Grove City library officials warn House Bill 96 would cut funding, add costly censorship duties; council agrees to send letter

Meredith Wickham, a representative of Southwest Public Libraries, told Grove City Council on May 20 that Ohio House Bill 96, still pending in the legislature, would freeze public library funding and add new censorship and monitoring requirements that she said would threaten Grove City Library operations.

Wickham said HB 96 would “maintain our funding for 2026 and 2027 at approximately the same level we received in 2024,” leaving the library with state support that does not keep pace with rising costs. She and Debbie Blair, the library fiscal officer, described both operational effects and the estimated costs to comply with the bill’s access restrictions.

Wickham told council the bill would change the public library fund from a percentage of the state general revenue fund to a single line-item appropriation, a structure she called historically unstable and susceptible to cuts. She warned that the fund equals “almost 62% of our funding every single time that the budget comes up for consideration every 2 years,” and said the library has already reduced hours and staffing after prior state budget actions.

Blair outlined the library’s estimate for compliance costs tied to the bill’s required restrictions on materials referenced to gender identity and sexual orientation. The library projected it would need to hire staff to screen patrons and monitor restricted areas at about $150,000 per year in wages and benefits; allocate approximately $300,000 per year in staff time to review and catalog the collection for restricted content; and pay a one-time estimated $100,000 per location to remodel and segregate areas of the building. Blair summarized those figures as “an unfunded annual burden of 450,000 and 1 time investment of 200,000” as she spoke.

Wickham and Blair urged the council to press state senators to restore the public library fund to a percentage basis and to oppose what they described as unfunded censorship mandates. “We ask that you oppose shifting library funding to a line item,” Wickham said, and requested support for a percentage of the general revenue fund of 1.75%, up from the current 1.7%.

Mayor Sage said he had spoken with two state senators and recommended the council authorize a legal firm to draft a letter opposing the changes. After discussion the council agreed to proceed: “Everyone in agreement? Yes,” several members answered in the chamber. The council chair directed staff to prepare and send the letter shortly so senators would receive the city’s position ahead of final Senate action, which Wickham said the presenters expected to be resolved around June 2.

Why it matters: The library representatives described immediate, quantifiable costs and staffing impacts if HB 96 becomes law as written. Library funding and potential new compliance costs intersect with local budgets and services such as early literacy, job-seeker assistance and community meeting space that the presenters said would be at risk without state support.

Council action and next steps: Councilmembers agreed to authorize staff and counsel to draft and transmit a letter to state senators urging (1) restoration of the public library fund to a percentage of the general revenue fund (the presenters requested 1.75%), and (2) rejection of unfunded censorship or monitoring mandates included in HB 96. Staff will circulate the draft letter for council review and transmit it before the Senate’s expected deadline.