Elimination of Property Tax Proposal Moves Forward

Elimination of Property Tax Proposal Moves Forward

by | Jun 18, 2025 | Board Policy & Representation, Labor and Employment, School Finance

On May 14, 2025, the Ohio Ballot Board voted to certify a proposed constitutional amendment from Citizens for Property Tax Reform to ban property taxes in the state of Ohio. Many individuals joined the group after receiving letters related to the state-mandated reappraisal in 2024. The state-mandated reappraisal happens every six years in Ohio. No state has yet abolished property tax, although a few have limited it significantly.

In order to make it onto the November 2025 ballot, at least 413,487 voters must give their signatures prior to July 2, 2025. These signatures must come from voters in at least 44 of Ohio’s 88 counties. Supporters of the proposed amendment say they are worried about seniors on fixed income who cannot afford the increase in property taxes. Critics say that abolishing the property tax will make it difficult to fund essential services.

 What would this mean for your school district?

The proposed amendment does not include any indication of how major public programs like public education would be funded without property taxes. Nor is there any legislative solution proposed at this time. Ohio Governor Mike DeWine told reporters that, in what he has seen so far, the effect would be devastating to our schools. Banning property taxes outright could put children, families, and communities at risk because the government would not be able to provide services. This includes not only public education, but libraries, police, firefighters, or other services that are funded with property taxes.

 

 

Career Tech Corner: U.S. House of Representatives Pondering Funding Increase for Career Technical Education

Career Tech Corner: U.S. House of Representatives Pondering Funding Increase for Career Technical Education

by | May 14, 2025 | General, School Finance

Two U.S. Representatives, Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA) and Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), began to circulate a Dear Colleague Letter (the “Letter”) throughout the House of Representatives that urged lawmakers to consider an increase in funding for Career Technical Education (CTE) in the 2026 budget.

According to the Letter, State grants under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act were funded at $1.44 billion in Fiscal Year (FY) 24 and 25. However, the Letter states that, when adjusted for inflation, these numbers are roughly half of the funding made in 1980. This concern comes as there is a growing recognition of CTEs and a high need for more skilled laborers. In fact, the Association for Career & Technical Education (ACTE) projects a deficit of 6.5 million skilled workers by 2030, highlighting the need for growth of CTE programs.

With that, President Trump signed an Order on February 3, 2025, that proclaimed February 2025 as Career and Technical Education Month. As part of that proclamation, President Trump stated, “[m]y Administration will invest in the next generation and expand access to high-quality career and technical education for all Americans. We will unleash the enormous potential of the American people and provide students and workers with the necessary skills training to ensure that our Nation dominates the 21st century.”

What does this mean for your CTC? There is clear recognition for the need for CTEs and the skilled laborer deficits that exist and will continue to grow without CTE growth. The commitment from the federal government to push this recognition further could lead to more students applying to your program. However, at this point, there is no guarantee that additional funding will follow. This also does not mean staffing applications will follow. The increased funding is worth keeping an eye on and potentially finding avenues to advocate for.

 

 

 

Federal Budget Proposal: Understanding the Potential Impacts on Education Funding

Federal Budget Proposal: Understanding the Potential Impacts on Education Funding

by | May 14, 2025 | School Finance

On May 2, the Trump Administration took its first formal step in the federal budget process by submitting its “skinny budget” proposal to Senator Susan Collins, Chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. This initial outline gives education leaders their first glimpse into potential funding changes that could affect school districts nationwide beginning this fall.

A skinny budget serves as a preliminary framework, communicating presidential priorities to Congress without offering comprehensive details. While significant as a statement of intent, it is important to remember that this document is non-binding. Constitutional authority for federal spending remains with Congress – a point Senator Collins herself emphasized when noting, “[u]ltimately, it is Congress that holds the power of the purse.”

The proposal arrives amid early signs of disagreement between Congressional Republicans and the White House. Senator Collins has already expressed “serious objections” after her initial review, suggesting a potentially complex negotiation process ahead.

The current proposal outlines a substantial $12 billion reduction in education funding – representing a 15% cut to discretionary education spending compared to the 2025 budget. For school districts already managing tight budgets, the specific reductions include:

• Title I: $4.5 billion reduction
• English Language Acquisition: $890 million reduction
• Adult Education: $729 million reduction
• Migrant Education: $428 million reduction
• Preschool Programs: $315 million reduction
• Department of Education Administration: $127 million reduction
• Office for Civil Rights: $49 million reduction

Not all programs would see cuts. IDEA funding would remain flat, while charter schools would receive a $60 million increase.

