200 S. Hamilton Road

Gahanna, Ohio 43230

City of Gahanna

Meeting Minutes

Charter Review

Ethan Barnhardt, Chair

Carrin Wester, Vice Chair

Jamie Belisle

Edward A. Hill, Jr.

Richard Maxwell

Raymond J. Mularski

Karen Reynolds

Jeremy A. VanMeter, Clerk of Council

Thursday, March 12, 2026

6:30 PM

Council Chambers, City Hall

CALL TO ORDER: Pledge of Allegiance & Roll Call.

Chair Barnhardt called the regular meeting of the City of Gahanna

Charter Review Commission to order on March 12, 2026, at 6:30 p.m.

and led members in the Pledge of Allegiance. The agenda was

published on March 6, 2026.

7 -

Present

Ethan Barnhardt, Jamie Belisle, Edward A. Hill Jr., Richard Maxwell,

Raymond J. Mularski, Karen Reynolds, and Carrin Wester

ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA.

None.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

2026-0053

Charter Review Commission Minutes 2026-02-26

A motion was made by Wester, seconded by Hill, that the Minutes be

Approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

7 - Barnhardt, Belisle, Hill, Maxwell, Mularski, Reynolds and Wester

Yes:

PUBLIC COMMENT.

Chair Barnhardt opened public comment for visitors who wished to

address the Commission. He reminded attendees that speakers had to

complete a speaker slip and that the Commission limited comments to

three minutes unless the Commission extended the time to ten minutes.

Hearing no requests to speak, Chair Barnhardt closed public comment.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS.

1. Workplan and Prioritization Framework

2026-0043

City of Gahanna Charter Review Commission Process Architecture -

Draft Received via Chair Barnhardt

Chair Barnhardt introduced unfinished business and continued the

discussion on the proposed work plan and prioritization framework. He

reminded the Commission that the framework would guide its evaluation

of potential charter amendment proposals after the proposal-gathering

phase ended. He stated that the revised draft added a scoring criterion

for strategic plan alignment at Commissioner Hill’s suggestion and

included additional context from the previous meeting on how the

Commission should consider and review amendments. He invited

feedback before entertaining a motion to adopt the framework.

Commissioner Mularski recommended that the Commission not wait

until the end of the process to address all issues at once. He said that

trying to finalize multiple items in the last two meetings would create

difficulty for the Commission and the City Attorney.

Vice Chair Wester asked whether the framework would allow the

Commission to begin evaluating proposed amendments as early as

April. Chair Barnhardt explained that the Commission first needed to

complete its public engagement meetings, including presentations from

the administration, board and commission members, City

Councilmembers, and members of the public. He said that after the

Commission gathered the full range of ideas, it would apply the matrix

and begin deliberation. He added that each meeting would continue to

include an opportunity for public comment. Chair Barnhardt explained

that after the public engagement phase, the Commission would catalog

the submitted ideas, use the prioritization matrix to distinguish

housekeeping items from more substantive proposals, and determine

whether proposals warranted further input, education, drafting, or tabling.

He said that the Commission could likely begin serious deliberation at its

second meeting in April.

Commissioners discussed whether the final three meetings would

provide enough time to prioritize proposals, debate each issue, and

develop draft language. Chair Barnhardt said that the proposed timeline

reflected his recommendation but that he remained open to additional

input. He asked City Attorney Tamilarasan whether the proposed

schedule would create a problem for drafting. City Attorney Tamilarasan

said that if the Commission completed deliberation and prioritization on

April 23 and identified the items that should advance to drafting, she

could provide draft language by May 7. She later added that drafting

would occur after the April 23 and May 7 meetings, that the Commission

could fine-tune language on May 21, and that she could prepare a final

written draft for Council by June 4. She clarified that the Commission

would need to finalize everything by May 21, although it could still make

final language adjustments at that meeting.

Vice Chair Wester discussed the possibility of adding meetings if

necessary. She noted that the Commission could schedule additional

meetings with proper public notice if more deliberation became

necessary and agreed that the Commission should not delay analysis

longer than necessary.

Commissioner Belisle said that the timeline seemed doable. She stated

that it felt inappropriate to begin deliberation and prioritization before

hearing from all invited participants, adding that beginning in April

seemed appropriate.

City Attorney Tamilarasan stated that the process had always

contemplated discussion, questions, answers, and feedback during

presentations, so the Commission would not remain silent on issues until

the end of April. Chair Barnhardt agreed and encouraged

commissioners to use the presentation phase to ask questions and

gather context that would help them during deliberations. Commissioner

Belisle complimented the addition of the strategic plan criterion to the

framework.

