The Beavercreek Record » Earnings Tax Issue http://beavercreekrecord.com Real news for Beavercreek, Ohio Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:02:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 en hourly 1 Foreclosures Up, But Beavercreek Still Far Behind Other Cities http://beavercreekrecord.com/2008/04/01/foreclosures-up-but-beavercreek-still-far-behind-xenia/ http://beavercreekrecord.com/2008/04/01/foreclosures-up-but-beavercreek-still-far-behind-xenia/#comments Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:17:58 +0000 Beavercreek, Oh http://beavercreekrecord.com/2008/04/02/foreclosures-up-but-beavercreek-still-far-behind-xenia/ Overall forclosures are up in Beavercreek over last year, but Xenia and Fairborn still lead Greene County in foreclosure sales with numbers more than double those of Beavercreek according to the Sheriff’s Sale of Real Estate list.

Nearly a year ago at this time, Beavercreek had 3 homes scheduled for foreclosure sale on May 10, 2007. Last month 6 Beavercreek homes were listed for foreclosure sale and 4 are listed for this month.

While the numbers are higher than last year, they are still far behind those of Xenia and Fairborn. Last month 22 Xenia homes and 12 Fairborn homes were listed for foreclosure sale. This month 19 Xenia and 11 Fairborn homes made the list.

While twice that of last year, by comparison Beavercreek’s foreclosure rate continues to be about a fourth of Xenia’s and half of Fairborn’s. Last year the foreclosure rate was relevant because of a debate on a city income tax in Beavercreek, also refered to as an earnings tax. Those arguing for the city income tax argues that it’s passage would make Beavercreek a more affordable place to live. Neighboring cities with city income taxes were used as examples.

The low number of foreclosures in Beavercreek and the high numbers in both Xenia and Fairborn, cities with income taxes, continues to support an opposite argument that Beavercreek is already an affordable place to live.

]]> http://beavercreekrecord.com/2008/04/01/foreclosures-up-but-beavercreek-still-far-behind-xenia/feed/ 0 Opinion: Call for a Recreation Center is a Call for City Income Tax http://beavercreekrecord.com/2007/10/21/opinion-the-recreation-center-still-finds-its-way-into-debate/ http://beavercreekrecord.com/2007/10/21/opinion-the-recreation-center-still-finds-its-way-into-debate/#comments Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:22:39 +0000 Beavercreek, Oh http://beavercreekrecord.com/2007/10/19/opinion-the-recreation-center-still-finds-its-way-into-debate/ Opinion: During this election cycle we’ve heard from a number of candidates who still think Beavercreek just doesn’t offer enough to it’s citizens. There’s no leaf pickup, property taxes are supposedly high, water bills are high, and of course there’s no recreation center. Yes, at least one candidate mentioned the lack of a recreational center again. How can we get through the day?


Instead of examining all those things, let’s just look at one of the items that always seems to make the list. Yes, there is a list. The lack of a recreational center, or community center most recently appeared on a list of needs presented by the Beavercreek Needs Study Group in 2004. The group was that year’s incarnation of a citizen push for a city income tax in Beavercreek. That’s right, the call for a recreational center goes hand-in-hand with the argument for a city income tax. Don’t let anyone fool you into thinking it’s a stand-alone issue.


Screen snapshot from the now defunct Beavercreek
Needs Study Group website, in 2004.

That list called for a lot things under the auspices of “needs”. It called for more police officers, a new senior center, implementing the bikeway plan, park improvements, a community center (recreational center), leaf collection program, a weather alert system for the city, a fulltime city attorney and zoning technician and so on.


Funny how many of the things on that list from 2004 have already been accomplished. And all without a city income tax, too. Yes, in fact with each passing year Beavercreek somehow continues to deliver more to it’s citizens and that old list from the Needs Study Group gets weaker and weaker. Maybe that’s why the group no longer exists.


And it might also be the reason why the argument has now turned from “needs” to trying to bribe voters with fuzzy promises of reduced property taxes. Did you know that under the failed 2007 proposal you would have paid the same property taxes in addition to an income tax for as long as 18 months? The plan called for implementing the income tax then waiting to reduce any property taxes. The overlapping collection would have dumped millions of additional revenue into the city treasury. Yeah, it was all about reducing your property taxes, sure it was.


But back to this call for a recreational center. The discussion usually goes something like this; Kettering has a recreation center, why don’t we? It’s free for all their residents, isn’t it? The answers are; we already have something like that and no, it’s not free for Kettering residents. The center is funded with taxpayer dollars and to join the fitness center at the Kettering Recreational Complex, residents must pay an annual fee of $125.00. And don’t forget, Kettering’s income tax is 2.25%. That means any resident who works in a city with a lower income tax has to make up the difference and write a check to Kettering. Is all that worth it for a recreational center?


The truth is Beavercreek already has a very nice YMCA offering many of the same benefits as the Kettering Recreational Complex. Our YMCA sits upon acres and acres of wooded land, has a catch and release lake, a walking path, a skate park, a new playground for children, eight lane competitive class swimming pool, fitness center, offers health classes, the list goes on and on. In fact last year swim teams from three area high schools used the pool for training.


And with the YMCA, taxpayers aren’t shouldering the burden as much with their property taxes. The next time you hear someone say we need a recreational center or community center like Kettering, keep in mind that in 1988, Kettering citizens were asked to approve a $10.7 million bond issue for major additions and renovations to the city’s recreation center. Yes, that’s right, a raise in property taxes. Seems like Kettering’s city income tax wasn’t enough to keep that big recreational center going. Now Kettering has one of the highest city income taxes at 2.25%. Those property tax dollars collected over the years and that city income tax have made it so that Kettering residents only have to pay $125.00 extra a year to join the fitness center. Now that’s progress.


