Had Enough Indy? How Ballard's "Freedom Fleet" Saves (sic) Money

I am so very weary of the fleecing the taxpayer gets under the Ballard regime. 

The latest example is the belatedly announced deal to lease 425 plug-in hybrid and all electric vehicles for seven years, now dubbed by the well worn PR firm as the "Freedom Fleet".

Reported yesterday by the IBJ's Kathleen McLaughlin, but inked down back in February (before the company was an Indiana entity, by the way), the City has entered into a lease arrangement with Indy Vision - with the City being the company's very first customer !  Gary Welsh over at Advance Indiana wrote about this deal and the owner of Indy Vision.  Paul Ogden at Ogden On Politics challenges the administrations numbers. 

Ballard is swapping out 536 gas powered vehicles that the taxpayers OWN for a seven year lease for 425 gas/electric vehicles.

They tell us that they estimate the cost of keeping the 536 fleet at $9000 per year per vehicle, but leasing the 425 fleet drops the cost to $7400 per year per vehicle.  The $1600 per year per vehicle savings come from the reduction in number of cars and savings on operating them.

Quick math tells us that any savings the taxpayer will see comes entirely from dropping 136 cars from the fleet.  This reduction saves $1,224,000 per year or $2880 per year per vehicle in the new fleet. 

Simply by supplying fewer vehicles, Indy Vision will profit $1280 per vehicle per year BEFORE any other savings, profits and tax credits are counted.

Let's recap:

If the existing fleet of 536 cars was replaced by 425 cars - the taxpayers would save AT LEAST $2880 per vehicle per year in the new fleet.  And, the taxpayers would OWN the fleet.

If the existing fleet of 536 cars is replaced by a lease of 425 cars - the taxpayers will save $1600 per vehicle per year in the new fleet.  There would be no taxpayer asset.

Ballard, as usual, is NOT saving the taxpayers a dime.  He is, as usual, charging us MORE while enriching a favorite contractor with the difference.

Ballard Tax Revenues About $100 Million More Than Peterson Had

What can you say about the Ballard Administration's request to drop the local Homestead Credit (increasing taxes on most property owners and foisting higher circuit breaker penalties on schools, IndyGo, and the Library system), increase County Option Income Taxes, and a new proposal to increase the stormwater drainage fee to property owners - when Ballard's combined property and income tax revenues have been $70 million, $100 million, and more, than Peterson enjoyed in his last two years in office?  Why, you have to wonder where it all went. 

The spate of proposed tax and fee increases sent me to City budget documents to pull out the property tax and income tax revenues enjoyed by the City/County government from 2006 through 2013.  These numbers are 2006 actual, 2007 actual, 2008 actual, 2009 actual, 2010 actual, 2011 expected from the adopted budget, 2012 expected from the introduced budget, and 2013 expected from the adopted budget.   Circuit breaker penalties began in 2011 and are reflected in the revenue numbers listed below.  In 2012, the State returned $46.6 million in additional income tax revenue to the City, for errors in 2011 and 2012 - this windfall is accounted for in 2012, as that is when it was received.

 

 

 

 

Peterson's last two years in office were 2006 and 2007.  He increase the income tax by instituting a Local Option Income Tax (to reduce, somewhat, property taxes) and a Public Safety Tax, with the expectation that he would hire 100 additional police officers and handle the ever-growing pension obligation.   So, he handed Ballard an enriched budget.  In fact Ballard has enjoyed combined property and income tax revenues $70 million to $100 million more than his predecessor.  In 2010, I do not know what happened, but there was an additional windfall of about $150 million.  One also has to note that in 2009, the State took over a number of expense obligations; the aforementioned pension being one, and a $100 million annual obligation for the Family and Children's Fund that was supported by property taxes, being another.

 

The new City Controller, Jason Dudich, anticipates an additional $20 million in tax revenues for 2014.

 

The City is also just sitting on $80 million in a 'stabilization fund', that could help us eke by with 'only' $20 million more.

