OHIO LEGISLATIVE SERVICE COMMISSION
Office of Research Legislative Budget
www.lsc.ohio.gov and Drafting Office
H.B. 344 Bill Analysis
135th General Assembly
Click here for H.B. 344’s Fiscal Note
Version: As Reported by House Ways and Means
Primary Sponsors: Reps. Mathews and Hall
Effective date:
Mackenzie Damon, Attorney
SUMMARY
Eliminates the authority of political subdivisions to levy replacement property tax levies,
beginning with elections held on or after October 1, 2024.
Modifies the requirements governing when political subdivisions can file property tax
complaints and counter-complaints.
Requires subdivisions that fail to comply with property tax complaint filing requirements
to pay the attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the property owner in connection with
the complaint.
DETAILED ANALYSIS
Replacement property tax levies
The bill eliminates the authority of political subdivisions to levy replacement property
tax levies, beginning with elections held on or after October 1, 2024.1
Under current law, a subdivision may propose a replacement levy to extend the term of
an existing levy. A replacement levy is imposed at the same original millage rate of the levy it is
replacing. By contrast, subdivisions may also propose renewal levies, which extend the term of
an existing levy at its current effective millage rate − i.e., its rate after reductions resulting from
the H.B. 920 tax reduction factors. The tax reduction factors have the effect of lowering a levy’s
effective millage over time, since they are designed to prevent a subdivision’s tax revenue from
growing at the same rate as property values. Consequently, unlike a renewal levy, a
1R.C. 5705.192, repealed and conforming changes in R.C. 319.301, 319.302, 523.06, 1545.21, 3316.041,
3316.06, 3358.11, 3505.06, 5705.03, 5705.218, 5705.2111, 5705.221, 5705.233, 5705.261, and
5705.412; Section 4(A) and (B).
May 2, 2024
Office of Research and Drafting LSC Legislative Budget Office
replacement levy allows subdivisions to receive the benefit of any growth in property tax values
that occurred during the life of the existing levy.
Limitations on property tax challenges
The bill modifies a recent law that imposed limits on the filing of property tax
complaints by parties other than property owners. Among other changes, H.B. 126 of the
134th General Assembly limited the situations in which political subdivisions can file property
tax complaints or appeal the decisions of a board of revision (BOR) regarding those complaints.
Filing of property tax complaints
Sale requirement
Under current law, as enacted in H.B. 126, political subdivisions may only file a property
tax complaint with respect to property the subdivision does not own if (a) the property was sold
in an arm’s length transaction before the tax year for which the complaint is filed and (b) that
sale price was at least 10% and $500,000 more than the auditor’s current valuation. The
$500,000 threshold increases each year for inflation, beginning in tax year 2023. These limits
also apply to third party property owners in the county who do not own or lease the property in
question (“third party complainants”).
The bill further narrows this sale requirement, by specifying that a conveyance fee
statement for the sale must have been filed with the county auditor within the two years
preceding the year for which the complaint is filed. Current law requires that the property was
sold before that year, but does not expressly include any limit on when that sale occurred.2
Resolution
Existing law also requires that, before filing a complaint, a subdivision must adopt a
resolution authorizing the complaint. The bill specifies that such a resolution is also required if
the complaint is filed by a third party complainant who is “acting on behalf of a subdivision.” A
person is considered to be “acting on behalf of a subdivision” if the person is an official or
employee of the subdivision or was directed to file the complaint by an official or employee.
Under the bill, all third party complainants must submit an affidavit, with the complaint,
certifying whether the person is or is not acting on behalf of a subdivision. The falsification of
such an affidavit is a first degree misdemeanor.3
Penalty for illegal filing
Under continuing law, if a subdivision files a complaint that does not meet the sale and
resolution requirements, the BOR will dismiss the complaint. The bill adds that, in such cases,
the BOR must also order the subdivision to pay any attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the
property owner in connection with the complaint. The amounts must be paid to the property
2 R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(a).
3 R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(b) and (8) and (L).
P a g e |2 H.B. 344
As Reported by House Ways and Means
Office of Research and Drafting LSC Legislative Budget Office
owner, through the BOR. If the subdivision fails to pay the amount due, the BOR may refer the
case to the county prosecuting attorney for collection.4
Application
The bill’s new complaint filing limits and penalty apply to complaints filed on or after the
bill’s 90-day effective date.5
Counter-complaints
Under continuing law, if a property tax complaint alleges a change in value of at least
$50,000 in fair market value ($17,500 in taxable value), a school district may join the case by
filing a counter-complaint. The bill provides that a school district may only file such a counter-
complaint if the original complaint was filed by the owner or lessee of the property. Essentially,
the bill prohibits school districts from filing counter-complaints when the original complaint is
filed by another political subdivision or by a third party complainant. This change applies to
counter-complaints filed with respect to tax year 2022 and after.6
Appeals of BOR decisions
The bill expands an existing law, also enacted in H.B. 126, that prohibits political
subdivisions from appealing BOR decisions on property they do not own to the Board of Tax
Appeals (BTA). Under the bill, these appeal limitations also apply to third party complainants. In
addition, the bill expressly prohibits a subdivision from appealing a BOR decision regarding a
complaint filed by a third party complainant. This latter prohibition applies to appeals of BOR
decisions issued on or after July 21, 2022 (H.B. 126’s effective date). The limit on third party
complainants applies to appeals of BOR decisions issued after the bill’s 90-day effective date.7
Private payment agreements
Continuing law prohibits a political subdivision from entering into a private payment
agreement with a property owner whereby the owner agrees to pay the political subdivision to
dismiss, not file, or settle a complaint or counter-complaint. The bill extends this prohibition to
any agreement that a property owner would enter into with a person who is acting on behalf of
a political subdivision. This prohibition applies to complaints filed on or after the bill’s 90-day
effective date.8
4 R.C. 5715.19(K).
5 Section 4(C)(1) and (4).
6 R.C. 5715.19(B); Section 4(C)(2).
7 R.C. 5717.01; Section 4(D).
8 R.C. 5715.19(I); Section 4(C)(3).
P a g e |3 H.B. 344
As Reported by House Ways and Means
Office of Research and Drafting LSC Legislative Budget Office
HISTORY
Action Date
Introduced 11-29-23
Reported, H. Ways & Means 05-01-24
ANHB0344RH-135/ks
P a g e |4 H.B. 344
As Reported by House Ways and Means
Statutes affected: As Introduced: 319.301, 319.302, 523.06, 1545.21, 2506.01, 3316.041, 3316.06, 3358.11, 3505.06, 5705.03, 5705.218, 5705.2111, 5705.221, 5705.233, 5705.261, 5705.412, 5715.19, 5717.01, 5705.192
As Reported By House Committee: 319.301, 319.302, 523.06, 1545.21, 3316.041, 3316.06, 3358.11, 3505.06, 5705.03, 5705.218, 5705.2111, 5705.221, 5705.233, 5705.261, 5705.412, 5715.19, 5717.01, 5705.192