March 18, 2026 · Ways And Means Committee · 7,362 words · 15 speakers · 107 segments
We're going to start our Ways and Means Committee right on time today. Robert, please call the roll.
Chairman Romer.
I'm here.
Vice Chair Thomas.
Here.
Ranking Member Troy.
Here.
Representatives Click.
Here.
Daniels.
Demetrio.
Glassburn.
Here.
Lear.
Here.
Richardson.
Present.
Rogers is checked in.
Santucci.
Here.
Segrist.
Here.
Representative Thomas. We have a quorum. We're going to proceed as usual as a full committee. Please check your iPad for the minutes that Robert prepared and let me know if you have any changes. Seeing none, minutes are accepted. We're going to start off with Representative Richardson. We do have a sub-bill on House Bill 261, and I'd like to recognize her for the purposes of a motion.
Thank you so much, Chairman, and I'm really delighted to be able to introduce this sub-bill. It does a number of things.
I'd like to recognize you for the person of motion. Can you make a motion, please, first?
Oh, I make a motion to amend House Bill 261 with Sub-Bill L13608803.
And the amendment is in order? Now, if you could give us your explanation.
Thank you so much. I jumped the gun. I'm so excited. This Sub-Bill removes an increase of the current homestead exemption, keeping its value to $25,000 adjusted to inflation. Instead, this sub-bill empowers local governments who were given the authority in the operating budget to implement a local homestead exemption. Under this sub-bill, the state will reimburse half of the value of a locally adopted homestead exemption. In practice, this means the state would cover $12,500 of the $25,000 local exemption adjusted for inflation. The sub-bill also requires a county budget commission to take into account, into consideration, any unreimbursed losses from property tax reductions or exemptions when pondering a potential rate or amount of reduction of a subdivision's levy due to unnecessary collections. And finally, the sub-bill increases the current income homestead exemption eligibility to 55K.
Well, thank you so much for the explanation. Do our members have any questions? I'm seeing none. Is there an objection to accepting the amendment?
Mr. Chairman, just a question.
Ranking Member Troy.
Yeah, thank you. Just a question, Representative Richardson. So what do we do now is the eligibility, which right now is somewhere around $38,000. It brings that up to $55,000 for the homestead exemption, correct? And this is for the entire homestead exemption program, the existing one that the state's already paying.
That is correct.
But the valuation remains at the $25,000 that it was plus the inflator that we put in,
which I think now has it up to about $29,000 or something like that.
So through the chair, currently we have actually the total exemption.
Well, it is $25,000 adjusted to inflation. So, yes, this bill does, in fact, with the 55K, it says all eligibility from the initial homestead through the local homestead option would be increased by 55K, all eligibility.
Okay. Follow-up?
So, obviously, there is a price tag to the state here, which I don't have any problem with. And so I think you're saying an increase here of about $100 million next fiscal year and about $190 million the next fiscal year. So we're comfortable that the state can afford that and probably more, right?
Through the chair, to be precise, the sub-bill as written would be $92 million in the first year and $182 million in the second year, including the $55K eligibility.
And I know Representative Richardson is going to discuss that more in her testimony. Other questions?
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Is there an objection? Seeing no objection, sub bill is accepted. Representative Richardson, you are on. And by the way, we'll recognize another former member of this committee, the esteemed Vice
chair, Representative Lorenz, is here also.
In fact, he sat in Representative Thomas' seat for a long time and is a joint sponsor of this bill.
So thanks, Representative Lorenz, for being here, too.
Thank you. And then thank you, Chairman, for clarifying that. I actually hesitated because I didn't see him for a moment there. Good morning, Chair.
He's lost some weight.
Thank you.
Thank you. Everybody hear that? Yes, I complimented him the other day on that.
Well, good morning, Chair and Vice Chair, Ranking Member Troy, and esteemed colleagues. I just want you to know we're here.
We are here.
