It’s Never Too Late to Complete the Farm Balance Sheet

by: Eric Richer, OSUE Fulton County

It is already late February or early March and you are thinking, “I didn’t get my farm’s balance sheet updated in the first week of the year, so I’ll wait until next year”.  However, it’s never too late to complete your farm’s balance sheet. The balance sheet is a “snap shot” in time of your farm’s financial position, including what assets you own and how they are financed. The balance sheet is also known as the net worth statement. When completed precisely and timely, the balance sheet and corresponding ratios can be a very valuable tool to determine farm financial health. The balance sheet objectively measures farm business growth, liquidity, solvency, and risk capacity.

Categorizing Balance Sheet Items

The assets and liabilities on the balance sheet (including the financing of the assets) are used to determine the equity, or net worth, of the farm owner. The owner’s equity is used by lenders and insurers to determine a farm business’ value.  There are two ways to calculate the owner’s equity, or net worth. The first simply subtracts the liabilities from the assets:

Assets – Liabilities = Owner’s Equity

The second calculation adds the owner’s equity with liabilities to determine the assets:

Liabilities + Owner’s Equity = Assets

Terms of Assets and Liabilities

Beyond the broad categories of either an asset or liability, a balance sheet categorizes items into “time compartments” or terms of useful life. Useful life is a term for the amount of time an item can be utilized for the farm business. Depreciation allocates the cost of this asset over its useful life. Both assets and liabilities can be categorized into current, intermediate, and long, or fixed, terms of useful life.

Assets – Current assets can be converted to cash in one year or less. Common current assets are cash, growing crops, harvested crop inventory, market livestock, accounts receivable, and other similar items. Intermediate assets have an assumed useful life or depreciable value of one to ten years. Common intermediate assets are breeding livestock, machinery and equipment, titled vehicles, and not-readily-marketable bonds and securities. Long term, or fixed, assets are typically permanent items with value—depreciable or not—for more than ten years and include farmland, buildings, farmsteads, and other similar items.

Liabilities – Current liabilities are obligations that are due and payable in the next twelve months. Most common current liabilities include accounts payable (bills), credit card bills, operating lines of credit, accrued interest, and the current portion of principal on loans due this year. Intermediate liabilities are obligations that due to be paid back within one to ten years and are usually associated with intermediate farm assets on the left side of the balance sheet. Common intermediate liabilities are the principal remaining on machinery and equipment loans or breeding livestock purchases. Finally, long term, or fixed, liabilities are debts with terms greater than ten years like the principal balance remaining on a farmland or building mortgage.

Assets: Market Value vs. Cost Value

Market value – Today’s market values minus selling costs are used to determine market value. For example, a fully depreciated 15-year-old tractor certainly has a current market value greater than zero. A realistic current market value for this tractor can be obtained with an appraisal, or by looking at current sales of similar tractors online. Similarly, farmland bought 30 years ago likely has a different current market value today. In general, lenders may prefer the use of current market values in a balance sheet for asset valuation.

Cost value – The net book value, or the cost of the item minus accumulated depreciation, is the cost value. For example, a fully depreciated 15-year-old tractor has a cost value of $0 in a cost based balance sheet. No appraisal is needed; only record the cost minus accumulated depreciation. Farmland (a non-depreciable, long term asset) purchased 30 years ago has a balance sheet value of the purchase cost.  In general, accountants prefer cost value balance sheets as a more clear reflection of business success, based on business decisions rather than inflation, depreciation, or appreciation of investments.

In a precisely completed balance sheet, the cost value and the market value columns usually produce different total asset values.

Keys to Completing the Balance Sheet

Several keys can help farmer improve their accuracy, effectiveness, and efficiency for completing year-end balance sheets.

  • Complete the balance sheet on the same date each year, usually as of December 31st. The information will never be more accurate than immediately after the end of the year.
  • Inventory all assets, including standard weight and measure units (ie. Lbs, head, bushels, bales, etc).
  • Utilize current market prices for crop and livestock inventories.
  • Calculate cost value for growing crops.
  • Include government payments and insurance indemnities yet to be received in accounts receivable.
  • Apply conservative breeding livestock values, avoiding large year-to-year changes.
  • Maintain a separate, easy-to-update depreciation schedule for depreciable assets.

Balance Sheet Tools

Balance Sheet Ratios to Evaluate Financial Health

The scorecard uses these three accounting statement to determine financial ratios and measurements to benchmark a farm operation against acceptable industry standards.


