Commissioners, Veterans Service Office spar over budget matters

Highland County commissioners Brad Roades, Terry Britton and David Daniels engaged in a heated debate with Highland County Veterans Service Director/Officer Tim Hazelwood and VSO Cailin Hoskins over budget concerns during commissioners’ Wednesday, June 11 meeting. 

The argument stemmed from a resolution on the commissioners’ agenda in which the Veterans Service Office requested a budget modification within the (1000) County General Fund in the amount of $13,925.16.

According to Hoskins, the VSO has been asking for this resolution “since January” to correct what they claim is a discrepancy between what the VSO board approved and what county commissioners approved. Commissioners spoke out against the resolution because they claimed that the VSO board approved “excessive” raises for its staff recently and that this resolution would not correct appropriation issues within the VSO budget.   

The resolution was ultimately approved, but both sides aired various grievances about the request during Wednesday’s commission meeting.

The discussion began with Hoskins confirming that the $13,925.16 resolution would be appropriated to VSO line items dealing with salary and benefits. That led to Daniels asking for information on the raises approved for VSO staff, which he said the commission “views as pretty large increases without some justification.

“We got information about some pay increases that have been approved by the [VSO] board, which range anywhere from 19 percent to 10 percent, for office staff,” Daniels said. “Kind of a mid-year thing. Has there been any kind of justification for those raises? I think most people would consider raises of 19 percent, that 9,500-and-some-odd dollars a year, is probably excessive within the marketplace.”

Daniels continued that the county conducted “a wage study and point-factored every position within the county. Your department did not take part in that.” Hoskins said that the VSO completed their own wage study by comparing information from other county VSOs.

“We had picked out the ones that have similar veteran populations and similar budgets,” Hoskins said. “We reached out to their offices and did a wage comparison with similar offices.

“We did that with our board, and the board looked over those and came up with this.”

Daniels asked them to forward the information to commissioners, then addressed his issue with the potential ramifications of the wage increases.

“According to our figures, these raises or increases will overspend your appropriation by close to $30,000 for the year,” Daniels said. “That’s only in the salary line item. That doesn’t include PERS.

“You’re only asking for $13,925.16, so you’re not even covering your expenses through the end of the year. I guess my question is, is, knowing that these increases have been approved by the board, shouldn't we be dealing with the whole issue?”

Hoskins responded that this resolution is unrelated to the office raises.

“This specific budget modification request is requesting to move money back to the original budget that our board submitted last year,” Hoskins said. “We submit our budget to you all in May of the year prior. That was signed off by our by our board president, and and then when we got it back in December, it was changed. We're just asking it to be back to what our board originally approved.”

County ARPA funding coordinator Nicole Oberrecht said the VSO’s request last year accounted for three-percent raises, with commissioners ultimately implementing 3.5-percent raises that were “put in the salary line items” for VSO.

“No,” Hoskins said. “When we put our budget together, we always have extra in our salary line item for increases or drivers or things like that. We did hire a new service officer last year, and as she's going through the accreditation process, she gets a raise for going through the schooling and getting her accreditations and whatnot. We always have some extra impact, so that's what was originally submitted in the budget in May of ’24 for the ’25 budget.

“When the budget actually came out, in December, it had gotten — money had been moved without any kind of communication, and so we're just asking for that money that our board originally approved being put back where our board approved it.”

In response to a question from Oberrecht, Hoskins confirmed that they will also submit “another resolution to factor in” the wage increases and to reappropriate funds later.

“This is just fixing an issue that happened from our original budget,” Hoskins said.

Britton said the county “talked to every department” about the budget and the eventual decision for 3.5-percent increases. Hazelwood and Hoskins reminded him that, as Daniels mentioned, the VSO “wasn’t involved” in those discussions.

“You attended meetings where you knew the wage study was going on,” Daniels said. “It was open to everybody.”

“That doesn't mean we can make the meetings,” Hazelwood said.

“But you have attended them,” Daniels said. “They’re department head meetings.”

Britton said the VSO is “going to have to change it again” with a different resolution for the wage increases and asked why they wouldn’t “just do it one time.”

“It’s never done just one time, Terry,” Hazelwood said. “There's always several budget modifications.”

