Intergovernmental Issues in Indiana 2010 IACIR Survey
description
Transcript of Intergovernmental Issues in Indiana 2010 IACIR Survey
Intergovernmental Issues in Indiana2010 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• Infrastructure• 9-1-1 and 2-1-1
OfficeEffective
responses MailedUndelivered or excluded
Effective return rate
County council member 35 92 1 38%
County commissioner 30 92 33%
County auditor 39 92 2 43%
Mayor 58 120 48%
Town council member 81 275 29%
Township trustee 100 184 1 55%
School board member 62 293 21%
Total 405 1,148 4 35%
Response Rates
Response Rates
Coun
ty au
ditor
Coun
ty cou
ncil m
...
Coun
ty com
missi...
Mayor
Town c
ounci
l me..
.
Townsh
ip tru
stee
School
board
me..
.0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
43%38%
33%
48%
29%
55%
21%
Source: Indiana Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 2011
2010 2008 2006 2004 2003 2002 2001
Senator -- -- Office 29% 40% 32% 30%
Representative -- -- 24% 26% 28% 23% 19%
County council member 38% 41% 37% 49% 64% 54% 52%
County commissioner 33% 34% 45% 44% 53% 41% 51%
County auditor 43% -- -- -- -- -- --
Mayor 48% 41% 56% 63% 52% 50% 56%
Town council member 29% 23% 25% 39% 37% 38% 32%
Township trustee 55% 53% 52% 61% 57% 57% 43%
School board member 21% 29% 31% 28% 44% 34% 47%
Total 35% 41% 36% 41% 47% 41% 40%
.
Response rates
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.
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. Online
Feelings about Community Direction
Very optimistic
Mildly optimistic
Neither optimistic
nor pessimistic
Mildly pessimistic
Very pessimistic
County 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.
Feelings about Community Direction
Very optimistic30%
Mildly optimistic39%
Neither optimistic nor pessimistic17%
Mildly pessimistic11%
Very pessimistic3%
Source: Indiana Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 2011
Feelings about Community Direction
Very optimistic
Mildly optimistic
Neither optimistic nor pessimistic
Mildly pessimistic
Very pessimistic
2010 (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%
Top Five Issues Identified as Major or Moderate Problems
Obesity (n=377)
Business attraction and retention (n=383)
Drug and alcohol abuse (n=378)
Job quality (n=388)
Overall economic conditions (n=389)
Unemployment (n=393)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
87%
87%
87%
88%
94%
96%
Source: Indiana Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 2011
Top Five Issues Identified Most Often as Improved
Since Last Year
Combined sewer overflows (CSOs)
(n=340)
Parks and recreation (n=355)
Local roads and streets (n=360)
Sanitary sewers (n=357)
Storm sewers (n=358)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
16%
17%
17%
18%
18%
Source: Indiana Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 2011
Top Five Issues Identified Most Often as Worsened Since Last Year
Drug crime (n=363)
Availability and cost of health insurance (n=361)
Poverty (n=351)
Overall economic conditions (n=366)
Unemployment (n=371)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
39%
42%
48%
48%
50%
Source: Indiana Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 2011
Top Five Issues Ranked as Most Improved During the Past Year
Parks and recreation
Police/sheriff services (n=28)
Fire services (30)
K-12 education (n=30)
Local roads and streets (n=40)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
9%
9%
10%
10%
14%
Source: Indiana Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations , 2011
Top Five Issues Ranked as Most Deteriorated During the Past Year
Economics
Availability and cost of health insurance
Poverty
Overall economic conditions
Unemployment
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
10%
12%
15%
17%
29%
Source: Indiana Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations , 2011
Top Five Issues Ranked as Most Important to Work on over the Next Two Years
Economics
Availability and cost of health insurance
Poverty
Overall economic conditions
Unemployment
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
10%
12%
15%
17%
29%
Source: Indiana Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations , 2011
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.
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%
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%
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 services 31%
Passed or is considering passing a new or additional local option income tax 30%
Explored or implemented cooperative service arrangements, such as interlocal agreements 17%
Considered full consolidation with another unit of government 9%
Responses to Property Tax Caps and Reduced Revenue
• Revenue• Hiring, salaries/benefits, training• Operational changes• Specific service cuts• Changes in service arrangements
Responses to Property Tax Caps and Reduced Revenue
• General1. Froze or reduced employees salaries/wages2. Stopped hiring3. Cut or delayed capital expenditures4. Cut or reduced training and travel5. Reduced spending on roads and streets6. Operational changes6. Reduced benefits/increased employee contributions
Responses to Property Tax Caps and Reduced Revenue
• Counties1. Froze or reduced employees salaries/wages2. Stopped hiring3. Reduced spending on roads and streets4. Cut or delayed capital expenditures5. Reduced benefits/increased employee contributions
Responses to Property Tax Caps and Reduced Revenue
• Cities and towns1. Froze or reduced employees salaries/wages2. Reduced spending on roads and streets3. Stopped hiring4. Made operational changes4. Reduced spending on parks
Responses to Property Tax Caps and Reduced Revenue
• Townships1. Stopped hiring1. Froze or reduced employees salaries/wages3. Cut or reduced training and travel4. Froze or reduced employees salaries/wages5. Reduced spending on roads and streets
Responses to Property Tax Caps and Reduced Revenue
• Schools1. Cut or reduced training and travel2. Froze or reduced employees salaries/wages2. Stopped hiring4. Reduced benefits/increased employee
contributions 5. Made operational changes
Service Arrangements
• Internal resources• Agreement with another local governments• Agreement with a private firm• Agreement with a nonprofit
Service Arrangements
• Other local government– Juvenile detention (51%)–Vocation education (41%)–Special education (38%)–Property assessment (36%)–Emergency dispatch (34%)
Service Arrangements
• For profit firm–Solid waste (20%)–Property tax assessment (15%)– Juvenile detention (12%)–Emergency medical services (12%)–Drinking water utility (11%)
Service Arrangements
• Nonprofit–Vocational education (23%)–Special education (18%)–Economic development (17%)–Emergency medical services (8%)–Fire services (7%)
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 trustees
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
activity– 49% of school board members
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.
