The hard questions answered at public forum
More than 100 people were present at the start of Saturday afternoon’s public meeting, slightly fewer than were present at the first meeting on Monday night. The format was essentially unchanged. The Committee made itself available for questions in the vestibule of the Greenwood Community Church. One attendee commented on value of the informative posters that dotted the walls. Copies of all the posters, as well as the plan are available on at this link on our website.
Chairman Pat Sherman’s formal presentation addressed many of the questions brought up at Monday’s meeting. This allowed the question/answer portion of the address new questions that were of special interest to those attending this meeting.
Of course one of the primary issues of discussion has been the impact on property taxes. One key point made both today and Monday is that city property tax represent only a small portion of your overall tax bill. While of course every individual’s situation is different, the example used in the meeting presents a model where property taxes represent less than 2% of the total tax bill, when federal and state income tax, sales tax, taxes on vehicles, etc. are considered. In addition, when only property taxes are considered, the city portion of the bill is about 16%. The rest of the funds go to schools, fire districts, libraries and other taxing entities.
More money under our control
Perhaps the point that is most often overlooked is the additional funds that will flow to and be under control of the new city. Today, we all pay various taxes to the state. These are returned, for example, to the county based on road miles. Today, Johnson County receives about $1.8-million from the state that can be spent anywhere in Johnson County. Should the reorganization be approved the new city would receive $2.8-million that could only be spent within the city limits! This is a very significant difference. And while it is understandable that it is hard to understand why this is so, we all know that tax laws are complex. In the end, the way monies are distributed to counties and municipalities are not the same and this could greatly benefit the city.
Another perennial question is why some county officials have suggested that the county budget will not decrease given there will be a smaller area of responsibility for the county. Anita Knowles, a member of the County Council, said she did not agree with that position as it would make sense that if, for example, the county had one-third fewer miles of roads to maintain, one should expect some level of reduction in the highway department budget. Of course, in the end, these decisions will be made through the legislative process and not through the position of any one individual, regardless of that individual’s position.
Again the question was raised concerning the benefits for the residents of White River Township. In addition to the information that can be found in the presentation of the committee, I suggest you consider the thoughts of this White River Township resident who was involved in the fight against the Walmart Superstore a few years ago.
Again, the question came up “wouldn’t it be better to become part of Bargersville?” Again, I’ll tell you that I have personally talked with the leaders of that community and they are not interested nor willing to consider enlarging their community to County Line Road. Through other sources I have heard that they are scrambling with how they are going to provide services to the newly incorporated area. Here’s a thought experiment for you: Assume the southwest annexation becomes effective on January 2, 2010. Now, the “storm of the decade” hits Johnson County on January 3. Who’s going to plow the roads? Not the County. It’s not their responsibility. And, given the way things are now, not Bargersville as they don’t have the capacity. So, I guess the residents will have to get out their tractors, as many have for many years and do it themselves, while still paying the Bargersville city tax.
Pat Sherman provided a financial example of why White River Township should avoid joining with Bargersville. There is a Marsh supermarket in an area long SR135 that is currently under litigation between Greenwood and Bargersville. If the current ruling of the judge stands and the Marsh supermarket at the intersection become part of Bargersville its total property tax bill will be will be about $75-thousand, but if they are part of the new city their taxes will be about half that at $38-thousand. Now, assume you are going to build a new building, where will you place it? In the city limits of Bargersville or a reorganized Greenwood?
Is bigger government better government?
Don Hanlin addressed this question. He suggested with a total of about 40-thousand citizens in each of the areas we are already big. While many who moved into unincorporated White River Township years ago did so because they appreciated the rural nature of the area. However, over the last decade the area has grown dramatically and it will continue to grow. We are already the sixth largest urban area in the state, it simply is not organized as such. This means we have the worst of both worlds, urban sprawl without the control and management structures needed to ensure controlled growth to maintain the quality of life in the unincorporated area.
The meeting came to a close at 4:30, exactly as scheduled.
No related posts.
11 Responses to “The hard questions answered at public forum”
Thanks for the recap of Saturday. We decided to attend, got their for the last hour of the show.
