6550 N. High Street.
Worthington, Ohio 43085
COMMISSION MEMBERS
Sue Cave
Chair
Mark Senff
Vice-Chair
WORTHINGTON CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
Louis J.R. Goorey Worthington Municipal Building
Monday, May 16, 2016 ~ 5:45 p.m.
This meeting of the Charter Review Commission was held on May
16, 2016, at 5:45 p.m. at the Louis J.R. Goorey Worthington
Municipal Building at 6550 N. High Street, Worthington, Ohio.
Commission members in attendance were: Michael Bates, Dr. Trent
Bowers, Sue Cave, Tom Dalcolma, Doug Foust, Bill Lhota, Becky
Princehorn, and Mark Senff.
Michael Bates
Commission Member
Members absent were: David Elder, Scott Myers, and Ken Pearlman
Dr. Trent Bowers
Commission Member
Also in attendance were: City Manager Matt Greeson, Law Director
Pam Fox, Assistant City Manager Robyn Stewart, City Council
President Bonnie Michael, City Council Member Dave Norstrom
and a resident.
Tom Dalcolma
Commission Member
David Elder
Commission Member
Doug Foust
Commission Member
Bill Lhota
Commission Member
Scott Myers
Commission Member
Ken Pearlman
Commission Member
Becky Princehorn
Commission Member
STAFF MEMBERS
Pamela Fox
Law Director
Ms. Cave asked if members all had a chance to review the minutes.
Mr. Foust commented that the minutes accurately reflect what he
said, however he would like to alter his statement if possible on page
4 about spending “25 hours each week on City matters”. He believes
it is a bit of an overstatement and “15 hours” would be more
accurate. He asked if that would be alright. Mrs. Fox suggested a
more appropriate way would be to have that noted as a correction in
this evening’s minutes. Mr. Foust agreed to the suggestion.
MOTION
Mr. Bates made a motion to approve the
minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Foust.
The motion to approve the minutes carried unanimously by a voice
vote.
Charter Discussion
Ms. Cave shared that tonight’s agenda includes several items that
members did not get a chance to discuss at the last meeting. They
include Finance, Taxation and Borrowing, Boards and Commissions,
and other items that come up from time to time. She invited staff to
comment.
Matthew Greeson
City Manager
1|Page
Mrs. Fox commented that members already voted on the changes to Section 2.17 which
deals with publication of the notice on general ordinances. Section 4.03 is publication of
the public hearing on the budget. The suggested change to Section 4.03 mirrors the change
that was approved for Section 2.17 by indicating it would be published once in a newspaper
of general circulation and on an electronic medium.
Mr. Lhota asked for clarification on the purposed change. Mrs. Fox shared that it is to
include electronic notice as a method of publication.
MOTION
Mr. Senff moved to recommend the following language in Section
4.03: “A notice of public hearing shall be published once in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Municipality and on the
electronic medium determined by Council, . . .” The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lhota.
The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
SECTION 4.10 PURCHASING. – Ms. Cave commented that the recommended change to
this section speaks more to the way the city handles purchases as there is not just one person
or one department that makes purchases for the entire city. It allows for some flexibility
in the various departments based on what is being purchased. Mrs. Fox explained that
there are a series of ordinances that address purchasing. The method in the current charter
may have been the way the city operated years ago but it is not the way it is now.
Eliminating this language allows for it to be established by ordinance.
Mr. Bates asked how the city leverages scale. Mr. Greeson replied that it depends on what
the purchase is. All purchases run through Finance Department and the City Manager’s
office for review and approval. Landscaping is consolidated across departments. Fleet
management is centralized because we have one garage. Those areas where we see
departmental expenditures of any significant size then we attempt to consolidate. There
are various business lines and some purchases are unique such as gun purchases.
When asked by Mr. Bates if state term contracts are used, Mr. Greeson replied yes.
Sometimes purchases are made by piggybacking off of other cities’ or county contracts or
consortiums or whatever to our advantage.
When asked by Mr. Lhota if trucks are purchased off of state term, Mr. Greeson replied
that typically we do unless we find it cheaper elsewhere.
MOTION
Ms. Princehorn moved to recommend the follow language in
Section 4.10, as included in the agenda materials: “The Council shall
establish by ordinance a purchasing procedure for the City
departments which may include a procedure for making emergency
purchases by certain officers and employees of the Municipality.”
The motion was seconded by Mr. Foust.
2|Page
The motion passed unanimously by a voice vote.
SECTION 4.11 COMPETITIVE BIDDING. – Ms. Cave shared that this section deals with
the purchase of supplies and the methods authorized by the state of Ohio, in addition to
what is authorized in the charter and by ordinance.
