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, April 23, 2026

6:30 PM

Council Chambers, City Hall

CALL TO ORDER: Pledge of Allegiance & Roll Call.

Chair Ethan Barnhardt called the regular meeting of the Gahanna

Charter Review Commission to order on April 23, 2026, at 6:30 p.m.

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

published on April 17, 2026.

5 -

Present

Ethan Barnhardt, Jamie Belisle, Edward A. Hill Jr., Raymond J. Mularski,

and Carrin Wester

2 - Richard Maxwell, and Karen Reynolds

Absent

ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA.

None.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

2026-0076

Charter Review Commission Minutes 2026-04-09

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

Approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

5 - Barnhardt, Belisle, Hill, Mularski and Wester

2 - Maxwell and Reynolds

Yes:

Absent:

PUBLIC COMMENT.

None.

NEW BUSINESS.

Proposal Inventory Review and Deliberation

2026-0050

Draft Charter Amendment Proposals for Charter Review Commission

2026

Chair Barnhardt introduced the next agenda item, Proposal Inventory

Review. He explained that the Commission had largely completed the

formal engagement phase and would transition into deliberations. He

stated that he had circulated an updated proposal log and deliberations

memorandum on April 17 to guide the discussion. Chair Barnhardt

reported that the Commission had received 27 proposals, which had

been consolidated into 14 draft ballot measures organized by charter

article and subject matter. He explained that the Commission would now

deliberate on these draft ballot measures rather than individual proposals

due to Ohio law requiring each ballot issue to address a single subject

and use plain language.

Chair Barnhardt presented a recommended refinement to the

Commission’s process architecture. He explained that the previous

distinction between structural and housekeeping items had been helpful

during proposal intake but that applying a single scoring matrix to all draft

ballot measures would provide a clearer and more consistent analytical

approach moving forward. He invited discussion and indicated that

adopting this refinement would require a motion.

Vice Chair Wester asked for clarification on the proposed change. Chair

Barnhardt explained that, instead of separating items into categories with

different evaluation methods, the Commission would apply a uniform

scoring matrix to all measures after determining which items met initial

thresholds. He stated that this approach would provide a quantitative

basis to prioritize proposals and guide decisions on which measures to

advance for drafting.

Commissioner Mularski asked whether the Commission would discuss

all items or exclude lower-ranked ones. Chair Barnhardt responded that

the Commission would discuss all items. He outlined a two-step

threshold process: first, the Commission would determine whether each

item constituted a charter-level issue; second, the Commission would

identify items requiring additional education or information before

scoring. He explained that items passing both thresholds would proceed

to scoring and further deliberation.

Commissioner Belisle asked whether the goal was to complete the

scoring matrix by the next meeting. Chair Barnhardt responded that this

was the optimistic goal.

Chair Barnhardt stated that, due to the absence of two commissioners,

he did not recommend that the Commission begin voting during the

meeting. He suggested that the Commission could begin discussions

and allow members to score items individually, with the understanding

that missing commissioners could provide their scores at the next

meeting. He emphasized that the Commission should reserve voting until

it completed deliberations and had full participation.

Commissioner Belisle asked when the Commission would obtain

additional education for items requiring further information. Chair

Barnhardt responded that the Commission could identify such items

during the meeting and work to secure speakers or subject matter

experts for a future meeting. He noted that the Commission could also

schedule special meetings if necessary to accommodate additional

discussion and education.

Vice Chair Wester expressed agreement and emphasized the

importance of allowing absent commissioners the opportunity to

participate in discussions at a public meeting, despite their prior written

comments.

Commissioner Belisle suggested the Commission table the vote on the

proposed matrix change until after the evening’s discussion and to revisit

the scoring approach at the next meeting. Chair Barnhardt agreed with

the proposal and expressed flexibility regarding adjustments to the

process. Commissioner Hill clarified that the Commission’s decision

involved two components: whether to adopt the revised scoring process

and how to proceed with prioritization afterward. Commissioner Belisle

reiterated her recommendation to wait to proceed on voting on the

matrix, due to member absences.

Vice Chair Wester anticipated that the Commission would likely need to

schedule a special meeting and preferred to complete more work earlier

in May rather than later. Commissioner Hill agreed.

