AIA Bulletin

Already on the endangered list due to Ohio’s fiscal squeeze, state-backed bond funding for special local projects like theaters, arts and sports facilities appears headed for extinction in Governor John Kasich’s first capital appropriations measure.

The elimination of “community project” funding from the upcoming measure was detailed in the capital bill planning guidance  issued by the Office of Budget and Management on Tuesday to state agencies, boards and commissions.

If followed through by the legislature, the change would be a further blow to local governments that saw the historic revenue-sharing arrangement with the state cut considerably in the biennial budget (HB153) – to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

While general revenue appropriations have become scarce in the last few capital bills, policymakers have still provided in the neighborhood of $100 million for community projects as part of the bond-funded package.

OBM Director, Tim Keen, said in a memorandum to directors and fiscal officers that such considerations would not be part of the governor’s plan.

“Capital bill appropriations directly impact operating budgets via debt service payments on the bond issuances used to support capital expenditures. Therefore, consistent with Governor Kasich’s commitment to restrain government spending, it is imperative that the FYs 2013-2014 capital bill also be restrained in size,” Mr. Keen wrote in the memo, which was part of the budget guidance documents.

“Accordingly, the bill will focus on necessary maintenance and upkeep of the state’s current capital assets with an extremely high threshold that would have to be met in order to fund new construction. Under these circumstances, the bill will contain no community projects. Thus, all state agencies, colleges, and universities should use the preparation of their six-year capital plan and their two-year capital funding request as an opportunity to carefully review their capital needs and only request funding for those projects that are most essential.”

Senate President, Tom Niehaus (R-New Richmond) said Tuesday in an interview that he has yet to read the capital bill guidance but agrees with an approach of fiscal restraint.

“We must be cognizant of the fact that we are in very difficult economic times right now and so any spending that we do based on borrowed funds we just need to review carefully,” he said. “But this is a process and this the very beginning of the process and so I’m sure that we will have vigorous debate over the coming months.”

The disappointment is likely to extend to the more traditional beneficiaries of the debt-backed measure, such as higher education institutions and state agencies, in part because whatever appropriation levels are ultimately approved will not cover what the agencies missed when the prior administration and legislature opted to not enact a biennial bricks-and-mortar budget for the first time in recent memory.

Sen. Niehaus said he has already heard from various constituencies with capital needs.

“We have heard from entities around the state that there is a need for capital investment and they are looking for assistance from taxpayers through the state capital bill,” he said. “That’s why we have a process to have the hearings and determine what those needs are.”

Before the fiscal year 2011-2012 capital biennia, colleges and universities alone were receiving roughly $500 million in funding for buildings and improvements every two years.

The only bond-backed capital appropriations approved by the General Assembly during that period, about $1 billion provided under various other measures, went mainly to the Ohio School Facilities Commission, the Public Works Commission, and Development-related projects. Included in that total is $50 million in emergency capital funds authorized in the current state operations budget.

Due to the juxtaposition of economic and political factors, former Gov. Ted Strickland and subsequently Gov. Kasich opted to not seek a separate capital bill in the current two-year cycle. As a result, the $1 billion in total capital appropriations in FY 2011-2012 was far less then the prior three biennia.

Including the capital bill and other measures, the legislature appropriated about $1.75 billion for projects in the FY 2009-2010 capital biennium, $3.46 billion during the prior two years and about $2.48 billion in the FY 2005-2006 period, according to the Senate GOP Finance Office.

OBM said in the guidance documents that all agency capital requests are due to the budget office by Dec. 16. The budget office will spend the next three months or so planning the bill for a spring rollout, with legislative hearings to ensue.

(Excerpted from the Nov. 14 SAO Newsletter)

Construction Reform, which was signed into law June 30 as part of Governor Kasich’s FY2012-2013 budget, paved the way for some very significant changes in the delivery of public construction in the State of Ohio.

The most significant change outlined in House Bill 153 is the elimination of Ohio’s multi-prime requirement for the use of separate contractors for each aspect of the project, including general trades, mechanical, electrical and plumbing work.