Hachfeld, G. A., D.B. Bau, C.R. Holcomb. 2016. Balance Sheet. Farm Financial Series, #1, University of Minnesota Extension.

Langemeier, M. R. 2011. Balance Sheet—A Financial Management Tool. MF-291, Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University Extension. Available online at:


A Descriptive Report of Beliefs, Attitudes and Best Management Practices in the Maumee Watershed of the Western Lake Erie Basin

Prokup, A., Wilson, R., Zubko, C., Heeren, A, and Roe, B. 2017

Harmful algal blooms and eutrophication are threatening Lake Erie, a vital ecological and economic resource in the Great Lakes region. Phosphorus lost through agricultural run-off from the Maumee River Watershed appears to be the greatest contributor to the current problem. To better understand farmers’ perspectives in this region, particularly current nutrient management practices and barriers to implementation of recommended practices, researchers from The Ohio State University’s College of Agriculture, Food and Environmental Sciences conducted a survey of farmers in the Western Lake Erie Basin during the winter of 2016.

The majority of farmers (~80%) had great concern for the ecological health of Lake Erie and how they can minimize their farm’s impact on the lake. Similarly, a majority of farmers show a willingness to adopt recommended practices, but there is a small percentage that is currently unwilling to adopt many recommended practices. Although this could reduce the likelihood of positive change in Lake Erie, there is no evidence that these operations are proportionally more responsible for the nutrient loss issues, or that changes in their behavior are key to improving water quality. In fact, around 60 to 90% are willing to consider adopting new practices, and in many cases this potential level of adoption may be enough to achieve the recommended phosphorus reductions for Lake Erie.

Although the current farming population is largely motivated to adopt new practices, there are several significant barriers associated with recently recommended practices. In regards to cover crops, approximately 25 to 40% of respondents were concerned about fall planting windows, interference with spring planting, and/or the short-term costs. Over half of respondents viewed the cost of specialized equipment for subsurface fertilizer placement as too great and that injecting nutrients ran counter to a no-till approach. One-third of respondents also viewed alternatives to broadcasting as taking too much time.

Those willing to adopt recommended practices tend to be more informed about nutrient stewardship from a variety of both private and public sector sources and more concerned about future regulation. Perhaps due to less exposure to nutrient stewardship information, farmers less willing to adopt tended to have lower awareness of 4R principles, concern for environmental issues and nutrient loss, and awareness of state regulatory requirements. For those practices that involve significant financial investments and new technologies there does seem to be a positive effect of farm size and/or income. Applicator training and working with a consultant is often positively associated with adoption. Generally speaking, a belief in the effectiveness of a recommended practice is one of the strongest correlates of adoption. As a result, the best target audience moving forward are individuals who indicate a willingness to change their practices, and tend to be less constrained by potential barriers while sharing some of the same motivations as those who have already adopted these practices. Engaging these individuals in outreach focused on how to implement practices effectively is likely to result in the necessary increases in adoption over time. However, it will be critical that this outreach comes from those sources that are trusted (e.g., crop consultants, Extension personnel), involves some degree of peer to peer learning, and that the opportunities to learn be as personalized and hands-on as possible.

The Des Moines Water Works Lawsuit: What’s Happened, What’s Next?

by: Ellen Essman, Law Fellow, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program

The Board of Trustees of the Des Moines Water Works (DMWW) brought a lawsuit against thirteen Iowa drainage districts.  DMWW is the biggest water provider in Iowa, serving the largest city, Des Moines, and the surrounding area. Drainage districts were first created in Iowa in the 1800s to drain wetlands and allow for agriculture in those areas.  In Iowa, the counties are in charge of drainage districts.  Individual landowners can tile their land so that it drains water to the ditches, pipes, etc. that make up the counties’ drainage districts.  Eventually, that water ends up in Iowa’s rivers.  The thirteen drainage districts being sued by DMWW are located in the Raccoon River watershed in Buena Vista, Sac, and Calhoun counties.  DMWW is located downstream from the drainage districts in question.

Background of the Lawsuit

On March 16, 2015, the Board of Trustees for the DMWW filed a complaint against the thirteen drainage districts in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Western Division.  DMWW alleged that the drainage districts did not act in accordance with the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and provisions of the Iowa Code because they did not secure the applicable permits to discharge nitrates into the Raccoon River.  In order to serve its customers, DMWW uses the Raccoon River as part of its water supply.

