Legislative News

 A bill that would ban local hiring quotas became “Senate Bill 5 light,” opponents said, after lawmakers added a provision Tuesday targeting cities’ use of project labor agreements.

Democrats warned Senate Bill 152 could trigger a court battle and a worker-led referendum akin to the 2011 fight over Senate Bill 5, which would have curtailed collective bargaining for public employees.

The bill wouldn’t outright ban project labor agreements, which are collective bargaining agreements negotiated between cities, unions, and contractors before the project begins. But it bans cities from requiring or prohibiting use of the agreements as a condition for bidding on a project using state funding.

Supporters say the provision levels the playing field between union and non-union contractors. Opponents say the language is yet another way lawmakers are hurting cities’ ability to do what’s best for their residents and would likely be found unconstitutional.

The Ohio House and Senate have passed companion bills designed to wipe out rules in Cleveland, Akron and elsewhere requiring that a certain amount of local workers be hired for large, publicly funded construction projects.

Supporters say

Local hiring: Senate Bill 152 would ban local laws requiring a portion of construction workers be hired locally.

The bill’s supporters, including the Ohio Contractors Association, say the quotes make it harder for contractors to hire the best workers and disadvantage Ohio companies. Out-of-state companies don’t have to meet residency quotas, which has become an issue in Southwest Ohio where companies can hire workers from Kentucky.

Project labor agreements: Project labor agreements are pre-hire agreements that set the terms for hiring, time line for completion, method for resolving disputes, and other factors that might delay or damage a project for all contractors on the project.

Project labor agreements are optional, but language added to the bill Tuesday would prevent cities from requiring them for state-funded projects. Rep. Ron Hood, the Ashville Republican who sponsored the amendment, said the change will ensure projects go to the lowest, most responsible bid.

Opponents say

Local hiring: Cleveland, Akron, and other cities already opposed the bill. Cleveland’s “Fannie Lewis” law, named after the late Cleveland city councilwoman, requires local residents perform 20 percent of work on all city construction projects that cost $100,000 or more. Akron requires contractors bidding on its $1.4 billion sewer project to hire half of their workers locally by 2018.

Cleveland officials have said the quotas ensure there is work for people in job training or apprenticeship programs.

Project labor agreements: Rep. Nick Celebrezze, a Parma Democrat, said the agreements protect skilled workers and ensure projects are completed on time. Celebrezze said Goodyear, Honda, and other companies use private sector project labor agreements because they are beneficial to the developer.

“We hear from the majority all the time that government should be run more like a business,” Celebrezze said. “Well, here’s our chance.”

The Ohio Supreme Court in 2002 struck down a law banning project labor agreements. House Minority Leader Fred Strahorn, a Dayton Democrat, said Senate Bill 152 would likely be unconstitutional and violate cities’ home rule authority.

Strahorn said cities should be allowed to factor in other attributes while bidding out projects and might not always want to go with the “lowest common denominator.”

“We are doing thing after thing in Columbus to make it harder for cities and make it harder for people to get ahead and now we want to interfere with local folks handling their own local issue that we’ve exacerbated,” Strahorn said.

Next steps

Senate Bill 152 cleared a House committee Tuesday and could receive a full House vote as early as Wednesday. If passed by the House, the Senate will need to agree to the changes before it can go to Gov. John Kasich.

Robert D. Loversidge, FAIA, President and CEO of Schooley Caldwell, Columbus, testified April 28 before Ohio General Assembly’s 2020 Tax Study Commission on behalf of Ohio’s Historic Preservation Tax Credit.

 Following is his testimony:

The Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit (OHPTC) has been a significant economic development tool since it was created by the Ohio General Assembly in 2006. According to the Ohio Development Services Agency it has directly benefitted 398 historic structures, in 52 Ohio communities, representing $4.4 billion in redevelopment investment.

OHPTC is an efficiently-run, ultimately fair, and effective incentive program that we believe should be retained or expanded by the General Assembly. Several reasons for this include: 

•  Incentives are needed to encourage property owners and developers to pursue renovation of historically significant structures, especially in distressed downtown areas, where these structures are likely to be underutilized or vacant.

