This story is part of Worthington Pulse's coverage of the July 20 City Council meeting. Start with the July 20 meeting recap.
Worthington voters will face four separate charter questions on November 3. City Council voted Monday night to place three ordinances carrying the Charter Review Commission's recommendations on the ballot, and, as required by law, a fourth question brought by resident petition that takes a different approach to the same subject: how hard it should be to challenge a council decision by referendum.
Only one of the four votes was split. Council Member Pete Bucher voted against the ordinance that would shorten the window for gathering referendum signatures, saying the 60-day period is "an important tool that the community wanted in 2015 in case council were to overstep on a development project". Every other question moved to the ballot unanimously.
The city charter is Worthington's foundational document; City Manager Robyn Stewart called it "essentially our local constitution". It requires a review at least every 10 years. An 11-member commission met six times between April and June and presented its recommendations to council on July 13; voters get the final say on any change.
Question 1: A shorter window for zoning referendum petitions
Ordinance 20-2026 asks voters to reduce the time allowed to collect signatures for a zoning referendum from 60 days to 30, and to consolidate the related charter language into one article. The 60-day window was itself created by voters in 2015.
This drew the sharpest public comment of the night. One resident argued the change is "a blatant action to reduce the power of Worthington's citizens" and noted that no referendum has been initiated in the 11 years since the window was extended. Another speaker countered that the absence of referendums doesn't mean the provision has no effect: "the truth is just the fear of the referendum keeps people from bringing things forward", he said, describing businesses that must carry leases while waiting out potential election cycles. A third resident put the imbalance bluntly: "developers have lawyers, money, and staff. The citizens have weekends".
It passed 6-1, with Bucher opposed.
Question 2: Fewer signatures required
Ordinance 21-2026, which passed unanimously, pairs with the shorter window. Current state law sets the referendum signature requirement at 35% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election, which would be 3,017 signatures in Worthington. The commission recommends 10% instead, or about 862 signatures.
Council Member Glen Pratt, who served on the commission's review discussions, said the goal was a threshold "that was feasible... but wasn't such a low threshold that everything the council did would be potentially referendum". He noted the resident group behind the competing petition gathered its required signatures within 30 days, evidence, he argued, that the combination of a shorter window and lower bar is workable.
Stay connected to what's happening in Worthington, Ohio.
Question 3: The bundle, including one big structural change
Ordinance 22-2026 packages the commission's remaining recommendations, most of which staff characterized as administrative cleanup for changes in law and technology. The exception is significant: consolidating the Municipal Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, and Board of Zoning Appeals into a single Municipal Development Commission by the end of 2028. Worthington Pulse covered that proposal in detail in Worthington's Proposed Municipal Development Commission, Explained, and the full slate of recommendations in the charter review explainer.
Council members said they appreciated that the questions were split rather than bundled into a single yes-or-no. "If there are unfavorable items to a voter, it doesn't sink all of the progress", Bucher said. It passed 7-0.
Question 4: The resident petition council had no choice on
Ordinance 23-2026 places the "Our City, Our Vote" citizen initiative on the same ballot. The Franklin County Board of Elections certified that the petition gathered enough valid signatures, which legally obligated council to forward it. Stewart emphasized the distinction: "Approval by council does not indicate support or lack thereof for the petition language".
The petition would set the referendum signature requirement at 10% of the most recent municipal election: about 579 signatures, versus the roughly 862 under the commission's gubernatorial-election standard.
The sharper difference is scope. Law Director Tom Lindsey told council that the petition's "notwithstanding other provisions of the charter" clause is what matters legally: in his reading, it would open to referendum matters the charter currently makes effective immediately upon passage, potentially including resolutions. Council Member Joycelyn Dong walked through an example: a resolution council passed earlier this year affirming support for immigrant residents could arguably be subject to a referendum triggered by roughly 579 signatures. Lindsey cautioned that a court would ultimately have to decide what the language covers.
A resident speaking in the petition's defense pushed back on criticism leveled at the measure at the previous week's meeting, saying the phrase "ordinance or other measure" is not an overreach but standard language drawn from the Ohio Revised Code and drafted by election-law attorneys, and that it has been in Worthington's charter for a decade already: "we have not yet slipped into anarchy".
The ordinance passed 7-0.
What voters will see
All four questions appear individually on the November 3 ballot, run concurrent with the general election. That means Worthington voters could approve both the commission's referendum standard and the petition's competing standard; if that happens, the courts or subsequent legal review would have to sort out the conflict. Voters can also approve or reject each piece of the commission's work independently.
This is one of 2 Worthington Pulse stories from the July 20 City Council meeting recap.