Some Kumbaya at Last Night's Council Meeting - Some, Not So Much

The Council Voted 17 times last night, and all but 6 of those were unanimous.  IndyStar reporter, Jon Murray did a nice summary of some of the issues in one of his articles in today's Star.  By the by, it gets harder and harder to find local news stories on indystar.com, that you have seen in the print version.

Included in the unanimous votes were votes to

return to committee for further consideration the CIB agreement that would send money to the City from two tax increases recently approved by the Council.  The intent is for the committee to amend the proposal so that it specifies that public safety will be the actual beneficiary of these monies.

 postpone the public hearing for the zoning matter at 460 Virginia Avenue

strike the City Government anti-fraternization proposal

adopt the requirement that the Mayor's Office report to the Council on turnaround schools on a regular basis
 

 Not so unanimous were some curious and some important issues.

Two reappointments were expected to be handled by the Council as a whole, instead of being referred to committee, as is usual.  John Beaman's reappointment to the Common Construction Wage Committee for Center Township (Prop 91) and James Ochs appointment to the same group for Speedway (Prop 102) were the two people named.  Prop 91 was sent to committee by a vote of 20-9.  Voting no were Democrats Adamson, Barth, Brown, Hickman, Mansfield, Mascari, Oliver, Simpson, and Talley.  Prop 102 was sent to committee by a vote of 25-4.  Still voting no were Democrats Brown, Mascari, Simpson, and Talley.

Prop 58 was the refunding of $28.5 million of bonds with a bit of history.  In 1992 bonds were floated for the Circle Center Mall and are repaid with TIF money from the consolidated downtown TIF.  These 1992 bonds were broken up and the individual pieces refinanced at different times.  In 2002, a piece weighing in at $29.3 million was refinanced - and this is the subject of Prop 58.  Of that $29.3 million, less than $2 million in principle has been paid since 2002.  According to testimony before the MDC on March 11, even the bonds floated through Prop 58 would have a balloon payment, where the very last payment due in 2029 would be $24 million.  This course is being pursued, even given the fact that there are only 4 years left on the remaining the Circle Center bonds.  Five years from now, the money now spent on those bonds could be used to pre-pay, perhaps in full, any remaining amount on the 2002 bonds - OR - the downtown TIF could pay off all $27.5 million now owned.  That TIF easily generates an extra $20 million a year.  If paid off, we would be out from under the debt.  But, the City powers that be would rather we kept paying the bond issuers and the bond holders instead of realizing real savings from paying off the debt when possible.  The vote on Prop 58 was 26-3.  The three no votes were from Democrats Brown, Gray and Mahern.

Prop 33 was the proposal to spend $3 million of RebuildIndy funds on infrastructure in the Avondale-Meadows area, primarily to lure a grocery store.  You may recall that this proposal did not garner a majority either for or against back on February 11, when two Councillors were absent.  This time the proposal was defeated with a vote of 14 for and 15 against.   Voting for were Democrats Adamson, Barth, Brown, Gray, Hickman, Lewis, Mansfield, Mascari, Moriarty, Oliver, Osili, Robinson, Simpson and Talley.  Voting against were Democrat Mahern, former Democrat Evans, both of whom previously voted for prop 33, who joined Republicans Cain, Freeman, Gooden, Holliday, Hunter, Lutz, McHenry, McQuillen, Miller, Pfisterer, Sandlin, Scales, and Shreve.

While Prop 44, the turnaround school reporting proposal, passed unanimously, an amendment offered by Councillor Mahern did not.  It appears that the State Department of Education will send money to the Mayor's office to monitor turnaround schools, which are IPS schools taken from that Board as failing schools.  Initially, these turnaround schools were put under State guardianship and later transferred to the Mayor's guardianship.  Charter schools, which are established by the Mayor and attract students from traditional public schools, are expected by the State to pay management fees to the Mayor's Office for their oversight.  The Mayor has declined to require those fees, instead preferring to use general City money for the cost of Charter school oversight.  Mahern's amendment would require that any money sent to the Mayor's office to cover the cost of turnaround school oversight be distributed among those schools, so that Charter and turnaround schools are treated identically.  The proposed amendment failed by a vote of 3-26.  The three who voted in favor of the amendment were Democrats Brown, Mahern, and Oliver.