And I could not wait to get here because we care about seniors. It's been a long time coming to get to this point, and we've done a lot of work, and so I'm delighted to be here today. As you know, because I'm very passionate about fixing our property tax process and reducing the unacceptable burden that's placed upon Ohioans via property taxes. During this General Assembly, our committee has spent significant time. In fact, we have Herculean effort done by members of our committee, our chair and vice chair to be specific. and we've vetted dozens of different policies, all desiring the same thing, change and relief in property taxes. Why? Because the financial burden to residents caused by these increasing skyrocketing taxes is just not acceptable. It's not sustainable. And I think we probably all agree to that. This is why I volunteered to become a member of the Property Tax Commission a number of years ago. knowing it was difficult, knowing it was tough to tackle, and knowing that I wanted to be part of finding viable solutions that would both reform our property tax process and ensure significant property tax relief for Ohioans. We've taken big steps, and I agree we've taken big steps, but more must be done, especially for our seniors. The original version of this bill, before we introduce this sub-bill, doubled the current homestead exemption to $50K for all income eligible seniors over the age of 65.
Numerous legislators rejected the premise of the bill, saying the state already fully reimburses local governments for the current exemption and that any change should require local government funding as well. So, listening to you, Sub-Bill HB 261 creates incentive for local governments to use the authority provided in our recent operating budget, that is HB 96. HB 96 authorized local governments to implement a local homestead exemption for qualifying seniors. Essentially, sub-bill HB 261 prescribes that both the locals and the state would have skin in the game for the decrease in government revenue that would occur due to the local homestead exemption. The sub-bill also increases, as we mentioned earlier, the homestead exemption to $55K in income per owner-occupied property. And I want to point out here that that number has only been adjusted to inflation. That base income qualification has not changed in law since 2014. But property values and the resulting taxes have risen substantially, substantially more than the rate of inflation.
My joint sponsor will describe more of the sub-bill specifics. However, my district and his have seen and continue to see rapid growth, higher costs of building materials, which has resulted in a decrease in the housing supply. And we all know economics. The increase in the demand with the limited supply of housing has resulted in skyrocketing market values. In a recent email, I learned from a senior in my district that the value of their home increased by 80%. Another individual reported 70%. That ripple of fear and anxiety caused by these increases is felt most strongly by our vulnerable seniors who live on fixed incomes and have limited earning potential. For example, I had a couple in their mid-70s reach out to me explaining that their combined incomes, including their pensions and Social Security, wouldn't be enough. This year, their taxes increased by $1,431. There were no improvements to the home or property, and they shared, we simply can't afford to do anything. What can be done? Lose our home? None of us want that, right? Seniors have been paying for their property most of their lives. They want to remain in their homes, be able to pay their health care costs and food costs, and maintain some quality of life. Many of them have worked their whole lives, raised families, forecasted reasonable budgets, and are now faced with having to relocate to either another retirement home that's cheaper or nursing homes. My colleagues, this is not the American way. They shouldn't live in fear that they could lose their property or significantly reduce their quality of life because the government continues to collect burdensome and unreasonable taxes. Taxing on unrealized gain, and I know you probably agree with me here, is unjust. This senior went on to say that she dips into savings to pay the property taxes every year and wonders when her savings will be gone. And yet another example of hardship, I learned that a 75-year-old couple living in a 105-year-old farmhouse was billed a 23% property tax increase since the last re-evaluation. The owner asserted that the elderly are literally being forced out of their homes. Seniors deserve better in their golden years. Let me say that again. Seniors deserve better in their golden years. They have earned peace of mind in the life that they had budgeted to afford without exorbitant, unpredictable property taxes. This sub-bill provides a path for immediate relief to seniors. Property tax concerns are complex. We know this, and I appreciate all of the work done to date. But seniors, including our veterans, still need our help. The strain for seniors is real. Sub-House Bill 261 brings with it hope for the future, hope for tomorrow. It protects the investment that our seniors made prior to retirement It demonstrates our commitment to some of the most contributing caring and vulnerable citizens within our communities And I'll be followed by my joint sponsor. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman Romer, Vice Chair Thomas, Ranking Member Troy, and members of the House and Ways Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on House Bill 261. This bill will provide meaningful property tax relief to some of Ohio's most vulnerable homeowners, our seniors. Specifically, this legislation builds upon the existing homestead exemption and creates a framework for additional local property tax relief. Under the current law, qualifying homeowners receive a standard homestead exemption that exempts $25,000 of a homeowner's property value for taxation. And recent changes in the operating budget also allow now for the county commissioners to create a homestead exemption that mirrors the state exemption. Currently $25,000 and adjusted for inflation. So to encourage local governments to implement this additional relief, this bill provides that the state will reimburse half of the value of a locally adopted homestead exemption. In practice, this will mean that the state would cover $12,500 of the $25,000 local exemption, again adjusted for inflation. If a county chooses to adopt the local homestead exemption, a qualifying homeowner could receive up to $50,000 of their home's value shielded from property taxation. For many Ohioans on fixed incomes, property taxes continue to rise while their incomes remain relatively unchanged. The homestead exemption was designed to provide stability and security for the people who have spent a lifetime contributing to their communities. Unfortunately, the current exemption has not kept pace with rising property values and increasing tax burdens. In fast-growing suburban communities like those in Delaware and Union counties, this issue is becoming even more pronounced. Rapid growth has driven up property value significantly, which can be a positive sign of a healthy and desirable community. However, for our seniors living on fixed incomes, those rising values can translate directly into higher tax bills, even if their incomes have not changed at all. I hear from constituents regularly who are proud to have lived in their homes for decades, who have raised their families here, and who have helped build the communities we represent today. Yet many now worry that increasing property taxes could make it difficult to stay in their very homes they worked their entire lives to afford. House Bill 261 helps to address that concern by strengthening the homestead exemption and encouraging local governments to adopt additional relief. This change allows for more of a home value to be shielded from taxation, and it will provide real and meaningful relief for those who are going to qualify. And at its core, this legislation is about fairness and stability. Seniors and disabled Ohioans build our communities, they've paid taxes in our communities for decades, and they've invested in the neighborhoods that all of us benefit from today. A conservative principle that I strongly believe about is that government should not tax people out of their homes that they work their entire lives to live to own. House Bill 261 takes a responsible step toward protecting that principle while providing targeted relief to those who need it the most. and thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony and we're happy to answer your questions. Thank you. Thank you so much, representatives. I know you're very passionate about this and it's great to have you here. We'll open up to questions. We're going to start with our ranking member.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members. Hallelujah. We've been talking about doing something with the homestead exemption for quite some time and I think as Representative Lorenz has said, this hasn't kept up with inflation. Personally, I think we should have been doing something that doesn't have to be triggered by House Bill 96. But the question I have, House Bill 96 authorized these piggybacked additional 2.5% or a doubling of the homestead exemption and an additional, if they qualify, an additional 2.5% owner-occupied. Of the 88 counties, there are only four that basically pulled the trigger on both legs of that stool. one of them being mine, and I guess the other six, I don't know which half of they did here. But I was on the impression, I know some of the people I've talked to on your side of the aisle, that when this House Bill 96 provision was put in, that this additional tax relief would be if the county commissioners wanted to do that out of their revenues or they wanted to tweak their piggyback sales tax to cover that. What we found out, especially in my county, it's just a pure deduct from the budgets of those entities. And so I'm just wondering why so few counties actually utilize this, basically said, no, we don't think as commissioners we should be in the business of reducing the taxpayer-approved property tax budgets of some of these entities and all that. So I guess the question is, what kind of feedback are you hearing around the state, and why was there such resistance in just about all of the counties in the state of Ohio to even do this?
Through the Chair, I think that's a really great question, but the whole premise of this bill is to address that concern. So we've had this option to increase the local homestead exemption. We've had this option. And some have taken part in it, but some have not. So the idea here is let's get everybody. Let's get everyone doing it in the state, and let's meet the locals halfway with it. It's a very simple approach. You do your part, we'll do our part, and we'll take care of seniors.
