by Giselle Spencer | Aug 16, 2019 | Board Policy & Representation, General, Labor and Employment, Legislation, School Finance, School Management
The Ohio Attorney General’s Office recently released an opinion in response to a request for legal advice on the issue of arming school staff. The letter requested, among other things, an analysis on how the training requirements under R.C. 109.78(D) apply to school employees authorized by the board of education to carry or possess a deadly weapon on school property under R.C. 2923.122(A).
R.C. 109.78(D) in full provides:
“(D) No public or private educational institution or superintendent of the State Highway Patrol shall employ a special police officer, security guard, or other position in which such person goes armed while on duty, who has not received a certificate of having satisfactorily completed an approved basic police officer training program, unless the person has completed twenty years of active duty as a police officer.”
As noted, R.C. 2923.122(A) prohibits any person from knowingly conveying, or attempting to convey, a deadly weapon into a school safety zone. However, there is a specific exception set out in R.C. 2923.122(D)(1)(a) which excludes any other person from this prohibition:
“who has written authorization from the board of education or governing body of a school to convey deadly weapons… in a school safety zone or to possess a deadly weapon… in a school safety zone and who convey or possesses the deadly weapon… in accordance with that authorization.”
The letter sought advice on whether or not a school employee who has been authorized to carry a deadly weapon by the board of education under R.C. 2923.122(D)(1)(a) is subject to the training requirements of R.C. 109.78(D). The Attorney General’s Office reiterated their argument laid out in their amicus brief in the appeal of Gabbard v. Madison Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. The court in that case concluded that school employees authorized by the board of education to carry firearms on school premises were not subject to the training requirements of R.C. 109.78(D) because they were not employed by the district in a security capacity. The Attorney General’s Office agreed and opined that in order to determine which provision outlined above is applicable to an employee hired by a school district, we must analyze whether the individual is employed in a role comparable to that of a security guard or police officer. In doing so, we must look to the person’s job title along with the duties and responsibilities assigned to them.
If an employee is hired by the district in a security capacity, then they are subject to the training requirements expressed in R.C. 109.78(D). (I.e. approved basic training police program, or twenty years active duty of a police officer). However, any other employee hired by a school district who does not serve in such a role, i.e. teacher, principal, custodian, and who is authorized by the board to carry or possess a firearm under R.C. 2923.122(D)(1)(a), is not subject to the training requirements of R.C. 109.78(D).
by Pamela Leist | Mar 5, 2019 | Board Policy & Representation, General, School Finance
As of this fiscal year, all school districts that purchase goods or services with federal grant funds must comply with new federal regulations that were adopted a few years back. This is an important issue for schools to consider as they enter into contracts this spring to obtain federally funded goods and services.
By way of background, in 2013 the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) published the Uniform Guidelines requiring states and non-federal agencies to follow and adopt procedures and policies for purchasing goods and services with federal grant funds. The Uniform Guidelines became effective in 2014. However, the OMB granted a series of grace periods that delayed implementation of the new rules. The most recent grace period expired in December 2017 and therefore the rules became effective at the expiration of each entity’s fiscal year that occurred after that date.
For most Ohio schools, the new rules took effect July 1, 2018. This means that auditors will begin to audit districts on those procedures this school year. Some districts may have been audited this past year if the district adopted new policies and procedures before the expiration of the last grace period and failed to indicate in writing that they planned to take advantage of the final grace period. It is also important to note that the standards set out in the Uniform Guidance will not apply to contracts that were executed prior to the effective date of the rules.
The Uniform Guidance requires non-federal entities to use one of five specific purchasing methods for all nonpayroll purchases. 2 C.F.R. §200.371-318. The five procurement methods included in the Uniform Guidance are as follows:
- Micro Purchase Method – for purchases with an aggregate dollar amount that does not exceed the Micro Purchase Threshold, which is currently set at $10,000 (note that districts may set a lower threshold in board policy). Under this method, a district must consider costs, but is not required to solicit competitive quotes. To the extent practicable, the district must distribute micro-purchases equitably among qualified suppliers.
- Small Purchase Method – for purchases that do not exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold, which is currently set at $250,000 (note that districts may set a lower threshold in board policy). Here, an agency must obtain price quotations from an “adequate number of qualified suppliers.” The entity’s policy should define the number of quotes they believe to be adequate.
- Sealed Bid Method – for purchases that exceed the small purchase threshold where bids are publicly solicited and a firm fixed price contract is awarded to the responsible bidder who confirms all the terms and conditions of the invitation and has the lowest price. School districts will likely not use this method very frequently.
