legislation
Governor DeWine signed H.B. 96, the two-year state operating budget, into law on June 30. Over the last few months, we have reported on provisions in the biennial budget related to agriculture. In this week’s installment, we will examine the changes the bill makes to what is permissible in the practice of veterinary medicine in the state of Ohio.
In the beginning of June, we reported on S.B. 60, which would allow veterinarians to practice telehealth in Ohio. You can find our previous post here. Instead of being passed as a stand-alone bill, the provisions about veterinary telehealth were included in the state operating budget, H.B. 96. Looking broadly at the provisions included in H.B. 96, there are four main changes to veterinary law. The language in the budget bill:
- Allows the use of veterinary telehealth services;
- Allows a veterinary-client-patient relationship (VCPR) to be established via a telehealth visit in some cases;
- Creates special requirements for the use of telehealth services for livestock animals; and
- Allows veterinarians to prescribe medication via telehealth visit with certain exceptions.
Telehealth services for veterinary care permitted
During the Covid-19 pandemic and in the years following, most of us have become familiar with visiting our doctors via telehealth appointments using a computer or smartphone. H.B. 96 allows this appointment method to also be used in veterinary care in the state of Ohio.
Under the budget bill, a licensed veterinarian may conduct the practice of veterinary medicine via telehealth services if all the following apply:
- The veterinarian obtains the informed consent from the client, including an acknowledgement that the standards of care required by Ohio law equally apply to in-person and telehealth visits. The veterinarian shall maintain documentation of the consent for at least three years after receiving the informed consent.
- The veterinarian provides the client with the veterinarian's name and contact information and secures an alternate means of contacting the client if the telehealth visit is interrupted. Following the telehealth visit, the veterinarian shall make available to the client an electronic or written record of the visit. The electronic or written record shall include the veterinarian's license number.
- Before conducting an evaluation of a patient via a telehealth visit, the veterinarian advises the client of all the following:
- The veterinarian may ultimately recommend an in-person visit with the veterinarian or another licensed veterinarian;
- The veterinarian is prohibited under federal law from prescribing certain drugs or medications based only on a telehealth visit;
- The appointment for a telehealth visit may be terminated at any time.
- A licensed veterinarian may prescribe drugs or medications after establishing a veterinary-client patient relationship via telehealth services within certain parameters and with certain exceptions (see the “Prescribing medication via telehealth visit” heading below).
Once the veterinarian shares all of this information with their client, and if the rules for prescribing drugs are followed, a telehealth veterinary visit is legally permitted in the state of Ohio under the language of H.B. 96.
Changes to veterinary-client-patient relationships
Much like a doctor-patient relationship takes place between a doctor and a person who is their patient, a veterinary-client-patient relationship takes place between a veterinarian, their client (the animal’s owner), and the patient (the animal). According to Ohio law, a VCPR relationship exists when the following conditions have been met:
- A veterinarian assumes responsibility for making clinical judgments regarding the health of a patient and the need for medical treatment, medical services, or both for the patient, and the client has agreed to follow the veterinarian's instructions regarding the patient.
- The veterinarian has sufficient knowledge of the patient to initiate at least a general or preliminary diagnosis of the medical condition of the patient. In order to demonstrate that the veterinarian has sufficient knowledge, the veterinarian must have seen the patient recently, and must be personally acquainted with the keeping and care of the patient by doing any of the following:
- Making medically appropriate and timely visits to the premises where the patient is kept;
- Examining the patient in person; or
- Under the new provisions of H.B. 96, by examining the patient in real time via telehealth.
- The veterinarian is readily available for a follow-up evaluation, or has arranged for emergency coverage, in the event the patient suffers adverse reactions to the treatment regimen, or the treatment regimen fails.
H.B. 96 keeps previous Ohio law concerning the establishment of a VCPR intact, but it also broadens the law by allowing for “sufficient knowledge” of a patient to be gained by a telehealth examination. However, as we will discuss below, this is not the case when it comes to livestock animals.
Telehealth for livestock
Up until now, we have discussed requirements for veterinary telehealth broadly. When a telehealth visit includes a client who raises livestock for human food consumption, the new language is a bit more strict. In the case of livestock, a VCPR must be established in person prior to the use of telehealth services. While a VCPR for non-livestock animals may be established via a telehealth appointment, VCPRs involving livestock must first include that in-person meeting. This means that a veterinarian may not treat or diagnose an injury or illness in a livestock animal using telehealth if the veterinarian has not previously established an in-person VCPR with the patient and client. Once an in-person VCPR is established with respect to the livestock, the veterinarian may subsequently treat the livestock via telehealth appointment.
That being said, the language in H.B. 96 allows veterinarian may give tele-advice to a client raising livestock prior to establishing a VCPR in person. Tele-advice means a veterinarian giving “health information, opinion, or guidance that is not intended to diagnose, treat, issue certificates of veterinary inspection, or issue prognoses of the physical or behavioral illness or injury of an animal.” According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, tele-advice can consist of broad recommendations via phone, text, or internet. Examples include recommendations that animals receive annual wellness checks, or that animals should receive preventive medicine to prevent worms or other pests. Under the new language, a veterinarian may give these kinds of general tele-advice regarding livestock, but they may not specifically treat or diagnose a livestock animal using telehealth without first establishing a VCPR in-person.
