good evening and happy seventh day of budget items to all those who celebrate. So today is.
I call this meeting to order. Today is Thursday, September 17th, 2026. The time is 5.01, and we have
a quorum of council members. We have councilors Vidal, Wilts, Deckard, Iverson, and Henry. And I don't
see council member Hawk online or in her seat just yet. But again, we have a quorum, so we'll go ahead
and get started. Does anybody wish to add or remove or make any changes? How about, does anybody?
to make changes to tonight's agenda? No? Okay. So all those in favor of tonight's agenda as presented,
signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed, you can say the same thing. Okay, well, no opposed.
Ayes have it. Thank you. So yeah, tonight is special because we did all of our presentations over the
past three weeks. Yes, three weeks of budget.
and I want to personally thank everybody involved in all of that. Again, our staff, our auditor, everybody
that has been able to continue to do with this. But the marathon continues because we are not over because
the public presentation of the 2027 Monroe County budget is on Tuesday, August 6th or no.
That's backtracking. Tuesday, October 6. And the final presentation, the adoption, I should say, is
going to be Tuesday, October 20. So tonight, since we are all done, this was a night where, because
last year what we had did in the past is just kind of go through and make the changes. And all of us
were looking very doughy odd. But tonight we are all rested.
and ready to go in case there's any changes that need to be made, as Councilor Wilts looks to be funny,
because we are all rested. I feel you on that, my sister. So that being said, tonight is a night where
we can come back and look at budgets that need to be opened for any type of changes. So before we do
that, for the final time during this budget presentation, I will look at the auditor's office. And we
are joined by the auditor, Ms. Gregory.
And Ms. Woodruff, would you like to present? Yes, thank you. Ms. Woodruff is going to share the screen
here. And maybe for the last time, I'm going to give you an update of the simple calculation here for
the 2027 budget. Okay, so the simplified difference now between
the revenue and proposed expenditures, we have a surplus of $2,645,642. Now, as we all know, we still
have some discussion and work to be done in some of those levy funds and actually some of the non levy
funds as well. So I know we're gonna take a closer look at some of those tonight. We're talking about
moving that levy around so that some of the growth is spread out between some of the other levy funds
that might need a little assistance that have
larger budget that we need to support. And then some things we either need to reduce or move elsewhere.
So I'm happy to take any questions regarding this, or we can just jump in. Anybody have any questions
for the auditor before she jumps in? No? Apologies, it didn't show properly. Carly is sharing. OK. Yeah,
I'm struggling to see it, too. Yeah.
it's technical difficulties, I can try to share on my end. Well, TSD, are you all, should they stop
sharing and try to reshare again? Thinking. Overheated. And for the record, Councilor Hawk is in the
building and at the dais. Like it just does not want to allow us to
Maybe you need to re-sign into teams. Let me try on my end if you don't mind. Sure, yeah. Mine is slow
too. Yeah, mine's slow. Well. You could be under attack from Owen County. I knew it happened. You're so bad.
I can't sign into Teams right now.
I had to restart. Oh, everybody needs to re log in. Okay.
Session six but not seven. I see all the sessions. I don't know. Did session seven get posted? Agenda?
We sent a multi-TSD, I thought, but I won't tell you. We're not sure if session seven got sent. What
happens if it wasn't?
We've got it posted out there. That's all that needs really to happen. No, I was actually addressing
a different problem, which is that. As long as it was noticed, because technically the agenda's here.
It was posted. I mean, the meeting was noticed type person right there. Notice but notice. Notice a
few things. Agendas are not required.
If you don't mind, I'll just go over the numbers one more time in case the public wanted to follow along.
And for members of the public, we had a little bit of technical difficulties. And so just as the auditor
and staff have been doing all
three weeks, we're going to go over the four B's again. So Ms. Gregory, take it away. Thank you. Okay.
Maybe for the last time we will see. I'm going to go over the simple calculation, which is the difference
between the revenue and the estimated expenditures for the 2027 budget. So currently we have a surplus
of $2,645,642 for the simple calculation, which means
all the funds, all the revenue, all of the budgets that we are looking at. Now, as I said a few minutes
ago, we have some work to do to spread out the levy growth and the levy funds. And then there's also
some work to do in the non-levy funds. And I know we're going to work on that tonight, moving some things
around. So again, I'm happy to entertain any questions, or we can dive in. OK. All right. Any questions
for the auditor right now?
Oh yes, sorry, Councilor Wilts. This might be my own problem. Nope. It's going to work or not. I think
they're doing it right now. There you go. I didn't hear a word she said. Okay. Councilor Wilts. Thank you.
Are we going to just revisit budgets or are we going to start with a conversation about the levy? I
think it's up to us and how we want to do that. So Ms. Gregory? I may make a recommendation. I think
it might be beneficial to look through some adjustments that you intend to make first, because that's
going to affect possibly
how we move the levy around and what we do with the other funds as well. So just a thought. Okay. Okay.
Okay. All right. So looking to colleagues, if there are any things that or any budgets rather, I should
say that anybody would like to open. I had to reboot. Oh, you're fine.
I guess I'll kind of start off on the conversation of the election. That one I know we and looking at
that one a little bit more in depth, and I'll look to the liaisons as well with this. I think personally,
because we get reimbursed, you know, the city also funds the elections. That's one that I think that
we need to take a look at.
Um, I think there was some overtime lines that I personally wanted to look at as well. And to be honest,
like for us to compare, I think the last municipal election was in 2023. So ideally I think we could
look at 2023 numbers and maybe see if that's what we can do in 27. I know that we'll have a new clerk,
you know, next year as well. And so whomever that might be.
you know, can also look at this as well, too, and make adjustments, you know, next year coming in as
well. But. For now. You know, taking those numbers down a little bit, because it was pretty high for
a municipal election. Obviously, we know, yeah, but want to see any thoughts. Yes, Councilor Iverson.
I agree with you, Madam President. And that being said, Council, I move to open fund 1215
I'm sorry, that was really loud. You're good. Opening the budget. He made a motion. Listen, I've seen
other people think out loud last night. Just a voice vote. Okay, so all those in favor.
of opening the election fund budget, signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, same sign.
Motion carries. Okay. Yes. Councilor Henry. Thank you for opening up this dialogue. Maybe I'll kick
it off with getting some of the meatier pieces. I agree that what's been presented here could
be re-evaluated through the 2023 cycle, which is the last municipal. And it's important for council
to remember that there are 47 precincts in the Bloomington election as opposed to the 83 countywide.
So you're looking at about half in terms of that. So we're trying to use a framing reference for
The cost of that would be about half. Having said that, I did reach out to the chief deputy clerk this
week. We haven't had a chance to talk about it yet. But on account line, I think we've looked
at 1215-00002-2002. This is the machine purchasing, the 692,000 amount that I proposed to them as a
possibility to think about getting on a schedule.
for purchasing the equipment. So rather than doing a bulk purchase of the entire what you would need
for a presidential level, all the e-poll books, all the heart machines, all that, what do you need for
next year? And we don't have that number yet, and we haven't really had that conversation yet. But I
do think if we're looking for a place to reduce an appropriation, and of course, they always come back
and ask for more later next year, that that might be a place to look.
the nickels, down to the nickels of what that reduction could look like. But I do think for this department,
a capital schedule of purchasing equipment yearly instead of every four years might make a little more
sense. But that's my opening thought on that. I'm curious what others think. Thank you. I'll go Councilor
Decker and then back to Iverson. One question I have on the machines or e-poll books, as I recall them
saying, is if
If it followed the logic of what you need for the city election and you weren't buying for the city
and the county election, could you reduce it in that kind of like-minded way as well? I think we gotta
be cautious there because I think a strong majority of those precincts either touch city boundaries
or otherwise, so I'm not sure it's a half and half, but that could be a potential that you try
to get some equipment there at a slightly reduced level than going kind of all out. And I've not talked
to them either about that. Okay. I'll go Iverson and then Wilson. All right. You know, as one of the
liaisons, I also think setting some of these
lines back to the 2023 levels is appropriate. I do want to make a very clear distinction, though. I
think we shouldn't leave the ones alone. That is our personnel lines. I think that the positions that
are in there, we want to make sure that they're getting their 2% cost of living adjustment. And by setting
them back, I think that sets a dangerous message.
I think when we get to a motion, I think the motion should just be for the twos, the threes,
and the fours. Those are the categories of supplies, services, and capital. I would agree with that,
because we did a lot of work with that beforehand. Councilor Woods. Yes. Going back to the line for
the e-books, the polling e-books. Is that what they're called? E-Poll Book. Thank you. Clearly, I know
a lot about it.
I like the idea, I mean, and I've recommended this and talked with several departments about capital
purchasing being something that they manage and schedule kind of a rotation, like their, you know, a
management schedule for purchasing or replacing equipment. And this seems like a good place to start.
I like the idea of making the decision around the percentage, you know, in this low use year,
can we start with what's absolutely needed and then each year go up. But the following year will be...
It's the off year. It's the off year, which is great. No, wait, wait, wait. Hold on. It's the presidential
year and then it's the off year. So you've got... So we really have to get everything in the next two
years, which doesn't lend itself to a really nice, let's do like a four or five year implementation.
