IBJNews

Ballard veto hints at plan to increase police on streets

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Mayor Greg Ballard on Thursday vetoed a measure to free up $6 million to pay for new police recruits, saying he has a plan that will move about 100 existing officers to the streets.

Ballard claimed that Proposal No. 141, which called for $6 million in Rebuild Indy funds to hire a new class of police recruits, was “an unsustainable, one-time funding model that would leave us unable to pay for the officers and their equipment in future years.”

Instead, Ballard said that he and public safety officials planned to release a plan within a few weeks that would move 100 officers from desk jobs to the street and “help reduce crime and does not add to our budget deficit.”

In sketchy details provided to the city clerk in his veto, Ballard hinted that civilians could be used in roles that would allow officers to return to patrol.

Development of the recommendation is being led by Public Safety Director Troy Riggs and Police Chief Rick Hite, Ballard said.

Republican City-County Councilor Christine Scales introduced Proposal No. 141, which was passed by the council earlier this month in a bipartisan vote. The measure was co-sponsored by Democratic Majority Leader Vernon Brown.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Grow up
    Buy a weapons permit and PROTECT YOURSELF, like nature intended. 90% of the calls to police are a waste. Real Men dont need the worthless government defending them. Grow a pair or move to France
  • MSam I Am
    You're forgetting that every year there is attrition among police officers. Their salaries are already on the books, already part of the budget. The new officers would simply be replacing the older, higher paid officers. Oh, and you're also overlooking that our Mayor has already pledged $6 million from that fund for cricket. It's the Mayor who has been irresponsible with our tax dollars.
  • police
    When is the mayor & council going to get on the same page - mayor earlier this year supported the plan being presented by his fellow republican council memebers - again mayor is lost - have no respect for his decision making
  • Makes Sense
    Look at it like this, that 6M is a one time deal for one year. At the end of that year, how do you continue to pay for it? Do you lay off, or god forbid the taxpayers actually pony up a little extra to keep those 100 officers on? We already know the taxpayers won't pony up even if it's in their best interest. Basically the short sighted plan by the CCC gets officers for one year and then forced to reduce the count next year. If we can get 100 officers currently assigned to desk jobs on the streets, you still gain the 100 officers and they are already accounted for in the budget so they stay.
    • Police
      Hmmmmm$6M...isn't that the same number Ballard is spending on the cricket boondogle? I would rather have more police and public safety.

    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. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

    2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

    3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

    4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

    5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

    ADVERTISEMENT