UPDATED: 'Never seen anything like this:' Engineer, commissioners spar over truck barn funding decision

Two Highland County commissioners and the county engineer engaged in a heated discussion Wednesday, April 1, as the engineer said commissioners removed a $1 million grant from his truck barn project and commissioners repeatedly evaded questions on when and how the decision was made.

As previously reported, plans for a new truck barn and office space for the engineer’s office have been going for several years, as Highland County Engineer Chris Fauber made a proposal for the idea back in 2022, then estimated at $1.4 million. 

State Senator Shane Wilkin (R-Hillsboro) announced the investment of $1 million from the One-Time Strategic Community Investment Fund (OTSCIF) to support the project in June 2024, as that is the funding that was debated Wednesday.
 
Commissioners voted in November 2024 to direct $2 million of their American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) dollars to the project. In December 2024, commissioners also committed another $500,000 in ARPA funding toward engineer services and contract administration by the WDC Group for the project.

In February 2025, commissioners voted to enter into a purchase agreement for the adjoining property to the engineer’s office, the former Pike Gas property at 144 Bowers Avenue in Hillsboro, at a cost of $390,000. The property includes two parcels, for a total of 0.3742 acre.

Commissioners also voted to authorize the issuance of not to exceed $4.6 million in building improvement bonds in June and closing documents for the financing in July 2025.

Commissioners awarded the project bid to Jay-Car Construction in the amount of $5,029,738, both through a motion and by passing a resolution, in September 2025. The bid from Jay-Car was “25-percent below their estimate,” Fauber said at the time.

Although the truck barn was listed as the topic for commissioners’ meeting with the engineer’s office on their Wednesday, April 1 agenda, Fauber asked commissioners to address “the grant situation.”

Britton said that commissioners made the decision to redirect the $1 million from the state from the engineer’s project, to which it has been allocated for nearly two years, to the courthouse renovations that are still in planning stages. 

“We had slated $7.5 million for [the engineer’s] project,” commissioner Terry Britton told Fauber. “The bid came in at five [million dollars]. With the money that's going to have to have to be put into the courthouse — and we don't know exactly how much more that's going to be, but the initial estimates are looking very high, probably close to $10 million — we've decided to move a million dollars out of that group over to the courthouse project, and that was the million dollars that Shane [Wilkin] gave us for your project. 

“You still have $6.5 million dollars to get your project done. I don't think it's going to be a problem. If it is, we’re going to make sure that you’re whole, as far as getting things done.”

“For the truck barn,” commissioner David Daniels added, then repeated, “For the truck barn.”

Fauber then attempted to read “some prepared thoughts” on how this decision came to light.

“You brought this up to me couple weeks ago, casually, at another meeting, that you had come up with this decision,” Fauber said. “We were digging footers at the time. There'd been no communication prior to that about any idea that there would be, that this was even an option or being discussed. 

“I guess I'm confused, disappointed, concerned and honestly disrespected. I feel I've been here 25 years, and I’ve never seen anything like this.”

At that point, Britton interjected.

“Let me stop you right there,” Britton said. “I’m sorry that maybe we didn't communicate well, but you still have plenty of money.”

“I’ve got documentation here to show you otherwise, but I'll get into that,” Fauber said.

The engineer went on to speak for the next several minutes uninterrupted, as he expressed concerns with both the financial ramifications as well as his question — which, as mentioned, was never answered by commissioners — on whether the decision was made in a public meeting.

“I guess I'm just wondering about how this went about,” Fauber said. “I mean, I find out about it basically after you guys made the request [to the state]. 

“This was not discussed in any kind of meeting that I was aware of or I was a part of, so that's a concern, so just kind of disrespected in a way that how this all went about. I mean, this could have been — I’d like to know when this decision was made, how it was made. When was I going to find out about it?”

NOTE: This is the April 2 response from the Highland County Board of Commissioners to an April 1 public records request by The Highland County Press: "No board vote has occurred on the matter referenced in your request. As a result, no official documentation exists related to the board taking such action."
 
The engineer pointed out that to date, all of the plans for the project have been based upon the $7.5 million figure.

“I'm concerned because financially, that's a big deal to take a million dollars out of the project, when you’re starting the project,” Fauber said. “A lot of decisions were being made based on a total fund funding amount. 

