Budget Commission Votes 2-1 to Approve Geauga Public Health’s Budget
Budget Commission Meeting – June 30, 2025
Meeting Details: The Geauga County Budget Commission met in Special Session on Monday, June 30, 2025 at 10:00 am in the Auditor's Conference Room, 215 Main Street, Chardon, Ohio. The meeting was
in person with a virtual attendance option via MS Teams. To attend Budget Commission meetings virtually via MS Teams, email an invitation request to Pam McMahan at pmcmahan@gcauditor.com.
Meeting Attendance: Prosecutor Jim Flaiz, Auditor Chuck Walder, and Treasurer Chris Hitchcock.
Staff Attendance: Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Kristen Rine (virtual), Deputy Auditors Tammy Most and Kristen Sinatra, and Chief Operations Officer Pam McMahan.
County Staff: Budget and Finance Manager Adrian Gorton.
Geauga Public Health Representatives: Administrator Adam Litke, Health Commissioner Ron Graham, Board Member Dr. Mark Hendrickson, and Legal Counsel Bryan Kostura of the McDonald Hopkins Law Firm.
Members of the Public: Geauga Maple Leaf Journalist Allison Wilson and this LWV Geauga Observer (virtual).
The meeting was called to order at 10:01 am.
Minutes: Minutes from the Regular Meeting on June 2, 2025 were approved. The minutes will be posted here when available.
The following Revenue Certifications were approved:
Reviewer Note: An explanation of the different types of funds in revenue certifications can be found
here.
-
Berkshire Local Schools - Amendment #8. $25,801,124.96 in the general fund, $4,785,061.09 in special revenue funds, $1,589,086.08 in debt service funds, $2,548,160.67 in capital project funds, $1,024,922.77 in enterprise funds, $692,302.00 in internal service funds, and $192,008.35 in fiduciary funds for a total of $36,632,665.92.
Berkshire’s amendment is its final revenue certification for fiscal year 2024-2025. Observer Note: Schools operate on a July-June fiscal year, whereas most County entities operate on the January-December calendar year. It is standard practice for the schools to certify their revenue at the end of their fiscal year. All Geauga school districts did so at this Budget Commission meeting (see below) except Kenston because the Kenston Board of Education meeting was not held until the evening of June 30. Kenston will presumably certify their fiscal year-end revenue at the next Budget Commission meeting. Mr. Walder noted that Kenston will have to “run off of existing monies” (i.e., they can’t spend any new revenue) until they certify their fiscal year-end revenue.
-
Cardinal Local Schools - Amendment #5. $20,704,857.43 in the general fund, $2,351,195.45 in special revenue funds, $2,023,464.50 in debt service funds, $1,262,459.06 in capital project funds, $675,985.02 in enterprise funds, $61,338.05 in internal service funds, and $54,994.46 in fiduciary funds for a total of $27,134,293.97.
Cardinal’s amendment is its final revenue certification for fiscal year 2024-2025.
-
Chardon Local School District - Amendment #6. $62,665,685.61 in the general fund, $6,863,233.52 in special revenue funds, $446,668.68 in debt service funds, $4,382,397.76 in capital project funds, $9,915,413.30 in internal service funds, and $121,703.73 in fiduciary funds for a total of $84,395,102.60.
Chardon Schools’ amendment is its final revenue certification for fiscal year 2024-2025.
-
West Geauga Local Schools - Amendment #6. $59,584,618.36 in the general fund, $7,571,711.39 in special revenue funds, $25,232,722.04 in capital project funds, $1,600,379.12 in enterprise funds, $304,473.89 in internal service funds, and $1,558.00 in fiduciary funds for a total of $94,295,462.80.
West Geauga’s amendment is its final revenue certification for fiscal year 2024-2025. Mr. Walder explained that there is a new requirement from the State Auditor to account for emergency levies differently, and West Geauga has moved their emergency levy money to their general fund to comply with this requirement. Mr. Flaiz remarked that this “seems contrary to law” based on the research done by his office. Observer Note: See the February 20, 2025 Budget Commission Observer Report for details on the Prosecutor’s Office research on this matter. Mr. Walder replied that is what the State Auditor is requiring West Geauga and all other school districts with emergency levy funds to do, and he added that he has advised West Geauga not to commingle the emergency levy funds with other money within the general fund.
-
Montville Township - Amendment #4. $381,083.15 in the general fund, $1,551,737.73 in special revenue funds, $1,660,000.00 in capital project funds, and $215.48 in fiduciary funds for a total of $3,593,036.36.
Montville’s amendment reflected a decrease in capital project funds in order to correct revenue that was accidentally certified twice.
