Referendum is Required for Any Criminal Justice Center

I've come to the conclusion that the proposed Criminal Justice Center, should it get any further, be put to a vote of the public in the form of a referendum.

Project details are being withheld from the public by the Ballard administration - even details they have seen fit to divulge to the project bidders. 

The price tag noted in the press began as $200 M, but has hemmed and hawed its way to over $600 M.  For our purposes here, any of these price tags works.

The CJC would be built and run by an outside, private concern.  The City would lease-to-own the building over 35 years.

The administration keeps saying it will not result in a tax increase. They toss around an annual lease payment of less than $122 M. Taxes might go up or stay the same.  Either case works here.

Nonetheless, some of the payments would come from money normally appropriated to the Sheriff's Office and the Superior Courts, among others.  The Public Defender and Prosecutor won't actually be part of the CJC, despite its huge size.  Any accommodations for them nearby would have to be part of a separate public-private-partnership and add to the already huge price tag being hung on the CJC.

Between just the Sheriff and Courts budgets, nearly $100 M comes from the Consolidated County Fund.   This year, this Fund got about $165 M in revenues, 25 M, or 15%, of which came from property taxes.  It is impossible to imagine a repayment scheme that did not include a significant portion from property taxes.

By state law, any project costing $12 M or more in property taxes - whether it be through bond or lease payments - requires the consent of the voters through a referendum.

The little information so far let out by the project handlers in the administration clearly demonstrates that the CJC project qualifies as a project that meets the threshold for a referendum.

The public has deserved far greater transparency on the proposed CJC than it has received.  It also deserves a referendum, so that it has a real say in whether or not it wants to commit hundreds of billions of dollars over 35 years to a Criminal Justice Center.

Hold On To Your Wallets - Its Budget Time

Tonight's City County Council meeting will kick off the budget process for next year's spending and taxing.

Mayor Ballard will give his annual budget introductory remarks. 

Elimination of the local homestead credit is once again included - Prop 248.  Not to make ends meet anymore.  Not to contain the ballooning public safety budget 'deficit' anymore.  This time he wants to eliminate it to fund pre-K education.

I did not see increases in income taxes, but expect to see that appear soon enough.

Being introduced tonight is a second attempt to increase the stormwater user fee that appears on the property tax bill.  Prop 249 would automatically increase the fee each and every year going forward.  This feature was also included in the first attempt and drew speculation that the Ballard administration was just sweetening the pot so that he could sell off this utility to a private concern.

We are being treated again to a lobbyist-drafted ordinance sponsored by Councillor Mary Moriarty Adams.  Prop 250 would allow digital billboards in Marion County.

Prop 254 is offered in reaction to Ballard-Vaughn's recently inked agreement with Covanta for 'recycling', which contained a 70% tax abatement that was not called a tax abatement.  Prop 254 urges the State Legislature to make any agreement containing a rebate on taxes or a forgiveness of taxes to be subject to Council approval, just like any other abatement in a TIF district is.

Coming before the Council for a vote this evening are a few items, including:

Prop 241 urges IPL to abandon coal as a fuel at its Harding Street plant.  Check this one off as completed.

Props 162 and 163 would allow $100,000 from the Mayor's Office budget be donated to United Way.  This brings up two questions - why is there so much fluff in the Mayor's Office budget and why should taxpayers be subsidizing any non-for-profit that brings in millions of dollars a year on its own?

Prop 349, 2013 would establish a TIF in the Avondale Meadows area.  This TIF is much needed, no doubt.  But specificity regarding its funding remain lacking and of concern.  Also of concern is a lack of resident control of or input on the projects that might get funded.

Prop 195 would establish a landlord registry.  It would cost local residential landlords $5 per year, but it would require out of state owners to establish an in-state manager responsible for any infractions that might beset the property.  Failure to register a property would result in fines ranging from $100 to $500.  This is a good one in my book.

Another good one is Prop 232, which would require defibrillators in all public buildings and buildings housing a department or agency of the City County government.

Budget hearings start this week.  Tuesday will see the introduction by Controller Jason Dudich as well as the budget presentation his office, the Office of Corporation Counsel, and two others.  Wednesday will be the budgets of the Public Defender, Community Corrections, and the Child Support division of the Prosecutor's office.  Both hearings will begin at 5:30 pm in Room 260 of the City-County Building.  Thursday will be the hearing for the Parks Department budget.  That will begin at 5:00 pm, same room.

Criminal Justice Center Contracts - Do They Violate the Law?

The beginning of August has been interesting in view of the massive amounts of money the City has contracted to pay for  work on the proposed criminal justice center - not the center itself, mind you - but just to gather proposals for it.

Now IBJ reporter Kathleen McLaughlin has an article where the City-County Council's CFO, Bart Brown, is saying the contracts may have been signed in violation of the law.

The contracts in question were brought to the attention of the public by the media over the last two weeks.

John Tuohy, IndyStar reporter, broke the news that the  Mayor contracted with the new employer of his former campaign manager / former counsel, John Cochran; Bose Public Affairs Group.  That was to the tune of $750,000 for PR work.

Then Mary Milz, WTHR reporter, had a blockbuster last night.  She reported that there are even more contracts, adding up to $9,945,376, were also let to a variety of legal and financial advisor firms.  One thing that caught my attention last night - as we happened to be watching Milz news broadcast - was the closing comments attributed to Marc Lotter, the Mayor's spokesman.

Milz had inquired as to how the nearly $10 M in newly revealed contracts would be paid.

Mayoral spokesman Marc Lotter said not all contracts need to be paid immediately.  He said some contracts are being phased in.

He also said the controller has "the ability to shift funds around or seek appropriations if necessary, so there are a lot of tools we can use."

Well, the Controller actually has limited ability to shift funds around.  The City-County Council is the fiscal body that sets the budget and appropriates the expenditure of funds.  No money can be spent beyond what the Council appropriated for any of 5 types of expenses in any one department or agency.  Service contracts fall in one of those types.

So, the Controller can spend money earmarked for contracts on any contract they desire, up to the limit set by the Council through the appropriation for that department. 

McLaughlin quotes Brown today

Brown contends that the contracts were signed in violation of state procurement law, which requires council approval for multi-year obligations that aren't already funded. He said the administration has only $2 million available for the contracts, and that money wasn't expressly appropriated for consultants' fees.

Brown called it a "bait-and-switch." Ballard spokesman Marc Lotter couldn't speak to the legality of the contracts, but he said the city won't be on the hook for the full amount. Lotter said the city's consultant fees will be reimbursed by whichever development team is chosen to build the justice center. That's assuming the deal goes forward.

The contracts in question are posted online.

There are 6 contracts in all.  The contract numbers are sequential; running from #12449 through #12454.  The start dates of the contracts, however, are not sequential.

Here are the highlights of the contracts in order of contract number.  Links to each contract are embedded in the number for those wishing to review them.  All are assigned to the Executive and Legislative department budgets (Mayor's Office and Council Office, among others).

