- would like to call to order Monroe County Board of Commissioners work session for Thursday,
- December 4th. And the first item, I don't, Mr. Schilling's not here, but you have it. Okay, thank you.
- We had one, I think it was when they were mowing, one of our highway workers damaged a fairly sophisticated
- gate. And so this is to,
- to settle with that for the repair cost of what was damaged. And we need a motion? Yes. I move to approve
- the settlement agreement between Monroe County and Marion Reeves in the amount of $7,495 for replacement
- repair of the automatic gate control panel. Second. We have a motion. We have a second. Questions? Comments?
- Any public comment on this item?
- see none. All those in favor of approving the settlement agreement with Marion Reeves, signify by saying
- aye. Aye. Motion carries. 3-0. We send our apologies and deepest regrets. All right. Next we have is
- Ms. Nestor Jelen present. Oh, she is. She's online. Ordinance 2025-44.
- Thank you so much. I'll keep it quite brief. I'm hoping to send this to the regular meeting
- of the commissioners if there's room on the agenda for the 11th. But this section that was in the packet,
- this gives a good overview of what this ordinance change includes. So this is the itemized list of what
- is being changed
- Without going into too much detail, basically, we are correcting some Scrivener's errors. There was
- a house bill that was passed that impacted stormwater that then required us to go back through and make
- some changes to our code. Then just in using the code, we've realized that things are being prompted
- or triggered in areas that don't necessarily make sense. For instance, we're removing a requirement
- for a trigger for sidewalks on this certain corridor that we have on our alternative transportation
- map. As a side note, we're also working with Parks and Rec and the Highway Department to update our
- transportation map so we get the sidewalk requirements right.
- But with that, I can take any questions you might have about some of these changes. I did strike through
- this other text amendment at the top. This was presented to the plan commission, so I just wanted to
- be transparent in some of the changes. This is an ordinance that's still in front of the plan commission
- and could be forthcoming, but was not yet passed on to the commissioner. So this is the only text amendment
- before you.
- Thank you so much. Any comments, questions at this moment? No, I don't. Okay. So thank you. And so we
- have a little reading to do. And anyone with questions can contact Director Jelen. Thank you again for
- all your hard work. And we can put this on the agenda for December 11th. Okay, okay.
- So we will do that. Ms. Freeman will take that note and she will add this to our agenda. We appreciate
- it. And thank you again for your patience and waiting around and all of the changes we've done to our
- own schedule today. So thank you for that. Absolutely. Thank you. Thanks. All right. Next item is the
- capital improvement plan for economic development income tax.
- Um, we do hopefully still have members of council here. Um, and again, yeah, today's been out of our
- control. We've just been rolling with it. So if, um, council members could be made into presenters,
- um, I will ask, uh, first and foremost, uh, Mr. Cockrell to explain why this is something we have to address.
- I think I included in the packet the last year's or the 2022 plan that covered 2023 through the end
- of this year. So our current plan expires at the end of this year and then I also included the statute
- that requires us to have a capital improvement plan for and this is for economic development income
- tax purposes. So the statute with economic development income tax says you have to have a plan. The
- plan has to
- account for at least seventy five percent of the revenue that is coming into to the county during the
- time of that plan- and I calculate- we're gonna get a twelve million three hundred and forty six thousand.
- In twenty six that's what was estimated by the the state and we're double that to twenty four- six nine
- two so three quarters of that is basically eighteen and a half million.
- put together a plan that includes spending at least 75% of that. It's kind of awkward because we're
- only gonna get two years worth of revenue in this at this point in time. So you could have a 10 year
- plan, but it still has to have the 18 million. That's the requirement of what you're going to receive.
- We do have a fairly healthy cash balance in there. So if you wanted to go above the 24.7 million,
- that we are expecting to collect in the next two years, I think that would be acceptable as well, because
- we need it in the plan so that it can be expended for those purposes. I guess the purpose of the plan
- is that the executive kind of puts guardrails on what these expenditures can go for, and then the council
- appropriates it within that scope. And so that's kind of where we're at. I guess I would note that I
- think the county council appropriated right around four point
- six, seven million in this last year. So our plan could include a project that says for operating expenses
- and include that number in it. Clearly, our last plan said we're going to use it all for the justice
- facility. And that's what we all thought was going to happen. And we don't have a timeline for what
- that's going to do. And the code requires a timeline. Right. OK.
- And so are there any council members present online? Okay, great. So we're just looking for council
- input on what you would want in this plan and what timeline goes on it. Well, thank you commissioners.
- Can you hear me all right? We sure can.