A motion was made by Belisle, seconded by Hill, that the City of Gahanna

Charter Review Commission Process Architecture (Updated 03.04.2026) be

Approved and Filed. The motion carried by the following vote:

6 - Barnhardt, Belisle, Hill, Maxwell, Reynolds and Wester

1 - Mularski

Yes:

No:

2. Upcoming Meeting Calendar Dates

Chair Barnhardt then reviewed the upcoming meeting calendar and

invited guests. He stated that stakeholder engagement remained an

important part of the Commission’s process and said that he wanted to

remain intentional about whom the Commission invited and when. He

noted that City Councilmembers and board and commission members

would share ideas at the March 26 and April 9 meetings. He identified

the March 26 invitees as Councilmember Schnetzer, Ken Shepard of the

Parks and Recreation Board, Heyna Deepa Patel of the Community

Reinvestment Area Housing Council, and Sarah Pollyea, a member of

the Planning Commission and Property Appeals Board. He identified

Councilmember Bowers and Heyna Deepa Patel as scheduled

participants for April 9. Chair Barnhardt said the Commission would

continue to monitor the schedule and invited commissioners to suggest

additional guests.

3. Public Engagement Process Discussion

Chair Barnhardt followed up on a discussion of public engagement. He

reported that Director Vollmer had contacted him about filming several

videos, that he had recruited a few people to participate, and that he

would share contact information soon. He thanked city staff for the social

media posts that had already promoted the Charter Review Commission

and invited any additional ideas to strengthen public engagement. He

said the process appeared to be on a good track.

NEW BUSINESS.

1. Presentation from Mayor Jadwin and Staff

Chair Barnhardt opened new business and introduced the

administration’s presentation on potential charter amendment ideas. He

stated that the presentation marked the beginning of the Commission’s

intensive public engagement phase and encouraged commissioners to

listen carefully and ask questions that would help them understand the

background, rationale, and context of the ideas presented. He reminded

the Commission that the goal during this phase was to gather information

and perspectives rather than evaluate proposals. He then turned the floor

over to Senior Director of Administrative Services Miranda Vollmer.

Senior Director Vollmer thanked the Chair and the Commission for the

invitation. She introduced herself as the Senior Director who oversaw the

internal side of the City, including Human Resources, Information

Technology, and Mayor’s Court. She introduced Planning Director

Michael Blackford and noted that Mayor Jadwin would also offer

comments. She identified Senior Director Kevin Schultz as the leader of

the operational side of the City, including Parks and Recreation,

Planning, Public Service, and Engineering, and introduced Senior

Deputy Director Corey Wybensinger. She stated that the administration

would answer questions about the City’s organizational structure and

noted that the strategic plan included a broad overview of the City’s three

branches of government and the alignment of departments.

Senior Director Vollmer stated that the administration had several

recommendations to present and said that she had provided the

PowerPoint to Clerk VanMeter for the Commission members, which

would also be attached to the record. She explained that the

recommendations aligned with Goal Two of the Our Gahanna Strategic

Plan, which focused on providing high-quality municipal services that

were effective, collaborative, and responsive. She said the

recommendations aligned with strategies to connect the strategic plan

with the charter review process, regularly review and update City codes

and regulations, ensure transparency and responsiveness throughout

City government, and establish internal guidance, policies, and

procedures that remained modern and compliant.

Senior Director Vollmer presented the administration’s first

recommendation. She said the administration proposed adding

language to Article III, Section 3.04 to require the Mayor to prepare and

submit a strategic plan to Council, provide the public an opportunity to

comment on the plan, and issue an annual report on progress toward the

plan’s goals and objectives. She stated that the draft language would

also require the City to update the plan as needed and submit updates to

Council for review, public comment, and adoption. She added that draft

redline language would be provided to Clerk VanMeter. Director Vollmer

also referenced example language derived from the City of Bexley.

Senior Director Vollmer then described a cleanup recommendation in

Article IV, Section 4.13, regarding public notice. She said the City was

completing the new Gahanna Civic Center and that the current charter

language requiring postings in the municipal building no longer reflected

best government practices. She said the amendment would remove the

building-posting requirement while recognizing that the City already

posted notices through other means, including the City’s website.

Senior Director Vollmer next discussed proposed cleanup to Article V.

She explained that the 2021 charter amendments had authorized the

Mayor to create departments, but the existing language in Section 5.01

still listed departments in a way that no longer matched the City’s

structure. She gave the examples of Planning and Economic

Development, as well as Public Service and Engineering, which now

operated as separate departments even though the charter language still

grouped them together. She said the proposed edits to Sections 5.01

and 5.02 would better define administrative functions and the process for

creating departments. She also said the administration recommended

removing Sections 5.04 through 5.11 because the qualifications

language for department directors had been moved into Section 5.02

and the existing structure conflicted with the organizational chart. She

characterized the changes as cleanup intended to make the charter read

more clearly.

