01/29/2026
Over the past year, Howland Township has examined the potential impact that changes to and possible elimination of the real property tax system would have on its operations. Much of that was discussed at our special meeting with county and other township officials on September 22 that many of you attended. The administration has continued those conversations, including through meetings with our local state representatives about the devastiating impact that the elimination of real property taxes would have on our residents, businesses, and visitors. And, yes, incorporation as a response, and as a possibility, has been raised. We appreciate Reps. Thomas and Santucci listening to us.
Right now, the trustees and administration are focused on educating you, our residents and voters, about the importance of the real property taxes to the Township and its operations ahead of what we anticipate will be a vote this November to eliminate the primary source of income for the Township.
In response to the proposed legislation on incorporation, Administrator Pantalone sent the following letter to Rep. Thomas. Please take a minute to read it: incorporation is being raised not as a power grab (we like our township form of government) but as a direct response to the efforts to eliminate the real property tax system that funds all of the Township’s operations and provides the high-quality services that you have come to expect.
We have to be having these conversations so that the Township is prepared for whatever comes its way.
________________________________
January 28, 2026
The Honorable David Thomas
77 South High Street 13th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Dear Representative Thomas,
On behalf of Howland Township, I would like to thank you for your leadership and efforts in introducing and advancing House Bill 592. We appreciate the General Assembly’s recognition that Ohio’s large townships face increasingly complex governance, service delivery, and fiscal challenges, and that the statutory framework governing incorporation should reflect those realities.
HB 592 makes meaningful progress by easing certain thresholds related to incorporation, and we are grateful for the thoughtful work that has gone into modernizing these provisions. However, as currently drafted, the bill does not fully resolve two structural barriers that continue to make incorporation impractical for large, developed townships and, as discussed below, for Howland.
First, this bill retains the contiguity requirement under Section 707.92(A)(5). For long-established townships with existing boundaries shaped by decades of annexations and boundary adjustments beyond their control, strict contiguity can unintentionally penalize communities that are otherwise cohesive, fully developed, and capable of self-governance.
Second, Section 707.30(A) continues to require that a petition for incorporation submitted to the county commissioners contain signatures from 20% of the electors residing in the territory. While citizen engagement is vital and demonstrates that there is a minimum threshold of public support for the issue, this requirement can function as a procedural barrier even where there is clear, public, and transparent support for placing the question before the voters.
This is one of those times, when the proposed elimination of the real property tax system would eviscerate the ability of townships like Howland to survive in their present form, providing high-quality safety and public services to their residents and businesses. We like the township form of government that we have in Howland Township, and we believe our residents do as well. We know that they have vocally expressed their support for these services to us and to you and your fellow legislators, and they do not want them to go away. Given the magnitude of the proposed constitutional amendment, we strongly believe that the people living within Ohio’s townships should be given a choice and know what they are voting for if the proposed amendment passes.
Therefore, perhaps as legislation separate (and uncodified) from HB 592, we are asking for (a) the petition requirement of Section 707.29(A) to be met by the boards of township trustees directly submitting the petition to the board of county commissioners, instead of having to secure petitions signed by 20% of our electors, and that the question of incorporation be placed directly on the ballot if the proposed constitutional amendment is also on the ballot, and then (b) the question before the voters can be an if-then proposition, i.e., “If and only if the Constitutional Amendment is adopted, then we, the voters of Howland Township, vote in favor of incorporation.” (During our meeting on October 31, you indicated that you were aware of statutory language that would allow for such ballot language.)
We understand your concern about increasing taxing districts, but this proposal would not do that. In that spirit, we would however support limiting this alternative petition to only certain townships, whether those that have adopted the limited-home rule form of government under R.C. Chapter 504 or those that are considered urban townships, which are limited-home rule townships with a population of 15,000 or more.
This proposal also demonstrates that the townships are not looking at incorporation as a power grab but as a possible solution to the existential threat that the proposed constitutional amendment would have on the township and that it is our residents and electors – and not the elected officials – who are ultimately deciding their own future form of government and the services that would be provided to them. Our residents have consistently shown support for these services through the regular approval of the real property tax levies that fund them.
To address the first issue, we respectfully ask that you consider statutory language (again, perhaps uncodified) that, under these circumstances, would allow a township to incorporate using its existing boundaries, regardless of contiguity, so long as the territory reflects the township as it is currently constituted on the date of the general election.
These proposals preserve the electorate’s ultimate authority over their local government while ensuring that the decision to vote on incorporation is not foreclosed by procedural hurdles. If the voters are considering state-wide, systemic changes to how local governments are funded, then it is only appropriate that local voters be given a one-time opportunity to have a direct say in how their local government will look going forward, which is fitting as we are now celebrating 250 years of American democracy.
Thank you again for your work on House Bill 592 and for your continued commitment to local government modernization. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues further or to assist with any technical or policy analysis that may be helpful as the bill moves forward.
James T. Pantalone
Administrator