Charter review commission asks council to prioritize amendments; council urges staged approach and voter education

The Stow City Charter Review Commission told Councilman Kyle Feldman on Tuesday that it has reviewed every article and section of the city charter and submitted five proposed amendments to Stow City Council for first reading. The commission's work also identified several larger items — including four‑year terms, staggered elections, law director and finance director term limits, ward adjustments and ranked‑choice voting — that commissioners said may require more public education or staged implementation.

"I like the work that you're doing," Councilman Kyle Feldman told commissioners, adding that he prefers a four‑year term and staggered elections because they reduce the frequency of campaigning. "To me, the 4 year term length is the most important one with staggered elections very close to being second."

Commission members said they had vetted language with city staff — "we talked to Mister Riley and Mister Hooton" — and recommended clean‑up language in one section (acting mayor, Section 3.06) to reduce ambiguity and the risk of conflicting legal interpretation. "We did go through every sentence in the charter," a commission member told Feldman, and the commission asked council to decide prioritization for items to appear on the ballot.

Feldman and other council members urged the commission to consider staging: put simpler, "housekeeping" fixes on the next ballot and reserve complex, high‑education items such as ranked‑choice voting for a later date or for a coordinated public‑education effort. "You never want to be on the leading edge because a lot of things could go wrong on the leading edge," one council member said when discussing innovations like ranked‑choice voting; others noted ranked‑choice voting drew the most public comment at a recent town hall (the commission counted about 15 attendees and said public comment on ranked choice was roughly 7 in favor, 4 undecided and 2 opposed at that meeting).

Commissioners said the first five proposals they sent to council had a first reading and were tabled; the commission has not yet submitted the next set and still needs to draft language for the final items. Commissioners and councilmembers discussed various options: (1) send only a small set the council is ready to advance; (2) send all items and let council prioritize; or (3) stage some items now and refer others to a follow‑up commission or dedicated study group.

Commissioners noted two items they consider potentially urgent for operational continuity: clarifying acting‑mayor succession language and modestly extending term limits for the law director and finance director (the commission proposed raising those positions' limits to three terms to aid recruitment and retention). Commissioners cited the finance director's currently published salary of about $83,000 as a recruiting constraint in the market for senior finance professionals.

Council members recommended the commission supply a written rationale for each proposed amendment and said council could order items on the ballot through the Board of Elections in the sequence it prefers. The commission agreed to prepare legislative summary memos for items already submitted and for outstanding drafts.

The commission scheduled a follow‑up meeting to finalize language and rationale. Members also discussed timing: some suggested taking advantage of a local‑only election cycle to reduce ballot fatigue; others warned that packaging too many charter changes on one ballot could reduce passage chances. No ordinance or charter amendment was adopted at the meeting; the commission's next step is to finalize draft language and send it to council for its prioritization and action.