March 25, 2026 · Local Government Committee · 13,492 words · 19 speakers · 166 segments
Government Committee to order, and I'd like to recognize Representative Abrams to lead us in the pledge.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Thank you. Will the clerk please call the roll? Chair King.
Here.
Vice Chair Kishman. Here.
Ranking Member Sims. Here.
Representative Abrams. Here.
Representative Brennan. Here.
Representative Creech. Here.
Representative Fowler-Arthur. Here.
Representative Kloppenstein. Present.
Representative Lawson-Rome. Here.
Representative Moore. Here.
Representative Schmidt. Here.
Representative Stevens. Here.
Representative Thomas. Here.
Okay, we do have a quorum present. We'll proceed as a full committee. We are having some technical difficulties this morning. The minutes from our last meeting are not on the iPads, so we will make sure that those are available at our next hearing. I'd like to now call forward House Bill 749 for its first hearing. We have Representative Romer and Representative Kishman to provide sponsored testimony. Welcome, gentlemen. Proceed when you're ready.
Good morning. Thank you so much, Chair. And Ranking Member Sims, and this esteemed committee. I'd normally thank the vice chair, but he's here with me. This legislation, House Bill 749, you've got my written testimony, but I'd kind of like to tell a personal story relative to this and how we were able to develop the idea for this bill. It deals with deed fraud and title fraud. It's something that you've seen a lot on the television. You hear ads on the radio and things like that. And Representative Kishman and I said, we need to do something about this. My friends that I've had for, boy, 15 years now, Scott and Marla Schleiter, owned a very nice lot in Boston Heights in my district. Luckily, it was right next door to the mayor of Boston Heights. And they owned that lot for 13 years, maybe more than that. And it was valued in the range of $350,000. And Scott happens to be a builder also, which was a good part of the story. He gets a call from the mayor, Mayor Ron Antall, who's actually been down here to testify. He said, Scott, why are you guys selling the lot next to me? He goes, I'm not selling the lot. He said, well, yeah, it's listed. Here's the MLS. So they go on, look on MLS. Their $350,000 lot is for sale for $135,000. And on top of it, they then, you know, contact the real estate agent, and she did not get back to them. But people started calling City Hall and said, well, is there water? Is there sewer? Is there gas? Does that have to be propane? Is there an HOA? Are there minimum building requests? Zero of that was in the listing. They then contacted the agency, and the agency said, well, no, that's a great agent. She would never do anything nefarious. It turns out that somebody had created email addresses, Scott.Schleiter, and Maria, they even spelled her name wrong, dot schleiter, at proxy.net, contacted a real estate agent, said, we'd like to sell our lot. And had we not had this wonderful set of circumstances that the mayor was contacted by his secretary happened to know the Schleiters They then contacted me immediately That lot might have been sold for Now, there's a whole bunch of red flags here, and obviously those were violated. So what our bill does is our bill works with those red flags, but it also strengthens a lot of the prohibitions. And what I will do for the committee, Clay Lepard is an excellent... He's a reporter on Channel 5. He did a great story on this, a multiple-minute story. I'll send this through the chair to the committee so you can kind of see what happened with this. So what we did is, between Rep. Kishman and I, we said we want to do a number of IP meetings, talk to a whole lot of people, because this touches a lot of things. But we are suggesting making some excellent changes, we believe, that will provide protections to each and every person in the state of Ohio. And with that, I'll turn it over to Mike.
Thank you, Rep. Romer, and thank you to the committee for the opportunity to speak today. As you just heard, deed and title fraud is a real and growing threat to Ohio property owners, and the Schleider case is an embattic of the problem that, frankly, our current statutes were not designed to address at the scale we are now seeing. My role today is to walk you through what House Bill 749 actually does and why each element of the bill is necessary. First, the bill strengthens notarization requirements for property transfer documents. Under current law, gaps in the notarization process can be exploited, particularly when remote or electronic notarization is involved. House Bill 749 establishes clear standards for identity verification to the point of notarization, ensuring that the person signing a deed is who they claim to be. This is a foundation protection because fraudulent transfers almost universally depend on a failure at this step. Second, the bill creates a volume property fraud alert registry administered through the county auditor and recorder's office. Property owners who enroll will receive prompt notification any time a document affecting their property is recorded. This gives the owner's ability to detect fraudulent activity before a sale closes, before proceeds are transferred, and before the legal situation becomes significantly more complicated to unwind. Early detection is critical. The longer a fraudulent transaction goes unnoticed, the harder it becomes to remedy. Third, House Bill 749 clarifies and strengthens the legal recourses available to victims of deed fraud. Under existing law, the burden of proof and the cost of litigation fall almost entirely on the rightful owner. This is unjust outcome, and this bill will take steps to address it by streamlining the process by which courts can void fraudulent convoyances and restore title to the lawful owner. Finally, the bill directs the Ohio Attorney General's Office to develop and publish guidance for county recorders on identifying common indicators of deed fraud. the kinds of red flags that as you heard were present in the Schneider case standardizing that awareness across all 88 counties will help ensure that suspicious filings receive appropriate scrutiny regardless of where the state of property is located I want to be clear what this bill is not it is not a barrier to legitimate property transactions the vast majority of Ohioans who buy sell or transfer property will notice no change to their day-to-day experience. What they will have, however, is a stronger system behind them, one that is harder to exploit and faster to respond when exploitation is attempted. We recognize that this bill may continue to evolve as a state quarter conversation progress We want the committee input as part of that process The goal is straightforward Ohioans who own property should be able to trust that their ownership is secure and that their government has taken reasonable steps to protect it. I am happy to answer any questions the committee may have.
Thank you, gentlemen. Representative Stevens, do you have a question?
Well, good morning. Thank you. Thank you for this bill. It's an interesting, the most valuable thing, not the most valuable, but one of the most important things that our society is founded on is the ability to own private property as a citizen. And the county courthouse is the center of that. And, you know, the auditor is the one who keeps track of who owns it. The recorder actually keeps the deed. But I want to take an opportunity to talk about how important our county engineers are in this process. because the county engineer is the first stop to make sure in their surveying of the property to make sure that the survey actually is really where it is. And in some counties and rural areas, it is very difficult. You know, the survey, especially a farm, may be written in cursive from the deed, you know, and whatnot. And the other interesting thing about Ohio is we were the first Northwest Territory state, which means our surveying in Ohio is all over the place. And as you go further west, it gets to be a lot better because people could take the good from what we did. So my question is, how does this affect the conveyance standards that are currently done by counties where the county engineer and the county auditor come together and address that and that you have standards for each county, how would that affect the conveyance standards?
Through Rep King, thank you so much for that question. I'm going to tell you straight up, I don't know. What we did is we've had very extensive IP discussions with the auditors, Auditor's Association, the recorders, land title folks, of course our realtors, and a number of other folks, attorneys relative to the notarization process. We have not considered county engineers in that process. But as Rep. Kishman had said, we're very willing to make appropriate modifications as we go through the process. So I very much appreciate that.
Proceed.
Yes, thank you for that, because I can tell you as a former county auditor, Once the GIS came in and you had the aerial photography and you could match the survey to what the land looked like, on a weekly basis people would come in and either their neighbor had built on their property or they had built on their neighbor's property, inadvertently sometimes, but still getting those kind of corrections. And I just think to make sure you get there's really three stops to transfer a piece of property. It's the engineer, the surveyor, the surveying part, the county auditor, and then the recorder. So I appreciate that. Thank you.
