To amend sections 5715.19 and 5717.04 of the Revised Code to modify the law governing tax appeals and property tax complaints.
HB590 would revise Ohio’s property tax complaint and appeal procedures, primarily by amending the rules in Revised Code section 5715.19 and making a conforming change to section 5717.04. The bill sets out who may file original complaints and counter-complaints, tightens and clarifies limits on repeat filings during the same interim period, and adds procedural requirements for complaints brought by a municipal or county legislative authority, a mayor, or a third-party complainant acting on their behalf. Those public complaints would generally require a prior public resolution, advance notice to property owners, and an affidavit disclosing whether the filer is acting for a local government.
The bill also adds or clarifies several substantive and evidentiary rules. It bars dismissal solely for misidentifying the property owner, requires boards of revision to use due diligence to notify the correct owner, and allows refiling in some cases where a complaint was dismissed for unauthorized practice of law. It codifies that complainants must provide evidence in their possession, places a burden on county auditors in certain owner-filed valuation complaints, and permits parties to submit evidence of similarly situated properties to support claims that a parcel is overvalued compared with peers. HB590 also prohibits private payment agreements tied to filing, dismissing, or settling complaints by local governments, and it adjusts the filing-threshold amount used for certain government-filed complaints.
On the appeals side, the bill leaves the basic structure of appeals to the courts in place but amends section 5717.04 so that decisions of the board of tax appeals under section 5703.021 are final and not appealable. Overall, the measure would affect county auditors, county boards of revision, the tax commissioner, boards of education, property owners, tenants in qualifying commercial or industrial leases, and local governments that file complaints over property valuations or classifications.
Because the bill was only introduced and had no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials, there is no formal voting record to gauge support or opposition. The text itself suggests a policy balance between expanding procedural protections for property owners and preserving the ability of local governments and school boards to challenge valuations. The inclusion of notice, resolution, affidavit, and anti-private-settlement provisions indicates an effort to increase transparency and limit perceived abuse of the complaint process.
The main points of contention likely center on the new restrictions on local-government-initiated complaints, especially the resolution and notice requirements, the ban on private payment agreements, and the limits on repeat filings. Property owners may view these provisions as protections against aggressive tax appeals, while school districts and local taxing authorities may see them as constraints on their ability to pursue valuation increases and protect tax revenues. The new evidence rules allowing comparable-property evidence could also be debated because they may broaden the types of valuation arguments accepted by boards and courts.
HB590 would amend Ohio’s property tax complaint statutes to change who may file, when repeat complaints are allowed, what notice and authorization are required for complaints filed by local governments or third parties, and what evidence may be considered in valuation disputes. It would also make a narrow change to the appellate statute by making certain board of tax appeals decisions under section 5703.021 final and nonappealable. The bill would directly affect property owners, tenants in certain commercial or industrial leases, county auditors, county boards of revision, boards of education, municipal and county legislative authorities, mayors, and the tax commissioner.
The bill appears to have a generally reform-oriented, procedural-protection tone, with its text emphasizing transparency, notice, and limits on repeated or privately negotiated tax complaints. Because there were no recorded votes or committee transcripts in the provided materials, there is no documented public sentiment from hearings or floor action. Based on the bill’s structure, it likely appeals to property owners and taxpayers concerned about valuation challenges, while prompting caution or resistance from local governments and school districts that rely on complaint filings to increase assessed values.
The most notable areas of contention are likely the restrictions on complaints filed by legislative authorities, mayors, and third-party complainants, including the requirement for a public resolution, advance notice to owners, and an affidavit about who the filer represents. Another likely dispute is the prohibition on private payment agreements, which would invalidate arrangements in which a property owner pays a subdivision in exchange for not filing or dismissing a complaint. The bill’s limits on repeat filings during the same interim period, and its allowance for comparable-property evidence in valuation appeals, may also be controversial because they affect both the frequency and the substance of tax challenges.