Hamilton County administration outlines budget adjustments; JFS proposes $35M of shifts to avoid children’s services levy shortfall

County administration briefed commissioners on the status of the all‑funds budget and proposed incremental changes to the general fund, while Jobs & Family Services (JFS) presented a plan to stabilize the children’s services levy for 2026.

Administration overview: An administration representative walked through adjustments to a previously submitted all‑funds budget (original general‑fund recommendation roughly $402 million). Staff reported revised revenue projections (a sales‑tax receipts upward revision of about $1,813,000; an interest‑earnings adjustment +$3,000,000; an election reserve pull‑back of ~$1,500,000) and removal of a proposed additional transfer tax estimated at $4,800,000 from the revenue picture (SEG 1260–1275). The presentation also listed proposed, additional allocations to departments, including $950,000 for the prosecutor’s office, $313,000 for the sheriff, and earmarks for community programs such as $1,000,000 for affordable housing (SEG 1291–1311, SEG 1337–1346).

Reserve and interest‑earnings discussion: Commissioners pressed staff about the origin and timing of funds frequently described as “excess interest earnings,” including approximately $7,000,000 previously referenced for one‑time items. Administration staff explained that year‑end interest reconciliations are finalized in January–February and that excess interest earnings typically fall to the reserve and are later programmed for one‑time capital or similar needs; commissioners asked for specific reserve balances (SEG 1611–1680, SEG 1700–1725).

JFS presentation and levy pressures: Michael Patton, director of Jobs & Family Services, said rising placement and care costs have created structural pressure on the children’s services levy and that, without action, the levy is projected to end 2026 with a negative balance. Patton presented a package of program reductions and funding shifts estimated to save about $35,000,000 in 2026. Key elements included a reduction in independent living contracts for youth 18–21 (reducing the annual $15,000,000 program to a proposed $8,000,000 level), cutting payments to outside vendors and service contracts, capping kinship stipends once state stipends begin for a household, a hiring slowdown (estimated savings ~$5,000,000), and recommended transfers of certain costs to the general fund or to other levies (for example, moving TANF match to the general fund $3,500,000 and juvenile court placement costs $5,000,000) (SEG 2616–2648, SEG 2708–2760, SEG 2790–2803).

Commissioner concerns and tradeoffs: Commissioners voiced concern about the scale and depth of the proposed reductions, particularly the potential impacts on youth aged 18–21, kinship families and youth employment programs. Several asked for more detail on contract costs and per‑diem rates for placements, cautioned that program reductions can create downstream costs (for example, more children requiring higher‑cost placements), and sought clearer evidence that savings could be achieved without significant service disruptions (SEG 2831–2880, SEG 3030–3090). Staff provided follow‑up figures for remaining budgeted lines after reductions (caseworker reimbursement $650,000; vouchers $2,800,000; kinship stipends $4,200,000) and recommended more frequent monitoring (monthly in early 2026).

Process and next steps: Administration framed the budget discussion as a worksession ahead of an all‑funds budget vote later in the week; staff asked the board for policy direction to empower JFS to pursue the recommended program adjustments for 2026, while acknowledging some shifts involve one‑time reserve uses or transfers that would not be baked into ongoing operations (SEG 3148–3160, SEG 3439–3452). Commissioners asked staff to provide reserve balances, contract totals, and other clarifying materials before final votes and emphasized caution about relying on volatile revenue sources.

Action recorded during meeting: President Driehaus moved to enter executive session under Ohio Revised Code 121.22(G)(1) to consider the appointment or employment of a public employee or official; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Summer Dumas and approved by voice vote (all present voted Yes) (SEG 3604–3615).