April 14, 2026 · Workforce Development Committee · 6,243 words · 7 speakers · 102 segments
Senate Workforce and Development Committee will come to order. Clerk, please call the roll. Chair Taylor. Chair Reynolds. Here. Senator McClure. Here. Senator Huffman. Check in. Senator Lang. Here. We have a quorum, so we'll proceed as a full committee. Members, please review the minutes on your iPads for March 24th meeting. Are there any additions or deletions? Without objection, the minutes will be approved. Hearing no objection, the minutes are approved. We're going to shift the agenda a little bit in the first order of business to call Senate Bill 331 for its third hearing. And I will begin by recognizing Senator Blackshear for a motion.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to amend Senate Bill 331 with Amendment 2136-1.
The amendment is ordered. Please explain it.
Yes. We had some feedback from OPERS that including tips to count towards retirement contributions would be burdensome, both for public employers and their office. So we decided to remove this provision. We also are removing the provision that requires public employers to pay employees the regular compensation customarily paid to public hospitality employees working in similar roles. We got some feedback that this language was overly vague and could lead to confusion around what public employers must pay their employees. I also want to clarify that this bill still requires public employers to pay employees at least minimum wage, regardless of whether or not they would be tipped under this bill. As we heard from some of the local governments that came to testify a couple weeks ago, many of them do not plan on lowering their wages as a result of their employees being able to accept tips. In many cases, they are hoping that allowing tips will increase take-home wages for employees and make local governments more competitive when hiring workers.
Thank you, Senator Blackshear. Are there any objections to the amendment? Hearing none, the amendment is approved, becomes part of the bill. Please note on your iPads, members, there is interested party testimony from the Ohio Municipal League. This will stand as the third hearing on Senate Bill 331. The next order of visits is to call Sub-House Bill 292 for its first hearing. We'll hear sponsored testimony from Representative Matthews and Santucci. Welcome, gentlemen. You may proceed.
Thank you, Chairman. Thanks for having us today. Chair Kaler, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Ingram, and members of the Senate Workforce Development Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsored testimony on House Bill 292 to establish the Ohio Defense Commission. The establishment of this commission will provide an avenue to promote and strengthen the defense industry here in the state of Ohio. The commission will be composed of members of the General Assembly along with representatives from the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Jobs Ohio, industries that support the military, and the governor's office. The work of the commission will include administering the defense industry expansion program under section 122.981 of the revised code, administering and approving expenditures from the Ohio Defense Fund, studying and developing strategies to promote the defense industry in Ohio, recruiting international businesses to invest in the state for defense industry purposes, and promoting research, development, and manufacturing of technology to counter unmanned aerial vehicle systems in the state. The commission will serve as a catalyst for solidifying and expanding Ohio's already strong defense industry, which plays a vital role in both national security and the state's economic vitality. Currently, the industrial base supporting Ohio's federal and military installations generates approximately $69 billion in total economic activity, accounting for nearly 6% of the state's economy. The establishment of this commission will help maximize Ohio's competitive advantages in innovation, manufacturing, and workforce development. By fostering a more agile and future-ready defense ecosystem, the commission will ensure Ohio remains at the forefront of emergent defense technologies and global investment opportunities. Chair Kaler, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Ingram, and members of the Senate Workforce Development Committee, thank you again for giving me the opportunity to provide sponsored testimony on House Bill 292. I will kick it over to joint sponsor Rep. Matthews.
