Dozens of residents used the board's public-comment period on Nov. 11 to demand documents and clarity about a proposed industrial "mega site" near the county airport and a $67 million state award tied to the project.

Jennifer Clark of Oberlin asked commissioners to explain differing total-cost figures for the wastewater and mega-site project — she cited numbers reportedly ranging from $180 million to $247 million — and asked whether the $67 million has already been allocated and how the remainder will be paid. "We'd like to know where the rest of that money is coming from specifically to pay for that and how it's going to affect taxpayers," she said.

Multiple speakers echoed that call. Jeff Kudlow told the board residents "deserve transparency into the project scope" and requested three documents: the complete application submitted by Team NEO or JobsOhio, the award letter identifying use and repayment conditions, and the master plan with the full project budget. "We deserve transparency into the project deliverables," Kudlow said.

Several commenters questioned whether the $67 million is a grant or a partially forgivable loan and what conditions would trigger repayment. James Kalik said he read the state's posting and believed the award may be a "partially forgivable loan," and asked what percentage would remain payable if requirements are not met and what timelines and performance parameters apply.

Speakers raised technical and financial concerns tied to the project. Moe Vargo, a county firefighter and paramedic, warned that airport expansion would trigger FAA/NFPA requirements for on-site aircraft rescue equipment and a four-minute response capability, an expense he estimated could start at about $1.5 million for a specialized ARF vehicle. William Zimmerman and Gerald Phillips pressed how the $67 million would be allocated among communities and questioned whether local water systems (including Vermilion and Avon Lake Regional Water) could support the project or would be asked to carry substantial costs.

Public commenters also warned about legal and procedural transparency. Amanda Quimper said she was placing a formal protest on the public record and demanded that the commissioners "be held accountable"; Dave Roberts said he had sent written notice and would use legal means if transparency is not provided.

Commissioners recorded the citizen concerns and indicated the board had taken notes and would respond to issues "in public" or directly to individuals as appropriate. The board did not, during the meeting, present the application, the award letter or a unified master budget for the project; residents repeatedly requested those documents and asked for a clear explanation of the additional funding sources beyond the $67 million award.

The board's schedule includes further public hearings and a series of budget work sessions; residents seeking the county’s response should expect written or public replies as the county compiles and reviews the questions raised.

Ending: The meeting adjourned after the public-comment period. Commissioners said they would prepare responses to several questions raised by speakers and that some follow-up would be provided directly to individuals.