Prescribing medication via telehealth visit
Is a veterinarian permitted to prescribe medication for an animal via a telehealth visit under the new language? The answer is yes, but certain rules apply. After a VCPR relationship is established, a veterinarian may issue a prescription lasting up to fourteen days for the patient via tele-health visit. The veterinarian may additionally issue one refill of the medication for up to fourteen days if another tele-health visit with the patient and client occurs. However, for additional refills, the veterinarian must see the patient in person. Remember that for livestock animals, the VCPR must be established in person before a veterinarian may prescribe drugs. Further, a veterinarian may not prescribe a controlled substance (see the list of controlled substances in section 3719.01 of the Ohio Revised Code) to a patient unless a physical examination takes place in person.
With the passage of this language in H.B. 96, Ohio becomes the eighth state to allow the practice of veterinary medicine via telehealth. Other states include Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, New Jersey, Vermont, and Virginia. Proponents of the language cite that it will make veterinary care more accessible in the state, and that it will lessen the stress caused to animals by transporting them to and from a vet’s office H.B. 96 becomes effective on September 30, 2025. To read the budget bill in its entirety, click here.
Tags: Ohio legislation, legislation, Animals, livestock, veterinary telehealth, veterinarians
Comments: 0
Welcome to our third installment in our continuing series on provisions affecting agriculture in the recently passed State Operating Budget, or House Bill 96. Our previous blog posts in this series focused on changes to ag permits and licensing and to pesticide application laws, which you can find here and here. This week, our focus will be on the effects of H.B. 96 on apiaries throughout the state of Ohio.
Adjustments and additions to definitions
Under current Ohio law, an “apiary” is defined as “any place where one or more colonies or nuclei of bees are kept,” and “queen rearing apiaries” are defined as “any apiary in which queen bees are reared for sale or gift.” H.B. 96 changes the definition of “queen rearing apiaries” to “any apiary in which queens are raised or purchased for sale, trade, or gift; or otherwise distributed or used to create, for sale, trade or gift, nucs, packages or colonies.” Thus, the budget bill expands the definition of “queen rearing apiaries” to not only include apiaries where queens are raised for distribution, but also apiaries where queens are purchased for distribution in order to create bee colonies.
H.B. 96 also adds a definition to the law governing apiaries. In the budget bill, “nuc” is defined as a small colony of bees in a hive box to which all of the following applies:
- The hive box contains three to five frames.
- The hive box contains a laying queen bee and the queen’s progeny in egg, larval, pupa, and adult stages.
- The small colony has honey and a viable population sufficient enough to develop into a full-sized economy.
These changes to definitions under the apiary law appear to have been made to increase the number of apiaries ODA has the authority to regulate, as you will see in the next section. The ultimate goal of these changes seems to be for ODA to have more oversight over the health and safety of apiaries in Ohio.
Compliance, registrations, certification
Ohio apiarists should also be aware that H.B. 96 makes changes to compliance requirements under the apiary law. New language in H.B. 96 requires any person engaged in the rearing of queen bees to have a written compliance agreement with ODA. Under the agreement, the person must agree to comply with the requirements stipulated by ODA.
Furthermore, new language states that each person intending to sell, trade, gift, or otherwise distribute queen bees, packaged bees, nucs, or colonies will now be required to request that ODA certify all of a person’s queen rearing apiaries. A certification fee of fifty dollars or another amount specified by ODA in rulemaking is also created. According to the Ohio Legislative Service Commission, the introduction of this $50 fee will bring in approximately $41,000 annually to benefit the Plant Pest Program Fund.
H.B. 96 authorizes ODA to require all queen rearing apiaries to be inspected as specified in rules at least annually, whereas the previous language required inspections once each year with no authority to alter inspection frequency. This change would seemingly give ODA the ability to inspect apiaries more frequently, and as a result, they could keep a better eye on any problems with individual apiaries. Previously, if such an inspection found that there was a serious bee disease or that Africanized honey bees were present, bee owners were subject to certain rules. The new language also includes the finding of bee “pests” to trigger these rules, which appears to give ODA another tool to keep bee populations throughout the state safe. Once disease or pest problem is resolved, ODA can issue an official certificate attesting to this. Producers must include a copy of this certificate with each queen, nuc, or colony they distribute. Such a certificate will expire on May 31st of the following year and may be renewed annually. H.B. 96 also outlaws the distribution of bees, honeycombs, or used beekeeping equipment that contains a serious bee disease or pest.
Ohio law requires any person owning or possessing bees to register with ODA, and H.B. 96 makes some tweaks to this registration process. Under the new language, a person must apply for registration on or before the first day of June each year, or thereafter within thirty days after owning or possessing the bees or moving bees into Ohio from another state. Previously, an owner had ten days to apply for registration, so the new language gives people a bit more time. New language also requires owners to register each of their apiaries, regardless of whether the apiary is located at their place of residence or elsewhere. H.B. 96 also eliminates the five dollar registration fee.
H.B. 96 also gives the director of ODA the power to suspend any apiary registration, certificate, permit, or compliance agreement for cause.
When will these changes become effective?
The budget bill becomes effective on September 30, 2025. The Ohio State Beekeepers Association (OSBA) has been working with ODA throughout the month of July to get more clarity about what the language changes mean for beekeepers, and how regulations will be carried out under the new law. OSBA’s page dedicated to information about H.B. 96 is available here. ODA’s website on apiaries is located here.
As always, H.B. 96 is available in its entirety here. Stay tuned to the Ag Law Blog for more updates on the State Budget and its effect on agriculture.