#12449 -- Bickmore -- $50,000 -- start date 3/10/14 -- end date 1/1/15

#12450 -- John Klipsh Consulting -- $100,000 -- start date 11/15/13 -- end date 12/15/14

#12451 -- KPMG Corporate Finance -- $3,000,000 -- start date 12/10/13 -- end date 3/31/15

#12452 -- Bose Public Affairs Group -- $750,000 -- start date 12/20/13 -- end date 12/31/14

#12453 -- Hellmuth, Obata and Kassabaum -- $4,695,376 -- start date 2/26/14 -- end date 6/1/15

#12454 -- Nossaman / Bingham, Greenbaum Doll -- $4,000,000 -- start date 10/14/13 -- end date 6/30/15

The last contract is actually a contract with Bingham for $1.5 M and a subcontract through them to Nossaman for $2.5 M plus expenses.

The grand total comes to $12,595,376.

That is a goodly sum of money.  Jason Dudich, City Controller, signed off on every contract as "acknowledged and approved for funding purpose" or "approved as to availability of funding".

The type of expense under which service contracts, like these, are allowed is termed Character 3.  Other expenses also come from this Character.  But, it is the maximum appropriated.  The 2014 budget appropriated the following total Character 3 for each of these executive and legislative groups:

Office of the Mayor -- $968,488

Office of Minority 7 Women Business Development -- $105,040

Office of Audit and Performance -- $132,276

City County Council -- $470,885

Office of Corporation Counsel -- $816,722

Office of Finance and Management -- $3,847,576

Telecom and Video Services Agency -- $116,599

So, back to Brown's point.  Where did and will the money come from to pay these contracts?  The total appropriated funds, which bear in mind are needed for other things beyond service contracts, is $6,457,586 for all of 2014.  Brown says the administration delayed paying its December rent on the City-County building by a month, freeing up $2 M for calendar year 2013. 

McLaughlin's article drops more bombs.

Lotter said the size of the contracts shouldn't come as a surprise to council members, because Council President Maggie Lewis signed a memorandum of understanding in December which states that the city may incur costs up to 2 percent of the total project. 

With fees of $12.65 million, the construction cost could be as much as $632.5 million.

Now we are topping $600 Million for the cost?  Are they nuts?

The Ballard Administration has been particularly opaque on everything surrounding their proposed criminal justice center.  The fact that the contracts are sequential in number but not in start date demonstrate the administration had all this laid out before October 14, 2013.  Yet we are just hearing about this jaw-dropping amount of taxpayer money being spent on something that may not get built.  Now we hear from the Council's CFO, that the contracts may not be legal because the money to pay them has not been appropriated.

The public deserves full disclosure - and full disclosure now.


[edited to add - as I was typing this up, Gary Welsh posted about the same thing over at Advance Indiana - click here]

IndyStar Needs Better Fact Checking

It is imperative in a one-daily newspaper town, that said paper get important facts correct.  That is even more imperative when said paper was just awarded $3 million of taxpayer money by the Mayor of that town, for improvements to property it is currently trying to sell.

Such is the situation with the Indianapolis Star.

In an editorial in yesterday's paper and a front page story in today's issue, the Star takes on the topic of fixing Indy's roads and sidewalks.  Neither time did the Star take the opportunity to mention that one side portrayed in the debate, Mayor Greg Ballard, just awarded them the $3 million taxpayer gift.

Here are the facts that the Star apparently cannot grasp.

There have been 3 proposals put on the table and 2 still to be introduced to the Council.

1) Last year the Mayor proposed the City undertake a $350 million project, dubbed Rebuild Indy 2.  Most of the money was already on hand and would be supplemented with a $135 million, 30 year, bond issue.  The bond issue alone was presented to the Council - not the remaining $215 million cost of the proposal being touted by Mayor Ballard. 

Now the wisdom of taking a 30 loan for at best a 20 year improvement is debatable.  Never to my knowledge noted in the press was the circulation of a list of projects that neighborhoods were led to believe could be paid for if only RBI 2 was passed.  Not true.  The list was for twice as much money as RBI 2 would raise. 

Important questions never asked were : Why not go forward with the $215 million in projects for which the cash was already in hand?  Why were you misleading the public with the list of projects?

2) After this year's severe winter, the spring pothole problem was far worse than usual.  According to the Mayor's own estimates, the tab was an additional $24 million - yet he only requested $8 million.

Unasked questions : Why only ask for a third of what you say you need?  Why not clarify to the public that RBI 2 has nothing whatsoever to do with pothole repair? 

The $8 million proposal was passed by the Council after changes were made to ensure that every Council District saw some of the pothole money and repairs.

3) The Council Democrats put forth a proposal for the remaining $16 million that Mayor Ballard said was needed for pothole repair.  This proposal passed the Council, as well.

4) The Mayor still has $215 million in cash on hand for street and sidewalk projects.  But, he continues to hold that money and those projects hostage.  He now proposes that the $215 million be supplemented with only $85 million bond to be repaid over 20 years. 

The same question still applies : Why don't you do the projects you already have the money to do, and work out the remaining funding piece later? 

This new version of RBI 2 is being paraded around to the press and the public in generalities only.  Concrete details have not been released and the proposal has not yet been introduced to the Council.

5) The Council Democrats say they have a plan, to be introduced soon, that will fund street and sidewalk repairs and serve as a more fiscally responsible plan than either of the two versions of RBI 2 the Mayor has offered.  No details have been provided.

There is little doubt that street, sidewalks, and pothole repair are issues worthy of much coverage by local media.  The public, however, deserves an accurate recitation of the facts and presentation of both sides' motivations.  So far, Mayor Ballard's motivations have not been questioned, and they should have.  And, so far, the fact checking by the IndyStar has not been nearly as robust as the reading public deserves.

IndyStar Fails Journalistic Ethics Test

In two days, the Metropolitan Development Commission will vote on a $3 Million bond to enrich the Indianapolis Star owners by improving the existing Star building, thereby increasing its sales price.  Resolution 2014-B-002 bundles the "Pulliam Square" and the "Millikan-On-Mass" projects for a total of $5.5 Million in taxpayer dollars.  The project has already been through the MDC's Economic Development Committee and has been discussed at its Pre-Meeting.

The $3 Million gift from Mayor Greg Ballard to the Indianapolis Star has been in the works literally for months.  When approached by the Ballard folks about the gift, the Star could have said, "No thank you.  Such a handout would cloud the credibility we have built with our readers, and set up the perception of a conflict of interest."

But, they did not.

They also failed to alert readers of the many editorials and opinion pieces penned during these months, that supported Ballard or scolded those who did not agree with the Administration's policies, of Ballard's gift. 

