Commissioners signal contract changes and community outreach as senior-services levy renewal approaches

Ross County commissioners on June 30 announced they have given notice that the county's contract with the Ross County Committee for the Elderly will end Dec. 31 and said they plan to negotiate a new contract and launch public outreach before seeking a renewal of levy funding.

The discussion grew into a lengthy public-comment period in which trustees, township representatives and residents urged clearer oversight of how levy dollars are spent and, for some, replacement of the committee's leadership. "Perception is reality," a township representative told commissioners, urging candid talks between the county and the committee to rebuild trust. Commissioner-level speakers said the board's concerns include lack of county influence over programmatic spending and appointment processes under the old contract.

Why it matters: The existing 0.5 mill levy that supports senior services is approaching the end of its contract term; commissioners said it will be collected in arrears into 2027 but that the long-term funding structure and governance must be clarified before asking voters to renew or add millage. County officials expressed concern that asking voters to approve both a renewal and a separate new levy in close succession would risk "voter fatigue" and likely confuse seniors, a key constituency for the ballot measure.

Board and public comments: Commissioners described the county's options: keep the current levy and negotiate terms, hold a renewal vote this November if legally permissible, or place a new millage on a later ballot. "We don't have oversight on who's appointed to the board of directors and how they operate," one commissioner said, arguing that a new contract should give the county more appointment or oversight authority. Multiple speakers—including trustees and a senior-center volunteer—said the committee has 30 years of institutional knowledge and urged care in redesigning services, even while supporting improved oversight.

Legal and timing questions: County legal counsel said sales tax proposals to replace property levies are unlikely because many Ohio counties already collect the maximum local sales tax, and state law limits county authority in that area. Commissioners asked the attorney to confirm whether a renewal could legally appear on the November ballot and whether it would be preferable to delay renewal until spring to allow for contract negotiations and clearer public messaging.

Next steps: Commissioners asked staff to compile explicit changes they would like to see in a new contract, to open formal work-session negotiations with the committee, and to begin an education campaign explaining how services are changing and how levy dollars are used. Several public commenters urged that any new contract include clearer geographic distribution of funds and new board representation to reflect township interests.

The board did not adopt a final funding plan at the meeting; it set follow-up work sessions and said it would pursue legal research and community engagement before placing a renewal or new levy before voters.