June 3, 2026 · Local Government Committee · 13,346 words · 16 speakers · 147 segments
Good morning. I now call the meeting, this meeting of House Local Government Committee to order, and I'd like to recognize Representative Thomas to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Thank you.
Will the clerk please call the roll?
Chair King? Here.
Vice Chair Kishman? Here.
Ranking Member Sims? Here.
Representative Abrams is excused.
Representative Brennan? Here.
Representative Creech? Representative Fowler-Arthur?
Representative Kloffenstein? Here.
Representative Lawson-Rowe? Here.
Representative Moore is excused.
Representative Schmidt? Representative Schumann?
Here. Representative Stevens?
Here. Representative Thomas?
Here. We do have a quorum present and we'll proceed as a full committee. I'd like to ask our committee members to refer to your iPads to review the minutes of our prior meeting. Are there any objections? Hearing none, the minutes are approved. We do have somewhat of a full schedule this morning, so I'm going to request that our witnesses limit their testimony to three minutes and ask our committee members to try to refrain to two questions just to make sure that everybody has an opportunity to get their questions in. And then also as part of a housekeeping issue, just like to remind everyone that if you plan to take pictures or film the committee, that there is a media slip that you are asked to complete and it's on the table, so make sure that you do that. Also want to note that several of our committee members also sit on other committees, so they will be possibly leaving. It's not meant to be disruptive that they've got to check in at their next committee or either being called for a vote. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention. And with that, I'd like to call forward House Bill 843 for its first hearing. We have Representative Meredith Craig with us. Welcome to the local government committee.
Begin when you're ready. I'm excited. Hey, everyone. So Chairwoman King, Vice Chairman Kishman, Ranking Member Sims, and members of the House Local Government Committee, thank you for this opportunity to be before you today to provide sponsor testimony on House Bill 843. House Bill 843 is a straightforward piece of legislation that ensures Ohio taxpayers have a voice in whether automated traffic enforcement cameras are used in their communities. Under this bill, a municipality would be required to obtain voter approval before operating a traffic camera program. At its core, this legislation is about accountability. Traffic laws exist to promote public safety, but when enforcement is delegated to cameras rather than law enforcement officers, residents should have the opportunity to decide whether that is the approach they want for their community to take, especially if that community is already employing and paying for a full-time police department. House Bill 843 is identical to Senate Bill 340 which is introduced by Senator Tom Patton In his sponsor testimony Senator Patton did highlight a striking trend regarding public opinion on traffic cameras Since 91 there have been 46 elections nationwide including 14 here in Ohio in which voters were asked whether their communities should utilize traffic cameras. Of those 46 elections, only four measures were approved, and only one was approved here in the state of Ohio. In other words, voters have overwhelmingly rejected traffic cameras in more than 91 percent of elections. These results send a clear message that when citizens are, in fact, given a voice on this issue, they overwhelmingly choose not to allow automated traffic enforcement in their communities. This bill simply ensures that Ohioans have the same opportunity to make that decision for themselves. In order to meet my time here, I want to give an example that's occurring in my district, in my hometown. And the reason that I noticed Senator Patton and his legislation and wanted to introduce it over here to get the conversation going. So my hometown, the village of Smithville, has implemented a speed camera program in their school zones, despite employing a full-time police department. And let me give you some stats here. My town is a town of about 1,000 people. We're a one-stop light town. We employ four full-time police officers, one full-time police chief. As you can imagine, the taxpayers and voters in my community are a little frustrated that the officers are not sitting and patrolling the school zones for a teaching moment for those that are speeding. I was just at Smithville High School talking to a class of American government students, and one student has received not one but two citations in the mail. There's no teaching moment there. There's no explanation of, hey, this is what could happen. if you speed through the school zone and you injure or hurt someone. Instead, she's already jaded because she's receiving two citations in the mail with no actual law enforcement present. So House Bill 843, again, this does not violate home rule. I know in the transportation budget we attempted to ban them, could only do that for counties and townships, So we just simply want to put this in the voters' hands, let them decide. And with that, I will stop, and I'm happy to answer any questions the committee asks.
Thank you, Representative. Representative Smith, you have a question?
Yes, I do. I really like it. They have those in Florida, and you have no idea how many times I've slammed on the break, because if you roll through it, you get a nice ticket in the mail. But having said that, last year, I think it was, last GA, we passed a bill with cameras on buses, and those bus cameras can then show a violation if somebody passes the bus while it is stopping to pick up children. How – is this in conflict to that use of cameras? Because I had a hesitation on the bus camera as well. But denying this but allowing that, I'm not sure if there's a conflict there or not.
Through the chair to the representative, this does not impact the cameras on buses. This is specifically to speed cameras. I think there was also a question if this applies to flock cameras. I know we've seen a lot in the headlines about that. This bill does not impact the flock cameras that have also been put up. So this is simply speed cameras that are being put up.
Are there any other questions from members of the committee? Representative Brennan.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for bringing the bill You know when I was on City Council in Parma we of course debated whether or not to bring these things into the city And quite frankly myself and my colleagues on city council were not fans But after losing a child outside of Parma High because of a speeder, we decided to place them exclusively in school zones. And Parma is the seventh largest city in Ohio. We're bigger than Youngstown. I always say we're the biggest little city in Ohio because you'd never know Parma was as huge as it is. But we also ran the city when I was on council on bare bones. And when you look at, for instance, Youngstown, which is smaller than us, they have over 200 police officers. We've got about 115. So it's a bare bones operation. But we have many, many schools. We have over 50 schools in Parma. So it's impossible for our police to be sitting at every single school zone in the community. So my question is, and you may have answered already in your testimony, but would you consider a carve-out for school districts or municipalities that can demonstrate that the cameras are used exclusively when students are arriving and departing school or when they're present at school?
Sure. Thanks, Rep.
Yeah, thank you. Through the chair to Representative Brennan. So I would say this in response. I think every community is going to be different, right? The frustration I'm hearing from my constituents is the village of Smithville may have one call of service one time a week. You know, the calls are very minimal. And so they're asking why can't our officers simply make more traffic stops? Why can't they be present? And we have the career center in town, so that's a school zone. and then we've got the high school, middle school, elementary, they're all together now. So we've got three school zone cameras at this point. Very different than your city. And so, again, I think if there is a need and folks in the community understand, right, you had a tragic situation occur, I think the voters would take that into consideration. And I think ultimately, again, we're putting that responsibility with the taxpayers. If they think it's a good choice and if the law enforcement department shows like this is going to help improve safety, educate the voters and let them decide. So I think that was an excuse used for the cameras in my town. I can say, because I grew up right across the street, there were never any accidents, right? And so I think, again, just honesty with the taxpayers, educating them, too, making sure that they know these are coming. again this just makes puts a little bit more awareness into what's going on that was very long-winded but yeah yeah representative thomas
thank you madam chair i guess you know i'm always open to ideas but also one size doesn't always fit everybody um some cities you know have cameras some don't and would you be open to a conversation around allowing each municipality to make that decision. In other words, the local governments may choose to do that as opposed to implementing that and making it a mandate to put it on the ballot. Just something to think about.
