- (upbeat music)
- Hello and welcome to Cats Week, I'm Annalise Poorman.
- At their meeting on May 21st,
- the Bloomington City Council heard an ordinance
- to appropriate $10 million worth of food
- and beverage tax funds
- to the Monroe County Capital Improvement Board.
- Controller Jessica McClellan asked that
- the council not pass the appropriation ordinance
- saying that the money is not actually needed for now.
- We present this ordinance to you
- and ask that you do not pass this ordinance tonight.
- I would have liked to pull this from,
- had pulled this from your agenda earlier,
- but I think that you do have to take a vote on it tonight.
- There was a discussion between myself
- and the controller of the CIB
- about kind of the timing of the bond funds
- and when the project was gonna get started.
- And there was a combination of really not knowing
- how the bond fund, bond proceeds were exactly going to work
- and when the project was going to start
- and we thought we were gonna need to have some cash on hand
- to start paying invoices sooner than we did.
- We do not need that cash on hand.
- The budget for the project does include
- using some food and beverage tax cash on hand,
- but that will be later in the project.
- We're going, we do have the bond funds
- and the process has started to use those bond funds.
- We do not need this appropriation.
- I apologize for all the time that staff and council
- has put into this appropriation being on your agenda
- and I appreciate your time and understanding
- and I don't wanna take up any more of your time tonight
- on this, but I can't answer any questions that you have.
- Council member Isak Asari asked for clarification
- on the money that the city owes to architect
- Schmidt Associates for work on the convention center.
- According to the city council packet,
- the money owed was $9.8 million.
- McClellan said that this was an error
- and that the amount was less than the 9.8 million presented.
- There was 9.8 million mentioned,
- but then would be of an open PO,
- but they say that there were lesser amounts of POs
- that are publicly available.
- Can you just clarify the state of POs to Schmidt Associates?
- Yeah, there's one open PO to Schmidt Associates.
- There, I don't know the balance of that PO
- off the top of my head.
- I think the balance as of like a month ago,
- I put in the fiscal statement that is open.
- It's part of the construction plan.
- It's part of the budget that the CIB has.
- How much that they're allowed,
- the amount that they're allowed to spend
- with Schmidt Associates is very clear in their budget.
- We also have, we have that number on our books.
- In the fiscal statement, it kind of states like just,
- I want it to be transparent to the council
- as to what the city's responsibilities are
- with the food and beverage tax funds.
- It is continuing to pay that Schmidt PO.
- We can also use bond funds to pay that Schmidt PO.
- We have to pay debt service
- and we have to fund the debt service reserve fund.
- Those things are very spread out.
- We'll be collecting revenue every month
- from food and beverage tax funds.
- So those, those expenses will be covered when they come due.
- Yeah.
- This residence concerns to you, would you, yeah.
- Awesome, thank you.
- And then I can see, now that I've spoken with you
- and I kind of know how we're gonna move forward,
- after your vote tonight, I'll know a little bit more
- about kind of how to respond to the residents
- about the final picture here.
- Excellent, thank you so much.
- And I also apologize for the confusion
- that it caused to residents
- and that you all have definitely heard from residents
- about that confusion.
- And I think that, you know, bringing this ordinance forward
- has caused some of that confusion.
- So I apologize to residents for that as well.
- During public comment on the appropriations ordinance,
- local resident, Kevin Kehoe, pointed out
- that the original purchase order was in the amount
- of $4.1 million.
- He said that the city owes Schmidt Associates
- a little over $2 million
- and expressed concern over this discrepancy.
- The amount that is in the fiscal impact statement
- is 9,847,184 as the open PO.
- And from 2019, and this is public information,
- the city signed a $4.1 million contract
- with Schmidt Associates.
- In my understanding, that was the open PO
- and it should equate to 10% of the building cost,
- which originally in 2019,
- I thought it was around 41, 42 million.
- I believe now it's close to 50 million.
- So even at the 10%, you're talking about $5 million
- should be the maximum
- for the Schmidt Associates architectural fee.
- And I've also been looking at the CIB
- and they've been making,
- they've said there's been expenditures made
- through the CIB, it's through the city.