“I’m constantly making decisions based on a total dollar amount in my head. Currently, with the change orders that we already have, we're a little over $5 million. We've spent $843,000 already, prior to the building even starting: doing the compaction, getting the site prepared, buying the building, demoing that. There's still an additional almost $900,000 that are not part of this bid that we purposely didn’t include in the bid because additional site work, all the curbs, gutters, the street work, we felt like we could do that, but it's still a cost associated with that. All the office furnishing, all the IT, all the data security. We didn't put that in the bid because we wanted to control who did that.”

Fauber said that means they’ve “got $5 million already committed, another $1.7 million” already spent, and now they have “no room for any kind” of contingencies, before construction has truly begun.

“A project this size, $5 million, I mean, it's not uncommon to have 10 percent on any project, to have overages,” Fauber said. “Now it's 7.2 [million dollars], and we haven't done anything. These are the things I could have communicated with you guys before a decision was made. 

“I talked to people at the state level, and they were kind of confused about this too, because I think it was presented to them that I didn't need the money, and that's kind of what you just said. You felt like the bid coming in low, so I didn't need this money, but that's not the total, that's not getting everything done. That’s kind of the frustrating part, the disappointing part, that this lack of communication is starting to be a pattern, and it's concerning.”

At that point, both Daniels and Britton attempted to reply, with Britton, the commission president, speaking first. However, both of the commissioners — as commissioner Brad Roades was silent during the entire exchange — shifted the blame on communication to Fauber for extending the project from a truck barn to a combined truck barn/office space for the engineer’s staff. 

“When we started this, this was just going to be a building for storing your trucks, and then it got to be the office and all the other things,” Britton said. “So, for you to say that we are disrespectful —“

“I’m talking about the fact that there’s no communication,” Fauber interrupted. “That’s the disrespectful part. If you don’t feel that way, then that’s your opinion, but I do. I mean, that’s a big deal to take a million dollars.”

“I think we've went over and above,” Britton said. 

Daniels continued that “there was lack of communication … on both sides.

“I don't want to play this game, but in some ways, we probably feel the same way,” Daniels said. “Originally, it was a truck barn. It was torn down before we even had bids and specs. Then it was an office building that didn't need to be replaced. It was torn down before we had bids and specs, so we were backed into a corner, the fact that all this was torn down and we had no choice.

“The bids came in lower. We had to bond, and before we knew what the total cost was, the bids came in. We bonded enough to make payment for the truck barn. As the bids come in, there's a contingency fee, and there's a contingency amount in those bids that might handle any overage. The thought was, is, to look to that grant funding and see if it can be a little bit more flexible so that we could use it where best needed. I think that that's the point. So if you talk about lack of communication, there was plenty of it on both sides of this, and I think that we all feel the exact same way.”

“I think it was communicated clearly before we bid what we were doing, and you guys were on board with that,” Fauber said.

“Then we hear that there are additional projects that are coming into this,” Daniels continued. “We need a barn, so we got a barn. We got an office. Now we're looking at salt storage. We're looking at any number of other things that have kind of creeped into this whole discussion that's not part of the original project.”

Fauber addressed Daniels’ comments on the funding, as well as the “other things” Daniels claimed are being added and the supposed lack of communication from the engineer’s office.

“When we talked about securing this loan, I think that whole process was was probably handled incorrectly too,” Fauber said. “The attorneys wanted to make sure that their finances were available before we did the project. I talked to them. I don't think there was a commitment from from the board, but you know, you guys could have committed, say, yes, we've got the money to cover this. The bids come in, then we could have got the bond for way less amount, but that's not how you guys wanted to proceed.”

Regarding the “salt storage” comment by Daniels, Fauber said there are “no plans” at the current time and that this was just an option to consider later. The engineer said that the bond was drafted so that “if we did have extra money, we could use it on additional buildings on that site for upgrades and equipment” such as this.

“When we got a better bid, I started making plans, you know, not spending it, we started making plans for the idea,” Fauber said. “This year was a bad year with salt storage. We supply the salt for the trustees. I just mentioned it in passing, and it's nothing committed. I just said, if we do [have extra funding], that's what I would spend the money on, additional salt storage. There's no plans for that. This is the project. This is the priority, and nothing's going to get done until so that's complete.” 

