To establish and convene a Blue Ribbon Committee in each county to review and assess each taxing unit within the county and each county program or department to identify duplication of services and generally to streamline and improve county efficiency and effectiveness.
HB520 would require the board of county commissioners in each Ohio county, or the county executive where applicable, to establish a Blue Ribbon Committee to review county government and related local taxing entities. The committee’s charge is broad: it must examine taxing units, county programs and departments, and certain public services and districts to identify duplication, opportunities to combine or consolidate operations, and ways to improve efficiency and effectiveness. The bill specifically mentions water, sewer, health, park, and cemetery services as areas to be reviewed for possible consolidation or shared services.
The committee would include county leadership and representatives from local governments and school entities, including county commissioners or the county executive, the county auditor, mayors of municipal corporations that levy income tax within the county, township trustees, and superintendents of school districts and educational service centers located in the county. Members would serve without compensation, though they could be reimbursed for necessary expenses. Within one year after the bill’s effective date, each committee would have to produce a report of recommendations and publish it on the county website, as well as submit it to the General Assembly.
If enacted, HB520 would add a new county-level planning and review requirement to Ohio law, creating a formal process for evaluating local government structure and service delivery. It would not directly merge entities or cut programs, but it would require counties to study consolidation, shared services, and operational efficiencies and to publicly report recommendations. The bill could affect county governments, municipalities that levy income tax, townships, school districts, educational service centers, and special districts providing water, sewer, health, park, or cemetery services.
The available record shows the bill was only introduced and had no recorded committee testimony or votes, so there is no documented public or legislative sentiment in the materials provided. Based on the bill text, the proposal appears framed positively around efficiency, taxpayer savings, and reducing duplication, suggesting a reform-oriented and fiscally conservative rationale. However, because no hearings or votes are included, support or opposition cannot be reliably assessed from the record.
The main potential points of contention are likely to be local control, the breadth of the committee’s review authority, and the possibility that recommendations could lead to consolidation or reduced autonomy for existing taxing units and service providers. County officials, municipalities, townships, and school administrators may differ on whether the bill would produce meaningful savings or simply add another layer of review. Entities that provide specialized services, such as water, sewer, health, park, and cemetery districts, could be concerned about being targeted for consolidation or restructuring.