Live from Reorg: Thursday Oct. 15

Overview: The following article was written in real time at tonight’s Greenwood/White River Township Reorganization Committee meeting. The meeting was supposed to provide more financial information however Finance Sub-committee chair Paul Reed was at another meeting and was to arrive late but by 9:30 with all other business conducted the meeting was adjourned before Mr. Reed arrived to present updated financial information. Another interesting note is White River Board Member Joe Ackers’ comments on what he expects from the reorganization committee.
In addition to Paul Reed, Forrest Chambers was not present.

First agenda item: Subcommittee reports: Review recommendations for revisions and review consolidated recommendations.

Infrastructure: Pat Sherman began with a request that storm warning sirens be handled by a council sub-committee on infrastructure and the Board of Works should be more involved in the process. David Payne concurred with the recommendation. Fire Chief would be the one to approve the plan presented and oversee implementation of the plan.

There were a few other minor wording changes to clarify the recommendations.

Parks: Discussion of adding a council member to the board however current rules prohibit that and the idea was left out of the parks plan. Members of the parks board would be appointed by the mayor. Each school corporation in the new community would have a member on the Parks Board but all three would have only one vote.

Parks Board member would be appointed as voting member of the Pathways Committee. Of the other two members one would come from Greenwood and the other from White River. No council member will serve on the board.

Governance: Don Hanlin had no corrections to make to the revised recommendations. By law redistricting, following the initial districts created through reorganization, would not occur until the 2020 census.

In section 3 under “Board of Works” need to determine if the Board of Works will include a council member. Council can require things be added to the “document” but the committee would prefer to not have a council member serve on the board of works.

Reorganization committee is passionate about the standing committees having more control and input into the process. These committees would consist of more than just council members. Standing committees would be a powerful tool of the council to get things done that for example the Board of Works can’t get done, stated Pat Sherman. Pat went on to say these standing committees would have more oversight than the current system.

Under reorganization the “new” Greenwood will become a second class city. In a second class city the mayor is not part of the council and does not have the ability to cast a tie breaking vote. Don Hanlin stated that the system that separates the mayor from the council has worked well in other second class cities. The councils function well without the mayor setting the agenda. The council learns to work together and develop its own leadership.

Planning & Land Use: Dale Tumey – The changes consisted of things that had been approved but not included in the draft/original document.

Finance: Paul Reed is not yet present, members of the sub-committee decided not to speak until Paul arrives.

New Business:
Motion to approve about $900 in legal fees due Bose McKinney & Evans
Council & Board Issues: This information addresses questions about the plan received from various Greenwood Common Council members.

Councilman Deer has questioned the buffer zone between rural and urban areas, has consideration been given to this issue?  Proposal would be that the land use of a rural area would not change after July 1, 2010 “in a manner offensive” to the adjoining urban area.

Dale Tumey expressed concern about the definition of “offensive”. Would someone be offended if a row crop field became pasture with animals? Not sure how you define what is offensive. People would know it if they see it but how do you define it?

Pat Sherman agreed that subjective terms should be avoided. Rowanna Umbarger stated that agricultural use is agricultural use and that trying to restrict that is not a good idea.

Dale Tumey stated that state laws would make it difficult for someone to change to a feedlot.

The planning and land use rules in the document will not change was the final decision.

Political affiliation requirements to boards would remain the same which should avoid legal challenges when “these groups” make decisions stated Don Hanlin. Current rules state no political affiliation requirements shall be made for boards unless required by state statute.

Next question is if you have ten acres of land and it is not all used as agricultural will you continue to be zoned as “rural” as it currently is by the county? Dale Tumey proposed that if land is currently agricultural even less than ten acres should remain agricultural.

The issue is how the land is assessed, it is about tax revenue. Is it agricultural or not?  Currently ag land is assessed around $1,250 an acre while residential land can be assessed around $25,000 to $30,000 per acre. What if a farmer sells off enough land to leave him with less than five acres and continues to use it for agriculture should his status change to residential?

A resident of WRT addressed the committee. He has ten acres since 1988 still farms the back part of the land, and is recognized by the federal government as a farm. He continues to function as a farm even though he is not farming all ten acres. He asked that he continue to be classified as a farm if other governmental bodies recognize it as a farm. Currently about seven acres is taxed as agricultural.

Pat Sherman stated that he doesn’t believe that all ten acres have to be farmed to continue to rural. The issue is that the land must be at least ten acres and suggested that the language be changed to say the majority of the land in the parcel must be used as agricultural.

Dale Tumey suggested that current land classification for tax purposes be maintained after the merger occurs. The resident thought that sounded fair and it appears the committee members agree.

Pat Sherman suggested that they should take out the ten acre requirement and just agree that whatever the classification is now would continue after the merger. Tax classification would only change if use of the land changes.
Another resident says that the ten acre rule may not be required since the assessor does a good job of watching and determining whether land is agricultural or not. Consensus of the committee is to drop the ten acre requirement. Pat Sherman then suggested that they simply follow the assessor’s determination. (comment: Common sense rules the final decision.)

Recommendation currently states “existing mosquito abatement program would be extended to the entire new city.” The current program is “as needed” and leaving that as it is allows the council to address changes if needed. (comment: Wow if I can kill my own mosquitoes I don’t have to have the city council get involved, common sense again, surprising.)

How do you handle the transition to city trash service? Should you provide flexibility to residents to go on the city service once their current service expires? City would provide recycling and leaf and limb service included in the price which would be below the current rate individual residents pay. (comment: I pay about $50 a quarter for two cans a week, no leaf/limb or recycling.)

