As at 630 and we have a quorum. I would like to call this regular session of the Bloomington Common
Council the order here on Wednesday, December 3rd. Will the clerk please call the roll? Councilman Flaherty
here Ruff here Rallo here here Stahlberg here daily here. Sorry here Great, thank you
There's a lot of people in the room here tonight. That's exciting for one of the last meetings of the
year. I've been starting meetings with a little kind of general note of interest, either historical
or something related to justice and that category of thing. And for the third time, I think, this year,
I'm going to talk about gerrymandering. The first time I talked about it, it was about the origin of
the word gerrymandering. And then it was the different states are gerrymandering.
Today I'm going back to it because our Indiana state legislatures legislators have reconvened in special
session to redistrict our congressional maps and for those of you who don't know redistricting usually
happens around the census. So once every 10 years and this mid decade redistricting is not
Normal it is not the normal course of business and the Republican contingent the sponsor of this bill
has been open about declaring that the maps that they are proposing are politically gerrymandered Breaking
apart areas with high numbers of Democrats So those Democratic leaning voters are diluted with Republican
numbers and hopes that all nine of the congressional seats will go to Republican candidates and in order
to do that one of the things that they've done is separated the Indianapolis Airport Excuse me, Indianapolis
area into four
four different districts, and that results in the same person representing sections of urban Indianapolis
as rural Jackson County or rural Rush County or rural Union County. That's interesting, I'll say, because
I try to stay neutral during these moments.
So both the process of calling a special session mid-century and proposing deliberately gerrymandered
maps is meaningful for everybody, for all Hoosiers, and this will impact the representation that all
of us have in Washington. And I would encourage everyone to contact your representatives to share your
views on this process. And now,
Usually I go on to the agenda summation but I also have a little note about our agenda before I go on
because we have a few pieces of legislation tonight that are just a little bit different than normal.
So there is legislation related to voluntary annexation on the agenda this evening with we have not
had to deal with any voluntary annexation in the city of Bloomington for
Number of years and so it's been a learning curve for everybody involved to figure out exactly how to
do it And so I'm going to talk about it a little bit because there are three pieces of legislation that
have to do with the voluntary annexation One of them is a resolution. Okay and resolutions have one
reading So we're going to talk about that and vote on that as a council this evening and that resolution
has to do with the fiscal plan That's like the money plan. It's like how does Bloomington plan to fund?
This new property in terms of the services and that kind of thing that wants to be a part of the city
the second piece of legislation that is the actual voluntary annexation itself and that has to be an
ordinance and ordinances have two readings tonight will just be the first reading of that ordinance
to actually Do the annexation council doesn't talk about things at first readings mostly most of the
time at first readings there's not an opportunity for the public to comment and
However with this particular first reading the state of Indiana for voluntary annexation Requires a
public hearing and at public hearings the public gets to talk. So at our first reading tonight for that
is ordinance 2025 43 that will be a public hearing So even though it is a first reading the public will
have an opportunity to comment about the annexation ordinance itself then the third piece of legislation
that has to do with the annexation ordinance is
Annex the voluntary annexation is also an ordinance and it will be first on first reading tonight We
will not have discussion on it or anything and that piece of legislation has to do with if we do annex
the property What would this zoning be because we would have to declare as a council how that would
look on our zoning maps And so that is up for first reading tonight. And so two weeks from tonight We
will we will as a council discuss those two ordinances up for first reading But as I said tonight will
be that public hearing
So I'll summarize the agenda now So first we have the minutes for approval Then we have our time for
reports a maximum of 20 minutes for each Part in this section. The first part is reports from council
members The second part is reports from the mayor city clerk city offices and city boards and commissions
and tonight we will have a report from the economic and sustainable development department with a climate
action plan update then we'll have reports from council committees of which I do not believe we have any and
And then we'll be our first report time to hear from the public. And so at that public comment time,
people can talk about things that are not on our agenda. So if there's something not on the agenda at
all that you came here that you want to share with us tonight, that would be the first opportunity to
do so. After reports, we'll have appointments to boards and commissions, which I do not believe we have
any this evening. And then we'll have the legislation for first readings.
We have ordinance 2025 46 and that's the one to amend the Bloomington zoning map to zone that new property
to a residential medium lot And then we will have ordinance 2025 47 to amend title eight entitled historic
preservation and protection to establish a historic district regarding a property
And then we will have the ordinance 2025 43 which is the ordinance to annex certain real estate. And
so that is where we'll have that public hearing after that first reading.
After that public hearing, we'll move into second readings and resolutions. We'll start with the resolution
2025-19, which is adopting a fiscal plan for the annexation of that property. Then we'll have appropriation
ordinance 2025-14 to appropriate from the general fund, Parks and Recreation General Fund, Motor Vehicle
Highway Fund, the Jack Hopkins Fund for expenditures not otherwise appropriated, just kind of an end
of the year balancing act.
And then we'll have ordinance 2025-44 amending title 10 of the Bloomington Municipal Code entitled
wastewater. So that's the septic collar rate adjustment. And then we will have ordinance 2025-19 amending
title 15 of the Bloomington Municipal Code removal and impound of vehicles regarding towing rates. And
then we'll finish up with ordinance 2025-20 amending title, or sorry, amending chapter four, 4.32
Updating towing for the non-consensual towing businesses. So both of those last two ordinances have
to do with towing After the legislation will have additional public comment So that's another period
of public comment where people can talk about things not on the agenda And you can speak at one of those
two periods of general public comment There will be public comment periods on all of those second readings
and resolutions any notes on council schedule and then we'll adjourn so after all that we can go back
to the minutes and
I move that the minutes from September 10th 2025 be adopted Thank you, are there any questions or comments
from councilmembers about the minutes seen as we're all here in person tonight, we can Have a voice
vote all in favor, please say aye aye any opposed Thank you. That motion passes Next we'll move into
reports. I will start to my left tonight with councilmember daily
Report. Thank you. Thank you councilmember. Sorry No report. Thanks. Thank you councilmember Piedmont
Smith Councilmember Rallo Just to say for the record that I want to express my disappointment with the
RDC the Redevelopment Commission for taking up the subject of Selling potentially selling. I'm sorry
donating the property at the Bunger Robertson property to and
Perfor the purpose of the hotel to entice the hotel Which has been under negotiation by the CIB. I think
that's extremely disappointing the city needs to recoup the seven million dollars that was paid for
that and I find this Sacrifice unacceptable at a time when we are already facing austerity when we have
other challenges including affordable housing in the city and
and especially because the council Anticipated that something like this might happen and took a formal
position in 2024 against it So it was stated by the council that that was unacceptable so I hope they
already see we will do the right thing and and not make that donation and and If it requires negotiating
with a different hotel here, so be it. Thank you Thank You councilmember rough
Thank you. Councilmember Flaherty no report. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. And I will skip report time tonight
as well. Next we have report from the mayor city clerk city offices etc. with the economic and sustainable
development department. You could state your name for the record and thank you for being here.
Thank you. My name is Sean Mia. I'm the assistant director of sustainability for the economic and sustainable
development department.
And tonight I will be giving an update on how we are implementing our climate action plan since our
last Since our last update in July of 2024, so I'll just wait for my slides Okay, this is not my presentation
There you go. Great. Okay. Thanks. I'm just going to fly through these slides and there'll be time for
questions after. So I'm just going to highlight some of our big programs. So in since 20, since August
of 2024, we have completed 11 solar installations at these locations as part of our solar energy efficiency
and lighting program. And we have approved six additional solar installations at these sites. They should
be completed in early 2026.
Donovan energy has been our municipal energy efficiency and decarbonization consultant since 2024 in
2025 they completed nine level two ashray energy audits at these nine buildings Here's a list of recommended
energy conservations that came out of those reports The green checked marked projects are the ones that
have been completed we will be continuing to work with departments to implement these additional projects
in coming years and
Part of the recommended energy conservation measures was to upgrade LED lighting at these seven buildings
These LED lighting upgrades will be completed by the end of this year We have completed the City Hall
LED lighting project We will be receiving $141,000 back from the Department of Energy We will also be
getting $33,000 back and Duke energy rebates for this project and it is estimated that the city will save 67%
annual lighting costs because of this project Giving you an update on the bus Kirk Chumley theater project
We received a five hundred eight thousand dollar grant from the Indiana Office of Energy Development
We are making progress with this project. We anticipate the HVAC system will be upgraded We'll be installing
solar a battery energy storage system by the end of 2026 so we're currently in the schematic design phase and
Another part of our solar energy efficiency and lighting program is the energy efficiency and lighting
portion our project partner IFF completed eight energy audits at these locations and completed eight
projects We anticipate three additional projects in 2026 early 2026 so if you're interested you can
see that we have provided over a million dollars in grants through the seal program and ITS has helped
to create a map to look at all those locations and
2025 we revised our Bloomington green home improvement program. We we approved 34 projects at Residential
locations. Here's a list of those projects in 2025 We will continue this program in 2026 a lot of our
residents said that they would not have completed these projects without these rebates So we're really
proud of this program
We're really excited to announce our Bloomington Energy Works program. We were awarded a two hundred
fifty thousand dollar grant from the Coalition for Green Capital. This is a market building grant and
our program partner is the Indiana Energy Independence Fund. Our goal is to provide free energy audits
for any large commercial building owner manufacturing building building owners nonprofits academic
institutions. Our goal is to get a list of at least
$50 million worth of financeable projects and submit our robust clean energy public-private Partnership
plan to the coalition for green capital by March 15th, 2026 So we have a very short time frame to develop
that list So we have a new website that we have launched. It's called you can go to it and
By visiting Bloomington energy works calm you can learn all about all about the program. You can apply
for the free energy audit We're also going to have a volunteer energy community engagement program We
have hired a nonprofit called electrify, Indiana. They are going to conduct a door-to-door campaign
and Train volunteers to give group presentations on the benefits of energy efficiency and renewable energy
So please everyone go to that website. We're going to have our first Webinar on December 10th at noon.
So please register for that webinar And so for climate resilience, we are planting trees We are providing
funding to homeowners to remove hazardous trees and limbs and we're also installing bus stop shelters
Our stay cool Bloomington program in 2025. We provided funding to provide over fifteen thousand dollars
15,000 free admissions for our city pools. We distributed eight AC units window units and we also distributed
400 stay cool Bloomington cool kids Project 46 has made some significant progress this year in July
the steering committee approved the bylaws and organizational structure and also approved membership
for the advisory committee members listed here We also have a new website. You can visit it
by going to project46regionalclimatealliance.com. We have had a lot of successful community engagement
events this year using our Zero in Bloomington platform. And I encourage everyone to go to our climate
action plan dashboard where you can see more details about all of the things I've talked about tonight
and how we are continuing to make progress on implementing our climate action plan and reducing greenhouse
gas emissions. So thank you.
Thank you very much. Are there councilmember questions? I have questions if nobody else has questions
and I appreciate I know that you included more slides than you talked about because of time related
stuff. Can you talk a little bit more about Project 46 and the council role in Project 46 because I
Yeah, because the we got rid of the climate action committee or the climate and resilience Council committee
partly because of being involved with project 46 So if you could just talk about that for council members
a little bit because this like previews A role that one of us needs to take next year. Sure. Thank you
for the question the opportunity so for the organizational structure project 46 the steering committee
is made up of mayor
Thompson mayor for Don and Columbus and Sandy Jones who is the town manager of Nashville? So the steering
committee votes on all of their actions There's also advisory committee members. And if you look on
the project 46 website, you can see the organizational structure There are seats that are available
for the advisory committee members for City Council staff from each governmental entity so we can have
one member from the
City Bloomington City Council, one member from Bloomington or Columbus City Council, and then the town
council of Nashville. So advisory committee members are made up of the city councils. We also have advisory
committee members from manufacturers and commercial entities and nonprofit organizations. And then also
we can have city staff who are interested in
Working towards actions for project 46. So for instance, we have Kat ziger from CBU She attends the
meetings and is very involved And so we're trying to get those level of that level of involvement across
the region Great, thank you. So are those meetings monthly? The steering committee meetings are quarterly,
but the subcommittee meetings are more frequent Okay, great. Thank you
Are there any other questions? Councilmember Piedmont-Smith. Yes, thank you for the presentation. I'm
wondering, looking at the climate action plan, we have specific goals, of course, that refer to actual
percentages and numbers as far as decreasing reliance on fossil fuels and energy efficiency and stuff.
So have these
Programs that you talked about which are wonderful. Have they been tagged back to the goals in the plan?
And if so, how how are we doing on achieving the goals? That's a great question. And I think it's a
very difficult one I think right now we are able to look at our greenhouse gas emissions inventory and
see the progress that we're making there but individual level goals, I think it's
More challenging to have the capacity to look at each of those goals and how we are making progress
For instance, I think probably the easiest one would be the level of EV adoption I think the state has
some records that we could try to source and find out if we're making progress on that But some of those
other ones it's a little bit more elusive as to how we would collect data to prove the the progress
that we're making
But for now, I think the best that we can do is our greenhouse gas inventory gives us an overall view
of our community and the progress that we're making. And how often is that inventory going to be done
annually? So we are we're working on the 2024 greenhouse gas inventory data. It's been very difficult
to get that data from Duke Energy, but we are making progress and I hope to have that published soon.
Okay, great. I'll look for that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Are there other questions?
I have one more than two in terms of the stay cool Bloomington and the AC distribution program. There
were 28 applications but only eight installations like can you talk a little bit about like that application
process and what what maybe was it about those applications that were rejected that they like didn't
meet some qualification or another.
That's a great question. We actually have had a lot of success with people applying for the AC units
and then reaching out to their landlords and having them fix their AC units themselves. So it's been
a success even if we're not actually installing units where we're working with hand. Whenever we get
one of those requests we let them know hey someone's AC unit is not working in their apartment or what
have you. And so we're seeing success in that manner.
Wonderful that that's an interesting Sidebar process. Thank you any other questions Thank you, we have
a couple more minutes of that 20 minutes if there's anything that you want to add and I want to give
you that opportunity If you can talk to all of your constituents about Bloomington energy works, I would
really appreciate it Our first webinar is next Wednesday. I'm really we're really trying our best to email and
Commercial businesses manufacturers just really trying to get the word out and get people there Because
this is our opportunity to raise our hand as a city of Bloomington and say we're ready for these investments
So we want to bring low-cost capital to Bloomington and the only way to do that is if we all come together
and Work on this together and get our list of projects that need financing Okay. Thank you. Thank you
very much. Thank you. Thank you for being here. I
I have to get back to my agenda now. Council committees no reports from council committees. So that
brings us to our first session for reports from the public. So this is the first period of public comment.
If anybody has a comment on an item not on the agenda this evening if you are in chambers you can go
ahead and make your way to the podium. If you're online you could raise your hand using the reactions
tab or send a chat message to the host. So once again this is for comments on items that are not on
our agenda this evening.
See anybody moving in chambers who wants to talk about random things anybody online Okay, there'll be
another opportunity for general public public comment at the end if anybody wants to take advantage
of it then No appointments to boards and commissions. So we are on to legislation for first readings
That's all right, I was asking questions at the wrong time I
I move that ordinance 2025-46 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only second
Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to introduce ordinance 2025-46. All those in favor, please say
aye. Aye any opposed Thank you. Will the clerk please read? ordinance 2025-46 to mend the bloomington
zoning maps and zone property currently in the monroe county jurisdiction to residential medium lot r2
in anticipation of voluntary annexation regarding 2005 West Corey Drive William Lamont I petitioner
the synopsis is as follows this ordinance recommends that the property at 2005 West Corey Street be
zoned residential medium lot r2 if the voluntary annexation is approved Thank you I Move that ordinance
2025 dash 47 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only I
Second, it's been moved and seconded to introduce ordinance 2025-47. All those in favor, please say
aye. Aye. Any opposed. Thank you. Will the clerk please read Ordinance 2025-47 to amend title eight
the Bloomington Municipal Code entitled historic preservation and protection to establish a historic
district Regarding the Ivan Adams House Historic District Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission
petitioner. This synopsis is as follows I
This ordinance amends chapter 8.20 of the Bloomington Municipal Code entitled, List of Designated Historic
and Conservation Districts in Order to Designate the Ivan Adams House, Partial Number 013-065-8000,
Late Slot 28, located at 115 East 12th Street, City of Bloomington, Monroe County, Indiana, as a historic
district. Built in the mid-1920s, the Ivan Adams House is a craftsman California bungalow that retains
a high degree of architectural integrity.
The house is associated with Ivan Adams one of the most prominent local stone carvers whose work can
be found in significant and recognizable sites around Bloomington in the United States. Thank you. We'll
hear those ordinances and have public comment on them on December 17th two weeks from tonight. And the
last one I move that ordinance 2025 dash 43 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis
only. Second.
It's been moved and seconded to introduce ordinance twenty twenty five dash forty three. All those in
favor please say aye aye. Any opposed. Thank you. Will the clerk please read ordinance twenty five dash
forty three ordinance annexing certain real estate to the city of Bloomington Monroe County Indiana.
Synopsis is as follows this ordinance pursuant to a voluntary annexation petition annexes the real estate
commonly known as 2005 West Corey Drive Bloomington, Indiana a parcel located outside of but contiguous
with city boundaries Thank you
So as I said earlier even though we don't usually have any any public comments on items for first reading
it because the state requires a public hearing at least 10 days in advance of a vote on an item we will
have a public hearing tonight on ordinance 2025 43 and so if somebody from the public would like to
speak to that annexation petition
I would like to just remind everybody right now that there is a resolution specifically regarding the
fiscal plan for the city, that there will also be a chance to discuss it. So this period of time is
just for the public wanting to comment on the voluntary annex overall. So if you are in chambers, you
can go ahead and make your way to the podium, and you'll have up to three minutes. If you're online,
you can raise your hand using the Reactions tab or send a chat message to the host. So I see a couple
people thinking like they want to go over, just go ahead
and make your way to the podium. It's kind of a first come first serve sort of moment. We can all be
orderly about it. There should be a paper there so you can sign in and then please state your name for
the record and you'll have up to three minutes. Is staff ready with the timer?
Excellent whenever you're ready. Go ahead and start sir. Good evening. My name is Jay Nelson And I thank
you for the opportunity to speak here My family owns the property at 2009 West Corey Drive, which is
directly next door to the property that we're talking about here Normally, I'm pretty good at winging
it here, but I'm gonna read off of this so my grandmother who is elderly and a long-term resident lives
in this and
Home of ours that we own there and she's been a long-term resident there And this is going to directly
affect her daily safety stability and well-being I'm here today to respectfully express my opposition
into the voluntary annexation and rezoning of this property to request that the Commission take a much
closer look at the real environmental and neighborhood level impacts that it would create and
First this lot contains features that appear to be a sinkhole or active karst areas There is visible
depressions unusual drainage patterns and long-standing pooling after storms that we observed for years
The planning staff report itself references a potential karst feature in the southeast corner of the
lot the terrain poses a serious risk of building foundations groundwater storm water flow and surrounding
properties and
Any development, especially a duplex, could cause ground instability, erosion, or flooding that would
immediately affect our home and my grandmother's safety. At a minimum, no land use change should be
approved without a full geotechnical and karst assessment by a qualified engineer. This should include
soil borings, groundwater review, and formal stormwater management plan. Approving an R2 zoning before
these studies are done puts residents at risk.
Second, there is a longstanding recorded drainage drainage easement on this lot. This easement was created
when the subdivision was approved in the early 1990s. The easement exists for a reason to protect downstream
homes from runoff, pooling water and stormwater displacement. Third, Corey Lane and Corey Drive are
not adequate condition to support increased density.
Both are narrow residential streets. The road surface is deteriorating and has long unaddressed potholes
and erosion with no clear maintenance responsibility between the city and County Adding a duplex increases
traffic parking pressure and wear and tear on the roads Fourth this duplex would be the only duplex
on the street. They're all single-family homes and
and this property is looking to be that and that would change the character of the street and
that development area and Even the property value my times running up and fifth is just the environment
meant at impact of the tree removal This person's already removed some trees. I don't know without permit
or whatnot, but that that's an issue But I urge you to actually go drive by this and you'll see That
it should not be approved. So thank you for your time
Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to comment on this? Go ahead and make your way in make
sure that you sign in and then state your name for the record And then you'll have up to three minutes.
Is there anybody who's raised a hand online? Okay Go ahead when you're ready Hi, I'm Leslie Ruiz. I
live just north of this property right across the street I'm also going to try and read to
Keep things concise. I'm concerned about the timing and purpose of this request as the Planning Department's
report states if a carts feature is verified that it would be restricted for development within 25 feet
of the last closed contour Because the land owner is seeking annexation in order to construct a duplex
It seems important to fully understand whether the karst features limit
Or constrains development before changing the jurisdiction. It would be prudent to evaluate whether
annexation is premature Until an appropriate assessment of the karst feature and drainage impacts is
complete Ensuring the site can safely support this proposed duplex before altering the jurisdictional
boundary helps for avoid unforeseen complications for both the city and nearby county residents in particular
I'm concerned that any construction on this parcel may alter water flow
Through our our shared drainage system and increased flooding on my property Flooding that has already
grown worse over the past several years despite no other changes to the surrounding environment It seems
important to evaluate whether the current geological features of the property should Support the the
build the landowners seeking as well as whether additional impervious surface could exacerbate the flooding
additionally the geometry of this lot and the roadway conditions on Cory Drive present significant
constraints and
The section of street between our two properties is already narrowed due to the drainage and karst features
beneath it, which limits safe on-street parking even under current conditions. Duplexes typically bring
multiple adult residents with multiple vehicles, and our subdivision has no sidewalks, so children,
including my own, use the street itself to ride bikes and scooters, and families walk along the roadway.
