March 16, 2026 · Ohio Controlling Board · 5,720 words · 17 speakers · 129 segments
Thank you to our substitute member. Seeing that all members are present, the Secretary will call the roll. Senator Kaler? 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?
Motion by Senator Kaler.
Do we have a second?
Second by Representative DeVilla.
With a motion and a second, are there any objections? Without objection, the minutes are approved. We do have several updates to today's agenda. Item number four from Central State University was deferred at the request of the agency. Item 41 from the Department of Transportation was updated to attach a change order to the request. Item number 37 from the Department of Natural Resources was deferred at the request of the agency. Item number 44 from the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction was deferred at the request of the agency. And item 28 from the Department of Behavioral Health was deferred at the request of the agency. 28. Twenty-eight. I apologize. Now poll the members for holds. Senator Kaler.
Thirty-five and forty-seven, please.
Thirty-five and forty-seven. Senator Wilkin.
No holds.
Senator Ingram.
I have a number of thirty, thirty-six, forty-one, fifty-one, and fifty-three.
Thank you. Okay. Representative De Villa.
Thanks, Mr. President. Just number 42, please.
Thank you. Representative Stewart.
41, please.
And Representative Sweeney.
Item 49. Thank you.
Thanks. Okay. Will the Secretary now read the held items? Item number 30, the Department of Behavioral Health. Items 35 and 36, the Department of Natural Resources. Item 41, the Department of Transportation. Item 42, the Ohio Department of Public Safety. Item 47, the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Item 49, the Department of Education and Workforce. Item 50, the Ohio Deaf and Blind Education Services. And item 53, the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission. Did she say 51? It's 51. Okay, I thought she said 50. Okay, thank you. Is there a motion to approve all items not held by the board?
Second.
So moved by Senator Ingram and seconded by Representative Stewart. Okay. With motion and a second, all items not held are approved. Representatives for agencies of approved requests are free to leave. Okay, moving on to our first item. That is item number 30, Department of Behavioral Health.
Hello, good afternoon. Oh, my name is Vanessa McMahon, Deputy Director of External Affairs for the Department of Behavioral Health.
Senator Ingram. Thank you, Mr. President. I just have a question about the particular project because it indicates it's infrastructure renovations. Help me with where we are and what that's going to include with that particular project.
Sure. President DeSantis, Senator Ingram. So this is a request to move forward with the construction of the hospital. So we have, I guess this will allow us to break ground correctly on this hospital. We have come for the site acquisition and the design services, and this will actually start the work of constructing the new facility.
Thank you. Thank you for that. And, of course, because there was some back and forth with the design services and then, of course, the acquisition of the land, and this actually gets us into physical construction of doing the renovation of that particular arena.
President DeSantis, Senator Ingram, yes, that's correct.
Okay, thank you.
Follow-up, Senator?
Any other questions?
Okay, seeing none, are there any objections to this request? Okay, seeing no objections, the item is approved.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, our next item is number 35, Department of Natural Resources.
Ryan Frazee, Chief Financial Officer.
Thank you.
Senator Taylor?
Thank you.
Just wondering about this project. It looks like just short of $4 million for a construct a playground and visitor experience improvements at Dillon State Park. I could be that I grew up in first grade in the early 60s or late 60s playing on galvanized pipe monkey bars over asphalt, probably lead pipes for all I know. $4 million for a playground. Help me understand this.
Sure.
President DeSantis, Senator Kaler.
So Dillon State Park, one of our most popular state parks, it's one of 15 with campgrounds and cabins. so 193 total sites which 12 are full hookups and 29 cabins so there is a laundry list of improvements that we intend to use this four million dollars with replace the existing splash pad which we get a lot of feedback on our customer survey so a lot of these project ideas are from day use user and overnight campers so that's one thing nearby pavilion for picnic and events pickleball court, shade structures, renovation of the existing facility, resurfacing of the tennis and basketball court, insulation of lighting. Also some sidewalk there, Dylan, if you haven't been out there, we'd be happy to take you. It's a huge day use course or day use area where a lot of folks just walk around. So it's really our goal to make, you know, with the other improvements of the campground, the cabins to really kind of make that a nicer beach area. And I checked with our park manager this morning, that campground in terms of the area for that area hasn't hasn't seen any significant updates recently
well so this the playground isn't a playground it's a splash zone type deal and how much is that of this three four million dollars so president DeSantis center killer I'm gonna see of choice I don't know that number right off hand but
we can get that to you.
