"Ethics" Committee Meets Tonight - One Agenda Item - Disclosure of Free Tickets to Sporting Events

Two Council committees will meet tonight, both beginning at 5:30 pm.  Public Works will get the big room and the live WCTY feed.  So, we'll have to wait for tomorrow's posting online and subsequent airings to see what the "Ethics" Committee does with Prop 28, which "amends the Code concerning ethics disclosure to ensure more transparency with respect to gifts provided to Councillors and their families".

This proposal was heard by the committee on Valentine's Day and can be viewed in the WCTY archives.  Only 4 of the 6 members showed up to discuss more disclosure to the public.  This is the minimum needed for a quorum.  There was much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth, but no vote on the proposal.  The list online shows the committee to be chaired by Councillor Robinson, with other members being Simpson, Miller, Shreve (took over for Freeman who is still listed) - the 4 present.  Missing were Brown and Cain.

Councillor Simpson ended the meeting saying to the proposal's author, Councillor Mahern, "Let's really work on this", and "Good work, Brian".  The proposal was continued to the next meeting of the committee, which was to be March 14.

The is notice of a March 14, 2013, meeting of this committee, but no minutes or WCTY video are posted.  Prop 28 was the sole item on that agenda, as well.  An email exchange with SaRita Puckett, Ethics committee secretary, clarified that there was, in fact, no meeting held that date.

This proposal is pretty darned simple - on top of existing reporting requirements for gifts, it would also require that Councillors disclose receipt of gifts from Municipal Corporations (like the CIB).  It would require that dollar amounts be estimated for the value of gifts received.  And, it would require that gifts made to Councillors' spouses and dependant children be disclosed.  Not all gifts require disclosure in the current or proposed Code on ethics - only those valued at more than $100 for one gift, or an aggregate value of more than $250 in a calendar year.  So, a cup of coffee shouldn't tip anyone's scale.

But tickets to sporting events would definitely tip the scales.

Tonight we shall see if this Council would rather be open and above board in disclosing what tickets to what sporting events they and their family are treated to, or if they'd rather keep the public in the dark and guessing.  This committee will not bring forward a proposal that would embarrass the full Council by forcing a vote to strengthen the public's right to know, when that vote would be a very public and very accountable 'no'.  We shall see if Councillor Simpson and the rest of the "Ethics" committee really want to make this proposal the best it can be - or if they want to bury it.

Monday Night Council Meeting May Include Zoning Hearing

I have been reviewing the Council agenda for Monday night and got sidetracked by an interesting zoning matter that was called down by Councillor Jeff Miller at the February 25th meeting, and set for hearing tomorrow night.

This matter is 2012-ZON-060, 460 Virginia Avenue, which went before the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission and the Metropolitan Development Commission; both of which approved the zoning change from heavy industrial to mixed residential/commercial.

The parcel is 0.67 acres and the developer has applied to the State for tax credits to help finance the construction of 50 apartments on the site.  The application for tax credits is highly competitive, with only so many dollars available in any one year.  Applicants are expected to offer lower rents due to the financial help to build the apartments in the first place.  The deadline for submitting the application apparently was last November, but the proper zoning must be in place before any application can 'win' the tax credits.  The deadline for the proper zoning to be in place was the end of February.

IHPC staff made clear that it was only approving the zoning change, and that any proposed apartment/commercial plan would have to return for review and approval at a later date.

By calling the case down, the Council has effectively caused the developer to lose out on the tax credits this year, and forced him to reapply for next year's funds - should the MDC's zoning decision not be overturned by the Council and the developer and property owners are still interested.

 

The staff report can be found on page 9 of the MDC's February 6 agenda.  This was the second day of testimony, the first concluding with a continuance so that the developer could review whether he could amend his tax credit application by dropping the number of units from 50 to 32, as suggested by remonstrators who opposed the zoning change due to density issues.

 

 

The MDC voted 7-1 to approve the zoning change.

 



Because of some technical glitch with Blogspot, I still am unable to post two different video clips on the same entry.  I will post the debate on whether or not to call down the zoning in the next entry on this topic.  Here's a link to part 2.

Council Republicans - Its Obvious Now, They'll Never Stand Up To Vaughn

Mayor Ryan Vaughn has a bullying problem - and his cohorts on the Council have not taken him on, even when it means they cannot fulfill the job they were elected to do because of his vindictive vetoes of the Council-passed budget.

