August 17, 2026 · Ohio Controlling Board · 11,839 words · 12 speakers · 272 segments
The Ohio Controlling Board. Thank you to our substitute member. Seeing that all members are present, the secretary will call the roll. Senator Chavez.
Here.
Senator Wilkin.
Here.
Senator Ingram.
Here.
Representative Stewart.
Here.
Representative Davila.
Present.
Representative Sweeney.
Here.
President DeSantis.
Yes.
The minutes of the previous meeting have been distributed. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? Motion from Senator Wilkins, second from Senator Ingram. Let's see, any objections? Seeing no objections, the minutes are approved. Okay, we do have several changes to the agenda today. Item number 14 from the University of Cincinnati has been deferred at the request of the agency. Item number 43 from the Department of Natural Resources has been amended to only include fiscal year 2027. Item number 47 from the Department of Natural Resources has been deferred at the request of the agency. Okay, moving on. Let's poll the members for holds. Oh, we do need to do a late ad. Thanks. Good catch. I missed the late ad and she caught it. We do have a late agenda item from the Secretary of State. Okay, as a reminder to you, the board members, the Secretary will first request for the item to be added to the agenda, we will hold a vote on the addition to the agenda. If the item is added to the agenda, there will be an opportunity to hold the request for questions as with any other item. Are there any questions regarding the process? Seeing none. Secretary of State.
Good afternoon. Thank you for your time. My name is Leslie Pyatt. I'm the CFO for the Office of the Ohio Secretary of State. The reason this is a late addition is because the ballot board approved what is now called Issue 3 the week before last, which was after the August 17th, this meeting's date, submission date. The team did go back, look at the deadline, see if we could wait for the September 14th deadline, and it was determined that we need to be in contract and start the printing process in order to meet the constitutionally required deadlines. Thank you.
Are there any objections to the items? this item being added to the agenda. Seeing none, the item will be added. Thank you. Now let's move on to polling the members for holds. Senator Chavez.
Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to hold items 2, 4, 36, and 42. Thank you.
Senator Wilkin.
Thank you. I'd like to hold, as a group, items 29 through 34. Item 58 and item 64.
Thank you.
Senator Ingram? Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to hold item 4, 28, and 69.
I'm sorry, what was the last one? Thank you, 69.
Yes. Yes, thank you.
Representative Stewart?
Thank you, Mr. President. Item 65 and 66. Thank you.
Representative DeVilla.
Thank you, Mr. President. Item five, please.
And Representative Sweeney.
I would also like to hold four. Okay.
Is there a moat are you going to read the held please Item number two the Attorney General Item number four the Secretary of State Item number five, Central State University. Items numbers 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 38. 36, the Department of Development. Item number 42, the Department of Natural Resources. Item number 58, the Department of Youth Services. Item number 64, the Ohio Industrial Commission. Items numbers 65 and 66, Ohio Deaf and Blind Education Services. And item 69, the Secretary of State. Thank you. Is there a motion to approve all items not held by the Board? Moved by Senator Ingram, seconded by Senator Wilcom. Are there any objections? Seeing none, those items that were not held are approved. Representatives for agencies of approved requests are free to leave at this time. Okay, the first held item is item number two, the Attorney General's Office.
Good afternoon. Aileen Heiser, CFO for the Attorney General's Office. Thank you.
Senator Javis.
Thank you, Mr. President. So my concern with this one is it's a waiver of competitive selection for $2.6 million to an out-of-state company. So how does that happen?
To the Senator through the President, this was originally a bid project back in 2019. It's a multi-year contract to implement a new debt collection system for the state of Ohio. So this project actually started back in 2019, and it was competitively selected at that point. Now that we're into 2026, that's why you see it as a waiver of competitive selection, because we're amending the contract to add this final phase to the implementation.
Follow up, follow up. Okay, so this is an additional to the original that you requested, and that's a pretty big addendum.
To the Senator, through the President, this was always planned to be a phased project rather than one big initial implementation. We sold certificates of participation back in 2021 and then again in 2024 for $25 million each. We are now at the end of that spending of the certificates of participation, and this is the final piece of the original implementation. This was always planned to be a multi-year, multi-phased implementation.
Okay, so since we're in this deep, are we continuing to spend money on this because we have to, or is it working? What confidence can you give me that we're going to continue to spend money on a system that's working and not just getting through?
To the Senator, through the President, this system is working. We are in the final phases of transferring the last debt portfolios into the new system which is called Debt Manager And the existing legacy system for the state which is called CUBS is end of life December 31st So this is the final push to get the remaining debt accounts moved over to the new system. And with these last final implementations, the user acceptance testing has been positive so far. So we have just a few more phases to implement between now and December, and this is what the request represents.
Follow-up, Senator?
No.
Are there any questions from any other members? Seeing none, are there any objections to this item? Seeing none, the item is approved.
Thank you.
Thank you. Next item is item number four, Secretary of State.
Good afternoon.
Welcome back.
Thank you, members of the Controlling Board. My name is Leslie Pyatt. I'm the CFO for the Office of the Ohio Secretary of State, and I'm happy to answer your questions.
Senator Chavez.
Thank you, Mr. President. Similar line of questioning, waiver of competitive bid for $225,000. Can you explain that?
Yes. This is a waiver of competitive selection because this particular scope of work – excuse me, Senator through the President. This is a waiver because this particular scope of work was not part of an Ohio Buys competitively bid process. However, in November of 2025, we did come to the controlling board requesting for approval to spend with the same vendor, Hans Incorporated, after a competitive selection process. They were by far the cheapest and by far the highest scoring bid from the competitive process. It was determined that it was not in our best interest just because we knew that the vendor performed very well. They did our initial contract on scope within budget and that they had a deep understanding of our already existing systems and processes. and that's why this is a waiver of competitive selection.
Follow-up, Senator?
Yes, thank you, Mr. President. So I didn't understand. You said it was competitive, but then it was a waiver. Explain that to me again.
Yes, Senator Chavez. In November of 2025, there was an initial scope of a first contract. We'll call that Phase 1. So that was part of a competitive selection through Ohio Buys. That work is done. It's complete. We are requesting permission to do what we're calling a Phase 2. with the same vendor with additional scopes. That was not in the initial contract. I'm sorry if that was confusing at first. So this is a completely new scope of work. It's enhancements to the website. That was not originally part of the November request.
