RSS Feed
Email Us
Follow Us
Like Us
Photo Gallery
GeistTV
Greg Purvis, Committee Chair of the "City Yes PAC"
By Bill Fouts
As the Town of Fishers approaches a population of 70,000 residents, some feel it is time to drop “Town” from its moniker and become a city with an elected mayor.
City proponents say adopting the city government model would make elected officials more accountable to voters, provide better checks and balances and improve economic development opportunities. Those favoring the town government model point to Fishers’ rapid growth over the last decade, low tax rates, high achieving schools and national recognition of the town’s high quality of life as evidence that the current system is working well.
Earlier this year the Fishers Town Council appointed a 44-member study committee representing various community interests with former Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter serving as an impartial facilitator. The committee’s task was to dissect the issues and make recommendations.
Over the course of nine town hall meetings, the committee heard presentations of the pros and cons of city government from representatives of over a dozen Indiana cities and towns, as well as Highland Park, Ill. The meeting generated approximately 100 pages of minutes.
“In my experience, this is the most extensive study of its kind in Indiana,” Carter said.
Fishers Town Council President Scott Faultless
Committee members have until Monday to submit comments on a draft report prepared by Carter. He will then make revisions based on the comments before submitting a final draft to the Fishers Town Council.
City government proponent Greg Purvis, an attorney who served on the study committee, also chairs City Yes Now, a political action committee that is pushing a petition drive to place the issue before voters through a referendum. He says much support is coming from soon to be annexed Geist residents.
Purvis says Fishers has outgrown the current town council form of government. The population has more than doubled since the last time the matter went before the voters in 1998. In addition, Fishers’ current population is more than twice that of the next largest Indiana community operating under a town council.
While the seven-member town council technically represents districts, each member is chosen at-large from the entire voter pool with each candidate appearing on every ballot. As such, Purvis says voters do not have a direct say in which council member represents their neighborhoods and interests. Under a city government model, six council members would be elected by voters in their districts, and three would be chosen at-large.
“It increases democracy,” Purvis said.
Additionally, Purvis says an elected mayor is directly accountable to all residents. Such accountability puts a mayor in a better position to define and articulate a clear vision and objectives as opposed to a town council president selected from the town council by the council members themselves.
Moreover, Purvis argues that the town government model puts both legislative and executive authority in the hands of the town council and thus diminishes checks and balances of the town council’s policies.
Fishers Town Council President Scott Faultless refutes these claims and says those seeking a wholesale changeover to a city government model should be careful what they ask for.
“I think what we have been doing has worked well,” Faultless said.
Fishers boasts one of the lowest municipal tax rates in the state. According to data posted on the town’s Web site, Fishers’ tax rate is the lowest in Hamilton County. Compared to other Indiana communities with similar populations, Fishers’ tax rate is between 166 percent and 332 percent lower. In addition, of the 585 cities and towns in Indiana only 146 municipalities have lower tax rates. Of those 146 communities, the average population is a mere 712 residents.
Faultless says under a city government model, the mayor has primary responsibility for developing the municipal budget and that the city council has little control over how funds are spent once a budget is adopted. He fears tax rates would likely increase if Fishers adopts the city government model.
“The mayor can do whatever he or she wants to,” Faultless said.
Under the current town government model, the town manager, who is hired by the town council and serves at the council’s direction, has limited discretionary spending power. Any spending beyond what has been approved in the budget must go back to the town council and be approved by a majority vote.
However, Faultless stops short of saying he fully opposes any changes to the current form of government.
“I think we can form a government that takes the best of both town and city, a hybrid of the two,” Faultless said.
In the meantime, Purvis says City Yes Now is close to obtaining the 1,400-plus signatures necessary to put a referendum on the ballot. The group hopes to get the referendum on the May 2010 primary ballot, but fears the Fisher Town Council may hold a special election before the Geist annexation goes into effect Jan. 2.
“I talked to a few people who were openly irate about that possibility,” Purvis said.
Faultless refutes that claim saying the town would not have sought the Geist annexation only to cut residents out of the process.
“Even if we could, I don’t think we should,” Faultless said.
A few points to ponder, if the Town structure of government is so good:
How come no other town with a population of over 35,000 people, which is half of Fishers population, exists in the State of Indiana?
