To enact sections 1787.01, 1787.02, 1787.03, 1787.04, 1787.05, 1787.06, 1787.07, 1787.08, 1787.09, 1787.10, 1787.11, 1787.12, and 1787.13 of the Revised Code to authorize the creation of tourism promotion districts and the levying of assessments therein.
HB138 authorizes municipal corporations, townships, and counties to create “tourism promotion districts” for lodging businesses and to levy benefit assessments within those districts. The bill is aimed at funding supplemental services and improvements that are intended to increase overnight stays, such as tourism promotion and other lodging-related benefits. A district may be created only at the request of one or more lodging business owners in the proposed district, and it must be supported by a detailed district plan and public summary describing the district boundaries, assessment method, services to be provided, and expected revenues and costs.
The bill sets out a full process for establishing, renewing, modifying, and dissolving a district. It requires public notice and a hearing, gives affected lodging business owners the right to file written protests, and blocks creation or renewal if protests represent 40% or more of the proposed assessment. Districts must be for a fixed term, may issue revenue bonds backed only by the assessment revenue, and must file annual reports. The bill also requires the local government to contract with a nonprofit district management association, which must be governed largely by lodging business owners subject to the assessment, and it makes district records public while exempting certain existing nonprofit corporations from broader public-records treatment except when acting in the district role.
HB138 would add a new chapter to the Revised Code governing tourism promotion districts and would create a new local assessment mechanism targeted specifically at hotels and other lodging businesses. It would authorize local governments to collect and dedicate assessment revenue to tourism-related services and improvements, potentially finance those projects with revenue bonds, and require that the money be deposited in special funds and used only for the district plan. The bill also establishes legal procedures for protests, judicial challenges, reporting, transparency, and dissolution, and it limits local governments from reducing baseline funding for the district area below the amount provided in the year before the district was created.
Because the bill was only introduced and had no recorded votes or committee transcript in the provided materials, there is no formal recorded debate to measure. The structure of the bill suggests generally favorable treatment of tourism-development tools, with safeguards designed to make the districts owner-driven and accountable. The inclusion of notice, protest, reporting, and dissolution provisions indicates an effort to balance economic development goals with oversight and property-owner protections.
The main points of potential contention are the mandatory assessments on lodging businesses, the breadth of local discretion over district services, and the governance structure that gives lodging business owners significant control over district management. Lodging owners may object to being assessed for services they view as insufficiently beneficial, while local governments and tourism advocates may support the tool as a way to fund destination marketing and related improvements. Another likely issue is the 40% protest threshold, which gives affected owners a strong veto, and the bill’s limits on reducing public funding in the district area, which could concern local budget officials.