CHARTER REVIEW BOARD
CITY HALL, 100
LOCKVILLE ROAD
THURSDAY, MAY 6, 2010
REGULAR MEETING
7:00 P.M.
1. ROLL CALL. Mr.
Hackworth called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M., with roll call as
follows: Mrs. Chapman, Mr. McKinney, Mr.
Hackworth, Mr. Gray, Mr. Holstine, and Mr. Kramer were present. Mr. Donathan arrived at 7:08 P.M. Others
present were: Phil
Hartmann, Lynda Yartin, and Greg Bachman.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF April 1, 2010, Regular Meeting. Mr. Kramer
moved to approve; Mr. Holstine seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. McKinney, Mr.
Hackworth, Mr. Gray, Mr. Holstine, Mr. Kramer, and Mrs. Chapman voting
“Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
3. COMMUNITY COMMENTS.
None.
4. SCHEDULED MATTERS:
A. Complete the review and discussion of proposed
Charter revisions, Articles I through IV.
Mr. Hackworth stated Mr. Schornack was present this evening to address
the financial portion of the Charter and he had provided a memo to the members
detailing his concerns. Mr. Hackworth
stated at the last meeting they had completed the review through Section 4.02
and would begin at Section 4.03. He
stated if there were no objections, and since Mr. Bachman is present, they
could review the section 4.12 discussing the engineer’s position at this
time.
Section
4.12. Engineer. Mr. Bachman stated currently it is awkward to
work for City Council when most everyone else
works for the City Manager. He stated he
could foresee conflict as he did not see how he could complete his duties as
the City Engineer and not follow the lead of the City Manager. He stated further we have one staff engineer
and two construction inspectors that he supervises, but yet do not actually
work for him, they work for the City Manager.
He stated this has not been a problem, however, he could see that it
might present a problem at some time.
Mr. Hackworth stated he could see there could be some conflict from Council
to have the engineer somewhat independent but he understood what Mr. Bachman
was saying since the City Manager would be giving him most of his
direction. Mr. Hackworth stated he has
seen some Charters that provide for the Council
to appoint or terminate the engineer, but they report to the City Manager. Mr. Hartmann stated most Charters he has seen
have the engineer under the City Manager’s direction day-to-day. Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to see
some of the Charters that have this position under the City Manager, but they
are hired and removed by Council. Mr. Hartmann stated he would pull some
language from other Charters for the Board to look at. Mr. Bachman stated he did not know of any
other city in Ohio that is this
way and Mr. Hartmann stated he has never seen it. Mr. Hartmann stated the City Engineer is
generally looked at as less of a political figure. Mr. Kramer clarified that when Mr. Bachman
stated the situation could be awkward was due to staff that work for him, but
do not report to him. Mr. Kramer then
clarified that the performance evaluations on the people who work for him but
do not report to him would be done by the City Manager. Mr. Gray clarified that language could be in
the Charter stating the position could still be appointed by Council
and the salary set by Council, but the
individual would report to the City Manager.
He stated that would show that the position was important enough that Council
needs to decide who would be in that position.
Mr. Hartmann stated that was possible and it would make Mr. Bachman more
comfortable. Mr. Kramer stated he felt
that would just make sense and would make the Charter as clear and concise as
it could be. Mr. Kramer clarified that
the City Engineer has an employment contract just as the Finance Director and
the Law Director. Mr. Hackworth stated
if this would be become a problem with Council,
they could be put a charter amendment on the ballot. Mr. Hackworth further stated he was a little
uncomfortable with the idea that the City Manager would have the authority to
hire the City Engineer and Council might not
know what they were getting into. Mr.
Hackworth stated he felt just adding language to the Charter that the City
Engineer would take his work direction from the City Manager would be
sufficient. Mr. Gray stated if the City
Engineer reported to the City Manager, then he would become a department head
and then the people who worked for him would report to him and he would report
to the City Manager. Mr. Hackworth
stated just the one simple sentence should take care of that and if Council
wants to redo the engineering department, they have the resources to do
that. Mr. Hackworth then clarified that
all Board members agreed with adding the one sentence to this section. Mr. Hartmann stated he would draft some
language for the Board to review at their next meeting.