- And I really don't understand why the city is paying this
- through an open PO, but because I hope it gets
- into the soft cost of the project.
- So I just want to make sure that,
- yeah, that's going to get into the,
- when we talk about how much does this facility cost
- that we include the architect's fee in that final amount.
- But what's been paid on the per, and this for the CIB,
- there's been nine payments.
- And I was only able to see eight of the nine,
- but they list them.
- And I've already seen 2,000,033 of payments made to Schmidt
- for the architectural fees.
- So I'm very confused about this open PO amount
- of 9,847,000.
- And the key reason is, I would hope if this isn't,
- there hasn't been, if there are changes,
- I would hope that the information
- about why have there been changes to this fee,
- 'cause it seemed almost like double,
- which is to me is very concerning
- 'cause that's indicative of a cost overrun.
- And it's awfully early in the project
- to be dealing with that level of cost overrun.
- So that was my concern and I'm still concerned
- because even tonight, I thought there would be
- more specific discussion about what the open PO amount is.
- And it seems to me that this would be very clear,
- especially the amount we're talking about.
- You know, it's not a small amount.
- You know, $5 million, that 10% of the total cost
- of the building, I think would be a significant,
- you know, from an internal control standpoint,
- this would be the limit and something you really want
- to make sure you don't exceed.
- So anyway, that was my concern
- and it continues to be my concern.
- Thank you for your comment, you've run out of time.
- Thank you.
- Council member Dave Rollo asked if controller McClellan
- would respond to Mr. Kehoe's comment,
- clarifying the numbers of the open purchase order.
- McClellan said that she does not have a comment
- and would need to check the numbers.
- Yeah, I just wondered if the,
- does the controller have any comments
- on the Mr. Kehoe's concern about the open PO,
- clarifying the cost?
- (microphone thuds)
- Check those numbers.
- I'm not sure that the microphone's on anymore.
- I don't have any comments, I apologize.
- I'll have to check those numbers.
- Council member Asari responded to Mr. Kehoe's comment,
- saying that he wished the council and staff
- had noticed the discrepancy earlier.
- I mean, of course, we're not voting on this today.
- It's gonna be removed from our agenda.
- But, I mean--
- We are voting on it today.
- We've been asked to vote it down.
- Great, okay, same thing.
- Yeah, so, but the, I mean, yeah, point being,
- I think the underlying point here is
- the need for consistent and transparent communication
- with the public, I think something that all of us share,
- think that the controller is spoken of frequently.
- And so, as this comes back,
- I think we do have some time to answer those questions.
- So, just thanking Mr. Keough
- for bringing this up to begin with.
- And I wish that some of us had noticed it earlier.
- Thank you.
- Council Member Isabel Piedmont-Smith
- said that she's glad the controller asked the council
- to vote this initiative down.
- Yes, I'm glad that Comptroller McClellan and the CIB
- are asking us to vote this down,
- because given the number of questions
- I was prepared to vote no on it anyway.
- So, I'm glad that we're all on the same page,
- and we do have some investigating to do
- before approving further funding
- from the food and beverage tax.
- Thank you.
- The council voted zero to seven
- on the appropriations ordinance,
- striking it down unanimously.
- The Monroe County Public Library Board of Trustees
- met on May 22nd.
- During his monthly report,
- Library Director Greer Carson was asked
- by board member Kathy Loeser
- if the library had procedures in place
- in the event that ICE agents entered the building.
- Carson confirmed that procedures were indeed in place.
- We've been meeting with building services staff,
- vital staff, and public services staff about this
- for a couple of months now.
- So, we do have a set of internal procedures
- for how to handle such a situation.
- It's not that different from if local law enforcement
- were to arrive, with a couple of exceptions.
- And so, Brian Liebacher, and myself, and Josh Wolfe,
- and a few others have gone through those
- with the security staff and public services staff
- so that everybody knows what to do
- in the event of an ICE visit.
- Do you take an, does the library take an active stance
- in providing information about know your rights
- to any of the patrons, or is--
- We provide information on how to get that,
- like we would any other resource.
- So we don't encourage one thing or another.
- We say, here's where you can go to find
- know your rights related information.
- So you don't need to hand out the cards or anything?