Prop 60 is the first of a two step process to grant a 10 year 100% abatement on $35 million worth of certain types of high tech equipment to be purchased by Exact Target.   In return, Exact Target agrees to create 500 jobs, retain 856 more, and tacitly agrees to stay in specified properties in downtown Indy.  Prop 82, introduced last night and which is the 2nd step of this process, has all the details.  In comments, Mahern stated that this type of economic incentive should be used to encourage companies to expand into areas of the City that are struggling, rather than simple use it to keep their expansions downtown, which is thriving.  Prop 60 passed with a vote of 25-3-1.  Democrat Brown did not vote.  Democrats Gray and Mahern joined Republican Lutz in voting against Prop 60.

Zoning Hearing Call Down Gets Weird - part 3

Thanks to an alert reader of this blog, I have an update for all of you on that February 25th meeting of the City-County Council - in particular the calling down of a zoning matter at 460 Virginia Avenue (see "Monday Night Meeting May Include Zoning Hearing" and "Council May Review Zoning Matter - part 2")

It seems that about 5 minutes after the vote to call down the zoning case (meaning the Council would hope for a negotiated settlement, but plan for a full blown Council hearing on the petition) there was a vote to reconsider the earlier vote.  A vote to reconsider is extremely rare and I did not scan all the votes taken that night for such an eventuality.

Councillor Gray, one of the yes votes, stated that he voted incorrectly and wanted the record to reflect his true position.  The procedural decision was made that a vote to reconsider should be taken, and if successful, a new vote on calling down the zoning matter would be taken.  Here is the clip of this part of the Council meeting:

 

 

The vote to reconsider was 20 yes to 8 no votes (Councillor Brown was absent).  Democrat Councillor Lewis joined Republicans Cain, Freeman, Hunter, McHenry, Pfisterer, Sandlin, and Scales in opposing the new vote.

 

The new vote on whether or not to call down and schedule a public hearing for the zoning petition was 16 for and 12 against, as the earlier count had been.  BUT, those voting yes and no changed.  In the first take, three Democrats (Adamson, Gray and Mansfield) joined all Republicans in favor of hearing the zoning petition.  In the second take, Gray withdrew his support, voting no instead - and - Lewis switched her no vote for a yes vote.  She did not explain her change of heart.

The hearing was continued at last night's Council meeting.  It is now scheduled for April 22.

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.

Council May Review Zoning Matter - part 2

Here is the clip of the Council debate on whether or not to call down the Virginia Avenue rezoning petition for hearing before the entire Council.

The final vote on calling it down was 16 to 12 in favor (Councillor Brown was absent). Joining all of the Council Republicans in voting yes, were Democrats Adamson, Gray, and Mansfield.

Monday Night Council Meeting May Include Zoning Hearing

I have been reviewing the Council agenda for Monday night and got sidetracked by an interesting zoning matter that was called down by Councillor Jeff Miller at the February 25th meeting, and set for hearing tomorrow night.

This matter is 2012-ZON-060, 460 Virginia Avenue, which went before the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission and the Metropolitan Development Commission; both of which approved the zoning change from heavy industrial to mixed residential/commercial.

The parcel is 0.67 acres and the developer has applied to the State for tax credits to help finance the construction of 50 apartments on the site.  The application for tax credits is highly competitive, with only so many dollars available in any one year.  Applicants are expected to offer lower rents due to the financial help to build the apartments in the first place.  The deadline for submitting the application apparently was last November, but the proper zoning must be in place before any application can 'win' the tax credits.  The deadline for the proper zoning to be in place was the end of February.

IHPC staff made clear that it was only approving the zoning change, and that any proposed apartment/commercial plan would have to return for review and approval at a later date.

By calling the case down, the Council has effectively caused the developer to lose out on the tax credits this year, and forced him to reapply for next year's funds - should the MDC's zoning decision not be overturned by the Council and the developer and property owners are still interested.

