PUBLIC SAFETY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE
DATE:October 20, 2010
CALLED TO ORDER:5:34p.m.
ADJOURNED:6:25 p.m.
ATTENDANCE
Attending Members Absent Members
Benjamin Hunter, Chair
Vernon Brown
Bob Cockrum
Mary Moriarty Adams
William Oliver
Marilyn Pfisterer
Christine Scales
Ryan Vaughn
AGENDA
Budget Review and Analysis
PROPOSAL NO. 231, 2010 - approves the tax levies and rates for the Police Special Service District for 2011
“Do Pass”Vote: 8-0
PROPOSAL NO. 232, 2010 - approves the tax levies and rates for the Fire Special Service District for 2011
“Do Pass as Amended”Vote: 8-0
PROPOSAL NO. 234, 2010 - adopts the annual budget for the City of Indianapolis and Marion County for 2011- (the Public Safety and Criminal Justice portion only)
“Do Pass as Amended”Vote: 5-3
Members of the Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee
October 20, 2010
Page 1
PUBLIC SAFETY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE
The Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee of the City-County Council met on Wednesday, October 20, 2010. Chair Benjamin Hunter called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m. with the following members present:Vernon Brown, Bob Cockrum,Mary Moriarty Adams,William Oliver,Marilyn Pfisterer, Christine Scales and Ryan Vaughn. Representing Council staff was Jim Steele, Council Chief Financial Officer (CFO).
Chairman Hunter asked all Councillors to introduce themselves and state which district they represent.
Budget Review and Analysis
PROPOSAL NO. 231, 2010 - approves the tax levies and rates for the Police Special Service District for 2011
David Reynolds, City Controller, said that there are no amendments to this proposal. He said this proposal imposes the property tax levy for the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) Fund and then transfers those funds into the City’s budget.
Councillor Vaughn moved, seconded by Councillor Pfisterer, to forward Proposal No. 231, 2010 to the full Council with a “Do Pass” recommendation. The motion carried by a vote of 8-0.
PROPOSAL NO. 232, 2010 - approves the tax levies and rates for the Fire Special Service District for 2011
Mr. Reynolds distributed an amendment to this proposal (attached as Exhibit A). He said that this proposal adds the property tax levy for the Lawrence Township Fire Department (LTFD), which is being consolidated with the Indianapolis Fire Department (IFD), effective January 1, 2011. It raises the property tax levy that will be available to the consolidated fire district and increases the assessed valuation. Mr. Reynolds said that the proposal also adds an extension of service levy of $2.8 million that will be charged to the Lawrence Township taxpayers in 2011.
Councillor Vaughn moved, seconded by Councillor Moriarty Adams, to “Amend” Proposal No. 232, 2010 as described in Exhibit A. The motion carried by a vote of 8-0.
Councillor Brown asked Mr. Reynolds to explain Section 1. Mr. Reynolds said for the fire service district for 2011, there will be a consolidated fire service district rate of .2871 per $100 of assessed value. He said this is the rate that will be applied across the consolidated fire service district, effectively the six townships, excluding the three western townships. He said there will also be a fire cumulative rate of .0099 per $100 of assessed value that will be applied across the fire service district as well. In addition, there will be an extension of service levy applied to Franklin and Lawrence Townships. In Franklin Township, the rate will be .1762 per $100 of assessed value, and in Lawrence Township, the rate will be .0896 per $100 of assessed value. Councillor Brown asked if the rates for Franklin and Lawrence Townships will change. Mr. Reynolds answered that they have done a two-year transition program for both townships to transition them out of their emergency fire loans. He said there will be an extension of levy appeal in the first year of up to $3 million for Franklin Township and $2.8 million for Lawrence Township. He said in the second year, the extension of levies would be half of those amounts for each township; and in the third year, the consolidated fire rates would be.2871 for all of the six townships. Councillor Brown asked if this rate is higher than last year. Mr. Reynolds answered in the affirmative, and stated that it is higher due to the reduction in assessed values across the county.
