X
COMMENTARY AND INSIGHT GINA BURGESS- FORT WAYNE PUBLIC POLICY WONK AND COMMENTATOR
X
FACEBOOK LINK TO MORE "GINA MONOLOGUES":
https://www.facebook.com/GinaMBurgess?fref=ufi
xx
Gina Burgess with Jason Arp and 4 others.
Yesterday at 10:42am ·
WE DON’T NEED MORE TAXES—WE NEED MORE OVERSIGHT: There’s been an increased concern over the proposed wheel tax. [1] And by concern, I mean people are angry. We all agree that we need better roads. Anyone who followed me in 2015 remembers that I built part of my campaign around that very issue (Sink hole de Mayo). But the rush to create more taxes to fix this problem is fiscally irresponsible.
Why? Because City Council literally doesn’t know what is being spent, especially by the Redevelopment Commission, City Utilities, the Board of Public Works, and other governmental/quasi-governmental units, such as the Capital Improvements Board. Simultaneously, City Council is under immense pressure to give away tax abatements/”economic revitalization area” designations (which serves to first delay taxes on improvements and then minimizes taxes on improvements by factoring in depreciation). So City Council has no idea what other governmental units are spending (many items being spent are outside of the approved budgets), is reducing tax revenue for favored corporate entities, and---last but not least---is expected to approve spending on unsustainable private-public partnership projects (i.e. “Downtown development”/”Riverside development”) and raise taxes to subsidize infrastructure needs whose tax revenues are being diverted to all these so-called “economic development” projects that don’t provide jobs and can’t sustain their operations without taxpayer subsidies.
Now, I am going to throw City Council a bone. Matter of fact, I’m going to gift wrap this bone. It’s not necessarily City Council’s fault that it doesn’t know what is being spent. The other governmental/quasi-governmental units are purposefully NOT coming to City Council for approval or ratification of expenditures as required by City Ordinances. In fact, some of these agencies actually believe they aren’t required to get approval from City Council. And guess what, the Mayor’s appointed Controller is writing checks for these unapproved expenditures. Why? Because that person is being told by these governmental/quasi-governmental units that City Council’s approval isn’t needed.
Think I’m making this one up? Check out Purchase Order #13123048 paid by the Purchasing Department at the request of Redevelopment Commission for $875,000. On that PO, it is noted that “NO COUNCIL APPROVAL IS REQUIRED.” However, that is in direct contradiction of City Ordinance 37.18, which essentially states that any $100,000 contract for goods and/or services has to be approved or ratified by City Council. The exception comes when the contract is $150,000 or less, for construction, as processed and reviewed by the Board of Public Works. [2] The Contract in question here is an $875,000 construction contract that is being processed through the Redevelopment Commission and exceeds the $150,000 cap.
Worse, is that the Redevelopment Commission tries to claim that this expenditure is authorized by Indiana Code 36-7-14-12.2 (which gives the Redevelopment Commission the authority to enter into contracts, but doesn’t dissolve their duty to get approval from City Council) and Fort Wayne City Ordinance 30.06 (which states that 3 members of the Redevelopment Commission are approved by the Mayor and 2 members are approved by City Council). [3][4] Neither of these legal authorities permits the Redevelopment Commission from NOT GAINING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL.
About two weeks ago, I wrote an article entitled PROPOSED WHEEL TAX TO FIX ROADS WON’T ACTUALLY REPAIR THE ROADS (AND 6 ALTERNATIVES TO “THE WHEEL TAX”). This article discussed the four basic assumptions that City Council is making about the wheel tax and it also provided 6 alternatives to the wheel tax, including an audit of the City’s existing resources. If you haven’t read it and shared it, please do. [5]
On May 24th, 2016, I sent an email to Fort Wayne City Council about how the homeless matter demonstrated that more oversight was needed. I cited how the City had a $4.2 million trash collection contract that provided for unlimited public litter barrels to be emptied weekly at no cost to the city, which would serve to eliminate the need for “clean ups” that were costing the City $16,000 annually because the City wouldn’t use the resources it had available. The $4.2 million trash collection contract also provided for the clean up of up to 10 “dump sites” at no additional charge to the City. I pointed out the expensive and wasteful irony of how the City has the resources to prevent a problem that it has spent money on to hire a third-party contractor and is now involved in litigation.
