Reorg presents to joint meeting: Oct. 19

Overview: First the stuff you have seen before. The first part of the meeting was a review of the revised committee recommendations, the written version of the issues decided at last Thursday’s Reorganization Committee Meeting. However this time White River Township Board member Mark Messick was present and asked some pointed and well thought out questions. In addition Greenwood Mayor Charles Henderson was present and brought an interesting perspective we haven’t seen before. The meeting ended well after 11pm which means the documents referenced will not be posted to our site until Tuesday evening. Look for bold first words of paragraphs for key points.

Draft recommendations of the consolidated committee recommendations were distributed.  Mark Messick called a meeting of the WRT board, present were Mark and Joe Acker. John Ebert was not present. Trustee Jay Marks was present.

The Transition Plan Recommendations were discussed. They appear on page 14 of the revised draft (available here Tuesday).

Additional council members bring the total to 11. Appointed members would serve as members at large for White River Township until elections held in 18 months. Should any member not be able to serve for any reason, the replacement member would be picked by the Greenwood Council if it is a Greenwood Council member, or by the White River members if the person is one of the White River at large members. All persons serving must meet all residency requirements.

Section C was highlighted as an important section.

Section D establishes residency requirements to ensure equal representation between old and new areas. Requirements expired 12/31/19.

Mark Messick why have this requirement at all. Why split it between old and new. “Why created separation between White River and Greenwood from the gitgo.” Mr. Messick went on to say he would seek changes in that requirement if it remains in the recommendation. He compared it to entering into a marriage with a pre-nuptial, either you trust the leadership or not. A requirement such as this means we don’t trust each other. This does nothing to make the members of the new community to trust each other. Since all boards expire on June 30, 2010 the mayor would have the ability to appoint board members that equally represent the area. “Maybe a better recommendation is that all boards and commissions should be reappointed at that time. It then becomes the mayor’s responsibility to fairly appoint the new boards.” Mayor Henderson stated that he supports Mr. Messick’s position.

Ron Deer stated the requirement prevents the “potential” for mistrust of government to influence people. He said it takes the politics out of the situation an states clearly that it will be fair. His concern is that many people will not trust “politicians” but saying “we have to follow the regulation” that ends any potential for mistrust.

Pat Sherman went on to say that this may be the most important point of the reorganization plan. We have to assure the residents that the new boards and commissions will fairly represent all residents of the “new” Greenwood.  It is important to that this in there to stop people from voting against it.

Mr. Messick stated that if they feel that way they will vote against it anyway. He believes it holds us back from getting to the “new” Greenwood. We will continue to have a divided community. Mr. Deer responded that is has become and issue and it needs to be addressed. Pat Sherman that this all started with the public input from early in the process, specifically the residents of the rural southwestern township area. Mark stated that you are telling people you will be at odds with Greenwood until 2020. Mr. Messick promised he will actively work with his board to have this removed. Mayor Henderson said the debate is over for now and suggested Mr. Sherman come back to the committee and seek a compromise. Mark Messick stated if the compromise is not reached “It is dead anyway.”

Councilwoman Magna-Rees suggested announcing that positions are open and interested parties should contact the mayors office and the mayor chooses from those.

NOTE: Wow common sense, why expand the board. Since the law requires that all boards and commissions expire should the new community come into existence on July 1, 2010 the mayor has to reappoint all members anyway why not just ask him to balance them across the entire community as he does in the current Greenwood.

Parks and Recreation
Minor changes from last time. Joe Acker asked “Why a Pathways Board?” Mr. Sherman responded that pathways are “extensions” of roadways and it makes sense to create a board of three..

Mr. Messick again suggested why increase the board to equalize the board, not just appoint the new board on July 1 consisting of three from each areas.

Infrastructure
Individuals would be given time to have their current contracts to expire before the city services were provided. A minor revision from the last time.