Councillor Brown asked if the Cumulative Capital Fund is the same rate for all of the townships. Mr. Reynolds answered in the affirmative. Councillor Brown asked how much Mr. Reynolds expects to raise from the Cumulative Capital Fund in a year. Mr. Reynolds answered that the levy for that fund is expected to be $2.5351 million. Councillor Brown asked if that money can only be used for capital projects and equipment. Mr. Reynolds answered in the affirmative. Councillor Brown asked what the current fund balance is for the Cumulative Capital Fund for the fire department. Mr. Reynolds answered that the projected fund balance in the Fire Cumulative Fund, as of December 31, 2010, is $438,715.
Councillor Vaughn moved, seconded by Councillor Pfisterer, to forward Proposal No. 234, 2010 to the full Council with a “Do Pass as Amended” recommendation. The motion carried by a vote of 8-0.
PROPOSAL NO. 234, 2010 - adopts the annual budget for the City of Indianapolis and Marion County for 2011- (the Public Safety and Criminal Justice portion only)
Mr. Reynolds distributed an amendment to this portion of the proposal (attached as Exhibit B), and explained that the amendment does the following:
- Adds about $12.7 million of appropriation to IFD for the LTFD consolidation.
- This is funded by $8 million of additional property tax levy, $2.8 million for the extension of service levy, and about $1.5 million of miscellaneous revenues that come with the consolidation.
- Adds $315,000 of appropriation and funding into the Fire Cumulative Fund from the added Lawrence Township assessed valuation.
- Restores the Metropolitan Emergency Communications Agency’s (MECA) budget, as it was originally introduced with some portions in the Information Services Agency’s (ISA) budget and other portions in the Division of Homeland Security’s (DHS) budget.
- It removes $4.6 million from DHS and approximately $500,000 from ISA.
- It restores the budget at $96,225 or 1.8 percent below MECA’s 2010 base.
- Transfers the funding for the Department of Public Safety’s (DPS) training director from IMPD’s fund to DPS’s fund.
- Includes a character transfer between Character 03 and Character 01 of $188,000 in the Public Defender’s budget to free up funding to hire three additional attorneys for Traffic Court.
- Adds back $175,000 for the Education Reimbursement Program for the Prosecutor’s Office.
- Adds $50,000 for a court reporter for the Circuit Court.
- Shifts funding for two commissioners from the Superior Court to the Circuit Court.
- Adds Sec. 4.08 that includes language that requires some reporting from MECA to the Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee of the City-County Council on specific action items.
Councillor Vaughn moved, seconded by Councillor Pfisterer, to “Amend” Proposal No. 234, 2010 as described in Exhibit B. The motion carried by a vote of 8-0.
Councillor Moriarty Adams referenced the mandated increases for the probation officers, and asked if the pay increases are included in the 2011 budget. Mr. Reynolds answered in the negative. He said there are many of these types of programs throughout the budget where the Office of Finance and Management (OFM) was not able to identify the funding and will have to work with the agencies to find available funding. Councillor Moriarty Adams asked who this is mandated by and what happens if funding is not found. Sue Patterson, CFO, Superior Court, answered that this is mandated by the Judicial Center. She said these particular increases are done annually to move the officers up from a third-year to a fourth-year position, where they get an increase in the fourth year. She said the officers would not receive another increase until their tenth year, so the increase is really important for morale. She said if they continue not to be able to fund this, it could leave a lot of positions open and the caseloads will begin to grow. She said they could also find themselves losing some very good probation officers to outlying counties. Councillor Moriarty Adams asked how many probation officer vacancies currently exist. Mr. Patterson answered that she believes they have had 12 vacancies throughout the year, because they took on the Family Youth Interventions (FYI) program at the Juvenile Reception Center, as it was closed by the Department of Child Services (DCS) last year. She said in order to have a place to take runaways instead of putting them in the Detention Center, they used some grant money to fund the positions for the FYI program. She said they kept the 12 full-time positions open because they were afraid that the grant would only be for one year, and they were correct. Ms. Patterson said, however, there have been multiple other vacancies through the year in three to six month increments, depending on how long it took to get a position filled. She said they are always at less than 100% for employment, which provides money to move around in their budget, but they cannot count on this money. She said that she is concerned that they are risking some of the progress they have made with the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) and the overcrowding of the jail because they do not have a continuing revenue stream to support the initiatives. Councillor Moriarty Adams asked how many probation officers there are. Ms. Patterson answered that there are about 250 probation officers.