Chair Barnhardt stated that he supported scheduling at least one special

meeting in early May to continue deliberations, particularly given the

reduced attendance at the current meeting. He asked whether staff could

coordinate availability for such a meeting. Clerk VanMeter responded

that staff would review calendars and confirm availability of

commissioners, the Law Department, the Clerk, and meeting space.

Chair Barnhardt suggested considering a special meeting as early as

the following week or, at minimum, during the week of May 11. He then

asked about the required public notice period for scheduling a meeting.

Commissioners discussed scheduling constraints and noted that a

second special meeting would likely occur after the already scheduled

May 7 meeting. Commissioners clarified that potential additional

meeting dates included April 30 and May 14, while also remaining open

to alternative days beyond Thursdays. Chair Barnhardt agreed to explore

availability and determine what worked best for the group. Chair

Barnhardt returned to the pending motion to postpone the vote on the

matrix proposal.

A motion was made by Belisle, seconded by Wester, to postpone amendment

of the Charter Review Commission's adopted Process Architecture until the

next meeting. The motion carried by the following vote:

5 - Barnhardt, Belisle, Hill, Mularski and Wester

2 - Maxwell and Reynolds

Yes:

Absent:

Chair Barnhardt proceeded to the next phase of deliberations and

introduced the first guiding question: whether any of the 14 draft ballot

measures addressed matters that did not belong in the City Charter. He

explained that the Charter should establish structure, authority, and

processes, rather than administrative or procedural matters better suited

for ordinances or policies.

Vice Chair Wester initiated discussion regarding proposals labeled

CRC 013 through 016, which addressed real estate transactions and

development agreements. She stated that these items appeared to

reflect existing administrative practices and did not require inclusion in

the Charter. Several commissioners agreed with her assessment.

Chair Barnhardt noted that these proposals reflected best practices

more appropriate for council rules or administrative procedures.

A motion was made by Wester, seconded by Hill, to remove items CRC 013,

014, 015, and 016 from Charter Review consideration. The motion carried by

the following vote:

5 - Barnhardt, Belisle, Hill, Mularski and Wester

2 - Maxwell and Reynolds

Yes:

Absent:

Commissioner Belisle then raised proposal CRC 019, which suggested

defining excused absences for the Planning Commission. She stated

that such a definition fell outside the Charter’s scope and should remain

within the authority of the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Hill suggested expanding the discussion to include

proposals 017 through 020, noting that they involved procedural matters

similar in nature.

Commissioner Belisle asked whether proposal number 18 addressed a

situation in which the Planning Commission lacked flexibility due to

automatic removal provisions in the Charter. She noted that, while these

matters were typically handled within the Planning Commission, the

Charter’s current language limited their ability to make such decisions.

Chair Barnhardt explained that the Charter currently prescribed a fixed

number of allowable absences, which restricted flexibility and would

require a Charter amendment to change. He asked the City Attorney to

confirm this interpretation.

City Attorney Tamilarasan confirmed that the Charter set a specific

number of absences that could trigger automatic removal, regardless of

whether absences were excused. She explained that the provision did

not allow commissions to distinguish between excused and unexcused

absences and recommended that the Commission consider revising

Section 11.02 to allow greater flexibility, potentially by delegating

rulemaking authority to the commission itself.

Chair Barnhardt added that the administration had suggested draft

language that would delegate decision-making authority to the Planning

Commission regarding attendance rules.

Vice Chair Wester expressed a preference for less prescriptive Charter

language and stated that overly specific provisions could improperly

control administrative processes. She suggested that the Charter should

instead defer to the Planning Commission’s rules of procedure. Other

commissioners agreed with this perspective.

Chair Barnhardt summarized that the issue appeared to be appropriate

for Charter consideration but required careful drafting rather than

removal. He stated that the Commission should not strike the item at that

stage but instead evaluate it through prioritization.

Commissioner Belisle stated that proposal number 019 should still be

removed because it focused on defining excused absences, which would

impose unnecessary restrictions.

A motion was made by Belisle, seconded by Wester, to remove item CRC 019

from Charter Review consideration. The motion carried by the following vote:

5 - Barnhardt, Belisle, Hill, Mularski and Wester

2 - Maxwell and Reynolds

Yes:

Absent:

Chair Barnhardt asked whether any additional items should be identified

as not belonging in the Charter.

Before proceeding, Commissioner Hill asked for clarification that, if the

remaining related items advanced, the Commission would develop or

request revised language to address them. Chair Barnhardt confirmed

that any advancement would focus on appropriate Charter-level language

for those areas.