Increased curbside parking in an already narrowed section of street reduces visibility, constricts the
travel lane, and heightens safety risks
For the children and pedestrians who rely on the street as their only route. This raises real concerns
about whether a higher density residential use is compatible with the physical limitations of this part
of Corey drive. I also want to reiterate that our subdivision Corey estates remains firmly opposed to
annexation as expressed throughout the recent annexation process.
Annexing the single parcel would create what is effectively a permanent service island Such boundaries
present ongoing challenges for police fire and first response services for instance an emergency Involves
properties on both sides of the line determining which agency responds or whether multiple agencies
must respond can complicate coordination duplicate efforts or slow service delivery to the entire area
similar issues arise with jurisdiction for law enforcement and routine control coverage and
These complications will persist indefinitely if the surrounding subdivision remains unincorporated
as residents have clearly indicated they intend to do For these reasons I respectfully ask the Commission
to consider whether the timing Practical implications of annexing the single parcel serve the long-term
interests of the city the applicant in the surrounding community. Thank you Thank you Has anybody raised
a hand on zoom? Is there anybody else in chambers who would like to make a comment about this during
the public hearing time?
Right seeing none I'll go ahead and close the public hearing then and just make sure that everybody
understands that in two weeks from tonight then on the 17th sorry yes on the 17th of December we will
hear this petition for second reading and at second reading there will be an opportunity to have public
comment again. And on then to our legislation for second readings and resolutions.
I move that resolution 2025 dash 19 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only Second,
it's been moved and seconded to introduce resolution 2025 19. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye
Any opposed? Thank you. Will the clerk please read? Resolution 2025 dash 19 adopting a fiscal plan for
the annexation of property contiguous to the city of Bloomington, Indiana Synopsis is as follows this
resolution approves a fiscal plan as required prior
Prior to a voluntary annexation into the city of Bloomington. This fiscal plan is for the property located
at 2005 West Corey Street Bloomington, Indiana Thank you, I move that resolution 2025-19 be adopted
Thank you very much. Do we have somebody here to present this tonight? Do we literally have nobody here
to present this tonight I
Council attorneys do you know anything about this. I would think there would be somebody here from the
legal department. I don't know. OK. Is he who should be doing the presenting. Wonderful. Thank you.
Mr. Wheeler, when you're unmuted, you can go ahead and introduce yourself for the record and go ahead.
Thank you. Do you want my video to be enabled as well? That would be great. Thank you. Yeah, someone's
going to have to allow that. You should be able to turn your video on. There we go. There we are.
It's challenging to tell you guys that I'm here when I'm muted and I can't unmute myself. So thank you
for finding me. My name is Chris Wheeler. I am an assistant city attorney with the city of Bloomington.
I'm here tonight to represent or sponsor, if you will, the resolution that's for the council. This is
the fiscal plan that was put together by the legal department with the help of most of, well,
many departments throughout the city.
to try and identify the fiscal impact, if any, positive or negative for this voluntary annexation. I
feel that it's fairly self-explanatory. I'm certainly happy to answer questions, but as you go through
the fiscal plan, you will find that predominantly, if not entirely, each department has considered the
impact that it might feel having a single parcel annexed into the city and in this case a parcel where
the owner intends to put a duplex on the property. The police department, the fire department,
public works, planning and transportation, parks, even the utilities department, they don't believe
that there's any fiscal impact. They already are
servicing and providing services to the area immediately adjacent to this property. So picking up trash,
policing, hands doing inspections of a rental property. None of the directors saw any fiscal impact
that's of any real substance. And then if you scroll down and look at the taxation ramifications, the
city would
enjoy a slight uptick in his revenue simply by having an additional property come online. I'm happy
to answer questions with regards to this fiscal policy. It is part of what's required by statute. We
did try to put this together in keeping with what the statute requires. I'm here to try and answer any
questions that council might have. Thank you.
Thank you so much other questions from councilmembers about the fiscal plan councilmember Rallo Thank
You mr. Wheeler The slight uptick in revenue experienced by the city for this and a voluntary annexation
This is related to the intensity of use and the intensity of use is to be determined And so I'm curious about
Whether this was considered in In in the estimation of effect on the city I'd like for you to help me
understand what you mean by intensity well if if if the request to build something on the property is
going to Be decided to be a Greater use than what it would have been in the county. Is that my understanding?
that the that the request that we will be hearing in the future will be for in a increase in use in
Intensity sure it's going to go from so developed parcel to a parcel with a As I've been explained it's
been explained to me by the owner a duplex Yeah, so the the owner would like to build a duplex whether
he's in the city or not and
My understanding of the primary reason behind wanting to voluntarily annex is so that he would have
the benefit of connecting to sewer and water. Putting a I don't think that I don't think that he's having
any success getting a septic system put in the rest of this neighborhood.
did have the opportunity and did connect to sewer and water for the city and does receive those city
services. Under the current rules and regulations for the utilities department, he's not eligible to
connect unless he's part of the city. That was the impetus behind why he decided to try and get voluntarily
in. If he could have, if he could properly connect otherwise and stay in the county, he would build
that duplex anyway.
Do you happen to know if the environmental considerations on the property or will change I? Don't have
any answer for that. I feel like that's more of a planning department concern I can tell you that we
didn't give any consideration to environmental impact in the fiscal policy Okay, thanks other questions I
Councilmember Piedmont Smith. Is there any cost to the city for having a building to be built on this
property connect to water and sewer with those costs all be borne by the property owner. The cost to
connect will be borne by the property owner just like any other property owner who connects to the two
water and sewer with the utilities department requires the connection fees to be paid to the utilities
department.
And any installation of laterals into the ground as a cost of this form by the developer or the property
owner who's developing? Okay, thank you Other questions comes member rough Correct and are Do we have
any idea how many properties? Along Cory Lane and maybe on Anna Lee Lane are currently connected Yeah,
that's a good question. I
I've looked at them. I've looked at the GIS for this neighborhood. I don't remember how many how many
parcels are developed in that neighborhood. Not all of them are. I think there are a couple extras properties
down at the end of the street that are not developed. But the sewer line and water line run all the
way down through that street. And it is my understanding that every property on the street that is developed
is connected to sewer and water for the city.
Thank you. Thank you Are there other questions first-round questions Okay, I have a first-round question
There was a comment during the public hearing Commenter expressed concern about police and fire response
and in the fiscal plan neither the police department or the fire department expressed fiscal
Cost like a find a direct cost but did any of them when you were talking to them express concern about
response? and logistics of response given that it would be the only Property on the city that they would
have to respond to a complaint about No, nobody expressed a concern about that. I didn't ask about that
But nobody expressed a concern about that Okay, thank you. Look around the city. There are lots of little
sawtooth areas that already exist
I call them sawtooth areas, little areas that jut out and jut in where properties are or are not part
of the city. And I don't know whether there's confusion or concern that exists as a result of that sort
of jigsaw or sawtooth configuration. And I can't. So I'm just kind of expounding here, but I don't have
any information for you that would suggest
That there is any confusion or concern or that there's a slower response time as a result Great. Thank
you Let's go ahead and go If there are no other first-round questions. Oh councilmember. Sorry.
Thank you. Thank you so much attorney Wheeler The question that I have is that well first off for clarity
Passing this fiscal plan does not mean that we are passing
Approval to annex this this place we're just saying that that the data that we have been given About
the fiscal state of this is acceptable under Indiana code, right? That's 100% right. This is merely
a step in the process towards being able to have this body adopt the ordinance for
Voluntary annexation excellent and then and so so so within that just my question about the document
itself Is that throughout we're told that there's no I? Mean, it's fairly thin right it says there's
no impact Financially on on the city, but I'm interested in your legal opinion. Have we provided enough
evidence of that and
That there's well I mean I think the the language we're using in here is that there isn't any direct
cost it there's there's there's nominal impact because you do have one extra tiny little territory here
it's a very small parcel but. So there there's a there's some kind of a nominal amount but it's it's
not enough to really cause the budget of any one of these departments to change.
And then the you said earlier that the question the main impetus of doing this was sewage but then that
there's already sewage connected there and another time. No there's not already sewage connected there.
It's an undeveloped property. There's already a sewer main and a water main that are in the street facing
the property so that it can connect but it's not
Allowed to connect because it's not in the city of Bloomington and those would be those costs would
be borne by the developer not by the city That's right. Okay. Thank you Any other first-round questions
Okay, let's go ahead and go to second round councilmember rough So The property owner has a right to
develop In the county as it is right now, correct at least a single-family
I don't know what the county's rules are and I don't know what the county's position is at the moment
with regards to a septic field that would have to be put in the ground there. Maybe with the karst features,
it could be problematic. I don't know. So I just know that the property owner sees an opportunity to
actually get city provided water and sewer by doing a voluntary annexation, which I think probably makes
the property
Easier to develop there's less ground that has to be devoted to the sewer and water or the sewer service
So that leads to my what my main question which was Isn't and maybe mr. Glad mr. Hittle is here because
he might be able to answer this question actually Isn't the sort of the general state of? Astumption
about development in a karst area that
the general environmental cost external potential external cost of development is reduced in a karst
area by being on sewer as opposed to as opposed to having development in a karst area like this on on
septic is Is that a general assumption valid assumption?
Certainly cannot answer that I Don't have any information could sort of speak to that whether just generally
speaking it's better Thanks for being tagged in for that if you could state your name for the record
Director of the Department of Planning and Transportation I'm not really sure of the specific answer
to that question We are aware of there being a car's feature on it just by virtue of viewing the GIS
and looking at the contours
It's unknown how exactly that karst feature would impact development if a permit were ever applied for
on this site Then we would undergo the full review and determine what can be done. It can't be done
But I don't know the answer as to whether or not karst makes septic or standard sewer more usable or feasible
Yeah, I was really asking about usability. I was really getting at cost and we're talking about costs
here and we've been talking about direct cost so far cost of treating it or accessing it for fire and
police and Service services and utilities, right? This was kind of a more so I was trying to state of
cost idea. This is a more general cost Indirect cost I was getting at a cost on the community cost on
the environment to developing on karst and
versus developing on on sewer and that's why I had my first question was Can they develop this in some
way under the current? situation with the county so I Understand it's difficult. It's difficult to really
answer. It would certainly impose a Constraint they'd have to mitigate to be able to develop with that
feature there and we don't know the extent of it because we've not done a thorough review so
Kind of speaking at a very high level here today. Thanks very much for responding Thank you other second
our own questions councilmember Piedmont Smith Yeah, I understand that the court drive is not in good
shape currently and I'm wondering about Our Department of Public Works taking on responsibility for
that road. Is that what would happen if this were annexed because I also I
have heard that the road is actually a private drive. Could you speak to that Mr. Wheeler. I don't know
what would happen to the road as a whole. That aspect of like I was talking about there are little sawtooth
areas all around the edges of the city and I don't know how the county and the city determine what gets
plowed and what does not get plowed what gets paid and what does not get paid. How do we.
Provide maintenance here and not there. I don't know the answer to that and I'm sorry that I don't have
a good answer for you at all Mr. Hiddle, do you happen to have information about Cory Drive and whether
it's a private road? Yes, or whether who would take responsibility for it Could you come to the microphone,
please? Sorry. I
Apparently it is private and Presumably would remain so Okay. Thank you Thank you, are there other second
round questions or first rounds for anybody who all right, I have one Mr. Wheeler in terms of that the
chart of the
Anticipated property tax revenue. Is that anticipated revenue based on it being a vacant property or
based on it being built on? So if you look at that graph initially, the 2025 and 2026 are zeros because
the property is not part of the city. So there is no tax experience.
But then when we get to 2027, we can start to look at revenue and it's based solely upon the assessed
value of the ground because there wouldn't have been a completed improvement on the property in 2026.
So in 2027, we're just looking at the assessed value of the property, of the ground itself. Then when
we get to 2028, that calculation is derived from
calculation that uses both the assessed value of the ground and the assessed value or the Anticipated
assessed value of the improvement on the property and then it's the same going forward 28 29 and then
on into the future So and the anticipated improvement, what did you?
What kind of values did you put in about assumptions about how it would be improved? Did you put a duplex
in? Did you put a single family in? Does that make that much of a difference? That's based upon the
property owner's understanding of what the property owner's going to do and the questionnaire that he
filled out. He anticipates the assessed value of the duplex, the improvements that are put on the property
to be $400,000.
Great. Thank you. So if it kind of as a follow-up to that If the property owner was unable to develop
that duplex because of the potential of Karst issues and all of those sorts of things in terms of the city's
Fiscal kind of outlook kind of the the the worst-case scenario or lowest anticipated property tax revenue
would We'd still just get like that like about a hundred dollars or a little bit more at the very least
even if the property remains totally vacant I know if pivoting from a From a duplex to a single family
allows him to develop I don't know what this so there is some question about whether there actually
is a karst feature on the property I'll just say that
I know that the county had done a karst study many years ago, and in conducting that karst study did
not show an actual karst feature on this property. But based upon some of the pooling that occurs, or
I'm not exactly sure about all of the things that you look at, our planning department is concerned
that there might be a karst feature on the property. And so there is going to be, there's some question
about that. That being said, I don't know the limitations
Based upon whatever they determine whatever the whether they find a car speech or not could cause some
limitation and then so I'm thinking out loud here. If you go just to a single family residential maybe
it's got a smaller footprint. I don't know. And so maybe you could still develop in that regard. So
you maybe don't get to put the duplex on but you still get to put something on there.
Okay, but kind of in terms of looking at it from a fiscal standpoint in terms of revenues and expenditures
in that kind of lowest revenue Concept there would be no development on it and the city would still
you know have about a hundred dollars and so with no development like there's also really no expense
by the city for anything like that there's much less likely to be any kind of police or fire response
needed there would be trash pickup needed like none of those things and
And then of course like any kind of development would necessitate some response and the duplex then
Would probably necessitate the highest potential level of response because there would be two families
living there versus a single-family home would be of course greater than a vacant lot, but not as much
potential for emergency response because there only be one family I Agree with that. Okay. Thank you. I
Any other second round questions? All right, let's go on to public comment then. So if you're a member
of the public wishing to comment, just on the fiscal plan with regard to this annexation. So not the
annexation itself, just the fiscal part of it. You can make your way to the podium. Please make sure
to sign in and introduce yourself for the record and then you'll have up to three minutes. If you're
online, you can go ahead and raise your hand using the reactions tab or send a chat message to the host.
So is the timer ready? Wonderful whenever you're set to go ahead and state your name again for the record
and you'll have three minutes. Thank you Yeah, once again Jay Nelson Talking about these costs. I'm
a home builder and been in construction for a long time Here in town, but when we're talking about Annexing
and the cost beyond this you've made some valid points and bringing this up on these costs But I really
feel that we're going about this the wrong way. I really feel that it needs to be addressed and
Assessed if this can even be built on first or if the city wants to take this on as part of that annexation
first because if I urge you to drive by this property and you'll get a good look and I want to I would
love to see your opinion how you could build a duplex on this property and what type of land that is
needed right it's it's pretty much a sinkhole and
And it's really bad. It's loaded with trees and it's a big divot. I just don't see how that's possible
as a builder So I'd like to see it go that way first if that can be done if it's a duplex Or if it's
a single-family home and then you can start talking about annexation I'd say would be the proper way
to do things and then as Cory Lane is a dead-end road It's literally a dead-end road with a cul-de-sac
at the end There's a home on the corner at the front of the road
There's this lot and then there's my where my grandmother lives and this lot we're talking about annexing
this in the middle of the street just really doesn't make sense to just chew off and like yours like
you mentioned about You know a sawtooth if you will It just doesn't make any sense to do that If it's
gonna be done, it should be the whole street, which we don't want but that would be the proper way to
do it I understand, you know, you eat an elephant, you know bite by bite, but it
That's not the proper way to do annexation in my opinion. But then as far as that roadway, there is
who plows that right now. So are we gonna skip over that area if it was to be annexed? There will be
costs associated with it even if it's just land and it sits there at just land making $100.
because there can still be an accident on there, some kid falling off a bike and needing emergency services.
There's still your time and any other fees that might be associated with it. So for a revenue of just
the land is not worth it in my opinion for a city to annex that. So it really goes back to the point,
can you build? And then you have that discussion. And a duplex would require much more services because
you also don't know the people that might
Move into that duplex or single-family home where they might need more emergency services than most
we don't know that yet and then Just my last thing is once again, I really really urge you to drive
by and look at this I I do before you even consider going any further with it. Thank you Thank you,
are there other Looks like there's somebody else in chambers, please make sure to sign in and state
your name for the record Are there any hands raised on zoom?
We'll go to zoom next Go ahead and start when you're ready Good evening council members Paul posts here
with a little bit different hat than I usually come to you with I'm here as a resident of the street
in question So I'm going to talk with both hats for a moment and looking at the fiscal plan specifically
the language that I saw said the cost estimates of plan services to be furnished to the territory to
be annexed
The plan must present itemized estimated costs for each municipal department or agency So and I kept
reading through that I kept looking for numbers for each of the you know departments that this talked
about and there's not numbers there just says We have a department that exists and they'll take care
of it So then I want to solidly put my FOP hat back on and talk about the police department the police
department you know the FOP is concerned with with the annexation has been you know, we're understaffed
as it is and
Taking on even just one more property is you know one more property? It's fine. It's one one property
But right now our concern is is annexation going through or not? It's an ongoing litigation that we're
watching very closely Our staffing level remains today. We're 12 short of the budget 105 officers There's
only 76 available officers to work the entire city regardless of its one property or the whole city and
We know there's another two officers scheduled to leave one in January one looking at February Okay,
so can we hire our way, you know fast enough to keep up with that. That's my concern I'm gonna talk
specifically to that department and my concern there is staffing that one the fire department the planet
or the Parks and Rec the other ones listed there. I don't know. There's no number listed
That's what I would like to see in a fiscal plan is an exact number That someone boiled down and said
this is what we think it would actually cost for this one property For each, you know year or each department
something like that So that's what I wanted to express in terms of the the fiscal plan again. I agree
with what my neighbors have said tonight We were firmly opposed to annexation in that area. This seems
like an end run around things. Thank you
Thank you. Let's go ahead and go to the person on Zoom next, and then we'll come back to chambers, okay?
So Deputy Attorney Bennett, if you wanna go ahead and unmute them. When you're unmuted, go ahead and
state your name for the record, and then you'll have up to three minutes. Hi, my name is Paul Rousseau.
I understand that, I think it was Council Member Ruff asked about the karst geology.
So I turned to our friendly Google Gemini, and I asked Google Gemini about septic systems in karst areas.
Gemini says, septic systems are risky in karst areas because the fractured limestone bedrock and thin
soils provide minimal natural filtration, allowing untreated wastewater from septic systems to quickly
contaminate groundwater and surface water.
This can lead to serious public health issues and requires the use of alternative advanced septic systems
and careful siting to protect vulnerable water sources. My second comment would be that, financially
speaking, almost every complexity in this situation could be mitigated or eliminated if the neighbors
on Corey Drive would just agree to be annexed.
As they benefit from city services while being surrounded by the city instead of fighting a tooth and
nail on the courts Thank you Thank you, let's go ahead and go back here in chambers Do we have any other
hands raised on zoom? Okay, go ahead and sign in again state your name for the record and then you'll
have up to three minutes Hi, I'm Leslie Ruiz again I just wanted to make two responses to things that
You guys had brought up as it as it comes to like that sawtooth idea there is a chain link fence all
the way along the boundary between this property and city property. So you would have to access it through
quarry drive which means you would be using that roadway whether it's private or not. I don't really
know what the legality is but it is not a good road particularly in that area. There's erosion things
like that also.
There is regardless of whether there is an actual karst feature which we all believe that there is there
still is a drainage field that they cannot build on that is 40 feet wide which takes up a significant
part of that property leaving a very very small area for them to be able to build on with all of their
restrictions from how far they can build back from the road.
from the back of the property things like that it is very very small. So we're talking really small
driveway probably on street parking again which wouldn't be city it would be ours it would be county
I don't know. But there's just a lot of concerns there. They can't build that big of a space on that
property. It's very very small. So that's all I really have to say. Thank you.