- Great, thank you so much. You know, there's been a lot of unprecedented things happening at the state
- level, which we just did not see coming. And we, so what we're asking for, I think here and other council
- members will join. I clearly only speak for myself, not for the entirety of council, but we would be
- looking for maximum flexibility as this is one of the tools in our fiscal policy toolbox.
- As you very well saw, as you were following our budget process, you saw that we used this to help balance
- the budget for this year and ensure that we had. Am I good to go? Yes, we can hear you. Okay. All right, great.
- And just wanted to make sure that as we are talking with all of the department heads for the upcoming
- budget cycle into FY27, that we do have that maximum flexibility and as many tools as possible in our
- toolbox. Just wanted to thank Mr. Cockrell for outlining some ways forward and those sounds like
- I think good good ideas and I would just again say that the number that we put in last year may not
- be the number that we have to put in in the coming year or years. So flexibility is really the the keyword
- here. But but I guess the point is that we need to have a plan for 75% of the total at it coming in
- over two years and
- And while we understand the 4.6, et cetera, million that you all allocated out of edit for budgetary
- items for county general-ish for county operations, that's not 75%. So the question is,
- And just to clarify, and Mr. Cockrell, correct me if I'm wrong, if we don't have a plan, then that money
- can't be spent. So we need to have a plan. So the question is, what is the council planning, Mr. Cockrell?
- And I think that's part of it. The other part of it is that the funding that is associated with that
- gets put into a
- a separate account by the treasurer that can't be touched until we create a plan. And if we don't create
- the plan within three years, then that money gets distributed to the other taxing units. So there's
- a little bit more to it than just you can't spend it. You put future revenues in limbo. So, and I think,
- Mr. Cockrell, you had a series of other suggested
- um options um since I don't know that that the council wants a justice center so um if the plan is not
- yeah let me speak yeah yes please Mr. Iverson I do want to speak to the idea of a justice center in
- the in the the votes that the council took unanimously earlier this year uh we still recognize the need
- for constitutional care
- for every single inmates here in Monroe County. And we certainly understand that our staff and anybody
- working for Monroe County deserves to be working in an environment that is conducive to that work and
- is free of any environmental hazards. And so we certainly want to move forward with some type of action
- that addresses those two concerns. But at this point, as we articulated,
- many times, the state has really tied our hands by only allowing us to spend 25% of that lit. And so
- whatever we can spend on, you know, it's really hamstrung legally in terms of being able to spend on
- justice issues. It's not that the council doesn't want to. And I invite my colleagues to jump in anytime.
- It's really, if there's anything you all want to add.
- I understand that, but I think a vote on a property purchase that says we want to wait and see what
- the state's going to do is different than no. And it was a no and it wasn't a postponement.
- And then I heard, oh, we don't like the site. We don't want it so big. We don't want this. We do want
- that. I heard a lot from different council members about what they wanted. And so I don't know that there's
- a path right now and again it has we need to put a timeline in the plan and we can just you know and
- this plan can be updated yes i mean i hear what you're saying but that's not what the vote was the vote
- was no and and if it's different property if it's different it's not
- and see what the state's going to do, if they will help us, if they will amend SEA 1, what they're going
- to do. So I think we're a little flummoxed because we don't know what to do with the plan. Like, what
- plan should we put out there? Do we just say all of it goes to the justice center? Is that what the
- council would want?
- I'm gonna repeat what I had said just earlier and I see that my colleague David Henry has his hand raised.
- Right now, because we have the humility to say we cannot tell what's coming in the future, is to say
- we need flexibility in this plan to be able to address some of the fiscal choices that we have to make.
- David, what do you wanna chime in on that? Mr. Henry?
- And I had just hopped in, so I'm getting caught up. So it sounds like where I'm at is we're discussing
- the mix on what to present as a two-year, three-year plan, capital improvement plan, is that correct?
- It's 2026 and 2027.
- Because the lid in 28 of course I just want to make sure it's clear we're only getting revenue in 20
- right now in 2026 and 2027 right the plan has to be at least 2 years long.
- it there in the statute does not give a maximum amount of time that the plan can be for so it could
- be for five years but really the revenue is only coming in those two years so i just ah i just want
- to clarify got it and so and so and so i understand it too because we already have revenue we've collected
- we want to protect the revenue that we have and and designate its use right so it's not just the incoming
- revenue it's the 20 million
- present a plan and make sure that plan is up to date. Is that correct? I may answer Mr. Cockrell. Right.
- Yeah, Mr. Cockrell, you can repeat maybe what you'd said at the outset. The plan has to include 75%
- of the revenue coming in. It could include every dollar we're going to get and every dollar we've already
- received, but the minimum standard is 75% of the revenue that's coming in.