Simply put, if you live in Beavercreek you still call the shots. By living here you get to make choices. When you think about it, Beavercreek is really one of the few cities left that allows it’s citizens so much choice. Here we have the choice of paying for our recreational needs at the YMCA or not. City officials have to give us good reasons for passing tax levies. We even still have the choice of who picks up our trash, but that may soon be threatened. And last but not least, because the citizens of Beavercreek were wise enough to prohibit City Council from enacting a city income tax on their own, we still have that choice too.


So when a candidate says we need a recreational center, what are they they really saying they think we need? You be the judge.

]]> http://beavercreekrecord.com/2007/10/21/opinion-the-recreation-center-still-finds-its-way-into-debate/feed/ 0 Candidates Upton and Wallace Attended Earnings Tax Committee Meetings with Goal of Enacting City Income Tax in Beavercreek http://beavercreekrecord.com/2007/10/16/candidates-upton-and-wallace-attended-earnings-tax-committee-meetings/ http://beavercreekrecord.com/2007/10/16/candidates-upton-and-wallace-attended-earnings-tax-committee-meetings/#comments Tue, 16 Oct 2007 01:17:34 +0000 Beavercreek, Oh http://beavercreekrecord.com/2007/10/16/candidates-upton-and-wallace-attended-earnings-tax-committee-meetings/ Zach Upton and Debborah Wallace, two candidates for Beavercreek City Council, are listed as having attended meetings of the Beavercreek Earnings Tax Committee last year and both may have played an active role in the group’s affairs.


The group known as the Beavercreek Earnings Tax Committee led a failed effort to place a city income tax ordinance on the May 2007 ballot. Rather than collect signatures for a petition, the group attempted to pursuade City Council to place the group’s measure on the ballot. The Beavercreek City Charter prohibits City Council from enacting a city income tax, but it does not prohibit them from placing such a measure on the ballot. City Council rejected the measure following citizen compaints about improper procedure among other things.



Zach Upton

But if Upton and Wallace are elected, some wonder if the measure may be revisited sooner rather than later given their close ties to the Beavercreek Earnings Tax Committee. While transcripts of the citizen group’s exact discussions are not available, it is clear from meeting minutes that both Upton and Wallace played an active role in the group’s efforts to enact a city income tax in Beavercreek.


According to the published minutes, Upton attended at least three of the group’s meetings and on one occassion moved for approval of the minutes from a prior meeting which shows he was more than just a spectator. During another meeting, according to published minutes, Debborah Wallace suggested a strategy that the presentation to city council emphasize the types if income that would not be taxed rather than those that would be taxed. At that same meeting she also volunteered to work with the city to determine what a home costs the city versus a business.

Story continues below advertisement

1-800-PetMeds

Upton was vague about his support for a city income tax at the recent candidate forum held by the Greene County League of Women’s Voters. Upton began by saying,”My political ideologies tell me that maybe we shouldn’t look at an income tax… however I look at the current situation and I see that we want to grow and we want to do other things, and I look at it and say an income tax or an earnings tax, however you want to phrase it, may be the best way to go.” Upton concluded by saying, “Would I support one? There’s a possibility, absolutely. Is there a possibility I wouldn’t? Sure, if it wasn’t worded right for what I felt and what the citizens felt were best for the City of Beavercreek.”


Upton’s campaign website, http://www.zachupton.net, is silent on the issue of his position regarding support of a city income tax.

Continued below advertisement

Identity Guard

During the same candidate forum, Debborah Wallace was clear about her strong support for a city income tax and also mentioned that she was part of the group known as the Beavercreek Earnings Tax Committee.


In fact all candidates at the forum except one said they at least support the idea of placing a city income tax proposal on the ballot. Candidate Luke McKellar was the only candidate that said he did not. McKellar said, “I believe your income belongs to you. I support your ability to use your income as you see fit.” McKellar continued and made the argument that Beavercreek does not need a city income tax. McKellar said Beavercreek already provides an attractive environment for business citing Wright Patt, Wright State and the new office buildings going in. McKellar summed up by saying, “I think that Beavercreek should lead by example and not just pass an income tax or earnings tax because neigboring cities have one.We need to do what is best for this community.”

Support the Beavercreek Record by visiting these advertiser websites.

Camping World Lumber Liquidators NASCAR Superstore Identity Guard US Search.com, Inc.

]]> http://beavercreekrecord.com/2007/10/16/candidates-upton-and-wallace-attended-earnings-tax-committee-meetings/feed/ 0 Beavercreek Seniors Due For Big Break on Property Taxes http://beavercreekrecord.com/2007/07/02/beavercreek-seniors-can-get-a-big-break-on-property-taxes/ http://beavercreekrecord.com/2007/07/02/beavercreek-seniors-can-get-a-big-break-on-property-taxes/#comments Mon, 02 Jul 2007 19:08:01 +0000 Beavercreek, Oh http://beavercreekrecord.com/2007/07/03/beavercreek-seniors-can-get-a-big-break-on-property-taxes/

Beavercreek’s senior citizens are due for a break on their property taxes. Governor Strickland recently signed legislation extending the Homestead Exemption to all Ohio senior citizens regardless of income.



Under the expansion of the Homestead Exemption
the first 25,000 of a senior citizen’s home can be
exempt from property taxes. Photo © Barhorst

Under the newly expanded program anyone age 65 or older is eligible for an exemption from real property taxes on the first $25,000 of their home’s value. Before this change, the Homestead Exemption was restricted to low income and disabled senior citizens.


