Had Enough Indy ?

Council To Meet Monday Night

2012-01-27T15:33:00.000-05:00

The City County Council will meet this Monday night. The big item for consideration is the extension of Indy's smoking ban (Prop 18). But there are other proposals of interest.

There will also be the rare hearing of a zoning matter. This is encapsulated in Prop 303, 2011. This is petition 2011-CZN-825, which seeks to rezone 1.6 acres from medium intensity commercial uses (C-3) to mixed residential / commercial uses (C-2) to allow for construction of a multi-family building. The address is 2855 N. Keystone. Councillor Christine Scales has called the petition down. It takes 18 votes to overturn a decision of the MDC.

Of the new proposals being introduced Monday night, one in particular caught my eye. That is Prop 44, sponsored by Councillor Ben Hunter. Prop 44 would change the ordinance governing the composition of Council Committees to add :

(c) Any councillor who is employed by another agency of local government, whose budgets or salaries are subject to action of the City-County Council, shall not be appointed to, or eligible to serve on any committee which regularly considers the budget or salaries of the agency which employes such councillor.

Prop 44 will be referred to the Rules Committee.

Fundamental Friday -- Barney Levengood of the CIB

2012-01-27T11:19:00.000-05:00

This week's Fundy goes to Barney Levengood of the Capital Improvement Board. Levengood is the Executive Director and runs the day to day operations for the Board.

Levengood is one of the best in providing public records upon request in a timely manner and without fanfare. In fact, he is the only one that ever held a request of mine because the documents I wanted were still in negotiation. Once signed, he forwarded them to me immediately without requiring me to submit a new request.

I often disagree with the policies and funding requests of the CIB, but the access that the public has to their documents is very much aligned with the spirit of open government - thanks in large degree to its Executive Director.

IBJ Reports Mass Transit Bill Dead

2012-01-26T13:40:00.001-05:00

The IBJ is reporting that the Mass Transit bill died in committee this morning by a vote of 11 - 10.

Here's their brief account:

A bill that could have led to a new mass-transit system in Indianapolis and surrounding counties failed in committee Thursday morning.

Ways and Means Committee members voted 11-10 against the bill.

The bill would have given local officials the authority to increase income taxes to pay for a new 10-year, $1.3 billion public transportation plan proposed by the Central Indiana Transit Task Force. Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard had endorsed the plan.

But Ways and Means Chairman Jeff Espich, R-Uniondale, said the bill doesn't have the support needed to pass.

CIB To Alternate Use Of MSA Parking Lot With the NFL

2012-01-26T13:29:00.000-05:00

The Capital Improvement Board gets to operate the two surface parking lots that now exist in the footprint of the old Market Square Arena (NE and SE corners of Market and Alabama). They contract with Denison parking for the actual operations. Back in 2008, the only year I have documentation of net proceeds, the CIB brought in $788,693.12, and that was considered a typical year.

During the Super Bowl festivities, the CIB will alternate when they and the NFL get use of the northern parking lot. The NFL gets to charge whatever it feels and has the responsibility of paying for the operation of the lot during the times it is scheduled to oversee the lot.   I have uploaded the schedule to Google docs. The rate column shows the price the CIB will charge when it is scheduled to operate the lot. If xxxx appears in the rate column, it indicates a time scheduled for NFL operation of the lot.

Here's the general summary of the schedule for the northern MSA parking lot:

The CIB will operate the lot and charge its normal $6 all day parking rate on:
January 27 (Friday)   -- 7 am - 4 pm only
January 30 (Monday)  through February 3 (Friday) schedule -- 7 am - 4 pm only
February 6 (Monday)   -- 7 am - 4 pm

On Sunday February 5, the CIB will operate the lot from 2 am to 11 pm, charging $99 a day.

The NFL will operate the lot and charge what they like on:
January 27 (Friday) at 4 pm through January 30 (Monday) at 7 am [the entire weekend]
January 30 (Monday) through February 2 (Thursday) -- 4 pm - 11:59 pm only
February 3 (Friday) at 4pm through February 5 (Sunday) at 2 am [half the weekend]

In addition, the CIB will raise rates on the southern lot the weekend of the Superbowl, charging $199 for a weekend tailgate pass from February 3 (Friday) at 6 pm through February 6 (Monday) at 6 am.

Senator Steele Pulls SB244

2012-01-26T12:36:00.003-05:00

Update for those following SB244, which would have granted an exclusion in Indiana lobbying reporting laws to three groups (see yesterday's post for particulars), was pulled from consideration. Senator Brent Steele (District 44), one of the bills sponsors, announced the action yesterday afternoon. This is a very good development and I certainly support Senator Steele's decision.

SB 244 - Creating A Run Around Indiana's Lobbying Laws

2012-01-24T15:26:00.001-05:00

Indiana law currently requires that lobbyists register and report all gifts made to all Legislators and the Governor. But, with the ink barely dry, exceptions are being considered by the General Assembly. Here's how Scott Smith of the Kokomo Tribune frames the situation:

One of the cornerstones of the Indiana General Assembly’s 2010 ethics reform bill was a ban on lobbyist-funded, out-of-state travel for legislators.

As it turns out, the ban isn’t quite an iron-clad rule.

And two years after the bill’s passage, legislators are busy trying to carve out additional exemptions to the rules.

If lobbyists can’t directly pay for a state legislator to go on a junket, they have another option.

By simply paying for membership in a group like the American Legislative Exchange Council, which brings together corporate lobbyists and a host of conservative legislators at conferences around the country, the lobbyists get unfettered access to influential legislators.

But, we get ahead of ourselves. Let's start at the beginning. Here is what the Indiana Code currently says about lobbying, in part:

IC 2-7-1-10
"Lobbyist" Sec. 10. (a) "Lobbyist" means any person who:
(1) engages in lobbying; and
(2) in any registration year, receives or expends an aggregate of at least five hundred dollars ($500) in compensation or expenditures reportable under this article for lobbying, whether the compensation or expenditure is solely for lobbying or the lobbying is incidental to that individual's regular employment.
(b) The following are not considered lobbyists:
(1) A public employee or public official.
(2) The National Conference of State Legislatures.
(3) The National Conference of Insurance Legislators.
(4) The American Legislative Exchange Council.
(5) Women in Government.
(6) The Council of State Governments.
(7) The National Black Caucus of State Legislators.
(8) Any other national organization established for the education and support of legislative leadership, legislators, legislative staff, or related government employees.

It must be that the activities of the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, the National Assembly of Sportsmen's Caucuses, and the State Agriculture and Rural Leaders Association, are not clearly ones of education and thus exempt by # 8 of this definition. These three groups are the subject of individualized legislation in the form of Senate Bill 244, which would codify their unique exemption status by naming them as groups who are not considered lobbyists.

So, who are these groups, how do they interact with our Legislators in particular, and where does the money come to support those interactions.

The CSF appears to be the parent of the NASC. Their combined website is: http://www.sportsmenslink.org/.

CSF has several events each year, among which is an Annual Banquet and Auction fundraiser. This was last held on September 14 with individual tickets going for $1000 or a table of 8 for $6000, but with two seats reserved for VIPS. Got to wonder who the VIPs were and who paid for the seats. That information I could not find.

But, they do list their 'partners' on the CSF website. These include such notable hunting and fishing sportsmen's groups as Alergen, Bayer Cropscience, CONSOL Energy, Oracle, Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America, BP America, Inc., Chief Oil & Gas, The Coca-Cola Company, Lockheed Martin, Novartis, Sanofi Pasteur, United States Steel Corporation, Aflac, Capitol Hill Consulting Group, National Mining Association, and NASCAR.

The NASC lists as its 'partners', among others, Comcast, Shell Oil, Aflac, Daimler, Exxon Mobile, Rubber Manufacturer's Association, and America's Natural Gas Alliance.

The website also notes legislation they'd like to see enacted. Here's just one and how they describe it (emphasis mine):

Voter Registration
Introduction
Encouraging sportsmen’s involvement in the political process is an important method for preserving our outdoor heritage. Increased participation helps ensure that the sportsmen’s voice is heard, particularly though the ballot box, which also strengthens the sportsmen’s ability to collectively defeat anti-sportsmen groups. Facilitating voter registration for sportsmen at the time they purchase their sportsmen’s licenses is one way to increase the number of registered sportsmen voters.

Language
By incorporating the views of our partners and other state legislators who have passed this legislation, we present the following language:
“Each application to obtain a resident hunting, fishing, or trapping license issued by the (Department of Natural Resources/State Wildlife Agency) and made by an applicant who is within six months of such applicant's eighteenth birthday or older shall also serve as an application for voter registration unless the applicant declines to register to vote through specific declination or by failing to sign the voter registration application. (The Board of Natural Resources/State Wildlife Agency) and the Secretary of State shall agree upon and design such procedures and forms as will be necessary to comply with this Code section, including without limitation procedures applicable to processing of applications received by persons approved as license agents for the (Department of Natural Resources).”

Points of Interest
It is the duty of each caucus leadership team to determine the best means of action in your respective state and modify the above language as necessary.

History
The issue was introduced at the inaugural NASC Annual Meeting in 2004 by a Georgia legislator and was issued as a NASC issue brief during the 2005 legislative session. Sportsmen’s caucuses in Florida and Georgia have passed similar legislation and attempts have been made in at least six other states.

Just in case you were ready to buy into their role in education of Legislators, let me also link you to two places where CSF posted a job opening this past year for a fundraiser. In one place they described THEMSELVES as an "Advocacy, Environment" organization. In the other they say :

The Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, which coordinates interaction and idea exchange among federal and state legislators, sportsmen's groups, industry, and outdoor media to advance a pro-sportsmen's agenda in the U.S. Congress and state capitals, is seeking an Outreach Coordinator.

Clearly, the CSF and NASC are pushing for specific legislation and thus do not deserve an exemption from Indiana's lobbying laws. They can also serve as a means to give their 'partners', current and future, a run around our laws by giving money to these groups and gaining face time with Legislators through the groups' events.

The State Agriculture and Rural Leaders group also has interesting 'partners' and educational methods. The SARL website is http://www.agandruralleaders.org/. They have an Annual Summit where invited Legislators listen to briefings and then adopt Resolutions. The Summit was just held on January 6-8 in our Nation's Capital.

Summit 'Partners' include, among others, BASF, Biotechnology Industry Organizations, International Associations of Fairs and Expositions, Kraft Foods, Land-O-Lakes, and Wine America. At least their partners are not so far afield from the organization's base as those of the CSF and NASC.

The topic of the first Plenary Session was "How state/provincial policy makers can support our producers and communities". During the Summit, the gathering adopted 10 Resolutions. Here is one, just selected solely on the basis of its brevity (emphasis in last paragraph is mine):

2012 Legislative Agriculture Chairs Summit

Resolution on Country of Origin Labeling

Whereas, the State Ag and Rural Leaders, (SARL) is comprised of agriculture and rural leaders of state and provincial legislative bodies from the US and Canada; and

Whereas,the U.S. Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) legislation has been a source of trade dispute between the U.S. and Canada; and

Whereas, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has ruled that the means by which COOL was implemented is not consistent with U.S. trade obligations; and

Whereas, the strength of the U.S.-Canadian trade relationship has created jobs and financial growth in both countries; and now therefore be it

Resolved, that SARL encourages the U.S. to waive an appeal of the WTO Dispute Panel’s ruling on COOL and further encourages the United States Congress to make a legislative amendment that would bring COOL into conformity with the U.S. WTO obligations without hindering the ability of the United States to continue to implement COOL for informed consumer decisions.

That sounds more like suggesting specific legislation than education. The very fact that Legislators attending the Annual Summit are the ones actively adopting the Resolutions is a bit much. Again, this group should not be exempt from our lobbying laws.

As far as news from the media on SB244, I have only found previously cited article by Scott Smith of the Kokomo Tribune.

I had not heard of this bill until Saturday, when Julia Vaughn, Policy Director of Common Cause of Indiana, was a Guest Presenter at McANA meeting. That meeting is being televised by Channel 16, and you can access it from their archives. Scroll down to 'other meetings' and select Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations (Jan 21, 2012).

Vaughn provided me with this statement:

This bill would allowthese groups, who appear to be funded by a diverse treasure trove of corporateand trade industry organizations, to fly Indiana legislators out-of-statefor "educational" events where they will be greeted by the samelobbyists who are prohibited from funding out-of-state travel forlegislators. These exempted groups could provide a convenient way for bigmoney special interests to avoid having to disclose their lobbying expendituresand get around the ban on lobbyist paid out of state travel. It's abill that weakens transparency and citizens should call their SenatorsASAP and ask them to vote NO.

You can find your Senator and their contact information here.

Lets not let them weaken the lobbying rules by, knowingly or not, putting in place a great runaround of the intent of our recently enacted lobbyist activities and gifting laws.

Readers Chime In With Super Bowl Costs Updates And More

2012-01-20T14:18:00.001-05:00

Alert readers have added links and information to help us flesh out the costs to taxpayers for the City of Indianapolis and the State of Indiana to host the 2012 Super Bowl. I simply have the best readers ! Thanks to all the Anonymi and those who have sent links through email.

The latest blog entry on this topic was posted a couple of days ago here (see "Super Bowl Costs FINALLY Beginning To Be Revealed") and just today Gary Welsh comments on an WRTV report that 7000 fewer seats are being added to LOS for the big game than originally planned (see "7,000 Fewer Tickets For Super Bowl Being Sold Than First Promoted" over at Advance Indiana).
Here's a round up of comments and email alerts that you might miss if you don't check old comment streams.
1) The free-to-ride IndyGo buses are being underwritten, at least in part, by corporate donations and some local visitor bureaus. From Anonymous 2:26:

I believe bus service is being provided with corporate sponsorships and extra government funding.

During the week of the Super Bowl, Monarch Beverage and World Class Beer will be sponsoring free shuttle buses that will run between downtown, Fountain Square and Mass Ave taking visitors to bars, restaurants and stores along the route. On that bus will be advertising for our “Drink Local” campaign along with a Twitter hashtag, #IndianaBeer.

http://in.worldclassbeer.com/2012/01/08/indiana-beers-for-the-super-bowl/

The Hancock County Visitors Bureau agreed to chip in $3,600 to fund the service.

The visitors bureau already is underwriting the $17,000 cost of bus service between Greenfield and downtown Indianapolis on Super Bowl weekend.
http://www.indianaeconomicdigest.net/main.asp?SectionID=31&SubSectionID=135&ArticleID=63533

The first link leads to a website promoting Indiana Beers

During the week of the Super Bowl, Monarch Beverage and World Class Beer will be sponsoring free shuttle buses that will run between downtown, Fountain Square and Mass Ave taking visitors to bars, restaurants and stores along the route. On that bus will be advertising for our “Drink Local” campaign along with a Twitter hashtag, #IndianaBeer.

During Super Bowl week, we strongly encourage everyone to use the #IndianaBeer hashtag to get the word out about local beer and where it can be found anywhere that Super Bowl attendees might be drinking!

The 2nd link offered leads to a piece by Arika Herron of the Daily Reporter who writes:

Super Bowl visitors who stay in Hancock County in the days before the game will be able to ride a trolley to visit restaurants, shops and other attractions around town.

The trolley service will be a key connector between the hotel cluster near Interstate 70 and attractions that are farther away, such as downtown.

The Hancock County Visitors Bureau agreed to chip in $3,600 to fund the service.

The visitors bureau already is underwriting the $17,000 cost of bus service between Greenfield and downtown Indianapolis on Super Bowl weekend.

2) Seems the LA Times is dissing the parking prices for the Super Bowl. From Anonymous 2:30:

LA Newspaper Tells Readers To Stay Home

$399 for Super Bowl parking? And still a 20-minute walk?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2012/01/399-for-super-bowl-parking-and-still-a-20-minute-walk.html

Much of the blog entry cited, discusses a report by WTHR's Ricn Van Wyk:

Fans who don't even know which teams are playing in Super Bowl XLVI are already buying parking spaces.

Lots and garages are charging fans much more than usual on Super Bowl Sunday. A $6 space across from City Market will cost $99 on game day.

...

Denison has about 10,000 spaces available and figures the whole week of Super Bowl activities could be worth a million dollars in parking fees, depending on who is playing and if the cities are within driving distance of Indianapolis, Gould says.

A short distance from Lucas Oil Stadium, PanAm Plaza is charging $129, neighboring Union Station is charging $99 and a downtown garage $59.

...

The most expensive advertised parking spots - at $399 - are the furthest away. The family-owned TWAY company expects to make a little money from fans with big RVs and party plans.

3) The figures just released for the CIB loss and their contribution to the City for IMPD costs associated with the big game apparently are in flux. From Anonymous 7:53:

Fox 59 is reporting that the NFL is actually reimbursing the city only $3.5 million instead of the $4.1 million the CIB is touting. Raising the the CIB's projected loss from $810,000 to $1.4 million.

It doesn't take much questioning to find that this event has been financially mismanaged from the very start.

Much like our $750 million white elephant gift to Jim Irsay.

I am starting to wonder if the true economic impact may be negative if this cold weather Superbowl (during a down economy) doesn't attract the projected 150,000 out-of-town visitors that CIB needs to get to a direct spending threshold of $150+ million.

The NFL shortfall comment is at end of the broadcast.

http://www.fox59.com/videogallery/67474629/News/IMPD-concerns-about-Super-Bowl-safety

P.S.

This public safety meeting also uncovered that security plans are still up in the air, two weeks before the event, and the police union wants overtime pay, while management is trying to keep cost down by adjusting shifts and eliminating vacation days.

The FOX59 video report by Aishah Hasnie mentions that IMPD has received the funds. These funds were not appropriated for spending at budget time. Once that step is taken, we will have an opportunity to see what the final numbers are for costs and CIB donations.

4) This nugget from Anonymous 12:00 is served best without an introduction:

The NFL has tentatively called a brief owners meeting for Feb. 2 in Indianapolis, three days before the Super Bowl to approve financing for the planned 49ers stadium, including providing up to $200 million in funding grants from the league.

Should Indianapolis feel like they got ripped off holding the bag on $750 million Lucas Oil Stadium with potential Superbowl hosting losses as a "reward"????

Heck, Irsay just got a NFL loan, not a grant.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2012/01/17/niners-stadium-nfl-funding.html

The San Francisco Business Times reporter, Eric Young says:

The Niners appear to be getting ever closer to lining up funding for a new stadium in Santa Clara.

The SportsBusiness Journal reports that the NFL within three weeks could approve financing for the planned stadium, including providing up to $200 million in funding grants from the league.

5) And last but not least, as mentioned in the opening paragraph, Gary Welsh's take on WRTV's report of 7000 fewer seats in LOS for the Super Bowl than originally expected. From WRTV reporter Kenna Kooi:

Despite the simmering excitement surrounding the upcoming Super Bowl, NFL officials said Indianapolis will host the smallest championship game in 20 years.

In the buildup to Super Bowl 46, officials had considered adding extra seats at Lucas Oil Stadium, taking the total from 63,000 to 70,000 seats on Super Bowl Sunday, but officials have drastically reduced the addition down to 254.

As Welsh rightly points out:

This is still going to be a big event for the city, but in comparison to the number of visitors who come here every year to attend the Indianapolis 500, it's a much smaller event. The Colts have had plenty of sold out games over the past several years that have drawn as many visitors downtown. Clearly, Super Bowl planners are banking on a whole lot of fans coming into town to experience the atmosphere of the big game, who don't have tickets to the event. Given the marketing campaign for the Super Bowl Village in Central Indiana, planners expect to draw most of those additional visitors from the local market.

That's it for the moment. Thanks to all the eagle-eyed contributors to this blog for their comments and for going the extra mile to put more information into the hopper.

HB1006 - Proposed Elimination of Certain Professional Licenses and Inspections

2012-01-19T11:32:00.000-05:00

Its one thing to let Aunt Hilda put a bowl on your head and proceed to give you a hair cut. Its quite another to trust her with a chemical peel.

And, if you can't trust Aunt Hilda, why would you trust a perfect stranger? Well, for now at least, the State of Indiana requires appropriate training and professional conduct to gain and retain a cosmetology license. The professionalism of the Indiana State Board of Cosmetology and the rules they promulgate to protect public safety may not be perfect, but it is far better than just taking your chances in Indiana.

There are those in the Statehouse that would prefer you take your chances. They would prefer to give the impression that regulation and licensing of cosmetologists is just expensive assurance that you won't get an unflattering haircut.

Truth is, the Board of Cosmetology regulates the proper sanitation of instruments, appropriate training on the use of harsh and dangerous chemicals, the requirements for maintenance of safe equipment such as tanning beds and electrolysis needles and units, among other public safety and consumer protection issues. Up front proper training at beauty colleges and ongoing inspections of salons and shops are essential elements for consumer protection, not from bad hair days, but from serious infection or injury.

Truth is, too, that the licensing fees collected for Cosmetologists bring in more revenue than it costs to inspect salons and beauty colleges. According the fiscal impact analysis of HB1006 by the Indiana Legislative Services Agency, the state takes in $983,646 in Cosmetology license fees but spends $203,044 to administer the licenses, including conducting the inspections.

HB1006 is authored by Representative David Wolkins. Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana reports that Rep. Wolkins has a pro-consumer voting record on legislation that group follows, of 25% over the last four years - with a high of 50% in 2010 and a low of 0% in 2011. They say of their ratings in general, " We consider that 80% is a passing grade for the legislators, meaning that if their "Pro-Consumer Voting Percentage" is 80% or above, they are working to protect consumers in the State House. If their percentage is below 80%, they are not working to protect consumers."

HB1006 also seeks to deregulate professional licensing and minimal requirements for dietitians, hearing aid dealers, private investigators and security guards.

Some may be content to put their personal consumer safety in the hands of Aunt Hilda and Rep. Wolkins. I, for one, am not.

2012-01-18T08:46:00.002-05:00

Super Bowl Costs FINALLY Beginning To Be Revealed

2012-01-17T11:50:00.000-05:00

Thanks to all of my alert readers who have sent me links to news items reporting that some of the costs of the Super Bowl are FINALLY being revealed. So, lets move forward here by listing our references and listing the costs now being reported. To put it into perspective, the 2012 Super Bowl bid was submitted in April, 2008, and its terms are what are falling out into public view just 19 days before the event.

Articles of interest used for this blog entry in the order I received the links from alert readers:
Scott Olson, IBJ, 1-16-12 -- "CIB expects to lose money during Super Bowl"
Jon Murray, IndyStar, 1-17-12 -- "Super Bowl 2012 will drop Capital Improvement Board for a loss"
Mike Corbin, WIBC, 12-21-11 -- "Super Bowl Host Committee Releases Final Numbers"

Let's start with the last one and the claims of the Host Committee CEO, Mark Miles.

He claims that the "they've raised and are investing $154 million for some 250 housing units as part of the Super Bowl Legacy Project." Well, as I recall, federal funds coming to the City were the bulk of the money being invested in the near eastside neighborhood. Those funds were augmented by the NFL, but a clear accounting of the exact dollar amounts supplied by taxpayers but not credited to them has not been forthcoming. From what I have heard, the lion's share of the investment comes from the taxpayer, not the host committee or the NFL, yet they are the ones getting nearly all the credit.

Also claimed is that the Host Committee "has also raised close to $27 million, surpassing the $25 million goal needed to host the 2012 Super Bowl." No mention what that money was spent on.

And finally, this nugget: "Committee officials also say the city has fixed the Pan Am Garage which has been plagued by structural and water issues." I recall news accounts of the Department of Code Enforcement closing parts of the underground garage at Pan Am Plaza until repairs could be made. I thought that the garage was owned by someone other than the City and our MDC gave Pan Am Plaza to the Indiana Sports Corporation years ago now. I certainly hope that the implication that the City paid to fix the garage and shore up the Plaza is erroneous.

The two stories on the costs and revenues of the CIB have overlapping figures.

NET - CIB
The CIB will lose $810,000

EXPENSES - CIB
$4 m to the City to pay for police overtime
$2 m for CIB employee overtime and temp hires
$794,000 paid to State to be applied toward stadium and convention center debt

REVENUES - CIB
$2.4 m hotel tax from visitors - not NFL employees
$440,000 food and beverage taxes - but none from LOS or ICC
$100,000 car rental tax - but none from NFL employees
(figures above are from IBJ and total $2.94 m - Star reports total estimate of $3.1 m from these taxes)
$4.1 m from NFL for labor costs due to Super Bowl events

EXEMPTIONS FOR NFL
hotel tax
restaurant tax
fuel tax
car rental tax
admissions tax
Star reports that "State lawmakers exempted the NFL and its affiliates from paying nearly all state and local taxes in connection with the Super Bowl".

LOST REVENUES - CIB
The NFL will get the food and beverage tax revenue for concessions sold inside LOS and ICC, instead of that money flowing to the CIB.

ECONOMIC IMPACT
between $150 m and $300 m in direct spending by visitors

NOT REPORTED
NFL gets proceeds from parking lots owned and operated by State and Local government entities - the full extent of this agreement has not yet been divulged
DPW, DCE, IMPD, IFD real costs associated with events - IMPD already spent at least $500,000 in 2011 in preparations and the City already spent $600,000 to provide free Wi-Fi in the mile square
Income lost to taxpayers in City's Georgia Street giveaway to Indianapolis Downtown Inc., not to mention loss of that entire asset which just saw $12 m taxpayer renovation (bipartisan vote of Council, by the way)
Cost to Indy-Go for free bus service for visitors

Ill-Composed Rules Committee To Hear Smoking Ban Proposal

2012-01-17T09:57:00.000-05:00

Tonight's meeting of the Democrat-stuffed Rules committee (see "Democrat's Power Grab Belies Words Of Interest In Cooperation") will consider Councillor Mansfield's version of an extension of Indy's smoking ban, contained in Prop 18. You will recall that Democrats killed a similar measure that was introduced late last year by then Council President Ryan Vaughn. The difference, we are told, hinges on letting minors into private clubs that vote to keep smoking, but in a separate room.

Today's Indy Star has an editorial penned by Richard Feldman, M.D., who spoke somberly and pragmatically about passing what can be passed, even though glaringly flawed.

Now that the Ds can claim credit, their version will likely get enough votes to move to Mayor Ballard's desk. The real question is, will it be in a form that he is likely to sign. The Ds have squandered all moral high ground to challenge Ballard should he refrain from agreeing with the contents.

The Rules committee meets at 5:30 in the Public Assembly Room of the City-County Building.

Democrats' Power Grab Belies Words Of Interest In Cooperation

2012-01-17T09:38:00.000-05:00

The Democrats, led by Councillor Vernon Brown and supported by Council President Maggie Lewis, have ignored the electorate and composed Council committees to the super advantage of the Democrats.