“You know, most departments don't give increases in the middle of the year, especially at an 18- to 20-percent increase,” Britton replied.

“Most departments don’t do the job we do,” Hazelwood said.

Hoskins said it is “impossible to compare” the VSO to other county offices, which is why they did an independent wage study.

“There's no way that can be done,” Hazelwood said. 

“Yes, there is, and we just went through that with every department,” Daniels said. “We take everybody's job description, we point factor to them to get to a point where every position shows the requirements that they need and what kind of decision making they do. We've gone through that with every employee. 

“If these are justified — and believe you me, our wage survey shows that there is justification for larger than average increases throughout the county, but it's documented. We've got solid, I guess, research that shows that we should be doing that, and I would be interested in seeing yours, and it may very well bear this out. 

“But we are responsible to the public, and when people see that increases are given out at I think what most people would consider higher than what the average in the private and public sector both is, I think that they expect us to say, ‘OK, yes, this is justified, and here's the evidence,’” Daniels continued.

Hoskins said that the VSO “runs a little differently with the ORC [Ohio Revised Code] and  how we're functioning from the state.” Hazelwood asked, “Who would you compare our wages against in the county?”

Daniels said they would treat Hazelwood the same as any other “department head” and outline his job responsibilities.

“What the wage survey did is it went out and compared those job descriptions to other, not only public sector agencies, but private sector agencies as well,” Daniels said. “It's a range in there that those people should fall within, so as a department head, you would be comparable to department heads not only at a veterans service agency, but also to somebody out in the private sector that they've said, ‘OK, here's the same group.’”

Daniels added that he’s “not saying they’re not justified” raises but stressed that they need “some cover” to show the reasoning for “raises that I think most people would consider above the norm.”

“I’ve got a whole county full of veterans that I promise you, they won't think that's above the norm,” Hazelwood said. “If you can't compare to another veterans service office, then there is no comparison, because I don't do what probation does. I don't do what records do. I don't do that. I play a doctor, I play a lawyer, I play a social worker, I play all them roles, every single one. The point is, it's our commissioners that have to do the justification, and they justify it.”

Daniels asked if the county commissioners’ “opinion doesn't matter, then why should we legitimize it?” Hoskins and Hazelwood pointed out that the ORC says the county commission “shall appropriate funds” for the VSO.

“I think that we we've appropriated funds,” Daniels said. “If it is our responsibility to pass resolutions to transfer money within your budget, then I think we ought to do it all at the same time, all at once, to fix the problems that we see, or that you all should see, coming down the road.”

Hoskins and Hazelwood referred to Ohio Supreme Court opinions that have held the VSO “board gets to make these decisions.

“There's a reason why the state has done this, because there's been several lawsuits in the past, county commissioners not wanting to follow the ORC, and as to date, the Veterans Service offices have won every single one of those lawsuits,” Hazelwood said. “It’s plain and simple, black and white. It’s the law.”

“Nineteen and a half percent increases are excessive if they’re not justified,” Daniels said. 

“Your opinion,” Hazelwood said.

Britton asked why the appropriations “even come through” the county commissioners if they “don’t have a say.”

“That’s a good question,” Hoskins said. “We’re following the law from the ORC.”

“I understand that,” Britton said. “If you’re going to make an adjustment, then why don’t you make it to what it should be? 

“Why don’t we just make the figures right and just move it one time?”

Appropriations resolutions are on commissioners’ agendas nearly every week, as alluded to by Hazelwood.

“What you're saying then is everybody in the county that comes in here to do a budget modification needs to have all of them at one time, not have probation coming back and doing six more,” Hazelwood said. “That's what you're saying, Terry. We've done this every year that you've been a commissioner, and there was never an issue.”

“The issue is, you guys, your board has given you 20-percent increases,” Britton said. “The money that you're moving doesn't even cover half of that.”

“We know that, but we also know that this money was moved at the beginning of the year and shouldn’t have been moved,” Hazelwood said. 

Hoskins again reiterated “this is a separate issue from the raises” and the resolution involves funding “that shouldn't have been moved to begin with.”

“I'm sure that we sat down and told your board that the increases that we were giving was three and a half percent,” Britton said.

Hoskins and Hazelwood agreed that commissioners did that, but by that time, the VSO “board had already approved our budget.” Britton repeated several times that they should “just move it all” at once.