Intergovernmental Cooperation
• Conclusion–Evidence of increased cooperation among local
governments–Additional opportunities available
Local Government Benefits – Pension/Retirement Contributions
Elected OfficialsFull-time
employeesPart-time
employees
County council member 63% 76% 9%
County commissioner 85% 92% 14%
County auditor 86% 89% 0%
Mayor 62% 91% 4%
Town council member 17% 76% 7%
Township trustee 32% 36% 4%
School board member 24% 96% 20%
Total 44% 75% 8%
Local Government Benefits – Health Insurance
Elected OfficialsFull-time
employeesPart-time
employees
County council member 63% 76% 9%
County commissioner 85% 92% 14%
County auditor 86% 89% 0%
Mayor 62% 91% 4%
Town council member 17% 76% 7%
Township trustee 32% 36% 4%
School board member 24% 96% 20%
Total 44% 75% 8%
Local Government Benefits – Responses to Increasing Health Costs
Increased elected official/employee health insurance contributions 52%
Reduced costs by changing vendors 33%
Reduced costs by reducing health insurance coverage 26%
Reduced non-insurance expenditures 10%
Reduced health insurance eligibility for officials and employees 8%
Reduced costs through a cooperative purchasing arrangement 8%
Other - Wellness programs 3%
Other - Initiated health savings account 2%
Other - Increased deductibles 2%
Other - Absorbed increased cost 1%
Other - Other 8%
Local Government Benefits – Increasing Health Insurance Costs
County council member 100%
County commissioner 93%
County auditor 100%
Mayor 94%
Town council member 87%
Township trustee 50%
School board member 95%
Total 86%
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 employees 11%Reduced health insurance costs through a cooperative purchasing arrangement with the state of Indiana or another local government 4%
Reduced health insurance costs by changing vendors 39%
Reduced non-insurance expenditures 9%
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%
Local Government Benefits – Training
Elected OfficialsFull-time
employeesPart-time
employees
County council member 63% 68% 36%
County commissioner 65% 56% 20%
County auditor 50% 50% 13%
Mayor 59% 80% 24%
Town council member 43% 85% 24%
Township trustee 37% 34% 20%
School board member 57% 73% 43%
Total 50% 64% 26%
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 overinvestment
Infrastructure Investment
• Underinvestment:– Local roads and streets (56%)–Highways (44%)–Storm sewers (38%)–Bridges (36%)–Parks (32%)–Public school classrooms (31%)
Road Funding – Change over Last Three Years
Decreased more than 20%
Decreased 1% to 20%
No change
Increased 1% to 20%
Increased more than 20%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
15%
30%
16%
23%
16%
Source: Indiana Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 2011
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 - $9,999,999 3% 5%$4,000,000 - $6,999,999 6% 8%$1,000,000 - $3,999,999 14% 22%$500,000 - $999,999 20% 22%$100,000 - $499,999 28% 17%$1 - $99,999 16% 13%No additional funding needed 4% 5%
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%)
9-1-1 – Declining Revenues
Revenues have not declined in our county
1% to 10%
11% to 25%
25% to 49%
50% or more
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
9%
17%
33%
35%
6%
Source: Indiana Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 2011
9-1-1 – Additional Revenue
Other
Allow local government(s) to set surcharges on contract cellular services
Increase state surcharges on pre-paid cellular service
Increased state surcharges on contract cellular service
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
4%
16%
41%
39%
Source: Indiana Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 2011
2-1-1
• 2-1-1 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 agencies
2-1-1 Services Available in Community
Don’t know
No
Yes
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
29%
36%
35%
Source: Indiana Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 2011
2-1-1 Familiarity
I am not familiar with the 2-1-1 service.
I am somewhat familiar with the 2-1-1 service, but don’t know many details.
I am familiar with the 2-1-1 service and generally understand how it operates.
I have participated in planning or promoting local 2-1-1 service.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
49%
22%
21%
8%
Source: Indiana Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 2011
2-1-1 Usefulness
Don’t know
Not very useful
Somewhat not useful
Neither useful or not useful
Somewhat useful
Very useful
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
39%
6%
11%
3%
24%
17%
Source: Indiana Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 2011
2-1-1 Support for Add’l Funding
Don’t know
No
Yes
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
41%
44%
15%
Source: Indiana Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 2011