•  The OHPTC program has a proven track record of being revenue-positive for the State. For every $1 million in awarded historic preservation tax credits, the return on investment is $6.7 million – this according to studies conducted by Cleveland State University. This report also notes that for every $ 1 million in credits, the return is $8 million in construction spending, $32 million in operating impact, 83 construction jobs and 299 operations jobs. This information is available on the Ohio Development Services Agency’s web site.

• The Ohio program requires periodic cost-benefit analyses to check in on the effectiveness of the program. A recent cost-benefit analysis involving a project in Warren, Ohio demonstrated that 31% of the state’s investment of $630,800 in historic tax credits was recovered before the tax credit was awarded. One-hundred percent (100%) of the state’s investment will be recovered in new revenues by the fourth year of operation. By year 10 the building will have generated additional state and local tax revenues of $494,000 in excess of the amount of the credit, or a return on investment of 80%, and by year 15 the building will have generated approximately $839,000 in new tax revenues, representing a return on investment of 130%. 

•  One significant advantage of the OHPTC program is that it is totally integrated/coordinated with the companion Federal Historic Preservation Tax Credit program, creating a powerful and complementary program that is administered concurrently and according to the same set of rules. The Ohio Historic Preservation Office (at the Ohio History Connection), using primarily Federal funds, reviews projects for both programs at the same time, saving the state money that might be needed to administer  separated programs. Owners get the advantage of receiving the 25% State tax credit and the 20% Federal credit – a powerful incentive to re-use our historic resources. 

•  OHPTC rewards only successfully completed projects. Unlike other programs, the tax credit certification comes only after the approved design is documented to have been completed. Uncompleted or poorly completed projects do not receive the benefit.

•  Renovation of historic buildings creates more jobs than equivalent new construction, and it is “greener.”Economist Donovan Rypkema points out that new construction is about 50% labor and 50% materials, whereas restoration and renovation can be as much as 75% labor – that is, for every dollar spent you get twice as much local employment, and use about half the resources.

Many Ohio businesses have benefited from this creative incentive program, and it has been an effective tool in our state’s efforts to beat back the recent recession. During this period, developers and owners who found themselves unable to pursue “normal” development paths to financing suddenly “discovered” OHPTC! My small firm has completed seven historic tax credit projects since 2008, ranging in scale from a small scale courthouse square project in Newark to the adaptive use of the 45 story LeVeque Tower in Columbus, and from a burned out building that was vacant for ten years in Chillicothe to the adaptive use of the Old Ohio School for the Deaf as a private high school for underprivileged kids. It is fair to say that none of these projects would have been possible without OHPTC.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, we commend your efforts to examine all portions of Ohio’s tax structure to examine better ways of doing things. OHPTC is a highly successful, extremely effective, efficiently-run, revenue positive program of the State of Ohio. It creates high-paying jobs – more than new building construction – in communities, big and small, all over our state. 

It is not broken . . . please retain this very important economic development tool.

Mr. Loversidge is an award-winning historic preservation architect, a Fellow of the American Institute of Architects, recipient of the AIA Ohio Gold Medal, and an Ohio Commodore. He has served as Ohio’s Architect of the Capitol since 1989.

The House of Representatives sent the Downtown Redevelopment Bill (Sub. HB 233), to Governor Kasich for his signature following concurrence in Senate amendments.

Sponsored by Rep., Kurt Schuring the bill is designed to assist in redeveloping strategic areas within Ohio’s downtowns. The bill uses as its core a historic preservation project that qualifies under the Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit. By way of background, the Historic Preservation Tax Credit went into effect in 2007 and has been widely successful throughout Ohio in restoring historic buildings. Many of those restoration projects have been in downtowns. Sub. H.B. 233 is intended to compliment those projects by offering new economic development tools that will have a synergistic effect on a designated area within a downtown and will provide a critical mass of activity that can support a place where people can live, work, and play.

