Budget Commission Approves Developmental Disabilities and Mental Health Budgets but Tables Job and Family Services, Aging, and Engineer’s Budgets
Budget Commission Meeting – April 7, 2025
Meeting Details: The Geauga County Budget Commission met in Special Session on Monday, April 7, 2025 at 10:00 am in the Auditor's Appraisal Conference Room, 231 Main Street, Chardon, Ohio. The meeting was in person with a virtual attendance option via MS Teams.
Meeting Attendance: Prosecutor Jim Flaiz, Treasurer Chris Hitchcock, and Auditor Chuck Walder.
Staff Attendance: Automatic Data Processing Chief Deputy Administrator Frank Antenucci, Deputy Auditors Tammy Most and Kristen Sinatra, and Chief Operations Officer Pam McMahan attended in person. Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Kristen Rine attended virtually.
County Staff: County Commissioner Carolyn Brakey, Acting County Administrator Linda Burhenne, and Budget and Finance Manager Adrian Gorton.
Levied Departments Representatives:
Department on Aging:
Director Jessica Boalt
Fiscal Officer Duane Bidlack
Job and Family Services:
Executive Director Craig Swenson
Financial Administrator Alyssa Steinhoff
Engineer’s Office:
County Engineer Engineer Andrew Haupt
Administrator Katie Taylor
Board of Developmental Disabilities:
Superintendent Don Rice
Assistant Superintendent Dave Carlson
Business Director Rean Davis
Board Member David Lair
Board of Mental Health and Recovery Services:
Executive Director Christine Lakomiak
Finance Manager Jim Mausser
Members of the Public: This LWV Geauga Observer attended in person.
The meeting was called to order at 10:02 am.
Minutes: Minutes from the March 17, 2025 Regular Meeting were approved. The minutes are available here.
Geauga County 2026 Levied Departments Budget Reviews
Discussion highlights:
-
Ms. Sinatra said that the JFS estimated millage collection is 0.7 mills ($2,284,719 per year) and noted that JFS has another levy on the ballot for renewal in May 2025 that will provide an additional 0.5 mills in revenue a year ($1,638,965) if passed. Because it is uncertain whether or not this levy will pass, the Budget Commission only considered $4,747,518.00 in estimated revenue (submitted revenue of $6,386,483 - $1,638,965 = $4,747,518.00).
-
Ms. Steinhoff said that over $6 million in appropriations for the Geauga Youth Center project were not included in the Children’s Services Fund (Fund 2029) estimated expenses. Mr. Walder asked if that means the estimated expenses for that fund would be $12.5-13.5 million, not $6.5 million as shown; Ms. Steinhoff confirmed that this was the case. Mr. Walder said that would result in a negative balance even if the levy is renewed in May. Ms. Steinhoff said the estimated expenses also assume full staffing, which is not the case. Mr. Swenson estimated that they were short 7 social service positions at this time.
-
The position shortage went on to be discussed at some length. Mr. Flaiz asked whether wages have been increased to be more competitive. Mr. Swenson said that the wages were increased last year and the salary is now competitive. However, he noted that the nature of the work is tough and involves going into difficult situations in people’s homes. He expressed the opinion that child welfare workers should be considered first responders. Ms. Steinhoff said the shortage was statewide and programs to incentivize the work seemed not to be attracting new workers. Mr. Flaiz encouraged the County Commissioners to make sure Geauga is the highest paying county for child welfare workers and/or to start a student loan repayment program to try to get more staff.
-
Mr. Walder said taxpayers are paying for today’s services. He said cash carryover should be kept to a minimum to enable County staff to do their duties adequately. Mr. Swenson said he hopes that the new youth center will be completed or close to it in a year and therefore the cash balance will be more reasonable, in the $2-3 million range.
-
Mr. Flaiz asked where things were at with the youth center project. Mr. Swenson said they are working on the site survey now and he hopes to have shovels in the ground this summer. Mr. Flaiz asked if there was a separate youth center fund; Ms. Steinhoff said since levy revenue is primarily being used it is still within the children services levy fund. Mr. Walder said he thought construction projects might be better in reserve funds, which have term limits by which the money must be used for the project.
-
Mr. Walder asked what the basic salary and expenses were for JFS, which are paid by Fund 2013. Ms. Steinhoff said it was just shy of $5 million. Mr. Walder noted that the Fund 2013 has a cash carryover of about $2.5 million, which is about half a year of salary and expenses. Observer Note: Fund 2013 is one of JFS’ numerous funds that do not directly receive levy dollars. He indicated that carryover that high could be “considered not reasonable.”
