To amend sections 351.01, 351.021, 353.06, 4735.11, 5739.01, 5739.08, 5739.09, 5739.091, and 5741.01 and to enact section 5325.01 of the Revised Code to limit the authority of local governments to regulate short-term rental properties, to extend local lodging taxes to short-term rentals, to require collection of those taxes by short-term rental platforms, and to require real estate licenses to be issued electronically.
HB109 would make several changes to Ohio law affecting short-term rentals, lodging taxes, and real estate licensing. The bill would prohibit townships, counties, and municipal corporations from adopting or enforcing certain local rules aimed at short-term rental properties, including bans, lottery-based registration systems, zoning limits in residential areas, caps on the number of rentals a person may operate, and owner-occupancy requirements. Local governments could still require registration or licensing, but any fee would be capped at $20 per year per property and limited to enforcement costs.
The bill also expands existing lodging-tax provisions so that taxes on hotel stays apply equally to short-term rental properties. It requires short-term rental platforms to collect and remit applicable local lodging taxes on transactions made through their platforms. In addition, the bill would require real estate licenses to be issued electronically rather than in paper form. Much of the bill revises definitions in the sales tax and use tax statutes to expressly include short-term rental lodging and platform-based transactions, and it updates related lodging-tax provisions across county, municipal, township, convention facilities, and lake facilities authority statutes.
HB109 would affect several parts of the Revised Code, especially Chapters 351, 353, 4735, 5739, and 5741. Its practical effect would be to preempt a range of local regulatory approaches to short-term rentals while preserving a narrow local registration authority. At the same time, it would broaden the tax base for lodging taxes to include short-term rentals and place collection obligations on short-term rental platforms, which could increase compliance and revenue collection for local governments and tax authorities.
The general sentiment reflected in the available record is limited because the bill was only introduced and had no recorded committee testimony or votes. Based on the bill’s structure and caption, it appears designed to standardize treatment of short-term rentals and improve tax collection, suggesting a policy emphasis on statewide uniformity and administrative efficiency. Because there was no recorded debate, the public or legislative reaction cannot be assessed from the provided materials.
The main point of contention likely concerns local control versus state preemption. Local governments that want to restrict short-term rentals through zoning, occupancy, or registration limits would lose that authority under the bill, while property owners and short-term rental platforms would benefit from a more permissive statewide framework. Another likely issue is the tax-collection mandate for platforms, which would shift administrative responsibility to online intermediaries and could raise compliance concerns for platform operators and hosts.
HB109 would amend Ohio’s lodging-tax and sales-tax definitions to include short-term rental properties and short-term rental platform transactions, and it would require local lodging taxes to be collected and remitted by platforms. It would also create a new Revised Code section limiting local regulation of short-term rentals and capping local registration fees. In addition, it would require real estate licenses to be issued electronically. The bill would therefore preempt certain local land-use and regulatory powers, while expanding the tax collection framework for counties, municipalities, townships, convention facilities authorities, and lake facilities authorities.
The available record shows no committee testimony and no votes, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to measure. From the bill text itself, the measure appears pro-short-term-rental and pro-tax-administration, emphasizing statewide consistency and tax compliance. Because it was only introduced, the political reception is not yet visible in the provided materials.
The central controversy is likely local control versus state preemption. Local governments may object to losing authority to ban short-term rentals, impose zoning limits, require owner occupancy, or use lottery systems and operating caps. Property owners and short-term rental platforms are likely to support the bill’s uniform statewide rules, though platforms may resist the new duty to collect and remit lodging taxes. Another possible point of contention is the $20 annual cap on local registration or licensing fees, which limits municipal and county cost recovery.