DRAFT
MINUTES OF MEETING
2008 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
APRIL 3, 2008
***********************************************************************
Members Present: Bartolozzi, Thompson, Lazzaro, McGovern, O’Donnell, Rodgers, Snyder, Urban,
Presence Noted: Andrew Bemer, Law Director
Kory Koran, Economic Development Director
Kevin Beirne, Building Commissioner
Councilmembers Present: Council President, Jim Moran
Boards and Commissions Members: Craig Wright and Richard Christ, Board of Zoning and Building Appeals, John Milloy and John Selby Design and Construction Board of Review, Paul Gallagher, Planning Commission, Mike Patterson, Director of Recreation ************************************************************************
Mrs. Bartolozzi opened the April 3, 2008 meeting of the 2008 Charter Review Commission at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall.
Mrs. Bartolozzi asked if anyone has any additions, corrections, or comments on the Minutes of the March 20, 2008 Charter Review Commission meeting.
MOTION: Moved by Urban, seconded by Mrs. McGovern and Mr. Snyder, to approve the Minutes of the March 20, 2008 Charter Review Commission meeting.
7 Ayes – 0 Nays – 1 Abstain (Thompson) PASSED
Mrs. Bartolozzi asked if anyone has any additions, corrections, or comments on the Minutes of the March 27, 2008 Charter Review Commission meeting. Mr. O’Donnell said on Page 1, Article IV, Section 1, the sentence ending in “…another provision in Section 2…” should be amended to read “…another provision in Article II…”
MOTION: Moved by Mrs. McGovern, seconded Mr. Urban, to approve the Minutes of the March 27, 2008 Charter Review Commission meeting, as amended.
4 Ayes – 0 Nays – 4 Abstain (Thompson, Lazzaro, Rodgers, Snyder) PASSED
Old Business.
Mr. Bemer said he would like to follow-up regarding Mr. Rodger’s question about the final sentence in Article III, Section 1 and the fact that it implies those obligations or powers allowed or imposed by the Charter shall prevail. Home rule authority allows a municipality to exercise all powers of local self government to adopt and enact local regulations that are not in conflict with the general laws, also known as the Ohio Revised Code. General law will always prevail over a municipal charter regulation Ordinance that is on the same subject. He discussed a matter that is in the Court of Appeals of the State of Ohio that he said is an example of a direct challenge to home rule authority and will eventually be decided by the Ohio Supreme Court. He said this particular provision of our Charter is poorly written but he understands the intent is to acknowledge general laws in the Constitution and if there is an Ordinance passed that is in conflict with a general law, it will be ineffective.
Mr. Rodgers confirmed with Mr. Bemer that he thinks the way this Section is written, is fine. Mr. Bemer said what they are attempting to say is that the Charter provision will prevail, as long as it is not in conflict with the general laws. Mr. Rodgers said he believes that this Section reads just the opposite and it is his opinion that the average citizen would read it that way also. He said if the second half of that statement, after the semi-colon, is omitted, it would fully clarify what the intent is. Mr. Bemer said he agrees with Mr. Rodgers and thinks if a general law Ordinance was passed covering a comprehensive scheme that applies uniformly across the state and we pass a municipal ordinance that is in conflict with it, either by permitting something that is prohibited or prohibiting something that is permitted, it would be thrown out as being unconstitutional, notwithstanding this provision.
On the topic of old business, Mrs. Bartolozzi said City Council did not meet this week so there is still no decision about a replacement for Christopher Smith, who was unable to continue his service on this Commission. Mr. Bemer said he expects that a determination will be made at the meeting next Monday evening.
There being no new business, Mrs. Bartolozzi said that Greg Thompson will lead tonight’s review of Article VI – Boards and Commissions.
