It’s time to put aside the “political winners and losers” discussion about Mayor Peterson’s local government restructuring plan and begin a serious review of the plan’s impact on taxpayers. First and foremost taxpayers need to be assured that this is a real plan that will result in improved services, greater efficiencies and more accountability. Everyone recognizes the Mayor’s good intentions, but what matters are results.

It is clear we need to know more about the plan’s fiscal impact. A recent Star article reported that the Peterson Administration has not fully detailed their predicted cost savings and they acknowledged that they are still working on the fiscal estimates. We shouldn’t assume that bigger is always better.  Consolidation presents the potential for cost savings, but each recommendation needs to be specifically examined.

Most taxpayers are not concerned with the color of the police car or fire truck that respond to a call; they simply want to know that public safety officials will respond quickly when the need arises. It is clear that the Sheriff needs more road deputies. If there is to be more sharing of law enforcement resources because of the consolidation of IPD and the Sheriff’s Department, it is presumed that IPD officers will be helping with calls in areas previously covered by the Sheriff. If that occurs, how will the citizens living within the “old City limits” be better served by a reduction in police officers responding to their calls? It seems that the only way we can increase coverage to neighborhoods in the outlying parts of the county without negatively impacting the inner-city neighborhoods is to add more police officers. It is obvious that comes at a significant cost to all taxpayers.

If Township Fire Departments and IFD are to be consolidated, will residents actually see faster response time to fire runs? That isn’t likely. We are told there will be savings of $19 million by this consolidation but it is not clear how that can happen. To save that kind of money it would seem that we have to eliminate human resources and that would be devastating to our neighborhoods. There has not been clear evidence that this kind of consolidation will save $19 million. In fact, it seems that neighborhoods in the Townships will likely see a property tax increase because the rate they currently pay for fire protection is extremely low. Spreading the costs of all fire-fighting operations around the county may cause a decrease in the current IFD district but it has to result in an increase of the tax rate for fire fighting in the outlying neighborhoods.

It would be helpful to better understand the Mayor’s priorities in the next few years. We are told that this plan must be adopted in order to avert a massive tax increase for Marion County taxpayers. So it would seem that saving money is an important priority, yet the mayor is planning to borrow $100 million in 2005 to fund budget shortfalls and we are told it is likely there will be a new $450-500 million stadium built. Taxpayers are receiving mixed messages about the priorities being established on our behalf.

Finally, the Mayor’s plan doesn’t address a key problem that was identified during last year’s property tax crisis. Marion County has over forty independent entities with the authority to raise property taxes. Last year, I endorsed legislation that would give the Mayor and the Council the authority to approve or veto tax proposals initiated by these entities. That recommendation is not contained in the Mayor’s plan. Instead the Mayor is proposing the creation of yet another new taxing entity with the authority to raise millions of dollars for police and fire pensions.

It’s time to say enough is enough. Congress can’t raise taxes without the President’s signature. The Legislature can’t raise taxes without the Governor’s approval. The only real way to control local taxes and local spending is to increase the accountability of these entities to the Council and the Mayor. I hope this legislative change in included in Mayor Peterson’s final recommendation to the legislature.