OFCC Outlines Charter School Grant Process & Prison Master Plan
The Ohio School Facilities Commission approved guidelines Thursday for a new grant program created in the budget to help finance charter school buildings. Commission staff described plans for opening applications in the new year and gaining final approval of awards by the end of the fiscal year.
The biennial budget, HB64 (R. Smith), appropriated $25 million to construct buildings for high quality charter schools, with the state grants financing up to half of the total project costs.
Jeff Westhoven, chief of facility and program services for the commission, said the guidelines provide high-level details that will be supplemented by further specificity in grant application materials to be presented to the commission for approval in January.
Under the guidelines, grant applications are to be judged based on three factors: educational, instructional and financial quality. Final awards would be decided by the commission’s executive director and the state superintendent, pending approval of the Controlling Board.
Westhoven said educational quality would be judged on factors such as creating seats to address unmet community needs or involving outside organizations as partners. Instructional quality would be judged on inclusion of features like technology, flexible work space, and natural lighting and acoustic elements that are associated with improved learning. Analysis of financial quality could be based on factors like an applicant’s financial and operational history and greater share of local funding, Westhoven said.
Winning applicants would have to ensure the facilities maintain an educational purpose for at least 10 years following construction, he said.
The commission also approved guidelines for another budget-funded program, the STEM School Facilities Assistance Program. According to Sarah Spence, legislative affairs manager for the commission, the FY14-15 budget created a program for qualifying partnerships to receive up to a 50 percent state share of funding to construct facilities for a STEM program. The latest budget bill then provided funding for partnerships meeting certain eligibility criteria, namely that it include a group of districts in a career-technical education compact that spans two adjacent counties of between 40,000 and 50,000 population, one of which borders a neighboring state.
At the subsequent meeting of the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission, planning chief William Ramsey presented findings of a comprehensive assessment and master planning project for state correctional facilities, alongside Jenny Hildebrand, head of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s (DRC) Bureau of Construction, Activation, Maintenance and Sustainability.
Ramsey said the review and planning process assessed not only the status and future needs for physical facilities, but also those facilities’ alignment with operational and programmatic needs, such as increased demand for medical and mental health programming and the aging inmate population. The average DRC facility dates to 1973, and while many of them are structurally and physically sound, their mechanical, electrical and other systems are nearing the end of their useful life.
Marion Correctional and Southern Ohio Correctional showed the two highest levels of individual need, both in excess of $90 million. The oldest facilities are not necessarily the most in need of repair or replacement, Ramsey said.
Across all facilities, heating systems constitute the greatest need, assessed at more than $200 million worth of work, followed by more than $100 million worth of assessed need for plumbing and fixtures.
The next step will be prioritizing projects for capital funding requests.
“This is a long term plan …. We want to keep thinking about this every year, every two years, because it’s going to continue to change,” Ramsey said.
“This gets me excited for the DRC capital request due Nov. 16,” said Budget Director Tim Keen. “I have high hopes for this project, and it sounds like a lot of that has come to pass.”
“We need to talk about this project and how it’s going with some of our cabinet colleagues … those that have intensive facility footprints,” Keen said.
BBS School Door Barricade Proposal Set For Nov. 16 Stakeholder Hearing
The Board of Building Standards (BBS) has released its proposed school door barricade Rule and set a Stakeholder hearing for November 16. Definitions are included throughout the document which you’ll find below: See especially pages 32 & 33 for operational definitions:
Excerpt from pages 32 & 33:
1008.1.9.11 Temporary door locking device in school buildings. A temporary door locking device shall be permitted when approved by the building official and noted on the certificate of occupancy only in school buildings where the requirements of sections 1008.1.9.11.1 and 1008.1.9.11.2 are met.
1008.1.9.11.1 Conditions of use. A temporary door locking device shall only be used on doors under the following conditions:
1. The temporary door locking device shall only be used in an emergency situation and during active shooter drills; and
2. The temporary door locking device is engaged only by a staff member of the school building; and
3. The temporary door locking device shall only be engaged for a finite period of time as determined by the administrative authority of a school building in accordance with an adopted school safety plan; and
4. Evidence is provided that the administrative authority of a school building has notified the police and fire officials having jurisdiction for the school building prior to the use of the temporary door locking device; and
5. In-service training on the use of the temporary door locking device is provided for school staff members and records verifying this training shall be maintained on file and provided to the fire official upon request.
1008.1.9.11.2 Operational requirements. The temporary door locking device shall be permitted to be used in accordance with the following items:
1. The temporary door locking device shall not be permanently mounted to the door.
Exception: Individual parts of the temporary door locking device assembly such as bolts, stops, brackets, pins, etc. that do not prevent normal ingress and egress through the door may be permanently mounted provided that when such parts are mounted on a labeled fire door assembly such installation does not affect the fire rating of the fire door assembly.
