There Needs to Be an Independent Investigation of the ROC Deal

Tracing the tentacles of this deal are madding.

I refer to the deal made to lease space in the old Eastgate Mall for a Regional Operations Center - in time for the 2012 SuperBowl.  The ROC was to be used as the heart of surveillance for the public gatherings - Homeland Security, IMPD, IFD central commands combined with federal agencies in one spot away from the action downtown.

The latest tentacles to be revealed were broadcast during last night's WTHR 11 O'clock news.  Sandra Chapman did an interview with Alex Carroll, owner of the facility.  He discloses that there was a secret deal with the City that involved a sizable up front payment to him, and that the City was responsible for drafting the lopsided lease agreement that puts all of the maintenance burden on the taxpayers.

Gary Welsh, over at Advance Indiana, did an excellent job of recapping the interview and putting what is known about the whole deal in perspective.  Previously, Paul Ogden described how lopsided the agreement is and that representatives of City Legal and the City Controller refused to sign off on the lease - leaving then Public Safety Director, Frank Straub, on his own (see here and here)

There must be an independent investigation of this deal.  All business conducted on behalf of the public must be made public - there can be no secret deals.  What is disclosed to the public must be accurate - officials cannot say they are making lease payments when they are paying off a loan directly.  The City may not take out a loan.  The City cannot float a bond without disclosing what that bond is to be used for and what dedicated revenue stream will repay it.

At this point it is unclear IF there was a secret deal, IF there was a sizable upfront payment and how much that was, IF there was a concerted effort to keep information from most of the Council and the public, IF there is a bank loan or a bond, and IF campaign contributions were part of the big picture.

The lease was put forth as Prop 102, 2011 with no lease details.  It originally was for 210,000 square feet, but that was reduced to 76,000 square feet before passage by the full Council on May 16, 2011.  The sponsors of the proposed lease were Councillors Ben Hunter and Mary Moriarty Adams.  The Eastgate Mall is in Hunter's district, but almost in Adams'.  At the time, Hunter Chaired the Public Safety Committee and Adams was the senior Democrat on that committee.

Below I have embedded a portion of the April 12, 2011 meeting of the Admin & Finance committee meeting - the first of two committee meetings to consider this lease.  This portion begins after Homeland Security Director Gary Coons' half hour presentation on what a ROC would be and why one was needed.  The embedded portion are the questions that the Councillors had.  Jon Mayes, Deputy Director, Special Counsel for the City responded to the questions.  It is instructive as to how little information these committee members were given initially.  Look for Councillor Barbara Malone's question of whether there any upfront fee for renovation of the facility and Councillor Jackie Nytes inquiry as to whether construction had already begun on the facility.

The answers by Mr. Mayes include that this was to be a 20 year lease, with no upfront money and all construction and renovation costs amortized in the lease payments.  Those payments were to be $1.2 million per year.  The Proposal was amended later and his statements may only refer to the introduced situation.  Construction had already begun on this site by the time the committee was given Prop 102 to consider.

There needs to be a full vetting of exactly what the arrangements were, who authorized them, and how honest everyone has been in divulging the details of that arrangement.

Prop 15 - A Nightmarish Mess

The tortuous life of Prop 15 through the Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council is not the Council's finest hour by any stretch of the imagination.

The ridiculoucity continued this past week with two evenings of meetings of the Metropolitan & Economic Development committee.

Even before Monday night's meeting began, the committee knew it would be recessing that night without passing Prop 15 due to a disagreement with the Ballard administration over a proposed amendment that sought to add language guaranteeing two microloan programs and one job training program.  Councillor Vop Osili had a memo from Deron Kintner to the effect that the City agreed to those programs, but wanted it written into the proposal.  I uploaded to Google Docs the disputed, and never introduced, amendment.  What you'll notice is it's clarity of language.  The header suggests this amendment was intended to be voted on at the full Council meeting where, instead, the Council decided to send Prop 15 back to committee.

What was introduced Friday night, after they had four full days and nights to come to an agreement, was a mess - tortuous language construction, dubious protections for the intended beneficiaries of the programs, and massive loopholes.  Not to mention the misspelling of the word "Councillor" - which is defined in Council rules, by the way.  Plus you'd think commas were an endangered species that had to be included sparingly.  This amendment passed by a vote of 6 to 1, with Councillor Zach Adamson providing the sole no vote.  I have uploaded my copy of this amendment, as the Council website has not yet updated their version of Prop 15.  Sorry for the scribbling, I wasn't thinking I'd be sharing it with everyone.

From the header one might think this amendment would be introduced at the full Council.  The meeting Friday night did start 5 minutes late and the amendment was not available until seconds beforehand.  So, it may be the negotiations were deemed done enough and this messy amendment was introduced at the committee instead.

