How Ohio budget could impact local school funding
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — Central Ohio school districts have been speaking out against the state budget, or House Bill 96, for months, but a so-called claw-back provision from the Ohio House-passed version of the bill is causing concern.
Public school districts have cash reserves that serve as their savings account or rainy-day fund. This money is carried over each year. But if the budget is approved as is, school treasurers said it could be detrimental to some districts.
American comfort food concept to open downtown Reynoldsburg restaurant
The claw-back provision would only allow 30% of a district's cash reserve to be carried over. The rest would go back to the taxpayers, which proponents said is a form of property tax relief.
Ohio Education Association President Scott DiMauro said this is a short-term solution for property tax relief.
'You could see districts that are otherwise in a healthy fiscal shape be forced into a really negative path that could lead ultimately to fiscal watch or fiscal emergency,' DiMauro said.
Olentangy and Westerville are among the districts that would be impacted by this claw-back provision in House Bill 96.
Olentangy Treasurer and CFO Ryan Jenkins said the money in the cash reserve right now is being saved for the future as the district continues to grow.
3 central Ohio used-car dealerships being sued by the state for 'shady' practices
'Over the next three to five years, we will grow as a district and we will absorb that carryover as we fund new staff and new schools,' Jenkins said. 'So we believe we have a plan for every dollar in the reserve.'
Jenkins said Olentangy could lose up to $100 million. The money would go back to the taxpayers, but the district would then have to go back to the voters almost every year.
'We understand and want tax relief for our community members,' Jenkins said. 'We value that. We also know as a district that we prioritize every dollar that we get from our community.'
This could put Olentangy, Westerville and other districts in the fiscal emergency territory. This means the state would appoint a commission that controls all aspects of a district's finances. The commission is in charge of saving money, which could mean programming or staff cuts and larger class sizes.
Westerville Treasurer Nicole Marshall said the district would lose around $110 million.
'For us, we'd be looking at fiscal watch,' Marshall said. 'We would have to eliminate a lot of programs and services to students, likely down to state and federal minimum requirements.'
ODOT approves $82 million to widen U.S. 33 in southeastern Franklin County
Marshall said this could also result in Westerville putting levies on the ballot almost yearly.
'There's lots of needs that our school district has overall and for the state to just take everything away that we have, they would just be putting the district and the community in a really tough spot,' Marshall said.
The state budget was passed in the Ohio House and is currently in the Senate. Both school treasurers said they are hopeful the claw-back provision will be changed and that public schools will be fully funded in the final budget.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
31 minutes ago
- The Hill
Newsom: Pentagon lying over LA to justify National Guard deployment
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Monday accused the Defense Department of 'lying to the American people' in justifying deploying National Guard troops to the state to quell Los Angeles protests against federal immigration raids, asserting that the situation intensified only when the Pentagon deployed troops. 'The situation became escalated when THEY deployed troops,' Newsom posted to X, referring to the Pentagon. 'Donald Trump has manufactured a crisis and is inflaming conditions. He clearly can't solve this, so California will.' Newsom was responding to a post from DOD Rapid Response on X, a Pentagon-run account, which claimed that 'Los Angeles is burning, and local leaders are refusing to respond.' President Trump on Saturday deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to the Los Angeles area amid the ICE protests, with White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt saying the decision was made due to 'violent mobs' attacking 'Federal Law Enforcement Agents carrying out basic deportation operations.' While protests have intensified in recent days, devolving at times into violence, the majority of gatherings have been largely peaceful. Still, California National Guard troops began arriving in Los Angeles on Sunday morning, with some 300 deployed on the ground later that day at three locations: Los Angeles proper, Paramount and Compton. White House officials have sought to highlight images of burning vehicles and clashes with law enforcement to make the case that the situation had gotten out of control. 'The people that are causing the problem are professional agitators. They're insurrectionists. They're bad people. They should be in jail,' Trump told reporters on Monday. In addition, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has threatened to deploy approximately 500 U.S. Marines to the city, with U.S. Northern Command on Sunday confirming the service members were 'prepared to deploy.' The use of American troops has rankled California officials, who have said the federal response 'inflammatory' and said the deployment of soldiers 'will erode public trust.' Newsom also has traded insults with Hegseth, calling him 'a joke,' and that the idea of deploying active duty Marines in California was 'deranged behavior.' 