County Commissioners’ Plan To Avoid Referendum - It’s Worse Than I Originally Thought (UPDATE)
Posted by Jeff Pruitt - 3/28/08 @ 12:40 am - Filed Under 2008 Local Elections, Featured, Local Politics
UPDATE: I got word from the Allen County Auditor’s office today that, contrary to what Commissioner Bloom thinks, this project WOULD be subject to referendum if it were approved after June 30
I originally reported that the commissioners were pushing a June 30 deadline for the approval of the $55 million Maplecrest Extension because if it were approved after that date then it would be subject to referendum. I’ve posted video of commissioner Nelson Peters using the June 30 deadline in his presentation to county council but without mentioning the referendum requirement.
However, the commissioners’ plan appears to actually be two-fold. To his credit councilman Darren Vogt pointed out that if the project was not approved by June 30 then it would be subject to referendum. Immediately commissioner Linda Bloom chimed in and said they didn’t think that was the case as “road and bridge projects are exempt”. Video of this exchange is also shown below but there can no longer be any doubt that the commissioners are planning to try and pass this without a referendum.
Here’s Nelson Peters using the June 30 deadline for county council to act. I’m sure it’s just coincidence that he chose that date though right?
Next we have the video of Linda Bloom asserting the commissioners’ position that the project would not be subject to referendum.
Now let me just say that this is exactly the type of project the referendum was put in place to stop. However, let’s take a look at the Indiana Code and see if Bloom’s assertion holds. Any “controlled project” over $12 Million can be subject to referendum. So we turn to IC 6-1.1-20.1.1 to define “controlled project”
Sec. 1.1. As used in this chapter, “controlled project” means any project financed by bonds or a lease, except for the following:
(1) A project for which the political subdivision reasonably expects to pay:
(A) debt service; or
(B) lease rentals;
from funds other than property taxes that are exempt from the levy limitations of IC 6-1.1-18.5 or IC 20-45-3. A project is not a controlled project even though the political subdivision has pledged to levy property taxes to pay the debt service or lease rentals if those other funds are insufficient.
(2) A project that will not cost the political subdivision more than two million dollars ($2,000,000).
(3) A project that is being refinanced for the purpose of providing gross or net present value savings to taxpayers.
(4) A project for which bonds were issued or leases were entered into before January 1, 1996, or where the state board of tax commissioners has approved the issuance of bonds or the execution of leases before January 1, 1996.
(5) A project that is required by a court order holding that a federal law mandates the project.
The exemption Bloom seems to be counting on is in section 1a - “A project for which the political subdivision reasonably expects to pay debt service from funds other than property taxes that are exempt from the levy limitations of IC 6-1.1-18.5 or IC 20-45-3.” Now I believe it is true that the major bridge fund would apply to this exemption but the commissioners themselves are saying they expect to use a variety of funding sources to repay the bond - including funds that are NOT exempt under IC 6-1.1.-18.5. Specifically they are talking about using a wheel surcharge as well as creating a new TIF district. I do not believe either of these would qualify for an exemption.
The pertinent point here is that the commissioners are not only trying to waste $55 Million on a 1.5 mile stretch of road, but also trying to do it in a way that circumvents giving the taxpayers a voice in the process. That voice, a referendum, was a major part of the property tax plan recently passed by the state legislature…
(Photo from county commissioners website)
Comments
14 Responses to “County Commissioners’ Plan To Avoid Referendum - It’s Worse Than I Originally Thought (UPDATE)”
Leave a Reply
Thank you for the information. It is time for the council/city representatives to hear the voice of Indiana in Fort Wayne. Well across the State of Indiana voices of the people are demanding a ballot referendum on public tax payed projects.
That voice, as you have clearly stated, is for a referendum. We the people should vote on a ballot in our area, for or against millions of dollars spent by the people for the people.
Exactly Bobett. If the voters want the project then so be it but we should at least have a voice…
Absolutley! We should be able to vote on
Millions of tax-payer funded projects, like this $55 Million Maplecrest Fort Wayne extention toward New Haven. What’s the rate of return on this investment?
“If the voters want the project then so be it but we should at least have a voice…”
I’m just a thinker. I owned a home on 1415 Loften Way before the Henry family bought 20 acres outside my back door. It’s amazing how Lake Avenue
up the road needs a $55 Million Dollar Expansion
to New HAven.
I’m not followibng the connection at all. That road has been discussed for years… long before Henry ran for office and if I’m not mistaken the Henry family on Lake supported Kelty. What is the point you were making with that post?