Councillor Moriarty Adams asked if they will use the money from the vacant positions to fund the pay increases. Ms. Patterson said they will likely be asking for that money to be moved to Character 03 to fund the evening reception centers and some Guardian Ad Litem dollars for next year. She said that House Bill (HB) 1154 allowed for an increase so they could fund Guardian Ad Litem, but they cannot discern at this time what the revenue stream will be. Therefore, they want to ensure that they have enough money to get started, because they have not seen a slow-down in Children in Need of Services (CHINS) cases. Ms. Patterson said they believe that it will be about $1.6 or $1.7 million to fund the Guardian Ad Litem services next year. She said they will also use the money to handle the FYI program. She said they have an outside vendor that will come in and run this program offsite, which will make it more of a best practice issue and make sure that those children never see the Detention Center.
Councillor Vaughn asked what makes the funding stream unpredictable with respect to HB 1154 for the Guardian Ad Litem program. Ms. Patterson answered that the State has put a variety of revenue streams or infraction judgments into one fund, and the courts will only receive one of those revenue streams. She said they have been trying to find out what that amount will be, but they are pretty certain they will be able to fund what is necessary for the commissioners. However, they are uncertain of the exact amount. Councillor Vaughn asked if the Legislative Services Agency (LSA) issued a financial report. Ms. Patterson answered in the affirmative, and stated, however, that it was based upon information that was several years old.
Mr. Reynolds clarified that he could not find funding in the Community Corrections budget, but he did not say that those officers’ salaries could not be raised. He said the task will be for Community Corrections to find the funding internally. He said that choices and tough decisions need to be made based on the budget constraints that the City is facing at this time. He said the City has to continue to live within their means.
Councillor Scales asked about the increase in the salaries of the County Coroner’s Office and how many FTE’s are represented by the number. She also asked about the increase in the professional services amount and what is included in those services. Mr. Reynolds said that he is unable to answer those questions, but he will make sure that they are answered before the full Council meeting.
Councillor Moriarty Adams asked if there are any purchases of transport vans in the 2011 budget. Louis Dezelan, Executive Director, Marion County Sheriff Department (MCSD), said that they originally had money in their Characters 02 and 03 for maintenance of their vehicles, including the cars and vans. He said they were asking for $2.7 million to purchase cars and vans, and they realized that they would not need the amount reflected for maintenance, so they volunteered half of their maintenance money to help subsidize the purchase of the new vehicles. However, their recommendation for new vehicles was cut. Now they are left with the old vehicles and only half the money necessary to maintain those vehicles. He explained that there was originally $970,000 in Characters 03 and 04 for maintenance; and the maintenance for 23 vans would eat up $400,000 of that. He said they would ask to get back the original maintenance amount of $970,000.
Councillor Vaughn asked what the total MCSD fleet consists of. Mr. Dezelan answered that they have approximately 330 vehicles, 68 of which are transport vans. He said the deputies in the cars serve different purposes, such as processing foreclosure and eviction notices, checking on violent and sex offenders, and serve criminal and civil warrants. They also have about 50 vehicles for their reserve deputies that volunteer about 25 hours a month to do work for the Sheriff’s Office. He said these deputies are not paid, they only receive $5 a year, plus a vehicle and uniforms. Councillor Vaughn asked how many total officers there are in all the units that use vehicles. Mr. Dezelan answered that there are 112 deputies in the Civil Division and 153 deputies in the Law Enforcement Division, 50 of which are court-line deputies who do not have vehicles. He said he does not have the number of people in the Violent and Sex Offender Unit available.
