The ordinance to put a proposed city income tax before voters on the May 2007 ballot failed to move on to a third reading during the January 8 meeting of City Council.
Following a half hour break and a vote to to accept changes made to the ordinance, Council Member Broughton immediately put forth another motion not to move the ordinance forward to a third reading. A vote of yes on Broughton’s motion would effectively be a vote to kill the proposal. City Council can only do one of two things following the public hearing on a second reading of a proposed ordinance. Council can choose to return it to the first reading or move it on to a third.
Fielding a question about Broughton’s motion, Mayor Hadley said, “The motion is to simply not send it forward to the third reading… and with that it dies right where it is.”
The motion was seconded by Council Member Martin. After some discussion, a vote was taken and Broughton’s motion passed by a vote of 4-3 which, for the time being, effectively kills the ordinance. By default the proposal would have to return to a first reading if it were to be brought up again.
Story continues below advertisement.
  Â
For the benefit of our readers, results of the vote are shown below.
Second Reading: Ordinance to put 1.5% city income tax on May ballot.
Motion: Not to move the ordinance forward.(A vote of YES was effectively a vote to kill the city income tax proposal.)
YES Â Â Â Â Broughton
YES Â Â Â Â Baker
YES Â Â Â Â Howard
NO Â Â Â Â Â Brailey
YES Â Â Â Â Martin
NO Â Â Â Â Â Leonard (Vice-Mayor)
NO Â Â Â Â Â Hadley (Mayor)
While this defeat could be seen as a blow to the group known as the Beavercreek Earnings Tax Committee, the process has left the group with a legally improved version of a proposal for a city income tax. Over the course of the process, Council with the aid of city staff and the city’s legal department rewrote the group’s original proposed ordinance making it more legally sound.
The Beavercreek Earnings Tax Committee may still attempt to gather signatures for an initiative petition to put the measure before voters. If the group takes this route they will have to collect a number of signatures from city residents equal to 10% of the votes cast in Beavercreek in the most recent election for Governor. There has been no official word on what the group plans to do at this point, but the group’s website does reflect the defeat in a section it calls “Box Scores”.
For the benefit of our readers an excerpt from the Ohio Revised Code dealing with signatures and initiative petitions is listed below.
Ohio Revised Code
731.28. Ordinances and measures proposed by initiative petition.
Ordinances and other measures providing for the exercise of any powers of government granted by the constitution or delegated to any municipal corporation by the general assembly may be proposed by initiative petition. Such initiative petition must contain the signatures of not less than ten per cent of the number of electors who voted for governor at the most recent general election for the office of governor in the municipal corporation.
Advertisement
    
