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 26, 2026

6:30 PM

Council Chambers, City Hall

CALL TO ORDER: Pledge of Allegiance & Roll Call.

Chair Barnhardt called the regular meeting of the Gahanna Charter

Review Commission to order on March 26, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. and led

members in the Pledge of Allegiance. The agenda was published on

March 20, 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.

2026-0063

Charter Review Commission Minutes 2026-03-12

A motion was made by Mularski, seconded by Belisle, that the Minutes be

Approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

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

Yes:

PUBLIC COMMENT.

Pursuant to Rule 7.4.1, visitors are welcome to address the Commission by

completing a speaker slip; being recognized by the Chair; stating their name,

address, and the purpose of their comments; and speaking for up to three

minutes. This time limitation shall prevail unless extended by the Chair

without opposition from a Commission member.

Chair Barnhardt opened public comment and explained the procedures

and time limits.

Pat Francisco, 234 Shull Avenue, Gahanna, OH, addressed the

Commission regarding the use of a golf cart on city streets. Francisco

stated that she had operated the golf cart for several years after being

told no ordinance prohibited it, but police later stopped her and informed

her that she could no longer operate it. She explained that the golf cart

met street-legal requirements, including mirrors, turn signals, brake lights,

and a license plate, and she expressed uncertainty about what had

changed.

Chair Barnhardt referred the matter to the City Attorney for clarification.

City Attorney Tamilarasan explained that the issue fell under the traffic

code within city ordinances rather than the charter. She stated that she

was currently conducting an annual review of the criminal and traffic code

and offered to provide her contact information to Francisco to discuss the

matter further. Francisco agreed and thanked her.

The Clerk confirmed that no additional speaker slips were submitted,

and Chair Barnhardt closed public comment.

NEW BUSINESS.

1. Presentation from City Council Members, Board & Commission Members

City Councilmember Michael Schnetzer

Chair Barnhardt invited City Councilmember Michael Schnetzer to speak

first. Schnetzer thanked the Commission for the opportunity to present

and expressed appreciation for the Commissioners’ service, noting the

significant time commitment and the importance of participation in

self-governance.

Councilmember Schnetzer continued his presentation by explaining that

he organized his remarks into two broad categories: provisions that

should remain unchanged and those that might warrant amendment. He

began by discussing the City’s current governance structure, which he

stated functioned effectively. He noted his experience serving a fourth

term on City Council and nearly two decades in municipal finance, during

which his firm underwrote thousands of municipal project financings.

Based on that experience, he stated that no objective evidence

demonstrated that one form of governance produced better financial or

community outcomes than another. He emphasized the importance of

self-governance and expressed his view that Gahanna’s current structure

represented an effective and balanced system. Schnetzer described the

organizational structure of the City as outlined in the charter, explaining

that executive departments reported to the Mayor, while City Council

served as the legislative branch with both ward and at-large

representation. He stated that this structure allowed residents to elect

representatives while maintaining geographic balance. He further

explained that all branches of government ultimately reported to and were

chosen by the residents, which maximized voter influence under the

strong mayor system. Schnetzer compared the current structure to a

council-manager form of government, explaining that such a system

would place executive authority under City Council and reduce direct

accountability to residents. He stated that this change would increase

Council’s power and could disrupt the existing balance. He added that if

the Commission considered such a transition, it should also consider

reducing Council terms from four years to two years to increase

responsiveness to voters, noting that two-year terms existed historically

prior to a change made around 2013 or 2014.

Councilmember Schnetzer then addressed provisions he believed

warranted review. He identified Article 22, which governs the Charter

Review Commission, as unusual due to the frequency of required

reviews. He compared this to state constitutional conventions, which

occur infrequently and typically address limited topics. He noted that

Gahanna had conducted multiple charter reviews since 1996 and had

adopted 123 amendments over the City’s history, which he contrasted

with the 27 amendments to the United States Constitution. He expressed

concern that frequent reviews created a risk of unintended consequences

and cited the cost of a recent mayoral primary election, which exceeded

$300,000, as an example of a costly outcome from a prior amendment.