2. The removal of the temporary door locking device, after it is engaged, shall not require more than one operation.
Exception: Two operations may be permitted to remove a temporary door locking device, after it is engaged, if the school building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance section 903.3.1.1.
Provisions of the “Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,” 104 Stat. 327, 42 U.S.C.A. 12101, as amended, may apply to the use of the temporary door locking device but are outside the scope of this code.
Board of Building Standards Proposed Rules/Stakeholder Meeting Notification
The Board will conduct a Stakeholder Meeting to hear comments and respond to questions on the proposed amendments to the Ohio Building Code summarized below on November 16, 2015 at 10:00 AM in Training Room 1, 6606 Tussing Road, Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068. All interested stakeholders are invited to attend.
Overview of Proposed Rule Changes
Proposed Ohio Building Code Rule Changes
The Board proposes to amend the Ohio Administrative Code in response to adoption of new Ohio Revised Code § 3781.106 included in HB 64 requiring the Board to develop rules for the use of a device by a staff member of a public or private school or institution of higher education that prevents both ingress and egress through a door in a school building, for a finite period of time, in an emergency situation, and during active shooter drills as follows: 4101:1-2-01 to add definitions for Active Shooter Drill, Administrative Authority of a School Building, Emergency Situation, Institution of Higher Education, Private School, Public School, School Building, and Temporary Door Locking Device; and 4101:1-10-01 to add exceptions to Sections 1008.1.9.1, 1008.1.9.3, 1008.1.9.5 for Temporary Door Locking Devices, and to add a new Section 1008.1.9.11 which establishes conditions for the use of Temporary Door Locking Devices.
These proposed rules can be viewed here:
http://www.com.ohio.gov/documents/dico_HB64OBCRulesStakeholderMeetingNovember2015.pdf
Contact Information for Comments or Questions
If you cannot attend the above Stakeholder Meeting, you can submit written comments or questions on the proposed amendments to the Board. You may submit your comments via email at BBS@com.state.oh.us or U.S. Mail at Ohio Board of Building Standards, 6606 Tussing Rd, Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068, Attn: Regina Hanshaw by November 27, 2015.
Sincerely,
Regina S. Hanshaw
Executive Secretary
Ohio Board of Building Standards
Sunset Panel to Eye Architect and Landscape Architect Boards
The Sunset Review Committee, which periodically reviews the necessity of dozens of state boards, commissions and other entities, will commence business Oct. 20.
The nine-member panel is asking the Ohio Architect and Landscape Architect Boards as well as other agencies to complete a standardized questionnaire on their purpose, workload, staff and historical budget trends, among other information.
The state budget bill, HB64, directed the Sunset Review Committee to “consider and evaluate the usefulness, performance, and effectiveness” of the Ohio Landscape Architects Board and the Architects Board… and “specifically to consider and make recommendations to the General Assembly, by June 1, 2016, regarding whether or not the Ohio Landscape Architects Board and the Architects Board should be combined to improve efficiency and save costs.”
House Committee Approves Architect CE Bill (HB 243)
The Ohio House State Government Committee approved HB 243 October 7 which would give the Ohio Architect’s Board (OAB) the flexibility to adapt to the changing needs of the profession.
House Committee Hears Architect CE Bill
The Ohio House State Government Committee took testimony September 30 regarding HB 243 which would make changes governing the architects board and the landscape architects board regarding continuing education requirements.
Ohio Architects Board Executive Director, Amy Kobe testified and David Brehm, AIA, LEED AP, submitted supporting testimony on behalf of AIA Ohio.
During the hearing Kobe said the boards were advised that the sections were to be interpreted “in a more restrictive fashion than in the past” and that they no longer had the authority to change the continuing education requirements themselves.
“The boards feel that a better definition of appropriate continuing education activities is appropriate and would result in greater compliance,” she said, and that “the acquisition of new knowledge that is directly related to the profession should be the primary driver for course selection.”
Amy Kobe said both boards’ national organizations have standardized terminology for continuing education and that when requirements across states are uniform, “record keeping requirements and the renewal process are greatly simplified” for licensees.
“The Ohio Revised Code currently requires the boards to accept certain unstructured activities” that are not in line with national standards, so they are requesting “12 structured health, safety, and welfare hours every calendar year,” she said.
David Brehm submitted written testimony in support of the bill on behalf of the American Institute of Architects, saying the legislation would give the OAB the flexibility to adapt to the changing needs of the profession. He said the AIA and the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards convened a joint task force to review national continuing education standards. The bill would more easily enable the boards to follow the task force’s recommendations, he said.
“The result was a recommendation for a uniform continuing education regulation that would be adopted by the majority of the states,” according to Brehm. “This requirement is simply for the architect and jurisdictions to process, consistent among jurisdictions, less confusing for architects registered in multiple jurisdictions and an easier process for the state board to process and renew.”
Also testifying as a proponent was Eugenia Martin of the Ohio Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects.