The new construction reform legislation will allow public authorities to continue to use the multi-prime approach, but adds new contracting options such as hiring a Construction Manager (CM) at Risk firm, a Design-Build (DB) firm or a single-prime contractor to perform the work.

The Ohio Department of Administrative Services (DAS) is required to develop administrative rules in order for the new alternative delivery methods to become effective. Rules amplify Revised Code and add further clarification and details for administrative procedures. An administrative rule becomes effective as part of the law in Ohio only after its adopting agency has taken it through a statutorily prescribed rule-making procedure.

DAS has drafted a total of seven proposed rules for Construction Reform which include:

• Surety Bonding Rule
• Contract Form Rule
• Subcontract Form Rule
• Prequalification Rule
• Best Value Rule
• Electronic Advertising Rule
• Electronic Bidding Rule

Drafts of the proposed rules are now available for comment on the Ohio Construction Reform (OCR) website at http://ocr.ohio.gov (click on Rules). In addition, contract documents are being posted to the website as they are developed and can be found on the “Documents” web page. We encourage and welcome all interested parties to review the information on the website and provide comments or questions as appropriate.

Also included on the OCR website, which launched in September, are links to legislative information, an event calendar showing public hearing dates and other related events, a list of frequently asked questions, a glossary of terms and other general information related to Construction Reform. In addition, a link is provided on the website to sign up for periodic updates on Construction Reform.

Renewable energy developers encountered skepticism as they urged lawmakers Wednesday not to tinker with solar and wind power mandates as they consider rewriting Ohio’s electricity law.

During a joint hearing of the House Public Utilities Committee and Senate Energy & Utilities Committee, witnesses portrayed a maturing wind and solar industry that would suffer considerable setbacks and job loss if policymakers back off the requirements for at least 12.5% of the electricity sold in Ohio to come from renewable sources by 2025.

Eric Thumma, president of the Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition, said Ohio was well on the way toward meeting renewable energy benchmarks included in 2008’s electricity restructuring law (SB221, 127^th General Assembly).

He pointed to two wind farms nearly completed in Paulding and Van Wert counties that generate 400 megawatts and represent about $800 million in capital spending. The facilities employed 700 workers during construction and will produce $2.6 million a year in landowner lease payments and $3.6 million a year in local taxes.

In addition, proposed wind farms totaling an additional 1,350 MW and $2.7 billion are currently pending approval by the Ohio Power Siting Board.

Edward Weston, director of Global Wind Network, a Cleveland-based supply chain advisory group, 174 Ohio companies have reported producing or selling products in the wind industry.

“Ohio has the deepest, the most extensive, and the best-marketed wind supply chain in America,” he said. “Please do not unravel an industry that presents such a tremendous opportunity for innovative and forward-thinking manufacturers.”

Colin Murchie, director of government affairs for SolarCity Corporation, said the alternative energy standards have resulted in driving down the price of subsidies through competition, and creating a thriving solar manufacturing industry in Ohio.

Revising the requirements would disrupt the industry and allow other countries to surpass the Using the emerging technology, he said.

Sen. Bill Coley (R-West Chester) said the witnesses were using “scare tactics about all these jobs leaving the state” to preserve subsidies for the industry and asked how Ohio’s renewable energy requirements would affect manufacturers in the state when they compete in a global market.

Mr. Murchie said site consultants say such policies play a role in companies’ decisions about locating facilities. Moreover, the requirements encourage the development of industry clusters, such as solar manufacturers in Toledo, he added.

Although the industry depends on subsidies, renewable energy is competing in the market against a vast system of legacy power plants the were constructed decades ago under regulations that guarantee a rate of return for investors, he said in response to a question from Rep. Anne Gonzales (R-Westerville).

Rep. Peter Beck (R-Mason) asked how long subsidies would be necessary for the wind and solar industries to compete.

Mr. Murchie predicted another six or seven years of subsidies would be necessary, until the price of renewable energy credits declines substantially. “It’s within sight,” he said.

