Commissioner Rick Hernandez said he abstained from an earlier related vote and later explained his No vote at the resolution: “The only reason for my no vote is the fact that we did not have … participation from additional providers,” he said, arguing the county should have allowed more providers to submit proposals. Commissioner Malloy and Commissioner Tony Bernard countered that the board had entertained pitches from the largest providers in the state and believed the options considered were credible.
Commissioners discussed procedural questions about seconding motions so discussion could proceed without signaling a committed vote and noted that a 2008 countywide voter authorization had established the county’s ability to pursue aggregation. The board instructed staff to contact several communities whose opt-out status was unclear and request written confirmation; the prosecutor’s office, CCAO and AEP were cited as being consulted to ensure compliance with PUCO rules and legal protocol. Commissioners emphasized that municipalities already under their own contracts may choose to opt back in at any time.
The roll call recorded Mister Malloy Yes, Mister Bernard Yes and Mister Hernandez No. Commissioners said follow-up actions would include letters seeking opt-out confirmations and coordination with the prosecutor’s office to verify legal steps.
Next steps noted by commissioners included outreach from staff (named Shara/Sherra in the record) to affected communities and further coordination with the county prosecutor, CCAO and AEP to ensure the aggregation program’s enrollment and opt-out mechanics comply with state regulatory processes. The resolution enables the county to proceed with participation agreements but does not itself commit municipalities that have properly opted out.