Schnetzer suggested that the Commission consider eliminating the

requirement to convene a Charter Review Commission every five years

and instead allow reviews on an as-needed basis or limit their scope to

specific sections identified by Council. He stated that such changes

could reduce the risk of costly or unintended amendments.

Councilmember Schnetzer recommended reviewing Section 4.12

regarding abstentions and removal, stating that it appeared inconsistent

with Section 4.07 concerning due process. He suggested that the

Commission consider aligning those sections.

Councilmember Schnetzer also addressed discussion about

incorporating a strategic plan into the charter and cautioned against

doing so. He stated that strategic plans required significant financial

investment and were better suited for the ordinance process rather than

the charter. He suggested that the Commission consider requiring

periodic performance audits instead, noting that the Ohio Auditor of

State’s office offered such audits and that they often identified cost

savings sufficient to offset their expense. Councilmember Schnetzer

concluded his prepared remarks and offered to answer questions. Chair

Barnhardt thanked him for his comments and invited questions from the

Commission.

Commissioner Mularski asked Schnetzer to provide a copy of his notes

for distribution.

Vice Chair Wester asked Schnetzer to clarify whether he believed no

objective data demonstrated that one form of government was superior

or whether he believed the form of government had minimal influence on

outcomes. Councilmember Schnetzer responded that he believed the

form of government had little influence on outcomes. He explained that,

based on his professional experience, he had observed no correlation

between a municipality’s form of government and its financial

performance or bond rating. He stated that while subjective preferences

might guide decisions about governance structures, objective data did

not demonstrate that one form consistently produced better results. He

reiterated that Gahanna’s current structure maximized resident input in

governance.

Chair Barnhardt asked, in Councilmember Schnetzer’s opinion, what

governance factors influenced financial success. Schnetzer identified

factors that contributed to stronger financial performance. He

emphasized the importance of sound financial policies, including

maintaining reserve funds for emergencies, dedicating revenue for

capital improvements, and avoiding deferred liabilities. He also

highlighted the value of prudent budgeting practices, including multi-year

financial planning, and noted that external factors such as geographic

limitations and state-imposed obligations could also affect a

municipality’s financial condition. Chair Barnhardt asked whether

extending the Charter Review Commission cycle to ten years, rather than

eliminating a timeframe altogether, would be appropriate. Schnetzer

responded that the decision rested with the Commission and reiterated

his concern that frequent charter reviews increased the likelihood of

unintended consequences. He explained that reducing the frequency of

changes could lower the risk of costly errors. Schnetzer suggested that a

potential compromise could involve limiting the scope of charter reviews

rather than conducting comprehensive reviews each time. He proposed

that City Council could identify specific sections or topics for review

within enabling legislation, similar to how state constitutional conventions

often focus on targeted issues rather than entire governing documents.

He stated that such an approach could allow for necessary updates while

reducing systemic risk.

Commissioner Mularski asked how a charter review process would be

initiated if it were no longer required to occur automatically.

Councilmember Schnetzer responded that the Commission could

establish a process within the charter, suggesting that City Council,

administration, or the City Attorney could raise a concern during a

Council meeting. He stated that Council could then determine whether

sufficient support existed to convene a Charter Review Commission and

define its scope. Mr. Mularski asked for clarification on whether City

Council would initiate the process through ordinance with mayoral

approval. Schnetzer agreed and stated that such a process would remain

public and follow due process, ensuring transparency and awareness.

City Attorney Tamilarasan addressed the Commission and stated that

the charter already provided multiple methods for amendment. She

explained that Council could place a charter amendment before voters by

an affirmative vote, that citizens could initiate amendments through

petition, and that the Charter Review Commission convened every five

years. She noted that these mechanisms created redundancy and

provided several avenues for review. She also stated that Council could

create ad hoc commissions or committees by ordinance when necessary

and that the Commission could consider whether certain functions

belonged in the charter or in ordinance.

