A new piece of Ohio legislation has raised concerns over the well-being of public libraries.
Governor Mike DeWine signed House Bill 96 (H.B. 96), Ohio’s operating budget for fiscal years 2026 and 2027, into law on June 30. The bill determines how certain state funds are distributed to state agencies and can set new policies for how these institutions operate. Two of its provisions have raised alarm for their potential impact on how Ohio libraries are funded, as well as the kind of content they can share.
Libraries will see less money coming in from the state over the next two years because H.B. 96 treats the fund as a fixed line item, where it was originally taken as a percentage of the General Revenue Fund.
The bill currently allocates $490 million to fiscal year 2026 and $500 million to fiscal year 2027. According to an article by the Ohio Library Council (OLC), the percentage rate for each fiscal year would be $531.7 million and $549.1 million, respectively. OLC reported that with an additional $10.3 million annual deduction from the Public Library Fund, libraries will be going into the 2026 fiscal year at a $25 million deficit.
Joseph Greenwood, the director of Lane Libraries, said he’s mainly worried about the long-term impact of this decision. Greenwood said that even though Lane has maintained a small levy over the past 15 years, continued losses in state funding could force the libraries to cut back on future projects or general services.
“Ohio has had very stable funding historically through the Public Library Fund,” he said. “Of course, we’re concerned about losing that stability and becoming a line item.”
Enjoy what you're reading?
Signup for our newsletter
In the case of H.B. 96, instability isn’t just a matter of capital. When it was introduced in February this year, it contained a provision (Section 3375.47 on page 1,307) that would limit access to materials related to sexual orientation or gender identity for people under the age of 18. Governor DeWine vetoed this section before signing the budget into law, but legislators have the opportunity to override gubernatorial vetoes until the end of the current General Assembly in December 2026.
This piece of the bill has been a major center of controversy throughout the budget’s lifetime. Many deem the restriction an act of unconstitutional censorship, especially considering the role of libraries as institutions of accessible information and knowledge.
Megan Kuykendoll, an instructor of family science and social work at Miami University, said the act of banning or even restricting material like this only serves to further marginalize certain groups or identities. She emphasized that censorship doesn’t just limit people’s access to something, but also denies a group’s sense of belonging within a community.
“When you remove those stories, you’re telling kids that their families don’t count,” she said.
Elena Ziccarelli, the co-president of Miami’s Young Democratic Socialists of America, also expressed concern over H.B. 96’s impact on queer visibility.
“It sends the message that queer people are a salacious topic, like it’s something that should be hidden,” she said.
While the bill poses some immense changes to how libraries are run, this isn’t the first time these institutions have faced adverse circumstances.
In 2009, then Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland proposed a 30% cut to state funding for libraries as a way to balance the state budget. After hearing about this, patrons to public libraries across the state were outraged and mounted a response to the cuts being made, pressuring the General Assembly to reject Strickland’s proposal.
Greenwood and Carrie Mancuso, Lane Library’s public relations manager, pointed to this moment as a prime example of the patrons being a library’s loudest voice. Mancuso said they can always depend on people to show up for their libraries.
“Our patrons are very committed to protecting what they get from their public library,” she said. “So we’re very fortunate for that.”