WEBVTT 00:00:00.322 --> 00:00:20.542 - So good afternoon, everybody. And welcome. Today is Friday, the first day of August, 2025. And this is the Long-Term Finance Planning Committee. Here in the NatU Hill Room, we have counselors from the committee, rather, counselors Liz Spital and myself. Counselor Hawk is not 00:00:20.866 --> 00:00:49.118 - online or in the building. So not sure if she'll join, but we will make sure to acknowledge her if and when she shows up either way, virtually or in person. But since we didn't notice this for the council in case we had a quorum, we have counselors David G. Henry and counselors Trent Deckert as well to join us today. So welcome. All right. Next up, we will move on to 00:00:54.242 --> 00:01:22.590 - So next up, we will get up to the adoption of agenda. And we got something that we need to amend, which is item number three. We didn't get summary minutes, so we just need to strike that from the agenda before we adopt it. So all right. And so I will just ask, since it's just you and me today, 00:01:23.138 --> 00:01:52.958 - to adopt today's agenda, removing item number three, which is approval of summary minutes. So moved. Okay. All those in favor of adopting today's agenda as amended, signify by saying aye. Aye. Thank you very much. Next up, we will move on into, oh, fresh into the NatU Hill room is Councilor Marty Hawk. 00:01:55.298 --> 00:02:21.502 - All right, so next up we have on the agenda is item number four, which is the self-insurance item. And so I am going to look at Mr. Greg Garretus, and you can also introduce your guest that is here with you as we go through this. Welcome. Thank you. Hello. And good afternoon, and I have Trent with us from our office also. 00:02:22.114 --> 00:02:51.838 - here today, so our Tate, I'm sorry, I called him Trent. Trent, I'm sorry, since you showed up, I was like, okay, Trent's on my head. So Tate is from our office. So we have worked with, and I believe the auditor's office passed out a sheet and what we, is that correct, Brie? Do they have the sheet that you sent us? Everybody should have received that. 00:02:52.002 --> 00:03:19.998 - Okay. Okay. And so where we're setting up. Not in print. Is that right? When was that sent? So I can find mine. Yeah. And I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. I don't have a copy either. Trent and David wouldn't probably. If we could all use a copy and I dedicate for that. So this is once we get the sheet, then I can kind of go over it. 00:03:20.418 --> 00:03:48.414 - But this was attached and basically what we were trying to do is come up with the correct amounts for 2026 for the budget. And I think we've done that, Bree, at the $18,000 level. Is that what we've decided on? And that we are going to have a funding shortfall in 2025. And it's my understanding that 714,000. 00:03:49.474 --> 00:04:16.958 - is projected at this point, correct? So once you get the paper, you'll see that. And so we're going to go ahead and set aside in the reserve $2 million, right? And have the end of the year balance be around 1.5 for a total of 3.5. Now, Bree, it is my understanding that we're gonna 00:04:17.250 --> 00:04:40.126 - separate that in the rainy day fund, correct? So we're going to utilize rainy day as the as the surplus fund for self-insurance rather than have a separate reserve fund. Again, we have a separate reserve fund in other 00:04:41.026 --> 00:05:10.992 - and it's just a matter of when I see the State Board of Accounts face-to-face because they seem to be very busy, that we'll talk about that more because it is allowed. And I think the State Board of Accounts kind of wrote back an email and was giving you financial guidance, but there's reasons on why we make certain findings. And remember, it's not only for today, but it's just what this 00:05:10.992 --> 00:05:34.430 - committee is all about the future okay and the ratings and being able to tell the ratings agency as we do future bond issues you know that we're awesome and we're staying awesome and so that's what it's all about so so I think that's kind of where we're at unless there's something else Bri 00:05:34.786 --> 00:05:58.846 - Sure. The analysis that my team put together, it's on its way up. Jeff went to print. However, we updated those numbers as of yesterday, so we can kind of see where we're trending. So we'll pass that out shortly. I believe E. Sensenstein would like to address the self-insurance as well with her analysis as well. 00:06:05.090 --> 00:06:32.286 - Thanks. So I just wanted to let you all know. So we met with Angie and I met with our liaisons and we had this conversation about self-insurance, how it works, kind of what the funding is looking like for next year. We agree with Bree's analysis and what that looks like. But we just wanted to offer, if you have any questions about how any of it works, I shared some information with you about how self-insurance works. 00:06:32.546 --> 00:07:00.254 - have worked with. We have a consultant as well that helps us manage the insurance for the county. And so they've put together some numbers about what the trends are looking like. So we've got an aging population of employees. Those are the majority of our claims costs. Medical and drug spending over the past few years has increased. And so that's some of the information that we've shared with you also. 00:07:00.578 --> 00:07:30.544 - we got some questions about like, how many people are on our plan? What's the age of the employees, average age on the plan? Some of those things. So we do have our folks from Apex here today. If you have specific questions about the plan, I think Angie and I just wanted you all to know that this is something we monitor very closely and that we are trying to provide the best options for us to keep those costs low while 00:07:30.544 --> 00:07:55.326 - still giving really good health insurance to employees. Thank you. I'll open it up to the committee first to see if anybody has any questions about this item here. And then, of course, the other two counselors that have joined us as well if you all have any questions. 00:08:03.906 --> 00:08:27.934 - How much did this change since the last time we saw these numbers? Are there big differences and disparities? Can somebody reflect on that a little bit? If we can probably share a screen. I think Carly is jumping on here. This is the commissioner's version and we're only prepared to show you ours. 00:08:35.970 --> 00:09:03.934 - I guess maybe a question might be, are there any surprises based on new information we're talking about now? I think if we let APEC speak, they'll have some estimates that would tell us about what the future looks like. We can give data on the historical, but it's really hard without their professional input to analyze this information. 00:09:04.546 --> 00:09:30.046 - we're showing you based on trending and what we assume will occur. So, but we're gonna put that up as soon as we have the permission. Okay. And if we can allow the auditor's office to get permission to share screen and as they are doing that, if someone from Apex wanted to come up and speak to that particular issue. Question of me as well. And just to help the committee keep in mind, 00:09:30.274 --> 00:09:59.902 - that this is the number one cost that we're looking below payroll at all the other counties, and that some of them are rebidding because the costs are going up dramatically with something that we have to worry about and we have to keep a very close eye on. And we kind of, in a lot of counties, we get the monthly update because we never know. And so then making sure that the council's totally aware of 00:10:00.194 --> 00:10:29.566 - what's happening in the current year, because it'll switch on you really quick, as we just saw. And so, and then also being prepared for as the premiums escalate in the future and keeping up with what I call a, you know, a cost that we don't have much of a choice on. So, go ahead. And I know Council, I'll go to Council Hulk, and I know she had a question. Right. I think it's very important for us to keep an eye on 00:10:29.730 --> 00:10:55.294 - who all is in the plan. I know in some counties there's concern that maybe some appointed boards or something is in the plan. And I guess this might be more an E question. So we want, and also there's been some consideration of paying for some of the grant positions out of the general. So I think just talking about 00:10:55.970 --> 00:11:21.150 - the cost of how it's going up, we need to make certain that we don't have anybody that's not being covered, that perhaps we ought to choose not to. And that's a choice that would have to be made. And so that's really not an apex question. Sorry for all the chair shuffling. So I'll 00:11:21.282 --> 00:11:48.222 - Kind of address I think what Marty's saying first and your question too about surprises. I don't think there's anything that we can see currently that is a surprise to us. What happens in kind of our involvement with APEX is they do run reports monthly and they're sending those to us. But sometimes those are a little bit delayed because after the month ends, they're reviewing that information, they're letting us know who are some high cost claimants 00:11:48.322 --> 00:12:16.734 - that we see on the plan and how long we're expecting that claim to continue to accrue costs and what that looks like. It depends on the type of situation an employee or their family member is going through. And so we do monitor that. And I think right now, I don't know that there's, I mean, it's typical for us to see that kind of go up and down, but we're monitoring that. And I don't think there's any surprises in costs and what we're looking forward to. 00:12:17.186 --> 00:12:41.598 - Marty's question what was your first part of your question before the stuff about the grants about boards and and who's on the plan right so some of the information that came out to county councils was to to check and to make certain that we don't have anybody including the plan because some counties have in the past and we had in the past covered some 00:12:41.986 --> 00:13:05.022 - people who are just appointed boards and so forth. So do we have anything like that? We do not. Elected officials are covered and we have a benefits administration system and a company we work with. We input all full-time employees and part-time employees into that system, the systems program to only provide 00:13:05.218 --> 00:13:33.630 - access to enrolling in benefits to the people who are actually eligible. So that's how we monitor that. So a board member wouldn't be eligible to even enroll in benefits. I mentioned that because I think there's a recent ruling that says part-time elected officials do not automatically, if a county wishes to not to, 00:13:33.762 --> 00:14:01.854 - to provide that. I know there was a court case recently. We have done it because part of the legislation says if you're an elected official, there's no part-time. It's like they're all treated as full-time. So I know that's a debate that went on in court. I don't know whether we're looking at that or whatever. I just wanted to call that to our attention. So I don't know who answers that question. 