 

The revenue impact from tax caps, much focused on by the Ballard Administration, was easily compensated for by Peterson's income tax increases.  So, where did the money go?  And, why can't the City handle its current budget obligations with $100 million more in revenue, and fewer obligations, than Peterson had?

Jon Murray Tracks Down SuperBowl Ring Mystery

The mystery of the Value of the SuperBowl ring has been solved by IndyStar's City Beat reporter, Jon Murray.

As you will recall, Gary Welsh of Advance Indiana, discovered a gifted Super Bowl ring, reported by Mayor Greg Ballard on his 2012 'Statement of Economic Interest' form, was valued at only $400, when such things normally go for $5000.

Well Murray reports on his blog, Deep Fried Politics, that the ring's not the real McCoy.  He quotes the Mayor's spokesman, Marc Lotter, as saying

 “There’s no real gemstones or anything along those lines in (the ring),”

Seems the rings a commemorative reproduction.  Here's a link to Murray's piece, so you can get all the details from him.

2012 Budget - Big Picture, Big Problems

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.

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

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

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?

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.

Ballard Pushes New TIFs Forward - Attempts To Complete Before Term Of Office Up

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.

The Cash Flows At The CIB

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

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.

Oy Vey ! They Are Robbing The Downtown TIF District - AGAIN !

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 !

City Way - The Rebranding Of North of South

You know that a deal stinks to high heaven when the powers that be are forced to rename it.

So it went the other day, when Mayor Greg Ballard helped break ground on the renamed North of South (aka No-So) project.  The new name is City Way (aka City No Way To Run A City).  Lest the Google bots not find sufficient linkage between the worst deal for taxpayers to come out of the Ballard years as Mayor and its new name, let me provide some contextual linkage here.

City Way is the new name for North of South.

This project takes all of the risk off the developer and puts it squarely on the taxpayers of Indianapolis.

The taxpayers loaned the City Way (No-So) developer $86 million that it got by floating a $98 million bond that was secured with property taxes gathered from the Consolidated Downtown TIF district.  The developer gets to pay the loan back with whatever money it would pay in property taxes on its development, in effect granting the developer a 10-year 100% abatement on the project.  Should part of the project be profitable, swell -- the developer can pay back the City for that portion and pocket the rest of the profit.  Should part of the project be unprofitable, no problem -- the developer can default on that portion despite the fact the rest of the project is profitable.

The developer is supposed to seek refinancing for the project in ten years.  But, the City floated 30 year bonds - and whether or not the City will use the money to pay off the rest of the $98 million bond at that time is anyone's guess.  Should there be a problem with the development, no problem - the City will  foreclose on it and add millions more taxpayer money to finish it.

The City will also put in some $9 million of streets and sewers and parking meters.

With about 30,000 square feet of office space and, hopefully one small wet lab, the State of Indiana designated it a Certified Technology Park and tossed a free $6 million to the developer. 

Eli Lilly stands to benefit substantially.  Although they are credited with donating $30 million to the project, half is a way early payment from the City on another TIF district set up specifically to benefit Lilly and half is credit for the value of the land upon which City Way (No-So) will be built.  The latter is not really a contribution, as Lilly will retain ownership and lease the ground to whomever owns the buildings erected on it. 

The developer is only putting up $6 million.  The developer could not get a bank to finance the deal. So, Mayor Ballard stepped up and put the taxpayers on the hook.

Hopefully the Google bot has enough clues in this blog entry to make sure that City Way and North of South both come up whenever City Way is the search term.  The taxpayers of Indianapolis need a good historical record about how huge a boondoggle this City Way (North of South) project is.

If you want more information about the City Way boondoggle, you can read my earlier blog entries "North of South - Details of Proposed Deal", "No-So Field of Dreams - Lie And They Will Build It", and "No-So Deal Worse Than Even I Thought" for the highlights.

More News About Broad Ripple Parking Garage Deal - Sheesh !