Thank you.
Through the chair, we'll follow up on that. Thank you.
Representative Klopfenstein.
Good morning. Good to see you. As I read through this, this is a voluntary program, correct? Through the chair, portions of it are voluntary. We're looking at potentially having a freeze process. as part of that that would be strictly voluntary but some of the things in here would be mandatory as an example we are trying to dedicate one hour of continuing professional education to deed fraud for the folks in the real estate industry That would be mandatory The identification piece of this would be mandatory So there mandatory pieces that the recorder the auditor and the land title folks are very, very important in this process. Those portions would be mandatory, including a waiting period. There's other things. The freeze process would strictly be voluntary on the part of the owner of the property. Just a follow-up question. Aren't there already recorders and auditors doing this? Through the chair, the answer is yes, but the way that's structured right now, the way I understand it, that's done after the fact. So there really isn't a deed freeze process right now that occurs before. there's a notification process that says something happened with your property, and then the notification occurs then. We want that process right at the start so that this never happens to somebody again. Thank you.
Paula?
If I may, just to kind of piggyback on the question, as a former county recorder, I know in my county where I served for 10 years, we had a fraud alert system. It was a voluntary part of the software, our recording software, and individuals can sign up to be notified. Generally, that notification didn't go out 24 to 48 hours after the transactions occurred. Also, what's interesting is, and I'm not real sure of the details as far as the freeze, in our county, we would give the deed back immediately after recording. So someone would come in to the counter, we'd record the deed, it'd take about two or three minutes, and we'd hand the document back to them. So to freeze it and maybe hold on to it for a few days, I think at least in my county, folks are going to, that's going to be maybe troublesome or burdensome to them. So I don't know if you've had any comments or thoughts from the recorders on that process. Some of them may be holding them now, but I think for a majority of them, they're giving them back instantaneously. I've had talks with my county recorder on it, and that's something that we'll bring up for our next IP meeting. And if I could, as part of our IP meetings, the Recorders Association and the Auditors Association were very supportive of what we're doing here. We felt that a one-day delay to provide the additional security was appropriate. Any longer than that might be difficult, and the land title folks were also okay with that.
Very good. Thank you. Representative Brennan?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for bringing the bill. I've been hearing about deed and title fraud for many years, And so it begs the question, why haven't our auditors and recorders been proactive to prevent this on their own? Why does it require a state law to fix this issue? Okay.
Thanks, Representative. Through the chair, counties have done things, but we have got 88 counties with 88 different processes. And I know as an example, Pickaway County, and we've modeled some of this after what's been done in Pickaway County, they have done a lot of what we're doing here and it's working successfully. But other counties might not have the ability to do that. So if your house on Hampstead, somebody comes in and tries to transfer. He knows where I live. I do. He lived right next to my cousins almost. If you're in Cuyahoga County, Cuyahoga County has a different process. than there is in Pickaway County. What we are looking at doing is trying to standardize this so that no matter where you live in Ohio, you'd have appropriate security and confidence that your property is not going to be transferred to somebody in Kazakhstan, which might have been what happened here.
Follow-up, Madam Chair?
Proceed.
Thanks. So, you know, back when I bartended, people passed off a lot of fake IDs. So what's to ensure that the IDs that they're showing in this case are authentic? Okay. Through the chair. There's always opportunities for fraud, but by providing that ID, at least that's one additional step.
We've heard issues with possibly with notary stamps that could be fabricated and things like that. But now somebody's going to have to go through a lot of work. They're going to have to appear personally. There's going to be an ID on file. So it's way better than somebody creating literally two fake proxy.net email addresses, one of them with a wrong name, and being able to transfer the property. So the level of security maybe went from here to here, and there's always going to be that additional process, but somebody's going to have to jump through a lot of hoops. So maybe they're going to go to another state and try this and say, Ohio's too hard. We're now going to worry about Georgia or Alaska.
Thank you.
Thanks, Madam Chair. Representative Feller-Arthur.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the challenge that you're trying to grapple with, and having more recently both purchased property and been on kind of the selling side, I'm just kind of curious about the protections that we already have in place around having the title examinations, And I know some of those are voluntary as the purchaser. But I guess I'm trying to get at two things. One, whether or not we have any evidence from other states that this would actually prevent fraud. And secondly, what about areas of the state like mine, which has the second largest Amish community, where their religious standards prohibit them from having a photo ID, and they convey property quite often. So I guess I'm just curious on those two points. One, have we seen any evidence? And two, what about individuals with a religious prohibition on having a photo ID?
Through the chair, I'll answer your second question first. That's not something we had considered. I know my former district, well, my two former districts, I had a significant Amish population also. And I had not considered that. In fact, coincidentally, it's now in Rep Kishman's district. But I had not considered that. So that's something we can look at. I'm sure there are state ID cards that possibly don't have a picture of something. And we can utilize those types of things. Relative to other states, we haven't necessarily looked directly at what other states are doing. We looked around Ohio to see what was being done and saw what was being done in Pickaway County. So I know that when you watch even national TV, you'll see ads, you know, block your property, protect your property. For only $29.95 a month, you can protect against this. Well, we're going to do it for free.
Follow-up? Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for that. not trying to grill you on the practicality side. I guess I'd just like to express that I think I have a hard time supporting it without additional evidence on it actually accomplishing the intended goal And I guess along those lines I really feel like there might be additional ways that we should consider in existing law I wish I knew them better. But when purchasing property, it seems like there are a lot of hurdles, And I don't want to see someone being impersonated or having the situation that you talked about where their property is conveyed without their permission. But it seems to me that that would then be prosecuted under fraudulent transfer and that there would be recourse. And so I don't know if you've looked into that for what recourse might have been available had the sale taken place under existing law or if that's not covered in law. To me, this scam was probably an overseas scam, so I think when you look at the recourse of the person doing the scamming, it might be a little bit impossible to try to recoup the funds.
Yes. Yes. And through the chair, relative to your point also, what we've seen is that this is very prevalent. I'm sure we can, working with our realtor friends, get you statistics, but it's something that happens very, very regularly. What we see is that if you have property, in the case of the Schleider property, they owned it without any lien on it. They didn't have a mortgage on the property, so that's one thing. If you have owners that are not in the same state, that's another thing. There's all these red flags that are identified. We're trying to deal with those red flags, adding the additional continuing education requirements, the photo ID, the one-day waiting. And the important thing is, in our IP meetings, it's been amazing the way people have come together and said, the people that do this on a daily basis have said we think this is very, very important.
Representative Creech. Thank you, Chairwoman. Thank you for your policy here, legislation. I guess my question is I am married to a county recorder, so I'm sure we'll be talking about this this evening. and I guess my question is you know a lot of times we'll be watching tv at night and these fraud things and she gets mad she's like well my phone's gonna be blown up tomorrow and you know we're from a small rural county and we don't see a lot of fraud and you know I've not talked to a lot of recorders from other counties and I don't is what is the the issue with fraud is it as serious as the commercials or are these people just trying to sell a product because in my district I've never heard of it and I'm just curious where this fraud's taking place across the state, and what is the level of, on a scale of 1 to 10, what is the level of fraud on deeds? I have no idea.
