Local officials urge rejection of proposed statewide preemption on short‑term rental rules at SB 104 hearing

At a Senate Local Government Committee hearing on Senate Bill 104, dozens of city, township and county officials, tourism leaders and local convention-and-visitors bureaus urged rejection of the bill as written, saying it would remove locally tailored zoning, inspection and nuisance tools used to manage short‑term rentals.

The Ohio Municipal League’s Bevin Schneck framed the opposition early: “The Ohio Municipal League urges your opposition to Senate Bill 104,” Schneck said, arguing the bill would preempt municipal home‑rule authority and prevent “necessary regulations” that protect neighborhood safety and compatibility. Schneck identified the Municipal Home Rule Authority in Article 18 of the Ohio Constitution as the basis for local zoning authority.

Representatives from townships, small cities and tourism organizations presented a range of concerns. Kyle Brooks of the Ohio Township Association told senators the bill would strip “over half of Ohio’s townships of their zoning authority,” and said the $20 annual registration fee in the draft “is insufficient to cover the administrative costs townships may incur.” Several witnesses praised the bill’s requirement that booking platforms collect and remit lodging taxes, but said that tax collection alone does not address safety, inspections or neighborhood impacts.

Local elected officials gave concrete examples. Paul Kumar, mayor of Bay Village, described a 2019 lakefront incident in which “close to 500 people showed up for the birthday party at this house,” requiring multiple police agencies to respond; Bay Village later passed an ordinance banning rentals for fewer than 29 days. Patrick Ward, mayor of Lyndhurst, and other mayors described long-standing local zoning processes that condition approvals and use inspections to protect tenant safety and neighborhood character.

Tourism and convention leaders also urged retaining local control. Beth Carmichael of Trumbull County Tourism said unchecked short‑term rental growth “reduces the availability of housing for working families” and cited research she attributed to the Wharton School and a firm called Altus showing price and rent effects. Larry Fletcher of Shores and Islands Ohio and Eric Wobser of the Greater Sandusky Partnership said short‑term rentals are important to tourism but stressed that local rules let communities balance visitor lodging with workforce housing and year‑round population needs.

Several witnesses raised technical and legal concerns. Catherine Dale, Danbury Township zoning administrator, repeatedly cited language in the Ohio Revised Code (for example, ORC chapter 3731 and ORC definitions for hotels) and warned that the bill’s proposed definitions could allow large, multi‑bedroom homes to operate as hotels without meeting existing hotel‑safety and licensing requirements. She warned the draft “offers us no tools for resolve” and said the bill as written could prevent local governments from using zoning, nuisance or safety ordinances to address repeat problems.

Other clarifying details recorded in testimony included: - The draft bill would create a $20-per-year per‑property registration; several witnesses said the fee would not cover enforcement costs. (Kentucky city/township examples: Lyndhurst’s rental registration fee currently $100 per year; Gahanna charges $150 biennially for a single‑family rental.) - Many municipalities already require inspections, registration and higher fees to fund enforcement; Gahanna and Grandview Heights described ordinances created after public study and local input. - Tourism regions reported substantial revenue tied to STRs: Shores and Islands reported 347 short‑term rental properties representing 1,761 rooms; in 2024 short‑term rentals generated roughly $1.3 million in lodging‑tax‑eligible revenue in the two‑county region cited. Dee Grossman of the Tuscarawas County CVB said about 120 STRs generated $1.9 million in host revenue in 2024 and that roughly 80.5% of those rentals had fewer than five rooms, a factor complicated by existing ORC hotel definitions.

Several witnesses pressed for a narrower approach that preserves platform tax collection while leaving local zoning and enforcement authority intact. Witnesses also asked the Legislature to consider other models — for instance, listing which zoning districts STRs could occupy, establishing inspection thresholds tied to room counts, or leaving conditional‑use and licensing decisions to local planning bodies.

The committee did not take a final vote on SB 104 during the hearing; the session served as a third hearing with extensive in‑person testimony. The chair asked witnesses to limit remarks to about three minutes in the interest of time; the committee received numerous written submissions as well. The hearing record closes with the committee adjourning after the testimony concluded.

The transcript contains repeated examples of local officials emphasizing home rule, housing supply, public safety inspections and the administrative costs of enforcement; several speakers said they could support registration and tax collection but not a blanket preemption of zoning and related local tools.