News / Articles

Budget Commission

LWV Geauga Observer Corps

Budget Commission Approves All 2026 Budgets but Takes Issue

with the Russell and Geauga Parks Levies on the November Ballot

Budget Commission Hearings – August 18 & 19, 2025

Meeting Details: The Geauga County Budget Commission met in Special Sessions on Monday, August 18

and Tuesday, August 19, 2025 starting both days at 9:00 am in the Auditor's Appraisal Conference Room, 231 Main Street, Chardon, Ohio. These meetings were in person with a virtual option via MS Teams. To attend Budget Commission meetings virtually via MS Teams, email an invitation request to Pam McMahan at PMcMahan@geauga.oh.gov. Videos of each morning or afternoon session can be viewed on the Budget Commission website here.

Meeting Attendance: Treasurer Chris Hitchcock, Auditor Chuck Walder, and Prosecutor Jim Flaiz attended all 2026 Budget Hearings except where noted. Observer Note: Occasionally one or more members left the meeting and this will be noted. In particular, Mr. Walder recused himself from the Russell Township hearing on August 18 and was replaced by Chief Operating Officer Pam McMahan. On August 19, ADP Chief Deputy Administrator Frank Antenucci substituted for Auditor Walder at the start of the meeting until Mr. Walder’s arrival at 9:57 am.

Staff Attendance: Deputy Auditors Tammy Most and Kristen Sinatra, and Chief Operating Officer Pam McMahan attended all 2026 Budget Hearings.

County Staff: County Budget and Finance Manager Adrian Gorton (virtual) for afternoon session of 8/19. Also on 8/19, Frank Antenucci - Chief Deputy Administrator, ADP, Assistant County Prosecutor Kristen Rine (virtual), Russell Township Fiscal Officer Karen Walder,(virtual), Chief Compliance Officer & Administrator, Auditor’s Office Kate Jacob (virtual)

Members of the Public: LWV Geauga Observers Sarah McGlone (8/18 morning hearings), Carol Benton (8/18 afternoon hearings), and Rooney Moy (8/19 hearings), for the 8/18 afternoon hearings, Reporter Allison Wilson from the Geauga Maple Leaf, and for 8/19 hearings, Reporter Emma MacNiven for Geauga Maple Leaf, and Members of Protect Geauga Parks (for Geauga Park District session).

Observer Note: Those who attended the individual hearings were not identified on the record. If those who attended were known to this observer, their names are included. If not, any information that was made available is listed; the sign-in sheet for each meeting was provided to LWVG via email on August 25, 2025.

At the beginning of each hearing, figures were given by Deputy Auditor Tammy Most. These figures are from the Hearing Worksheet form GCA-002 and will be available in the minutes for each hearing once the minutes are approved and posted. Only information from funds receiving taxpayer generated revenue such as the General Fund, Road & Bridge, Fire, Police, Park, Permanent Improvement or Bond are included.

Minutes: Information and minutes from these public hearings will be posted on the Budget Commission website after approval.

Summary for August 18, 2025:

Russell Township’s budget was tabled.
All other budget submissions were approved either unanimously or by two out of three Budget Commissioners voting yes, as noted.
Many entities were encouraged to utilize reserve funds to adequately plan for future expenses.
Concerns were raised about large variances between estimated and actual ending balances, and whether there was too much cash or too little cash estimated for the end of the year.
The presentation slides for all Morning Session Budget Session hearings except Russell Township are available here. The Russell Township Budget Hearing slides are available here. The Afternoon Budget Hearing presentation slides are available here.

August 18, 2025 - Morning Session - The video for the morning session can be found here:

The morning session of Budget Hearings was called to order at 9:02 am. Present for all hearings were Treasurer Chris Hitchcock, Auditor Chuck Walder (except for Russell Township), Prosecutor Jim Flaiz, Deputy Auditor Tammy Most, Deputy Auditor Kristen Sinatra, Auditor’s Office Chief Operating Officer Pam McMahan, Chief Deputy Administrator of ADP (Automatic Data Processing) Frank Antenucci, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Kristen Rine, Geauga Maple Leaf Journalist Emma MacNiven, and LWV Geauga Observer Sarah McGlone. Attendees representing each individual entity will be noted below.

Thompson Township – Trustee Erwin Leffel and Fiscal Officer Cindy Lausin attended.

Thompson Township’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered General Fund Cash Balance: $191,507.54
Estimated General Fund Revenue: $170,195.36
Estimated General Fund Expenses: $169,420.00
Estimated 12/31/26 General Fund Cash Balance: $192,282.90

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $193,789.61
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Revenue: $309,319.00
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Expenses: $358,375.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $144,733.61

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Fire Fund Cash Balance: $199,588.83
Estimated Fire Fund Revenue: $373,136.00
Estimated Fire Fund Expenses: $397,806.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Fire Fund Cash Balance: $174,918.83

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Police Fund Cash Balance: $107,427.50
Estimated Police Fund Revenue: $110,698.00
Estimated Police Fund Expenses: $108,625.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Police Fund Cash Balance: $109,500.50

Thompson Township’s total millage of 15 mills is made up of the following:

1.5 inside (unvoted) mills for the General Fund
1.2 inside mills for the Road and Bridge Fund
3.35 outside (voted) mills for the Road and Bridge Fund
5.95 outside mills for the Fire Fund
3.0 outside mills for the Police Fund

Thompson has an additional 2.0 Mill Road and Bridge Levy on the November 2025 ballot that will yield $167,248 per year if approved by the voters.

Thompson has two reserve funds, one for police and one for fire.

Mr. Flaiz was concerned that Thompson has too much money in the General Fund and wondered why General Fund expenses increased significantly in the last year. Ms. Lausin said they purchased a building and noted that some road repairs that they wanted to do before got pushed to this year. Mr. Flaiz observed that Thompson is putting a new Road and Bridge Levy on the ballot when in his opinion they already have a “decent amount of money” in the Road and Bridge Fund. Ms. Lausin said they have spent about $100,000 on a road project already this year. Mr. Flaiz asked about what is going on with the Fire Fund, because the revenue doubled but expenses did not. Ms. Lausin explained that the purpose of their new Fire Levy is to fully staff the fire station and they are still ramping up on that. She said that the Fire Reserve Fund will be used to buy a pumper tanker, but the Police Reserve Fund is currently empty because the money was used to buy a new building.

Mr. Hitchcock noted that Thompson’s General Fund has enough money to operate for a year and a half without any more tax dollars being added, which he said was “wrong.” He also said that it was “wrong” to go to the taxpayers asking for a new Road and Bridge levy when they could use General Fund money for those expenses.

Mr. Walder said that the originally submitted budget had no transfers, but a later submission included two transfers to the Fire Fund. However, the second submission was received after the July 20 deadline, and after that point entities may not make changes to their budgets until January 1. He stated that only the Budget Commission can make changes to budgets after the submission deadline. Mr. Walder said his vetting of the original budget submission for Thompson indicates that there is 113% carryover in the General Fund, 30% carryover in the combined road funds, 44% carryover in the Fire Fund, and 101% carryover for the Police Fund. He said he agreed with the other Budget Commissioners that Thompson has too much cash. He advocated for Thompson putting money in their Police and Fire Reserve Funds to set aside some of its excess cash: “The General Fund gives you flexibility, and it gives you flexibility to help save some of this money for valid capital expenditures and be responsible. But you can't do it by just having it sit around in cash in the General Fund. It's got to be assigned to something.” Mr. Walder went on to say that if there is an emergency, reserve fund money that originated in the General Fund can be rolled back to the General Fund to pay for the emergency costs.

Mr. Walder pointed out that Thompson is 8th out of the 16 townships in both total tax revenue per resident ($403) and road and bridge tax revenue per resident ($147). He said “I don't think you're excessively levying your residents because you're right in the middle of the pack.” He went on to say “I don't see anything that would dispel the need for a road levy to do an initiative. But I think where you've created confusion is, you haven't assigned your money to pockets. You've kind of left them all in these giant buckets, and you're leaving it up to us to figure out where you can manage it. If you get rid of that, I think I can live with it….”

The costs of the repairs to Burrows Road were discussed in some detail. Ms. Lausin said it was a shared expense between Thompson and Montville with each contributing $150,000. She is budgeting $175,000 for this project due to expected rising costs. It is hoped that additional funding will come from an OPWC (Ohio Public Works Commission) grant.

Ms. Lausin asked if a Road Repair Reserve Fund could be created. Mr. Walder confirmed that it could and suggested working with the County Engineer to create a road repair plan. He added that separate reserve funds could be created for road and bridge expenses, such as a Road Repair Reserve Fund and a Road Equipment Reserve Fund. Mr. Flaiz encouraged Thompson to have a detailed plan for how they are using their road and bridge money at next year’s Budget Hearing should their new levy pass.

Budget Approved, with Mr. Hitchcock voting no

Thompson Park District – Trustee Erwin Leffel and Fiscal Officer Cindy Lausin attended.

Thompson Park District’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Cash Balance: $161,589.00
Estimated Revenue: $ 22,482.28
Estimated Expenses: $ 30,000.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Cash Balance: $154,071.28

Thompson Park District receives no millage and has no levies on the ballot.

Mr. Walder pointed out that the carryover was at 514% but, with the total ending cash balance of only $154,000, “you’ve got to put that in perspective.” He recommended just keeping an eye on it.

Budget Approved Unanimously

Bainbridge Township - Trustee Kristina O’Brien and Fiscal Officer Janice Sugarman attended.

Bainbridge Township’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered General Fund Cash Balance: $1,425,200.70
Estimated General Fund Revenue: $2,018,851.61
Estimated General Fund Expenses: $2,836,676.25
Estimated 12/31/26 General Fund Cash Balance: $ 607,376.06

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $ 547,872.38
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Revenue: $4,024,845.86
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Expenses: $3,947,600.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $ 625,118.24

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Fire Fund Cash Balance: $ 908,233.40
Estimated Fire Fund Revenue: $4,764,256.00
Estimated Fire Fund Expenses: $4,884,865.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Fire Fund Cash Balance: $ 787,624.40

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Police Fund Cash Balance: $ 653,807.97
Estimated Police Fund Revenue: $4,151,477.00
Estimated Police Fund Expenses: $4,098,000.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Police Fund Cash Balance: $ 707,284.97

Bainbridge Township’s total millage of 30.35 mills is made up of the following:

1.3 inside (unvoted) mills for the General Fund
1.7 inside mills for the Road and Bridge Fund
5.0 outside (voted) mills for the Road and Bridge Fund
10.1 outside mills for the Fire Fund
12.25 outside mills for the Police Fund

Bainbridge has a 2.0 Mill Road and Bridge Levy up for renewal on the November 2025 ballot that will yield $835,134 per year if renewed by the voters.

Bainbridge has four reserve funds, one each for the general fund, road fund, police fund, and fire fund.

Mr. Walder said that Bainbridge has made “huge progress” in reducing its cash carryovers. For example, general fund carryover is now at 21%, compared to 54% the year before. He noted that Bainbridge did a lot of work setting up reserve funds last year, which he said he appreciated. He explained that, in general, he is “okay with” a carryover of about 40% for entities without reserve funds and a carryover of about 20% for entities that have established reserve funds. Mr. Walder noted that Bainbridge’s general fund carryover of 21% is “the ideal spot.” He reminded the Bainbridge representatives that reserve fund money can always be pulled back into the fund it came from in the event of an emergency.

Mr. Walder noted that Bainbridge is 2nd out of the 16 townships in total tax revenue per resident ($1,067) and 4th in road and bridge tax revenue per resident ($287). He said that it makes sense that Bainbridge would be among the highest in tax revenue per resident because Bainbridge is the largest township and largest service provider in the County. He added that he provided the ranking for Bainbridge on road and bridge tax revenue per resident since they have a road and bridge levy on the November ballot, and he felt Bainbridge being 4th was “very justified” given the number of roads in the township and how traveled they are.

