Dedicated to the advancement of the State of Indiana by re-affirming our state's constitutional principles that: all people are created equal; no religious test shall be imposed on our public officials and offices of trust; and no special privileges or immunities shall be granted to any class of citizens which are not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Advance Indiana, LLC. Copyright 2005-16. All rights reserved.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Council Moves Forward With Yet Another Tax Increase
Next year your property tax bills are going to increase under a plan passed by the Public Works Committee with little discussion or even general understanding by the Indianapolis City-County Council members who voted on what the plan encompasses. The proposal will increase stormwater management fees that appear as part of your property tax bill, which do not apply against the property tax caps mandated by the state's constitution, to triple the amount currently collected annually from $10 million to $30 million. Those increases will fall primarily on homeowners, and it's not just a one-time increase. Automatic rate increases can be imposed over the next 20 years without any council action.
As is the case with so many proposals before the council, the members appeared completely ignorant of what exactly it was that they were voting upon. Fellow blogger Pat Andrews tried to educate the members on the shortcomings of their proposal, but her comments largely fell on deaf ears. According to Andrews, the proposal raises an additional $10 million to pay for operations, or a total of $15 million. About $15 million a year will be made available for capital projects; however, at least $5 million of that amount will be used to pay off old bonds. The effect of the proposal is to free up about $10 million in the current city-county budget that is spent to cover operating expenses concerning stormwater management according to Andrews. It supposedly provides a sufficient revenue stream to address the cost of undertaking stormwater management projects over the next 20 years.
One of Andrews' most pointed criticisms of the past stormwater fees approved by the City-County Council is that the past fee never lived up to its promises of being put towards new stormwater management projects. Instead of putting the initial $5 million a year towards new capital projects, most of the money wound up getting used to pay off old bond debt. A subsequent $5 million a year increase actually provided the additional $5 million a year needed to fund new capital projects--until the Ballard administration decided to sell off the sewer and water utilities to Citizens Energy. We've all seen our sewer and water bills skyrocket, in part, to pay higher debt to pay for the nearly half billion overpayment Citizens Energy paid to the city to buy the utilities, which was used for infrastructure projects, including the mayor's cricket field. More importantly, DPW lost $6 million a year the utilities spun off to pay for its operating expenses with the sale. As a consequence, the city diverted money intended for stormwater projects to cover DPW's operating expenses.
So now the City-County Council is going to allow DPW to triple the amount collected from stormwater fees, plus allow the fees to be raised annually for the next 20 years with the promise the money will get spent this time to pay for the projects the first two stormwater fee increases supposedly funded. The fee increase on homeowners is being masked as a fairness issue. Homeowners currently pay a flat fee per parcel. Under the proposal, they will now pay a fee based on the amount of stormwater runoff theoretically generated by their property, which can result in four-fold increases in some cases. As Andrews surmises, it's likely a plan designed to shift DPW's funding to provide additional funding elsewhere. At any rate, homeowners will be hit with another $20 million tax increase and every year thereafter for the next 20 years, on top of the 10% income tax increase you will start paying on January 1. The council committee's discussion was alarming in the sense of just how wilfully ignorant the council members are when making decisions that affects their constituents' pocketbooks. The local media won't tell you about that fact, but now you know. It's also obvious why the Democrats didn't want Andrews on the council when she ran the last time. God forbid we elect someone who actually knows something.
Where are the Democrats on this issue? They keep telling me they are for "the little guy", they keep telling me that they are watching out for those of us with no access to power or to a seat at the table at which THEY sit, but I see the Democrats I voted for are going along with this BS.
ReplyDeleteThese fools of both parties are why I SOLD my downtown property and now RENT. Yes, the higher fees and Center Township taxes are undoubtedly in my monthly rent but I calculated that it is far cheaper for me to rent and be a opportunist on the economic freeloader theorem than to own a stake of downtown property with all its escalating costs.
THIS is what the Republicrats accomplished in Indy. No Mayor in contemporary times has been LESS LOVED than Greg Ballard, NO City Council less respected than the current crop of Republican crony bastards and their Democrat enablers....
Washington Township schools also want to increase your property taxes and are planning to introduce a major construction project similar to that developed by the previous Superintendent James Mervilde. Over $200 million. But they refuse to sell valuable vacant land and vacant school buildings to offset the costs.
ReplyDeleteRe: anon 5:18, Wash Twsp can't pass a 200 million dollar bond issue without a referendum.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.in.gov/dlgf/8789.htm
Thanks for your kind words, Gary. Much appreciated.
ReplyDeleteRe: Anon 9:27, MSDWT foundation has hired an organization to conducting a telephone survey of residents to determine the construction project’s support and likelihood that a referendum would be passed by the voters.
ReplyDeleteIs 'willfully' a typo? -- shouldn't it be 'woefully'? (OK, maybe both...)
ReplyDeleteMoments later: it seems to have changed to 'completely'. Either of the 'w' words was better.
The audit plan should reflect the needs presented in the Large Taxpayer Office. The heads of offices should send their proposals in writing to the Head of Audit Section, before the latter starts preparing the Chicago Tax Attorney plan for the following month.
ReplyDelete