Seeing that it is now 630, I would like to call to order this regular session of Bloomington's Common
Council on July 29th. Will the Honorable Clerk please read the roll? Thank you. All right. Councilmember
Flaherty? Yes, here. Same thing. Stossberg? Here. Piedmont-Smith? Here. Zulek? Here. Asari? Here.
Come back Rollo here rough Rosenbarger and Then Daley here, okay All right. We have a fairly straightforward
agenda today plenty of minutes for approval you will have hopefully note that there was a
Amendment sent out to these minutes. We have reports as we usually do a handful of appointments at Boards
and commissions and then three items two items for first reading one item for second reading and there
will be two times of public comment and Those are the times we eagerly look forward to so with that
there are minutes for approval are there any motions and
January 7th January 2006 No, January 7th 2026 January 14th 2026 February 4th 2026 February 25th 2026
and March 31st 2026 Motion and a second any further amendments to the minutes All right, will the clerk
please call the roll
Councilmember Flaherty Stasberg Piedmont Smith Zulik sorry. Yes, Daley. Yes Rallo Yes Thank you very
much. We'll now move on to reports First from council members. Does anybody have a report for this week
and go to councilmember Piedmont Smith Yes, we
were on council recess when the 250th anniversary of this country or the Declaration of Independence
came around this July 4th. So in a somewhat late celebration of that, I wanted to read part of a poem
by Amanda Gorman called In This Place, An American Lyric. I won't read the whole thing because it is
somewhat lengthy, but I'll start in the middle. There's a lyric in California where thousands of students
march for blocks, undocumented and unafraid, where my friend Rosa finds the power to blossom in deadlock,
her spirit the bedrock of her community. She knows hope is like a stubborn ship gripping a dock, a truth
that you can't stop a dreamer
or knock down a dream. How could this not be her city? Sou Nation, our country, our America, our American
lyric to write. A poem by the people, the poor, the Protestant, the Muslim, the Jew, the native, the
immigrant, the black, the brown, the blind, the brave, the undocumented and undeterred, the woman, the man,
the non-binary, the white, the trans, the ally to all of the above, and more. Tyrants fear the poet.
Now that we know it, we can't blow it. We owe it to show it, not slow it, although it hurts to sew it.
When the world skirts below it, hope, we must bestow it. Like a wick in the poet's
so it can grow, lit, bringing with it stories to rewrite. The story of a Texas city depleted but not
defeated, a history written that need not be repeated, a nation composed but not yet completed. There's
a poem in this place, a poem in America, a poet in every American who rewrites this nation, who tells
a story worthy of being told on this minnow of an earth,
to breathe hope into a palimpsest of time, a poet in every American who sees that our poem penned doesn't
mean our poems end. There's a place where this poem dwells, it is here, it is now, in the yellow song
of dawn's bell, where we write an American lyric we are just beginning to tell. Thank you. Thank you
for those beautiful words.
Um, any other comments or reports? Oh, I see a council member. Thanks. Thank you. Um, I meant to report
this last time, um, but a profoundly important event happened about two weeks ago and it was either
missed by the media or it was quickly forgotten. And that is the recent escape of opening eyes model,
advanced model, uh, to hugging face.
So what happened was advanced autonomous agents broke out of their secure servers, which is called a
sandbox, and discovered a software flaw and immediately hacked an external real world, in this case,
network, and that was hugging face. So they were being tested and they found an unknown vulnerability.
They didn't expect
to have in the sandbox. And they use that to reach the public internet. Once online, the AI figured
out that Hugging Face might hold data or test answers that it needed to complete its task. And it attacked
the platform successfully to get a higher score. It used stolen credentials, chained multiple attack
vectors together to execute remote code on servers and was successful
ultimately. It did the hacking in hours and days that would have taken advanced human hackers weeks
to do. So why should we worry about this? This is the loss of control that we've been, that experts
have been warning about. It proved that AI, powerful AI can act completely on its own to bypass safety
limits when hyper-focused on a specific goal. It demonstrated a real-world
threat. That is, instead of staying in a harmless digital test zone, the AI launched a real unauthorized
intrusion, which was illegal, by the way, against an outside company. And this is a warning sign that
work on models that are, after all, they're meant to explicitly replace people is becoming too dangerous.
This is a rush to superhuman intelligence that would very likely be out of anyone's control.
In response to this, there has been some Congress people concerned. Congressman Ted Lieu, for instance,
from California introduced the bill to require kill switches for these models. But recall that it took
humans using AIs, by the way, a week to determine what happened. That is far too late for any meaningful
kill switch. So the only reasonable way forward to safeguard our future is a moratorium on the development
of artificial super intelligence. AI should forever remain a tool and not be designed to be an agent.
And it's up to citizens to take action. Unfortunately, one regretful thing that has happened in our
250 years is corporate capture of regulatory agencies. And unfortunately, the AI companies have dedicated
about $200 million a year for this purpose.
So it's up to us to contact our representatives and compel them for our own safety to deploy a moratorium
on this very dangerous technology. Thank you. Thank you so much, Council Member Arlo. Any other comments,
Council Member Stasberg? Thank you. I have a few random bits of things that I wanted to share, so sorry
about that.
So first, something that I also meant to announce last week. For those of you who are unaware, Lynn
Coyne was appointed Interim Director of Planning at the Planning Commission meeting earlier this month.
And so that has, in fact, happened. And he has begun that position. And I believe there's an interview
with him and the mayor out there in the netherworld somewhere if you want to hear more about him. Secondly,
I wanted to announce that on August 8,
So that's not this Saturday, it's the next Saturday. I'll be at the farmers market from 9 to 11, just
kind of doing a drop-in little meeting. If anybody wants to pop over and say hi, I will be in information
row at the Democrats booth during that time. For anybody who has anything they want to talk to me about,
I would welcome a discussion both from specific District 3 constituents, but anybody else who happens
by and wants to bend my ear.
