To amend sections 107.03, 126.02, 126.13, and 126.27 and to enact sections 126.025 and 126.026 of the Revised Code to require the use of zero-based budgeting in the development of the state budget.
HB645 would require Ohio to use zero-based budgeting in the development of the state budget on a recurring schedule: beginning with the 2027 General Assembly and then every ten years thereafter. Zero-based budgeting means budget requests must be built from zero and justified based on the purpose of each expenditure, rather than assuming prior-year funding levels continue. The bill applies this requirement to the governor’s budget submission, the Office of Budget and Management’s budget estimates, and state agency budget requests.
The bill also amends existing budget-preparation statutes to integrate zero-based budgeting into the forms and procedures used by the director of budget and management and state agencies. It preserves the existing budget calendar and reporting structure, including agency submissions, governor’s budget documents, and related fiscal reports, while adding a requirement that budget requests be prepared using zero-based principles during the designated budget cycles. It also retains current provisions on performance reviews for selected programs and the governor’s duty to explain non-recommended appropriations.
In practical terms, HB645 would change how state budget requests are developed and reviewed, but it would not directly appropriate money or create a new program. Instead, it would alter the administrative and statutory framework governing the executive budget process, affecting the governor, OBM, and all state agencies that submit budget requests. The bill would likely increase the documentation and justification burden for agencies during the zero-based budgeting years, and could influence how appropriations are evaluated by the legislature.
The bill’s general sentiment, based on the available context, is neutral to favorable toward fiscal scrutiny and budget discipline. Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, there is no evidence of formal opposition or support from hearings or floor action. The bill was introduced and referred to the House Finance Committee, but no further legislative movement is shown.
The main point of contention implied by the bill’s structure is the administrative burden and policy shift involved in requiring agencies to justify spending from scratch every ten years. Supporters would likely view the measure as a transparency and efficiency tool, while critics may argue it could be time-consuming, disruptive, and difficult to apply consistently across complex programs such as Medicaid and other large state functions. No specific objections are documented in the provided record.
HB645 would amend Ohio’s budget statutes in Revised Code sections 107.03, 126.02, 126.13, and 126.27 and enact new section 126.025 to require zero-based budgeting during designated budget cycles. It would change the budget-preparation duties of the governor, the director of budget and management, and state agencies by requiring budget requests and estimates to be justified from zero rather than based on prior appropriations. The bill would also require the director to incorporate zero-based budgeting into budget forms and agency submissions, affecting the state executive budget process without directly changing substantive program law or appropriations levels.
The available record suggests a generally favorable or at least policy-oriented sentiment toward improving budget discipline and justification of spending, but there is no recorded committee testimony or vote history to show active support or opposition. Because the bill remains in introduced status and has only been referred to the House Finance Committee, the legislative sentiment cannot be measured from formal action. The absence of transcripts means no specific stakeholder positions are documented in the provided materials.
The likely area of contention is the practicality of requiring zero-based budgeting every ten years, especially for large and complex agencies that would need to rebuild budget requests from the ground up. Potential supporters would emphasize fiscal accountability, transparency, and periodic review of spending priorities, while potential critics would focus on the added workload for agencies and budget staff, the risk of disrupting continuity in long-running programs, and the challenge of applying the approach consistently across all state functions. No named opponents or proponents are identified in the provided context.