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 combination of hydraulic fracturing (commonly known as “fracking”) with the development of horizontal (rather than vertical) drilling capability has served to make accessible the vast reserves of natural gas and other chemicals contained in the massive Marcellus and Utica shale preserves that are partially located in southeast Ohio.  A second offshoot of the accessibility of this large new supply of natural gas is the need to transport the extracted resources to the marketplace. As a result, roughly 800 miles of natural gas pipeline has been constructed in Ohio over the past several years, the two largest of which are the Nexus (256 mile total length) and Rover (713 mile total length) pipelines.  In addition, compressor stations are required along the pipeline in order to facilitate natural gas flow through the pipeline.

 

Both the pipelines and the compressor stations are taxable as Public Utility Tangible Personal Property and have become part of the local property tax duplicate in the 2018 and 2019 tax years.  While precise estimates of local property tax revenue are difficult to obtain due to data confidentiality restrictions, information made available publicly has suggested that property tax revenues for Ohio local governments will total to several hundred million dollars.

 

While fracking is not without its critics (many environmental groups have expressed concerns about the potential contamination of groundwater supplies and have expressed frustration with many drillers’ refusal to identify the chemical compounds injected into the shale out of concern for revealing “trade secrets”), the new drilling techniques have appeared to be tremendously successful in their primary goal of extracting natural gas from the previously inaccessible underground shale preserves.  In fact, natural gas extraction has been so successful that there is now such a glut of natural gas that prices are at long-time lows.  While this is good for consumers of natural gas who now have lower heating bills, it is not such good news for the oil and gas companies themselves (this issue was the subject of an article in the January 12, 2020 edition of the Columbus Dispatch).

 

According to the Columbus Dispatch, “Just last summer, seven large [oil and natural gas] producers that operate in the region spent $500 billion more on drilling than they earned in selling oil and gas”.  Furthermore, one repercussion of these financial difficulties has been that the natural gas pipeline companies have begun appealing the taxable values assigned to their pipelines and compressor stations by the Ohio Department of Taxation.  One aspect of the appeals process is that taxpayers are allowed to pay only the taxes that are due based on the lower appeal value rather than on the assigned taxable value.  In instances where this has occurred, school districts and other local governments have received lower tax payments than they were expecting, which can create a variety of fiscal problems at the local level. However, if the appeal is unsuccessful (or partially successful) then the taxpayer would still owe the remaining tax payment.

 

The appeals process for public utility property works as follows:

1) First the taxpayer makes an appeal to the Ohio Department of Taxation (ODT) questioning the original assessed value.

2) The Tax Department is then required to send notices to county auditors in the counties affected by the appeal that the appeal has been lodged.

3) ODT holds a non-public hearing in which the taxpayer can present evidence supporting the appeal.  Only the taxpayer and its representatives and ODT are present at this hearing.

4) ODT makes a ruling on the appeal, which typically takes several months.

5) After ODT’s ruling, either the taxpayer or the county auditor(s) can appeal to the State Board of Tax Appeals.  Note that school districts and other local government units that actually receive the property tax revenues do NOT have the legal standing to appeal a ruling they view as unfavorable. This is different from the appeals process for real property where both the property owner and the school district are allowed to challenge the assessed value assigned by the County Auditor.

 

At this moment, it appears that the ruling on the pipeline tax valuation appeals will not be made by the Tax Department until June 2020.

 

Likelihood of the Lower Values Being Upheld on Appeal

While it is probably never a good idea to speculate about the outcome of any case pending before the Tax Department or the Board of Tax Appeals, a few facts about how the pipelines are valued can be instructive.  According to Ohio Department of Taxation publication “A Brief Summary of Major State & Local Taxes in Ohio”, the default method of establishing the “true value” of public utility tangible personal property is cost, which is then reduced by an annual depreciation allowance. (Note that “true value” is another term for market value, and taxable value is true value times the 88% assessment percentage applicable to pipelines.) Since the cost measure referenced above is supposed to be construction cost in accordance with the company’s records, it is difficult to see how a lower than expected price for the natural gas flowing through the pipeline can lead to a reduction in the taxable value of the pipeline itself.

 

So why are the pipeline values being appealed? The most likely answer to this question is that the lower price of natural gas resulting from the oversupply has led to a reduction in the amount of gas flowing through the pipelines. This in turn reduces the revenues of the pipeline companies. If they can in turn reduce their property tax payments, they can then (most likely partially) recoup the lost revenues.

 

The bottom line impact on schools and other local governments of reduced pipeline values is either reduced revenues compared to what was expected based upon the information initially provided by the pipeline companies and the initial assessed property values from inside millage and fixed rate (i.e. typical operating and PI) levies, or an increase in the taxes owed by other local taxpayers (again compared to what was expected) in the case of fixed sum (bond and emergency) levies.  In terms of state aid, because FY20 and FY21 and state funding is essentially frozen at FY19 levels, there will be no immediate impact on state aid as a result of the appeal of the pipeline valuations.

 

However, the bottom line from the perspective of the pipeline companies may well be that they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by appealing the values, as the worst case scenario is that they will still owe taxes based on the original values and the best case is that they will owe less.