Residents press council on petition form, referendum process and recent rezoning decisions

Multiple residents used the June 16 public‑comment period to raise concerns about the referendum petition form and the city charter’s referendum provisions after a recent rezoning was denied referendum status. Speakers said the petition instrument provided by city staff did not match current state forms and therefore disenfranchised petitioners.

Tanya Brown told the council the petition form “did not meet the general laws of the state of Ohio,” and argued the city attorney and the clerk of council had duties under the charter to prepare and endorse the correctness of instruments. Brown said the charter requires petition papers to be “substantially in the same format as provided by the Clerk of Council” and asked why the city did not provide a form that “meets the laws of the state of Ohio.” She told council: “If the city charter requires petitioners to use the city's form, then doesn't that place the responsibility on the city's attorney and the clerk of council to provide correct lawful documents.”

Robert Shanahan and Jeff Hoagland, who said they live near the development at South Brown School Road, also criticized council decisions on a recent planned unit development (PUD) and said the process ignored citizen concerns. Shanahan warned of growing ‘‘build‑to‑rent’’ development and expressed frustration that the final PUD approvals did not respond to repeated objections. Hoagland, who said he supports housing in principle but sought higher standards for lot size and building materials, urged council to update the charter and the petition form. He said staff had told petitioners the city provided a form as an example and did not provide legal advice; he urged immediate updates so future petitioners would not face the same problem.

Speakers referenced a May 23 Board of Elections letter that, according to public comment, advised giving the petitioners 10 days to rectify a signature deficiency. Several speakers said the city should accept and publish the Secretary of State's current petition format or revise the charter to remove ambiguity. One petitioner asked council to update the city's petition template to match the Secretary of State’s form (she said that form was changed in February 2010).

Council members responded in general terms during council comments. One council member said the situation illustrated a need to consider charter amendments, noting that charter changes require a formal process and ultimately voter approval. Another council member apologized to a citizen for an inappropriate contact with an outside organization and said council would avoid personal criticisms of staff. City manager Althouse said staff would follow up on citizen concerns.

Other public comments at the meeting included neighborhood code‑enforcement complaints (overgrown yards at 144 Coalbrook and debris at 751 Spartan) and a speaker advocating for pollinator protections while noting the value of agricultural land for pollinators and local honey production.

No formal action or vote on the referendum or charter amendments occurred at the meeting; council members said charter amendments would require a future formal process.

Ending: Several residents requested specific follow‑ups (FOIA request for council communications referenced by a petitioner; request to update petition templates and charter review). Council members acknowledged the concerns and suggested the council may initiate a charter review process in the near future, but gave no timetable for when any changes would be proposed or placed before voters.