OHIO LEGISLATIVE SERVICE COMMISSION
Office of Research Legislative Budget
www.lsc.ohio.gov and Drafting Office
H.B. 126 Final Analysis
134th General Assembly
Click here for H.B. 126’s Fiscal Note
Primary Sponsor: Rep. Merrin
Effective date: July 21, 2022
Mackenzie Damon, Attorney
SUMMARY
Limits a political subdivision from filing a property tax valuation complaint against
property it does not own, unless the property was sold within a certain timeframe and
the sale price was at least 10% and $500,000 more than the auditor’s current valuation.
Requires the legislative authority of a political subdivision, before filing any property tax
complaint, to pass a resolution authorizing the filing at a public meeting.
Removes a requirement that school boards receive notice from a county board of
revision (BOR) when certain property tax complaints are filed.
Requires a BOR to dismiss an original complaint filed by a political subdivision within one
year after the complaint is filed if the board does not render a decision by then.
Prohibits a political subdivision that has filed a complaint or counter-complaint from
appealing a BOR decision.
Prohibits a property owner and a political subdivision from entering into a private
payment agreement whereby the owner pays the political subdivision to dismiss, not
file, or settle a complaint or counter-complaint.
DETAILED ANALYSIS
Limitations on property tax challenges
Filing of property tax complaints
The act imposes new limits on the filing of property tax complaints with a county BOR.
Under the act, a political subdivision may file a BOR complaint challenging the tax valuation of
property that it does not own only if the property was sold within certain time parameters and
the sale price exceeded a certain threshold. In addition, before a political subdivision may file a
valuation complaint or any other type of BOR complaint, the legislative authority must first
adopt a resolution authorizing the filing.
April 29, 2022
Office of Research and Drafting LSC Legislative Budget Office
Under continuing law, the following individuals or entities may initiate a property tax
complaint: the property owner, the owner’s spouse, or an agent of the owner or spouse;
certain long-term tenants; and a school board, a county treasurer or prosecuting attorney, the
mayor of a municipal corporation, or the board or legislative authority of a county, township, or
municipal corporation. Before the act, there were few limits on the ability of any person or
political subdivision to file a complaint with respect to property that the person or political
subdivision did not own (except that, if a private citizen files a complaint, the citizen must own
property somewhere in the same county or in a taxing district that has territory in that county).
The act’s new limitations do not apply to complaints that a person or political subdivision file
with respect to their own property.
A complaint may challenge a property’s value as assessed for tax purposes or its
classification as residential/agricultural or commercial/industrial for “H.B. 920” tax reduction
purposes, as agricultural property eligible for current agricultural use valuation (CAUV), or as
nonbusiness property eligible for the 10% rollback. Complaints also may challenge recoupment
charges imposed for conversion of CAUV land to nonagricultural use. Most property tax
complaints challenge a property’s assessed value.
Complaints are heard before the BOR, which is comprised of the county treasurer, the
county auditor, and a county commissioner. Generally, a party may initiate a complaint with
respect to a particular parcel only once in each three-year period between the reappraisal and
assessment update years (the “interim period”), unless certain events have occurred in the
meantime, such as the property having been sold.1
Sale requirement
The act requires that, before a political subdivision or other person may file a complaint
with respect to property that the political subdivision or person does not own, the property
must have been sold in an arm’s length transaction in a year preceding the tax year for which
the complaint is to be filed. In addition, the sale price must have been 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.
For example, if a school board wishes to challenge the value of a property for tax year
2022, it may only do so if the property was sold in 2021 or earlier, it has not been sold since,
and the auditor’s valuation of the property for tax year 2022 is both 10% and $500,000 less
than the sale price.2
Under continuing law, county auditors use the recent arm’s length sale of the property
as its fair market tax value, generally when the county undergoes a sexennial property
reappraisal or triennial valuation update following the sale.
1 R.C. 5715.19 and 4503.06.
2 R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(a) and (J).
P a g e |2 H.B. 126
Final Analysis
Office of Research and Drafting LSC Legislative Budget Office
Approval of complaints
Under the act, before filing a property tax complaint against property it does not own, a
legislative authority must, in addition to complying with the sale requirement, first adopt a
resolution approving the filing at a public meeting. Similarly, before a mayor may file a
complaint, the municipal legislative authority must first adopt such a resolution. The resolution
must identify the parcel number and, if available in the county auditor’s online records, the
parcel’s address; the name of an owner; the tax year for which the complaint will be filed; and
the basis for the complaint (e.g., valuation, tax classification, CAUV status).
