Showing posts with label city water deal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label city water deal. Show all posts

Monday, May 3, 2010

The Mayor's Magic Water Deal


(Enter CARNIE BARKER onto pier, speaking with a bullhorn):

“…gather around, friends, and witness the amazing legerdemain (a/k/a “sleight of hand”) of the Great Ballardo, a political magician who pulls money from an empty hat.”

Of course, magic isn’t real, but I fear we’ll soon all be the suckers born every minute of whom P.T. Barnum spoke if Mayor Greg Ballard achieves his two-step skullduggery with the city's water transfer and road repair bond issue.

To proponents of these deals, I ask, "Can't you see our future is the hat, and these deasl are what makes it empty? Or do you just not care because you'll profit from it? (But more on that later).

For months, Indianapolis’ illusionist-in-chief has touted the sale of the city water and wastewater facilities to Citizens Gas as a one-stop, $425 million bonanza of smaller rate increases (a/k/a "backdoor tax increases"), roads, bridges, and sidewalks. That’s a complete distortion, but fortunately, now that the Indianapolis Star’s Francesca Jarosz has seen the Mayor's misdirection, she won't let him dart out of the spotlight of public scrutiny.

Here’s the real deal, folks. City-County Councillor Mike Speedy has introduced two resolutions. The first is for the transfer of the water and wastewater facilities to Citizens Gas, a deal plagued with problems but not the subject of this post. The second is for the issuance the aforementioned bonds, a notion crammed into the City’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) though it has absolutely no connection to the Cit Gas deal.

Why do I say there is no connection? Because Mayor Ballard’s chief-of-staff, Chris Cotterill, said so.

From the Star:
[Cotterill] said the city can collect the $140 million whether or not the Citizens sale is approved. That money comes from annual payments made from the sewer utility in place of taxes, and because the sewer system is appreciating in value, the city is increasing the annual payments and capturing them upfront.

Why would Ballard combine the two? PR. He wants the bigger number.

But let me dissect something for you because this is critical.

“capturing them upfront….”

That phrase – “capturing them upfront” – makes me chuckle. It sounds like the Mayor took a butterfly net and, through his NatGeo-acquired tracking skills, snagged the rare specious, Taxpayerus Chumpus.

Every time you hear “captured them upfront,” your mind should automatically think, “unleashed your financial future into the wild to be devoured."

You see, there is a schedule of payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT) to be made to the City of Indianapolis through 2039 by either the current management of the water/wastewater system or Citizens Gas (Exhibit E of the Memorandum of Understanding), and folks, it's clearly more than $140 million, even over a ten-year span. I can only assume, therefore, that this graph of what WILL be paid already includes the additional amount expected from capital spending. But there's absolutely no explanation on that point. Did the Mayor just pull this $140 million out of a hat, too?

Here is something else fascinating I just saw in the MOU that I missed before:
The City has projected that given the significant capital spending associated with the Wastewater system, the annual payment in lieu of taxes will increase in accordance with law. Accordingly, the City intends to issue debt secured by the PILOT ("PILOT Bonds")prior to the time a definitive agreement may be reached by the parties.


Isn't that the strangest (and most arrogant) thing? The MOU actually foretells the timetable for issuing the bonds vis-a-vis the water company transfer. Were I a city-county councillor, that might rub me the wrong way.

But getting back to the philosophical issue, instead of living within the City’s means and collecting the PILOT dollars year-to-year, the Mayor is going to take a loan against all of these future payments so that he can have and spend all of the money right now. This is why I keep telling you all it’s a payday loan scam.

Can you imagine pulling this same idea with our local option income tax (LOIT)? I don’t have the precise figures on how much that 1.62% LOIT brings in annually, but say I'm mayor, and I say, "Hey, we know for a fact we're usually around $200 million. What if we go find a private company that will give us $100 million now for the next ten years instead? This is basically what we're looking at, folks.

You WILL pay for every dollar of this in the form of higher sewer rates, but guess what? When it comes time to hold the guy who hoisted this onto you accountable, he'll be out of office traveling the globe with his wife. And therein lies the diabolical genius of the Mayor's plan. He'll sell us all on how we need to take political decisions out of politicians' hands because they won't "do the right thing" and ask for tax increases when they're needed, but he'll make certain whoever follows in his shoes has to do exactly that by taking away what would otherwise be general fund revenues for the City.

