Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Levy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees debate levies; resolution to levy motor vehicle license tax fails, trustees vote to seek county certification on multiple millage options
Summary
Trustees considered several levy-related resolutions June 17. A motion to adopt Resolution 25-92 (levy of a township motor vehicle license tax under Ohio Revised Code §4504.18) failed on roll call (three No votes). Trustees then moved to request county auditor certification for alternate road-levy millage options (4.9, 3.9 and 2.9 mills) so the
Trustees debated multiple levy approaches at the June 17 meeting, including a direct township motor vehicle license tax resolution and alternative property-tax millage options for roads and safety services. The board recorded a roll-call vote that defeated one resolution and moved to obtain county certification for additional millage scenarios.
Resolution 25-92 (motor vehicle license tax)
Administrator/Budget staff introduced Resolution 25-92, described in the meeting as “a resolution authorizing the levy of a township motor vehicle license tax pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code section 4504.18.” A trustee moved to adopt the resolution; the motion was seconded. On roll call the result was recorded as: Trustee Burding — No; Trustee Mcabee — No; Trustee Harkenmeyer — No. That motion failed.
Discussion and public comment
Public commenters and trustees repeatedly emphasized the township’s most acute operational need is fire and public safety staffing. One public speaker urged trustees to “strongly consider supporting a funding format, another levy, renewing the levy,” saying the staffing and safety consequences of underfunding could increase injuries. Trustees varied in approach: some said they preferred asking voters directly and running a single focused question rather than multiple simultaneous asks; others said they would consider different timing so the township would not have multiple competing measures on one ballot.
Request for auditor certification of millage options
After discussion trustees considered a separate, two-step administrative approach: ask the county auditor to certify revenue and taxpayer-impact figures for a range of property-tax millages so trustees can choose a final proposal later. The proposed candidate millages presented in the meeting were 4.9 mills, 3.9 mills and 2.9 mills; one trustee said a dedicated 1‑mill road levy would generate about $795,000 (trustee estimate reported during discussion).
Trustees moved to adopt a resolution asking the county auditor to certify the numbers for the alternate millages so the board could compare revenue estimates and household impacts. The transcript records the motion and a second to request certification, but the roll-call outcome of that specific motion is not recorded in the available transcript.
Process and deadlines
Staff and trustees noted statutory calendar constraints for placing measures on the ballot. They discussed that a special meeting and timely filings with the county auditor would be required to appear on the November ballot and that certain certification deadlines (auditor certification and final-resolution dates) are fixed; staff said final resolution submissions are due by Dec. 1 for county processes described during the meeting.
Ending
The board defeated Resolution 25‑92 by recorded roll call. Trustees directed staff to obtain certified revenue and taxpayer‑impact figures from the county auditor for several millage scenarios and to return with comparisons and options before deciding whether to place any levy on a ballot.
