September 14, 2026 · Ohio Controlling Board · 7,899 words · 8 speakers · 159 segments
Thank you to our substitute members. Seeing that all members are present, please call the roll. Senator Kaler? Here. Senator Schaefer? Here. Senator Ingram? Here. Representative Stewart? Here. Representative Davila? Present. Representative Sweeney? Here. President Santis? Here. The minutes of the previous meeting have been distributed. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? We have a motion from Senator Kaler. Do we have a second? Second from Representative Stewart. after receiving motion and a second the minutes are approved we do have two announcements today two items have been updated to the agenda item 28 from the Department of Behavioral Health has been deferred at the request of the agency and item number 25 from the Department of Development has been deferred at the request of the agency we do have a request for a late agenda addition from the Department of Job and Family Services. I'd like to remind the members that we are first going to receive the request from the agency. We'll hold a vote on adding it to the agenda. If it is added, we'll have the opportunity to hold for consideration. It's It's going to be number 45. Department of Job and Family Services.
That is on the agenda. I'm Rachel Johanson from ODJFS. Thank you for the opportunity to request this late addition to the agenda. This item would provide $500,000 from the Controlling Board emergency purposes fund to the county JFS offices in Franklin, Morgan, Muskingum, and Perry counties to add additional assistance to households impacted by the severe storms from back in August. These are the four counties included in the governor's emergency declaration. We'd like to respectfully request this item be added to the agenda.
Thank you. Are there any objections to adding this item to the agenda? Seeing none, the item is added to the agenda. Thank you. Okay, moving on. We'll now poll the members for holds.
Senator Kaler. 3, 30, and 43.
Thank you. Senator Schaefer.
Thank you. Senator Ingram? Number 13, number 17, 26, 27.
Thank you, Senator. Representative Stewart?
Numbers 13 and 45, please.
Thank you. Representative DeVilla.
I thank you, Mr. President. No holds today.
Thank you. Representative Sweeney.
17.
Thank you. Can you read the holds, please? Item number three, Columbus State Community College. Item number 13, the University of Cincinnati. Item number 17, the Department of Higher Education. Item number 26 and 27, the Department of Development, item number 30, the Department of Natural Resources, item number 43, the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, and item number 45, the Department of Job and Family Services. Thank you. Is there a motion to approve all items not held by the Board?
So moved by Senator Kaler.
Do I have a second?
Seconded by Senator Schaefer.
Are there any objections? Hearing no objections. anyone who those items are approved any member or folks out there who item was not held you are free to go Okay, the first item is item number three, Columbus State Community College. This is regarding the percent for art for Franklin Hall. Please identify yourself.
I'm Charles Connor with Columbus State Community College. I'm the project manager on the project. The project percent for art, basically when we found out...
Sir, we're going to have the member who held ask some questions, and then we can direct it to him. Thank you. Senator Taylor?
Mr. Conner, thank you for being here today. I was just wondering, this looks like an appropriation for $285,000 for artwork, and in the description it talks about getting the artwork from Indianapolis, Indiana. I was wondering why we're not spending $285,000 to get artwork from someone in Ohio. Right.
Well, it's actually, sir, it's actually $263,000 for the artwork, and it's $22,940 for the Ohio Arts Council, who is administering the project for us. And the reason, I suppose you could say, is the OAC did a selection process where they directed the invitational to the artist. We had a group of 22 artists that were selected from all over the country. We had one from Ohio. After the first reduction, after the first faculty and staff review of the artist, the selected six that were then reviewed were all from out of state. And out of that six in February, we selected three, and those three were all from out of state as well. So there was one from Ohio initially, and all the rest of the 21 artists were from other states, other areas.
Follow-up, Senator?
Is there any preference to picking the one from Ohio?
We were not instructed that by the Arts Council, so I don't think there was any consideration of that at the beginning. I wasn't involved at that point, so I don't know for sure.
Thank you, Mr. President. I just would like to see if we're going to spend $265,000, according to you, that we'd love to see it spent on an artist from Ohio.
Yep, I understand.
Okay, Representative Stewart.