Mr. Hackworth stated if there
were no objections, the Board could now review the portions of the Charter that
Mr. Schornack had expressed concerns on.
Section 6.07,
Transfers of Appropriations. Mr.
Schornack stated he does not quite understand what the second sentence in this
section is saying. Mr. Schornack
explained, for example, the water fund cannot transfer money to the police
fund, and he was not sure if that is what this sentence was saying because the
ORC would not allow that. Mr. Schornack
stated any type of appropriation that is done needs to go through Council
and just because there is money in one fund does not mean it can be moved to
another fund; there are special purposes behind those. Mr. Schornack stated he thought this sentence
was saying we could transfer funds from one organization unit to another, and
we cannot do that. Mr. Schornack further
clarified that as an example, funds could be transferred from the General Fund
to the Water Fund, but then could not be transferred back to the General
fund. Mr. Gray inquired if Mr. Schornack
had some suggested language for the Board to consider and he stated he would
work with Mr. Hartmann to draft this language.
Mr. Schornack stated his recommendation on appropriations would be not
to require three readings, but require only one reading. Mr. Hackworth inquired if appropriations were
considered temporary in nature and could be done by resolution and Mr. Gray
pointed out that the appropriations amended the ordinance that adopted the
budget. Mr. Gray further questioned if
appropriations could be placed on the Consent Agenda and Mr. Hartmann stated
the recommendation by this Board was that the Consent Agenda items would
require only one reading and would be effective immediately. Mr. Hartmann further stated that Council
would establish by ordinance the threshold amount that could be considered on
the Consent Agenda. Mr. Hartmann stated
as he understood it, this Board had recommended that Council
would pass an ordinance establishing the threshold amount that could be placed
on the Consent Agenda, and that amount could be amended by passing another
ordinance. Mr. Hackworth stated that
sometimes the transfers could be $300,000, $400,000 or more. Mr. Gray stated if we were spending that kind
of money he would think it should be voted on by Council
anyway, and Mr. Hartmann stated there was also the option of suspending the
rules and waiving the requirement for three separate readings. Mr. Schornack questioned if the amount set by
Council would be for the total of all the appropriations
being proposed on one ordinance or would it be for each individual
appropriation on the ordinance. Mr.
Schornack stated Council may want to establish
a threshold amount for each Fund and Mr. Hartmann stated that would be one
option. Mr. Gray stated with regard to
the larger amounts, he still felt that should be considered separately by Council. Mr. Hackworth stated he was not in favor of
doing away with the three readings because he felt there were certain items Council
should take their time on and he would prefer continuing with the process now
used by suspending the rules. Mr.
Hartmann pointed out that to suspend the rules six members of Council
would have to be present. Mr. Hartmann
stated he would work with Mr. Schornack to prepare some draft language for this
section.
Section
6.11. Competitive Bidding. Mr. Schornack stated he was just asking this
be updated to the current $25,000 language that is in the ORC. Mr. Donathan questioned if it would just be
better to reference the ORC and not put a specified amount in the Charter. Mr. Hartmann stated that would be the best
way, and Mr. Schornack stated then if the ORC increases this amount we would be
right in line with the State. Mr.
Hartmann stated he would further recommend the language be changed to mirror
recent case law and instead of “lowest and responsible bidder” there is
language the courts have defined to make it a little broader for the City to
get out of the lowest bidder if there is good reason. He stated he did not have that language with
him tonight, but he would include that change in his next draft for the Board
to review.
Mr. Hackworth ascertained there
were no further questions regarding Article VI and stated while Mr. Schornack
was present he would like to continue with Article VII.
ARTICLE VII. Taxation and
Borrowing.
Section 7.01.
Limitation on Property Tax Rate. Mr.
Hackworth questioned if the 10 mills referenced in this Section had anything to
do with what the Budget Commission does.