The legislation allows a municipality to establish a Downtown Redevelopment District in ten-acre increments. The district must have a historic preservation project in it in order for the district to be formed. Up to 70% of the additional property taxes from the appreciated value of the historic preservation project can be diverted to pay for promotion of activity within the Downtown Redevelopment District 
and revolving loans to other businesses in the district, infrastructure improvements, and 
debt service on construction loans. 
These dollars will be used to support other economic activity in the district and will serve as a building block to the revitalization of the downtown as a whole. 


The legislation also allows for the establishment of an Innovation District to be established with in the Downtown Redevelopment District. The Innovation District will use a 100 gigabyte broadband connection to facilitate IT research and development in the form of business incubators and accelerators. These types of districts have been on the rise in recent years, attracting leading-edge businesses and the talented workers that go with it. The districts will foster a paradoxical alliance of combining old buildings with new high-tech job opportunities that create a sense of place that is very attractive to young people. 

The Ohio Senate uanimously passed the state’s $2.6  billion Capital Bill (SB310) on April 20.

The Senate passed the Ohio Architect Board’s Continuing Education Bill, HB 243 April 20.The bill grants the Ohio Architects Board the power to revise the types of activities that qualify for continuing education credits. 

Although the Board has no plans for immediate changes to these activities, it believes that HB 243 is needed to clarify the issue in light of the Legislative Service Commission’s contention that the Landscape Architects Board, which operates under identical statutory authority, didn’t have the ability to change the types of activities that qualify for CE.

Ohio’s $2.6 billion Capital Budget Bill (SB 310) was introduced and had its first hearing before the Senate Finance Committee on April 12.  It’s expected to clear the legislative process in roughly two weeks.  Testifying before the Committee was Office of Budget and Management (OBM) Director Tim Keen.

Among the major categories of funding in the capital proposal are the following:

– $650 million for local school construction, including repairs, renovations and maintenance for primary and secondary facilities.

According to Keen, besides dollars for the Ohio School Facilities Commission to continue funding 49 districts with projects underway and 40 new school districts over the capital biennium, the bill also includes language that will allow projects to be segmented on a building-by-building basis and “to proceed with as few as one building per year or one segment at a time.”

According to Keen, this portion of the proposal is composed of $500 million in GRF-backed debt appropriations, $100 million in GRF cash transfers and $50 million in available lottery profit dollars.

– $536.9 million for Ohio’s higher education system. According to Keen, a total of $428 million will go to Ohio’s 37 public colleges and universities, including $193.6 million for maintenance and renovation, $95.9 million for “world-class” program facility improvement projects, $59.9 million for workforce development and career opportunities, and $78.8 million to modernize and improve the overall academic experience of students. Other higher education appropriations benefit Ohio’s statewide university system, such as $13.4 million to support the Ohio Library and Information Network (OhioLINK), $8 million to support the acquisition of workforce based training and equipment and $6 million to support the Ohio Supercomputer Center. Also included in this total are community projects that are going to higher education.

– $500 million to local infrastructure projects through the Public Works Commission. These projects encompass roads, bridges, water-supply systems, storm sewers and wastewater systems. It includes $75 million of the $100 million in the bill to support the Clean Ohio program, which funds preservation of green space, farmland, open spaces and expanded recreational opportunities. Other Clean Ohio funds are in the departments of agriculture and natural resources.

– $323.1 million for the maintenance and preservation of Ohio’s dams, parks, trails, waterways and wildlife.

According to Keen, the bill “fully funds dam rehabilitation activities at Buckeye Lake and Lake White, the Portage Lakes East Reservoir and smaller dam rehabilitation projects and continued dam assessments.” Another $44.9 million is targeted to improvements at state parks and “day-use facilities,” while $44.2 million is for marina and wildlife renovations, improvements and equipment purchases.

– Approximately $150 million for the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction “to support major facility renovations as well as general improvements at the 27 state-owned adult correctional institutions.”

