County Council holds ESCD public hearing
MARSHALL COUNTY — There was a public hearing for the appropriations of proceeds for the East Shore conservancy District (ESCD) 2021 bonds during the June meeting of the Marshall county council.
Kathy clark from the ESCD stated that it was coming before the council because the ESCD doesn’t currently have a majority elected board. “You are in charge of certain legalities,” she told the council.
The board currently only has one elected official. Each year they’ll have another elected. “Once they get three they’re on their own,” clark said.
The resolution that was presented to the council allows the ESCD to, as clark explained, “to pay the money that they get from a bond that we’re working on right now with the Indiana Finance authority. It’s a state bond. It has nothing to do with this county at all. I mean, the money does not come from here. It’s a bond to help us pay back the construction loan that we had to take to build the sewer system to connect to the Town of culver. and to form the district itself, there’s other various expenses in there.”
clark explained that it will be paid by by individuals within the conservancy district. She also said that’s the same setup for the Lake Max conservancy District.
county auditor Julie Fox informed clark that the ESCD passed a bond resolution. That bond resolution number is needed in the resolution that was being presented to the council.
Fox indicated that the ESCD did pass the bond resolution which was why it was being considered by the council.
Council President Tim Harman asked if the resolution presented to the council establish a special taxing district for the East Shore.
“They already have a taxing district that’s already been established prior to this. My understanding, that this is to move forward with the bonding process,” Fox replied.
“That’s all it is. It’s just a piece of layer that they have to put in because, again, we don’t have a fully elected board at this time,” Clark added.
Council Member Steve Harper asked about a possible levy inside the resolution. “My only question is, on the West Shore, each person was just personally responsible for, I don’t remember what it was, $14,000 I think it was. If I remember right. And then that was put in our property taxes. This is set up where you’re actually getting a tax levy. So we’d be passing an additional tax here today.”
Clark said that was inaccurate. “No, that is not true.”
Harper then stated that “where the bonds were payable from a special benefits taxed levy within all real estate in the district.”
Clark replied that “it’s called a special benefits assessment. Or an exceptional benefits assessment. And neither one of those are, well, the the special benefits assessment is based on every parcel and it’s just a percentage. That covers operations and debt service. That’s on there right now and they may flow that over for this first year until they get all the bells and whistles done for the exceptional benefits.”
Harper asked if the public hearing they were about to open was to pass an additional tax. Clark said that it was not the intent of the public hearing to pass an additional tax.
Harman asked Fox for her understanding of the resolution.
“I’m not seeing any percentages in this resolution. It’s just for them to proceed with adopting the bond,” said Fox.
“We’re raising the taxes by 0.009. So we are passing an additional tax,” Harper insisted.
“You are,” Fox said. “Although it’s not included in this, the way that it’s written.”
Harman asked where the 0.009 was coming from.
“That was passed through you previously for this year. It was passed last November. We came before you last November,” Clark said.
“So basically, what you’re saying, the people that are benefitting from this, the people know anyway that the 0.009 is going to be there because with this conservancy being there it’s opened up more available properties to have the proper facilities that are much safer for the lake and everything,” said Council Member Jim Masterson.
Harper stated that he didn’t have an issue with the resolution, but he wanted to make sure that the advertisement of the public hearing was properly published.
Fox asked Clark if she had the publicized tear sheetsthat show proof of published dates to which Clark said that she didn’t bring with her, but she could provide them to Fox.
Both the tear sheets and the resolution number that the ESCD passed are required before the council could approve the resolution.
When the public hearing was opened, no one spoke in favor for or against the resolution.
The resolution was adopted by the council unanimously pending the required information be turned in by the end of that meeting. At the end of the meeting, Clark did provide the two pieces of information required by the Auditor’s office.