Thank you, Mr. President. And I understand you're just one applicant and there's a lot of folks in this program, but I think it does kind of – I'm actually a supporter of the Percent for the Arts program. I don't think that all of our government buildings should look like some kind of sterile BMV office. I think there's some value in the program. But it does just beg the question. We were simultaneously asked to provide funding to art programs at virtually every collegiate institution in the state, CCAD here in Columbus. I mean if we're not if there's no artists from Ohio why something's got to give so I mean if we reform this program in the next budget we said look you can only give this money to Ohio artists do you think that would help get more than one out of 21 applicants and maybe help your board you know have an incentive to pick it if some direction was given to the Ohio Arts Council I
I think you're probably correct. They probably would.
Senator Schaefer?
Sure. Thank you, Mr. President. Do we know yet what this artwork will be, what it looks like? What is it? For a quarter million dollars, what will this thing look like?
We had the three, top three selected artists come in. They gave us presentations. Then the selection committee made up of seven or eight faculty and staff, took those three, looked at them. We actually walked the artist through back in February of the construction site. We, at that time, we did not want a monument built out in front of the building. We wanted something either attached to the building or inside the building, and I think that drove some of the artist selections initially. and what was selected from the Adam Bunte in Indianapolis is a series of elements that go up at the outside of the corner of the building by a window and the representation of the art is to show students how they first come to the campus, how they start out and they don't really understand what college is about and then as it gets higher up the building these things start moving out from the building as the students presumably start understanding who they are and how they're growing with the college. So that was the one that was selected. It had a good intention behind the art itself. Follow-up, Senator?
Senator Kaler?
Thank you. And I think I've seen a picture of this, which, you know, art is in the eye of the beholder. My wife's an artist, an art major. looks like a bunch of sticky notes on the outside of a building. It kind of does. How bad was the person from Ohio that put their project forward?
I have no idea. As I mentioned, I wasn't back in the original selection process. But some of the colors, we have another piece of artwork at the west end of our campus that's glass and it's got a bunch of color in it. and we're going to recommend to the artist that he reflect the same colors in those tags that are attached to the building.
Follow-up, Senator? Senator Ingram? Representative Stewart?
Thank you.
Are there any other questions?
No, I don't have a question, Mr. President. I do have a comment, though. And, of course, this isn't the first time this year we've seen this, that one of our institutions is getting artwork from somewhere else, some other state. And so my question would be back to the Ohio Arts Council is to say that is there a preference? And then let me know how many other Ohio artists have been selected for other places, like they have displays in New York or wherever, because then that becomes the balance.
As to Representative Stewart's point, we spend a lot of money on the arts here in Ohio, and so we want to make sure that we're spreading that wealth and not just overlooking our people who are doing that work right here.
Correct.
Thank you.
Mr. President?
Yes, sir.
Could I ask the question? I mean, Senator brings up a good point. I mean, you know, we all voted for Percent for the Arts. It was in the budget. But, however, since being on this controlling board, I don't think I've voted to approve a project for an Ohio artist since that time. I mean, every time this comes up, it's, well, gee shucks, we had 12 applicants and only one was from Ohio, and of course we didn't pick the Ohio. I mean, it seems like there is a disconnect between the Arts Council and maybe the intentions of the General Assembly here. I'd like to get a little more alignment on what this mission is before we keep sending money out the door. My question is, is there any reason not to defer this item and have a little discussion with the artist council before we send another $300,000 out of state?
Would the agency like to defer the item?
I not sure what that actually means but if that the Hold off on a vote today Oh we could I suppose Because Completion of the building and all of our scheduling and timing it not going to affect
Anything else at Columbus State if we go to the next controlling board
Well, and I think that that the answers to my questions not necessarily from you But from the Arts Council would be very important and I think that holding up on this is not going to make a difference difference. I think that answering those questions would make a difference as to where our students are and what artwork we have in other places because there is a process. Having been on the Arts Council myself, I do know it's very extensive and so we have every right to ask back to the Council, how was this process done and is there any preference to Ohio because we have a whole lot of Ohio artists that have sculptures and other things that are in our parks because the Arts Council has artwork in a lot of different places so we do have a lot of Ohio artists that are there but here again this is the second time in a couple of months that we've had one of our institutions that have now maybe Columbus State doesn't have one but I do know that my Miami has an art department and if nothing else use your own student and we've got somebody from New York to do their artwork so I the point is well taken I I don't think holding it up now, deferring it, wouldn't make that much of a difference for the $285,000.
