all right welcome everyone to the municipal unit strategic task force or as we call it by its acronym
must today is Friday October the 23rd 2026 1 p.m. in the historic Natu Hill meeting room here in downtown
Bloomington in the picturesque Monroe County where the leaves are turning we are joined here by every
single statutory member of the must including Leah Feigl to my
right, Noel Conyer to my left, Mr. Jeff McKim down on the end, and myself, Peter Iverson. If you do
not have an agenda for those of you in the NatU Hill Room, there are some on the back. And for those
of you joining us on Teams, you can find that on the county's website. That's in.gov slash counties
slash Monroe. We've got a good deal of business to get to today. So I'm going to pass the microphone
all the way down to the end to financial services group.
I believe addressing the statement in stepping through it and then going through and listening to any
further comments and or amendments that we might want to make to this.
So I'm assuming everybody has a copy. If not, I have extra copies just in case. So I'll pass those.
And then hi, Molly. Glad you could join us. And here I'll send some down this way in case you guys are
interested too. This is the result of what we did on 9-17 and then
recommended on 10-5, and so I'm gonna go through it slowly and hopefully we can all read together with
me, especially if I mispronounce something. The municipal utility or unit, there we go, I'm always in
the utility world, Municipal Unit Strategic Task Force, M.U.S., that's the formal name,
of Monroe County has concluded it does not have enough information to sign off on rates for 2029 and
I'll pause there and I think that's saying that in general we do not have enough AGI we don't have enough
information, all of that to be able to address what we might put into effect for 2029. As you know,
I passed out in other meetings what we call illustrative rates and how it might how might be illustrated
for that the city of Bloomington on its own and not. And so we went through all of that information
in the prior meetings.
I'll continue on as proposed by the state of Indiana, obviously. The task force asks the state to consider
increasing the nonmunicipal civil taxing unit rate cap. I'm going to pause there.
because I've gotten, having done this now in about eight or 10 counties, I've gotten the question, does
school corporations, and actually somebody wrote an article and said school corporations fall under
the non municipal civil taxing unit rate. It does not as developed by the state legislature. The schools
are not part of this, but as you will see in the statement later, we have
they're not part of the point to put them within it. So they are not part of the 0.20. So. May I continue?
Thank you. No problem. Um. To allow the so it says the municipal rate cap and
how it pleases. The point there is, you know, in the make-up of the point 2.0, you've got five basis
points for the library, you've got five basis points for solid waste.
And so what might happen in 2029 if we were given the latitude, maybe we don't need 0.05 for solid waste
and we could put a little more towards the library. We could put a little more towards the airport or
something like that. So that's the whole point of that phrase.
Okay. The issue appears to originate from the group cap of the group rate cap of 0.05 for townships
and library, not the total cap of 0.20. So there's my point is that when we looked at the numbers in
for illustrative purposes, the 0.05 wasn't making townships whole. It wasn't really covering the Bloomington
library. So flexibility in that
not really changing the cap, but having flexibility would be very helpful. Distribution on population
township would mean about 31 basis points to
all to be made whole. Well, that's what it would take. I don't think we're proposing at this point in
time that cap, but we also don't know what the AGI will be exactly in the future. So that is where we
identified a specific issue and that the cap would not be high enough. Then it says the task force asked the state
to maintain flexibility for fire and EMS for tax distributions. What we've seen here, and we've seen
countless places, is that the formula that allows service territory and population really doesn't cover
what some townships may be giving to fire territories or fire districts. And what is likely to be
the fire and EMS need in 2029. So that's why that is brought up there. So the task force also believes
that any future legislation should address keeping units of government whole by allowing them to recover
current lit at the time of imposition. What we meant there was, and I think I told you the definition
of made whole
under possible future lit distributions could be lit itself, what you get now in all of the different
buckets of lit, but it might also be some of the loss that we've experienced in SB1.
And we gave an analysis where that would raise the tax rate in total. So we're saying at least at a
minimum, please allow us the flexibility to recover the current lit and make everybody whole. So that
would include Steinsville and Ellitsville and City of Bloomington, not only the county.
