Public Input Sacrificed For Convenience Of Elected Officials

Last night, the Elected Councillors serving on the Metropolitan Development committee of the City-County Council, in effect, told the public that their opinions on who the Council appoints to important boards and commissions, is none of the public's business.  The particular focal point of the public gag order was the committee's discussion of the appointment of one Richard Kraft to a vacancy on the Board of Zoning Appeals 3.  The particular fall guy for the gag order was one Clarke Kahlo, who seeks to improve our community, in part, by improving the decisions of boards like the BZA.

Fellow bloggers Gary Welsh (Advance Indiana - "GOP Council Committee Refuses To Hear Public Comment") and Paul Ogden (Ogden On Politics - "Republican Councillors Refuse To Allow Public Testimony On Controversial Appointment To Zoning Board") covered this earlier.

I think Gary and Paul did a great job.  I would just have to say, that Democrat Councillors were present in the room and did not protest the gag ruling.

I know nothing of Mr. Kraft, and this blog entry is solely about public policy.

The Councillors knew two years ago, that the appointment hearings of some individuals could embarrass the appointee and those Councillors who picked them.  Democrat and Republican alike had two years to find a way for public input into these important matters.  At best they fumbled the ball that only they get to carry.  At worst they put on their best Boss Hog attitudes and told the public to take a hike, that the public's opinion meant nothing to them.

The work of the BZAs and the Metropolitan Development Commission causes good and evil to fall upon our community.  These very important panels are commonly populated by political-party-approved folks, and do not fairly represent the broad community.  At every turn the Councillors complain about how hard it is to get folks to serve.  Yet, every year the Council fails to even experiment with having just one of the three BZAs work evening hours.  This would immediately provide a whole host of individuals who would be willing to serve, but could not contemplate getting one afternoon a month off from work.  An additional bonus falling out of an evening BZA meeting is that more neighbors could come and speak their mind about petitions that will affect them.  But, working stiffs who have no flexibility cannot be a Board member under current conditions, nor are they able to often speak at hearings on zoning and variance matters that affect their quality of life and property values.  And, make no mistake, that's exactly the way some people in high places want it.

It is paramount that the Council find a way to let the public speak on the wisdom or insanity of the Council's picks to all of the boards and commissions.  You simply cannot pretend to value public input, then tell members of the public to shut up, move along, their opinions do not matter.  That applies to the Republicans who hold the majority on the Committee and the Council, and it applies to the Democrats who hold their tongues.

Councillors in attendance at last night's meeting were:
Janice McHenry (Chair), Paul Bateman, Jeff Cardwell, Jenny Cain, Brian Mahern, Dane Mahern, Jack Sandlin, and Angel Rivera.

What Would You Do Differently?

Communication is not only the exchange of information, but also connotes a respect for the other person and a value placed on the information they can convey.

Until major personnel changes are made, we will not be able to change the attitude that 'outside' input has little to no value. But, we can make suggestions to at least open the communications so that SOMETHING can flow both ways. We can also make suggestions to modernize District communications to best fit today's family and community lives.

To that end, I propose we jot down ways to improve communication in local school districts - including, of course, MSD Decatur Township - but also input from anyone around here for their district.

I'll start off. On school board meetings alone, I can think of a number of improvements.

Allow citizens to sign up to receive email, tweets, facebook posts, whatever - to get notice of upcoming school board meetings, including special sessions.

Post on line a detailed agenda with items that will come up for a vote clearly noted and described.

Allow public comments after board/administration discussion of the issues involved and before the vote - not at the beginning of the meeting.

The board members should respond to the public input, unless to do so would take an enormous amount of time (highly unlikely) or would involve private matters of employees (somewhat likely).

The minutes of the meetings should be more detailed so that when somebody reads them, they actually know what was being voted on, how much it cost, or who was newly hired or fired.

That's my quick list. What would you change or add that would improve communications? Don't limit it to school board, but also parent-teacher, school-community communications are fair game here.

Budget Hearings - This Week Includes Full Council

The budget hearings include a public hearing by the full City-County Council this week.

Monday -- August 31 -- 7:00 pm -- Public Assembly Room -- full Council public hearing on all budgets, including those not yet heard by committees -- this will not be the meeting where a vote will be taken, but it is your chance to speak to the entire Council about any budget item that interests you

Tuesday -- September 1 -- 5:30 pm -- room 260 -- budgets for County Administrator, County Treasurer, County Commissioners, County Auditor, and Bond Bank and Debt Obligations

Wednesday -- September 2 -- 5:30 pm -- room 260 -- budgets for IMPD and IFD

Thursday -- September 3 -- 5:30 pm -- room 260 -- budgets for Capital Improvement Board and Airport Authority

Notes on the Budget Hearings - August 18

Again, not a list of the important issues discussed, just what caught my attention otherwise.