The readers had an absolute right to know, and the Star had an absolute obligation to inform them, that they were awaiting $3 Million of taxpayer money.  Each reader had the right to decide for themselves if Ballard's gift was irrelevant to a Star position, slanted an editorial stance, or outright bought and paid for the Star employee's praise.  Each reader has the right to decide for themselves if this is an advance payment for another endorsement of candidate Greg Ballard in next year's run for re-election.

The Indianapolis Star failed its readers.  They also failed this fundamental test of its Journalistic Ethics.

This is Important - Campaign Contributors and No-Bid Contracts

Gary Welsh over at Advance Indiana, posted some really important information the other day.  I feel it is so important that I should post an echo of it here.

In "Rebuild Indy 2 Should Easily Cover the Cost of Mayor's Re-election Campaign", Welsh reports that a reader provided him with an analysis of Mayor Ballard's campaign finance reports and construction companies who received any of the Rebuild Indy money.

All construction company contributions, including the personal contributions of company principles, between 2010 and 2013 were tabulated.  The list was cross referenced to a list of all contracts awarded for Rebuild Indy. The top ten campaign-contributing companies just happened to get no-bid contracts for Rebuild Indy work during that same time period.

Let me say that again - the top ten construction company contributors to Mayor Ballard's campaign, all just happened to get no-bid contracts for Rebuild Indy work.

A no-bid contract is awarded without any competition to ascertain the lowest and most responsive bid for a particular project.  It is just awarded to the chosen company straight out.

Welsh reports this table of the top ten contributors, the value of their no-bid Rebuild Indy contracts awarded between 2010 and 2013 in parentheses, and the amount they contributed during the same period:

1.   American Structurepoint, Inc. ($37,203,475)--$129,700
2.   RW Armstrong & Associates ($13,554,892)--$90,000
3.   United Consulting Engineering, Inc. ($9,066,041)--$101,250
4.   Bernardin Lochmueller and Associates, Inc. ($7,406,845)--$83,500
5.   Butler, Fairman and Seufert, Inc. ($3,847,164)--$63,550
6.   V.S. Engineering, Inc. ($1,957,866)--$41,000
7.   M.D. Wessler and Associates, Inc. ($1,835,236)--$30,250
8.   First Group Engineering, Inc. ($1,282,052)--$36,250
9.   Janssen & Spaans Engineering, Inc. ($1,384,600)--$42,500
10. DLZ Indiana, LLC ($736,250)--$88,905

If you are counting, the top ten contributors got $78,274,421 in no-bid Rebuild Indy contracts and fattened the Gregory Ballard for Mayor Committee coffers by $706,905.

For more analysis, I refer you to Welsh's excellent piece.

IMPD Budget Recap - It's Probably Not What You Expected

Last night's budget hearing for IMPD was quite well attended.  For those who missed it, let me recap.

Public Safety Director Troy Riggs, Police Chief Richard Hite, and Public Safety Deputy Director Valerie Washington present limited IMPD budget numbers; noting only that the money flowing to IMPD from one fund (the IMPD General Fund) would remain the same, at $187m.  

In 2014, the want to hire 35 civilians to take over duties now conducted by sworn Officers, allowing those Officers to return to patrol duties.  They also want to set up a recruit class of 50 new hires.  That, combined with 10 civilian hires this year, make the 90 new sworn Officers that is being bandied about in the media today.

But, in order to accomplish all of this, they need to have their budget cut by $5.65 m.

Now, I know you want to go back and re-read that last sentence.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.

Yes the IMPD budget is being reduced by $5.65 million.  This includes a $7.09 million decrease in salaries from the current year budget.  No wonder they glossed over all the numbers except that one fund's expenditure total.

So you say, but Pat, what about the $1.4 million in fees to be charged the Officers for use of their take-home cars?  Well, I assume that's in the budget somewhere, but there is  no line that says 'fuel surcharge fee' in the numbers available to the public.  And, all I can say is, what one hand giveth, the other taketh away.

And you say, but Pat, what about the two tax hikes the Council gave the CIB - the increased ticket tax and car rental taxes?  Wasn't the first year's $6m supposed to go to IMPD and IFD?  And, after that isn't 25% of those increases to continue to flow to IMPD and IFD?  Why, yes, that's true.  But the year began on March 1, so the is only two months of 100% CIB 'public safety' revenue in 2014 and the rest is at 25% - so maybe $1m to IMPD. 

But, Pat, you say, what about the proposed increase in the old IPD Tax District?  Isn't that assumed in the 2014 that is on the table?  Why, yes - yes it is.  I know they say it will net about $3 million in additional funds, but the additional revenue IMPD collects is only $1.6 m.  And it actually should show up as a decrease in the property tax circuit breaker.  But that number is just about the same as it was for the 2013 budget.  So, you got me.  I'm sure its in there.  Yet again, what one hand giveth, the other taketh away.

What about the $9 million that is supposed to come from elimination of the Local Homestead Credit?  Surely that's in the IMPD budget.  Ryan Vaughn and Troy Riggs are all over the media saying that if that credit isn't eliminated then the IMPD budget will lose $9 million and there could be no new hires next year if that happens.  Well, this one gets a 'not really'.  Should the Local Homestead Credit be eliminated, the IMPD budget would actually go down about $300,000.  IMPD is better off if its not eliminated.  The elimination frees up County Option Income Tax revenue, but IMPD doesn't see a penny of that money.

Lets add up all the new money that the Mayor Ballard, Vaughn and Riggs imply is in the IMPD budget, shall we?  $1.4 million in fuel surcharge fee, $1 million from the CIB, $1.6 million or $3 million from expanding the old IPD Taxing District, and the $9 million from eliminating the Local Homestead Credit - sounds like $13 million to $14.4 million more money to IMPD, doesn't it?

But - nope.  No $14 million more for IMPD.  The 2014 budget really is $5.65 million less than 2013.

Its all a game to use public safety to secure public support for this round of tax changes. 

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.

Sound Bites - Mayor Greg Ballard Unplugged

I'm tight on time this morning, but I simply must recommend Jon Murray's stunning interview with Mayor Ballard.  It wasn't in the paper version this morning, unfortunately.  But it IS posted online at IndyStar.  Murray tosses out questions sent by the public via Twitter.  It is amazing how uninformed and short tempered our Mayor is. 

A must read:  click here

There's Exaggerating - Then There's Outright Lying

I attended last night's Public Works committee meeting for two items - the proposed hike in stormwater management fees and the budget.  Among other agenda items, there was Prop 250, which looked to use some new gas tax money from the state, to float bonds to pay for infrastructure improvements.

Gary Welsh over at Advance Indiana, and Jon Murray over at IndyStar, both did a good job relaying particulars.

The late night newscast by WTHR, channel 13, however, did not do a good job.  All they did was quote the Mayor's press release - which was so far beyond exaggeration as to be an outright lie.