-
Mr. Hitchcock said the $6 million unreported expenditure was not acceptable and added “I can't support this at all until it is corrected and transparent. This is not your money. It's not my money. This is the people's money.” At this point the Budget Commissioners voted to table the JFS budget until the corrections are made. Ms. Steinhoff said she would work with the Auditor’s staff to get the numbers corrected for the next Budget Commission meeting. Mr. Gorton noted that the County Commissioners’ budget hearings start the first full week of May.
-
Department on Aging - The Budget Commission voted to table the 2026 Department on Aging budget, with Auditor Chuck Walder and Treasurer Chris Hitchcock voting yes and Prosecutor Jim Flaiz voting no. Aging’s submission included the following estimated 2026 resources, which were not certified:
Discussion highlights:
-
Ms. Sinatra said that Aging’s estimated millage collection is 0 mills but noted that JFS has levy on the ballot for renewal in May 2025 that will provide an additional 1 mill in revenue a year ($3,263,885) if passed. Because it is uncertain whether or not this levy will pass, the Budget Commission only considered $909,550.00 in estimated revenue (submitted revenue request of $4,173,435.00 - $3,263,885 = $909,550.00).
-
Mr. Walder asked about typical O&M (operations and maintenance) for Aging. Mr. Bidlack said this was just over $1.8 million. Mr. Walder said that the Aging Levy fund balance will change greatly if the May 2025 levy passes, going from a negative balance to approximately $1.5 million, which he noted was almost a year’s worth of O&M. He said “my worry is, when taxpayers hurt, they don't want huge cushions. They want tight cushions.” He also said a portion of the levy collection could be voluntarily suspended by Aging should it pass to mitigate taxpayer burden.
-
Mr. Walder noted about $2 million has been set aside for the new senior center and asked if that amount would be adequate for the project. Ms. Boalt said that the County Commissioners’ Office is in negotiations for property and said it’s looking positive. She said she hopes there will be movement on a purchase in the next 3-4 months and these funds would go towards that purchase and renovation of the property. She noted that the senior center construction fund is used for construction projects at all senior centers and said some construction projects would be done at the West Geauga Senior Center as well. Mr. Flaiz asked why there were no expenses listed in the Senior Center Construction Fund for 2026. Ms. Boalt said they didn’t know the cost of the West Geauga Senior Center renovation yet but it was planned for this year. She also said she was uncertain if the new property purchase would happen this year or next.
-
Mr. Hitchcock stated “I think it would behoove the department to reflect anticipated spending or purchases in your budget. It does not. You're asking us to approve your budget without those expenses. Do you have a wild guess what the property is going to be purchased for?” Ms. Boalt said she did not. He asked if her department would be paying for the purchase, and she said they would. Mr. Hitchcock pointed out that the Aging budget submission for neither 2025 or 2026 reflects the property purchase.
-
Mr. Flaiz asked why the budget doesn’t reflect the purchase and renovation of the new senior center. Ms. Boalt said it was because she didn’t know what the amount would be yet. After some back and forth, she admitted that she had an idea of what the amount would be but said that she didn’t think she was at liberty to say due to the matter being under discussion in County Commissioners’ Executive Sessions. Mr. Flaiz asked if 2025 construction expenses would exceed the $10,000 listed in last year’s budget. Ms. Boalt said they would, but she didn’t know by how much and noted that she is waiting on quotes. Mr. Flaiz pointed out that it is April of 2025 and yet Aging has no idea on what it is going to spend on construction this year; Ms. Boalt confirmed this was the case. Mr. Flaiz asked “don’t you think that’s kind of unfair to the taxpayers?” She responded “I’m waiting on the numbers.” Mr. Flaiz said he recalled that Ms. Boalt didn’t answer questions in a similar fashion at last year’s hearing and added “I don’t care that you’re disrespectful to us, but what you are being disrespectful to is the taxpayers.”
-
Mr. Walder said budgets are supposed to provide forewarning and are not meant to be always looking in the rearview for information. He said without any data in the budget about expenses, there is a lack of evidence for the department needing the cash it has. He added the expenses can be estimated without quotes in hand to arrive at a ballpark estimate. Mr. Walder said that the lack of expense information was “disheartening” and had to be corrected.