After months of deliberation, the General Assembly delivered H.B. 96, the two-year state operating budget, to Governor Mike DeWine. Governor DeWine signed the bill into law on June 30, vetoing several provisions. DeWine issued a number of line-item vetoes, and the General Assembly plans to hold a session on July 21 to override the vetoes related to property tax provisions in the bill. There is also a chance that the General Assembly may override additional vetoes unrelated to property tax in the fall. While we will certainly keep an eye on these possible veto overrides, the provisions of the budget bill affecting agriculture remain mostly intact. This is the second in our continuing series of blog posts about the newly passed state operating budget and its implications for agriculture in Ohio. In today’s installment, we will be looking into how H.B. 96 modifies Ohio’s pesticide application statutes.
Pesticide-related licensing, registration, and permitting
If you sell or distribute pesticides, apply pesticides, or hire someone to do so on your farm, H.B. 96 puts some changes in motion that you should be aware of. The first affects distributors of pesticide products. The cost to register each pesticide product they distribute has increased from $150 to $250, with a late fee of $125 if registration renewal is filed after the deadline. Another change affects pesticide businesses. Under the new law, a pesticide business must obtain a license for every location that is owned by the business. Furthermore, a copy of the license must be displayed at each business location.
Turning to pesticide applicators, the examination for those applying to become licensed pesticide applicators was previously free, but the new language creates a $30 examination fee in addition to the existing $30 licensing fee. In another notable change, H.B. 96 increases the amount of time the Ohio Department of Agriculture can suspend any pesticide license, permit, or registration without a hearing from 10 days to 30 days.
New limits for restricted use pesticides
The most significant change in the law is to who may legally apply restricted use pesticides (RUPs). Under H.B. 96, a state or federally listed RUP may only be used by licensed applicators, whether they apply privately or commercially. Previously, if you were a trained serviceperson acting under direct supervision of a commercial pesticide applicator, or immediate family members and subordinate employees acting under the direct supervision of a private applicator, you would have been permitted to apply RUPs. The new language does not permit any “use” of RUPs by anybody other than a licensed applicator. The definition of “using” a RUP includes the following:
- Performing pre-application activities involving mixing and loading the pesticide;
- Applying the pesticide;
- Performing other pesticide-related activities, including transporting or storing pesticide containers that have been opened, cleaning equipment, and disposing of excess pesticides, spray mix, equipment wash waters, pesticide containers, and other pesticide-containing materials.
When does this all become effective?
One question many will have is when the language regarding who may legally use RUPs will actually go into effect. While most legislation becomes effective 90 days after it is signed into law, these changes are very technical and will likely have to go through a lengthy administrative rulemaking process. According to the Ohio Agribusiness Association, the Ohio Department of Agriculture “has committed to several months’ notice to applicators before any changes go into effect.”
We plan to follow the developing regulations on the use of RUPs very closely and will keep you updated when the new provisions of the law become effective. In the meantime, if you’d like to look into H.B. 96 yourself, it is available here. We will be back next week to discuss more agricultural implications in the budget bill!
Tags: Ohio legislation, legislation, pesticide registration, restricted use pesticides, pesticides
Comments: 0
The Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) has issued its decision concerning the nationwide injunction against the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) and its beneficial ownership information (“BOI”) reporting requirements.
On Thursday, January 23, 2025, SCOTUS ruled to allow the Government to enforce the CTA, which requires millions of businesses to file BOI reports. The justices stayed, or lifted, the nationwide injunction that had been blocking the CTA's enforcement. This decision permits the government to proceed with implementing the CTA while its merits are reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which is scheduled to hold oral arguments on March 25.
What does this all mean?
Although this decision lifted the injunction against the CTA, there is another lawsuit that has placed the CTA reporting requirements on hold. See our post on the Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury for more information. As of the time of this publication, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) of the U.S. Department of Treasury has updated their website to confirm that businesses are not currently under any obligation to file BOI reports. Business owners are encouraged to visit the FinCEN website regularly to stay informed about the latest reporting requirements and deadlines.
The push to repeal the CTA goes beyond the court system.
While multiple lawsuits have been filed challenging the constitutionality of the CTA, there has also been legislative activity aimed at repealing it. Representative Warren Davidson and Senator Tommy Tubervillehave reintroduced legislation in their respective chambers of Congress to repeal the CTA. These proposals were introduced in the previous congressional session but did not advance. With the new administration and a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress, it will be interesting to see how these efforts progress.
How do I file a BOI report?
Business owners can still voluntarily complete all BOI reporting by visiting the FinCEN website. There is no cost to file a BOI report. However, if a business engages a tax professional, attorney, or other third party to file a BOI report on its behalf, the business will be responsible for covering any professional fees associated with the preparation and submission of the report.
Reporting companies will need the following information: (1) the reporting company’s legal name, (2) tax identification number, (3) jurisdiction of formation, and (4) current U.S. address. For their beneficial owners, reporting companies will need the following information: (1) full legal name, (2) residential address, (3) a form of identification, which must be either a state issued driver’s license, a state/local/tribe-issued ID, a U.S. passport, or a foreign passport, and (4) an image of the identification used in number (3). See our law bulletin for more details on reporting requirements.
Conclusion.
For now, businesses are not required to file BOI reports with FinCEN. However, should the Government appeal the decision in the Smith case, things could change. As always, we will try our best to keep you informed of the latest developments.
Tags: Supreme Court of the United States, SCOTUS, BOI, CTA, corporate transparency act, beneficial ownership information, BOI Reporting, FinCEN, injunction, stay, legislation, Business, Business Owners, beneficial owners
Comments: 0
The holiday season isn't distracting the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee from considering three legislative proposals concerning scenic rivers, small beer brewers, and state agriculture day designations. On December 12, the committee will hear testimony on all three bills. Here’s a summary of the proposals.
