[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6262169,"mediaKeyId","3115878-f1739fdfe7921888d2175d19a106bf87","parentId",3115878,"title","Council approves multiple budget and grant adjustments; brief votes pass ordinances 27–33 and resolution 14","audioSeconds",456,"startMs",12884000,"endMs",13340000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3115878-f1739fdfe7921888d2175d19a106bf87&start=12884&end=13340","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3115878-f1739fdfe7921888d2175d19a106bf87/thumbnail_12884000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6262169/Ohio/Council-approves-multiple-budget-and-grant-adjustments-brief-votes-pass-ordinances-2733-and-resolution-14","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6262169-f07202c782d939930c462021ff6297d9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770905936&Signature=eFKNkEKmKmAxr-9uSxgqLmeCFKLXjetn7mLFePffEp-g4tCpAg6IpvgMohz~OlcxRVuqsAVlJqjds7ZQZfz~giap9nq8SX8kMtzM3KjoU29xwU3R2YbPPSKfeSxbgZ0Gc9qcAAYNtnGP9WKJ3ytnklY00QET1IhTvbrgARl~4ooj6AWtvcOVLhpW0epJgPhGhz6P7lGb8RgoINudQ2iygyXCHCI4kePQ0b9M3PY6HQxzt5EAY1j3ZFuiJNh-jsHdUHlMwhzZRnVl~cu9jlN9lXrIWfK68mrL0XxSZhaoqFtHtu5fpMQQ~BIRb-~ro~Geir0gA-RFDUs433BhhawZRg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Whitehall, OH ","date","2025-04-25T00:52:04.683Z","article","During the same April 15 meeting, Whitehall City Council adopted several appropriation and grant‑related ordinances and a routine resolution by unanimous or near‑unanimous vote. Those items were handled with limited discussion after the meeting’s major public hearings concluded.

Key items adopted (selected):
- Ordinance 27‑20‑25: Unappropriate $19,200 for Fire Department grant fund retention and mental health expense account (adopted).
- Ordinance 28‑20‑25: Unappropriate $9,418.50 for Fire Department BWC safety intervention expense account (adopted).
- Ordinance 29‑20‑25: Unappropriate $6,715 for Police Department cadet internship program (adopted).
- Ordinance 30‑20‑25: Unappropriate $4,083.50 for police department grant enhancement (adopted).
- Ordinance 31‑20‑25: Approve settlement appropriation of $13,520.83 to TIF fees expense account (adopted).
- Ordinance 32‑20‑25: Appropriation of $479,308.95 for police department strategic community investment grant (adopted).
- Ordinance 33‑20‑25: Supplement appropriation of $1,423,000 for police building renovation/addition fund (adopted).
- Resolution 14‑20‑25: Approval of then‑announced certificates (adopted).

Most of these measures were introduced with motions to suspend the rules and then adopted; roll calls for each appeared in the meeting record and were approved in the affirmative by the council. Council members characterized these items as routine finance and grant housekeeping necessary to manage grants, capital projects and settlement funds.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Whitehall City Council Meeting 04-15-2025","oneSentenceSummary","On April 15, 2025 the Whitehall City Council adopted a set of budget and grant appropriation ordinances (27–33) and a routine resolution (14) during first‑reading actions and consent items; council suspended rules for immediate adoption on those items.","taxTitle","Whitehall City Council, Whitehall, Franklin County, Ohio","taxId",71203,"location","Ohio","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6262174,"Whitehall council adopts resolutions backing immigrant and LGBTQ protections after emotional public comment",1141,6418000,7559000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3115878-f1739fdfe7921888d2175d19a106bf87&start=6418&end=7559","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3115878-f1739fdfe7921888d2175d19a106bf87/thumbnail_6418000.jpg","/articles/6262174/Ohio/Whitehall-council-adopts-resolutions-backing-immigrant-and-LGBTQ-protections-after-emotional-public-comment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6262174-f8e14a72ecf64ae1eb1b9f23bde36032/orig.mp4?Expires=1770905936&Signature=jA0ONHyz8BT3U-3P6eHszjt6Cpun-MwUa4Wl3fS4GvtvwpjbJ4q-TOiUjbnKRgZqLEEEPEfDV6UjnV~w1sFjOCKitM2Lw2zIILZ0405MuijxI5geShOkccTgVLEhYHzhiTodarjE4W~x3m1TMrCI7MgkaODT2M9QS4JSuLUBtPbH0otr3NdsAxDDsiAb1whAe8V7ACTDVjfUhr1jRaJN62pOJ5gcQMnvJwBXCrG96n7-B7S4vXScvUJa1WNjWlR4Irg6VG9yp98HqydRIKY3Z7ZUTfyIjEKHkNYiLwES1nFe5HdHvRRmxxLJKac2xEec28tUr9X5r4NMJWeCWONh~w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Whitehall City Council on April 15, 2025 adopted two resolutions affirming the city’s support for immigrant rights and for LGBTQ protections after hours of public testimony from residents, advocacy groups and city representatives.