Reported last Thursday by the Indy Star's Jon Murray on his blog Deep Fried Politics, the Council's committee on committees voted to increase all committee memberships by one Democrat. This gives the 'edge' to the Ds by 5 to 3. This is in addition to the outrageous 6-2 composition of the Rules Committee that was sprung on the Rs during a scheduled recess of the first Council meeting of 2012.

Why?

Nobody pays attention to the vote in committees. When someone does pay attention, it is just to note that a proposal got out of committee with a 'do-pass' recommendation. So, when there is a party-line vote, which happens somewhat often, a proposal will either die in committee ('nough said) or it will move out of a committee with a 5-3 vote instead of a 4-3 vote. Big deal.

Maybe its so that the Ds can make even 'more' money through extra per meeting monetary compensation. Again, big deal.

The real cost is any high ground the Ds had coming into 2012 and split government. It no longer exists. The Democrats have, through their own actions, painted themselves as petty, power hungry, officeholders who put the party and the trappings of power over the people.

It is a sad day for the Democratic Party in Marion County, as our standard bearers prove themselves to be not ready for prime time.

Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail

2012-01-16T10:41:00.000-05:00

If you missed Ike Randolph's 'My View' letter to the editor in today's Indy Star, I recommend you go ahead and read it.
It set me about looking for the complete text of the letter and in that, I ran across this lengthy, but wonderful YouTube video. It is an hour well spent.

Statehouse Considers Tighter Redevelopment Commission Debt Rules

2012-01-14T10:21:00.000-05:00

Today's Star has posted a letter to the editor from former Carmel City Councilor, John Accetturo, regarding SB 25, which would provide oversight of Redevelopment Commissions (called the Metropolitan Development Commission here in Indy) when they determine to accumulate debt. This would apply to TIF districts in particular, I should think. I do not know of another means available for a Redevelopment Commission to go into debt. If one of my fantastic readers can clarify, please add a comment.
Here is Mr. Accetturo's letter:

In Indiana, certain boards and commissions can create taxpayer debt without any legislative approval and accountability to the taxpayers. One of these is a city or county redevelopment commission. The majority of the members of these commissions are appointed by the executive and, unlike elected officials, are not accountable to voters.

The power to encumber future generations of Hoosiers with hundreds of millions of dollars of debt is enslaving and potentially destructive. Therefore, checks and balances need to be in place to ensure this authority is used responsibly and in the spirit of the law.

In 2010, an opinion of the Indiana Attorney General upheld the existing statute that provides that power to redevelopment commissions. This opinion has opened the door in several cities for redevelopment commissions to borrow millions without limitation or public scrutiny for projects that are questionably titled “redevelopment.” Default on payments by any redevelopment commission could have a devastating effect on debt rating and borrowing capability for all redevelopment commissions in Indiana.

Existing Indiana law grants too broad powers to local commissions to unilaterally create debt. We need to change the redevelopment commission law to protect taxpayers and development in Indiana. I believe that Senate Bill 25 will do that. It will protect the public interest of Indiana taxpayers from an executive who chooses to avoid the scrutiny and diligence embodied in constitutional checks and balances.

Redevelopment Commissions and other boards serve a purpose in municipal government. However, checks and balances need to be in place over them just like any other part of government.

Here is the digest of SB 025 (emphasis added and digest reformatted by me):

Redevelopment commissions and authorities.

Provides that a redevelopment commission may not enter into any obligation payable from public funds without first obtaining the approval of the legislative or fiscal body of the unit. Provides an exception if the obligation is for the acquisition of real property and the payments are for three years or less or the purchase price is less than $5,000,000.

Specifies that the approving ordinance or resolution must include certain items.

Provides that a redevelopment commission and a department of redevelopment are subject to oversight by the legislative body of the unit, including review by the legislative body of annual budgets.

Specifies that a redevelopment commission and a department of redevelopment are subject to the same laws, rules, and ordinances of a general nature that apply to all other commissions or departments of the unit.

Specifies that a redevelopment commission, a department of redevelopment, and a redevelopment authority are subject to audit by the state board of accounts and covered by the public meeting and public records laws.

Requires a redevelopment commission to provide to the legislative body of the unit at a public meeting all the information supporting the action the redevelopment commission proposes to take regarding the sale, transfer, or other disposition of property.

Provides that if the amount of excess assessed value determined by the commission is expected to generate more than 200% of the amount of allocated tax proceeds necessary to carry out the commission's plan, the determination of the amount of the excess available to other taxing units must be approved by the legislative body of the unit.

Permits the legislative body of the unit to modify the commission's determination

One item in particular jumps out to me in this list of improvements to the law, and that is the review of the redevelopment commission's budget by the legislative body. In Indy those would be the MDC and the City-County Council, respectively. During the time of the infamous 'interlocal agreement' between the MDC and the CIB that gave the CIB $8 million annually from property taxes gathered in the Consolidated Downtown TIF District, which the CIB in turn gave to the Pacers, the City-Council ducked its responsibility to review that agreement, saying it was not the fiscal body for the CIB or the MDC. This would make it absolutely clear that the Council does have that responsibility.

SB 025 is certainly worth following through this short session.

Super Bowl Ordinance Should Have Included Review Process

2012-01-14T08:49:00.000-05:00

Just as several people and organizations argued back when the Super Bowl Ordinance was being reviewed, a glaring omission was putting all decisions in the hands of one person without a review or appeal process in place. (see "Superbowl Ordinance Back At Council Committee Tonight")

Below is an item from today's Star that underscores that point. At least these folks could turn to the ACLU for assistance, but it should not have come to that. The Ordinance should be changed and protections put in place.

Here is the Star's item (no byline)

City sued over newspaper sold by the homeless

The city of Indianapolis is working to avert a First Amendment showdown with the publisher of a newspaper that benefits the homeless.

A federal lawsuit filed Wednesday alleged that the city was preventing homeless vendors from selling the paper, Homeward Bound, Downtown in the week leading up to the Super Bowl on Feb. 5 at Lucas Oil Stadium.

Volunteer Executive Editor and Publisher Jeff Tavares said he applied for a temporary permit from the city's Code Enforcement Department that would allow the sale of the paper in the Super Bowl "clean zone" but was denied.

Tavares sent an email to the city's law department saying he thought his First Amendment rights were being violated, then asked the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana for its input. The ACLU filed a lawsuit.

Kate Johnson, a spokeswoman for Code Enforcement, attributed the demand for a temporary permit to a "mix-up." She said such permits aren't needed to sell newspapers within the "clean zone," a roughly one-square-mile area around the stadium where special permits are needed for several commercial activities.

ACLU attorney Gavin Rose said he will withdraw the lawsuit when the city sends him formal notification that Homeward Bound can be sold.

WIBC Reporting Deal To Put Right To Work On Ballot

2012-01-13T12:29:00.000-05:00

WIBC is reporting that there has been a deal struck by the Legislators to put Right To Work up for a vote by Referendum on the November ballot.

Marion County Coroner's Office Needs To Be Investigated - Rotting Corpses Exposed By Whistleblower Video

2012-01-13T10:52:00.000-05:00

I missed this report by WRTV report Jack Rinehart until I read Gary Welsh's post about it on his blog, Advance Indiana. The Marion County Coroner is an elected official, Dr. Frank Lloyd. He was not interviewed for Rinehart's report.

Employee(s) of the Marion County Coroner's Office video taped the conditions inside a refrigerated storage area and sent it to WRTV along with a note.

In an accompanying letter, the anonymous employee said that some bodies have been at the morgue for more than a year, and that blood and bodily fluids have leaked onto the floor, making for unsafe and unsanitary working conditions.

The video confirms the written claim.

This is truly horrendous and unforgivable treatment of the dead by the Coroner. There should be a full investigation of the conditions within that Office and full examination of their policies and procedures.

I find it incomprehensible that Chief Deputy Coroner Alfarena Ballew finds on-site decomposition of human remains more humane and respectful than cremation. She says

"That would be heartless to say, 'If you don't get this body out of here, we're going to cremate this body,'" she said. "No, we can't do that."

Former employee John Linehan, who was interviewed for the report, said

"It's no wonder people would complain about the smell or the sight," he said. "Some of the bags are open. There are body parts that are exposed through the bags. It would be horrible to work under those conditions."

He summed it up best when he said

"Whoever wrote that letter was right. There's rotting flesh that's visible here. The smell must be horrendous," he said. "To have them laying out and exposed not only seems to me to be a health hazard to those who work there, it's just not being respectful."

This cannot be tolerated by a civilized City. The conditions at the morgue must be fully investigated and consideration of charges should at least be reviewed and evaluated.

Expansion of Downtown TIF District & Fall Creek TIF Moved To Council

2012-01-13T09:10:00.000-05:00

Introduced to the Council last Monday night were two proposals to approve the MDC's decision to expand the Consolidated Downtown TIF District (Prop 15) and the Fall Creek TIF District (Prop 16).

I have posted a document that has both MDC Resolutions, 2012-R-001 (related to the expansion of the Consolidated Downtown TIF) and 2012-R-002 (related to the Fall Creek TIF) on Google Docs - click here. There are valuable maps included to help visualize the expansion areas.

For reference, I have also uploaded a map of Marion County showing all TIF districts. Click here for that map.

The expansion of the Consolidated Downtown TIF will, miracle of miracles, bring that behemoth TIF district over to include Bush Stadium and its environs (see map on page 7 of the posted pdf). You may recall how Mayor Ballard was going to pilfer at least $3.5 M from the Consolidated Downtown TIF for Bush Stadium area infrastructure improvements last June (see "Are They Insane, Stupid, or Totally Corrupt? Had Enough, Indy?") even though it was a clear violation of State Laws regarding the used of excess TIF revenues in areas not within the TIF district.

If you are trying to track the Consolidated Downtown TIF on the Marion County TIF districts map, they are districts 140, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 153, and 157.

One clear question that needs asking is: Why not create a new stand-alone TIF district? A couple of possible reasons come to mind.

1) they still want to pilfer money that already exists in the Downtown Consolidated TIF fund and this expansion just legalizes the effort.

2) even after full development, the property taxes that would result in a stand-alone TIF aren't sufficient to pay off anticipated bonds.

3) an expansion of an existing TIF would be governed by the existing TIF's rules and regulations. In effect the expanded area, even though new, would assume the grandfather status of the existing TIF district and find protection from newer State laws designed to limit the life span of a TIF district.

Prop 16 and MDC Resolution 2012-R-001 also propose a second expansion of the Consolidated Downtown TIF district toward the northeast up Massachusetts Avenue, in two non-contiguous sections (see map on page 10 of pdf). According to urbantimesonline.com this expansion is to fund the Mass Ave parking garage and future development of an 11 acre parcel now owned by IPS and the site of 'The Trail Side at Mass Ave', now under construction. You may have seen mention of the potential for a million dollar plus commission for CB Ellis related to the parking garage in IBJ reporter, Cory Schouten's, article "Mass Ave deal's brokerage fee raising eyebrows".

These proposed expansions of the Consolidated Downtown TIF should be raising concerns for all taxpayers, since this are is already a 'dead zone' for tax collections and the rest of us have to chip in more tax money to cover vital services to the area. Then they cry about the tax caps, which are the only protection we have from their tax-commandeering ways.

Prop 16 is an expansion of the Fall Creek Area TIF (see page 20 of the MDC resolution pdf and districts 148 and 154 of the TIF districts map). The existing Fall Creek Area TIFs are housing TIFs set up to spur new housing in what once was called 'Dodge City'. This is widely considered to be a successful endeavour, with any negative opinions centering around the gentrification of the area to the exclusion of low income residents. Unintended gentrification needs to be dealt with as a pulic policy at some time, so that safeguards can be put in place for future redevelopments.

What is curious from the outset is that the expansion being proposed for the Fall Creek Area TIF is at least a mile and a half from the other two areas. The expansion is just south of the intersection of Binford and Keystone, west of the State Fairgrounds and in the Meadows area. There has already been redevelopment proposed here, backed by Warren Buffet. As Scott Olson of the IBJ reported :

East Village at Avondale is a $27 million project with eight layers of financing, including an investment from Atlanta-based Purpose Built Communities, co-founded by Buffett.

The developer of the project is a joint venture of Chicago-based Strategic Capital Partners, Mishawaka-based The Sterling Group, Meadows Community Foundation, Purpose Built Communities and the city of Indianapolis.

Strategic Capital Partners received $19 million in tax credits that were sold to Chicago-based National Equity Fund to help finance construction of the 248-unit apartment complex. It is being built on about 15 acres of land that Strategic Capital put under contract in 2010.

The city of Indianapolis also kicked in $5 million in tax credits.
...

East Village at Avondale is the first phase of a larger, $150 million development that is to include additional housing—both apartments and single-family—and retail development fronting 38th Street.
It is not clear if the purpose of this expanded TIF is to secure funds for the initial phase or subsequent phases.

One also has to ask the same question as for the expansion of the Consolidated Downtown TIF. Why not create a stand-alone TIF? Especially given the distance between the existing and expansion areas. The two districts currently comprising the Fall Creek Area TIF are expected to net an extra million dollars in property taxes in 2012 beyond what is needed to service debt, or so says documents submitted to the State. I have no information on the fund balances and do not know if there are ample funds just waiting to be plucked or if it is bone dry. But, why is the City refraining from creating a stand-alone TIF? Won't it generate the investment and taxes that they touted at the ribbon cutting? Or, are they trying to grandfather the expansion so it does not get a State-imposed expiration date?

Those of my readers who are concerned about, or even just interested in, the burden on taxpayers should remember the establishment of these TIF district expansion areas every time a politician crys about property tax caps. There very well may be adequate reasons for all of these project, or just some, but they are tied to a bigger picture that reaches into every Marion County taxpayer's pocketbook. Hopefully somebody on the Council will ask enough questions so that the public can have confidence that these TIF districts are absolutely necessary.

Urbanophile Series on Louisville Bridges Project - Part 4 Now Posted

2012-01-12T12:50:00.000-05:00

Aaron Renn's great series on the two bridges project over the Ohio River at Louisville wraps up with "Indiana's Bridge Deal Boondoggle,Part 4: A Better Plan". Renn makes some suggestions that would improve the project while lowering the overall cost and saving Indiana taxpayers over half a billion dollars.

There Has Got To Be A Better Way - Election Day Looking To Be Chaotic

2012-01-12T09:50:00.000-05:00

The way election district and precinct lines are drawn in Indiana needs some serious consideration for coordination. It would serve the public interest in less voter confusion and far lower costs to run the elections themselves.

In a previous blog entry ("New Precincts and Proposed New Council Districts") I mentioned how the new precinct lines in Marion County were drawn AFTER the various Township Boards drew their districts. The Boards had to redraw the districts after the 2010 census results were available, but prior to November 8, 2011, to give ample time before their election year, which is 2012.

2012, mind you, is also the Presidential Election year, which always attracts the best voter turnout.

For those of us who man the polling sites, these things matter because the greater the number of ballots, the greater the chance for confusion and voters getting the wrong ballot.

Even if there were minimum numbers of ballots in every precinct, this year will be confusing to voters because many will be voting in a new location. Most voters do not remember their precinct number, just their voting place. So, the fact that the precinct number changed is of little concern. But, where those lines were moved, then the expatriated voters must find their way to a new poll. Hopefully the Election Board or the Voter Registration or whoever is responsible for such things, will notify everyone of their new precinct and polling location. This is expensive, of course. But, there are more costs to pile up this election year.

At every Primary you have at least 4 ballots. You have the Democratic Party ballot and the Republican Party ballot. In addition, anyone who will be 18 years old by the day of the General Election in November, but who on Primary Day is still 17, does have the right to vote. But, they vote on the '17 year-old' ballot, which lists only those races that will not be finally decided until November. Thus you have a 17 year-old Democratic Party ballot and a 17 year-old Republican ballot. So, at the least encumbered precinct on Primary Election Day, you have at least 4 ballots.

At every General Election you drop to 1 ballot in the least encumber precinct.

With that stage set, lets look at the complexity caused by the re-drawing of precinct lines without consideration of the Township Board districts, which had already been set.

Here in Decatur Township, we now have 16 precincts and 7 Township Board districts. This morning I sat and compared both maps with an eye toward how many Board districts were represented in each precinct.

Of 16 total precincts, 8 will have only one Board district election, 6 will have two Board district elections, and 2 will have three Board district elections.

So, for 8 of our precincts, there will be 4 ballots on Primary Election Day and 1 ballot on General Election Day.

For 6 of our precincts, there will be 8 ballots for the Primary and 2 ballots for the General.

For 2 of our precincts, there will be 12 ballots for the Primary and 3 ballots for the General.

Now, that is a lot of different ballots and a lot of cost to print and properly distribute the assortment. I do not know how the voting machine programing costs fluctuate according to the number of different ballots in one precinct.

During the budget hearings for the Election Board, the City Controller's office argued that the Election Board did not need as much money as they asked for, and so the Election Board's requested budget was cut by some $400,000. It was stated that the law requires the City to pay whatever expenses are incurred for elections, regardless of what was budgeted. The Election Board's requested budget was calculated from previous Presidential election year expenses, and could not take into account the massive re-precincting that would be announced in November. (Yet another reason why then-Council President Ryan Vaughn should have come clean and let everyone know he had already let a contract to re-precinct.)

So we have a self-inflicted situation where the uncoordinated re-precincting and re-districting will lead directly to massive numbers of ballot configurations, amplified costs to organize and run the 2012 elections, and what I think will be voter confusion and frustration the likes of which we haven't seen in decades.

There has got to be a better way and the public deserves some consideration by those in power as to how to fix this so it does not happen again.

CIB/NFL Agreement for Use of Indiana Convention Center

2012-01-11T12:29:00.002-05:00

I have now been sent the signed agreement between the Capital Improvement Board and the National Football League for the use of the Indiana Convention Center and two surface parking lots abutting the south end of the ICC. I have uploaded it to Google Docs - click here.

Like the agreement for the use of Lucas Oil Stadium, this agreement is lengthy, running 136 pages. Unlike the LOS agreement, the ICC agreement sheds little light on the original bid by the 2012 Super Bowl Host Committee (now operating as Our2012SB, Inc.). The original bid and subsequent Host Committee/NFL agreement is being deliberately held from public view, as are the cost to Indianapolis for Police and Fire services, snow removal preparations, and code enforcement/court enforcement activities during the Super Bowl season.

As you might guess, the ICC, with some exceptions for offices used by tenant organizations and CIB operations, is being provided to the NFL FREE OF CHARGE from 8 am January 18 through 5 pm February 11, 2012 (p 2 of the pdf). There is one carve out in that the Sagamore Ballroom lease is up at 12:01 am February 11. I believe the County Democratic Party Slating Convention is scheduled on that day.

NFL use of the two parking lots began at 12:01 am January 9 and will extend through 11:59 pm February 17, 2012. They get the use of these parking lots "rent free for construction and preparatory activities for the NFL Events, conducting NFL Events and for dismantling of construction and equipment after the NFL Events" (p 2 of the pdf). Revenues from the parking facilities will go entirely to the NFL (p 22 of the pdf).

There are expenses that will be the responsibility of the NFL incurred from their free use of the grounds of LOS and ICC. I'll go into those in a future post.

Back to the use of Indy's Code Enforcement Officers to police infraction of NFL copyrights, we have this section of the ICC agreement (p 125 of the pdf):

4. Licensor [CIB] shall use its reasonable commercial efforts to prevent the unauthorized sale of such merchandise [Super Bowl and NFL-related merchandise and novelty items], including scorecards, line ups or newspaper inserts with line ups and roster, depth charts or similar items relating to the participating teams in the Super Bowl Game within the Licensed Premises. In accordance with the terms of the Host Committee Agreement, the Host Committee shall use its reasonable efforts to request that the City enforce the prohibition during the NFL Events of all temporary vendor licensing authorized by local governmental authorities for the area within a one mile radius of the ICC property boundaries.

That is again reference to the Clean Zone, establishment of which was enabled through the Super Bowl Ordinance. No accounting for the number of man hours our Code Enforcement Inspectors will be away from their usual jobs in our neighborhoods, nor the extra costs for 24-7 patrolling of the Clean Zone, nor the cost for having the Environmental Court Judge on call 24-7 to man the rocket docket to mete out on the spot justice, has been made available to Indianapolis taxpayers, who are on the hook for the expense. There are other costs to our City that remain unreported to the community who will be required to cover the expenses. That is not right.

Governor Daniels - Say What ?

2012-01-11T08:49:00.002-05:00

Like many of you, we sat around the television last night, watching Governor Daniels' last State of the State speech. There are many lines that many people certainly took exception to (those of you who showed up at the Statehouse - we could hear you). But, there is one line I want to bring to the forefront this morning, if only to be sure the taxpayers of Indiana know what is really going on.

Daniels briefly touched on the INDOT / Kentucky DOT two bridges project to span the Ohio River crossing into Louisville. He declared that this project will put Indiana in the forefront of public-private partnerships. Say what Governor Daniels? You are really going to go there?

It just so happens that a series of blog posts are currently in process about these very Ohio bridges, being penned by the much respected urbanist, Aaron Renn, over at his blog, the Urbanophile. The series is titled "Indiana's Bridge Deal Boondoggle".

For those of you unfamiliar with INDOT, this will be an eye opener. For those who are all too familiar with INDOT, be cautious when reading - there is danger of occular strain for all of the eye rolling you will experience.

In Monday's post, "Part 1: A Financial Fiasco", Renn relates how INDOT shaved $1.5 billion off the cost of the projects. That's a good thing, right? Well, simultaneously, INDOT managed to increase the cost to Indiana taxpayers by $200 million and save the Kentucky taxpayers $1.7 billion (that's $1700 million). Talk about pulling defeat from the jaws of victory.

In yesterday's post, "Part 2: Hoosiers to Pay Even More With Tolling", Renn reveals that the States have a plan to toll the bridges, but no plan on how to divide the toll revenue. He also analyses who might pay more in tolls, Indiana travellers or Kentucky travellers.

I highly recommend Renn's series. He makes it easy to follow. It's not Renn's writing style that is hard to understand, it is how INDOT could let this happen to Indiana taxpayers and those cities and towns that will lose projects in order to pay for INDOT's mistakes.

[edited to add] Renn's third installment is now available. This is a drama all its own in "Part 3: INDOT's Mini-Big Dig". Renn leads us from one bread crumb to another; from showing how excessive the cost to Indiana taxpayers to build a bridge terminating tunnel under posh digs at a preliminary cost of $795 million for 1.4 miles of roadway, through to the point that the Indiana Constitution just might prohibit the State from building a road in another State. Its a flabbergasting read.

Democrats Off to Bad Start

2012-01-10T12:55:00.000-05:00

The first meeting of the Council of 2012 demonstrated that the Council Democrats are not willing to share power in an equitable fashion. This is a very unfortunate portent for Indianapolis' next 4 years of divided government, and ignores that not everyone in Marion County voted for Democratic candidates. In fact 13 Republicans were elected along with 16 Democrats. Yet, the fraction of Republicans seated on the Rules Committee was just 2 of 8. Even sticking with the fraction of the Council, that committee should have at least 3. This is also the traditional split, giving a clear majority to the party who controls the Council. Looking at it another way, 13 of the 25 Council district electorates chose Republican representation. But, they are not getting a fair share of that actual representation on at least the Rules committee, and there appears to be squabbles about other committees as well.

More important than all of that is the message this sends to the community. First, the Democrats want more power than allotted to them through the election process. Second, the representation of those areas of the County that chose Republicans are being shortchanged by the new Democratic majority - and it doesn't seem to bother the Democrats at all.

Jon Murray, IndyStar reporter, described the situation this way:

"It didn't take long Monday night for friction to arise.

"During a meeting break, while a panel called the Committee on Committees convened briefly, Minority Leader Michael McQuillen accused Democrats of diluting the GOP's influence.

"He sits on that committee with Lewis and Majority Leader Vernon Brown. Their task was to select members of the key Rules and Public Policy Committee, so the rules panel could meet to decide several council staff appointments.

"Over McQuillen's objection, Lewis and Brown voted to appoint six Democrats to the eight-member rules committee, leaving two seats for Republicans. McQuillen said he was blindsided because the rules panel has long had three members from the minority party.

"Brown, however, pointed out that city-county code requires just one minority member on most committees. And he told McQuillen: "I'm not negotiating."

"When the full council reconvened, McQuillen said: "I'm very disappointed that the first action of the new majority caucus was to shut voices down."

"Lewis told reporters she was open to further conversation and chalked up the spat to "first-night jitters."

"A second meeting later Monday night among Lewis, Brown and McQuillen ended quickly, with no decisions made about other committee assignments amid similar disagreement over the division of seats."

First Council Meeting of 2012

2012-01-09T10:13:00.003-05:00

The first City-County Council meeting of 2012 will be held tonight and usher in 4 years of Democratic control of the Council and Republican control of the Mayor's office.

Tonight's agenda is replete with organizational matters. Being offered for consideration, though, are a couple of items that caught my eye.

Prop 15 would approve an MDC resolution on January 4, 2012, to expand the Harding Street consolidated redevelopment area and to adopt an supplemental plan. Councillors Osili and Simpson are listed as sponsors. This is assigned to the Metropolitan Development committee. I am still searching for the committee calendar, so I cannot provide their next meeting date.

Similarly, Prop 16 would approve an MDC resolution on January 4, 2012, to expand the Fall Creek/Citizens consolidated redevelopment area and to adopt an supplemental plan. Councillors Scales and Talley are listed as sponsors. This is also assigned to the Metropolitan Development committee.

Prop 17 would combine some Council committees. There would be a new Metropolitan & Economic Development committee and a new Public Safety & Criminal Justice committee. Councillors Lewis, Mahern, and Brown are sponsors. This is assigned to the Rules committee.

And last but not least is Prop 18, which would expand Indy's smoking ban. This will be assigned to the Rules committee. It is written by Councillor Mansfield and sponsored by Councillors Mansfield, Hunter, Barth, Miller, Moriarty Adams, Hickman, Adamson, Osili, Robinson, Talley, and Simpson. A quick scan of this proposal indicates that it would extend the current smoking ban to include electronic cigarettes, all family owned businesses, hotels, nursing homes, company/city vehicles, tobacco bars, bowling alleys, and bars. It would also extend to any private club that allows minors to enter or which does not vote to keep the exemption by July 1, 2012. Keeping an exemption would be any tobacco business that makes more than 20% of its gross income through the sale of tobacco; these businesses would be required to obtain a license from the City which could be sold or transferred as long as the new licensee met the minimum legal standards for the exemption.

