2010 IACIR Survey Results 2010 Themes Community conditions Effects of property tax caps Responses to property tax caps and revenue reductions Service arrangements Pensions health insurance and training ID: 596126
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Intergovernmental Issues in Indiana" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Intergovernmental Issues in Indiana2010 IACIR Survey
ResultsSlide2
2010 Themes
Community conditions
Effects of property tax caps
Responses to property tax caps and revenue reductions
Service arrangements
Pensions, health insurance, and training
Infrastructure
9-1-1 and 2-1-1Slide3
Office
Effective responses
Mailed
Undelivered
or excludedEffective return rateCounty council member3592138%County commissioner3092 33%County auditor3992243%Mayor58120 48%Town council member81275 29%Township trustee100184155%School board member62293 21%Total4051,148435%
Response RatesSlide4
Response RatesSlide5
2010
2008
2006
2004
200320022001Senator----Office29%40%32%30%Representative----24%26%28%23%19%County council member38%41%37%49%64%54%52%County commissioner33%34%45%44%53%41%51%County auditor43%------
--
--
--
Mayor
48%41%56%63%52%50%56%Town council member29%23%25%39%37%38%32%Township trustee55%53%52%61%57%57%43%School board member21%29%31%28%44%34%47%Total35%41%36%41%47%41%40%
.
Response ratesSlide6
Responses by County
Began asking to identify local government in 2008
2010 survey respondents:
Represent 370 individual local governments
At least one local government from every county, except Fayette County.Slide7
Paper
Online
County council member (n=35)
92%
8%County commissioner (n=30)90%10%County auditor (n=39)82%18%Mayor (n=58)66%34%Town council member (n=81)86%14%Township trustee (n=100)86%14%School board member (n=62)76%24%Total (n=405)82%18%Paper vs. OnlineSlide8
Feelings
about
Community Direction
Very optimistic
Mildly optimisticNeither optimistic nor pessimisticMildly pessimisticVery pessimisticCounty auditor (n=38)18%53%18%11%0%County commissioner (n=28)29%43%11%18%0%County council member (n=36)22%44%11%11%11%Mayor (n=58)52%38%5%5%0%Town council member (n=79)37%37%16%8%3%Township trustee or trustee-assessor (n=95)23%32%27%12%6%School board member (n=61)25%
43%
16%
16%
0%
Total (n=395)30%39%17%11%3%*Some of the totals may be slightly more or less than 100 percent due to rounding.Slide9
Feelings about Community DirectionSlide10
Feelings about
Community Direction
Very optimistic
Mildly optimistic
Neither optimistic nor pessimisticMildly pessimisticVery pessimistic2010 (n=395)30%39%17%11%3%2008 (n=810)21%40%19%16%5%2006 (n=431)29%46%8%14%3%2004 (n=491)26%48%12%11%3%2003 (n=502)27%45%14%11%3%2002 (n=543)28%47%13%9%2%2001 (n=542)34%50%
9%
5%
2%Slide11
Top Five Issues Identified
as
Major
or
Moderate Problems Slide12
Top Five Issues Identified Most Often as
Improved
Since Last YearSlide13
Top Five Issues Identified Most Often as Worsened Since Last YearSlide14
Top Five Issues Ranked as
Most Improved
During
the
Past Year Slide15
Top Five Issues Ranked as Most Deteriorated During
the
Past YearSlide16
Top Five Issues Ranked as Most Important
to
Work on over the Next Two Years Slide17
TIF and Tax Abatement
Counties and municipalities continue to use TIF and tax abatement (151)
Generally, reported using tax abatement more than TIF
Generally, report using both tools more in 2010 than in 2009.Slide18
Payment In Lieu of Taxes for Governments and Nonprofits
Type of organization
Should be required to make payments in lieu of property taxes to local government
Units of federal government (n=174)
46%Units of state government (n=173)47%Units of other local government (n=188)29%Nonprofit hospital (n=156)47%Private university or school (n=156)54%Church or other religious nonprofits (n=248)35%Other nonprofits (n=105)*36%Slide19
Governments and Nonprofits Provide Services at Reduced Cost
Type of organization
Should be required to provide services to local government below cost
in lieu of property taxes
Units of federal government (n=174)44%Units of state government (n=173)49%Units of other local government (n=188)37%Nonprofit hospital (n=156)49%Private university or school (n=156)36%Church or other religious nonprofits (n=248)18%Other nonprofits (n=105)*13%Slide20
2008 Responses to Property Tax Reform
Cut or is considering cutting services
45%
Has not made or is not anticipating making changes
35%Increased or is considering increasing fees and charges for local services31%Passed or is considering passing a new or additional local option income tax30%Explored or implemented cooperative service arrangements, such as interlocal agreements17%Considered full consolidation with another unit of government9%Slide21
Responses to Property Tax Caps and Reduced Revenue
Revenue
Hiring, salaries/benefits, training
Operational changes
Specific service cutsChanges in service arrangementsSlide22
Responses to Property Tax Caps and Reduced Revenue
General
Froze or reduced employees salaries/wages
Stopped hiring
Cut or delayed capital expendituresCut or reduced training and travelReduced spending on roads and streetsOperational changes6. Reduced benefits/increased employee contributionsSlide23
Responses to Property Tax Caps and Reduced Revenue
Counties
Froze or reduced employees salaries/wages
Stopped hiring
Reduced spending on roads and streetsCut or delayed capital expenditures5. Reduced benefits/increased employee contributionsSlide24
Responses to Property Tax Caps and Reduced Revenue
Cities and towns
Froze or reduced employees salaries/wages
Reduced spending on roads and streets
Stopped hiringMade operational changes4. Reduced spending on parksSlide25
Responses to Property Tax Caps and Reduced Revenue
Townships
Stopped hiring
1. Froze
or reduced employees salaries/wages3. Cut or reduced training and travel4. Froze or reduced employees salaries/wages5. Reduced spending on roads and streetsSlide26