I think through the chair to the representative, I think we see a lot of fraud in your bigger communities where more land is available for sale. I don't see it. I know I live in a very rural area, and I don't see a lot in my community, but I think there's a heavy prevalence of presence where Rep. Romer lives. And if I could add through the chair, we had a meeting with one of Rep Kishman's constituents in Stark County. He owns multiple. Carroll County. I'm sorry, in Carroll. That's right. It was in Carroll County. He owns multiple parcels, and he was very concerned because he's a farmer. He's got multiple parcels. There's oil and gas on some of them. It is not in other ones. So it was really neat. He offered us some actually additional suggestions because he's also a security expert, And he was very concerned being in a rural county but owning multiple parcels that don't have mortgages, and he actually didn't live on those properties. He was very very concerned And this is somebody that had worked for American Greeting as their security expert and was massively appreciative of what Rep Kishma was doing on this Follow up?
Thank you. Through the chair. Thank you. I think my question is, what's the amount of fraud? I think there's a lot of people concerned, and I understand that. I think that people are concerned because they're seeing it on TV and they hear about it. But do we have any information? And I'm legitimately asking you, Do we have any information on or any cases? I mean, I know there's some things that there's always going to be bad people out there. It doesn't matter what we do here. There's always going to be bad people. We're always going to be chasing them. But is there a huge influx of fraud on deeds that is justifying this policy? Because, again, my wife doesn't see it. She's a county recorder, and we talk about it all the time. So I guess my question is, not as the policy needed, but is deed fraud as big a deal as the commercials make, I guess?
Through the chair, what we can do is we'll provide those statistics. We'll work with our realtor friends, and we'll put some information. I'll also share that WEWS story, and you can see what the Schlaters almost went through, losing a third of a million dollars. In fact, to end that part of the story, since Scott Schlater is a builder, what he agreed to do is he agreed to sell the property. He said, I'm not going to take any more chances. I'm just going to sell the property, but I want to build the house on the property. So he's literally building a house on that property right now, but he sold it to the person that's building at significantly under the value of the property. So even though it wasn't stolen, it still had significant financial ramifications for him.
Ranking Member Sims? Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you so much for your testimony today. I thank this committee for their inquiries because they were very poignant and probably questions that we all have. I think most of the questions have been asked that I was concerned about because I was wondering which populations were more susceptible to this type of fraud. But I kind of heard we're going to do a little more research around that. But in your comment about continuing education units for folks, are you including, like, notary publics, too, who could use additional training on kind of identifying maybe fraudulent deeds and titles before they certify those documents?
Through the chair to the, I believe, ranking member. The answer is we have not considered additional protections on the notary side. I know there's been some identification of the ability to go on the Internet and somehow get fake notary seals. This bill, that was a little bit outside the scope of what we're doing on this bill. That's something to consider as we talk to the attorneys who also represent those notaries. So I appreciate the input, and Representative Kishman is taking very good notes.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Representative Thomas. Thank you, Madam Chair. Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony. The bill, basically, my understanding, allows for auditors to establish property protection programs. Now, will the bill be specific in terms of exactly what those programs would require, simply because you don't want 88 counties having 88 different types of programs. Would the bill streamline that so that you will be able to laser focus your approach
and hit the target what you attempted to accomplish Okay Great question through the chair Parts of the bill relative to my answer to Representative Coffinstein earlier parts of it are mandatory But we know that those recorders, those auditors, those engineers, Representative Stevens, are the ones that really have the expertise. So relative to the overall structure, we're going to provide that. But if somebody in Meigs County has a great idea, we're not going to prohibit them from saying this is what's going to work better in Meigs County than in Franklin County. So we will provide the overall structure. They'll be able to implement that freeze as they believe is best in their specific county. Because we know that when you've got counties with millions of population versus tens of thousands of population, things could be a whole lot different. So you'll have an overall structure, but the auditor, the recorder, and relative to Representative Stevens again, the engineer, the people that really have the expertise do this on a daily basis, along with the real estate agents and the land title people who are very important.
Thank you. Follow-up?
Seeing no further questions, this concludes the first hearing for House Bill 749. Thank you.
Thank you so much, Chair.
I'd like to now call forward House Bill 639 for its second hearing. We have Rich Farmer with the Fremont Speedways,
Waynesfield Raceway Park, and All-Star Circuit of Champions here to provide proponent testimony. Welcome to committee. Begin when you're ready.
Yes, welcome. Chair King, by the way. Excuse me just a moment, sir. Rich, would you hit your microphone please?
Thank you.
That helps greatly, doesn't it? Oh, yes.
Do you mind taking it from the beginning? The button's at the top.
Yes. Thank you.
House Chair King, Vice Chair Kishman, ranking member Sims, and the members of the local government committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony for House Bill 639. My name is Rich Farmer. I stand before you as a stakeholder in the Ohio's motorsports industry. I operate Fremont Speedway, Waynesfield Raceway Park, and the All-Star Circuit of Champions. As we move forward, Fremont Speedway was founded in 1951. We held our first motorsport event in 1936. So beyond that, we have a deep, rich history of auto racing in Ohio. We also host and house the only auto racing museum in the state of Ohio. Spent my life in this industry, and auto racing is not just a hobby. It is a cornerstone of Ohio's economy and a vital part of our community identity. The scale of motorsports in Ohio is often underrepresented in policy and discussions. To be clear, our industry is a massive financial driver for the state. According to recent data, the economic output of Ohio motorsports facilities generate $4.9 billion in total economic output. Employees, we have just under 20,000 employees that provide livelihood for families in every corner of the state. Our tax revenue through facilities and events contribute $580 million to the essential services in the community. Beyond the direct numbers, we must look at the symbolic relationship between racing and local government, Some of the racetracks in Ohio, including Fremont Speedway, are operated on county fairgrounds. Those county fairgrounds provide services for 4-H and other necessary programs to the rural ag community. Without the income from motorsports and the income from speedways, those facilities would struggle to provide those opportunities and fairs and things that go beyond what we do in motorsports. We often talk about racing being a generational sport, and it truly is. On any given night, you will find three generations of fans sitting in the stands together, grandparents enjoying life with their families, enjoying a safe, respectful atmosphere, but it is equally important to recognize that the racing is a generational business. Many of our racetracks, teams, suppliers are family-owned enterprises that have been passed down for decades. These businesses represent a lifetime of investment, hard work, specialized knowledge. House Bill 639 is protecting that legacy. It ensures that businesses which have operated lawfully for the past 50 to 75 years aren't suddenly threatened by encroachment of new development. The bill provides a legal stability needed to ensure that these generational businesses can continue to serve the Ohio for another century. Auto racing provides a safe, family-friendly environment that brings communities together while pumping billions into our state's economy. By supporting the Right to Race bill, you are protecting and supporting not only our fairgrounds, racing, and honoring deep-rooted Ohio tradition. Thank you for the opportunity, and I would welcome any questions.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee?
Madam Chair. Representative Schmidt. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you. Question for you, sir. Was it your family that got you started in auto racing?