The way I'm looking at this statement, it's not the county, it's the county as a whole, meaning libraries,
townships, cities and towns. Okay, the task force asks the state to give counties the ability to include
school corporations in the tax rate as they are currently are ineligible for future
lit distribution. That's a given. They're not part of the rate structure as been proposed. And by the
way, I've had many counties say at least please consider this. Okay. So that's been par for the course
using a golfing analogy.
concerns have grown as the procedures for future consolidation annexation and the task force would like
clear guidance on to how we would affect tax and position and distribution. That's addressing Alexville's
concern that it may change overnight after the election and may grow and obviously
Any illustrations we use today did not take that into account. And so you really, again, would not want
to fix yourself to any rate because the whole mix could change depending on what happens in Ellitsville.
Okay. So the task force would like to postpone.
Would like to postpone any decision until final statutes are set by state legislation and as Understand
as it understand should changes are to come. There's no doubt about it. I think you've all Contacted
your own legislators and you've heard there's going to be changes in January February March There may
be changes in the next session after this
one coming up. And I do know they're working on some corrections and some things they want to do. So
what we're saying is that, you know, if we said anything today, like we would not want the 1.2 for the
county or we would not want the 1.2 for the city, that would really put you, in my opinion, in a bad place.
especially if future caps came in based upon what you might say. And so I'm cautioning everybody to
be careful if you ever did that. There are some counties that have done that. I don't think I would
recommend that.
That's it. So what we'd like to do now is maybe what we can Jeff will put you on the spot if we could.
And is there is there something you think we need to tweak or something you want to delete or help it
help us out.
is the need for AGI and other related information before we can make a decision. And we simply don't
have that. We don't know. The county knows roughly what its AGI is, or at least what it was. But the
cities and towns really were totally just guesstimating based on old census data. So help me out. How
would you want to tweak? So that might be.
I mean, that might be just part of the last sentence until final statutes are set, and AGI and other
related information is provided to all units. I think that's awesome. And for people out there in the
public, AGI is adjusted gross income.
be determined. How about that? Determined. What we may want to do is ask for everybody's comment on
that amendment and go amendment by amendment. That may be the best way to do
I'm not sure. Maybe we dress one and two. I'll defer to my perfect. So comment Leo will go with you
that comment on that. Do you believe we should keep this or not? Keep this. Change what we've just discussed.
something, Peter, we want to do. I think the language here is really important, particularly to capture
what Mr. McKim was saying, that knowing what the AGI is, is important, not just for one taxing unit,
but for all the taxing units. Because he makes a great point. We could look up the AGI for the county,
but it's really hard to find
or to estimate the AGI for other taxing units. And we kind of discussed this just briefly right before
it ended. And the only comment I had is also remember even the AGI for the county is 18 months old or
whatever. So we need current up to date AGI for all entities. So now do we have someone that can amend
this and print it?
teams. Okay. Our staff attorney is awesome. Because my goal would be have this printed out and have
it in your hands when you vote.
So maybe we should go ahead in further. Furthermore, say that, you know, I really appreciate this amendment
paragraph. I think it's important. No, no. Do you agree with him, including the amendment? Yes, I think
that definitely needs to be included in there. Perfect. OK.
Yes, I agree that that amendment for the AIG should be put in there. So while Molly's working on that
amendment, or do we need to help you with that? Okay, so Jeff, is there another amendment?
I know there was some concern about the concept of being made whole some question about exactly what
that meant, and if that was really what we were trying to get at. So I guess I just raised that rather
than proposing an actual amendment.
I think even though with that explanation, I think letting, because this report from my understanding
that we're sending is going to the legislators to help them make the changes and all the stuff for the
local income tax, correct? Or at least consider. Right. So I think, and I can appreciate what other
counties are doing, but I feel like from Monroe County, the intent made whole.
some people in the public are not going to understand that and if they hear that they could have a different
intent of what that means. So I'm working on what the language should be but I think it should be more
of being you know able to sustain our services and making sure that we're financially stable and we
have somewhat more predictable revenue sources from the lit or
So that's the intent. I don't know what the exact language would be to change that, but. Yeah, because
originally made whole by allowing to recover current right now. And I understand what the intent is,
but I have a problem with that specific two words made whole. And so. We could either further define
make whole.