Follow-up?
Thank you, Mr. President. So I want to confirm that it is enhancements and not them following through on the initial phase. Is that correct?
Senator, that is absolutely correct. They've been a very responsive, good partner, and these are going to be enhancements that were not part of the initial scope. So this is going to be three new things that were not envisioned over a year ago. The phase one work was over a year ago that we started working on the RFP process, what we actually wanted for this new website. So these three things that we're asking for today were not envisioned at the initial time.
Thank you.
Senator Ingram.
Thank you, Mr. President. So help me with this is the final phase, this new scope. what does this get us and why are we doing it now?
It's necessary to do it now. Does this help with transition because we're at the end of an administration? Senator Ingram, members of the controlling board. The shortest answer I can give you is that we, and there are several things that we want to get done before the election. So that is why now. So that's going to be what we're calling the kids page. It's a K-12 students and educators focused page to help them understand the electoral process in addition to business filing businesses But we really wanted to get that in place before the election Another thing that important is actually administration related It called wrappers and this is going to be out of my comfort zone because it IT related But wrappers is spelled W-R-A-P-P-E-R-S. And it is a very technical thing that will allow a much easier replacement of future logos branding. As of right now, if we did not do this project with the scope of work, it would be a very manual process on part of the IT staff, and this will significantly improve those efforts. And the third thing is the transition of the OEIC website that's currently hosted on the DAS Innovate Ohio platform into our own. Right now, in order for our team to make changes to the OEIC website, it would require work with DAS team, and it's not as user-friendly as we would like. So this is an effort to bring it all in-house to the Secretary of State's website team so that they can better manage that. All up, Senator.
Thank you, Mr. President. So whose site is it, DAS's or yours?
Senator Ingram, this will be changing the OEIC website that's currently hosted with DAS. It's coming over to the Secretary of State's website.
Anything further, Senator?
No, that's good.
Thank you. Representative Sweeney.
Thank you, President. Carrying on with those questions, it seems like at least the enhancements that you just talked about could have been involved in that first phase. Could you explain why we didn't do this all in one phase, and would that have been cheaper? My knowledge base says that usually when you have more products, you can get a better price for that. So why was the decision to phase it out? And if there are two separate entities or two just separate projects, then why are we not going to bid?
Representative Sweeney, members of the Controlling Board, the best answer I can give you is, to my knowledge, these items were not envisioned at the time of what we're now calling it Website One. But that was not, at that time, it was not considered to be a phased project. It was supposed to be that was going to be the scope of work, and that was it. OEIC transition, I think what I would say to that is it was still a very new concept for us. So by the time we actually posted this RFP, it was in early August, and the OEIC did not come to our office until January 1 of 2026. So I think that's the answer why we didn't even envision thinking about moving the OEIC website over to the Secretary of State's website at that time. The wrappers, I don't know the exact background on that, but I think that that was definitely not envisioned during the initial scope as well. So that is why all of those happened in a different phase. It's because they were just not known at the initial contract.
Just a comment. From the knowledge I just learned, I would say that these are two different projects, especially one talking about the OEC, a brand-new entity that for the first time will be under the Secretary's office, that your office knew was going to come at least July 1 when that was signed into law, that to me that is not an excuse to continue to go with the same vendor. I guess my question would be, could you tell us that you are confident that there is not another qualified vendor that could do it at a lower price? I mean, I just don't understand why we're not going for it unless you guys are confident when we're using taxpayer dollars, that we have a qualified vendor at the lowest price, when this is clear to me that this is just genuine. It's not phase two. It's just an additional project on top of the website.
Representative Sweeney, members of the controlling board, yes, you're right. This is two different projects, but they are all website related. To the extent that we would have been able to transfer a new commission that was not yet part of the Secretary of State's office, I don't know if we would have been able to do that. So I don't know for sure that we can even say that we could have. We can have our legal teams look into whether that could have been an option. But I think even then our idea was we don't know what this website looks like. We don't know what the website maintenance will look like, but we're going to just get in there and take a look once it is part of the Secretary of State's office. To your other question, Representative, yes, I can say with confidence that we are getting the best deal. I was part of the process when we first selected this vendor, only as an advisory part, and I know that we had 20 responsive vendors for that initial project. This vendor, it's an Ohio company based in northwest Ohio. they were not only by far the cheapest, but by far the best qualitative scoring during that process, and those are the reasons why I am confident that we're getting the best price that would be possible.
Follow-up, Representative? Representative Stewart.
Thank you, Mr. President. In my other job, with the business attorney hat on, I think I'm on the Secretary of State's website here about every single day, sometimes multiple times a day. I've worked with Secretary of State's websites in all kinds of states around the country. I can pretty confidently say this is the best Secretary of State website I've ever dealt with, and probably, no offense to any other statewide officeholders, but probably the best website we have in terms of customer service of any statewide agency that we have. So my question is, my sense of it is we probably get a lot more traffic on this website than about any other thing that the state government has when you consider how many people are forming businesses, updating their business records and whatnot. Do you have any sense of how many folks are visiting the Secretary of State's website in a given year or any metric on that?
Representative Stewart, members of the Controlling Board, you're right. First, let me thank you for that compliment. That seems to echo some of the anecdotal items that we were getting directed towards our external affairs director. It was positive feedback. So thank you. I know that they'll be very pleased to hear that. I think that there was some statistics maybe. It would have been old as far as the last election. But, yeah, so for an election night in 2024, we had 852,000 visitors, but that was before this new website. And that, of course, is not even counting all of the business filers that are attending. The website saw 13 million users, 35 million sessions. So that, again, to your point, it's going to be, I think that we're going to see many more hits on that website, and it's been more user-friendly. but I'll see if I can get you some more recent specific updates with this new website.
Follow-up representative? 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.
Thank you for your time. Next item is item number five, Central State University.
Good afternoon. Ken Hinault, Deputy CFO with the Department of Administrative Services, and for about the last nine months have been helping Central State University in their fiscal endeavors. Happy to answer any questions.
Thank you. Representative Villa?