Thank you, Representative Santucci, Chair, Ranking Member. I'd like to just skip over my testimony. I know we've already had sponsor, I believe, with companion legislation in this committee before, I just wanted to highlight some of the, I won't say friction points, but maybe the questions I heard from the last committee. One being the structure, having 18 total members, 11 being voting. I can go down that list if needed, if you do not have it in front of you. The idea of that, though, is to have representation from across the state. Every region will have a voice on this. Me being from Northwest Ohio, people typically don't think of Northwest Ohio being a defense and emerging tech bastion. but there are companies up there that are looking to expand. One of the goals of this is not, and we've said this throughout the process, is we love having Andrel here. We don't want to just attract the next Andrel. We want to build the next Andrel here from Ohio companies and Ohio citizens. Representation from Jobs, Ohio, Ohio Chamber of Commerce, and you may see one in there that you might scratch your head on, and that's the biotech industry. One of the people I think would be a great addition to this would be the Ohio life sciences. When you look at defense and when we talk about defense, really you don't need to talk about bullets and guns anymore. It's the F-15, it's the F-35, the F-22, but also biotech and medtech. That's where the industry is going. When we look at federal spending, the current administration aiming to have an increase of $1.5 trillion in a defense budget maybe the next couple of years. Medtech, biotech, pharma tech, any type of tech is really going through the defense type of lens right now. in the economy. Next is the funding apparatus to this. You may see that it is pulling the interest rate off of Israel bonds. That, kind of speaking to the Israel bond itself and why we invest that in the state, and Representative Santucci and I are working on another bill that is dealing with state investment portfolio investment options. The reason why the state of Ohio invests in Israel bonds is they provide a very competitive rate. So when you look on that, most of the bonds coming maturity are between 4.5% and 5%. So we equate that to about $10 million a year going into the defense fund. Speaking with the treasurer's office, how that would actually look procedurally, OBM reports all the interest gain, if you will, off of our investments quarterly. How that looks on the ledger is it would just show that Ohio is not seeing as much of a return on our investment. There's no loss. It's just showing that $10 million getting put into this defense fund, which that would be actioned by between OBM and the treasurer's office. And lastly, you may ask, how does it look in application and where is the really driver in economic development in this? One of the ways that we're being innovative here in the state is SCIF space. If you're not familiar with SCIF space, it's Secured Compartmental Information Facilities, which is classified facilities. So let's imagine if this room was a SCIF, there'd be 17-inch concrete walls, none of us would have phones in here, and we could be talking about sensitive materials that, let's say, the Department of War is deliberating. How that works is new emerging technologies the military is very interested in, NASA, they need that space to develop this technology so our adversaries just don't know about it. When we look at SCIF space with private sector access, it's taken up like that, and it really looks like an industry driver, but also the broadness of what defense is right now. I'm excited if this bill passes, will the committee, the broadness of defense. I think it's going to be highlighted in how crucial it is, not just for our state, but our nation. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you for your testimony. And not to correct you, but I worked in a skiff for a number of years. Sometimes it could be a regular drywall with wire mesh on the inside that's electrified so that nothing passes in or out. Are there any questions from the committee?
Yes, ranking member. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Who now, first of all, maybe remind me who votes and who doesn't vote.
Through the chair, the seven regional appointments, and then the members appointed from the House and the Senate.
So elected and then appointed from the regions. Thank you. And could those same persons who are elected from the regions be that Jobs Ohio person, and then they would have two, for instance, maybe? Is that possible that they'd be on the voting side and not on the non-voting side?
Through the chair, my opinion on that and my understanding is that they could not replicate representation. We just don't want – to me, I think that would be unproductive. I think we should open that up to – you already have a voice on this committee. Let look at other industry leaders or opinion leaders within that committee excuse me within that region Thank you Mr Chair And so then it brings me to right now who would be eligible for this grant now And what would be the purpose Yep Through the chair there a couple companies in my district that I could bring up. One of them being Crow Outfitters, a company that's working with emerging technology with Signal. They would be able to receive grant dollars through this. Another part of this, if you're familiar with tech transfer programs, the universities, NASA, Department of War, Department of Energy, they put out technology that they want pushed forward. There's a lot of return on investment on that. So OFRN, the Ohio Federal Research Network, works in this space. What they do is they pull down tech from, let's say, NASA. A student at Ohio State can work on that. And if they can push that technology forward, NASA will allow them to patent that themselves. So they have themselves a startup or a product that they can already sell. What that student is then able to do is apply for grant funding through the Air Force Research Laboratory, through NASA, through the CIVA programs that require match dollars. And when OFRN invests into this student with this tech, they see a 6-to-1 return on investment within the state of Ohio. So that's another entity or person that could receive funding is through academic institutions. So it's not just current companies or startup companies or companies looking to come to Ohio. It's academic research facilities.
Boa? So, and thank you for that. And so my UC students who just launched the other day would have been eligible. Of course, so they worked on that for 10 years. But they would have been eligible for this grant along with other grants that they received.
Through the chair, absolutely. And I've got another bill I'm working on to speak with that on institutionalizing tech research through the Ohio Tech Institute that would really bring all of this together so that student could go to maybe this tech institute that would have this information. Yes, there is this grant out there through the Ohio Defense and Space Commission that you are eligible for. And if you need a matching grant, we're willing to write a letter of recommendation with this, let's say, $5,000 to pull down another $50,000.
