Special Fiscal Committee Meeting Summary - September 8, 2026
Special Fiscal Committee Meeting - September 8, 2026
The Special Fiscal Committee of the Bloomington City Council met on September 8, 2026 from 8:31 a.m. to approximately 9:30 a.m. to discuss budget process feedback, large capital expenditures, debt management, the committee's role, and future meeting scheduling. Members present included Chair Loki Strasberg (District 3), Councilmembers Isabel P., Matt Smith (District 1), Matt Flarity (Council at-Large), Acting Deputy Mayor, and City Controller Jeff McKim (remote). The meeting featured two public comments and extensive deliberation on outcome-based budgeting, capital planning communication, and the proposal to elevate the committee to a standing committee.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Kevin Keoges, a retired CPA, spoke about the role of public participation in financial oversight. He suggested the committee consider a structured way for citizens with relevant expertise to contribute substantive financial analysis, similar to an audit committee framework.
- Christopher MG, from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce, emphasized fiscal prudence regarding debt and encouraged the committee to seek a "debt 101" presentation from the controller to align understanding. He also cautioned that personnel costs are recurring and pose a larger fiscal challenge than debt, especially with potential state revenue changes (SB1).
Discussion Items
- Budget Process and Outcome-Based Budgeting: Councilmembers expressed mixed views on the 2026 budget book. Isabel P. noted a step backward from the previous year in providing outcome-based spending categories. Matt Flarity argued that meaningful outcome-based budgeting requires first establishing shared outcomes and metrics tied to those outcomes, rather than simply tracking spending by category. Acting Deputy Mayor suggested that departments used presentations to highlight outcomes, which is more digestible than the budget book. Councilmember Amy raised concerns about large anticipated capital expenditures, particularly the Utility Service Center project, and the lack of clarity on how rate increases would cover debt service. She also noted that significant sunk costs (design costs already spent) could pressure the council to approve the full project.
- Debt and Capital Planning: Councilmember Amy highlighted that the city faces approximately $100 million in capital projects (service center, street department, police station upgrades, dispatch facility, etc.) in the coming years. Controller McKim explained the different types of debt—general obligation (comes with additional revenue stream), general revenue bonds (paid from existing revenues, like the public safety bond), and TIF bonds. He noted that the utility bond had already been approved by the council in September 2025, and the service center is included in that bond authorization. Matt Flarity called for a deeper capital planning conversation, including how to prioritize projects and consider different debt instruments. Chair Loki Strasberg summarized the need for better communication on large projects so that council is not caught off guard.
- Written Questions Process: The committee discussed the method for submitting follow-up questions after budget hearings. Some members preferred verbal questions during hearings, while others advocated for a public Google form to ensure transparency and ease of tracking. Chair Strasberg encouraged use of the form for consistency.
- Committee Role and Standing Committee Proposal: Chair Strasberg proposed making the Special Fiscal Committee a standing committee, which received unanimous support from members present. The committee discussed updating its charge to include: tracking debt, discussing upcoming capital projects, improving budget process and outcome-based budgeting, and potentially providing a structured avenue for citizen financial analysis. Matt Flarity expressed skepticism about progress on outcome-based budgeting but agreed it should remain a goal. Public commenter Kevin Keoges suggested considering an audit committee model with independent professional staff.
- Future Meeting Schedule: The chair noted the next meeting on September 18 will prioritize discussion of sanitation fee increases (with a memo from administration), and postpone the elected official salary discussion. October may include quarter three financial summaries and a potential "bond 101" educational session for the full council.
Key Outcomes
- The committee unanimously agreed to proceed with legislation to elevate the Special Fiscal Committee to a standing committee, with an expanded charge to include capital planning, debt oversight, and improved budget communication.
- The committee will pursue a "debt 101" educational session for the full council, coordinated with Controller McKim.
- The September 18 meeting agenda will focus on the proposed sanitation fee increase and any related fiscal impact.
- The chair will draft updated committee language reflecting the new role and submit it by the end of the year.
- Councilmembers will continue to refine budget process improvements, including how to better engage the public and ensure consistent use of written question forms.
Meeting Transcript
All right. So I went ahead and call this meeting of the special fiscal committee to order at 8 31 on September 4th, Loki Strasberg, District 3 chair. Isabel P. Matt Smith, District 1. Matt Flarity, Council at Large. Especially Act Deputy Mayor. And we got Jeff Jeff McKim City Controller participating remotely. Thank you. So today, partly because we're like coming off of budget month. And that was a pretty incense month in terms of financial stuff. And partly because I knew that controller would be online this morning. I figured that we have time to just sort of talk about our thoughts, generally speaking, about budget presentations, um, about anything related to the budget. But people remember that up specifically, but also about the fiscal committee role overall, and we talked to them during budget time about outcome-based budgeting and the administration wanted some support with that. Um so uh just in terms of this committee and then little notes about scheduling and then adjournment. Does anybody have anything they want to add or comment on in the agenda before we launch in? Okay, great. Seeing none. Um, so I included in this memo some questions uh to come prepared to discuss. Um, and the first thing on the agenda that's just got to do with budget presentations and feedback. And I kind of put them down as you know, A through D before public comment um in terms of the format of the presentation, the slideshow, the question and answer format, how the public was involved, how we might want to get them involved in the future, and considerations for next year. But I don't care what order we talk about them in. I'm just gonna take notes on them. So um, and then I also included in the memo some specific questions. Did the budget book have the information you expected? If not, what was missing? Was the time available for presentations and verbal questions sufficient? Did you find the format of follow-up written questions on that Google form? Easy to use for both questions and answers. Um was there anything you felt particularly useful this year? Anything not provided this year that you found helpful in the past and what could improve next year, and then how can public engagement be increased during the budget process? And those first five questions in the memo really kind of include or like relate to budgeting stuff. So any feedback on any of those things at all. Well, um the comparing the budget book this year to last year, I felt like we took a step backwards in our goal to try to get to the um outcome-based budget. So last year at least we had general categories and how much is spent on each within each department. This year we had none of that. Uh so I guess I'll throw that out as my first reaction. All right, other thoughts on the budget book as related to outcome-based budgeting. Matt, did I see your hands start to go up? No, but I'm happy to uh provide some initial thoughts on outcome-based budgeting specifically. Um, I I said this in some comments, uh, and I've said it here that my general view is that we need to establish outcomes in order to pursue outcome-based budgeting. Uh, specifically, you know, shared outcomes that go through a process and are adopted. We have some in the form of a few of our planning documents, but the outcomes are inconsistent in their uh design, how we measure them, etc. And so, you know, I I understand and appreciate what Isabel is saying. Um at the same time, I'm not sure tracking spending on priority areas gets us any closer or gives us anything really meaningful or actionable with outcome-based budgeting uh to make an intervention based on our ability to meet or not meet outcomes. Um like the amount of money you spend really theoretically has something to do with that, but like not not really. We're not like it's like I think um it's how effective are our strategies and the personnel we have and the things, you know, to the extent we're operating programs or prioritizing spending in kind of one way or another that goes beyond staff dollars, you know, personnel dollars. The question is how effective are those dollars at achieving our outcomes. Uh you know, and we're just very far from being able to really do that in any kind of systematic way. I think that's a lens I've always tried to bring to budgeting and governance uh where we have those goals that are well established. Um, but it it is just uh I don't know.
openpublica.com