County Auditors Have No Discretion to Withhold Listing of Voter‑Approved Bond Levies While Bonds Remain Outstanding

Case: State ex rel. Springfield City School District Board of Education v. Hamilton, Aud.
Citation: 2025-Ohio-4427 (Supreme Court of Ohio, Sept. 25, 2025)
Disposition: Limited writ of mandamus granted (unanimous, per curiam)

Introduction

This original action in mandamus arises from a dispute between a school district and a county auditor over whether the auditor can refuse to include a voter-approved bond levy on the county tax list and duplicate after the auditor concluded the levy had “expired.” The Springfield City School District Board of Education obtained voter approval in May 2013 for a $13,995,000 bond issue to be repaid over a maximum period of 12 years, together with an accompanying 2.2‑mill property-tax levy to pay the annual debt charges. The district issued the bonds in two series (2013 and 2019), with final maturities in 2026 and 2031.

Beginning with tax year 2025 (collection year 2026), the Clark County Auditor, Hillary Hamilton (successor to Auditor John Federer), refused to place the levy on the tax list and duplicate, asserting that the levy collection could not exceed 12 years from its first collection in 2014. The school district sought a writ of mandamus compelling the auditor to continue including the levy through collection year 2031.

The key issues presented were:

• Whether a county auditor has discretion to refuse to place a voter-approved debt-service levy on the tax list and duplicate while bonds remain outstanding and the taxing authority properly certifies the need for collection under R.C. 133.18(H).
• Whether the school district was entitled to relief compelling inclusion of the levy for future years beyond 2026.
• Whether mandamus is the appropriate remedy and whether the auditor was the proper respondent.

Summary of the Opinion

The Supreme Court of Ohio granted a limited writ of mandamus ordering the Clark County Auditor to include the school district’s bond levy on the tax list and duplicate for tax year 2025 (collection year 2026). The Court held that under R.C. 133.18(H) and R.C. 319.30, the auditor has a ministerial, nondiscretionary duty to place the amount of the voter-approved levy on the tax list and duplicate when the taxing authority timely certifies the amount needed to pay debt charges on outstanding bonds.

Crucially, the Court did not resolve the parties’ statutory-interpretation dispute over whether the levy could be collected beyond a single 12-year period. Instead, the Court concluded that the auditor lacks authority to withhold the levy from the tax list based on her unilateral view that the levy “expired.” The Court limited relief to collection year 2026 because the auditor’s duty to include the levy is triggered annually, only after the school district passes the required authorizing legislation by November 30 for the next collection year. The Court rejected the auditor’s argument that she was the wrong respondent, explaining that while the treasurer collects taxes, the auditor’s placement of the levy on the tax list and duplicate is a necessary prerequisite to collection.