Senator Lange.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Matthews, Rep. Santucci, thank you for bringing this bill forward. I think this makes a lot of sense. I know in my district alone how big this industry is, the economic impact it has, the jobs it creates, the taxes it generates. I think I have a slight concern around the bill, and I'd like to understand how you came up with the makeup for the board. As I see it, there are 11 what I'll call government or government agency appointees and seven from the private sector. I don't think seven from the private sector is nearly enough. You've got big guys, you've got little guys. The industry is so diverse, you're only going to get a small portion of the industry if you limit it to just seven based on regions. So I'm wondering why you came up with the 11 versus seven. I would feel much more comfortable if the private sector had a much bigger say-so and bigger influence than the government. I feel a little better in that if I understand the voting members are six of the government entities and seven from the private sector. But even then, I would like to see the private sector steering this, not us thinking we know what's best. How did you come up with those numbers, and would you be open to modifying them?
Through the chair, I totally agree. When we first stabbed at what should the structure look like, we wanted to have a heavy private sector influence on this committee. What we were seeing through our legal team was some majority issues if there were too many private sector voices on a government fund. I am definitely open to exploring that. When we came to this 11, we looked at having those seven regionals on there, and then the other four being the elected representatives still within that district. I hate to say it, but I don't view myself as a politician still, but being a politician potentially sitting on this board, at least having the voice of the people within that district. The other would have no say in how the funds would actually be administered. or they could advise on, hey, there's potentially a business opportunity coming in northeast Ohio. We have, and this is permissive because I know Congress is super busy, congressmen can send their aides or they could come and also give us an insight on where D.C. is going. That's why we also have the adjutant general. And this is what I really like about this commission is other states, they have similar things, but they're not focused on private but also the installation. This focuses on both, and that's why we have the adjutant general on this and chamber of commerce and with a governor's appointment. I am very open to that. I hear your concern. Why we came to this conclusion was more of some legal issues on how these commissions can be structured when they're administering a fund.
Can I follow up?
May I address your senator? Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Rep. Matthews, and thank you, Senator Lang, for your question. I, too, just kind of want to take what Rep. Matthews said and maybe simplify it just a little bit more. The vision for this commission is to be a conduit and a method of communication. And so, you know, if we asked every private sector company, hey, would you like to be a part of this commission, they're going to say, yeah, I want to be a part of this commission. So ballooning the commission's membership may not be the best route for productivity. So our vision originally when crafting this was there are lots of experts and lots of organizations that are doing some of this work already. They're collaborating. They're working together. Those are the types of people we're going to want sitting on this commission so that they can also be a conduit. they can come to the commission meeting and take back to all of their partners, like Chamber of Commerce's and Jobs Ohio's included on this. So that covers our economic development, you know, folks. We tried to be very intentional about who was on this commission. I appreciate your question about the weight maybe of the membership. But the vision is, you know, there's lots of really great community nonprofit organizations that are already collaborating. those are the folks that we want to try to get on this commission so that we can just expand networks and resources and different opportunities. And that was kind of the vision to answer your question, maybe a little more directly.
Follow up. Go ahead. Thank you, Senator.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Not a follow up, just a general statement. I trust the private sector to put us on the right path driven by the profit motive, a pure and noble motive, far greater than I trust the government sector to put us on the right track. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Senator Huffman?
Thank you for being here. I guess my question is kind of the bigger picture, because we have the Department of Development, we have Jobs Ohio that distributes billions of dollars a year. Why do we want to expand government and make government bigger and another organization that's going to make decisions on giving money out rather than let's look within those two extremely large departments on something, because Jobs Ohio has an emphasis on the military and things like that. So why do we want bigger government?
Great question. Through the chair. When you go across Ohio and you talk to these individual small to medium-sized defense manufacturers, emerging tech companies, a lot of grant opportunities afforded through Department of Development or Jobs Ohio, they don't see because of the mission set of Jobs Ohio. This addresses a potential gap in that, I would say, funding stream. And looking at the defense industry, I believe it definitely is private sector focused. It's definitely driven by someone wanting to make a profit, but also there is some government involved in this. So a lot of the products that are being created are driven by the demand of the Department of War, Department of Energy, NASA. So with this commission and what we're seeing other states doing to remain competitive with attracting emerging tech companies, essentially what they are, they're developing commissions like that because they're seeing these gaps. We want to be the most military-friendly state in the nation. We also want to be the most emerging company, in my opinion, of, excuse me, state, of attracting these type of companies that create great jobs, good-paying jobs. And at the end of the day, I think they're the right type of jobs for our state. And this is the, I believe this is the solution to that.
