Budget Commission Tables Geauga Public Health’s Budget
Citing Concerns about Differing Presentations to the GPH and HDAC Boards
Budget Commission Meeting – April 21, 2025
Meeting Details: The Geauga County Budget Commission met in Special Session on Monday, April 21, 2025 at 10:00 am in the Auditor's Appraisal Conference Room, 231 Main Street, Chardon, Ohio. The meeting was in person with a virtual attendance option via MS Teams.
Meeting Attendance: Prosecutor Jim Flaiz (arriving at 10:08 am), Treasurer Chris Hitchcock, and Auditor Chuck Walder
Staff Attendance: Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Kristen Rine, Chief Compliance Officer Kate Jacob, Deputy Auditors Tammy Most and Kristen Sinatra, and Chief Operations Officer Pam McMahan
County Staff: Acting County Administrator Linda Burhenne and Budget and Finance Manager Adrian Gorton
Department on Aging Representatives: Director Jessica Boalt and Fiscal Officer Duane Bidlack
Job and Family Services Representatives: Executive Director Craig Swenson and Financial Administrator Alyssa Steinhoff
Engineer’s Office Representatives: N/A
Geauga Public Health Representatives: Administrator Adam Litke, Director of Environmental Health Dan Lark, and Board Member Dr. Mark Hendrickson
Members of the Public: This LWV Geauga Observer attended virtually.
The meeting was called to order at 10:05 am.
Minutes: Minutes from the April 7, 2025 Special Meeting were approved. The minutes are available here.
Reopening of Tabled Geauga County 2026 Levied Departments Budget Reviews
Observer Note: The Levied Departments Budget Reviews were held on April 7, 2025. Three of the five budgets reviewed were tabled by the Budget Commission at that time and were reconsidered at this meeting. Please see the April 7, 2025 Budget Commission Observer Report for more information.
Discussion highlights:
-
Mr. Walder said that he appreciated Mr. Bidlack getting the revised budget submission to them quickly so that they had plenty of time to review it. He clarified that Aging’s submitted revenue request of $4,173,435.00 was reduced to $909,550.00 because Aging’s levy is on the May ballot and therefore the $3,263,885 in revenue it brings in is uncertain. Should the levy pass, the ending cash balance in the levy fund would no longer be negative.
-
Mr. Walder noted that the issue of no expenses being reported in the Senior Center Construction fund has now been corrected.
-
Mr. Hitchcock expressed concern that Aging may end up with a negative balance in 2027. Ms. Boalt said that they budgeted conservatively on grant revenue and they may have more than projected. She also said that Aging usually spends less than what is budgeted for some of its contract services.
Discussion highlights:
-
Ms. Sinatra said that the problem with the figures submitted at the original Budget Review have been corrected.
-
Mr. Flaiz praised the Engineer’s Office for looking at its budget throughout the year and drawing back or adding projects as needed.
-
Mr. Walder stated that he would like the Engineer’s Office to get their numbers submitted earlier to allow more time for review.
-
Job and Family Services (JFS) - The Budget Commission voted to table the 2026 JFS budget for a second time, with Treasurer Chris Hitchcock and Prosecutor Jim Flaiz voting yes and Auditor Chuck Walder voting no. JFS’s submission included the following estimated 2026 levied resources, which were not certified:
Observer Note: JFS requested revenue in the amount of $6,742,483, but only $5,103,518
was considered. JFS has a renewal levy on the ballot in May and therefore the $1,638,965 in
revenue it brings in is uncertain.
Discussion highlights:
-
Mr. Hitchcock said that there was a lot of money on the table, millions of dollars that has been sitting unused. He asked if JFS was going to use the $6 million for building and improvement of the new youth center in 2026. Mr. Swenson said they would start spending it between this year and next and noted that some spending has started on architectural expenses. He said he hopes that they will be in construction this summer. He estimated that the project will take a year to a year and a half and cost $6-7 million. Mr. Swenson said that there is a possible million dollar state grant on the table and that the County Commissioners may be fronting that million dollars. Mr. Flaiz later said the Commissioners would be paid back from the grant money over 10 years.