Chair Barnhardt asked if there were any additional questions. Hearing

none, he thanked Council Member Schnetzer for his presentation.

Sarah Pollyea, Planning Commission Member

Planning Commission Chair Sarah Pollyea addressed the Commission

and thanked members for the opportunity to speak. She provided

background on her long-standing connection to Gahanna, her legal

career, and her involvement in the community, including her leadership

roles on the Planning Commission and other local boards. She

emphasized her commitment to public service and the community.

Pollyea stated that her proposals aimed to improve clarity, transparency,

and consistency within the charter without altering the City’s existing form

of government. She explained that Gahanna’s charter established

legislative authority with City Council and executive authority with the

Mayor, and her recommendations sought to clarify how those branches

interacted in matters involving public assets, development agreements,

zoning decisions, and significant financial obligations. Pollyea stated that

her proposals aligned with practices in comparable municipalities and

reflected processes already occurring in practice. She identified four

areas for consideration: Council approval of real estate transactions,

Council oversight of development agreements, transparency in zoning

decisions, and Council authorization of major contracts. Noting that she

would provide additional written materials for the record, Pollyea

continued her presentation by stating that her proposals centered on

ensuring that significant decisions involving public assets, long-term

development commitments, and major financial obligations followed a

clear and transparent structure.

Ms. Pollyea explained that her first proposal addressed real estate

transactions involving City-owned land. She stated that the City already

presented significant transactions to Council for approval and that her

proposal would codify this practice in the charter by requiring Council

approval for the purchase, sale, or transfer of such property. She then

discussed development agreements, noting that these often involved

long-term commitments related to infrastructure, land use, or economic

development. She stated that these agreements typically came before

Council and proposed clarifying in the charter that agreements involving

City-owned land or significant municipal commitments should continue to

receive legislative review. Pollyea next addressed transparency in zoning

decisions. She stated that while Gahanna already maintained a strong

zoning review process, her proposal would require that the basis for

zoning decisions be clearly stated on the record, including factors such

as consistency with the comprehensive plan and compatibility with

surrounding land uses. She then discussed Council authorization of

major contracts. She explained that while the Mayor executed contracts

and the budgeting process authorized expenditures, her proposal would

clarify when additional Council authorization would be required for larger

contractual commitments, based on thresholds established by ordinance.

She emphasized that this would not affect routine administrative

purchasing. Pollyea addressed potential questions, stating that although

Council already approved many of these actions, codifying the practices

in the charter would ensure consistency rather than reliance on custom.

She stated that the proposals would not slow operations because they

applied only to significant matters and would not interfere with routine

administration. She further explained that the charter should reflect the

structure of authority and that her proposals would not diminish the

Mayor’s executive role but would clarify when legislative authorization

was appropriate. Pollyea summarized that her proposals promoted

clarity, consistency, and transparency and reflected practices already in

place.

Planning Commissioner Pollyea then introduced additional proposals

related to Section 11.02 and the Planning Commission, based on her

experience as Chair. She explained that the current attendance

requirement used a fixed number of missed meetings as a basis for

removal, which did not account for changes in meeting frequency. She

proposed replacing this with a percentage-based requirement, such as

attending at least 75 percent of meetings, to ensure consistency. Pollyea

next addressed consecutive absences, stating that automatic removal

after a set number of missed meetings could create unintended

consequences. She proposed eliminating automatic removal based

solely on consecutive absences and instead evaluating overall

participation. She also noted that the charter referenced excused

absences without defining the term, which created ambiguity. She

proposed allowing the Planning Commission to define excused

absences through its own policies, with general guidance including

illness, family emergencies, or work obligations. Pollyea further

addressed removal for just cause, stating that the charter did not clearly

define the term or identify who determined it. She proposed clarifying that

the appointing authority would handle removal and that the process would

include general guidance and due process protections such as notice

and an opportunity to respond. Pollyea concluded that her proposals

would not reduce accountability but would improve flexibility, consistency,

and fairness. She then offered to answer questions.