Mr. Hitchcock stated that Bainbridge has $7.6 million in cash, which he said was “a lot of money, but you’re a big entity.” He said he was concerned that some of the estimated ending cash balances might be too low. Ms. Sugarman said that for the past few years Bainbridge has done a good job spending very close to the same amount that they said they were going to. Mr. Hitchcock pointed out that they have had actual ending cash balances that were significantly higher than they were estimated to be in some funds. Mr. Walder noted that past estimates were off in the fire fund because it was uncertain whether or not the fire levy would pass in November 2024, so its revenue was not included in the 2025 budget. When it did indeed pass, that added $2.23 million in revenue that was not included in 2025 estimated revenue.

Mr. Flaiz also was concerned about discrepancies between actual and estimated ending balances. He noted that the 2024 estimated police fund ending balance was $1.18 million but the actual ending balance was $3.15 million. Mr. Walder said “those numbers get skewed when you start creating other funds (in this case, the police reserve fund), because the money gets transferred out of it, but it still remains in the enterprise.” It was noted that Bainbridge will soon have to pay for a new roof for the police building, which has just gone out to bid and is estimated to cost $250,000-$300,000.

Budget Approved Unanimously

Troy Township – Trustees Leonard Barcikoski and Donn Breckenridge and Fiscal Officer Jane Grudowski attended.

Troy Township’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered General Fund Cash Balance: $ 80,659.74
Estimated General Fund Revenue: $269,179.44
Estimated General Fund Expenses: $267,180.00
Estimated 12/31/26 General Fund Cash Balance: $ 82,659.18

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $ 68,618.27
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Revenue: $285,828.00
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Expenses: $305,020.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $ 49,426.27

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Fire Fund Cash Balance: $298,709.45
Estimated Fire Fund Revenue: $553,967.00
Estimated Fire Fund Expenses: $521,800.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Fire Fund Cash Balance: $330,876.45

Troy Township’s total millage of 15.4 mills is made up of the following:

2.0 inside (unvoted) mills for the General Fund
1.0 inside mills for the Road and Bridge Fund
5.0 outside (voted) mills for the Road and Bridge Fund
7.4 outside mills for the Fire Fund

Troy has a 2.9 Mill Fire Levy up for renewal on the November 2025 ballot that will yield $210,344 per year if renewed by the voters.

Mr. Hitchcock praised Troy’s budget, saying it was one of the best he’s seen. His only concern was that sometimes the cash balances get a little low.

Mr. Flaiz noted that Troy has “drastically downgraded” its estimated beginning balance in the road and bridge fund, going from $231,000 in 2025 to $68,000 in 2026. He asked if a project accounts for that difference. Ms. Grudowski said that the Hoover Road project explains the difference, and Mr. Flaiz said he was good with that explanation.

Mr. Walder said that Troy’s general fund carryover is at 31%, down from 46% last year. He felt that the road and bridge carryover is a little low at 9%, but he acknowledged that it is difficult to predict the cost of road projects. He said that the fire fund carryover is a high at 63% and recommended the establishment of a fire reserve fund.

Observer Note: Though it was not gone over verbally in the hearing, Mr. Walder had slides displayed showing that Troy is 10th out of the 16 townships in total tax revenue per resident ($335) and 8th in fire and EMS tax revenue per resident ($163).

Budget Approved Unanimously

Chardon Township – Trustee Michael Brown and Fiscal Officer Edward Slusarski attended.

Chardon Township’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered General Fund Cash Balance: $488,584.24
Estimated General Fund Revenue: $634,744.84
Estimated General Fund Expenses: $726,216.38
Estimated 12/31/26 General Fund Cash Balance: $397,112.70

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $ 300,000.50
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Revenue: $1,303,985.00
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Expenses: $1,286,754.01
Estimated 12/31/26 Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $ 317,231.49

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Fire Fund Cash Balance: $177,295.22
Estimated Fire Fund Revenue: $636,629.00
Estimated Fire Fund Expenses: $760,000.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Fire Fund Cash Balance: $ 52,934.22

Chardon Township’s total millage of 11.45 mills is made up of the following:

1.3 inside (unvoted) mills for the General Fund
1.4 inside mills for the Road and Bridge Fund
5.0 outside (voted) mills for the Road and Bridge Fund
3.75 outside mills for the Fire Fund

Chardon Township has no levies on the November 2025 ballot.

Mr. Walder said he found some problems when he tested Chardon Township’s budget. He stated that there are transfers between the general fund and various other funds that don’t balance, with the discrepancy being $164,000 for 2025 and $215,000 for 2026. He noted that this means “there's a half a million dollars moving around here that we don't have resolution to. So you're going to want to find out where that error is.” It was noted that those errors were corrected by the township, but this occurred after the July 20 budget submission deadline. Mr. Walder said that Chardon Township’s 2026 general fund carryover was at 86% based on the original submission, but this figure jumped to 177% after he accounted for the transfer balancing problem. He noted that the problem with the 2025 transfers can be fixed by the township now, but by law the 2026 issue cannot be fixed by Chardon until January 1. The road and bridge carryover was at 26%, which Mr. Walder said was fine.

Mr. Walder urged Chardon Township to establish reserve funds: “You've got to go to reserve funds. You've got to start saving this money for valid purposes. If you don't, you're going to constantly be having this cash problem.” He also noted that it was odd that the debt fund showed no expenditures. Mr. Slusarski said there should be expenditures from that fund and they are correcting that. He explained that there was an issue with the UAN (Unified Accounting Network) software not saving the numbers correctly. Mr. Walder advised them to put a complaint in with the UAN staff in the Auditor of State’s Office and said both he and Bainbridge have already done so due to problems that they have had with the program.

Observer Note: Though it was not gone over verbally in the hearing, Mr. Walder gave the Chardon Township representatives a copy of his presentation showing that Chardon Township is 7th out of the 16 townships in total tax revenue per resident ($507).

Mr. Hitchcock observed that the Chardon Township’s actual beginning balance for 2025 was much higher than what they estimated it would be and was enough to operate the township for a year and a half without any additional tax revenue. He said that he believes the fiscal management of the township is now trending in the right direction but cautioned that “you’re on probation.”

Mr. Slusarski said that they recently found out they will have to make an additional payment for a ladder fire truck. He explained that the City of Chardon historically has owned the ladder truck, but Chardon City “… came out and said ‘we can’t do that any longer,’” and they have negotiated an amount (not stated) that Chardon Township will contribute. The Budget Commissioners expressed surprise at this because the township doesn’t have many tall structures except perhaps barns and outbuildings. Mr. Flaiz also observed that “they’re (Chardon City) not hurting for money over there…. They’re having you subsidize the truck they need for these large commercial buildings in the city. It's ridiculous.”

Mr. Flaiz said Chardon Township did “a great job” on their budget and it is a big improvement from the previous year’s submission.

Budget Approved Unanimously

Burton Township - Trustees Dan Whiting and Ken Burnett and Fiscal Officer Katie O’Neill attended.

Before the hearing began, a Burton Trustees Meeting was called to order. Reviewer Note: Some public entities advertise their portion of the Budget Commission hearings as a public meeting in case they need to take action.

Burton Township’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered General Fund Cash Balance: $282,800.07
Estimated General Fund Revenue: $346,911.23
Estimated General Fund Expenses: $324,615.00
Estimated 12/31/26 General Fund Cash Balance: $305,096.30

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $173,248.35
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Revenue: $433,408.00
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Expenses: $477,350.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $129,306.35

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Fire Fund Cash Balance: $154,708.41
Estimated Fire Fund Revenue: $273,807.00
Estimated Fire Fund Expenses: $341,320.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Fire Fund Cash Balance: $ 87,195.41

Burton Township’s total millage of 10.35 mills is made up of the following:

2.0 inside (unvoted) mills for the General Fund
1.0 inside mills for the Road and Bridge Fund
4.1 outside (voted) mills for the Road and Bridge Fund
3.25 outside mills for the Fire Fund

Burton Township has a 3.0 Mill Road and Bridge Replacement Levy on the November 2025 ballot that will yield $351,333 per year if approved by the voters. Mr. Walder confirmed that this is not replacing a qualified levy. Observer Note: Qualified levies are levies that were passed pre-2013 in Ohio; they get 12.5% of their funding from the State.

Mr. Hitchcock stated that he was “extremely concerned” about Burton Township’s high general fund and road and bridge fund cash balances for 2025. He noted that the general fund and the road and bridge fund each have enough money to operate for about two years without any additional taxpayer money, and he said that was too much money just sitting and earning interest in the bank. He felt that the fire fund operates “prudently.”

Mr. Flaiz said Burton Township’s garage project “turned out absolutely fantastic” and may account for some of the issue with high cash balances due to project delays. Ms. O’Neill confirmed this, saying the garage project accounts for about $500,000 of balance variance when the amounts in the general fund and road and bridge fund are combined. This project is nearly complete; Ms. O’Neill said they are just waiting on the occupancy permit. Mr. Flaiz said that he has no problem with Burton Township’s budget.

Mr. Walder said the budget was “very clean.” He felt that Burton Township’s high cash carryover in the general fund (93%) could be fixed with a reserve fund. He lauded the decreased carryover in the fire fund, which dropped from 70% last year to 26% this year. Mr. Walder noted that Burton Township is 14th out of the 16 townships in total tax revenue per resident ($315), which he said indicates “you're very low cost to your residents, which is a good thing.” He also said that Burton Township is 9th in road and bridge tax revenue per resident ($142), which Mr. Walder said enables the township to “easily justify” the replacement road and bridge levy on the ballot.

Budget Approved Unanimously

Montville Township – Trustee Jim Marsic and Fiscal Officer Karen Hawkins attended.

Montville Township’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered General Fund Cash Balance: $122,634.27
Estimated General Fund Revenue: $200,455.08
Estimated General Fund Expenses: $269,530.00
Estimated 12/31/26 General Fund Cash Balance: $ 53,559.35

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $168,242.52
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Revenue: $158,392.00
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Expenses: $260,960.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $ 65,674.52

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Fire Fund Cash Balance: $147,992.38
Estimated Fire Fund Revenue: $246,081.00
Estimated Fire Fund Expenses: $367,900.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Fire Fund Cash Balance: $ 26,173.38

Montville Township’s total millage of 9.9 mills is made up of the following:

1.7 inside (unvoted) mills for the General Fund
1.3 inside mills for the Road and Bridge Fund
1.0 outside (voted) mills for the Road and Bridge Fund
5.9 outside mills for the Fire Fund

Montville Township has no levies on the November 2025 ballot.

Montville Township has two reserve funds, one for the general fund and one for road and bridges.

Mr. Hitchcock told the Montville representatives “you’re doing a really good job.” He said his only concern was that the ending fire fund cash balance for 2026 was too low, as it wouldn’t be enough to operate for even two months. Ms. Hawkins said this made her nervous as well. Mr. Walder said that general fund reserve money could be brought back into the general fund and then used to help out the fire fund as a temporary measure if needed. He said that if this is done, it would be best to do it as an advance, not a transfer, because that would give them one year to “claw it back.” He also suggested that a fire levy be considered, and if it passes, the money could be returned to the general fund as long as it occurs within that one-year window. He said if the money isn’t returned within that time frame, it simply becomes a transfer.

Mr. Walder praised Montville’s budget as well, saying the carryovers were if anything low, which he said taxpayers appreciate. Observer Note: Mr. Walder’s slide presentation listed Montville’s carryovers as follows: 20% in the general fund, 29% for the combined road and bridge fund, and 16% for the fire fund. He credited Montville for creating its two reserve funds and advised them to “get ahead” on the funding for fire so that a fire reserve fund can be created to help them get through lean times. Ms. Hawkins said that they are hoping to get together about $500,000 for a new fire truck, but currently she is uncertain where that money would come from.

Observer Note: Though it was not gone over verbally in the hearing, Mr. Walder gave the Montville Township representatives a copy of his presentation showing that Montville Township is 12th out of the 16 townships in total tax revenue per resident ($127).

Budget Approved Unanimously

Claridon Township – Trustee Jonathan Tiber and Fiscal Officer Clint Hardman attended.

