Go ahead and call to order this meeting of the special fiscal committee on Friday, April 24th, 2026.
I'll be staffed for district three. It's about being on SNF district one. They were on district four.
Jeff McKim, City Controller. Jennifer Crossley, Clerk's Office. Great, thank you. So.
We have our agenda this morning and basically the only thing we have in our agenda are updates from
our new folder. So starting with the quarterly reports, then state reporting, then finding questions
and comments from CASA members with each of those sections and other comments on all of it at the end
and then measurement. So we'll go with that agenda unless anybody has anything to add.
I'm just turning it over to you. Great. Thank you very much. Good morning. I provided a couple of reports
to you in the last meetings packet that I intend to keep providing and updating if that all works for
you. One was a
One is a budget expenditure performance report for the first quarter, which basically means budget against
actuals. I provided the report at two levels of detail. One is the budget by fund and department. Then
the other also goes down to the budget category level.
and actually the actual line model. And you'll remember the category, there are four categories
of expenditures, personnel, supplies, services and capital. So that's the budget performance. Then the
other is the revenue performance for the first quarter. And again, I did this one in two levels of detail.
Again, performance just means budgeted versus actuals.
And yeah, so I provided this in two levels of detail. The one is just by fund and general category of
revenue. So examples of that include intergovernmental charges for services, fines and forfeitures,
licenses. And then the more detailed report also breaks it down by program area. And program areas are
use differently depending on what departments it is. I will say that the by far the most detailed use
of prep, the program level is in parks. They break their budgets and their revenues down by each of
their program areas. We see examples here, Bryan Pool, Mill School, Baninger, Cemetery, and so on. But
program area is different for
for each each department and then the actual line item description of the of the revenue source and
again for each of these i'm providing the projected the most 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 same data
they're just summarized to different levels i'm sorry is this the chart
You put in the packet for our last meeting. Correct, and it was. That should be in our packet for this
meeting, too. But it's absolutely accurate? Yeah. Well, I copied over the exact same file from
the information from our last meeting. I think it's just, it's farther down. It's the second, it starts
with page 65. I see the projected
Oh yeah, now we don't have a productive. I see. Fund department adopted budget and then the budget expended
and percent expended. Oh, and then the details I have more, but I. Yeah, fund department category
description, adopted, amended, and expended. Yeah, that's what we have. OK. That doesn't look the same.
Okay, yeah, the revenue may be a little bit different. The other thing is that as you know, we have
a lot of different funds, most of which are not very interesting. And so Council Member Stasberg and
I kind of picked the funds that we list out in this report based on what we thought you would be most
interested in.
It's easy to add additional funds. So if you later want something else added to these reports on a regular
basis, I can do that. So Council Member Stossberg passed on a couple of questions from the last meeting
about these reports, which I can answer now. Council Member Piedmont-Smith had wondered why 64% of the
controller's adopted budget had been already spent. And there was speculation as to whether that was
related to inter fund transfers, and that is indeed the case. So with a couple, you'll see that some
departments have different budgets in different funds. So the controller's office had the main controller's
office budget is actually in economic development. So that's the controller's office budget that supports
all of our staff and the vast majority of our functions.
The controller's office also has a budget in the general fund that is just basically mostly inner fund
transfers. There are some other things, but it's mostly, it's inner fund transfers and other things
that aren't really about the operations of the controller's office. It's just a department
and any expenditures that need to be associated with the department. So it's just expenditures that are,
Therefore, essentially on behalf of the entire city. So the general funds controllers office budget
64% of that what has been spent because that consists of mostly of Interfund transfers and in fact 1,452,500
in a fund transfer.
And that actually brings me to another report that was included in your packet and had been asked for,
and that is the report of an inter-fund transfers. And so I'll actually just temporarily switch to that
for a moment. And you'll see this is a report of all the inter-fund transfers that would have happened
so far this year.
