Joint meeting: Major decisions made

Big Story: Tonight the he plan was amended by both boards. They voted to delay the implementation until January 2011 should the plan be passed by the council, board and a public vote, but the question will still come before the voters on the May ballot.

The following was written live during the meeting.

Tonight a joint meeting of the Greenwood Common Council and the White River Township (WRT) board is being held at the Center Grove Schools administration building. We are covering the meeting live. As always expect more details and follow-up articles starting on Wednesday. Mr. Sherman asked that the amendment be passed tonight.

Ron Deer opened the meeting at 7:06. Mayor Henderson is delayed as a meeting he is attending is running long. (Note: Mayor Henderson expressed that he was not feeling well during Monday night’s Common Council meeting. He explicitly asked Mr. Deer to speak for him at this meeting should he not be able to attend. While we were not able to confirm it, his health may have been a complicating factor in why he was unable to attend this meeting.)

Pat Sherman opened the meeting with comments on the mayor’s suggestion of last night to delay the reorganization plan.  The mayor will speak when he arrives.

Mr. Sherman asked for two things to be amended into the plan the first is a map of the “new” Greenwood council districts that would be in effect until 2012. He distributed a copy of the map of current council seats overlaid by the new seats. Unincorporated White River Township would be served by four at large council members. The map was added to the plan.

The second item is four scenarios for the budget depending on the results of the annexation efforts by Bargersville. A copy will be posted as soon as it is available. The tax rate under the four scenarios varies from .5766 to 0.5832. Mr. Sherman explained the minor changes in the budget are the result of the plan not taxing farm land. The additional expenses come from police and fire protection for the areas. The revised budget figures were voted into the plan.

Mayor’s comments presented by Ron Deer: The mayor’s thoughts that after two public meetings the vote should be delayed until November 2010 since the questions from the public indicated that the public needed additional time for the public to be fully informed. He was not asking to delay working on it but simply delay acting on it. He described it as an “ambitious timeline.”

The city attorney continued that the timeline was too short to hire the 17 new police departments, pass zoning ordinances and legal changes in place. The attorney agreed that the timeline was short for passing the zoning and required legal changes.

Pat Sherman stated that the according to the plan the new police officers would not take place until January 2011 allowing eight months to hire the officers. Also looking at new alternatives such as public private partnerships would make it easier to provide the necessary road services in the eight months from the election until those services, roads and police, would be taken over by the “new” Greenwood on January 1, 2011.

Mr. Sherman continued that the ordinances of Greenwood would be applied to White River Township and therefore would not have to be rewritten and approved. Under IC 35 1.5 the districts would have be developed under the census. Timing as laid out in the current plan fits well with the new census.

Revenue lost revenue by delay: $4.2 million for White River Township and a loss of $1.5 million by Greenwood. The money comes from property taxes, CAGIT and other state sources. Mr. Sherman spun the financial figures to try and build a case to act now. Comment: If the money does not come now, the city still does not incur those costs. Some of the money will flow to the county which will continue to provides police protection and road care.  The township still provides poor relief. Yes there is some money lost, but not critical.

Sherman also expressed a concern about future Bargersville annexations saying “If a plan of annexation is not in effect Bargersville could annex more of White River Township.”

The Greenwood Council stated that the public cannot speak at the meeting. However, township law requires that in any meeting the public will be allowed to speak at some point in the meeting. Jay Marks stated that at some point tonight he will open the floor for comments from White River Township Residents.

If the issue is to make the May, 2010 ballot, then the plan with the budget included must be passed by both boards by the end of December. Identical versions of the resolution must be approved by the council and the board. Mr. Sherman stated he hoped that each board would arrive at a final version of the plan tonight.

Council member Brent Corey stated he believes the council and the board should both approve the plan so that the citizens of Greenwood and White River Township can have the right to vote on the plan. Mr. Corey then made a motion to adhere to the original timetable, seconded by Linda Gibson.