Ms. Princehorn shared that there has been a huge number of changes in this area at the state
level. It seems appropriate to allow the city to use any of the options available to cities
under state law. This area has been so fluid and the threshold for bidding keeps changing.
She thinks the city should parallel what state law provides.
Mr. Greeson commented that it really constrains the city in terms of modern construction
practices and the way those are contracted.
Mr. Foust likes the suggested language. It allows the Council to determine threshold
amounts by ordinance.
Mr. Senff wondered if the last sentence was necessary. It seems redundant and might cause
confusion. He suggests striking the sentence.
Mr. Foust asked if staff has any reservations with the suggestion.
Mr. Greeson asked the question of Mrs. Fox as to whether it allows us to require
competitive bidding for professional services. Mrs. Fox reported the sentence actually
mirrors a statutory provision that provides for the same thing. So in the absence of us
saying anything, we default to state code.
Mr. Senff suggested adding “purchase of professional services” in the first sentence with
the other items to clarify it relates to that as well.
Mr. Bates asked how this works in the proposed environment and in the current
environment. Mrs. Fox explained that in this section professional services are such things
as architectural, legal, engineering and consultant services. They are specialized services
that are difficult to competitively bid and therefore excluded from the items that need to be
competitively bid. Currently there is an administrative regulation that is used. It is based
on the type of services and the estimated cost. The process is very similar to the state
qualification based selection process. They must qualify based on capabilities. Mr.
Greeson added that we do ask for price which is a factor in determining the most effective
respondent to a proposal.
Mr. Bates asked if the proposed change will make it easier or more difficult. Mr. Greeson
replied that he was raising the question of whether it limits our ability to eliminate price as
a component of determining who is selected. He would prefer not to have that eliminated
as one factor in the process.
3|Page
Mrs. Fox doesn’t think it does that. She thinks competitively bidding really deals with the
creation of specifications and then the submission of sealed bids that obligates us to select
the lowest and best responsible bidder under our code provision. Even though we ask for
price now, it’s not price under the sealed process. If we want to clarify how we want to do
that, we just need to make sure our administrative regulations that have been approved by
Council are clear in that regard.
Mr. Greeson shared that the most important change is the ability to use things like designbuild contracting and construction manager at-risk for construction projections when it is
to our advantage. Currently we have to do design-bid-build and that has proposed some
challenges in certain instances.
Mrs. Fox believes there will be many instances where the City would still use competitive
bidding. An example is our street program where there are very standardized prices for
various things. There is no design portion necessarily included as part of that. It is just
repaving several streets within the City. The amounts received under sealed bid are fairly
standard. Computer program design and construction and energy efficiency design and
construction type projects are very difficult to achieve the desired outcomes with designbid-build. It would be to the City’s advantage to be able to use some of those other
processes.
Mr. Dalcolma shared that there are certain services, such as consulting services, that can’t
be competitively bid. Mrs. Fox includes those with professional services that we are not
required to competitively bid. There are also certain methods that we haven’t necessarily
discussed. Mr. Greeson talked about some of the shared services or piggybacking on other
contracts. Mrs. Fox stated we are able to do that, but to be able to have more of a free reign
to select that process in our code makes her breathe easier. She added that things like salt
purchases through consortium that has already bid the item allows the City to take
advantage of that process. To be able to have that type of process in our code would be
very helpful and we would achieve some savings.
Mr. Senff suggested amending the language to eliminate the last sentence add professional
services in the first sentence. He wants to make it easier and not more complex. He thinks
it makes it clearer that the City has the ability to purchase services through a Council
approved process.
Mrs. Fox said that she would be more inclined to delete the sentence entirely than to insert
the words into the first sentence. By deleting them it gives us freer reign to do it as we
want. We may not want to follow the qualified based selection process that the state
authorized. We have a process that we may want to follow for the selection.
MOTION
Mr. Senff moved to recommend the proposed drafted language on
Section 4.11 less the last sentence. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Foust.
The motion carried unanimously by a voice vote.
4|Page
SECTION 4.13 SHORT TERM BORROWING – Ms. Cave shared that this addresses a
change that was made in state statute to eliminate personal property tax and needs to be
addressed in the charter.
Mrs. Fox shared that she would defer to Becky Princehorn who suggested the changes.
Ms. Princehorn suggested adding “as permitted by law” at the beginning of (2) because the
General Assembly continually makes changes to personal property. The amendment
means that we won’t have to change the charter each time they make a change.
Ms. Princehorn also suggested a change to Section 4.14 CHARTERISTICS OF SHORT
TERM NOTES because the language is really old. We need to update the reference to the
correct law and at least be consistent with what state law provides. Hypothetically, if the
City receives a grant and wants to issue anticipative securities in advance of receiving the
grant proceeds, the current language wouldn’t allow it but the statute would. With a few
tweaks we can bring the City in line with what state law would generally permit. In
particularly the “full faith and credit” language is just wrong as it pledges the City’s inside
millage which is not what this is about.
