No. 13 June 4, 2004

PLEASE CIRCULATE THIS BULLETIN TO YOUR COUNCIL, DEPARTMENT HEADS & STAFF

How about a “Not Really Statewide” Residential Building Code?

In the usual flurry of activity that surrounds the final week of session, the Ohio House and Senate passed dozens of bills last week. Many of the measures were just clearing the first House and will now quietly sit in one House or another over the summer. Many others will make their way to the Governor’s desk for his consideration.

One measure that cleared the House and now may be considered by the Senate later in the year is HB 175. Under the novel concepts included in that bill, the state would establish a statewide residential building code for one-, two- and three family housing. It’s sort of a “ We Decide, You Report ( and Enforce)” bill.

Before we explain the many unusual concepts in HB 175, we should first explain that this would not really be a “statewide” residential building code. The new code would only apply to those jurisdictions which have certified residential building departments, of which there are none in Ohio today, according to the bill. The state Board of Building Standards would not enforce their adopted residential code in a jurisdiction without a certified residential building code. Someone building a house in such an area would not be required to submit plans to the Board of Building Standards in such cases, even though commercial buildings in such areas do undergo Board scrutiny. We can think of no other set of state regulations that are enforced only if local jurisdictions choose to shoulder the cost of enforcing such regulations.

So, we have a bill that would create a statewide residential building code that wouldn’t be statewide. It would only be enforced in areas where local government chooses to enforce it and become certified to do so. Any building department that already enforces its local residential building code may become certified to enforce the “not really” statewide residential building code up to one year after the code is adopted. If a municipality with such a department chooses not to become certified, the state’s code would not be enforced in that community and the local residential building code could not be enforced, according to the bill.

So, legislators are being asked to, and a majority in the House did, vote for a bill that adopts a statewide residential building code that no one in Ohio has seen, which may not be enforced anywhere in the state, and, where it is not enforced, no local regulations can be enforced because there will be no local certified enforcer.

In those communities which choose to become certified, they may adopt additional residential building standards which are not “in conflict” with the state residential building code. Okay, so far, because, that ‘s what the Ohio Constitution says municipalities can do. However, every variance from the state code will have to be scrutinized by the State Board of Building Standards, if a complaint is filed. The Board will judge whether they think a variance is “in conflict.” If the standard is deemed in conflict with the state code, but not something that affects health or safety, the Board will declare the variance void and not enforceable. But, if the variance is in conflict with the state code and relevant to health or safety, the Board is to adopt the local variance into the state code and give the jurisdiction a temporary waiver to enforce the variance, while the Board adopts the variance into the state code. Interestingly, a variance that is not in conflict, but is relevant to health and safety, does not have to be adopted into the state code.

HB 175 is full of novel concepts and many unanswered questions. We will oppose HB 175 if it comes up in the Senate this fall. We hope you will talk to your House and Senate members about the problems inherent that proposes to set residential building standards for some parts of the state and insure no residential building standards in other parts of Ohio. Whatever happened to statewide laws that are enforced statewide?

Copies of HB 175, as passed by the House, are available at www.legislature.state.oh.us.

(Please, note that HB 175 deals only with residential building codes. A bill that would make commercial and other non-residential buildings subject to one statewide uniform building code, HB 386, is still in House Committee.)

The latest version of pension reform was completed in the last week of Session before the summer recess. The changes were encompassed in SB 133, sponsored by Senator Lynn Wachtmann. Although the legislation effected all five of the state’s retirement systems, the League was only interested in those changes that had an impact on the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) and the Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund. The bill, as many of you remember, had a lot of provisions that were supported by the League. These provisions are:

1. Requiring the Ohio Retirement Study Council, ORSC, to conduct fiduciary audits of each system.

2. Increased reporting requirements for board members and key employees with discretionary authority in the expenditure or investment of funds.

3. Requires board candidates and campaign committees to file campaign finance disclosure statements.

4. Requires travel and compensation policies to adopted and reported to the Ohio Retirement Study Council.

7. Spells out whom may be a board member and the procedures for removing a member whom engages in misconduct.

These changes in some form or another were all incorporated into the final version of SB 133.

There were also several ideas that were discussed through the legislative process that were cause of concern for the League and its membership.

One proposal called for expanding the authority of the State Treasurer. One of the bills placed the State Treasurer on all five boards and gave the Treasurer the authority to hire/fire the directors of all five funds. This proposal was amended so that the Treasurer would be appointed to all five boards but would not be given the authority to hire/fire the directors.

The second proposal was a ”Buy Ohio” provision that was to mirror the investment strategy of the Bureau of Worker’s Compensation. The final version of the bill of SB 133 contains a compromise on this sticking point. The bill requires each board to annually establish a goal for the use of Ohio based broker agents and investment managers; requires each board to report to ORSC the breakdown of Ohio versus non-Ohio brokers and investment managers, as well as performance of said brokers.

The only part of the “Pension Reform” that was a problem to the League, as well as other employer groups, was board composition. The General Assembly removed the Attorney General and the Auditor from all the pension boards and that was fine with the League. Unfortunately, the General Assembly went a little further than that and surprised us by taking the Municipal Finance Officer off the Ohio Police & Fire Pension Board.

Throughout the legislative process the municipal representative was included in all versions of the bills except the final one. Needless to say the League is trying to ascertain why our member was removed. We have yet to find out why. We will continue to look into this matter. In the meantime we will study the bill to find out if there is some other way for a municipal voice to be heard.

LEGISLATIVE CALENDAR FOR THE REMAINDER OF 2004

UPDATE ON PERS HEALTHCARE

Ohio PERS is in the process at looking into shoring up the system in both the Pension and Healthcare arenas, and there is a lot of information being floating around to see what is plausible and what is not. Some ideas include maxing-out the employer and employee contributions and then cutting benefits. All of this however is subject to change. To get a look at the latest proposal, go to the PERS website at www. Opers.org. Then go to “OPERS NEWS” and click on “OHIO PERS Introduces DRAFT Health Care Preservation Plan”. This will give you the latest insight into what PERS is pursuing.