In the minutes: Avon Lake Minutes, Flock Camera (Aug 31)

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
OF THE AVON LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 31, 2026
The regular meeting of the Avon Lake City Council was called to order on August 31,
2026, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber with Council President Smith presiding.
Ms. Gentry led Council, staff, and the public in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Present: Councilmembers Jennifer Fenderbosch, Amy Gentry, Kayla Goodwin, David
Kos, Matthew Reynolds, Rob Shahmir, and Geoff Smith; Mayor Mark Spaetzel; Law
Director Gary Ebert; Public Works Director Jon Liskovec; and Clerk of Council Valerie
Rosmarin.
Absent: City Engineer Stewart Lovece.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular Council Meetings held on June 22, 2026, and July 6, 2026,
and the special Council Meeting held on July 13, 2026, were approved as prepared and
published.
CORRESPONDENCE
The following correspondence or communication was received:
1. Mrs. Fenderbosch reported receiving several emails from residents regarding the
City’s Deer Management Program and whether the program will continue. She
also received comments from several residents expressing concerns regarding
the Flock Camera System.
2. Mr. Kos reported receiving communications from residents regarding the power
outage that occurred earlier that day at approximately 9:30 a.m. and asked if
anyone was aware of the circumstances surrounding the outage.
Mayor Spaetzel said he contacted the City’s representative and was informed
that a branch fell in the area of 204 Crestwood Drive, knocking out power and
tripping and locking out three circuits at the Moore Road substation. The
circuits had to be reset, resulting in an approximately 90-minute outage.
Approximately one-third of the City, along with portions of Avon, lost power.
After power was restored, approximately 100 residents required individual
restoration. He was unsure of the status of those individual outages at the time
of this meeting.
3. Mr. Shahmir reported receiving numerous emails from residents regarding the

August 31, 2026, Council Meeting

Flock Camera System, including questions about how information collected
through the system will be utilized, stored, and shared.
He also reported receiving emails regarding the power outage and concerns
about unusually high electric bills received in July.
Mr. Shahmir reported that residents have expressed concerns about a potential
development behind Cove Avenue and Westwind Drive, including sewer, water,
and other infrastructure connections and the potential for basement flooding.
PUBLIC INPUT
1. Mike Crnobrnja, Avon Lake, spoke regarding blue baby syndrome, sharing a
personal experience with a child who had the condition. He said the medical
field focuses on treatments rather than identifying and addressing the root
causes of medical conditions. He also questioned the research and fundraising
practices associated with pharmaceutical companies and childhood cancer
organizations. He asked Council to consider encouraging pharmaceutical
companies to focus on identifying and addressing the root causes of medical
conditions.
2. Alex Wicker, Avon Lake, spoke regarding the Flock Camera System, stating that
while Avon Lake’s cameras are limited to public roads, concerns remain regarding
the system’s data collection and use. He questioned the requirements for
conducting searches, data sharing and storage, the involvement of other law
enforcement agencies, and the potential use of Flock data for purposes beyond
those authorized by the City. Mr. Wicker also said the system records every
vehicle, not only those associated with alleged criminal activity, and questioned
its impact on civil liberties and privacy. He urged Council to consider ending the
City’s contracts with Flock.
3. Mary Schneider, Avon Lake, urged Council to approve Ordinances No. 26-79 and
No. 26-81, which would place the adoption of Planning and Zoning Section 1219
and the position of Law Director before the voters, and to reject Resolution No.
26-80. Regarding Section 1219, she expressed concerns about the City’s proposed
purchase and development of lakefront property, including the costs of acquiring
and developing a park, potential remediation and maintenance costs, the
proposed Tax Increment Financing (TIF), increased housing density and traffic,
infrastructure needs, and potential impacts on the school district. She also
questioned whether the proposed lakefront park would justify the long-term costs
to the City and School District.
4. Gerald Phillips, Avon Lake, spoke in support of proposed Charter Amendments
concerning the future development of the former power plant and the election of
the Law Director. Regarding the power plant, he alleged that the developer and
City Administration had not provided sufficient financial and environmental
2

August 31, 2026, Council Meeting

information and expressed concerns about the proposed 30-year, 100% TIF,
submerged land leases, environmental remediation, and the City’s negotiations
with the developer. He stated that the Charter Amendment would require greater
transparency, an economic sensitivity analysis, and voter approval of the
proposed development and TIF. Mr. Phillips also said he supported an elected Law
Director, citing concerns about the current Law Director’s compensation, outside
law firm relationships, mayoral appointment, and representing the City in public
records matters. He said that an elected Law Director would be more accountable
to the electorate and referenced constitutional protections concerning the right
to petition and vote.
5. Jeff Toth, Avon Lake, spoke regarding the proposed Charter Amendment,
expressing concerns about the amount of public funding involved in the proposed
development and the long-term financial obligations to taxpayers. He questioned
why public funds were necessary if the development would benefit the developer
financially and believed that taxpayers should have access to the financial
information and an opportunity to vote on the matter. He emphasized
transparency and accountability.
6. William Zimmerman, Avon Lake, expressed frustration with Council’s handling
of the proposed Charter Amendments and stated that he believed there is
broad public support for the petitions. He urged Council to consider residents'
views and said the November election would determine the matter.
7. Mary Beth Findlater, Avon Lake, expressed appreciation for Ward 3 Council
Representative Amy Gentry and said she hoped Council would select someone
with similar professionalism and dedication to represent the ward. She praised
Ms. Gentry’s monthly constituent meetings and the information she provided to
residents, noting that although residents did not always agree with her decisions,
they appreciated her efforts. Mrs. Findlater also commented on the significant
time commitment required of a Councilmember and expressed hope that the
next Ward 3 representative would be similarly engaged and responsive to
constituents.
MAYOR’S REPORT
Mayor Spaetzel reported on the following:
1. City Events:
 Big Splash Dog Swim on Saturday, September 12, 2026, from 11:00 a.m. to
3:00 p.m.
 Homecoming Parade on Saturday, October 3, 2026, at 10:30 a.m.
 Fall Fest at Bleser Park on Saturday, October 3, 2026, from 11:00 a.m. to
1:00 p.m.
2. The City applied to the Ohio Public Works Commission (OPWC) for grant funding
3