Responses to Property Tax Caps and Reduced Revenue
Schools
Cut or reduced training and travel
Froze or reduced employees salaries/wages
2. Stopped hiring4. Reduced benefits/increased employee contributions 5. Made operational changesSlide27
Service Arrangements
Internal resources
Agreement with another local governments
Agreement with a private firm
Agreement with a nonprofitSlide28
Service Arrangements
Other local government
Juvenile detention (51%)
Vocation education (41%)
Special education (38%)Property assessment (36%)Emergency dispatch (34%)Slide29
Service Arrangements
For profit firm
Solid waste (20%)
Property tax assessment (15%)
Juvenile detention (12%)Emergency medical services (12%)Drinking water utility (11%)Slide30
Service Arrangements
Nonprofit
Vocational education (23%)
Special education (18%)
Economic development (17%)Emergency medical services (8%)Fire services (7%)Slide31
Intergovernmental Cooperation
Cooperative purchasing
38% of officials report cooperative purchasing
School boards 77%
Mayors 55%Commissioners 46%Increases from 2008 in all groups except township trusteesSlide32
Intergovernmental Cooperation
Changes in cooperative activity over the last year
Except for cities, a majority of other officials report “stayed about the same”
61% of mayors reported an increase in cooperative activity49% of school board membersSlide33
Intergovernmental Cooperation
Relationships with other local governments in county
Local governments report positive relationships with other local governments
More reported having a relationship and having more positive relationships than in 2001.Slide34
Intergovernmental Cooperation
Conclusion
Evidence of increased cooperation among local governments
Additional opportunities availableSlide35
Local Government Benefits – Pension/Retirement Contributions
Elected Officials
Full-time employees
Part-time employees
County council member63%76%9%County commissioner85%92%14%County auditor86%89%0%Mayor62%91%4%Town council member17%76%7%Township trustee32%36%4%School board member24%96%20%Total44%75%8%Slide36
Local Government Benefits – Health Insurance
Elected Officials
Full-time employees
Part-time employees
County council member63%76%9%County commissioner85%92%14%County auditor86%89%0%Mayor62%91%4%Town council member17%76%7%Township trustee32%36%4%School board member24%96%20%Total44%75%8%Slide37
Local Government Benefits – Responses to Increasing Health Costs
Increased elected
official/employee
health insurance contributions
52%Reduced costs by changing vendors33%Reduced costs by reducing health insurance coverage26%Reduced non-insurance expenditures10%Reduced health insurance eligibility for officials and employees8%Reduced costs through a cooperative purchasing arrangement 8%Other - Wellness programs3%Other - Initiated health savings account2%Other - Increased deductibles2%Other - Absorbed increased cost1%Other - Other8%Slide38
Local Government Benefits – Increasing Health Insurance Costs
County council member
100%
County commissioner
93%County auditor100%Mayor 94%Town council member87%Township trustee 50%School board member 95%Total 86%Slide39
Local Government Benefits – Responses to Increasing Health Costs
Increased elected official and employee health insurance contributions
64%
Reduced health insurance coverage
31%Reduced health insurance eligibility for officials and employees11%Reduced health insurance costs through a cooperative purchasing arrangement with the state of Indiana or another local government4%Reduced health insurance costs by changing vendors39%Reduced non-insurance expenditures9%Slide40
Local Government Benefits – Responses to Increasing Health Costs
Other—Employee health clinic (10)
4%
Other—Increase deductibles (9)
3%Other—Health savings account (7)3%Other—Absorbed cost (4)1%Other—Investigated other sources (3)1%Other—Wellness program (3)1%Other—Reduced contributions (2)1%Other – Other (22)8%Slide41
Local Government Benefits – Training
Elected Officials
Full-time employees
Part-time employees
County council member63%68%36%County commissioner65%56%20%County auditor50%50%13%Mayor59%80%24%Town council member43%85%24%Township trustee37%34%20%School board member57%73%43%Total50%64%26%Slide42
Infrastructure Investment
A majority of respondents reported adequate investment in all infrastructure
categories, except
roads and streets
. Public school performance and athletics (18%), public library facilities (10%), and public school classrooms (9%) chosen most often for overinvestmentSlide43
Infrastructure Investment
Underinvestment:
Local roads and streets
(56%)
Highways (44%)Storm sewers (38%)Bridges (36%)Parks (32%)Public school classrooms (31%)Slide44
Road Funding – Change over Last Three YearsSlide45
Road Funding – Future Needs
(a) Additional funding needed annually for local road maintenance (n=190)
(b) Additional funding needed annually for local road construction (n=152)
$10,000,000 or more
9%9%$7,000,000 - $9,999,9993%5%$4,000,000 - $6,999,9996%8%$1,000,000 - $3,999,99914%22%$500,000 - $999,99920%22%$100,000 - $499,99928%17%$1 - $99,99916%13%No additional funding needed4%5%Slide46
Funding Options for Roads and Streets
Earmark state sales tax revenue from motor vehicle fuel purchases for roads
(68%)
Remove State Police from MVH (
48%)Exempt local gov’ts from state gas tax (36%)Increase state gas tax (34%)Slide47
9-1-1 – Declining RevenuesSlide48
9-1-1 – Additional RevenueSlide49
2-1-12-1-1 is a service that allows citizens to dial a simple number to get help with health and human services
2-1-1 services provide referrals to a variety of organizations, including community, faith-based, and government agenciesSlide50
2-1-1 Services Available in CommunitySlide51
2-1-1 FamiliaritySlide52
2-1-1 UsefulnessSlide53
2-1-1 Support for Add’l Funding