Budget Commission Denies Berkshire’s Inside Millage Shift
Budget Commission Meeting – April 22, 2025
Meeting Details: The Geauga County Budget Commission met in Special Session on Tuesday, April 22, 2025 at 7:00 pm at the County Office Building, Suite B167-B168, 12611 Ravenwood Dr, Chardon, Ohio. The meeting was in person with a virtual attendance option via MS Teams.
Meeting Attendance: Prosecutor Jim Flaiz, Treasurer Chris Hitchcock, and Auditor Chuck Walder
Staff Attendance: Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Kristen Rine, Chief Compliance Officer Kate Jacob (virtual), and Deputy Auditor Kristen Sinatra
County Staff: Budget and Finance Manager Adrian Gorton (virtual), Acting County Administrator Linda Burhenne
Berkshire Schools Representatives: Treasurer Beth McCaffrey, Superintendent John Stoddard, and School Board President John Manfredi
Members of the Public: Approximately 45 residents attended in person, and several more attended virtually. Geauga Times Courier Journalist Anastasia Nicholas and LWV Geauga Observer Rooney Moy attended in person, and LWV Observer Sarah McGlone attended virtually.
The meeting was called to order at 7:01 pm
Berkshire Schools Presentation
Beth McCaffrey, Berkshire treasurer, presented the following timeline for their request to transfer inside millage to permanent improvement, noting that the Budget Commission was sent documentation for it. Highlights:
-
Berkshire filed their tax budget for 2026 which showed the district has declining cash balances
-
A permanent improvement levy renewal recently failed after two tries at the ballot box
-
On January 22nd, the Berkshire Board held a special meeting to discuss tax levies, tax implications and additional revenue sources of the district. The Board had a frank discussion on school finance and discussed the options that were available to them. At the meeting, the Board passed a motion to hold a hearing to shift millage based on ORC 5705.314. Observer Note: This Ohio Revised Code states if a school board proposes a change to its levy that would result in an increase in real property taxes, they must hold a public hearing before adopting it. For more details on the January 22 Special Meeting, see LWV Observer Report here.
-
Legal notices were published in The News Herald on January 24th and January 30th, and in the Geauga County Maple Leaf on January 30th. The notice of the special meeting was filed with the County Auditor.
-
On February 10th, the Board held a special meeting at which they heard 90 minutes of public comments regarding a potential millage shift.
-
Also on February 10th, the Board held a regular meeting at which they decided to table the motion to shift millage, and a motion to place an income tax levy on the November ballot was defeated. At this meeting, the Board decided to have another special meeting to hear the motion on the inside millage shift. The meeting was advertised for February 26. Observer Note: For more details for the February 10 Special Meeting and Regular Meeting, see LWV Geauga Observer Report here.
-
At the February 26th meeting, the Board heard public comment again and then passed the motion to shift 2.5 mills of general fund inside millage to the permanent improvement fund. Observer Note: For more details for the February 26 Special Meeting, see LWV Geauga Observer Report here.
-
On Feb 27th, the inside millage shift resolution was filed with the Geauga County Budget Commission, along with a Schedule 2 of Berkshire’s 2026 tax budget and a five-year budgeted statement of revenues, expenditures and fund balances.
-
The Board has had two meetings since February 27th, March 10th and April 14th, with no comment regarding the millage shift.
Mrs. McCaffrey referred the Commissioners to Berkshire’s 2026 budget, which showed a half year of inside millage collection and the associated expenditures, showing a zero fund balance at the end of 2026. Observer Note: Berkshire’s budget was considered and approved by the Budget Commission on February 20th; details are available here.
She said that in 2027, Berkshire would see the full collection of the proposed inside millage shift, and she referred Commissioners to Berkshire’s projected financial requirements for 2027 through 2030.
Public Comment
Six audience members spoke, four against the millage shift and two in support.
Highlights:
-
Karoline Schneider, Claridon Township, said she came to the meeting because this tax would directly affect her family, costing them approximately $300.00 a year in property taxes. She said allowing the Board to move the millage goes against the will of the people who have already voted twice against a renewal levy. She said the transfer would create a wedge in and “completely destroy” the community and cause financial hardship for many people.
