The corpus › Draft Legislation
H.B. 96 (136th G.A., as introduced)
The executive budget as introduced — the stage the FY2026-27 act began at. It sets the phase-in to 83.33% and 100%, which is exactly what was enacted, and freezes base cost at FY2022 by extending the section's years without touching its data year.
draft-legislation/hb-96-136-as-introduced · 1 node point here
This draft, in Change the formula Contents
0 of this draft's 2 provisions bind a lever in the FY2027 model, so they can be run across all 609 districts. The other 2 set no lever: whatever the runner shows is the cost of 0 clauses and not of the bill.
The Governor’s executive budget for FY2026-27, introduced in the 136th General Assembly by Representative Brian Stewart as H.B. 96 and enacted five months later, after two substitutes and 67 line-item vetoes, as Am. Sub. H.B. 96. verified
It is here for one reason: the corpus described what this stage did to base cost as an inference about the Governor’s proposal, and the document settles it. verified
The phase-in it proposes is the phase-in that was enacted Contents
Section 265.220 of the introduced bill reads that the general phase-in percentage “for
fiscal year 2026 shall be 83.33 per cent” and “for fiscal year 2027 shall be 100 per
cent”, and sets the disadvantaged pupil impact aid percentages to the same two figures.
verified Those are the enacted numbers, in the enacted section, at the first stage of the
bill. verified
So the phase-in is not what the budget disagreed about. Every stage of H.B. 96 that this corpus holds proposes to complete the six-year schedule, and a reading that treats the executive proposal as the one that abandoned it has the wrong dial. inference See as passed by the House, where the percentages are identical again and a different section stops them paying anything.
The base-cost freeze is an absence rather than a provision Contents
R.C. 3317.011’s salary definitions each price a funded position “using fiscal year 2022 data, as determined by the department”. In the introduced bill those words are unstruck — carried forward from existing law — while the section’s applicable years are amended from 2025 to 2027. verified
That is the whole mechanism. The proposal extends the years the section governs and leaves the year its prices come from where it is, so base cost reaches FY2027 priced at FY2022 salaries without any clause saying so. verified A freeze that is written as the absence of an amendment is not findable by reading what a bill changes, which is how it came to be recorded here as an inference from the enacted act rather than as a fact about this stage. inference
The precedent for the other choice is one budget old: H.B. 33 refreshed the reference year from FY2018 to FY2022. verified
What this repository computed Contents
Not what Ohio publishes. Figures derived here from committed fixtures, each one citing the test that reproduces it.
Reading a budget act by what it amends misses what it declines to amend Contents
The two facts above are the same fact seen twice. Section 265.220 is a provision — a number
written down, findable by searching for it. The FY2022 freeze is a non-amendment, visible
only as strike-through markup that is not there, and it is the one with the larger effect on
what a district is paid. inference
A retrieval that pins a bill’s text makes the second kind checkable, which a summary of changes cannot: the act’s own “school financing system calculation revisions” list is a list of amendments, and the freeze is by construction not on it. verified
What this stage cannot be priced at Contents
Nothing here binds a lever, and the reason is not that the provisions are exotic. The two that
matter are a phase-in percentage and a base-cost reference year, and policy::Policy carries
a lever for each. They do not price because this stage and current law are the same on both
of them — 83.33% and 100% are what R.C. 3317.022 is already run at here, and FY2022 is
already the reference year the FY2027 model prices from. verified
A draft whose levers sit where current law sits produces a delta of zero, and Priced refuses
to report that as a cost for the same reason it refuses it for
H.B. 643: an identity run is not a free bill. verified crates/project/tests/a_draft_cannot_hide_what_it_did_not_price.rs
The contemporaneous cost figure is a total this repository did not compute Contents
Analysis of the three stages reports the executive proposal’s FY2025 → FY2027 foundation
increase as $149m, against the House-passed stage’s $297m and the enacted act’s $339.7m.
verified Fordham Institute — "Ohio House puts the brakes on Cupp-Patterson"
That is a published sector total from a secondary source with a stated alignment, and it is
reported here as such rather than reproduced — see unpriced.