Administration and Financing committee was up again on the 18th.

Not on the notice of the meeting was Prop. 292 regarding the pay for Township Administrators, but that did not stop Councillor Pfisterer, who Chaired the committee, from bringing it to a vote nonetheless. The idea that the public might actually look at the published agendas that also serve as the legal notice of the meeting seemed to escape the logic of those who wanted to hear the Proposal again, right then. Only one person spoke to the Proposal itself, and that was Wayne Township Assessor, Mike McCormick. I spoke to the lack of proper notice and the public's ability to have input when it does not realize an item is back on the agenda for discussion and vote. Also related, the cc: list at the bottom of the Committee agenda did not list the Township Assessors as a courtesy, even though they are duly elected officials who otherwise would have received that courtesy.

During the public comment discussion by the Marion County Recorder, Julie Voorhies, it was mentioned that the Recorder's website has a link for property owners to sign up for email notice should any document be submitted for recording regarding their address. This is part of the effort Voorhies has put into fighting those who would try to commit the fraud of pretending to have purchased a property in order to obtain mortgage loans tapping the equity of that property. Here's the link so you can get notice for any activity on your home -- http://www.indy.gov/eGov/County/Recorder/Pages/MCROFraudAlert.aspx They are also working on a twitter notification system, but it is not yet up and running.

Notes From the Budget Hearing -- August 17

I'm only a little behind with my notes on things other than important issues arising from the budget hearings. (I'll speak to the important stuff in a later entry.)

Monday night was the Metropolitan Development Committee hearing night.

This committee was chaired by Kent Smith, one of the At-Large Councillors. Councillor Smith opened with a gracious welcome of the public to the budget process and mention of how valued public comment is with the committee and the Council in general.

First on the agenda was Prop. 323, which would sign the Council on as supporters of an abatement for Rexnord Industries. This proposal was introduced by Stephanie Quick of DMD and endorsed by Councillor Lutz, in whose District the project lies. Motion made. Second. Vote do-pass unanimously. Oops. Forgot to ask for that all important and valued public comment. Now, I found it humorous. My guess is that Councillor Smith is just new to chairing meetings and he usually doesn't have any public at any of his meetings. But, he did make a show of announcing the value the Council places on public input and then he didn't think twice about calling for it.

Moving on to the budget hearing for DMD. Maury Plambeck presenting, Councillors asking questions. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? Forgot to ask for that all important public comment yet again. Maybe next meeting Councillor Smith will remember.

Notes From Budget Hearings - August 13

A reminder once again, that this is not a list of the important issues discussed at the Parks budget hearing. Rather these are some asides that I found interesting.

For consideration that night, in addition to the budget, was Prop. 293, authored by Councillor Coleman, the lone Libertarian on the Council. The Proposal originally would direct "the Director and Board of Parks and Recreation to consider the sale of city golf courses", but was changed by Coleman at the hearing to propose a feasibility study of the value of the properties which would be completed by February 1, 2010. Lone he was when he came into the room. And, lone he was when he left after no public testimony was taken and the Proposal was tabled to a time uncertain, although hell freezing over might be a rough estimate.

Also of interest was that notice of this meeting erroneously stated 5:30 pm as the start time, a half hour late. Those who double checked the time with a phone call arrived on time. Several stragglers, came in for the 5:30 meeting. Presumably they were mostly interested in speaking to Prop. 293, as they left when Councillor Gray mention it had already been discussed and tabled. I don't know what the Committee would have done, but the notice error, had it been called out by a member of the public, could have legally caused a delay in the meeting, as proper notice is required 48 hours in advance of any Committee or Council meeting.

Council Committee Votes 5-1 Do Pass on Prop 285

Warning: Rant ahead

Last night, the City-County Council Rules & Public Policy Committee voted 5-1 to move Proposal 285, 2009, to the full Council with a do pass recommendation. Aye votes were from Councillors Lutz, Cockrum, Plowman, Malone, and Pfisterer -- all Republicans. The lone nay vote was from Councillor Mansfield, the only Democrat Committee member present.

