The State Capital Improvement Program (SCIP), which is an infrastructure bond program operated by the Ohio Public Works Commission (OPWC), has helped all areas of Ohio since 1987 by pumping more than $5.5 billion into funding projects ranging from roads and bridges to wastewater, stormwater, and solid waste systems. Despite all the funding and the ways SCIP has assisted Ohio’s counties, cities, townships, villages, water and sanitary districts, and more for more than 35 years, the program may be halted within the coming year.
Linda Bailiff, who serves as OPWC Director and who helps administer SCIP, has been notifying the state’s legislators, local officials, councils, and various infrastructure-related associations – including the Ohio Contractors Association – on the expiring timeline for getting the program on the state ballot and renewed by Ohio voters. Bailiff, who has served as OPWC Director since 2019, spoke virtually with OCA’s leaders at the June board meeting. Along with her more than 15 years with OPWC, Bailiff has worked for the Ohio Legislative Service Commission and the Legislative Budget Office, where she concentrated on working in transportation and local government, before serving as a policy analyst for ODOT. With ODOT, she served as the initial administrator in the Office of Local Projects – now known as the Office of Local Programs.Ohio Contractor recently spoke with Bailiff to discuss SCIP and its importance to the state’s infrastructure; why the program remains important despite current record-funding levels for infrastructure; and the process of getting the program’s 4th Renewal on the state election ballot.
OC: Tell us a little about the Ohio Public Works Commission (OPWC).
Bailiff: “It was created in 1987 for the express purpose to administer the State Capital Improvement Program (SCIP), the infrastructure bond program. Then, in 1989, the OPWC was provided with one cent of a gas tax increase with the formation of the Local Transportation Improvement Program. In 2000, the OPWC was given the administration of the Clean Ohio Conservation Program, initially funded by a voter-approved bond initiative.
“Both our commission and the office go by the same name (Ohio Public Works Commission). The 12-member body serves to recommend persons to the governor for appointment, as well as advise the director on policy implementation. That body consists of seven legislatively appointed voting members and five non-voting ex-officio members.
“The (OPWC) staff, there are currently eight – including myself, ensure that the programs we administer adhere to the legal requirements. My responsibility is to oversee all operations; programs; the staff; and our annual capital and operating budget – which is about $575 million, approximately. Then, the staff is responsible for creating the project agreements, approving disbursements to consulting engineers, contractors and other vendors, and providing technical assistance.
“But we are more than just eight (people). We call it the OPWC Family, which includes the members of our 19 district committees and our 19 resources councils – which rate and rank projects; and the liaisons, who are the individuals who facilitate the communications and the work between us and the committees and the councils. That’s nearly 600 people who participate in the selection of projects and the delivery of our statutory programs.”
OC: Many of OCA’s members know of the OPWC through its State Capital Improvement Program (SCIP). Please talk about the program and its importance through the funding of infrastructure projects throughout Ohio. Also, what are some of the success stories when it comes to this program?
Bailiff: “The program has funded infrastructure projects in communities in every one of Ohio’s 88 counties. By infrastructure, I’m referring to roads, bridges, culverts, water supply systems, wastewater systems, stormwater collection systems and even solid waste disposal facilities. The eligible applicants are counties, cities, townships, villages, and water and sanitary districts. The funding was initially approved by voters via a constitutional amendment. That amendment allowed the state to use general revenue as debt support to issue general obligation bonds to provide grants and loans for funding local government infrastructure. The program has since been renewed by Ohio voters three times.
“The way it works is local governments make applications for funding to Ohio’s 19 regional district committees, who use methodologies based on criteria in statute. Grants are available up to 90% of the total project cost for repair and replacement, and up to 50% for new and expansion. Loans can be provided up to 100% of the project cost, but grant-loan combinations are also available.
“The term of the loan can’t exceed the useful life of the project, or 30 years – whichever is less. Our (loan) rate is 0%, because we want loans to be as affordable as possible to our customers. Unlike some of our funding partners, we don’t do underwriting. Our program is very simple, and that’s what the General Assembly envisioned.
“Regarding success, we consider every project to be one because of the benefits to the community. And every community offers project benefits to its neighboring community considering we all benefit from the municipal, county and township roads and bridges that we travel on; the water that we drink in a restaurant; the wastewater facilities that we use; and the proper conveyance of stormwater, which has become even more noticeable because of the incredible rain events that we have been experiencing – especially in early April.
“This is an economic program. The funds from this program, every dollar – depending on the year – can leverage nearly $3 of other resources. A $200 million annual investment is about a $600 million investment. It’s infrastructure, it’s the men and women – the jobs – that design and build the infrastructure.”
OC: This is the final year of SCIP’s 3rd Renewal (2014-2024). What is the process of getting the program renewed, and what are the issues surrounding the next 10-year reauthorization?
Bailiff: “A joint resolution passed by the General Assembly is needed to place a constitutional amendment on a statewide ballot at least 90-plus days prior to an election to renew the program. The joint resolution will provide for the dollar amount of the ballot initiative and specify which election. The ballot language, explanation, and arguments for and against, are then prepared and packaged for publishing in at least one newspaper in each of the 88 counties for each of the three weeks preceding the election. Approval by voter majority, 50% plus, is needed for the amendment to become part of the constitution.
“Here’s the rub. Our last funded round (of the 3rd 10-year Renewal) is just beginning. Our districts have begun the solicitation process for the project agreements that will be released July 1, 2025. That is when our program will sunset – in a year from now. There are two possibilities for the date of the election next year, the primary, which is May 6 of ’25, or the general, which is November 4 of ’25. As I said, the districts are soliciting for applications in the summer – they are doing that now – for the last round (of the 3rd Renewal’s funding). And then in the fall, they will rate and rank the applications to recommend them to the OPWC by the end of the following February. The OPWC then releases the agreements on July 1st. So, next year’s primary will be held right before the historical kickoff of the next funding round, which is not funded. The general (election) will be held after the applications have already been submitted to the districts.
