Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Elections Ballot Language topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board of elections rejected Bellbrook's May levy ballot language; city requests records

2756356 · March 24, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Bellbrook officials say the Greene County Board of Elections rejected ballot language for a proposed 2.2-mill levy for the city's May ballot and that the city has asked the board for records of its decision.

Bellbrook City Council learned on Monday that the Greene County Board of Elections rejected the city's proposed ballot language for a 2.2-mill levy intended for the May ballot. City staff said the rejection was based on concerns about the wording for the levy's collection year and that the board's decision was made at a March 4 meeting.

City Manager Rob said he had to call the Board of Elections to learn of the rejection because the city had not been notified. Rob said that when the board's staff returned the language to the secretary of state, the state flagged the language for revision and that the local board then asked for prosecutor review. According to the city manager, the Board of Elections and the city did not exchange timely notice about the rejection and subsequent review steps.

Because certification deadlines had passed for the May ballot, the city will not be able to place the question before voters in May. City staff said this constrains planning for the 2026 budget and that the city will prepare two budget scenarios to account for either passage or failure of a future levy. The city manager said he submitted a formal public-records request for meeting notices, written decisions and correspondence between the Board of Elections and the secretary of state so Bellbrook can understand the timeline and the board's reasoning.

Council members requested follow-up and urged staff to seek documentation. The law director will review options and next steps; council indicated intent to resubmit language and place a levy question on a later ballot (likely November) if appropriate.