All right, since Dave is online now, and it's 8.32, I'll go ahead and call the order of the special
fiscal committee meeting on October 2nd, May 1st, 6, will be Stossburg, District 3. Isabel Piedmont-Smith,
District 1. Go ahead, Dave. Go ahead, Dave. Dave Rallo, City Council District 4. Sophia McDowell, Clerk's
Office. Jeff Machim, City Controller. Gretchen F., Deputy Mayor.
Thank you. So our agenda and packet today, our agenda is pretty short. I did put a must be an update
on that and elected official salary discussion, which is kind of like the main thing that we need to
do today. And then the controller just wanted to give us a couple of updates, any notes about scheduling
and then adjournment. So any thoughts or updates on the agenda?
Are we going to revisit the budget process and how things went and stuff like that at some point? Yeah.
I think that that definitely should happen. Our next meeting, I think we're going to talk about the
quarterly reports, third quarter reports because we were going to do that today, but then we need to
do the elected official salary thing today and so I don't want to
you know, push the quarterly report off for too long. And so probably the meeting after that. Okay.
Cause I don't think that as long as we get the elected official salary stuff sorted, I don't think that
we have another like time sensitive thing. Any other questions or comments or thoughts? Okay. Um,
I am going to do the MUST committee update, except I'm looking for the actual meeting time in my calendar
for the next meeting. Jeff, maybe you have it off the top of your head. I don't off the top of my head.
I know, right? I went to the MUST meeting, and Isabel did as well, a couple of weeks ago. That was on
September 18th.
The folks on the committee were I think there was it felt like there was general alignment about doing
a county municipal rate, which is the thing that's good for us. But of course they didn't, you know,
vote on anything they didn't make any decisions and they scheduled another meeting which I thought that
I put in my calendar for another Friday at 1pm, which I think was in mid October. Yeah.
I thought that I had put it in my calendar and now I'm like, hmm. But I don't feel like there's generally
like a huge update about the must stuff. The must process is going. Everybody seems to be bought in.
And I think that, you know. Did they send some feedback to the state? Wasn't there an October 1st deadline?
And that's November 1st. There was an October 1st deadline to have the first meeting. Right. And which
we accomplished. And so, yeah, the idea is that this next meeting to agree on the statements that hopefully
I'll have all four of us vote unanimously on the statement to send to the state. Yeah. And that is either
the 23rd or the 16th is what they maybe tentatively said. And
clearly thought I'd put it on my calendar. So that's the last update. Dave. Oh, just thanks for that
update. I just want to hear from Jeff McKim about Jeff, what is your sense of things right now? Is the
city and the county in general agreement about how to proceed in terms of rate and
chair and that sort of thing? I would say we did not get so far as to actually have any kind of agreement
on rates. In fact, we all agreed, or in the statement that I think we'll be passing next time, we'll
say we don't have enough information to agree on rates. But like Toby said, I would agree that the group
seemed to be in general alignment that keeping the units whole was a priority.
And they were interested in keeping it in its hole. So that was definitely the vibe in the room. That
was something that I think all four participants seemed to assume. So you don't see any at least immediate
hurdles going forward? No immediate hurdles. But the other thing is the general assembly is going to
make more changes. So it's just as soon as we come up with a path forward
I guarantee you this session, there will be changes. Some may be helpful changes and some may be,
you know, you've probably heard news about an interest in eliminating property taxes. So it could get
a lot crazier before it gets better. But I would say the meeting was, it was run very well. The meeting
was primarily run by Greg Garitas from FSG Group, which is the county's equivalent debris, their financial advisor.
And the scenarios that he modeled and that we discussed were definitely involved setting the rates at
a level that would keep the other units whole. There was also, of course, there was also mention several
times of wanting to make sure that the library and the schools are pulled. The school did not choose
to speak at the meeting. Units were allowed to speak at the meeting. The schools did not.
Speak but it sounds like from what we hear that they're kind of working on their own legislative path
not not You know necessarily asking for lit shares, but rather lobbying the legislators to make sure
that it in some way that schools are kept whole I'm just curious where our state reps there No, no,
no, okay. Thank you now there are a couple county councilors and um
Yeah, I finally found my notes. Because I actually said something to speak, but then I didn't manage
to get up in time because I wanted to make sure. Because Jeff was on the committee and spoke, and I
felt represented the city's interests pretty well. And that includes council in terms of his statements.