Well, again, it just seems like duplicative and bigger government. So you say that the Israel bonds is about $10 million that they would do this. Doesn't that pair in comparison to the billions that are, I mean, if I'm looking for grants and stuff, do I not look at Jobs Ohio that gives out billions and the Department of Development gives out billions and you know million 10 million could go it not much could go to if we going to target it for something reduce taxes reduce property tax reduce the personal income tax going forward rather than spending the money that way.
Yeah, through the chair, one, I don't think the property tax would be impacted by the $10 million here at the state of Ohio because that's collected locally, but also the idea that there are super sectors, that every state, even globally, people recognize there are super sectors that are moving at this time. Defense, emerging tech being a super sector, I believe that is worth highlighting in the state of Ohio, specifically space. So that is, I guess, when we look strategically, not speaking of any industries that I believe are dying, but we're not creating a commission that's going to focus on industries that are dying. We're focusing where we're seeing tremendous growth across the state of Ohio. And I do believe that the state of Ohio should be a conduit for that, and we should signal not just to Department of War, Army, Navy, NASA, but we should signal to the globe and the private sector that, Ohio, we want you here, and we are willing to come to the table.
Do you have anything? I think that's great. Thank you.
Question? Ranking member.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to piggyback on Senator Huffman's question in regard to who loses with the $10 million. because it's going somewhere right now. Who doesn't get it?
Through the chair, I don't want this to sound like an out. I think it's just too broad of a question. When we report the interest gain off of all of our investment portfolio for the state treasurer's office, that kind of goes into a big pot. We don't really see, I won't say a line item, but we don't see really bond interests or any type of specific interest gain off of any type of investment go to a specific fund. This is, I would say, a fairly, in my opinion, an innovative way of funding a project and a new commission.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. What you've done is you've taken $10 million out of the pot. And no matter what the pot is funding, it's funding something already. So to Senator Huffman's question, do we actually need that $10 million separate from what is already being expended because we spend a lot? Ohio is a very, very military-friendly state. Very.
Through the chair. So to be clear, we are not losing any money on this. So it's like if I had $10 and I invested $10, we are just not seeing the interest made off of that $10. That $10 is still in the state of Ohio's treasurer's custodial fund. So we're not saying here's $10 million of taxpayer dollars, go through this other fund, and we're not seeing it. We're saying here's $10 million that we invest already. The interest made it off of that. That's what we're putting into this fund. So I just want to be clear that we're not just throwing – we're not appropriating funds here. We're picking off funds that we are pulling off of a gain off of an investment.
Right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I understand that, that the dollars are coming off of the return at 4.5 or 5, which you just indicated, which gets us to the $10 million. But it still pulls that, which was going back into the pot, out of the pot. So it's not like I don't understand it. It's like I'm just trying to ask, what doesn't it fund? And you could say anything, but to the point, we were talking about we've cut Medicaid, we've cut school lunches, we've got a whole lot of things that we're going to have to cut, and we are cutting. And so why put this in that particular pot, especially if, depending on we're investing, I mean, we might as well be Shark Tank.
Through the chair, I guess not to open up a can of worms here, but again, I believe this is a super sector, and I would love to see private sector drive the solutions to some of the issues that we alluded to with Medicaid, bringing a more diverse, brighter workforce here when we talk about government spending. I believe this, in my opinion, is a wise investment when we're looking at super sectors and the type of jobs that we are creating here. long-term jobs, good-paying jobs. So when I'm looking at, if you ask Representative Matthews' opinion, and I think a lot of people across the state and in the House know how we pass this, they would also agree that this is a wise investment. Again, not to say that you don't know the process, just wanting to make it clear just to be on record that this isn't an appropriation of a fund. We are not just throwing money out the window. There is an investment. And again, where is that getting spent? Well, it could be just going right back into the investment portfolio of the state treasurer's office to be invested into another type of bond.
Senator Blackshear.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, too, for your testimony. Just a quick question. You said that this money is coming from investments. So I guess my question is, let's just say if these investments fluctuate or are reduced, how would that impact the sustainability of this program?
That's a great question. It would also fluctuate since it's based on that. So we're not asking for a guaranteed. We came up to about $10 million. There's probably some change, negative or positive, on that. But it would fluctuate with how much interest we would make off of that. And again, that would go back to the commission's fiduciary responsibility to this, but also there is another check on this, right? So it's not just this commission that's saying we're going to release this funds to some company in the Dayton area, right? This is also going to go before the controlling board before it gets released. So there is another check on these funds.