Nine storm warning sirens in Greenwood, three in White River Township with four more to be installed. Question remains are all the rural area covered by storm sirens? Most likely most of the rural areas are not covered. Don Payne stated that in most cases the sirens have a one mile radius.

Council question about redistricting plan: A council member does not have to be on the redistricting committee. Don Hanlin did the research. Council does vote to approve the final district plan.

Brent Corey wanted to know if the city comptroller position requires a CPA. The answer is yes they must be a CPA.

Can council have approval of the mayor’s selection of the comptroller? The council doesn’t approve the attorney or city engineer currently. Pat stated that since the comptroller will be supervising the funds of the council that controls he doesn’t have a problem with the mayor asking for the council to approve his choice. Pat believes that the council should have demonstrated their “faith” in the abilities of the comptroller. The committee agreed that the council will have approval of the mayor’s choice for comptroller. It was also recommended that a time limit be set for the council to vote so the position won’t go unfilled for a long period of time.

Linda Gibson and Brent Corey: Would the Board of Works include one member of the council. The sub-committee would like to keep the current system where the mayor can appoint a council member but is not required to do so. Don Hanlin would expect a subcommittee of public works in the council and one of those members would attend the Board of Works meetings.

It was brought up that all these questions are coming from Greenwood council members and no input is coming from the WRT board. Joe Acker, WRT Board member, stated that his position is that the White River Board appointed the committee to develop a plan and is waiting to hear what they recommend. He also thinks that the mosquito control issue is an example of overstepping the bounds of their charge. He went on to state that if the final financial plan resembles what was presented at the last Greenwood Common Council meeting the reorganization is “dead in the water.” (Note: Later in the meeting he commented that the 16% increase mentioned in the Daily Journal is too high. Pat Sherman stated that figure is not final. [NOTE: discussion continues later.] After the meeting Acker said that he believed a 10% increase is the most that WRT residents would accept for the additional services they would receive.)

Can the council have the authority to approve or reject the mayor’s appointees to the board of works? Don Hanlin stated that could happen but if the mayor is the executive branch he should have authority to appoint whom he chooses. The committee did not change their recommendation that the council does not have that authority.

Should there be a sunset law for requirements requiring rural representation on boards and commissions? If so what is the trigger?  10% of the land or 10% of the population is no longer rural? Decision as that when 10% of the land or less is rural then the requirements would expire.

Should there be a transition period for the White River Township urban district residents to adapt to new ordnances? Examples would include things such as signs, junk cars, and weeds? Pat Sherman said there should be a phase in period but they need to determine which items would be granted a transition. Perhaps public safety should review.

Committee agreed to suggest one year grace period. What will be covered will be determined later. Focus will be to identify public safety ordinances that need to go into effect as soon as possible and what can be phased in. County rules would continue to be in effect during the “grace period”. Nuisance ordnances would be likely granted a grace period, things such as tall weeks and abandoned homes.

Street lights: Intent is for the city to pay for the cost of electricity. Not cover the cost of installing lights. The intent is not to go back an install lights where they don‘t already exist. Pat Sherman suggested the issue needs more study before a final revision is included in the plan.

Should a TIF district be created for the area of SR 135 south of the current Greenwood city limits?  Pat see’s that area a retail area and not in need of TIF status. More important for TIF districts along SR 37. Would be hard to show what the value of a TIF district along SR 135 which will be mostly retail. Mr. Sherman said 135 corridor could be added but the benefits would be limited since it is mostly retail.

Will council be allowed to hire an attorney? Don Hanlin said yes and recommended they do.

Should the council remain at 9 which is the standard for a second class city instead of moving to 11 and risk a lawsuit for violating state law. The reorganization law grants broad authority to the reorganization committee to design a city government as they see best. The 11 member council recommendation will remain.

Joe Acker suggested urban renewal for old Smith Valley and that sanitary sewers be installed as soon as possible. Pat Sherman replied that the TIF district for Smith Valley would provide the funding for urban renewal in the area. Linda Gibson stated she believes we need to find a way to help that area.

Income: Two missing pieces are CAGIT and the property tax estimates. Pat wants to make it clear they are using the 2000 census figures for WRT and 2006 census for Greenwood. Assessed Valuations are from 2008 pay 2009.
Joe Acker expressed his concern that the tax rate in WRT will go up 16%. Pat says it is too early to determine what the increase will be. Tax rate for the “new city” includes 31 cents for roads and other infrastructure. We are going to have to see our taxes to go up if we are going to provide needed services. It is not the right time to project a percentage of increases since we have not looked at 2011 and the effect of the 1% cap.  Some citizens may see no property tax increase if they are already at the 1% cap.

Operating general fund budget increased 14%.  The money “growth” is coming from the additional revenue that will flow to the new community instead of the county it will be spent on roads. Pat doesn’t believe that “if you look at the budget increases they are not significant.”  He stated that they are trying to insure that the council has the resources/money to do the job they need to do. When you look at the final picture he hopes you will see that you are getting value for your money.

Next step is a presentation to the GW/WRT on Monday October 19 at the Greenwood City Building. Pat Sherman stated he hopes to have the revised consolidated recommendations ready for Monday’s meeting.

Final presentation must be presented to the council and board no later than December 7th to meet the reorganization statute. If the final plan is not presented by that time the effort will end. It is highly unlikely the committee will miss that deadline.

No related posts.