August 31, 2026, Council Meeting

for the Walker Road Paving Project, Phase 7. The project extends from the
Sheffield Lake boundary line to and including the intersection of Moore Road
and Walker Road. The estimated project cost is $1.4 million. The project is
supported by either passage of the income tax levy or sustaining income
funding, which would be a tax credit reduction, from the infrastructure fund.
3. The Heider Creek culvert replacement at Electric Boulevard is continuing. The
culvert has been installed, and the headwall construction will begin. Due to
weather conditions, the tentative reopening moved from mid-September to
mid-October.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT’S REPORT
Council President Smith reported on the following:
1. He will sponsor legislation regarding the petitioners’ proposed Charter
Amendment adding Section 69(B) concerning the former power plant. Council
received a legal opinion stating that the proposed Charter Amendment must be
forwarded to the Lorain County Board of Elections for submission to the voters.
He noted that Council is not required to vote unanimously. A five-to-two vote is
required to suspend the rules, followed by a four-to-three vote for passage of
Ordinance No. 26-79. He asked whether any Councilmember intended to vote
against suspension of the rules. Mr. Reynolds indicated he would vote against
suspension of the rules. Council President Smith noted that, as the legislation’s
sponsor, he would not vote against the legislation.
2. Independent counsel provided Council with a legal opinion regarding the
petitioners’ second proposed Charter Amendment, which would make the Law
Director an elected position. He requested that Council suspend the rules to
allow for a final decision on Ordinance No. 26-82. As the legislation’s sponsor,
he stated that he would vote in favor of the ordinance.
3. Mr. Kos requested that the Clerk of Council read Resolution Nos. 26-80 and 2682 in their entirety. Council President Smith stated that the request would be
addressed during the Additions and Deletions portion of the agenda.
4. Council President Smith announced that there would be no Council Meeting on
Monday, September 7, 2026, in observance of Labor Day. A Collective
Committee Meeting and Council Meeting will be held on Monday, September 14,
2026.
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Public Works Director Liskovec reported on the following:

4

August 31, 2026, Council Meeting

1. Tree Inventory
The City selected ArborPro last December to conduct a tree inventory, and
they are currently in the City conducting an inventory of trees and potential
planting sites. Approximately 3,000 of the 10,000 inventory points are
completed. One data collector is currently working throughout the City and
making good progress.
2. Deer Management Program
The City’s Deer Management Program will move forward this year with the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) conducting the culling
program. Residents are encouraged to complete the deer survey being
conducted by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). ODNR will
compile community-collected data to help the City tailor the program to
address residents’ needs.
3. Walker Road Paving Project
Phase 6 of the Walker Road Paving Project, from Jaycox Road to the
intersection with Lear Road, is scheduled to begin September 8, with Phillips
Paving, LLC, serving as the contractor. Traffic will be maintained throughout
the project using flaggers and law enforcement officers. The City will
communicate directly with adjacent residents who are impacted by the
project; signage has also been posted.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT
Mr. Shahmir reported on the Economic Development Committee as follows:
1. The next Committee meeting is Monday, September 21, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. in
the Council Chamber.
2. The Community Improvement Corporation (CIC) will bring forward a proposal
for TIF that the City could use to support development in other areas, including
the Pin Oak Parkway area.
Council President Smith asked whether consideration of TIFs in other areas of
the City could be positively or negatively affected by a proposed Charter
Amendment that would require voter approval of TIFs and whether such a
requirement could affect businesses considering locating in Avon Lake.
Mr. Shahmir stated that the impact would depend on how the City structures
and develops its economic development strategy. He explained that a TIF can
be viable when the City has a clear strategy for abatement, economic return,
and an economic sensitivity analysis. However, leaving those factors undefined
could create challenges.
Council President Smith expressed concern that the current situation could
5

August 31, 2026, Council Meeting

have a chilling effect beyond TIFs proposed for the Pin Oak Parkway area and
could extend to areas such as Towne Center, potentially discouraging
developers from considering Avon Lake.
Mayor Spaetzel explained that the TIF being considered for Pin Oak Parkway
would make the schools whole by providing them with all revenue they would
otherwise receive. The residual amount would fund improvements to Pin Oak
Parkway and support future development in the area. He added that the City
will post a TIF primer on its website to provide the public with additional
information regarding TIFs.
Mr. Shahmir stated that the discussion is not whether TIFs are good or bad, but
the importance of stakeholders' involvement at the beginning of the process
rather than later in the process.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE REPORT
Mrs. Goodwin reported on the Environmental Committee as follows:
•

The Committee met on August 24, 2026. The agenda included a vote to
participate in the Power a Clean Future of Ohio program. Legislation will be
drafted and presented at a future Council Meeting.

FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT
Council President Smith reported on the Finance Committee as follows:
•

The Committee met earlier tonight. The agenda included fund transfers, police
vehicles, budget adjustments, fee schedule, and the brownfield grant resolution.

HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE REPORT
Mr. Reynolds reported on the Human Resources Committee as follows:
1. The next Committee meeting is Monday, September 21, 2026, during the
Collective Committee Meeting in the Council Chamber.
2. Mayor Spaetzel provided an update on the search for a new Finance Director.
Approximately 50 applications were received, with six candidates selected for
initial interviews. Three candidates will advance to second interviews.
PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTH COMMITTEE REPORT
Mr. Kos reported on the Public Safety and Health Committee as follows:
•

The next Committee meeting is Wednesday, September 16, 2026, at 6:00 p.m.
6

August 31, 2026, Council Meeting

in the Council Chamber.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE REPORT
Mrs. Fenderbosch reported on the Public Service Committee as follows:
1. The next Committee meeting is Wednesday, September 2, 2026, at 5:30 p.m. in
the Council Chamber.
2. The City is partnering with the FirstEnergy Green Team, Keep Lorain County
Beautiful Advisory Board, and the Lorain County Solid Waste Management
District on a countywide tree-planting and beautification initiative. In Lorain
County, every community can receive up to 18 free seedlings. Public Works
Director Liskovec selected two varieties: Kentucky coffeetree and yellowwood
trees. The seedlings will be planted in mid-October at the Safety Center.
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
Mr. Reynolds reported on Planning Commission as follows:
1. The next Commission meeting is Tuesday, September 1, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chamber.
2. A public hearing regarding amendments to the Planning and Zoning Code listed
in Ordinance No. 26-68 will be held on Monday, September 14, 2026, at 7:00
p.m. in the Council Chamber.
3. Kevin Hoffman of Polaris Engineering & Surveying provided an overview of the
improvement plans for Matthew’s Hollow Subdivision, Ordinance No. 26-78, on
behalf of the developer, Shire Glen Green Management, LLC.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REPORT
Mayor Spaetzel reported on the Zoning Board of Appeals as follows:
•

The next Board meeting is Wednesday, September 23, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber.

PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REPORT
Mrs. Goodwin reported on the Parks and Recreation Commission as follows:
•

The next Commission meeting is Wednesday, September 23, 2026, at 5:30 p.m.
in the First-Floor Conference Room.

Mrs. Goodwin asked Mayor Spaetzel for an update regarding the Memorandum of

7

August 31, 2026, Council Meeting

Understanding with Anchor Holdings Group, LLC. Mayor Spaetzel responded that the
City remains in discussions with Anchor Holdings Group, LLC.
Council President Smith asked when Council could expect to receive an update on the
plan for The Anchor. Mayor Spaetzel responded that the Law Department is involved
in the discussions.
Law Director Ebert reported that discussions have occurred, but no further progress
has been made on the proposed use of The Anchor or how it would be coordinated
with the Recreation Department and the new facility at former Erieview Elementary.
Mayor Spaetzel said the City has analyzed the anticipated costs and potential funding
based on the group's request. He explained that the group's initial request was
unlawful, and the City is working to develop an alternative to Council. He noted that
the alternative may not be financially feasible.
TREE COMMISSION REPORT
Mrs. Fenderbosch reported on the Tree Commission as follows:
1. The next Commission meeting is Wednesday, September 9, 2026, at 6:00 p.m.
at the Old Firehouse and Community Center.
2. An Arbor Day celebration and tree planting will be held at the Fall Festival on
Saturday, October 3, 2026, in Bleser Park.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD REPORT
Mrs. Goodwin reported on the Environmental Advisory Board as follows:
•

The next Board meeting is Tuesday, September 1, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. in the
Avon Lake Public Library.

LAKEFRONT FUTURING AND INVESTMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT
Mrs. Goodwin reported on the Lakefront Futuring and Investment Ad Hoc Committee
as follows:
1. The Committee met on August 11, 2026. The agenda included discussion on the
brownfield grant.
2. Twenty-two applications from residents interested in serving on the Committee
were received. Interviews will be held after the selection process is finalized.
3. The next Committee meeting is Tuesday, September 8, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. in
the Council Chamber.

8

August 31, 2026, Council Meeting

THE CITY OF AVON LAKE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS HANDBOOK
Mrs. Fenderbosch stated that Council established the Boards and Commissions
Structure Review Ad Hoc Committee in 2025, comprised of Larry Sansom, Kamber
Herrmann, and Dale Slivinski. Following their review and analysis of the City’s boards
and commissions, the Committee presented its recommendations to Council. One
recommendation was to create a handbook for members of the City’s boards and
commissions and elected officials. The purpose of the handbook is to provide members
with an understanding of the municipal process and the roles and relationships among
the various boards and commissions, City employees, and elected officials.
MOTIONS
Mr. Kos moved to authorize the Clerk of Council to read Resolution No. 26-80 in its
entirety.
Yes: Reynolds, Smith, Fenderbosch, Gentry, Goodwin, Kos
No: Shahmir
Motion passed.
Mr. Kos moved to authorize the Clerk of Council to read Resolution No. 26-82 in its
entirety.
Yes: Reynolds, Shahmir, Smith, Fenderbosch, Gentry, Goodwin, Kos
No: None
Motion passed.
Mrs. Fenderbosch moved to authorize the partnership with FirstEnergy Green Team,
Keep Lorain County Beautiful Advisory Board, and the Lorain County Solid Waste
Management District to participate in a countywide tree-planting and beautification
initiative.
Yes: Reynolds, Shahmir, Smith, Fenderbosch, Gentry, Goodwin, Kos
No: None
Motion passed.
Mr. Kos moved to instruct the Clerk of Council to return the form to the Division of
Liquor Control in the matter of a new liquor license for Elysium Coffee, LLC, Elysium
Café, 32457 Lake Road, Avon Lake, indicating the City does not request a hearing.


Police Chief Robinson reviewed the request from Elysium Coffee, LLC, for a
new liquor license and informed Council that he has no objection and does not
request a hearing.

Yes: Reynolds, Shahmir, Smith, Fenderbosch, Gentry, Goodwin, Kos
No: None
9

August 31, 2026, Council Meeting

Motion passed.
Mrs. Fenderbosch moved to adopt the City of Avon Lake Boards and Commissions
Handbook.
Yes: Reynolds, Shahmir, Smith, Fenderbosch, Gentry, Goodwin, Kos
No: None
Motion passed.
Council President Smith moved to accept the resignation of Amy Gentry as Avon Lake City
Council Ward 3 Representative effective August 31, 2026, at 11:59 p.m.