Downtown Indy Hotel Workers Sue For Unpaid Wages

2012-01-09T09:23:00.000-05:00

First the downtown Hoteliers hid behind the skirts and aprons of Indy's hotel workers in order to fight for the right of the Capital Improvement Board (CIB) to get even more tax money. No matter that the CIB gives millions of dollars every year to the Indianapolis Convention and Visitors Association (ICVA). By all rights the ICVA should be funded entirely by those downtown businesses that benefit from the organization, not the taxpayers. The ICVA, among other things, pays to discount hotel rooms for convention-goers.

Then the downtown Hoteliers outsourced their maid services.

Now we learn that the outsourcing service, Hospitality Staffing Solutions (HSS), is being sued by hotel workers who claim they have not been paid for all of the hours they actually worked.

Here is the text of the press release written by Unite Here's Sarah Lyons:

WHO: Thousands work in hotels downtown, more and more through subcontracting agencies at minimum wage with few or no benefits. Now, a number of hotel workers are coming forward to blow the whistle on mistreatment and wage and hour violations they experienced while working at area hotels through the subcontractor, Hospitality Staffing Solutions, (HSS). On Monday, these hotel workers will be filing a lawsuit in a federal court against Hospitality Staffing Solutions (HSS) and ten major hotels for wage and hour violations.

This landmark lawsuit is the broadest wage and hour case in the history of the Indianapolis hospitality industry. If the lawsuit is certified as a collective action, eligible employees as a group could be entitled to as much as ten million dollars in back pay. Workers in the lawsuit allege that HSS and area hotels regularly fail to pay them for all the hours they work and force them to work off the clock and without breaks.

Indianapolis city government has invested over one billion dollars of taxpayer money in the downtown hospitality industry with the hopes of rebuilding the area economy. Sadly, Indianapolis hotel workers are some of the lowest paid in the nation. Hotel workers here start at $7.25 per hour and are offered few or no benefits. Now, some hotels that the city has chosen to subsidize are being accused of illegal activity--of not even paying their employees the minimum wage. During the Super Bowl, room rates in downtown hotels are expected to cost over $1000 per night. Hotels are slated to make millions of dollars each during the week of the Super Bowl alone.

When will Indianapolis turn its focus toward the people who live and work here? Not the corporations that, through second hand means, accept tax dollars and then send their profits elsewhere. I've said it before and I'll say it again... Indianapolis should be as great a place to live as it is to visit.

CIB and NFL Sign Lucas Oil Stadium Agreement For Super Bowl Season

2012-01-05T08:00:00.000-05:00

On December 30, 2011, the Capital Improvements Board and the National Football League signed off on their formal agreement regarding use of Lucas Oil Stadium for the 2012 Super Bowl.

I was provided a copy of that agreement in response to an open records request of the CIB. I have posted the agreement on google docs and it can be reviewed here.

This is a lengthy document and it is going to take me a lot longer to absorb its contents and portents. What did catch my eye, though, was the light it manages to shed on the original bid by the 2012 Super Bowl Host Committee and the NFL. The Host Committee was set up, I am firmly convinced, to act a shell to protect the deal from the prying eyes of the taxpaying public. They have continued to operate as they see fit, while holding to themselves all of those pesky details, like how much the taxpayers have been put on the hook. The Host Committee called the shots on the Super Bowl ordinance that will serve to protect the NFL copyrights, and to give one person sole power to waive a number of our zoning laws that otherwise require a public hearing on a variance petition.

The CIB/NFL agreement is, to my reading of it, not the entire agreement between the City or State with the NFL, but revolves exclusively around the LOS environment. However, the agreement does capture some of the original NFL minimum specifications for bidding Host Committees, some of the original bid offered by the Indy Host Committee, and from time to time the document's wording allude to other promises made, but not fully fleshed out in the CIB/NFL agreement.

Before I launch into those items I see from the original bid, let me also note that this agreement does not tell us if these items have been eliminated from final agreements with the Host Committee, or if they are not pertinent to the CIB and LOS and survive in another form with another NFL agreement. It is clear that some parts of the original bid are not included for reference in the appendix containing the bulk of the information about the original bid. For instance, there is reference on page 64 of the pdf to a section of the bid documents entitled "Government Guarantees". As you can imagine, I have scoured the entire 176 pages for that section. It is not included.

So, here is a litany of items that caught my eye regarding what sorts of things the Host Committee offered.

All ticket revenues go to the NFL, who also get to set ticket prices. "All Super Bowl and Super Bowl-related event tickets will be exempt from sales, amusement, or entertainment taxes, and other surcharge obligations." (p 64)

The Host Committee may purchase 750 tickets, but cannot resell them for more than face value.

85% of all suites have been turned over to the NFL. (p 67) The NFL will have exclusive use of all club seats. (p 64)

"Per the Host Committee Agreement, police and fire services will be provided at no expense to NFL or Licensor [the CIB]. Licensor and NFL acknowledge and agree that per the Host Committee Agreement neither party shall be responsible for the costs and expenses, if any, related to police and fire services for Super Bowl Events in accordance with the above-referenced Security Plan." (p 13)

Parking is strikingly incomplete in this document. There is reference in the original specifications for bidders that the NFL required at least 35,000 parking spaces within one mile of LOS, provided free of charge. The Host Committee bid wording suggests that it will meet the requirements, but seem to say that all of the spaces will not be within the mile perimeter requested. They also make the argument that due to the hotels being connected by enclosed corridor to LOS, about 14,000 "of the NFL's most important guests may not require parking." (pp 55 & 60)

Page 68 of the pdf has a number of offerings by the Host Committee, including a "fully funded $25 million budget", hosting for the NFL a party for 3,000 members of the media, and "providing key cards branded with the Super Bowl logo for all downtown hotel properties and team hotels."

This is one of the sections of the bid that have been crossed out. At a minimum that means it is not included as part of the CIB/NFL agreement - not that it has been removed from the Host Committee agreement with the NFL.

Page 158 of the pdf also has a couple of interesting allusions to the Host Committee Agreement. In item 1 it says "In accordance with the terms of the Host Committee Agreement, the Host Committee shall make available to NFL at no charge up to 24,000 sq. ft. of storage space in tents outside the Stadium". And, item 4 says "In accordance with the terms of the Host Committee Agreement, the Host Committee shall use its reasonable efforts to request the City enforce the prohibition during the Super Bowl Game and the Super Bowl Events of all temporary vendor licensing authorized by local governmental authorities for the area within one mile radius of the Stadium property boundaries." That would be the Super Bowl ordinance provisions for Clean Zones and the anticipated 'rocket docket'. The rocket docket will have a Superior Court Judge on call 24 hours a day to deal with those cited by the City's code enforcement and police officers for violating the Super Bowl ordinance.

There is much more in this agreement, but it will take time to digest and report on it all. Meanwhile, have a look for yourself. The public has been kept in the dark as to the costs to our tax coffers for all of this. I'll just remind everyone that the 2012 budget required a $40 million cash infusion from the Consolidated Downtown TIF district in order to be balanced. Word is that the hole will be even bigger for the 2013 budget, but all the slush funds will have been drained by then. So, enjoy the party - its going to be one doozie of a hangover.

Governor Rescinds His Order To Limit Statehouse Visitors

2012-01-04T14:07:00.001-05:00

The Indianapolis Star is reporting that Governor Daniels has rescinded the policy restricting the Statehouse to 3000 people. According to reporters Mary Beth Schneider and Chris Sikich:

Daniels said he made the decision this morning after consulting with legislative leaders and taking into consideration public reaction to the new rules, which had capped access at about 3,000.

“I’ve asked the fire marshal to rescind the new policy and to restore the traditional unlimited access here to the building,” Daniels said. “That’s in place right now. All three doors are open. ... We will do that unless and until there’s a problem.”

Daniels said that “anything goes” policy will continue “as long as that works.”

If situations arise where public safety is endangered, he said, the police “have my authority to do something different at that point.”

Daniels said the security issues were “not idle concerns.”

But, he added, “Indiana respects fervently the rights of minorities” including those of labor union members.

Judge Rosenberg Makes The Right Call

2012-01-04T11:01:00.000-05:00

Marion County Circuit Court Judge Louis Rosenberg has ruled that the Secretary of State, Charlie White, can stay in office until Rosenberg's earlier ruling can be reviewed by the State's highest Court.

Star reporter, Carrie Ritchie, quotes Judge Rosenberg's ruling:

In the ruling, Rosenberg wrote that “the negative consequences would be great and irreparable” if White were removed from office and then a higher court overturns the decision that ousted him.
Rosenberg also denied a request by the Democrats, who initiated the election challenge, to add conditions that would ensure Osili would become secretary of state if White were removed from office for other reasons while the appeal is pending.
...
Rosenberg said in his ruling today that the Democrats’ request “unnecessarily injects the court in issues not before it.”

I think Judge Rosenberg made the only decision he could as someone who values the law. Politics and one's political affiliation should play no role in seeing that justice prevails. Other Judges could learn something here.

The Arrogance of Power - Lobbyists Over Citizens

2012-01-04T10:40:00.000-05:00

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels' decision to limit the occupancy of the State House to 3000 people is clearly and obviously designed to keep the Unions and sympathetic citizens from inconveniencing himself and the State Legislators with their presence and expression of their opinions in numbers. His decision to allow lobbyist preferential entry is downright chilling to Democracy and the First Amendment.

Make no mistake, Mitch Daniels and any Legislator who supports this thinly veiled attack does not value ANY citizen nor ANY citizen's opinion on ANY matter. Letting the paid jackals have clear and free entry, and without having to even stand in line, is blatantly against the interests of free and open government. Each and every Legislator should be asked to go on the record as supporting or opposing these First Amendment assaults.

Buy the way - it costs $95 per year to sign up to be a lobbyist and you must be compensated by your employer as a primary qualification to enroll. So, this has to be added to the list of 'pay to play' and 'paid to play' political advantages. You have to be sure they have a bankroll sufficient enough to treat the politicians to all those nice freebies that they are accustomed to. You and I aren't likely to do so.

The State website has a list of registered lobbyists for 2011. It consist of 63 pages, each with about 13 names, for a rough total of 830 people who are more important to Daniels than you or I.

I hope the Indiana ACLU will step in with a lawsuit on behalf of a citizen who wanted to exercise their RIGHT to petition their government, but was denied entry to the Statehouse while a Lobbyist was allowed in.

Happy New Year - And Many More This Year !

2011-12-30T12:54:00.001-05:00

As the hours tick by to the start of 2012, I want to wish you and yours the very best for 2012.

If you like one New Years Day, how about a few over the next 366 days?

With our western Gregorian calendar, we will be enjoying a leap year. That one extra February 29 when all of those leap year babies get to celebrate a traditional birthday and when the slight errors in our 365 day calendar can be caught up with.

The Chinese New Year 4709, will begin on January 23. This is the year of the water dragon, which sounds like a very good year. The last year of the water dragon was for those flower children born between January 27, 1952 and February 13, 1953.

At sunset on September 16, the Hebrew calendar celebrates Rosh Hashanah, or New Year's Day 5773.

The Hijri or Islamic calendar will celebrate New Year's Day 1434 beginning at sunset November 14.

The Mayan calendar will be THE topic this year. On December 21, the 5125 year great cycle will begin anew. I have embedded an YouTube clip that is pretty interesting about the Mayan circular calendar.

December 21, winter solstice, is the Mayan New Year's Day this year, and a date wherein both the Maya lunar and solar calendars have coinciding New Year Days. That only happens every 52 years, and so last occurred in 1960.

With each New Year we have renewed potential, renewed optimism, and a renewed chance to improve not only ourselves, but the world in which we live.

The very best to you and your family in 2012, 4709, 5773, 1434, and as we observe the end of 5125 and usher in the beginning of 1.

What Are Your Predictions For 2012?

2011-12-22T09:21:00.001-05:00

It is obvious that I am occupied with things other than this blog. So much worthy news to comment upon and I am not posting. So, for those who have checked in to see if anything new will ever again appear on this site -- why yes it will, just sporadically until the holidays and my end of year tasks are completed.

So, for both my readers' amusement, I ask for your predictions for 2012.

I'll start it off with one of my own. The City-County Council and the Mayor will not agree on anything this year EXCEPT they will agree to give more money to the CIB. Not the Libraries. Not IndyGo. Just the CIB.

So, any thoughts for the new year?

Are Democrat Votes Lacking For Smoking Ban?

2011-12-19T11:19:00.000-05:00

Tonight is the last Council meeting of the year, and the last where the Republican majority will reign. Among other items of interest on tonight's agenda is the glaring absence of Prop 352, the Vaughn proposal to extend Indy's smoking ban. That proposal failed to get out of last week's meeting of the Rules committee - only Councillors Vaughn and McQuillin voted to send it to the full Council for a floor vote. Councillors Cockrum, Lutz, Rivera, Gray, Sanders and Mansfield voted to kill it then and there.

From the beginning, the Democratic caucus' response to this proposal was worse than tepid. Caucus leader, Joanne Sanders, continually referred to it as an attempt for Vaughn to take credit from Councillor Angela Mansfield's years long efforts. Her unswerving distrust/dislike of Vaughn finally culminated at last week's Rules committee meeting in her theorizing that the entire proposal was a setup for defeating any extension of the smoking ban. As is usually the case with conspiracy theories, the folks accused of fabricating them just aren't that smart and clever.

Mansfield also showed contempt for the backers of the proposal and, despite the support it eventually got from interested organizations, she declared she would not ask her caucus to support it. In the end, she voted against it in the Rules committee.

Well, I'll venture a possible additional reason for not wanting a floor vote on the proposal. It just may be that the Democrats couldn't get enough votes for Prop 352, even if they all put their feelings about Vaughn aside like the adults we all expect them to be. The potential embarrassment just might have been too much to endure.

I've been looking at past votes and needed votes to pass the extension of the smoking ban.

Prop 352 would require 15 votes for passage.

Vaughn had his and Councillors Hunter, Malone and McQuillen's votes to contribute to the 'yes' side of the tally. So the Ds would need to come up with 11 yes votes out of 13 Democrats voting to secure passage.

During last week's Rules Committee meeting, Democrat Councillor Gray demonstrated an interest in maintaining some significant exemptions to a complete ban when he voted against two of Mansfield's amendments - one to remove Vaughn's exemption of the downtown off track betting facility, and the other to deny the ability to transfer a tobacco store or hookah bar license that would exempt those facilities from the smoking ban; both amendments failed. He also voted against sending the proposal to the full Council for a floor vote, along with Sanders and Mansfield.

Back in 2009, Gray voted in favor of amending a proposed extension of the smoking ban so that the ordinance would continue to exclude fraternal organizations and tobacco stores, then curiously asked to be allowed not to vote on the actual proposal in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. No further explanation is available in the minutes. So, ultimately, Gray's position on an extension of the smoking ban is not certain. The amendment, had it passed back in 2009, would have resulted in a modified proposal that is quite similar to the one introduced by Vaughn last month.

Councillor Dane Mahern asked to be allowed not to vote on both the amendment and the proposal to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest due to a previously scheduled fundraiser. So, his position is not on the record.

Voting against the 2009 proposed extension of the smoking ban were Democratic Councillors Brown and Oliver. The minutes of that meeting reflect Brown's interest thusly:

Councillor Brown said that 98% of establishments were impacted by the current ban, and he asked if there are statistics showing the number of workers that were impacted. Seeing no response, Councillor Brown asked if there are any statistics showing the number of workers that will further be affected. Councillor B. Mahern said that if they affect one worker it is worth it. Councillor Brown said that through education, he continues to support non-smoking initiatives, but he would like to see an accounting of the percentage of reduction in second hand smoke deaths since the ban to warrant a further ban. Councillor Hunter said that second-hand smoke deaths are down across the country by 62 million.

Brown voted for the amendment loosening the proposal (the amendment that failed) and against the proposal.

Oliver was noted in the minutes proposing an amendment to exempt bowling alleys, which did not receive a second. He vote against the other amendment and the final proposal as well.

Not in attendance that night were Councillors Pfisterer and Minton-McNeill. The latter testified against Vaughn's proposal last week, saying an all or nothing ban was required so as to maintain a level playing field between hookah bars and mom and pop tavern operations.

All the remaining 8 Democrats voted in favor of the 2009 proposed extension of the smoking ban. That proposal failed by a vote of 12 to 13. The exact tally was:

12 YEAS: Bateman, Evans, Hunter, Lewis, Mahern (B), Malone, Mansfield, Moriarty Adams, Nytes, Sanders, Smith, Vaughn
13 NAYS: Brown, Cain, Cardwell, Cockrum, Coleman, Day, Lutz, McHenry, McQuillen, Oliver, Plowman, Scales, Speedy
2 NOT VOTING: Gray, Mahern (D)
2 ABSENT: Minton-McNeill, Pfisterer

It is possible that some of the 8 Democrat votes would not be cast for anything but a complete ban.

So, all put together, if Prop 352 had come before the full Council tonight, victory was not assured, even without all of the political mishigas. There would be 4 Republican yes votes, 8 likely (but not sure) Democrat yes votes, one likely Democrat no vote, and 4 uncertain D votes - at best.

It would have been a nail biter. But, it would have been a public service to hold the vote.

Fundamental Friday - WCTY

2011-12-16T09:23:00.000-05:00

This week's Fundy goes to the entire staff of WCTY, AKA "the government channel" folks. They are the usually unseen stalwarts who cover every City Council meeting, including all of their committee meetings save the committee on committees, and all Board and Commission hearings held in the City-County Building. They travel around town with cameras in tow, nights and weekends, to cover community meetings and Mayor's Nights Out.

Led for years now by Station Manager Ken Montgomery, the crew provides live broadcasts and taped archives so that all citizens of Marion County can keep their own eye on what is getting done and who is doing what in City government. As they say, sunshine is the best disinfectant. And with that sentiment, nothing can beat what the WCTY folks do for all of us and our Democracy, each and every day.

If you don't know, all shows are archived and can be viewed at any time of the day or night at indy.gov/cable .

The crew is small, but work diligently. They are Christy Thomas, Alan Dhayer, Bradley Sims, Nick Hess, Tim Barrett, and Dave Lister.

I've only seen one Councillor do it, but maybe I've just missed others. I always get a chuckle out of it when Councillor Bob Lutz gets ready to call his committee together. He looks at the camera, says "are you ready?", and the camera nods in assent. While they may be out of view, they do their jobs with the greatest professionalism and they give us all access to what those in power are up to.

The Council Democrats Are Blowing It

2011-12-10T09:46:00.001-05:00

The Council's Democratic Caucus is blowing it big time, and the impact of their posture on the proposed expansion of the smoking ban is wide ranging.

The epicenter of all this is the expansion of the smoking ban proposed by Council President Ryan Vaughn, due to be heard at tonight's Rules committee meeting. It is not Vaughn's actions, however, it is the reaction of Council Democrats to Vaughn that is causing the image of their Caucus to take a hit.

Democrats are wary, at best, regarding Vaughn's motives, and with good reason. Still, his eleventh hour proposal is a significant improvement to existing public policy, has the best shot in years of passage and is sure to be signed by Mayor Ballard. The Indianapolis Star, in its editorial on December 6, described the Democrats' response in juvenile terms, saying

...when your opponents give you 98 percent of what you want, it's politically unwise and even petty to pout over the 2 percent you didn't get. Yet, that's exactly what's happening in the debate over a comprehensive workplace smoking ban.

Councillor Angela Mansfield, whose reputation has been one of an intelligent, thoughtful Councillor, is taking a hit from what appears to be petulance on being one-upped by Vaughn. She must know that Vaughn is saving the Mayor the major embarrassment of vetoing a proposal to be introduced next year that would not exclude fraternal clubs and organizations. But she also must know that her hard work on a proposal that could pass the Council with the newly added Democratic votes, is likely to be vetoed by Ballard - ending her hopes to expand the smoking ban yet again.

Councillor Joanne Sanders is echoing Mansfield in telling the press that she will not promote Vaughn's proposal within the Caucus.

As the Star put it, just declare victory and move on.

The action of these prominent players in the Council's Democratic Caucus is not only jeopardizing good, if not perfect, public policy in terms of a smoking ban for Indianapolis. Should the public impression not be improved, and quickly, it also will have these additional points of impact:

1) It takes the limelight away from Vaughn's push to adopt new Council districts in advance of a Democratic majority taking over the Council come January. You cannot simultaneously pose as the adult in the room and act in ways that garner the use of the word "pout" by the City's largest newspaper.

2) It affects the public perception of how seriously the new Council will take important issues that arise next year and after.

3) It also removes from Mayor Greg Ballard, the stigma of being unable to work across the aisle with Democrats. The Democrats are now seen in an unfavorable, unreasonable light, due to their own words and actions; lightening any pressure Ballard may have received from the public to cooperate. Now, any fault for a paralyzed government will not be assigned solely to Ballard, but to the Council Democratic Caucus in equal measure.

The Democrats have little time to turn their actions and the public's perception of their motives around. The Caucus should have been able to celebrate the changing of the guard on January 1. Instead they have to make it clear that the public interest is their interest and fix the response to the Vaughn smoking ban proposal with all haste.

Fundamental Fridays - Melissa Thompson

2011-12-09T13:00:00.000-05:00

This week's Fundy award for good government goes to Melissa Thompson, Clerk of the City-County Council. Ms. Thompson's merit for this award is her dedication to producing records when requested by a member of the public.

Some offices in City government, most notably the Mayor's office and the Office of Corporation Counsel, shred the intent of the open records laws daily, only clinging to the minimum legal requirements under state law while deliberately delaying and setting up unspoken requirements for getting documents - like asking twice. Luckily, not everyone in City Hall handles requests this way.

Even if all City departments and agencies were vigorous in allowing access to public records, Ms. Thompson would stand out. She fulfills requests quickly; nearly all of mine have been within the day the request was made. She takes time out to elaborate on how to navigate some otherwise arcane Council jargon. And she delivers it all in a highly professional manner.

Clerk of the Council is a political appointment, so Ms. Thompson's days on staff are now limited. Hopefully for the citizens of Indianapolis, her replacement will continue her strong dedication to fulfilling the spirit and letter of the open records laws. I wish her much success in her new endeavors, and thank her for her valuable stewardship of the Council Office.

Support Evaporating For Broad Ripple Parking Garage Variances

2011-12-09T10:50:00.001-05:00

Last evening the Land Use Committee of the Broad Ripple Village Association voted unanimously to 'not support' the variance requests for the proposed Broad Ripple parking garage. As you know, the garage is proposed for the corner of North College Avenue and Westfield Boulevard; the development of which is to get $6.35 million from the City as part of its acquisition, demolition, and construction costs (see "Broad Ripple Parking Garage - Farce Extraordinaire" and "Broad Ripple Parking Garage - Somebody Forgot To Which End of the Horse You Attach the Cart" on this blog and Ogden On Politics' "The Tale of the Broad Ripple Parking Garage: Taxpayers Pay to Build the Facility While the Developer Gets 100% of the Ownership and Revenue" for the highlights and more links).

The requested variances, if granted, would allow the building to avoid the setbacks required by City Ordinance and reach up to the City's right of way (which would basically be the sidewalk), allow smaller than required parking spaces, and allow a bank drive through without required maneuvering space. The developer has also requested a vacation of the City's air rights and subterranean rights above and below the sidewalk so that the building facade can extend beyond the owner's parcel.

Particular sticking points for the BRVA group are the setback variance request for Westfield Boulevard and the proposed drive through for the bank tenant of the garage, among other disappointments that members of the committee have had with the overall project.

The BRVA Land Use Committee joins remonstrance by the Meridian Kessler Neighbors Helping Neighbors, and neighboring veterinarian, Dr. Brunner, of the Broad Ripple Animal Clinic that abuts the garage property. The Board of Zoning Appeals will consider the variance petition this Tuesday, December 13. The Plat Committee of the Metropolitan Development Commission will consider the vacation request at its January 11 meeting, the original hearing being continued by the Meridian Kessler group.

How Much Is the Superbowl Costing Indianapolis and Indiana Taxpayers?

2011-12-07T11:31:00.001-05:00

Paul Ogden has a riveting blog entry today about the real cost to cities and states that host Super Bowls. I highly recommend "Sports Economist Says Indianapolis is Big Loser Financially From Hosting Super Bowl" to all taxpayers of Indianapolis and, yes, even all of Indiana.

Meanwhile, Council President Ryan Vaughn - before the election - promised the Council that he would do his best to get the Ballard Administration to cough up information about how much cash the February Super Bowl is costing Indianapolis. So far, nothing has come forward. And considering how much water Vaughn is carrying for Ballard these days, it leaves this writer wondering why they will not tell the public what the price tag is.

Broad Ripple Parking Garage - Farce Extraordinaire

2011-12-06T09:24:00.001-05:00

Its like we all went through the Looking Glass with Alice the day the City opted for the Keystone Group's proposal to build a garage on the corner of N. College Avenue and Westfield Boulevard in Broad Ripple.

I reported previously (see "Broad Ripple Parking Garage - Somebody Forgot To Which End of the Horse You Attach the Cart") about the fact that after the deal was inked down, Keystone Group, now going by 6280, LLC, for this project, filed for a number of variances. Turns out the project as proposed and as accepted by the City, will not fit on the property without A) a variance for zero foot setback from the right of way (35 foot setback on College and 40 foot setback on Westfield required) and B) a variance to shrink the size of each parking space. At what point does the Ballard administration admit that this project is too large for this site?

Well, as absurd as things were up to the point of filing for the variances, an alert reader gave us a heads up that things were actually even more absurd than we thought. The folks at 6280, LLC, have also filed to extend into the City's right of way - meaning, they cannot fit in the space they actually own and must spill over and under the sidewalk. The technical request is to 'vacate' the right of way from 17 feet up in the air to 62 feet up in the air on the three sides of the building, and to 'vacate' the right of way from 1 foot below ground to 8 feet below ground all the way around the building.

The 'ribbon of light' facade, it turns out, can't fit on the building if the entire building is actually required to fit on the lot. Rather, the property is so inappropriate for the project, that the ribbon must be allowed to hang over the sidewalk and the alley if it is to be a part of the plan at all. The developer says that the underground vacation is required for structural support, but that makes no sense.

How much more information does the Administration require as proof that this project is not on the right site? The garage costs twice as much as comparable projects (even those cited by the developer in their own proposal), it is proposed for a location rejected in a 2007 study of Broad Ripple's parking needs, the building can't fit on the property without being granted a variance, and even then, the building is too small to fit 350 regulation size parking spaces in it without further variance, AND EVEN THEN the facade will not fit on the building without hanging over the sidewalk.

When does it become apparent that the project does not fit on the property? It is all too absurd, even for government work.

I fully expect another round of variance requests should the pending matters be granted. The 'ribbon of light' is proposed to serve as an advertising beacon. That, of course, is not allowed by our ordinances.

