Budget Commission Regular Meeting – April 1, 2024
Meeting Details: The Geauga County Budget Commission met in Regular Session on Monday, April 1, 2024 at 10:00 am in the Auditor's Conference Room, 215 Main Street, Chardon, Ohio. This meeting was in person with a virtual option via MS Teams.
Meeting Attendance: Prosecutor Jim Flaiz, Treasurer Chris Hitchcock, and Chief Deputy Auditor Ron Leyde (substituting for Auditor Chuck Walder, who attended virtually).
Staff Attendance: Deputy Auditors Tammy Most and Kristen Sinatra and Fiscal Office Manager Pam McMahan.
County Staff: Geauga County Budget and Finance Manager Adrian Gorton (virtual).
Geauga Public Health Representatives: Administrator Adam Litke and Board President Dr. Mark Hendrickson.
Members of the Public: This LWV Geauga Observer (in person).
The meeting was called to order at 10:05 am.
Minutes: Minutes from the Special Meeting on March 18, 2024 were approved and are available here.
Geauga Public Health (GPH) 2025 Budget Hearing
Ms. Sinatra provided the numbers for each specific GPH fund to be considered for certification in the 2025 budget as follows:
-
General Fund (#6002)
-
Estimated 2025 beginning cash balance: $990,361.34
-
Estimated 2025 revenue: $2,388,943.00
-
Estimated 2025 expenses: $2,345,124.11
-
Estimated 2025 ending cash balance: $1,034,180.23
-
Trailer Park Fund (#6004)
-
Estimated 2025 beginning cash balance: $11,832.19
-
Estimated 2025 revenue: $4,500.00
-
Estimated 2025 expenses: $800.00
-
Estimated 2025 ending cash balance: $15,532.19
-
Food Service Fund (#6005)
-
Estimated 2025 beginning cash balance: $223,472.30
-
Estimated 2025 revenue: $231,900.00
-
Estimated 2025 expenses: $231,900.00
-
Estimated 2025 ending cash balance: $223,472.30
-
Infectious Waste Fund (#6008)
-
Estimated 2025 beginning cash balance: $79,082.95
-
Estimated 2025 revenue: $4,000.00
-
Estimated 2025 expenses: $2,000.00
-
Estimated 2025 ending cash balance: $81,082.95
-
Private Water System Fund (#6011)
-
Estimated 2025 beginning cash balance: $58,095.85
-
Estimated 2025 revenue: $61,500.00
-
Estimated 2025 expenses: $61,500.00
-
Estimated 2025 ending cash balance: $58,095.85
-
Swimming Pool Fund (#6018)
-
Estimated 2025 beginning cash balance: $25,599.30
-
Estimated 2025 revenue: $11,250.00
-
Estimated 2025 expenses: $7,000.00
-
Estimated 2025 ending cash balance: $29,849.30
-
Public Health Infrastructure Fund (#6021)
-
Estimated 2025 beginning cash balance: $406,032.33
-
Estimated 2025 revenue: $160,000.00
-
Estimated 2025 expenses: $160,000.00
-
Estimated 2025 ending cash balance: $406,032.33
-
Sewage Treatment Fund (#6023)
-
Estimated 2025 beginning cash balance: $100,000.00
-
Estimated 2025 revenue: $307,500.00
-
Estimated 2025 expenses: $307,500.00
-
Estimated 2025 ending cash balance: $100,000.00
-
Immunization Action Plan Fund (#6025)
-
Estimated 2025 beginning cash balance: $21,390.02
-
Estimated 2025 revenue: $0.00
-
Estimated 2025 expenses: $0.00
-
Estimated 2025 ending cash balance: $21,390.02
-
Environmental Health Assistance Fund (#6036)
-
Estimated 2025 beginning cash balance: $38,457.67
-
Estimated 2025 revenue: $154,500.00
-
Estimated 2025 expenses: $154,500.00
-
Estimated 2025 ending cash balance: $38,457.67
-
For Sale of Property Fund (#6037)
-
Estimated 2025 beginning cash balance: $163,899.81
-
Estimated 2025 revenue: $723,600.00
-
Estimated 2025 expenses: $723,600.00
-
Estimated 2025 ending cash balance: $163,899.81
-
Alcohol, Tobacco & Other Drugs Fund (#6039)
-
Estimated 2025 beginning cash balance: $39,659.75
-
Estimated 2025 revenue: $40,000.00
-
Estimated 2025 expenses: $40,000.00
-
Estimated 2025 ending cash balance: $39,659.75
-
Injury Prevention Fund (#6040)
-
Estimated 2025 beginning cash balance: $61,303.19
-