In what ranks as a truly convoluted and weird twist in the ongoing saga of the bad Broad Ripple Parking Garage deal, WRTV reporter, Kara Kenney scores this tidbit from Council President, Ryan Vaughn:

If the garage is profitable - the City can buy it for $1.  If the garage is unprofitable - the developer can make the City buy it for $1.

Wowsa !

Fellow blogger and lawyer, Paul Ogden, does an excellent job of analysing the legal illogic embodied in this strategy in his entry yesterday "Council President Ryan Vaughn Claims Broad Ripple Parking Garage Will Have Two-Way, Buy-Sell Option; Vaughn's Claim Strains Any Credibility".  I highly recommend you read it.

I have to look at it this way -  if the garage is profitable, why would the City essentially take it from the developer?  Don't we want private enterprise?  I know that's why I question a lot of deals that the City makes, because the taxpayers are bankrolling what should be private enterprise on the private dime.  I can't imagine any Mayor taking the heat for taking a profitable business from any business person for $1 for any reason - contract or no contract.

If the garage is unprofitable, why should the City's taxpayers be on the hook for it?  Why is the theme of the Ballard administration that business should not carry any risk?  In one deal after another, Ballard forks over large sums of taxpayer cash to a developer and crafts a deal to remove any future risk to the develop, and transfers that risk back to the taxpayers.  Remember No-So; the poster child of no risk to the developer?

I would sum this deal and others up with :

heads - the developer wins -- tails - the City loses

Superbowl 2012 - What Are They Trying To Hide?

The Superbowl Ordinance, Proposal 188, 2011, now before the City-County Council's Rules and Public Policy Committee, leaves a lot of blanks.  These blanks are in the form of specific regulations and unilateral decisions to be made by folks in the Department of Code Enforcement. 

To better understand the full implication of Prop 188, I requested a list of those regulations being considered by DCE under this proposal.  They responded that they "cannot develop or propose regulation unless there is an ordinance in place".  Come on.  The City of Indianapolis, and DCE specifically, are undoubtedly aware of exactly what features the NFL wants in place in this ordinance.  Like the Clean Zone, for instance.

So... I requested a copy of all correspondence between DCE and any representative of the 2012 Superbowl Committee.  And, I asked City Legal for a copy of any agreement between the City and the NFL regarding Superbowl 2012.  The former is still in process, but just last night I received a reply to the latter request.

They could not find any documents that fit my request :

The City of Indianapolis has undertaken a search of its public records and did not locate any records responsive to your request.

There IS NO agreement between the City of Indianapolis and the NFL regarding Superbowl 2012 !

Let me get this straight -- the NFL unilaterally decided to lock in the location of the 2012 Superbowl, without written agreement on certain items, for instance:

Who will pay for police presence during the 2 week event?
Will the City provide, through its code enforcement and police force, the manpower to patrol and cite any vendors selling competing merchandise?
Will the City provide, through its code enforcement and police force, the manpower to patrol and cite any vendors using trademarked terms owned by the NFL - like the word 'superbowl'?
Will the City allow types of signage that are illegal inside Marion County without a variance?
Will the City allow the creation of 'clean zones' wherein the NFL will have final say as to who gets a vendor's license and for what purpose?
Will the City close specific streets to vehicular traffic to widen the NFL village to suit the purposes of the NFL?

The list goes on.  There is a detailed agreement, for sure.  The NFL wasn't born yesterday.  Likely the City has used the 2012 Superbowl Committee to run legal interference so that John and Jane Q. Public only gets the information that Mayor Ballard and the NFL wants them to have.

So... I changed my request.  As of last night, I have requested a copy of any agreement between the City of Indianapolis and any organization regarding the 2012 Superbowl.

When the City makes getting clear information in a timely manner difficult, you are forced to wonder - What are they trying  to hide?

