'We rely on that.' Stark libraries worried about potential cut in state revenue
An Ohio House draft of the two-year state budget eliminates the Public Library Fund, a move that would cut millions in funding for Ohio libraries.
Leaders of Stark County library systems said potential cuts could greatly impact services.
"We rely on that," said Mary Ellen Icaza, executive director and CEO of Stark Library, which has 10 locations across the county.
The Public Library Fund covers about 37% to 38% of Stark Library's operating budget.
"Our operating budget is how we keep our locations going and how we are able to provide our collections, resources and services," she said.
The fund covers roughly 66% of Louisville Public Library's operating budget, Director Brock Hutchison said. He said if the House budget passes, changes would need to be made.
"It's hard for me to say exactly what would happen," Hutchison said. "We'd be looking at some kind of cut."
Library cuts? Funding for Ohio libraries at risk of being slashed. Stark libraries need support | Opinion
Under the current system, the Public Library Fund gets 1.7% of the revenue from the state's General Revenue Fund, which mostly comes from sales and income taxes. That money is then divided among Ohio's 88 counties using a formula.
Under Gov. Mike DeWine's proposed state budget, the Public Library Fund's distribution would've been increased to 1.75% of the General Revenue Fund, but the House plan reverses course.
The House proposal would change library funding to a line-item on the state budget.
By dollar amount, it would cut funding from an estimated $530 million in 2025 to $485 million in 2026, according to reporting by the Columbus Dispatch. A House GOP spokeswoman told the Dispatch that the $530 million funding figure for the current year is an estimate that has yet to be finalized.
Compared to DeWine's proposal, the House proposal gives Ohio libraries $100 million less in the next two years. The GOP-controlled House is scheduled to vote on the budget Wednesday.
According to the Ohio Department of Taxation, Stark County received an estimated $15.7 million last year from the Public Library Fund, and is expected to receive about $16.4 million this year.
Icaza said the move to eliminate the Public Library Fund was "fairly shocking" and has caused concern for local libraries across the state.
"We're keeping a close eye on everything," she said. "It's very important that we're here for our community and can provide the services the community needs."
Hutchison said his main concern is that cuts to state funding could impact how Ohio libraries work together to provide resources.
"Ohio always has some of the top libraries, if not the top libraries, in the country by usage and what we're able to offer," he said. "There's so many resource sharing opportunities. If you come into the Louisville Public Library, you can borrow from over 100 libraries across the state, and we'll have those items for you in a day of two."
The state funding makes it possible, Hutchison said.
"We're all funded together, and we're able to collaborate," he said. "It's been a legacy for Ohio's public libraries. Without state funding, or without us being part of the General Revenue Fund, I don't know how that continues."
Louisville Public Library has a 1-mill renewal levy on the May 6 ballot. The uncertainty of state funding makes passing it all the more important, Hutchison said.
"It's a third of our budget, about $360,000 a year that we can count on over the next five years," he said. "It's critical. It's more critical now than ever."
The renewal levy is not a tax increase. Louisville just opened its new library. Hutchison said they will be careful with spending amid the uncertainty.
"Anyone in the public sector always pays attention to tax cuts and bills and budgets in the federal, state and local government," he said. "We live within our means."
Libraries across Stark County have asked their residents to pay attention to the state budget.
Icaza said they are working to try to change the budget and reinstate the Public Library Fund in the final version.
"This is very early in the budget process," she said. "We are trying very hard to mobilize and, you know, stand together as the Ohio public library community."
Stark Library has been doing a campaign asking residents to call their state representatives and tell them to support the Public Library Fund. So far, she's been impressed with the response from the community.
"I am very gratified by the support that the community has shown us," Icaza said.
Reach Grace at 330-580-8364 or gspringer@gannett.com. Follow her on X @GraceSpringer16.
