VERMILION — A proposed charter amendment involving Tax Increment Financing (TIF) will appear on the November 4 ballot, giving residents the chance to decide whether future TIF agreements should require voter approval.
TIFs are a financing tool used by cities to encourage development. In simple terms, they allow the city to borrow against future increases in property tax revenue generated by a new development. Those funds are then reinvested into infrastructure improvements such as roads, water, or sewer lines, supporting the project’s success. Importantly, TIFs do not raise anyone’s existing taxes; they redirect new tax revenue generated by the development itself.
The proposed amendment, drafted by the Concerned Vermilion Citizens group and their attorney Gerald Phillips, would change the city charter to require voter approval before council can approve any new TIF agreements.
Mayor Jim Forthofer Opposes the Amendment
Mayor Jim Forthofer strongly opposes the proposal, saying Vermilion risks restricting its ability to compete for future development:
“The proposed Charter Amendment is totally unnecessary. No other city or township in Lorain County has such a stipulation, yet many benefit from TIF agreements.
As it is, any proposed TIF agreement needs to be approved by a majority of the people’s elected representatives on City Council. If a school district is included in the TIF, it also must be approved by the elected representatives on the School Board. To add yet another step is redundant.
In any case, TIFs don’t raise people’s taxes. They just borrow against the increased property value of the developed property only. And nobody’s income taxes are involved.”
Former Mayor Jean Anderson Supports It
Former Mayor Jean Anderson, a supporter of the amendment, argues it gives residents more control over how their tax dollars are used. Her full statement, with the corrected November 4 date, reads:
“This TIF Charter Amendment will be on the November 4 ballot so voters can determine whether we want a voice in how our city council spends large sums of our money.
Do we want to pay expenses for developers and corporations, or use our money to pay for roads, water and sewer infrastructure, or resident safety, like sidewalks or bike paths? Our list to improve our residents’ lives is endless.”
Council Discussion and Legal Concerns
During the special meeting, Ward 2 Councilman Greg Drew expressed concerns about the petition’s process and technical errors, calling parts of it “garbage.” Drew clarified that his frustration was directed at procedural issues, not at the residents behind the petition:
“It’s frustrating that garbage gets brought up here like this,” Drew said. “You have to pay more attention to detail when you bring something this significant forward.”
Drew also said the petition approach was problematic:
“In my opinion, this approach is flawed. There are established ways to handle these issues under Ohio law, and we need to make sure everything is done correctly, with the i’s dotted and the t’s crossed.”
City Law Director Susan Anderson raised additional concerns, focusing on the petition’s use of the term “electors.” She explained that in certain legal contexts, electors can include non-residents, such as property owners or others who are not registered Vermilion voters. This could create significant complications for the city:
“The language, as written, would require council to manage electors who are outside Vermilion’s jurisdiction,” Anderson said. “That creates obligations the city cannot legally enforce and could make the amendment unconstitutional.”
Susan also clarified that while the petition had enough valid signatures to appear on the ballot, if voters approve it, the city would likely challenge the measure in court:
“As long as the petition has the required number of signatures, this council has a duty to send it to the ballot. If it’s approved by voters, we may have to seek a legal ruling on its constitutionality.”
Gerald Phillips’ Petition History
Attorney Gerald Phillips, who prepared the petition, has faced scrutiny in the past for errors in prior filings. One of those petition disputes escalated to the Ohio Supreme Court, and in another case, Phillips attempted to amend a petition after it had already been filed. That matter was later referred to the Lorain County Prosecutor’s Office.
Council members emphasized that the Concerned Vermilion Citizens acted in good faith and relied on their attorney’s expertise. However, several expressed frustration that repeated drafting errors have complicated legal interpretations and created potential vulnerabilities for the city.
What’s Next
Vermilion voters will decide on November 4 whether future TIF agreements should require direct voter approval. A copy of Jean Anderson’s full letter and additional resources will be available below for readers who want to explore the issue in greater detail.
Listen to the meeting hereAbout the Author