S.B. 156 - Designation of wild, scenic, and recreational rivers. Senators Bill Reineke (R-Tiffin) and Bob Hackett (R-London) introduced this legislation to revise portions of the Ohio Scenic Rivers Program that were raising concerns from private property owners. The committee will hold its fourth hearing on the bill on December 12. The proposal makes the following changes to the Ohio Scenic River Law:
- Clarifies that the designation of a Wild, Scenic or Recreational River does not grant authority to oversee private activities on private property or enter private land within the river area to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), which administers the program.
- States that the agency has management and oversight of lands along a designated river only for those lands the state owns.
- Requires ODNR to adopt rules to govern the use, visitation, and protection of scenic river lands and to establish facilities and improvements within the areas necessary for visitation, use, restoration, and protection of the lands.
- Clarifies that certain public entities must obtain approval from the ODNR Director to perform certain construction activities within 1,000 feet of a wild, scenic, or recreational river.
- Extends the public comment period following the announcement of intent to designate a new river from 30 days to 60 days.
S.B. 138 – Alcohol Franchise Law exemption for small brewers. This bill introduced by Senator Andrew Brenner (R-Delaware) aims to help small brewers who annually manufacture less than 250,000 barrels (7.75 million gallons) of beer. The bill exempts small brewers from Ohio’s Alcohol Franchise Law, which requires a beer or wine manufacturer to enter into a franchise agreement with a distributor and lays out requirements for the franchise agreement. The exemption would allow small brewers to establish agreements with distributors under their own negotiated terms rather than the state-required terms. S.B. 138 will see its second committee hearing on December 12.
H.B. 162 – Agriculture Appreciation Act. The House of Representatives passed H.B. 162 in October, and it will have its second hearing on December 12. Proposed by Reps. Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland) and Darrell Kick (R-Loudonville), the bill designates the following federal agriculture days as state days in Ohio:
- March 21 of each year as “Agriculture day”;
- The week beginning on the Saturday before the last Saturday of each February through the last Saturday in February as "FFA Week";
- October 12 of each year as “Farmer’s Day”;
- The week ending with the second Saturday of March as “4-H Week.”
Keep up with the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee’s activity on the Ohio Senate’s website at https://ohiosenate.gov/committees/agriculture-and-natural-resources.
Tags: legislation, scenic rivers, breweries, 4-H, FFA, agriculture appreciation
Comments: 0
[This is a corrected version of our earlier post, which had the Urban Farmer Youth Initiative Pilot Program in the wrong place in the blog. That Pilot Program was approved in the budget bill and was not vetoed by the Governor--apologies!]
While Ohio’s “budget bill” is important for funding our agencies and programs, it always contain many provisions that aren’t at all related to the state’s budget. The budget bill provides an opportunity for legislators to throw in interests of all sorts, which tends to add challenges to reaching consensus. Though many worried about having the current budget approved in time, Ohio lawmakers did pass the two-year budget bill, H.B. 33, just ahead of its deadline on June 30.
We’ve been digging through the bill’s 6,000+ pages of budget and non-budget provisions and the Governor’s 44-item veto. Some of the provisions are proposals we’ve seen in other legislation that made their way into the budget bill. Not included in the final package were Senate-approved changes to the Current Agricultural Use Valuation law that would have adjusted reappraisals in 2023, 2024, and 2025. Here’s a summary of items we found of relevance to Ohio agriculture, not including the agency funding allocations. We also summarize three vetoes by the Governor that pulled items from the budget bill.
Township zoning referenda – ORC 519.12 and 519.25
There is now a higher requirement for the number of signatures needed on a petition to subject a township zoning amendment to referendum by placing it on the ballot for a public vote. The bill increased the number of signatures from 8% to 15% of the total vote cast in the township for all candidates for governor in the most recent general election for governor.
Legume inoculators – ORC 907.27 and 907.32
The bill eliminated Ohio’s annual Legume Inoculator’s License requirement for businesses and individuals that apply inoculants to seed. All other requirements for legume inoculants remain unchanged.
Agricultural commodity handlers--Grain Indemnity Fund – ORC 926.18
Ohio’s agricultural commodity handlers law provides reimbursement to a grain depositor if there is a bankruptcy or failure of the grain elevator. The bill revises several parts of the law that provide a depositor with 100% coverage of a grain deposit when there’s a failure:
- If a commodity handler’s license is suspended and the handler failed to pay for the commodities by the date suspension occurred, the new law increases the number of days by which the commodities had to be priced prior to the suspension-- from 30 to 45 days.
- If a commodity handler’s license is suspended and there is a deferred payment agreement between the depositor and the handler, the new law:
- Requires that the deferred payment agreement must be signed by both parties.
- Increases the number of days by which the commodities had to be priced prior to the suspension -- from 90 to 365 days; and
- Increases the number of days by which payment for the commodity must be made pursuant to the deferred payment agreement -- from 90 days to 365 days following the date of delivery.
- Requiring 100% coverage when commodities were delivered and marketed under a delayed price agreement up to two years prior to a handler’s license suspension. The delivery date marked on the receipt tickets determine the two-year period. The bill also states that the Grain Indemnity Fund has no liability if the delayed price agreement was entered into more than two years prior to the commodity handler’s license suspension.
