Ohio Municipal League
175 South Third Street
Suite 510
Columbus, Ohio 43215

614-221-4349 Office
614-221-4390 Fax

email:
Legislative Inquiries
John Mahoney
General Inquiries
info@omunileague.org

For email inquiries to the OML, it would be most helpful if you would include your name, position, city or village you represent. 

Also please include a phone number and/or address for instances when we need further contact with you.

Please type “OML Inquiry” in subject line so that we can identify e-mails picked up as spam.

OML E- BULLETIN
If you would like to sign up for the E-Bulletin, send an email here: info@omunileague.org
 In the e-mail, indicate that you would like to be taken off the paper Bulletin list.

OML LEGISLATIVE BULLETIN

Quiet Week; Merger Bill Analysis.

This was quiet week in the General Assembly, with no sessions and very few committees. Thus, we did not publish a Legislative Bulletin this past week. This pattern of slow to no session weeks may continue for the next few weeks. However, there are a number of bills which have been introduced that may be of interest to you on which we can give more point-by-point analyses, given that we have room in the Bulletin but very little news.

The first bill is HB 256, which proposes to change Ohio’s merger law. That law regulates the way that municipalities merge with municipalities and the way municipalities merge with townships. The OML Legislative Policy is that we favor legislation which makes mergers easier to accomplish. Though HB 256 is supported by a number of our members, in some ways HB 256 is a two-edge sword. The bill is sponsored by State Representative Arlene Setzer. The bill is currently in the House Municipal Government and Urban Revitalization Committee.

First, HB 256 adds some requirements to the merger petition process. Under current law, 10% of the electors of each political subdivision involved requests a merger by filing their signatures by petition to the Board of Elections. Under HB 256, a copy of those petitions would also have to be filed with each affected political subdivision. The subdivisions would also have to hold a public meeting at least 30 days prior to a merger election to explain why each thinks a merger is a good or bad idea.

With current law, voters then vote on whether to form a merger commission. Under HB 256, if voters in each subdivision vote to form a merger commission, each political subdivision appoints five members to be on the merger commission. Under current law, those commission members are elected, not appointed. Rightly or wrongly, we expect this change will be one of the tougher points to win in the General Assembly.

HB 256 also extends the period for which a merger commission can exist. Under current law, a commission can exist for up to the 75^th day prior to the next general election occurring after their election. Under 256, the same holds true from the day the commission is appointed. However, HB 256 would allow the commission to request and the political subdivisions to grant an extension of time for working out the conditions for merger. If granted, that extension would extend the life of the commission until 75 days prior to the second general election following the appointment of the commission. The wrinkle here for some is that HB 256 would not end the ban on annexations during a merger process, and thus that ban could be extended in some cases by another year.

The bill also clarifies rules relating to paying the costs of the commission and the operation of the commission. The bill also adds merger conditions which the commission may address, including:

The bill also changes some of the provisions of law related to voting on or not voting on merger conditions and subsequent merger attempts. Instead of just not voting on merger conditions which can’t be agreed to (current law), a merger commission could now vote that a merger should not occur. If that happens, a new set of merger petitions could be filed immediately. Under current law, the failure to merge in any fashion results in a ban on such attempts for three years. Those who might wish to use the ruse of a merger just to thwart annexations, under this provision, could continuously do so by forming merger commissions, vote not to agree and refile petitions for another merger commission immediately.

Second, if conditions for merger are agreed to by a majority of members representing all political subdivisions involved does reach an agreement, the conditions are not voted on until the second general election following the appointment of the commission. Under current law, it is the first general election after the commission is elected.

Finally, under current law, if a merger fails at the ballot box, the same proposal for merger cannot be revisited for three years. Under HB 256, that three-year ban is imposed upon "any of the territory" that was involved in the merger which failed at the polls.

Just a Reminder.

For those with Mayor’s Court, HB 95 increased state-imposed court costs for offenses (other than non-moving traffic offenses) from $11 to $15.

We do not expect many committee meetings next week but check the website for any postings at www.omunileague.org

UPCOMING MEETINGS

February 21^st Seminar for Newly Elected Councilmembers and other Newly Elected Officials
Holiday Inn Eastgate, Cincinnati

March 13^th Seminar for Newly Elected Councilmembers and other Newly Elected Officials
Embassy Suites, Independence

March 17^th OML Legislative Luncheon in the Statehouse Atrium
Statehouse Atrium, Columbus

March 27^th Seminar for Newly Elected Councilmembers and other Newly Elected Officials
Marriott Northwest, Dublin