Should Johnstown's city manager have to live there? Candidates for mayor, City Council comment on ballot question

Oct. 25—JOHNSTOWN, Pa. — Should Johnstown's city manager be required to live in the city?

Voters will indirectly answer that question on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 2.

The Home Rule Charter currently states that the city manager "shall become a bona fide resident and domiciliary of the Municipality within one hundred and eighty (180) days of assuming office and shall remain a resident and domiciliary while in office."

Plain English translation: The city manager has to live in the city.

Earlier this year, council approved putting a question on the ballot that, if approved, would allow the board to change the language of that residency requirement.

The ballot question is: "Shall Section 601(a) of the City of Johnstown Home Rule Charter be amended to allow City Council to determine by Ordinance whether to require the City Manager to become a resident of the City?"

City officials have publicly posted the referendum, along with an explanation: "A yes vote will allow City Council to determine terms and conditions of employment for the City Manager related to residency, and the geographic area and timeframe for any residency requirement via Ordinance. This provides flexibility in the hiring decisions for the recruitment of the City Manager with the requisite education, experience and skills."

A "yes" vote is a vote to give City Council permission to change the Home Rule Charter and eliminate the residency requirement if the members choose to do so. A "no" vote is to deny City Council the ability to change the residency requirement; therefore, the city manager would still be required to live in the city, according to the current charter language.

The referendum's outcome will significantly impact City Council's search for a replacement for Daniel Penatzer, the city's ninth full-time or acting manager since 2014. Johnstown has not had a full-time city manager since November 2019.

City Council has been prepared to offer a full-time city manager in the range of $120,000 per year — or almost six times the city's median household income.

Here are the thoughts of City Council and mayoral candidates pertaining to the referendum. Candidates are listed in reverse of the order in which they appear on the general election ballot. All candidates, except where noted, gave their comments during meetings with The Tribune-Democrat news staff.

Mayor

—John DeBartola (Republican): "The city manager, I feel, should live in the city. I'm against the referendum the council's pushing. It's been a revolving door for all these years. We really have to go back to a strong form of mayor. That's going to take time and a government study, and I wish I could give you an answer. If you look at our history in the last 10 years, the city managers we've had have been scapegoats for the current regime." (Note: DeBartola did not accept an invitation for an editorial board meeting with The Tribune-Democrat. He discussed the referendum during a recent candidates forum in the city's Roxbury neighborhood.)

—Frank Janakovic (Democrat): "Having been the mayor for eight years and having (numerous) different city managers, we know there needs to be a stabilization in that position. It really comes down to the voters. We would encourage them to look at this very closely. Basically, they're going to have to make that decision.

"There's a lot of sentiment that the city manager should reside in the city, especially with the wage that they're receiving right now, but we have to keep in mind that we need a city manager that's going to be there for more than one year. And, to do that, we may have to look at — or should look at, at least — non-residency in the city."

City Council

—Charlene Stanton (R): "If you're making over $100,000, you need to live right here in the city. You need to spend your money in the city. You need to pay taxes. All that's going to go to support the tax base of the city. And there's no way, if you're living in Timbuktu, do you have any idea of what the city residents go through 24/7, or even the city businesses and the struggles they have, unless you're actually here, you're walking the streets, you're talking to the residents that live here, you're going out and meeting with the businesses."

—James Stanton (R): "If you're getting $100-and-some thousand for your position, I think you should live in the city, interact with the city residents to see their needs that need to be met, and you're also spending money in the city instead of spending it in another borough, district, or whatever. I just think it needs to be in the city."

—Joseph Taranto (R): Taranto did not accept an invitation for an editorial board meeting with The Tribune-Democrat and was unable to attend the Roxbury candidates forum.

—Laura Huchel (D): "I was on record at a council meeting saying that I don't think it's wise that we say outright that we're comfortable with the city manager not living within the city limits. Do I think we need to reform it in some way? Yes. We need to maybe offer some flexibility in the amount of time a city manager has to relocate into the city limits. But I think it sends the wrong message to the residents of the city if we tell them, 'No, essentially your mayor' — as it would be in a strong mayor situation — 'doesn't have to live in the city.' "

—Ricky Britt (D): "I think it would be better for a person to be from Johnstown, live in Johnstown, to hold that position. I'm sure there's some qualified people that we have here in town that could handle that position."

—Marie Mock (D): "Personally, I think somebody should live in the city. But, you know, obviously our track record has been poor. We can't seem to get over the hurdle of getting somebody to agree to live in the city — seriously live in the city, not just an address."

—Rev. Sylvia King (D): "The city needs to hire the best person for the job. ... Being that this is a smaller community, I think we really do ourself a disservice by not opening that position up and allowing council to use discretion in hiring the best person for the job."

Other ballot items

Johnstown residents will also vote on six other referendum questions.

They are:

—Ballot Question #1

"Shall Section 304 of the City of Johnstown Home Rule Charter be amended to allow the City's annual budget and capital improvement plan to be adopted by Resolution instead of by Ordinance?"

—Ballot Question #2

"Shall Section 902 of the City of Johnstown Home Rule Charter be deleted so that the Personnel Ordinance remains part of the City's Administrative Code but permits modification of personnel rules and procedures via Resolution?"

—Ballot Question #3

"Shall Section 1007(a) of the City of Johnstown Home Rule Charter be amended to allow City Council to adopt, and to amend the city budget prior to final adoption, by Resolution or Motion instead of by Ordinance?"

—Ballot Question #4

"Shall Section 1008 of the City of Johnstown Home Rule Charter be amended to allow City Council to amend the City Budget after adoption by Resolution or Motion instead of by Ordinance?"

—Ballot Question #5

"Shall Section 1010 of the City of Johnstown Home Rule Charter regarding administration of the annual budget be deleted in order to permit such matters to be addressed via Ordinance, as part of the City's Administrative Code?"

—"Shall Section 1012 of the City of Johnstown Home Rule Charter be amended to require that all contracts of the City be in writing, regardless of amount, to authorize the City Manager to sign all contracts, and to abide by all bidding requirements as established by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Labor and Industry?"

Ordinances must pass both a first and second read — at different meetings — to be enacted. A resolution can go into effect after only one vote.