Parks - How Indy Stacks Up Against Other Cities

Parks clearly are one of biggest contributors to quality of life in a City.

Think of New York.  Didn't Central Park come to mind?  Boston - the Commons and Public Gardens.  San Francisco - Golden Gate Park.

A recent post by Paul Ogden over at Ogden on Politics, referred to The Trust for Public Land's survey of U.S. cities by population density.  The mission of the Trust focuses on conserving land for recreation - passive and active.  As part of that mission, they aggregate information so that communities can size themselves up from a number of angles.

In their 2012 City Parks Facts, they look at parks acreage, spending, and more.

Here are some of the Indianapolis rankings:

Acres as percentage of city area - 18th of 29

Comparing the 29 cities ranked with 'Low' population density, Indy ranked 18th with 4.8% of is total area used as parkland. The median of this group was 5.5% and the median of all 101 cities was 7.9%.

Within the 'Low' population density group, Anchorage weighed in with 46.0% of total area and Corpus Christi had only 2.1% of total land devoted to parks.

Acres per 1000 residents - 22nd of 29

Again comparing only those 29 cities ranked with 'Low' population density, Indy ranked 22nd with 13.6 acres of parkland per 1000 residents.  The median of this group was 20.5 acres per 1000 residents.  The median of all 101 cities was 13.1 acres per 1000 residents.

Within the 'Low' population density group, Anchorage was abnormally high with 1719.3 acres per 1000 residents and Corpus Christi was lowest with 7.0 acres per 1000 residents.

Acres of parkland by daytime population - 17th of 27

Again, cities were ranked in groups, this time according to the daytime influx of population. Indy finds itself in the 'Intermediate' group that have anywhere from 16% to 30% population growth during the day. Indy has 17% influx. Of this group of 27 cities, Indy ranked 17th for number of acres of parkland per daytime occupant, with 11.6 acres per daytime occupant. Median for this group was 15.9 acres per daytime occupant. Median of all 100 cities was 11.5.

Highest of this group was New Orleans, with 73.1 acres of parkland per daytime occupant. Lowest of the group was Norfolk, VA, with 1.9. 

Park playgrounds per 10,000 residents - 75th of 100

Comparing the 100 larges cities, Indy ranked 75th in playgrounds per 10,000 resident with 1.6.  The median was 2.2 playgrounds per 10,000 residents.

Highest was Madison, WI, with 7.1 playgrounds per 10,000 residents.  Lowest was Laredo, TX, with 0.1 playgrounds per 10,000 residents.  Honolulu/Honolulu County and Fremont, CA, did not have information available for the study.

 Total spending on parks and recreation per resident - 83rd of 89

Comparing the 100 largest cities, Indy ranked 83rd with $35 per resident.  Median spending was $82 per resident.

Highest was Washington, D.C., with $397 per resident.  Lowest was San Bernardino, CA, with $24 per resident.

11 cities were listed as not having information available for the study. 

Total spending on parks and recreation per resident adjusted for the cost of living index - 80th of 89

Even after adjusting for cost of living, Indy came in 80th with $37 adjusted dollars per resident.  Median spending was $82 adjusted dollars per resident.

Highest again was Washington, D.C., with $275 adjusted per resident.  Again, San Bernardino was lowest with $21 adjusted per resident.

The 11 cities without sufficient information above, were not included.

 Percent of city population with walkable park access - tied for 36th of 40

Comparing the 40 largest cities, Indy tied for 36th with San Antonio and Louisville at 32% of population with walking access of a park.  Park access was defined as "the ability to reach a publicly owned park within a half-mile walk on the road network, unobstructed by freeways, rivers, fences, and other obstacles".  Average access was 68%.

San Francisco came in first with 98% and Charlotte/Mecklenburg last with 26% of its population having walkable access to a park.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Indy should be as nice a place to live as it is to visit.  Our priorities need to be adjusted to improve those things that most impact the quality of life of our residents. Parks, be it number, spending or access, are one of those things that need to be improved.

City-County Council Meets Tonight

The Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council meets tonight and takes up a couple of interesting Proposals.