DMWW has to meet maximum contaminant levels prescribed under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.  Nitrate is a contaminant with a maximum allowable level of 10 mg/L.  In its complaint, DMWW cited record levels of nitrate in water from the Raccoon River watershed in recent years.  DMWW alleged that the nitrate problem is exacerbated by the “artificial subsurface drainage system infrastructure…created, managed, maintained, owned and operated by” the thirteen drainage districts.  DMWW alleged that the drainage district infrastructure—“pipes, ditches, and other conduits”—are point sources.  DMWW points to agriculture—row crops, livestock production, and spreading of manure, as a major source of nitrate pollution.

DMWW also cited a number of costs associated with dealing with nitrates, including the construction of facilities that remove nitrates, the operation of those facilities, and the cost associated with acquiring permits to discharge the removed waste.  In their complaint, they generally asked the court to make the drainage districts reimburse them for their cleanup costs, and to make the drainage districts stop discharging pollutants without permits.

All together, DMWW filed ten counts against the drainage districts.  In addition to their claim that the drainage districts had violated the CWA and similarly, Iowa’s Chapter 455B, DMWW also alleged that the continued nitrate pollution violated a number of other state and federal laws.  DMWW maintained that the pollution was a public, statutory, and private nuisance, trespassing, negligence, a taking without just compensation, and a violation of due process and equal protection under the U.S. and Iowa Constitutions.  Finally, DMWW sought injunctive relief from the court to enjoin the drainage districts to lessen the amount of nitrates in the water.  In many of the counts, DMWW asked the court for damages to reimburse them for their costs of dealing with the pollution.

On May 22, 2015, the defendants, the thirteen drainage districts, filed their amended answer with the court.   On January 11, 2016, the district court filed an order certifying questions to the Iowa Supreme Court.  In other words, the district court judge submitted four questions of state law to the Iowa Supreme Court to be answered before commencing the federal trial.  The idea behind this move was that the highest court in Iowa would be better equipped to answer questions of state law than the district court.

Iowa Supreme Court Decision

The Iowa Supreme Court filed its opinion containing the answers to the four state law questions on January 27, 2017.  All of the questions were decided in favor of the drainage districts.  The court answered two questions related to whether the drainage districts had unqualified immunity (complete protection) from the money damages and equitable remedies (actions ordered by the court to be taken or avoided in order to make amends for the harm caused) requested by DMWW.  Both were answered in the affirmative—the court said that Iowa legislation and court decisions have, throughout history, given drainage districts immunity.  Iowa law has long found the service drainage districts provide—draining swampy land so that it could be farmed—to be of great value to the citizens of the state.  To that end, the law has been “liberally construed” to promote the actions of drainage districts.  What is more, judicial precedent in the state has repeatedly found that drainage districts are not entities that can be sued for money damages because they are not corporations, and they have such a limited purpose—to drain land and provide upkeep for that drainage.  The law has further prohibited receiving injunctive relief  (obtaining a court order to require an action to be taken or stopped), from drainage districts.  Instead, the only remedy available to those “claim[ing] that a drainage district is violating a duty imposed by an Iowa statute” is mandamus.  Mandamus allows the court to compel a party to carry out actions that are required by the law.  In this case, those requirements would be draining land and the upkeep of the drainage system.

The second two questions considered by the court dealt with the Iowa Constitution.  The court determined whether or not DMWW could claim the constitutional protections of due process, equal protection, and takings.  They also answered whether DMWW’s property interest in the water could even be “the subject of a claim under…[the] takings clause.”  The court answered “no” to both questions, and therefore against DMWW.  Their reasoning was that both DMWW and the drainage districts are subdivisions of state government, and based on numerous decisions in Iowa courts, “one subdivision of state government cannot sue another…under these clauses.”  Additionally, the court found that “political subdivisions, as creatures of statute, cannot sue to challenge the constitutionality of state statutes.”  Consequently, they reasoned that the pollution of the water and the resulting need to remove that pollution did “not amount to a constitutional violation” under Iowa law.  The court also found that since the water in question was not private property, the takings claim was not valid.  A takings claim only applies to when the government takes private property.  What is more, the court added that regardless of its status as a public or private body, DMWW was not actually deprived of any property—they still had the ability to use the water.  Therefore, the Iowa Supreme Court answered all four state law questions in the drainage districts’ favor, and against DMWW.

