STEUBENVILLE — City officials plan to put proposed charter changes before voters in November, though there’s still some housekeeping to be done before that can happen.

Any proposed changes must be formally presented to City Council no later than 90 days before the election — in this case, that would be early August.

Council does have the right to go back to the committee and ask for a review on particular issues,” Second Ward Councilman Tracy McManamon said. “But all we do is accept (it), no votes.”

The charter review commission, chaired by former councilman Willie Paul, has finished its report, but it has not been brought to council for discussion.

McManamon did not say if concerns had surfaced that would prompt council to request the charter review commission reconvene, but there had been discussions about the need to look at things like limiting the authority of planning and zoning commissions as well as the recreation committee after the charter review commission had done its initial report.

Councilman at large Joel Walker pointed out there are a few things that still need to be fixed, “one is the charter has the health department listed in it and we don’t have one anymore.” He said he would favor asking the review commission to revisit the charter with an eye toward addressing it.

The nine-members of the review commission were nominated by each councilman (one per ward plus one from the city at large), plus two picked by the mayor. None could be a city employee or serve on a board or commission, and all of them serve without compensation. Their appointments terminate once council accepts their recommendations.

The charter, originally adopted in 1984, must be reviewed every 10 years. Its last update was in 2014.

Serving on the 2014 review commission were Mary Vandine (First Ward); Jeffrey Hawkins (Second Ward); Donald Maternack (Third Ward); Sheila Hendricks (Fourth Ward); Jim Baber (Fifth Ward); Dave Mosti (Sixth Ward); and Ross Ivkovich (council at large); as well as former councilman Paul and attorney Frank Bruzzese, the mayor’s picks.

“Committee members were tasked with going through the current charter and recommending any changes, revisions or amendments they deemed advisable,” Bruzzese said. “Since any changes have to be approved by voters, the charter commission’s recommendations need to be delivered to council at least 90 days before the next general election.”

Bruzzese said the commission had met “met several times per month during a period of several months” to discuss suggested changes submitted by council members or the general public, then voted on them. “Then (the commission) drafted a letter signed by Paul, the commission chair, for him to sign to submit the results of the charter review to council,” he said.The charter review commission’s job officially ends once that letter is signed and council accepts the document.

“At various meetings somebody would suggest that we change this or change that,” Bruzzese said. “We made a rule that if they need to submit a change, we need to submit the language as it exists now and a copy of suggested language. Meeting by meeting we put it all in one draft, we took the existing charter and made a red-line copy then submitted it with the letter. We gave them a copy of the whole charter showing the red-line changes.”

While council’s response remains to be seen, Paul said some of their recommendations involve “increasing council and the mayor’s salaries, lowering the police chief’s requirements from five years of service as a captain to three years of service to qualify (for the job), and (tweaking) the city manager’s job qualifications somewhat.”

“Some of the other proposed changes are more input from council and the mayor during the hiring process, rather than the city manager having total control when hiring department heads.”

Specifically, Bruzzese said the review commission proposed that, if approved by voters,

• Council members and the mayor would be required to annually submit a written statement detailing any conflict of interest they may have and that those conflicts of interest then be reviewed by council

• Anyone appointed to complete the unexpired term in office of a council member would have to reside in the ward where the vacancy is. Current charter language says only that vacancies must be filled by council within 30 days.

• The term “council person” replace references in the charter language to “council men.”

• Going forward, a quorum would be construed as having four council members in attendance.

• Would increase a council person’s stipend to $250 per meeting attended (it’s currently $100) up to a maximum of $12,500 a year, including reimbursements for travel and other expenses. (The charter currently caps council’s stipend at $5,200.)

• Would up the mayor’s stipend to $300 per meeting (it’s currently $120 per meeting), capping his stipend at $15,000 including reimbursements for travel and other expenses. (The ceiling for the mayor is currently capped at $6,240.)

• Would require five favorable votes to hire a new city manager; would require the city to put the terms of employment in writing and limit the contract to four years. (The existing charger says only that a majority vote of council is needed to hire a city manager and there is no requirement that he or she be given a written contract.) The review commission also recommends clarifying existing language to stipulate that city managers have at least five years of mid-level or senior management of a business in addition to their bachelor’s degree.

• Would give an executive subcommittee comprised of two council members, the mayor, the city manager and the city manager’s designee final approval on department heads. (The city manager currently makes those appointments.)

• Require newly enacted ordinances to be published on the city’s website as well as in newspapers.

• Add EMTs to language stipulating the requirements as provided by state law for personnel in the fire department. (Current verbiage only stipulates firefighting qualifications.)

• At a citizen’s request, would include language that Steubenville would not be a sanctuary city, so no municipal law or municipal policy would protect illegal aliens from deportation or prosecution regardless of federal immigration laws.

Bruzzese said the nine-member panel “went clause-by-clause, line-by-line” through the charter, adding charter reviews have been done several times over the years.

“It’s worthwhile because the charter requires it,” he said. “If you don’t do it, you’re violating the charter. The city and its officials are required to comply with legal requirements of the charter. Certainly, you don’t want city officials to disregard (it.)”

Recommendations were included based on a majority vote.

“Not every change was unanimous,” he said. “There were times when individual members may have voted no on a change but it’s still in there because the commission because the recommendations are by majority vote.”