And so I just hesitated too long. So there were a couple of township folks that spoke. Monroe Fire District
spoke. And then Waste Reduction District spoke. And that was it.
And I was surprised that there were not more that spoke. And I just didn't like hop out of my seat fast
enough. Yeah. Can I make one other update about that? Yeah. But one topic that didn't get discussed
that I think should be at the next one is Bloomington Transit. It's the scenario that FSG modeled basically just
a model replacing the lost, the amount of lit that Bloomington Transit would lose. But the ceiling that
could be adopted for Bloomington Transit actually could be quite a bit higher than that. And could be,
for example, an opportunity to replace the city's contribution that we've been making and were scheduled
to make until 2027. As you heard at the public hearing from Bloomington Transit, they do rely on that.
at least some of that funding for several important services. But there is an opportunity through the
way that the lit rates are structured now to actually get Bloomington Transit more revenue to offset
that loss. And I don't think FSG would have even been aware of that one issue. So there's no reason
why they wouldn't have modeled a higher number. And unfortunately Bloomington Transit wasn't there either,
but somebody at some point needs to advocate for Bloomington Transit and rate setting process.
And while we're talking about Bloomington Transit, the other thing that Isabel probably knows I'm working
on, but Dave probably doesn't because I'm working on it through the council processes. And my interview
committee is looking at Bloomington Transit's board, which right now has five people on it, but state
law says they could be a board of seven. And so looking at the possibilities for creating a board of
seven and rows and ponds,
to that and what makes sense. And that's one thing when I met with, so Lamington Transit also has a
couple of people working on that. And when I met with them, one of the things they mentioned was trying
to be more inclusive of county stuff in terms of Lamington Transit boundaries. And so one of the things
that I have staff working on is taxing and how SEA1 affects Lamington Transit.
and where the tax base is and how we could potentially leverage anything in terms of that change and
also thinking about who is on the board. So that's, yeah, I haven't, they just got back to me with more
research on that yesterday. But yeah. Yeah. Other,
Questions, comments? Thank you, Jeff. I clearly did not care for that very well, wasn't I? Yeah, you
did great. But I still not having my notes when the next meeting is. I know. I have it on paper notes.
Well, you can get my paper notes right here. And there's nothing there. Maybe I haven't announced it yet.
Well, we did say that it hasn't been formally announced. It's true that we haven't set out a public
announcement or a notice yet, but we did set it up. Yeah. Anyway, moving on then to the elected officials'
gallery discussion. So in the packet, I included essentially the same document that I included last
time. But at the end, I added in
Claire Bolden did intend to join this morning. She messaged me this morning saying that she was last
minute unavailable. And so Sophia is supposed to have an update from her, but she also, in her text
to me, simply said that she doesn't have any changes from previous statements, whole increases for all
the gathered data for 2020. Yeah, that's basically what they. Okay, thank you.
And then I put in the statement for Mayor Thompson, who was unable to be here today, but also recommended
for 2027, elected official increases not exceed the budgeted civil city COLA. And then, so based on
the 2026 salary wage-informed benefit study, city of Wellington's elected official salaries are competitive,
especially considering benefits eligibility.
For 2028, I think additional research is needed to develop a consistent process for evaluating elected
official compensation. Not quite sure what she means in terms of the 2026 salary survey or elected official
salaries specifically. I think she probably, can you read the sentence again, sir? Based on the 2026
salary wage and fringe benefits survey, city of Bloomington's elected official salaries are competitive,
especially considering benefits. I believe she's speaking of the A.
survey and information. OK. Yeah, I have that, too. And AIM, for the public's knowledge, said to not
release any of what they did publicly. Yeah, I'm not sure that I would agree with that, actually, based
on the AIM thing, but that's maybe a conversation for another. I mean, I think that's a longstanding
philosophical disagreement between our two groups that we believe the other state salaries are the most
relevant factor, and we believe they're not relevant at all.
So I think that's a pretty big philosophical chasm to try to solve. Maybe. I guess I was looking at
it. I was doing some comparisons between elected salaries and some of the other department head and
official salaries of that A study. We don't think those are comfortable at all. No. I understand you
feel differently. I'm just saying we don't agree that that's a relevant consideration. I think one.
the rest of our city staff are paid at higher levels than other similar professionals in the state.
And then elective officials aren't necessarily, that does matter. Anyway. You are ranked in the higher
end of the state and you also receive health insurance benefits, which for the benefit of the public
is a $14,000 benefit added on top of the salary. I don't know that everyone is aware of that, but that
is the salary that
elected officials receive, all elected officials is also in addition to the benefits of health insurance.
