Live from Reorg Committee: 9-3-09

The following comments are being written in real time while the meeting is in progress. Later in the meeting co-editor Dann Veldkamp is making a presentation on public-private partnerships. View his presentation at this link.

6:34 pm – Chair Pat Sherman called the meeting to order. (8:50 still on the first agenda item)

First item is Parks report from Eric Kapke:

Parks Board: membership eight members appointed by the mayor. Start July 1, 2010, divided by old and new areas, rule expires Jan. 1 2020.  Initial terms expire 12.31.2011 and then one each following year.

As of Jan. 1 2020 board reduced to six members. Each public school will have the option to appoint one voting member to the board, annual term. Council will also appoint one member with one year term, currently four members on the board. There would be three school districts in the “new” community.

Discussion held on could the schools have too much power with three votes on the board. Sherman asked if they discussed the idea of allowing the schools to have three members but one vote. Vote could rotate from school to school each year. The reorg law gives the committee broad leeway to create new boards and not be held to current state limits on size and makeup.

Dale Tumey believes getting the schools on the board is a good idea but doesn’t believe that they should have three votes. Getting the schools involved “is great.”

Don Hanlin noted that if the school board picks a member they could pick a non-resident to be on the committee. A residency requirement could be added. It was clarified that the schools have the option to send a member but are not required to appoint a member to the park board. He does believe there is a conflict of interest concern of involving the schools.

Pat Sherman expressed concern that the perception of increasing the size of the parks board could be viewed as too much growth. He requested that the committee clearly state the case for increasing the size of the board. Committee appears to be OK with the school board being represented but would like to see a rotating vote to eliminate any chance of schools “dominating” the board and adding a residency requirement. Look for minor revisions in final proposal to the entire reorganization committee.

Pathways Board: under the direction of department of public works. Board split similar to park board in representing old and new areas. Pathways will be built by public works to connect parks in the community. Pat asked if they would discuss funding for the board.

Kapke stated, money right now can come from multiple areas, grants, parks department, some from road constructions (included in the cost). Current funding comes from various sources as well. Pat is concerned if they really will have the ability to extend the right of way to include a pathway in the construction plans. Wants to assure that is an option and that all funding details are accurate. Pat would like to avoid using property taxes to pay for pathways when possible.

Members will be paid or not, up to governance to decide. Even if they are paid board members such as this are paid very little sometimes as little as $50 a month.

Forrest Chambers questioned why a separate board, can’t parks handle it? Eric Kapke stated that since the pathways board works closely with the department of public works allowing them to focus on pathways. Park board member on the pathways will allow for coordination. The “paths” offer alternative transportation and therefore should coordinate mainly with public works since they build roads. These paths are not trails and serve a transportation function.

Funding: Parks and rec are currently funded by general fund but could be funded by levies on property tax levies. Plan calls for a lower tax levy than currently exists in Greenwood reduced to .005 from .008. The current Greenwood “impact fee” on new homes would continue. Budget would have to be approved by the council. Budget process is the same as current law allows. Draft operating budget is available from the subcommittee.

Pat wants to know if the county would be interested in giving Independence Park to the new city and if so would the budget set forth be able to handle the additional expense. Pat also suggested that properties in Smith Valley frequently flood could be purchased and turned into parks. Is there going to be money available should that come about? Currently the park fund levy can only be increased 4% a year and that amount may not be enough to cover rapid expansion of parks in White River Township and Smith Valley. Pat went on to say he is concerned that the suggested decrease in the current levy may be too much. Requested they reconsider the plan to make sure that enough money is available for parks.

Don Hanlin suggested that the money that the White River Township government at the time of merger should be used to develop parks in the current unincorporated area. The township has a sizable bank balance and is currently plan to sell the bantam football fields to the league which would increase that amount. No action was taken but the idea received a mostly favorable response.

Note: Surprising how much detail is included in the parks plan for funding, sources of funding, estimated tax rates, etc. You can spend a lot of time reading the report. Suggest you get the report from the reorganization website as soon as it is available.

Current Greenwood parks budget is $2.2 million. If you leave the levy the same then you can expect another $2.2 million coming from Center Grove (that is an estimate). How much money do we need to spend on parks? Divide $2.2 million by 40,000 residents and you will see how much you and each member of your family and all your friends will be spending on parks.

NOTE: How important are parks in your life? Does Greenwood have enough parks, does Center Grove need more? How many more? National average is 11 acres of parks per thousand residents. Greenwood’s goal is 5.5 acres but have far less. Current White River area has about 1/3rd of an acre per thousand residents, if you only county Independence Park as the only recreational area in the community.

The long discussion on funding really came down to making sure that residents don’t feel that their money is going to fund “the other area”. We each may be wary of that happening but if we are going to truly be one community we really need to trust each other and that trust needs to begin as soon as possible. One thing you can be assured of is that the committee is sensitive to the issue of allowing residents to keep their “own” money in their own area.

It is now 8:34. If we are spending this much time on parks, when will we get out of here?

Pat Sherman stated that part of the plan will be “hard requirements” and part of it will be guidelines or suggestions. Part of the plan will have the “rule of law” if approved by the voters.

At the last minute a request was made to include language asking the new community to look loosing current park rules to allow alcohol in parks at certain events.  The discussion was very much focused on this is not an appropriate action or consideration for the committee.

Planning and Land Use – Dale Tumey: (see a proposed map of “new” Greenwood here) Zoning should have representation from rural and urban areas for a longer period of time. Suggests adding two members to the current board of zoning appeals, one person should always be a representative from the rural area. In 2020 the board would revert back to current second class city standards however a rural member should be maintained. Shouldn’t this have some end date?

City will adopt the current county policies for rural areas. Pat Sherman wants to know why you need a mandated rural member on the BZA when it doesn’t affect rural areas. He suggests 2020 end date with a clause recommending that rural areas always be considered. That will be the likely final version.

Planning and land use commission will be expanded by four, with two urban WRT areas and two rural residents until 2020 and then would return to second class city levels, currently about 10 or 11 members. County can appoint two but has only appointed one member in recent years.

Pat is concerned that by appointing two rural members you are not accurately representing the population and assessed value on the board. Again, why would the rural area care to be on the planning commission since they are not governed by the planning commission? Rural area is protected by the super majority status on the council.

The rural area would pay the rural rate for as long as it is used for agriculture. The only taxable rural property that should be taxed at the city rate would be buildings and homes since they require fire and police protection. They will pay no city tax on land they are farming as long as it is at least 10 acres.

The rural district has been developed in accordance with the charge provided to the reorganization committee. That would make it appear as if they are moving ahead as if the Bargersville annexation has not taken place.

10:43 Dann begins to present. I could tell you about it but click the link above and review the information and learn a little about public-private partnerships as a way to control costs.

The committee has an opportunity to take advantage of the freedom provided under the merger legislation to look at new ways to provide services to the population.

NOTE: To learn about cities already using public-private partnerships read this article and watch the news stories on that page.

Pat Sherman commented that he and Paul Reed would look into this and learn more and report to the committee. “We are not going to buy a bunch of trucks in the first year” so we need to definitely need to examine options like this.

10:55 pm and time to go home. The committee is meeting again next week to review the rest of the subcommittee reports.

No related posts.