-
Mr. Hitchcock said Aging’s estimated expenses of $0 in the construction fund is telling taxpayers that they won’t spend anything in 2026, but Ms. Boalt has already testified that money will in fact be spent. He said he could not support the Aging budget submission because it wasn’t an accurate reflection of what was going to happen. He moved that the consideration of the Aging budget be tabled until the next Budget Commission meeting to give the department time “... to prepare a far more honest presentation.” The motion passed, with Mr. Flaiz dissenting.
Discussion highlights:
-
Ms. Sinatra noted that the Board of DD receives a total of 4.3 mills from two levies (3.3 mills ($10,210,344 per year) and 1.0 mill ($3,277,931 per year) respectively).
-
Mr. Walder asked why the reserve fund was being depleted. Ms. Davis said this was because the money was needed for operating expenses.
-
Mr. Hitchcock observed that the general (levy) fund 2026 ending cash balance was about 17% of estimated expenses, which he thought was a bit light. He noted that $500,000 was transferred out of the general fund to the construction fund (#4023) and wanted to know if it was going to come back in to bring the levy fund carryover balance to a higher amount. Observer Note: Fund 4023 is one of DD’s funds that do not directly receive levy dollars. Mr. Hitchcock predicted that “In 2027 your spending practices versus current revenue are not going to work.” Ms. Davis said the $500,000 was required for planned capital projects. Mr. Rice said these included roof and air conditioner replacements. Mr. Hitchcock pointed out that only $100,000 of construction expenses were predicted in 2026 and asked about 2027 estimated construction expenses. Ms. Davis said they were projecting $175,000 in construction expenses in 2027. Mr. Hitchcock questioned transferring $500,000 to the construction fund with only $275,000 in projected expenses through 2027 because it “... puts you in trouble (needing more revenue) in 2027.” Mr. Rice countered that they were in trouble in 2027 no matter what and would be asking for a new levy in 2026. Mr. Hitchcock contended that the $500,000 transfer “... puts more pressure on the need for a levy artificially.”
-
Mr. Flaiz said he saw Mr. Hitchcock’s point about DD possibly “... manipulating your budget to justify asking for more money from the taxpayers.” However, he said he didn’t have any big problems with the budget and thought it was well done compared to years past. Mr. Flaiz motioned to approve the budget, and the motion carried, with Mr. Hitchcock voting no.
Discussion highlights:
-
Mr. Mausser noted that there are two grants paying for the construction of the Transitional Living Center (TLC), one from ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act) and one from the state. He said MHRS would pay about $800,000 for the TLC facility, with everything else being covered by the grants. He estimated that the TLC would be completed in December.
-
Mr. Walder asked about the annual O&M, and Mr. Mausser said that salary was $397,000 a year. However, he said overall expenses including mental health agency contracts were about $650,000 per month on average (or $7.8 million a year). Ms. Lakomiak noted that contracts with agencies are for 12 months.
-
Ms. Lakomiak shared that MHRS has secured $1 million in funding from the state to put towards a new 10 unit building for housing for individuals with mental health needs in 2027. Mr. Walder cautioned that “I'm concerned as a taxpayer when all of these agencies are acquiring buildings and more infrastructure, more stuff, at a time when the public perhaps can afford it the least. I know there's legitimate purposes for why people are doing what they do, and our job is not to question those purposes, but it does put more pressure on us to squeeze every every bit of need out of every dollar.” Mr. Mausser said there was some uncertainty about the new building coming to fruition, as it would require additional grant money to be acquired. Ms. Lakomiak said the $1 million from the state has not been transferred to MHRS yet.
-
Mr. Hitchcock said that the ending cash balance of the levy fund was about 23% of estimated expenses, which he said was close to his preferred amount of 25%. However, he noted that $780,000 was transferred from this fund to a capital reserve fund, and without that transfer the percentage would be about 33%. Mr. Mausser explained that the transfer was made because they try to keep the reserve fund at about $1.5 million to have matching funds available for grant applications. Mr. Hitchcock questioned the reserve fund, saying little is spent from this fund and it costs each resident of the county about $9 to maintain the $1.5 million balance.
-
Ms. Lakomiak noted that many of MHRS’s expenses are related to direct service, and these costs are skyrocketing, particularly for inpatient hospitalizations. She also said their agencies just lost $600,000 in funding from a federal grant that was cut.