Paula? No?
Question.
Senator Huffman. Doesn't this open up to just keep picking up pieces of funds? We'll take the interest off this one and we'll put it to this project and the interest to this one to another project. Doesn't that lead to just picking off the general revenue fund is not sustainable? I mean, that's an exaggeration, but I mean, certainly, you know, you start opening it up, people are going to come and see their little piece of pie and move it to where they think it's best.
Through the chair, I just, I don't know. I don't really know how to speak to that potentially. I think that is our job, though, as legislatures and committees like this, that if people start coming to you all saying we want 100% of bonds that we are issuing from the state treasurer's office, that we all here would say that's not a good investment. So I would say that falls on us to also be a check on that ultimately. I don't know if that answers your question correctly.
Any other questions?
I just had a question. The sub-House Bill 292, is it identical to SB 362, or is it identical to the original introduced version of 292?
Through the chair, it is identical to the current version of the Senate companion bill.
Okay, thank you. And then I did notice that you had absolutely no opposition to it in the House as far as testimony. You had 10 folks vote against it. I don't want you to talk bad about your own bill, but is there a reason that happened?
Through the chair. Just so we know. Yep. Through the chair, from what I had, from the members on the opposite of the aisle that contacted me before the vote, they said they just believe that the state of Ohio should totally decouple from Israel bonds. So it wasn't necessarily the concept. They liked the concept. It was the Israel bonds, which we are working on another bill that also, I think, opens that up.
Okay. Thank you very much. Just wanted that for public knowledge. Any other questions?
Thank you very much. Thank you all. I appreciate it. Thank you. This will conclude the first testimony on sub-House Bill 292. Next order of business is House Bill 268 for his third hearing. We'll hear an interested party testimony from Alex Serto. How do I do on your name? Thank you.
Go ahead. Chair Kaler, Vice Chair Reynolds, and Ranking Member Ingram, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding House Bill 268. My name is Alex Serto, and I am a Senior Legal Fellow at the Buckeye Institute, an independent research and educational institution whose mission is to advance free market public policy in the states. Criminal justice policy has a broad reach, affecting public safety, fiscal responsibility, and economic growth. For more than a decade, the General Assembly has shown its commitment to prudent, common-sense criminal justice policies by passing the Certificate of Qualification for Housing Program, the nation's first and best mens rea reform, civil asset forfeiture reforms, the Targeted Community Alternatives to Prison Program, an expansion of intervention in lieu of conviction eligibility, and Ohio's Certificate of Qualification for Employment Program. Ohio exemplifies its laudable interest in public safety by making it easier for those who have paid their debt to society to find employment housing and education House Bill 268 takes another modest but meaningful step in the right direction by allowing formerly incarcerated felons to obtain certificates of qualification for employment one year after the release from incarceration rather than waiting until the end of all post-release supervision. Academic studies show that post-release employment most accurately predicts recidivism, which which means that job-related post- and pre-release policies directly affect public safety. By letting released felons obtain CQEs sooner, House Bill 268 will reduce the likelihood of recidivism by promoting stable employment, a point the General Assembly recognized when it first created the now successful CQE program. A CQE reassures prospective employers and mitigates their risks by providing liability coverage for every CQE holder they hire. But a CQE is not a blank check for bad actors. Courts only grant a CQE petition after reviewing the relevant evidence and determining that the applicant does not pose an unreasonable risk to the public or to any specific individual. And although CQEs remove automatic bars to employment, petitioners must still be qualified for employment or the occupational licensing that they seek. Thus, CQE recipients will be thoroughly vetted before being hired. Helping those with a criminal history is not always easy, but House Bill 268 can make it easier by removing unnecessary government burdens that only make it harder for the formerly incarcerated to get their lives and careers back on track. Thank you for your time, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you for your testimony. Looks like it's just you and I. Do you have any questions?
No, pretty good for me.
Thank you for your testimony. This will stand as the third hearing on House Bill 268. The next order of business is to call Senate Bill 54 for its fourth hearing. We'll have testimony from Jason Eberhard. Jason, welcome to committee.
