The Bloomington City Council has now approved an audit and a pause on giving city sales tax money to McLean County government for jail bond debt, criminal justice technology, and mental health services. The Town of Normal has also done so.
The County Board has not ratified those changes to the three-way intergovernmental agreement. It takes all three to make the changes.
So ... now what? In this interview with WGLT's Charlie Schlenker, Bloomington City Manager Jeff Jurgens answers the question.
This interview has been lightly edited for repetition and flow.
Jurgens: At this point, we would expect that the county will take up amendment number one, and we'll see what happens from there.
WGLT: The county very pointedly didn't take up amendment number one, about the pause in the sales tax collection, before. What makes you think they will now?
I'm not sure if there needed to be some more discussion. If they weren't ready, hopefully the town and the city have clarified a few things. We have tried very hard to make sure it's known that this is not about stopping funding for mental health or behavioral health initiatives. We've tried to give some additional, I think, clarification to the county, and hopefully the county will now take this up.
What sort of clarification? What have you been telling them?
If they've been watching the meetings, we have assured them that this is not about stopping funding for behavioral health initiatives in the City of Bloomington. It was amended on the floor to provide that the funding that is kept, that is not sent over to the county in this one-year period, will be spent by the [city] council on behavioral health initiatives, housing and initiatives related to behavioral health. The funding that was originally designed to go towards those initiatives will continue to go toward those initiatives. But there's sufficient funding so that in this one-year pause, the behavioral health initiatives will not go without. They will continue to be funded no matter what. I think things like that will hopefully go a long way to provide some reassurance to the county.
Would you spend that money that you collect independently of the agreement, or would you eventually forward that money to the county for use under the agreement?
Right now, the way it's contemplated is the city would control that money. The city would come up with deciding how that money is to be spent. If, for some reason in the future, let's say that only 50-75% of that money was identified and approved for expenditure by the city council, maybe the other money does, at some point, get forwarded to the county for their initiatives.
Why is that supposed to be a reassurance to the county that you don't intend to get out of the agreement when it's not going into the common coffer for use, and it's reminiscent of the city saying it wants to go it alone, as it did in Metcom or the Metro Zone?
I think the difference is the amendment speaks for itself. The amendment says that it's a one-year pause, and after that, the county has the reasonable discretion to require the payments to start up again.
I think the other difference here is there's $20 million sitting in the bank. Some of it is obligated, but at the same time, the city is sending $300,000 plus over to the county every month. Clearly, there needs to be some realignment for the purposes of the agreement. We need to get a better understanding of what the money is going to be used for in the future, and ensure we're getting back to the purposes of the agreement.
Do you have reason to believe that the purposes of the agreement have not been fulfilled?
We don't. What we do know, though, is that the county has only spent half of what the town and the city has sent to them. Some of it is obligated. But I think there needs to be a better understanding of what the game plan is. We're 10 years into this agreement. We've got 10 years left to go, so this is a natural time to take a pause and for everybody to take a look at it, make sure everybody is on the same page, and make sure that this money is being spent and everybody is getting the biggest bang for the buck out of it.
The talks have been going on since November 2024 among the principals at the staff level: you, County Administrator Cassie Taylor and city manager Pam Reece. Why don't you have that understanding already?
I think it's just because it's complicated. Anytime you've got a number of different parties involved and you've got a number of different players, it's just making sure everybody is comfortable with the language, everybody's comfortable with the purpose and the understanding. Hopefully by the language that's been crafted and now approved by the town and the city, is something everybody will now be comfortable, and we can start to move this forward.
What we've been talking about so far has been public communication, as far as what you alluded to earlier as reassuring the county that you don't intend to abrogate the agreement. What have you been saying privately since this started to become a public issue?
What do you mean by that?
What assurances have you been giving County Board Chair Elizabeth Johnston or other electeds since this started to become a public issue?
We've been saying in the meetings all along that I think it is critical, and I believe our council thinks it's critical that we continue to have a dedicated funding source for behavioral health initiatives. I love the fact that this agreement is in place and that this does make sure we have that dedicated funding source. There has never been any indication given that we want to change this, or to not have that dedicated funding source.
Which concerns you more? A lack of definition of how the money is being spent on the mental health or the larger portion which is being spent on the jail or the update to the integrated justice information system?
I'm not sure there's a concern on any of those. I think it's more of a needing to clarify and make sure all of the purposes are aligned. The funding that is being planned to be spent for the rest of 2025 is over $7 million, and it's 20 different line items. It's large categories of spending. It's, I think, 23 or 24 employees. So, trying to understand where the money is being spent, and how it's impacting behavioral health. And once we understand what the actual needs are and where the money is going, I think we can better plan for what we are going to do in the future. We have more money going into this one now than we have ever had before. Certainly, there's more money going into this fund based on changes in state law than when the agreement was entered into in 2016.
You just mentioned $7 million this year, 23 employees, a number of line items. What don't you know about how the money should be spent, or is being spent?
I think we need to have more conversation about the details of those. Right now, we have some of the surface information. We know that's the plan for 2025, but we need to know what the plan is going forward, and does this truly all align with the purposes of the agreement? And so I think getting everybody in the in the room, and as we've talked about this one-year pause, will give everybody the opportunity to come together, to talk about what the changes in circumstances have been, to talk about the changes in the law, and to get everybody on the same page.
What happens if the county board decides that no, we're sticking with the agreement as written through the final 10 years? We will not take a pause.
If they make that decision we'll have to see what happens from there. I'm not sure. I think the town and the city and the county all have our best intentions, and I think we can figure this out. I think this is really a good story for everybody. The County was able to get grant funds that help pay for some of the things that that these funds were originally intended to pay for. So that's part of why there's a hefty balance in the bank. This is a good story for everybody. It's going to allow the town and the city to potentially prioritize some funding for a short amount of time in different areas as it sees fit, while allowing the purposes of the agreement to continue because of that balance. I don't think this is a situation where you've got the town and the county and the city rolling up their sleeves and fighting one another.
Would it chill the conversation if the county board were to decide that, no, it is not going to take a pause?
I'd hate to speculate on that. If they were to do that, then we would have to revisit the situation and go from there.
Were you surprised that the county board executive committee did not forward that amendment one on the pause on the sales tax to the full county board, given the amount of time that the talks had been going on and the chance that everyone had to brief their electeds?
Yeah, there was some surprise there. At the same time, I took it as more information was needed and maybe some more time was needed. That's why I'm optimistic that now, after the town has considered it, the city has considered it, my hope is the county board will reconsider it. Obviously, if they have other questions, if they have other concerns, I know the town and the city will help address those.
Has the city talked directly with county board chair Elizabeth Johnston about the situation since it went public?
I have not had any conversations. I've only had staff conversations, so I can't speak to whether anybody else has spoken with the board chairman.
Will the city try to talk with county board elected officials directly to make the case and to clarify things, since there apparently is an unclarity regarding the County?
I'm not sure. I can't speak for other elected officials, but I think we'll probably let the meeting last night speak for itself. You know, obviously we'll let the county know that that both amendments were approved unanimously, and that we are hopeful that we can get this on track.
Why would you let it speak for itself when further dialogue might shift the result in the city and town’s favor?
I'm not sure what more the city or the town can say. I think we have made it very clear what our intentions are and that our intentions are good, that we see this as a positive thing for everybody. This is not a situation where the county and the town and the city need to be fighting over anything. This is a good story to tell, and we're going to continue to operate in good faith and believe that this is something that's going to positively impact behavioral health in our community.