-
Ms. Steinhoff said that the purchase order for the youth center will need to be opened in 2025 and would carry over into 2026. Mr. Hitchcock said that it would be good to have a schedule of when money will be spent over the timeline of the project.
-
Mr. Swenson said the survey is ongoing and the youth center project should be going out to bid in the next couple of months. He confirmed that the levy fund would pay for the project.
-
Mr. Walder said that the budget changes were not received until Friday (April 18) so he hadn’t had much time to look at it. He expressed disappointment “... at the lack of priority that has been given to giving us the numbers for this hearing” and added that he “can’t do a service to the taxpayers” with so little time to review the budget. He said he was concerned about high cash carryovers in some of JFS’ funds.
-
Mr. Flaiz noted that Mr. Gorton needs JFS’s numbers for the upcoming County Commissioners’ budget hearings. Mr. Walder said that the deadline was April 18 for all departments but he again said that he hasn’t had enough time to properly review the JFS numbers.
-
Mr. Flaiz said he was more aware of what has been happening with the youth center over the last several months than the other Budget Commissioners and that switching to a new site was a good move even though it caused delays. He added that the youth center is needed and was a good use of JFS’s excess funds. He said that in his opinion the youth center project is very far along.
-
Mr. Swenson said the new youth center will enable the County to save money by not sending youths out of County and may even generate some revenue if youths from other Counties are housed there.
-
Mr. Walder again expressed frustration about the lack of time to vet the numbers. He also said he didn’t think the Budget Commission should table the JFS budget again since it had already been tabled. However, the Budget Commissioners did vote to table the JFS budget, with Mr. Flaiz and Mr. Hitchcock voting yes and Mr. Walder voting no.
-
It was determined that the JFS Budget Review would be considered again at the Budget Commission meeting on May 19.
-
Mr. Walder expressed concern about getting the budget numbers to Mr. Gorton for the Commissioners’ hearings. Mr. Gorton said he could use the numbers as they are and make adjustments later if needed. It was noted that the last day of Commissioners’ budget hearings will be May 20.
-
Ms. Steinhoff asked if there were specific questions that JFS should be prepared to address on May 20. Mr. Walder said he hasn’t had time to evaluate the numbers so he doesn’t know what the questions might be yet.
Geauga Public Health (GPH) 2026 Budget Hearing
The Budget Commission voted to table the 2026 GPH budget unanimously. GPH’s submission included the following estimated 2026 resources, which were not certified:
-
General Fund (#6002)
-
Estimated 2026 beginning cash balance: $665,141.56
-
Estimated 2026 revenue: $2,465,589.00
-
Estimated 2026 expenses: $2,615,124.11
-
Estimated 2026 ending cash balance: $515,606.45
Discussion highlights:
-
Mr. Flaiz said that he thought the For Sale of Property (FSOP) program was terminated so he asked why it has 2026 revenue. Mr. Litke said the revenue would be generated by the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) septic program. Mr. Walder said it would be better to create a new O&M fund instead, and Mr. Flaiz agreed that this would be more transparent. Mr. Litke agreed that GPH would create the new O&M fund.
-
Mr. Flaiz remarked about some GPH funds with growing or consistently stable balances, like the swimming pool fund. Mr. Litke said these funds have money that has accumulated over 10-15 years and GPH doesn’t have a good way to spend it down. He noted that they are decreasing both revenue and expenses in most of these funds.
-
Mr. Hitchcock asked about the Immunization Action Plan fund, which shows no expenses or revenue in 2026. Mr. Litke said this fund was for a grant that is no longer applicable for Geauga County. Mr. Hitchcock then said the money in this fund was unwanted/unneeded by GPH.
