May 18, 2026 · Ohio Controlling Board · 5,364 words · 15 speakers · 151 segments
Seeing that all members are present, the Secretary will call the roll.
Senator Serino? Here. Senator Wilkin? Yes. Senator Ingram? Here. Representative Stewart? Here. Representative Davila? Present. Representative Sweeney? Here.
President DeSantis? Here. Okay, the minutes of the previous meeting have been distributed. Is there a motion to approve the minutes?
So moved by Senator Wilkin, seconded by Senator Serino.
That's right. You did it next. After receiving the motion.
Do you want to second it, Senator? I'll defer to her second.
Second from Senator Ingram.
Okay, without objection, the minutes are approved. Okay, we have several updates to today's agenda from the Office of Budget and Management. Item 18 was deferred at the request of the agency. Item 19 from the Adjutant General was deferred at the request of the agency. Item 22 from the Adjutant General was deferred at the request of the agency. Okay, I will now poll the members for holds. Senator Serino.
No holds.
Thank you. Senator Wilkin.
Senator Ingram.
Thank you. Representative Stewart.
27 and 43.
27 and 43. Thank you. Representative Villa.
Thank you, Mr. President. 44, 49, 77.
44, 49, 77. Representative Sweeney.
I'd like to hold items 66 and 74.
66 and 74. Thank you. Will you read the holds, please? item number 27 the Department of Higher Education item number 43 the Department of Administrative Services item number 44 the Department of Development item number 49 the Department of Development Item 66, the Department of Veterans Services. Item 74, the Department of Job and Family Services. Item number 77, the Department of Medicaid. Thank you. Is there a motion to approve all items not held by the board?
Moved by Senator Serino.
Is there a second?
Senator Ingram.
Thank you. With a motion and a second, all items not held are approved. Representatives for agencies of approved requests are free to leave quickly and quietly. Please be mindful that the board will continue business, and we ask that conversations are kept to a low roar. Okay, moving on to our first held item, item number 27, Department of Higher Education.
Good afternoon.
Please introduce yourself.
I'm Alex Penrod. I'm the Special Assistant to the Chancellor for External Affairs at ODHE.
Thank you. Representative Stewart?
Thank you, Mr. President. So we have three universities that are over a million dollars in their fiscal year 26 award, and only one Ohio State, which is actually at $2.4 million, which is $1.1 higher than the next largest recipient. I mean, is there any cap in the department for how much an individual school would receive under this program, or is it, at the end of the day, totally just whatever the department decides?
Through the president to the representative, previously we had a $1.2 million cap prior to this round. This round we removed that cap and instead gave institutions the average of their previous awards, plus 5 percent as their suggested cap. but then allowed them to request more than that if they felt like they could increase STEM growth beyond that capacity. So we do not have a hard cap on this round the way we did previously.
Follow-up.
Please.
But if Ohio State requested $1.09 million, they're getting $2.4 million. What goes into that allocation?
So they requested that $1.09 million per year, and it's a four-year award. So they actually requested about $4.35 million and were awarded that $2.4 million. So it was less than their ask in total.
Okay. Last one. So at the end of the day, though, under the program, as the legislature has currently drafted it, the chancellor can decide what each school gets basically based on whatever criteria you elect at that time. Is that right?
Yes. So we have an RFP process, and each institution was graded by multiple graders, and they were scored. And so there's kind of a matrix, for lack of a better word, about who was awarded more. Ohio State scored in the top quarter of all of the proposals and had robust STEM growth in theirs. They have a lot of student wraparound services, and so it scored highly, and they demonstrated that growth that we were seeking. And so, yes, it's not just the chancellor determining an amount, but it is based on a number of factors, including what they request.
Okay, but last, famous last words, last follow-up, but it begs the question. I understand there's a rubric that's been developed.
Yes.
My point is it's developed by the department. It's not set in rule. It's not set by the legislature. You can change it every year.
That's correct.
Thank you.
Are there any other questions? Hearing none, are there any objections to this item? Seeing none, the item is approved. Thank you. Next is item 43.
