Dam referendum case still in hands of appeals court

FREMONT – It’s been almost five months since three area residents filed a lawsuit seeking a voter referendum in November on the Ballville Dam removal ordinance.

The lawsuit still sits in the Sixth District Court of Appeals, with both sides awaiting the outcome of a case that could alter the course of the dam removal project.

Fremont attorney Andrew Mayle is representing Clemens J. Szymanowski, Dennis Dumminger and Kathie M. Collins in the complaint against the city over the proposed referendum.

The three residents filed a motion for summary judgment in the case in late June, with the city answering with a memorandum of opposition on July 20.

In the city’s motion, Law Director Jim Melle argued that the ordinance passed to remove the dam was actually the eighth ordinance related to the project, the 10th piece of legislation tied to the dam’s removal and at least the 13th action taken by the city regarding the dam.

The city has contended repeatedly that only the first ordinance on the dam removal is eligible for referendum.

Melle argued in the latest motion that the city’s reservoir project and Ballville Dam removal are two different phases of one project, which were linked together from the beginning.

The city’s motion contends that a 2008 ordinance, which included an agreement with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources for a $5 million grant for reservoir construction and dam removal, was passed by the Fremont City Council as the first ordinance of the combined project.

Mayle could not be reached for comment Sunday.

He had previously questioned the logic of the city’s argument that his clients were “too late” in filing for a voter referendum and asked what the purpose was of the November 2014 ordinance, if it wasn’t the first ordinance on dam removal.

A writ of mandamus complaint was filed in March against Grahl, arguing that the Fremont City Council’s 4-3 decision in 2014 to remove the dam was legislative in nature and subject to referendum under the Ohio Constitution and applicable statutes.

It requested that Grahl immediately transmit a referendum petition to the Sandusky County Board of Elections.

In December, the city decided not to send the petition to the county board of elections, with Ellis, Grahl and Melle citing state law and asking dam removal opponents to accept the city’s decision to remove the dam.

The city notified the Sixth District Court of Appeals of Ohio in April that it stood by its decision to deny petitions gathered by local residents for the proposed initiative.

dacarson@gannett.com

419-334-1046

Twitter: @DanielCarson7