Fisher’s boasts one of the lowest municipal tax rates in the state. Yet it also has a number of “fees” that should be in the property tax and thus raises the tax rate. These hidden taxes he seems to have forgotten. For example the Storm Water Fee (Tax) they also have very high user fees. Maybe Mr. Faultless needs to view the entire tax structure? Under the new 1 percent cap, Fishers will the same as almost everyone else. He also forgot that Geist was way below Fishers tax level. We were one of those communities he cited below Fishers tax rate, but no more.
He cites the great schools in Fishers, but he and the Council take credit every change they get for the schools. They have no control over the schools, no budget control, no administrative control. The schools are an independent government unit. You could go to the other side of the argument, that the rapid growth has caused many of the problems in the schools, or that the Geist annexation is part of the funding problems. When the annexation is complete HSE will lose approximately half a million dollars a year from Geist that will go to Fishers. So much for the schools.
He also says once a City budget is adopted the Council has little control. But they do have control before adoption and with a Town Council there is no control before or after. They are the total control.
Left out is an important factor, that of community development. We don’t have any real planning; we don’t have any real economic development. Instead we have development by parcel. A Mayor brings a strong presents to economic development, they become a point of contact for business and under today’s new property tax code it becomes even more important. An office complex brings in three times the tax rate as a home and does not bring children into the school system. The Town Council idea of commercial development is a strip mall.
Of course one the most important is elections, the Town Council has set up the elections to make it almost impossible to remove any of the sitting members. As a result of pressure from the City Yes they may go to election from districts. But it is too little to late.
Interesting on the taxes. When you consider that most Cities include trash pick up, yet in Fishers, only a few select areas have trash pick included in their taxes. The remainder of Fishers residents must pay for trash pick out of their pockets. Add this to the tax basis as well as the sewer taxes and other "special taxes" paid, it makes a difference.
Another change I would see is residents of Fishers would know who is responsible for respective areas. It is not unsual to get a run-around when looking for answers. I will say that the personnel is pleasant, kind and overall very easy to talk with. The information is not always available. This may be for any number of reasons. Having "the buck stops here" would be beneficial.
I believe everyone wants what is best for Fishers. What is important to each of us helps make that decision. It is nice to know that the facts are out there. It is up to each of us to be aware; to make informed decisions.
Fishers makes the same deception Carmel does about schools. When you adjust for the socioeconomic level of the student population, the results are not very impressive. Being slightly above the national average on test scores is not much of an accomplishment. The schools should be compared nationwide with other schools systems with comparable demographics.
All municipalities have similar fees. It's not unique to Fishers.
No where in the article did Faultless "cite" anything about schools.
Fishers has public budget meetings but since our rates are so low and the service is so high, no one comes to complain.
Strip malls also pay 3x the residential taxes and add no children to the schools. I also see plenty of empty office space for rent but not much retail. The market doesn't need more office space right now.
To "remove any of the sitting members" would require an opposing candidate. Why isn't there any?
Watch this short video and see why this municipality dumped its mayor in favor of the council/manager system.
Every resident of Fishers should visit the Tax Assesment Department. The way the property tax rate is arrived at is at whoever is looking at it. For example, one home in each neighborhood is set as the "BAR". If it is preceived that another home has higher quality amenities than the "bar" there is a percentage added. If you build your own home, Fishers adds 50,000.00 to the value of the home to make up for any savings on a builder. Fine, if they want to do this, but who decided the "bar"? Who decides who is a builder or not? Its great for a small community where everyone knows everyone. Not in a community the size of Fishers.
TOWN GOVERNMENT:
Town Councia acts as both legislative and executive. No external checks on its power. Voter control of the council limited, in part due to "at large" voting for all districts, resulting in protection of incumbents. TOWN COUNCIL HAS TOTAL POLITICAL CONTROL.
CITY GOVERNMENT:
City Council of 9 members, 6 elected by district, 3 at large. The elected legislature of the community. Must approve budget and all fiscal appropriations. Only body which can enact ordinances.
Mayor: The elected executive of a City. Can veto acts of the City Council, but the veto can be overriden by the Council.
City government is organized similar to both Federal, State, and County governments, which all have separately-elected Legislatures and Executives.
Vote for Separation of Powers and checks and balances
Vote for ELECTED leadership with a vision
Vote for the Future of Fishers
Vote FOR a City.
Vote City YES!
This is about the City of Bainbridge Island in the State of Washington and not a Town or City in Indiana. Also is it a City of 23,000 people which is less than 1/3 the size of Fishers and in a state that has different laws on government structure. You can't even have the form of government that they have under the laws of Indiana. What everyone needs to know is that Fishersian loves to bend facts and find obscure web sites to try and convince people of his position. He also engages in personal attacks and therefore lacks creditability. I think he is one of the members of the Fishers Town Council.