Do we know if other elected officials have health insurance options at the council members? That is
not reported to AIM, but I can ask Dr. Paycheck to investigate. Dave, what did you want to say? Well,
just kind of unpacking it a little bit. I mean, I see there's a couple of things
going on here. One is what you mentioned Hopi that, you know, salaries generally speaking in the city
should be in some relative sense, you know, on the same level, it seems to me. There is such a thing,
you know, Bloomington does have a high cost of living relative to other communities in the state. And
I think that the workload of the Bloomington City Council is also
probably at the very, I would say in the top 5% of all electeds in the state, I think, in terms of council
responsibilities, duties, and work. So just those to consider. I mean, I would be, I think this is a
good study for a SPIA intern or something. Just do a deep dive into this and report back on variables
like that. Think of all the variables that,
You know, we would want to consider in this. Anyway, I think we're probably compensated in some range
that could be called fair, but I think that we're probably at the low end actually of that. But anyway,
that's it. So I think that we just went down a rabbit hole specifically talking about council members,
and I'm not sure that I was there yet.
But the other thing that I included in the packet was just a draft ordinance for next year that under
section one where we actually are supposed to put the compensation totals, I put the 2026 and then just
some proposals that are mostly meaningless, you could say. So with a 2% OLA for everybody and then I put in
what that means in terms of actual dollar amount increases for each of the three elected positions.
And then I put in a proposal with the average total amount. So instead of, it goes back to that whole
general inequity of cost of living percentage increases across the board between higher salaries and
lower salaries and how that perpetuates inequity and
the difference in terms of who makes the most and who makes the least. And so the average full amount
for those three positions is $2,300. And so then I gave everybody a $2,377 raise or increase from the
2026 salaries. And then I went back to the
ad hoc committee of a couple of years ago, that the proposal was essentially to set the clerk and the
mayor and then do council members as a percentage of the mayor and did the 2.7% poll of the mayor and
the clerk and then made the council 20% of the mayor and then 25% of the mayor. And I think the 25%
was what was initially, that that was kind of the,
basis of salary setting from the committee a couple of years ago that council was a whole kind of shot
down and changed that. But I figured that that was, when I was brainstorming possibilities, that I felt
like that was one of them that I shouldn't have. And so then, of course, what we really need to figure
out on this committee is what our basis of salary setting is going to be this year, specifically
with hopefully the larger eye and mind of somebody that could be consistent. Isabel, do you have thoughts?
Oh, I just don't feel like we're getting anywhere in the last two years. We've gotten nowhere. Now,
two years ago, some people said we shouldn't change salaries
that would benefit ourselves. We should wait and change them for 2028. We're getting closer to 2028.
I feel like in the next 12 months is our last shot to actually have a coherent rationale for how we
set salaries independent of any public
judgment that we're doing it to benefit ourselves. Um, since, you know, some of us aren't running again
and et cetera. So, however, people are deciding now whether to run next year. And one of our reasons
was one of our, uh, things that we want to consider was making it a job that, um, more people could take.
because it pays decently, right? So that would be, then we would have to make that this year so that
people would know what they could earn as a council member when they make the decision whether to run
the council. Now I know some people think that's totally irrelevant and it's a public service position
and fiduciary and whatever, but I disagree with that. I think that we need some,
representation across the socioeconomic spectrum to serve on council. And so I'm torn. I feel like the
salary should be more. I think there's a good point to be made about the health insurance. But I don't
see that we're any closer to an actual calculation of what would be fair. And just to be clear, the
mayor's office doesn't, we don't,
oppose the increase because we think that, you know, you were describing reasons of, you know, it's
just fiduciary, it should be public service. It's that we don't believe that salary is the main obstacle
why people don't run. So if you increase it to an amount that is much more, but still not as much as
people are earning at their day job, you still haven't broadened the pool, but you have added all of
these other, you know,
It requires campaigning, which not everybody wants to do or can do if you have children or a day job.
