Speaker 1: Hi, It's Ryan Thomas. Please to welcome to the fifty
Speaker 1: five Case Morning Show former House Minority Speaker Bill Sites,
Speaker 1: who now apparently is going to be leading the panel
Speaker 1: with former Congressman Pat Taberry to help maybe resolve the
Speaker 1: property tax issue we have going on in the state
Speaker 1: of Ohio. As my listeners are well aware, we just
Speaker 1: did the budget in the state of Ohio contained three
Speaker 1: provisions which I have been referring to as sort of
Speaker 1: baby steps toward property tax reform to help lessen the
Speaker 1: burden of the property tax that we're all facing. For
Speaker 1: whatever reason, and I don't necessarily know why, maybe Bill
Speaker 1: can address the question. Governor de Wine vetoed all three
Speaker 1: of them, which brought the legislative branch back. They overrode
Speaker 1: one of the three, but tabled the other because it
Speaker 1: looked like they didn't have the votes to override the veto.
Speaker 1: They may revote on that at some point, but in
Speaker 1: the meantime, Governor to Wine formed the Property Tax Reform
Speaker 1: Working Group, which Bill Sites is a member of. Bill.
Speaker 1: Congratulations on the appointment.
Speaker 2: I guess.
Speaker 1: Let me start out by wondering a question that a
Speaker 1: lot of folks have been asking, Is it really necessary.
Speaker 1: My understanding is been working on property tax reform measures
Speaker 1: and ideas, in formulating lists of them for well over
Speaker 1: a year now, and that's where those three that were
Speaker 1: incorporated in the budget came from. So do you know
Speaker 1: why do wane veto them and why we need to
Speaker 1: continue discussing this. Hasn't this work been done already?
Speaker 2: Bill Sites Okay, let's start with the fact that, yes,
Speaker 2: there has been work done by the legislative branch. Yes,
Speaker 2: they studied the issue. There were, however, no members of
Speaker 2: local government on the Legislative Study Committee. The Legislative Study
Speaker 2: Committee did come out with recommendations. There are twenty one recommendations,
Speaker 2: many of which contain the kernels of good ideas, but
Speaker 2: they said in their report I'm quoting some proposals may
Speaker 2: contradict others end quote, and they made no effort to
Speaker 2: prioritize among the twenty one recommendations which ones should be pursued.
Speaker 2: So we view our job first as expanding upon those
Speaker 2: twenty one recommendations, putting meat on the bones, and trying
Speaker 2: to deliver as much property tax relief as we can
Speaker 2: without breaking the bank of the state, and not putting
Speaker 2: too much state money behind it. Why did the wind
Speaker 2: detailed the three well number one. You probably have to
Speaker 2: ask him, but to my understanding, the reason was that
Speaker 2: he thought the measures were flawed in their language and
Speaker 2: that they created too much uncertainty and fiscal stress on
Speaker 2: units of local government. I'll give you, and you know,
Speaker 2: I'll give you an example that they voted to eliminate.
Speaker 2: They voted to prevent emergency levees and substitute levees from
Speaker 2: being excluded from the twenty mil floor. Okay, that's fine,
Speaker 2: but they want to apply that principle to existing levees.
Speaker 2: And I think we have a problem with us because
Speaker 2: it's tanked them out to changing the rules in the
Speaker 2: middle of the game. If the levee is a five
Speaker 2: year levee and it still has three years to run,
Speaker 2: it should be allowed to run out and expire before
Speaker 2: we go ahead and change the calculation of the twenty
Speaker 2: mil floor. Another example, they voted to totally eliminate emergency levees,
Speaker 2: replacement levees, and substitute levees. I'm for eliminating replacement levees,
Speaker 2: I'm for eliminating substitute levees, but I'm really not for
Speaker 2: eliminating emergency levees because the Property Taxpayer Coalition said, and
Speaker 2: I quote it should be limited, that we should limit
Speaker 2: the definition okay to a true emergency and run limited
Speaker 2: to a certain period of time. I agree with that.