Chair Barnhardt asked whether there were any additional draft ballot

measures that did not belong at the Charter level.

Vice Chair Wester raised concerns regarding proposal CRC 025, which

addressed ward composition. She stated that restructuring wards

constituted a significant issue and expressed concern that the

Commission, as a limited deliberative body, might lack sufficient input to

make such a decision. She indicated that the proposal warranted

broader consideration and additional perspectives. Chair Barnhardt

asked whether the concern related to whether the proposal was

Charter-level or whether it required additional education before

evaluation. Wester stated that the issue could fall under either category

but emphasized concern that the Commission alone should not

determine such a significant change. She questioned the data supporting

the proposal and noted inconsistencies between population data, which

is based on census estimates, and voter registration data, which is

updated more frequently. She also questioned what problem the

proposal sought to address, noting that residents already had access to

multiple representatives regardless of ward boundaries.

Commissioner Mularski explained that ward structures aimed to balance

the number of voters rather than the number of residents. He stated that

equalizing residents rather than voters could create unequal voting

influence among wards.

Commissioner Belisle expressed a differing view and stated that, based

on research and personal perspective, population-based representation

aligned with language used in other legal contexts. She emphasized the

importance of ensuring that all residents, including nonvoters, received

equitable consideration under the Charter. She stated that the issue

related to inclusivity and dignity within the community and supported

further consideration of the proposal.

Commissioner Hill agreed and appreciated the intent of the proposal. He

raised the question of whether the Charter is a guiding document or a

specific document, adding that the proposal including non-voters in ward

calculations was one that fit into a guiding document.

Chair Barnhardt appreciated the sentiment of the proposal. However, he

felt it lacked sufficient information about how ward boundaries would

change if the proposal were adopted. He indicated that he could not

support advancing the proposal without understanding its practical

impact and whether the City could model potential changes.

City Attorney Tamilarasan advised that the Commission should first

determine whether the proposal qualified as a Charter-level issue and

then consider whether additional education was necessary. She

suggested that the Board of Elections or other sources be contacted to

obtain relevant information.

Chair Barnhardt stated that he preferred to avoid unintended

consequences and supported gathering additional information before

deciding. He indicated that he did not support striking the proposal at

that time and favored retaining it for further consideration pending

additional research.

Vice Chair Wester reiterated concerns about the proposal, stating that

representation already existed through a majority of council members

regardless of ward. She expressed concern that shifting to a

population-based system could create disparities in campaign dynamics

and representation, particularly in areas with transient populations or

differing voter registration rates. She emphasized that such changes

could significantly affect elections and representation.

Commissioner Belisle stated she supported obtaining additional

education regarding the potential impacts of changes to ward

composition. She added that, if analysis showed minimal impact, she

would still favor a more inclusive approach in principle but wanted further

information before deciding.

Chair Barnhardt agreed and noted that the Commission had reached a

general consensus to seek additional education on the matter. He

directed that the item be placed on hold for further review at a future

meeting. Chair Barnhardt then invited discussion of additional items that

might require further education.

Commissioner Belisle stated that she did not necessarily require

additional education but encouraged members of the public to provide

input, data, or opinions regarding a potential change in the city’s form of

government from a mayoral system to a city manager system. She

indicated that, without additional information, she would not support

advancing the proposal.

Commissioner Mularski noted that the Commission had not received

significant public support for such a change.

Vice Chair Wester discussed the lack of clarity regarding the problem

that a change in government structure would address.

Commissioner Hill characterized the proposal as a major undertaking

and noted that it had not been clearly presented as a Charter amendment

during the engagement process. He expressed willingness to receive

educational information but not to pursue the change without stronger

justification.

Chair Barnhardt stated that he interpreted prior comments from

Councilmember Padova as a request for education rather than an

endorsement of the change itself. He supported providing additional

education on the topic, including inviting subject matter experts, but

expressed significant hesitation about advancing such a major change

within the Commission’s limited timeframe. Barnhardt emphasized that

the Commission’s charge required it to submit recommendations to City

Council by July 1 and stated that changing the form of government within

that timeframe would be difficult to accomplish responsibly. He also

noted the longstanding nature of the current form of government and

expressed concern about making such a significant change without

sufficient analysis. Barnhardt asked whether the Commission agreed to

pursue additional education on the topic before further deliberation.

