March 24, 2026 · Finance Committee · 3,068 words · 14 speakers · 171 segments
Senate Finance Committee will come to order. Apologies for the delay. Will the clerk please call the roll?
Chair Serino?
Here.
Vice Chair Chavez?
Here.
Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson?
Present.
Senator Blessing?
Here.
Senator Brenner?
Present.
Senator Craig?
Here.
Senator Ingram?
Here.
Senator Lange?
Yes.
Senator Manchester?
Here.
Senator Manning?
Here.
Senator Patton?
Here.
Senator Romanchuk?
Here.
Senator Wilkin?
Yes. With the quorum present, we would ask that that is a quorum and we will operate as a full committee. I would ask the committee to review the minutes from the March 10th meeting, which are on the iPads.
I'm sorry? Okay, yes, it does.
Any comments or objections? Hearing none, the minutes are approved. Our first order of business is reviewing the governor's appointments. Members, the biographies of the governor's appointments are on the iPads and I believe were sent to your offices in advance for your review. And I'll recognize Senator Chavez for a motion.
Mr. Chairman, I move to favorably report the Governor's appointments to the Committee on Rules and Reference.
Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, the clerk will call the roll. Chair Serino? Yes.
Vice Chair Chavez? Yes.
Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson? Yes.
Senator Blessing? Yes.
Senator Brenner? Yes.
Senator Craig? Yes.
Senator Lang? Yes.
Senator Manchester?
Senator Manning?
Senator Patton?
Senator Romanchuk?
Senator Wilkin?
Having sufficient votes, the motion carries and the governor's appointments are referred to the committee on rules and reference. Final order of business is the first hearing on substitute House Bill 730. Today we'll be hearing proponent, opponent, and interested party testimony. There was no in-person testimony submitted. Is there anyone here who wishes to provide testimony? Seeing none, members, there was also written testimony submitted, which is available for your review on the iPads. So, moving on to House Bill 730, I'd like to point out that the main parts of HB 730 are identical to SB 371, which already had a hearing in this committee. Those provisions reappropriate about $1.93 billion for various public purposes, most notably public infrastructure and school facility projects around the state. This is a routine budget and very important to keeping our promises from previous capital budgets on track. Working with our colleagues in the House, the House Finance Committee added 34 amendments to the bill. I will point out that 26 of them were capital project redirects. These redirects came from members of all four legislative caucuses. A dozen or so redirects were submitted that were not included in this bill. All of those proposals just need a little bit more time to verify all of the many moving parts. However, they are all under consideration for the upcoming capital budget as well. So please keep working on redirecting stalled projects. Keep in mind that the effective date of the capital budget is likely to also be July 1, 2026, the same as HB 730 before us today. A quick summary of the eight fiscal policy amendments in the House bill. Two were reappropriating operating budget allocations from fiscal 26 to fiscal 27. One was a technical modification of the earmark providing for interpretive services for the deafblind community. One restored ODNR's ability to access 2% of community projects for administrative expenses. One made a technical change to the transfer language for helping local JFS offices with implementation of Medicaid work requirements. One was a $500,000 allocation for fraud prevention for programs through JFS and Medicaid. And one was $12.5 million, $10 million GRF, and $2.5 million federal match for county JFS system administration costs to cover some of the costs that were allocated to them in the Big Beautiful Bill. And lastly, one provided $14.1 million in GRF in fiscal 26 and $39 million in fiscal 27 for agencies who are still experiencing budget pressures for employee health care costs, which we discussed in somewhat remedy during the last operating budget. Okay. I would also want to say that we will again be revisiting this after a brief recess, after we cover some amendments here, as we're waiting for some additional potential language correction. So we will be resuming after we finish these amendments at the call of the chair. If I can get more specific as we conclude here, I will try to get that to you as well. Okay. The chair would like to recognize Senator Craig for a motion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to amend with Amendment 136
The amendment is in order. Please proceed with an explanation, Senator.
This amendment would redirect the funds previously appropriated to the Gravity Capital Project through Columbus State Community College, to the Maroon Arts Group for their cultural lab upgrades. this amount being redirected is $575,000. Move to...
Thank you, Senator. Thank you. Are there any objections? Seeing no objections, the amendment becomes a part of the bill. The chair recognizes ranking member, Senator Hicks Hudson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would move for Amendment 136-2057.
Okay. The amendment is in order. Please proceed with an explanation.
Let me see. Give me one second, sir. Okay. Oops. Very quickly, this amendment would direct that the allocation of the $12.5 million that will be used for the Family Assistance Local and Federal Fund to allocate to the county departments for the administration of the SNAP benefits and to use the traditional formula that has been used previously. This would provide for a more equitable distribution and would allow and would reduce any type of confusion as it relates to the administration of those funds. By restoring the distribution, it actually goes, I think to the heart of trying to do two things. One, the delivery of the services to the people who most need them. Then also to deal with the question about, not the question, but the concerns that we have about reducing the error rate that we all are concerned about in the administration of this program. And that would also leave, I think, the state in more of a harm's way because of the way that the current allocation that was passed in the House is being done. So with that, I move for the acceptance of this amendment.
