2012 WRT budget approved
For the first time in many years the White River Township budget is detailed, discussed, and follows “best practices.” Tuesday’s meeting lasted more than two hours and demonstrated a few differences between the board and trustee and a concern by all to not spend taxpayer money unless necessary.
The township is flush with cash, with more than $675,000 in the bank. However, the state board of accounts and the township’s attorney agree that the township cannot use that money to pay for township assistance. According to financial advisor, Jim Higgins the state requires that the assistance be funded from a tax levy. The township could fund its entire assistance fund with a property tax levy of less than four cents per $100 of assessed value. The board voted to keep the tax levy at zero and to transfer funds to the assistance fund. Although not in technical compliance with the law, it is likely the only action the state would take against the board would be to place an audit note in the township records.
Not having a levy raises another issue; the township will receive no distributions from the county’s adjusted gross income tax. The “CAGIT” money is money that township residents pay in income taxes. With no property tax levy White River Township resident’s share of that money will now go to other towns, cities and townships in Johnson County instead of being returned to White River Township. With a tax levy, the township received more than $160,000 a year in CAGIT revenue. Without a tax levy to fund the $71,400 township assistance the township loses the $160,000 in income taxes residents have paid to the county.
The Budget Discussion
The budget is divided in to two parts, the general fund, and fund township assistance fund. The big discussion came on the general fund side where the board questioned the need to replace six-year-old computers, the cost of office supplies, whether the trustee should expand hours to better serve the needs of township residents, and if the township clerks should receive additional training.
The amount requested by the trustee for paying the clerks was below what was spent in 2010 but the board was not convinced the hours needed to be expanded and did not want to put the money in the budget and leave it up to the trustee to spend the money only if needed. The township financial advisor Jim Higgins suggested a compromise. The board could approve the higher amount but restrict the spending of the full amount by ordinance. That would put the money in the budget but prevent the trustee from spending it unless the board approved. The board declined the compromise and approved $28,000 instead of the requested $35,000.
Another big budget item “Professional Service” of which most is legal fees created a lot of interested. Contained in the $23,500 budget is $6,000 to pay Greenwood for the townships share of the reorganization study. The original share was over $11,000. However, questions from Trustee Messick and a review from the township’s attorney reduced this amount. Messick estimates the final amount will be $6,000. Once again, Pollard lead the discussion with Young supporting his position that the township should not pay Greenwood anything. $6,000 was cut from that line leaving no money in the budget for the township to pay its legally obligated share of the reorganization study.
Pollard also presented an “invoice” that he claimed had been delivered to Greenwood for $30,000 to cover the township’s share of the merger. Trustee Mark Messick explained that the township has no invoicing system and no record of any invoice being issued to Greenwood. Pollard explained that the invoice was created by then trustee Jay Marks and delivered to Greenwood in November of 2010. Messick repeated that there is no copy of the invoice in the township records and that Greenwood Clerk/Treasurer Jeannie Meyers has no record of the city ever receiving the invoice. Marks spent about $34,000 of township funds on his own initiative on accounting and legal services to counter the reorganization committee’s efforts. This money could have been used to pay for the township’s share of the reorganization cost.
The board eliminated the townships membership in the Indiana Township Association that offers training and assistance to townships. The dues would have cost the township $600 in 2012. The issue of budgeting $1,000 to provide training for the clerks drew criticism from two of the board members, Peggy Young and Dave Pollard. Young asked why the state would require the township to use the new Gateway system to file budget information and then not provide training. Trustee Messick noted that ITA, of which the membership had just been eliminated, does provide training. The training remained in the budget.
The question of replacing the townships six-year-old computers drew sharp negative comments from Pollard. He failed to see why three computers, at $500 each, were required when only two could be used at once and why replacing all of them was necessary. Despite the explanation that one computer was at the front desk, one was in the Trustee’s office and the third was in a private office and was used for payroll and other private work Pollard, who admits he does not own and had never used a computer, refused to support three computers. In the end, Young followed Pollard’s lead and only two computers remained in the budget. The township has spent more than $850 in the past few months repairing the current computers.
In the end, an advertised general fund budget of $153,000 was cut to $135,000 by the trustee and reduced further by the board to a final amount of $123,580.
Township Assistance
The only major issue in the assistance budget was the Trustee’s request for a $10,000 contract with the Partnership for a Healthier Johnson County to provide healthcare services to township residents who have no other healthcare options. The Partnership provided more than $225,000 in service to township residents in 2010. Peggy Pollard, the most vocal opponent of the contract, stated that she had spoken with a number of residents and they all opposed supporting the Partnership. She also felt that White River Township should not be the only township in the county to contract with them and if others would enter into contracts with the Partnership, she would rethink her opposition. Board chair Greg Rainbolt voted for supporting the Partnership.
In the end, the board approved an assistance budget of $71,400. The combined budget for 2012 is a total of $194,980.
Related posts (Automatically generated):
Leave a Comment