Senior Director Vollmer then presented the final recommendation, which

involved deleting Article XII in its entirety and removing the Board of

Zoning and Building Appeals (BZBA). She stated that the BZBA did not

participate in land entitlement decisions and that its irregular appeals

and meetings did not align with best practices. She explained that the

case counts shown on the chart reflected filings from 2019 to the present,

but not all filed cases were actually heard because some were

withdrawn, resolved, or removed. She stated that the BZBA’s infrequent

meetings made it difficult for members to develop and maintain the

expertise needed to interpret the City’s complex zoning ordinances. She

said that appeals would fit better in the courts and noted that Planning

Director Blackford could explain how Gahanna’s structure differed from

other communities.

Planning Director Blackford stated that Gahanna’s BZBA operated very

differently from similar boards in other communities. He said that

Planning Commission members who worked in planning departments

across the region had confirmed that point. He explained that Gahanna’s

BZBA primarily heard appeals from the Planning Commission, which

made it unique. He said that he had reviewed ten communities in the

region and found that Gahanna was the only city that operated in that

manner. He stated that most cases shown on the chart involved Planning

Commission appeals. He also explained that most other communities

used their BZBAs more actively because those bodies reviewed

variances, whereas Gahanna did not. He said that Gahanna’s Planning

Commission handled development applications in a more efficient way

because it did not separate variances from other applications. He

concluded that the Planning Commission’s existing structure made the

BZBA unnecessary and noted that previous charter changes had already

reduced the BZBA’s duties over time.

Mayor Jadwin thanked the Commissioners for serving on the Charter

Review Commission and emphasized the importance of the

Commission’s work. She then described the role of the executive or

administrative branch of the City’s government. She stated that the

charter created a structure based on clear responsibility and

accountability to residents. She explained that the Mayor served as the

chief executive officer, while Council oversaw the budget and adopted

legislation. She said that she and her administrative team carried out

policy and managed the City’s day-to-day operations. She explained that

the charter authorized her to appoint department heads, administrative

staff, and members of boards and commissions, and she noted that the

department heads were professionals with extensive education and work

experience in their respective fields. She stated that the City had ten

operational departments, along with a communications division within the

Mayor’s Office because the Mayor served as the official spokesperson

for the City. She said that she oversaw operations, contracts, and official

documents and that Senior Directors Vollmer and Schultz helped

oversee the many projects underway across departments.

Mayor Jadwin stated that she delivered an annual State of the City

address to update residents and Council on community progress,

completed work, and upcoming work. She added that she attended

Council meetings and provided information on administrative matters

while Council retained legislative authority. She then noted that over the

previous year, Council, the administration, residents, businesses,

nonprofit organizations, and other stakeholders had worked together to

shape the City’s future vision through the strategic plan and economic

development strategy known as Our Gahanna. She said that the process

created a plan built by the people for the people and that the plan would

guide the administration’s work for the next ten years. She described the

relationship between Council and the administration as a partnership

between separate organizations that allowed the City to operate

efficiently and serve residents well.

Mayor Jadwin noted that Senior Director Vollmer had referenced a

proposed charter change that would add strategic planning language to

Article III. She stated that she had spoken with Mayor Kessler of Bexley

about that provision and that he was willing to speak to the Commission

about how the requirement worked in Bexley if the Commission wished

to hear from him.

Chair Barnhardt thanked the administration and opened the floor for

commissioner questions.

Vice Chair Wester said that she generally supported streamlining

government and eliminating unnecessary meetings but had several

questions about the BZBA. She first confirmed that BZBA was a paid

commission. Vice Chair Wester then asked whether the administration’s

recommendation would eliminate that cost by sending appeals directly to

Common Pleas court. City Attorney Tamilarasan clarified that appeals

would go to Franklin County courts and could originate in either

Environmental Court or the Court of Common Pleas. Vice Chair Wester

then asked whether the BZBA’s compensation constituted the only direct

cost to the City aside from staff time and whether the board typically held

only an annual organizational meeting when no appeals were filed.

