State

Incoming health care changes mean more overall struggles for Ohioans, advocates say

Health care advocates and researchers say the new year will be a challenging one for Ohioans with federal changes to health care coming with surety but uncertainty. The Health Care Policy Institute of Ohio has conducted research throughout the years analyzing the impact of the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid funding on the ability for Ohioans to afford insurance, on top of all the others costs that households shoulder, such as food expenses and child care. The uninsured rate in the state has dropped “substantially” since 2010, due in large part to the Affordable Care Act, according to Brian O’Rourke, a health care policy analyst for the institute. He also said in a recent webinar on the affordability of health care that more than one in five Ohioans had trouble paying off medical bills in 2023. That rate was unsurprisingly higher among uninsured residents, but people with insurance also struggled, according to O’Rourke. “Health expenditures are only one component of an Ohio household’s budget,” O’Rourke said during the webinar. He cited United Way data that found a family of four in Ohio with two children in child care would need $79,224 per year to afford health care and other “essential needs.” According to U.S. News and World Report , Ohio’s median income currently stands at $42,343. Federal cuts to Medicaid mean Ohio is expected to lose $33 billion over the next decade , something Gov. Mike DeWine acknowledged will be an issue going forward. “I think it’s going to pose some very significant challenges, and we’re looking at that,” DeWine said in a Thursday meeting with media. “…We’re aware of that and we have some tough decisions ahead of us, the state does.” Health care workers and advocates are also bracing for change amid a deadlock in the U.S. Senate on proposals surrounding the Affordable Care Act. The lack of action makes it more than likely that the enhanced tax credits that are currently a part of the Affordable Care Act will expire in 2026. According to the Health Policy Institute of Ohio, increased Affordable Care Act premiums stemming from the expiring tax credits could mean annual premiums will more than double in 2026, compared to 2025 rates. Those increases are already showing up for those who go to Healthcare.gov to renew or purchase a plan during the open enrollment period, which lasts until Jan. 15. Increased premiums also include rate increases from insurers, according to O’Rourke. So, with Medicaid cuts already set to impact Ohioans , and upcoming changes stemming from the federal budget reconciliation bill passed in July, Ohioans may have to make some tough calls when it comes to affording health care and anything else their households need. The federal reconciliation bill also brings in new work requirements for Medicaid recipients and more frequent reassessments of eligibility for those in the system, something that will cause a lot of administrative and individual burden for Ohioans. “Not only are (the changes) likely to lead to coverage loss, but we’re anticipating there will be significant churn where people are coming off and on coverage more regularly,” said Rose Frech, director of external affairs for the southeastern Ohio-based Integrated Services for Behavioral Health. Having to abruptly end treatment for something like a substance abuse disorder because of coverage changes or a lack thereof “can become really life-threatening,” Frech said, and with services like hers in Southeast Ohio already operating on thin margins, adding another layer to the workload will only make matters harder where struggle already exists. “This is just going to be kind of another strain,” Frech said. “And these things are things that families are experiencing in the compound.” GET THE MORNING HEADLINES. SUBSCRIBE Families will face complicated decisions between medication, health care, transportation, food, and other things they need, not just one thing at a time, something advocates say policymakers need to keep in mind as they mull funding decisions. “Very quickly we have seen … (news of the changes lead) to panic attacks, very high anxiety,” said Summer Kirby, chief executive officer of Portsmouth’s Compass Community Health. “There were experiences where medication affordability was just not an option.” Choosing between food and other needs is something some Ohioans are already familiar with, as demand for help from food banks continues to rise. “We are days removed from the federal (government) shutdown and still coming out of crisis response mode across our network,” said Grace Wagner, director of health initiatives at the Ohio Association of Foodbanks. During the shutdown, the association saw a 46% increase in the number of individuals reaching out for emergency services, partly due to a pause in SNAP benefits as a result of the shutdown. This was on top of demand that was already 41% higher than in 2022, and amid reductions in contributions from the USDA to food banks. The food banks and health care workers are also working hard to give people the most up to date information, but the changes and uncertainty in how the changes will play out on a state level mean the groups are “weighing information paralysis,” as Wagner put it. As the new year comes, Kirby said she and her team “consistently try to level-set” with the most current information, and ensure they have the contacts that are needed so people can get answers on all of the struggles that come with federal funding changes. Advocates say they’re hoping for more interaction between legislators and the individuals who are impacted by the changes, so representatives can speak to their constituents’ entire struggles. “We encourage policymakers to think about Ohioans as whole people,” Wagner said. YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE. SUPPORT This story is republished from the Ohio Capital Journal. View the original article.