Much like a wife beater who blames their battered spouse, claiming he just wanted to 'have a conversation', Vaughn has lashed out at the Democrats, crippling the Council budget and that of every other duly elected Democrat in County government, but denying any responsibility for his outlandish, brutish actions.  According to his enablers, he was forced to do it because the Democrats would not talk with him and all he wants to do is 'have a conversation'.

The Republicans voted in lockstep on each and every vote last night to override Vaughn's vetoes of the budget (Councillors Scales, Gooden, and Freeman were absent).  If there were any time they should have stood up to Vaughn, it surely was when the vote was to override his veto of the Council's entire character 3 budget.  That is their budget.  I now have to give up hope that the Council will ever be more than an appendage of whoever is Mayor, not the independent body we should have.

Let's look at all the alternatives Vaughn had at his disposal.

1) Do nothing except use his soap box to cast derision upon the Democrat led Council.  He and his PR firm have been successful in getting the editorial writers at the Star and IBJ to denounce the Council's efforts to be circumspect and responsible in passing his TIF districts.  He has been successful in his behind the scenes blackmail and threats and pretending to share power with the greedy and ambitious.  But, that was not enough.  The Council had the audacity to disobey Vaughn.  They wanted a recruit class for IMPD and IFD - and they found a way to fund it.  They did not want to do as they were told and rejected the elimination of the homestead credit - a credit that the Republican controlled Council chose to fund with COIT money just three years ago, after the property tax caps were in full effect.  No, this was not an option for someone who will not be disobeyed.

2) Send down only the commentary on the $15 M PILOT that the Council required of the CIB.  This statement said that if the money were ever actually collected, Vaughn would veto any attempt to spend the funds.  This totally blocks the purpose of the PILOT, yet still leaves the door open for cooperation in the future.  Such a move would be enough if the aim were to have a balanced budget that worked for everyone in 2013.  That, however, was never the aim.

3) Send down the commentary on the PILOT and cut the Council budget by $652,654 in character 3.  The point in vetoing the Council budget is to keep the Council from introducing its own Council District maps and litigating those maps in court.  That amounts to $100,000.  That may be less than the raises Vaughn and his buddies on the 25th floor got, but it represents independent thinking and that shall not be tolerated in a Vaughn administration.  Gutting the ability of the Council to pay the rent, pay the light bill, hire attorneys or their CFO, or to even pay to put public notices in the paper as required by law will cripple the ability of duly elected officials, Republican and Democrat alike, to do their job.  President Maggie Lewis notes in a letter to constituents that this veto is "political bullying at work, not leadership".

4) None of these options being enough, Vaughn's next step would be to add the veto of the use of the money in the County General Fund for any County agency.  This is the big one - $31.8 million.  It cannot be said often enough that this is the part of the budget left untouched by the Council and it was pretty much what the introduced budget included.  At this point, logic left the building.  This is shear and naked vindictiveness.  Not that long ago, the County was under court order to bring its housing of inmates into line with human dignity.  Public safety is not just the cops on the streets, its the jail and the courts as well.  Job one in the Vaughn administration is not public safety, job one is not getting contradicted by the Council - and making sure they feel the pain if they get out of line.  Vaughn was a total coward when it came to cutting off the funding for the County agencies.  He is letting the DLGF decide exactly where those cuts will fall, instead of making those choices as part of his veto package.

5) And still - with the pain pushed to every corner of County government except those departments controlled by the Mayor's office - and still, this was not enough.  This last step was surely the most illuminating.  The Council had the temerity to create a subfund in the city's general fund that could only be used for police and fire recruiting and training. It was empty, but could be filled with any source of funds, including those from the $15 M CIB PILOT.  This fund caused no harm.  It was empty.  It would disappear without a fuss on December 31, 2013.  The existence of this fund, though, was more than Vaughn could stand.  It reeked of disobedience.  It had to go.

Vaughn is no longer an elected official, unlike the Councillors.  It is disheartening that those Councillors on the Republican side of the aisle would not tell Vaughn he had gone too far this time.  They enable the bully every time they acquiesce to his nasty machinations.

Instead they repeated all the falsehoods Vaughn is now trying to hide behind. 

Councillor Hunter said last night "I warned the Council the night this came up", referring to the police and fire recruit fund.

