To amend sections 755.16, 3311.05, 3311.053, 3311.0510, 3313.01, 3313.376, 3313.843, 3313.845, 3313.846, 3313.848, 3313.849, 3317.11, 3319.80, 3326.45, 3513.255, and 3513.256; to amend, for the purpose of adopting a new section number as indicated in parentheses, section 3326.45 (3313.847); to enact section 3311.052; and to repeal sections 3311.054, 3311.056, 3311.057, and 3311.059 of the Revised Code regarding the territory, operation, and governance of educational service centers.
HB684 revises Ohio law governing educational service centers (ESCs), which are regional public education agencies that provide shared services to school districts and other public entities. The bill changes how ESC territory is defined, shifting it from county-based territory to the combined territory of school districts that have primary service agreements with the ESC, with updates tied to odd-numbered-year cycles and notice requirements to county boards of elections.
The bill also restructures ESC governance. It creates a new board-selection system under which each school district with a primary service agreement elects one ESC board member, with special rules for vacancies, term lengths, and additional members if the board would otherwise have an even number of members. It also updates procedures for combining up to five adjoining ESCs, dissolving former boards, transferring assets and records, and preserving existing contracts and service agreements during transitions. Related sections are amended to align service-agreement rules, purchasing authority, dyslexia training, and ballot-access procedures with the new ESC structure. The bill further repeals several obsolete ESC provisions and adds a new section governing board membership timing.
HB684 affects state education law by changing how ESCs are organized, funded, and represented, and by revising several cross-referenced statutes that depend on ESC service agreements. It preserves the existing framework for service contracts with school districts, STEM schools, community schools, and political subdivisions, but updates filing deadlines, renewal rules, and the relationship between primary and supplemental service agreements. It also adjusts the state operating subsidy formula for ESCs for fiscal years 2026 and 2027 and retains the per-pupil deduction mechanism for districts that contract with ESCs.
The overall sentiment in the available record is neutral to positive, but limited, because the bill was only introduced and had no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials. On its face, the bill appears to be a comprehensive administrative modernization measure intended to clarify ESC boundaries, governance, and service relationships rather than a controversial policy overhaul.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the shift in board representation from the current structure to district-based elections, the redefinition of ESC territory based on service agreements rather than geography, and the new timing rules for combining or dissolving centers. Those changes could affect local control, representation, and how services are allocated among districts and counties. School districts, ESC boards, county election officials, and other clients of ESC services would be the primary affected parties.
The bill amends multiple Revised Code sections governing educational service centers, including territory definition, board composition, service agreements, funding, purchasing authority, and election procedures. It repeals several obsolete sections and creates new transition rules for ESC territory and governance, while also updating related provisions for school districts, STEM schools, community schools, and political subdivisions that contract for ESC services. The bill would change how ESCs are represented and how their service areas are determined, and it would alter state subsidy calculations for ESCs for fiscal years 2026 and 2027.
No committee debate or votes were provided, and the bill is listed as introduced in the House Education Committee. Based on the text, the measure appears largely technical and administrative, with an emphasis on reorganizing ESC governance and clarifying service relationships. The available record does not show overt support or opposition, but the scope of the changes suggests that affected local education entities may have differing views depending on how the new representation and territory rules affect them.
The most likely areas of disagreement are the bill’s move from county-based ESC territory to territory defined by primary service agreements, and its requirement that board representation track those agreements. Districts that lose or gain representation, ESCs that span multiple counties, and county election boards that must administer the new notices and elections could all have concerns. There may also be debate over the consolidation process for adjoining ESCs, the automatic renewal and termination rules for service agreements, and whether the revised funding formula adequately reflects ESC operations and service demand.