Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Referendum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Whitehall Council accepts reconsideration requests, tables three ordinances to June 17 after referendum petitions certified
Summary
Following certified referendum petitions, the council accepted motions to reconsider three recently passed ordinances and voted to table them to a June 17 date certain; city attorney had earlier notified council that petitions were sufficient and the ordinances remain not enacted until voters act.
City Attorney Nick Ademus notified the Whitehall City Council on May 7 that referendum petitions filed April 30 for ordinances 9-20-25, 10-20-25 and 11-20-25 were forwarded to the Franklin County Board of Elections for signature verification and were later certified sufficient; Ademus said the petitions met charter requirements and, “the petitions are sufficient and therefore ordinances 9-20-25, 10-20-25, 11-20-25 are not enacted until approved by the voters.”
During the public-comment portion, attorney Mike Shannon, representing JDS Companies and Daniel Schmidt, asked council to reconsider the three ordinances and to table them to a date certain to allow the developer time to propose modifications. “I respectfully request your consideration of that matter,” Shannon said, and suggested a 30-day delay with a target date of June 17 to allow changes and follow-up discussion.
Councilmembers moved to introduce motions for reconsideration and to suspend rules for the three ordinances. The council accepted reconsideration requests and then voted to table each ordinance to a date certain of June 17, 2025. Council members repeatedly clarified during the debate that a motion to reconsider is procedural and that taking this procedural step would not nullify voters’ referendum rights; if council later votes to adopt modified legislation and it passes with the necessary emergency clause, a referendum could be affected, but the petitions that have been certified remain a parallel process and are not vacated by tonight’s procedural motions.
Why it matters: the certified petitions trigger a referendum process that halts enactment of the listed ordinances until voters decide; the council’s tabling of the ordinances gives both the developer and council time to discuss possible changes but does not remove the petitioners’ right to a referendum.
Clerk and staff will place the tabling on the agenda for the June 17 meeting for further consideration; the city attorney also noted that a separate citizen initiative proposing a Fairway Boulevard overlay district had been determined sufficient and will be submitted to council for consideration at its May 20 meeting.
