Sandusky commission hears presentation on mayor–council vs. city manager; committee tables deeper vote

The Sandusky Charter Review Commission on Tuesday received a staff presentation weighing mayor–council and council–manager forms of municipal government, heard public calls for ward-based representation and an elected mayor, and moved to delay substantive votes on two complex items until members have more time to review materials.

The presentation, delivered as part of the commission's review of the city charter, summarized findings from prior local studies and national surveys about governance form, ward versus at-large elections and election timing. Peter Hastings, the city's law director, walked members through typical trade-offs between a strong elected mayor and a professionally appointed city manager and cited published survey figures showing about 38% of municipalities using mayor–council structures and about 48% using council–manager structures in the samples referenced.

The presentation noted that larger cities are more likely to elect a mayor with expanded executive authority; it also highlighted that on‑cycle elections (held with higher-profile contests such as presidential elections) produce substantially higher turnout than off‑cycle local elections — a figure cited in the presentation as roughly a 36 percentage‑point increase in turnout for on‑cycle contests. Hastings said the comparison material included work by Lawrence Keller and materials used by prior Sandusky charter commissions in 2010 and 2020.

Public comment at the start of the meeting focused on ward representation. Brian Notestein, a Sandusky resident, said he attended "mostly for item 2, the possibility of you guys looking at wards in the city again." Derrick Garrett, another resident, argued a ward system would broaden geographic representation. Chris Wheedle urged the commission to mimic the geographic representation used at state and federal levels, saying, "This basically is the American way."

Commission members asked for local comparables, noting Sandusky's unique fiscal profile because of tourism and Cedar Point. The presenter and several commissioners emphasized that national data provide trade‑offs but that local context should drive any recommendation: one panel slide in the presentation showed that as cities grow larger the balance between mayor–council and council–manager shifts, and that many jurisdictions that change form have moved toward council–manager governance.

On actions, the commission voted to table two items (identified as sections 2 and 3 in the packet, covering the broader form‑of‑government review and related materials) so members could digest the materials and receive additional staff recommendations. The motion to table passed on a roll call vote with a majority recorded as "yes." The panel also directed staff to draft proposed neutral gender language for the charter (a motion asking staff to propose specific wording that would avoid gendered references); that motion passed on a voice vote.

A separate proposed housekeeping motion to ask the law department to draft ballot language updating a now‑invalid reference to "sinking fund trustees" was moved earlier in the meeting but did not carry. During discussion staff explained the sentence referencing sinking fund trustees dates to a repeal in 1977 and the charter itself cannot be changed without submitting language to voters; commissioners expressed differing views about whether to prepare ballot language or to handle the matter as a non‑ballot parenthetical note in the published charter text. The motion to prepare ballot language drew recorded "nay" votes from multiple members and failed.

Commissioners also debated procedural items connected to vacancies and charter language about how to fill a vacated seat. Members said the existing vacancy language would have to be rephrased if the commission adopts ward elections, because the current rule names the next-highest vote getter but does not specify whether that next-highest is measured citywide or within a ward. The commission did not adopt a replacement rule at Tuesday's meeting and tabled that discussion pending a decision on wards.

The meeting pacing included repeated requests that staff provide draft language for future votes rather than asking commissioners to draft final wording in‑meeting. Hastings and other staff agreed to circulate the presentation materials and to provide suggested charter text where the commission asked for it.

The commission scheduled follow-up work and indicated it expects additional staff memos, ordinance examples and comparative data for municipalities with populations similar to Sandusky so members can evaluate local fiscal and governance trade‑offs before making any charter amendment recommendations.

Looking ahead, the commission left the substantive choice of mayor–council versus council–manager and the question of ward boundaries open for further study; no change to the charter on those points was adopted at the meeting.