Comment made on December 6th, 2009 at 11:23 amRegarding a reduction of the county tax load for WRT, we doubt. More jail space is needed, it’s a way of life. That’ll be one excuse for not getting a lowered county tax if and when we get married. One I see that apparently doesn’t bother anyone else are these lawsuits between G’wood and B’ville over the sewers and annexation moves. Law suits like gambling become an addiction. These suits could and I’ll bet will continue until they make it to the U.S. Supreme Court. So until that is squared away, how can anyone determine the cost of doing business (tax rate) will be for WRT folk? I think there’ll be 2 votes in December by the G’wood city council and by the WRT board. Dec 21st & 22nd, I think. It’ll be interesting to learn just how these 2 brain thrusts vote, not knowing what the real boundaries will be. Folks it’s all about money, so be careful. Another point to consider; the State Senate and I think the House are getting warm on taking another look at the Property Tax Cap. With the crying coming forth from the Gov, not to mention the school districts, how will that work for the tax payers?
Another comment we caught Saturday was the New G’wood fire district tax. What’s thsat mean? In WRT I’m in the WRT fire district.
Considering all the unknows what’s the reason for the rush to a merger or incorporation? With all the unknows how can an affirmative intelligent be made by either G’wood council or the WRT board?
I wonder if at those two meetings the voters can give their thoughts prior to either vote?
DAMN TYPOS. Please scrape my comments made at 061123AM. Let me try again.
Regarding a reduction in the county tax bill after a successful merger, we think that is unlikely. First and foremost the Sheriff is needing to enlarge our jail. We’re all going to pay for that.
Comment made on December 6th, 2009 at 11:59 amThe other item that concerns me are these almost traditional, ongoing suites between Gwood & Bville. Until they get settled, no one can really say what the cost of doing business in New Gwood will be. The Gwood Council and the WRT Board are to vote Dec 21 and 22 to either accept the plan or decline it. It’ll be intersting to see how these two brain thrusts go about that vote not knowing who is and who isn’t in the merger pot.
I just hope they keep in mind it’s all about OUR money. Consider also the study starting in the State Senate regarding the Property Tax Cap. With the moaning from the Gov, plus the school corporations, that Cap tool we now enjoy could becme a boat anchor. One comment we heard at Saturday’s show was a reference to the New Gwood district FIRE TAX. In WRT we’re served by the WRT fire district. Not the GFD. Considering the unknowns, what the rush for either a merger or incorporation? There is a similar historical event that sort of images this event. Christopher Columbus (Gwood) conned the Queen (WRT) to put up her dough. Chris got lucky.
Although there should be an increase in “Road Money” if a merger occurred, I’m not sure it would be as great as suggested due to the complexity of the distribution formula which involves numerous estimates being made using outdated population information and dollar amounts. More important however is whether Township residents could insure that money is spent on township roads. “Old” Greenwood would still have majority voting power and would much prefer road money be spent on projects to the east and southeast toward I65 rather than maintaining the roads of White River Township.
Comment made on December 6th, 2009 at 7:38 pmSome points to keep in mind:
1) Until the lawsuits with Bargersville are resolved, we really don’t know on what we vote. The majority of future commercial development property lies in what will be Bargersville come Jan 2, 2010. If you think a 20% increase is high, look at the 10-15-20 year projects with the needs of the new entity, and without that commericial base. BTW, talk to some of the legal minds around the area — GW is a longshot at best.
2) How is the road money going to be tracked? Folks, we all know that in a new Greenwood, Pat Sherman is the city controller and that’s the office charged with this responsibility. This is a question of trust, or rather, mistrust. Look to the next point to see why.
3) The other little gem in this package is the continued under-representation of WRT and for the forseeable future, not just an 18 month period. The reason is simple — for the first 18 months and 2 budget cycles, WRT is outvoted 7-4. We know, as Joe says, that the WRT board has no problem giving this away – they’re the masters of give-aways. What makes this long-term is that the redistricting plan, while crafted by a civilian board, must be approved by this same unbalanced council. Do you really think they’ll vote to unseat themselves?