Speaker 2: There could be true emergencies. For example, what if the
Speaker 2: Kerk County floods happened in Ohio? For example? What about
Speaker 2: some natural disaster? For example, what if the levee did
Speaker 2: not pass, the district would be thrown into fiftial emergency
Speaker 2: and subject to state takeover. So I think we can
Speaker 2: do what they wanted, but make a slight change to
Speaker 2: that language. I do. Our job is building upon what
Speaker 2: the legislature has done. We are not trying to undo it.
Speaker 2: We're trying to refine it. Now.
Speaker 1: I guess one of the concerns has got to be
Speaker 1: looming large. Is this repeal all property tax constitutional amendment
Speaker 1: that's they're circulating right now, trying to get it on
Speaker 1: the ballot. Does this work that you are working on,
Speaker 1: and do you anticipate the work getting completed and giving
Speaker 1: us some property tax relief through any whatever measures are
Speaker 1: presented in advance of that, Because that's looming large, and
Speaker 1: it's possible that the voters in Ohio, if nothing's done,
Speaker 1: might very well vote for that. And then you talk
Speaker 1: about chaos. I'm not quite even sure how that would be,
Speaker 1: how it would work in the aftermath.
Speaker 2: Well, that's an excellent point. The governor has given us
Speaker 2: a headline of September thirtieth to come up with our
Speaker 2: enhanced recommendations. That's a very tight timeframe. So we are
Speaker 2: working very diligently to meet that objective. That's number one.
Speaker 2: The reason why he picked September thirtieth is the legislature
Speaker 2: is coming back into session in early October, and so
Speaker 2: if they care to take up our recommendations, there would
Speaker 2: be plenty of time to do it. The repeal of
Speaker 2: the property tax initiative would not be on the ballot
Speaker 2: until November twenty twenty six at the earliest, and you're right,
Speaker 2: it would cause absolute chaos because the rough property taxes
Speaker 2: in Ohio. I'm out up to twenty three b with
Speaker 2: a billion dollars, all of which goes to local services.
Speaker 2: None of that money goes to the state. It is
Speaker 2: for local police and fire and parks, and senior citizens services,
Speaker 2: and mental health services and developmental disability and schools. Eliminating
Speaker 2: twenty three billion dollars would obviously do great damage to
Speaker 2: all of those local services on which people depend, and
Speaker 2: it would create another problem, what do you replace that revenue? Yes,
Speaker 2: you would need it if we've done great work Brian
Speaker 2: and cutting the income tax I was there twenty four years.
Speaker 2: We took the income tax brackets in Ohio that used
Speaker 2: to be nine brackets and a match tax rate of
Speaker 2: over eight percent. During my tenure, we took it down
Speaker 2: to two brackets, three point five percent and two point
Speaker 2: seven five percent, And so we made tremendous strides there,
Speaker 2: and the legislature just took another great stride forward and
Speaker 2: cutting it to a flat tax of two point seven
Speaker 2: five percent. I don't see the legislature being at all
Speaker 2: interested in raising income taxes again when we were so
Speaker 2: close to having achieved that goal.
Speaker 1: Well, and what a practice. Well, we're quite of the
Speaker 1: problems with income taxes. Only property or income tax only
Speaker 1: people who work are paying them, and property taxes only
Speaker 1: people who own property are are are paying them. But
Speaker 1: yet you have a whole host of people who are
Speaker 1: enjoying the benefits of all these services that are funded
Speaker 1: by property taxes. That aren't paying them. How about I mean,
Speaker 1: I've heard this issuon. I've even thrown it out increasing
Speaker 1: the sales tax a little bit. So literally, everyone who
Speaker 1: buys anything in the state of Ohio is participating and
Speaker 1: paying for government services. The problem that that presents for
Speaker 1: me is that's a giant pile of money that ends
Speaker 1: up in Columbus that will be responsible for choosing and
Speaker 1: picking how much money goes to any given entity.