It requires evening meetings, which if you have a day job is difficult. So, you know, in general, it
is a position that is difficult, I think, for it seems to me that it would be difficult for people to
do if they were working full time, had children or single parent and the adjustments in salary did not
solve those problems, which I think are deep and true problems.
with extending access, but. Well, I'll say to somebody who falls into that category of leaving my family
and my kids in the evenings for these meetings, salary does go somewhere and it is meaningful. And the
whole conversation that we had in 2024 that completely demeans the position of council at all was one
of the closest times that I felt like quitting. And it wasn't because of how much money I was making,
it was because of how much
the position was being demeaned, not only by administration, but by colleagues. And how much does it
really work? And the health insurance can mean something, but it doesn't necessarily mean anything if
you have to have another job on top of it.
in order to actually pay rent in this town. And so, yeah, then maybe the increase is completely not
meaningful because you would still have to have another job. Well, it depends on how many hours you
have to work another job, right? Do you have to work another job full-time or do you have to work another
part-time job? Yeah, you just have to work another job to pay the bills, but... Part-time jobs can be
hard to find, I think, and that's...
We know. That's not an experience, but. Yeah, sorry. So it's. I don't know where we can arrive. I don't
want to be there. You're muted. You're muted, Dave.
Still muted. Muted. Success. You said something brilliant from there. Expletives, no. I think everything
that was said here is fairly relevant. I mean, there are different facets to it. I don't treat all people
the same, so I don't say
you know, people do this or people do that. I think that there are groups of people that may be excluded
just because the salary is just not, you know, adequate to cover their needs. But, you know, I do think
that it's not a good thing to do. Getting back to the question hand, what to do for 2027?
I mean, I'm just in favor of the coal increase, um, for a couple of reasons. One is that we're in some
sort of fiscal, um, you know, uncertainty. And the other is because, um, the, what Isabel said that
I think it's better to raise for the, for the next crop of, of council members because we're in that
weird position of,
being able to raise our salaries, although I think we've been very judicious about it, maybe overly
so. So have we done nothing in two years? I don't know. I think this conversation's been helpful to
me to hear all sides. I think it's unfortunate if people demean the position. I mean, I don't know who
that was, maybe I would guess, but we don't need to name names, but I hope I was never in that category.
of someone who demeaned counsel or in any way. But I am overly cautious because I think that there is,
unfortunately, the way things are, there's a lot of cynicism and I don't want to lead toward more of
that for people who serve in office. I think it's a hard job. For everything Gretchen said, you have a very,
You have a schedule that's very demanding and fluid and things come up and it's just, sometimes it's
kind of overwhelming and then you've got constituents to deal with and it's one of the toughest things
I've ever done. So I think it does need to be compensated in a fair manner. And I think that having
somebody do some deep dive on it and then reporting back would be a good thing. It's a shame that we
don't have an office staff right now that's
you know, in a position to do it, but maybe soon we will. And that might be one of the top priorities
that we give our new council attorney and his office to do an analysis across the board and just list
all the facets that we want addressed. Anyway, to my two cents, thank you. Thank you for the record,
Gretchen, just had to leave.
but we now had a time to shoot them in the night. Oops, my hands back up. I'm trying to lower my hand.
Well, I feel like we've also said, so I understand Dave is saying, you know, we should do a deep dive
into some of the numbers. First of all,
this committee could write the charge for that deep dive. Maybe that's something we could accomplish.
I feel like we tried to do that by getting the numbers from other cities. I don't know if that spreadsheet
has been filled in for this year. I also don't know whether the inquiry included whether council positions
got benefits or not. I think that's relevant. So, I mean, there are some things we can do. Probably
not in time for 20 seconds hours. Well, I'll tell you totally openly, I stopped filling in that chart
when I realized, when I decided that it really wasn't relevant to me because salaries hadn't changed
significantly.
across the board since Lord Boland did that in 2024. When I talked to some people about it, and by some
people I mean in other places, that it's that political issue that Dave referenced in this idea of cynicism
and raising our own salaries and how that looks and that councils just mostly don't want to do it.
And so at that point, I kind of felt like a state comparison, especially for council salaries, was not
necessarily relevant. And that was kind of four years ago when I think I'm the only one here right now
who was on that ad hoc committee. I mean, that's basically what we found. If you want to think about
that deep dive, that's probably the deepest dive that we did. And with assistance from outside consultants,
they thought that that recommendation actually was good, even though it didn't reflect, even though
it was a lot higher than across the state. I'm not necessarily advocating for that. I think for the
benefit of the public, maybe all of us here remember this,
but state law says that once elected officials, or that you can't lower elected official salaries. So
once they're at a certain level, you can't go below that again. And so I think that we do need to be
cautious to some degree about it, but I'm still really, I would rather honestly have the exact same
salaries as 2026 than just give all three positions a pull up because I think that it's that amount
of unfair when the mayor gets a $4,000 increase and council members get less than 700.
