Did anybody read this thing?
I attended Monday’s meeting expecting to see some minor tweaks to the plan and a quick vote of approval by the Greenwood Common Council. Although the council finally got around to passing the resolution to present the plan to the voters, four to three, Magna-Rees, Armstrong and Bates voted no, what I found was, well, almost, sort of, not exactlya what I expected. The meeting was filled with questions from people who have obviously not read the law regarding reorganization, may not have read the entire plan, and clearly the majority had no knowledge of what as inside the mysterious “Group A” and “Group B” amendments.
It appears that “Group A” were the amendments passed at the December 8 joint meeting. “Group B” was “Group A” corrected and with a few clarifying amendments suggested by the Reorganization Committee. Oh and do not forget amendments brought up in a little publicized special meeting last Thursday.
The essence is, as understand it with no background except listening to tonight’s meeting , is that the budget included in the plan amended by the council and board on December 8, which would have put the issue on the May ballot, and have gone into affect January 1, 2011. “Group B” appeared to include a new provision that said something like “White River council members elected in November 2010 would join the council on November 10, 2010” which would allow them to be part of the budget planning for 2011. Do I really care? What was wrong with the old plan? Why did we listen for two plus hours listen to the Greenwood Common Council try and figure out when budgets and reorganization plans need to passed to go into effect. I am no genius, I don’t understand state law as well as Mayor Henderson, Trustee Jay Marks, or the legal council of Greenwood and White River Township, but at least I have read the law and the plan, or at least the last one publicly available which doesn’t include the latest amendments.
As professional journalists, I am sure the Daily Journal will have all this sorted out one way or another when they get it published on Wednesday. We will have the entire session on video soon so you can decide for yourself. One quick reminder, Tuesday night it is White River Township’s turn. I have been promised that the WRT session will not be as long or painful.
Related posts (Automatically generated):
4 Responses to “Did anybody read this thing?”
Jody & Dann, I just wanted to commend you for the job you have done in your coverage of the entire issue. I got a glance at the site after last Monday’s meeting at CGHS however I did not read everything in detail until after meeting you at last night’s meeting. The site and content is very informative and very well organized. (Jody, the journalism background shines through!) I do not have a dog in this fight personally as I live in Franklin, however I am very interested in the issues and the outcome in WRT. Keep up the great work guys! Bill Pfifer
Comment made on December 22nd, 2009 at 10:44 amFirst, thank you for publishing these updates. You guys have done a great job of simply stating the facts with the occasional admitted commentary.
I just finished going through the ‘New City of Greenwood’ plan, and it is exactly what I thought it would be – the expansion of Greenwood at the expense of WRT residents.
If you are a resident of Greenwood, this is a good business decision. If you are a WRT resident, this does very little for you except to provide you with road repair, trash service, leaf & limb service, storm flooding (an extra expense coming down the road), and ‘mosquito abatement’.
You also have the privelage of inheriting Greenwood debt, obligations, and the traditional structure of an expanding city government. Taxes will certainly not be going down in the years to come, but rather they will expand (check out all the new positions that are being planned in this document including a ‘Deputy Mayor’.) What will the Deputy do? That’s up to the Mayor, and we would pay the bill for it if we approve this merger.
By every resource I can find, we are in fantastic shape with no outstanding obligations, and tons of potential for growth (look no farther than the I-69 project , one of the best school districts in the country, and a brand new hospital that is soon to come). It simply comes down to us mobilizing, and that’s something that I plan on doing. I support all of my neighbors to join me.
Comment made on December 22nd, 2009 at 11:41 amFantastic shape?
We’re subsidizing construction throughout Johnson County, and we’re under-represented at both the county council and the county commissioners.
The “new city of Greenwood” plan is awful, I agree, but something else needs to be presented. WRT cannot continue as an unincorporated area.
Comment made on December 22nd, 2009 at 11:33 pmIn reference to your question on whether anyone read this, the answer is both yes (to everything that I had in my possession) and not well enough (to the new stuff that I got that day). I know the information in the plan but when the committee gave me new information in the meeting and then expected me to act on it immediately, that is what created all of the questions. Pulling ahead the implementation date meant that the plan had to be passed that night. That is not fair to any member of the council.
I do believe that the merger is good for almost everyone involved including:
1) Residents of Greenwood – their taxes will go down about 10 %.
2) Residents of subdivisions in WRT – they will receive the same services Greenwood residents do for 90% of what they pay now.
3) Farmers in WRT – they will pay taxes only on their homes for as long as they farm. Bargersville will tax the farm land at 2% caps starting in 10 years.
My no vote on the plan has to do with the size of the new government. I do not see any reason to expand the government and therefore the budget to the levels they are proposed. If we are doing this for efficiency, why not be as efficient as possible.
Bruce Armstrong
Comment made on December 22nd, 2009 at 11:40 pmGreenwood City Council
Leave a Comment