The Notes from the Farm Bureau Sponsored Meeting on Consolidation

Unedited Version of the 4-H Center Meeting that was spoken of Last Night

Questions/Comments/Concerns
presented by public
at City/County Reorganization Informational Session
sponsored by Vanderburgh Co. Farm Bureau, Inc. on Dec. 7, 2010

Introduction
Initiation of the Reorganization Process and Purpose

• Who is paying for the committee’s work? Who is paying for the lawyers who work on all the legal work to make city/county reorganization happen?

• If this is voted down, how much time if any must elapse before it can be petitioned to be voted on again?

Voter Threshold, Voter Approval

• Why is the vote recommended at a simple majority?

• This committee is asking to change the constitution of our government and in order to do that it must be ratified by a minimum 2/3 majority.

• With the population of the county being only 20% of the voters, why is this not a separate vote for county and city residents respectfully?

• Plan states reorganization shall be deemed approved if percentage of voters who vote in favor of it is greater than 50%. Voting percentage should be 2/3 (66%) instead of 50% with such a major change in government. It should require more than a simple majority.

• When you’re voting against the city which has 2/3 more votes and getting 12% tax break, it isn’t fair.

• The “county” should have a higher percentage vote on the proposal.

• The county voters and city voters must approve the merger–each by a majority for acceptance. This is per IC 36-1.5-4-18(8): “rejection threshold must be the same for each municipality that is a party to the proposed reorganization and to the county that is a party to the proposed reorganization”.

• 2/3 majority on votes to accept combined government.

• The vote percentage for approval should be (2/3) 66%.

• I want a 1/3 – 2/3 majority vote!

• Raise the percentage by which this must pass. If the proposal is good for both entities, it will still pass. If it is stacked for one entity, the other has a chance to defeat it.

• Please advise that the referendum (city/co. constitutional change) require 2/3 approval by resident vote.

• Please allow for minimum of a 2/3 majority to pass the merger of city/county government. This is only fair to represent the county.

• Should be 2/3 vote for passage – same as federal government.

Article 1: General Provisions
1.6 Partisan Elections

• Why are elections partisan? Non-partisan just like George Washington suggested.

Article 2: Executive Branch
2.1 Mayor is Chef Executive

• To give mayor and his appointed combined government all authority and functions of government sounds only like a concentration of power. This plan changes only authority and tax rate. It’s like having a king rule over us.

• Please do not allow the Mayor MORE POWER no matter who he is!!

• I am against this merger. It gives too much power to the Mayor.

• Local government in the US is designed (intelligently) to be decentralized. This consolidation/reorganization plan seems to seek the opposite–it seeks to centralize county and city government. This is not necessarily simplification. It appears by your plan that is measure “centralizes” power in the executive – the Mayor’s office.

• This plan increases the power of the Mayor’s office substantially: Mayoral appointments “shall not require advice or consent of the Common Council”. WHY?

• The Mayor’s power needs to be reduced – not enhanced.

• This is moving forward with the potential for Mayoral power grab.

• The analogy of a “corporation” was used. Yes, corporations have a president but that president reports to a board of directions. If this passes, why can’t a Mayor report to the county commissioners? The people in the county seem pretty happy with the government now. The city seems unhappy.

• There are mentions of how government will protect, enhance or increase citizens freedoms and liberties. No considerations to minimize or “check” the elected officials from being corrupted or abusing the powers that are consolidated under this Plan. To me it seems we are centralizing government which leads to abuses. It steps away from a republic. Checks and balances are removed.

• Mayor appointing all positions; we are going back to the King and Queen days.

2.3 Term of Office

• Staggered election for continuity.

• Staggered elections happen every two years already–why not allow one or two new elected officials every election? We do not believe all power players being elected at the same time is good.

• I think there should be a two year term.

• All officials elected at once. Cities do. No other unit of government uses this method. Staggered terms will provide a balance and continuity.

• Why do you propose the vote for Mayor and council be held at the same time?

2.4 Term Limits

• Need term limits for the mayor.

• Mayor should have term limits.

• Please keep limits.

• Why would you propose no term limits on the Mayor’s office?

• You are asking us to trust politicians without term limits?

2.7 Executive Officers

• Mayor has too much power for appointments.

• Reduce Mayoral appointees or this will likely become a corruption financed by developers. Farm land taxes will increase and drive them to sell to developers. Developers will help keep re-electing a Mayor who oils the chain.

Article 3: Legislative/Fiscal Branch
3.3 Number of Members

• Only 11 members on Common Council will mean less representative government for all of Vanderburgh County including city.

