Vermilion voters to decide upon charter amendment

Editor's note: Joseph Jones is a Register correspondent representing vermiliondaily.com. VERMILION — A proposed charter amendment involving tax increment financing will appear on the Nov. 4 ballot, giving Vermilion-area residents the chance to decide whether future agreements should require voter approval. What are they? Tax increment financing is a financing tool used by cities and/or political subdivisions to encourage development. In simple terms, they allow the governing body 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, they do not raise anyone's existing taxes. Instead, they redirect new tax revenue generated by the development itself. And they can only be used on public improvements. Oftentimes, however, when they involve businesses, upfront tax breaks do occur. What's at stake? The proposed amendment — drafted by the Concerned Vermilion Citizens group and its attorney, Gerald Phillips — would change the city's charter, or bylaws, to require voter approval before the council can approve any new tax increment financing agreements. Vermilion Mayor Jim Forthofer strongly opposes the proposal, claiming Vermilion risks restricting its ability to compete for future development. He provided this statement: 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 (tax increment financing) 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 (tax increment financing), it also must be approved by the elected representatives on the school board. To add yet another step is redundant. In any case, (tax increment financing doesn'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. Who's in favor? Jean Anderson, the city's former mayor and a supporter of the amendment, argues it gives residents more control over how their tax dollars are used. She provided this statement: This (tax increment financing) charter amendment will be on the Nov. 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. Other comments During a recent 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," Drew said. Vermilion 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, she warned, could create significant complications for the city. "The language, as written, would require council to manage electors who are outside Vermilion's jurisdiction," Susan said. "That creates obligations the city cannot legally enforce and could make the amendment unconstitutional." Anderson also clarified that — while the petition had enough valid signatures to appear on the ballot — if voters approve it, then 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," Susan said. Phillips, who prepared the petition, has faced scrutiny in the past for errors in prior filings. One petition dispute 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.