Dr. Bowers commented that Ms. Princehorn essentially covered Section 4.14, Section 5.04
and Section 5.05. Ms. Princehorn agreed.
Mr. Lhota asked if removing the “full faith and credit language will cause an increase in
the interest rates. Ms. Princehorn replied no because the clause is actually misplaced.
Ms. Cave doesn’t believe a bond counselor served on a previous Charter Review
Commission as evidenced by the outdated language in some of these areas.
MOTION
Dr. Bowers moved to recommend the changes that were outlined in
Sections 4.13, 4.14, 5.04, and 505 by Ms. Princehorn as follows:
1) Insertion in Section 4.13, as included in the agenda materials: . .
“(2) as permitted by law”,
2) Deletion in Section 4.14: “shall be guaranteed by the full faith
and credit of the Municipality”,
3) Change in Section 5.04: from “Bond Law” to “Public Securities
Act”
4) Change in Section 5.05: from “Bond Law” to “Public Securities
Act”
Mr. Bates asked if there is any situation where the City would receive notice of a grant
award and then the funds were not provided because something changed. In replying, Ms.
Princehorn used the example of the Community Improvement Corporation (CIC). When
you are receiving money from the State Capital Bill, they want shovel ready projects.
Sometimes the City has to go under contract with someone to meet the timelines of the
grant before the funds are disbursed. The City currently has the ability to spend the money
5|Page
and then be reimbursed. That may not always be the case. She feels like this is sort of like
writing a constitution. If she were on Council and wasn’t sure that the grant was going to
come through, she would certainly not borrow the money in advance of it. But if she has
a signed capital bill by the Governor just waiting for the money to come that is a horse of
a different color.
Mr. Bates shared from readings in the newspaper, which may not be factual, but during the
first term of President Obama there was stimulus money that was supposed to be for shovel
ready projects and people started going out and doing activities with the idea that the money
was going to come through. They either didn’t meet the time commitment of the incentive
or something and the money never arrived so the supposed receiver of that money got left
holding the bag. He agrees that Worthington has a good credit rating and good cash flow
but if you were to go off on a project understanding that the money is coming and then the
money doesn’t come that isn’t good.
Mr. Norstrom commented that as a council member and also as a consultant in this business
with government regulations he has never seen a City or in his case a transit system that
would commit to a project without having the grant in place. They may not have the money
but they have the grant, which is a contract with the government to pay. If they did they
would just be irresponsible. In his experience it just doesn’t happen.
Mr. Greeson added that he has not seen that occur either although there are grants where
meeting the requirements are extremely challenging.
Ms. Princehorn feels like with a provision like this the City ought to at least have the same
flexibility as a statutory municipality. The wisdom of doing it is not something that should
be in the charter. As the charter currently reads we can only borrow against operating
revenue, which is very restrictive.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Foust.
The motion carried unanimously by a voice vote.
There being no more comments on Article IV or V, Ms. Cave suggested moving on to
Article VI, Boards and Commissions.
Mrs. Fox explained that in Worthington we issue area variances as opposed to use
variances. Variances are issued for things like setbacks, side yard requirements, building
heights, lot size, etc. Several years ago case law came out that identified the standard by
which those variances need to be decided. We now use a practical difficulty standard rather
than unreasonable hardship. The criteria to be considered are spelled out in the code. She
thinks this should be consistent with the law.
Mr. Dalcolma shared that he has an issue with striking the language because he thinks the
current language really addresses the justice aspect of not approving something as well as
in the event that somebody has an unreasonable hardship given that particular issue. He
6|Page
believes that to strike that and insert, “when it is determined that practical difficulty exists”
kind of strips out the teeth of the intent. Mr. Lhota said he tends to agree. He asked if the
courts through the cases have defined what “practical difficulty” means. Mrs. Fox replied
yes.
Mr. Lhota asked how the average citizen who is trying to do something to their home have
any idea what “practical difficulty” means. Mrs. Fox explained that the criteria that is set
out in our code establish the list of factors to be considered when the Board is making that
determination. She would argue that justice and unreasonable hardship are probably just
as difficult to know what they mean but they are just not the legal standards that the courts
have established for the Boards and Commissions to utilize.
Mr. Bates asked where the hardship factor gets addressed. Mrs. Fox replied that the
unreasonable hardship comes in where there is a use variance, which Columbus issues but
we don’t. If an owner wants to change the use of their property, they have to file for a
rezoning. The type of variance the City issues is more the physical kind of variances and
for those types of variances the practical difficulty standard comes into play.