To apply, seniors need to fill out a simple short form available on the county’s website. (See the end of this article for a link to the form.) For a senior citizen with a $100,000 home that translates into a 25% tax cut on their property taxes.


The expansion of the Homestead Exemption may have just put a big hole in one of the main arguments for a city income tax made by The Beavercreek Earnings Tax Committee. Earlier this year the Beavercreek Earnings Tax Committee argued that the city needed an income tax, in part, to reduce the high property tax burden placed on the city’s seniors. The group advocated a measure that included exempting retirement income and reducing property taxes with a city income tax. Even though the group’s measure failed to make it on the ballot, Beavercreek’s senior population can still get a sizeable break on their property taxes with this expansion of the Homestead Exemption.

Story continues below advertisement

1-800-PetMeds

To take advantage of the newly expanded Homestead Exemption, seniors age 65 or older need to fill out an application form available on the county’s website. Deadline for turning in the form is October 1, 2007. Applicants must be 65 years of age or older as of Dec. 31, 2007 and must own and have occupied their home as their principal place of residence on Jan. 1, 2007. The exemption also applies to those determined to have been permanently and totally disabled as of Jan. 1, 2007, or a surviving spouse. More details about eligibility are included on the form.


The expansion of the program was initiated by Ohio Governor Ted Strickland who included it in the new Ohio budget he recently signed into law. The change is in response to what the governor’s office has characterized as a “disturbing trend” of less and less seniors qualifying for the tax relief. When it was first enacted, the Homestead Exemption provided tax relief to 70% of Ohio’s senior citizens. Over time, that number has fallen to a reported 29% in 2004.

Continued below advertisement

Identity Guard

According to the governor this erosion of the homestead exemption has placed far too large a property tax burden on Ohio’s senior citizens. Governor Strickland said, “For those over 65, and the disabled, regardless of income, this will mean no property tax, not one penny, on the first $25,000 of value in their homes. That’s a tax cut, a property tax cut for one in every four Ohio homeowners.”


According to the Ohio Department of Taxation the exemption will not cut into school district funding and other services funded through property taxes. The homestead exemption tax relief will be reimbursed by the state General Revenue Fund (GRF) to schools and to local governments, so that no local community loses property tax revenue as a result of the expansion of the program.


The Ohio Department of Taxation’s website includes a simple way for senior homeowners to calculate their savings. The department gives this example:

Example: On a $100,000 House with $1,531.25 in Property Taxes


1. Take the property tax amount. In this case $1,531.25 per year
2. Multiply $1,531.25 by 25% to get your tax savings
3. $1,531.25 X .25 = $382.81.


In the above example the $25,000 exemption is 25% of a house valued at $100,000. The percentage changes as the house value increases.

$125,000 House = Exemption represents 20%.
$150,000 House = Exemption represents 16.6%.
$175,000 House = Exemption represents 14.2%.
$200,000 House = Exemption represents 12.5%.

Link to Homestead Exemption Form:

Homestead Exemption Application Form

Click the link above for the Homestead Exemption Application Form available on Greene County’s website. A link to the form also appears on the county’s main page.




Support the Beavercreek Record by visiting these advertiser websites.

Camping World Lumber Liquidators NASCAR Superstore Identity Guard US Search.com, Inc.

]]> http://beavercreekrecord.com/2007/07/02/beavercreek-seniors-can-get-a-big-break-on-property-taxes/feed/ 0 Beavercreek Earnings Tax Committee Lets Web Domain Expire http://beavercreekrecord.com/2007/06/21/beavercreek-earnings-tax-committee-lets-web-domain-expire/ http://beavercreekrecord.com/2007/06/21/beavercreek-earnings-tax-committee-lets-web-domain-expire/#comments Thu, 21 Jun 2007 04:46:23 +0000 Beavercreek, Oh http://beavercreekrecord.com/2007/06/21/beavercreek-earnings-tax-committee-lets-web-domain-expire/ The Beavercreek Earnings Tax Committee may have let their web domain expire. Interested parties who go to the web domain that was advertised by the group, www.beavercreekearningtax.com, now receive an error message that says the web domain expired on June 12.

Story continues below advertisement

Register.com

The domain, however, never really took web surfers to a self contained website. Instead, it rolled over to webspace for an Earthlink account that, at the current time, is still live but contains no updates. The web address of the Earthlink web space is http://home.earthlink.net/~beavercreekearningstax .


Earlier this year the Beavercreek Earnings Tax Committee led a failed effort to convince Beavercreek City Council to put a city income tax ordinance on the May ballot. Amidst complaints from residents over improper changes, improper posting and failure to adequately advertise the public meetings, Council defeated the proposed ordinance in a 4 to 3 vote on it’s second reading January 8, 2007. Following the whole ordeal, however, the Beavercreek Earnings Tax Committee was left with a much improved ordinance that was more legally sound.


During City Council’s process of considering the group’s request, the ordinance was rewritten with help from city workers and input from the city’s legal council. Many thought the Beavercreek Earnings Committee would take their new ordinance and mount a petition drive to get the measure on the May ballot or, perhaps, the November ballot.

Story continues below advertisement

.Mac (Apple Computer, Inc.)

But since the time of the committee’s defeat, there has been no news from the group or updates on their site. Now with the domain expiring, one can only wonder whether this chapter of a push for a city income tax in Beavercreek is now closed.