There are a couple on the general fund and then there are several that are associated with TIFF. Out
of the general funds, and these are all budgeted fund transfers, they're all made at the beginning of
the year to fulfill what was in the appropriation ordinance, but they include the general funds contribution
to the vehicle replacement fund, the alternative,
Transfer of 500,000 to the alternative transportation fund for the sidewalks. $250,000 transfer to the
Fiber Connectivity Fund. The city as part of its agreement with Meridian Fiber agreed to transfer $1
million into the Fiber Connectivity Fund that would then be used to, my understanding is provide connections
for low income neighborhoods.
I don't know the detail. That would be a reduced question on the details. But the $250,000 was in your
2026 budget for that. There's still $500,000 of commitment remaining after 2026 for that Fiber Connectivity
Fund commitment. And so there was already 250 that had been transferred. Exactly.
And yeah, so it'll be another 500,000 in future years. 500,000 for the Jack Hopkins fund. And then we'll
over almost $1.6 million in transfer from the general funds to sanitation. So that's a subsidy of sanitation
by. Yeah. I probably can't answer it.
Why is that transfer made at the beginning of the year and not at the end of the year when you can tell
what amount is actually needed in the subspace? That I don't know. I can find out. I mean, this transfer
happened before I even started. I mean, it was appropriated by, was appropriated as part of the budget.
It looks like all the transfers that were appropriated as part of the budget were made on
Yeah, but we appropriated that as an estimate of what would be needed to subsidize that sanitation.
I'm confused because when we had a complete work over sanitation, you know, the fans, essentially,
It was to internalize the cost and not to rely on general fund subsidies. So I can't remember. So what
you're saying, Isabel, or Jeff, is that this is in lieu of future revenue from essentially people paying
for their trash. I mean, this is a general fund subsidy of people
Yes, but I mean, instead of permanent subsidy, I mean, we have to recoup that at the end of the year.
No, we've been subsidizing it for years. Well, and last year during budget time, I remember saying as
part of the presentation that the subsidy this year was going to be a lot more because the expenses
have gone up a lot, but we haven't actually raised rates enough. And we are supposed to, at some point,
some kind of a proposal about raising rates, and I talked with Gretchen about that last year, late last
year, and maybe even early this year about her presenting options to this committee as part of how to
raise sanitation rates so that then we can reduce that general fund subsidy in different, I asked for
for some different proposals from sanitation basically is like, well, what can we do to reduce this?
Because there's, I think the biggest cost is the fixed cost of salaries simply of running the routes.
And so that it's the time and the manpower to run the routes. And so then it's like, well, how can we
reduce those possibly to run the routes? Or do we just need to increase
costs of people's trash pickups and overspray that so I asked for things like well what happens if we
uh only pick up recycling for example every other week and sort of what happens if you know so first
crash every other right and I think we'd end up speaking and maybe problem yeah and and so just that
you know coming up with some different proposals to go through this committee first before going to
the full council. And I can't remember the last time I had a conversation with her about updates on
that. But at this point, like, it's like almost May, so it's almost halfway through the year. Yeah.
Can you follow up on that? Yeah. I mean, it just, you know, you may remember this debate, I don't know,
before county, but, you know, we were
We were bloodletting essentially money because of transfer fees, because of the lack of automation,
which I was, you know, a little wheezy about, that everyone's displaced workers and so forth. So we
put a lot of capital investment in to get these cans going, to get the trucks required. And we're still
held hostage, I think, to essentially the fact that we don't have our own landfill. I mean, that's something
that I think
same for a long time. I mean, you know, looking forward to, you know, it would be better to reopen your
landfill and control our waste stream rather than being really, you know, hostage to callers and their,
you know, profit incentive and plus fuel and everything that goes into trucking into, you know,
tens of miles, whatever, yeah, 100 miles or whatever, 80 miles, anyway.
