Tuesday, August 24, 2010

City-County Budget -- First Scan

The 2011 City-County budget is now posted on the City's website. (click here)

Well, its finally happened. For the first time in Mayor Greg Ballard's term of office, the budget is actually shrinking. See page 5 of the summary for a year to year comparison with non-recurring items removed. The 2011 budget, excluding funds from State and Federal sources, will be $1.02 billion, down from 2010 projected spending of $1.04 billion, but up by a million or so from the $1.02 billion in 2009. The 2008 budget, last year of the Peterson administration, after adjustment for non-recurring expenses, was $1.01 billion. (These 2008 non-recurring expenses include funds now paid for by the State as part of the property tax overhaul.)

Looking at the last few budget revenue figures, including funds from State and Federal sources, which of course includes the federal stimulus money that was expected to be temporary, the expected 2011 revenue weighs in at $1.14 billion, compared with $1.26 billion for 2010, $1.23 billion for 2009, and $1.11 billion for 2008.

On the spending side, the 2011 budget proposes expenditures of $1.15 billion, down significantly from the $1.22 billion projected for 2010, down slightly from the 2009 actual expenditures of 1.16 billion, and significantly down from 2009 expenditures of $1.22 billion (remember, this was the last year of City payment for expenses that the State now picks up as part of the property tax overhaul). The 2011 budget is proposed to spend almost $14 million more than it takes in.

Tax revenues are expected to be down $45 million from 2010. Federal and State grants and taxes are expected to drop by $73 million.

Interestingly enough, the 2011 City-County budget calls for an INCREASE in property tax levy, totalling $336 million, up from $324 million this year.

Looking at the fund balances (page 11 of the summary), it would appear that the rainy day fund is being tapped to the tune of $18 million, providing most of the extra money to fund the budget shortfall. Only last year, $16 million was put into the rainy day fund to provide just such a cushion.

Here is how the larger departments are affected:

Public Safety:
IMPD -- down $7 million (-3.5%) from 2010, but up $14 million from 2009
IFD -- up $1.6 million (+1.3%) from 2010, and up $13 million from 2009
Homeland Security -- up $11 million (+142.2%), half from an increase in federal dollars

Criminal Justice Services:
Sheriff -- down $4.5 million (-4.2%) from 2010, but up $10 million from 2009
Prosecutor -- down $2.8 million (-11.1%) from 2010, about the same as 2009
Superior Courts -- down $3.2 million (-5.7%), and down $1.5 million from 2009

Other Public Services:
Public Works -- down $18.8 million (-9.2%) from 2010, and down $22.1 million from 2009
Metropolitan Development -- down $39.0 million (-52.7%) from 2010, and down $26.4 million from 2009
Office of Code Enforcement -- up $0.7 million (+5.6%) from 2010, which is about the same compared with 2009
Parks -- down $0.4 million (-1.6%) from 2010, and down $5.0 million from 2009

Executive, Legislative and Administrative Services:
Mayor's Office -- down $0.3 million (-7.0%) from 2010, and up $0.3 million from 2009
City County Council -- down very little from 2010, and down $0.1 million from 2009
Auditor -- down $1.5 million (-12.1%) from 2010, and down $$12.0 million from 2009
Clerk -- little changed from 2010, and down $0.3 million from 2009
Assessor -- little changed from 2010, and down $0.8 million from 2009

2 comments:

Indy Student said...

Councilor Evans is saying take-home IMPD cars are being eliminated. Abdul is reporting it's other parts of DPS that are having take-home programs being eliminated. Is there any truth to either of those?

Had Enough Indy? said...

From all the pieces of information I have heard, from a number of sources, my best guess is that there was an internal discussion on the take home car matter within public safety. That got out and the rumor mill got it to Evans as a final decision.

I have heard nothing regarding take home cars outside of IMPD being changed at all.

All that said, I think it would serve the public well to have a discussion about the actual cost of these take home cars and their impact on the budget. Does it rise to the level of curtailing new hires, for instance?

I understand that the Council will begin an examination of the topic. But, beyond that mention, I do not have any details. And, even that information, I did not get from Councillors, so who knows at this point.