The committee could still choose to renew the domain name. The domain registrar the committee used typically holds an expired domain for a period of 15 to 25 days for it’s customers after expiration. During that time a customer could still renew the name if they so desired.



THERE’S MORE TO THE STORY:
Click below for related stories that appeared earlier in The Beavercreek Record.

• City Income Tax Proposal Fails at Second Reading
• City Income Tax Won’t Reduce Property Taxes Immediately
• Local Group Approaches Council for City Income Tax




Support the Beavercreek Record by visiting these advertiser websites.

Camping World Lumber Liquidators NASCAR Superstore Identity Guard US Search.com, Inc.

]]> http://beavercreekrecord.com/2007/06/21/beavercreek-earnings-tax-committee-lets-web-domain-expire/feed/ 0 Xenia and Fairborn Lead County in Recent Foreclosure Sales http://beavercreekrecord.com/2007/05/11/xenia-and-fairborn-lead-county-in-recent-foreclosure-sales/ http://beavercreekrecord.com/2007/05/11/xenia-and-fairborn-lead-county-in-recent-foreclosure-sales/#comments Fri, 11 May 2007 17:37:29 +0000 Beavercreek, Oh http://beavercreekrecord.com/2007/05/11/xenia-and-fairborn-lead-county-in-recent-foreclosure-sales/ The cities of Xenia and Fairborn lead Greene County in the number of foreclosure sales according to the Sheriff’s Sale of Real Estate list availabe on the county’s website. The list shows that 15 homes in Xenia and 11 homes in Fairborn were scheduled for foreclosure sale on May 10, 2007. Only 3 homes in Beavercreek were on the list. The advance list of forclosure sales scheduled for June 2007 shows similar numbers.


The rate of foreclosures has gained new relevance this year because of recent debate on a city income tax in Beavercreek, also refered to as an earnings tax. In debate before City Council late last year and early this year, advocates of the income tax argued that it’s passage would reduce the property tax burden on home owners and make Beavercreek a more affordable place to live. Neighboring cities with city income taxes were used as examples.

Story continues below advertisement

Lumber Liquidators

The low number of foreclosures in Beavercreek and the high numbers in both Xenia and Fairborn, cities with income taxes, would tend to support an opposite argument that Beavercreek is already an affordable place to live. If income tax advocates bring up the proposal again for the November election, they may have a difficult time making an argument on this point given these recent statistics.


Shown below is an edited version of the Sheriff’s Sale of Real Estate list available at the county’s website.


GREENE COUNTY, OHIO SHERIFF’S SALE OF REAL ESTATE LIST (Edited)

From May 11, 2007. Subject to conditions of sale. See Sheriff’s site for more information.
Source: http://www.co.greene.oh.us/sheriff/sh_sales-current.htm

