IBJNews

Anderson reduces cuts to fire, police departments

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

  5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.

ADVERTISEMENT