All right, the board will hold at ease.
So as Chairman Stewart said, I'm all for beautiful buildings. I love the transcendentals of the good, the beautiful, the true. I'm 4% for the arts. But we have an affordability crisis in this country right now that I'm hearing about a lot as I visit residents in my district. and then we come here and we're about to spend or send both a six-figure amount of money out of this state to somewhere else effectively. I don't think I can square that with what my constituents are telling me at this time.
Sir, let me repeat my question. Would you like to defer at this time?
Again, it's not going to impact the college if we defer. what impact is the execution of having the art placed?
Okay, it's your decision if you would like to defer.
I think what you're hearing is it might not be a bad idea. Yes, okay. Well, then in that case, I'll say yeah.
Okay, then the item is deferred at the request of the agency. Thanks. Next item is number 13. University of Cincinnati.
Hi. Megan Smith, I'm the Senior Director of Real Estate and Community Investment for the University of Cincinnati.
Thank you.
Senator Ingram? Thank you, Mr. President. I've already talked to legal, and I talked to President Pinto regarding this. I have questions, though, in regard to spending the $33 million to purchase those. The one building in particular I know was something that was worked through with the university in regard to the developer actually creating student housing, which is right there at the university. My question becomes, in the contracts that you have, because this was more or less petitioned to have happen, the student housing, in the contracts, do you ever come up with the notion of first right of refusal as to if indeed that party decides to sell that property and then they're going to put it out on the market? 100% of the occupancy is student housing. so the developer gets to take advantage of whatever abatements or things of that nature which occurred with that development through the city and through the county so I see now you're going to pay them $33 million and my question would be how much have we already paid them in student fees and then how much is this actually going to save over a period of time and then how are we going to change our contract language with these outside developers regarding student housing?
Great question, and one we have thought about extensively. Every time we try to roll in a right of first refusal into our block leases, they are swatted away by the other side's legal because they claim that their financing team or the bank will not allow the right of first refusal. So we've tried, and we have been declined on that sense, but that is the hope we do try. We try to wiggle it in there every time we can because it is, especially when we're at 100% occupancy of the property for eight years, paying a block lease, if we're going to purchase it, we would like to have the right to have that purchase prior to it going on the market like it did here in this instance. We have been paying, I can tell you today, the block lease payment for this year. if we were to continue our block lease instead of purchasing would be a little over $4 million for the block lease this year alone. And we have two additional years that we were under contract for with two additional options to renew.
Follow-up, Senator? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you for that. I think it's important for us to pay attention to what this really means because my hope is that developers I know are, for the most part, are honest. But if they get an abatement from the city and from wherever for building that property over a period of time and then they decide to sell it, it should not be that they just get an, oh, well, we can sell it to anybody. When it's being used, it was commissioned to be used for student housing. So that's one we have to look at. So thanks very much for that. Thank you.
anything else Senator? Representative Stewart. Thank you Mr. President. So one of the buildings is subject to a block lease the other it says is a four-unit apartment building on the corner of the block leased property. Can you help me understand I assume four-unit building are we knocking that down and making that a parking lot like what are we buying this to do? Very good
question as well. We have not identified really what the use of that property would be. We did not have that under the block lease but because it was part of the parcel they sold it together and they weren't gonna slice out that parcel for their use they wanted it all as to one so it was one purchase once if you all decide that you would approve this purchase we would take this to our planning design construction team and say you know what kind of use can we have for this is this something we could use for something is it a use for us do we knock it down and make it into more parking? Do we renovate it and put it into some other kind of function? So we haven't really dug into that too deep because we didn't have authority to purchase.
Follow-up? Yes. So the four-unit building is not on its own parcel.
It's just a separate building on the same parcel.
It's sort of an afterthought.
Okay.
Correct. Understood. Thank you.
Any other questions regarding this item? Hearing none, are there any objections to this item? Seeing none, the item is approved.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Next is item 17, Department of Higher Education.