Estimated 2025 revenue: $43,000.00
-
Estimated 2025 expenses: $43,000.00
-
Estimated 2025 ending cash balance: $61,303.19
-
Workforce Development Fund (#6041)
-
Estimated 2025 beginning cash balance: $48,867.06
-
Estimated 2025 revenue: $150,000.00
-
Estimated 2025 expenses: $150,000.00
-
Estimated 2025 ending cash balance: $48,867.06
-
Population Health Fund (#6042)
-
Estimated 2025 beginning cash balance: $130,969.39
-
Estimated 2025 revenue: $40,000.00
-
Estimated 2025 expenses: $40,000.00
-
Estimated 2025 ending cash balance: $130,969.39
Ms. Sinatra also noted that GPH receives 0.2 mills of funding from its 2009 Current Expense Levy that will expire in 2028.
Discussion highlights:
-
Mr. Litke provided a detailed handout on “the highs and lows of what’s going on” in the GPH submitted budget. He noted that about $1 million will be going out for the House Bill 110 repayment in the near future and specified that this was accounted for in the budget approved by the Board at the GPH meeting on March 20. Mr. Litke said that GPH has reassessed many of its fees, with many going down while a few increased. He said that they hope to have the full O&M (Operation and Maintenance) Program rolled out in five years and noted this program will become GPH’s primary revenue source. Mr. Litke stated that his understanding was that the County is still asking GPH to pay rent for its space in the County Office Building, and he said the rent amount is uncertain at this time, with the last number they received from the County being about $48,000. He expressed the hope that GPH public records requests go down so that the legal services expenses will decrease. Observer Note: Mr. Litke’s handout listed contract services, which he explained is actually “for legal purposes (services),” as GPH’s largest estimated expense item at about $1.9 million. This is about 45% of the total estimated expenses of approximately $4.3 million. The next largest expense is transfers out at about $1.3 million, which is about 30% of the total expenses.
-
Mr. Flaiz asked if the transfers out expenses denoted For Sale of Property start up funding. Mr. Litke responded that this was not the case, as most of the transfers out reflect “...the money Lake County charges for the cross jurisdictional agreement.” Observer Note: Mr. Litke’s handout noted that the For Sale of Property (FSOP) program changed from being mandatory to voluntary in 2022 and specified that “...FSOP revenue is estimated to be minimal” going forward.
-
Mr. Flaiz expressed his support for the lowering of GPH fees but cautioned that “you don’t want to lower fees so much that… you have to go to the political subdivisions and hit them up for money.” Mr. Litke noted that food fees were raised so that Geauga taxpayers were not paying for the inspections of places like Walmart and McDonalds. He also said that they strive to charge average citizens fees that reflect the actual GPH costs associated with permits and no more.
-
Mr. Flaiz and Mr. Hitchcock both expressed their appreciation for the information Mr. Litke provided in his presentation handout.
-
Mr. Hitchcock expressed concern about the cash balances in numerous GPH funds being too high given their estimated expenses. Mr. Litke explained that the expenses listed in each fund do not account for staff time for each program. He also noted that they have been working with the Ohio Department of Health, the State Auditor’s Office, and the County Auditor’s Office to figure out the best way to go about transferring money from certain special revenue funds to the general fund. Mr. Hitchcock requested that these transfers be made by next year and said if this doesn’t happen, he will be in favor of returning approximately $1 million of GPH funding to the taxpayers.
