(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)
 (upbeat music)
 (upbeat music)
 (upbeat music)
 (upbeat music)
 (upbeat music)
 (upbeat music)
 (upbeat music)
 (upbeat music)
 (soft piano music)
 (soft piano music)
 (soft piano music)
 (soft piano music)
 (soft piano music)
 (soft piano music)
 (soft piano music)
 (soft piano music)
 (soft piano music)
 (soft piano music)
 (soft piano music)
 (soft piano music)
 (soft piano music)
 (soft piano music)