Good afternoon, Alex Penrod, Director of External Affairs for ODHE.
Thank you.
Senator Ingram. Thank you, Mr. President. Help me with what this gets us to and what we used in the last GA and why we're moving this forward. And who's taking advantage of it? Okay.
Through the president to the senator. So this, as you know, was created in the last operating budget. So the idea behind it is that institutions with declining enrollment and limited ability to pay to demolish their own buildings would be able to get a low-interest loan from the Department of Higher Education to demolish buildings that are no longer in use or have so much deferred maintenance that upkeeping them costs significant resources on the institution. So the idea is that they'll tear these buildings down, and then because this is a loan and not a grant, they will repay us over time for that money, but they will save significantly in the maintenance of the building as it exists today. Did I answer your question?
So thank you, Mr. President. So did we, did Ohio University's poop building, No, the one that had bird poop all over it. Was this included in one of those grants, or did we do that separately? Because they didn't do a demolition of one. My brain is thinking about one that needed to be demolished because the maintenance was considerably more than it would have been to demolish the building. But have we considered all of these buildings? Have we actually done an assessment as to who actually has those kind of buildings that are sitting there and need to be torn down instead of revitalizing it or whatever?
Yeah. So through the president to the senator, I'll answer your question in two ways. So we did do a survey of institutions prior to rolling out this program to say which buildings do you think would be eligible for it and would you be interested in submitting for it. Because this was the first round and it happened in fairly quick succession after the budget, I think a lot of institutions weren't quite ready to submit their buildings. We require that they do some background prep and make sure that they've received estimates and done the surveys and that sort of thing before they can apply so that they really understand what the all-in costs are prior to application. So the projects that were funded this time were the only ones that we received other than one institution that applied and then later withdrew their application. So I'm not sure which building you're referencing, but it's possible that they would apply in a future round.
Okay. Follow up? No, that's good.
Thank you.
Representative Sweeney.
Thank you. Could you just tell us what the return on investment is for the universities, And is that part of information that the department tracks in terms of, is it that they're demolishing these buildings and then able to sell them? Or is it just taking them down so they don't have to pay for property taxes and the electric bill? And, like, how do you quantify the return on investment of the program?
Yep. Through the president to the representative. I'll take a first attempt at this answer, and if you want more detailed instruction, I have two of my colleagues from our fiscal team here. So the answer could be either. These buildings could be significantly draining the institutions because the upkeep is just so high. It's possible that they would sell them in the future. I think that that's more likely if they're kind of on the fringe of campus. Obviously, a building in the center of campus, that's probably less likely. so it depends on the institution and the building and what its purpose is and what the cost savings is, but that is certainly something that we ask them at the time of application to make sure that they've thought through it and then they share that with us and were able to evaluate that with the help of the Ohio Facilities Commission.
Follow-up, Representative? Yes, please. So I guess when you are evaluating to pick a project, I guess I love the idea of it. I mean, we do have a lessening population. I don't think we should be eliminating universities, but making sure that we're right-sizing. And if we do that that could actually have a real impact on tuition and not just asking for more money but actually lowering their overall cost How does the department ensure I know that there a mandate that while we spending money on the demolishing of a building, we're not adding new. And so is that just for that spot? Or is it for campus-wide that if we're paying money to do it, so that we're not just demolishing a building here and we're buying a brand new building, the greatest thing ever over here, like how do we, is this truly right-sizing institutions and do we measure that?
Yes, I'm going to pass to my colleague, Kelly Weir. Hi. Good afternoon to the president, representative. Yeah, we do ask questions about ultimately what else they're doing on the campus because the program is a reduction, square footage reduction program, so we want to make sure that the net is a reduction and that there is savings being, is a result of that, so that we do ask those questions of what is going on on the campus as a whole to make sure that overall there's a net reduction.
