To amend sections 149.311 and 175.16 of the Revised Code to allow area agencies on aging to couple the state historic rehabilitation and low-income housing tax credits and require a minimum price for low-income housing tax credits transferred by area agencies on aging.
HB925 would amend Ohio’s historic rehabilitation tax credit law and the state low-income housing tax credit law to create a special financing pathway for projects involving area agencies on aging. Under the bill, an area agency on aging could participate in both the historic rehabilitation tax credit and the low-income housing tax credit for the same project, overriding the current general prohibition on combining those credits for a building that is part of a federally subsidized low-income housing project. The bill also adds a new requirement that, when an area agency on aging transfers low-income housing tax credits, it must receive at least 75% of the credit amount in consideration.
The historic tax credit provisions would be revised so that the usual restriction against historic rehabilitation projects being part of a qualified low-income housing project would not apply when the applicant is an area agency on aging. The bill preserves the existing application, review, cost-benefit analysis, and reporting framework for historic rehabilitation credits, while carving out this exception for aging-related entities. It also keeps the existing rules on credit caps, recapture, and transferability, but adds the minimum-price rule for transfers involving area agencies on aging.
On the housing side, the bill would allow a project owner to receive a state low-income housing tax credit reservation for a qualified project and would specifically permit an area agency on aging to be an equity owner in such a project. If an area agency on aging is an equity owner, the bill requires that any allocation or assignment of credits to that agency be supported by consideration equal to at least 75% of the credit amount allocated or assigned. The bill also continues the existing reporting, eligibility certificate, and recapture provisions for the housing credit program.
The bill’s overall impact would be to expand the ability of area agencies on aging to structure mixed-finance housing and rehabilitation projects, especially projects that preserve or adapt historic buildings for senior-related or supportive housing uses. It would modify sections 149.311 and 175.16 of the Revised Code and create a targeted exception to existing anti-stacking rules, potentially increasing the financial feasibility of projects involving aging services providers. It would also impose a new floor on the value of transferred housing credits in those transactions, which could affect how agencies monetize credits and negotiate with investors or transferees.
Because the bill was introduced and referred to the House Ways and Means Committee with no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials, there is no documented legislative debate to measure support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to facilitate affordable housing and historic preservation projects tied to aging services, suggesting a generally pro-development and pro-affordable-housing intent. The main point of potential contention is the special treatment for area agencies on aging: supporters may view it as a necessary financing tool, while critics could question the carve-out from existing credit-combination restrictions and the market effects of mandating a minimum transfer price.
HB925 would amend R.C. 149.311 and 175.16 to create a narrow exception allowing area agencies on aging to combine Ohio historic rehabilitation tax credits with low-income housing tax credits on the same project, despite the general prohibition on historic rehabilitation credits for buildings that are part of a qualified low-income housing project. It would also require that when an area agency on aging transfers low-income housing tax credits, the agency receive at least 75% of the credit amount in consideration. The bill would affect the administration of both the Department of Development’s historic tax credit program and the Ohio Housing Finance Agency’s low-income housing tax credit program, while leaving most existing eligibility, reporting, cap, and recapture rules intact.
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from legislators in the available materials. The bill’s structure suggests a favorable policy posture toward affordable housing, historic preservation, and projects serving older adults, with an emphasis on improving project financing. The absence of recorded debate means sentiment can only be inferred from the bill’s purpose, which appears targeted and generally supportive of development rather than controversial on its face.
The primary policy tension is the bill’s carve-out for area agencies on aging from the existing rule that generally prevents historic rehabilitation credits from being used on buildings that are part of low-income housing tax credit projects. Supporters would likely argue that the exception helps finance senior housing and preservation projects that might otherwise be infeasible. Potential critics may focus on the preferential treatment for one class of entities, the interaction between state tax credits and federally subsidized housing, and the requirement that transferred credits be sold for at least 75% of face value, which could limit flexibility in credit monetization or raise questions about market interference.