-
Mr. Hitchcock observed that the GPH general fund will need additional funding in about four years and suggested GPH can ask taxpayers for those funds at that time.
-
Mr. Leyde noted that GPH expenses have increased, and Mr. Litke said that much of this is due to increased staffing. Mr. Flaiz stated that GPH has historically been understaffed and GPH is “...working hard to fix” this. Observer Note: Total expenses and revenues were reported in Mr. Litke’s handout as follows:
-
Actual 2023 total expenses: $2,959,475
-
Actual 2023 total revenue: $3,009,183
-
Estimated 2024 total expenses: $4,957,212
-
Estimated 2024 total revenue: $4,159,817
-
Estimated 2025 total expenses: $4,266,924
-
Estimated 2025 total revenue: $4,328,090
-
Mr. Hitchcock expressed his appreciation to GPH Board President Dr. Hendrickson for attending the hearing.
-
Mr. Walder said that the Budget Commission shouldn’t consider any changes to the budget that the GPH Board had not approved and/or were not advertised to the public. There was some discussion as to whether or not the numbers in Mr. Litke’s presentation handout were the same as those approved by the GPH Board, and it was ultimately determined that all the numbers were in fact Board approved. Mr. Walder asked what numbers were advertised to the public, and Mr. Litke said that there is not a statutory requirement for health departments to advertise their budgets so GPH did not do this. Mr. Walder asked Mr. Leyde to confirm this, and Mr. Litke said that he would check with Matt Goldman in the State Auditor’s Office and include Mr. Leyde in the correspondence. Observer Note: In an email to this observer on April 4, Mr. Leyde said that Mr. Litke had indeed reached out to Mr. Goldman about this matter, but a final answer from the State Auditor’s Office has yet to be received.
Mr. Flaiz asked if there were any public comments/questions about the GPH budget. There were none.
The Budget Commission voted to approve the 2025 GPH budget unanimously. Estimated 2025 resources were certified as follows: $3,379,304.34 in the general fund and $3,359,161.81 in special revenue funds for a total of $6,738,466.15.
After the GPH Budget Hearing, the Budget Commission conducted Regular Business as detailed below:
The following Revenue Certifications were approved:
This amendment certified Chester Township Park’s beginning balance for 2024.
-
Middlefield Village - Amendment #1. $3,325,943.09 in the general fund, $10,741,384.77 in special revenue funds, $1,616,840.93 in capital project funds, $6,932,058.14 in enterprise funds, and $171,194.04 in fiduciary funds for a total of $22,787,420.97.
This amendment certified Middlefield Village’s beginning balances for 2024.
-
Parkman Township - Amendment #1. $778,059.31 in the general fund, $2,052,158.58 in special revenue funds, $12,968.71 in special assessment funds, and $14,759.00 in fiduciary funds for a total of $2,857,945.60.
This amendment certified Parkman Township’s beginning balances for 2024. Ms. Sinatra noted that no appropriation measures have been received from Parkman, and she said that she has received no response to the email she sent Parkman about the issue. Mr. Walder said that this “...will be an audit issue for them (but) it’s not really a Budget Commission problem,” so the Budget Commissioners approved this certification.
-
Russell Township 1545 Park District - Amendment #1. $45,593.48 in the general fund and $51,367.38 in special revenue funds for a total of $96,960.86.
This amendment certified Russell 1545 Park’s beginning balances for 2024. Ms. Sinatra stated that no appropriations have been received from Russell 1545 Park.
-
Claridon Township - Amendment #2. $951,140.59 in the general fund and $1,765,796.27 in special revenue funds for a total of $2,716,936.86. Appropriations do not exceed revenue.
Claridon’s amendment reflected a $180,000 increase to the road and bridge fund.
