Heated exchange at Bucyrus economic development meeting over tax abatement, alleged executive-session leak

Clarissa Scheffler Slater, chair of the Economic Development Committee, and residents clashed during public participation Dec. 18 over a community reinvestment area (CRA) tax-abatement package and a reported expansion at Ivy Tech in Bucyrus.

Slater, the committee chair, said she believed a leak from an executive session and subsequent public statements cost the city additional jobs and undermined confidential negotiations. "I was distraught that someone would do that because they hate somebody that much," Slater said, arguing the breach drove partners away and “50 additional people from the Bucyrus area” lost possible jobs. She asked the committee and the next council to treat the matter as a learning experience and demanded accountability.

Resident Kurt Fankhauser, who said he had followed the matter and had filed records requests, contested the timeline Slater described and read a news headline he said had appeared about the project: "IBTEC announces major Bucyrus expansion, 170 new jobs expected." Fankhauser urged the committee to clarify whether the project was multi‑phased and what actions—if any—caused partners to withdraw or alter plans.

Greg White, a resident who also spoke during the meeting, said he obtained building‑permit information from Richland County showing a July permit submittal and said his public-records checks informed his remarks. "The permit was just... put in July 15," White said, describing contacting county staff and reviewing permit dates.

Speakers on both sides described a series of conflicting accounts: some said construction had been "shovel-ready" in early discussions and that the additional jobs depended on a later phase tied to a tax abatement; others said announcements and outreach made the proposals public. At least one attendee explicitly asked for an investigation into whether confidential executive-session materials were disclosed to nonparticipants; the committee did not take a formal vote to open an investigation during the meeting.

Committee members and staff repeatedly referenced Ohio Revised Code 121.22 regarding the confidentiality of economic-development discussions in executive session. Several speakers characterized the dispute as having immediate local consequences: allegations that a leak or premature disclosures discouraged economic partners, and counter-claims that public reporting made the project public and therefore discussable.

The economic development meeting included repeated calls from the public to post records and permit materials to the city's Documents on Demand service so residents can verify dates and materials independently. No formal legislative action or final determination about the abatement was made during the meeting; members said they would return to the matter with additional documentation and that interested parties could request further review by the next council.