00:14:02.018 --> 00:14:25.470 - We offer all elected officials benefits, but I think this is Bill from Apex, and I think he's got he works with a lot of counties. He can shed some light on that. Do you know where that do you know where that court case was? Yeah, it was Tell City, Perry County. So I'm Bill Sylvester with Apex Benefits. I'm here with Brandy Pardo from Apex. We I 00:14:25.570 --> 00:14:46.430 - I will say I have a partner of mine and I have we have we're the broker for 20 counties. We work very closely with David Baddorf and the Association of Indiana counties. So I am aware of this court case and what happened in Perry and Perry County was there was a ruling made that 00:14:46.626 --> 00:15:15.134 - that the commissioners get to decide which elected officials are offered benefits and which are not. And I believe it's based on the classification of the elected officials. Currently, and I believe this to be the case, commissioners get to choose who is a full-time elected official, who is a part-time elected official, 00:15:15.330 --> 00:15:41.406 - county, and this comes into play when we're talking about, God, I don't know, not necessarily commissioner, council, and auditor, but some of these things like the surveyor or the coroner, because some places it's hard to find somebody to become a coroner or a surveyor, and at some point they have to pull them away from their job and they 00:15:41.570 --> 00:16:11.486 - want to classify them as a full-time employee to make them eligible for benefits, something to that effect. So it gets convoluted. But I've had conversations about that. And yes, the commissioners can decide whether or not, currently can decide based on that court case, whether or not council members are offered insurance or commissioners are offered insurance. I also tell you that there will be other legislation that is 00:16:11.810 --> 00:16:34.942 - will be brought up if it starts happening that commissioners in different counties are parsing those out and making those decisions. And I know the AIC and the legislators will revisit that if things start happening with that. I don't know if that helps you or is that what you're asking for? 00:16:35.714 --> 00:17:03.102 - Just bring it up because I don't want anybody to think that we might have known something and just didn't discuss it. It just needs to be out there in the open. And that's all I have to say on that. Okay. Councilor Fido, I know you have a question or follow up. So I'm wondering if we know or can find out when the last time was our county commissioners made a decision about that particular issue here. 00:17:03.618 --> 00:17:26.590 - whether or not people were eligible. Yeah, we could find that out. But I mean, I've been here almost 10 years collectively, and I think it's been offered the whole time. I know that Perth was something of a discussion about 10 or so years ago. So I think that it's been a while that we've been offering that to all elected officials. Pretty long past practice, it seems. 00:17:27.522 --> 00:17:54.750 - So I wonder then if the commissioners might be interested in revisiting to have a discussion about it. I don't know. That's a good question. Okay. Now I wanted to pin it back to the auditor's office since they were able to share their screen. Thank you. Okay. So Ms. Woodruff updated this. So we have numbers I believe as of yesterday. 00:17:54.914 --> 00:18:24.542 - yesterday's totals. So you'll just see here, you know, receipts, expenditures, and projected ending balances based on the analysis at the current trend and projected. And then I think what you have up right now is showing the $18,000 budgeted per position. However, there's been some talk between 00:18:25.058 --> 00:18:52.478 - where we want to end the year at a $1.5 million cash balance. So in my opinion, I believe the understanding is one or the other, right? We could reduce the cost per position if we were to do an additional appropriation to have that healthy end of the year balance. Correct. If you put additional money in the fund in 2025, we could reduce that per employee 00:18:52.738 --> 00:19:22.526 - number for 2026. Either way, it's going to get us the same end goal. It will just give us a little bit more wiggle room to start 2026 off in a better spot rather than waiting until the end of the year to get where we want to be. Does that make sense? And regardless, there is still concern about end of year balance. We might need to do something regardless. And we're watching that carefully between our offices. However, 00:19:22.818 --> 00:19:37.566 - you know, depending on how the second half of the year goes, we're likely going to need to come to the council anyhow. Yeah, and I've talked to Angie and I talked to our liaisons about that specifically, and we will be planning to come for an additional appropriation to make sure that 00:19:37.858 --> 00:20:06.750 - we can pay everything for 2025. This was our first year doing this. We made some guesses about what those costs, and we tried to be conservative with that. And because of the rise in some of the insurance costs, we're going to need some more money to cover those things. Okay. And do you know when potentially you would come to the full council for this? At the September meeting. September. Yeah. Okay. Okay. 00:20:06.882 --> 00:20:34.910 - Your numbers include, I know part of the direction that came out was that some of the grant funds were going to be paid through your office and looked like it might be coming from county general. Those are all things that I think we need to take a look at because as we accept grants, we expect the grants to cover the expenses. So we wouldn't want the other people who are not hired through a grant to have to 00:20:35.074 --> 00:21:04.222 - pay extra for insurance to cover those that are in my opinion. I think that's a conversation you're going to hear during budget so the council office and my office have been working the past couple of weeks on reviewing everyone's 144 and and based on what they have determined they can support in their funds especially those grant funds they have allocated specific employees that 00:21:05.410 --> 00:21:26.942 - their salary gets paid out of a grant fund, some of those are being covered out of the general fund for the self-insurance purposes. And I do think it's probably a lot of them because some of those grants can't support the $18,000, which is about a, almost a, it's a $5,000 increase 00:21:27.202 --> 00:21:47.294 - in their grant to budget that self-insurance. So I think that it's going to be a conversation. I've just been kind of auditing things. Kim's more the expert on that. Yeah, so we went through, and like she said, with the 144, so we checked that. But we're also seeing 00:21:47.394 --> 00:22:14.238 - We have user fee funds, which are not grants. These are user fee funds that cannot sustain moving forward. So they have moved, shifted their self-insurance over into their general funds as well. But they, in order to be able to keep the salaries of the user fee employees within that user fee fund. So we'll see that as well. 00:22:22.146 --> 00:22:48.478 - And this doesn't have to be discussed today, but I believe that's on the agenda for the second reading on the salaries to be moved over to general. So that's a part of the fiscal analysis I asked for. If you'll recall, Councilmember Henry, when I said we don't have the fiscal on moving those over, but that's not, I mean, that's just part of the insurance, whatever. So we can talk about that another time. 00:22:48.898 --> 00:23:12.766 - And as I know, just as a sidebar, not getting to the business of council and our meeting, I know that staff is working on getting that fiscal impact ahead of our August 12th meeting. So, okay. We know how much that additional might be in September at this point. When I had calculated, I was, then this has been, 00:23:12.898 --> 00:23:42.398 - probably a month or so since the last time I looked at it specifically, but I was planning about a million to 1.2 million for us to cover what I thought our expenses would be through the end of the year. That makes sense. Additional for this year? Yes. All right. Anybody else have any other questions related to this? Not a question, but just a comment. 