Beyond the raw numbers, the proposal introduces significant structural changes to how federal education dollars would be distributed. A new “K-12 Simplified Funding Program” would consolidate 18 separate competitive and formula grant programs into a single formula grant. Similarly, seven separate IDEA programs would be combined into one.

These consolidations would fundamentally alter how districts apply for and receive federal education funds, potentially creating both administrative challenges and opportunities during implementation.

School finance officers should be aware that the education budget represents only part of the potential fiscal impact on schools. The proposal exists within a broader context of competing priorities and fiscal constraints:

School nutrition programs administered by the USDA have already seen $1 billion in reductions, with further cuts possible if proposed SNAP eligibility restrictions are implemented. These changes could directly affect school meal programs and the students who depend on them.

Perhaps most concerning for districts serving students with disabilities, Medicaid – which currently provides $7.5 billion annually for school-based health services, including significant support for related services – faces potential cuts as the House Energy and Commerce Committee works to identify $880 billion in healthcare spending reductions.

Meanwhile, the administration has proposed increases to military and border security spending, while simultaneously working with Congressional Republicans to extend expiring tax cuts. The Congressional Budget Office estimates these tax extensions would reduce federal revenue by approximately $4 trillion over a decade, intensifying pressure for spending cuts elsewhere.

The administration has set an ambitious goal of July 4, 2025, for budget passage. If this timeline holds, districts could begin feeling funding impacts in fall 2025 with the federal fiscal year beginning October 1.

What does this mean for your district?

The budget proposal marks only the beginning of what will undoubtedly be a complex negotiation process. While the proposed education cuts are significant, history suggests the final budget passed by Congress may differ substantially from this initial outline.

For now, education leaders should focus on understanding these potential changes while continuing their normal operations and planning. As budget negotiations progress toward the July 4 target date, clearer information about impacts on specific programs and district-level funding should emerge.

 

 

 

 

FLSA Final Rule Changes Salary Threshold

FLSA Final Rule Changes Salary Threshold

by | May 23, 2024 | Labor and Employment, School Finance

In April 2024, The Department of Labor (DOL) announced a Final Rule increasing the threshold level salary minimum for the “salary test”.  (See the DOL document entitled Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales, and Computer Employees).

Generally, under the FLSA, employees are exempt from minimum wage and overtime protections if they are employed in an executive, administrative, or professional capacity (EAP) and meet three tests set out by the department which include payment of a specified weekly salary level and performing executive, administrative, or professional duties.

The new rule takes effect on July 1, 2024. On that date, the new salary amount threshold for a nonteaching, salaried supervisor or administrator increases to $844 week/$43,888 annual salary (up from $684 week/$35,568/annual salary.)

Then, in January 2025, the method used to calculate the salary will change again- and the amounts will increase a second time to $1,128week/ $58,656 annual salary.  After that, the salary threshold will be raised every three years after July 1, 2027. 

Whether an employee can be exempted from the payment of overtime by meeting the EAP exception depends upon meeting the “salary and duties tests” set out by the Department of Labor in the law. 

To be eligible for the exemption, the employee 1.) must earn a fixed salary, 2.) that salary is at least equal to the amount in the Final Rule, and 3.) that the employee performs functions that meet the executive, administrative, or professional duties as defined by the DOL. 

The salary amount will increase twice- on July 1, 2024, and then again in January 2025.  Due to that increase, some nonteaching administrative employees’ salaries may likely be lower than the new salary threshold amount. 

The “duties” part of the test must then be applied to the employee’s job duties to determine whether a nonteaching administrator/supervisor is exempt from overtime requirements.

Administrative employees will meet the duties test if they primarily perform office or non-manual work directly related to the operations of the school district.  Their duties must involve the exercise of discretion and independent judgment on matters of significance.

Executive employees are also eligible for the exemption. To meet the “duties test” for these employees means that their primary duty must be managing a particular department or division of school operations.  They must regularly direct the work of at least two full-time (or their equivalent) employees and must have the authority to hire and fire, or have their recommendations for promotion, termination, hiring, or other actions given particular weight.

Teachers are specifically exempt from the FLSA overtime rules as professionals, so this rule change will not affect certificated administrators. 

For highly compensated employees subject to the FLSA, the salary threshold is going up to $132,964 on July 1, 2024, and then up to $151.164.  It is likely some employees formerly covered by this exception may no longer meet the salary threshold.   Even if those employees still meet the requirements for exemption under the highly compensated employee test, the salary threshold to be eligible for the exemption must be met.  If this is no longer the case due to the increases planned to the salary threshold, it is well possible these employees could qualify using the EAP exception. 