Um, that was my question was kind of, is there a way to do it where we, you know, what's the timeframe
that we can maximize? Um, that's it. It's more of a question thought. Okay. And I think I saw the auditor
had her hand up. Yeah, I just want to clarify if this, um, 200 line is to purchase machinery and equipment,
we probably want to move that to a capital line.
Is it a servicy kind of thing, or then it wouldn't? We have it under supplies right now. Either one.
So we're having some trouble with Lau. We're trying to open Lau to see what they're actually utilizing
that for. But with such the large number, I would assume it's capital, but we need to verify. OK. OK.
Madam President. Yes, go ahead.
And I know that as it was presented in the room, the sum total of that line is not a bunch of iPads.
There's servers that they want to purchase as well. I don't know the cost of the hard servers, which
we might not be able to cut in half. They may have to be the capital purchase, but it's the e-poll books
per polling location. And there could be some cost benefit analysis here, too. In fact, it could be
more expensive to cut this in half over time. But we don't know. What I do know is I've got
a very large line item. And I think, as Councilor Hawkins told us many times, the whole point of this
fund is to accumulate. And if we keep taking these bites out of it and not accumulating, that presidential
year may come back to us to fund out of something else, right? And it's trying to understand a true
four-year cycle on that. So I don't have that hard day. I wish we did have that hard cost, because that
would help me understand how to cut it. But we might have it at the table, yeah.
very slowly. Okay. Okay. So maybe as you are pulling up, does anybody else have anything else to add?
Yes, Councilor Iverson. Madam President, I don't know if this is the appropriate time, but I would like
to make the motion as reflected on the sheet that we have. Oops, there's this one.
So council, I move that in fund 1215-0010 that we move the twos and threes to the 2023 budget amounts
with a 6% increase for the maximum living growth quotient. And additionally, that we move the twos and
the threes in fund 1215-0062
to the 2023 budget levels with a 6% increase for maximally go with the question second. Okay, we got
a motion and a second. Is there any other further discussion on this item? Yes, counselor will. As much
I don't like doing math in public. Tell me what you want.
Well, I wanna know about adding the 6% MLGQ, because I recognize that's this year's, but technically,
if we were budgeting, it would have grown. What is it for the four years, is what I'm asking, or yeah,
four years. What would be the growth quotient over four years, because that's the more accurate way
to say what inflation has done to
these costs. I'm looking at the auditor because she's math. She knows math. Obviously, it was 6% from
26 to 27. I have to go back and look if you want the last four years. I don't have that in front of
me, but I can find that. Or like Carly just suggested, we could use 6% over four years. Last year was
four. Yeah, I think six is pretty high for what we have. It was four the year before.
was it? So it was four and four and six. I'm just trying to make sure that we, you know, if we're going
to apply some sort of metric, it's at least aligned. I mean, every year we make sure the budget is supported.
From from my perspective, you guys do a great job of that. So if you wanted, I think the six percent
would be appropriate if you feel there should be growth regardless. And we
Do you want to see what the 6% growth would look like from the levy they had last year? Is that what
you're asking? No, I'm sorry. No, if you want to do it from 23, that was the motion. I was just asking
the logic of it, if that's the best way to think about it. And if it's the best way to think about it
right now and to get it done, that's fine, too. I just want us to think through. Of course. Chancellor
Henry. Thank you. I appreciate the work to break this out.
This is efficient, I appreciate that. There is a line that jumps off the page, it's 12-15-17-101-0062,
the overtime line. So is this correct on the math that it's the 23 budget amount was 25,000,
the 27 is 20,000, so we see an increase because of the 6%, is that? Okay.
The thing is, we have a resolution with regards to overtime, and the overtime is capped at 5,000, and
that was specifically amended back in January. I can't remember when I noted that, so. Okay, and thank
you for reminding me of that, because I am staring at their adjusted annual, their total budgets are
expended going back 26, 25, 24, and they never got close.
to 25,000, 20, yeah, I know, Peter, you want to get in. But it's like this is a bump in overtime, but
we haven't even gotten close to the 20,000 in the past two years on it. And again, if it's a municipal
election, who's the overtime for? It should be, in theory, half as much effort, because it's half as
many polling locations, except for early voting, unless it gets really spicy across the street
in Bloomington. I don't know.
I thank you for cleaning up and Peter, I think you want to get in on it. So I'm just gonna thank you,
Madam President. Sure. Council I just want to speak to the motion that I made on the table. I very purposely
excluded the ones in my motion. So the overtime line would be a separate motion. I want to make this
really clean so that our staff know that we are not touching their lines. Like this is supplies and
services only. I will note
that the previous conversation on the machine precinct, et cetera, line, that $680 and $2,600, if we
let the motion stand as it is, that really reduces that line significantly. So we might want to make
a motion to the motion to inflate that back up or have the department come back and ask for an additional.
Or would you offer a friendly
amendment to your motion to. I actually I think this is a healthy conversation. Is it better to tackle
it now in an empty room? Or is it better to have a department come back for an additional? Yes, counselor
Decker, I think either way you go, there will still be things that need to be done along the way on
towards getting to an end result.
I think we should probably say something that we don't always, that we usually say in this cycle that
everything that we're doing now is a process until we get to that final adoption. And even that, the
next week afterwards, there's always some mistake on the current year's budget and then the next year's
budget that we continue to work. The goal is that that mistake is, or that change, I should say, mistake's
a heavy word.
that that change is not too much or something that's glaring. But I think that either way we go there,
transparently, changes are coming. Yes, Ms. Darnock.
I wanted to add one other thought in that conversation about the purchase of the equipment. In the past,
the clerk's office was able to get a HAVA grant from the state to help with equipment purchases. And
I don't know if that's an option for them again in the future. But I mean, last year we did get $35,873
for printers. So that is something that maybe the next clerk applies for that might be able to offset
that cost.
and that could come back next year. Yes, Councilor Henry. Thank you. I may try an amendment then to
see if we can get that balance that Councilor Decker and Councilor Iverson have raised here. So on account
line 1215-2002-0062, machines precinct, et cetera. I move that we reduce the amount from $692,600
to $394,700. Yes. Yes. Second, and I'll ask why that number? Yes. So it is, if you take the sum total
of precincts in Bloomington into the total precincts in the county, it's roughly 57%. That is 57% of
that number. And let's see if that's enough to work with for this fiscal.
I need that number again, please. The number is 3,000, I'm sorry, 394,700. And I would like to refer
to the auditor's office. Since we believe that this is for equipment and that kind of thing, should
it go rather than be adjusted in the supplies line, I believe we probably should have it moved
to a capital line. And we have that number now. Am I correct? That's correct. Did we advertise capital
lines in this fund? I'll check. I want to say yes. I want you to say yes. A reminder, we can do transfers.
Without an advertisement, we can just do it in any given meeting. We can transfer one category to the
other, if that's necessary. Let's just move forward and make a reduction if we need to move it. And
then we can do it at that time. OK. That is definitely an option. OK. So let's just go with that for
now. And then we can always come back. I think the goal is to do like
the big work now tonight. And then if we find out later, if we need to move things from, you know, from
supplies to capital, we can do that. And that time frame, does that sound okay? Okay. Can somebody reread
the motion at this point? Yes. So I think counselor David or counselor David. The motion.
what the motion was to reduce the count line of 1215 to 002-0062 Machines Precinct, et cetera,
from $692,600 to, I'm gonna do it again and now Kim has my number and I don't know if I have it on my
phone. 394,700. 394,700, thank you.
Okay, I do have that amount up on what we advertised. The most that we can put into capital is $4,000.
Yes, Ms. Gregory. We could either adjust the advertisement or
a little bit more easily what we can do as a category transfer in the beginning of the year, something
like that. Right, which I think to Councilor Hawks' point is that would allow this to just be left for
right now and then at the beginning of the year, allow the new clerk to come in and make adjustments
accordingly. Okay. All right. I wanted to let you know. Sure. Well, thank you for that. Okay, so we
have a motion on the floor for this. Is there any other further discussion?
on this amendment. Okay, so seeing none, all those in favor of this motion to reduce this line item
signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, same sign. Okay, motion carries. So coming back to the
overall here, Councilor Iverson. So this setting it back to 2023 with that 6% addition, that brings this fund
down by $700,000. But not with the motion, too. So that's an even better savings. So this is really
going to help our 4Bs. It's going to go the other way. It's not a better savings. Yeah, it goes the
other way. Yeah. It bumps it up. Not quite as good a savings as it looks like, right? Because that's
fine. We did leave something. I just didn't see why we got to do the 6%. I think we're going to be OK
by reducing what you're talking about, and then they
in addition. Okay. All right. So, yes. Are there? Okay. So, is there any other further questions or
comments on this item? No? Okay. So, President, just to be clear. So, just clarity. So, Councilor Iverson's
motion was with the 6%, is that right? Correct, correct.
I'm sorry. 6% to the 2023, right? Scenario one, right? We're looking at the orange column. That's the
numbers here. And Councillor Hock did raise a point to say, you know, what would be the challenge with
not doing the 6% and just going straight with 2023? And I'm curious what others' thoughts are about.