The Board of Zoning Appeals is scheduled to consider the filed variance requests on December 13 and the Plat Committee of the Metropolitan Development Commission is scheduled to consider the vacation of air and subterranean rights of way on December 14. Maybe these bodies will bring sensible resolution to this farce by denying the petitions presented to them.

Fundamental Fridays

2011-12-02T09:20:00.001-05:00

Please bear with me before you start groaning with derision.

It seems to me that there are fundamental aspects to good government and good governance. Open, transparent, accessible government - for instance. Working in the best interest of the community, not special interests - for instance. Good stewardship, leadership, vision - for instance.

It also seems to me that there are folks who serve in our local government who demonstrate a fundamental aspect of good government on a daily basis, and others who do so from time to time.

Dare I say it so clearly but -- not all is wrong with our local governance.

So, in order to promote it when I see it, I am instituting a new feature to Had Enough Indy ? It will be an award worth the paper it is written on. I'll call it the Fundamental Friday Award - or "Fundy" for short.

The inaugural Fundy (drum roll, please) goes to Councillors Angela Mansfield, Ben Hunter, and Ryan Vaughn, and Mayor Greg Ballard. The reason is - compromise when compromise will bring about benefits to the community. In years gone by we might have called it statesmanship - putting the needs of the people before party politics or grandstanding opportunities.

The topic involved is, as you already know, the enlargement of Indy's smoking ban that will still fall short, but not far short, of a complete ban. However, it will be as close as all sides can get if they hope to garner enough votes for passage and to win the Mayor's signature.

Mansfield and Hunter have been working together, across the political aisle, for years now, trying to move the smoking ban forward. They were ready to reintroduce a previously defeated measure once the Democrats took control of the Council in January, but a measure unlikely to be signed by the Mayor. Vaughn threw a Hail Mary pass in the last minutes of Republican control; likely to give Mayor Ballard something he could stomach and sign, saving him face. Nonetheless, they all came together and are now lending their support to an slightly more aggressive Vaughn measure.

So, include the coming together to work for the benefit of the public, to the art of compromise when compromise will bring benefits to the community, as the reasons why the very first Fundy goes to Mansfield, Hunter, Vaughn, and Ballard.

Proposed New Council Districts Trisect Irvington

2011-12-01T16:26:00.001-05:00

One of the legal goals for creating new districts, for the Council or any other governmental unit, is to keep what are called "communities of interest" intact. The proposed new Council Districts, to be introduced at the December 5 Council meeting, totally misses the mark where Irvington is concerned.

Jonathan Katz has gone to the trouble of demonstrating clearly how Irvington is divided from its heart into not one, not two, but three different Council districts. Below is his highlighted map.

The yellow-shaded area is Irvington. Pieced together are the proposed new districts 12, 18 and 19.

Irvington is an historic district that is coming back through the inspiring tug and pull of its dedicated, focused, residents. I should say that it at the point of being successful and on the verge of being stably successful. It doesn't need to be mishandled by the new Council map. All efforts should be put forward by Ryan Vaughn, the steam roller behind getting these maps enacted, to correct this grievous error.

For some taste of Irvington here are a couple of interesting links:

The Irvington Buzz

The Irvington Community Council

The Irvington Development Organization

The community of Irvington deserves to be left intact within one Council district with one Councillor as dedicated as these residents are to Irvington.

Apology To Readers - Confusion Reigning On Genesis Of Re-Precincting

2011-12-01T10:14:00.001-05:00

I must apologize to my readers for substantial error in my post yesterday. I said that the Mayor did not have to correct errors in the precincts due to the State Legislature's creation of its new districts. That is not entirely true.

I have been trying to track down the actual genesis of the problem, but, at this point all I can say is that the State Legislature, through HB 1601, did require the Mayor Ballard to review census data on all precincts sent to him by the State's Election Division, and either submit corrections to the precincts affected, or re-precinct entirely. The bill anticipated little cost to the County, with the Legislative Services Agency stating "Explanation of Local Expenditures: County Executives- County executives should require only a minimal increase in administrative time to send the ED the information required by the bill", in its Fiscal Impact Analysis.

While I am not able to say if it was poorly drafted Legislative districts or Congressional districts (which did use census blocks instead of precincts in their legal descriptions) (see IC 2-1-12, IC 2-1-13, and IC 3-3-5, respectively) it is certain that some action regarding the evaluation and correction of precinct boundaries was legally required of Mayor Ballard.

Trouble With The Justification Story

2011-11-30T09:39:00.001-05:00

I don't know how many people have been bamboozled by the story justifying the need for new precinct maps, but I was certainly one of them !

If you read through yesterday's blog entry, "New Precincts And Proposed New Council Districts", you will see that the justification for reprecincting was that the State Legislature had created their new House and Senate districts by totally ignoring the precinct boundaries. Thus, new precincts had to be cobbled together to try to make the Legislative districts whole.

Well..... That storyline turns out to be fabrication.

The truth turns out to be that the House and Senate districts were defined by listing the precincts they include. You can read it for yourself, but I'll summarize it here:

IC 2-1-12 - lists 2011 House districts by precinct. Scroll down and you will find Marion County precincts included in districts 86-100. I can find no precinct that has been included in more than one House district.

IC 2-1-13 - lists 2011 Senate districts by precinct. Districts 28-36 contain Marion County precincts. Once again, I can find no precinct that has been included in more than one Senate district.

So - there was no need to create new precincts at this time. The impact I noted yesterday on creating split precincts from the redistricting of Township Board lines using the old precincts, still holds however. Bottom line, these new precincts will increase the confusion and expense of the Primary and General Elections in 2012.

If it were up to me, I'd revoke these precinct boundaries and honor the electorate with both the chance to weigh in on new Council districts and by telling them the truth.

[hat tip to fellow bloggers Paul Ogden and Gary Welsh for illuminating this corner for me]

New Precincts and Proposed New Council Districts

2011-11-29T10:18:00.001-05:00

I've had a bundle of information provided to me about new precinct and Council district maps in the last 24 hours. Short story - the political parties are girding for battle and the only ones who aren't getting their fair say appears to be the public and the taxpayers.

Lets start with the new precinct maps. The Mayor of Indianapolis has the sole authority to draw precinct boundaries. According to City-County Council President, Ryan Vaughn, Mayor Greg Ballard requested that Vaughn get the precincts drawn up on behalf of the Mayor. Vaughn, through a Council contract, hired Republican operative David Brooks, to redraw the precinct boundaries. The Republican 'explanation' for the need for new precincts is that the State Legislature drew up their new House and Senate districts without regard for precinct boundaries, in some cases splitting those precincts.

Now when a precinct is split, that means that there must be multiple ballots in the split precinct on Election Day, to accommodate the different constituents of the different districts. Split precincts are not fun on election day as there are invariably folks given the wrong ballot and frustrated voters and poll workers. In addition, the need for multiple variations of the ballot for a precinct drives up the cost of conducting the election; the added expense being passed on to the taxpayers, of course.

So, at first blush, reprecincting would seem to be a good way to save the taxpayers money by covering the lack of intelligent redistricting by the State Legislature.

However, consider this additional fact. The Township Boards just finished redrawing their districts to conform to the 2000 census. They had to finish their mapping by earlier this month as the Board seats are on the 2012 ballot. State law bans redistricting during any year a district is up for election. The Boards drew their new districts using the old precinct boundaries. By introducing new precincts, the Mayor has guaranteed that there will be many split districts during next year's Primary and General Elections. Some of the new precincts may be split by more than one Township Board district.

My examination of Indiana House and Senate districts leads me to a count of 15 House and 9 Senate districts that include any precincts in Marion County. Compare that with the 9 Township Boards in our County, with 7 districts each, or 63 seats total. The probability is high that there will be far more split precincts with the new map than had the old map been retained. Expect a concomitant increase in expense for the two elections next year as a result.

Now on to the newly proposed Council district maps. The Democratic caucus of the Council does bring up some legitimate criticisms of the way Vaughn has maneuvered the introduction of the maps to the Council for a vote. Jon Easter posted the caucus' statement on his blog, Indy Democrat, just yesterday. The Democrats point to the timing of the Mayor's approval of the new precinct maps, coming just two hours before the deadline for introduction of new proposals to the Council for 2011 - and - introduction by Vaughn of a Council Proposal to accept the new Council district maps drawn up under contract by Brooks, just minutes before the deadline. This left the Democratic caucus with no opportunity to either draw their own proposed map with the new precinct boundaries, or to introduce said map to the Council for consideration. That move by Vaughn was a clear partisan steamroller approach to party politics.

This is not to say that the Democrats can't draw their own maps when they take over in January. Obviously, Mayor Ballard will not sign such a map. Also, it does not preclude a Court contest of any Republican map adopted in 2011, as State law seems to ban adoption of Council district maps any earlier than 2012.

I would remind all readers that ten years ago, the State Supreme Court came up with the districts we are now using and that they are nicely compact and in the best interest of Democracy. The Democrat and Republican proposed maps introduced ten years ago suffered from as much gerrymandering as the ones to be introduced to the Council on December 5.

Meanwhile, there are 4 public meetings - one of which was held last night, with almost no notice. From one attendee, I am told that the only basis of comment that will be considered by Brooks and the Republican caucus, is if there is a problem with the process. They will not consider problems with the resultant map.

I spoke with Julia Vaughn (no relation to Ryan) of Common Cause about the mapping process. Common Cause has, for a long time now, taken an interest in how district maps at all levels of government are drawn and has promoted a process that would embrace the least amount of gerrymandering at the lowest cost to taxpayers. She has mentioned that there are programs that can be used, inexpensively, by any computer literate citizen to draw up their own proposal for compact districts that keep connected features of interest together. Such a program, of course, would have to include the precinct boundaries in its code. The speed with which Ryan Vaughn and Greg Ballard kicked through the new precincts followed by the introduction of a proposed Council map obviated any real participation by voters and taxpayers.

Julia Vaughn further suggests the following for a good public process to redistrict:

Best way would have been to appoint a diverse group of people - black, white, Latino, Republican. Democrat, Libertarian, Independent, northside, southside, eastside, westside, (you get the idea) of folks that would sponsor meetings in every township before any maps were drawn to get public input on what communities of interest exist (might be a racial group, neighborhood group, historic district etc) and what voters think the new districts should emphasize (competitive elections vs. a compact geographic area for example). The map drawer should have weighed all of these considerations and then produced a map. A second round of meetings should have followed to get or not get the public's buy-in on what was proposed.

This did not happen with the Republican map. We mere citizens, who should be in the loop on such an important thing like Council districts, are left standing on the sidelines. We can hope that the Democrats, who surely will proposed their own Council map in 2012, will follow an inclusive process like that suggested by Julia Vaughn. Somebody in office needs to give a hoot about the public interest and the inclusion of the public in a fair and ample public process.

If you would like to attend one of the three remaining meetings on the new maps they are:

December 1st (Thursday) 6-8pm --- John Boner Center, 2236 East 10th Street

December 6th (Tuesday) 6-8pm --- Sterrett Center, 8950 Otis Avenue

December 8th (Thursday) 6-8pm --- City County Building, Public Assembly Room

The Council Proposal containing the Republican Council district maps, will be introduced next Monday, December 5. It likely will be assigned to the Rules Committee for a public hearing. There are no currently scheduled meetings for that committee for the rest of the year, but one will surely be added to accommodate this issue. Stay tuned for date and time.

Happy Thanksgiving !

2011-11-24T08:24:00.001-05:00

The pies were made yesterday, and very shortly the mad rush to stuff the bird and get it into the oven will commence.

I want to take this moment to wish all of my readers a wonderful and happy Thanksgiving. This is the best holiday of the year ! Hope your family is near and celebrating with you.

Seeds of Hope

2011-11-18T08:49:00.001-05:00

Jon Murray, Indy Star reporter, has another good article in today's paper about the drama over competing expansions of Indy's smoking ban. See "Smoking ban gets unlikely support" for the entire piece.

What could have shaped up as a lose-lose head butting contest, may instead hold the seeds of hope for working government in Indianapolis.

As noted two days ago, there are two competing proposals - one to be introduced by Council President Ryan Vaughn at the next Council meeting, and one to be introduced by Councillors Angela Mansfield and Ben Hunter in January, after the Democrats gain control of the Council. Both would bring significant enhancement to the current smoking ban, extending the ban to all bars, restaurants, bowling alleys and other public gathering places. Vaughn's proposal would continue to exempt private organizations, tobacco shops and tobacco bars. The Mansfield / Hunter proposal would exempt only tobacco shops.

As Murray writes:

Anti-smoking advocacy group Smoke Free Indy, which backs only the comprehensive plan [Mansfield / Hunter] so far, estimates 370 bars and other establishments still allow smoking. Most likely would be covered under an expanded ban.

By the group's count, Vaughn's proposal would exclude about 60 from the smoking ban: nearly 20 cigar and hookah bars, five retail tobacco shops, and 35 nonprofit private organizations, including country clubs, social clubs, fraternal organizations and veterans halls.

Only the retail tobacco shops would be exempted by the proposal outlined by council members Angela Mansfield, a Democrat, and Ben Hunter, a Republican.

The rub is, Vaughn can get his ordinance signed by Mayor Ballard, but may not get enough Democrat votes to get out of the Council and on to Ballard's desk. The Mansfield / Hunter proposal could be passed by the Council, but is not likely to be signed by Ballard - and they likely don't have the votes to overturn a veto.

So, the upshot of it all could very well be that nothing gets done by those who agree on an extension of the ban to cover about 310 of the approximately 370 locations that currently allow smoking.

However, Murray's article contains the seeds of hope, not only for a more comprehensive smoking ban in Indianapolis, but also as a harbinger of working government for the next 4 years.

Mansfield expressed hope that Ballard would sit down with her and Hunter "to see exactly where he is on the issue." Marc Lotter, Ballard's spokesman, said such a meeting shouldn't be a problem in coming weeks, as long as Vaughn also is at the table.
****
"We're both open to compromise," Hunter said. "We'll look at (Vaughn's) language when we get it in the next 24 to 48 hours."
****
Mansfield, Hunter and Vaughn all say they want to rid bars of smoking before Super Bowl activities begin in late January, but Mansfield amended that goal Thursday: "I'd much rather see a good, comprehensive proposal in place, even if it's after the Super Bowl."

Vaughn said earlier this week that timing was the reason for his surprise push. He sees a requirement for a period of published notice as a stumbling block before the Super Bowl. Mansfield disagrees that it would be.

But Vaughn said supporters of a more comprehensive ban should support his proposal as an "interim step."

[edited to correct mistake in original Star posting]

How To Argue About Something You Agree On

2011-11-16T09:29:00.001-05:00

The morning paper (and last night's Ogden on Politics) has a story about Council President Ryan Vaughn's intention to offer enhancements to the current smoking ban in Indianapolis. (see "Bars could be smoke-free soon" by Star reporters Jon Murray and Shari Rudavsky, and Paul Ogden's "Indianapolis' Mayor Ballard, (Some) Council Republicans To Throw Bar Owners Under the Bus In Expanded Smoking Ban")

Instead of ushering in a spirit of cordiality and bipartisanship, which one could have hoped would be the tone for next year's split party governance, it appears to be the first volley in party warfare. Hopefully I am way off the mark and cooler heads will prevail.

At its core is the intention of many to have a full or nearly full ban on smoking in Indianapolis - tightening up the law passed in 2005.

The Democrats have more Councillors, both on and soon to join the Council, in favor of a stricter ban than do the Republicans. According to Councillor Angela Mansfield, she would have a veto proof 18 votes in favor of a ban come January. Mansfield is working again with Republican Ben Hunter to craft a stricter ban than they were able to get passed previously.

Neither the Mansfield/ Hunter plan nor the Vaughn plan are available for public review. I am not sure that Mansfield's proposal would be a 100% ban, either, but, according to the Star, Vaughn's proposal would :

In addition to bars and bowling alleys, Vaughn says, his proposal would ban smoking in hotel rooms as well as restaurants that slipped through the current law by allowing only patrons who are 18 or older.

His proposal would exempt cigar and hookah bars -- newly defined as "tobacco specialty bars" based on sales -- as well as retail tobacco stores and nonprofit fraternal organizations, including veterans' halls.

Vaughn says his plan has the virtue of the backing of Mayor Ballard, and an earlier passage date which would be in keeping with state law notification time requirements on enacting laws that impose penalties. Mansfield sites her 18 votes and says the penalties were contained in the 2005 ordinance and are therefore not subject to another time limit.

I understand the all or nothing approach of Smoke Free Indy, but this is the Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council. Passage of the weaker Vaughn proposal may wipe out some of the 18 votes Mansfield would need to veto proof additional expansion of the smoking ban in January, and if that happened, Vaughn's weaker proposal would stand for some time to come. But, if Vaughn's approach is satisfactory to some of Mansfield's 18 votes, then how solid is her support in reality?

One aim is to have a ban in place by the Super Bowl, in order to leave a more progressive impression with visitors. Even if Mansfield's interpretation is ultimately correct, an appeal to the Courts could delay any proposal passed in January while the Court considers the validity of the challenge. A long term outlook for the health of bar workers would continue to be satisfied, but the opportunity some see in marketing Indy could be lost.

At some point, the new Council and the Mayor will either have to learn to talk and consider compromises that move our City forward, or we will have 4 years of gridlock.

[edited to add: My mistake, 18 votes is not veto-proof. According to the Indianapolis Code, a 2/3 majority is needed to override a veto. That calculates to 19.33 votes required - so I assume 20 are in reality required to override. This makes discussion by the Council and Mayor even more imperative. On a smoking ban, even if Mansfield can get all 16 Ds and Ben Hunter, Ryan Vaughn, and Mike McQuillen to vote for her proposal, it would not be enough votes to overturn a Ballard veto.]

Council Meets Tonight

2011-11-14T09:23:00.001-05:00

The City-County Council will hold its first lame duck meeting tonight. The agenda is posted on the Council website.

A few items caught my eye.

Of interest tonight is Prop 303, which, unless an agreement has been reached by both sides, would cause the Council to hear a zoning matter - petition 2011-CZN-825 (2855 N. Keystone Ave.) which was approved by the MDC on October 5, 2011. A brief review of the online documents, including staff report, suggests that Herman & Kittle want to rezone 1.6 acres from commercial uses to a multi-family residential use. They want a 3 story, 56-unit building. The current planning staff recommended denial of the petition, primarily due to how different this use and structure would be from the surrounding neighborhood of single story residences and a community center. Should the matter go to a full hearing by the Council, a 2/3 majority vote of the Council is required to overturn the decision of the MDC.

Prop 286 is kind of peculiar, in that it appropriates about $8 million for this year's budget, $7.6 million of which is for debt service. The proposal says that it will all be paid with new revenues. One has to wonder how a) somebody missed the need for $7.6 million in debt service payments due in 2011, and b) failed to appropriate the money during the budget process for 2011. Debt service schedules are highly predictable.

Props 286, 304, 307, and 308, excluding the debt service noted above, adds $1.9 million to the current budgets of 6 departments or agencies (Mayor's Office, Department of Code Enforcement, Public Defender, Cooperative Extension, Community Corrections, and Superior Court) and cuts the current budget of the County Prosecutor by $211,500. Now, just over $600,000 is from newly obtained grant money, which certainly needs to be appropriated. But, in a twist, the entire $1.9 million would be reduced by $1.5 million if Prop 309, which is being introduced tonight, is passed. Prop 309 cuts 24 budgets by a total of $16 million, "for the purpose of ensuring the city and county have adequate fund balances going into 2012 and beyond".

Also being introduced tonight are three Proposals authored by Councillor Angela Mansfield aimed at the unilateral decision of Council President, Ryan Vaughn, to expend $50,000 for redrawing precinct lines and another $225,000 for redrawing Council District lines. Indy Star reporter, Jon Murray, has a really good article on this set of proposals in today's paper. Prop 315 would censure Vaughn for the expenditure and remove him from the Presidency. Prop 316 would rescind the contract to redraw Council District lines and hold the money for use next year. Prop 317 would require any expenditure over $500 by the Council officers to be approved by the Council's Committee on Committees. All three will be assigned to the Rules committee.

Two more proposals to be introduced tonight are tied together. Prop 336 appropriates $2 million from the Rebuild Indy fund, to a charter school incubator to be created by a partnership with the Mind Trust. Prop 338 creates an Office of Education Innovation, a Board to oversee it, and the charter school incubator. It further grants the Director of the OEI, the authority to approve sending back to the non-profit, all of the County Option Income Tax revenue collected from employees of any Marion County non-profit that "is committed to reform and improve educational outcomes in our county". All 5 members of the Board would be appointed by the Mayor and may either reside or work in Marion County as one of the minimum qualifications.

Fun With Math - Voting Stats

2011-11-11T09:44:00.001-05:00

As I read about the election day results, the percentage turnout caught my eye. As I usually do, I wondered why we pin so much faith in the calculated turnout percentage of registered voters. There is usually mention of how low it is relative to the importance of the election - whichever election one might be talking about just after that election day. And, to a point I agree.

However, the list of registered voters is very difficult too purge. If any of us were to view the list for our neighborhood, we likely would pick out names of deceased or moved voters.

Here's a little math for your Friday.

First - how many eligible voters in Marion County would you guess are registered to vote? Pick a percentage - any percentage. From those on my block, I'd guess a high percentage would be 50%.

The election board website gives us the results from this election. It notes a total of 604,641 registered voters and 181,171 ballots cast for a turnout of just under 30%.

But, the 2010 census counts a Marion County total population of 903,393 with 25% under the age of 18. A little math gives us an eligible voting population in our county of 676,641.

Now if 604,641 people were registered to vote, out of an eligible voting population of 676,641, that would calculate out to a staggering registration rate of 89% !

If my anecdotal 50% rate from my block were to hold upon inspection throughout the county, that would indicate that 44% of the registered voter list is erroneous. This would further lead to the calculated conclusion that just over half of the registered voters turned out to vote in the latest election; or 54%.

So, with all that hand waving and number crunching, what we have is a clear conclusion that we simply must find a way to either purge the voter registration list of dead and moved voters, or, begin to note that the voter turnout isn't anywhere near as low as it appears when a bad voter list is used as part of the calculation.

Nasty Politics - A Backlash Maybe?

2011-11-09T09:47:00.000-05:00

While they say that negative ads are used because they work, results from yesterday's elections are suggestive of a different paradigm. Yesterday there was some backlash on the Melina Kennedy campaign because of race baiting tactics undoubtedly initiated by Ed Treacy, Chairman of the Democratic County Party, but likely signed off on by Kennedy herself.

Treacy engaged in a laundry list of gutter politics and attempted intimidation. He is a stain upon the Party and the good people in it.

Up in the northside, Christine Scales appears to have won reelection as District 4 Councillor, defeating the the enormously funded Kostas Poulakidas by all of 39 votes. One of the mysteries of this campaign season is why the Star remained silent about the postcard smear tactics used by the Poulakidas' side against Scales. Well, at least they will be following what anyone would expect now - a recount.

So, for this time at least, nasty politics did not determine the ultimate outcome. That is a good thing.

The Council and the Mayor are of different political persuasions for the next four years. Facts are, beyond the political posturing for impact's sake, there is not a huge difference between the 'sides' and there is much room for amicable relations - if hatchets can be buried, politics removed for a while, and clear heads prevail. Another thing is, there is not much wiggle room to finance any modest, much less grandiose, 'visions'. The budget I saw passed by the Council for 2012 is likely too 'small' to actually do all the things that were promised, much less accommodate many additional services.

But, at the end of the day, two honest perspectives offered without hidden agendas can often lead to improved outcomes. Let us hope that the Council and the Mayor can find their way to move in that direction and lay the best foundation for Indianapolis' future.

Lying

2011-11-04T10:55:00.000-04:00

A lie is a most curious thing.

Lies cover a spectrum - from one end, telling a lie indicates you are a good person, and at the other end, it proves you are not.

Our tolerance for lying is a personal thing. Much like salt on food, the point of 'too much' varies by individual and it is one of those things that are hard to pin down, but we all know it when we see it.

I would also offer the thought that there is a situational aspect to our tolerance for lies. Again using the salt analogy, more salt is expected on potatoes but not on ice cream.

Such as it is, lying is part of our political contests. From small omissions of fact to improve a candidate's appeal, to knowingly false accusations of the worst sort against one's opponent - we have seen it all in this race for Mayor and Council.

Our individual tolerance has been tested. Some respond much better to the worst of lies if it is their party or their preferred candidate doing the lying. What would shock and appall if it were done by the 'other side', is grudgingly embraced by some as 'just how the game is played', simply because it is 'their side' doing it.

Every member of a political party has as much right as any other to demand either a high ethical standard, or let a low standard prevail. Each may not have the same power to achieve those demands. However, when you vote you can, and I would suggest should, consider it in your choices of which candidates to vote for. Is your candidate and your party fairly representing your values and standards in their actual conduct during the campaign? How far askew have they gone by your reckoning? Do they deserve your vote, given how their conduct reflects on their character?

We can all lament election time as the silly season and proclaim how we will be glad when all the negative ads are gone. But if we, with our vote, condone the most egregious tactics, then we are part of the problem.

What's Going On At Early Voting?

2011-11-02T09:30:00.002-04:00

Let me say from the outset that I am a big fan of Marion County Clerk, Beth White. I was not always, but when she stepped up to take the responsibility after her first election went terribly wrong - then made vast improvements over even the previous status quo - well, she earned my admiration.

I fully realize the budget constraints under which her office is operating and White's commitment to the efficient use of taxpayer funds. But, even with that, I have to question what is being reported by fellow blogger Josh Featherstone over at Featherstone On Government. I have only recently become aware of Featherstone's blog, but am impressed with the quality of the writing. I suggest everyone read his latest entry "Problems with Early Voting at the Clerk's Office Today?" in its entirety.

Featherstone relates his experience while voting at the Early Voting Center in the Clerk's Office of the City-County Building. He points out that the election board is using early voting ballot envelopes that are from the last primary. Highlighted on those envelopes are the blanks that must be filled in - well, must be filled in if the ballot going into them are primary ballots. One of the highlighted questions apparently is party affiliation. Featherstone writes:

The first problems lie at your first stop, the entry desk where you complete the information on your envelope. See, the areas of essential information you need to fill out have been highlighted for you. The problem is, many (if not all) of the envelopes in use are left over from the primary. The problem with that is that the section asking for you to declare a party for your ballot are highlighted.

I'm knowledgeable enough about politics that I am aware that declaration does not occur in a general election, only in a primary. I asked why it was highlighted, the gentleman said it was a leftover from primary and to ignore it. Then the gentleman to my right asked why he had to declare and was told the same thing. The person to my left did not ask, and checked the box for a political party.

It makes me wonder his many people didn't bother or know to ask, and just checked a party. If there, God forbid, was a nefarious election worker, they would then have clear indication of what ballots to "misplace" on election day.