-
Mr. Flaiz suggested a five-year waiver of fees to spend down the cash balances of the Swimming Pool and Private Water System funds. Mr. Litke said some of the funds have overstated cash balances and added that GPH is looking into reducing fees. He reiterated that it is difficult to draw down some of the cash balances in GPH funds.
-
Mr. Walder said that GPH should draw down its high cash balances in some funds by either giving the excess money back to the taxpayers or working with the Prosecutor's Office to apply to repurpose this money into different funds that do have need.
-
Mr. Walder said that GPH provided a detailed spreadsheet with budget information as well as a PowerPoint summary. He asked if the GPH board approved the budget based on the spreadsheet or the PowerPoint information. Mr. Litke said that they had the spreadsheet information. Mr. Walder said he was concerned with what the public understands the GPH budget to be because the GPH Board got the spreadsheet information whereas HDAC (Health District Advisory Council) got only the PowerPoint summary. He asked if they could just look at the summary version, to which Mr. Litke agreed.
-
The PowerPoint presentation that was made to HDAC was then considered. Mr. Walder noted that this condensed all the financial information for GPH into pie charts with all funds combined. He noted that about $1.3 million of transfers in were included as revenue, which inflates GPH’s revenue because transfers in are all internal within GPH. Under expenses, this same $1.3 million is listed as a transfer out, inflating the expenses of GPH as well.
-
Mr. Walder expressed concern that the public might conclude that transfers out reflect money going to Lake County under the cross jurisdictional agreement, but this is not the case because transfers out are all internal within GPH. Mr. Litke said that money going to Lake County is listed under contract services (estimated at $2.26 million in 2026).
-
According to the PowerPoint information, GPH’s 2026 expenses ($4.61 million) are about $200,000 more than revenue ($4.48 million), but Mr. Walder noted GPH did not include information about its beginning balances, which would more than offset the deficit.
-
Mr. Walder stated that whatever budget information is approved by the GPH board should be exactly what both HDAC and the Budget Commission are given to approve. He said that everyone having the same information to look at reduces confusion. Mr. Litke said that he was fine going back to everyone having more detailed information as provided by the spreadsheet (beginning and ending balances, revenue, and expenses for each GPH fund).
-
Mr. Walder said that it was discovered within the last year that GPH is a combined health district with the City of Chardon, and he was concerned about additional rules/checks and balances that this requires. Mr. Walder said he didn’t have a copy of the combined health district agreement and he needs that to make sure the law is followed.
-
Mr. Hitchcock said “you are hoarding cash in the worst of ways” and added that he was “... outraged that you have so many funds that have excess amounts of cash.…” He said he had identified $1.4 million in GPH cash that he felt could go back to the taxpayers and said he thought that GPH could not collect its levy in 2026 without suffering ill effects. Mr. Litke said some funds will be drawn down due to the agreement with Lake County. Mr. Walder countered that this is not shown in the GPH budget submission.
-
Mr. Walder pointed out that only the General Fund and Alcohol, Tobacco & Other Drugs Fund were deficit spending, with all other funds either growing or being self-sustaining. He noted that the growing/self-sustaining funds could be used to offset the two funds with deficits. He also said carryover cash would help cover any deficits.
-
Mr. Litke said that GPH is working to make some excess revenue available to go back to homeowners for the O&M program.
-
Mr. Flaiz suggested that some of the excess revenue could be used to pay salaries.
-
Mr. Hitchcock said that the PowerPoint has wrong information and it needs to be corrected. Mr. Walder supported that and said everyone should get the updated document with the internal transfer in and transfer out amounts removed. Mr. Walder also asked for a copy of the agreement with the City of Chardon.
-
Mr. Flaiz said moving forward he would like GPH to create an O&M fund, and he would like to see excess funds used for salary/benefits and fee reductions.
-
Mr. Walder said that if GPH intends to spend its excess fund balances or move these balances to other funds, he would like to see the plan for doing so.
-
The Budget Commission voted unanimously to table the GPH budget until May 19 and requested to have all materials from GPH by May 12.