And third, for my colleagues generally, and part of the reason I'm saying this is to say it out loud,
because sometimes when you say things out loud, then you make commitments, then you have to fall through
on them. Just wanted to give a brief little tidbit about fiscal committee stuff, because last week we
heard some extensive stuff from Reedy Financial. Well, but it's not... A committee report technically
needs to be written.
So I'm committing right now to give you a written committee report and also encouraging you to go back
and maybe look at some of that information that Reedy gave to us on Friday. It's very interesting and
I'm going to pull some parts of it out just both in terms of our own preparation and also in terms of
the consequences of what
the state did because there's some more specific numbers out there and then the last thing that I want
to mention is a Response you could say to the county commissioners and their public comment last week
with regard to a jail location I want to applaud my colleague councilmember Piedmont Smith for her written
response to them and I just want to say that that
I don't think that there was anything in there that I disagreed with, and so I kind of want to second
all of that and very specifically say that, because I've had a few constituents message me about concern
for putting a jail there because it had been planned for housing. There were several years of
feedback given about what to do with Hopewell and There was not any discussion in there at the time
about it being a jail and I think that that would have been a very Appropriate time to bring that up
and talk about it when there was still that community discussion around it and at this point it feels
Not necessarily too late but especially given that there was a collaborative working group all summer
long that the commissioners declined attending
It feels a little bit Obtuse perhaps to suddenly come out and suggest something that they could have
Participated in a collaborative community discussion about and so to bring it up now just It just doesn't
sit very well with me So if you're not sure out there what it is that I'm referring to I would direct
you to councilmember Piedmont Smith's very
eloquently written public letter. Thank you Do we have anyone we don't have anyone giving a report today
from mayor's office wonderful Also, I would love to call on a counselor P1 Smith them to talk a little
bit about councils special committee on processes and
Well, it's just an informal report since reports actually have to be written. I am told Okay, well this
is very relevant to that because So just briefly the committee on council processes met last week and
We discussed two small revisions on the membership of two different commissions the Transportation Commission
and the Environmental Commission and councilmember Stossberg
is taking the lead on that. And I think we'll be presenting the final proposal at our next meeting.
And then we have been for our second meeting in a row. We have been going through the municipal code
title to the section on the council. We've been going through that paragraph by paragraph to see what
could be clarified and what could be perhaps moved to a separate administrative document, rules of procedure
document. This work started last year, and so we are continuing an initial review that was
done by Councilmember Sari and staff. And maybe we should add to that that we should allow nonwritten
reports from council committees.
We will get to that. So that's it. Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there any other council committee reports?
All right, we'll now move on to a time of public comment. The way that this works, you have three minutes.
If you could so kindly sign in, it helps us with keeping of the minutes. And if you could state your
name or alias for the record, that would be tremendous. Folks online, you have a button that you can
press to raise your hand and we'll acknowledge you in due course. You can comment at either this one
or the next one. Is there anyone who would like to comment today at public comment?
Seeing none, is there anyone online? Hey, we're zooming through this. That's wonderful. Okay. All right.
We have some appointments of boards and commissions. Do we? We don't? Oh, okay. I thought we did. Well,
hey. None? Oh, okay. I thought we had the one. Okay, fine.
All right moving on then. Um, are there any motions? We'll go to legislation for first readings I move
that ordinance 2026-16 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only please There's
a motion in a second any discussion will the clerk please call the roll Stasberg yes, Pete Monsmith.
Yes Zoo Lake Yes, sorry. Yes daily
Yes, Rollo Yes, Rosenberger. Yes and Flaherty. Yes. Will the clerk please read Ordinance 20 26-16 to
amend an ordinance fixing the salaries of officers and employees of the police and fire department for
the city of Bloomington, Indiana for the year 2026 the
Synopsis is as follows this ordinance amends ordinance 25-38 by adding a lieutenant position within
the police department. I Move to discuss ordinance 2026-16 Great is is dr. Paycheck here was a vote.
Sorry. I forget Any discussion comes over Sasberg? I guess I'm just wondering
As you just said if dr. Paycheck is here and who is gonna present this and if dr. Paycheck isn't oh
there she is That answers the question. All right. So with that any other discussion or questions call
that to a vote, please All right beat want Smith Yes Zulik. Yes. I'm sorry. Yes daily. Yes, Rallo Yes,
Rosenberger
Yes, Flaherty Yes, and Stossberg. Yes. Thank you very much. Dr. Paycheck if you'd like to present Well,
we're moving fast I got a little sidetracked and I was like, is that me? So I started running down here.
Okay sharp paycheck
director of human resources Before I Jump into this because I have some a little bit of background that
I want to share with you However, it has been called to my attention that there are some typos and errors
and transpose numbers in this salary ordinance amendment
Because some of those things were called to my attention I know that we need to go back and we need
to take like a much closer Look to make sure that we catch any additional errors So I am happy to do
that and submit some additional an additional amendment for the second reading But I just wanted to
call that out before I share any more details Okay, okay so for this particular I
Salary ordinance amendment. I want to give just a little bit of background so you have some context
on March 24th of this year HR launched a 2026 mid-year work request and so just so you remember Work
is w-e-r-c it's an acronym and it stands for workforce evaluation and realignment committee and so for
this mid-year work
request process department heads were given the opportunity to submit adjustments for work functions
actual position functions including changes in job duties and reporting relationships and also how work
was distributed either across the Department or within a division and so the goal of this mid-year work
request process
Was to give department has the opportunity to address any operational misalignments and also to help
improve efficiency and support departmental priorities so all of these requests had to be Aligned with
using existing financial resources so they had to be
Reviewed and confirmed by the office of the controller that they were either cost neutral or they reduce
cost and that no additional funding would need to be allocated in order to support the request the request
can only be submitted by Department heads and those requests had to be submitted by April the 7th and
so since those
Requests have been received HR has been working with the office of the controller To review those requests
and of those we received the ones that you see presented today if they had an effect of on the salary
ordinance Those are the ones that are presented today. So specifically for this particular salary ordinance
for public safety
The police department was the only one who submitted a work request and it came from chief D cough He
requested to add a fifth lieutenant Details regarding this request are outlined in the memo, but basically
per chief D cough The purpose of adding the fifth lieutenant is to help improve management of the department
with additional support for administrative functions such as training and
recruitment and supervision and there is a estimated fiscal impact for this request of Just over $19,000
and this request though is budget neutral Because it will be covered by Existing vacancies. So no additional
headcount has been requested for this. So it was approved as a budget neutral request and
So that is a little bit of background for this salary amendment and a lot of these details Relate to
the next one up to but I'm happy to answer any questions Thank you so much, that's your paycheck any
questions counselor Puma Smith Yes, thank you for putting that in context dr paycheck sir So you say
there's no
Fiscal impact but perhaps for this year and I understand, you know funds are available for creating
this a position this year, but in the future Years, there will be a fiscal impact because we will have
an additional position to fund. Sure at a significant salary. So I Guess I'm wondering why that's not
wasn't considered fiscal impact in your memo Yeah, if I could
my colleague the controller to speak since he Helped evaluate the request based on fiscal impact. Are
you okay? Jeff McKim City Controller good evening council and thanks for your question Councilmember
Piedmont Smith first of all, I want to clarify something that this is not a Completely new position.