Commissioner Mularski noted that potential changes to the form of

government could have broader implications, including impacts on

Council terms, ward structures, and voting dynamics. He emphasized the

need to consider these interconnected effects when evaluating such a

proposal.

Chair Barnhardt stated that, if the issue required more extensive

evaluation than the Commission could provide, City Council could

convene a separate group to study the matter further, as had been done

in the past. He suggested that the Commission could pursue additional

education by inviting a speaker to a future meeting and indicated he

would attempt to arrange for someone to attend the next meeting so that

more commissioners could participate in the discussion. Commissioners

expressed interest in hearing multiple perspectives.

Vice Chair Wester stated that she did not oppose further discussion but

distinguished between understanding the differences between forms of

government and identifying a specific problem within the city that such a

change would address. She emphasized that determining the underlying

issue remained the more important question.

Commissioner Belisle agreed and suggested that, rather than actively

seeking additional presenters, the Commission could remain open to

receiving further input if it emerged. She stated that previous

presentations had already provided sufficient background information.

Chair Barnhardt asked how the Commission wished to proceed and

suggested continuing to table the item for further discussion at the next

meeting, allowing the full Commission to participate. He noted that one

absent commissioner had commented on the issue and expressed a

desire to ensure all members had the opportunity to contribute.

Commissioners agreed to keep the item tabled and revisit it at the next

meeting.

The Commission then moved to identify additional items requiring further

education. Vice Chair Wester referenced prior correspondence with the

City Attorney and raised a question regarding proposal CRC number

010, which addressed special meeting requests under Section 4.11. She

questioned whether the Charter language should specify all parties

authorized to request special meetings, including the City Attorney, or

whether doing so could create issues of exclusion if certain parties were

not listed. City Attorney Tamilarasan explained that the current Charter

allowed Council to establish rules governing special meetings and, in the

absence of such rules, specified that the Clerk of Council must call a

meeting upon written request from the Mayor, the President of Council, or

any three council members. She noted that the Commission could

consider revising the language to clarify or expand who may request

special meetings or defer entirely to Council rules. Wester asked whether

the Commission could recommend revising the Charter language to

leave the authority to call special meetings entirely to Council’s rules of

procedure. City Attorney Tamilarasan explained that the Charter already

allowed for that approach but also included default provisions in the

absence of such rules. She stated that the Commission could either

remove the default language and defer entirely to Council rules or retain

the list and add the City Attorney as an authorized party to request

special meetings. Wester expressed concern about overly specific

Charter language and noted that excessive detail could limit flexibility in

future circumstances. She acknowledged the importance of allowing the

City Attorney to request special meetings but questioned whether

simplification or specificity would be preferable.

Chair Barnhardt stated that he had sufficient information to retain the item

for prioritization and scoring. Chair Barnhardt then referenced a prior

question raised by Vice Chair Wester regarding Section 4.10 and the

location of meetings. Vice Chair Wester explained that differing

interpretations existed regarding whether committee meetings must be

held in Council Chambers under the Charter’s current language. City

Attorney Tamilarasan clarified that the Charter required only regular and

special meetings to be held in Council Chambers, while Committee of

the Whole meetings could be held elsewhere if properly noticed and

accessible. Vice Chair Wester asked whether the language should be

clarified, noting that some believed the Charter restricted committee

meeting locations. Barnhardt asked what legally distinguished a

Committee of the Whole meeting from a Regular City Council meeting.

City Attorney Tamilarasan explained that committee meetings were

governed by Council rules rather than the Charter and typically involved

discussion rather than formal legislative action. She added that official

actions must occur during regular or special meetings, while committees

served specific purposes and could include standing or ad hoc groups.

City Attorney Tamilarasan explained that committees created by Council

operated under rules or motions established by the President of Council

and were not bound by Charter requirements governing the location of

regular or special meetings. She stated that committee meetings could

occur in different locations, but substantive action would need to occur

during a properly noticed regular or special meeting. Commissioners

discussed whether committee meetings could take substantive action

and agreed that, under current practice, any such action would require

designation as a regular or special meeting. City Attorney Tamilarasan

confirmed that, in Gahanna’s practice, committee meetings had not

taken substantive action unless they were also noticed as a regular or

special meeting. Commissioners then discussed the possibility of

holding offsite meetings, such as retreats. City Attorney Tamilarasan

stated that offsite committee meetings could occur as long as no

substantive action was taken. She further explained that public comment

was currently limited to regular and special meetings and was not

permitted at committee meetings unless invited.