ARTICLE VI – BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Mr. Thompson said this section covers Boards and Commissions that can be created by City Council. It also sets some guidelines for specific Boards and Commissions provided for in the Charter. He provided a summary of Section 1 and asked if anyone had any questions or topics they would like to suggest be added to the Master List. Mr. Rodgers said that he noticed that the Section relating to the Design and Construction Board of Review provides for 2 alternates, and he wondered if that is the only Board that has alternates. He said it is odd because the Charter seems to allow for alternates on all Boards, but that there is only 1 Board that actually has alternates. It was clarified that all of the Boards have alternates but alternates on the Design Board happen to be clearly laid out. Mrs. Bartolozzi said that Section 1, General Provisions, discusses alternates. It could be an oversight in the way it was written and perhaps they failed to recognize the inconsistency. Mr. Thompson said he thinks that because that Board is so small, with 3 regular members and 2 alternates, there is a greater potential for conflict. All members are required to be architects, and it is quite possible a member may have worked on a specific project that is then before the Design Board for review. In that case, the Board member would have to recuse himself. That could be why the requirement for 2 alternates is specifically spelled out in this Section. Mr. Lazzaro pointed out that the other Boards can have up to 2 alternates, but the Design and Construction Board of review must have 2 alternates.
Mr. Thompson continued by summarizing Section 2, Board of Zoning and Building Appeals. Mr. Snyder said that a provision states that a request must be heard by Council within 30 days after the date of the decision by the BZA. He asked what would happen if in August, when there is no City Council meeting, someone requested City Council to review a decision of the BZA. Mrs. Bartolozzi said that they would most likely call a special meeting of Council. Mr. Snyder asked what was amended in this section as a result of the last Charter Review. Mrs. McGovern said that the amendment was to decrease the time period that any decision of the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals becomes final from 30 days to 7 days after the date of the Board’s decision. Mr. Bemer said such review is a discretionary review by City Council if 5 members say they want to review it. However, if an applicant chooses, he can go directly to the Court of Common Pleas to challenge a decision of the BZA.
Mr. Thompson invited Building Commissioner, Beirne to express any suggestions or changes regarding this Section. Mr. Beirne said that the 7 day wait has helped the residents to complete their projects sooner. He wonders, however, when the BZA actually makes their decision. He asked if it is when they sign the minutes, or is it at the meeting? He said there has only been one City Council review which was in 2002 when it became an option. City Council decided not to overrule BZA.
Mrs. McGovern asked Mr. Beirne if there are any problem areas related to the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals. Mr. Beirne said he feels the requirement for Architects and Engineers on BZA is more important for the Planning Commission, but Planning Commission does not have that requirement. He feels it is more important to have the professionals on the Planning Commission and have attorneys and those trained in arbitration on the BZA. He feels a landscape architect, an engineer and/or a planner should sit on the Planning Commission to give them some additional expertise. However, Mr. Beirne said the problem is in getting people to fill the positions on the Boards because it is so time consuming. He said many times the Planning Commission will table an item before them and defer to the architects on the Design Board for their input on something. Mr. Urban asked Mr. Beirne how the requirement for 3 members being architects or engineers compares to other City and asked if just 1 member with that qualification would be enough. Mr. Beirne said he feels they would need at least 2 opinions of professionals instead of just 1. Mr. Rodgers asked Mr. Beirne if he feels the requirement that an attorney be on the BZA is necessary. Mr. Beirne said it makes sense to him because arbitration is involved. However, he said there are attorneys on their now even though it is not required and that the Law Director also provides guidance to the BZA. Mrs. Bartolozzi asked if it is wise to have that particular requirement serve as a guideline for the Mayor in her search for good people, rather than making it an absolute provision in the Charter. Mr. Beirne said it would not be necessary to change the Charter and if the Administration knows they need someone on the Board who is experienced in arbitration. Mr. Bemer said he feels the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals works well and there is a lot of integrity to their process. Mr. Thompson asked Mr. Beirne if the BZA refers some of the cases to the Design and Construction Board of Review for their input. Mr. Beirne said that the purpose of the Design Board is to be consultants to the other Boards and Commissions and they have been asked to do that a number of times.
Mr. Thompson asked any members of the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals if they would like to provide input with regard to what the Charter provides for the Board. Mr. Craig Wright came forward and said he echoes Mr. Beirne’s comments in terms of how the Zoning Board works with the Design Board. He thinks the way it is set up is fine. Mr. Rodgers asked Mr. Wright about the requirement to be licensed or registered by any state in the United States and whether he has concern with it not being specific to the state of Ohio. Mr. Wright said he thinks the requirements are pretty consistent across the state. He said the only problems you might see are in places where seismic issues come into play, but we really don’t have that issue here in Ohio. He thinks it is good that at least 3 of the 5 members should have architectural or engineering credentials.