Follow-up, Representative? No, that's helpful. It seems like it is very targeted to the point of we're actually taking away square footage, not just demolishing a building and building something over here. Just last question, which is I think hopefully simple. I think the overall program was funded at like 82 million. This is 55 and there's another. Have we spent the bulk of the allocation, and I know it's a revolving fund, when will funds be available for other institutions? Is that within 10 years or next budget? Will there still be funds that people can apply to? When does that get
replenished? Through the President? Yeah, so they get a choice of a 5, 10, or 15 year repayment. So the interest rate, they get a very discounted interest rate, but it's the shorter the term, the bigger the discount on their interest rate. So we're trying to incentivize shorter so we get it back quicker, but we know that some don't have the fiscal capacity and may need 15 years. So it would depend on what they requested as far as their loan term.
Follow up. And if you don't have it today, I'd just be curious. Just looking at next budget, do we anticipate there being any open available funds, or will it just be something that we'd have? And when would funds realistically, given all of the contracts, be available for other universities, or is that something that the General Assembly would have to increase to allow more universities to take advantage of?
Through the president. And we really don't know yet because the first round of awards, they're still in the process of selecting their contractor to demolish, so we don't know the exact amount yet. And then we also don't know who's going to apply in this round, so we very well may have funds for another round right away, or we may have to wait until we can replenish it, or if there's a huge demand for it, maybe the general assembly could add more. So we don't know yet.
Senator Kaler. Thank you, Mr. President. Maybe I'm confused. This $55 million is the money that's left over right now, and you're rolling it over. So this is going to be available for the next round. Okay, thank you.
Any other questions? Hearing none, are there any objections to this item? Seeing none, the item is approved.
Thank you.
Next is item 26, Department of Development.
Hi, Riley Eberhardt, Legislative Affairs Manager, Department of Development.
Thank you.
Senator Ingram? Thank you, Mr. President. I just am looking to realize the $3 million, and it's an increase in the appropriation, right? So where are we now? And these are the properties, especially the residential properties, are ones that go back to our land banks or to our port authorities or whomever. And what does that look like, and how does that, how are we spending those dollars that it's beneficial back to those communities where these sites are located?
Through the President to the Senator, I just want to make sure that I'm understanding you correctly. Are you looking for information on, like, inventory of sites in the states still ready for demolition, just trying to understand a little bit more?
Thank you. Thank you. The whole point is that we're spending $3 million to ready sites for whatever. And that demolition then goes to someone building a new home, Port Authority, or whomever. My question is, who gets to build that, and how is that benefiting, or are we making sure that that's benefiting those communities where that demolition has taken place?
place and because once you finish and you said we gave the money to say the Port Authority of Cincinnati, you don't wipe your hands clean and then just disappear because then how do you know how those dollars are being spent within those areas all over the state? Right. Through the President to the Senator, I am going to defer to my program team to talk a little bit about what their engagement looks on that back end of our grant agreements. Good afternoon. Patrick Smith, the Chief of Community Development Division at the Ohio Department of Development Center. I appreciate the question. To the Chair, to the Senator. Really excited about this program and the opportunity. It's a great partnership with land banks essentially all throughout the state of Ohio, the demolition program. They put together applications and apply and identify the properties that they intend to utilize the funds for, for demolition purposes, really putting them back into use in their communities through the application process. We actually open that application tomorrow. So land banks, please pay attention and hopefully be working with your local partners throughout the state and prepare those applications. Land banks for counties over 100,000 automatically or if it's under 100,000, community county commissioners identify who that partner is. So it can vary. So there's a list of eligible applicants for the demolition program on our website where counties have identified those lead applicants.
Thank you, Mr. President. And part of that application process is that they have spoken to or intend to speak to where that demolition has taken place to those communities in which the sites are located.
Through the President and to the Senator, absolutely, yes. These are local community-driven application processes, right? The land banks work within their communities and different communities within that county to identify what those properties should look like and have to have the appropriate access to be able to move forward with those activities.
It's a reimbursement-based program, then. Okay, good.
Mr. President, we are actually not check a box, but we're looking for that information when they make that application that there has been that engagement or will be that engagement and how that will take place. Through the resident to the center, absolutely. It's thorough evaluation of those applications, and frankly, land banks are made up of local members of their communities from very selected offices that provide that.
Appreciate that.
Anything further, Senator?
No, I'm good. They can stay there for the next one.
