Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Property Tax Reform 20 Mil Floor Inflation Cap topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Auditors and taxpayers coalition back bill to limit school revenue growth tied to property reappraisals

3035065 · April 9, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

House Bill 186 would tie allowable revenue growth in school districts already at the 20‑mill floor to cumulative inflation between mandated valuation updates; auditors and taxpayer groups told the committee the change would restore the original intent of protections enacted in the 1970s.

House Bill 186, presented to the House Ways and Means Committee by county auditors and taxpayer‑advocacy groups, would cap future growth in school district property‑tax revenues for districts at the 20‑mill floor by tying allowed revenue increases to cumulative inflation between valuation updates.

Chris Klein, chief deputy auditor for Lawrence County and spokesman for the County Auditor's Association of Ohio, said the bill "breaks the automatic link between soaring property values and equally soaring property tax bills" by indexing allowable growth to inflation. Klein explained that House Bill 9 20—enacted in the 1970s—reduction factors prevent automatic tax-rate increases for most levies, but the 20‑mill floor is an exception that currently lets revenue rise with market values.

Tom Zano and Brian Pereira of the Ohio Taxpayer Protection Coalition and other proponents said the bill would not claw back current revenues but would limit the rate of future unvoted growth in school property‑tax revenue. Zano pointed to data in written testimony showing average cash reserves for school districts rose from about 22% of annual expenses in 2012 to over 45% in 2024, and he argued the timing is right to address structural incentives that encourage districts to plan around the floor.

Proponents emphasized constitutionality and uniformity as design goals and said the bill would preserve inflation‑based growth while preventing large, market‑driven jumps in tax bills. Committee members asked about the historical reasons emergency levies and other devices have been excluded from the floor calculation; witnesses responded that emergency levies originated as temporary measures and that practice changed over time.

Proponent testimony closed with written materials from the Ohio Chamber of Commerce and the Ohio Realtors on file. Committee members did not vote on the bill during this session.