Sunbury charter review panel votes to remove “village” language as members debate council–manager option

Sunbury Charter Review Commission members on Jan. 28 voted to strike transitional "village" language from the city charter and spent the bulk of the meeting debating whether to move toward a council–manager form of government.

The commission unanimously approved minutes from its first meeting and then approved a motion to remove references to the "village" in the charter name, a change proponents said would avoid confusion now that Sunbury has city status. Both motions passed 7–0.

The meeting’s central discussion focused on the form of municipal government that should guide the charter amendments. Commissioners, the mayor and staff discussed three broad models—strong mayor, council–manager and the hybrid form Sunbury currently uses—and weighed which would best serve a city that has grown rapidly in recent years.

"It is extremely challenging, to be full time employed, which the charter permits, and, also be the head of council and the head of the planning and zoning commission and leading the police department in the fastest growing city in Central Ohio," Mayor Joe St. John said, urging the commission to consider how the mayoral role might evolve. He recommended considering a structure that would lessen the personal burdens on a single elected official as the city grows.

Speakers identified several reasons to consider the council–manager model. Proponents said a manager who reports to council can centralize administration—budgeting, personnel and operations—reducing the risk that an elected mayor with broad executive control would concentrate power over critical departments such as police. Members also noted that a manager can be removed by council vote, which some described as an easier corrective mechanism than removing an elected mayor.

Opponents and other commissioners cautioned that the label of a government type is less important than the specific allocation of powers, terms and reporting relationships that will be written into the charter. Several participants urged the commission to focus on the substantive powers (who hires and fires department heads, budget authority, oversight of police and public-safety functions) rather than only the package label.

Commission staff said the group will continue to work through the charter article by article, with the commission revisiting articles 5 and 6 (mayor and administration) together because those sections contain the ‘‘meat’’ of the powers and responsibilities. For the next steps staff will provide historical memos, example charters from comparable communities, and a revised work plan that removes a February 25 meeting when several staff members are unavailable.

Votes at a glance

• Motion to approve minutes from the commission’s first meeting (motion: Joey Thomas; second: Amy Berger) — Vote: 7 yes, 0 no; outcome: approved.

• Motion to remove references to the word "village" in the charter name (motion: Nancy Crawford; second: Amy Berger) — Vote: 7 yes, 0 no; outcome: approved. Commissioners said transitional provisions in the charter’s back matter will also be updated to reflect the change.

• Motion to adjourn at 6:24 p.m. (motion: Joey Thomas; second: not specified) — Vote: 7 yes, 0 no; outcome: approved.

What the commission decided and what remains

The commission did not adopt any final change to the charter’s form of government at this meeting. Members agreed to "plug in" a council–manager label provisionally for the purposes of forthcoming redline drafts and to focus later meetings on the detailed powers and reporting lines in articles 5 and 6. Staff said it will circulate draft redlines, technical corrections and example charters from Dublin, New Albany and other nearby council–manager municipalities for comparison.

Context and why it matters

Commissioners and staff repeatedly emphasized planning for growth. Several speakers said Sunbury has grown rapidly in a short period and that the city’s administrative structure needs to be positioned for a larger population and more complex development, budgeting and public-safety demands. The commission must complete its review and forward proposed charter revisions to city council and ultimately to voters. Any change to the form of government or the mayor’s powers would be adopted only after the commission finishes its work and the formal public process required by the charter and state law.

Next steps

Staff will revise the work plan and provide historical memos, suggested technical edits, and full-charter examples for council–manager and hybrid models. The commission will take up articles 3 and 4 at the next meeting, then work on articles 5 and 6 together to resolve the mayor/administrator powers and reporting structure.