Claridon Township’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered General Fund Cash Balance: $441,610.57
Estimated General Fund Revenue: $396,772.57
Estimated General Fund Expenses: $283,681.67
Estimated 12/31/26 General Fund Cash Balance: $554,701.47

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $207,855.30
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Revenue: $160,861.00
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Expenses: $164,415.52
Estimated 12/31/26 Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $204,300.78

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Fire Fund Cash Balance: $163,898.11
Estimated Fire Fund Revenue: $505,688.00
Estimated Fire Fund Expenses: $512,400.43
Estimated 12/31/26 Fire Fund Cash Balance: $157,185.68

Claridon Township’s total millage of 11.45 mills is made up of the following:

2.5 inside (unvoted) mills for the General Fund
0.5 inside mills for the Road and Bridge Fund
2.4 outside (voted) mills for the Road and Bridge Fund
6.05 outside mills for the Fire Fund

Claridon has an additional 1.5 Mill Road and Bridge Levy on the November 2025 ballot that will yield $183,175 per year if approved by the voters.

Mr. Tiber asked to speak first. He said he felt they submitted an incomplete budget due to the timing of when the budget was due to the Budget Commission. He stated that they have a new Road Superintendent (unnamed) running the department, and the previous Road Superintendent (also unnamed) is incarcerated (no reason given). He said the new “road super” is good, but they got the roads numbers late. Mr. Tiber also noted that Claridon has had “fiscal turmoil,” with the previous Fiscal Officer (unnamed) being “MIA (missing in action),” requiring them to hire a Deputy Fiscal Officer to fill the gap. He said now they have a new “terrific” Fiscal Officer (Mr. Hardman). Overall, he said the Roads Superintendent and Fiscal Officer situations have been resolved, but they were not taken care of in time for the budget to reflect that fact.

Mr. Tiber said he thinks the budget is “wrong” because it has too much carryover and on top of that they are asking for an additional road and bridge levy. He provided the Budget Commissioners with information that “tells the real story,” with revised numbers for 2026 resulting in a much lower carryover rate. This includes the establishment of a reserve fund for the resurfacing of Ensign Road; this reserve fund is projected to accumulate $1.62 million over five years.

Mr. Walder indicated that what Mr. Tiber said about the problems with Claridon’s budget dovetails with his own observations. As submitted, Claridon’s budget has 196% carryover in the general fund and 159% carryover in the combined road and bridge fund. Mr. Walder opined that the information provided by the Claridon representatives is “90% of the solution,” with the other 10% being the addition of a general fund reserve fund. He said it’s up to Claridon’s voters what they decide to do at the ballot box regarding the additional road levy. Mr. Tiber said that they are considering suspending collection of that levy for the first year if it should pass.

Mr. Walder noted that Claridon is 12th out of the 16 townships in total tax revenue per resident ($317), which he said means “you're not over taxing your residents, but that doesn't mean you could just hold the money, right? You have to put it to use.” He also said that Claridon is lowest (16th) in road and bridge tax revenue per resident ($53), which Mr. Walder pointed out was about half the amount per resident of the next-lowest entity (Parkman at $101 per resident).

Mr. Flaiz that he would be voting for reducing Claridon’s revenue if it weren’t for the Road Superintendent and Fiscal Officer situations, along with his perception that there was a lot of deferred maintenance in Aquilla Village, resulting in likely “hidden costs” now that Aquilla is a part of Claridon Township. He expressed the opinion that it “… isn't that you have too much money, it's that it just hasn't been managed properly.” Mr. Tiber pledged that the fund would be properly managed now. Mr. Flaiz urged Claridon to be able to show progress in solving their budgetary issues at the next year’s Budget Hearings.

Budget Approved Unanimously

Parkman Township - Trustee Joyce Peters and Fiscal Officer Denise Villers attended.

Parkman Township’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered General Fund Cash Balance: $454,099.92
Estimated General Fund Revenue: $295,265.54
Estimated General Fund Expenses: $552,942.00
Estimated 12/31/26 General Fund Cash Balance: $196,423.46

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $275,613.12
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Revenue: $438,813.00
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Expenses: $459,688.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $254,738.12

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Fire Fund Cash Balance: $355,868.07
Estimated Fire Fund Revenue: $232,873.00
Estimated Fire Fund Expenses: $345,070.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Fire Fund Cash Balance: $243,671.07

Parkman Township’s total millage of 10.8 mills is made up of the following:

1.7 inside (unvoted) mills for the General Fund
1.3 inside mills for the Road and Bridge Fund
4.4 outside (voted) mills for the Road and Bridge Fund
3.4 outside mills for the Fire Fund

Parkman Township has no levies on the November 2025 ballot.

Mr. Flaiz said he thought Parkman’s balances were high and asked if they were saving money for a road. Parkman’s representatives said that they spent an extra $100,000 on roads this year and have a big road project coming up next year that is estimated at $230,000. There will also be at least $100,000 spent out of the general fund to update the Community House (a multi-purpose social hall). Mr. Flaiz said he thought that the cost of the Community House project would end up being “way more” than that, but he also thought that Parkman had the money to handle that. He concluded his remarks by saying “very good job on the budget, and I have confidence that you'll address the excessive cash balances.”

Mr. Hitchcock agreed with Mr. Flaiz that Parkman’s cash balances were too high. He indicated that this could be resolved at least in part by establishing a reserve fund for the Community House renovation. He asked if they were saving for something in the fire fund and was told that Parkman will need a new ambulance in the next few years. He advised them to set aside money for that as well in a fire reserve fund. Mr. Hitchcock cautioned that without the establishment of reserve funds, he will vote against Parkman’s budget at next year’s Budget Hearing.

Mr. Walder concurred with Mr. Hitchcock, saying “you must do reserves in road and fire at least. Sounds like you could probably do one in the general fund. You've got the cash…. So create the reserve funds, and I'm okay. Don't create them, we're going to have a problem next year. I think you have ample time to do it.” Parkman was advised that the staff of both the Prosecutor’s Office and the Budget Commission will help them with the reserve fund creation process if they reach out for assistance.

Observer Note: Though it was not gone over verbally in the hearing, Mr. Walder’s slides indicated that Parkman is lowest in the County (16th out of the 16 townships) in total tax revenue per resident ($193).

Budget Approved Unanimously

Chester Township - Trustees Ken Radtke and Craig Richter and Fiscal Officer Patricia Jarrett attended.

Before the hearing began, a Chester Township Trustees Meeting was called to order.

Chester Township’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered General Fund Cash Balance: $ 885,815.16
Estimated General Fund Revenue: $2,078,114.20
Estimated General Fund Expenses: $2,418,508.84
Estimated 12/31/26 General Fund Cash Balance: $ 545,420.52

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $ 562,677.08
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Revenue: $2,682,375.00
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Expenses: $2,549,500.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $ 695,552.08

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Police Fund Cash Balance: $ 541,126.34
Estimated Police Fund Revenue: $2,820,429.00
Estimated Police Fund Expenses: $2,680,150.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Police Fund Cash Balance: $ 681,405.34

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Fire Fund Cash Balance: $1,488,493.18
Estimated Fire Fund Revenue: $2,067,243.00
Estimated Fire Fund Expenses: $2,498,250.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Fire Fund Cash Balance: $1,057,486.18

Chester Township’s total millage of 23.92 mills is made up of the following:

3.0 inside (unvoted) mills for the General Fund
5.0 outside (voted) mills for the Road and Bridge Fund
8.97 outside mills for the Police Fund
6.25 outside mills for the Fire Fund

Chester Township has no levies on the November 2025 ballot.

Chester Township has four reserve funds: general fund reserve fund, road and bridge reserve fund, police reserve fund, and fire reserve fund.

Mr. Walder said that there was a line item in the 2281 fund (ambulance and EMS) that was too high and must be fixed. He noted that general fund carryover was 22%, down significantly from 139% last year due to the establishment of reserve funds. Carryover was at 26% for road and bridge, 26% for police, and 43% for fire. Mr. Walder felt that the fire carryover was a bit high and advised them to consider creating another fire reserve fund. The Chester representatives indicated that they are thinking about setting up a reserve fund for fire department retirements.

Mr. Walder said that Chester “… should be very proud of your relationship with your park, and here's why, compared to some other entities who have parks, your park puts a huge percentage of their revenue directly into the park.” Observer Note: See the Chester Park District Budget Hearing in the August 19, 2025 section below for more information.

Mr. Walder pointed out that Chester is 3rd out of the 16 townships in total tax revenue per resident ($774), 7th in road and bridge tax revenue per resident ($165), 6th in fire and EMS tax revenue per resident ($212), and 3rd in police tax revenue per resident ($231). He thought those rankings were reasonable given that Chester is one of the “larger enterprises” in the County.

Mr. Hitchcock asked about high balances in the road and bridge fund in recent years. Ms. Jarrett said that Gates Mills provided $500,000 for the County Line Road project, and a $250,000 OPWC (Ohio Public Works Commission) grant was received for this as well, and these contributions weren’t predicted. It was noted that they are looking at replacing the road department’s roof, or possibly even replacing the whole building.

Mr. Flaiz observed that there has been a marked increase in general fund expenditures over 5 years, going from $625,000 in 2021 to an estimated $2.4 million in 2026. Ms. Jarrett explained they now make transfers to the road department from the general fund, which accounts for some of the increase in expenditures. It was further explained that all of Chester’s inside millage now goes to general fund, and then they use the general fund to supplement the roads department as well as the reserve funds. Mr. Flaiz asked if all of Chester’s reserve funds are funded by the general fund, and this was confirmed. He indicated that the increased general fund expenses then makes sense.

Budget Approved Unanimously

Hambden Township – Trustee Keith McClintock and Fiscal Officer Mike Romans attended.

Hambden Township’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered General Fund Cash Balance: $338,084.61
Estimated General Fund Revenue: $518,683.65
Estimated General Fund Expenses: $681,988.49
Estimated 12/31/26 General Fund Cash Balance: $174,779.77

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $475,988.34
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Revenue: $544,585.00
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Expenses: $597,060.14
Estimated 12/31/26 Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $423,513.20

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Fire Fund Cash Balance: $375,350.40
Estimated Fire Fund Revenue: $741,373.00
Estimated Fire Fund Expenses: $977,782.50
Estimated 12/31/26 Fire Fund Cash Balance: $138,940.90

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Park Fund Cash Balance: $ 6,870.87
Estimated Park Fund Revenue: $32,303.00
Estimated Park Fund Expenses: $35,922.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Park Fund Cash Balance: $ 3,251.87

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Permanent Improvement Fund Cash Balance: $178,102.40
Estimated Permanent Improvement Fund Revenue: $0.00
Estimated Permanent Improvement Fund Expenses: $0.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Permanent Improvement Fund Cash Balance: $178,102.40

Hamben Township’s total millage of 11.05 mills is made up of the following:

1.3 inside (unvoted) mills for the General Fund
0.5 outside (voted) mills for the General Fund
1.7 inside mills for the Road and Bridge Fund
1.8 outside mills for the Road and Bridge Fund
5.5 outside mills for the Fire Fund
0.25 outside mills for the Park Fund

Hambden Township has three levies on the November 2025 ballot:

A 0.8 Mill Permanent Improvement Levy is up for renewal that will yield $105,480 per year if renewed by the voters.
A 1.5 Mill Fire Levy is up for renewal that will yield $197,776 per year if renewed by the voters.
A 1.5 Mill Fire Levy is up for renewal with a 0.78 Mill increase (2.28 Mills total) that will yield $350,285 per year if approved by the voters.

Hamben has a facility enhancement reserve fund.

Mr. Hitchcock said that Hambden’s budget was good in general, but the general fund has too much cash. The Hambden representatives said that they will solve this problem by creating a road reserve fund, and the Trustees plan to make a motion to create this fund at their next meeting.

Mr. Flaiz said they did “a great job on the budget” but concurred with Mr. Hitchcock that there is too much money in the general fund. He said that his understanding is that Hambden wants to turn the old fire station into a service garage once the new fire station is built. He asked if there were cost estimates for this project and noted that the old fire station “is in rough shape.” He was told they may end up tearing it down and putting up a prefabricated building instead if the old fire station is determined to be unsalvageable. Mr. Flaiz suggested that Hambden consider a reserve fund for the service garage project to help solve their high balance issue.

