Indian Hills improvement district decides on language for ballot

After more than two years of meetings, public comments, squabbling and just plain political drama, the Indian Hills General Improvement District board decided Thursday night on language for the November 2000 community center and district office ballot question.

The question asks Indian Hills residents if the district should construct and operate the buildings at James Lee Park under a plan that keeps property taxes at or below the current rate. Board members also approved "for" and "against" statements that will accompany the ballot question. The ballot question and statements will now be submitted to Douglas County Clerk-Treasurer Barbara Reed.

"Well, we've got that done," sighed board member Joanne Riekenberg, an opponent of the center and the subject of a recall effort by citizens angered by her position on the issue. Board member Renee Haskell, who was absent from the meeting, has also been targeted for recall.

Some attendees were surprised the board got this far, given the contentiousness generated by the proposed center and office.

"You should have seen some of the other meetings," said Indian Hills resident Art Baer, recalling past verbal skirmishes within the board and between board members and members of the public.

Thursday meeting, in fact, began in just that vein.

Riekenberg repeated her opposition to the timing of the placement of the ballot question before the public.

She said the board decided on the ballot prematurely and without sufficient public input. She read a statement that questioned the validity of plans to fund and operate the center and office complex.

In a series of at times testy exchanges, board chairman Steve Weaver, vice chairman Ron Kruse and some Indian Hills residents told Riekenberg the only item on the meeting agenda was the ballot language, not the propriety of the ballot question itself.

"The board has decided to put [the question] on the ballot. End of story," said resident Bob Herbert, who noted the board made that decision back on March 16.

After some brief side discussions into grants to fund the center and possible user fees, the meeting got back on point and ended with board members cooperating in a line-by-line review of the ballot question and accompanying statements.