- and so that is I would I would yeah I mean I have I have a proposal I've not really discussed with my
- peers but I I view this as a technical fix and I feel like um the plan as is obviously also has a price
- point for the jail and justice center of 100 million that's no longer accurate anyway right because
- we're well past that based on the last design is presented and voted on by the board of commissioners
- right so it originally called for 100 million dollar
- plan for the facility now at the 225 and the plan was already kind of stale at that point anyway, once
- the price points move well beyond what the capital improvement plan called for, right? So to me, the
- technical fix is a discussion about what the new risk tolerance is for the cost of a jail and or justice
- center. And then an understanding that the council
- did not commit more than 25% of the edit to balancing the budget under Indiana code for lawful purposes
- that are allowed, like the economic development things that we use the edit for when we balance our
- budget for next year. So I think there's something about identifying, and Mr. Cockrell, maybe you have
- some language we can use that says that no more than 25% of the edit will be used for allowable purposes
- under Indiana code for
- or economic development activity, which is what council did, right? Which is what we did with the budget.
- And then the balance could be still reserved out for the Jail and Justice Center, but that price point,
- we need to come to an agreement on what is our risk tolerance based on the SCA-1 and projected revenue
- over the next two years, of course, which we don't have, right? Does that make sense in the room? I
- know it's one of those echo chamber situations where I'm talking and it's the voice of God in the room here,
- Does that make sense to people in the room that you can hear me with that? I've got a couple points
- I want to make because I don't I don't want people to think that the 100 million was the total project
- cost ever for that was provided in the previous plan. That was a plan for 100 million of that money
- to go toward the creation of
- the justice center. That was never the budget. That was what was coming out of edit for two years. That's
- the budget. That's all. That was never presented as so so people should not think that suddenly,
- you know, the whole budget of the projects balloon because it's not 100 million. 100 million was a number
- that was used based on potential edit revenue and creating a plan. So don't take that 100 million to
- be any more than what that is, which is just
- a plan for a hundred million dollars of the total project. Well, we're respectfully, especially in that
- point, um, the, the, the edit has never gotten close to generating a hundred million in that revenue,
- right? In a two year period. So, so that was a pretty generous estimate that we'd be able to generate
- that level of revenue off of the edit in a three year plan. But what I'm saying is please do not say that
- that was ever the budget for the entire project because it never was. Not here anyway. It was to say
- 100 million will go toward the justice center from this project. So Mr. Cockrell, do you have anything
- you want to add? Well, I guess I don't know if I need to add it, but I think I'd like to make sure I
- understood what Mr. Henry had said.
- I think what Mr. Henry had said is that the council this year and I think into the future would like
- to have 25% of the edit funding go towards operational costs and then the remaining part be allocated
- and this is where I kind of lost it a little bit because I don't know if it was towards the justice
- center or there has to be some kind of risk analysis
- that would include what we think the state's gonna do, and I would say, and what we think the building's
- gonna happen in the building, I think that's part of the risks that I would look at. But I don't know
- if that was, and then allocate at least 50% per year towards that project and have 25%, and then you
- hit your minimum, and then you could amend it later if it goes beyond that or not.
- I heard the 25%. I thought pretty clearly. It's just what was beyond that. I guess that's what I heard.
- But I'm not confident that I heard it correctly. Right. And to be clear, I don't believe the council
- has made a decision as a group about what they want. But our problem is this isn't just a technical
- fix. This is something where we reach out to the council to say, we're trying to be partners in this business.
- of county government with you and there is something that we're required to do and we're not just going
- to build guardrails without talking to you first but now we're getting pushback like we've done something
- evil we've done something to retaliate for something i don't know what no we're trying to make sure
- that this money is available and so we want to know how the council wants this
- plan to read for the next two years. And again, it can be updated. But we need to put something out
- there. Because if we don't, we need to put something in a plan that covers 75% of the perceived potential
- revenue for two years. Because if we don't, then that money is going to sit in essentially an escrow
- account until we figure it out. And so we'd really like to do this before the end of the year. And I
- know that council is going to be meeting next week.
- I don't feel comfortable proceeding. And I do appreciate both of you being here, by the way, Mr. Henry,
- Mr. Everson. I personally don't feel comfortable writing up a plan without having that council input.
- I mean, and I don't, I don't know.
- doesn't want us doing it without their input. What does that input need to look like in terms of format?
- I would just really like a list of what they think the income is going to be and what the 2026 spending
- would be based on the estimated revenue. And we know one thing, which is the 4.6 million, which is going
- toward county operations. But we need the rest.