Here's what the press release said, from Murray's report:

“Democrats on the City-County Council turned their backs on every neighborhood in Indianapolis,” Ballard said in a written statement. “By placing politics ahead of the best interests of the community, they rejected a plan that would have provided sidewalks in many of our neighborhoods, repaved every one of our worst streets, made our bridges safer and fixed flooding problems in some of our poorest neighborhoods.”

Lie, lie, lie.

Here are the particulars from last night's debate on floating these bonds.

The state is sending the City/County an additional amount of money from the gas tax revenue it receives.  Lori Miser, head of DPW, and Deron Kintner, head of the bond bank/deputy mayor, said it was $7.8 million in new money.  Hope Tribble, CFO for the Council, said it was $6.2 million.  This is not guaranteed every year, although it appears that the State has committed to try to send it - if they can.  The gas tax has been a hot topic in Washington for years now, as it is not as much of a revenue source for transportation as they would like.

In either case, the proposal was to pay $9 million per year in debt service on new bonds.  Depending upon the interest rate at the moment the bonds were floated, this could generate anywhere from $135 - $150 million.  The bonds would be paid back over 30 years - so the taxpayers would spend $270 million over time to get maybe $150 million now.  That computes to paying $120 million in interest and fees - nearly half.

The City would add this $135 million to money it will spend on infrastructure anyway, to make a grand total of $350 million in spending over the next 3 years.  Without bonding, they would have $242 million to spend over the next 3 years (I added the $9 million per year to the base $215 million).  So, the City can still repave 'every one of our worst streets', and make 'our bridges safer'.  The flooding issues I'll leave to another blog post.  Suffice it to say, the City doesn't direct stormwater projects to the poorest neighborhoods in any case - they direct the money to flooded neighborhoods.

DPW has been circulating a list of infrastructure projects that total between $500 and $600 million.  Of course, any neighborhood looks to see if it's roads are listed.  But that is clearly far more projects than can be done with the money - bond or no bond.

So, the pivotal question was, is it fiscally sound to borrow additional funds using a shaky revenue source as collateral?

The committee vote was along party lines - 5 to 2.  The Democrats were fiscally responsible, choosing to avoid the situation where an unreliable stream of money from the State would be used to float bonds that would have to be repaid even if the State stops sending that extra.  If the extra money continues to come in, well we and the next generation will have $270 million to spend on streets and sidewalks.

I just don't understand why $242 million is somehow chump change to spend on infrastructure over the next 3 years, and why we have to continually reach into the pockets of the next generation to get what we want today - and wasting half of the money we steal from them on interest and fees, to boot.  There should be no sin in patience, prudence, and protecting the next generation.  There is, however, a sin in lying to the public.  Shame on Mayor Ballard for lying and shame on WTHR for passing that lie along as the entire story to its viewers.

Indy Hits the Trifecta - Violent Crime UP, Parks DOWN, Health DOWN

Greg Ballard, elected Mayor of Indianapolis, has steered our City into a losing combination of increasing violent crime, worsening parks, and worsening public health.  But, hey, his campaign contributors are making out like bandits.  Congrats.

Today's newspaper shows what happened because of the ill-placed priorities of this administration.  Violent crime is up - number of cops are down.  This even after former Mayor Peterson raised taxes for public safety; killing his chances for reelection and handing that election and ample funds for public safety to the unknown Ballard.

Parks have been for sale under Ballard, and we see the effect - Indy's park system ranks 47th among the Country's largest 50 cities.  Ballard has put Parks on the endangered services list - first trying to sell them off, then leasing them out to the point regular folks can't use their own parks, and cutting back on maintenance.  Most recently, Ballard, demonstrating the epitome of cluelessness, is spending millions of dollars to turn a neighborhood park into a privately run cricket venue.

And, Indy ranks 45th of the 50 largest cities in overall health.  Not enough money for sidewalks and parks - but plenty of money for Angies List and Eli Lilly and Rolls Royce and generous campaign contributors.

The money this City and County generate has been going into downtown - to the detriment of the outer Townships (and outer Center Township) and basic services.  TIF districts continue to balloon, thanks to politicians from both parties, decreasing the revenue available for the quality of life services like Parks, police, and healthy, walkable neighborhoods.  Campaign contributors have been making out enormously well, though, with the city taxpayers not just sweetening deals, but underwriting the lion's share of deals - the Broad Ripple garage, the North of South (City Way) deal, the Bank One Ops center deal - the taxpayers have been on the short end of the stick in all of these deals with the super sized investments.  The Mayor even turned down one proposal for the Mass Ave fire station property that did not ask for any TIF money so that a well connected firm could get the lucrative deal.

Ballard was not elected Mayor of downtown.  His performance needs to be judged by the entire City.  By that standard, Ballard is a failed Mayor and we are a failing City - not a world class City, but a failing City.  Congrats on this ignoble trifecta, Mayor Ballard.

Louis Mahern Makes Compelling Case for Full Disclosure of Gifts to Ballard and Lewis

In this week's IBJ, guest columnist Louis Mahern makes a remarkably compelling case for Mayor Greg Ballard and City-County Council President Maggie Lewis, to disclose all of the gifts they get.

If the following statement doesn't make you sit back, nothing will:

Since 2008, Ballard has received nearly $1 million in free sports tickets. Shouldn’t he have to report somewhere that he received those tickets as well as their value?

Wow !  I knew he got tickets, but that's a load of tickets.  If Mahern's figures are over 5 1/2 years, that's $181,000 a year in TICKETS.  A lot of feting can be done with that budget, and none of it has to come from Ballard's campaign coffers.

Still the public has a right to know this and it should have to be disclosed on Ballard's annual "Statement of Economic Interest" form (aka 'conflict of interest' form).  Here is the meaty part of his disclosure from 2013 gifts:

 

 

 

Ballard mentions that he attends sporting events and that the City often gets tickets to other events from the CIB.  He does not actually disclose the number and value of the tickets he gets.  Of course, since Ballard already has a suite at the BLF, why accept 2 Pacers tickets worth $1824 from IPL? Gary Welsh, over at Advance Indiana, has already exposed the huge undervalue of the Super Bowl ring, which Welsh shows is really more like $5000.

 

Back to Mahern's IBJ column - Not only were the tickets not fully disclosed, but memberships in country clubs, and his frequent, free, foreign jaunts are also not disclosed to the public.  You will recall how Ballard says his administration is transparent.  Well, here's a great example of how opaque they really are.