I appreciate using the MLGQ as the number. I mean, I appreciate why that's there, but I just
I'm curious what the counter argument would be for not going with straight out 2023 on these lines,
not the salary, as Councillor Iverson's mentioned, but on these supply lines. Is it the inflation question
since 2023? You want the argument for it or for against it? I'm just kind of curious what others are
thinking, why you're not going... If there are others that are fine with the 6%, why the green column
is not as advantageous?
And if nobody wants to say, that's fine. But I'm just. Are you asking for the argument for adding 6%?
Yeah, that's right. In my really roundabout way at 5 o'clock. I'm sorry. I just couldn't tell which
direction. Pick one. Well, I mean, I do think if you start looking at the things that are in here, it's
purchasing objects. And inflation has really impacted the purchasing power of everybody. Like tariffs?
Well, I mean, that we probably couldn't
a capture, but we can capture inflation in the form of a growth kind of approximation. So that's why.
Okay. Thank you. I was going to say the same thing. Okay. Anybody? Yes. Councilor Decker. And one thing
I want to say is also, and I hope that this is the sentiment of council, is I think that council going
forward will have to work with a lot of different circumstances, including new clerk,
maybe new ways of doing things or not, I don't know. And then also probably some realities that may
hit elections. Like I keep thinking in my head, are we going to have a sort of what we see with fire
trucks where getting one takes much longer than it used to because I think a lot of jurisdictions due
to increased election scrutiny, discussions, questions will be going to a lot of systems that are needed.
And so there may be adjustments
of every which way and the other, all the way between here, now, municipal election, presidential election,
which is an open seat, supposedly. All that is to say that there's a lot that could keep shifting, moving,
et cetera. Anybody else? Okay, so we need to go ahead and take a roll call vote on
this overall motion. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
Okay, thank you very much. Yes, Councilor Iverson. Thank you, Council. I would like to move and fund
1215-0062 in line 17101. That's the overtime line. We set that amount to $5,000 per resolution 2025-41A.
Second. Okay. We got a motion and a second. Councilor Iverson, did you want to explain that?
Um, uh, Michelle alluded to this a little bit earlier, but in a red, this resolution does put a cap
on the amount of, uh, overtime that we can have in these lines. And as it currently sits, uh, in this
requested amount, it sits outside the bounds of that resolution. So this simply brings this account
back into the bounds of the resolution that we passed. Okay. Thank you. Yes.
So what would happen if we hadn't reset this, that resolution stands, so would it, I mean, should, I'm
not wanting to not do it, I want to do it, but it starts, it asks the question, did we let other over
timelines slip through and violate our own resolution? Has somebody checked that? Carly has checked
that. Thanks, Carly.
So the answer is no, we did not let that go through. Yeah. Okay. Good job. Um, counselor, you look like
you are about to put a finger out. Okay. You just want to keep it. You put in a finger out to say, let's
keep it rolling. Okay. Got you. Okay. Got it. Um, any other further questions on that? It seems pretty
self explanatory. Okay. So I think we can do this by voice vote or roll call. Should we do this by roll call?
And let's do roll call. Councilor Feidl? Yes. Councilor Hawk? Yes. Councilor Wilts? Yes. Councilor Henry?
Yes. Councilor Decker? Yes. Councilor Crosley? Yes. Councilor Iverson? Yes. Motion passes unanimous
7-0. Okay, thank you. Councilor Iverson, is there anything else you want to do on this one? Yeah, let's
go over to the cumulative capital development.
That is fund 1138-0000. Council, I move that in that fund that we move the lines 1023 GIS coordinator,
18101 FICA, 18201 PERF, 17601 Longevity,
13 to 20 network operations manager, 13 to 60 senior support technician, 13 to 70 network technician,
13 to 80 help desk remote desktop tech, 13 to 90 support technician, 13 to 91 support technician, 15-1-1-5
director, 18-1-1 FICA, 18-2-0-1 PERF, 17-6-0-1 longevity, and 18-0-0-1 self insurance. Oh, two.
a variety of different funds. All right, I'm sorry, two, yeah, I screwed that up. Let me start again.
All right, take two. Take two. Yep, there you go. All right, council, I move that we, in fund 1138-0000,
that we move fund 10023 GIS coordinator to fund 1000006. Good.
rather than just reading the numbers. Tell us what the fund is. Sure, sorry. Thank you. This is incumative
capital development fund 1138-0000. We're moving line 10023 GIS coordinator. That budget requested amount
is $87,818. Moving it to county general surveyor, that's fund 1000-0006.
and defund 10023. Second. Okay. We got a motion and a second. Any questions or comments on this move?
Yes, I think. Yes, Councilor Wilks. Would he just read all of those and us vote once? I didn't hear
what you said.
My understanding is that a conversation with the commissioners on this line resulted in recommending
this move or these series of moves. Because there are so many different funds, I can do them in blocks.
just trying to move it along and I'm not I'm sorry that's okay that's okay actually why don't I do that
let me let me amend my amendment okay to include withdraw it and just do the whole thing otherwise we
have to do it twice yeah all right I withdraw my amendment now I'm gonna do take three
you got this it's okay i do i do have it all right you're good you're totally fine it's okay share it
as well yes that would be super helpful so that folks at home aren't losing interest all right council
i i move in uh fund 1138-0000 that we move uh
that's line one zero zero two three as well as the FICA perf and longevity lines over into county general
surveyor that's fund one thousand dash zero zero zero six and that is a total of one oh seven four thirty
eight and we need a second and we do need a second second all right we got a motion and a second council
Henry thank you I appreciate
I appreciate all that. That was some work. Help me understand. I see both sides of this. It has been
a long preference of mine to get more of this stuff out of cumulative capital and somewhere else. I
don't like that we have certain positions and things funded in that fund because it's not capital.
These are humans. It looks clean on the paper. I understand why that's happening. I have some heartburn
because I don't know now that there are proceeds in that fund where those funds are going. The assumption
would be if we're moving this out, that is not a resource that is sitting in a fund that we only get
one time a year to really weigh in on in terms of what's going on in there.
The way you put it, Councillor Iverson, I appreciate the diplomacy, but what is the detail? Are they
too trying to clean it up to get employees out of a capital fund? What's going on here with this as
to why we're seeing this opportunity to move and clean it up now after years of it being like this,
especially with the TSD piece? I'm going to take a stab at this.
My interest in this is purely fiscal looking at the 4B. The way that we're looking at the 4B is that
this is underwater to the tune of $1.067 million. We have an opportunity here to clean this up. And
the original idea was, I think whoever's controlling the screen could just scroll up just a little bit. Is that?
No, not possible. The original idea was to move that software line at the top, that $1.5 million software
line. And the conversation turned to these personnel. And I think the argument is salient in the one
you just made. This is a cumulative capital fund, and these are people.
So just as a follow up then, so the intention is to bring the fund out of or up over underwater, whatever
that is, not underwater. And we wouldn't be surprised later to see, hey, here's $200,000 in additional
spending we want to do now that it's not here. So it really is about getting this fund in the black.
Is that? That's my motivation. OK, I appreciate that. Thank you. Councillor Hong? Right.
I understand that this might not seem like what you would normally put in this type of fund. The legislation
changed several years back that said you can put the expenses of technical services over into this fund
and that's what we did. It seems to me this is more
Some of this is to the point that maybe the commissioners are not happy about some of the salaries that
were put in there. But regardless, we know that CUME CAP is going to be running short. But we have to
cover the debt that we've got sitting in CUME CAP, you know, for the parking garage. And that's like
$600,000 or something.
If we leave salaries there, we have to cover that. But to move it over to county general, because you
think you've got access in there, we only have access in there because we're thinking that we're not
going to have to move all this stuff back that we moved out of there. If you move it all back, we're
in deficit. I'll just vote whatever you guys say, because I think we're in mess.
So I'll look to the auditor because I think I saw her hand raised. Thank you. I just want to remind
you the minimum fund balance analysis that we presented at an LTF meet long-term financial planning
meeting most recently demonstrated that we need about three million as a minimum at year end to get
us through to the next
that we would need to remove from this fund to get there, and I think we just did 8 80. Is that right?
107 but we're about to 180. Yeah Yeah, because, right? Well, overall is the 80, but this part this first
group is 107 exactly. And so just to Councilor Hawks point, we need to be able to pay our bills between
settlements. So okay. Okay.
Oh, I'm not sure. Even if we all complete the motions that it looks like Councillor Iverson is going
to make on this page, we won't have met our obligation. So then it becomes what else are we going to
do in terms of budgets or
Do we move? Move else. I. On a what? I think Michelle had provided two different options or miss Woodruff,
I'm sorry. And one was software and the other was the the eight
80 in personnel essentially, so I mean we can look at another larger ticket item. I just don't know
which way Prefer to go moving the software is one line and it would get us there And I know that that
leaves positions in a capital fund, but if it's legal Doesn't that seem simpler? What am I missing? I?
I appreciate your thinking. And I want to talk about the software line. Can I, and I should know this,
but I don't. Is it a one-time purchase on the software or is this a subscription behavior? Do we know?
Yeah, it's all of our software that we're doing. Okay. Either way, that feels more like a economic activity
to me. I mean, is it possible this goes to the edit instead of into the general fund?