This is replacement of a sergeant with lieutenant. So it's not a new
Increased headcount not a new human being it's it's the conversion of a sergeant position to a lieutenant
position and overall the the fiscal impact is That the the fifth the figure that is given in the memo
a little bit over $19,000 would be for a full year. So actually for this year, it's it's approximately
seven thousand six hundred and eighty two dollars and the standard we did use is The fiscal impact for
this year. So is it something that had that would require additional resources this year? You are correct
that if next year the Police department were fully staffed Which I hope they are they are not at this
point if they were fully staffed it would have an approximately
19 I'm $20,000 fiscal impact on the next year and next year's budget. Does that answer your question?
Yes, it was not clear from the memo that this was converting a sergeant position Okay. Yes, it is does
make me feel a little better about the fiscal impact. Yeah, it is not adding a new headcount Okay. Thank
you counselor Stossberg
Thank you. I also had that question So thank you to once again to councilmember Piedmont Smith for asking
that but the the thing that I did was was I compared Our original packet last October and it lists 13
Sergeants last October and then this one today still lists 13 Sergeants as opposed to dropping one of
those sergeants down and picking up a lieutenant. So is that like shouldn't
It lists now 12 sergeants with five lieutenants in order to actually be Like person neutral. I believe
that that's that the preview and and perhaps Sharkin can help me out on this one, but I believe that
that was actually a typo in the last Not the current but the the previous salary ordinance
That is information that I I really would like to be able to
Confirmed for you. So I need to go back and I need to have a conversation with D cough to confirm it
Because even when I talked to him earlier today, we had a conversation on if there were actually 13
or 14 lieutenants, so Sergeant sergeants, I'm sorry sergeants 13 or 14 sergeants. So let me just confirm
that And then that way I can come back and make sure that the numbers are accurate I
I agree with the controller the way that Chief explained it is that it would be no more headcount and
that they would promote internally So if we do have to update the sergeant count to reflect accurately
in the salary ordinance, then we'll do that Okay, great. I would I would appreciate that. Thank you.
Yeah, sure customer umbrella Thanks, I'm a little curious about for city our size or
police force are sized. Is that a typical number? Five lieutenants or 13 to 14 sergeants? Is this a
hierarchy that is equivalent compared to other cities our size? I have never done that research, so
I don't know the answer to that question. I am happy to do it, but I just haven't done it to this point.
Do you know? No, and it also sounds like something the chief might be able to provide some input to
Okay, maybe another question I have to is are the duties equivalent between forces I Mean do the lieutenants
do the same thing in other other municipalities? Yeah
say we have done just a little bit of research related to that when we were looking at the lieutenant
position description to make sure it was classified correctly. So I will say that I do feel like there
are some similarities, maybe not exactly the same, but some similarities. So I can actually say we have
done some research related to that. Okay. You know what I'm getting at? Some organizations get a bit
top-heavy in a sense?
I'm just curious about the structure and whether we're sort of within a sort of a Normal. Yeah Some
of the duties and the scope of the roles are similar with other municipalities I just don't know related
to the actual numbers in a in a division in an org chart Thank you Councilmember Flaherty
I guess The the instructions to department heads in consideration was that there any proposed changes
in position would need to be budget neutral Is that right? Yes Do you feel like they all understood
that that only meant this year and that they could propose a change that would increase their budget
in the future for future years relative to no change in the position because it sounds like that's like
What is allowed is or at least what the administration allowed for the for the police department and
it surprises me that no one else No other departments like proposed anything and I wonder if there was
a common understanding. What are your thoughts? I do feel like there was a I Feel like it was communicated
on multiple occasions. How it was actually received and processed, I can't speak for other department
heads. I know that my call for it went out in email. We had a pretty lengthy period where anybody could
have asked me follow-up questions. We also, Jeff and I, partnered to reiterate the process
and the expectations during a cabinet meeting.
I submitted a request, and I was pretty clear on the process. So I can say that it was communicated
multiple times. How it was actually received, I do not know, aside from
the controller and myself, I also feel like Deputy Mayor Knapp was very clear that this would not be
an opportunity for you to say that you had money available this year or you reduced funding to cover
this request this year, and then next year or the following years, ask for the money back. So I feel
like she was very clear in that communication as well. So these, I feel, are changes that we felt we
wanted to request to best support the operations and our priorities.
for more of like long-term gains. A brief follow-up, if that's okay, which is, did you say that you
submitted a request, but that's not coming to us? So maybe I was misunderstanding to you. I thought
I understood your earlier remarks to be that only the police department submitted a request, but maybe
there were others that didn't. For the public safety... Oh, yeah, that's right. ...solar ordinance,
so next will be Civil City. Sorry, yes, yes. Yes, okay. Completing ordinances. Thank you. Any other
questions, colleagues?