Council member Harcourt introduced the measures as statements of values rather than ordinances that would change law or create a sanctuary city. Supporters — including Equality Ohio, immigrant business owners and residents — told the council the resolutions would reassure vulnerable residents and send a clear signal in a national environment the speakers described as increasingly hostile to immigrants and LGBTQ people. Speakers cited personal stories and national policy developments to argue local statements of support can help community trust and safety.

Opponents and some residents asked for clarifying language and cautioned about the limits of municipal authority. At least one commenter asked that the administration remove “emergency” language and asked whether the city’s resources would be used in ways that could have legal consequences. Councilors amended the resolutions before voting and discussed next steps. Council members who supported the measures characterized them as nonbinding proclamations of intent and community values; several said they intended to follow up with ordinances or policies that would provide enforcement or concrete protections in future meetings.

Action: Resolution 10‑20‑25 (support for immigrant rights) and Resolution 11‑20‑25 (LGBTQ protections and non‑discrimination statements) were both adopted. Council amended the text prior to adoption; a handful of members abstained on procedural votes earlier in the evening but both resolutions passed in final roll calls.

What supporters said: Equality Ohio, community organizers and immigrant business owners highlighted the local economic and social contributions of immigrant residents and urged the council to adopt the measure as a statement that the city will not use local resources to facilitate targeted federal enforcement. Several speakers from immigrant and LGBTQ communities asked the council to later pursue stronger, enforceable local ordinances (for example nondiscrimination and anti‑conversion therapy measures).

What opponents asked: Some speakers asked the council to refrain from symbolic measures without binding policy. One commenter said council had previously declined to allow the police chief to testify in committee and asked that council delay or withdraw the resolutions. Council members responded that the measures are statements of values and that any operational questions about local resource use would require separate, more specific policymaking.

Next steps: Multiple council members said they expect follow‑up work: drafting potential enforcement ordinances, clarifying use of city resources, and coordinating with local legal counsel and the police department on what the city can legally implement. Advocates urged the council to move from statement to local policy in coming months.","The council adopted two resolutions declaring Whitehall welcoming to immigrants and affirming protections for LGBTQ residents after extended public comment and amendments; councilors said the measures are statements of values and the start of potential policy work.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6262179,"Whitehall council approves Fairway Cliffs incentives after heated public hearing",5488,918000,6406000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3115878-f1739fdfe7921888d2175d19a106bf87&start=918&end=6406","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3115878-f1739fdfe7921888d2175d19a106bf87/thumbnail_918000.jpg","/articles/6262179/Ohio/Whitehall-council-approves-Fairway-Cliffs-incentives-after-heated-public-hearing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6262179-0daf3fdf3da6fd7008218bb7ca00f739/orig.mp4?Expires=1770905936&Signature=AdZZs82tK5efox8olctH2juJ16Z6J0q5Rac8hwS7n4xEuGDYSGMFAEjDGkFRgcIgL~ULpaZ6HdGpWtdSoydSQWrZuDuKC-KEm09PNPT3Kn7jQLaxrWheaWCgFbCmU7YP~-VxTfThFaHmDwmiXWvezpmfjZUNXaY6hWlD0pTGYpOuN4hzreiJejHa1nRQcu42MCG6n4nDhxS5S4yO71dEg9PKrf6tLljvwuCWmjMkMto28yPZu9SSSvvr9qh3poh~hEZl-uj3aSMHjkC6kt9vUqVaJkmWgLxilkOKTwPAWPEsKbxxFHdeOnCZ-lOMAHf4-mmsUy8bw5UqwcjurL3uGA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Whitehall City Council voted to approve three enabling ordinances for the Fairway Cliffs housing project on April 15, 2025, after a lengthy public hearing in which neighbors, developers and city staff argued over tax incentives, school impacts and preservation of Fairway Boulevard’s character. The measures passed after council votes that left the emergency clauses removed or not applied.