-
South Russell Village - Amendment #3. $1,919,088.51 in the general fund, $7,449,840.68 in special revenue funds, $1,646,058.25 in capital project funds, and $230,992.84 in fiduciary funds for a total of $11,245,980.28.
South Russell Village’s amendment reflected a special revenue funds increase and a capital project funds decrease.
-
Russell Township - Amendment #5. $2,662,634.17 in the general fund, $9,819,241.94 in special revenue funds, $16,666.66 in debt service funds, and $2,563,511.28 in capital project funds for a total of $15,062,054.05.
Russell’s amendment reflected an increase in the fire district special revenue fund due to a
voided check from 2024.
Cash Transfers
The Budget Commissioners voted to acknowledge one Geauga Public Health cash transfer from the general fund to the injury prevention fund in the amount of $430.
Ms. Sinatra said that there were actually eight cash transfer requests received from Geauga Public Health, but they could only put the transfer above before the Budget Commission at this meeting. She said that this is because they are waiting for information from the Auditor of State regarding the other transfers. Mr. Walder went on to explain that the other cash transfers involve money from a previous year, and the Auditor of State’s opinion is needed about whether or not cash transfers should be used for prior year money. He provided a more detailed explanation as follows: “There was a whole series of then and now purchase orders from 2024 that were being paid this year (2025).... Testing for then and nows (requires that GPH) had to have money ‘then’ and it has to have money ‘now’ in the fund that we're paying out of, we discovered that the ‘then’ failed (the fund in question didn’t have the necessary money in 2024). So the other available remedy is to find another fund that has ‘then’ money in it, and it turned out that the general fund was the only other fund that they could lawfully spend out of that had ‘then’ money in it…. They really paid specialty services out of the general fund, which is permitted, but then they want to backfill the general fund’s money from that special service fund this year, when they do have money to repopulate the general fund balance…. It really doesn't change their bottom line. It just is a movement between funds.”
GPH Administrator Adam Litke said that GPH invoices will be broken down by fund going forward rather than just paid by the general fund. He said this should prevent the need for individual funds to reimburse the general fund in the future.
Geauga Public Health (GPH) Discussion
Observer Note: The GPH budget was tabled by the Budget Commission at the April 21, 2025 Budget Commission Meeting, was tabled again at the May 19, 2025 Budget Commission Meeting, and then was unanimously denied by the Budget Commissioners at the June 2, 2025 Budget Commission Meeting. The Budget Commission’s primary concern with the GPH budget was that GPH has high cash balances without a plan either to 1) find uses for the money or 2) return the excess cash to taxpayers. No GPH representatives were present at the June 2 Budget Commission meeting.
Ms. Sinatra stated that GPH asked to be placed on the Budget Commission agenda for this meeting.
Mr. Litke began his remarks by apologizing for the lack of GPH representation at the June 2 Budget Commission meeting; he said this was due to a miscommunication. He noted that the “2024 issue (i.e., the prior year cash transfer matter covered above)... mostly goes back to a single (unnamed) employee who is no longer with GPH.” Mr. Walder asked why GPH is using then and nows in 2025 to pay for 2024 expenses, and Mr. Litke said this occurred because the “new” (updated) cross jurisdictional agreement (CJA) with Lake County reflecting updated employee position information wasn’t in place in 2024 “... so we were unable to bill those at the time because the (CJA) contract didn't line up with who was being billed.” Mr. Litke said he and GPH Legal Counsel Bryan Kostura are working to overhaul the purchase order process to avoid the need for then and nows, particularly by implementing new policies regarding timelines and signatures, getting documents submitted to the Auditor’s Office sooner, and restructuring the GPH Finance Office.
Mr. Litke stated that GPH staff is planning to create a GPH version of the State’s Water Pollution Control Loan Fund in order to put its excess funds to use; he noted that this would also require “... (judicial) approval to have those (excess funds) transferred appropriately.” He said that this fund would allow individuals with financial need based on income to request funding from GPH to help pay for septic system problems. He gave an example that the Water Pollution Control Loan Fund could provide financial assistance “... if someone's septic system is going bad, maybe, I’m using the worst case scenario, they're 85 years old, they have no income, and their septic goes bad, and they don't have the means to be able to repair it.” Mr. Litke said he hopes to move approximately $500,000 into the County-level Water Pollution Control Loan Fund.
Mr. Litke said GPH is going to reduce some of its fees in 2026, including permit fees for food and pools and miscellaneous environmental health fees, in order to help use its excess funds; he estimated reducing fees by about $69,000 in total next year. Mr. Litke stated that GPH is looking at transferring some of its excess funds to the Emergency Response Fund as well in order to be better able to respond to unanticipated emergencies.