 

The staff report can be found on page 9 of the MDC's February 6 agenda.  This was the second day of testimony, the first concluding with a continuance so that the developer could review whether he could amend his tax credit application by dropping the number of units from 50 to 32, as suggested by remonstrators who opposed the zoning change due to density issues.

 

 

The MDC voted 7-1 to approve the zoning change.

 



Because of some technical glitch with Blogspot, I still am unable to post two different video clips on the same entry.  I will post the debate on whether or not to call down the zoning in the next entry on this topic.  Here's a link to part 2.

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.

The Transit Bill is Getting More Interesting

The transit bill got a lot more interesting this morning as I read Chris Sikich's article in the Star ("New roadblocks may loom for Indianapolis mass transit expansion").

No, it wasn't Governor Pence's tepid

“I’m someone who believes this economy is still struggling and we ought to be reducing the tax burden on Hoosiers,” Pence said, adding he would keep an open mind.

No, it wasn't the Koch brothers backed 'Americans for Prosperity Indiana', which is anti-tax, anti-tax, and more anti-tax, and which has money to pour into any referendum fight on mass transit.

What made the mass transit bill a lot more interesting, was State Senator Jean Breaux's use of the mass transit bill to push back on SB 621, which sucks much of the power out of the City-County Council and hands it gift-wrapped to Mayor Ryan Vaughn (see this blog's "Welcome to the Republican World").  Briefly, SB 621 would eliminate the 4 At-Large Council seats, give unprecedented and ill-advised budget manipulation to the Mayor, and hand a super majority of Metropolitan Development Commission appointments to the Mayor, among other things.

I have to admit right up front, I am one of Senator Breaux's biggest admirers.  She is one of a handful of Democrats who keep my hope alive that the Democratic Party is still rooted in principle and pragmatism - not greed, ambition, and power mongering.

And while I'm admitting things, let me also say that the mass transit bill would have to remove the rail option (dubbed the 'Stadium to Paladium' route by fellow blogger Fred McCarthy over at Indy Tax Dollars) [edited to add: Fred tells me I got the route wrong.  The Stadium to Paladium is the red line, rapid bus route] and not create the regional authority to get my support.  I don't mind my taxes going up to pay for a beefed up IndyGo, even if my neck of the woods won't gain anything from it.  But, I can't see pushing for a super sized mass transit in a low density region.

Breaux is willing to use the mass transit bill, which one of the very few pieces of legislation that actually needs Democratic support in order to pass, to leverage against the power grabbing SB 621.  As Sikich reports :

Sen. Jean Breaux, D-Indianapolis, said she would “love to have mass transit and I think it’s very important,” but would vote against the transit bill if Senate Bill 621 advances. And she would try to persuade her fellow 12 Democrats to follow suit.

She says Mayor Ballard wants both bills to pass, and he likely will need Democrat support to get the transit bill through a Republican-dominated Senate that is growing increasingly skeptical about transit.

“He has to decide which is most important, which is he the most concerned about,” she said. “And I would hope he would be most concerned about mass transit ... and that he would consider it to be more important than controlling government.”

Democrats like Breaux want mass transit improvements to make life better for a whole lot of people.  Mayor Vaughn wants it for its slush fund value, and if it happens to make life better, fine.  A few people will be beneficiaries of that slush fund.  And the Mayor of Indianapolis will control the new transit authority and to whom it gives its contracts.

The trouble with the Mayor's office is that it thinks it can get both the transit and power bills made into law.  It rather easily managed to roll enough of the Council Democrats over the recent budget battle; some because they agree with Vaughn and some because they have no backbone.

Mayoral spokesman Marc Lotter told Sikich :

Marc Lotter, Ballard’s spokesman, said Ballard is still hopeful transit will pass. Lotter said transit and the Marion County government bill are separate issues. The mayor, he reiterated, wants all of the provisions in Senate Bill 621 except the elimination of at-large seats. However, he does not plan to ask the legislature to stop the attempt to eliminate those seats.

I think they have a very differ battle on their hands when Breaux is standing on the other side, and they underestimate her at their peril.

Someone needs to stand up to the Republican majority, especially in the abuse of power exemplified by SB 621.  I'm glad it is Senator Jean Breaux.  I'm not surprised it is her, but I am glad.