The project, presented by Mike Shannon on behalf of the applicant, would develop roughly 11 acres owned by Dan Schmidt into attached single‑family homes intended as owner‑occupied product. Shannon told the council the package of incentives and the creation of a community authority would reimburse developer costs for public infrastructure and set aside about $75,000 a year for the Whitehall City Schools for the first 15 years, increasing school receipts compared with current annual property tax receipts of about $9,140 on the two parcels.

The debate centered on trade‑offs: supporters, including Mayor Bevins and city staff, argued the incentives make owner‑occupied housing economically feasible and can spur generational wealth and market‑rate for‑sale product not seen in Whitehall for decades. Opponents, including many neighbors on Fairway Boulevard and speakers at the public hearing, said the development would violate the spirit of the city’s comprehensive plan, erode the boulevard’s historic character and divert tax revenue that they said should remain in the general fund.

Shannon said the development would dedicate parkland and a pedestrian path, construct public streets and utilities, and include buffering required by code. He told council the development team expects to reimburse the developer for capital improvements (roads, lights, utilities) over about 15 years and that the community authority’s payment flows would return more to the city and schools in years 16–30 once reimbursements end. He estimated developer reimbursement for infrastructure at roughly $1,807,487 (figure provided in presentation) and said the project would create between 130 and 150 construction jobs with about $13 million in payroll on a $21 million project.

Opponents questioned both the economics and the process. Multiple residents said the site is identified in local planning documents as a preservation priority and urged council to deny TIF/CRA incentives for a residential greenfield project. Speakers said the incentives shift tax burden from the developer and future homeowners to current taxpayers and asked the council to require a sliding‑scale abatement or other alternatives. Several public speakers also asked that the ordinances not be adopted as emergency measures so the public could pursue a referendum or have more time for review.

Council members asked technical questions about student generation rates, bond issuance and how service payments would be collected and distributed. Economic development staff and a city representative explained that service payments in lieu of taxes would be collected by the community authority and distributed annually to the city, school district and developer according to the approved formula until developer reimbursement is complete; after that point the funds would be available to the city and schools and could be used in the TIF area or elsewhere as council appropriates.

Council action: the three enabling ordinances—establishing the Fairway Cliffs Community Authority, approving a CRA property tax exemption application and creating the Fairway Boulevard TIF district—were each adopted by council vote. The council voted down or removed emergency clauses where required so the measures will proceed on the non‑emergency schedule outlined in each ordinance.

The council record shows substantial public engagement: dozens of residents and community groups spoke in opposition and in support, and council members debated terms and oversight. The project team said site‑specific commitments would be detailed in the development agreement, preliminary plat and final site plan steps that follow zoning and incentive approval.

Votes at a glance: Ordinance 9‑20‑25 (Fairway Cliffs Community Authority): adopted (emergency clause removed); recorded majority yes votes (4 yes recorded in roll commentary). Ordinance 10‑20‑25 (CRA exemption and infrastructure agreement): adopted (emergency clause removed/not applied); recorded votes: majority in favor. Ordinance 11‑20‑25 (Fairway Boulevard TIF district): adopted (emergency clause removed); recorded votes: majority in favor.

What’s next: The approvals authorize the city to proceed with the community authority and incentive framework; the developer and city officials still must finalize a development agreement, platting and site plan approvals. Council and staff said they expect follow‑up documents and further public engagement at permitting and platting stages.","After a two-hour public hearing and extensive public comment, Whitehall City Council approved three ordinances establishing a community authority, a Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) tax abatement and a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district to support the Fairway Cliffs housing project on 11 acres along Fairway Boulevard and Etna Road.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council approves multiple budget and grant adjustments; brief votes pass ordinances 27–33 and resolution 14

Whitehall council adopts resolutions backing immigrant and LGBTQ protections after emotional public comment

Whitehall council approves Fairway Cliffs incentives after heated public hearing