Councillor Pfisterer brought up the $35 m structural deficit not eliminating the homestead credit supposedly would cause through the end of 2014.  No alarms went out last year when the Republican controlled Council passed this year's budget using $40 m from the downtown TIF.  No alarms went out this year either, when another $10 m was pulled from the same source for next year.  And, it is factually inaccurate, to boot.  The Council's budget is as sound as the Mayor's introduced budget.  The fact of the matter is, that the recession will fade and the tax coffers will fill.  The income tax receipts are already rebounding and property values have stopped falling.  It is the Mayor's actions on TIFs that really jeopardize every taxing unit in Marion County and the services they provide.

Councillor Miller, who read a lengthy statement that demonstrates he understands exactly what is happening, bought into the idea that this is all about having a conversation.  He said "while I don't like coming to a conversation with a shotgun at my head, I have to agree that at this point a shotgun was the only way to get us to talk, and that's a shame".  That's simply not true, even though I think he believes it.  What exactly is to be discussed?  This budget process began back in August.  Plenty of time for discussion.  It was clear from the beginning that funding recruit classes was a priority of the Democrats - a goal Miller supported by the way.  Vaughn owns a phone.  Lewis owns a phone.  There could have been conversation.  These vetoes aren't about jump starting a conversation - they are about control.

I lost track of who repeated the thought that the appropriations remain, its just that the money won't be available to fund those appropriations for the County agencies.  That is clearly not true as the DLGF will insist on cutting appropriations so that the spending matches the funds available.  Whether they will wield an ax or a scalpel is unknown.

Vaughn's public display of temper will harm the Council, the County agencies, public safety, and the citizens of Indianapolis.  The least destructive road to travel at this point is for the Mayor's office to walk this back.  Allow the appropriations and funding to be reintroduced and not vetoed - and by January 1, 2013.  After that date the Council will not have the money to hold legally noticed meetings.  The shotgun Miller alludes to, is really aimed at forcing/blackmailing the Council into agreeing to raise taxes - likely in a few places besides the elimination of the homestead credit - and equally likely, pushing forward more of the Mayor's agenda.  Its not about the budget.  Its not about just wanting a conversation.  Its far more nefarious than that.  And the Council Republicans aided, abetted, and enabled Vaughn's vindictive and abusive ways.

Prop 15 - A Nightmarish Mess

The tortuous life of Prop 15 through the Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council is not the Council's finest hour by any stretch of the imagination.

The ridiculoucity continued this past week with two evenings of meetings of the Metropolitan & Economic Development committee.

Even before Monday night's meeting began, the committee knew it would be recessing that night without passing Prop 15 due to a disagreement with the Ballard administration over a proposed amendment that sought to add language guaranteeing two microloan programs and one job training program.  Councillor Vop Osili had a memo from Deron Kintner to the effect that the City agreed to those programs, but wanted it written into the proposal.  I uploaded to Google Docs the disputed, and never introduced, amendment.  What you'll notice is it's clarity of language.  The header suggests this amendment was intended to be voted on at the full Council meeting where, instead, the Council decided to send Prop 15 back to committee.

What was introduced Friday night, after they had four full days and nights to come to an agreement, was a mess - tortuous language construction, dubious protections for the intended beneficiaries of the programs, and massive loopholes.  Not to mention the misspelling of the word "Councillor" - which is defined in Council rules, by the way.  Plus you'd think commas were an endangered species that had to be included sparingly.  This amendment passed by a vote of 6 to 1, with Councillor Zach Adamson providing the sole no vote.  I have uploaded my copy of this amendment, as the Council website has not yet updated their version of Prop 15.  Sorry for the scribbling, I wasn't thinking I'd be sharing it with everyone.

From the header one might think this amendment would be introduced at the full Council.  The meeting Friday night did start 5 minutes late and the amendment was not available until seconds beforehand.  So, it may be the negotiations were deemed done enough and this messy amendment was introduced at the committee instead.

Here are some attributes of the amendment that catch my eye:

The $10 million microloan program will require "the leveraging of current resources" which usually means floating bonds to be repaid with some revenue stream.  There aren't many details provided on this proposed program.  One thing that is stated is that it would be a county wide program.  It would be a violation of state law for the funds to come from the downtown TIF.