4) Another really hard question, where I’ve heard, read, nor seen a peep is the new stormwater utility. The basis for this need is a flood that occurred that was either a 100 yr or 500 yr storm. The minimal cost is $5/parcel/month. Read it more carefully — that’s $5/ERU/parcel/month — which begs the question, what’s an ERU? So board, what’s an ERU and how many do I have vs. how many does my neighbor, my business, etc?
5) Why this form of government? My apologies, but this question hasn’t been honestly nor completely. Folks, the panel had a totally clean slate, but chose a modified existing state option. They then claim they can/can’t do certain things due to state law — of course, with the exception of number of council seats. Look at E-ville, Ft. Wayne, Indy — all have more citizens per council seat than the proposed G-wood. This is all about protecting those currently in office and nothing more/nothing less — and we get to pay for it.
6) With the number and complexity of questions remaining, why the hurry? Why July 1, 2010? Why not have the new districts in the plan, ensure 1 person=1 vote and why not make effective Jan 2, 2011 after holding elections in Nov 2010? The reorganization committee had this option open and chose to not even consider it.
WRT Board — please ask for significant modification to protect your electorate. And treat us like we deserve to be treated — as an intelligent, educated, informed voting bloc.
Comment made on December 6th, 2009 at 8:16 pmThe WRT board appears more interested in making sure they have an option to stay in office if township gov’t is removed at the state level … than representing the wishes of the citizens.
To take from the letter Bill Heller wrote on this website earlier, WRT already is under-represented. This “merger” would ensure that this level of under-representation would continue. The 7-4 imbalance is one of several deal-breakers I have with the current proposal.
I do wish the WRT board and Greenwood would throw away this plan and start with a clean sheet of paper, but I am afraid they are simply incapable of thinking that far outside the box. They all have too many hidden and not-so-hidden personal agendas to protect.
Comment made on December 6th, 2009 at 10:39 pmAnd as I watch cars crawling at 5mph up and down a major thoroughfare like Smith Valley Road during the morning commute, just recall how well the county is taking care of the roads.
Comment made on December 7th, 2009 at 7:19 amCars were going slow everywhere today.
Comment made on December 7th, 2009 at 5:13 pmFirst question I have on taxes after attending the second public forum at the Community church is on the taxes paid by the Marsh on 135.
What is Marsh on 135 payng currently in propoerty taxes? It was said Marsh would pay $78 Million if in the city of Bargersville as oppossed to $30 plus million if in Greenwood. I think it would have been appropriate and is appropriate to know what they currently pay. Guessing it is lower and then I would wonder why any business would rather move into either area as opposed to the current.
Second question I have are in regards to parks. This was one of the features/benefits in the infrastructure section.
What % of the popultation (not how many people go daily) use the parks on a consistent basis? I asked this to the people from both boards representing this section at the church. Neither could answer this. Many cities love to build parks and trailways, including Greenwood. Sure they are nice,but I bet a small percentage of the population (maybe 5-10%) use them on a consistent basis,however all taxpayers pay for them. Guess my thought on this is Brown County is 45 minutes away if that 5-10% wish to take the family to the park. So, when I hear how this merger will give WRT more control of decisions then will there be a referendum on each park/trailway the city would like to add to our taxes????
Finally, why are Greenwood residents with more people being included in the voting on this referendum? They elected the officials who represent them and want this merger, plus have more people currently in terms of population and get the most benefit(i.e lower propoerty taxes, a bigger city for the extra state tax dollars and more negotiating power on a state level). Their representatives are wanting us to join them. For a fair vote it seems to me only WRT residents should get to vote yes or no as to whether joining with Greenwood is good for us. The voting structure of this seems (Greenwood having more voters) to be tilted to pass. Why if you live in (current)Greenwood would you not want lower taxes and the other benefits mentioned?