No, actually, I grew up, my family was not in auto racing. I am now a, my son is now, we're in our third generation of racing, starting with me. I actually grew up half a block outside of our county fairgrounds. Our county fairgrounds is located in the city. We're on the corner of the city in Sandusky County. And unlike many fairgrounds, our fairgrounds is not owned by the county. It is operated independently by an ag society. But I grew up a half a block out of the gate, and, you know, it just became home.
Follow-up? Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I know the volatility of income at a racetrack, a lot of weather can really harm your profitability. So can lawsuits deter from your ability to stay profitable. Have you had any or seen any signs of a frivolous lawsuit that you would have to spend thousands of dollars to protect what's already been there?
We had a situation back in 2015 or 2016 where the Kroger store was attempting to buy ground directly across from our facility. They were working with the then mayor, the one-term mayor, which I'm very proud that our industry found a way to replace. They were working with our mayor to close our facility. Oh, jeez. Because we're a dirt racetrack. We do create some dust We are allowed You know there is some things that but we do it very very modestly But they were going to be unable to operate because of the chillers and the stuff needed for their vegetables and their air intakes wasn't going to work. So we did face that, and we were luckily able to overcome that.
Thank you.
Yes. Representative Brennan.
I'm good. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Any other questions? Representative Lawson-Rowe.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your testimony. For those watching at home, and particularly I have some high school students shadowing me today, can you share with us how does this bill affect local zoning and home rule? I don't believe it does affect local zoning. I mean, the way I understand the bill is that it protects us from encroachment. It doesn't have anything to do. Local zoning will still apply to local zoning, and we still need to meet all the requirements of so forth of local zoning and any other government rule. Follow-up?
Ranking Member Sims. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your testimony today. Just really quickly, I asked this question during the sponsorship testimony about sound decimals. is there a requirement about how loud you can be? And I guess the follow-up question would be, if the racetrack significantly changes its makeup, say you have 50% more lighting than you had before, is it still the same racetrack or is there no difference?
In our particular instance, there would be no difference. As far as the sound decibel, we do work closely with the city. As I mentioned, we are in the city. We are in the center of the city on the north edge of town. We do work closely with them. We do require mufflers at our facility on every class of race car that participates. So we do have that as far as lighting goes, the modern lighting, and as we would improve lighting across the facility, we would actually make a better impact. We could have a broader scope of light with more lumens than what we would have currently, just by updating to the next level of lighting.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you. I'd like to now call forward Bob Davis with the American Motorist Association
to provide proponent testimony. Welcome to committee. Proceed when you're ready. Thank you, Chair King, Vice Chair Kishman, Ranking Member Sims, members of the committee. My name is Bob Davis. I'm the grassroots manager for the American Motorcyclists Association. And I'm joined today by Willie Browning, our motocross manager. The AMA is headquartered here in Pickerington, Ohio, and we represent more than 220,000 members, over 13,000 members here in Ohio, and millions of riders nationwide. We're here today in strong support of House Bill 639. Racing facilities are cornerstones of the motorcycling and motorsports community. They provide safe, controlled environments for riders of all skill levels to compete, train, and enjoy the sport. The continued operation of these facilities depends on a stable and predictable legal environment, one that does not allow newcomers to the community to shut down longstanding venues that predate their arrival. The AMA has seen firsthand how nuisance litigation local regulatory overreach can threaten or shut a racing facilities across the country depriving riders and motorsports enthusiasts of venues that took years to build and establish House Bill 639 establishes a common-sense standard that safeguards the future of motorsports here in Ohio, and it does so responsibly, preserving full liability for physical damage, personal injury, and environmental violations. Ohio has a proud motorsports heritage, tracks across the street, create jobs, draw tourism, and give riders and racing families a place to gather. House Bill 639 gives those facilities the legal certainty they need to keep the gates open. The AMA urges this committee to report House Bill 639 favorably. Thank you, and we're happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, gentlemen. Before I open it up to questions, I just want to note that it is very hot in here. We have reached out to the clerk's office, and you are more than welcome to take off your jacket. It will not offend us whatsoever. I see Representative Creech has already done so, so I just want to make sure everybody stays comfortable. Also, if you are going to take photos or video, there is a form that we do require you to fill out, so I just wanted a bit of housekeeping before we proceed. Representative Fowler-Wauther.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for your testimony. Since you are coming from a part of the state where it seems like there's a lot more growth lately I guess can you delve into the nuisance litigation or local regulatory overreach components of your testimony And maybe give us a few examples of how that actually looks in practicality Just wondering, again, similar to the previous bill, how widespread is the problem in actual terms?
Yeah, so the AMA is headquartered in Pickerington, but we represent tracks all across the state. I think you might have an example of a nuisance claim. In 2005, I'm around Hocking County. Oh, sorry. In 2005, I'm around Hocking County. I've raced motocross for 35 years now. and there was a facility that was on 1100 acres and it got shut down because of noise from from someone two miles away and it just impacted my my experience we it was a local facility that I could train at and these things are happening more and more and it's just it's it's a really It's just a shame because it's a great family atmosphere, and it has been generations. My parents and grandparents have all been there through the whole process. Yeah.
Follow-up? Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a brief follow-up on, so did that facility remain closed, or was there any mitigating circumstances that allowed it to reopen after the circumstance was addressed?
It was an operating facility. They raced. They profited from it. It then turned into they could only have two people ride there during the week on Tuesdays and Thursdays from noon to 4, and also operate heavy equipment out there. So it is still shut down to this day.
Representative Smith.
Thank you, Madam Chair. A clarification on this. How long was that track there? Was it there predating? did it meet all the standards at the time? Because what I don't understand is if you have been there and then things come around after the fact you have what called a squatter right You grandfathered in And if you don have zoning in your community they really can talk about noise or dust or lights because without zoning, you can't have rules and regulations. So I'm glad for this frivolous litigation that this 639 seeks to address. Were you there before all of this came about?
So the track had probably been open for roughly five years. The people that were complaining, they were there before the track as well. It just, yeah. Yeah, so the people had already established homes, and then the land had been there and been ridden on for a long time, and then the track came after. Thank you.
Are there any other questions from members of the committee? Sina, thank you very much for being with us today. Excuse me, I'm sorry. Ranking member Sims does have a question. I apologize.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your testimony today. Just out of curiosity, is there any clarification in the bill that qualifies what makes the property within the area?
I'm not sure I understand your question.
So does the bill qualify? Is there a parameters around the racetrack that qualifies a property as being a part of someone who would be affected by the racetrack activities? Is there a five-mile radius? Is there a 10-mile radius? Is there a 20-mile radius?
I do believe there is, but I'd have to, I don't want to say the wrong thing. I'd have to go back and read through it, but I'm pretty certain that there is some radius.
And so in your humble opinion, the radius that is identified is an appropriate radius.
I think so.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, gentlemen, would you agree with me that it seems like that this is an issue of who was there first?
Yes.
If the tracks were there and then someone decides to move next to the track, your expectations can be that everything needs to be nice and quiet. On the other side of that, if you buy some land and there are already homes there, and then you got a problem if the noise is imposing on the homes that are there. That's basically the bottom line in all of this.
Absolutely.
Okay, thank you.
Just last question. Just a follow-up. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a follow-up on that question. I think I asked a question at one of the other testimonies. So I move into a community, and you're already there. But if something changes significantly for the track, say the lighting increased 20%, the vehicles that race there are far louder than they were before. Does that change how the – does that change?
