08/25/2026
The North Vernon City Council Show packed a surprising amount into its August 24th show, and once again the Historic Preservation Commission took center stage, barely.
The proposed Historic Preservation Commission ordinance returned after its previous discussion with only a handful of changes. The commission would have five voting members with staggered initial terms, and the ordinance was revised to require the commission’s future rules and guidelines to come back before City Council for approval before they could actually be enforced. Council was also told that state law requires the mayor to appoint the voting members, with those appointments then approved by City Council.
Then came the explanation everyone in the room has heard some version of before.
This ordinance, officials repeatedly stressed, is only creating the commission. It is not creating the actual historic-preservation guidelines the commission would eventually follow. Those guidelines come later, after the commission exists and its members are appointed. The plan is for the commission to work with downtown business owners, building owners and others while developing those guidelines, which would eventually return to City Council for ratification before becoming enforceable.
That council-approval requirement is an important safeguard. The appointed commission would not simply be able to write a new rule one afternoon and start enforcing it the next morning.
But it still leaves the question Granny has been asking from the beginning sitting right there in the middle of the room.
They want to create the commission before they write the rules will actually follow. While also having some pretty substantial rules in the ordinance creating the commission, then they us we're supposed to ignore those rules.
The commission gets created. The mayor appoints its members. Council approves those members. Then the commission helps develop the substantive guidelines it will eventually operate under.
And every time someone questions that sequence, the answer keeps coming back in some form of: “This ordinance only creates the commission. The guidelines come later.”
Yes.
We heard you.
The fact that say rules come later while some are already in the ordinance is the part people are questioning.
One member of the public put it about as simply as anybody could. People were receiving the actual paperwork that night, many people still were not aware of what was happening, and if another couple of weeks really was not a big deal, why not wait and let people actually read and discuss it?
There was a real reason for the rush, however.
An OCRA representative explained that the city is running up against a September 29 CAMP training date for Historic Preservation Commission members. That training is intended to teach future members what they can and cannot do when developing the guidelines. She also explained that if North Vernon wants to retain the $2 million PreservINg Main Street grant, the Historic Preservation Commission must remain in existence through the life cycle of the grant.
So that became the argument for moving quickly. Create the commission, get five people appointed, get those appointments approved, get them trained, start developing the map and keep the $2 million grant moving.
That explains the timeline.
It does not magically make the public’s concern about the order of operations disappear.
Baron Wilder again stressed that passing Ordinance 1032-2026 would only establish the commission and would not establish the rules. He eventually made the motion to adopt the ordinance, and Jack Kelly seconded it.
Then the vote came.
Two in favor. Three opposed. Motion failed.
Afterward, the council discussed bringing it back again at the next regular meeting, eventually sorting out that the date is September 14th.
Daeger explained that he had spoken with "business owners" who were generally supportive of the ordinance itself but wanted additional time to discuss the timeline and details. (Perhaps with residents and building owners instead of only a handful of businesses?) He said he had already told people he would not vote for it that night and intended to give the matter more time.
Jack Kelly pushed back with the deadline with his emotion switch switched to 100%. The city is “under the gun,” he said, because the mayor still has to find five people, council has to approve them, and the September training date is getting close.
Pat Kirchner then pointed out the obvious workaround: the mayor could spend the next few weeks identifying potential members so their names could be ready if the ordinance passes September 14th.
The mayor was not interested in the slightest.
He said he was not going to waste his time asking people to serve on a commission when he did not yet know whether council would pass the ordinance, adding that he did not want to waste their time or his.
Which creates a rather interesting little circle.
The mayor does not want to line up potential commission members before council creates the commission because that might put work ahead of approval.
The public should kinda just accept the council creating another commission before the commission develops the substantive guidelines everyone keeps assuring the public will come later.
Apparently cart placement depends heavily on which cart we are discussing.
Moving on.
The golf course made an appearance, and for once it was not attached to money.
St. Anne’s co-director of golf Joe Kelley addressed council about Sunday morning’s failed golf scramble. Kelley said the event was scheduled for an 8 a.m. shotgun start and he simply did not show up because he slept through his alarm.
No elaborate excuse. No communications failure. No weather problem. No blaming somebody else.
He overslept.
