Home Rule Charter Review Commission

MINUTES OF THE TOWN OF GREENVILLE HOME RULE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION AT THE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS Monday, January 21, 2025 at 6:30 pm 1. Call to Order: Commission Chair, Tracy Beil 2. Pledge of Allegiance: Mary Reames 3. Roll Call: Benjamin Beck Tracy Beil Patrick Eaton Mary Reames Joel Rinella Also Present: Paul Hamill, Brian Shipley, Chad Bromley, Jean Carr-Fisher, Hal Johnson, Gary Mueller, Michelle Mueller, and Frank Vanderslice. Staff: Jasson Urey, Town Manager Rosalynn Reagle, Assistant Town Manager Amy Hollowell, Administrative Assistant Matt Breedlove, Director of Community Development, Code/Zoning Officer Media: Caleb Stright, Record-Argus 4. Public Comments: 3 minute time limit, Agenda Items • No Comments 5. Approval of Minutes: A motion to approve the January 14, 2025 meeting minutes was made by Joel Rinella and seconded by Mary Reames. Motion carried 5-0. 6. New Business: A. Hearing from former commissioners, councilmembers, and administrators. • Jasson Urey – Administration review charted and created a document with recommendations. Article One: Tracy asked about specific examples of stumbling on the name. Jasson mentioned that with lending and grants the town is still under articles of incorporation as a Borough. Mary asked about the original reason. Ben Beck shared that it was purely for branding purposes. Mary mentioned running into issues with the naming when applying for grants. It has been an issue with PENNVEST. Article Three: Jasson recommends that section 3.5 (b) on appointments and removals should have wording added that it be done in executive session since it is regarding personnel. On section 3.10 on investigations, Jasson questions whether council has legal power to issue a misdemeanor/fine. There was discussion on how personnel issues would be handled. There was discussion on removing lines from section 3.14 on what is written for codification and there was a recommendation to add the specific guidelines to administrative code and just referenced in the charter. Jasson mentioned that he is not even sure what section 3.16 on codes of technical regulations is referring to. Article Four: There was discussion on section 4.4 on powers and duties on the State of the Town message and complete report on the finances and administrative activities. There was discussion on the cross-over of section 4.4 and section 3.3. Joel Rinella added that the practice is of issuing such an message is still important regardless of a Mayor/Council President or separated position, still coming from the Mayor. Article Six: There was discussion on the date listed for a deadline of presenting a budget message. It is being presented earlier than what is listed in the charter. Section 6.14 on taxation, there is no mention on how special purpose mill rates are added in addition to general purpose. Jasson will provide a list of caps on special purpose mills allowed by borough code. Article Seven: Jasson shared the new state thresholds which have increased with inflation. There was discussion on not using hard numbers, but a formula from the state – or referencing the current state bidding guidelines. Article Ten: Can be removed because the town is now out of Act 47. • Joel Rinella – Shared that he feels the staff is performing well. Joel questions section 4.4 on the power and duties of the town manager and whether the town manager should have the responsibility to enforce the charter. There was discussion among commissioners on how the charter is enforced. Mary commented on how Jasson is the head administrator and how council members are to bring legislation. Joel also questioned Jasson on item 17 in section 4.4, but revoked his question. Joel Rinella asked about whether Jasson was still acting as Town Clerk/Borough Secretary. Jasson explained how duties were consolidated into one position in the past. Mary asked if there was a new title that would be more appropriate, what would it be. Jasson Urey said Town/Borough Manager would be the title that would make sense. • Mary Reames mentioned that a goal for the commission is to clarify and simply language in the document. B. Discussion on Home Rule Charter. • Mary asked about the document Joel Rinella provided at the last meeting. She asked about the criteria for adding some of the wording regarding timing. Joel said that it was arbitrary, but gave examples on how adding the qualifiers for the timing will clarify when notices are to be made. Mary also asked about the changing he or she and Joel expressed that the object was to change to neutral pronouns. • Joel asked if we could add a committee of the whole section to work through the document that he provided. Tracy added that no votes would be made at the time, but would allow for discussion. • Tracy asked about where the word committee was recommended to be added. Joel mentioned that it seemed to be implied, but not specifically added. It was discussed that the recommendation for the addition on section 13.3 (a) (1) should not be added because the committees are not created by ordinance. • Joel Rinella asked if the commission could see the original surveys that were conducted during the Home Rule Study. He also asked if the legal review comments. He also mentioned using the model city charter as a comparison. 7. Public Comments: • Hal Johnson – Shared a bit about how the first legal review included a lot of red lines. He explained why the audit explanation was added. • Chad Bromley – Stressed to the commissioners that the work being done should be for the benefit of the community and not for personal reasons. • Jasson Urey – He questioned where the “committees” were to be added from Joel Rinella’s document. Jasson Urey would be cautious about using the model city charter as a guide, because it is general over the U.S. • Hal Johnson added how the model city charter had a section on ethics and when it was originally added the solicitor struck it out because the state ethic guidelines supersede. 8. Commission Comments: • Tracy – Wanted to discuss about how our changes to the document will impact timeline on any changes to voting. There was discussion about changing the length of time for the next review commission so that it is done on an off year from local municipal voting. 9. Adjournment: Having no other business, a motion was made to adjourn by Patrick Eaton and seconded by Mary Reames. The meeting adjourned at 7:47 pm. Respectfully submitted, Benjamin Beck Secretary