Budget Commission Approves Geauga County’s Budget Amidst Controversies Around Sunshine Laws, the Court House Project and Maintaining Offices on the Square
Budget Commission Hearings – August 30, 2024
Meeting Details: The Geauga County Budget Commission met in Special Session on Friday, August 30, 2024 at 3:30 pm in the Auditor's Conference Room, 215 Main Street, Chardon, Ohio. The meeting was in person with a virtual option via MS Teams.
Meeting Attendance: Treasurer Chris Hitchcock, Auditor Chuck Walder, and Prosecutor Jim Flaiz.
Staff Attendance: Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Kristen Rine (virtual), Kate Jacob, Chief Compliance Officer, Chief Deputy Auditor Ron Leyde, Deputy Auditors Tammy Most and Kristen Sinatra, and Fiscal Office Manager Pam McMahan.
County Staff: Commissioners James Dvorak, Tim Lennon and Ralph Spidalieri, as well as County Administrator Gerry Morgan, Assistant County Administrator Linda Burhenne, and Budget and Finance Manager Adrian Gorton.
Members of the Public: Members of the press, the public and this LWV Geauga Observer (all virtual).
The meeting was called to order at 3:33 pm.
Observer Note: The Tax Budgets of Chester Township and Geauga County were not approved by the Budget Commission at the annual Tax Budget Hearings on August 19 and 20, 2024. Chester Township was approved when the Budget Hearings were reconvened on August 26, but Geauga County was not approved. The purpose of this Special Meeting of the Budget Commission was to reconvene the Tax Budget Hearings for Geauga County.
The discussion began with the fact that Geauga County submitted a request to change their ending balance to add money to their carryover total that is anticipated will not be spent by departments before December 31, 2024.
Mr. Flaiz said, “I can take it as evidence and each of us on the Budget Commission has to weigh it on our own.” He said further that “... in determining need, I think the (Budget) Commission can take into account what the carryover balance will be.” In his opinion, they were technically dealing with the $4,551,265 carryover as the beginning balance of 2025, although the County is now submitting that it will be a $9,876,924 carryover.
Mr. Hitchcock said that this is extremely close to what he suggested would be the carryover during the prior budget hearing on August 19, 2024. He said it was good to have this evidence submitted.
Mr. Walder discussed the following four questions:
1. Is this submission within the requirement of law? He concluded that it was.
2. Is there anything misleading or false in the record? He said it appeared that material items were removed from the budget and then articulated to be put back in. He said that could be construed as misleading, but from everything he had read, he felt it had to be material to truly be misleading, and he concluded that he couldn’t say that it was material.
3. Was the budget submission properly approved in a public meeting? He said that he believes it runs afoul of that and that one or a series of serial meetings were outside the view of taxpayers and didn’t afford the public or the affected entities an opportunity to weigh in. He then asked, “ Is that the purview of the Budget Commission to take action?” He said that Mr. Flaiz had provided him with some information that indicated that “... although it might run afoul of what we should be seeing, it isn’t the Budget Commission’s purview to take action.” He said that anyone can file a complaint regarding a violation of the Open Public Meetings Law.
Mr. Flaiz concurred, “It was clear that there were open meetings violations relating to the adoption of the budget.” However, he concluded, “the budget was ultimately adopted in an open meeting”.
Mr. Walder continued, “The discussion did not happen in a public meeting. It was passed in a public meeting.” He suggested that a taxpayer or someone else could file an action against the Commissioners for violations of the Open Public Meeting Act. He concluded, “Was there a public meeting with notice, all of these things happened.”
4. Did the Commissioners have authority to make all of the departmental budget reductions that it did? Observer Note: There was discussion at the August 19th meeting that the County budget had improperly cut funding from a GIS (Geographic Information System) account over which the County had no control. Mr. Walder said that the Budget Commission is not the avenue to contest that, but that the Auditor could appeal to the Tax Commissioner, which he said he “... is okay doing.”
Mr. Walder continued, “It is Fair time, . . . and I will say it was very clear to me after just one full day at the Fair, that the public expects to be in the loop. They want to know where their money is being spent. If money is not being spent, they want to see a process. They want to know that their money is being spent wisely. They (Public) have been very clear to me that that detail was not provided to them. “ Mr. Walder continued that he has had feedback from the State. He said, “ The State views our Budget Commission in our county differently. We are viewed as the exception to the rule. . . They believe that other counties should emulate us, but our county seems to be resisting.”