-
Mr. Flaiz praised the TLC project, calling it a “home run.” He also praised the capital reserve fund, saying it’s the best use of one that he has seen, with money going in and out for grant matches and not simply being used to “hoard money.”
-
Mr. Walder moved to approve the budget, and all Budget Commissioners voted yes.
Discussion highlights:
-
Ms. Sinatra noted that the Engineer’s Office receives 2.5 mills of funding that goes to the Road and Bridge Fund (Levy) Fund #4002. Mr. Haupt confirmed that this levy would be on the ballot for renewal in November.
-
Mr. Walder noted that there were negative balances in one of the Engineer’s funds. Ms. Taylor said there was a problem with the spreadsheet used to calculate the balances as it seemed to be pulling incorrect numbers. Auditor’s Office Staff agreed to work with Ms. Taylor to solve the problem. Mr. Flaiz moved to table the consideration of the Engineer’s budget until the next Budget Commission meeting to allow time to fix the spreadsheet issue. It passed unanimously.
-
Mr. Flaiz expressed the opinion that “nobody does a better job of transparency for the taxpayer and actually using the money that's given to them for the purpose that it’s for than you do.”
After the Levied Department Budget Reviews, the Budget Commission conducted Regular Business as
detailed below:
The following Revenue Certifications were approved:
Reviewer Note: An explanation of the different types of funds in revenue certifications can be found here.
-
Chardon Local School District - Amendment #4. $62,665,685.61 in the general fund, $6,782,030.09 in special revenue funds, $446,668.68 in debt service funds, $2,832,397.76 in capital project funds, $8,815,413.30 in internal service funds, and $174,703.73 in fiduciary funds for a total of $81,716,899.17.
Chardon Schools’ amendment certified a special revenue funds increase.
-
Newbury Township - Amendment #3. $1,776,898.97 in the general fund, $4,093,745.92 in special revenue funds, $965,588.24 in debt service funds, $511,344.33 in capital project funds, and $793.32 in special assessment funds for a total of $7,348,370.78.
Newbury’s amendment reflected an increase in special assessment funds.
-
Bainbridge Township - Amendment #3. $4,301,900.37 in the general fund, $20,161,996.38 in special revenue funds, $1,843,788.74 in debt service funds, $3,903,724.59 in capital projectfunds, and $539.79 in fiduciary funds for a total of $30,211,949.87.
Bainbridge’s amendment reflected a decrease in special revenue funds.
-
Chester Township - Amendment #2. $3,520,283.16 in the general fund, $12,303,635.75 in special revenue funds, $560,768.00 in capital project funds, and $13,486.55 in special assessment funds for a total of $16,398,173.46.
Chester’s amendment certified increases in the general fund, special revenue funds, and capital project funds.
-
Claridon Township - Amendment #2. $842,313.57 in the general fund and $1,743,009.46 in special revenue funds for a total of $2,585,323.03.
Claridon’s amendment certified a special revenue funds increase.
-
Russell Township - Amendment #2. $2,662,634.17 in the general fund, $9,810,133.60 in special revenue funds, $25,000 in debt service funds, and $2,213,511.28 in capital project funds for a total of $14,711,279.05.
Russell’s amendment certified increases in the general fund, special revenue funds, and capital project funds.
-
Chardon Township - Amendment #2. $1,034,295.89 in the general fund, $3,533,393.98 in special revenue funds, $49,167.93 in debt service funds, and $746.48 in fiduciary funds for a total of $4,617,604.28.
Chardon Township’s amendment certified special revenue funds and debt service funds increases.
-
Montville Township - Amendment #2. $381,083.15 in the general fund, $1,551,737.73 in special revenue funds, $1,540,000.00 in capital project funds, and $215.48 in fiduciary funds for a total of $3,473,036.36.
Montville’s amendment certified a change in the general fund balance due to a voided check.
-
Middlefield Township - Amendment #1. $455,446.59 in the general fund and $2,756,153.82 in special revenue funds for a total of $3,211,600.41.
Middlefield Township’s amendment certified the 2025 beginning balances.
-
Middlefield Village - Amendment #2. $3,863,923.78 in the general fund, $11,278,566.71 in special revenue funds, $1,660,785.64 in capital project funds, $6,586,880.19 in enterprise funds, and $174,225.01 in fiduciary funds for a total of $23,564,381.33.