I mean, as a service. And also would be encouraging, this is, we do have some challenges with cost control
on IT stuff in the county, especially when I think of our city counterparts who are on completely different
platforms that do not cost nearly as much as we're spending. Councilor Cross, are you still on Google
over there? Is it Google based? Yeah, that is exponentially cheaper than what we're doing over here.
And it's something to think about that if there's a short term of,
You know, we work with this now, but this cost could, this really needs to be revisited, but I'm thinking,
you know, if we are trying to protect the general fund, would the edit be a better home for this particular
item? It gets us out of the hole with the cum cap, but it also puts it somewhere else that feels like
economic activity to me. I would offer that. I'm curious what others think before I make an amendment
in that direction. That's an interesting take. Is that something that,
would the software line be something that could be used for editing? And I'm looking over to the table
to see council's looking at the statue right now. Okay. Okay. Um, because again, we got another meeting
that's coming up on Tuesday where we are talking about that. So that is actually, you know, an interest
intake. Yes. Counselor will ask this.
knowing that it's a rabbit hole, but it's related. Do we have an accounting of what we have said we
would like to move to edit? And because I remember a couple of things, but I and now we're talking about
another, and I'm just concerned that I don't remember all of it. So the only two things that we have
right now are the big ticket items, which is self insurance, which is the seven million three hundred
fifty nine thousand and some other
and then 1 million of bituminous. So as of now, that is the only two items that we have proposed pending
over and at it. OK. And have there been any conversations that anyone would want to share that give
us an indication that the commissioners would approve or you support this?
I mean, I think we stay tuned until Tuesday. So I did have the conversation with Commissioners Thomas
and Madeira about it. I think they're open and receptive. I think when we opened it up on a couple of
weeks ago, it was trying to, you know,
What about a month ago? They came in hot well at their meeting that basically said that they want to
make sure that we stay competitive and we want to Give you know folks cost of living. I think we all
can agree with that I think we all can also agree that we still have some things that are over in our
general that Really needs some taking a look at and so if we can do this together to move those big
ticket items out of general over into edit and to allow us potentially to use, you know, that for that
reason, I think would be helpful. You know, I guess again, they, you know, haven't indicated or sway
one way or another. I think they were receptive to that. I didn't hear anything at the meeting today
that they had that indicated that, you know, they were pro or against.
So again, I think the idea is to watch and wait and see on Tuesday. And I want to be optimistic that
despite all things that both us and commissioners, both bodies I should say, would be able to work together
to make this happen. I know what we have intended at it for, but until that comes to fruition,
I think right now, just kind of like what we did last year, this would help us tremendously as we wait
and see. So that's the answer, which is stay tuned on September 22nd. Yes, Councilor Hong. Right. I
heard legal departments saying they would go look at the statute on what? Are you seeing what we can
use to edit money for? I think it was for the software.
because Councilor Henry had raised the question of if we could take that out and move that over into
edit, that would also free up general and maybe we don't have to do what we're doing right now. Okay,
but just to be clear, the legal uses for the edit fund, there's several different legal uses and the
very bottom thing is or for anything else. So we can use any other legal
legal purpose. So we could use it for salaries. We can use it for supplies. We can use it for anything
we should choose, except that it's tied to the commissioners have to have a plan how it's to be used.
But they can say, I want to use it because I'm going to hire 10 new law enforcement officers or whatever.
But it could be used for any other legal purpose.
It's the very bottom thing that it gives you a list of things you can do. Have anything to add to that?
I mean, subsection 11 of that statute does say for any lawful purpose for which money in any of its
other funds may be used. It does have to be included in the plan, but it does appear that that is a
catch all for us. OK. Thank you, Counselor Hough, for pointing that out. OK.
So maybe we have an amendment. So, okay, I guess that's coming from me. All right. So I have offer an
amendment on account line 1138-30041-0000 software to amend to move to fund someone. Give me the edit
fund number. Okay. Is 1112-0000.
0106, if that is in fact the edit. How much was it? For the amount of $1,500,000. I will second this
and follow up. Is that in lieu to replace the underlying motion to move this first group of folks, or
is that in addition to?
Remind me, did you propose both at the same time? I did not. I would add it in addition to your- In
addition to the GIS coordinator, just like a perf and plunger. Okay. Not disturbing the rest of your
motion. And that's also pending approval from- Approval of the board of commissioners to plan for that
plan. Of course, correct. Councilor- What about advertising? The advertised amount, can we, how much
can we move over there?
We advertise $10 million per category to give you maximum flexibility, not that we anticipate you utilizing
that fully. And again, I don't have the exact number, but I did jot down your numbers that you provided
about where we've used the edit so far. So if it is the 7.3
359 and change for insurance, a million bituminous and 1.5. We're edging around 9.8 million right now,
I think. Is that about? Yep. OK, so we're close to maxing out the 10 million advertised on the edit.
It's 10 million per category. 10 million per category or the whole edit? It's 10 million per category.
Then let's keep putting stuff in there. Anyway, I'm good. Sorry. OK.
And to the earlier point regarding the minimum fund balance, this motion gets us there. Any other further
questions on this? And to be clear, this is to just so that we're all clear on this.
This is to move the $1.5 million from software over into editing. Madam President, I want to be clear,
because Councilor Iverson asked me if these were combined. So right now, it's everything. Yes, yes,
you're right. It's both. Yes, it's both. It's both. OK, right. OK, so last call for any further discussion.
Yes, Councilor Wilts. I'm so sorry. It's OK. I, to clarify,
I thought that so far we had only done the one position and associated other costs and not the other
positions in self-insurance. Correct. That is correct. So we are moving approximately 1.6 million. Correct.
Is that correct? Yes. Thank you. No, it's okay. It's okay.
All right, so seeing no other further questions or comments on this item, may we please have a roll
call vote? Councilor Hawk? Yes. Councilor Wilts? Yes. Councilor Henry? Yes. Councilor Deckard? Yes.
Councilor Crosley? Yes. Councilor Iverson? Yes. And Councilor Feidl? Yes. Motion passes unanimous, 7-0.
OK, thank you very much.
I had something. Yes, go for it. Okay. The commissioners meeting this morning, it appeared that the
commissioners were going to try to move bituminous dollars into a bond issue, which I think most of
us knows that's not going to fly because that's not allowed. Mr. Cocker was very polite and said, well,
let's make that subject to bond council's approval.
So I just don't want anybody thinking we can take by two minutes out of where we put it. And that's
something you're very correct on that. I remember hearing that this morning. And so again, that's something
that we can also think about as a discussion on the 22nd. Yes, Michelle. OK, one that was just the roll
call for the amendment. We still have to do the overall right. OK, but if we're moving the G.I.S. person,
which was included in that amendment into, um, any general surveyor, we also need to talk about the
self insurance that's tied to this position. So we would also need to move 18,000, 18,000
$38 into the economic lit that where we moved all the other general fund self insurance. So moved. Second.
All right, we got a motion and a second. Any other further questions, comments? Yes. That was very confusing.
Michelle, can you
We're talking about the self-insurance line in fund 1138-0000. What is the amount for just
the GIS coordinator again? $18,038. I'm going to do that right here. That's per person. That's right.
It's per position. So if you're moving, if all goes,
You're going to move the GIS person into general fund. The general fund part of this self-insurance
also needs to be included in that lit amount from the general fund that was moved. So then.
So any other further questions on this motion to move the 18 038 over into edit? No, OK, maybe please
have a roll call vote. Councillor Fiddle, yes. Councillor Iverson. Yes. So crossly, yes. Councillor
Deckard, yes, Councillor Henry.
Councilor Wilk. Yes. And Councilor Hawk. Yes. Motion passes unanimous 7-0. Okay. Thank you very much.
Now we come back to the overall here. Any other further questions or comments on this? All right.
Seeing none, may we have a roll call vote? Councilor Wilk? Oh. What am I voting on?
This is the overall, because we have made motion or we have made amendments. So this is the overall
for the GIS and the software. Thank you, sorry. No, you're fine. So it includes all the things we just
voted on. So now it would be overall. Exactly. Thank you. I'm going to give you that right here. So
it's a total of 1.625476.
Yes, go ahead. Councilor Wilts. Yes. Councilor Henry. Yes. Councilor Decker. Yes. Councilor Crosley.
Yes. Councilor Iverson. Yes. Councilor Feidl. Yes. And Councilor Hawke. Yes. Motion passes unanimous
7-0. Yes, Council Iverson. Ready for another fund?
Council I move that we open fund 1170-0309 PSLIT employee services. Second. All right, we got a motion
and a second to open that up. All those in favor of this signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed,
same sign. Motion carries. Okay. All right, so we're looking at PSLIT, the employee services line or
I'm sorry,
I'm sorry, excuse me, the self-insurance line, which is 18001. Do we have that up on the screen?
All right, good. Council, I move that we move that line, which is $90,190, to lit correctional fund
1233-0000. All right, we got a motion, and Council Member Deckard seconded.
Uh, any questions and comments on this question? Yes. Uh, counselor Hawk. Okay. That wasn't,
I don't remember. Uh, I'm not looking at that. Self-insurance was just for the jail. Yes. That that's
for the jail. Yes. There that's five positions.
