IBJNews

Fishers' first mayoral election set for next year

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Fishers residents will elect their first mayor a year earlier than expected due to a change in state law that establishes Jan. 1, 2015, as the date the town becomes a city.

Voters will choose partisan candidates for mayor, city council and city clerk in the May 2014 primary—typically the most-contentious election in the overwhelmingly Republican community—and return to the polls in November.

“The new dates, according to the recently amended Indiana Code, give us a roadmap to follow in the transition to become a city,” Fishers Town Council President John Weingardt said in a statement released Tuesday.

Prior to the change, the switch could have happened in 2015 or 2016.

Residents of the fast-growing suburb voted in November to turn the town of 80,000 residents into a second-class city with an elected mayor and nine-member city council.

The town is governed now by a seven-member town council that appoints a town manager to run day-to-day affairs.

One of the first steps in the transition: redistricting.

Six of the new city council members will represent districts of roughly equal population; three will be at-large councilors.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Redistricting
    Were the council members elected previously on partisan ballots? I don't recall that being the case but maybe I wasn't paying attention. I wonder if the redistricting used party politics data at all, or if the percentage of democrats is so small that it didn't really matter.
  • Being in Hamilton County...
    ...it will be a landslide for whoever the Republican candidate happens to be. ;)

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

    2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

    3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

    4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

    5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

    ADVERTISEMENT