Thousands of Ohioans could face homelessness because of federal policy change

More than 10,000 Ohioans could return to homelessness due to a federal funding policy change for local homeless assistance programs, advocates warn.  The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a new Notice of Funding Opportunity for the Continuum of Care program on Nov. 13 that would limit funding for programs for certain permanent housing programs to 30% of a community’s total Continuum of Care grant , instead of the current 87%.  HUD’s Continuum of Care Program is the largest federal grant funding source for homelessness services and housing. It helps fund permanent supportive housing, repaid rehousing, and transitional housing, among other things.  GET THE MORNING HEADLINES. SUBSCRIBE “What’s the most critical part of this shift is that there are 10,000 people across the state of just Ohio that will potentially lose their housing because the supports will not be there any longer for them to remain in the place that they’ve called home,” said Amy Riegel, executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio.  Nationally, 170,000 people are at risk of going back to homelessness because of this policy change.  “That is a lot of individuals at one time that none of our systems can absorb to be able to support them and the needs that they would then have,” Riegel said.  The application for funds has to be submitted to HUD by Jan. 14, 2026, and funds are likely to be announced in May 2026, Riegel said.  “On January 1, programs will start to be affected by these changes, and by May 1, almost every program receiving funding through the Continuum of Care process will be affected by the delays in funding and also then the shifts in the priorities of the program,” Riegel said.  HUD announced $178 million in Continuum of Care funding for Ohio back in January and this federal policy change could take $80 million away from Ohio programs that house people experiencing homelessness.  Ohio would be one of the most impacted states since it relies on federal funds for a majority of its permanent housing beds for people experiencing homelessness, according to the National Alliance to End Homelessness .   “We were able to build great programs that are very effective and work well for people, but in this case we will be at greater risk than other states because of that,” Riegel said. “Because we’re doing well and because we meet the objectives of the program, we’ll actually lose out in this process.” Louisiana was the only state that has more permanent housing beds funded by the Continuum of Care program with 75%.  Twenty states sued the Trump administration over these cuts to federal funding for local homeless assistance programs, but Ohio was not one of them.  Over the summer, President Donald Trump issued an executive order to get people experiencing homelessness off the streets by committing them to mental health institutions or drug treatment centers without their consent. But Riegel said this HUD announcement runs counter to Trump’s executive order.  “There is a mismatch in what the administration is saying and then the actual policy that they put forward that’s very confusing and makes it very difficult for communities to understand how to actually respond to the needs that they have at home,” she said. The executive order goes against Housing First, a homeless assistance approach that was first adopted federally during the George W. Bush Administration, which prioritizes housing without any prerequisites, such as sobriety or participation in treatment.  “Getting people access directly from streets into housing is what solves the housing crisis,” said Christopher Knestrick, executive director for the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless. “If we think about homelessness, the solution to homelessness is housing. We need to continue to give people access to housing and then provide wraparound services to them.” Winter is a volatile time for those experiencing unsheltered homelessness, Riegel said.  “These conditions are extreme, and it is very difficult for even a person who is healthy and has proper clothing and all of those items to spend any length of time outdoors,” she said. “It is also a time where people may seek shelter that is unstable or unfit for human habitability, and that also creates dangers for those individuals.” Homelessness in the U.S. increased 18% last year with 771,480 people experiencing homelessness, according to HUD. There were 11,759 people experiencing homelessness in Ohio last year— about a 3% increase, according to the HUD. Nearly 80% of those experiencing homelessness in Ohio were sheltered while the rest were unsheltered.  There were 2,556 people experiencing homelessness in Franklin County during January’s Point-in-Time Count — a 7.4% increase from last year, according to the Community Shelter Board .  Ohioans need to be making at least $22.51 an hour working a full-time job to be able to afford a “modest” two-bedroom apartment, according to COHHIO and the National Low Income Housing Coalition’s 2025 Out of Reach report .  Follow Capital Journal Reporter Megan Henry on Bluesky . YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE. SUPPORT This story is republished from the Ohio Capital Journal. View the original article.