– A total of $100 million for the Department of Transportation to address maintenance facilities.

In addition, spread throughout the departments is $160 million for community projects. On this latter category, Faber commented that legislators had received upwards of $1.5 billion in funding requests, saying that in large measure, they are “allocating disappointment.” However, he explained that they did try to “rebalance” the geographic spread of the funds with “more going to rural Ohio” in this proposal.

Keen pointed out that most of the community projects “also include commitments of local resources.”

During his afternoon testimony, Keen told the committee that of the $2.62 billion, $2.18 billion is supported by General Revenue Fund (GRF)-backed debt obligations, $77 million higher than the amount of GRF-backed capital appropriations approved for the current capital biennium. “Thus, SB310 is fiscally prudent and affordable and will support the credit rating agencies’ ranking of Ohio’s debt burden as ‘moderate’ and will support our ‘AA+’ credit rating and ‘stable’ credit outlook.”

The remaining $438 million is supported by non-GRF-backed bonds and cash funds.

The Senate State Government and Oversight Reform Committee took proponent testimony April 6 on the Ohio Architect Board’s Continuing Education Bill, HB 243.   Testimony was given by Amy Kobe, executive director, Ohio Architects Board/Ohio Landscape Architects Board; and Eugenia Martin, chapter trustee, Ohio Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects. 

Martin said, “We support HB243 and the proposed change in language to amend the continuing education regulation to specify that structured educational activities be required to meet its continuing education requirements. It is important to us that we continue to promote compliance with these rules as we strive to achieve greater alignment with our peers across the country. 

“This proposed change aligns with Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Board’s (CLARB) model guidance, and in our view, enables our Ohio professional landscape architects, regulators, and members of the public to mutually benefit from the efficiency of a more uniform regulation.”

Proponent testimony also was provided by David Field, executive vice president, Ohio Component of the American Institute of Architects (AIA).

No opposition has surfaced for the bill which the Committee is expected to approve in the near future. 

The Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR) is scheduled to hear rules on school procedures for utilizing door barricades to protect students from an active shooter. 

The budget bill, HB64 (R. Smith), directed the Ohio Department of Commerce’s Board of Building Standards (BBS) to write the rules, which include conditions for use and operational requirements. 

According to the new rules, a temporary door locking device shall be used on doors under the following conditions:

– Proof is provided by the administrative authority of a school building that a school safety plan has been adopted according to the law.
– The temporary door locking device shall only be used in an emergency situation and during active shooter drills.
– The device is engaged only by a staff member of the school building.
– The device shall only be engaged for a finite period of time as determined by the administrative authority of a school building in accordance with the school safety plan.
– Proof is provided by the administrative authority of a school building that police and fire officials having jurisdiction for the school building have been notified prior to the use of the temporary door locking device.
– 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.

Also included in the rule is a provision requiring that the temporary door locking device not be permanently mounted to the door. However, certain parts of the device can be mounted if it does not affect the fire rating of the door. 

The rule also says the removal of the device, after it is engaged, cannot require more than one operation (step). However, two steps may be permitted if the school is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system. This part of the rule could prompt testimony at the hearing, JCARR Executive Director Larry Wolpert said in a pre-meeting memo.

“Before these rules were written, there was a parent’s group in a Central Ohio school district that purchased over $30,000 in door locking devices for their school system. The devices they purchased require two steps … and therefore cannot be used unless their schools have sprinkler systems. It is our understanding their schools do not have sprinkler systems,” Wolpert said. 

“The Board of Building Standards indicated this school district has the option to seek a variance at the Board of Building Appeals to use these two step … devices. There is a possibility members of this school district could give testimony at the JCARR meeting,” Wolpert continued. “JCARR staff believes the Board of Building standards composed rules as specifically directed in the budget bill and there are no JCARR prong issues.”

2020 Tax Policy Study Commission Co-chair Rep. Jeff McClain (R-Upper Sandusky) today announced that the Commission will hold it’s next hearing April 27 or 28 and will consider the Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit as well as cable and satellite taxes. 