Mr. Thumma said he believed wind energy would be competitive around 2021, but added that it was difficult to determine due to the unpredictability of the wholesale electricity market.

Rep. Mike Foley (D-Cleveland) said the witnesses had not mentioned that renewable energy requirements also benefit the environment.

“Climate change is real,” he said. “Allowing the market to just do this on our own isn’t working.”

Sen. Coley said he wanted Rep. Foley to realize that “those of us who have already known that global warming is a hoax still care about the environment.”

At the hearing on Wednesday of the House Public Utilities Committee, Chairman Peter Stautberg (R-Cincinnati) made it clear that everything was on the table as far as discussing policy matters, as representatives for Ohio’s manufacturing groups gave committee members an idea of what is working and what is clearly not working since 127-SB221 (Schuler) was signed into law by Gov. Ted Strickland in 2008. The only issue they all agreed on is that the advanced and renewable energy benchmarks are a barrier to attracting manufacturing business to Ohio. 

Ohio’s energy policy sets an Advanced Energy Portfolio Standard (AEPS) that by 2025, at least 25 percent of all electricity sold in the state must come from alternative energy resources, such as clean coal and nuclear. At least half of the standard — 12.5 percent of electricity sold — must be generated by renewable sources such as wind and solar. At least half of the renewable energy must be generated within Ohio, which one panelist said, “has caused some problems.” 

The utilities can file with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) for a waiver if the cost to procure renewable generation will cause the price of power to increase by more than 3 percent.

Kevin Schmidt, director of public policy services for the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association (OMA), commented that sustainability requirements can create profitable new market opportunities, but must be economically feasible.

“Companies must be responsive to consumer and shareholder demand for corporate responsibility relative to energy and environmental regulations,” Schmidt said. “Companies are increasingly focused on carbon management and ‘green’ products and processes. Such initiatives must be economically sustainable for manufacturers and not merely regulatory impositions. Companies may want to make greener products and adapt their processes, but cannot always pass along the higher prices for these products in competitive global markets.”

Michael Kurtz representing the Ohio Energy Group (OEG), agreed with Schmidt and said renewable energy is less reliable and is generally two or three times more expensive than conventional generation.

“Right now, the lowest cost new generation is probably combined cycle natural gas,” he added.

Each of the three panelists — Schmidt, Kurtz and Sam Randazzo, legal counsel for the Industrial Energy Users of Ohio — all pointed out that when SB221 was being debated the wealth of shale gas in the state was not realized. 

“We believe there is a fundamental inconsistency promoting the divestiture of existing generation in order to move to a fully deregulated market on the one hand, and then having state government, not a market, dictate the type of generating resources Ohioans are required to buy on the other,” Kurtz explained.

Rep. Mike Foley (D-Cleveland) asked each of the panelists if they are against the renewable standards. Randazzo pointed out that he was the only one against them during the debate over SB221. While he said he does agree renewables should be discussed, “here is an area we don’t need state government.”

Randazzo’s testimony stressed his definition of regulation, stating that the purpose of economic regulation is to “simulate results that would occur in an efficient competitive market.”

Randazzo also said he does not agree to letting industrial energy customers “opt-out” of purchasing advanced energy as suggested by Kurtz during his testimony as a policy change that would help or maintain the economic competitiveness of Ohio industries and provide incentives for new companies to relocate in the state. 

Kurtz clarified that the “opt-out” for companies would not change the benchmarks or increase costs on other consumer classes.

“We think it is a bad idea for everyone,” Randazzo said. Instead Randazzo suggested that the provisions requiring renewable benchmarks be suspended by the Legislature until an economic review can be completed as to the impact or “unintended consequences” of setting renewable energy mandates. This report would also include energy efficiency and demand reduction programs.

Schmidt agreed and said especially with the increase in natural gas supplies in the state, that a technical review could be warranted. Kurtz agreed as well, and suggested that it be more targeted for manufacturers.