What’s next?

The Iowa Supreme Court found that the questions of state law favored the drainage districts, but that is not necessarily the end of this lawsuit.  Now that the questions of state law are answered, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Western Division, can decide the questions of federal law.  If any of the numerous motions for summary judgment are not granted to the drainage districts, a trial to decide the remaining questions is set for June 26, 2017.  The questions left for the district court to decide include a number of U.S. Constitutional issues.

One of these issues is whether the drainage districts’ discharge of nitrates into the water constitutes a “taking” of DMWW’s private property for a public use under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.   Another issue is whether the drainage districts’ state-given immunity infringes upon DMWW’s constitutional rights of due process, equal protection, and just compensation.  An important federal law question that also remains to be decided is whether the drainage districts are “point sources” that require a permit to discharge pollutants under the CWA.

How will the outcome affect other states?

Either outcome in this lawsuit will have implications for the rest of the country.  For example, if the district court sides with DMWW on all of the questions, it could open the floodgates to potential lawsuits against drainage districts and other similar entities around the country for polluting water.  Municipal and other users of the water could assert an infringement of their constitutional rights, including taking without just compensation.  Furthermore, if drainage districts are found to be “point sources,” it could mean greater costs of permitting and cleanup for drainage districts and other state drainage entities.  Those costs and additional regulations could be passed onto farmers within the watershed.  As a result, farmers and water suppliers around the country will closely follow the district court’s decisions on the remaining questions in the case.

All of the court documents and decisions concerning this lawsuit, as well as additional articles and blog posts on the topic can be found here.  Additional reading on the subject from the Des Moines Register can be found here and here.


Law Fellows Join OSU’s Agricultural & Resource Law Program

OSU Extension’s Agricultural & Resource Law Program welcomes Ellen Essman and Chris Hogan as the program’s first Law Fellows.  The new positions are the result of OSU’s partnership in the Agricultural & Food Law Consortium, a multi-institutional collaboration designed to expand the delivery of timely and objective agricultural and food law research and information to the nation’s agricultural community at local, state, regional, and national levels.

Law Fellow Ellen Essman is a 2014 graduate of Drake University Law School, where she received a Juris Doctor with a certificate in Food and Agricultural Law.  She is also a 2011 graduate of The Ohio State University, having earned her Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science with a minor in Natural Resources Management.  Ellen grew up on a farm in Pickaway County, Ohio and was very involved in 4-H and FFA as a student at Westfall Local Schools.

Ellen’s legal research projects will include a comparative analysis of state approaches to nutrient management regulation and legal barriers to entry in direct marketing of foods.  Ellen will also be responsible for general research and outreach on food law, environmental law and policy and transportation laws for agriculture.

Law Fellow Chris Hogan is a recent graduate of West Virginia University College of Law, where he received his Juris Doctor in 2016.  An Ohio native, Chris earned his History with a minor in Agribusiness from The Ohio State University in 2012.  While an undergraduate student, Chris coordinated a shale gas landowner education grant for the Agricultural & Resource Law Program.  The son of OSU Extension Educators, Chris graduated from Carrollton High School and gained a strong interest in agriculture through 4-H and time working on Christmas tree farms in eastern Ohio.

Chris will be responsible for several legal research projects, including an examination of Limited Liability Company (LLC) statutes across the nation, the use of LLCs for agriculture and a comparative analysis of property tax assessment laws for agricultural land in the Midwestern farm states.  Chris will also work on outreach projects in landowner liability, property law, business organizations, taxation, and estate planning.

For more information about the Agricultural & Food Law Consortium, visit   Information from OSU’s Agricultural & Resource Law Program is available at

2017 Tax Outlook- The Truth is in the Detail

By David Marrison, Extension Educator

With all the changes in Washington, we at OSU Extension have gotten a lot of questions on what may be in store for tax reform n 2017?   Most of the experts are saying we will see the most comprehensive tax reform since the tax reforms of 1986 by President Ronald Reagan.

Some of these proposed tax changes could happen while others will just be fodder for talk shows and columns like this one.  Given the shift of control to the Republican side of the aisle, it is wise to look at the “A Better Way” report released by Speaker Paul Ryan last summer for some potential tax reforms.  For those who want more insight, the complete report can be found at:

So let’s peak into the crystal ball…..