Sure, through the chair to Representative Thomas. So that's what's happening now. So my council, they passed an ordinance, and so that how these speed cameras were put into place And so if I am understanding your question correctly that current practice The council they can go ahead and approve an ordinance and it can be signed become effective and then that it And so, again, in my town's situation, there was no outreach to the community. There was no education campaign as to what we're doing. One day there's no speed cameras, the next day they're being installed. And so I think, again, just educating the taxpayers on what's going on, letting them have a say is something that I'm hearing from folks. Madam Chair, follow up?
Proceed.
I guess then wouldn't it make sense that we put something in that says that the people can put it on the ballot? What's stopping them? In other words, if a municipality chooses to do that and the people aren't satisfied, then they can put a referendum on the ballot. Is there any reason why that can't be done?
Through the chair to the representative, it can be. And actually, there's an effort underway to do just that, not just in my community, but a community in the Youngstown area as well. So due to what has occurred, citizens are sort of taking it into their own hands.
Final comment. Go ahead.
So, yeah, in other words, that's why I'm saying why make it a mandate through passing a law, putting it on. It doesn't make sense to pass a law when you can already choose to do that.
Well, they're, sorry, through the chair, to the representative. They don't have a choice now, right? They only have a choice to respond. So they're not approving these from the onset. and they're reacting to it, right? If the local government leadership decides we're going to do this without any input from our citizens, the only recourse citizens then have is to go through this petition process. And folks in my community are learning that everything's more bureaucratic than what it should be. And so, again, why are we putting hurdles in the way of our citizens and our taxpayers? Just let them have a voice from the start.
All right. Thank you. Representative Klopfenstein.
So thank you, Madam Chair. So how would you answer a constituent that says, if we're going to put everything to a referendum vote, why have a council and a mayor? Let's just do everything by the ballot box.
Sure. Through the chair to the representative. It's a good question. There are certain things that we require get voter approval. A city charter is one of them. So I think folks have pushed back and said, hey, this violates home rule. There's a number of things that we require in municipalities and villages to get voter approval for. This would simply just be another one of those. And, again, I think when we're talking about substantial taxpayer dollars being spent on a full-time police department in a small town, And honestly, like those law enforcement officers just not doing their job to begin with, and now relying on cameras to do that job. I think taxpayers have every right to vote for that.
Follow-up?
No.
Representative Fowler-Arthur?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your testimony. If I'm understanding what you're saying, you're looking to have a bill kind of be more proactive so that it would not, communities wouldn't have to pay for the cameras prior to them going up. And I'm just wondering whether or not, you know, in the interest of kind of similar to what Representative Klopfenstein was just describing about should we have the ballot initiative for everything, would it possibly achieve the same goal to maybe just make sure that there's more notice that the council's considering this and more opportunity for the public to offer feedback prior to any cameras being purchased, or do you feel that the actual act of it going on the ballot is the key mechanism in your bill?
Sure. Through the chair, to the representative. I think that's the key component here. I think voters should have a say in this. Taxpayers should have a say in this, and that's by voting. You know, I understand the premise of, you know, we elect our mayors, we elect our council, and these small villages, though, So oftentimes, you know, again, if you install a speed camera, that person isn't up for re-election for another four years maybe if they're just elected or just appointed. You know, then it takes time to sort of unravel something that in my constituents' eyes is harming the community. It's preventing folks from coming to the community to do business. Our business owners are frustrated. You know, Smithville's already been known as a speed trap. And, you know, with this added to it, now folks are quite literally avoiding the town. And so, again, I just go back to this is something I think they should have voter approval on. Thank you.
Ranking Member Sims. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rep, for your testimony this morning. Just out of curiosity or clarification, are just the speed cameras in the school zones, are they throughout Smithville?
Through the chair to the ranking member. In Smithville, every community is different, right? You can put speed cameras up anywhere you choose in municipalities. In my town, it's in three school zones.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? Okay, seeing no questions, this concludes our first hearing of House Bill 843. Thank you, Representative. Thank you all. Yep. I'd like to now call forward House Bill 695 for its third hearing. And I'd like to call forward Tony Long with the Ohio Chamber to provide testimony. Welcome to local government committee.
Good morning, Chair King, Vice Chair Kishman, and Ranked Member Sims. Thank you for the opportunity to provide opponent testimony on House Bill 695 on behalf of the members of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce. Why the Ohio Chamber appreciates the recent debate on the use of disclosure agreements that led to the introduction of 695. It has sweeping impact on both preliminary discussions for land acquisition and economic incentives, but it also may impact executive sessions and confidentiality agreements in local government. 695 is sweeping in its application against the use of non-disclosure agreements, known as NDAs. The language is used for county commissioners, township trustees, and village legislative members. The Township Trustees section of the bill reads non agreement means an agreement or contract that includes a provision or clause that prohibits a member of the Board of Township Trustees from disclosing discussing or commenting on township matters related to the member official duties Now, does that bar officials disclosing everything discussed in an executive session? For those not familiar with the exception to the Open Meeting Act, executive sessions, closed-door sessions, can be used to discuss personnel matters, property transactions, imminent or pending litigation, and other matters found in Ohio Revised Code 121.22G. Just as troubling as the chilling impact 695 will have on economic development in Ohio, currently NDAs can be used in all stages of a deal, the acquisition of land parcels, the name and industry sector of the party internally debating a site to use for new investment, the preliminary terms of an incentive package, the review of pro-forma documents used to examine the wherewithal of the entity making that investment. This legislation grinds all of that to a halt. 695 would place Ohio at a clear disadvantage when competing for new business investment and job creation. Although introduced in response to concerns surrounding a specific sector of the economy, this policy would extend far beyond that industry. Manufacturing, logistics, national defense industries, energy, and other capital-intensive sectors all rely on confidentiality during early-stage site selection and negotiations of incentive deals. As a result, the bill would have broad and negative implications across Ohio's economy. Early public disclosure of this information can alert competition or competitors, impact stock prices, disrupt labor, vendor, financing negotiations and make companies far less willing to view Ohio as a preferred destination for deployment of capital. Just as importantly, confidentiality helps prevent premature speculation that can inflate land prices, generate unnecessary political controversy, or create unrealistic expectations for projects that may never materialize. recognizing that many development opportunities do not automatically come to fruition. Importantly, these agreements are typically temporary, and once projects move forward and public incentives or approvals are involved, they are subject to legislative oversight and existing public disclosure requirements. While we do not support the outright prohibition of non-disclosure agreements, our members recognize the importance of transparency and are committed to working with the General Assembly on thoughtful reforms to the current process, reforms that promote public trust while still preserving the confidentiality necessary to attract investment and support economic development in Ohio. Confidentiality is not about avoiding transparency. It's about ensuring that Ohio can compete with other peer jurisdictions for investment. We respectfully urge the committee to consider the amendments to preserve appropriate transparency while still allowing for limited confidentiality during early stage negotiations. Thank you for the time, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you, Mr. Long. We have a few questions.
Representative Fowler-Arthur. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning.