Ms. Gentry submitted a letter resigning from Council effective this
evening. Her service to the residents of Ward 3 was greatly appreciated,
and Council and the community expressed their sadness at her departure.

Yes: Reynolds, Shahmir, Smith, Fenderbosch, Gentry, Goodwin, Kos
No: None
Motion passed.
LEGISLATION
Second Reading:
Ordinance No. 26-68, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PLANNING AND ZONING CODE
SECTIONS 1214, 1224, 1226, and 1234.
This legislation will amend sections in the Planning and Zoning Code pertaining to
submission procedures for improvement plans, review procedures for site plans,
variance applications, accessory structures in non-residential districts, building
regulations for general development, fences and walls, and parking access, as
recommended by Planning Commission.
Mrs. Fenderbosch stated that the Tree Commission fully supports the addition of
Section 1214.06(c)(6), Landscaping Plan, because it formally incorporates the Tree
Commission’s review of urban forestry considerations and the standards established by
the Division of Forestry into the review process for these submissions.
First Readings:
Resolution No. 26-75, A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SUPPORT OF COUNCIL FOR THE
CITY OF AVON LAKE FOR THE APPLICATION OF AVON LAKE ENVIRONMENTAL
REDEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, TO THE STATE OF OHIO BROWNFIELD REMEDIATION
PROGRAM FOR THE FORMER AVON LAKE POWER PLANT PROPERTY AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY, was read by title only.

10

August 31, 2026, Council Meeting

Council President Smith moved for suspension of the rule requiring three readings.
Yes: Reynolds, Shahmir, Smith, Fenderbosch, Gentry, Goodwin, Kos
No: None
Motion passed.
Council President Smith moved for passage of Resolution No. 26-75. This legislation
will support the application by the Avon Lake Environmental Redevelopment Group
(ALERG) to the State of Ohio Brownfield Remediation Program for the former power
plant property. ALERG is seeking a state grant of between $5 million and $10 million.
Mr. Shahmir stated that he had two concerns that needed to be addressed. First, he
requested that a side agreement be established providing for a TIF offset in the
amount of any grant received. He stated that, if a $60 million TIF is established and
ALERG receives a $5 million or $10 million grant, the corresponding amount should be
offset through the TIF. He noted that this provision did not need to be included in the
resolution but should be addressed in a separate agreement approved by all parties.
Second, Mr. Shahmir asked that the resolution address how the grant funds would be
utilized. He stated that the use of the funds had been discussed the previous week
but was not included in the resolution.
Yes: Reynolds, Shahmir, Smith, Fenderbosch, Gentry, Goodwin, Kos
No: None
Motion passed.
Resolution No. 26-75 adopted.
Ordinance No. 26-76, AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO
TRANSFER FUNDS AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY, was read by title only.
Council President Smith moved for suspension of the rule requiring three readings.
Yes: Reynolds, Shahmir, Smith, Fenderbosch, Gentry, Goodwin, Kos
No: None
Motion passed.
Council President Smith moved for passage of Ordinance No. 26-76. This legislation
will authorize the Finance Director to transfer the following funds to the General
Fund:
1. Fund 520 Walker Road Sewer/Lear Road: $592,989.70
2. Fund 521 Lear Road Sewer/Walker Road: $413,559.05
Yes: Reynolds, Shahmir, Smith, Fenderbosch, Gentry, Goodwin, Kos
No: None
Motion passed.
11

August 31, 2026, Council Meeting

Ordinance No. 26-76 adopted.
Ordinance No. 26-77, AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF THREE 2026
FORD UTILITY INTERCEPTORS FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY, was read by title only.
Mr. Kos moved for suspension of the rule requiring three readings.
Yes: Reynolds, Shahmir, Smith, Fenderbosch, Gentry, Goodwin, Kos
No: None
Motion passed.
Mr. Kos moved for passage of Ordinance No. 26-77. This legislation will authorize the
purchase of three 2026 Ford Utility Interceptors for the Police Department from
Statewide Ford of Van Wert, Ohio, in the amount of $131,442. Four vehicles were
initially budgeted; however, following a review of the City’s finances, the purchase
was reduced to three vehicles.
Yes: Reynolds, Shahmir, Smith, Fenderbosch, Gentry, Goodwin, Kos
No: None
Motion passed.
Ordinance No. 26-77 adopted.
Ordinance No. 26-78, AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR
MATTHEW HOLLOW’S SUBDIVISION AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY, was read by title
only.
This legislation will approve the improvement plan for Matthew Hollow’s Subdivision,
consisting of a 13-lot single-family residential subdivision on approximately 9.35 acres
located northeast of the intersection of Lear Road and Krebs Road, within the R-1A
Single-Family Residence District, as approved by the Planning Commission on August 4,
2026.
Ordinance No. 26-79, AN ORDINANCE SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORATE THE QUESTION
OF WHETHER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER XIII OF THE CHARTER OF THE
CITY OF AVON LAKE, OHIO, TO ADD SECTION 69(B) SHALL BE ADOPTED AND THE CITY
CHARTER AMENDED AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY, was read by title only.
Council President Smith moved for suspension of the rule requiring three readings.
Yes: Shahmir, Smith, Fenderbosch, Gentry, Goodwin, Kos
No: Reynolds
Motion passed.
Council President Smith moved for passage of Ordinance No. 26-79. This legislation
will submit to the electorate whether the proposed amendment to City Charter
12