Mr. Richard Christ, member of the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals, came forward and said that seismic issues have come into play in Ohio depending on site soil conditions, and there could be a design that is just as critical in Ohio as in California. Mr. Rodgers asked if it would be a problem to have a member of BZA who is licensed in a state where seismic is not an issue looking at something here in Ohio, where it is an issue. Mr. Christ said he does not think that seismic comes into play with what they do on BZA and just being a registered architect or engineer with knowledge of building and construction is primary. It was determined that no changes needs to be made to this Section.
Section 3, Planning Commission was summarized next by Mr. Thompson. Mr. Lazarro asked about the provision of silent approval. If the Planning Commission fails to do anything within 30 days, then it will be approved. He asked if that is common throughout. Mr. Bemer said that the 30 day review limit is common, just as if there were no action by a Mayor, it would become approved after 30 days.
Economic Development Director, Kory Koran was invited to provide his input regarding Section 3, the Planning Commission. Mr. Koran said he does not recommend any changes to this Section and the Planning Commission is working well. He said the City prepared a Master Plan update about 4 or 5 years ago and since it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to update it every 5 years, it will be updated again soon.
Mrs. Bartolozzi asked about the review that is going on now and said it is her understanding that a lot of the zoning Ordinances need to be updated. Mr. Koran said that the Codified Ordinances contain a series of chapters that are referred to as the Development Code, which are separate from the Charter. The City has hired a consultant, D.B. Hartt, and the review process starts next week. They will conduct interviews of all the members of the Boards and Commissions and City Council. The process of updating the Development Code will take about 14 months. He said that over the years, City Council has passed various pieces of legislation which periodically need to be reviewed for consistency. That review has nothing to do with the City Charter and he does not think they will be recommending any changes to it. He said that when they get to the review of the Design and Construction Board of Review, there may actually be a Section that will be written and approved by City Council that will contain design and review guidelines to assist the Board as they review site plans, building elevations, etc. Mrs. Bartolozzi asked if the reviews have consistently been done every 5 years. Mr. Koran said that the Master Plan took 1 or 2 years to be prepared and eventually approved and Planning Commission may have missed a year or two. However, sometime in the next year it will be up to the Planning Commission to review and update the Master Plan, as per the Charter.
Mr. Lazzaro asked Mr. Koran about the discussion earlier pertaining
to whether architects or engineer professionals should be on the Planning
Commission. Mr. Koran said they
absolutely should be on the Board. The
language in our Charter is very similar to that of other cities he has worked
with. There should always be at least a
majority of certified architects and/or engineers on the Boards. He agrees with how it is written, and said
that they occasionally have minor problems trying to fill the vacancies, but it
is something he feels we must adhere to.
Mrs. Bartolozzi said that the Planning Commission does not have any
specific qualifications like the BZA does for members who are either architects
or engineers. Mr. Koran said that some
communities have a combined Planning and Zoning Commission but
Mr. Thompson asked if there are any members of the Planning Commission in attendance who would like to make any comments or suggestions regarding the Charter. Planning Commission member, Paul Gallagher, came forward and said that he has been a member for just over 1 year. He said that the requirement for an architect or engineer on the Planning Commission would certainly enhance the Commission, but at the same time he feels they look at plans from the view of a citizens group. It is a requirement that they understand the Codes that go along with each project and he feels they look at it from that standpoint.
Mr. Thompson summarized Section 5, Design and Construction Board of Review next. The Commission had no questions or comments, so he asked if there is anyone in attendance from the Design and Construction Board of Review who would like to comment on this Section. Mr. John Milloy, Chairman of the Design and Construction Board of Review came forward and said that he thinks the name of their Board should be changed to the Architectural Review Board. He does not think that the Architectural Review Board should be responsible for reviewing actual construction documents. He said that if the Board ever interprets something wrong in their review of construction documents there could be a legal issue. They should only be limited to reviewing the design from an architectural standpoint. He would like to see the word “Construction” dropped from the Board’s name to specify that they are strictly an Architectural Review Board. He said most of the cities he works do not use any word remotely close to the words Design or Construction Board of Review.
Additionally, Mr. Milloy said he would like to have a Landscape Architect on the Board to help review commercial projects. He said commercial projects take a lot of time to review and often times landscaping and signage are large elements in those projects. Because landscaping is such a big part of Design, a landscape architect would be of great service on the Board. He used the example of the large retaining wall at Lowe’s, saying landscaping was a huge element in that design and a landscape architect on the Board would have helped a great deal.