 

Mahern moves on to Lewis' gifts of tickets from the CIB and her employer's (Dove Recovery House - for which she serves as Executive Director) dependence upon annual grants from the City's Crime Prevention Grants.  The Councillor's 2013 Ethics forms are online as a single, lengthy, pdf.  Lewis' are pages 89-93.  She does disclose her employer's name and nowhere does the form require disclosure of her employer's City funding.  The tickets to sporting and other events are not mentioned by Lewis.  A scan of Councillor's forms show that some do disclose tickets and others do not.  But, we know for a fact that Lewis does get tickets from at least the CIB.  In answer to question 6 of the form:

Except for Campaign Donations, Subject to IC 3-9-2 and Reported in Accordance With Law or Gifts From Persons Including Family Members With Whom You Have an On-Going Social Relationship Not Related to Service on the Council Which are not Subject to Reporting on this Form, Did You Receive any Gifts, or Other Items, Valued Over $100, or in the Aggregate Over $250, in the Prior Year From any Person or Firm that Does Business With or Seeks to do Business with the City or County or Which Seeks to Influence Council Action?

she simply checkmarks "No".



The public has a right to know how much our elected officials get in gifts from admirers and influence seekers.  In fact, I'd like to see Departments heads also have to disclose gifts.  The Council and the Mayor like to tell the public that they have strong disclosure and ethics statutes, but Mahern has shown us that they either have weak statutes or they ignore what they have at will.

 

As Mahern concludes:

Make no mistake: Ballard and Lewis are powerful officials whose friendship the Colts, Pacers and private contractors crave.

What are the gifts? What is their value? Who are the donors? Is it so hard?

Exactly.



A Lot of Questions Arising

Yesterday's raid on City Hall by the FBI was attention grabbing, to say the least.  The arrest of two City employees, one who ran the Land Bank (Reggie Walton), and one who had worked as a special assistant to Mayor Ballard himself (John Hawkins) and more recently as an aide to Walton, demonstrated how high up the alleged scheming crept.  Of course, the investigation continues and the recent cacophony of shoes dropping could continue apace.

U.S. Attorney, Joe Hogsett, held a press conference yesterday afternoon, part of which you can watch atop Jon Murray and John Tuohy's IndyStar article, and which I have embedded below.  If you can't watch all 5 minutes, I suggest tuning in at minute marker 4:15, where Hogsett sends a very clear message to those for whom corruption is a companion, beginning with "the era of corruption is over".

 

 

 

There are many things in this world I do not understand, but today I want to mention a few arising from yesterday actions and inactions.

 

Why do officials sell out for so little?  One of the charges alleged against Walton is that he took a $500 bribe.  It is almost heartening that the FBI believes the total take for all 5 people arrested may have topped $100,000.  Still, why would folks put themselves in line to go to prison for non-life-changing sums?

 

I suspect the answer lies in the culture of corruption itself and the individuals involved - some of whom may have more good than bad in them, but a powerful ability to rationalize their actions as just part of the game of 'public service'.  We all talk about the powerful folks putting certain folks into office so that the real gravy train of millions continues to flow to a handful of well connected individuals.  I look forward to the day when those people's fancy offices are subject to a warrant search.  But, for those lower on the food chain, the idea that the cracks in public policy should be exploited, not fixed, surely must fall out of the culture set by the big dogs.

 

I further have to wonder why any of the alleged sales of City-owned properties continued AFTER the IBJ article, written last November by Cory Schouten, exposed the Land Bank actions.  In fact, here is how Schouten's article began:

Reggie Walton sat down at his desk on the 20th floor of the City-County Building a few days after he signed off on the deal, and the thought hit him.

I just made someone a millionaire.

Once the light of day was shed on the Land Bank policy of selling without restrictions, one would have thought that a) restrictions would be placed on sales of City-owned property in the future and b) any corrupt practices would stop due to the exposure.  But, evidently not.  No restrictions were placed on either the policy or the corrupt practices.

On to the press reaction to Mayor Ballard's absence yesterday.  Reported by the Star this morning, is the fact that the FBI informed the Mayor's office Monday night, of its intention to execute a search warrant Tuesday morning.  Ballard and his administration had time to work out how to proceed on Tuesday.  Hiding all day was their answer.  This hiding, by our duly elected but frequently gone Mayor, seems to have stepped over a line for some in the media.  I'm happy that they had a line to step over, but I am kind of stunned that they didn't notice his absence from any real governing heretofore..

So, what's the recent count?  Two City Councillors.  One City attorney who worked as a business partner of a Prosecutor.  A Deputy Prosecutor.  A Code Enforcement Officer having cars towed, crushed, and sold for metal.   All those found or plead guilty.

Hopefully Hogsett and the Public Integrity Working Group will continue the joyful sound of dropping shoes; and do so until even those in high places trading power for millions, will take pause and wonder if its worth it to continue bilking the Citizens of Indianapolis.


The Insane Priorities of the Ballard Administration

The first half of at least $5.8 million from RebuildIndy funds to be used for the insane cricket/Gaelic sports complex in Councillor Ben Hunter's district was spent yesterday.  This action comes despite no basis in sanity for such a complex and despite no private partner to help with the cost and/or to reap the Ballard fantasize rewards.

Fellow blogger Gary Welsh put it well this morning over on Advance Indiana:

Streets and sidewalks are crumbling, crime is skyrocketing, IMPD has fewer police officers patrolling the streets than the day Mayor Greg Ballard took office in January, 2008 and the budgets of city agencies across the board are being slashed to make up for a multi-million dollar budget deficit, but Mayor Greg Ballard insists on spending millions of dollars intended for infrastructure improvements on a new world sports park on the city's east side that he hopes will play host to international cricketing events.
 

IndyStar reporter, Jon Murray, reports that none of the three Council appointees showed up for the vote.  The three Board of Public Works appointees from the Mayor's office joined with DPW Director, Lori Miser, to vote 4-0 in favor.

The Council appointees need to explain why they were not there, especially given the gravity of the vote.  The Council Democrat leadership wants to say the Council has been cut out of this decision, but that is not entirely so.  Ducking important issues by standing on the sidelines is not leadership.  The lack of votes by the three Council appointees, if left unexplained, leaves the option that the Democrat leadership wants this cricket nonsense to go forward as much as Ballard does, as a reasonable opinion for members of the public to hold.

I do have to note that some Councillors did weigh in - as I cited two days ago -- Councillors Zach Adamson and Christine Scales, in particular.

Meanwhile, the priorities of the Ballard administration continue to spiral out of the realm of an sane policy and have clearly entered the Twilight Zone. 

Let us all remember this come budget time, when the Council Democrat leadership and the Ballard administration join hands to eliminate the Homestead Credit from property tax bills and when they cut services and when they lay off cops and firefighters (either directly or through attrition).  Let us remember the insanity of this cricket crap.

More on Gaelic Sports

An anonymous 'tip' hit my email box, saying that the World Sports Park, aka cricket park, aka Gaelic sports park, was in fact presented to the Parks committee on August 23 last year.  The sender shared a link to the minutes of that meeting, directing me to page 23 of that pdf.