Mr. Hartmann stated he thought this referred to the inside millage and
Mr. Schornack stated he thought it did.
Mr. Hackworth asked Mr. Hartmann to check this and let the Board know at
the next meeting.
Section 7.02,
Power to Incur Indebtedness; Section 7.03, Issuance of Bonds; and Section 7.04,
Procedure in Bond Issues. Mr.
Hackworth inquired if it was necessary to have this in the Charter and Mr.
Hartmann stated it was common to see it in a Charter. Mr. Hackworth inquired if Section 7.02 should
have something that deferred to the Ohio Revised Code because the power of Council
limited by the property valuation to 2-1/2 percent of the assessed value. Mr. Schornack stated there are different
types of borrowing and he felt this gave the power to incur debt. Mr. Hackworth clarified Mr. Schornack did not
see anything that needed changed in this section. Mr. Hackworth inquired if Sections VI and VII
could be combined into one section since they both deal with financial issues. Mr. Hartmann clarified that all Board members
felt these sections should be combined.
Mr. Hackworth stated he would now
go back to the review of proposed Charter revisions picking up at Article IV,
in the draft provided by Mr. Hartmann.
ARTICLE IV. City Manager.
Section 4.01,
Appointment of Manager. Mr. Hartmann
stated there were no changes to this section.
Section 4.02,
Manager’s Qualifications. Mr.
Hartmann stated he had removed the residency requirement since the Courts have
ruled against that.
Section 4.03,
Manager’s Powers and Duties. Mr.
Hartmann stated there were no changes to this section.
Section 4.04,
Manager; Absence or Disability. Mr.
Hartmann stated he had included the language that the “Manager may designate by
letter filed with the Municipal Clerk any qualified Division Head or Department
Chair” instead of just having administrative employee. He stated he had also added that in the event
of the resignation or removal of the Manager Council
shall by resolution appoint an Interim Manager until a new Manager is hired. Mr. Gray stated he thought the Mayor could
make the appointment and Mr. Hackworth stated that was his impression as
well. Mr. Gray stated he thought the
Mayor could appoint an Interim Manager for a specified period of time. Mr. Hartmann stated he would add the language
that the Mayor would appoint an Interim Manager for a period up to 60 days
while they go through the process of hiring an Interim Manager. Mr. Donathan clarified that should a new
Manager not be hired in those 60 days, then Council
could renew the interim appointment.
Section 4.05,
Removal of the Manager. Mr. Hartmann
stated he had made no changes to this section.
Mr. Gray inquired if Mr. Hartmann
had any further information on line-item vetoes and Mr. Hartmann stated he
could not find much at all on this issue.
Mr. Hackworth stated he had a lot of problems with a line-item veto
because in his mind you would have to be specific to the yearly appropriation
budget. Mr. Gray stated he was more
concerned about it from a fiscal standpoint.
Mr. Gray stated he didn’t feel strongly about it, he just did not think
they had finished discussing it. Mr.
Hartmann stated he had understood the issue was if there was language that
limits it, such as it could only be used on appropriations. He stated if that is the desire of the way to
go he could craft some language for the Board to review. Mr. Hartmann stated he would bring something
to the next meeting if that was what the Board desired, and Mr. Hackworth
clarified they would like to see something on it.
ARTICLE V, Administrative Officials and Departments
Section 5.01,
Oath of Office and Section 5.02, Conflict of Interest. Mr. Hartmann stated no changes were made to
these two Sections.
Section 5.03,
Duties of the City Clerk. Mr. Gray stated
he understood this would be changed to make the city Clerk responsible to Council. Mr. Hartmann stated he had made this change
pursuant to past discussions. Mrs.
Yartin clarified that currently the Clerk’s position is appointed by the City
Manager and reports to the City Manager, however, they work for Council
and by the last Charter revision Council has
the authority to give direct orders to the Clerk. She stated this could present a problem if Council
were to direct her to do something and the City Manager directed her not to do
it. Mr. Hartmann stated this is so
different as it is the only Clerk’s position in the State of Ohio
that does not appoint the Clerk. Mr.