Excuse me. Thank you. Are there any other commenters on Result, I've forgotten my name resolution 2025
19 and chambers Has anybody raised a hand on zoom? Okay, let's revert back to council then Are there
any councilmember questions that have been come up councilmember Flaherty? Yes. Thank you a couple One
it's like a two-parter related to sewer system and
One is that my understanding is that you can't add a septic system in a lot like this anymore that there
are Indiana regulations that would prevent that and I believe mr. Wheeler kind of Tangentially referenced
that that the owner was not having success getting a septic system Could someone maybe either from CBU
or mr. Wheeler? confirm that Assumption It's mr. Wheeler still on zoom Yeah, I'm still here. Thank you
I was contemplating what you're saying. I don't have a knowledge as to the success or the legal availability
of folks in the county based upon any laws that the county might be trying to regulate and enforce.
I don't have any information on how that works. So I don't feel comfortable just sort of winging it.
I regret that I don't have any information for it. I'd be happy to try and dig some up and talk to you
about it later. That's going to Probably have a lot more to do with the annexation itself versus whether
the fiscal plan gets adopted This is true Thank you. Maybe a question I would like possibly you or someone
at the city utilities to be prepared to answer I wouldn't hear the other parts of the legislation related to this
But then second, just to confirm, you mentioned that in order to, well, actually, yeah, I think it's
a follow-up in the same vein, and so I'll save that for another time. I did have a second question,
though, which I could ask now or hold. Why don't you go ahead? This is just following up on Mr. Post's
comments about putting some language about itemized by department-like budget impacts.
And I agree with you that the impacts will be nominal and quite minimal. But still, one could estimate,
you know, okay, let's assume there's gonna be a rental hand inspection. Like, how many staff do we have?
How many inspections do they do a year? Like, divide and, like, actually get that marginal cost and,
like, understand, like, what that is, even if it is nominal. Is it your legal opinion that it's not
necessary to do that based on state law? And...
Is that rooted in precedent or other cases where we've seen municipalities use this approach of saying
that there are no substantial costs and that's kind of good enough for a fiscal plan for a very small
property addition like this? Well, my opinion is that when you have such an inconsequential amount,
I think it's okay to say that rather than trying to crunch the numbers and figure out what those dollars
or hundreds of dollars might be.
I can also tell you that this fiscal plan is a direct borrowing, if you will, of the fiscal plans that
the Fishers City Council uses. And when they are doing a single parcel like this, their language is
the same. They're looking at it as these are nominal. They're not, they're aren't any like direct costs.
So they don't show actual dollars. Now, when you get into a much bigger
Chunk of land that would get annexed now. You have to start looking at Showing the the actual impact
versus something like this, which is just nominal But we don't have like specific court guidance say
or case law that like confirms that that saying a nominal fees Okay. Thank you Are there any other lingering
questions before we do councilmember comment councilmember Rallo Mr. Wheeler, I'm just
The context other nearby properties are on sanitary sewer, correct That's correct. And this one was
denied. Is that correct? well He so I'm trying to think if he did ask I don't recall if he specifically
asked that I think what he did was
as he came to the utilities department wanting to know whether he would be eligible and That is when
we recommended to him that no You won't be eligible unless you can get annexed into the city and he
actually happens to be contiguous. So He can voluntarily annex Okay, well that gets to my question is
that the the administration of the city's policy right now is to deny any sewer connection unless you
are annexed
Well, yeah, unless you're part of the city you don't get to connect anymore and that to my knowledge
is going to be the Policy for the city for the foreseeable future when you look around the state of
Indiana I was surprised to find that a Great many municipalities have that policy. They simply don't
extend outside city limits Yeah, the city of Bloomington was doing that but it was under understandings
and agreements that are now being violated Yeah, it's not a judgment. It's just clarification
Sure to understand it. Thank you Are there any other councilmember questions before we move to comments?
Okay, seeing none, let's go ahead and move to comments are there council members who would like to comment
on this resolution before a vote No comments before the vote councilmember Piedmont Smith
I think the fiscal plan is sufficient the way it's presented and I think the impacts will be nominal
and so I'll be voting. Yes. Thank you Any other councilmember comment I will go ahead and say that I
agree with councilmember Piedmont Smith. I
I will also be voting. Yes, I do think that it's sufficient and that there are nominal impacts and that
kind of that worst-case scenario is it's gonna stay a vacant lot if it can't be developed on because
of environmental features and that I don't think that that would be I Think the fiscal plan is is okay
for that possibility as well So if they're councilmember Rallo for a comment, you know just to add that
for clarification that I I find this sufficient and
Annex, but this is not a You know, it's not an indication of a decision on future rezoning Any other
councilmember comments before vote councilmember Ruff Yeah, I mostly agree with the comments and made
so far by my council colleagues that though I do certainly respect the Comment a public comment by
Mr. Post that Of course any individual given additional parcel might have a very small marginal impact
on the ability for example for an understaffed police force to to serve it, but that's how that's how
Cities grow right one piece at a time or an annexing of an area several parcels at a time It's like
the whole idea of wetland as well. You know, you you know you you
Paid over one small wetland area and it doesn't really change the total amount of the state, but it's
all about incremental Additions and expansion a bit at a time. So I'm very sensitive to that And I also
want to emphasize like as my relative this doesn't indicate Saying that yeah. Okay this fiscal plan
impact statement looks You know looks good enough for me to vote yes doesn't mean I'm I'm not going to
I'm gonna support the subsequent legislation is gonna come are lit related to this parcel Any other
councilmember comment before we vote Okay, seeing none will the clerk please call the roll on resolution
2025 19 Yes, yes Yes, yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes Yes, sorry. Yes. Yes
Thank you and that passes with a vote seven to zero on to the next I Move that ordinate appropriation
ordinance 2025 dash 14 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only Second It's been
moved and seconded to introduce appropriation ordinance 2025 14. All those in favor, please say aye.
Aye Opposed. Thank you. Will the clerk please read?
Appropriation ordinance 2025-14 to specially appropriate from the General Fund Parks and Recreation
General Fund Motor Vehicle Highway Fund CC Jack Hopkins fund expenditures not otherwise appropriated
Appropriating various transfers of funds within the General Fund Parks and Recreation General Fund Motor
Vehicle Highway Fund Local Road and Street Fund Public Safety Lit Fund solid waste fund and fleet maintenance
fund Synopsis is as follows this ordinance appropriates various transfers of funds within the general
Fund Motor Vehicle Highway Fund Local Road and Street Fund Parks and Recreation General Fund Public
Safety Lit Fund CC Jack Hopkins Fund Solid Waste Fund and Sleep Fleet Maintenance Fund Thank you, I
move that appropriation ordinance 2025-14 be adopted Thank you for stepping up
Who is here to present appropriation ordinance 2025 14? If you could state your name for the record
and then the floor is yours. Thank you Cheryl Gilliland deputy controller City of Bloomington controllers
office. Good evening I am going to Present a shortened version of the memo dated November 12th and November
18th to council
Appropriation ordinance 2025-14 is our comprehensive 2025 year-end appropriation request. The overall
2025 additional appropriation request is $391,484, which covers eight different funds. Three of the
funds are requesting additional appropriations, while the remaining five funds are requesting transfers
within the fund.
For the general fund, all departmental funding requests will be addressed through transfers between
and within departments and expenditure accounts. This approach provides the flexibility needed to close
gaps and balance the general fund budget. For 2025, the net impact on the total general fund appropriation is zero.
now for each individual department within the general fund. Animal care and control is requesting a
transfer of $40,000 from classification four capital and 20,000 from classification one personnel to
classification three services. This $60,000 transfer will cover an increased cost anticipated with outside
vendor spay
neuter surgeries Public Works Administration Department is requesting a $85,000 transfer from classification
for capital to classification three services in addition to this transfer the department is requesting
an additional appropriation of $215,000 in classification three Each year we budget liability and casualty
insurance premiums with our best guess estimate as the actual cost is not known until after the budget
is adopted. The premium rate for 2025 resulted in a drastic increase which is the premise behind the
additional appropriation request for this department.
Common Council is requesting a simple transfer of $2,500 from Category 3 services to Category 2 supplies
to cover higher than anticipated supply costs. Engineering Department is requesting the release of $192,800
from Classification 1 personnel services
Due to staff turnover and vacancies the savings will fund other general fund departmental requests in
the amount of a hundred and fifty thousand dollars the remaining forty two thousand eight hundred dollars
will be departmental transfer spread between the remaining classifications two three and four The fire
department
is requesting a transfer of $195,550 from Classification 3 services to Classification 1 personnel services
in the amount of $95,550 with the remaining $100,000 going to Classification 2 supplies. The transfers
will cover an underestimated staffing costs and rescue equipment.
CFRD has a simple transfer request to move a $1,500 from classification 3 services to classification
2 supplies The mayor's office requests the release of $59,000 from classification 1 personnel services
and $20,000 from classification 3 services the savings will fund other general fund departments including
Parks and Recreation General Fund. Public Works Facilities Maintenance Division is requesting a simple
transfer of $8,500 from Classification 2 supplies to Classification 3 services to cover building repair
and maintenance services. Again, the General Fund has an adequate overall fund balance within various
departments to cover the mentioned additional appropriation requests.
There's no fiscal impact on these requests. Now, I will cover the other funds with, again, with only
three funds requesting additional appropriation. And the rest will be transfers. For the Motor Vehicle
Fund, Public Works Street Division is requesting to transfer $190,000 from Classification 1 Personnel
Services to Classification 3 Services
to cover much higher than budgeted, again, liability, casualty, insurance premiums. Also, the department
is requesting an additional appropriation of $352,484 in classification four capital to cover the purchase
of a grapple machine truck to provide public works with the ability to pick up, load, and unload heavy materials
The street department believes this purchase would be extremely valuable for the future city of Bloomington
storm or disaster response efforts. The additional funds for this request will come from the disaster
reimbursement issued by the State Department of Homeland Security for the May tornado cleanup event
that happened this year.
For the local road and street fund, Public Works Street Division is requesting a $345,000 transfer from
classification three services to classification four capital. The department realized substantial savings
following Duke Energy's new lighting rate structure, which eliminated upfront equipment charges for
outdoor lighting and instead
spreads the cost over the life of the system. The department proposes to reinvest these savings in two
major purchases, one being a new dump truck costing $280,000 to replace a 15-year-old vehicle and a
replacement pickup truck costing $65,000. Parks and Recreation General Fund
is requesting a transfer of $135,000 from classification one personnel services to classification two
services in the amount of $110,000. These transfers will cover supply needs for the new Hopewell Commons
Park liability and casualty insurance premiums and costs related to an irrigation water leak.
The department also requests an additional appropriation of $14,000 in Classification III services to
support the Seminary Park Port-au-lettes. Funding for this appropriation will come from the Earmark
General Fund coverage through an inter-fund transfer. Public Safety Lit Fund.
Police Department for dispatch is requesting a transfer of $21,000 from classification one personnel
services to classification three services to cover potential dispatch HVAC and generator repairs. The
Jack Hopkins fund common council is requesting an additional appropriation of $25,000 to fund
an additional food grant. This additional appropriation will leave an estimated cash fund balance of
$27,600. Solid Waste Fund Public Works Sanitation Division is requesting a transfer of $10,920 from
Classification IV Capital and $11,000 from Classification III Services
to classification one personnel services to cover the need of additional seasonal temporary employees.
And lastly, the Fleet Maintenance Fund, Public Works Fleet Division is requesting a transfer of $100,000
from classification four capital to classification three services to cover necessary upgrades to cloud
versions of two main fleet software systems.
Yes Thank you for your consideration of the 2025 Year-end additional appropriation requests, which was
vet quite small come in comparison to previous years Thank you so much are there any councilmember questions
about this operation ordinance councilmember Rollo question about the portal it Seminary part did you
say fourteen thousand dollars?
What's the duration of that? How long is it going to be there seems like a significant amount of money
is it sure I Really do not know the answer to that that wasn't provided when they made the request I
Assume that it's been part of the expense for this year and the mayor's office requested
to use some of their surplus funds to Help support it. I just you know, I'm just bad. I just don't know.
Yeah, I Think I was in there all year I remember having a conversation about it really early in the
year. Maybe even last year. Does anybody else remember that? All right, no worries, sorry about that
maybe I can follow up just to find out I
What this covers the longevity of it, okay It's a good thing so I support it. Thank you. Thank you.
Are there other questions? Thank you Two questions and I guess I'll probably ask one and then and then
come back for the for the second round but the I'm particularly interested in the higher than expected cost
for liability, insurance, other such things. How do we come about higher than expected costs at the
end of the year? I mean, were those things that sort of surfaced quite early in the budget season, and
then we're just rectifying it now? Or have these been shifting during the year?
So when we prepare the budget we have no idea what the rates are going to be for the following year.
So we give our best guess estimate and we actually did a fairly significant increase for 2025. But after
the budget was adopted so we received word from the insurance of our rate increase and it was significant.
When does that rate increase happen.
I want to say it's in January. Yeah, okay. Okay. Yeah, that would make sense So right in the new year,
they set some time. Yeah, we're already finished with Of course, we've already done but then the question
I guess is what are the like what? What's the algorithm that leads to a riser fall in? in insurance
rates for the city particularly
Risk would need to answer that but I do know that a lot of it a lot of the rates that get calculated
do with payouts in the previous years and so forth and I think this year for 2025 are I think we were
actually dropped and had a new insurance company so we had completely new
New rates. Okay, and then the final question which was there is just one big question just broken down
into three small parts but is that are we in like what what investments are we making to de-risk the
sort of instability of liability insurance and the like it yeah, so I know after this big increase risk
worked with the insurance company and
offered a mandatory training session or not really training but a session with our Insurance provider
to talk about so anyone driving a city vehicle or potentially driving one of our fleet vehicles for
city business had to attend and They talked about
things that we can do to help prevent wrecks and to To help just help us in lowering the number of accidents
that we have Does that lower our rates doing those type of I believe so that that was my assumption
is by offering that and and it was showing the Insurance that we're taking initiative and we've done
everything we can do to lower our
Because I just feel, and I'll just round up, I will stop talking after this, but my concern with this
is that if we're constantly reactive, and we say, okay, well, it's out of our hands, here we went, they
raised their rates again, and it's just this constant hole in our rates. Yeah, I don't think that's
the case. I think risk management is, they really,
investigate and work with their insurance and you know, they're talking about ways of How we can save
money and what that means and so they're I'm sure they'll probably Do another session with us next year.
Excellent. Thank you. Thank you so much. I have another question Thank you I'm actually gonna jump in
and ask my first round one there because it's kind of a follow-up to what councilmember Sorry was just
talking about I'm just wondering if
For fiscal year 2026 in terms of the budget for that that expense of the Of the insurance is do you
do you expect that you have made a better estimate for next year? So Risk is the one that the risk management
department actually does our estimate for the coming year. So
My understanding is that we are taking the current rate and then we did an increase based on his discussions
with the current provider. Okay. So you know that's thank you. Yeah hopefully. I sure hope so. It was
a shocker this year. Yeah for sure. Are there other first round questions.
Go ahead councilmember. Sorry with your second. Okay. So the second question is about I mean the real
big purchase here is the as the vehicle and I didn't quite understand the Transfer but then it's going
to be funded by something else this 350. Yeah, so So they had a they had a request to to transfer Some
money for one purpose, but then they want the additional appropriation
purchase the one large vehicle yes and they are they want to use the money that we receive from the
From that settlement, of course, but the question I guess my question is is is temporal here like did
has that money or because the way it was framed is that We're transferring this money and it's going
in the future to be refunded by the FEMA. Yeah, we have we've already Okay, so so this is just
a like-for-like we already have the money to do for things and we're Investing that money to make ourselves
more resilient in the case of future storms rather than just just dealing with the immediate
Cost that were associated because we were able to cover that within our budget last year. That's wonderful.
Thank you very much Great any other questions from council members? Okay, seeing none, let's go ahead
and go to public comment on appropriation ordinance 2025 14 if you're a member of the public who would
like to comment on this ordinance if you're in chambers You can go ahead and make your way to the podium
If you're online, you can go ahead and raise your hand using the reactions tab or send a chat message
to the host. I
I'm not seeing any movement in council chambers. Is there anybody with a hand raised on zoom? Okay.
Seeing no public comments. We'll go ahead and move on. We'll close the public comment period. Move on
to any last questions from council members. Seeing none. Any council member comments on appropriation
ordinance 2025 14.
None, I think that we're ready for the clerk to go ahead and do a roll call vote on appropriation ordinance
2025 14 Yes, yes, yes Yes, yes. Sorry. Yes. Yes Great. Thank you. And that passes with a vote of seven
to zero and now we are on to the next I move that
Ordinance 2025 dash 44 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only It's been moved
and seconded to introduce ordinance 2025 dash 44 all those in favor, please say aye opposed. Thank you.
Will the clerk please read Ordinance 2025 dash 44 to amend title 10 of the Bloomington Municipal Code
entitled wastewater septic collar rate adjustment synopsis is as follows the
This ordinance amends the rates and charges entitled 10 of the Bloomington Municipal Code entitled wastewater
to reflect increased cost of treating hauled wastewater to the Dillman wastewater treatment plant.
Thank you. I move that ordinance 2025 dash 44 be adopted. Second. Thank you. And it looks like we have
somebody from CBU here to present this evening if you could introduce yourself for the record.
And then the floor is yours. Yes Catherine Sager utilities director and we are presenting ordinance
2025 dash 44 to amend Title 10 of the Bloomington Municipal Code entitled wastewater. I'd also like
to say that I am joined today by Stephen Stanford and Kelsey Thetonia who have put a lot of the legwork
into developing this amendment. So I'm going to take some time to talk about their qualifications.
So Stephen Stanford is our pre-treatment coordinator He joined CBU in July of 2024 and brings more than
oh, do we not? Present is it not time for the presentation? It's it's time. Oh, it's over there. I'm
sorry He brings more than 40 years of professional environmental experience including 32 years in the
private sector and eight years in the municipal sector and
He's a licensed professional geologist in Indiana and Illinois and holds an Indiana Class IV municipal
and Class D industrial wastewater operator certifications. And IWIA certified pretreatment coordinator
credential and has managed municipal pretreatment programs for more than 10 years.
His experience is concentrated in wastewater treatment for environmental compliance and includes conceptual
design, RCRA permitting, NPDES permitting, cost estimating for asset management and cost allocation
for environmental projects up to and including Superfund site cleanups. Kelsey Thetonias, our Assistant
Director of Environmental Programs. Kelsey has over 12 years of experience working in environmental
management in state and local government.
In a role at CBU, she oversees environmental compliance programs for the city's drinking water, wastewater,
and stormwater utilities. Prior to her position in the city, she managed Monroe County's stormwater
utility and county drainage board. She's a certified professional in erosion and sediment control, a
certified erosion sediment and stormwater inspector, and has a master's degree in environmental science
and public affairs at Indiana University. Finally, I'm also joined by Jennifer Wilson,
Who is with crow LLP who helped do the design for this proposed rate? Jennifer Wilson is a director
with crow LLP, which is a certified public accounting and consulting firm crow's municipal advisory
practice and its predecessor municipal consultants have been providing rate and financial consulting
services to various types of utility companies for over 60 years and
Jennifer is a certified public accountant, licensed in the state of Indiana, and is a member of the
Indiana CPA Society, and a member of the American Institute of CPAs. She's also a designated municipal
advisor principal, having successfully passed the series 50 exam and series qualified municipal advisor
principal. Jennifer has been employed with Crow since 1992,
Crow has been providing municipal advisory and rate consulting services to Bloomington for over 20 years
Jennifer has been the primary contact for all city of Bloomington utility related engagements since
2017 I know I All of these folks have come up before but I thought it would be helpful to know the background
and credentials that they bring to this this amendment so
We're here today to talk specifically more about our waste hauler charges We have identified the need
to reevaluate our billing rates for hauled wastewater, which have not been updated since the year 2000
These rates were not included in our previous sewer rate adjustments But this is something that we plan
to include moving forward so that our rates are able to approach the cost of service for hauled wastewater
Since the year 2000 our direct sewer customers have undergone multiple rate increases resulting in an
overall increase of 168 percent since the year 2000 additionally since 2000 inflation has risen and
the construction cost index has increased over 200 percent
In 2024, CBU commissioned Crowe LLP to study and analyze operating and financial reports and other data
to calculate an appropriate rate to charge to domestic septage haulers who deposit waste at CBU's treatment
facilities. And the results of the study confirmed our assumptions that the current charges are severely
insufficient to cover the cost of treatment of this concentrated waste, which required more use of equipment
and resources to process.
Our goal with this proposal is to bridge is to bring the hauled septage rates closer to meeting the
costs associated with treating this wastewater So in addition to those reasons CPU also has a legal
requirement to set fees that aim to meet the cost of service and
So Indiana Code, Title 36, Article 9, Chapter 23, Section 25, provides that we are both required to
set our fees to be sufficient to pay all expenses incidental to the operation of our sewage works, and
that we have the ability to use strength or character of sewage discharged into the sewers as a factor
in establishing that fee.
So historically, CBU has accepted hauled wastewater at its Dillman Road wastewater treatment plant as
a service to local residents and businesses located beyond the reach of its sewer system. The extent
of our current distribution system or our beating heart of public health is shown here. Unlike many
publicly owned treatment works, CBU provides service to both in and out of county customers. In a 2024
septic survey from IDEM,
Out of the 28 publicly owned treatment works that responded, only 19 accept hauled septage. Only three
of those, including CBU, accept out-of-county septage. Of the 19 that accept septage, only six wastewater
plants had rates that are lower than what we are proposing tonight. And with that, I'm going to hand
it to Stephen Stanford, who's going to help explain some of the more technical aspects of this rate proposal.