Featherstone hit the nail on the head. What of the potential for abuse offered by these leftover ballot envelopes. Elections are not only supposed to be above board, they are supposed to be preventative of abuses.

I am also left wondering about how these many pre-highlighted ballot envelopes remain from the May primary? Yes, I can see having leftover envelopes in goodly quantities. Its just that over 6000 people are reported to have voted early already for the November 8 election. How is it that there were over 6000 leftover ballots that were already highlighted by hand?

White's integrity on election matters is above reproach in my mind. But, what I think does not matter. The use of old ballot envelopes may be fiscally prudent, but their use with pre-highlighted requests for statement of party affiliation is logically imprudent. If this election ends up being close, these old ballot envelopes may just be fodder for not only an appeal, but fodder for an electorate who does not recognize the ultimate victor's legitimacy.

Latest Tid-Bits About Broad Ripple Parking Garage

2011-10-31T11:19:00.000-04:00

There are a few tid-bits that have accumulated recently, regarding the proposed Broad Ripple parking garage. The simplest thing is to list them in one blog entry just to expedite getting the information out.

1) Old Marathon Gas Station site sold - A sales disclosure form is available on the State's DLGF website that shows the Marathon Gas Station site at 6280 N. College Avenue was sold to 6280, LLC, on August 29, 2011, for $1.8 million. Compare this price to the assessed value of $999,800. Marathon made out great in this deal. It always helps to have the government tossing money into a project like this. Free money leads to price inflation.

I could find no sales disclosure form for the old Marcos Pizza parcel at 6286 N. College. It appears to remain owned by 6286, LLC. Who is behind that LLC is a mystery, except that the bills are sent c/o Todd Morris. Morris is listed as the Parking Manager for Newport Parking - one of the players in Keystone Group, LLC, who submitted the winning proposal for the garage.

2) Significant site plan changes have been made - When the developer and City officials met with the Broad Ripple Village Association months ago, they pitched the garage using a specific site plan. They promised at the time, to return for approval of any significant changes to that site plan. Well, a new site plan was submitted as part of the new Variance request. This new plan is significantly different, yet no imput on the changes has been sought from the BRVA or other neighborhood groups representing residents in the area.

Here is the first site plan floated to the BRVA:

Here is the current site plan:

You can see that, among configuration changes to the retail space and it's access, the retail parking spaces have been eliminated as designated spaces. There are 10 new spaces in the southwest corner that appear to be outside of the garage itself. The 18 spaces shown to the south are actually associated with the Broad Ripple Animal Clinic, and not with the garage itself.

The owner and Veterinarian Dr. David Brunner has been critical of the garage in public meetings. He cited a study by his attorney, Steve Mears, which concludes that parking garages on non-rectangular lots have a typical price of $15,000 per space. This garage weighs in at a hefty $27,000 per space. Hmmm...

3) Traffic Impact Study under way - The City is undertaking a traffic impact study for the Westfield / College intersection, with a particular interest in alternative configurations that might optimize pedestrian safety. One possibility thrown out there is that the City is contemplating increasing the width of the sidewalk on the east side of the proposed garage, and a concomitant decrease in lane width of the vehicle lanes on College Avenue. More on this particular point once I get a copy of a vacation petition that an alert reader of this blog mentioned in the comments section of my last entry.

The City has already stated that it will cover all expenses related to street improvements around the garage site. It now sounds like significant changes to the streetscape are being envisioned. To what cost, we do not know. That puts into further doubt the statement that this garage proposal was the best submitted. The need to at least consider revamping the streetscape just adds to the fact that the garage as proposed does not legally fit on the lot, cannot accommodate any more than 305 spaces, and cannot adequately accommodate a bank drive-through teller lane without variances. (see my last blog entry "Broad Ripple Parking Garage - Someone Forgot To Which End Of The Horse The Cart Is Attached")

That's it for today. Expect more to come on this 'not-ready-for-prime-time' garage (with apologies to Saturday Night Live).

Broad Ripple Parking Garage - Someone Forgot To Which End Of The Horse You Attach The Cart

2011-10-28T07:30:00.000-04:00

The saga of the Broad Ripple Garage continues, and does so in unerringly the wrong order.

For background you can read my earlier posts on the garage (see "Tidbits on the Broad Ripple Parking Garage", "Are Taxpayer Dollars Being Flagrantly Misused?", "BZA Decisions Contributed Mightily To Broad Ripple Parking Situation", "Broad Ripple Parking Garage - More BZA Decisions Noted - Running Total 320", "More News About Broad Ripple Parking Garage Deal - Sheesh!", and "BZA Decisions Impact Our Community In Tangible Ways - Parking In Broad Ripple".

For the latest news, that the agreement between the City and the Keystone Group has been inked down and contains some aspects that run counter to comments by both Council President Ryan Vaughn and Mayor Greg Ballard, see Paul Ogden's "The Tale of the Broad Ripple Parking Garage: Taxpayers to Pay to Build the Facility While Developer Gets 100% of the Ownership and Revenue".

This blog entry is about the fact that the developer has filed a variance asking for a few things that might make you wonder why these things are coming up AFTER the proposal was submitted and accepted and even AFTER the deal was inked down.

The hearing date is now set for 1 pm, November 15, in the public assembly room of the City-County Building.
Yes, petition 2011-DV2-021 asks for a few variances.
1) they want permission to build retail space and parking space at or below flood level without the required structural flood proofing for the building
2) they want permission to build the building 40 feet closer to Westfield Blvd and 35 feet closer to College Ave than allowed by ordinance
3) they want permission to reduce the size of the parking spaces themselves from 10 by 18 feet down to 8.75 by 18 feet (meaning they can only legally fit 305 spaces and not the promised 350 spaces if the variance is denied)
4) they want permission to locate a drive-through lane for a bank that will block parking spaces set aside for the bank, with that lane too short by about 6 car lengths as well.

So, you say the ground floor risks getting flooded? And you say you can't fit the required building size on the lot legally? And you are telling us that you really could only fit 305 spaces in the building you proposed in the winning proposal - not the promised 350?

And yet the City of Indianapolis said you had the best, most responsive proposal? And furthermore, even after knowing you would need all of these variances just to squeeze, tuck, and constrict the spaces onto a lot obviously inadequate for the purpose, the City of Indianapolis still went through with the deal and signed the contract?

Wow ! Keystone Group (now going by 6280, LLC, for this project) must have some fan-tas-tic salesmanship talents !

Here's the problem with granting these variances. There will be tight turns in the basically triangular building that inebriated patrons of nearby bars will be trying to navigate after their night on the town. If anyone could use a full size parking space to get in and out of, it surely are these patrons. Then, because the lot is really a baaad choice, customers of the garage will be coming and going across congested streets to get in and out of the garage in their cars, and then crossing busy congested streets to get to and from the bars. That sounds like a recipe for problems.

If rational thought is to prevail, the requested variances must be denied. That will send the deal back to ground zero where it belongs and where some sanity can be regained by the City to kill this deal off.

What Makes Pay-To-Play?

2011-10-27T15:56:00.000-04:00

I noted in my last blog post that while some of the PACs contributing to the candidates have names that tell you who is behind that PAC, some do not.

Today we look at the PAC named Citizens for Excellence In Government. In the last two years this PAC has given $34,000 to the Kennedy campaign and $15,000 to the Ballard Campaign. These figures are from the PAC campaign finance filings with the State of Indiana, as well as contributions reported by the candidates and posted on the Election Board website through yesterday.

Turns out there have been two primary contributors to Citizens for Excellence in Government PAC in the last couple of years. One is an individual, Alex Oak, and the other is LC Investors, LLC. State PAC finance records posted online go only up to the 2011 pre-primary report. Posted records show that during all of 2010 and up through 4/8 of 2011, the PAC took in $64,200 in contributions. Oak gave $31,000 of that and LC Investors, LLC, gave $25,000. I do not have access to the donors of record from 4/8/11 through yesterday, as the 2011 pre-election campaign finance report for the PAC has not yet been posted on the Secretary of State's website.

But, you get the picture. A great deal of money has flowed to the two campaigns through this PAC that has two main contributors.

So, who are the contributors?

Alex Oak is Chairman, CEO, and Partner at Paul I. Cripe, Inc., d/b/a Cripe Architects + Engineers. There is surprisingly little information about LC Investors, LLC. Their registered agent is Stephen W. Lee who is a partner at Barnes and Thornburg who specializes in Real Estate Development. There is one news story from the IBJ wherein LC Investors, LLC, is mentioned as a creditor in the bankruptcy of Flaherty & Collins Properties.

A review of Paul I. Cripe, Inc., in the City's contract database reveals 8 contracts - two originating in the Peterson administration and the rest in the Ballard administration. Contract 1354 originated in 2005 and was for $25,000. Contract 1425 originated in 2007 for $2.1 million. That was extended in 2009, 2010, and 2011, adding $668,880 to the original amount. Contracts 8033, 8108, 8403, and 8284 originated in 2010 for a grand total that year of $691,143.74. Contracts 9314 and 9115 have been inked down so far this year for a total this year of $406,826. Grand total of two contracts under Peterson was $2,125,000. Grand total of 6 contracts plus three extensions of a Peterson contract under Ballard was $1,766,849.74.

Did Oak contribute to this PAC to further the cause of 'excellence in government'? Who knows. Were any of these contracts and donations used in Kennedy's supposed calculation of pay-to-play schemes by Ballard? Who knows. That list has not been revealed beyond the Indy Star. A review by the Star did find that Kennedy's claims were overblown (see my blog entry "Is the Kennedy Campaign in Trouble?")

So, if these contracts are extended in a Kennedy administration, or if new contracts are awarded to Paul I. Cripe, Inc., will that be considered by the Kennedy camp to be pay-to-play politics?

Large Contributions - Kennedy & Ballard 2011

2011-10-26T11:52:00.001-04:00

I have gone through all campaign finance reports for both Melina Kennedy and Greg Ballard for the entire year to date (as of yesterday, October 25) and compiled a list of contributors whose total donations equal at least $10,000 since January 1, 2011. A number of these contributors gave to both campaigns, but not to both in such large amounts.

Before I get into the list, I must note that the Kennedy campaign finance reports are deliberately randomized as to dates and alphabetical order of donors. If you'd like to see for yourself, look for Lacy Johnson in Kennedy's pre-election report. He made a large number of donations over the time period, but you will find his name scattered throughout the individual donors portion of the report. Even then, the dates of his donations are not sequential. These campaign finance reports may meet the letter of the law, but their deliberate randomization makes reviewing them extremely difficult. They speak poorly of Kennedy's commitment to transparency.

Below I list the names of the individuals and organizations whose contributions amounted to at least $10,000 during 2011. I have rounded off to the nearest dollar to make scanning the list easier. I also segmented the lists into individual donors, corporations, political action committees, labor, and 'other'.

The overall outcome is that Ballard took in 28 large donations totalling $411,315 while Kennedy took in 29 large donations totalling $722,711. This amounts to 24% of Ballard's total itemized donations for the year and 35% of Kennedy's. Kennedy took in no large donations from corporations. Neither took in any large donations from Labor (although many Labor organizations have set up PACs which did make large donations).

Ballard	Individuals
Christopher Burke	Naperville, IL	$10,000
Christal DeHaan	Indy	35,000
Russell Fortune	Indy	10,000
Russell Fortune III (may be same person as above)	Indy	10,000
James Irsay	Indy	10,000
Scott Jones	Carmel	10,000
Phillip Kuntz	Fishers	10,000
Bhagwan Patel	Indy	10,000
Beurt SerVaas	Indy	10,000
Herbert Simon	Indy	20,000
Ray Skillman	Indy	10,000
Randall M Tobias	Carmel	10,000
James Wade	Indy	10,000
Dean White	Merrillville	25,000
TOTAL		$190,000

Ballard	Corporations
7 Ray Skillman business locations		$14,000
TOTAL		$14,000

Ballard	PACs
CD PAC	Indy	$10,000
HNTB Holdings Ltd. PAC	Kansas City, MO	10,000
TOTAL		$20,000

Ballard	other
Barnes & Thornburg, LLP	Indy	$20,329
Bose McKinney & Evans, LLP	Indy	15,000
Bruce White & E White JTWROS	Chicago, IL	25,000
Central Canal Holdings FC LLC	Indy	10,000
DLZ Indiana, LLC	South Bend	11,000
Downey Racing, LLC	Avon	10,000
Hunt / Smoot Midfield Builders LLC	Scottsdale, AZ	10,000
Indiana Republican State Central Commitee	Indy	23,179
M & J Management LLC	Indy	20,000
REI Real Estate Services, LLC	Carmel	25,000
Ruth's Chris Steak House - Hoosier LP and Terra LP (two PACs)	Indy	17807
TOTAL		$187,315

GRAND TOTAL ALL LARGE DONATIONS		$411,315

Kennedy	Individuals
David B Becker	Fortville	$10,000
George A Buskirk Jr.	Zionsville	10,000
Gregory F Hahn	Indy	15,975
Jason R Hesler	Indy	10,400
Alan P Hogan	Indy	10,400
Lacy M Johnson	Indy	24,642
Dennis Mehiel	Valhalla, NY	10,000
Alan K Mills	Indy	10,500
Anne Nobles	Indy	10,000
Deborah J Simon	Carmel	10,000
Herb Simon	Indy	10,000
Cindy Simon Skjodt	Carmel	29,199
Ann M Stack	Indy	38,035
TOTAL		199,201

Kennedy	PACs
Citizens for Excellence in Govt	Indy	$16,800
DPBG Political Action Committee	Indy	12,000
EMILY's List-NF Fund	Washington, DC	10,000
IBEW Educational Committee	Washington, DC	27,500
Local 135 DRIVE	Indy	10,500
Midwest Region Laborers' Political Action League	Springfield, IL	25,000
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister Better Gov't Fund	Indy	13,500
UAW Region 3 Victory Fund	Indy	45,000
Victory 2010 Committee	Indy	105,000
TOTAL		$265,300

Kennedy	other
Barnes and Thornburg LLP	Indy	$10,358
The Bart Peterson for Mayor Committee	Indy	60,000
Bose McKinney and Evans LLP	Indy	25,958
Brightpoint Eclipse, LLC	Indy	81,000
Hunt / Smoot Midfield Builders, A Joint Venture	Scottsdale, AZ	10,500
Indiana Democratic Party	Indy	60,394
Jonathan Weinzapfel for Mayor Committee	Evansville	10,000
TOTAL		$258,210

GRAND TOTAL ALL LARGE DONATIONS		$722,711

Many of the PACs have names that reflect who they represent. I will post about some of the others in later blog entries.

Tully Takes Stand On Negative Ads

2011-10-26T09:07:00.000-04:00

Star Columnist, Matt Tully, has taken on the negative ads and laid the bulk of the reponsibility on the Kennedy campaign. In today's edition, Tully admits he favors Kennedy, however the tactics being employed undermine her message, and will leave a stain on her administration should she be elected.

He says:

If elected mayor in two weeks, Melina Kennedy promises to usher in to city government what she calls a spirit of collaboration and a bold effort to tackle, from the ground level and with the help of many people, the city's massive education problems.

Kennedy talks often about overcoming the city's challenges by working closely with neighborhood groups and building tight relationships with community leaders, teachers and other residents. The core of her campaign message seems to be a vow to rally Indianapolis residents around the notion that the city can be greater. Her team says she can be the force that brings competing factions and diverse interests together.

It's a compelling message -- one that anyone who has read my column in recent weeks knows has swayed me toward Kennedy as Election Day approaches. I'm convinced that Indianapolis needs a mayor who can persuade residents to embrace tough solutions to our biggest challenges, and Kennedy seems to have an ability to get people around her excited and motivated.

And that is what makes the topic of today's column -- the relentlessly negative and exaggerated television and radio ad campaign Kennedy has run -- so disheartening. For weeks, she has pummeled incumbent Mayor Greg Ballard, by all accounts a decent and honest man, with phony and unfair attack ads portraying him as everything from a corrupt fat cat politician to a reckless big spender eager to raise taxes.

Meanwhile, she has sat back while the nasty and bullying leaders in the Marion County Democratic Party air radio ads on African-American stations suggesting, at the very least, racial insensitivity on Ballard's part, invoking an unwelcome dose of racial politics into the campaign.

Finally, her campaign has needlessly dragged Deputy Mayor Michael Huber through the mud. That's a particularly infuriating tactic. In 19 years of covering politics, I don't think I've ever dealt with a more impressive, sincere and dedicated political aide than Huber, a young father who spends his days eager to find solutions to the city's biggest problems, including efforts to transform the city's infrastructure.

Huber is exactly the type of person we need in politics -- collaborative, creative and smart. But the attacks against him explain why so many good people avoid public service.

For months, I've listened to Kennedy's speeches. I've read her position papers. I've spent hours talking to her about issues such as crime, education and her vision for the city. She is a master of policy and has big ideas about what the city can achieve. She is an impressive communicator and a tireless worker. She's pretty much sold me; I believe a Kennedy administration could do big things.

But this much is clear: The tenor of her paid-media campaign does her candidacy a horrible disservice. And it is turning many people off.

Repeatedly, I have talked to voters, both Democrats and Republicans, who mention with disappointment the nonstop negativity coming out of the Kennedy campaign. This week, I talked to a friend who said she went to bed Sunday night, after watching the final mayoral debate, excited about Kennedy. But after seeing a handful of attack ads during the local news the next morning, she'd changed her mind.

It's just too mean, she said.

For the record, Ballard's campaign has run negative ads, too. But Kennedy went first, forcing Ballard to respond, and the ads coming from her campaign are more personal; they are filled with much more dangerous allegations. And, of late, they have come without any balance. It's as if her campaign has decided to go all negative, all the time in these final weeks.

In the end, it might work. Fear and anger clearly motivate voters, and those emotions have helped retire many incumbent politicians in recent years.

But there is a cost. And it's far too steep, particularly for a candidate with Kennedy's potential and in a city that desperately needs leaders who can bring people together.

A campaign too heavily based on mean-spirited messages will leave a lasting stain. If Kennedy is elected, and I still hope she is, voters will remember not just that she won but also how she won. Ultimately, she will learn that harsh campaign tactics make it much harder to bring about the type of positive change she so often talks about outside her TV ads.

That would be a shame. That would be harmful for Indianapolis. That's why Kennedy should stop the silliness and end her campaign on a different, much more uplifting note.

While I'm not the fan of Huber that Tully is, I think he painted the rest of the picture quite well. Time is running short and there are repercussions that may outweigh the benefits to the tactics being embraced by Kennedy's campaign. I know in my house, which is composed of Liberal Democrats, the majority are now voting for Ballard precisely because of Kennedy's actions.

Campaign Finance - Ballard & Kennedy, 2011

2011-10-25T13:19:00.001-04:00

I have pulled together the entire year's contributions, as of today (large donation supplemental reports are being filed daily), and totaled the sources for the itemized donations for both Greg Ballard and Melina Kennedy. The campaign finance reports are available on the Election Board website - for Mayoral candidates specifically, click here.

Itemized Campaign Contributions - 1-1-11 through 10-24-11
	Ballard	Kennedy
total itemized	$1,723,067.80	$2,067,977.37
individuals	1,180,710.24	1,256,281.02
corporations	147,029.57	70,908.87
labor	1500.00	6200.00
PACs	83,529.71	359,426.72
other	381,328.64	439,876.74

Many labor organizations have formed PACs, and their contributions show up in that category.

The 'other' category includes businesses that are not formed as corporations (law firms, LLCs, etc), and donations from political and candidate organizations.

Individual donation totals were pretty darned close, with Kennedy taking the edge.

Ballard took in twice as much from corporations, but Kennedy outpaced him more than 4 to 1 in donations from PACs. Kennedy scored slightly better than Ballard in the 'other' category of donors.

As of the pre-election campaign finance report filed last week (covering through 10-14-11), Ballard had $886,435.37 cash on hand, while Kennedy had $738,126.19. Since that report, Ballard has filed reports of large donations (greater than $1000 each) totalling $35,000, while Kennedy reports total large donations of $47,000. However, no smaller donations or any expenditures are reported since 10-14-11.

Indy Star Calls Ballard's Comments Like They Were

2011-10-25T08:29:00.001-04:00

Today's Indy Star editorial calls out the Kennedy campaign - softly, but still it calls it out - on their deliberate warping of the facts to suit their gutter politics (my accurate choice of words, not the Stars'). Here is what they had to say:

In response to a question about high unemployment rates among racial and ethnic minorities in Indianapolis, Mayor Greg Ballard, in an Oct. 15 televised debate, made reference to a "difficult population" in connection with his administration's efforts to create jobs in the urban core.

Was it the "gotcha'' moment of the 2011 Indianapolis mayoral campaign, an indication of the incumbent's lack of respect for or insensitivity to minorities in the city? Marion County Democrats clearly think so. They've been running a hard-hitting radio ad in support of challenger Melina Kennedy that blasts Ballard's quote as an "outrage."

Let's agree that the mayor's phrasing was awkward. Ballard never will be mistaken for an eloquent public speaker. But a fair reading of his comments, kept in context -- and, more important, his record over the past four years -- should dispel fears that Ballard doesn't care about or hasn't tried to reduce joblessness among minorities, especially for African-Americans and Latinos. One example: The city during Ballard's term has significantly increased the number of women-, minority- and veteran-owned enterprises that it does business with.

The fact remains, however, that the unemployment rate among blacks is unacceptably high. That's true not only in Indianapolis but also the nation as a whole. In August, the national unemployment rate for blacks (16.7 percent) reached its highest level since 1984. It declined slightly, to 16 percent, in September, but the long-term trend is discouraging. The unemployment rate for blacks has stayed above 10 percent for more than four years, and many economists predict that it will stay that high for years to come.

Several factors help explain why the unemployment rate among blacks is higher than in the general population. Black workers tend to be younger and less experienced and have a lower level of educational attainment than the American workforce on average. Those are stiff challenges -- difficulties? -- in the best of times. In a stubbornly weak economy, it's a formula for deep suffering and despair.

Given that reality, a few awkward words in the heat of a political debate should have little lasting significance. Far more important is ensuring that this community does all it can to create a fertile environment for jobs to be created, and to ensure that all racial and ethnic groups have the opportunities and skills they need to thrive in the workplace.

My party can do better than this and Democrats need to demand it.

Kennedy Must Repudiate Treacy's Tactics

2011-10-22T08:07:00.000-04:00

Ed Treacy has sunk to new lows. He claims that Mayor Greg Ballard uttered a phrase during last week's debate that proves Ballard is a racist. He provides no context, nor any link to a transcript or recording so fair minded people can check his claims out for themselves. But, he has an ad running on radio trying to incense Indy's African American voters so that the will come to the polls in force and vote for Melina Kennedy.

If Ballard made a racist statement during the debate, why then did Kennedy, who was standing right next to him at the time and had a microphone at her disposal, why then did she not call him out on the spot? She did not because Ed Treacy is making this crap up.

It is gutter politics and race-baiting at its worst.

All decent Democrats should be outraged and call for Treacy's removal as Chairman of the County Party.

Melina Kennedy must repudiate Treacy's tactics and demand that the ad be pulled from the airwaves.

How she handles this situation will speak volumes about whether or not she is fit to lead our City.

Its that simple.

Promises And Laddertrucks

2011-10-20T12:38:00.000-04:00

At Monday night's City-County Council meeting, Councillor Jackie Nytes made a number of comments during the evening. Two in particular I would like to address, as I think they are important issues and I hold a very different opinion than Councillor Nytes. Gary Welsh took up a few of her comments and added his own thoughts over at Advance Indiana Monday night.

What I'd like to address in this blog entry are Nytes' comments made just before the IFD special district tax rate was approved.

Now, Councillor Nytes gets points from me for being quite consistent in the matter of more money for government. She makes no bones about it and will ignore her caucus' position on matters when those matters will produce more revenue for some component of the City-County government or for downtown. Her constituents knew her stand when they voted for her and she has not veered from that stand. So, she gets points for that. But, I heartily disagree with her comments and the underlying positions, nonetheless.

When then-Mayor Peterson was pushing consolidation of the various fire departments, critics claimed it would cost more, cause layoffs, and lead to township fire equipment and manpower shuffled into the old IFD district. All that was pooh-poohed as untrue. It was said that the merger would save money and lower taxes to boot. When Ballard became mayor, he pushed consolidation even more fervently than Peterson had. But, he dropped the claim that there were savings to be generated through consolidation, since the proof was abundant that it did not. In fact, Mayor Ballard began to leave the merging township with the debt from their fire department and took the assets into IFD.

It seemed to me then and it still seems to me now, that the merger was just so township tax resources could be pulled in to help fund IFD.

Now we have the current affair of the proposed removal of ladder truck 21 from Station 21 in Washington Township, and within Councillor Christine Scales' district. The College Commons neighborhood responded and have posted an informative letter online that I recommend folks read for the details. One interesting paragraph lists the loss of services located in Washington Township since consolidation:

As stated above, Station 21's primary fire response has gone from 10 to 8, to very soon 4 firefighters. What else has the North-Side lost since consolidation with I.F.D.? Here are the fire/rescue services that were provided on the North-Side of Indianapolis and have since been removed by I.F.D. Remember, these services are now gone: The Hazardous Materials Team from Station 21, Heavy automobile extrication from Stations 4, 6 and 21, (They are still "light" extrication companies, but the heavy extrication comes from Station 14 at 30th and Capital.) Rope Rescue from Station 4, Medic 4 has been marked out of service, Ladder 17 has been marked out of service, The Ice Rescue Sled from Station 6 is gone (taken away the day after it was used to rescue a dog on the ice in a nationally televised story. It is now in storage collecting dust.), all of the engines and ladders in the former Washington Township response area were front line ALS (Advanced Life Support = paramedic) responders, (eight trucks in all) now only 2 are frontline ALS responders, and of course, come this December, Ladder 21 will be gone. Did you know this much has been taken away? Are you paying correspondingly less in taxes for having all of these services removed?

So, its not just a matter of the ladder truck - it is the decrease number of firefighters as well.

Nytes castigated the public and fellow Councillors to get with the new reality of the merged fire department. Well... promises made were that this would not happen. Those promises should be kept - not just what was written down in the merger documents. AND it is the responsibility of a Councillor to advocate for and support the needs of their constituents. Which is exactly what District 4 Councillor, Christine Scales, did in getting the decision to decommission Ladder Truck 21 reversed.

Here is another paragraph from the neighborhood organization's letter:

District 4 Councilor Christine Scales is working feverishly to try to organize the homeowner's associations in her area to act. She has spent countless hours on researching response times, NFPA standards, insurance ratings, actual driving distances and times between firehouses, and documentation of fire burning rates, as well as many other fire related statistics. She is fully against Ladder 21 being shut down. All of the officials contacted seem to be concerned, but no one is willing to act. She isn't the only person within the City Government working in your favor, but she is the most diligent.