Two circumstances for 100% of loss coverage from the Grain Indemnity Fund remain unchanged by the bill: when the commodities were stored under a bailment agreement and when payment was tendered but subsequently denied. For all other losses, the new law will reduce the fund payment to 75% of the loss. Current law covers 100% of the first $10,000 of the loss and 80% of the remaining dollar value of that loss.
Office of the Migrant Agricultural Ombudsperson – ORC 3733
Current law establishes an Office of the Migrant Agricultural Ombudsperson under the authority of the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services (ODJFS), but the new law eliminates the Ombudsperson. Instead, a currently existing State Monitor Advocate in ODJFS will be responsible for migrant issues and needs, such as collecting and reviewing data on living and working conditions, receiving complaints and alleged violations, conducting on-site reviews, monitoring the provisions of employment services, and connecting job seekers to employers through the Agricultural Recruitment System.
Commercial driver’s license waiver for farm-related service industries – ORC 4506.24
The bill increases the validity period for the CDL waiver for farm-related service industries. Current law limits the total number of days a person may operate under the farm-related service industries waiver to 180, and the bill extends that period to 210 days per calendar year. The bill also allows online renewal of CDL licenses, revises several requirements for third-party CDL skills test examiners, and establishes several prohibitions and penalties for fraudulent acts related to CDL testing.
Income tax – ORC 5747.02
The law includes changes to Ohio’s income tax tables. For the 2023 taxable year, the bill combines the two lowest tax brackets into one and reduces the marginal tax rates. For tax year 2024, the bill further combines tax brackets and reduces the highest tax rate. The Legislative Service Commission provides this chart that summarizes the changes:
Drainage assessment fund – ORC 6133.15
A designated fund for holding funding from the legislature to cover the state’s share of any assessments for drainage improvement projects will be abolished. The change removes only the fund and does not remove the duty of the state to pay its share of any drainage improvement assessments.
Urban Farmer Youth Initiative Pilot Program
A new Urban Farmer Youth Initiative Pilot Program will provide relevant programming and support on farming and agriculture to youth living in urban areas. The bill directs the Chancellor of Higher Education to collaborate with Ohio State University Extension and Central State University Extension to offer programming in two to four Ohio counties and to partner with local entities. Funds may also be used to expand programming to urban youth by existing agricultural organizations.
Vetoes by Governor DeWine
The Governor vetoed the following three ag-related items and offered explanations of his reasoning for the vetoes.
Save our Farmland and Protect our National Security Act
The Governor removed a provision that required the Secretary of State to compile a registry of individuals, business, organizations, and governments that constitute a threat to the agricultural production or military defense of Ohio or the U.S. and prohibited anyone on the registry from acquiring agricultural land or acquiring real property located within 25 miles of a military base or land under the jurisdiction of the armed forces. The Act also required property acquired in violation of the bill to escheat to the state, to be sold at public auction. The Governor stated that while “restricting ownership of Ohio farmland protects Ohio’s rich agricultural tradition from adverse interests,” the bill could create unintended economic development consequences by including other non-agricultural property in the foreign ownership restriction.
Auctioneer laws
Governor DeWine vetoed several revisions to Ohio auctioneer law, stating that the revisions removed consumer protections recently enacted in HB 321, which went into effect in 2022. The primary purpose of the revisions was to further exempt internet auctions, including auctions that involve sales of real or personal property through an auction mediation company platform.
Commercial Activity Tax exclusions
The budget bill would have increased the $150,000 threshold for filers subject to the Commercial Activity Tax (CAT) to $3 million in 2024 and $6 million in 2025. The Governor pointed out that the language in the bill was unclear, stating that “a technical veto is needed to clarify that the stated excluded amounts represent yearly tax periods,” and also noted that the veto would close an unintended potential loophole, open to exploitation through tax planning.
Visit this page on the Ohio General Assembly’s website for more information on the budget bill, HB 33.
Despite the arrival of summer and continuing disagreements over the state budget, Ohio legislators have been working on several pieces of legislation relevant to Ohio agriculture. All of the proposals are at the committee level but may see action before the Senate and House after the budget bill process ends. Here’s a summary of the ag related proposals currently under consideration.
Senate Bill 111 – Urban Agriculture
Senator Paula Hicks-Hudson (D-Toledo) targets barriers for farmers in urban settings in SB 111, which has had three hearings before the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. OSU Extension, the Ohio Municipal League, and several farmers have testified in support of the proposal, which contains three components:
- Establishes an Urban Farmer Youth Initiative Pilot Program to provide youth between the ages of six and eighteen living in urban areas with programming and support for farming and agriculture. The bill would appropriate $250,000 over 2024 and 2025 for the pilot, to be administered by OSU Extension and Central State Extension.
- Exempts temporary greenhouses, such as hoop houses, from the Ohio Building Code, consistent with Ohio law’s treatment of other agricultural buildings and structures.
- Codifies the Department of Taxation’s current treatment of separate smaller parcels of agricultural land under the same farming operation, which allows the acreages to be combined to meet the 10 acre eligibility requirement for Current Agricultural Use Valuation.
House Bill 64 – Eminent Domain
A proposal to make Ohio’s eminent domain laws more favorable to landowners remains on hold in the House Civil Justice Committee. HB 64 is receiving more opposition than support, with dozens of parties testifying against it in its fourth hearing on May 23. Read more about the proposal in our previous blog post.