Mr. Walder acknowledged that his office inadvertently gave Hambden “bad revenue numbers for the general fund and road and bridge” due to a formula error. He said he was able to fix the error by subtracting $50,000 in general fund revenue and adding it to road and bridge revenue. He said this resulted in general fund carryover of 26%, which he thought was fine. Mr. Walder said road and bridge carryover was 65%, but this will go down with the creation of the road reserve fund.

Mr. Walder said he appreciated Hambden’s quick response to the Budget Commission’s advice not to replace its qualified fire levy, opining that Hambden “did the right thing for the taxpayers.” Mr. Flaiz and Mr. Hitchcock praised Hambden for this as well. Observer Note: Hambden rescinded a replacement fire levy and instead placed a renewal levy with increase on the November ballot, which preserves the qualified original levy amount. See the August 4, 2025 Budget Commission LWVG Observer Report for more information. Mr. Walder expounded that “I think the lesson learned here is, be cautious when department heads are advising you on what type of levies and what to do with them. They are only looking at what they need. They're not looking at the mechanics behind it, nor should they be experts (on levies). So, take everything they say with a grain of salt and figure out how much more money you need. Let us figure out how to get it.”

Mr. Walder reviewed Hambden’s rankings in tax revenue compared to the other Geauga Townships. Hambden is 9th of the 16 townships in total tax revenue per resident ($375) and 9th in fire and EMS tax revenue per resident ($162). Mr. Walder stated “you're almost exactly average with fire. So I caution putting too much more fire money on the ballot, but you still rank ninth out of 16, so you're slightly below the center, which is not a terrible place to be.”

Budget Approved Unanimously

Munson Township - Trustees Andy Bushman and Jim McCaskey and Fiscal Officer Todd Ray attended.

Before the hearing began, a Munson Township Trustees Meeting was called to order.

Munson Township’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered General Fund Cash Balance: $ 469,248.18
Estimated General Fund Revenue: $1,290,853.70
Estimated General Fund Expenses: $1,611,766.00
Estimated 12/31/26 General Fund Cash Balance: $ 148,335.88

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $ 165,039.77
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Revenue: $1,174,131.00
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Expenses: $1,183,900.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $ 155,270.77

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Fire Fund Cash Balance: $ 0.00
Estimated Fire Fund Revenue: $1,985,323.00
Estimated Fire Fund Expenses: $1,985,323.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Fire Fund Cash Balance: $ 0.00

Munson Township’s total millage of 14.2 mills is made up of the following:

3.0 inside (unvoted) mills for the General Fund
3.7 outside (voted) mills for the Road and Bridge Fund
7.5 outside mills for the Fire Fund

Munson Township has no levies on the November 2025 ballot.

Mr. Flaiz said that Munson’s budget was excellent and very well done.

Mr. Hitchcock said his only concern was that the general fund estimated balance seemed low. Mr. Ray said that he estimates revenue conservatively “so that we don't appropriate more money than might actually come in.”

Mr. Walder said that Munson’s general fund carryover is estimated at 9% and road carryover is estimated at 16%. He would like them to get to a point where they have enough money to create reserve funds but acknowledged that this may take years. He said this would help them be able to handle an unexpected event, such as a roof failure, which otherwise might be difficult because they are tightly budgeted. The other Budget Commissioners supported this idea.

Mr. Walder pointed out that Munson is 13th of the 16 townships in road and bridge tax revenue per resident ($126). Observer Note: Though it was not gone over verbally in the hearing, Mr. Walder’s slides indicated that Munson is 5th out of the 16 townships in total tax revenue per resident ($569).

Budget Approved Unanimously

Russell Township - Trustees Kristina Port and Christopher Hare, Fiscal Officer Karen Walder, Police Chief Tom Swaidner, and Police Lieutenant Scott Lillash attended. The Russell Township video can be seen here.

Auditor Walder recused himself from this hearing (due to his wife being Russell’s Fiscal Officer). Chief Operations Officer Pam McMahan replaced him.

Before the hearing began, a Russell Township Trustees Meeting was called to order.

Russell Township’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered General Fund Cash Balance: $ 481,422.14
Estimated General Fund Revenue: $1,583,916.38
Estimated General Fund Expenses: $1,716,544.43
Estimated 12/31/26 General Fund Cash Balance: $ 348,794.09

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $ 815,016.15
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Revenue: $1,657,382.34
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Expenses: $2,103,011.32
Estimated 12/31/26 Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $ 369,387.51

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Fire Fund Cash Balance: $ 489,544.58
Estimated Fire Fund Revenue: $1,262,434.00
Estimated Fire Fund Expenses: $1,447,236.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Fire Fund Cash Balance: $ 304,742.58

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Police Fund Cash Balance: $ 843,938.48
Estimated Police Fund Revenue: $2,091,839.00
Estimated Police Fund Expenses: $3,073,285.70
Estimated 12/31/26 Police Fund Cash Balance: -$ (137,508.22)

Russell Township’s total millage of 26.3 mills is made up of the following:

3.0 inside (unvoted) mills for the General Fund
7.05 outside (voted) mills for the Road and Bridge Fund
6.8 outside mills for the Fire Fund
9.45 outside mills for the Police Fund

Russell Township has an additional 2.5 mill police levy on the November 2025 ballot that will yield $999,145 per year if approved by the voters.

Russell Township has reserve funds for the general fund, police, fire, roads, road vehicles, and police PTO (paid time off) accruals.

Ms. McMahan stated that Russell’s transfers in and out match and noted the following carryover percentages: 20% in the general fund, 19% in the combined road funds, 22% in the fire fund, and 0% in the police fund. She said the first three are “what we like to see” and said the 0% carryover for police is because of the levy on the ballot. Observer Note: Entities may not include tax revenue from levies on the ballot in their budget submission because it is unknown whether or not the voters will pass levies in advance. She pointed out that the police levy is additional (i.e., a new levy) with a continuing term (i.e., non-expiring) that would bring in nearly $1 million per year if passed by the voters. She noted that this would be on top of the $1.9 million per year already received by the Russell Police Department and would amount to a 52% increase in police funding.

Ms. McMahan mentioned that Russell is 1st (i.e., most expensive) out of the 16 townships in total tax revenue per resident ($1,103). She said Russell is also 1st in police tax revenue per resident ($356). Mr. Flaiz asked if this was before the new levy, and Ms. McMahan confirmed it was. He reiterated “before they increase the police funding by 50%, they are already number one (most expensive).” Ms. McMahan noted that hundreds of people have come before the Board of Revision to ask that their property value be decreased, and in many cases this is because they cannot afford their property taxes. She said “I just would ask you to consider the situations that the residents are faced with right now, and that as I said you are already taxing the highest for property and police of the entities we’re hearing.”

The Budget Commissioners did some quick calculations and determined that the new police levy would cost about $185 per resident each year, bringing the total amount of tax dollars spent on police per Russell resident to $541 each year. Mr. Hitchcock joked that there could be an individual officer for every home in the township.

Ms. Port said that they are looking at adding a police detective if the levy passes. There was some confusion about how much this would cost, but eventually it was clarified that Russell had budgeted about $140,000 for a detective. Mr. Flaiz wanted to know what the rest of the additional levy money (about $860,000) would be used for. Ms. Port mentioned that the police department is anticipating roof repairs in 2028 costing about $250,000 and said the levy money could pay for “things like that.” Mr. Flaiz wanted more of an explanation, saying this is “$860,000 per year, extra, forever.” Ms. Port said she thought levy collection would be reduced over time (i.e., Russell wouldn’t actually collect the full levy amount). Mr. Hitchcock and Mr. Flaiz both explained that this was not the case: Russell would not collect less over time.

Mr. Flaiz stated “You're never going to find a more sympathetic person in the County for spending money on police. So the fact that I'm having a hard time with this, should be a major red flag. I mean, you want to add one guy to the department, you want to add one position, yet you're asking for a 50% increase in revenue forever. Think about that. That doesn't trouble you two as trustees?” Ms. Port responded no and said the detective position is specialized and will require extra training. Mr. Flaiz was incredulous that training would be that expensive.

Police Chief Swaidner said that they are over $400,000 below their recommended cash reserve amount and the levy would help with that, along with future salary increases and inflationary increases. He maintained that the new levy would prevent them from having to go back to residents asking for more money “too soon.” He said the levy amount is what the Fiscal Officer calculated that they would need “to last us five-plus years.”

Mr. Flaiz said he had trouble understanding Russell’s high police costs: “this is a town with a limited, very limited, commercial district, and where a majority of the undeveloped land is tied up under conservation easements as park land.” The Russell Township representatives pointed out that part of why their costs are high is because they are distributed among fewer residents, leading to higher per capita costs. Ms. Port thought that residential policing costs are higher than commercial, but Mr. Flaiz disagreed and thought the opposite was true.

Mr. Flaiz and Mr. Hitchcock both expressed displeasure about the lack of firm plans for the new levy money beyond the new detective position. Mr. Hitchcock stated “you're going to have the taxpayers pay a million bucks for one guy, one person. That person is only going to cost $140,000, round it off to $200,000…. That's $800,000 being taken out of the taxpayers, for nothing that is being specified. That is wrong, and I will not support that. So, if you had come with a proposal of a five-year projection, because then you could show us the projection, this is where it's going. Instead, it's a continuing levy that's going on the ballot. They will be paying for it for the next 50 years.”

Ms. Port brought up concerns about the recently passed State Budget and its potential changes to how some levies work. She said they were “trying to find language that would meet that, (while also) trying to get through our five-year period.” Mr. Flaiz was baffled by her statement: “That made no sense, what you just said…. This has nothing to do with the State Legislature (or) the status of levies…. You're trying to slough it off on Karen (Ms. Walder, the Russell Fiscal Officer). Karen doesn't put levies on the ballot. Chief Swaidner doesn't put levies on the ballot. You two (Ms. Port and Mr. Hare) put levies on the ballot, and you approved putting a levy on the ballot that is obscenely excessive for the identified need. There's no other way to say it.”

Mr. Hitchcock said: “As of right now, you have $1.6 million in cash in the bank, which is enough to operate you for seven-tenths of the year without any additional tax revenue in the police fund…. I dare say, I don't think there is another entity that enjoys as much cash balance as you do, and yet you've decided to go out for an additional levy on a continuing basis for a million dollars. This is bad government.” He went on to say that, should the levy pass, it “will be extremely easy for this Budget Commission to take, not the million dollars, because you're going to spend some of it on a new officer, but there's going to be $860,000 that Jim calculated, and that is going to be clawed back and returned to the taxpayers.”

Ms. Walder explained that the Trustees had her do the calculations for the new levy so that it could: 1) pay for the detective position, 2) fully fund the reserves (at about $150,000 per year), 3) pay for 3% wage increases, and 4) fund a 7.5% escalation in major benefits year over year.

Mr. Flaiz again expressed surprise over the amount of the increase and said “if this levy somehow passes, I will vote to reduce its collection by at least $800,000 one year from now.”

Mr. Flaiz then asked why there was a projected negative balance in the police fund. It was determined that the new detective position was already projected as an expense in the budget. Mr. Hitchcock pointed out that estimated expenses in 2026 are $400,000 more than in 2025, noting that this is less than the million dollar increase the levy would bring in if approved.

Mr. Flaiz said he could not approve the Russell budget with a negative ending balance in the police fund. He also said he wants to take a closer look at the police budget in general, as he struggled to understand how Russell went from having about $1.7 million in police expenses in 2021 to having estimated police expenses of about $3.1 million in 2026. He described that amount of increase as “crazy,” and he noted that there has not been a large influx of residents to the township or a crime wave that could explain it.

The Budget Commission unanimously voted to table Russell’s budget until its Special Meeting on August 27. Observer Note: The Budget Commission actually reconsidered the Russell Township budget the following day on August 19, 2025 at a Special Meeting. The Budget Commission amended the Russell budget by reducing Police Fund expenses by $140,000 (the amount of the detective position). This made the police fund estimated balance go from negative to positive. The amended Russell Police Fund numbers were as follows:

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Police Fund Cash Balance: $ 843,938.48
Estimated Police Fund Revenue: $2,091,839.00
Estimated Police Fund Expenses: $2,933,285.70
Estimated 12/31/26 Police Fund Cash Balance: $ 2,491.78

The Budget Commission then unanimously approved Russell’s amended budget. They also voted to cancel their Special Meeting on August 27, 2025.