Council member McLaughlin stated that four months is not enough time for the citizens to be fully informed on the plan. He believes the plan needs to be adopted but a six month delay would provide the time to adequately educate the public. There was a strong discussion in the issue to delay the vote. “Will it matter” and how hard is it to understand were some of the comments expressed. WRT Board member John Ebert asked about the legal issues of delay. Greenwood’s lawyer expressed her ongoing concern that the zoning laws would not have time to be put into effect. Comment: I believe the plan states that current developments would continue to be developed under county law. New developments would follow current Greenwood law. What’s the problem?

The option of putting it on the May ballot and delaying the start until January 2011 was mentioned, the city attorney expressed support for this idea. The May ballot may also address other issues such as library funding, the new jail, and possibly a Center Grove School referendum, the school referendum is highly unlikely following the school board vote last night not to renew the superintendent’s contract.

Jay Marks stated that John Price told him last Thursday that the county has not been contacted about handling road services for the last half of 2010. Pat Sherman stated he did have discussions with the county but did not state whom he spoke with.

Council member Bruce Armstrong stated that five months is plenty of time to educate the public. He asked the implementation date be moved to January 1, 2010. That idea will have to be introduced as a separate motion.

The motion to stick with the current timetable of a final vote by the council on December 21 was approved by the council.

The WRT board then considered the motion with opening the floor to the public. Briar Colwell, White River resident, addressed the board that information continues to be released piecemeal, giving the impression of “let’s get you up to speed” rather than giving the citizens the plan and discussing the options. He stated he is not opposed to the plan, not sold on it either, but believes there are serious issues need to be discussed. He asked for more time to provide feedback to public officials before they vote. The WRT Board is set to vote on December 22.

I addressed the board and stated that there are plenty of resources out there for people to find out the information they need to make a decision. This site has over 200 articles plus links to many other resources, along with hours of video and nearly 100 video clips. The Daily Journal has covered the story in depth, the reorganization committee has a website. There is plenty of information available; the board should stick with the original timeline and move forward with a final vote on December 21st for the Greenwood Council and December 22nd for White River Township Board. I closed by saying “No matter what your feeling about the plan I ask that both the board and the council pass the plan and give the voters the final say on the reorganization.”

Mr. Colwell followed my comments with another request to delay the approval of the plan to allow for more study and discussion.

Greenwood’s lawyer stated that the council and board has one year from the introduction of the plan, which was early November, 2009 to approve the plan. If they wanted to they could approve a budget before the end of the year and wait until as late as February to approve the plan and still put the provision on the May ballot. If they waited longer for approval they could still make the November ballot and change the implementation date.

The White River Township Board voted to stick to the original plan which calls for a public hearing and final vote on December 22.

Bruce Armstrong then floated the idea to pass the budget by the end of the year and then hold off the voting on the plan providing more time to modify it and still be on the May or November ballot.  Pat Sherman then explained the options and the results of such an idea. He then stated it in the form of a motion to approve change the plan to put it on the ballot in May but move the implementation of the plan to January 1, 2011. It was seconded by Brent Corey. Then the discussion about losing money again came up. If they don’t pass it with a July start date the city will lose money and if so how much. The motion passed with one dissenting vote.

The White River Township Board then considered an identical motion made by John Ebert. The vote was one yes, one no, Joe Acker voted no. Mark Messick was unable to attend for personal reasons. The process calls for a tie vote to be broken by the Trustee, Jay Marks, however he chose to abstain. That means the WRT version of the plan has an implementation date of July 1, 2010. The Greenwood version now says implementation date of January 1, 2011. The plan cannot go to the voters unless they pass identical plans.

Joe Acker introduced a motion to reconsider the previous motion. The Board voted this time to put it on the May ballot and implement it on January 1, 2011. The plan is now identical to Greenwood’s plan.

Ron Deer then asked if anyone had any suggested revisions. The plan was reviewed by section. Brent Corey directed them to page 23, under governance.  Bruce Armstrong then introduced a motion that the “City will remain a third class city” instead of the second class city status proposed in the plan. He believes it provides benefits such as an elected clerk treasurer over an appointed comptroller. Brent Corey questioned how that was an advantage. Mr. Armstrong stated he believed the clerk treasurer should be independent of the mayor. There is no financial impact in being a second or third class city. The motion failed by a four to two vote.