No, that doesn't – it's not going to, like, reset the timeline. Like, that track is established. That track has been there. So – just follow up, ma'am.
Briefly, please. So you can make significant changes to the track in terms of the types of vehicles that are there?
Yes, as long as they're still within any low capacity. Zoning requirements or anything like that, yeah. Okay, thank you, thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much for your testimony today.
At this time, I'd like to call forward Tara Hubbard with PRI, SEMA, is it SEMA? S-E-M-A? SEMA. SEMA, to provide proponent testimony. Thank you for being with us. Welcome to committee and proceed when you're ready.
Thank you. Chairwoman King, Vice Chair Kishman, and Ranking Member Sims, and Honorable Members of the Local Government Committee. My name is Tiara Hubbard, and I'm here on behalf of the Specialty Equipment Market Association and the performance racing industry. SEMA and PRI strongly support House Bill 639. In Ohio, the performance racing industry contributes about $5 billion in economic output annually and supports nearly 20,000 full-time jobs. These numbers reflect real people and real families in your districts. In Ohio, a vast majority of racetracks have been around for over 50 years, complying with local, state, and federal laws as well as regulations. Still, they run into situations where one individual or developer with extensive resources can restrict a track's operations or shut them down entirely. Ohio has a long and proud history with all racing entities, including the manufacturers who make the parts, racetrack facilities who host the races, service providers who work on the vehicles, and local enthusiasts who attend the races every weekend. Ohio Motorsports are small, multi-generational businesses that drive tourism, create jobs, and serve as community staples. House Bill 639 provides about 36 state tracks protections from nuisance claims brought against them for their legal operations. This bill does not eliminate oversight. It does not exempt facilities from environmental laws, safety regulations, local permitting requirements, or gross negligence. Instead, it reinforces a simple, common-sense principle. If a motorsports facility was established lawfully and continue to operate within the scope of law, it should not be forced out by newcomers. This bill provides stability, predictability, and fairness, while keeping safety and accountability firmly in place. And it encourages local investments. It also serves as a safe, controlled environment to take illegal racing off the streets and in a controlled, safe environment. A similar bill was enacted in Iowa and North Carolina last year with strong bipartisan support. In fact, in Iowa it was passed unanimously. It's also racing through the legislative process in 15 states this year. Ohio should take the lead as well. With that, on behalf of the performance racing industry and thousands of Ohio motorsports supporters, I respectfully ask for your help in getting House Bill 639 across the finish line. Members of the committee, thank you for listening to my testimony today. A special thank you to our bill sponsors, Representative Dieter and Representative Click. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Representative Fowler-Arthur?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your testimony. I know I have a couple of racetracks in my district as well, and you bring up a very good point about trying to encourage people to not race on the open street, which in a rural community remains a challenge I just wondered since you obviously have some data about these nuisance claims being brought around the state whether it would be possible perhaps through the chair to get a summary spreadsheet of what the allegations have been, why they're bringing the lawsuit, and if there was any resolution on that, what it was, and kind of to the bigger question of, was the track there first, was the other there first, just so we can understand how widespread and what the time frame for some of these concerns has been in coming up. Yes, thank you.
Through the chair. So with that, every nuisance claim that has been brought against the track, the track was there first, operating legally. The track derives its legal operations through the local government entity. And so with that, typically an individual could go to the local government entity and say, we have an issue, racing is going past 9 p.m. We'd appreciate it being brought down to 8 p.m. And that situation, we're okay with. We're comfortable with. We want the local government entity to have a good relation with the racetrack because that's how the track facility will be prosperous. However, with that, as you mentioned, the lawsuits are brought forward in situations, again, where the racetrack was there first. And so with that, that's where this piece of policy comes into play. Did I answer your question?
Well, let me...
Oops, sorry. Sorry. With that, I will say it's not a matter of whether or not the track will prevail. In most situations, the track prevails in the lawsuit. It's the amount of money that goes into the frivolous lawsuit. And so for that, we have an example of a facility that spent $200,000 on legal fees. They were forced to sell. And so with that, a new individual purchased the facility. And then with that, another lawsuit was brought forward for a different reason, but under the same nuisance claim. And so it's not a matter of whether or not the track prevails because, again, with every suit that's been brought forward, they're operating within their legal realm. And so they typically prevail. However, sometimes they'll still be forced to sell or shut down because they can't afford the suit in general. Follow-up?
Thank you for that clarification. That's very helpful. And thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to follow up. So I guess I was just thinking in the previous testimony that they had indicated perhaps the track had come in after. Are there additional lawsuits that are happening with tracks that may have come in or begun to be used as a track after the fact that would not be included in this 36 number? And is there any way that the bill could be interpreted as applying a new regulation standard to newer facilities?
Madam Chair, if I may. This bill only protects facilities that currently exist. So if a new track were to be built, they would not fall under the scope of this bill. They would not be granted that, for lack of a better phrase, immunity. It's only a matter of who was there first. Many of our facilities in Ohio have been around for 50, 60, 70, 80 years, so we're protecting those individuals.
Thank you Representative Schmidt Thank you Madam Chair and thank you Two questions Number one you said there 36 facilities in Ohio now
Yes, it's a, if I may, there's about 36. However, if you consider off-road courses, motocross, it probably doubles. So it's just an estimation. Follow-up?
spent thousands of dollars getting the right attorney, and then spent years paying off that attorney. Have you seen other tracts with similar situations?
Yes. In Wayne County, they also went through a similar situation. And that depends, again, on the county and the situation. However, regardless of anything, the fees are astronomical. And so whether or not a track can prevail, again, isn't the principle. It's, you know, they might be shut down or forced to sell because of having to go through that. So thank you.
Representative Brennan. Thank you. Thanks for coming in. Appreciate it. So the bill defines the area of the racing facility as within a five-mile radius. What's the justification for such a large radius? It seems to me that could include, if it's near or in a city or a small town, the entire town or city. And what analysis was determined that the five miles was appropriate? Why not two miles or ten miles?
Yes. So, for example, in Ohio, they don't have a radius, so no one can sue. We wanted to at least put it within a perimeter to give some ramifications. At the same time, in Ohio, the geography from the top of the state to the bottom of the state can vary drastically. And so with that, we thought five-mile radius would be appropriate to sound travels further, depending on the climate you're in, whether or not you're in a valley and such. And so with that, we thought five miles was appropriate to address the diversity of the state itself. Thank you.
Thank you. Seeing no further questions, thank you very much for being with us, and thank you for your testimony.
Thank you.
I'd like to now call forward Levi Jones with Eldora Speedway to provide proponent testimony. Welcome to committee. Proceed when you're ready. And I'll just add that Eldora hails from the great house district of the 84th, which I represent. So no bias there whatsoever, but welcome to committee.