According to today's Star article by Francesca Jarosz, the current thought is to send the smoking ban back to committee to buy more time to get the votes needed for passage. This is a very difficult Proposal (#371) to get passed given, especially, the role that Mayor Ballard has chosen to play in the debate - a closed door pronouncement against the Proposal meant to shield him from actually having to take a public stand. So much for leadership. I have heard a book on the subject touted by some business people. Perhaps someone should give it to the Mayor as a holiday gift?

But, other interesting Proposals are also on tonight's agenda - which can be found on the Council website. Prop 303, introduced a couple of months back by Councillor Ed Coleman, which would require the internet posting of all contracts with the City or County government, passed out of the Rules Committee this month with a 8-0 'do pass' recommendation. (It should be noted that no Municipal Corporation would be required to do the same through this Proposal; presumably because the Council does not have legal power to require it.) Testimony at the committee was that it will cost $34,000 for 2010 for initial implementation and posting of the backlog of contracts and $7,000 each year thereafter. In the plus column for this one, the Ballard administration is on board with the Proposal. Chris Cotterill, Corporate Counsel and soon to be Chief of Staff to Mayor Ballard, testified that, although the language of the Proposal does not strictly require it, they intend to post all contracts that are still active, even if the contract was signed prior to January 1, 2008. Councillors on the Committee include Republicans Lutz, Cockrum, Malone, Pfisterer, and Plowman, and, Democrats Sanders, Grey, and Mansfield.

Also passing out of that committee the same night with 'do pass' recommendations was Prop 256, introduced by Councillor Sanders, Plowman, and both Maherns, which is a Special Resolution that "calls upon the hospitality industry to reduce the negative impact of outsourcing jobs on the community". This proposal was first introduced back when the hospitality industry was hiding behind the skirts of the same workers in order to beg for more public money to subsidize their room rates to conventioneers. The Proposal passed out of committee with Councillor Cockrum abstaining, since his son works for White Lodging, which is building the new Marriott hotel downtown. Cockrum seems to be splitting hairs - abstaining on a Special Resolution that only seeks to influence, but not abstaining on raising taxes to increase funding to the CIB and ICVA, the latter of which uses tax dollars to subsidize the room rates of downtown hotels, thus enriching folks like Councillor Cockrum's son.

And for a trifecta of interesting Proposals passing out of the Rules Committee in one night, was Prop 417, which is another Special Resolution, introduced by Councillors Malone, Pfisterer, B. Mahern, Lutz, Smith, and McHenry. Prop 417 requests that the General Assembly enable the Council to have a binding review of all Township budgets. With the tax caps coming in, the taxing authority of the individual entities in Marion County must begin to be coordinated, in my view. Even if this exact corrective action is not the final mechanism, it does lead us down the path of discussing exactly how to coordinate the property tax levies of all these taxing entities. This passed out of committee with a unanimous 'do pass' recommendation.

Other interesting Proposals up for a final vote of the full Council tonight, I'll just cut and paste from the agenda:

PROPOSAL NO. 413, 2009 (General Ordinance)
INTRODUCED: 11/09/2009
BY: Councillors Brown, Scales and Speedy
REFERRED TO: Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee
DIGEST: amends the Code to clarify the definition and violation of animal at large, to expand the definition of serious injury, to specifically provide for court-ordered forfeiture and/or destruction of an animal if serious injury to a person results from the animal chasing or approaching a person in an aggressive manner while at large, and to change the reference to serious bodily injury to serious injury in the section on owner responsibility for animal attacks
COMMITTEE ACTION: 11/11/2009 Do Pass 6-0

PROPOSAL NO. 419, 2009 (General Resolution)
INTRODUCED: 11/09/2009
BY: Councillors McQuillen and Nytes
REFERRED TO: Municipal Corporations Committee
DIGEST: approves the purchase, construction or acquisition by the Indianapolis-Marion County Building Authority of all or any portion of the Wishard Hospital project and a proposed lease or leases between the Building Authority and the Health and Hospital Corporation to finance all or any portion of the Wishard Hospital project
COMMITTEE ACTION: 11/23/2009 Do Pass As Amended 6-1

Interesting Proposals to be introduced tonight - again by my eye - include:

PROPOSAL NO. 427, 2009 (Fiscal Ordinance)
INTRODUCED: 11/30/2009
BY: Councillor Pfisterer
REFERRED TO: Administration and Finance Committee
DIGEST: provides for additional appropriations and transfers in the 2009 Budget for various city and county agencies affecting various city and county funds to provide for continued operations and services of agencies

Included, among other things, is the 2009 Parks budget transfer of $200,000 from 'personal services' (wages) and $150,000 from 'internal charges' to 'other services and charges', which includes outsourcing contracts. This one deserves scrutiny.

