Legislative:

 

Click Here for: ACEC Ohio Bill Monitoring Report

 

Funding Ohio's Transportation System Position Paper

 Funding Ohio's Transportation System Handout

 

 ACEC Ohio Indemnification Bill Introduced March 15, 2018:

Over the past year, ACEC Ohio has worked with Representative Bill Seitz on a piece of legislation which would regulate the use of indemnity provisions in contracts related to public improvements. Many of our member firms have been confronted with having to sign a contract with a state or local agency that included uninsurable “broad form” indemnification and/or defense requirements.

As a matter of fairness, design professionals should not be asked to indemnify and/or defend another party for losses that the designer did not cause, cannot insure against and were caused by factors beyond the designer’s control. House Bill 554 will prohibit requiring design professionals to indemnify public agencies for claims that are not attributable to negligent, reckless or intentional wrongful conduct on the part of the design professional.

The bill was introduced yesterday in the Ohio House of Representatives and has been assigned to the House Civil Justice Committee and has had sponsor testimony.

 

Residency Bill (HB 180 from last session) update:

In a decision that was issued in a comparatively short time period, the Eighth Appellate District Court of Appeals' in Cuyahoga County affirmed the trial court's decision that the Local Hire law passed by the Ohio legislature and signed into law by the Governor, R.C. 9.75, is a not a valid exercise of the legislature' constitutional authority, and that the statute unconstitutionally infringes on the city's Home-Rule authority. Click Here for Court Opinion

The Court of Appeals found that Art. II, Section 34 of the Ohio Constitution which the legislature relied upon in enacting R.C. 9.75, does not reach Cleveland's Fannie Lewis law. According to the Court, R.C. 9.75 does not relate to any residency requirement imposed as a condition of employment by employers upon public employees. The Appeals Court did not find that R.C. 9.75 relates to the right of a person to choose where to live and that the statute does not relate to the comfort, health, safety or general welfare of the contractors.

The Court of Appeals said:

"It is readily apparent that R.C. 9.75 is no more than an attempt to preempt powers of local self-government and to restrict the contract terms between public authorities and contractors who choose to bid on local public improvement contracts. H.B. 180 was not advanced by a labor or worker group. It was advanced by a contractor association, not for the benefit of workers, but to benefit their interests. The contractors' interest is in streamlining interactions with municipalities by limiting the ability of municipal governments to place terms or requirements on public contracts that are awarded within those municipal jurisdictions."

Status: The State of Ohio, Attorney General's office filed an appeal to this decision to the Supreme Court and on Wednesday May 9th, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal, ordered the record certified, and interested party briefing will follow.

 

Advancing the Business of Engineering