House Bill 162 - Agriculture Appreciation Act
Rep. Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland) and Rep. Darrell Kick (R-Loudonville) introduced HB 162 on May 1 and the bill received quick and unanimous approval from the House Agriculture Committee on May 16. The proposal would make several designations under Ohio law already recognized by federal law:
- March 21 as "Agriculture Day."
- October 12 as "Farmer's Day."
- The week beginning on the Saturday before the last Saturday of February as "FFA Week."
- The week ending with the second Saturday of March as "4-H Week."
House Bill 166 – Temporary Agricultural Workers
A bill addressing municipal income taxes for H2-A agricultural workers has met opposition in the House Ways and Means Committee. HB 166, sponsored by Rep. Dick Stein (R-Norwalk) would subject foreign agricultural workers’ income to municipal income taxes. The current municipal tax base in Ohio is based on federal tax laws that exclude foreign agricultural worker pay from Social Security and Medicare taxes since the workers cannot use those programs, and HB 166 would remove that exclusion and add H2-A income to the municipal tax base. The bill would also require employers to withhold the taxes for the municipality of the workers’ residences. While municipal interests support the bill, Ohio Farm Bureau and other agricultural interests testified against it in its third hearing on June 13. Opponents argue that H2-A workers are not residents because they are “temporary,” that the proposal would have many potential adverse effects on how Ohio handles the H2-A program, and would hamper the ability of agricultural employers to use the H2-A program to hire employees.
House Bill 193 – Biosolid and biodigestion facilities
Biosolid lagoons and biodigestion facilities would have new legal requirements and be subject to local regulation under a proposal sponsored by Rep. Kevin Miller (R-Newark) and Rep. Brian Lampton (R-Beavercreek). HB 193 would grant county and township zoning authority over the lagoons and facilities, require a public meeting and county approval prior to seeking a facility permit from the Ohio EPA, require the Ohio EPA to develop rules requiring covers on new biosolid lagoons, and modify feedstock requirements for biodigestion facilities to qualify for Current Agricultural Use Valuation property tax assessment. HB 193 had its first hearing before the House Agriculture Committee on June 13.
House Bill 197 – Community Solar Development
A “community solar” proposal that did not make it through the last legislative session is back in a revised form. HB 197 proposes to define and encourage the development of “community solar facilities,” smaller scale solar facilities that are directly connected to an electric distribution utility’s distribution system and that create electricity only for at least three “subscribers.” The bill would establish incentives for placing such facilities on distressed sites and Appalachian region sites through a “Community Solar Pilot Program” and a “Solar Development Program.” Rep. James Hoops (R-Napoleon) and Sharon Ray (R-Wadsworth) introduced the bill on June 6, and it received its first hearing before the House Public Utilities Committee on June 21. “The goal of this legislation is to create a small-scale solar program that seeks to be a part of the solution to Ohio’s energy generation and aging infrastructure need,” stated sponsor Hoops.
House Bill 212 – Foreign ownership of property
Ohio joins a movement of states attempting to limit foreign ownership of property with the introduction of HB 212, the Ohio Property Protection Act. Sponsored by Representatives Angela King (R-Celina) and Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland), the proposal would prohibit foreign adversaries and certain businesses from owning real property in Ohio. The bill was introduced in the House on June 13 and has not yet been referred to a committee for review.
Tags: legislation, urban agriculture, eminent domain, employment, H2-A, tax law, Income Tax, cauv, biosolids, bioenergy, Zoning, solar, foreign ownership
Comments: 0
A new law giving local governments zoning authority over small-scale solar facilities may feel like a gift to counties and townships dealing with solar development conflicts. The late amendment was one of a few surprises from the legislature as it wrapped up its lame duck session last week.
Several other pieces of legislation affecting agriculture and natural resources that passed include local preemption of pesticides, loosening oil and gas drilling reviews on state lands, and new knowledge requirements for environmental health specialists that inspect retail food establishments. Here’s a summary of the agricultural related bills that now await the Governor’s action.
Zoning authority over small scale solar -- H.B. 501
An amendment to a township bill will grant counties, townships, and municipalities regulatory authority over “the location, erection, construction, reconstruction, change, alteration, maintenance, removal, use, or enlargement of any small solar facility, whether publicly or privately owned, or the use of land for that purpose.” The bill defines a “small solar facility” as one that has a single interconnection point to the grid and is under 50 MW. That number is important, because it addresses solar facilities that were not subject to S.B. 52, passed last year, which gave counties and townships new authority over wind and solar facilities that are over 50 MW.
Agriculture – H.B. 507
This bill began as a simple provision reducing the number of poultry chicks that can be sold in lots from six to three. Before it passed, however, the Senate Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee added six amendments, including these:
- Local preemption of pesticides
Prohibits a political subdivision from regulating or banning the packaging, registration, labeling, sale, storage, distribution, use, or application of a pesticide registered with ODA on private property.
- Environmental health specialists and food safety regulations
Requires ODA and ODH to adopt new rules for evaluating Environmental Health Specialists’ knowledge of food safety laws and to include the evaluations when assessing a board of health’s ability to license retail food establishments and food service operations. Also revises several food safety laws to align them with state and federal laws.
- Green energy in competitive retail energy laws
Defines “green energy” to be any energy that releases reduced air pollutants and cumulative air emissions or is more sustainable and reliable relative to some fossil fuels or is generated using natural gas, but excludes natural gas energy from renewable energy credits, except for gas from biologically derived methane.