 A bill that would ban local hiring quotas became “Senate Bill 5 light,” opponents said, after lawmakers added a provision Tuesday targeting cities’ use of project labor agreements.

Democrats warned Senate Bill 152 could trigger a court battle and a worker-led referendum akin to the 2011 fight over Senate Bill 5, which would have curtailed collective bargaining for public employees.

The bill wouldn’t outright ban project labor agreements, which are collective bargaining agreements negotiated between cities, unions, and contractors before the project begins. But it bans cities from requiring or prohibiting use of the agreements as a condition for bidding on a project using state funding.

Supporters say the provision levels the playing field between union and non-union contractors. Opponents say the language is yet another way lawmakers are hurting cities’ ability to do what’s best for their residents and would likely be found unconstitutional.

The Ohio House and Senate have passed companion bills designed to wipe out rules in Cleveland, Akron and elsewhere requiring that a certain amount of local workers be hired for large, publicly funded construction projects.

Supporters say

Local hiring: Senate Bill 152 would ban local laws requiring a portion of construction workers be hired locally.

The bill’s supporters, including the Ohio Contractors Association, say the quotes make it harder for contractors to hire the best workers and disadvantage Ohio companies. Out-of-state companies don’t have to meet residency quotas, which has become an issue in Southwest Ohio where companies can hire workers from Kentucky.

Project labor agreements: Project labor agreements are pre-hire agreements that set the terms for hiring, time line for completion, method for resolving disputes, and other factors that might delay or damage a project for all contractors on the project.

Project labor agreements are optional, but language added to the bill Tuesday would prevent cities from requiring them for state-funded projects. Rep. Ron Hood, the Ashville Republican who sponsored the amendment, said the change will ensure projects go to the lowest, most responsible bid.

Opponents say

Local hiring: Cleveland, Akron, and other cities already opposed the bill. Cleveland’s “Fannie Lewis” law, named after the late Cleveland city councilwoman, requires local residents perform 20 percent of work on all city construction projects that cost $100,000 or more. Akron requires contractors bidding on its $1.4 billion sewer project to hire half of their workers locally by 2018.

Cleveland officials have said the quotas ensure there is work for people in job training or apprenticeship programs.

Project labor agreements: Rep. Nick Celebrezze, a Parma Democrat, said the agreements protect skilled workers and ensure projects are completed on time. Celebrezze said Goodyear, Honda, and other companies use private sector project labor agreements because they are beneficial to the developer.

“We hear from the majority all the time that government should be run more like a business,” Celebrezze said. “Well, here’s our chance.”

The Ohio Supreme Court in 2002 struck down a law banning project labor agreements. House Minority Leader Fred Strahorn, a Dayton Democrat, said Senate Bill 152 would likely be unconstitutional and violate cities’ home rule authority.

Strahorn said cities should be allowed to factor in other attributes while bidding out projects and might not always want to go with the “lowest common denominator.”

“We are doing thing after thing in Columbus to make it harder for cities and make it harder for people to get ahead and now we want to interfere with local folks handling their own local issue that we’ve exacerbated,” Strahorn said.

Next steps

Senate Bill 152 cleared a House committee Tuesday and could receive a full House vote as early as Wednesday. If passed by the House, the Senate will need to agree to the changes before it can go to Gov. John Kasich.

Robert D. Loversidge, FAIA, President and CEO of Schooley Caldwell, Columbus, testified April 28 before Ohio General Assembly’s 2020 Tax Study Commission on behalf of Ohio’s Historic Preservation Tax Credit.

 Following is his testimony:

The Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit (OHPTC) has been a significant economic development tool since it was created by the Ohio General Assembly in 2006. According to the Ohio Development Services Agency it has directly benefitted 398 historic structures, in 52 Ohio communities, representing $4.4 billion in redevelopment investment.

OHPTC is an efficiently-run, ultimately fair, and effective incentive program that we believe should be retained or expanded by the General Assembly. Several reasons for this include: 

•  Incentives are needed to encourage property owners and developers to pursue renovation of historically significant structures, especially in distressed downtown areas, where these structures are likely to be underutilized or vacant.