Are there any other questions regarding this item? Seeing none, are there any objections to this item? Seeing none, the item is approved.
Thank you.
Stay up for item number 27.
Senator Ingram. Thank you, Mr. President. And, of course, since the last $3 million was not for brownfields, now we are two brownfields, and this is $33 million. So help me with we are clearing properties, we are allowing for the space for the utilities to come in, we're making things site ready?
Through the President and the Senator. I say shovel ready. We hear all those different phrases. Yes, essentially, we're working with these applicants on these sites to remediate whatever contamination that may exist on them and frankly put them back into good use within the communities. This program has worked all throughout the state and I'd be willing to almost guarantee every one of your counties and a partner community within that to get a site cleaned up that had sat a lot of time for a long period of time, that were able to work with this program and the partners at the local level to get that site cleaned up, potentially put some of that investment to make it then prepared for future economic development opportunities and do some of that site preparation work, yes.
Senator? Thank you, Mr. President. And so, therefore, if we have the utilities come in and they're doing their work, is the state in any way reimbursing them, or how are they collaborating with the site preparedness?
Yes, ma'am. To the president and to the senator, this program entirely works through the grant applicants, so they would put together that package and coordinate those activities with the entities that they're working with. and certainly sometimes that can include some infrastructure work that they'll work with on that site. We don't work directly with any of those entities. We work through the grantee, again, land banks, counties, cities, and now for-profit entities are also able to apply under this round of applications.
Follow-up, Senator? Thank you, Mr. President. And since there is a private-public kind of partnership available through this also, So are we requiring those entities that are helping remedy this brownfield, are we asking them for anything at all, or we're just granting the monies to prepare it?
I don't know. I'm missing something.
Because my concern is that we go in and there was a factory that was there and it used to be an old filling station.
and that takes a whole lot more because they may have had underground tanks and et cetera, et cetera, and you're going to get it site ready for somebody. And then we put up the signs that says this site, 4.8 acres, is ready for whatever. It's got the utilities and everything else there. What is the benefit back to the state that we've helped prepare that other than bringing some other entity in, which doesn't necessarily have to be local, unless the grant only goes to a local person or a local entity that then guides that site selection or for somebody else to come in. Through the President and to the Senator,
I appreciate the question. The program, as you know, has been around for coming up on six years, I think, with awards. provides funding to grant applicants, again, largely local communities and others that apply for these, and working with their local communities, right, for letters of support from local mayors, local county commissioners, things like that. Ideally, to clean up a site and put it back into the portfolio of sites that can then either recruit entities to come and utilize them for future opportunity or have maybe some things they're working towards. Housing is one that happens on occasion in some of these sites. Certainly new companies coming into a site that had sat for quite a while. We've seen certainly a bit of that. I would highly encourage each of you, if you have the opportunity to talk with either your land bank or other partners, I've had the chance to get out into many different corners of the state and kind of take a tour of some of these sites that we've awarded over the years and both see where they came from and where they currently are. And there really is a great story almost all across the state and every community of the types of impacts this program has been having.
Follow-up, Senator?
Just one last point. And this $33 million, $33 point, what is it?
Well, $34 million is an increase in the appropriation. It is. It's partially using unused appropriation authority from fiscal year 26. The program year for fiscal year 26, I'd set aside specifically $1 million for each county for awards. So even at that starting point, there were some, obviously, only being 88 counties, some that wasn't utilized. So we're asking to move that forward. and then additional cash on hand that the program had from previous interest that had been put into the account from the awards.
Are there any other questions regarding this item? Seeing none, are there any objections to this item? Seeing none, the item is approved. Thank you. Next is number 30 Department of Natural Resources Good afternoon Ryan Frazee Chief Financial Officer Thank you Senator Kaler Thank you, Brian. Good to see you here.
Thank you, Mr. President. Before I start, I'll ask you a question on item number 30. I want to say I was camping in Mohican State Park this weekend. It was one of the nine locations where we had a drone show, remembering 9-11. It was excellent. My grandkids loved it. Great to be here. On this item, you're taking $1.5 million to do IT network infrastructure improvements. Is there a reason that I don't see some sort of a bid on this or a competitive bid, or how is this money being spent? Who's deciding where it's going?