Foley questioned how manufacturing companies are concerned with meeting the benchmarks when the mandate is for the utility companies and not individual consumers.  Schmidt explained that the mandates are imposed on the utility but through a rider the cost comes to the end-user.

Randazzo described it as an unfunded mandate to consumers.

Schmidt said that policy should not come before technology.

Rep. Ron Amstutz (R-Wooster), who was described by Randazzo as the “father of electric deregulation” since his legislation in 1992, asked about socializing energy costs across customer classes and who pays for the “delta revenue.”

Randazzo said this issue has been wrestled with at the PUCO for over a decade. He explained the provisions in SB221 that provide for reasonable arrangements or a specialized electric rate to further economic development (ORC 4905.31). 

“Through competitive bidding customers have not needed to have a delta revenue issue,” Randazzo said pointing to FirstEnergy Solutions as an example of going to market and its resulting in lower rates for its customers. He added that this is an example of how to leverage the market base rate to deal with delta revenue costs and not billing its customers. 

Schmidt said the OMA sees unique arrangements for energy as a way for Ohio to leverage economic development opportunities and bring companies into the state and get a competitive utility rate. He mentioned the PUCO’s new tariff — “off the shelf” — program designed to incentivize new businesses to receive discounts if they relocate or expand in the state. 

The OMA also is doing a study with Cleveland State University to look at Ohio and competing states regarding energy rates, energy needs of various types of manufacturing businesses, and environmental mandates, in the hopes of answering the big question about what is a competitive rate.

Randazzo said unlike the natural gas markets, the electric markets are still progressing and the reasonable arrangement to leveraging market forces will be more successful.

Rep. Anne Gonzalez (R-Westerville) asked if each of the panelists accepted the rise and declines of the market. 

Randazzo answered that the regulatory design is to simulate market forces. “It is not possible to not have regulation that defies what’s going on in the market. Yes, we endorse and favor markets respecting the realities of market forces.”

Additionally, Randazzo pointed out times in history when due to “bad behavior” the markets were manipulated as in the case of Enron.

Kurtz had a different view of market rates with respect to a recent push by American Electric Power (AEP) and Duke Energy to divest their generating assets, resulting in the transfer of the power plants to corporate affiliates not regulated by the PUCO, as FirstEnergy did in creating FirstEnergy Solutions to control its generation. 

Kurtz said in the recent electric security plan proposal from AEP pending before the PUCO, “Pushing for utilities to divest their power plants may not be the best policy for Ohio customers. Only time will tell. If utilities do not own their power plants, there cannot be a cost-based standard service offer option that customers could choose if market rates are very high. Customers would permanently lose their hedge against large market spikes in the market rates.”

He added that OEG reluctantly agreed to AEP’s stipulation that would require Ohio Power and Columbus Southern Power to divest all of their existing generation. “Even after divestiture, as long as a utility operates within an ESP as opposed to an MRO, the PUCO still has some jurisdiction over generation,” he said including jurisdiction over rate design and economic development, as well as new power plants dedicated to Ohio customers on a cost-basis.

The Court of Appeals for Franklin County has held that a general “Pay-When-Paid” clause in a Construction Contract is not sufficiently specific to interpret it as a “Pay-IF-Paid,” describing certain language required to shift the risk to a Subcontractor.  In this case, the Architect hired an Engineer who sued for payment; the Architect was not paid, but held to owe the Engineer nevertheless.  This follows 6^th Circuit Court reasoning from previous litigation, and provides a good analysis of the legal history of this issue.

EMH&T v. Triad Architects (9/29/11), 10^th Dist. Court of Appeals

.

STATE TAX CREDIT
PROVES POPULAR INCENTIVE

A 120-year old landmark in the heart of downtown Piqua that had seen better days, the Fort Piqua Hotel has become the spectacular new Piqua Public Library, just one example of the impact that the Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit is having in communities throughout Ohio.