Sale Date

Case #

Address

City

Appraisal

Judgment

5/10/2007

06cv0427

257 Helen

Xenia

$150,000.00

$57,951.29

5/10/2007

06cv0659

1843 Drake

Xenia

$69,000.00

$42,528.07

5/10/2007

06cv0745

411 Ackerman

Xenia

$75,000.00

$60,331.57

5/10/2007

06cv0720

1170 Colorado

Xenia

$69,000.00

$65,541.44

5/10/2007

06cv0628

353 Hill St.

Xenia

$51,000.00

$42,372.34

5/10/2007

06cv0299

1379 Commonwealth

Xenia

$93,000.00

$108,700.72

5/10/2007

06cv0924

293 Bedford

Xenia

$87,000.00

$82,942.97

5/10/2007

06cv0279

465 Cincinnati

Xenia

$75,000.00

$73,216.92

5/10/2007

05cv0953

1295 Prem

Xenia

$171,000.00

$138,053.04

5/10/2007

06cv1050

979 S. Monroe

Xenia

$75,000.00

$76,371.54

5/10/2007

06cv0866

873 Florence

Xenia

$69,000.00

$79,953.98

5/10/2007

06cv0965

1777 Kylemore

Xenia

$63,000.00

$56,674.12

5/10/2007

06cv0703

2098 Drake Dr.

Xenia

$63,000.00

$56,252.49

5/10/2007

06cv0613

1260 Shannon

Xenia

$189,000.00

$184,676.37

5/10/2007

06cv0933

894 N. Detroit

Xenia

$90,000.00

$86,085.87

5/10/2007

06cv0809

20 Greeneview

Jamestown

$120,000.00

$113,298.85

5/10/2007

06cv1064

3727 Shawnee

Jamestown

$126,000.00

$130,184.48

5/10/2007

06cv1020

134 Whiteman

Y. Springs

$120,000.00

$117,344.41

5/10/2007

06cv0710

4354 Napa Valley Dr.

Bellbrook

$225,000.00

$190,242.00

5/10/2007

06cv0871

3610 E Salinas

Dayton

$480,000.00

$359,230.72

5/10/2007

06cv1114

2986 Idaho Falls Dr.

Dayton

$201,000.00

$155,495.59

5/10/2007

06cv0678

9530 Adams

Huber Heights

$69,000.00

$103,341.62

5/10/2007

06cv0639

1313 Dequincy

Beavercreek

$99,000.00

$106,432.25

5/10/2007

06cv0857

4222 Chalmette

Beavercreek

$120,000.00

$100,995.94

5/10/2007

05cv0880

2829 Bahns Dr.

Beavercreek

$108,000.00

$85,168.80

5/10/2007

06cv0302

310 Wayne Dr.

Fairborn

$99,000.00

$70,338.30

5/10/2007

06cv0899

1631 Superior

Fairborn

$51,000.00

$58,305.64

5/10/2007

06cv0332

1865 Superior

Fairborn

$75,000.00

$80,689.03

5/10/2007

06cv0604

131 West Funderburg

Fairborn

$90,000.00

$79,529.31

5/10/2007

06cv0575

314 Shade Dr.

Fairborn

$111,000.00

$122,471.61

5/10/2007

01cv0614

111 W. Xenia

Fairborn

$90,000.00

$34,521.36

5/10/2007

06cv0731

1131 Ortego Dr.

Fairborn

$120,000.00

$107,360.49

5/10/2007

03cv0633

357 Forestview

Fairborn

$189,000.00

$105,204.00

5/10/2007

06cv1071

1726 Lowell Dr.

Fairborn

$72,000.00

$105,408.66

5/10/2007

06cv0807

1848 North Blvd

Fairborn

$42,000.00

$59,505.99

5/10/2007

06cv0888

1195 Marietta

Fairborn

$159,000.00

$133,466.03


EDIT INFORMATION Attorney names, phone numbers and status listingings have been removed from this list. Homes not listed as ACTIVE were removed. This list changes often as new sales are scheduled and old sales are removed. For more information visit the Greene County Sheriff’s page at http://www.co.greene.oh.us/sheriff.

]]> http://beavercreekrecord.com/2007/05/11/xenia-and-fairborn-lead-county-in-recent-foreclosure-sales/feed/ 0 Alleged Back Room Meeting to Kill Earnings Tax Proposal Causes Controversy at January 22 City Council http://beavercreekrecord.com/2007/01/30/alleged-back-room-meeting-to-kill-earnings-tax-proposal-causes-controversy-at-january-22-city-council/ http://beavercreekrecord.com/2007/01/30/alleged-back-room-meeting-to-kill-earnings-tax-proposal-causes-controversy-at-january-22-city-council/#comments Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:00:16 +0000 Beavercreek, Oh http://beavercreekrecord.com/2007/01/30/alleged-back-room-meeting-to-kill-earnings-tax-proposal-causes-controversy-at-january-22-city-council/ Controversy errupted at the January 22 meeting of City Council when Council Member Broughton alleged that during a back room meeting, he was asked by Vice Mayor Leonard to put fourth the motion that killed the Earnings Tax proposal for a city income tax. Leonard, who voted against that same motion in open Council, denied the claim.


More troubling is that the discussion allegedly took place in a back room meeting, out of public view, and involved a majority of council members during a half hour break from the regular public meeting. Such a meeting could be in violation of the City Charter and Ohio Revised Code if official public business was being discussed. According to Broughton’s allegations, that’s exactly what the discussion was about.

Advertisement

Apple iTunes



Broughton’s comments, and those from other council members, describe a back room meeting where council members were discussing and debating how they would proceed with the city income tax issue and also planning a motion to kill the measure.


For the benefit of our readers, links to a complete transcript and MP3 audio file are provided at the end of this article.
What follows contains excerpts from the discussion.


The controversy began near the end of the January 22 meeting. Council Member Broughton began by saying that he wanted to clear up some confusion over events surrounding his motion to kill the city income tax proposal on January 8. He continued and asked the Vice Mayor to state that he had asked Broughton to make the motion. Vice Mayor Leonard denied the allegation.

“Broughton said, “So I would ask that the Vice Mayor be willing to go on the record to state that in fact he was the one who asked me to make the motion.”

Vice Mayor Leonard denied the claim saying, “I did not ask anyone to make a motion. I suggested, and I believe it was to you, John, that would be the only way to stop it from going on to the third reading since we don’t have to vote to pass it on to the third reading.”

Broughton responded with voice raised, “And I will go on the record and categorically state that not only did he tell me how to make the motion, he asked me specifically to make the motion and during that conversation both the Mayor and the Vice Mayor and Councilman Martin was standing there.”

The entire exchange continued for over 10 minutes and at various points included comments from most of the other members of City Council. Comments from Council Members Baker and Martin lended creedence to Broughton’s claim. Baker also claimed that some members of council who suggested killing it in private were the same ones who later voted against killing it in public.

Council Member Baker said, “I wasn’t there for that dialog but I was there earlier when I heard Mr. Leonard express his opinion that he didn’t think it should go forward… as well as I heard that from other council members that voted… not in favor of the motion.”

Baker later added, “Now, we’re going to let this thing turn into a dynamite type of thing if we’re not careful, but we shouldn’t mess with the truth.”

Throughout the exchange, Mayor Hadley tried to diffuse the situation and, at one point, asked members of Council to just let it die. Broughton immediately responded saying that it was the Mayor who wouldn’t the the issue die because he had made negative statements about council members and their decision at another public meeting.

Hadley said, “Alright, well let me state… I think we’ve vented some feelings here and I think we took action last meeting and it did not move forward and I think we need to let it die right where it is.”

Broughton quickly replied, “I would love to Mayor except that you showed up, and so did two other council people at a public meeting, and chastised the four of us for doing… covering your butts for screwing it up in the first place!”

The discussion of events that allegedly took place in the back room meeting continued and included the reasons for the meeting itself, reasons for killing the Earning’s Tax proposal and a statement from Council Member Baker that alluded to decision making taking place in the back room.

Council Member Baker said, “We were advised by Mr. McHugh that he suspected there’s problems and if it goes to litigation it may not fare well. And we created a mess… more or less. And that’s when it was decided that we couldn’t go forward.”


Advertisement

Netflix, Inc.