I think if you sustainability in the future for future revenues and things like that, I mean, that's
really going to come back to when you start approving the rates on an actual basis because they're going
to say, well, we don't know what that is, you know, when they got that. So we could, anybody have any
words of wisdom? I think my fear really quick not to interrupt.
My fear is is I do not want the local income tax and with our responsibility as being the task force
that is helping to give the legislators the changes that need to happen because clearly the way that
it's currently set up is not going to
work 100% for every county. So we need to make some adjustments to it. And I can appreciate that. My
concern is that when we're talking about Senate Enrolled Act 1 and then the lit changes, I don't want
it to seem like the intent is that we're taking it from one bucket and putting it into another. So that's
really my main concern about the make whole comments at the end of the day, what it boils down to. Because
I don't want, I know that obviously
all of us up here, we need revenues from various funding streams to make our budgets work. So I can
appreciate that. But I really want to make sure that we're taking into account that these funds, specifically
the local income tax funds, come from our working residents. And the concern for the made whole just
that's why it doesn't sit well with me. Jeff might have a comment or amendment. Well,
the definition, recover current lit at the time of imposition, sort of covers that issue. I mean, I
think that makes it clear that we're not trying to, as much as we might want to, compensate for the
property tax changes with income tax, which I think a lot of people are concerned about, because it
does wind up being regressive.
you know, it's shifting the burden from property owners to workers. And I think there's a lot of us
are concerned about that. So I guess I feel like you, in a way, that concern about the phrase made whole
is actually clarified later in the paragraph. Jeff, I wanted it to be somewhat fluid. From the standpoint
about, you know, maybe somebody makes an adjustment in the lit right next year.
in the year of imposition. Okay Maybe this gets proposed per push back a couple years. So when we said
in the year of imposition, you know, we might be a million dollars more than we are today as a group
or something. And so we thought it out to be. We want it to be also
The Mr. McKim's amendment is in red on the bottom. And then the conversation on the definition of made
whole is highlighted in yellow in the middle of the paragraph. And then the definition that Mr. McKim
was just referencing at the time of imposition is two lines down. Yeah. And I think you should highlight that.
made whole in the year of imposition. I think we captured what you were talking about, did we not?
We have to. Can you blow this one up?
Yes, yeah, I believe that. And then. And I just want to clarify that. In position in red, that language
is in the succeeding sentence or two sentences afterwards.
an amendment? Okay. Peter, do you have an amendment? I don't have an amendment, but I do. I think this
paragraph here, what you see on the screen, only that we heard at the last must meeting. I think that
this really captures that conversation. So I'm very happy with that and with this amendment at the end.
I don't have an amendment because I didn't. That usually I send that to legal to Here's my idea. Please
amend this for me. But so one of the other concerns I had. Well, I don't disagree with including school
corporations. Should we? Have a percentage or something. I feel like we're not giving
We don't have enough and we need to include all these people. I feel like in order for them to really
utilize this report and potentially make the changes that we want, we have to give them a little bit
more. It's just, it's very broad. So as we. Is that we could divide up that 0.2% that
you know, with the different taxing units. There were so many permutations. There were so many ways
to take that pie and cut it into different slices. I would really be hesitant to say, well, that certain
pie slice needs to be so big, because we just don't know what it is in relation to the other pie slices.
have this with the legislators. When an idea is given, school corporations being a part of the lit,
if we don't give them some type of direction, we don't know where that's gonna go and what it's gonna
take away from, or like you said, with the pie. So that's why I just, and again, I can be the lone ranger
over here with my thought on that, I'm fine with that. But I feel like some direction would be useful
for the legislators, at least in
you know, if we feel strongly about that, we need to give them something. You know, are the corporations
here asking for us to include them in lit? Because, you know, to some degree, I get that in some communities,
particularly those that were Cajet counties, have more of a history of the schools being included in lit.
But those of us who are Cohen counties, that's never been part of the school funding infrastructure.
And that does seem like a pretty radical change to the way that lit has been used in.
In particular, the Monroe County School Corporation. So R.B.B. wasn't did not provide this is my last
time. And so it could be great because first of all, it would only be an illustration rate and second.
We would have also correspond that we would not want it in the current camps because otherwise someone
lose in the current caps. So so we have said we recognize the school. We've been kind of dealing with
this and saying we recognize the school corporation should be considered. You guys, you know, are king
over the school corporation, not here, but the state legislature. They say they've got referendum rights.
