe. Gonchar cited 713.12 of r.c. which requires a 30-day notice of Public Hearing, so believes that can’t be changed in Charter but is not sure about that 90-day notice. Sherwood said she does not believe the 90-days is spelled out in r.c. but that was put into the Charter some time ago in order to clear legislation that was carried over for several years; cities were City of Gahanna Page 4 Charter Review Meeting Minutes April 6, 2021 running into the problem where something would be recommended and just sit there instead of any action being taken; so the timeline was put in to prevent a development for example, from sitting there without any resolution. Gonchar asked if anyone had an issue with the 30-days? Stated also that sometimes with Planning Commission a zoning will be recommended to Council and the timeline is not clear on that; has gone back and forth with the City Planner in the past. Ewald said in the past it would be easier to refer to the Record of Action as the start date . Gonchar stated that it could be that the Record of Action is not done until a week after the meeting, when processing the minutes; Blackford has suggested in the past that it be 30 -ays from the date of Planning Commission Action. Gonchar also proposed code changes for Public Hearing notices in the past, for Planning Commission applications, and it sounds like what Larick is proposing is similar; can find the link for those and send to the Commission as a reference. Ewald said regarding Article 3, we have had people try to run in the General Election without first running in the Primary; asked about input or ideas about the Primary and whether it should be kept. Leeseberg said he is in favor of a Mayor Primary; liked the proposed language requiring a Primary unless there were less than two people running; thankful that the Board of Elections upheld the Charter in those instances. Angelou said it is important to remain non-partisan and does not want that touched; would prefer to keep a Primary for Mayor. Angelou said if you are running at large and get 1/4th of the votes, maybe should switch to two-year terms but that is too difficult to change now. Larick said he does not believe there is a change in spirit or concept but clarifying would make sense. Schnetzer said a functional change is not necessary and believes the current government make up is good; said the current wording seems pretty clear. Ewald asked Gonchar to send an email to Council and ask them for their input, for those who were not able to attend. Gonchar stated that the IT Department would be creating Gahanna.gov email addresses for the members and going forward they would all communicate through those accounts rather than personal email. a. 2021-0042 Charter, City of Gahanna & Other Communities b. 2021-0043 Proposed Charter Amendments ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m. City of Gahanna Page 5 Charter Review Meeting Minutes April 6, 2021 City of Gahanna Page 6