I looked through google street maps and the Marion County Assessor's interactive map to try to locate the "Bryant Heating & Cooling Facility located at 21st and Montcalm".  All parcels at that intersection are owned by private entities, none of which are Bryant.  To the west, however, at 1100 W. 21st Street, there is a large parcel with large buildings that appear abandoned, which is owned by DMD.  Why the lack of specificity when an address or parcel number is three mouse clicks away?  This is important because there is an attempt to require the demolition of this facility.

In multiple places the phrase "the area" is used.  From context it seems like it refers to possibly different boundaries at times - but the phrase is never clearly defined, which results in little to no protection of the residents of the Bush Stadium area that any of the promises made to them will actually be fulfilled - or even be required to be fulfilled.

The $2 million microloan program can be awarded to any business within a two mile radius of the enlarged downtown consolidated TIF.  The language is poor, again a comma or two might clarify, but it is either attempting to say the business must be located in a lower income area (median household income 75% or less of the median income in the County) or that the 2 mile perimeter must be centered on a low income area.  Just by the way, the median household income in the County is $40,421.  But a two mile radius?  How does that adequately target the Riverside or UNWA residents who came out to say they needed help?  Looking at maps, this perimeter could reach the Speedway to the west, Garfield Park to the south, Butler University to the north, and nearly Emerson Avenue to the east.  The intent is to take the funds from the TIF.  But TIF revenues must be spent within the TIF.  These requirements are a clear attempt to circumvent the state laws regarding the expenditure of TIF revenues, and it does not target the folks who live in the Bush Stadium area.

The exact same thing can be said of the $1.5 million job training program as was just stated for the $2 million microloan program.

And the last I'll mention is the really botched attempt to get work for the TIF district residents.  The language seems to say that any business receiving TIF money, should they require new hiring, would have to ensure that 40% of those hired lived in the TIF district.  The business could get out of this by filling out a form that indicated why it tried but failed to get to the 40% figure.  Or, they could bring in all their additional help from out of state, since those folks will not be counted.

Osili has been all over town touting the targeted benefits he personally negotiated for the residents and businesses of the Bush Stadium expansion area.  But, he is not delivering on that promise with this language.  Someone is being scammed - its either Osili or the residents.

Prop 15, that twice beaten dead horse now burdened with the worst amendment in the history of amendments, was voted on twice by the committee Friday night.  The first time the phrasing of the motion left off the key part where it would be sent back to the full Council with a do-pass recommendation.  On the advice of Council counsel, they did a do-over with the correct motion.

Both times the vote was 6 yeas and 1 nay.  Councillor Zach Adamson was the lone no vote both times.  The yeas were Councillors Robinson, Talley, Adams, Osili, Miller and Cardwell.  The last two are Republicans and the rest are Democrats. 

Prop 15, that raggedy, tattered zombie that it is, returns to the full Council Monday night.

Council Committee Followed Improper Procedure In Pushing TIF Expansion Out the Door

Recently fellow blogger Fred McCarthy, over at Indy Tax Dollars, made a startling discovery regarding the outrageous meeting conducted by members of the Council's Metropolitan & Economic Development committee back on August 27.  McCarthy noted that the committee failed to properly vote on amending Prop 15 before voting to move it to the full Council with a 'do-pass' recommendation (see "Haste Makes Waste").

I just watched the ad hoc extension of the committee meeting and followed closely what motions were made and voted on.  (See "WCTY Archive For Metro Devel Committee" to view this section of the meeting for yourself.)

McCarthy is right.

It is surprising, given Councillor Adams lengthy tenure on the Council, that she would goof this up, but she did.

Here are the series of motions and votes.

0:26 -- Chairman Talley adjourns the meeting.

1:56 -- Councillor Osili moves to take Prop 15 off the table.  Adams seconds.  Cain 'thirds'.

Talley does not recognize Osili's motion.

4:40 -- Adams takes control of the meeting by consent.

5:00 -- Osili again moves to take Prop 15 off the table.

5:48 --  Osili reads full text of Prop 15 with amended parts.

No motion to amend is made.  No second to amend is made.

11:59 -- Councillor Robinson moves for recess.  Adams does 'not entertain at this time'.

12:30 -- Adams say incorrectly that the proposal as amended has been moved and seconded.

13:00 -- vote is taken to move Proposal 15 off the table.

Adams follows vote to take off the table with erroneous statement that the matter is "before us as amended".

19:20 -- Adams says they "need to take a vote on the amendment"

no vote is taken

20:05 -- Adams says, erroneously, that they have amended version of Prop 15 before them.

