The Hudson 2025 Charter Review Commission delivered to City Council on July 15 a 27‑page ordinance that bundles eight proposed charter amendments for the November ballot. Rob Kegler, chairman of the Charter Review Commission, told the council the commission’s work reflects seven months of meetings and public input.

Kegler said the commission grouped its work “so the most micro is the 27 page ordinance. This is a 20 slide PowerPoint presentation” and that the package includes separate fact sheets for each ballot issue. The commission approved seven of the eight ballot issues unanimously and approved the eighth with one dissent, he said.

Why it matters: the charter functions as Hudson’s local constitution. Any changes the commission forwards must be submitted to the electorate; council will hold three readings of the ordinance before placing the measures with the Board of Elections. That timetable includes an administrative deadline; the city’s solicitor advised council the commission had to file final recommendations at least 120 days before the election and that the city must submit charter changes to the Board of Elections by early August to meet the election calendar.

Most important facts: the ordinance compiles eight separate ballot issues. The commission said the package includes a broad “general administrative” clean‑up item plus seven specific questions that would be voted on individually. Key topics covered by the ballot issues include establishing term limits for mayor and council, tightening term‑limit rules for boards and commissions, creation of a Park and Natural Resource Board by consolidating existing boards and commissions, adding the Military and Veterans Commission to the charter, changing the recall‑petition denominator, altering council compensation language, and creating new rules to require accountability measures for entities that receive voter‑approved tax levies.

The commission documented its process: it met 11 times between January and June, totaling 21 hours and 42 minutes, offered public comment at the start and end of each meeting, and tracked 71 submitted suggestions on a spreadsheet that shows the commission’s disposition of each item, Kegler said. The commission also considered but did not include proposals such as ranked‑choice voting and making the city solicitor an elected office.

Legal and procedural notes: city solicitor Marshall Pitchford told council the charter’s language requires the council to forward the commission’s proposals to the electorate and that council does not have unilateral authority to change what the commission submitted. He also said county and state filing deadlines mean council must act quickly if it wishes to add competing ballot language; the solicitor gave an August 6 4 p.m. deadline for submitting charter changes to the Board of Elections.

What happens next: the ordinance was introduced at the July 15 meeting and will proceed through three readings, with public comment and the opportunity for council to place additional, competing questions on the ballot if five councilmembers agree to do so. Kegler and council members indicated staff will prepare voter‑facing explanatory materials required under Ohio law.

The commission recommended the changes to appear under a single ordinance that will be presented to voters in November; each of the eight items would be voted on separately if council follows the commission’s structure.