If the claw-back goes into effect: How would this affect Olentangy Schools?
The first change would be to cut back on the programs offered in the district, or go back onto the ballot more regularly. While the board has yet to consider what programs would be most affected, if this law were to pass, Olentangy treasurer, Timothy Jenkins was able to list arts, mental health supports, and athletics, as they are some of the areas that the state does not consider ‘core subjects’.
“What I will say is that we start with the core experience of a student and how they are impacted in their day-to-day instruction. We know obviously that the state of Ohio requires certain subject areas to be tested, we know that they require and expect you know language, arts, math, reading, science, social studies,” said Jenkins. “That does not lessen how programs like arts and other electives impact what we believe is a high quality public education for our students in Olentangy schools, but you are correct the reality often is you’re forced then as a district to try to figure out what you can offer as opposed to what you have to offer.”
While teacher contracts and teacher benefits would remain untouched, if the claw-back were to happen, what would be affected instead might be the size of each department.
“What generally happens is that unfortunately program areas we would have to go under a reduction in force,” Jenkins said. “And program areas like athletics, maybe it is something like mental health support, but the staff in those areas ultimately could be reduced. I’m just giving examples. I’m not saying those are the areas, I’m just giving hypotheticals of those departments getting dramatically reduced.”
If Olentangy Schools were to fall into fiscal emergency, the state would appoint a committee of people in order to get the school back into fiscal stability.
“That Commission does essentially take over control of the school district. Members of the Commission are forced by law to be people who are a part of the community,” Jenkins said.
The commission is made up people appointed by the governor, the higher department of education, and the mayor of the largest city in the district.
“They (the commission) are tasked with getting the school back on solid ground and, they have the authority to supersede labor agreements. They have the authority to make cuts to programs to really any place where we spend money, they have the authority to do what it takes in their best judgment to get us back on financial ground.”
This committee does concern Jenkins, as local control over schools may be lessened.
“They’re not elected members of the community, who were elected by the public and have to answer to some extent. They just simply have to get the school back in good balance and so there’s not that same in my opinion level of local control over what they do,” said Jenkins.
How the bill is being spun as tax relief is that the proportion of the tax bill that goes to residents’ schools will be reduced.
“The bill is being spun by its proponents as tax relief to the community, the tax relief being the excess funds that they say schools have will be redistributed back to the taxpayers through dramatically reduced tax bills in an upcoming year. But again as I noted we believe that would be a very, very short lived tax break and that we will then be back on the ballot pretty much every year,” Jenkins said.
“Now the asks (levy) would have to be smaller, but we could foresee us being on the ballot practically every school year, for you know 2 maybe 3 million constantly because you couldn’t ask for too much because as soon as you go over 30% the law kicks in again and redistributes the tax break the following year. So it’s almost like you have to find that sweet spot of the levy to ask for,” Jenkins said. “But because we’re growing 2000 to 3000 students over the next five years and we’re already projecting the need for three and four more school buildings, what we have in reserve will be used by this district and so we believe that the law is short-sighted. Especially when it comes to rapidly growing districts that are predominantly funded by local taxpayer dollars.”
Jenkins has realized that the district would be basically living paycheck to paycheck.
“I can’t imagine living on any less than six-month carryover. Just because we only get our real estate installments from the county in six months, so we get a chunk of money every six months that basically must last for six months,” Jenkins said. “So it seems logical that you should have a school district like Olentangy at least six months, well that’s 50%. So we believe the law is shortsighted, I mean 30% is barely 1/4 of a year. We think it’s for local communities and local boards of education to decide based on the unique factors and circumstances and we don’t believe there should be a law that dictates what we should have to do.”
Even though the claw-back would directly affect the 2025-2026 school year, since tax bills are paid the year after, school districts would get hit two years in a row.
“How this law will work is if it goes into effect on July 1, in theory the 2025 tax bill will be reduced, when it goes out to our taxpayers in January or February of 2026. They will see a much much lower cost for the school portion of their real estate tax bill. A home in our community pays probably 65 to 70% of real estate taxes to Olentangy schools. If you calculate what is the cost of a tax bill, the other 30% would go to the townships that you live in, the county, maybe the library, senior services, fire, EMS, all the services that you know makes a community a good place to live,” Jenkins said. “
“But schools are about 60 to 70% (of the tax base) of almost every community in Ohio,” Jenkins said. “ So that is why the authors of this bill put this in there, they can’t fathom why schools need more than a 30% carryover. It should be returned to the taxpayer if it’s not going to be used, but that’s our issue with the bill. We absolutely have a plan, and we know it’s going to be used because of the way we grow and what goes on in this district and sweeping that would be terribly short-sighted. So, what would happen is in January and February of 26 and then again in July and August of 26 both of those tax bills for the year 2025, paid in 2026 will be dramatically reduced for our homeowners.”
