Findlay council hears citizen cease‑and‑desist, law director says initiative does not automatically halt work on Downtown North River projects

Findlay City Council filed a cease‑and‑desist letter from a citizens group and accepted a legal opinion from the city law director addressing whether an initiative petition halts city activity on the Downtown North River and Anchor Park projects.

The legal opinion, read into the record by the law director, concluded that the mere filing of an initiative petition does not automatically stop existing planning, design, contracting or related actions. The law director said the initiative process only produces binding legal effect if the proposed ordinance is approved by voters.

The matter drew multiple public commenters who urged the council to pause project work until voters decide and raised concerns about historic contamination at the redevelopment site. Danny Delong, a Ward 7 resident, told council that residents repeatedly oppose the park’s proposed costs and asked council to wait on additional spending until initiative status is resolved. Patty Klein of Ward 3 said she wants the community to vote on the plan. Hedy Sadler of Ward 6 warned of hexavalent chromium in soil near the proposed park and said proceeding now risks public health and potential liability. Katie Erickson, also of Ward 6, urged the council to focus on maintaining existing parks rather than constructing a new, costly facility.

City Auditor Stashek provided financial context during the meeting and highlighted a line in an engineering/environmental letter estimating remediation costs: "the cost estimate to remediate the property to high frequency child exposure standard is approximately $850,000" and that using residential standards "could easily double that cost." Stashek noted the city carries no environmental liability insurance and urged caution on accepting contaminated property without further testing and cost estimates.

Council accepted for the record a letter from Findlay Citizens For A Safe City that demands the city "immediately cease and desist from all ongoing or proposed actions related to the Downtown North River development project, including but not limited to the Anchor Park redevelopment, design or planning activities, contracting with outside firms, environmental remediation efforts, funding allocations, and property transfers." The letter also stated the group had initiated an ordinance petition under Article II, Section 1(f) of the Ohio Constitution and warned of potential legal action including claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The law director read and filed a written legal opinion responding to the citizens’ letter. That opinion said, in summary, that an initiative petition is a proposal until adopted by voters and does not act as an injunction to stop current municipal activity. The law director also informed council that, to his knowledge at the time of the opinion, the work of concern was being performed under the control or ownership of the Hancock County Commissioners and the Maumee Watershed Conservancy District, and that the City of Findlay had not executed ground‑disturbing contracts or signed construction contracts related to the site.

Council members asked clarifying questions about whether the city could object to the petition process; the law director said the city’s role is limited to established petition review procedures unless litigation is filed and rulings issued. The law director also noted there was pending litigation filed in Hancock County Common Pleas Court and advised council to discuss litigation matters in the courthouse or in executive session rather than at the open meeting.

No formal council direction to pause design or contracting was recorded at the meeting. Council accepted the citizen letter and the law director’s written opinion into the record and filed both documents.

The council also received and filed an engineering letter from Michael Kuhnfair, senior project manager, and Timothy Murphy, vice president at an environmental consulting firm, describing the flood risk mitigation and environmental remediation project, including the estimated remediation costs cited above.

The public comments and staff statements left several outstanding items: whether additional environmental testing (for example, a comprehensive Phase II assessment) will be completed, the full remediation cost estimate under different exposure standards, and whether city ownership or direct contracting will occur while the initiative petition and related litigation proceed. Council members and the city auditor said they would coordinate further legal and fiscal review before taking any land transfers or entering major contracts related to the site.

The matter remains active and will return to council as required by usual legislative or administrative steps; residents who testified urged postponement of further spending or contracts until voters have a chance to act.