50% of it? 10% of it?
More like 25% of it.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Anything further, Sean? Any other questions? Are there any objections to this request? Seeing none, the item is approved. Thank you. Next item is number 36. Again, to Byron Natural Resources. Senator Ingram?
Thank you, Mr. President. I am actually just looking at what this amendment is for in regard to the professional services and actually what we would be doing here with this $1.7 million.
Sure. President Sanchez, Senator Ingram, I'm going to let Troy Cerny, who's our capital programs manager, take a stab at that one. So the contract amendment for the design firm for this is to complete the design and do the construction administration. During the original design process that started in 2023, it was discovered in the review of that with Dam Safety, the regulatory agency that regulates dam regulations, that they needed the entire spillway replaced. We were contemplating at that original request of the design that we were going to make interim risk reduction measures and basically rehabilitate that spillway at those two facilities. In addition, now we have to replace them. In addition, we have to raise the height of the dam to make the capacity requirements for dam safety. So that's the increase. We always contemplated coming back for construction administration for that, but the additional on top of that is to make those design amendments as we went through the design process Follow center Thank you Mr President So this million is for because of the regulations we have to change the dams and the heights et cetera et cetera and had not anticipated that when first doing the ask for the project.
You are correct. Okay.
Anything else, Senator? Any other questions? Are there any objections to this item? Seeing none, the item is approved. Next item is number 41, Department of Transportation. Hello, Director.
Good afternoon. I'm Pam Borton, a Director of ODOT.
Good morning, Director.
Senator.
Thank you, Mr. President. I am actually just asking where are we with this and what does this 2.1 billion...
2.89.
Yeah, what does this... Look, silly me giving you less.
2.89 billion.
What does that get us to with this particular project? Because, you know, you already have dollars that were there for design, et cetera. And then, of course, on the Ohio side, it's a little different from what it is on the Kentucky side. But where are we? and what does this do now?
Yeah. So this is a project with the Walsh Coaching. This is their contract. We started with a progressive design build. So the first part of the contract, there was a requirement that if we were going to get past $1.5 billion, we would come back and get the additional contract authority to complete this contract. So it was always anticipated that we would start out, we would get as far in design as we could get, And then as we got closer out to knowing what the actual labor and equipment and materials, the risk and the schedule would be, and the design with changes that were made, we'd get to that final number. And that's where we are. So the 2.89 is the additional contract authority to complete this contract with Walsh Kikosing. And the part that we have two phases. Phase two is the actual building the bridge, the companion bridge, the approaches to that companion bridge, restriping the existing bridge. All of these things will have all the traffic flowing. It will clear up that number nine in the nation bottleneck, truck bottleneck. We'll have local traffic being able to flow across the existing bridge, restripe so it's not so dangerous. and we'll have the freight, which is over $1 billion a day, $400 billion, moving through the state as anticipated. So that is what Phase 2 will do, and of that, it's $4.05 billion.
Follow-up, Senator? Thank you for that. So that only gets us with this contract that is currently with Cocosig, and then for the remainder, or is that all of the construction for on- and off-ramps on both sides, as well as the bypass bridge?
This contract will give us the companion bridge. It will give us the approaches that you need to have traffic flowing. It will deal with the local grid street. It will do what the public is anticipating. You will have a bridge. You will have the flowing traffic. There will be other work that will come later that will connect other parts, which is very typical in these kind of very large multi-year type of projects. We see it here, downtown, 71, 70 split. This is a multi-year. It's very comparable. It's just not as long and not as large because it's not building a bridge across the river. You see it with the Cleveland Interbelt. It's the same thing. It's a phasing, and it just takes time because there really isn't enough money at one time to pay for everything.
Senator? Thank you, Mr. President. So my question becomes, for the remaining portion, once you get to the companion bridge or the bypass bridge, the remaining portion, do you know how much that's going to be? Have you projected what that cost will be because the whole project was a certain amount of money? And then where are we at this point?