Great question. Mr. President, Senator Kaler, so we are using the Department of Administrative Services master contracts for all this equipment purchase, so this really didn't go out to bid other than when DAS bid it for the state to use. So there are four contracts that we mentioned in the request, the biggest one being the Cisco contract that we're using for that. The list of locations, as an example, Senator Buck Creek State Park has equipment that has, you know, end of software maintenance was 2014, end of support was 2018. So we can get you a whole list of that list of equipment, but it is hundreds of pieces of equipment.
Follow up? No.
Are there any other questions regarding this item? Seeing none, are there any objections to this item? Seeing none, the item is approved. Thank you. Next item is number 43, Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections.
Joe Gruber, Chief Legislative Officer, Department of Rehabilitation and
Corrections. Thank you, Senator Kaler. Thank you, Mr. President. My question on this is we're talking about the 4.6 million dollars and then you're taking another seven and a half million dollars that was going to be used for something else and rolling it in, I guess I want to know what that seven million dollars was supposed to be used for and and how we're just rolling it in. How does that work? Sure. Through the president
to Senator Kaler. After consultation with DRC's construction partners, the scope of that original project, the education and electrical project, was updated. The previously proposed repairs was for a utilities tunnel at the Ohio Reformatory for Women and it will be shifted to the geriatric building project because upcoming capital projects at ORW, including, there's includes a demolition of a school annex building and the commissary building are expected to take the tunnel fully off of line. So we do not see the need any longer to repair that utilities tunnel.
Follow up? Yes, I guess my question, Mr. President, and as a sub, I'm not sure how this works. I guess I am confused on how we can just say, hey, we approved the money, seven and a half million for this, and so since we're not going to do that anymore, we're going to shift it over to this project and how this board doesn't have some sort of say in how that happens.
Are you asking me to answer that?
I guess I'm asking. We approve a lot of money here for different things, and all of a sudden we approve money for one thing. When I served on the straight-A fund back in 2016, somebody would come up with an idea of moving an airline plane, a 767 plane, to some school's backyard, and they found out it didn't work, so they wanted to use it for something else. I guess this board, I'm assuming, approved $7.5 million for a project, and now that project's not going to happen, so we're just going to shift it over to something else. I guess where is the approval process for that?
This is the approval process.
Okay. Then I'm going to object because I think that this board should have a say in how money is shifting. I'm not saying this isn't important. I'm not saying what you're spending on it is important, but I don't seem to have any approval of this other than it's somebody has decided that $7.5 million is going to go to something else.
Are there any other questions regarding this item? Seeing none, are there any objections to this item? With an objection from Senator Kaler, the item is approved. Thank you. Next is item 45, Department of Job and Family Services. Good afternoon.
Rachel Johanson, ODGFS.
Thank you.
Representative Stewart. Thank you, Mr. President. Just a few questions just so we kind of have our arms around what we're dealing with. How many, do you know roughly how many families are affected by this?
Mr. President, to the representative, it would be these new dollars would be open to anyone in the counties that is below that threshold I'm not exactly sure how many folks that could be we do have the existing program in place for TANF which is the under 200 percent as you know and those counties don't report to JFS until the end of September we have asked for some data in advance and it seems like in the 20 to 40,000 out of their $200,000 allocation that's been spent thus far. So those are kind of not number of households, but that's a little bit of the general facts we have right now.
Okay, follow-up? Yeah. I mean, the reason I ask is just how many – we have a $500,000 number, but I don't think we have any sense of, like, how far that goes. You know, if $750 a family is, like, 666 families, I don't know if that's more than we're dealing with or less or is this only a portion and then we're going to need to do some more? And do we know yet how much the feds are going to provide for this?
Mr. President, Representative Stewart, yes, if in the event everyone took a full 1,500, which is the folks with kids could be up to 1,500, then yes, that would be only 333 households to your point. It is reimbursement based, so each individual household isn't just given that amount up front or anything like that. so it will likely be a lot more than that. In terms of the amount the feds might provide, I cannot speak to that. I don't know whether EMA has any information to that effect.
Hi, good afternoon. I'm Sima Merrick. I'm the director for emergency management.
