Supreme court decides Earlville petition holds
EARLVILLE – The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a petition submitted by Village of Earlville residents to hold a vote on a proposed $3.4 million water project stands.
After much debate, it was decided that the proposed water project would go up for a public vote. In August, the Village Board decided to move forward with the water project without automatically holding a public vote. At the time, they said the decision was made to ensure the village would get the funding package offered by USDA. The package included a $500,000 grant and low-interest loan to pay the remainder of the balance at an interest rate of 2.75 percent over a 38-year period.
The village entered a period of permissive referendum after passing a resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds for the capital water improvement project. The permissive referendum gave village residents 30 days to submit a petition signed by 20 percent of registered voters in order to see the project go up for a public vote.
The petition was submitted with 134 signatures, more than the required 20 percent, but within days, the village also received a letter citing several procedural objections to the petition. The letter and the petition were submitted to the Supreme Court, where a judge ruled in favor of the petition.
“At this point, the village board needs to put this up for a public vote,” said Village Mayor Toni Campbell. Due to mandated regulations, the vote cannot be held until January. Campbell said she had spoken to a representative at USDA, and while she was assured that they could hold the funding until after the vote, she could not guarantee that the interest rate will remain at 2.75 percent.
One of the three people who circulated the petition, Mitch Mullenax, responded to the possibility of the increased interest rate after the meeting. “I want to make sure the trustees know, if the interest rate changes, it’s not because of the petition. If they had kept their word and put the project up for a vote, this would already have gone through. If the petition is their scapegoat, they’re forgetting their public promise to people. If it increases, that’s a consequence of not keeping your word,” Mullenax said.
During the meeting, the mayor said the board’s next responsibility will be going to the community and getting information out. “I think there’s been a lot of misinformation to the public,” Campbell said, explaining that some people were under the impression that the board didn’t want to give residents the right to vote. “That was not the intent of the board. The intent of the board was to secure this project with an amazing funding packet for the village residents.”
The village board voted to hold a public hearing on the proposed project at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, Dec. 3 at the firehouse. Campbell said the board will be canvassing the village until the time of the vote to inform residents of the project.
“I expect the board to get a list of residents and go door-to-door explaining the necessity of the project and what will happen if the project doesn’t move forward,” Campbell said. There have been problems with the village water system for years. In many areas of the village, brown water flows from the taps and many of the village’s fire hydrants are non-operational due to a lack of water pressure, she said.
“We’re campaigning for this project, period. People have the right to vote, but they also have the right to understand what the project is all about,” Campbell said. The mayor said she and Trustee Gerald Hayes, who was one of the petitioners, would lead the campaign if need be. “The board needs to get off their duffs and go door to door and work for this project.”
The board voted to hold the public hearing as soon as possible.
Mullenax explained in a later conversation that he was happy that the courts had decided the people in the village have the right to vote. “I encourage people to attend the public hearing and to come out and vote,” Mullenax said.
The board will set a date for the public referendum at the public hearing on Dec. 3. They must allow at least 30 days to pass between the date of the public hearing and the date of the vote.
After much debate, it was decided that the proposed water project would go up for a public vote. In August, the Village Board decided to move forward with the water project without automatically holding a public vote. At the time, they said the decision was made to ensure the village would get the funding package offered by USDA. The package included a $500,000 grant and low-interest loan to pay the remainder of the balance at an interest rate of 2.75 percent over a 38-year period.
The village entered a period of permissive referendum after passing a resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds for the capital water improvement project. The permissive referendum gave village residents 30 days to submit a petition signed by 20 percent of registered voters in order to see the project go up for a public vote.
The petition was submitted with 134 signatures, more than the required 20 percent, but within days, the village also received a letter citing several procedural objections to the petition. The letter and the petition were submitted to the Supreme Court, where a judge ruled in favor of the petition.
“At this point, the village board needs to put this up for a public vote,” said Village Mayor Toni Campbell. Due to mandated regulations, the vote cannot be held until January. Campbell said she had spoken to a representative at USDA, and while she was assured that they could hold the funding until after the vote, she could not guarantee that the interest rate will remain at 2.75 percent.
One of the three people who circulated the petition, Mitch Mullenax, responded to the possibility of the increased interest rate after the meeting. “I want to make sure the trustees know, if the interest rate changes, it’s not because of the petition. If they had kept their word and put the project up for a vote, this would already have gone through. If the petition is their scapegoat, they’re forgetting their public promise to people. If it increases, that’s a consequence of not keeping your word,” Mullenax said.
During the meeting, the mayor said the board’s next responsibility will be going to the community and getting information out. “I think there’s been a lot of misinformation to the public,” Campbell said, explaining that some people were under the impression that the board didn’t want to give residents the right to vote. “That was not the intent of the board. The intent of the board was to secure this project with an amazing funding packet for the village residents.”
The village board voted to hold a public hearing on the proposed project at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, Dec. 3 at the firehouse. Campbell said the board will be canvassing the village until the time of the vote to inform residents of the project.
“I expect the board to get a list of residents and go door-to-door explaining the necessity of the project and what will happen if the project doesn’t move forward,” Campbell said. There have been problems with the village water system for years. In many areas of the village, brown water flows from the taps and many of the village’s fire hydrants are non-operational due to a lack of water pressure, she said.
“We’re campaigning for this project, period. People have the right to vote, but they also have the right to understand what the project is all about,” Campbell said. The mayor said she and Trustee Gerald Hayes, who was one of the petitioners, would lead the campaign if need be. “The board needs to get off their duffs and go door to door and work for this project.”
The board voted to hold the public hearing as soon as possible.
Mullenax explained in a later conversation that he was happy that the courts had decided the people in the village have the right to vote. “I encourage people to attend the public hearing and to come out and vote,” Mullenax said.
The board will set a date for the public referendum at the public hearing on Dec. 3. They must allow at least 30 days to pass between the date of the public hearing and the date of the vote.
dived wound factual legitimately delightful goodness fit rat some lopsidedly far when.
Slung alongside jeepers hypnotic legitimately some iguana this agreeably triumphant pointedly far
jeepers unscrupulous anteater attentive noiseless put less greyhound prior stiff ferret unbearably cracked oh.
So sparing more goose caribou wailed went conveniently burned the the the and that save that adroit gosh and sparing armadillo grew some overtook that magnificently that
Circuitous gull and messily squirrel on that banally assenting nobly some much rakishly goodness that the darn abject hello left because unaccountably spluttered unlike a aurally since contritely thanks