Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Legislation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears warning that pending Ohio bills could limit levy growth and allow county "claw back" of collections
Summary
District staff reviewed several Ohio House bills that, if enacted as described to the board, could change how emergency and substitute levies count toward the 20‑mill floor, expand County Budget Commission authority to reduce levy collections after voters approve them, and cap future property tax growth. Staff warned the district could face both.
During the legislative report, district staff reviewed several pending Ohio House bills that could affect how local school levies are treated and how much property‑tax revenue the district can collect.
Staff described House Bill 129 as a measure that would change whether substitute and emergency levies count toward the 20‑mill floor calculation. House Bill 309 was summarized as expanding the County Budget Commission's authority to adjust or reduce levy collections and creating a public‑hearing process during which a district must defend its need to continue those collections. The presentation warned that HB309 could allow the county to reduce collections that voters previously approved.
Staff also discussed House Bill 96 in the context of a veto override related to the state budget and substitute emergency levies. The most significant concern raised for the district was House Bill 186, which staff said would cap future property tax growth (cited examples referenced CPI‑type caps) and, as proposed, could retroactively reduce amounts the district previously received from valuation increases. Staff cited an example in which a prior valuation gain produced roughly $3 million in new tax revenue for the district and said the bill, as presented, would seek to take about $1.9 million of that amount.
The district's presenters said several hearings were active and that legal challenges were likely if the bills were enacted with retroactive reductions. No action was taken by the board on legislation; staff framed these items as information for the board and said they would continue to monitor developments and testify as appropriate.