Mr. Walder continued, “We are one of the few counties who has hearings and returns money to the taxpayers. In a period when taxpayers are feeling pain. I’m not proposing we do anything, but whatever we do as a government, we need to do that in their eyes.“
He concluded, “That’s all I have.”
Mr. Flaiz reviewed the requirements of ORC (Ohio Revised Code) 5705.24 regarding funding Children’s Services (also known as Job and Family Services), and he concluded that the County had sufficient funds available for Children’s Services. He then said, “I suggest we change the estimated beginning balance, and then suspend collection of the nonqualified 2015 Children’s Services levy in the amount of $1 million.” Reviewer Note: The non-qualified JFS (Children’s Services) levy is fully funded by Geauga taxpayers, whereas its qualified levy is partially funded by the State. This means suspending collection of the non-qualified levy would return more money to Geauga taxpayers compared to the qualified levy.
Mr. Walder said that he was concerned about including the extra money as carryover based on the County’s assumption that 10% of funds will not be used by departments before the end of the year. He said the only way to ensure that the money is returned and not used would be to de-certify that amount. He said the Budget Commission never assumes that money will be there at the end of the year if it has already been appropriated. He said that a township can’t do that. Observer Note: It did not appear that anyone was interested in de-certifying this money except Mr. Walder.
Mr. Hitchcock said he agreed with Mr. Flaiz to suspend collection on the non-qualified JFS levy.
Mr. Hitchcock continued, “This County is doing a remarkable job. I’m supportive of almost anything that gives money back to the taxpayers. We have such an excess of money.”
Mr. Flaiz said again that he would support adjusting the beginning balance and suspend $1 million of the JFS non-qualified levy. He then made a motion to change the carryover to $9,876,924.10, to certify revenue of $47,223,674, and to suspend collection of $1 million of 2015 JFS non-qualified levy, which would reduce the revenue by $1 million.
Approved unanimously as amended
Mr. Flaiz said that Mr. Spidalieri had mentioned at the County Commissioners’ meeting the prior day that he would like to do something to provide assistance for Townships. Mr. Flaiz said that the formula for the Undivided Local Government fund allocation can be changed by the Budget Commission, but then the County could take a smaller percentage (or no percentage). This would then be distributed to the other entities such as Townships. He further said this would have to be done next year, before the Budget hearings begin in 2025. The County gets 38% now, and other entities receive their allocation based on a population-based formula, with a $15,000 guaranteed minimum. Mr. Spidalieri asked what specific entities receive, and Mr. Flaiz said that the City of Chardon gets $60,000, Bainbridge is highest with $147,000 and Chester gets $117,000.
Mr. Walder agreed that they would have to take action next year because this has to be done before the Budget hearings begin.
Mr. Spidalieri asked, in regard to the County’s budget, what would happen if there were any additional appropriations from now until the end of the year, and that number changes. He wanted to know what would happen.
Mr. Flaiz said “This won’t affect you.”
Mr. Walder said, “Every entity’s numbers change.” He said “I’m not a big fan of our accounting system, but that is one thing our accounting system does. It does monitor the cash flow, so it will prevent you from spending money you don’t have accrued and don’t have by monitoring cash.”
Mr. Flaiz agreed and noted that “The Budget is amended throughout the year.”
What then followed was a discussion, initiated by Assistant County Administrator Linda Burhenne, regarding whether there was an Open Public Meetings violation (Sunshine Laws) in the way the County Budget was approved.
Ms. Burhenne spoke up and said that the Budget Commission had leveled a very serious charge “against our staff, and our Board.” She said that “unequivocally, we have no illegal meetings.”
Mr. Flaiz said, “As the only lawyer in the room, if you go to each person and say, ‘Do you agree with that?’ ‘Do you agree with that?’ ‘Do you agree with that?’ and then you present that at a meeting, and it is adopted, then that is a serial meeting and that is not legal.” (Mr. Flaiz later apologized to Mr. Morgan, who is also an attorney).
Mr. Flaiz and Mr. Walder further said that the Budget Commission was basing their opinion on what was said to them during the Budget Hearing. Mr. Flaiz said, “We are basing our comments on what was said to us.” Mr. Walder agreed.
