1. Intergovernmental Issues in Indiana 2010 IACIR Survey Results

2. 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

3. Office Effective responsesMailed Undelivered or excluded Effective return rate County council member3592138% County commissioner3092 33% County auditor3992243% Mayor58120 48% Town council member81275 29% Township trustee100184155% School board member62293 21% Total4051,148435% Response Rates

5. 2010200820062004200320022001 Senator-- 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%-- Mayor48%41%56%63%52%50%56% Town council member29%23%25%39%37%38%32% Township trustee55%53%52%61%57% 43% School board member21%29%31%28%44%34%47% Total35%41%36%41%47%41%40%. Response rates

6. 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.

7. PaperOnline 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

8. 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% Mayor (n=58)52%38%5% 0% Town council member (n=79)37% 16%8%3% Township trustee or trustee- assessor (n=95)23%32%27%12%6% School board member (n=61)25%43%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.

9. Feelings about Community Direction

10. 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%

11. Top Five Issues Identified as Major or Moderate Problems

12. Top Five Issues Identified Most Often as Improved Since Last Year

13. Top Five Issues Identified Most Often as Worsened Since Last Year

14. Top Five Issues Ranked as Most Improved During the Past Year

15. Top Five Issues Ranked as Most Deteriorated During the Past Year

16. Top Five Issues Ranked as Most Important to Work on over the Next Two Years

17. 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.

18. 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%

19. 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%

20. 2008 Responses to Property Tax Reform Cut or is considering cutting services45% Has not made or is not anticipating making changes35% 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%

21. Responses to Property Tax Caps and Reduced Revenue Revenue Hiring, salaries/benefits, training Operational changes Specific service cuts Changes in service arrangements

22. Responses to Property Tax Caps and Reduced Revenue General 1.Froze or reduced employees salaries/wages 2.Stopped hiring 3.Cut or delayed capital expenditures 4.Cut or reduced training and travel 5.Reduced spending on roads and streets 6.Operational changes 6. Reduced benefits/increased employee contributions

23. Responses to Property Tax Caps and Reduced Revenue Counties 1.Froze or reduced employees salaries/wages 2.Stopped hiring 3.Reduced spending on roads and streets 4.Cut or delayed capital expenditures 5. Reduced benefits/increased employee contributions

24. Responses to Property Tax Caps and Reduced Revenue Cities and towns 1.Froze or reduced employees salaries/wages 2.Reduced spending on roads and streets 3.Stopped hiring 4.Made operational changes 4. Reduced spending on parks

25. Responses to Property Tax Caps and Reduced Revenue Townships 1.Stopped hiring 1. Froze or reduced employees salaries/wages 3. Cut or reduced training and travel 4. Froze or reduced employees salaries/wages 5. Reduced spending on roads and streets

26. Responses to Property Tax Caps and Reduced Revenue Schools 1.Cut or reduced training and travel 2.Froze or reduced employees salaries/wages 2. Stopped hiring 4. Reduced benefits/increased employee contributions 5. Made operational changes

27. Service Arrangements Internal resources Agreement with another local governments Agreement with a private firm Agreement with a nonprofit

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

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

30. Service Arrangements Nonprofit – Vocational education (23%) – Special education (18%) – Economic development (17%) – Emergency medical services (8%) – Fire services (7%)

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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.

34. Intergovernmental Cooperation Conclusion – Evidence of increased cooperation among local governments – Additional opportunities available

35. Local Government Benefits – Pension/Retirement Contributions Elected Officials Full-time employees Part-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%

36. 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%

37. Local Government Benefits – Responses to Increasing Health Costs Increased elected official/employee health insurance contributions52% 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 arrangement8% Other - Wellness programs3% Other - Initiated health savings account2% Other - Increased deductibles2% Other - Absorbed increased cost1% Other - Other8%

38. 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%

39. Local Government Benefits – Responses to Increasing Health Costs Increased elected official and employee health insurance contributions64% Reduced health insurance coverage31% 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%

40. 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%

41. Local Government Benefits – Training Elected Officials Full-time employees Part-time employees County council member 63%68%36% County commissioner 65%56%20% County auditor 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%

42. 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

43. Infrastructure Investment Underinvestment: – Local roads and streets (56%) – Highways (44%) – Storm sewers (38%) – Bridges (36%) – Parks (32%) – Public school classrooms (31%)

44. Road Funding – Change over Last Three Years

45. 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 more9% $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%

46. 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%)

47. 9-1-1 – Declining Revenues

48. 9-1-1 – Additional Revenue

49. 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

50. 2-1-1 Services Available in Community

51. 2-1-1 Familiarity

52. 2-1-1 Usefulness

53. 2-1-1 Support for Add’l Funding