Good morning.
I just want to hone in a little bit on the distinction that you drawing it seems like in your testimony between executive session and the kind of general agreement that you not going to be talking about things related to personnel or a property transfer that imminent and the non agreement contract that it seems like there's a broad distinction between those in the sense that in the contract, you're signing an agreement that you're not going to be doing these things, that you can't talk about it with members of the public. And in the executive session, there's a time frame, right? You're not talking about, and I know you mentioned time frame in your testimony, but can you just hone in maybe a little bit more on how we ensure that a non-disclosure agreement is not being used to shut members of the community out of decision making that affects how their community looks or what their community is allowing instead of a more public process like a zoning reform or some other process that is taking place in a more public venue?
Thank you through the chair to the representative. I think there's a couple of questions there. So the first one would be this legislation doesn't just mention contracts. It says agreements or contracts. So agreements can be oral agreements, and here executive session requires that you usually have all of the members agree to go in executive session. I would argue that's an agreement, and this says that's now banned. So how does that impact executive session? In terms of making sure that the public is informed of what's going on, I think there are reforms that can be made around timeframes or at stages of the process where NDAs could be used. And then after certain timeframes are up, maybe you kind of open up what's going on in that community. So I think it's important to preserve some of the early stage development of either land gathering or putting together a deal. and then in terms of how long that would go versus opening up to the public for disclosure. Happy to have those discussions further.
A follow-up? Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for that. I understand where you're going with it because we had a similar situation in our county where our county commissioners were trying to be very transparent about where they wanted to put a new jail project and somehow an exact parcel got released and then all of a sudden the price quadrupled, which created a barrier to actually being able to put the project there. But at what point in the stage of the conversation, prior to these things being fully committed to, At what point does it become appropriate for the community to have the opportunity to give public feedback on a proposed project?
Through the chair to representative. So, yes, I think preserving executive sessions maybe by changing some of the language on the three-page bill would be helpful to preserve things like the jail and not driving up those prices. in terms of when in the stage of a process disclosure should happen, I think that's open for kind of debate. I think in the private sector, just like the public sector, you don't want a bunch of deals that are trying to gather land, acquire land, to decide if to go forward to be disclosed too early But perhaps when maybe a deal is inked and you starting on economic development terms maybe that a process of where you can start to open it up for more public feedback But I would have to go back to my members and kind of see where that timeline is.
Thank you. Representative Schmidt? Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for this. I have two concerns with the bill. One is going into an executive session because you can go into an executive session and basically look at something, not have any notes, et cetera, walk out. You have no decision, but you have a familiarity. This might breach that. The second concern that I have are elected officials not being allowed to enter into a nondisclosure agreement because sometimes, and tell me if I'm wrong on this, you go into a building in your district that has some very technical nature to it. They don't want the competition to know. Then you sign an agreement with it, and then down the road they want to expand, and suddenly you're caught with I signed a nondisclosure agreement not wanting to secure what they're doing. Now they want to expand.
Have I violated the law? Through the chair, to the representative, that's a very good point in terms of sometimes nondisclosure agreements are for site visits, and this would seem to ban that perhaps with its broad sweep. I think there's opportunity to look at this bill and maybe do some interested party meetings in terms of what language could go into a nondisclosure agreement, time frames in a nondisclosure, what it covers, what it doesn't cover. So I'd welcome that opportunity with the committee.
Follow-up? Representative Klopfenstein. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks, Mr. Long, for being here. we have a trust issue and we're trying to address that trust issue the pendulum always swings too far executive session needs to be preserved if you could wave your magic wand keep it simple and you've been asked this in some other ways how do we structure this to restore trust protect economic development and give the ability to those that are elected to actually do their job?
Through the chair of the representative, I would strike out the word agreement and say a contract. So it's clear that you're talking about a contract and not an agreement between two people. So I think that would preserve probably executive session. In terms of the breadth of and the scope and the timeline, I think that is where I think interested party or sort of meetings might be helpful to come up with some kind of draft language of what an agreement would look like and maybe further discussions on scope and the time frame, if that would be helpful.
Representative Creech. Thank you. Through the chair, thank you for being here. Yeah, I have some serious concerns with this. And, you know, I think a lot of the questions we ask, what are other states doing? I'm just curious what this would do to Ohio compared to our neighbors and other states in the country. Can you kind of explain what we're laying here?
Through the chair, through the representative, thank you. I don't have a broad 50-state chart in front of me, but I do know a lot of our competitors will use these agreements. Not competitors. Our jurisdictions that Ohio is competing with will use these agreements to preserve the building of the land necessary for economic development, the early stages of economic development. And this broad sweep of a ban, I think, would then make those that do those types of deals stop looking at Ohio and perhaps to look at other states that are preserving some of those things that I discussed in my testimony. Thank you.
Are there any other questions from members of the committee? I do have a question real quick. It is a legal question. So should the NDA pass, my question is if a nondisclosure agreement is signed by a public official or a government entity, does that have the ability to override or limit the statutory requirements of disclosure? I mean, isn't Ohio Revised Code still applicable as far as disclosure?
To the chair, I think the concern I raised in my testimony is it went beyond contract and talked about agreements. Agreements are beyond contracts and could be oral in nature between two people where there's mutual assent to agree to something, and I think that's what executive sessions are. So I think if we took that language out and strictly moved to contracts, I think that would preserve kind of executive sessions.
Specifically, though, with the NDA, though, would that do what the bill sponsors hope that it would do as far as providing transparency? Because isn't that already a requirement, a statutory requirement? So that contract between a public entity and the government official, they are still bound by the statutory requirement. Are they not of disclosure?
To the chair, yes. I think there hasn't been a court case yet on whether or not an NDA can trump what an official's duties is. If they wanted to breach the NDA, and then you would have to take the breach of the NDA to a court to see kind of what a judge or a jury would say about that. I don't think we have case law in that yet.
Okay, very good. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. and now we have, let's see, I believe it's just... I apologize, Ranking Member Sims had a question before our witness left, so I want to apologize, I did not catch that. that. So I'd like to at this time direct our members to our iPads for written testimony from both the data center coalition and Ohio Business Roundtable. And with that it will conclude the third hearing. What about Scotty? Yeah. Oh, I apologize. Okay. Disregard that. We have one other in-person witness. I am so I'm so sorry.