Ohio courts still mulling reproductive rights cases, one set to extend into 2026

Ohioans are still awaiting the resolution of two different cases related to reproductive rights in the state. A resolution won’t come until at least next year for the case of Brittany Watts, a Warren resident who was criminally charged after she miscarried at her home, following multiple trips to the hospital. She is suing the city of Warren, the hospital and law enforcement in U.S. District Court. And, while an Ohio appeals court has heard the arguments on both sides of the state’s appeal on abortion regulations — originally stemming from a six-week abortion ban that was overturned — a decision as to whether parts of the law not related to the six-week ban will stand. Brittany Watts For Watts, it may be next September before she has an answer as to whether hospital staff and law enforcement in Warren County violated her rights by reporting a crime, resulting in charges of abuse of a corpse . The charges that were rejected by a grand jury. The lawsuit will be a year old as of January 2026, though it’s seen changes and activity throughout the year. Watts wants compensation for what her attorneys argue are violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment, plus a federal law that gives anyone the right to emergency treatment regardless of insurance or ability to pay. She’s suing St. Joseph Warren Hospital in Youngstown, the parent company Bon Secours Mercy Health, the city of Warren, and police officers from the city. In the lawsuit, Watts said not only were her constitutional rights violated, but the staff “committed medical negligence, inflicted severe emotional distress and deprived her of her liberty without probable cause, among other misconduct.” GET THE MORNING HEADLINES. SUBSCRIBE The story began when Watts said she went to the hospital for care during her pregnancy, where she waited a total of 18 hours over the course of two days, court documents state. The first night she left after eight hours and “no meaningful treatment or guidance,” according to her attorneys. The second day she was told her pregnancy was “doomed” and she was at risk of severe and life-threatening complications, but still was “effectively untreated.” She left and suffered a miscarriage in her bathroom, before returning to the hospital. It was at that point that she said hospital staff reported her and she was questioned by investigators who indicated that Watts had “birthed a live baby and hidden it ‘in a cabinet.’” Since initially filing the lawsuit, attorneys have asked the court to add more hospital staff as parties to the lawsuit, including a staff member in risk management and a police officer, who Watts and her attorneys say advised a nurse, leading to her to “falsely report that (Watts) had committed a crime.” The most recent documents in the case argue hospital staff and police officers knew Watts hadn’t committed a crime, but “saw to it that she would face criminal charges for having an experience shared by hundreds of thousands of women every year.” All the parties named in the lawsuit have denied any wrongdoing, though the hospital has acknowledged to the court that Watts was told the fetus was “too early from a gestational age for any reasonable chance of survival,” that a doctor recommended that labor be induced, and that a delay could increase the risk of complications. A jury trial has been scheduled in the case for Sept. 14, 2026, while document deadlines in the case range from Jan. 23 to June 1 of next year. State abortion regulations Meanwhile, an answer could come at any time in the case of an Ohio appeal fighting for regulations that were attached to a struck down six-week abortion ban. The First District Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the case in September, after a Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge struck down the law that established the six-week abortion ban last October. A key factor in the common pleas decision was a constitutional amendment passed by 57% of Ohio voters in 2023, that enshrined abortion care, including miscarriage care, into the Ohio Constitution. The law at issue in the appeal was passed in 2019, eliminating abortions past six weeks of gestation. It also included other provisions related to abortion record-keeping and specific punishments for failing to check for cardiac activity before an abortion. Ohio Deputy Solicitor General Stephen Carney argued that the other provisions in the law outside of the ban on abortions at six weeks were “severable,” meaning they could act independently from the struck-down law. He said if the appeals court struck down the entire law, including those provisions, it would be “doing something radical that no one has ever done before,” and consequences would ripple out to review of other laws. Cassie Mitchell, who represented the women’s health clinics that sued the state to strike down the law, said the provisions are directly related to the six-week abortion ban, and therefore should go as well, as they exist to “clarify the scope of the ban.” YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE. SUPPORT This story is republished from the Ohio Capital Journal. View the original article.