PROPOSAL NO. 428, 2009 (Fiscal Ordinance)
INTRODUCED: 11/30/2009
BY: Councillor Pfisterer
REFERRED TO: Administration and Finance Committee
DIGEST: reduces 2009 appropriations for various city and county agencies

Over $5 million reduction total. Cuts throughout the City and County agencies.

PROPOSAL NO. 457, 2009 (General Resolution)
INTRODUCED: 11/30/2009
BY: Councillor Mansfield
REFERRED TO: Rules and Public Policy Committee
DIGEST: approves a request of the Metropolitan School District of Washington Township to certify its public question referendum to the County Election Board for the May 2010 election

"For the next seven calendar years immediately following the holding of the referendum, shall the Metropolitan School District of Washington Township impose a property tax rate that does not exceed eight cents ($0.08) on each one hundred dollars ($100) of assessed valuation and that is in addition to the school corporation's normal tuition support tax rate?"

PROPOSAL NO. 458, 2009 (General Ordinance)
INTRODUCED: 11/30/2009
BY: Councillor McQuillen
REFERRED TO: Rules and Public Policy Committee
DIGEST: amends the Code with respect to the number of committee meetings for which a councillor may be compensated in any calendar year

This one you should read for yourself to see all the manner of compensation the Councillors get. Not saying its not deserved pay, but it is very detailed in its construction. The change from the status quo appears to be an increase in the maximum number of committee meetings for which a Councillor can be compensated - increasing from the current 40 to a new maximum of 50 committee meetings.

The Council is not slowing down just because of the Holidays. That is for sure.

Parks Budget Cut, Layoffs Assured -- Part 4 of Series

The Parks budget, as mentioned earlier in this series, was cut - including a 10% cut in personal services. Since Mayor Greg Ballard has been in office, he has cut the personal services (salary and benefits) portion of the Parks budget by 21%. He has dropped the contribution from the general fund by $800,000 a year, leaving the Parks budget particularly sensitive to the property tax caps.

Initially, $1.4 million was decreased in the personal services proposed budget for 2010, compared to 2009. At the Parks committee review of the budget - with the standing room only crowd of employees whose livelihoods were on the bubble - the committee amended the budget to move $653,922 from the section that includes contracts over to personal services. The Parks employees will be allowed to bid on the contract, and if they win, then $653,922 of people-salaries will be able to keep their job with Indy Parks --- still, over $700,000 people-salaries will lose their jobs. If the Parks employees fail to win the contract, then a full $1,400,000 people-salaries will lose their jobs.

I mentioned at the beginning of this series that when you attend in person you sometimes catch chitchat in the hallways. That night was one time when that was true. The Parks budget had been amended, the workers had left the room, and a second Council Committee was taking its seats. I had not managed to get a copy of the amendment, so I headed for the Council office to get one. I crossed the path of Mike Huber, Director of Enterprise Development, talking with a man I believe is a union representative, but definitely a Parks employee. I was not deliberately eavesdropping, just passing by in tight quarters in a public building. What I heard was Mr. Huber saying "The Mayor really wants you to win that contract." It struck me as similar to somebody saying "We just set your house on fire, but we really want it to rain."

At the full Council meeting, At-Large Councillor Joanne Sanders proposed an amendment that would have removed $290,000 from the Council budget (slated for redistricting costs - more on that later) and transferred it to the Parks budget to at least reduce the number of employees who will find themselves in the unemployment line. That amendment failed when 13 Councillors voted for the amendment and 14 against. Those voting in favor were Plowman (R) and 12 Democrats, Bateman, Brown, Evans, Gray, Lewis, Brian Mahern, Dane Mahern, Mansfield, Moriarty-Adams, Nytes, Oliver, and Sanders. Those voting against were Coleman (L) and Republicans Cain, Cardwell, Cockrum, Day, Hunter, Lutz, Malone, McHenry, McQuillen, Pfisterer, Scales, Speedy, and Vaughn.