- Internet sales exemption from auction laws
Exempts from auctioneer and auction firm licensure requirements a person who, in any
calendar year, sells not more than $10,000 of personal property via an auction
mediation company (for example, eBay) if the company provides fraud protection to the buyer; and the property is the person’s own personal property, or the property is the personal property of another (sold without compensation).
- Oil and gas drilling on state land
Requires a state agency to lease agency-owned oil and gas resources “in good faith” until new rules for nominating the development of resources are adopted by the Oil and Gas Land Management Commission. The leasing party must demonstrate insurance and financial assurance and register with ODNR.
- Towing authorizations for conservancy districts
Authorizes a conservancy district police department to order the towing and storage of
a motor vehicle when the vehicle is an abandoned junk vehicle and when left on private or public property for a specified time.
Tax amnesty and appropriations – H.B. 66
H.B. 66 sets up the possibility of a tax amnesty program in 2023 and allocates $6 billion in one-time appropriations of COVID relief funds. And Medicaid draw down funds.
- Tax amnesty
Allows a two-month tax amnesty program in 2023 for delinquent state taxes, local sales and use taxes, income tax withholding and more, but only if additional revenues from amnesty will be needed to meet General Revenue Fund obligations.
- Ag-related appropriations
$4.5 million to Ohio Department of Agriculture for grants to county agricultural societies.
$250 million to Ohio Dept. of Development for water quality grants program.
Millions to Ohio Department of Natural Resources for state and local parks, and improvement, recreation, and conservation projects.
What proposals didn’t pass?
Since we’re at the end of the two-year session of the 134th General Assembly, any proposed legislation that did not pass is now dead. Some of those proposals will be reintroduced next session, but we might never see others again. The two most notable ag-related bills that died include:
- Community solar - H.B. 450
Many solar developers were hoping this bill would pass, as it provides incentives for smaller scale subscription-based solar projects and solar projects on brownfield sites. Landowners considering leases with solar developers who stated they were doing community solar projects must note that, because the bill did not pass, there is currently no legal authority to construct a community solar project in Ohio.
- Eminent domain -- H.B. 698
This proposal would have streamlined the process for landowners challenging compensation for property taken by eminent domain, increased the burden of proof by an agency using eminent domain, and expanded attorney fee and expense rewards for property owners. It would also prohibit takings of property for recreational trails, an issue that has plagued northeast Ohio. Sponsors say they will reintroduce next session.
What packages will the new year bring?
We’ll be keeping an eye on the new General Assembly, which will likely include new committee members and leadership on both the House Agriculture and Conservation and Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. Our quick wish list for next session starts with:
- Revisions to the agricultural and agritourism exemptions in county and township zoning law.
- Mowing date and procedural revisions to the noxious weeds law
- Updates and clarifications to the partition fence law
- Streamlining and clarification of home-based and farm-raised food licenses
Follow the Ohio legislature at https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/.
Infrastructure legislation and the Build Back Better reconciliation bill have consumed Washington lately, but the House Agriculture Committee set those issues aside long enough last week to tend to several other pieces of legislation. The committee passed five bills on to the House in its committee hearing on October 21. Here’s a summary of each:
H.R. 5609, the Cattle Contract Library Act of 2021, likely made the biggest splash in the agriculture community. Sponsored by Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-SD) and 23 co-sponsors on both sides of the aisle, the legislation would address beef supply and pricing transparency issues by requiring:
- A mandatory reporting program for packers, who must file information with USDA for:
- The type of each contract offered to producers of fed cattle, classified by the mechanism used to determine the base price for the fed cattle committed to the packer, including formula purchases, negotiated grid purchases, and forward contracts;
- A contract’s duration;
- All contract summary information;
- Contract provisions that may affect the price of cattle, including base price, schedules of premiums or discounts, and transportation;
- Total number of cattle covered by a contract that is solely committed to the packer each week within the 6 and 12-month periods following the date of the contract;
- For contracts where a specific number of cattle aren’t committed solely to the packer, an indication that the contract is an open commitment and any weekly, monthly, annual, or other limitations on the number of cattle that may be delivered to the packer under the contract;
- A description of contract terms that provide for expansion in the committed numbers of fed cattle to be delivered under the contract for the 6 and 12-month periods after its date.
- USDA must maintain the information submitted by packers in a publicly available library in a “user-friendly format,” including real-time notice, if practicable, of the types of contracts that are being offered by packers that are open to acceptance by producers.
- USDA must establish a competitive program to award Producer Education Grants for producer outreach and education on the best uses of cattle market information, including the Cattle Contract Library.
- USDA must also provide weekly or monthly reports based on the information collected from packers of:
- The total number of fed cattle committed under contracts for delivery to packers within the 6-month and 12-month periods following the date of the report, organized by reporting region and type of contract;
- The number of contracts with an open commitment along with any weekly, monthly, annual or other limitations on the number of cattle that may be delivered under such contracts; and
- The total maximum number of fed cattle that may be delivered within the 6-month and 12-month periods following the date of the report, organized by reporting region and type of contract.
H.R. 4252 proposes additional scholarship funding for students at the nation’s 1890 land grant institutions, which includes Central State University here in Ohio.
Committee Chairman David Scott (D-GA) is the sponsor of the bill, which would allocate $100 million for scholarships and make the scholarship program permanent.
H.R. 5608 proposes the Chronic Wasting Disease Research and Management Act, a bi-partisan bill sponsored by Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) and House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Glenn Thompson (R-PA). The act proposes a research program, support for state management efforts, and public education to tackle chronic wasting disease, a fatal neurological disease in deer, elk, and moose. Those initiatives would receive $70 million each year from 2022 to 2028.