- you know, and it's up to us to okay that. I mean, it's not necessarily a rubber stamp here, but certainly
- we're trying to get input so that we can do this in a way that fits with council's plans. And one of
- those things is, you know, when this edit was passed, it was done with an eye toward getting
- the justice center built. And if that's still the case, then we still should put a timeline in there.
- So I don't know if that answers your question. Yeah, I think Peter has his hand up to you. Yeah. Mr.
- Iverson. Thank you, Commissioner. I do want to try and reduce the temperature of this conversation a
- little bit as I think we're all on the same team here. And I think the real struggle is
- that the state is making things extraordinarily difficult for us. We deeply appreciate this opportunity
- to have this conversation in public. And I think both Mr. Henry and I deeply appreciate the opportunity
- to be able to speak on this important topic. I know the other counselors wish they could be here, but
- schedules and whatnot. I do think that council can come up with revenue and expenditures and we can
- have those
- ready in pretty decent time. And, you know, as you've watched our proceedings, there are some really
- big ticket items, costs and expenditures that we are perennially discussing. Ituminous, self-insurance,
- there's there's lots of and the list goes on and on i don't want to list all of all of those those items
- but there's quite a bit of specificity that we can get into in terms of some of the larger pressures
- on the budget and i i think that uh to your point uh commissioner uh we'll need another conversation
- um and you know we're we do have a meeting next week uh which is after your meeting um so you're meeting
- on the ninth
- We have a meeting on the 11th. We also have a meeting on the 18th. And we know that there's, you know,
- 4.7 million that we really need to put in this plan, but I'm not comfortable passing an incomplete plan,
- so I really don't want that money sitting in escrow in 2026.
- I'm just kind of, to put a finer point on it, if we could get something from the council sooner rather
- than later, that would be helpful, Mr. Cockrell. Yeah, and I would be remiss if I didn't say that I
- hadn't thought at least a little bit about this, particularly in the context of what are we going to
- do with the justice facility? I kind of assume that that, what would I do if that was off the table?
- And so I came up with a list of three or four things.
- you guys can do whatever you want with it. One is that we've been perennially talking about an airport
- terminal building, which is a $20 million, and I guess part of this is truly, I was thinking about it
- as an economic development thing. And so clearly one of the things in my list is the funding of the
- 4.68 million
- that was appropriated, I think that is. And then I also had, you know, we've talked a lot about housing.
- I mean, can we use the economic development money for expansion of a sanitary sewer? One of the things
- on my list, and I don't know if it still should be, because after this morning's news was funding,
- you know, annual funding for the transit and our transit issues. And then the last one is, you know,
- we are feeling the crunch. I think the state has made it clear that they are going to want a lot of
- consolidation and particularly a fire. And so would it make sense to use some of this money to help
- support and fund some of the initial upfront costs of fire consolidation, if that's the direction we
- go. The high capital costs, which are things like fire houses, fire and fire equipment. Yeah. Right.
- Okay. Would you be willing
- Council. Mr Cockrell to forward your list of thoughts and ideas if if you all are okay with it to the
- council so they can look at it and consider it. Um, really, you know, the transit issue is one that
- that needs to be addressed. It's going to be addressed on Tuesday, even though the agenda item could
- be dropped, but I'd still like to have that
- that's part of the agenda item to have a conversation about what are we gonna do about transit? And
- I did ask Bloomington Transit for some information on the 13 line. So I will have that hopefully in
- time for Tuesday so that we can have that discussion with council. So there's still transit for a couple
- of years that we still to deal with. So yeah, so if you wouldn't mind sending your list,
- to the council. What I'd like to do is I'd like to wait till after tonight's meeting at Steinsville
- and talk to Dustin to maybe flush out the fire stuff a little bit more and then send it to him tomorrow.
- I like that. Yeah. Does that work for you guys? Yeah.
- Mr. Henry? Yeah, I mean, I guess I put my hand up, though. I don't know. I think we're just in a discussion
- mode. So I think that's great. And some of these are new ideas that I'm hearing for the first time about
- alternative uses of the edits to fund economic development. I think all these are novel. And so I'm
- all ears as to how we can put taxpayer dollars to work that we've been holding on to for several years anyway.
- If it sounds like that's a little different than the spirit of the email that called for us to be here
- today, which was settling two parts of the plan, which was what to do about the justice center and what
- to do about the appropriations that were made by council for this year's budget. So if we're reimagining
- the whole CIP to include transit or opportunities for airport improvement,
- Yeah, this is a good conversation to have. So I look forward to taking this to our council colleagues
- and exploring other ways to put that money to economic use in the community. So I'm all ears with Mr.
