Hiccup for convention center interlocal agreement: ‘Let’s take a breath’ says Monroe County council

It might be next year before all parties have signed an interlocal agreement between Bloomington and Monroe County—in connection with an expansion of the Monroe Convention Center.

The effort to get final consensus on a collaboration between city and county leaders about a convention expansion dates back several years, before the COVID-19 pandemic hit.

But two weeks ago, both branches of Bloomington’s government approved the interlocal agreement, for the operation of the capital improvement board (CIB) and the convention and visitors commission (CVC)—in connection with the convention center expansion.

Bloomington mayor John Hamilton inked the interlocal on the afternoon of Nov. 15. The city council followed suit that evening, with an uncontroversial vote to approve the interlocal agreement.

The county council and the county board of commissioners were expected to consider and approve the agreement this week.

But the item appeared on Tuesday night’s county council meeting agenda only as a discussion item. And that’s where it remained for Tuesday. No vote was taken, even though councilors expressed a fair amount of solid support for the agreement.

Part of the delay on the county council’s side relates to a request from Bloomington mayor-elect Kerry Thomson, who wrote a letter to Hamilton two weeks ago, asking him not to make strategic decisions that could have an impact lasting into 2024.

At Tuesday’s meeting, county council president Kate Wiltz put it like this, when she introduced the topic as a discussion item: “If someone was really excited about it, they could make a motion to approve,” she said. But she added, “I don’t see that as an advantage, especially given …the recent communications from the mayor-elect asking us not to make a lot of decisions right here in the last little bit of the year.”

Wiltz continued, “I haven’t spoken to the mayor-elect about this. And so maybe there’s a conversation to be had there. I’m not trying to throw up any barriers, but I do want to just have us have the ability to take a breath if we want to.”

Did the request in Thomson’s  letter apply to the interlocal agreement about the CIB? Responding to that question from The B Square two weeks ago, Thomson wrote, “I am supportive of this Interlocal,” adding, “we have been waiting for it quite a while.”

Thomson also wrote: ”Yes, of course a significant contract like [the CIB interlocal agreement] is one I will be carrying out and would have appreciated the opportunity to provide insights.”

Wiltz set the stage for Tuesday’s discussion like this: “And that’s why it’s on the agenda as a discussion point—unless someone wants to change that.” No one did.

The interlocal agreement about the CIB and CVC also appears on the 10 a.m. Wednesday meeting agenda for county commissioners. But it’s not clear if they’ll take the vote or put it off as the county council did on Tuesday night.

[Updated at 12:41 p.m. on Nov. 29, 2023. The county commissioners did not take a vote on the interlocal agreement at their Wednesday meeting. Lee Jones was absent, but commissioners Penny Githens and Julie Thomas appeared to be more troubled than county councilors were about the way that CVC appointments would be handled. They expressed concern that the interlocal agreement seems to revise the membership requirements of the CIB. They also expressed concern about the unspecified composition of a non-CIB third-party building corporation that is to be formed by the city of Bloomington, in order to issue debt in connection with the expansion.

Commissioners did not set a date to bring the interlocal agreement back for a vote. After the meeting, Githens indicated to The B Square that she would not be willing to vote for the interlocal agreement, as it is currently worded with respect to the CVC appointments. The version approved by the mayor and the city council requires the county council to choose one of the CVC appointments from a list of four nominees submitted by the Bloomington city council.]

One of the specific terms of the interlocal agreement got some extended scrutiny during Tuesday night’s county council discussion. That term outlines the way appointments to the convention and visitors commission are handled.

In March of 2020, appointments to the CVC—as well as to the capital improvement board (CIB)—were a significant topic of dispute that blocked progress. By mid-2022, Bloomington mayor John Hamilton had even walked back the city’s support for a CIB as the governance structure.

The question came to a head when the city council in late 2022 passed a resolution of support  for the idea of a CIB to govern the convention center expansion.

Hamilton vetoed the resolution, which was then overridden by the council as one of its first actions of 2023.

