Update on HB 92
Dear Toledo REIA Members
Here is an update on House Bill 92 for your information.
Landlords vs. municipalities: Ohio utility bill heads to Senate amid opposition
COLUMBUS, Ohio — What began as a broad proposal to revise how municipalities collect unpaid utility bills has been whittled down to focus largely on protecting landlords from tenants’ unpaid utility debt.
House Bill 92 has shed many of its original provisions through eight committee hearings and multiple amendments, although that shift has done little to quiet opposition. Municipal officials argue the legislation still removes one of their most effective collection tools without replacing it. They warn that publicly owned utility systems would ultimately pass those costs on to customers through higher rates.
As passed by the House earlier this year, the proposal would make it harder for municipalities to hold landlords responsible for outstanding water and sewer charges while protecting new occupants from being denied utility service because of a former resident’s debt.
However, it would not create a new mechanism for recovering those unpaid charges.
Then versus now
HB 92 looked quite different when Republican Reps. Mark Johnson of Chillicothe and Upper Sandusky’s Riordan McClain introduced it last year.
Rather than focusing primarily on landlords and utility liens, the original proposal attempted to rewrite large portions of the state’s municipal utility collection system.
It created a formal process allowing customers to challenge utility charges they believed were incorrect and appeal the municipality’s decision in court.
The bill also required cities and villages to provide additional notice before placing liens on properties and to identify who contracted for the utility service before it could be imposed. Additionally, the initiative proposed a statewide system for tracking unpaid balances.
Lawmakers stripped out most of those provisions before the bill reached the House floor. The complaint and appeals process disappeared, along with the proposed system for tracking unpaid utility balances and additional notice requirements before municipalities could place liens.
The substitute version adopted by the House Local Government Committee also added language clarifying that municipalities could still disconnect utility service when a tenant is at least 30 days behind on utility payments.
Before the bill passed the full House, legislators removed a provision that would have allowed landlords to evict tenants who failed to pay utility bills they were responsible for.
The result is a much narrower bill centered on preventing landlords from becoming responsible for utility debt incurred by tenants. If enacted, the current version would:
· Block water and sewer liens on non-owner-occupied properties: A city or village may not add a tenant’s unpaid water or sewer charges to a property’s tax bill if the tenant signed up for service or the owner did not live there.
· Keep old debt from blocking new service: Municipalities may not refuse or disconnect water, sewer, electric, natural gas or other utility services for a landlord, current tenant or prospective tenant because a former resident left behind an unpaid utility bill.
· Preserve liens for owner-occupied properties: Municipalities may still place liens on owner-occupied properties when the owner signed up for utility service.
· Let municipalities pursue the responsible party in court: The bill preserves the ability to sue an owner, tenant or another person who is legally responsible for the charges.
· Allow tenant utility deposits to be used: Municipalities may adopt ordinances permitting them to apply a tenant’s deposit toward unpaid utility charges.
· Prevent contracts from overriding the protections: Municipalities and landlords may not sign agreements waiving the bill’s requirements.
The case for shifting liability to tenants
“Your landlord is no more responsible for your water bill than they are for your car payment,” Rep. Johnson said during his sponsor testimony.
Rep. McClain said the current system turns landlords into involuntary guarantors for utility bills they never agreed to pay, a practice he argued HB 92 would finally end.
Dan Acton of the Ohio Real Estate Investors Association called placing utility liens against rental properties in those situations an “unfair and potentially unlawful abusive practice.”
When Rep. Sean Brennan of Parma asked whether the bill could place more responsibility on absentee landlords who rarely monitor their properties, Acton disagreed.
“The correct person to hold responsible for that bill is the one that signed for it,” he responded. “Holding off some innocent third party is just patently diabolical.”
Acton warned that requiring substantially larger utility deposits to cover potential losses would make moving into a rental more expensive. Additionally, he criticized municipalities for allowing relatively small monthly bills to snowball into debts of hundreds or even thousands of dollars before attempting collection.
“We’ve seen the conga line of ‘big water’ come in and say, ‘Well, we can’t possibly collect it,’” he told legislators. “Yet, those same cities will track you down like a rabid animal over a $60 traffic ticket.”
Housing providers described debts that accumulated without their knowledge while municipalities continued providing service.
Landlord Anna Mills shared that she had multiple properties carrying tenant water debts ranging from $1,500 to more than $19,000. Housing manager Mike Paschall also testified that he discovered one tenant’s water balance had climbed past $4,000, but that he avoided removing the tenant because he feared becoming immediately responsible for the charges once the property was vacated.
Laura Swanson of the Columbus Apartment Association said one tenant’s unpaid account at a large apartment community could affect dozens or hundreds of other residents when the debt is attached to the entire property.
Although they approached the issue from different angles, proponents largely agreed that municipalities should pursue the customer responsible for the account or disconnect service before a relatively small unpaid balance snowballs into a four- or five-figure debt.
Opponents: ‘The loss doesn’t disappear’
Municipal officials agreed that landlords can find themselves in difficult situations but argued that HB 92 addresses one inequity by creating another.
Their central argument remained consistent through all eight hearings: the balance remains even when municipalities lose one of their most effective tools for recovering unpaid utility bills. As a result, publicly owned utility systems and paying customers would ultimately inherit those losses.
“When bills go unpaid, the loss doesn’t disappear,” Arcanum administrator and police chief Marcus Ballinger told the committee. “It’s absorbed by the system and often passed on to the ratepayers themselves.”
He told the committee that small municipal utilities are designed to recover their operating costs rather than generate profits, leaving little room to cover large unpaid balances. That challenge is especially pronounced in villages like his, where employees often perform multiple roles.
On the subject of municipalities pursuing delinquent tenants through the courts instead of relying on property liens, Ballinger acknowledged that legal action remains an option but said it comes at a cost. He explained that court proceedings require staff time, employee appearances and additional administrative work, making them significantly more burdensome for small communities with limited personnel.
Versailles Administrator Kyle Francis testified that his village in 2025 intentionally shortened the time before delinquent utility accounts are disconnected to reduce the likelihood of landlords being stuck with large unpaid charges. Under that policy, customers receive a 15-day disconnect notice once an account is one month behind, preventing debts from accumulating.
“The municipal utility will end up being stuck with the outstanding balance of a delinquent utility account for someone who we know the court system cannot locate,” he said.
Francis also disputed the bill supporters’ argument that landlords bear no responsibility once a tenant opens a utility account. In fact, he noted that landlords in his village are involved in the utility application process and receive notices throughout the collection process.
“At the end of the day, rental properties are for-profit businesses and they should not be immune to the risk of renting their property to a bad tenant,” he said.
Kristen Atha, director of Columbus Water & Power, urged legislators to pursue a compromise rather than eliminating municipalities’ ability to recover unpaid utility charges through property liens. She said the city already has safeguards intended to protect property owners from unexpectedly large bills and proposed statewide pre-lien notice requirements or a cap on the amount recoverable through liens.
She shared that the agency serves roughly 1.4 million customers in Columbus and 26 surrounding communities, noting that HB 92 shifts the business risk associated with private rental properties onto those who finance public utilities.
Michael Beirne of the Ohio Municipal Electric Association, which represents 80 municipal electric systems across the state, broadened the debate even further by framing the proposal as a home rule issue. He argued that municipal utilities are locally owned, locally governed and accountable to their own communities.
“As non-profit utility providers, any and all costs to operate these utility systems are ultimately shouldered by other ratepayers through increased utility rates, including potentially higher security deposits for utility services,” he wrote.
Toledo Real Estate Investors Association