Well, Mr. Chairman, a follow-up? Well, I don't know who you're incentivizing because, you know, the county commissioners, they can do this. I mean, it's a great opportunity to say, hey, we're giving property tax relief, but not with our money. somebody else's money. And so I guess the question is, why don't we go a little bit further here and basically cover the cost of the 2.5% owner-occupied rollback that if commissioners decide to pull the trigger on that? I mean, you know, I saw the price tag in the bill. You know, I will point out again, and I've said this before, in 2010, we were putting $1.8 billion of our general fund budget into property tax relief. That was close to 8% of our general fund budget. Fast forward 16 years later, we're putting about $1.9 billion into property tax relief, and that shrunk down to about 4.1% of our budget. So the state has actually been contributing less and less and less, and I would think that on top of this, I salute what you're doing here, giving the help here, because basically what you're doing is you're restoring the money to the budgets of those who suffered from the increased owner-occupied thing, but also making more individuals eligible for it. So I guess the question is, don't you think we're in a position at these tough times with these property values skyrocketing to provide even more relief than this particular bill does?
Yeah. Through the chair, to the representative, I would say that we're giving max amount of relief for the least amount of costs to the state. Who are the taxpayers as well?
Other questions? I think we have Representative Segrist.
Thank you. From the chair to my esteemed colleagues here. So there's already, and correct me if I'm wrong, but an exemption for, an enhanced exemption for $58,000 for veterans, disabled veterans in this space. Is there any leeway to try to increase that in terms of, like, asking the local support for lifting that to something higher? But definitely asking for local support as well. Through the chair, and I thank you, Representative, for your question. You may be aware that I actually have a separate bill that applies directly to disabled veterans, and I'm very passionate about supporting our disabled veterans. I mention veterans here because a good number of our veterans, disabled veterans, are also over the age of 65. So I'll continue to pursue that other bill. This bill will probably encapsulate some of those veterans, surely not as many as I would like in my other bill, but this is a solid bill at a reasonable price tag. Follow-up? Just one, and a little bit similar, but a little different question. So this bill, you have to be 65 and permanently disabled, or just one or the other in terms of qualifying? This bill right now, qualify for the homestead exemption, it's an income qualification. You do not have to be disabled. You're just through the chair. You just need to be over the age of 65 and meet the income qualifications. However, and I'm kind of getting in the weeds here, we have a number of people who are grandfathered who do not meet the eligibility, income eligibility, because we formerly, I think it was prior to 2007, anyone over the age of 65 was eligible for the Homestead exemption. Thank you.
Okay.
Vice Chair Thomas. Thank you, Chair. Thank you both so much for presenting this bill and really appreciate it. I'm going to take the opposite perspective of our esteemed ranking member and essentially ask in the thought process, part of why we did not have the state backfilling or paying for the piggyback was the concept that the current revenue coming in following the spikes over the last five years was not really actually the true revenue needed or was inflated. And so kind of curious to get your perspectives. If we do, and I appreciate that you're not reimbursing fully and that there's a medium ground here, but if we do use state taxpayer dollars to then backfill, does that essentially back up or guarantee the idea that the current amount of tax revenue coming in from property taxes at the local level is actually needed and should be there? Or do you think it is important to have the concept that some of that revenue coming in should no longer actually be coming in and the taxpayers actually pay less overall?
I happy to take it if you want me to You welcome to I jump in after you I apologize I not letting my right arm here speak but I think it through the chair to the vice chair I thank you for your question. The sub-bill actually, part of the sub-bill empowers our local budget commission to look at overall at the revenues. So I'd like to say, because of the hard work that this committee has done and that you have done, that we have empowered the budget commissions to adjust, given those revenue losses, between various subdivisions within the county. Follow-up?
Other questions?