Scales is a well regarded Councillor, not just in District 4, but throughout Indianapolis. She does her homework on issues, and like Nytes, does not always follow her caucus if she believes it contrary to what is best for her constituents. I have said it before and I will say it again. Christine Scales is a gem of a Councillor. Her work to restore Ladder 21 is just one more example of her indefatigable efforts on behalf of the residents of District 4. Indy could use more Councillors just like her.

2012 Budget Is Done

2011-10-19T11:30:00.002-04:00

Well, its been going on since August, but the 2012 budget is finally completed. Here's some of my impressions of it.

1) Between the sale of the sewer utility and the parking meters, and the near depletion of the rainy day fund last year, there is a $35 million hole in the revenue stream for 2012 as compared to 2011. That money is never coming back. Instead of dealing with it by meting out significant budget cuts in an election year, the Ballard administration chose, and the Council endorsed, robbing the consolidated downtown TIF district fund of $38.5 million. This is not sustainable and next year we likely will be forced to pay the piper.

2) While the administration continues to repeat the phrase, "no layoffs", the truth is different. The budget cuts demanded of the Clerk's Office will generate about 10 layoffs - and the Criminal Justice committee of the Council was so informed prior to their vote to move the budget to the full Council with a 'do-pass' recommendation. Clerk Beth White requested an increase of $76,623 over what Controller Jeff Spaulding recommended. This was still a decrease of over $300,000 from the previous year. White testified that her employees tended to be single mothers earning salaries at the low end of the City's wage charts. Add to that the fact that the Clerk's office and its workflow is critical to the jail overcrowding solutions, and you have a stance by this administration and the Council Republicans that is more than difficult to comprehend. Let us hope that this cut, with real life ramifications for real people, was not generated out of party politics.

3) The 'grown-up' award goes to the Public Safety Committee. I have to disclose that I am an ardent supporter of the Council being an equal branch of local government with the Mayor and the Courts. I really hate it when the Council takes on the role of Mayoral lapdog, instead of constituent watchdog. That said, the Public Safety Committee, chaired and led by Ben Hunter, rolled up their sleeves and slogged through the numbers, asked hard questions, demanded changes, and made the budget for its departments and agencies all that much improved over what had been submitted by the Ballard administration. Members of that committee are Republicans Hunter, Freeman, Pfisterer, Scales, and Vaughn, and Democrats Adams, Oliver, and Brown.
An additional 'grown-up' award must absolutely go to Sheriff John Layton, who stated his case and then worked with that committee to head his budget into the right direction. He got the pension fully covered and is working toward solutions for his other, large, shortfalls. And, he is doing so in an effective and cooperative manner that will bring results for the citizens and taxpayers of Marion County.

4) Parks is a mess. Stuart Lowry has been a disaster as Director. From comments during the budget debate it became clear that the budget for Parks still contains the -$1 million cut as a line item, instead of having been allocated to specific items. Really? Don't sit quietly and accept the cut if you can't make the decisions of where those cuts will end up.

5) Last but not least, I think there are a couple of time bombs in this budget that will have to be defused as 2012 moves along. I also do not think that is any way to make a budget. The Coroner's office is still using wishful thinking to hope for an additional $400,000 in revenue to come from who knows where. The Controller's office is content to simply 'moniter' the situation as 2012 progresses.
There is still no rough, much less reliable, estimate of the cost of the Superbowl to Indy's taxpayers. At least the Council has demanded that estimate be delivered some time in November. Credit for that goes to President Ryan Vaughn and Councillor Brian Mahern. The IMPD budget took a half million dollar hit this year in unbudgeted pre-superbowl activities. Nothing has been budgeted for them, IFD, Code Enforcement, or Public Works for 2012. That is not realist and the actual cost to taxpayers should not be held from the public. Obviously, the November 8 election is a motivating factor in the reluctance of the Ballard administration to be clear and transparent in this matter.

For the vote on the City-County budget, the Assessor's budget was pulled out because Councillor Adams and Councillor Lewis' spouse work for that Office.

The final vote on the 2012 City-County budget (sans Assessor) went primarily along party lines - 16 yeas and 13 nays. Democrat Brian Mahern joined all 15 Republicans in voting for the budget. Lone Libertarian Coleman joined the rest of the Democrats in voting against the budget. The Assessor's budget vote was 22 yeas, 5 nays, and the two abstentions. Voting nay were Coleman, Gray, Minton-McNeill, Oliver, and Sanders.

The individual municipal corporation budget votes were interesting in who voted against them.

The airport budget was passed 26 to 3. Councillors Coleman, Mansfield and Sanders voted no.

The CIB budget passed 19 to 10. Voting no were Republican Councillor Hunter, Libertarian Coleman, and Democrats Bateman, Brown, Evans, Gray, Dane Mahern, Mansfield, Oliver and Sanders.

Health and Hospitals budget passed 27 to 1. Councillor Coleman was the sole no vote.

The Library budget passed 25 to 2 with Councillor Nytes abstaining. Councillor Hunter had left the meeting to attend to an emergency. Councillors Brown and Coleman voted no.

The IndyGo budget passed 24 to 4 (Hunter absent), with Brown, Coleman, Oliver, and Sanders casting the no votes.

...'Til Tomorrow

2011-10-18T10:41:00.002-04:00

There is much to blog about with the City-County Council meeting last night. But, as this is my father's 84th birthday, I am opting to spend my day with him. I'll be back tomorrow with the budget wrap-up, plight of the hotel workers, and a rebuttal for some of Councillor Nytes' comments.

Is The Kennedy Campaign In Trouble?

2011-10-17T10:26:00.001-04:00

Melina Kennedy has a lot going for her. She is intelligent, articulate, understands the issues and can formulate approaches to solutions. But if you looked to her television ads, you will not have seen any glimpse of that view of Kennedy for about a month. That is because all of her latest ads, run on a heavy schedule (at least on the channels we tend to watch), are about current Mayor, Greg Ballard. Now, an advanced sorry to those who earn their living by advising campaigns.... but.... with Ballard's record as Mayor, critiquing his job performance should be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Instead, Kennedy's campaign has used its last two ads to infer, but not clearly state, that Ballard has exchanged city contracts for campaign contributions. This is the pay-to-play politics frequently brought up by my fellow bloggers Paul Ogden (Ogden On Politics) and Gary Welsh (Advance Indiana). So, there are plenty of specific instances that could be brought to the public's attention. The Kennedy camp has, however, taken to supposedly enumerating the dollars given and the dollars returned, without specifying the donors' corporate identities.

The list of these supposedly suspect donors and contracts has not been made available to the public. That list, however, was obtained and analyzed by the Indianapolis Star. The Star analysis concludes that a) "But as Kennedy's campaign acknowledges, she has received contributions from some of the same city contractors that have given to Ballard, as well as from their employees, though Kennedy receives less overall." and b) "But when it comes to the contract total cited by Kennedy's ad, a spot check of a list provided to The Star suggests the figure is, at best, unreliable." One does have to wonder if the release of the list of suspect donors and contracts would embarrass Kennedy and put her at odds with some of her own donors.

After the Star analysis was published, the Kennedy camp came out with a second ad that only discusses the campaign contributions. When it played on our television last night, my husband and I looked at each other and asked, is the Kennedy campaign in trouble? Why else spend your air time on a claim that didn't stand up to scrutiny and for which there is ample time for the Ballard campaign to correct that claim?

Hopefully in the waning days of the campaign, the Kennedy ads will return to her qualifications for the office and her vision for our City.

Here's what the Star had to say about the ad on Sunday, in its entirety:

Math in Kennedy ad about contracts doesn't quite work
Editor's note: The Indianapolis Star is examining campaign ads throughout the fall election season, focusing on those in which candidates attack or make claims about their opponents.

The candidate: Melina Kennedy, Democratic nominee for Indianapolis mayor.

The ad: After a couple of Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard's TV ads have criticized Kennedy, her ad highlights Ballard's campaign contributions from city contractors.

The script: "Notice how many of Greg Ballard's ads talk about Melina Kennedy? Maybe it's because Greg Ballard is trying to hide the fact he lost the endorsement of Indianapolis police. Or that he's raised taxes, rates and fees 140 times. Or maybe it's because Greg Ballard is hiding the fact he gave $300 million in city contracts to his political contributors . . . who gave Ballard $1.3 million for his campaign. It's true. It's troubling. And it's why we need a change."

The facts: The new claim here is about city contractors donating to Ballard's campaign. The connection, a long-recognized political issue faced by incumbents, creates, at the very least, a perception that contributors are being rewarded with big contracts.

But as Kennedy's campaign acknowledges, she has received contributions from some of the same city contractors that have given to Ballard, as well as from their employees, though Kennedy receives less overall.

Kennedy's campaign says it searched the city's online contracts database to look at contracts or renewals that took effect after Ballard took office in 2008.

And it counted any campaign donations to Ballard by the contractors and their employees.
But when it comes to the contract total cited by Kennedy's ad, a spot check of a list provided to The Star suggests the figure is, at best, unreliable.

On the list are 76 contractors -- more than a third of them connected to public-works projects -- associated with $309.5 million in contracts. Others are law firms, consultants and technology companies.

Among the problems:

Several contracts originally signed long before Ballard's term began are counted at the value listed in the city database. That's a problem because the amounts appear to represent their value over the contract's lifetime -- not just the value since they were renewed or amended under Ballard.

At least two contracts -- including one for nearly $12 million -- were signed by the county's Information Services Agency. Ballard appoints a minority of members to the ISA's board, so he doesn't have direct control over its contracts.

The largest contract -- listed at $98 million for United Water -- is questionable. The company has operated the city sewer system since the 1990s, and the city renewed it for nine years in 2007.

One problem: Democrat Bart Peterson, Kennedy's one-time boss, was mayor when that happened. Ballard took office soon after, and aside from minor amendments pursued by his staff, the financial terms -- a base fee of $29 million a year -- changed little.

When pressed about the contract's timing, Kennedy spokesman Jon Mills pointed out that regardless of who signed the contract, Ballard has been very good to United Water.

The company retained its sewer system role even after the city sold its water and sewer utilities this year to Citizens Energy Group. Kennedy's list counts United Water as giving $17,500 to Ballard's campaign.

The spin: Ballard spokeswoman Molly Deuberry called Kennedy's contracts attack "political hypocrisy" because she accepts campaign donations connected to contractors. Deuberry also pointed out that some of the contractors did city work when Kennedy was Peterson's deputy mayor.

"It is obviously a sign of a desperate campaign when Kennedy is funding the ad with money from the same people she is maligning," Deuberry said.

Mills stood by the ad's contracts figure. He said Ballard "is a mayor who said when he came to office that he was going to get away from pay-to-play politics. . . . These companies all have the right and should do all they can to work with the city. What we're drawing into question is how this mayor decides to conduct city business."

The bottom line: Kennedy's ad raises a fair issue that may resonate with some voters. But while Ballard clearly has received contributions from contractors holding very big contracts, the size of the ad's headline figure -- $300 million -- doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Compiled by Star reporter Jon Murray

Jail Overcrowding And The 2005 COIT Increase

2011-10-11T11:17:00.000-04:00

Much hay is trying to be made of an increase in the County Option Income Tax back in 2005. So I thought I'd revisit just what was going on at that time and who voted what way on the increase.

Jail is the place where folks who have been arrested await trial. Prison is the place where folks who have been found guilty go to serve their time. Not all those folks who are in jail are innocent of the crime for which they are charged. Not all those folks who are in jail are guilty of the crime for which they are charged.

For many years, Indianapolis/Marion County had a jail overcrowding problem. It really was a human rights issue. Finally, the Courts handed down an order that limited the number of arrestees who could be kept in the jail. What followed was the release of arrestees to keep the count below the court order. The situation is best summarized by Councillor Steve Talley at one of the hearings to raise the County Option Income Tax (I'll tie that tax increase in below - this is just the best summary I could find of the jail overcrowding problem)

Councillor Talley said our criminal justice officials are over stressed and under funded. Our jails have been over crowded for the past 30 years, and worst of all, murderers and other dangerous criminals are being put back on the street.... Councillor Talley said since the early release of criminals in 2001, more than 9,000 offenders have been put back onto the street and five have been linked to homicides following their releases. He said that in 2004 alone, more than 1,500 people were released from jail early. Of those, 238 have committed additional crimes while awaiting trial. Councillor Talley indicated that 31% of criminals released early fail to appear for scheduled court dates.

I actually believe that the Council's finest hour came when they formed the Marion County Criminal Justice Planning Council to examine all the reasons why the criminal justice system was so slow that arrestees backed up in the jail - waiting for trial. This group examined all of the ingredients. Their approach was non-partisan and when they went to the public to share their findings, they did so by having Democrat Judge Mark Stoner and Republican County Clerk Doris Ann Sadler as the spokesmen. The Planning Council was established in 2003. The members of that group were representatives of the City-County Council Sheriff's Department, IPD, the Prosecutor's office, the Public Defender, Community Corrections, the Crime Lab, the County Clerk, the Circuit Court, and the Superior Courts, among others.

Enter Prop 44, 2005, to increase the County Option Income Tax from 0.7% to 1.0% over three years. The tax had been held down in Marion County while all surrounding counties had gradual increases over the years and were already at 1.0%. In fact, almost all counties in Indiana had reached that level by this time.

Prop 44 was sponsored by Democrat Councillors Nytes, Talley, Sanders, Gray, Moriarty Adams, Brown, Bowes, D. Mahern, and Boyd, and Republican Keller. It passed out of committee with a do-pass recommendation by a vote of 4-3 that split along party lines. Voting yes were Democrats Sanders, Brown, Moriarty Adams, and Nytes. Voting no were Republicans B. Langsford, McWhirter, and Plowman.

Come the night of the full Council meeting, the comments of Republican Councillor Borst are the most illustrative of the evening's discussion. From the minutes of that meeting:

Councillor Borst said that he started the day believing he would vote one way on this proposal and ended the day thinking another. He said that he sat down and calculated over $115.5 million worth of annual needs for the City and County that cannot be met with the current budget and revenues. He said that he does not think this is the right answer to solving the problem and believes it is just another band-aid which does not come close to fixing the budget woes. However, he recently saw the judiciary and criminal justice system take steps in consolidating administrations to find cost savings and free up funds, and he applauds them for taking these steps and thereby indicating their serious commitment to funding initiatives. He said that he is tired of seeing prisoners released from jail early and wants to see the crime lab get the funds they so desperately need. Councillor Borst said that he was encouraged to see what happened today, with Republicans and Democrats getting together and working to solve problems and communicating openly. He said that the result of these discussions was an agreement to insure that revenues generated by this increase will be used to address funding needs of the criminal justice system and public safety operations, such as jail overcrowding, criminal court expenditures, forensic services, and debt owed to the Indiana Department of Corrections. He said that, if available, new revenues generated by the proposal could be applied to inventory property tax relief for citizens, and if another revenue source is identified, the revenue could be applied to real property tax relief or the COIT could be rolled back. He added that several recommendations are being identified to present to the Marion County Criminal Justice Planning Council for streamlining and creating efficiencies within public safety and the criminal justice system. He said that he is against raising taxes, but will now support this proposal, knowing that the money will go where it is needed most.

Prop 44 passed by a vote of 21 to 7 with one absence (Speedy). Voting yes were Democrats Abduallah, Bowes, Boyd, Brown, Conley, Franklin, Gibson, Gray, D. Mahern, Mansfield, Moriarty Adams, Nytes, Oliver, Sanders, and Talley, and Republicans Borst, Bradford, Keller, B. Langsford, McWhirter, and Randolph. Voting no were Republicans Cain, Cockrum, Day, Pfisterer, Plowman, Salisbury, and Schneider.

The next couple of years saw the rollout of the plan and its implementation, funded by the increased COIT funds.

An Indianapolis Business Journal editorial on August 2, 2006

There has been some progress. The Marion County Criminal Justice Planning Council's vote Aug. 1 to recommend renting 200 jail beds for six months was a smart decision that the City-County Council would be wise to ratify at its meeting Aug. 7. But it's purely a short-term fix.

There is broad agreement that the long-term solution is making the wheels of justice turn faster. Cases need to proceed more quickly so that inmates spend less time in the county lockup.

To grease those wheels, we need more judges, attorneys and clerks. And we need to pay them better, so that they stick around a few years.

And from IBJ Reporter, Scott Olson, on January 1, 2007:

At the administrative level, Peterson called for an extra $54 million in public safety and criminal justice spending in 2007, $19 million of which funded fire protection. Most of the money came from the County Option Income Tax and borrowing from the city's Sewer Fund.

From that, $2.2 million already has been spent to create a night court to process cases faster and relieve strain on the jail. Overcrowding is a major concern, because a court-ordered cap forces Sheriff Frank Anderson to release potentially dangerous inmates early if the jail population exceeds capacity. A concept he has floated involves outsourcing jail management to a private firm that could manage inmates more efficiently, supporters say.

Moreover, Prosecutor Carl Brizzi has added six deputy prosecutors to the homicide unit, bringing the total to 12. COIT money funded the new positions, as well as additional jail beds.

The Planning Council still has a remnant in the Thursday Afternoon Group. Representatives of the Council and Public Safety and Criminal Justice agencies all meet to discuss and coordinate ways to be more efficient and effective. I'll repeat what I said above and many times in public meetings. I believe that the work of the Marion County Criminal Justice Planning Council was the finest example of good government; with all parties working to determine the causes of a problem and the ways to remedy them. The positive outcomes of this group's work continue with our City today.

The Evolution Of Code Enforcement In Indianapolis

2011-10-10T11:20:00.001-04:00

Normally any blog entry about Code Enforcement would get three readers. But, given the decision to require that Pan Am Plaza and the garage underneath be repaired, despite their utility to the upcoming Super Bowl, and the wailing and gnashing of teeth about fee increases in the current campaigns, it seems to be just what is in order.

Let me state this right at the beginning. Code Enforcement saw significant gains under two successive Mayors, to the benefit of all of Indianapolis. This should not be a bad thing.

For the historical perspective, one has to go back to the first time Bart Peterson ran for Mayor. It was clear that neighborhood organizations' number one issue was the total failure of code enforcement in the City. Few violations were getting prosecuted, few inspections of new buildings were actually getting done, and the frustration with that situation was rising with each passing day. Peterson took the issue seriously and I think his handling of it is one of the true successes of his administration.

Peterson hired a guy with experience in Virginia, Rick Powers. Powers had seen what an effective code enforcement operation looked like. He came into the Office of Code Enforcement, at the time under the Department of Metropolitan Development, and he shaped it up. It took a couple of years to change the culture, but he turned it into an effective and efficient organization. For the first time, residents of Indianapolis were seeing that the ordinances, when enforced, meant better, more enjoyable neighborhoods. Inspections of the vast number of new homes were rising. There were still problems as Peterson left office, but the trajectory of the Office of Code Enforcement was steep and in the right direction.

Enter Greg Ballard's term as Mayor. Ballard kept Powers on at Code Enforcement. By this time, the effectiveness and efficiency of the Office of Code Enforcement could best be appreciated by the huge backlog of cases in the zoning section of the Office of Corporate Council. Chris Cotterill was chosen by Ballard to head up that Office. He very soon came to understand that one prosecutor, no matter how dedicated, could not cover the volume of violations headed to the Environmental Court for adjudication. He beefed up the staff working on zoning, much to the positive benefit of neighborhoods across the City.

Discussions moved toward spinning the Office of Code Enforcement out of the Department of Metropolitan Development and into its own Department. Other changes would be rolled into it as well.

The Department of Code Enforcement (DCE) would take on some other functions, like licencing of certain businesses. The requirement for licensing of taxis, massage parlors, escort services, and the like, was on the books, but largely ignored and not really pursued by the Office of Financial Management, which for some reason had the responsibility. Taxis were the number one complaint of the downtown business community; to their minds negatively impacting the impression tourists have of Indianapolis.

The number of code enforcement officers would be increased to ensure that all buildings were inspected during their construction. This would not only ensure construction actually met the standards written into law, it would cause the overall insurance rates for homeowners to drop, because there was some assurance that the houses would stand.

And all of this would be funded by turning the new DCE into an entirely fee-based operation.

Spinning the Office of Code Enforcement into the Department of Code Enforcement garnered nearly universal support. One caveat was the requirement of the business community that the new fees be rolled in in two phases. Other than that, there really was no discussion of those fees.

Proposal 177, 2009, was sponsored by Councillors Lincoln Plowman (R), Jackie Nytes (D), Brian Mahern (D) and Dane Mahern (D). The synopsis of the proposal was:

amends the Code to establish a new city department of code enforcement, to consolidate into two sections the various fees to be collected by the new department, and to make corresponding technical corrections

The Rules Committee, Chaired by Councillor Bob Lutz (R), considered the proposal on May 12 and June 16. Prop 177 passed out of committee with a unanimous vote of "do-pass recommendation". Those voting in this committee were Republican Councillors Lutz, Cockrum and Plowman, and Democrats Gray, Mansfield and Sanders. The only point of discussion that made it into the minutes of that committee meeting was to which Council committee the new department should report. Nothing about the fees was noted.

The vote at the full Council meeting on Prop 177, 2009, was 28 yeas, 0 nays, and one absence (Moriarty-Adams).

The establishment of DCE concurrently raised 113 fees by my count.

In 2010, Prop 149 was introduced and raised 88 of the fees further. This proposal was sponsored by Councillors Mike McQuillen (R), Lutz (R), and Mansfield (D). The synopsis was:

amends the Code to add and amend various chapters related to license and permit fees to be collected by the department of code enforcement pursuant to a cost analysis study determining the cost of the services underlying these fees to the department

A study had been conducted of the amount of time and salaries required to do pretty much every task DCE would be engaged in. Those folks seeking permits would be charged the amount of money it cost the City to investigate and issue a permit - tailored to the type of permit being requested. Likewise, taxi inspections would be done for the first time and the license fee would cover the expense. Inspections, etc., were also reviewed for exact cost to the City.

The vote in the committee was 6-1. Those voting for a "do-pass recommendation" included Republican Councillors Lutz, Cockrum, McQuillen, and Vaughn, and Democrats Mansfield and Sanders. The lone vote against was Republican Angel Rivera.

The full Council passed the fee increases by a vote of 22 to 6, with one absence (Bateman). Those voting for the proposal were Republicans Cain, Cockrum, Day, Freeman, Hunter, Lutz, McHenry, McQuillen, Malone, Pfisterer, Scales, and Vaughn, and Democrats Evans, Gray, Lewis, Brian Mahern, Dane Mahern, Mansfield, Moriarty Adams, Nytes, Oliver, and Sanders. Voting against the proposal was Libertarian Coleman, Repbulicans Cardwell, Rivera, and Speedy, and Democrats Brown and Minton-McNeil.

I agree with the fee increases. It is, though, a matter of personal opinion that should guide the vote of the rest of the Indianapolis community on November 8.

I haven't heard anyone say they would seek to repeal the fee increases and return code enforcement and its other new duties back to funding through tax revenues. Hopefully the neighborhoods of Indianapolis will see Code Enforcement blossom even further in effectiveness and efficiency under a third consecutive Mayor. We will all be winners if that happens.

Ed Treacy - What An Embarassment

2011-10-07T10:46:00.000-04:00

Despite Kyle Walker’s plaintive wailings, Mayor Greg Ballard isn’t cut out for the job of leading our city. At each public appearance, he shows more of his blubbering ways.

Thus begins the latest press release from Marion County's Democratic Party Chairman, Ed Treacy. Surely the first draft was scratched out with a crayon.

Here's a couple more snippets from other press releases sent out by the Party in recent days, where Treacy has decided to try to brand opponents with the Tea Party label:

With just 34 days until the 2011 Municipal Election, Mayor Greg Ballard, the first Tea Party candidate, is quickly losing steam and getting sloppy.

I'm sure Ballard's connection with the Tea Party caught both him and that group by surprise - much less his elevation at being their first candidate. But, Treacy is not one to let facts get in between him and his 'political strategy'.

and

At the League of Women Voters Candidate Forum just days ago, incumbent Republican Councilor At-Large Barbara Malone announced the Republican Party’s support for the consolidation of all school districts in Marion County, including Speedway and Beech Grove.

A Tea Party Republican, a leader within the conservative Republican caucus and the sole sponsor of the unpopular 50-year parking deal, Barbara Malone has exercised significant influence within the Republican ranks. This newest proposal, which has no resistance from her fellow Republican candidates, continues to highlight the extraordinary disconnect between Tea Party Republicans and the educational challenges facing the city of Indianapolis and its students.

The headline for this press release was "Making IPS Only Public School District in County Will Be Priority for Republican Council". Did Malone say "I think we should look at consolidating the school systems in this particular County"? Yes, she did. Was she the Councillor who is the named sponsor of the parking meter concession ordianance? Yes, but it seems like a brain fart caused that fact to be included in that paragraph. The rest is fantasy and fabrication on Treacy's part.

Earth to Treacy - the Council is not the school board. The only authority they have is tangential to the charter schools; schools that Treacy supported under Peterson, but now wants to bash under Ballard. There is no continuity of thought, no guiding principles of importance - only trying to score with ill humored name calling.

Treacy's hyperbole harms the Democratic party and any credibility it can have on the important issues affecting our City, much less on any solutions to be offered. His juvenile rantings reflect on the rest of us. Little wonder that the press only calls on Treacy when they want some vitriolic outgassing for the news.

2012 Budget - Big Picture, Big Problems

2011-10-04T11:07:00.002-04:00

Over the next couple of weeks the City-County Council committees will offer final amendments to each of their segments of the 2012 budget. The full Council will vote on the entire budget in two weeks, on October 17.

As I've noted before, I've been spearheading the McANA effort to review the budget for the 5th year running. Today, I'd like to take the eagle's view of the budget and talk about what I've been able to glean from the big picture.

First of all, this has been the most difficult budget to review. There are stylistic changes, like how charges are made and for which departments. There have been changes in the presentation that do not normalize out the unique expenditures or revenues that happen from year to year. The practice in previous years made it easy to compare apples to apples. In addition, there are significant issues with this budget regarding from where the money will be coming - specifically the administration's plan to tap excess revenue from both the consolidated downtown TIF and the Ameriplex TIF.

We are told, but not shown with clear data, that there is a $64 million gap between revenues and spending for 2012. To bridge this gap, we are told, that the Ballard administration has cut $20 million from individual department and agency budgets through their request for a 5% cut in base expenditures. The administration also desires to take $38.5 million from the consolidated downtown TIF. This all totals $58.5 million. One item they are not publicizing is the extraction of $7.5 million of funds from the Ameriplex TIF to cover anticipated shortfalls in the debt service for the 'redevelopment district'. I have asked for a list of the items funded by this district. That brings the total to $65 million. Close enough to $64 million for government work.