This amendment certified Middlefield Village’s updated beginning balances for 2025, correcting
inaccuracies caused by a software glitch that is now fixed.
-
Geauga County - Amendment #6. $69,339,402.59 in the general fund, $125,112,841.50 in special revenue funds, $5,172,649.58 in debt service funds, $1,143,702.06 in special assessment funds, $30,295,528.76 in capital project funds, $52,169,898.85 in enterprise funds, $1,739,600.37 in internal service funds, and $4,706,706.85 in fiduciary funds for a total of $289,680,330.56.
Geauga County’s amendment reflected an increase in capital project funds.
Hambden Township Reserve Fund: The Budget Commission voted to acknowledge a reserve fund established by Hambden Township for the purpose of building a new fire station.
Discussion:
Mr. Flaiz said that under ORC (Ohio Revised Code) 5705.34, rate resolutions must be certified to
the County Auditor by the Boards of Education by the first day of April. He asked if all rate resolutions were received, and Ms. Sinatra stated that neither Kenston nor Berkshire had done this. Mr. Flaiz said “So they need to get those to us, because they're in violation of the law.” There was discussion about whether or not the Budget Commission can accept the rate resolutions at this point, as Mr. Flaiz indicated that the law says they can be submitted at a later date only if approved by the Tax Commissioner. Ultimately, the Budget Commissioners voted to send a letter to Kenston and Berkshire telling them they are in violation of ORC 5705.34 and need to get their rate resolutions in, and they will send a copy of the letter to the Tax Commissioner.
Mr. Walder asked if beginning balances for the year have been received from all townships,
villages, and cities. Ms. Most and Ms. Sinatra said beginning balances have not been received
from Parkman Township. Ms. Most indicated that Parkman does have the balances but has not sent them to the Budget Commission yet. Mr. Walder asked his staff to send a reminder email to Parkman about this and to copy the Budget Commissioners on this communication.
Public Comment:
This observer asked if the Budget Commissioners' concerns about the Board of DD possibly subsidizing private businesses that were mentioned at last year’s levied department budget reviews were now resolved since the matter was not addressed at the present hearings. Observer Note: Please see the March 18, 2024 Budget Commission Observer Report for more details. Mr. Walder said “that’s all been sent down to the state. The state has not weighed in (yet).” Mr. Flaiz said this year’s budget submission has made some efforts to address the Budget Commission’s concerns. Mr. Walder indicated that DD is changing their reporting process such that “it appears that, going forward, we will have more visibility into it. The question is, what do we do with the past?” He added that the determination about what to do with the past will be made by the State Tax Commissioner. Mr. Walder also said that DD’s bank accounts outside of the County Treasury have now been terminated, which addresses another key concern raised by the Budget Commission at last year’s budget review.
This observer also requested a copy of all materials from the meeting, which were received via email on April 8, 2025, and confirmed that the tabled budgets from this meeting will be considered again at the next Budget Commission meeting (see meeting details below).
Mr. Walder commented: “Schools have a lot of buildings all over the county, and they claim they need more cash. We've got (County) agencies that have a lot of cash and claim they need a building. Anybody ever think about the two talking to each other? We don't have to go build and buy new things just because we can, because all that overhead is going to cost us to maintain. That's my public comment as a taxpayer. Why aren’t we using schools 24/7, 365 days a year?”
The meeting was adjourned at 11:47 am.
Next Meeting: The next meeting is a Special Meeting for the Geauga Public Health District 2026 Budget Hearing and Regular Business on April 21, 2025 at 10:00 am in the Auditor’s Appraisal Conference Room, 231 Main Street, Chardon, Ohio. There is another Special Meeting to consider Berkshire School District’s inside millage shift authorizing an unvoted permanent improvement levy and to conduct regular business on April 22, 2025 at 7:00 pm at the County Office Building, Suite B167-B168, 12611 Ravenwood Dr, Chardon, Ohio. Virtual attendance for all Budget Commission meetings is available via Microsoft Teams by emailing an invitation request to Ms. McMahan at pmcmahan@gcauditor.com.
Observer: Sarah McGlone
Editor: Rooney Moy
Reviewer: Carol Benton
Submitted: 04/10/2025
The League of Women Voters of Geauga is a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan political organization that encourages informed and active participation in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy. They do not support or oppose individual candidates or parties. Learn more about the LWVG at www.lwvgeauga.org.