-
Ken Burnett, Burton Township, said he thinks “we should be reminded that the Berkshire community has always supported their schools when properly informed of the needs.” Mr. Burnett said that school support has wavered since the successful passage of the 2018 bond issue pointing to the permanent improvement (PI) levy that barely passed in 2019 and five years later failed twice within a 12-month period.
He criticized the school board for trying to override the will of voters rather than educating the public.
Mr. Burnett stated that, while the school’s enrollment has not grown between 2022-25, the general property tax and income tax revenue and school expenses have increased. He singled out the Geauga real estate reevaluations in 2023 that raised Berkshire’s property income tax revenue significantly.
Mr. Burnett argued the school has a spending problem, not a funding problem, and pointed to the strong community opposition to the inside millage transfer voiced at recent Board meetings, warning of divisiveness in the community if the transfer went forward. He stated this division is already present in the Board, as the vote to approve the transfer was three to two, “the first split vote that many of us have seen in many years on that Board.” Observer Note: See February 26 Special Meeting LWV Observer Report for details on the split vote discussion here.
Mr. Burnett urged the Budget Commission to reject the transfer and let voters decide, citing pending state legislation that could soon ban such transfers. Reviewer Note: This bill was introduced by Ohio State Representative David Thomas. See more information here. See analysis of HB 129 here. This bill is currently in Committee. Senate Bill 66 also has potential impacts on school districts that are at the 20 mill floor. See analysis here. This bill is also in committee.
-
Linda Valentino, Claridon Township, said she regularly attends school board meetings and that the Board has stated that if the millage shift happens, and if they also pass an income tax levy, the Board will repeal the shift. Observer Note: See February 26 Special Meeting LWV Observer Report for details on the discussion here.
Ms. Valentino said she could not find any information about a district’s ability to repeal an inside millage transfer. She asked the Board and Budget Commission to remember the repeal promise if an income tax levy is passed.
-
Leslie Smetana, Claridon, spoke in support of Berkshire, saying that school funding has completely changed, and as a result Berkshire’s revenue isn’t the same. She said the schools are the heart of our community and asked what the Budget Commission would suggest the school do to offset the drastic funding cuts from the state. She noted the school is left with very few options to fund special education and other items that are a large part of the budget. She stated she is sure the district has thoroughly considered their funding options and encouraged people to “look at the big picture.”
-
Ken Kline, Claridon Township, said he attended an earlier Budget Commission meeting and that there was a discussion as to whether to have this vote. Observer Note: This was the March 17, 2025 Budget Commission Meeting. He asked if it were true that a decision on the inside millage transfer didn’t have to be made until December 2025.
-
Mr. Walder said it is true that he is required by law to file with the state any new tax rates that take effect by January 1. However, he noted that there are time constraints on the work that the Budget Commission is required to fulfill.
-
Mr. Flaiz commented that there is time for the school district to come up with funding ideas other than this millage shift and possibly be open to more input from the community before they act. He stated that, “it’s not necessarily a thing that has to be done tonight.”
-
Mr. Walder said though a decision doesn’t have to be made tonight, there is planning that needs to be done and it would be “a bit irresponsible at the last minute to either pass it or not pass it, not giving an opportunity for the school to prepare for whatever the decision is.” He said the Budget Commission agreed that they “would do this in as timely a manner as possible to get as much time as possible.”
-
Mr. Flaiz stated that because of the seeming discrepancy between the will of people and the will of the Board, this decision could be slowed down a bit and “maybe cooler heads might happen.”
-
Jackie Arnold, Burton, thanked the Berkshire Board for all the work they've done, saying her children graduated from Berkshire and hopes her grandchildren will attend as well. She said she and her husband are retired but happy to pay taxes to support the school, especially given the funding cuts to the district. She said she’d hate to see the school go backwards and reach the point where the district is forced to make drastic cuts.
