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

June 2025

Last week HB 335 was introduced which included a host of property tax proposals and amounts to the most comprehensive changes to Ohio’s property tax system in nearly 50 years. While many of the property tax changes have been introduced in other legislation, one proposal that was not is the idea to repeal the 10 unvoted property tax mills often referred to as “inside millage”. Because the 10-mills of inside millage are specifically articulated in the state Constitution, many long-time observers of state and local finance in Ohio have long considered this to be beyond the reach of legislative change. However, the architects of HB 335 have asserted that the Constitution places a 10-mill maximum on inside millage rather than creating a requirement for 10 mills of inside millage. Inside milage is currently allocated to school districts, counties, municipalities, townships and various special district providing specific public services. Under HB 335, only townships would retain their inside millage.

 

The Ohio Legislative Service Commission (LSC) has released a preliminary analysis of the impact of the repeal of inside millage on the various types of local government in Ohio. This report summarizes the data in the LSC spreadsheet and provides additional analysis of the impact school districts conducted by OEPI.

 

LSC Analysis of Impact of Repealing Inside Millage

Table 1 provides a summary of LSC’s tabulation of the taxes generated by inside millage across different types of local government jurisdictions in Ohio.

Table 1 shows that almost exactly half of property taxes from inside millage are collected by Ohio’s traditional K-12 school districts, while 21.5% are collected by county governmental units (presumably not just counties but also countywide agencies such as Developmental Disability Boards, Alcohol Drug Addiction and Mental Health Boards, as well as Departments of Health, Aging, Children’s Services and other similar service providers). Additionally, municipalities are responsible for 16.5% of inside millage tax collections and townships are responsible for 11.6%.

 

Tables 2 and 3 provide more detailed analysis of the school district share of $1.991 billion in property taxes generated by inside millage. Table 2 shows how school district inside millage is distributed across typology groups, while Table 3 shows inside millage by school district property wealth quintile.

Table 2 shows that inside millage accounts for 8.3% of FY25 forecast school district operating expenditures. The inside millage share of operating expenditures is highest in suburban, wealthy suburban and small town school districts, while inside millage comprises the lowest share of expenditures in urban and major urban school districts. 

 

Table 3 shows that inside millage contributes the smallest share of operating expenditures in Ohio’s lowest property wealth school districts and escalates as districts get more wealthy.

The repeal of inside millage and elimination of nearly $2 billion in school district property tax revenue will certainly have a significant impact on the ability of Ohio’s school districts to deliver educational services to the more than 1.4 million students currently enrolled in traditional K-12 districts. One of the most direct ways to demonstrate this impact is to estimate the number of teachers that would need to be cut in order to realize the reduced spending required by the loss such a significant amount of revenue. This can be done by using the average classroom teacher salary reported in the FY24 Cupp Report and adding an additional 35% for fringe benefits. The lost inside millage revenue amount in each district can then be divided by this teacher cost figure to arrive at the number of teaching positions that would need to be eliminated. The findings from this analysis by school district typology group are shown in Table 4.

 

Table 4 shows that statewide nearly 20,000 teachers would need to be eliminated in order to save the amount of revenue lost by the repeal of school district inside millage. This amounts to 19.7% of the current (FY24) full-time teacher force in traditional districts in Ohio. The fraction of the teacher staff that would need to be let go is highest in suburban, wealthy suburban and small town districts and lowest in urban and major urban districts. Even in the urban districts, roughly 14% of teachers would need to be let go as a result of the repeal of inside millage.

Combination of Inside Millage Repeal and the 30% Cash Balance Cap

Another major concern of HB 335 is that it proposes both the repeal of inside millage and imposes a 30% cap on allowable cash balance by school districts. The combination of these two provisions will create exceptional hardships for school districts. Losing inside millage after the imposition of the cash balance cap will immediately cause 17 districts to have a negative cash balance. An additional 65 school districts will have a cash balance under 10% and 534 school districts will have cash balances below 25% after inside millage is repealed.

 

Additionally, it also appears that the cash balance cap will prevent school districts from going on the November ballot to offset the impending January 2026 loss of inside millage revenue by placing a new levy before voters. Because any levy that is passed in calendar year 2026 will not provide additional revenue during calendar year 2027, Ohio’s school districts will be in dire financial circumstances during the 2026 calendar year as a result of the combined effects of the inside milage repeal and the cash balance cap.

To view a PDF version of this analysis, click here.