- All right, folks, welcome everyone here to the Natu Hill Room. It is the fourth of July week here in
- Monroe County. Today is Tuesday, June 30th, twenty twenty six. And this is the long term finance planning
- committee. We do have a quorum. We have Liz Fiddle with the council here and myself, Peter Iverson is
- chair here. So we have enough to call this meeting to order.
- Our first item on the agenda is to adopt the agenda, and I'll look over to my colleague. Do you have
- any changes today? I do not. Seeing none, we will adopt that agenda by acclamation. Next, we'll look
- at the summary minutes of our last meeting, which just as a reminder to everyone, we meet quarterly.
- So the last meeting minutes were from March 31st. Councilmember Feidl, do you have any
- Questions or changes to that. I didn't see anything Hey, I also do not have any changes so we will adopt
- those summary minutes by acclamation That means that we are already on item number four of this agenda
- on this very hot day And we have Brie Gregory with us Brianna Gregory Excuse me our Monroe County auditor
- to walk us through some quarterly reviews. Thank you
- Good afternoon, it's actually Breanne, there's no A. I'm terribly sorry. That's okay. How long will
- we work together? No big deal. Anyway, I'm gonna walk you through this Menor County, Indiana financial
- overview if somebody doesn't mind putting it up on the screen. I think Carly's working on it. She's
- joining now, apologies, one second.
- tell the people who might be watching this where that's at in the packet. Yeah, it's as soon as you
- get through the minutes, it is on page 24 there and it's entitled. What does it have? It is titled Menor
- County, Indiana financial overview. Thank you. As we wait for it to come up, people can get there.
- I'm thinking. Does it say exhibit be on it? Pardon? Does it say exhibit be on it? It does not. That's
- from the minutes. It says Minner County, Indiana financial overview, and it should be page 24. Give
- me a second here. Well, my numbers, my pages aren't numbered, so give me a second. Okay, it is up on
- the screen.
- for the public and us whenever you're ready. But just to take you through this briefly, the first section
- is the cash analysis for all funds. So this is for all county funds and it gives a little bit of history
- there with 2024 and 2025 and it goes quarter by quarter. So we're showing you here the beginning cash,
- revenue total, expenditure total, and then ending balance in the ledger. So as you can see here,
- The second quarter of 2025 was up 8% from the prior year and same quarter. And then looking at the second
- quarter in 2026, we're up 8% again from the same period last year. So that's looking pretty good. Moving
- on to the next section, it's anticipated revenue versus actual. So here, this is levy funds only.
- And this section compares what was estimated on the Gateway Form 4B versus what we actually have received.
- So looking at this, you can see that we ended up expending 65 million in 2025. And we're, you know,
- budgeting, I'm sorry, we're, we,
- excuse me, sorry, getting off my notes here. But we're right where we should be as of the six month
- mark there. If you look at, we're about halfway, we've received about half of what we anticipate and
- anticipated versus actual. We were up 5% the year before, which is where I've been trying to say that
- we're estimating better than we have in the past. We never wanna be overestimating, we wanna be conservative
- with that, but we're hitting it much closer than we have in the past.
- And then looking at the final section here, expenditure analysis for levy funds.
- the total appropriation for levy funds versus actual expenditure. Um as evidenced by, you know the historical
- expenditures we budgeted much closer to need for 2026. As you can see, we expended 68 million. In 2025.
- We budgeted, you know, 66 in 2026. And again, you can see our unused
- So we have 52% unused appropriations. So again, we're right where we should be. And I think it's kudos
- to all of you for budgeting much closer to the need. I can answer any questions. But again, this is
- just like the top-level overview, not getting into the nitty-gritty. So if there's questions, I can
- probably email specifics later. OK, all right.
- I have a question just for those watching at home that have been watching these quarterly shifts and
- we're kind of taking a deeper dive here into some things. Is there anything that is problematic? Is
- there anything that is troubling you? Not at all. I mean, we're, as far as cash balances, we're increasing
- year over year, which is what we want to do. Obviously, we want to continue to grow that within reason.
- We are expending where we anticipate.
- Expending we're not over where we should be at the mid-year mark and You know as far as cash coming
- in we're receiving what we're estimating and a little bit above that Well, and that's the tricky thing
- isn't it is to try and estimate what comes in and the last thing I'll say on this is we are now in that
- time of the calendar where liaisons are going into departments and reviewing budgets ahead of budget
- season. And this is exactly where reversions, those conversations about reversions are going to play
- in, that we're trying to zero in on those budget values so that we don't end up with 10, 12 percent
- at the end of the year.
- That's exactly it. We don't want to depend on those reversions. We want to budget accurately, so we
- know what we have and what we're going to expend. I mean, within reason. Obviously, there are unanticipated
- expenses that come up that we might need additional appropriations for, or we might need to move some
- things around. But overall, I think we're moving closer and closer toward best practice, and that's
- great. Wonderful. All right. Any questions from Ken? All right. Let's move on.
- just a final note. We did also include. Revenue anticipated revenue. What we've received for all the
- major revenues in the packet as well. I don't need to go through that. I just wanted to let the public
- and you know it's there. So you get that monthly in your monthly financial report, but just to highlight
- it for the public. Thank you. This is really helpful for the public to see that we were being really
- good stewards with the funds, and this is why
- season always seems like we're really nitpicking, but this is why. All right. Thank you for that report.
- Next we'll go into from 2026 into 2027 and we'll look at budget recommendations to council. I will note
- that the president's letter has been sent to all department heads
- This is on page 26 and 27 and 28 of your packet. Council President Jennifer Crossley worked hard on
- this letter to send it out, and I think you can read that for yourselves. Of course, department heads
- have already received this. Councilmember Feidl, do you have any comments or questions about this letter
- that was sent out? I don't at this point, but I think that
- some of the liaison assignments I have are somewhat cautious, I should say. So I think they'd like some
- idea where they need to take the same increase or decrease. I think they'd like some guidance if there
- was a way that we can provide that.
- Absolutely, and as you can see in this letter, Councilmember Crossley wanted to take the information
- that we just reviewed from the auditor's office in terms of revenues and expenditures and really emphasize
- that setting budgets to the amount that was asked in the previous year is going to be really helpful
- for us as we do budget negotiations.
- this fall. And you'll also notice here that there are some considerations about the cost of living adjustment
- or COLA as well as information regarding how our FICA and perf rates are going to be set and information
- regarding full time self insurance. This came up in our last council meeting. We're going to talk about
- it again today that the estimated full time position rate for FY 2027 is $18,000.
- So there's a lot of good information in here. And as always, for department heads that have questions,
- the council office is the place to go. And of course, liaisons have this as well. Kim Schell, do you
- have any questions or things to point out? I'd like to point out that within the president's letter,
- with regards to the economic development lit, the president did ask that the departments not budget
- for 2027 in the economic lit. So whatever you budgeted or whatever is budgeted in 2026 under fund 1112
- needs to be funded within your original budget. So don't budget anything in 1112, which is the economic
- lit. So. All right.
- Are there any other comments or questions about the president's letter? Michelle, is this the point
- that you want to talk about longevity, or do you want to go back to COLA? Your choice. Let's go with
- the agenda. Let's start with COLA, or cost of living adjustment. So I prepared a couple documents that
- are in the packet.
- I want everyone to know that the final numbers at the bottom are incorrect. I got some my decimals wrong
- within my fund and I do have the updated amounts. So I want to display.
- Okay, so if we move forward with no COLA, our current budget for 2026, which includes the FICA and the
- PERF, and that's the formula that I made an error in in the packet. So these numbers are not right.
- That's why I'm displaying them now. FICA, PERF, and this is just strictly salaries. It does not include
- supplementals, overtime, anything like that. It's just salaries.
- 48,394,953. So if we do a no-cola and we move everyone up on their step increases, and mind you, this
- is just a snapshot in time of where everyone is at. We have had, which was back at the 1st of May, maybe
- the end of April, somewhere along through, we have had people leave since then, that kind of thing.
- So at that moment in time,
- we move forward with no colas and including the step increases is going to be 51,114,654. So that is
- a difference of 2.7 million between the 2026 current and the fiscal no cola. But FSG has stated that
- we can afford a 2% increase
- And with that 2% increase, like I said, that was a snapshot in time. So these numbers are just estimates
- that it would cost a $52,195 or a total difference of $3.8 million. And that includes everyone's step
- increases as well as the 2% COLA across the board for everyone.
