Case Title: Northwestern Ohio Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Ottawa Cty. Improvement Corp.

Citation: 2009-Ohio-2957

Docket Number: 20081069

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2009-06-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Northwestern Ohio Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Ottawa Cty. Improvement Corp., 
122 Ohio St.3d 283, 2009-Ohio-2957.] 
 
 
 
NORTHWESTERN OHIO BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, 
APPELLANT, ET AL., v. OTTAWA COUNTY IMPROVEMENT  
CORPORATION ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as Northwestern Ohio Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Ottawa Cty. 
Improvement Corp., 122 Ohio St.3d 283, 2009-Ohio-2957.] 
Labor — Prevailing wage — R.C. 4115.03 — Prevailing-wage law applies only 
when public authority spends public funds to construct public 
improvement — Public improvement, by definition, must be constructed by 
a public authority or must benefit public authority. 
(No. 2008-1069 — Submitted March 25, 2009 — Decided June 30, 2009.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ottawa County,  
No. OT-07-017, 2008-Ohio-1852. 
_________________ 
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 
The prevailing-wage law applies only when a public authority, including an 
institution, spends public funds to construct a “public improvement,” 
which by definition must be constructed by a public authority or must 
benefit a public authority.  (R.C. 4115.03, construed.) 
__________________ 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J. 
I. Introduction 
{¶ 1} We are asked to determine whether the mere expenditure of public 
funds by an institution defined as a public authority in R.C. 4115.03(A) triggers 
the prevailing-wage requirement set forth in R.C. 4115.03 et seq.  We hold that 
the wage requirement is triggered only when an R.C. 4115.03(A) institution 
spends public funds to construct a public improvement, which by definition must 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
be constructed by a public authority or must benefit a public authority.  Because 
the public funds herein were not spent on construction of a public improvement, 
we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals in holding that the prevailing-wage 
law does not apply. 
II. Facts and Procedure 
{¶ 2} Appellee Fellhauer Mechanical Systems, Inc. (“Fellhauer”) is a 
private, for-profit electrical, heating, cooling, and plumbing contractor located in 
Ottawa County.  Fellhauer also has a retail business, which sells security systems, 
audio and video equipment, televisions, and home-theater systems. 
{¶ 3} Fellhauer decided to purchase a building, the real property on 
which it stood, and office equipment and to renovate the portion of the building 
that was used for retail sales.  Fellhauer financed the project through several 
sources, acquiring both public and private funding.  Fellhauer applied for a loan 
from Ottawa County.  The source of these funds was a Small Cities Community 
Developmental Block Grant, which consists of federal funds that are disbursed by 
the Ohio Department of Development (“ODOD”).  Thus, Ottawa County filed an 
application for the grant on Fellhauer’s behalf with the ODOD.  The ODOD 
approved the grant, which expressly provided that Fellhauer was to use $300,000 
of these funds to finance the purchase of the building, real property, and office 
machinery.1 
{¶ 4} Fellhauer also acquired a loan for $36,750 from appellee Ottawa 
County Improvement Corporation (“OCIC”), which is a publicly funded 
corporation formed under R.C. 1724.10 to promote economic development in 
Ottawa County.  This loan was funded by conveyance fees on real estate transfers 
within Ottawa County.  Fellhauer also used these public funds to finance its 
purchase of the building, the property, and the office equipment. 
                                                          