- Competitive Proposals – for purchases that exceed the small purchase threshold with more than one source submitting an offer for a fixed price or cost-reimbursement type contract. This method should be used when the Sealed Bid Method is not appropriate. The district is to evaluate the bidders on cost and other factors it has established in order to select the most qualified candidate.
- Noncompetitive Proposals – for purchases through a non-competitive solicitation under one of the following conditions:
- The item is available only from a single source;
- The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay in purchase;
- The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity expressly authorizes noncompetitive proposals in response to a written request from the non-federal agency or;
- After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined to be inadequate.
A school district’s compliance with the Uniform Guidance will be subject to audit each year. The state auditor’s office has stressed that it is critical for school districts to maintain documentation to demonstrate that it has complied with the regulations set forth in the Uniform Guidance. This documentation should illustrate why a particular method was selected and how the district went about purchasing in accordance with their policies and guidelines. School districts should also be aware that a decision to use noncompetitive proposals may trigger stricter scrutiny and review than purchases made with other methods.
It is also important to note that there have been many questions about how the new regulations impact service contracts with Educational Service Centers (“ESCs”) in particular. Many services obtained through ESC contracts are paid for at least in part with federal funds. Two separate statues, R.C. §§3313.843 and 3313.845, define what types of contractual relationships that districts may have with ESCs. State law also specifically requires most districts to have a contract and be affiliated with an ESC if they have a student population at or below sixteen thousand. Unfortunately, this statutory structure does not fit neatly into the new Uniform Guidance, and it is unclear at this time whether school districts may use noncompetitive proposals, specifically through sole source, to procure federally funded services through ESCs. The Ohio Department of Education plans to publish additional guidance about how it believes the new procurement regulations apply to ESC contracts. The guidance is expected in the near future. In the meantime, contact legal counsel if you have questions about which method of procurement you should use for these and any other types of federally funded contracts.
What this means for your district
Districts should carefully review board policies and guidelines that pertain to federal procurement with staff who may be responsible for obtaining goods and services with federal grant funds. They should carefully consider how purchasing will be documented in anticipation of an audit. Districts should also review the terms adopted in policies and procedures with their policy providers to make sure that the policies are up to date.
Legal References: 2 C.F.R. Part 200, R.C. 3313.843, R.C. 3313.845
by Jeremy Neff | Mar 8, 2017 | Legislation, School Finance
Every two years a new General Assembly convenes in Ohio. The General Assembly will consider hundreds of bill and even pass many of them, but none are more important to state government than the appropriations bills that make up the budget bill.
The state budget cycle aligns with the state fiscal year of July 1 through June 30, so the legislative process for passing a budget typically runs from sometime in January through June 30 every odd-numbered year. In addition to allocating funding for Ohio’s K–12 schools, the budget bill also typically contains numerous substantive changes in the law (e.g., teacher evaluation changes, licensure requirements). Following is a high-level overview of the budget process, with a goal of informing school officials how, when, and to whom to provide input during this process. This input is critical to ensuring that legislators have the practical information they need to determine how their proposals would affect school districts. This practical information is valuable to the decision-making processes taking place at the state level during the budget process.
Governor
The governor begins by submitting the planned executive budget for the main operating appropriations bill to the General Assembly within four weeks after the new General Assembly is organized (or by March 15 if a new governor is in office). Each expense must come from a specific funding source, and each funding source may fund only certain expenses. Perhaps the most important requirement is that the budget be balanced: expenses may not exceed revenues. The governor may order spending reductions or even declare a fiscal emergency if revenues fail to meet projections. The governor typically uses the executive budget as a way to signal policy priorities and to propose new ideas. The governor’s budget is presented to the House without changes, so this is not an effective time to lobby the governor for changes.
House
The newly drafted budget bill (the current bill is HB 49) lands in Ohio’s House of Representatives, where it is referred to the Finance Committee and subcommittees. These committees hold hearings on the bill, when input may be provided to state representatives through written and live testimony. It is quite common for extensive changes to be made based on recommendations of the committees and subcommittees. Because of this, the House committee and subcommittee hearing phase is an especially important time for school officials and professional organizations to provide input. When extensive changes are made in committees, a substitute bill is drafted. After the bill has been considered and amended in the committee, it goes back to the House for a House floor vote.