Ranking Member Troy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members. Again, to kind of put this in perspective, and I appreciate what you're doing here, but how we should do it. My largest school district, I went to a meeting. Okay, so they project that they're going to lose about $22 million over the next six-year appraisal period. But they pointed out that, you know, the $129 million and $186 million and $335 million, and I'm trying to remember what the other number was, the four bills that we passed, you know, is going to cost them probably about projected over the next six years about $8 or $9 million in reduced revenue and all that. The piggyback that was implemented by my county commissioners on both legs of the stool is going to cost them $13.5 million over the next six-year reappraisal. So very honestly, in cases where counties will pull the trigger on both of them, there's probably a bigger hit that's being taken out of these taxpayer-dependent entities from the piggyback, the authorized piggyback provision that commissioners were given in House Bill 96, that is substantially more than the reform bills that this legislature passed. So I think that if we're looking about trying to help the seniors and also trying to help those entities, because if those entities have to go back to the ballot and say, well, I've got to go back to the ballot now because I'm losing $22 million over the next six years, I mean, we're kind of just going back to square one again. They're going to be asking the seniors to pay more property taxes. So I'm just hoping that we can continue to look at maybe modifying that provision that we put in House Bill 96, especially the fact that there seemed to be quite a bit of resistance out there among boards of county commissioners to implement and try and get some more relief into this as possible. I know that we're saying that, well, we're trying to do what the state can afford. As I've always said, maybe we should have been dealing with this before we brought ourselves down to the second lowest income tax, state income tax rate in the nation. Because these are the people that need the help.
I totally agree with you. And a lot of the revenue that could help them, we've given to the people that don't really need as much help as they do. So I just hope that we can continue to look at this for even more relief. And as you said, and I love you using my language, have the state put more skin into the game. Thank you.
Through the chair, I didn't see a question there.
But skin in the game is absolutely correct. I mean, we're united in that. And I think you just gave a great reason why we need this bill. Because we help with this. we have a 50% share from the government to local governments, and I highly urge your support of the bill.
Any other questions, comments?
I would just, if I may, Mr. Chair, just address the ranking member's point as well. And I'm stating the obvious here, but collectively we've got a huge spending problem in this state, and anything that we can do to mitigate that and shift it over to help our most vulnerable population is something that we need to continually work on. I mean, the Tax Relief Study Commission that we had last year was a fantastic step. This is a great bill to try and implement some of those changes as well. And the incremental approach to protecting seniors, disabled veterans, everybody, is something that we should all be focused on first and foremost. Thank you.
Thank you so much. That will constitute the first hearing on House Bill 261. We're now going to bring forth House Bill 420 for its second hearing. This is one of the click trilogy, Discontinuing the Continuum. You're famous there, Representative.
I'm going to recognize Vice Chair Thomas for the purposes of a motion. Thank you, Chair. I move to amend House Bill 420 with Amendment Underscore 136 Underscore 1741. And that is in order, if you could explain it, please. Thank you. This is a friendly amendment with the support of the two sponsors. This allows the rollbacks to continue to be placed on those eligible renewal levies that would result as a consequence of ending continuous levies. So keeping the rollbacks, homestead owner occupancy, non-business in place. Excellent.
I believe it's an excellent amendment. Questions? Any objections? Seeing no objections, that is accepted. We are now going to start with, in fact, I see her in the room here, Hannah Cubbins, Legislative Director for AFP for Proponent Testimony, whenever you're ready.
Good morning. Is it afternoon? Not yet. Not yet, okay. Good morning. In one minute.
One minute, okay. Right on the dot. All right.