- No, but staff are prepared to direct people
- to that info as they need it, yeah.
- Continuing to the action items,
- Carson explained that an error had been made
- regarding calculations to the pricing
- of non-resident subscription cards
- and requested an updated fee.
- It was unanimously approved.
- For 2025, we actually miscalculated the appropriate fee
- for non-resident subscription cards.
- We originally sought approval to increase that fee
- from $65 to $80.
- This fee adjustment is based on previous year expenditures
- and that adjustment was approved at December's meeting.
- However, in consultation with the state library,
- we understand that the annual fee should actually be $82
- instead of $80.
- So we are asking to adjust this annual fee by $2
- for 2025 in order to be in compliance
- with state library standards.
- The next meeting of the Monroe County Public Library
- Board of Trustees will be held on June 18th.
- The Monroe County Community School Corporation
- Board of Trustees met on May 20th.
- This followed the announcement that the school corporation
- would eliminate 61 non-classroom jobs
- resulting from budget cuts after the passage
- of Senate Enrolled Act 1 at the State House.
- During public comment, Monroe County Education Association
- board member-elect Eric Nolan expressed concerns
- about the budget cuts and the elimination
- of the non-classroom jobs.
- My name is Eric Nolan and I speak to you this evening
- in my role as MCEA board member-elect.
- A number of people are obviously very concerned
- with budget concerns coming up.
- We were already concerned when the two-year strategy
- to achieve balance was presented
- and now we're looking at more dire circumstance
- when it comes to our budget next year.
- We recently, I think it was just made public
- that a number of positions have been set
- to be laid off already and none of those
- are teaching positions so I really can't speak directly
- to them except that just as a fellow worker,
- my heart goes out to people who are being laid off
- because of this.
- Something that keeps coming up and a number of members
- have talked to me about and is reporting
- on the two-year strategy specifically
- regarding administration, compensation,
- and versus what we can find from the Indiana Gateway
- where the school corporation reports employee salaries
- to the state.
- Myself, just honestly, after school today,
- I wrapped up grading, just decided to pull the data
- from that and sort it by administrator type
- and then further sorted that
- by building-level administrator.
- I noted that on the Indiana Gateway website,
- it shows that our total for building-level administrators
- in 2022 is, I'm just going to summarize or abbreviate
- the numbers a little bit, but 5.5 million.
- In 2023, 5.9 million, and in 2024, 6.1 million.
- For central administration, and this includes
- both certified and non-certified central administration
- positions, in 2022, on the Gateway reports,
- just over 2 million, in 2023, 2.5 million,
- and in 2024, 3.1 million.
- And so those totals add up to administrator salaries
- being about 7.6 million, 8.5 million, and 9.3 million.
- When I look at the graphs regarding specifically
- administrator salary totals on the Two Year Strategy website,
- I'm seeing much smaller numbers reported.
- For instance, central administration positions
- are listed in 2022 as 647,982, 580, in 2022, I'm sorry,
- in '23, 583,000, and in '24, 843,000.
- So there's a differences of, you know,
- more than 2 million and then up to 3.5 million dollars.
- And I don't know how to explain this when people ask me,
- and I would love some sort of explanation for this
- as we're looking at budget cuts,
- because it appears that administrative salaries
- have grown substantially in these last three years alone.
- Thank you.
- Next, MCEA president, Jenny Noble Cucera,
- brought up a petition urging the school corporation
- to adopt a policy that clarifies
- which positions would be eliminated.
- Good evening, Vice President Cooperman,
- School Board of Trustees, and Dr. Winston.
- Thanks for having me here again this evening.
- I am the Monroe County Education Association president,
- and as such, I represent 558 members,
- all of whom have signed a petition.
- And the petition essentially is asking our school board
- to adopt a reduction in force policy
- given the current climate that we are living in.
- I have sent drafts to our school board
- in the hopes that it would become a topic
- of your conversation, because essentially
- what this boils down to is we are working
- with our administrators, we have fantastic conversations
- and discussions, and we are meeting to that end
- with clarity and transparency.
- However, it's not enough.
- What we're asking is you all as our employers
- to actually put into place a policy
- that will make it crystal clear who stays and who goes.