All right, I'm seeing none. Are there any discussion points or motions? Oh, yeah, we can do that. Yeah,
sorry. Is anybody who'd like to make public comment at this time about this ordinance? Is there anyone
online who'd like to make public comment? Okay, back to colleagues. Any final comments, Council Member Stosberg?
I guess I would just like to second the interest in more information next week when we hear this second
reading both about what I had brought up with the 13 sergeants and and that thing but also what councilmember
Rallo was asking about Departments our size and leadership and concern was being top-heavy so if that's
something that either director paycheck could look into or if chief de Koff would
Be able to provide those answers. I would appreciate that for next week. Thanks And and I actually would
like to add to that just for for next week as we do the amendments I'd be interested because we've had
been having conversations about staffing of police Workload of police and so I think it would be really
helpful to understand I mean if you're shifting the workload from sort of in the field to in the office You know
what the sort of assumptions that are being made here about how that affects the rest of the force,
because that, to me, feels contradictory to the information that we have been receiving about where
the stresses are on the police, especially at their current staffing. So I would be interested
in understanding what's then shifting to be covered in the other direction as well. Excellent. Any other
things? Great. Are there any motions?
Moved to send this to second reading on August 5th All right. Do we need to vote on that? Okay. Good.
Could the clerk please call the roll? Sorry, yes daily. Yes Rallo Yes Rosenberger. Yes Flaherty. Yes
Stossburg. Yes, Pete Monsmith. Yes
Thank you very much. We will discuss that again next week Moving on I Move that ordinance 2026 dash
17 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only Great many discussion Will the clerk
please call the roll? I'm sorry. Yes daily. Yes Rallo Yes, Rosenberger Yes, Flaherty
Yes, Stasberg. Yes, Piedmont Smith and Zulik. Yes. Thank you. Will the clerks please read Ordinance
2026 dash 17 Which amends the 2026 salary ordinance adopted officers non-union and ASPE employees for
all the departments of the city of Bloomington Monroe County, Indiana for the year 2026 the synopsis
is as follows
Ordinance 2026-17 amends the 2026 appointed and asks me employee salary ordinance to incorporate updates
to certain civil city positions. I move to discuss ordinance 2026-17. Any discussion on the motion?
All right. Will the clerk please call the roll? Daly? Yes. Rollo? Yes.
Rosenberger? Yes. Flaherty? Yes. Stasberg? Yes. Piedmont-Smith? Yes. Zulek? Yes. And Asari? Yes. Okay.
All right. Director Pichak. Okay. Sharpe Pichak, Director of Human Resources. Hi. Two things.
Number one, we also received some
Feedback that there are a couple of typos in this salary ordinance as well I'll take a proofreader on
the HR staff if you want to prove that at some point But so we so we will come back with some additional
amendments they are small typos that I think have been carried over but we need to Read a little more
closely. So those are forthcoming the second thing is
The context that I provided for the 2026 mid-year work request. Department heads could submit them.
The request had to be neutral. Same thing will apply to this salary ordinance. Okay? All right. So this
is the 2026 mid-year work request for civil city positions, basically. For this call, we received a
total of eight requests.
that actually pertain to the salary ordinance. So there were others, but they weren't.
changes that needed to be addressed in the salary ordinance. So those eight requests came from three
different departments, utilities, human resources, and public works. So I'll give you a little bit of
insight on each one of those, and potentially my colleagues from utilities and public works may be available
virtually if you have specific questions, but if not, I'll just bring back answers for the second reading.
Okay, so this first request, real quick, was from the utilities department to reorganize
the environmental program coordinator position from the engineering division to the environmental division
I guess it just made more sense to better align this position the title the scope of work in the division
where the director felt was the best
fit in order to help with regulatory compliance and responsibilities and day-to-day operations. This
particular request is just a change of division. It has no fiscal impact, but the salary ordinance needed
to be amended to reflect this change in the division. The second request that came from the utilities
department as well was to reduce a
vacant customer relations rep position Reducing it from full-time to part-time. So apparently the utilities
director didn't feel like this needed to be an actual FTE a full-time position in order to still meet
the service needs But also have enough coverage for operations, especially during peak seasons. So this
particular quest is
Request actually reflects a budget reduction of about $32,000, and that reduction reflects both the
decrease in pay and compensation and also in benefits, since this position will be reduced from 40 hours
to not more than 29 hours, which is a position that is not eligible for benefits, hence the additional
savings. Request three and four.
are also from the utilities director and they are related. The utilities director asked us to look at
the assistant GIS coordinator position and also the GIS coordinator positions. And the utilities director
wanted these positions reviewed to see if they should be reclassified for a higher grade.
This this request was handled a little deeper dive from human resources because we had to consider GIS
positions that are both in ITS and also in utilities to evaluate them to see how the scope of work and
the skills and the education Aligned with other positions that are out in the market, but also how they
aligned in
internally. So we did that research. We partnered and had communications with department heads, and
we also collected some data from incumbents that were actually in those GIS positions in ITS and utilities.
Based on that, what I feel was a pretty comprehensive process, HR does recommend that the
Request is approved for the assistant GIS coordinator in utilities to go from a grade 6 to a grade 8
and also the GIS coordinator position In utilities go from a grade 8 to a grade 10. So those are requests
3 & 4 For request 5
This comes from Human Resources. So I requested to reclassify a current position with an incumbent of
our HR talent coordinator in a grade five to be reclassified to a grade seven.