Director Blackford confirmed that understanding. Vice Chair Wester then

confirmed that the chart presented showed filed cases rather than cases

that the BZBA actually heard. Senior Director Vollmer agreed and stated

that the number of heard cases was even lower than the number of filed

cases. Vice Chair Wester next asked Planning Director Blackford

whether all communities he reviewed in Franklin County used a different

process. Planning Director Blackford said that he reviewed twelve

communities, including Columbus, Dublin, Westerville, Worthington,

Upper Arlington, New Albany, Hilliard, Whitehall, Bexley, Powell,

Pickerington, and Grove City, and that none operated the same way as

Gahanna. He noted that Upper Arlington had no BZBA at all, which

established precedent for removing the board. He added that other

communities’ BZBAs functioned more like planning commissions

because they handled duties that Gahanna’s Planning Commission

already handled. Vice Chair Wester summarized that Gahanna’s

Planning Commission already exercised the necessary jurisdiction, so

the City did not need another body. Director Blackford agreed.

Commissioner Hill asked whether an applicant currently paid a fee to

bring a matter to the BZBA. Clerk VanMeter responded that the filing fee

was $200. Commissioner Hill asked whether applicants would bear the

additional cost of court fees if appeals moved from the BZBA to the

courts. Director Blackford confirmed that applicants would be

responsible for those costs and noted that appeals of BZBA rulings

already proceeded to court under the current system. Commissioner Hill

then asked whether staff could provide the number of cases the BZBA

had actually heard, as opposed to the number filed. Senior Director

Vollmer speaker stated that staff could work with the Clerk to provide that

information. Commissioner Hill said that the information would help the

Commission better understand whether another structure would make

more sense.

Vice Chair Wester asked whether the proposed strategic plan

requirement would duplicate the charter requirement for the annual State

of the City address in Section 3.04(C), or whether the administration

intended to place the strategic plan reporting in that same section. Mayor

Jadwin responded that the strategic plan requirement would remain a

separate obligation, but she acknowledged that the reporting

mechanisms could overlap. She stated that the City would not create two

separate reports and instead would incorporate strategic plan reporting

into the State of the City address. She said that the strategic plan would

ensure that the City’s work reflected the community’s vision and would

provide guidance for projects and operations. She added that the

reporting mechanism could likely fit within the State of the City process.

Vice Chair Wester then asked whether the strategic plan reporting

should follow the same first-quarter timing as the State of the City

requirement. Mayor Jadwin replied that flexibility might help because

preparing the State of the City during the first quarter could prove

challenging given the timing of the budget cycle, annual meetings, and

the work required to gather data. She said that the administration had not

yet considered tying the strategic plan reporting to that exact schedule,

but she appreciated the suggestion. Vice Chair Wester responded that

she was not committed to that idea and noted that the Bexley example

appeared to require only an annual report without a specific timeframe.

Commissioner Hill asked about the term of the strategic plan itself and

whether the proposed language contemplated an annual revision, a

three-year plan, a five-year plan, or a ten-year plan. Mayor Jadwin

explained that Bexley’s plan appeared to operate on a multi-year

schedule while updates occurred annually. She said that the City would

maintain a strategic plan over several years and provide annual updates,

rather than recreate the entire plan every year. Commissioner Hill

acknowledged that strategic plans required significant investment and

suggested that the charter language clarify that the City would provide

annual updates rather than require a new strategic plan every year.

Mayor Jadwin agreed.

Chair Barnhardt said that he would prefer more regular updates to the

strategic plan itself, perhaps every five years, so that the City would return

to the community for renewed input and revisions while still allowing

updates as circumstances required. He asked whether the

administration had considered a more specific timeframe for a full

refresh instead of leaving the language at “as needed.” Mayor Jadwin

responded that she had not yet discussed that issue with Senior Director

Vollmer, who had led the Our Gahanna plan, but she said that a

requirement to refresh the plan every five to seven years might make

sense if the charter also preserved flexibility for extraordinary

circumstances. She pointed to the pandemic in 2020, which forced the

City to delay a planned refresh of the Go Forward Gahanna plan. She

said that any timing requirement should account for such circumstances.

Chair Barnhardt agreed.

Commissioner Belisle asked whether the charter should require a

re-evaluation committee to meet every five years to determine whether

the City should continue with the existing plan or require updates. Mayor

Jadwin said that she would not place that level of detail in the charter.

She stated that the decision should come from a collaborative discussion

between the administration and Council based on operational and

budgetary conditions, and she said that the City’s separate branches of

government should work together on those matters.

Chair Barnhardt observed that including a strategic plan requirement in a

charter appeared to be more the exception than the rule among

communities and asked Mayor Jadwin what benefit Gahanna would gain

from including it. Mayor Jadwin responded that she had discussed the

issue at length with Mayor Kessler of Bexley and believed that a

charter-based strategic plan would provide consistency and a defined

framework for City operations. She stated that turnover in staff, Council,

and elected officials made continuity important and that a strategic plan

requirement would provide that continuity.