Estate Tax- At the beginning of January, House Resolution 198 titled the “Death Tax Repeal Act of 2017” was introduced into Congress and it currently sits in the Ways & Means Committee (  This bill is seeking to eliminate the federal estate tax.  This is one area where I caution us to be careful of what you wish for!  On the outside this may look like a good move but in the long run it could mean higher taxes for farmers and small businesses.

Currently, Americans can pass on $5,490,000 to their heir(s) tax free when they die.  The federal estate tax law also includes portability to a spouse which essentially means as a couple we can pass on a combined $10.98 million tax free to our heirs.  Even better, Ohio, led by Governor Kasich, repealed the Ohio Estate tax in 2013. So, if your estate is less than $5.49 million as an individual or $10.98 million as a married couple you should have very little concern in this area.  And given that less than 0.2 percent of all estates are subject to federal estate tax each year, should this really be on the chopping block?

So what am I concerned about?  The introduced bill has very little in the way of detail.  And the detail will be important.  One item that could disappear if the estate tax is eliminated is the ability for heirs to “step-up” the value of the inherited assets to its current market value at death.  This could be a significant loss to most farming operations.

Again, the detail in the Repeal Act will be important.  It has been suggested a complete repeal of the estate tax could pave way for a capital gains tax collection at death.  So imagine your heirs having to pay a 20% capital gain tax on the assets from your estate when you die.  For a $2.5 million dollar farm in Ohio, this would mean $500,000 in taxes versus $0 under our current system.  Ouch!  Be careful what you wish for as the truth will be in the detail!  We need to know what a repeal of the federal estate tax actually means.

Complete Expensing of Equipment & Buildings- The administration is also advocating for businesses to be able to completely write-off the expense of any building or equipment in the year of its purchase instead of recovering its value through a depreciation schedule.  This too could have some unattended consequences.  Again, the truth will be in the detail.

I think it matters very little on how we recapture the cost of these purchases. We have used Accelerated Bonus Depreciation and Section 179 for fifteen years to recapture the cost of capital purchases quicker.  My main concern is that complete expensing could cause a Net Operating Loss.  This could lead to the farm family not paying anything into Social Security and Medicare or at such a low level that it would affect their retirement years.  So while it may look good in the short term, without changes to how we pay into Social Security, it could lead to farmers not having enough eligible quarters to retire or be covered under Medicare.  Again, be careful for what you wish for as the truth will be in the detail.

Border Adjustment Tax (BAT)- There has been a lot of chatter on the potential impact of implementing a border adjustment tax or BAT.  This tax would be a huge change in the way we do business as Americans.  Currently, products shipped overseas bear the cost of income tax where imported products don’t.  In short, it could be considered a tariff without being called such.  It would be a huge revenue source for the government and would promote domestic production.  It is similar to the Value Added Tax used by many of our trading partners. The BAT along coupled with the proposed reductions in the tax rates for businesses should be a major catalyst for businesses here in the United States.

So, how will the BAT impact agriculture?  More specifically, how will it affect our trade relations especially with the top three international buyers of agricultural exports- Canada, China, and Mexico?   I think most sectors of the economy will be weighing in on the BAT issue.  Many retailers are very opposed to a border tax as a large percentage of the products they sell are imported.  For agriculture, it is anticipated it would add 10-15% to some of the costs of our inputs such as diesel fuel and to other inputs such as fertilizer and equipment.  The BAT debate is going to be fascinating to watch.  Make sure to keep asking your legislators how it will impact agriculture!

Summary- My recommendation is not to fall asleep on policy and tax reform in 2017.  Be engaged, ask questions and ask how it will impact your operation and our entire industry in the short term as well as long term.


Ohio Legislature is Set to Reconsider CAUV Bill

Written by:  Chris Hogan, Law Fellow, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program

The Ohio Legislature is once again considering a bill regarding Ohio’s current agricultural use valuation (CAUV) program. CAUV permits land to be valued at its agricultural value rather than the land’s market or “highest and best use” value. Senator Cliff Hite (R-Findlay) introduced SB 36 on February 7, 2017. The bill would alter the capitalization rate used to calculate agricultural land value and the valuation of land used for conservation practices or programs. The bill has yet to be assigned to a committee.

The content of SB 36 closely mirrors the language of a bill meant to address CAUV from the last legislative session: SB 246. Introduced during the 131st General Assembly, SB 246 failed to pass into law. SB 246 proposed alterations to the CAUV formula which are identical to those proposed by the current bill: SB 36. According to the Ohio Legislative Service Commission’s report on SB 246, the bill would have proposed changes that would have led to a “downward effect on the taxable value of CAUV farmland.” The likely effect for Ohio farmers enrolled in CAUV would have been a lower tax bill.