Good morning, Chairman King, Vice Chair Kishman, Ranking Member Sims, and members of the House Local Government Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today. My name is Levi Jones. I serve as the General Manager at Eldora Speedway in northern Dart County. Eldora Speedway was founded in 1954 by Earl Baltus, the band leader, entrepreneur, who built the track on farmland in the middle of the cornfields. What began as a side project to a historic dance hall quickly grew into a giant in the racing world. As the half dirt track etched into the natural terrain of the land became known for its high banks a unique surface By the 1960s Eldora had established itself as a premier destination for dirt track racing in the Midwest In 2004, NASCAR champion Tony Stewart purchased the facility, and today Eldora is largely considered the most famous and premier dirt track in the entire world. Eldora hosts races April through October, several premier events that draw more than 30,000 fans. or over 200,000 annually, hopefully a little more than that this year. These fans travel from every state, even internationally, to attend our races. While our on-site camping accommodates up to 10,000 guests, thousands more stay in local hotels, short-term rentals across the five-county region. The economic impact of these events is tremendous. Visitors support local hotels, restaurants, gas stations, campgrounds, and small businesses. Many of these businesses plan and make key decisions based on our race schedule. Underscoring the role of Eldora plays as a reliable economic driver for both Dark County and the entire state of Ohio. Beyond the economic impact, we take great pride in being a strong community partner. Proceeds from our raffles support local nonprofits, and through the Eldora Speedway Foundation, we awarded more than $600,000 last year to organizations including Boys and Girls Clubs, community pregnancy centers, food banks, hospice care providers, environmental groups, and public safety agencies. We also work closely with the Dark County Sheriff's Office to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow and event operations. Eldora Speedway is located quite literally in the middle of cornfields. The few nearby residents are longtime neighbors who understand the nature of our operations during race seasons. We make every effort to be considerate with scheduling. The weather in Ohio can require flexibility, including racing well in the night when needed to complete these events. However, we are increasingly mindful of how future development could impact our operations. That is why House Bill 639 is so important. House Bill 639 provides proactive, common-sense protections that ensure long-term stability for facilities like Eldora Speedway. It gives us the confidence to continue investing in our track and hosting major events without concern that future development could impose new restrictions on longstanding activities such as dust, lighting, traffic, and noise, conditions that are inherent to dirt track racing. While we respect the rights of all property owners, this legislation strikes an appropriate balance by protecting existing operations that have served our communities for decades. It creates a predictable regulatory environment that allows us to continue contributing to Ohio's economy and preserving an important part of its cultural identity. House Bill 639 ensures that legacy venues like Eldora Speedway can continue to operate, invest, and contribute without uncertainty. It protects not just a racetrack, but the jobs, businesses, and communities that depend on it. Thank you to Representative Click, Representative Dieter for introducing this important legislation, and thank you to the committee for your time and consideration. I welcome any questions.
Thank you so much for your testimony.
Representative Schmidt. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and thank you for being here. Personally, Levi Jones drove for my brother's race car and bitter rivals when you went to the Stewart racing team. But more importantly, I just want to highlight, and I think you will agree, the amount of people that cut their teeth at Aldora Speedway. People like A.J. Foyt, the Unzer brothers, Mario Andretti, Kyle Larson, Tony Stewart. The list is endless, including you. cut their teeth on half-mile dirt tracks across Midwest. This bill, I believe you will agree, will ensure the continuity and the continueness of a great sport that allows families to come in an affordable fashion, get a hot dog, get a Coke, watch their favorite driver, whether it's Moeller Speedway or whether it's Eldora Speedway, on a Friday or a Saturday night, you have been there for 72 years. You have squatters' rights, and frivolous lawsuits should not impede your ability to continue. So thank you for being the race car driver. Thank you for championing Eldora Speedway, and I look forward to coming and watching an event in the future. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other questions from members of the committee? Thank you so much for being with us.
Thank you.
I'd like to now call forward William Bader with Summit Motorsports Park to provide testimony. Thank you for being with us. Proceed when you're ready.
Good morning. I guess I'm the closer for House Bill 639. No pressure, right? Good morning, Chairwoman King, who I was introduced to this morning as a glowing angel. So that's stuck in my head. Vice Chairman Kishman, Ranking Member Sims, and Honorable Members of the Local Government Committee. My name is Bill Bader. I am the owner-operator of Summit Motorsports Park in Norwalk, Ohio. I started working with my father at Summit Motorsports Park when I was 10 years old, and 2026 marks my 49th year in motorsports. And after graduating from college, I decided to go to work full-time in the family business. My son is our track manager. My wife is our merchandise manager. My sister is our director of sponsor sales and service. So we are very much a family business. And I think one of the things that has been failed to be mentioned today is that the majority of the motorsports venues, and we cited a number under 40, but that doesn't tell the complete picture because we have a national boat sanction located near Dayton, Ohio. The International Hot Rod Association is based just north of Cincinnati. The AMA is based in Columbus. This covers all disciplines of motorsports, and the vast majority of those are family-owned and operated businesses. Those family businesses don't always have the resources or the financial wherewithal to defend themselves. So this is, to a large degree, a proactive measure rather than a reactive measure. So on behalf of our staff, our racing families, and the hundreds of thousands of fans who pass through our gates annually, I am here this morning in firm support of House Bill 639. This legislation is a common-sense protection for one of Ohio's most cherished and economically significant industries. Did I offend Representative King? No she stepped out for another committee Okay Summit Motorsports Park has been a cornerstone of the Norwalk community for decades Like many tracks across Ohio our facility was established and operational long before the surrounding residential developments were built We have spent over half a century building a world-class venue, and we take immense pride in being good neighbors. However, as urban sprawl continues, the coming of the nuisance doctrine has become a real threat to our industry. Racetracks are unique small businesses that require significant capital investment in infrastructure, safety, and amenities. House Bill 639 provides the legal stability necessary for us to continue these investments. As an example, since November of 2006, we have invested nearly $12 million in our facility. And that is significant. There was no syntax. There was no bond. That was through a combination largely of a wonderful bank partner and retained earnings from Summit Motorsports Park. It protects established lawful businesses from being penalized by nuisance complaints filed by individuals who choose to move into an area where a racetrack was already an active permanent fixture. The motorsports industry is a massive economic engine for Ohio. That was already talked about, the $4.94 billion of economic impact annually. but locally let's talk about summit motorsports park in 2010 we engaged a company to produce an economic impact study using a ultra conservative multiplier because i wanted this study to be beyond reproach additionally it only accounted for for money outside the fences and it was determined that Summit Motorsports Park generates $100 million of economic impact. Events like our 49th annual Night Under Fire, our 20th annual Summit Racing Equipment NHRA Nationals, we draw nearly half a million people annually to the Norwalk area. These visitors fill hotels within a 60-mile radius and provide a seasonal surge for restaurants, gas stations, and retail shops. We support dozens of, we employ currently 21 full-time year-round people, and we employ 430 event staff, some of which are hired as young as 13 to work in our food operation, and we have of that 430, I'm going to tell you, in young people, 50 to 60 young people, and we are very proud that their first job is at Summit Motorsports Park. Beyond the gate, we support a massive ecosystem of speed shops, fabrication shops, and performance parts dealers. And I'm going to talk about a couple of them. Summit Racing Equipment located in Talmadge, Ohio, the world's largest mail order company. JEGS in Columbus, Ohio. Goodyear Tire and Rubber in Akron. Mickey Thompson Tires and Wheels. Three of the most respected tool companies in the world reside in Ohio Cornwell Tools MacTools and MatGoTools We have four sanctioning bodies We have companies like Lincoln Electric Ohio is I know Indy likes to make their claim and Charlotte likes to make their claim but Ohio is very quietly the epicenter of a tremendous amount of motorsports commerce. Ohio has a deep-seated heritage. Racetracks like ours aren't just noise. They are community centers. We host fundraisers. In fact, I would tell you we have the most profitable Lions Club in the state of Ohio because my father was an iron worker, and in 1978, an elderly gentleman from the Lions Club showed up at the track and asked if they could sell beer. My father shook his hand and told him, you can sell beer here forever. Obviously, my father did not envision how much beer could be consumed by half a million visitors, but that handshake deal is in place to this day. We are Christian, family-centric entertainment. We have multi-generational traditions that define the character of our region. Protecting the right to race is about protecting the property rights of small family business owners and preserving a culture that has been part of Ohio's identity for a century. I greatly appreciate your time. It is a privilege to be here to testify. And are there any questions that anyone has?