[2] § 37.18 APPROVAL OR RATIFICATION REQUIRED.
(A) Whenever the city, including any city-owned or operated utilities:
(1) Executes a contract which exceeds $100,000 per year for the purpose of providing goods and/or services to the city or any city-owned or operated utility, then, with the exception of those contracts governed by division (B) herein, all such purchases and/or leases for real property or such contracts shall be entered into with the prior approval or subsequent ratification by the Common Council of the city by ordinance or resolution duly passed by the Common Council and approved by the Mayor. All such purchases and/or leases and such contracts entered into without such prior approval or subsequent ratification shall be null and void.
(B) Notwithstanding division (A), prior approval or subsequent ratification by Common Council shall not be required for contracts entered into by the City (including any city-owned or operated utilities) for any contracts which:
(1) Are construction contracts with a total value of $150,000 or less that have been processed through and reviewed by the Board of Works in accord with all state and local requirements, have been subject to a public meeting and have been put out to public bid (in accord with the state statutes) and awarded to the lowest bidder.
(2) Are for commodities that have been competitively bid according to state statute and awarded to the lowest bidder. City Council shall receive a quarterly report from the administration on the commodities contracts awarded only for purchases of $100,000 or more.
(C) Collective bargaining agreement approval. A collective bargaining agreement between the city and a bargaining unit as provided by §§ 40.23 et seq., that is subject to approval by Common Council shall be introduced no later than the first regular or special meeting of the Common Council following receipt of notice to the city by the bargaining unit of ratification of the agreement by the bargaining unit's membership.
(Ord. G-13-12, passed 5-8-12; Am. Ord. G-21-14, passed 9-23-14)
[3]
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/36/7/14/36-7-14-12.2
[4] § 30.06 DEPARTMENT OF REDEVELOPMENT. The Department of Redevelopment controlled by a Board of five members to be known as the “Fort Wayne Redevelopment Commission,” three of which members shall be appointed by the Mayor and two of which members shall be appointed by the Common Council is hereby established pursuant to IC 36-7-14.
X
X
X
https://www.facebook.com/GinaMBurgess/posts/10209418506604438
X
DOUBLE BILLING---WHY IS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BOARD PAYING FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES ALREADY PAID FOR BY THE CITY OF FORT WAYNE? Hunden Strategic Partners (HSP) is the “consultant” contracted by the City of Fort Wayne to “research” whether or not the Downtown Arena should or should not be built in Fort Wayne. [1] HSP’s architectural designs have already been paid for. The designs came from Denver-based architect design firm Sink Combs Dethlefs, whose design for the proposed Downtown Arena have already been well-promoted by local media. [2][3] Matter of fact, a review of the drawing released in May, 2015 shows that it was originally designed in February, 2015 for a basketball arena that was being referred to as the Fort Wayne Event Center and was designed with 2,400 seats in mind.
On July 31, 2014, the City of Fort Wayne Controller Pat Roller entered into a 9-page written agreement with Hunden Strategic Partners. Terms of the agreement include a professional fee of $33,000, with an additional $6,000 for the optional conceptual drawings and budgets provided by an arena design firm (i.e. Sink Combs Dethlefs). [4] In addition to concept drawings were budgets. How else was HSP able to provide an estimated cost for the proposed Downtown arena if they, themselves, didn’t have Sink Combs Dethlefs crunch some numbers? In February, 2015, the original costs were estimated to be $63 million. [5] By March, 2016, the costs were somehow estimated to be $85 million, which would supposedly double seating from 2,400 to 5,000 or 6,000. [6]
(Btw, to those who are paying attention---see how the original costs were released in February, 2015 but the “study’s” findings weren’t released to the residents of Fort Wayne until May, 2015. Note that the date of the architectural drawings are also February, 2015. It’s interesting how information that should have been first released to the taxpayers of Fort Wayne were first released to Arena Digest. Very interesting, indeed.)
So this begs some questions:
1. Why is the taxpayer subsidized Capital Improvements Board using the food and beverage tax, which was supposed to pay off the Coliseum’s renovation debt (and hasn’t), to pay for an architectural drawing that has already been commissioned, paid for, and released? The City of Fort Wayne paid $6,000 in July, 2014.
