Continuously serving Kosciusko County since 1854
In a procedural vote Thursday, the Kosciusko County Council reaffirmed their vote on a Jan. 8 resolution, allowing the Syracuse-Turkey Creek Public Library to move forward on a bond issue for a new $7.385 million library building.
The matter was tabled from the council’s May meeting due to conflicting information about advertisement on the Indiana Gateway for Government Units from the Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF).
County attorney Ed Ormsby investigated the facts of the procedural compliance for the library bond issuance and appropriation, and reported his findings to the council Thursday.
He said on Dec. 24, the library published in local newspapers a notice of a hearing of the Kosciusko County Council to be heard Jan. 8, 2026, for the purpose of approving or denying the library’s request to issue bonds in an amount not to exceed $7.385 million and to approve or deny the library’s appropriation of the bond proceeds.
On Jan. 1, the Gateway Notice Statute took effect. It required the library to upload to the DLGF’s Gateway a notice of the Jan. 8 hearing at least 14 days prior to that hearing. According to the DLGF, Ormsby reported, “Gateway was not available for upload of the notice to Gateway for the January hearing until Dec. 31, 2025, and the library did not upload the notice to Gateway for the January hearing prior to the Jan. 8 date.”
At the Jan. 8 council hearing, no members of the public appeared to speak for or against the bond issuance and the appropriation request. They were approved by the council by a 4-3 vote.
After the Jan. 8 hearing, a budget field representative of the DLGF initially stated that the approval of the bond issuance and appropriation request was invalid due to the library’s failure to comply with the Gateway Notice Statute (GNS), Ormsby said.
On April 15, the library uploaded a notice to Gateway for another hearing of the council to be heard May 14. Then at 2:10 p.m. May 14, a different representative of the DLGF sent an email to the Kosciusko County auditor regarding the library and the GNS.
Ormsby then read the email aloud, which stated, in part, “Because statute references the advertising date as opposed to the budget year for the change, advertising for a 2026 additional appropriation in the newspaper at least 10 days prior to the public hearing in 2025 is allowed.”
The email requested the newspaper proof of advertising, along with other documentation, be uploaded to Gateway.
The auditor notified the library of the May 14 DLGF email prior to the May 14 council hearing. At that hearing, the council tabled the hearing to its June 11 meeting to allow for review of the DLGF May 14 email and “matters related to procedural compliance of the library with the Gateway Notice Statute,” Ormsby continued.
On May 15, the library uploaded to Gateway the notice for the Jan. 8 hearing as requested by the DLGF.
After the May 14 council hearing, the DLGF posted on Gateway an order accepting the January resolution, including the appropriation from the issuance of bonds in the amount of the requested $7.385 million without any reduction.
“Although there does not appear to have been compliance by the library with the facial requirements of the Gateway Notice Statute due to DLGF’s inoperative Gateway, DLGF is now satisfied with the library’s December newspaper notice and has now approved the library’s filing on Gateway,” Ormsby said. “Further, it is the understanding of the council that there are other public units in the state that have experienced similar procedural notice issues due to the Gateway not having been running 14 days prior to Jan. 2, 2026, the first business day in 2026, and have been provided with guidance similar to the DLGF May 14 email.”
After stating his findings of fact of the investigation, Ormsby said, “The standard of review for this matter for the council: 1. This is a quasi-legislative matter for which the courts generally do not interfere unless there has been malfeasance, such as fraud or criminal activity.
“2. The council, as a newly elected fiscal body of the county, may determine in its discretion whether it is satisfied that there has been compliance with procedural requirements for its governmental actions (and) whether it wants to reconsider its discretionary approval, regardless of its satisfaction or dissatisfaction with procedural requirements (and) what is the most prudent way to proceed related to the library’s bond approval and appropriation request.