Mr. Litke told the Budget Commissioners that some GPH funding is being reduced, including a $25,000 reduction in Public Health Emergency Preparedness Grant funding, a $50,000 cut to the money the Ohio Department of Health provides for GPH’s yearly accreditation costs, and the $100,000/year Workforce Development Grant coming to a conclusion in 2027. He also described increased costs brought on by higher numbers of tuberculous cases and explained that they hope to start paying GPH’s nurses a higher hourly rate to be more competitive with the rates offered by other local employers.
Mr. Walder observed that the relationship between Geauga County and GPH is “very unique” and no other entity operates the way that GPH does. He pointed out that Lake County is essentially a vendor to Geauga providing GPH services under the CJA, but Lake/GPH are also the ones creating the purchase orders for spending under the CJA. He said this means that GPH is “... on both sides of the equation. Normally, people call that a conflict of interest. I have not found a single entity in Geauga that has that flexibility of being the vendor but also can write the very purchase order that grants the vendor something to do. I mean, that's a huge issue for me. Therefore, somebody else needs to vet this, somebody between us, being the Auditor, and you, being the vendor, and I think that has to be the (GPH) Board. They're the only other Geauga representatives.”
Mr. Walder stated that when the GPH budget was originally presented to the Budget Commission, it appeared that GPH had more money than it actually does because many of GPH’s financial obligations were not included in the submission. He cited the example that “You had not yet done your encumbrances for a whole year (2024)…. You had a million five ($1.5 million) of obligations that never hit the books on your submission because you accrued the revenue, you accrued the grants that you received. So your revenue got boosted, but your expenses weren't aligned, because you had no expenses reported, because you hadn't obligated anything. That, I think, set us on a quasi-wild goose chase.” He expressed the preference that GPH use carryover encumbrances rather than then and nows to prevent the financial numbers from being skewed over time.
Discussion returned to the potential new Water Pollution Control Loan Fund. Mr. Litke said that historically Geauga septic system inspections have a 41% failure rate. Under the O&M (Operations & Maintenance) Program, Mr. Litke said that “... we're running into a number of people (while conducting septic inspections), mostly in their upper years, mostly on fixed incomes, who are having a very tough time (financially).” He said these individuals have great difficulty affording the high cost of a new septic system when their current system cannot pass inspection, and money from GPH’s potential Water Pollution Control Loan Fund could help them pay for a new septic system. Mr. Litke clarified that the money for this fund would primarily come from the For Sale of Property (the old septic inspection program) fund. He said the GPH Board has approved the creation of the Water Pollution Control Loan Fund, and it will be going to the Auditor’s Office to be set up. Mr. Walder said he hasn’t seen that paperwork yet. Mr. Litke explained that, though it is called a loan fund, the money is not required to be repaid by homeowners and therefore is not really a loan. He said that checks for septic repairs/replacements would be issued to the person/company doing the work, not the homeowners themselves.
Mr. Hitchcock asked if Water Pollution Control Loan Fund money would be considered a taxable gift to homeowners; Mr. Litke wasn’t certain whether this was the case. Mr. Walder opined that under the Water Pollution Control Loan Fund plan “... we’re just moving money from pocket to pocket. We're taxing people through a levy to fund the health department, who is then helping people who can't afford their home, part of their home… and then the people that we're taxing are claiming they're losing their home. It's just a vicious circle.” Mr. Hitchcock asked how much the GPH Board approved for the Water Pollution Control Loan Fund, and Mr. Litke said $10,000 to start, though they hope to transfer excess funds and late fees to this fund later if the Board approves. Mr. Litke said he hopes to have at least $200,000 in this fund in the first year. Mr. Hitchcock hypothesized that once word gets out about this program, the money will be spent “in a heartbeat.” Mr. Hitchcock expressed displeasure that under this program GPH’s excess money “... will go to fund a few taxpayers when I believe it really should go back to the source of your funds (the Geauga taxpayers as a whole).” Mr. Litke said they are still figuring out how the program will work, and they may institute cutoffs regarding how much money can be used from this fund each year.
Mr. Hitchcock said he was not sure that the additional information provided by GPH had done enough to get him to support the GPH budget and noted that some of the information is faulty. Mr. Walder clarified that over a million dollars of CJA expenses were not included in the budget. Mr. Kostura joined the conversation and agreed that there are issues, but he stressed that GPH is working to identify and address those issues. He stressed that GPH is making strides forward, including “... the plan to implement a financial team, (the) plan to replace the then and now policy with a purchase order policy, (and) the plan to take proactive steps in which to move from doing everything last minute to having things done in a timely manner.”
