What happened: Two approval requests, one for Delaware Township and one for Fall Creek Township, for fire and EMS service contracts were pulled from the consent agenda.
What it means: The consent agenda is usually approved altogether, unless the council has major questions concerning individual items. These contracts regard the two townships’ payment to Fishers for fire protection ($258,163.10 from Delaware and $409,246.36 Fall Creek). Councilor Scott Faultless requested the items be pulled. A heated discussion on the townships’ use of Fishers services and annexation brewed quickly. Faultless asked whether the contracts covered FFD’s and a percentage of the administration’s budget. Town Manager Scott Fadness further delineated “the full costing.” Faultless disagreed with the town manager’s explanation and laid out why he disagreed with the contracts. “From my perspective, full costing is we should not be subsidizing, like we are, folks who live in the townships,” he said. “If they want the benefit of the town services, they can file a petition to annex, and we can act accordingly.” Councilor Pete Peterson said forced annexation is the town’s means for dealing with such costs, and Faultless stated he was not for forced annexation, but going forward would not support doling out town services “piecemeal.” Councilor Stuart Easley said he would like to have the town manager come back to the council with whether the town will reconsider or analyze pockets of unincorporated townships using town services.
The argument continued.
What’s the next: Approval for the contracts passed 6-1 and requires no further action.
What happened: The council discussed town-wide trash pick-up and recycling during the work session.
What it means: A town staffer broke down the data from speaking with residents concerning possible town-wide trash pickup. Of the responses the town received and tabulated from a public comment sheet, 186 people were for a town-wide contract, 189 were against it and 19 were undecided. The councilors asked questions and gave feedback on the notion. Easley wanted further information on how many residents will see increases and decreases in what they pay. Further difficulties arise in figuring out what vendors charge customers as a whole because it’s considered proprietary information. More issues were brought up with the town-wide endeavor.
What’s next: Staff took the council’s feedback for further investigation. Going forward, the council, by consensus, was receptive to the idea of rejecting the bids and then starting the bid process again, this time looking for alternates that would allow people to opt-out of a town-wide contract, as well provisions for “snowbirds” that don’t live in Fishers during the summer. Fadness said the matter will return in a future meeting’s agenda.
What happened: Execution of the project agreement for the mixed-use development on 116th Street in front of town hall was approved in a resolution.
What it means: The council gave its approval to a handful of items, including this one, which moves the town closer to the mixed-use development. It puts the responsibilities of the partners into perspective.