Thank you very much cat. I'll try to be brief. I have nine more slides with a lot of information. I
would like to get in Little background information we're on pace this year to receive five million gallons
of hauled wastewater At our Dillman plant 91% of that is domestic septage the other 9% is grease waste
from our more than 500 food service establishments in the city of the septage
44% of its from in County and the balance 56% of it is from out of County with our current rate structure
We're actually attracting hauled septage By haulers that are registered with us from as far away as
Indianapolis Evansville and even even a couple of different cities in Ohio Septage versus domestic sewage,
what's the difference? domestic septage is a concentrated high-strength wastewater pump from individual
septic tanks and
It has a pollutant concentration reported by EPA of 20,000 milligrams per liter. That's about 2% by
volume. On the other hand, sewage that comes down the pipe to our Dillman Road plant from the home's
business and industries comes in with a pollutant content of about 300 milligrams per liter. The difference
is a factor of 67 when we divide 20,000 by 300.
We see that the septage is 67 times more concentrated than the ordinary sewage. Okay, cost of treatment.
This is a part that Crow helped us a great deal with. In 2024, we've got whole year numbers. The Dillman
Road plant,
Received a total of 4 billion gallons of wastewater containing almost 10 million pounds of pollutants
In the crows study they determined that the total cost to treat that water which excludes the cost of
collections This doesn't include the sewer system This is just owning and operating the Dillman plant
the way it needs to be in accordance with this permit the cost was ten point two million dollars and
so it's easy to determine the cost that the total cost of
Ten point two million dollars and divided by almost ten million pounds of pollutants It turned out at
just about a dollar a pound dollar and four cents in this case So we know how much per pound it costs
us to handle the pollutants that come either on a truck or down the pipeline Our current billing rates
We're set for the domestic sewage
In our most recent 2022 rate case, you know, on the other hand, as Director Zager said, we
haven't reevaluated our hauler rates in more than 25 years. What the rates look like today, a customer
in the city connected to our sewer is paying about a penny per gallon. For the hauled septage from in
county, we're charging about two pennies per gallon. And for the grease waste, we're charging almost
six cents per gallon.
Today's hauler rate proposal here is based on the cost of service the cost of treatment that was determined
with crow's help They determine that it costs us 17 cents a gallon to treat domestic septage The reason
for that cost is that a thousand gallons of domestic septage contains a hundred and sixty seven pounds
of pollutants and
And a dollar a pound that's a hundred sixty seven dollars for a thousand gallons that works out to Almost
17 cents the little difference comes from the administrative charges the labor charges and so forth
just to administer the hauled waste program Rather than trying to recover it all at once we're we're
recommending and would like approval to increase the
Hulled wastewater rate to a uniform stepped increase rate of eight cents per gallon That would be for
the septage and that would also be for the grease waste And we're also proposing to eliminate the 50%
surcharge for out-of-county Septage as a matter of policy. We have not accepted out of county grease
waste at any time to my knowledge and
Fiscal impact to our customers a CBU we have twenty six thousand three hundred and eighty eight ratepayers
either sewer and water or sewer or water Of our total customers almost twenty five hundred our water
only and so I expect that they might be using septic systems And so this this rate increase could directly
affect them In addition to our ratepayers We're receiving
Septage from in the county and all the surrounding counties in fact a large swath of southern, Indiana
There's tens of thousands of households That are the majority of which likely depend on septic systems,
so they'd be indirectly affected by the proposal today Now what is the What does the effect look like
for a typical? customer who has a septic system and
The EPA tells us that a system like that should be inspected every three years and that the tank should
be pumped every three to five years. If I own a thousand gallon tank and I pump it every three years
because I wanna keep it working well, CBU's charge to the waste hauler is gonna increase from $20.60
all the way up to $80. That's the large percent increase that I've seen in print. On an annual basis, however,
As the septic system owner, I'm only paying $19.80 more a year So it's a large percentage increase for
CBU that really in the end doesn't add up to much for a typical septic customer Now for a grease waste
customer Our ordinance requires that grease interceptors be pumped every 90 days and
A typical grease interceptor is a thousand gallons. And so that's 4,000 gallons of waste per year with
our proposed adjustment from six cents a gallon to eight cents a gallon. The cost for such a customer
estimated to increase by about $84 and 40 cents per year. You know, in closing, I like to just emphasize
that our current rates are not meeting the cost of treatment.
For any of the whole noise water and we need a rate increase And with that I'd be delighted to take
any questions Thank you, I also want to note that there is an amendment to this So do we want to maybe
ask a couple of questions? About what's presented first and then do the amendment or do what do you
want to do? We may want to do the amendment early because it's fairly straightforward. Okay, go for it. I
So motion to introduce amendment one second. All right. It's been moved and seconded to introduce amendment
one for those of you who aren't aware there was a packet addendum sent out today with actually several
amendments in it one for this ordinance and several for the next two.
Councilmember sorry, would you like to present? Sure, okay. So this amendment makes three well really
too straightforward I think but maybe important corrections to ensure that wastewater hauling section
or code is clear The first thing that it does is that it removes the out-of-county waste surcharge This
50% penalty was created decades ago and no longer consistent with the updated rate structure Should
we adopt that what we're about to do This is all of these things were explicitly recommended
by utilities and by Mr. Wheeler. The second thing that it does is that it corrects a numbering error
in the ordinance, so just cleaning it up. The original draft mislabeled the final section of the ordinance,
so fixing it now just avoids confusion when it's codified. So in short, this doesn't change the substance
of the rate adjustment, simply removes an outdated surcharge, corrects a drafting error, and provides
complete updated code language in a clear and usable format.
Thank you So at this point, we're just discussing the amendment as opposed to general questions about
the ordinance councilmember Raleigh you have a question about the amendment Yeah, I do Is about the
ordinance as a whole but this this is appropriate for the amendment Is there is there any reason that
we should accept sewage from outside the community? at the at the cost to residents because
If the cost is 17 cents to treat in which in our our rate is going to be eight we're essentially subsidizing
haulers from outside to come and Dispose of their waste at the expense of current residents the consulman.
I would consider that a significant policy question Yeah, why are we subsidy why are residents subsidizing?
Haulers from outsider community
at a discount Yeah, Catherine Zegar utilities director happy to answer that question The first thing
that comes to mind is that our water source the watershed for Lake Monroe is outside of our county By
ensuring that we are able to accept septic waste We are promoting people pumping out their septic tanks
that are in our watershed So that would be a direct benefit to the utility So
But what about just limiting it to the watershed? I mean why I mean it seems to me if people are coming
from Louisville or Indianapolis, that's not within the watershed. So that does that logic apply? Why
don't we limit it to the watershed? So I think it would be very difficult to limit limit it to the watershed
But one of the things that our proposed rate change would do was to would discourage haulers from coming
so far away so
Eight cents a gallon would be relatively competitive in the region And so may discourage folks from
taking a very long drive to come dump their septic waste at Dilman Well, it's half it's less than half
the cost of the state average is my understanding is that correct eight cents Relative to 17.9. I think
was crow Estimated the state average. Is that correct?
The state average from the state's 2024 survey there were 82 respondents to the survey 17 of them reported
that they accept hauled wastewater. Two of the two of the systems that reported and came in with a very
high number and that sort of skewed the arithmetic mean up to 17 cents. If you sort of dropped caramel
sites one and two out of the average it would be right. It would be right at eight cents.
Okay, so So the so there were two outliers that must have been hugely expensive and then the rest were
Within our neighborhood or lower. Yes between between typically four cents and and 20 cents So I'm but
okay. So now we're proposing removing a surcharge So now it's going to be even cheaper for outside haulers
to come. Is that correct? I
Well, the rate would be very competitive with the the state average excluding Carmel sites one and two.
Yeah I Understand that you know that Lake watershed Lake Monroe watershed is certainly worth it's a
public good and we need to Protect it and so there should be incentives involved there but
Um, it there is no way to limit the haulers to say, you know, a radius that wouldn't involve Louisville.
I mean, it's clearly that's a long way. I would just, uh, reiterate, reiterate, uh, director Zager's
response that the competitive rate would should tend to eliminate long distance halls. Okay. Um,
Does my council colleague who sponsored the amendment do you have a response to?
You know my concern about subsidized residents subsidizing long haulers to come and dispose of their
waste. I think it's the I think it's the right question. I think it's a well posed question. I think
the the view and correct me if I'm wrong from the utilities and I think Mr. Wheeler may still be on.
But when I was discussing with Mr. Wheeler the view was that
the change in rates does enough to cause that policy to be irrelevant. So that's sort of the thing.
It's like you can't distinguish from the folks that are in the watershed and out. So if we keep a surcharge
and we raise the rates, then that might create some issues that we don't want to see, like people stop
pumping that are in our watershed.
So it's just a question about tools and mechanisms here. But but I grew at the broader question about
whether or not we should be subsidizing you know folks outside of that watershed in essence. But you
know there are other costs as well associated with them driving here and the time and other things like
that. Yeah. OK. Thank you. Other questions about Amendment 1.
Councilmember Piedmont Smith. Yeah I apologize for not having read this but having received it just
an hour before the meeting. I did not have time so which is no fault of anybody's. I also have an amendment
that just came up so but I I'm just curious if you could explain why there's all this text in this amendment
that seems to be added.
This this is a question for council attorneys More so than me. I don't know if this was a choice not
Thing was so that we had a clear attachment right as that is that that was the reasoning. Yes Yes, I
believe that's simply because there wasn't a redlined attachment
to the original ordinance and we use this amendment as an opportunity to prepare an attachment for that
purpose. Okay but I'm just looking at the order the amendment form itself and Section 1 you know has
all these subparts that are in bold and in red. So I assume they are added.
to the ordinance itself. And then I also see attachment a which has some changes in it. My understanding
is that this met the approval of the legal department with respect to the language included in it and
with Chris Wheeler.
I'm just going to jump in and say I had that question too and I was able to look at it and compare it
and in the original ordinance it only had the chart of rates and didn't have the rest of the information
like because I because then I
Before this I had gone back to the original code because there wasn't a red line included with the original
packet and I had actually gone back to our original code to figure out what the rates were previously.
And so I think that it was partly for clarity to so none of that red line text was actually changed
from what's currently in code except for that struck sentence.
for out of county waste. Yes I believe that's correct. It was for the purpose of clarity. Chris Wheeler
also attorney Wheeler also has raised his hand as well online. OK. What would attorney Wheeler like
to once again introduce himself for the record and address this. Thank you. Yeah. Hi Chris Wheeler assistant
city attorney with the city of Bloomington.
The amendment was drafted by your attorneys and I reviewed and approved it. My understanding of all
the red line language in that first section is simply showing that that section has been changed. It's
not adding any language. It's actually simply removing one of the paragraphs. I think it's five. It
just deletes the one section that references the surcharge. The rest of that red line language that's in there
simply redlined to show that that particular section of Title 10 is being updated. There is no new language.
There's only the deletion of the surcharge language. That's my understanding of how that was drafted.
I don't know if that helps. Does that help Councilmember Piedmont-Smith?
Sorry if I'm being dense here, but I'm looking at this amendment. I don't see any strike through so
what what are we actually striking? if you go down farther to Where it actually had to keep going Keep
going so this is code as it's written and then keep going and then that's what we're striking right
there in purple and
That's all right. Well I find all this red text and the actual amendment to be very confusing because
it implies that like that it's new. I'm sorry. OK. So you're saying that the only thing we're changing
is we're taking out number five under the following types of waste may be accepted for treatment by
city utilities. No.
No section five is just being renumbered because it was no no no no. She's talking about the actual
10 0 8 1 20 code itself not in the ordinance but the actual code itself. Yes. So so the following types
of ways may be accepted for treatment. Formerly this list included out of county waste and we're just
removing that.
So does that mean we're just not making a distinction between in county and out of county waste. Correct.
OK. I see. And then the the prices in that orange color in the table that that was the same as in the
original ordinance. Correct. OK. Yes that's correct. I understand now. Thank you.
Yeah, I'll go on the record and say that that was also confusing to me I think that it that it does
make sense because in the original Ordinance none of the language had been changed from that section.
Only the table had been changed So then none of the language was included in the original ordinance.
So by striking something we had to remove the amendment removes the original language and replaces it
with that language and
Which is all the same as the original except it doesn't include a section to what it's super confusing
Are there other questions about the amendment other first rounds before we go to second round councilmember
Rallo Just wondering about what this applies to what what percent comes from out of out of county relative
to the total I
Of the septage for this year. It's on pace to be 56% a little more than half Comes from outside the
county. Yes So a significant amount Okay Could we just a naive question? Can we could we limit it? so
the Lakeman were watershed if that's our concern is 97% is in three counties and
Jackson Brown and Monroe could we limit the that That's fee to haulers from those counties Again, I
would refer that to that would be a significant policy decision I don't do it every time
So theoretically we could have a policy to limit it to those counties However, we have been reliably
providing this service to surrounding counties and We did not have the intent on stopping that service
or changing that service I did want to make sure it was clear that When we remove this 50% surcharge
the rates for out-of-county are still going up
from what they used to be so None of the rates are going we're not incentivizing out of County now Any
more than it already was in fact, it's still more expensive Which is why we were talking about if somebody
traveled a long way to come dump at Dillman They would be incurring a lot of cost with gas wear and
tear on their vehicle lost time
So it would make less economic sense For folks to come further out because it's not as good of a deal
Anymore even with our flat rate in and out of County Does that make yeah, I? guess You know the Lake
Monroe watershed is east of here. So if you draw a circle radius 24 miles That would be east of here
would be Lake Monroe watershed
going west Those people are not contributing to I mean, that's that's not endangering the lake. I guess
what I'm saying is is that You know 56% is a significant amount of waste that we are treating that we
are subsidizing essentially out of town Out of county haulers. We're subsidizing that I correct me if
I'm wrong, but if the cost is 17 cents to treat and we're judging 8 cents and
per thousand gallons then it seems to me we're subsidizing it so Since I represent people in Bloomington.
I'm not interested in subsidizing people People's costs in the neighboring County and Owen County or
whatever I'm concerned about people here, especially when it's a rate change and I'm also concerned
about low low-income people being affected and
So there's that concern and there's a lot of moving parts here So that's sort of my concern about this
is that maybe this requires revisiting at some point But that's it seems to stand as we proceed here.
Thanks. Yep. Go ahead I would just say we might be over like over adjusting to the comment that was
made about some folks coming from Indianapolis and Louisville I mean, I think that am I correct in saying
that of the 56% the vast majority of those are within the Lake Monroe watershed to begin with
large percentage er from the Lake Monroe watershed and surrounding counties but like but I think to
councilmember ruffs question like is when we're talking about this 56% number is a is is is
it disproportionately people who are far I mean we've already talked about and I said it in my initial
response like the the reason why you take away the surcharge is just to make it a lot more simple where
the tool that we're using we think would stabilize the use of
usage to begin with, right? And it's just bringing everything even, which will cut down on administrative
costs and other things that you don't have to verify where people are coming from, all those type of
things. But I think that you made a statement in passing that people are coming from Louisville and
then say 56% is coming from out of town, right? Which we could conflate to say, everybody's coming from
Louisville and dropping their waste here and we're subsidizing Louisville's waste storage. So can you
sort of quantify the amount of people who are coming from out of town?
Yeah so it's a very small fraction of people who are coming from really far out of town. And yes this
comment was made to just kind of reiterate how low our current rates are is that they are incentivizing
people to come from so far away. And if we brought them to more comparable rates in the region people
would not be as incentivized to come that far. Yeah I get that much.
So you got me about halfway But my previous points still stand so I'm gonna let it go beat that horse
Are there other councilmember questions We already went did we did we already go to public comment on
this no, we've got we should thank you Yes, let's go ahead and go to public comment specifically on
the amendment which
corrects typographical error and then eliminates this additional charge for out of county waste haulers.
If you want to speak to the larger rate change you'll have an opportunity to do that after we deal with
the amendment. So this is just about the out of county charge for the most part. So if you're in chambers
you can go ahead and make your way to the podium.
Sign in and then state your name for the record and you'll have up to three minutes if you're on zoom
You can go ahead and raise your hand using the reactions tab or send a chat message to the host And
let's go ahead and start here in chambers and whenever you're ready go ahead and start with your name.
Thank you My name is Courtney Medley and I'm with Medley septic service. I Just kind of wanted to reiterate
on the out-of-counting because I understand how that kind of came across with
the out of county haulers coming in and I just kind of wanted to explain a little bit more on that.
Yes we're concerned about the watershed and that being our you know source of water out of county is
essentially coming from in county haulers. We are just hauling waste from Greene County Owen County
and the surrounding counties because this is the localized dump site.
Yes, there is Columbus and Indianapolis but I think it kind of got made to be more of a haulers are
coming from so far away to dump more so as it is. Yes, you are the city of Bloomington but we are also
Monroe County and servicing those surrounding counties. So I just kind of wanted to clarify that for
you as far as the amendment goes that it's not just haulers coming out. It is still your local haulers
that are bringing in
from the surrounding counties. And with that I don't know that any of us have disputed the out of county
surcharge so much and I can go into more detail on this later so much how we are currently charged for
the out of county and mixed loads of say one out of county tank and one in county tank. We are being
charged as that load being essentially completely out of county.
So your in-county resident isn't getting the benefit of a cheaper price because if we mix a load it
comes in at an out-of-county price So I'm not necessarily disputing one way or another of taking that
surcharge out or not. I just wanted to clarify how we are charged for
the out of county how we are charged for mixed loads and essentially it is you know your surrounding
community more that's bringing in some of that out of county revenue versus people making long hauls
to come here. And it also boils down to a lot of those out of county companies have contracts for our
restaurant grease traps.
So some of those counter the companies that are coming from, you know, Indianapolis or the Evansville
area Strictly do you know restaurant grease removal and they have contracts with some of your larger
restaurant chains and that in
You know allows them to dump here for that grease waste also So that is you know, some of your companies
coming from out of county or you know, even out of city Is because they are servicing the Bloomington
area restaurants Thank you Thank you It looks like there's another comment and chambers has anybody
raised a hand on zoom. I
Okay after this comment in chambers, we'll go ahead to zoom Thank you for signing in and then state
your name for the record and you'll have up to three minutes Hi, my name is Jeff Todd and I'm the owner
of Todd septic here in Bloomington and I just wanted to kind of Tag in on what Courtney said because
she kind of ran out of time But and this does pertain to the out-of-county amendment the way we're currently
charged is by the size of our
Tank volume on our truck. So for instance if we went across the Lawrence County line and pumped one
tank and then got another tank in Monroe County and Disposed of both of those at the same time at Dilman
We would be charged an out-of-county price for both of those tanks on that truckload so I think that
was part of the what the amendment was trying to accomplish is is
Rectifying that situation so that we're not getting overcharged or under charge and things like that
So that was all I want to say about that part for now. I'll be back later Thank thank you so much. Let's
go ahead and go to the zoom commenter When you are unmuted, you can go ahead and state your name for
the record and then you'll have up to three minutes Hi, it's Paul Rousseau again, I Strongly support
the concerns expressed by councilmember Rolo and
My understanding is that utility charges are an intrinsically regressive form of taxation. Regardless
of whether a person is rich or poor, we all pay roughly the same for sewer and water service. I see
thousands of people in Bloomington who are barely able to keep a roof over their heads. So I oppose
governmental policy that would have poor people in Bloomington subsidizing those who live outside of
our watershed
I would also add that it will be useful to eliminate motorboats from our water supply. I guess that's
for another day. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else in chambers who would like to speak to
amendment one to ordinance 2025 44. Does anybody else have a hand raised on zoom. All right seeing none
let's go ahead and go back to council. First are there any lingering questions about the amendment.
None, let's go ahead and go to council comment. Are there any count? Is there any councilmember comment
about the amendment? Councilmember Piedmont Smith I'm sorry. I actually have a question. It just took
me a minute. Okay So, I guess this is a question for utilities, I don't know who from utilities but I
Regarding this question of having a hall of septage where part of it is from outside the county and
part of it is inside the county Which I do think is problematic to then charge the surcharge Is it instead
of An alternative solution to this amendment could be if any part of your Your your hall is
from inside the county then you don't get charged that outside rate or that outside surcharge.
Is that right. I mean could that be feasible. I would say just in general it's difficult to make the
separation on a mixed load like the haulers have described for us and that I'm thinking is another one
of the reasons we wanted to eliminate the difference altogether.
