IBJNews

Ballard to raise millions through utility, meter deals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Year In Review

Two controversial transactions Mayor Greg Ballard pushed through in his third year in office are designed to provide millions of dollars for roads, bridges and sidewalks.

In the spring, Ballard, a Republican, introduced a proposal to sell the city’s water and sewer utilities to Citizens Energy Group, the public charitable trust that owns Citizens Gas. About six months later, he rolled out a deal to lease the city’s parking meters to a private operator for 50 years in exchange for an upfront payment and ongoing operating revenue. That plan includes installing new parking meters that accept credit cards.

The utility deal was approved by the City-County Council in late summer and is awaiting support from Indiana utility regulators. The council gave the parking meter lease its final nod this fall.

If the water and sewer transaction gets final approval, it will free up $435 million for city infrastructure and transfer $1.5 billion in utility debt to Citizens. City leaders said the deal would curb projected rate increases and remove politics from utilities management by transferring authority to Citizens, a not-for-profit with a board whose appointments aren’t political.

But the deal has drawn critics, particularly those who question Citizens’ ability to generate the $60 million in annual savings the company has pledged it can produce to pay off the debt for the purchase.

The parking-meter lease to Dallas-based Affiliated Computer Services Inc. has stirred even more controversy. Arguments that the city is tying its hands with a long-term lease—and criticisms that Indianapolis’ deal resembles a controversial Chicago parking lease—prompted the city to change the terms of the lease to get a smaller upfront payment of $20 million and more money, an estimated $363.2 million, over the life of the deal. That money will be spent on roads and other infrastructure near the meters.

City leaders also added a clause that gives the city the right to terminate the deal, though termination would come with a penalty of at least $19.8 million. The changes didn’t appease some critics, who said the city could operate a revamped meter system on its own.•

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