Comment made on December 15th, 2009 at 9:37 amGreg: You ask some really good questions. Many public forums are very supportive of parks and parkland. Parks are one of the items that businesses, particularly corporate offices with lucrative tax base implications, seek when they look to locate or relocate. Also, park and trail use is up, and while I don’t have a figure, it is higher than I originally thought.
With regard to the voting, the reorganization statute requires a referendum of all the political organizations involved. The plan must pass by a majority of votes cast in EACH political subdivision. This means that the merger needs a majority of votes cast in Greenwood, AND a majority of votes cast in WRT. If it doesn’t have both, it fails. In terms of why Greenwood would vote against the merger, the answer lies in the future of the township. If the areas annexed by Bargersville are confirmed to be part of Bargersville after all the lawsuits are concluded, then WRT represents more of a future tax burden than benefit due to the high percentage of residential development. Greenwood would be responsible for street maintenance and repair, and more importantly, also for sanitary and storm sewers, which are particularly expensive.
My own opinion is that until we know the results of the ongoing and proposed litigation between Bargersville and Greenwood, we need to wait. The reason for doing something is to avoid being the “middle of the doughnut” which would deprive WRT of the commercial potential of the township. The merger process may well have accelerated this process and put us in a position where we need to partner with Bargersville.
Larry Hilkene
Comment made on December 15th, 2009 at 6:38 pmWRT resident
Larry & others reading,
Let me apoligize as my $78 million & $30 plus million on Marsh should have been thousand…… Wooh, if Marsh paid that in millions WRT would be attractive to all government bodies and our shopping there would be very expensive…….. However, not real attractive to any new business….
Thank you for the information on the voting process. I did not realize it must pass in each political subdivision. So, the votes from Greenwood residents and WRT residents are seperated? With a majority needed in both? That makes sense.
As far as parks, I am certain all companies look at the whole community including parks, workforce education, workforce availablity, schools and many other variables. However, any company large enough to make a difference in the tax base look to tax abatements as one of the most, if not the main reason, for locating or relocating to an area. Most cities seem to always be willing to offer property tax and other abatements over the 1st 10 years in their offer to attract these companies. Therefore, any parks or other taxpayer obligations pay the price at least early on in our building of attractions. Catch 22 I guess, but anytime more costs are needed to attract business the more individual taxpayers pony up to make the community attractive. I’m not against parks or any other attraction but it should pay for itself (Convention Center, Lucas Oil,Conseco goverment footprints) Themajority should not pay for the amenities of the minority unless what we are paying for is an essential need.
It seems to me all government entities and especially those larger in size (controlled either by Republican/Democrat parties)want to make their footprint/mark on the community. The only way they believe this can happen is by spending taxpayer dollars. I’ve never seen the need for more revenue (taxes) go down by increasing the size of government or (price of product decrease) in the private sector by becoming larger.
Unless, I hear a really good reason to merge outside of the extra tax dollars our government will get/spend.Plus,the control we as voters will have than I vote no on any merger. What I know is either party in control loves to leave their footprint and it is too late to vote them out until they have and my taxes are raised to pay for that print.
Comment made on December 15th, 2009 at 9:44 pmI find it interesting that everyone continues to look to Bargersville as our saving grace in all of these discussions. The editors of this website have spoken with Bargersville about annexing more of WRT but they have no interest in doing so.
Think about how much work Bargersville now has ahead of them to figure out how they can provide services to the recently annexed SW corner of the township. This annexation more than doubles the size of the town in both land area and population.
Also, we cannot “partner” with Bargersville on anything because we have no legal standing as a community. Who will sign the partnership agreements, who will ensure that those agreements are enforced, and who will represent “us” in court (as the unincorporated area of WRT) should any of those agreements be violated? The township board cannot do this and the trustee has stated many times throughout this process that he will not use township money to sue other entities in the township. Just think about that for a minute because it makes a lot of sense. This is the downfall of being unincorporated. Sure we don’t pay a city tax but we also have no real say in how our area is planned or developed. Without representation I fear we are destined to become the “middle of the doughnut”.
There is only one way we can truly control our own destiny and Bargersville is not the answer.
Comment made on December 16th, 2009 at 10:24 amLeave a Comment