To make it administratively more efficient for us So are you saying it's it's really hard to determine
where it comes from anyway, I Mean other than what people tell you There's a lot of moving parts to
when the holler comes in Purchases a single-load manifest for septage and then yes The holler has to
record the source for each each part of it but when it's purchased
dollar has to make a representation to our Sales folks, you know, is this going to be in County or out
of County? And so it's a little difficult to subdivide it after the fact Director Zager, do you have
any response to this? Yeah, I just want to reiterate it would reduce administrative burden on our end to just
not have to make that differentiation and charging for all partial loads either way. And then also I
just want to say that like part of the reason we did this is because our current fee structure is overly
complicated. And so this would help us on the administrative end to make it simple for you to just dump
at the same rate and
in County out of County Greece I forgot how many different classifications are Septic feet we had a
table this big and there's all kinds of different fees So so part of the point of this is to decrease
the administrative burden Thank you any other last questions I
Let's go to councilmember comment then on amendment one Is there councilmember comment councilmember
Raul? Yeah, just briefly to say I really appreciate the the comments to clarify clarify the surcharge
and and I also appreciate the responses to my questions, you know, I know that this is you know a difficult
it's difficult to to work through the nuances of this but I remain conflicted and it's because of the
hauling out from out of town and I So I don't think I'm gonna support this amendment. It's not to say
won't support the ordinance, but in any case That's where I'm at. Thanks Thank you other councilmember
comment on the amendment I'll go ahead and take a comment then I had a lot of the same concerns that I
Councilmember Rallo brought up with this in terms of supplementing Outside hollering and waste and I
really appreciate the discussion and the comments about that I I think that I've come around to supporting
the amendment because I do think that it would
really relieve some administrative burden not just for CBU but also for our local local haulers. But
I also am interested in kind of keeping an eye on this over the next year because I mean if part of
the argument here is that the rate structure change overall is going to discourage the folks hauling
from really far away. I want to know if it actually does.
because if it doesn't then I think that we need to revisit some like figuring out some kind of way to
Charge more for those folks that are using our facility who are in no way connected to our community
either through their hauler or their location or Being in the watershed or anything like that. So I'll
be kind of voting. Yes with a little bit of reservation on this amendment tonight any other council
comments before we move to vote and
All right, let's go ahead if the clerk could call the roll on amendment one to ordinance 2025 44 No,
no Yes, yes, sorry, yes Yes, yes Okay, that passes with a vote of five to two
So now we are back to discussion about ordinance 2025 44 as amended Which kind of brings us to the overall
rate change So are there questions about that councilmember sorry now given that I did the amendment
my questions might surprise you but The they won't surprise you because you knew I was gonna ask this
question the
Because I always ask this question when we do rate changes did CBU or crow conduct any elasticity analysis
Specifically any projection at all of how haulers or their customers might change their behavior in
response to a rate increase and if not Why not given that more than half of our hauled waste comes from
outside of Monroe County? I Did not Look at elasticity and I don't recall seeing anything about that
in the crow study
you know, I suppose what I would say about this is that Elasticity is not a topic I've addressed very
often. Mm-hmm. I'll confess
Well, but it's a knowable thing that how will people's behavior change? And we can think about this
whether we're thinking that we're setting it at 0.8 or whether you say that you should do the whole
amount that Crowe recommended. I mean, the core argument is that we think that there will be or won't
be changes in the ways that people are going to behave with what's being charged. And so either we're
making the assumption that nothing is going to change, right? That it's just like people will take the fee
That'll just be it. They'll be happy to pay extra $19 or Something will change and and and so like like
it seems strange that we don't even consider that at all No, I would have I would anticipate Councilman
that we're gonna see a reduced total volume of hauled waste coming to our Dillman plant And to that
I would just add that the operators the Dillman plant our superintendent in particular has repeatedly
made the point to me that
Hold the wastewater does him no good. It's it's essentially Dead solids that turns into sludge right
off the bat. Yeah, and we have to pay to have that landfill, right and so He doesn't need it and doesn't
really want it to begin with and so in my view if the quantity we receive goes declines in response
to the price increase That's a win-win
And is there some benefit? Because when you presented the cost, some of the analysis was the cost to
us to deal with the pollutants, et cetera. Is there some benefit to the city in that coming down?
And if so, why not raise it all the way to the highest amount so it doesn't go down further?
We've got perhaps 2500 water rate pairs in the city that that would impact directly rather than trying
to Take the whole amount all at once work, you know wanting to kind of ease this in in a stepwise fashion
Recognizing that we don't want to allow this the hauled waste rates to to go unreviewed for 25 years again
But okay, but then and I'll and then I'll stop after this but the what why then set it to eight cents
a gallon instead of 750 like like why Why why do we arrive that the right step is the number that you've
that you've put out? Well the eight cents we determined that it was competitive with the local market
and our their pure utilities and it was about half of the increase for the cost of treatment and
We were hoping that we would be able to move a little closer to the full cost of treatment in a couple
of different steps Another thing that we want to do is when we look at the next sort of rate case for
utilities Overall is to take another look at this maybe even do a
City specific sampling program our septic all ours have to drop a sample off every time they bring us
a load now that that was a new requirement in our permit from last year and that allows us the opportunity
to evaluate what we're actually getting as compared to the EPA reference value of 20,000 milligrams
per liter and so this would give us some time to further develop this and refine where it is we really
need to be
to meet our cost of treatment for hauled wastewater and Ordinary sewage as well. Thank you so much.
I'll have other questions, but for now, thanks Thank you other questions comes member Flaherty Thank
you. First one is this I know the director's Iger was not in charge over the past 25 years, but I am
curious why if we have any knowledge about why septic collar rates were not included in prior wastewater
rate cases and
Found no evidence one way or the other in historic files that I've looked at Perhaps attorney Wheeler
would like to comment on that or somebody who's been here longer than I have Attorney attorney Wheeler,
would you like to have a go first? well
I'm just going to say that I would like to echo what Stephen just said, is that we don't have
any understanding from our perspective why that rate was not looked at as part of the regular rate case.
It's something that we noticed and started paying attention to and decided we needed to correct.
It's not the normal type of collection rate that we would include with the overall sewer rate case.
So when we're looking at the collection system and the cost of correction or of eliminating the waste
and turning it back into water that can come up into the streams behind our plants, going through that
whole process, it just seems like something that got overlooked over time.
And we're happy now to be able to actually correct it. So we're bringing it now and not sure why it
wasn't brought in the past Director Zager, do you have anything to add? No Thank you, and can I follow
up on some cost related questions or no Sure, I'll wait that way. Okay, so Councilmember Rallo, I saw
you with a hand up Yeah, I so
This is a big rate increase relative to what people are accustomed to Because it's been 25 years without
without experiencing and so there's a sticker shock Volume might be reduced I suppose of hauling you
end up with You know the services impacted by the haulers People of low income will probably see you
know, you've given a choice and
Your heating bill or letting your septic overflow, you know Which is not good for the environment? so
given this proposal Is there a way to address this? likely problem of People's segment of the population
essentially neglecting their septic and
Is there any drew have you considered any direct help to those people in terms of? Assisting them so
you're asking if we've considered direct assistance through CBU So relative to this rate, yeah. Yeah,
certainly so this rate increase
We have considered the fact that it may result in people putting off pumping out their septic tanks
and Just a couple thoughts on that one That is at least in Monroe County the health department enforces
and regulates septic tanks and their cleaning removal all of that and then the other thing I wanted
to bring up is that at least in
I believe in Lawrence and Well in the Lake Monroe watershed, there is a voucher program through friends
of Lake Monroe and Also through the Lake Monroe water fund both of which we contribute to annually and
they help people cover the expenses of Pumping out their septic tanks regularly to protect the watershed
Will that be increased with this rate increase? Because that's an existing program
So I'm talking about this legislation we're gonna vote on tonight is that You know, is there an adequate
amount to assist people? I mean how many people might be affected and how many people should we be?
Funding to help So I don't have an exact number of how many people would be affected in that they would
discontinue pumping their septic tank
And whether or not there is enough money in those funds that those programs are ran through friends
of Lake Monroe and the Lake Monroe water fund, so I Don't know how Soon those funds are gone or how
about those programs go so And just real quick. So the Health Department essentially inspects. Mm-hmm
Is it complaint driven or is this a you know, how does it come about somebody notices that you know,
there's You know, how often do people get inspected? I'm not really sure how the health department runs
their inspection program I would assume there is some aspect of complaint driven and some aspect of
regular inspections Okay, thanks other first-round councilmember Ruff
Before I ask my question, I just want to make sure I understand the the increase so What's the what's
the fee now? It's the rate now. It's going up to eight cents. Mm-hmm for that. What is it now to to
so it's what About rippling or whatever. It's a 288 percent increase on domestic shortage It's
my understanding that we
Most folks on septic are able to have have septic fields drainage fields septic fingers and sort of
full-blown systems or a mound system that allows Them to be only need maintenance pumping every Couple
years was described earlier like and that's why the cost was
You know is going to be it definitely be an increase but it shouldn't be we're not talking about numbers
that would break the bank for for most folks. So aren't there aren't there folks whose properties who
are in situations where they can't have an actual field they basically have a septic holding tank that
they have to get pumped like
Every few weeks or maybe even more frequently than that certainly monthly maybe more And It seems like
if that's the case and That would only be the case I would think or that would tend to be the case in
very environmentally sensitive situations where they just couldn't put They couldn't get approval for
an actual septic field Because they just don't have the soil
Set the proper setting the slope whatever. I'm not sure what all the technical limitations might be
but those are going to be the most prone to I feel like Create an environmental problem and at the same
time you're creating I would feel like an affordability issue that's really significant for For at least
some people maybe a significant amount of people I don't know if you're talking about going from you
know, $100 a month and
$200 to $400 a month or something, you know to from to if the whole pass if the if it all gets passed
on from the hauler to the To the consumer to the user if that whole rate from two to eight gets passed
on if you're talking about that suddenly becomes it seems like it becomes Maybe even undoable for a
lot of people and you're you're almost certainly going to be
doing some environmental damage for people who just can't make that work. Am I missing something? Am
I way off on something here? Or is this a very tiny sliver of the septic world that I'm talking about
here? Or can you respond?
I can't comment on what percentage of the septic world relies on pure septic tanks versus a septic system.
But yes the increase in costs will be substantial and that is really the tragedy of not having done
this for 25 years. And so you know it's we have an obligation
Meet our cost of service and even seeing through the crow report what that cost of service was we already
acknowledged that that was Far too great to just do all at once and so this is approximately half of
that But we really do need to make sure that we are charging for what we're treating
And I just had one follow up what's related. It's just related. So you said a minute ago that this isn't
you want to ease it in. This is easing it in. Are we likely to then to see a similar sized increase
coming fairly soon. So our next full sewer rate case we will be starting this year to hopefully
implement in 2027 There we will again take another look at this and look at the actual waste versus
the EPA So this is based on the EPA's numbers for septic waste and now that we have sampling we should
be able to know what our waste Looks like so it may not be as drastic all the way up to the 17 Which
is again why we didn't want to go all the way up Thank you
Other first strong questions Okay, I have one if I can go back to it and maybe this will approach what
councilmember Flaherty was interested in too, so You said in your memo that Crowe determined that 17
and a half cents per gallon would provide the revenue corresponding with the cost of treatment CBU staff
and billing charges Do you happen to know how many cents per gallon? just
covers the cost of treatment. I can't remember if you said that as part of your slideshow. I'm going
to leave this one up to Jennifer Wilson with Crow. Hello Jennifer Wilson with Crow. I'm looking back
through the report and most of it is having to do with the treatment charge of actually treating the
flow at the plant.
So we came up with 17.2 cents per 100 gallons as being the treatment charge. So there's very minor billing
charge because you're billing all your customers. So when we allocated that cost, it's billing charge
divided by all your customers bills. So that's a very minor portion of it. So most of it is the treatment.
Okay. But that is
Estimated on the EPA septage report not estimated on the actual Deliveries that we're getting correct
We allocated the costs and then the divided by the amount of pounds and then it's also then based upon
the EPA Estimate of the strength of the of the pounds that you're actually receiving. Okay, but the
proposed eight cents a gallon like corresponds to
pretty well with what other facilities in southern Indiana are charging. Right. I believe Stephen did
that told you a little bit about the communities. My quick look beforehand I believe Columbus charges
six cents and let me see here. Tara Hope charges 10 cents in Indianapolis charges five point six cents.
So it's very comparable to what other communities are charging.
Okay I Think that any of my other questions would would go into a round two so round two questions
Councilmember Rallo wait, I'm sorry court councilmember daily. Do you have a round one question? Yeah,
sorry. I haven't fully formulated it in my head. So forgive me while I'm babbling but I guess I'm starting to
kind of wonder hearing those ranges that that's quite a range five point six all the way up to ten and
yeah eight is kind of central but I guess that makes me wonder then what is it sounds a little bit silly
if I put it as well what's the rush to get this rate increase you know jumping right up to eight I get
it because it's been 25 years so it's a long time we do want to try to make up for lost ground but on
the other hand
It's been 25 years, what's the rush to jump up almost 300%. Is there a way, or was it considered maybe
a bit of a slower increase so it doesn't feel like such a shock to our lower income septic users? Okay,
very well.
So when we received the initial study from Crowe, obviously we identified that that was going to definitely
cause rate shock. So we felt that going to at least half and being comparable to other municipalities
and treatment sorry wastewater treatment plants in our region felt like a good place to start.
and we felt confident that that would Be a Be a reasonable place to start if we wanted to further assess
using our own wastewater now that we are able to have samples which is Like Stephen had said before
a relatively new program. So this is not something we had access to before The sampling program
Raving samples moving on to round two then councilmember. Sorry Which one of you wants to go
first councilmember Rallo, okay, I'll take it I'm older So So the representative from Crow could I ask
a question I've forgotten your name. I'm sorry so read through your report very thorough appreciate it and
You recommend for full-cost accounting 2 cents to 17 cents To prevent rate shock. We're gonna go 2 cents
to 8 cents In your experience do you have have you seen rate increases to that degree? Because you've
probably done a lot of these and recommended rate increases, but is this This is an outlier. Is this
have you seen this before?
So as he kind of explained, this isn't a normal type of study that's done regularly. I've probably done
three or four of them. So no, it's not done on a regular basis. Last time you guys did it was in 2000.
So if you maintained it and are able to do it more regularly with your normal sewer cost of service
study, you'll get a better idea of how, and use your actual cost components of your strength
I think you'll have a better idea to do it. I'm just there's not a whole lot of communities that do
this and So you're kind of an outlier to actually have a septic charge Okay, let me there aren't too
many communities that Make such a rate increase in degree. Is that what you're saying? No, I'm saying
that except hauling from outside So this is so we were sort of an exception Got it. Okay, so there's
there's hardly any comparators then in that case
Very few Does okay Does terraho does Indianapolis do they accept outside hauling? They do my quick search
showed what that rate would be is well, actually, sorry I take that back. I'm not haven't really looked
into whether or not they accept outside hauling Okay, that's just their rate. Okay. That's just the
right. All right Okay. Thank you Councilmember, sorry
No one to ask questions to. How much knowledge do we have of, and I guess this is something that hopefully
people will say in public comment, I mean we're acting like it's a one to one ratio.
what we charge versus what a holler charges a customer. So what's the model? Because there was a comment
earlier about how we charge also being a question. And so sort of two questions here is that we've said
The the expected increase to a customer is 19, you know, roughly $19 a year or something like that But
it probably will be more presumably because the haulers also need to make money But then the second
question then is what have we explored other not explored but are there other mechanisms that we can
either pursue to lower cost or to
or the ways that we charge. So is charging per gallon the only method of charging for waste? So I'm
actually really glad you asked that question because the way that we charge for septage does impact
how haulers need to charge their customers. And so the way that we currently, the way that we've proposed
is to do it by tank,
Tank size and we have heard feedback that not all the tanks are full Sometimes when they come they're
not full. It doesn't make sense to be full And so what we are now looking into after having received
said feedback is how we can Institute some sort of system
Dillman that would have a flow meter and Potentially some kind of grinder pump so that we would be able
to accurately charge for the actual gallons Versus tank size and that's something we are exploring currently
Yes, and then and then that minor question on the the cost to consumer that we estimated at 19 and
earlier, it's presumably higher than that directly to the consumer, right? Oh, yeah. So what we presented
before is just our charge to the haulers. Of course, I don't own these businesses. So I am not the person
who decides what their rates are, how they charge them, how they arrive to their rates. I would assume
it's a combination of things like mobilization and gas and wear and tear on vehicles and labor.
My assumption is that while we're our charge to septic collars is going up 288 percent I'm I would be
hopeful that it would not directly be 288 percent to the customer because Hopefully those other charges
aren't also going like those other costs wouldn't go up with just the cost of septic Charges does that
make sense? Thank you so much
Thank you. Are there other second-round questions comes member Flaherty Yes, thank you. I believe you
mentioned There's a legal obligation that the rate be cost-based that is based on a cost-of-service
study That was done to assess what it actually costs. Is that correct? Yes, and is is this are the the
dumping rates for septage and
regulated by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission as well, or is that exclusively by us, outside
the IURC purview? That's outside of the IURC. Okay. So, granted, we're using the EPA estimate of strength.
Sounds like in the future we'll have better sampling for at least an average of what strength is of
septage in our area. That's great. I'm glad to hear that.
Nevertheless, we have a ballpark of 17 cents or so of what it actually costs. We're charging eight I
understand the rationale there as well as the interest in truing up over time and so I guess a two-part
question is There must be some Case law or other legal guidance that allows a phase-in period when you
realize you your your current rate structures are not cost-based and
because arguably the eight cents would not be complying with the legal requirement that we actually
have cost-based regulation. So there's that. And then actually maybe I'll just pause on part two because
it's too much to unpack otherwise. But yeah. I'll let Chris Wheeler take part one about legal obligations.
Yeah. So there is a dance that's done there. We are obligated to know what our cost of service that's
provided, what that cost of service is,
And we are required to then charge a rate that brings us back to even. We need to charge a rate that
covers the cost of those services. But there's also an acknowledgement with this whole concept of rate
shock. And in this situation, there's plenty of precedent that suggests that you do a step up. You don't
just go all the way to the top when you're looking at this and you believe there's a rate shock that
could occur.
And so I think that the utility did a great job of trying to find what that average Is and trying to
fit into the average with with a lot of the other utilities around the state? Okay. Thank you. And then
part two, I think So so utilities are They have to balance their revenues and costs, right? These are
costs were incurring and have been incurring and
I think this goes a little bit to what my colleague has over daily was asking like why so much why can
we slow it down a little bit? But I would assume the answer is because other people are paying for it
right now It's cost shifting and so I assume Bloomington residents through some Rate or another whether
it's wastewater or otherwise are paying for the Delta the gap in between what we're charging right now
would actually costs to process the septic waste and so
how does that work when we have shortfalls in what the cost of service actually is, you know, vis-a-vis
the revenue, where do the funds come from to make up that gap? Yeah, the other classes or the other
rates are essentially subsidizing the fact that we have such a nice, nice to the customers, a nice low
rate going right now for the sludge and halt septic
There's a subsidy that's crossing over from our other rates It showed and we need to eliminate them.
And so it shows up essentially in the form of a artificially high or inflated cost of wastewater treatment
for let's say City Bloomington utilities customers or is that probably where it's showing up? I
Yes, so if it's not coming for if the cost of service is not coming from this customer class then inherently
it would be coming from other customer classes granted I do think it's worth mentioning that we have
a lot more direct service customers than we do septic haulers and so That may I mean again, I cannot
explain why this hasn't happened in 25 years But that may explain part of why this has gone
undone unnoticed because the larger rate case for The sewer rates have covered it. Thank you Thank you
other second round questions comes member rough This just follows up on the earlier questions So it
appears that So there's a lot there's the state law requires us to to pursue
Fees and rates that equal or that pay for the cost of services and I totally support that I totally
get it 100% however How urgent is it to? Quickly comply with that. I mean obviously it hasn't been an
issue for a long time as you said for 25 years there wasn't an urgency to comply with the state mandate
to cover your cost of services with your with your fees for for that service and
Is it is it more urgent now to come into compliance with that because of some state law or not? No,
I don't Yeah, there's there's no I'm sorry. There's no new urgency. There's no there's no difference
going on. There's no new mandate It's just that it's been so long that This particular rate is so out
of skew with the actual cost to provide this service is being defrayed sure and
by all of the other rates that we have, it's being covered and subsidized by all of the other rate payers,
but it's so out of skew that it does need to be corrected. It just so happens that it's falling right
now that we're trying to correct it. We're just bringing it to council now. So to follow up with that
point, I know it's spread over a much larger, the cost right now is being spread over a much larger base.