2. Why is the Capital Improvements Board being put in charge of the “selection” (wink, wink) of the architect and engineering firm? [7]
x
x
X
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10209402374161137&set=a.1512152488599.66075.1378001731&type=3
X
Welcome to Fort Wayne where local government can do whatever it wants and accountability doesn't matter anyways....:-P
Am thinking that if we cut out the waste, stopped giving away abatements and "economic revitalization area" designations, and focused more on needs and less on "development dreams", maybe....just maybe we could afford to take care of our infrastructure (i.e. roads) and bussing issues. Just a thought...?? ;-) :-) :-D
X
https://www.facebook.com/GinaMBurgess/posts/10209402165835929
X
CAN’T “TIF” THIS! Ok, that was a really horrible play on the M.C. Hammer classic “Can’t Touch This,” but it somehow rings all too true. First, we need to have an understanding of what TIFs are. TIFs are special districts called Tax Incremental Finance Districts. Fort Wayne has a lot of special districts with special purposes, such as fire districts (Southwest Allen County Fire District) and water districts. (John Oliver does a really great job of educating folks on special districts in an entertaining way, so please see his video which I’ve linked below. [1]) Tax increment financing (TIF) is a public financing method that is used as a subsidy for redevelopment, infrastructure, and other community-improvement projects. [2][3] In a nutshell, TIFS are taxpayer dollars that are collected from improvements made within designated geographical boundaries of the and then put to use within that district.
Some of you are probably asking why I am trying to educate you about TIFs. Others are yawning. And who can blame anyone for yawning. TIFs are boooooring.
BUT these boring little TIFS are causing some problems. For example, in 2013, the “Civic Center” (Downtown) TIF was using more tax revenues than it was earning/collecting. [4] Now, how is that possible?
Let’s take a look at the Ash “Cash & Slash” Brokerage project. In 2015, Fort Wayne City Council voted to give the Ash project a tax abatement worth $4.3 million. [5] That City Council consisted of Tom Smith, Russ Jehl, Tom Didier, Mitch Harper, Geoff Paddock, Glynn Hines, Marty Bender, John Crawford and John Shoaff. In 2016, Fort Wayne City Council voted to approve a $4.1 million bond that would be paid for through tax increment financing revenue generated by the Ash project. [6] This City Council consisted of incumbents Russ Jehl, Tom Didier, Geoff Paddock, Glynn Hines, and John Crawford and newcomers Paul Ensley, Jason Arp, Michael Barranda, and Tom Freistroffer.
So we had two different City Councils, both consisting of the five same incumbents, engaging in actions that abated $4.1 million of tax revenues for 10 years and 12-months later relying on that abated tax revenue to underwrite a $4.3 million bond. Nice job guys (**sarcasem**)
For those that don’t realize this, a bond is for all practical purposes a loan. [7] This means that City Council approved the taking out of a loan by relying on tax revenues that won’t be available for ten years. That may or may not cause a problem. Why? Bonds are different from loans in that most loans are repaid in monthly increments. Bonds generally aren’t repaid until the end of the finance term.
But the problem is that we don’t know what the terms of the bond are? Are the bonds premium or discounted? What is the interest rate? When is repayment due/length of bond? Which financial institution is involved in the holding of the bond? If the bond doesn’t come due until a decade out---and I believe that is what the hope here is---what guarantee will there be that the TIF district can produce enough revenue when the bond does come due? Any taxes due will likely be reduced due to the age of the improvements for which the abatements are premised.
Perhaps the real question here is why are bonds being approved where the payments are supposed to come from TIF tax revenues, when TIF tax revenues are being depleted? And why didn’t City Council ask these questions when they, themselves, had the chance? And really, should City Council be touching TIDs right now, given the tax revenue losses being suffered by the Civic Center TIF District?
X
Geoff Paddock, Jason Arp, Michael Barranda or Tom Freistroffer -- Can one of you explain the terms of the bond that was approved for the Ash Skyline project?
And why are we willingly paying nearly $10 million to service a $25 million bond that we originally bonded in 2003 and then refinanced that bond in 2012 supposedly at a lower interest rate? This bond won't be paid off until 2028. And are you aware that our Standard & Poor rating has dropped to AA-? For more info:https://gateway.ifionline.org/report.../Default3a.aspx...
