Developers and commissioners press auditor over new parcel‑taxing practice; board pledges review

A developer and multiple county leaders told Trumbull County commissioners on May 14 that a recent audit practice — taxing parcels based on proposed, uncreated lots rather than only on existing parcels — is deterring housing development and should be reviewed.

An unnamed developer said his multi‑year residential project received a tax bill this year calculated as if seven parcels already existed, forcing a substantial, immediate property tax liability on lots that are not yet created or on sale. He told commissioners he had not received prior notice and that he had been “roadblocked” when he tried to resolve the assessment directly with the county auditor’s office. He said he had contacted other county auditors in the Lake Erie region and state-level staff and found no example of the same approach elsewhere.

The developer warned the policy makes long-term projects financially infeasible: “The cost that you would incur to do that to hold those uncreated parcels will render the projects not feasible.” He said projects that took years and significant private investment risk could be halted if parcels are taxed before development proceeds.

Commissioners responded with public concern and immediate follow-up steps. President Rick Hernandez said the board does not agree with the auditing practice and recommended engaging the state auditor and legislators to clarify interpretation of the Ohio Revised Code. The board also discussed the Board of Revision (BOR) process; County Prosecutor Bill Danso advised that the BOR handles appraisals and corrections but cautioned commissioners about prejudging matters where the BOR is involved.

Multiple commissioners urged that county and regional economic development partners — including the Chamber and Eastgate — and state officials be asked to review the auditor’s interpretation and to push for consistent treatment across neighboring counties. One commissioner said the county is preparing for large employers and housing demand and added, “We have a golden opportunity to work with them… if you put any more additional taxes or increases or anything on that, that's gonna be a deterrent.”

No formal remedy was recorded in the public transcript. Commissioners said they would seek a meeting with the county auditor and with state officials and would consider legislative or administrative action if the interpretation is inconsistent with common practice elsewhere. The prosecutor’s office noted elected auditors perform appraisals and the Board of Revision is a venue for appeals; commissioners said they would pursue multiple avenues, including asking the state auditor to review the county’s approach.