A single resolution must be confined to identifying a single parcel or multiple parcels
having the same owner. The legislative authority may adopt one or more of these resolutions
by a single vote, provided no other type of resolution addressing a different matter is adopted
pursuant to that same vote; i.e., the measure could not be included in a “consent agenda.”3
Notice of hearing
Before adopting the resolution, the legislative authority must send written notice by
certified mail to one of the property owner’s last known property tax-mailing address and, if
different, to the property’s street address. Alternatively, the notice may be sent to the owner
by ordinary mail if it is also sent electronically to the owner. The notice must declare the intent
of the legislative authority to adopt the resolution and state the proposed date of adoption and
the basis for the complaint. The notice must be postmarked or, if electronic, sent at least seven
days before the resolution is scheduled to be adopted.4
Complaint form
The act requires any property tax complaint form prescribed by a BOR or the Tax
Commissioner to include a box that the person filing the form on behalf of a legislative
authority or mayor must check to certify that the legislative authority or, in the case of a mayor,
the municipal legislative authority, has adopted a resolution authorizing the complaint and
properly provided notice of the resolution to the property owner. If the box is not checked, the
BOR does not have jurisdiction over, and must dismiss the complaint.5
Counter-complaints
The act removes a requirement that school boards receive notice when certain property
tax complaints are filed. Previously, if a complaint alleged a change in value of at least $50,000
in fair market value ($17,500 in taxable value), the county auditor was required to provide
notice of that complaint to the school board within 30 days after the deadline to file
complaints, generally March 31 of the following tax year. The school board could respond by
3 R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(b) and (7).
4 R.C. 5715.19(A)(7).
5 R.C. 5715.19(A)(7) and (8).
P a g e |3 H.B. 126
Final Analysis
Office of Research and Drafting LSC Legislative Budget Office
filing a counter-complaint within 30 days after receiving that notice defending the property’s
assessed value or alleging a different value.
Under the act, school boards will no longer receive notice when any property tax
complaint is filed. A school board may still file counter-complaints, however, provided that the
same monetary threshold is met, i.e., if the complaint alleges a change in value of at least
$50,000 in fair market value. Since school boards will not receive notice of the complaint, the
board must file the counter-complaint within 30 days after the original complaint was filed.
The act does not change the notice or filing requirements for property owners. Owners
will still receive notice of an original complaint filed by another party, and may file a counter-
complaint within 30 days after the owner receives that notice.6
Dismissal of BOR cases
Continuing law requires a BOR to render its decision on a property tax complaint within
180 days after (a) the last day that original complaints can be filed or (b) if a counter-complaint
is filed, the date of that filing. However, if that deadline is not met, the board may continue the
case until it is ultimately decided.
The act modifies this timeline for complaints filed by a legislative authority or a person
that does not own the property subject to the complaint. Under the act, the board must dismiss
any such complaint that is not decided within one year after it is filed. After that one-year
period expires, the board cannot continue the case and loses jurisdiction to hear the
complaint.7
Appeals of BOR decisions
Under prior law, if a BOR decided against a legislative authority’s complaint or counter-
complaint, the legislative authority could appeal the decision to the Board of Tax Appeals. The
act prohibits the filing of such appeals, but it does not prohibit the legislative authority from
becoming the opposing party in an appeal filed by a property owner or another party.8
Private payment agreements
The act prohibits a political subdivision from entering into a private payment
agreement, i.e., an agreement in which a property owner or tenant, or a person acting on
behalf of the owner or tenant, agrees to make one or more payments to the political
subdivision in exchange for the legislative authority dismissing a complaint or counter-
complaint, refraining from filing a complaint or counter-complaint, or settling a claim.
The act does not prohibit agreements in which the parties agree upon a new valuation
for the property that is the subject of a complaint, as long as the new valuation is reflected on
6 R.C. 5715.19(B).
7 R.C. 5715.19(C) and (D).
8 R.C. 5717.01.
P a g e |4 H.B. 126
Final Analysis
Office of Research and Drafting LSC Legislative Budget Office
the tax list and the agreement does not require any payments. Nor does it nullify existing
agreements entered into before July 21, 2022 – the act’s effective date.9
Application date
The act’s requirements apply to any complaint or counter-complaint filed for tax year
2022 or any later tax year.10
HISTORY
Action Date
Introduced 02-16-21
Reported, H. Ways & Means 03-24-21
Passed House (62-31) 04-15-21
Reported, S. Ways & Means 12-08-21
Passed Senate (24-7) 12-15-21
House refused to concur in Senate amendments (0-90) 03-02-22
Senate requested conference committee 03-16-22
House acceded to request for conference committee 04-04-22
House agreed to conference committee report (61-35) 04-06-22
Senate agreed to conference committee report (24-8) 04-06-22
22-ANHB126EN-134/ks
9 R.C. 5715.19(I); Section 3(B).
10 Section 3(A).
P a g e |5 H.B. 126
Final Analysis
Statutes affected: As Introduced: 5715.19
As Reported By House Committee: 5715.19
As Passed By House: 5715.19
As Re-referred to Senate Committee: 5715.19
As Reported By Senate Committee: 4503.06, 5715.19, 5717.01
As Passed By Senate: 4503.06, 5715.19, 5717.01
As Reported By Committee: 4503.06, 5715.19, 5717.01
As Enrolled: 4503.06, 5715.19, 5717.01