3.4 No Geographic Districts for At-Large Members

• There should be no more than three members of the executive and common council from any district. Under the Plan, the Mayor, district common council member and all three at-large common council members could to be from the same district/area. The maximum number of executive and common council members per district should be limited to three.

3.5 Description of Eight (8) Common Council Districts

• To provide more equal representation of the area outside current city limits, elect the county council plus two at-large county council members from area outside city limits and two at-large county council members from inside the current city limits. We need equal representation.

3.6 Term of Office

• Terms of office for Common Council should be staggered.

• It is possible to have a complete new group leading the city at the same time (Mayor, Common Council and all appointments). Why shouldn’t there be staggered terms?

Article 5: Elected Offices Other Than Mayor and Common Council
5.1 County Offices Retained

• We would go from having 38 elected politicians to 29. This is less representation of the people.

5.4 Services Outside the Jurisdiction of an Elected Official

• Plan states all departments, boards, commissions, agencies and authorities be determined by mayor. Why shouldn’t the eleven elected members of the Common Council have a say?

Article 7: Tax Rates and Service Districts
7.1 Tax Rates

• Scenario #4 of the financial analysis shows all township (including 4 in Darmstadt) taxes increasing 22 cents per $100. All townships in Evansville city limits go down 10 cents per $100.

• We do not need more taxes. We are taxed enough already. People moved to the county for lower taxes and not have to pay for services they can take care of.

• Are taxes going to change and, if this is voted in, when would the change occur?

• If you have a more streamlined government, why would there be a need for higher taxes?

7.4 Expansion of Urban Services District

• Could the city annex service districts by merely the new council voting it in?

Article 9: Consolidatation of City and County Departments
9.1 City and County Departments Combined

• Will we keep our Co. Highway Garage?

Article 10: Transition
10.2 Duties of and Support to the Transition Board
10.2.1 Specific Duties

• If the referendum passes, the transition board will adopt a budget. Many will not be elected but appointed. I do not want an appointed person setting the budget for my government. That task should be done only by people elected by us.

10.6 Effect of Reorganization on Indebtedness

• At the present time, what is the total property tax debt for the city of Evansville versus the county of Vanderburgh?

10.8 Effect of Reorganization on City and County Resolutions and Ordinances
10.8.2 Unified Code of Ordinances

• City rules are more restrictive than county rules. City rules thus will limit further county citizens of doing many things they can presently do.

• What protection does the farmland have in this consolidation?

10.8.3 Land Use and Firearms Ordinances

• Will firearms be allowed in the county for hunting?

Article 11: Amendments
11.1 Plan Review and Amendment
11.1.2 Citizen Petition

• Revise 11.1.2, Citizen Petition

General Questions/Comments/Concerns

• How will this benefit the county? We need a pro and con list so we can see the benefit.

• Do you have written approval or disapproval of the town of Darmstadt? I think it is required.

• I think the city only wants the county for our money!

• More money needed for the city. Control of money.

• I feel the general consensus of the people is “streamlining” government upsets the balance of power concerning checks and balances. We need the schism of differences in order to represent ALL the people. This thought carries over in the area of elected officials being allowed to “elect” persons to office. Checks and balances dictate that all public officials ought to be elected “by the people”.

• I do not want this EVGRSC to pass.

• This needs more study and clarification of questions.

• I want to be included on any subject of this reorganization study and/or any public meetings on this subject. (signed Gary Minnick; email garyminnick@wowway.com)

• There is no use having these meetings. It’s probably cut and dry.

• Compare consolidation expenses with a city the size of Evansville–not larger cities.

• As this is, take it back and redo before vote. This one stinks for county residents.

• Who wants this merger?

• What benefits will there be for our county government?

• How do we get rid of consolidated government if it is not beneficial? The Plan should address a process to dissolve. A good business partnership agreement has this process addressed.

• Not a good idea! Can it!

• City plans to gain cost savings – no benefit to county residents. For a single example, flood costs are shared county-wide but drainage taxes will be retained for county residents. FAIR??!!

• How much will I save by consolidation? My assessor was eliminated to save money but my taxes increased. Where are my savings? Real estate has gone down so why should my assessment have gone up?

• How will this consolidation benefit the people in the county?

• How many people on this consolidation committee live in the county and how many are in the current city limits?

• This consolidation is being forced upon us by mostly city residents signing a petition.

• If we want the committee to change some of the recommendations, how can we do that?

• Why does the city want the county?