20:20 -- Adams says she will take a vote on Proposal 15 "as amended" - voice vote, not sure if Robinson in the room.

20:38 -- Councillor Adamson explains his vote, Osili thanks him for his assistance.  It should be noted that if Adamson had not remained in the meeting, and left with Talley and Robinson (who came and went during the ad hoc portion), there would not have been a quorum of the members and no doubt that the meeting could not continue.

22:50 -- Cain makes a motion to move Prop 15 as amended to the full Council with a do pass recommendation.  Cannot hear a second on the video.  Vote proceeds again with a 5-1 outcome (Osili, Adamson, Adams, Cain and Miller yes -- Robinson no).

There is never a motion to amend Prop 15.  There is never a second to amend Prop 15.  There is never a vote to amend Prop 15.

The five yes voting members of this committee clearly do not value public notification that a hot topic will be considered by the committee and therefore real opportunity for public input.  There likely will be protests of this characterization, but when push and shove came together, they acted without public input and were fine with it.

Council rules do not require public input in this type of ordinance, unfortunately.  But, Council rules do require proper motions, seconds, and votes to amend.  If the full Council is not interested in sending Prop 15 back to committee because of lack of public notification and input, then they surely must send it back due to improper Council procedure. 

Kudos to Fred McCarthy for bringing this to light.

Slush Funds Advance Out of Public View

From WCTY archives:

 



 

There were no proposals seeking to establish TIF districts on last night's Metropolitan and Economic Development committee's agenda.  This is all we have this morning.  You can clearly see and hear Chairman Steve Talley adjourn the meeting at time stamp 1:33:40.  At the end of the WCTY tape you can hear, but not see, Councillor Virginia Cain ask Republican Council Attorney Elrod for advise.  Then audio cuts out, too.

 

Early on, before this clip begins, when members of the public are addressing the committee, you can see Deron Kintner in the last row of the room.  Trust me, I've been to more budget hearings than some Councillors, but nobody comes to one if their interests aren't being entertained.  So, Deron  Kintner, Executive Director of the Bond Bank, was given a heads up that this would happen.  The public was not informed.

 

From Jon Murray, IndyStar reporter, we have the skeleton of what happened.  He reports that Democrats Mary Adams, Zach Adamson, Vop Osili and Republicans Virginia Cain and Jeff Miller all voted in favor of the proposal, evidently after amending it.  There was one lone "no" vote by Democratic Councillor Leroy Robinson. 

 

Thank you, Councillor Robinson.

 

Murray reports on the amendment:

But the ice thawed Monday after the administration reached an agreement with Democratic council members Vop Osili and Joseph Simpson. They represent districts near those proposed new development zones.

In a newly released memo outlining the agreement, Deron Kintner, Ballard’s new deputy mayor for economic development, commits to tapping $13.5 million from city economic development funds for three loan and workforce training programs.

The committee also amended the proposal to require some local hiring by contractors on new projects and to promote minority employment.
 

The proposed expansion of the downtown TIF to the west aims to capture 604 acres to support road improvements around Bush Stadium and to the east to capture 111 acres to support redevelopment of a block no more than 3 acres in size.  Now add to it more tax dollars swapped by the two district Councillors and you clearly have huge new slush funds being set up. 

There has been no disclosure of basic information justifying or answering the questions : Why this TIF?  Why this place?  Why this project?  Why this footprint?  The three submissions in response to the RFP for the Mass Ave TIF (the 111 acre expansion to the east) are held in embargo; kept out of sight of public eyes and disclosure.

The recommendations of the TIF Study Commission would have required all of this disclosure so that the public AND the Councillors had real information upon which to base a real evaluation of the proposed TIFs.  These recommendations would have protected the public.

The Ballard administration, including Ryan Vaughn and Deron Kintner, do not want any details to escape into the public and have held as much under wraps as they could.  Now we find that Councillors are deliberately helping them keep the wraps on.  This is foul.

The full Council will have an opportunity to send this back to committee where the public can take their rightful place in the discussion.  As it stands now, this action by Adams, Adamson, Osili, Cain and Miller is a travesty that screams of their real distain for proper proceedure, public process, and putting in place recommendations that will protect the public interest.  If this is an inaccurate review of their attitudes, then they have the opportunity to clarify things by walking this proposal back to committee themselves.