Scotty Powell? Thank you You wouldn be the first person that forgot me so I appreciate you I sorry See we all work together as a team so they keeping me on track So thank you very much I apologize No worries at all Begin when you're ready. My testimony is a little longer, so I did shrink it down. So if you see me jumping around, please apologize. Chairwoman King, Vice Chair Kishman, Ranking Member Sims, thank you for the opportunity to provide opponent testimony to House Bill 695. My name is Scotty Powell, and I'm a Cited County Commissioner, and last year I signed an NDA. Now I went back and forth on whether or not I should make the two-hour drive up to speak against this bill, as I know the notion that I signed an NDA would paint me as anti-transparency or public participation. However, I'm already on record in one of our meetings calling this bill lazy legislation, and I believe there's some critical flaws within it. I do have some of my background of our data center engagement with JobsOhio. I'm going to pass over that in terms of time to talk about the critical flaws that I see. First critical flaw is that House Bill 695 includes some elected officials but not all. If we believe elected officials should not be signing NDAs, that should not stop at commissioners, trustees, and village councils, but should also include cities and maybe even the legislator. This item alone creates an uneven balance of how economic development will be handled in the state. Cities will have more flexibility to attract and retain business than the rest of the unincorporated areas in Ohio. Second critical flaw, House Bill 695, in my opinion, is in direct conflict with House Bill 184. That essentially created a permanent NDA for all political subdivisions, including counties, port authorities, tax incentive review councils, and what economic development incentive documentation we can actually release. This was passed in March of 26, and should we violate this bill, we would be fined $1,000. Third critical flaw, and we just heard a little bit about today, and that's competition. The very nature of economic development is competition for opportunity, competition for investments, competition for jobs. For companies, they have to be concerned with competition with land acquisition, supply chain, competitors, among other things. But each of us is elected officials. We are also competing against other states on a macro level. But even within the state, we're competing against other counties, townships, and villages. We are all in office to serve our people and secure opportunities for our people, which means we are competing at some level with people. To eliminate NDAs would put Ohio at a competitive disadvantage with surrounding states, and as written, it would put counties and townships at a disadvantage with cities right here in Ohio. If a company has an opportunity to evaluate an area with trade secrets being shared versus a community where that level of confidentiality is not possible, we will lose opportunities. So how do we strengthen the bill? If we do believe that we need to eliminate NDAs, the bill needs to apply to all elected officials. If we're truly concerned about transparency for some elected officials, we should be concerned with all. Now, I believe the real fix here is that we should allow NDAs, but we should legislate mandated expiration standards. The easiest standard would be that NDAs expire immediately sometime prior to an official vote. If the government is being act to act on behalf of a development, be it zoning, permitting, tax incentives, annexation, et cetera, then that elected official needs to be able to articulate their thought process and the information they have gained. And then finally, include in the bill a repeal of the public records language regarding economic development incentives found in House Bill 184, as previously stated. This bill actually acts as a standing NDA, even if no NDAs are in place. I appreciate your time today and allowing me to share my experience and I more than happy to answer any questions regarding my experience over the past year Thank you very much And again I apologize for briefly overlooking you So welcome to committee and appreciate you taking the time to drive
Representative Stevens, did you have a question? Yes. Yes, thank you, Chair. Thank you for being here, Commissioner. It's good to see you. Good to see you. We had, just for those who don't know, our counties adjoined each other, so we're next-door neighbors, So we see a lot of the same kind of things there on the river. And I'm interested in your conclusions. Talk about a couple of things, particularly House Bill 184, which was passed, I guess you said, back in March. And it was a hodgepodge of a bunch of different things that got thrown into that bill. And, you know, we saw it and voted. I didn't vote for that bill. but one of the things that has been discussed publicly has been the repeal of the language in 184. And if you could kind of talk about your experience. I mean, you had hands on. You're building a big project. It's a smaller rural community that needs jobs and whatnot. Can you just kind of talk about your experience? Specifically 184? Well, your experience in how that language works or would have worked whenever it was going there.
I appreciate that. Through the chair to the member. Appreciate the conversation. So thankfully, 184 went into effect after I voted. So I had a vote in January of 22nd. I don't know if we would have violated as we shared the different tax incentives. Maybe I'm at violation as I stand here today. I don't know. I actually learned about that part of the bill as I was doing research for today. In terms of my experience through this process, we were approached by Jobs Ohio. said, hey, there's a Fortune 100 tech company. Would you like to meet them? They want to spend a billion dollars. I wouldn't be doing my job if I said no. Please pass. So I meet with these individuals throughout that conversation. I did not learn the company's name, their product, even the representative's last names. And at the end of the meeting, they said, hey, would you be interested in doing a tax incentive? And I said, I have no idea who you are, what you're doing, how many jobs you're creating, which led to the creation of an NDA so they could share a little more. We found out that it was Google. is our developer, a multibillion-dollar project. And through that process, I was able to learn all about their practices. I was able to go tour. I was even able to walk onto the floor that less than 1% of their entire staff will ever see. That's very highly secured there in South Columbus. And that was invaluable. The problem with the NDA that I ran into is that when it was time to vote, all I could speak to was the CRA in my hand. So the CRA in my hand said Tilted Gate LLC, which was the land acquisition company. It's a tax incentive. It's a community reinvestment area tax incentive. Thank you. So I was only able to talk about that public document. So it didn't say Google.
It said Tilted Gate LLC, 50 jobs, a billion dollars, 1,300 construction jobs. I knew those numbers and the size and the magnitude of this project was not a 500,000 square foot, but just recently they showed that at least phase one is two million square feet. I had that information. I could not articulate that to the people that, quite honestly, was frustrated with the process. You know, the way the NDAs are set up today, I shattered trust that I will never get back, and that is true. but we still did what we thought was appropriate, and I think there a balance between the business and how do you allow them to do their due diligence but then how can we answer to the people that we here to serve
Follow-up? So I think what I'm hearing from you is there needs to be a more reasoned approach to this, and I don't know a better way to say it. This bill, as written, is kind of like triple stamp and a double stamp. It doesn't really do a whole lot, other than to maybe even make it worse. uh that's how i view it i i call it lazy legislation that's just what i call legislation when there's an uproar and we just throw something out there and i think this is a much nuanced piece where if you pull on this string something else happens once again well as written it'll impact competition um but but at the same time um how do how do we how do we balance that with the business community and also with the people we serve um and this plus you know it doesn't even and include everybody, so now all of a sudden in Appalachia, where I'm from, we're competing and we complain against the big three Cs all the time. You know that. So now the cities have more flexibility than the counties and the townships. So there's quite a bit of different issues that I see within the bill itself. I think it can be strengthened or adjusted. Thank you.
Representative Creech.
Thank you. Through the chair, Commissioner, thank you for being here. I'm so glad that you decided to come in because I don't think some people realize how important testimony can be. And I never even thought about the inconsistency with elected officials, some getting the opportunity to do so and some not, and the disadvantage that that would give others. So thank you for bringing that to our attention. That's why it's so important. If this was to pass, can you tell us what the landscape would look like if this bill was to pass for future development?
Through the chair to the member, I think you would see it freeze, especially for major developments. We're talking about a billion-dollar project in my case. A billion dollars raises the land acquisition cost if that gets out too soon. It could potentially move the stock market. so the big development I think you would see kind of disappear from Ohio except for the cities right so the cities can still keep going on as they've been going on but in the areas of the state that I would argue need more jobs you would see a freezing of big development or development that would require this type of really non-disclosure at least in the beginning stages of looking at areas. Follow up? Ranking member Sims
Make sure I got you this time Thank you Madam Chair Thank you so much for your testimony today Having been a city council member County council member I know the benefits of NDAs But I also know some of the downfalls of that Particularly folks Not feeling like they know enough Or being included in the process I certainly appreciate the testimony of Mr. Long in some ways that we can look at trying to mediate some of this. You mentioned that possibly that we would explore prior to voting that we're kind of released from the NDAs. Does that also include public notice that folks would know that there is a project afoot? and at what point, I guess I would want to know, we would want to kind of close the NDA so that we can have some reasonable conversation so people can feel comfortable comfortable or at least have some say in the process. As you well know, we have the data centers and the whole bunch of questions around those and what people do and don't know or feel like they have opportunities to participate in the process. So I'd be interested in knowing at what point do we close those off.