Also, while I don't want to get conspiratorial on anybody, if you have a Cit Gas board comprised of the Indy business elite, might it be a stretch to envision a Board deciding to press as hard as possible for rate increases during the term of a progressive mayor they want to make a one-termer? I say this because non-profits are some of the most "political" orgnaizations in existence, and a quarter of the citizenry will still try to blame the Mayor for every rate hike, even though they're told repeatedly it wasn't his/her decision, and the rest will just have some Carteresque malaise that colors the rest of the voters' opinions about life in the big city under Mayor x/y.

Coming soon....what political insiders are supporting this deal and why


Share/Save/Bookmark

Friday, April 30, 2010

iPOPA Thanks Mainstream Media, Fellow Bloggers for Catching Up; Speaks on City-County Councillor Folly

When I tell my wife she looks amazing, she thanks me, but I’ve noticed it's only when her friends tell her the same thing that she finally believes it. I guess if you expect compliments as part of the marital pact, it's only when "outside validation" occurs that something becomes really true.

Bloggers have that same kind of relationship with the mainstream media.

Earlier this week, the Indianapolis Star's Francesca Jarosz wrote a stellar analysis yesterday detailing how the Mayor's funding for sidewalks and roads through the Cit Gas transfer is basically a hidden tax increase because it would necessitate higher future rates.

Both of my closest blogger buddies, Terry Burns at Indianapolis Times and Jon Easter at Indydemocrat, posted praises here and here and Advance Indiana, my colleague from across the aisle, followed suit, as if Jarosz had discovered the rosetta stone of MOU's.

I'm green with envy because here's what I wrote about Citizens Gas and the Mayor’s water deal on March 20, 2010:

Or how about this. Why (doesn't Citizens) just assume the debt and forget the $262 million? [Ed. Note: I never bought the $425 million]. We all know the cash is just an advance against an even higher, future rate increase. Why not forget the cash and have lower rates in the future, Mr. Mayor?

One day you all will believe me when I say your shoes look nice. Sniff.

For his part, Democratic Mayoral candidate Brian Williams continues to raise pertinent questino about the deal, and the one that's captivated my imagination at the moment is the fact that City-County Councillor Mike Speedy's resolution has the council voting on a memorandum of understanding (MOU), NOT the final agreement. What is the difference? An MOU is how the parties hope things will work out. A definitive agreement contains the actual, final terms, so we'd know what we're actually getting, not a guess.

Think about that. There are members on the City-County Council who are voting for a "general idea." Can you imagine a Republican member of Congress voting for "healthcare reform" generally with all the actual details to be worked out later by the Obama administration? Of course not.

You say, yeah, but iPOPA, I'm sure votes were definitely cast with an intent of changing the reform bill later. Fair enough, but you prove my point. Congress can always make a law better. Once the City-County Council says, "Do the deal," they lose authority to say anything. What Councillor in his or her right mind would totally abdicate his or her oversight role by voting for something that is NOT the final product?

Stay tuned for...

...who in the Democratic caucus is looking to jump the fence on the Mayor's water deal; and

...iPOPA's Weekend Political Round-Up (an overview and commentary of all pre-primary political activity at all levels)


Share/Save/Bookmark

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Councillor Speedy Lives Up To His Name; iPOPA Asks, "Where's the Fire?"


Maybe City-County Councillor Mike Speedy should change his name to Mike Premature.

Today he filed a proposal to transfer the City's water and wastewater facilities to Citizens Energy Group. Here's the problem, and let me say this as clearly as I can: the principals have not completed the due diligence on this deal yet. What kind of city-county councillor would authorize this transfer without first knowing fully the final terms for settlement and having a full accounting of the risks?

I also have to wonder why Mayor Ballard is pressing ahead so urgently. Hmmm. Has anybody heard of any impending deadlines for paying anything that might make it important to get this deal to closing quickly so he can get the cash ASAP? Hmmm.

It struck me as odd that the guy who introduced this resolution is the one who's bailing out of the city-county council to take over Mike Murphy's Indiana House District 90, but if you look at Speedy's website, you know this deal is rife with Speedy's "political currency" - sewer bragging rights. Speedy notes, "My accomplishments include securing funding for over $13 million in construction projects for street re-surfacing and sewer projects."