According to comments from council members, much of the discussion that allegedly took place in the back room centered on whether the City fulfilled requirements set by the Charter for passing ordinances. It could be considered ironic that the discussion itself may have been a violation the Charter if discussion, debate and decisions were being made involving the public business.


While certain provisions of the Charter were not met with the Earnings Tax proposal, including a full posting of the ordinance in City Hall, Mayor Hadley said he understood that they were in keeping with the spirit of the Charter. Council Member Howard disagreed and pointed out that the Charter was actually very specific about the requirements.

Hadley said,“But the question is… the question was asked. Did we meet the requirements set by the Charter and Mr. McHugh, as I understood it, said at the time he feels that we met the spirit of what the Charter intended.”

Council Member Howard contradicted Hadley and said, “And I’ll just say for whoever is watching or whatever that the Charter was very specific in that it must be posted, not in the clerk’s office but it must be posted and where I decided I was done with this whole thing was when we did not meet the Charter literally. I read it as though it’s a Bible… not in the spirit of things, but though we follow it to the letter as much as possible. That’s when I left early… I was done.”

Nearing the end of the exchange Council Member Martin both supported Broughton’s claim and summed up some of the reasons why he felt the Earnings Tax proposal had to be killed.

Martin said, “My recollection is a lot closer to your recollection Mr. Broughton. I think what’s important here though is that the public… we need to be truthful and honest with the public and the people at home need to know that the thing… we had to kill the thing. We had no other choice but to kill the thing because of improper posting, improper advertising and improper changes.“

At one point during the controversy Mayor Hadley denied that he even thought there was a discussion taking place in the back room.

Mayor Hadley said, “Well I didn’t know we were back there discussing anything. I didn’t think we were doing any discussing… in the back room.”

Both Broughton and Baker took issue with Hadley’s statement and asked why he spent time looking at dates on a calendar during the back room meeting which would not have been necessary if no discussion was really taking place. Hadley replied that he simply had a question about the dates.


There is no way to verify any of the statements made by council members regarding the alleged back room meeting or what was actually said. For such a meeting to be a violation of the Charter a majority of council members would have to be present and they would have to be discussing the public business of the public body in private. On the surface it appears that the alleged back room meeting may have met those requirements. If so, it could then be a violation of both the Beavercreek City Charter and Ohio Revised Code 121.22.


If such a meeting did take place it would also explain why a 15 minute break from the regular meeting turned into a 30 minute break and why following that break Council acted so swiftly to put forth the motion to kill the proposal with very little debate among council members.


As of the writing of this article there has been no coverage of the controversy in any other local media. No official action has been announced by any government agency, local group or individual regarding filing of suit with the court of common pleas over whether the alleged backroom meeting was a possible violation the City Charter and Ohio Revised Code 121.22.


The section of the Beavercreek City Charter pertaining to open meetings is reprinted below for the benefit of our readers.

SECTION 13.09. OPEN MEETINGS


Where a majority of a board, commission, committee, or similar decision-making public body of the City, including the Council, shall prearrange a discussion of the public business of the public body, it shall be required to take official action and to conduct all deliberations upon official business only in public meetings in accordance with the laws of the State of Ohio. Executive sessions shall be permitted in accordance with the laws of the State of Ohio.



RELATED STORY: Transcript of Controversy During Jan 22 2007 City Council


RELATED STORY: MP3 Audio of Controversy During Jan 22 2007 City Council



For The Record: Because the proposal for a city income tax may resurface at any time, The Beavercreek Record will continue it’s coverage and investigation of the issue with the goal of ensuring readers are well informed if the issue should arise again.

]]> http://beavercreekrecord.com/2007/01/30/alleged-back-room-meeting-to-kill-earnings-tax-proposal-causes-controversy-at-january-22-city-council/feed/ 0 Transcript of Controversy During Jan. 22, 2007 City Council http://beavercreekrecord.com/2007/01/30/transcript-of-controversy-during-jan-22-2007-city-council/ http://beavercreekrecord.com/2007/01/30/transcript-of-controversy-during-jan-22-2007-city-council/#comments Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:58:52 +0000 Beavercreek, Oh http://beavercreekrecord.com/2007/01/30/transcript-of-controversy-during-jan-22-2007-city-council/ The Beavercreek Record is making available a transcript of a controversial discussion that occurred at the January 22, 2007 City Council Meeting. This transcript was created by The Beavercreek Record and reflects a discussion that took place during Council Time at the meeting. A link to an audio file of the discussion is also available at the end of this transcript.



Advertisement

ProGolf TaylorMade Shop

The controversial discussion centered on events that allegedly took place in a back room meeting, out of public view, during a half hour break from the regular public meeting of City Council on January 8, 2007.


Such a meeting could be in violation of the Beavercreek City Charter and Ohio Revised Code 121.22 if official public business was being discussed by a majority of council in private during the break from the regular meeting.


Council Member Broughton claims that during the alleged back room meeting council members were discussing how they would proceed with the city income tax issue and also planning the motion to kill the measure. He alleges that during that meeting he was asked by Vice Mayor Leonard to put fourth the motion that killed the Earnings Tax proposal. Leonard, who voted against that same motion in open Council, denied the claim.


TRANSCRIPT


EXCERPT FROM BEAVERCREEK CITY COUNCIL MEETING JAN. 22 2007


DURING COUNCIL TIME

(This discussion took place during Council Time, a portion of the City Council meeting set aside for any unscheduled comments or business from council members. The discussion was between Council Member John Broughton and Vice Mayor Dr. Thomas Leonard. Council Members David Baker, Jarrod Martin, Phyllis Howard and Mayor Scott Hadley also participated. Council Member Joy Brailey was present, but did not participate in the discussion. This discussion lasted 10 minutes.)