Detailed Analysis

1) Precedents and Statutes Cited and Their Role

• R.C. 133.18(H). Central to the decision, this provision authorizes a taxing authority, after voter approval, to issue bonds and to levy and collect a property tax “during the period the [bonds] are outstanding” in an amount sufficient to pay debt charges. It further provides that, if the taxing authority files authorizing legislation with the auditor by November 30, the amount required “shall if requested by the taxing authority be included in the taxes levied for collection in the following year.” This language framed the auditor’s duty as ministerial once the statutory prerequisites are met.
• R.C. 319.28 and R.C. 319.30; R.C. 5705.03(C). These statutes delineate the auditor’s role in preparing the tax list (auditor’s copy) and duplicate (copy delivered to the treasurer) and determining the sums to be levied on each parcel based on information from authorized officers. R.C. 5705.03(C) clarifies that the auditor extends taxes on the tax list and duplicate, and the treasurer collects them. The Court used these to reject the “wrong respondent” argument and to define the auditor’s nondiscretionary role.
• State ex rel. Lorain v. Stewart, 2008-Ohio-4062. The Court analogized to Stewart, which held that a county auditor could not refuse to place properties on the tax-exempt list after a city housing officer certified them as exempt; the auditor’s duty was ministerial even if the auditor disagreed with the exemption’s propriety. Here, as in Stewart, the auditor had no statutory authority to second-guess and thereby block a facially proper certification by the authorized governmental actor.
• State ex rel. Obetz v. Stinziano, 2024-Ohio-5460. Cited for the division of responsibilities: the auditor prepares the tax list and duplicate; the treasurer collects taxes. The Court used Obetz to clarify the proper respondent and the scope of the auditor’s duties.
• State ex rel. Donahey v. Roose, 90 Ohio St. 345 (1914). Longstanding precedent stating that placement of a levy on the tax duplicate is “a mere ministerial duty” and the county auditor has no discretion. This supports the core holding that the auditor may not refuse to list the levy.
• State ex rel. Nauth v. Dirham, 2020-Ohio-4208. Addresses adequacy of legal remedies: when a mandatory injunction would be necessary to obtain complete relief, declaratory judgment is not adequate and mandamus is appropriate. The Court relied on this to find mandamus available and proper.
• State ex rel. Orange Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2013-Ohio-36. Recites the mandamus standard: clear legal right, clear legal duty, and lack of adequate remedy. The Court applied this framework.
• State ex rel. Evans v. Tieman, 2019-Ohio-2411. Reinforces that mandamus will not lie to remedy the anticipated future nonperformance of a duty. This justified limiting the writ to collection year 2026; duties for later years are not yet triggered.
• R.C. 133.19(B)(2); R.C. 133.20(A); R.C. 133.18(I). These provisions govern maximum maturity (“latest maturity” consistent with voter approval), the measurement of maximum maturity for bonds, and the timing and sequencing of issuances. The Court acknowledged the parties’ disagreement over the 12‑year limit but expressly declined to resolve it because the auditor’s ministerial duty mooted the need to interpret those provisions in this mandamus posture.
• R.C. 5705.02 (ten‑mill limitation) and related footnote authority. Provides context that debt-service levies for bonds can be levied “outside the ten‑mill limitation,” reinforcing that the levy in question is a voted, unvoted-limit-exceeding levy authorized by statute.

2) The Court’s Legal Reasoning

• Mandamus prerequisites satisfied.
  • Lack of adequate remedy: Although the district might have pursued declaratory judgment, it would require a mandatory injunction to compel the auditor to place the levy on the tax list and duplicate. Under Nauth, that makes mandamus appropriate.
  • Proper respondent: The auditor argued she does not “collect” taxes (the treasurer does). The Court agreed that the treasurer collects but explained that collection cannot occur unless the auditor first places the levy on the tax list and duplicate. Thus, ordering the auditor to perform her statutory step is the correct relief against the correct official.
• Ministerial duty under R.C. 133.18(H) and R.C. 319.30.
  • When a taxing authority timely files authorizing legislation by November 30 and requests inclusion, the “amount of the voted property tax levy required to pay debt charges” “shall be included in the taxes levied for collection in the following year.”
  • The auditor’s role is to extend taxes on the tax list and duplicate; the treasurer’s role is to collect. The auditor cannot refuse to list based on her own assessment of whether the levy duration has ended. This is a ministerial, nondiscretionary task, paralleling Stewart and Donahey.
• No need to resolve the 12‑year-duration dispute to grant relief.
  • The auditor maintained that the ballot language and R.C. 133.19(B)(2) capped levy collection at 12 years from first collection (2014 to 2025 inclusive). The district countered that R.C. Chapter 133 contemplates multi‑series issuances and corresponding levy collections while any bonds remain outstanding.
  • The Court expressly declined to interpret these provisions in this case, because the auditor lacks statutory authority to make such legal determinations as a basis for withholding the levy from the tax list. The only question for mandamus was whether the auditor had a duty to place the levy on the list for 2026 given the district’s timely certification; the answer was yes.
• Limited relief due to annual trigger.
  • R.C. 133.18(H) triggers the auditor’s duty each year after the taxing authority passes and files the necessary legislation by November 30 for the following collection year.
  • Consistent with Evans v. Tieman, the Court would not issue a writ for future years (2027–2031), because those duties have not yet arisen and mandamus does not address anticipated nonperformance.

