WHEN THE COUNTY ADMITS THE CUTS ARE COMING AND THE RECORD BECOMES THE ROAD MAP
Aaron Christopher Knapp
Investigative Journalist | Licensed Social Worker
Editor in Chief, Lorain Politics Unplugged
Knapp Unplugged Media LLC
This reporting is based on the public record of a Lorain County Board of Commissioners meeting and the quoted statements are transcribed from that meeting as provided. Any transcription can contain minor spelling or timing errors and readers should treat these quotes as faithful to the recording’s content while still subject to verification against the original audio or video. Nothing in this article is legal advice. Allegations or interpretations about government conduct are presented as analysis and opinion based on the public record, and all individuals and agencies referenced are presumed to be acting lawfully unless and until proven otherwise.
PART ONE
THE DAY THE COUNTY SAID THE QUIET PART OUT LOUD
The meeting that pretended to be routine
It started like every local government meeting starts, the pledge, the roll call, the quick votes that move money without inviting the public to slow the process down. On paper, this was “the regular meeting” of July 15. In reality, it was the meeting where the commissioners laid down their budget narrative for the rest of the year and told you, in plain language, that the county cannot fund what departments asked for. They did not scream it. They did not dramatize it. They normalized it. That is how austerity is sold in public, not as a crisis, but as “prudence,” “efficiency,” “continuity,” and “we have to pass something today.”
The most revealing part is not that departments asked for more money. Every department asks for more money. The most revealing part is that the commissioners have already created a short list of targets and publicly described the logic of cuts before the real budget fight even begins.
“If you take a look at the ask for 2026 from everybody, it’s $97 million. We’re voting today for the non-binding budget of 86.7.”
That is the entire story in two sentences. The rest of the meeting is the justification.
Cash flow stress tells you what the budget stress will become
Early in the meeting, there is a small moment that looks like a mundane accounting explanation. It is not mundane. It is the real world example of how public finance pressure shows up first, not in the grand speeches, but in the timing problems, the need to “advance” money from one place to another, the need to keep contractors paid while the state and federal reimbursement cycle lags behind.
“The million dollars is coming out of the storm water fund to basically advance us funds into our state and federal grant. It’s been taking them a little bit longer to turn the money around and we want to keep our contractor paid quickly and timely.”
“Currently, we have about 1.1 million outstanding in grant drawdowns.”
That is a county saying, without saying it, that it needs liquidity. When grant programs are slow, you either front money or you stall projects. They chose to front money, which is responsible, but it also underscores the larger theme. The county is trying to control spending not just because of totals, but because of timing.
The executive session script and the culture of “don’t ask”
The meeting includes a read aloud executive session statement and, in the transcript, it contains a legal citation that appears wrong or garbled. That matters, not because it is a gotcha, but because it demonstrates how local governments use scripts to create a culture of silence. The public is told “confidentiality” is necessary for government business, then the script implies disclosure is “prohibited” in sweeping terms.
“Any disclosure outside of executive session is prohibited by Hawaii Rise Code 102.03b.”
Even if that phrase is a transcription artifact, the effect is the same. A member of the public hearing that statement is being conditioned to believe that what happens behind closed doors is not just private but legally forbidden to discuss. That is not how Ohio’s Open Meetings Act works in the broad, sweeping sense implied. The law allows executive session only for specified purposes and prohibits taking formal action while in executive session, but it does not magically transform everything said into a blanket, permanent secrecy regime. When a board reads scripts like this, it signals an instinct, control the narrative first, then talk about transparency later.
The tax budget item is not “non binding” in the way they want you to believe
The commissioners repeatedly call the FY26 tax budget “non binding.” That phrase is technically useful for them because it lowers the temperature. It tells the public, relax, this is not the final budget. But the commissioners also admit the truth in the same breath, this “non binding” document becomes the working baseline for months.
“This is now the working document that we’ll be working on between now and when we pass the actual budget for 26 in either November and December.”
That means this meeting is not just informational. It is the opening of a negotiation where the commissioners already know what they want to do, shrink the ask down to the approved number, then shrink the approved number down to match expected revenue, then argue they are protecting the county from deficits and protecting bond ratings and carryover.
The three numbers that tell you exactly what happens next
The meeting provides an unusually clean public accounting of the gap.
“The projected revenue is at 81 million. You’re going to see a projected deficit of $5.1 million.”
This matters because the deficit number is not presented as an abstract fear. It is presented as a math problem they are already preparing to solve through cuts and restructuring. They even describe the timeline.
“Our job over the next 90 days will be to look for areas where we are duplicating services between departments and make appropriate adjustments.”
In local government language, “duplicating services” is the polite version of consolidation, elimination, reassignment, and sometimes layoffs or unfilled vacancies. They also lay out the rule that tells you where the knife goes first.
“Out of the 86 million… 68.8% of that is payroll cost.”
“If you’re going to balance the budget, you don’t focus on the 10% part. You focus on the 68% part.”
That is not commentary. That is their plan stated out loud. It means the budget story is not primarily about paper clips, travel, and little line items. It is about headcount, benefits, contracts, and service scope.
The blue stars, the county’s own target map
If you want one quote that turns this meeting into a roadmap for accountability reporting, it is the blue stars line.
“There’s 12 blue stars… those are the stars that we feel that if we cannot work things out that’s where the cuts are all going to be.”
That sentence should be treated as a public promise. It is a declaration that the board has already identified twelve points of vulnerability. It is also an invitation to demand documentation. What exactly are the starred lines. Who chose them. What criteria were used. What services sit behind those lines. What populations rely on them. What alternative funding streams exist. How much is staffing versus vendors versus contracted services. What outcomes will be reduced. If this board intends to “hold feet to the fire,” the public has a right to see whose feet are already under the boot.
The ARPA hangover narrative is the political cover story for shrinking services
They present the end of ARPA money as both inevitable and morally corrective, as if ARPA created bad habits, not temporary stabilization in extraordinary years.
“It’s the ARPA hangover, and we have some spending habits that we developed during ARPA that weren’t healthy.”
That phrase is going to be repeated. It will be used later to justify cuts to programs people have come to rely on. It will be used to frame pushback as irrational addiction rather than democratic disagreement. When officials call services “habits,” they are not just balancing numbers. They are shaping public perception of what government owes its residents.
They claim there is “no miracle,” then they tell you where to look
They explain flat sales tax and stagnant transfer fees. The purpose is to neutralize the public’s instinct that inflation should be bringing in more money.
“Our sales tax revenue is actually fairly flat… people are spending the same amount of money, but they’re buying less stuff.”
“Even though real estate housing is up… there are less transfers. The net result is the transfer monies are running steady, but they’re not growing.”
Then comes the line that will later be used as a shield.
“There’s no miracle like something’s going to happen that’ll solve this problem.”
If there is no miracle, then the only honest debate is about priorities. Who gets protected. Who gets cut. Who gets asked to do more with less. And who gets to keep expansion projects moving while the day to day budget tightens.
The sheriff number tells you where the real pressure will land
This meeting casually drops a giant number.
“When we’re talking about the sheriff’s office… he’s $34 million is his ask and he gets 13.7 million just from the jail fund.”
That is the scale of law enforcement spending inside the county ecosystem. Whether someone supports or criticizes that spending, the factual point is that this is a central lever. Any serious budget story that avoids the sheriff’s budget is not a serious budget story.
They quietly describe an accounting culture problem
One of the most meaningful segments is framed as a clean up, a reimbursement from a mandatory drug fine account for deer related expenditures between 2019 and 2024. But the discussion expands into a description of past practice.
“There evidently had been a habit of paying for things out of whatever account was convenient instead of the more appropriate account.”
“It leaves the special revenue account with a balance unspent and unfairly burdens the general revenue account.”
That is a public admission that the accounting choices of the past may have distorted the general fund picture. That matters because the board is now telling departments to live within strict constraints. If the constraints are built on years of sloppy account practices, then the public has a right to ask who allowed that and what controls exist now.
They end the meeting the way they run government
After executive session, the board returns and does not vote on anything. Then they adjourn with a line that sounds like a joke but functions like a warning.
“Thank you all for waiting. Look, there’s nobody out there.”
The room is empty because the public has been trained to treat these meetings as tedious. That is how major decisions get made. Not in drama, but in boredom. Not in scandal, but in routine. Not in daylight conflict, but in quiet attrition.
CONCLUSION
WHAT THIS RECORD MEANS, AND WHAT COMES NEXT
What you have just read is not a finished story. It is the record, organized, preserved, and examined in a way that allows the public to see what was actually said, what was actually claimed, and where the questions now exist. The importance of this work is not in any single quote or any single number. It is in the pattern that emerges when those quotes and numbers are placed side by side without the filter of summary or spin.
This process matters because public meetings are not designed for clarity. They are designed for procedure. Information is presented quickly, often without context, and almost always without follow up in the moment. The result is that the most important statements are often buried inside routine discussion. When those statements are pulled together and examined as a whole, they tell a very different story than the one most people walk away with after watching a meeting live.