Mr. Milloy said that the Design Board works very closely with the Board of Zoning Appeals and he believes their very good relationship helps when reviewing difficult projects. He said he finds a large disconnect between the Design Board and the Planning Commission. He said he believes the Planning Commission should have a registered architect on their Board to help steer them when comments come up from people that are architectural in nature. He said they often have an applicant before the Design Board who says that Planning Commission said they want certain elements that are strictly architectural in nature. He said he thinks the Design Board should be the Board to make those determinations, so there is sort of a disconnect in communication with Planning Commission. He also said he thinks a certified planner would be helpful on the Planning Commission.
Mr. Milloy also said he would also like to see the requirement for an architect’s stamp on drawings for all residential projects in the City, like it is for commercial projects. He said that many cities, particularly east side cities, require that even the residential projects have an architect’s stamp. He said that way, they would get better sets of drawings, and the integrity of the architecture in the City would be elevated. Mr. Urban asked if he means that even little projects should be required to have an architect’s stamp. Mr. Milloy said that even sunrooms and additions should be required to submit stamped plans, as well as whole house plans and that the best projects he has seen in Rocky River are the ones where architects prepared the drawings. He believes they are the most conscientiously done. Mr. Urban said that for small projects, there are some very good builders who can provide excellent drawings. To require them to be architect’s drawings would add a minimum charge of $1,500 to the resident. Requiring an architect on every job could be expensive for the residents. Mr. Milloy said that is why the stamp has not been required, but he feels from a liability standpoint for the City, it is better to have an architect assume liability. He said it goes back to his point about removing the word “Construction” from the Board’s name. If they approve a set of drawings that does not have an architect’s stamp, then he believes the City is taking the legal responsibility if something goes wrong with the project. He said that in his experience, when the plans are prepared by an architect, it is a much better project. However, he suggested that perhaps there could be a monetary scope attached to the requirement and if someone is doing a project of a certain magnitude, they are required to use an architect.
Mr. Urban asked Mr. Milloy if better enforcement through the
Building Department would help. He said
the City of
Mr. Bemer said that a lot of these issues will be addressed with the Development Code Review because it will provide greater specificity in the Ordinances about what the different Boards and Commissions are charged to do under their duties. He said he is not sure if changing the name of this particular Board is necessary but he respects Mr. Milloy’s judgment in saying it is a misnomer. It can, however, be corrected by Ordinance to be sure that the specific duties and responsibilities and scope of review are clearly defined. Mr. Urban suggested it say in the minutes that they are approving the design. Mr. Bemer said he agrees that there should be some greater specificity here.
Mr. Thompson said that, as far as requiring the architect’s stamp in the Charter, it will be handled by Council because the powers and duties of the Board are deferred to Council. He said he does not think that the Charter Review Commission wants to overstep their bounds by putting a requirement like that into the Charter. Mrs. McGovern said she thinks that to go to the people to change the name of the Design and Construction Board of Review might look to them like the Board is trying to get out of some work. Mr. Snyder asked Mr. Bemer if changing the name would impact all of the Ordinances which are somehow connected with this name. Mr. Bemer said it would, and the plan is to provide greater specificity and definition to powers and duties standards for all 3 land use commissions in the Development Code.
Mr. Rodgers said that since changing the name of the Design and Construction Board of Review might be confusing for voters, he asked Mr. Milloy if he would be in favor of increasing the size of the Board and making a requirement of one of its members to be a landscape architect. Mr. Milloy said that he thinks it would be a good idea to eliminate the alternates, increase the size of the Board to 5 members, and include a landscape architect. Mrs. Bartolozzi said she wonders if we have enough architects and landscape architects available in our small community to fill the needs of the Board. Mr. Milloy said that even a landscaper of good reputation would help the Board. Mr. Thompson said that since Board members are appointed, they are subject to a certain level of review by the Mayor, so he assumes there is some sort of consultation with the Board to find out what type of qualifications would be helpful to them. Mr. Snyder said that except for Parks and Recreation, it does not say in the Charter that a Board member has to be an electorate. Mr. Bemer said that by Charter, the Mayor can be a member of Planning Commission or the Mayor can appoint Mr. Koran to be a member, so there are options. It was decided by the Commission that the topic of increasing the size of the Design and Construction Board of Review to 5 members should be should be added to the Master List for further discussion.