“It is a goal of ours that we provide clear, concise guidelines and application of this uniform policy across jurisdictions to the benefit of all licensees, regulators and most importantly, those who benefit from the professional services of the regulated community,” Martin said. “Our ultimate desire is to make sure that our landscape architect practitioners are accountable and protective of the health, safety and welfare of the communities they serve.” David Brehm submitted written testimony in support of the bill on behalf of the American Institute of Architects, saying the legislation would give the OAB the flexibility to adapt to the changing needs of the profession.”
Policymakers, Stakeholders Gear Up For Next Capital Appropriations Bill
The next big thing in state spending is right around the corner in the way of the Fiscal Year 2017-2018 capital bill.
Slated for introduction early next year, the bricks-and-mortar legislation was the subject of a planning memorandum recently distributed to state agencies and institutions by the Office of Budget and Management.
Budget Director Tim Keen said the agency will try to mirror the collaborative process of 2014 that led to early agreements for divvying up hundreds of millions in spending on higher education facilities along with a few local priority projects.
The guidance bulletin posted last week by OBM provides further details and spells out a schedule that includes a Nov. 16 deadline for agencies to submit project requests and an early-year rollout of the bill, which historically has started in the House.
|
Tim Keen |
Also of major interest to a variety of stakeholder groups and their representation at the Statehouse: For the second straight capital biennium, the mostly bond-backed package is expected to include money for “community projects” such as arts and cultural facilities.
Mr. Keen said the administration has determined that the state’s current financial condition will allow for a “small portion” of the appropriations in the bill to be targeted toward “capital projects of local or regional importance.”
The selection of local projects, which hadn’t been funded in the measure during the prior three biennia, caused a bit of friction in the development of the last capital bill (HB497, 130th General Assembly). The result was a delayed introduction of the bill so legislative leaders could have more input.
Mr. Keen makes it clear in his letter accompanying the guidance documents that local officials should expect to work closely with the administration and their representative lawmakers in proposing projects at the front end of the process.
“While the administration may consider project recommendations from various parties, such recommendations are subject to a collaborative review with the General Assembly during capital bill development,” he wrote. “Capital project proponents are advised to communicate with members of the General Assembly about the merits of their projects. Project proponents are also advised to be mindful of constitutional, statutory and federal tax code provisions that govern whether a project is eligible for state bond funded support.”
Mr. Keen added in an interview, “Our work with outside groups will help us prepare to engage members of the General Assembly, particularly with community projects, to come up with some items for inclusion in the bill.”
The OBM director said it’s too early to tell if the facilities budget will exceed the latest version, which included about $2.1 billion in debt backed by the state’s general revenue and another $300 million in mostly cash from non-GRF sources.
“There was no GRF in the past capital bill and I would not expect there to be any GRF in this capital bill either,” Mr. Keen said.
That means any community project request will have to meet certain debt guidelines.
“The capital bill is funded primarily with bonds that are issued for the specific purposes for which we’re allowed to issue debt. Community projects are going to have to be eligible for one of the sources of that funding that we’re able to provide,” he said.
The debt load increase from the capital bill will also have to fit within the 5% limit that voters added to the Ohio Constitution in 1999. Mr. Keen said that won’t be a problem, especially given that the baseline GRF total has increased, mainly due to the addition of federal matching Medicaid money under the expansion of entitlement eligibility. Both federal and state Medicaid funds are reported as GRF in the state’s budget.
Prior to the last capital bill the state’s GRF-backed debt load was at 3.77% of estimated future GRF and lottery profits spending. The current debt level based on the certification for the most recent bond sale was 3.24%. (OBM Historical Capital Debt Chart)
“Just because we have the capacity doesn’t mean we’d want to use it,” Mr. Keen said. “We ought to fund our capital needs being mindful of the fact that there’s added costs to the operating budget because of debt service over the 20-year period of the bonds that we sell.”
“We’re going to try to be restrained in the size of this capital bill because…projects funded through bonds create debt service which translates into spending in the operating bill,” he added.
Higher Education: Gov. John Kasich urged four- and two-year institutions to come together to address their facilities needs in the last two capital biennia, and the Higher Education Funding Commission followed through with an agreed-to package.
The agreement was critical given colleges and universities account for a sizeable chunk of the state’s capital outlay. In 2014, for example, the institutions’ appropriations eventually totaled about $455 million, or nearly a quarter of the GRF-backed debt in the bill.
A formal process has yet to be identified but officials expect the same type of collaboration to proceed this time around.
“On higher ed, we still have a little more work to do to decide how we’re going to proceed this time, although we’ve been very pleased with the work of the institutions in coming together in these last two capital bills,” Mr. Keen said.