- That's a lot of numbers and a little bit of time. Councilmember Fiddle, do you have any questions or
- comments about this? I think I'd be anxious to see what the council would like to do with this information,
- actually. And I think as we go forward with recommendations to the council from this body, kind of the
- headline here is that a 2% COLA would, on average, based on the snapshot in time, it would be about
- $1.1 million of a difference.
- between a 2% and a zero. All right. And just as a reminder to everyone here, the president's letter
- does recommend a 0% COLA, but that does not mean that council can't change that.
- And so that's something that we're going to bring this information back to council so that they have
- as much information as they need to make an informed decision on cost of living adjustment. And we are
- very aware of the current economy and everything, all the prices that have gone up and what our staff
- are feeling. So that's going to all weigh into a conversation. And these numbers are really helpful
- to help us make those decisions. All right.
- Any other questions or comments on cost of living adjustments? All right. Let's go into longevity. And
- before you, or as you're pulling that up, let me just say a couple of things. That's all right,
- Kim Schell. All right. One of the reasons why we talked about longevity back in March and why we're
- talking about it again in June is so that we do not spring a conversation about longevity on folks in the fall.
- We know that this is a very important topic. We know that this is a very personal topic, and we want
- to make sure that we are having extended and public conversations about the best ways to move forward
- together as a county so that we can ensure that we are treating the folks who work here and provide
- public service day in and day out to residents of Monroe County equitably and fairly.
- That's the reason why you are seeing us talk about longevity so much, is we want to make sure that we
- are getting this right, even given those funding constraints that you saw earlier from the data. So
- you're ready to go? I had presented, I believe it was back in May,
- to the council with regards to longevity and what it would look like. So this is just, let's see. Council,
- like they said, they have been talking about doing away with a longevity.
- Right now what we do is as employees leave and those positions are filled, those employees no longer
- get longevity. So what we're looking at right now, which again is a snapshot of time, the total employees,
- which is 433, that at that moment in time get longevity. And so that longevity amount is costing us
- that total fiscal impact is 424, 357 for this year, so for 2026. The council can either continue with
- the practice that we're doing now, and as employees leave, new employees come on, they don't get the
- longevity. But if they wish to reduce the longevity amount,
- So the fiscal impact, I have this scenario one, which would do it in a two year cycle or two budget
- cycle. So for the budget of 2027, we would reduce the longevity amounts by 50%. So for instance, a person
- with two to four years that is getting $400 for 2026,
- would get $200 for 2027 and then nothing in 2028 budget year. So that is that scenario, which would
- decrease that budget by 212,179. So you would see that decrease plus the FICA. Longevity does not get
- perf. Excuse me. But we also have the scenario
- where we could do it over a four-year period. And that would mean for 2027, we would decrease the longevity
- amounts by 25%. In 2028, it would be a 50%. 2029 would be a 75%. And then for the budget in 2030, everyone
- would be receiving zero longevity.
- That is just scenarios and the council needs to decide with regards to the 2027 budget process if they
- want to move forward with a four-year incremental decrease or if they want to do it within a two-year
- budget cycle. Or not do anything at all and just continue as we are.
- So remind me how it was implemented to begin with. Was there like a 10-year plan or do you know what
- the plan was to begin with? No, I'm not understanding what you. So when you first decided to work on
- longevity and maybe decrease it, did you decide at the time that you would do it over a certain period
- of time and has that changed on this or I'm trying to figure out?
- I think the original plan when council was addressing longevity was to let it phase out. So we put on
- council put in a date for which any employee hired thereafter would not receive longevity. And I there
- wasn't a plan identified on how long it would take. It was just as employees retire leave. This is going
- to phase out almost like attrition. Correct. OK. Thank you.
- So again, the council has two scenarios, if I could summarize before it, that is a short term phase
- out or a longer term phase out. The shorter term phase out would have a fiscal impact of exactly half
- because it's only two years, and the longer term fiscal impact would tear down eventually to zero over
- those four years. Or not do anything at all and just keep it as we are.
- And would keep as we are mean that the attrition would continue? Yes. Okay. And do we have any idea
- how that might play out? Is there any particular way to figure that out? Probably not, right? I don't
- think there's a way to identify that because it just depends on when people are retiring or leaving.
- Exactly, or leaving. So do we have any data that shows how long this has been going on, what those numbers
- have been in the previous years? Okay.
- 629 full-time employees. At this snapshot in time, 433 employees are eligible for longevity. So,
- you know. And then last year and the year before that and all that, or do we have any data that shows?
- I don't have any data because I have not, you know, been asked for that. Okay. I mean, another option
- might be to freeze where everyone is now. That's another thought.
- I'm just trying to think what's fair, so. And can you talk a little bit about other scenarios that were
- proposed that were maybe not being recommended here, such as putting in step increases in areas where
- there's maybe too much of a gap, or perceived gap, excuse me? There was a couple scenarios where
- we could take our current grid, which is minimum 1, 3, 8, 14, 20, 25, and then change those to have
- step increases that match the current step increases up to 30 years, I think, or I can't remember where
- I'm at right at the moment.
- But that would change how everyone is getting their step increase. And then on top of that, they would
- get a longevity amount on top of that. But that, I think, would need to be filtered through WIS to help
- me get those scenarios, those percentages.
- in. The only thing is, if we add in the longevity into the step increases, that also means you're getting
- perf on top of that, which is an added cost. Right now, longevity is only FICA.
- What I'm hearing is that these two scenarios that we have before us, they're ready for council to review
- in terms of this budget year. And if we want to do something more complex, it's going to take some time
- that we just don't have at this point. Correct. Because I really think if you want to move the longevity
- into salary grids, I really think that needs to be a WISP help with where I'm at right now.
- an added cost because we'd have to have with you know do this and they're not going to do it for free
- so. All right there's a lot to consider here the the cost of doing nothing for council is about half
- a million dollars and tearing it down is so that there's a lot to think about here and and like I said
- at the top there's there's a lot at stake as well here there's it's a lot of folks who have been here
- for a long time that's I mean looking here there's
- about 25, 30 people that have been here for over 30 years. And how long has longevity been in play?
- Does somebody have that year or approximation? I'm not 100% sure. Early 90s? Yeah. And I will add that
- WIS did evaluate longevity when they did the reclassification study in, was it 20, 21.
- And if you go back and watch that August meeting, their recommendation wasn't to just eliminate longevity.
- I think at that time, Councilor McKim specifically asked if that was their recommendation.
- And they said, no, our longevity program is more generous than other counties. But what they were saying
- is, if you did not want to maintain the current longevity program, you could put it in steps and in
- salary, as Ms. Kim just explained.
- And that might be an alternative way to work with that, it sounds like. But you would need, it sounds
- like we need WIS to help with that, right? You would need WIS to help with that, and then ultimately
- that option would be more than our current longevity program. Thank you. All right, any other thoughts
- on, I feel like I can talk for hours about this, but let's move on.
- And let, so we'll take that back to council, both edits and, I'm sorry, longevity and COLA. And now
- let's pivot to edit. And we have our audit, or I'm sorry, it's you. We have the board of commissioners
- who we get to talk with to create this edit plan together. We work together on this. And so we'll talk
- about this with,
- So tell us what we need to know, and then we can weigh in. I'm not sure what you want to know, but I
- do have some information that may be of some benefit to you. If you are considering wanting to move
- any expenses from county government into edit, you need to have a conversation with the Board
- of Commissioners so it can be included into a plan, if that was the way to go. So I just want to make
- sure everybody understands
- that right now, there is nothing in there other than, I believe, the jails. The jail is in there. And
- there was an airport-ish airport item. Those were the two big. So the jail and the airport? Yeah, those
- were the two large items. So the year was $23,475,065 in the edit.
- fund. You have a $4,000,000, $4,000,000, $9,910.16 appropriation and budgets in that fund. Basically,
- we have 56, we've spent all but $56,720 of the $4 million that was originally placed there. And presuming
- we spend every bit of that 4.8
- We will end the year with $27,041,602.99. Repeat that one more time for me, 23. The end of the year
- at a minimum, and that's assuming we expend the full all appropriations and we don't get any more receipts
- in, which I don't believe is accurate. That would give you a balance of $27,041,602.99.
- Thank you. And just to make sure that folks at home know what we're talking about, this is the economic
- development income tax. Yes. And my anticipation with everybody else is that this is going to be part
- of the, we roll into the whole new lit. In 2029. In 2029, yeah.
