Comments on: Greenwood city offices…bad move http://www.centergroveinc.org/2009/01/13/bad-move/ Following the future of White River Township Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:57:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Mike Gerrish http://www.centergroveinc.org/2009/01/13/bad-move/comment-page-1/#comment-35 Mike Gerrish Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:50:22 +0000 http://centergroveinc.org/?p=305#comment-35 It 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. It 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.

]]> By: Mike Gerrish http://www.centergroveinc.org/2009/01/13/bad-move/comment-page-1/#comment-34 Mike Gerrish Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:42:24 +0000 http://centergroveinc.org/?p=305#comment-34 Facts? 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 Facts? 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

]]> By: Dann http://www.centergroveinc.org/2009/01/13/bad-move/comment-page-1/#comment-33 Dann Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:57:16 +0000 http://centergroveinc.org/?p=305#comment-33 Thanks 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 Thanks 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

]]>