It is also important to be transparent about how this material was compiled. The quotes and statements presented here were drawn from publicly available recordings of the Lorain County Board of Commissioners meeting, including YouTube transcripts and associated video sources. Those transcripts were used as a working foundation, and artificial intelligence tools were used to assist in organizing, structuring, and cross-referencing the material. While every effort has been made to preserve the substance of what was said, transcripts can contain minor errors, and readers are strongly encouraged to review the original recordings themselves.
This is not a suggestion. It is part of the process. Public accountability does not come from trusting a single source. It comes from verifying the record. The meetings are available. The statements are on the record. Anyone can watch them, and anyone can reach their own conclusions about what was said and what it means.
This publication is being made available on the free subscription tier and on the public site because the foundation of any investigation should be accessible. The public should be able to see the raw record before they are asked to evaluate conclusions drawn from it. That is why this piece focuses on what was said, how it was said, and what questions naturally follow.
There will be a Part Two that moves deeper into the documentation identified within the meeting itself, focusing on the records, financial data, and internal materials that will either support or contradict the claims made on the record. That portion will examine the evidence behind the statements, not just the statements themselves.
There will also be a third piece. That piece will not be a transcript driven analysis. It will be reporting. It will take the record, the documents, and the verification process and build a narrative based on what can be proven, what can be supported, and what the full picture shows once the underlying data is examined.
What matters at this stage is not reaching a conclusion. What matters is understanding that the story has already been partially told by the officials themselves. They have put their numbers on the record. They have explained their reasoning. They have identified their priorities. The next step is to determine whether that record holds up under scrutiny.
LEGAL DISCLAIMER AND NOTICE TO READERS
This publication is provided for informational, educational, and journalistic purposes only. Nothing contained in this publication should be construed as legal advice, financial advice, or professional advice of any kind. Readers are encouraged to consult qualified legal counsel or other licensed professionals regarding any specific legal or financial questions.
This content is based on publicly available records, including but not limited to meeting recordings, transcripts, and related materials. Any analysis, interpretation, or commentary contained herein represents opinion derived from those records. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, no representation or warranty is made as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the information presented.
Transcriptions used in this publication may contain minor errors, including but not limited to spelling, punctuation, timing, or phrasing inconsistencies. Readers are encouraged to review original source materials, including audio and video recordings, to independently verify all quoted statements.
All individuals, public officials, agencies, and entities referenced in this publication are presumed to have acted lawfully and in good faith unless and until proven otherwise in a court of competent jurisdiction. Any references to conduct, decision making, or government action are presented as opinion and analysis based on the available public record.
INVESTIGATIVE AND ANALYTICAL DISCLOSURE
This publication incorporates research methods that include the review of public records, transcription analysis, and the use of artificial intelligence tools to assist in organizing, summarizing, and structuring large volumes of information. Artificial intelligence was used solely as an analytical and formatting aid. All substantive conclusions, interpretations, and editorial decisions remain those of the author.
The use of AI does not replace the underlying source material. Readers are encouraged to independently review the original records to form their own conclusions. Any errors identified should be considered unintentional and subject to correction upon verification.
COPYRIGHT AND PROPRIETARY NOTICE
This publication is the original work product and intellectual property of Knapp Unplugged Media LLC. All content contained herein, including but not limited to text, structure, analysis, formatting, and compilation of public records, is protected under applicable copyright and intellectual property laws.
Unauthorized reproduction, redistribution, republication, or use of this material, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited without the express written consent of Knapp Unplugged Media LLC. This includes, but is not limited to, copying content to other websites, social media platforms, publications, or derivative works.
This material is provided for personal, non commercial use by readers. Any use outside of that purpose may constitute a violation of intellectual property rights and may be subject to legal action.
SUBSCRIBER USE AND DISTRIBUTION LIMITATIONS
Where this content is provided as part of a subscription service, it is intended solely for the use of the subscribing individual. Sharing, forwarding, distributing, or otherwise disseminating subscription content to non subscribers is not permitted without prior written authorization.
This publication may contain material that is part of an ongoing investigative series. Redistribution of such material outside of its intended audience may compromise the integrity of the investigative process.
LIABILITY LIMITATION
Knapp Unplugged Media LLC disclaims any liability for actions taken or not taken based on the content of this publication. Readers assume full responsibility for any decisions made based on the information presented.
Under no circumstances shall Knapp Unplugged Media LLC or its representatives be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, or punitive damages arising from the use of or reliance upon this publication.
CORPORATE IDENTIFICATION
Knapp Unplugged Media LLC
Lorain County, Ohio
All rights reserved.
About The Author