Commissioner Hill thanked Pollyea for her presentation and asked her to

clarify what she meant by “significant” in the context of financial and policy

decisions. Pollyea responded that she did not propose a specific

definition and suggested leaving that determination to the Commission

or establishing flexible standards through ordinance. She stated that the

term generally referred to actions beyond routine administrative matters,

such as larger purchases or development agreements. Commissioner

Hill asked a follow-up question to clarify whether the term “significant” had

been previously defined and whether a new definition would represent a

change in practice. Pollyea responded that she had not identified any

existing definition and intentionally kept the term broad to preserve

flexibility, stating that she did not want to include language in the charter

that would require frequent amendments to adjust definitions over time.

Commissioner Hill then asked Ms. Pollyea to clarify her reference to

participation as a measure in attendance considerations. Pollyea stated

that participation would include being prepared, asking thoughtful

questions, and making meaningful contributions, as opposed to merely

being present. Hill expressed concern that such language could introduce

subjectivity into the charter without clear standards for measurement.

Pollyea acknowledged the concern and suggested that the appointing

authority could evaluate participation when making determinations.

Commissioner Mularski asked for Pollyea’s perspective on a prior

proposal to eliminate the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals (BZBA).

Pollyea stated that she generally supported the idea, explaining that the

appeal process might not need to go through BZBA and that the board

did not meet frequently. She suggested that appeals could instead be

directed to municipal or common pleas court rather than having one

board oversee another.

Commissioner Reynolds asked whether removing BZBA might concern

the community by reducing opportunities for public involvement. Pollyea

responded that improved efficiency could benefit the community and

noted that residents would still have other opportunities to serve in

different capacities.

Commissioner Belisle acknowledged Ms. Pollyea’s involvement with the

community, and asked Pollyea whether she supported including a

strategic plan in the charter. Pollyea stated that she did not favor that

approach, citing cost and the need for flexibility, and agreed that such

matters would be better addressed through ordinance.

Commissioner Mularski asked Ms. Pollyea to explain the difference

between the Property Appeals Board and BZBA. Pollyea explained that

the Property Appeals Board primarily handled sidewalk program

appeals and met infrequently. She noted that the board had limited

activity and that she was less familiar with the full scope of BZBA’s

responsibilities, though she understood it reviewed appeals from

Planning Commission decisions. City Attorney Tamilarasan provided

additional clarification, stating that the Property Appeals Board was

created by ordinance and primarily handled sidewalk appeals, along with

appeals related to nuisance abatement and rental property registration.

She explained that most appeals involved sidewalk issues and that many

cases were resolved prior to formal hearings through communication and

settlement. She noted that ordinance-based boards allowed flexibility for

Council to modify processes as needed.

Commissioner Hill asked whether Planning Commission members

received compensation. Pollyea confirmed that the positions were paid.

Vice Chair Wester asked Ms. Pollyea to clarify her earlier reference to

comparable communities, including Dublin, Upper Arlington, and

Westerville. Pollyea confirmed those examples and stated that she would

provide additional materials for the record. Vice Chair Wester noted that

those communities operated under a council-manager form of

government and asked whether Pollyea had identified any strong mayor

municipalities with similar charter provisions. Pollyea responded that she

had not and acknowledged that those provisions reflected process

details that could vary based on the form of government. Vice Chair

Wester then asked about Planning Commission rules and whether the

Commission adopted its own rules annually. Ms. Pollyea explained that

while the Commission could adopt rules, the charter limited flexibility

because certain requirements, such as attendance thresholds, remained

fixed regardless of changes in meeting frequency. Vice Chair Wester

asked whether the charter defined excused absences. Pollyea stated

that it did not and explained that the lack of definition created challenges,

particularly when members experienced temporary life circumstances

that affected attendance. She stated that clearer guidance could help

prevent the loss of members who might otherwise continue to serve. Vice

Chair Wester asked whether definitions for excused absences could be

addressed through Commission rules rather than the charter. Pollyea

responded that while rules could address the issue, she believed the

charter should provide a framework, including clearer definitions or

guidance, while allowing the appointing authority to make determinations

in specific cases.

