The topic of the Monroe Convention Center renovation and expansion project has recently been prominent on the work plan for Bloomington’s city council.
This coming Wednesday’s (April 10) council meeting will make two out of the last three regular meetings that the council has had an item on its agenda involving the convention center project.
At its March 27 meeting, the council voted to ask the food and beverage tax advisory commission (FABTAC) to review a $250,000 expenditure from the revenue generated by the tax, to support the 2024 budget for Monroe County’s capital improvement board (CIB). That’s the group of seven people who are providing the governance for the convention center expansion project.
This coming Wednesday, the council will be asked to approve the CIB’s budget, based on the $250,000 appropriation, which was already a part of the 2024 adopted budget for the city of Bloomington.
This past Friday, the council held a work session on the topic, at the urging of councilmember Kate Rosenbarger, who is looking to spend food and beverage tax money on projects other than the convention center.
Based on Friday’s work session discussion, besides Rosenbarger and Matt Flaherty, there’s little appetite among city councilmembers, or other elected or appointed officials, for altering course from the current plan in any significant way.
That plan is for the city to use the vast majority of its food and beverage tax revenue to pay for the convention center expansion project.
There’s currently about $17 million in the city’s food and beverage tax fund balance. Last year, the 1-percent tax, which is collected by establishments selling prepared food and drink, generated about $4.5 million in Monroe County, of which 90 percent ($4.1 million) was Bloomington’s share. The tax has been collected since early 2018.
Not getting any discussion at Friday’s work session was a key open question for the convention center expansion, which could affect how much of the $17 million fund balance will be available for the project itself.
If the expansion goes north to the former Bunger & Robertson property at 4th Street and College avenue, just $10 million out of the $17 million total might be available for construction and design.
There’s $7 million that might have to go towards reimbursement of Bloomington’s redevelopment commission—for the TIF (tax increment finance) money that it spent to purchase the land where Bunger & Robertson’s offices were formerly located. Under the terms of the four-way interlocal agreement—between city and county government—the question of reimbursement for that land would be subject to negotiation.
Other options for a convention center expansion include southward or eastward, both of which would include land owned by Monroe County government. Advocates of downtown Bloomington as a location for a new county jail see the land that is under discussion as the site of a convention center expansion, or a related hotel, as a potential jail site.
At Friday’s work session, Flaherty talked about the urgency of identifying a location for the new jail, in the context of the discussion about the convention center expansion. Flaherty characterized locations like North Park, which is currently under investigation by county commissioners, as “a place where no one can get to without their own vehicle.” Flaherty said about the downtown property owned by either county or city government: “There are a lot of opportunity costs for this space.”
Flaherty continued with an allusion to the long history of the convention center project, “To be good stewards of this money, it is our duty to talk about this and figure out if this is still best.”
Rosenbarger’s objections to moving ahead with the convention center expansion project include the idea that there is not a lot of public support for it. At Friday’s work session, she reprised the considerations that she provided, when she was the sole vote of dissent against adoption of the interlocal agreement on role of the CIB.
Rosenbarger cited the results of the city’s most recent four community surveys, which have been done every two years (2017, 2019, 2021, and 2023 ) using a statistically representative sample of residents. That survey shows that somewhere between 16 percent and 20 percent of Bloomington residents think the convention center expansion project is “essential or very important” to address.
That stacks up against two-thirds of residents who think city-wide high speed fiber for internet access is essential or very important, and about two-thirds who think that development of the Hopewell neighborhood is essential or very important. Hopewell is the site of the former IU Health hospital at 2nd and Rogers streets.
Also at Friday’s work session, Rosenbarger pointed to the wording of the state statute regulating the county’s food and beverage tax—which was enacted in 2017 by the Monroe County council, to support the expansion of the convention center. The state law says the city’s share of the tax has to be spent to “finance, refinance, construct, operate, or maintain a convention center, a conference center, or related tourism or economic development projects.”
There’s a corresponding section of state law that applies to Monroe County government’s use of its portion of the food and beverage tax revenue.