Thank you, Mr. President. Thanks for being here today. You're actually going right in the direction that I was intending to ask. So this is a release of capital funds for for IT infrastructure I curious first of all however what the sort of update on the fiscal condition of the university at this point
Yeah, through the president, to the representative, and the board as a whole, I think off to a really good start here in fiscal year 27. I spoke a while back about some of the fiscal controls that DAS put in when we arrived on campus last December. We have continued those fiscal controls through the end of this fiscal year. That is fiscal year 27. As quick refresh, you know, not purchasing goods or services except for safety, security, student well-being, kind of essential must-haves to keep the lights on. I believe I've spoken before about the budget that we recommended for fiscal year 27 for the university. It was a 13% reduction from their fiscal year 26 budget. The Board of Trustees approved that budget, and so that's what we're working with this fiscal year. We've continued some of our work in the facility space and in just kind of other areas in their fiscal space.
Follow-up, Representative?
Yes, thank you. And then with respect to this project, can you tell us a little bit more about the IT infrastructure that will be updated with this and what's the way ahead look like?
Yep. Through the President to the Representative, I'll do my best. I'm not an IT expert. So there's kind of two components of the project. The first is replacing what's called a core switch, which is essentially where all the network traffic kind of comes through. The way that it was explained to me is it kind of acts as a traffic officer, kind of directing traffic. So that core switch is a component here. And then the other component is replacing all of the end-of-life access points across campus, which are primarily what kind of push the network to that area of campus. So both of the access points and the core switch are end of life, and so this replacement of that infrastructure will kind of expand and ensure that they've got the right coverage, the right wireless coverage across campus, and ensure they're stable for many years to come. it does include five years of a networking kind of command center that the university will have access to for security updates, audit logs, you know, those sort of things.
Follow-up?
Yes, just one more. And then what's the horizon for completion on these items?
Through the president to the representative, the vendor is probably six to eight weeks once we deliver a purchase order. Some of that will be lead time, just ordering the equipment, but then there's a portion of install time. And that may, you know, we'll have to navigate a bit to not disrupt students, but the goal will be probably six to eight weeks.
Great. Thank you.
Absolutely.
Are there questions from any other members?
Senator Wilkin. Thank you, Mr. President. Kind of to follow along with my colleagues questioning, I know there's some money that was forwarded to, and I think we've talked about it before, any idea how we are on paying that back?
Which money are you thinking of?
All of it. The emergency?
Yeah. Okay, okay, thank you. So through the President to the Senator, yes, you're correct. The emergency funding authorized, I think, back in April, came with a provision that the university would repay it. One of the conditions there was that the repayment, I believe, would start in fiscal year 28 once the university has reached 60 days operating cash And so really what we doing this year not necessarily just for that reason but because a cash reserve is a good thing is we trying to build that cash reserve So I think the short answer is nothing has been repaid yet, but we're well aware of that condition and are actively building to meet that.
Follow up.
Please. Any idea where we're at or where you're projected to be at, maybe by the end of this year?
Through the president to the senator, yeah. So we're projecting from just the operating budget. There was about a $4 million reserve built into that. We additionally just had a sale of some property that will generate some one-time cash, which will help bolster that. And then we're continuing to explore options with the National Institute of Food and Agriculture for a one-time waiver of the land-grant match, which would also generate some positive cash. So I would say right in between $5 million and $10 million as an ending balance.
Senator?
Thank you, Mr. President. Where does that put you in the reserves that you need? I mean, just ballpark.
I know it's a tough question. Yeah. No, through the President to the Senator, that would be right in that 60-day range.
Well, if I may, thank you for all your work on this. I do appreciate it. I know you kind of got put in. So I, for one, as a controlling board member, very appreciative of you coming up and giving us updates.
Thank you.
Thank you. Are there questions from any other members regarding this item? Seeing none, are there any objections to this item? Seeing none, the item is approved.
Thank you.
Thank you. Next is item number 28, Department of Development.
Riley Eberhardt, Legislative Affairs Manager, Department of Development.
And Peter Voderbergh, Chief of Broadband Ohio at the Department of Development.
Thank you. Senator Ingram?
Thank you, Mr. President. So help me with, I know this is a carryover from 26 of dollars that were already there to 27. Help me with why there are so many dollars. And they're unencumbered.
Yes.
So it makes a huge difference to me that we're carrying that over, and it doesn't mean that there aren't already dollars there for 27 and 28, which means that we didn't use them in 26. How do we plan to use all of those additional dollars in 27 and 28 even?
Sure. No, to the President and to the Senator, thank you for the question. So to answer your question, I'm going to go back a little bit to explain the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program, which are what these dollars are for. So the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program or the BEAD program is a part of what's called the Investment in Infrastructure and Jobs Act, the IIJA. It was a large-scale federal program that included a lot of money for everything from transportation to development and then the BEAD program which is for broadband deployment. That program basically started in 2021 and since that time the state of Ohio had to meet a whole bunch of different obligations to be able to get that money out the door. Those obligations included a five-year action plan and then what's called an initial proposal volumes one and two, and then ultimately a final proposal. The final proposal is us saying this is exactly who we want to pay from an internet service provider perspective to be able to get the dollars out of the door. At the end of 2025, we were ready to go with our initial proposal volume two, which is just a fancy way of saying we had our grant program ready. So we were ready to go with our grant program. In June 6th of last year, what's called a restructuring policy notice was released. So we were in the midst of trying to get those dollars out the door and believe we would be able to encumber them during the last fiscal year With the June 6th restructuring policy notice from the federal government it completely altered the way that our program was supposed to be executed And so we made all of the changes necessary to be in compliance with the new federal program. It delayed our timeline, which meant that instead of having all of our grants basically signed before the end of the last fiscal year, it has pushed all of our grants into this month and next month to being signed. So what happened was we did anticipate actually encumbering most of the money last fiscal year under the original version of the BED program, but with the changes to the BED program and our compliance with those changes, it pushed our timeline back, which is why this huge amount of money is being pulled over from one year to the next, because all of those dollars are ready to be encumbered by our internet service providers to bring internet to people who don't have it. It was just part of it was because we thought we were operating under one set of parameters. Those parameters changed, and we completed the new parameters, but we're now in the contract signing in this fiscal year instead of last, which is what we thought was going to happen originally.
Follow-up, Senator?
