New Legislative Proposals Target School Funding, Pension Pickup and Parental Rights

New Legislative Proposals Target School Funding, Pension Pickup and Parental Rights

by | Nov 11, 2025 | General, School Finance

The legislature was active during this year’s end-of-session, which would affect school district finances, retirement system contributions, and parental rights in education.  Property tax reform occupied the floor with several bills passing this November. This follows previous property tax reform action from July 2025, with the legislative override of a line item veto from HB 96, the budget bill.  That override goes into effect January 1, 2026, and ends the ability to place replacement, emergency, substitute, and combined income tax and fixed-sum levies on the ballot.

Current expense or current operating expense levies are prohibited where there is a carryover balance of over 100% of general fund expenditures in the preceding fiscal year with the exception of renewal levies, in addition to changes to ballot language and election notices.

House Bill 473, which would have prohibited employers from picking up the employee share of contributions to the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS) and the School Employees Retirement System (SERS), never made it out of the House Public Insurance and Pensions Committee.

HB 496 passed and became effective in April 2025.  It made changes to how county auditors certify levies, to tax levy ballot language, and election notices.  County auditors now certify the annual estimated collection to a school district based on rounding to the nearest dollar, not $1,000 as in prior law.  The estimate of tax rates for bond and fixed-sum levies will now be based on the most recent tax list (prior law based the rates on the current year tax list or county auditor estimate.  Residential/agricultural rates for renewed or extended levies will now be based on the last known rate, not the estimated effective rate assuming approval of the levy, according to a July publication of the Ohio Secretary of State.

Property Tax Reform Bills Passed

HB 124 passed and is awaiting the Governor’s signature. It gives county auditors (as opposed to the state tax commissioner in existing law), the authority to select local properties for purposes of calculating the sales assessment ratio data. The county auditor will provide the representative sampling of sales to the tax commissioner, and the tax commissioner is to use that data only to determine the common level of assessment and for equalization.  The data provided to the tax commissioner by the county auditors are to consist only of open market arms’ length sales during the three years prior to the tax year. It changes the date by which the auditor’s assessment must be submitted to the county board of revision from the second Monday in June to the second Monday in May.

If the tax commissioner disagrees with the representative sample provided by the county auditor, it may appeal the county auditor’s determination of the sales included in the representative sample.  The county auditor will be required to submit the evidence it used to develop the representative sample.  The appeal must be determined by the last day of the tax year in which the appeal was filed.  If the appeal is successful, the determination or sample may be modified by the Board of Tax Appeals.

The new process applies to tax year 2026 and each year thereafter.

HB 129 passed and is awaiting Governor’s signature at this writing. It will revise the calculation of the 20-mill floor by including fixed-sum levies (such as existing emergency and substitute levies) in the calculation. It would also restrict when districts may seek new fixed-sum levies. Under the bill, a district may seek a new fixed-sum levy only if:

    1. The district has an emergency levy approved before 2026, which may be renewed once as a fixed-sum levy; or
    2. The district is in fiscal emergency, fiscal watch, or fiscal caution, or is subject to a presidential or gubernatorial emergency declaration.

The 20-mill floor calculation now will include incremental growth levies, conversion levies, and the property tax portion of combined income tax and property tax levies. Emergency (fixed sum) or substitute levies continue to be excluded from the 20-mill floor calculation until the applicable territory undergoes its first reappraisal or triennial update starting in tax year 2026. The LSC fiscal analysis projects that due to the operation of the bill slowing property tax growth, school districts will lose “…$162 million in TY 2026, $223 million in TY 2027, and $224 million in TY 2028. The magnitude of these losses will increase more slowly over time as fewer districts are able to collect additional revenues from rising taxable property values.”

It is estimated that when the bill becomes effective, 237 school districts will be above the 20-mill floor.

HB 186 passed. After it is signed by the Governor, it will provide a property tax credit to owners of property located in districts at the 20-mill floor. This credit would limit those districts’ total property tax revenue growth to the rate of inflation.

Uncodified language in the bill provides a temporary “make whole” provision for districts who will be affected by a reduction from reappraisals conducted in 2023 or 2024.  The difference between the amount that would have been collected and the reduced amount will be certified to the DEW,  which will pay the school district that amount on or before Aug. 15, 2026 and Aug. 15, 2027.  The funds will be transferred from the Expanded Sales Tax Holiday Fund  to the newly-created School Revenue Temporary Offset Fund. There will be no expanded sales tax holiday in 2026.

Joint vocational school districts also will be affected by the tax credit, with a projected $174.5 million loss over three years.

