Considering the Bargersville reorganization proposal

Suggesting some things that the White River Board may want to address before they vote

The White River Township (WRT) Board will meet late Wednesday afternoon to consider a reorganization/merger proposal from Bargersville, among other business. In reviewing the proposal there are a number of items that should be carefully reviewed and revised before taking a vote to whether or not to counter the proposal.

Time for some full disclosure here: I am not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV. My brother-in-law is an attorney, but he lives in Iowa and doesn’t even know this discussion is going on. That said, I have read the statute and the Bargersville proposal (link) and have some “common sense” observations.

Some concern has been expressed that the proposal only goes to Stones Crossing Road. There is some truth to this, but paragraph “1.” reads “at least that portion of unincorporated WRT generally described as being south of Stones Crossing Road, as such are is adjusted by mutual agreement of the Participating Political Subdivisions.” Note it says “at least that portion” and “as such area is adjusted by mutual agreement.” Nothing here is etched in stone. To me this indicates a willingness to take on more, if it is good for all concerned. This has been confirmed in my discussions with members of the Bargersville Town Council. However, WRT Board Chair Mark Messick has been reported in other places as saying he has been told that Bargersville is not interested in a larger area. Where the truth is could be tested by submitting a counter proposal that includes the entire unincorporated area or it could be worked out by the study committee.

In paragraph “4.” it says the “Reorganization Committee” should have six members, three from Bargersville and three from WRT. This is better than the “deal” we got with Greenwood, when the WRT Board agreed to a seven member board, four from Greenwood and three from WRT.

It’s paragraph “6.” where things get interesting. In sub-section “6.a” it says, among other things, they want to limit the study committee “to the extent practical, to respect the preferences concerning remaining unincorporated or not of the current residents of the developed portion of the unincorporated areas of WRT not presently included within a Bargersville annexation.” This is generally been interpreted as providing sub-divisions the option to “opt-out” of any merger or consolidation. This seems needlessly complex and why it is included in not totally clear. However, what is clear, is that there a number of citizens in the southern part of the township that are currently zoned agricultural and would like to remain so. I think finding ways to accommodate the desires of as many residents as possible is commendable, but arbitrary limits should not be placed on the study committee before it is formed. This section could be greatly simplified to encourage the study committee to consider the desires of the various areas under study when forming their recommendation.

Paragraph “6.c” Bargersville seems to want to gain control over the “ planning, zoning and development regulations in the entire area south of Stones Crossing Road.” This would include both those that are included in the merger and those that remain unincorporated. We would all like to have our cake and eat it too, but this is just too much to expect the WRT Board to accept on the part of WRT citizens. Why would it, without further study, simply agree to turning over control of the area to Bargersville? And, what part would Johnson County play in this? I suspect they would have an interest in this type of agreement as well. This paragraph should simply be stricken from any counter proposal.

Finally, in section “6.d” they make the point that ‘Bargersville Utilities will continue to be operated and managed exclusively by Bargersville.” This seems either 1) needlessly defensive or 2) unaware that by definition any parts of unincorporated WRT that are merged with Bargersville are Bargersville. So why adding more citizens should change ownership or control of the utility is not clear. For what it’s worth, I don’t think it hurts anything to leave this provision in the agreement, but neither do I see the value that it adds.

None of this should be taken as being overly critical of the Bargersville proposal. It is well known that it was assembled in a short period of time in response to the Greenwood proposal. But that does not mean that it should be accepted without modification or rejected because it needs modification. In the article “The Complications of Consolidation” I explain why it is in the best interest of the citizens of WRT to include Bargersville in any consolidation discussion. The WRT Board should respond with a substantially changed proposition to include Bargersville in a broader study of how to provide services to the currently unincorporated areas of White River Township.

No related posts.