To enact section 5721.51 of the Revised Code to allow local governments to request unclaimed funds to temporarily cover the revenue lost from delinquent property taxes and to make an appropriation.
HB882 would create a new section of the Revised Code allowing county auditors to apply for state payments to offset revenue lost from delinquent property taxes on eligible delinquent land. To qualify, the delinquent tax burden on the property could not exceed 25% of the auditor’s fair market value, and applications could be made once per year by October 1. The Director of Budget and Management would review requests and could approve, deny, or reduce them, with approved amounts transferred from the state’s unclaimed funds trust fund into a new delinquent tax reimbursement fund and then distributed to county auditors.
The bill also requires county auditors to pass the money through to local taxing districts as if the delinquent taxes had been collected normally. If delinquent taxes are later recovered, the county must repay the state up to the amount previously advanced, and counties must repay advances from their general funds within six years. The bill caps total approved payments at $150 million, plus any amounts repaid, and prohibits approvals that would jeopardize the state’s ability to pay pending or anticipated unclaimed-funds claims.
HB882 would add section 5721.51 to the Revised Code and create a new state reimbursement mechanism tied to delinquent property taxes, while also making a $150 million appropriation to the Department of Commerce for the Delinquent Tax Reimbursement fund. It would affect county auditors, county treasurers, prosecuting attorneys, the Department of Commerce, and the Office of Budget and Management by establishing new application, transfer, repayment, and accounting procedures. Local taxing districts would receive temporary funding support for unpaid property tax revenue, and the state’s unclaimed funds trust fund would become the source of those advances, subject to repayment and fund-balance protections.
The bill appears to be framed as a fiscal relief measure for local governments and taxing districts, with the introduction suggesting support for helping communities manage cash-flow losses from delinquent property taxes. Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided material, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment beyond the bill’s introduction and referral to the House Ways and Means Committee. The structure of the bill suggests an effort to balance local aid with state fund safeguards, indicating a generally pragmatic, budget-focused approach.
The main points of potential contention are the use of unclaimed funds as the financing source, the $150 million cap, and the requirement that counties repay the state from their general funds within six years. Critics could question whether diverting unclaimed funds is appropriate or whether the state should assume this kind of local revenue risk, while supporters would likely emphasize the temporary nature of the assistance and the repayment provisions. Another likely issue is the director’s discretion to approve, deny, or reduce requests, which could raise concerns about predictability and fairness among counties.