MAYOR HADLEY:

Anyone.

BROUGHTON:

Yes, Mayor. In order to help clear up some confusion… on January 8th I made a motion to table the… or to not send the income tax ordinance forward. At that time I thought it was pretty clear, but since then confusion seems to get… more confusing. So I would ask that the Vice Mayor be willing to go on the record to state that in fact he was the one that asked me to make the motion.

VICE MAYOR LEONARD: (microphone off)

I did not ask anyone to make a motion I suggested that would be the only way to stop it from going on to… on to the third reading

BROUGHTON:

I understand… as I referenced earlier…

VICE MAYOR LEONARD: (microphone on)

Let me repeat that… I didn’t have my microphone on. I did not ask anyone to make a motion. I suggested, and I believe it was to you, John, that would be the only way to stop it from going on to the third reading since we don’t have to vote to pass it on to the third reading.

BROUGHTON:

And I will go on the record and categorically state that not only did he tell me how to make the motion, he asked me specifically to make the motion and during that conversation both the Mayor and the Vice Mayor and Councilman Martin was standing there. So, again as I stated earlier it appears that the eighth councilman has showed up again. I just want it in the record.

VICE MAYOR LEONARD:

John I’ll respond to that. I did not ask you to make the motion. I remember the specific words. I suggested a motion is the only way to stop it from going on to the third reading.

BAKER:

I wasn’t there for that dialog, but I was there earlier when I heard Mr. Leonard express his opinion that he didn’t think it should go forward… as well as I heard that from other council members that voted… not in favor of the motion. Mr. Hadley you were the only one I know of that stayed with the position that you didn’t want to change the direction. Now, I heard that coming out of the hall. Now, we’re going to let this thing turn into a dynamite type of thing if we’re not careful, but we shouldn’t mess with the truth.

MAYOR HADLEY:

Alright, well let me state… I think we’ve vented some feelings here and I think we took action last meeting and it did not move forward and I think we need to let it die right where it is.

BROUGHTON:

I would love to Mayor except that you showed up, and so did two other council people at a public meeting, and chastised the four of us for doing… covering your butts for screwing it up in the first place! Now I’ll ask you one other question Mayor. When I walked through that door coming from the back room, did you not come up behind me and tell me you could not support my motion?

MAYOR HADLEY:

You said you would make the motion and I said I will not support it.

BROUGHTON:

How did you know the motion was going to be made… you telling me you think I said that in the back room? [Be]cause earlier in a discussion in the parking lot you told me you didn’t even hear a motion.

MAYOR HADLEY:

I heard you say that you were going to make a motion… to not send it through… in the back…

BROUGHTON: (Hadley and Broughton talking at same time)

And how did I get the motion…

MAYOR HADLEY: (Hadley and Broughton talking at same time)

Well I don’t know…

BROUGHTON: (Hadley and Broughton talking at same time)

… since I didn’t even know how to send it considering it was the second reading. I was directed! And maybe Mr. Martin would like to go on the record… (microphone off) …and tell us how he… (inaudible)

MAYOR HADLEY:

Well… I, I think we’ve debated this and quite frankly if, if there are upset feelings, then, that, this is, part of what we have to take for sitting up here at the podium and listening to this.

VICE MAYOR LEONARD:

Well I don’t have to take you pointing your finger at me and saying I directed you to make a motion, John, I think anybody knows I can’t direct you to do anything.

BROUGHTON: (away from microphone)

You didn’t. You asked me if I would and I said that I would.

VICE MAYOR LEONARD:

I didn’t ask you I suggested…

MAYOR HADLEY: (Talking at the same time Leonard is talking.)

Somebody doesn’t have their mic on.

VICE MAYOR LEONARD:

…suggested that that’s the only way to stop it from going forward. I believe Mr. McHugh had some comments at that point. Both…

BROUGHTON: (interrupting)

No I don’t think Mr. McHugh was in our conversation at all.

BAKER:

I don’t know when you guys were speaking to the issue but I know we were advised…

MAYOR HADLEY: (interrupting)

Your mic off…

BAKER:

It’s on. We were advised by Mr. McHugh that he suspected there’s problems and if it goes to litigation it may not fare well. And we created a mess… more or less. And that’s when it was decided that we couldn’t go forward. Now most council wom…. most council people that were back there, that I heard, and I have to confess I left before Mr. Leonard suggested someone make a motion, but I did hear him say he did not think it should go forward and that was principally because of what we heard out here and what we heard from legal council… and that was also the position, of I think Mrs Brailey. Now it was pretty clear, you were… when I was… just my looking… I still (inaudible) and I was arguing with the legal counsel that it was legally posted. I was still trying to get it approved. And here I find out that I’ve been labeled now as one of the saboteurs of the income tax… when I was standing back there arguing with legal counsel.

MAYOR HADLEY:

Well I didn’t know we were back there discussing anything. I didn’t think we were doing any discussing…

BAKER:

What were you…

MAYOR HADLEY: (interrupting)

…in the back room.

BAKER:

What were you…

MAYOR HADLEY: (interrupting)

I asked a question of legal: Did we meet the requirements of the Charter by posting it. And…

BROUGHTON: (interrupting)

What were you doing with the calendar?

MAYOR HADLEY:

To find out…

BROUGHTON: (interrupting).

Looking for a date.

MAYOR HADLEY:

The question came up, do… well, if we stop it now do we start over? And we didn’t have time to start over. So it stopped… it stopped. There was no time to go back to a first reading.