This article originally appeared on The Repository: Stark County libraries respond to potential cuts to state funds
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: Senate to Debate President's Policy Bill After Late Night Vote
G.O.P. leaders in the Senate are trying to quickly pass the legislation and send it to the House for final approval in time to meet the July 4 deadline that President Trump has set. The Senate on Saturday narrowly voted to begin debate on the sprawling domestic policy package carrying President Trump's agenda, clearing a key procedural hurdle after Republican leaders cut a series of deals with holdouts in hopes of winning the votes to pass it. The vote to take up the bill was 51 to 49, after party leaders held the vote open for more than three hours in a suspenseful scene while they haggled with holdouts, both on the Senate floor and behind closed doors, to secure their support. Two Republicans, Senators Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Rand Paul of Kentucky, voted with Democrats to block consideration of the measure. Even as the vote unfolded on Saturday night, a clutch of hard-right Republicans, including Senators Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mike Lee of Utah, Rick Scott of Florida and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, were demanding that G.O.P. leaders insert even deeper spending cuts into the bill in exchange for their support. Ultimately, they all voted in favor, with Mr. Johnson switching his vote from 'no' to 'yes' in the final moments. It was still not clear whether G.O.P. leaders had enough support to pass the measure and send it to the House for final approval in time to meet the July 4 deadline Mr. Trump has set. Democrats demanded a line-by-line reading of the bill, a procedural protest that was expected to take more than a dozen hours and likely push any final action in the Senate into Monday at the earliest. But the test vote on Saturday night put the measure on track, even as it reflected the considerable angst among Republicans about their party's signature bill. Mr. Tillis, who is up for re-election in 2026, said in a lengthy statement explaining his vote that he opposed the legislation because 'it would result in tens of billions of dollars in lost funding for North Carolina, including our hospitals and rural communities.' 'This will force the state to make painful decisions like eliminating Medicaid coverage for hundreds of thousands in the expansion population, and even reducing critical services for those in the traditional Medicaid population,' Mr. Tillis said. Hours later, Mr. Trump unleashed a lengthy social media broadside against him, calling his opposition a 'BIG MISTAKE' and saying he would meet with candidates seeking to challenge Mr. Tillis, who is up for re-election in 2026, in a Republican primary. A 940-page version of the legislation that Republicans released just after midnight contained key changes aimed at winning over G.O.P. skeptics. They included the creation of a $25 billion fund to help rural hospitals expected to be hit hard by the Medicaid cuts the legislation would impose, a faster phaseout of tax credits for wind and solar projects, and an increase in the cap on the state and local tax deduction demanded by lawmakers in the House. There were also a number of parochial changes aimed at placating some of the most vocal Republican opponents of the legislation, including several for Alaska, home to Senator Lisa Murkowski, who has said the measure would hurt her state. That appeared to have won her support, though she waited more than 90 minutes after the vote began to cast her 'aye,' after huddling in intense conversation with party leaders on the floor. White House officials ratcheted up pressure on Republicans to fall in line behind the measure, issuing an official policy statement saying that failure to do so by Independence Day 'would be the ultimate betrayal.' Mr. Trump spent part of his day golfing with Republican senators and meeting with holdouts. Party leaders are trying to appease two flanks of their conference. Some, including Mr. Tillis, have said they could not support it without greater reassurances that the Medicaid cuts it contains would not hurt rural hospitals in their states. And fiscal hawks, like Mr. Paul and Mr. Johnson, have said they do not want to back legislation that would only increase the deficit. Mr. Paul was among the president's golfing partners on Saturday, and Mr. Johnson among those he met with. The core of the bill remains the same. It would extend tax cuts passed by Republicans in 2017 and add some new ones Mr. Trump campaigned on, while slashing spending on safety-net programs, including Medicaid and food assistance. The biggest tax cuts and the biggest changes to those anti-poverty programs remained intact. Taken together, the bill would most likely increase federal debt by more than $3 trillion over the next decade, though lawmakers were still shaping the bill and awaiting an official estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. With Mr. Trump demanding quick action, Republicans in Congress have intensified their efforts to push it through to enactment even as many of them — including several who voted for it in the House — have been open about their reservations about a measure they are concerned could be a political loser. Image Workers from the Service Employees International Union protesting the proposed Republican cuts to Medicaid outside the Capitol on Tuesday. Credit... Tierney L. Cross/The New York Times The revisions released early Saturday were designed to allay some of those concerns. Some Republican senators, including Mr. Tillis and Susan Collins of Maine, had pressed for the inclusion of a rural hospital fund to to help health care providers absorb the impact of a provision that would crack down on strategies that many states have developed to finance their Medicaid programs. Despite their pushback, that provider tax change remains in the bill, though lawmakers have delayed its implementation by one year. It was unclear whether the $25 billion compensation fund added late in the process would be enough to win their votes. Ms. Collins had suggested that she wanted to provide as much as $100 billion to ensure that rural hospitals, which operate on thin margins, were not adversely affected. But it appeared to be enough to win over at least one Republican holdout who had expressed concern about the Medicaid cuts, Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, who said he would vote for the bill despite his concerns about the impact of those reductions. 