We're very efficient here. Chairman Romare, Vice Chair Thomas, Ranking Member Troy, members of the House Ways and Means Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide proponent testimony on House Bill 420. I've been before this committee a few times, so I'll spare you reading verbatim the principles we try to align with when we're weighing in on these issues, but I do want to point out that 420 specifically addresses numbers 3 and 4, predictable permanent reforms, and then transparency and accountability. We believe tax policy should be transparent and easy to understand. Taxpayers should clearly understand what they owe and how their tax dollars are being used. House Bill 420 provides more transparency and accountability by addressing a structural problem in Ohio's property tax system. The bill ends the practice of continuous levies and requires future levies to be approved for a defined term. Continuous levies may have been approved by the voters years or even decades ago without returning to the ballot for reconsideration. As a result, property owners continue paying taxes long after community needs, economic conditions, and original purposes have changed without an opportunity to weigh in. When taxes remain in effect indefinitely, it becomes increasingly difficult for taxpayers to know which levies they are paying, why they exist, and whether the revenue still aligns with the needs of the community. A predictable tax system benefits both governments and taxpayers. House Bill 420 provides clarity by ensuring that taxes do not continue by default. Instead, the continuation requires an affirmative decision by voters. The bill, however, does not eliminate the ability of local governments, schools, or special districts to raise revenue. Instead, it ensures that continued taxation requires continued public consent. If a levy remains necessary, voters retain the full authority to renew it. If circumstances have changed, voters are unable to reconsider. The bill also protects fiscal stability. Property taxes pledge to repay outstanding bonds or other debt obligations are preserved until those obligations are fully satisfied. This ensures communities meet their financial commitments and maintain access to capital markets, while also preventing taxes from continuing indefinitely once the original obligation has been met. House Bill 420 represents a thoughtful and responsible step toward improving Ohio's property tax system. It does not eliminate funding for essential services, nor does it create fiscal instability. Instead, it restores transparency, reinforces voter oversight, and ensures property taxes remain aligned with current community needs. Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer questions.
We very much appreciate you coming in. We'll open up for questions. Any questions for Ms. Cummins?
Representative Kleck. Thank you, Ms. Cummins, for coming in and providing testimony on this. There's an article written in the Dayton Daily News that talks about ending. The title was simply this. It said, Bill would end autopilot property tax levies imperiling most taxes on the books. I don't know that it would actually imperil those taxes, but they give this number. They said there are in southwest Ohio, there are one thousand seventy tax levies and seven hundred and forty three or nearly 70 percent of them are permanent. And so I've described these continuous levies as sort of like the energizer bunny that just keeps going on and on and on. Explain to me again your perspective and why it's good to have periodic accountability and transparency among the voters. And how would you respond to those those numbers there?
Yeah, through the chair to the member. I think it's important that whenever you're stewarding taxpayer dollars that they know where they're going. This is a pretty simple bill, and I think that having that information, having to reaffirm those spending commitments each year is just an objectively good thing to do so that voters, again, know where their dollars are being used. I want to point out too in this last oh my gosh was it last year? There was an election and the levies were yes we all know we were there. The levies were pretty significantly supported. I can't remember the exact percentage but point being voters do return to the ballot box. They do support these levies and so if there's a concern about local funding being in peril because of a proposal like this I would simply point to that and again remind folks that this is something that voters will, if they find it a good idea, they'll come back and, you know, affirmatively renew that funding. In fact, I believe we got the number, last general election, 87% of levies in Ohio passed successfully. That's what I was trying to pull from my brain, thank you. And I believe the general election before that, it was 83% or 84%. Correct, yeah.
Follow-up? Just to say that, I've heard some concerns from some folks that, you know, EMS and fire would be endangered by this, and that was kind of the point of that headline too. And I think that you would agree with me that people are going to support the things that they find value in. And I don't personally believe it's going to endanger EMS or FIRE. Would you elaborate on that one more time?
Correct. I mean, these are essential services that folks rely on in their communities. Again, the bill doesn't cut the funding, go at the funding. It simply just provides accountability and transparency. And those services, to your point, I would think everyone would want to continue funding for their communities. Thank you.
Thank you. Other questions, comments?
Seeing none, thank you so much for your testimony. Thank you so much. We are now going to call forth Jerry Miller, the Sandusky County Auditor.
And I think you have to tell us, is this the first time you're testifying? It is the first time I've testified.
We've had lots of auditors, multiple auditors serve at the Statehouse. We love having you come in. So thank you so much. Oh, and go ahead, Representative. Pardon me? You're retiring?
I am.
Next March.
Oh, outstanding.
Well, thank you so much for coming into committee. We appreciate it.