IBJ On Topic Yet Again

The IBJ is on top of it, yet again.  In today's issue, Cory Schouten follows up on the issue of the Broad Ripple Parking Garage.  (Unfortunately for those without a subscription, the article is locked)

To summarize the article without trespassing too far into IBJ copyright territory...  the summary provided as a teaser to all says:

"City mum on economics of $15M Broad Ripple garage project"
Both city officials and the developer of a proposed 350-space parking garage in Broad Ripple have refused to share financial projections for its construction and operation, describing the documents -- as a "trade secret" exempt from public disclosure."

The article covers more than the public assess issue.  Schouten goes through the high points of each competing bid and offers quotes from many of the players.

Schouten has a fantastic quote from Ersal Ozdemir, CEO of Keystone Construction, a partner in the winning project.

“I think it’s a heck of a deal,” Ozdemir said. “We’re spending a lot of time and money developing this project. Do we want to make money? Sure. We won’t make the same profit as a private deal, but there are intangible values for us here.”

All I can say about that is -- if the garage was doable as a private deal, and they would make more money doing it that way, why are the taxpayers involved at all?

Of particular interest, to my eye, was the side bar that provides an IBJ analysis of the cost breakdown of the proposed garage project and how it might add up to $15 million.  This analysis includes $4.5 million for acquisition of the property.  The property will be leased, however, not purchased.  The cost of the land, therefore, becomes an operating expense, and not a cost of construction.

Schouten also touches on the 2007 study of parking needs in Broad Ripple, done by Walker Parking Consultants, another partner in the winning proposal.  This study determined that the current site was inadequate and also estimated the cost of construction, without land purchase or building demolition, at about half the price of the current proposal.

Schouten brings up Ozdemir's campaign contributions to Greg Ballard and his hiring of former Ballard Chief of Staff, Paul Okeson.

Schouten goes into the fact the the winning bid actually proposed two versions of this project FOR LESS MONEY.  Yes folks, thanks to the keen fiscal responsibility and business acumen of the Ballard Administration, the price tag went UP during negotiations between the City and the bidders with the winning proposal.   Wow ! Adequate words escape me.

Back to the public access issue.  As I noted in a previous blog entry (see "Are Taxpayer Dollars Being Flagrantly Misused?"), I was denied the financial analysis of the winning proposal, with the City stating it was information to be protected as a 'trade secret'.  I have filed a formal complaint with the State's Public Access Counselor.  I will have to amend that complaint to add the fact, ferreted out by Schouten, that other bids, losing bids mind you, had the financial analysis included in the materials provided to the public by the City.  So, how can they claim that only the winning bidder's numbers need protection.  In addition, Schouten reports that the City will release the winning bidders' financial analysis, once the deal has closed.  

So, let me summarize the Administration's position on public access to the key portion of the winning proposal.  Nope, you can't have it because it is a 'trade secret' and State law protects disclosure of 'trade secrets'.  Yes, you can have the financial analysis from non-winning bids.  No 'trade secrets' there.  Once we have the deal finalized and the terms become contractual obligations of the City and the City's taxpayers, then the financial analysis of the winning bid will be provided to the public.  At that point it will no longer be a 'trade secret'.  Anyone know what kind of logic is being applied here? 

The All Important Budget Season Ready To Commence

By July 1, the County Assessor must report all real and personal property gross assessed values to the County Auditor.  This starts the budget season.  As Tom Carnegie used to say, "and, they're off" !

The Indiana Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF) publishes budget handbooks for the various governmental units.  I have pulled down some of the budget calendar dates to include in this blog entry, but you may want to look at a single unit's budget process as laid out by the DLGF.  I have to also mention, the DLGF is exceedingly helpful when you have a question. 

Setting a budget and setting tax rates are required to be open, public processes in Indiana.  Although some taxing units (in particular the School Districts) in Marion County, try to be as obtuse as possible, and some Superintendents even withhold information from elected Boards, the law requires that the public have access to the information and the ability to weigh in on the budget and the tax rates.