Thank you, Mr. President. So the question becomes, if indeed under the new parameters which held you up, unfortunately the administration decided they wanted to do something different from holding the monies you already have, and plus, you know, it's not like those are all federal dollars, there are also state dollars there for various programs in rural areas, et cetera, et cetera. Are we going to spend all those money now that we're finished with the haggling? because the provider haggling kept us as long as it did. So are we beyond that now so that we'll be able to give broadband to those places that still don't have broadband after we've been doing this, I think Carfania did it, eight years ago. I don't know.
Great question. To the President and to the Senator, thank you for the question. That's a great question. The entirety of the BED program, the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment program, was just shy of $800 million. dollars. Inside of that $800 million is two separate buckets. One is a deployment bucket, and one is a non-deployment bucket. Inside the deployment bucket, that's what we think of when we think of, you know, you see the person in the truck that's running the fiber down the road or putting it into your house. Those are all of the deployment expenses. Those are the expenses that it will take us to be able to actually give internet to those people who don't have it. That's the first stage. The contracts we're signing now are for those deployment dollars, and between that amount of money, those deployment dollars, as well as the administrative expenses that we need to be able to both do the deployment program as well as all of the compliance requirements from the federal government is just shy of $300 million, or actually just over $300 million. So we have quite a bit of money left over. Those now go into what's called a non-deployment bucket, and what we're waiting for from the federal government is how we're allowed to spend those dollars. So all of our non-deployment dollars, which aren't going to directly support Internet service to someone's home, are now in the federal government's hands. We are awaiting their guidance. We are supposed to get that guidance before the end of the summer, which is all the way up until September 21st. And so we are waiting patiently to see when that guidance will come out so that we can then have that program and spend those dollars as well.
Senator?
Thank you, Mr. President. And so, therefore, you're ready to hit the ground running. I guess that is a question, but I guess my concern is that there are certain areas that still are not being served, and they're waiting. So I think the sooner we could talk about all those monies and even push back to the federal government who's holding them up because they're making new rules, that we still need to get people's service as quickly as possible, especially now since we can't do anything without doing it online, except for those people who can't make a phone call or can't get satellite.
Yeah, and to the president, to the senator, we completely agree. We are very excited to get the funds out today. The door, I will say, you know, under this, under the very generous support with the legislature for the state residential broadband expansion grant program, as well as the ARPA dollars, which had the Coronavirus Capital Project Fund, we've actually gone from about 300,000 households that had no internet at all to just shy of 60,000 households that have no internet. Now, there's another group of people that have bad internet, and there's another 60,000 or so there. But we have done a great deal of work since the beginning of this administration, since the beginning using the legislation that Representative Carfani and others worked on with the administration, with Broadband Ohio.
We've done a very good job of already getting a lot of Internet out, and we are very excited that this money, the BEAD money that we're working on right now, will close that final gap. We do anticipate with everything in the program, our first contracts were actually signed last week, so we have grant agreements that have been signed that we are hoping to break ground if we can. By the end of this year, it depends on the weather. The weather has not been super cooperative recently, especially in central Ohio, but we are very much anticipating that the grants will be signed hopefully by the end of September and that we'll be able to let all of you know when those projects will begin in your districts where there are unserved and underserved people. Are there questions from any other members? Representative Stewart.
Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for this history and thanks for all your work. I'm glad we had a Carfania reference here. That's well-deserved. And to you, Sue, represent. He was gracious enough to add me to that bill my very first term. And so we did $200 million, I think, if I recall, where we ended up in tour of the Ohio Residential Broadband expansion program. My recollection was first round of that got about 100,000 homes served that had not been previously served. But then the last two budgets, it feels like we've kind of shifted towards, well, we have these big pots of federal money that are designated for residential broadband expansion. So we'll use the Fed's money to kind of continue the same mission. I'm hearing you say we had 300,000 that essentially had no Internet. We're down to 66,000. And am I hearing the second piece that this money that we're helping arrange the skids for so it can get out the door is designed to get those 66,000 folks served as well? Am I summarizing the testimony accurately?
Yes. to the president, to the representative, and yes, thank you as well for all of your hard work on the legislation that created the residential broadband expansion grant program. And the answer is yes. Our final proposal, which we turned in earlier on this year, was a universal service program, meaning that every unserved or underserved address in the state of Ohio would have at least one provider that would give them high-speed internet access, which is defined by the FCC as 100 megabits per second download, 20 megabits per second upload, less than 100 milliseconds. They can say that's just all jargon for saying internet works in your house, right? But there's a universal plan through our final proposal to do that. Now, as we go through the grant program, as you can imagine, with every grant, there's a few folks that we're working with that may not be able to take their grant. If there are any addresses at the end of our grant agreement process, which we're in right now, that someone either withdrew or was unable to take the grant for, we'll have another round of the BEAD program, and we will end with a universal coverage plan no matter what. So the federal government, the NTIA, and the BEAD program requires that our final proposal be a universal service plan or universal coverage plan. And Ohio is very proud that our original final proposal was exactly that. And we have every intention to making sure that there is not a single address in the state of Ohio left behind. Everyone will have high speed internet access.
Fantastic.
Thank you sir Are there questions from any other members regarding this item Seeing none are there any objections to this item Seeing none thank you The item is approved Don go away Next are items 29 through 34. All as a group, Senator? Yes. Yes. You're up.
Thank you again, Mr. President. So really kind of simple, pretty big chunk of money. I'm just wondering, for the purposes of the board's understanding, can you just kind of tell us what all this program does? Yeah, absolutely. Through the president to the senator, within these items, there are multiple different programs that operate throughout the state from the housing trust fund dollars. A lot of this is dedicated towards low-income individuals and housing needs associated with them. And so kind of if you walk through them, the Community Development Corporation set aside, those individuals help with a range of activities from rental assistance, housing counseling, homebuyer assistance, and a few other things. We have a shelter repair program, an emergency shelter repair program that is for absolute emergencies. If a homeless shelter in an area has an unexpected cost that is more than their operating costs, they can come and apply to us. to immediately take care of it. A lot of times we see that as storm damage, whatever it may be that directly affects the ability to have individuals in the shelter itself. The Homeless Crisis Response Program does similar activities, rental assistance, housing counseling, those things. So all in that kind of low-income assistance bucket.
Follow-up. Thank you very much for that explanation. And just to clarify, you were here because we as the legislature said, while you have this money, you still have to come to us, correct?