The Report Viewer Web Control HTTP Handler has not been registered in the application's web.config file. Add <add verb="*" path="Reserved.ReportViewerWebControl.axd" type = "Microsoft.Reporting.WebForms.HttpHandler, Microsoft.ReportViewer.WebForms, Version=10.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b...
X
COMMENTARY AND INFORMATION ABOUT DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT ETC:
LINK:
https://www.facebook.com/GinaMBurgess/posts/10209372339290284
X
https://www.facebook.com/GinaMBurgess/posts/10206665617183923
X
https://www.facebook.com/GinaMBurgess/posts/10206665617183923
X
Gina Burgess
$6 MILLION DOLLARS TO START RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT – WHAT PATH WILL RIVERFRONT TAKE? WILL IT GO THE WAY OF HARRISON SQUARE? ASH BROKERAGE? VERA BRADLEY? Tonight, City Council will be tripping over itself trying to give pats on the backs and accolades for the recent (and much needed) re-investment in GM. To a degree, some of those kudos are warranted. How much of a degree depends on your perspective. GM is in bad need of investment, but GM is also located outside of Fort Wayne city limits. It’s located in the County near Roanoke, right by Vera Bradley. Personally, any City official trying to get accolades for a County and State funding matter should be reminded of their duties to the constituents inside of the city limits. Yes, jobs were maintained---rumors are that jobs will be created, but trust me on this one….those are rumors. (Unless you consider temporary, part-time, transitional work a job, but that’s a topic for another day.)
No, tonight, City Council should and, to their credit, will be focused on whether or not to approve the rubber-stamped approval of the Legacy Fund Review committee’s “go” for $6 million dollars to be spent from the Legacy Trust Fund on the start of Riverfront Development. Someone might ask the occasional question, but it’s after the Primaries and everyone is feeling pretty comfortable and confident in their positions—so its doubtful that the kind of questions that need to be asked, will indeed be asked.
If I were on Council, I’d be asking the serious hard-hitting questions:
• Like why does SWA’s renderings feature more people in and about the riverfront than the artistic renderings that were used by the Walt Disney World Company in developing “Downtown Disney”? Are we really expected to believe that Fort Wayne’s riverfront will bring in more tourist than one of most popular tourist attractions in the world??? No offense, I think a refund from that consultant, SWA, is due….unless, of course, they were instructed by the administration to make the riverfront development project look as popular as possible. Then the Administration owes the City a refund.
• What have the projected costs been for other similar projects in City’s of similar size? And if no cost comparison can be found, why not? Is the project the largest of its kind for a City of Fort Wayne’s size? Then what is the cost for a project of similar size and scope from the city that most closely matches Fort Wayne in terms of geography, size, population and climate? How many of those projects came in at cost, under budget and over budget?
• Given the amount of “economic development” Fort Wayne has endured over the past decade, which path is Riverfront Development expected to follow: (A) Harrison Square – a project estimated by the Graham Richards administration to be developed at a public-private redevelopment cost of $110 million, with an estimate current value of $54.5 million (Parkview Field=$30 million; Parking Garage =$10 million; and the Harrison = $14.5 million), with an estimated outstanding public debt due of $75 million (as of 2010). [1][2][3] (B) Ash Brokerage -- where the initial public “investment” was going to be $19.5 million and then magically ballooned to $39 million, according to the City’s Community Development department. What the actual debt load will be for the bond, interest, insurance, maintenance, etc. remains to be seen. [4] (C) Vera Bradley – where millions were given in tax abatements for the purpose of creating and retaining jobs only to have less jobs shipped overseas. [5] One of Vera Bradley’s co-owners certainly made off nicely, however, with a $17 million condo in New York City. [6]
So exactly what can we, mere Fort Wayne residents, expect to be footing if the Riverfront Development racket gets started? Now that is the best of all questions that will undoubtedly go unasked.
