[{"_1":2,"_95":-5,"_96":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,85],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6356603,"mediaKeyId","2216274-ff9a28b7fd39cfb796c980cb44bdbca6","parentId",2216274,"title","Commissioners debate purchase-order flow; chair moves to direct auditor to pilot change for departments that report to commissioners","audioSeconds",767,"startMs",2699000,"endMs",3466000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2216274-ff9a28b7fd39cfb796c980cb44bdbca6&start=2699&end=3466","thumbnailUrl","https://d352y6ypj4mjo3.cloudfront.net/AudioPlaceholder.png","articleUrl","/articles/6356603/Ohio/Commissioners-debate-purchase-order-flow-chair-moves-to-direct-auditor-to-pilot-change-for-departments-that-report-to-commissioners","mediaUrl","author","Williams County OH","date","2025-01-06T00:00:00Z","article","Commissioners spent extended time on Jan. 6 discussing the county’s purchase-order workflow and who should approve purchase orders before bills are paid.

At issue was whether purchase-order approval should remain centralized in the auditor’s office or be routed first through the commissioners for departments that report directly to the board (for example, county departments under the commissioners’ purview). The chair proposed a pilot directing the auditor to accept purchase-order requests routed first through departments that answer to the commissioners, then through the auditor’s office for processing. The stated intent was to improve upfront budget oversight and reduce situations where the county is asked to approve payment after purchases have been made.

Why it matters: How purchase orders are routed affects internal controls, budget oversight and the timing of approvals. Commissioners emphasized accountability and avoiding the perception that the commission authorized purchases after the fact. Elected officials and the auditor’s office pushed back in prior discussions, raising questions about statutory authority and control over other elected offices’ budgets.

Substantive points raised
- Statutory authority: The county prosecutor’s office (referred to during the meeting as “Rick”) had previously advised that commissioners cannot force other independently elected officials to channel purchase orders through the commissioners’ office; the auditor’s office and elected officials cited statutory limits on control of those offices’ funds.
- Pilot approach: Commissioners proposed to start the new flow with departments that report to the commissioners (Hillside and other departments under commission oversight) rather than trying to change the practice for independently elected officials immediately.
- Operational details: Staff described options such as vendor-specific and blanket purchase orders, supermarket-style blanket approvals, and dollar thresholds that can reduce routine administrative burdens (for example, supplies vs. capital purchases).
- Implementation questions: Commissioners asked the auditor to prepare a written procedure and to confirm what statutory opinions are needed; some asked for a formal opinion or written guidance from the county prosecutor.

Outcome: The chair made a formal motion asking the auditor to move forward with purchase-order requests routed from departments that answer to the commissioners (pilot). The transcript does not record a formal roll-call vote on that motion during the meeting; commissioners continued discussion and asked for written procedures and legal clarity. The board requested follow-up and additional documentation before a countywide change would be applied to independently elected officials.

Ending: Commissioners agreed to move cautiously, ask the auditor to implement the pilot workflow for departments under the commissioners’ authority, and to request legal/statutory guidance and a written procedure for the proposed change.","mediaType","Audio","parentTitle","Williams County Commissioners Meeting Audio 01/06/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Commissioners spent extended time on Jan. 6 discussing whether the auditor or the commissioners should approve purchase orders before vendors are paid and whether to pilot routing POs through the commissioners’ office for departments that report to the board.","taxTitle","Williams, Ohio","taxId",72240,"location","Ohio","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":50,"_51":82,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":83,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":84,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6356609,"Commissioners complete annual reorganization, approve routine resolutions and several county contracts",1305,29000,1334000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2216274-ff9a28b7fd39cfb796c980cb44bdbca6&start=29&end=1334","/articles/6356609/Ohio/Commissioners-complete-annual-reorganization-approve-routine-resolutions-and-several-county-contracts","The Board of Williams County Commissioners held its annual reorganization on Jan. 6, 2025, adopting the standard slate of administrative resolutions, setting meeting days and times for 2025, and approving multiple appointments and contracts.

The reorganization proceeded under Ohio Revised Code Section 305.05. Commissioners conducted nominations and a vote for the board president and a separate nomination and vote for vice president, set regular meeting days and hours, adopted the county holiday schedule for 2025, and confirmed committee and board appointments for the year. The board also adopted local rules under ORC 121.22 governing open public meetings.

Why it matters: These routine actions set the board’s leadership, meeting schedule and administrative authorizations for the year. A number of the routine resolutions also delegate authorities (for example, signature authority in the absence of certain officials) and make appointments that govern county representation on outside boards.

Key votes and contracts approved
- Organization and officer elections: The board completed nominations and a formal vote for 2025 president and vice president (nominations were made during the meeting). Motion to elect officers carried.
- Meeting schedule and rules: The board approved meeting days/times for 2025 (Tuesdays and Thursdays, 8:00 a.m. until adjournment) and adopted rules under ORC 121.22.
- Employee/appointment resolutions: The board approved committee and board appointments for 2025 and designated signatory/designee authorities for county business.
- County engineer authorizations: The board authorized the county engineer to enter private property adjacent to county road rights-of-way for drainage work and to continue to employ labor and proceed by force account for road, bridge and culvert maintenance in 2025.
- Sanitary engineer appointment: Todd Roth was appointed Williams County Sanitary Engineer through the 2026 reorganization.
- Contracts and fiscal agreements: The board approved a contract for outside child-support legal services (maximum payable $88,004.80 for 2025), and agreements to use foster-parent homes (a $75-per-day rate for the first child and $45-per-day for a second child when applicable). The board also approved an agreement for financial statement preparation with a consulting firm at up to $10,000 per year and a contract for ADA parking improvements in Northwest Township (contract price stated in the packet).
- Other approvals: The board approved routine items including intent to conduct internet auctions for surplus county property, designation of Farm Service Agency signatory, prevailing wage coordinator appointment for 2025, and a union agreement submitted by Williams County Communications Agency.