Through the President to the Senator, yes. The percentages are defined in ORC for most of the programs. Some are left to discretion, but all do have to come before the board for approval.
Thank you.
Follow-up?
Senator Chavez. Thank you, Mr. President. So my question is, how do we know it's working? I mean, we can all feel good that we're shoveling a bunch of money to these programs. That all sound great. How do we know it's working?
Through the President and the Senator, I'm going to refer to some of our program managers who can speak to kind of the specific on-the-ground information.
Good afternoon. Taylor Jessup, Deputy Chief for the Office of Housing Support. The importance of those programs is the fact that they are governed by CFR, And so we have, sorry, code of federal regulations. So we had proper reporting that we have to do on those programs up to the federal level. And so, namely, if those projected and actual outcomes that we provided weren't meeting to their standards, then that would be recognized and we wouldn't be able to put those programs out there for funding.
Follow-up, Senator?
Yes, thank you, Mr. President. The federal government is not the model of efficiency, so how do we know that we are efficiently spending Ohio's money? I mean, we can say that we help three families for $5 million. That's not efficient, right? So how do we make sure that we help as many folks as we can? How do we know that these programs are working?
Sure, from the president to the senator. we have a very tight niche group of analysts that are heavily reviewing the project evaluations for these programs and they are all held up to making sure that these projects are keeping in constant communication with issues or standards that are in place for these projects. And we have created a very tight environment within our office that allows those grantees to brainstorm with us if there are issues with their outcomes. And if there are issues with their outcomes, we do address those. quickly, and we make sure there's a larger body that's called a continuum of care. I really don't want to get into the weeds, so I apologize if I am. And that sets forth at the local level the needs of the families and the singles that are receiving the assistance need to meet, and so those are the expectations that we follow. I don't have any concerns as the deputy chief for the office of the programs that we are administering, and if we do, I address it head on.
Follow up? Yes, thank you. Maybe
clarify. You still have to come to the controlling board, as the senator pointed out. How do we know as a controlling board in the legislature that it's working? I believe that you believe that it's working, but I'm looking for something that we can see that's tangible, that we feel good that the programs are working. And you don't have to answer right now, but that's going to be my challenge pretty much any time I'm coming up.
Absolutely. Through the President and to the Senator, we'd be happy to work with you in the future to possibly do site visits on locations within your district that are seeing impact from these programs. We're happy to share any stories that we have of successful grantees, anything that is actually happening on the ground in your district or any member's district. So we'd be happy to follow up with that information to kind of continue that communication.
Thank you. It's a clarification. I'm a numbers guy, so numbers help. Thank you.
Are there questions from any other members regarding this item or these items? Seeing none, are there any objections to any of these items? Seeing none, the items are approved. Thank you. I wouldn't go too far. Next item is item number 36.
Senator Chavez. Thank you, Mr. President. So I have concerns with this. It's $530,000 to the Council of Great Lakes Governors in Chicago, Illinois, for a contract to provide business assistance activities in a whole list of countries. Similar to my other questions is I don't understand what the ROI is going to be from this. And I do have concerns that specifically you're aware, your office is aware, that there's things here in Ohio that we need to be focusing on, specifically the historical preservation tax credits, I've been told numerous times that there's not enough money to spread around for Ohio people to preserve Ohio resources with Ohio jobs. And I'm concerned that we're shoveling this money out to Chicago, Illinois, to an ambiguous group. I'm sure they claim to do great things, but I don't see the benefit of this. Can you help me understand?
Absolutely. Through the President and the Senator, The first thing that I want to point out within this program is that these dollars are directly supporting Ohio businesses and their export adventures. So it's not that we're looking at imports. It is specifically small businesses will approach us if they are interested in going to an international market that they haven't been in before. and these individuals, these different countries that are listed under there, they have physical offices in each of those countries that kind of understand the in conditions and regulatory affairs kind of space in those areas and can better assist those businesses than us from Ohio Our ROI calculation for this program is that for every dollar invested we see about $155 in increased export sales for the state. So it does have a pretty impactful return on investment. It's just that it is usually Ohio businesses kind of doing this smaller program with a few others combined with it, and that's what gets them into these international markets to sell their products.
Follow-up, Senator? Thank you, Mr. President. I would need to see the data on that. You know, how many small businesses are doing business with New Zealand or Miramar? You know, again, I go back. I'm going to be unabashed and unapologetic about being Ohio first. I think we need to spend Ohio dollars in Ohio. I don't know why the Department of Development doesn't have folks that can pick up the phone and call these countries, these consulate, these embassies, whatever. Why do we need, you know, we have Jobs Ohio. We have all these resources here in Ohio. Why do we need to pay a company out of Chicago, Illinois, to do this for us?
Through the President and the Senator, I'd be happy to follow up with the data on what countries, businesses are choosing to interact with. I will note that this dollar amount of $530,000 is also an up-to amount. they do bill us hourly rates for whichever projects they do work on. So we have direct knowledge of kind of what projects are in progress, and I believe right now we have over 20 businesses interested in going into international markets that I can give you specific data on currently.
Yes, final one. So you're telling me the Department of Development is not able to do this?
Through the President to the Senator, I believe in the past, the Department of Development did have offices located in each of the countries, which was kind of the direct way to have an Ohio representative in that market, to be able to kind of advise them in an honest perspective, of course, keeping Ohio first. As the program has kind of evolved, it has switched to this model of us having a contractor in place, mainly for the cost of it. If we were to have an individual overseas in these areas, it would have to take, you know, renting out a facility or having an individual contractor in each of the states or each of the countries that would be a target. And then, you know, any other cost associated with having a physical representative from that area, that wouldn't be a contract itself.
Just a comment. I think you can do the job without having a physical presence in these countries. So I would be happy to talk about this more offline.
Absolutely.
Are there questions from any other members?
Senator Wilkin. Thank you again, Mr. President. Just curious, do you have any idea, you know, it says the Council of Great Lakes Governors, who are the other governors and do you know what they contribute?
Through the President to the Senator, I do not have that information off the top of my head. I'd be happy to follow up with it. This was an RFP contract that we did in fiscal year 24, so we did competitively bid it. They were kind of the choice that had the most different areas under service and then also kind of had that lower cost associated with it because of how many different states use their services. So I'd be happy to follow up with a list of exactly who is involved with them. One more one.
and last question would be I assume this is correct but we're only billed for the work done on Ohio companies, correct?