I'm just kind of surprised to see that here. That's now it gives me a lot of trepidation. So that is
likely to be, I mean, we're not going to repeat that. That's no, it's going to be more. Well, this is
the amount that they, this is more than last year. This is the full amount that they estimated for this
whole year or subsidy. Yeah. And so they're better not. If there's another transfer over to sanitation,
then it would have to come through.
Council, I think, for approval. Yeah. This is the full appropriation that you put in your budget. Okay.
But we need to- Yeah. Something needs to happen with rates or something next year because it's
not sustainable for the general fund to be also subsidized and it's not- And I do suggest to you that
this group will be a good opportunity to invest. I know that sanitation and public works are hard on
other various options.
Well, and the other, I don't know how long our current contract is for colored services is, but the
waste reduction district of Monroe County has gone over to Bromfield because we actually get some money
back for some of the recyclable materials from Bromfield. And so we might want to reopen the contract.
So yeah, I don't remember what that was. Relatively. Yeah.
You know this thing. If there's some particular thing that is responsible for the $1.6 million, or is
just the amount of things or anything particular that accounts for that? I mean, the other thing- They
had about a million for five, six years, so. Well, and the other thing was we were supposed to, because
of the automation, you know, the trucks and everything, we're supposed to cut back on injuries and the
associated cost of injuries of employees, but
Yeah, these are all very good questions from public works. My understanding is there's also capital
expenditures that have been behind the garbage trash is also an issue, but let's wait until we can get
the right people in the middle and get an answer to those questions. Do you want to direct your attention
to a couple of
comments that have been made or questions. But why don't we save those? Yeah, I don't know if those
might be relevant. I mean, yes, of course, the reason I have to deal with them. But in any case, I mean,
I want to make it clear that those
Where all of the experts were made as part of the preparation room. Okay. So, Okay. And then sorry,
there are also some transfers from TIF, most of which are associated with the large payments. We're
probably does not have as any surprise that
The there are still a number of garages that are being paid for the 4th Street garage and the trades
district garage bonds and then the Morton Street and Walnut Street garages. So those are those are the
other transfers. I also put another one in there that is not actually happening yet, but will be in
the near future and that's. You may remember that there was discussion Council last year about separating out
That is the dispatch center from public safety of Lincoln tax, which is the way it always should have
been. Those two funds never should have been coming in. So I counseled past an ad board that separated
them out and only part of the transfer of lives has actually taken place. I went back and reconciled
that fund.
And there's still another $1.481 million in this transfer from PSLIT to PSAPLIT in order to completely
fulfill the app. So I wanted to just kind of flag that because that's a future transfer. And those are
really the only transfers I would expect unless somebody goes to council.
What's that line nine refunding bonds? So in the bond world, refunding me is basically mutual financing.
So they're just this is this is the series of TIF bonds that are that refinance for you specifically
for parking garages or for what? I don't think that's one of the ones for parking garages. I can
I can remind that I actually put together a detailed sheet on the history of each of these bonds. Why
do we have lease payments for Morton Street, Walnut Street garages and bond payments video too? Do we
not just own Morton Street, Walnut Street garages?
I don't know if you know that. No, those are lease purchase arrangements. They're kind of like
the convention, slightly different, but just like the convention center is done as a lease purchase.
And so yeah, we actually make lease payments to the developer. So it's like an mortgage payment kind
of equivalent to what we just call a lease payment. Yes, it is structured as a lease payment.
How much longer do we have on those two? Definitely into the 2013s, surprisingly long. How frequently
do those payments occur? The amortization schedule shows monthly, but I'm not sure.
whether we actually pay them monthly or fully paid in like six months. I would be curious just about
how frequently I guess, but that might show up quarterly then in terms of the transaction. Well, it's
the transfer for the whole year. Those are more likely for six months, just looking at the numbers.
