CIB/NFL Agreement for Use of Indiana Convention Center

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.

The Evolution Of Code Enforcement In Indianapolis

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.

Budget Hearings -- DMD, DCE Budgets -- Final Changes

Tonight the Council's Metropolitan Development Committee will consider amendments to the budgets for the Department of Metropolitan Development and the newly formed Department of Code Enforcement.

Meeting begins at 5:30 pm in room 260 of the City-County Building.

We shall see if the DMD contract with Indianapolis Downtown Inc, which amounted to $142,144 for 2009, is discussed in light of a Star report by City beat reporter, Francesca Jarosz, that the City is cutting $500,000 from its usual $1 Million contribution to IDI. In 2009 contracts with IDI worth $300,000 and $600,000 were also awarded through DPW and the Indianapolis Bond Bank, respectively.

[edited on 9/15/09 to include : During the hearing, no mention was made of IDI.]

City-County Council Meets Tonight

The Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council meets tonight. On its agenda for this evening is Proposal 62, 2009 that allows for the consolidation of the Perry Fire Department. The minutes to the April 15, 2009, Public Safety Committee, show they voted 5-2 to recommend do pass, with extensive procedural discussion on an amendment authored by Councillor Oliver. They agreed the amendment language should be worked on and introduced at the full Council debate on the proposal. It was unclear by the minutes exactly what the amendment was, but references imply it has to do with minority and women hiring and promoting practices of IFD. Also contained in those minutes was this little nugget just at the end of the Proposal 62, 2009, discussion:

Councillor Oliver asked if it is anticipated that any other IFD stations will close by 2010. Director Newman answered that there is nothing firmly in place, but they are having general discussions about possibly closing some of the stations that are on valuable commercial real estate and rebuilding them on less valuable commercial real estate in an effort to realize financial benefits for taxpayers.

Proposals to be introduced tonight include these more interesting (to my eye) Proposals:
Prop 176 -- approves the refunding of $540 million bonds for the Water Company. These would replace the variable rate bonds that will end up costing taxpayers another $80 million-ish to get out of.
Prop 177 -- creates a City Department of Code Enforcement.
Prop 178 -- pit bull and dangerous dog ordinance. It also includes a ban on tying a dog to an immovable object like a tree. This is a complex proposal. I would suggest that folks review the latest McANA meeting where there pros and cons of this approach were aired. It is after the much longer discussion of the CIB bailout - a twofer, if you will. To view the video archive, click here -- then scroll down to the "Other Meetings" section and select the April 18 Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations video link. The dog ordinance didn't come up until 2 hours and 2 minutes into the meeting, so you may want to forward to that point.

All three Proposals are to be referred to the Rules Committee which next meets on Tuesday, April 12, beginning at 5:30 in room 260 of the City-County Building.