Even though this bill will reduce funding the school will raise, the state of Ohio, will not cover the revenue lost through this bill.
“The formula recognizes that for a community like Olentangy that has relatively high property wealth and relatively high wage earners we live in a reasonably well to do community. The formula says districts like that should do more of the burden themselves. I think about the state funding formula being about equity, providing more state funding perspectives where you know you can’t raise as much locally because it’s not as well off,” Jenkins said.
The claw-back will require only schools to have a 30% carryover.
“It doesn’t impact townships, it doesn’t impact cities, it doesn’t impact the state of Ohio itself, it doesn’t impact counties only schools,” said Jenkins. “If a school district is supposed to have such a detailed plan for every penny and only collect what it is that they need for the upcoming year or whatever 30% works out. It sure seems to me like all sectors of government should have that same provision.”
Jenkins calculated what the loss would be due to the claw-back, if townships, cities, and the state of Ohio, if the claw-back applied to all areas of government. In the document Orange Township for example, would lose $11,088,27, the city of Powell would lose $20,627,064 in tax payer revenue, if the claw-back was applied to townships and cities.
“It makes no sense to me that we’re the only entities singled out by this law,” Jenkins said.
While the impact will be big on schools, Jenkins believes that this is not an attack on public schools.
“They (the schools) have the largest portion of the local property tax bill so just by virtue of the fact that they know we have the largest portion of the bill makes us an easy target, because that makes the bill much smaller,” Jenkins said. “I feel like public schools in Ohio do a really good job and I know they do a great job here in Olentangy. I think that we do our community a tremendous service. They know what we do day in and day out for the 24,000 students who go here, so my hope is that truly they are trying to promote tax relief.”
But Jenkins does not think that this proposal offers tax relief that legislators were hoping to provide.
“I don’t think it ends up creating the desired effect. Not for the community like Olentangy, we’ll be right back on the ballot. We’ll have to be, we’ll have no choice,” Jenkins said.
Jenkins was also able to calculate how many school districts in Ohio would be put into fiscal watch or emergency, if the claw-back were to go into law. If the operating deficit is greater than 8% your on fiscal watch, if its 15% your in fiscal emergency. To see the full document go to: How the Claw-back will Affect Olentangy Documents.
“If the claw-back were to go into effect, the amount of school districts in fiscal watch or emergency would increase by 10-12- 20 times. I don’t know what the state would do with this many schools in watch or emergency. I don’t know how they do it,” Jenkins said. “In fact what I would expect they would somehow do is change the law. It’s the only thing I could think of.”
Representative Brain Lorenz said at the April 10 school board meeting that he was able to negotiate another $25 per student in 2026 and an additional $30 in 2027. Jenkins feels that extra amount, when added to the claw-back is “feels absurd.”
“If we could just get the funding that’s coming in the funding formula ( The Fair School Funding Plan), we would be relatively content. So what the House (of Representatives) has done( FSFP) should be recognized. That would provide us with additional state funding. But when you pair it with the claw-back it’s like saying here I’ll give you 20 extra bucks but now you got to give me 100 back,” said Jenkins.
With the claw-back, instead of passing a levy with a large amount of money and having that last for four to five years, they would have to pass small levy’s every year. Jenkins believes that asking for these levy’s would not be attainable in the long run.
“If you keep coming back every year or two years you’re going to wear people out. The answer is eventually gonna be enough, I’ve had enough,” said Jenkins. “You know you come back every year and figure out another way now. I mean that’s my opinion. It’s not fact, maybe the community steps up every time.”
Jenkins has asked parents to be informed, pay attention, and learn the facts to what is going on.
“It’s kind of mind boggling that the state would step in and say we’re going to force that on you even though the community seems to have voted several times. You know outside the levy that failed in March of 24, we hadn’t failed a levy in this community since 1999. To step in and tell that community you know you have too much in the way of school funding when that same state hasn’t provided the funding that we think we need as a district over that period of time through the school funding formula just seems pretty rich to say the least,” Jenkins said.