Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council deadlocks on repeal of Cable Road ordinance after residents press for ballot
Summary
Lima City Council debated whether to repeal Ordinance 22-26 through Ordinance 83-26 or send the question to voters; councilors and trustees from American Township and Sherwood raised safety, emergency-access and outreach concerns. The repeal did not pass on its second reading and will go to a third reading.
Lima City Council spent the meeting's longest block of time debating Ordinance 83-26, a measure that would repeal Ordinance 22-26 and halt the administration's plan for safety improvements on Cable Road. Mayor (speaker 1) framed the procedural choice for the council: a yes vote on the repeal would immediately undo the earlier ordinance, while a no vote would allow the matter to proceed toward third reading and, if the ordinance failed at third reading, to a voter referendum.
Residents from Sherwood and trustees from American Township urged council to give voters the final say and warned of practical safety issues. Pat Farmer (speaker 12) told council, “We're concerned about fire trucks getting in…How are they gonna get across that…intersection thing that you're putting up down the center of the road?” Paul Basinger (speaker 13), who identified himself as an American Township trustee, said the project “has some merit, but overall, it's a bad idea” and asked that the question be placed on the ballot so constituents can decide.
Councilors split along policy and process lines. Councilor Gordon (speaker 3) said he would not support repeal and repeatedly urged putting the decision to voters, noting a petition of 475 signatures. Councilor Lowe (speaker 9) and others pressed administration outreach and whether alternatives or small changes could address local concerns. Law Director Mr. Geiger (speaker 19) told the council the city's charter and state law create distinctions between administrative and legislative acts and that courts would resolve challenges to a referendum's validity if filed.
After extended discussion and a roll call, the motion to repeal did not secure the votes required on the second reading; council recorded several "no" votes and one abstention. The mayor noted the petition and broad public engagement and confirmed the ordinance will appear again for a third reading. The council did not adopt a final repeal tonight, leaving the project's legal and political path open to further action, including possible referendum litigation or a voter decision if the ordinance fails on a future reading.
