Trumbull County auditor outlines $1.2 million repayment after audit flags payroll charges to REA fund

County Auditor Mark told the Trumbull County Board of Commissioners on June 16 that a 2024 audit management letter identified payroll and related costs that had been charged to the Real Estate Assessment (REA) fund rather than the general fund between 2019 and 2024. He said he discovered the issue, reported it to auditors and prepared a draft repayment plan and computation for the board to consider.

Mark said he ‘‘actually discovered that this was being done improperly myself and I reported it to the auditors so that they would know that it was there because I'm supposed to do that.’’ He provided commissioners a calculation based on divisions of staff time and benefits across the affected years and offices and said the estimate reflected the best available allocation method.

The auditor and staff explained their method: they allocated portions of affected employees' salaries and benefits (for example, half of some employees, and 40% for one combined position) to estimate the cost that had been borne by the REA fund. Commissioners pressed on how the number was derived and the period covered. One commissioner asked how the county had not caught the practice sooner; staff said the practice dated to 2019, after an Attorney General opinion clarified how REA funds should be used, and said the county only corrected ongoing allocations recently.

Bill Danzo of the prosecutor's office advised the board on the legal status of the finding. He said the audit produced a management letter that suggested repayment but did not constitute an explicit finding for recovery that would legally compel immediate repayment. Danzo told commissioners that a management letter and a finding for recovery are different in force and that the audit firm might be open to structuring a payment plan to limit the one-year budgetary impact.

‘‘I can't comment on the amounts,’’ Danzo said of the computation, while noting that the auditor's office had taken a conservative approach to estimating employee cost allocations and that options for how to proceed included negotiation with the audit firm, a structured payment plan, or a formal finding for recovery if unresolved.

Commissioners said they wanted more time to digest the materials and to explore options that could satisfy the state auditors without placing the full burden on a single budget year. Mark offered to share the audit firm's contact so the commissioners could ask whether a repayment plan or alternate arrangement would satisfy the auditors.

Next steps: Commissioners took the draft repayment plan and associated materials under advisement, requested further information from the auditor and prosecutor, and discussed contacting the audit firm to explore a payment structure. No formal repayment vote was recorded at the workshop.