No. Thank you for your testimony. Any questions from any of the committee?
Rep. Thomas. Thank you, sir, for your testimony. I'm just trying to think through all of this. I totally agree that if the tracks were there first, then everything else is secondary to the interests of the owners of those tracks. When expressways are built and they come through an area where there's residential, the state builds sound barriers to protect from all the noise that the expressways make of vehicles traveling. And I'm not asking that the owners build sound barriers or anything like that, But would it make any sense to, especially since you all are bringing so much economic opportunities to the state, would it make sense that the, say, if a subdivision, they want to build a subdivision near your tracks, that that developer works with the state to maybe come up with a public-private partnership to build the sound barriers, knowing that they're building something next to a racetrack. In other words, some type of cooperation from that standpoint, or if there's already a racetrack there, and that the state maybe works with the residential community and build sound barriers. In other words, not putting any on the owners to do anything, but just maybe cooperate and try to work with the residents that are there as well as the state and build sound barriers. I don't think we can do anything about dust. This is whichever the way the wind blows. But I just trying to think through this and how there can be some type of collaboration to try to work out something if it already there Does that make sense No that makes perfect sense I think communication and collaboration must always occur first absolutely I have two comments to that.
Number one, racetracks, I saw reactions when it was announced that the total economic impact of motorsports is $4.94 billion. I saw the reaction of nearly 20,000 jobs, $1.38 billion in wages and benefits. Motorsports is not a – we are not a collective. We operate very much independently. And we don't always get the benefit of people understanding what the importance or the impact of motorsports in Ohio to be. And to be very honest with you, today the representation is largely some of the more sophisticated operations. Many of them are not as sophisticated. They don't have. So during COVID in 2020, I was asked to chair the drag racing leadership team. and we were charged with getting racetracks open using the proper SOPs and governance and protocols. My phone lit up from racetracks who didn't even know what to do, where to call. They didn't take the time to necessarily know who their township trustee or their county commissioner or their state rep or their state senator. So that was very eye-opening for me. So we have since taken action to create the Ohio Motorsports Network. So as a collective, we are our brother's keeper. I believe that. And so it is incumbent upon us to help. Also during COVID, I was unable to open. Other racetracks were able to open, but I was lumped in with stick and ball. So I was not able to open. We run from the middle of April through the middle of October. So when we were finally able to open in April of 2021, it had been nearly 20 months, and I started getting calls from neighbors complaining about noise. These were people that had acquired property during our dormant period, and there's a couple of ways to handle that. One way is you can just hang up the phone and tell them you don't have the time. Number two, you drive to their home, you sit in their living room, and you have the conversation with them. So collaboration and cooperation and communication are always tantamount to success. And I think we would welcome that communication, but I can tell you that doesn't happen. As you detailed it, that does not happen presently. And I have two brand-new shiny roundabouts adjoining my property that can tell you there's no communication. They just show up. Different hearing for a different day. But, yes.
Follow-up? Are there any other questions from committee members? Seeing none, thank you so much for being with us today.
Thank you.
Would like to direct our members to a written testimony submitted by Kim Green and Kevin Sorby of Green Sorby Promotions, Mid-Ohio Sports Car Course. They are on your iPad for your review. And this will conclude the second hearing for House Bill 639. Thank you.
I'd like to now call forward House Bill 412 for its second hearing. We do not have any in-person testimony, but I'd like to direct members to written testimony on your iPads from Barbara Wire of Village of Castella, as well as Kevin Baxter and Gerard Gross from the Erie County Prosecutor's Office, and this will conclude our second hearing of House Bill 412. I'd like to now call forward House Bill 569 for its second hearing. And we have with us today John Monroe of Ohio Manufactured Homes Association. Welcome, John.
Thank you, Chair.
The floor is yours.
Thank you. To the Chair King, Vice Chair Kishman, Ranking Member Sims, and members of the House Local Government Committee, my name is John Monroe. I am a board member of the Ohio Manufactured Homes Association. Basically, it's a trade association of the park owners in the state of Ohio. I'm also an attorney and a shareholder and treasurer of a law firm up in Cleveland, Mansur Gavin LPA. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to provide comments in support of House Bill 569. I've been practicing law in Ohio for over 32 years. About half my practice is manufactured home park law, and I've prosecuted literally hundreds of abandoned home title cases in several different municipal courts throughout Northeast Ohio. The purpose of the proposed revisions to the Ohio Abandoned Manufactured Home Laws, ORCs 1923, 12, 13, and 14 is to provide uniformity throughout the municipal courts in the state for the application of these laws. Currently, there are more than 300 different applications, the abandoned manufactured home laws in the Ohio courts due to the vagueness of some of the current laws. The proposed revisions provide uniform court orders and procedures to be used by Ohio's municipal courts that address the categories of abandoned manufactured home. These proposed revisions have been requested by judges across Ohio, with one judge even stating that the current abandoned manufactured home laws were written by committee and offer no guidance to the actual judges applying them. These revisions are intended to offer Ohio court judges an easier process to follow in specific court orders that have to be followed and filed with the motion. The proposed revisions will not change the evidentiary or due process requirements to the current laws. The same evidence of abandonment is still mandated, but with streamlined procedures to permit Ohio courts to process the judicial motions and evidence in an easier manner. The current threshold, there's two tiers of dealing with abandoned homes in Ohio, if they're valued under $3,000 or if they're valued over $3,000. The proposed legislation would increase that $3,000 number to $10,000. Currently, there are county auditors who have placed different minimum values, including one county auditor who has already raised the minimum value despite what the law says. The fact is that the minimum value has not changed in over 20 years since the original law was passed would create a uniform value and satisfy the county auditors Ohio Revised Code 1923-13-B as in Boy already provides the form for the court order of the abandonment, but is confusing to judges and clerks of courts. The proposed revisions would provide a streamlined process for court orders for abandoned manufactured home worth less than $10,000, and court orders that require a public auction for those homes valued over $10,000. The current form mixes both these categories, leaving not only judges to be frustrated, but also clerk of courts who have to process the orders coming back from the judges. As a result of the current state of ORC 1923-13B as in Boyd, courts have created their own court orders, sometimes changing the General Assembly's intention for certain evidence to be presented. The result of so many iterations of so many court orders has created confusion throughout Ohio, notably for the Ohio County auditors and clerk of courts who are trying to process these court orders. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to testify in support of House Bill 569. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for being with us today, and thank you for your testimony. Are there questions from any of the committee members?
Ranking Member Sims. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your testimony today. Do we know how many parks there are in the state of Ohio?
