Revised Reorganization Plan
The Greenwood Common Council has already approved the amended plan in a meeting held on June 21st. The White River Township Board will most likely approve a resolution to put the revised plan on the November ballot. What’s the difference between the old an new plan?
A lot, and not much. Committee Chair Pat Sherman put together a list of changes in the revised plan (view it here). The document includes a five point overview of the history of the reorganization effort since the first plan was presented on December 8, 2009. 30 some changes where made to the plan including moving to the general election from the primary. The changes in the revised plan (view the revised Plan of Reorganzation here) provide more details on expenses and revenue mostly by providing revised projections. The percent changes in the tax rates for White River Township and Greenwood residents have also been changed.
In short your will find more details on governance, the transition plan, for example Greenwood police will not serve the entire city until January 1, 2012, and what concerns most residents finances. Are the revisions significant enough to change the minds of those who don’t support reorganization, aka merger, with Greenwood? That is not likely.
No related posts.
2 Responses to “Revised Reorganization Plan”
I had 3 issues with the proposal in November of 2009, and this revision does nothing to address those. I attempted to contact Mr. Sherman twice to discuss my concerns, however he was unable to return the messages that I left with his secretary.
1. The addition of the City Controller to handle accounting and finance duties. The plan justifies the position as being in “accordance with the requirements of a second class city”. By definition a second class city is one with a population between 35,000 and 60,000 – which defines current Greenwood already (approx 47k). Are we to assume that accounting and finances are not being done currently? Absolutely not; there is a current position for that assignment as the Clerk Treasurer. Why have additional position(s) for a single duty? Check out page 9 – from 2010 to 2012 the cost of ‘Clerk-Treasurer’ expenses grows from $281,287 for the year to $533,892 in 2011 and $559,786 in 2012. I believe that to be the direct impact of the City Controller addition, staff, expenses, etc. It’s a wasteful move proposed by this plan.
2. Board of Public works adds a Pathways board. The mission of the Pathways board is to “oversee planning, maintenance, and construction of pathways built by [Department of Public Works] and coordinate with [Parks and Recreation].” Why is ‘oversight’ necessary when I assume that the Parks & Recreation division or the Community Development division would already be actively involved with these activities? This would add 3 appointees by the Mayor all being paid the exact same compensation as the existing P&R folks. This just seems like more waste proposed by this plan, but this time multiply by 3.
3. A Deputy Mayor to be added in 2012. This is a very ambiguous position with no specific duties mentioned and no specific pay mentioned. The only glimmer of hope here is that is that the position may be filled at the discretion of the Mayor. Why would anyone staff a hypothetical ‘maybe we should / maybe we should not’position? How does a maybe position fit into the expense budget? Either the position is needed/justified, or it is not. Greenwood has functioned fine without this Appointee provision before this merger, and I would predict that it would be fine after (if the merger were to be approved in November).
All of these positions proposed will cost a great deal of money in the form of Man power, and none of these positions proves to add significant value (i.e. lower costs, create administrative efficiencies, etc). Over the years all will require raises, cost of living adjustments, retirement, health benefits… just think of how much expense it costs an employer to hire a single person. Guess what – we would be that employer.
Comment made on June 29th, 2010 at 2:34 pmCorrection second class cities contain 35,000 to 600,000.
Comment made on June 29th, 2010 at 3:20 pmLeave a Comment