The 2010 Parks budget of $27,179,691, or 2.2% of the entire City-County budget of $1,222,638,083, passed by a vote of 16 to 11. Those voting for the budget were Democrats Moriarty-Adams and Nytes along with all the Republicans and those voting against the budget were Coleman (L) and the rest of the Democrats. (Councillors Minton-McNeill (D) and Smith (R)were absent all evening so cast no votes.)

Mayor Ballard's Slashed Parks Budget is Approved by Council Committee

Well, a good night's sleep has not softened my reaction to last night's City-County Council Parks Committee meeting. Mayor Ballard has targeted the blue collar workers at Parks with his 2010 budget cuts and 4 Republican members of the Committee voted that it was just fine by them.

Those voting in favor of the budget cuts and loss of jobs were:
Suzie Day (Chair)
Janice McHenry
Mike McQuillen
Mike Speedy

Three votes opposing the Parks budget were cast by the three Democrats on the Committee:
Vernan Brown
Monroe Gray
William Oliver

In this entry I will first outline the Parks budget and the cuts Mayor Ballard has made during his tenure on the 25th floor, then talk about an amendment approved last night along party lines, and finally talk about Parks Director Stuart Lowry's comments that revealed more than he intended about how well Parks is really doing.

PARKS BUDGET:

Spending on the Parks Department was just over $32 Million per year in 2007 and 2008 - before Mayor Ballard put his fingerprints on the budget. In 2009, a one time infusion of about $3.5 Million was put in the budget for improvements to the pools, but salaries were cut from $15.7 M to $14.5 M and the proposal for 2010, is a further drop to $13.1 M. Mayor Ballard has slashed salaries in the Parks Department 21% since taking over two budgets ago.

David Reynolds, City Controller, says the cuts are necessary because the Parks fund balance needs to be strengthened. He does not want to consider the golf course maintenance fund along with the Parks fund for their balance. I don't have any particular objection to his logic. But, I must add that under Mayor Peterson, the City kicked in $800,000 more from the County fund than Ballard has been doing. And, I must add that the Parks fund will take in $24 M this year, but spend out only $22 M - so there is wiggle room if saving jobs was important to Mayor Ballard. Other resources that could be tapped are: A) put only $15 M of surplus revenue into a rainy day fund instead of $16 M. B) use some of the water company payment in lieu of taxes, totaling an unappropriated $2 M, that was surprisingly announced three nights ago. Or, C) roll back that $290,000 in the Council budget for redistricting, even though the 2010 census will not be complete enough to begin redistricting next year.

There is no particular hardship in balancing the 2010 budget since there is $65M in new revenues over 2009; representing a 5.5% INCREASE in revenues. You would not know that fact to hear the partial picture presented by the Mayor and his PR machine. An increase in resources cannot be made to justify cuts in employees or services. So, the Mayor's PR machine continues to spin the loss in potential tax revenues because of the tax caps, implying that the budget is tighter this year than last. What they choose to leave out is that tax revenues, even after the tax caps cuts are factored in, will INCREASE by $27 M in 2010 over 2009. And as I mentioned, the total revenues increase by $65 M. The budget should not be put in surplus on the backs of city employees and deteriorating levels of service in our parks. Not everyone can afford tickets to Lucas Oil Stadium or Conseco Fieldhouse, but they can afford a walk in the park.

One aside - I fully expect that at next week's Municipal Corporations Committee meeting, Councillors will find another $3 M for the CIB. Contrast the cuts in budget for Parks, dropping that budget to $27 M, when parks provide a boost in quality of life for all Indy residents, with the mad scramble to load up the CIB coffers with another $21 M per year, and perhaps more yet, on top of the $100 M they already get. Pretty clear where the priority is.