The Budget Commission moved into recess at 12:32 pm until 1:15 pm

August 18, 2025 - Afternoon Session - The video for the afternoon session can be found here:

The afternoon session of Budget Hearings was called to order at 1:15 pm. Present for all hearings were Treasurer Chris Hitchcock, Auditor Chuck Walder, Prosecutor Jim Flaiz, Deputy Auditor Tammy Most, Deputy Auditor Kristen Sinatra, Auditor’s Office Chief Operating Officer Pam McMahan (joined at 1:55 pm), Chief Deputy Administrator of ADP (Automatic Data Processing) Frank Antenucci, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Kristen Rine, Geauga Maple Leaf reporter Allison Wilson, and LWV Geauga Observer Carol Benton. Attendees representing each individual entity will be noted below.

Summary of Afternoon Session:

All budget submissions were approved unanimously.
Mr. Walder recommended the establishment of reserve funds for large upcoming expenditures to many of the townships.
Commissioners commented positively about the Geauga County budget, noting that it was the first time it was fully funded. They expressed their appreciation for the budget process conducted this year.
Mr. Walder cautioned that current spending levels by the county need to subside because taxpayers are tapped out and expecting relief.

Newbury Township - Lindsay Pollock, Fiscal Officer; Township Trustees - Bill Skomrock, Jr., Greg Tropf, and David Lair, Jr. Reviewer Note: No public meeting was opened and no official actions were taken by Newbury Township.

Newbury Township’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered General Fund Cash Balance: $726,429.82
Estimated General Fund Revenue: $684,520.83
Estimated General Fund Expenses: $952,134.50
Estimated 12/31/26 General Fund Cash Balance: $458,816.15

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $ 39,126.01
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Revenue: $403,512.00
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Expenses: $305,883.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $136,755.01

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Fire Fund Cash Balance: $36,698.82
Estimated Fire Fund Revenue: $1,378,105.00
Estimated Fire Fund Expenses: $1,393,500.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Fire Fund Cash Balance: $21,303.82

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Road Improvement Cash Balance: $233,978.46
Estimated Fire Fund Revenue: $708,390.00
Estimated Fire Fund Expenses: $636,300.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Fire Fund Cash Balance: $366,068.46

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Debt Cash Balance: $ 31,088.24
Estimated Fire Fund Revenue: $350,000.00
Estimated Fire Fund Expenses: $370,000.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Fire Fund Cash Balance: $ 11,088.24

Newbury Township’s total millage of 14.0 mills is made up of the following:

1.4 inside (unvoted) mills for the General Fund
1.6 inside (unvoted) mills for the Road and Bridge Fund
3.9 outside mills for the Road and Bridge Fund
7.1 outside mills for the Fire Fund

Newbury Township has no levies on the November 2025 ballot.

Ms. Pollock noted that a $75,000 transfer out of the Road Improvement Fund to the Service Garage reserve fund was not reflected in the expenses read by Ms. Most, and that the estimated 2026 ending balance in the fund was higher by $75,000 as a result. Mr. Walder said the treatment of transfers as expense was correct and that they would check their figures.

Mr. Flaiz complimented the Newbury team on their budget, saying “they did a really excellent job.” Mr. Flaiz inquired as to when the fire station loan was scheduled to be paid off. Ms. Pollock noted that they were planning to pay it off early. Mr. Walder inquired about the interest rate on the loan, which is 3.74%. It was noted that this was a favorable rate and that perhaps accelerated payment could be reconsidered. Mr. Flaiz noted that a continuing operating levy was funding the construction of this building, and after it was complete, the expectation was that the trustees would hold back collection on this levy. All agreed.

Mr. Hitchcock inquired about the estimated ending 2026 balance of $21,303 in the Fire Fund, representing a low carryover balance of only 2% of annual expenses. Ms. Pollock noted that they expect sufficient funds to cover Fire Fund expenses in the following year. She also noted that the General Fund could transfer funds if needed. Mr. Tropf indicated that there may be needs they would want to reserve for, including equipment, a potential community/town hall project and improvements to the Oberland park, including bathrooms and pickleball courts.

Mr. Walder said he felt the budget was great. He noted that the General Fund and Roads funds combined carryover increased, but he expressed that Roads funds are difficult to budget due to the timing of projects. He similarly noted that the Fire Fund is low but noted that revenue influx is high. He encouraged the team to consider other reserves, such as road reserves for specific projects, capital equipment, or retirement, noting that they are a way to have money available if an anomaly arises and funds are needed. Mr. Walder provided the ranking of revenue per resident of all Geauga County townships.

The Commissioners praised Ms. Pollock’s quick grasp of the township’s budget.

Budget Approved Unanimously

Huntsburg Township - Michele Saunders, Fiscal Officer, and Nancy Saunders, Township Trustee

Huntsburg Township’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered General Fund Cash Balance: $ 50,310.35
Estimated General Fund Revenue: $388,733.67
Estimated General Fund Expenses: $317,590.00
Estimated 12/31/26 General Fund Cash Balance: $121,454.02

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $194,594.04
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Revenue: $738,256.00
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Expenses: $853,000.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $79,850.04

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Fire Fund Cash Balance: $36,318.21
Estimated Fire Fund Revenue: $10,100.00
Estimated Fire Fund Expenses: $41,900.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Fire Fund Cash Balance: $ 4,518.21

Huntsburg Township’s total millage of 10.5 mills is made up of the following:

1.7 inside (unvoted) mills for the General Fund
1.3 inside (unvoted) mills for the Road and Bridge Fund
7.5 outside mills for the Road and Bridge Fund

Huntsburg has a replacement of a qualified 1.5 Mill Fire Levy on the November 2025 ballot that will yield $158,737 per year if approved by the voters.

Mr. Walder inquired about transfers, noting an anomaly. Ms. Saunders noted that she added the transfer from the General Fund to the Permanent Improvement fund and provided a corrected report. He noted that the combined Road funds are estimated to end the year with a low 10% carryover. Mr. Walder referenced the Geauga County Levy Ranking, noting that the Huntsburg Township is 15th out of 16 townships in total revenue per resident, and that total township revenue per resident is half the county average. They are the lowest levied township for Fire, which he feels justifies the Huntsburg levy on the ballot. Ms. Saunders noted that the current Fire department contract has been in place for 15 years, so they suspect there will be an increase in the next contract. The current level of Fire Levy funding will not sustain an increase, so a replacement levy was needed. Mr. Walder explained that replacement levies will not be possible after the Ohio Senate ratifies the override of Governor DeWine’s veto. He also pointed out that by replacing the qualified levy instead of renewing it with an increase, they will lose the 12.5% state funding that qualified levies garner.

Mr. Hitchcock pointed out that the General Fund estimated ending balance in the prior budget was much less than the current estimated beginning balance. Ms. Saunders noted that planned work on the park, including the resurfacing of tennis courts and the addition of pickleball courts, didn’t occur. Trustee Saunders also noted that a Land and Water Conservation grant planned was not awarded.

Mr. Flaiz had no comments.

Budget Approved Unanimously

Middlefield Township - Mary Ann Pierce, Fiscal Officer, and Paul Porter, Township Trustee

Middlefield Township’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered General Fund Cash Balance: $ 98,896.59
Estimated General Fund Revenue: $264,822.68
Estimated General Fund Expenses: $277,102.38
Estimated 12/31/26 General Fund Cash Balance: $ 86,616.89

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $357,822.20
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Revenue: $627,353.00
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Expenses: $467,622.42
Estimated 12/31/26 Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $517,552.78

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Ambulance Fund Cash Balance: $139,679.62
Estimated Fire Fund Revenue: $132,984.00
Estimated Fire Fund Expenses: $ 94,062.42
Estimated 12/31/26 Fire Fund Cash Balance: $178,601.20

Middlefield Township’s total millage of 9.6 mills is made up of the following:

1.3 inside (unvoted) mills for the General Fund
1.7 inside (unvoted) mills for the Road and Bridge Fund
5.0 outside mills for the Road and Bridge Fund
1.6 outside mills for Ambulance Fund

Middlefield Township has no levies on the November 2025 ballot.

Mr. Hitchcock stated that he felt the General Fund was extremely well done and that the Ambulance Fund was now in good order. He thought the Road and Bridge Fund was not. He asked Ms. Pierce if there was a project in “your back pocket.” Ms. Pierce listed a number of projects in process or planned for 2025. Mr. Hitchcock explained that those costs should be reflected in the 2026 beginning balance. He asked that they pay close attention to their budgeted cash balance.

Mr. Flaiz expressed that he thought they did a great job. He suggested that they look at the Road and Bridge Fund and get more aggressive with the road program to bring the balance down, recognizing that there was a need to make road improvements in their township. Mr. Walder recommended a Road and Bridge Reserve Fund to “stick it away” for an emergency like a new plow truck. He similarly recommended setting up an Ambulance Reserve Fund for the potential purchase of an ambulance in the future. Mr. Flaiz offered to help them set up such a fund.

Budget Approved Unanimously

Auburn Township - Dan Matsko, Fiscal Officer and Eugene McCune, Township Trustee

Auburn Township’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered General Fund Cash Balance: $288,568.30
Estimated General Fund Revenue: $767,103.42
Estimated General Fund Expenses: $825,053.00
Estimated 12/31/26 General Fund Cash Balance: $230,618.72

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $ 209,213.35
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Revenue: $1,888,152.00
Estimated Road & Bridge Fund Expenses: $1,839,873.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Road & Bridge Fund Cash Balance: $ 257,492.35

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Fire Fund Cash Balance: $ 405,456.54
Estimated Fire Fund Revenue: $1,351,189.00
Estimated Fire Fund Expenses: $1,504,421.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Fire Fund Cash Balance: $ 252,224.54

Auburn Township’s total millage of 12.95 mills is made up of the following:

1.4 inside (unvoted) mills for the General Fund
1.6 inside (unvoted) mills for the Road and Bridge Fund
4.65 outside mills for the Road and Bridge Fund
5.3 outside mills for Fire Fund

Auburn has a 1.0 Mill Road and Bridge Levy up for renewal on the November 2025 ballot that will yield $277,573 per year if renewed by the voters.

Auburn has a reserve fund for a single axle dump truck and also a debt fund.

Mr. Walder noted that Auburn uses contingency line items. He informed Mr. Matsko that the Ohio Revised Code limits the amount to 3% of current expenditures, which the Auditors Office adjusted for in the Auburn budget. Mr. Matsko noted that he had learned of this limitation and changed it in his budget. Mr. Walder noted that they are co-mingling road and fire payments in the 3101 Debt Fund. He indicated that typically once you get to the end of the payment schedules, you have to return any remaining balance to the respective funds. Without independent tracking of the payments between the funds, this could be difficult. The team indicated that he had a spreadsheet where the payments were tracked separately to enable this. Mr. Walder noted that the General Fund carryover was great. The Road and Bridge Fund was a little low but that this was understandable after the payback of monies to taxpayers from this fund. He felt the Fire Fund was a little low, too, but noted that contract payments could be delayed if the balance became too low. He recommended additional reserves for large expenditures, i.e., a plow truck, enabling the township to save over the long term. He informed the Auburn team that road paving could be reserved for as well.

Mr. Walder expressed his appreciation for the work done to rectify the Road Levy issue. He specifically recognized Pam McMahan from the Auditor’s Office and Kristen Rine from the Prosecutor’s Office for their assistance. Observer Note: See this article from the June 20, 2024 edition of the Geauga Maple Leaf describing the return of funds to property taxpayers. He noted that as of August 11, 2025, 86% of the total $752,041 payout was remitted to taxpayers. He noted that 13% of the total payments were deemed to be undeliverable. The claim service company handling the process is willing to go to homes as necessary to clear up some of the delivery issues. He expressed his desire to ensure all payments are provided to taxpayers to avoid having to send any residual to Unclaimed Funds at the state level. Ms. McMahan noted that another round of letters will be sent soon.

