Newton’s Third Law of Motion says that every action has an equal and opposite reaction – an axiom that might also apply to tax cuts.
And the opposite reaction in the case of the Ohio Legislature’s recent action to reduce the burden on property taxpayers is to increase the burden for public schools.
While property owners might be smiling about the prospect of lower property taxes because of laws passed by the Ohio Legislature and signed by Gov. Mike DeWine on Dec. 19, school boards and treasurers across the state are frowning about the prospect of losing millions of dollars they have been expecting to collect.
For Licking County’s 10 school districts, the estimated combined losses are $38 million across the two upcoming tax years of 2026 and 2027.
And they are bracing for what would be a nuclear option for tax cuts if a citizens’ initiative to eliminate property taxes altogether makes it to the ballot and is approved. The anti-tax group Committee to Abolish Ohio Property Taxes is petitioning to get a constitutional amendment on the November 2026 ballot to eliminate property taxes. That was inspired in part because of an outcry by property owners across the state when property values shot up by 40% or more in some communities during state required revaluations in 2023.
In the past, valuations had typically risen closer to the rate of inflation – about 3% – so 40% was a shock.
Ohio lawmakers working to take some wind out of the sails of those petitioners passed property-tax reform bills in November, and some have said they have more work to do in the coming months, which local school officials hope will bring them relief from what currently appears to be a gloomy financial forecast.
Estimates by the Ohio Legislative Service Commission provided to Licking County districts show all but Southwest Licking will face no losses in the 2025 tax year but indicate that if nothing changes in the coming months, they could lose a combined $38 million across the two tax years of 2026 and 2027.
Of the 10 districts in the county, Newark City Schools would be hit the hardest, with a loss of $7.2 million during those two tax years. Southwest Licking would face the second largest loss with an estimated hit of more than $7.1 million. Licking Heights would lose an estimated $5.6 million. Lakewood would see the fourth biggest loss at almost $4 million. And the fifth largest loss would go to North Fork at an estimated $3.5 million.
Here are the total estimated losses by district during the coming three years
Granville $ 77,149
Heath $1,865,777
Johnstown Monroe $3,257,579
Lakewood $3,979,952
Licking Heights $5,757,118
Licking Valley $3,062,454
Newark $7,181,843
North Fork $3,490,903
Northridge $2,462,718
Southwest Licking $7,148,535
It’s important to note that taxpayers will see no change in the first-half property tax bills being mailed out by county treasurers in the coming days.
Licking County Auditor Michael L. Smith said the legislative action to reduce property taxes came too late in the year to reprogram county computers, calculate the changes and complete all of that in time for Treasurer Roy Van Atta to mail bills on time.
Smith said it could take days or weeks to reprogram computers to do the tax calculations. He expects taxpayers will see changes in their second-half tax bills, and he encourages anyone who is tempted to pay their full-year property tax in the first half to pay only the first half so they reap the potential savings in the second half.
Southwest Licking Local School District Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer Richard D. Jones said in an email that school districts don’t know the formula used by the Ohio Legislative Service Commission to determine the costs to school districts, so it’s difficult to forecast the losses.
But Jones said the effects of the new laws will require Southwest Licking “to go back to the ballot for some type of operating levy, in addition to a bond levy for a new school building for enrollment growth.
“The concern for Southwest Licking,” Jones said, “is the historical passage rates for new operating levies is 22%, and a bond levy’s passage rate is 12%.”
He said that up to 85% of the district budget is personnel, so “staffing reductions will need to be made if the school district is unable to get a new operating levy approved by the community.”
In Newark, Julio Valladares, the district treasurer and chief financial officer, said in an email that “It is too early to determine how we are going to be affected. … The bottom line is that we will receive less funding moving forward, and to what levels is uncertain until we know exactly the implementation details, which is unknown at the moment.”
Because the school funding formula is so complex, he said, calculating the exact amount of the losses for each school district will require a lot of work, “therefore, once we know the actual facts and details of the implementation, we (will) start working on estimating our losses.”
In Heath, where the school district is looking at a potential loss of $1.9 million over two years, “it means we’ll have to go to the voters a lot sooner for a lot larger levy,” said Karl Zarins, treasurer and chief financial officer for Heath City Schools.
Before the recent legislative action to address property taxes, Zarins said the Heath district was looking at seeking local taxpayer approval of “a small operating levy of around 5 mills between 2032 and 2034. Now, we’re looking at going to voters in 2029 – and with a pretty large levy of 10 to 15 mills.”
He said the district is taking action now to mute the effects of property tax losses, “but we’re still looking at a sizable increase.”
“The strategic direction of our district has changed from focusing on how to improve educational outcomes and programming to triaging programs and positions for reductions (currently only through attrition, but subject to change),” Zarins said in an email. “We hope to minimize the impact on students, but some negative impact is inevitable.”
According to Zarins, the district also is forming “a financial task force with the community to come up with a new tax policy in this new legislative environment to study income taxes and any other funding options.”
Zarins said the property tax laws are going to take about $1 million a year from the school district’s anticipated growth, and at the same time, the state is also reducing the amount of funding it provides to schools.
Heath schools have a $27 million annual budget. The general fund is $24 million, Zarins said, and 75% of that goes to employee salaries. The other $3 million is for such things as permanent improvements, athletics and extracurricular activities.
“The part that is getting missed in all of this is the loss of state funding,” Zarins said. “We’re losing revenue. They (state officials) estimate the cost to educate a child and estimate what the district can pay, and then they allocate state funds for rest. The state is shifting the funding burden to districts, and districts that get a lot of funds from the state are feeling it.”
“Our local legislators have been very helpful and cooperative and are open to suggestions and finding solutions,” Zarins continued. “But the first priority has been to give property taxpayers relief. We agree something needed to be done to give taxpayers relief; we just have differences in what approach to take to avoid unintended consequences. We are working with them to see what comes next.”
Granville Exempted Village School District is the least affected district in Licking County, according to estimates by the Ohio Legislative Service Commission, which shows no loss in 2026 and a loss of a little more than $77,000 in 2027.
In simple terms, that’s because of the state’s complicated school-funding formula and that the district is more reliant on local taxes than any other district in the county.
Treasurer Brittany Treolo said one of the property-tax bills approved by the Ohio General Assembly would allow the county budget commission to reduce any levy it considers unnecessary or excessive – even after voter approval. That raises concerns for school districts, she said.
Ultimately, she said, the state needs to provide more money for public schools.
“Granville’s state funding is about $2,000 per student,” Treolo said, “while the state funding for private schools is about $8,000 per student.”
Private schools also take a portion of federal funding that would go to public school districts, she said.
“We’re overly reliant on property taxes in Ohio because the state funding is so low,” Treolo said. “You can’t have it both ways (by reducing local property taxes and state funding). The solution has to be more state funding.”
But the legislature’s action is measured compared to the possibility that petitioners might be successful in getting voters to approve the elimination of all property taxes in Ohio.
“What keeps me awake at night is the thought of the elimination of property taxes,” Treolo said, “because there is no plan to replace it.”
“That’s what scares me,” she continued. “It sounds great. I’d prefer not to pay property taxes, but they pay for services, and you have to pay for them somehow.”
Those services go far beyond education to include maintenance of local roadways and emergency services.
“Replace education with fire,” Treolo said, stressing the point that local services benefit everyone – directly or indirectly. “I don’t want to pay to put out the fire at your house, but I sure want to pay to have it put out at my house.”
Alan Miller writes for TheReportingProject.org, the nonprofit news organization of Denison University’s Journalism program, which is supported by generous donations from readers. Sign up for The Reporting Project newsletter here.