Tax Credit Made the Difference
“Rehabilitation has given new life to the Fort Piqua Hotel and to our entire downtown,” says James Oda, director of the Piqua Public Library, now housed in the 1891 building. “Availability of the Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit made the difference for this project.” Thirty-six Ohio projects have received final certification under Ohio’s state tax credit initiative that was launched in 2008 and was recently renewed in the State of Ohio 2012/2013 biennium budget. The program, which provides a 25 percent credit on qualified rehabilitation expenditures on historic buildings, is administered by the Ohio Department of Development in partnership with the Ohio Historical Society’s Ohio Historic Preservation Office and the Ohio Department of Taxation. A tax credit is a reduction in the amount of tax owed.

Credit Leverages $427 Million Investment in Historic Properties
Since inception of the program, 118 projects from 28 cities and townships in 27 Ohio counties have been approved for the credit and 36 projects have been completed and certified. The 36 projects total more than $72 million in tax credits and will leverage more than $427 million in overall investment.

As with the long-established federal historic rehabilitation tax credit program, each project is carefully reviewed by Ohio Historic Preservation Office staff to ensure that the structure qualifies as a historic building and that rehabilitation work retains the historic character of the building and complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, a set of standards used nationwide to guide work that’s appropriate for historic buildings. Nearly all of the approved state projects also qualified for the 20 percent federal historic rehabilitation tax credit.

$40 of Economic Activity for Every $1 Invested
Job-creation statistics associated with this program, for both temporary and permanent jobs, are impressive. According to Ohio Department of Development data, the first four rounds of the program are projected to generate $10 billion in total economic activity and create nearly 7,000 jobs annually. Every $1 invested in state historic preservation tax credits will generate $8 of construction spending and $32 of operating impacts, totaling $40 of economic activity. In addition, returning the largely vacant buildings to productive use generates nearly $430 million in new property, income and sales tax revenues for state and local governments.

The Ohio School Facilities Commission (OSFC) gave the go-head Thursday for the college-preparatory boarding school

program authorized by budget bill HB153 (Amstutz), and approved seven school districts for energy conservation funding.

OSFC Executive Director Richard Hickman had highlighted the new college-preparatory construction program in his yearend

report for FY11.

The relevant sections of HB153, which incorporate program language from companion bills HB221 and SB167, go into effect Sept. 29.  To be eligible for college-preparatory funding, a school’s board of trustees must secure at least $20 million in local matching funds.  “Acquisition of residential facilities and any other facilities other than classroom facilities must be funded by the board of trustees through private means,” the bill analysis says.

Members approved a resolution authorizing new rule language for the college-preparatory program.

OSFC Wednesday also approved updates to the state’s Exceptional Needs Program and Corrective Action Program. The

latter formerly allowed school districts to use corrective action funding toward the local share, but new rules will require

districts to raise required matching funds before qualifying for the program.

In addition, Hickman announced seven school districts seeking “significant energy conservation savings” through the

“HB264 Program” of the 117th General Assembly: Buckeye Local School District (Ashtabula County), Cloverleaf Local

(Medina County), Fort Recovery Local (Mercer County), Independence Local (Cuyahoga County), Jackson Local (Stark

County), Lynchburg-Clay Local (Highland County) and Rootstown Local (Portage County).

The school districts expect to see nearly $502,000 in annual energy savings through planned improvements to include

lighting upgrades, modernized boilers, building automation, and electronic air filtration, Hickman said. “Reducing energy costs and consumption is a major goal for school districts,” he said. “The savings generated through the HB264 program will allow these seven districts to upgrade their facilities and become more energy efficient. Furthermore, the energy savings will cover the cost of the financing used to fund the projects.”

During his monthly report, Hickman updated the commission on the 11 building dedications since OSFC last met on Aug.

11: Franklin Monroe (Darke County), Dayton City (Montgomery County), Akron City (Summit County), Cleveland Municipal

(Cuyahoga County), Reynoldsburg City (Franklin County), Lakota Local (Sandusky County), Miami East (Miami County),

Russia Local (Shelby County), and Lorain City (Lorain County).

