Pepper Pike council opens formal review of charter revisions as residents and members debate timing, outreach and mayoral powers

Pepper Pike City Council on Thursday began formal consideration of the Charter Review Commission’s recommendations and debated whether to submit the proposed charter revisions to voters in May 2025, hold a series of town-hall forums, or delay the vote until November.

The discussion, at a special council meeting called Jan. 9, centered on outreach and timing, changes to the mayor–council relationship and certain procedural provisions in the draft charter. No formal vote took place; council members directed staff and counsel to continue work and scheduled a follow-up special meeting if needed.

The matter matters to residents because the proposed changes cover governance and administrative roles that shape daily city operations and accountability, including creating a council president role, removing the mayor from the planning commission, and changing procedures for removal of the mayor and certain appointment terms.

Council members repeatedly praised the commission’s effort. Councilmember Gentile said the city and its elected officials “owe a debt of gratitude to the members of the commission” for the time they spent drafting a redline and a final report. The nine-member body met repeatedly and produced a final redline, minutes and a recommendation package that council is now reviewing.

Council discussion focused first on public engagement and timing. Several members said they want town halls and suggested a mix of sessions — daytime, evening and a Saturday — so more residents can attend. Law Director Tony Byron told the council that the commission opted to solicit written input during its deliberations and completed its full review on Dec. 19; the commission’s outreach included weekly emails and two mailed letters to all households. Some council members and residents said those steps did not result in broad public awareness.

“Why don’t you try something really novel? Why don’t you commit yourself to a one-pager where one line from pro and one line from con to let the public see that as a starting point?” resident David Jay told council during public comment, urging simpler materials to prompt engagement.

Timing for a ballot placement drew competing views. Several council members described the May 2025 primary/municipal election as feasible if the city stages outreach before early voting begins; others, including one council member and multiple residents, urged postponing the measure until November to reach higher turnout and allow more resident education. Councilmembers noted the state’s mail ballot calendar and the city’s experience that early voting can begin weeks before an election.

Residents who spoke at the meeting said they had substantive concerns about specific provisions. Susan Dap, a resident, criticized proposals that would shift some procedural power away from the mayor, saying, “I am very concerned about some of the provisions … the proposed charter would terminate the mayor’s role of presiding at council.” She also noted a provision that would permit three council members to initiate removal proceedings against the mayor; although the draft requires a higher threshold to complete removal, she said allowing initiation by three members weakens the office.

Former municipal manager and resident Bob Rice questioned the premise of major governance changes at all. “What’s broken? It ain’t broken,” Rice said, praising the mayor and city management and urging caution before overhauling longstanding procedures.

Council members also discussed specific charter provisions flagged in the commission’s report: a new council president position (the draft preserves a strong-mayor executive role, several members emphasized), removal of the mayor’s automatic membership on the planning commission, staggered terms for planning commission members, and shortened appointment terms in some offices. Jim LeMay and other council members said they see value in staggered planning commission terms to maintain continuity; others pressed for clearer examples of how a council president model works in neighboring communities.

Tony Byron flagged an implementation issue: the draft ordinance circulating with council materials sets an effective date of Jan. 1, 2026 for any adopted changes, but Byron said council also must adopt follow-up ordinances to reconcile the city code with a revised charter before changes could realistically take effect. He urged the council to consider an effective date that allows time for those implementing ordinances.

Council agreed on next steps in broad terms but did not approve a final submission to the Board of Elections. The meeting record shows that Byron has drafted an ordinance to submit the commission’s recommended charter revisions to the Board of Elections as a single issue; council scheduled at least one additional special meeting (Jan. 22) if needed and discussed holding three readings on any ordinance that would place language on the ballot. Several members proposed mailing a hard copy of the final text to every household after council acts.

No formal action or vote on the ordinance occurred at the Jan. 9 meeting. Council members and residents said they want a press of town halls and simplified materials before a final decision on ballot timing. The council’s next steps will include additional review sessions, potential ordinance drafting or amendment by counsel, and scheduling of public outreach events ahead of any vote by the electors.

Votes at a glance: none — no formal motions or votes were recorded on the charter ordinance or any charter amendments at the Jan. 9 special meeting.

(Reporting note: quotations and attributions in this article are drawn from the Jan. 9 Pepper Pike special meeting transcript and public comment; the council had not taken a formal vote on the charter recommendations as of the meeting’s close.)