BAKER:

Why would we have to do that if it wasn’t necessary?

MAYOR HADLEY:

Well I didn’t think it was originally necessary. I still don’t think it was necessary.

BROUGHTON:

But you spent thirty minutes looking at a calendar.

MAYOR HADLEY:

I didn’t spend thirty minutes looking at a calendar, I looked at a calendar when it was, when it came over there and I think Mr McHugh had the calendar.

BROUGHTON:

Mr. Martin, you were there… how do you remember this?

MARTIN:

My recollection is a lot closer to your recollection Mr. Broughton. I think what’s important here though is that the public… we need to be truthful and honest with the public and the people at home need to know that the thing… we had to kill the thing. We had no other choice but to kill the thing because of improper posting, improper advertising and improper changes. And I believe Dr. Leonard and Mrs. Brailey both expressed concern about the ordinance moving forward, during the break. I did not hear Mr. Hadley express concern but I did hear Mr. Leonard say, “Whose going to make the motion to kill it?” And that’s when I volunteered to do so and John said, “No I’ll do it.” That’s how my recollection of the evening’s …

BROUGHTON:

After I clarified that I thought the public had a right to have this… if this could not go forward that it needed to end now and not go to the third reading and die. That’s when the Vice Mayor asked me to make it, he said, “John, why don’t you make it,” and I said, “I will.” It was that simple.

VICE MAYOR LEONARD:

I heard, just before we came back in, Mr. McHugh express the opinion, and I may have misinterpreted it, that we did meet the legal requirements for the posting, even though it was just the cover sheet… not the whole thing. Based on that, my feeling was this can go forward.

MAYOR HADLEY:

Alright, that was, that was the discussion that I heard…

BROUGHTON: (Talking at the same time Hadley is talking.)

We’d like to hear our…

MAYOR HADLEY: (Talking over Broughton)

Well, let me tell you what I… what I heard and understood as well. Because it seems like everybody is coming under scrutiny and attack here tonight, and I don’t think it’s time and I don’t think we should be doing that. But the question is… the question was asked. Did we meet the requirements set by the Charter and Mr. McHugh, as I understood it, said at the time he feels that we met the spirit of what the Charter intended. We did in fact post the ordinance. We did not attach the attachment to it. The ordinance refers to Attachment A. That was not with it. In the Charter it very specifically states that it should be in the clerk’s office… the attachment and the ordinance in it’s entirety was in the clerk’s office. I figured from that we met what we had to do for it to go through… others did not. So…

HOWARD:

And I’ll just say for whoever is watching or whatever that the Charter was very specific in that it must be posted, not in the clerk’s office but it must be posted and where I decided I was done with this whole thing was when we did not meet the Charter literally. I read it as though it’s a Bible… not in the spirit of things, but though we follow it to the letter as much as possible. That’s when I left early… I was done. When we couldn’t meet the advertising, the posting and the changes in the spirit… not in the spirit, but literally with the Charter, then I was done.

MAYOR HADLEY:

I never heard a question… a mention of anybody saying anything about advertising.

HOWARD:

It was mentioned in open meeting before…

(Mayor Hadley, Council Members Howard, Baker, and Martin all begin talking at the same time.)



MAYOR HADLEY:

They said that…

HOWARD:

… we went to break.

BAKER:

Mr Mayor…

MARTIN:

The third meeting had been advertised for the following Tuesday and rescheduled for Thursday.

MAYOR HADLEY:

We said that out here in the meeting because we did have to continue the second reading to allow for the seven days that was required because we hadn’t done it.

MARTN:

And then the following, when we actually had the second reading, that was two Mondays ago. We had advertised the third reading that following Tuesday and then rescheduled it for Thursday and had not readvertised that change of schedule. That was… I mean… it was done regardless. We couldn’t go, we couldn’t…

HOWARD:

Right.

MARTIN:

…at least not at that time had the third reading on that Thursday. [Be]cause we had advertised it for the following… for the next day.

MAYOR HADLEY:

I remember we set that for Monday and Tuesday. Ok. Alright.

HOWARD:

Well the only thing I guess I would like to ask is that, in moving forward if there’s any comments I would ask that each Council Member please speak for themselves… truthfully, honestly… if you’re going to say anything else and let’s not speak for each other.

BROUGHTON:

I will be doing a lot of that… for myself, from now on.

(At this point discussion of controversy and the events of the alleged back room meeting ended and Council Member Phyllis Howard moved the meeting forward to other business.)


This transcript was created by The Beavercreek Record. To the best of our abilities, it reflects words spoken by members of Council in an exchange that took place during the January 22, 2007 meeting of the Beavercreek City Council during a 10 minute portion of Council Time. It has been checked numerous times for accuracy. If an inaccuracy exists, it is unintention. If you find an inacurracy please report it using the SUBMISSIONS link at the bottom of this page.


For purposes of readability words like “um” and “uh” were removed. Three dot ellipses in this transcript were only used to show pauses. No content was skipped, removed or paraphrased.



RELATED STORY: Alleged Back Room Meeting to Kill Earnings Tax Proposal Causes Controversy at January 22 City Council


RELATED STORY: MP3 Audio of Controversy During Jan 22 2007 City Council



For The Record: Because the proposal for a city income tax may resurface at any time, The Beavercreek Record will continue it’s coverage and investigation of the issue with the goal of ensuring readers are well informed if the issue should arise again.

]]> http://beavercreekrecord.com/2007/01/30/transcript-of-controversy-during-jan-22-2007-city-council/feed/ 0