- Do you have any questions or comments about Edit and how we're doing? Not right now. Clearly, you know,
- we felt strongly enough to put this in the letter to departments to say if you had budgeted items within
- Edit last year, we're asking to move it back into your departmental budgets, and that's something that
- we clearly think is important fiscally to
- not only just for the auditor and the audits that you all have to go through so it's cleaner, but also
- it just makes more sense that as we're moving forward, that departmental expenditures are happening
- in those departments. But we also know we can't rely on this forever, and we can't use this as our safety
- net every single year. So I think as we're moving into this fiscal year, what was the number that you
- would set at the very top that
- the fund balance of the fund. We started with $23,475,065.83. We have receded in seven million. We've
- expended almost four. Right. And before, you know, folks, you know, start calling in and saying, wait,
- you're just sitting on $23 million. That's exactly why the commissioners and the council worked together
- on a plan to invest those dollars.
- And it was this fund that was originally identified as supporting funds for the jail and justice center.
- Right. Right. All right. Any other questions from you, Councillor Feidl? No, I don't think so. All right.
- as our recommendations then to council as we're moving forward would be that if council wants to make
- additional changes to the edit plan, it has to be done in time to talk with the commissioners. We can't
- simply just say, okay, well, we want this, move this into edit. This has to be this collaborative process.
- Yes, because it is the executive that does the plan. That's right. So yeah, there needs to
- be that communication. So again, that'll be something that we're bringing back to council
- Uh, to talk about. All right. Any other questions or comments from the Kim shell? You look like you
- have something to say. Yes. Um, just as a note, we probably should have, when I say we loosely, uh,
- the council and the commissioner should probably have that conversation prior to the budget sessions,
- which will start in September. Do you agree? Don't agree? Oh, I
- I think it'd be smart to do it beforehand. It seems a little bit horse cart inverted kind of situation.
- I think that it would be an interesting conversation. So from the council perspective, I think increased
- communication with the commissioners is always a good play. The second point I will note is, again,
- as liaisons are going into departments and having budget conversations,
- The idea that folks can say, well, we need a brand new X, and the liaisons are going to say, well, let's
- just put that in edit. That's off the table, right? And so I think those conversations are happening.
- And so I think as the liaisons come back with those grayer areas of, well, what do we do in this situation?
- What do we do in that situation? I think that's where those conversations will happen. I think we can
- have those in an expeditious fashion.
- blazing towards a budget session. No, yes. I will say that capital expenses, we're preparing another
- bond for 2026. So that's where those capital needs generally are placed. We are already, I think I have
- over $5 million in capital requests. All right. Well, let's keep talking about that. All right.
- Last call for questions on EDIT, or the Economic Development Income Tax. All right, so let's move on
- to... Sorry. Oh, yeah, please. Sorry. No, that's okay. I know we're getting to the sustainability plan
- that Financial Solutions Group is going to go over here shortly in the agenda. However, I do want to
- make note that they... I believe they have anticipated additional expenditures from EDIT. They've bumped
- it up slightly. Some of that is for an anticipated
- bond, which for jail bond, I think they anticipated some of that expenditure there, which yeah, not
- relevant now. However, if council wanted to proactively talk to commissioners, that would probably be
- the number. Yeah. So my understanding of what, um, F S G has provided in the past recently past is past
- year, um, what looking at our ability to afford
- the facility and the required bonds. And when they did that, they went ahead and continued. And I believe
- they also included a slight increase each year of taking away from the edit and showing that you could
- still afford the bond for this facility up to, I believe, $150 million. I don't remember. $150 million.
- That was the purpose of that. That's why they continued it along. But they can't continue it along.
- The commissioners are the ones that can continue the expenses out of the edit fund. Clear as mud? Clear
- as mud. And of course, anybody following along knows that Councilmember Feidl is the council representative
- to a group that is talking actively about that facility. The location.
- location only and that of course on on this side we're talking about potential financing so we are actively
- having these conversations and I think we'll just leave it at that all right let's talk about self-insurance
- all right let's just start that off by saying that every year this is a
- big ticket item for council that would just go the cost just go up and up and up. And we want to get
- out ahead of that. And we want to be able to make sure that folks are getting the health care that they
- need. That's very important to us. And so that's why we want to have this conversation. So we're still
- early in the whole trying to get all the information right now. We got information and Melissa had to
- leave from Apex that included
- that did not include me. So there's kind of a delay in that. But what I want to tell you is, thankfully,
- you guys gave or provided a $3 million transfer to support the Self Insurance Fund last year. And so
- we actually only used $590,000, $979 of that
- three million that you provided. So we ended the year with $2.4 million, which is how we started this
- year, which is a very good thing. And at this point in time, we are on track
- And again, there's a lot of crystal balls involved in these things. But we're on track to end the year
- with about a $2.1 million. How many? 2.1. Thank you. Which is where I am most comfortable is with a
- 1.8 to 2.1. That would be about the same as what we didn't use of the 3 million transfer, right?
- Yeah, so it's keeping it kind of static, if you will. It is biting into it a little bit because it's
- going down $300,000. That's based upon my crystal balls. And what we do know is that medical expenses
- are insane right now. And we have had more than one employee who's on our plan who has hit the
- loss, the individual stop loss. And so that is a problem overall. Right now, our stop loss, we're getting
- reimbursed. However, when we go out to market, they're not going to want to give us the same stop loss
- that we have based upon how it's been used.
- And again, it was just early. We just met. Melissa and I just met. We met Friday, I think it was. He's
- back in the room. Yeah. And just to hear about kind of where things are going. And so they're supposed
- to get us more information with the May numbers so that we're looking at what kind of an increase. I
- do know that they wanted like a 12% increase, which would put us at
- over the 18,000. And this is apex. But we hadn't had a chance to really drill down into the whole thing.
- So we're kind of on par for where we were concerned about being. I think that's exactly what we're interested
- in is knowing what ballpark we're in. You know, are we are we
- in an IU football stadium or are we in a giant, huge NFL stadium? We just want to make sure that we're
- thinking the right way. I think that we are way better than we were last year. And to that point, could
- we have someone project onto the screens page 50 of the packet? This is the auditor's office summary
- of the self-insurance update.
- And it shows that four-year trend. Yes, yeah. Which I think is helpful for crystal ball peering. Yeah,
- because I've got the similar thing. Charlie and I have been. And we're going to have to zoom way in.
- What section do you want? Let's start at the bottom line, because that's where Ms. Purdy was talking.
- Go to end of 2025.
- Projected twenty twenty six so twenty twenty we're looking at that. I think that the. We started last
- year with seven hundred twenty five thousand which was. House meeting yeah so we're looking at. Michelle
- we're looking at the pink line.
- is the starting point, and then on the bottom, there's another pink line, and that's the cash balance
- at the end. And that's the $2.4 million you see on your screen right there is what you were talking
- about, Ms. Purdy, in terms of what, the end of 2025? That was the amount that was expended.
- Is that clear? Am I? No, the 2.4 is what was left. Right, OK. So can you scroll down, Michelle? OK.
- There we go. At 2.4, that's the end of 2025. That's the ending cash balance. That's what was left. Correct.
- 2.4, end of 2025. And what we started this year was? That's right. Yeah. Now, I think that it looks
- like maybe you guys have a more positive end. So we actually analyzed
- analyze this three different ways. We went on a trending factor, the budgeted factor, and then also
- a percent basis. And so we took roughly what was the percentage from last year. Whenever we take the
- budgeted analysis versus the percent increase analysis, we actually, our crystal balls are kind of aligning.
- And we're showing that we're fitting again, crystal ball, roughly 2.3 million to start out 2027.
- very close to what Mrs. Party had said. I like to go with mine because it's worse. We want her to be
- correct. We want to budget with you and hope that she's correct. Exactly. I do tend to be a little bit,
- and they're extremely cautious too. If we update that to that 2.1
- And then we do everything percent basis except for that 18,000 per employee. We're showing that we would
- in the year roughly around 823,000. And that's with a 14% increase. That's a bad thing. So there would
- be other, there's other parts that come into play. Exactly. Yeah. Because it's not going to be that bad.
- So to that note, though, that $18,000 per employee gives us a little bit of cause for concern, just
- if things trend the way we are anticipating. Can you say more about that?
- There's so many variables and factors, it's hard to say, but I would hate for us to be in the same position
- we were in in the past because we want to have that balance, so we're planning for the future. FSG has
- recommended countless times that we have a separate, they're calling it a rainy day, self-insurance
- fund. Now, we'll do whatever they think is best, however, we don't think that's necessary, but we do
- think that we need to have a reasonable balance for those expenditures when we hit unanticipated things.
- Can we account for all of that? I have not taken out as they have through 27. But the intention when
- we do do that is that we will end the year with the 2 million plus. That's the intention. Because we
- have to take into consideration the premium equivalents that are associated with the for the employees
- and like it's not
- can't take all of that and apply the same percentage because some of it is solely the county that supports.