- Cockrell's suggestions. I think that's all I really have today, other than, again, I think Mr. Thomas
- painted it correctly. This is one person's opinion in terms of what I've offered as to a technical fix
- to the plan. But I think we have an opportunity to reimagine the use here. So I appreciate that,
- thank you. And I do think,
- That's what we're hoping for, is to get some information. But I also think that if the decision by the
- council is to not include a justice center in whatever form or fashion it comes in, then I think you're
- sending a signal. And I think you want to think about that. And I'll just be as vague as that. Mr. Cockrell,
- did you have anything to add?
- Yeah, we do have more hands up, but yeah, I just want to see if you wanted to add anything. No, I think
- that's great. Okay. Mr. Iverson? No, I don't think I have anything constructive to add at this point
- other than I'm looking forward to working on all of these ideas and putting dollar figures next to them.
- And again, it can be revised, but I think we have to be very clear that taking the justice center off the table
- And I think that's where that point came from, is are we saying we're not going to put any money towards
- it, then what are we saying we're going to do? Because we need the edit money if we're going to proceed.
- And if the legislature changes things.
- So maybe we could even, could we do a plan, Mr. Cockrell? Let's ask it this way. Could we do a plan
- that says, if the legislature makes amendments as needed, we would like to spend the money on this.
- If they do not, this is how we'll spend the money. Can we do a plan A, plan B in the same document?
- I think you could have an explanation. Okay. Because right now, and I think our current plan has project
- one, project two. Yeah.
- I think you could have project one this and you could put in the kind of the preamble that project one
- is really important and that if there is an opportunity opened up by state legislation to accelerate
- that, then you would want to fully utilize the money for that. But if not, then project two, project
- three, project four, are things that you guys would be interested in. All right. What do you all think
- about that? OK. All right. So something else to think about. And you can add that into your notes. Hope
- Spring is eternal. Yeah. But we do have to have something so that the money can be used. And we're willing
- to hear, because these are ideas for other potential uses,
- But we're looking forward to hearing what the council intends, and that's how we're going to act. So
- are we good? Ms. Purdy. Sorry, I just wanted to share, because councilwoman Crossley has sent me a text
- saying she'd been trying to attend. She's had to change some schedules. I don't know if she's able to
- really still be on. So she just wanted to let you know that she was trying
- And she also understands that you have no control over how things went. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We certainly
- didn't. We did not intend for this. We have a hand raised. Hi. This is the public comment portion. This
- is Seth Mechler, Menor County resident. Sorry. Sorry, Mr. Mechler. There is no public comment on this item.
- Okay. Yeah, I just asked. This is just a work session. Sorry, I didn't know who you were because everything's
- veiled here on our end. I just saw initials. But before we take a vote on this, we will have public
- comment on it, as will the council, I assume, at their meeting. So there will be opportunity to offer
- input and public comment. We don't want you to miss out. But this is a work session, which is just sort
- of bandying ideas about it for the public to see.
- how the proverbial sausage is made. Thank you, sir. I don't see anyone else from the council on our
- list. Okay. And I do understand. Yeah, I mean, to this day, it's been totally out of our control, and
- you just kind of go with the flow. All right. We're going to end that part then, and Mr. Copperle will
- at some point tomorrow send council members
- some information about some additional items that we've talked through at various junctures in case
- you really don't want to work on a justice center. And thank you both for being here. I know the timing's
- been crazy, so thank you both. We have two more. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you. We have two
- more items, and we got to be out of here in eight minutes. No pressure. I'm going to make a motion to approve
- Signature on the official bonds for three elected officials, the sheriff, the recorder, and the auditor.
- Second. Right? Correct. That's it. We just got to do this and sign it. Just get your signatures. Great.
- Any public comment on this item? All right. All those in favor of approving the signatures on the three
- elected officials' bonds, signify by saying aye.
- Are you a yes? Are you a yes? Are you a yes? Oh, yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Sorry. We're going to have
- you do four things at once. This is our life. All right. Mr Cockerill, our last item, and we're going
- to do it. Yes. And the final item is our bonds got bid. The general obligations bonds got bid yesterday.
- bidder was people state bank at a 3.2% interest rate. We will need to accept that. That all that that
- bid. OK, I'm going to go ahead and make a motion to approve to accept people state banks as the lowest
- bidder for our geo bond at 3.2%. Second second.
- We have motion and a second. Any public comment on this item? You raise your hand in teams, come to
- the podium. Seeing none, all those in favor of accepting people's bank bid for the GEO bond, signify
- by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries 3-0 and we're adjourned. Thank you all, we did it.