 
1.  Five thousand dollars of the grant was used to pay administrative expenses. 
January Term, 2009 
3 
{¶ 5} Finally, in addition to the $40,000 of John Fellhauer’s own money, 
he secured $308,250 in private funding.  He used $135,000 to finance renovation 
of the building, and the remainder of the private funds was applied to the balance 
of the acquisition costs. 
{¶ 6} Thus, Fellhauer used public and private funds to finance the 
purchase of the real property, a building, and office equipment, but used only 
private funds to finance the renovation of the building. 
{¶ 7} Appellant Kevin J. Flagg (now deceased), a state taxpayer, and 
appellant Northwestern Ohio Building & Construction Trades Council 
(“appellants”), wrote to the Ottawa County prosecutor, stating that Fellhauer’s 
project was subject to Ohio’s prevailing-wage law, R.C. 4115.03 et seq., and 
demanding legal action to enforce the prevailing-wage law at the project. 
{¶ 8} When the prosecutor failed to take any action, appellants filed a 
verified complaint seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.  
Appellants alleged that failure to comply with the prevailing-wage law would 
cause irreparable harm once construction contracts were awarded in the Fellhauer 
project.  The complaint asked the court to compel OCIC and Ottawa County to 
comply with the prevailing-wage law in connection with public funds they 
disbursed for the Fellhauer project.  Appellants also sought to enjoin the awarding 
of any contracts in connection with the project until the project came into full 
compliance with the law. 
{¶ 9} The trial court accepted appellants’ assertion that Ottawa County 
and OCIC were institutions and public authorities as defined in R.C. 4115.03(A).  
However, the trial court held that the prevailing wage was not triggered, because 
expenditure of the funds did not benefit a public authority, but instead benefited 
Fellhauer, a private, for-profit corporation. 
{¶ 10} The trial court also held that Fellhauer’s project did not qualify as a 
public improvement to which the prevailing wage automatically applies under 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
R.C. 4115.032, which designates certain types of projects that are subject to R.C. 
Chapter 4115.  The trial court concluded that Fellhauer’s project was not an 
“eligible project” under this statute because (1) the project was not funded by the 
Director of Development and (2) the renovation of a retail sale facility is excluded 
from the purview of R.C. 4115.032 by R.C. 166.01(D).  The trial court entered 
judgment for the county and OCIC. 
{¶ 11} The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court on 
different grounds.  The court of appeals reasoned that no entity that satisfied the 
definition of an institution as defined in R.C. 4115.03(A) had expended any funds 
on the Fellhauer project.  Ottawa App. No. OT-07-017, 2008-Ohio-1852, ¶ 32. 
{¶ 12} Alternatively, the court of appeals held that even if an institution as 
so defined was associated with the project, no public funds were spent on any 
construction, i.e., the public funds were used to finance purchase of real property, 
a building, and office equipment.  Id. at ¶ 33. 
{¶ 13} We have accepted Northwestern’s discretionary appeal, which 
raises the following propositions of law: (1) “An R.C. Chapter 1724 ‘Community 
Improvement Corporation’ is an ‘institution’ as defined by O.A.C. 4101:9-4-
02(P), and a ‘public authority’ under R.C. 4115.03(A),” (2) “Expenditures of an 
institution supported in part by public funds trigger prevailing wage applicability 
under R.C. 4115.03(A) as a matter of law,” (3) “An Administrative Rule, 4101:9-
4-02(BB)(1)(d), cannot be construed in a way that restricts the application of 
Revised Code, 4115.03(A),” and (4) “Subdividing a single public improvement 
project into construction and acquisition component parts to avoid prevailing 
wage applicability violates R.C. 4115.033 and O.A.C. 4101:9-4-17(C).” 
III. Analysis 
A. Ohio’s Prevailing-Wage Law 
{¶ 14} “The prevailing wage statutes, R.C. 4115.03 through R.C. 4115.16, 
require contractors and subcontractors for public improvement projects to pay 
January Term, 2009 
5 
laborers and mechanics the so-called prevailing wage in the locality where the 
project is to be performed.”  J.A. Croson Co. v. J.A. Guy, Inc.  (1998), 81 Ohio 
St.3d 346, 349, 691 N.E.2d 655. 
{¶ 15} Prevailing wage applies to “construction projects that are ‘public 
improvements’ as defined in R.C. 4115.03(C): ‘Public improvement’ includes all 
buildings, roads, streets, alleys, sewers, ditches, sewage disposal plants, water 
works, and all other structures or works constructed by a public authority of the 
state or any political subdivision thereof or by any person who, pursuant to a 
contract with a public authority, constructs any structure for a public authority of 
the state or political subdivision thereof.”  Episcopal Retirement Homes, Inc. v. 
Ohio Dept. of Indus. Relations (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 366, 369, 575 N.E.2d 134.  
To qualify as a public improvement, the project must be constructed by a public 
authority or must benefit a public authority.  Id.; see also U.S. Corr. Corp. v. Ohio 
Dept. of Indus. Relations (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 210, 219, 652 N.E.2d 766. 
{¶ 16} A “public authority” is defined as “any officer, board, or 
commission of the state or any political subdivision of the state, authorized to 
enter into a contract for the construction of a public improvement or to construct 
the same by the direct employment of labor, or any institution supported in whole 
or in part by public funds and said sections apply to expenditures of such 
institutions made in whole or in part from public funds.”  R.C. 4115.03(A). 
{¶ 17} Northwestern argues that an institution defined as a public 
authority in R.C. 4115.03(A) is distinguishable from other public authorities 
defined in the same provision in that once such an institution expends public 
funds, the prevailing-wage requirement applies automatically, regardless of 
whether the project meets the usual criteria set forth in the rest of the prevailing-
wage statutes.2  In support of this argument, Northwestern directs our attention to 
                                                          