Kelley took responsibility for it, apologized to the organizer and everyone who had traveled to participate, apologized to the mayor, council and fellow co-director Bryce Wrightsman, and said he would work to earn back the trust he lost.
Council thanked him for doing it.
Later, the scramble organizer spoke himself. He explained that he had not intended for his Facebook post about nobody being there to take off the way it did. People had traveled from Indianapolis and Louisville for the event, it was the fourth year they had held it, and he preferred keeping the event local because he is from here. But he also said situations like this, along with the condition of the course, make that more difficult. Participation has been dwindling, and other courses have already reached out to him.
That part deserves just as much attention as the apology for saying what happened out loud.
The parks department also announced that the complex will host its first USSSA fast-pitch tournament this coming Sunday. Granny's shoulder flew outta socket just thinkin' about it.
Police Chief Keith Messer reported that officers have been conducting additional school-zone enforcement through an Operation Pullover grant, including enforcement involving speeding and school-bus stop-arm violations.
Then came the money.
Council approved an August 14 payroll of $219,382.95 and two claim dockets totaling $245,038.29 and $149,461.09.
Apparently council has noticed that people are not particularly impressed by hearing giant lump-sum claim numbers with almost no accompanying information.
Jack Kelly addressed that criticism, but somehow managed to answer a question nobody was asking.
He explained that if council sat there and went through every claim and every payment individually, everybody would be sitting there for another hour or two.
Who asked them to do that? I'm genuinely curious.
Granny hasn't seen anybody is asking council to perform a dramatic reading of every invoice into the microphone.
Publish the meeting packet.
Council already has the claim information before the meeting. Members review it before voting. Put that same material online with the agenda so taxpayers can look through it too.
Then when council says it is approving $245,038.29 and $149,461.09, the public can see what those numbers actually contain without driving to City Hall afterward and asking someone behind a counter for records.
That is not some radical new invention called transparency.
Governments all over the place publish agenda packets containing claims, reports, contracts, resolutions, supporting documentation and other materials their boards are expected to consider.
Instead, the angry Jack reminded everyone that the claims are public records and said anybody can go to the clerk-treasurer’s office, get them, look them over and come back to a meeting with questions.
Sure.
They are public records.
But “you can come down here and ask us for the documents” and “we posted the documents online before the vote so everyone can see what council is seeing” are not the same level of transparency.
And again, nobody asked Jack to read every invoice aloud.
Jack, meet Packet. Packet, meet Website.
When someone finally asked whether there was anything notable in those claims worth mentioning, suddenly we got a little actual information: roughly $245,000 for a debt payment, about $31,000 for street-department equipment and $20,000 to the EDC.
The clerk-treasurer’s office then explained that submitted claims are reviewed against the appropriate budget appropriations before being placed on the docket for council approval and that payments cannot be made until council approves the claims. The office again noted that the detailed information is public record and available for review.
Near the end of the meeting, the conversation hilariously found its way right back to transparency. If you say it enough, I guess it comes true.
Then Jarrod thanked everyone for attending and said a full room shows people still care. Followed by some rambling about civic participation without attendances means people are mad, so they don't show up.
Then came the little Baron:
“Oh jarrod, don’t discount the people that are online. They’re actual people, at least some of them are. So they can make their posts and whatnot, however they want to say about tonight’s meeting. But everything here is transparent, contrary to what you read online.”
Ya know, cause nothing says ‘we’re not bothered’ quite like bringing up hurt Facebook feelings and the non-people, completely unprompted.
Folks then defended the claims process some more by explaining that they already review the vouchers before the meeting, ask questions beforehand and resolve issues before voting. Going through those details publicly, they argued, could add hours to the meeting.
And again, Granny's not sure who is asking for a two-hour invoice recital.
Posting the meeting packet seems much easier and practical, but that doesn't serve the purpose of the recurring transparency whine fest.
If the council members can see the material before they vote, there is no particularly compelling reason the taxpayers footing the bill should have to chase it down after the fact like its 1926, Jack.
Finally, there was some calendar discussion over the city budget hearing. September 14th had originally been discussed for the first public hearing, but September 28 the clerk-treasurer will be out of the country. Council members were asked to check their calendars so any change could be properly published.
Roughly 30 minutes of government theater wrapped up with officials spending an impressive amount of public meeting time crying about Granny and explaining things absolutely nobody asked them to explain.