The groups representing four- and two-year institutions, the Inter-University Council and the Ohio Association of Community Colleges, are also expecting all of the state’s public colleges and universities to work together on a joint capital request. “We’d love to collaborate both on the control number and the allocation simply because it makes sense for presidents to come together from both sectors to evaluate the projects and make recommendations that fit the governor’s priorities,” IUC President Bruce Johnson said in an interview.
OACC President and CEO Jack Hershey agreed.
“I do expect the governor to employ this process again. This process kicked off what I would say is the era of collaboration in higher education – what’s happened between community colleges and universities,” he said.
In fact, Mr. Hershey said he’s heard other states, including Tennessee, are looking at replicating the collaborative model.
Asked to identify any specific critical needs that have arisen in the last two years, Mr. Johnson said each institution likely could name a few.
“One of the things that’s not widely understood is that since K-12 got all of their buildings taken care of, that our lab facilities are not as well-maintained as theirs,” he said. “Our roofs are leaking. We have libraries that have buckets.”
“So it’s a very significant problem. It would be nice to get back to 2005, 2006 levels of funding.”
Mr. Johnson said both of the higher education sectors face similar issues given state funding for facilities has never recovered to reach pre-recession levels. There has been “no growth relative to where we were a decade ago, and that level was below where it should have been,” he said.
“There is a significant state investment in public facilities that is required to maintain them,” Mr. Johnson added. “We’ve all got the same problem in that a very large percentage of these buildings were either built or rehabilitated during the 1970s and they are certainly in need of rehabilitation.”
Mr. Hershey said that while most two-year colleges have younger facilities, they are starting to show their age and are in need of upkeep. The capital bill is integral to those projects because the colleges generally don’t issue their own debt, he said.
“For community colleges, we generally don’t go into debt hardly at all to do capital projects so the capital bill is really it for us,” Mr. Hershey said.
“Numerous community colleges have zero debt on the book because they are committed to keeping costs low for students. So this capital bill is pretty darn important to us and it reflects a greater percentage of overall capital funding than it would for say a university.”
Senate Takes Up Fix For Small Firm Income Tax Reduction
The Senate Ways and Means Committee started hearings Wednesday on tax-law cleanup from the biennial budget and plans to pass the measure soon, according to Sen. Bob Peterson (R-Sabina), the committee chairman.
The final version of HB64 (R. Smith) inadvertently turned an intended tax cut into a temporary tax increase for some small firms under the state’s small business exemption. Lawmakers created a 3 percent, flat-rate tax for small business income above $250,000, the threshold for the small business exemption. But in 2015, taxpayers can only exempt 75 percent of income up to $250,000, and application of the 3 percent rate on the last 25 percent could represent a tax increase versus application of the usual graduated rates.
Sen. Bill Beagle’s (R-Tipp City) SB208 fixes this error by applying the graduated rates to the final 25 percent of income up to $250,000. The problem goes away in 2016, when a full 100 percent of small business income up to $250,000 is deductible.
Beagle told Sen. Larry Obhof (R-Medina) that the bill also should simplify the filing process, meaning there’ll be greater participation among business owners in claiming the deduction, leading to greater tax relief.
Peterson said after the hearing he expects a vote on the bill in two weeks.
BBS Sets Schedule for School Door Barricade Rule
The Board of Building Standards (BBS) Codes Committee has set September 21 and October 9 to meet to discus the rules for classroom barricades with the goal to begin the review process at the Board’s meeting on October 16.
BBS Issues School Door Barricade Advisory
On September 2 the Ohio Board of Building Standards issued an Advisory to school officials and fire department personnel cautioning schools against purchasing and deploying barricade devices before the BBS issues a ruling on their use.
Following is the BBS Advisory:
House Bill 64 adopted by the Ohio General Assembly on June 30, 2015 included new Revised Code § 3781.106 which requires the Ohio Board of Building Standards (the “Board”) to adopt rules for the use of devices that prevent both ingress and egress through school doors in an emergency situation or during active shooter drills. These rules must be in place by March 2016. The Board has begun the rule development process and will have a stakeholder meeting later this year on proposed rules to receive comment from interested persons. These rules will establish guidelines for what devices may be used in schools. Schools are cautioned against purchasing and deploying devices before the rules take effect as some devices may not comply with the new rules.
Until these rules are adopted, please continue to work with both your local building and fire departments for any proposed alteration to your school building, including the use of any device that restricts egress. In general, the Ohio Building Code (OBC) requires and will continue to require the following for door operation:
- Egress doors should be readily openable from the egress side without the use of a key or special knowledge;
- Door handles, pulls, latches, locks and other operating devices on doors shall not require tight grasping, tight pinching or twisting of the wrist to operate; and
- The unlatching of any door shall not require more than one operation. Doors in the means of egress must be readily openable from the egress side without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort;
For questions about these or other building code requirements for schools, please contact:
Ohio Board of Building Standards 6606 Tussing Road
P.O. Box 4009
Reynoldsburg, OH 43068
614 | 644 2613
BBS@com.state.oh.us
OFCC Outlines Charter School Grant Process & Prison Master Plan
The Ohio School Facilities Commission approved guidelines Thursday for a new grant program created in the budget to help finance charter school buildings. Commission staff described plans for opening applications in the new year and gaining final approval of awards by the end of the fiscal year.