Whenever you're ready. Okay. Thank you for having the opportunity to submit some comments regarding the continuous levy. Like I said, you guys mentioned, my name is Jerry Miller, and I'm currently serving as Sandusky County Auditor. I've had the privilege of serving in this row for 11 years so far. Through the experience of my office, I have come to understand both the importance of levies in supporting essential public services, and the equally important responsibilities we have in maintaining transparency and accountability to taxpayers we serve It is in the spirit that I offer these comments These are my concerns and not concerns about our association In the interest of transparency and public accountability, I believe continuous levies should be thoroughly reviewed and evaluated. Sandusky County currently has 45 continuous levies, and we're a smaller county. in place. Some of them go back to the 1970s. Over the decades, our county has experienced significant demographic and economic changes. Many of today's residents were not even born when some of these were put in place or were not even old enough to vote. Yet they are required to pay these through their property taxes. While these levies are lawfully enacted and have provided important funding, it is reasonable to ask whether indefinite taxation without renewing voter input continue to reflect the will and understanding of the current voters. Establishing a process for periodic review would provide voters with an opportunity to reaffirm their support and ensure that these levies remain aligned with the present-day priorities of the community needs. Additionally, the real estate tax calculation process has become increasingly complex over time. The layer of numerous levies and the various rates durations have made the system very complex and cumbersome. The complexity challenges both myself and the treasurer to help explain these to the taxpayers. When taxpayers have difficulties understanding about their tax obligations, it creates some confusion and diminished public trust. For these reasons, I believe a careful review of continuous levies would promote clarity, strengthen public confidence, and enhance transparency in the local tax system. Thank you.
Thank you so much for coming in. We appreciate it. And I understand from working with numerous auditors the amount of work and expertise that the job requires. So thank you so much for that. Open up for questions. Do we have any questions? Ranking Member Troy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Auditor Miller. Certainly your points are well taken. And, you know, when we had the Tax Study Commission, the Joint Tax Study Commission back in 2024, I mean, there were a lot. I don't think we looked at the type of levies like replacement levies and things like that. I don't think we ever really got into, you know, so much on the continuous levies. But I think one of the things maybe we need to explore, and I think that's a difference sometimes between myself and the chairman. He thought six months was enough. I thought six years might have been maybe enough time to look at this stuff. But why do we have all these differing things on me? I guess the question is like senior citizen levies can only go for five years. I think children's services levies can only go for 10 years. And then you have these continuous levies. So we have this mixed bag of levies that have to go back to the voters over a certain period of time. And then we have these things like the continuous levies. any idea from the auditors association perspective and all that how we got to that great diversity in how long these levies could run and why some are limited to five years why some to ten years and why others I know when I was county commissioner I have a county library they came to us and said they wanted to go from a regular renewable levy to a continuous levy and we kind of said we don't know if we're, you know, thrilled about that. And they said, well, you don't have any choice. Once we ask the commissioners to put a library levy on the ballot, you have no choice but to put it on the ballot. So I just think we still need to, you know, work out some of these things here. But any idea why, and do you run into that too, that have to tell people, no, you can only ask for this for five years or you can only ask this for ten years at your county level?
It's basically all our ORC.
and I guess I'm looking at everybody here that has put them into place because I don't have control over that. But that's where it came from is ORC, which ones can put continuous, which one has to be five years, which one. So it is very confusing. There's many times I have to reach out to either the prosecutor or my consultant just to say, okay, can I do it for five years? Can we do it for this? And there's different levels too when it can be put on the ballot. Most of them they can put them on three times, but there's some rare occasions where they can put it on earlier than that. Okay.
The follow-up? Okay. Representative Daniels.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. A little bit along the same line, so if the concept of this bill is to get rid of permanent levies or continuing levies, which are permanent, would this possibly – I'm curious your opinion. Given your extensive experience, auditors bring a lot to the table here. When we have questions, we regularly try to talk to auditors because you see a lot of the moving parts and the parts that don't move well. Would you give a little color or your opinion on what those terms maybe should be if we're going to get rid of permanence? Should we maybe look at an overall number and say maybe they should all be five or seven or whatever? Just curious what your opinion is.
To be honest with you, I don't really have an opinion on what that is. I'm sorry, because I've thought the same thing, because I think parks can put on for 10 years. Do we go 10 years? I do know it's a burden on some of them that have to be every five years, especially the schools because their hands are so tight as far as what they can use to promote that levy. It's a little bit easier with some of the townships and stuff because they can use certain funds for that. But I don't really have a specific guideline for how long it should be or it shouldn't be. I just know when I first got into office and I started to understand all these levies, I thought I wasn't even eligible to vote for a lot of these. Follow-up?