Here are some attributes of the amendment that catch my eye:

The $10 million microloan program will require "the leveraging of current resources" which usually means floating bonds to be repaid with some revenue stream.  There aren't many details provided on this proposed program.  One thing that is stated is that it would be a county wide program.  It would be a violation of state law for the funds to come from the downtown TIF.

I looked through google street maps and the Marion County Assessor's interactive map to try to locate the "Bryant Heating & Cooling Facility located at 21st and Montcalm".  All parcels at that intersection are owned by private entities, none of which are Bryant.  To the west, however, at 1100 W. 21st Street, there is a large parcel with large buildings that appear abandoned, which is owned by DMD.  Why the lack of specificity when an address or parcel number is three mouse clicks away?  This is important because there is an attempt to require the demolition of this facility.

In multiple places the phrase "the area" is used.  From context it seems like it refers to possibly different boundaries at times - but the phrase is never clearly defined, which results in little to no protection of the residents of the Bush Stadium area that any of the promises made to them will actually be fulfilled - or even be required to be fulfilled.

The $2 million microloan program can be awarded to any business within a two mile radius of the enlarged downtown consolidated TIF.  The language is poor, again a comma or two might clarify, but it is either attempting to say the business must be located in a lower income area (median household income 75% or less of the median income in the County) or that the 2 mile perimeter must be centered on a low income area.  Just by the way, the median household income in the County is $40,421.  But a two mile radius?  How does that adequately target the Riverside or UNWA residents who came out to say they needed help?  Looking at maps, this perimeter could reach the Speedway to the west, Garfield Park to the south, Butler University to the north, and nearly Emerson Avenue to the east.  The intent is to take the funds from the TIF.  But TIF revenues must be spent within the TIF.  These requirements are a clear attempt to circumvent the state laws regarding the expenditure of TIF revenues, and it does not target the folks who live in the Bush Stadium area.

The exact same thing can be said of the $1.5 million job training program as was just stated for the $2 million microloan program.

And the last I'll mention is the really botched attempt to get work for the TIF district residents.  The language seems to say that any business receiving TIF money, should they require new hiring, would have to ensure that 40% of those hired lived in the TIF district.  The business could get out of this by filling out a form that indicated why it tried but failed to get to the 40% figure.  Or, they could bring in all their additional help from out of state, since those folks will not be counted.

Osili has been all over town touting the targeted benefits he personally negotiated for the residents and businesses of the Bush Stadium expansion area.  But, he is not delivering on that promise with this language.  Someone is being scammed - its either Osili or the residents.

Prop 15, that twice beaten dead horse now burdened with the worst amendment in the history of amendments, was voted on twice by the committee Friday night.  The first time the phrasing of the motion left off the key part where it would be sent back to the full Council with a do-pass recommendation.  On the advice of Council counsel, they did a do-over with the correct motion.

Both times the vote was 6 yeas and 1 nay.  Councillor Zach Adamson was the lone no vote both times.  The yeas were Councillors Robinson, Talley, Adams, Osili, Miller and Cardwell.  The last two are Republicans and the rest are Democrats. 

Prop 15, that raggedy, tattered zombie that it is, returns to the full Council Monday night.

Council Committee Followed Improper Procedure In Pushing TIF Expansion Out the Door

Recently fellow blogger Fred McCarthy, over at Indy Tax Dollars, made a startling discovery regarding the outrageous meeting conducted by members of the Council's Metropolitan & Economic Development committee back on August 27.  McCarthy noted that the committee failed to properly vote on amending Prop 15 before voting to move it to the full Council with a 'do-pass' recommendation (see "Haste Makes Waste").

I just watched the ad hoc extension of the committee meeting and followed closely what motions were made and voted on.  (See "WCTY Archive For Metro Devel Committee" to view this section of the meeting for yourself.)

McCarthy is right.

It is surprising, given Councillor Adams lengthy tenure on the Council, that she would goof this up, but she did.

Here are the series of motions and votes.

0:26 -- Chairman Talley adjourns the meeting.

1:56 -- Councillor Osili moves to take Prop 15 off the table.  Adams seconds.  Cain 'thirds'.

Talley does not recognize Osili's motion.

4:40 -- Adams takes control of the meeting by consent.

5:00 -- Osili again moves to take Prop 15 off the table.

5:48 --  Osili reads full text of Prop 15 with amended parts.

No motion to amend is made.  No second to amend is made.

11:59 -- Councillor Robinson moves for recess.  Adams does 'not entertain at this time'.

