IBJNews

Anderson reduces cuts to fire, police departments

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

The Anderson City Council approved a 2013 budget that will allow the central Indiana city to lay off fewer police officers and firefighters than the mayor had proposed because of a projected decline in tax revenues.

The council voted 8-1 Monday night to approve the budget, which cuts nine firefighter and three police officer positions instead of the 20 firefighter and nine police positions Mayor Kevin Smith proposed, The Herald Bulletin reported.

Dozens of people packed the council chambers as members approved $1.3 million in alternative cuts and directed money to the police and fire departments.

Smith said the council's plan will leave the city with no operating balance, "little if any contingency funds," and ongoing uncertainty about how much tax revenue it will actually collect.

The proposal from council Vice President David Eicks cuts spending from areas such as police and firefighter training, municipal development and parks. The plan also cuts three positions each from the municipal development office and the street department.

"The intent of this was to try and eliminate any layoffs," Eicks said.

The 2013 city spending plan offered the mayor would have left the 56,000-person city with 107 police officers and 104 firefighters.

Off-duty police officers, firefighters, their families and other city union employees filled the City Council room for its two-hour budget debate after hundreds protested the proposed cuts during a rally earlier this month.

Kelsey Carter, the wife of an Anderson firefighter, told the council she understood "there's only so much money in the pot," but argued that cutting public safety jobs could endanger the lives of the remaining police officers and firefighters.

"I would urge you as a council not to cut even one," she said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. First, the Athenaeum is going to have to get past the hurdle with the Lockerbie residents and the agreement that the parcel would be residential. Second, and in my opinion, this prime piece of property should include parking, PLUS, a black box theater(s), some market rate and affordable artist housing and a plan to renovate and reconfigure the second story theater. I would negotiate to add the DeHaan property surface parking lot into the development mix, place a one story surface parking garage on the DeHaan lot on the street level (for the Dehaan tenants use during the daytime) and add a second story to the garage that would become an addition to the current second story theater and then change the direction of the theater by moving the stage across the alley and on top of the DeHaan lot parking. You can add all the stage elements that are currently missing from the Athenaeum stage to make it more attractive for use by Ballet, Opera and traveling productions. Plus, the theater changes would probably help solve some of the soundproofing issues. Alas,it does not seem to be a part of the strategic plan to conduct a study to determine best use of the property. Seems like the current plan is a quick and easy move that ignores the property best use/potential and any strategic property planning for the effect on future generations.

  2. I recall that MSA's pilings are still in the ground and hard to remove. It’s not likely any proposal will include significant underground construction/parking because of this. Start adding 2 floors of retail, 8 floors of parking and 5-10 floors of possible hotel, and/or 10-20 floors of residential, and you are at 30 floors already with possible expansion of all the uses. But then again I could be wrong.

  3. Accoriding to their website there is no deadline to the Do Not Call list. What is this article referring to??

  4. On what planet are they entitled to this largesse from the stockholders? These people make multi-million dollar salaries: Pay for your own personal travel.

  5. It matters because they're already paid enormously fat salaries: Pay for your own personal travel. Being "taxed on it" isn't a valid excuse--so what? They're still being gifted a raft of luxury perks from somebody else's money on top of an enormous, lavish salary.

ADVERTISEMENT