Balancing Tax Relief with Strong Public Schools
By Roxann Ramsey-Caserio, Superintendent, North Ridgeville City Schools
As Superintendent of North Ridgeville City Schools, I am proud to lead a district that has been a model of fiscal responsibility, educational excellence, and community partnership. Since 2012, we’ve kept a promise to our taxpayers—not to ask for new operating money for at least ten years—and we’ve exceeded that pledge. Through strong stewardship, strategic planning, and a deep commitment to students, we’ve extended that period of financial stability well beyond expectations.
But today, I write with deep concern for the future of our district and others across the state.
A provision in the current Ohio House budget bill—intended to provide property tax relief—could have devastating and irreversible consequences for public education. Specifically, the proposal would limit school district property tax collections based on a 30% cash balance cap from the previous year’s expenditures. While this may sound reasonable at first glance, the reality is far more complex.
If this provision is enacted, North Ridgeville City Schools stands to lose nearly $15 million in the first year of our five-year forecast. That single change would immediately destabilize our financial outlook, pushing the district into fiscal watch by FY29. Based on current projections, we wouldn’t otherwise need to return to the ballot until 2032, at which point we would ask for approximately 5.7 mills. With this proposal in place, we’d instead be forced back to the ballot in 2029, asking for 7.6 mills, and likely returning every two to three years just to stay afloat.
Let me be clear: I support property tax relief. I recognize the financial pressures that Ohio families face, and I believe that finding meaningful ways to ease that burden is important. But relief for taxpayers cannot come at the expense of their children’s education.
The 30% cap approach assumes that all school districts are the same—that our operating budgets, buildings, capital projects, transportation needs, and student services follow a uniform pattern. They do not. What may seem like “extra” money in one district may be a critical reserve in another—used to manage risk, invest in future growth, or avoid frequent levy campaigns that burden voters.
Public school districts differ widely in:
- Student population and enrollment trends
- Number and condition of buildings
- Special education, mental health, and transportation services
- Capital improvement plans
- Staffing needs and salaries
- Local revenue sources
This is not a one-size-fits-all situation. And any attempt to force such a model will only harm the very communities this bill is intended to help.
I want to thank Representative Gayle Manning for her leadership in supporting a foundation funding model that ensures no district sees a decrease in state funding. Her advocacy has been critical. I now urge Senator Nathan Manning and other Senate leaders to take a strong stand against the 30% cash balance cap and work toward a more balanced, flexible solution—one that provides relief without sacrificing stability.
We do not want to be cast as the “bad guys” in the effort to lower property taxes. But our students cannot afford for public education to be the price of that relief. Ohio’s children deserve better. So do their families.
With thoughtful collaboration and community-minded leadership, we can find a path that protects both taxpayers and our public schools. Let’s get this right—for everyone’s future.