In response to plans for the building project, Fauber pointed out that commissioners were “involved in all the meetings we had,” but he has apparently not been included in commissioners’ meetings on funding. 

“There were no meetings had without you guys there,” Fauber said. “That's kind of where I'm going back to before, when these decisions were made for this funding. Why wasn't I included in that meeting? Why wasn’t I brought in to discuss so that we could show you that there's additional things that's not part of that bid that were purposely held out so we can control how that was done? I think that's important, and I think that's a big deal.”

Fauber added that his “bigger concern” is how this impacts not only this project, but other future projects, if commissioners are going to cut his funding with no warning.

“Do I feel like my barn is more important than the courthouse? No, that's not what I'm here to decide,” Fauber said. “It's lack of communication, how we got to this point, and then moving forward, how I can make financial decisions not knowing. You've committed those funds, and we make decisions based on that commitment, and now you pull that commitment without really any communication other than, ‘Oh, by the way, here you go,’ as we've already started the project.”

“Well, you’ve got $6.5 million, as of right now,” Britton said.

“So you're going to stand by this whole not reappropriating this grant from my building to your project,” Fauber said.

“The money’s already been moved,” Britton said.

Fauber again asked how commissioners came to “that decision” and whether a vote was taken “in a meeting.”

“We talked to you about it last week,” Britton said.

“But the wheels started [before that],” Fauber said. “When did you apply for this grant to be changed?”

“I’d have to go back and look,” Britton said.

Fauber then addressed Daniels directly, asking if he “made this request.”

“I called up and asked if it was possible to move the money,” Daniels said.

“So then, when was the decision made?” Fauber asked. “Is that something that has to be voted on?”

“We were waiting on, to see if the money could even be moved,” Britton said.

“But it’s already done, so you must have gotten an answer that it could be done,” Fauber said. “When was the decision made to do it?”

“I was told Friday, last Friday,” Britton said.

“I understand it’s already been done at the state, but I’m asking when you guys made the decision,” Fauber said.

“When we got the estimates for the courthouse, that's when we started trying to figure out how we were going to pay that renovation also,” Britton said. “We’ve only got so much money to take care of this stuff. You're not the only project that we've got going on, that we’ve got to think about.”

Fauber then pointed out that the $1 million from the state “needs to be spent by October” and asked if the “courthouse building [is] going to be far enough along” for the money to be spent by that time.

“Chris, those are things that shouldn’t concern you,” Daniels said, which sparked both him and Fauber to speak over each other for a few seconds before Britton interrupted to say the courthouse project was going to start “probably in July.

“The whole front of the courthouse is rotten,” Britton said. “There’s a whole lot of repair that’s got to be done to that courthouse or that stuff is going to fall.”

“That didn’t happen overnight, guys,” Fauber said. “These things should have been a priority for a while, but that’s not my decision.”

Fauber added he was “not disagreeing” that the courthouse needs addressed but said “the whole communication through this process” is the issue at hand.
 
“We can’t change what happened yesterday,” Britton said. “We got $6.5 million.”

“So that’s the answer?” Fauber said. “You ‘can’t change what happened yesterday?’”

“That’s the answer for you,” Britton said.

Fauber then asked each commissioner, “Did you vote on this? Did you guys agree? I’m just trying to know the process.”

“We just asked that it could be done,” Britton said. “Shane told me Friday that it was moved.”

Daniels then attempted to dismiss the engineer’s office by moving on to a different topic with another county official, after which Highland County Prosecutor Anneka Collins addressed commissioners.

“I know that you guys have said that you're done with Chris, but I just want to address something that Chris said,” Collins said. “Chris keeps saying ‘communication, communication, communication,’ but I think that what he means is, if we accepted it, like I think we have to do that in a public meeting. Probably you guys did. Then if you're going to move it, I think that that's what he's talking about, and that's what his question is.”

“It is, without saying it,” Fauber said.

However, commissioners issued no response to Fauber or Collins, moving on to talk to another public official.

•• Publisher's note: The Highland County Press has submitted the following public records request to the commissioners: "Commissioners, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 149.43, please provide a copy of the Board vote to redirect $1 million from the state from the Highland County Engineer’s project, to which it has been allocated for nearly two years, to the courthouse renovations that are still in the planning stages. Also, please include the date and time this action was taken."