Pepper Pike council approves Charter Review Commission recommendations for May ballot after amending effective date, appointment language and removal threshold

Pepper Pike City Council voted Wednesday to send the Charter Review Commission—s recommended revisions to the city charter to the May ballot, adopting an ordinance with three council amendments after a lengthy public and council discussion.

The council—s action follows the commission—s final report and a third reading of ordinance 2025-01. Council member Gentile moved to adopt the ordinance as presented; the council later approved amendments changing the ordinance—s effective date to Oct. 1, 2025, adding language to Article 11(a) to specify that the mayor and council will appoint the next Charter Review Commission "through an application process determined by ordinance," and raising the council vote threshold for removing the mayor from five members to six. The final roll call on the amended ordinance produced five "yes" votes and two "no" votes, and the ordinance was approved to be placed before voters in May.

Why it matters: The packet of charter changes would alter the city—s governance structure in ways council members said are intended to modernize a document written in 1966, including specifying appointment processes for boards and adding removal safeguards. Several council members pressed for additional public engagement before a vote; others argued the commission conducted robust outreach and that delaying would be disrespectful to citizens who served on the commission.

Council discussion and public concerns

Council members debated both substance and process for nearly three hours. Council member Godik (as recorded) described the commission—s work as "organized, methodical, serious, communicative and collaborative," and urged the council to place the commission—s recommendations on the May ballot. Council member Scott (recorded as Scott) and others urged that town halls be held before the council—s vote so residents could react to specific recommended provisions, not only to the concept of a charter review. Scott said: "Now that the commission has made specific recommendations and we've been talking about them... people are now more engaged because there are specific things to talk about."

Supporters of immediate ballot placement said the commission repeatedly sought public input, posted a running redline of changes, and held meetings at different times to allow participation. Council member Gentile moved to adopt the ordinance on the third reading, citing the commission—s persuasive report.

Several residents and former officials also addressed the council during public comment. Rick Taft (a former council member, as recorded) criticized some recommendations; council members replied at length to correct or contest assertions made during public comment. Resident Leskovich later told the council he believed public communications about the process were insufficient and said more clearly organized outreach would have helped.

Amendments adopted

- Effective date: Council amended the ordinance—s section 3 to set the ordinance—s effective date at Oct. 1, 2025 (the ordinance draft had earlier included Jan. 1 as a suggested date). Council members discussed intermediate alternatives such as September 1 or October 1 before settling on October 1.

- Appointment process for future Charter Review Commissions (Article 11(a)): Council inserted language mirroring processes used elsewhere in the proposed charter and the planning commission provisions so that the next commission would be appointed by the mayor and council "through an application process determined by ordinance." The stated intent was to reproduce the collaborative appointment method used to form the 2024 commission.

- Removal threshold (Article 4-8): Council amended the charter language increasing the number of council votes required to remove the mayor from five to six, a change members described as raising the bar for any future removal action.

Votes and procedure

Council debated whether town halls should precede the council vote or be scheduled afterwards as informational sessions. Several members asked the clerk and law director about deadlines and ballot logistics; the law director said ballots must be finalized well in advance (ballot printing/overseas voter deadlines discussed in the meeting as approximately 75 days before the election) and that the council retains the authority to remove the item from the ballot before that printing deadline if they choose to do so.

A motion to adopt the ordinance (as amended) passed on a roll call vote: Mister Noel voted no; Miss Dattro voted yes; Miss Waltman voted yes; Syscovic voted no; Mister LeMay voted yes; Mister Gentile voted yes; Doctor Wong voted yes. The tally recorded five votes in favor and two opposed; the ordinance will be forwarded to the board of elections for placement on the May ballot.

Next steps and town halls

Council members agreed to schedule multiple town halls (members mentioned March or April) to present the commission—s recommendations to residents and to gather feedback. Council also asked staff to place the town-hall scheduling and format on the next council agenda. The clerk reported the amended ordinance would be submitted to the board of elections by the following week.

What was not decided

Council did not adopt additional substantive changes to the commission—s report beyond the three amendments described above. Several council members said they preferred to preserve the commission—s work and use the town halls to inform voters rather than substantially rework the recommendations at the council level.

Ending

Council members expressed divergent views on whether the changes would improve government operations; some framed the package as modernization of an outdated charter and as guardrails for future governance, while others — including the mayor as recorded — said the proposed changes alter the relationship between mayor and council substantially and that voters should weigh those changes carefully at the ballot box. The council adjourned after completing the vote and directing staff to file the ordinance with the board of elections and to plan the public meetings.