3) Impact and Practical Consequences

• Immediate operational certainty for 2026 collections. School districts (and other subdivisions) can rely on auditors to include voted bond levies on the tax list and duplicate for the next collection year when the statutory prerequisites are met. This reduces the risk of a single county official interrupting debt-service revenue streams by unilateral legal interpretations.
• Statewide reaffirmation of the ministerial nature of the auditor’s listing function. By extending Stewart’s principle to bond debt-service levies, the Court clarifies that county auditors may not substitute their legal judgments for those of authorized taxing authorities on matters outside the auditor’s statutory role. If a levy’s legality or duration is disputed, the remedy is not for an auditor to withhold listing; rather, parties must seek judicial resolution in an appropriate proceeding.
• Annual compliance remains essential. The decision underscores the annual nature of the levy-inclusion process. Taxing authorities must pass and file the authorizing legislation by November 30 each year to trigger the auditor’s duty for the following collection year. Failure to do so can forfeit inclusion for that year, regardless of the bonds’ status.
• Open question preserved regarding the 12‑year limit. The Court expressly left unresolved whether the “maximum period of 12 years” stated on the ballot and referenced in R.C. 133.19(B)(2) limits collection to a single 12-year span from initial collection, or whether separate series within the same authorization can be supported by levy collections during each series’ maturity period. Future litigation may address that substantive statutory interpretation question. For now, the case stands for the narrower principle that auditors cannot preemptively decide it.
• Financing and market confidence. For bond counsel, issuers, and investors, the ruling is significant. It reduces administrative risk that a county auditor could halt debt-service collections midstream while bonds remain outstanding and authorizing certifications are timely made. Amici (Ohio School Boards Association, Ohio Association of School Business Officials, and Buckeye Association of School Administrators) urged this outcome, highlighting the importance of predictable collection for school finance. Credit and disclosure considerations should still note that the legal question about the 12-year cap remains unresolved; nonetheless, collection for 2026 cannot be withheld on an auditor’s unilateral view.
• Applicability beyond school districts. Although the relator here is a school district, the statutory scheme (R.C. 133.18 et seq.; R.C. 319.28–.30) applies broadly to subdivisions issuing general obligation bonds. Thus, the ministerial-duty holding applies to other local governments using voter-approved debt-service levies.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Mandamus. An extraordinary court order compelling a public official to perform a clear, nondiscretionary duty when the petitioner has a clear legal right to relief and lacks an adequate remedy at law.
• Ministerial vs. discretionary duties. A ministerial duty is a specific, mandatory action the law requires an official to perform without exercising personal judgment (e.g., placing a certified levy on the tax list). A discretionary duty involves judgment or choice. Mandamus is appropriate to compel ministerial acts but not to control discretion.
• Tax list and duplicate. The auditor prepares the county’s property tax list and creates a duplicate that is delivered to the county treasurer. All taxes are extended (listed) by the auditor on the tax list and duplicate; the treasurer collects what appears on the duplicate.
• Tax year vs. collection year. In Ohio, property taxes are levied in one calendar year (the tax year) and paid in the following calendar year (the collection year). The case concerns tax year 2025 for collection in 2026.
• Debt charges. The amounts owed each year on bonds, including principal and interest (and sometimes related financing costs), which debt-service levies are designed to pay.
• Ten‑mill limitation and “outside the limitation.” R.C. 5705.02 caps the aggregate unvoted property taxes at 10 mills per dollar of valuation. Voter‑approved debt-service levies for bonds are “outside” this cap, meaning they may be levied in addition to the ten mills.
• Maximum maturity and series issuance.
  • “Maximum maturity” (R.C. 133.20(A)) refers to the longest permissible amortization period for a bond issue, measured from a date 12 months before the first principal payment date.
  • R.C. 133.18(I) contemplates that not all bonds must be issued at once. A subdivision may initially issue by a set deadline and later issue remaining authorized bonds in additional series, subject to statutory constraints, including the maximum maturity approved by voters (R.C. 133.19(B)(2)).
• Authorizing legislation and annual certification. Each year, the taxing authority (here, the school board) must pass and file with the county auditor, by November 30, legislation certifying the amount of the voter-approved levy needed to pay next year’s debt charges. When requested, R.C. 133.18(H) requires inclusion of that amount in the taxes levied for collection in the following year.
• Alternative writ. A preliminary order from the Supreme Court setting a schedule for evidence and briefing (as opposed to immediately denying relief), signaling that the claim warrants further consideration.