Councilor Williams. Yes lit is over budgeted by how much I believe what Carly put in an email to me
it was like 575 5k 573 573 something like that yeah yeah it's yeah was that right Carly
Thank you. Okay. Any other further questions on this motion? Okay. Seeing none, maybe please have a
roll call vote. Councilor Henry? Yes. Councilor Deckard? Yes. Councilor Crosley? Yes. Councilor Iverson?
Yes. Councilor Feidl? Yes. Councilor Hawk? Yes. And Councilor Wilts? Yes.
Motion passes unanimous 7-0. Councilor Everson. And to further shore up that fund, council I move that
in fund 1170-0380, we move line 37700 Meals for Prisoners, which is $475,000 to lit correctional and
fund 1233-0000. Second. Okay, we got a motion and a second. Good job. Good idea.
this is your idea yeah okay any other further questions or comments all right seeing none may we please
have a roll call vote counselor deckard yes counselor crossley yes counselor iverson yes counselor fiddle
counselor hawk yes counselor wilts yes and counselor henry yes motion passes unanimous seven zero okay
thank you very much yes counselor question about
the impact of that. So it looks like you had said it was $570 that it was over budgeted. So what we
did now was about $565. So now we're just itsy bitsy. What do we do? It appears that this fund has enough
cash reserves to do that teensy bitsy little bit. But if you want us to look at something further, we
can definitely dive in.
fine with floating that for a year. That's good. All right, just itsy bitsy. Little decimal dust as
someone else would have said. Okay, are there any other further reductions that council would like to
take a look at before we bounce back to the levy or in the 4B looks? All right.
reduction. I just have a addition of an account line. Would you like to do that now? Or would you like
to wait? Sure. Okay. Um, council, I'd like to open up, um, uh, general fund 1000 dash 0061 county council,
um, to add an account line, uh, 111 county council attorney and appropriated at $1. Second.
Thank you, Madam President. You and I were not here late last night when we had an opportunity to talk
about Council's budget, and Councillors may recall a few weeks ago I had raised the idea of at least
I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's
a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point.
I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point.
the one dollar appropriation to hold it until we can figure out opportunities for future use if we wish
to go that way in the next fiscal year. Okay. Yes, Councilor Woods. What's the advantage of doing this
now? It starts the process. And while I appreciate I did get to watch Katz last night on the council's
discussion about the
contractual line for $30,000 for continued legal counsel related to litigation. We still have a memo
out there from County Legal that indicates that in times of conflict among government offices, that
County Legal doesn't represent this counsel in those matters. And it has been past practice that the
counsel have its own attorney independent of the County Legal, but that memo still stands as a
challenge for us if we have future challenges down the road. I was not here when we had a county attorney
or sorry a county council attorney but I think it's worth marking it in the budget to move forward if
we decide to appropriate additional perhaps later for it in the next fiscal year. It seems to me that
if we were going to move forward with this that
putting this into professional services where the other attorneys live might be a better way to do this.
And this is just, I'm not going to offer an amendment or anything. I just think that if we add additional
line in the ones, that's going to increase not only the amount that we're paying this person,
but also FICA, PERF, as well as self-insurance. Whereas if we did a professional service, like pay to
retainer or something like that,
That would be a contractual amount. Now, that does open the door then. If it's a contractual amount,
then it has to go to the commissioners and they have to approve it. But from a fiscal standpoint, putting
it in the threes makes more sense than putting it in the ones. Council Hall. First of all,
I think legislation says that we have the right to have our own. And so I don't think it would have
to go to the commissioners for a vote.
But if you put it out there and the personnel as a $1, we're going to have to vote on it again, no matter
what, because I don't know too many attorneys work for $1. So whatever we do, we'll have to make an
adjustment. So if you want to do this, let's just vote on it and keep rolling. Rolling, rolling, rolling.
OK. Anybody else that'd like to make? Yes, Councilor Decker.
appreciate all the amendments tonight to help with fiscal stewardship. I think this is a little different
than that and I respectfully remember the era that has been referenced a number of times on a number
of meetings a lot different than I think as sometimes the rose-colored glasses remember. I worry a little
bit that we're not ready for this path and we've not reconciled all the things that
were a problem when we left this system that we had. And so I'm a no vote on this tonight. I think that
at the end of the day, you have attorneys that advise elected officials in some limited capacities.
You have a tension there. Ms. Turner-Kings heard me talk about this before when I was council president.
There's a tension between the elected official and the attorneys
that is a natural one where one is duly advised and the other one probably repeats themselves and sometimes
gets frustrated. Margie Rice had to hear this when she was with us before being with the city. And so
I don't remember that era very lovingly and I don't remember it in a way that was productive for the
council. So now I won't be here much longer with the council allegedly, but I just, I would be a no
vote while I'm in the seat.
The only thing that I would add to that is, in a perfect world where there's butterflies and rainbows,
we won't need to have to do something like this. And I think in our earlier spring conversation, I think
that was the way that we were trying to go before, where we were thinking that things would go a different path.
it didn't. And so I think by just doing this right now and just having this as a placeholder, again,
I think this gives us some time for us to think about before the final adoption if this is something
that we would rather do. So I don't see the, I hear what folks are saying. I hear very fine points on
both sides. But that being said, I just think that
this is here as a placeholder for us to think about things should we need to do that. And again, to
Council Hawke's point, if that is something that we choose to do, you know, but for right now, this
is just us adding to this and then we can come back in the next couple of weeks and figure that we might
not need it. So that's kind of my thought philosophy on that. Did I see another hand down? I've stayed
in my case. I appreciate your comment. Yes, Councilor Wilks.
Yeah, I guess I don't see the reason to kind of mess up the ledger with another $1 line. I thought we
were sort of moving away from those in cleaning up the ledgers and at least from the auditor's perspective.
And I mean, we can still have conversations. That's a whole other thing. We added a line and funded
it for an external
attorney, which is what we would need if we do anything besides county business. I think we would want
expertise from an external counselor. I'm not going to vote for this. I'm open to future conversations,
of course, but I don't really think we need this. All right. Yes, Councilor Feidl. For me, it just seems
like it muddies the water to do that.
the fact, like Councilor Wilts mentioned, we do have the line already set up for those services, that
it seems to me like we could use that same line, right, instead of having a $1 placeholder. That's just
my opinion. Okay. Yes, Councilor Hawke. Right. Actually, when we were discussing how much for the attorney
fees or whatever we, however we worded it,
I thought that was open to be used for if we wanted to contract for the council attorney, because that's
what a lot of counties do, or if we want to just move it around. But I don't, you know, also part of
either way, because I think that if we should as a whole decide that it's better to have our own and
the decision by the majority, then we could use that same line that we already have in place and just
add dollars to it. Either way you go. It's gonna take a lot of conversation. Sure, so. Yeah, OK.
All right. So seeing no other further questions or comments, can we please have a roll call vote on
Mr Henry's motion? Councillor Decker. Councillor Crosley, yes.
Councilor Iverson? No. Councilor Feidl? No. Councilor Hawke? Yes. Councilor Wilts? No. Councilor Henry?
Yes. Motion fails. Three, four. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Council Iverson? Ready for another
budget? Sure. Council, I move to open fund 1119-0000.
Clerk's record perpetuation. Second. All right, we got a motion and a second. All those in favor of
this motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, same sign. All right. Motion carries.
Go ahead. And council, I move that we set line 20001 office supplies.
to one dollar and set line three zero zero zero six contractual to one thousand dollars. Second okay
we got a motion and a second council Iverson did you want to add anything to that? Yeah this fund in
the four B's is showing that it's underwater to the tune of seventy nine thousand dollars. This motion
gets us most of the way there but not all the way there.
And I think this is particularly given these two lines, there are other lines in the clerk's funds for
office supplies and contractual services. But I didn't want to zero them out or set them to $1, particularly
contractual services, excuse me. But I think that does help us get closer to getting this fund back
toward the black.
Thank you for that explanation. Any questions or comments on this item? Councilor Wills. I just spent
so much time trying to figure out what was going on that I go too fast. I'm a little confused. Well,
if I don't have like a heads up and I don't, did I have a paper? No, there's no paper on this.
It's me. I'm just slow. I mean, I think everybody else got it. This is supplies and clerk's record.
perpetuation. And that, how much is that fund? Is it a fund issue, I guess you're saying? It's not just
a... So in particular, this supplies line, the office supplies line, there's two arguments here.
Number one, there are office supplies lines in the clerk's other funds. And number two, if you scroll
over to the right, this fund simply hasn't been used.
Yeah, of course. Thank you. Any other questions or comments on that? All right. Seeing none, may we
please have a roll call vote? Councilor Crossley? Yes. Councilor Iverson? Yes. Councilor Feidl? Yes.
Councilor Hawk? Yes. Councilor Wilts? Yes. Councilor Henry? Yes. And Councilor Deckard? Yes.
Motion passes unanimous seven zero. Okay. Thank you very much. Any other motions to make? All right.
