To amend sections 3735.67, 5709.40, 5709.41, 5709.73, and 5709.78 of the Revised Code to exclude certain fire and emergency medical services levies from being reduced by a community reinvestment area or tax increment financing property tax exemption.
HB778 amends Ohio’s property tax exemption statutes for community reinvestment areas (CRAs) and tax increment financing (TIF)-style incentive districts in municipal corporations, townships, and counties. The bill’s central change is to protect certain fire and emergency medical services levies from being reduced by these exemptions. In the CRA section, it specifies that qualifying fire and emergency medical services taxes, township fire district taxes, and certain township levies for fire and EMS services are not exempted for agreements or exemptions entered into on or after the bill’s effective date. Similar language is added across the municipal, township, and county TIF provisions so that exempted improvements remain subject to specified fire, EMS, ambulance, and in some cases police-related levies.
Beyond that core change, the bill largely preserves the existing structure of Ohio’s economic development tax incentive laws. It keeps the rules allowing local governments to declare improvements a public purpose, create incentive districts, issue service payments in lieu of taxes, and extend exemptions for up to 30 years in some cases with school board approval or compensation agreements. It also retains notice, hearing, reporting, and compensation procedures for school districts, county commissioners, and township trustees, while updating the list of levies that must still receive revenue even when property is exempted.
The practical impact is to narrow the fiscal effect of CRA and TIF exemptions on local emergency services funding. Property owners receiving these exemptions would still benefit from reduced real property tax liability, but the exemption would no longer shield them from the specified fire and EMS levies. Local governments using these tools would have less ability to divert revenue away from fire districts, ambulance districts, and township emergency service levies, which could help stabilize funding for those services while slightly reducing the net value of the tax exemption for affected projects.
The bill’s sentiment appears generally supportive of local public safety funding while remaining favorable to economic development incentives. Because the bill was introduced and referred to the House Ways and Means Committee with no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials, there is no documented floor or committee opposition in the record here. The framing of the bill suggests an effort to balance development policy with protection of essential emergency services revenue.
The main point of contention is likely the tradeoff between preserving local incentive tools for development and ensuring that fire and emergency medical services are not financially weakened by those incentives. Local governments and developers may view the bill as modestly increasing the cost of projects that rely on CRA or TIF exemptions, while fire districts, EMS providers, and township officials are likely to support the change because it protects dedicated service levies. Another possible issue is the bill’s selective treatment of certain levies, which could raise questions about whether other local taxing authorities should receive similar protection.
HB778 would amend sections 3735.67, 5709.40, 5709.41, 5709.73, and 5709.78 of the Revised Code to carve out specified fire and emergency medical services-related levies from CRA and TIF property tax exemptions. The bill would apply prospectively to agreements, ordinances, and resolutions adopted on or after the effective date, leaving existing exemptions generally unchanged. It would affect property owners receiving these incentives, local governments that grant them, and the fire/EMS taxing authorities that would continue to receive revenue from exempted property.
The available record shows no votes or committee testimony, so there is no formal recorded debate outcome. Based on the bill text, the policy direction appears broadly supportive of public safety funding while still preserving economic development exemptions. The bill seems designed to address a perceived revenue loss to fire and EMS districts without dismantling the underlying CRA and TIF frameworks.
The likely contention is between economic development interests that favor broad tax abatements and fire/EMS providers that want their dedicated levies protected from erosion. Municipalities, townships, counties, and developers may object to the bill to the extent it reduces the financial benefit of exemptions or complicates incentive negotiations. Fire districts, ambulance districts, and township officials responsible for emergency services are the most likely supporters because the bill preserves their revenue stream.