The meeting, Chaired by Councillor Bob Lutz of Wayne Township, was a grueling 4-ish hour affair that was an orchestrated parade of 'invited witnesses' with unlimited time to disgorge all of their thoughts, followed by a brief public comment period where speakers were limited to 2 minutes (more on that below) but who were 'graciously' allowed to dribble over that time limit in 5 second increments. Of the parade of maybe two dozen 'invited witnesses', all save three had a personal financial interest in more money being thrown at the Capital Improvement Board and all save two were in favor of the Proposal.

At the conclusion of the public testimony, Councillor Lutz feigned a let's get this over with and let the chips fall where they may attitude, fully knowing he had the votes to get this out of committee. Why did he know he could accomplish his goal? Because two Democratic Councillors, Sanders and Gray, were no-shows. Lutz had indicated he would likely not take a vote last night, but re-convene in a week to give the Committee members time to mull over the testimony they had heard. This probably was because the Committee is composed of 5 Republicans and 3 Democrats; certainly the Committee most likely to produce a positive outcome for the Proposal. Even so, Lutz could not count on Councillor Malone to vote do pass. With all three Democrats present, that could have caused a tie vote which would leave the Proposal in Committee. But, with the two MIAs, the math moved in his favor and he was guaranteed that his reliable 4 votes would serve his needs.

Some random thoughts:

The public deserves an explanation from Councillors Joanne Sanders and Monroe Gray for their absence on this critical Committee meeting and vote. I see that the blog, Indianapolis Times, which is the mouthpiece of the County Party, remains silent on the hearing, in contrast to their seeming interest leading up to last night (see here, here, and here). This makes me to wonder if Sanders and Gray are holding their aye votes in the wings for a last minute save of Prop 285 at the full Council. Politics as usual - play 'smart' at the public's detriment. But, I don't know why they were not there and maybe there is an explanation - we deserve one. [edited to add: I have received word that Sanders has been out of town on business and was unable to attend.]

The public was done a disservice, as is usual when more than two people show up, in the public comment period. Chairman Lutz' should have given the public the same time limit as his parade of invited witnesses. His handling of comment time may have been generous by Council Committee standards, but that bar is set very low. In all of these committees it is as though the public point of view is not as worthy as that of proponents of a proposal. From my perch in the cheap seats it often seems as if the attitude of the Chairmen is that the problem with the public comments is that they drag the meeting out too long. While the Council does the public's business, I believe they need to be much more accommodating of the time in which they give the public to express its views. As I mentioned in a comment to Paul Ogden's blog, I challenge Committee Chairs to try to speak to an issue for 2 minutes with buzzers going off every 5 seconds thereafter.

The proponents of Prop 285, save one or two, hid behind the skirts and aprons of the service workers in order to shill for more tax money for the CIB. As I mentioned earlier, these folks have a personal financial interest in the ever increasing investment of more and more tax money into the sports/convention business. Folks like Tamara Zahn of IDI, Susan Williams of ISC, Barney Levengood of the CIB, and Bob Welsh of ICVA are even more outrageous, as they haul down fat salaries derived almost exclusively from tax revenues. As reported by Paul Ogden, Zahn makes around $200,000 a year while IDI has squirrelled away over $7M in savings living lavishly off the public dole, and Welsh makes about $350,000 in salary and benefits while the ICVA had 'only' $4M in assets in 2007. Meanwhile Williams makes over $130,000 (poor thing) with ISC holding assets of nearly $7M in 2007, and Levengood makes $221,000 per year while the CIB takes in over $100M in taxes each year. These folks are pulling down the more than generous salaries from the public trough and have little real accountability for how well they do their jobs. Compare that to the maids who average a mere $15,000 a year in Indianapolis. To pretend that this CIB bailout is for the little guy, is bold faced lying. Its to keep the good times rolling for a select few living large off taxpayer largess.

There has been and will be NO examination of how the CIB got into this mess. Each Councillor is apparently quite content to believe it is the Mayor of the opposite political party, or the Governor, who caused this supposed catastrophe. This attitude will never identify the problems with the CIB in its fiscal and policy structure that will continue to bleed the taxpayer. The Councillors all acknowledged last night that this is only a two year 'fix' and ignored the obvious conclusion that it is therefore not a real fix of the real problems. Only Councillor Malone expressed an opinion that indicated that a real fix was important to her - enough to influence her vote at the full Council.

There is no interest in doing the public a service and creating a plan to make the sports/convention/tourist/hospitality industry self-sufficient. Speaker after speaker tossed around numbers in the range of hundreds of thousands to billions of dollars. I kept thinking - so why aren't we rich already and why are these guys back begging for more tax revenues?