I think that that is just ridiculous. And, you know, I would rather not have any full load than perpetuate
that inequality right now amongst these three positions, especially since we can't lower any of those
salaries. And if we do look at that AIM salary study and just look at the mayor's or the mayor salary
is and the court salary as well, they're both,
They will measure up really well across the state in terms of the name salary study. And I, yeah. What
about the proposal that you have? Oh, I'm sorry, Dave. Well, just to say that I, you know, since I'm
remote, maybe I'm not getting everything, but hope you reference the
Um, the deep dive that was done by council a couple of years ago, and that was, you know, that took
into account a lot of facets, including consultant recommendations and things like that. But the only
thing missing was the comparison. As I recall, with other cities. Yeah, had looked all that stuff up
and let me.
Do you want me to share it with this group? Yeah, you can. I thought that... Dave, I think that this
is... Yeah, this is already shared with you, Dave. It is... I will... Is it best for me to email this
link to you or... Yeah. Okay. That's good. Thank you. And me, please.
So was that were those figures considered by the committee in 2024? Yeah, and that was one of those.
So if the sheet that I just shared with you is kind of like the more
old sheet of what I shared a couple meetings ago with the 2026. And the second tab of that is the 2024
second class city comparison. And so that is straight from what Court Holden did. And none of that has
changed, including sources and all of that stuff. That's not bad.
clearly it'll take a minute. And then there's a pay for regular meeting number. The benefit of the public
will wait for that to come in and let me see if I can find it somewhere in the
Because it should all be somewhere in the packet for the special ad hoc committee a couple years ago.
I guess should all be online.
So these are the salaries for 20, 25. 24. Really? We were making the 5,600. That's this year,
isn't it? Are you working on the second tab? That's labeled 20, 24. The second tab. The second tab.
So I think, so this was done in fall of 2024. So they were probably, so they were 2024 salaries. Do
you get it today? Yep. Yeah. And, yeah. And so like, and that was the year, like we, the, the council
increase, it did go up to 25 that year. And so that's where,
When we were looking at the 2026, which I think one of my other spreadsheets, it was finding our data
on this one. Other places also increased at similar rates. So that jump that we did was maybe replicated
in other places.
There were some outliers, Hammond. I did a deep dive on Hammond recently and I looked up all of their
salary ordinances going back to as far as they had on their website. Let's see, I think it was 2013.
In 2013, they were getting paid as much as we get paid now. It was one of those.
Wow, something happened in Hammond farther back than was online where city council gave themselves a
significant increase. And then they kept that up in terms of pola increases since then. And I'm not
quite sure what happened. Gary, I know, increased all of their electives a few years ago to try to encourage
more people to participate.
in terms of governance, in terms of local governance. And I think that that's going well. And then all
the rest of them I think are pretty mid. Laura Greenwood. Yeah, Richmond, Indiana actually is the lowest.
Oh, you know,
This is even a partial one of four fold-ins, because all of the second class cities are not on here.
So Sophia, you must have a more complete one that has all of them. Yeah, I don't see the change. Yeah. Maybe.
We don't know if any of these council members get benefits. I'm not allowed to share this one for me.
Well, there is. And I cannot find the, I'm sharing the full one with you guys that work full-ended.
This is interesting. I'm on the tab, limiting elected officials over time. Yeah. In 2020,
The council salary as percentage of the mayor was almost 16%. And now we're down to 50.3% where we were
last year. So that as a percentage, it's decreasing. I think it went back up again, though, because
of the increase that we did. Oh, OK. Yeah, that was enough to pay. Yeah.
So I do end up feeling as though we haven't fully gotten anywhere. As Isabelle said, we're kind of looking
at these numbers, and we can play with numbers as much as we want. But ultimately, we either are going
to stay in roughly the same place as we are, or we're going to, as Dave said, increase council salaries.
and we're gonna get backlash for it from our community. And I think that doesn't even, I mean, I think
it will, no matter what kind of reasoning or justification or data or whatever that we show, I think
there will still be a backlash from the community if we increase our salaries. And I suspect that that's
one of the reasons why
it hasn't really been done across the state. Well, there's a chance for less backlash anyway if we do
it next year. Although, for the council members who are continuing, not so much, but still, it's a little
bit better to do it.
for a new term. Well, what about the, Hopi, you said you'd rather not do any increase than do a COLA
across the board. What about if we do the proposed, if we add the average COLA amount to each,
category of elected official salary like you have in your example draft. That's one of the options.