Mr. Walder shifted to the Geauga County Township Levy Ranking, informing the Auburn team that they are 4th in the total revenue per resident. He also noted that they rank 1st in road levy revenue per resident pointing out that this was probably due to a catch up to repair many of the roads in Auburn.

Mr. Hitchcock noted some historical inaccuracies in cash balance projections before Mr. Matsko assumed the Fiscal Officer role, but he said that he believed the trend now was toward a very good budget.

Mr. Flaiz noted his concurrence on the Road and Bridge Fund and had no further questions. He relayed to Mr. Matsko that he had been doing a great job.

Budget Approved Unanimously

Geauga-Trumbull Solid Waste Management District (GTSWMD) - Jennifer Jones, Director

GTSWMD’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered General Fund Cash Balance: $2,847,670.98
Estimated General Fund Revenue: $2,090,000.00
Estimated General Fund Expenses: $2,986,032.00
Estimated 12/31/26 General Fund Cash Balance: $1,951,638.98

GTSWMD has no millage and no levies on the November 2025 ballot.

Mr. Flaiz told Ms. Jones that “she has done such a wonderful job.” He mentioned that he felt that not enough Geauga county residents are aware of the great GTSWMD facilities. Ms. Jones informed him that another set of postcards were scheduled to go to residents. She also reported that the recycling-use traffic in Geauga matches that of Trumbull county, even though Geauga has roughly half the population of Trumbull. Mr. Flaiz noted that the cash balance is creeping up. Ms Jones said GTSWMD is planning to start some new programs next year, including business recycling and maple syrup tubing recycling, with the big push being for more curbside recycling. She estimated that drop-off sites are approaching a $1M annual operating cost.

Budget Approved Unanimously

Geauga County - Adrian Gorton, Finance Manager; Amy Bevan, County Administrator; Carolyn Brakey, County Commissioner

Geauga County’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered General Fund Cash Balance: $ 6,669,333.59
Estimated General Fund Revenue: $47,713,128.96
Estimated General Fund Transfers In $ 100,000.00
Estimated General Fund Expenses: $50,635,258.00
Estimated 12/31/26 General Fund Cash Balance: $ 3,847,204.55

Geauga County’s total millage of 15.14 mills is made up of the following:

2.5 inside (unvoted) mills for the General Fund
1.7 outside mills for the Roads
1.2 outside mills for children services (Mr. Walder noted a portion of this had been suppressed in an amount totaling $1M.)
1.2 outside mills for mental health
4.3 outside mills for developmental disabilities
1.0 outside mills for senior services
0.2 outside mills for health district
2.4 outside mills for the library

Geauga County has a 0.7 Mill Children Services (JFS) renewal levy on the November 2025 ballot that will yield $2,331,346 per year if renewed by the voters.

Mr. Walder noted that this was the first fully funded Geauga County budget in his 8 years as Geauga County Auditor. He noted that the ending balance at $3.8M represented a 7.6% carryover, but he cautioned that the county has been spending a lot of money and that at some point “the music is going to stop and there won’t be enough chairs.” In his view the spending will have to slow because the county taxpayers are tapped out and are demanding relief. He highlighted a number of large ticket projects on the horizon, including phase 2 courthouse renovation, GCOB (Geauga County Office Building) parking expansion, safety center roof, courthouse annex basement conference room, 215 Main St. brickwork repair, renovations to the Auditor and Prosecutor Office spaces. He emphasized how quickly costs on projects such as these can escalate and emphasized the need for frugality. The influx of Covid money led to increased spending.

Mr. Flaiz commented that this year’s budget process was the most transparent. He recognized that the cash balance was difficult to forecast due to unspent appropriations. Mr. Gorton mentioned that he was considering acquiring a budgeting tool such as ClearGov to provide a more thorough capture of expenditures. Observer Note: See more on ClearGov. Mr. Gorton provided a spreadsheet showing the tracking of departments’ spending v. their budgeted amounts. who had the spending vs. budgets. This will allow him to address those areas with the largest variances.

Budget Approved Unanimously

August 19, 2025 - The video for the August 19,2025 session can be viewed here.

Meeting Attendance: Treasurer Chris Hitchcock, Auditor Chuck Walder, Prosecutor Jim Flaiz, ADP Chief Deputy Administrator Frank Antenucci, Mr. Antenucci represented the Auditor’s Office at the start of the meeting until Mr. Walder arrived at 9:57. Reviewer Note: Mr. Walder was present at the Board of County Commissioners meeting on the morning of August 19th.

Staff Attendance: Deputy Auditor Tammy Most, Deputy Auditor Kristen Sinatra and Chief Operating Officer Pam McMahan.

County Staff: County Budget and Finance Manager Adrian Gorton (virtual), Assistant County Prosecutor Kristen Rine (virtual), Russell Township Fiscal Officer Karen Walder, (virtual), Chief Compliance Officer & Administrator, Auditor’s Office Kate Jacob (virtual) and others

Members of the Public: LWV Geauga Observer Rooney Moy, Geauga Maple Leaf Reporter Emma MacNiven, and Members of Protect Geauga Parks (for Geauga Park District hearing).

The meeting was called to order at 9:01 am.

Summary for Tuesday, August 19, 2025:

All budget submissions were approved either unanimously or by two out of three Budget Commissioners voting yes, as noted.
The presentation slides for all Budget Hearings are available here.
The Budget Commissioners challenged the Russell Park 1545 and Russell Citizens Park boards about the need for their existence, saying that, “it basically only looks like you’re here to perpetuate a bureaucracy.”
Russell Park 1545 board members voted to seek legal guidance for the dissolution of their board.
The Budget Commissioners criticized the Geauga Park District for putting a levy on the November ballot that will increase homeowner taxes by 34%.

Russell Township Park 1545 – Fiscal Officer Susan Skronvan-DeYoung, Board Members Phil Corpora and Barbara Walter and another unidentified Board Member attended.

Russell Township Park 1545’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/26 Unencumbered General Fund Cash Balance: $39,092.73
Estimated General Fund Revenue: $11,752.08
Estimated General Fund Expenses: $ 9,016.00
Estimated 12/31/26 General Fund Cash Balance: $41,828.81

Estimated 1/1/26 Unencumbered Cash Balance in the Land Purchase Fund: $51,367.38
No revenue requested or estimated expenses in the Land Purchase Fund.

Russell Township Park receives no millage.

Mr. Antenucci asked how much of their intended budget expenses are going to the parks. Board members cited routine costs such as legal and accounting fees and liability insurance. They acknowledged that no monies were spent directly on the parks.

Mr. Antenucci, Mr. Flaiz and Mr. Hitchcock each questioned the Park Board about the need for their existence, with Mr. Antenucci saying it looks like they “were perpetuating a bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy.”

Board members seemed to agree with the Commissioners, with one saying, “there’s also a 511 board and actually we don’t see any reason why there needs to be all these different entities.”

Mr. Flaiz told them, “The last time you spent money out of your land purchase fund was in 2020, and it was for $740.00. Why shouldn’t that money go back to the taxpayers?”

Mr. Hitchcock suggested, “I think the best thing for you to do would be to cease existence as a Park Board.”

Mr. Flaiz confirmed with the Board that they had already assigned management responsibility for their properties to Geauga Park District (GPD). He suggested the Park Board give the land to GPD or Russell Township and then disband. He said, “You are hoarding about $90,000 of taxpayer money, and it doesn’t belong to you, it belongs to the taxpayers…. Then you are taking money from the libraries and spending it to exist even though you have zero money spent on parks.” Observer Note: Both Russell Township Park District 1545, Russell Citizens Park District 511 and Chester Park District are funded by revenue from the Public Library Fund plus interest.

A Park Board representative said a former Board member who was now a Russell Township trustee has been trying to work out a solution. Other members said they had considered disbanding but were unsure what steps to take. They cited concern about potential legal liability for transferring property that had been donated to the park district.

Mr. Flaiz recommended the Park Board seek legal advice about the statutory process for dissolution.

After an extended discussion of concerns and potential steps, the Park Board members voted unanimously to approve a motion to seek legal guidance on transferring park property and board dissolution. Observer Note: The Russell Park Board had publicly advertised a meeting for later that day. They stated that since they had a quorum, they were able to vote on the motion during the Budget meeting. Reviewer Note: It does not appear that this vote was taken in an open session, as the video does not indicate that a public meeting was convened.

Mr. Flaiz commented that the vote was “a step in the right direction.” Mr. Hitchcock called it a “wonderful result.”

Budget Unanimously Approved

Chester Park District – Fiscal Officer Michael Colagiovanni attended.

Chester Park District’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/26 Unencumbered General Fund Cash Balance: $14,147.00
Estimated General Fund Revenue: $15,393.00
Estimated General Fund Expenses: $19,004.00
Estimated 12/31/26 General Fund Cash Balance: $10,536.00

Chester Park District receives no millage.

Mr. Flaiz asked if Chester Township is giving Chester Park District money since the Library Fund is showing as their only funding source.

Mr. Colagiovanni said they must beg the Township for the money they are due (at least $10,000) annually for operating expenses. In 2023, the Township gave them $8,500.00, all of which was spent on pickleball courts. He said they had only just received the $10,000 for 2025 the week before. He noted the Township has been very difficult to work with, “causing frustration among commission members because it’s hard to operate with no money.”

Mr. Flaiz pointed out that the Chester Township general fund beginning cash balance was almost $1.5M (which he said is hundreds of thousands more than they anticipated) and continued, “It is interesting to me that the most well-rounded entity in the entire township is struggling to get funding from them.” He stated further, “You guys do a better job than any park—on a shoe-string budget…. Basically you’re running a charity with volunteers."

Mr. Colagiovanni agreed that he has an amazing group of people working on the park. Mr. Flaiz noted the irony of Chester residents crediting Chester Trustees for the “wonderful asset they have” even while stringing the park commission along for funds. Mr. Flaiz commented, “You guys are constantly making them look good. The way you’ve been treated by them is shameful.” Mr. Colagiovanni concurred.

Mr. Flaiz and Mr. Hitchcock continued praising the Chester Park as a “great park” and “community asset.”

Mr. Colagiovanni responded, “It’s nice to be appreciated by you.”

Budget Unanimously Approved

Russell Citizens 511 Park District – Fiscal Officer Perry Howland attended.

Russell Citizens 511 Park District’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/26 Unencumbered General Fund Cash Balance: $6,704.01
Estimated General Fund Revenue: $7,482.28
Estimated General Fund Expenses: $6,926.00
Estimated 12/31/26 General Fund Cash Balance: $7,260.29

Russell Citizens 511 Park District has no levies and no millage.

Mr. Flaiz warned the park representative, “The other park, Russell Park District, came in first, and we were pretty rough on them, and we’re going to be pretty rough on you.” He added, “I’m in a quandary as to why you even exist other than to perpetuate a bureaucracy.”

The park representative responded that the Citizens Park was formed because the other park (1545) “went off on a different tangent.” He explained that the Trustees “wanted something where the local people governed the park instead of a probate judge.”

Mr. Antenucci questioned why they are spending $16-$17,000 a year between two park boards that only fund bureaucracy and do nothing for parks.

The park representative said they built a bridge on Upper Chagrin Reserve for $30,000, with Russell Township paying half.

Mr. Flaiz asked about the source of the bridge funding, as that expenditure did not appear in any budget since the park’s founding. The park representative explained it was budgeted in 2024 but not paid until this year. He said they are hoping to build a second bridge but need help from the Corps of Army Engineers, who he said have been unresponsive.

Mr. Flaiz asked why the township wouldn’t just have a citizen’s committee to recommend projects for the township to pay for because “honestly, this seems like a scheme to take $7,482.28 next year from the libraries because that’s your revenue, so you created an entity to get this library money, which is your only revenue. Why aren’t you just a citizen’s advisory group if the township’s going to be bankrolling this….?”

Mr. Flaiz questioned why the Park Commission bought UAN (a government accounting program used to prepare tax budgets) when they don’t use it to generate their budget. The park representative said the commission was told they needed three years of data to use it, and they hadn’t had it that long.