Passage of the hotel tax and acceptance of the state loan, if successful at the full Council meeting on August 10, will trigger the necessity to increase two more taxes, car rental and ticket, in 2013. This is putting the onus on the next Council. Quite irresponsible in my view and it smacks of politics. The public good should count for something and it never seems to be weighted very high when elites have their hands out for the public dole. The public good is all the rage as a foil when the discussion is more money to help those who struggle to put a meal on the table or clothe their children or what to do about those pesky panhandlers who inconvenience us at stoplights. It takes the EPA to force Indianapolis to fix the sewer overflows that push human feces into our river and streams like some third world cesspool. But, all it takes for the wealthy overseers of our sports empire to get more, is to claim a need for an additional $47M on top of the $100M they already get and the only topic for discussion among our elected officials becomes how to land that money for them. Again, no request for an examination of what the CIB did wrong to put it in the position it is in now. That is the only way you can determine what to fix.

Blame decisions past and push problems forward seems to be the name of the game. But, make sure you get the CIB all the money it wants.

I hope the significance of the August 10th Council meeting is not lost on the Councillors. Mayor Ballard will present the 2010 budget proposal with something like $30M in cuts. Proposal 285 will be voted upon with its increase of $12M of tax revenues and a $27M loan from the State to add to the $100M in tax revenues the CIB already gets. Contrasting what City services are to be cut with the bailout of our sports empire, will shed a clear white light on what is really important.

Concerns Linger Over Ballard's Approach to Apartment Deal

Yesterday the MDC voted 7 to 2 to approve the particulars of a deal to provide more than $18.5M in taxpayer assistance to TM Miller Enterprises to build market rate apartments and retail spaces at 450 E. Market Street. In 'return' the City would become the owner of the 1677 space parking garage across the street. A central feature of the plan is to award TM Miller Enterprises a 10 year abatement, which he would return to the City each year, plus $100,000, as payment for either lease or purchase of 600 of the parking spaces. This money would be used to pay off the $18.5M loan that TM Miller Enterprises sets up to buy the two properties from the current owner. The abatement will not be voted on until June 17.

There are many characteristics of this complex deal that should send shivers down the spine of every Marion County taxpayer and every proponent of open government.

#1. This very complex deal was approved in backward order - tarnishing, if not outright spitting on the honor of the public hearing for the abatement to be held two weeks from now. If the abatement were to be denied, the deal could not be finalized as it is the central cog in how the deal 'works'.

#2. This very complex deal was approved without any real details about the project, with significant questions insufficiently answered, and with little time to really understand the deal. During the day, three meetings were held that in part dealt with this deal proposal. At a MDC committee meeting in the morning, a number of really cogent questions were asked. Ones that I would never have thought of, but which made sense the instant you heard them. Jim Curtis, VP of the MDC, asked why the MDC should put the taxpayers on the hook for $18.5M and not have both properties deeded to the City. The Ops Center deed could be transferred to the developer upon completion of the project. Randy Snyder, President of the MDC, took that one step further posing the scenario where TM Miller Enterprises goes bankrupt. Is the City protected insofar as actually acquiring the Ops Center property or would it be tied up in court for years? It was clear that this had not been discussed among the deal makers before and an inadequate answer, amounting to 'trust us' was given. More 'minor' questions also remain - if the garage does not generate enough revenue to cover the payments on the loan without the abatement money, how does the City make those payments should the developer not get his financing or the development stalls? If the developer defaults on the deal, how could the City sell the property, given how long it has remained on the market to date? These are just examples of a laundry list of questions without answers about this project and deal. No site plans, no real particulars of the project available for review. In common parlance its known as a pig in a poke.

#3. The apartment market is at capacity downtown, with rising rents to boot. If there ever was an example of a downtown market segment the taxpayers could expect to survive on its own, this would be it. Instead, Mayor Ballard is content to toss taxpayer money at it anyway. The Market Street ramp has come down, the street scape is being improved on this block -- additional reasons why the market for apartments here should be able to be totally market drive. The upshot here is the message that nothing downtown will be developed without significant taxpayer money involved. The Mayor doesn't give a hoot about cutting the Parks budget, but he doesn't blink when a business comes to him with hat in hand for tens of millions in corporate welfare. The taxpayers of Marion County will all be broke, they will have no services left for their own peaceful enjoyment of life in Indianapolis, and downtown will still be a money pit --- because there is no plan or interest in creating a plan for downtown's self-sufficiency.