Ohio Supreme Court rules cops can be considered victims under Marsy’s Law

The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled police officers can be considered victims, and thus not subject to public disclosure, under Ohio’s Marsy’s Law privacy protections. The case stems from a July 2023 incident in which three men robbed several car dealerships, banks, and even a GameStop before getting tracked down police. A car chase on I-70 ended in a shootout. Two suspects fled on foot. But a third shot one officer five times and was approaching a second officer when he was shot and killed. The fleeing suspects were caught, and in January of this year sentenced to 25 and 13 years respectively. But the day of the shooting, reporters at the Columbus Dispatch filed a public records request for bodycam and dashcam footage. Columbus Police eventually released redacted footage that shielded the identities of the officers claiming they were victims of a crime. The Dispatch sued, claiming police officers acting in their official capacity can’t be considered victims because they’re representing the state. GET THE MORNING HEADLINES. SUBSCRIBE Ohio Supreme Court Justice Patrick DeWine, writing for the court’s majority , disagreed — and he didn’t seem to think it was a hard call. “Applying the plain text of the amendment, we have no difficulty concluding that an ordinary understanding of Marsy’s Law’s definition of victim encompasses the officers in this case,” he wrote. To DeWine, it boils down to a simple equation: A victim under Marsy’s Law is a person against whom a criminal act is committed, and a police officer is definitely a person. The court is not being asked “to determine whether an edge case fits within the scope of underdeterminative constitutional text,” DeWine continued. “This is a case in which the text is clear and determinative with respect to police officers.” The police union was thrilled with the decision. “This ruling is a bright light for common sense,” Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio President Jay McDonald said in a statement. “Of course, Marsy’s Law protects police. When an officer is attacked, they are a victim like anyone else, and they deserve the same privacy and protections.” But to some other justices on the bench, the case isn’t quite that simple — even if they agree police officers can meet the definition of victims. Background Marsy’s Law was first adopted as part of the California State Constitution in 2008. The amendment provides several protections for victims of crime to ensure they’re heard in court, aware of developments in the case, and afforded privacy as proceedings play out. Since its adoption in California, 13 states have adopted a version of the amendment. In Pennsylvania and Montana state courts later overturned the provisions. Courts in Kentucky threw out that state’s version of Marsy’s Law, too. But voters approved a second version in 2020. The law is currently in effect in 12 states. Since at least 2020, journalists have been raising alarms about law enforcement agencies use Marsy’s Law protections to shield the identity of officers involved in use of force incidents. ProPublica noted it was particularly common in Florida, where voters approved Marsy’s Law in 2018. But even some prominent law enforcement officials like Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri pushed back on that use of the law. “A police officer who shoots and kills another is not a ‘victim’ of that shooting and cannot invoke Marsy’s Law to shroud his shooting in secrecy,” he wrote in an amicus brief . In 2023, the Florida Supreme Court ruled Marsy’s Law doesn’t afford any victim, “police officer or otherwise — the categorical right to withhold his or her name from disclosure.” The court determined that would be incompatible with the right to confront adverse witnesses in court and the state’s sunshine laws. Ohio’s ruling, and its dissents Among its arguments, The Columbus Dispatch said police officers, acting in their official capacity, need be treated differently under Marsy’s law because they’re treated differently under many other statutes. “A person may commit many criminal offenses against a police officer that would not be criminal offenses if committed against a private individual,” the newspaper said . That’s because offenses like false statements, resisting arrest, and failure to comply, are treated as offenses against the state, rather than the individual officer. Just look at the two men charged with armed robbery in the underlying case. The plaintiff wasn’t officer John Doe 1 or John Doe 2, as they’re identified in the Ohio Supreme Court case, and it wasn’t the businesses they robbed — it was the United States. Granting police officers the right to shield their identity if they’re subject to any criminal offense would be a sweeping change. It’s unlikely voters who approved Marsy’s Law, the newspaper said, “understood that they were granting state actors any rights that might result in their being deprived of their existing right to obtain information about police officers through public records requests.” Justice DeWine brushed those arguments off. “It may well be true that when a person has made a false report to a police officer or committed a similar crime, the police officer is not a victim of that crime under the constitutional definition,” he wrote. “But that is not the case in front of us.” In a pair of dissents, Justices Patrick Fischer and Jennifer Brunner complicated DeWine’s straightforward interpretation. Both agreed that