Bloomington Special Fiscal Committee Meeting - April 27, 2026
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Bloomington Special Fiscal Committee Meeting - April 27, 2026
Note: The transcript begins by calling the meeting to order on Friday, April 24, 2026, but the provided timestamp indicates the meeting took place on April 27, 2026. This summary uses the official timestamp date.
The special fiscal committee met to receive updates from City Controller Jeff McKim on quarterly financial reports, state reporting and the 2024 audit, and a preview of bonding strategy. Council members discussed interfund transfers, the growing general fund subsidy for sanitation, the REDI financial plan, and potential bond issuances for capital maintenance. One member of the public commented on financial transparency.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Kevin Keel, a resident of Bloomington, retired CPA, and IT auditor, thanked the city for publishing the 2024 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) but raised specific concerns about transparency. He noted a material variance in the general fund budget-to-actual schedule (page 75 of the ACFR, page 94 of the PDF) between the 2023 and 2024 reports, stating that the 2023 report contained an error that appeared corrected in 2024, yet no narrative explained the line-item variances. He also criticized Table 12 (legal debt margin) for lacking the clarity and detail found in the REDI consultants' presentation, pointing to Fort Wayne's more transparent presentation as a benchmark. He urged the controller's office to provide explanatory narratives and adopt a more comprehensive debt margin table in future reports.
Discussion Items
- Controller’s Quarterly Reports (Budget & Revenue Performance): Controller McKim presented budget expenditure and revenue performance reports for the first quarter of 2026, comparing budgeted vs. actual amounts at two levels of detail (fund/department and category/program). He noted that the reports focus on the most significant funds, as selected with Councilmember Stasberg, and can be expanded.
- Interfund Transfers Report: McKim explained that 64% of the controller's office budget in the general fund was already spent because it consists largely of interfund transfers ($1,452,500), not operational costs. The full list of 2026 transfers included: $500,000 to the alternative transportation fund (sidewalks), $250,000 to the fiber connectivity fund (part of a $1M commitment for low-income neighborhoods), $500,000 to the Jack Hopkins fund, and nearly $1.6 million to the sanitation fund (a general fund subsidy). Council members questioned the timing of the sanitation transfer (made at the beginning of the year) and the sustainability of the subsidy. Councilmember Stasberg noted that the subsidy increased significantly this year and that she requested various rate and service change proposals from sanitation late last year, including reducing recycling pickup frequency, but has not received updates. Councilmember Piedmont-Smith added that the city remains hostage to external landfill costs and suggested exploring reopening the county landfill.
- REDI Financial Plan: McKim provided the REDI financial plan update through December 31, 2025 (packet page 22-23). He highlighted that the plan includes estimates of SEA1 property tax impacts (projected ~$560,000 loss by 2030, described as “real but modest”) and reflects the shift in local income tax (LIT) restructuring from 2028 to 2029, as well as a recommendation to move capital expenses from operating funds to bonding. Council members noted large surplus variations in 2023 actuals and asked for actual cash balance reports going forward.
- State Reporting & 2024 Audit: McKim announced that the 2024 ACFR and audit were approved by the State Board of Accounts. The financial statements received an unmodified opinion. The single audit of federal grants also received unmodified opinions, but two compliance findings were reported in the ARPA program: a material weakness related to procurement rule enforcement (corrective action plan in place) and a significant deficiency due to an un-reviewed quarterly ARPA report submission (corrected in mid-2025). Both findings did not lead to a qualified opinion. A meeting with the auditor was scheduled immediately following the committee meeting.