The public has, in my humble opinion, an obligation as well - to at least peek at some of the information and make sure that things haven't gotten wildly out of hand.  Not all of the information is easily digested.  Not all of the information is readily available.  But some is, and some is.  In particular, there is ample information that must be disclosed in the newspapers during the budget season that is worth having a lot of people look at.

Here are some of the important dates that relate to the public's ability to participate in the public process.  When the City-County Council is mentioned below, the date is what they have already specified.  When that body is not mentioned, it is the general deadline for action set by the DLGF.

August 15 - City-County Council meeting with Mayor Ballard's introduction of the budget.  The budget will be broken into segments and sent to the various Council committees for consideration and debate.  The committees open up for public comment after each piece is introduced.

September 2 - deadline - the first notice of a public hearing on the budget must be published in a local paper.  This must be at least 10 days before the public hearing and it must state the place and time of the hearing, as well as an estimate of the tax levy (amount of money to be raised through taxes) and the tax rate (rate at which the taxes will apply to property values).  Fair warning - these numbers are usually inflated at this point in time.  The taxing unit cannot exceed the tax rate that it publishes, but it is still working out all of the numbers and still getting solid numbers from the DLGF on expected tax revenues for all manner of taxes that are paid - wheel tax, income tax, cigarette tax, and on and on and on.  So, to protect themselves, the taxing units post higher than expected tax rates.

September 9 - deadline - the second notice of a public hearing on the budget must be published in a local paper.  This one must be at least 3 days before the public hearing.  It is identical to the first notice.

September 19 - City-County Council meeting that serves as the public hearing on the budget, tax levy, and tax rates.  The committees will continue to consider their segments of the budget, adopt any amendments and finally vote their segments out of committee.  It is not consistent whether public testimony will be taken during this set of committee meetings.  It is up to the Chair of each committee.

October 17 - City-County Council meeting to adopt the final budget and set property tax levy and property tax rate for 2012.

October 22 - deadline - last day for public hearing on the budget and tax rates.  This must be held at least 10 days prior to the meeting where the budget is adopted by the elected legislative body of the taxing unit (board or council).

October 29 - deadline - last day 10 or more taxpayers may object to the budget, tax levy, or tax rate of a city or town.  The objection must occur not more than 7 days after the public hearing.

November 1 - deadline - last day for all taxing units to adopt budgets, tax rates, and tax levies for 2012.

As I did last year, I will try to keep up with those public notices that I see in the Indy Star.  Should you notice one I have not mentioned, or see one in a smaller publication, please send me a note at hadenoughindy@gmail.com.  Budgets are dry and boring and not in the least bit sexy.  But, they are very important.   Besides setting the property tax rates for the coming year, they show exactly where each unit's priorities lay.  Politicians can say whatever they want.  The budget they create shows their priorities regardless of what their words say.  Those priorities should reflect the community's priorities.  But, unless the community pays attention and people show up and speak up, the budget may very well not reflect what is in the best interest of the people.

Request for Information From You, My Valued Reader

I am still as stunned and appalled as when I read yesterday, that the Ballard administration decided to "forgo collecting business personal property taxes" from the consolidated downtown TIF area - both this year and next.  (quote from IBJ's Francesca Jarosz article "Bush fixup fans tax tensions".)

I want to know - Who has the authority to decide to forgo any taxes from anybody?  Under what legal mechanism can you fairly and justly collect a tax from one person or business, and not collect it from their neighbor or another taxpayer in your jurisdiction?  Has this been done before?  Did the Ballard administration decide to forgo taxes that should have gone to IPS, IFD, IMCPL, IndyGo, and IndyParks as well as taxes that flow to the TIF district fund?

Here's where you come in.  I do not know who has the authority to do such things.  Therefore, I don't know where to send an open records request.  I figure one of my valued readers does know.  So, please leave a note in the comments section to help me find answers.

Remember, they chose to "forgo" property tax revenues at the same time that there was much gnashing of teeth about property tax caps.  They will be crying in their soup about it yet again when budget time commences formally in August.  Help me get some answers about this issue before then.