We do not know exactly what all the outer parts will cost because you can't really know that until you get closer to the time. We all have to tie in. The city of Cincinnati and Hamilton County are doing the Western Hills Viaduct. It's one of the largest projects ever done by locals. How they design and what happens with that will make a difference to some of those other connectors out. But this contract will provide a bridge, roads that are connecting, traffic flowing, the Britspin Bridge doing its job of just handling the local traffic. that will happen with this contract that we're completing with Walsh Kocosi.
Senator? Yes, Mr. President. I'd like to see a copy of the change order that was attached today because I haven't seen that. Do you have that?
It's on the iPad.
Make sure we print that out. That's what happens when you have to drive here and you don't have time to look at it before you get to doing other work in your office. So, yeah, make sure I get a copy. Thank you. Representative Stewart.
Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Director, for your testimony. I just want to kind of, I'm supportive of the request, just want to make sure our sort of record is clear. We are, with respect to the state's portion of this, the bridge itself, the getting on, the getting off, I understand we can't account for what other governments may do leading up to that. But the purpose of this in 2026 is to essentially as close as we can lock in the overall price of the bridge today. And all in, barring acts of God and delays and, you know, hundred year monsoons, et cetera. But generally speaking, what is the all in price of the Brent Spence Bridge that we are attempting to lock in today?
This part of the contract is $4.05 billion. That's for this, building this bridge and those approaches. Yes. We're locking in our price of materials generally. We're locking in the... Neighbor, materials, equipment. I will tell you, we feel very confident about this price, and I'll tell you why. While we're going along and doing this, we had two independent state contractors who are well-versed in mega projects. They, too, were going along and estimating. And they were estimating everything, all the work, the labor, the equipment, the materials. They were estimating the risk. They were estimating the schedule. So they're looking to see how well the numbers will match up, and we're within 1.3% of what the state says it would cost.
Follow up. That's pretty good. Please. So generally speaking, our belief and what we're being asked to do today is in March 2026, lock in a price of $4.05 billion for a bridge that may not be completely finished until roughly what is your timeline?
The schedule right now is to have this bridge and approaches drivable with traffic going across and functioning as it's supposed to be 2031.
Any further questions? Are there any objections to this item? Seeing no objections, the item is approved. Thank you so much. Next item is item number 42, Department of Public Safety. Mr. President, I am Matthew Martin, Chief Financial Officer of the Ohio Department of Public Safety,
and I'm here to answer any questions you may have. Representative Villa.
Thanks, Mr. President. Thanks for being here today. I'm just off two weeks of active duty with the Navy in a skiff, so maybe my mind is a little bit more in the intel space today. But these types of requests always sort of hit our radar here with some degree of skepticism when there is a waiver of competitive selection. I'm wondering if you can just walk us through what your process is here and why has it been seven years since this was last put out to bid as prescribed ordinarily under state law. Mr. President, Representative de Villa, this product is a unique product that we at the department use.
It provides a package of intelligence briefing components that is unique to this vendor. So while it is true that we have not bid this out, this product is something that we've researched and found to be that it is a sole source, that there is not a competitive offering that is similar, that offers the same comprehensive package of intelligence.
Follow up? Follow up. And to the extent that you can share it, and perhaps you can't in a public forum, what sorts of resources are we talking about that are coming to the state as a result of this, then?
I will turn that... That can't be had in any other way. And if we need to take that offline, I'm happy to do that as well.