HB 309 passed and is awaiting the Governor’s signature. This bill permits the county budget commission to reduce voted millage so “…as to bring the tax levies required therefor within levels the commission finds reasonable and prudent to avoid unnecessary or excessive collections. Before reducing the amount or rate of any tax pursuant to this division, the commission shall provide the taxing authority of the levying taxing unit and the levying taxing unit an opportunity to present, at a public hearing, information that either considers relevant to the questions of if and to what extent the levy should be reduced.” (R.C. 5705.32)

Reductions may not cause a district to fall below the 20 mil floor or to cause the amount collected from that levy to be less than the previous year unless the district has funds available from reserve balance accounts, nonexpendable trust funds, or carryover amounts.

The legislation further provides new language that the tax commissioner will make a determination each year of the rate a fixed sum levy must be changed, if any, to generate the amount specified in the levy by the first of September.

HB 335 passed and awaits being sent to the Governor. It will cap inside millage growth to the rate of inflation for tax year 2026 and going forward.  County budget commissions are empowered by the new legislation to adjust the rate of inside millage to ensure that it does not exceed the sum of the past three years of inflation.

The law contains a process for school district to appeal a rate reduction to the county budget commission demonstrating that the taxing authority (school district) requires the rate approved.

Parental Rights, Report Cards, and Governance Changes: House Bill 455

HB 455 is a broad bill that would make several substantial changes, including modifications to state report card measures, revisions to district-of-residence rules, board of education vacancy procedures, and an expansion of parental rights.  This bill passed the House, but was not assigned to a Senate committee before the holiday break, therefore it remains in stasis as the current session of General Assembly continues.

What Does This Mean for Your District?

The financial impact of the property tax bills should be closely monitored for the impact on your district’s forecast and preparing for collective bargaining in 2026.  Your attorneys at Ennis Britton are closely monitoring these bills, their impact, and all education-focused legislation introduced in Ohio. Please contact us with any specific questions about how these proposals may affect your district.

 

 

 

 

Ohio Athletes Score NIL Rights After Court Issued Injunction

Ohio Athletes Score NIL Rights After Court Issued Injunction

by | Nov 11, 2025 | General

Ohio remains one of only six states nationwide that continue to prohibit high school student-athletes from entering into name, image, and likeness (NIL) agreements. Jamier Brown, one of the top high school football prospects in the nation, challenged the prohibition under antitrust principles. His family has argued that the state’s NIL restrictions have caused him to lose out on over $100,000 in potential endorsement deals. A Franklin County Court of Common Pleas judge issued a temporary restraining order against the Ohio High School Athletic Association (OHSAA) on October 20, 2025, temporarily blocking the state’s prohibition.

The litigation has forced the OHSAA to call an emergency bylaw referendum to vote on a new NIL policy for the state. Although member schools declined to pass a similar NIL proposal as recently as 2022, the OHSAA has warned that failing to do so now could leave the future of NIL regulations in the hands of Ohio courts. The full text of the proposal is available here.

The proposed bylaw would allow student-athletes to be compensated for their name, image, and likeness under certain circumstances. For example, agreements associated with inappropriate or distracting products/services (such as alcohol, cannabis, or firearms) are strictly prohibited, and the specifics of each agreement must be disclosed to the OHSAA within fourteen days. Students would also be prohibited from engaging in NIL activities during school hours or during any official team activities under the proposal, and they would be barred from using the name, logo, mascot, or other proprietary properties a member school or the OHSAA in any NIL activity.

Several restrictions were included in the proposal to ensure NIL deals are not leveraged by Ohio schools or booster groups for improper recruiting purposes. Students cannot enter into an NIL agreement that is provided as an inducement to attend a particular school, and they cannot accept any deal provided by a member school, its booster club, or an administrator or coach. NIL collectives, which are third-party groups typically formed by alumni and supporters to pool together fundraising for NIL opportunities, are also strictly prohibited by the OHSAA’s proposal.

Failing to follow these guidelines can have serious consequences for student athletes. If a student fails to disclose their NIL agreement within the 14-day deadline, they can be declared ineligible for up to twenty percent of the sports season. The proposal also creates a rebuttable presumption that a student was improperly recruited if their transfer can reasonably be linked to a recent NIL agreement, and the OHSAA reserves the right to suspend a student from participating in athletics during the pendency of the alleged violation.

What does this mean for your district? The voting window for the proposed bylaw opened on November 17 and continued through November 21. The proposal passed on November 24, 2025, with 447 schools in favor of the referendum, 121 against, and 247 abstaining.

 

 

Innuendos Aren’t Innocent: Sixth Circuit Upholds Dress Ban on Vulgar Messages

Innuendos Aren’t Innocent: Sixth Circuit Upholds Dress Ban on Vulgar Messages

by | Nov 11, 2025 | Board Policy & Representation, General

D.A. v. Tri County Area Schools, 1:23-cv-00423 (6th Cir. October 14, 2025).

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled against two middle school students who challenged their district’s dress code, upholding the school’s authority to regulate clothing that contains vulgar innuendo—even when the message also has a political dimension.

