Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Prosecutor topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prosecutor urges budget fix as commissioners debate partial funding
Summary
Prosecutor’s office requested what it described as a correction to an underfunded 2026 personnel budget, warning of layoffs and reduced representation without roughly $850,000 in restored funding; commissioners said they may offer a partial amount and asked HR and legal staff to review mandated vs. discretionary costs.
Bill Daniel, of the prosecutor’s office, told the commissioners the office’s 2026 budget is effectively underfunded and asked for an adjustment so it can pay for personnel and software costs the office expects to need this year. "We had a number of things that happened last year that led our budget to actually be quite a bit lower than we expected," Daniel said, describing unfilled positions and last‑minute expenses that made prior spending look artificially low.
The prosecutor argued the shortfall equates to a substantial staffing gap and warned that, absent a correction, the office could face layoffs or reduced services. Daniel said the office brought in unexpected revenue and returned unspent funds to the general fund last year, but that the current appropriation would not cover a full year of staff costs; he said the gap was on the order of several hundred thousand dollars (he referred to an approximate $850,000 shortfall).
Commissioners pressed for fairness and consistency across departments. One commissioner said the board had set department budgets based on last year’s spending and planned to revisit all departments together later in the year. "I just fear that we do this now, then the sheriff comes and says, ‘Well, I need it now too,’ " a commissioner said, arguing against giving a single department full supplemental funding up front.
Members discussed legal and operational priorities: if the county were in a true fiscal emergency, the Ohio Revised Code requires mandated services be funded first, several speakers noted; the prosecutor’s office argued most of its work is mandated. Commissioners suggested an interim compromise — for example, offering part of the requested funds now and revisiting remaining needs in months — and asked staff to identify which costs are mandated and which are discretionary.
Human Resources and prosecutor staff said they would review the prosecutor’s operating components and convene to distinguish mandated responsibilities from non-mandated ones so commissioners can make an informed decision. Alex Steinglass and Mr. Danzo (prosecutor office representative) offered to meet with commissioners and HR to clarify operations and liabilities related to underfunding.
The board did not take a final funding vote; a commissioner offered to take a partial‑funding proposal back to the prosecutor for consideration and to revisit the matter when updated revenue figures are available. The Auditor signaled that if the commissioners place any amount on tomorrow’s agenda, staff will include the necessary money‑transfer paperwork and identify the reserve fund source.
Ending: The board left the request pending, asked staff for a clearer breakdown of mandated versus discretionary costs, and directed commissioners’ staff to report back with options for a partial or full appropriation.