•  The OHPTC program has a proven track record of being revenue-positive for the State. For every $1 million in awarded historic preservation tax credits, the return on investment is $6.7 million – this according to studies conducted by Cleveland State University. This report also notes that for every $ 1 million in credits, the return is $8 million in construction spending, $32 million in operating impact, 83 construction jobs and 299 operations jobs. This information is available on the Ohio Development Services Agency’s web site.

• The Ohio program requires periodic cost-benefit analyses to check in on the effectiveness of the program. A recent cost-benefit analysis involving a project in Warren, Ohio demonstrated that 31% of the state’s investment of $630,800 in historic tax credits was recovered before the tax credit was awarded. One-hundred percent (100%) of the state’s investment will be recovered in new revenues by the fourth year of operation. By year 10 the building will have generated additional state and local tax revenues of $494,000 in excess of the amount of the credit, or a return on investment of 80%, and by year 15 the building will have generated approximately $839,000 in new tax revenues, representing a return on investment of 130%. 

•  One significant advantage of the OHPTC program is that it is totally integrated/coordinated with the companion Federal Historic Preservation Tax Credit program, creating a powerful and complementary program that is administered concurrently and according to the same set of rules. The Ohio Historic Preservation Office (at the Ohio History Connection), using primarily Federal funds, reviews projects for both programs at the same time, saving the state money that might be needed to administer  separated programs. Owners get the advantage of receiving the 25% State tax credit and the 20% Federal credit – a powerful incentive to re-use our historic resources. 

•  OHPTC rewards only successfully completed projects. Unlike other programs, the tax credit certification comes only after the approved design is documented to have been completed. Uncompleted or poorly completed projects do not receive the benefit.

•  Renovation of historic buildings creates more jobs than equivalent new construction, and it is “greener.”Economist Donovan Rypkema points out that new construction is about 50% labor and 50% materials, whereas restoration and renovation can be as much as 75% labor – that is, for every dollar spent you get twice as much local employment, and use about half the resources.

Many Ohio businesses have benefited from this creative incentive program, and it has been an effective tool in our state’s efforts to beat back the recent recession. During this period, developers and owners who found themselves unable to pursue “normal” development paths to financing suddenly “discovered” OHPTC! My small firm has completed seven historic tax credit projects since 2008, ranging in scale from a small scale courthouse square project in Newark to the adaptive use of the 45 story LeVeque Tower in Columbus, and from a burned out building that was vacant for ten years in Chillicothe to the adaptive use of the Old Ohio School for the Deaf as a private high school for underprivileged kids. It is fair to say that none of these projects would have been possible without OHPTC.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, we commend your efforts to examine all portions of Ohio’s tax structure to examine better ways of doing things. OHPTC is a highly successful, extremely effective, efficiently-run, revenue positive program of the State of Ohio. It creates high-paying jobs – more than new building construction – in communities, big and small, all over our state. 

It is not broken . . . please retain this very important economic development tool.

Mr. Loversidge is an award-winning historic preservation architect, a Fellow of the American Institute of Architects, recipient of the AIA Ohio Gold Medal, and an Ohio Commodore. He has served as Ohio’s Architect of the Capitol since 1989.

The House of Representatives sent the Downtown Redevelopment Bill (Sub. HB 233), to Governor Kasich for his signature following concurrence in Senate amendments.

Sponsored by Rep., Kurt Schuring the bill is designed to assist in redeveloping strategic areas within Ohio’s downtowns. The bill uses as its core a historic preservation project that qualifies under the Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit. By way of background, the Historic Preservation Tax Credit went into effect in 2007 and has been widely successful throughout Ohio in restoring historic buildings. Many of those restoration projects have been in downtowns. Sub. H.B. 233 is intended to compliment those projects by offering new economic development tools that will have a synergistic effect on a designated area within a downtown and will provide a critical mass of activity that can support a place where people can live, work, and play.