Correct. Through the President to the Senator, yes.
Questions from any other members? Seeing none, are there any objections to this item?
Objection from Senator Chavez.
The item is approved. Next item is item number 42, Department of Natural Resources. Good afternoon.
Ryan Frazee, Chief Financial Officer. Thank you.
Senator Chavez. Thank you, Mr. President. While I'm on a roll, I guess. These projects kind of struck me close to home, and I'm curious why, and I understand this is a competitive bid, but the contractor that won is a global architectural firm out of Toledo area, I think, and I'm just curious why couldn't we have a local HVAC company put HVAC in a small building in Washington County or Zanesville?
Mr. President, Senator Chavez, a great question. We obviously followed all the purchasing bid guidelines. I'll see if Chief Engineer Jeremy Wenner has any other detail, but sometimes it does work that way. And if I may, Mr. President, just to clarify,
I guess my concern is how do local folks know that these RFPs are out there? My concern is if they're not tuned in to DAS or whatever, that they may miss opportunities? How do we reach out to the local folks for local projects?
Thank you. Jeremy Winter with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, chief engineer, to the senator, through the president. In this case, this first round of work is for design services related to the work, so we post the projects for competitive selection on the Ohio Register with the OFCC. It's free for anyone to reach. That's a requirement of the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission that we post in that location. Anyone can sign up, get emails there. And the Division of Engineering specifically, knowing just that we want to reach those small firms in local areas, we actually do frequent outreach events once a year at least at a minimum. And our goal is always to try to find those small firms, try to find those vendors that we know can do the work and do it with good experience and with local knowledge. And we've had some success in doing that. And this is a good example of one where we would love to have that type of response. In this case, through the selection process, SSOE did get the architectural services for the job. They were the most qualified firm for it, but certainly we're always looking for those opportunities and trying to do the outreach to get those opportunities to the folks that are best equipped. There's still opportunity on this project in the future, so this is just the design services portion of it, and HVAC is one of the jobs that will be done, but the project will be competitively bid at some point in the future, and the Division of Engineering does follow ORC 153 when it comes to competitive bidding. We'll post the opportunity for any firm, hopefully a local firm, to get that work and to do that work, and we try to do as much outreach as we can, both through our architectural services, but also with the local folks that are down there, maybe working in the facility, that type of thing. Just try to get the word out any way we can because we want those small Ohio firms and companies to get this work.
Follow-up. Thank you, Mr. President. And I appreciate that. And just because folks know the doors, or just because the doors open doesn mean folks know the doors open And the architectural firms design firms I know that they tend to go with the companies that they know right So let make sure that we have these opportunities I'm challenging you to make sure local folks have more opportunities or they're aware of these opportunities as these projects go forward.
To the Senator, through the President, absolutely. We will continue to do that. We do have our own team in-house that does try to call as many contractors as we possibly can. we'll do everything we can to go ahead and get that word out. And that's always a goal.
Thank you.
Questions from any other members regarding this item? Any objections to this item? Seeing none, the item is approved. Thank you. Next is item number 58, Department of Youth Services. Good afternoon.
I'm Steve Harenko, the agency procurement chief for Department of Youth Services. Thank you.
Senator Wilkin? Thank you again, Mr. President. Again, this is kind of a typical question of you got a waiver, you got an out-of-state, and if it's one where this is who we're using and this seems to make the most sense, my follow-up question to that would be when will it be out for bid again?
Through the Senator to the President. This was a solicitation that we did in October of 2024 through the Every Child Matters program. There were three awardees to this contract, and Justice Works was awarded it based on scoring criteria along with the others. This contract's original amount was for $48,000 and some change, $48,975, because of where invoices hit for the end of this fiscal year into next. That's why we're standing here in front of you asking for a waiver. but it was competitively bid. Justice Works also has offices in Cleveland and Cincinnati.
Follow-up? Thank you, Mr. President. So I want to make sure I'm understanding that the original was $48,000 and change, but we're asking for an additional $57,000? Correct. Through the
President to the Senator, correct. Invoices for May and June didn't come to us for payment until July. So because of that, those two amounts we have to ask for a waiver because it's over 50.
Follow up? Please. Thank you. So I guess my question then is if the original amount was 47 I think you said 47 and change? 48, 975. 48. Now we're going higher than the amount we bid just for the
add-ons? Through the, to the Senator, through the President, when we encumbered the funds for 27, we encumbered it for the new contract amount, or the contract amount of 48,000, because there were still payments to be done for fiscal year 26 that actually are occurring in fiscal year 27. That takes it, the 48,000 plus invoices of $4,000 each takes it above the $50,000 amount. Hope that makes sense. Because of the way the accounting system works for the state and when an invoice actually hits a fiscal year. Follow up?
Yes. So I guess the main question that I have is the original bid was $48,000, and I understand the confusing government accounting, kind of. but our add amount is even higher than the original contract price Am I right or am I misunderstanding you To the Senate or through the President no we actually only going to spend each fiscal year
but because of how the invoices hit, we have to encumber more for fiscal year 27. We're only truly spending $48,000 and some change in both fiscal year 26 and 27.
Okay, follow-up. Maybe I'm slow. Was the original bid for 48 per year?
Correct. To the senator, yes.
Okay. Officially, I am slow. Thank you.
Questions from any other members?
Senator Chavez. Thank you, Mr. President. So my question was related to number 61 in this one. The requests are virtually verbatim except for the program, And so my question is, are these facilities that are going out and finding individual programs and allocating them, or why are we doing independent bids for these?
Item 61, is that the other?
It's the exact same thing except for Passages Connecting Fathers and Sons, Inc. To the Senator, through the President, yes, this was part of the original bid.
solicitation. Justice Works, the original question, was awarded to one of our facilities. This other one, number 61, was awarded to a different facility because of location, where they're located, and the folks that they can provide services to. Follow-up? So I guess my question is, how do we know if one program's better than another? How do we know,
and how do we propagate that program to the other facilities instead of going one-offs everywhere? to the senator through the president.
These are both the same programs, the Every Child Matters, the fatherhood program. They follow a curriculum so that everything is taught basically the same at all three of our facilities, just for different vendors. Follow-up?
