Career Tech Centers Set to Lose Millions Following Property Tax Reforms

Career Tech Centers Set to Lose Millions Following Property Tax Reforms

by | Feb 19, 2026 | General

Property tax reform has been top of mind for legislators for the past few years, and school districts have anxiously followed legislative efforts. There were initial promises from legislators that career technical education programs might be insulated from property tax law changes. However, such assurances are nowhere to be seen in the final versions of the new laws set to take effect this year. As a result, Joint Vocational School Districts (“JVSDs”) are set to lose millions in funding over the next few years.

This is largely the result of new caps put into place to limit increases in property taxes overtime. Property taxes are a primary source of funding for taxing authorities, which include JVSDs.Prior to the passage of recent laws, JVSDs generally experienced an increase in revenue as property value increased over time. However, HB 186 has capped revenue growth to the rate of inflation for JVSDs at the two-mill floor. Under HB 186 alone, some industry groups are projecting nearly $240 million in losses for JVSDs across the state between tax years 2025 and 2027.

HB 129, which changes how the twenty and two-mill floors are calculated, and HB 335 which limits inside millage growth to the rate of inflation, will also result in millions of lost revenues for schools across the state. Many JVSDs already have budgets in place based on previously forecasted increases in funding. By capping revenue growth, the state is effectively clawing back this money and hampering long-term planning and growth.

These reforms come at a time where demand for career technical education is at an all-time high, and the state is actively calling for expanding access. HB 33 dedicated $300 million to construction projects to expand and support career technical education programs across the state, and HB 96 mandates that all districts offer career technical education to 7th and 8th-grade students next year by eliminating waivers. But this loss in funding is almost certain to result in less student access, not more. With many programs already at capacity, any decrease in revenue will seriously limit a CTCs ability to provide the additional facilities and staff necessary for the type of expansion envisioned by the General Assembly.

A final analysis of these property tax reforms, including examples of how the new calculations will change revenue growth, has been provided by the Legislative Service Commission and can be accessed here: HB 186; HB 129; HB 335.

 

 

 

 

Overbreadth Argument Overruled: OSU Loses Appeal Over Public Records Request

Overbreadth Argument Overruled: OSU Loses Appeal Over Public Records Request

by | Feb 19, 2026 | Board Policy & Representation, General

Schaffer v. Ohio State Univ., 2025-Ohio-5647

The Tenth District Court of Appeals of Ohio ruled against the Ohio State University (OSU), demanding that emails from OSU President Walter Carter be released following a public records request. This decision affirmed a ruling from the Court of Claims after it was determined that the specific request for the President’s emails was not overbroad. A link to the full decision has been provided above.

The original public records request was issued in November 2024, demanding all emails to and from the OSU President’s email address and all text messages to and from his phone over an eleven-day period. OSU denied the request, arguing it was “improperly overbroad, voluminous, and did not ask for records with sufficient specificity.” The special master appointed to review the complaint recommended denying the request for the President’s text messages. He argued the request could have applied to multiple cell phone numbers and would include many private, personal communications that would not qualify as public records. But he concluded the request for the President’s emails was adequate. By referencing (1) a specific official, (2) a specific email account, and (3) a discrete period of eleven days, the request was “reasonably limited” in scope and “identified the records with reasonable clarity.”

The Ohio Supreme Court has previously held that the Public Records Act “does not contemplate that any individual has the right to a complete duplication of voluminous files kept by government agencies.” State ex rel. The Warren Newspapers v. Hutson, 1994-Ohio-5. And the court in this case found that requests for whole categories of records “without any limitation as to content or time period” can be denied. Citing to State ex rel. Zidonis v. Columbus State Community College, 2012-Ohio-4228. Under Ohio law, a public office may deny an ambiguous or overly broad request, or one that does not allow the public office to reasonably identify what public records are being requested. O.R.C. 149.43(B)(2). However, even if an overbroad request is correctly denied the public office must still provide an opportunity for the requester to revise the request “by informing the requester of the manner in which records are maintained by the public office and accessed in the ordinary course of the public office’s duties.” O.R.C. 149.43(B)(2). If a public office fails to provide this information to the requester, they lose the right to object to the request for being overbroad. State ex rel. Summers v. Fox, 2020-Ohio-5585.

In this case OSU insisted the request was improper for failing to identify the other communicating parties and not narrowing the request by subject matter. However, OSU did not indicate that the President’s emails were maintained by subject matter or identity of sender/recipient, and they conceded that they were able to identify all the records responsive to the request. OSU incorrectly believed that such information was “generally required” for every records request, and the university’s failure to provide context or specific facts behind their decision made their denial improper. The Court also denied OSU’s claim that the request sought the “duplication of an entire category” of records because the request for email correspondence from a single individual did not represent a “complete duplication” of OSU’s files.

OSU also asked the court to consider the reasonableness of the request considering the circumstances. Schaffer, the requester, had made over 1,000 public records requests to OSU in 2024 and was on track to do so again in 2025. A previous case in the Court of Claims ended with a recommendation for dismissal to keep Schaffer “from becoming a party to abuse of the public records laws.” Schaffer v. Sheets, 2025-Ohio-1007. While the court appeared sympathetic to OSU’s argument, the university failed to raise this issue at the Court of Claims, so it could not be considered on appeal.

What does this mean for your district? Public records requests are context-specific. The absence of the author, date, or search terms alone is not enough to declare the request overbroad as a matter of law. What matters is the public official’s ability to identify and locate the requested records. Even a broad request (all emails) can be reasonable if some other modifier is included (specific individual, short time frame, etc.). In some cases, it may be appropriate to ask for clarification in response to a large records request, but districts must be prepared to provide an adequate explanation for that decision. Denying a request because they failed to specify a subject, for example, would not be appropriate if your office does not organize its records by subject. Nor would it be appropriate to deny a seemingly broad request when the district is already aware of the specific records being requested.  

 

 

 

 

Federal Government Ends Its Legal Defense of No DEI Certification Policy

Federal Government Ends Its Legal Defense of No DEI Certification Policy

by | Feb 19, 2026 | General

The federal government has withdrawn its appeal of a federal court decision that blocked its attempt to withhold billions of dollars in education funding from schools and states that refused to certify they had no diversity and equity programs.

Earlier in 2025, a federal judge in Maryland ruled that the federal government failed to follow proper procedures and that the “Dear Colleague” letter, published by the U.S. Department of Education in February 2025, threatened educators’ free speech. The judge did not actually rule on the contents of the letters but opined that the manner in which the Department of Education changed its policies violated decision-making procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act. The federal government initially appealed the decision, but withdrew its appeal in January 2026; the federal court decision remains in effect.

Many schools and universities shuttered diversity, equity, and inclusion programs to comply with the now moot policy. Due to the federal court’s ruling halting this specific funding threat, this avenue to withhold funds is at least momentarily on hold.

What does this mean for your district? Many school advocates are regarding the end of this litigation as a victory for schools, who feared losing federal funding over programs that could be considered diversity, equity, or inclusion programs. While this specific approach has been reversed, the federal government continues to use other methods to move its agenda forward. It is unclear what will happen to the Title VI investigations the Department launched in March 2025, all of which are based on this “Dear Colleague” letter.  Even so, many schools and universities should still remain vigilant to avoid drawing attention with a program that might cause a direct investigation from the U.S.  Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.

 

 

 

 

Federal Government Ends Its Legal Defense of No DEI Certification Policy

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.