The legislation allows a municipality to establish a Downtown Redevelopment District in ten-acre increments. The district must have a historic preservation project in it in order for the district to be formed. Up to 70% of the additional property taxes from the appreciated value of the historic preservation project can be diverted to pay for promotion of activity within the Downtown Redevelopment District 
and revolving loans to other businesses in the district, infrastructure improvements, and 
debt service on construction loans. 
These dollars will be used to support other economic activity in the district and will serve as a building block to the revitalization of the downtown as a whole. 


The legislation also allows for the establishment of an Innovation District to be established with in the Downtown Redevelopment District. The Innovation District will use a 100 gigabyte broadband connection to facilitate IT research and development in the form of business incubators and accelerators. These types of districts have been on the rise in recent years, attracting leading-edge businesses and the talented workers that go with it. The districts will foster a paradoxical alliance of combining old buildings with new high-tech job opportunities that create a sense of place that is very attractive to young people. 

The Ohio Senate uanimously passed the state’s $2.6  billion Capital Bill (SB310) on April 20.

The Senate passed the Ohio Architect Board’s Continuing Education Bill, HB 243 April 20.The bill grants the Ohio Architects Board the power to revise the types of activities that qualify for continuing education credits. 

Although the Board has no plans for immediate changes to these activities, it believes that HB 243 is needed to clarify the issue in light of the Legislative Service Commission’s contention that the Landscape Architects Board, which operates under identical statutory authority, didn’t have the ability to change the types of activities that qualify for CE.

Ohio’s $2.6 billion Capital Budget Bill (SB 310) was introduced and had its first hearing before the Senate Finance Committee on April 12.  It’s expected to clear the legislative process in roughly two weeks.  Testifying before the Committee was Office of Budget and Management (OBM) Director Tim Keen.

Among the major categories of funding in the capital proposal are the following:

– $650 million for local school construction, including repairs, renovations and maintenance for primary and secondary facilities.

According to Keen, besides dollars for the Ohio School Facilities Commission to continue funding 49 districts with projects underway and 40 new school districts over the capital biennium, the bill also includes language that will allow projects to be segmented on a building-by-building basis and “to proceed with as few as one building per year or one segment at a time.”

According to Keen, this portion of the proposal is composed of $500 million in GRF-backed debt appropriations, $100 million in GRF cash transfers and $50 million in available lottery profit dollars.

– $536.9 million for Ohio’s higher education system. According to Keen, a total of $428 million will go to Ohio’s 37 public colleges and universities, including $193.6 million for maintenance and renovation, $95.9 million for “world-class” program facility improvement projects, $59.9 million for workforce development and career opportunities, and $78.8 million to modernize and improve the overall academic experience of students. Other higher education appropriations benefit Ohio’s statewide university system, such as $13.4 million to support the Ohio Library and Information Network (OhioLINK), $8 million to support the acquisition of workforce based training and equipment and $6 million to support the Ohio Supercomputer Center. Also included in this total are community projects that are going to higher education.

– $500 million to local infrastructure projects through the Public Works Commission. These projects encompass roads, bridges, water-supply systems, storm sewers and wastewater systems. It includes $75 million of the $100 million in the bill to support the Clean Ohio program, which funds preservation of green space, farmland, open spaces and expanded recreational opportunities. Other Clean Ohio funds are in the departments of agriculture and natural resources.

– $323.1 million for the maintenance and preservation of Ohio’s dams, parks, trails, waterways and wildlife.

According to Keen, the bill “fully funds dam rehabilitation activities at Buckeye Lake and Lake White, the Portage Lakes East Reservoir and smaller dam rehabilitation projects and continued dam assessments.” Another $44.9 million is targeted to improvements at state parks and “day-use facilities,” while $44.2 million is for marina and wildlife renovations, improvements and equipment purchases.

– Approximately $150 million for the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction “to support major facility renovations as well as general improvements at the 27 state-owned adult correctional institutions.”