On the revenue side, I have had to pull figures together on my own, as my request for the summary revenue page has been met with the statement that the Controller's office does not want to put it out without being sure it is correct, and that they hope to release it prior to the full Council vote on budget. Swell.

So, here is what I found about revenue shortfall for 2012 compared with 2011.

Total tax revenues - including property and income taxes and accounting for the effect of the tax caps - is $16.5 million less for 2012 than 2011. One would expect these numbers to rebound as the economy recovers.

Federal grants are expected to drop by $15.7 million. One would expect these numbers to rebound as the economy recovers. However, the statement made regarding all grant funded programs has been that if the money does not materialize, the program is cut.

The healthy rainy day fund was nearly depleted last year, creating a drop from that source of money of $15.8 million. I would not hold my breath on the recovery of the rainy day fund any time soon.

Last year, $3 million was taken from the golf course subfund of the Parks fund - but it was one time only.

The sale of the parking meters caused a $4 million revenue drop that used to go to IMPD and DPW. This revenue will never come back.

The sale of the sewer utility caused a $13 million revenue drop that used to go to IMPD, IFD, and DPW. This revenue will never come back.

The total revenue shortfall from the 2011 budget to the 2012 budget noted above comes to $68 million.

However, I see these revenues falling into three categories - revenue that will recover with the economy, money to fund projects that will not happen if the funding does not come through, and revenue that will never come back again. One would expect the best effort to be made to bridge the gap for those revenue streams that should recover - trying to make ends meet until a better day returns. One would expect to forgo those projects funded by grants. And one would expect structural changes to the operation of the City-County to accommodate the reality that some funds are gone forever, as the assets that generated the revenue are gone forever.

Using those categories, the $16.5 million reduction in tax revenues should be bridged. This was already accomplished with the $20 million in budget cuts.

The $15.7 million reduction in federal grants should simply mean that those programs do not happen.

The $17 million from the sale of the parking meter and sewer utility assets is never coming back and there really should be permanent cuts made to reflect this reality.

The $18.3 million from the loss of the rainy day fund and the lack of new funds from the golf course subfund could go into either the first or last category - but I think they belong in the latter, since they cannot come back until much after the economy recovers. This would bring the need for a structural budget change to $35.3 million.

Instead of dealing with this reality during an election year, the Ballard administration prefers to rob the downtown TIF district in order to make ends meet.

The statement has been made that there will only be $20 million in excess funds left in the consolidated downtown TIF to appropriate for the 2013 budget. The Ameriplex TIF has been robbed to depletion over the last couple of years. There will be almost no wiggle room left and severe cuts, the need for which are being ignored this year, will have to be made next year.

Council To Meet Tonight

2011-10-03T16:44:00.000-04:00

The City-County Council will meet tonight, October 3rd. The agenda indicates a public hearing on the budgets of the Municipal Corporations (CIB, Library, IndyGo, Airport, and Health & Hospitals). At the last Council meeting there was a public hearing on the budget. Discussion led to this second opportunity for the community to speak up, as these budgets had not yet been presented at any Council committees. There were, however, a couple of City-County budgets that were in the same situation, most notably those budgets for IMPD and IFD. Perhaps tonight's public hearing will allow for comments on those budgets, as well.

Of those proposals being introduced, one caught my eye. That is Prop 277, sponsored by Councillors Mansfield, Coleman, Sanders, and Brian Mahern, that asks Mayor Ballard to "cease and desist from all efforts to rename Georgia Street". The agenda indicates that the proposal will be assigned to the 'committee of the whole' meaning the entire Council. Thus, it could be discussed and acted upon tonight.

Besides the budget ordinances still working through the committees, Prop 242, which seeks county option income tax refunds to certain qualifying low wage downtown hotel workers, was tabled by the Rules committee on September 27 by a 4-2 vote. This may have gone down party lines, as those committee members in attendance were Republicans McQuillen, Cockrum, Lutz, and Rivera, and Democrats Mansfield and Gray.

Time For A Free-For-All

2011-09-27T09:27:00.000-04:00

I'm battling a cold right now and in a bit of a fog, so best I don't prove it with a blog entry.

But, if there is something you want to talk about - here's your chance. The silly season of the election? Budget pros and cons? Georgia Street name or costs? Have at it.

Comlux Hasn't Paid Property Taxes In 2011 Yet - Oopsie !

2011-09-23T17:55:00.001-04:00

Now, if you or I didn't pay our property taxes, we'd be sweating each time the phone rang. Hell, they got Capone on taxes.

But, if you are are a business in Indy and can make the right connections, the city will toss you a $6.5 million loan with the possibility that half a million of it will be forgiven if you manage to meet certain job creation targets.

That's what happened with Comlux America, LLC, who will use the loan to help build itself a new, bigger, hangar on airport property. The Airport also has a deal to acquire the hangar once it is built and lease it back to Comlux. It apparently meant little that Comlux America, LLC, had not filed its required Form 103/104 to report its Business Personal Property (due by May 15, 2010) until after the May, 2011, property taxes were usually due. Because of the late filing, the property taxes on the personal property are now due in November. Presumably with a penalty added on. Hopefully with a penalty added on. As of today, the taxes remain unpaid.

As with all businesses that locate on airport property, they get a pass on real estate property taxes. So, one might think that the City would at least require such a company getting a loan secured with TIF district proceeds to be current in the taxes it does owe. Guess there really aren't any sort of minimal standards and there seems to be little due diligence on the part of the Ballard administration when it comes to handing out our money. I am given to understand that at least some people knew of the unpaid taxes during the process to approve the deal.

The MDC voted in favor of the deal on December 5, 2010 (There are 9 voting members, but I do not have the exact vote).

The Economic Development Commission voted in favor of the deal on June 8, 2011 (There are 5 voting members, but I do not have the exact vote).

On July 13, the Economic Development Committee of the Council voted 5-0 in favor of the deal. I even showed up to voice opposition to the use of TIF funds, but it never crossed my mind that they were behind in filing their business personal tax form, much less late in paying the taxes that would be due had the form been timely filed.

On July 15, the Indianapolis International Airport Board voted 6-0 to delegate authority to the Executive Director to approve the deal.

On July 18, the City-County Council voted in favor of this proposal (Prop 190, 2011) by a vote of 25 yes, 2 no (Councillors Ed Coleman and Brian Mahern), and 2 not voting (Councillors Doris Minton McNeil and Joanne Sanders). While the minutes of this meeting suggest a somewhat extended discussion of the Proposal, nobody stopped to ask if the company was current with its tax filings.

That's a lot of people to get through. Maybe it should become a standard question in the future, so that the overarching interests of the public are served.

Sheriff's Budget Discussion - A Fine Example Of Open Government

2011-09-12T12:00:00.000-04:00

I continue to slog through all of the budget numbers, and along with that, I have limited time to post on the blog. Time constraints aside, I did not want my comment on the best budget hearing I've attended so far to go unmade. So, here it is.

Last week I attended the public safety committee hearing on the Sheriff's budget. There was a very good exchange of ideas and concerns aired, primarily between Sheriff John Layton, committee Chairman Ben Hunter, and Council President Ryan Vaughn - although others contributed as well.

Now there is no way I am privy to what gets discussed and wheeled and dealed behind closed doors. This, though, was some of that but out in full public view - and it was reassuring as to the caliber of discussions that should be taking place as this difficult budget moves forward.

Sheriff Layton expressed his concerns that his department is falling further and further behind with, as he put it, unfunded mandates. His tally was about $21 m to catch up; a number that included $1.5 m to fully fund the required pension payment.

Councillor Vaughn promised that the pension payment funding would get included into the budget before final passage by the Council.

The remaining exchanges involved ideas on how to trim back the deficit for the Sheriff and where additional funds might be found. I should point out that all were not in agreement on the actual figure assigned to the Sheriff's deficit. But, the discussion was civil, respectful, thoughtful, and rigorous. All sides were listening and responding not to any politics, but to what was actually said.

It was a good night. Real problems were outlined. Real solutions were thrown onto the table. The people's business was conducted in the open air for all to see. And, that business was conducted in an elevated manner befitting our community.

I'm not trying to be patronizing here, but -- good job Sheriff Layton, Councillor Hunter, and Councillor Vaughn. It was a fine demonstration to this citizen, that the people's business can be done well and in full view of the public.

Riveting Reading - Advance Indiana Reports From Plowman Trial

2011-09-08T09:09:00.001-04:00

If there is a prize for excellence in reporting on blogs, I want to nominate Gary Welsh over at Advance Indiana for his riveting reportage on the Lincoln Plowman trial.

At this point, Welsh has a report for each of the two first days. Day 1 ("Prosecutors Say Plowman Claimed He Controlled All Zoning Boards In Marion County") Day 2 ("Plowman Trial Evidence Shows the Sleazy Side of Indianapolis Zoning")

I highly recommend you read them in their entirety.

As everyone knows, former City-County Councillor Lincoln Plowman is on trial for accepting money in return for helping land proper zoning for a strip club. An undercover FBI agent was posing as the guy who wanted to open up the club.

The case is opening up a view from the inside of the Boards of Zoning Appeals and the Metropolitan Development Commission that I have never seen in the 15 or more years I have worked for my neighborhood group in zoning and variance matters. It is the seedy side long suspected, though.

Plowman instructs the FBI agent on what is called 'board shopping'. Variance petitions are assigned randomly to one of the three Boards of Zoning Appeals - specifically to derail board shopping. But, you never know why a transfer to another Board is really being requested. Here's this part of Welsh's report [note that references to "Cam" are to Cameron Clarke, who used to be a local zoning attorney, and who was recommended to the FBI agent by Plowman as a good choice for hire in the strip club matter]:

The agent worries that he's going to be spending a lot of money and wants some assurance the zoning matter will be taken care of. "Well, all the Zoning Boards are changing at the first of the year," Plowman said. "But you're going to know somebody?", the agent asked. "Oh yeah," Plowman reassured him. Plowman then said he would focus on just one of the three zoning boards and will "make sure that Cam gets it on that Board." Here's how Plowman explained it would work:

You know, for example, if--uh, there's three zoning boards. Say our friends are on board two--and, and , and your case gets assigned to board one, we need to clue Cam--now, first of all, even though we may have friends on board, zone board two, doesn't mean it'll be a sure thing. But, better. So, if he gets assigned to board one, he'll just say, you, I'm unable to make that day on board one, is there, can we go to board two?
Plowman explains to him that there are five members who sit on each board and three votes will be needed for a favorable zoning decision. "If I've got a couple of my buddies up there, or even if I don't, you know, a month, or a month or two before the--we know we're going to--you know, we'll know, there's going to be a timeline," Plowman explained. "So, a month or two before we go, I'll take one, I'll take them out to dinner, one at a time." The agent wonders if a dinner is going to do the trick. Plowman says it will help to have people testify in favor of the zoning request as well. The agent asks if Plowman's friend Jason Gaines will be able to help out. Plowman explained that Jason, who was sitting on the MDC, would likely be leaving the board at the end of the year because of how much time it consumed, even though "he likes the limelight" of serving on the MDC. The MDC would only hear the case if a re-zoning was required as opposed to a variance, in which case one of the zoning boards would hear the case Plowman explained.

Public trust is a fragile thing. Public trust in zoning and variance matters is going to take a hit with the revelations coming out of the Plowman trial.

Nepotism In Decatur Schools

2011-09-07T09:50:00.000-04:00

I have posted the beginning of a much longer list of family members of School Board members and administrators who are employed in the Decatur School district. The list is in the text box on the top left of the blog page.

Robbing The Downtown TIF - How Will The Feds Feel About It?

2011-09-06T09:09:00.000-04:00

Plans are to rob $38.5 million from the consolidated downtown TIF district, in order to make ends meet for the City in 2012 (see earlier blog entry "Oy Vey! They Are Robbing The Downtown TIF District - AGAIN !"). More details came out during a Council committee meeting week before last.

Turns out that they are not only eyeballing the $38.5 m this year, but have gone to the trouble to determine that another $20 m should be 'available' for the taking in 2013.

The mechanism for extracting the money from the TIF is simple - they just tell the MDC, "by the way, we didn't tell you at the time, but all that roadwork we have been doing downtown, well, it was just a loan to you. So, give us the money. We'll figure out how many years we've been loaning you money right after we figure out how much money we need."

If standing the TIF laws on their head isn't enough fun, maybe the powers that be on the 25th floor can rattle the State and Feds up with some details of their loan deal with the MDC. By that I refer to this administration's intention to declare they are owed not only the City money that was contributed to road projects, but is actually owed the money contributed by the State of Indiana and by the Federal Government through transportation dollars or stimulus money, as well. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like the City is content to launder Federal and State matching dollars for transportation infrastructure projects and turn it into operating dollars.

Wonder how the State and Feds will feel about that? I sure hope somebody in the Ballard administration thought to ask that question. Just so one or both don't come knocking at our door in a year or two, wanting all of that money back.

IMPD Budget Shows 5% Cut

2011-09-02T10:29:00.001-04:00

The introduced 2012 budget is curious in many ways. Some of the anomalies will surface in this blog entry. The topic for this morning is the fact that the 2012 IMPD budget is 95% of the 2011 budget - and why I care and why I don't care.

Why I care is easy - Because Mayor Ballard, in his introduction of the budget to the Council, said

The 2012 budget proposal reflects my commitment to public safety. I’ve proposed flat line spending for all public safety and criminal justice agencies, which together consume 85 percent of the 2012 general fund budget.

This is Mayor Ballard's fourth budget, and the fourth time that the facts did not support what he told the public and the press. I care because I believe that the public has a right to know the truth at all times.

Why I don't care about the 5% decrease is more involved in how IMPD has approached budgeting in the past and what that likely means for the introduced budget.

Lets start with the 2012 budget for IMPD that is under consideration by the Council. It calls for a total of $192 million. For the current 2011 budget, IMPD got $199 million, plus it was just appropriated an additional $2.7 million through Prop 171 (see "The Public's Right To Know - Dragging The Super Bowl Expenditures Out Into The Open"), for a grand total of $202 million.

So, simple math -- the difference between the current 2011 budget and the proposed 2012 budget amounts to a 5% cut.

I must stop here to mention one of the 'anomolies' that I alluded to. That is the use of placeholders to represent budget cuts that have been demanded by the Controller, but the Departments have not yet decided exactly where to fit into the line items. This was the case for the Parks budget, with a -$1 million line item. It was the case for the Superior Courts, with a more modest -$21,000 line item.

For the IMPD budget there is actually a -$4 million placeholder that has not been distributed into the various line items. Will it go into salaries, supplies, third party contracts? At this moment, nobody in the public can really know. We'll have to wait until September 21, when they will hand out changes in the line item budgets just before the Public Safety Committee meeting starts. And then we have to hope that, unlike Parks and the Superior Courts, officials have actually made the decision on where to allocate the cuts.

There is another interesting line item that I just don't know how to interpret. That is the line item for 'lease and rental of equipment'. The 2010 actual spend on this line was $2.4 m, the 2011 adopted budget for this line was $8.5 m, but the 2012 introduced budget for this line is -$733,287. Curious.

And last on my 'anomalies' list, there is no footprint in the introduced IMPD budget of any portion of the $4.2 m 'donation' from the CIB to cover super bowl expenses. The overtime line item actually drops from $7.2 m to $6.5 m.

So why don't I care that the IMPD budget is being cut by 5%?

First, this is the second Ballard budget where revenue drops, and the first where real cuts of significant amounts must be made. I mention in my last post (see "Is The Sale Of City Assets The Real Reason For This Year's Budget Chrunch [sic]?"), that the drop in tax revenues is relatively modest and handled by the 6% reduction requested of all non-public safety departments. The real hit to the budget appears to be another $50 million, and stem from the sale of the sewer utility and the parking meters. So, even though I disagreed with those sales, they still must be dealt with in this and future budgets. In my opinion, that means that we must make cuts in all departments and not spare some, especially those with the largest dollar appropriations and therefore the most wiggle room.

Second is the apparent practice of IMPD to pad its budgets significantly. If you look back through the last few years' budgets you find this:

2009 budget
In 2008, a budget for 2009 was adopted for a total of $222 million
In 2009, while the next year's budget was introduced, the projected spend for IMPD in 2009 was noted as $192 million
In 2010, the actual 2009 spend was reported as $187 million - a full 15.8% less than the adopted amount

2010 budget
In 2009, a budget for 2010 was adopted for a total of $210 million
In 2010, while the next year's budget was introduced, the projected spend for IMPD in 2010 was noted as $208 million
In 2011, the actual 2010 spend was reported as $196 million - a more modest 6.7% less than the adopted amount

The third reason is the Hummer I saw parked near City Hall one day with IMPD logos on it and an additional decal thanking the crooks for the car. I assume it was forfeited as property obtained through drug trafficking. But, come on boys (and girls). Did you HAVE to keep the Hummer, or did you just want to drive around in it? These are tough times and all of our public servants should abandon ostentatious and unnecessary displays of opulence. I know this is a petty reason on my part. But, keeping that car and trying to justify it on the car itself was petty on the part of whoever made that decision.

With these large budgets, a million is less than a percent. But, it is real money that can be used elsewhere and not tied up in a game of pad the budget.

We'll have to wait for the updated line item expenditures to see where IMPD officials allocate the $4 million in budget cuts, over and above the nearly $6 million cut already distributed among line items, to be sure where the fallout will be felt. At that time we can all decide what we think is fair and prudent cuts for IMPD in a particularly bad year for the budget.

Is The Sale Of City Assets The Real Reason For This Year's Budget Chrunch?

2011-08-31T12:34:00.001-04:00

This is the fifth year that I have spearheaded the budget review effort of the Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations. Each year is different to some extent. This year there are some real anomalies and, frankly, I'm still trying to wrap my head around them. So, none of that in this post.

Mayor Ballard and his administration are focusing their comments, and hoping thereby to focus the public's attention, on decreased tax revenues and waving their hands about a $64 million shortfall in order to justify transferring $38.5 million from the consolidated downtown TIF to make ends meet. I cannot actually locate the $4.2 million transfer from the CIB in the 2012 budget, so I am leaving that off for now.

The rhetoric is that property taxes are stable, but income taxes are off $85 million from their peak in 2010. A closer look at the numbers provided in the 2012 budget book show a drop of $11 million in combined local tax revenues, an increase of $7 million in property tax revenues, and a drop of $15 million in income tax revenues between the 2011 and 2012 budget years. Add it all up and you have a drop of $19 million. Real money to be sure, but the City claims to have cut the budget by $20 million simply by requesting non-safety departments that rely on these very tax revenues to each cut their budgets by 6%.

Ordinarily I would also be commenting upon all of the other sources of revenue in this paragraph. But, unfortunately this year's budget book does not supply a summary table of revenues. I will have to slog through the details of the budget, which has been provided online, create my own spreadsheet and from that, my own summary table. I have not had the time. Representatives of the Office of Finance and Management insist that a summary table will be provided before the budget ordinance is passed. Great.

Moving on.

The budget for the Department of Public Works is more than interesting this year. That Department operated the profitable sewer utility that was the sweetheart part of the sale of the water and sewer utilities to Citizens Energy - a deal that closed this past week. DPW's budget is also the one that serves as the collector of parking meter fees. You will recall that the meters were sold via a 50 year lease with ACS and some local parking companies with enough political clout to get themselves included in this great giveaway of public assets.

Comparing the DPW budgets for 2011 and 2012 it is easy to see that expenses (p. 41 of the link) have dropped by $78.4 million (largely due to the off-loading of the sewer and water utilities), but a drop in revenues (p. 37 of the link) of $153.0 million. Looking closer, there is a drop in contribution from the Indianapolis Foundation/Central Indiana Foundation from $8 million to $200 thousand.

Under parking meters you can see a drop from $2.3 m in 2011 to $1.3 m in 2012. This, of course, is part and parcel of the fee-sharing demanded by the parking meter contract. None the less, it means less money for the City each year. In 2012 it means $1 m less. Still real money.

The rest appears to be mostly sewer utility related - so, roughly a drop of $144 m, give or take a couple of million. There is a PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) that was increased this year and continues to flow from the sewer utility. That seems to be contained in its own fund which shows revenue for 2012 of $7.5 m. There is also another roughly $3.5 m scattered among a number of funds from PILOT payments from Waterworks. Good money, but not enough to cover the cash cow that the sewer utility was for the City and its taxpayers.

All of this distills down to about a $50 million revenue shortfall due to the sale of the sewer and water utilities and a $1 million revenue shortfall due to the 50 year lease of the parking meters.

It is apparent that the sale of our assets, especially our profitable assets, is having a much larger impact on the 2012 budget than is any drop in tax revenues. And while tax revenues will recover, loss of our assets will be a permanent loss to all future City/County budgets.

It therefore becomes imperative that the cuts be considered permanent and structural changes be made for sustainable budgets going forward. Sure, Mayor Ballard can transfer (aka 'rob') $38.5 million from the consolidated downtown TIF to make ends meet in 2012. But, lets not pretend that that is a permanent solution to a permanent change in City finances.

Combined, Marion County TIF Districts Lost $28 Million In Base Value In One Year

2011-08-29T12:13:00.000-04:00

Taken all together, there was an aggregate loss of $28 million in the base assessed value of the Marion County TIF Districts. For some background see "TIF Districts - Who Knew The Base Could Drop?". The cliff notes are that each year the County Auditor sends a form to the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance for each and every TIF District in the County. This is vital information for the DLGF and the County in calculating property tax rates.

I mentioned in that July blog entry that there were 15 TIF Districts whose base value had dropped to $0 at some time in the past. I have now obtained the forms filed for these districts for tax year 2012 and have compared them with those filed last year. No additional districts saw their base assessed value drop to zero. But, all districts not at zero base AV, saw the value of the base drop between 2011 and 2012 taxing year. When a TIF district is begun, the base AV is the value of all property in the district on day zero. We are led to believe that that property value of the base continues to rise and fall with the market over time, but the taxes collected from those properties will always flow to the "base", or all of the taxing units (schools, townships, library, IndyGo, etc), and not be taken to pay off the TIF debt. This turns out not to be true.

Combined, as I said above, the drop in Marion County TIF district base AV was $28,093,698. Part of that drop is due to the fact that property values have dropped as the recession continues. Using the drop in the total gross assessed value for the entire County as an good estimate of the general drop, we can see a loss of 0.48%. Applying that percentage to the TIF district base AV, one would expect a drop in value of only $7.5 million.

The TIF Districts that experienced a drop in base AV greater than one expects from the recession were:

From the consolidated downtown TIF (8 districts - 6 at zero base AV)
145 - union station project - dropped $819,419 or 2.50%

From the airport eda (7 districts - 3 at zero base AV, one of which is government owned)
940 - wayne twp airport eda - dropped $1,353,814 or 0.58%
941 - wayne twp airport eda - dropped $7,779,920 or 55.55%

Both Glendale eda TIF districts have base AV's of zero

Other Indianapolis TIF districts (13 districts - 6 at zero base AV)
149 - united nw area - dropped $4,873,206 or 9.86%

From the Beech Grove Hospital TIF (3 districts - none at zero base AV)
170 - beech grove consolidated allocation area - dropped $182,146 or 5.59%

From the Beech Grove Amtrak/Conrail Redev. area (3 districts - none at zero base AV)
552 - south emerson redevelopment area - dropped $133,886 or 2.66%

Lawrence TIFs (3 districts - one with zero base AV and it was government owned) - recession drop only

Speedway TIFs (3 districts - one with zero base AV)
947 - speedway allocation area 2 - dropped $7,369,351 or 9.49%

Inactive TIF districts ( increment value is passed on to base - base is recalculated since TIF district still exists) (3 such districts - one with zero base AV - recession drop only)

Why these particular districts saw extra large drops in base AVs, I have no clue. But, its a start just to know that they did. Maybe someone with influence can find out and let the rest of us know.

Ballard Pushes New TIFs Forward - Attempts To Complete Before Term Of Office Up

2011-08-25T09:40:00.000-04:00

With a schedule that appears to be reverse engineered to beat the expiry date of Ballard's _____ (first, last) term, the Mayor is pushing 4 new TIF districts forward (see earlier blog entry, "Going For Broke - The Ballard Paradigm?"). While the schedule is known, the target projects and their beneficiaries are not publicly disclosed.

September 7 - MDC to vote on the establishment of economic redevelopment areas

September 19 - Introduction to City-County Council

Some time in September and/or October, committee to which proposal is assigned (likely Metropolitan Development committee, chaired by Janice (Shhh!) McHenry) will consider and may take public comment

Depending on committee pace, the full Council would vote on the matter some time in October or November

November or December - if passed by the full Council, the MDC will hold its public hearing followed by its final vote

The past practice of this administration has been to withhold any information which it is not explicitly asked about. Expect the continuing rhetoric to be that they MIGHT invoke a TIF district, right now they just want the flexibility to do so some time in the future and want to be able to lend assistance from other sources when it is appropriate. It sure would be nice if they just came out and said "if passed, they will be TIF districts, just like we always planned", for then the public could comment on reality, not a supposed hypothetical.

Meeting Tomorrow (Thursday, August 25) To Take Back Decatur Schools

2011-08-24T08:40:00.000-04:00

There is a meeting tomorrow night that was announced in the comments section of my blog entry "Cataloging Nepotism At MSD Decatur Township". I am cutting and pasting that announcement below.

Meeting Thursday the 25Th @ 7:00 @ the home place off of mooresville Rd. Please come and voice your concerns, also looking for GOOD people to run for school board. If your child class room has to many in it , there is to many on their bus,their on the bus to long,their walking a long way to get on or off the bus, or your just a tax payer in decatur township PLEASE come and help us make changes.

Alert Reader, Jon, Delves Into Our2012SB, Inc., Contract

2011-08-24T08:33:00.000-04:00

Alert reader Jon, has done a bang up job of delving into the contract between DPW and Our2012SB, Inc, which I exposed in my post the other day (see "Super Bowl Host Committee Got To Design Georgia Street - Taxpayers Get To Pay For It") He has pulled some interesting items from this contract and made mention of those in the comments section of that blog post. I think they deserve broader exposure, so I will cut and paste his findings below. Here is the link to contract 8667 (in the log in screen, enter "public" in both boxes). Contract 8667 is between DPW and Our2012SB, Inc., for $1.6 million, signed 2/22/11. Jon also brings up contract 8131, which is a contract between INDOT and DPW for the Georgia Street project, for $8 million of federal road construction money, signed 10/15/10.

Thanks Jon. Great work.

Did some quick browsing on contract 8667 among the interesting things I found; most of the initial design work was planned in February and March of 2010 but the contract 8667 have a start date of 03/2011. I don't read construction contracts on a regular basis so I don't know if this is unusual or not.

