----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christine Matacic" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 8:59 PM
Subject: [Fwd: Legislative alert]


> ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
> Subject: Legislative alert
> From:    "Heidi Fought" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date:    Mon, February 14, 2011 7:23 pm
> To:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Legislative Happenings
> HB 3 Estate Tax Repeal - Last week the House Ways & Means Committee heard
> proponent & opponent testimony on the bill.  There were several township
> officials that testified in opposition to the bill.  In committee last
> week, a substitute bill was accepted that moved the repeal date from
> January 1, 2011 to January 1, 2013, which in essence provides two more
> years of the estate tax.  We believe there could be additional amendments,
> if not in the House, then in the Senate.
>
> The OTA will be testifying this Wednesday, February 16, as we had the
> conference last week.  If you have not contacted your legislator on this
> bill, please do so!
>
> Please note, HB 3 is up for a vote in the House Ways & Means Committee
> this Wednesday.  We will try and get a report out late Wednesday or first
> thing Thursday morning.
>
> HB 69 Pension Reform - As noted in my last alert, a bill has been
> introduced relative to pension reform.  The bill incorporates many of the
> changes that the OPERS Board submitted, including a provision that raises
> the monthly minimum.
>
> Attached is the testimony provided by OPERS Chief Executive Officer Chris
> DeRose and a chart that outlines all the changes included in the bill.
>
> On Tuesday, February 22 testimony will be heard in the House Health &
> Aging Subcommittee on Retirement & Pensions.  Testimony will be on all the
> OPERS changes in the bill.  The OTA does plan to testify, specifically on
> the monthly minimum provision.  Should you have any comments on this
> matter, please send them to us by Friday, February 18 so that we can
> include them in our testimony.
>
> SB 5 Collective Bargaining - Last week Senator Jones unveiled a large bill
> overhauling collective bargaining.  We are working on a summary document
> and will get that to you shortly.  Attached is the sponsor testimony
> provided by Sen. Jones.
>
> If your township is interested in testifying on collective bargaining,
> please let us know.  Proponent testimony will be heard tomorrow, February
> 15 and opponent testimony will be heard on Thursday, February 17.  We
> expect more hearings in the coming weeks and we will get you those dates
> in a more timely fashion. (OTA conference delayed this alert)
>
> While Senator Jones' bill is the vehicle at this time, this statement in a
> Statehouse newspaper from Governor Kasich is intriguing.
> "The governor told reporters after the event that if Sen. Shannon Jones'
> (R-Springboro) collective bargaining bill (SB 5) does not come out the way
> he likes, he would include the matter in his budget."
>
> COMMITTEE ACTIVITY THIS WEEK
>
> Tuesday, February 15
>
> House Local Government, (Chr. Blair), Rm. 121, 1:30 pm
> HB 50
>
> ANNEXATION PETITIONS  (Snitchler)  To require that a political subdivision
> owner be included in determining the number of owners needed to sign a
> petition for an expedited type-II annexation.  (1st Hearing-Sponsor)
>
>
> House Finance & Appropriations, (Chr. Amstutz), Rm. 313, 1:30 pm
> HB 2
>
> PERFORMANCE BUDGETING  (Snitchler)  To require performance budgeting by
> most state agencies and to require performance audits of those agencies
> (2nd Hearing-All testimony-Possible amendments & vote)
>
>
> Senate Insurance, Commerce & Labor, (Chr. Bacon), South Hearing Rm., 2:30 
> pm
> SB 5
>
> COLLECTIVE BARGAINING  (Jones)  To formally state the General Assembly's
> intentions to revise the collective bargaining law.  (2nd
> Hearing-Proponent)
>
>
> House Judiciary & Ethics, (Chr. Bubp), Rm. 122, 4 p.m.
> HB 22
>
> ANIMAL LIABILITY  (Bubp)  Regarding the liability of owners of certain
> animals that are running at large.  (3rd Hearing-All testimony-Possible
> amendment, substitute & vote)
>
>
> Wednesday, February 16
>
> House Ways & Means, (Chr. Stautberg), Rm. 114, 3:30 p.m.
> HB 3
>
> ESTATE TAX  (Grossman)  To repeal the estate tax for the estates of
> individuals dying on or after January 1, 2011.  (4th Hearing-All
> testimony-Possible vote)
>
>
> House Transportation, Public Safety & Homeland Security, (Chr. Combs), Rm.
> 122, 4 pm
> HB 40
>
> TURNPIKE COMMISSION  (Damschroder)  To make the Ohio Turnpike Commission
> responsible for major maintenance and repair and replacement of grade
> separations at intersections of any turnpike project with county and
> township roads.  (2nd Hearing-Proponent)
>
>
> Thursday, February 17
>
> Senate Insurance, Commerce & Labor, (Chr. Bacon), South Hearing Rm., 10 am
> SB 5
>
> COLLECTIVE BARGAINING  (Jones)  To formally state the General Assembly's
> intentions to revise the collective bargaining law.  (3rd
> Hearing-Opponent)
>
>
> Tuesday, February 22
>
> House Health: Pension Reform Sub., (Chr. Schuring), Rm. 018, 7 pm
> HB 69
>
> PENSION SYSTEMS  (Wachtmann)  Regarding the state retirement systems.
