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.


Very optimistic30%

Mildly optimistic39%

Neither optimistic nor pessimistic17%

Mildly pessimistic11%

Very pessimistic3%



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%


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%


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%


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%


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%


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


• 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


• 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


• Cities and towns1. Froze or reduced employees salaries/wages2. Reduced spending on roads and streets3. Stopped hiring4. Made operational changes4. Reduced spending on parks


• 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


• 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


• Other local government– Juvenile detention (51%)–Vocation education (41%)–Special education (38%)–Property assessment (36%)–Emergency dispatch (34%)


• For profit firm–Solid waste (20%)–Property tax assessment (15%)– Juvenile detention (12%)–Emergency medical services (12%)–Drinking water utility (11%)


• 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


• 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


• 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.


• 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


employeesPart-time

employees




Mayor 62% 91% 4%




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%


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%


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


employeesPart-time

employees




Mayor 59% 80% 24%




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%


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%


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%


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%


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%


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%


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%


intergovernmental issues in indiana 2010 iacir survey

Documents