August 31, 2026, Council Meeting

Chapter XIII to add Section 69(B) shall be adopted.
Council President Smith stated that the petitioners requested that Council place a
Charter Amendment regarding the rezoning and a TIF at the former power plant
property on the November 2026 election ballot. He noted that the petition contains
two separate provisions that may cause confusion for some voters. He stated that
Council has been advised that, under the law, the petition must be presented to the
voters of the City for their consideration. Although he does not believe the Charter
Amendment should be approved by the voters, he stated that he must support placing
it on the ballot as required by law.
Mr. Shahmir provided additional background regarding his involvement with the
Chapter 1219 discussions and the proposed Charter Amendment. He stated that,
during the Chapter 1219 discussions, he retained Mr. Phillips to provide legal advice
regarding municipal law and mixed-use overlays because he believed he had not
received sufficient information regarding the proposed project or its economic
implications. He stated that he spent approximately 10 hours with Mr. Phillips
reviewing available options and their potential impacts, during which Mr. Phillips
identified several options, including the proposed Charter Amendment. Mr. Shahmir
stated that he agreed with Mr. Phillips’ decision to pursue the Charter Amendment.
Mr. Shahmir stated that his support for the Charter Amendment is based on his belief
that residents who express sufficient concern and sign a petition should have the
opportunity to vote on the matter. He stated that greater clarity regarding the
proposed project and its financial implications may have prevented the Charter
Amendment from being pursued. He noted that questions regarding the economic
aspects of the project had been referred to Dick Shields of ALERG and that the
information presented was based on information from ALERG, Mr. Shields’ analysis, or
the analysis prepared by Avison Young. He emphasized the importance of providing
residents with clear information regarding the proposed development of the former
power plant property and its financial implications.
Mr. Shahmir further stated that, although the project has been described as an
economic development initiative, he views it as primarily a residential development
initiative. He referenced prior discussions regarding the number of jobs that would
need to be created to generate the approximately $6 million needed for infrastructure
improvements. He stated that he considers the matter from the perspective of a
Councilmember, taxpayer, and resident and emphasized the importance of residents
having the opportunity to vote. He stated that, when more than 1,000 residents sign a
petition requesting an opportunity to have a say in the matter, he believes their
concerns should be heard. He reiterated that he sought outside legal counsel because
he wanted to better understand the proposal and its implications.
Council President Smith stated that the matter will be presented to the voters and
urged voters not to support the Charter Amendment. He expressed concern that the
amendment could have significant economic consequences by requiring a developer to
13

August 31, 2026, Council Meeting

complete the City’s submission and approval requirements and potentially invest
substantial funds in a project before subjecting it to a subsequent vote of the
electorate. He also expressed concern that the amendment could affect the City’s
ability to negotiate TIF agreements with the schools, noting that such agreements
would need to be structured in a manner acceptable to the schools for the project to
proceed. He questioned the effect of subsequently subjecting the agreement to voter
approval and stated that the Charter Amendment addresses two separate issues that
could impose additional requirements and economic consequences.
Council President Smith further expressed concern that the Charter Amendment could
have a chilling effect on future development throughout the City, including potential
development at Pin Oak Parkway and Towne Center. He stated that developers could
be concerned that economically viable projects may be subject to an additional
voter-approval requirement. He acknowledged that the Charter Amendment will be
placed on the ballot and stated that the voters will ultimately decide the matter.
Mr. Reynolds stated that he respects residents’ right to petition their government and
seek changes to the City Charter but noted that this does not mean the proposed
amendment will accomplish its proponents’ intended purpose. He stated that Chapter
1219 already places the property within the Lakefront Mixed-Use Overlay District and
that Section 1219.03 allows a property owner to develop under the overlay without
rezoning the underlying district. He stated that the proposed Charter Amendment
would require voter approval of a future rezoning ordinance that may not be necessary.
He noted that the amendment would not repeal Chapter 1219, remove the property
from the overlay district, require voter approval of a development plan, or eliminate
the property owner’s existing ability to develop under the overlay. He stated that,
while the TIF is a separate matter, he has concerns that the zoning provisions may not
accomplish what the petitioners intend.
Mr. Reynolds further stated that public discussion of Chapter 1219 has, in his view,
included misinterpretations of what the overlay permits. He stated that this is
relevant because the proposed Charter Amendment may be based on a
misunderstanding of how Chapter 1219 operates.
Mr. Reynolds then expressed concern that the proposed amendment could create
uncertainty for future developers by imposing additional requirements after
development regulations have been established. He stated that developers need
assurance regarding applicable regulations and that additional barriers could discourage
investment in Avon Lake.
Mr. Reynolds concluded by stating that he supports responsible development, public
input, and appropriate safeguards for the former power plant property; however, if
the City amends its Charter, the amendment should accomplish its intended purpose.
He expressed serious doubts that the proposed amendment would do so.
Mr. Kos stated that he had prepared a statement to be read during consideration of
14