The reason why I requested this is because I've had a strategic goal to enhance the services that we
provide for talent. So that includes all of our recruitment, our selection, our candidate evaluation,
all of our employee relations events.
job descriptions that we have and just being able to provide some additional support services to Departments
like utilities that have asked me employees that require a little bit more support So this is just a
way to recognize what the current talent coordinator is doing which are some additional duties
and responsibilities but then better align with the strategic and
The strategic vision that I have for how we will provide talent services here at the city and so our
director of classification and compensation looked at this and agreed that this would be a
Approve requests in order to reclassify that HR talent coordinator position to a talent acquisition
specialist This particular request for human resources does have an estimated fiscal impact of 22,000
just over $22,000 and so this is a budget neutral request for human resources because I will have
some nominal savings from category one, potentially for vacancies in category one. But I also have some
funding that I will save from category three, which covers our consulting services, because as you may
remember, we had a lot of special projects and consultants that came in to help us with a lot of this
work in human resources, and now we will be able to bring it in-house.
More internal, more specialized, and we have basically like internal institutional knowledge in order
to do that work. Request number six.
Also from human resources This one has no fiscal impact. It is a request for a title change only We
currently in human resources have a position that is titled payroll coordinator We actually do not do
payroll in human resources what we do Related to
actions in human resources is make sure that all of the compensation and benefits information is Entered
correctly into the systems so that office of the controller can process payroll So I want to make sure
that that position in human resources actually reflects that work and the services that we provide so
I requested to retitle the payroll coordinator position to HR I s
or Human Resources Information Systems Coordinator. This is especially important to me because I have
a goal in 2027 to implement a new HRIS system. So I want to make sure that I have a person internally
that will specialize and focus on helping to make sure that that system is implemented. The last two
are actually related.
Request number seven and number eight came from public works number seven was a request from the director
of public works to reorganize the downtown specialist positions from reporting to the in the facilities
division to the administration division so number seven
really has no fiscal impact. It is just a division change. However, it does relate to request number
eight. And request number eight is to reclassify the special projects and operations manager position
from grade eight to grade nine.
so in addition to Officially having those downtown specialist positions report to that position downtown
the Special special projects and operations manager position. There are other additional duties that
this role has acquired including
Level of responsibilities related to downtown specialists and expanded responsibilities So with this
additional scope of work and super super supervisory responsibilities Looking at other comparable positions
within the city We do feel like this request should be approved to reclassify the special projects and
operations manager position and public safety from a grade 8 to a grade 9 and
The estimated fiscal impact for this position is this request is a little over eleven thousand dollars
This cost will be absorbed through existing departmental appropriations The increase will be funded
by reducing contractual temporary services and if those savings are insufficient to cover the full cost
the department will request a
Transfer of funds again from category three to category one during year-end appropriations Very much
questions that's more P. Smith then Stasper Yes, since we do have several requests well two
From I think from your own department. I wanted to check who who serves on the work committee Is it
people from just from HR from other departments? Um, so in general it is just from HR in partnership
with the office of the controller So within human resources the primary individuals that serve on the
work committee are Kelsey Carmichael she is our director of compensation and benefits and
Kelsey Carmichael. Also on that committee is Kate Scales who is our talent and engagement manager.
Would not normally be directly involved with this process. However, Kelsey Carmichael is fairly new
This was her first work process. So I was a little bit more engaged than I normally would be so HR serves
in the capacity of looking at the request to make sure that they make sense and
For the department and also for the city overall and for the priorities of the city and then again We
partner with the office of the controller so that they can look at the fiscal Estimated fiscal impacts
to make a recommendation on if they it should be approved or not. So human resources office of the controller
Off to the mayor if we have requests that need their review and feedback as well But primarily HR and
office of the controller. I See, okay
I have another question, but I can wait. So one of the changes you propose is a change in title to HR
IS coordinator is HR is human resources information systems. Is that a general word for software that
HR departments use?
Or is it a specific system is in it's a It's broad in general so it could be a variation of different
types of HR systems Yeah, so it's just a broad title. Okay. I just didn't want to tie us to a specific
software with a job No, no, no, it would be very broad. So whatever we go with they would have some
Leading responsibilities to make sure that that system can be implemented and that all the data Ensuring
data integrity as well Thank you
Have a couple of questions my first one in the beginning of this part of your presentation You mentioned
that there were eight total requests But then it sounded like there were some of those requests that
we weren't seeing but then there's eight actual asks on here So, can you clarify? Yeah so there were
I want to say that maybe there were like 12
Request but for example some of them could have been like for example off the top of my head like two
of them were for part-time positions for example and Part-time positions are not listed in the salary
ordinance So they were still requests that we received and we processed but you don't see those additional
two for example because they don't affect the salary ordinance Okay, so
So they're either miss heard or you miss it. So there were 12 total and we're seeing eight of them and
I I think there were 12 I'd have to go back to confirm the exact amount but I think there were 12, okay,
but only eight of them were Affected by the salary ordinance. Okay, and are there any that are like
pending or outstanding still? No, unless I miss them. No I'll expect that you didn't miss them because
you know what? I don't know my email is
Interesting, but I don't they would they would follow up with me right if we miss something. Yes Okay,
I have another couple of questions that okay. Okay, so in terms of number five I Guess the question
that I have it sounded kind of like there's somebody in this position currently that is doing more you
can say than their job description
Asked them to do or currently says they're doing and I guess the question is is that kind of an? Expectation
that you would have moving forward in terms of this position So if that person were to leave and you
were to hire somebody new Would you need or expect that new person to fulfill all of those
same? Responsibilities or as part of this just like the existing person is just like super good I
The existing person is super good. However, I have been trying to advance talent services for the past
two years, and this is the strategic direction that I would want to go. So if not for this employee,
anybody else who would come in to backfill this position, hopefully that wouldn't happen. But if so,
then yes, I would have the same expectations that they function at the level of a talent acquisition
specialist.
and Then the other question I have is one that I'm not sure that you'll be able to answer but might
be one that's Director Wason needs to needs to fill us in with next time. I can call a friend Yeah,
yeah, maybe I don't know if anybody is online who can answer this but in terms of that Shift in the
downtown specialist position and who they're going to report to I guess the question that I have is
currently they are reporting to somebody so I
that somebody is then losing a piece of what their responsibility is. So I guess the question is, does
there need to be a similar reevaluation for that, or is that person picking up a different
set of responsibilities, kind of with the overall kind of question of how is this gonna ultimately benefit
Bloomington residents?