Payers, so it wouldn't be much But are we going to see a commensurate drop in The rates for the rest
those payers that now are gonna not be subsidizing with their rates These others are we going to see
a drop for everyone else even if it's a small one This might be a great question for Jennifer to feel
yeah. I'll let Jennifer take this one. I
They alluded to it's being spread across a large number of customers So we would have to do an analysis
to see if this would even affect the rates by a penny or so because what ends up happening is you take
the revenue requirements of the sewage works and you subtract out any other income that you're getting
which this would be included as and then you get that net difference and you divide that by the actual
consumption so
You know by increasing this charge the next time rates are looked at you get to increase that amount
That's offsetting the the revenue requirements of the utility when that study is being done But you
just You're saying though that it would very likely be you said not maybe not even a penny It'd be a
very be a very small amount my expectation I have not crunched the numbers, but we're talking about
amount of septic Charges versus what you're gathering from all your customers. So my penny is just totally
off You know just pulling it out of the air, but I'd need to do that calculation But I would not expect
it to have a large impact to the rates Thank you. Thank you very much Other second round questions All
right seeing none I think I'd like to go to public comment on
Go back and find my number. Ordinance 2025-44 as amended. I already see people in chambers have figured
out what to do. If you're in chambers, go ahead and make your way to the podium, sign in, and then state
your name for the record. And you'll have up to three minutes. If you're online, you can go ahead and
raise your hand using the Reactions tab or send a chat message to the host. But we will start here in
chambers. Go ahead whenever you're ready.
Again I'm Jeff Todd with Todd septic here in Bloomington and just a quick amount of background my dad
Larry Todd started the company in 1979 I took over in 2010 he's now since past but we've served the
community of Monroe County ever since then for a long time.
Really have two concerns about this and I do want to say I understand the cbu's need for raising rates
It makes sense. It hasn't been done in 25 years. Really. That's what's caused the problem here So it
has to be done But even though this is a tiered approach it's still a 300% Nearly increase all at once
which is a big jump for for everyone involved I mean if any of your other utilities went up 300%
I think you probably have an issue with that That's kind of my number one concern and then number two
Are the holding tank customers? because they are going to bear the brunt of this rate change and There
are hundreds if not thousands of holding tanks in Monroe County all around the north side of the lake
in the watershed and
Private campgrounds. There are several of them. Some of those community members are here tonight Boys
and Girls Club Camp Rock Smithville Little League there are a lot of places that have holding tanks
and I Pumped them out as frequently as once a week, you know up to maybe every two months and Just taking
Smithville Little League for instance during their season. I haul 4,000 gallons out of their tank every
week so that's gonna be
a rate increase that I'm not sure what they'll do truthfully. And even if I just charge them my disposal
costs, it's still going to be massive. The campgrounds around Monroe County that bring in a lot of money
to the community and support local businesses, they're all going to be affected. You know, Night Ridge,
Pine Grove, Whispering Wilderness, Jamie Lou, Sharwood, Fern Hills, Monroe Causeway Campground, Two
Herons Marina.
These are all some facilities that are on holding tanks and then just to Kind of backtrack on why that
is back in the 70s and 80s the Health Department required People in the watershed to install holding
tanks because they thought that was better for the environment They've kind of gone back and forth on
whether that's true or not but nevertheless these people are stuck with those tanks and you know to
in some cases they couldn't be replaced with a septic system or
Or they might incur a 20 to 30 thousand dollar cost to put in a septic system so that's my biggest concern
or those customers of mine that that are on holding tanks because they're going to be affected greatly
and If there was maybe some way to have a separate rate for them because the wastewater that we haul
out of theirs is so frequent it it doesn't
Digest and build up as much solids as a traditional septic tank So it's more on the line with sewage
or what you're coming down the pipeline from the city sewer So if there was some way to have maybe a
separate rate for them to maybe alleviate that stress. So Thank you What It's are their hands raised
on zoom Okay, let's go ahead and do this person in chambers. Thank you for signing in and then we'll
move to our first comment or on zoom Okay
Please state your name for the record and you're Malcolm Webb and I'm speaking as an end user of the
service that's being discussed. I have a home that has holding tanks and I'm somewhat relieved to to
hear the discussion going on and understand what's behind this because at first glance a 300 percent
increase Felt like
to me, sort of the municipal equivalent of when my older brothers used to say, Malcolm, we've had enough
crap out of you. And so, I'm glad to know it's more than that. And I appreciate the hard work that everyone
is doing on the issue. Most of the concerns that I have have been raised, the potential environmental
impact if lower income users,
have difficulty adjusting to this and and I'd just like to put put a word in for suggestion that if
you can find a way to Implement the rate increase More slowly so that people have a chance to adjust
to it. I'd suggest you do so. Thank you Thank you, let's go ahead and go to our first online commenter
when you're unmuted you can go ahead and state your name for the record and you'll have up to three
minutes and
Hi, this is Chris Berg. I'm a local resident. I am a customer of Todd's Septic. And I'd say he probably
articulated everything perfectly. And I appreciate all the common sense questions at the panel that
the committee has asked Mr. Rollo and Mr. Ruff asking about the holding tanks. I own two commercial
campgrounds in town.
My wife is an educator in town. My kids both, all three go to school here in Bloomington. We're taxpayers.
We are extremely concerned about the hike in the fees, mostly because I'm gonna have to pass this on
to my customers and they bring a lot to the economy to Bloomington and they're not gonna be happy about
it. And I'm concerned about our lower income.
residents as well and what they may have to the choices they may have to make when it comes to either
pay their lot bill or or do something with their septic but more specifically about ours are holding
tanks and I'm I have 13 holding tanks so I'm going to be impacted by thousands of dollars because Todd
Todd septic pumps me out on occasion most of the time once a week and sometimes every other week but
you know the like
What Jeff had said was most of our tanks are just liquid and not sludge as the the common resident is
mostly sludge because they go years because it goes typically into a septic field or something like
that. So ours is all septic tanks are not created equal or holding tanks are are a lot different than
than regular mound systems and such. But
I appreciate the way that Jeff articulated and what the panel's doing to make common sense questions.
I don't think the hike should be as much, although I do think it needs to be hiked up, but going all
the way up to eight cents doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You know, somewhere in between that, so
it's not such a sticker shock would be much appreciated. Thanks for your time. Thank you. Is there another
hand raised on Zoom?
Okay, great. Let's go ahead and go here in chambers. Come on forward Make sure to sign in and state
your name for the record and then you'll have up to three minutes Good evening, my name is Jerry Jackson
I represent whispering wilderness campground one of the private campgrounds around the lake that Jeff
Todd talked about He's the guy that actually comes and pumps all our tanks. We have approximately
30 tanks and as it's already been said Most of our a lot of the pumps out of ours is going to be nothing
but water Because you get people in there on the weekend Friday Saturday night. They go out on the lake
all day Everybody comes in everybody showers. We catch all that we catch all the sink water all the
shower water So you don't have a great there's not a great deal of solid sludge in any of our pumps
you're dealing with a whole lot more water, so it's
It's not a one-size-fits-all thing. Our situation is 100% different than, say, a normal septic system
at home. So you can't even compare the two. And it's going to substantially cost a lot more money because
we pump everything out on a weekly basis. So another thing I wanted to mention, the $0.17. Well, I call
it that that was skewed by two
Right. Carmel Indiana I think is what I heard. I can't I'm not really sure. But other than that other
than to out of all the places that treat this sewage everybody else is way down. So the 17 cent figure
is like to me not even shouldn't even be in the ballpark. You're talking about one place does five cents
another place does six cents and they're and they're they're fine. They're they're no problems there.
So the 17 cent thing I don't really appreciate that being brought in and one of one of you guys I forget
which one asked you guys one of you asked a question that made them say well It was kind of skewed,
you know So other than that they would have never mentioned that we would have all been looking at 17
cents Which is actually false. At least that's way I'm taking it so with that being said
This isn't a one-size-fits-all situation by any means. So a price hike like this is really going to
affect a whole lot of campgrounds and everything that I don't think that's been thought about Including
state campgrounds, right pain town all those they're involved in this too They have they have situations
where they have to be pumped out as well. So private and public
So that's really all I have to add. But and I think 300 percent on any utility raise whether no matter
what it is imagine if they wanted to raise your electric 300 percent. I don't think anybody in this
room would like that. So 300 percent huge. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Let's go ahead to show
the next person chambers please sign in state your name for the record and you'll have up to three minutes.
Hello, my name is Jay Pippen. I own Owen septic. We to also service the Monroe County and surrounding
counties a couple things I just took notes I had a Pre pre done speech, but I want to thank you guys
for addressing the out-of-county stuff because that is a big concern a couple things Crow I think when
you were up you mentioned that your costs were 17 cents per hundred gallons and
So I need clarification on that. Is it 17 cents per gallon or 17 cents per hundred gallons? Because
that's a big this isn't this isn't necessarily a time that we go back and forth Okay, your question
is noted for the record scratch that. Okay. I also wanted to address How we are billed because it goes
into this whole in County out of County we buy tickets ahead of time so we pay
CBU up front for our tickets so I buy for instance a four thousand gallon out-of-county ticket and I
run with that with the rates that have been presented in the past I Don't quibble whether I I pumped
somebody in Bloomington and I have a mixed load The rates are fair if we go to a out-of-county and we're
mixing loads then that becomes a bigger issue because I'm paying up front for that out-of-county ticket and
So we buy our tickets ahead of time. Another point was brought up about costs and increasing costs and
how we go about charging our costs. You can rest assured that our other costs in addition to our pump
dumping costs have gone up as well. So when we're going to pass on prices to our customers, we're considering
the CBU dump costs in addition to everything else that we've got going on.
And then the last question I have is from a percentage of sewage. What do the haulers represent at CBU?
From what I understand, it's less than 1% of the flow that goes through CBU. So does this even move
the needle? Those are my questions. Thank you. Thank you. Has anybody raised a hand on Zoom
in the intermediary time? And I can't believe anybody or nobody has said this, but go IU.
Let's go ahead to the next person in chambers go ahead and sign in and state your name for the record
and you'll have up to three minutes Hi, my name is Maggie Sullivan, I work for friends of Lake Monroe
I want to start by saying I'm very excited at the number of times people have said watershed tonight.
That makes me very happy I'm also very happy with the tenor of the conversation. This is a really difficult
situation and I appreciate so many people coming out and
with big concerns who are very graciously expressing them. Obviously, there seems like there needs to
be a rate increase after 25 years, but the sticker shock does seem real. At Friends of Lake Monroe,
one of our big concerns is marinas around the lake that offer bathrooms to encourage people to use them
rather than peeing in the lake, and a lot of them
In the holding tank situation where they're gonna see pretty dramatic rate increases We would hate to
see that encourage them to shut off their bathroom access just because of the cost involved
So I don't know the feasibility of having a different rate structure that could address that in some
way. Also, someone brought up our program that we've done off and on where we help subsidize the cost
of septic tank pumping. We're currently doing that in Jackson County and in Brown County, not in Monroe.
Their pumping costs tend to be a little higher.
Partly because they're further away and partly because they're not hauling to Bloomington. They're hauling
to other plants that are more expensive So if we run a program again in Monroe County, we would adjust
our reimbursement rates based on whatever the new costs would be So that's something that we're happy
to work with Thank you Thank you Has anybody raised a hand on zoom? Okay, is there anybody else in chambers?
Go ahead sign in and state your name for the record yelp up to three minutes. I
I am Courtney Medley and I own Medley septic service and first I just want to be clear the septic haulers
are not Disputing the need for some sort of rate increase. We completely understand cost rise But what
most don't realize is the system the city uses to charge the septic haulers is already flawed and this
increase will make those problems even worse We are disputing the size of the increase plus continued
increases planned over the next few years and the impact this will have on the families businesses and
our environment in the current economy
When families can't afford regular pumping, especially those withholding tanks, they will delay service
Some will let tanks overflow Some may get some pumps and pump them out in the middle of the night And
by the time the county realizes this our lakes streams groundwater environment is already contaminated
This potentially is our drinking water. We're talking about
New homeowners are told by the county they can be on a pump and haul contract until a field system is
installed They could face pacing, you know a mortgage payment plus essentially a second mortgage payment
To have their house their their waste hauled away Do they become unhoused until they can get a field
in an average household could need that pumped once a week? Local restaurants are already on strict
pumping schedules and many pump quarterly or even monthly will this increase?
Make them struggle to stay in business local events that rely on porta pots will face higher costs of
rental because disposal fees will Increase will they have the revenue to still hold these events our
septic waste goes into the same lagoon as the city sewer So it's treated the same way yet city sewer
customers are paying less than one cent and we are going to be paying eight cents just for you know,
the in-county tanks and
Per CBU four billion gallons were treated last year yet. Only five million of those gallons were hauled
septic haulers So that's not even 1% of the waste treated So why are we being asked to shoulder so much
of that cost? And with the crow study for my emails with CBU the gallons for this study were estimated
on what we purchased for our dump tickets meaning our truck size Not actual measured gallons dumped.
So the numbers for this study are potentially already skewed
We are not charged by actual gallons dumped. We are charged based on the full size of our truck whether
it is full or not This means we've been paying CBU for gallons. We've never dumped for years We buy
tickets or gallons before we even pump a tank So with this increase if I need 40 tickets, my cost will
be eight thousand dollars up front before I even pump a tank
And that's a hundred thousand gallons when I will only really be dumping eighty thousand gallons because
I can only get two residentials on my tank. That's sixteen hundred dollars worth of unused gallons that
I'm giving to CBU already. So these are real everyday consequences. I don't believe the full trickle
down effect has been considered when we are discussing how to cover the treatment deficit and I think
those are things we really need to think about. Thank you.
Thank you has anybody raised a hand on zoom If you just want to give me a wave if somebody does that
would be great Next in chambers go ahead and step up and sign in and then state your name for the record.
You know up to three minutes Good evening, my name is Steve. I'm with the owner affordable septic There's
really not a whole lot more and I can add to what everybody's already said I
I guess the one thing I would bring to light is there is concern about people were talking about how
septics, how often they're pumped and et cetera. I can tell you according to my side of the business,
which is pumping septics and et cetera, tanks are failing a lot faster now than they have been in the
last four to five years.
So tanks are being pumped a lot more often. I have multiple customers who are pumping them once a year
Just because their systems are are just not able to handle it And that that is growing significantly
As far as I think there was a question raised about how the county inspects or checks on systems
As far as my knowledge, there is no inspection that they go out and just randomly pick John Doe and
say, hey, how's your system? I believe that is not the case. Most of the time that I've found out anything
like that it was is a neighbor called in due to a problem that something has come to the surface or
the customer or the resident
Has called the county and said hey, I have something coming out of the ground or something like that
So there is no real Going around and testing systems And I can vouch to say there's a lot a Lot of systems
that are failing Just point-blank. So this is going to really be a huge problem and
Because there's a lot of people that that have heard about this and have made phone calls to me and
they're like I Can't do this. What am I going to do? and I have no answer for him, of course, so Because
I don't know how this is going to come about so we're hoping that I think along with the other haulers
here that 20 years is a long time to just now come around to this and
If I could be a little bold, if I ran my business like that, people would probably tell me I need to
be out of business. So at this point in the game, I kind of feel like maybe if we could take a little
look at this thing and maybe back it up just a little bit, ease it into it, it would be well appreciated.
Thank you for your time. Thank you. Is there anybody else in chambers who would like to make a comment
about ordinance 2025 44 as amended?
Seeing nobody and nobody else on zoom that returns it to council any questions that have come up for
councilmembers after public comment Councilmember Flaherty Yeah, thank you. Thanks so much for the comments
One clear question that emerged builds on what councilmember rough was already bringing up which is
the what sounds like a dramatic difference between holding tanks versus septic systems that use it use
some type of processing and therefore concentrate the solids over time and
Mike Mike what I'm what I'm inferring from that is that the EPA? Number is maybe not a very good It's
not reflective like the distribution of what the strength of the waste and therefore what the actual
cost of processing it would be Might vary dramatically and be something like a double bell curve with
a big gap in the middle between the two bells and
A, is that accurate? And then B, is it possible and was it considered to have different rates for those
two scenarios? I don't know if there's a way to actually assess at dumping site, at the time of dumping,
what category we're in? Are we emptying a holding tank that is very similar in profile to standard wastewater
on our system versus highly concentrated waste?
Yes, so I will start by saying that I Did have a good awareness of the fact that there are septic lots
of septic holding tanks out there but the extent to which septic holding tanks are Used by members of
our community I really appreciate all the public commentary that has talked about that and talked about
the impacts at this rate would have on
septic holding tanks we would absolutely be open to a Separate rate. I mean right now we have a whole
table Like I said, we have a whole complicated table of rates where it's essentially self-reporting
in County out of County Grease not grease whatever else is on that table but so we would be open to
a separate rate for
holding tanks because we do acknowledge that the pollutant loading is not the same as concentrated septic
system waste. And so we were talking about how, and hopefully this is still answering your question,
we were talking about how septic waste is 1% of the total waste water that's treated at Dillman, yet
it's less than 1% of the total waste.
Less than 1% of the total wastewater that's treated at Dilman But you know could be up to 6% of the
pollutant loading assuming again these EPA pollutant loading measures, so Yeah It seems to me just a
brief follow-up you're open to different rates it seems like that would require us to postpone a final
action on this in order to
take that up. And I guess it doesn't seem necessarily like the type of thing that we could solve in
two weeks if it includes some revisiting assumptions around cost of service, for instance, and the respective
volumes of different types of waste. Is that fair?
It's fair to say that this is something that if you brought it back in two weeks, it would be rushed.
Yes Okay. Thank you Other questions councilmember Rallo Yes, yeah an excellent question about the Holler
volume of septage relative to the total So it's system waste is it is it about 1% or less I
Less than one percent. Okay Thank you Councilmember, sorry, I Think based on the question and insightful
comment of our colleague I wonder the whether we should continue to ask questions because I would be
very open to
postponing I do have some questions that might help with design of future implementation here, but but
I'd be I'd be on in favor of of postponing so that we can Continue to shape and design this as much
as you know, I hate to do that at 10 o'clock at night Is that a question or a motion? No sure Happy
to move that but then we have to debate it point of order before we make a motion Move debate
I think it's instructive to have a little bit of comment here agreed so that we can Yeah, and that's
this goes in the future And so that was that was my I was trying to phrase it as a question to all of
you because I also have other questions I'd like to ask but whether it's worth asking them now and having
further debate or whether the appetite is, you know for us to to postpone and then perhaps we could
have our counsel attorney advise us in terms of whether it should be Postponed tabled or just voted
down. Yeah, sure and then reintroduce the
Well, in which case, can I ask my question, then, if that's the feeling? Sure. So the second thing that
was brought up is the way that they're billed. And so I think I'm interested in what are capabilities.
Why are we billing the way that we're billing? And do we have other capabilities to bill in different
ways? And then there's this one question brought up of, because they're paying ahead of time, so in
the case that we're not able to bill in a different way,
They're paying ahead of time, but then sometimes left with paid for things that they're not bringing
in essentially, right? So is there some way of doing like a credit or something like that? If we're
not able to change the way that we build but ideally how we built would change, right? Yes, how we build
would change and we've definitely identified the way that we bill is I would just say outdated so ideally
we would be able to bill with RFID and
So like I was explaining before, this is the ideal.
Endpoint is that we would have we would issue cards to septic haulers They would be able to use those
to gain access to the plant and then they would also be able to use those same cards For a flow meter
that would precisely measure what they're pumping out But we are not there yet and we are currently
just selling tickets And how close are we to being able to implement something like that? And I think
a similar the same question asked which is if we were to
to make changes to viewing different type of waste? Or for example, it comes from one type of tank versus
another. Do we have the technical capability to do either of those? And how close are we to being able
to do it? I think we would need to definitely do some workshopping on how to, outside of just, I mean,
we've been taking people's word.
And so outside of that, we would need to implement a sampling system that would require, right now it's
a drop-off system where we hold these samples in case something happens, essentially. But what we would
need to do to identify waste, as far as utilizing technology and having these separate rates for pollutant
loading, we would,
Have to have more resources and staff to be doing these samples more frequently and be running the samples
more frequently So I would say that would that aspect of it would require more workshopping The aspect
of it for RF a t RF ID cards and for a flow meter system I would say we're about 50% there. We have
pretty much the card and gate system ready to go We're just trying to make sure that we can get that
flow meter
System that would be compatible with it. Okay, and that's already budgeted for or is that wouldn't Yes,
that would fit within our budget wonderful. Thank you Any other questions I I guess I kind of have a
question So this kind of goes to the concept of postponing for two weeks to see you know whether like
You said it would be rushed but maybe it could be something I think that everybody who I've heard from
tonight kind of agrees like yeah rates should increase because we have not done this in twenty five
years and so maybe finding a compromise in the next two weeks might be possible.
But my other question is that you identified some comparison cities and their rates, but what do they
do about the idea of a holding tank versus the sludge? What kind of process do these other places use?
Because it seems to me like it's a really huge difference between
holding tank and more of a septic system in terms of the quality of waste that's being disposed of and
how much treatment is necessary and how much time that takes and chemicals and all of those things and
so like I mean is there a model that other organizations are using do you know of not that I am aware
of currently and I just took the first part of your question where your your
Thinking about you know postponing two weeks and if that would be rushed and if we could find a compromise
I do also want to note that the ordinance that we've brought today was upon recommendation of our utility
service board and so any substantial changes I would want to
Bring to the utility service board before bringing back. So I think two weeks postponing two weeks.
I Don't know how feasible that is Not to rush it but just to because again, it's been 25 years Okay
Any other questions a small related one it was a question of mine I've had to
As you all know, I'm our Representative on the utility service board. I also have it depending on the
month. We have conflicts with Transportation Commission So I've missed two meetings in the last four.