The biennial budget, HB64 (R. Smith), appropriated $25 million to construct buildings for high quality charter schools, with the state grants financing up to half of the total project costs.
Jeff Westhoven, chief of facility and program services for the commission, said the guidelines provide high-level details that will be supplemented by further specificity in grant application materials to be presented to the commission for approval in January.
Under the guidelines, grant applications are to be judged based on three factors: educational, instructional and financial quality. Final awards would be decided by the commission’s executive director and the state superintendent, pending approval of the Controlling Board.
Westhoven said educational quality would be judged on factors such as creating seats to address unmet community needs or involving outside organizations as partners. Instructional quality would be judged on inclusion of features like technology, flexible work space, and natural lighting and acoustic elements that are associated with improved learning. Analysis of financial quality could be based on factors like an applicant’s financial and operational history and greater share of local funding, Westhoven said.
Winning applicants would have to ensure the facilities maintain an educational purpose for at least 10 years following construction, he said.
The commission also approved guidelines for another budget-funded program, the STEM School Facilities Assistance Program. According to Sarah Spence, legislative affairs manager for the commission, the FY14-15 budget created a program for qualifying partnerships to receive up to a 50 percent state share of funding to construct facilities for a STEM program. The latest budget bill then provided funding for partnerships meeting certain eligibility criteria, namely that it include a group of districts in a career-technical education compact that spans two adjacent counties of between 40,000 and 50,000 population, one of which borders a neighboring state.
At the subsequent meeting of the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission, planning chief William Ramsey presented findings of a comprehensive assessment and master planning project for state correctional facilities, alongside Jenny Hildebrand, head of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s (DRC) Bureau of Construction, Activation, Maintenance and Sustainability.
Ramsey said the review and planning process assessed not only the status and future needs for physical facilities, but also those facilities’ alignment with operational and programmatic needs, such as increased demand for medical and mental health programming and the aging inmate population. The average DRC facility dates to 1973, and while many of them are structurally and physically sound, their mechanical, electrical and other systems are nearing the end of their useful life.
Marion Correctional and Southern Ohio Correctional showed the two highest levels of individual need, both in excess of $90 million. The oldest facilities are not necessarily the most in need of repair or replacement, Ramsey said.
Across all facilities, heating systems constitute the greatest need, assessed at more than $200 million worth of work, followed by more than $100 million worth of assessed need for plumbing and fixtures.
The next step will be prioritizing projects for capital funding requests.
“This is a long term plan …. We want to keep thinking about this every year, every two years, because it’s going to continue to change,” Ramsey said.
“This gets me excited for the DRC capital request due Nov. 16,” said Budget Director Tim Keen. “I have high hopes for this project, and it sounds like a lot of that has come to pass.”
“We need to talk about this project and how it’s going with some of our cabinet colleagues … those that have intensive facility footprints,” Keen said.
BBS School Door Barricade Proposal Set For Nov. 16 Stakeholder Hearing
The Board of Building Standards (BBS) has released its proposed school door barricade Rule and set a Stakeholder hearing for November 16. Definitions are included throughout the document which you’ll find below: See especially pages 32 & 33 for operational definitions:
Excerpt from pages 32 & 33:
1008.1.9.11 Temporary door locking device in school buildings. A temporary door locking device shall be permitted when approved by the building official and noted on the certificate of occupancy only in school buildings where the requirements of sections 1008.1.9.11.1 and 1008.1.9.11.2 are met.
1008.1.9.11.1 Conditions of use. A temporary door locking device shall only be used on doors under the following conditions:
1. The temporary door locking device shall only be used in an emergency situation and during active shooter drills; and
2. The temporary door locking device is engaged only by a staff member of the school building; and
3. The temporary door locking device shall only be engaged for a finite period of time as determined by the administrative authority of a school building in accordance with an adopted school safety plan; and
4. Evidence is provided that the administrative authority of a school building has notified the police and fire officials having jurisdiction for the school building prior to the use of the temporary door locking device; and
5. In-service training on the use of the temporary door locking device is provided for school staff members and records verifying this training shall be maintained on file and provided to the fire official upon request.
1008.1.9.11.2 Operational requirements. The temporary door locking device shall be permitted to be used in accordance with the following items:
1. The temporary door locking device shall not be permanently mounted to the door.
Exception: Individual parts of the temporary door locking device assembly such as bolts, stops, brackets, pins, etc. that do not prevent normal ingress and egress through the door may be permanently mounted provided that when such parts are mounted on a labeled fire door assembly such installation does not affect the fire rating of the fire door assembly.