Yeah, through the chair to the ranking member. It's a great question, and I wish I had the answer to that because there are many different reasons why a business would come to us, but I think the easiest is saying if the business is asking for a government vote, the government should be able to articulate why I'm voting and who I'm voting for and who it benefits and what is it. That's the easiest. If you would want to back that up a couple weeks and disclose, hey, this thing has been happening and now we're taking action, I think there's probably a reasonable time frame somewhere there. But I think to the point that I'm voting on something and I can articulate it is really the issue that we ran into in our county. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Representative Fowler-Arthur.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your testimony. When you were sharing kind of your experience, it kind of led me to wonder, Do you think that maybe a possible solution would be some training for the local government officials or any government officials on maybe positives and pitfalls of NDAs and perhaps things to look for in a good NDA versus a poorly constructed NDA? Or is that kind of getting the cart ahead of the horse on this topic?
Through the chair, through the member. any education is always good education the the real question so we we had legal counsel look at what is it good is it not and kind of flush that out so that's the first thing is if you're signing something make sure the the attorneys are looking at it but in terms of education I think once you figure out what this bill is or isn't and I think there's an appropriate conversation to be had about what truly what are you signing like I I think my NDA lasts for three years most of what I learned throughout that process has already been publicly disclosed but it wasn't at the time of vote I mean we just had an information fair about two three weeks ago that that showed more the scale of the the project and the scope of the project so there is a balance there but all education is good education especially as you get down in some other areas where we might not be exposed to to the bigger developments all the time And that's the risk. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for that.
The other question that kind of came to mind, you know, at least in the private sector, sometimes there's contracts that are dependent on contingencies such as the vote or being able to align certain incentives or getting a certain company to come. is there a way that we could better emphasize the contingency portion so that the NDA becomes less of a problem? I'm trying to wrestle through the, I think we want our communities to be able to evaluate a project before it's 100% signed, sealed, delivered, and then they're regretting the fact that it's there, you want support and buy-in, right? And I think the majority of public officials that I know want to encourage that process And on the other hand I understand the trade secret side and getting a contract for land or a building that not going to blow your budget So is there a balance there that could be taking place more through some of the contract contingencies?
Through the chair to the member, probably. But once again, you would almost have to have it baked into every NDA because they are different. So you'd be legislating like this needs to be included in NDA that a government official is signing. Yeah, once again, it is the balance that I'm even trying to wrestle with. My main concern really with the bill is that once again I was asked to take a vote, and I could articulate a public document, you know, but it wasn't all the information because I was still kind of handcuffed on the other side. But, yeah, there is that balance, and I think the business community is probably better suited to kind of walk through what that could be. But, look, people need to know transparency is paramount, and we need to be able to articulate why in the world am I voting the way I'm voting. I mean, at some point it looked like I was out there doing Satan's work because who in the world is Tilted Gate LLC, right? So I should be able to point to the conversations that I've had and what I've learned, and I just wasn't able to. Follow-up? Representative Brennan.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I apologize. I had to step out, but Commissioner, thanks for taking the time to meet with me prior to the meeting. so I'm aware a little bit of what you talked about, and I apologize if my question is something you've already addressed. But my thinking is that when we ban something, it's going to lead to some unintended consequences because I think there's always a middle way, and again, it seems to be what you're trying to help us develop. Do you think there should be some type of carve-out for agreements where confidentiality serves a legitimate government purpose or protects the taxpayers because, again, I know this doesn't apply to municipalities, but when I was serving my municipality, there were certain things that we did in executive session and whatnot where we didn't want the general public knowing because it was in their best interests. So thoughts on that?
Yeah, through the chair to the member. I do think there's probably some carve-outs. Once again, I think we heard the price of land went up for a jail that got out too soon. And once again, when you're talking about competition, my county is competing with Lawrence County, and I'll say that since Rep. Stevens is sitting there. So there is some benefits to ensuring that if I'm working on a project, I'm not allowing information to kind of be used against, well, they're giving me this, now I'm giving this. So I think there's a balance there as well. Once again, the bill needs to be more nuanced as is. It's just kind of this big sledgehammer that I think creates more issues than what it's fixing. Madam Chair, thank you.
And I would agree with you on that. My other fear, and again, if you'd address it, is that if Ohio becomes persona non grata to companies that want to maybe come in and do business here, It going to obviously come to our detriment and benefit the state up north and the one southwest and east Thoughts on that Through the chair to the member.
We hit on this a little bit, but as somebody that lives bordering Kentucky and we walk into West Virginia every once in a while, yeah, I mean, if they're able to have NDAs and we're not, then they can sit back and gather whatever information we've been working on and then put together a better deal. So I think that hurts the taxpayers. It hurts us from competitive. But also, are some of these big companies even going to want their competitors knowing what they're doing within our borders? And I'm going to guess no. Thank you.
Very good. Thank you.
Are there any other questions? Very good. Thank you so much for being with us at Safe Travels Home. Thank you so much. So at this point, I'd like to, again, direct our members towards their iPads. We do have two pieces of written testimony. for House Bill 695, and this will conclude our third hearing. And at this time, I will call forward House Bill 445 for a third hearing. And I'd like to welcome Congressman Max Miller to provide testimony. Is Congressman Miller here? He is not, so I will direct our members to his testimony then. We'll be on the iPad for your consideration. We will call forward Commissioner Walter Claypool to provide proponent testimony.