#4. The use of an abatement in this manner creates a 'mini-TIF'. The Mayor's people feel it is superior to a TIF in that it is of shorter duration (10 years vs. until the debt is paid off). But on the negative side as far as the public is concerned is the lack of public input or Council oversight. The legislation for how the City can create a TIF District puts the whole deal out in the open for public scrutiny. Public hearings are required and the City-County Council must review and approve it. Not so with this clever mini-TIF. Even yesterday, the MDC did not have to hold a public hearing on the deal, although they did so - to their credit. There will be a hearing on the abatement -- but as noted in #1, that horse has already left the barn with the approval of the deal yesterday. Mayor Ballard has indicated he wants the authority to strike abatement deals without any oversight. But the legislature did not grant his wish. The public process developed for TIF Districts is being written off the books by the use of this mini-TIF approach and the public should be concerned about that reduction of transparency.

Public Input Impeded

On a very fast track that precludes extensive or knowledgeable input by the public, the Ballard Administration is pushing forward a complicated proposal to assist private developer Tadd Miller redevelop the old Bank One Administration Building at 450 E. Market Street.

Reported today in the Indy Star by John Ketzenberger and on the IBJ website by Cory Schouten, the deal raises many many questions.

The deal must be approved by the Metropolitan Development Commission at a hearing tomorrow at 1:00 pm (Public Assembly Room, City-County Building). At 11:00 am, the MDC's Economic Development Committee will meet and discuss the proposal. That committee will meet in room 2160 of the City-County Building, should you wish to attend. It is not clear at this point, if the City Council would also have to vote on the proposal, at least as far as appropriating the moneys.

The deal appears to be that Miller, through his TM Miller Enterprises, will arrange a loan to purchase the Bank One Administration Building which includes a surface parking lot, and a 1600 space parking garage across the street, for $18.5M. The City would make the payments on the loan and become the owner of the parking garage. The City would also grant a 10 year tax abatement totaling $6.7M. Miller would have 18 months to find investors to come up with an anticipated $65M to turn the building into 600 market rate apartments and retail spaces. If that timetable is not met, the City would become the sole owner of both the garage and the building - presumably still paying on the loan.

More complications are that Miller would lease 600 of the parking spaces for $100,000 per year plus the amount of the tax abatement for that year. Confused yet?

The revenues from the parking garage would be the payment stream from which the loan would be repaid.

This begs the question: if the parking garage revenues can pay for the loan and refund the tax abatement, why does Miller need the City in the picture at all?

Ketzenberger brings up the strong downtown market for apartments and suggests that taxpayer groups might balk at abating any more apartments.

Here's how strong the Downtown apartment market is: Although more than 750 units have been added since 2000, the vacancy rate remains the same -- 5 percent. The monthly rental price has increased from about 90 cents per square foot to $1.08 in the past eight years. And rental rates at two major developments, The Waverly on South East Street and the Cosmopolitan on the Canal, are $1.35 per square foot.
"That shows there is a lot of demand," Sweeney said. [Sweeney works for Indianapolis Downtown, Inc., which compiles occupancy numbers for downtown spaces]

Schouten concludes his article with:

Yet the city's abatements and investment in the former bank properties suggest a deal to redevelop the 4-acre MSA site still could be quite pricey for taxpayers. And if the current project doesn't materialize, the city would be left holding even more downtown real estate and paying down an $18.5 million loan.

Why is the City getting involved in this deal? If apartments already represent a strong market downtown, why not let the market work? When, exactly, will downtown be self-sufficient?

As an aside, TM Miller Enterprises donated $1000 to the Ballard Campaign on September 30, 2008. No campaign finance reports for 2009 have been filed. Those are not required until January, 2010.

What does the public think? Does Mayor Ballard really care? If so, you might think that this juggernaut would be a tad slower than coming to the public's attention the day before the decision is made.

[added 6-2-09] I have been informed that no public comments will be allowed on the topic of the purchase agreement with Mr. Miller as no public hearing is required. The abatement will be taken up as a public hearing at a future MDC meeting, likely in two weeks. I have also been informed that the City-County Council has no oversight on the agreement or the loan or receipts and payments accrued from the garage. So, poof ! Here's $18.5M more debt for Indianapolis secured not only with potential receipts from this garage, but backed up, if needed, with actual receipts from other City-owned garages. Public input is not desired.