Allie Bocello, Associate Legal Counsel and Chief Legislative Officer for DAS.
Thank you. Representative Stewart?
Thank you, Mr. President. Just so I can set the table, I guess, currently we have Adult Rural Authority is in, has a lease on this Fisher Road building to some degree. They're also in a state-owned McKinley building. They want to move out of the state-owned McKinley building, expand the lease at Fisher Road, and it's about, it's $532,000 additional each of the lease term years over and above what they're paying now. Am I generally in the ballpark?
Yes.
Okay, follow up, please. What are we doing with McKinley Building? I mean, the feedback we've generally gotten is this building is falling down around our ears and we haven't really done anything to fix it up or maintain it, so we need to leave. And then we don't really have a plan for what we're going to do with the state-owned building that we've kind of let fall down around our ears. What is the process here for maintaining these buildings so that we don't have to pay an extra million dollars to go to a non-state-owned building?
President DeSantis, Representative Stewart, DAS does not own the McKinley building. That is a DRC-owned building, and I will let DRC speak to that.
Okay.
Please state your name for the record.
Carrie Ryan CFO for Department of Reconciliation correction DRC Representative Same question I guess the question is
why have we not been maintaining the McKinley building to the point that we don't have to move out of it?
I don't have a crystal ball, but the way things usually work here is we leave the state building and then we say, well, it's not worth anything. We've got to get rid of it.
What's the plan for the McKinley building, and why haven't we maintained it to the point that we don't have to move out?
Heard.
President DeSantis, Representative Stewart.
We bought the McKinley building back in the early 2000s for our Ohio Pino Industries group. So they had an auto tech facility there. So 40%, at least 40% of that building is a garage. It's a two-acre parcel. So it's a garage, warehouse, and then there's small office space there. So back when we purchased it, it was used for Ohio Penal Industries. They used the warehouse and garage for the auto tech program, and then they had a showroom and a couple sales offices. So recently, the Ohio Penal Industries built a new warehouse on our London correctional facility. So we had some land there. It was an old dairy barn. They built a new warehouse and new administrative offices, and in that same time period, unrelated, but the auto tech, the industry itself was not doing so well. We lost our auto tech instructor, so that division was closed. So then we had this warehouse space, garages, and then a little bit of office space. So we did move our parole group in there in the office space, but it's just not an adequate building. It's not that we haven't taken care of it over the years. We have, but the space that it was originally built for and intended for is no longer of use to us. And so at this point it was decided, unless we wanted to spend several million dollars to make that building usable for what we needed out of our capital budget, it wasn't worth it to put these needed improvements into it.
Follow-up?
At this time.
So we're going to spend several million dollars paying somebody else rent now under this plan. So why not invest in the two-acre parcel that we already have in the middle of Columbus so that we don't have to pay somebody else rent?
President DeSantis, Representative Stewart, because it's a two-acre parcel,
There's not enough room for us to build enough office space and parking space to accommodate as many of our staff as would be needed for that very small parcel. So it's just not, it's a landlocked two-acre parcel that we're trying to squeeze a lot of people in. So it's just not conducive to what our needs are. We have staff of over 11,600 people, so just a two-acre parcel is not.
Well, in fairness, though, this is 84 employees in adult parole authority, not 1,100, right?
It's President DeSantis, Representative Stewart.
So it's 84 employees there, but the goal was to have all of our Department of Parole and Community Services, our central office, and our Columbus regional staff in one location with meeting space, with parking space, with all the space needs that they have that just can't be accommodated by the two-acre parcel.
Follow-up?
Yes.
What's the next step? I mean, I assume you're coming back to say we need to sell this building. Do you have any idea what it's worth?
President DeSantis, Representative Stewart.
It's currently valued on the auditor's website at $1.1 million, but we believe that's undervalued for the space that it's in. McKinley Avenue is near the, you know, Franklinton where it's growing and it's in a good industrial area, so we think that we could probably get more for that and offset rental costs for several years.
