July 25th Meeting Report
Indian Hills Urban Service District
This was a “make up meeting” for anyone who was unable to attend a previous meeting.
As always, my personal thoughts, insights, or notes are stated as such and in no way reflect anyone else's thoughts or opinions other than my own.
If you also attended, please feel free to add, correct, etc.
(sorry for any typos)
This was the last scheduled IHCC meeting and was considered a “catch-all” for anyone who couldn’t attend a previous meeting.
There were 6 IHCC board members attending.
I counted ~5 others in attendance.
(not including 7 of us who have attended multiple meetings)
Also in attendance:
1 Police Officer
1 (spouse, I think) of a board member
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Information I had not heard before (but may have just missed)
IHCC says they have at least 20% support signatures. (at least 400 is my best guess)
People downstream of the dams can petition the state to take them over if they believe the owners aren’t taking care of the dams.
Spillway cap on upper lake is broken, lowering upper lake level by ~ one foot
Boat dock bamboo has been cleared away, making more room in the area
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
QUESTIONS
· Question– How often are the dams inspected?
Answer – Best practice says they be inspected yearly. Work is being done to try and get the dams in shape for inspection.
There was a lot of discussion about the pool. I’m not including it b/c the pool is a non-starter so talking about it is like beating a dead horse.
STATEMENTS & COMMENTS
Attendee – I would like to see the city take over the park and lakes
Board member – Ward 4 does not have it’s fair share of public parks
Attendee – Community property isn’t listed on ads for properties for sale in IH
*personal note – I have seen *some* of the amenities listed BUT they are usually only for properties near the lakes/park. Example – I saw one mention a community pool (doh). And the house on Pontiac/Osage said “Enjoy coffee on your deck with a lovely lake view” (paraphrasing)Attendees & Board Members agree – volunteer organization simply isn’t a sustainable model to maintain the community properties.
Attendee – Got the IHCC letter asking for signatures returned in the mail. If IHCC is going to spend that kind of money, why not also collect “don’t support” information.
A Board member noted they could have returned it with a statement “I don’t support”.
*personal note – this would do no good if that information wasn’t shared with the Oppose side OR if the resident didn’t know how/where to sign the “oppose petition”.
When I canvas, I always carry information for Oppose and Support. While I don’t actively collect “support” signatures, I DO give the resident contact information on how they can sign the support petition.Bernadette (IHCC Board member) & I agreed canvasing is hard and “Welcome” mats are a lie. HAHAHAHAHA!!
The USD law was again discussed.
25% support signatures to move forward vs. 50% signatures required to oppose.
It was reiterated that the “Oppose” group had offered to help canvas the entire neighborhood if IHCC would commit to getting 50% support from residents.
It was also reiterated by board members that they believe 50% is impossible to obtain. (see above note about canvasing being hard!) J
*Personal thoughts –
The law is the law.
There is nothing we can do about it at this point.
BUT HERE’S THE THING ----
IHCC *chose* to utilize this law as their financial vehicle.
They chose it, knowing the numbers were much lower for the “support” side.
They chose it knowing they believed 50% was nearly impossible, yet the law dictates this requirement for “oppose”.
So they CHOSE a law that gives them a massive advantage.
They didn’t have to go with the USD law.
There are plenty of other Improvement District regulations out there.
But, most of those require 100% support from residents.
This is why I get infuriated anytime someone says, “We believe 25% representation is a fair and democratic process.”
If that were the case, they would not have chosen a law that requires 50% to oppose it when they, themselves, have clearly stated they don’t believe 50% is possible.
It’s utter hypocrisy.