Through the president, representative,
I will turn that over to one of my colleagues from Ohio Homeland Security to go more into the details of what the products are. Mark Porter, Executive Director of Ohio Homeland Security,
through the chair to the representative. So SiteIntel provides curated intelligence reports in the following areas, domestic violent extremism, jihadist threat, technology, dark web and cybersecurity terrorism and finance and energy infrastructure So Homeland back in 2019 tested this vendor along with eight others and chose SITE SITE has been found to be referenced in other publications from local, state, federal, and international experts. So starting in fiscal year 20, we started a one-year subscription with SITE at $55,000. So of those that I read off, There are nine enterprises and three source feeds. We were utilizing three enterprises and only one source feed for that 55,000. Homeland is being given the opportunity to have all nine enterprises, which will give us domestic violent extremism, terrorism finance, energy-critical infrastructure, a couple other enterprises, as well as two additional source feeds, literally doubling our value of the information that we're going to be getting at $35,000 of an additional cost from $55,000 up to $90,000. So that is the jump because we are really expanding our effort of the information that we receive. And being able to have this kind of information and not hire analysts in this specific area is saving us money by having this product. Now, we all go to fusion center conferences, various conferences, and get calls from vendors. And many of our national fusion center partners use this, major city fusion centers, as well as the Central Intelligence Agency. So that is why that bump went up to 90 and 94 for the next two years.
Follow-up, Representative? Yeah, just one last. So what I'm hearing, what I heard initially was that this is the only company that does this. Now I'm hearing that this was bid at some point and there were eight others as well. So I guess my encouragement, we'll put it that way for right now, at this point is at some point state law does need to be adhered to. And it would make sense to put this back out for bid at an appropriate point again. Perhaps this is the appropriate point. But if it's not now, it needs to be at some point. Otherwise, there's no point in doing waivers constantly if we're just going to automatically waive everything that happens when it comes before this board. And that's not just a shot toward DPS, but more generally on a lot of matters that we see come before this board where it's just like, well, we're just going to ignore what we do here, and this is the one that we want to use, and we're not going to put it back out to bid. Thank you.
Understood.
Any other questions? Seeing none, are there any objections to this item? Hearing none, the item is approved. Next item is number 47, Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. Joe Gruber, Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
Thank you. Senator Taylor.
Thank you. Thank you for being here. Thank you, Mr. President.
This looks like an item, $2 million for solar panels. I've seen an article where it says you're going to receive about $150,000 per year in savings. I guess my question is, explain to me how that works. There's talk of a 30% tax credit of some type. How is this funded and where do you get the seven years ROI on it?
Through the president, Senator Kaler. So 30% of this is going to be funded by the federal government.
Once the project is completed, there's a strong likelihood that we will also qualify for an additional 30% from the federal government. And that $150,000 of savings per year, coupled with that potential 60%, will have ROI within seven years. All right.
Follow-up? Yes. Thank you. I'm trying to do quick math here. I had it at the 30% one time. So this is costing taxpayers $4 million. And if I take $2 million and get a 30% rebate on it and then get a second 30% rebate, which again, I understand it's federal money, but it's still taxpayer money. You're looking at $4 million for these solar panels, and you're only going to save $150,000 a year, which divided by $150,000 means 27 years. It's going to take us 27 years to actually get that savings for the taxpayer. Where do you get the seven-year ROI?
We're going to have our CFO come up, Kerry Ryan, but just want to be clear that this is non-GRF. This money is generated through the department's conservation efforts, and there's no taxpayer dollars being utilized for this project, aside from, I guess, the federal reimbursement.
Do you want to follow up? Let's follow up. I'll stick with my question. Where do you get in the seven-year ROI?
President DeSantis, Senator Kuller.
I'm Carrie Ryan. I'm the CFO for DRC. The seven-year ROI was what was given to us by the company that is performing this. So their estimation is once we install the solar panels that the electrical cost will be reduced. We will be able to see savings through solar energy rather than using electricity within the seven-year period. So it will take that long for us to recoup the cost. But again, this is coming out of our fight. we're asking for it to be taken out of our 5AFO fund, which is mainly funded by actually the savings that we get through electricity rebates that we have with a company. So all of our institutions are part of this program where they ask us to go to generator power within 24 hours' notice. And when we do that, they give us a rebate in actual cash that is then put into this account. So this account is from electricity savings that we are using to hopefully save further electricity costs down the road. Our costs for DRC for 2025 in electricity was over $17 million, and we have 450 buildings just with the institutions alone that we are trying to pay for. So any opportunity that we can use to defray our electricity costs through solar power or any other energy conservation that we can find, we are trying to take advantage of.
Senator?
Follow-up. I guess my comment to you, Mr. President, is it sounds like we're still using at least $2 million worth of federal money, which is still tax money, to get back $2 million in savings over at $150,000 a year. We're still not saving any money. It seems like we're still spending tax dollars.
