Bainbridge council, citizens at odds over grants

BAINBRIDGE -- Tensions were palpable Wednesday evening throughout a public session lasting more than three hours inside Bainbridge Town Hall -- a session resulting in the dismay of many of those in attendance which, among other responses, prompted a walkout before the meeting officially adjourned at 9:49 p.m.

With now-controversial topics like repaving city streets, sidewalk installation, rezoning and utility-debt liability all seeing their time in the spotlight, nary a stone was left unturned Wednesday during a monthly meeting that saw a larger-than-normal turnout.

The most heated topic of the meeting, taking up nearly two-thirds of the duration, perhaps involved concerns surrounding the Community Crossings Matching Grant application through the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), which could see to the repaving of several streets throughout the small Putnam community -- streets which Board President Jerry Lents says have not been repaved in 28 years.

However, the most prominent issue with the application seemed to be expressed by Councilman Scott Curran (1st Ward), Utility Superintendent Eric Gibson, Clerk-treasurer Monica Bray, Deputy Clerk-treasurer Sherry Burlingame and multiple residents, leaving councilmen Lents (2nd Ward) and Joel Thompson (View President, 3rd Ward) alone with their opinions.

The group’s ultimate concern: “Why not try for the full $1 million?”

The Community Crossings Matching Grant is a corresponding grant (75/25) through which towns may apply for up to $1 million to fund “local road and bridge preservation, road reconstruction, intersection improvements, small structure replacements, guardrail replacements and sign installation,” according to INDOT.

Therefore, if the town of Bainbridge applies for $1 million, it would be responsible for funding $250,000 of the sum if acquired, for which the town simply does not have the funds, Lents said.

“All three quotes, including the third priority -- what we’ve already done with Railroad Street, Church Street and part of College Street -- was $57,120,” Lents said. “So if you take all three priorities -- Main Street is the main priority, number two is the streets I just named, and (three) what we did this year -- it comes to $398,000.

“If we get the grant, we have to pay 25 percent of that, which will cost us about $99,000,” Lents continued. “We have money in the budget to do that, but we don’t have money in the budget to (apply for) another $600,000-$700,000.”

Lents went on to address a question posed by Utility Superintendent Gibson, who asked, “So we don’t have the money this year, or we don’t have the money this year for next year?”

“The grant may not be there next year, we’re not sure, I mean we may not even get it this year,” Lents responded. “But for sidewalks or something like that, we can look at coming grants or federal grants just for that.”

“So there’s $600,000 we’re not going after? Because that’s a $1-million cap on that grant, correct?” Gibson asked.

“This year,” Lents responded.

“But we don’t know if it’s going to be there next year?” Gibson asked.

“We don’t even know if it’s going to be there this year,” Lents reiterated. “What (we’ve been told) is that the grant last year, which we didn’t apply for in time, was hardly applied for but this year everybody is applying for it. (INDOT) doesn’t know if (it’s) going to have enough money to give everyone the grant ... and INDOT is really looking at the paving part of it.”

Lents then seemingly put a pin in the issue by publicly acknowledging a special meeting held by the council on Monday, July 10 to vote on the grant application, at which time the $398,000 was approved via 2-0 vote for the aforementioned funds to do the paving only (Curran was not in attendance).

However, a heated discussion then ensued after Curran raised a powerful argument and released some seemingly-growing frustrations with Lents.

“So, let me get this straight, Monday night we had the meeting and it just so happens that (Gibson) and (Bray), the only other two people who know all the information, were going to be there,” Curran began, “and you didn’t make us aware of any of this information prior to (tonight), but yet you’ve been calling this Brian Koehler (INDOT) and making decisions on your own without concerning Joel or me. You could have called, at least.

“This is (BS) Jerry, we have a $1-million cap and you can apply for a low-interest bond (for the $250,000) -- there’s no reason why we can’t have sidewalks in this town,” Curran continued. “You don’t want a sidewalk in front of your house, and that’s why you don’t want sidewalks.”

Lents began to mount a defense, managing to say Curran’s statements simply were not true, but Curran recapitulated his position.

“This is a bunch of crap,” he said. “You don’t want a sidewalk in front of your house, and that’s more important to you than a child’s safety. You don’t care if some little kid is walking or riding a bike down the street with people speeding through town. We’ve had a kid get hit over in the new housing addition; I had a lady almost hit my family one time.”

The marathon discussion which then ensued was ripe with strong comments from an audience notably in favor of Councilman Curran’s comments.

“What difference does the cap make when we don’t have the ($250,000) to put up?” Councilman Thompson asked.

“We don’t have $250,000,” Lents added.

“Have you looked into a low-interest bond? Did you reach out to the utility board or any other agencies?” Curran asked.

“Have you?” Lents quipped, prompting strong response from Curran.

“I don’t know about this (Lents), you’re having all of these special meetings without me. You’re calling Koehler up and making changes without talking to me,” he said. “You’re trying to make decisions because you want to run this town all by yourself. You’re trying to take over the utility board; you’ve already got it planned for Robert (Hensley) to be off the board next year.

“I know what you’re doing.”

After considerable talks between the council and the audience, no ground was gained and the issue was postponed until the end of the meeting in order to move along with the rest of the session, at which time a 10-minute recess was declared before resuming grant talks.

Once resumed, Lents and Thompson were confronted with similar questions as Curran’s by Gibson, Bray and Burlingame, all of whom wanted to attempt to change the application from the $398,000 to $1 million by the deadline of Friday, July 14.

Each also noted that sidewalks and attractive streets may appeal to more businesses and other developmental projects, and that “creative thinking” is crucial in such a scenario. They also said larger applications are more likely to be approved by INDOT.

All were displeased that neither Lents nor Thompson would consider their pleas, the latter going as far as to threaten no application and no repaving at all, further upsetting those present.

Lents ultimately reiterated that the issue had already been resolved on Monday when he and Thompson voted to pass the $398,000 application, therefore rendering any further attempts of discussion moot. This prompted a walkout by those who remained.

As it currently stands, the application drafted after Monday’s meeting will be submitted to INDOT today (Friday, July 14) for $398,000. However, upon further investigation by the Banner Graphic, it was found that the council is in violation of IC 5-14-1.5-5, the portion of the Indiana Open Door Law that deals with public notice for meetings.

Officially, the board failed to advertise Monday’s special session for a minimum of 48 business hours prior to the meeting, thereby rendering any decision or action made by the two councilmen during the July 10 meeting potentially disputable by citizens.

According to Section 5, Part A of the Open Door Law concerning public notice of meetings, “Public notice of date, time, and place of any meetings, executive sessions, or of any rescheduled or reconvened meeting, shall be given at least forty-eight (48) hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) before the meeting.”

The Banner Graphic initially and incorrectly received notice from the Bainbridge Town Board on Thursday, July 6 that a special meeting would be held on Monday, July 17. However, it wasn’t until Friday, July 7 that another notice was received which changed the special meeting’s date to Monday, July 10, putting the board in violation of the aforementioned Open Door Law, citing less than 48-hour notice.

Because of this violation, residents of the town of Bainbridge have the right to dispute any decisions made during the special session.