Gas Tax "Windfall" - Not What the Mayor Makes it Out to Be

Here's how it looked back on August 14, 2013, when IBJ reporter Kathleen McLaughlin penned an article about Mayor Greg Ballard's proposal to float a bond to add revenue to the nearly depleted RebuildIndy fund:

City officials said Thursday that they intend to spend $350 million over the next three years to improve streets, sidewalks, trails and bridges.

Most of that money will come from existing funds, but $135 million will be borrowed against increased state transportation funding.

...The city expects its share of state gas tax revenue to increase by $7 million, and will leverage that into the bond issue.

The increase in gas tax revenue sent to the City from the State was refined to $7.8 million.  That's were it stood on August 29, when the Public Works Committee of the City-County Council rejected Proposal 250.  I noted in a blog entry the next day that the Mayor's statements to the press were far from the truth.

Well, add one more lie to the list.

I received the real gas tax revenue numbers from the State Auditor's office.  The estimated 2013 distribution of the "Motor Vehicle Highway" revenue to the City of Indianapolis and the County of Marion is $20.25 million.  The estimated 2014 distribution is $23.75 million.  That is a difference of $3.5 million.  Less than half of the $7.8 million the Mayor, Bond Bank Director/Deputy Mayor Deron Kintner, and DPW Director Lori Miser have been touting as the windfall that will pay for the bond.



I added the color highlights to better direct attention to the figures applicable to the City and County

As I noted earlier, the Proposal actually called for annual payments of $9 million on the bond.  So, given that the real gas tax revenue increase is a paltry (by comparison) $3.5 million - they had plans to tap $5.5 million every year for 30 years of money that is usually needed for other things in DPW.  That's not only taking the next generation's increased gas tax, its also trading existing services that by rights should remain in place for the next 3 decades.

There still remains the $240 million of revenue that is already earmarked for road and sidewalk repair over the next 3 years - and that is no small amount of money.

But, to hear Greg Ballard tell it, if the Council does not allow the City to float this additional bond, there will be no infrastructure improvements at all.  That's the story he and his administration are repeating to the media, to the neighborhoods, and to the Council.  It is all a pack of lies.  Mayor Ballard even went so far as to accost Democrat At-Large Councillor Zach Adamson at the Hob Nob with "We're going to murder you guys on this.  You're dead."

They must think they have a lock on the press, a lock on what information gets to the neighborhoods, and a lock on the facts as they prefer to make them out to be.  They must think we are all stupid.

As more of the truth comes out, and it will, I am increasingly grateful to the members of the Public Works committee who voted against this fiscally unsound and cynically presented Proposal to float these bonds - Councillors Vernon Brown, Pam Hickman, Bill Oliver, Monroe Gray, and Zach Adamson.

Ethics Committee Tables Prop 28 With Intention of More Comprehensive Proposal To Come

The Ethics Committee of the City- County Council did indeed meeting this past Thursday to consider Councillor Mahern's Prop 28, which would require full disclosure by Council members when they or their family members received gifts, including tickets to sporting events provided by the CIB.  The meeting took less than 5 minutes to complete.

Councillor Mahern requested that this proposal be struck, with the intention that he would introduce a similar proposal that would include other elected City officials, including the Mayor.  The Committee tabled Prop 28 indefinitely, which has a similar effect as striking the proposal - it is dead.

Here is the clip of Mahern's testimony before the committee (in attendance were Councillors Robinson, Hickman, Simpson, Evans, and Shreve - so this committee continues to be in flux).

Big Night At Rules Committee

The City-County Council Rules Committee will be taking up some big issues tonight, including partner benefits for City/County employees, and an ordinance banning blackballing of hotel workers who preveiusly worked for a temp agency. 

While most people attending will be interested in one of those two, I do want to make mention of an additional proposal that,if passed, would seek a half million loan from the state and then increase your taxes in 2013 to pay it back.  Hmmm...
Prop 168 does not say what purpose the half million would serve, just that it would be deposited in the City's Cumulative Capital Development Fund.  According to the budget for 2012, this fund was estimated to have over $3.7 million fund balance at the end of this year.  They used this fund to handle some of the property tax circuit breaker credits, eating into the over $8.8 million beginning balance. (see p 82 and 33 of the pdf) So why they need to feed this fund with a loan and add to our taxes next year is not clear.

Prop 179, sponsored by Councillor Brian Mahern, would establish a new requirement for a hotel to qualify for its annual operating license from the City.  No hotel would be able to enter into a services contract if that contract contained a stipulation that the hotel could not employ a person who had previously worked for the services agency.  This practice traps people in the employ of these temporary agencies and their attendant low wages with no benefits.  The hotels were quite happy to hide behind the skirts of the maids and other hotel workers in petitioning for more and more taxpayer funds to flow to the ICVA and the CIB - then unceremoniously cut these workers' jobs in favor of these black-hearted outsourcing agreements.
Prop 213, sponsored by Councillors Mansfield, Adamson, Barth, Hickman, Lutz and Hunter, would make various benefits available to City and County government employees who are in domestic partnerships. To qualify, the couple would have to be living together for at least one year and file a Domestic Partnership declaration the Human Resources.  The benefits provided to the partner would be the same as those now afforded to a spouse of an employee - such as health insurance and pension benefits - and family/medical leave would be provided to the employee for situations arising with their partner.  Should the domestic partners cease being a couple, HR would have to be notified immediately.  All benefits provided to a partner would be taxable to the employee.

On Prop 213, all I can say is - about time.  The State refuses to allow same sex partners to marry, stripping these couples of many legal rights married couples take for granted.  The least we can be as a City is progressive enough to provide equal benefits for partners as we provide to spouses.

The agenda for the Rules Committee lists 8 items.  The meeting will begin at 5:30 pm in the Public Assembly Room.