Did you thought I saw your hand? Well, I just, I want to make, uh, uh, knowing that, uh, council member
Henry and I are in talks with the health department to review their budgets, but I don't think that
that meeting has been scheduled yet. And it looks like it's going to be a couple of weeks before we
talk with them. So that show will be coming to a theater near you, as Greg Gutierrez says. Yeah,
he would. May I add, Madam President? And I'd be curious of the council if there's advice points you
may have based on that presentation as we go into that discussion. I think there's an array of possibilities
that we could approach or propose. But if someone had a thought that they wanted to share now, I think
we're all ears. I'm happy to float an idea.
across the table that is better than my lawyer one, apparently, to see what happens there. But are there
some initial reactions to their presentation to say, hey, could the two of you ask X or Y in that meeting
that you'd want to share at this point? I would say, I think, relationships that were south need to
be reestablished. And I think that will definitely help. I think some of us went, you know,
to hear how things were running versus what we were doing. And I think Dr. Reiterban actually kind of
alluded to that when she said there's some conversations and some talks that could be had where we could
rekindle and rehash an old flame. So that being said, I think that would help. External relationships. Yeah.
Yes, you're welcome. Thank you for allowing me to elaborate on that without doing that. Yes, counselor.
When the financial person, which by the way, I thought he did a great job. That would have been really helpful.
But I thought when he first started talking, he said something about the 1159. And then he was talking
about the self-insurance. Did he say, because what I was hoping he was saying, which was something I
would support, is that self-insurance should be wherever the position is. And all this talk, well, the
grants will let us put it in there. That's just not true.
I'm just saying I want to see in writing from the state, you cannot pay for the insurance for all of
these employees. I don't think you're going to see that. But if that be the case, then we just need
to spend a whole lot less money in that fund. And if we're going to pay for all the employee expenses of it,
I just think that it is crazy for us to allow that many employees grow into 1161 and then say, oh, but
we can't pay any expenses for it. That's just how crazy it could be. Because that self-insurance is
killing us, folks. It sure is. Any of their own self-insurance in there? Is that right?
I saw the auditor's office move their microphone really low, so you all go for it. I think we both have
some comments. So we, my team and I met with the health department, it was a couple years ago when the
Health First Indiana first came about. The state took issue with
the way that the county budgets for self-insurance. We budget per position. So regardless of if the
position is filled, we are budgeting per position because we are expecting that position to be filled
at some point. So from their perspective, they want to see every dollar go toward their core services.
Pardon me. I need to interrupt. Teams, just shut down on me again. Oh. OK. All right. Well. Quick seat.
Take a bathroom break, or?
We can, we'll recess for about 10 minutes. Okay. It just came back up. Okay, well then nevermind.
And action. Okay, go back. Okay, so we met with an official from the Indian Department of Health, a
couple of them actually, and they indicated because of the way the county budgets
and we were struggling to fill positions at the time that it wasn't appropriate to budget self insurance
in that HFI fund, which is the 1161 fund. I believe we do have communication back and forth by email.
It has been a couple years, so I'll have to check. We can reach back out and see if their position has
changed. I don't think it will have unless there's been turnover at the state.
I don't disagree with that. They're saying, we don't want to pay for insurance for people that we don't
have. I get it. That's what I'm saying for 1159. We don't want to pay for self-insurance for people
we don't have over in 1161. So I just think that as that position is filled, then you fill in the expenses
of it, and it all comes out of 1161, and we shouldn't be
And saying that we have, I'm making up a number, 18 positions ready to fill over there. We need to make
sure that we know, if we did five positions, what the cost would be. As we add them on, keep adding
them on to 1161. Because we can vote on that 1161. I do not believe that has to happen right now. What
we have to do is
vote on the 1159 and I do not think we should include self-insurance for all those folks that aren't
even hired yet. I was going to pivot to an underlying issue.
I was going to comment on the self insurance. The way the county budgets and works with our vendors
to budget for insurance, it's broken down per position. So we rely on every dollar of the funding per
position. That's the way it's calculated. So we'd have to change our whole philosophy in order to not
scoop all of the money that is put aside budgeted for this for the insurance program. Every time we
have people on on
We've been through this before. For all the grant positions, that's why we're in trouble because we
keep pulling all the grant positions insurance into our self-insurance fund. The levy fund that is health,
which is $1,159, that's our levy fund. It's not that unhealthy. It's only underwater to the tune of $349,000.
That's still a lot of money. I want to make that clear. That's a lot of money. But it's not millions
of dollars. So I think in answer to my co-deason's question of where do we go, I really want to stay
in 1159 and try and find. That would be my number one priority is look at that number. Because that
quantifies, I think, where we need to be working with them at that $349,000 level. Take the ban out.
mobile thing out that happens here right there it's it's a one dollar okay we have to change if we should
decide to remove that so they have more cash at the end of the year which then carries it forward to
next year we would have to bring that up at a meeting and and disappropriate unappropriate that half
million for the van that's what the state's already told us what we're supposed to do if we're going
to try to carry your money over
to begin at the end of the year, to begin next year. And then if later that's decided we can afford
to do it, we can do it. But we need to just take it out of the appropriations for this year and change
the forming. That would be my suggestion. I don't know if others had a comment, but I was going to wrap
that part up, Madam President, for my end. Go for it. We're good? OK. So I think what I would expect
to have us bring back,
Councilor Iverson and I have been talking to the three-headed leadership we have now. We're going to
work through that. I would expect there are going to be positions they're going to ask to eliminate.
I think they're already signaling some of those. I know the Board of Health needs to meet still and
talk about their decisions, so I don't want to get ahead of them. And I hear the comment about community
partnerships and if there are opportunities that could be MOUs instead of staff. And I would share,
I think, this is, you know,
crystal ball activity here that we're still going to see the health department come to us with changes.
But I think the changes we're going to start seeing may move us in the direction that many in the community
have asked for. I know we had a former board member reach out to a few of us indicating that they wanted
to see more public health dollars spent in the community. One way to do that is to actually move this
money into the community. I know my colleague, Councilor Deckard, has spoken in his
his parlance of the idea of health and all strategies, we can't get there if we don't have the means
to do it. But if we have a board of health willing to move some stuff around and we have some ideas
that we already can take to them in 1159, that's helpful. Please do reach out. I think that we'll probably
see them a few times between now and the end of the year. Yeah. Yeah. And we'll see them this coming
Tuesday for an ask as well. So, okay.
Seeing no other further questions or comments about other departmental budgets, I'm going to go back
to the auditor, like we said from the beginning, and look at total. Yeah. Because originally we were
saying that we would go through reductions, and then we want to come back and look at the four Bs. Yes.
We can take a look at those. I don't know what your appetite is for a brief
so we can update the spreadsheet with the reductions that you've already made tonight, the 4B spreadsheet,
it would be easier to then, you know, see accurately where the budget actually is. So we can have the
levy support that. So would a 10 minute break be okay or? Yes, I just need to make sure my numbers match
with Kim's numbers before we proceed. Okay, so let's just do, let's come back at 640.
So let's come back to 6 40. Um, give them an opportunity to compare and contrast and then, um, we can
have that final look at everything. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. You're very welcome. So we are
in a recess until 6 40. All right. So let us go back to our meeting here. Um, so last time we left off,
uh, we needed Michelle and this
Woodruff to kind of look at numbers and compare the four B's. And so I'm going to look to Ms. Woodruff
and take it away. All right. I'm going to share my screen here.
added the amount into the general fund. All righty on the screen before you.
should see this updated simple calculation. What we did is we just made adjustments to this budget column
to account for the changes that occurred live. These still need edited. So these are on the fly numbers.
If we got them wrong, our apologies. We did our best. And that being said, these also don't match the
gateway form 4Bs at this point.
Great. Anybody have any? Is there any way that we can make that a little bit bigger? If you want to
send that to me, I can go print some. I would like that the best. I would not. I'm sorry. God,
I keep talking. Who would like a physical copy? Eventually. If you do it, yeah.
Okay, so somebody is going to go get this printed for those who celebrate trees. So, okay. Anybody have
any other questions?
questions or anything else to add. Ms. Woodruff? Sorry, it's just making me re-authenticate to be able
to see the document. I thought I saw your hand. Okay. Mr. Iverson. So I think it's nice that this is
on the screen. It's nice that we're getting it printed off. The comparison is drastic with what we just
did. And I think that that does bear a little bit. So we now see that cumulative capital development
is... Oh, what happened there?
Yeah, that's crazy. Community capital development now is in the black, right? So it's in positive territory.
That's really healthy. So that means that that's wonderful. And then I think once we get the screen
back to landscape view, that subtotal for the levy funds is now under
a million dollars. That's fantastic. We started the night where the subtotal for levy funds was $2,441,909
and now it's $500,000. That's good work, folks. Yay, us. I guess it is pending on Commissioner's action.
Oh, yes. Yay, them. Yes, Councilor Haas.
Okay I'm trying to figure out what you're doing but in each of the levy funds we need to look at the
entire 4B like if you're looking at county general you look at just county general and what we're looking
for what we're trying to find is the ending balance the balance at the end of 2027 because
That's what we're voting on is what's going to happen for 2027. And remember that balance for 2027 has
to carry you through until the end of June 2028. So even if you're not in the red, it still might not
be enough to carry you through for half of a year.