Representative?
No further questions.
Does anybody else have any questions regarding this item? Does anybody have an objection to this item?
I'll object.
Okay. We have an objection from Representative Stewart. The item is approved with that objection. Next item is item number 44, Department of Developmental Disabilities. Please state your name.
Kyle Moore, legislative liaison at the Department of Developmental Disabilities.
Thank you.
Representative DeVilla. Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you for coming in. So this is a waiver of competitive selection for contract for maintenance and janitorial supplies. It's in a relatively small amount, $7,500. But I'm curious, as I often am on these, why this hasn't been competitively bid for.
President DeSantis, Representative Davila, thank you for the question.
So, yes, you are correct. We do operate eight developmental centers across the state. Those are large campuses with numerous buildings at each center. And so Uline is an online retailer. They do have competitive pricing for these maintenance and janitorial equipment that is required. Furthermore, they do have distribution centers in both Aetna and Columbus, although, as you noted, they are an out-of-state vendor. And so these supplies often aren't available through a mandatory DAS contract. However, our folks, whenever they make any online purchases, including these, they do do comparison shopping to make sure that we're being fiscally conservative with those tax dollars.
Yes, sir.
Thanks, Mr. President.
This strikes me a little bit like the Amazon discussion that we had a number of months ago. I'm just curious. Is there not any Ohio-based contractor that could be offered the opportunity to bid on this contract?
President DeSantis, Representative DeVilla, thank you for the question.
So there aren't any mandatory DAS contracts. However, one other thing that I would add is we have had some turnover in some of our maintenance division, and so we are continuing to educate our maintenance staff on the procurement rules and policies. So I wouldn't necessarily anticipate seeing this request come before the controlling board in the future as we continue to educate them and utilize the optional DAS contracts for Granger. And they also now have an optional contract for Lowe's and Home Depot as well.
Follow-up, Representative?
No, thanks.
Any questions for any other member? Seeing none, are there any objections to this item? Seeing none, the item is approved. Thank you. Thank you. Next item is item number 49, Department of Development.
Riley Eberhardt, Legislative Affairs Manager, Department of Development.
Thank you. Representative Devella.
Thanks, Mr. President. Thanks for coming in. This is another waiver of competitive selection, and in this instance it's to amend a contract with a company called Team India Global Services. It's a non-U.S. vendor based in India. I'm curious whether the department's found any benefit benefit to small businesses by contracting with these types of vendors rather than, again, something that's here in the state of Ohio?
Absolutely. Through the president to the representative, we have this contract with a company based in India to have a little bit of boots on the ground, especially as Ohio businesses are looking to export into a new market. It is critical for them to have access to resources within that area to get a better understanding of what business needs are and what are the good conditions for them to do within that country.
Follow-up, Representative?
Yes, please. So just following up on that, I'm curious, is there additional revenue business that's actually flowing to Ohio-based companies as a result of this set of relationships that's been established and is being fostered?
Yeah, through the President to the Representative. In 2024, through our export programs, we estimated that for every $1 that was going into this program, it was generating in about $100 of international sales by Ohio businesses.
Got it. So a reasonable ROI, it sounds like.
Follow-up?
Thanks.
Any other member have a question? Seeing none, are there any objections to this item? Seeing none, the item is approved. Thank you. Next is item 66.
Hi. Dom Chano Legislative Liaison for the Ohio Department of Veterans Services Thank you Representative Sweeney Thank you President Thank you for being here today My question as I asked I think at least over the past four or five years
I'm obviously very supportive of making sure that our veteran homes have what they need, but it's now been years that we continue to rely on temporary staffing, which is more expensive than permanent staffing. And I know I've been grateful previously having the director come to my office and talk about kind of the long-term plan in order to kind of address this issue. So just curious as to why we are continuing to go further in terms of temporary work. and if you knew how much we have spent on temporary work compared to if we just, you know, I know it's more complicated than this, but just increase the actual base salary of workers or found some incentives in terms of relocation to get people for our veterans so that they can have consistent, reliable care.