Ron Bates directed the council to page 27. The chair asked the board if they cared to make a motion on the size of the council. John Ebert stated that Mark Messick asked him to state his opposition to increasing the size of the boards and council. Ebert suggested the changing of the required super majority vote from seven members to eight members to make changes to the plan of reorganization after the transition period.  See page 25, section 3, C et al. Motion passed.

Greenwood member Linda Gibson made the same motion for the sake of discussion by the Greenwood council. Linda Gibson retracted her motion before a vote following a discussion.

White River Township then made a motion to revise the plan yet again, this time requiring one vote from White River Township representative during the transition period. This will change item V. Motion defines super majority as six with at least one vote from each geographic district.  Greenwood then passed an identical resolution.

Brent Corey made a motion that after election a super majority of seven will be required. White River Township board passed the same motion.

The next discussion was when does the “new” Greenwood become a second class city? January 2011? Jay Marks questioned why the mayor would continue to run the city for a while after it becomes a second class city? For a year the mayor gets the best of both a second and third class city for one year as the plan is currently written. Bruce Armstrong made a motion that the council president begins to preside over the council on January, 2011 instead of 2012.  The mayor would be the presiding officer during the interim period under the current plan. Greenwood passed the change unanimously. WRT board made the same motion and also passed it.

Discussion was held on how long should the meeting should last, 10:30 was suggested the decision was to complete the governance section.

Other changes included changes to standing committees, changes such as “mayor may” to “mayor shall” in regards to appointment of a council member to the Board of Public Works. Questions were raised about if they would, or could be paid. That question was left for later. On page 28 8.b  it states all members to the board must be appointed by the mayor. Can the law require the mayor to appoint a council member? Motion passed. Same motion introduced by WRT Board.  Joe Acker questioned the requirement that the mayor must appoint a member.  Cities and towns do have council members on the board but no one knows if any of them require the mayor to appoint a council member. WRT Board passed the motion. That was the final revision discussed that night.

Linda Gibson asked how many changes are anticipated to the remaining sections. Ron Deer decided to move on and see what else might be needed. Pat Sherman said transition plan will need some changes. The lawyer suggested that a motion be made that all references to the implementation date be changed to January 2011. Brent Corey made a motion for Greenwood, John Ebert for WRT Board, it passed both boards.

Jay Marks questioned the authority of the plan to force a merger of the WRT Fire Department and Greenwood Fire Department if they don’t complete a merger by July 1, 2010. Pat Sherman defended the position, no action was taken.

John Ebert expressed Mark Messick’s opinion that he is not in favor of setting salaries in the plan. The plan is only making recommendations so no action was taken. Mr. Sherman mentioned that the salary recommendations are averages of similar cities.

Storm water utility fee will be $5 per home, but will be higher for businesses based on size and hard surface areas. Date for assessment to begin is up to Board of Works.

The remainder of the document is exhibits so there wasn’t much to discuss, which means we must be close to the end of the meeting.

One final question from John Ebert, some WRT citizens are concerned about people not being able to afford the tax increase. Is there a possibility to provide some kind of tax relief for such individuals, perhaps a permanent relief of some kind? Ebert commented he “Just wanted to throw that out.” Ron Deer questioned if there was any legal means to treat certain people differently? Not for fees and such. Pat Sherman stated there is no way to say “certain individuals will not be taxed”. No statutory authority exists to do so. John went on to say “is there a way” to help them? The answer is still no, but there may be non-governmental means to help. Jay Marks said that poor relief would be up to the clerk and perhaps a person could pay their tax and not their utility and get poor relief to cover the utility.

No further amendments are anticipated. Second reading for Greenwood will be December 22.

A revised version of the plan will be posted as soon as it is available.

Related posts (Automatically generated):

1. Board budget cutting attempt results in more legal fees