– A total of $100 million for the Department of Transportation to address maintenance facilities.

In addition, spread throughout the departments is $160 million for community projects. On this latter category, Faber commented that legislators had received upwards of $1.5 billion in funding requests, saying that in large measure, they are “allocating disappointment.” However, he explained that they did try to “rebalance” the geographic spread of the funds with “more going to rural Ohio” in this proposal.

Keen pointed out that most of the community projects “also include commitments of local resources.”

During his afternoon testimony, Keen told the committee that of the $2.62 billion, $2.18 billion is supported by General Revenue Fund (GRF)-backed debt obligations, $77 million higher than the amount of GRF-backed capital appropriations approved for the current capital biennium. “Thus, SB310 is fiscally prudent and affordable and will support the credit rating agencies’ ranking of Ohio’s debt burden as ‘moderate’ and will support our ‘AA+’ credit rating and ‘stable’ credit outlook.”

The remaining $438 million is supported by non-GRF-backed bonds and cash funds.

The Senate State Government and Oversight Reform Committee took proponent testimony April 6 on the Ohio Architect Board’s Continuing Education Bill, HB 243.   Testimony was given by Amy Kobe, executive director, Ohio Architects Board/Ohio Landscape Architects Board; and Eugenia Martin, chapter trustee, Ohio Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects. 

Martin said, “We support HB243 and the proposed change in language to amend the continuing education regulation to specify that structured educational activities be required to meet its continuing education requirements. It is important to us that we continue to promote compliance with these rules as we strive to achieve greater alignment with our peers across the country. 

“This proposed change aligns with Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Board’s (CLARB) model guidance, and in our view, enables our Ohio professional landscape architects, regulators, and members of the public to mutually benefit from the efficiency of a more uniform regulation.”

Proponent testimony also was provided by David Field, executive vice president, Ohio Component of the American Institute of Architects (AIA).

No opposition has surfaced for the bill which the Committee is expected to approve in the near future. 

The Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR) is scheduled to hear rules on school procedures for utilizing door barricades to protect students from an active shooter. 

The budget bill, HB64 (R. Smith), directed the Ohio Department of Commerce’s Board of Building Standards (BBS) to write the rules, which include conditions for use and operational requirements. 

According to the new rules, a temporary door locking device shall be used on doors under the following conditions:

– Proof is provided by the administrative authority of a school building that a school safety plan has been adopted according to the law.
– The temporary door locking device shall only be used in an emergency situation and during active shooter drills.
– The device is engaged only by a staff member of the school building.
– The device shall only be engaged for a finite period of time as determined by the administrative authority of a school building in accordance with the school safety plan.
– Proof is provided by the administrative authority of a school building that police and fire officials having jurisdiction for the school building have been notified prior to the use of the temporary door locking device.
– 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.

Also included in the rule is a provision requiring that the temporary door locking device not be permanently mounted to the door. However, certain parts of the device can be mounted if it does not affect the fire rating of the door. 

The rule also says the removal of the device, after it is engaged, cannot require more than one operation (step). However, two steps may be permitted if the school is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system. This part of the rule could prompt testimony at the hearing, JCARR Executive Director Larry Wolpert said in a pre-meeting memo.

“Before these rules were written, there was a parent’s group in a Central Ohio school district that purchased over $30,000 in door locking devices for their school system. The devices they purchased require two steps … and therefore cannot be used unless their schools have sprinkler systems. It is our understanding their schools do not have sprinkler systems,” Wolpert said. 

“The Board of Building Standards indicated this school district has the option to seek a variance at the Board of Building Appeals to use these two step … devices. There is a possibility members of this school district could give testimony at the JCARR meeting,” Wolpert continued. “JCARR staff believes the Board of Building standards composed rules as specifically directed in the budget bill and there are no JCARR prong issues.”

2020 Tax Policy Study Commission Co-chair Rep. Jeff McClain (R-Upper Sandusky) today announced that the Commission will hold it’s next hearing April 27 or 28 and will consider the Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit as well as cable and satellite taxes.