“We have plans for a budget modification for these raises,” Hoskins said. “These raises were not obviously thought about a year ago in May when we were originally making our ’25 budget, so we're trying to get back to January of 2025, and have everything settled to where we had a plan, and then make our budget modifications for the changes that our board has made now.

“This budget modification was submitted to you all in January and is just now being put on the agenda, so that's why we're here now. That's kind of the big concern as well is that this was submitted to you all in January, when we first discovered that the budget had changed, and it's just now being addressed in June.”

Daniels moved to approve the resolution while stating that it will not “solve the payroll problems that they’re going to have before the end of the year.

“We're doing something that doesn’t address the problems that are created as a result of these raises that we haven't seen any justification for,” Daniels said. “I would move that we accept [the resolution], knowing full good and well that it doesn't solve the issue, and I guess we will end up seeing this come back again.”

Roades, who had not engaged in any of the back and forth between the commissioners and VSO staff, also shared his views before seconding the motion.

Regarding Hazelwood’s comment that “there is no comparison” between the work his office does versus other county offices, Roades said that is “an insult” to other agencies such as the Highland County Sheriff’s Office that are also tasked with serving multiple roles to the citizens they serve.

“That was not an insult at all, Brad,” Hazelwood said. 

Roades also spoke out against the communication issues between the VSO and the county commissioners office.

“What I don’t understand is why’ve we got to keep coming here to discuss this money, because we obviously have no power among you guys, but now you're wanting to always change,” Roades said. “We sat here and we had a meeting to discuss the budget. In mid-year, you come and blew that budget all apart. You don't even come to us prior to that to say, ‘Hey, this is what we're thinking about doing.’ We just get a letter saying 
this is what you're doing.”

After hearing from the commission president, the board voted 3-0 to approve the resolution, with Daniels adding, “Please forward the results of that study on to us. We thank you.”

In other discussion:

• Commissioners thanked Highland County Engineer Chris Fauber for doing blacktop work at the site of the new records storage building.

“Chris does a lot of things for us that nobody really sees,” Britton said.

• Commissioners voted 3-0 to reject a change order request regarding an air flow check for the Highland County Administration Building.

“The amount of work that needs to be done to the air flow system is minimal, and I guess they have suggested that this is not necessary for the expense that’s quoted,” Daniels said.

• Dave Litteral and John Barney gave a sales presentation on a proposal for the county to use opioid settlement dollars on outreach advertising through their media company.

Commissioners also made the following approvals, each by a 3-0 vote:

• A request from Probation to rename Community Control FY20 (2645) fund to CCA 2.0 FY26/27 (2645) fund. Also requested is an appropriation of $219,924.25.

• A request from Probation to rename PSI Writing (2650) to PSG FY 26/27 (2650) fund. Also requested is an appropriation of $89,368.

• A request from Probation to rename Jail Diversion 2655 fund to TCAP FY 26/27 (2655) fund. Also requested is an appropriation of $72,731.50.

• A request from Probation for additional appropriation from unappropriated funds within the (2170) Probation Services Fund in the amount of $35,000.

• A request from Probation for an advance within the 2170 Probation Services fund in the amount of $25,000.

• A request from Probation for an advance within the 2170 Probation Services fund in the amount of $10,000.

• A request from Probation for an additional appropriation from unappropriated funds within the (2615) CCA 2.0 FY 24-25 Fund in the amount of $11,790.51.

• A request from Probation for an additional appropriation from unappropriated funds within the (2620) PSG FY24-25 fund in the amount of $6,673.18.

• An additional appropriation from unanticipated revenue within the (4220) County Airport Fund in the amount of $14,440.50.

• A budget modification within the (1000) County General Fund in the amount of $1,000.

• The execution of a BUSTR (Bureau of Underground Storage Tank Regulations) form for the Highland County Airport.

Publisher's note: A free press is critical to having well-informed voters and citizens. While some news organizations opt for paid websites or costly paywalls, The Highland County Press has maintained a free newspaper and website for the last 26 years for our community. If you would like to contribute to this service, it would be greatly appreciated. Donations may be made to: The Highland County Press, P.O. Box 849, Hillsboro, Ohio 45133. Please include "for website" on the memo line.