Grove City Voters to Decide Issue 28 Mandating Referendums on Heavy Industry and Data Centers

Grove City voters will decide on November 3, 2026, whether to amend the city charter to require mandatory citywide referendums before any qualifying large-scale industrial or data center development can receive municipal approval.

The initiative, designated on the ballot as Issue 28 and codified legislatively as Ordinance C-37-26, represents one of central Ohio’s most consequential local ballot battles over the pace of data center expansion. Grove City Council voted to send Ordinance C 37-26—the original citizen-initiated Community Consent Amendment—to the November 3, 2026 ballot during a special meeting on September 3, 2026, fulfilling what city legal counsel characterized as a constitutional obligation after petitioners submitted more than 1,600 verified voter signatures.

Origins in the Rensch Road Controversy

The push for direct voter control began in response to a contentious industrial proposal on the city’s rural periphery. A Texas data center development company called Headwaters sought to build a 300+ acre data center campus on Rensch Road, on property between Rensch Rd and Beatty Rd, between St Rt 62 and Neff Rd.

The location sits in southwest Franklin County along the municipal boundary: Roughly 98 acres of the site has already been annexed into Grove City. The rest is still Pleasant Township. After municipal officials disclosed that exploratory discussions with developers had quietly begun in early 2025—more than a year before public disclosure—residents organized the Protect Grove City campaign. While the council subsequently enacted a temporary moratorium on data centers and the Headwaters proposal receded, organizers argued that existing municipal zoning remained inadequate to protect neighborhoods once moratoriums lapse.

Core Mechanics: Thresholds, Escrow and Cooling-Off Rules

Issue 28 would establish Article XI of the Grove City Charter, creating binding criteria for what constitutes a "Heavy Industrial Development." Under the text of the amendment, a mandatory public vote is triggered if a project meets any one of three primary physical and operational thresholds:

• The development Occupies or proposes to occupy 50 or more contiguous acres in total project footprint, including parcels under common development or prospective township annexations;
• The facility Draws or is designed to draw more than 20 megawatts of electrical power at peak capacity; or
• The campus consumes or is projected to consume more than 500,000 gallons of water per day.

To shield municipal taxpayers from election expenses, the amendment specifies that the project sponsor must fund the vote. The measure establishes a "Referendum Fund," defined as a dedicated escrow account established and funded by the Applicant to cover all municipal costs associated with running the referendum before any application can be certified.

If voters reject a proposed development at the polls, municipal officials are barred from granting approvals, and The developer cannot reapply with the same or a substantially similar project for 24 months.

Furthermore, approved projects face strict anti-drift restrictions. Under the charter language, More than a 10% increase in acreage, a 10% increase in peak power demand, a 10% increase in daily water usage, an alteration of facility type, a relocation exceeding 500 feet, or an operational transfer to a different beneficial owner constitutes a material change requiring a new public referendum.

Strict Operational Limits: Noise, Light and Vibration

Beyond the referendum requirement, Issue 28 enacts enforceable Community Impact Standards that govern facilities throughout their operating lifespan. Independent firms selected by the city from an approved roster—funded through developer oversight fees—would conduct pre-construction baseline studies and subsequent quarterly compliance reviews.

The amendment sets stringent operational limits at residential property boundaries:

• Noise: Acoustic limits are capped at 55 dB(A) during daytime hours (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) and 45 dB(A) at nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). Under the amendment rules, Measurements shall use A-weighted decibels (dB(A)) per ANSI standards. All standards are enforced as instantaneous maximums rather than rolling averages.
• Infrasound: Low-frequency sound is capped at 75 dB(G), with discrete tonal components below 20 Hz barred from exceeding pre-construction ambient baselines.
• Lighting: Exterior light spillage is limited to 1.0 foot-candle daytime and 0.1 foot-candle nighttime at property lines. Upward sky glow is banned, and fully shielded, downward-directed, and Dark Sky compliant fixtures are mandatory across all exterior installations.
• Ground Vibration: Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) may show no measurable increase above pre-construction baselines at surrounding homes, with the amendment providing that A violation occurs when any measured PPV at the foundation of the nearest residential structure within one mile exceeds documented baseline levels.