Thank you for that explanation. The chair recognizes Vice Chair Chavez.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to table the amendment.
The question is, shall the amendment be tabled? Will the clerk please call the roll? Chair Serino? Yes.
Vice Chair Chavez? Yes.
Ranking Member Hicks Hudson?
No.
Senator Blessing?
Yes.
Senator Brenner?
Yes.
Senator Craig?
No.
Senator Ingram?
No.
Senator Lange?
Yes.
Senator Manchester?
Yes.
Senator Manning?
Yes.
Senator Patton?
No.
Senator Romachuk?
Yes.
Senator Wilkin?
Yes.
All right. The amendment has been tabled. Ranking Member Hicks Hudson is also, again, recognized.
Give me one. Let me go back. I move to amend with Amendment 136-2056.
The amendment is in order. Please proceed with an explanation.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Now, this one would restore, well, let me back up. This amendment would require the Director of OBM to transfer from the Budget Stabilization Fund $38,203,737 to the general fund, a revenue fund to cover the gap left in the county funding due to the federal administrative reimbursement changes and would require the distribution of funds to follow what is currently established, which is to distribute based on calculations that take into consideration a county's caseload. I move to amend and ask that it be favorably considered by this committee.
Thank you for that explanation. The chair recognizes Vice Chair Chavez.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to table the amendment.
The question is, shall the amendment be tabled? Will the clerk please call the roll? Chair Serino? Yes.
Vice Chair Chavez? Yes.
Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson? No.
Senator Blessing? Yes.
Senator Brenner? Yes.
Senator Craig? No.
Senator Ingram? No.
Senator Lange? Yes.
Senator Manchester? Yes.
Senator Manning? Yes.
Senator Patton? Yes.
Senator Romanchuk? Yes.
Senator Wilkin? Yes.
Okay. With the majority of votes, the amendment is tabled. We are now going to recess, and we will be taking up House Bill, substitute House Bill 730 in a potential amendment again as soon as we reconvene. Members, please check your emails, as we'll keep you as posted as possible as to the timing of our reconvening. Okay. Yes, is there a question?
Text. Yeah, we can text. When we're coming back.
I'm sorry, did I say email? I meant text. I apologize for that. Yes, we need to recess. We are in recess. The Senate Finance Committee will come back to order and we will resume the first hearing on substitute House Bill 730 recognizes Vice Chair Chavez for a motion Thank you Mr Chairman
I move to adopt Amendment 2077-4.
Thank you. The amendment is in order.
As many of you know, Congress and the President recently enacted the Rural Health Transformation Program. The state was awarded $202 million for the state for fiscal year 26 and state fiscal year 27, $404 million for the first two years of this five-year program. The Department of Health has been working with Health and Human Services on the state plan for this expenditure. This amendment is the General Assembly's appropriation authority for those dollars. Again, 100% of the dollars are federal. Since the program starts in fiscal 26, which will end on June 30th, it is imperative to move as quickly as possible to start these dollars flowing into Ohio, which is why we've decided to take this bill up in the reappropriation bill. I would like to point out that one key part of the amendment, which I know many members of the Senate have an interest in, providing dollars to help improve maternal health care and provide for accessible maternity units, especially in our rural areas. The plan puts Ohio on the path to providing at least $30 million in each of the fiscal years for these outcomes once applicants go through the competitive process. Some additional allocations, which can be seen and listed in the first two pages of the amendment, include $42 million over two years for school-based health centers, $33 million over two years for healthier Ohio initiatives to prevent chronic disease, and $50 million over two years for an expansion for the Ohio Sea Initiative. I feel this amendment is a very important addition to the bill, and despite our desire for an unamended bill, I would ask for your support for this amendment.
Are there any objections to the amendment?
No.
Okay. So there's an objection. The question is, shall the amendment be adopted? Will the clerk please call the roll? Chair Serino? Yes.
Vice Chair Chavez? Yes.
Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson? Yes.
Senator Blessing? Yes.
Senator Brenner? Yes.
Senator Craig? Yes.
Senator Ingram? Yes.
Senator Lang? Yes.
Senator Manchester? Yes.
Senator Manning? Yes.
Senator Patton? Yes.
Senator Romanchuk? No.
Senator Wilkin?
Having sufficient votes, the amendment becomes a part of the bill. Chair recognizes Vice Chair Chavez for a motion on the bill.
Before that, a point of order.
I have a couple questions about the amendment, if you can answer them before we vote on it. All right. Please go ahead.
Thank you. I was wondering, since you brought up the issue about the rural maternity units and things like that, do we know how these funds will be spent, and are they going to be in keeping with what the Department of Health has created in terms of the health responsive projects, their RFP that's already been awarded? And are these funds, if you can answer, if those funds are going to be available to support that particular program?