H.R. 4489, the National Forest Restoration and Remediation Act, is also a bi-partisan bill and is sponsored by Rep. Kim Schrier, (D-WA), Matt Rosendale (R-MT), Joe Neguse (D-CO) and Dough LaMalfa (R-CA). The bill would allow the U.S. Forest Service to use interest earned on settlement funds for clean-up and restoration of damaged forest lands.
H.R. 5589, the Pyrolysis Innovation Grants Act, is dubbed as a “green technology bill” by sponsors Rep. Josh Harder (D-CA), Rep. Jimmy Panetta(D-CA) and Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA). The proposal would invest $5 million per year through 2027 for USDA pilot projects in pyrolysis, a process that reduces greenhouse gas emissions from burning nut shells by converting the shells into fuels, nutrients, and other commodities.
Tags: legislation, U.S. House Agriculture Committee, Cattle Contract Library Act
Comments: 0
Like the farm fields across Ohio lately, a little dust has been flying down at the Statehouse in Columbus. Our legislators are back to work and considering several bills that could affect agriculture. A few bills aren’t seeing much action, though. Here’s a summary of recent activity and inactivity at the Statehouse.
Newly introduced bills
H.B. 440 and S.B.241 – Agricultural Linked Deposit Program. This pair of bills introduced on September 30, 2021 by Representatives Swearingen (R-Huron) and White (R-Kettering) and Senators Cirino (R-Kirtland) and Rulli (R-Salem) is one of three bills in the “Ohio Gains Initiative” offered in partnership with Ohio Treasurer Robert Sprague. The Initiative proposes three new investment reforms affecting agriculture, health systems, and higher education. The agricultural proposal in H.B. 440 and S.B. 241 would expand the current Ag-LINK loan program that provides interest rate reductions of up to 3% on operating loans. The bill would make the loans available to cooperatives in addition to farm operators and agribusinesses and would also remove the $150,000 cap on Ag-LINK loans. It’s been referred to the House Financial Institutions Committee and the Senate Financial Institutions & Technology Committee.
Bills on the move
H.B. 175 – Deregulate certain ephemeral water features. The bill addresses “ephemeral features”—surface water that flows or pools only in direct response to precipitation but that is not a wetland. Under the proposal, ephemeral features would be exempt from water pollution control programs in Ohio, including the Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Program, as proposed in the federal 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule now on hold. The bill would also eliminate the certification review fee for ephemeral streams. H.B. 175 passed the House on September 30, 2021, amidst strong opposition. It awaits review before the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.
H.B. 397 – Agricultural lease law. A proposal to address termination dates and notice provisions for crop leases received its second hearing before the House Agriculture and Conservation Committee on October 12. H.B. 397 would require a landowner who wants to terminate a crop lease that doesn’t address termination to do so by providing a written notice of termination to the tenant by September 1 of the year the termination would be effective. Discussion at the committee hearing could result in a broadening of the bill to include pasture leases.
S.B. 47 – Overtime pay. The Senate passed this bill on September 22, and it has since been referred to the House Commerce and Labor Committee. The bill exempts certain activities from the requirement for an employer to pay overtime wages. Under the proposal, traveling to and from a worksite would be exempt from overtime. Performing preliminary or postliminary tasks and activities outside of work hours that require insubstantial periods of time, such as checking email or voice mail, would also be exempt. The bill now moves to the House Commerce and Labor Committee.
Bills not moving
Several bills we’ve been watching have not generated continued interest at the Statehouse, including:
- H.B. 95, the Beginning Farmers bill that would provide income tax credits for beginning farmers who attend approved financial management programs and for owners who sell land and agricultural assets to certified beginning farmers. It passed the House in late June but was removed from the agenda when first scheduled for a hearing before the Senate Ways and Means Committee on September 28, 2021.
- H.B. 30, the bill adding marking and lighting requirements to animal-drawn vehicles, also passed the House in late June but has not seen action since its second hearing before the Senate Transportation Committee on September 22, 2021.
- H.B. 385, which would prohibit municipalities in the Western Basin of Lake Erie from discharging waste into those waters, fine those who do, and revoke NPDES permits for municipalities owning treatment works or sewerage systems within the Western Basin. The bill received one hearing before the House Agriculture and Conservation Committee on September 28.
- H.B. 349, which would place a moratorium on granting permits for a new construction or expansion of a regulated animal feeding facility in the Maumee watershed if the Ohio Department of Agriculture has determined that the phosphorus load in the Maumee River exceeded a specified number. The House Agriculture and Conservation Committee has not scheduled the bill for a hearing since it was referred to the committee on June 16, 2021.
Bills now effective
S.B. 52, the bill addressing large-scale wind and solar facility development in Ohio, became effective on October 11, 2021. The bill allows county commissioners to prohibit wind and solar developments and to establish restricted areas in the county that are off limit to the developments, gives county citizens an opportunity to place a restricted area designation on the ballot, increases local awareness and engagement in review of a proposed facility, and requires decommissioning plans and bonds for approved developments. Learn more about S.B. 52 with our law bulletins and videos on the new laws, available in our energy law library.
Hear our next review of state and federal legislation in Farm Office Live on November 17 and 19, 2021. More information is available here.
Tags: legislation, ag-link, ephemeral water, water pollution, leases, overtime, beginning farmers, slow moving vehicles, roadway, CAFF, animal feeding, Lake Erie, waste, solar, wind, renewable energy, sb 52
Comments: 0
Pages