Good morning. Good morning. My name is Jason Eberhard. I'm out of Asheville, Ohio. I own and operate Eberhard Heating and Cooling, LLC, and I support Senate Bill 54. I see poor quality work in customers' homes all the time, This past winter, I responded to a furnace issue and found it that had not been properly converted from LP or from natural gas to LP, allowing too much gas into the system, creating a serious safety risk. That's not just bad work. That's dangerous. Homeowners end up paying twice, once for the original job and again to fix it, and sometimes they don't even realize they're at risk that they're living with. Senate Bill 54 matters because it certifies residential contractors and sets the standard. It helps prevent unqualified individuals from doing unsafe work and holds people accountable. This is about safety, accountability, and protecting Ohio homeowners. I urge you to support Senate Bill 54. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Everhart. Question? Go ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for your testimony. So the person who obviously was transferring the system didn't know what they were doing.
Correct.
So the question becomes the certification would verify that that person has passed some sort of standard, et cetera, et cetera, and therefore would not be able to work on it unless they show you their card.
Correct. It says that they're there.
Okay. Okay, I'm good. Thank you. Just a question. You are a licensed heating and cooling?
I am not, no.
You're not?
I'm an HVAC service guy.
Okay.
I run service.
Okay. So you would, under this, if this bill passed, you would be one of the people applying for certification?
That's correct, yes.
Okay. But it is voluntary, which means no one's required to do this.
Correct.
And it doesn't prevent them from doing – if you decide not to get certified, it won't prevent you from continuing your job, doing what you're doing.
That's correct. But, I mean, I would definitely – I've been waiting on this for the last six, seven years to pass.
Okay.
So I'm definitely on board with getting the license and anything that comes with the licensure.
The certification.
Certification.
And can I ask why you don't go, as a person that runs a heating and cooling LLC, why you don't get licensed as an HVAC installer?
Currently, it's commercial. From my understanding, it's a straight commercial license.
It has nothing to do with residential.
I've actually taken the test a couple times for commercial, but it has stuff on there that I have never seen before because it has to do with commercial work.
Okay.
It has nothing to do with residential.
Okay.
Thank you.
Any question?
We appreciate your testimony. Thank you for being here. Have a good day. Next, I'll call up Stephen Franklin. Welcome to the committee, sir.
Good morning. Good morning, Senator Koehler and members of the committee. My name is Steve Franklin. I'm the owner of Franklin Mechanical Services here in Columbus, Ohio. I'm here to testify to support Senate Bill 54. I have been in HVAC for 24 years. I've operated my business since 2012. Despite my extensive experience, I am currently unable to obtain licensure due to specific requirements of the Ohio HVAC exam. As the owner of a service-only business, the current criteria for exam approval present a significant hardship, as my business structure makes it difficult to meet the technical documentation requirements, despite my background in installation. This barrier significantly hinders my ability to grow my company and better serve my community. I believe Senate Bill 54 provides a necessary path forward for experienced professionals in my position. I respectfully urge you to approve this legislation to support the growth of small businesses and skilled tradespeople across Ohio.
Thank you for your testimony.
Question? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to ask, so then what will the, because the certificate is optional, you come to the door and you say, oh, I've got a card that shows that I've got the certification. Joe Blow comes to the door and he says, I don't have that little card, but I do the same work. what marketing or what goes to the consumer that we're going to be certain that it makes a difference to them
well that was show that I went through the channels too that and I've done my schooling all my channels to prove that I'm certified because I did everything to get the certification as well as I'll be able to pull a permit on the job and I can have an inspector come out and inspect my work, and the inspector can say, give the green light sand that it's installed properly if there's an installation that's needed.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I guess maybe because right now when you do work without the certification, does the inspector come anyway?
Not for service work.
Okay.
Just for installation.
Just for installation.
Okay, great.
All right. Are you saying that there is a provision in this bill that requires someone to come out and inspect work if you get the certification?
No, sir.
Okay. And just help me understand, you talk about the current criteria for the exam approval presents a significant hardship. Just explain a little bit more what you're saying there. Is there a reason you're not taking the Ohio HVAC exam?
Well, that's for commercial work. There's none for residential. And then they require you to have five years of experience installing equipment with permits. But if you do service only and you don't install equipment because you can't pull a permit to do it, you have to pass on that job and you have to basically turn that money over for that job to another contractor. you have to skip on it because rightfully you have to pull a permit to get it inspected to show that it's done the correct way.
So certification will allow you to pull a permit? No.
Certification, from my understanding, certification will allow you to be able to pull a permit, to pull a permit to have the inspector come out, inspect it, and give you the green light that everything is done correctly.
Thank you very much. Any other questions?
Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. I will point to the iPads that have written testimony from an Angel Still and a Matt Wolpert. This will stand as the fourth hearing on Senate Bill 54. With no further business before the committee, we're adjourned.