Vice Chair Wester asked for a ballpark estimate of the cost of a strategic

plan and noted that the Commission should consider the financial impact

of charter changes during prioritization. Mayor Jadwin deferred to Senior

Director Miranda Vollmer. Senior Director Vollmer stated that strategic

plans could range from approximately $100,000 for an update to well

over $250,000 for a more extensive effort. She said that the City spent

nearly $35,000 to $40,000 on public engagement alone for the current

plan and that a full rewrite every five years would not necessarily

represent the best use of taxpayer dollars. She explained that the current

plan covered ten years and that a future refresh in five years could involve

review and community engagement without requiring a complete rewrite.

She also noted that different types of strategic plans existed, including

comprehensive plans that incorporated strategic planning. She cautioned

that rigid timelines could create difficulties and reiterated that strategic

planning represented a significant expense, especially after including

staff costs. Mayor Jadwin added that inflation would increase those costs

further.

Chair Barnhardt asked whether building strategic plan updates into the

City’s regular work plan would likely reduce costs over time because the

City could update the plan incrementally rather than start from scratch

each time. Mayor Jadwin replied that the City adopted the Go Forward

Gahanna plan in 2015 and had intended to refresh it in 2020 after voters

approved Issue 12 in 2019, but the pandemic delayed that effort. She

explained that when the City developed Our Gahanna, ten years had

passed since the adoption of Go Forward Gahanna. She said that the

City would likely undertake a larger refresh approximately every ten

years, while smaller mid-cycle adjustments would require less effort and

lower cost.

Commissioner Mularski then shifted the discussion to the proposed

Article V cleanup. He said that the recommendation to “better define the

administrative functions of the city” in Section 5.01 seemed, on its face,

to do little more than list the departments already named in the charter,

and he asked what the administration meant by “better define.” Senior

Director Vollmer responded that she had been working on the redline

language and had not yet distributed it. She explained that the proposed

revision would state that the administrative functions of City departments

included finance, human resources, information technology, court

services, public service, engineering, planning, parks and recreation,

economic development, public safety, and emergency management,

along with any other departments created under Section 5.02. She stated

that the 2021 charter amendment gave the Mayor authority to create

departments, but the language in Section 5.01 still grouped some

now-separate departments together, such as Planning and Economic

Development and Public Service and Engineering. She said that the

proposed language would continue the 2021 cleanup by focusing on

functions rather than listing departments in a way that conflicted with the

current organizational chart. She also explained that the later sections of

Article V still described departments that no longer reflected the City’s

present structure. Commissioner Mularski asked whether the proposal

would call them administrative functions rather than departments. Senior

Director Vollmer confirmed. Mayor Jadwin added that the 2021

amendment aimed to provide flexibility to create departments based on

operational needs. She explained that the City had adjusted its

organizational structure while continuing to perform the same functions

and that the current proposal simply completed the cleanup that should

have accompanied the 2021 change. She said that the revision would

ensure that the charter preserved essential functions while allowing the

City flexibility to adjust its structure based on staffing, function, and

alignment.

Commissioner Hill said that he supported the concept but asked where

definitions of departments would exist if the charter removed them as

specifically named departments. Mayor Jadwin asked whether he meant

the departments or the functions. Commissioner Hill clarified that he

meant the departments. Mayor Jadwin replied that the charter would still

preserve the functions without fixing them to a specific department title.

She gave the example that Finance and Human Resources could

operate within a single department, as she had seen in private practice.

She said that the important point was to preserve the functions rather

than the titles. Commissioner Hill said that explanation made sense.

Senior Director Vollmer added that the existing definition language found

in later sections of Article V could be moved into Section 5.01, which

would preserve the descriptions of those functions.

Commissioner Belisle asked whether the proposal would eliminate

Sections 5.05 through 5.14 entirely, since those sections listed

departments in detail. Senior Director Vollmer replied that the proposal

would remove those specific department titles, but she noted that the City

might move some of the definitional language into Section 5.01. She

stated that the title “department of” created limitations and produced

conflicts with the organizational chart. She also noted that the

administration intended to retain the public safety provisions. Vollmer

explained that Section 5.12 defined the Department of Public Safety and

the Divisions of Police and Fire and established administrative rules for

those divisions. She said that the City needed to keep that language

because the township currently provided fire service and the charter had

to preserve language for a potential future City fire department if needed.

Mayor Jadwin suggested that the cleanup should likely stop at Section

5.10.