-
Geauga County Public Library - Amendment #2. $13,624,744.69 in the general fund, $250,000.00 in special revenue funds, $1,747,984.11 in debt service funds, and $13,572,351.88 in capital project funds for a total of $29,195,080.68. Appropriations do not exceed revenue.
Geauga County Public Library’s amendment reflected a new special revenue fund called “Mellon Grant Memory Lab” in the amount of $250,000.
-
Russell Township - Amendment #2. $2,466,250.43 in the general fund, $9,438,850.59 in special revenue funds, and $2,937,392.65 in capital project funds for a total of $14,842,493.67. Appropriations do not exceed revenue.
Russell’s amendment certified two new capital project funds, one for the Road Department and
one for the Police Department’s sick and vacation time, as well as a special revenue fund
increase.
-
Thompson Township - Amendment #2. $420,400.34 in the general fund, $1,719,292.14 in special revenue funds, $145,000.00 in capital project funds, and $1,831.69 in special assessment funds for a total of $2,286,524.17. Appropriations do not exceed revenue.
Thompson’s amendment certified increases in the Fire Levy and Safer Grant special revenue funds.
-
Bainbridge Township - Amendment #3. $4,230,348.65 in the general fund, $18,772,439.94 in special revenue funds, $2,015,383.34 in debt service funds, $1,703,940.76 in capital project funds, and $539.02 in fiduciary funds for a total of $26,722,651.71. Appropriations do not exceed revenue.
Bainbridge’s amendment reflected a $5,529.61 increase in the EMA (Emergency Management Agency) ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act) First Responder Grant special revenue fund.
-
Geauga County - Amendment #4. $54,612,226.17 in the general fund, $123,411,245.24 in special revenue funds, $5,572,596.38 in debt service funds, $1,256,502.32 in special assessment funds, $29,837,581.61 in capital project funds, $16,543,131.34 in enterprise funds, $1,439,886.67 in internal service funds, and $4,138,083.61 in fiduciary funds for a total of $236,811,253.34.
Geauga County’s amendment reflected a $1,134,000 increase in the Mental Health Capital Reserve fund. Mr. Gorton explained that this is a federal grant that will be used to renovate the Board of Mental Health’s Transitional Living Center.
General Discussion
-
Mr. Flaiz mentioned that he has received an inquiry from a member of the press asking for his response to “critical comments” made by a Kenston School Board Member (not identified specifically) regarding Kenston’s School Budget Hearing. He said that he is not sure if he is going to respond to the press inquiry. Mr. Flaiz noted that these comments were made by a Kenston School Board Member who did not attend the School Budget Hearing. Observer Note: Mr. Flaiz later decided to respond to the press inquiry. His response in the Geauga Maple Leaf was published on April 4, 2024 and is available here, but it is behind a paywall.
Public Comment
A lengthy discussion about this matter followed. Mr. Gorton said that a solution has not been devised yet. He said that they are considering creating a separate fund for revenue from leases and rental payments which would allow better tracking of expenses related to leases and rentals as well. Mr. Gorton asked the Budget Commissioners what they thought of that idea. Mr. Walder responded that “...the question really is, ‘How can we be most transparent to taxpayers?’” He said that taxpayers should know how much revenue is coming in for each lease and how much each lease is costing DD as well. Mr. Walder pointed out that “...if they’re not for-profit leases, that means taxpayers are footing the bill for the difference.” He opined that taxpayers are “...owed the ability to do that vetting” and went on to say that “...the more detail, the better.”