Four other projects in Coshocton City School District, Eaton Community School District and Madison Local School District

also broke ground, Hickman said.

Eight more dedications are scheduled over the next month for Akron City, Fairfield Union Local (Fairfield County), Huber

Heights City (Montgomery County), Hamilton City (Butler County), and Wayne County Joint Vocational School District

(Wayne County). Two groundbreakings will also be held for Cory-Rawson Local (Hancock County) and Switzerland of Ohio

Local (Monroe County.

President Barrack Obama will visit Fort Hayes Arts and Academic High School in Columbus on Tuesday afternoon to discuss

the American Jobs Act proposal he plans to send to Congress this week. During his visit he will be highlighting his plan to

modernize schools across the country and the effect his proposal will have on Ohio’s teachers and school districts.

The American Jobs Act proposes $25 billion of spending on school infrastructure that would modernize at least 35,000

public schools, which the president believes will create jobs while improving classrooms and upgrading schools to meet 21st

century needs.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack was the first of Obama’s cabinet members to visit Ohio after the

president announced his jobs plan Thursday evening, coming to Columbus last Friday.

As the president travels to Central Ohio, U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown will also announce new legislation — the Fix America’s

Schools Today (FAST) Act — that he says would support an estimated 12,800 Ohio jobs through the modernization and

repair of Ohio schools.

The Ohio School Facilities Commission (OSFC) continues the work of overhauling K-12 classrooms in the Buckeye State,

albeit with less funding, awarding a third fewer dollars in FY11 than in the previous fiscal year. School districts apparently

face the same fiscal crunch, with the number of “lapsed” projects spiking at roughly the same rate — 30 percent — as many

school officials scramble for local matching funds.

OSFC approved $345 million for nine projects in the recent fiscal year, with Warren Local Schools in Washington County

receiving the largest award of $75 million for classroom construction. Fort Recovery Local Schools had the smallest award,

$7 million, but also the lowest ratio of matching funds at $1.5 million.

Commission awards for FY11 compare to $525 million for FY10, when OSFC funded 25 projects in its benchmark Classroom

Facilities Assistance Program alone.

Participants in the school construction bond program, made possible by the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,

nearly doubled in the latest OSFC report, which provided the latest available figures for FY10. Hamilton County led the state

with more than $57 million in federally backed bonds. Total activity was $317 million in 81 school districts, compared to 42

districts in FY09.

The problem of failed school issues and lapsed funding struck roughly half of all Ohio counties in the recent fiscal year for a

total of 55 idled projects. Hancock County led the state with four. OSFC has withdrawn state funding for all lapsed projects,

but affected school districts can reapply when and if their local share is in place.

OSFC Executive Director Richard Hickman, who returned to the commission in 2011 after his previous administration under

former Gov. Bob Taft, noted in the report that HB153 (Amstutz) has given staff and commissioners plenty to think about.

“The changes contained in this biennial budget bill give the commission new opportunities and responsibilities moving

forward,” he said, highlighting several initiatives including construction reform.

The move from multiple prime to single prime contracting is currently in the implementation stage with the Department of

Administrative Services (DAS), Hickman said, “The commission expects to integrate the DAS model into our programs in

late winter 2011 or early spring 2012.”

OSFC is also launching construction funding for college-preparatory board schools.

“The new program will allow the commission to partner with a board of trustees of a college-preparatory boarding school

program to construct or renovate the academic facilities for a boarding school campus,” Hickman noted. “The boarding

school board of trustees will be responsible for the non-academic and boarding spaces.”

Elsewhere, he said the new STEM School Facility Program created by HB153 will allow OSFC to fund STEM schools not

governed by a single school district.

Hickman also noted the continued progress on 21st century learning environments, supported by this year’s second annual

21st Century School Design Symposium. “We have also been able to help districts think of their education delivery model in new ways, as we have been able to use

the scale of our construction and renovation effort to attract national leaders in the movement towards 21st century school

design,” he said. He also pointed to Ohio’s reputation as a “national leader in the Green Buildings movement,” with five school projects in the

state awarded “Gold” certification by the U.S. Green Energy Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

(LEED).