Bloomington operations in terms of public works. And I see that it looks like Director Wason just popped
on maybe to answer that question. Hello, folks. I hope my audio is coming through. Am I good? Perfect.
Thank you, Isaac. Yeah. So to your question, Council Member Stossberg, this has been actually something
that's been shifting for quite a few years in the sense that the facilities division has always hosted the
downtown specialists as part of their organizational chart. Our facilities division's really focused
on buildings and the grounds around City Hall, et cetera. And whereas Public Works Administration's
very involved in the downtown from a day-to-day activities perspective. So when the downtown specialists
were originally proposed in Public Works, I think in, oh gosh, at least 15 years ago, facilities kind
of made sense then, but as we've,
really in public works, gotten more involved in the day to day of the downtown with the special projects
and operations manager and all their involvement with the downtown Bloomington Inc, the Chamber of Commerce,
KCA, all the different variety of things. We're doing a lot more downtown in the last five plus years.
And so this is just a realignment of those to just better meet our organizational needs.
Our facilities division has also been growing in responsibility and such. You know, they've, I think,
obviously have taken on different property acquisitions to help manage over the last several years,
et cetera. So this is just really a realignment to better position the downtown specialists to where
they actually report.
Okay. Thank you. So basically the answer is who they're reporting to now. They have already picked up
additional responsibilities over the last few years. And so they wouldn't be picking up more additional
responsibilities. They're just shedding some that don't make as much sense anymore. And you know, I
don't want to, it's also a little bit of post COVID.
Honestly where all the downtown events and things are, you know picking back up over the last several
years And it's just a matter of trying how we really manage our public right away with those staff as
well Okay, thank you. I think those are all my questions. Thank you so much other councilmembers Councilman
Smith Sorry while mr. Weissen is still here I wanted to follow up on councilmember Stossberg's question and
because I'm not sure I understand the answer or have gotten the answer. So the person in facilities
who was supervising the downtown specialists is now going to have fewer responsibilities because that
person is no longer supervising the downtown specialists. So I guess my concern is that we then have
somebody who has fewer responsibilities but we're not downgrading that position.
Not that I wanna congratulate anybody, but. So JD Boroff is currently our director of facilities operations,
and JD, if any of y'all have met him, has a wide-ranging load of responsibilities for all city facilities
that are non-parks and recreation. So as that has grown over time with the acquisition of West Showers,
College Square,
627 North Morton responsibilities with the mill and coordinating all of their capital needs and such.
That position has not taken on less responsibility by any means it's taken on more and more and this
is just Public Works is a very large organization as you all know and this is more of just shifting
of responsibilities across divisions and in the department to better align with where we're actually
where the operations are actually happening. So the position that this reports to, the Special Projects
and Operations Manager, I'll just use the name of the current employee, that's Cassie Werney. For any
of you all that attend any of the downtown meetings or anything else, the downtown specialists really
work closely with Cassie to be the liaison to the entire downtown. And so this is just a realignment
to really, to that approach. Thank you.
I had a quick question if nobody else. So we often...
It's helped me understand something because we're talking about this in a silo and then but this exists
within a system Not just that I'm not talking about public all of these requests And so the two systems
that I'm trying to understand our first, you know, we're about to have Budget meetings, I know in the
budget memos that went out everybody was asked to you know, certainly not raise any any cost and I know
that there's been discussions on
trying to figure out ways that we cut costs. And so how does this exist where overall we're asking for
an increase of a couple hundred thousand dollars in impact
just this year that's gonna have a knock-on effect in future. So I'm trying to understand, first, have
there been discussions about other changes that are gonna be made in departments that are gonna be reflective
of this change now? And then the other question that I had is how, and I should have asked this when
we did work in the first place, but how work fits in with the large reassessment that we did two years
ago that we not only
Completed but then returned money from we didn't spend the full six million dollars And so just trying
to understand sort of those two processes and where this fits in within that broader system
Okay, so the your fiscal questions I'll let the controller address The one thing though that I do want
to point out about work in general You know, it is challenging the way that we structure work and how
we schedule opportunities to come to council to submit salary ordinance amendments if you think about
like the timeline of it departments can
have to go almost a year without adjusting their staffing, their structure, right sizing, adjusting
duties over the course of a year. And so this mid-year work request, it would have been ideal if we
would have had this done in the beginning of January, but because I had new staff and we have a new
controller,
We are just now getting to the point to where I can even submit something mid-year. I wish this would
have happened sooner, right? And so I'll say that This is challenging the way we do things, but I'm
just happy to at least be here for now The other thing that I can say is that I have not received work
requests for 2027 so it is my understanding in the instruction that we receive from the office of the
mayor that there would be
no staffing adjustments or requests for 2027, especially considering budget constraints. And so I have
not processed anything unless it comes my way sometime soon. I have not seen anything that would be
presented to you related to staffing for 2027. That hasn't come my way yet, right? I don't know what
will happen tomorrow, but as of right now. And so that's where we are today as far as the process. To
my understanding about all the work that we did two years ago,
All of the money that we were allocated to do this work, we used the money that we needed, right? What
happened to the remaining balance? I don't know. I'm sure there is a great answer for that, but we didn't
use it. HR did not use it for the purpose of the salary study and work, and so we understand now even
that there are budget constraints now and going forward, so the primary focus of our work
our work related to work is just to go back over the last two years and just re-evaluate what we did
to see how we did to apply lessons learned. And whenever we get a little small window of opportunity
like this mid-year work request to kind of correct some things, then we sneak in there, and that's what
we try to do. But then I guess the reason I'm asking this specifically was that
when we did the first salary adjustments, and this happened in a public meeting, so I guess I can repeat
it, but we had city employees come to our meeting saying that they weren't adjusted, that their adjustment
didn't work out, et cetera, but yet we haven't seen that then come through with this process. So how
are we to interpret, are these WERK adjustments
only to be seen in the sense that somebody's made those changes within the last year? Is that the window
that... So it's not like a cumulative change. It's really just saying, look, this last year and moving
forward, this is the change we wanna make. This isn't like us trying to catch up to mistakes or missing
elements to the broader study that we did. Sure. The way that we approached that is if it was up to
the department head.