I think it's an interesting mathematical concept in terms of a way to deal with the built-in inequities
of total percentages. It's not something
It's not something that you could broadly roll out across the border. If I think about the larger issue
of coal increases and how to solve that inequity, it's not something that would work safe for the whole
city. But maybe it would work for these three positions. It definitely has more of a budgetary impact
because there are nine council members.
And so then overall, the amounts work out to be more. I don't know. I kind of just put that in and say,
how does this look in terms of what this number is? And it is a potential way to deal with the inequities
of pola, but maybe not the best way to deal with them.
And I was trying to look up some ways to do that. And I didn't necessarily find a good, solid resource.
I don't know if you have one that basically says, instead of the percentage of pull-up, what you could
do instead and how to figure that out. And I know at some point, county flat increases to certain people.
But I didn't find a resource that was like, this is a good flat increase, or this is how to calculate
the flat increase that you could give to even that out.
And so that's why I did the average. Yeah, I will just say that we did struggle. I mean, what you're
struggling with right now is what every elected fiscal body does. I mean, as you know, I served 16 years
on the county council, and we struggled with elected official salaries every year. It was probably the
least pleasant of any of our jobs to deal with. We did, but even just overall, in terms of employee
salaries, what we tried to do is alternate between a percentage increase and a flat increase.
and what we would do with the flat increase. And that kind of kept everything in check. If you just
do flat increases, you compress your salaries so much. So we alternated. And what we did on the flat
years in general was just calculate what the percentage increase would be overall, then divide it by
the number of FTEs. And in the county, we had an additional complication because we had some employees
who were $35 and some were $40. So we had to adjust for that. Now the city doesn't, you know,
We don't really have that issue here, but we did, like I said, I felt like alternating was generally
a good way of keeping both compression and expansion in check. And what did you base the side amount
on? Again, what we tried to do is use the, our benchmark was the December to December CPI increase,
which is how the 2.7% came this year also. So we've used that number,
And on the percentage years, we just gave the percentage. On the flat years, we took whatever that percentage
would be overall, like what that 2.7% of all the wages would be, and then divided that by the number
of FTEs. So in other words, it's neither more expensive or less expensive to the city, or in our case,
the county, as the percentage.
It was just a way of distributing. Can you see what I'm saying? Okay. So instead of taking the average,
take that. So there's the 693 council increase times nine of us. And then add that with the mayoral
increase and the clerk increase. And then divide that by 11 and get everybody
and the 1152 have produced. I will say if the county, we gave ourselves, meaning the county council,
half of the flat increase that we were able to use. Take that for what you will, but that was our practice.
So in the flat years, you take the same percentage as would be a COLA, apply it to all wages. Divide
it by the number of FTE
and then give that amount to each FTE, except for ourselves, we gave half. You apply it to all wages
first, and then you divide it by the natural positions, or FTEs. Yes. Yeah, it really isn't very meaningful
just to use it only for electives, in our case. I do like that idea, though. Is that something, Jeff,
that the administration would consider for
for employees? I mean, yeah, I would need to confer with Shar and Gretchen about the advisability. It
is certainly mathematically doable. But you haven't had discussions about it? Only briefly. I think
I've conveyed to them the same thing I have to you. That's something we did not whether or not we should
do it here. I feel like it worked out well on the county. I don't have a problem with it myself.
the waste reduction district does. Yeah, they try to follow the county model also. So that would, if
we did it that way for those three elective positions, if I did my math right, nine council member increases
of 693 and the clerk increase and the mayor increase with the 2.7 full of five by 11, it would be a
$1,152 increase for each.
as another alternative. Cool. It is 9.20 right now. Why don't we go ahead and go to vote comment. I
don't see any public in here. If there's any public online who would like to raise their hands and comment
just on elected official salary increases, now would be the time to do so.
I'm Kevin Kehoe. You hear me? Yep. All right. The allure to be a council member. I believe strongly
it is the independence and stature that should come with this elected position, along with the potential
to move the needle to make the city a better place for all. I don't think it's a job, but I agree it
is one where we need strong leadership and we should have a supply chain. I would say that causes me
pause and not want to run.
in my view, is the current state of the political system that just doesn't seem to include compromise
and trust and a long-term commitment to a shared strategic view of where we collectively want to go.
And really, all this discussion for more pay takes away valuable time to discuss much more important
fiscal issues facing the community. This is just so excruciating to listen to. Thank you. Thank you.