That's what we're supposed to be doing is making sure that we don't end up without the revenue to start
because remember when we get our December payment, you know, when we get that adjustment in December,
that money has to carry us through until the end of June unless it's income tax which comes in more
regularly.
but on the lines that we're counting for property tax, you've got to make sure that that bottom line
carries you through to June of 2028. Is that what we're doing? Because that's not what I was hearing.
Maybe I didn't understand what you were saying. Go for it. We have made progress toward that. Correct.
We have some issues, and I think
we could go through right now and look at columns H and I to see exactly what needs to be tweaked because
we're at a point where we could continue to look at reducing budgets or we can turn to redistributing
levy and that this would be
And to put a finer point, I think, on between what the three of us are saying is now that we've reduced
that subtotal for levy funds and we've gotten things closer to breakeven point, it's going to make that
levy distribution a little bit easier. But I will say, I don't think that we should redistribute the levies
I'm nervous about doing that before we talk with the commissioners about the edit funds. Yes, I would
think that would be better. I would want to find out from the auditor timing-wise if that works for
them. Can I ask a question?
Everybody's been doing it, it's okay, just jump in. So, Councillor Hawke's point then is if we, and
this is very kind of macro, but if we look at... I apologize for the interruption, but the audio feed
has been muted. It needs to be fixed in the NatU Hill Room. I'm gonna... I said such wise things.
All right, Council Member Wilts, would you like to say what you were saying? Better now? Yeah, I think,
right, TSD, it's picking up what we're saying. Correct. All right, thank you. Thank you for fixing that.
Okay. Yeah, thanks. So if we look at general fund, just start with the top line there, and we compare the
the estimated cash balance, which is in column I, so that'll be at the end of 2027, that's 33 million,
right? Yes. Correct. Roughly then, if we go back to what the 2027 total expenses are, and you're saying
we need half of that to, we need to be able to cover half of our 2027 expenses,
And you've got to remember, we've got miscellaneous revenue coming in, too. So I thought that's what
FSG had given us a balance that we should be looking at. I mean, if we want to see foreign deficit,
we look at what the total revenue is for the year, and we look at what the total requests are for the
year. And if we're requesting to spend more than we are bringing in, then you're operating in deficit.
And that means we're spending down our cash, which we could do until it's gone. And I'm not
saying particularly which fund we're talking about. I'm saying each fund we look at, we should see if
we're spending in deficit. And we should see if the cash that we have lent, if we have spent it down
more each year than what is sustainable.
And we have that information. What we are missing in this part is the miscellaneous revenue by fund.
Is that right? So I have the miscellaneous revenue hidden right now, but we have two tools that are
in your binder that might be really helpful. The first, I believe, is going to be item number three,
and that's FSG's target fund balance. Those are the same as last year's minimums.
The auditor's office also did an analysis and we determined what we believe would be the minimums that
the county would need to abide by. So those are even more conservative than what FSG has published.
That is item number four in your packet. In this document, you'll see in column M, we have the auditor's
minimum fund balances. And that takes into consideration the ebbs and flows that we saw in 2025, as
far as expenditures and revenue goes. Please, Ms. Gregory.
Thank you, if I may just interject as well. I just want to remind you the FSG targets are meant for
the public and just easy targets to meet. We should never get to those amounts. We won't be able to
sustain, we won't be able to pay our bills. So that's why we did a thorough analysis and identified
an internal minimum that we should really look at and that will fluctuate year to year. Councilmember
Wilts. And my question then becomes just to verify,
that the minimum fund balance that you're recommending is um is enough to support half of the year's
budget it per you know per counselor hawks comments that would be fine and that and you know we use
the 2025 numbers that was the full the last full year we had obviously to analyze and determine
the minimum we would need to carry us through to the first settlement. So that takes into consideration,
you know, ebbs and flows with revenue. We might not get it on time as anticipated, or we might have
an invoice before we anticipate it, things like that. So may I continue? Yeah, please. And then we'll
come over to. Oh, I'll defer. I was talking. All right. Council Member Hawke. I'm just saying, and the
Auditor's Office would know better by looking at
you know, the past history, whether or not some of those big ticket items come in at the first of the
year, and maybe we need to adjust it and pay it at the end, you know, the last half of the year. But
that June 30th settlement that we get in June 30th, that has to carry you through the whole rest of
the year because that December settlement is for the next year. It's not for this year. Yeah.
So would you then recommend that line by line we compare column I with column M. That would be a good
starting place. We don't want to be at the minimums for all the funds because if an additional appropriation
is approved then obviously that would bring down the cash balance.
But that would be a very good starting place. OK, I see some issues. I see some alarming issues. Can
you talk me off the ledge here a little bit? I need help. I'm scared. I looked at what we just said,
and I'm seeing that we are not there. So we're aware that the levy does need moved around.
and we're happy to work with you on that. The numbers that you see in column D are where we have the
levy set right now. So that's the revenue we'll bring in for property tax.
So if you want, we can start playing with these. We're not changing anything officially on the 4Bs.
Nothing about what we're doing right in this moment is official, unless obviously you make it official.
But this document is intended to allow us to play around with these numbers and see how changes are
impacted. I think that would be great. And I just want to reiterate that point. What you're about to
see on the screen is for illustration only. We are just showing what is potential
This is what we're doing. This is illustration only. So for example, if I were to move the levy in the
reassessment fund from 800,000 and change to, let's say, a million, we can see how that impacts the
property tax cap, the ending balance,
the deficit and then we can also compare that to the minimum fund balance required which this one was
a bad one to choose because it doesn't have a minimum fund balance established. But we could do the
same thing for example in the election fund we can move that to five hundred thousand and you can see
that we're getting closer to that minimum.
And for illustration, if you made election even higher, you can see how that then changes the blue column
or column I and how that impacts column M or the minimum fund balance column. So when we talk about
redistribution of the levies, this is what we're talking about. Correct. And you can redistribute those
levies within the cells all the way to the left that have yellow.
So the general fund, election, reassessment, health, and aviation. Okay. Council, any questions or comments?
I don't like doing math in public.
But I think that we need to take some action here, whether it's hearing maybe a proposal and reacting
to that or jumping in with knives and forks.
We could play around with this illustration and use our time tonight to do that and come up with a couple
scenarios where it's all balanced out. I just want to point out, again, a lot of this does depend on
the commissioners taking action on the edit agreement. So if we're going to play around with
this illustration, I would like to set a time limit
Again, we're using public dollars in a public setting and I just want to make sure that we're being
good stewards of other people's time as well. Should we proceed or should we move on with our agenda?
I have a question.
Yeah, I'm a little lost in our calendar. How many more cracks at the whip do we have at this between
now and adoption? I mean, by way of meetings and time. You can make changes following the public hearing.
So we have some time to play with. Because I agree with Councilor Wilts. We could do math on the fly,
and then we could fix it the next time we meet. So I think getting this concrete might bring a solid
proposal back rather than trying
solve it tonight might make sense to me if we have some opportunities ahead, but we've got to use those
opportunities. Yeah. Yeah, I think that's... And I would remind council that the auditor's office has
emailed this spreadsheet to you, and in your spare time, you can play around with column D and come
up with your own scenarios. Council... Yes, council member Hawke.
through this, trying to find the paperwork I wanted to look at. I, for one, had concerns about the part
of the budget that's covered by the assessor's office. And so it looked like, for that reassessment,
to me, when I was looking at it, it did not look like it was carrying forth enough of a balance
for that upcoming year after that. And so I'd like for us to run through those numbers and you show
me why I'm wrong. Because I'm not saying I'm right. I'm just saying it was something that I thought
made us look like we're running short. Now, maybe the legislation has changed, but it was, had been,
that if you run out of money in one fund,
You can borrow from the other fund, but you had to pay it back in the same year. Is that still the case?
OK, that's still the case. So anything where we've got expenses, then we may have to make sure that
that is going to carry us through until the bottom line is going to carry us through until mid-2028.
Do you see that? You want to pull that up? Is there a way you can pull up just right now of just the
reassessment? I'm working on pulling that up right now. I have so many that says county general. I guess
we keep changing.
I believe you're looking at this document. Well, I was when I was home, but oh, here I found it. OK.
So if we look at the history of what's supposed to be carried forward, what we see here is we are spending
in deficit on this thing, right?
the four B stands right now. That is correct. However, we are aware that the levy does need to be moved around.
And so an increase to the levy in this fund would result in either no deficit or a lesser deficit than
what is currently reflected on the 4B. OK. So thanks for sharing that with me, because I thought for
some reason the assessor felt like maybe she didn't have a problem. But I mean, they're not going to
remember. Department heads are not used to looking at these things.
That's up for us to understand, up to the auditors to understand. But the commissioners, the department
heads don't look at these. I mean, so. I don't think anybody should be surprised. I'm just looking at
it and you can see clearly on reassessment, you can see what the tax levy is minus the tax caps to show
the total revenue for this coming year, 774024, and the budget estimates 916640.
So if the budget is, and we don't want to end up with not enough money to pay our bills. And I do, this
type of detail is really important. And the information that's presented on the screen is the portrait
version of what we just had up on the screen as well.