- If there is gray area, which there has proven to be
- in a court case, Elliott versus Madison,
- that's not going to bode well for any of us
- here in this room.
- So it is the last thing I want to ask for
- and yet it is exactly what I'm asking for.
- And that is for all of you to discuss
- and adopt hopefully the draft
- that I sent you yesterday morning.
- Because right now the Indiana code, and I quote,
- says any of the following items may be considered.
- Following that, we have things like content areas,
- additional content degrees and credit hours,
- performance categories, on and on and on.
- So without clarity and without transparency,
- it's going to be really difficult for us to move forward
- beyond our good conversations with administrators
- if there's no policy that everyone can follow
- and everyone knows is happening in a straightforward way.
- So please do us the courtesy of looking at that draft.
- It meets with Indiana code.
- It is constitutional, so it won't provide any issues.
- And I thank you so much for that consideration.
- I hope it moves.
- MCEA board member Angie Shelton also commented
- on the non-classroom layoffs saying
- that these are important positions for the school system.
- She said that she disagrees
- with the school corporation's determination
- to layoff employees who do not make as much money
- as classroom employees.
- I have several questions related
- to the two-year strategic plan
- that I'm hoping will be addressed
- in the presentation this evening.
- But, well, related to that, I guess,
- as I learned this afternoon right prior to the meeting
- in the personnel report that 61 support staff positions
- were eliminated today.
- These are primarily lunchroom staff,
- custodians, and other support staff.
- These are, speaking as anyone who spent time at school,
- really important positions.
- Having clean buildings and safe food
- that can be delivered to our kids
- in the amount of time they have
- so that they still have time to eat are important things.
- And so, as someone who's in the building,
- I feel for those positions.
- In addition, it doesn't seem like
- eliminating lowest-paid positions
- is one of the most strategic ways to reduce costs.
- So I have some other ideas about ways
- that might be more effective.
- One of them would be offering
- retirement incentives to staff.
- We have a lot of high-paid staff,
- and as you know, MCCSC has pretty good salaries now.
- And we have a lot of people who would be willing to retire
- if used early with any kind of incentive.
- And that would also then reduce the highest-paid positions
- while retaining lower-paid positions in younger teachers
- whose jobs are more critical probably for their families.
- Not that people closer to retirement aren't,
- but hopefully if you're close enough,
- you can afford to live a decent retirement.
- And that would also not just save more money,
- but improve morale.
- And a lot of people in the district,
- and I'm sure the school board as well in administration,
- this is a difficult situation and stressful on everyone.
- So giving people's options,
- I think would reduce a lot of anxiety.
- And my third comment is just to echo Jenny's request
- that we have a clear and consistent RIF policy
- by state law, if RIFs are done.
- And I know MCCSEA said they don't plan to do any this year,
- but by state law, they have to be done
- between May 1st and July 1st.
- And so the next board meeting is the end of June,
- which should things happen during the summer.
- And I'll just say, I know people are afraid
- that they may lose their jobs,
- but it would be dependent on the school board
- to approve something that goes through discussion
- with MCCSEA.
- Thank you.
- In her two-year strategy update,
- Superintendent Dr. Markay Winston
- said that the school system hopes to save
- around $7 million per year through staff reductions
- and leaving vacant positions open.
- The second area of our two-year strategy
- is centralized position reduction.
- This means reductions in centralized services,
- programs, and staff to realize savings
- as much as possible outside of the classroom.
- (silence)
- Centrally, we have approximately 28.8 FTEs
- that have vacated as a result of natural attrition.
- We have an additional 53.3 FTEs
- that are as a result of position elimination
- and position reduction.
- We are very sensitive to the fact
- that those are individuals' livelihoods,
- and we don't take that lightly.
- We recognize also that many of those positions
- were initiated during COVID era,
- and we feel as if those positions
- can and should be eliminated
- at this particular point in time.
- Some of those are in the area of, excuse me,
- not food service, health services and custodial services.
- We have some additional centralized support staff positions
- that have been eliminated as well.
- There are support staffs from the main admin building.
- There are positions that have been eliminated
- from transportation, from technology,
- from food service, I'm trying to go by my memory now,
- as well as by, what am I forgetting, building services.