Mr. Bates asked where the solar panels on Evening St. fit into the practical difficulty
standard. Mr. Greeson replied that it wasn’t practical difficulty but rather Architectural
Review.
Mrs. Fox explained that a use is either permitted or conditional or it is not allowed at all.
Mr. Greeson explained if someone wanted to build their housing addition closer to their lot
line than the current code presents, or build it taller than permitted, or a more recent case
is to build an accessory structure in a size that was larger than the code provided for, that
would end up before Board of Zoning Appeals. He read the factors in the code for practical
difficulty.
Mr. Lhota shared that he now likes practical difficulty since it has been defined. He asked
if the language could somehow be tied to the code and suggested, “Practical difficulty as
defined by ordinance”.
Mrs. Fox believes the next sentence gets us there. Mr. Lhota replied that it isn’t quite as
clear as he would like to see it.
After several attempts to adjust the last sentence of Section 6.05, Mrs. Fox suggested: “The
practical difficulty standards applied in such cases shall be established by ordinance.”
Members agreed to the change.
MOTION
Mr. Lhota moved to recommend the following language in Section
6.05 as presented in the agenda materials and as discussed:
1) Strike “as may be required to afford justice and avoid
unreasonable hardship to property owners” in the first sentence
7|Page
and insert: “when it is determined that practical difficulty
exists.”
2) Amend the last sentence to read: “The practical difficulty
standards applied in such cases shall be established by
ordinance.”
The motion was seconded by Ms. Princehorn.
The motion carried unanimously by a voice vote.
Ms. Cave commented that they will move onto Article I for which they have no written
materials. Section 1.04 Referendum and Effective Date on Zoning Ordinances or Other
Zoning Measures seems to be an ongoing issue and topic of discussion. This would be an
opportunity to discuss it again without having anything in front of members that have been
proposed by anybody to be recommended for change. We thought we would have time at
tonight’s meeting to discuss something that might generate a little more discussion.
Ms. Princehorn asked that someone refresh her memory. In the first round of amendments
they made sure they had the cross references done. Mrs. Fox agreed. She added that Article
I was actually on Mr. Myers list of items to discuss and he isn’t here this evening.
Ms. Cave thinks it might be in everybody’s best interest to have him present to discuss
those things that he might want to discuss. It would give everyone a better idea of what it
is specifically that he wants to address and then we can plan another meeting to discuss
that particular section when more of the interested parties are available. She asked if that
was agreeable.
Mr. Lhota asked where members can find the current language. Ms. Cave replied that it is
in the charter. Mrs. Fox added that it is included in members’ notebooks.
Mr. Lhota and Mr. Norstrom commented that the website hasn’t been updated.
Mrs. Thress replied that it should have been updated with the online updates. Mr. Greeson
shared that the Walter Drane website is current. Staff will look into the issue.
Ms. Cave asked if there were any other items to discuss. She asked if members wanted to
schedule any additional meetings.
Mrs. Fox shared that the remaining topics that were on the staff section to be discussed are
in Article III, CITY MANAGER. Staff suggested changes that included clarification
regarding appointment of personnel. The remaining articles that staff had is VII, which is
a question on why there is a limit on the upper limit on petitions and the general provisions
for administering oaths of office, timing of charter changes taking effect, and Article XI,
which in great detail itemizes all the positions in the exempt status. She suggested handling
those via ordinance rather than the charter because as the organizational chart changes and
8|Page
positions and names change we would have to continually change the charter. Those are
pretty much the remaining items from the staff’s stand point.
Mr. Bates asked if there are other items that Commission members would like to discuss,
who should they send them to? Mrs. Fox encouraged members to send those items to her
and Ms. Cave.
Ms. Cave added that some of the remaining staff suggestions don’t appear to be particularly
controversial, at least on the surface. They appear to be helpful to the staff in doing their
jobs. If any of the Commission members have any changes to the charter that they would
like to discuss, please forward them to Ms. Fox and herself. They will coordinate their
efforts to make sure everybody receives them.
Ms. Cave asked if members would be open to scheduling a couple of extra meetings in
order to get this done so we can have this ready for this year’s ballot.
There were no objections, members talked and settled on Monday, June 6th.
Ms. Cave confirmed that on June 6th members will try to deal with issues that Commission
members wish to discuss. Hopefully they will also have time to deal with the remaining
staff recommendations. We will use the June 20th for the wrap up.
Mr. Greeson suggested setting a deadline for the submission of items members wish to
discuss so that staff will have time to do any research that may be necessary.
After some discussion, May 25th was selected as the deadline to e-mail items for discussion
to Ms. Cave and Mrs. Fox.
Adjournment
Ms. Cave declared the meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
____________________________________
D. Kay Thress, Clerk
Approved:
_____________________________
Sue Cave, Chair
9|Page