Phase in of residential street lighting to be handled by the Board of Public Works. Joe Acker asked if the current city has a policy of lighting public streets and sub-divisions? The mayor responded that no regulation exists when new developments come along a plan is submitted each is reviewed individually.

On section E Mr. Messick asked if the roads in White River Township would continue to be provided by the county? Mr. Sherman responded that if passed they would begin to negotiate an inter-governmental agreement to cover roads through the end of 2010. After that all roads would be part of the new city. (Note: Maybe the city could explore a long term relationship with the county to fix and maintain roads to the standards set by the “new” Greenwood. No new staff and trucks and the roads get fixed anyway. The current road problems aren’t because county highway employees don’t know how to fix roads, the county just spends the money in other parts of the county.)

Planning and Land Use.
Update the cit Comprehensive Plan within three years of the effective date of the Plan of Reorganization is section C (NOTE: nice to see that the plan allows that to take place on its own and not try and incorporate a comprehensive plan into the reorganization.)

There was some discussion of when the rural district requirements for serving on  boards would end when the rural area of the city is less than ten percent of the entire city. Some members felt the wording of section D was not clear. Pat Sherman also stated that they want to confirm that number is the right number, more research is needed.

Health Safety & Welfare
Sheriff continues to provide service until January 1, 2011. Council Armstrong asked if that was enough time to train new officers. Mr. Sherman assured him the chief says there are adequate applicants.

Mark Messick suggested that the appointment of department heads should be made by the mayor but each should also be approved by the council. He believes that would give the council a feeling of being more involved in the process. “It is just a suggestion.”  In the last Reorg meeting the committee recommended that the council would need to approve the city comptroller once appointed by the mayor. Council would have to act within 30 days.

Mayor Henderson questioned if it was just department heads or boards?  It would just apply to department boards. The mayor would accept such measure if sitting department heads would not have to be confirmed by the new council, not doing it that way would be a “deal breaker” (Note: Interesting that the mayor would refer to something as a “deal breaker“ since he has no vote on the reorganization plan. If he has no vote how could any item in the plan be a “deal breaker“?). He will compromise on the issue as long as current heads continue without confirmation. By statute the council cannot have oversight on the police chief.

City attorney says the committee is in danger of turning this into a town where the council can micro-manage the council and will mix legislative and executive powers. Mr. Messick says this is a discussion worth having.

Mr. Sherman then went on to review questions submitted by the council and decided by the committee last Thursday. A few of them worth highlighting follow.

Ron Deer requested that it be made public that all boards that have political affiliation requirements, Governance, Section O. Currently it appears no one has a comprehensive list of what boards have such standards.

Five standing committees would be established: Finance, Infrastructure and Planning, Health and Safety, Parks and Recreation and Economic Development.

The establishment of these new committees are new to the council. Council had some questions as to the structure and the responsibilities. Each council member would serve on two committees was the suggestion of Don Hanlin. He said the council would “write the rules” for these committees. Sub-committees could be formed as needed.

Nuisance ordinances would be phased in, public safety rules would go into effect immediately. In other words county ordinances would remain in effect for the first year. The thought was that the county doesn’t do much about these issues unless someone complains to which the mayor joked, “That about 70% of the cases in the city as well.”

Joe Acker thought the phase in time should be shortened to 180 days. The mayor agreed that people would take whatever time you give them. He suggested a January 1, 2010 effective date. Looks like that will be the final recommendation.

The mayor said street light issues come up often and the city pays out a lot of money to Duke Energy and REMC to put in street lights. He thinks that the city, after the reorganization occurs, should it pass, would be wise to create a policy. But it is not an issue for the reorg committee to deal with.

Pat Sherman is distributing information on proposed tax rates compared to other communities in the area. The information was in the presentation of October 5th. The mayor commented that the rates show the city is “doing a pretty good job.” Mr. Sherman responded “we will do even better together.”

