FOSTORIA, OHIO – In a decisive step toward sustainable energy and fiscal responsibility, the City of Fostoria is paving the way for a new solar energy initiative at Reservoir 5. On March 02, 2025, the Fostoria City Council introduced Ordinance No. 2025, a measure designed to authorize the lease of a portion of city-owned land—identified by Hancock County permanent parcel numbers 510000910170 and 510000910180—for photovoltaic solar energy development. The ordinance, sponsored at the request of Mayor Donald Mennel, reflects the city’s commitment to repurposing underutilized assets for the public good.

Photo byThe Fostoria Free Press

Reservoir 5, a waterbody long familiar to Fostoria residents, has been deemed unnecessary for municipal purposes by both the Director of Public Service and Safety and the City Council. Rather than letting the land sit idle, city leadership sees an opportunity to transform it into a revenue-generating asset. The ordinance empowers the Director of Public Service and Safety to solicit sealed bids for leasing the surface area of Reservoir 5 specifically for solar energy projects, with the goal of securing the highest and best offer through a competitive bidding process.

Photo byThe Fostoria Free Press

A Transparent and Competitive Process

Under the proposed ordinance, the city will adhere strictly to Ohio state law, including Section 721.01 of the Ohio Revised Code, which governs the sale and lease of municipal lands. The bidding process will involve advertising for five consecutive weeks in a local newspaper of general circulation, ensuring broad public awareness and participation. The Director of Public Service and Safety is granted authority to reject any or all bids if they fail to meet the city’s standards, but only the highest bidder will ultimately secure the lease.

Photo byThe Fostoria Free Press

To ensure accountability, the Director of Law and the City Engineer have been tasked with preparing detailed bid specifications and a contract tailored to the winning bidder. The bid opening and lease award process will take place in a public meeting, reinforcing the city’s commitment to transparency as mandated by Section 121.22 of the Ohio Revised Code.

Photo byThe Fostoria Free Press

An Emergency Measure for Fiscal Health

The ordinance has been declared an emergency measure, a designation that underscores its urgency for Fostoria’s financial well-being. According to the text, the lease of Reservoir 5 is seen as a critical step to “raise municipal revenue” at a time when such funds are vital for preserving public health, safety, and welfare. If approved by a two-thirds vote of the City Council and signed by Mayor Mennel, the ordinance will take effect immediately, expediting the transition to solar energy development.

A Vision for Sustainability and Revenue

The decision to lease Reservoir 5 for photovoltaic solar energy aligns with broader trends in municipal governance, where cities nationwide are turning to renewable energy to meet both environmental and economic goals. By harnessing the sun’s power on a site no longer needed for traditional purposes, Fostoria aims to generate operating revenue while contributing to a cleaner energy future.

Council President Brian Shaver and Council Clerk Tamara L. Drake have been instrumental in shepherding this initiative through the legislative process, ensuring that all formal actions comply with legal requirements. Mayor Mennel, who requested the ordinance, views it as a pragmatic solution to bolster the city’s finances without burdening taxpayers.

Photo byThe Fostoria Free Press

Next Steps

As the ordinance moves toward a vote, the Fostoria community awaits the outcome of this forward-thinking proposal. The successful bidder will not only bring a new solar energy installation to the region but also play a role in shaping the city’s economic landscape for years to come. With Reservoir 5 poised for reinvention, Fostoria is taking a bold step into a sustainable and prosperous future.

For now, all eyes are on the City Council chambers, where the fate of Ordinance No. 2025 will soon be decided. If passed, it could mark the beginning of a transformative chapter for this Ohio city—one powered by the sun and guided by a vision of progress.

Environmental Impact Study (EIS)

Whether an environmental impact study (EIS) should be conducted for the proposed solar energy lease at Reservoir 5 in Fostoria, Ohio, depends on several factors, including legal requirements, the scope of the project, and potential ecological concerns. Let’s explore this question objectively.

Legal and Regulatory Considerations

Under Ohio law, specifically Section 721.01 et seq. of the Ohio Revised Code referenced in the ordinance, the focus is on the competitive bidding process for leasing municipal land, but there’s no explicit mandate for an environmental impact study in this context. However, federal or state environmental regulations could apply depending on the project’s specifics. For instance:

• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): If federal funding or permits (e.g., from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) are involved—say, due to impacts on wetlands or waterways—an EIS might be required. Since Reservoir 5 is a waterbody, any installation affecting its surface or surrounding ecosystem could trigger federal oversight.
• Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA): The OEPA regulates activities that might affect water quality, air, or wildlife. A solar project on a reservoir could involve construction (e.g., floating solar panels), which might disturb aquatic habitats or water quality, potentially necessitating a review or permits under Ohio’s environmental laws.

The ordinance doesn’t mention an EIS, suggesting the city may not currently view it as a legal necessity. However, the Director of Law and City Engineer, tasked with preparing bid specifications, could include environmental assessments as part of the process if deemed prudent or required by higher authorities.

Potential Environmental Concerns

Reservoir 5’s designation as “no longer needed for municipal purposes” implies it’s not currently critical for water supply or public recreation, but its ecological role remains unclear. Leasing its surface for photovoltaic solar energy—likely floating solar panels—could have both positive and negative impacts:

• Positives: Solar energy reduces reliance on fossil fuels, cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Floating panels might also reduce evaporation from the reservoir, conserving water.
• Negatives: Construction and operation could disrupt aquatic ecosystems (fish, plants, birds), alter water temperature or light penetration, or introduce pollutants (e.g., from panel maintenance). If the surrounding land is disturbed for infrastructure (cables, access points), wetlands or wildlife habitats might be affected.

Without baseline data on Reservoir 5’s current environmental state, it’s hard to gauge the significance of these impacts. An EIS would provide that data, assessing risks and proposing mitigation measures.

Practical and Ethical Arguments

• Pro-EIS: Conducting a study could preempt community concerns, ensure compliance with any overlooked regulations, and protect the city from future liability if environmental damage occurs. Given the emergency declaration to raise revenue, a proactive EIS might also reassure bidders and the public that the project is sustainable, not just a quick financial fix.
• Against EIS: If the project’s footprint is minimal (e.g., floating panels with no major land disturbance), the city might argue the cost and delay of an EIS outweigh the benefits, especially under the ordinance’s urgency clause. Small-scale solar projects often bypass extensive studies if they meet basic permitting thresholds.

An environmental impact study isn’t explicitly required by the ordinance or Ohio’s bidding laws, but it could be warranted depending on the project’s scale, federal involvement, or ecological sensitivity of Reservoir 5. The city might benefit from at least a preliminary environmental review—less intensive than a full EIS—to identify risks and satisfy public interest, especially since the ordinance emphasizes public welfare. If the Director of Public Service and Safety or City Engineer sees potential for significant environmental disruption, they could recommend such a step before bids are finalized. Ultimately, balancing fiscal urgency with ecological responsibility might argue for some level of assessment, even if not legally mandated.