Findlay committee weighs new loitering ordinance to give police clearer enforcement criteria

A Committee of the Whole meeting of the Findlay City Council on Nov. 12, 2025, examined a proposed loitering ordinance designed to give law enforcement clearer authority to order people to move when their presence obstructs businesses or public ways.

The mayor summarized the administration’s rationale, saying the ordinance’s purpose is “to promote public safety in order by prohibiting conduct that obstructs public ways or facilitates criminal activity while preserving the constitutional rights of individuals to move freely, assemble, and engage in lawful activity.” The draft defines loitering as remaining in a public place without apparent lawful purpose after being asked by an officer to move along and makes clear officers must identify themselves, explain the conduct observed, give a reasonable opportunity to comply and document the circumstances before issuing a citation or arrest.

The law director, identified in the meeting as Feidner, told councilmembers the draft is meant to provide objective criteria for officers and prosecutors to use in situations that fall short of disorderly conduct or rioting but could escalate. “We’re even telling the police officers what they have to do first, and I know that the chief of police has reviewed this,” Feidner said, describing the text as an attempt to make enforcement more precise.

Councilmembers pressed officials on how the new language would have changed recent responses to groups congregating outside a music school on Broadway. The mayor said officers addressed clearly illegal activity when observed but that the proposed ordinance would help in instances where people were not committing a crime yet were obstructing business operations, leaving trash or deterring customers.

Several councilmembers discussed the procedural path forward. One councilmember urged that an amended draft be placed in the public packet before a third reading so residents could examine changes; others recommended a cleaner approach of letting the current draft proceed to its scheduled reading and, if rejected, introducing the new ordinance so it can receive three full readings with public notice. The law director said submitting the revised language as a letter to be included in the packet is feasible but that council would still need to accept any amendment at the start of a meeting according to procedure.

The draft sets penalties as a minor misdemeanor, with repeated violations within 12 months elevating to a fourth-degree misdemeanor. Councilmembers asked whether panhandling, stepping into traffic or reaching into vehicles would be covered; Feidner said existing panhandling and trespass statutes remain available and prosecutors typically choose the charge that best fits the facts.

No formal vote on the ordinance occurred at the committee meeting. The body concluded with a motion to adjourn, which passed by voice vote. Officials said next steps could include publishing a revised draft in the meeting packet or postponing action to allow the council and public more time to review the proposed language.

The committee adjourned without voting on the ordinance, leaving the council to decide whether to amend and postpone consideration or to introduce the revised draft for three readings at future meetings.