- So it gets a little interesting. And that's exactly why we want to talk about this in June and not wait
- until December to have you scrambling in for the last minute appropriation.
- I will say that last year I was in like in May because I nearly had a heart attack when I found out
- that we started off with $735,000. So yeah, no, we're in good shape. And that's where we want to be
- right now, right? And then what we will do is build into our costs for next year so that we can end
- next year with sufficient funds.
- And we'll just kind of go from there. So I'm curious, and I don't know if it's available here, but I'm
- curious to know if other organizations or groups or entities are expecting a 12%? 12%? Yeah. Do we have
- any? I don't know. I can find out. I think that would be good information to know. Yeah. We're like
- on track working with APEX to get the 12% or I don't know.
- could be expected elsewhere, you know? I'm not sure I answered the question. OK. So first of all, this
- is just a box, kind of. That was our first, let's look at this. And I will tell you that almost every
- year, I get a really large number. And then we go from there. They have it based on data. However, I
- don't have that with me because they were going to update the information.
- And so I can't really tell you what they were using that on. But the other thing you have to keep in
- mind is that we, as a self-insured entity, we have a lot of fluctuations that occur. And right now,
- we have some users who are extremely ill. And that's hitting this plan. I understand the risk completely. Yes.
- You know, I'm always interested to know is there something better, right? So is this the best we can
- do with insurance for employees, or is there something else, right? Right. And we've looked at that.
- We look at that almost every year. We have a great insurance program that we provide to our... Yeah,
- I'm not discounting that at all. Yeah. And, you know, costs, we keep it down as low as we possibly can,
- and I think that
- You don't want, by being self-insured, we do have the waves. However, if we had a fully insured program,
- we don't get any waves. We just get the flat, and it's just gonna keep going up, right? This model is
- working well in counties.
- And I know that Apex is vigilant about our vendors and our products that we get. I remember meeting
- with them before. Yeah. Yes, that's right. You did. And so they're very vigilant about that. I do know
- that they're going to be kind of re-looking at all of our vendors for 20... 8? 27?
- I would like to also ask while she's coming up and she can say what she says in a minute but what how
- long have we been with apex that's a question I don't know remember if I heard before I was with so
- let's see here I started in 2013 I believe here and it was there then no they we added them in
- It's been a very good relationship that we have with them and they've gone to bat for us, which they
- should, but on numerous occasions. So yeah, so they're good.
- formally introduced. The situation demands it. This is our new HR director, and this is Melissa Stinson
- Waddell. Yes, thank you. So I was in a meeting this morning with Brandy from Apex. So we are doing an
- RFP for our ancillaries, and we're going to look at those bids so we can get the lowest more bang for
- the buck that we can receive.
- We're going to do an open enrollment this year where we do some type of a theme and we are looking at
- the theme as being a way to reduce the cost and to become our employees to become more consumers about
- where we go and what we do and what's less expensive but can get them their best treatment.
- mandate, but opportunities. And so we're looking into a couple of programs that will also help us with
- high-cost claimants. And once those programs are out there, we'll give them the name and how they work.
- But right now we're looking at them just as different programs to reduce the cost. One program is actually
- a program for someone who has a very high cost. And we would have a
- one-time expense that we would pay. And I do want to think it's 65,000. And then we pay nothing else.
- There's no lasers. They are no longer on our insurance program. But they don't have to pay anything
- either. And it's a lovely program that is provided. So we're looking into that. But we cannot pressure
- people to do those types. We have to offer it. So I'm going to ask the commissioners if we can mark it.
- this year, so everyone has all the information that they need on what these programs are and how they
- can participate in it to help save them money and help save the taxpayers money. And they have to be
- accepted also. So they can apply, but they also have to be accepted. Yes. Open enrollment is November-ish,
- right? Yeah, they asked me today if we would want to do it any sooner, but I need to consult with the
- commissioners and find out if that's
- good thing. I need to look at I had talked with Amy and payroll to find out if she got the numbers earlier
- if that would be better for her. I need to talk to the auditor's office to see if that works for them.
- And then if so then we may go in October so we can have all the numbers dead set before November. I
- used to go in October so I'm surprised. Well I mean it's too late for us but the budget season I mean
- I know in that the most silliest thing one of the most highest cost
- items and you can't even really finalize it until November. That's why we were trying to wrap our heads
- around it right now. Yes. Well, when Apex spoke with us the other day, they wanted to let us know that
- the things that they looked together on the 12% was because they're looking at cost trends,
- on what they're coming, what pharmaceuticals are coming down the road. They are, there are doing an
- RFP for pharmaceuticals right now. So to see where are better bang for the better buck because they
- can see all the different medications that everyone uses and they can put that out to be priced.
- and what kind of deal can you give us kind of thing, but still provide. Because the worst thing you
- want to do is to get to a pharmacy with your medication and your prescription, and they say, oh, that's
- not covered under your program. So we need to make sure that it's tailored fit to our employees. Thank
- you for going over that. I appreciate you coming to the mic and saying that.
- We really do want to invest in our employees. We really want to invest in health care. And we know that
- we need to be careful here. And we need to find the best opportunities. But at the end of the day, we
- don't want people to choose between buying a tank of gas and getting to the pharmacy and paint their
- heads. That's right. Yep. All right. Any other? Actually, I do want to ask one question of the auditor's office.
- I know that last year we did a brand new way of having self-insurance lines throughout the budgets,
- and that got a lot of commentary from Council. I think we're going to still do it that way this year.
- Is that correct? Yeah, I believe that's the plan. Is that correct, Michelle? That is correct.
- easier on our employee services team and honestly it was easier on all of us as well. So it's a win-win
- from our perspective. What are you doing? Oh, just lump budgeting self-insurance. So HR is kind of doing
- a lot of that work then as far as being able to
- Do the sweep and the claim and so forth if that makes sense? So like in general fund we budgeted the
- entire general fund amount under But the departments are still going to put their They're not they're
- not going to do that. No, they didn't do it last year. I know that I worked with E at that time Ian
- said right come up with the right number whatever
- based on what the 144 gave us and we budgeted that out and looked at the numbers and then verified that
- with the departments and it went really well. So just to clarify was budgeted under like HR okay so
- not under the individual departments and just as a lump. Yeah, so I'm just trying to remember because
- I do recall that we did that last year. And my big fear is losing missing some
- dollars because they're important. So who is it? Is HR tracking those FTEs in each department? Yes.
- Okay. And it goes through layers. You know, HR and council office work closely. We're looking at it
- as well. And obviously you'll be involved as well. So multiple layers. Lots of ways. Thank you. And these are
- Just to clarify, though, an HR line only appeared in funds that had multi-users. So if it was a standalone
- fund, it is budgeted within that department's fund. But if it's a multi-user, yes, like CUME. But if
- it's a multi-user, like general fund, public safety, we dedicated a certain line under the HR for
- the insurance for that entire fund. Yeah, highway. I know Lisa's very excited about that. Yeah, and
- then employee services then worked with departments with regards to grant funds because, you know, sometimes
- the grants don't pick up everything, but we capture every position, full-time position into our spreadsheets
- and into our budgets.
- It seems like every council meeting we have a brand new grant that's paying for someone, some portion
- of some person's salary. All right. Any other points of interest for the public or questions or concerns?
- This is exactly what I wanted to have happen. Having these conversations in the public, talking about
- the ins and outs of these programs is so helpful. It's so important to do this in June and not do it
- in November. Thank you. Thank you.
- All right, let's talk about on this, what temperature is it right now? 95 degree day. Let's talk about
- paving. In addition to our budgets, in addition to cost of living adjustments, in addition to longevity,
- in addition to health insurance, in addition to economic development income, we always have a lot of
- miles to pave.
- So we have invited our colleagues from the highway department to come and talk to us about what should
- council expect in this budget season in regards to the bituminous line or other highway related expenditures
- that you think we need to know about. So my first question is on your topic of longevity, if we want
- to address that as a long term employee, do we send it just to you two or to the entire council? I would
- send it to everybody.
- because that way, if we decide that we're gonna go on a vacation to Cancun for two weeks, Kim Schell's
- got it and she can make sure that we see it. Okay. And there's a council email address, right? Uh huh.