Due to the similarity between the two bills, the potential impacts of SB 36 on the CAUV program will likely be comparable to those of the previous bill. The proposed adjustment of the capitalization rate is likely to reduce the tax bill for farmers enrolled in CAUV. More specifically, the bill proposes several changes to the CAUV formula:

  • States additional factors to include in the rules that prescribe CAUV calculation methods. Currently, the rules must consider the productivity of the soil under normal management practices, the average price patterns of the crops and products produced to determine the income potential to be capitalized and the market value of the land for agricultural use. The proposed legislation adds two new factors: typical cropping and land use patterns and typical production costs.
  • Clarifies that when determining the capitalization rate used in the CAUV formula, the tax commissioner cannot use a method that includes the buildup of equity or appreciation.
  • Requires the tax commissioner to add a tax additur to the overall capitalization rate, and that the sum of the capitalization rate and tax additur “shall represent as nearly as possible the rate of return a prudent investor would expect from an average or typical farm in this state considering only agricultural factors.”
  • Requires the commissioner to annually determine the overall capitalization rate, tax additur, agricultural land capitalization rate and the individual components used in computing those amounts and to publish the amounts with the annual publication of the per-acre agricultural use values for each soil type.

To remove disincentives for landowners who engage in conservation practices yet pay CAUV taxes at the same rate as if the land was in production, the proposed legislation:

  • Requires that the land in conservation practices or devoted to a land retirement or conservation program as of the first day of a tax year be valued at the lowest valued of all soil types listed in the tax commissioner’s annual publication of per-acre agricultural use values for each soil type in the state.
  • Provides for recalculation of the CAUV rate if the land ceases to be used for conservation within three years of its original certification for the reduced rate, and requires the auditor to levy a charge for the difference on the landowner who ceased the conservation practice or participation in the conservation program.

To read SB 36, visit this page. For more information on previous CAUV bills, see our previous blog post.


Ag Committees are in Place for Ohio’s New Legislative Session

by Peggy Kirk Hall

Senate President Larry Obhof and Speaker of the House Cliff Rosenberger have made committee assignments for the new session of Ohio’s 132nd General Assembly.  While there are no major changes to committee structure or leadership, the committees contain many new members, including several legislators serving their first terms as legislators.

Sen. Cliff Hite (R-Findlay) will again chair the Senate’s Agriculture Committee, with newly elected Sen. Frank Hoagland (R-Mingo Junction) serving as vice chair and first Senate termer Sen. Sean O’Brien (D-Bazetta) appointed as the ranking minority member.  O’Brien previously served three terms in the House of Representatives, which included a term on its Agriculture and Rural Development Committee.

  • Returning from last session’s Agriculture Committee are Senators Bill Beagle (R-Tipp City), Bob Peterson (R-Washington Court House) and Michael Skindell (D-Lakewood).
  • New to the committee are Senators Bob Hackett (R-London), previous House member Stephanie Kunze (R-Hilliard), Frank Larose (R-Hudson), Charleta Tavares (D-Columbus) and Joe Uecker (R-Miami Township).

Rep. Brian Hill (R-Zanesville) will again lead the House Agriculture and Rural Development Committee with Rep. Kyle Koehler (R-Springfield) serving as vice  chair for the first time and Rep. John Patterson (D-Jefferson) returning as the ranking minority member.

  • Representatives Jack Cera (D-Bellaire), Christina Hagan (R-Marlboro Township), Michael O’Brien (D-Warren), Bill Patmon (D-Cleveland), Jeff Rezabek (R-Clayton), Michael Sheehy (D-Toledo) and Andy Thompson (R-Marietta) will return to the committee.
  • New to both the House of Representatives and the committee are Representatives Rick Carfagna (R-Genoa Township), Jay Edwards (R-Nelsonville), Darrell Kick (R-Loudonville), Scott Lipps (R-Franklin) and Dick Stein (R-Norwalk).
  • New to the committee are Representatives Candice Keller (R-Middletown), David Leland (R-Columbus) and Derek Merrin (R-Monclova Township), along with Former Senate President Keith Faber (R-Celina).

Neither committee has a meeting scheduled at this time.  Follow the committees’ work in the new legislative session at