The anger is clear from Fishersian. It comes across the pages of the written word. The fear that is in this anger makes one wonder what might be uncovered in a new regime? Why be so angry or go to such lengths. "The truth shall set you free" Fishersian, CHILL! You do more to hurt your cause than help!
"More than half of the 40 cities that received a triple-A bond rating as of December 2003 from both Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s, for example, operate under the council-manager form. It is also the structure used by six of the 10 communities recognized in 2004 by the National Civic League with the coveted All-America City Award, which encourages civic excellence by honoring those communities in which “citizens, government, business, and nonprofit organizations demonstrate successful resolution of critical community issues.” Recently the Center for Digital Government and the National League of Cities surveyed local governments and ranked the top 10 cities in four population categories for making the best use of technology to improve operations and better serve their constituents. Eighty-three percent of the highest ranked cities use the council-manager form."
Excerpt from "The Mayor-Manager Conundrum that Wasn't" http://icma.org/main/ns_search.asp?nsid=1543
Notice I'm using credible outside sources for this information. weingarten and purvis rely on confusion and subtle misrepresentation to drive their weak arguments home. Do we REALLY want a government that is "organized similar to both Federal, State" governments. Sure, change the at-large voting system to one that is organized by proper voting districts and a couple at-large counselors. THEN we will have representatives that are directly accountable to the voters. All without an expensive, political and inefficient mayoral staff.
Prove your allegation that a "mayoral staff" would be more expensive, political, or inefficient than the current system. If you check the town roster, you will see that an extensive staff system is already in place. A Mayor would make less money than the current town manager, who makes a higher salary than Governor Daniels. Even the study committee could not quantify such a sweeping statement as seen above, which is far over the top.
Many who read this are fully aware of the problems with unresponsive and unaccountable town government. It will take more than changing a few council districts.
What is frustrating: There is a study group formed to bring the facts to THE ENTIRE TOWN OF FISHERS. If only that would be reflected in the final product. The product becomes personal. The discussion becomes about the Town Manager and what a great job is being done! When given a choice, the Town Manager would rather remain a member of an orginazation than run for Mayor of the City of Fishers. His own words, on a Pod Cast. It is not about individuls. It is about the WHOLE of Fishers!. Shall we say Britton Golf Course??? What was a beautiful "green" area has become an empty eyesore. Progress? Fishers needs to quitely slide into the 21st. Century. Thank you for those serving for bringing us this far. Stand up for yourself and run in an election where you will be accountable to your neighbors and friends. Continue to do your good work at a higher level. Fishers needs individuals willing to be strong. The days of the sewing circle are long past. City YES!!!!! for accountability unity.
I understand the anger directed toward the Fishers Town Council by the Geist community. If it were me, I too would be inclined to vote everyone of them out as payback. The reasons that I oppose changing to a city are the ones I've already described. LESS accountability, MORE useless political divisiveness, LESS direct representation, MORE wasteful, frustrating blame passing and finger pointing, LESS professional municipal management, MORE mayoral ego, chiefs-of-this-or-that staff and election year crony pay-back turnover, LESS staff accountability directly to one entity, MORE taxes. Sure, oust the existing town councillors but let's not rashly quit a council/manager system that is proven to be the best.
Why is a slip and fall attorney president of the Fishers town council. Is that really the best we can do? Seems like a real conflict of interest.
Fishers: City or Town? Take the poll!
http://pollpigeon.com/fishers-city-or-town/t/3672…
Tom, for us dinosaurs who don't use Twitter, can you post a poll directly here? Thanks.
look to the left of atGeist.com, towards the top
"Notice I'm using credible outside sources for this information." Fishersian
The problem is that they do not reflect any government structure allowed under the laws of Indiana therefore how can they be credible. If you are going to show how the Fishers Town government is so good, please use Indiana examples. You can't that is why you keep using out of state examples. Examples that have no value until you get the state to change what is allowed in Indiana. Since we have to live within the framework of laws of this state. We have proposed a City form of government to provide a better voice to the citizens, and a much higher degree of accountability.
You have not provided a solid example to date, its all fear factor, its examples that don't match the conditions or laws of Indiana, you have shown yourself to be a part of the Town Council if not one of the members. Its time you came out of the closet.
And except for the "mayor" being elected by and from amongst the councillors as our council president is, how does the Bainbridge example not "match the conditions or laws of Indiana"? Answer me that please.
