To amend sections 323.152, 323.155, and 4503.06 and to enact section 319.305 of the Revised Code to authorize counties to temporarily exempt a portion of property's increased value from taxation following a reappraisal and to name this act the Calculated Adjustments for Property Surges (CAPS) Act.
HB504, the Calculated Adjustments for Property Surges (CAPS) Act, would let county boards of commissioners in qualifying counties temporarily reduce the tax impact of large property value increases that occur after a reappraisal or triennial update. A county would qualify if the aggregate taxable value of eligible property rose by at least 15% from the prior tax year. If a county adopts a resolution by October 1 of the reappraisal year, the resulting increase in taxes on eligible property would be phased in: two-thirds of the increase would be reduced in the current tax year and one-third in the following tax year. The bill requires the county treasurer to label this relief on tax bills as the “Temporary Property Valuation Phase-In Credit.”
The bill also amends existing property-tax provisions to account for the new credit in tax-bill calculations and in the manufactured-home tax statute. It updates section 323.155 so tax bills reflect reductions under the new section 319.305, and it amends section 4503.06 so the new reduction can apply to manufactured or mobile homes taxed under the real-property-style formula. The bill leaves in place existing homestead reductions for seniors, disabled persons, surviving spouses, disabled veterans, and surviving spouses of public service officers, while clarifying that the new CAPS reduction is part of the overall tax computation.
In practical terms, HB504 would give counties a discretionary tool to soften sudden tax spikes for homeowners and other eligible property owners after reassessment, rather than mandating a statewide phase-in. It would not change the underlying appraised value of property; instead, it would reduce the taxes charged and payable on the increase for a limited period. Because the relief is county-authorized, the bill would create uneven application across Ohio depending on whether local commissioners choose to adopt the resolution.
The available context shows no recorded votes or committee testimony, so there is no documented public debate in the materials provided. Based on the bill text, the measure appears designed to address concerns about sharp post-reappraisal tax increases and to provide local flexibility. The overall tone of the proposal is policy-oriented and remedial rather than controversial in the introduced version, though it could raise fiscal concerns for counties, school districts, and other taxing authorities that would receive less revenue during the phase-in period.
The main point of contention is likely to be the tradeoff between taxpayer relief and reduced local revenue. Supporters would likely emphasize predictability and protection against sudden tax shocks, especially in counties with rapid appreciation. Opponents or cautious stakeholders may focus on the potential budget impact, the fact that the relief is optional and county-by-county, and the administrative complexity of applying a temporary credit across real property and manufactured homes.
HB504 would add new section 319.305 to the Revised Code and amend sections 323.152, 323.155, and 4503.06 to incorporate a county-authorized temporary property-tax phase-in after a reappraisal or triennial update. It would not alter property valuation rules themselves, but would reduce the taxes charged and payable on the portion of value increase attributable to reassessment for qualifying counties and eligible property. The bill would also require tax-bill identification of the new credit and extend the same concept to certain manufactured and mobile homes taxed under the real-property-style method.
The bill appears generally favorable in concept, with the introduced text reflecting an effort to address sudden tax increases after reappraisals. However, the provided record contains no committee testimony or votes, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from legislators or stakeholders. The likely sentiment is mixed in policy terms: supportive of taxpayer relief, but potentially cautious among local governments concerned about revenue loss.
The central contention is whether counties should be allowed to temporarily suppress tax increases after reassessment. Supporters are likely to argue that the bill protects property owners from abrupt spikes in tax bills and gives local officials flexibility to respond to market-driven valuation surges. Critics are likely to focus on reduced revenue for counties, schools, and other taxing units, as well as the uneven application of relief because the exemption is optional and depends on county commissioner action. Administrative complexity, especially for manufactured homes and the interaction with existing homestead reductions, is another likely concern.