Absolutely. Through the President to Representative Sweeney, thank you for that question. And as you know, health care professional shortages are hitting the country everywhere, especially after the pandemic, and our facilities are no different. But I am happy to say, you know, we have just decreased our need on these agencies for our RNs, LPNs, STNs at both facilities. A lot of that's been attributed to additional marketing strategies, reconsideration of previous employees, mass mailings. And I'm happy to announce we've also onboarded a full-time recruiter to recruit health care professionals. But, yes, as you know, we're using knowledge services. That's who we contract through the state. And we get the vast majority of our health care professionals that are needed. But even they can't, you know, sometimes fill it. So we have to use another agency. A big part of that is actually, like, LPNs in the Georgetown facility. But I do have numbers here of our contractors versus permanent staff, if you'd like to hear some of those numbers, Representative. But as you mentioned, locations, funding, I mean, payments for those individuals. So it is very hard, but we are slowly decreasing our need on these agencies.
Follow up?
Yes, please. so could you give us what percentage of permanent staff for the nursing do we have compared to what we're relying on temporary staff because you know you've said that it's it's gone down so i think having the like from the past whatever you have available today but you know two years five years if you you're actually hiring more yes because when i see that you know we are using one contract and they can't even do it. It seems like we're going the wrong direction. Like when I read this, it looks like now we're going to have two temporary staffing agencies. So what is the overall percentage of permanent staff versus temporary staff? And where has the trajectory gone?
Through the president to representative, I don't have percentages per se, but I can give you exact numbers. So for example, the Georgetown location contractor agency, We have 47 STNAs, 31 LPNs, 1 RN, 2 RN supervisors versus permit staff, 69 STNAs, 31 LPNs, 3 RNs, and 6 RN supervisors. And then our Sandusky location contractor agency, we have 131 STNAs, 85 LPNs versus permit staff, 62 STNAs, 60 LPNs, 20 RNs, and 11 RN supervisors. I could probably do a little math and get the percentages there for you and send it to you, but that's the exact numbers as of about a week ago.
Thank you. Yes, please.
That was having the numbers is more accurate. Do you know where that number was in terms of like previous? Like, are we actually trying to see are we actually chipping away at having a sustainable model that I believe we got permanent staff would be cheaper to the state and better care for our veterans?
Through the president to the representative. Yes, I will definitely get the numbers maybe the last two years. I think the last time we were held for this and give you the committee update on that. but as mentioned one thing I can promise is that we have been using, decreasing our need for these agencies so we have and again hiring that recruiter this quarter we really think that's going to help get some professional
permanent staff there. Thank you. One more final
thought. Please. Thank you and then could you speak to, I know the last time you guys were for the controlling board there was a waiting list for our veterans who are seeking to be able to be to live in our state's veteran homes? Do we currently have a waiting list? And if so, what is one of the biggest drivers to having a waiting list and is staffing connected to that?
Yes, through the president to the representative, if there is a waiting list, it's not because of healthcare nursing staff. All of our residents get four, I believe it's over four hours of nursing care a day. if there is a wait list representative, it's going to be because of modernization efforts. So as you can imagine, if you're updating a wing, we update that, do the contracting. So that's going to be a thing that's going to be a wait list for our veterans, but it's not going to be because of health care professionals.
Follow-up?
No, that's helpful. If you could just clarify when you have if there is a wait list and how long it is.
Absolutely, Representative.
Are there questions from any other members? Seeing none, are there any objections to this item? Seeing none, the item is approved. Thank you. Thank you. Item number 77, Department of Medicaid. Oh, 74. I'm sorry, I skipped. I lied. Sorry. 74. Sorry, Representative. Good afternoon.
Rachel Johanson with ODJFS.
Thank you.
