Hamilton County hearing draws dozens urging support for expanded children’s services levy

Hamilton County commissioners heard more than three dozen public commenters on June 18 urging the board to place an expanded children’s services levy on the November ballot and to protect services for children in crisis.

Lisa Webb, who gave an administrative overview at the start of the hearing, told commissioners the levy remains the “local lifeline for kids in our community,” noting it served “over 13,000 children — that’s over 6,000 families in our community in 2025 alone.” Webb said the current levy rate is 4.51 mills and that the ballot language uses a $100,000 home-valuation example; she said placement and behavioral-health costs have driven substantial year-over-year increases and that a tax-levy review committee and consultant identified an additional funding need near $62 million per year under their preferred scenario.

County Administrator Jeff Aluto framed the levy’s potential impact on the broader county budget. Using a TLRC benchmark figure the administration described as $144,000,000, Aluto warned that a levy failure could force significant general‑fund transfers, deep program cuts or new taxes. “That’s 35% of the entirety of the general fund,” he said, and described the fiscal stress a failure would create across county departments.

Public testimony was overwhelmingly in support of placing a levy on the ballot. Speakers included law-enforcement representatives who described statutory obligations and partnerships for emergency child protection; foster and adoptive parents who gave first‑hand accounts of the services that kept children safe; and staff from nonprofits and hospitals who warned that emergency departments and placement networks are strained. Examples cited included kinship placements, Lighthouse Youth Services’ independent-living programs and in-school support showing improved third-grade reading outcomes for children served by county casework.

Not all public comments supported an immediate funding increase without changes. One woman who identified herself as a parent whose case was later reversed asked the board to require greater transparency and independent review before approving more funding, saying the Ohio First District Court of Appeals had found HCJFS “failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence” in her family’s case. She urged commissioners to require measures of program success, counts of removals later overturned, and independent audits before expanding the levy.

After the hearing, the board voted to ask the county auditor’s office to calculate revenue estimates for three millage options put forward by the Tax Levy Review Committee. Commissioners discussed timing and oversight questions — including whether any future levy would include caps or guaranteed use restrictions — and staff said additional scenarios could be requested by July 16 for consideration before the board’s scheduled August meeting.

What’s next: Commissioners directed staff to obtain the auditor’s revenue calculations for the TLRC scenarios and said they will consider the results and additional options before deciding whether to place a question on the ballot. No final levy amount or term was adopted at the meeting.