To amend section 151.40 and to enact sections 122.65, 122.651, 122.652, 122.653, 122.654, 122.655, 122.657, 122.658, and 122.659 of the Revised Code to restore the Clean Ohio Fund to be administered by the Department of Development and the Clean Ohio Council.
HB93 would restore the Clean Ohio Fund as a state brownfield cleanup and revitalization program administered by the Department of Development and a newly created Clean Ohio Council. The bill establishes a detailed application, review, and oversight process for grants and loans to clean up contaminated properties (“brownfields”), including public notice and a public meeting before an application is submitted, prioritization criteria for projects, and requirements that applicants use certified professionals to verify cleanup work and prepare no further action letters.
The bill also creates the Clean Ohio revitalization fund in the state treasury and directs how money in the fund would be used: first for administrative costs, then for county assessment costs, and then for grants or loans to approved projects. It sets funding limits, including a cap of $6 million per project and a requirement that applicants provide at least 20% of project costs, with loans limited to no more than 15% of annual fund allocations and generally offered at or below market rates. The bill further ties the program to existing environmental cleanup laws, including Chapter 3746 and, where applicable, Chapter 3734, and requires recording of cleanup-related restrictions and legal documents with county recorders.
HB93 would affect state law by adding a new statutory framework in Chapter 122 and amending section 151.40 to redirect a portion of state liquor-profit-backed bond proceeds to the revitalization fund after July 1, 2025. It also authorizes the issuance of up to $400 million in outstanding revitalization bonds at any one time, with annual issuance generally capped at $50 million, and specifies that 80% of net proceeds after July 1, 2025, would go to the Clean Ohio revitalization fund and 20% to the General Revenue Fund. The bill preserves existing environmental enforcement authority and clarifies that participation in the program does not waive liability for contamination caused by the applicant.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is supportive of environmental cleanup, economic redevelopment, and reuse of contaminated properties, especially in communities that may benefit from new residential, commercial, industrial, park, or mixed-use development. The structure of the program emphasizes transparency, local input, and environmental oversight, suggesting an intent to balance redevelopment with public accountability and cleanup standards.
The main points of contention likely involve funding and liability. The bill relies on state bond capacity and liquor-profit revenues, which may raise fiscal concerns, and it limits grants and loans to applicants who did not cause or contribute to the contamination, which can be a significant eligibility issue. The requirement for public meetings, detailed documentation, and certified professional review may also be seen as burdensome by some applicants, while environmental stakeholders may focus on whether the cleanup standards and oversight are strong enough to ensure long-term protection.
HB93 would create a new statutory brownfield cleanup financing and oversight program in Chapter 122, restore the Clean Ohio Council, and direct the Department of Development to administer grants and loans for eligible cleanup and remediation projects. It would also amend section 151.40 to dedicate a portion of state liquor-profit-backed bond proceeds to the Clean Ohio revitalization fund beginning July 1, 2025, while preserving existing environmental enforcement authority and limiting liability protections to applicants who meet the bill’s conditions.
The bill appears generally favorable toward redevelopment and environmental remediation, with a strong pro-cleanup and pro-reuse orientation. The framework emphasizes public notice, local participation, and environmental safeguards, suggesting broad policy support for revitalizing contaminated properties. No recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts were provided, so there is no direct evidence of formal opposition or support beyond the bill’s structure and sponsors.
Likely areas of contention include the use of state bond proceeds and liquor-profit revenues to finance the program, the size and structure of the funding caps, and the administrative complexity of the application and oversight process. Another potential point of dispute is eligibility and liability: applicants must certify they did not cause or contribute to contamination, and the bill preserves the state’s enforcement powers while also granting limited civil liability protection to qualifying applicants. Environmental advocates may scrutinize whether the cleanup standards and oversight are sufficiently strict, while local governments and developers may focus on access to funding and the matching-share requirements.