Welcome, Commissioner. Begin when you're ready. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, Vice Chair, Ranking Member, and the members of the committee. I am in support of House Bill 445, and I thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of that, bill. For more than a decade, I've been involved with NAWCHA, one of the MPOs in the state of Ohio, serving as both a commissioner, representative, and alternate on that board. I participated in numerous studies, transportation studies, planning initiatives, public meetings, and my testimony is based on my experience. In 2017, I led an effort to separate Lake County and Geauga County from NAWCHA as a county commissioner. Working with the assistance of I developed a financial model that showed the separation could provide significant financial benefits to both counties. Politics got in the middle of all that and it fell apart. But the analysis demonstrated that alternate MPO structures are both practical and achievable. The first point I'd like to make to this committee to consider is that MPOs are not indispensable transportation planning, or they're not necessary in the state of Ohio. Ohio has 17 MPOs that involve about 32 counties, which means 56 counties are not in an MPO. Those counties maintain the roads, the bridges, and the transportation infrastructure. While MPOs are a reality under federal law, they should not be viewed as untouchable institutions beyond reform. MPOs are authorized under Federal Transportation Regulation 23 CFR 45310. However, federal law does not dictate many of the governance decisions MPOs claim are required, such as membership by population. Federal law also provides mechanisms for adjusting MPO boundaries and creating new MPOs that circumstances warrant, and there's precedent for that. Ohio has the authority to follow federal guidance and to establish safeguards to better protect our local governments and taxpayers Many MPOs have expanded beyond their intended transportation mission Federal law establishes MPOs are to conduct metropolitan transportation planning yet organizations such as NAWCHA have increasingly engaged in climate action planning, regional planning initiatives, land use planning, economic development planning, and other things that fall outside of that core mission. NOAC and other MPOs in Northeastern Ohio participate in a multi-million dollar HUD-funded regional planning effort. And I would ask the question, why were they doing that? Why are they spending their effort and time and money on a regional planning effort when their core focus should be planning our roads and bridges? The original agreement that was contracted with NOACA, that created NOACA, provided an equal representation among the seven counties. Two of the counties left NOACA due to political strife. There was an equal three-person membership per county at that time. Over time, that imbalance changed, and today Cleveland and Cuyahoga County hold a supermajority, 26 votes versus 19. So it is completely controlled by Cleveland and Cuyahoga County at this time. That imbalance has contributed to frustration among local officials and residents who believe their tax dollars are supporting priorities outside of their control and things that they wouldn't support. Regardless of one's political views, transportation funding decisions should be transparent, accountable, and reflect all the participating communities. House Bill 445 is an important first step toward restoring some modicum of accountability to MPOs and ensuring they remain focused on their core mission. Organizations that exercise significant influence over transportation funding should be subject to meaningful oversight and balanced governance. That oversight does not exist today with organizations like NOACA. I respectfully urge this committee to support House Bill 445 and continue exploring reforms that strengthen local representation, improve accountability, ensure transportation dollars are spent on transportation priorities. I thank you for your time, and I'll take any questions.
Thank you for your testimony. We'll start with Representative Brennan.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for coming in, Mr. Paypool. Are you currently involved in any type of litigation regarding NOAC?
I am.
Mr. Chairman. Oh, yep. Thank you. Can you elaborate on that for us?
Yes. Last year there was an effort for NAWACA to change their bylaws, and in the course, in the process that they followed doing that, it appeared to me that there was a violation of Sunshine Law and a violation of something referred to as an entrenchment clause, which is a violation of one of the sections of the bylaws. So I sued in that regard because they should be following their bylaws, should be following the proper legal process, and should not be violating the open meeting law. So that's the nature of the violation or the lawsuit.
Mr. Chair, follow up. Yes. Thank you. So, you know, after the 520 reason, this is, you know, for information here,
where Kiowa County has about 60% of the population, close to 60% of the tax base. Why would it be wise to disenfranchise Kiowa County residents and make up the majority of the population of the region? through this type of legislation? Well, that's an interesting representation. I don't agree with that. The United States is not a democracy, it's a republic, because republics maintain a fair balance on representation. The current representative situation we exist is more like a democracy. Cleveland and Cuyahoga County have complete control. Geauga County has no voice at the table. Lake County has no voice at the table. Lorain County and Medina County have no voice at the table. They have people at the table. They can vote. They can object. They provide input. But Cleveland and Cuyahoga County have complete control. That violates the very premise, the very principle of a republic and fair and balanced governance. And so that's the reason. Thank you.
Representative Lawson Rowe.
You did your homework, by the way. I'm impressed. Thank you, Vice Chair. Thank you so much for your testimony this morning. I have a question regarding, so based on House Bill 445, there would be some impact to Morpsey. Are you familiar with Morpsey?
I am.
Follow up? Follow up. So would Morpsey's current board structure violate the no county majority rule?
I'm not that familiar with Morpsey's board layout and or their bylaws. I've not studied those. I'm extremely knowledgeable about NAWACA's configuration and their history and so on and so forth. But I don't have the answer to your question. I could look at it if you'd like me to and come back and answer that question.
Thank you. Mm-hmm.
Representative Fowler-Arthur.
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for coming down from beautiful Geauga County and representing the 100,000 voices there that would like to have a greater voice in the transportation region. And I know we have a quarter million people in Lake County that also drive on roads that are funded with federal dollars. So I was fascinated by the part of your testimony that talked about the membership change taking place and how we used to have more representation than we currently do. And I don't know if you had the timeline available, but could you kind of elaborate on the timeline a little bit more of what was happening when we had more voices at the table as opposed to currently?
Yeah, if you'd take a – and this could get into the weeds a bit, and I apologize to the committee for that. But if you look at the intent of 23 CFR, the federal code established in NPO, their intent is to have a planning effort that coordinates, again, amongst various legal entities. Those legal entities primarily are established to be counties. We've got a lot more involvement than counties now. We have townships involved and cities involved and so on and so forth. The original contract, and it was a contract between the seven counties at the time, was three representatives from every county. That provided a fair voice at the table for all of the counties. Over time, Cleveland, Cuyahoga County being who they are, stamped their feet, sued, did various things, and manipulated or moved that membership to a different point. In addition to that there was a contract The contract has never been set aside It never been done away with Somehow there was a transition to governance by bylaws In the governance by bylaws, the argument was made that a population should come to bear. It should have some, take some part in this. And I understand the argument. But the reality is the way the transportation planning works, it's not really a population-based thing. You've got so many potholes. You've got so many bridges. You've got so many roads. Each of them is in a certain state, and the priority should be the worst roads, the worst potholes, the worst bridges. It shouldn't be we've got a population of 100,000 or a million, and therefore we should get more money because, no, prioritize the infrastructure and deal with the infrastructure with the money you have with the worst first kind of a scenario. And so I don't know if that answered your question or not, but that's off the cuff.
Follow up my answer. Thank you for that. Thank you, Chair. So, you know, I am looking at the legislation, and I think the big headline that sticks out is it's Metropolitan Planning Organization, right? And arguably, Geauga County is much more rural, suburban in nature. Do you think that a lot of the concerns that some of the surrounding counties have is that they are not as metropolitan as Cuyahoga County, and therefore maybe some of the same standards are not as applicable? or do you think that the issue is that it's designed to be more for a metropolitan area and that the more rural-looking counties are not fully able to benefit from the structure in any situation?