So I mean, I've asked this question. And and so
I don't know where the, what the light at the end of the tunnel is for the school corporations at this
point in time. And keep in mind, I represent school corporation. And so, but I think if we go further
here, we've got to be careful that we don't damage ourself in that process. So I've thought about it
a lot, but so,
So then that would be. So that would be my concern, then, including the schools in the language for
this, then is that. If the legislators then decide to. Take away from some of our caps in order to create
that capacity. So one of two things, so
any imposition of the tax would most likely have to come through the county council. So that will have
to be determined or, now my mic may be doing it wrong. I think you. You could have mine. I think you
infected my mic. I have that effect on people. So that would be addressed in 2029, but we could easily add
that we need to be able to include the school corporations without detracting like. Like we did in other
places without detracting from the overall cap. I think I would be more comfortable with that because
I do believe that the schools. Need more capacity for revenue sources. I fully believe that, especially
with the freshman in high school. I feel like. We
And I mean, to include the school corporations in their tax rate as they are currently ineligible for
future lit distributions without something in there that says that we. Don't want to take away with
with what we have, because the caps show possibly we could say without decreasing the 2.9% overall cap.
that language is now on the screens for everyone to see. Molly, we're working you hard. Yeah, I think
that's totally appropriate. I think we all agree here that we want to see schools get the funding they
needed or they need. But they're definitely given that very low cap of 0.2%. Anything that would be
allocated to the schools would essentially come at the expense of the library, for example.
Awesome discussion. Is there other amendments or other considerations that we should take into account?
I think it's time maybe we hear from our non statutory members in the public. Yeah.
All right, so here are the ground rules as we heard last time or for any other county meeting, essentially.
You have three minutes.
to say your piece. If you would like, we can keep that statement up on the screen for you to reference,
or you can reference anything else that's germane to this must group. For those of you here in the NatU
Hill Room, please come to the podium. And speaking of the mic, again, you've seen us kind of struggle
with the mic today. Get that mic as close to your mouth as possible. And if you're joining us on Teams,
simply click the Raise Hand button, and we'll recognize you there.
If there are individuals that wish to come and make comment on this paragraph that we're discussing,
please do so now.
Good afternoon. I'm Hopi Stossberg. I am City of Bloomington District 3 Common Council representative,
and I'm also chair of the fiscal committee, and I want to be sure that I'm only speaking on behalf of
myself today. And I appreciate the chance, and I'm going to try really hard to get it into three minutes.
I appreciate the conversation. A couple notes that I wanted to make about the statement and your conversation
around it.
It's in the order that it's on my screen. So I'm hoping that it makes kind of sense with regard to the
language Around the group rate cap of point five percent I feel like it it sounds very confusing to
say that the issue appears to originate from the group rate cap of point oh five percent not the total
cap and then you go on to say townships would need point three one percent because
That then exceeds the total cap, and it doesn't have anything to do with the group rate tack. And so
I'm honestly confused about that. And that 0.31%, I put a note. It's like, I want to know where exactly
that you're getting that, because that's not how I was reading the financial stuff when I've been reading
the financial stuff the last few months. Secondly, I wanted to talk about that made whole language again.
And I'm wondering whether there could be some alternative language in there, such as avoid a funding
gap, maintain existing services, or recover
current lit in terms of that second part. And there's actually two places in the statement where you
talk about things being made whole, and only one of them is highlighted. And I do think that that's
kind of maybe a confusing term for the public. Might not be confusing for anybody who's deep in financial
stuff or local financial stuff, but it is, I think, for the public.
I just want to address the school corporation thing a little bit. I also agree with the concept of including
school corporations and maybe making it clear to include them or potentially opt optionally include
them as a non municipal civil taxing unit. Because right now, if they're not included as that type of
unit, maybe they should be and that would leave it up to the rest of us. But I also just would be remiss
if I didn't say that one of my big concerns about this personally in terms of
having less property tax revenue and more lit revenue is that it is a very regressive tax. And we're
just shifting a burden. And no matter which way we cut it, we are still shifting that burden from people
who own property who probably, generally speaking, have more wealth to people who are still working
who, generally speaking, probably overall have less wealth. And I think that that's highly problematic.