The students, D.A. and X.A., received “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts as Christmas gifts from their mother. When D.A. wore his sweatshirt to school, the assistant principal directed him to remove it because the phrase’s meaning was considered profane. Despite the warning, both students wore the sweatshirts again and were once more instructed to remove them due to the slogan’s “profane double meaning.”

The district’s dress code prohibited “attire with messages or illustrations that are lewd, indecent, vulgar, or profane.” School officials testified that the policy did not restrict political expression so long as the message complied with the dress code. In fact, both students acknowledged that classmates had worn “Make America Great Again” apparel, and the principal testified that students regularly wore clothing supporting candidates from both political parties without incident.

The plaintiffs argued that “Let’s Go Brandon” is not inherently profane but is instead a euphemism—a non-profane substitute for an offensive phrase. The Sixth Circuit rejected that argument, emphasizing that a euphemism carries the same communicative content as the phrase it replaces, even if the offensive word is obscured. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Bethel School District v. Fraser, the court reiterated that schools may regulate speech conveying an obscene or vulgar message even when the specific words are not themselves obscene or vulgar. 478 U.S. 675, 682 (1986). The court also relied on Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education, which affirms that districts have broad discretion to identify student expression as vulgar so long as their determination is reasonable. 220 F.3d 465 (6th Cir. 2000).

Here, the court found that the origin and commonly understood meaning of “Let’s Go Brandon”—a euphemism for “F*** Joe Biden”—was plainly vulgar. Accordingly, the administrators’ decision to classify the phrase as vulgar and to prohibit the sweatshirts was deemed reasonable.

The political nature of the message did not alter the analysis. The court explained that “in the schoolhouse, vulgarity trumps politics,” and that the First Amendment does not allow students to circumvent school rules by embedding vulgarity within political expression. While adults may use such language in public discourse, schools are not required to permit the same level of expression among children. Fraser, 478 U.S. at 682. As a result, the district could categorically prohibit the slogan as a vulgar expression despite its political context.

What Does This Mean for Your District? This decision reaffirms that Ohio school districts have broad discretion to restrict student expression that they reasonably deem to be vulgar or profane, even when the message also carries political content. While students retain First Amendment rights at school, those rights are not unlimited, and districts are not required to tolerate “lewd, indecent, or offensive speech and conduct” simply because students wish to express it.

 

 

 

Treasurer Transfer Certification Requirements Under Ohio Law

Treasurer Transfer Certification Requirements Under Ohio Law

by | Nov 11, 2025 | General, School Management

One of the many changes enacted through the 2025 Budget Bill (HB 96) is an amendment to Ohio Revised Code Section 3313.27, which governs the delivery of funds to the board of education at the expiration of a treasurer’s term. The amendment became effective on September 30, 2025.

Now, the amended statute requires that, at the end of the treasurer’s term—or before the board approves the treasurer’s surety—the treasurer must produce all money, bonds, and other securities in their possession. These items must be counted by the board of education or a committee of the board. After completing the count, the board must prepare a certificate specifying the exact amount of each item. The representatives conducting the count must sign the certificate, and the board must enter it into its official records as prima facie evidence of the amounts in the treasury on that date.

Under the prior version of R.C. 3313.27, this count and certification could be performed by a representative of the Auditor of State. As of September 30, 2025, that option has been removed. Only the board of education—or a committee appointed by the board—may conduct the count and issue the certification. The Auditor of State reserves the right to test the accuracy of any certificate of transition and report discrepancies or findings.

In addition, R.C. Section 3313.28 requires an outgoing treasurer to deliver all records to the incoming treasurer. The Auditor of State provides a Certificate of Transition form to assist with this process. Outgoing treasurers are required by R.C. 117.171 to complete the certificate of transition prior to leaving office to ensure an accurate transfer of accounts, budget documents, and other essential financial records from the outgoing treasurer to the incoming treasurer. This requirement also applies to interim treasurers.

Together, R.C. Sections 3313.27, 3313.28, and 117.171 create a clear checklist of actions and certifications required of both the outgoing treasurer and the board of education whenever a treasurer transition occurs.

The Auditor suggests that all treasurers complete a certificate of transition and keep it consistently updated throughout their service.  Concerns about compliance or questions may be directed to their office.

What Does This Mean for Your District?

Boards of education are now solely responsible for counting and certifying all funds, bonds, and securities in the district treasury during a treasurer transition. The Board may appoint a committee to assist with this responsibility, which may include fiscal professionals or consultants.  Compliance with R.C. sections 3313.27, 3313.28, and 117.171 – along with the outgoing treasurer’s completed certificate of transition form – is essential to ensure an accurate and orderly transfer of fiscal responsibilities.  Consider reviewing the current treasurer’s updated certificate of transition with each evaluation.

Please contact your Ennis Britton attorney with any questions regarding your District’s obligations under these statutes.