Other questions? Representative Glassburn.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for coming down. So towards the end of your last comment, you hit on an issue of this that concerns me, which is in my county, Cuyahoga County, we have health and human service levies that are time limited. And so to avoid a singular failure being catastrophic, the county divides the levy into multiple levies so that three mils are coming up at this cycle and four mils are coming up at that cycle. And it confuses the voters pretty substantially. So if we were to go to a system of nothing is permanent, how do we not end up in the local governments reacting to that by dividing into two and three levies, and then we have a lot of confusion about what's a renewal, what's an increase? Do you have thoughts on that?
There is going to be voter fatigue because I see it right now. We don't have that in Sandusky County. I don't have any of them that divide. As a matter of fact, I've had a couple of them that combined it because they don't want that voter fatigue. So it definitely is going to have, there's going to be an issue, but it's also per district. Like my district is completely different than another school district, so it's going to be by district. I don't know if I answered your question or not, but yeah, we don't do it like you guys do it. And most of my county does not want to have more levies. they like said, they like try to combine them so we don't have voter fatigue.
Follow up. Thank you. Representative Kleck.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Ms. Miller. It's an honor to have you here today as the great Sandusky County Auditor. I believe in giving credit where credit is due, so we'll let everyone know that this bill was actually your idea for good or for bad. If they like it, it's my idea. It's bad. It's your idea? No. And I like to speak to my local officials to find out from them what's actually happening on the ground, and you introduced this concept to me, so I thank you for that, and I think it's a good concept. And I'm going to just ask you the same question I asked Ms. Cubbins earlier. There are some people out there who seem to be afraid that, oh, we're going to lose our support for our EMS or for our fire, for our essential services. Personally, I don't think that's going to happen because I think, as we already heard, people renewed several levies all in the middle of this whole acts of tax thing. Many people renewed their levies. And I think people, if they understand what the levy is for and why it's being used responsibly and that the people are accountable, I think they'll renew the levies. Do you think it endangers fire, EMS, or essential services?
Fire EMS, Board of DD, I don't care what they're doing, if they're increasing, whatever, it seems like those always get voted on. Those are all like the feel good, like I may need that fire someday, I may need the EMS. So what I've seen in my experience, and it's not 100% accurate, but what I've seen is when those levies are on the ballot, they always get passed.
Thank you. Follow up? No. Other questions, comments? Seeing none. Thank you so much for coming in for your first time here. You did a great job. Well, we've got you through the end of the year. You're welcome to come back. And speaking of that, I did not receive any other request for in-person testimony. Is there anybody wishing to testify in person? That will conclude the second hearing on House Bill 420. We're now going to call forth House Bill 330 for its second hearing to authorize a sales tax holiday for firearm safety storage devices, and I did not receive any in-person proponent testimony. Anybody here wishing to testify in person? We don't have any written testimony either, so that concludes the second hearing on House Bill 330. We're now going to move to House Bill 483 to allow a partial property tax deferral for eligible homeowners. We did not receive any in-person proponent testimony. Is there anybody here wishing to testify in person on 483? I would like to direct our members to their iPads for submitted written testimony from Nick Scioli, the research analyst with the County Commissioners Association, and that will constitute the second hearing on House Bill 483. We're now going to move forth to House Bill 607 to enact the Ohio Capital Gains Tax Repeal Act. will bring this forth for its second hearing, and I don't have any in-person testimony on that. Is there anybody wishing to testify in person on House Bill 617? I would like to direct members to their iPads for submitted written-only testimony. That's from Liz Bumgartner, a regular person who testifies here a whole lot, the Director of Academic Development and Tax Policy with the Ohio Chamber of Commerce. And Liz is here, but we have written testimony from Liz. Thank you for coming. And that concludes the second hearing on House Bill 617. And with no further business, we are concluded.