Thanks.

Are They Insane, Stupid, or Totally Corrupt? Had Enough Indy ?

I just got home from doing my grocery shopping and got my copy of the IBJ out of my mailbox. 

I saw the front page article by reporter Francesca Jarosz entitled "Bush fixup fans tax tensions". As I read, my response morphed from annoyance, to disgust, to horror at the Ballard administration's abject lack of fiscal responsibility.

Jarosz reports that the Ballard administration intends on pilfering money from the Consolidated Downtown TIF district to pay $3.5 million of the $5 million it promised the redeveloper of old Bush Stadium.  They intend on doing this, even though the TIF laws require that the property tax money collected from a TIF can only be used within that district or CONTIGUOUS WITH IT [IC 36-7-15.1-26(b)(2)(G)"that are physically located in or physically connected to that allocation area"].  Bush Stadium is nowhere near the Consolidated  Downtown TIF district.

It gets worse.

Jarosz also reports that Ballard and his crew decided not to collect business personal property taxes AT ALL from the businesses in that TIF district this year AND next.  When was that decided and when was that public hearing held?  I know I would have shown up for that doozy. 

Jarosz quotes some good sources who are sane. 

“It’s at the expense of other units of government,” said Fred L. Armstrong, who was instrumental in creating the original downtown TIF as city controller for two decades and now consults with Indy Go on financial matters. “You’ve got to take care of your current problems before you create new ones.”

and

“When we consider the never-ending uses for the downtown TIF dollars, it kind of looks a little slush-fund-like,” said Brian Mahern, a City-County Council Democrat who has been a vocal critic of the city’s economic development policies.

and

Indianapolis leaders don’t provide that kind of specificity in the Bush Stadium case, he [Bruce Frankel, a professor of urban planning at Ball State University] said. 

“Any project you can dream of probably has some general benefit to the downtown—or even the city—as a whole,” Frankel said. “The law was written for a purpose—it’s supposed to be targeted geographically.”

Remember when Ballard and his people said the City could not legally take $8 million from the Consolidated Downtown TIF and buy new parking meters and keep all future revenue as an asset for future generations?  Remember when Ballard and his people said the City could not take $2 million from the Consolidated Downtown TIF and help the Library get through a tough economy? 

Remember when Ballard and his people gave $8 million A YEAR to the Pacers from the Consolidated Downtown TIF (laundering it through the CIB and ICVA)?  Remember when Ballard and his people floated $98 million in new bonds in the Consolidated Downtown TIF to give a loan to a well connected developer for the North of South project?

What is the thread of real logic being used in all of these cases?  It is not what is legal to do with the TIF revenues.  It is not what is fiscally responsible to do with the TIF revenues.  It is not what will improve the quality of life for those of use who live in Indianapolis.

The only thread of real logic being used is how can we rob the Consolidated Downtown TIF of all of its funds to benefit well connected fat cats?

The sidebar to Jarosz' article says that the City has tapped the Consolidated Downtown TIF district for $24 million over the last year.  It includes $3.5 million in renovations for City Market, $600,000 for the 4th spoke of the ArtsGarden, $8 million to the ICVA (really the money laundering for the Pacers I noted above), and $9 million in infrastructure improvements for the North of South Project.  I'd also have to include the $98 million in bonds floated for the North of South Project, but the sidebar does not.

The Ballard administration is either determined to spend every last dime that the City either has or can borrow, and leave enormous debt for all the future Mayors and taxpayers to contend with - or they don't know what they are doing.  Either way, this City will face a very rocky future because of all the debt the Ballard administration is creating and how little existing debt it is paying off.

Had Enough Indy?

Are Taxpayer Dollars Being Flagrantly Misused?

Yesterday I posted about the announced Broad Ripple parking garage and some tidbits I had gathered by simply going through government public records.