Representative Sweeney. Thank you, President. Thank you, Rachel, for being here today. I'm more just looking at what you could give us an update in terms of where we are at of making the changes to the new unemployment system and what specifically, especially the last time we were at controlling board, it's been started, so do we have more idea of exactly what this new system will mean for claimants who are filing for unemployment and in terms of accuracy of those determinations, specifically the overpayments and the longstanding issues we've had with that. So just the accuracy and then also the claimant experience, if you can tell us in more detail what the changes will be when this is fully implemented.
Absolutely. To President DeSantis and Representative Sweeney, thank you for the question, and we appreciate just the General Assembly's support of this big project. We're right in the thick of it right now and working through getting it up and running in the fall. There's a huge emphasis on adjudicating claims with speed and accuracy. Obviously, we have certain benchmarks that the federal government requires of us, etc., to meet, and this will be very helpful in doing that, but also to the claimant experience of making it simple, making it plain language, making it easier to understand. For example, it's just going to be very clear in the system to both the employer and the claimant where they're at in the process, where this claim is, who it's waiting on, if it's during like a due process 10-day waiting period or something like that, or if they're waiting on someone to turn in documentation. No one's going to have any questions about what that's going to look like. And also it's married with the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission hearing process, or sorry, appeal process. So if you're in the appeal section later on, it's still the same system, so it's not going to be learning something new on the fly while you're going through appeals. So there's just a lot of factors that we're working on, including correspondence and notifications in the system. Right now they're getting a lot of notifications. They're confusing. And so we're getting those really streamlined as well.
Follow up?
Yes, please. So would you, what is the number one complaint? You know, because I just see a small sector of the people that call just my office as to what the issue that they're experiencing. But obviously you would have the biggest kind of, is it issues? of when somebody is calling the department because they were not able to go through the system online without having to call their state lawmaker or you to like figure out the issue is it mostly just asking the status I mean cause I think that there is um obviously anxiety that comes with not having a paycheck and waiting for that. But, um, you know, it really does have been flow. Like there's been times where my office is, you know, handling them and you guys have done such a good job. We call you guys, you take care of those constituents. But it's, you know, I always think about the people that don't know to call us, right, that they're being trapped in this system. So in with that, you know, I've had people that have called my office and said, you know, we call the department and it's, the lines are busy, no ability to call back, just try again. And that, you know, what is the new system, is it going to help address that particular that somebody can't even put in a number to call back or that they are waiting hours on the phone in order to talk to a real human being? So what's the biggest problem and what is this new system going to do in order to kind of peel back some of
the issues people have? Through the president, through the representative, oftentimes it is the question of where are we at? Because there are, you know, maybe the claimant files and then the employer has a number of days to respond to that, and they may think, well, I filed, I haven't heard anything, but actually that's the period where the employer can respond. Or perhaps they have entered some piece of information wrong, and they're trying to get it corrected, and they haven't been able to figure out how to do that through the system, so then they're calling, and then that's weighing down the phone line. So all of those things, we believe, will be a lot clearer and a lot more user-friendly, and people being able to go in there and fix, if they answered a question wrong, fix that. And I think that's going to take a lot of pressure off the phone.
Follow-up?
Yes, please. Do you believe that the new system will help in terms of accuracy of the determinations, either underpayments or overpayments? I don't fully understand why those happen. I know part of it is the information on the user end. And, you know, pandemic was a very unique situation where we had a massive problem with that. But could you just speak to on the actual accuracy of the determinations by the department? Will this new system help move that in a better direction?
Yes, Representative Sweeney, to your point, I think some of the when folks are answering a question, if they don't quite understand what the question is asking, they're answering in good faith. and then the department is responding in good faith and saying, oh, they answered that in a way that we should not award unemployment. But then once more facts come out, then we get that fixed, but hoping that this will address all of that on the front end and then catch it before there would be an overpayment or an underpayment.
Anybody else have any questions regarding this item? Seeing none, are there any objections to this item? Seeing none, the item is approved. Thank you. Okay, now item 77. Good afternoon.
Adam Landefeld, Department of Medicaid.
Thank you.
Representative DeVilla? Thanks, Mr. President. So tell us about this contract with Milliman. It's an actuarial contract, I take it?
