Findlay Not Proposing Data Center Moratorium At This Time, Mayor Uses Emotional Tactics In Timecard Battle
BY JEFF SKINNER
FINDLAY — Findlay City Council on Tuesday night heard a direct appeal from the city’s firefighters union praising years of collaborative labor relations while grappling with broader resident concerns over potential data center development and an ongoing internal dispute about electronic timekeeping for public employees.
The March 17 regular meeting, which opened with a minor correction to an ordinance date, featured routine business including an expedited annexation petition for roughly 46 acres in Marion Township slated for upscale townhomes. But the evening’s substantive discussion centered on a letter from Findlay Firefighters Local 381 and lingering tensions that have roiled city government in recent weeks.
A representative read the union letter in full at the request of several council members. The letter reminded the largely new council that most of its members had not been involved in past negotiations and highlighted how direct engagement between labor and management since 2014 has resolved issues more efficiently than hiring outside counsel.
“Meaningful differences can now be addressed by sitting down together and having open, honest discussions,” the letter stated. It acknowledged that some past officials publicly supported public safety yet questioned negotiated provisions in ways that prolonged talks and raised costs — behavior the union called contradictory.
The letter emphasized that critical labor-management work often occurs outside public view and has benefited not only firefighters but all city employees and their families. It singled out staffing as the most pressing remaining issue for emergency services while expressing hope for continued collaboration.
The reading set the stage for broader conversation about accountability and workplace culture. That conversation has been fueled by City Auditor Jim Staschiak’s push for stricter electronic timekeeping across departments, prompted by Mayor Muryn's employee, who has been refusing to use the time keeping system. Staschiak has raised concerns about inconsistent tracking of hours, particularly for employees who accrue vacation and sick leave based on actual time worked, including cases involving Safety Services Director Rob Martin.
Council member Daniel DeArment previously voiced strong opposition to requiring “punching a clock,” describing it as insulting and demotivating for longtime professional employees. He cited the deputy auditor — a certified public accountant with 30 years of service, numerous awards and an accounting degree — as an example of someone who should not face such a requirement near the end of her career.
Though DeArment did apologize for his previous comments, associating punching a timecard as 'low' and 'insulting', particularly to factory workers, many residents did find additional frustration in what they perceived as the administration attempting to piggyback personal crusades against accountability on the back of employee health concerns. Some considered it a cynical and manipulative deflection, rather than addressing legitimate concerns over accurate tracking of hours, weaponizing emotional anecdotes about public safety to paint reasonable oversight measures as heartless attacks on dedicated staff.
Union statements, including a joint release from Local 381 and the Findlay Police Employees Association, have pushed back hard. They argue that collective bargaining agreements already define shift times and work rules, making time clocks unnecessary and potentially increasing overtime costs once “goodwill” off-the-clock work becomes compensable. The unions stress there is no evidence of fraud, note that departments report to their own heads rather than the auditor, and warn that unilateral changes could violate Ohio’s collective bargaining law.
The timekeeping controversy has exposed deeper divisions over trust, transparency and how to balance fiscal oversight with respect for public employees who often work irregular or extended hours in safety roles.
Parallel to the internal personnel debate, council and residents continue to monitor the statewide surge in data center proposals. Ohio has seen rapid growth in such facilities, driven by demand for artificial intelligence surveillance infrastructure, but the boom has triggered backlash over electricity and water consumption, noise, loss of farmland and questions about long-term local economic benefits versus taxpayer costs for grid upgrades.
In Findlay, data centers are not currently permitted under existing zoning, according to Hancock County Regional Planning Director Matt Cordonnier. Any project would require code amendments approved by both the Planning and Zoning Committee and City Council. Recent planning meetings have included discussion initiated by Councilman Danny DeLong after constituents raised alarms, with many residents watching neighboring communities impose temporary moratoriums.
Council has previously tapped the brakes on related economic development initiatives. In early March it effectively ended consideration of a partnership with the think tank Heartland Forward amid controversy over its funding, data-collection methods and perceived ties to broader global agendas. Some residents had worried the project could serve as a gateway for data-heavy industries, though the proposal itself was not a data center.
During Tuesday’s meeting, no specific data center proposal was on the agenda, but the topic hovered in the background as council handled the annexation petition and other routine matters. The Shady Grove annexation — 45.937 acres in Marion Township — drew questions about the current owner, potential developer, revenue sharing (which would follow the existing agreement with the township) and the nature of the residential project described as upscale townhomes. The county and township have already approved it, speeding the city’s review under an expedited Type 1 process.
While Council has reiterated it does not currently permit data centers within their zoning, the current apprehension to consider a preemptive moratorium has been signaled by some as indicative that one could be closer than many think.
