Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Timber Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves timber‑contract amendment amid accusations mayor approved unauthorized clear‑cutting
Summary
The Linton City Council voted to approve an amended timber‑sale contract modification after heated debate and public accusations that an amendment and subsequent clear‑cutting were authorized without council approval. Critics said the scope exceeded tornado‑damaged areas; supporters argued DNR involvement and cleanup will benefit the community.
The Linton City Council voted to approve a modification to a timber‑sale contract after extended public comment and debate over how much forest on city property was removed.
The committee member who led the objection accused the mayor of accepting an amendment without council approval and of misleading the public. “You have lied to this city council,” the committee member said, adding they had consulted an attorney and that the amendment was received June 8. The speaker urged resignation and said many trees removed were not tornado‑damaged.
Mayor (chair) and staff disputed that characterization, saying the amendment originated from the timber purchaser and was placed on the mayor’s desk; the chair said of the amendment, “He wrote it. He put it on my desk. I don't know what date that was.” Council discussion focused on whether the harvest had been limited to tornado‑damaged trees and on the legal authority to approve contract changes without subsequent council action.
Supporters of the contract modification said the timber work and DNR involvement will clean up a heavily damaged parcel and create longer‑term recreational opportunities. One councilor said the timber sale helped place the city on SRF project lists and discussed potential funding and site improvements. Another councilor noted receipts from timber sales and said the cleanup could make roughly 300 acres available for public recreation.
A motion to approve the amended contract modification — which removed an unintended extension date (12/31/2026) and clarified the scope — was made and seconded. The council conducted a roll‑call vote and approved the amendment despite the objections. Transcript roll calls show mixed responses, including at least one recorded “no” vote among otherwise affirmative answers.
Why it matters: The episode highlighted two distinct concerns for the council and residents — legal process (who may modify city contracts and when the council must be notified or vote) and the substantive question of whether the timber harvest went beyond tornado‑damaged trees. Residents and some councilors pressed for clearer communications and stronger procedural safeguards on future contract changes.
What’s next: Councilors asked staff to clarify the timeline and paperwork for the amendment and to prepare ordinance language to reinstate or formally establish a park board (discussed earlier in the meeting) so future park‑related decisions have an explicit advisory body. The contract amendment approved at the meeting stands unless the council later votes to rescind or further amend it.