The “new” Greenwood will be the sixth largest Indiana city (for some reason Indy is not on the list). Below Gary and above Hammond, Bloomington, and Fishers.

There was some discussion as to the size of the council 9 or 11 and should that number be reduced at some point? The mayor suggested leaving it to the future council, Mark Messick suggested that a council of 11 and significant increases in salary would be “deal breakers” for a lot of people. Other second class cities such as Fort Wayne have nine council members. Does the “new” Greenwood really need eleven? Brent Corey stated that perhaps Fort Wayne and Evansville only have nine because the law allows them to only have nine. (Note: The reorganization law allows reorganization plans to be free of existing state laws.) Maybe they would like to have eleven. Pat Sherman stated that will eleven members and five standing committees the members will earn every dime of the $15,000 salary.

Ron Deer commented that if you support making more money as council members you are perceived as “gouging” the public. However residents have plenty of opportunities to vote them out. People need to realize there is more than just two meetings a month. It is important to put forth a salary that will attract more people and not just those who can “afford” to serve the city. “I know I work more than two evenings a month.” Mr. Messick suggested that the salary issue be left to the council to vote the salary instead of the reorganization committee. Mr. Corey concurred, why change the way things are done. Why not let the council continue to vote on its own salary increases.

Mr. Sherman said the plan included the salary recommendations because governance did a lot of research and determined that for the work required for a city this size and the form of the government this was the correct salary.  Indy council members are paid a salary plus they get paid for each meeting and committee meeting they attend.

Council member Magna-Rees asked if there would be any negative impact on the county or Franklin? Yes, money that used to flow to the county would now flow to the new community. That would mean the money paid would be spent in the geographic area it was raised. The county can take money raised from White River Township, for example, and spend it in other areas of the county.

Mayor Henderson mentioned that the township tax goes away and makes the numbers look even better. He believes those numbers are not being made clear. The money moves from the township to the city, a transfer of money, not an increase in your taxes.  The point being that the “increase in taxes” do not accurately reflect the increased taxes people will pay.

After a ten minute break the meeting reconvened at 9:40.

Reviewed a reconciled Greenwood city budget to demonstrate how the 2011 budget might look.  The first budget the council approves would go into effect January 1, 2011.

Hard to explain without the handout. We will get a copy and make it available as soon as we can. The “Reconciled existing Greenwood Expenditures” is an attempt to show the real costs of each area of the current Greenwood. For example they have taken the cost of the benefits of street department employees into that budget line to accurately reflect the cost. This does not mean that the current budget is not accurate, accountants just group things differently. For example all benefits of employees would be in one area and not necessarily allocated by department.

Next slide was the “Estimated Total Expenditures – New City of Greenwood”. This document compares the areas in the previous document to the 2011 budget for the new community. It is an attempt to provide a head-to-head comparison.

The report also includes things such as the current accounting system is adequate but will likely need to be upgraded. They are not make a request or requirement of the change just calling attention the fact it may be something they need to spend. It will continue to be the council’s decision on expenditures. Other issues such as community development money are also pointed out. Again not a recommendation to expand this area, just calling attention to it.

Other new things to consider are new employees, such as a building inspector, additional equipment and a 3% overall increase. The report estimates $200,000 for a new computer system.

For the police the chief provided a detailed report on new patrols, dispatchers etc and provided a final estimate.

For Parks and Rec it includes purchase of park land, repair and maintenance of existing abandoned cemeteries.

$175,000 was put in the budget for parks and trails, “a start” is how Mr. Sherman referred to it.

Overall the current Greenwood rate of 63 cents would decline to 59 cents. Greenwood residents would see a tax decrease, White River Township residents will see an increase in return for additional services.

NOTE: This is the ultimate question, are you getting your money’s worth? If not is there a better option such as incorporation or doing nothing?  I don’t see doing nothing as a viable option all that means is the land around us will be grabbed by Bargersville up SR 37 and by Greenwood for any new development on the east.