I have a feeling I missed this Specifically because I wasn't there for the discussion and I was going
to ask So the utility service board did recommend what's before us now and was could you recall was
that unanimous was there much dissent or was it a close vote and
It was unanimous You know the the boards it's a matter of prayer. It was unanimous. It is a matter of
priorities the utility service board has The financial interests of the utility as their you know driving
force I think City Council has a broader Responsibility and so That's why we're here today. Thank you
Other questions or a motion Councilmember Rallo, are we going to have comment period because I think
I'd like to hear from my colleagues. I have a few comments Yeah, let's go ahead and go for commentary
if there's no motion out there to do anything different. Okay Should I begin? Yes, okay. I want to give
credit to the CBU and director Sager for addressing a topic that's been
Long overlooked and it's not an easy thing to do. And so I really appreciate it. My concern is of course
fairness for rate payers and full-cost accounting I appreciate the work from Crow Read it thoroughly.
I've no dispute with that So my concern is fairness for rate payers. So I'm I I have sympathy for raising
rates to be to be fair to them and
But my sense is that the rate change at this time has a potential for unintended consequences and I
don't know exactly what those are and so I'm loathe to just Go forward with this without knowing that
I heard a lot of excellent questions and comments for those in attendance tonight I want to appreciate
I want to extend my appreciation for sticking it out and staying for late night I'm pleased to hear about the
Addressing potentially holding tanks as a separate animal Solids versus liquid and maybe a differential
rate relative to that. I'm concerned about the effect in business. I'm concerned about customers I'm
concerned about low-income residents. And so I would like to see a more gradual phasing If we've waited
25 years and we're trying to achieve eight cents, which would be competitive to our peers around, you
know in the area and
Could we could we do it in a very gradual way? Stepways so that we could determine allow us to understand
what the effects would be so we could You know make an incremental raise and then wait a while and see
what happens in terms of says are people adapting That to me. I mean because I can't anticipate what
would happen and I would hate to see Neglect of septic tanks and I know that in this area with a lot
of clay is
You have a lot of failing systems and it's just the nature, you know of it an expensive Proposition
to put in a septic field because you sometimes have to build a hill to put it in and this isn't like
Northern Michigan where there's sand everywhere. This is clay and bedrock. So That's my comment I I
think this is gonna take a while I'd like to see it done right so and put before the CBO and
Have their say as well. So that's where I'm at. Thanks Thank you. Are there other councilmember comments?
I'm sorry Thank You Councilman Barallo and my colleagues and all of you for one staying here this late,
you know and going through all of the Yeah
boringness of our meetings. I mean, congratulations. I'd like to pull on one thread that I think we
haven't brought up and I think is going to be important. I share Councilmember Morello's view that I
think it's right in this case for us to
do this correctly, but I think that the core problem is not the rate as much as it is the one size fits
all approach as one of the commenters said, and so figuring out a way to properly distinguish between
the different types of septage and sewage I think is gonna be like the key policy tool that's necessary
to guard against
the externalities, the side effects here. And so that's what I'm quite interested in doing. I do think,
however, that we should be careful with coming to a conclusion that's something like
we need to further phase this in because I think we need, well, let me say it this way. We need to be
clear about what that actually means. Every moment, every day that goes by that we keep rates the way
that they are is days that we as a city
Oh, they're vacuuming. It's not over yet, folks. But the days that we as a city are subsidizing this
activity, which is to the tune of millions of dollars that we could be spending on other things. And
that's a choice. That may be a choice that we want to make. And we may choose that we want to because
of environmental things, because of people's behavior, because of equity.
We might choose to subsidize that but we need to I think be very clear about that that it's not just
You know a direct, you know, I'm worried about the shock value of this. It's you know at some point
Taxpayers are paying for this regardless. And so, you know is it is it are we more happy to do this
or for example Pave more of our roads. I think is a question that we ought to be asking and and that's
I know I get it It's a fallacy. It's a false. It's a false thing, but it is money. It's coming from
the same pot So we have it where there's a choice to make here about how we're subsidizing Certain services
to to the city. So thank you Other councilmember comment
Yeah, I also want to thank you CBU for tackling this the staff and everyone involved for for facing
up to this after how this year's five years and and and and coming forward with this So that's greatly
appreciated but It seems to me that after all this discussion
The issue certainly isn't the subsidy If if it's if it comes out to a penny or two of what the regular
rate payer is paying I think most Bloomingtonians and most Murrow counties would say would you pay another
penny or two on your on your utility bill in order to keep sewage from flowing overflowing from failing
septics or
into streams and lakes and and backing up in people's houses and and I think most people would do that
so It seems to me. It's more the principle right the principle of of of who's paying and who's Covering
the cost of what the service is and also the state law, you know state requirement to pursue Cost of
paying fees that cover costs of services And so given given that
Think as long as it's gonna take it's it's fine to take as long as this takes to really get this right
to deal with this some of the problems that are brought up that some of the improvements and things
we could do differently in terms of rates and fees and and and how to how the charges are are done and
Just figuring out a way to distinguish between holding tank Because their impacts are a lot less versus
full blown septic system
as long as it takes I'm just I'm just in no hurry on this at all and Because again if if if the if there's
not really even going to be a guaranteed reversion to the other taxpayers Of the other ratepayers who
are doing the subsidizing because it's going to be such a small amount spread over everybody that seems
to me that it means that
The subsidy that people are providing the others users writing is tiny. It's infinitesimal. It's enough
that people would say yeah, I want to have clean Environment and it's worth the media to be paying to
cover some of what would otherwise might lead to a problem if we do this large of a rate increase and
then finally I want to say You know, we've we've built an expectation maybe inadvertently but by not
By allowed by have charging two cents or have a long span for so long We've sort of built a reasonable
expectation amongst property and business owners that this is what the cost is and They're making business
decisions and home investment decisions based on the assumption that You know, it may go up some yeah,
sure things go up things cost more but nobody
reasonably I don't think expected this this amount this fast right so I think given that we've created
inadvertently a reasonable expectation of what and and people have taken actions and invent made investments
and Based on how things have been I think we really need to incrementally increase this I
So I'm glad this has been a great discussion. Thanks for everybody. Thanks for presenters utilities
administration thanks for everybody's comments and input we've heard from the public and affected directly
affected haulers and stakeholders and great comments and questions and thoughts from council members
and kind of council colleagues, it's been really I think productive and
and So if we I'm gonna certainly vote to postpone if it comes for a vote I would have to vote no if
it's not a postponement or a tabling We had a wave from our counsel attorney attorney liner Did you
want me to speak for a minute about the effect of postponing? a question and definitely versus voting
to reject a question and
Maybe if there's a motion to do that postponement Maybe after council comment, that's fine. Yeah, is
there any other council comment councilmember Piedmont Smith? I've been at this job for a long time
and it does seem like We are often cleaning up after things that should have been done a long time ago
and then all of a sudden somebody realizes oh
we should have been increasing this rate, or we should have been annexing land, or we should have been
doing this or that, and then the problem becomes exponentially worse because then we're all of a sudden
doing a lot of whatever it is. So I think that's unfortunate. I don't think it's the fault of anybody
in this room, but past leadership should have been looking at this rate a long time ago.
I think it is an important principle that other ratepayers should not be subsidizing the cost of septage
processing, even if it's only a few cents. However, I think this proposal can be improved. For one thing,
it is basing the treatment costs on an estimate from the EPA from 1994. I mean, that's 30-year-old estimate.
And it doesn't, that estimate doesn't make a distinction between a septic system and a holding tank.
And I think those are problems with this proposal. So I think we should maybe wait until we get more
accurate data. Overall, I think that I have, I don't think a lot of people in the greater community
know about this proposal.
I don't know how much outreach was done by CBU but it seems like a lot of the outreach that the things
we've heard tonight are being heard for the first time maybe by by CBU staff and the utility service
board. And so I think that in general one lesson we should take from this is to do more public outreach
earlier. So I'm in favor of postponing this. Thank you. Other council member comment.
Councilmember Flaherty. Yeah, thank you. I'll also speak in defense of cost of service regulation like
I think I'm very much in support of that as a principle as an applied principle I think We should be
aiming for that what my big reservation here is is that we don't actually have accurate cost of service
because we've made an assumption that is very coarse to describe a highly variable set of things
And so that's what we have to go back to the drawing board to figure out if we can do better by way
of differentiating those things to charge different rates that are cost of service based. And also with
appropriate phases to avoid unintended consequences, I think that's reasonable as well. Yeah,
that's it. So I think that's gonna take some time. I don't think we can do it in two weeks. I think
that means we need to either postpone indefinitely or to kill the thing or vote down. I don't know if
there's a difference functionally.
Thank you very much for comments as well. I appreciate it. Thank you councilmember daily I just want
to say I recognize that a real lot of hard work went into putting this together and all this research
and and thank you very much to the CBU I know it was a lot of work and a lot of heart went into it and
I also really appreciate everybody who came and spoke I am sympathetic to both sides. I certainly agree
Everybody here and so we're kind of trying to find that sweet middle spot and so I I think that even
though Whatever happens tonight either whether it's voted down or postponed. I don't think this conversation
was futile I think we all learned a heck of a lot tonight and I think it's really really valuable and
so I think these conversations as long and tiring and as hard as they can be sometimes our
are absolutely worth it and really what this is about for stronger community building. So thank you
all very much. Thank you. I think then everybody is comment about me. So I will go ahead and take a
comment here. I'm generally in favor of raising these rates. It's been 25 years and we need to raise
the rates.
I think most people who spoke tonight agree with that and I think it's really problematic that we have
hollers coming from Extremely far away because our rates are so low. That is a huge problem That being
said I think that Like the eight cents doesn't necessarily bother me on the face because it does seem
to kind of compare favorably with surrounding rates but
Don't know enough about those surrounding rates in terms of how they're dealing with Partial tanks versus
full tanks how they're dealing with the very sludgy septic versus the holding tanks and I think that
there's Some kind of unanswered questions in that I am in My preference tonight would be to just
Vote no on this and send it back to get some of those answered because I don't think postponing two
weeks is going to amount to enough. And I think I heard that directly from director Zager who would
like to then bring this to the utility service board which I think is really appropriate. Their next
meeting is the 15th which is only two days.
before our next regular session meeting. And that is not enough time to get that feedback. So I'm not
sure if that's what Council Attorney Lanner would also say. Additionally, the 17th has, I think, five
or six pieces of legislation on it, including the annexation as second readings. And that is also set
up to be a long meeting. And to put this on that meeting, I think, would be a mistake. And as president,
I would then
have to push something else I think to make that at all reasonable so I would be in favor of just taking
the vote on it tonight and Voting it down as opposed to postponing since we're so close to the end of
the year So that is my comment is that does anybody want to make a motion to postpone Seeing none will
look Oh councilmember Flaherty
Don't have a strong opinion. I just wondered if there was any practical difference with postponing
indefinitely which maybe sends a clearer signal that like this actually While it ends the well, it kills
the ordinance. I think it's less of like I Don't know. It's it probably doesn't matter. Yeah, I think
it's more discussion has set that clear, right? What I think that what we've said has made it Yeah
Does that does that feel yes, I think under Robert's rules of order there is some nuance with respect
to postponement indefinitely. It's a way of disposing with a question without accepting or rejecting
it. The effect is to suppress it for the duration of the current session which in this case ends
in just a few weeks. So I think it would permit the ordinance to come back in twenty twenty six in the
same way that a vote to reject it tonight would have that same effect too. So I think you there I think
both both postponement and definitely and calling the question and then voting to reject are both viable options.
Does anybody want to move to postpone indefinitely? Seeing no one do that. Will the clerk please call
the roll on ordinance 2025 44 as amended No, no No
All right, that fails zero seven. And I thank everybody for coming to this and also thank everybody
who stayed through this to deal with the toe ordinances that are next. And I look forward to hearing
more some kind of alternate proposal in 2026. So moving on to the next.
I move that ordinance 2025 dash 19 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only second
Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to introduce ordinance 2025 19. All those in favor, please say
aye. Aye opposed Thank you. Will the clerk please read? Ordinance 2025 dash 19 to men title 15 of the
Bloomington Municipal Code entitled remote removal and impound of vehicles regarding chapters 15 point
48 and 15 point 52
Updating permissible towing and storage charges for authorized towing services. The synopsis is as follows
ordinance 2025-19 Updates the maximum towing chart the maximum charges authorized towing services may
collect when performing city initiated toes To reflect more accurately the costs associated with towing
services and current market pricing Thank you I move that ordinance 2025-19 be adopted
Second. Thank you. Who is here to talk about title 15 if you could introduce yourself for the record
and go ahead. Good evening council members. I'm assistant city attorney and Edina Casamanian from the
city of Bloomington legal department. And first I'd like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to
today regarding proposed legislation under Title 15 of the Bloomington Municipal Code which covers police
initiated towing and other non-consensual towing I'd also like to say I'm joined here today tonight
with sergeant sergeant Jacob Hunter from the Bloomington Police Department and several members from
the towing community and
So tonight I'd like to briefly discuss why the city should consider Updating or modifying the towing
fees and why that would be legally sound fiscally necessary and operationally essential for ensuring
public safety mobility while also meeting expectations that our code sets out for both enforcement and
for both enforcement officers and towing contractors so I'm going to
You know just sort of go over three different areas. I want to talk about legal authority under title
15. I'd also like to talk about fees Quality and sustainable sustainable rates and I'd also like to
talk about Public safety and how this impacts public safety here from the city of Bloomington so under title 15
The Bloomington Municipal Code the city is expressly authorized to do a few things Some of those things
among other are established fees that reflect the reasonable cost of towing and storage recover enforcement
costs tied to Not only illegal parking but also events where there's traffic obstruction the city is
also authorized to contract with private towing companies at rates set or approved by the city and
So moving along, I'd like to sort of go into fees. Current fees no longer accurately reflect the actual
operational cost. Our towing fees have remained largely static for a few years. During this
time, administrative tasks such as dispatch, coordination, record keeping, adherence to compliance,
and release procedures have grown more complex under police-initiated toes.
The cost of fuel has increased, insurance premiums for tow truck operators has increased, the cost of
labor has even increased, and the cost of actual tow truck equipment and maintenance has become more
expensive.
Additionally the cost of storage continues to increase as there's becoming more need and requirement
for Security lighting and surveillance fencing all which are not cheap. We're towing companies store
vehicles. So what this means is that the city's actual cost of enforcing title 15 is higher than the
fee revenue that's being collected by our tow companies who are on our police rotation list
It's clear that when the fees don't cover the real cost the shortfall is ultimately absorbed And where
is it being absorbed? It's being absorbed by city of Bloomington taxpayers the city budget It's also
being absorbed by police officers who lose time due to understaffed towing companies who we've contracted
with Additionally when we talk about rates and fees
We we have noticed that our rates are not they differ from the county and from Indiana University And
as we go more into that we can address questions on that But I want to talk a little bit more about
public safety as you know towing is not merely just an administrative process It's one of primary public
safety. It's one of our primary public safety tools
that we use to manage transportation and traffic flow in and out of our city. So when an illegally parked
vehicle blocks fire lanes or transit stops it's not just an inconvenience. This actually translates
into a risk because fire trucks ambulances school buses other essential services must be able to move
through the city reliably. Title 15 gives the city the authority to remove
illegally parked vehicles through our contracted towing companies and those vehicles are ultimately
obstructing traffic where emergency vehicles and preventing emergency vehicles from being able to get
through or park in their designated areas putting People at risk the citizens of Bloomington at risk
however title 15 can only work in
If our contracted tow providers are able to respond quickly maintain high quality equipment have enough
staff and meet the code and the contracts the contract between the police and the city has a standard
our contracted tow companies have to be ready 24 7 when they're on call for with the city of Bloomington
with the police department
All of these things that I just listed all depend on financial viability. If we continue to allow towing
rates to stay stagnant, providers can't afford to respond quickly, have reliable staff, have safety
gear, modern trucks, and properly functioning secured storage. Additionally, the response time then
begins to lag and enforcement, our law enforcement and enforcement just generally becomes inconsistent.
And this is the nexus where the city of Bloomington's public safety is compromised a well-functioning
towing system not does only deal with illegal parking. It protects the lives of the residents as I stated
earlier. So with that being said I'd like to just talk a little bit more about how the fees have remained
outdated and how companies cannot
Meet the standards that I've just listed without cutting corners or feeling compelled to withdraw from
contracting with city of Bloomington's Police Department and to be on the rotation list. So when our
to our contracted tow companies are not being properly compensated or at least not compensated at market
rate it puts us all at risk.
here in the city of Bloomington. So the goal of updating the fee is not to burden the residents of the
city of Bloomington rather it's to ensure the towing program under Title 15 is financially neutral and
does not shift costs on to taxpayers who follow rules who so simultaneously it preserves the essential
principle that the city's public roads belong to the community as a whole. We are at the same time.
Where at the same time Bloomington's infrastructure should be protected for all these reasons above
I'm open to questions about the proposed changes and I also have Sergeant Jacob partner from Bloomington
Police Department and the tow company's here to answer any questions you all might have Thank you, I
also want to note that we have three amendments on this ordinance
Councilmember Piedmont Smith, do you have a motion for yeah, I'd like to go ahead and move amendment
one because it's really Just moving some text and Correcting typos second. Thank you.
Thank you. Councilmember Piedmont Smith Do you want to continue to explain amendment one that is also
in that packet addendum was released this afternoon? I
So this amendment makes typographical corrections and moves the text regarding the 450 dollar surcharge
for a heavy tow from section 15 52070 to sections 15 48030 and 15 52060 for full transparency. It just
makes more sense for those for that surcharge to be listed in those two sections.
Therefore it deletes section four of the ordinance which is that same text in section 15 52 0 7 0 which
is really about police contracts. It's not about the surcharge. Thus those specific terms are added
for Bloomington Police Department's towing contracts for non-consensual toes since that contract would
have to follow Bloomington municipal code 15 52 0 6 0 anyway.
So hopefully this is clear if you if you have the text in front of you, it's just moving some language
and correcting some typos Thank you. Are there questions from council members regarding amendment one?
I Don't see any but I do have one I do agree with councilmember Piedmont Smith that that it is just
like moving language that's already in there and not really changing anything Give me one second. I
believe Believe I don't have any
concerned with that. One second.
Yes. Okay great. Thank you. Any other questions. Okay let's go ahead and go to public comment on Amendment
1 to ordinance 2025 19 if the public would like to comment on just this Amendment 1 which as councilmember
Piedmont Smith described moves language around a little bit and corrects some typographical errors can
make your way to the podium if you're in chambers or raise your hand on zoom. I don't see anybody in
chambers or their hands raised on zoom.
We'll go back to counsel then for any comments about amendment one Okay, will the clerk please call
the roll on amendment one to ordinance 2025 19 Yes, yes, yes Yes Yes Thank you. So amendment one passes
with a vote of seven to zero
Can someone move amendment to for me or can I move my own amendment? I move amendment to Second,
thank you, and I will pass the gavel to my vice president So amendment to is mine and an amendment to
for this ordinance it
Undoes some things that were added currently our ordinance allows 24 hours to accrue to pass before
storage fees start being active the proposed ordinance changes out to 12 my amendment shifts that back
to 24 and I My reasoning for that is that 12 hours is just not very long It's literally overnight and
if somebody gets towed say at 9 p.m
They might not be able to get their vehicle by 9 a.m Before they're they're starting to get charged
for that for that storage fee And I just think that that is not totally just and then especially when
you combine that storage fee to incorporate that additional fee of not exceeding $75 if pickup is made
outside of business hours so that is a new fee to add the outside of business hours fee and
and I my Amendment strikes that entirely and my reasoning for that is that there is nothing that says
when tow companies have to have business hours and it doesn't define business hours in any way and I
can imagine a tow company deciding that they're going to have extremely limited business hours in order
to get that $75 from as many people as possible and so unless we
define business hours or require companies to have a Certain number of business hours. I don't think
that that is fair at all to to add that fee in and so those are the two changes that get made by this
amendment Somebody have any questions
Yeah when it comes to Picking up a vehicle the sponsor said that 12 hours was was was not a reasonable
amount of time and that To let it revert back to 24, which I believe it is now My question is do who
can pick up Who can pick up a vehicle
From that's being held or that's been towed Could can anyone that the person tells to go pick it up
tell a friend to go pick it up a family member Or does it have to be the person that the car is titled
to or whatever? Do we know who can pick up the car? That's correct it's who's tied who has the title
to the vehicle and
Who's the registered title owner of the vehicle? Or the owner of a lean Or the holder of a lean on the
vehicle is identified in the BMC as being able to to claim the motor vehicle also Sorry Councilmember Flaherty
I have a question about the practical implication of the second component of the amendment about Eliminating
the fee for pickups outside of business hours again, I think it goes to a kind of a pragmatic like how
the business operations actually work is a Like one possibility is by eliminating that possibility of
a fee for pickup outside of storage Would that mean that they're simply it sorry pick up outside of
business hours with that?