But I'm certainly,
Yeah, and maybe next quarter that will be kind of self-evident. In the future, when you give us these
transfer reports, are you going to include these earlier transfers? Or maybe I should say can you include
the earlier transfers? Yeah, I would categorize it for like quarter one, quarter two, et cetera, so
that then we can look at the whole thing. I can certainly add additional information. Okay, yeah, just
so that then
So then by the end of the year, we have all of it. Just a second. Sorry, I'm actually just gonna get
some. Okay, actually those numbers there are the annual.
their annual. Yes. Okay. For the leases. Yeah. So that's $213,000 is the annual lease payment for the,
you know, street garage. And $500,000 is the annual lease payment for the street garage. And those come
out of TIF? Yes. As opposed to coming out of like income produced by those garages? Correct. Yes.
The garage maintenance and operations are paid for by the revenue raised by the garages, but the capital
expense of the garages is paid for by. Anything else about the transfers?
be going back to the. Well, no, I mean, I intentionally went to press to transfers because it was answering
one of them. Yeah, thank you. Okay, so let's see. And then Councilmember Piedmont Smith also wanted
to know what fund was being used to pay the flop contract. Now I know that I provided that information
as part of the report was provided to Council on flop. I can also find it now. I don't know if your
question was answered.
Well, I think it was answered in the written before. But yeah, it was split between a couple of different
funds and a couple of different budgets, both hand and children.
Council Member Piedmont-Smith also wondered about the ESD line that 53% was already spent and 89% of
the organizational support was spent and Deputy Mayor Knapp reported that she thought it might have
been BT and indeed she was correct. So the expenditures out of the organizational support line,
There are a couple of small ones, but the four big ones are Bloomington Public Transportation Corporation,
that's $3,806,100. Downtown Bloomington Inc, $25,000. BCT Management, $80,000. And Community Foundation,
our following Project 46 membership, $40,000.
Yeah, so when we look at all the SEA one other legislative changes Yeah Okay, so then
Council Member Piedmont-Smith also inquired about whether the written report from READY that had been
referenced at the meeting they had attended had been completed. And indeed, it had the financial plan
through 12-31-2026. Sorry, I filled my notes wrong. 2025, sorry, was provided. I don't know if that
goes over the packet as well. Yeah, let's see. That should pull it up here.
Yeah, I think that's like the Yeah. That's that first financial update. I'm assuming that that's for
me, right? Yes, limited financial update. Exactly. So, yes, this is the plan, the update from 1231.
already is currently working on quarterly updates through 331. And the major change that I would expect
to see in the next quarterly update is going to be the extension of a lit restructuring from 2028 to
2029. That was a more recent legislative change, as well as some different assumptions about lit to
model the other changes that we already talked about, spent some time talking about what the different
options are for lit.
This financial plan, I think, requires a deeper dive and should be subject to its own meeting. But I
did want to at least give you the most current version that I have, just so you can look at it. And
I will call attention to just a couple of things. So if you look at any of the funds that receive property tax,
Report does try to estimate the effect of SCA-1 viral attacks. So, and what you can see from these numbers
is that the impact is real, but relatively modest compared to the overall average age 22 of our packet.
Sorry. It's the general fund. You're good.
I'm sorry to interrupt you. What is the shine projections for SCA? I'm sorry. Basically, I just wanted
to call attention to the fact that REES included their estimates of those SCA-1 property tax impacts.
for each of the funds that receive property tax. And just to kind of remind you right now, the general
fund receives property tax, the parks general fund receives property tax. And as of 2026, for the first
time, you've allocated property tax to NVH. And so for each of those funds in this financial plan, you'll
see a line for the SEA-1 impact.
And you'll see that the projection here that I've got on the screen, it's kind of highlighted in blue
here, shows that out to 2030, the projection would be is of about $560,000 loss from the impacts of
the new changes to SEDHM. So that's why I describe it as real but modest. It's non-zero, non-trivial,
but it's not as catastrophic as it has been.