Speaker 2: Well, that's a very good observation. And let me just
Speaker 2: say this. You would need a statewide sales tax rate.
Speaker 2: It's something approaching twenty percent if you were to replace
Speaker 2: that twenty three billion dollars with an increased sales tax.
Speaker 2: And for those of us who live here in Hamilton
Speaker 2: County on the border to Kentucky, on the border to Indiana,
Speaker 2: people would vote with their feet and buy their goods
Speaker 2: and services in Kentucky. They would not pay twenty percent
Speaker 2: in Ohio. In general, I agree with you consumption taxes
Speaker 2: are preferable to income and property taxes. But frankly, I
Speaker 2: always thought the income tax was the principle evil to
Speaker 2: be avoided because we've had property taxes in Ohio since
Speaker 2: the eighteen thirties. The income tax didn't arise until Governor
Speaker 2: Gilligan brought it to us in the early seventies. And
Speaker 2: you know, we've viewed that as the principal target. Now
Speaker 2: there's a lot we can do, a lot we can recommend.
Speaker 2: For example, why don't we let folks who are senior
Speaker 2: citizens and disabled homeowners, why don't we give them some
Speaker 2: tax relief, either in the form of an enhanced homestead
Speaker 2: exemption or in the form of some sort of a
Speaker 2: deal where you pay up to x percent of their
Speaker 2: income and anything on top of that the state will
Speaker 2: pick up, perhaps with the obligation on the part of
Speaker 2: the homeowner that when they die or move out of
Speaker 2: the house, they have to pay it back. So that
Speaker 2: would be kind of a no cost option to the
Speaker 2: state while providing relief to the homeowner during the homeowner's
Speaker 2: occupancy of that house. There's an idea for you. How
Speaker 2: about letting people instead of paying their taxes in big
Speaker 2: chunks twice a year January in June, how about saying
Speaker 2: we're going to give you a monthly payment plan. Yes,
Speaker 2: there might have to be some interest factor applied to that,
Speaker 2: because you're not getting all the money up front. But
Speaker 2: I think one of the reasons people hate property taxes
Speaker 2: is you get this job smackingly large bill twice a year.
Speaker 2: If it was spread out into more manageable payments, you
Speaker 2: would probably have fewer delinquencies and less outrage over property taxes.
Speaker 2: So there's a whole lot of great ideas like that.
Speaker 2: And our group contains school superintendents, county commissioners, county auditors,
Speaker 2: county treasure mayors, business people like Congressman te Berry, and
Speaker 2: me as a former legislator and taxpayer and property owner
Speaker 2: for twenty four years in the state legislature. So we're
Speaker 2: going to do our best to build on what the
Speaker 2: legislature has done, to suggest refinement of some of what
Speaker 2: they have done, and to agree with them that more
Speaker 2: needs to be done. We totally agree with that. There's
Speaker 2: a great bill that's pending up there called House Bill
Speaker 2: one eighty six. I heard one of the leaders in
Speaker 2: the House say that bill has to pass. I completely
Speaker 2: agree that bill has to pass. So there's not as
Speaker 2: much division between the legislature and at least me as
Speaker 2: might be perceived, I agree with much of what they
Speaker 2: want to do.
Speaker 1: So fair enough, bill sides. Appreciate your insight on this.
Speaker 1: We'll very much look forward with bated breath the reforms
Speaker 1: that you recommend and how quickly the legislative branch acts
Speaker 1: on them. Of course, you know it, I know it.
Speaker 1: Everybody in Ohio knows that our property tax bills just
Speaker 1: keep going up and up and up, and we're all
Speaker 1: demanding some form of relief. I wish you all the
Speaker 1: best in the world getting that relief to the property
Speaker 1: taxpayer bill.
Speaker 2: Thanks, Brian, appreciate it. It'll be a large task, but
Speaker 2: we're willing to try to get that done.
Speaker 1: I'm certain you are. Bill. Look forward to talking with
Speaker 1: you again when you get something out on paper.