Thank you. Are there any other questions? Okay, seeing none, Are there any objections to this request? Yes. Okay, the item is approved with objection from Senator Kaler. Next item is number 49, Department of Education and Workforce. Good afternoon, Aaron Rauch, Deputy Chief of Staff at the Department of Education and Workforce.
Thank you. Representative Sweeney?
Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you for being with us today.
My question is, it's probably more appropriate for JFS because they're the ones that had been addressing this previously. But in the first rollout of the summer EBT program, it was the first time, I think, that this federal program was being put out. and there was unfortunately delays and a lack of a high underutilization, not in lack of demand, but I think more of a systemic problem with putting up a new program. So when it originally came out, actually by the time families could get the money, the summer was almost over. We actually had to come back and amend it through controlling boards so families could still get the money that was allocated to them. So just with this, the fact that DOE is going forward with this new or with this vendor, could you just speak to your confidence that this program can just be managed and that we would have a high utilization rate?
President DeSantis, Representative Sweeney, we are confident that there will not be delays. The Management Council, which represents information technology centers, that are generally supporting all of the data in schools and districts, student data, has been the vendor and will continue to be the vendor. The amendment that is in front of the board today will enhance and provide a better customer experience for families, individuals, schools, as they work through, apply, and receive benefits through the summer EBT program. So the reason for the amendment today is that the state received a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture specifically for summer EBT IT infrastructure improvements. And so that's what the Management Council will act on at the approval of the controlling board. There were more than a million children, though, that received the benefit last year, totaling almost $125 million. And so we're happy to connect with JFS, but are confident that the program will operate this summer without issue.
Thank you. And that's great. I do believe in the second year it was much higher I sure it was probably because it was a brand new program Could you just explain and I think this is probably getting out to make us more confident that this could be better run. What is this going to provide that's not already provided for this program? Just what's the new add to it?
President DeSantis, Representative Sweeney, three enhancements. Document scanning software will be embedded into the Summer EBT website. Right now, families are taking pictures and uploading to the website proof of eligibility. So that's one enhancement. The contact center that is already operated by the Management Council will have some AI iPhone and chat capability enhancements, so to provide speedier responses and save the human interaction for questions that otherwise can't be answered through that function. and then some data standardization to identify redundancies and ensure kind of the data across DEW, JFS, and Medicaid is all working seamlessly to accurately and sufficiently identify the children that are eligible for this benefit.
Any further questions? Anybody else? Senator.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The only question I have is because it's Jobs and Family Services, and this is with the education departments or with the school districts. And, of course, some of that summer programming and who's eligible or necessarily not eligible also goes through our libraries and things of that nature. So is this the network for all of those children that receive those summer benefits through JFS or just through the school districts
and gleaning their information as to eligibility? President DeSantis, Senator Ingram, this is for all students, and this is the summer EBT program that JFS administers. We have an MOU with JFS, and since we work on a more regular basis with the Management Council and Information Technology Centers, we have continued to be the lead in this contract. the summer food service program, which schools, libraries, other community entities administer separate program.
Follow-up, Senator? Any other questions? Hearing none, are there any objections to this item? Hearing none, the item is approved. Thank you. Next item is number 51, Ohio Deaf and Blind Education. Good afternoon. I'm Chris Wells, the Chief Financial Officer for Ohio Deaf and Blind Education Services.
Thank you. Senator? Thank you, Mr. President.
I just have a question in regard to, because there was some back and forth with your organization receiving dollars during the budget,
and there were some restrictions and cuts with the facility that's in Hamilton County and a merger that did not go through. but help me with what you're changing here, what this is actually going to do. Through the president, Senator Ingram, this is to renovate the former elementary building on the Ohio Deaf and Blind Education Services campus,
formerly known as Ohio School for the Deaf side of the campus. Follow-up, Senator?
Was that for a particular reason, or was it because of budget issues that had come up previously?
This has nothing to do with previous budgets. This particular building was abandoned as the new school was built in 2013. We had considered tearing it down, but then over the years, it's made more sense. Our early learning services is currently housed in a former dorm building. and this building makes more sense to renovate and move our early learning services into that facility. Okay.