Greenwood debt stays with “old” Greenwood residents. What has not been answered can “old” Greenwood transfer the cost of lease and rentals to the “new” community. The Department of Local Government Finance will have to answer that questions.  Current bond payments that Greenwood owes will not be paid by WRT residents.

NOTE: WRT is debt free and has about $300,000 in the bank plus if the sale of the Bantam Football fields occurs as expected that amount, about $140,000 will also be a WRT asset. Committee member Don Hanlin has mentioned on several occasions that the plan needs to state that money will be used only in the current unincorporated area of White River Township even if the reorganization occurs.  However I have not seen that in writing in any documents.

Revenue Estimates: Ron Deer questioned weather using the 27,000 population figure from 2000 for White River Township tax estimates is close to reality?  The population could be close to 40,000 and that would make a significant difference in revenue. What other figures can you find to give you a more realistic picture without overstating revenue?

Mr. Sherman stated that if you change WRT population figures you are going to have to adjust other communities, such as Greenwood, as a percentage of the whole. Some taxes are based on the percentage of the population in the entire state, or the entire county. To do what Mr. Deer suggests you are going to have to adjust the entire state.  Doing so would not make as big of a difference as you might think. By doing it the way they are doing it the only unexpected revenue issue would be that the tax rate would decline.

Ron Deer would like to see a sidebar statement explaining that things have changed a lot since 2000 and we need to explain how things have changed and how it would or might affect the numbers. Give some examples. Mayor suggested they say “Worst case is what you see here” because are using the actual numbers from the state of Indiana.

Next was the “Estimated Property Tax Impact”, again we will get a copy of this document. The information was taken from a Daily Journal article, Mr. Sherman said the information is a fair representation. For example a home on Windsong Lane will increase 19.9%.  All the WRT homes are estimated to increase at least 18%. Greenwood rates decline in each example. A home on Sweetgum Drive in Greenwood is going to decline 4.2%.  Some homes hitting the cap will show a drop of 25%. This is based on an estimated new City of Greenwood property tax rate is $.0032.

The mayor stated that no public forums should be held before the final figures are in. If you have the debate before the final plan is in people will want to know why things change. Brent Corey asked “Haven’t all the meetings been open to the public.” Mr. Sherman replied “Yes they have, well except or some finance committee meetings, they were open just not well attended.”

Mr. Sherman said that they can project the increase for any parcel of land in the township. He went on to say that he would hate to see what happens to WRT if we don’t reorganize with Greenwood. “We are a donor” area right now and it is only going to get worse.

Mark Messick wants to get out in the public now and to start to sell it. The mayor says do not have public hearings before you have the facts, you are not going to change their minds anyway.  When you have all the facts then get in front of the public is the view of Mr. Sherman and the mayor.

The mayor said if this passed in May we would not be able to provide services such as highways or police projection until January. That is why we need to have the county continue those services until January 2010.

Mark Messick stated that the board will have to take a long time to review this and may not vote on it until May. He believes he needs to try and get the public to back it. If he knows they are not going to accept a 19% increase in taxes why should the board pass it?

Ron Deer says we all have to be singing the same song (referring to the council and the board) and pointing out the advantages. If you are paying $400 more what do you get for that?  The council, board, and committee must have concrete examples about parks, streets, trash and such if they are going to sell this to the public. He went on to say we are now looking at a document that we can’t all agree upon. Which is why we have to have hard facts, final figures before we begin the education phase.

Pat Sherman estimates that the taxes collected from White River Township and spent in the township for the past year have been fair if because of things such as the Morgantown & Stones Crossing intersection project paid by half by federal taxes.

The discussion of various options for presenting the plan, voting on the plan, educating the public on the plan and so on.

The final plan of reorganization will be presented at a joint meeting of the Greenwood Common Council and White River Township on November 16 at 7pm. We will likely stream that meeting live.

No related posts.