Archive | Uncategorized RSS feed for this section

Tolling on Indiana’s Interstates: Inching Closer?

11 Jun

imagesThe Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) inches closer to tolling several Interstate corridors with the June 2 release of a Request for Information (RFI) related to potential future plans for tolling of the I-65, I-70, and I-94 corridors: Request for Information Interstate Tolling Project Delivery.

INDOT is planning to release a Request for Proposals (RFP) to prepare environmental studies and project development documentation for the above corridors (the RFP refers to the following corridors: 1) I-65 from I-90 to I-465, 2) I-65 from I-465 to the Ohio River, 3) I-70 from the Illinois State line to I-465, 4) I-70 from I-465 to the Ohio State line, 5) I-65 and I-70 within I- 465, and 6) I-94 from the Illinois State line to the Michigan State line). The purpose of the RFI is to seek information that will shape the release of the RFP, in particular in the following areas:

  1. Asset inventory and management in these corridors
  2. Sequence of deployment of tolling among these corridors
  3. NEPA documentation type and analytical approach for these corridors, and for the improvements identified above
  4. Contracting and procurement approaches
  5. Public outreach and information strategy
  6. Any other topics the responder believes are relevant to this RFI

IMG_2157It is clear that Indiana intends to move forward with tolling the I-65, I-70, and I-94 corridors. It isn’t entirely clear if the intention is to toll only new expansion lanes, or existing lanes as well.

It will also be interesting to see the responses to questions about “contracting and procurement approaches”, in particular to see which public-private partnership models are being encouraged.

The most interesting part of the RFI, though, is the draft proposed work plan for an agreement that INDOT already has with engineering giant HDR, Inc. to meet the requirements of Indiana House Bill 1002 (now Public Law 218) to evaluate the feasibility of tolling Indiana’s Interstates. This work plan includes the following tasks:

  1. Project Management and Project Meetings
  2. Traffic and Revenue Analysis for 5 Corridors — to conduct a traffic and revenue analysis and model (including a risk component) for the five Interstate corridors: I-64, I-69, I-74, I-94, and I-465. Note that I-69 is included in the study. Along with traffic and revenue, the task will attempt to estimate diversion rates (i.e., rates at which vehicles use other roads to avoid tolls — often a concern to local communities whose roads bear the burden of division).  The study will also attempt to estimate the toll revenue from non-Indiana residents vs. residents.
  3. Risk Analysis for I-65 and I-70 — to expand a 2015 INDOT analysis to more explicitly quantify and model uncertainty
  4. Statewide Tolling Survey — to assess the public’s willingness to pay tolls. HDR is proposing here, because of the short deadline for the project, to perform a Willingness to Pay (WTP) study, which tests a participant’s sensitivity to various price points. Interesting note:

    “An approach that HDR has found to be successful in similar WTP studies is to tell survey takers that the purpose of the survey is to explore interest in improving travel times and safety on major highways. The concept of paying toll is not introduced until the end of survey so as not to bias the experiments as people generally have negative attitudes towards toll. “

  5. Assess Economic Impact — the study will include quantitative and qualitative studies of the potential impact of tolling on Indiana’s economy, including impacts both of increased investment in infrastructure resulting from tolls as well as impacts on Indiana households.
  6. Write Report — the final report is due by October 31, 2017.

The INDOT page for open RFIs is here: INDOT RFI Page.

 

When Going Up Means Going Down: How Do the Property Tax Circuit Breakers Actually Work?

19 Apr
Monroe County Courthouse at Night

Monroe County Courthouse at Night

During the discussions about the City of Bloomington’s proposed annexation, I have received a lot of questions from readers about the property tax circuit breakers (“tax caps”) — like, how do they actually work, how do they affect the taxpayer, and how do they affect the local unit of government? I thought I’d answer that question first by going through a very simple (artificially simple) example.

Before I even begin with the details, let me emphasize the most mind-bending aspect of the property tax circuit breakers — an increase in property tax rates can actually make the revenue to units of government serving the property go down. How does that work?

For our example, we have to pick a taxing district. Let’s choose unincorporated Richland Township (i.e, the part of Richland Township that is outside the Town of Ellettsville). For 2017, the following table shows the tax rates that make up the overall tax rate for unincorporated Richland Township:

Screenshot 2017-04-19 19.34.56

The overall property tax rate for unincorporated Richland Township for 2017 is $1.7915 per $100 of Assessed Value. The above table shows how that rate is divided up among the various taxing units (units of government) serving that district.

So now we need to pick a property to use as an example — and I’ve picked a very specific property — a homestead with a gross assessed value of $318,600. Why have I chosen this value? Because given the above tax rate ($1.7915) and certain simplifying assumptions (no property tax relief from the income tax), this property is exactly AT its circuit breaker tax cap for Richland Township.

How do we know this? Let’s do a few calculations. First of all, the circuit breaker tax cap for a homestead property is 1% of its gross assessed value. In our example, it is $3186 (1% of $318,600). That means that the taxpayer cannot be made to pay more than $3186 in property taxes. Second of all, let’s calculate the net assessed value that the taxpayer is actually taxed on. Since this property is a homestead, it is eligible for a $45,000 homestead deduction and a 35% supplemental deduction of the remaining value, leaving a taxable net assessed value of $177,840. This means that our $318,600 property will be taxed on $177,840. Note that there may be additional deductions that this taxpayer is eligible for; however, for this example, we’ll stick with the homestead and supplemental deductions.

Applying our tax rate of $1.7915 per $100 of assessed value to our net assessed value of $177,840, we have a total property tax bill of $3186. Note that this tax bill is exactly at its circuit breaker limit of $3186!

Based on the above tax rates, each unit of government that serves this property receives the following property tax revenue:

Screenshot 2017-04-19 20.08.53

And again — this property is right at its 1% circuit breaker limit of $3186, so currently it cannot be forced to pay more than $3186.

So now let’s consider a very artificial situation. Let’s say that for 2018 every taxing unit’s property tax rate stays exactly the same except that Monroe County takes on some additional debt for capital projects, raising its property tax rate from $0.3832 to $0.4300. The following table shows what the 2018 property tax rates are in this hypothetical example compared to the 2017 rates.

Screenshot 2017-04-19 20.19.16

As I mentioned before, in this very artificial example, only the Monroe County property tax rate has changed from 2017 ($1.7915 per $100) to 2018 ($1.8383 per $100).

So first, let’s calculate this taxpayer’s 2018 property taxes overall. The following chart illustrates the taxes that would be collected by each taxing unit from this taxpayer for 2018:

Screenshot 2017-04-19 20.42.54

In 2017 they were $3186. In 2018 they are $3,269.23 ($1.8383 per $100 of AV, with the AV at $177,840). This is an increase $83.23.

But….remember that the circuit breaker is at $3186 — so $3186 is the most this taxpayer will pay! So even though the individual tax rates of each of the units of government serving this property would call for $3269.23 in taxes, the taxpayer only pays $3186. This means that there are $83.23 of taxes that the taxpayer does not pay and that the local units of government do not collect. This $83.23 is known as the circuit breaker credit — good for the taxpayer, not so much for the units of government serving the taxpayer.

CIRCUIT BREAKER CREDIT = $83.23

But how is this circuit breaker credit divided up among the units of government? Even though it was only Monroe County that raised its tax rate (in this very hypothetical example), all of the units of government share in the loss of revenue in proportion to their tax rates.

So let’s allocate the circuit breaker credit (revenue loss to the units of government) based on each unit’s proportion of the total tax rate:

Screenshot 2017-04-19 21.06.20

Before even looking at the numbers in detail, the following fact should jump right out at you:

EVEN THOUGH ONLY ONE UNIT OF GOVERNMENT RAISED TAXES, ALL UNITS SHARE IN THE PAIN!

Now the last step in the process is to calculate the actual amount collected for each unit in 2018. So let’s put it all together:

Screenshot 2017-04-19 21.20.09

The column labeled “2018 Net (Taxes – Circuit Breaker) represents the actual taxes collected from this taxpayer for 2018. Note that it sums up to $3186. This should not be a surprise, as the tax cap for this taxpayer was $3186 — they cannot be taxed more than $3186 with an assessed value of $318,600!!

But the final kicker comes from looking at the rightmost column, labeled 2017-2018 Change. This is the change in revenue from each taxing unit from 2017 to 2018. Of course the total should be $0 — since the property was at the 1% circuit breaker, no net additional revenue could be collected.

But look more closely at each individual taxing unit. Only the unit that increased taxes — Monroe County in this artificial example — actually increased its revenue from 2017-2018 — and not as much as it would have increased it without the tax caps. But every other unit, even though it did not increase its tax rates — shared in the circuit breaker loss caused by the one unit that did increase its tax rates.

So just to pick out one example — the additional debt taken on by one unit of government (Monroe County) actually caused another unit (such as R-BB School Corporation) to lose revenue.

Monroe County’s gain ($63.76) is actually R-BB School Corporation’s loss ($50.52).

So hopefully this little exercise was useful — hopefully you can now see that with the property tax circuit breakers, one unit that raises its tax rates can actually cause a real loss to the other taxing units.

I-69 Section 6 DEIS Recommendations: Quick Summary

17 Mar

IMG_2712A few hours ago, INDOT released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for I-69 Section 6, the final section of the Evansville to Indianapolis highway. Section 6 runs from just south of Martinsville to I-465.

Links to INDOT’s press release and the DEIS can be found here:

My (very) quick summary of the findings:

  • After 13 years of additional input and analysis, INDOT is sticking with the original route selected in the 2004 Tier 1 Record of Decision: the SR 37 corridor.
  • 4 lanes from Indian Creek (where Section 5 ends) to SR 144 north of Martinsville, 6 lanes from SR 144 to Southport Road, and 8 lanes from Southport Road to I-465
  • Using the existing SR 37 center median, with cable barriers or double sided guardrails at some locations. Note that an alternative that basically elevated I-69 through Martinsville was considered but not recommended.
  • The preferred alternative is referred to as C4.
  • Two options, with no recommendation, are provided for the interchange at Southport Road just south of I-465
  • The preferred alternative costs approximately $1.5B, assuming construction from 2020-2026
  • The final Record of Decision (ROD) and the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) from the Federal Highway Administration is anticipated for 1st quarter 2018.

The following map illustrates the preferred route, C4:

Screenshot 2017-03-17 21.24.06

The full DEIS is thousands of pages long. I strongly recommend you start with (and maybe stay with) the executive summary. S.6 provides a good summary of the rationale for the route selected. In addition Chapter 3: Alternatives: C4 Mapbook provides detailed and summary maps of the recommended alternative.

INDOT is accepting public comment through May 8 via the comment form at www.in.gov/indot/projects/i69/2463.htm or by mail to the I-69 Section 6 project office, 7847 Waverly Road, Martinsville, IN 46151. In addition, several public meetings are planned. For details, see the INDOT press release.

Public Transit Income Tax Advances in Indy

22 Feb

5858d1eb856ac-imageToday’s Indy Star reports that a proposal for a 0.25% local income tax in Marion County to support public transit expansion passed a key committee vote yesterday, sending the vote to the full City-County Council on February 27th:

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/local/marion-county/2017/02/21/marion-county-transit-tax-gets-committee-approval-heads-full-council/98200340/

Back in November, this tax increase to fund public transit passed in a referendum handily by 59.3% to 41.7%.

In the past we have discussed a potential income tax dedicated to public transit expansion here in Monroe County. The revenues would be shared between Bloomington Transit and Rural Transit, and would potentially fund both expansion of transit within the existing city boundaries (both in terms of additional routes and stops, and potentially more frequent service and/or Sunday service), as well as additional point to point service in the rural areas. Of course, the extent of city boundaries may change with a potential annexation, which could have a large impact on the services able to be provided by Rural Transit (a topic for a different post).

Such a tax in Monroe County would require additional state legislation. Senator Mark Stoops has introduced several pieces of legislation (and has been for several years) that would give Monroe County the ability to (but not require it to) pass an income tax between 0.1% and 0.25% to fund transit expansion. Senator Stoops’ proposed bills for the 2017 session are:

  • Senate Bill 371, which is specific to Monroe County
  • Senate Bill 391, which applies to all counties except those that already have the authority under existing legislation

Neither of these bills would require a referendum/public question. Also, it appears so far that neither of these bills will receive a committee hearing this session.

This is where I am interested in hearing from Monroe County constituents. What do you think about a potential increase in income tax dedicated to public transit expansion? Please let me hear your thoughts.

Just for reference, here are our existing local income taxes:

  • Expenditure – Certified Shares (all-purpose local income tax, distributed county, cities and towns, townships, public library, fire protection districts, Bloomington Transit): 0.9482%
  • Expenditure – Public Safety (distributed to the county, Bloomington, Ellettsville, and Stinesville): 0.2500%
  • Property Tax Relief (replaces property tax): 0.0518%
  • Special Purpose (Juvenile services): 0.095%
  • Total Income Tax Rate: 1.345%

 

 

Indiana 2017 Local Income Tax Rates: Where Does Monroe County Stand?

23 Nov
Monroe County Courthouse at Night

Monroe County Courthouse at Night

The Indiana Department of Local Government Finance just released the final 2017 certified distributions and rates of local income taxes for Indiana counties. Local income taxes are what used to be called COIT, LOIT, CAGIT, CEDIT, etc., before a new law that went into effect in 2016 that simplifies local income taxation. All local income taxes are now simply referred to as Local Income Taxes (LIT). The full report from DLGF is available here: 2017_certification_calculations.

Under the new system, there are essentially 3 broad categories of local income tax rates: expenditure, property tax relief, and special purpose. Expenditure rates are there to raise funds for local government expenditures. Property tax relief rates use the money raised from income to offset property taxes. Note that this does not necessarily mean that taxpayers will see lower property taxes — these property tax relief rates are often used in communities where the constitutional circuit breakers (tax caps) have lowered property tax revenues. So the property tax relief rate would simply replace property tax revenue that had been lost through the tax caps; since the taxpayers in this case  would already be  at the circuit breaker, they wouldn’t necessarily actually see lower property taxes. Thus in reality the property tax relief rate may generate expenditure revenue as well. Finally, the special purpose rates are used for a variety of purposes, all of which require special legislation. Our local example is Monroe County’s Juvenile County Option Income Tax (JCOIT), a 0.0950% income tax that supports juvenile services, including the Binkley House Youth Shelter, juvenile probation, and the juvenile courts. Other examples include jail and juvenile facilities for a number of counties, library property tax replacement for Hancock County,  and courthouse renovation and maintenance and firefighting equipment in Randolph County.

Expenditure rates themselves are divided into 3 “buckets”: certified shares, public safety, and economic development. Certified shares are divided  up among all civil taxing units in a County (civil taxing units include the county, any municipalities, townships, fire protection districts, and public libraries), and the revenue can be used for any lawful purpose of the local unit government. Revenues from the public safety rates are distributed to the county and any municipalities in the county, and can only be used for public safety purposes (including police, jail, probation, fire, and EMT). Revenues from economic development rates are distributed to the county and any municipalities in the county, and can be used for a variety of economic development purposes, as well as any other expenses of the local unit of government.

Monroe County’s local income tax (LIT) rates are as follows for 2017:

  • Expenditure – Certified Shares: 0.9482%
  • Expenditure – Public Safety: 0.2500%
  • Expenditure – Economic Development: 0%
  • Property Tax Relief: 0.0518%
  • Special Purpose: 0.095%
  • Total Income Tax Rate: 1.345%

So how does Monroe County’s income tax rate of 1.345% stack up against other counties? I took the data from the DLGF and ranked counties by total income tax rate:

County Name Total 2017 LIT Rate Rank
Pulaski 3.3800% 1
Wabash 2.9000% 2
Jasper 2.8640% 3
Morgan 2.7200% 4
Parke 2.6500% 5
Tipton2 2.6000% 6
Miami 2.5400% 7
Brown 2.5234% 8
Jennings 2.5000% 9
Cass 2.5000% 9
Jay 2.4500% 11
Fayette 2.3700% 12
Randolph 2.2500% 13
Clay 2.2500% 13
Grant 2.2500% 13
Warren 2.1200% 16
Rush 2.1000% 17
Wells 2.1000% 17
Jackson 2.1000% 17
Montgomery 2.1000% 17
Elkhart 2.0000% 21
Clark 2.0000% 21
Clinton 2.0000% 21
DeKalb 2.0000% 21
Washington 2.0000% 21
Fulton 1.9300% 26
Perry 1.8100% 27
Benton 1.7900% 28
Steuben 1.7900% 28
Marion 1.7700% 30
Union 1.7500% 31
Daviess 1.7500% 31
Huntington 1.7500% 31
Noble 1.7500% 31
Putnam 1.7500% 31
Lawrence 1.7500% 31
Madison 1.7500% 31
St. Joseph 1.7500% 31
Starke 1.7100% 39
Carroll 1.7039% 40
Hancock 1.7000% 41
Howard 1.6500% 42
Adams 1.6240% 43
Fountain 1.5500% 44
Blackford 1.5000% 45
Franklin 1.5000% 45
Shelby 1.5000% 45
Wayne 1.5000% 45
Boone 1.5000% 45
Hendricks 1.5000% 45
Delaware 1.5000% 45
Henry 1.5000% 45
Martin 1.5000% 45
Lake 1.5000% 45
Whitley 1.4829% 55
Scott 1.4100% 56
LaGrange 1.4000% 57
Ripley 1.3800% 58
Allen 1.3500% 59
Monroe 1.3450% 60
Decatur 1.3300% 61
White 1.3200% 62
Owen 1.3000% 63
Bartholomew 1.2500% 64
Greene 1.2500% 64
Marshall 1.2500% 64
Ohio 1.2500% 64
Orange 1.2500% 64
Vigo 1.2500% 64
Floyd 1.1500% 70
Tippecanoe 1.1000% 71
Crawford 1.0000% 72
Dubois 1.0000% 72
Hamilton 1.0000% 72
Harrison 1.0000% 72
Johnson 1.0000% 72
Knox 1.0000% 72
Kosciusko 1.0000% 72
Newton 1.0000% 72
Switzerland 1.0000% 72
Posey 1.0000% 72
Vanderburgh 1.0000% 72
LaPorte 0.9500% 83
Spencer 0.8000% 84
Pike 0.7500% 85
Gibson 0.7000% 86
Dearborn 0.6000% 87
Porter 0.5000% 88
Warrick 0.5000% 88
Jefferson 0.3500% 90
Sullivan 0.3000% 91
Vermillion 0.2000% 92

As this table shows, Monroe County ranks 60th in overall income tax rates in Indiana, out of 92 counties. This puts us essentially at the top of the bottom third of Indiana counties in terms of overall income tax rate.

One concern with this ranking methodology that has been raised is that some of these local income taxes have been passed for property tax relief, and since these taxes offset property taxes, the property tax relief taxes really shouldn’t “count” against a county in its overall income tax rate for the purposes of comparison. I don’t necessarily agree with this logic, since, as I mentioned above, property tax relief rates don’t necessarily actually give the taxpayers any “relief”, and are instead just used to offset losses to local government from the tax caps. But nonetheless, in the following table I eliminated the property tax relief rates from the calculation, and re-ranked counties.

County Name Revenue Total Revenue Rank
Tipton 2.4000% 1
Jennings 2.2500% 2
Pulaski 2.2000% 3
Parke 2.1500% 4
Brown 2.0234% 5
Jasper 2.0140% 6
Rush 2.0100% 7
Wabash 1.9000% 8
Jay 1.8500% 9
Warren 1.8000% 10
Randolph 1.7500% 11
Elkhart 1.7500% 11
Union 1.7500% 11
Perry 1.7254% 14
Marion 1.7193% 15
Morgan 1.7180% 16
Wells 1.7000% 17
Starke 1.6500% 18
Jackson 1.6000% 19
Carroll 1.5039% 20
Cass 1.5000% 21
Clay 1.5000% 21
Clark 1.5000% 21
Clinton 1.5000% 21
DeKalb 1.5000% 21
Washington 1.5000% 21
Benton 1.5000% 21
Steuben 1.5000% 21
Daviess 1.5000% 21
Huntington 1.5000% 21
Noble 1.5000% 21
Putnam 1.5000% 21
Blackford 1.5000% 21
Franklin 1.5000% 21
Shelby 1.5000% 21
Wayne 1.5000% 21
Boone 1.5000% 37
Miami 1.4796% 38
Fulton 1.4500% 39
Hancock 1.4500% 39
Fountain 1.4500% 39
Whitley 1.4500% 39
Hendricks 1.3500% 43
Owen 1.3000% 44
Monroe 1.2932% 45
Fayette 1.2500% 46
Grant 1.2500% 46
Lawrence 1.2500% 46
Madison 1.2500% 46
Adams 1.2500% 46
Delaware 1.2500% 46
Henry 1.2500% 46
Martin 1.2500% 46
Scott 1.2500% 46
LaGrange 1.2500% 46
Ripley 1.2500% 46
Decatur 1.2500% 46
White 1.2500% 46
Bartholomew 1.2500% 46
Greene 1.2500% 46
Marshall 1.2500% 46
Ohio 1.2500% 46
Orange 1.2500% 46
Vigo 1.2500% 46
Howard 1.1500% 65
St. Joseph 1.1496% 66
Floyd 1.0500% 67
Montgomery 1.0000% 68
Crawford 1.0000% 68
Dubois 1.0000% 68
Hamilton 1.0000% 68
Harrison 1.0000% 68
Johnson 1.0000% 68
Knox 1.0000% 68
Kosciusko 1.0000% 68
Newton 1.0000% 68
Switzerland 1.0000% 68
Allen 0.9821% 78
Tippecanoe 0.9589% 79
LaPorte 0.9500% 80
Posey 0.9440% 81
Vanderburgh 0.9035% 82
Spencer 0.7611% 83
Pike 0.7500% 84
Gibson 0.7000% 85
Dearborn 0.6000% 86
Lake 0.5000% 87
Porter 0.5000% 87
Warrick 0.5000% 87
Jefferson 0.3500% 90
Sullivan 0.3000% 91
Vermillion 0.2000% 92

From this ranking, excluding property tax relief income tax rates, Monroe County comes out at 45, right in the middle of Indiana counties. So depending on how you look at it, Monroe County is right in the middle or atop the bottom third of Indiana counties in terms of income taxes.

There  is a lot more to explore with this data. Next I will focus more specifically on our neighbor counties.

 

 

County Council to Adopt 2017 Budget Tuesday and Wednesday

11 Oct

2016 County Council MembersOn Tuesday (10/11/2016) and Wednesday (10/12/2016), the County Council will adopt Monroe County’s 2017 budget. Tuesday will feature first reading of the budget, including council discussion and public comment. Wednesday will feature final adoption of the budget. In addition to adopting the budget, the Council will also be adopting the 2017 property tax rates and levies, as well as the 2017 salary ordinance for county employees.

The Council is considering a $67,975,340 overall budget for 2017. This is spread across 51 different funds, the General Fund being the largest by a long shot, at $32,059,390.

There are a few numbers in the state Gateway system that are still being corrected this morning, so I’m not yet publishing the complete list of budgets and tax rates and levies (but will later this morning).

Here is the General Fund budget to be adopted by the Council tonight and tomorrow night:

Monroe County 2017 General Fund Budget for Adoption

Monroe County 2017 General Fund Budget for Adoption

Note: This chart is $2 off from the official Gateway numbers to be adopted, due to differences in rounding methodology, but it shows the budget in a more compact form than the official Gateway reports.

I’ll publish more numbers as they are available, including the proposed tax rates and levies, and the Public Safety Local Income Tax budget.

Budget Adoption begins tonight (Tuesday) at 5:30 PM in the Nat U Hill room of the Monroe County Courthouse. Public comment will be taken, and the meeting will be broadcast on CATS. The budget adoption meeting will be followed by a regular meeting of the Monroe County Council.

Proposed 2017 Monroe County Budget

30 Aug

2016 County Council MembersAs I mentioned earlier today, Monroe County begins its annual hearings  for the 2017 budget tonight at 5PM. Below are the proposed budgets and tax levies that have been advertised for consideration. (*)

Each fund is listed separately. Money from each fund generally can’t be intermingled (with a few exceptions). The Budget Estimate column is the total estimated budget for that fund for 2017. The Maximum Levy column is the maximum amount of property taxes that can be  collected from this fund. Current Tax Levy is the 2016 property tax levy for the fund. Funds that have a 0 in the levy columns are supported by sources of funds other than property tax, including income taxes, fees for service, fines, hotel bed taxes, etc.

The only exceptions are the three Economic Development funds — Westside, 46 Corridor, and Fullerton Pike. These are the three county tax increment finance (TIF) districts, and so the revenues collected are property taxes — however the money that goes into the TIF  districts are property taxes that otherwise would go into other units and funds — the county general, townships, etc.

The other thing to note is that the actual budgets and property tax levies that get adopted will be at or below these advertised budgets and levies. The Council is only allowed to reduce budgets during budget hearings, not increase them — hence the standard practice of “advertising high” to give the Council some flexibility during budget hearings.

The total budget advertised across all funds is $73,716,871. By comparison, the actual budget adopted in 2016 was $63,165,714. I would anticipate that the advertised $73M will be brought down during budget hearings.

The largest change in this budget from previous years is the inclusion of the budget for the Public Safety Local Option Income Tax (PS-LOIT), which is advertised at $3,751,926, well over the revenue that the PS-LOIT would actually generate. In addition, because of procedural issues that I don’t have time right now to get into detail on, the PS-LOIT for 2017 has not actually been adopted or approved by the state. The Council will have to be very cautious about budgeting for this fund, and any decisions made will be contingent upon final approval by the state of the PS-LOIT.

Advertised 2017 Monroe County Budget and Levies:

Fund Name Budget Estimate Maximum Levy Current Tax Levy
0101-GENERAL $34,554,828 $17,087,500 $16,388,259
0102-ELECTION/REGISTRATION $493,839 $0 $0
0124-2015 REASSESSMENT $721,063 $650,000 $495,413
0181-DEBT PAYMENT $1,009,000 $1,009,000 $1,413,578
0182-BOND #2 $2,040,000 $2,040,000 $1,908,991
0183-BOND #3 $1,030,000 $1,515,000 $0
0616-CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU $1,979,937 $0 $0
0702-HIGHWAY $5,464,930 $0 $0
0706-LOCAL ROAD & STREET $2,087,050 $0 $0
0790-CUMULATIVE BRIDGE $489,632 $1,406,973 $1,406,973
0801-HEALTH $1,242,199 $535,000 $535,046
1310-PARK NONREVERTING – CAPITAL $60,000 $0 $0
2002-COUNTY FAIR $105,270 $105,000 $85,872
2102-AVIATION/AIRPORT $957,490 $500,000 $429,358
2391-CUMULATIVE CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT $2,922,088 $2,510,092 $2,173,211
9500-Extradition $7,691 $0 $0
9501-Surveyor’s Corner $18,230 $0 $0
9502-County Per Diems $46,250 $0 $0
9503-Monroe County E-911 $929,606 $0 $0
9504-Convention Center Debt $636,000 $0 $0
9505-Auditor’s Ineligible Deductions $29,500 $0 $0
9506-Juvenile Facility COIT $2,697,147 $0 $0
9507-Juvenile Services Non-reverting $0 $0 $0
9508-Jury Pay $14,500 $0 $0
9509-Juvenile Probation $18,883 $0 $0
9510-Probation User Fees-Adult $410,478 $0 $0
9511-Project Income-Job Release $737,249 $0 $0
9512-Supplemental Public Defender Fee $923,845 $0 $0
9513-Clerk’s Perpetuation $111,913 $0 $0
9514-Diversion User Fees $476,176 $0 $0
9515-Court Alcohol/Drug Svcs Fees $367,706 $0 $0
9516-Health Maintenance $72,672 $0 $0
9517-Emergency Plan and Right To Know $15,900 $0 $0
9518-Stormwater Management $1,576,324 $0 $0
9519-County Corrections/Misdemeanant $80,518 $0 $0
9520-County Elected Officials Training $30,000 $0 $0
9521-Alternative Dispute Resolution $21,000 $0 $0
9522-County Assessor/R.E. Disclosure $50,765 $0 $0
9523-Convention/Visitors Capital Imp/Maint $100,000 $0 $0
9524-County Offender Transportation $3,000 $0 $0
9525-Health Tobacco Cessation $54,416 $0 $0
9526-Problem Solving Court $35,124 $0 $0
9527-Westside Economic Development $1,999,166 $0 $0
9528-46 Corridor Economic Development $258,775 $0 $0
9529-Fullerton Pike Economic Development $1,581,894 $0 $0
9530-Plat Book $0 $0 $0
9531-Convention Center Revenue $577,688 $0 $0
9532-Cable Franchise Fees $714,982 $0 $0
9533-Showers Building Operating $204,721 $0 $0
9544-Identification Security Protection $5,500 $0 $0
9599-Public Safety LOIT $3,751,926 $0 $0
Totals $73,716,871 $27,358,565 $24,836,701

(*) This chart was adapted from our official advertisement, which can be found here: http://budgetnotices.in.gov/ReportMaster.aspx?uid=2533&yr=2017&mode=ALL