Mr. Hitchcock said, “It would be a step in the right direction if this park board were to become an advisory board…. We do not have the authority to not approve your budget, but we do so begrudgingly, knowing the park board needs to do better for the taxpayers.”

The Budget Commissioners urged the Park Commissioners to consider making that recommendation to the Russell Trustees, who are the body in the position to make the change.

Mr. Hitchcock said the Citizens Park Commission does not have the same legal hurdles as the 1545 park regarding dissolution. Mr. Flaiz said his office can offer the Citizens Park commissioners advice on how to proceed.

Mr. Hitchcock suggested the park representative find another commissioner and “get this thing going.” He said, “there are times we’re going to stand up for what you know is the right thing. I know you agree.” Mr. Hitchcock went on to say, “Imagine that by ceasing to exist and becoming an advisory board, you are making a contribution to the library.”

Budget Unanimously Approved

Geauga Public Library – Fiscal Officer Lisa Havlin, Director Kris Carroll, and Board Trustee Jake Yanchar attended.

Geauga Public Library’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/26 Unencumbered General Fund Cash Balance: $ 3,716.884.00
Estimated General Fund Revenue: $ 9,728,345.90
Estimated General Fund Expenses: $10,332,943.00
Estimated 12/31/26 General Fund Cash Balance: $ 3,112,286.90

Estimated 1/1/26 Debt Unencumbered Service Fund Cash Balance: $ 195,509.00
Requested Revenue: $1,165,340.00
Estimated Expenses: $1,399,175.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Cash Balance: ($38,326.00)

Estimated 1/1/26 Unencumbered Capital Improvement Fund Cash Balance: $3,873,701.00
Estimated Revenue: $ 100,000.00
Estimated Expenses: $3,973,701.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Cash Balance: $ 0.00

Geauga Public Library has two reserve funds:

Building Reserve Fund

Estimated 1/1/26 Unencumbered Cash Balance: $1,761,648.00

Requested Revenue Transfer: $ 495,584.00
Estimated Expenses: $ 625,000.00
Ending 12/31/26 Cash Balance: $1,632.232.00

Chardon Capital Reserve Fund
- Estimated 1/1/26 Unencumbered Cash Balance: $ 6,261,358
- They expect to expense all of that, leaving zero dollar ending balance.

Geauga Public Library’s total millage of 2.27 mills is made up of the following:

2.0 mills for the General Fund
0.27 mills for the Bond Levy Fund

Geauga Public Library has no levies on the November 2025 ballot.

Ms. Carroll reported that the library is selling their administration building to the county for $3.2M. They have purchased a new property on Park Avenue where they are building a new Chardon library branch, which will also house Administration. The combination of entities will leave them with one less building to manage, which she said will save “a lot of money.” Ms. Carroll shared schematics for the new building with the Budget Commissioners.

Ms. Carroll said there are three potential buyers for the library branch on Chardon Square. She expressed sadness at leaving the site but said the building had problems, such as an elevator that broke down and limited parking. She said they will share office space with the Department on Aging while the new building is going up.

Mr. Flaiz commented “almost every government entity, when they want to build something, before they even design it, they are running to the taxpayers. The fact that you have managed your money so well, where you’re able to do a project like this and… you’re not running to the taxpayers and increasing the load on the taxpayers and you’re creating efficiencies…. This is one of the great wins in county-wide government that I’ve ever seen.” Mr. Antenucci and Mr. Hitchcock heartily agreed.

Mr. Antenucci offered “kudos” for their judicious use of taxpayer money.

Budget Unanimously Approved

Observer Note: Mr. Walder joined the meeting at this point at 9:57 am.

City of Chardon – Finance Director Mark Iacofano, City Manager Ben Young and a third individual (not identified) attended.

The City of Chardon’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/26 Unencumbered General Fund Cash balance: $ 2,635,224.00
Requested Revenue: $10,020,891.10
Estimated Expenses: $11,938,923.00
Estimated Ending 12/31/26 Cash Balance: $ 717,192.10

Estimated Balance 1/1/26 Unencumbered Police Fund Cash Balance: $ 3,128.00
Requested Police Fund Revenue: $315,930.00
Estimated Police Fund Expenses: $233,708.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Police Fund Cash Balance: $ 85,350.00

Estimated 1/1/26 Unencumbered Fire & Ambulance Fund Cash Balance: $ 927,107.00
Requested Fire & Ambulance Fund Revenue: $1,515,204.00
Estimated Fire & Ambulance Fund Expenses: $1,367,491.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Fire & Ambulance Fund Cash Balance: $1,074,820.00

Estimated 1/1/26 Unencumbered Police Pension Fund Cash Balance: $ 441,402.00
Requested Police Pension Fund Revenue: $ 321,162.00
Estimated Police Pension Fund Expenses: $ 302,416.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Police Pension Fund Cash Balance: $ 460,148.00

City of Chardon’s total millage of 15.5 mills is made up of the following:

2.7 inside (unvoted) mills for the General Fund
0.3 inside mills for the Police Pension Fund
4.0 outside (voted) mills for the Police Fund
8.5 outside mills for the Fire & Ambulance Fund

The City of Chardon has no levies on the November 2025 ballot.

Observer Note: To each municipality, Mr. Walder distributed charts with budget breakdowns that included such data as general fund revenue, expenditures, fire and police funds and revenue per resident. Charts ranked both inside and outside millage coming to the entity by discipline. He noted that comparisons among the municipalities are difficult given the variations in such factors as population size and revenue, but that the information could provide a starting point for planning.

Mr. Walder noted that Chardon City has a number of reserve funds, including a general capital reserve fund, a water improvement reserve fund, and a sewer improvement reserve fund.

Mr. Walder reviewed a set of charts that ranked both inside and outside millage coming into the city. He said entities are also ranked by general fund as well as fire funds, police funds and road improvement funds. He noted that comparisons between entities are very difficult because of size differences. Despite this, he thinks the information is “food for thought.” Observer Note: This information is available here.

Mr. Walder said he had no concerns with Chardon’s budget. He warned officials about the State Legislature’s interest in empowering Budget Commissions to require more budget data and that next budget season they might have to provide additional fund information.

Mr. Hitchcock and Mr. Flaiz said they had no concerns.

Mr. Hitchcock noted, “That is a win…. Please know that we are not always this easy. This is the easiest one in years.”

Budget Unanimously Approved

Burton Village – Fiscal Officer Jennell Dalhausen, Village Council President Charles Boehnlein, and Mayor Ruth Spanos attended.

Burton Villages’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/26 Unencumbered General Fund Cash Balance: $ 405,023.39
Requested General Fund Revenue: $1,126,798.00
Estimated General Fund Expenses: $1,315,335.00
Estimated 12/31/26 General Fund Cash Balance: $ 216,486.39

Estimated 1/1/26 Unencumbered Fire Fund Cash Balance: $ 26,269.89
*Estimated Fire Fund Revenue: $292,000.00
Estimated Fire Fund Expenses: $243,000.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Fire Fund Cash Balance: $ 75,269.89

*includes $75,000 transfer in from General Fund

Estimated 1/1/26 Unencumbered Police Fund Cash Balance: $ 95,840.71
*Estimated Police Fund Revenue: $415,350.00
Estimated Police Fund Expenses: $503,950.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Police Fund Cash Balance: $ 7,240.71

*includes $400,000 transfer in from General Fund

Estimated 1/1/26 Road Improvement Fund Cash Balance: $45,132.25
Estimated Road Improvement Fund Revenue: $ 500.00
Estimated Road Improvement Fund Expenses: $ 0.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Road Improvement Fund Cash Balance: $45,632.25

Burton Village’s total millage of 7.75 mills is made up of the following:

3.00 inside (unvoted) mills for the General Fund
4.75 outside (voted) mills for the Fire Fund
0.00 outside mills for the Police Fund
0.00 outside mills for Road Improvement

Burton Village has the following levies on the November 2025 ballot:

3.0 mill Road Improvement renewal levy expected to yield $95,154.00 for tax year 2026 if passed.
2.0 mill Police renewal levy expected to yield $63,262.00 for tax year 2026 if passed.

Mr. Hitchcock expressed concern about several of Burton Village’s ending balances. He pointed to the Police Fund’s estimated 2026 ending balance of $7,240.71, which is only a 1% carryover. He said, “these are just budget anomalies that set me on fire. If you don’t have enough money to operate to pay your people, you’re going to have a real problem.” He recommended the Village have at least a month’s salary in reserve. He noted the same issue with the Fire Fund.

Mr. Walder reviewed statistics for carryover by fund, noting the General Fund carryover is moving in the right direction going from 11.5% last year to 18% this year.

Mr. Walder said he appreciated that Burton Village has other funds to draw from, and he was not overly concerned about the 1% carryover in the Police Fund. He noted the Village has a combined balance of over $1.6M in their enterprise funds.

Mr. Walder expressed concern that Burton Village has no reserve funds and encouraged officials to investigate them. He advised that reserve funds allow them to save money for future issues, such as building roof repair, without going to the taxpayer.

Mr. Walder also said that it’s important for voters to understand that the two ballot issues, for police and road repair, are renewals, not an additional tax, adding, “I think the message you are sending taxpayers is very healthy today. You’re not asking for more tax. You are asking for a sustaining tax. I applaud you for doing that.”

Budget Unanimously Approved

Burton Library – Director Katie Ringenbach, Board of Trustees President Sue Miller, Board of Trustees Vice-President Judy Starr, and Fiscal Officer Marie Schwindl attended.

Burton Library’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/26 Unencumbered General Fund Cash Balance: $ 555,495.49
Estimated General Fund Revenue: $1,055,650.00
Estimated General Fund Expenses: $1,266,904.02
Estimated 12/31/26 General Fund Cash Balance: $ 344,241.47

The Burton Library has 1.7 mills for the General Fund. There are no levies on the ballot.

Mr. Hitchcock told the library representatives, “I am very proud of you.”

Mr. Walder said their carryover (27%) “is exactly where it should be.” He said that they might consider reserve funds for their building but because they are managing their money so well, it didn’t seem necessary.

Mr. Hitchcock noted that they have the most cash they’ve had in 14 years and recommended they put $100,000 aside in a building fund.

Budget Unanimously Approved

West Geauga Recreation District (WGRD) – Treasurer Ed Curtis attended.

West Geauga Recreation District’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered General Fund Cash Balance: $25,601.88
Estimated General Fund Revenue: $91,801.00
Estimated General Fund Expenses: $97,000.00
Estimated 12/31/26 General Fund Cash Balance: $20,410.88

WGRD has 0.2 outside mills for the General Fund. They have no levies on the ballot.

Mr. Walder told Mr. Curtis that, “compared to other… service government branches, like parks and recreation…, you by far put the highest percent of incoming revenue to work in the actual action of recreation or park than any entity that I’ve ever seen. You could do a class for the entire county on how to demonstrate not spending money for administrative overhead, instead putting it where it counts for people to use…. Kudos to you, you continue to be a stellar performer.”

Mr. Hitchcock agreed with Mr. Walder, saying they are the only entity for which he doesn’t do a red comparison sheet because “you don’t have any red on it.”

Budget Unanimously Approved

Middlefield Village – Fiscal Officer Nick Giardina and Jessica Giardina attended. Observer Note: Jessica Giardina’s position with Middlefield Village was not mentioned.

Middlefield Village’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/26 Unencumbered General Fund Cash Balance: $1,100,720.17
Estimated General Fund Revenue: $2,236,517.50
Estimated General Fund Expenses: $2,509,572.75
Estimated 12/31/26 General Fund Cash Balance: $ 827,664.92

Estimated 1/1/26 Unencumbered Police Fund Cash Balance: $ 73,957.05
Estimated Police Fund Revenue: $197,334.00
Estimated Police Fund Expenses: $187,812.75
Estimated 12/31/26 Police Fund Cash Balance: $ 83,478.30

Estimated 1/1/26 Unencumbered Ambulance Fund Cash Balance: $98,026.15
Estimated Ambulance Fund Revenue: $76,063.00
Estimated Ambulance Fund Expenses: $79,399.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Ambulance Fund Cash Balance: $94,690.15

Middlefield Village’s total millage of 6.0 mills is made up of the following:

3.00 inside (unvoted) mills for the General Fund
2.00 outside (voted) mills for the Police Fund
1.00 outside mills for the Ambulance Fund (Reduced by Ord. 24-139 Tax Year 2025/Collection Year 2026)

Middlefield Village has no levies on the November 2025 ballot.