Commissioner Mularski asked whether the limitation on public comment

at committee meetings derived from Council rules. City Attorney

Tamilarasan confirmed that it did and noted that Council could amend its

rules if desired. Commissioner Belisle expressed concern that

expanding public comment to committee meetings could create

unintended consequences. Chair Barnhardt asked the City Attorney to

follow up on the issue and confirm whether any Charter changes were

necessary.

Vice Chair Wester then raised another item regarding Section 4.10 and

proposal CRC 009, which suggested allowing flexibility in the date of the

organizational meeting. She expressed concern about potential

unforeseen circumstances, particularly in years when newly elected

officials might not yet be sworn in, and asked whether a delay in the

organizational meeting could create issues for governance. City Attorney

Tamilarasan responded that officials were not required to be sworn in

during the organizational meeting and could take the oath in a private

setting at any time, allowing them to assume office immediately. She

further explained that the sitting City Attorney remained in office until a

successor was sworn in, ensuring no gap in legal representation, though

this provision did not apply to the Mayor or Councilmembers. City

Attorney Tamilarasan clarified that the Charter provided that the Mayor’s

successor assumes office on January 2 and serves until a successor is

elected and qualified, meaning sworn in. She explained that this

language ensured continuity, as the sitting Mayor would remain in office

until the successor took the oath, even if there were a delay.

Chair Barnhardt noted that the Charter’s requirement for assuming office

on January 2 could create tension if the organizational meeting date were

moved later, raising concerns about a potential gap in executive authority

during a crisis. City Attorney Tamilarasan acknowledged that such a

scenario could occur, and commissioners expressed concern about the

risk of a lapse in leadership if a newly elected Mayor had not yet been

sworn in.

The Commission then discussed proposal CRC 005 regarding

modernization of public notice requirements. Commissioner Hill

questioned whether the Charter needed to be amended, noting that

current language did not prohibit digital notices and that the City already

provided notices online in practice. Commissioners discussed whether

maintaining a physical notice requirement remained important and

whether modernization should occur through Charter language or through

ordinance or administrative rules. City Attorney Tamilarasan explained

that the current Charter required notice to be posted in a conspicuous

place within a municipal building but did not require online posting. She

stated that modernization could involve explicitly requiring digital notice in

addition to, or instead of, physical posting, depending on the

Commission’s policy preference.

Chair Barnhardt questioned whether formalizing a practice already

widely implemented represented an effective use of ballot space. City

Attorney Tamilarasan responded that the Commission was not limited by

a fixed number of ballot items and could include as many measures as it

deemed appropriate.

Vice Chair Wester stated that, while increasing public engagement

remained important, the Commission should consider whether adding

detailed notice requirements to the Charter would meaningfully improve

participation. She expressed concern that including too many specific

requirements could make ballot language difficult for residents to

understand and reduce the effectiveness of communication efforts.

Chair Barnhardt cautioned against overly prescriptive Charter language,

noting that specifying particular methods of communication could limit

flexibility as technology evolves. He emphasized that future methods of

public communication could change, and the Charter should not restrict

those possibilities. Chair Barnhardt asked whether there were additional

items requiring further education.

Vice Chair Wester raised proposal CRC 024 regarding the

non-discrimination clause and requested additional information. She

stated that she wanted to better understand current administrative

practices, legal considerations, and best practices for public employers,

particularly regarding alignment between Charter language and existing

policies. Wester expressed concern about potential unintended

consequences from modifying the language and requested input from the

administration on appropriate wording and whether the Charter should

mirror existing equal employment opportunity policies.

Commissioner Belisle sought clarification on the request, asking whether

the goal was to determine best practices for aligning city documents or to

define the Charter’s role relative to federal legal requirements. Vice

Chair Wester confirmed that she sought guidance on best practices,

including whether the Charter should include more specific language or

remain aligned with broader legal standards. City Attorney Tamilarasan

explained that legal protections operate at multiple levels, including

federal, state, and local, and that the city could expand protections

beyond those minimum requirements. She stated that existing city codes

already included broader protected categories and that it remained

within the Commission’s authority to determine whether to expand the

Charter’s language accordingly. She added that the Commission was

not considering removing the non-discrimination provision but rather

determining which categories should be included in the Charter.