The Maplecrest road project was talked about long before 469 was even a real idea.
The area is proposed as heavy industrial (if such will ever return to this area).
The Maplecrest project does not serve the masses but the few.
Maplescrest from Lake Ave to 469 is more then 90% residential fontage.
Traffic at Maplecrest & East State, Maplecrest & Stellhorn, and Maplecrest & St. Joe Center are already three of the most problematic intersections in the entire St. Joe Township area. So adding more truck traffic will only increase the problems and lower the quality of life for the people of St. Joe Township.
This project will serve the few for a shorter truck drive to 69, 33, and 30. For the masses it will be just one more cases of money walking all over the people. Quality of life in Fort Wayne will not improve with this project.
This project is payoff for donations to political runs for office. Only thing is the taxpayers are going to foot the bill.
since when has anyone in local govt let the laws stand in the way of “progress”? the law in allen county ends up like roadkill on I-69. (btw- do you?) waaaiiiittt for it..oh I get it now- giggle)
Great post J.Q. Taxpayer. You explained it so well.
Mr. Badget the connection I was trying to speak off is that area on Lake Ave. was zoned for residential/agricultural development when purchased.
We moved because the Landscaping business
put in a speaker system, bright lights, ran heavy
equipment sun up to late hours in the evening, and sold seasonal retail items year round at their front office store. Not very pleasant with
a baby and toddler at the time.
It was easier to move, than go to court or fight. What the zoning board called a residential/argricultural area at that time amazed me.
Thanks for the insight! I’ve only been here 10 years so you can imagine I have quite the learning curve which is why I love all the blog comments that put important issues in context. Hailing from California AKA land-o-referendum I’m not really sure how I feel about the process. I like the idea in theory but in application I’m not convinced it works as intended. Special interest groups have a way getting what they want and so many proposition/initiatives are misleading and you have to vote the opposite to get what you want i.e. no means yes and yes means no. I was recently talking with my dad about some proposition on the Calif ballot and he was saying that he doesn’t know why they keep doing them because they always pass and then people complain. HIs issue is that they have become a way to add legitimacy to issues that the public doesn’t really want but end up getting passed due to low turn out or voter confusion.
I don’t know what the answer is but I think dialogue with each other is a great start and town hall meetings and blogs are great tools to open the dialogue.
[...] I think I’ve demonstrated that Commissioner Nelson Peters (and others) are trying to circumvent the referendum requirement recently signed into law by fast-tracking the $55 Million Maplecrest extension project [...]
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again (just for posterity): Be careful what you wish for. Ballot referendums seem great on the surface, but it does allow mob mentality to rule and puts a great deal of power in the hands of those who are able to effectively endear themselves and their “message” to the masses. Cooler heads and logic don’t necessarily prevail under such a system, as historical data tends to indicate.
Besides, if we all are collectively responsible for really bad decisions, then who exactly do we vote out of office when things become a debacle? Ourselves? If we’re directly calling all of the shots instead of “hiring” people to represent us on these issues, we only have ourselves to blame for the possibly catastrophic outcomes. Most Americans are not comfortable with that kind of burden on their consciences.
Don’t get me wrong, I feel that a certain level of viable input from the populace is quite healthy and rather necessary, but seriously, have you been to a Wal*Mart lately? I’m not sure I trust some of those folks to yield to logic or reason at the appropriate time(s) enough to entrust them with the well-being of my kids’ future….and likewise, I hope they don’t trust me with their own.
As optimistic and anarchistic as I am, I still trust the Representative Republic more than I trust a true democracy. I’ve seen first-hand what groups of idiots can do when they get emotionally jazzed about a specific topic….and I’ve been one of them too!
Andrew,
I understand your hesitance here but these referendums are essentially limited to projects that are paid for with bonds and cost over $12 Million. That’s a far cry from a full on true democracy and seems like a reasonable compromise to me.
And while most citizens may not follow the nuances of local government, I think they are all capable of deciding whether or not they want to support an expensive project or not…
[...] councilman Tom Smith spoke out against the wasteful $55 million Maplecrest extension project. He also managed to get an ordinance supporting some of the infrastructure improvements for [...]
[...] written extensively on the proposed $55 million Maplecrest Extension project and what I feel is the commissioners’ attempt to avoid a referendum on the project. Today, former Allen County Democratic Party chairman Kevin Knuth announced that [...]