So this has the same information as what you're, most of the same information as what you're seeing
on the screen. Except that it's so tiny, most people can't see. Except that it's- I am really envious
of your good eyesight. Well, it's my baby blues. So seeing nothing else. Okay, thank you.
Um, I am going to, um, because we're towards the end right now with a lot of this. Um, and there it's
clear that I was kind of actually shocked to see some of the people that are online. Um, and I, it dawned
on me when I was coming in and I saw my email, why folks were on line.
because it's the L word that everybody is looking to figure out if that's something that we are going
to be talking about. And that's longevity. I'm going to say the following. I'm not interested in having
the longevity conversation for the 2027 budget.
And that sounds kind of harsh when I say I'm not interested I am very much interested in that because
obviously that has a lot to do with our general fund I remember distinctly last year We kind of went
in and I know folks want to you know put it out there and maybe not be the person to really kind of
take up ownership of putting it out there and voting on it and things like that, but I guess for me
personally I know we talked last year about bringing this up and
throughout the year and making sure that people are understanding that this is something that we were
going to be doing. I just feel like as council president, I don't feel like we are there just yet. I
know some people have a difference of opinions of, oh, well, maybe we have been saying that.
that we have, because in my mind, what I'd like to have done is to really have a conversation about
it in the spring and really kind of roll it out. I understand that my president's letter explained that
that was something that we were also going to be taking a look at. I just don't think that I'm ready
in prime time right now to talk about this for this year. So I understand that's maybe why folks showed
up online and some of the emails, but that's just my one little
So if anybody else wants to debate that, go ahead right now or make comments about it. But I just, yeah,
come at me, bro. But that's what I'm saying to that. So I think, I understand where people are,
you know, and trying to advocate for themselves with longevity. I also understand that right now,
that is a huge thing that we really do need to take a look at and tackle. And I know we keep talking
about it, but I don't think for the 2027 budget we're there yet. Yes, Council Member Henry. And President,
thank you for that. I do agree with that sentiment because if to do this right, we would have had to
have started this process quite a bit ago.
I do feel like it's a little deja vu all over again, because I think I said something like that last
year when this came up. The conditions haven't changed. I mean, we are still, I believe, the only county
or one of the few in the state that offer both longevity and step. That is not unchanged from last year.
We still have some challenges with managing this and thinking long term. But I also reflect on that
you're no longer in government and that if we're going to do things
like this that are change management challenges, right? We have seen parts of our government go about
change without putting it before the public, before committees, before work groups or whatever to get
that opinion before you move forward and make a decision and say this is the decision and live with
it. I think we'd have to build back from what date we think we would
roll out a new proposal and work our way back from that date to say, you know, are these working groups?
Are these public meetings? Are we taking survey data? Are we looking at that? You have to really do
this work, right? And we're not going to do that in the 30 days leading up to this vote, right, or so.
So I agree with you on that, but I would say if it is a serious conversation of how to reimagine our
total compensation and benefits to employees to make sure they're not feeling
trepidation when they hear the L word, as you just said, we're going to have to build a project around
that and work our way backwards. But that's a concerted effort. And if others are interested in that,
I think we do need to have that longer conversation publicly with our workforce and the community.
Thank you. Yes. To be clear, when this was mentioned at the long-term finance committee meeting,
One of the other things that we were advised to do was to put a pause on spending. Well, we tried that.
We saw how that worked. It didn't work. It just gave us really long meetings where people came and said,
don't do it. But one of the things that when we were talking about putting a pause, I said, well, rather
than just saying we're not going to have longevity, let's just, we've got two.
We've got longevity, and we have the step increases. And I said, as many different units are doing,
they're putting a pause. That doesn't mean that you don't have what you've acquired so far, but we're
just going to put a pause on any increases on that until we see where we are with the budgets. That
was better than saying we're going to just get rid of something. And it gave people some,
way to plan and prepare. But we haven't given them much time to plan and prepare. So I was kind of surprised
to see that was part of our discussion for this evening. But if it is, I mean, I'm willing to discuss
it. But I just think putting a pause on things is a lot better for the employees to know where they
stand than to say, here's this rug and we're pulling it.
Anybody else? Yes. Councilmember Decker. I think this is a discussion that has floated up twice in the
time I've been on the council. The first time it came up, we made a decision that we would maintain
longevity for those in the system and not add it on for those that weren't. I know there's people that
have all sorts of issues with that. I don't have that issue.
I think the reason that we struggle to ever have this as part of a discussion speaks to, I think, what
longevity does for a lot of our folks. And I think if you look back what we've done over the years,
we've had to try to do a variety of things. COLA increases. We've done retention during the post-COVID
years. We've done training. We've done
additional layers that we talk all the time about. Funding one position as one leaves, that was unthinkable
back in the day. And larger colas were unthinkable back in the day, if you kind of watch the county
historically. I think this is a hard discussion to have for counselors because it's a hard thing for
the county body generally. Sometimes when you're looking for economies
that you can make on where you save as you're trying to balance a levy or whatever we end up doing half
the time. I think sometimes the employee line is something that can be looked at, but there's a lot
of reasons that it is where you end up backing off. So I just don't see it here. I see the system that
we have sort of like our salary grid as a solution long-term that takes time.
But there's trepidation always on this because we always come back to where we get. Last year,
a year ago, that initial discussion that we had was extremely difficult for the county body. And I bet
we lost a lot of goodwill and sleep on every end of the discussion. And sometimes there's a reason for that.
You figure it out as you go. But I think that's why we keep getting back to this position. So I am not
in favor of that being a item here before us. I think there's something else in the works if we need
it. Great. OK. Anybody else? Yes, Councilor Henry. I'm going to put this out there. It's not a tonight
question, but it's one I'll revisit, I think, if we get into this this year. I think that was a really
interesting point in time that you described there.
But as each year goes on and we have new hires, those new hires don't benefit from that benefit. And
so the funnel gets, the math of it will get to a point where a smaller and smaller percentage of that
workforce enjoys the benefit compared to those that are not coming on and do not get that benefit. I
think that gap and maybe that animus we start to hear might get louder and louder. And I don't have
an answer tonight on that, but it's just the numbers do not,
suggest that this is going to go away and then we have to think about the retention of the modern workforce
that isn't benefiting from that. It's in the neighborhood of a long-term finance question. Anyway, I
just share that. But I think we're going to need the data on it, which is what I'm saying. I'll probably
be digging for data to say, show me year in and year out how that
where that decline is, or maybe folks are staying 40 years and keeping that, and they're never leaving,
and they're taking their longevity in steps as they go. I don't know what the answers are to that, but
that would be a key piece of data I'd need before we could go on with it, but that's it. No. Well, yes,
Councilor Wilts. I think we've talked about it more than twice in the past eight years that we've been
on council, actually.
discussed it as part of the WIS study when it was first recommended, and I have brought it up repeatedly.
And when we agreed to have a long-term finance committee, it was part of what long-term finance was
going to look at was the expenses and benefits related to personnel and how best to manage those in
a way that is sustainable.
And I fully appreciate that this is not something we're gonna act on tonight. That's 100% fine. And
I do hope that, whether it's Long-Term Finance Committee or something else, that we do pull that data
that Councilor Henry's referring to and take a close look, because I feel that
even more so now that we've stopped the benefit for some and kept it for others, it's a very inequitable
system. And the money that we save doing that could be applied to a COLA that would benefit everybody.
We could just do that at any point in time. Say, okay, take that, redistribute.
That is a reflection of kind of how I value things. I get that, and that's not how everyone looks at
it. But I think it's more than just flipping a switch, yes, no, on valuing employees. It's much more
complicated, and it does deserve some consideration and outreach to those affected. So I appreciate
that. Yeah.
Thank you. And the only thing I'll add to that is I appreciate the conversation that we've had. Obviously,
this longevity affects people in many different ways. As we saw last year when we talked about it, I
think we got a lot of reasons why people thought that we should not do away with it. And I think for
me, for that particular reason, because so many people, there are quite a few people that depend on it.
I'd like to have a rollout and an ongoing conversation. So hopefully it would be in the best interest
of us late this year or early next year to talk about what that future holds. And that could be something
that we could do with long term finance. But really make sure that we are driving this into people.
This is the way that we are going. But it sounds like nobody wants to.
have that as a discussion for the 2027 year. Yes. And I will just say for those of you who are interested
in data, long-term finance did go over some data. I think it was the second quarter meeting. I believe
June 30th. Yeah, so if you're interested in knowing what the data is, go back to CATS, go back to and
watch that meeting because that'll give you all the data you need.
All right, well, are there any other further questions or comments? All right, seeing none, oh, sorry,
Councillor Feinstein. I look forward to some sort of resolution that we can live with for the long haul,
whatever that is, and a well-respected way to look at it all that values everyone, whether they're new,
or long term employees who currently receive it. But I do think there's an inequity there that just
doesn't feel quite comfortable. Sure. Yeah. I concur and definitely agree with that. Okay. Well, council
members, that concludes seven crazy nights that equated to three weeks of budget. Again, as we mentioned,
public hearing is October 6th.
The final adoption is October 20th. However, before then, we get to have a nice little conversation
related to budget, which is at our regular session meeting this upcoming Tuesday, but we are adjourned
for the 2027 budget presentation hearings.