I'm sorry, can you repeat?
Yeah, thank you.
And just to be clear, I mean, I want to do this. I guess we just, I'm just trying to make sure, it seems like $750 is a small amount if we're in such dire straits that we're asking for federal declarations, et cetera. I guess I'm just asking whether, do we need a $750 cap if, say, we're only working with 200 families, 100 families? I don't know, but, you know, do you have a sense of how many families are at issue and how much the feds are potentially going to give us?
So I don't know how much the feds will give us if we're approved. What will happen is the disaster survivor applies through the FEMA portals, and then if FEMA accepts them as a disaster victim, which most do, because they report their damages and how they meet that, Everyone who is reported and accepted as a disaster survivor through FEMA receives $790 per applicant. That is forward money for immediate needs. So for like diapers or clothing or those immediate needs for replacement. I'll leave the program specs through ODJFS. we don't know how many people will apply because we didn't get to touch everyone on the damage assessment. So in who we touched for individuals to do damage assessment was just over 2,000 people. But that doesn't mean every person will come in and apply for that or have receipts to come back. Those were the ones that we estimated the level of damage on.
Follow-up? If you get through, let's say this is approved, you get through a month, and we have funds left over, right? I guess I'm just getting at it. If somebody comes in and, like, I'm a family of five, and I've lost almost everything here, are we capped at $1,500? Or do we have room in this program to say, well, you're going to get $5,000 because you lost everything?
Yes, sir. The way that we have structured this representative is to go to $1,500 with the state funds. If counties have additional funds available, they can provide those to the individual households. But that's just how we have structured it under TANF, and we wanted to do the same thing with these dollars. Follow-up?
Are there any further questions?
Senator Schaefer. Thank you, Mr. President. and Director Merrick and to our friends at JFS and DPS and the Governor's office and Governor DeWine himself, certainly I really thank you for coming forward with this proposal. As you have, Director Merrick, I've been on the ground in some of these disaster areas,
and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there were several dozen families that we heard of directly, I saw directly, I spoke to, and I know the Governor referenced in a press conference who have had a total loss. Mr. President, Senator Schaefer, that's right. There were very much far-ranging levels of damage, right, depending on where you live, depending on where the rainfall fell, or if you were in that drainage path as it continued to drain, if you were downstream. So there were majors, there were destroyeds, and there were hundreds of people who had minor affected damage. All of the center.
Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Director, for that. Yeah, I just wanted to emphasize and make sure that you concur, or if not, explain as you wish. We have dozens and dozens, between the three counties affected that we're talking about, dozens of families that are in dire straits still today. They had a Red Cross facilities, which they now have left, been forced to leave because the Red Cross had its limitations, or some kind of like on the building they were in, I know, in one case. I mean, the families are not back in the houses, and a lot of these houses are not habitable. So they are in crisis right now today. Isn't that true?
Well, I have not talked with them individually, Senator Schaefer. I do know that our voluntary organizations, Active in Disaster, are providing a tremendous amount of information for cleanup kits, additional housing, the American Red Cross. Anyone who suffers a natural disaster or is a victim of that has many times long-lasting effects as they're trying to replace their items. They're trying to replace household items, children's clothes, right, medical, durable medical equipment. So I would say with the way the weather has been in Ohio, a lot of people have had low to moderate effects of damage. As we wait for people to need and have these needs, that they're going to disaster services in the counties and set up through voluntary organizations, I would say that some of their needs are being met, but surely not all of them. Thank you very much.
And again, thank you all, and thanks to the Red Cross. Mr. President, the Red Cross has been wonderful in coming to help these families. I really appreciate it. And I know the people of southeast Ohio and even Franklin County, which is in here, we had a lot of families displaced from Franklin County. True?
That's right.
I want to thank you all for the support and all the hard work. You've jumped through a lot of hoops and done a lot of things for this population. So thank you so much.
Are there any further questions regarding this item? Seeing none, are there any objections to this item? Seeing none, the item is approved. Thank you. Okay, with no further business before the board, is there a motion to adjourn?
Motion from Representative Stewart,
second from Senator Kaler.
We are adjourned.