> (All testimony on PERS, STRS & SERS)
>
>
> Talking Points
> Last week at the conference, we provided talking points on three subjects:
> Estate Tax, Local Government in 21st Century, and LGF.  These talking
> points are attached for your use with your legislators.
>
> We will provide additional talking points on other subjects as the need
> arises.
>
>
> Meetings
> Over the last two weeks, the OTA has met with numerous legislators, Tax
> Commissioner Testa and OBM Director Keen.
>
> The recurring theme in these meetings is that the state has no money and
> that everyone is going to feel pain.  Additionally, we are routinely asked
> for mandates that can be relieved or ways to alter service delivery to
> save money.
>
> What does this mean for townships? Well expect revenue from the state to
> be lower this budget.  While the OTA (and we urge you to, as well!)
> continues to argue that townships have no other means to make up lost
> revenue and that townships are providing critical services at an already
> efficient cost, the fact of the matter is that there is an $8 billion hole
> to fill.
>
> We urge you to continue to send us ideas that we can submit to the
> Administration and the General Assembly that would relieve mandates and
> provide alternatives to help you deliver efficient and effective services.
>
>
> Article on 1099 Repeal in Congress
> House Takes Center Stage in Effort to Repeal Overhaul's 1099 Provision
> By Emily Ethridge, CQ Staff
>
> All eyes are on the House as it begins the process of repealing a business
> tax reporting requirement in the health care law after the Senate took a
> big step toward repeal last week.  While proponents of the House measure
> (HR 4) boast leaders' support and 263 cosponsors, they lack something that
> could be crucial to Senate backing: a $19.2 billion offset. But with the
> first hearing on the issue Wednesday - and floor action likely pushed back
> until March - participants say there is plenty of time for a deal.
>
> Lawmakers, who have been inundated with complaints from the business
> community, are eager to repeal the requirement before it takes effect in
> 2012. And President Obama continues to mention it as one part of the law
> (PL 111-148, PL 111-152) that he wants to fix.
>
> "As I said in the State of the Union, I want to correct a flaw that has
> placed an unnecessary bookkeeping burden on small businesses, and I
> appreciate the Chamber's help in doing that," Obama said Monday addressing
> the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
>
> An aide to bill sponsor Dan Lungren, R-Calif., said Lungren plans to keep
> his bill as is for now, simply striking the requirement in the health care
> law that businesses file a 1099 form with the IRS for every vendor they
> pay more than $600 in a year.  But the Senate has signaled it will accept
> only a repeal measure that replaces the $19.2 billion the provision was
> estimated to bring in over 10 years. That chamber last week adopted,
> 81-17, repeal language that would rescind $44 billion in unobligated
> discretionary funds to make up for the lost revenue. It was introduced as
> an amendment to a reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration
> (S 223).
>
> It took senators several attempts to find an offset that won sufficient
> bipartisan support, and proposals that did not include offsets failed last
> year.  Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., who has led repeal efforts, plans to
> work with House members and has told them the specific offset is secondary
> to repealing the provision, said spokesman Steve Wymer.  Wymer said there
> is "ample room for compromise" and that Johanns would accept any offset
> "that doesn't raise taxes or the deficit." He added that any differences
> between House-passed and Senate-passed measures could be worked out in a
> conference committee.
>
> Lungren's measure does not include an offset because he wanted to measure
> lawmakers' support for repealing the requirement, said aide Alex Snyder.
> Republicans wanted more evidence that the requirement would bring in $19
> billion in tax revenue by forcing the disclosure of additional business
> spending, Snyder said.
>
> The estimate came from the Joint Committee on Taxation, a bipartisan
> congressional panel that looks at tax issues. "To come up with a dollar
> amount as they did for the offset, you'd have to presume that virtually
> every small-business owner is a flagrant tax violator," Snyder said.
>
> The House Small Business Committee will hold the first hearing on the bill
> Wednesday, and Johanns said he expected both a hearing and a markup before
> a repeal bill comes to the House floor, likely in March.
>
> A version of this article appeared in the Feb. 8, 2011 print issue of CQ
> Today
>
>
> NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission is for the use of the named
> individual or entity to which it is directed and may contain information
> that is privileged or confidential. It is not to be transmitted to or
> received by anyone other than the named addressee (or a person authorized
> to deliver it to the named addressee). It is not to be copied or forwarded
> to any unauthorized persons. If you have received this electronic mail
> transmission in error, delete it from your system without copying or
> forwarding it, and notify the sender of the error by replying via e-mail
> or by calling the Ohio Township Association at (614) 863-0045 so that our
> address record can be corrected.
>
>
>