Ohio group pushes to abolish property taxes
Why it matters: Abolishing the tax would slash billions in funding for a variety of public services, including schools, which heavily rely on property tax levies.
Catch up quick: The movement is led by Citizens for Property Tax Reform, based in Cuyahoga County.
The group got the go-ahead earlier this month to start collecting signatures for the proposed constitutional amendment.
What's next: Organizers have until early July to gather about 443,000 signatures from at least half of Ohio's 88 counties to reach the November ballot.
Gathering began in earnest this week, group founder Keith Davey tells Axios.
How it works: In Ohio, property values are based on county auditor appraisals every six years.
The Department of Taxation uses mills to calculate how many dollars owners pay per $1,000 of property value.
Municipalities tax property at different millage rates, but Ohio law establishes a 20-mill "floor" that guarantees school districts a certain amount of property tax revenue.
Davey says his group believes increasing taxes based on increasing value is a "tax on unrealized gains."
Threat level: Property tax rates and uses vary, but they're the main source of funding for schools in many communities.
Local property taxes account for 70% of the Columbus City Schools' general fund.
"To eliminate property taxes would completely pull the rug out of the public schools and other public services all across the state," Ohio Education Association president Scott DiMauro told WBNS-TV.
What they're saying: State Rep. Sean Brennan (D-Parma) said in a statement that lawmakers should view the push for abolition as a sign that reform — rather than elimination of the tax — is needed.
"The Ohio General Assembly has all but ignored the pleas for property tax reform for years, so it is no wonder Ohioans are trying to take this into their own hands."
Franklin County Auditor Michael Stinziano has shared concerns about schools, senior services and the zoo.
Abolishing property taxes would "cripple" townships, according to Heidi Fought, executive director of the Ohio Township Association.
The other side: Davey says school funding concerns are the most common thing he hears, but says "our group does not advocate defunding anything" and instead advocates for funding "not attached to our property."
He says state and local officials have had plenty of time to change property tax funding mechanisms, and now it's time to force their hand.
"For years, I've been hearing that they don't have the time to put something together," he says. "But in two weeks, they put together a $600 million bond issue for the Cleveland Browns."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Mayes hints at possible legal action if Corporation Commission repeals renewable energy mandate
Attorney General Kris Mayes signaled she might take the Corporation Commission to court if it dismantles renewable energy standards she helped create nearly 20 years ago. Why it matters: The future of Arizona's renewable energy mandate is on the line. The big picture: The commission last year instructed staff to draft rules that would repeal its renewable energy standards, saying they're unnecessary and appear to drive up costs. The Renewable Energy Standard and Tariff (REST) Rules require affected utilities to get 15% of the electricity they provide from renewable sources. Staff in late July issued a formal proposal to repeal the standards. Driving the news: Mayes on Monday sent a letter to the commission warning that repealing REST "isn't just nonsensical; it's unlawful." REST isn't perfect, the AG concedes, and she would "wholeheartedly support" efforts to modernize the rules, but she opposes outright repeal. A spokesperson for Mayes declined to comment on whether she'll sue the commission if it votes to repeal the standards. Flashback: Mayes was a Republican member of the commission — she's now a Democrat — when it passed the REST rules in 2006. She was part of the 4-1 majority that voted for the standards. Zoom in: A third-party economic analysis performed for the commission found that REST repeal "could marginally reduce monthly residential electric bills" by $1-$2 and result in minor administrative cost savings for utilities. But renewable energy-related costs for some utility customers would continue due to long-term financial obligations. And repeal would have indirect costs including "reduced transparency, regulatory certainty and potentially slower renewable energy adoption," the analysis said. Between the lines: Mayes argued in her letter that REST helps keep customer rates lower for millions of Arizonans and creates jobs in the renewable energy sector. She said rate-making decisions must legally be based on "high-quality evidence, not speculation and conjecture." "In addition to being bad policy, repealing the REST Rules as proposed here is an unlawful abdication of the Commission's duty to set just and reasonable rates," she wrote. The other side: Commission chair Kevin Thompson told Axios he's not surprised Mayes is "rattling her saber, considering she played a pivotal part in implementing this gravy train that has cost ratepayers billions of dollars." He said his focus is on protecting ratepayers and not pushing "costly ideological mandates." Commission vice chair Nick Myers said he's unconcerned about a lawsuit if the commission repeals REST. "We'll let her do what she thinks she needs to do, and if she has legal grounds, bring them up," he said. Reality check: Renewable energy accounts for about 19% of the energy that Arizona Public Service, the state's largest utility, provides its electric retail customers, the company tells Axios. What's next: The commission will vote at a Thursday meeting on whether to instruct staff to begin the repeal process.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Washington state dead last in U.S. police staffing
