Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Process Home Rule topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vermillion council denies ordinance to align budget timetable with state law
Summary
The Vermillion City Council voted unanimously June 16 to deny second reading of Ordinance 15-34 after staff reported a conflict between the proposed ordinance and the city's Home Rule Charter.
At its June 16, 2025 meeting, the Vermillion City Council voted 9-0 to deny the second reading of Ordinance 15-34, a measure that would have adjusted the city's budget-adoption timetable to match a state law change.
City staff member John told the council the ordinance would conflict with language in the city's Home Rule Charter, which voters adopted in 2020, and therefore staff could not recommend adoption. "The city attorney's opinion is we would have a conflict between the adoption of this ordinance and our Home Rule Charter as it reads right now," John said during the council's discussion.
The ordinance would have extended the statutory timeframe municipalities may use to introduce and adopt the next fiscal year's budget; that change originated in state law in February 2021. City staff previously presented the ordinance for first reading in May and postponed the second reading after locating the potential Charter conflict.
Council members discussed options for resolving the conflict in the future. Staff said the most practical route would be to place a Home Rule Charter amendment before voters: a charter review committee could propose language changes and, if the council agreed, the proposed amendment would be placed on a future ballot for voter consideration. Staff cautioned that placing a single, narrowly focused change onto the charter would impose election costs and that a June election a year out might be the most logical timing.
Councilor Murrah moved to deny the second reading of Ordinance 15-34; Councilor Price seconded. The council conducted a roll-call vote; the clerk recorded nine yeas and zero nays and the motion to deny carried.
The council and staff discussed procedural differences between tabling and denying the ordinance. Staff advised there is little practical difference for long-range reconsideration: a denied ordinance could be revised and brought back after a year, while tabling could allow the council to avoid repeating a formal reading later. Council members noted that a new council will be seated after next year's election, which could affect how and whether to revisit the issue.