No, thank you.
Questions from any other members?
Follow-up from Senator Wilkin. Thank you, Mr. President. So my question, to roll that in, we have one in Ohio, one out of state. Did the one in Ohio choose not to bid on the other two? We have two others.
We have Passages, ID Movement, and Justice Works. The other two, ID Movement, is based out of Columbus. Passages is based out of Cleveland. Justice Works, Home Office is Pittsburgh. But like I mentioned before, they have offices in both Cleveland and Cincinnati.
Sorry, through the President to the Center.
Thank you.
Any further questions? Seeing none, are there any objections to this item? Seeing none, the item is approved. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Next item is number 64, the Ohio Industrial Commission. Want a water break? Good afternoon.
Trent Champlin, Chief Legislative Officer with the Ohio Industrial Commission.
Thank you. Senator Wilkin.
Thank you once again, Mr. President. Obviously this one is a waiver. Again, if it's one that we're in and it's better to move forward, sometimes I can understand that, sometimes I question it. But it seems like if we're just looking to a cloud-based a cloud platform is there no one in Ohio that can do this Through the President through the Senator The Avanti software that we seeking to purchase
is deeply embedded within our IT ecosystem. At the end of the year, the Avanti software will no longer offer on-premises ecosystem that we currently utilize. It's going to the cloud-based platform. So in efforts to keep the operations as continuous as possible with as few disruptions and cost delays and everything as possible, we found it best to continue with the current software of Aventi through Renner Brown.
Follow-up, Senator?
Then my next question would be, is there any intent as we move forward to look at other options that might be in Ohio?
Certainly, through the President, through the Senator, certainly we look at each opportunity on its own as this project, if it's permitted to continue, as it wraps up anything that we would need further, we would look at Ohio companies.
Follow-up, Senator?
Last question. Do you have any idea when that might be?
Through the President, to the Senator. Not off the top of my head. I'm not an IT expert. I'm not sure of their total timelines. But as far as the migration goes, like I said, the on-premises ecosystem terminates at the end of the year, so we intend to have that portion of the project completed by the end of the year.
Thank you.
Questions from Senator Ingram?
Thank you, Mr. President. I wasn't going to ask a question, but when Senator Wilkin asked about the timing on this, the transition on this, because this is comp hearings that are through this whole process. So at the end of the year, we'll be prepared to move forward and not have some of the glitches that have been occurring all along. So this finalizes smoothing us into a different type of system or not.
Through the president to the senator. Yes, ma'am, that is correct. Our hope is to maintain continuity and everything to avoid any disruptions within the workers' compensation process. When we get to the cloud-based platform at the end of the year, we'll have ongoing support services through the company to continue to make sure that everything's running seamlessly and smoothly as we move forward past the end of this year.
Follow-up, Senator.
Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to make sure that when we transition that here's what happens, what we do, and I hear this all the time, It's like, well, they've been doing it all this time, and we like working with them, so they'll just move forward, and they'll be doing it for the next 30 years. So my concern is that once the system is transitioned, we can do that ourselves, or there's minimal additional support from this company doing that work because we'll have a process in-house.
Through the president, through the senator. That's correct, and that's partially why we want to keep it in there, is that the Avanti system is embedded within to our ecosystem already, so we're familiar with it, it's familiar with us, as is the provider. It has the knowledge and skill set to be able to move forward without having to learn a new program or underlying operation.
Anything further, Senator? Senator Chavez.
Thank you, Mr. President. So going back to one of your first answers, you said that you felt like it would be easier and more seamless to stick with the same company. Did you explore other options?
through the president to the senator. We wanted to waive the competitive selection for the purposes of keeping it as seamless as possible. Like I said, I don't have the IT expertise to understand how those determinations were made, but it was determined that the Avanti software continuing on with that through our incumbent provider, Renner Brown, would provide as seamless a transition as possible so that issues don't arise at the conclusion of this year.
Just a comment. In my thought process, it's easy to ask the questions, and then you know for sure, right? Because there could be other options out there. So that's going to be an ongoing thing with me.
Yes, sir.
Questions from any other members? Seeing none, are there any objections to this item? Hearing none, the item is approved. Thank you. Next is item 65, Ohio Deaf and Blind Education Services.
Hello, I'm Chris Wills, Chief Financial Officer.
Thank you. Representative Stewart.
Thank you, Mr. President. When were these two, I'll take 65 and 66 together because I think it's roughly the same thing, if that's fine by you.
Certainly.
When was the last time these contracts were competitively bid?
To the representative, I believe the blind contract was bid in 2018, and we've continued services with this individual. The deaf services person was brought on as a part of us taking on the hearing services provision from Akron Children's Hospital. She was formerly an employee of Akron Children's Hospital.
Do you recall when she came on?
September of 2026, 2025, I'm sorry, to the president.
Can you follow up?
Yes. So we have at least one of these contracts that has never been competitively bid in eight years. Are these two-year contracts, one-year contracts?
Through the President, to the Representative, they're typically one-year contracts. We were doing two-year contracts prior to the conversion of Department of Children and Youth. They were giving us two-year grants at the ODBES. and when they converted to DCY, they started doing one-year contracts. So we obviously can't do a contract beyond when we have funding.
Follow-up? Yes.
We have a competitive bidding law. The overriding purpose of it is to let as many people compete for government business as possible across the state of Ohio. Why not competitively bid these two contracts?
To the president, to the representative, we would love to, and we plan to going forward. These are some of our more complex contracts, the way the money comes in from DCY. And then the other side of it is qualified, competent, and trained and licensed folks to do the work. So it's a challenge, and it's doing the work at the rate of reimbursement through DCY.
Follow-up?
Yes. If you're not bidding the contract for eight years, how do you know there's not folks out there who are licensed and able to do this work?
To the President, to the Representative, we have folks who are very well intertwined with the college programs where the new licensees would be coming from She out there knocking on the doors trying to get folks to come and work with us on this Unfortunately, it's not full-time, which a lot of the new college graduates want to come out and work full-time.
Follow-up?
If we said no today and we said, look, we have a competitive bidding law, you haven't bid this in eight years, go back, follow the law, put it out, see who applies, and then come back to us, What harm would there be in that?
