Some council members still unsure about CIB budget

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Capital Improvement Board’s controversial spending plan will face its final trial Monday night as the City-County Council takes up the city’s $1.1 billion budget for next year.

As of Friday, council members from both sides of the aisle expressed uncertainty about getting full support from their caucus for the $73.1 million CIB budget, which includes $10 million to operate Conseco Fieldhouse—lifting the financial burden from the Indiana Pacers.

Five of seven members of the council’s municipal corporations committee agreed last week to send the CIB proposal to the full council.

But Democratic minority leader Joanne Sanders said final passage of the budget was “very tenuous” among her 13-member caucus, and Council President Ryan Vaughn said some of his 14 fellow Republicans had not yet decided how they would vote.

Ed Coleman, the 29-member body’s lone Libertarian, said he did not plan to support it.

“There are folks unwilling to commit because of questions they’re still asking,” Vaughn said. “People obviously have a lot of concerns about it because the public is being very concerned about it.”

The Pacers funding has been a dicey issue during city budget hearings against the backdrop of financial shortfalls for the Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library and the IndyGo bus system.

The municipal corporations committee approved a property tax shortfall appeal to help IndyGo next year. And raising the library’s tax rate in exchange for lowering the rate for a city economic-development fund will help the library generate enough money to pay employee retirement benefits next year. But the library will not be able to avert a 26-percent reduction in hours across the system.

During the Oct. 19 committee hearing, about 10 residents showed up to protest the funding for the Pacers, holding signs with slogans such as, “Just say no to the CIB”

The councilors, some of whom also expressed initial concerns about the CIB budget, said they shared in the discontent but thought it was important for the full council to review it.

It’s unclear, though, whether they’ll embrace that philosophy when it comes down to the final vote.

The overall city budget calls for cutting $22 million in local spending—reducing expenditures to roughly 2008 levels. That includes measures such as eliminating a police recruit class and implementing a pay and hiring freeze.

The city also plans to tap its $17.5 million rainy day fund.


  • Trouble
    If the Republcians think they can vote for the CIB budget, including Pacer $10 million payout, without political consequences, they will be in for a rude awakening.
  • Don't do it. Do not pass this budget.
    So we'll spend our rainy day fund and we'll cancel a police recruit class and we'll cut an additional $22 million in local spending so we can boost the CIB budget to $73.1 million dollars. City county council. Don't do it. Don't you do it. You know the public is against this. Democrats hate that we're slashing library hours 26% and truly suffering on the streets waiting for a bus. Republicans hate that we're funding ever larger amounts for sports venues when everybody wants to cut spending. The CIB should be dismantled. We don't need it. Its like owning a boat. A great big hole in the water into which you shovel money. A Barnes & Thornburg revenue generator. A slush fund keeping Simon's Pacers afloat, even as the team appreciates in value should they be sold. Take a stand. Vote down this budget. The CIB budget ought to be cut to $35 million dollars. We don't need the CIB. We don't want the CIB. We don't trust the CIB. And we don't want to fund the CIB. These opinions are expressed by everyone, Republican and Democrat alike, all over the county. The only people pushing the CIB are insiders who, directly or indirectly, stand to benefit from the cities' largest, but not only, slush fund.

Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