“If the ballot initiative is on in the primary (election) and it passes, the program continues without any gaps – without any hesitation. If it should fail (during the primary election), the general (election) can serve as a backup. Program renewal has never gone to the ballot without a backup – ever. If the ballot initiative is on the general (election ballot), and it passes, then the districts can continue with the process to prepare their funding recommendations for the OPWC. But, if the ballot issue in that November (’25 election) fails, then the program comes to a halt.
“The program has historically been quite popular, very popular, with Ohio’s voters. But it is difficult to predict what voters will do, especially if the renewal is timed with a potential economic downturn.”
OC: We are currently benefiting – both as an industry and a nation – with record-high federal investment for infrastructure improvements through the Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act (IIJA). Wouldn’t this be an opportunity to save investment in SCIP and then start it again when funding levels decrease?
Bailiff: “A very good question.
“A continuation of the program, with no gaps, continues reliability. We are often told by local communities that they are dependent on the annual funding from the OPWC as part of their infrastructure improvement planning. A lapse can have a considerable negative impact.
“I agree that both federal and state investment for infrastructure has been significant. Just look at the recently passed state capital bill, House Bill 2. But so is the need. The last Infrastructure Report Card by the American Society of Consulting Engineers gave Ohio’s infrastructure a grade of C-. The investment in maintenance and in the improvement of reliability and efficiency is critical to our economy; to public safety, and to our citizens’ quality of life.
“A record-high investment helps significantly, but it doesn’t address all the need. And that need just keeps coming. I hear the stories from our customers, the tough decisions that they are making. Public service directors, county engineers, other local government decisionmakers are always determining priorities, and even the best planning doesn’t prevent the unforeseen. Recently, we were notified of the immediate need for two different bridges in two different counties. Both were getting replaced in about five years, which was part of their local government infrastructure plans. But one of those bridges fell victim to the historical rainfall that I mentioned from early April, and
the other was compromised by the constant, heavy, unplanned traffic finding its own detour around an accident. We are always going to have needs for investment. And we have been a reliable source for nearly four decades.”
OC: What have you heard from areas in Ohio that despite record federal funding there is still a need for the SCIP?
Bailiff: “When (IIJA) was passed, at that time, I thought, ‘Wow, this is great, but are people going to remember that when it comes to our ballot issue? Well, wait a minute, there is this great influx of federal funding. And now, we have House Bill 2; there’s been this great influx of state funding.’ Not every community is a beneficiary of federal funding and not every community was a beneficiary of House Bill 2.
“A few weeks ago, I visited this small community in Appalachia that has a trunk sewer line made of ductile iron pipe segments installed years ago on the surface of a hill. It’s about 1,400 feet in length on about a 30-degree slope. I’ve never seen anything like it. Considering the weight of the pipe and its fittings it’s probably 50,000-plus pounds, and the pull of that weight downhill is causing the pipe to shift and break. They need about $1.4 million to replace this pipe with a legally compliant – meaning buried – PVC gravity sewer. This is a disaster ready to happen. We have another one, it’s another village. They need $2 million to fix a road, combined with water and sewer lines and retaining wall, all of which are collapsing due to a series of landslides that have displaced several of their residents, with heavy damage to at least one home. Both communities came to us asking for emergency funds.
“Our annual program, the SCIP, has a set aside of $12 million for emergencies. But we must make very difficult decisions because every decision is accumulative – it is no money, or less money, for the next crisis. That early-April historic rainfall I mentioned, we received a dozen requests for that alone, $4.5 million in requests in just a handful of days. But this past fiscal year we were fortunate to receive additional emergency funds from the Ohio General Assembly in the last operating bill. They gave us that extra money – our $12 million became $22 million this fiscal year, otherwise we would have been out of emergency funds in early January and wouldn’t have been able to help with that rain event. Our requests have been around $300,000 to $400,000, but when we get these requests that are $1 million, $2 million, you think about all the communities that won’t get funded because of these significantly large projects.”
OC: What amount is OPWC seeking to be included in the 4th Renewal for funding?
Bailiff: “I have asked leadership for more but I did not ask for a specific amount. They are going to look to OBM (Ohio Office of Budget and Management), because the state has a 5% debt service limitation. They must look at that to see how much is affordable. In my conversations with both the House and Senate, they have been receptive to an increase, and we would be extremely happy to receive any (increase). Districts always have more requests than allocations, and the cost of construction is beating everyone up. Whatever we can get we’ll take.”
OC: What is OPWC doing to get the information out regarding reauthorization for the next 10-year program?
Bailiff: “I began speaking with leadership, and those conversations ramped up in the past few months. At our spring (OPWC) commission meeting, the Commission asked me to put together a presentation. They thought this would be a good tool to start informing and working with the local government and industry associations. It’s been the road show the last few weeks. One (group) reached out to me before I even called them because they knew that it’s time. The local government associations and the industry associations, they know. They’re looking at the calendar and saying, ‘Hey, it was this time 10 years ago that you went to the ballot. Shouldn’t you be returning to the ballot anytime now?’ They’ve been reaching out to us, and we’ve been reaching out to them, and I’ve been having meetings almost weekly. Whoever asks, I go.”
OC: What can groups, such as OCA and Ohio’s construction industry, do to ensure the State Capital Improvement Program gets on the ballot and help in its passage?
Bailiff: “Legally, I can inform and educate but I cannot advocate. Whereas the associations have that ability, they have the freedom, but I am governed by Ohio’s Ethics Laws. I am going to share information – continue to share information – and then, whatever groups do with that information is up to them.”