Mr. Walder asked if last year they had suppressed their ambulance and emergency levy to zero (from 1.45 mills). He confirmed with Mr. Giardina that the Village planned to suppress the levy from 1.45 to 1.0 mill in 2026 and 2027.

Mr. Walder commented, “Of all the submissions, you are by far the most thorough, transparent and accurate representation I’ve witnessed. When I finish reading your stuff, I have zero questions.” He noted that they have multiple reserve funds, including water and sewer and “so (you) are doing everything by the book.” He continued that Middlefield Village is financially secure and is “reciprocating back to your residents by returning money in the form of levy suppression where you don’t need the money.”

Mr. Walder presented the officials with an award for “Best Budget.”

Mr. Hitchcock told the officials they are doing a good job and he is glad they are going to reduce the ambulance fund.

Budget Unanimously Approved

East Geauga Fire District - Nick Giardina, Fiscal Officer and Jessica Giardina attended.

East Geauga Fire District’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/26 Unencumbered General Fund Cash Balance: $ 482,389.25
Estimated Revenue: $1,123,388.00
Estimated Expenses: $1,137,800.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Cash Balance: $ 467,977.25

Capital Fund Balances are $0.00

East Geauga Fire District’s total millage of 5.7 mills is made up of the following:

4.70 mills from the 2023 Fire Levy
1.00 mills from the 2016 Fire Levy

East Geauga Fire District has no levies on the November 2025 ballot.

Mr. Hitchcock asked for clarification about who buys their fire trucks. Mr. Giardina said the Middlefield Volunteer Fire Department buys their own equipment, noting “they are strong, but they have issues like everyone else with having enough money for trucks without taking out massive loans.”

There was discussion about the high cost of firefighting equipment, noting that tanker trucks and fire trucks can now cost over a million dollars.

Mr. Giardina said they are going to request the fire department set up a fund for equipment needs. He said they talk constantly with the department about equipment needs in order to plan for funding. He noted helping with the financing reduces their debt load and the amount of money they need from the Village. Mr. Walder recommended they create reserve funds because the department is very capital intensive. Mr. Giardina agreed.

Mr. Giardina noted that the Village has a good relationship with the fire department and that the department readily shares their financial records with them. The Budget Commissioners said that such transparency is a change from the previous fiscal officer.

Mr. Hitchcock asked how the office staff was paid. Mr. Giardina said they were paid at the beginning of the quarter, saying it’s a sizable amount, about $195,000, each quarter.

Mr. Flaiz asked if they kept cash, and Mr. Giardina replied that they do and “they are fiscally sound…. It’s a unique relationship because it’s really a partnership with private and public.” The Budget Commissioners commented that it is exceptional to have such an open relationship between a volunteer fire department and the municipality.

Mr. Giardina noted the fire department is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. There was discussion about the department’s nonprofit status and its desirability as a model for other organizations.

Mr. Walder speculated that the legislature will require transparency from fire departments and similar entities because of the increasing tax burden on taxpayers.

The Budget Commissioners all agreed Middlefield Village Fiscal Officer is “doing a great job.”

Budget Unanimously Approved

South Russell Village – Mayor Bill Koons, Fiscal Officer Danielle Romanowski and Council Member Mark Porter attended.

South Russell Village’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered General Fund Balance: $ 358,383 00
Estimated General Fund Revenue: $1,476,695.00
Estimated General Fund Expenses: $1,655,849.00
Estimated 12/31/26 General Fund Balance: $ 179,229.00

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Safety Fund Cash Balance: $ 324,967.00
Estimated Safety Fund Revenue: $2,024,243.00
Estimated Safety Fund Expenses: $2,100,524.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Safety Fund Balance: $ 248,686.00

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Operating Fund Cash Balance: $118,890.00
Estimated Operating Fund Revenue: $564,287.00
Estimated Operating Fund Expenses: $609,330.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Operating Fund Balance: $ 73,847.00

Estimated 1/1/2026 Unencumbered Bridge & Road Fund Cash Balance: $ 44.00
Estimated Bridge & Road Fund Revenue: $243,541.00
Estimated Bridge & Road Fund Expenses: $ 59,500
Estimated 12/31/26 Bridge & Road Fund Balance: $184,085.00

South Russell’s total millage of 13.45 mills is made up of the following:

3.0 inside (unvoted)mills for the General Fund
4.2 outside (voted) mills for the Operating Fund
4.75 outside mills for the Police Fund
1.5 outside mills for Bridges & Roads Fund

South Russell Village has no levies on the November 2025 ballot.

Mr. Flaiz commended Ms. Romanowski as “one of the few people who actually gets their revenue numbers right on the nose, so wonderful job, as always.”

Mr. Walder reviewed the South Russell carryover percentages for various budget funds. He noted that carryover for road funds is 405% and said that they are the hardest to budget.

Mr. Walder asked if there were plans to create reserve funds. Ms. Romanowski said they have a reserve for special equipment as they will make some large equipment purchases next year.

Ms. Romanowski asked what the optimal percentage was for carryover revenue. The Budget Commissioners answered that, because of their funding anomalies, it’s not really relevant for the Village because they could draw monies from their income tax revenue to resolve funding issues.

Mr. Hitchcock asked about a bridge that was planned to be built last year. He questioned the $80,000 cost. It was unclear to the officials to what project Mr. Hitchcock could have been referring.

Mr. Flaiz asked what was going on on Bell Road. Ms. Romanoski said Bell Road East will be repaved with the possible addition of a pedestrian path alongside. She said they had received an $800,000 grant from NOACA (Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency) for the path. Discussions about the path plans are ongoing.

Mr. Walder asked what fund the fire contract is paid from. Ms. Romanowski said it was from the General Fund. Mr. Porter said it was a big issue for them this year because the contract renewal is up and there is a big increase. Ms. Romanowski said South Russell is trying to determine what they are going to do. Observer Note: South Russell contracts with the Chagrin Valley Fire Department for fire and EMS services.

There was a discussion about the rising costs of maintaining a municipal fire/EMS department.

Budget Unanimously Approved

Geauga County Park District (GPD)– Executive Director John Oros, Deputy Director Matthew McCue, Fiscal Officer Dawn Sweeny, Board President Ray Guarino and Bridey Matheney, GPD Legal Counsel attended.

GPD’s budget includes the following estimates:

Estimated 1/1/226 Unencumbered General Fund Cash Balance: $2,589,236.19
Estimated General Fund Revenue: $7,248,086.00
Estimated General Fund Expenses: $7,629,741.08
Estimated 12/31/26 General Fund Cash Balance: $2,207,581.11

Estimated 1/1/26 Unencumbered Land Improvement Fund Cash Balance: $2,842,417.65
Estimated Revenue: $ 645,000.00
Estimated Expenses: $2,630,000.00
Estimated 12/31/26 Land Improvement Fund Cash Balance: $ 857,417.65

GPD’s total Millage is 2.6 Mills

A levy renewal of 0.7 Mills and a 0.5 Mill Increase are on the November 2025 ballot. Expected levy yield of $3,384,359.00 to begin collection in 2026 if approved by the voters.

Mr. Walder noted that last year’s carryover rate for the General Fund was anticipated at 60% and is projected at 29% this year.

He also noted that GPD had moved a “considerable amount of money” into their Land Improvement fund in the last 12 months. The transfer raised this fund’s carryover rate to 33%. He said the transfer just “moved the scale.” Reviewer Note: At the July GPD Park Board meeting, it was discussed that one of the newly acquired properties, Hambden Hills, which is used by the Buckeye Retriever Club, has a dam in need of extensive repairs. Activities of the Buckeye Retriever Club are open to the public, but there is no other present public use of this Park. A study is now being done regarding the scope of needed repairs. See LWVGeauga Report for July 21, 2025.

Mr. Walder commented on the proposed levies, noting that the 0.7 mill renewal will be considered qualified while the new 0.5 mill levy will not be qualified. He said ”so there is a 12.5% disadvantage on the money to the taxpayer, not a disadvantage to you.” Observer Note: A qualified levy receives a 12.5% state subsidy (a rollback) which reduces the effective property tax rate paid by homeowners. Unqualified levies are not eligible for the state-funded rollbacks. This means homeowners must pay the full effective tax rate.

He said the term of the levy on the ballot is 20 years, and the increase in tax revenue is approximately $2.3M per year, totaling roughly $47M over the life of the levy. He noted the levy tax revenue is currently $6.9M when collected at 100% and, if the levy passes, the collection amount will move up to $99.3M, which is a 34% increase.

Mr. Walder stated he sees no material issues with the budget but that “as a resident of Geauga, I’m concerned with anybody who’s putting additional money on the ballot…. If you’ve read the papers at all, the temperament across the state is to abolish all property taxes… and I don’t want to fuel that fire. But you do what you have to do.”

Mr. Flaiz said he doesn’t have any issue from a budget standpoint. He said, “I think the additional request from the taxpayers of $47M over 20 years is tone deaf and it’s an unnecessary money grab…. I feel like you’ve manipulated your budget for 2026 and loaded up on going 2 ½ times expenses on your Land Improvement (fund) so that you could demonstrate the need for this new money that otherwise didn’t exist.”

Mr. Flaiz pointed out that GPD general fund expenses stayed “pretty flat, which is a good thing. You responsibly managed that money.” He noted that the Land Improvement money for the past few years has ranged from $1M to $1.5M, but is now “pumped up” to $2.6M. He said this “... is a phenomenon I see with tax entities that have a levy coming up by budgeting a bunch of projects so that (it) looks like they need more money to try to justify the levy increase.”

Referring to the Budget Commission, Mr. Flaiz said, “We can’t keep levies off the ballot, but if the levy does pass, I can assure you that I will be, as a member of the Commission, taking a hard look at a 34% increase in your revenues, which you clearly do not need.”

Mr. Hitchcock joined his fellow Budget Commissioners in saying the levy on the November ballot “... is a tax grab, which is well-designed. It’s smartly assembled, but it’s imprudent. It asked taxpayers for a 34% increase that could force people to sell their homes…. I don’t believe that is your intention, but it will be the result.”

Mr. Hitchcock told the GPD representatives, “It would be incumbent on the Park Board Commissioners to reconsider support for this levy.”

Budget Approved, with Mr. Hitchcock voting no

Before the meeting adjourned, Mr. Dave Partington, a member of Protect Geauga Parks, asked to address the Park Board indirectly, stating it was a unique opportunity “because for 10 years the Geauga Park District has prohibited public input via public comment during Park District meetings.” He said he will support the Park’s levy, though what he’d heard today gives him “great pause.” He stated that he finds it “ironic that they come to the people of Geauga County and ask for this levy, and when you receive it, you’ll tell them to sit down and shut up.”

Mr. Partington said he appreciated being allowed to speak in this forum and repeated that he would support the levy though he has very serious doubts after what he’d heard at the meeting. He said there are many well-qualified people in the County who are conversant on park issues who could help the Park District not only save time and money but encourage volunteerism. He urged them to reinstate public comment.

Mr. Flaiz commented that he knew Protect Geauga Parks support parks, but “I would be troubled supporting a group that obviously doesn’t care about your opinion and doesn’t want your feedback.” Mr. Partington expressed hope that things would change.

There were no public comments from virtual viewers.

The Meeting adjourned at approximately 11:00 am.

Next Meeting: The next Budget Commission meeting will be Monday, September 15 at 10:00 am. The Monday, September 1 meeting was canceled due to the Labor Day holiday.

Observers: Sarah McGlone, Carol Benton, and Rooney Moy

Editor and Reviewer: Gail Roussey and all of above Observers, except for their own sections.

Date Submitted: August 30, 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.

Return to Previous Page