So if the department had felt like there was something that they wanted to present for a work request
to be evaluated just as utilities and Public works and human resources then that would have been an
opportunity For them to present it to us so that we can then do that research like we did for the other
requests that were received Excellent. Thank you so much
And but then the fiscal the fiscal question because particularly is this if I could get to the sort
of gist of it it's do you feel in your in your professional opinion is When we're about to be under
quite a lot of duress and the decisions that we're making Like is this reducing degrees of freedom is
putting more duress on us and the decisions that we're gonna be making in the next few months about
budget moving forward. Yeah so obviously anytime you increase
Your salaries of permanent full-time staff you are creating a future burden There's no doubt about that
because we don't ever Reduce salaries salaries only ratchet up. So that is certainly true now I will
I will tell you that it is kind of awkward as Char mentioned in terms of the timing that
We're going through this process or hopefully finalizing the work process at the exact same time that
we're developing budgets for 2027 But I will tell you that through this work process. I have been working
with the departments to when they get a When they have a request that to figure out how to reduce their 2027
budget request as well. So, for example, the HR department, their budget request in the category three
services has been reduced by $41,000, which more than covers this. And same thing with public works.
That's the key thing that I want to jump. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Council Member
Sosberg. Just a really quick one, and I think it might be for Controller McKim. In terms of these utilities
positions, the first one is totally budget neutral because it's just
Moving something then the second one we get money back and then so the third and fourth They end up
Being costing a little bit more than the money that we got back from number two But the utilities department
if I'm remembering right like has various financial streams So I'm wondering if three and four can actually
be offset by number two or whether they're in different like divisions and they can't actually be
Was afraid you were gonna ask me a utilities question Unfortunately, I don't have the same degree of
kind of day-to-day access to the utilities Budgets that that I do to the rest of the civil city. So
this would be a good group Assuming this goes to second reading that it would be good to get an explanation
from the utilities finance staff That would be great. I'm just kind of curious about that. Thanks and
this is is the is cat online or
Yes, okay. Well, we'll go to to to director Ziegler and then and then we'll go to Council member Stasper.
I'm sorry councilmember Rosenbacher. Yeah, so first to the directors a year Hi director Sager Catherine's
a utilities director. Yeah so we can offset because these positions are Paid by all three funds because
they all service
Water wastewater and stormwater and so we split positions By those funds and so we can offset Certain
positions you can't because they only serve water or wastewater or stormwater, but all of these positions
are split the same way Thank you. Awesome. Thank you so much for being here to answer that. Thank you
Councilman Rosenberger Hi, thank you. I have a question about the public works some of the public works jobs
So the one that was supervising folks that are now going to a different place was that position resubmitted
and reevaluated by HR to be in the proper spot. I'm sorry, I got my AirPods back in at just the wrong
moment where it cut you off for just a second. Can you repeat that one? Yes, I'm asking if,
So the position that is losing employees that it manages, was that position resubmitted to
HR for reevaluation? I'm not sure if it was formally, no, it was not formally submitted, but as part
of this evaluation, I think it was understood that their workload and responsibility level was changing
over the last couple of years. And I'd also just wanna remind folks that
until 2026 here, we only had one downtown specialist. It wasn't until 2026 that we actually added the
second one. So it's just been since this year that we've added the second one, but over the last year
and a half plus, we've been kind of transitioning these positions in the day-to-day operations because
of just how we operate.
And so no, it wasn't formally submitted for a reevaluation, but I can confidently tell you that their
responsibility load has only increased and not decreased over the last several years. And even though
Director Wason did not officially submit that position for reclassification, that is something that
Human Resources would consider. So we looked at the position, and even though there was a change in
the responsibilities, it wasn't significant enough. And normally, what we call...
what we would qualify as significant would be if there was at least a 20% change in responsibilities
that were completely taken away or if the changes in the job description changed the primary focus of
the position. So even with making that adjustment, it didn't take away from the level of responsibility
and the consequence of error and all the things that we look at for that other position in order to
warrant it being reclassified or downgraded.
Thank you. Thank you so much. Any other comments? All right, seeing none. We'll go to public comment.
Is there anybody who'd like to make public comment on this piece of legislation? Is there anyone online?