Are there other members online? I can't see the participant list. All right. I would really like to
get this off of our docket and forward an ordinance to council.
Well, Dave, you recommended more research. What additional information do you think we need in the long
term? Well, first of all, let me just say that I don't think our salary is way off in terms of the various
ranges. So I don't regard this as something that's urgent.
super urgent for compensation. I do think that, yeah, we've been belaboring it too long and it should
be put to bed. I think that if we had a researcher go into all of the facets, as Hopi has already done
a lot of work, and then come up with a, you know, I think in terms of time compensation, you know, council
members have been putting in
my observation more and more time over time. I'm also interested in the fact that, and Clerk Bolden
has brought this up before, that this is an expensive city to live in relative to as many others. So
your pay doesn't go as far. So just those sorts of considerations as well to see what
you know, if there, if there was an increase and then what we were just, what was just brought up with
Jeff McKim was I think another way of evaluating, um, increase over time that would be transparent and
would be understandable by people and so forth. So I, you know, my opinion is leave it as it is for
now, because I think it should, for the various reasons I already discussed and, um,
make a recommendation that we have, uh, you know, it'd be devoted to some council, uh, office employee,
maybe, maybe the assistant attorney or something to, to organize just a report on that. Um, maybe,
maybe in, you know, cooperation, which with controller McKim too, since he has experienced and as a
county council member and
that seems to inform us as well as being controller. I'm sorry to be vague about this, but I think I'm
content to just leave it as it is for 2027. I see it as something that's urgent that needs to be brought,
but I understand that committee needs to bring some recommendation to the council. What do you mean
by leave it as it is? No increases for 2027?
I mean, I don't see any, if I'm understanding correctly, no increases for 2027, but anticipating that
we would probably make an increase for 2028 because we would have degrees of freedom that we don't now
because of our concern about looking like we're increasing our salary while we're enjoying it as opposed
to anticipating that for all the reasons that I agree with my colleagues.
Isabel brought up very good reasons, and I hope you did too, that I wanna make sure that this
is a competitive, that people get compensated for their time because it does involve a lot of work and
sacrifice and so forth. And I don't see that, again, I kind of like recoil when people say, well, people
do this for people do that. Well, there are people that are working
couple jobs just to make do. I would hate this to be more of a burden such that you wouldn't even consider
it if you were low income. I don't know if you can glean a recommendation there, but leave it as it
is for 2027, have council staff do a deep dive in 2028 for the 2028 budget.
next year. So I will just confirm, though, that the current status quo with the budget is 2.7% for everybody.
Well, I think the date said to leave it. If that's what leave it means, then yeah. That's what I was
referring to just to call it. So your leave it as it is wasn't the same salaries in 2027 as 2026. It
was to give everybody the 2.7% pull up. Yeah, yeah.
Oh, yes, of course. Yeah, that's what I mean. I'm sorry. I was confusing. Yep. Thank you. Yeah, I guess
that's probably what we should do. I don't have a better idea. I mean, that that is keeping our
salaries the same, basically, because the cost of living, according to the official numbers, has gone
up by that amount. So I would not want to forego the COLA because that doesn't seem fair to me. Just
like any other employees, we are paying for gas and milk and bread
But that $600 increase that council gets because of the full up will not pay for gas and rent. Yeah,
but it puts us in the same boat as the employees that do the work that we want them to do. It's fair
vis-a-vis all the other employees of the city.
Well, I already said that I would rather nobody get an increase than continue to perpetuate the 2.7%
pullout that is really, really obviously perpetuating inequities with these three positions. So I will say given
think that even though it's just for these three salaries, I think that I would go with that alternative
county black increase idea, which is to take the total dollar amount of the 2.7 whole increases and
then divide it by the other positions. So then it doesn't increase the bottom line of how much is being spent
at least for these three positions, improves the equity situation once. So that would be, I guess, my
proposal and we need to come, but we'll need to make the motion to like what exactly we're gonna forward
to cancel and then we'll go. But we're not full-time and the magnets sort of are.
So even if we use the county's method, we would not be getting the same flat dollar amount.
Is that right, Jeff? Because we're not full-time employees. We gave ourself, meaning the county council,
50% of that flat amount. I mean, whether that's super well justified by policy, I'm not going to argue
that. But that was just, that was the way we handled it. So you, which is, so you kind of said,
County Council, let's say that's 0.5 FT. For other jobs in the county that were 0.5 or 0.75, they also
got a proportionate flat. Correct. And like I said, we particularly had that with the difference between
40-hour and 35-hour positions. So we did have to adjust based on that. But part-timers did get a flat
increase. It was just less.