Mr. Flaiz agreed that there have been big improvements and moved to vote on the 2026 GPH budget. Mr. Hitchcock seconded, and then there was further discussion. Mr. Walder said his “biggest heartburn” was the “inherent conflict” with GPH acting as the writer of purchase orders and the vendor providing services requested by those purchase orders, but he acknowledged that could not be fixed during the current meeting. Mr. Flaiz said a solution was “... to have the (GPH) Board approve expenditures instead of ratifying them (after the fact, which is their current practice). But, I mean, are you going to have the Board meet every week? That’s not practical.” Mr. Walder said most other entities have a dedicated fiscal person (who in this case would be a Geauga County employee) who is not the vendor (i.e., a Lake Health employee). However, he noted that it isn’t his place to design GPH’s solution. Mr. Kostura said it would be possible to create a position like that described by Mr. Walder by crafting an amendment to CJA. He said that this amendment would need approval from both boards (Lake Health and GPH), and he noted that this would take time to execute. Lake and Geauga Health Commissioner Ron Graham expressed commitment to helping keep things on track.
The Budget Commissioners then voted to approve the 2026 GPH budget by a 2-1 vote, with Mr. Hitchcock dissenting. Mr. Walder noted that he was voting yes “reluctantly… because to be honest with you, I don't know what we would do if it failed.” He said he would have voted no if Mr. Hitchcock had voted yes to send a message, and he cautioned that “if this is not moving in the right direction by the time this budget's heard next year, I'm going to join him (Mr. Hitchcock in voting no).” Mr. Hitchcock added “We very much want you to succeed.” Mr. Litke stated that they are planning to have an amended budget to the GPH board within a few months reflecting the expenses that are currently missing.
GPH’s 2026 estimated resources were certified as follows: $3,130,730.56 in the general fund and $4,250,901.74 in special revenue funds for a total of $7,381,632.30.
Discussion:
Public Comment:
This Observer asked Mr. Litke about the accuracy of a statement made at the June GPH Board Meeting
indicating that the Budget Commission required that the CJA be redone. He clarified it was Auditor Walder and not the Budget Commission as a whole that required the CJA to be amended when employee positions are added or changed. Mr. Walder explained that the issue was that “the original cross jurisdictional agreement had specific names of certain categories of employees and their rate, and I think this may have stemmed from a bill that was submitted to my office for a different type of employee at a slightly different rate that we objected to because it was not considered in the cross jurisdictional agreement.” He went on to say that “as a general rule under a contract, I will not allow amended terms to the contract without the contract so reflecting those amendments by the legislative body, and that's again, something a fiscal would check and probably kick (i.e., send back to GPH to fix) before it ever got to my office.” This Observer confirmed that the CJA will be amended as needed going forward when positions are added or changed.
This Observer also asked for the identities of off-camera meeting attendees and requested all documentation from the meeting, which was received via email on June 30, 2025.
County Budget and Finance Manager Adrian Gorton invited the Budget Commissioners to attend the public meeting for the Geauga County 2026 Tax Budget taking place the next day (July 1). He noted that copies of the tax budget were available at the Auditor’s Office and on the County website. Mr. Gorton stated “we ended up with a budget that the Commissioners are going to be looking at tomorrow that funds everything and leaves us with almost a $4 million balance in the general fund. So I did indicate to them on Friday that there's still really two things that are outstanding… that are not reflected in the budget right now, (which) would be any sort of levy reductions that either the Budget Commission would recommend, or the Commissioners would would want to seek in order to offset, you know, the property tax increases…. The other thing too was I know last year there were some comments that were floated by the Commissioners about the redistribution of the local government fund, taking the County's portion of that and distributing it to the townships. No changes for that are reflected in this budget either.” He asked the Budget Commissioners to share their thoughts on these two outstanding issues. Mr. Walder said it was too late to change the local government funding distribution for 2026. Mr. Flaiz expressed hesitancy to change the distribution formula because the City of Chardon has the power to veto changes, meaning it could not allow the County to reclaim its portion should it ever want to in the future. Mr. Walder said they should wait to see the final form of the State budget before making any decisions regarding potential levy reductions. He noted that the version of the State budget that went to the Governor includes a wage increase for elected officials, which he thought was “horrendous” and made for bad optics.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:34 am.
Next Meeting: The next Budget Commission meeting meeting is July 21, 2025 at 10:00 am in the Auditor’s Conference Room, 215 Main Street, 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: Carol Benton
Reviewer: Gail Roussey
Submitted: 07/04/2025
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.