Senate
Normally, after the House passes the bill, it is introduced in the Senate. However, because of time constraints on the budget bill, the Senate Finance Committee will usually begin its hearings on the bill while it is still in the House. The Senate Finance Committee and subcommittees hold hearings and receive input just as the House committees do. In some budget cycles, the subcommittees do not hold their own hearings. Rather, all hearings are held by the full Finance Committee. After the substitute bill is amended in the committee, it goes to the Senate for a floor vote. As with the House committee and subcommittee phase, this is an important time for school officials and professional organizations to provide input.
Conference Committee
The House must then concur in, or agree to, the Senate amendments. But this sometimes doesn’t happen. In this event, a conference committee is formed of members of both the House and the Senate. The conference committee must reach agreement on a committee report (also referred to as a compromise bill) to be voted on by the full House and Senate by the June 30 deadline. Each chamber must approve an identical budget bill. No amendments may be made by the separate chambers when they vote on the committee report, and time is very limited between the conclusion of the conference committee and the votes on the final bill. Thus, any last-minute lobbying must occur before the conclusion of the conference committee. This is sometimes when fast-moving changes are inserted or deleted from the bill.
Back to the Governor
When the legislature finally agrees to the terms of the bill, it quickly moves back to the governor to be signed. The governor may sign the bill or veto certain provisions, called a line-item veto. The reasons for the veto would be provided, and the General Assembly may, by three-fifths vote, override the veto. The veto power does not allow the governor to add to the budget bill – only to subtract. This allows for some final limited input from school officials and professional organizations.
How, and to Whom, to Provide Input
During committee hearings, the Finance Committees of both the House and the Senate receive input from state agencies, lobbyists, special interest groups, and other legislators and stakeholders. Testimony may be provided for these hearings in either written or live verbal form. Although written input will be heard, live and in person is often much more effective. Additionally, any legislator may provide input in the form of amendments. The state education associations are active during this process, so stay tuned. Ennis Britton attorneys also carefully monitor developments, using Twitter to give up-to-the-minute updates. During this important time, we can assist your district or group in preparing and delivering testimony at the Statehouse.
Follow these links to stay up-to-date on the House Finance Committee schedule and the Senate Finance Committee schedule. Follow Ennis Britton and our attorneys on Twitter to get the most current information. When the budget is completed, our firm immediately reads and holds an Administrator’s Academy in July to let you know what’s in the budget.
by Jeremy Neff | Jun 2, 2016 | Legislation, School Finance
The Ohio Senate has approved a bill that would suspend property tax increases for commercial and industrial developments until a certificate of occupancy is granted. Any increase in the taxable value of properties that are being newly developed or redeveloped would not be subject to property taxes until the development is completed. Senate Bill (SB) 235 passed 22-11 on May 4.
Advocates of SB 235 say that it will encourage improvement of undeveloped property as developers would not face tax increases until a project is near completion. This measure would increase land development and job growth, and eventually increase property taxes when the development is completed.
However, the bill has faced debate and opposition, with many local governments expressing their concern while the bill was in the Senate Ways and Means Committee. The concern is that the bill would cause an unknown fiscal loss to local governments, although it would have no impact at the state level.
The Ways and Means Committee notes that it responded to the concerns by adding several amendments to the bill. One of those amendments is a ten-year reset, so that the taxable value of the property resets to the actual value at the eleventh year (and every ten years after that) for the tax suspension while the property is still in development.
As school districts are funded in large part by property taxes, SB 235 has implications to school districts. Many developments are years in the making, as noted by the ten-year reset amendment. This means that school districts would potentially lose out on many years of funding during the development of these commercial and industrial properties.
SB 235 has now been introduced in the Ohio House of Representatives for consideration. You are urged to contact your Ohio representative to provide input for the House committee that will be assigned to SB 235. Ennis Britton attorneys are available for counsel regarding how this bill may affect your school district.
by Pamela Leist | Jan 14, 2016 | Board Policy & Representation, Construction & Real Estate, School Finance, School Management
On December 30th, 2015, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously declared that real property owned by a public school district board of education is tax exempt regardless of whether it is currently used for school purposes. Ennis Britton Shareholder Gary Stedronsky represented the Talawanda City School District Board of Education at all levels of appeal, including before the Supreme Court.
The case involved a provision in Ohio law that generally exempts real property owned by a public school district from property taxes, which is codified in Ohio Revised Code section 3313.44. In this case, the Talawanda City School District Board of Education (the “Board”) purchased 154 acres of land to build a new high school. A portion of this land was not needed for the high school and was leased by the Board to a farmer.