- Bonding Strategy Preview: McKim outlined the two broad categories of bonds: general obligation (GO) bonds, which come with a new property tax rate (current total rate 0.0868, or 8.68 cents), and revenue bonds, which are serviced by existing revenue streams (e.g., LIT, TIF, user fees). He noted that the “public safety” bond for Showers West and fire facilities is actually a general revenue bond paid from economic development LIT; as that LIT fund phases out by 2029, the city must pay from other sources. He flagged potential upcoming bond requests: a GO bond for parks maintenance (not new parks), a GO bond for city asset maintenance, and possible TIF revenue bonds for the Summit PDB project and for police station construction. Councilmember Sgambelluri asked about alternative lower-cost options for a public works facility (suggesting using existing empty space), and Councilmember Piedmont-Smith raised the idea of contingency plans for departmental spending cuts before raising tax rates. McKim noted the administration is not proposing new positions and is preparing for the 2029 fiscal cliff.
Key Outcomes
- No formal votes were taken.
- Future reports requested: Controller McKim agreed to provide a cash balance report for the same funds in the quarterly reports, and to include transfers categorized by quarter in future interfund transfer reports.
- Sanitation subsidy follow-up: Councilmember Stasberg will contact Public Works Director Adam Wason, Lisa, and Vergin to schedule a presentation on sanitation rate options and cost-reduction proposals for a future meeting (possibly in one month).
- Next meeting: Scheduled for May 8, 2026, to continue discussions on elected official salary guiding principles using updated comparison data.
- Bond strategy: Further detailed discussions with bond counsel and financial advisor are expected before any formal proposals come to the committee.
Meeting Transcript
Go ahead and call to order this uh meeting of the special fiscal committee month, Friday, April 24th, 2026. That'll be Stousburg, District 3. Is it that P Mont Smith District 1? They were all district formed. Jeff McKim, City Controller. Jennifer Grossley, Clerk's office. Thank you. Um so we have our agenda this morning, and basically the only thing we have on our agenda are updates from our new forward. Um so starting with the quarterly reports, uh, then state reporting and then bonding um questions and comments from council members, uh with each of those sanctions and other comments on all of it at the end and then adjournment. So we'll go with that agenda unless anybody has anything to add. Great. Um at this point, I'm just turning it over to uh controller again to do his thing. Great. Uh thank you very much. Um good morning uh all. I I provided uh a couple of reports to you in the last meetings packet um that I intend to keep uh providing and updating uh if that if that all works for you. Uh one was a um just trying to get this okay there we go. Uh one is a budget uh expenditure performance report for the first quarter, which basically means budget against actuals. Um and I provided the the report at two levels of detail. Uh one is the uh budget by the budget by fund and department, and then the other also goes down to the uh budget category level um and actually the actual line level. And you'll remember the category, there are four categories of uh expenditures, personnel, supplies, services, and capital. So that's the the budget performance, then the other is the revenue performance for the uh first quarter. And again, I did this one in um two levels of detail. Again, performance just means budgeted versus actuals. And yeah, so I provide I provided this with two levels of detail. The uh the one is just by fund and general category of revenue. So examples of that include intergovernmental charges for services, fines and forfeitures, um, licenses, uh, and then the more detailed report also breaks it down into uh uh by program area and program areas are used differently depending on what departments it is. Uh I will say that the by far the most detailed use of the program level is in parts. They break their uh their budgets and their revenues down by really each of their program areas. We see examples via Brian Pool, Mills Pool, Vancouver, cemeteries, and so on. So but program area is different for um uh for each uh each department, and then the actual line item description of the of the revenue source. Uh and again for each of these, I am providing the projected what's projected for the year versus the actual. Um all both the both levels of detail should total up to be the same thing. They're based on the same data, they're just summarized at different levels. I'm sorry, Jenny, is this the chart you put in the pan for our last meeting? Correct, and it was all right. That should be in our packet for this meeting too. But it's absolutely identity. Yeah, that's well, I copied over the exact same file from the information requirements meeting. I think it's just uh it's farther down. It's the second uh start of page 55. I'll say the projected column. Oh yeah, no, we don't have a projective column. I say fund department adopted budget and budget expended and percent expense. Oh, and then the details I have more, but I have fund department category description adopted amended, expended. Yeah, that's what we have. Oh, okay. That does look the same. Okay, yeah, the the the revenue may be a little bit different than the expenditures because we're really measuring something different. Okay, sorry.
openpublica.com