Cuyahoga County committee holds $40 million tax-lien sale proposal after procurement and contract concerns

The Cuyahoga County Community Development and Housing Committee declined to advance a resolution that would authorize a tax-certificate sale agreement with NAR Solutions, Inc., doing business as NAR Ohio LLC, for up to $40,000,000 in tax-lien certificates for the period Nov. 1, 2025, through Nov. 30, 2027.

The proposal, presented by Brad Grama, Cuyahoga County treasurer, asked the committee to decide whether to move the legislation forward after a procurement process that used an informal solicitation rather than a formal purchasing solicitation. Paul Porter, director of the Department of Purchasing, said the solicitation was open for 30 days and then reissued for two business days, producing five total responses (three in the initial round and two to the reissue). Porter said the reissue responded to a technical display error in the supplier portal and that 48 vendors registered under the financial-services commodity code were notified and that the National Tax Lien Association was also alerted.

"This one was open for 30 days initially, the same required length that we have for formal solicitations," Paul Porter said, adding that the solicitation included a scoring rubric and a multi-person review panel.

Several committee members rejected the procurement rationale. Councilwoman Simon said she would not approve proceeding without a formal bid process for a transaction of this size. "It's a $40,000,000 contract. That's a formal bid," she said. Councilman Schlepper and Councilman Jones also said they opposed moving the item forward; Schlepper called the process "inconsistent" and criticized using an out-of-state vendor.

Councilman Kelly raised policy objections to selling tax liens to private purchasers. "Selling tax liens hands over public authority to private profit-driven entities," Kelly said. "Their goal is not neighborhood stability, not homeowner recovery, not equity. It's return on their investment. We don't need to outsource compassion or control." Kelly later voted against forwarding the item.

Treasurer Grama and purchasing staff said the approach aimed to generate competition and expedite the sale. Grama emphasized the county standpoint that the transaction is not an expenditure of county funds but a mechanism to collect outstanding taxes. "This is not a $40,000,000 outlay of county funds," Grama said.

County Prosecutor Michael Lomeli and Assistant County Prosecutor Adam Judy attended and advised the committee that the prosecutor's office should have reviewed the contract language before finalization. "What did not happen that should have happened was the contract... should have been run through my office," Lomeli said. Adam Judy, who supervises tax foreclosure work in the prosecutor's office, said his unit had helped select the vendor and that the primary outstanding issue was contract language protecting the county where purchasers subsequently foreclose and then do not move properties into productive use. Judy described prior contract provisions that limited refunding interest to purchasers in certain repurchase scenarios and said he wanted comparable protections included.

The prosecutor's office also described the county's enforcement capacity and collection context. The office said it currently forecloses on roughly 2,000 parcels per year and that there are about 35,000 delinquent properties in the county. For a prior tranche offered for a sale, staff reported that roughly 6,000 letters were sent and the list of potentially collectible parcels subsequently declined to about 2,500 after outreach and payment plans; the prosecutor suggested that, given those outreach results, the amount eventually sold would likely be lower than the $40,000,000 cap and estimated it might be closer to $25,000,000.

Council discussion also focused on timing. Purchasing staff said reissuing a formal solicitation could push the county out of the window to conduct a sale before November 2026; Grama and others said continuing the informal process would allow an earlier sale cycle. Members disagreed on whether that deadline justified using an informal solicitation for a large transaction.

After discussion, a motion to move the item out of committee was made but received no second. Committee staff advised that without a motion and second the item would remain in committee and not advance to full council. Committee staff member Trevor Mackler explained the procedural outcome: without a motion and second the legislation would stay in committee and not be scheduled for a council vote.

The committee took no formal vote on the resolution; the item was held in committee. Committee members and county staff said they expect further work on contract language, vendor vetting and procurement approach prior to any future resubmission.

Ending: The treasurer and law department representatives indicated they would continue to work with the prosecutor's office and purchasing to refine the agreement and process. The resolution remains in committee pending those revisions and any subsequent decision by the treasurer to proceed independently.