In January of 2010, the Board filed an application to exempt all 154 acres from real property taxes. The Tax Commissioner approved the exemption application for all but the portion of the land that was leased to the farmer. The Tax Commissioner concluded that the pecuniary benefit realized by the farmer disqualified the land from tax exemption because the property was not being used for school purposes.
The Board appealed the Tax Commissioner’s decision to the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”), which affirmed the Tax Commissioner’s decision. The Board further appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether the BTA decision was supported by the language in Ohio Revised Code section 3313.44. The applicable version of section 3313.44 simply states: “Real or personal property owned by or leased to any board of education for a lease term of at least fifty years shall be exempt from taxation.” The Board argued that this statute requires that a board of education merely own real property in order for it to qualify for tax exemption. In other words, there is no requirement in the statute that the property must be used for school purposes in order for the tax exemption to apply.
The Ohio Supreme Court agreed with the Board’s argument and concluded that the property that was leased to the farmer was exempt from taxation regardless of the specific use of the property. The Supreme Court acknowledged that past interpretations by the Tax Commissioner may have correctly interpreted an implied use restriction in the prior version of the statute. However, the Court recognized that the General Assembly chose not to include such a restriction when the statute was amended in 2010 even though it had authority to do so. Therefore, the Court held that the statute does not include an implied use restriction and the Board’s property is entitled to tax exemption even though it was leased to a farmer.
The Court also dismissed the Tax Commissioner’s argument that the Board’s request for tax exemption must be denied on grounds that the Board overstepped its legislative authority by leasing the land to a farmer for a commercial purpose. The Court held that a Board of Education’s property is entitled to tax exemption as long as it meets the conditions of the exemption statute in Ohio Revised Code section 3313.44, which merely requires ownership.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court decision clarifies that a board of education is entitled to a property tax exemption for all real property owned by the board of education regardless of how the property is currently being used. This decision is very favorable to school districts and will be used in the future to support applications for tax exemptions.
Talawanda City School District Board of Edu. v. Testa, Tax Commissioner (Ohio 2015), Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-5450.
by Giselle Spencer | Sep 25, 2015 | Board Policy & Representation, Construction & Real Estate, General, Labor and Employment, Legislation, School Finance, School Management, Special Education, Student Education and Discipline
As with most other provisions of the budget bill (Am. Sub. HB 64) some significant provisions impacting Ohio school districts go into effect on September 29, 2015, including the following:
- The maximum amount of a scholarship awarded under the Autism or Jon Peterson scholarship programs increases to $27,000 (up from $20,000).
- School districts must offer real property it intends to sell first to a “high performing community school,” then to other community and college preparatory boarding schools located in the district.
- ODE, in conjunction with an Ohio educational service center association and an Ohio gifted children’s association, must complete and submit a feasibility study for establishment of sixteen regional community schools for gifted children.
- The State Board must develop rules waiving any additional coursework requirements for renewal of an educator license for teachers who are consistently high performing.
- The duration of a pupil activity permit for individuals holding a valid educator license is changed from three (3) years to the same number of years as the educator license.
- The State Board of Education will develop a standards based framework for the evaluation of school counselors. Furthermore, all school districts must adopt a counselor evaluation policy by September 30, 2016, that conforms to the framework and will be implemented beginning in the 2016-2017 school year (will include annual evaluations with ratings of accomplished, skilled, developing, and ineffective just like OTES).
- The alternative teacher evaluation framework is revised to decrease SGM to 35%, maintain the performance rating at 50%, and authorize school districts to determine the appropriate measure or combination of measures for the remaining 15%.
- Exemplary community schools may now operate a preschool program for general education students.
- School districts may enroll under interdistrict open enrollment policies an adjacent or other district student who is a preschool child with a disability. ODE will deduct $4,000 from the resident district and pay that same amount to the enrolling district.
- School districts cannot appropriate monies to purchase an assessment developed by PARCC for use as the state elementary or secondary achievement assessments. Additionally testing for the 2015-2016 school year is reduced.
- Safe harbor provisions in effect during the 2014-2015 school year for state report cards are extended by two years.
- School districts may now enter into a contract with a health care provider for the provision of health care services for students.
- The new requirements for issuance of diplomas to home school students and students from non-chartered nonpublic schools are now in effect.
STEM schools can now enroll out-of-state students.
- Schools may install security doors or barricades as part of an emergency management plan.
- The filing date for financial disclosure statements with the Ohio Ethics Commission is May 15 (instead of April 15).