I think that I would want to fight it just by the equal 11 and not worry about the FTE. I think that
council already gets shafted. I think that if anything, we're more of a third halftime position and
we're getting paid like we're a sixth of a position. And so I already think that there's enough inequity
baked in to council member salaries that
I mean, a couple of years ago, we kind of did the same thing, you know, and the resolution after 2024
was to, and council members got like $1,500 of increase or something like that. So it was more than
just a flagpole of, but anyway, that would be my position right now based on what it is that's in front
of us. My second choice would just be to go with 2026 salaries.
together as a committee, we need to, like somebody needs to actually make a motion, and then a second,
and then we need to vote on it. And then we can write it up, and then we can replicate to some degree
maybe some of these same conversations at the last level of a few weeks. It's fun. And then that's the
end of the story until we
Start this again in terms of, you know, hopefully on the day of have some staff that we can have to
go times in this next year. Yeah, and I would say. If we, when we have staff. And I think it would be
if this committee gave them a charge specifically.
And I would urge that they cast a net broader for the philosophy behind or philosophy for the calculation,
the equation behind the salaries. I would say we cast a net wider than Indiana. Surely some cities somewhere
in the US have come up with a way
a good method for compensating, you know, the legislative branch of government that we could. Madison,
Wisconsin is doing that now. I spoke with them earlier this year. They're having their staff do it.
I don't know the conclusion that they have reached on it. Last time I checked in with them, they were
still super busy. But yeah, like, and they, they contacted us. It's a peer city because of we're a big
company. And so I don't know who else they were contacting, but they,
They have staff doing a whole lot of work on that because they have similar sorts of disagreements amongst
their council members, backlash amongst their residents, like the whole thing. So it's 934.
We need a motion. Okay. Well, I'll make a motion that the council compensation reflect the recommended
COLA for 2027 and
that the council directs staff to continue to study an elected salary. This is for electeds, I'm sorry.
Motion that the electeds essentially have compensation that reflect the 2027 COLA and that our council staff
be directed to study the matter for council to make a recommendation for the 2028 fiscal year. Second.
All right. Basically on my sample draft, it's that first one, the 2.7 percent Pola,
For amounts in 2027 of the mayor, $149,953, clerk $94,926, and council members each receive $26,368,
and that was seconded by Isabel and that this be forwarded on to the full council, and the council staff
be directed to study this matter for 2020.
Yes. Yes. Well, yes. I know. But I will write that up and. Maybe we'll get that in at the working. Her
first dream. I'll have to check the schedule. Really, we just need it to
to pass before or like we need the salary recommendations to go before December 31st. So anytime in
the next couple months and I'll just have to speak with Larry and you talk about schedule. Dave. Yes.
Just wondered when is the final vote, Jeff, on the budget? Well, right now, final adoption is advertised
to October 7th. But at the October 7th meeting, you can then continue that basically to the end of
book to the end of the month. But we have you just want to make sure you don't run out of time with
quorum issues. And that's it. But yes, that's the October 14th. Yeah, that's what we talked about. Oh,
I think you missed the end of the work session on Wednesday. Jeff said that he needed a little bit of
time if there were amendments that passed. We needed a little time to make those changes and submit
it to the state.
so that it at least would need to be continued until the 14th, but that week should give them enough
time. So probably it will end up final approval on the 14th. Okay, good to know. I have to jump off
because I'm late for another Zoom, but I did want to just say I really want to give kudos to Jeff. Thank
you so much for staying to the end of the meeting on the special session of the 23rd of September.
When council made various comments on the budget as a whole, you were one of the few that stayed. And
I appreciate you listening to the council because not everyone did. And that's a shame. Well,
thank you. I will intend to continue the dialogue. If they have to go, then we have to adjourn, even
though we never got the updates from the controller.
So we'll just have to get those. I have them written up. I'll just email them to you. OK. That sounds
great. And then on the 16th is our next meeting. And Dave, are you going to be able to be in person
on the 16th? I think so, yeah. OK. And Isabel, you can be in person. All right. I may have to be remote
on the 16th. So yeah. OK. Mostly Jeff will be the star of the show on the 16th with quarterly reports
and these updates that he didn't get a chance to get.
Okay, thank you guys so much and we are adjourned.