officers can be victims under Marsy’s Law, but they still found fault with the police department’s stance. Fischer said the facts of the case demonstrate Doe 1 and Doe 2 were in fact victims and the department was justified in redacting their identifying information under Marsy’s Law. But he stressed they weren’t the only officers on the scene. “The evidence provided by CPD plainly shows that there are other records — specifically, body-worn-camera and dashboard-camera footage from other officers at the scene who were involved in the shooting — that are responsive to the Dispatch’s request and that were withheld by CPD under the victims’ rights exception,” he wrote. Fischer noted the department conceded at oral argument that those other officers were not victims. He contends the court should direct the department to release the remaining footage to The Dispatch. Justice Brunner argued Ohioans have an understood constitutional right to access government records like body cam footage. Instead of arguing a public official can never be a victim, she focused on the expectation of privacy. Because police operate in public, with their name and badge number readily available, Marsy’s Law privacy protections shouldn’t extend to their conduct. “Once the officers are on duty in public, they do not have an expectation of privacy in their names or identities,” she wrote. Reactions While the police union celebrated, Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein, who serves as legal advisor to the police department, sounded a more measured tone. Although he respects the public’s desire for transparency, especially in use of force cases, he said city officials were simply trying to follow the law as written. “Today’s ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court affirms that interpretation of Marsy’s Law,” he said. “If the Ohio legislature chooses to amend or clarify these important public record provisions in the future, we will of course follow those laws at that time.” And the ACLU of Ohio, which opposed Marsy’s Law when it went before voters, is looking to the future as well. In a statement Senior Policy Counsel Patrick Higgins wrote, “the ACLU of Ohio believes a transparent government can be an accountable government. In the wake of this decision, we stand ready and look forward to working with the state legislature to ensure that violent encounters between state actors and civilians are scrutinized under the daylight they deserve.” Follow Ohio Capital Journal Reporter Nick Evans  on X  or  on Bluesky . YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE. SUPPORT This story is republished from the Ohio Capital Journal. View the original article.

This Ohio county banned wind and solar. Now, residents are pushing back.

This story was originally published by Canary Media. Restrictions on solar and wind farms  are proliferating  around the country, with scores of local governments going as far as to forbid large-scale clean-energy developments. Now, residents of an Ohio county are pushing back on one such ban on renewables — a move that could be a model for other places where clean energy faces severe restrictions. Ohio has become a hot spot for anti-clean-energy rules. As of this fall, more than three dozen counties in the state have  outlawed utility-scale solar  in at least one of their townships. In Richland County, the ban came this summer, when county commissioners  voted  to bar economically significant solar and wind projects in  11  of the county’s  18  townships. Almost immediately, residents formed a group called the Richland County Citizens for Property Rights and Job Development to try and reverse the stricture. By September, they’d notched a crucial first victory, collecting  enough signatures  to put the issue on the ballot. Next May, when Ohioans head to the polls to vote in primary races, residents of Richland County will weigh in on a referendum that could ultimately reverse the ban. It’s the first time a county’s renewable-energy ban will be on the ballot in Ohio. From the very beginning, ​ “ it was just a whirlwind,” said Christina O’Millian, a leader of the Richland County group. Like most others, she didn’t know a ban was under consideration until shortly before  July  17 , when the commission voted on it. “ We felt as constituents that we just hadn’t been heard,” O’Millian said. She views renewable energy as a way to attract more economic development to the county while reining in planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. Brian McPeek, another of the group’s leaders and a manager for the local chapter of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, sees solar projects as huge job opportunities for the union’s members. ​ “ They provide a ton of work, a ton of man-hours.” Many petition signers ​ “ didn’t want the commissioners to make that decision for them,” said Morgan Carroll, a county resident who helped gather signatures. ​ “ And there was a lot of respect for farmers having their own property rights” to decide whether to lease their land. While the Ohio Power Siting Board retains general authority over where electricity generation is built, a  2021  state law  known as  Senate Bill  52  lets counties ban solar and wind farms in all or part of their territories. Meanwhile, Ohio law prevents local governments from blocking fossil-fuel or nuclear projects. The Richland County community group is using a process under  SB   52  to challenge the renewable-energy ban via referendum. Under that law, the organization had just  