00:23:42.882 --> 00:24:11.070 - we're moving in a really good positive direction. This analysis coming together to budget this fund and to really plan ahead proactively for this type of thing. The county is moving in a really good direction. I just want to thank the council office and employee services for working together on this and the commissioner's office, of course, has been good. We can bring one final point. When does our renewal come? That is not anything I have to do with, unfortunately. It's between 00:24:11.330 --> 00:24:35.390 - Apex would know when does the county's renewal happen? January 1st. Okay and so for budgeting purposes it's so important in August and September to have what we think 26 is going to be from yours and everybody's office and so 00:24:35.714 --> 00:25:03.614 - Given that renewal date, you feel that this is good and workable. Sometimes they're in September, sometimes they're in December. Do you feel this gives council the most information it can get even when it's setting budget? Yes. We always provide, so insurance is a funny thing because for a couple of reasons, claims are variable. 00:25:03.810 --> 00:25:29.566 - You're right, unless you're a self-funded plan, claims are variable. We don't know, we have an idea of what we think it's gonna be and the stop loss carrier or the reinsurance has an idea of what they think it's gonna be and what your maximum liability is, but you don't always fund it to your maximum liability. And sometimes you have a worse claims year than you. 00:25:29.666 --> 00:25:56.542 - you're going to have. But we do give projections that are actually we're proud of how accurate they are as we go through the budget hearing process and we do give projections and they are very accurate and have turned out to be very accurate. Another issue and I know he wants me to talk a little bit about self-funded, the self-funded 00:25:58.050 --> 00:26:20.190 - Self-funded plans, but because when you're self-funded, you really are the insurance company. You pay for admin, you pay for reinsurance or stop-loss that caps your liability, and then you pay the claims. 00:26:20.674 --> 00:26:45.406 - if you can fund it to your maximum liability, but then there's very little chance you're ever going to hit that. So you're always going to be overfunding and over budgeting and that kind of thing. So we work with Angie and E to find some middle ground that's going to work for the budgeting process that we think your 00:26:45.538 --> 00:27:13.630 - probably going to end up somewhere in there without having to pull funds from somewhere else. Over time, and I know this is what he wants me to explain, over time, there's a thing called medical trend or trend in the insurance business. Every year, the cost of goods and services at hospitals and doctor's offices, they go up. So we project that we say that medical trend, even for the same 00:27:13.762 --> 00:27:40.958 - service for the same type of surgery, that will go up about seven, eight, nine percent per year, those costs go up. So even if you had the same amount of claims, the cost of those medical claims would go up seven to nine percent. On the pharmacy side, with more and more drugs coming out, with more and more expensive drugs coming out, the ones you see advertised on TV are expensive. 00:27:41.314 --> 00:28:09.822 - the pharmacy trend in this country is about, I'll say 13%, 13, 14%. It can be a little bit higher, a little bit lower than that, but per year increase. So as there's a balancing act between human resources and insurance and what you're trying to do with your budget and the limited funds that you have. And so we try to work within 00:28:10.114 --> 00:28:30.046 - your budgetary needs and what the actual costs are. And as you try to keep your costs for your employees the same, so that doesn't look like they're getting a pay cut because their insurance goes up, all of those things play a factor as we come to these budget hearings and so on and so forth. 00:28:30.146 --> 00:28:58.270 - Over time, five or six years of not increasing what you are charging the departments in the county for the employer portion, all of five years of trying not to increase what the employees are also paying. At some point, that number becomes a little as much as we're accurate and we know what the range of your cost is going to be. At some point, it gets to where you got to 00:28:58.946 --> 00:29:23.870 - you got to reevaluate and put some more funds in there and I think that's that's where we're at. Yeah and the last thing I will say about this thank you for letting us share just a little bit more context but over the past few years we have kept that increase to employees insurance premiums at about three percent which you know our our salaries have not gone up a lot and in those things so we've tried to keep things so that it's not 00:29:24.226 --> 00:29:51.518 - dipping into what employees are having to pay and then while they're also experiencing increased costs in other ways. And so that has been a reason why this fund has been losing money essentially. And so this year we're going to right the ship as we keep saying and so there's a lot of factors to that. But part of what Apex does is they figure out what those insurance premiums need to be to cover our costs and all things considered, 00:29:52.610 --> 00:30:20.798 - For this plan only, none of our other plans are increasing or have any changes, but just for the health insurance plan, we already have those numbers and it's gonna be about 11.7% of an increase. And just for us for future planning, we just need to look at things, we've been trying to keep things low for employees, but we'll need to take what Bill is saying into consideration and be able to plan that out a little bit more long-term so that we are 00:30:23.138 --> 00:30:48.574 - having a little bit more of an increase to employees because of those rising costs, just to those premiums to make sure that we're covering everything. All right. Thank you very much. That was a lot of food for thought. And thank you for everybody involved in putting together this and giving us this healthy discussion. Last part in any? Yes. 00:30:51.746 --> 00:31:15.454 - Thank you very much. And I'm not looking for an answer or comments on this now, but if other solutions where communities or private sector or somebody is being artful with this, if things come across that can help us to attack this in different ways, and I know that that's part of your drill already, but I would just say that those numbers were 00:31:15.618 --> 00:31:42.974 - so staggering to me that to Mr. Garitas I was like holy cow we're doomed here. I never hesitate to come and have that conversation I think with the council because my gosh that that's pretty staggering. We didn't get into this part but that's part of what our clinic does is helps us reduce those costs to the to the claims that are coming through by doing preventative care, catching things early, doing all that stuff. There's a cost to run the clinic but we feel like there's a 00:31:43.074 --> 00:32:12.222 - a return on that investment that's keeping some of those larger claims down, and we have a new partner within the last year that we're working with, and we have come up with several things that we are being more creative when we're trying to identify what are our high costs, what are some of the things we're seeing a lot, and how can we reduce those things running through the plan. So we're working on that. All right. Thank you very much. We appreciate that. Thank you for joining us. 00:32:12.418 --> 00:32:42.334 - Next up on our agenda today is item number five, which is the review of the 2026 department budget request. And I'll turn it back over to Mr. Garitas. All right, you can go ahead. 00:32:43.458 --> 00:33:11.838 - So I'm sorry, I don't have the 2026 department budget requests. Bree? Kim, did you provide that? Yes, I sent that to Charlie and he acknowledged receiving it. OK. And then I also sent him the other reports that he requested as well. Do you have a printed copy? It's several pages long. OK. Does the council have it? No. Would we be able to answer the screen? 00:33:12.130 --> 00:33:37.502 - I sent what was just right out of budget projection. Lehua and I have been working with departments because they had made some errors. So I had not given it to the council yet because it is currently still incorrect. But I can get you what we have at this moment. Yeah, because it's my understanding council hadn't even seen this. 00:33:37.794 --> 00:34:02.174 - And so maybe this was a little early. And I know last time we talked about not talking about the budget here. So I was a little confused by this agenda item. I'd love to help you, but it's too early. That's exactly why I said that. Well, I said, why are we meeting on this before we even have our budget numbers if we're going to talk 00:34:02.306 --> 00:34:30.782 - about the budget. I'm not in charge of scheduling, so this is what we do. We also knew that we were going to talk about this in August anyway. The insurance is very important, but I just don't think we should have had department budget requests on the agenda because the public might really expect us to be discussing that, and we have nothing in front of us. I recall a different conversation, but that's neither here nor there. So, okay. So, Michelle, 00:34:31.074 --> 00:35:00.062 - I guess at this point we can just kind of move on since we don't have this information. Okay. All right. So sorry for anybody that thought that we would have a discussion on that. Apologies. All right. Moving on because this is something that I know that we all are very near and dear about is item number six, which is the review of the edit and bond capacity numbers. I don't know. Would you like to go ahead and talk about that since we have 00:35:00.642 --> 00:35:27.518 - Yeah. So thank you very much. Thank you. And second of all, once we get an updated that the corrected numbers come that for the budget, we'll go ahead and start putting them into our sustainability so that we have that document as we move forward. Could I ask you what I've asked for in the past and hopefully, and I don't know whether you'll have it like that, but 00:35:27.842 --> 00:35:57.342 - In order for us to really be able to use the document, we need to know for each fund, the revenue and budgets for each fund. That'll be in which category. In other words, if it's going to be supported with white dollars, which fund then what's the budgeted request for whatever? Yeah, so we'll have the bar, our best estimate, which then Kim will look at of an embry of estimated revenues. 