When the county board of commissioners in July of this year enacted an ordinance to establish a CIB under state law, that settled the question of how the CIB appointments would be made. In the county ordinance, the appointing authorities for the seven CIB seats were set out as follows: mayor (2 seats); city council (1 seat); county commissioners (2 seats); county council (1 seat); six CIB appointees selected by elected officials (1 seat).

The CIB appointments have now all been made, with the seventh one coming in the first half of November.

Not settled by the CIB ordinance was the question of how the CVC appointments would be made or exactly how the downtown real estate that is owned by the city and county governments would factor into the convention center expansion. But the interlocal agreement covers those issues.

The CVC appointments are set out in state law.  Under state law, two of the five seats are appointed by the county commissioners and the remaining three seats are appointed by the county council.

So an interlocal agreement signed between city and county governments could not delegate a statutory duty of county elected officials to some city entity. That’s why the interlocal agreement has to set up the appointing authorities to the CVC  so that they match the state statute.

But the county council’s CVC appointments come with a wrinkle. The county council has to consider the recommendations for appointments that are made by the city council.

The interlocal agreement divides the three county council CVC appointments into two categories. One category is the two seats that are subject to a statutory requirement that they be owners or general managers of hotels or motels with at least 40 beds. The other is a seat with no restrictions.

For the two hotel-related seats, the county council would have to make the appointments only after giving “good faith consideration to a list of at least three recommendations made by the city council.”

For the other, unrestricted seat, the county council would have less latitude under the interlocal agreement. For the unrestricted appointment, the county council has to choose from a list of four recommendations made by the city council.

On Tuesday night, councilor Marty Hawk zeroed in on the appointment that the county council would have to make from a list of four provided by the city council. Hawk noted that state law says that it’s the county council that makes the appointments. She said that if the council is restricted to just a list of four people, then does not really amount to a choice by the council.

Hawk drew an analogy to marriage: “Somebody says: Your daughter can marry anybody. And you’re going: Yay rah, that’s good! Well, then they show up later and say: But it has to be one of these two, or these three. That’s not really a choice, is it?”

Councilor Geoff McKim is the current county council appointee to the CVC, for the slot that in the future the county council would have to make from a list of four provided by the city council.

McKim asked Wiltz if it was a conscious decision to require that the appointment be made from the list of four, and not merely to require a good faith consideration of the four.

Wiltz told McKim that it had been a conscious decision. She added that she and council president pro tem Trent Deckard had discussed the topic with the city council leadership, and “felt that a list of four people was enough in a collaborative environment to warrant a decision.” Wiltz added, “And we felt good about that.”

About the required selection from a list of four, McKim said, “I don’t have a problem with that.” He added, “I understand that in a collaborative environment, there is give and take. … I understand the spirit in which that compromise was made.”

Deckard indicated support for the idea of making the appointment from a list of four, stressing the theme of collaboration. Deckard said, “One thing I do like about [the interlocal agreement] is the collaboration between the city council offering some nominees and folks picking on this county council among those nominees.”

Deckard drew an analogy to the way things work in the Indiana General Assembly where the majority party asks the minority party for nominees to serve on the committees. “This is not unheard of. It’s called cooperative government,” Deckard said.

Councilor Peter Iversen said he’d heard from constituents some frustration that the interlocal was not yet finalized. But he also appreciated a chance to pause before voting. Iversen said, “I also really want to publicly appreciate the wisdom of saying: Let’s take a breath.”

Like Wiltz, Iversen alluded to the transition in mayoral administrations which takes place on Jan. 1. Iversen put it like this: “We are in between an election and New Year’s Day. And that’s a tough spot to be in for an interlocal like this. So I really appreciate the wisdom of saying: Let’s breathe.”

When Wiltz wrapped up the discussion on the interlocal agreement, she said, “This is a lot to think about. And we will look to putting this on a future agenda.”

The one remaining regular meeting on the 2023 calendar for the county council falls on Dec. 12.  The council also has a work session scheduled for Dec. 19.