X
X
https://www.facebook.com/GinaMBurgess/posts/10209372302049353
X
Gina Burgess
BUYERS BEWARE— IS THE DOWNTOWN ARENA STUDY FLAWED? I have been waiting patiently for the past month for the Mayor’s Downtown Arena Study Committee, as headed up by Chuck Surack, to release their findings or at least to give a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” assessment. During that time, I’ve read all 36 pages of the Downtown Arena Executive Summary and the 188 pages of the Downtown Arena Study, as prepared by Hunden Strategic Partners, the same folks who were used to garner public support for the most recent expansion of the Grand Wayne Convention Center. [1][2][3]
After my review of all documents, it’s become painfully clear that this “study” is nothing more than paid propaganda aimed at providing evidence that a new “Downtown arena” would be feasible and, of course, anything that is Downtown and “feasible” is good for all this so-called Downtown “economic development.” Now, some of you may think my assessment is jaded and to my doubters I cordially invite you to read through these documents first-hand. Any good-faith review is going to reveal the following:
1. The study was conducted by Hunden Strategic Partners (HSP), the same folks who have performed similar work in the past to provide evidence that the Grand Wayne Center expansion was necessary. (I’ll have more on this company tomorrow with plenty of references.)
2. HSP’s main theme throughout the study is that a stadium is needed to bring events to Downtown during the winter months. That the purpose of these events is to provide needed pedestrian traffic to existing and developing restaurant and retailers, which need year-round demand to survive. Do you understand what is happening here? The Henry administration (backed by Harper and the rest of City Council, supported by DID, Greater Fort Wayne, etc) “sells” the idea to the public that there is enough pre-existing interest in Downtown to support building a new stadium when in reality a new stadium is needed to support Downtown “economic development” projects. Sincerely, this is darn-near textbook “bait and switch.”
3. HSP fails to acknowledge the Grand Wayne Center as having the flexibility to act as an entertainment venue, but oddly enough recognizes C2C Music Hall. Folks—anyone who has been to a HolidayFest concert at the Grand Wayne Center knows it has the capability of doubling as an “entertainment venue.”
4. HSP’s report is dependent upon and assumes that the area’s largest employers will remain in the area. Ironically, that includes Vera Bradley who downsized their workforce just this past year, sending jobs overseas to China.
5. HSP tries to position a new Downtown arena as an alternative venue to the Coliseum, but admits that the new arena would be a competitor of the Coliseum. In an effort to emphasize what appears to be a manufactured need, the HSP survey claims that the Mad Ants and the Derby Girls are not satisfied with the Coliseum. Personally, that is a hard sell given the reality that neither of these organizations would be in existence today without the Coliseum. And really, just what exactly is the extent of their “not being satisfied”?
6. HSP makes some really bad assumptions throughout their report. One of the claims is their acknowledgement that Fort Wayne residents travel to Indy, South Bend, and elsewhere for events, which is then followed by a gross assumption that if a comparative event venue were built in Fort Wayne for similar sporting events, entertainment acts, etc. that residents from Indy, South Bend and elsewhere would travel to Fort Wayne. Seriously, what were these guys smoking? That’s like saying someone who lives in Florida near Walt Disney World is going to go out of their way to visit Indiana Beach. Do you really think that is going to happen?
7. HSP then goes on to compare other arenas, but the comparisons are nearly all faulty. Of the 6 arenas being “compared,” only one arena was proper. That arena was the Budweiser Event Center in Loveland, Colorado. Why was that the only appropriate comparison? Because of the 6 communities compared—Loveland was the closest in population and demographics to Fort Wayne.
8. HSP also tries to make the argument that it would be good if Fort Wayne was on the first itinerary of major events, but then as it clumsily tries to explain how a Downtown arena would not be in competition with the Coliseum (and simultaneously in competition with the Coliseum)—HSP actually makes a solid counterpoint to its own argument. How? HSP affirms that by not being on the “first itinerary,” Fort Wayne is actually able to capitalize on that position by taking advantage of “off days” of major touring acts. Interestingly, the only “first itinerary” venue in all of Indiana is the Banker’s Life Fieldhouse. This means none of the other venues in Indianapolis and none of the venues in South Bend are “first itinerary” venues. That’s not too uncommon as most states only have one “first itinerary” town. So, of course, this begs the question---with most States only have one “first itinerary” town and Indianapolis being that designated location here in Indiana, just what the heck are we trying to do??? Besides setting ourselves up for a financial failure by building a stadium that won’t be able to support itself?