00:35:57.698 --> 00:36:26.750 - and then we'll have your request for 26 budget items, okay? And that'll be by fund in the sustaining, sustainability. The revenue will be broken down for each fund. Absolutely. Okay, because that's what I mean. Yeah, we'll have a lot of revenue discussions coming up and I'm gonna have Tate give you, he's been our analyst doing the income tax analysis. Oh, through, he'll hand this out. 00:36:26.882 --> 00:36:53.534 - kind of update on that to kind of tailor into the jail financing. Please proceed. Okay so we sent you a document and we tried to keep it fairly simple. There's basically three options at this point and so the number one bullet says the county and I'll read it for people that may not have it online but the county 00:36:53.762 --> 00:37:21.790 - could do a lease financing payable from property taxes. And so property taxes would go up. And to the extent where other sources of revenue are available for that service. Now, what I mean by that is what we put on the page behind it was in order to do $225 million, we would need about 18 million at this point in time per year. And that's on the second page. 00:37:22.178 --> 00:37:51.070 - okay and this isn't a new number this is the same number we've given you pretty much consistently okay so what you could do in that case is you could basically say we're going to levy a property tax bond and we're going to put 10 million dollars per year and fund the debt service and the remainder would be on the tax rate okay so in other words if you took 19 or 00:37:52.002 --> 00:38:20.830 - 18 million, subtract 10, then we would have eight show up. Now, one of the important points though, the bonds would be subject to referendum because of the $225 million level, and that is per bond council, Adam Steerwall, who we're working with. There would be no pledge of let, so in other words, your let going forward would not have a mortgage on it. 00:38:21.026 --> 00:38:50.910 - Does that make sense? It would be mortgage by basically the property tax rate backing it up. This, the property tax rate at this point in time would be estimated to be 16 cents per hundred to fund the total 18 million over the entire county AV. I only put that I'm not seeing this as a real viable option, but it is a option. Okay. Number two or let me stop there. Any questions on number one? 00:38:51.010 --> 00:39:19.326 - for bullet one. The minute I saw that you were saying it's tied to referendum, I didn't think you were taking it seriously. I'm only pointing out the options. I appreciate that. Yes. Option two, the county could pledge up to 25%. Now, where did we get the 25%? Remember, that's an SB1 for the next two years, okay? Up to nothing in excess of 25%. 00:39:19.522 --> 00:39:45.022 - can be used for debt. So. Question. Okay. Okay. You're saying at the current lit revenue. So you're talking the current revenue just that the county receives not what we will be receiving in future. Absolutely. Just your current and that will be on page one of the document that Tate passed out. 00:39:45.154 --> 00:40:14.430 - but we'll go over that in a few. I can go over that right now, but that would be, if you look at the county share of 2025 certified lit, as you can see, we add them all up. Okay. And that's 41 million. Okay. So that's what I'm talking about. Yes. Now, again, that's not, this isn't really viable because as you can see, 25% of that equals 10 million. 00:40:14.722 --> 00:40:42.142 - We estimate the county could issue 19 million because you only technically have two years, right? And you have 26 and 27. We didn't count any cash on hand or anything like that. We didn't want them out of the water. We estimate the county then could issue that. This bond would not be subject to referendum. Why? Because it's basically going to be supported by LIT, the LIT coverage test. 00:40:42.370 --> 00:41:10.814 - which is separate than the 25 basis points, but happens to be 25%, we would have 41 million covering the 10 million that we would be pledging to do this for two years. Again, it doesn't really make sense, because it doesn't get us to 225, right? Okay, so the final point, which I know that we assisted in modifying the letter, 00:41:11.170 --> 00:41:29.406 - and helping you create a letter, new legislation is required to allow the county to issue a new long-term lit bond for the full estimated cost of the project. We estimate that the 225 million 20-year bond issue at 5%, 5% is high today. 00:41:29.538 --> 00:41:56.766 - More like four and a half or and obviously these would be put out for bid and all that best bid on the day and and after the rating and everything like that, but the county would need a lit rate of 41 basis points in order to fund that payment upon current income tax based upon current income tax levels in the county. Okay, now let me springboard you to page one. 00:41:56.930 --> 00:42:26.334 - because that's kind of important that 41 okay. Because if you look at this what we were anticipating or what I was understanding we were trying to do going forward was take the jail lit and that shows up on this first page here and and some of the added but we were adding those together to be able to make our bond payment going forward okay and so 00:42:26.434 --> 00:42:49.182 - I'm going to consider those as making up the 41 basis points, right? So we were taking that money and we were, correct Jeff, and help me out if I say it wrong, but we were putting that over and that's what we originally, until SB1 came, we were originally going to issue these bonds based upon, right? That total revenue. 00:42:49.954 --> 00:43:14.974 - or jail as well. And economic development. Yes, I think it was it was basically taking on both. Right, Jeff? Right. Yes. Okay. Now, I want to point you up to the top part of the section here, which is the maximum lit rate that's authorized. Notice we put on the very front page as of July 1. Okay. 00:43:15.138 --> 00:43:41.726 - We said maybe should pick 24-font or 30-font, put that in there. Because what I'm going to tell you is, I know this is going to change next year. The lit may be divvying up or the different components. He who gets 1.2, I just expect it to change. We did ask that, had that question asked, 00:43:42.082 --> 00:44:09.054 - at one of the recent legislative conferences a week ago, and the answer was, yeah, the lit is going to have to change some. So I feel certain change is continuing to come. So that's where my favorite saying is, stay tuned. So now in light of that, this 1.2, 00:44:09.154 --> 00:44:38.878 - If you notice over on the right, the estimated minimum future lit is 0.95. That is a little higher than some of my average counties. Why is it? Because it's including this debt, right? And so we would expect it to be, because not everybody is floating at $225 million bond issue. And so to do that, then we would, our enactment rate, if we were sitting here, 00:44:39.266 --> 00:45:09.246 - in two years okay in july of 27 and we were like hashing out what is our new lit rate going to be well it would have to be a minimum of 0.95 and you know most counties are saying well why wouldn't i be at 1.2 uh you know if i have to enact it i might as well enact it to the max that that is not being decided here i'm only telling you what i'm hearing out on the street and many many other 00:45:09.378 --> 00:45:36.574 - counties, but the 0.95 gets you awful close to the 1.20 as we go forward. And keep in mind, Trent, that 10% increase that we heard insurance is $1 million a year. Your growth quotient, it is my understanding that MLGQ, the growth quotient, is probably 00:45:36.770 --> 00:46:02.782 - going away and going away permanently and probably going to be zero for 27. So right now, remember it's 40, it's four basis points or it was going to be 4%, sorry, 4%. And I told you half of that, if not more than half of that is going away as a result of the new $300 credit. 00:46:02.978 --> 00:46:28.318 - I explained that the last meeting and you know that you'll all be seeing on your bill for this year and so this will be important or coming up and this will be important because you will have less revenue from that growth quotient. Do not count on a four percent growth quotient other than what we get made up because of the past that we're trying to make up. 00:46:28.610 --> 00:46:56.254 - that's very, very important to understand and this gets us really close. But I think we also, what this analysis does is shows us if we had to go today and we were here two years from now, basically we'd go at a minimum of 0.95 to be able to do all we wanna do. But keep in mind, if the growth quotient goes away, 00:46:57.890 --> 00:47:23.582 - and we cap our lit at 1.20 the long-term committee uh finance committee will have a huge amount of work to do because the answer will be there will be no other revenues so we've got a couple questions yes marty oh did you see marty's hand up marty goes first she's okay counsel she's counsel 00:47:23.746 --> 00:47:49.694 - and I will take control so yep go ahead and then we'll bounce over there. Okay what I had looked at and tell me how far off I'd be we know that the legislation also says that we could that the county council can put in up to 1.2 for a municipality that had a lower population and that the county could use 00:47:49.890 --> 00:48:00.318 - And I read two different ways. One said we could use 75% of what we put in place that we didn't actually give to the municipality. 