- Yeah, that's where I would do it, right? Yes. Yeah. Appreciate that. So there's, I don't know what you,
- where you want me to begin. Is there ever enough money to pave? No. And direction from the president's
- letter, we did revert back
- everything from the 11-12, which is the economic development income tax. We took out the, what you had
- put in, what had been put in there was the CCMG match, contractual and bituminous, because it was started
- out in the rainy day, then went to county general, and then it was put into the 11-12 last year. We
- also had put into the 11-12 425,000 for, it's actually the county fleet,
- gasoline costs. It's not highway. So the highway department has always had to cover those costs for
- the entire fleet and pay for the gasoline, get reimbursed. But we've always had to set that money aside,
- even though it's reimbursed from the department. So it's still money that's allocated to gasoline for
- the county. So we had that discussion. We put that into the 1112 also. So now we've been told to revert
- that back to the 1169, which is local road and street.
- Again, in my letter to you, I'm not sure that that's, I don't know why we would set highway funds aside
- to pay for gasoline for the whole county, because that's what's happening. So we are zeroing out our
- by two minutes line in 1169 to take the gasoline back. And that also covers gasoline, the pump repairs,
- inspections, the IDEM reports, everything that goes along with maintaining
- the county fleet gasoline pumps. We have kind of a picture that we had drawn out this morning. I would
- have got it to you electronically. I can send it to you electronically of where we're at with budgeting
- for a paving program in 2027. As you are aware, the CCMG program has changed. It shifted a little bit.
- What we expected to get was, so in March
- To give you a scenario of how the numbers change, March 15th of 2025, I talked with AIC, and at that
- time, the lane distribution for Monroe County would have been 2.13 million. In March of 2026, that was
- changed to 847,000 after the House bills 179 and everything went through.
- We got our distribution last week, and it was $412,000, half of what we expected. So I've reached out
- to AIC, our legislative group, with IACS. So the reason for that, not really sure. It got down to being
- a $65 million distribution. After Senate Bill 179 was prepared, and in their statement, they would have
- $65 million.
- The state comptroller's memo was approximately 32 million, which is half the original amount, which
- was just this past March. We're still waiting for the letter to come out. I'm told it's being worked
- on, on how they came out with the distribution amounts. But 32 million, I think, actually was going
- to go out to about 16 entities that have the will tax. That's how that's determined. And getting that
- $412,000 distribution, that's part of the CC.
- The next call will be in September. So now we will readjust and we will try to apply for that additional
- $587,000. It's going to be very competitive. The funds have gone down. Gasoline tax suspension has changed
- a lot of things. The overall picture, CCMG took a big hit for that.
- I forwarded today, you guys, an email from AIC where the Governor Braun has asked the state comptroller
- to give the locals back their funds for the gasoline suspension and make us whole. When that happens,
- I don't know.
- It hasn't been declared in that memo today. I don't think it said where those funds would be coming
- from. But the governor has stated more than once and now he's sent the notice press release out today
- that said he would make the counties whole. So as we move into 2026, we're moving forward as we have
- our budget. It was approved. We will not be going in for an additional like we've done in the past from NVH.
- Uh, to add on more paving, we will do what we have in place. I think right now it's around 36 miles
- of paving. Um, over the last three or four years that the council has helped us, we've been able to
- do approximately 50 miles. So, uh, we will continue to see that number drop, um, in 2027 and just making
- all these adjustments of taking back the gasoline. Not sure if the county council is going to put back
- the million for
- I prefer not to call it a match anymore because that's not a promise. That's why we had put it into
- contractual and bituminous in the 11-12. So if we didn't get the grant, we were still able to spend
- it for paving. And that's what we've always spent it for is paving, nothing else. Looking at the numbers,
- we're still a million dollars going to be short for next year by the time we make these adjustments
- in 11-76, 11-73, and 11-69.
- by taking some of those expenses back into reverting them back to our accounts. I'm happy to send you
- digital copies, printed copies of kind of our little scenario that we made this morning, and I'm happy
- to answer any questions if I haven't. I'd like to point out, too, that that million dollars that were
- short is still with
- Can you speak up just a little bit, Toby? That million dollars that we're short is still with the council
- finding a home for that million dollars that you've given us over the past five years. I just want to
- point out for the public, the narrative the highway department just gave is on page 51 of the packet.
- I will note that the budget or the Excel scenarios that they have before them is not in the packet,
- but we can send those out whenever. But again, this is exactly why we want to talk now and not wait
- until August or September to have this conversation. It is really, I mean, we talked a little bit about
- this last Tuesday.
- I think you got some questions about the gas tax and all that. And so clearly, this is an evolving situation,
- and I don't want to get too much into it because of that. But it is encouraging to hear that leadership
- in Indianapolis wants to make counties whole. Yes. And to get a number of what the counties are going
- to lose, it depends on who you ask. Some people say 10%. Some people say 15%. I think Bree said last week,
- 50%. So it's just the unknown. But if the governor is going to make us whole and replace those funds,
- then like I said, we're just moving forward like we are spending our budget. We've never spent.
- I know Mr. Garataz, which I have the utmost respect for. He's always been a great financial assistance
- for my programs. We do watch our numbers. Again, we won't be going in for an additional.
- The people that will take the heat for that will be us because it's less paving. I bet we have 80 to
- 100 open requests of what we don't even have as a priority for us at this point on paving. We never
- have enough money for paving. And as you can see from the numbers, it's going down as we speak. And
- I'm not sure what the answers are.
- Again, it depends on who you ask, but we do watch our numbers. We don't ever spend our full appropriations.
- We haven't. I've been in this position. So we know that we need to be cautious moving forward. Our most
- important part in our program is our employees. Sometimes people question whether or not that we should
- be filling those positions.
- of paving, it's snow removal is our biggest thing. And you have to have people to do that over 700 miles
- of road. Do we still get the complaints that we don't clear it fast enough? We do. If you start eliminating
- people, you start eliminating services for the taxpayers. And that's just, to me, that's really not
- an option. You still have to get people to work to make a living. You have to get the emergency services
- out. I don't care if they live on a dead-end road that's got two people on it.
- They are still a priority. And if you start cutting your employees, you're cutting the services. Can
- you repeat back, since we don't have it in front of us, your estimate of how many miles you think you're
- going to be able to pave in 2027? 2027. 2026. Excuse me, yes. 2026 were about 35 miles. OK. 27 with
- the numbers. That is if we get the million.
- looking at 2.7, so that's probably 25 or 26 miles. And if you don't get the million? If you don't get
- the million, you can take nine miles off. You're looking at 110, 100 to 120 a mile. We want to make
- sure the council knows exactly what they're doing. It's the only place you can take it from.
- There is not options. So if you do do a COLA, we understand we want to take care of our employees. We
- get notices every week. Things are 100% better, I do believe, thanks to the Council of doing the WIS
- and everything a few years ago. I think we're a lot more competitive. We probably won't be ever to where
- the private sector is. But our benefits are good.
- you know, start hacking those away and start talking about taking away longevity and things, you're
- going to start losing people on the basis of that also. So our employees are number one to us. And if
- you do do a COLA, we will make it work. But again, it does come from the paving dollars. But our materials
- are pretty easy. We buy stone and we buy asphalt and we and it's all
- I was saying the materials cost have gone up. Material cost has gone, especially like after the oil
- recently. When diesel fuel and gas went up, so did asphalt mix because that's an oil product. Starting
- to see more of an automated, I think IMI was one of our most recent that they are tagging on a $25 charge
- for a fuel cost or a fuel increase. So we're going to open bids this Thursday.
- We don't know what to expect. Do we expect it to go up? Absolutely. As there was a shortage last year
- with salt, we expect not only the fuel to get it here, but also the product probably too will be. Yep.
- You do some kind of brine too, as I remember, right? Yep, which is salt-based. Is it salt-based? Yeah.
- So that salt that comes in gets put into a brine tank and mixed with water. And that's helped us a lot.
- It's helped us a lot on overtime.
- you know pre prep the roads we do what we can to try and safer over time but you know when you get tornadoes
- and things like that that is over time for our guys to help get people out of their dead end roads hackers
- creek and things like that uh... so that eats into our budget also and we cannot do a paving program
- without your assistance it's just it is just not possible to make a difference or to even
- try and stay a little caught up. It's just not possible. So I think I remember that there's some kind
- of ranking of roads that you pave, right? So what percentage of the road needs something, are we able
- to address? Do you have any idea on that? I don't probably have a percentage, so we're required in our-
- How many miles, maybe? Well, I mean, we kind of build our program.
- We are required every two years for our asset management plan to rate the roads. And then give it a
- PACER rating one through 10. And then all of this data goes to LTAP. And then they distribute it to
- the state to make sure that we're using the 1173 funds that are restricted on pavement preservation.
- And we're using those funds wisely. So we... Yeah, what we'll do is we'll see what that number is.
- 2.7 or I think last year we was up around 5 million. That's why in 25 we did. 25 we did 51.88 miles
- and that was one of the reasons that was because the CCMG was 1.5 million. And you gave us 1.5 million
- to match us. So that was 3 million. There's about 30 miles right there. But we take that number that
- we have in our budget that we can use for paving.
- And then we start looking at those roads that are at the bottom into that scale. And it might not even
- be a road that's at the bottom of the scale, but it's maybe a busy road, like a Fairfax or a Union Valley
- or a Heart Street, stuff that takes high speed, lots of traffic. You can't let those roads get to a
- one, two, or three. When that road gets to a four, you better be looking at something to do with it.
- Does it start out at 10, the number? Yes. So 10 down to one.
- take that all, it's still probably an 8 or 9. So you get to that bottom end of that scale. Obviously,
- yeah, we have a lot of roads that are low speed, low volume. They're at the bottom of that scale that
- we might pick a road that's maybe a little better shape, but has way more traffic on it, higher speed.
- Those just got to be addressed before a low volume, low speed. And then you start looking at
- your subdivisions. A lot of those roads are in your subdivisions. And those roads really
- cost more to pave because you gotta look at the curb and gutter. There's always sidewalk issues that
- need to be taken care of. Those roads usually take an extra step and need milled or we get the pavement
- up above the curb and gutter. So you have to mill those down on each side. You guys probably have seen
- us do some of that or contractors do some of that. Those roads usually take a little more money. When
- you get to that 110, 120 a mile, that's usually a subdivision road. Where a road like Heart Straight
- that doesn't have curb and gutter
- Might be a little wider, but you're not taking those extra steps that you can put that money into mix
- to put a bigger cross section on top of that road. Hopefully the finishing is less. And after a winner,
- it depends on the winner. Our paving program can change just like that. If we didn't have this road
- on a list, but it is completely demolished after after the winter, you might be throwing a two mile
- road into your list and that's taking something else off. It's just
- It's just a constant of give and take on that list. It's really why we don't put out there of any commitment
- to the public or really anybody until we have it out to bid, because it can change. And we don't make
- promises to the public that we can't keep. We're not going to tell somebody that we will pave your road
- this year.
- If it gets a community crossing award, yeah, that is 100% because we can't change that. If we put it
- out to bid, we know we have the funds to be able to do it. Yeah, we're going to pave that road.
- But I hate it. We take complaint calls every single day. And as of right now, our payment program is
- still up there for this year because we're waiting to see what that gas tax that they suspended
- The governor said we're going to get made whole. Well, is that in December? When is that going to happen?
- Timing is everything, right? Correct. I can't go by asphalt if I don't have the money. On a promise,
- that's right. You guys remain transparent. Your website always lets the public know where you're going
- to be and what you're doing. You've got a great website. And I just refer people all the time to you
- folks. And they call and say, hey, what's going on? And what are you doing? And where are you guys at?
- That's really helpful for the public. And we thank you for coming here today. Thank you for being transparent
- with your request. Council will watch this recording. We will update council on it. And so we will move
- forward together on this. I think the main thing is to find a place, a home for that million or million
- and a half that we've had in the past. And the fuel that got reverted back to local road and street,
- that's $425,000.
- out of NVH or local road and street budget. All right. Well, thank you very much. And if you would,
- email those documents in. And again, as we said at the top, if anybody has anything that they need to
- tell council, that council emails, the best way to do it, because make sure that everyone gets it.
- All right. Thank you. Thanks. Before we invite Mr. Garatos to the podium, I'm going to take a quick
- five-minute recess.
- That way we can stretch our legs. I've got to make a quick phone call and then we'll come back at 2
- 55 we are in recess All right, everyone over good All right
- goes on and the mics go on we are back from our recess this is the long-term finance planning committee
- and we are at item number six on our agenda which we have Greg Garitas with us online and this is an
- extended conversation in regards to the sustainability and revenue plan that was presented at the council
- on Tuesday
- But because of other presentations, our conversation was truncated, and Council encouraged the Long-Term
- Finance Committee to extend the conversation here today. So, Mr. Garataz, welcome back to Monroe County.
- Bruce, can you please promote Mr. Garataz?
- Thank you, and good afternoon. Hey, Kim, could you also have Charlie promote it? Because Charlie from
- our office is going to help me. And Peter and Liz, good afternoon. Good afternoon. I hope it's a touch
- cooler where you are. It is sweltering down here. I don't think it is. Oh, dear. All right.
- Good afternoon. And by the way, I did get to listen to all of that good conversation that has taken
- place. I do want to go back and kind of address a couple things, if I may. Yeah, Mr. Garretas, the floor
- is yours. Please touch on any of those things we talked about. Revenue, COLA, longevity, edits,
- self-insurance by two minutes. What do you have to say?
- Well, let's talk about all those. So first on the step increases. We asked him to give us those numbers.
- I see, Kim, you produced a couple of new numbers. And so I know we corrected the FICA and the PERF and
- thank you very much. I guess the thing I wanted to tell you that in our sustainability,
- we use 2%. The step increases, unbeknownst to me, Kim, on your sheet, is $2.8 million of additional
- revenue that is ongoing. That is really, really significant. Okay, so please make a note of that.
- Remember what we have suggested is a 2% COA. And in our discussions, we have a little discussion with
- Molly and Kim this morning. I guess the whole point there is that if we truly are at 2.8 on step increases
- and we're gonna add another million dollars for the 2%, we still really want some type of money to go to
- people without step increases, but that 3.8 is going to be significant. And we did not plan for that
- in our sustainability. Okay, does all that make sense, Peter or Liz? So let's start there. I think Mr.
- Garitas is referring to the cola sheets here. And Mr. Garitas, we've got, I'm going to have the mic
- go over to Ms. Kim Schell, who's shaking her head. And Ms. Schell,
- What questions do you have? OK, so just to be clear, when I do the two point, the 2% cola, the 2% cola
- is across the board for everyone. And then there are the individuals who get also get a step increase.
- So no one is not getting a cola. I'm just, you know, making sure. Sure, so Kim, I didn't mean that,
- but what I meant was.
- that on top of the TOA, the 2%, we said 2% total for everybody. That's what we were hoping. And the
- step increases are 2.8 on top of that. Is that according to your most recent numbers? Yes. And so we
- then went back to Kim and said, how many of the 629 employees
- are getting staff increases because that's a huge amount of money for the steps. Okay. Yeah. And I'm
- working on those numbers because I didn't have, um, where everybody was at currently. Yeah. So for council's
- consideration and as we move forward, the 3.8,
- We have not planned out. That is quite significant. And Charlie, you've got any comment on this? I guess
- just to be clear is that the total salary increase that we had planned was 2%, which would include step
- increases, the COLA, and then longevity going back to that. So we were saying that the total wage increase
- would be 2%.
- is our assumption. So Kim and Peter, question on that. So I guess that was my assumption looking at
- this sheet as well. Again, while Kim's talking with the auditor, this is exactly why we have
- these conversations so that we can catch these things before budget time. So Michelle,
- Did you catch Mr. Garitas's last question? No. All right, the question is, and I think Charlie also
- raised this, is the 3.8 on top of the 2% increase? No, that's including the 2%. OK. Does that clarify?
- Uh, looking at the camera, sorry, Mr. Garrett, as Charlie, does that satisfy your concerns? Or maybe
- this is another conversation that you need to have at the council office. Well, I think, I think the
- overall point is in the sustainability. Like we said, we use 2% overall. If someone is, if someone's
- step increase causes them to go up 4%.
- and then they get 2% period on top of that, we did not project 6% for an employee, right? Does that
- totally make sense? That should. Yeah, that totally makes sense. That the step increase in addition
- to the COLA, that increase is not included in the sustainability plan. You're nodding your head yes,
- Kim. I understand what he's saying.
- But when we do a COLA, and I'll just say, but when we do a COLA, we do a COLA across the board and across
- the board means that also includes their step increases. So that's why I did it that way because we've
- always done it in the past. Okay. Molly Turner King, do you have something to say? You look like you
- want to say something. Okay. No. Mr. Giertz. So what I want to, what I've asked him to do is tell us
- the number of the 629 employees, how many are going to have an active step? And then the ultimate question
- for the council is you cannot have 2.8 step increases each and every year. So this is either an anomaly
- or whatever. And I guess we need to, we want to research that quite heavily.
- Does that make sense? I'm seeing council office members shaking their head. Yes. Council member Fiddle,
- do you have anything to say at this point? I understand what he's concerned about. Thank you. All right.
