Wednesday, May 13, 2026
  1. HB 82: Report Card Changes for the 2021–22 School Year
  2. Analysis of November 2025 School Levy Results
  3. Analysis of Ohio Residential Property Taxes: A Balanced Approach to Reform
  4. Ohio Economically Disadvantaged Cost Study
  5. OEPI Analysis of Property Tax Provisions in the FY26–27 State Budget
  6. Revenue Generated by Emergency & Substitute Levies
  7. Impact of the Proposed Elimination of Inside Millage
  8. OEPI Analysis of the Impact of Eliminating Inside Millage
  9. Dr. Fleeter’s Testimony on HB 96 (Senate Education Committee)
  10. Ohio Property Tax Trends (1975-2023)
  11. State Share of Base Cost Funding FY99-FY19
  12. Dr. Fleeter’s Testimony on HB 96 (House Education Committee)
  13. Factors Behind the Transitional Aid Guarantee
  14. OEPI Analysis of Administrator Data
  15. OEPI Initial Analysis of Executive Budget K-12 Funding Proposal
  16. OEPI Analysis of Cupp Report Administrator Data
  17. OEPI Analysis of K-12 Budget Proposal
  18. OEPI Review of Ohio School Finance Study
  19. November 2024 School Levies Overview
  20. OEPI’s Ohio Special Ed Cost Analysis
  21. Ohio Property Tax Reappraisal Trends
  22. FY24 vs FY25 State Foundation Funding Comparison
  23. 2003-2023 Ohio Property Tax Reappraisal Analysis
  24. FY24 vs. FY25 School Funding Comparison
  25. Testimony on Property Tax Review and Reform
  26. Ohio School Funding Summary from FY11-FY24
  27. Dr. Fleeter on 10WBSN’s Report on Ohio Sports Gaming Revenue
  28. Dr. Fleeter’s Summary of Replacement Levy Utilization by Ohio School Districts (2014–2023)
  29. Ohio Property Tax Trends (1975–2022)
  30. OEPI HB 920: Updated Explanation
  31. Ohio School Voucher Overview
  32. Overview of Senate FY24–25 State Budget
  33. Constructing an Adequate School Funding Formula
  34. Summary of LSC HB 1 Fiscal Note
  35. House Bill 1 Summary & Analysis
  36. OEPI Economically Disadvantaged Student Cost Study
  37. Ohio Gifted Education Incentives Study
  38. Ohio Educational Service Center Cost Study
  39. Ohio English Learner Cost Study
  40. Ohio Gifted Funding Accountability Study
  41. Ohio Special Ed Cost Study
  42. New vs. Renewal Operating Levies (1994-2022)
  43. FY22 Report Card Analysis
  44. Overview of November 2022 Ohio School Levies
  45. Solar Energy Property Taxes vs. PILOT for Energy Projects (PPT)
  46. Solar Power Installation Property Taxes vs. PILOT Comparison
  47. CAUV Formula Change Analysis
  48. 2003-2022 Levies by Election
  49. New vs. Renewal and Replacement Operating Levies (1984-2022)
  50. School Operating Levies (1976-2022)
  51. School Operating & Capital Levy Totals, By Year (1984-2022)
  52. Changes in Ohio School Funding & TPP Replacement (FY11–FY22)
  53. Overview of May 2022 Ohio School Levies on the Ballot
  54. Overview of the Ohio Senate’s FY22-23 School Funding Formula
  55. The Central Importance of the DeRolph Rulings to School Funding in Ohio
  56. HB 82 Report Card System Changes
  57. Ohio Income Tax Changes and Equity (1972–2021)
  58. HB 110 EdChoice Voucher Program Changes
  59. HB 110 School Funding Formula Changes
  60. Ohio School Funding Trends (FY11–FY21)
  61. Ohio FY20 GRF Tax Revenue: COVID Impact & Recovery
  62. Ohio Solar Energy & Impact on School District Revenues
  63. House & Senate Bills Seek to Revise Ohio’s School Report Card
  64. OEPI Testimony on HB 110 School Funding
  65. Dr. Fleeter’s Testimony to the Senate Primary and Secondary Education Committee on HB 110.
  66. Updated: COVID-19 Impact on Ohio GRF Revenues (FY20 & FY21)
  67. 2020 Ohio School Levy Summary & Analysis
  68. HB 305 School Funding Plan Overview
  69. EdChoice Voucher Program Update
  70. OEPI President Message on OEPI’s Value
  71. OEPI Property Trends Report (1975-2015)
  72. Update: Appeal of Natural Gas Pipeline Values
  73. Update on Ohio’s Controversial Territory Transfer Law
  74. COVID-19 Impact on Ohio GRF Revenues (FY20 & FY21)
  75. Supplemental Funding for Power Plant Districts
  76. OEPI Officers Update
  77. Appeal of Natural Gas Pipeline Values
  78. Ohio’s Controversial Territory Transfer Law
  79. 2019 Ohio School Levy Summary & Analysis
  80. Analysis of the Cupp-Patterson School Funding Proposal (HB 305)
  81. OEPI Press Release on 20 Years of School Funding Post-DeRolph
  82. 20 Years of School Funding Post-DeRolph
  83. OEPI Analysis of Ed Trust “2018 Funding Gaps” Report
  84. OEPI Research Update: GRF Revenues, School Funding, and District Trends (2017)
  85. House Finance Primary and Secondary Ed Subcommittee House Bill 49 Testimony
  86. Analysis of HB 398 & SB 246 Changes to Ohio’s CAUV Formula
  87. OEPI Research Update: GRF Revenues, Funding Formula Issues & School Levies (2016)
  88. Community School Funding & Ohio Education Finance Trends
  89. CS Deduction and the Gain Cap
  90. Open Enrollment
  91. FY16-17 GRF Tax Revenues
  92. Casino & VLT Revenues
  93. OEPI Value Added Newsletter Article
  94. Senate Bill 208 Modifications to TPP Replacement Payments
  95. 2015 School Levy Update
  96. FY 16-17 Guarantee & Gain Cap
  97. Preliminary FY 15 Ohio Test Score Analysis
  98. Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) Revenue Update
  99. FY16-17 Phase-Out of TPP Replacement Payments
  100. FY16-17 School Funding Components
  101. Casino Tax Revenue Update
  102. Budget Bill Changes Election Law
  103. Transitional Aid Guarantee Analysis
  104. School Funding Comparison & Analysis: FY15 vs. FY17 Plans
  105. Recent Changes in Ohio Property Valuations
  106. State/Local Share of Funding in FY14-15 as Proposed by the Governor and House for FY16-17