'We cannot be a working-class party if you are taking away health care for working-class people,' he said, denouncing the Medicaid changes in the bill as 'bad.' A new provision allowing 'individuals in a noncontiguous state' to be exempt from enforcing new work requirements imposed on SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, appeared aimed at mollifying Ms. Murkowski of Alaska. Her state would be hit with billions of dollars in nutrition assistance costs as a result of the legislation, and she had cited the provision as one of her chief concerns. The bill also includes new health provisions designed to benefit Alaska, as well as new tax benefits for fishermen in the state's waters. Some of the changes were aimed at appealing to members of the House, where Republicans from high-tax states like New York had threatened to sink the bill if it did not include a substantial increase in the state and local tax deduction, currently capped at $10,000. Senate Republicans were skeptical of the deduction but ultimately decided to match the House plan to lift the cap to $40,000. But while the House would make the increase permanent, the Senate would keep it for only five years, allowing it to snap back to $10,000 in 2030. The newest draft makes even sharper cuts to subsidies for wind and solar power, something that Mr. Trump and other conservatives had explicitly called for this week. It remains to be seen whether those changes could cause friction with Republicans who have publicly supported green-energy credits, including Mr. Tillis, Ms. Murkowski and Senator John Curtis of Utah. Image The newest draft makes even sharper cuts to subsidies for wind and solar power, something that Mr. Trump and other conservatives explicitly called for this week. Credit... Mason Trinca for The New York Times Previously, the Senate proposed allowing companies that were building wind and solar farms to claim a tax credit worth at least 30 percent of their costs if they started construction this year, with a phaseout over two years. But the revised bill would require companies to place their projects 'in service' by the end of 2027 to claim the tax break. The bill also would impose additional taxes on renewable energy projects that receive 'material assistance' from China, even if they do not qualify for the credit. Because China dominates global supply chains, those new fees could affect a large number of projects. The new Senate measure would more quickly end tax credits for electric vehicles, doing away with them by Sept. 30. It would also slow the phaseout of a lucrative tax credit to make hydrogen fuels, allowing such projects to qualify if construction starts by the end of 2027, instead of by the end of this year. Annie Karni and Zolan Kanno-Youngs contributed reporting.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
After a dramatic vote, the Senate pushes ahead on Trump's tax break and spending cut plan
WASHINGTON (AP) — Capping a tumultuous night, the Republican-controlled Senate advanced President Donald Trump's package of tax breaks, spending cuts and increased deportation money, with more weekend work ahead as Congress races to meet his Fourth of July deadline for passage. By a 51-49 tally and with Vice President JD Vance at the Capitol to break a potential tie, the Senate cleared a key procedural step Saturday as midnight approached. Voting had come to a standstill, dragging for more than three hours, with holdout senators huddling for negotiations and taking private meetings off the Senate floor. In the end, two Republicans opposed the motion to move ahead on Trump's signature domestic policy plan, joining all 47 Democrats. 'Tonight we saw a GREAT VICTORY in the Senate,' Trump said in a social media post afterward. Republicans are using their majorities in Congress to push aside Democratic opposition, but they have run into a series of political and policy setbacks. Not all GOP lawmakers are on board with proposals to reduce spending on Medicaid, food stamps and other programs as a way to help cover the cost of extending some $3.8 trillion in Trump tax breaks. Trump had lashed out against holdouts, threatening to campaign against one Republican, Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who had announced he could not support the bill because of Medicaid cuts that he worried would leave many without health care in his state. A new analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the Senate version of the bill would increase by 11.8 million the number of people without health insurance in 2034. Tillis and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., voted 'no.' Ahead for senators now will be an all-night debate and amendments. If they are able to pass it, the bill would return to the House for a final round of votes before it could reach the White House. With the narrow Republican majorities in the House and Senate, leaders need almost every lawmaker on board. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Republicans released the bill 'in the dead of night' on Friday and were rushing through before the public fully knew what was in it. He forced a full reading of the text that began late Saturday and continued into Sunday morning. Tax breaks and core GOP priorities At its core, the legislation would make permanent many of the tax breaks from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire by year's end if Congress fails to act, resulting in a potential tax increase on Americans. The bill would add new breaks, including no taxes on tips, and commit $350 billion to national security, including for Trump's mass deportation agenda. But the cutbacks to Medicaid, food stamps and green energy investments are also causing dissent within GOP ranks. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said the environmental rollbacks would amount to a "death sentence' for America's wind and solar industries. The Republicans are relying on the reductions to offset the lost tax revenues but some lawmakers say the cuts go too far, particularly for people receiving health care through Medicaid. Meanwhile, conservatives, worried about the nation's debt, are pushing for steeper cuts. A dramatic roll call As the roll call teetered, attention turned to Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who was surrounded by GOP leaders in intense conversation. She voted 'yes.' A short time later, Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., drew holdouts Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, Mike Lee of Utah and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming to his office. Vance joined in. The talks dragged on. Then Vance led them all back in to vote. Later, Scott said he had met with the president, adding, 'We all want to get to yes.' Lee said the group "had an internal discussion about the strategy to achieve more savings and more deficit reduction, and I feel good about the direction where this is going, and more to come.' Republicans revise after setbacks by Senate's arbiter The release of the bill's draft had been delayed as the Senate parliamentarian reviewed the measure to ensure it complied with the chamber's strict 'Byrd Rule,' named for the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, It largely bars policy matters from inclusion in budget bills unless