To amend sections 3742.01, 3742.03, 3742.39, 3742.50, 5747.08, 5747.26, 5747.50, 5747.502, 5747.51, 5747.53, and 5747.98 and to enact sections 3742.47 and 5747.504 of the Revised Code to revise the law governing lead testing, certification, and tax credits.
HB118 revises Ohio law governing lead testing, lead hazard certification, and related tax incentives. On the lead-regulation side, the bill updates statutory definitions in Chapter 3742, clarifies procedures for lead inspections, risk assessments, clearance examinations, and pre-cleaning, and directs the Department of Health to maintain rules for licensing, training, reporting, environmental sampling, and software authorization used in lead work. It also creates a new process for local governments that require lead-safety certification for rental registration, requiring them to approve or deny applications within 30 days and to identify specific unsafe components when denying certification.
The bill also expands and restructures the lead abatement tax credit. It allows taxpayers and pass-through entities that incur eligible lead abatement costs on pre-1978 dwellings to apply for a certificate worth up to $10,000 per dwelling per year, including certain relocation costs, and permits a lead abatement specialist to receive the certificate by assignment in exchange for a discount. The credit is tied to completion of a clearance examination, is capped statewide at $5 million in certificates per fiscal year plus certain transferred funds, and is integrated into the state income tax credit ordering rules so it can be claimed against Ohio income tax liability.
In addition to the lead-specific changes, HB118 makes conforming amendments to Ohio’s income tax statutes and local government fund provisions. It updates the lead abatement credit’s treatment under the personal income tax credit schedule, revises pass-through entity filing language, and adds a new local government fund penalty mechanism for local authorities that adopt lead-safety certification requirements but repeatedly fail to issue or deny certifications within the required timeframe. Under that mechanism, the state can reduce local government fund payments and redirect withheld amounts to the general revenue fund, with some amounts earmarked for transportation safety or school safety purposes depending on the provision.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available context is neutral to supportive, though the bill is still at the introduction stage and there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes to show formal debate. The structure of the bill suggests a policy goal of encouraging lead hazard remediation while standardizing local certification timelines and enforcement. Because no committee testimony or roll-call votes are available, there is no documented opposition or endorsement in the provided materials.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the new state oversight and financial penalties imposed on local governments, the administrative burden of the 30-day certification deadline, and the fiscal impact of the expanded tax credit and local fund reductions. Property owners, landlords, lead abatement contractors, local health departments, and municipalities that use rental lead-certification programs are the most directly affected parties, while taxpayers undertaking abatement work could benefit from the credit and related assignment option.
HB118 would amend multiple sections of the Revised Code in Chapters 3742 and 5747 to modernize Ohio’s lead hazard control framework and create a new lead certification compliance mechanism for local governments. It would also expand the lead abatement income tax credit, add a new certification process for rental-registration lead safety determinations, and revise the ordering and administration of Ohio income tax credits. The bill would affect property owners, landlords, tenants, lead abatement professionals, local boards of health, municipalities, counties, townships, and the Department of Health and Department of Taxation.
The available record shows no committee testimony and no votes, so there is no formal legislative sentiment captured beyond the bill’s introduction. Based on the text, the bill appears to be framed as a pro-remediation, pro-public-health measure that also seeks to improve administrative accountability for local lead-certification programs. There is no documented opposition or support in the provided materials, but the policy design suggests interest in both encouraging lead abatement and pressuring local governments to process certifications promptly.
Likely areas of contention include the statewide cap on lead abatement tax credits, the new requirement that local governments issue or deny lead-safety certifications within 30 days, and the penalty structure that reduces local government fund payments for repeated noncompliance. Local governments may view the enforcement mechanism as an intrusion on local rental-registration authority, while property owners and lead abatement specialists may support the faster certification timeline and tax credit expansion. The bill also creates administrative complexity by tying tax benefits, clearance examinations, and local certification decisions together, which could raise implementation concerns for health departments and tax administrators.