Pataskala City Council plans to vote on placing a charter amendment issue involving data centers on the ballot amid the city’s uncertainty over whether organizers received enough signatures to qualify.
The city council’s Aug. 3 agenda states members will consider an emergency ordinance to place a charter amendment on the ballot that would prohibit constructing data centers with peak loads of more than 25 megawatts in Pataskala. Some Pataskala residents have spent weeks trying to collect enough signatures so voters can decide on the proposed change.
The ordinance states the city would request the Licking County Board of Elections put the amendment on the ballot if the board determines organizers collected enough signatures. Deputy Director Brian Mead told The Advocate the organizers’ petition had 401 valid signatures after the group submitted 572 of them.
Organizers said they needed at least 310 signatures to get the amendment of the ballot, citing the state constitution. The Ohio Secretary of State’s election handbook, which also cites that constitution, stipulates petitions require 10% of total votes cast at the last general municipal election.
Nearly 3,100 people voted in Pataskala during the November 2025 election. Lee Guttentag, one of Pataskala’s organizers, said in June that the group’s goal was 500 signatures.
In a July 23 letter, Licking County Board of Elections Director Tess Wigginton told Pataskala that organizers didn’t meet the threshold to get the proposed amendment on the ballot. Wigginton said the threshold is requiring 10% of registered voters in a municipality.
As of July 23, Pataskala had 13,460 registered voters, meaning organizers would have needed 1,345 signatures, according to Wigginton.
In an July 31 email, Pataskala City Administrator Tim Hickin told Wigginton that council members will vote on the ordinance, with the condition that the city will place the amendment on the ballot if the board determines organizers have enough signatures.
In response that day, Wigginton said cities must decide if that’s the case. In a July 30 interview, Mead affirmed that municipalities must decide if organizers met the threshold.
The Advocate reviewed the letter and emails after organizers shared them.
In a text to The Advocate, Wigginton referred to her July 31 email. She again referred to the emailed response when asked why she informed Pataskala staff that organizers didn’t meet the threshold.
The Advocate contacted Hickin by phone and text July 31 but had not yet heard back as of the evening that day.
Guttentag said she and other organizers are concerned council members won’t approve the ordinance after Wigginton’s letter.
“We worked so hard to get this done and we’re feeling completely defeated at this point,” Guttentag said.
Guttentag’s group is part of a growing opposition among some residents statewide who oppose data centers. Some of their concerns include the centers’ drain on local water and energy resources, losing farmland, noise and light pollution and tax breaks some companies receive when pursuing them.
The group has been working with Conserve Ohio, a grassroots group seeking signatures for a state constitutional amendment to block data centers. Conserve Ohio is targeting the 2027 primary ballot for the proposed amendment after announcing in June that they wouldn’t have enough signatures to get on the ballot this November.
Residents in Sunbury will vote on banning data centers after organizers, who are also working with Conserve Ohio, secured 351 verified signatures. Sunbury City Council approved placing the proposed charter amendment on the Nov. 3 ballot during a July 15 meeting.
Advocate reporter Josué Perez can be reached at jhperez@newarkadvocate.com.
This article originally appeared on Newark Advocate: Pataskala may place data center ban on ballot amid signature questions
Reporting by Josué Perez, Newark Advocate / Newark Advocate
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
By Josué Perez, Newark Advocate | USA TODAY Network