Budget Commission Comments
Prosecutor Flaiz began the Budget Commission’s comments/questions by asking about the status of Berkshire’s rate resolution, which has not been filed with the County Auditor yet despite the statutory requirement of doing so by April 1. He noted that the Budget Commission sent a letter to the district inquiring about this on April 7 and had not received a response. Observer Note: See the April 7, 2025 Budget Commission Observer Report for more information. Ms. McCaffrey said that Berkshire has an extension on this deadline pending with the Tax Commissioner. Observer Note: More information about the State Tax Commissioner is available here. Mr. Flaiz asked if the Board had passed the rate resolution, and Ms. McCaffrey said they did in April. He then asked why they didn’t file it with the Auditor then, and she responded it was because they are still waiting for the extension from the Tax Commissioner.
Mr. Flaiz said he thought that the reason most of the members of the public were there was because “... you feel like a fast one is being pulled. There’s an unvoted tax increase.” He explained that moving inside millage to permanent improvement causes those tax dollars to not count towards the 20 mill floor calculation, “... and then your taxes are all raised to make up for what was moved over, which is… what they’ve requested us to approve.” Observer Note: The 20 mill floor means that all Ohio School Districts are guaranteed at least 20 mills of funding by law. If a school district’s funding level drops below the 20 mill floor, a property tax increase (i.e., increased collection of existing levies) is instituted by the State for residents of those districts to get funding back up to the required level. He said it wasn’t up to the Budget Commission to determine whether that was right or wrong but rather it was the job of the Berkshire residents to hold their elected School Board members accountable for it. Mr. Flaiz noted that the Budget Commission’s job was to look whether the school district’s financial need to shift the inside millage is clearly required and whether or not the law is being followed.
Mr. Flaiz said that Berkshire’s request was similar to the Sanborn case, in which taxpayers successfully sued the local Budget Commission for approving a shift of some of their school district’s inside millage to permanent improvement. He said that the Ohio Supreme Court found that the school district did not demonstrate need sufficiently to allow for an inside millage shift to permanent improvement and added that the Court found that the “... clearly required standard should have been applied to both the permanent improvement revenue and the new operating revenue (i.e. the additional tax levied after the inside millage shift). So you have the burden of establishing need in both of the categories.”
Mr. Flaiz said he thought that Berkshire has not gone about their inside millage shift in the right order. He noted that the district submitted a budget to the Budget Commission for review in January, and it was approved by the Budget Commission on February 20. He stated that this budget did not show the proposed inside millage shift or the need for it to be made now. He went on to say “after we approved your budget, your board then passed this resolution to shift the inside millage right, and then you submitted a new schedule two, which came up with all these extra expenses which weren't in your original budget.” Mr. Flaiz asked if he was right that Berkshire came up with these expenses after the budget was submitted. Ms. McCaffrey said these expenses were shifted from the general fund to the permanent improvement fund. Mr. Flaiz said if these expenses were already in the budget, how can the need for additional money be justified? Ms. McCaffrey reiterated that the expenses were shifted from the general fund to the permanent improvement fund. Mr. Flaiz maintained that this action is creating additional revenue due to the 20 mill floor calculation not including permanent improvement funds.
Mr. Walder said that, since Berkshire is at the 20 mill floor, shifting 2.5 mills to permanent improvement would result in a tax increase corresponding to 2.5 mills (about $1.5 million). Ms. McCaffrey disagreed and said it was not a dollar for dollar increase. Eventually Mr. Walder and Ms. McCaffrey agreed to disagree on this point.
Mr. Walder asked why Berkshire couldn’t just pay for its permanent improvement expenses out of its general fund. Ms. McCaffrey responded that the district needs another revenue source. Mr. Walder then asked what the annual yield was on Berkshire’s PI levy that district voters did not renew. Ms. McCaffrey said it was about $500,000. Mr. Walder clarified that it was $489,000 and asked if the inside millage shift would result in revenue of more than this amount? She said it was “quite a bit more.” Mr. Walder clarified that it would result in 2.9 times the revenue that the failed PI levy would have brought in. He also stated that there was no permanent improvement need demonstrated in the budget submitted by the district. Ms. McCaffrey said there was need in the revised budget. Mr. Walder said “there is no such thing as revising once the Budget Commission acts on it.”