Mr. Christ said he would like to add something else before the topic of Boards and Commissions is concluded. He said that when a variance comes to the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals from a project that Planning Commission has reviewed, since there is not a planner on that Commission, the applicant sometimes presents a lot of data to BZA in support of why they should grant their variance. In that case, it is difficult for the BZA to make a decision about what is before them because they have not received any input from Planning Commission about the technical issues. He said he is not sure whether a Planner would have to actually be on the Board or if one could just be available to Planning Commission as a resource, but he thinks that would be helpful. He used the example of the parking at the new Lowe’s at Westgate. He said that parking was skewed because of the way the property is broken up. It was difficult for BZA to make a determination because they did not have an analysis of the proper number of cars or a suggestion from Planning Commission on how they should look at it. Mr. Christ said that the background and training of a professional planner on Planning Commission would also be valuable to the BZA as they consider variances.
Mr. Bemer reminded the Board that they had planned to consult with Mr. Beirne regarding Article III, Section 14 – Action on Mapped Streets. Mr. Beirne said that any subdivision must be approved by Planning Commission and City Council before it can be added to the Street Map. If the City wants to vacate or acquire any right-of-way it also has to be approved by Planning Commission and City Council before the change can be incorporated into the Street Map. Mr. Beirne said he does not see a need to make any changes to Section 14 of Article III.
Mr. Thompson summarized Section 4, Parks and Recreation
Commission next. Mr. Snyder asked if it is necessary for them to change
anything in Section 4(c)(3) to add the new
Mr. O’Donnell said that it has come up during this Charter Review that the Recreation Department is not quite a Charter department. He asked Mr. Patterson if he feels the Recreation Department should be a Charter department. Mr. Patterson said he is not sure what the advantages or disadvantages of that would be. He said there is Charter millage dedicated to Parks and Recreation and it is difficult for him to foresee not having a recreation program because of the facilities and programs that are in place. Mr. O’Donnell asked him if he feels it essentially operates as a Charter Department right now. Mr. Patterson said that without knowing what the advantages or disadvantages are, he cannot answer that question. However, he said the Director’s position is already in the Charter. He said that it has been a department for over 30 years and has continued to grow in that time.
Mrs. Bartolozzi said she received a message from the Mayor this afternoon regarding her thoughts on Section III, Duties and Powers. She said she has a comment about the provision that says the Parks and Recreation Commission is to review and recommend to the Mayor on or before the first day of June of each year, a proposed line item budget together with the projected recreation program for the ensuing fiscal year. The Mayor indicated that in reality, it does not happen that way. The language in there identifying the deadline as the first of June has been changed over the years. She feels it would be much better for it to say that the Parks and Recreation Committee is to review and recommend according to the Budget process, or wording along those lines. Mr. Patterson said they talked briefly about it today and if they had to settle on a date, it should probably say on the first day of December. He said the budget process is not something that the Parks and Recreation Commission has actively participated in. They typically look at individual programs, make sure they will be self-supporting, and do it on an individual program basis. He said to look at it as an entire line item budget is something they have not done.
Mr. O’Donnell asked Mr. Patterson, if they take the Recreation Department’s budget and remove the three biggest items, the civic center, pool and the ice rink, then how big the budget would be. Mr. Patterson said that the recreation program budget is about $450,000 out of $3.7 or $3.8 million this year, so it is just a small part of it. Mrs. Bartolozzi suggested that the discussion to change the language regarding the budget timeline should be added to the Master List for further discussion and the Commission agreed by an affirmative vote of more than 3 members.
It was determined that the topics to be added to the Master List for further discussion are as follows:
1. To discuss adding the Civic Center to the list of items that are excluded from the Parks and Recreation Commission and include it under the duties of City Council in Article VI, Section 4(c)(3)
2. To discuss the budget timeline in Article VI, Section 4(c)(3) for Parks and Recreation Committee
3. Discussion of changing the name of the Design and Construction Board of Review to the Architectural Review Board.
4. Discussion regarding increasing the size of the Design and Construction Board of Review to five regular members in Article VI, Section 5.
