Fostoria council removes control-of-access ordinance from docket after heated debate

FOSTORIA, Ohio — The Fostoria City Council removed from the docket a proposed ordinance to regulate conduct on city‑owned, controlled and leased property after a prolonged debate that highlighted disagreements over scope, enforcement authority and recording restrictions.

Supporters said the measure would provide safety and order at city properties; critics said its language was overly broad and concentrated too much authority in a single official. Councilmember Cassidy, the ordinance’s most vocal proponent at the meeting, said, "I'm prepared to vote in favor of this tonight," arguing the city needed new controls given recent incidents. Resident Jill Filliator asked how many properties the ordinance would cover, saying, "I don't even think all the council members know how many properties you guys are gonna be talking about."

The ordinance (new Section 109.02 of the city code) would have created categories of city property and set rules for conduct, including limitations on recording and other behaviors. Several council members and a committee member said parts of the draft were "overly broad" and contained internal contradictions: one speaker pointed to the ordinance’s provision that would let the safety service director classify areas while other sections attempt to list those areas explicitly. A council member also flagged possible conflicts with the Ohio Revised Code on recording public officials and suggested the provision be reviewed by the law director.

The law director told the council that the court already has placed notices mirroring similar restrictions at the Seneca County Justice Center and that "Judge Best has prohibited recording in, I believe it's this hallway out here," a point cited by those who said some courtroom-related restrictions are already in effect. Council members also raised implementation concerns: several asked that the ordinance specify the list of properties it would apply to, add an alternate to the named enforcement official, and correct drafting errors (one section reads "vaping devised" instead of "vaping device").

After discussion, no member moved to adopt the ordinance at third reading. Council President announced, "this ordinance will be removed from the docket for lack of a motion." The removal means the measure will not be adopted at this meeting; several council members suggested referring the language back to the Law and Ordinance Committee or to staff for revision.

Councilmembers and staff did not adopt new restrictions at the meeting; the council preserved existing authority while asking for clearer, narrower language and administrative details before any future vote.