The FY 16-17 budget (HB 64) included further reductions to Tangible Personal Property (TPP) tax replacement payments to schools. Districts still receiving TPP or Public Utility TPP payments in FY 15 would see reductions varying from a maximum of 1% of total resources to 2% of total resources depending on the district’s local wealth. House Bill 64 specified that the TPP replacement payments would continue to be phased out in the manner described above until all TPP replacement payments have been eliminated.

 

In order to cushion the impact of these reductions, the legislature included a “TPP Supplement” in both FY 16 and FY 17 as part of the budget package. The TPP supplement ensured that no district would receive less combined formula funding plus TPP replacement payment amounts in FY 16 and FY 17 than they received in FY 15. In essence, the TPP supplement serves as a temporary “hold harmless” on the impact of the TPP replacement reductions. However, Governor Kasich vetoed the TPP supplement for FY 17. LSC estimated that 116 districts would have received a total of $84.2 million in TPP supplement payments in FY 17 had the provision not been vetoed.

 

The OEPI Summer 2015 Newsletter contained an article summarizing and analyzing the HB 64 changes. (Go to the OEPI website for article.) This article will provide a summary of changes made to the TPP Supplement and TPP replacement payment schedule in Senate Bill (SB) 208, a budget corrections bill passed in October 2015.

 

SB 208 made two types of changes relating to TPP. The first change was to reinstate the TPP supplement for FY 17 at a reduced level. Under SB 208 in FY 17 all districts are guaranteed to receive combined formula funding plus TPP replacement of at least 96% of the FY 15 total of foundation funding plus TPP replacement. While it does not fully reinstate the original FY 17 TPP supplement vetoed by the Governor (as many districts were urging the legislature to do by overriding the Governor’s veto), LSC estimates that 75 districts will receive an additional $43.9 million as a result of this provision.

 

The second change that SB 208 made was to modify the TPP replacement payment phase-out formula in FY 18 and beyond. LSC estimates that under the HB 64 TPP provisions there will be 132 districts receiving a total of $182.4 million in TPP replacement payments in FY17. SB 208 specifies that beginning in FY 18 each district that is still receiving TPP replacement payments will see an annual reduction of a maximum of 5/8 of a mill of local property valuation rather than a maximum percentage of total resources.

 

The SB 208 TPP phase-out formula will slow down the loss of TPP replacement payments for many districts (although some districts fare the same under SB 208). No “regular” K-12 district would be worse off under SB 208 than they were under HB 64.

 

However the three JVSDs that still receive payments in FY 18 will see them phase out more quickly. This is because JVSDs consist of multiple school districts, and 5/8 of a mill of their larger property tax bases allows for larger annual reductions than would be the case under the percentage of total resources approach used in HB 64. JVSDs also do not receive the TPP supplement, an oversight which could have been corrected in SB 208 but was not.