And I'm not sure if that can go into the statement at all. But that is certainly something that I would
be supportive of putting in that statement.
How much time do I have left? Oh, gosh. I think that you should spell out AGI in that red mark. You
need to spell it out so that members of the public know what they're talking about. And the last it's,
as it's understood, changes are to come, needs an apostrophe. Thanks. Jump on to team, so we're going
to alternate.
James Perry, if you could unmute three minutes, the floor is yours. James, I see you put some things
in the chat. There we go. Oh, there you go. I think I finally found I'm not used to using Teams.
Two points. One is I agree that the AGI should be spelled out so that citizens know what it means. I
hate acronyms, and AGI is not a clarifying acronym for most people. The other issue relates to the making
whole sentence, and I put into the comments whether the sentence could be simply deleted in its entirety.
I don't have the document in front of me at the moment.
But I don't see that sentence as being absolutely essential. And so we could sort of remove the controversy
about what making whole means. This would, I think, put Noel Conyer at greater ease with the language
in the document. But I could see that we could delete that short sentence and it would remove no significant
content from the document.
Thank you very much for your helpful comments. We appreciate those. All right, here in and at you, Hillroom,
we'll come next. Please, yeah. State your name for the record, and you've got three minutes. My name
is James McClary. I am chairman of the Board of the Blue House Corporation. Ben? Can you start over
your mic and then kick in? Oh, I'm sorry. Is it on? OK. Try it again.
My name is James McClary. I'm chairman of the board of the Bloomington Public Transportation Corporation.
I've been on the board 14 years. I've been chairman for five, and we've been blessed the last five years
by the city of Bloomington giving us $3.8 million in lit money. This is money that we've used for capital
and for operating. We use about
ballpark $100,000 in operating money and about $2.8 million in capital. We've been upgrading our fleet.
Our fleet is probably one of the newest fleets in the state right now, thanks to that lit money we were
able to use. I will not use the term make whole. I will avoid that. We want to retain the service that we have.
We are looking at a serious financial situation with the loss of that money. So we would request that
you give us, if you can, the maximum that we have to keep us. We're starting to expand. We now have
authority to operate in the county.
have been given the char of talking with the city to see what we can work out with them. Because we
think they're part of what we will be. You know, we will be a county
and no longer just a simple city of Bloomington service. Our budget for this 2026 was about 19 and a
half million, of which 14 million was operating and five million, give or take, was for capital. We
are planning on building a new facility. We have the land. We've purchased the land. We own the land
now. We have
We have a single grant from the Federal Transit Administration for $20 million right now, and we've
just applied for another $30 million, which will allow us to build the whole facility. If we don't get
it, we'll have to go back to Plan B. But we believe that we've got a very good shot at getting that.
Pardon me?
Okay, I will be quick. I'm not sure I understand all of this. I'm just a citizen, but we have staff
who is right on top of it. We have a new general manager, Nick Standifer, who came on board three weeks
ago, and we said, welcome, Nick, here's your challenge. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Thank you, Hill Room.
the newest member of the board of Bloomington Transit. I just wanted to clarify a little bit. We are
using of that 3.8 million in ED lit money, 1.1 million about of that is going to operations. The rest
is going to capital. Including in that operations is Sunday service. Included in that operations is
some money going to microtransit. Included in that operations is two staff members' salaries. So it's
a substantial amount of money.
when we have a new budget and we have a new financial situation, we might be able to move some of that
around, but some of that is in kind of play. So I just wanted to clarify that and make sure that you
were aware that there's a substantial portion of that money that's going to operations, and it may mean
cuts in the future if we don't find a way to fill that hole. So thank you. Thank you very much for your
comments. Here in the Not You Hill Room,
on the CFO of Monroe County Community School Corporation here on behalf of Dr. Winston and the school
corporation as well. I have a written statement that's been prepared by Dr. Winston that I just want
to read to you. On behalf of the Monroe County Community School Corporation, I want to express our collective
appreciation to the work on the task force from this group. As Monroe County and its municipalities
navigate changes to Indiana's local income tax structure,
and that are slated to take effect in 2029, we want you to know that MCCSC fully recognizes the intersection
of local government and strong public schools. We realize the importance of joint discussions and the
responsibility involved in collaboratively planning for our community's long-term fiscal health. The
changes to Indiana's local income tax coming in 2029 will affect every unit of government in Monroe
County, and they will affect our schools as well. MCCSC doesn't have a seat on must,
But what the task force recommends matters to our students, our staff, and the families we serve. Good
schools and good local governments depend on each other. And I'd like us to be a part of that conversation
as your work moves forward. Strong schools, effective local government, and thriving employers, and
sustainable economic growth are mutually reinforcing elements of a healthy and prosperous region. Our
team would be glad to brief the task force on how school funding works and future conversation between
myself and Dr. Winston.