Well, you know, it's an interesting question, again, getting into the weeds a little bit. If you take a look at the law, it's really established for urbanized population areas. that doesn't recognize political boundaries at all. It has nothing to do with a county. It has nothing to do with cities. It has to do with an urbanized population. And there's a census that's done every 10 years, and so that establishes what the urbanized population area happens to be. All of us who are part of the NAWACA MPO are part of the Cleveland Urbanized Area. And those boundaries kind of wind in and out of each of the various counties. Geauga County is in Nowacka for only one reason. We have a portion of the urbanized area on the western border of Geauga County. Now, we were allowed to have the whole county included in that because our county commissioners that represent at least 75% of the population, that's in 23 CFR, 45310, and so the three commissioners represent our population, so we were allowed as a county to enter into that NPO. And so the requirement is an urbanized population. That requirement also can be used as long as you have a population of 50,000 or greater, you can separate or you can form an MPO. And so technically speaking, Geauga County and Lake County could become an MPO and separate from NOACA. And the reality is, and I don't know that anybody would disagree with us in this room, culturally speaking, I mean, some of the priorities and some of where you put money have to do with decisions you make as a culture, what's most important to you. And so Lake County and Jagger County are much closer culturally. We think the same and so our priorities are the same We don think the same as Cleveland and Cuyahoga County That just a reality And so a lot of the priorities that are being created by the controlling members in that board much of which we disagree with And one of the examples is climate action. In my viewpoint and the viewpoint of many in Geauga County, climate action is a ridiculous place to spend money. It will accomplish nothing. It's a political thing. And so, but we spent $400,000 with another $600,000 set aside to finish that project. And so I'm not sure when we've got roads and bridges that need to be repaired, why we're putting money into something called climate action. Why would we put $200,000 into painting a mural on the side of a building in downtown Cleveland when you can fill, you know, hundreds of potholes? Why would you spend $60,000 on a Hyperloop, which has never been proven, it's just a concept, yet we're going to spend $60,000 on that? That's because the mindset and the thinking of the culture in Cleveland and Cuyahoga County is such that they want to do those sorts of things. And that's fine. That's all well and good. Maybe that's a great idea to spend $200,000 on a mural. But that's just not the way people in Geauga County think, Lake County, Medina County, so on and so forth. So hopefully that answered your question.
Thank you.
Are there any other questions from members of the committee? C. Nunn, thank you very much, Commissioner, for being with us today.
You're welcome. I do have an hour and two-hour presentation if you'd like me to come back.
Well, maybe another time. Thank you very much.
Thank you for the opportunity.
I'd like to call forward John, is it Kalis, to provide proponent testimony?
John Kalis, thank you.
Kalis, very good. Thank you. And then to our members, I believe there is a handout that you should have at your desk that we were not able to get uploaded in time for the testimony. So welcome to committee. Thank you for being with us and proceed when you're ready. Thank you very much.
Chair King, Vice Chair Kishman, Ranking Member Sims, and members of the House Local Government Committee. My name is John Kalis, and I thank you for the opportunity to provide proponent testimony on House Bill 445. House Bill 445 is not only essential in protecting the character of Ohio's rural counties, it was crafted with the intent of preserving self-determination as an American ideal. The adage of two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner elicits a precarious image. In the case of the Northeast Ohio Area-Wide Coordinating Agency, it equates to 26 wolves and 19 sheep voting on policy that intends to remake the region's rural counties and Cuyahoga counties image. The battle over control of NAWCHA's board is nothing new. In 1970, Cleveland Mayor Carl Stokes protested his city's underrepresentation on the NAWCHA board. In 1974, when the agency narrowed to five counties, Cuyahoga County's population totaled over 1.6 million residents and held a 3-to-1 ratio over the four counties of Geauga, Lake, Lorain, and Medina. 2024 numbers highlight the drastic population shift, tallying Cuyahoga County's population at 1.2 million, which equated to a 1.5 to 1 ratio over those same four counties. As recently as 2009, NAWACA had a 38-member board and employed weighted voting to balance out the population differential. Due to heated conflicts with board members from Cleveland abusing their weighted votes to sabotage projects in outlying counties the weighted voting system was abandoned in favor of their current method a formula concocted to dictate NAWACA's board seats, which is indecipherable to the average individual. This formula is what grew the board to 48 members and granted Cuyahoga County and Cleveland a 26 to 19 supermajority over the four outlying counties, despite the population ratio shrinking drastically over the years. As we forecast population totals to 2050, Cuyahoga County's population advantage over the four counties exists as a mere 5 to 4 ratio.
Somehow, as the population shrinks in Cuyahoga County, their outsized influence continues to grow, and it comes at a cost. This disparity in power has resulted in the agency's adoption of heavily urban policies that will marginalize, if not cripple, the potential for economic growth, the ability to travel freely, the freedom of local land use policies, and the right to self-determination within our rural counties. This principle was exhibited by the September 2025 NOACA board approval of a climate action plan, which was drafted by the city of Cleveland for the five-county region, where the Cuyahoga County supermajority was in play. Among other targets, this climate action plan looked to prioritize practices that make sense in a metropolitan area while placing the agriculture, county roads, and freedoms of non-urban areas at risk. I hope my brief explanation provided adequate context to compel this committee to support House Bill 445 as it makes its way through the legislative process. I thank you for your time and attention this morning. Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions from members of the committee? Representative Lawson-Roll.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for your testimony this morning. I'd like to know, are there any mischievous examples you could share with us that you know of that Morpsey has been involved in?
To the chair, to the member.
As Mr. Claypool mentioned, I'm not well-versed on Morbsey as I am in OWACA. Our focus is, you know, I kind of live this. I started attending public engagement sessions. I earned a role as an alternate on some of the OWACA committees. I attend board meetings. I focus a lot of my energy there. As far as Morpsey goes, I am not aware of an answer for that question, and I would also be willing to get back in contact with this committee for some follow-up on that.
A follow-up? Thank you for that. And I understand, based on your testimony, it sounds like there's frustrations. I just am wondering, are there other instances around the state where there is packing for votes? I just wonder if this is a Northeast Ohio challenge. Are there challenges like this in other parts of the state? And I'm specifically asking about Morpsey.
Through the chair to the member.
Considering the fact that Representative de Villa and his, this bill was introduced with Representative Stewart, who I believe did, His district is represented by Morpsey. I would imagine that they would be similar issues. I'm just assuming, but that's probably why I would venture that those two came together.
Representative Brennan.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for coming in. A couple things. First, can you identify any specific NOACA policy currently in effect that violates state or federal law?
I would say, I'm sorry, through the chair to the member, as it stands now, I do believe that the equity interlaced through a lot of the projects.
It has been at the forefront of the projects. There was the equity committee that has since been disbanded, but it is an integral role in all of their planning. I would say that equity, because of the executive order by President Trump, I think it was labeled anything that was going to be any changes in language were going to be a violation of that executive order. I do believe that there were some changes of language. I think they lengthened from the term equity and called it something different. It doesn't come to my mind. But I would say that until those aspects of NOACA's policies are removed and it is removed as a central focus of those policies, I would say that they are in violation.
Follow-up? Proceed.
Thank you. Were you aware that NOACO receives federal funds from EPA that can only be used for climate action planning? Those dollars couldn't be used for roads and bridges. Are you aware of that?
