This is a summarized transcript of Commissioner Beverage’s comments during discussion on the initial implementation of the State of Ohio’s Property Tax piggybacks.
Mr. President, I want to read this first to establish where I started looking at this issue. As we talk about property tax reform, I’ve heard it said before: you cannot have property tax reform without school funding reform.
Commissioner Plesnik referenced the Ohio Constitution, Article 6, Section 2, which reads “The General Assembly shall make such provisions by taxation or otherwise as will, with the income arising from the school trust fund, secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state. But no religious or other sect shall ever have any exclusive right to or control of any part of the school funds of this state.”
I say that because I’m not here to debate my faith or religion. If anyone wants to have that conversation publicly, I’m happy to do so. But I wholeheartedly disagree with the voucher system that has been established in this state. A system that directs about a billion dollars this year toward private schools, some religious and some not. Those schools, as I understand it, don’t have the same requirements for their teachers, curriculum, or structure as public schools.
Any conversation comparing test scores or outcomes between these two systems is inappropriate because you cannot handcuff one system and expect it to compete with the other.
The problem with these decisions is that the majority of our local property tax dollars go toward our schools. We have a very strong county. At our last workshop, someone asked, “Are we naïve to think Lake County is different?” Yes, I am that naïve. I do think Lake County is special. We respect and support education here.
The facts remain: we built a spreadsheet based on data provided by all the taxing entities. It showed that in 2024, we collected about $437 million in local property taxes. Over $250 million of that went to schools. Altogether, across all funding sources, property, sales, income taxes, state reimbursements, and federal or state funding, we collected just under $1.1 billion.
So, roughly 44% of our local revenues come from property taxes. I’ve heard residents loud and clear: this isn’t the ideal way to fund our schools or services.
That said, I do want local control over our schools. I don’t want to rely entirely on whatever system the state might roll out. I believe in maintaining local decision-making, not turning everything over to Columbus.
I am not in favor of eliminating property taxes entirely, because that’s the mechanism that currently funds our schools, police and fire departments, and libraries. But something needs to change.
Property taxes increased from $437 million last year to $489 million this year, a $52 million jump. If we adopt both of these provisions, the total reduction will be around $14 million, less than a third of the countywide increase.
We don’t have the ability to backfill those funds. Anyone saying the county can just pay for this is not being truthful. We also can’t pick and choose which entities it affects. On a percentage basis, one of the hardest-hit entities will be the Perry Joint Fire District. I live in Perry. But this has to be applied countywide or not at all.
As Commissioner Plesnik said, on average, schools will see about a 3% reduction in property tax revenue and about a 1.5% reduction in their overall budgets. I didn’t run for commissioner to alter school district budgets, but the state has decided not to take leadership, so it falls to us.
I’ve been asked to wait and see what Columbus does. I’m relatively new to politics, but I refuse to sit idly while others delay action. I have plenty of ideas on how we can improve efficiency without reducing services, both in county government and in schools.
I’ve already had some uncomfortable conversations with Mr. Demar, Mr. Boyd, and others about how we can collect property taxes more efficiently. The conversation always starts with: can we maintain our current level of service while finding efficiencies? The answer is usually yes.
I’ve spoken with people in education finance who agree, yes, there are ways to do better. It will be an adjustment, but that’s why I ran. That’s the campaign I ran on. I believe voters expect us to find a better system. The state’s system is flawed and broken.
I can’t dictate how the state handles its responsibilities, but I can advocate. Commissioner Regovich and I recently went to Columbus, and the message there was loud and clear. On property tax reform, the state plans to close loopholes and fix structural issues, then turn it over to local governments to figure out. They’re not coming to the rescue.
That’s fine. We’ll do what we can locally. They also want counties to use the tools we’ve been given. As limited as this one is, it’s the only tool we have. Property taxes went up $52 million countywide; this will only address $14 million of that.
That $14 million will go back to homeowners and seniors on limited incomes, not businesses, not energy companies, not corporations. I’m a business owner myself; I’m pro-business. But the property tax burden in this state has shifted over the last 30 or 40 years. Businesses once paid 60% and residents 40%. Now, residents pay 60% and businesses 40%.
State funding for schools has steadily decreased as a percentage of total costs. When they claim to be spending more on education, they’re not accounting for inflation. I have the data to prove it. The financial burden has been shifted onto local property taxpayers.
This provision may seem minor, even insulting, given its limited impact, but it still provides some relief to homeowners and seniors on fixed or modest incomes. It’s not enough, but it’s all we have right now.
Yesterday, I learned about a new Senate provision that could change this entirely. The ground keeps moving under our feet, yet we have a deadline of tomorrow to make a decision.
This is the decision I’ll make for this year when I vote. That doesn’t mean it’ll be the same decision next year. If things change, and further relief is provided, I’ll be the first to say so publicly. But as of now, with the information we have, I will support both of these provisions.