5. Discussion of Article VI, Section 5(b) to strike the word “construction” from that paragraph.
Mr. Thompson opened the floor up for public comment. Former Mayor William Knoble, 18989 Schlather Lane, came forward to address the Commission. He expressed his appreciation to the Commission for their public service. He said he served on the 1972 Charter Review Commission. He has attended 6 of the Charter Review Commissions as much as possible and said he is happy to make himself available for discussion. Mayor Knoble said he has a long history of public service in the City and is still involved in many city organizations.
Mayor Knoble said that although they have already been approved, he has two issues regarding the minutes from the meeting of March 27th. Under Section 7, Board of Control, he pointed out that, although the Mayor may have said she reviews pages and pages of expenditures that are under $500.00, he is sure she meant to say she reviews pages and pages that are over $500.00 because that is what the Board of Control does. They review things over $500.00. Mr. Urban said that they asked Mayor Bobst about the expenditures under $500.00 and that is when she made that comment. She said she reviewed all of the expenditures no matter how small they were. Mr. Knoble clarified that she must have meant to say both over and under $500.00. Mr. Urban said that her statement was specifically about expenditures under $500.00.
Mayor Knoble said he is also concerned with a comment Mr. Urban made in the Section on General Provisions of Article IV - Administrative Departments. Mr. Urban is quoted in that section as saying “…a Board is an appointment subject to Council’s approval.” Mayor Knoble said he is not sure if Mr. Urban said it or not, but that is not correct. Council does not approve any appointments to any Boards or Commissions. Mr. Urban said there may be a word missing in the minutes.
Mayor Knoble said he spoke with Mr. O’Donnell before last week’s Charter Review Commission meeting because he knew he was presenting and also because he is one of his neighbors. He sent Mr. O’Donnell a list of 3 things that he had concerns about. The first one, which was discussed at great length last week, was the addition of the two Departments to the Charter. Mayor Knoble said that when they get to that point in their further discussion, he would like to discuss why he thinks they should be added to the Charter.
Mayor Knoble said that the other two issues are of equal importance to him, but they did not really get discussed. The first was the conflict between the general provisions of the Administrative Departments and the Mayor’s Duties and the second was revisions on the Civil Service Commission regulations relative to the appointment of the Chiefs. He said he is wondering why they were not discussed. Mrs. McGovern said that Civil Service will be discussed on April 17th. Regarding the conflict mentioned above, Mayor Knoble said it is a clear conflict. The general provisions call for the Department Heads to appoint and supervise their own people and the Charter clearly, on the other hand, gives those provisions to the Mayor. Mr. Urban said they did discuss it last week and it was put off until the Civil Service issues.
Mayor Knoble said he does not see any of the Commission members here tonight with a copy of the Codified Ordinances. He said that a lot of the issues that are being discussed tie in to the Codified Ordinances and he recommended the Commission have their own review of them. He said he is almost sure that the residency requirement of the Boards and Commission members is in the Codified Ordinances. He said there were other issues brought up that would clearly define the differences between the general structure of the Charter and the specific Ordinances that spell out things more clearly. Mayor Knoble recommended that they invite, in addition to himself and the current Mayor, 3 other people in the City who have extensively worked with the Charter. The first is former Mayor Martin, who, unfortunately, has been quite ill lately and may not be available. However, former Mayor Knoble suggested that when he is available 1 or 2 of the Commission members should drop in and talk to him. Next, he recommended David Cook, who he said was a Councilman for over 24 years and an attorney. He added that Mr. Cook probably knows more about the Charter and how it works than most people. He also recommended they invite Dave Matty, the former Law Director of Rocky River.
Mr. Knoble said he would like to make himself available by phone or e-mail to any of the Commission members if they would like to know the experiences he has had over the years. He said he will try to attend as many of these Charter Review Commission meetings as he can.
The next meeting of the Charter Review Commission will be held on Thursday, April 10, 2008. They will be discussing Article VIII – Initiative, Referendum and Recall. The discussion leader for that Article will be Mr. Lazzaro. They will also discuss Article IX – Nominations and Elections. That discussion will be lead by Mr. Snyder and Mr. Rodgers. It was decided that the Mayor would be invited to attend the next meeting along with anyone else she would suggest that would be of assistance to the Commission.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Date Linda Bartolozzi, Co-Chairperson
Greg Thompson, Co-Chairperson
Kate Straub, Secretary