12:30 -- Adams say incorrectly that the proposal as amended has been moved and seconded.

13:00 -- vote is taken to move Proposal 15 off the table.

Adams follows vote to take off the table with erroneous statement that the matter is "before us as amended".

19:20 -- Adams says they "need to take a vote on the amendment"

no vote is taken

20:05 -- Adams says, erroneously, that they have amended version of Prop 15 before them.

20:20 -- Adams says she will take a vote on Proposal 15 "as amended" - voice vote, not sure if Robinson in the room.

20:38 -- Councillor Adamson explains his vote, Osili thanks him for his assistance.  It should be noted that if Adamson had not remained in the meeting, and left with Talley and Robinson (who came and went during the ad hoc portion), there would not have been a quorum of the members and no doubt that the meeting could not continue.

22:50 -- Cain makes a motion to move Prop 15 as amended to the full Council with a do pass recommendation.  Cannot hear a second on the video.  Vote proceeds again with a 5-1 outcome (Osili, Adamson, Adams, Cain and Miller yes -- Robinson no).

There is never a motion to amend Prop 15.  There is never a second to amend Prop 15.  There is never a vote to amend Prop 15.

The five yes voting members of this committee clearly do not value public notification that a hot topic will be considered by the committee and therefore real opportunity for public input.  There likely will be protests of this characterization, but when push and shove came together, they acted without public input and were fine with it.

Council rules do not require public input in this type of ordinance, unfortunately.  But, Council rules do require proper motions, seconds, and votes to amend.  If the full Council is not interested in sending Prop 15 back to committee because of lack of public notification and input, then they surely must send it back due to improper Council procedure. 

Kudos to Fred McCarthy for bringing this to light.

Slush Funds Advance Out of Public View

From WCTY archives:

 



 

There were no proposals seeking to establish TIF districts on last night's Metropolitan and Economic Development committee's agenda.  This is all we have this morning.  You can clearly see and hear Chairman Steve Talley adjourn the meeting at time stamp 1:33:40.  At the end of the WCTY tape you can hear, but not see, Councillor Virginia Cain ask Republican Council Attorney Elrod for advise.  Then audio cuts out, too.

 

Early on, before this clip begins, when members of the public are addressing the committee, you can see Deron Kintner in the last row of the room.  Trust me, I've been to more budget hearings than some Councillors, but nobody comes to one if their interests aren't being entertained.  So, Deron  Kintner, Executive Director of the Bond Bank, was given a heads up that this would happen.  The public was not informed.

 

From Jon Murray, IndyStar reporter, we have the skeleton of what happened.  He reports that Democrats Mary Adams, Zach Adamson, Vop Osili and Republicans Virginia Cain and Jeff Miller all voted in favor of the proposal, evidently after amending it.  There was one lone "no" vote by Democratic Councillor Leroy Robinson. 

 

Thank you, Councillor Robinson.

 

Murray reports on the amendment:

But the ice thawed Monday after the administration reached an agreement with Democratic council members Vop Osili and Joseph Simpson. They represent districts near those proposed new development zones.

In a newly released memo outlining the agreement, Deron Kintner, Ballard’s new deputy mayor for economic development, commits to tapping $13.5 million from city economic development funds for three loan and workforce training programs.

The committee also amended the proposal to require some local hiring by contractors on new projects and to promote minority employment.
 

The proposed expansion of the downtown TIF to the west aims to capture 604 acres to support road improvements around Bush Stadium and to the east to capture 111 acres to support redevelopment of a block no more than 3 acres in size.  Now add to it more tax dollars swapped by the two district Councillors and you clearly have huge new slush funds being set up. 

There has been no disclosure of basic information justifying or answering the questions : Why this TIF?  Why this place?  Why this project?  Why this footprint?  The three submissions in response to the RFP for the Mass Ave TIF (the 111 acre expansion to the east) are held in embargo; kept out of sight of public eyes and disclosure.

The recommendations of the TIF Study Commission would have required all of this disclosure so that the public AND the Councillors had real information upon which to base a real evaluation of the proposed TIFs.  These recommendations would have protected the public.

The Ballard administration, including Ryan Vaughn and Deron Kintner, do not want any details to escape into the public and have held as much under wraps as they could.  Now we find that Councillors are deliberately helping them keep the wraps on.  This is foul.

The full Council will have an opportunity to send this back to committee where the public can take their rightful place in the discussion.  As it stands now, this action by Adams, Adamson, Osili, Cain and Miller is a travesty that screams of their real distain for proper proceedure, public process, and putting in place recommendations that will protect the public interest.  If this is an inaccurate review of their attitudes, then they have the opportunity to clarify things by walking this proposal back to committee themselves.