Through the President, to the Representative, at this time, what would happen, we would be able to use these contractors up to the $50,000 that we have as the initial contract. After that, the families that those contractors serve would not have service.
Follow-up.
Yes. How long would it take you to pay from that $50,000 at the same time you're going back and putting out a contract and saying we're competitively bidding this?
To the President, to the Representative, it takes about a solid month or two months to really get that out there and the 30 days posting and four back and then coming here.
So just to clarify, thank you, Mr. President. you believe that if you competitively bid this, it might take you one to two months to do that work, follow the law, see who else wants to apply. My question was, you're telling me you have $50,000 worth of runway for this person. How long could we pay those folks to keep doing the work with $50,000? Because if that pays them for three months and it takes you a month to do the bidding process, that would suggest we have time to go back and follow the law, doesn't it?
To the President, the representative, you are correct. that would give us plenty of time.
Okay. Any reason not to defer this one then, folks? I mean, if you have the time to go back and just put this out to bid and you have time to keep the program going while you're doing it, I guess it just begs the question, why are we here?
Understood.
Okay, are there questions from any other members regarding this item?
Mr. Chairman, I'd make a motion just to table this item.
Are you moving to defer?
Defer sounds better, doesn't it?
Thank you. I have a motion to defer. Do we have a second? Second. Second from Representative DeVilla.
Okay, will the Secretary call the roll?
Senator Chavez?
Yes.
Senator Wilkin?
Yes.
Senator Ingram?
No.
Representative Stewart?
Yes.
Representative Davila?
Yes.
Representative Sweeney?
Yes.
President DeSantis?
No. The item is deferred. The two items are deferred.
Thank you. The next item is item 69, Secretary of State.
Leslie Pyatt Hello good afternoon again Thank you for your time My name is Leslie Pyatt I the CFO for the Office of the Ohio Secretary of State
Thank you. Senator Ingram?
Thank you, Mr. President. Thanks for hanging around. Sorry about that. It was my fault this time. Help me with where we are with this and specifically what it's for. I think I know, but I want to make sure where these are going to be spent, because we already do have a certain budget which goes with communications anyway, so help me with where we are with this.
Yes. Mr. President, Senator Ingram, members of the Controlling Board, I don't know specifically what Issue 3 is. I can't speak to that issue, but I do know what this is going to do is this is going to provide constitutionally required notifications for three weeks in newspapers in each county that has a newspaper, so that's actually in the Constitution. That's not the Secretary of State policy that's in the Constitution. So this advertising will be specifically the ballot language that the ballot board approved the week before last and the arguments for and against that are being produced. I think those are actually due to the office today. So we don't have it quite ready yet, but it's moving fastly, very quickly. So that is what this money will be paying for. It's specifically to pay for the newspaper advertisements that will spell out the language of the ballot, the arguments for and against.
Follow-up, Senator?
Yes, Mr. President. Thank you for that. So, newspapers only in counties that have newspapers, and I think it's very restrictive as to how many they can do, but it's nowhere else, nothing else, and the language has to be just that as far as issue three is concerned. And here's the language. Here's the no presentation from whoever voted no, So here's the yes presentation as to, and that's all that'll be in the newspapers.
Mr. President, Senator Ingram, that is correct. The estimate that our office has, it's going to be what they call a four-page insert, and they make that estimate based on what the current language is, is that we know that the ballot board approved, and this is very similar to what we did in March of 2025. That was the last time that we came to the board requesting something very similar. That was also a four-page insert, And so that is what our price is estimated on, is based on our recent historical knowledge of what that cost in March of 2025.
I just want to make sure that it's very restrictive to just the newspapers, and it gives all of the language, because the difficulty is there aren't just some counties that will have newspapers. There are many counties that have newspapers, but people don't read them. so it doesn't go anywhere beyond that requirement that's there in code.
Mr. President, Senator Ingram, I understand your question better now. It's the Constitution that specifies newspapers. Our office, while we do the PSAs, the public service announcements, that's a different process. We spooling up for the November campaign here currently That completely different Those PSAs will not speak about the ballot initiative It will not speak about what the language says It will just literally say here's election day. This is how you can find out where your precincts are. This is how you go to vote. So those are completely different. For what the newspapers will say, it is very prescripted. The ballot board has to approve that language. And then there is a, I believe that it's, well, I know for sure that there is a process by which I think it's the House and Senate, They combine their pro and con arguments, and that comes to our office. So all of those are very prescriptive, and there's nothing that is added to those inserts other than those approved languages. There may be organizations that advertise this somewhere else, but it's not coming from the Secretary of State's budget, so I can't speak to that.
Questions from any other members regarding this item? Representative Sweeney.
Thank you. Hopefully just a quick question. Do you know why this money is coming from the emergency purpose fund? And especially, and I know that this is completely dependent on whether or not the legislature or the people put an issue before the voters, which is not something we will know always when we're doing our budget, but it's $380,000. Do you guys not have this within your budget? It's a basic duty of the Secretary of State. I mean, just emergency fund usually is used when we're helping a college almost in fiscal need compared to helping communities who just had a natural disaster happening. It just seems a little out of the ordinary from my vantage point.
Mr. President, Representative, I can tell you for sure that this has been the way we've been doing this. We, the Secretary of State, Office of State, has been doing this since 2009. in House Bill 119 of the 127th General Assembly, that duty that previously belonged with the county boards of elections to do this advertising in their local newspapers. And then in that time, that's when it came over to the Secretary of State's office to do it holistically. Section 3501.17 is where it also specifies that the state shall bear the entire cost of the advertising. So the reason why we're doing it that way is because there was a law that changed at some point that transferred it from the county boards of elections, moved that burden over to the Secretary of State's office, and then that's how the Secretary of State's office pays for it. As far as a budgetary line item, it's one of those things, like you said, Representative, we don't know when this is going to happen. And so, for example, if it was part of a regular budget that was in our operating budget, for fiscal year 26 we would never have used it. And so it's not very common that we do this, and that's why I think that's why the General Assembly at the time made it. This was going to be the procedure that we
followed. Follow-up? Questions from anybody else? Seeing none, are there any objections to this item? Seeing none, the item is approved. Thank you, Maureen. Thank you for your time. All right, and with no further business before the board, is there a motion to adjourn? Motion from Senator Chavez, second from Senator Wilkin. We are adjourned.