- The Monroe County Election Board held a public hearing
- at their meeting on May 19th.
- The hearing was the final opportunity for community members
- to give their input
- on the Vote Center Study Committee's report.
- Committee member, Ami Gandhi,
- said that the committee believes vote centers
- would help ensure fair and equal voting access
- in the county.
- Gandhi explained that the main purpose
- behind switching to a vote center model
- is to eliminate the confusion
- of having to find the right polling location.
- I wanted to share a little bit of background,
- which was also discussed at previous election board meetings
- and the previous vote center related hearing.
- In our work as a vote center study committee
- that was bipartisan in nature, we heard from voters,
- we heard from community members,
- I'm a Monroe County voter myself,
- and we heard a lot of stories of confusion
- that voters had about determining
- where is my polling place,
- how can I exercise my right to vote?
- And that's particularly in some communities
- where if later in the day,
- because of someone's constraints that are on them,
- long work hours or long class hours
- or a childcare or healthcare situation,
- if there's very limited time to go out there
- and vote in person and then having location confusion
- on top of that, it can lead to,
- and it has led to unfortunately in Monroe County,
- voters being turned away.
- If it's late in the day,
- by the time they realize they would have had to go
- to a different assigned polling place
- in order to be able to exercise their right to vote.
- During public comment,
- County Commissioner Penny Githans
- expressed her support for vote centers
- and highlighted the fact
- that the majority of Indiana counties
- have already adopted vote centers.
- I'm Penny Githans.
- I'm a Monroe County resident
- and I'm one of the commissioners
- that in 2023 voted to support vote centers.
- I'm here to offer my support
- for implementing the vote centers here
- and increasing the number
- of early satellite voting locations.
- Like Ms. Wilson,
- I want to thank the vote center study committee
- for its work and providing a thoughtful
- and well-researched and concise report.
- It's significant to me
- that the committee voted seven to zero
- to approve this plan.
- Democratic chair, John Fernandez,
- shared why he is in support
- of moving to a vote center model.
- Well, I think this report should be adopted.
- I think the vote center plan really is about accessibility
- but it's also about efficiencies.
- It's kind of an antiquated system
- that we have today.
- Does it work okay?
- Yeah, it works okay, but it could be better.
- Republican chair, Danny Shields,
- shared why he is not in support of vote centers.
- Well, I'm a seasoned veteran
- of the elections in Monroe County.
- My first one was 1972.
- I am a new member of this board.
- I take this position very seriously.
- Here are a few things that stand out to me
- about the report and the plan.
- First, let's be clear.
- We don't live in a pure democracy.
- Democracies don't last long
- because as soon as two people realize
- they can legally take someone else's property,
- it often leads to conflict and violence.
- We live in a representative republic
- where representatives are elected
- by the people of their district,
- whatever that district may be.
- I'm strongly in favor of minimizing taxes.
- Taxation for any reason is taking money
- from someone else who worked for it
- and using it for purposes they may not support.
- Property taxes, for example,
- are immoral and should be abolished.
- Spending taxpayer dollars for any reason
- should be carefully scrutinized.
- I've read the report of the committee
- and I was there when the committee began.
- It is important to note that the committee
- was never entirely unbiased.
- They never considered whether vote centers are a good idea.
- They were always focused on getting them implemented.
- There are some good things in the report
- such as the fact that electronic polling books are good
- if the electricity works.
- One thing the committee never asked
- is whether increasing voter turnout is the main goal
- or responsibility of the election board.
- For the record, it is not.
- The goal of the election board is to run fair,
- cost-effective, bipartisan elections for the government.
- It is the job of the political parties,
- civic groups, educational organizations,
- among others, to drive voter turnout.
- If it were not, we would not have
- repetitive commercial season every year.
- For the vote center report to be adopted,
- it needed a unanimous vote from the election board.
- The vote did not pass, with County Clerk Nicole Brown
- and Democratic Chair John Fernandez voting yes,
- and Republican Chair Danny Shields voting no.
- And that is all for Cats Week.
- Thank you for joining us.
- For Cats and WFHB, I'm Annalise Poorman.
- (upbeat music)
- (soft piano music)