Well, and they've added the new LIT estimated incomes, estimated revenues, right? Yes. And that's what
I'm saying. That is pretty much all going to change. That is all pretty rough. So I would take this
version with respect to the LIT with a serious grain of salt.
Among other things, it's going to, the change was pushed out legislatively this spring from 2020. Yeah.
Can you help me understand this a little bit? Because we currently have some lit, but where is our current
lit on this chart? Because like all this stuff in blue, it's like there's nothing until 2028 because-
Well, that first line, the second chunk.
where it says here, local income tax lit certified shares. Yeah. That's the existing lit. There it is.
You see they projected going away 20.8, but that's not 20.9. That's not 20.9. Right. The way that they've
reflected this new change in lit is that they both reflect the new, they zero out certified shares and
they zero out all the other ones that we got.
public safety, which are different funds. They zero them out. They added in estimates of the new grid
structure, which I think is not very valuable right now. Because that also is assuming because we get
to set a lift up to a certain point. So did they just set like the maximum that we in theory? Yes, and
it doesn't include new changes that came before we talked about the calendar.
So they said the maximum. I think those bands when this number of reflect I have not actually gone back
and then actually done the math just because like I said it's really not very valuable because there
are some of the other changes there and then they also show there a transfer of the cash balance that
would be left at the end of the day from those other big funds from public safety led and
That's the way that they reflect this phasing out of leg. That's on the revenue side. Then if you scroll
down on the same chart, so for general fund, they also reflect a shift of expenditures from public safety,
PSAP, and economic development. What are you?
Yeah, page 23 at the bottom. So that's. Expenditures. This section is expenditures. Expenditures. And
so they're basically, I'm just kind of explaining in broad how they, how they modeled this.
phasing out of the one system moving into another. They basically showed all the revenue changes at
the top and then the expenditure changes at the bottom. Assuming all those expenditures would be in
public safety or economic development, LID and PSAT would then just be moved to the jail. So just going
on to the next page. So we're in deficit.
over under expenditures. So, uh, $4.4 million plus whatever. And then we have $29 million plus because
we've got $19 million coming from the previous blitz, right? Yeah, that would be their estimate of how
much would be left. Assuming, you know, we all follow the plan and everything works, right? And that
would be left in those other
Funds that would just be transferred in general fund. So economic development lipids away. They're just
saying, okay, whatever bounds that they transfer back to the general transfer all the cash balance,
the expenditures and rentals. So like in the 2028 year, they were, that's why we have such right overage there.
Yes, exactly. Like we're like eliminating some funds and so anything left in those funds is getting
stuck somewhere else. So that counts as like one year. So I'm sorry, I wanted to ask some questions
on the pages that we skipped over cash reserves. Okay. Yeah, I was really hoping to if we're going to
do a deep dive into this,
I was hoping we would have reviewed it because they'd be able to explain the kind of assumptions. But
you're exausted question. Well, we had
In 2023, we had huge ending balance. I wonder why that is, because ARCA funds, so we had 106% cash reserves
at the end of 2023. What page are you on? I'm on page five. Where are you seeing those?
So under the heading 2023 actual, we have under major operating funds in general, you see the second
column. Revenue surplus slash deficit. We have revenue surplus of $28 million. And the balance of $50
million on expenditure of $47 million. So we were starting 2024, ostensibly,
with 106% cash surplus. How is that possible? I don't recall this miracle. Yeah, I will have to look
at what assumptions that they use. Like I said, I just got this and I put it in the folder for you all
and not had a chance to actually talk with really about any of the numbers that they use.