All right, keeping with our current pace any other comments or motions? Councilmember Piedmont Smith
Yeah, I am
I feel strongly that the fiscal impact should be calculated beyond the current fiscal year for any ordinances
or other legislation that impacts salaries or category one expenses. So I'll put that request in with
the controller because I mean when you look overall just using this year's salary scale the
Total impact is forty three thousand two hundred forty seven dollars. That's quite a lot You know almost
ten thousand in utilities, which of course is rate payer funded. That's different and thirty three thousand
five hundred in The city of Bloomington budget. I'm not sure which fund probably the general fund But
that you know, if you look at a cost of living increase that's that is going to amount to a lot of money
over over the course of
the coming years, so I think we need to be cognizant of that. I don't think that would cause me to Vote
against the ordinance, but I think we do need to recognize that fact. Thank you Councilman Rosenberger
Thank you, I understand that
Ideally, this would have come in January or February, but we are two weeks away from budget hearings
So for me, I don't like deciding this in a vacuum and I agree with councilmember Piedmont Smith that
It's not just about the fiscal impact of this year So I would like to if this comes back for a second
reading I would like to see the fiscal impact moving forward of these changes Thank you
I actually have a have a just talking amongst us about about both of those comments. I mean I that was
my initial feeling as well, but the one of the things that Controller McKim, I think made clear at least
to me is that the fiscal impact moving forward Like it's it's hard. It's hard to think about it as impact
per se because they can make cuts in other places and so like in many ways maybe it actually is
nice that we're doing it now because we're saying, look, we'll adjust these positions knowing, I mean,
whether they expect their budget to be $22,000 more next year because of this position, I guess, is
the question that we'd like a solid answer to. But I think that
The sense that I get also from seeing the way that budget memos are requested and the discussions that
have gone on, my understanding is that there will be other cuts anyway. So I don't know if saying this
will have this impact is gonna be a real indicator because they'll be cutting their budget in other
ways, and I don't know if it's gonna be a one to, because they have this position that they're making
the cuts. I think there will just be cuts. So I don't know how to think about the fiscal impact
From that perspective, but I mean just just just for for discussion there Any other thoughts are yeah
Because I would also kind of appreciate that fiscal impact into future years and maybe kind of in light
of that it's maybe maybe thinking about fiscal impact a little differently is it's not necessarily how
much more we're gonna spend but potentially what might need to be cut and
Where are those cuts might happen? Especially because it's it's being discussed now so close to budget
and that and I'm also saying that with with an understanding that I have that in a Huge number of ways
the people who actually work for the city make the biggest impact and
It's not necessarily always the tool that you have or the technology that you have. It is the person
in the position, and I really value the people that are in the positions, especially the people who
are doing great jobs, who are expanding things, who are really rocking it, and I want to keep those
people, but I think that I would just appreciate having that greater kind of understanding going into
future years. We either have to increase budget in this area
or that department needs to decrease to compensate for the additional personnel expenses. And so having
some kind of an understanding of how that might work for 2027 right now would be helpful, I think, next week.
And actually said that way, I'd like to actually concur because, you know, thinking about it a little
bit more, it's that we're making a choice, and I think the police is very clear on this, it's like we're
making a choice to spend more money now and moving forward on a particular function. And I guess regardless
of the fact that you might cut other places where we're saying that we value, you know, this administrative
load and that we're going to continue to do that. So that reflection would be useful. I do agree with
my colleagues.
Any other comments or is there a motion? To send ordinance 2026 dash 17 to a second reading on August
5th There's motion a second any discussion on the motion seeing none will the clerk please call the
roll Yes Rosenberger yes Flaherty Stasberg yes, Pete Monsmith. Yes
Zulik Sorry, yes and daily. Yes. Thank you very much. We'll discuss that next week. Thank you so much
for your time All right. We'll now move on to our last item of legislative. Well, I mean maybe Are there
any motions? I move that ordinance 20 26-15 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis
only Motion and second any discussion on the motion? All right seeing none. Well the clerk was called
the role Rosenberger
Yes. Flaherty? Yes. Stasberg? Yes. Piedmont Smith? Yes. Zulek? Yes. Asari? Yes. Daly? Yes. Amarillo?
Yes. Will the clerk please read? Okay. Ordinance 2026-15, amended Title II of the Bloomington Municipal
Code regarding establishment of the Fire and Merit Commission. One second. The synopsis is,
As follows this ordinance amends title 2 of the Bloomington Municipal Code to delineate the duties between
the Bloomington Board of Public Safety and the City of Bloomington Fire and Merit Commission and to
create a new chapter which identifies the existence of the statutorily created City of Bloomington Fire
and Merit Commission. Fantastic. I move that ordinance 2026-15 be adopted.
Fantastic. All right. Well, mr. Wheeler, you can give the world's shortest presentation if you'd like
to Doesn't have to be it could be long I guess but just Good evening, Chris Wheeler with city legal
department. I Watched the show last week and I Don't know that I can do any better than mr. Allen in
the presentation I will say to the council that
Historically first reading was a Non-issue and it just happened as a matter of course, so I did not
show up last week I had been told that the process had changed and then promptly forgot so I apologize
For not being here last week, and I certainly want to thank mr. Allen for his wonderful presentation
but moving forward this is in fact as the synopsis says an opportunity to
Present to the Bloomington Municipal Code the fact that there is a fire merit commission that was established
by Operation of law it was established on January 1st of 2025 We have had meetings it is up and running
but if you were to go to the Bloomington Municipal Code you would not see it and In fact, you would
only still be laboring under an impression that the Board of Public Safety is the board that does the
hiring promotion and
Discipline of the fire department members, which in fact is wrong So it makes sense to go ahead today
and update the code at title two by doing two things first of all showing that delineation within the
existing code with regards to the Board of Public Safety to show that they do not Have the authority
and control anymore over the hiring promotion and discipline of fire members and
and then also to create a whole new section in Bloomington Municipal Code under Title II, which expresses
the fact that we do have a Fire Merit Commission and breaks down basically its powers, expressing how
many members there are in that commission, what their terms are, who appoints them, things like that.
So I'm happy to answer questions, but it seems pretty self-explanatory, but happy to take a question
or two. Thank you very much. Any questions?
Alright, we'll go to public comment. Does anyone like would anyone like to comment on ordinance 2026
15? Is there anyone online? All right back to council any comments Any motions In the committee on council
processes we've been toying with the idea of a
Consent agenda and this seems like a good example of an item that could be on a consent agenda Thank
you and with that any motions. Oh Yeah, yeah Yes, we did actually and nothing happened I know All right.
Well with that will the clerk please call the roll? Flaherty Stasburg Piedmont Smith
Yes, Zulik, Azari. Yes. Daly? Yes. Rollo? Yes. And Rosenberger? Yes. Hooray. All right. Thank you very
much, Mr. Wheeler. That passes. We'll now move on to our final period of public comment. Is there anyone
who would like to make public comment? Just for fun? No? No? I mean, sure.
This is the first time we've never at this. I feel like what what is this anybody online? All right.
Well with that we'll go to issues of council schedule Anybody have an issue that you'd like to raise
at this moment? Well, great. All right, then we're adjourned. We'll see you guys next week