Protect Our
Summit Metro Parks
Oppose Ohio House Bill 28 & House Bill 96
Friends of Metro Parks is sounding the alarm about two legislative proposals that threaten the future of the Summit Metro Parks. House Bill 28 and House Bill 96 (part of the state budget) could significantly undermine the funding and land protection tools that keep our parks open, safe, and growing.
Below, you’ll find information about each bill, why we oppose it, and how you can take action to help protect our parks.
​
Why This Matters:
Our community cherishes the Summit Metro Parks, with roughly 5 million visits each year and strong voter support, with over 73% of residents voting for the most recent levy. Our parks rely on public funding and sensible laws to serve everyone. These bills would jeopardize the resources and tools that make our parks thrive, from the tax funding that keeps trails maintained to the ability to acquire land for new parks and trails. Please read on and join us in speaking out!
House Bill 28
Elimination of Replacement Levies
What is HB 28? House Bill 28 would eliminate the authority of local governments to propose “replacement” property tax levies in Ohio. Currently, a replacement levy allows a community to renew an existing property tax levy at its original rate applied to today’s property values – this helps public services like park districts keep up with growth and inflation. Unlike a simple renewal (which keeps taxes at a reduced “effective” rate after years of growth), a replacement levy captures any increase in property values that occurred over the life of the levy​. In short, replacement levies let fast-growing areas maintain adequate funding without raising the millage rate.
​
Why We Oppose HB 28: Eliminating replacement levies would strip park districts of a critical funding tool. The Summit Metro Parks – like many park systems – depends on voter-approved property tax levies for the majority of its funding.
In a growing community, replacement levies are essential to adjust funding for new residents and rising costs. Without them, our park district would be forced to either live with funding that falls behind community growth or resort to frequent new tax increases on the ballot. This change would:
​
-
Freeze Park Funding at Outdated Levels: Without replacement levies, the Summit Metro Parks’ budget would not automatically reflect increases in property values or new development. We could lose the benefit of community growth, making it harder to serve more people. (A replacement levy allows communities to “receive the benefit of any growth in property tax values," which HB 28 would take away.)
-
Strain Park Services and Maintenance: Our parks welcome millions of visits per year, and demand is rising as Summit County’s population grows. If funding can’t keep up, the quality of trails, facilities, and programs could suffer – everything from trail maintenance to nature education could face cuts or delays. We want to continue providing the clean, safe parks our community expects​, but that requires sufficient funding.
-
Override Voter Intent: Ohio voters have a history of supporting park levies to invest in their quality of life. The Summit Metro Parks’ last levy passed by an overwhelming 73%​, reflecting public trust that those funds will grow with community needs. HB 28’s ban on replacements would undermine the flexibility voters intended when they approved funding for expanding park needs. It eliminates an important instrument used by growing communities to fund high-quality parks for all residents.
​
What can you do:
Contact your Ohio State Senator and share with them that you are contacting them in opposition to House Bill 28.
​
Find your senator: https://www.ohiosenate.gov/members/district-map
Sample letter:
House Bill 96
State Budget Amendment Targeting Park Eminent Domain
What is HB 96? House Bill 96 is Ohio’s main state budget bill for FY 2026-27. A House-added provision in HB 96 would prohibit park districts from using eminent domain to acquire property for recreational trails​. In legal terms, it declares that taking land “for recreational trails” is not a valid “public use” for eminent domain. This language might sound technical, but its impact is simple: Metro Parks accross the state could effectively lose the ability to extend trails or possibly even acquire new parkland if a single landowner refuses to sell.
​
Why We Oppose HB 96’s Park Eminent Domain Ban: Eminent domain is a rarely used tool that is most frequently employed to bring out-of-state landowners to the negotiating table to agree on a reasonable price for land. Although the Summit Metro Parks never executed eminent domain to construct its multipurpose trails, its potential use encouraged landowners to engage in productive discussions during construction of the Towpath Trail, Bike and Hike Trail, and Freedom Trail. Removing this authority statewide would have far-reaching negative consequences for generations to come.
While the bill's language focuses on “recreational trails,” it may set a precedent that parks and trails are somehow less of a public use. This could lead to further rollbacks of park districts’ ability to protect natural areas for future generations.
​
What can you do:
Contact your Ohio State Senator and share with them that you are contacting them in opposition to House Bill 96.
​
Find your senator: https://www.ohiosenate.gov/members/district-map
Sample letter: