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.