August 31, 2026, Council Meeting

the next piece of legislation. He clarified that his affirmative vote was required by
law and should not be interpreted as support for the proposed Charter Amendment.
Mr. Kos further stated that, for the reasons previously expressed by Council President
Smith and Mr. Reynolds, he considers the proposed amendment poorly drafted and
believes it may be subject to legal challenge. He also expressed concern about
potential unintended consequences and a chilling effect on development in Avon
Lake, including the former power plant property. He stated that establishing such a
requirement could discourage developers from undertaking projects in the City.
Mrs. Fenderbosch stated that several matters regarding the proposed Charter
Amendment should be clearly explained to the public. She does not support the
amendment but believes Council is required to advance it to the Board of Elections.
She explained that the Board of Elections verified the petition signatures and noted
that, despite some invalid signatures, the petition contained sufficient valid
signatures to qualify for the ballot. She stated that the required threshold was 483
valid signatures, representing 10 percent of the voters who participated in the most
recent general election.
Mrs. Fenderbosch discussed the potential impact of the amendment on development
of the former power plant property. She explained that ALERG is not the vertical
developer and that future developers would need to secure financing and determine
whether the property is appropriately zoned before proceeding. She expressed
concern that a developer could incur substantial expenses and proceed through the
City’s zoning, planning, and legislative processes, only to then be required to obtain
voter approval before returning to Council for final action. She questioned the
purpose of the existing development process if an additional voter-approval
requirement were imposed at that stage.
Mrs. Fenderbosch further stated that she was not aware of the American Planning and
Zoning Association identifying such a process as a standard economic development
practice. She also expressed concern that the amendment targets a specific area and
could be viewed as directed at ALERG and the former power plant property. She
stated that a provision addressing a specific development matter is not appropriate
for inclusion in the City Charter.
Mr. Shahmir acknowledged the concerns surrounding the proposed Charter Amendment
but questioned the City’s proposed $60 million TIF, particularly the use of funds to
acquire green space that could increase surrounding property values while creating an
ongoing maintenance obligation for the City. He also questioned the environmental
implications and costs of proposed beach access.
Mr. Shahmir further stated that Council needs specific, documented information
regarding the project’s anticipated economic growth, infrastructure needs, and costs
rather than relying solely on consultant expertise. He stated that an economic
feasibility and sensitivity analysis remains outstanding and should be provided to
15

August 31, 2026, Council Meeting

Council and the public. He concluded by stating that greater clarity and information
could help address concerns surrounding the project.
Mrs. Goodwin stated that she did not support Chapter 1219 due to concerns regarding
the lack of planning and information available at the time. However, she does not
believe the proposed Charter Amendment is the appropriate means of addressing
those concerns or achieving greater planning, execution, and economic strategy,
which she has consistently advocated.
Mrs. Goodwin further stated that the amendment does not resolve the underlying
concerns and expressed particular concern about its potential impact on future
generations and the former power plant property’s role in the City’s future. She stated
that residents should have a meaningful opportunity to participate in determining the
property’s future and noted that, regardless of the applicable zoning framework, the
development process includes a required public hearing and other opportunities for
public input.
Ms. Gentry questioned the long-term impact on the former power plant property if
the proposed Charter Amendment is approved by the voters. She stated that she
understood Council’s obligation to advance the matter to the ballot once the
petitioners obtained the requisite number of signatures but questioned what zoning
and development framework would govern the property if the amendment were
approved.
Council President Smith questioned whether the proposed Charter Amendment would
actually revoke Chapter 1219, noting that a referendum to repeal Chapter 1219 could
have been pursued but was not. He stated that, while the amendment requires
certain matters to be submitted to the voters, it is unclear from the language exactly
what would be subject to a vote. He expressed concern that the amendment may not
accomplish what its proponents intend and could result in legal challenges regarding
its constitutionality. He stated that the City may ultimately have to await the
outcome of any such litigation.
Mayor Spaetzel stated that he respects residents’ right to use the citizen petition
process but strongly opposes the proposed Charter Amendment requiring voter
approval of development plans for the former power plant property after Council
approval. He expressed concern that an additional referendum would create
uncertainty for property owners and developers and could discourage redevelopment.
He noted that the City’s existing process includes planning and zoning requirements,
Planning Commission review, public meetings, engineering and legal review,
environmental considerations, and opportunities for public input. He stated that
developers make substantial investments based on established requirements and
approvals and need certainty that those approvals will be meaningful.
Mayor Spaetzel outlined the history of the former power plant property, including
environmental remediation and efforts to facilitate lake access, public park space,
16

August 31, 2026, Council Meeting

and mixed-use development. He expressed concern that a rejected development plan
could delay or prevent redevelopment, leaving the property underutilized and
potentially jeopardizing the proposed park and lake access. He also noted that
complex development plans may not be suited to a citywide referendum.
Mayor Spaetzel stated that the City should be cautious about changing its form of
government in response to a single project, and he emphasized that residents already
have opportunities to participate in the development process. He concluded by
stating that the City should continue to require responsible development,
infrastructure planning, environmental protection, and public access, but he could
not support the proposed Charter Amendment because of the uncertainty it could
create for redevelopment of the former power plant property.
Mrs. Goodwin stated that Ohio law already provides the School Board with a role in
any future TIF for the former power plant property. She explained that the process
applies specifically to the property and requires the school district to receive notice,
evaluate the impact of the TIF, and negotiate compensation terms before certain TIF
exemptions can be granted.
Mrs. Goodwin expressed further concern that the proposed Charter Amendment would
impose an additional voter-approval requirement after the School Board and City have
negotiated a TIF agreement. She stated that, if the School Board agreed to the terms
and the TIF were subsequently subject to a referendum, the district could face
additional time and expense advocating for voter approval. She questioned whether
this additional process would diminish the significance of the School Board’s existing
role and the work already performed through the statutory process.
Yes: Reynolds, Shahmir, Smith, Fenderbosch, Gentry, Goodwin, Kos
No: None
Motion passed.
Ordinance No. 26-79 adopted.
Resolution No. 26-80, A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE OPPOSITION OF AVON LAKE
COUNCIL TO THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT REQUIRING ELECTORAL APPROVAL
OF CERTAIN REZONING AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING LEGISLATION RELATING TO
THE FORMER AVON LAKE POWER PLANT PROPERTY AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY,
was read in its entirety.
Council President Smith moved for suspension of the rule requiring three readings.
Yes: Reynolds, Smith, Fenderbosch, Gentry, Goodwin, Kos
No: Shahmir
Motion passed.
Council President Smith moved for passage of Resolution No. 26-80. This legislation
expresses Council’s opposition to the proposed Charter Amendment requiring approval
of rezoning and TIF regarding the former power plant property.
17