2. The removal of the temporary door locking device, after it is engaged, shall not require more than one operation.
Exception: Two operations may be permitted to remove a temporary door locking device, after it is engaged, if the school building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance section 903.3.1.1.
Provisions of the “Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,” 104 Stat. 327, 42 U.S.C.A. 12101, as amended, may apply to the use of the temporary door locking device but are outside the scope of this code.
Board of Building Standards Proposed Rules/Stakeholder Meeting Notification
The Board will conduct a Stakeholder Meeting to hear comments and respond to questions on the proposed amendments to the Ohio Building Code summarized below on November 16, 2015 at 10:00 AM in Training Room 1, 6606 Tussing Road, Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068. All interested stakeholders are invited to attend.
Overview of Proposed Rule Changes
Proposed Ohio Building Code Rule Changes
The Board proposes to amend the Ohio Administrative Code in response to adoption of new Ohio Revised Code § 3781.106 included in HB 64 requiring the Board to develop rules for the use of a device by a staff member of a public or private school or institution of higher education that prevents both ingress and egress through a door in a school building, for a finite period of time, in an emergency situation, and during active shooter drills as follows: 4101:1-2-01 to add definitions for Active Shooter Drill, Administrative Authority of a School Building, Emergency Situation, Institution of Higher Education, Private School, Public School, School Building, and Temporary Door Locking Device; and 4101:1-10-01 to add exceptions to Sections 1008.1.9.1, 1008.1.9.3, 1008.1.9.5 for Temporary Door Locking Devices, and to add a new Section 1008.1.9.11 which establishes conditions for the use of Temporary Door Locking Devices.
These proposed rules can be viewed here:
http://www.com.ohio.gov/documents/dico_HB64OBCRulesStakeholderMeetingNovember2015.pdf
Contact Information for Comments or Questions
If you cannot attend the above Stakeholder Meeting, you can submit written comments or questions on the proposed amendments to the Board. You may submit your comments via email at BBS@com.state.oh.us or U.S. Mail at Ohio Board of Building Standards, 6606 Tussing Rd, Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068, Attn: Regina Hanshaw by November 27, 2015.
Sincerely,
Regina S. Hanshaw
Executive Secretary
Ohio Board of Building Standards
Sunset Panel to Eye Architect and Landscape Architect Boards
The Sunset Review Committee, which periodically reviews the necessity of dozens of state boards, commissions and other entities, will commence business Oct. 20.
The nine-member panel is asking the Ohio Architect and Landscape Architect Boards as well as other agencies to complete a standardized questionnaire on their purpose, workload, staff and historical budget trends, among other information.
The state budget bill, HB64, directed the Sunset Review Committee to “consider and evaluate the usefulness, performance, and effectiveness” of the Ohio Landscape Architects Board and the Architects Board… and “specifically to consider and make recommendations to the General Assembly, by June 1, 2016, regarding whether or not the Ohio Landscape Architects Board and the Architects Board should be combined to improve efficiency and save costs.”
House Committee Approves Architect CE Bill (HB 243)
The Ohio House State Government Committee approved HB 243 October 7 which would give the Ohio Architect’s Board (OAB) the flexibility to adapt to the changing needs of the profession.
House Committee Hears Architect CE Bill
The Ohio House State Government Committee took testimony September 30 regarding HB 243 which would make changes governing the architects board and the landscape architects board regarding continuing education requirements.
Ohio Architects Board Executive Director, Amy Kobe testified and David Brehm, AIA, LEED AP, submitted supporting testimony on behalf of AIA Ohio.
During the hearing Kobe said the boards were advised that the sections were to be interpreted “in a more restrictive fashion than in the past” and that they no longer had the authority to change the continuing education requirements themselves.
“The boards feel that a better definition of appropriate continuing education activities is appropriate and would result in greater compliance,” she said, and that “the acquisition of new knowledge that is directly related to the profession should be the primary driver for course selection.”
Amy Kobe said both boards’ national organizations have standardized terminology for continuing education and that when requirements across states are uniform, “record keeping requirements and the renewal process are greatly simplified” for licensees.
“The Ohio Revised Code currently requires the boards to accept certain unstructured activities” that are not in line with national standards, so they are requesting “12 structured health, safety, and welfare hours every calendar year,” she said.
David Brehm submitted written testimony in support of the bill on behalf of the American Institute of Architects, saying the legislation would give the OAB the flexibility to adapt to the changing needs of the profession. He said the AIA and the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards convened a joint task force to review national continuing education standards. The bill would more easily enable the boards to follow the task force’s recommendations, he said.
“The result was a recommendation for a uniform continuing education regulation that would be adopted by the majority of the states,” according to Brehm. “This requirement is simply for the architect and jurisdictions to process, consistent among jurisdictions, less confusing for architects registered in multiple jurisdictions and an easier process for the state board to process and renew.”
Also testifying as a proponent was Eugenia Martin of the Ohio Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects.