'Pete Hegseth's a joke. He's a joke. Everybody knows he's so in over his head. What an embarrassment. That guy's weakness masquerading as strength. . . . It's a serious moment,' Newsom said in an interview with podcaster Brian Tyler Cohen. The tit-for-tat continued when chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell then took to X on Monday to attack Newsom. 'LA is on FIRE right now, but instead of tackling the issue, Gavin Newsom is spending his time attacking Secretary Hegseth,' Parnell wrote. 'Unlike Newsom, [Hegseth] isn't afraid to lead.' Newsom, who has formally demanded the Trump administration pull the National Guard troops off the streets, has declared the deployment 'unlawful' and said California will sue the Trump administration over its actions. 'There is currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles, and to do so in this unlawful manner and for such a lengthy period is a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation,' David Sapp, Newsom's legal affairs secretary, wrote in a letter to Hegseth on Sunday. 'Accordingly, we ask that you immediately rescind your order and return the National Guard to its rightful control by the State of California, to be deployed as appropriate when necessary.' In the past 60 years, a U.S. president has only on one occasion mobilized a state's National Guard troops without the consent of its governor to quell unrest or enforce the law. That was in 1965, when former President Lyndon Johnson sent Guard members to Selma, Ala., to protect civil rights protesters there.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
State Legislature Acts To ‘Make Texas Healthy Again'
Under Senate Bill 25, which awaits Gov. Greg Abbott's signature, Texas could become one of the first states to mandate warning labels on foods containing artificial dyes and specific chemicals. The bill, dubbed the Make Texas Healthy Again Act, requires labels on products containing one or more of some 40-plus additives, such as Blue 1, Red 40, Yellow 5, butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), and titanium dioxide. The label would state: 'WARNING: This product contains an ingredient that is not recommended for human consumption by the appropriate authority in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom.' The warning label must be prominent, readable, and would apply to products packaged after January 1, 2027. A loophole allows producers using existing packaging through 2036 to avoid the requirement. The bill also invalidates state labeling rules if federal regulations supersede them. 'Texas can really lead here. … These bills represent a Texas way that prioritizes transparency, prioritizes good education and prioritizes incentive change,' Calley Means, a top adviser to U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., said during a Senate Health and Human Services Committee hearing. Beyond labeling, SB 25 increases physical activity requirements for middle school students from four to six semesters of 30-minute daily sessions and mandates nutrition education for undergraduates, developed by a seven-member Texas Nutrition Advisory Committee appointed by the governor by December 31, 2025. The committee would include experts in metabolic health, a licensed physician, a Texas Department of Agriculture representative, and others. In addition, doctors and nurses must complete continuing education on nutrition to maintain their licenses. 'This sweeping legislation is not just another bill. It's a call to action — one that so many Texans and Americans are realizing — that something is wrong and that something needs to change in our food industry and in our sedentary lifestyle,' Sen. Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham), the bill's sponsor, told The Texas Tribune. The bill garnered bipartisan support, with 10 Senate Democrats and three House Democrats sponsoring or co-sponsoring. 'This is about the MAHA parents and the crunchy granola parents coming together to say, 'We are sick and tired of being sick and tired,'' said Rep. Lacey Hull (R-Houston) before the House passed the bill on May 25. Food industry groups, including Walmart, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, General Mills, and Frito-Lay, opposed the labeling, warning in a letter that it 'could destabilize local and regional economies.' Rep. Barbara Gervin-Hawkins (D-San Antonio) expressed concern that 'the cost of food will continue to rise,' the Tribune reported. Kolkhorst countered in February that 'the market will adjust.' Supporters, like the Episcopal Health Foundation, see health benefits. 'The amount of money and time we're spending treating diabetes as opposed to preventing it is huge, especially in Texas,' said Brian Sasser, the foundation's chief communications officer, per the Tribune. Andy Keller of the Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute added, 'In a world that pretends the brain is not part of the body, this bill will put tools in the hands of children, parents and teachers to begin truly addressing emotional health and wellbeing.' The bill aligns with federal Make America Healthy Again initiatives, with Kolkhorst noting Kennedy's personal call urging its passage. 'As in so many cases, we're not waiting on Washington,' said Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola) in February. 'Texas will act.'