This was the budget hearing for the Parks Department, and the PowerPoint presentation of Parks Director, John Williams.  The presentation did indeed list the World Sports Park as a "2012 Accomplishment".  I went over to WTCY and located the video from that hearing and have embedded the full 24 seconds related to this park:

 

 

The email also sent me to one of the Mayor's Initiatives pages on the Indy.Gov site, dedicated to this park on the site of the current Post Road Community Park.  The plan shown there is different, even in shape, much less field types, from Williams' slide.  The Indy Parks website shows a map of the Post Road Park, which is the same rectangular shape was included in the budget presentation.  I was unable to find any World Sports Park in the list on the Indy Parks website.

 

Back to the Mayor's initiatives page - there is contained on that page a link to a World Sports Park 'brochure', which turns out to be a bigger version of the map shown on the main page.  Right clicking I was able to get the creation date of that document - 4/16/2013 3:08:33 PM.  My, but, that is the same date as the Mayor's Indian announcement of the project.  What a coincidence.

 

IBJ reporter Anthony Schoettle reports:

Mayor Greg Ballard revealed Tuesday during a trade mission to India that Indianapolis hopes to host the inaugural United States Cricketing Championship next summer or fall.

It was the first public announcement of the city's plans, and suddenly shed light on a $6 million project to create a complex that would host the event on the city's far east side.

Already, Ballard has enlisted the Indiana Sports Corp. and Visit Indy, the city’s tourism arm, to help attract, promote and conduct the cricket event, according to Marc Lotter, a spokesman for the mayor. The event will be sanctioned by the United States of America Cricket Association.

Lotter told IBJ the effort to host the event is part of the initiative to transform a 40-acre city park in the 1300 block of South Post Road into an international sports complex capable of hosting local, regional, national and international cricket, rugby, lacrosse and hurling events.

One multi-use field already is complete at the Post Road Community Park and is being used by the city’s local cricket club, Lotter said. The park will be renamed Indianapolis World Sports Park.

The $6 million project began two years ago. Lotter said that once it is complete in summer or fall of 2014, the park will have five athletic fields and be capable of holding events attracting as many as 10,000 spectators.

10,000 spectators.  Here is the aerial of the park property at 1300 S. Post Road, captured as a screen shot from MapIndy.  This aerial was taken in the spring of 2012, and you'll note the cricket playing field was not yet installed.

 

I wonder what the neighborhood thinks about this?  Evidently, at least one neighbor heard the same day the rest of us did, as they texted Councillor Brown during the April 18 Public Works committee meeting while this project was being discussed.  DPW personnel, including Director Lori Miser, could not say how much outreach the Parks Department had done in the area.

 

Well, I've rambled on.  This project may have been know by certain insiders, but it was kept very low on the radar.  Way too low for some Councillors, and way too low for the public who will foot the bill for at least $5.8 million.

Sometimes the Public Process is Just As Important As the Public Policy

The more important a public policy is, the more important it is to have a robust public process to gauge the wisdom and details of that policy.

So it is with SB 621, which would do many things, including taking Council authority over the City budget and giving much of that real authority to the Mayor through his Controller, taking Commission appointments to the MDC and giving them to the Mayor, and eliminating the 4 At-Large positions on the Council - among other things.  This bill, authored by State Senator Mike Young at the behest of Mayors Ballard and Vaughn, passed out of the Senate and is in the House for consideration.

There are legions of folks lining up to oppose SB 621, but whether or not the Legislators will listen to any of them is yet to be seen.

One thread in the comments of the most recent opponents is the public process, or lack thereof.

Commenting only on the elimination of the At-Large positions, former Senator and Mayor, Richard Lugar, told WFYI that the public process used to create Uni-Gov provided protections to all voters.   "This was a good way when we brought together the entire community to make sure that the entire community had a vote."  (thanks to Jon Easter at Indy Democrat for the quote and link).

Ruth Hayes, on behalf of the Nora Northside Community Council, recently sent a letter to House Speaker Brian Bosma:

Dear Sir:

I write as president of the Nora-Northside Community Council, Inc., (NCC) a 46 year old community "umbrella" organization in North Central Washington Township, Marion County.  With a roughly 12 sq. mile area of interest, we have long been active in working with Marion County government on issues of concern to the 25 to 28 thousand citizens of the area. We are nonpartisan in all matters.

This note is to respectfully call your attention to what I consider a reasonable and thoughtful letter in the March 23 Star by Prosecutor Curry regarding SB 621.  I believe that the most important sentence in the letter states:  "I am opposed to a bill  that seeks to permanently alter the structure of local government without a shred of public outreach and input."  The community has been given no opportunity to discuss, approve or not, revise, etc.  this major reorganization of Unigov.  Dr. Beurt SerVaas, Charlie Whistler, and Richard Lugar gave great thought to the legislation which created the current form of Marion County governance, seeking to assure important checks and balances and provide representation for all citizens and areas of the county .  There were public hearings and media coverage to explain the initiative.  No less should be done now.

Trusting in your sense of fairness and commitment to open and transparent government, we respectfully urge you to not call a hearing on what many community leaders consider to be an ill-conceived and blatantly partisan proposal.  If it's a good idea, then it can surely stand the test of summer study.  We will welcome the opportunity to review and discuss the pros and cons of this initiative.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

"There were public hearings and media coverage to explain the initiative.  No less should be done now....  If it's a good idea, then it can surely stand the test of summer study."

Councillor Christine Scales, a Republican member of the City-County Council, penned a letter to Senator Young which stood up for the power and authority of the Council itself.  It said in part  (Paul Ogden at Ogden on Politics reprinted the entire letter) :

If SB 621 passes in its current form, the fundamental commitment to a system of governmental checks and balances will be severely eroded.  The Council’s oversight and advisement of budgets and departmental appointments and other policy decisions is already compromised by politics. There always exists a tension between what’s good for a political party and what comprises good governance. Votes for desired initiatives can be bartered for with promises of political perks or threats of punishment.  This sort of vote kowtowing already offers undue leverage and control to an executive branch of government- a tighter grip on power does not favor the public that is served. Extra care must be taken to ensure that processes providing accountability and transparency in government are not trampled on.

If there is a determined desire to reset the equation of county governance, then let there be a commitment to more time and input as to what a new city-county government model would look like and what weight voices of elected officials would carry. It is imperative that crafting of new policies doesn't conflict with traditional tenets of a democratic republic, which I fear SB621 does.
 

All of these comments honor and value the public process, especially in crafting or dissembling these proposed changes in policy and governance.  The public deserves to be heard; not just through letters, but out in the open where the pros and cons can be discussed by those who will be affected.  The public is not well served by this power grab by the Mayor ensconced in SB 621.  It is even less well served by the lack of an open and honest public process airing the wishes of the citizens of Indianapolis.

Letter to the Editor Gets it Right - Mayor Gambles With Public Safety

Today's IndyStar has a letter to the editor that gets it exactly right when it comes to the Mayor's veto of funding for County Offices.  Here's the letter:

We are Indianapolis workers, public servants, faith and community leaders, and we are willing to urge Mayor Greg Ballard to fund the services that keep Hoosiers safe. On Oct. 26, the mayor used political maneuvering to slash public safety funding at the 11th hour after the City-County Council reached an agreement on the budget with bipartisan support. This stunt might win the mayor points with his donors, but it doesn’t keep our community safe or help our city move forward.