What the board did not decide or left for follow-up
- Several routine approvals included delegations and authorizations that generated brief questions about implementation (for example, the process and paperwork for engineer access to private property and the administrative handling of blanket purchase orders). The board voted to approve the resolutions but asked staff for follow-up information on procedures and notice requirements.

Ending: The reorganization and the block of routine resolutions concluded with the roll-call approvals recorded in the minutes; the board then moved on to regular business and broader policy discussions later in the meeting.

Votes at a glance: (selected items recorded in the meeting packet and validated in the minutes)
- Resolution 1 (Board organization/election of president): approved (motion carried). Referenced ORC 305.05.
- Resolution 3 (Meeting days and hours): approved (motion carried).
- Resolution 4 (County holidays 2025): approved (motion carried).
- Resolution 5 (Adopt rules under ORC 121.22): approved (motion carried).
- Resolution 8 (Authorize county engineer to enter private property for drainage, 2025): approved (motion carried). Action includes written property-owner authorization prior to entry.
- Resolution 9 (Authorize county engineer to employ labor and proceed by force account, 2025): approved (motion carried).
- Resolution 11 (Appointment of sanitary engineer: Todd Roth): approved (motion carried).
- Resolution 16 (Intent to conduct internet auction for surplus property, 2025): approved (motion carried).
- Resolution 21 (Contract for child-support legal services with outside counsel — contract year 2025; maximum payable $88,004.80): approved (motion carried).
- Resolution 22 (Agreement for use of foster parent home(s) — $75/day for child 1, $45/day for child 2; term: until no longer needed): approved (motion carried).
- Resolution 25 (Agreement with Republic Services for solid-waste removal at EMS office): approved (motion carried).
- Resolution 26 (Northwest Township ADA parking improvement project — contract documents approved): approved (motion carried).
- Resolution 27 (Williams County Communications Agency union agreement with International Union of Police Associations): approved (motion carried).

(See full minutes for the complete list of resolutions passed during the reorganization.)","At a Jan. 6 reorganization meeting, the Board of Williams County Commissioners completed annual officer elections and approved routine administrative resolutions, committee appointments and several contracts, including legal services for child-support work and foster-home placement agreements.",{"_33":86,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":87,"_41":88,"_43":89,"_45":90,"_47":91,"_49":50,"_51":92,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":93,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":94,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6356601,"Commissioners discuss county priorities: building space, 911/EMS coverage and sewer/drainage concerns",1103,4407000,5510000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2216274-ff9a28b7fd39cfb796c980cb44bdbca6&start=4407&end=5510","/articles/6356601/Ohio/Commissioners-discuss-county-priorities-building-space-911EMS-coverage-and-sewerdrainage-concerns","After completing reorganization business, commissioners used the Jan. 6 meeting to outline a list of operational and capital priorities for 2025: county building space and records storage, conditions at the Job & Family Services office, 9-1-1 dispatch and EMS staffing, and sewer/drainage issues in several subdivisions.

What commissioners discussed
- North Building and courthouse space: Commissioners said the county’s recent property purchase requires a renewed review of long-term space planning. Several commissioners questioned the earlier space study’s scope and asked for tours of county facilities, including the JFS offices (described in the meeting as cramped and having inadequate conference space).
- Job & Family Services (JFS): Commissioners noted JFS workspace and record-storage concerns (staff referred to the JFS facility as the “dungeon” during informal discussion). The board discussed moving some functions into the North Building and asked staff to investigate options and report back.
- 9-1-1 dispatch and EMS: Commissioners raised concerns about having two separate 9-1-1 call centers in the county, after noting frequent interagency transfers and late-night staffing pressures that increase costs. The board discussed exploring a dispatch advisory board, possible partnerships with hospitals, and creative approaches to EMS coverage (including paid-on-call or part-time staffing models and collaboration with nearby municipalities).
- Sewer, stormwater and infrastructure: Commissioners discussed Buena Vista sewer problems, a possible retention-pond solution, and whether the county should subsidize or otherwise respond to failing septic/sewer infrastructure (Hickory Hills was mentioned). Commissioners asked the county engineer and staff to report on options, project costs and whether funds should be reserved for long-term capital replacement of county-owned sewer systems.

Why it matters: These planning conversations address long-term capital and service-delivery decisions. Space planning affects records access and staff working conditions; 9-1-1 and EMS arrangements affect emergency response times and budgets; sewer/drainage decisions can require significant capital outlays and create ongoing rate-setting considerations for system customers.

Next steps: Commissioners asked staff and relevant department heads (including the county engineer and JFS leadership) to prepare follow-up materials, site tours and financial analyses. They also asked the clerk to compile a list of the board’s priority items for 2025 so that the board can track progress in regular monthly updates.

Ending: Commissioners closed the meeting after asking for follow-up reports and scheduling department updates in upcoming months.","Following routine business, commissioners spent meeting time outlining 2025 priorities including use of the newly acquired North Building, Job and Family Services office conditions, 9-1-1 dispatch consolidation and EMS volunteerism, and stormwater/sewer issues at Buena Vista and Hickory Hills.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commissioners debate purchase-order flow; chair moves to direct auditor to pilot change for departments that report to commissioners

Commissioners complete annual reorganization, approve routine resolutions and several county contracts

Commissioners discuss county priorities: building space, 911/EMS coverage and sewer/drainage concerns