Board says: “Residents decide”

At Tuesday’s meeting of the White River Township Board, the vast majority of the public sentiment was against putting the reorganization proposal before the voters in May. However, the board went in their own direction (see video of their positions below) and voted to place it on the ballot in May by a vote of 3-0 where the voters of Greenwood and White River Township will have a chance to approve or disapprove the resolution. For it to pass, both the majority of voters in Greenwood and in White River Township must vote for the proposal for it to pass. If either area votes “No” the reorganization plan fails.

There seemed to a fundamental misunderstanding by those urging the board vote to against the proposal: They thought that a “no” vote would kill the measure for the all time, but they are mistaken. In fact, if the board voted “no”, it would remain alive for potentially the next two years. First the Greenwood Council and the Board will have a year to consider and revise the proposal. If they do not act within the year, then the Reorganization Committee has another year to make changes to the proposal. Each legislative body then has another 30 days to take “positive” action for or against the proposal. If the legislative bodies do nothing the proposal becomes law without further action. (See IC 36-1.5-4-23.5) for more details.  At least one person thought that those attending did understand and simply wanted the board to make two “no” votes on the proposal, which would finally put the question to rest.

The meeting stared with the board discussing the same amendments at last evenings Greenwood Common Council were discussed at tonight’s meeting of the White River Township Board. First up is a group of amendments, “Group .A” that do not have a material affect the content. Included are changes such as clearing up some wording, such as changing AG to agriculture and adding an index. The second group or “Group B” includes more substantive changes.

Group A passed unanimously. There are three amendments in Group B: 1) A title change to reflect the new effective date. 2) Grandfather existing building and zoning standards for those who have obtained their permits before the effective date of November 10, 2010. 3) The effective date of the reorganization will be November 10, 2010. All new council members will be seated on that day. However, services will not be in effect until January 1, 2011. The intent of this change is to allow the new council members to have an opportunity to participate in the development of the budget for 2011.

The public reaction
Those attending were vocal, polite, and essentially united. They wanted to the board to vote “no” on placing the issue on the ballot in May. Public comments included a question on the number of council members. The total will be 11 with four from the current White River Township. The mayor will prepare the budget, but the council must make the final approval. The expectation is that the mayor would begin working on the budget soon after the election, should it pass. It is the expressed intent of the mayor and the council to “unofficially” include winners of the primary and any others running in the general election in the early, public, budget discussion. However, there would not be a final vote on the election until the new council members are seated.

The town of Bargersville also sent a letter to the White River Township Board. The unsigned letter was read by consultant Mike Shaver and included a number of assertions by the town, including that the entire process was conducted illegally.

View the comments of members John Ebert and Mark Messick here. Mr. Acker made no comments on his vote.

Mr. Ebert’s comments:

Mr. Messick’s comments:

Related posts (Automatically generated):

1. Creating the Town of Center Grove
2. WRT Board Meets Tuesday