Mr. Flaiz said “to just shift expenses that in your original budget you were going to pay out of the general fund and shift them into the permanent Improvement fund, that's not demonstrating need.” Ms. McCaffrey responded that Berkshire’s general fund balance was “in trouble.” Mr. Walder said “that doesn’t trump the will of the public.” Ms. McCaffrey accused Mr. Walder of “constantly vilifying schools” and said that paying taxes to support schools is “the proper thing to do,” noting that schools add to the community and increase home values. Mr. Walder said he heard from residents of Berkshire and West Geauga every day who are suffering due to the taxation increase caused by these districts' 20 mill floor adjustments. Ms. McCaffrey said this situation has been caused by the General Assembly shifting the burden of paying for schools onto district residents via property tax and noted Ohio’s school funding has been unconstitutional for many years.
Ms. McCaffrey stated the district’s actions have followed the advice of their legal counsel. Mr. Flaiz said that they “got bad advice” because they should have taken action before January 15 so it could be reflected in their budget. Mr. Walder remarked “I just find it's very coincidental that on February 20, we approved the budget that you submitted to us to review, we approved it, and seven days later, seven days, you need 2.5 mills transferred, tripling the amount of money in your PI fund. But you didn't know it seven days prior to that… it was an epiphany, and I'm the one who's crazy. I'm just saying something doesn't smell right, and I think that's the general sentiment of the public.” He went on to say there was a disconnect between the schools and the public and added “you can't tax people out of their homes, but then argue, but just think how much your home was worth. Well, if you can't afford it, it doesn't matter what it's worth if you're getting taxed out of it.” He noted that the district got about $1.5 million in additional revenue due to the 20 mill floor calculation after the property revaluation, which he said more than makes up for the loss of the PI levy.
Mr. Flaiz reiterated that the submitted budget doesn’t show a need for the inside millage shift and said “we can't approve this legally” given the precedent set by the Sanborn case. He added that he thought it would “be a real shame” for the district to spend a lot of money on legal fees on this matter.
Mr. Hitchcock asked Ms. McCaffrey to confirm that this inside millage shift would not have been requested if the permanent improvement levy had passed, and she did so. He said it was “unconscionable” and “most embarrassing” that the district’s board has “... come up with a scheme to replace those funds without a vote of the people,” particularly after voters turned down the renewal levy twice. He also alleged that the district was not doing a good job communicating with its residents. Mr. Walder contended that Berkshire taxpayers are “getting punished” for not renewing the levy since the inside millage shift would bring in more tax revenue than the levy would have; he said that it was “punitive” and “not fair.” He said, “I maintain the budget you submitted, and the budget this commission approved, does not demonstrate PI need, and as a result, you can't now add to that submitted budget after it's been approved. You can amend your appropriation measure, obviously going forward once the year commences, but that doesn't start until June 1, and then next year is another year.” Mr. Flaiz concurred and said neither the permanent improvement revenue nor the additional operating revenue generated by the millage shift were clearly required by Berkshire’s budget submission.
Mr. Walder said that he had watched Berkshire’s board meetings on video and saw that the district contended repeatedly that they had cut costs to the extent that they possibly could to save money. He noted that the district was still spending money on outside legal counsel when they could use the County Prosecutor for free. Ms. McCaffrey asked if Mr. Flaiz would have represented the district in this case, and he said no, but he would have on other cases.
At this point Mr. Hitchcock asked if there was any further public comment before the Budget Commission voted on the inside millage shift. There was not.
Motion to Deny: Mr. Flaiz then moved to deny Berkshire’s request to authorize an unvoted permanent improvement levy with the shift of the 2.5 inside mills. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:01 pm.
Next Meeting: 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.
Observers: Sarah McGlone & Rooney Moy
Editor: Gail Roussey
Reviewer: Carol Benton
Submitted: 04/28/2025
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.