“3. The county fiscal body’s approval of a bond issuance and appropriation request is a statutory approved requisite and does not create a binding obligation upon the council or the county, and the council retains full authority to provoke, rescind and void prior discretionary approval at any time before the bonds are issued or hold another hearing if it so chooses.”
The council also is free to reaffirm the Jan. 8 resolution that approved the bond issuance and appropriation as procedurally fact, Ormsby said, or to revoke the January resolution and reconsider at a future hearing the approval of the library’s request to issue bonds and appropriate those bonds.
Council President Tony Ciriello said the council did a lot of due diligence and made a lot of phone calls, as well as had a lot of conversations, over the last few weeks on the matter.
“Tonight is a procedural hearing that could go one way or the other - affirm what we did in January, or we could revoke and move forward to another hearing in July, which was discussed during a phone conversation, which you were a part of, (library attorney) Steve (Snyder). So that is the intent of tonight’s vote. Right now it’s to decide whether we affirm our January or whether we revoke the January resolution and move on to another hearing from a procedural standpoint,” Ciriello said.
He stated there was a lot of confusion from the DLGF to the county and to the library, so it was no fault of the county’s or the library’s. “It’s a DLGF issue that we’ve had to deal with and live with and have these discussions over,” Ciriello said.
He stated the final opinion came from the DLGF deputy director and not from a field representative.
Councilwoman Kimberly Cates made a motion “to approve to reaffirm that the library has satisfied all of the legal requirements as determined by the DLGF.” Council Vice President Kathy Groninger seconded the motion.
In the 4-3 vote on Jan. 8, Cates, Groninger, Ciriello and John Barrett voted in favor of the resolution, while Council members Dave Wolkins, Rachael Rhoades and Joe Irwin opposed. Will Stockdale has since replaced Barrett on the council.
Thursday, Stockdale said, “I would love nothing more than to come back and have a full hearing on the merits. I was not on the council at the time this decision was made. But that would be largely a political decision, that would not be a legal decision. I’ve looked at this from every angle, read statutes, talked with other attorneys. The library did what they needed to do legally, and there’s no valid legal reason that we need to overturn the Jan. 8 resolution.”
Irwin and Rhoades agreed with Stockdale, with Rhoades reiterating her belief the bond issuance of millions of dollars was not a wise decision because they don’t know what the full effect of Senate Bill 1 will be.
Wolkins said he was still going to be a “no” on it. He believes the library followed all the proper procedures, but he said it was not the right time with SB1 going to be cutting everyone’s revenue.
“My objection to it is the fact everybody’s going to come in here and want more money, and we’ve never been able to say no to anybody,” Wolkins said. “So like I said, they did everything correctly, I have no problem with it at all. My problem is, $12 million here, $15 million there, it’s adding up and people are suffering homeowners. So I’m still going to be a no.”
Groninger said the library followed the process that they should, and at the public hearings the library held no remonstrated. She also stated she felt the library has been good stewards of their property.
Ciriello pointed out the resolution did say the county has “no future obligations for payments of the bonds, anything like that. If they were to default on it, it all goes back on the library, it does not fall on the county.”
In answering a question from the council, Sarah Correll, with Ice Miller, bond counsel for the library, said the maximum debt service tax rate would be around 4 cents per $100 of assessed valuation. Cates said that tax rate would be going up only 1 cent from 3 cents per $100 of assessed valuation.
Snyder said the proposed library is about a half block from his office. “And it would be a wonderful addition to the community, besides being essential to the community as libraries are. They aren’t going out of vogue. They are continued to be used, and they need to be updated to provide the services that should be provided to the community,” he stated.
He also pointed out that in reliance of the approval and the opinion from the DLGF, “the library has incurred significance expense already towards the project, either by payment of expenses or signing of contracts, totaling $480,000. So it would be a significant burden on the library if those could not be reimbursed and/or paid out of bond revenue.”
The final vote on Cates’ motion to reaffirm Jan. 8’s resolution was 6-1, with Wolkins being the only one opposed.