As the crime rate in our city continues to increase, Mayor Ballard is trying to force our community to accept funding cuts for essential public safety services. The mayor is cutting funding that helps pay to process or defend those accused of crimes, process crime scenes, investigate deaths, operate the courts, run the jails and provide other public services. We believe that the mayor’s unprecedented action to cut these funds is wrong and are troubled by City-County Council leadership’s allegation that his action was illegal.

As residents of Indianapolis and leaders in our community, we urge Mayor Ballard to reconsider his decision before our city suffers the consequences. Safety should be a priority for our city government. We can’t afford to gamble with our security or the services our community depend on.

Chrystal Radcliff
NAACP, President of Greater Indianapolis NAACP Chapter

Nancy Holle
President, Community Faith and Labor Coalition

Rev C. L. Day
President, Concerned Clergy

Joanne Sanders
National Vice President, Coalition of Labor Union Women

Brett Voorhies
President, Central Indiana Labor Council (AFL-CIO)

Amy Shackelford
Lead community organizer, Jobs with Justice

Jennifer Disla
Indianapolis Director, SEIU Local 1

Mayors' Budget Veto Just May Be About Tax Increases - Its Certainly Not About A Balanced Budget

Mayor Vaughn usually pulls the strong arm stuff out of view of the public.  Threats, horse swapping, calling on Republican unity even when distasteful, cajoling with the greedy and ambitious.

Now his tactics are in full view with his veto of the balanced Council budget and his denunciation of the $15 M PILOT from the CIB, that leaves the door open for (gasp!) recruit classes for IMPD and IFD.  How awful of the Democrats !

Its not about the fiction floated by the Vaughn administration that the Council's budget is not balanced - because it certainly is.  For those readers who are number averse, just skip the rest of this paragraph and join me in a few sentences.  The Mayor's introduced budget spends $1.13 B while the Council's passed budget spends $1.12 B.  The Mayor's budget takes in revenues (excluding property taxes) of $676 M while the Council's budget takes in revenues (excluding property taxes) of $673 M.  They both raise $351 M in property taxes.  The Mayor spends down $106 M from fund balances while the Council spends down $99 M from fund balances.  None of the $15 M PILOT from the CIB, passed by the Council and opposed by the Mayor, is part of these numbers.

One quick aside - While the Mayors pretend to be disgusted by the one time infusion of the $15 M PILOT to cover operating expenses, they eagerly dipped into the downtown TIF for $30 M for the Pacers and $40 M to make ends meet in this year's budget AND have another $10 M to be used for next year's budget.  So, don't be buying their sudden alarm at the PILOT - its all an act.

Mayor Vaughn and his ally, Mayor Ballard, really really really wanted the Council to eliminate the Homestead Credit, which would save the City-County $8.7 M but foist $3.5 M in lost revenue on the various school districts in the County.

The Mayors really really really want more TIFs so that they have more slush funds to work with, even though they mean higher taxes for all of us and greater revenue losses for IPS, in particular.

There are two new taxes that will be on the table in the spring - increases of the car rental and admissions taxes are the last bits of the old CIB bailout from a few years ago.   The Mayors will want those to pass a Democrat controlled Council.

There will be an announcement soon of some sweetheart deal with the Pacers - the only question remains as to how much more of our tax money will be going to them instead of to fund police and fire protection, schools, libraries, IndyGo and the rest of services that impact most of us on a daily basis.

There is the push for a specific mass transit plan that spends more getting Hamilton County transit than it does on IndyGo.  The Mayors will want all on board to lobby for a tax increase public question on the 2014 ballot.

And, I grow more and more wary of an income tax hike being lobbied.  Councillor Ben Hunter has become the spokesperson for Vaughn in open Council meetings of late.  He pushed against the elimination of the Homestead Credit in committee (and voted against it there).  However, once the budget hit the floor of the full Council, he was all over the big bad Democrats for realizing, but not responding to, the impact keeping the Credit would have on the Council's lobbying 'on the other end of Washington Street'.  He also brought in the disingenuous and false arguement that the Credit amounted to poverty level wage earners subsidizing the mansions of the rich.

A push for income taxes split by workplace as well as residence would be welcome.  But the pushback from Senator Luke Kenley's home County, plus other donut counties, would be massive.  What I fear is a push for higher income taxes to be paid by residents of Marion County.

To make that work with the public, you would have to see exactly what we are  now seeing - an underfunded public safety budget that threatens to degrade the already low numbers of officers and firefighters.  So, the Mayors just may have a stake in not solving the recruit class problem, and not paying the raises that they agreed to in the IMPD and IFD contracts.  They just may have a stake in having the Feds claw back the COPS grant money spent here, because our officer number dropped below agreed to figures.

Its not that these are easy times; they are not.  But the Great Recession will pass and the income tax coffers will rise.  There are some, though, who would not want to waste a perfectly good crisis by simply making it through to the other side with the same resources, when you can use it as an excuse to fatten those resources.

The short leash created by the Mayors' vetoes of the Council budget can be used each time the Mayors want one of their taxes passed, or one of their issues lobbied, or one of their TIFs fully bonded and uncomplicated by TIF reforms.  That leash can be yanked when the Pacers deal becomes public and money flows from resources that should go to help all of us to instead be diverted to some of the wealthiest individuals in our area.  And, the leash will keep the Democrats from spending any money on that recruit class nonsense.  The PILOT money can just sit there an rot, instead.

This melodrama, created by the Mayors vetoes, never was about a supposedly unbalanced budget.  It certainly is about control of the Council.  How many times this leash will be yanked is up in the air.   But, beware - its going to cost all of us.

Full Council To Meet Thursday - Mayor's Veto of Budget & Parking Ticket Maximums To Be Considered

City-County Council President, Maggie Lewis, has called a special meeting of the Council for this Thursday, November 1, at 6:30 pm.  November 1 is the last day that the any unit of government can pass a budget, set a property tax levy (amount of money to be raised from property taxes), and set a property tax rate.

The Mayors used the line-item veto in a number of sections of the budget ordinance passed by the Council on October 15, by a vote of 18-11.  Of course, Mayors Vaughn and Ballard have not chosen to line item veto anything that would interfere with their collection of property taxes from the good citizens and property owners of Indy.  Nor have they interfered with their ability to discharge about $100 m in property tax revenues collected in TIF districts.  Nor have they scaled back the obscene raises for favored folks in the Administration, including Vaughn himself.

No, they used the line item veto to keel haul the Council for its audacity in actually passing a balanced budget stained with the sin of it not being the Mayor's budget.  So, the Mayors have deliberately cut revenues without cutting spending - creating an actual unbalanced budget.  They want the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance to name the places where the hatchet shall land.