- Yeah. Yeah. It sounds like additional conversations need to be had to, uh, uh, to, to reach, uh, to,
- to find out, uh, some of these answers here. So yes, let's have additional questions. All right. Uh,
- what else did you, did you hear in the meeting, Mr. Garitas?
- Well, so on the audit fund, then we had talked about the transitioning of the supplies. And I think
- what I heard was Angie, I thought what we were hearing is directive from the council that those numbers
- should be put back into the general fund from the president of the council. And that was the directive
- put in the letter.
- Uh, in some cases, uh, that would go back into a general fund. In some cases, it would go back into
- another fund. Yeah, but you're correct that there are some cases where the funds would go back into
- a general fund. Yeah. And then we had in the audit fund in the sustainability, the most recent two other
- items we had self-insurance, which we don't think we probably should have for 2027.
- and we will take out the bond payment also for 2027. So basically edit would be in our opinion, the
- probably one and only spot that you could go for the $1 million by two minutes. And that's where we,
- I believe have included it in the past. I want to step in here and just say that
- to get that approved by the board of commissioners. Yes, in order to have it in the plan. So at this
- point in time, the best thing to do is to assume there's nothing in edit. Outside of what's already
- in the plan. And for 2027, what would already be in the plan Angie? Nothing with this budget. Yeah,
- so technically zero correct.
- Okay, gotcha. And so that's that that I understand. And that's what we need to adjust our edit at this
- point for unless Council is going to say, could we have subject to approval of the commissioners? Could
- there be 1,000,004 by two minutes?
- That's right. And that was the point of the conversation that we had that said, well, as we hear from
- departments, as the council liaisons go into the departments to have conversations, that that's when
- we need to have that additional conversation with the commissioners to say, for example, we have no
- idea where else we can find this million dollars for paving other than the edit fund or whatever have
- you. There's going to be other scenarios and situations. But that point is that we need to be talking.
- And I will say that overall, and I think Lisa would agree with this, is that we would much rather see
- our long-term employees retain their longevity than provide the additional bituminous in addition to
- what's normally done. And so we want you to take care of your employees first.
- Understood and just to make it clear it is not a zero sum that either employees will get their longevity
- or that we will pay. There's a lot of options. Yes. All right. And Peter maybe we should make sure we're
- defining that step increases
- And longevity in Monroe County, are they the same or different? No, they're very different, right? So
- we've got step longevity and Cola usually on the discussion agenda. That's right, and to people even
- further, we have had conversations about moving longevity into step increases, but that's not going
- to happen this year because we need additional study from Wagner Irwin and
- And so this year we're just going with those two scenarios on longevity, which are completely separate
- from step increases or the cost of living adjustment. Longevity and COLA, yeah. So those three items
- are very, very important. And then we are working very closely with Lisa. I do think, yes, we're seeing
- emails and we're seeing everybody.
- say they will replace the gas tax. As I told Council in the last meeting, I think worse gets to worse.
- We could do a inter-fund loan if we had to to keep our bituminous program going based upon the future
- tax receipts. And as I indicated, our estimate was, Charlie, we're at about 20% reduction and the gas
- tax should be imposed
- coming in July, and then it's a matter of the state saying, as I told you, whether it would be an additional,
- it would not be an additional, it would be from reserves. And so that's going to mean, is it this year
- or next year? And I kept saying the payback may be as much as next year, first quarter next year. So
- that's what we've got to prepare for. Does that make sense?
- It does make sense. And I want to reiterate something I said earlier that this is an evolving situation.
- And I think that, you know, clearly we need to be talking about what what we're going to be doing.
- But boy, this thing seems to get a new news cycle every other day. Yeah, it definitely does. Yeah. OK,
- so moving to health insurance, the 18000, we've come a long way. That seems to be a great number.
- I think Liz, I've got numbers, I've got counties that are less and more. The relationship to you, to
- another county is somewhat a moot point because it really depends on your healthy, your employees and
- how many of them are out of the, you know, in the realm of stop loss and all of that.
- So if you've got, we have some counties that are experiencing zero and 2% because they had a very healthy
- workforce and they rebid it with the past healthy workforce. So those ebbs and tides in a self-insurance
- program is very, very important. And I think right now I thought I heard we've got some concerns
- And Melissa should be able to get a handle on that. I worked with her over in Brown County, I believe.
- She ought to be able to get a nice handle on that. And then we can kind of look at, you know, with Apex,
- the best time to redo that. Okay. So that's important. Yep. We're on the same page and you even heard
- the auditor's office talk about your oft-mentioned self-insurance emergency fund. So that's... Yeah,
- we got to call up reserve funds, not rainy day funds. I'm getting the nomenclature right. In the state
- of Indiana, reserve. Yeah, yeah. And then by putting the $5,136,000,000 of self-insurance in Department
- 309 human resources,
- I think that's one of those improvements that I was highly recommending. That really has to make the
- administration work so much easier. And then we can find out how well that five million's working. Because
- what I want to do at the end of 26 is have a reconciling moment for a price per employee. Absolutely.
- And we had that conversation. We're going to continue with that policy.
- And I think that was a really healthy conversation to talk about where we're putting those dollars in
- the budget. So, good. Now, turning then to the sustainability, we sent out a new one yesterday. The
- things that we changed, one of the most significant things is we took the annexations out of there,
- but we have included the Alexville consolidation in that. And so,
- We've worked that into this. I think one of the other in the recommendations section and I brought it
- up the other night is be aware that the juvenile, the special purpose juvenile balance is going to go
- low. And we believe it may even become to a negative and we are recommending that you review that
- about increasing that rate back up by maybe it was nine, it was point or nine basis points and it went
- to eight and we took it to three. We may have to bring that back up to more around the five or the eight.
- So what I told you was there's an August 1st deadline. So please put this down on the June council meeting
- that you have to give notice that you're looking at
- a change. If you miss that deadline, then that's going to be a ball that you won't be able to do it.
- So Charlie, that's anything you want to add to that? No, that's perfect. And I will note that both President
- Crossley and I have made calendar notations of that deadline. We're talking with the auditor about that,
- of course, too. So
- we're on top of this. I know this is a very important topic to President Crossley, so we're on it. So
- other than that, I mean, with the updated sustainability, I guess, or any other questions I'd like to
- know from you or Liz, but I think we've got the most significant points I just covered. And I think
- we're doing good, but that 3.8 million
- will be the most important topic of the year, so. Councilmember Feidl, do you have any questions or
- comments for this? No. So I want to drill down on something you just said, where you said we're doing
- good. Over the past couple of years, I think we've been really shocked to have to go into these budget
- hearings or these budget sessions where we're telling people, hey,
- We need to be super careful. We need to be like, we're changing the narrative here. We don't have all
- this ARPA money anymore. We're not flush with cash. We just need to really batten down the hatches here.
- And when I'm reading the sustainability report, it doesn't seem like the tide has completely changed,
- but it does seem like things are easing up just a little bit. We're hearing that you're recommending
- a 2% COLA. We're hearing that things are quote unquote good.
- What would you, how do you react to that? Charlie, help me out. Well, we have had some very positive
- things happen. And just to point out some for 27 that are positive. So the state is finally going to
- allow the growth quotient to be set the way it should be set by statute before they had limited to 4%.
- Next year, we think it'll be 5.7. So that's a real positive. We are having strong income tax receipts.
- We just got supplemental income tax of almost $4 million in total for the county across all the income
- tax funds. That's another strong point. And then the third item on revenue is the circuit breaker impact
- from SEA 1 is not good, but it's,
- not as bad as what we thought it might be for 26. So we've got the actual circuit breaker. It is going
- to cost the county more, but it's not as bad as we thought. So taking across all those things and the
- council has controlled the budget, I would say for 26, you can see it seemed like it kind of didn't
- have the same increases that we had in the past. So a combination of all those things has really helped.
- So so now Charlie did the positive points and let me do the points in the future. The points in the
- future and I pointed out in the meeting $6.3 million of interest income in your $53 million of revenue.
- OK, so Bree shows increases in revenues in her numbers and that is
- You know, 6.3 out of 53 is a lot of interest income and a lot of revenue that has the potential and
- we put it in the sustainability of going down. Okay, that's very, very important. Now we also want to
- remind you that we moved out the building department revenue. We'll no longer have that within the general
- fund starting in 2027 and we moved out
- the building department expenses, okay? Charlie, I don't have, I'm looking at that real quick, but the
- majority of our counties are not supplementing the general fund with those revenues, it's actually costing
- the general fund. And so in your calculation, we have that set out in 142, we're seeing an average of 15%
- increase needed in building, uh, basically revenue to cover the cost. So we're required in one, one
- 20 right now we have you with a million revenue and a million four of expenses on page one 42 of the
- sustainability. We're underfunded by $464,000. Okay. You're either going to have to put that back in
- to the general fund.
