Published: May 21, 2008 03:13 pm            

Reorganization plan lacks ‘guts’

Union Township board member Jim Sanford approves of the local government reorganization plan that would merge Union and Eagle townships with Zionsville, but said he needs more specifics before he would be willing to vote for it.

“We are asking people to vote ‘yes’ on this and there are really no guts,” he said.

Sanford, a business owner, asked the other two board members to think of the plan as a business deal, and he ask themselves if they’d be willing to sell their business to someone with only a general proposition.

“I would read it and simply hand it back,” he said.

He called the reorganization plan a general statement and outline, but that Union Township residents couldn’t tell from it how much representation they’ll have on the plan commission.

“We (Union Township) are bringing the guts for future development and money,” he said.

Even though Union Township has a much smaller population, it has the majority of the land available for development. As a result, he thinks Union Township should have 50 percent or more representation on the plan commission and other boards that deal with development.

The reorganization plan states that membership on the plan commission, “to the extent permitted by law, be apportioned based on geography instead of population,” but it did not go into further specifics.

During reorganization meetings, reorganization committee members said they wanted the plan commission to be nine members — four coming from Union Township, one from the school board, and the other four from Eagle Township and Zionsville.

However, because of legal concerns, the members did not include preceding specific plan in the plan, reorganization Committee Chairman Gene Thompson said.

The state statute governing plan commission representation has specific guidelines about who should be on it, and geographic is not allowable criteria.

However, the statute that controls government reorganization said that any law that contradicts it does not apply. So, there is some legal justification for allowing the reorganization committee to create any type of plan commission it wants.

The committee worried what might happen if the plan commission didn’t approve a company’s project. The company might file a lawsuit challenging the validity of the plan commission because it did not meet the representation requirement for the plan commission statute. Even if the commission is legally valid, the town would still have to pay the legal fees

The committee tried to get a bill passed in the latest session of the state legislature that would give it the explicit power to create any kind of plan commission it desired; the bill passed the house, but never made it out of committee in the Senate.

If a bill does not get passed before the reorganization plan takes effect in January 2010, the committee recommended sticking with a seven-member plan commission and urging the town council to make appointments based on geography. However, it would not put that requirement into the plan.

If a bill giving the committee the explicit authority to create whatever plan commission is passed, then it would recommend changing to a nine-member board split between Eagle and Union townships.

The meaning of a ‘yes’ vote

The board members also discussed what their vote for the plan signifies. To be enacted, the plan first must pass the Union and Eagle township boards and the Zionsville Town Council. After that, it must be passed by a majority of the voters in each of the three areas on a referendum, which is scheduled for November.

Union township board member Craig Phillips said if he votes for the plan it is only to send it to the ballot to allow the people to decide if they want to consolidate. A “yes” vote is not a recommendation for or against the plan, he added.

Sanford said if that is what the vote signifies then he would not have a problem.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.