Our intention is simply to be a constructive partner and to recognize the interconnectedness of our
public institutions and the people we serve. We believe that open communication and a shared understanding
of our respective challenges and opportunities can strengthen our collective ability to support economic
development, workforce readiness, and the long-term well-being of Monroe County. Thank you for your
service and leadership. We look forward to maintaining an open dialogue and exploring opportunities
to work together in support of our region
Dr. Winston and I also attached a one-page summary of some financial pressures that we've been very
open and honest about in the public as it relates to the MCCSE for background information. And we also
want to continue to learn and listen and understand the choices in front of our county, which will help
us to plan responsibly on our end. We thank you for your service, and we look forward to future
conversations. Thank you. Members of MUST, thank you.
Are there any other members of the public or members of non-statutory taxing units that would like to
make public comment? Either on teams, raise your hand, or here in the NatU Hill Room. Seeing none, I
think it's time that we put that statement back up on the screen, if we could please.
Thank you. Waiting for my mic to turn green. Hello? There it is. It was for a moment. It's being picked
up on the... Okay, so it is working. Okay, it's not green. First of all, I appreciate the comments that
the representatives from the Bloomington Transit made. I think the new lit structure
does actually, even without any changes, so I'm not proposing that we include anything in here, but
without any changes does include some options to increase funding for transit potentially in a more
county and to allow them to kind of build more countywide service. So I think there's some real opportunities
there and I appreciate hearing from the board members. I did want to address, or I think we should address
Council Member Stossberg's comments about the township and the language about the group rate cap.
I agree, after reading it again, it appears that those two sentences are directly contradictory. And
so we're first saying the issue appears to originate from the group rate cap of .05, not the total cap,
but then the very next sentence says distributed on population, townships would need .31% to all be
made whole. So we're saying not the overall cap,
And I'm not sure that's really what we're trying to say, so. So let me help. There's the first. The
first cap as it stands today is .05 for tension. Second cap is .05 for libraries. Combined those with
the airport and the solid waste cannot exceed 20, so we could
originating from the township and library cap of .05. But that will not work either because the .05
for townships is not high enough. It would have to be as high as .31. So remember there's cap A and cap B
And so we're saying cap A of 0.05 doesn't work. Cap B of 0.20 doesn't work. And oh, by the way, if we
even had a cap just on townships, it would take 0.31.
okay so we could make it just rather than saying group cap of being the group of townships and the group
of libraries we could say originating from the rate cap of 0.05 for townships and libraries and not
that and and scratch the total rate cap of 20
I think that does not work because we need 0.31 for townships alone. Yeah, I think that's the same point.
I think that is. Trying to say. What I just said. Okay we can play we can have this
Take out the clause not capital cap of 0.20% and put in a conditional clause at the beginning of distributed,
something like in fact or. Or me, I help. Please. So if we start with the issue appears to originate
from the strike group.
0.05 for libraries and townships. Okay. Delete not the total cap of 0.20. We could then go ahead and
say distribution on population for townships would mean
a total rate of 0.31 for townships to be made whole. So striking to all made whole. So Peter, please
add or subtract.
somewhat less confused and understanding that the language of made whole that highlighted that that
can change as well. Okay. All right. So council member Stossberg just wants more data so we can deal
with that after the meeting.
Members, are you okay with what the screen reads now? Any problems, any questions? We didn't hear what
she said. That's not being captured.
And in that context to be made whole is appropriate appropriate All right any other comments or questions
at this point based on what we heard from public comment from us members
Is there any way that we could change that to be made whole to maintaining current services or something
to that effect? Or current revenue? Let's make sure that we're not talking about the one that's highlighted.
