Hamilton County officials outline levy options as placement costs rise; community speakers urge voter approval

Interim director John Nelson of Hamilton County Job and Family Services told the Board of County Commissioners the county is confronting rapidly rising placement costs and higher-acuity cases that have pushed levy spending above plan and prompted service reductions.

"We serve 13,000 children, over 6,000 families," Nelson said during a presentation at the public hearing. He reviewed the levy's history (first approved in 1981; the current levy was approved by voters in 2021 at 4.51 mills) and said placement and residential care costs—ranging in his slides from about $7,000 per child in kinship care to as much as $168,000 per year for residential care—are the main drivers of increased spending.

The county implemented a $36,000,000 package of reductions in February 2026, Nelson said, including transfers of nearly $9,000,000 from the JFS levy to the general fund and about $4,000,000 moved to other levies. Independent reviews by Public Consulting Group and Clark Schaeffer Hackett concluded that out-of-home placement costs and higher acuity among youth are the primary causes of the shortfall.

Those reviews and the Tax and Labor Review Committee (TLRC) produced three levy scenarios. Nelson said TLRC ultimately recommended a $144,000,000 levy proposal, which would be a 5.57-mill levy that his presentation calculated would cost about $154 for a $100,000 home.

The hearing drew more than a dozen public commenters, many with direct ties to foster care, youth services and nonprofit providers. Joseph Turner of Lighthouse Student Family Services said services funded by the levy help young people make the transition to independent living: "When we invest in these youth, we are not just investing in changing one life. We're strengthening our community." Liz Igoe, speaking on behalf of the juvenile court, warned that if levy funding is not approved "these mandated services will have to be absorbed through the county through the general fund."

Several foster parents, case managers and nonprofit leaders described how levy-supported programs—kinship care, visitation and parent-education courses, crisis response, transitional housing and employment supports—prevent placement disruptions and support reunification. Examples cited in testimony included a kinship placement review that prevented unsafe situations from going undetected and a Lighthouse foster-youth who graduated high school, started college and secured employment with JFS-supported services.

Commissioners used the hearing to press administration for options that could reduce homeowner burden. Vice President Reese thanked speakers and urged staff to explore creative funding alternatives, including whether borrowing against future stadium-related revenues or other county revenue options could reduce the levy's millage and frequency of returning to voters. "It just sends a bad message that the children have to go to the ballot every few years, but stadiums don't," Reese said as an example of the community's comparative expectations.

Budget staff reported marginally positive second-quarter results countywide, with second-quarter revenue up about $7.7 million from the original budget and projected reserves moving toward a 15% target. The budget director cautioned much of the improvement reflects one-time adjustments and that the county absorbed roughly $6.4 million in children's services expenses into the general fund this year. Nelson said his static projection—assuming the implemented $36 million reductions—could result in a year-end JFS cash balance close to the levy plan's $24.5 million; a more conservative dynamic projection suggested a smaller positive balance might be possible.

The board did not vote on placing a levy at the hearing. Commissioners noted a short timetable: the auditor must be notified in early August to qualify an item for the November ballot. The chair announced another public hearing Thursday at 6 p.m. at the Bonne Hill campus (1701 Patricia Cullum Way).

Near the end of the session the board moved into a procedural item: the chair made a motion to enter executive session under ORC section 121.22(G)(3) to confer with counsel about pending litigation; the motion was seconded and roll call on the transcript showed at least Commissioners Samuels and Driehaus answering in the affirmative.

The hearing provided an extended accounting of why county leaders say they need to ask voters for additional levy resources—placement costs driven by higher-acuity youth and the limited local authority to control those out-of-home placement costs—and a catalogue of community programs that rely on levy funding. Commissioners signaled they will continue exploring funding permutations before deciding how much to place on the ballot, and they stressed the need to present a proposal voters will accept.

The board will consider the TLRC recommendation and other scenarios in coming weeks; the county must finalize ballot language with the auditor in early August if it intends to appear before voters in November.