Mr. Walder said that all Budget Commission meetings are recorded, and Ms. Burhenne was welcome to examine those recordings to see for herself exactly what was said.
Mr. Flaiz concluded that “You can’t present a pre-cooked cake, you know, at the meeting and then there is no discussion in the public and something passes.” He continued, “Stop doing that. That is illegal. Stop doing that. Don’t do it.”
There was discussion about a Budget Commission meeting scheduled for September 30th to approve rate resolutions, and Ms. Sinatra said that at this meeting they were going to discuss the November levies. Mr. Flaiz said that the prior motion was regarding the non-qualified levy. All agreed that the rate resolutions should be on the Agenda for September 30, 2024 meeting.
Mr. Flaiz reported that there were four levies that were “kicked back” (flagged for errors) by the Secretary of State. Of the four, the Board of Elections did permit two to go on the ballot: the Burton Village and Huntsburg levies. The two levies that were not approved were a year early: the JFS levy and the Hambden Township road levy. The Board of Elections said that they had “fatal flaws.” Mr. Flaiz said the County could put the JFS levy on for a primary, but since there is no official primary in the spring, JFS would have to pay towards the costs of this election. Mr. Morgan said that they could wait for the fall. Mr. Flaiz agreed that JFS levies always get approved by large margins.
Public Comment
Mr. Gorton opened a discussion about the construction for the expanded Court House and whether the County would have enough money without using ARPA funds to fund the construction until January 1st. He said that he asked the Project Manager, NV-5 Company, about estimated expenditures between now and the end of the year. Mr. Gorton said that he will have to come back to the Budget Commission to “at least certify some revenue in the Capital Reserve – not $10 million – but at least a couple million if not 3 or 4 million to make it to the beginning of 2025 to transfer money.” Mr. Flaiz asked whether Chardon City had contributed any funds yet, and the answer was no, so he said he would follow up. Mr. Flaiz said that the Chardon City contribution is capped at $2 million.
Mr. Spidalieri said, “Where do we draw the line?”
Mr. Flaiz reiterated that, “They are capped at $2 million.”
Mr. Spidalieri asked, “Do we have a position on when to stop work. Where have we gotten with additional charges?” Referring to the progress on the building, he said, “It looks like just framework. Where is the ceiling on it for us?” He went on to say “We can’t have this endless supply of cash that is just going to continue to go to this.” Mr. Spidalieri said that he “... was approached by three different people at the Fair saying that Chardon is starting to push back… to say that Chardon won’t be responsible for that full $2 million.” He further said, that “We haven’t seen a dime from them.”
The conversation then shifted to other buildings on the Square. Mr. Spidalieri said he never supported and he didn’t support “band aids putting on these bleeding wounds that are going to suck us dry.” Mr. Spidalieri acknowledged that decisions about whether the offices on the Square would move to the new county office building were made before the current Auditor. But he did say that, ”The Treasurer dug in their heels”. Observer Note: This appears to be a discussion related to decisions made in 2019 regarding what offices would stay on the Square and what offices would move to the new County building.
Mr. Spidalieri continued, “We wanted everybody in a brand-new building” and added that “We should have moved everybody.“
Mr. Spidalieri said, “I don’t want to put another dime in this (County buildings on the Square).”
Mr. Flaiz said, “You don’t have to work in these buildings, but our people do. And for you to say, well, you’re not going to put another nickel in them – we’re going to be in these buildings for decades. So, the money needs to be invested in them.…” Referring to the County Commissioners, he said, “And you guys. . . have totally abandoned your statutory duties to maintain these buildings.”
Mr. Walder agreed and cited rats buried in walls, lack of an air conditioner, and improperly constructed steps that led to an employee of the Auditor falling through the steps, sustaining injuries. Mr. Walder said that it “feels like punishment.”
Mr. Spidalieri said, “It’s not punishment.”
Mr. Flaiz discussed the need for maintenance, and Mr. Walder discussed items that he had requested to improve the space but that had been taken out of the budget by the County Commissioners. Mr. Flaiz said that he needed security upgrades, and he would be submitting those plans.
There was no other public comment.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:41 pm
Next Meeting: The next regular meeting will be Monday, September 16, 2024 at 10:00 am.
Observer: Gail Roussey
Editor & Reviewer: Sarah McGlone
Submitted: 9/16/24
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.