*Note: This is reader-submitted. Opinions and letters to the editor can be sent to news@crawfordcountynow.com

To the Editors at Crawford County Now,

I am writing to provide additional context regarding your recent coverage of the IBTech expansion and related CRA discussions in Bucyrus.

This message is not a demand for a correction, unless you independently determine one is warranted. Rather, it is to explain why the framing used in the article, particularly the suggestion that the City’s CRA efforts were “essentially for nothing,” is damaging to the City’s broader economic development efforts.

I also want to note for the record that I was not contacted for comment prior to publication, despite being directly named and characterized. Given the complexity of the subject matter, that omission contributed to the conflation reflected in the article.

To clarify the substance and the scope of authority involved:

The 170 jobs associated with IBTech’s expansion have always been tied to the state-level incentive contract, which falls squarely within the scope of discussion and authority of The Crawford Partnership. Statements made by Makenna Laser accurately reflected that state-level agreement and were not intended to address, nor could they address, potential local incentive mechanisms.

Separately, the City was exploring a local Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) contract, which is a distinct legal and procedural mechanism under Ohio law. Authority for discussing and advancing local CRA incentives rests with the City, and procedurally with the Economic Development Committee. That local effort required additional steps, including formation of a housing council and coordination with the affected school district, and was aimed at supporting a later phase of the project with the potential for additional employment beyond the state contract. Preliminary discussions estimated that the additional local incentive could bring 50 additional jobs on top of the 170 secured through state-level contracts. 

These two processes are neither mutually exclusive, nor are they contradictory. Presenting state-level incentive statements as dispositive of local CRA discussions incorrectly collapses two separate tracks and misrepresents how layered economic development incentives function.

The consequence of this framing extends beyond any individual disagreement. It creates the impression that lawful local development tools are irrelevant or futile, which undermines public confidence and signals instability to current and prospective partners considering investment in Bucyrus. Minimizing alleged misconduct as squabbling also minimizes how important a CRA incentive is to local development.

The proposed official Economic Development Committee minutes reflect this distinction. The discussion centered on whether a separate local mechanism would proceed, not on disputing or altering state job projections.

I am sharing this perspective because context and accuracy matter, particularly when reporting can influence how outside partners perceive the City’s seriousness and reliability in economic development.

Thank you for your consideration,

Clarissa Scheffler-Slater