Vice Chair Wester summarized the proposal as an administrative

change that would eliminate the formal title “department of” while

modernizing the charter to reflect the way the City’s organization changed

over time through the annual budget, staffing decisions, and project

needs. She asked whether anyone saw a downside to that approach.

Mayor Jadwin said that neither she nor her team had identified any

downside.

Commissioner Belisle then asked City Attorney Tamilarasan whether

state law or the Ohio Revised Code required the charter to use language

specific to a particular department. City Attorney Tamilarasan replied that

the City had full discretion in the construction and creation of its charter

under home rule.

Chair Barnhardt then summarized the discussion. He stated that the prior

Charter Review Commission gave the Mayor authority to create and

eliminate departments, but the Charter still named specific departments,

which created a conflict between the Mayor’s authority and the charter’s

text. He said that the proposed amendment would clean up that conflict.

He also said that the charter should continue to preserve key functions

and definitions so that the public could see that the City maintained

qualified leadership and core administrative functions while still giving the

Mayor flexibility to organize departments efficiently. He said that he

understood that to be the intent of the proposal and described it as a

strong idea.

City Attorney Tamilarasan then offered comments on both the strategic

plan proposal and the BZBA proposal. She said that the exact language

would matter greatly. On the strategic plan, she cautioned that language

stating that the Mayor “shall cause” a strategic plan to be created could

force the City to recreate a plan even though it had already invested

significant time and resources in the current one. She recommended

language that acknowledged the plan already in existence and required

the City to review it. She also noted that other sections of the City’s code

already used periodic review requirements and suggested that the

charter could require the City to assess the plan’s viability at specified

intervals rather than require a complete recreation every five years. She

explained that such language would avoid forcing the City to restart the

process from scratch when an update would suffice. Senior Director

Vollmer agreed and said that while the City commonly referred to the

current plan as a ten-year plan, the document itself did not state a firm

expiration date. City Attorney Tamilarasan then turned to the BZBA

proposal. She stated that the charter officially gave the BZBA jurisdiction

over exceptions to ordinances, resolutions, and regulations related to

zoning, building, and landscaping throughout the City. She distinguished

that authority from the Planning Commission’s role, which addressed

variances under Chapter 11. She asked Planning Director Blackford to

confirm that limitation. Planning Director Blackford confirmed that the

Planning Commission’s variance authority extended only to Chapter 11.

City Attorney Tamilarasan explained that building code and other issues

related to zoning, building, and landscaping could theoretically originate

in the BZBA. She said that, to her recollection, the City had not recently

received originating filings before the BZBA that had not already gone

through the Planning Commission. However, she emphasized that the

charter language gave the BZBA broader authority than simply hearing

Planning Commission appeals. She therefore recommended that, if the

Commission removed the BZBA, it should consider broadening the

Planning Commission’s scope to address those additional matters and

should evaluate the impact of eliminating that board entirely.

Vice Chair Wester asked a follow-up question about the BZBA proposal

and asked whether an appeal of a code violation issued through code

enforcement would go directly to the BZBA. City Attorney Tamilarasan

clarified that code violations went through Mayor’s Court as criminal

matters and that appeals from Mayor’s Court would proceed to Franklin

County Municipal Court. She explained that the BZBA’s role involved a

different situation: a person could ask for an exception from a zoning,

building, or landscaping regulation on the ground that the code should not

apply to that person under particular circumstances. She said that the

BZBA could hear that type of request first. Vice Chair Wester asked

whether the BZBA would conduct the first hearing on such an exception

request. City Attorney Tamilarasan said that it would. She added that,

unlike zoning variances, the charter did not provide detailed criteria or

standards for those BZBA exception requests. She explained that the

charter simply authorized the BZBA to hear and decide appeals for

exceptions to ordinances, resolutions, and regulations related to zoning,

building, and landscaping. Vice Chair Wester then asked for an example

of a building-code issue that someone might appeal by arguing that the

code should not apply. Planning Director Blackford explained that

Chapter 13 of the codified ordinances contained Gahanna-specific

building code provisions and that the state building code already

included its own variance procedures. He said that nearly all

building-code requirements existed in the state building code rather than

in Chapter 13, which explained why he had not seen a single

building-code issue go to the BZBA during his twelve years with the City.

He noted one rare case from around 2014 involving code enforcement

and a zoning provision that went to the BZBA. He explained that such a

case would arise when staff administered the code and a person

disagreed with staff’s interpretation or application. He described that

structure as somewhat unusual but not entirely unique. He also stated that

the Planning Commission would serve as a more appropriate body for

those rare appeals because the commission heard development cases

and had greater familiarity with the City’s codes and processes. He said

that the City could incorporate that authority into the Planning

Commission’s duties without materially affecting its meeting schedule.