Actions to take now:

Survey the salaries of nonteaching administrative employees to determine if any might fall below the new salary thresholds.  Employees that may be affected by this change include supervisors and directors such as technology directors, transportation and cafeteria supervisors, facilities managers, and other similar positions.

If the new salary threshold exceeds a nonteaching administrative employee’s current annual salary, school districts may need to adjust upwards or recognize these employees are eligible for overtime pay.  This means the employees would need to keep track of their time.  Consult with Ennis Britton to review specific situations. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COVID-19 Update: Unemployment Coverage for Public Entities

by | Mar 26, 2020 | Labor and Employment, School Finance, School Management, Unemployment

Many public employers are considering staffing adjustments in light of the coronavirus and its impact on available work. For those employees not covered under contracts that must be paid in the case of an “epidemic or other public calamity” pursuant to RC 3319.08(B) and 3319.081(G), layoffs are being contemplated. In order to have all the information on the financial impact of such a decision, the public employer should consider whether it is a “contributory employer” or a “reimbursing employer.” 

Generally speaking, public employers are reimbursing employers. Essentially, reimbursing employers are self-insured and will be billed dollar-for-dollar by the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services for claims paid.   Public entity employers who have elected to become a contributory employer have paid unemployment tax. Contributory employers will have their claims mutualized with other employers in the state and will not have to reimburse on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Determining if the public entity is a contributory employer or a reimbursing employer will be necessary to determine how much will be saved via staffing reductions.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act) provides that reimbursing employers may be reimbursed for one-half of the amounts paid into a state unemployment trust fund between March 13, 2020, and December 31, 2020.

If you have any questions regarding unemployment compensation issues, please reach out to any of the Ennis Britton lawyers.

UPDATE – Legislators Grapple with EdChoice Program Expansion Amendments

by | Feb 3, 2020 | General, Legislation, School Finance, School Management

Efforts to curb the impact of EdChoice accelerated towards the end of January as legislators in the Senate and House searched for ways to reduce the negative financial impact that the program is anticipated to have on Ohio’s public schools starting next year. Legislators and the governor approved language in last year’s budget bill which was designed to dramatically increase the number of students eligible for the scholarships by more than doubling the number of eligible buildings. Prior to the program expansion, EdChoice was available in 31 school districts and 255 schools. After the expansion, EdChoice eligibility would have extended to at least 426 school districts and 1,227 schools. 

Lobbying efforts and contacts from districts to their legislators and to House and Senate committee members to reduce the impact of the changes resulted in the last-minute action to delay implementation of the changes. The 2020-2021 application window for EdChoice would have opened on February 1st, of this year; now, the program application is delayed to April 1st.  The House and Senate are expected to review the EdChoice program expansion in the next two months and hopefully will develop amendments to the budget expansion which will better support Ohio’s public school system.

The House initially proposed changes to EdChoice through HB 9. With a deadline of February 1st (the start of the applications of EdChoice scholarships) looming, the Senate passed alternative language late in the evening on January 29th. The Senate’s plan would have reduced the number of school buildings eligible under the traditional EdChoice program, but would also have increased the number of families eligible for the EdChoice expansion program by changing eligibility from 200% to 300% of the federal poverty guidelines for the income-based vouchers. 

The bill was sent back to the House, which rejected the changes, and a conference committee convened. The House elected instead to pass House Bill 120, including language delaying the EdChoice application window until April 1st. HB 120 also contained separate provisions that authorize the auditor’s office to conduct performance audits of all state institutions of higher education and also modified requirements for College Credit Plus informational sessions. The bill included an appropriation of $10 million to help fund the EdChoice program. The Senate passed HB 120 on January 31st and the governor signed the bill the same day. The bill is considered an emergency measure and is effective immediately. This move buys the legislature more time to develop a plan that both houses are willing to pass.

February 3rd, 2020 Update: A group of families and private schools filed a lawsuit in the Ohio Supreme Court challenging House Bill 120 changes to EdChoice. The lawsuit alleges that the legislature failed to properly execute an emergency measure and therefore HB 120 should not go into effect for 90 days. The parties also claim that the HB 120 application delay will cause irreparable harm to new EdChoice eligible students who planned to apply for the scholarship. If successful, the state may be forced to accept applications starting February 1st.

We will keep you posted on developments. The education associations have sent out multiple calls of action on the bills and you are encouraged to continue to stay apprised of developments and let your legislators know how the expansion would affect your district.