Please.
Thank you, Mr. President.
So it was that facility that was already there, not being used over that period of time? Correct. Okay.
Any further, Senator?
I'm good.
Any other questions? Okay. Any objections to this item? Hearing none, the item is approved. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Item number 53, Ohio Facilities Construction Commission.
Good afternoon, President DeSantis, A.J. Thomas for the Facilities Commission. Senator?
Thank you, Mr. President.
I just have a question in regard to what the enhanced assessment gets us at this particular juncture with what's going on at Central State. Yes, thank you, Mr. President and Senator.
So, yes, these are enhanced environmental studies. So the previous assessments that were going on with the Thomas Porter architects, those are just simply building assessments. So that's just kind of looking at the actual condition of the building. But then so as we get further into the process about whether to renovate, demolish, or what to do with these buildings, the next step in the process is to do an environmental study. And so what these studies are is that's actually going through the buildings and gathering samples. I believe there's going to be a contract for about 1,100 different samples to be taken throughout the individual buildings. So with these samples, it's looking for chemicals and other hazardous materials, mold, what have you, so that way we can know actually what's in the building, what's in the ground or the groundwater for when we decide what a central state decides to do with the buildings. So particularly, so these are all buildings made, constructed prior to 1981. one, so you're talking lead-based paint and everything, too, that could also be in there. And so what these assessments will do will basically tell us kind of what's in the building before we start knocking down walls and doing other things and putting who knows what into the air. We want to make sure that we know what's there before we decide to do anything.
Follow-up, Senator?
Thank you, Mr. President. I guess maybe, and I get that, that's important to do, but I wish that before we did some other renovations that have already been done, because remember when you first came, it was to finish the elevator contract that went awry and things of that nature. I guess what bothers me is that when I hear things like before 81 and lead-based paint should have stopped being used in 78, but that's a whole other issue, is that the decision to be made whether or not we will renovate, demolish, or what. So my concern is that we didn't go in and looking at this. We did the assessment with the elevator, of course, and then some other work that we knew needed to be done, that that assessment was only eyeballing the buildings and saying, okay, the roof is going to take about this much, and the building's going to take, and the plumbing looks like this, and all of those pictures that were taken all over the place. there was no environmental assessment done prior to doing that work.
Thank you, President and Senator. So yes, the Thomas Porter architects, the ones doing, they're not capable of doing this type of work. This is a specialized work that did have to be contracted for through a different company. And so I can't speak exactly, but I will say that is that there were kind of two different, There was the immediate needs of getting the fire suppression systems and also the elevator situation, getting to functionality. And then also what we're doing now is going further and saying, OK, these are now functional for what they need to do. But in the future, for a future state, what does this look like for central state? And that's where we're at with these ones as to how to now that we've gotten them to where they're functional. It's OK. Now, what do we want to do with them in the future? We, of course, being central state. But so that's what these are. These are environmental assessments we are going to be helpful for.
Senator?
Thank you, Mr. President. I guess maybe my concern is that when Porter did their assessment, that very thick piece of document that they came back with, that here's what needs to be done, here's what we've observed, and here's how it's going to change. The immediate needs were absolutely there. As a matter of fact, we needed to claw back some of that money from whoever that original vendor was on the elevator. But my concern is why we didn't do the environmental piece before we had all that other assessment done, because we did have design monies. What was that? One point, I don't think it was a million, but it was a considerable amount of money to have that done. Then to come now and say, well, no matter what you did before, if there are some environmental issues, we might even just have to tear that building down, which then means we didn't have to spend that money on that first assessment.
Thank you, Mr. President, Senator. Yeah, I can't speak of the exact timing of it, but I know that this is the typical process that we go through and that the environmental assessments are done typically, I believe, second. I can get more information to you on the exact process, but I know that this is the process that we're following. Thank you.
Anything further, Senator? Okay, any other questions? Are there any objections to this item? Hearing none, the item is approved. And with no further business before the board, is there a motion to adjourn the meeting? Motion from Senator Wilkin. Do I have a second? Second from Representative Sweeney. We are adjourned.