- And, but you know, you're required to put all the revenue. Well, you want to be able to put all the
- expenses in there too, because the builders association is going to the ones that have positive numbers
- in these building and planning funds. That's the ones they're going to say, see, you've been overcharging
- me. Okay. And so that's really important to pay attention to for 2027. Okay.
- But I don't want to be Pollyannish about things. I don't want to give people false hope. So you're absolutely
- right to give us both sides of the coin. But I really do, going through two years of these budgets where
- we've just been tightening things up, I think it is nice to hear from at least Charlie some positives
- too. Liz, do you have anything to note at this point? OK. A lot to digest, I think.
- It's always a lot to digest. Absolutely. And again, one final point, Peter, I think as the new lit structure
- comes about, it'll be really nice for Monroe County to be able to control its own destiny for
- lit. Absolutely. That is a positive for us. Yeah. Yes. Yeah.
- And so we've even heard the possibility of very, they might say, Hey, if you're ready to go, we might
- let you go early. So one of the things we'd like to do as we, you know, as we recommended in the must
- group and breathe, we'd be more than happy to do this. We've already done it. We've already gone through
- the, uh, AICs model with Hendrix and Hancock.
- We met with them for over an hour, told them some of the nuances in Monroe also, since I sat through
- Jamie's presentation. And so there's a new and improved model that I think is needed and will come out.
- And so that's something, Bree, we can kind of educate you on, but I'm really hoping
- They felt our one hour session that we had exclusively with AIC. They said that really helped them understand
- the nuances of Hendricks Hancock and Monroe. So that's positive too. Any time you tell us that we're
- a special place, we'll believe you. You absolutely are. They did not have your special lit out.
- And so they were including it in your total. So there's some errors. Right. And I think I'm looking
- over to you, Madam Auditor, that it would be wonderful to schedule a time for council to go through
- that tool. I know it's not ready for prime time, at least right now, but at some point it would be wonderful
- to do that, particularly if there's rumblings that counties could go early.
- Yes, absolutely. So I did receive that email from the Association of Indiana Counties last week. So
- I do have the sandbox, the lit sandbox that we can play with.
- I would like to schedule some time with them to kind of play around with it, go through with it. Absolutely
- need to schedule some time with Council to look through it as well. And Michelle and I haven't even
- been through it together yet, which is also part of our plan, so. Yeah, and Bree, just to follow up
- point on that, we we would like you to focus on the big picture. Share the the small minutiae, but the
- minutia matters a couple years down the road.
- So the big picture is what the must group wants to cover. And there has to be a balancing between the
- two. So one other final point is, again, with the overall longevity, COLA step increases, I think it
- is a given. Our opinion is that there should be a absolute hiring freeze
- except you know if you lose a police officer and you're going to replace that police office those very
- essential services but hiring new employees i just don't think you can really afford that at this time
- so and i think we've got a good process down for our council meetings for department heads to request
- for those essential employees to be uh those those empty positions to be refilled and we've
- Council, I think here in Monroe County has been doing a very good job of not putting in new positions.
- We've been pretty steadfast. Okay, great. Thank you. So that's all I have and I hope I didn't raise
- your blood pressure and make you hotter. I have remarkably great blood pressure, so. All right, I wanna
- give a final word as always to
- to Councilmember Feidl. Anything that you want to add before we move on to our next agenda item? I don't
- think so. I'm looking forward to coming to terms with a lot of things we've discussed today. So I'll
- just leave it at that. All right. Well, Charlie, Greg, as always, your advice is
- exceptionally wonderful, and we are looking forward to updating our council colleagues on all of it.
- So thank you for your wisdom, thank you for your advice. We're very appreciative. Thank you very much
- and have a great afternoon. All right, happy fourth. Goodbye. All right, that brings us to scheduling
- our third quarter meeting dates. Unfortunately, doing something at the end of the third quarter puts
- a smack dab in budgets. So,
- Michelle, what were you thinking in terms of moving us going before budgets? Sounds a little presumptive
- going after budgets. Maybe it's a little late. What? I think that's where the conversation is. It's.
- Because I think we have it set up right now for September the 29th. Uhm? Which you know is not the total
- end of a quarter,
- We will be done with our budget sessions by that time, but we will be putting that information into
- gateway and that kind of thing. So it's like, you know, I think that's going to be a little difficult.
- So I'm going to have to refer to the auditor on our schedule with regards to what do you feel like would be a good
- Yeah, I don't have the budget calendar pulled up. However, our preference would be the first or second
- week in October. But just so we can actually capture the entire quarter would be ideal. It gives us
- more accurate information, and it is more efficient because we don't have to go back and update then
- when we end before a quarter ends for one of the periods.
- Will we need any information that we'd be talking about at long-term finance next for the budget sessions?
- Maybe that's a question. We're gonna have to provide you with all kinds of information as we normally
- do for budget sessions anyhow. So I think you're gonna have everything at your fingertips. Nothing more
- would come out in this meeting after budgets, right? Right, I mean, yes. So I don't know.
- how much that two weeks will make a difference because we're gonna be done with budgets that September
- 29th anyway. The last budget session I have down is September 17th. If we're looking at that first week
- of October, will you have all of your information, when's the deadline to enter in information into
- the system? It will be the October the 23rd,
- The very latest is the 25th. Our public hearing is on the 6th. 6th of October? Yes. All right. It is
- quite a lift to put all of the last minute changes that we give folks into the system. I do not want
- to schedule a meeting during that time. So I think getting to Liz's and Councillor Fiddle's point,
- We really need one. Maybe the timing of it is the issue, right? Right. My point is you're going to be
- receiving the information necessary anyhow, and that it might help us just with budget procedure to
- push this off a little while. Yep, I agree. I totally agree.
- We'll be doing budgets right at that time. You will be getting information updated as soon as we can
- with regards to each meeting. I don't necessarily, and by the time we advertise it or get ready to advertise
- it at the end of the sessions, you'll have everything you need at that point. So what did we do last
- year? Do you know what we did last year? We must have had the same issue last year. We always have the
- same issue. What did we do last year? Do you remember? I don't recall what we did last year, but I was,
- I'm starting to say, I think it would be repetitive. And maybe we didn't schedule one last year. Right.
- And then the fourth quarter is when no one is here because it's the end of December. So my recommendation
- would be that we simply, if we need to have a long-term finance committee meeting in, you know, close
- to the end of the year to review the budget session, we can.
- Uh, maybe this was like the last one for the year. Um, I'm thinking what we could do relatively simply
- is after the conclusion of the quarters, we could send out that the report that we've been, um, providing
- you just that top level overview financial report. And then any questions, I think you'll have all the
- answers with what we're providing anyhow, but that will just give you that basic information. Okay.
- Let's do that.
- We're not going to schedule a meeting right now then, right? Well, we already have one scheduled for
- the 29th. Yes. We went ahead and did that when we... I remember. So we can either... My recommendation
- is to cancel that meeting. Okay. I don't think it serves any purpose at this point, it seems. So I'm
- looking at Ms. Molly Turner-King. Is there a special... Do we need to vote to cancel that next meeting? No? Okay.
- All right. Great. Thanks. I think I looked at my calendar from last year. It pulled it up for me and
- it looks like we met on Friday, August 1st and then we didn't have one for quite a while after that.
- And then there was a long time between that August 1st time and the one before that. So I mean, we look
- at the total number of meetings per year. I think we're on track. Yeah. Okay.
- I think we've reached consensus. Before we adjourn this final meeting of the LTF for the year, do you
- have any closing thoughts? I think it's my second time through this, so I think it's gonna be interesting
- to see how it plays out. I'm not a veteran of this yet, so I'm looking forward to see how it might be
- different, it might be similar, what we can apply from what I learned before to this, all that. If it
- weren't so,
- difficult to get folks to be in a meeting, to have all these people involved. It would just be wonderful
- to keep talking about these things. Whenever we talk about this, this is why local government matters.
- We've got health care. We've got road paving. We've got folks being able to afford their expenses. This
- is why local government matters. And you can see how not only national but international policy impacts
- things happening right here.
- So the decisions that we're making are really important because we are the ones that are making sure
- that things keep going. And so thank you all for joining us. This meeting is adjourned.