So I will do my best to answer your questions. So the individual providers will have to make application for these grants. And it will be to either reconstitute if a system has closed their maternity care or needs to expand it without including bricks and mortar. Of course, that's not permitted under the federal guidelines. That they will have to make application to the Department of Health and Department of Health will make those decisions as to whether they qualify and how much of the money will they be appropriated.
So if I may follow up, sir.
Please.
And that is I understand that there is a process by which you can apply. I'm wondering about is the purpose for these funds to support the Department of Health's rural maternal health projects that have already been awarded, not the ones that according to what you're saying that will be our applications for, if you know.
This will be for future activities.
Okay.
And again, the problem that this is attempting to remedy is that in many of the rural areas, as I think we all understand, that many of the rural hospitals have closed their maternity, departments, and therefore patients have to travel a long way for something that sometimes comes without notice, much notice. And so this is an attempt at remedying that.
And I, if I may, I appreciate those comments because we all are quite aware of, you know, what is happening in rural Ohio as it relates to maternal health care. And I just want to be sure that, you know, that what was contemplated originally is going to be followed through with these dollars and that the purpose that, you know, because so oftentimes when we do things at piecemeal, and no disrespect to anyone, but, you know, I want to make sure that we using these dollars as effectively and efficiently as possible Yeah would say too that the Senate worked very hard to get these rather substantial amounts
$60 million over two years, for this project. And the details of how it will be rolled out and how the grants will be made will be determined by the Department of Health.
Okay.
And as far as you know, we believe that the Department of Health is going to follow through with what they initially said as part of their original budget and their original guidelines or purposes for taking care of this issue of maternal health. As far as we know, yes.
I have a second one.
Do you have another question?
Yes, Senator Ingram. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And I guess maybe my concern is that most of, because this comes from the big bill, I assume, is targeted at rural. And my question becomes, is it on top of what we've already set aside for Appalachian dollars that are already presented very deliberately for those areas for specific groups of people? And I guess maybe the determination as to where the dollars were going specifically, was it in the big bill or did we decide that?
It was in the big, the dollars were in the big bill.
Right.
But were they specific to maternal health, et cetera, et cetera?
Okay, so the state decided that.
The Senate specifically proposed that in our negotiations with the House.
Oh, okay.
So, yes, it came from the legislature.
The dollars came from the federal.
Right.
I understand that part. I just wanted to know where the specifics as to where the dollars were intended to be spent. And obviously that was done through somebody.
Did you have another question?
Yeah, if I may.
Thank you, Senator Ingram, for focusing on that.
The second question I have is how, so the various categories that are being implemented through the funding, has there been discussion with the Department of Health to determine which projects are emphasized, which projects are legislatively intended, et cetera.
We have had many discussions, and the House and the Senate together have had discussions with the Department of Health and other parts of the administration. And I think our view is that clearly the objective is to show a preference in the dissemination of all of this funding to rural hospitals. That's the intent in the first place. That's why it's titled the way it is. That's just the one category, but the overall expenditures. Are all going to be focused on rural health care.
Senator Romanchuk.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm focused on lines 24 through 29, and it would appear that the flimsy criteria that was previously in the amendment has now been removed. And it looks like the Department of Health shall develop a list of hospitals. What criteria will they be using to develop that list?
So that was the reason for the delay in our committee hearing today. And we had difficulty or we saw some difficulty in some of the parameters outlined in the dash one and dash two versions of the amendment that would have not been as clear as they could be. In fact, we thought that some of them were actually confusing in trying to make sure that the right number of hospitals were serviced. We do know that the House, in the bill that they passed, had outlined 13 hospitals that we talked about earlier. And so we decided that instead of trying to chase the right verbiage and the right criteria, There were so many puts and takes. We decided on the language that we have now included in this, and it will come to the controlling board for appropriations to be released.
Okay. Thank you. Senator Patton, did you have something?
No.
Any other questions? Okay. So I will once again recognize Vice Chair Chavez for a motion on the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to favorably report substitute House Bill 730 to the Committee on Rules and Reference.
The question is, shall the bill be favorably reported to the Committee on Rules and Reference? The clerk will please call the roll. Chair Serino? Yes.
Vice Chair Chavez? Yes.
Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson? Yes.
Senator Blessing? Yes.
Senator Brenner? Yes.
Senator Craig? Yes.
Senator Ingram? Yes.
Senator Lange? Yes.
Senator Manchester? Yes.
Senator Patten? Yes.
Senator Romachuk?
Senator Wilkin? Yes.
Having sufficient votes, the bill is favorably reported to the Committee on Rules and Reference. I would like to move without objection to give LSC the permission to harmonize amendments as needed for Substitute House Bill 730. Seeing no objections, LSC has the authority to harmonize the amendments. This will conclude the first hearing on substitute House Bill 730. Is there any other business before the committee? Seeing none, the committee is adjourned.