Hickman summed up the accomplishments of OSFC: “Since our inception in 1997, we have opened 863 new or renovated

buildings, housing over 475,000 students across the state. We expect to open our 1,000th building within the next 12-18

months.”

The full report can be found at http://osfc.ohio.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=5lqUQGFtqvA%3d&tabid=79.

Ohio University’s Voinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs released its Green Jobs Report on Thursday, which explores training and education programs within the University System of Ohio (USO) that prepare students for green jobs.

The Voinovich School’s report, titled “Green Jobs and the Ohio Economy – Part 4: Education and Training Programs,” focuses on university system programs relating to six sectors of Ohio’s green economy: renewable energy, energy efficiency, manufacturing, advanced energy, bioscience, green building and agriculture/biomass.

To prepare the report, Voinovich School researchers conducted a review of exemplary green jobs-related training programs nationally and identified best practices among these programs. Researchers then conducted a survey of educators in order to assess implementation of these best practices among green jobs-related programs in the USO.

The survey found that each of the best practices is being implemented among a majority of the 269 responding programs.

In addition to the survey results, the report provides over 30 case studies of green jobs-related programs nationally and in Ohio.

The report is one of four reports about green jobs prepared on behalf of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS) and the Ohio Board of Regents (OBR) through a research project supported by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment Training Administration. The Voinovich School’s report, along with the other three reports in the “Green Jobs and the Ohio Economy” series, is available at: http://ohiolmi.com/research/research.htm.

According to project manager Zachary Holl, these reports represent the state of Ohio’s most ambitious analysis to date of Ohio’s green economy and will help to more clearly define “green” professions.

“Among the general population, the definition of a ‘green job’ is unclear to a lot of folks,” he said. “Hopefully, this report will help those that are interested to get a better understanding of what is a green job. From an educational and training perspective, it’s practical because it helps people to relate education and training programs to the types of jobs that those programs can prepare for in the green economy.”

As a complement to the reports, the Voinovich School developed a database that the state of Ohio is now using to provide online information on more than 1,300 green jobs-related programs at four-year universities, two-year colleges and adult career centers within the USO.

The Career Exploration tool at http://ohiolmi.com/asp/Career/JobTool.asp, established by the ODJFS, provides information for individuals who are looking for jobs or considering career changes. The Ohio Green Pathways website at http://www.ohiogreenpathways.org/, established by the OBR, helps users understand what green jobs-related programs are available within the university system and what types of green occupations there are.

Senior Project Manager Sara Boyd said employers, education professionals, students seeking education, and job seekers will all be able to utilize the sites to find “information on employment and educational opportunities in the green economy as well as the best practices among programs.”

More information on the “Green Jobs and the Ohio Economy” reports is available online at http://ohiolmi.com/research/research.htm.

The decision to transfer the state’s liquor profit revenue to JobsOhio will leave a voter-authorized program to clean up polluted industrial sites without a funding stream, but the Kasich Administration says it will come up with a fix.

Office of Budget and Management Director Tim Keen said the administration has been reviewing ways to continue the Clean Ohio Brownfield Revitalization program now that the biennial budget, HB 153) calls for liquor profits to be diverted to the new private, non-profit JobsOhio entity.

The administration still has time to propose a replacement revenue source since the program is funded through the current fiscal year, Director Keen said in a recent interview.

“The question is what the program will look like and how we will fund it as we move forward. But we are committed to a Clean Ohio program that will provide resources to try to do some of the brownfield remediation work that leads to job creation,” he said. “We are supportive of that program.”

A proposal to fund the brownfield program could be included in the mid-biennium budget review bill that the administration will likely introduce in the spring, Director Keen said.

Sen. Michael Skindell (D-Lakewood), a member of the Clean Ohio Council, who has been a vocal critic of JobsOhio, expressed concern about leaving the brownfield programs without liquor revenue-backed bond funding.