Through the President to the Representative? Yes, that is correct. It is our actuarial contract, and with the actuarial work, they also recently just released a new fraud, waste, and abuse item, which we are choosing to add on to the contract as well.
Okay, that's interesting. Follow up?
Follow up. Interesting timing in terms of adding on fraud, waste, and abuse at this point. Why was that not in place? Why did the department not think that that was necessary when we're looking at potentially billions of dollars walking out the door in home health care fraud, billions of dollars walking out the door in asset verification fraud between ODM and JFS county departments around the state, and on and on? Of course.
Well, Representative, this item just came out. They won an award with CMS for a contest to root out fraud, waste, and abuse. I do believe that they were looking at Medicaid, Medicare programs first, and they've been rolling this out for state use. And our folks decided that it would be a good addition to add that on.
And what other processes or contractors have already been in place up to now to deal with fraud, waste, and abuse within the department? if this is an add-on for some additional services within that space.
Of course. I'll defer to my colleague.
Can you please introduce yourself for the record?
President DeSantis, members of the controlling board, good afternoon. My name is Eric Vienert. I'm the deputy director of legislative affairs for the Ohio Department of Medicaid.
Through the president, to Representative Villa,
I want to underscore, if I'm understanding your question, what existing supports the department has in place around fraud, waste, and abuse. I think one of the items which would be most helpful is back in March, Director Partika did an introduction to fraud, waste, and abuse within the Medicaid program and the existing supports that are both in place and have been in place for quite a long time within the program. and this is in conjunction with both the partners we have through the Ohio Attorney General's Office and the Auditor of State. I think that would provide probably the best example of really entrenched supports we have at a system and program-wide level that I can run down for you if you would like from the testimony. But I think that's kind of at a high level, the easiest thing to point you to directly. Within each individual contract the agency may have, I don't know if I can specifically today point you to any additional things within each individual contract. However, if that's something you would be interested in, we can certainly take that back and see what we can get you. And we can follow up either through the president or directly with your office.
Sure. Thanks, Mr. President. I'm familiar with the testimony. I was there that day as well in the audience, at least for the prepared testimony now for the Q&A. So what makes this, again, this product different than the extent products that are in place to already work through fraud, waste, and abuse, incidences within the department?
Yep, through the president to represent Villa.
So we have heard loud and clear, and we've also been in conversations with CMS, we are trying to explore all the different options that may be at the department's disposal to address risks related to fraud, waste, and abuse in the program. This is one that, as my colleague Adam alluded to, it was a new thing that Milliman has actually just brought up. It was, I would say, formally introduced by our vendor in December. So this is a new product we have not had access to before. We have learned about it. They've demonstrated what they believe it can do for the department. We think because of their expertise specifically as well, it falls in a unique space, and it complements the work that Milliman does with the department through their normal actuarial duties.
So I think this occupies a unique opportunity, which is not to say that it would continue in perpetuity, but it is something that we think we would like to potentially use to see how it would increase fraud, waste, and abuse prevention efforts. And if we don't believe that it has the ROI that we think it needs to, this is something that we do not have to use through our contract with Milliman, but we would like to see what we can find with it, how it can assist the ongoing work of the department, and evaluate the results.
Follow up. Yes. Thanks, Mr. President. I mean, you can imagine the consternation that many of us have with respect to a contractor that's already doing work at this point and that you're now asking for an additional $900,000 to do additional work when it's clear that there are serious material flaws in the process for rooting out fraud, waste and abuse within the system. So it's a curious ask in terms of both the timing, the amount, doubling down with an existing contractor, and Mr. President, it just feels a lot like slamming the barn door after all the horses have escaped. So that's all I have.
Other questions for any other members? Okay, seeing none of any objections.
I object.
Okay, with an objection from Representative Davila, the item is approved.
Thank you.
All right, with no further business before the board, is there a motion to adjourn?
Moved by Senator Wilkin.
Do we have a second?
Second by Senator Ingram.
With a motion and a second, we are adjourned.