State Issues

ACEC Ohio Bill Monitoring Report

Funding Ohio's Transportation System Position Paper
Funding Ohio's Transportation System Handout
ACEC Ohio's Advocacy Handout

Statute of Repose--Supreme Court Decision: The decision could have significant impact limiting liability exposure to design professionals in Ohio.   Click Here for Statute of Repose Information.

ACEC Ohio Indemnification Bill Introduced:

Representative Bill Blessing has introduced House Bill 159, 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 159 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 is being heard in the Ohio House Civil Justice Committee.  For additional information:

Fix our Roads Ohio (FOR OHIO) Coalition and HB 62:

Residency Bill (HB 180) update:

Ohio Supreme Court Upholds Residency Bill from 2016

ACEC Ohio pleased with high court decision

From Gongwer news source:

High Court Upholds Legislature's Move To Thwart City Hiring Requirements

The General Assembly acted legally when blocking the city of Cleveland's ordinance requiring public construction contractors to hire residents, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The split ruling reversed lower court findings in favor of the city and upheld the 2016 law (HB180, 131st General Assembly) that detractors had argued ran afoul of home rule protections in the Ohio Constitution.

Cleveland maintained the law could not prevent the city from mandating that public construction contracts over $100,000 include a provision requiring city residents to perform 20% of the work, the court reported.

In her lead opinion, Justice Sharon Kennedy wrote that Article II, Section 34 of the Ohio Constitution is "a broad grant of authority to the General Assembly to legislate for the welfare of the working people in Ohio."

"The legislature exercised that authority in enacting R.C. 9.75, which protects all employees engaged in the construction trades from public-improvement contracts that impose conditions on employment favoring a public authority's own residents to the detriment of other construction workers in the state," she wrote.

Justices Judith French and Patrick Fischer joined Justice Kennedy's opinion. Justice Patrick DeWine concurred in judgment only in a separate written opinion joined in part by Justice Melody Stewart.

Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor wrote a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Michael Donnelly and Justice Stewart.

The majority erred in its application of the law to the case at hand, the chief justice wrote, saying the cited code section is "not about wages, hours, or workplace conditions and hazards."

"These were the issues in the minds of members of the constitutional convention during which Article II, Section 34 was proposed," she wrote.

Chief Justice O'Connor also disputed the contention that the bill enacted a "general law" that could supersede home rule.

"If not authorized under Article II, Section 34 of the Ohio Constitution, R.C. 9.75 cannot stand if it violates a municipality's home-rule authority," she wrote.

ACEC Ohio supported HB 180 and joined industry partners in filing amicus briefs at both the Appellate and Ohio Supreme Court levels.

Policy/Advocacy

Advancing the Business of Engineering