August 31, 2026, Council Meeting

Ms. Gentry stated that she also voted against Chapter 1219 because she did not
believe the economic projections justified the proposal at the time. She noted that
changes have since been made to address some of those economic concerns, but she
did not intend to revisit the merits of Chapter 1219.
Ms. Gentry encouraged voters to understand the potential consequences of the
proposed Charter Amendment before voting. She stated that voters who believe the
amendment is necessary to counter decisions made by Council and the School Board
should also participate in the Lakefront Futuring and Investment Ad Hoc Committee
meetings, which she described as the appropriate forum for discussing the future of
the property. She expressed concern that the proposed amendment could delay
redevelopment of the former power plant property and stated that additional
uncertainty could discourage developers from pursuing the mixed-use development
contemplated by Chapter 1219. She encouraged residents to consider the potential
impact of the amendment on the property’s future before voting.
Mr. Shahmir stated that voters should be fully informed before deciding on the
proposed Charter Amendment. He encouraged the City and ALERG to present
objective information regarding the project’s economic, fiscal, traffic, infrastructure,
and long-term maintenance impacts. He stated that the central concern has been the
project’s potential impact rather than opposition to development and expressed
concern that sufficient information has not been presented to Council or residents. He
concluded by stating that voters should have factual information on the project’s
potential impacts before making their decision.
Mrs. Fenderbosch explained that development is a multi-step process and that all
details are not available at the outset. She stated that future stages, including
subdivider agreements addressing ongoing infrastructure maintenance, provide
additional opportunities for Council, the public, and Planning Commission to address
outstanding issues. She cautioned voters to understand the effect of the proposed
Charter Amendment, stating that it would not repeal Chapter 1219 but could require
voter approval of future vertical development. She also expressed concern that the
amendment could undermine the School Board’s statutory authority to negotiate TIF
compensation with a developer and potentially negate the time and expertise
invested in reaching such an agreement.
Mr. Kos stated that he respects residents’ desire to have a direct say in the future of
the former power plant property and does not fault those who signed the petition.
However, he stated that he opposes the proposed Charter Amendment because of the
way it is written and the unintended consequences it could create. He stated that
residents may view the amendment as providing a direct vote on a developer’s
proposal, but he expressed concern that its requirements could make large-scale
mixed-use development impractical. He explained that a project of this scope could
involve multiple developers, phases, and submissions, potentially requiring separate
public votes before subsequent phases could proceed. He stated that the resulting
uncertainty could discourage developers from making the substantial investments
18

August 31, 2026, Council Meeting

necessary for architectural, environmental, infrastructure, and development studies.
Mr. Kos also expressed concern that the amendment could affect the proposed public
acquisition and development of portions of the property. He stated that a failed vote
could jeopardize public parkland amenities and result in the property being developed
under its existing B-3 zoning, for which the proposed amendment would not provide a
voter-approval requirement. He further stated that the amendment contains significant
legal and procedural concerns and could result in prolonged delays or litigation. He
emphasized that residents have a right to seek voter approval, but the proposed
amendment does not provide an effective framework for achieving that objective. He
concluded by stating that the City should seek other ways to provide public input while
allowing responsible redevelopment of the property.
Yes: Reynolds, Smith, Fenderbosch, Gentry, Goodwin, Kos
No: Shahmir
Motion passed.
Resolution No. 26-80 adopted.
Ordinance No. 26-81, AN ORDINANCE SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORATE THE QUESTION
OF WHETHER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER VII OF THE CHARTER OF THE
CITY OF AVON LAKE, OHIO, TO AMEND SECTION 37 SHALL BE ADOPTED AND THE CITY
CHARTER AMENDED AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY, was read by title only.
Council President Smith moved for suspension of the rule requiring three readings.
Yes: Reynolds, Shahmir, Smith, Fenderbosch, Gentry, Goodwin, Kos
No: None
Motion passed.
Council President Smith moved for passage of Ordinance No. 26-81. This legislation
will submit to the electorate the question of whether the proposed amendment to
City Charter Chapter VII, Section 37, shall be adopted.
Council President Smith explained that the proposed ordinance differs from the
previous matter discussed. The petition was originally submitted with signatures for
the November 2024 election and was subsequently resubmitted with election dates
for 2026. The proposed Charter Amendment would change the Law Director from an
appointed position to an elected position and, as presented, does not include
language repealing the existing ordinance. He noted that, because Law Director Ebert
has a conflict and will not participate in the matter, Council received a memorandum
from Attorney Kevin Butler of McDonald Hopkins regarding the petitions. That
memorandum identifies deficiencies in the number of signatures submitted for both
the 2024 and 2026 election petitions and indicates that the matter could potentially
be submitted at a future municipal election.
Mr. Kos stated that he would vote against the ordinance based on the legal concerns
19

August 31, 2026, Council Meeting

identified in the memorandum from Attorney Butler. He questioned how Council could
advance the matter when the petitions did not contain the required number of
signatures and noted that the petitions identified different election dates, 2024 and
2026. He thanked Attorney Butler for his analysis and stated that he would reserve his
views on whether the Law Director should be elected or appointed for a future
discussion. He concluded by stating that, based on the legal concerns presented, he
opposed forwarding the matter to the Board of Elections.
Ms. Gentry noted that the ordinance states that 678 valid signatures were submitted.
Council President Smith agreed with the number of valid signatures but clarified that
they were divided between the 2024 and 2026 petitions and that neither petition
independently contained the required number of signatures to meet the threshold.
Mr. Shahmir questioned the combining of the petitions. In response, Clerk Rosmarin
exhibited the petitions and identified different election dates, with some designating
November 2024 and others November 2026.
Council President Smith also noted that the petitions should include language repealing
the existing Law Director provisions under Section 37 and replacing them with the
proposed language.
Ms. Gentry questioned the statement that the matter would need to be placed on a
municipal election ballot.
Council President Smith confirmed that this was addressed in Attorney Butler’s opinion
and stated that Council was now required to vote on whether to forward the matter to
the Board of Elections.
Mr. Shahmir asked for the number of petitioners who signed in 2024 and in 2026.
Mr. Kos responded that he did not have the exact number, but it was less than the
required amount.
Mrs. Goodwin expressed concern that requiring the Law Director to stand for election
would require significant time and effort to conduct a campaign, which could detract
from the responsibilities of the position.
Council President Smith stated that the comment addressed the central issue raised by
the proposed Charter Amendment.
Mrs. Fenderbosch expressed concern that an elected Law Director could face political
pressures when making legal decisions. She noted that the current Law Director serves
Council and the Administration and that the Mayor’s appointment is subject to Council
approval. She stated that this process provides an opportunity for Council and the
Mayor to address performance concerns, whereas removing an elected Law Director
20