Chair Barnhardt summarized by stating that the City could move the

BZBA’s limited authority over those rare matters to the Planning

Commission. Planning Director Blackford agreed.

Commissioner Hill then asked whether that change would keep those

matters from going to a court or another outside body by allowing the

Planning Commission to hear them instead. City Attorney Tamilarasan

said that, if the City removed the BZBA without giving the Planning

Commission that added authority, those narrow exception requests

would have no forum at all. She explained that such requests did not

challenge the City’s application of existing law in a way that would fit a

standard appeal. Instead, they asked for an exception to the law itself.

She also noted that appeals to Franklin County under Ohio Revised

Code Chapter 2506 addressed final determinations by the City and

required the courts to enforce the City’s code as written. She said that if

the charter did not provide a body with authority to grant an exception or

variance, the person would have no standing to seek one anywhere.

Chair Barnhardt raised a separate issue about public notice. Drawing on

his past experience as an assistant city clerk in another jurisdiction, he

said that he supported modernizing the charter’s public notice provisions

but recalled references elsewhere in City code that required notice in a

newspaper. He suggested that the Commission should review those

references as part of any broader modernization effort. Clerk VanMeter

stated that the charter itself contained at least one newspaper notice

requirement. He added that one or more Councilmembers would likely

address that subject at future meetings and confirmed that City codes

also contained additional public notice requirements that warranted

review. Chair Barnhardt said that he viewed that as a natural next step if

the Commission decided to modernize public notice language. Chair

Barnhardt then asked for any further discussion or questions.

Commissioner Mularski raised a separate question for Mayor Jadwin

about Section 3.05. He noted that the section allowed the Mayor to

approve or disapprove the whole or part of a resolution or ordinance

appropriating money, but otherwise required the Mayor’s approval or

disapproval shall be addressed to the entire resolution or ordinance. He

said that the language appeared to allow a line-item veto only for

appropriations and supplemental appropriations and asked for the

Mayor’s thoughts, while acknowledging that he did not expect an

immediate answer. Mayor Jadwin responded that she would need to

review that section more closely because she had not previously

examined it as a possible recommendation. She asked City Attorney

Tamilarasan to confirm whether Commissioner Mularski referred to the

second paragraph of Section 3.05 and asked Commissioner Mularski

whether he read that language to limit line-item veto authority to financial

items. City Attorney Tamilarasan confirmed that interpretation and stated

that the language allowed a partial veto only for appropriations. She said

that the Mayor would otherwise have to veto an entire ordinance or

resolution. Mayor Jadwin said that she would examine the issue further

and return to the Commission at a later meeting. Commissioner Mularski

said that he did not intend to ambush her. Mayor Jadwin thanked him for

raising the point and said that she appreciated his close reading of the

charter.

Vice Chair Wester then asked Chair Barnhardt a process question while

the discussion remained fresh. She asked whether the proposed cleanup

regarding “department” versus “function” should qualify as an

administrative matter under the Commission’s recently adopted matrix

and two-track process, rather than a matter requiring the full prioritization

framework. Chair Barnhardt said that the issue would ultimately require

group consensus, but he stated that his inclination was to treat it as

administrative because the prior charter amendment had already

expressed an intent to give the Mayor flexibility over administrative

structure. He added that the Commission could decide to manage it

differently if the group wished. Vice Chair Wester said that she agreed

and viewed the proposal as a clear example of streamlining language to

align with the City’s function. Commissioner Belisle agreed that the issue

seemed administrative.

2. Proposal Inventory Review

2026-0050

Draft Charter Amendment Proposals for Charter Review Commission

2026

Chair Barnhardt then moved the meeting to a discussion of the proposal

inventory review. He said that he added the item to the agenda so the

Commission could ensure that all potential charter amendment ideas

under consideration appeared in a public location where members and

the public could review them. He requested that staff upload the

PowerPoint presented by the City that evening into the shared drive

because he believed those recommendations should remain part of the

record. He then summarized the proposals already in the Legistar file,

including Commissioner Mularski’s submission regarding primaries,

Vice Chair Wester’s submissions regarding residency requirements and

office qualifications, and the Planning NEXT strategic plan requirement.

He asked whether the list captured all proposals received to date.

Clerk VanMeter noted that the proposal file also included an addition

from President of Council Trenton Weaver. Chair Barnhardt said that he

wanted to discuss that item briefly because, at the previous meeting, the

Commission had discussed using the drive primarily for proposals. He

said that he was not sure whether Mr. Weaver’s communication should

count as a proposal or as commentary. He asked the group how it

wanted Clerk VanMeter to manage emails and comments related to

proposals in the library.

