To amend sections 319.301, 319.302, 523.06, 1545.21, 3316.041, 3316.06, 3358.11, 3505.06, 5705.03, 5705.218, 5705.2111, 5705.221, 5705.233, 5705.261, and 5705.412 and to repeal section 5705.192 of the Revised Code to eliminate the authority to levy replacement property tax levies.
HB28 would eliminate the authority to levy “replacement” property tax levies in Ohio by repealing section 5705.192 of the Revised Code and conforming a number of related statutes to that change. The bill revises tax, ballot, and levy provisions across county, school district, township, park district, community college, mental health, and criminal justice funding laws so that local governments and other taxing authorities can continue to use renewals, increases, decreases, and substitute levies where authorized, but not replacement levies. It also updates ballot language and election procedures to reflect the removal of replacement levies and clarifies how existing replacement-levy proceedings already underway before the effective date would be handled.
In practical terms, the bill would affect how local governments and school districts structure property-tax questions for voters, especially where a replacement levy had been used to reset or repackage an existing tax. The measure preserves other levy tools, including renewals and substitute levies in some contexts, but removes a specific mechanism that could change the effective tax burden or presentation of a levy to voters. The bill also makes conforming changes to provisions governing tax reduction factors, school fiscal emergency financing, ballot formatting, and certain special-purpose levies so the Revised Code remains internally consistent after repeal of the replacement-levy authority.
The general sentiment reflected in the available voting history was favorable in the House, where the bill passed 62-30 and also received a 7-4 favorable committee vote. That pattern suggests majority support for simplifying or narrowing local property-tax levy options, at least among House supporters. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate detailed arguments for or against the measure beyond the vote totals and the bill’s stated purpose.
The main point of contention is likely the policy choice to remove replacement levies altogether. Supporters would view the bill as increasing transparency and limiting a levy type that can be confusing to voters or used to alter tax effects without a straightforward renewal. Opponents would likely argue that replacement levies are a useful local finance tool for maintaining revenue flexibility, especially for schools and local governments that rely on property-tax levies to fund operations and capital needs. The split House vote indicates that the issue was not unanimous, with some members apparently concerned about the impact on local taxing authority and funding options.
HB28 would amend numerous sections of the Revised Code to remove references to replacement property tax levies and to prevent taxing authorities from submitting new replacement-levy questions after the effective date. It would also require conforming changes to election notices, ballot language, tax reduction calculations, and levy administration across several local-government and school-funding statutes. Existing replacement-levy proceedings already initiated before the repeal would be grandfathered only if the election occurs before October 1, 2025.
The bill appears to have received generally favorable treatment in the House, passing the chamber by a 62-30 vote and clearing committee 7-4. That suggests a majority of lawmakers supported the policy change, likely viewing it as a cleanup or taxpayer-transparency measure. The recorded votes also show meaningful opposition, indicating the proposal was not broadly consensus-driven.
The central controversy is whether Ohio should eliminate replacement property tax levies as a local funding option. Supporters likely favor the change because it simplifies levy choices and may make ballot measures easier for voters to understand. Opponents likely worry that removing replacement levies will reduce flexibility for school districts, townships, counties, and other taxing authorities that use property-tax levies to maintain or restructure revenue streams. The divided committee and floor votes indicate that concerns about local fiscal capacity and voter-approved funding tools were significant.