Rosenbarger is looking at the same part of the statutory wording that Monroe County government has analyzed as allowing it to pursue the idea of developing a limestone heritage tourism site on some quarry land that it purchased for that purpose. It’s the wording that talks about “related tourism or economic development projects.“
Rosenbarger has said she would support using the tax to pay for development of projects like the Monon Trail.
At Friday’s work session, it was clear that the planned use of the food and beverage tax money is driven as much by discussions and a memorandum of understanding dating back to 2017, as it is by the strict interpretation of state law.
State statute does not explicitly require that the tax revenue be spent on the expansion of the current convention center. Under the law, it looks like the money could also go towards just operating or maintaining an existing convention center.
Still, a 2017 letter of intent between Monroe County government and city council government makes clear that the idea was for the enactment of the tax by the county council to support a convention center expansion project.
Two Monroe County councilors attended Friday’s work session—county council president Trent Deckard and councilor Geoff McKim.
Asked for their thoughts, McKim described himself as “one of the two remaining county council members in office who actually voted to impose the food and beverage tax.” The meeting minutes from Dec. 13, 2017 show that the other one is Cheryl Munson.
Two years before the county council imposed the tax, McKim said, he was president of the county council. “We led an extensive set of outreach and listening opportunities. I have attended dozens…more than that, of public listening sessions, public hearings, meetings with constituents and read and received hundreds of correspondence on the topic.”
About the idea that Bloomington would not use the food and beverage tax money for the expansion of the convention center, McKim said that on such a scenario, he would not support allowing the tax to continue. McKim put it like this: “I would not personally support continuing the existence of the tax, if it were repurposed to something other than the expansion of the convention center.”
For his part, Deckard said about the city council’s discussion on Friday: “I truly hope this is an academic exercise.” Rosenbarger later said she did not consider it to be an academic exercise.
Deckard continued, saying, “We have publicly said to members of the public that we’re collecting this tax for this purpose for some time.” Deckard added, “I don’t know how in good conscience, I could return to the taxpayers of Monroe County and say: There’s been a switch and there’s a change.”
Councilmembers Isak Asare and Dave Rollo did not attend Friday’s work session. The other five, besides Flaherty and Rosenbarger, did not indicate any clear support for altering course on expansion of the convention center.
Councilmember Sydney Zulich said, “I’m still digesting the information.” Councilmember Courtney Daily also indicated that she was still absorbing the background information. But Daily attached some weight to the idea that had been expressed by county councilors—that the tax was enacted with the idea it would be used for a convention center expansion. Daily put it like this: “I do feel uncomfortable pulling the rug out from under taxpayers…”
Councilmember Hopi Stosberg included in her support for the idea of an expanded convention center the idea that it should include general civic space, not just for tourists. It’s a point that Dave Rollo has often made during past discussions. Stosberg said there are a few different types of spaces that Bloomington lacks, like a youth center.
Stosberg said that when weighing the benefits of the spending by residents at local businesses compared to spending by conventioneers, it is a plus when the money comes from outside the community.
City council president Isabel Piedmont-Smith said she feels pretty much the same way as McKim and Deckard: “The tax was passed with the understanding it would go towards expanding the convention center.” Piedmont-Smith added, “There have been endless conversations about how best to do it and how to collaborate to get it done.”
Councilmember Andy Ruff thanked Rosenbarger for floating the topic for discussion, saying that the alternate uses of funds had merit. Ruff put it like this: “I think if it were to start over again now, we might be exploring some different alternatives of different options and…different breakdowns.”
But Ruff agreed with the sentiments expressed by the county councilors. Ruff said, “As Isabel [Piedmont-Smith] just reiterated, what Geoff [McKim] and Trent [Deckard] said, I think that’s where we’re at.”
McKim put it like this: “I would not personally support continuing the existence of the tax, if it were repurposed to something other than the expansion of the convention center.”
Yes, please axe the tax. It was deeply unpopular from the start and as CM Rosenbarger has noted the intended purpose has tepid support.