Washington state ranks last in law enforcement staffing for the 15th year in a row, according to FBI data analyzed by the Washington Association of Sheriffs & Police Chiefs (WASPC). Why it matters: Low staffing levels stretch departments thin, impact officer safety, slow response times and, according to law enforcement leaders, create a cycle that pushes more officers out of the profession. "Tired officers, running from call to call by themselves, are the worst possible outcome — for wellness, for victims, and for de-escalation," Steve Strachan, executive director of WASPC, tells Axios. Driving the news: WASPC released its annual Crime in Washington report on July 28, offering a state snapshot of crime and policing in 2024. By the numbers: Washington added 292 officers statewide last year and the number of officers per capita rose slightly from 1.34 in 2023 to 1.36, according to FBI data. But Washington is still in 51st place, behind all 50 states and D.C., according to WASPC's analysis. Zoom in: After losing 355 officers through resignations, retirements and other exits, the Seattle Police Department's force is growing for the first time in years. The city has hired more than 100 new recruits this year, with a goal of 150 by December — part of a push to rebuild toward around 1,300 deployable officers, according to the department. What they're saying:"Public safety is a core function of government, and for too long we have not treated it that way," Strachan says. There are always so many competing worthy programs and initiatives for public dollars, he said, and "a lack of understanding that we need both programs for prevention as well as accountability for criminals." The big picture: WASPC tells Axios it would cost more than $1 billion annually to bring Washington up to the national average for police staffing — based on the state Department of Commerce's $154,704 per-officer estimate. To lead the nation? Try 30,589 more officers — and nearly $5 billion a year.
Axios
5 hours ago
- Axios
Defense industry is filling the Golden Dome vacuum
Golden Dome is the most publicly discussed U.S. defense project in years — except by the people commissioning it. The big picture: The Trump administration is mum about its $175 billion hemispheric missile shield, but U.S. defense contractors are maneuvering and messaging as they seek a piece of the action. Driving the news: Golden Dome was verboten for certain speakers on stage at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama, last week. It was a different scene, though, in the hallways and at the happy hours. Check this split-screen: From industry: Ads. Announcements. News hits. Sci-fi-style graphics with colorful grids, dramatic missile arcs and explosions. Promises. From the Pentagon: Very little, as headline after headline after headline made clear. As Breaking Defense put it: "The first rule of Golden Dome is don't talk about Golden Dome." The intrigue: There is engagement — it's just behind closed doors. And contractors are pushing forward while still deciphering what, exactly, the administration wants and the military needs. Here are some of the latest examples: Lockheed Martin launched a command-and-control incubator in Virginia to work on battle management, mission planning and AI integration. The company is also planning a test of space-based interceptors by 2028, according to Robert Lightfoot, who leads the company's space efforts. Peraton is eyeing a "system of systems integration approach" while leaning on its offensive and defensive cyber expertise, Milton Carroll, vice president of business development for space and intelligence, told Axios. "We don't build space assets," he said. "We don't build radars." AV and Sierra Nevada Corporation teamed up. Their announcement specifically mentioned sensors, directed energy and electronic warfare, as well as drone and missile defense. And L3Harris Technologies named Rob Mitrevski president of Golden Dome strategy and integration, a new role. The company is already involved with the Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor program, namedropped in President Trump's original decree. Between the lines: Tom Karako, a missile-defense expert at CSIS, told Axios on the sidelines of the symposium that Pentagon silence is "probably temporary" and based on "internal machinations around public affairs." In the meantime? "We've got to create the consensus, and we've got to create the shared understanding of what is it that we're doing here and why," he said. "That's why my message is … Golden Dome: Start talking."
