City of Vermilion officials confirmed Monday that the law director’s office intends to challenge the charter amendment approved by voters earlier this month. The amendment changes how the city handles tax-increment-financing (TIF) by requiring any TIF ordinance passed by City Council to go before voters, and it expands who may vote on those issues to include some registered voters who live outside the city but within school districts affected by the financing.
The discussion came late in the City Council meeting, after Councilman Drew Werley requested clarity on Mayor Jim Forthofer’s statement at the previous meeting that the amendment would be challenged.
Law Director: Mandate to Intervene
Attorney Lisa Mack, appearing on behalf of Law Director Susan Anderson, told council that the challenge is not optional. According to Mack, Ohio Revised Code 733.56 requires a city’s law director to seek an injunction when council exercises power that may be unlawful.
Mack said the issue centers on the definition of “electors” contained in the charter amendment. The amendment extends voting eligibility for certain tax increment financing decisions to registered voters who live outside the City of Vermilion if their school district is affected.
Mack explained that allowing non residents to vote on Vermilion municipal action may be unconstitutional. Because the amendment’s definition appears to extend beyond city residents, she said the law director is obligated to challenge it in court.
Council Questions the City’s Role
Councilman Werley pressed for clarification, asking whether the city was challenging:
- The voters who passed the amendment, or
- City Council’s own act of forwarding the initiative to the Board of Elections, which state law required them to do.
Mack stated the challenge concerns the amendment itself and the potential that council, by forwarding it, engaged in an “abuse of corporate powers” under state law, even though council was legally required to forward it to the ballot.
Several council members expressed frustration with the contradictory position. The city was legally required to place the measure on the ballot, yet is now legally required to challenge it.
Resident: “Don’t Spend Tax Dollars Fighting Us”
Edgewater Drive resident Jean Anderson, one of the citizens involved in advancing the amendment, spoke from the audience, urging the city not to use municipal funds to challenge a measure voters had legally approved.
Anderson argued that:
- The amendment was reviewed by the Lorain County Prosecutor and the Board of Elections before circulating.
- The city had multiple opportunities to challenge the language earlier but did not.
- The amendment was designed to ensure Firelands School District residents have a say on TIFs that may financially impact them.
She urged that if a challenge is filed, it should come from a developer, not from the city using taxpayer resources to fight its own citizens.
Council Discussion, No Action Taken
The discussion continued after Werley’s questions. Mayor Jim Forthofer responded first, explaining the city’s obligation to rely on the law director’s legal assessment. Mack then reiterated that the directive to challenge the amendment comes from state statute, not from council’s preferences.
Werley returned to the issue, telling officials that the situation appeared contradictory since council was legally required to place the amendment on the ballot, yet the city is now required to challenge it in court.
Council President John Gabriel said the situation revealed an area of the charter that may need clarification on what council should do in cases of unlawful legislation. He noted that the courts will ultimately need to decide whether the amendment’s expanded definition of electors is constitutional, and that council may need to consider tightening future charter language to avoid similar conflicts.
No formal vote was taken Monday night. The matter is expected to return as litigation decisions develop, and council acknowledged that the legal process could take significant time to resolve.