Greenwood city offices…bad move
Regardless of location and cost, now is not the time to move Greenwood city offices
The city of Greenwood is considering moving its crowed offices to a new site. Under consideration are renovating the building at Polk Place on Main Street on the far east side of the city or possibly purchasing land and building a new home for all city services. Neither is a good idea.
The Polk Place option is not being strongly supported by Ron Bates and Monica Magna-Reese, the two city council members who investigated the option. Buying land and building a new building was rejected by voters in 2002 as too expensive, with the estimated cost well over $12-million.
Regardless, now is not the time to be considering such a move. With a reorganization study study underway between Greenwood and White River Township, there is no way of predicting what offices the city will need should a reorganization take place. As mentioned in a previous post, the outcome of the study may eliminate existing offices or radically change the form of the existing Greenwood government. To make space projections for an non-existent entity is not a wise decision. And, the cost of any move would be shared by the present residents of Greenwood and all those added under any reorganization.
Beyond the undefined needs is the concern of the location. Should the reorganization take place the city limits of the new entity would extend well beyond the boundaries of present-day Greenwood. To place the center of city services in essentially the eastern quarter of the new city would be a great disservice to the new citizens, those now residents of White River Township.
Given these concerns, the cost, the undefined need, and the poor location being considered, any plans to move the Greenwood city government should be delayed until after the results of the reorganization study are complete and the people have had a chance to vote on any proposal it may produce.
No related posts.
4 Responses to “Greenwood city offices…bad move”
Dann
I agree that the timing is odd but the need is tough to offset. Present costs for rent of leased and upkeep of owned facilities are hard to ignore and a problem begging for a solution.
As to the balance of location versus geographic or population balance, keep in mind that Greenwood’s stated direction of growth for years has been eastward to the county line. If the consolidation review taking place would recommend some melding of Greenwood and White River Township then Greenwood continues to grow eastward…the new building would be in the middle.
There could be a subtle advantage to White River Township residents to have Greenwood go forward.
The rules for local government reorganization prohibits transfer of debt beyond the taxpayers who were originally obligated for it. As such, if Greenwood goes out and bonds the money to build a new building before the reorganization is completed, the taxing district for current residents will carry the debt and the taxing district for the new residents would not as I understand things.
Dang, I love change.
Comment made on January 13th, 2009 at 11:46 amThanks for your comments, Mike. While I don’t doubt you, I have not been able to find where it says that “if Greenwood (or “one entity”) goes out and bonds the money to build a new building before the reorganization is completed, the taxing district for current residents will carry the debt and the taxing district for the new residents would not.” All I saw am able to find in the statute is that all debts and assets become “common property” of the new entity, which would include, in this case citizens of WRT.
I appreciate your help, as I want to keep the facts on this site as accurate as possible.
Dann
Comment made on January 13th, 2009 at 11:57 amFacts? What a great idea.
My comment was based in the same article and chapter of the Indiana Code that has been cited. I’m reading in Section 40:
IC 36-1.5-4-40
Debt; pension obligations
Sec. 40. The following apply in the case of a reorganization under this article:
(1) Indebtedness that was incurred by a political subdivision before the reorganization:
(A) may not be imposed on taxpayers that were not responsible for payment of the indebtedness before the reorganization; and
(B) must be paid by the taxpayers that were responsible for payment of the indebtedness before the reorganization.
(2) Pension obligations existing as of the effective date of the reorganization:
(A) may not be imposed on taxpayers that were not responsible for payment of the pension obligations before the reorganization; and
(B) must be paid by the taxpayers that were responsible for payment of the pension obligations before the reorganization.
Congratulations on trying to keep the discussion factual. I think it makes us all better.
Mike
Comment made on January 13th, 2009 at 12:42 pmIt could be that the apparent conflict is really a difference between ownership and responsibility.
The newly formed entity would be the “owner” of the debts and assets.
But, the people obliged to ante-up the money would be the ones who were responsible when the debt was first incurred.
That would result in multiple tax districts to be sure that all appropriate liabilities are born by the correct folks.
Comment made on January 13th, 2009 at 12:50 pmLeave a Comment