One document was the Request For Qualifications that was posted by the Ballard administration to solicit proposals for a parking structure in this area.  It specifically asked respondents to include construction cost estimates and operational expense estimates in their proposals.  Since this was not included in the winning group's proposal that I received from the City, I inquired after those numbers.  My request was denied with the citation of an Indiana State statute that trade secrets may be held from public disclosure laws.  I will, of course, take this up with the Indiana Public Access Counselor's office later this morning.

But, for now, I would like to share with you some conclusions of a 2007 study by Walker Parking Consultants analysing the adequacy of parking in the Broad Ripple Village area.  Walker Parking Consultants, along with Newpoint Parking, Keystone Construction, and RATIO Architects, formed the partnership that won the City's approval to build a 350 parking space garage with retail and a police substation at 6280-6286 N. College Avenue.

In the 2007 study, Walker Parking Consultants employed their 'trade secrets' to analyze the parking supply,  estimate cost of construction, estimate cost of operation, estimate costs to park, and locate where a new parking facility would be best suited to the needs of the area.  These are what I'd like to share with you today.

PARKING SUPPLY - the study concluded that of the 40 blocks of Broad Ripple Village, parking was adequate for almost all areas, at most times of the day, night, and week, in 2007 and as projected into the future.  There were 16 blocks that were shown to exceed 85% capacity at 11 pm on weekends.  A particular 6 block area was calculated to have a deficit of 132 parking spaces at 11 pm on weekends (adequate at all other times) and projected to have a deficit of 180 parking spaces at 11 pm on weekends in the future.

COST OF CONSTRUCTION -  the study noted the rising cost of concrete and cost of construction of parking garages over the previous 4 years, rising about 17% over that time span.  They concluded that it would cost $4.5 million to construct a 4 story, 300 space, parking garage.  They note that additional spaces would cost $21,878 per space.  Using that figure, a 350 space garage would come to $5.6 million - not including acquisition of land or demolition costs.

COST OF OPERATION - They concluded that it would cost between $450 and $600 per space, per year, to operate a garage in the Broad Ripple area.  Combining these figures with the construction costs, the study conclude that the enterprise would break even with a parking fee of $5 per car.

BEST LOCATION - the study found two 'best sites' - the one selected by Mayor Ballard's administration in the last few days, and one two blocks to the east, behind the Vogue.  They rejected the College/Westfield corner as requiring visitors to cross busy College Avenue to actually get to the venues of Broad Ripple, and concentrated on the area behind the Vogue.


So, fast forward to today.  We have a project which is being awarded $6.4 million dollars from the City to help fund what we are told will be a 350 space garage with retail and a police substation costing $15 million.  Unfortunately, the City has decided to keep the costs analysis to itself, so we cannot review it for adequacy.  What we can do is look at numbers that are available to the paying public.  Land is assessed at market values in Indiana now, so we should be able to rely somewhat upon assessed values for the cost of property.  The Assessor's records show that one of the two parcels needed for the proposed garage is owned by a group named 6286, LLC, c/o J. Todd Morris.  A Todd Morris is noted in the Keystone Group's proposal as the Parking Manager for group member Newpoint Parking.  The AV of that parcel is $106,100.  The property at 6280 N. College has an AV of $999,600, bringing the total AV to $1,105,700. 

Say the cost of a new garage rose another 17% in the four years since the 2007 study, even though we are in a recession -- that would bring the cost of construction to $6.5 million.  Total cost with land acquisition and construction, but without demolition, of $7.6 million -- very much in line with the cost to construct the Ivy Tech Multimodal Parking Garage/Library/Retail structure that was used in the Keystone Group's proposal to show expertise.

Instead we are supposed to accept, without documentation, the need to spend $15 million - $6.4 million, or 42%, to come from City funds.

Are taxpayer dollars being flagrantly misused?

Tidbits on the Proposed Broad Ripple Garage Project

The announcement of the use of a third of the up front money collected by the City from the sale of the parking meter system to fund a garage in Broad Ripple set me to inquiring for the details.