9. HSP advocates a design that would primarily benefit the Mad Ants and create “opportunities” for NBA exhibition events---like the kind already being hosted at the Coliseum---and touts the possibility of Fort Wayne hosting the NCAA play-off games. What? First, do you really think Indy is going to give THAT up without a fight? Secondly, why would the NCAA look at Fort Wayne, when they can look to larger cities like Indy, Cleveland and Chicago—all within a few hours drive and a half hour flight from Fort Wayne? Please don’t get me wrong---I’m all for Fort Wayne trying to bring in more conventions, tournaments, etc. to boost local tourism, but we need to focus on a obtaining a consistent stream of well-known mid-size events so that our local tourism industry can gain the experience needed to manage a larger event of NCAA caliber. Otherwise, we set ourselves up to be a one horse town.
10. HSP admits the cost of building a stadium is significant, admits that the local economy is weak and cyclical (true story, check it out), and that this venue would be in direct competition with the Coliseum. But then it goes on to discuss a “management fee” of $200,000+ a year and how this “management fee” DOES NOT INCLUDE the salary or benefits of the permanent staff, the arena’s utilities, or maintenance. So just what does this “management fee” cover? Nothing except lining for someone’s pockets. (Same thing is happening with Parkview Field as has happened with other private-public partnership projects of the past. Remember the Public Safety Academy??) Worse, HSP admits to a NET OPERATING DEFICIT of $231,000 (year 1) and how that deficit will actually GROW to become $817,000 (year 10). And---really can’t believe there is an “and” here---AND the naming rights is being counted as REVENUE instead of just being a typical fundraising catalyst to help pay off the initial debt service. (At least Parkview’s naming rights of Parkview Field went to help pay down the initial debt service. So what are we doing here??)
11. Now, for all of you optimists out there who still want to believe that all this “downtown development” is a good thing…good for the economy, good for job creation, etc.---Please, please, please read through the study. HSP admits that a Downtown arena could….COULD (as in not definitely, but perhaps maybe)…create up to 196 full-time EQUIVALENT jobs. That’s not permanent jobs. That’s not full-time jobs. That is full-time “equivalent” jobs---meaning multiple part-time jobs that will most likely be minimum wage. Worse, HSP admits that these jobs will be created by the Downtown stadium project, but that these jobs will not be onsite. So, just where will these jobs be? Well, with the recommended location being beside the Grand Wayne Center, between the other recent public-private partnership projects of the Downtown Library (recently expanded) and Parkview Field (recently built)—after eliminating Taco Bell, Rally’s and King Gyros (or about 196 full-time “equivalent” jobs)—these jobs are likely to come from the 3 street level restaurants being recommended as part of the Downtown arena project. But isn’t that onsite? Yes it is….and probably indicative of yet another textbook “bait and switch.” Alternatively, this proposed site is also right next to the up-and-being-developed Ash “Cash & Slash” Brokerage site—which originally promised 200 non-descript jobs. Hhhhmm….???
Folks, as of December 31, 2014, Fort Wayne’s debt load was $754,641,718. This project is already reporting significant operating deficits---just like all the municipally-owned parking garages and most of the other Downtown development projects. The project touts the creation of 196 full-time “equivalent” jobs, but doesn’t come clean on the fact that it will be displacing about 196 full-time “equivalent” workers. Besides getting in debt, creating another project that will have to be taxpayer subsidized directly (and indirectly---utilities, maintenance, security, etc.), what exactly are we doing here??
Whatever you view—whether you agree with this project or disagree with this project, please take some time and read through the study for yourself. See for yourself whether you find this study to be as flawed as I did.
_______
SOURCES:
X
X
https://www.facebook.com/GinaMBurgess/posts/10209351588131518
X
EMAIL TO CITY COUNCIL
michaelbarranda@gmail.com, jncrawfordmd@gmail.com, freistrofferatlarge@gmail.com, paul@paulensley.com, russ@russjehl.com, tdidiers5@frontier.com, jasonarpcitycouncil@gmail.com, geoffreypaddock@aol.com, glynnhines@aol.com, Clerk@cityoffortwayne.org
RE: HOMELESS LAWSUIT MAY DEMONSTRATE THAT NEW WHEEL TAX IS UNNECESSARY
Good afternoon everyone! I’m hoping this email finds each of you doing very well, maybe even enjoying a bit of the great outdoors on this beautiful day.