I think we're going to agree to disagree on this. I get the intention of what you're saying. It's just
that verbiage. That verbiage is just
made whole is I just, I can't get over it. And so I'll leave it at that. That's just my maintaining
current services. Um, what? Yes. Maintaining current revenues. Yes. Okay. Yes. Okay. So that's, that's
a compromise and I'm willing to do so maintaining revenues. So,
The suggestion is to replace the highlighted text with. Or is it the next sentence down? You're in charge
here. I want to make it a group. Obviously decision, right? Yeah, that's just my sticking point. I understand
the intent, but when the general public is reading this,
coming across that way. Well, maintain current revenues is that or maintain current revenues at the
time of imposition. Yes, I would agree with that. Is that does that essentially cover what? You always
want to be prospective in the future. Well, that's what we're saying at the time of imposition.
We're not sure where you're wanting the word revenues. I'm in position. Right now you've got recover
current lit. We would want to replace lit with revenue. And then in the spirit of the changes to AGI
I think at some point we should spell
The first instance of lit, we should spell out local income tax, and then put it in parentheses. So
heretofore lit means local income tax. Thank you. All right. I want to keep this moving, because we
could be here all day workshopping this. So are there any other changes from must members? At the same
time, this is what we're here for.
It's a terrifying question because I think there's conversations about two different made whole comments.
So the highlighted made whole, do you want it to be replaced with to maintain for the language that
says the townships have the ability to maintain current services?
I can't really see it very clearly, but I think that's what I thought we were going to change to maintain
current revenues at the time of imposition. Do you want that one to say to maintain current revenue?
And so in that particular use, we're not qualifying at all. And I'm trying to address Noel's concern
and trying to come up with kind of a compromise language that would work there. So yes, that's what
I was referring to. What if we did a parentheses as revenues at time of imposition? Close parentheses.
And that's what's being typed on the screen right now. I mean, I don't have a problem with that.
But again, I'm kind of trying to compromise with Noel's concerns here.
All right. Any other changes to this document? Going once. Going twice. All right. In that case,
By statute this body and bodies all over the other counties are given the opportunity to adopt a statement
like this and and so I think now is the time that I would entertain a motion to In regards to keep that
paragraph up, please
We have a motion and a second. Is there any further conversation? Only that this part of the overall
document that shows, you know, the meetings took place, the time, and so I wonder. Whole. And everybody
understand that's what we sent it. What we gave out as the recommended document by the AIC
to go to DLGF shows when and who voted yes and no in that, so. Okay, yes, so my motion includes the.
Then I also, if you remember in the first meetings, made the suggestion that that packet should also,
if you see fit, include any written statements that were handed in during the process.
So the motion as it stands is that we will adopt, a yes vote is to adopt what's on the screen and in
addendum the documents that were submitted to us as well as any of the documents that we use in the
process of making this decision. And in particular a list of fields that the Association of Indiana
Counties circulated
that we will then produce for the state. All right? Just go ahead. So the section that I'm highlighting
right now, distribution on population, should it be distributed on population? Townships would need
a total rate of 0.31 for townships to be made whole as defined.
All right, congratulations. We have now asked the state for more information.
that set the rates based off of what the legislation does. I am a little disappointed that we didn't
have enough information collectively as a whole to put the rates in there. But I want to remind the
public that this task force was just tasked with just that, giving the legislators information, and
I wish we would have been able to give them more. Great point. All right. Now we're at the point in
the agenda to talk about next steps. Do you have a crystal ball
that you would like to look into and tell us, what are the next steps that you're telling other counties
that you're going around and talking about this with? Number one, this needs to be submitted by November
2nd. Okay, number two, stay tuned for SB2. That's going to come to a theater near you. All right,
and I will. If you.
out there watching is that by statute, we now have to list all the members and their terms on the agenda
that you have in front of you. And you'll note that the terms go out to the year 2028. So we did that
thinking this group might come back and discuss some of the things that you were just talking about.
That when we get more information, maybe we'll have a media conversation about rates. Maybe we'll have
a media conversation about other things. So stay tuned.
We'll see what the legislature does in the spring. And back. Is there any final comments from members
up here on the dais? Thank you very much. All right. This meeting of the municipal unit strategic task
force is adjourned. Thank you.