Hackworth stated he felt it would be appropriate to have the Clerk report on a
day-to-day basis to the Manager, and Mr. Gray inquired if Mr. Hartmann could
provide some language for the Board to review at the next meeting and Mr.
Hartmann stated he would do that.
Section 5.04,
Duties of Finance Director. Mr.
Hartmann stated there were no changes made to this section. Mr. Hartmann stated his only question was the
language currently in the Charter that states the Finance Director may be
removed by Council providing a thirty (30) day
notice is given, so you would have to give that notice. He stated if there is a reason to remove the
Finance Director it seemed strange to have to give him a 30 day notice and he
did not know why that was in the Charter.
Mr. Hackworth stated he agreed that if there were reason to remove the
Finance Director a 30-day notice should not be required. Mr. Hartmann clarified all Board members felt
that language should be removed.
Section 5.05,
Law Director. Mr. Hartmann stated
there were no changes made to this section.
Section 5.06,
Engineer. Mr. Hartmann stated that
was discussed earlier in the meeting and he would provide a draft with the
recommended changes at the next meeting.
Mr. Hackworth stated they would
review the current Charter beginning with Article V.
ARTICLE V, Board and Commissions.
Section 5.01,
Effect on Actions of Pre-existing Boards and Commissions. Mr. Hartmann stated there were no changes
made to this section.
Section 5.02,
Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr.
Hartmann stated no changes were made to this section. Mr. Kramer stated he had served on Planning
and Zoning in the past and he questioned if there should be a term limit as
some individuals have been on that Commission for many, many years. Mr. Gray stated if the members are doing a
decent job that is more reason to keep them on the Commission. Mr. Hackworth stated Council
does not have to reappoint them and they can be removed by Council
as well. Mr. Kramer stated his question
was if there should be some sort of oversight on the Commission, although he
did not know how that would be done.
Section 5.03,
Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr.
Hartmann stated this Board does not have a specific appointment term, but is a
continuing appointment. Mr. Hackworth
clarified that an applicant does have an appeal process to any decision by this
Board. Mayor Gray stated he understood
that if someone does not agree with a ruling by the Board of Zoning Appeals
they could go to Council and Mr. Hartmann
stated he would look at this.
Section 5.04,
Parks and Recreation Board. Mr. Hartmann
stated no changes had been made to this section.
Section 5.05,
Board of Health, and Section 5.06, Appointment of Board and Commission Members. Mr. Hackworth clarified no changes were
recommended for these two sections.
Mr. Hartmann stated for the next
meeting he would provide language for Section 6.07 dealing with Transfers of
Appropriations and information regarding line-item veto as well. Mr. Hartmann stated a question had been asked
at the last meeting on the notice provision and you can have it any way you
want in your local powers. He stated his
suggestion for advertising ordinances would be to give it to Council
as a power to do it pursuant to Council
ordinance. He stated then if you do not
have a newspaper of circulation you can do it some other way. He stated he would provide language to that
effect for review at the next meeting.
Mr. Hackworth stated at the next
meeting he would provide a memorandum on Articles VIII through XI as well as a
draft showing all of the changes proposed to date. Mr. Gray stated he would prefer to have a
draft document instead of the red-lined version as that was much easier to
read. Mr. Hartmann stated he would be
glad to provide it that way.
5. CHAIRMAN. Mr.
Hackworth stated at the next meeting the Board would review the revisions
proposed to date and then review Articles VIII through XI.
6. OTHER BUSINESS: No
other business was brought forward.
7. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Kramer
moved to adjourn; Mr. Holstine seconded the motion. Mrs. Chapman, Mr. Donathan, Mr. Hackworth,
Mr. Holstine, Mr. Gray, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. McKinney voted “Aye.” Motion
carried, 7-0. The Charter Review
Board adjourned at 9:00 P.M., May 6, 2010.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
_______________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk