Bloomington City Council Deliberation Session on 2027 Budget Priorities

Note: The transcript indicates the meeting began at 6:30 PM on March 11, 2026, but the official meeting date provided is March 12, 2026. This summary follows the provided date.

Councilmember Stasberg led the deliberation session to develop shared priorities for the 2027 budget, building on a December 2025 session and a February 2026 survey of council members. The session focused on refining 13 top priorities that emerged from the survey, discussing how to rank them, and aligning them with measurable, actionable outcomes. Key themes included the role of local government, measurability of outcomes, and the need to tie priorities to existing city plans.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Christopher (Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce): Emphasized the importance of investing in assets (transportation, economic development, arts, community centers) to save money long-term. Supported an "ounce of prevention" approach to homelessness and urged careful spending given state tax changes (SB 1). Also suggested reviewing potential budget cuts.
• Kevin Keog: Raised concerns about the city's late publication of the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) and the Single Audit Report. Noted that a material weakness in internal controls over federal grant compliance was identified for FY2023, which has not been publicly deliberated or remediated. Warned that bond covenant violations could harm the city's credit and increase borrowing costs. Formally requested that audit remediation and internal control strengthening be a 2027 priority, with an ACFR publication deadline of June 30 and full transparency.
• Paul Russo: Thanked the council for acknowledging that the transportation system is inequitable and expressed daily experience of that inequity.

Discussion Items

Process and Ranking of Priorities

• Councilmember Stasberg presented the 13 top priorities, compiled from a February survey with points allocated by council members. She explained the methodology: items were grouped by category (e.g., high-performing government, housing, public safety), but the final list was de-bucketed for ranking. The list is not in order of importance.
• Councilmember Sari asked whether to rank by buckets or individual items. Councilmember Flaherty proposed a second survey where each council member would assign points (e.g., 100) across the 13 items to produce a averaged ranking, arguing that simple discussion would not yield consensus.
• Councilmember Asari noted that the list mixes broad concepts (e.g., "implement existing plans") with specific outcomes (e.g., "reduce income inequality"), making direct comparison difficult. He suggested that items like "implement existing plans" and "develop plans where none exist" are more philosophical/operational approaches, not discrete budget priorities.
• Councilmember Zulik said she frames priorities based on meeting basic needs (food, shelter, water, safety).
• Councilmember Flaherty cautioned that the current city planning infrastructure is not well-suited to outcome-based budgeting. He offered to lead work on a more coherent framework with near, mid, and long-term outcomes and lag measures.
• Councilmember Rollo supported the list as a rubric for questioning department directors, noting that maintenance (e.g., road repaving) is measurable and a good example of a city-driven priority.

Specific Priorities and Measurability

• Councilmember Stasberg suggested using three questions from Controller McKim and Deputy Mayor Knapp: Is the outcome driven by local government? Is it measurable? Is the funding allocation measurable? The group applied these to each item.
• Making homelessness brief, rare, and non‑repeating (Item #4): Controller McKim confirmed it is measurable and city-driven, citing ongoing work with Heading Home. Sub‑bullets (e.g., job/wage growth, mental health services) were kept as examples, not an exhaustive list.
• Increase housing diversity within neighborhoods (Item #5): Considered partially measurable, likely requiring legislation and staff time. Councilmember Flaherty argued it is cheap to do and should be done in 2026, not 2027. Others noted it may already be in progress via the administration (e.g., RD permitting).
• Reduce systemic inequities (Item #6): Broadly supported. Councilmember Flaherty gave examples (utility bill discounts via general fund) and noted the city lacks an equity definition. Councilmember Zulik mentioned measuring public engagement demographics.
• Vibrant and resilient economy (Item #7): Councilmember Rosenberger flagged that "vibrant" and "resilient" are vague. Councilmember Rollo suggested measuring locally owned businesses and wealth recirculation instead of GDP. Councilmember Stasberg agreed to clarify the term before the next survey.
• Create vibrant third places/neighborhood hubs (Item #8): Measurable via event attendance, distribution of events, and zoning for hubs.
• Options other than uniformed police for nonviolent issues (Item #9): Considered clearly measurable and city-driven.
• Zero traffic fatalities/serious injuries by 2039 (Item #10): Already in city plans. Councilmember Flaherty suggested a future deliberation on clearing pedestrian networks after snowfall.
• Strengthen food security networks (Item #11): Partially city-driven, measurable.
• Air quality and carbon emission reduction (Item #12): Partially city-driven (fleet, incentives), measurable.
• Waste reduction (Item #13): City-driven and measurable.
• Crime reduced: Councilmember Zulik noted this overlaps with other items (public safety in other categories). Council agreed to omit it from the ranked list but retain it as implicitly covered.

Guidance for Administration and Next Steps

• Controller McKim stated that the current list is difficult to operationalize without more concrete, measurable sub‑goals. He stressed the need to distinguish between city-driven outcomes and those requiring external partnerships.
• Councilmember Stasberg proposed that items like "implement existing plans" and "develop plans where none exist" be moved to a philosophy paragraph in the letter, not ranked in a survey. Most agreed, though with debate about "maintain city assets"—some saw it as a capital improvement/expensive item, others as a measurable maintenance goal. Councilmember Rollo strongly defended "maintenance" as a quantifiable priority (e.g., miles of road paved).
• Councilmember Asari suggested that the council adopt a "do our plans" philosophy and refer to specific plan goals (e.g., Climate Action Plan 6.2.8) in budget presentations.
• Councilmember Stasberg committed to drafting a new survey within days, aiming for council approval of a priority letter at the March 25 regular session or at the latest the first meeting in April.
• Councilmember President Asari floated the idea of issuing a resolution instead of a letter to allow public comment and a clear vote.

Key Outcomes

• No formal votes taken; the session was deliberative and directed toward producing a final priority list.
• Council will conduct a follow-up survey where each member will allocate points across the 13 items (with two items moved to philosophy paragraph) to generate an average ranking.
• The letter/resolution to the mayor will include:
  • A philosophy paragraph emphasizing implementation of existing plans and development of plans where none exist (especially in public safety).
  • A ranked list of the remaining priorities (likely 10 items), with sub‑bullets as examples, not exhaustive.
  • Requests for budget presentations to show how each department's spending aligns with these priorities and to reference specific plan goals.
• Councilmember Flaherty offered to lead a future deliberation session on a coherent outcome-based budgeting framework.
• Councilmember Daly will coordinate scheduling of future deliberation sessions.
• Controller McKim will work to provide more granular budget presentations that tag expenditures to council priorities and include measurable metrics where possible.
• Public safety plan development was identified as a needed priority, potentially via consultant or in-house work, to be discussed further.