Well, I'll answer it this way. I don't know the exact number of communities in Ohio, but over 800,000 Ohioans live in manufactured home parks throughout the state. So assuming we have about 11 million residents in the state of Ohio, we're just shy of 10% of our population live in these communities.
Just a quick follow-up. Do we have any data with regards to the reasons why people are leaving the parks? Like is it because of the lock costs?
Yes. Yeah, so I took a look at, we did nine of these cases in February that ended up going through the process. And we took a look, and roughly 75% of them were due to the death of the resident. So the individual who owned the home had passed away. It was not necessarily an estate. But to go through that process, you have to go through the eviction first and then through the abandoned home title process. So about 75% are because of deaths. I'd say the other 25% is a mix between people moving out of the state of Ohio, divorces, a whole bunch of other reasons. So I hope that answers your question.
Thank you.
Are there any other questions?
Representative Thomas. Thank you, sir, for your testimony. I guess based on your testimony, it sounds like to me that the current laws are somewhat outdated. And this particular bill will bring some updated uniformity to the code so that everybody will be on the same page. and that way it would streamline whatever processes that have to take place when these situations occur. Is that kind of what I'm getting?
Yes Madam Chair to the representative absolutely We work in approximately 13 different municipal courts up in Northeast Ohio and every single one of them does it differently. And so what we're hoping is when the ordinance, I'm sorry, not the ordinance, the statute actually has the order in it that all the courts will start to use that form and then when we go to the auditor's office and we go to the title bureau, it takes about five different government agencies to go through this process. And so when you bring a different form, they say, hey, this doesn't look like the one that you got from Bedford Municipal Court. It's confusion. And so we're just trying to standardize things. and to answer the bigger question is in this situation when you have an abandoned home in a community typically that you know that the yard around there is not being taken care of so the grass is getting long also the title the park owner doesn't have the authority to go into the home and to clear it out they have to get title so that may take you know on a best day 90 days in some cases up to two years. And so that home is sitting there in the middle of a community and it's not doing anybody any good to be just stuck in this what I call legal limbo. So this would hopefully get it on a more standardized path and so that everybody knows this is the process we follow. Thank you, Representative.
Is there a follow up? No. Any other questions?
Just one. Ranking Member Sims. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just out of curiosity, we know that many retiring folks make this living in the parks their last home. There's always the concern about the timing and resources when the lots become too expensive given to homeowners to move their property off of.
Yes. So remember, as part of this process, you have to first go through the eviction process first. And park owners don't evict manufactured homes for any old reasons. Usually they've missed rent for a number of months. So then a three-day notice is served on the premises. The park owner waits three days. Then you file the complaint. the trial on the first cause is set within by statute 21 days. Often it takes longer. And then at the trial, the judge determines, did we get service on the people who live at and own that home? And if we did, we can go forward. The issue, what's called the writ of restitution, takes another couple weeks for the bailiff to come out and oversee the changing of the locks. then the abandoned title process kicks in and there has to be a 21 day notice to both the tenants in the home and the owner hey, we are trying to take this abandoned home come and get your stuff if you want it or take the whole home out of the park that's certainly an option so as you can see If you add that up it usually no less than 60 to 90 days just for that process And all the owners I know if people want to come in and clear out their stuff they meet them any day of the week because it one less thing they have to do if they get title to the home
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Representative. Thank you. I have a question.
I am a licensed realtor in the state of Ohio and also a former recorder, so I'm familiar with the foreclosure process. Usually there are three realtors. They'll do a drive-by to establish a market value. There's three notifications to the public of the foreclosure, and the sheriff conducts the auction. My understanding of this bill, it's the park operator. They establish the value of the property. They conduct the auction, and then they can receive the proceeds. They could actually purchase that mobile home. Is that correct?
is my understanding of that process. Do I have it down? There's one additional step in there. So the manufactured home park operator has to do an affidavit of value, and they send that to the auditor's office, and the auditor has to agree or disagree. And what the auditor typically does is look at their valuation that's on the roles, I call them the property record roles, and they say, oh, you're saying this house is worth $5,000, but it's on our records for $20,000. What gives? Usually the park operator will say, oh, okay, I'll agree to $20,000. So there is a little bit of give and take. The only change in this legislation to that process is the auditor has to do it within 30 days because now I haven't had this situation. Most of the auditors resolve this pretty quickly. They say, and what we do is we tell the park owner, use the value that's on the rolls, and there's going to be less of a fight. What can the auditor complain if you don't follow the rolls?
So I guess there's an extra couple steps in your scenario before. But do you feel that since it's the park operator, the one that establishes the value, the one that's going to conduct the auction and then could potentially buy that, that's a conflict of interest? Well, no, because, thank you, Madam Chair.
Again, the county auditor has to sign off on that valuation. Then the next thing, I will tell you of the nine cases we did in February, there were no sales to outside purchasers. All nine homes eventually went back to the park operator, and there's a reason for that. most manufactured home parks in Ohio require the owner of the home to live in the park. So we don't have these big institutional investors running in and driving up the price. You have to live in the community in most cases. And so it kind of limits the pool. But remember, for homes over $3,000 currently, hopefully $10,000 if you support this bill, they're set for auction and so there has to be two auctions for that home so if there is the general public wants to get out there and to bid on that home they're certainly welcome it doesn't happen a lot it happens occasionally the next thing I will tell you is there's usually not a lot of money left over afterwards
Madam Chair
because the court takes court costs all their filing fees, et cetera, The park usually is compensated for the amount of rent through the date of the title transfer. After that, there's typically not a lot of money left over.
And was I correct in my understanding that there's only one notification sent to the owner of the trailer?
There's one public notice. Is that the requirement of this bill? No, I would suggest there's actually two because you have to go through the eviction process first. Actually, three. So there would be a posting on the door for the eviction, the three-day notice. Then the court would issue a complaint and summons, and the court has to be satisfied that there is good service of that complaint and summons. Someone has to sign for it or it has to come back, and the court makes that determination. The third step in this process, Madam Chair, is that the notice of the abandoned title. So what that is is the park operator has to send that affidavit of value we talked about to the titled owner and say, hey, guys, you've got 21 days to come and get this home. And so I would suggest there's actually three different notices given to a titled manufactured home owner.
Is there any public notification?
Yes. So again you go through the eviction process the affidavit of value is sent to both the owners and occupiers of the home And then if it's valued for over currently $3,000, hopefully $10,000, then there has to be two ads placed in a public circulation newspaper of that auction. We actually, on all our cases, do an ad for the sale of any home. We just find it's easier just to go through that step to make sure that we're making sure that everybody who may have an interest gets an interest. The other thing, Madam Chair, is one of the things we talked about is, you know, sometimes you have, say, an older family member owns the home and maybe lets their niece and nephew live there. That's often a situation. Well, what this legislation does is requires that notice to be sent to the titled owner as well. So now you have the occupants being notified of this problem and the actual titled owner.
Thank you for that clarity.
We'll see no other questions. You are free. Thank you so much for being with us and sharing your testimony.
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.
I'd like to now direct members of the committee, we do have written testimony submitted by Kent Scarlett with Ohio Municipal League. And this will conclude the second hearing of House Bill 569. And seeing no further business before the committee, House Local Government Committee stands adjourned. Thank you.