Through the chair to the member, I am aware of the money that they received through the Inflation Reduction Act
and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. I'm aware that that was intended to do the climate action plan, to do the climate action planning, and they were going to get that money from the EPA. So, yeah, I guess the answer is yes, I am aware that that couldn't be spent on anything else. I'm of the mindset that the majority of the policy that was going to come through those mechanisms, through the Climate Action Plan, is going to benefit the urban-centric nature of Cuyahoga County. What you're talking about is a lot of public transportation. You're talking about a lot of bike lanes. That's stuff that the rural counties don't have the infrastructure for. And should we be forced, which is what the Climate Action Plan was looking to do, should we be forced to implement those kind of policies, it would essentially change the dynamic and change the economic development of our rural counties. It would change our identity. Again, I'm here because I believe in self-determination. I believe in the freedom of choice to live where I want to live. It feels to me that policies that restrict speed limits, that restrict the ability to use natural gas to heat our homes that offer up our rural farms for utility grade solar in order to mitigate the overgrowth and lack of infrastructure inside the city for those mechanisms I do believe that it puts us at risk. So yes, I understand that that money was given to us by the EPA or given to NAWACA by the EPA to conduct the climate action planning process. I don't believe that Medina County should be subject to those policies, and our county commissioners feel the same way. They've expressed this numerous times, that they don't feel that we are listened to, that our farmers aren't listened to, that the plans incorporate us. Again, as I stated in my testimony, the city of Cleveland was the one that led the, took the lead on the climate action plan. and I'm not certain what the city of Cleveland knows about agriculture.
Madam Chair, one follow-up, if I may?
Quickly, please.
Thank you very much. So here's my prediction, which I hope doesn't come true, but I think it will, that if the power is dispersed out of Cuyahoga County to those rural counties, or to our sister counties, to the west, south, and east, that everybody's going to want a bigger slice of the pie, and we're going to end up with gridlock, and nothing's going to get done. Because why would Medina agree to a large project that might be on the Lorain County, Cuyahoga County border? So do you see that as potentially being a problem in the future? is gridlock when you can't get a cobbled together majority of votes from the five counties involved in NOACA?
Through the chair to the member.
What I see as a bigger problem than that is the population movement out of Cuyahoga County to the four outlying counties. There's a reason why people are leaving. If you look at the projections, 2040 takes it to a 5 to 1 ratio. I think it's a 1 million population count in Cuyahoga County to 800,000 amassed from the remaining four. So there's a reason why people are leaving. What I say is we deserve the right to determine our own economic development, to determine the things that keep Medina County the way that it is. I'm less fearful of the things that you mentioned and more fearful that, again, we are being built in Cuyahoga County's image. So that is absolutely a chance that I'm willing to take. Thank you.
Thank you. I have a question. I just want to kind of go back, backtrack just a little bit on the climate action plan, the dollars that are infused from the federal government. Could those dollars also have been used for cleaning up brownfields, flood control, stormwater systems, retrofitting hospitals with energy inefficient mechanisms, or even upgrading the grid? I mean, are those not also viable options of those federal dollars? And maybe you don't know. I'm just kind of asking in generalization. Chair, I probably outside of the NOACA board,
probably more than some of the people on the NOACA board, I've read through that climate action plan myself. And I can say that there are absolutely priorities that exist within that plan. I believe they had 10 go big strategies and their focus know I their focus is on the the automobile travel That where the focus is And the focus then moves to agriculture in our homes. Some of the things that they're recommending in this climate action plan, just to, I guess, solidify the future that, that the future exists in this realm is. partnering with local colleges to essentially program the next generation of urban planners. We deal with urban planners as we do our comprehensive plans that guide our local zoning. We deal with urban planners all the time. And all of those urban planners end up coming from Cleveland State University's live-in school of urban planning. And so I would say that, you know, that is scary to me for what the future holds. But, yeah, when you look at the plan, like I said, agriculture is at the forefront. You have the automobiles at the forefront. You have the natural gas in our homes, the way that we heat our homes. I think it was maybe not the comprehensive climate action plan, but the preliminary climate action plan. The NAWACA board, our transportation board, had a point in the preliminary climate action plan to adjust the diets of the residents within the five-county region. That was one of their priority goals. Okay. So, yeah, hospitals are, you know, keeping hospitals sustained is fantastic. Shoring up the grid as we electrify everything under the sun, yeah, that should absolutely be prioritized, right, with reliable energy. I attended a NAWCHA workshop back in November of 2023 where they brought in an organization called ICLEI, who is a United Nations-affiliated organization. And I say that because NAWCHA doesn't really draft its own policies. They're inspired and they're guided by organizations like ICLEI. They're guided by the American Planners Association, and they're guided by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. policy. That is where they get these directives from. So as they come and they institute it, they have workshops. I attended this as probably the only opponent there to these plans, but I wanted to listen. Thank you. If you could just keep it specific to the question. Thank you.
We have more questions. Obviously, I've got a lot to say about the matter. And I appreciate that. Representative Stevens, you had a question as well?
Yes, thank you. So I'm looking through this bill, and having actually served as an MPO chairman back in the day for Kiowa down as far away from NOAC as you can probably get and still be in Ohio, we had the similar rivalries. We actually had three states coming together. So we had Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia, hence the name Kiowa. And it was interesting that dynamic as we tried to deal with that. And that was one of the concerns with this bill coming through originally is we actually got along pretty well and were able to do a lot of powerful things. One of the things I have seen coming to the state and actually representing three other counties So Lawrence County my county is in the MPO Gallia and Jackson counties are not in the MPO So they were at the mercy of ODOT, District 9, which has 12 or however many counties, for any kind of planning. And one of the things we did a few years ago is we used the RTPOs and funded the Rural transportation planning organizations and funded them through the transportation budget. And it's really made a difference in that regard. So I say that to say having these organizations are important from a regional standpoint, especially if you have Interstate 71 coming through, and in our case, U.S. 35 and 32, of those kind of things. Dictating the board is what this bill pretty much does. What will it do? And I noticed your comment talking about the change in population. How will this bill be, if it were put into effect, what would be the impact of it 10 years from now or from a population standpoint? Is there a measuring thing or does it lock everything
Through the chair to the member, I would say that if you look at the 2050 population forecast, it does start to even out.
I believe your question is, how does that change the structure? How will the structure change with that?
If I may, Chair, just how will it, the way this bill, if the bill is implemented and these population anticipated changes,
how will that change the membership over time, or will it stay stagnant the way this bill has it written?
Through the Chair to the member, I believe that will have to be a discussion that's made at that point,
whether you see the formula that's provided by NAWACA to dictate the board representation. It's quite interesting. Maybe they'll come up with a new formula at that point. But what I see is, again, people are leaving Cuyahoga County, and if you look at the shift in demographics, they're coming to the rural counties that are in our region as well, and there's a reason why they're doing that. So I believe that we should be ready as those populations shift, and maybe that will lead to more cooperation. Thank you.
Follow-up? That's good.
Madam Chair, I just want to address your question from before with an example, if I may. You had asked about the Climate Action Plan.
I do know that there was an example of a very large brownfield grant that Lake County won that they would not have received had it not been for the Climate Action Plan that the APA provided the funds for. Very good.
Thank you for that information. Okay, thank you very much for being with us today and providing testimony. Thank you very much. And now call forward Jonathan Broadbent. Is Jonathan with us to provide testimony? Seeing he is not, we'll direct our members to the iPad for his testimony. In addition, there are other written testimonies for House Bill 445, and this will conclude our third hearing. And seeing no further business before committee, the House Local Government Committee stands adjourned. Thank you.