Funding stream Ohio libraries opposed included in Senate budget proposal

A funding plan that was opposed by Ohio librarians and advocates alike has been included in the Ohio Senate's budget plan, and could stay on as the Ohio House and Senate combine their budget drafts into a final version. It also includes a contentious provision to move certain materials deemed not fit for children. According to budget documents, the Senate proposal works the same as the House's, meaning public libraries would receive monthly payments paid directly through transfers from the General Revenue Fund. That move was criticized by libraries and advocates, at first when an initial House draft of the budget eliminated the Public Library Fund all together, instituting a mechanism that would have been based on population. While the House revised their draft to return the Public Library Fund, it changed the mechanism to the lump-sum GRF funding, rather than the previous funding mechanism, funding the libraries with a percentage of the tax revenue received by the state. Critics said moving to a line-item in the General Revenue Fund leaves the funding more open to elimination entirely, while legislators who supported the idea said tax revenue percentages were more fiscally unpredictable. The same budget increases the Local Government Fund, which receives its monies through tax revenue percentage, from 1.7% to 1.75%, the exact change library advocates wanted to see for the Public Library Fund. The library fund had $504.6 million at the end of fiscal year 2025, under the Senate's plan, according to the Ohio Library Council. The new budget would provide $490 million in fiscal year 2026, and $500 million in 2027. "This reduction comes at a time when libraries are busier than ever, supporting essential programs like summer reading that help children avoid the 'summer slide,'" said Ohio Library Council executive director Michelle Francis, referring to the reduction in reading comprehension and literacy that can happen to kids while they're out of school for the summer. It was evident even before Senate discussions on the budget had begun that a change to the library fund was likely to be kept. At a gathering of Ohio public libraries at the Statehouse that just happened to fall on the day the House released their final budget draft, Senate Finance Committee Chair Jerry Cirino told reporters he supported the move as was written in the initial House draft. "I think like everybody else that we appropriate, it should be a biennial appropriation process that's justified based on input and feedback that we get, not an automatic number," Cirino told media in April. State Library of Ohio The Senate proposal also creates a State Library Operating Expenses Fund, which neither Gov. Mike DeWine's executive budget nor the House budget included. The provision would transfer $9 million over the next two years away from the Public Library Fund to the new expenses fund for the State Library of Ohio. The State Library works to conserve historical documents for the state, as well as working as a resource-sharing entity with libraries across the state. The agency receives funding from both the state and from federal grants. State Librarian Mandy Knapp said the budget draft cuts the library's operating expenses by $245,000 in fiscal year 2026 and $331,000 in 2027, compared to the House budget draft. The cuts come alongside rising staffing and health insurance costs, and at a time when the current library facility is "no longer suitable to house the State Library's collection," Knapp told the Senate Finance Committee. "State Library is already maximizing every dollar of funding," Knapp said. "Without the modest increase to State Library's operating expenses … that were included in the previous budgets, services will be reduced." Knapp also pushed back on the change to put the State Library of Ohio expenses under the Public Library Fund, saying its current line-item in the General Revenue Fund is more appropriate. "The Public Library Fund was created to support Ohio's public libraries as defined under the (Ohio Revised Code)," Knapp said. "As the State Library is a state agency that operates a research library and supports a federally funded grant-making program for all types of libraries, it is more appropriate to fund the State Library through the General Revenue Fund rather than the Public Library Fund." The State Library is still in danger of federal funding losses as well. It receives funding through the federal Institute of Museum and Library Services, an institute that has had an uncertain future under the Trump administration, facing threats of total elimination as part of federal funding cuts. In May, the State Library said it had "received reassurances" that it would be getting the remainder of their IMLS grant funding for the fiscal year. But the federal legislation that authorizes the grant funding the State Library of Ohio receives is set to expire in September, according to a spokesperson for the library. "This act requires reauthorization for the State Library of Ohio to maintain its services to Ohio libraries of all types and to provide library databases for all Ohioans," wrote Marsha McDevitt-Stredney, spokesperson for the library. "Additionally, reauthorization is essential for the State Library to continue the distribution of federal grant funds to libraries." As of June 6, a federal judge allowed cuts to the Institute of Museum and Library Services to continue temporarily while a lawsuit brought forth on behalf of the American Library Association goes forward. With the Senate and House funding mechanisms matching in each state budget draft, it's likely the levels will be maintained through the conference committee process to harmonize both versions into a final draft to be sent to Gov. Mike DeWine for his signature, and/or for line-item vetoes. Still, Francis said the council remains "hopeful" that things may change through conference committee negotiations. Also included in both the House and Senate versions of the budget was a provision that requires public libraries to place "material related to sexual orientation or gender identity or expression" in a part of the library "that is not primarily open to the view of minors." Library leaders decried the move, saying smaller libraries couldn't accommodate a request, and even the ones that could said it would come at significant administrative cost to move the materials. They also criticized the provision for being vague about what materials would be included in such a requirement.