30  days from the commissioners’ vote to collect signatures in support of the ballot measure. All told,  more than  4 , 300  people  signed the petition, though after the county Board of Elections rejected hundreds of signatures as invalid, the final count ended up at  3 , 380  — just  60  more than the required threshold of  8 % of the number of votes in the last governor’s election. YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE. SUPPORT Deference to townships? Although the Richland County ban came as a surprise to many, it was months in the making. In late January, Sharon Township’s zoning committee  asked the county  to forbid large wind and solar projects there. After discussion at their  Feb.  6  meeting, the county commissioners wrote to all  18  townships in Richland to see if their trustees also wanted a ban. A  draft fill-in-the-blanks resolution  accompanied the letter. Signed resolutions  came back from  11  townships. The commissioners then took up the issue again on July  17 . Roughly two dozen residents came to the July meeting, and a majority of those who spoke on the proposal were  against it . Commissioners  deferred  to the township trustees. “ The township trustees who were in favor of the prohibition strongly believe that they were representing the wishes of their residents, who are farming communities, who are not fans of seeing potential farmland being taken up for large wind and solar,” Commissioner Tony Vero told Canary Media. He pointed out that the ban doesn’t cover the seven remaining townships and all municipal areas. ​ “ I just thought it was a pretty good compromise,” he said. The concerns over putting solar panels or wind turbines on potential farmland echo land-use arguments that have long dogged rural clean-energy developments — and which have been  elevated into   federal policy  by the Trump administration this year. Groups linked to the fossil-fuel industry have pushed these arguments in Ohio and beyond. “ It’s a false narrative that they care about prime farmland,” said Bella Bogin, director of programs for Ohio Citizen Action, which helped the Richland County group collect signatures to petition for the referendum. Income from leasing some land for renewable energy can help farmers  keep property in their families , and plenty of acreage currently goes to  growing crops for fuel  — not food. ​ “ We can’t eat ethanol corn,” she added. Under Ohio’s  SB   52 , counties — not townships — have the authority to  issue blanket prohibitions  over large solar and wind farms, with limited exceptions for projects already in the grid manager’s queue. In Richland County’s case, the commissioners decided to defer to townships even though they didn’t have to. The choice shows how  SB   52  has led to ​ “ an inconsistently applied, informal framework that has created confusion about the roles of counties, townships, and the Ohio Power Siting Board,” said Chris Tavenor, general counsel for the Ohio Environmental Council. Under the law, ​ “ county commissioners should be carefully considering all the factors at play,” rather than deferring to townships. Even without a restriction in place,  SB   52  lets counties nix new solar or wind farms on a case-by-case basis before they’re considered by the Ohio Power Siting Board. And when projects do go to the state regulator, counties and townships appoint two ad hoc decision-makers who vote on cases with the rest of the board. As electricity prices continue to rise across Ohio, Tavenor hopes the state’s General Assembly will reconsider  SB   52 , which he and other advocates say is unfairly restrictive toward solar and wind — two of the cheapest and quickest energy sources to deploy. “ Lawmakers should be looking to repeal it and make a system that actually responds to the problems facing our electric grid right now,” he said. Commissioner Vero, for his part, said he has mixed feelings about the referendum. “ It’s America, and if there’s enough signatures to get on the ballot, more power to people,” he said. However, he objects to the fact that  SB   52  allows voters countywide to sign the petition, even if they don’t live in one of the townships with a ban, and said he hopes the legislature will amend the law to prevent that from happening elsewhere. Yet referendum supporters say the ban matters for the entire county. “ It affects everybody, whether you live in a city, a township, or a village,” McPeek said. As he sees it, restrictions will deter investment from not only companies that build wind and solar but also those that want to be able to access renewable energy. ​ “ To me, it just is bad for the county — the whole county, not just one or two townships.” Renewable-energy projects also provide substantial amounts of tax revenue or similar  PILOT  payments  for counties, helping fund schools and other local needs. ​ “ I think it’s important for my children to have more clean electric [energy] and all the opportunities that go along with having wind and solar,” Carroll said. Now that the referendum is on the ballot, the Richland County group will work to build more support and get out the vote next spring. ​ “ Education and outreach in the community is basically what we’re going to focus on for the campaign coming up in the next few months,” O’Millian said. “ So now it goes to a countywide vote, and the population of the county gets to make that decision, instead of three guys,” McPeek said. GET THE MORNING HEADLINES. SUBSCRIBE This story is republished from the Ohio Capital Journal. View the original article.