Mr. Flaiz said “If a levy is for a specific purpose, the Budget Commission is really the check
and balance on, ‘...are they spending that levy money for that specific purpose?’ And, if they’re
subsidizing private entities, they’ve got a problem there, and I think that’s an ‘us’ problem, a Budget Commission problem.” He said that getting to the bottom of this issue will require the Budget Commission “...to take a deep dive into their operation.” Mr. Flaiz also stated that DD having bank accounts that are not a part of the County Treasury was “...the most alarming thing to me.” He added that this is “...a legacy issue, but that’s clearly contrary to law.” Mr. Flaiz asked Mr. Gorton when the DD budget issues must be resolved, and he said they hope to have it done before the tax budget is due. Mr. Flaiz said he doesn’t want to still be wrestling with these issues in August at the Budget Hearings. Observer Note: At the last Budget Commission Meeting (linked above), it was said that DD should get their budgetary concerns fixed by April 15. Based on the conversation at the present meeting, it appears that this deadline has been extended.
Mr. Walder said that he wants to get two problems solved. The first he called “...a Budget Commission problem of being able to determine the use of their levy money.” The second he referred to as finding himself “...in a bit of a firestorm with their (tax) exempt status, and I need to have some mechanism that I can monitor people that are leasing public property to private enterprises. And, one of the measurements that I could use is being able to track the income. So, if they’re not going to voluntarily do a DTE submission when they change use, then I have to have a backstop that I can use to call into question, ‘where is that money coming from’ and ‘is that a form of lease that’s changed the use of public space?’”
Mr. Gorton said that he has received a spreadsheet from DD that “...divvied out the revenue from each one of the leases and allocated the expenses to each one as well.” He asked if this spreadsheet would be sufficient for the Budget Commission. Mr. Walder responded that “I’m not even sure we’re even talking the same language because there are other aspects of the transactions that they’ve designed at DD which have all of the earmarks of a lease, but they’re not calling them a lease.” He referred to DD paying “...NForce through what they call a grant, but that grant is DD paying a third party, Jewish Family Services Association, $75,000 a year and then granting the use of the real estate to NForce. It’s like a three-way arrangement that is not called a lease, but you are in fact allowing a use-change of that property which should trigger a DTE submission so that the State can determine whether it’s still exempt. So, I’m afraid to say, ‘this is what I want,’ because the terms that I’m using are not the same terms as I’ve been hearing every time I ask a question of DD.” Observer Note: Mr. Flaiz corrected Mr. Walder that “NForce” is actually called “NPower.” NPower is described in the March 18 Observer Report linked above.
Mr. Flaiz said “I need sufficient documentation that levy money is not being used to subsidize these enterprises.” He went on to say “...it’s like they’ve got these side deals going with these different providers, and again these providers are all doing great work, but… there’s some for-profit enterprises that are utilizing taxpayer-owned land and buildings…. We’ve got to make sure that we’re not using DD levy money to, you know, service their computers, pay for the utilities, pay for their copy machine, and I’m getting the sense that that might be going on, so that’s a concern.”
Mr. Walder stated “It is not for anyone at the County level in any role or position to determine tax exemption of real property. That is only the Tax Commissioner of the State’s job.” He mentioned two other Geauga County entities, Notre Dame and Ravenwood, that have lost a portion of their property tax exempt status based on a determination by the State that the use of part of their properties had changed when occupied by a for-profit enterprise. Mr. Walder emphasized that it is the duty of the landowner - not the Auditor - to submit an application for tax exemption when there is a change of property use. He also stated that there are penalties associated with not reporting a change of use.
-
Ms. Sinatra said that she and Ms. Most are adjusting the effective rates on the Schedule B forms that County entities need to start working on their tax budgets. She noted that many County entities made adjustments last year to mitigate the taxpayer burden caused by the property revaluation, but these adjustments were for one year only. Ms. Sinatra asked if the Budget Commissioners wanted to send out correspondence regarding any recommendations they might have regarding potential mitigation again this year. The Budget Commissioners decided that this would be made an agenda item for the next Budget Commission meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 am.
Next Meeting: Regular Meeting on Monday, April 15, 2024 at 10:00 am in the Auditor’s Conference Room at 215 Main Street, Chardon, Ohio.
Observer: Sarah McGlone
Editor: Anne Ondrey
Reviewer: Gail Roussey
Submitted: 4/9/24
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.