City Council Opposition and Mayor Stage's Stance

Although City Council placed Issue 28 on the ballot pursuant to charter signature rules, elected leaders simultaneously approved a formal resolution opposing its enactment.

Grove City Council approved Resolution CR 32-26 expressing council and administration opposition to the Community Consent Amendment even as the original petition (C 37-26) will appear on the November ballot; the mayor said the administration will 'vigorously' oppose the amendment.

In Resolution CR-32-26, the administration and council asserted that the initiative’s sweeping definitions and procedural hurdles could unintentionally threaten future commercial development, park improvements, church campuses, and residential infrastructure projects. Mayor Richard L. Stage announced that his administration would actively campaign against Issue 28 alongside local civic and business groups, cautioning that charter-level mandates would chill regional investment and undermine the city's commercial tax base.

The Collapse of the Ordinance C-44-26 Compromise

The decision to place the unamended citizen petition before voters followed the dramatic collapse of a legislative compromise during council’s September 3 meeting.

In an effort to avoid a contentious ballot campaign, city leaders and organizers spent weeks drafting Ordinance C-44-26—designated as "working revision 7.1"—which condensed the 17-page petition into a five-page measure. However, Grove City Council failed to secure the supermajority needed to declare Ordinance C 44-26 an emergency and then withdrew the amended charter amendment from consideration.

The compromise had proposed significant concessions: The presenting member said the revision changed the threshold metric from "50 acres" to "750,000 square feet of gross floor area," removed a developer-funded independent impact study, eliminated the community impact fund and much of the original monitoring and penalty provisions, and reduced fines from escalating five-figure sums to $1,000 per day.

Enacting the compromise in time for the November ballot required five affirmative votes to suspend council rules and waive statutory waiting periods. The emergency motion garnered only four votes, with Council President Ted Berry and Council Members Alan Sturm and Randy Holt voting in opposition. Dissenting members stated that neither the public nor the petition signers had received adequate time to vet the truncated draft. With the emergency measure defeated, sponsors withdrew C-44-26, ensuring that the original petition text alone will go before electors.

Task Force Inquiry and Public Hearings

Parallel to the political debate, the city's High-Density Computing Facility Review Task Force is continuing its technical evaluation of data center zoning policies. Appointed to examine municipal utility burdens, land-use controls, and potential code amendments, the task force finalized its initial findings in late September.

Council officially received the High-Density Computing Task Force Report on file during its October 5 regular meeting. The committee meets Twice a month at City Hall (4035 Broadway) at 6 p.m.

Public task force meetings are confirmed for Wednesday, October 7, and Wednesday, October 21. Following the general election, the body has scheduled four additional working sessions on November 4, November 18, December 2, and December 16 to formulate long-term regulatory recommendations.

Regional Stakes for Jackson and Pleasant Townships

While Issue 28 can only be voted upon by registered Grove City residents, its outcome holds immediate consequences for neighboring unincorporated areas in Jackson and Pleasant townships.

Under Ohio municipal annexation statutes, data center developers frequently seek municipal annexation to access centralized water and sewer utility networks. The Headwaters dispute illustrated how decisions made inside Grove City Hall can directly impact adjacent township roads, agricultural drainage, and rural residences that lack voting representation in municipal elections.

Issue 28 addresses cross-border tensions by creating formal notification and intergovernmental cooperation mechanisms: If a project touches township land, the City has to formally ask the townships to work out a joint process and report on those talks to Council as they go. Furthermore, should township trustees choose to hold an advisory ballot question or if township residents file formal objections, the amendment mandates that Grove City Council must issue written findings responding to those concerns prior to granting any development permits.

As November 3 approaches, Grove City voters will decide whether direct popular consent should govern central Ohio's technology building boom, establishing a legal precedent that surrounding municipalities will be watching closely.