Commissioner Belisle asked who currently determined whether an

absence was excused. Pollyea stated that no formal determination

existed and that attendance was simply recorded based on whether a

member was present.

Chair Barnhardt asked how other communities approached attendance

and excused absence policies. Pollyea stated that comparisons were

difficult because Gahanna’s Planning Commission differed from those in

other jurisdictions in structure and responsibilities, making direct

comparisons challenging. Chair Barnhardt asked whether the charter

should remain prescriptive or delegate more authority to commissions.

Pollyea stated that she supported a balanced approach, recommending

that the charter provide clearer guidance and definitions while allowing

commissions to adopt additional rules. She emphasized that charter

provisions would establish a consistent framework for future

commissions, while rules could provide further detail and flexibility. Chair

Barnhardt then asked Pollyea to further explain her proposal regarding

zoning decisions and the requirement to include the basis for those

decisions in the record. Pollyea stated that her intent was to increase

transparency by ensuring that residents could clearly understand the

rationale behind zoning and land use decisions, particularly for those

affected by them. Chair Barnhardt asked whether such a requirement

could also provide legal protection by documenting the reasoning behind

decisions. Pollyea responded that her primary focus was on

transparency rather than legal considerations, emphasizing the

importance of making decision-making processes more understandable

to the public.

Vice Chair Wester asked whether existing public meetings and

opportunities for public comment already provided sufficient

transparency. Pollyea acknowledged that meetings were public but

stated that a clear, summarized explanation in the record would provide

an additional and more accessible way for residents to understand

decisions without needing to review full meeting discussions. Vice Chair

Wester expressed some confusion, noting that Planning Commission

and City Council already voted publicly on zoning matters. Ms. Pollyea

clarified that Planning Commission made recommendations to Council,

which then made final decisions, and reiterated that her proposal would

provide a clearer summary of the reasoning behind those decisions.

Vice Chair Wester asked whether Pollyea’s proposal reflected a broader

goal of improving communication within the charter. Pollyea confirmed

that her intent focused on clarity and making information easier for

residents to access and understand.

Chair Barnhardt asked whether similar requirements existed in the

charters of other municipalities such as Upper Arlington, Westerville, or

Dublin. Pollyea stated that some of those communities included such

provisions and indicated that she would provide example language for

the Commission’s review. Chair Barnhardt asked for any additional

questions.

Commissioner Maxwell commented that while he understood the intent,

he viewed the proposal as potentially redundant because information

was already available to the public. Pollyea acknowledged that the

proposals reflected her perspective and stated that she deferred to the

Commission’s judgment on whether to pursue them.

Chair Barnhardt thanked Pollyea for her presentation and expressed

appreciation for her thoughtful comments and suggestions. He indicated

that the Commission looked forward to reviewing the additional materials

Pollyea would provide. Pollyea thanked the Commission and concluded

her remarks.

2. Proposal Inventory Review

2026-0050

Draft Charter Amendment Proposals for Charter Review Commission

2026

Chair Barnhardt explained that a list of proposals received to date would

be updated to include items discussed during the meeting and received

via email the prior week. Vice Chair Wester thanked Chair Barnhardt for

organizing the information and stated that it would assist in future review.

CORRESPONDENCE AND ACTIONS.

2026-0061 Charter Review Commission Correspondence Received via Clerk

File noted for the record. No discussion for Commission correspondence

and actions.

POLL MEMBERS FOR COMMENT.

Chair Barnhardt announced that the next meeting was scheduled for April

9, 2026, and stated that additional City Council and board or

commission members would be invited to present. He noted that City

Councilmember Merisa Bowers had confirmed attendance. Clerk

VanMeter stated that no others had confirmed at that time.

ADJOURNMENT.

With no further business before the Charter Review Commission, Chair

Barnhardt adjourned the meeting at 7:38 p.m.