Fishers reorganization plan to appear on November ballot

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Hamilton County Election Board agreed on Thursday to give residents of Fishers and Fall Creek Township the opportunity in November to vote on merging the two into a single city.

Appearing on the Nov. 6 ballot for those residents will be the question: “Shall the Town of Fishers and Fall Creek Township reorganize as a single political subdivision?”

“This is the first step in giving Fall Creek Township and Fishers residents the opportunity to determine the model of government that is most efficient and best suited for their community,” Pete Peterson, a member of the Fishers Town Council, said in a prepared statement.

An independent study group consisting of both town and township residents recommended in 2010 that Fishers merge with the township into a so-called modern-city structure. If approved by voters, Fishers could be classified as a modern city and would be co-governed by nine council members and a mayor.

Fishers does not have a mayor and instead has a town manager to oversee operations. The town manager position would remain in place under the modern-city proposal.

In March, The Indiana Supreme Court ruled in favor of Fishers’ ability to reorganize with the township.

The decision stemmed from a lawsuit filed in federal court by three Fishers residents who contested the recommendation by the study group that would strip the right of voters to elect a mayor. Under the proposal, council members would appoint a mayor.

Opponents of the plan argued that Fishers would be the only city in the state with an appointed mayor.

In their decision, justices said state law allows a municipality to reorganize into a city even though the reorganization plan provides for a city council elected at large and a city mayor appointed by the council.

Fishers now has about 79,000 residents, making it one of Indiana's 10 largest communities and more than twice the size of any other town in the state.


  • Wrong problem, wrong solution
    Maintaining anachronistic entities such as Fishers, Carmel, and Noblesville which essentially abut is the problem. Merge all three and other burgs in Hamilton Co. into one political entity. The result would still be less populous than Indianapolis. Imagine the redundancy of administration, services, etc. such a merger would eliminate. Never happen...too many public sector jobs at stake and too many contractors have purchased an "in" with local leaders. The excuse for not doing so will be "democracy close to the governed". That is a laugh for as we know, nearly nobody votes in local elections. Who voted to spend taxpayer money on a new outdoor music facility in Fishers? Government: Reduce, eliminate, remove funding, and redefine its purpose.
  • NO ques 1, YES ques 2
    The Ballot question is carefully crafted. EDUCATE YOURSELF BEFORE YOU VOTE!!! Go to www.cityyes.org. FISHERS is the largest municipality in Indiana WITHOUT A MAYOR. We need one to cut costs on a CONTINUAL basis. The million dollars they say they will save is from essentially FIRING all employees and rehiring them on Jan. 1 not having to pay Social Security taxes. THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS for sure. An additional link to learn more about the implications of how you answer these TWO ballot questions can be found at http://fishersfcmergerfaq.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general∾tion=display&thread=19
  • Elect a Mayor
    There are great synergies and economies of scale by reorganizing both communities. However, the appointment of mayor is not a good idea. The residents should elect both the City Council and the Mayor.
    • I Agree bad question
      I think everyone should be able to vote on the elected or appointed Mayor also. It is only because of this, My vote will be no.
    • Bad Question
      So now it seems the voters choice is either not reorganize (vote No), or reorganize with an appointed mayor (Vote Yes). The complaint seems not to be about reorganization, but with the plan of how to do it, thus the question should present three choices: 1) Don't reorganize; 2) Reorganize with an appointed Mayor; 3) Reorganize with an elected Mayor.

      Post a comment to this story

      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

      facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
      Subscribe to IBJ