Vice Chair Wester said that she understood the drive to serve as the

place where the Commission housed proposed amendments. She said

that she expected the Commission to reduce items discussed at

meetings to writing and place them in the drive, but she viewed the

Weaver submission as more of a public comment than a proposal

because it did not suggest amendment language or state how the charter

should read.

Commissioner Belisle said that transparency favored including

everything but asked whether the City could separate amendments from

public comments in different folders.

Commissioner Maxwell stated that President Weaver’s proposal

seemed like an opinion, and inquired as to whether it could be put into

proposal form. Commissioner Belisle asked whether that approach

would require the public to submit comments in proposal form.

Commissioner Maxwell said no and clarified that the concern related only

to the particular email under discussion.

Commissioner Mularski said that the Weaver email raised concerns

because it came from the President of City Council to the Clerk of

Council and did not directly address the Charter Review Commission or

instruct anyone to present it to the Commission.

Vice Chair Wester said that the City could still disclose the message as

a public record but questioned whether the Commission should place

every piece of correspondence in its proposal drive. She emphasized

support for transparency and noted that all meetings were already

archived on YouTube and that emails remained available through public

records requests.

Chair Barnhardt summarized the issue by asking what the Commission

wanted to do with commentary received by email.

Commissioner Hill recommended differentiating between amendments

and comments and asked whether the City could create separate folders

for those categories so the files remained clear and organized. City

Attorney Tamilarasan cautioned the Commission against drawing too

sharp a line between proposals and comments because, in her view,

proposals could come in many forms, including concepts, redlines,

presentations, and recommendations. She said that overlap would

naturally occur during public input from City groups and stakeholders.

She also said that her reading of Mr. Weaver’s email suggested that he

recommended streamlining the charter’s conflict-of-interest categories to

address current and future conflicts by using broader language that would

allow state law to define what constituted a conflict. She noted that the

charter’s conflict language could prove more restrictive than state law

and that the email appeared to address the same area that Vice Chair

Wester had questioned earlier. Vice Chair Wester responded that Mr.

Weaver planned to appear before the Commission at a later point, so the

Commission could allow him to explain his own position directly.

Vice Chair Wester said that she also found the email difficult to interpret

because it referred to statements made at a prior meeting, to her

proposed amendment, and to additional matters that neither she nor

Chair Barnhardt had yet raised. She agreed that the Commission should

avoid spending excessive time categorizing emails. She reiterated that

the drive should make it easy for the public to see the amendments under

consideration and said that she had not realized that staff would place

other correspondence in the drive without further discussion.

Commissioner Mularski asked whether an item had to be addressed to

the Commission to qualify for placement in the drive and pointed out that

the Weaver email was not addressed to the Commission at all. Clerk

VanMeter said that the email used the subject line “Charter Review

Suggestion” and that staff therefore interpreted it as something to share

with the Charter Review Commission. He added that staff could create a

separate Legistar file for correspondence and keep those materials

there until the Commission wanted to move something into the proposal

file.

Chair Barnhardt said that he liked that approach. He stated that he

favored transparency and believed that any correspondence offering

substantive input on a potential amendment should remain accessible to

the public, regardless of who sent it. He proposed keeping one folder for

actual proposals and another for correspondence that offered

substantive input on those proposals.

Commissioner Belisle noted that, at the previous meeting, the

Commission had suggested that the public and others should send

communications to the Clerk rather than directly to the Commission,

which could explain why Mr. Weaver sent the email to the Clerk.

Chair Barnhardt then asked whether the Commission felt comfortable

using two folders, one for correspondence and one for actual proposals

or ideas for proposals. Vice Chair Wester Voiced her agreement. Chair

Barnhardt directed Clerk VanMeter to manage the drive that way going

forward.

CORRESPONDENCE AND ACTIONS.

2026-0061 Charter Review Commission Correspondence Received via Clerk

POLL MEMBERS FOR COMMENT.

Chair Barnhardt then polled commissioners for comment and for any

additional agenda items they wanted added to the next meeting.

Commissioner Reynolds asked when the Commission would receive the

redline charter changes that the administration had referenced and

whether staff would send them by email. Senior Director Miranda Vollmer

responded that she would provide them to Clerk Van Meter as soon as

possible, likely early the following week and before the next meeting.

Commissioner Reynolds thanked her.

Commissioner Mularski asked City Attorney Tamilarasan to review

Section 10.03, which stated that the City Attorney shall prepare all

contracts. He observed that the City no longer operated that way in

practice and suggested that the Charter might more accurately require

the City Attorney to review all contracts rather than prepare all of them.