August 31, 2026, Council Meeting

could be more difficult.
She also expressed further concern that requiring the Law Director to be an Avon Lake
resident with municipal experience would significantly reduce the pool of qualified
candidates. She noted that an appointed Law Director may be associated with a law
firm that provides access to additional legal resources, while an elected Law Director
could result in increased costs if the position became a full-time municipal position
with benefits. She concluded by expressing opposition to changing the position from
appointed to elected.
Council President Smith stated that the issue before Council was not the merits of an
elected versus appointed Law Director, but whether the petitions could be treated as a
single document given the differences in their language and election dates. He
reiterated that as the sponsor of this ordinance, he would vote yes.
Mr. Reynolds stated that the petition was presented to him despite the petitioner
knowing that he was a Councilmember. He stated that he raised concerns regarding
potential limitations on candidates and the politicization of the Law Director position.
He reported that the petitioner characterized the proposal as allowing Council to
select the Law Director and questioned how the amendment was presented to other
residents when soliciting signatures.
Mr. Shahmir clarified that, under the current structure, the Law Director is appointed
by and serves at the pleasure of the Mayor, rather than Council. He noted that, like
other department heads, the Law Director serves under the Mayor’s direction and is
therefore accountable to the Mayor’s administration and policy objectives.
Mr. Kos disagreed with Mr. Shahmir’s statement, explaining that the Mayor may
nominate a Law Director, but Council reviews and approves the appointment. He noted
that, as with other department heads, Council receives the candidate’s qualifications,
may interview the candidate, and may approve or reject the appointment. He stated
that Council has previously rejected mayoral nominees and required the Mayor to
submit alternative candidates.
Mr. Shahmir clarified that the concern is not who is appointed as Law Director, but the
difficulty of removing an appointed Law Director once approved by Council. He stated
that, after Council approves the appointment, the Law Director may only be removed
by the Mayor.
Council President Smith reiterated that the issue before Council concerns the
submission of the petitions. He stated that the petitions are separate submissions
because they contain different language and identify two different election dates and
therefore cannot be treated as a single submission.
Mr. Shahmir stated that he supports an elected Law Director because he believes an
elected Law Director would be able to provide an independent legal opinion without
21

August 31, 2026, Council Meeting

being subject to the Mayor’s authority. However, he stated that, due to the
discrepancies between the petitions, he would vote against the matter.
Yes: Smith
No: Reynolds, Shahmir, Fenderbosch, Gentry, Goodwin, Kos
Motion failed.
Council President Smith moved to remove Resolution No. 26-82 from the agenda.


Following discussion regarding whether to remove Resolution No. 26-82 from
consideration or proceed with the legislation, Council President Smith withdrew
his motion.

Resolution No. 26-82, A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE OPPOSITION OF COUNCIL TO
THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT REQUIRING THE LAW DIRECTOR TO BE AN
ELECTED OFFICIAL AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY, was read in its entirety.
Mr. Kos moved for suspension of the rule requiring three readings.
Yes: Reynolds, Shahmir, Smith, Fenderbosch, Gentry, Goodwin, Kos
No: None
Motion passed.
Mr. Kos moved for passage of Resolution No. 26-82. This legislation expresses
Council’s opposition to the proposed Charter Amendment requiring the Law Director
to be an elected official.
Mr. Kos stated that the issue concerns whether the Law Director should be elected or
appointed and emphasized the importance of selecting the most qualified candidate.
He stated that an appointed position would allow the City to consider a larger pool of
attorneys throughout Northeast Ohio, while an elected position would limit
candidates to attorneys residing within the City. He noted that municipal law is a
specialized area of practice and maintaining a broader candidate pool would provide
Council with greater opportunity to select a qualified Law Director.
Mr. Shahmir reiterated that he believes the Law Director should be an elected
position for the reasons previously stated and that he would vote against the
legislation.
Yes: Reynolds, Smith, Fenderbosch, Gentry, Goodwin, Kos
No: Shahmir
Motion passed.
Resolution No. 26-82 adopted.

22

August 31, 2026, Council Meeting

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council President Smith announced the following:



Big Trucks will be held on Saturday, September 19, 2026, at the Safety Center.
Letters of interest and resumes will be accepted until September 4, 2026, at
4:30 p.m. to fill the Ward 3 vacancy.

Mrs. Fenderbosch reported that she attended the 2026 National Ozone Garden
Network Summer Workshop in Colorado and completed 20 hours of professional
development during Council’s summer recess. She stated that she plans to make a
future presentation to Council regarding the effects of ground-level ozone on human
health and plants. She explained that the Ozone Garden at the Library serves as a
living sensor, with an air monitor providing ground-level ozone data in coordination
with NASA satellite data. She also reported that the Garden’s test plants were
vandalized on August 20. She thanked Council and the community for supporting the
Ozone Garden initiative.
Ms. Gentry moved for adjournment.
Yes: Reynolds, Shahmir, Smith, Fenderbosch, Gentry, Goodwin, Kos
No: None
Motion passed.
Adjournment: 10:19 p.m.

Approved:

Council President

Attest:

Clerk of Council

23