The project grew from 4 million to over 10 million in less then six months, pages 66-67. The initial 4 million was from federal highway dollars, wonder where the other 6+ million will come from. There is some mention of steam heated sidewalks and that alone is 1+ million dollars.

Somewhere in attachment D the total "Optional" cost is over 13 million dollars; part of those costs, bicycle racks $13,882.50, ornamental rails $85,000.00, rain gardens $16,056.00, trees (8")$150,000.00, trees (6") $60,000.00, trees (4") $20,000.00 and radiant heat items, intersections $243,000.00, on Georgia Street $791,610.00 and vault for radiant heat $120,000.00.
No wonder they don't want anyone to see what is really going on!

and

Contract #8131, 10/18/2010, for 10 million for Georgia St. Project, 8 million fed and 2 million local. Is this contract also part of the SB update? I can't tell there aren't a lot of spefifics in the document.

The Cash Flows At The CIB

2011-08-23T08:53:00.000-04:00

Its like we have our very own soap opera. Instead of who is sleeping with whom, we have the always entertaining exhibition of the Capital Improvement Board being dirt poor one day, flush with cash the next, only to fall into abject need soon after.

Gary Welsh over at Advance Indiana (see "Georgia Street Project Includes Heated Street and Sidewalks") and Paul Ogden at Ogden On Politics (see "CIB To Spend $8 Million on Super Bowl") have both taken up WTHR's Mary Milz report that the CIB has an additional $8 million to contribute to the super bowl effort. I began leaving comments on their blogs, but I have too much to say. Figured I'd say it here.

Milz reports that the CIB will contribute about $8 million to the superbowl effort -- $4 million to help pay for Indianapolis' Department of Public Safety costs and another $4.2 million for more private security and other gameday expenses, which the CIB says the NFL will repay. Some excerpts from Milz' report:

On Monday, the board approved a plan to cover private security as well as some of the other operational costs including staffing and utilities. Also included in that $8 million appropriation is $4 million for the city's Department of Public Safety. A spokesperson for Public Safety Director Frank Straub said it's earmarked to cover overtime for police and firefighters during the Super Bowl, noting 150 officers would be positioned inside the stadium alone.

and

Lathrop said the NFL has agreed to reimburse the CIB roughly $4.2 for specific gameday expenses including private security. She said the CIB hopes to recoup the remaining $4 million from the extra tax revenue generated during the Super Bowl.

Right now they're looking at a net loss of roughly $800,000. Lathrop said the goal of the CIB wasn't to make money off the Super Bowl but to help the city facilitate an event expected to generate millions in economic impact.

She said the lease between the CIB and NFL for the use of LOS and the Convention Center will cover the reimbursements. She said it's expected to be finalized very soon.

Here are my thoughts in no particular order -

1) Mayor Greg Ballard is facing reelection and cannot afford, politically, to cover the costs of IMPD and IFD overtime due to the superbowl - while cutting all departments except the Department of Code Enforcement.

2) Last year the Mayor, through the MDC, gifted the CIB $8 million a year that is really destined for the Pacers, but which began with a December payment of $4 million that amounted to a surplus over what was "needed" for the Pacers. The CIB now re-purposes that gift and returns it to Mayor Ballard for superbowl expenses that the public was told would not be.

3) The CIB knows full well that it will be back to begging for more tax increases next spring. So, as a foreshadowing, it says that they will incur a "net loss of roughly $800,000". The CIB bailout passed by the Indiana Legislature a couple of years ago, still has two tax rates that are scheduled to come up for consideration during a couple month window in the spring of 2012. The City-Council can vote to raise the car rental tax and the admissions tax during that window. If it fails to act, the option dies. So, the CIB cannot go full tilt boogey with their flamoyant lifestyle at this time, lest they lose the sympathy of the Council next spring when they will again claim that hard times have once again descended upon them - through no fault of their own, mind you.

4) Nobody will release the terms of the agreement between the City and the NFL for hosting the superbowl next year. The City appears to be using the Host Committee (officially known as Our 2012 SB, Inc.) as a shell to protect the City from disclosure of the deal to the public. The state has agreed to turn over to the NFL all of its parking garages and their profits, as well as the State's tax profits from the superbowl. HB1125, passed in 2008, grants an exemption covering all state and local taxes, including the 6% admissions tax, to the NFL and the NCAA when Indianapolis is the host city for a Super Bowl or Men's or Women's Final Four event. It isn't a stretch, nor does it invoke a vast conspiracy theory, to conjecture that the City also agreed to such things. It is a bit more than curious that the CIB's Ann Lathrop says that the $4 million 'gift' is just about the same as the $4 million the CIB expects to profit from increased taxes during the superbowl. This can easily be the slight of hand employed to turn over all tax proceeds to the NFL - by paying for one of the NFL's legitimate costs. If that is not true, the City can prove it by releasing the terms of the deal with the NFL.

Gary Welsh said it all, when he said : "How stupid do they think people are?"

Meanwhile, the soap opera continues.

Our2012SB, Inc., Tax Returns

2011-08-22T16:46:00.003-04:00

What I hope to accomplish with my posts on Super Bowl 2012 is to get the City of Indianapolis to divulge all that it has committed to do for that event, what they have committed to spend on that event, and what laws they have agreed to suspend, bend, or overrule through the Superbowl ordinance that just passed. The public has an inherent right to know what their elected officials have contracted for - even if it is accomplished through shell companies. Then, with full disclosure, the public can decide if it is worth it or not.

Last week I noted that there is a contract between Our 2012 SB, Inc, also known as the Indianapolis 2012 Super Bowl Host Committee and the City of Indianapolis' Department of Public Works (see "Super Bowl Host Committee Got To Design Georgia Street - Taxpayers Get To Pay For It"). The contract calls on DPW to expend $1.6 million to pay for the design work that originally was part of a contract between design firms and Our 2012 SB, Inc. The contracts call the project the "Super Bowl Village/Georgia Street" project. One of the more interesting, some might say frivolous, design changes noted in the initial round of contracts, subsequently taken over by DPW to pay, was to heat Georgia Street. Yes, the street and sidewalks will be heated from underneath with forced steam pipes. The cost estimate was another $1 million. Now, just how useful will that be beyond the Superbowl??? Come on. This clearly is a case of what sorts of things you spend money on, when you are spending someone else's money. Its just like the retractable roof on Lucas Oil Stadium, that rarely is retracted when the sun shines, but I hear, often leaks when it rains.

This brings me to the oft repeated promise that the superbowl would not cost taxpayers any money. The Host Committee would raise $25 million in private donations. Well, so far we have $600,000 of the City's budget allocated to creating free WiFi for superbowl visitors to the mile square - posted in the budget two years ago. We found out a week ago that IMPD spent $500,000 on superbowl expenses in the first 7 months of this year alone. We found the DPW contract for $1.6 million. The "Super Bowl Village/Georgia Street" project will cost taxpayers some $12 million. How much of that amount is specifically for the super bowl is not readily available. [edited to add: Mayor Ballard's 2012 budget calls for a one time $4 million donation to the City from the CIB to pay for IMPD efforts during the super bowl. This has not yet been approved]

One way to find more information would be to review the tax returns for the Host Committee. If you are not familiar, http://www.guidestar.org/ is a website that catalogues all tax returns for non-profits. One thing leading to another, I finally found the tax returns under the corporate name Our 2012 SB, Inc. From the tax returns I found that the former name was Indianapolis 2011, Inc. This was the Host Committee's formal name when it first attempted to land the superbowl, during the Peterson administration.

guidestar.org has 3 tax returns, covering the calendar years 2007, 2008, and 2009. The 2007 return was filed under the old corporate name.

In 2007, Indianapolis 2011, Inc., took in $400,772 and spent $377,184, apparently on the superbowl bid presentation. They reported no paid staff. The Board of Directors was co-chaired by Mitch Daniels, Bart Peterson, Jim Irsay, and Tony George.

In 2008, Our 2012 SB, Inc, took in $4,436,907 and spent $3,896,082. Towards the end of the year they hired a President/CEO, Allison Melangton. They paid her $57,622.00 salary plus benefits for those unspecified months of employment.

'Bid materials & expenses' accounted for $303,266. If anyone is interested in the articles of incorporation, they are included in the second half of this tax return.

In 2009, Our 2012 SB, Inc, took in $5,216,249 and spent $4,284,206. Melangton was paid $232,822.00 in salary plus benefits for the entire calendar year.

So, from 2007 through 2009, the Host Committee took in just over $10 million of the promised $25 million.

What we have on our hands is government officials using an intermediate company to keep pertinent documents from the public. Whether this was one of the initial reasons for setting up the Host Committee or a lucky accident, I cannot say. But, given that getting information from the Ballard administration regarding promise made to the NFL is like pulling teeth, I have to conclude they like it this way.

Super Bowl Host Committee Got To Design Georgia Street - Taxpayers Get To Pay For It

2011-08-18T15:16:00.001-04:00

One thing leads to another. I will spare you the bread crumbs leading me to this contract, but suffice it to say, it took over a month to get to this point.

Contained in the City's contract database is one between the Department of Public Works and Our 2012 SB, Inc, for $1,561,200. It is contact 8667 if you would like to read it. It is 146 pages long. I have read only the beginning of it, but wanted to share it with you.

The gist is that INDOT selected a designer for Georgia Street (Crawford Murphy & Tilley). The Designer entered into a consulting agreement with the Host Committee (aka Our 2012 SB, Inc) to design the Street and assume responsibility for paying for the design. On February 22, 2011, DPW agreed to reimburse Our 2012 SB, Inc., for the cost of that design.

Our 2012 SB, Inc., is a 501 (c)(6) not for profit corporation whose purpose is described as

a mutual benefit corporation organized to promote the common business interests, growth and opportunity, and the general economic welfare for businesses in and around Indianapolis, Indiana (the "City"), by attracting and hosting a professional football championship game in the City.

Our 2012SB, Inc, submitted a successful bid for the National Football League's Super Bowl XLVI, a profession football championship to be held in Indianapolis in 2012.

Under the supervision of the National Football League, Our 2012SB will centralize the planning and the execution of the 2012 Super Bowl to ensure coordination of all efforts and community resources. Our 2012 SB will serve as an extension to the National Football League in the local community, as the City's ambassador to the incoming Super Bowl fans, guests, and corporations, and as a manager of local resources such as City services, event venues, accommodations, and thousands of volunteers.

The Public's Right To Know - Dragging The Superbowl Expenditures Out Into The Open

2011-08-18T11:00:00.000-04:00

It is my contention that the public has an inherent right to know how much the Superbowl is costing us, and how the City's deal with the NFL is affecting our laws. I now see the beginning of bipartisan movement within the Council to pull at least the costs out of the Ballard administration. While more is needed, I'll give one big HOORAY ! to the Council for getting the ball rolling.

There were two proposals considered on Monday night that, together, illuminated the fact that its not just those of us accustomed to the cheap seats who do not know what is going on, but also the Council whose statutory role is to hold the purse strings.

First up was Prop 171 which both changed how previously appropriated Public Safety dollars could be spent and added new money to that budget. Fellow blogger Gary Welsh has posted about the lack of toilet paper and other essentials in Public Safety offices (see "Life in Straubville" and "More On Life In Straubville").

The overall reasoning offered to the Council for the need to shuffle funds between categories of types of expenditures was this - The usual pattern of expenditures for supplies is about $1.5 m a year. Public Safety was allowed to ask for only about $800 k for supplies in last year's budget and "challenged to find operational efficiencies" with the understanding that they would then go back to the Council and shuffle those savings into the supplies category. In addition, there is money in the federal law enforcement fund that has never been appropriated.

Now, I did attend those budget hearings and it was never disclosed aloud that such an agreement was working. I don't know what the Councillors were told.

They seem to have found "operational efficiencies" in personnel costs, as that is the only category from which money is being shuffled. But, supplies is not the only category getting the newly allocated funds. The category that includes outside contracts is actually getting more money from the combination of "operational efficiencies" and the federal law enforcement fund. While $731,650 is now going into supplies, just over $2 million is going into the category of "Other Services and Charges", which includes professional contracts and outside consulting contracts and the like. No explanation was given at the Council meeting for the need for beefing up that category.

During the explanation of all of this, it also came out, that the Department of Public Safety has already spent over $500,000 this year on expenses for the Superbowl. During last year's budget hearings, absolutely no mention was made of the need for money for the Superbowl and it seems to have been news to the Councillors that the total was already so high.

The vote on Prop 171 was 20 yeas and 7 nays. The yeas were Democrats Brown, Evans, B. Mahern, D. Mahern, Minton-McNeill, Oliver, joining Republicans Cain, Cardwell, Cockrum, Day, Freeman, Hunter, Malone, McHenry, McQuillen, Pfisterer, Rivera, Sandlin, Vaughn, and lone Libertarian Coleman. The nays were Democrats Gray, Lewis, Manfield, Moriarty, Nytes, Sanders along with Republican Lutz. Councillor Bateman was listed as "not voting" and Councillor Scales was absent all evening.

This leads to Proposal 188, the Superbowl Ordinance, and its discussion. An amendment was offered by Councillor Brian Mahern to get an accounting of the City's costs for each civic event each year by May 1. There was a gentleman's agreement that Council President, Ryan Vaughn, would ask that the accounting for actual and expected Superbowl expenditures be provided to the Council by November 1, 2011. I think I heard that it would be offered at a public meeting.

The Mahern amendment was offered with the bipartisan support of the sponsor of the Superbowl Ordinance, Councillor Angel Rivera.

The vote on the Superbowl Ordinance, Prop 188, was 22 yeas and 5 nays. The yea votes were cast by Republicans Cain, Cockrum, Day, Hunter, Malone, McHenry, McQuillen, Pfisterer, Rivera, Vaughn, along with Democrats Brown, Evans, Gray, Lewis, B. Mahern, D. Mahern, Mansfield, Minton-McNeill, Moriarty, Nytes, Oliver and Sanders. The nay votes came from Republicans Cardwell, Freeman, Lutz, Sandlin joined by Libertarian Coleman. Councillor Bateman was listed as "not voting" and Councillor Scales was absent all evening.

So, through all of this, we, the Citizens of Indianapolis, will be getting some advance knowledge on how much money has been spent and how much more is expected to be spent on the Superbowl by the City/County. It may be worth it or not, but at least we will have the information upon which we can come to our conclusions.

We still do not have similar information regarding which of our laws will be avoided by the passage of the Superbowl Ordinance, and unfortunately, no real push evident on the part of the Council to get just such an accounting. I'll continue to write on this blog about the effect of the illusive agreement between the City and the NFL, as I firmly believe that it is an inherent right of the public to know exactly what has been promised the NFL in return for their naming our City as the host of the 2012 Superbowl.

For now, though, it is a good sign that the Councillors are waking up to the fact that this Superbowl will actually have scarce City and County government dollars spent on it. They are the fiscal body for the City and County and they are asserting that role - which is very good to see indeed.

Cataloging Nepotism At MSD Decatur Township

2011-08-18T09:10:00.000-04:00

Okay fellow Decaturites, I can use your help. I want to make a sidebar on this blog that lists all of the relatives of Board members and Administrators who are on the payroll at MSD Decatur Township. Please contribute the name of the employee, position, and relation to person of influence. Also add any other fact you think would enhance the utility of this list to waking up the Township to how much advantage these folks are personally taking of the District and its taxpayers.

Thank you.

The Right Of Public Comment Debated At City-County Council

2011-08-17T11:47:00.002-04:00

On Monday night the content of Proposal 210 was not the issue. The issue was how the Councillors in charge chose to shut down public comment on it. And this time, Democrats spoke up plainly and in numbers to challenge the ban.

Paul Ogden blogged about this episode of the Council meeting over at Ogden On Politics (see "Republican Councilors Vote to Oppose Public Comment and Open Government") yesterday.

The focal point of this whole thing was the appointment of one Richard Kraft to the Board of Zoning Appeals. At the committee meeting, Chairwoman Janice McHenry, announced that there would be no public comment taken. Furthermore, she cited the fact that Council rules leave the decision on whether there will or will not be any public testimony up to the discretion of the Chair (see "Public Input Sacrificed For The Convenience Of Elected Officials"). To make matters just a little bit worse, the public was also barred from obtaining a copy of Mr. Kraft's bio before the meeting started.

When Prop 210 was brought forth for full Council consideration Monday night, Councillor Angela Mansfield moved that the Council send it back to committee for the purpose of having public comment. Councillor McHenry reiterated that it was up to the Chair and that they did not have to take public comment. Councillor Vernon Brown stated that taking public comment was in the interest of open and transparent government. Mansfield's motion went to a vote and failed by a vote of 12 in support and 16 against sending Prop 210 back to committee.

Those voting yea were Democrats Bateman, Brown, Evans, Gray, Lewis, B. Mahern, D. Mahern, Mansfield, Moriarty, Nytes, Oliver and Sanders.

Those voting nay were Libertarian Coleman, Republicans Cain, Cardwell, Cockrum, Day, Freeman, Hunter, Lutz, Malone, McHenry, McQuillen, Pfisterer, Rivera, Sandlin, Vaughn, and lone Democrat Minton-McNeill.

The discussion continued to revolve around the issue of allowing public comment in committee meetings. Councillor Brian Mahern asked if they could take public comment right there and then and Council President Ryan Vaughn noted that it had not been posted for public comment therefore they could not.

Various Republican Councillors cast aspersions on the potential public commenters and said it made it difficult to find people who would want to serve. Various Democratic Councillors noted that the Chair should be able to control the meeting if inappropriate comments were being made, but that the public just might have something important to add to the decision making process. I think Councillor Monroe Gray had the most succinct take on it when he said "How do you know what someone is going to say, if you don't let them speak?"

I am glad that this dialog took place in the Council chambers. It is high time that Councillors put their heads together to find a new public process that protects the feelings of appointees, but weighs more heavily the public's right to make their opinions known. The BZAs and the MDC make extremely impactful decisions nearly every time they meet. Those of us who represent the interests of our neighborhoods have been reluctant to speak publicly about the reappointment of members of these bodies whose decisions or interactions with remonstrators are poor, for fear of recrimination when we appear before those individuals again. But, that self-imposed reluctance is falling by the wayside.

For myself, I hit a wall a couple of years ago and figured that certain members of the BZA could not possibly do any more harm to my area than they were already doing. These members actually ended up in the majority that granted a variance to a homeowner in an area with more than 5 houses per acre, allowing them to park a semi at their house. In the course of the hearing, one of these board members actually said to me, "if we make a decision today, will you stop coming down here?". This particular person had snotty comments to make to remonstrators all the time. I contacted the appointing bodies of these three individuals and noted that I would appear publicly and speak against their reappointment, should that ever happen. Since none of these three people were reappointed, I did not appear. But, I was fed up and certainly would have.

Sticking simply to the process - there must be a way to craft an open public process that meets multiple objectives. But, until such a process is crafted, one would hope that all of the Councillors would put far more weight on the integrity of open government, validated by open public hearings on all matters that come before the Council, including appointments to Boards and Commissions.

After much discussion on everything but Mr. Kraft, Prop 210 went to a vote. It passed by a vote of 17 to 11.

Those voting yea was Libertarian Coleman, Republicans Cain, Cardwell, Cockrum, Day, Freeman, Hunter, Lutz, Malone, McHenry, McQuillen, Pfisterer, Rivera, Sandlin, Vaughn, and Democrats B. Mahern and D. Mahern.

Those voting nay were Democrats Bateman, Brown, Evans, Gray, Lewis, Mansfield, Minton-McNeill, Moriarty, Nytes, Oliver, and Sanders.

[edited to note that Councillor Christine Scales was not present Monday night]

Unite Here ! Raises The Temperature On Behalf Of Downtown Hotel Workers

2011-08-16T10:00:00.001-04:00

Its one part brazen, one part brilliant.

Unite Here ! is a national group seeking to unionize hotel workers here in Indianapolis. Organizer Becky Smith is spearheading the 'adopt a hotel worker' movement that showed up in force at last night's City-County Council meeting.

You may recall how hotel management hid behind the skirts and aprons of the hotel workers two years ago, in order to get more tax money to the Capital Improvement Board (CIB). The CIB provides about 75% of the funding of the Indianapolis Convention and Visitors Association (ICVA). The ICVA spends money to discount room rates to conventions. See how tax revenues gets into the hands of the hotels?

Concurrent with raising their voices and using hotel workers as props to get taxes raised that would benefit themselves, these same hotel managers were increasing work loads, outsourcing jobs, and fighting the workers' right to unionize.

It does not take much of a realist to know that any hotel worker who stands up and speaks out against hotel management risks losing their job. Unite Here's answer - other folks step and and speak out on behalf of hotel workers - one person/one worker at a time.

Its one part gutzy, one part genius.

The focus of the adopt a hotel worker program is Prop 242, which was introduced at last night's Council meeting.

This proposal, sponsored by Councillors Lewis, Sanders, B. Mahern, D. Mahern, and Moriarty Adams, would return to a qualified hotel worker, the amount of County Option Income Tax paid by the worker. The aggregate payments could not exceed $250,000 or 10% of all money spent by the City/County on outside consultants in any particular year, whichever is less. The hotel worker must pay Marion County's COIT, must make more than $10,000 as a downtown hotel worker, and must make less than $25,000 total.

Smith is interested in getting Prop 242 passed with a bi-partisan majority of the Council.

It strikes me that the effort alone will help shed a bright light on the fact that those in top spots of the downtown hospitality industry are personally prospering, partially due to the largess of taxpayers, but also partially due to greater workloads and lower wages for those who occupy lower spots on the ladder.

It was exciting to see the crowd of red-shirted stand-ins for the hotel workers last night. They filled the seats, they filled the aisles, and they spilled into the lobby. It is good to be reminded that sometimes we simply must lead with our heart and our conscience and do what is right - simply because it is right.

I cannot end this piece without giving props to Council President, Ryan Vaughn. He did exactly the right thing last night regarding the crowd. He asked all city workers to give up their seats, and he let those folks standing in the aisles remain. So, kudos to him for being absolutely reasonable.

The proposal was assigned to the Rules committee, which will consider it on September 27 beginning at 5:30 pm, in the Public Assembly Room of the City-County Building.

All in all, this will be one to watch. For now though, you have to admit that Unite Here's adopt a hotel worker approach has some cachet. Its one part sassy, one part smart.

Oy Vey ! They Are Robbing The Downtown TIF District - AGAIN !

2011-08-12T09:35:00.000-04:00

I don't know if it was luck that I had too much to do yesterday, so I couldn't blog about how intrigued I was with the Ballard Administration's interest in creating a 'fiscal stability fund' with $80 million of the money they will soon receive from the sale of the water and sewer utilities to Citizens Energy Group. Now I read in today's Star a report by Chris Sikich, that the Mayor intends to steal $40 million from the Consolidated Downtown TIF District for use in the 2012 budget. Yes, I used the word 'steal'. There is so much wrong with this idea, that I will have to slow myself down just to be clear.

Back up to the fiscal stability fund. I attended the Council Rules committee meeting Wednesday night because they were going to consider the super bowl ordinance, and I had comments to make that I knew would fall on deaf ears - which they did. Not long before leaving the house I got an email alert from the IBJ about Scott Olson's report regarding the fiscal stability fund's creation and uses. So, I decided to stay and hear more. The fund would have a single deposit of $80 million from the proceeds of the sale of the utilities. Its purpose would be to maintain the same dollar amount now used to calm bond buyers that we can repay our water and sewer utility bonds. The responsibility to repay those bonds will transfer along with the assets of the utilities upon closing to Citizens Energy. The nut of the idea was to assure bond buyers that the City was flush with cash and our bonds were extra outstanding. It should be noted that during the Ballard term, our bond rating did slip temporarily from AAA. The stated intention of the fiscal stability fund was to keep the AAA rating. The need supposedly would only be for a year or two, then the money could be moved over to the RebuildIndy fund for use toward infrastructure projects.

I did ask one question that may be more pertinent than I thought at the time. That question was: could the MDC use accounting tricks in order to allow the reserve amounts in the TIF district funds to drop below prudent levels, by assuring bond holders that we had this extra $80 million just sitting there - so we were going to be able to make our payments on the bonds they bought. The answer came back - no.

I know that Democrats were trying to make the case that this fiscal stability fund was just being used as an accounting trick to make the City's 2012 budget seem balanced. I figured, and still do, that the validity of that assertion would become clear with the release of the budget numbers Monday night.

Fast forward to today's news about the City stealing $40 million from the Consolidated Downtown TIF district. The Mayor is saying that the City has the right to get a refund from that TIF district for all of the infrastructure work it has done over the years on downtown. Well... I wouldn't bet the farm that the City has that legal right. It has overstepped its legal authority time and again with that TIF district in the past couple of years to the point that they just say whatever they think they have to in order to use that TIF money as a slush fund.

Here are the thoughts running through my head on this news:

There is a difference between the MDC having a public hearing on the expenditure of funds from the Downtown TIF district for infrastructure improvements downtown BEFORE they occur, and the Mayor demanding a refund AFTER they occur.

Show the public the receipts from these improvements.

Any extra money in a TIF district belongs to all of the taxing units, not just the City. In fact, only about 1/3 of the property taxes would have gone into City/County coffers. About half would have flowed to IPS. There is a real disconnect when the City simply claims it all as their own.

Are the reserve funds that will be left in the consolidated downtown TIF district fund at the prudent level for the assurance of bond holders? The Council's economic advisor, Jim Steele, mentioned 15% as such a prudent benchmark. Or, is the City going to force that reserve to drop below prudent levels, then point to the $80 million fiscal stability fund to reassure bond holders that we can repay our debts?

Are the Democrats correct about the shell game? Is Mayor Ballard taking $80 million from the sale of the utility, using that as a substitute for the prudent reserve that should be left in the Downtown TIF fund, and absconding with $40 million from that fund to pay the City's bills in 2012? Is the real reason to maintain the fiscal stability fund for one or two years in order to give the Downtown TIF fund time to take in enough property taxes to replenish the prudent reserve?

Even if there is no shell game and the reserves of the Consolidated Downtown TIF fund are kept at the 15% prudent reserve level, there remains the basic issue of Mayor Ballard time and again using the extra funds in the TIF as his slush fund - to spend any way he wants instead of sending the excess back to the taxing units and relieving the taxpayers of some of their burden.

Will the Council stop this latest theft from the Downtown TIF? The Council has recently said they want to find ways to ensure that TIF districts are dealt with in a responsibility manner (see "Excellent"). Even Council President, Ryan Vaughn, was quoted as being in favor. Is that really true? If so, they should back it up by denying Mayor Ballard this one last mega-misuse of the TIF district fund.

Oy Vey !