To amend sections 4503.06, 5713.07, 5713.08, and 5715.27 and to enact sections 5709.29 and 5709.99 of the Revised Code to authorize local governments to create residential stability zones where homeowners may qualify for a partial property tax exemption.
SB42 would authorize limited home rule townships, counties, and municipal corporations to create “residential stability zones” by local resolution. Within a designated zone, eligible homeowners could receive a partial exemption from the increase in assessed value of their homestead for property tax purposes, including manufactured and mobile homes taxed under the state’s manufactured home tax system. The bill sets baseline eligibility criteria that local governments must include, such as household income limits, minimum ownership or occupancy periods, and asset limits, while allowing local governments to adopt stricter standards, define the exemption percentage, set application procedures, and determine the zone’s duration.
The exemption would generally apply to the increase in assessed value above a prior baseline, but not to value added by new improvements. For homeowners age 60 or older when the exemption first applies, the exemption could continue indefinitely so long as the homestead remains owned and occupied; for others, it would last six years, with possible reapplication if the zone remains in effect. The bill also creates application, review, appeal, and recertification procedures, presumes income eligibility for applicants receiving certain public benefits, and imposes penalties for false statements or improper claims.
SB42 would add a new local property-tax relief program to Ohio law and amend existing statutes governing real property exemption administration and manufactured home taxation. It would require county auditors, treasurers, the tax commissioner, and newly designated housing officers to process, verify, and enforce the exemption, and it would integrate residential stability zones into the existing exemption and assessment framework in Chapters 4503, 5713, and 5715 of the Revised Code. The bill also creates a new misdemeanor offense for knowingly making a false statement to obtain the exemption.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so the bill’s sentiment can only be inferred from its structure and sponsor intent. The measure appears generally supportive of homeowners facing rising property tax burdens, especially in neighborhoods or communities seeking to preserve long-term residency and housing stability. Its design suggests a policy goal of targeted relief rather than broad tax reduction, with local control over whether to adopt a zone and how generous the exemption should be.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be fiscal impact, local discretion, and eligibility design. Counties, school districts, and other taxing authorities may be concerned about reduced tax revenue from exempted increases in assessed value, while supporters may argue the relief is narrowly targeted and limited in duration. Another likely issue is administrative complexity: the bill requires new local zones, housing officers, income and asset verification, appeals, and ongoing recertification. Eligibility rules may also draw debate, particularly the income cap tied to area median income, the asset test, the treatment of manufactured home owners, and the special indefinite duration for older homeowners.