a provision can get 60 votes to overcome objections. Republicans suffered a series of setbacks after several proposals, including shifting food stamp costs from the federal government to the states or gutting the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, were deemed out of compliance with the rules. The final text includes a proposal for cuts to the Medicaid provider tax that had run into parliamentary hurdles and objections from several senators worried about the fate of rural hospitals. The new version extends the start date for those cuts and establishes a $25 billion fund to aid rural hospitals and providers. Top income-earners would see about a $12,000 tax cut under the House bill, while the package would cost the poorest Americans $1,600, the CBO said. Tussle over SALT The Senate included a compromise over the so-called SALT provision, a deduction for state and local taxes that has been a top priority of lawmakers from New York and other high-tax states, but the issue remains unsettled. The current SALT cap is $10,000 a year, and a handful of Republicans wanted to boost it to $40,000 a year. The final draft includes a $40,000 cap, but limits it for five years. Many Republican senators say that is still too generous, but House Republicans are not fully satisfied either.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Major student loan changes just came one step closer to becoming law
WASHINGTON – Congress is closer than it's been in a long time to massively reforming college financial aid. On June 10, GOP lawmakers in the U.S. Senate proposed their version of the higher education section of President Trump's tax and spending megabill. The 71-page portion of the so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" would set new caps on student loan borrowing while drastically cutting the number of repayment plans. Read more: Republicans propose massive overhaul of student loans, Pell Grants The Senate's version of the legislation is less aggressive than the bill that Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced in late April. While it will likely be further watered down due to congressional budget rules, the scope of the legislation indicates big changes will be enacted soon to how Americans pay for college. When President Donald Trump asked Republicans to find billions of dollars in federal spending cuts, GOP lawmakers in the House drew up measures to eliminate or dramatically curb many student loan programs. In April, they proposed cutting subsidized loans altogether for undergraduates. When students take out a federal direct subsidized loan, the government pays the interest while they're in school (and for a short grace period after the students complete their studies). That idea didn't survive in the Senate version of the bill, which was expected to be slightly more moderate than the House proposal. Read more: Could Trump fail on tax bill? Why going 'big' doesn't always work out as planned Other elements of the House version remain, however. Like the House bill, the Senate measure proposes cutting the number of student loan repayment plans to just two. That change would kill former President Joe Biden's Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE, program, which former Education Secretary Miguel Cardona repeatedly called the "most affordable repayment plan ever." SAVE has been stalled in court for months, placing roughly 8 million people in forbearance. The Senate bill would also dramatically curb lending for graduate students and parents (though at lower caps than House Republicans wanted). Ben Cecil, a senior education policy advisor at Third Way, a center-left think tank, said he was pleased to see the bill appeared to make compromises. "These loan limits are much more reasonable," he said. Melanie Storey, president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, said she was "relieved" some of the "most harmful" provisions of the House bill had been nixed. "Still, there are several concerning aspects of this bill that would ultimately make college less affordable for students," she said, including changes that "may drive borrowers to riskier private loans, which are not available to all borrowers." One of college access groups' biggest criticisms of the initial bill was a significant change to Pell Grants, federal subsidies that help lower-income students pay for college. House Republicans wanted to increase the number of credits students would need to take each semester to be eligible for Pell Grants. The Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank, estimated that two out of three Pell recipients could've lost their grants or received smaller ones if that requirement were enacted. The Senate version takes a softer approach, codifying a provision to more fully exclude higher-income students qualify for Pell funds. At the same time, the bill expands Pell Grants in ways that could waste money, according to critics such as Sameer Gadkaree, president of The Institute for College Access & Success, a college affordability group. 'While the Senate nixed most of the House's proposed cuts to the Pell Grant program and averts a looming funding shortfall, it regrettably threatens the program's long-term stability by extending Pell eligibility to unaccredited programs that are unlikely to pay off for students," Gadkaree said in a statement. One of the biggest distinctions between the House and Senate versions of the bill is that they lay out two entirely different sets of new accountability rules for colleges. The House proposal would fine colleges for leaving students on the hook for unpaid student loan debt. The Senate's framework suggests taking federal financial aid away from college programs if they can't prove that students who graduate are earning more than they would have without a degree. Mike Itzkowitz, who served in the Education Department under President Barack Obama, said that concept has bipartisan support. "I don't know anyone who would be willing to fork over their time to take on loans to earn less than a high school graduate," he said. But it's possible that particular provision won't survive special Senate rules. To avoid needing the support of Democrats, Republicans are trying to pass Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill" using the budget process. That strategy comes with challenges, however, namely that the bill must only make changes that spend money or save money. Significant reforms to college oversight might go too far, said Jon Fansmith, the senior vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, the main association for colleges and universities. "This process isn't designed to do complicated policymaking," he said. "I really do worry about rushing something through without understanding what we're doing." Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @ This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: GOP student loan overhaul is getting closer to becoming law
