Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Budget Hearings - final Municipal Corporations Committee Meeting
Tonight the Council's Municipal Corporations Committee will discuss any amendments to the budgets for the Library, Airport, CIB, IndyGo, and Health & Hospitals. The meeting begins at 5:30 pm in room 260.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Budget Hearings -- Community Affairs Committee Up Tonight
Tonight, beginning at 5:30 pm in room 260 of the City-County Building, the Council's Community Affairs Committee will consider any amendments to the budgets for Noble of Indiana, Marion County Fair Board, Regional Health & Mental Health Centers, and the Marion County Cooperative Extension Service.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Budget Hearings -- DMD, DCE Budgets -- Final Changes
Tonight the Council's Metropolitan Development Committee will consider amendments to the budgets for the Department of Metropolitan Development and the newly formed Department of Code Enforcement.
Meeting begins at 5:30 pm in room 260 of the City-County Building.
We shall see if the DMD contract with Indianapolis Downtown Inc, which amounted to $142,144 for 2009, is discussed in light of a Star report by City beat reporter, Francesca Jarosz, that the City is cutting $500,000 from its usual $1 Million contribution to IDI. In 2009 contracts with IDI worth $300,000 and $600,000 were also awarded through DPW and the Indianapolis Bond Bank, respectively.
[edited on 9/15/09 to include : During the hearing, no mention was made of IDI.]
Meeting begins at 5:30 pm in room 260 of the City-County Building.
We shall see if the DMD contract with Indianapolis Downtown Inc, which amounted to $142,144 for 2009, is discussed in light of a Star report by City beat reporter, Francesca Jarosz, that the City is cutting $500,000 from its usual $1 Million contribution to IDI. In 2009 contracts with IDI worth $300,000 and $600,000 were also awarded through DPW and the Indianapolis Bond Bank, respectively.
[edited on 9/15/09 to include : During the hearing, no mention was made of IDI.]
Friday, September 11, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Budget Hearings - Parks Budget - Final Changes
Tonight, Thursday September 10, 2009, beginning at 5:30 pm in room 260 of the City-County Building, the Parks Committee of the Council will consider any amendments to the Parks budget introduced by Mayor Ballard.
The proposed 2010 budget cuts $1.4 Million from personal services (salaries), representing a 11% cut from last year and a 21% cut from two years ago.
Let me emphasize that the 2010 budget overall includes $65 Million more than was in the 2009 budget - with $27 Million increased tax revenues EVEN AFTER the cuts from tax caps is subtracted. After increasing the funds for IMPD, the overall budget will have a surplus of $16 Million that is slated to be put into the City-County rainy day fund. So, bottom line, cuts to the Parks budget is the desire of Mayor Ballard, not the necessity forced on the budget by fewer dollars flowing into the City's coffers his PR machine has put out to the media.
Tonight we shall see what the Council Park's Committee wants to do about maintaining the status quo in Parks (which is not very high compared with other Cities across the US) or inflicting these cuts that will result in layoffs and lower the service that Indy's Parks deliver.
With the $21 Million per year CIB bailout, the playgrounds for the wealthy of Central Indiana have been secured. The rest of us deserve the playgrounds we can afford to be a priority as well.
The proposed 2010 budget cuts $1.4 Million from personal services (salaries), representing a 11% cut from last year and a 21% cut from two years ago.
Let me emphasize that the 2010 budget overall includes $65 Million more than was in the 2009 budget - with $27 Million increased tax revenues EVEN AFTER the cuts from tax caps is subtracted. After increasing the funds for IMPD, the overall budget will have a surplus of $16 Million that is slated to be put into the City-County rainy day fund. So, bottom line, cuts to the Parks budget is the desire of Mayor Ballard, not the necessity forced on the budget by fewer dollars flowing into the City's coffers his PR machine has put out to the media.
Tonight we shall see what the Council Park's Committee wants to do about maintaining the status quo in Parks (which is not very high compared with other Cities across the US) or inflicting these cuts that will result in layoffs and lower the service that Indy's Parks deliver.
With the $21 Million per year CIB bailout, the playgrounds for the wealthy of Central Indiana have been secured. The rest of us deserve the playgrounds we can afford to be a priority as well.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Budget Hearings -- All Admin & Finance Committee Budgets -- Final Changes
We're down to the home stretch of the City-County 2010 budget process. Now each committee will meet one more time to entertain any changes to the budget submitted by Mayor Ballard and to vote the final offering out of Committee.
Up tonight - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - 5:30 pm - room 260 -- Administration & Finance Committee
The budgets they considered are: Office of Internal Audit, Office of Finance & Management, City-County Council & Clerk, Office of the Mayor, Office of Corporation Counsel, Election Board, Voter Registration, County Recorder, County Surveyor, Information Services Agency/CIO's Office, County Assessor, Telecom & Video Services Agency, Building Authority, County Administrator, County Treasurer, County Commissioners, County Auditor, and the Bond Band and Debt Obligations.
Off the top of my head, the one item that stands out is the $290,000 proposed expenditure by the City-County Council & Clerk for redistricting. That is something that Gary Welsh, quoting Amos Brown's editorial (Amos is right) and citing the state statute that mandates redistricting is a 2012 function. The census will not be held until 2010 and then there is a lag for publishing the finer and finer details. It is the fine details that would be used to craft or gerrymander (we'll see which course is chosen) the districts. So, why they need this money in 2010 is not clear at all.
The Council is up for election in 2011, and should the Council change political hands, this money would essentially be flushed down the toilet, unless the current Republican majority is looking at crafting and not gerrymandering. Remember that in 2003, the Indiana Supreme Court disapproved the proposed gerrymandered districts and decided the current district boundaries. Note that was 3 years after the last census year.
Up tonight - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - 5:30 pm - room 260 -- Administration & Finance Committee
The budgets they considered are: Office of Internal Audit, Office of Finance & Management, City-County Council & Clerk, Office of the Mayor, Office of Corporation Counsel, Election Board, Voter Registration, County Recorder, County Surveyor, Information Services Agency/CIO's Office, County Assessor, Telecom & Video Services Agency, Building Authority, County Administrator, County Treasurer, County Commissioners, County Auditor, and the Bond Band and Debt Obligations.
Off the top of my head, the one item that stands out is the $290,000 proposed expenditure by the City-County Council & Clerk for redistricting. That is something that Gary Welsh, quoting Amos Brown's editorial (Amos is right) and citing the state statute that mandates redistricting is a 2012 function. The census will not be held until 2010 and then there is a lag for publishing the finer and finer details. It is the fine details that would be used to craft or gerrymander (we'll see which course is chosen) the districts. So, why they need this money in 2010 is not clear at all.
The Council is up for election in 2011, and should the Council change political hands, this money would essentially be flushed down the toilet, unless the current Republican majority is looking at crafting and not gerrymandering. Remember that in 2003, the Indiana Supreme Court disapproved the proposed gerrymandered districts and decided the current district boundaries. Note that was 3 years after the last census year.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Abatement hearing for 450 E. Market to be Continued
The MDC hearing on the abatement for 450 E. Market Street will be continued to October 7, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
