MADEIRA, Ohio — On next week's ballot, Madeira residents will decide whether to change the city's charter, the document that sets the rules for local government.
The existing charter dates back to 1959. While some of the proposed changes under Issue 16 involve grammatical corrections and pronoun adjustments, others are more controversial.
Historic Homes:
One of the biggest disputes among voters involves two historic properties: the Hosbrook House and the Muchmore House.
Cleo Hosbrook donated the homes to the city of Madeira in 1989 and 1990.
WATCH: Hear more about the proposed changes and what it means for Madeira residents:
The current charter states the two homes must be preserved, protected and left standing on the same ground. However, the proposed changes would remove those specific charter protections, leaving any potential future changes to the property up to the city council.
City councilman Logan Junger said he's voting in favor of passing the updated charter. He said he created this website to inform residents about the changes and what they mean.
His website includes the original letter Hosbrook wrote in 1989 about the donated homes. In the letter, Hosbrook writes, "In making this gift to the City of Madeira, it is my understanding that the City will improve the property given as a gift."
Junger said he believes the properties need improvement. He said a "yes" vote on the issue doesn't mean there will be an immediate change to the homes.
“No decision is being made on these properties," Junger said. "What it does is opens up the conversation.”
He said that conversation includes the possibility of selling the property as-is, removing the designation so the land can be sold or built on, offering the houses to someone who would move and preserve them in another city location or allowing major redesign work.
Resident Mark Lloyd, who opposes the changes, worries they would take away residents' say in what happens to the homes.
It's why he started this website, explaining why he and others oppose the amended charter proposals.
“We feel, at a minimum, we should decide what to do with the houses before we remove any protections," Lloyd said.
In 2014, Madeira voters approved the charter protections for the homes. Lloyd said he doesn't understand the justification for making voters decide again.
"It just feels completely wrong to me and the campaign to take something that was donated, that she wanted to see preserved, and to in 12 years decide to potentially tear them down or whatever may happen," Lloyd said.
Junger said no decision would be made on the homes without public discussion.
Public Spending Threshold:
The debate also extends to how the city spends taxpayer money.
Issue 16 would remove the charter's existing $10,000 spending-approval threshold. That means, right now, any purchase above $10,000 must be voted on publicly by city council.
Instead, under the proposed charter changes, council would set a new spending limit each year. The limit would not be able to exceed Ohio's public bidding threshold of $79,586.
Junger said the current threshold can delay routine purchases by two weeks as they await council approval. He said the change would help streamline how city government operates.
"It just helps with the efficiency of government," Junger said.
However, he made it clear the new threshold would be clear.
“There will be a spending cap and that spending cap will be negotiated and debated in a public setting," Junger said.
However, Lloyd worries that removing the threshold could reduce public oversight of certain purchases and contracts.
"Yes, that does slow things down, but that is intentional," Lloyd said. "That is to give the public notice and a chance to react to whatever may be happening."
Many Changes, One Vote:
Lloyd said his biggest concern is that the proposal includes too many changes in a single vote.
"For me, I'm very principled," Lloyd said. "So, if I disagree with one out of the 100 changes, I, as a principled voter, must vote no."
Lloyd said he would rather see some of the changes voted on separately.
"We just want more time to figure out things more publicly," Lloyd said.
I asked Junger why so many changes were combined into one vote. He said council members debated the decision. He said the ultimate goal is to bring the charter up to date and outline the best possible future for the city.
“It’s really meant to set the city up for the next 50 years," Junger said.
Both Junger and Lloyd said they just want residents to be as informed as possible so they can make a decision they are confident in at the polls.
You can read the charter amendment in full by clicking here.
