To enact section 123.14 of the Revised Code to require the Department of Administrative Services to conduct a biennial comprehensive study of the state's real property holdings.
HB85 would require the Ohio Department of Administrative Services (DAS) to conduct a comprehensive study of state-owned and state-leased real property every two years and to publish a report by January 31 of every odd-numbered year. The report would have to inventory all real property owned by the state or a state agency, including the nature of each property, whether it contains structures or office space, its value, maintenance costs, and the share of the property that is used versus unused. It would also have to list all property leased or rented by the state, the cost of those leases, and identify which agencies use each property and how much square footage is occupied versus vacant.
The bill further requires DAS to estimate how much of the identified property would be used if all employees of a given agency worked in person instead of remotely. The report must be delivered to the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, and the Governor. The bill defines “state agency” broadly, but excludes the courts, judicial agencies, state-assisted institutions of higher education, and local agencies.
If enacted, HB85 would add a new section to the Revised Code requiring ongoing statewide real estate reporting and analysis by DAS. It would not directly change ownership or leasing authority, but it would create a recurring statutory obligation to collect, organize, and disclose detailed information about state property holdings, occupancy, and costs. The affected parties would primarily be DAS and other state agencies that own, lease, or occupy real property, with the report potentially informing future decisions about consolidation, leasing, office utilization, and remote-work space needs.
The available record shows the bill was introduced and referred to the House Government Oversight Committee, with no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials. Based on the text alone, the bill appears administrative and oversight-oriented rather than ideological, aiming to improve transparency and efficiency in state property management. Because there is no discussion transcript or vote history here, there is no documented public support or opposition to characterize beyond the bill’s apparent focus on data collection and accountability.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Potential areas of debate, based on the bill’s requirements, could include the administrative burden on DAS and state agencies, the scope of the reporting mandate, and the inclusion of remote-work utilization estimates. The exclusion of courts, judicial agencies, higher education institutions, and local agencies may also matter to stakeholders, but no expressed objections or endorsements are included in the record provided.