After the Levied Department Budget Reviews and Geauga Public Health Budget Hearing, the Budget Commission conducted Regular Business as detailed below:
The following Revenue Certifications were approved:
Reviewer Note: An explanation of the different types of funds in revenue certifications can be found here.
-
Russell Township - Amendment #3. $2,662,634.17 in the general fund, $9,818,466.94 in special revenue funds, $16,666.66 in debt service funds, and $2,213,511.28 in capital project funds for a total of $14,711,279.05.
Russell’s amendment certified a decrease in the debt service fund.
-
Parkman Township - Amendment #1. $773,753.86 in the general fund, $2,087,639.47 in special revenue funds, $12,127.84 in special assessment funds, and $14,759.00 in fiduciary funds for a total of $2,888,280.17.
Parkman’s amendment certified the 2025 beginning balances.
Geauga Public Health Appropriations Transfer: The Budget Commission voted to acknowledge a Geauga Public Health appropriations transfer of $250 for administrative fees from the State.
Discussion:
-
Potential Undivided Local Government (ULG) Formula Change - Mr. Flaiz said that the Budget Commission had previously discussed possibly reducing or eliminating the County’s share of the ULG funds. Observer Note: See the September 16, 2024 Budget Commission Observer Report for more information. Mr. Walder noted that the County Commissioners have expressed a desire to help the local government entities by giving them the County’s portion of ULG funds, which is about $750,000. Mr. Flaiz said that, if the Budget Commission were to change the ULG formula, both the County and the most populous municipality (City of Chardon) would have to approve it, and Mr. Walder noted that a majority of the rest of the municipalities would have to approve as well. Mr. Flaiz said that, in the event that the County might later want to have some of its share of ULG funds back, the City of Chardon could effectively veto it, which he said made him nervous. Mr. Walder noted that some local governments need assistance, but some do not. Mr. Hitchcock said he was in favor of eliminating the County’s share and raising the floor amount of ULG funding (currently $15,000) for each entity. The Budget Commissioners decided to take no action at this time so that they could check with the County Commissioners about the fact that changing the ULG allocation could be irreversible.
-
Corrections - Ms. Most said there were a few corrections to the certifications from the last Budget Commission meeting. She noted that Bainbridge’s amendment was an increase in special revenue funds, not a decrease as stated, and that Geauga County’s capital project fund increase was larger than stated.
-
School District Rate Resolutions - Mr. Walder asked if either Kenston or Berkshire had responded to the letter sent out by the Budget Commission regarding their missing rate resolutions. Observer Note: See the April 7, 2025 Budget Commission Observer Report for details. Kenston’s Board had approved their rate resolution in March and inadvertently failed to notify the Auditor. No response was received from Berkshire.
Public Comment:
This Observer informed the Budget Commissioners that the League of Women Voters of Geauga advertised the April 22 Special Meeting regarding Berkshire’s inside millage shift on its social media and also requested a copy of all materials from the meeting. This led to a brief discussion on the Special Meeting format. The Budget Commissioners decided to have Berkshire make a presentation on their proposed inside millage shift, followed by public comment, and then the Budget Commissioners will make their comments and ask their questions before ultimately voting on the matter.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:19 pm.
Next Meeting: There is a Special Meeting to consider Berkshire School District’s inside millage shift authorizing an unvoted permanent improvement levy and to conduct regular business on April 22, 2025 at 7:00 pm at the County Office Building, Suite B167-B168, 12611 Ravenwood Dr, Chardon, Ohio. The next regular meeting is on May 5, 2025 at 10:00 am in the Auditor’s Conference Room, 215 Main Street, Chardon, Ohio. Virtual attendance for all Budget Commission meetings is available via Microsoft Teams by emailing an invitation request to Ms. McMahan at pmcmahan@gcauditor.com.
Observer: Sarah McGlone
Editor: Rooney Moy
Reviewer: Carol Benton
Submitted: 04/23/2025
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.