Commissioner Belisle added that the Commission could recommend

placing such an expansion on the ballot and allow the electorate to

decide, noting that doing so would not negatively affect existing

protections. She further explained that, even if voters rejected the

proposed Charter amendment, existing City policies and codes would

remain in effect and would not become inconsistent with the Charter. She

clarified that inconsistency would arise only if the Charter explicitly

permitted conduct that City policies prohibited, not if it declined to

expand protections.

Commissioner Mularski asked whether rejecting the amendment could

create a conflict with existing equal employment opportunity policies.

Commissioners and City Attorney Tamilarasan concurred that it would

not, emphasizing that policies could continue to provide broader

protections than the Charter. Commissioners discussed the relationship

between Charter language and policy, noting that the Charter could

include more specific protections but should not contradict existing

policies.

Chair Barnhardt asked whether adding additional protected categories

could create legal risk, particularly given the current political environment.

City Attorney Tamilarasan responded that, while legal challenges could

always be filed, adopting such language would not violate current state

law. She explained that, if a future state law conflicted with Charter

provisions, state law would control. She concluded that she did not

identify any substantive legal risk in expanding the Charter’s

non-discrimination language at the present time.

Vice Chair Wester asked whether aligning the Charter’s

non-discrimination language with broader protections would represent

best practice. City Attorney Tamilarasan stated that consistency across

city documents would be best practice but emphasized that the decision

remained a policy determination for the Commission and the electorate.

Chair Barnhardt asked for any additional items requiring further

education.

Commissioner Belisle proposed additional discussion regarding

residency requirements for the City Attorney position. She noted that the

role required specialized qualifications and that limiting the candidate

pool through residency requirements could have unintended

consequences. She requested further information on how other

municipalities addressed this issue and suggested hearing from current

city attorneys. Chair Barnhardt asked what form that additional education

should take; Belisle clarified that she sought perspectives from legal

professionals and comparative information from other jurisdictions.

Vice Chair Wester expressed openness to additional information but

noted that residency requirements had been raised previously and would

be revisited when all commissioners were present.

Commissioner Belisle offered to research practices in other

municipalities.

Chair Barnhardt asked whether there were any additional items requiring

clarification. Hearing none, he asked whether the Commission wished to

continue deliberations or pause for the evening.

Vice Chair Wester summarized the Commission’s progress, noting that

members had removed certain items, identified others requiring

additional information, and assigned follow-up tasks.

Chair Barnhardt suggested postponing further detailed discussion until

the Commission determined how it would apply the prioritization matrix

and noted the length of the meeting. He offered to update the list with the

changes made during the meeting. Chair Barnhardt stated that the

Commission would proceed with scheduling an additional meeting,

pending availability, and anticipated holding a discussion at the next

meeting regarding prioritization and adoption of the evaluation process.

He noted that the Commission would likely revisit the form of government

discussion and then proceed through remaining items individually.

City Attorney Tamilarasan informed the Commission that she would be

absent from the May 7 meeting but available for possible special

meetings on April 30 and May 14. She stated that Assistant City Attorney

Matt Roth would attend in her place on May 7. She also offered to

prepare a redlined version of Section 10 of the Charter addressing

qualifications and responsibilities of the City Attorney as a formal

recommendation for the Commission’s consideration.

Commissioner Belisle asked how the Commission would handle

additional proposals submitted after prioritization. Chair Barnhardt

responded that the Commission had largely completed its engagement

phase and that any new proposals would require group consideration

before being added to the process. Commissioners discussed the

importance of communicating that the Commission had moved beyond

the proposal collection phase while still allowing public comment at

meetings. They agreed that any new proposals introduced during public

comment should be considered intentionally and likely require a vote to

determine whether to include them.

CORRESPONDENCE AND ACTIONS.

2026-0061

Charter Review Commission Correspondence Received via Clerk

Clerk VanMeter noted that Commissioners Maxwell and Reynolds had

submitted written comments, which were included in the meeting

materials.

POLL MEMBERS FOR COMMENT.

Commissioner Belisle appreciated the participation of members.

Commissioner Hill thanked fellow members for their engagement and

commitment to serving the community.

Chair Barnhardt expressed appreciation for the Commission’s work,

noting the volume of material reviewed and the depth of discussion

during the meeting. He commended commissioners for their

engagement and thoughtful deliberation, emphasizing that the

Commission’s efforts reflected its commitment to serving the residents of