Treasurer warns state bills could shrink local school revenues, explains how homeowners may see changes
May 20, 2026 | Olentangy Local, School Districts, Ohio
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Treasurer Ryan Jenkins gave an extended briefing to the Olentangy Local School District board on May 20 explaining how three pieces of state legislation — House Bills 186, 335 and 309 — could affect local property taxes and school funding.
Jenkins said House Bill 186 would peg certain tax growth to inflation and expand a state-paid credit for homeowners from about 12.5% to 15.38% over four years, a change he estimated would be less than $100 annually for many homeowners. He said the bill also creates an "inflationary cap credit" for districts at the 20‑mill floor; Olentangy, which is above that floor, would not receive that specific credit.
Jenkins described House Bill 335 as the more consequential change for Olentangy: the bill ties the previously fixed inside mills to inflation and would roll back the inside mills when valuations rise faster than inflation. Jenkins said Olentangy currently relies on several inside mills that have historically been unchanged; rolling them back would reduce locally available revenue even as property values climb.
On House Bill 309, Jenkins warned that expanding county budget commissions’ authority to declare levy collections "excessive or unnecessary" could permit county officials to reduce or reclassify locally approved levies. He described scenarios in which a county budget commission could reduce a district’s levy collections to the minimum needed to provide basic, bare‑bones services, potentially cutting programs the community has voted to support.
Board members asked for clarifications and for written materials Jenkins said he would circulate. Several members emphasized the difference between homeowner cash relief (which some bills aim to provide) and the long‑term funding consequences for district programs if state or county actions reduce local revenue. Jenkins noted that the most direct relief for taxpayers while preserving district funding would be fully funding the state’s fair school‑funding formula and timely updates to cost sets.
The board took no formal action on the bills at the meeting. Jenkins presented the financial context ahead of a consent slate that included routine approvals of monthly financials and minutes.
Jenkins said House Bill 186 would peg certain tax growth to inflation and expand a state-paid credit for homeowners from about 12.5% to 15.38% over four years, a change he estimated would be less than $100 annually for many homeowners. He said the bill also creates an "inflationary cap credit" for districts at the 20‑mill floor; Olentangy, which is above that floor, would not receive that specific credit.
Jenkins described House Bill 335 as the more consequential change for Olentangy: the bill ties the previously fixed inside mills to inflation and would roll back the inside mills when valuations rise faster than inflation. Jenkins said Olentangy currently relies on several inside mills that have historically been unchanged; rolling them back would reduce locally available revenue even as property values climb.
On House Bill 309, Jenkins warned that expanding county budget commissions’ authority to declare levy collections "excessive or unnecessary" could permit county officials to reduce or reclassify locally approved levies. He described scenarios in which a county budget commission could reduce a district’s levy collections to the minimum needed to provide basic, bare‑bones services, potentially cutting programs the community has voted to support.
Board members asked for clarifications and for written materials Jenkins said he would circulate. Several members emphasized the difference between homeowner cash relief (which some bills aim to provide) and the long‑term funding consequences for district programs if state or county actions reduce local revenue. Jenkins noted that the most direct relief for taxpayers while preserving district funding would be fully funding the state’s fair school‑funding formula and timely updates to cost sets.
The board took no formal action on the bills at the meeting. Jenkins presented the financial context ahead of a consent slate that included routine approvals of monthly financials and minutes.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