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's broad definition of ‘insurrection' looms over Los Angeles
In September 2020, President Donald Trump suggested he was hamstrung to crack down on at-times-violent racial justice demonstrations in cities like Portland, Oregon. 'Look, we have laws. We have to go by the laws,' Trump said at an ABC News town hall, adding: 'We can't call in the National Guard unless we're requested by a governor.' Trump noted there was one way he could do that – by invoking the Insurrection Act – but added that 'there's no reason to ever do that, even in a Portland case.' Something has clearly changed since then. Trump this weekend became the first president in about 60 years to call in the National Guard without a request from a governor – to help quell protests in Los Angeles against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. He did so without invoking the Insurrection Act – the 1807 law that allows the president to deploy American soldiers to police US streets in extreme circumstances. That means the guard has limited authorities that don't include law enforcement, as CNN legal analyst Steve Vladeck noted. Even that more limited decision, though, has been criticized as overzealous and heavy-handed by some experts, given fears it could inflame the situation. unknown content item - But Trump has clearly left open the possibility of ratcheting things up and possibly even doing what he said five years ago there was 'no reason to ever do': invoking the Insurrection Act to deal with demonstrators. Northern Command said Sunday that 500 US Marines were on 'prepared to deploy' status. Trump was asked Sunday whether the situation was an insurrection, and he said no. But just after 10 p.m. ET, he posted on Truth Social: 'Paid insurrectionists!' The president again used the term on Monday, telling reporters upon his return to the White House that the 'people that are causing the problem are professional agitators' before going on to call them 'insurrectionists.' Top White House adviser Stephen Miller has been calling the situation in Los Angeles an insurrection for days. And indeed, for Trump, Miller and their allies, the bar for 'insurrection' appears quite different than it was five years ago. After many labeled the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol an insurrection, Trump and MAGA have spent years applying that label extremely broadly to other things. The idea seems to have been to 'whatabout' the term and water it down by suggesting other events are the 'real' insurrections – like the protests after George Floyd's murder. But Trump's broad definition of that term looms large as the administration considers something he's long entertained: dispatching the military on US soil. It has almost seemed like Trump and Co. see themselves surrounded by insurrections. Among the situations Trump has previously attached the 'insurrection' label to: Antifa ('they're causing insurrection') His baseless claims of a 'stolen' 2020 election ('the real insurrection happened on November 3rd') Unspecified enemies within the United States ('insurrectionists roam free') A border influx ('when you talk about insurrection, what they're doing, that's the real deal') Then-President Joe Biden ('I'm not an Insurrectionist … Crooked Joe Biden is!!!') Miller – a key figure in the White House on such matters – has appended that label to many of these things and more. He's most often used it in relation to the border under Biden. But he's also repeatedly accused judges who ruled against Trump of a 'legal insurrection.' He's called pro-Palestinian demonstrators a 'pro-Hamas insurrection.' And he accused those who protested the Supreme Court in 2022 – including in some cases apparently illegally at justices' homes – of waging an 'open insurrection.' It's worth emphasizing that many of these things don't qualify as insurrections. While Trump and his allies balked at people labeling January 6 an insurrection, there's little doubt that it met the definition. That word is generally defined as a violent revolt or rebellion against the government. The attack on the US Capitol was a violent attempt to effectively change the makeup of that government by overturning the election result – and by attacking an actual seat of power. In other words, an insurrection isn't about the level of violence; it's about the target and purpose of it. Merely protesting or even engaging in violence while doing so doesn't automatically make something an insurrection. Nor do adverse court rulings and an influx of undocumented immigrants constitute a rebellion. Of course, Trump has shown he's more than happy to stretch the bounds of words and the law in his quest to expand his power and go after perceived enemies. The question from here is why Trump hasn't gone there on invoking the Insurrection Act. He and Miller have now invoked that specific word multiple times in reference to the situation in Los Angeles, and preparing the Marines to possibly come in suggests this is very much on the table. Perhaps the White House has some qualms about the politics of what could come from the more in-your-face federal presence Trump has spent years entertaining. Or perhaps, as Vladeck wagers, the initial deployment of the National Guard could be a precursor. 'In other words, it's possible that this step is meant to both be and look modest,' Vladeck wrote in his newsletter Saturday, 'so that, if and when it 'fails,' the government can invoke its failure as a basis for a more aggressive domestic deployment of troops.' Only time will tell. But we're clearly operating in a very different political world than we were five years ago. Trump seems to have developed a very broad sense of what constitutes an insurrection and plenty of reasons to potentially do what he said 'there's no reason to ever do.' Indeed, he's already gone further than he did before.