I am writing this email to ask that you consider tabling any discussion tonight on a new wheel tax. My reasoning is that a new tax is being proposed on several assumptions, one of which is that the City doesn’t have enough money to repair roads. In my opinion, there are four assumptions being made with regards to this proposed new tax and six alternatives to creating a new tax that are being overlooked. [1]
My focus in this email, however, is more “housekeeping.” Simply stated, I sincerely believe that an audit is needed. Usually when an audit is requested, it suggests some sort of wrong-doing. In the past, I have suggested such an audit. But my proposing an audit this time around has nothing to do with finding wrong-doing and more to do about figuring out what resources the City actually has at its disposal.
And I’m going to use the homeless lawsuit as an example. In an April 29th, 2016, interview with WANE-TV, Public Safety Director Rusty York discusses that the reason for all the homeless encampment evictions is because they represent a public health and safety issue. To support that claim, he asked the Allen County Health Department to provide an assessment of the homeless encampment then located under the Ewing Street Bridge (more commonly referred to as the Wells Street Bridge). Mindy Waldron performed the assessment and provided City Attorney Carol Helton with a detailed 3-page assessment that included photographs and lists various health and safety violations.
Personally, I have worked with Mindy Waldron in the past and generally, find her to be fair. In the 3-page report from the Allen County Health Department, all violations had to do with solid waste management. Specifically, urine, feces and trash. I am in agreement that these items are problems. I’m attaching her letter to this email for your convenient review.
As many of you know, I have been advocating on behalf of the homeless since November, 2011. Part of my advocacy has been for (1) emergency winter warming shelters when temperatures drop below freezing and (2) preventing the need for homeless “clean ups” (evictions). As many of you know, I’m not a big believe of hand-outs, but I am a strong believer in hand-ups. Meaning don’t harm people in bad situations, but rather help them access tools to help them help themselves.
As part of my advocacy for preventing homeless “clean ups”, I’ve suggested providing portable toilets to the five known encampments that are regularly targeted for clean ups. I’ve also suggested providing additional public litter barrels at various points along the Rivergreenway, with an emphasis on proximity to known homeless encampments. The key counterpoint to my ideas has always been “how is the City going to pay for this?”
Regrettably, the City is already paying for this. Actually the City is paying for it twice and then some.
In addition to the above-mentioned Allen County Health Department assessment, I am also attaching the 38-page $4.2 million solid waste management contract awarded to Republic Services (dba National Serve-All). This is a 7 year contract that began effective January 1, 2011, and includes the following provisions:
The last paragraph of page 15 of this Contract specifies that “...Contractor shall furnish weekly refuse weekly collection service for all public litter barrels in the City. Locations of public litter barrels are attached hereto as Appendix D. CONTRACTOR MUST EMPTY ANY ADDITIONAL LITTER BARRELS THAT MAY BE ADDED TO THIS LIST THROUGHOUT THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT...” (Emphasis added)
The second paragraph of page 16 of this Contract specifies that “…Contractor will be required to periodically pick up a maximum of 10 illegal dump sites per month when the need arises….”
Paragraph numbered 4 on page 5, entitled “Contract Price,” specifies that there would be “…$ NO CHARGE per litter barrel per collection…” for public litter barrels? (Emphasis added)
Gentlemen -- Mayor Tom Henry signed this 7 year $4.2 million waste disposal contract with Republic Services d/b/a National Serv-All on page 29 on August 18th, 2010. The City has been making regular payments on this contract pursuant to Purchase Order #16027003. [2] Councilman Tom Didier and Councilman Glynn Hines ratified this contract on August 24, 2010, by way of Bill S-10-08-19, also referenced as Special Ordinance S-99-10. I am attaching this Ordinance for your convenient review.
Instead of letting Republic Services provide the services for which they have been contracted and for which the City is handsomely paying, another vendor was brought in to provide the same services. This vendor is Clean X-treme. [3] I’ve personally watched Clean X-treme in action on at least one occasion and they do the same job of picking up items and hauling items away as any other garbage collection company does. Why are we paying two different vendors for the same job?