00:48:00.482 --> 00:48:27.774 - The other one just said you could use what the difference would be when we know the only municipality we have here that would qualify for that would be Steinsville. And of course, we're never going to put in place a property tax across the board for every county taxpayer to put in as much to cover Steinsville as they're going to cover all county operations. But what if we kept that 00:48:27.970 --> 00:48:56.190 - not at 1.2, but at the smallest amount that we could. And as we continue to lose our property tax, then we start increasing the 1.2. And then when we knew that the 1.2 was not going to cover our loss from property tax, because property tax is going to go down, then we could go to that other 1.2 if that's still in place. I hope they don't change that. And then we could go to that 00:48:56.322 --> 00:49:24.990 - to start making up the difference of the property test so that we're not hitting the taxpayer with all of it at once. It would be added. So let me respond. One goes down, the other one would go up. So you've got it. Okay. You understand it. And that would be basically a flight path that you could take. You know, some people will say, well, and by the way, we did put that on page six. 00:49:25.090 --> 00:49:52.830 - of our analysis we show Steinsville and and so and it's more than enough for them and so we do show the 75-25 what I suspect is that maybe the 1.2 will change remember the 75 percent you could the county could keep up to 75 percent on page six is a enticement for the county council to do it for the town 00:49:53.442 --> 00:50:21.886 - or in some cases towns, but here one town we've got. I suspect that is one of them that will change. I also showed you in the past, the math doesn't work when you start adding all these components, so look for that to be a possible change. You've got it right. We could use that as our way to combat 00:50:22.338 --> 00:50:51.294 - inflationary increases in our budget in the future. So that we're not hitting that taxpayer while they're still paying that higher property tax. Remember I showed you the graphs it's going off in 2030 and so we we would enact our first one in 2028 and then you could look at making changes in the future. Yeah and so also the the legislation something in that letter that said 00:50:51.458 --> 00:51:13.630 - You know, we have to do something because we had to vote on it again every year. Legislation says the state, even if we didn't put anything in there, which of course we will, but let's say if we didn't for 2028, the state said they will put in a rate to cover our debt. So we've got to make sure that we don't think that we can just not cover the debt. 00:51:13.794 --> 00:51:34.334 - because the state will force it. We always pay debts. I've had that discussion with some of the people from the state and they understand that and I think they actually may even put that in there. I've asked Representative Thompson, we're doing a 55 million dollar bond issue 00:51:34.498 --> 00:52:02.238 - for Hendricks County for a road, and we're doing it to complete Ronald Reagan. And I've actually asked Representative Thompson to be on the call with us, and he has accepted. And so if this comes up about future bond payments coming from lit, I think we'll get a satisfactory answer that the state would make sure that happens. And that's protection for the, 00:52:02.370 --> 00:52:30.334 - for Monroe County as we go forward, if that's the case. Okay. Now I know somebody, I want to make sure everybody has an ample opportunity to get in and ask questions. I thought somebody's hand was up over there. I just wanted to make sure I understood the estimated minimum. And it looks to me, and I'm looking at the sheet, that it's essentially what we're currently receiving because we expect the edit in the corrections tax to be utilized 00:52:31.330 --> 00:52:57.598 - much completely for the debt issuance is that I just want to make sure that I've got that. Your answer is yes. Absolutely. I just wanted to make sure I understood. Keep in mind also Jeff you'll notice that the footnote we use the most recent that we do know of income and so we would expect the income to be different in a couple years. Hopefully better. 00:52:57.986 --> 00:53:25.214 - I expect to know next year's estimates in a couple of weeks. So I get that we've got some information. So kind of pulling it back to the jail financing then, you know, what we tried to look at is kind of where we would go here if we would proceed. But still at this point, we are up against a brick wall unless we have 00:53:25.378 --> 00:53:53.598 - unless we chose option one, which would be the only one we could do at this point in time and get the whole and option three or bullet three, we are working on. It's my understanding. And so Jeff, I know there's a future meeting coming up with council and commissioners. Is there anything on this that you think we need to cover further? Oh, I think there's a whole lot of things we need to 00:53:53.826 --> 00:54:12.702 - to cover further, but I'm not sure I could. I think this is going to be an ongoing back and forth for a while to try to. So it's my understanding. So option three obviously has something to do with the letter and I'm sure you are privy to the conversation that the commissioners have 00:54:12.866 --> 00:54:39.806 - given to counsel in terms of this letter. And I know there's a lot of feelings and lots of opinions regarding what to do with this letter, whether it is too early, too late, maybe key players are not involved, maybe too many people. There's a lot of opinions, if you will, just with probably us alone. So with that being said, because you mentioned Representative Jeff Thompson, 00:54:40.770 --> 00:55:09.438 - What is your take on, is there something that we can do here in Monroe County? Do you believe, because I remember you mentioned this earlier at a couple of LTF meetings a while back, is there any hope that the state will listen in particular to us here in Monroe County, considering that other counties have other issues with other projects, such as what you mentioned? Could this be alleviated by 00:55:10.690 --> 00:55:27.870 - the state house right now. You know, I think there's a possibility. I think everybody is more than happy to willing to listen to every county, you know, and there's some of the legislators have said that. 00:55:28.034 --> 00:55:47.998 - point blank, they want to hear from everybody. You know, I think there is a little bit of concern that maybe we went too far too fast here, even though we haven't gone there yet, right, we're going there in July of 27, that maybe it's too far too fast and maybe the system wasn't that 00:55:48.130 --> 00:56:14.782 - broke. I heard some traction being gained there. Okay, so I think they want to hear everybody's concern. That's why I proposed you put together the letter and you know, in my opinion, the sooner the better because guess what? They're going to be coming back in what, March, April or March and there'll be a short session 00:56:14.914 --> 00:56:33.406 - And so I think everybody, you should always get your points out. And we're right in the middle of this project. It's not like we just started this project. And so right now, without help, it's my belief we're kind of stopped here for a year or more. So. 00:56:33.666 --> 00:56:59.774 - So are there any key points that you feel ahead? Because that meeting is next Friday, the eighth at noon. Are there any key points that you think in particular that we should be highlighting to help us potentially alleviate the problem that our friends up in Indianapolis helped us create? The number one concern will be the level of the project. 00:57:00.162 --> 00:57:26.558 - And so you've got to make sure this is the right level of project that we're going with. If it is, then I think the fact that we are in the middle of it, your price of that project is probably, we think that when I talk to the engineering boys, 11% sometimes is minuscule to some of the prices of these big projects like this. 00:57:26.658 --> 00:57:46.782 - And so if the price of the project keep going up, keeps going up around 10%, I mean, we may not catch up. And so, you know, so that's a concern too. So getting the right size that we have to go, if we get down to point number three, 00:57:47.042 --> 00:58:15.518 - You know, there'll be a lot of questions about why this level. And so we've got to really make sure I'm not that you don't have it documented, but we want it documented. And then we also have to explain well why we chose this route. And obviously the other two don't work. Yeah. Cause referendum, we already have two that we're doing through right now. And I don't know with that. Yeah, that, but. 00:58:15.714 --> 00:58:45.694 - because of a referendum, because of the new laws, technically, if we were to do this, just throwing it, I'm not a fan of it at all, I'll just be honest. But if somewhere, somehow we decided to do a referendum, this can only be done during the November election season. I believe that's, I'll let your counsel. That's my understanding is that that was one of the legislative changes. Okay, okay. 00:58:45.826 --> 00:59:14.398 - I'll open it up. Counselor