530 likes | 614 Views
Intergovernmental Issues in Indiana 2010 IACIR Survey. Results. 2010 Themes. Community conditions Effects of property tax caps Responses to property tax caps and revenue reductions Service arrangements Pensions, health insurance, and training Infrastructure 9-1-1 and 2-1-1.
E N D
Intergovernmental Issues in Indiana2010 IACIR Survey Results
2010 Themes • Community conditions • Effects of property tax caps • Responses to property tax caps and revenue reductions • Service arrangements • Pensions, health insurance, and training • Infrastructure • 9-1-1 and 2-1-1
Responses by County • Began asking to identify local government in 2008 • 2010 survey respondents: • Represent 370 individual local governments • At least one local government from every county, except Fayette County.
Top Five Issues Identified Most Often as Improved Since Last Year
Top Five Issues Identified Most Often as Worsened Since Last Year
Top Five Issues Ranked as Most Improved During the Past Year
Top Five Issues Ranked as Most Deteriorated During the Past Year
Top Five Issues Ranked as Most Important to Work on over the Next Two Years
TIF and Tax Abatement • Counties and municipalities continue to use TIF and tax abatement (151) • Generally, reported using tax abatement more than TIF • Generally, report using both tools more in 2010 than in 2009.
Responses to Property Tax Caps and Reduced Revenue • Revenue • Hiring, salaries/benefits, training • Operational changes • Specific service cuts • Changes in service arrangements
Responses to Property Tax Caps and Reduced Revenue • General • Froze or reduced employees salaries/wages • Stopped hiring • Cut or delayed capital expenditures • Cut or reduced training and travel • Reduced spending on roads and streets • Operational changes 6. Reduced benefits/increased employee contributions
Responses to Property Tax Caps and Reduced Revenue • Counties • Froze or reduced employees salaries/wages • Stopped hiring • Reduced spending on roads and streets • Cut or delayed capital expenditures 5. Reduced benefits/increased employee contributions
Responses to Property Tax Caps and Reduced Revenue • Cities and towns • Froze or reduced employees salaries/wages • Reduced spending on roads and streets • Stopped hiring • Made operational changes 4. Reduced spending on parks
Responses to Property Tax Caps and Reduced Revenue • Townships • Stopped hiring 1. Froze or reduced employees salaries/wages 3. Cut or reduced training and travel 4. Froze or reduced employees salaries/wages 5. Reduced spending on roads and streets
Responses to Property Tax Caps and Reduced Revenue • Schools • Cut or reduced training and travel • Froze or reduced employees salaries/wages 2. Stopped hiring 4. Reduced benefits/increased employee contributions 5. Made operational changes
Service Arrangements • Internal resources • Agreement with another local governments • Agreement with a private firm • Agreement with a nonprofit
Service Arrangements • Other local government • Juvenile detention (51%) • Vocation education (41%) • Special education (38%) • Property assessment (36%) • Emergency dispatch (34%)
Service Arrangements • For profit firm • Solid waste (20%) • Property tax assessment (15%) • Juvenile detention (12%) • Emergency medical services (12%) • Drinking water utility (11%)
Service Arrangements • Nonprofit • Vocational education (23%) • Special education (18%) • Economic development (17%) • Emergency medical services (8%) • Fire services (7%)
Intergovernmental Cooperation • Cooperative purchasing • 38% of officials report cooperative purchasing • School boards 77% • Mayors 55% • Commissioners 46% • Increases from 2008 in all groups except township trustees
Intergovernmental Cooperation • Changes in cooperative activity over the last year • Except for cities, a majority of other officials report “stayed about the same” • 61% of mayors reported an increase in cooperative activity • 49% of school board members
Intergovernmental Cooperation • Relationships with other local governments in county • Local governments report positive relationships with other local governments • More reported having a relationship and having more positive relationships than in 2001.
Intergovernmental Cooperation • Conclusion • Evidence of increased cooperation among local governments • Additional opportunities available
Local Government Benefits – Pension/Retirement Contributions
Local Government Benefits – Responses to Increasing Health Costs
Local Government Benefits – Increasing Health Insurance Costs
Local Government Benefits – Responses to Increasing Health Costs
Local Government Benefits – Responses to Increasing Health Costs
Infrastructure Investment • A majority of respondents reported adequate investment in all infrastructure categories, except roads and streets. • Public school performance and athletics (18%), public library facilities (10%), and public school classrooms (9%) chosen most often for overinvestment
Infrastructure Investment • Underinvestment: • Local roads and streets (56%) • Highways (44%) • Storm sewers (38%) • Bridges (36%) • Parks (32%) • Public school classrooms (31%)
Funding Options for Roads and Streets • Earmark state sales tax revenue from motor vehicle fuel purchases for roads (68%) • Remove State Police from MVH (48%) • Exempt local gov’ts from state gas tax (36%) • Increase state gas tax (34%)
2-1-1 • 2-1-1 is a service that allows citizens to dial a simple number to get help with health and human services • 2-1-1 services provide referrals to a variety of organizations, including community, faith-based, and government agencies