 
4.  OCIC’s counsel conceded at oral argument that OCIC is an institution, and therefore a public 
authority, as defined in R.C. 4115.03(A). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
the final phrase of R.C. 4115.03(A): “said sections [i.e., R.C. 4115.03 to 4115.16] 
apply to expenditures of such institutions made in whole or in part from public 
funds.”  This clause, Northwestern contends, “refers to the Prevailing Wage Law 
as a whole and independently triggers its application” where an institution 
expends public funds.  In other words, when an institution expends public funds, 
the prevailing wage must be paid as a matter of law, regardless of the statutory 
criteria set forth elsewhere in the prevailing-wage law.  Thus, Northwestern 
argues that prevailing wage is triggered merely upon an institution’s expenditure 
of public funds to finance a project, regardless of whether the project involves 
actual construction of a “public improvement” as defined in R.C. 4115.03(C), 
which is normally required to trigger payment of prevailing wage.  We disagree. 
{¶ 18} The phrase “said sections apply” within R.C. 4115.03 must be read 
in its entirety: “said sections apply to expenditures of such institutions made in 
whole or in part from public funds.”  (Emphasis added.)  The intent is clear: the 
legislature wanted to stress that institutions, which, unlike the state or a political 
subdivision, may have private sources of funding, are still required to comply 
with the prevailing-wage law even if some of the expenditures come from private 
sources.  The intent of this phrase was clearly not to saddle institutions with a 
prevailing-wage obligation every time they expend funds on any project. 
{¶ 19} Moreover, Northwestern’s argument that any spending of public 
funds by an R.C. 4115.03(A) institution would require payment of the prevailing 
wage would unjustifiably expand the scope of prevailing-wage law to include 
projects that are not public improvements, that are not constructed by a public 
authority, or that do not benefit a public authority.  Therefore, just as with any 
other public authority, an institution’s expenditure of public funds triggers the 
prevailing-wage requirement only when the project meets the statutory criteria for 
determining the applicability of prevailing wage, i.e., where a public authority 
using public funds contracts to construct a public improvement. 
January Term, 2009 
7 
{¶ 20} Accordingly, we hold that the prevailing-wage law applies only 
when a public authority, including an institution, spends public funds to construct 
a “public improvement,” which by definition must be constructed by a public 
authority or must benefit a public authority.  See Episcopal Retirement, 61 Ohio 
St.3d at 369, 575 N.E.2d 134 (a project must be constructed “for a public 
authority” in order for the prevailing-wage statutes to apply); Ohio Adm.Code 
4101:9-4-02(BB)(1) and (2) (defining “public improvement” as a structure 
“[c]onstructed” by or for a public authority). 
B. The Fellhauer Project 
{¶ 21} Having concluded that the project at issue today must be subjected 
to the same prevailing-wage analysis as any other project, we turn now to the task 
of determining whether the prevailing-wage requirement applies under these facts. 
{¶ 22} The Fellhauer project is not a “public improvement.”  That term is 
limited to “all buildings, roads, streets, alleys, sewers, ditches, sewage disposal 
plants, water works, and all other structures or works constructed by a public 
authority of the state or any political subdivision thereof or by any person who, 
pursuant to a contract with a public authority, constructs any structure for a public 
authority of the state or a political subdivision thereof.”  (Emphasis added.)  R.C. 
4115.03(C). 
{¶ 23} Moreover, the Fellhauer project will not be (1) constructed (2) by 
or for a public authority as also required by R.C. 4115.03(C).  Episcopal 
Retirement, 61 Ohio St.3d at 369, 575 N.E.2d 134.  The only portion of the 
project that can possibly be “constructed” is the renovation portion, and that is 
being done by Fellhauer, using private funds.  And none of the project, in fact, is 
destined to be used by or for any public authority.  The entire project is for 
Fellhauer alone. 
{¶ 24} The simple fact is that the Fellhauer project is not a “construction” 
of a “public improvement” by or for a public authority.  Consequently, because no 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
public funds were used to finance any actual construction of a public 
improvement that benefits a public authority, the prevailing-wage requirement 
does not apply to the Fellhauer project. 
{¶ 25} Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and 
CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Cosme, D’Angelo & Szollosi Co., L.P.A., and Joseph M. D’Angelo, for 
appellants. 
 
Ross, Brittain & Schonberg Co., L.P.A., Alan G. Ross, and Nick A. 
Nykulak, for appellee Fellhauer Mechanical Systems, Inc. 
 
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P., Vincent Atriano, David S. Farkas, 
and Matthew L. Sagone; Mark E. Mulligan, Ottawa County Prosecuting Attorney; 
and Kohli & Christie and Gary A. Kohli, for appellees Ottawa County 
Improvement Corporation and Ottawa County Board of Commissioners. 
 
Calfee, Halter & Griswold, L.L.P., Peter A. Rosato, and Stanley J. 
Dobrowski, urging reversal for amicus curiae Mechanical Contractors Association 
of Ohio. 
 
Ross, Brittain & Schonberg Co., L.P.A., Alan G. Ross, and Nick A. 
Nykulak, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Associated Builders & Contractors 
of Ohio, Inc. 
______________________