Henry. Thank you, Madam President. I know what we call you here, Jen. So picking up on that, though, from the last meeting we had, it wasn't the referendum that it's just once a year. It's that after so many, there's a cooling off year, right? So even if we did the referendum, we'd have to skip a few before we go back. Is that correct? Yeah, you can't have a referendum. I don't believe each and every year. All right. How does that affect the annual review of the bonds by council, which is one of the 00:59:14.786 --> 00:59:39.550 - what we think are one of the defects in the legislation that we have to keep reviewing every year the the offering. So what we had recommended on the GO if we did the GO and what we're doing in other counties is that we're making them and I think I spoke to this the last meeting we would make that GO be 5.5 years okay we could still do it as long as we're not paying it back 00:59:39.682 --> 01:00:06.270 - shorter than five years. I have in Hancock County, I have 10 different bond issues that we've done this for 20 years, and there's one rolling off as one's rolling on. And so it's a schematic design of keeping our tax rate for debt service specifically at a certain level. It just has to be developed in a different manner, a longer term. 01:00:06.562 --> 01:00:35.294 - Yeah, thanks. I do have just three questions. I'll get off of it. So the discussion of the letter, if we took the language about the jail and justice center out of the letter and was just focused solely on the impact of the counties to use the instruments to service any debt, set the jail aside, just how the annual review process works, do you feel like a more general letter about what the fiscal 01:00:35.586 --> 01:01:02.270 - control did to our choices here would be better received up there than trying to focus on our particular problem. Does that make sense? Because there are flaws that affect other counties clearly on how they use these tools so we could speak to generally. Your question makes specific sense but you know quite frankly I have mentioned what we're doing here to Representative Thompson and I think the response was we want to hear specifics. 01:01:02.786 --> 01:01:28.542 - We want to know what the challenges are and so that we can address them. Because if we go with the global ladder, remember there's 92 of you, you're going to get a global response. That global response may put us back to the starting block. And so I'm a little concerned with that. Maybe I'll ask it differently. So is there any risk in your view to our 01:01:28.738 --> 01:01:55.390 - bond rating if we have to keep voting on what we offer every year, causing uncertainty in the investment. Again, I think it will be voting on the total rate, not the bond portion. I think the bond portion will be like it is now. You really can't eliminate, if you did an edit bond, you can't eliminate your edit bond or your collections of edit. 01:01:55.490 --> 01:02:23.230 - below what you're paying in debt service. So I think that's the language is that you'll annually review the lit in total, but not the debt portion. The debt portion will have to remain to service the debt. That's what you said. You said it so much nicer. Pardon? You said it so much nicer. That's why I'm asking. I guess the second question is, 01:02:23.810 --> 01:02:43.838 - More about the max capacity here. I mean, do you anticipate, given the amounts that we're talking about to service the, and it's not jail, it's justice center financing, right? Like that we got to make sure we get that right. Yeah. Because I mean, that's a bigger, there's other things in this project besides jail, right? And that's kind of where I'm going with this is that, 01:02:44.418 --> 01:03:13.630 - Are you seeing any risk in us maxing out our capacity over a 20-year period for other capital projects that we may have to deal with that we may not have space to deal with? Well, I guess I brought that up here. Okay, and that would be my first off-ramp I'd need to look at. So if I would build this justice center financing into my future capacity, my first 01:03:13.890 --> 01:03:40.158 - off-ramp I gotta look at is, is my minimum above my maximum? And what I've told you on page one, it's not, okay? 95 is less than 120 basis points, 95 basis points is less. You've got that as breathing room. Now we did not factor in annual growth of income 01:03:40.674 --> 01:04:10.494 - But I will also tell you, I've shared with you one time in Hamilton County where it went down 10% because the rich and famous did not get, and I call them that, I'm sorry, that's what's up there. And their bonus income went down a billion dollars. That drove their adjusted gross income. Now, that drove it down. We've seen adjusted gross income go down in other counties. 01:04:10.754 --> 01:04:39.838 - And I had a girl when we had our office here, we went back to 1992 and got the microfiche on income. And there's been times where income goes down. So that's the other one, David, I wanted to make you aware of. Is income could go down? Would it go down a billion in Monroe County? No, okay. Remember, you've got the most stable employer you can have. 01:04:40.034 --> 01:04:49.406 - I do the same thing when I'm working up in Tippecanoe County. We've got Purdue University. That's how we sell it to the rating agency. Same thing here. 01:04:49.602 --> 01:05:19.006 - You're more than likely your employer is not leaving town. Matter of fact, I show what Purdue was 1832 when it was established. I say our largest employer has been around a while. I mean, you're touching a nerve here right now. As you may know, you're touching a nerve here about decisions made across the street. I'm happy to defer back to the chair on that one. But no, thank you for entertaining those questions. But Jen, you want to pick that up? It is unstable at any university right now, to say the least. But yeah. 01:05:19.202 --> 01:05:47.870 - I'm not going to go there. Councillor Hoppe. Yes, which absolutely brings us to the point and making sure all council, all commissioners, people in planning department understand that if we want to see that stable employment, stable stay here, we have to quit sending them to other counties because they can't afford to live here. We need to provide 01:05:48.130 --> 01:06:06.462 - opportunities so that we can have our employment base be here so that income that we're counting on stays here. I know I beat that drum all the time. I want us all to do that so that it's never loses 01:06:06.946 --> 01:06:34.334 - the importance of making those decisions. And I've gone around for many, many years and I call it smart economic growth. Smart economic growth is now, it's changed, it's changed the picture, isn't necessarily AV. It's good quality, high paying jobs. If you bring in, I mean, I recently worked on a data center project. We were building in $1 billion. 01:06:34.434 --> 01:07:01.022 - of AV but we were exempting it so it wasn't worth much. It was going to get priced out at $65 per square foot for a couple hundred thousand square foot. That wasn't going to bring in much and it was bringing in 50 jobs maybe or I think in Alley County it's 50 and so they were high priced but that's not a lot of jobs per square foot or for that. We got to have really good 01:07:01.346 --> 01:07:26.526 - jobs so adjusted gross income grows and hopefully outpaces, that will outpace our growth in our health insurance or stay up with it. And that's what I call smart economic growth. Our plan's gotta be bring in as much employment or adjusted gross income as we can get. Yeah, that means 01:07:26.722 --> 01:07:56.190 - from the private sector, we can't make it up just by hiring more people for the county government and paying them more. That doesn't work. But if we're going to hire more people, let's concentrate on hiring people who are committed to living here in Monroe County. That's where we stand. OK. That was a really good discussion. I'll look to our table here to see if anybody else has any questions. 01:07:58.114 --> 01:08:15.230 - Recently the Capital Improvement Board met, I believe that's the board, met for the Convention Center and while they were not through with all of their budget projections and estimates, they were 01:08:15.426 --> 01:08:43.838 - very happy to see those estimates were coming in a great deal lower than what they had projected and that being the case it's another major project here in the county and it would seem to me we might see some reduction in what we thought the projected cost of the jail would be. I just think that is something we need to recognize that we shouldn't just expect that these costs are going to go up as much as what perhaps we would have thought 01:08:44.770 --> 01:09:12.510 - couple months ago. Okay. All right. Well, we appreciate it. No, no, we got one more. Thank you very much. Your discussion and answers have answered some of the muddy areas of information that I needed to kind of help me in the next few weeks as we do what we do. One of the things that you said 01:09:12.930 --> 01:09:38.142 - resonated with me a little bit and kind of reading between the lines is that at least there is some cognition up with our friends in Indianapolis that they understand that perhaps some of what they have done has been cutting the nail a little bit too far into the quick and might need some redressing. I am very worried 01:09:38.722 --> 01:10:02.750 - that a disconnect between what we have to do, goods and services, here on the ground has not been a message that is fully been understood in all of that. And that could be in a million different ways. But I think about what we heard earlier on those healthcare costs, the pharmacy costs, and I'm laughing a little bit in my head and reflecting on as a kid, 