Additionally, the City, by way of the Parks Department, frequently uses the portable toilet services of King’s John Services, Inc. From March 9 2011 through May 11, 2016, there have been over 80 payments made for services exceeding $30,000. [4] That seems like a pretty good deal, but I can’t tell you the terms of the contract because there is no contract. There is no purchase order. There are only checks that have been registered and provided to the public online.
Gentlemen---This means with regards to the homeless encampment “clean ups,” the City has always had the means and the ways to prevent the very “clean ups” that are now the basis of a needless lawsuit. Literally, the City spent money on Vendor B to do the pre-paid contractual work of Vendor A and is now defending itself in a lawsuit, spending who knows how many thousands of taxpayer dollars unnecessarily. All because the City chose not to use the resources it already had at it’s disposal.
Sadly, the City has employed two attorneys in this matter. The first attorney is Carol Helton, whom I believe is paid a salary. The second attorney is Carolyn Trier of the Trier Law Firm. That law firms (and dozens of others) are being paid more than $100,000 annually in services for which there is no contract, no purchase order, no RFP or RFQ, no “lowest bidder” and no oversight. [5]
According to Fort Wayne City Ordinance 37.18 (A)(1) “Whenever the city, including any city-owned or operated utilities: Executes a contract which exceeds $100,000 per year for the purpose of providing goods and/or services to the city or any city-owned or operated utility, then, with the exception of those contracts governed by division (B) herein, all such purchases and/or leases for real property or such contracts shall be entered into with the prior approval or subsequent ratification by the Common Council of the city by ordinance or resolution duly passed by the Common Council and approved by the Mayor.”
Further, according to Fort Wayne City Ordinance § 37.19(A): “The city shall utilize one of the selection processes for selection of professional services if the estimated cost of professional services for the contract is greater than $100,000. One project may not be divided into multiple separate statements of work in order to avoid the $100,000 threshold unless there is a separate RFP for each individual project segment. Payments greater than $100,000 in any given year to a particular professional services firm will be strictly scrutinized by City Council for compliance with this subchapter.” (Emphasis added)
Additionally, pursuant to Fort Wayne City Ordinance § 37.04, entitled “MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORTS TO COMMON COUNCIL,” each of you are entitled to receive reports that you have not been receiving, pursuant to these provisions:
(A) The City Controller shall cause to be prepared and transmitted a monthly financial report to members of the Common Council.
(B) The monthly financial report shall include the total expenditures of the major funds of the city for the prior month, total revenues by source received by the city of and allocated to the major funds of the city, and year-to-date totals of revenue and expenditures by the major funds.
(C) The monthly report shall be transmitted to members of the Common Council by the twenty-first day of the month following the month which is the subject of the report.
If members of City Council are not getting these monthly reports, if City Council is not approving and ratifying hundreds of thousands of dollars in goods and services being purchased with or without contract, all the while City Council is handing out various forms of economic development incentives (i.e. tax abatements, “economic revitalization area” designations, tax credits, etc.), how is conceivable that City Council actually knows just how much money the City has or doesn’t have? How could you possibly know what you don’t know?
Sincerely, during the homeless matter, many of you on the prior City Council kept saying how your “hands were tied” in the matter. One of those people was Councilman Tom Didier---one of the ratifiers of the attached $4.2 million solid waste management contract that I’ve detailed above, which was personally signed by Tom Henry. The same Tom Henry whose Administration has been spending money on clean-up services provided by Clean X-treme that were already contractually obligated to be provided by Republic Services (dba National Serv-All).
Sadly, this is just one of many real life examples that I think you will come across if an audit is performed. Look at what is happening in the City Clerk’s office for another real life example of not knowing how much money is or isn’t available/is or isn’t outstanding?
You cannot possibly move forward in good faith with any new tax proposals until there is some financial housekeeping done. Humbly and sincerely, I would think it would be in everyone’s best interest if all spending by City Council was temporarily suspended until financial records are audited. Otherwise, how can you possibly know where the City finances are at, what there is or isn’t available to work with. I have more examples if any of you are interest.
My apologies for the timing of this email, but I felt you should be aware.
Respectfully,
Gina Burgess
_________
SOURCES:
X
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10209351584931438&set=pcb.10209351588131518&type=3
X
x
X
X
X
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