THE AMENDMENT:

One amendment was introduced by Councillor McHenry last night, although it appears to have been drafted at the behest of Chairwoman Day. The discussion last night indicates that $654 K was moved from salaries to contracts when Director Lowry crafted his budget in anticipation that some functions, primarily mowing, now handled by Parks employees would be outsourced. I know there was a rumor that the parks employees were banned from bidding on that contract. I don't know if that rumor was true and some arms were twisted to allow employee bidding, or if Lowry just assumed they would lose the bid. In any case, Day asked him to return the money from the contracts back to salaries. What will happen is that if the employees win the bid for the contract, $654 K worth of salaries will be saved from being axed. The employees whose salaries are represented by at least $772 K will be laid off regardless of who wins the contract. No matter that outcome, the budget is still down $1.4 M in combined salaries and contract work. Looking at the detailed breakout, it looks like 'infrastructure maintenance' is the budget line affected in the contracts portion of the Parks budget. After the amendment passed last night, the numbers on that line would change from $918 K in the 2009 budget to $478 K for 2010.

Employees will be laid off and services will suffer - of that there can be no doubt. The exact combination of those two things is all that remains up in the air.

CONDITION OF PARKS PROGRAMS:

Director Lowry made a presentation and answered questions last night that left me very troubled by his leadership at the helm of this organization. When pressed by Councillor Gray about possible layoffs, he could only speak of a reduction in FTEs (full time equivalents -- or number of employees). The sterility of his response contrasts with the reality that some number of blue collar Parks employees will be on the unemployment line and their families will struggle because of it. Was Lowry made Director because of his affinity with Parks and its services to the community, or merely to slash and privatize whatever he can?

When pressed by Councillor Oliver about turning 6 acres of Washington Park into a hummingbird and butterfly preserve, the responses all came back to saving the money on mowing costs - although environmental concerns were tossed into the mix, they rang hollow. I found it particularly telling that Oliver reiterated that these decisions were made without any input from the community. I took a moment this morning to track down the Washington Park Master Plan which can be found online. That document appears to have been drawn up in the mid-1980's -- it is not dated and the latest date I noticed in the text is 1986. It shows no preserve or wildflower garden. This lack of community input is like Lowry's failure over the deal with Kroger to encroach on the Monon Trail, and the way the pools issue blew up in the spring.

During his presentation, Lowry seemed proud of the fact that a particular program was attracting increasing numbers of participants EVEN THOUGH THEY OFFERED IT IN ONLY 25 locations, down from 33 locations. All I could think of when he showed that graphic was -- how many square miles is Marion County and how much service can you provide when you decrease the number of program locations? I looked it up -- Marion County is 403 square miles. There is nothing to be proud of when you have only 25 locations for a popular program.

Also troubling was his boasting of the Parks Department 'mobile recreation unit' -- a van that travels around to neighborhoods that have few resources and gives the kids ideas about how to recreate with little to recreate with or on. Are you kidding me? I appreciate the effort, but this is an example of the failure of the Parks Department to be able to provide for the community needs and substituting a small token in place of expanding our Parks capacity. I could have accepted it better had he presented it as trying to make the best out of a bad situation. Instead he presented it as a wonderful program to be counted as one of their 2009 successes.

And the last item I will mention is that under the topic of 2010 challenges faced by the Parks Department was 'limited equipment and aging fleet'. Would this be the same sort of equipment Director Lowry said would not be missed when it was cut from the 2009 budget a year ago?



I know this has been long winded and a bit wonkish in places. In plain English I would say this:

The City-County budget resources are, thankfully, growing in 2010 and that gives Indianapolis a breather from the severe cuts other cities across our nation are facing. It is prudent to put some of this surplus away for next year when the resources could contract. But, to single out the Parks Department for cuts that will lead to layoffs and loss of service to the community, when we have the money to maintain the status quo, is pretty much heartless and not in the best tradition of a city that likes to claim it is world class. There are many ways the $1.4 M in Parks salary cuts could be restored and still have a surplus to put in the rainy day fund and I have noted a few here. It is not a matter of having the means to find the $1.4 M in a $1,222.6 M budget - it is having the will to place sufficient priority on the one service all residents of Indy can take advantage of.