I have already cited credible sources such as the National Civic League that chooses the council/manager system as the preferred method of municipal government. I think the NCL trumps you (a recent Indiana immigrant) and any ideas you think you might have regarding local government. I'll say again, vote out ALL of the current council members, just don't buy the weak city argument.
I enjoy this site, it is worth me coming back
Except for the "mayor" being elected by and from amongst the councillors just as our council president is, the Bainbridge example matches all "the conditions or laws of Indiana"? Unless someone can point out another example.
I have already cited credible sources such as the National Civic League that chooses the council/manager system as their preferred method of municipal government. I think the NCL trumps you. I'll say again, vote out ALL of the current council members, just don't buy the weak city argument.
Fishersian does not ever seem to understand that many cities in Indiana have BOTH an elected Mayor and a city manager, who works for the Mayor. Why he is stuck on small town government is a mystery.
An elected Mayor who can provide leadership and vision? Or an appointed administrator who does not have the power or position to provide either of those?
City YES!
http://www.CityYesNow.com
Purvis will never admit that our council/manager form of government is not just for a "small town" at all. The council/manager form of municipal government is the most popular, fastest growing and most recommended system in the nation.
http://icma.org/upload/library/2008-01/%7B67D8448…
For municipalities between 50k-100k it is the favored system by a 2-1 margin.
http://icma.org/upload/library/2009-02/%7B43F17F9…
Appointment of a town or city manager in Indiana is OPTIONAL for both cities and towns, not mandatory. In a city of the third class, the optional city manager works for the Mayor. In a city of the second class, a Mayor could appoint a city manager as deputy mayor or head of administration.
Replacing an elected Mayor with an optional appointed administrator is not the way Hoosiers choose to govern their communities.
http://www.CityYesNow.com
There is NO "council/manager" form of government for cities in Indiana, what is being referred to as that is a complete red herring.
And yet, it is EXACTLY what we have and it's working quite well. We HAVE a "council" and a "manager". How do you explain that? For us and a vast majority of municipalities our size across the country it is the most popular, fastest growing and most recommended type of government. Throw out the current town council, just don't throw out the baby with the bath water. A city government with it's bloated city office payroll, divisive political shenanigans and powerless city council is the red herring here. Directly electing one representative who has all the responsibility and accountability is the way to go.
Fishersian you seem to say what we have is working quite well. Maybe you feel that way but many of us beg to differ. We have neither responsibility nor a real point of contract in the government of Fishers. We have a Council that does as it pleases with no regard to the wishes of the people. Not one of the seven is responsible nor does any one of them truly speak for the town. We have a Town Manger who is just that a manager and not responsible to the people, he is only responsible to seven council members. You also keep saying the “vast majority of municipalities our size across the county…” Just to remind you, you live in Indiana not in other parts of the county. Please stop confusing the issue and stick to what is allowed in Indiana. If you want your form of government get Indiana to change its laws. Better yet run for Mayor and hire a City Manager. Over the last several years the Fishers Town Council has proven one thing beyond any shadow of a doubt they are the real red herring.
I don't believe the garbage that Scott Faulfull is putting out. More lies and deceptions, but that is what we've come to expect from the Fishers Town Council. He says he wants Geist to have a say in the City/Town vote, but he and the council have never listened to Geist or they wouldn't have passed their vile annexation. Plus, even if we did get to vote, if the coucil didn't like the results, they would find some way to override it, just like they did with the ballot referendum on zoning for Fall Creek Township. The voters clearly stated they did not want Fishers to have any say in zoning for the area, but the council felt they knew better. They stole the vote of 2/3 of the voters in that election – tantamount to election fraud just as if they had been standing there stuffing the ballot box. This is something I would have expected out of a tyrant or third world despot. Despicable.
What it all boils down to is this. It doesn't matter whether the Evil Overlord is a town or city as long as the same council is in power. They are going to do what they want to anyway. This is certainly not a democracy and not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
The petitions signed by 1700 registered voters were presented in May 2010, and still no vote. The vote was requested for November 2010. The incumbent Town Council has done everything in their power to obstruct the right of Fishers residents to vote. It reminds one of the Geist annexation, also done against the will of the residents.
In two months, Geist residents will have the chance to make two more changes to Fishers government:.
Greg Purvis for Fishers Town Council (www.Purvis4Fishers.com) and Joe Weingarten for Fishers Clerk-Treasurer (www.cityoffishers.com). Greg was the only council candidate in 2007 who opposed forced annexation and Joe was a board member of the Geist United Opposition.