Imagine the largesse Hizzoner will dole out to Speedy for carrying his water (no pun intended).


Share/Save/Bookmark

Monday, April 12, 2010

Brian Williams' Lonely Voice On Water Deal

Let me start off by saying that I obviously can't read or hear every TV news segment, radio interview, newspaper story, blog post, or even press release, so this might be a case of selective reception on my part. But when I try to list elected or want-to-be-elected Democrats opposed for any reason to Mayor Ballard's effort to sell our city's water assets, the inkwell dries up quickly.

As of yet, no opposing voice has emerged from the City-County Council, which is strange given that the Mayor will wrap up his four "town-hall meetings" with one this Tuesday (6:30-8:00 p.m., Nu Corinthian Church's Family Life Center, 5935 West 56th Strett) and the last the Tuesday thereafter (6:30-8:00 p.m., Lynhurst 7th & 8th Grad Center, 2805 South Lynhurst Drive). Actually, City-County Councillor Jose Evans was the first to get "into the water" by twice questioning the management of the city's water, and he questioned the deal generally on the Amos Brown show.

But when it comes to what I'd call a thoroughly substantive critique, there's one name in the game - mayoral contender Brian Williams.

Williams tells specifically why the deal is perilous, and he continues to raise the right unasked questions. If you want to see Williams' most recent tug on the curtain of Ballard's faux financial wizardry, read below.

April 8, 2010 Statement[1]

By virtue of his opposition, Williams is garnering media attention.


My fellow Democrats might ask how Melina Kennedy, our party apparatus's perceived frontrunner, can cede this much mic time to her most formidable rival?

She has no choice.

This is one of the tragic drawbacks to being an attorney at Baker & Daniels, one of, if not, Indy's largest law firm. By virtue of being an attorney there, and by virtue of B&D representing one of the principals, she is bound by the rules of professional conduct, and she cannot speak ill of the deal, even if she were so inclined.

Williams clearly knows this, which is why he has repeatedly referred to this deal as the most significant enterprise Mayor Ballard has undertaken. Call it self-serving if you will, but Williams is right, whether you view this as being the result of the enormity of the water company deal or the paucity of other sizeable mayoral accomplishments. What we can say is that every time Williams publicly talks about the deal, somebody unaware of the Baker & Daniels/Melina conflict might think, even if just subconsciously, "Where is Melina?"

And what makes the forced silence more intriguing is that one of the board members for Citizens Gas is Anne Nobles, a senior VP at Eli Lilly who also serves as Melina's campaign chair. (In the interest of full disclosure, Anne was also my mother's boss when she worked for then Governor Evan Bayh, and Anne is one of the most brilliant people you'd ever meet). Because of Melina's current employer, we don't know whether Melina would have shown her moxy and gone womano-a-womano with a powerful friend. I think Melina could have held her own in such a debate, but we'll never know.

This is maddening, mostly because I always get wanked when I see Republicans do something to us that we've done to them.

You see, back when Bart Peterson was Mayor, the expression "getting Keelered" was ushered in. The Marion County GOP Chair, John Keeler, was working as an attorney at Baker & Daniels, and because the city had the firm on retainer, Keeler couldn't chastize Peterson. It was like having a political criticism immunity card card for two years.

We see the same thing here. Whether it was driven by shrewd politicking or simply the natural outgrowth of having so many big players in the Cit Gas deal, every big firm in Indiapolis with anyone inclined to say "Wait a minute," including my party's perceived frontrunner, has been gobbled up.

Let's just hope Melina can get out of the stomach of the beast before the Mayor cooks up his next big idea for public consumption.

UPDATE: I did not wish to imply that the Democrats on the City-County Council have done nothing, as Minority Leader, Joanne Sanders, submitted a resolution on behalf of the caucus requesting an open and transparent discussion of the sale. But this resolution can be fairly described as a "process" resolution, not a substantive critique akin to what Williams has provided. It is curious that the hearing of the resolution before the Rules & Public Policy Committee is set for 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday (Room 260 of the City-County Building). This is one hour before the townhall on the far Northwest side. Great way to guarantee maximum participation by Democratic councillors at the Mayor's little forum - creating a potential scheduling conflict for the caucus members.


Share/Save/Bookmark