IBJNews

CIB audit shows agency finances improving

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Capital Improvement Board’s financial outlook is looking a lot less gloomy as it continues to negotiate over who will pay Conseco Fieldhouse operating costs.

The CIB’s 2009 audit report, issued to the City-County Council’s Municipal Corporations Committee Thursday evening, shows the agency was $10 million in the black last year compared with a loss of $16.8 million in 2008.

Revenue slipped 4.6 percent, to $123.1 million. But the decrease was offset by an even more dramatic drop in expenses, which fell 22.5 percent, to $113.1 million in 2009.

The CIB has improved its finances by making $26 million in cuts and by delaying installments on $25.5 million in debt service reserve payments.

Staff reductions in 2009 resulted in a 14.4 percent drop in salaries and wages, to $11.3 million, according to the routine audit conducted by the State Board of Accounts. The CIB also reduced expenses related to repair and maintenance, security, parts and supplies.

The CIB anticipates meeting its financial obligations again this year, the audit said, but warned of continued volatility in the economy.

“Current economic conditions have made it difficult to predict future tax revenues,” the audit said. “A significant decline in tax revenues could have an adverse impact on the CIB’s future operating results.”

CIB revenue last year was hampered by a decrease in investment income and a drop in the amount of state and local taxes it collects—including the county innkeeper’s tax, food and beverage tax, admissions tax, auto rental excise tax, and a share of the state cigarette tax. But revenue would have been down even more in 2009 if not for a 1-percent increase in the innkeeper’s tax and an expansion of the Professional Sports Development Area to include the hotels that comprise the massive J.W. Marriott hotel complex.

Adding to the uncertainty is $15 million in annual Fieldhouse operating costs the CIB could inherit from the Indiana Pacers. The CIB owns the arena, where the Pacers and Indiana Fever play.

The Pacers’ current lease runs through 2019, but the team has an out clause if it is losing money. Pacers Sports & Entertainment contends it has been in the red every year but one since moving into Conseco Fieldhouse and can no longer afford to pay to operate the facility.

The team had hoped to have the situation resolved by June 30, but negoitiations continue.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Funny Economics
    The funny thing about the improved finances of the CIB is that the increase in the budget of the CIB was about the same amount as their reductions in spending for this year.
  • Accounting 101
    What about the explosion of long term debt to almost a billion dollars?

    What about the deferment of tens of millions in building maintenance and the elimination of all of CIB reserve accounts?

    What about those Capital Lease Agreements?

    The CIB has no money to give the Pacers anything.

    They gave it all to the Colts!

    P.S.

    Maybe the Pacers will provide their audited financials now that the CIB has shown theirs;)
  • Wrong
    It's a gross mistatement to say the contract has an "out clause if it is losing money." It contains a Early Termination provision that allows the Pacers to break the contract if the team is being sold and moved out of the city AND is losing money. Even then the penalties are about $150 million.

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