01:10:03.490 --> 01:10:31.326 - As a county employee kid, we had no vision care, literally no vision care. And as I'm in here struggling with my readers today, and I'm more grateful that we now offer that, just the knowledge that we need that counties are doing more things than they've ever had to do. As Councilor Hawks said very well, they have to also grow to fund those needs. And you can't do in 2025, what you were funded to do 01:10:31.682 --> 01:11:01.502 - in 1982 and so I'm hopeful, I'm hopeful and I'll keep working on it, but that reason towards offering those services, it is hard to cut dollars from anything because I've never met a department head, I never met an elected official or anyone at a counter that made the case that they were doing their job awfully or the other person on the other side of that counter that they didn't need that service. And I feel like we're gonna hit a mess of that 01:11:01.602 --> 01:11:30.654 - I think David had said before, an experiment like Kansas, but I'm worried that some of this has gone too far and I'm hopeful that there might be some optimism on a multitude of fronts. So thank you for what you've shared with us. Sure. I know Councilor Hawk has one question and I realize Councilor Iverson wasn't able to attend due to him being out of town and he did have a question 01:11:30.786 --> 01:11:55.326 - that he submitted that I wanted to ask related to correctional techs because we it's no surprise our community is very much invested in this justice conversation with you know to build not to build that is the million dollar question that we are continuing to have right now and what do we do with that type of thing and so it looks like his question was we found out last year that 01:11:56.034 --> 01:12:07.742 - The correctional tax could also be used as a way of doing some type of rehabilitation center as well instead of, let me rephrase. 01:12:08.034 --> 01:12:36.638 - We found out last year during the conversation when we were trying to implement the tax that we could also use this as a rehab center, a rehabilitation center. And I think what he's thinking of in terms of substance use, mental health type of thing. Is there a certain percentage of this correctional tax that is allocated specifically for that, or is that up to the council to determine that? 01:12:37.506 --> 01:13:04.318 - But you enacted does not have the 25 percent attached to it, which the early versions did. So I believe it is available 100 percent. And that's my understanding. And it's been a while since I looked at it, but that was my memory. And in fact, we're doing that in other places and actually even jail navigators and things like that. 01:13:06.178 --> 01:13:28.350 - Thank you and then Councilor Hawke and then we can move on. The only thing I would add about that I know that there was a discussion about how much of the total lit that we were receiving now and they were including the special purpose tax which we know is used for our youth shelter and so forth 01:13:28.450 --> 01:13:57.150 - I don't know who thought that we could, but I think if you'll review that legislation that set in place, that special purpose tax, I do not think that you would be allowed to use it for the jail costs unless you plan to build a juvenile jail, which I don't think that's our plan. But I mean, if anybody who wants to think we can include that in the total projected revenue, 01:13:57.794 --> 01:14:24.414 - of our lit I hope you'll review the legislation that's one thing the other thing I want to talk about long-term planning is that and I don't know how many other counties this is hitting but we all know that the revenue coming into the highway department is not growing as much as one would hope simply because it's tied to that gas tax and that's tied to the number of 01:14:24.642 --> 01:14:50.846 - and not to how much a gas actually cost. But because of that, now our highway fund is no longer sustainable in order to cover the administrative costs. Have you already heard that problem from Monroe County? I understand it's like 1.4 million that is being discussed to move from the highway 01:14:51.074 --> 01:15:15.422 - funds over into county general and move all the administrative costs over to county general, leaving the money in the highway so that there's money to cover highway and leave all the union folks or in the other front. So let me speak to the highway funds that I've been reviewing on city and county. 01:15:16.962 --> 01:15:32.702 - We're coming up with the Form 2 revenues. We're not increasing it at all. So we're seeing it pretty much be the same. So I'm agreeing it's not growing. It's not going down yet. 01:15:32.834 --> 01:16:01.022 - but it's at best holding its own. We have put together a preliminary sustainability, but I don't have your 26 numbers, but I think once we do, we may see what you're saying, but no, I'm not aware of that at this point. What has been happening is that there's been tradition, doesn't mean we always have to, but that whatever we can figure out we can do for a raise, 01:16:01.250 --> 01:16:29.118 - for like say County General and those in the frozen levy, we tried to make sure everybody gets the same raise so the highway would get the same raise. So as our revenue has gone up because the income tax has really been adding to our projected revenue and we were able to get raises. So then the highway was giving raises but it also was reducing the amount of money left to go pave 01:16:29.250 --> 01:16:58.046 - the roads or to fix the potholes. And so that cannot continue because that's what we have the highway department. So while they were just, even though it might look like it's sustainable, it just what is doing is reducing the amount of money to actually do the filling the potholes. So there's been meetings here about what to do and Trent's been in the meetings. I think most of us are aware that 01:16:58.402 --> 01:17:11.582 - some adjustments could have been made and long term, how much of that will come out of our property tax general fund. So I just wanted you to be aware that's a major part of the discussion right now. 01:17:11.682 --> 01:17:40.414 - going to be brought to our next council meeting. Yeah, and keep in mind with the highway, you have local roads and streets, you have restricted and unrestricted, and then obviously we've been able to do some with TIF and things like that, but I know Lisa's got a real good handle on it, but I have not worked through those numbers, but I am telling you, I am agreeing with you, the trend seems to be at best hold its own for revenue, therefore it does make it a challenge. 01:17:41.410 --> 01:18:10.622 - Okay, I see Council Henry has his hand up, but Councilor Kate Wilts is online and she actually had a question. And she should be able to unmute and answer or ask her question. So Councilor Wilts, are you able to unmute? Yes, I think so. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. 01:18:11.170 --> 01:18:38.686 - I actually just had a question about something I thought I heard Mr. Garitas say when we were discussing the letter to the legislature. And I believe, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you said that we needed to, before we send any letter, really think about if this project is 01:18:38.818 --> 01:19:08.062 - the scope that we want. I'm not sure if that was the exact wording. And if that is what you said, could you maybe tell me a little bit more specifically what you think we should be considering about the project itself before we would ask about financing? Sure, and I guess I did kind of put that into the context of the letter, but I know you've vetted it. 01:19:08.194 --> 01:19:37.534 - quite a bit. And I think the commissioners have a plan and we have a number. And what I'm saying is there as we go forward with any type of new legislation, there'll be lots of questions on that. So I'm just my point would be just be prepared for that. If you send a letter, there may be some follow up on why this size and things like that, you know, and I'm sure 01:19:38.210 --> 01:20:07.454 - Okay. Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you. So on I guess to that point, I guess I'll just ask the direct question. Is it really worth it doing this letter? Because I just I just really like I see the intent and I know that we're trying to like really kind of go back and do things the way before January 1st of this year and how you know things have happened. But because we have gone so much back and forth and because 01:20:07.714 --> 01:20:28.798 - you know, the commissioners are trying to, and we are also trying to work, you know, together to fix the problem. And I personally don't believe that we are in, in the way, like I don't, I would be, I don't want to look like a fool going up to Monroe or going up to Indianapolis when maybe we don't have, we don't have, 01:20:29.090 --> 01:20:59.070 - We've not really solidified our project, so to speak. I think we still have a healthy discussion of what we want and what we envision versus what we potentially have. And so I personally do not want to waste time, and I don't want to waste legislators' time in going through with this if it's not going to be received well by them or if they're not even going to listen. So my question would be, are we 01:21:00.130 --> 01:21:20.510 - Trying to do something that is on paper looks really good, but in essence, might not be a good idea to begin with, because maybe of where we are with the project, how long this lawsuit has continued, because we've been in this lawsuit since 2009, it's 2025, there's a lot 01:21:20.674 --> 01:21:43.262 - that I'm thinking about with this, and I don't mean to be very blunt with it, but I just don't want to belabor. We got budget season that's about to come up right now. I really want us to focus on other things that are really important, but I'm just wanting to know, is this really something worth doing? Jeff, do you want to help at all? 01:21:46.978 --> 01:22:12.510 - look into you as the sure I think we have a clear idea but I just want to ask you know a financial expert in this since you have been having the conversations with you know lawmakers so my belief is they want to hear they do want to hear what the what the dilemmas have been created what what dilemma has and so if we can 01:22:12.802 --> 01:22:36.062 - knock those down without much trouble, then moving ahead would be awesome for the county. Would they take the letter and put it in a side file? I don't know. I would not know. They have indicated they'd like to hear the issues, even the Association of Counties 01:22:36.450 --> 01:23:05.502 - councils and county commissioners have said, if you let your people know, you know, where the concerns are, then when we come to round two, which will come very, very quick here, you know, it might be able to be corrected. So I feel I see light at the end of the tunnel. I feel the legislators all want to hear how they can help. And I guess I take that as 01:23:05.666 --> 01:23:33.630 - that they'd love to help if they could. So. Well, and shouldn't that be something where, like, AIC, like, comes into play and really have a, like, we all, all the counties really starting to talk in a group with AIC because there are other projects that are happening that could also be affected by this and, you know, one band, one sound all together? That's another. Okay. You could take or an additional avenue. Okay. You could take. 01:23:33.730 --> 01:23:55.294 - But I'm 100% behind the Association of Counties. And now keep in mind that sometimes there's 92 widgets. And remember, I've been around for at least a month or two on all of this. I've heard a lot of, yeah, we've had to enact this specific legislation. 01:23:55.522 --> 01:24:23.262 - to cover everybody. Well, that might not work for our situation here. So that's why I thought the letter was important just to point out. Okay, I appreciate that, thank you. Then I'll go to Councilor Henry. Thank you, I'll keep it really brief. I appreciate all the comments that we've gotten around this today and Councilor Welch joining today because I think what I was aiming at with my line of questioning was a concern about the conservation of 01:24:23.458 --> 01:24:42.270 - resources for other things like Councillor Hawke had mentioned about highway deficit or Councillor Deckard mentioned about health insurance. The use of the ED lit as decided last year in light of SEA 1 changes a little bit, you know, in terms of how we use those resources we have and whether or not we're maxing out 01:24:42.370 --> 01:25:05.534 - our capacity on the project as proposed. And so it has my attention, you know, and I think Councillor Crossley bringing up the alternative use for correction lit is interesting. You know, Councillor Deckard's talked about fire and EMS services in past sessions of council that has our attention locally. And that's where my heartburn is today about just how much county capacity we're committing to one concept that was 01:25:06.114 --> 01:25:33.982 - really, I mean, sketched out prior to SEA 1, and now we're in this different world, and how we get there. And so I guess that has my attention, as we're trying to sort through this. And I'd also say, too, thanks for the work in that you've provided solutions to a proposed $227 million project. The question about the scope is really important at this point, in light of everything. And I move on. Thanks. 01:25:34.210 --> 01:26:00.958 - There's no question there, so I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss any. Yeah, but well said. I'll go to. I have a just a basic question. Are other counties writing letters? Don't know anyone in your specific situation like this. 01:26:01.186 --> 01:26:30.366 - I told you, in the middle of Hendricks County's $50 million project, we found a way to work it out within the confines of what we're doing now. Roads are different than buildings, and your bond counsel will tell you that. And we're making sure that there's no assumed pitfall by the rating agency. 01:26:31.074 --> 01:27:00.126 - I have noticed that, Bree, you may get it. We've gotten letters now asking by the rating agency, what is your five-year plan on AV? And they're asking for it by year for the next five years. So the word is out from an overall schematic design of planning your future. 01:27:00.290 --> 01:27:29.758 - and we're ahead of the ball game. So the easy answer is some have addressed it personally. You know, Hendricks County, we have representative Thompson show up and understand where we're coming from with the project and things like that. So, but he's from Hendricks County. So other situations I'm not aware of. So, but you're very, very unique where you stand with this project. 01:27:29.890 --> 01:27:56.990 - and what you were trying to achieve, and we all know that, so. And then wrap it up with Councilor Hawke. Right, just as a reminder, for those of you who might have listened to the meeting with the transportation, the city, that the revenue they would be seeking is under that third non-unmissed 01:27:57.090 --> 01:28:26.590 - non-municipal civil taxing units. And we know that they're going to be vying for the same dollar amount. The libraries are going to need part of the money out of there. We might want to at some point in time, when the revenue for property tax goes down, we might need to add to the solid waste. And that also includes all the townships, some of which are already like, you know, 01:28:27.106 --> 01:28:55.230 - concern. So I think we need to, I think when we first looked at that, maybe none of you were surprised, but I guess I just didn't think about that limited transit, but they're looking at needing a big huge chunk. So whether or not we could, I think there was a thought that we might only put 0.10 in that instead of the 0.20 because we're 01:28:55.970 --> 01:29:25.758 - tied to 1.7 in total, and I'm just not, I just think- 2.7, I think. 1.7 on that part? Got you. 1.2, and then you add everything in, you can't do more than 1.7, but you can do some, a little less in each one, so that you have a total of 1.7. Okay, so I'm just saying, just for your long-term planning as well, 01:29:26.530 --> 01:29:55.582 - that you recognize that Bloomington Transit appears to think there need a huge chunk out there. Very important, thank you. And that's what we tried to go ahead and spell out some of the other units in here. Page one is the most concerned. But you know, Marty, I know we talked about the 75 basis points and we put the other units in here. Here we are as of July 1, because I guarantee you, 01:29:55.778 --> 01:30:18.462 - We'll take this document and we'll have another one and it'll be interesting to compare. One is a final date for which the income tax council, which is in place right now until mid 2027, right? Or whenever that changes. We'll be doing it in July of 2027. Okay. 01:30:18.594 --> 01:30:45.982 - a change could be made between now and what date that one of those taxes could be changed. I keep thinking the city will probably want to increase the economic development tax even though it would just change the revenue for like a year and a half or whatever the difference would be. What is the deadline for them to notify the other units for them to even do that? That was August 1. Okay, so we haven't heard that so it's too late for them to do that. 01:30:46.498 --> 01:31:01.822 - It is encouraging them to do that, by the way, I just wondering, unless they sent a note, you know, I had I've seen. We'd have to check on that because technically it's the income tax council that makes the changes. 01:31:02.210 --> 01:31:28.222 - And I think all the people who would be affected by edit are on the income tax council. So I know that that provision is there, and my memory is it's specifically there for people who aren't on the income tax or aren't on the decision-making body to get notice for it. So I have to look at the statute to see if it would apply to edit in the way that we're talking about, but typically it's August 1st, if you have to give notice to the 01:31:28.450 --> 01:31:54.974 - all the effective taxing units, because we're in that unique situation where all the effective taxing units for edit are on the income tax council that I don't know how that plays out. August 1 subject to your check. Yeah. So I think nobody's talked about the library. Love the library here, the public library. So the last I heard they were short, quite a few. 01:31:55.170 --> 01:32:19.582 - hundreds of thousands. And as far as I understand, they'll be cutting back their evening programming time available. So they used to be open till 9 PM. As I understand it, they'll be open till 7. So that cuts out a whole lot of community time at the library for residents and organizations to do the kinds of things that we're used 01:32:19.746 --> 01:32:47.998 - to them doing in this community. So it's not just transit. It's just not the library. It's just not one thing. It's a whole big picture issue here for each community. Oh, and very much for schools. Yes, and schools. The whole big picture, townships, everything, the whole litany of entities that are impacted. So it's not just one thing. But we agree. Well, and you're 01:32:48.162 --> 01:33:02.430 - famous words, you always say stay tuned. So I guess we'll stay tuned with a lot of different things. And I thank you all for coming and everybody for putting this together. But without further ado, we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you very much.