Properties Contents
| Provenance | introduced |
|---|---|
| Designation | H.B. 96 |
| General Assembly | 136th General Assembly |
| Sponsors | Representative Brian Stewart (R, district 12), recorded active, with no cosponsors. verified The executive budget is introduced by a member rather than by the Governor, and the sponsoring member is ordinarily the House Finance chair; the document records the sponsorship and not the reason for it. inference |
| Status | Superseded. This is the first of eight versions the General Assembly published for this bill: as introduced, as reported by House Finance, as passed by the House, as pending and then reported in Senate Finance, as passed by the Senate, as reported by the Committee of Conference, and as enrolled. verified The enrolled version carries governor_signed_date and effective_date of 30 June 2025. verifiedA superseded stage is not a dead bill and not a live one. It is what the act said at a point in its passage, which is the only thing this node claims about it. |
| Text read | hb96_00_IN, retrieved 17 September 2026 from search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_136/legislation/hb96/00_IN/html/. Pinned at SHA-256 9a0acde65eccfecac9c39b96b42ba97f5401dc8b4043c3e41c2f44193cd01ce8, 22,087,612 bytes. verified crates/connect/source-digests.txt00_IN is stable — introduction is always a bill's first version and cannot be amended — but the pin is what makes the two claims above checkable, because both rest on strike-through and underline markup rather than on prose. A digest over office-suite HTML pins the renderer as much as the document; see H.B. 643, where a digest moved eleven bytes because the department's LibreOffice went up a version. verified |
| Question | Did the executive proposal freeze base cost at FY2022, and did it propose a phase-in different from the one enacted? The corpus asserted the first as an inference and implied the second by describing the act's phase-in as a choice the budget made. |
| Provisions | Two provisions are read here. The bill amends more than two thousand sections and this node does not enumerate them — for a budget act, enumerating the funding provisions is itself the work, and what is claimed is what was read. verified 1. Phase-in percentages. Section 265.220, uncodified. Binds FSFP Phase-In Percentage. Baseline 66.67% (FY2025); proposed 83.33% for FY2026 and 100% for FY2027. Lever phase-in. Identical to current law as this repository runs it, so it prices to nothing. verified2. Base cost reference year. R.C. 3317.011. Binds Base Cost Per Pupil. Baseline FY2022; proposed FY2022, by extending the section's applicable years to 2027 and leaving the data year unstruck. Lever base-cost. Also an identity. verifiedWhat is not read here is the rest of the school financing system: the DPIA count rewrite, the supplements, the JVSD charge-off method and the local capacity income term are all changes the enacted act made, and whether this stage proposed them is not established. open |
| Not priced | Two of two, and for a reason worth distinguishing from the ordinary one. Provision 1, the phase-in percentages ( uncodified, Section 265.220), and provision 2, the base cost reference year (R.C. 3317.011).Neither is outside the model. A lever exists for each, and each is set to the value current law already has — this repository's baseline is the enacted act, whose phase-in and reference year this stage proposes. verified So a run would return an identity. The fixture leaves both unlevered rather than running them to zero, and the distinction is the one H.B. 643 forced into Priced::cost. A draft reporting $0.0M says this stage is free; a draft reporting no figure says this stage has not been priced. The second is true here and the first is not, because the two provisions read are not the whole stage — the DPIA rewrite, the supplements and the local capacity income term are [open] above, and a zero over two of an unknown number of funding provisions would describe a different bill from the one introduced. inferenceThe $149m figure is not this repository's. It is a sector total reported by a secondary source for the FY2025 → FY2027 window, on a population — traditional districts, community and STEM schools, JVSDs — this repository's calculator does not span: the 609 here are the traditional districts in the department's own model. Reproducing it would need the other two sectors and the stage's own appropriation lines. open |
Where this appears on the site Contents
The pages outside the corpus that link here, and the section of each the link sits in.
Links Contents
| Instance of | Draft Legislation |
|---|---|
| Enacted as | Am. Sub. H.B. 96 (2025) — FY2026-27 Budget |
| Superseded by | H.B. 96 (136th G.A., as passed by the House) |
| Alters | FSFP Phase-In Percentage |
| Measured against | Fair School Funding Plan |
| Sourced from | Ohio bills before enactment — the text as introduced |