Public and mayor clash over city's planned electric aggregation vendor; council advances related measures

Tom Belish, president of Buckeye Energy Brokers, told the council on Sept. 22 he supports municipal aggregation but raised ethics and procurement concerns about the city’s proposed agreement and the lack of a named company in the packet. “On the PUCO's website, every aggregator is required to be certified and that that group is not certified,” Belish said, and he criticized past practice in which one firm repeatedly won contracts without a request-for-proposal process. Belish also raised concerns about Mark Fry, identified in his remarks as the mayor of Sylvania and a consultant tied to multiple long-term aggregation contracts, saying that Fry’s firm won repeated awards without competitive procurement while Fry served as a councilman. “He may not have voted on something, but he's not obviously can't completely recuse himself because he's the consultant,” Belish said. Mayor Matthew T. Starr and other administrators responded in the meeting, defending the council’s choice of a municipal-focused aggregator. “There’s a reason that we chose to go with ... Palmer Energy,” Mayor Starr said, saying municipal aggregators specialize in serving the public sector and that the city is seeking price stability as a five-year contract ends. Council actions: Resolution 2025-93, authorizing the safety-service director to enter into the city's governmental aggregation program participation agreement, received a second reading on Sept. 22. Resolution 2025-99, authorizing amendments to the city's electric aggregation plan of operation and governance, received its first reading. Neither measure was adopted at the meeting. Clarifying details from the meeting: Belish said Mount Vernon residents were previously shielded from rising capacity rates under a 4.69¢ rate through December (no year specified), and he asserted Buckeye Energy was the first certified broker in Ohio for natural gas and electric markets. He provided the council documentation of prior contracts and requested the packet be reviewed for ethics concerns. Discussion vs. decisions: The council advanced related items through required readings—one resolution received a second reading and one received a first reading—but took no final vote to adopt aggregation contracts or amend the plan on Sept. 22. What’s next: The council scheduled follow-up action; one aggregation ordinance/resolution was noted for a potential special meeting the following week if quorum and timing requirements are met.