2013 Ohio 2424
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Cincinnati enacted Ordinance No. 56-2013 authorizing a long-term parking system lease with the Port Authority to address a budget shortfall.
- Ordinance 56-2013 included an emergency clause; city officials asserted the emergency clause exempted the ordinance from referendum.
- Plaintiffs-relators, residents and taxpayers, sought declaratory and injunctive relief to subject the ordinance to referendum and paused its implementation.
- Temporary restraining order issued; referendum petition filed; case moved to and remanded from federal court; consolidated hearings held on injunctive and declaratory claims.
- Common Pleas Court ruled Ordinance 56-2013 was subject to referendum; city appealed on issues of justiciability, standing, and referendum scope.
- Ohio appellate court reversed, holding the Cincinnati Charter exempts valid emergency ordinances from referendum and ordered judgment in favor of the city.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Ordinance 56-2013 subject to referendum under the Charter? | McQueen et al. argued Charter grants referendum on all council actions, with no clear emergency exemption. | City argued Charter incorporates state-law provisions exempting emergency ordinances from referendum. | Ordinance not subject to referendum; Charter exempts valid emergency ordinances. |
| Did the action proceed properly given jurisdiction/standing concerns and R.C. 733.59 prerequisites? | Plaintiffs had standing to vindicate public referendum rights and sought costs under statutory taxpayer action. | Plaintiffs failed to satisfy R.C. 733.59 security requirement, defeating statutory jurisdiction. | Action lacked R.C. 733.59 security; statutory pathway not properly established; standing analyzed but conclusion based on security. |
| Were the voting requirements for the emergency ordinance satisfied under the Charter? | Argued the two-thirds roll-call on the emergency clause did not align with statutory two-thirds requirement. | Charter amended to allow majority for the ordinance and two-thirds for the emergency clause; procedure valid. | Emergency ordinance passed in compliance with Charter provisions; valid and effective. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shyrock v. Zanesville, 92 Ohio St. 375 (1915) (referendum power limited for emergency legislation)
- Taylor v. London, 88 Ohio St.3d 137 (2000) (R.C. 731.29/731.30 do not contravene constitutional referendum rights)
- State ex rel. Bramblette v. Yordy, 24 Ohio St.2d 147 (1970) (constitutional/separation of referendum and emergency powers)
- Ditmars v. McSweeney, 94 Ohio St.3d 472 (2002) (charter provisions read with state law; ambiguity standard)
- Julnes v. S. Euclid City Council, 130 Ohio St.3d 6 (2011) (charter provision expressly subjecting emergency ordinances to referendum; state-law interaction)
- Walsh v. Cincinnati City Council, 54 Ohio App.2d 107 (1977) (charter-based referendum limitations on emergency ordinances)