Councillor Vaughn asked what the balance of the Commissary Fund is. Mr. Dezelan answered that it is about $400,000, but the total for the year would be $2 million. Councillor Vaughn asked if this would be the balance at the end of the year. Mr. Dezelan said that they usually keep a balance of about $250,000 at the end of the year. Councillor Vaughn asked if $1.75 million is spent on Commissary Fund-related activities. Mr. Dezelan answered that it is spent on activities that the Sheriff’s Office is permitted to spend on according to State Statute. Councillor Vaughn asked how many vehicles were purchased out of the Commissary Fund last year. Mr. Dezelan said about 40. Councillor Vaughn asked if those were mostly Dodge Chargers. Mr. Dezelan answered in the affirmative, and stated that some were vans. Councillor Vaughn asked what a Dodge Charger costs in comparison to an IMPD cruiser. Mr. Dezelan answered that the Chargers are a little less than the Ford Crown Victorias. He said that the Chargers get better fuel mileage than the Crown Victorias.
Councillor Moriarty Adams said that she is concerned about the transport vans and being able to service all policing agencies throughout Marion County. Mr. Reynolds said that the Sheriff’s Department is doing a good job of trying to right-size their budget. He said they have been working with Wishard with regard to the jail medical to get their budget where it needs to be and the payments to the contractor where they need to be. He said OFM is not saying that the vans cannot be maintained as necessary, but they are asking that the funding be found within the existing budget. Councillor Moriarty Adams said that it seems to make more sense to purchase the new vehicles then to spend so much of taxpayer dollars on repairing vehicles at the cost required. Mr. Reynolds said that his point is that the money needs to be found within the existing budget, whether it is to purchase new vehicles or maintain the old. Councillor Moriarty Adams said that she understands that, but the maintenance money has always been in their budget, but they chose to give some up to purchase new vehicles. However, that was denied and OFM kept their maintenance money. Mr. Reynolds said that the County General Fund kept the money, as it was needed due to lost revenue.
Councillor Vaughn said that the Commissary Fund bought about 40 new cars last year, he asked what that fund would spend money on this year that it did not spend last year. Mr. Dezelan answered that they will purchase different kinds of equipment for the jail, pay for maintenance of the jail, and they paid for an accreditation process and a dental chair this year. He said the Sheriff also makes contributions to help stem things such as drunk driving, child abuse, and domestic violence. Councillor Vaughn asked if the maintenance fund has been static over the years. Mr. Dezelan answered that this is correct to his knowledge. Councillor Vaughn asked why they are not saving money from the purchase of the 40 new vehicles that are presumably under warranty. Mr. Reynolds said in looking back, the 2008 actual shows that about $500,000 was spent on vehicle repairs. He said that there was $344,970 in Character 03 in 2008; $602,000 in 2009; and a projection of $583,000 in 2010. The 2008 actual for Character 02, vehicles was $177,975; $401,132 in 2009; and a projection of $440,724 in 2010. He said these two characters added together totaled about $515,000 in actual spend on vehicle repairs in 2008; $1 million in 2009; and a projection of $1 million in 2010. Councillor Vaughn said that the argument being made is that purchasing new vans under warranty will reduce the maintenance costs. However, history shows that 40 new cars were purchased, yet the cost of maintenance doubled. Mr. Dezelan said that the issue is that the remaining cars continue to age and call for more maintenance costs. Councillor Vaughn asked if the Committee could be provided with the cost of maintenance for the 40 cars before they were replaced before the full Council meeting. Mr. Dezelan answered in the affirmative.