Noteworthy Facts and Procedural Points

• Voters approved a $13,995,000 bond issue and an estimated 2.2-mill levy in May 2013. The district issued $5,880,000 in September 2013 (maturing December 1, 2026) and $8,115,000 in November 2019 (maturing December 1, 2031).
• The district timely certified required amounts to the auditor each year; collections occurred from 2014 through 2025 (for tax years 2013–2024). The dispute concerns tax year 2025 for collection in 2026.
• The auditor took the position that the levy could not be collected beyond 12 years from first collection (2014 to 2025), and refused to place the levy on the 2025 tax list and duplicate.
• The Court unanimously granted a limited writ compelling inclusion for 2026 only, emphasizing the annual nature of the auditor’s duty and leaving the 12‑year statutory-interpretation issue unresolved.

Guidance and Takeaways

• For taxing authorities (e.g., school districts):
  • Ensure annual passage and filing by November 30 of authorizing legislation specifying the amount of the voted levy needed to pay next year’s debt charges; include an explicit request for inclusion in the following year’s taxes.
  • Maintain documentation of voter approvals, bond authorizations, and debt-service schedules to support annual certifications under R.C. 133.18(H).
  • If an auditor refuses to include a levy for which all prerequisites are met, mandamus is an appropriate and expeditious remedy.
• For county auditors:
  • Understand that inclusion of properly certified, voter-approved debt-service levies on the tax list and duplicate is a ministerial duty. Disagreement with the taxing authority’s underlying legal interpretation does not authorize withholding.
  • Any concerns about the legality or duration of a levy should be addressed through appropriate legal channels, not by refusing to list the levy.
• For bond counsel and market participants:
  • This decision reduces administrative risk that could disrupt debt-service collections and clarifies the proper avenue for disputes (litigation rather than auditor action).
  • Note, however, that the Court did not decide whether a single 12‑year cap limits all collections or whether collections may continue while any series remains outstanding; disclosure should reflect that the ultimate statutory-interpretation question remains open.

Conclusion

State ex rel. Springfield City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton establishes a clear and practically significant rule: a county auditor has no discretion to refuse to include a voter-approved bond debt-service levy on the tax list and duplicate when the taxing authority has timely certified the amount needed under R.C. 133.18(H) and requests inclusion. The Court grounded this holding in the auditor’s ministerial role under R.C. 319.28 and R.C. 319.30 and reinforced it with precedent that prohibits auditors from substituting their legal views for those of authorized officers in the absence of statutory authority.

While the Court declined to decide the contested issue regarding the 12‑year maximum period and multi‑series issuance, it made clear that auditors cannot withhold levy inclusion based on such a view. Relief was appropriately limited to collection year 2026 because the auditor’s duty arises annually upon timely authorization. The decision brings immediate certainty to the 2026 collections for the Springfield City School District and provides statewide guidance on the proper, nondiscretionary role of county auditors in listing voter-approved debt-service levies. In the broader legal context, the ruling fortifies the integrity of Ohio’s property-tax administration for debt service, ensuring that disputes about levy legality are resolved in court rather than through unilateral administrative action.