Other blogs have pointed out the cozy relationship between the Ballard administration and Ballard re-election campaign finance with Keystone Construction as well as the seeming inability of this administration to craft a plan that makes any economic sense for taxpayers.  Well noted and what has become two of the trademarks of all deals made by this administration.  I send you to Ogden On Politics ("Taxpayers Pay to Build Broad Ripple Parking Garage; Garage and Revenue to Be Given Away") and Advance Indiana ("Big Ballard Campaign Contributor Scores Big With Broad Ripple Parking Garage Deal").

I've been poking on some public documents to try to ferret out details of the proposal.  Mayor Ballard's press release can be found online here.  I have uploaded the RFQ and the winning 'Statement of Qualifications' on Googledocs.  You must have a google account to access it.  If you prefer, drop me an email (hadenoughindy@gmail.com) and I'll forward either to you.

Here are some tidbits.

The group that won the deal is composed of Keystone Group, LLC, Keystone Construction Corp., Newpoint Parking, Walker Parking Consultants/Engineers, Inc., and RATIO Architects.

The RFQ (Request for Qualifications) put out by the City to solicit proposals, asked that responses be sent to the Bond Bank.  Why the Bond Bank has taken on a prominent role in this administration is beyond me.  Now, to have them acting as the pivot point in dishing out proceeds of the parking meter deal is an even further stretch of all reasoning.  Regular readers of this blog know well my love affair with Deron Kintner (that's sarcasm for new readers), who is the Executive Director of the Bond Bank.

More humorous than anything else, the RFQ states "Responses (without attachments) should not exceed 20 pages in length."  The winning proposal was 33 pages.

The winning proposal proposed two locations and two options for what turned out to be the winning location.  These two alternatives were: Option 1-- for 308 parking spaces plus retail space on the first floor at a total cost of $12 million with the City funding $5.2 million.   Option 2 -- for 428 spaces plus retail space on the first floor at a total cost of $13.5 million with the City funding $6.4 million.  The final deal was for 350 parking spaces with retail space and a police substation at a total cost of $15 million with the City funding $6.4 million.

The location would be at 6280 and 6286 N. College Avenue (the southwest corner of the intersection of College and Westfield/Broad Ripple).  The current owner of 6280 is Marathon Ashland Petroleum, LLC, and is the site of a closed gas station.  The assessed value of this parcel jumped from $392,400 in 2009 to $888,900 in 2010 - I have no idea why, especially given its inactive state.  The current owner of 6286 is 6286, LLC, c/o J. Todd Morris.  Now, the winning proposal happens to list a Todd Morris as the Parking Manager for Newpoint Parking.  The Assessor's website states that the ownerships are current as of July 19, 2010.  The assessed value of this parcel rose from $76,600 in 2009 to $106,100 in 2010 - not nearly as dramatic as the other parcel.

The zoning is in place to accommodate a parking garage.  I have no information regarding the need or lack of need for any environmental remediation given that a gas station was on the largest part of the property.

Included in the winning proposal was a series of prior and current projects undertaken by the principals to show their expertise in such endeavours.  Included were two mixed use projects that were reminiscent of this project.  One was the Ivy Tech Multimodal Parking Garage/Library/Retail project that has 4 levels with 500 parking spaces as well as Library and retail space.  The price tag was $7 million.  The other was the Duke University Parking Garage IX (LEED) project that has 7 levels with 1917 parking spaces as well as Library and retail space, all being LEED certified.  The price tag was $35 million.  For some reason, the winning proposal of three to four levels with 350 parking spaces as well as police substation and retail space will cost $15 million.  I don't get it.  That seems like twice the cost at least.

We'll keep digging for details, for sure.  But, let's not forget the big picture.  The Ballard administration is saying that there is an urgent need for parking in the Broad Ripple area.  So, if there is such a need, why can't the private sector underwrite the entire cost?  Why do the taxpayers have to cover almost half the cost but get none of the proceeds?