“It is a goal of ours that we provide clear, concise guidelines and application of this uniform policy across jurisdictions to the benefit of all licensees, regulators and most importantly, those who benefit from the professional services of the regulated community,” Martin said. “Our ultimate desire is to make sure that our landscape architect practitioners are accountable and protective of the health, safety and welfare of the communities they serve.” David Brehm submitted written testimony in support of the bill on behalf of the American Institute of Architects, saying the legislation would give the OAB the flexibility to adapt to the changing needs of the profession.”
Policymakers, Stakeholders Gear Up For Next Capital Appropriations Bill
The next big thing in state spending is right around the corner in the way of the Fiscal Year 2017-2018 capital bill.
Slated for introduction early next year, the bricks-and-mortar legislation was the subject of a planning memorandum recently distributed to state agencies and institutions by the Office of Budget and Management.
Budget Director Tim Keen said the agency will try to mirror the collaborative process of 2014 that led to early agreements for divvying up hundreds of millions in spending on higher education facilities along with a few local priority projects.
The guidance bulletin posted last week by OBM provides further details and spells out a schedule that includes a Nov. 16 deadline for agencies to submit project requests and an early-year rollout of the bill, which historically has started in the House.
|
Tim Keen |
Also of major interest to a variety of stakeholder groups and their representation at the Statehouse: For the second straight capital biennium, the mostly bond-backed package is expected to include money for “community projects” such as arts and cultural facilities.
Mr. Keen said the administration has determined that the state’s current financial condition will allow for a “small portion” of the appropriations in the bill to be targeted toward “capital projects of local or regional importance.”
The selection of local projects, which hadn’t been funded in the measure during the prior three biennia, caused a bit of friction in the development of the last capital bill (HB497, 130th General Assembly). The result was a delayed introduction of the bill so legislative leaders could have more input.
Mr. Keen makes it clear in his letter accompanying the guidance documents that local officials should expect to work closely with the administration and their representative lawmakers in proposing projects at the front end of the process.
“While the administration may consider project recommendations from various parties, such recommendations are subject to a collaborative review with the General Assembly during capital bill development,” he wrote. “Capital project proponents are advised to communicate with members of the General Assembly about the merits of their projects. Project proponents are also advised to be mindful of constitutional, statutory and federal tax code provisions that govern whether a project is eligible for state bond funded support.”
Mr. Keen added in an interview, “Our work with outside groups will help us prepare to engage members of the General Assembly, particularly with community projects, to come up with some items for inclusion in the bill.”
The OBM director said it’s too early to tell if the facilities budget will exceed the latest version, which included about $2.1 billion in debt backed by the state’s general revenue and another $300 million in mostly cash from non-GRF sources.
“There was no GRF in the past capital bill and I would not expect there to be any GRF in this capital bill either,” Mr. Keen said.
That means any community project request will have to meet certain debt guidelines.
“The capital bill is funded primarily with bonds that are issued for the specific purposes for which we’re allowed to issue debt. Community projects are going to have to be eligible for one of the sources of that funding that we’re able to provide,” he said.
The debt load increase from the capital bill will also have to fit within the 5% limit that voters added to the Ohio Constitution in 1999. Mr. Keen said that won’t be a problem, especially given that the baseline GRF total has increased, mainly due to the addition of federal matching Medicaid money under the expansion of entitlement eligibility. Both federal and state Medicaid funds are reported as GRF in the state’s budget.
Prior to the last capital bill the state’s GRF-backed debt load was at 3.77% of estimated future GRF and lottery profits spending. The current debt level based on the certification for the most recent bond sale was 3.24%. (OBM Historical Capital Debt Chart)
“Just because we have the capacity doesn’t mean we’d want to use it,” Mr. Keen said. “We ought to fund our capital needs being mindful of the fact that there’s added costs to the operating budget because of debt service over the 20-year period of the bonds that we sell.”
“We’re going to try to be restrained in the size of this capital bill because…projects funded through bonds create debt service which translates into spending in the operating bill,” he added.
Higher Education: Gov. John Kasich urged four- and two-year institutions to come together to address their facilities needs in the last two capital biennia, and the Higher Education Funding Commission followed through with an agreed-to package.
The agreement was critical given colleges and universities account for a sizeable chunk of the state’s capital outlay. In 2014, for example, the institutions’ appropriations eventually totaled about $455 million, or nearly a quarter of the GRF-backed debt in the bill.
A formal process has yet to be identified but officials expect the same type of collaboration to proceed this time around.
“On higher ed, we still have a little more work to do to decide how we’re going to proceed this time, although we’ve been very pleased with the work of the institutions in coming together in these last two capital bills,” Mr. Keen said.
