Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mayor warns FRAM plant closure could cost about 302 Greenville jobs; city promises worker support
Summary
Greenville’s mayor told the council that First Brands Group’s FRAM facility faces a possible permanent closure after a Chapter 11 filing, threatening about 302 local jobs; the city will coordinate with Dark County Economic Development and Job and Family Services to connect workers to unemployment benefits, training and hiring events.
Greenville’s mayor told the City Council that First Brands Group’s FRAM facility has filed for Chapter 11 and issued a WARN notice that could lead to a permanent closure, threatening roughly 302 jobs in the city.
“This is the result of alleged multi‑billion‑dollar fraud charges against your top executives,” the mayor said, adding the situation “has the most dire effect on 302 employees here in Greenville.” He said the company’s troubles are not local in origin but will have a local economic impact, including on the city’s general operating fund.
The mayor said the city will work with Dark County Economic Development and Job and Family Services (JFS) to help displaced workers. He urged affected employees to contact JFS for information on unemployment compensation, training funds, job matching and interview preparation, and said the city will remain “eager and ready to help in any manner possible” if a buyer emerges before the plant’s April 30 deadline.
The mayor declined to link the local plant’s prospects to specific buyers but said the process remains open through the end of April and that local officials are pursuing “every effort” to place employees with other employers in the area.
Council members asked for updates and thanked department heads for outreach efforts; officials emphasized that the city will coordinate with county partners on workforce placement and financial impacts. The mayor estimated the number of affected employees at about 302 and warned that lost payrolls could reduce local income‑tax collections that support municipal operations.
During the public comment period earlier in the meeting a resident asked about a sidewalk‑clearing ordinance and whether AES’s reported move to privatize would affect the city’s aggregation; council staff replied that sidewalk rules exist but enforcement relies heavily on voluntary compliance and that any rate changes tied to an AES ownership change would still require regulatory review by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO).
The council recessed into an executive session on personnel at the end of the meeting. The city did not announce a buyer or any layoffs that had been finalized at the time of the meeting.