The Mayors line item vetoed all $652,654 for character 3 expenses of the Council office.  They vetoed the $31,767,652 allocation of County Option Income Taxes to the County General fund.  They eliminated the creation of the special fund for recruit classes and officer training.  And, they eliminated the allocation to the rainy day funds of any unanticipated additional revenue that might come in during 2013.

As President Lewis notes in her letter to the Council:

In light of the Mayor’s recent veto of separate items of the budget, specifically the appropriation to the Character 03 portion of the 2013 City-County Council Budget, the following responsibilities of the Council will be affected:

*Payment to the General Counsel to the Council;

*Payment to the Minority Counsel;

*Payment to ISA for computer and telephone services;

*Payment of other Information Technology;

*Payment for legal advertising and notices of Council and committee meetings, fiscal ordinances,

and other special Council-related business;

*Payment for copying and printing services provided for any correspondence to Councillors, City-

County Administration and agencies, constituents, media, etc.;

*Payment of office lease at the City-County building and other related charges;

*Payment of code book subscription to update city ordinances and make available to the public;

*Payment of Councillor conference expenses; and

*Payment of any other contacts and services as deemed necessary by the Council

Elimination of the funding for this Character is in direct violation of IC 36-3-4-8.5. Consequently, as Council President, I have determined that a special full Council meeting will be held on Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 6:30 pm in the Council Chambers. The purpose of this meeting is to override the Mayor’s veto so that the Council may conduct the business of the people and serve its constituents beginning January 1 of 2013.

Please note that the other items included in the veto will appear on the agenda as well. However, each item will be voted on individually and to the discretion of each Council member. Thank you.

IC 36-3-4-8.5 says:

IC 36-3-4-8.5
Employment of attorneys or legal research assistants
Sec. 8.5. (a) A clerk may hire or contract with competent attorneys or legal research assistants on terms the clerk considers appropriate.
(b) Appropriations for the salaries of attorneys and legal research assistants employed under this section shall be approved in the annual budget.

The referenced clerk is the Clerk of the City-County Council.

In an earlier press release, Lewis noted that the Mayor does not have legal authority to veto any component of the budget of any Constitutionally established office (see Advance Indiana's blog entry "Ballard Budget Veto Gives New Meaning To 'Its My Way or the Highway'")   IC 36-3-4-14(b)(1) says:

 (b) All ordinances and resolutions of a legislative body are subject to veto, except the following:
(1) An ordinance or resolution, or part of either, providing for the budget or appropriating money for an office or officer of the county provided for by the Constitution of Indiana or for a judicial office or officer.

Article 6, Section 2, of the Indiana State Constitution says:

Section 2. (a) There shall be elected, in each county by the voters thereof, at the time of holding general elections, a Clerk of the Circuit Court, Auditor, Recorder, Treasurer, Sheriff, Coroner, and Surveyor, who shall, severally, hold their offices for four years.

Article 7, Section 16 says:

Section 16. Prosecuting Attorneys. There shall be elected in each judicial circuit by the voters thereof a prosecuting attorney, who shall have been admitted to the practice of law in this State before his election, who shall hold his office for four years, and whose term of office shall begin on the first day of January next succeeding his election. The election of prosecuting attorneys under this section shall be held at the time of holding the general election in the year 1974 and each four years thereafter.

That leaves all $31.7 million of the vindictive cuts made by our Mayors line item vetoes to fall on the budgets of  the following offices - each office is followed by the amount of money originally budgeted to come from the County General fund targeted by the Mayors, which is followed in parentheses by the total budget for that office:

Public Defender $17.6 m ($18.0 m)
Community Corrections $3.4 m ($9.5 m)
Forensic Services $5.9 m ($6.9 m)
Cooperative Extension $0.8 m ($0.8 m)
Assessor $5.2 m ($7.4 m)
Election Board $1.3 m ($1.3 m)
Voters' Registration $1.1 m ($1.1 m)

aggregate $35.3 m from the County General fund and a total budget of 45.0 m

Curiously enough, it is not clear what the elimination of allocation of any excess funds would really do.  The money must reside somewhere in the City-County coffers in some fund or another.  Likely the point was to keep the $15 m PILOT from the CIB from the City's rainy day fund specifically.  Still, the Council had not appropriated any of that money anyway.  So, I surely can't see any logic in scratching this line out.  But, vindictiveness knows only its own logic.

Also on the agenda for November 1, is Prop 315, which was vetoed entirely by the Mayors.   This proposal would allow for only one parking ticket per violation per day and alter the process for requesting a hearing on any particular ticket received.  The Council voted 18 -11 to pass this proposal at the October 15 meeting of the Council - with all Democrats plus Republicans Sandlin and Scales voting in favor and the remaining Republicans voting no.

The budget was voted on in two parts due to conflicts of interest by Lewis and Adams.  The Assessor's office budget passed by a vote of 25-2-2, with Republican Councillors Lutz and Sandlin casting the no votes and Lewis and Adams abstaining.  The remainder of the budget was passed by a vote of 18-11, with all Democrats plus Republicans Holliday and Scales voting for, and all of the rest of the Republicans voting no.

This budget process appears to be the energizer bunny of budget processes - it keeps going and going and going.  On November 1, 6:30 pm, public assembly room, city-county building, the Council will take up the issue of a veto override.

How Vindictive Mayor's Budget Cuts Hit County Offices

Its clear that all Mayors Ballard and Vaughn care about is getting their way.

The $32 million budget cuts imposed by them - needlessly, mind you - 'for kicks and giggles' - is in the form of vetoing the line item where $31,767,652 in COIT funds are moved into the County General fund.

From the Mayor's introduced budget we get these numbers for the departments and agencies receiving revenue from that fund (with their total introduced budget in parentheses):

Sheriff                   $68.8 m  ($109.2 m)
Superior Court       $37.8 m  ($53.5 m)
Circuit Court         $1.1 m ( $1.4 m)
Prosecutor             $13.5 m ($23.6 m)
Prosecutor Child Support Division       $4.4 m ($4.4 m)
Public Defender       $17.6 m ($18.0 m)
Community Corrections      $3.4 m  ($9.5 m)
Forensic Services      $5.9 m ($6.9 m)
Coroner                  $2.7 m  ($2.8 m)
Cooperative Extension       $0.8 m  ($0.8 m)
Auditor                  $9.1 m  ($9.8 m)
Assessor                $5.2 m  ($7.4 m)
Treasurer                $2.1 m  ($2.1 m)
Clerk                     $5.6 m    ($6.3 m)
Election Board      $1.3 m   ($1.3 m)
Voters' Registration    $1.1 m ($1.1 m)
Recorder              $0.6 m   ($1.8 m)
Surveyor               $0.2 m  ($0.6 m)

Just so you know what kind of men you have on the 25th floor.