“We’re already shortchanging the taxpayers, the citizens of Ohio by doing this liquor profits deal,” he said, asserting the administration’s plan to lease the revenue stream for $1.5 billion was severely undervalued. “And now we’re not going to adequately fund a program that Ohio voters strongly supported.”

The constitutional amendment that voters approved in 2008 extended the original Clean Ohio program created in 2000 by authorizing the state to issue bonds of up to $400 million outstanding at any one time, with a limit of $50 million a year. The money is divided equally between brownfield cleanups and green space conservation efforts.

Sen. Skindell and environmental advocates are also concerned about the future of programs designed to preserve green space and expand outdoor recreation – efforts typically funded by general revenue bonds. More than a year has passed since the legislature passed a capital appropriations bill, which typically authorize new debt issuance for the program.

Rob Nichols, spokesman for Governor John Kasich, said the administration expects funding for the Conservation General Obligation program would be made in the next capital appropriations bill.

Senate President, Tom Niehaus (R-New Richmond) said there had been no recent discussion of a capital budget among his caucus. However, he expressed support for the brownfield cleanup portion of Clean Ohio.

“I think everyone recognizes that Clean Ohio has been a good program – in particular the brownfield redevelopment – so we will be looking for ways to continue that program,” he said.

However, GRF-supported green space conservation programs appear to be less of a priority for the caucus, which is focused on proposals that create jobs, he said. “Obviously green space, by definition, means no development. Brownfields are areas that were developed and now need to be redeveloped to create the opportunity for business and jobs,” he said.

Sen. Skindell has expressed frustration that Republicans repeatedly tabled his budget amendments to continue funding for Clean Ohio green space programs.  He disputed Sen. Niehaus’s views that Clean Ohio conservation programs don’t yield much in terms of employment.  “Green space does lend to economic development and a sustainable community without question,” he said. Preserving natural areas in and around urban centers makes the nearby communities more attractive for development, he added.  “I don’t believe they’re committed to the program and they’re not adhering to the wishes of voters who overwhelmingly supported the extension of Clean Ohio – all aspects of it – in 2008,” he said.

Sen. Niehaus said the state was facing very different circumstances now, compared to when voters passed the amendment, which authorizes, but doesn’t require the state to issue Clean Ohio bonds.  “The voters, when they did vote on these, we were in very different economic times than we are today,” he said.

Adrienne Dziak, director of government relations for the Nature Conservancy in Ohio, said getting the legislature to authorize future bond sales for Clean Ohio conservation programs was a priority for her group.

“We’re not really certain where that’s going but we certainly have some concerns about the future of that program,” she said.

Ms. Dziak defended the conservation aspect of Clean Ohio, saying it ensures clean drinking water, increases recreational opportunities, preserves farms, protects natural resources, and catalyzes economic development.  “And it certainly positions the state as an environmentally sound and economically viable place to come and live and do business,” he added.

“Overwhelmingly approved by the voters twice, it’s traditionally had bipartisan support, every county in the state has benefited from Clean Ohio funding, so its obviously a program that’s been successful and is appreciated by the general public outside of the conservation and environmental community,” she said.

The state issued bonds earlier this year for the brownfield program and will disperse $50 million over the remainder of the fiscal year, according to William Murdock, director of the Department of Development’s Urban Development Division. About $10 million of that will go to the Clean Ohio Assistance Fund for smaller grants that fund ongoing projects and the Clean Ohio Council will appropriate the remaining $40 million during meetings in fall and spring.

Since 2000, the Clean Ohio program has issued 331 grants totaling about $350 million that leveraged a projected $3.8 billion in brownfield cleanup and redevelopment spending, he said. Funding has been dispersed among 116 communities throughout the state and has created a projected 17,000 jobs.

The Public Works Commission, which oversees financing for Clean Ohio’s green space programs, typically appropriates $37.5 million a year for open space acquisition. The remaining $12.5 million is split between the Department of Natural Resources for recreational trail development and the Department of Agriculture for farmland preservation.