Mayor Henderson suggests delaying the vote
Greenwood Mayor Charles Henderson made a rather surprising suggestion at Monday night’s Greenwood Common Council Meeting: That Council delay its vote on the reorganization proposal until sometime in the first half of next year. In turn the proposal would not be put before the voters until the General Election next November and not become effective until January 1, 2012. This is substantially different from the earlier deadlines of an end-of-the-year Council vote, a May public vote the new city forming on July 1, 2010.
The Mayor said having the issue on the ballot in May is “doable,” but he is not sure it is the right thing to do. Should the measure pass the voters, Henderson questioned the city’s ability to provide services newly incorporated area by the proposed July 1, 2010 effective date. Providing these services would require hiring a substantial number of new city employees and other structural changes that would be challenging to accomplish in such a short period of time.
While the discussion was spirited, no one expressed significant dissatisfaction concerning the proposal. All the discussion centered on the practical aspects of moving as fast as the proposal currently suggests. In fact the Mayor commended the Reorganization Committee’s and the subcommittees’ work and said “Quite frankly I am in support of [the Reorganization].”
As for the Council members, Ron Bates suggested a delay would also allow more time to resolve any outstanding legal issues with Bargersville. As it stands the thought is that four budgets would need to be formulated, given the various possible outcomes of the litigation.
Delaying the effective date until January 1, 2012 would also allow for a complete budget cycle and a normal round of primary and general elections. The mayor questioned whether or not a final vote is actually required by December 31 of this year or if there are other drivers to that date. Reorganization Committee Chair Pat Sherman confirmed that the legislative bodies, the Council and the Board, are not required by law to act on the proposal by the end of the year. That date was driven by Indiana Department of Local Government Finance to submit a budget in the year prior to its taking effect. If, as proposed, the a new city was formed on July 1 of next year, then all legislative action would need to be complete by the end of December. But, if the city wasn’t formed (again, with voter approval) until 2011 or later, there’s no hurry for the Council or the Board to act.
The City Attorney Shawna Koons also expressed concerns about having a comprehensive zoning plan and zoning code changes made in the period between May and July as currently proposed. A delay would also allow the citizens to know whether or not the one-percent property tax cap moves from a “simple law” to part of the Indiana Constitution. Overall, there seemed to be significant support for the mayor’s suggestion to delay the decision until a later date.
Councilman Ron Deer expressed that it will be important to set some specific dates for action by the two bodies in order to drive the process forward. Henderson said it is important that there be a chance for the public to be fully informed on the proposal. The council feels there is a misconception on the part of the public that they or the WRT Board will make the final vote, when in fact, the final decisions will be made by the residents of White River Township and Greenwood. The only role of the Board and Council is to decide whether or not to put it before the voters. They do not and cannot make the final binding decision.
The Greenwood Common Council and the White River Township Board will meet in a joint session tomorrow to consider the resolution and possible changes and amendments. This meeting will be held at the Center Grove Community School’s Administration Building beginning at 7 PM. Mayor Henderson says he expects to moderate the joint meeting.
No members of the WRT board nor the study committee were present at tonight’s meeting.
Related posts (Automatically generated):
8 Responses to “Mayor Henderson suggests delaying the vote”
Finally, the mandate for a vote due to the census and redistricting, really aren’t that important.
Comment made on December 7th, 2009 at 10:56 pmWhy not go back to square one and restart the process. This time study both, merger and incorporation. An IU prof got evereyone glassy eyed to start the process. Let IU put together a think group outside of Greenwood & WRT politics to work it out?
Very few people are interested in incorporation – ask Ryan Rhoten(sp?). He couldn’t work up the interest just a few months ago.
I suspect Mayor Henderson has finally realized the current proposal stands no chance of passing in WRT. I do not expect Greenwood to come back with another plan and to instead file some annexations across the northern part of the township to get them to SR37.
Comment made on December 7th, 2009 at 11:48 pmSmart move to boost the chance of a “yes” vote. Not only gives more time to promote the merger proposal, but being on the general election ballot will be much stronger for it. A primary election ballot will have much lower turnout and history shows the side of an issue with the best organized, most motivated supporters is more likely to get them to come out and vote in a primary . . . providing a greater piece of the total election turnout. Primary 2010 would be the best time for merger opponents and the general election 2010 for proponents.
Comment made on December 8th, 2009 at 6:13 amBut the clock is ticking–don’t know if the Mayor’s proposal is workable. My understanding of the statute is that a final proposal has to be presented to both the City council and Township board within one year from the date that the Reorganization Committee was formed. Not sure what that date is, but it seems like the one year time period might expire if the Mayor’s delay is approved. What then???
Comment made on December 8th, 2009 at 8:50 pmJeff, Greenwood is having a very hard time to explain why people should vote to increase their taxes 20-30% so they can be minority members of Greenwood.
I don’t see how the plan passes WRT voters regardless of date.
Comment made on December 8th, 2009 at 11:10 pmThe proposal needed to be presented to the legislative bodies within one year of the formation of the Reoganization Committee. The Council and the Board then have another year to consider the plan before action is required. While follwoing the meeting on Tuesday night was difficult, if all stays as now proposed the issue will come before the voters on the May 2010 ballot and become effective, if passed, on January 1, 2011.
Comment made on December 9th, 2009 at 2:27 amThanks for clarification on timing. Since the proposal was presented within the initial one year time frame and an additional year is now allowed to consider the plan, I like the Mayor’s ecommendation to slow things down. Allows time for 1) resolution of the Bargersville annexation issues and 2)state legislature to solidify or modify the tax cap law. Impact of both of those needs to be reflected in final property tax forecast.
Comment made on December 9th, 2009 at 9:42 amJoe, you hit the message right on the head . . . but as much because the potential tax bite is so ill-defined. Still, don’t you think with enough investment in advertising and rounding up voters in the older neighborhoods promised cash influx for streets, etc. that Greenwood might get the votes it needs? For me, the huge and hardly touched on issues are (1) ability of merged city to put area into huge debt (see the trainwreck coming in Carmel) and (2) the pool of cash and debt-funded potential in relatively high income demographic in WRT from an expanded local options income tax tool. And then you’ve got TIF potential that the merger committee is already eyeing as a means to finance it all.
So many questions, so little time. Exactly why WRT deserved a real study of all issues, not just an implementation committee for Greenwood and three WRT board of trustee members looking for seats on a new Greenwood city council.
Comment made on December 14th, 2009 at 6:21 pmLeave a Comment