The groups representing four- and two-year institutions, the Inter-University Council and the Ohio Association of Community Colleges, are also expecting all of the state’s public colleges and universities to work together on a joint capital request. “We’d love to collaborate both on the control number and the allocation simply because it makes sense for presidents to come together from both sectors to evaluate the projects and make recommendations that fit the governor’s priorities,” IUC President Bruce Johnson said in an interview.
OACC President and CEO Jack Hershey agreed.
“I do expect the governor to employ this process again. This process kicked off what I would say is the era of collaboration in higher education – what’s happened between community colleges and universities,” he said.
In fact, Mr. Hershey said he’s heard other states, including Tennessee, are looking at replicating the collaborative model.
Asked to identify any specific critical needs that have arisen in the last two years, Mr. Johnson said each institution likely could name a few.
“One of the things that’s not widely understood is that since K-12 got all of their buildings taken care of, that our lab facilities are not as well-maintained as theirs,” he said. “Our roofs are leaking. We have libraries that have buckets.”
“So it’s a very significant problem. It would be nice to get back to 2005, 2006 levels of funding.”
Mr. Johnson said both of the higher education sectors face similar issues given state funding for facilities has never recovered to reach pre-recession levels. There has been “no growth relative to where we were a decade ago, and that level was below where it should have been,” he said.
“There is a significant state investment in public facilities that is required to maintain them,” Mr. Johnson added. “We’ve all got the same problem in that a very large percentage of these buildings were either built or rehabilitated during the 1970s and they are certainly in need of rehabilitation.”
Mr. Hershey said that while most two-year colleges have younger facilities, they are starting to show their age and are in need of upkeep. The capital bill is integral to those projects because the colleges generally don’t issue their own debt, he said.
“For community colleges, we generally don’t go into debt hardly at all to do capital projects so the capital bill is really it for us,” Mr. Hershey said.
“Numerous community colleges have zero debt on the book because they are committed to keeping costs low for students. So this capital bill is pretty darn important to us and it reflects a greater percentage of overall capital funding than it would for say a university.”
Senate Takes Up Fix For Small Firm Income Tax Reduction
The Senate Ways and Means Committee started hearings Wednesday on tax-law cleanup from the biennial budget and plans to pass the measure soon, according to Sen. Bob Peterson (R-Sabina), the committee chairman.
The final version of HB64 (R. Smith) inadvertently turned an intended tax cut into a temporary tax increase for some small firms under the state’s small business exemption. Lawmakers created a 3 percent, flat-rate tax for small business income above $250,000, the threshold for the small business exemption. But in 2015, taxpayers can only exempt 75 percent of income up to $250,000, and application of the 3 percent rate on the last 25 percent could represent a tax increase versus application of the usual graduated rates.
Sen. Bill Beagle’s (R-Tipp City) SB208 fixes this error by applying the graduated rates to the final 25 percent of income up to $250,000. The problem goes away in 2016, when a full 100 percent of small business income up to $250,000 is deductible.
Beagle told Sen. Larry Obhof (R-Medina) that the bill also should simplify the filing process, meaning there’ll be greater participation among business owners in claiming the deduction, leading to greater tax relief.
Peterson said after the hearing he expects a vote on the bill in two weeks.
BBS Sets Schedule for School Door Barricade Rule
The Board of Building Standards (BBS) Codes Committee has set September 21 and October 9 to meet to discus the rules for classroom barricades with the goal to begin the review process at the Board’s meeting on October 16.
BBS Issues School Door Barricade Advisory
On September 2 the Ohio Board of Building Standards issued an Advisory to school officials and fire department personnel cautioning schools against purchasing and deploying barricade devices before the BBS issues a ruling on their use.
Following is the BBS Advisory:
House Bill 64 adopted by the Ohio General Assembly on June 30, 2015 included new Revised Code § 3781.106 which requires the Ohio Board of Building Standards (the “Board”) to adopt rules for the use of devices that prevent both ingress and egress through school doors in an emergency situation or during active shooter drills. These rules must be in place by March 2016. The Board has begun the rule development process and will have a stakeholder meeting later this year on proposed rules to receive comment from interested persons. These rules will establish guidelines for what devices may be used in schools. Schools are cautioned against purchasing and deploying devices before the rules take effect as some devices may not comply with the new rules.
Until these rules are adopted, please continue to work with both your local building and fire departments for any proposed alteration to your school building, including the use of any device that restricts egress. In general, the Ohio Building Code (OBC) requires and will continue to require the following for door operation:
- Egress doors should be readily openable from the egress side without the use of a key or special knowledge;
- Door handles, pulls, latches, locks and other operating devices on doors shall not require tight grasping, tight pinching or twisting of the wrist to operate; and
- The unlatching of any door shall not require more than one operation. Doors in the means of egress must be readily openable from the egress side without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort;
For questions about these or other building code requirements for schools, please contact:
Ohio Board of Building Standards 6606 Tussing Road
P.O. Box 4009
Reynoldsburg, OH 43068
614 | 644 2613
BBS@com.state.oh.us