I am a creature of habit. My mornings generally begin before 5:00 a.m. Around 5:30, I receive a batch of news updates, a mix of national and Ohio-based publications. Even when I lived in Central Ohio, one of my staples was the Cleveland Plain Dealer’s “The Wake-Up.”
Last week, a “Wake-Up” article focused on the pressures faced by senior citizens in Cuyahoga County. The challenges are many, such as healthcare, mobility, and social isolation. But one of the most persistent concerns is housing affordability. That concern ties directly into one of the most complex, least understood issues in Ohio’s public policy: property taxes and how we fund our schools.
Over the past several months, property tax reform has moved to the forefront of legislative debate in Columbus. There is a pending ballot initiative that would eliminate all property taxes in the state of Ohio, along with multiple bills that could dramatically reshape how property taxes are assessed, levied, and distributed. As a superintendent of schools, I worry deeply: if we change the system without clearly defined replacement mechanisms, school districts could be left scrambling.
This tension cuts to the heart of a dilemma many educational and civic leaders face: How do we alleviate the burden our residents feel from property taxes, especially seniors on fixed incomes, while preserving the ability to deliver quality local services, including excellent schools?
Before we dive into the legislative proposals, it’s helpful to review the historical context over the past half-century.
A Half Century of Shifting Burdens
Here’s what the historical data tells us:
- In 1975, Class I (Residential + Agricultural) property accounted for 46.0% of the state’s property tax base; by 1999 that had grown to about 61.1%; and by 2011, it was 74.3%.
- In 2023, residential and agricultural property made up 74.8% of Ohio’s property tax base (i.e., class I share).
- Correspondingly, the business (non-residential) share has declined: from 54.0% in 1975 to 25.2% in 2023 (or more precisely, business property’s share of what remains).
These shifts illustrate how over time, the tax burden (in terms of share) has tilted more heavily toward residential property.
Looking more narrowly at school district levies:
- In 1975, 46.1% of school property tax revenue was borne by Class I (residential/agricultural) properties; by 2023, that share had risen to 67.5%.
- Meanwhile, business (non-residential) properties paid 43.9% in 1975, falling to 32.5% in 2023 (for school district levies).
These figures largely align with a comprehensive OEPI analysis of Ohio’s property tax trends from 1975 to 2022.
One pivotal moment in this history is the DeRolph case. In 1997, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the state’s overreliance on property taxes to fund public education violated the Ohio Constitution (DeRolph V. State – Wikipedia, n.d.). In part, it required that the state’s school funding system be revisited and reformed to reduce these disparities (Parr, 2024).
After DeRolph, the state stepped into a larger role in funding education. At its peak, in fiscal year 2002, the state funded roughly 48.5% of the base cost of education (i.e. the formula-driven portion), though that share has gradually declined (Parr, 2024). More recently, projections suggest by 2026–2027, the state’s share will fall to around 32%, marking one of the lowest state contributions since the pre-DeRolph era (Opinion: Ohio Needs to Support Public Schools With Adequate Funding, n.d.).
Put simply: over the decades, local property taxpayers have shouldered an increasing portion of the cost of education , precisely the dynamic the DeRolph ruling sought to curb.
On top of that, many Ohio counties have undergone reassessments in the past three to five years. Rapid appreciation in property values, without parallel reform in how taxes are apportioned, has exacerbated the pressure on homeowners, especially in jurisdictions where new levies pass or where rollback mechanisms are insufficient to cushion the increases.
The Current Reform Landscape: Bills & Ballot
The policy environment is unsettled. Here are major proposals and initiatives worth tracking:
The Ohio Property Tax Trilogy (Rep. Gary Click), also known as the Taxpayer Freedom Trilogy, this package includes:
- House Bill 420: would eliminate permanent tax levies, requiring that all levies specify an expiration date and be subject to renewal by voters.
- House Bill 421: would allow voters to initiate a ballot measure to reduce a county’s “inside millage” — the portion of property tax revenue collected without voter approval.
- House Bill 422: would raise the threshold for voter approval on new property tax levies. Larger or costlier levies would require a higher percentage of “yes” votes to pass.
House Bill 186
This bill proposes to limit increases in property tax for school districts that are on the 20-mill funding floor to keep pace with inflation. A more recent amendment would apply this retroactively, which could affect many Ohio districts (though not Rocky River). Roughly half of Ohio’s school districts fall into the category that could be impacted.
Other Initiatives
- Ballot Amendment (Committee to Eliminate Property Taxes): This constitutional amendment effort would ban all real property taxes in Ohio, eliminating them altogether.
- Governor’s Property Tax Work Group: An executive branch task force was finalizing recommendations for property tax reform and replacement revenue models.
All of this introduces great uncertainty for school districts. As a district, we aim to support local residents , especially seniors under pressure, but we also must protect our capacity to deliver high-quality services: education, safety, infrastructure, and more. Dramatic changes without a well-defined replacement system could destabilize many communities.
A Call for Balanced Reform
As legislators reconvene and resume debate, I will continue to advocate for reforms that provide relief for our senior residents who are feeling the pressures of affordable housing while also pursuing a path that builds sustainability for our school communities. Here are key priorities:
- Provide meaningful relief to seniors and lower-income property owners, without sacrificing our ability to deliver excellent schools and essential local services.
- Insist on transition plans. If existing taxes are scaled back or eliminated, there must be a reliable replacement revenue stream, whether via general fund transfers, state-level taxes, or new revenue-sharing mechanisms.
- Favor targeted tools like homestead exemption expansion and circuit breakers rather than sweeping abolition, which risks destabilizing local governance.
- Ensure transparency and outreach so that homeowners, renters, and taxpayers understand both their current burdens and proposed changes.
The Ohio Legislature returned to the Statehouse after their summer break. Property tax is a boilerplate topic. This isn’t just about balancing budgets. It’s about our community, our neighbors — the shared investments we’ve made together in public education, infrastructure, safety, and shared future in River.
With Pirate Pride,
Adham
PS – Please continue to read, learn, and dialogue around these topics. Here are a few articles from earlier in the month.
Ohio leaders fiddle while property tax ‘time bomb’ threatens to cripple public services
Education Politics & Gov Ohio property tax reform group weighs school funding, how to make cuts
References
DeRolph v. State – Wikipedia. (n.d.). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved September 30, 2025, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeRolph_v._State?
Opinion: Ohio needs to support public schools with adequate funding. (n.d.). Crain’s Cleveland Business. https://www.crainscleveland.com/crains-forum-urban-education/ohio-needs-fix-its-school-funding-formula-opinion?
Parr, M. (2024, August 12). Members Brief. Members Brief. Retrieved September 30, 2025, from https://www.lsc.ohio.gov/assets/organizations/legislative-service-commission/files/derolph-v-state-school-funding-case-10020044.pdf?
With Pirate Pride 