Simply lead to there being no pickup outside of business hours. Whereas right now with if it allows
for an extra fee it's something that folks would be willing to accommodate because They can you know
recoup costs associated with showing up out of business hours to let someone get their car out I didn't
say that as clearly as I could have is there a legal requirement that towing companies allow pickup
outside of business hours and
In other words, do they have to do it, regardless of whether they're allowed to charge a fee or not?
Because my fear is that if they don't have to do it and you don't allow them to recoup costs, that by
eliminating that cost, they simply won't do it. Did that make more sense?
I was gathering in the beginning, but as you continued I start to lose track. So can you repeat the
question? Okay, I think I know what he means Yeah, so I think One of one of the other parts of code
I'm trying to find it and I don't have it in front of me Says that a vehicle must be available for pickup
within an hour after it gets towed. Mm-hmm
And so if you combine that with the out of business hours, it's like if you tow my car and then an hour
later, you're not in business hours and you're gonna charge me that extra $75. And that's where I think
that these things combine to be like whoever's getting towed is just losing.
And I can appreciate that our police department is gonna dot all their I's and cross all their T's for
these tows, but I also want to accommodate things. It's not just that people are parking and blocking
the right of way sometimes, or accruing a bunch of parking tickets. Sometimes they're getting into a
vehicular accident, and sometimes that's something big, and sometimes it's something small. There are
lots of situations that I can imagine where somebody would have to get their vehicle towed
and then deal with some sort of you know emergency situation and You know or if their vehicle Needed
needs a new battery and suddenly it stops working and then it needs to get towed and then you have to
figure out how to go get a new battery and all of these like pieces of is it fair to say we don't know
for sure how this Not allowing a fee might affect business decisions of the towing companies or
Well I can speak to your question I think I understood it Councilmember Flaherty under Indiana code
five dash two dash twenty six point one. It lays out the total rotation requirements and among the list
of 13 items item number
Item number nine says that availability for the owner to pick up the vehicle including after hours.
So it is a legal requirement to allow pickup after hours. OK. Thank you. Other questions for the sponsor
or for staff. Oh council member Ruff.
Like to hear the administration's opinion on this. Changing it. Yeah. Back to the 24 hours. We're in
no objection. And the end of the fee. The seventy five dollar fee. Oh the seventy five dollar fee. I
can't answer that question right at this moment. I would have to talk to more people.
Question I can't answer. Okay. Thank you Any other councilmember questions before we go to the public
All right, let's go to public comment on amendments to to ordinance 2025-19 If you have a comment on
the amendment which would
Strike the $75 outside of business hours fee and revert back to 24 hours before the storage fee is incurred.
If you have a comment on that, please come to the podium, clearly print your name on the sign in sheet
and state your name and then you'll have up to three minutes. And if you're on Zoom, please use the
raise hand function.
Hi, my name is Ken parish with Ken's West Side Service in towing Bloomington I've been on your rotation
for quite a few years. We've some of us have met before and others we haven't Thank you for having me
tonight. I would like to address a couple of these changes that you're asking about the 12-hour back
to 24 actually The 24 hours makes more sense anyway, because technically by the state of Indiana We're
not legally allowed to charge for the final 24 hours of storage in any way. So if you're there, I
Less than 24 hours, it's free. If it's been there 10 days, you're only paying for nine. So you get the
24 hours free no matter what. So going back to the 24 hours is not an issue for any of us, and none
of us have any obligations to challenge that whatsoever. I'd like to answer some of the questions as
far as eliminating the after hours fees. And I'd like to kind of address this in two different manners,
if I may. The non-consensual toes, which I believe is 4.32,
And then the city initiated toes is the fifteen point two and the fifteen point four eight.
Is that correct? The city initiated toes is the fifteen four eight and five two. Yes Okay,
just for fifteen, okay, so Those of us are doing the city toes like that most of us and almost all of
us that are on your rotation for city toes
have business hours and those business hours are eight to five, Monday through Friday. Some of us offer
some Saturday hours, if not all of us offer at least a short window for Saturday hours. And yes, most
of us are closed on Sundays. I myself personally and none of these other gentlemen and ladies that are
on the rotation would probably have an issue with establishing said business hours with your agreement
or contract with those to establish that during these business hours, eight to five, Monday through Friday,
You cannot be charged any after hours fees and what we're doing most of the time we're not dealing with
public park or private parking lots and stuff like that where we're dealing with somebody 24 hours a
day. Most of the people we're dealing with our city police were towing in cars that have been in accidents.
If it was city initiated tow for illegal parking tickets most of those folks can't get those parking
tickets settled up to the next business day anyway.
So we're not going to have to deal with that but we do not have staff on location 24 hours a day to
release cars. And second of all I don't also have all of my employees who have keys to my establishment
to go in there and unlock the building and release cars. I only have one or two people to do that. They're
off work. They're at home. I got to pay them to come.
on their time to come into my business and release those cars. And I've absorbed those costs for a lot
of years, and I know these guys have too, of having to come in after hours, one, two, three o'clock
in the morning, because we also have concerns and we want them to have their car. We do. We understand
there's car seats. We understand there's medications. We understand there's photo IDs and all these
things that come into play. We're compassionate with that to the sense that we want you to have your
things, but you also need to be compassionate with us and understand
We have lives and we want to be at home, too We have certain guys that are on call of a night and they
have shifts. I'm sorry, sir. That's the end of your time No worries. Thank you. Is there anybody on
zoom? With a hand raised. No, okay. We'll take the next person here in chambers Okay, I'm glad I let
him go first cuz he hit everything I took notes about so I
Personally am NOT on the sheriff rotation. What is your name, please? My name is Jacob padawan. I'm
the owner of tow time towing here in Bloomington We are one of probably the two largest private lot
towing companies in town. I do not do police toes here Except for IU. I do do police toes in Bedford
Lawrence County Mitchell and several other counties but I basically just wanted us touch base on a few
different things and
On the private lot side that people may not understand that we spend drastic money on I'm sorry, sir.
We're this amendment is only about the police initiated toes This amendment it said both on the screen
Is it not illegally parked cars, yes This would be illegally parked cars trespassing vehicles. Oh, but
illegally parked cars in the public right-of-way. Oh
is what we're talking about. OK. Well all right. Thank you. But you'll have an opportunity later.
Thank you. Name's Chad Stevens and owner of Blans record service. I'm just going to go along a little
bit of what. Could you please be sure to speak into the microphone. You can use the other. OK.
Chad Stevens lands record service Gonna extend on what mr. Parrish said from Ken's Westside I want to
take out the misconception that we are not open 24 hours a day, but we provide service 24 hours a day
Meaning that as far as open business hours were eight to five Monday through Friday Now we'll provide
service all 24 hours a day seven days a week but like he said I got guys that want to be home and
Uh, Cameron here, my operations manager had to come in at three different times over the weekend. I
had to pay him. Um, like it was 11 o'clock at night, two o'clock in the morning and four o'clock in
the morning to release cars. And so I'm in favor of keeping the 75 or adding the $75 fee because I'm
absorbing that as well. Paying him to come in and release these cars. That's all I got to say. Thank you.
Any other comments. May I address the seventy five dollar fee part two. Yes. OK. I'm definitely in favor
of putting that in the legislature as well. Currently you guys don't have anything that says you cannot
charge an after hours fee. And I think that if you include that that it would take away a little bit
of confusion to the public. But they are absolutely right. Services 24 7 office hours can't be we can't
afford it for the regulations that you guys
You know have on anything across the board So we do the same thing. We have staff that work during the
day in the office. I actually Have night staff as well One of them's right here that can work six days
a week all night long because we're trying to provide the most Help to the community, but there's still
people calling at four o'clock in the morning five o'clock in the morning 4 a.m. To 7 a.m. I'm in bed.
I won't even answer the phone. I
But I just want to touch base on that. It is very important that we get that into the legislation.
Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody on zoom yet at this point. No. OK. Next person here in chambers.
I'm Cameron myself on the operations manager with Blaine's record service just to touch on.
The comment that was made about you know concerns with Stating that you know a tone service would say
that all of a sudden we towed your car and now it's not business hours Our business hours are posted
We say that they're Monday through Friday eight to five. There's transparency with us And we'd be happy
to agree to you know contractually saying that as well to get the after-hours sheet put in there because
like he said It was actually four times last weekend
I had to come in after hours 11 p.m. 2 a.m. To release cars We don't want to keep people's cars, but
do we do want to get compensated for what we're up to do. So Thank you Thank you Any other comments
on the amendment All right seeing none we will come back to council members are there any follow-up
questions on amendment to I
Oh Yes councilmember daily, I guess would you be open to doing an amendment to put the $75 back in If
that's the only way that this will pass and keep that 24 hours in I guess I have to be open to that
but I'm Like I appreciate that the companies that have come tonight say that they are honest that they're
gonna stick by their business hours, but there are victims of predatory towing in this town and
And I also wanna say that for Title 15, that is police-initiated towing, once again, I trust that our
police department is gonna dot their I's and cross their T's, but one of the, I mean, there's two towing
ordinances tonight, and they've been kept in alignment. And so part of it is like, okay, keeping it
in alignment between whether you're a police tow or whether you're a private tow. And if we don't have
business hours defined
then tow companies can take advantage of people. So if we leave this $75 in, then we need to also define
and demand business hours, stable business hours, written business hours, so that residents know what
to expect. Because I get it. If you have somebody coming in and having to work overtime, you need to
pay them. There should be a fee for that, right?
It also should not be possible for then a tow company to take advantage of people by severely limiting
their business hours, which could happen because there are a lot of dishonest tow companies in this
town. Does that answer your question, by the way? I have some real passion about predatory towing because
I've been a victim of predatory towing, and I know a lot of constituents of mine who've been victims
of predatory towing.
It is it is it is a real thing in Bloomington and it happens and I respect I respect your your passion
and and thank you for that I mean, yeah, cuz I've torn too because I am concerned about you know hardship
costs for People who can't afford the towing in the first place. So Yeah, I hear you I mean I I felt
like it was easier in the amendment to just scrap the fee than to try to define what business hours
are supposed to be and
So that was why I scrapped it instead of trying to define business hours. Any other questions on the
amendment. Council member Ruff I guess for staff more than any of my colleagues. So how hard and how
quickly could we bring back. Actually let me rephrase that.
Let me direct first question at the sponsor. So if these hours required hours were in place you would
be supportive of the after hours fee of $75 Yeah, if there were kind of subscribed business hours that
tow companies had to abide by Then then that would be fine with me So then that leads to my question
for staff, which was I mean is this a
Probably a pretty straightforward. Do you envision? to I Guess for minutes the administration Question
would be to develop hours requirement and then to bring it forward with the fee with after hours fee
I Mean, I'm not I'm not comfortable. I don't like either one. I don't like the either or option here.
I If I want I want to support
Idea of requiring hours, but I don't want to say no family you pay extra fee for after-hour services
for plumbers and For heating and cooling for lots of things right and it's part of what you do So I
don't like eliminating that But what you're suggesting seems to be an amendment to amendment to potentially a
But which could be done I mean the hours component would require some some thought and maybe the legal
department or the administration would have some ideas regarding what that might be reflected as That
potentially could come back for a third reading and
I'm going to take the privilege of the chair here for a second. I thought that councilmember Ross question
was for the administration. Could you bring forward another ordinance that sets the business hours and
allows a seventy five dollar fee and how hard would that be. Is that the heart of your question.
Councilmember Ruff Yeah. Would this could we deal with this quickly in January or February or something
easily. So that is so this is for city staff. I think this question
Yeah So maybe I can chime in here with title 15. These are these are police toes These are toes by our
contracted the companies that are contracted with BPD and the $75 and the business hours
We have a contract so it's potentially that the that BPD would be you know able to include that in our
contract with our towing companies at that level But I will allow BPD to speak to that Again, I'm sergeant
Jacob Hunter and with the Bloomington PD I've been tasked early last year towards the end of 23 with
our contract and
negotiations or the handling the contracts of the Bloomington police and the tow companies for our tow
rotations During this year, it's been some changes obviously from state legislation So we're currently
in the process of getting the new contract drafted up to make it I Guess okay for the state essentially
to make sure we're abiding by all state law and
We could very well potentially put those hours in the contract because since chapter 15 only handles
a police initiated toes or city initiated toes we can put those restrictions in the contract and I'm
the one that deals or the person that's designated a BPD is the one that deals with our toe rotation
if any toe companies go outside of that contract we have the ability to seize and assist that
that partnership with them so they can now no longer work under chapter 15 if that makes sense
Thank you. Council member Stossberg. So right now like in terms of the current ordinance and then how
my proposal totally scratches that line like tow companies are allowed to charge an after hours fee
right. It's just silent and code code doesn't say you're not allowed to do it right. Right. So companies
could still be charging an after hours fee like currently.
Because I mean if code is silent on it and it doesn't say that they're not allowed to charge a fee Then
they could be allowed to charge a fee Yes, let me just I'll take a brief moment to look at title 15
one more time Okay, cuz I guess by that logic if we approve this amendment and scratch that fee that
still allows the police department to write in a
That kind of maximum and stuff into their contract. Yes Yeah code does it's silent so silent as to after
hours fee so you're correct Councilmember sorry
On the question of the $75, doesn't it, if we were to remove the language that's in there now, doesn't
that mean that they could charge $150, $300? I mean, the function of that language is to limit what
can be charged, not to say that it will be charged. Is that a question for me? Question for you. OK.
Yeah, you're right. But I guess.
The part that I'm concerned about is companies then limiting their business hours to then be able to
always get that fee or to get that fee as much as possible and then especially when you combine that
with With the storage fee is starting to accrue like and it and it definitely like this this whole issue of
Once again the title 15 and the title four are currently in alignment and the proposed new one is in
alignment. And so I'm most concerned about the non-consensual private towing as opposed to the police
initiated towing in terms of concern that tow companies are going to take advantage of people. And and
so I was trying to keep my amendments in alignment.
But I think yes I think to council member roughs point I think we need to introduce other other amendments
at either now or at some separate time we can further amend title 15 I think to add some controls over
you know whether that be ours but also some prohibition of charging beyond something and it may be a
good idea.
Councilman I don't think I've opened it up to Well, actually we did we have questions and we have had
comments so it's become a little bit confused Are there any further comments on amendment to? Councilmember
Stossberg. Well, I'll just take my mic. This is this is not public comment Yeah
As I said, I do have faith that our police department crosses their t's and dots their eyes and that
you know when when they Call somebody in their toe rotation, you know that there's some element of trust
there but I Don't have that same kind of faith in the title for towing which we're gonna talk about
next but currently those two codes are in alignment and
with each other and it seems to me that the legal department wants to keep them in alignment and I really
do not want to give any anything away to dishonest toe companies who are going to take advantage of
our residents and toe inappropriately because
there probably should be a lot more notices of violation going out to tow companies for inappropriate
tows, but residents who get towed don't realize that they can complain or realize how to complain, and
a lot of people who might get towed might be visitors, and all they wanna do is get their car and get
out of Dodge. And so we're not gonna hear those complaints necessarily, and those people are not gonna
be able to follow through on what could be an extensive process with the city of figuring out notices
of violation. And so I do not wanna
Anything away to dishonest tow companies, but I appreciate that there are a lot of honest tow companies
out there too And that our police department is working with those so That's I guess my comment I would
ask counsel that that we support this and if we want to Bring it back and make some changes around specifying
business hours And in terms of those fees then that's something that could be done in January
Any other final comments on amendment to Did you find comments comments No Well, yes councilmember Daley
Thank you. Sorry. I was about to start talking before you recognize me. So Yeah, okay, so I I Have a
love not hate
a love, not so love relationship with this. I like the 24 hour part. I will vote to support this right
now, but I do want to then come back and revisit this later and make those business hour adjustments
so that we can have that after hours charge, the $75 fee. I think that's fair for the people who have
to get up at four in the morning. I'm so sorry for you for that. So yeah, I'll be working to try to
bring this back then and make that
Palatable for everybody, so I'll support this for now, but with that understanding. Thank you And I
will add a comment just to say that I agree with what councilmember Daley just said that I Would prefer
to leave in the $75 fee But it's it's a package deal at this point and I do feel confident that we can
come back with some business hours and allowing after hours fee so
That's not lose sight of that in the coming months All right. I think we're ready for no point. Sorry
councilmember clarity If if folks are quite serious about coming back to make additional minor tweaks
to these ordinances We should go to third reading and fix it now not bring it as separate ordinances
in 2026 That's my two cents
So we have a motion on the table to approve Amendment 2. If we take a vote and do not approve Amendment
2 then we could consider a motion to delay to table this to December 17th and come up with a new amendment.
Am I right.
I think it would be easier on staff to not try to write an amendment on the fly, especially if the next
ordinance amending chapter four might have a similar Problem Okay, well I do I do believe we have to
vote on the motion that's on the table Councilmember Flaherty just just briefly weighing in on that
too. We are kind of under the wire with some time and
And it's tough to amend amendments on the fly. I also thought got the impression from the administration
that they would benefit from a moment to like step back and confer discuss those types of additions
rather than doing it on the fly in the last hour of tonight's meeting. Attorney Leonard am I correct
that we need to vote on the motion that's on the table.
Some action needs to be taken whether it's to postpone it to a date certain or to to vote on the question
itself. Can we can we postpone even though we haven't voted on the amendment. The postponement would
be for the main question. So we should vote on the amendment.
Yes, I mean certainly that's that's an option to vote on on the amendment now. I think that makes sense.
Council member Stossberg. I would be willing to withdraw the amendment and then move to postpone to
a date certain if that would be a preference. Second. Oh, that wasn't a motion. But it sounds like that
was a preference motion. So so I'll withdraw. Wait a minute.
Councilmember daily you're the one that technically moved to that moved my amendment So so so I'm okay
with you withdrawing my amendment right now This is what I get for trying to be helpful. I really appreciate
it Yeah, I make a motion to you don't have to make a motion. You just have to withdraw. I withdraw the
amendment Okay, so that amendment has been withdrawn Councilmember Stossburg
And I would like to move that we postpone this matter until our next regular session on December 17th.
So we're postponing ordinance 2025 19 as amended second All right Do we need a roll call vote on the
motion to postpone or can we just do a voice vote?
Simple majority simple majority is yeah, I think you could do a voice vote. There's nobody participating
All right, all in favor of the motion to postpone to December 17th, please say aye Any opposed Okay,
so that motion passes We will now move on to I will give this back to President Stansbury, that's what
I'll do. Thank you
Councilmember daily next excuse me. Yeah It's after 1030, which means we need a two-thirds majority
to introduce Any further legislation? What about a further amendment? Amendments are okay. I think I
looked I looked up in code earlier. So we would just need a two-thirds majority to introduce the ordinance I
But there is another amendment to ordinance 2020. Oh, we post all that. Yeah Sorry last track Maybe
I'll tired point of order and information just related to procedure here Would it be better? if this
next ordinance faces a similar set of challenges which will require a similar resolution of stepping
back drafting something new that isn't drafted now working with the administration to vet it and
Might we be better served by Moving now to postpone rather than kind of like going through some It hasn't
been introduced I guess even directing it to a third reading maybe we do need to introduce it to do
that to make that motion. Yeah, I mean Councilmember daily I move that ordinance 2025-20 be introduced
and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only second
So since it is after 1030, I'm gonna ask that the clerk do a roll call on this motion to introduce ordinance
2025 20 Councilmember daily. Yes. Sorry. No clarity. Yes No Yes Yes
That was a five to seven or sorry a five to two vote and we needed a two-thirds majority of counsel
Not of those present. So that means that that has failed to be introduced I just want to say grand apologies
right now to Our staff detail arousal who's been sitting over there for like five hours
Five hours to talk about this ordinance That will end up having to go on the agenda next At the meeting
on the 17th, we'll try that again Yes, December 7 did I say September December 17. All right moving
on in our agenda then This is the additional period
period of public comment, so a maximum of 25 minutes set aside for anybody who wants to comment on something
not on the agenda this evening. If there's anybody in chambers wanting to comment on something not on
the agenda, you can go ahead and make your way to the podium. If you're online, you can raise your hand
using the reactions tab. I don't see anybody coming to the podium. Is there anybody raising a hand on
Zoom? There's a lot of moving in chambers, but I don't think that anybody's wanting to do public comment.
Attorney Bennett has there any hand raised on zoom? Okay. Thank you In terms of notes on council schedule
I would like to highlight First of all, we're gonna have a deliberation session next Wednesday on the
10th led by councilmember Piedmont Smith about budget for 2027 if you can believe that in terms of prioritizing
And then I also want to highlight that next week also on the 10th At 5 o'clock in the Allison conference
room is the RDC work session about the bunker Robertson property That councilmember Rallo mentioned
during has councilmember comment and council members are all invited to that work session. So just wanted
to highlight that and
Are there any other notes and then our next regular session will be on December 17th? The period for
public comment on items not on the agenda closed and we moved on I'm sorry Are there any other notes
on council schedule councilmember Piedmont Smith the committee on council processes will meet Thursday,
December 11th from 6 to 7 p.m
Okay any other notes on council schedule. All right then we are adjourned. Thank you.