It couldn't be ARPA, it couldn't be because we budgeted a whole bunch of, moved a whole bunch of expenditures
and economic development lit, but I'd rather get actual answer to that and speculate. Yeah, I didn't
see any fund called ARPA. So, that was a separate fund, so. Yeah. And then the one other thing I wanted
to just to,
Kind of the broad point I wanted to make and this was something again that we brought up at
their presentation when they did on March 13th is that it would The bigger essentially recommending
and in order for us to be able to balance our budget that we pull capital expenses out of the All the
operating funds and instead long for that
So that is reflected in this report. Is that actually realistic? But all the capital expenses will be
able to be pulled out of operating funds, probably not. So that's something we're going to have to work
with and figure out how to model correctly. But that is reflected. And so if you even look at the general
fund, for example,
Yeah, so if you look at their general fund spreadsheet, you will see that as the 2027 column, capital
outlays have typically been, you know, the general fund of 1.6, 3.8, $6 million, $2 million,
but in 2027 on, they showed a zero. So that reflects we've used recommendation for us to have a say for that.
Where are you? Sorry, it's on the general fund tab. And I know I'm looking at the spreadsheet. Yeah,
yeah, yeah. So it's in the general fund. And a line legal capital outlays. So again, those are the bottom page.
Thank you. Thanks for the question while we're close to there. So in terms of the revenue over under
expenditures, which is the bottom page that you're currently on. So in the 2025 update through 2025
actual way up there, you scroll up. So we really did last year have a deficit of $10 million.
that is the case. So do we have anywhere right now where our actual grant balances are? Well, you have
these reports. You have the start of the year, this January, one fund balance. Oh, in the reports that
I gave you? Yeah. No. Okay. That would be another interesting one. Yes, that would be another interesting
one. It's an easy report. Yes.
Yeah. I didn't think about that until right this second. I think we want that quarter. Yeah. You want
that quarter? Yeah. Yeah. That would be concerning. Please. Yes. I didn't think about that until right
this second. But yeah, that would be a good one to add into our list of- I'm just going to create a
tab. Yeah. I'm just going to say cash. Of probably the same funds that you put into those detail reports. Okay.
Anything else on this one? I know we're kind of running out of time. Do we want a cap balance for quarter
one at our next meeting or do we just want to wait until quarter two? It's so easy. I can do your quarter.
Okay. Great. Fantastic. Thank you. Okay. Anything else about the financial rules?
If not, we're ready to move on to the next item. Okay, so this is an update on the audit and state reporting.
So at long last, the 2024 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report and audit have been approved by the
State Board of Accounts. The report and the audit are posted on the city website and are also posted
on the State Board of Accounts public audit portal. I encourage you all to download and read the entire report.
But I just want to give a couple of brief summary of the results of the audit. Again, you're encouraged
to actually go to it yourself. There were two audit reports. One was from the auditors on what they
call the audit of the financial statements. That's all the finances. Then the other one is known as
a single audit report, which is on federal grant compliance. Start out with the audit on the financial
statements.
The auditors provided what's known as an unmodified opinion. This used to be called an unqualified opinion,
but it's basically the opinion you want with no material findings for issues with go and concern. So
that's on the financials. The single audit report, like I said, is not on the financials itself, but
it is on federal grant compliance. There were two major programs reviewed, the Community Development
Block Grants, or CBBG.
and coronavirus state and local fiscal recovery funds, otherwise known as ARPA. Both those also did
receive an unmodified opinion. However, there are two compliance findings and one is called a material
weakness and one a significant deficiency, both that are in the ARPA program. The material weakness
was about enforcing certain rules on procurement that are specific to spending federal funds that don't
apply to normal procurement with respect to state law.
This did require a corrective action plan. We've already put that in place with the changing procedure.
The significant deficiency was that one employee in the controller's office
Submitted the required quarterly ARPA expenditures without a review, which led to a mismatch between
reports. And this corrective action plan was actually already put in place in the third quarter of 2025.
So this is just one of the real downsides of among many of being late on your audience is that something
can already be fixed, have been fixed in the previous year, but still show up, continue to show up in
the results.
Can you say that sent one again, the significant deficiency? Yeah, so it was that there's a required
quarterly ARCO reports that people submits to the federal government. We have a one employee basically
submitted that report without it being reviewed by another employee, and that caused error. Essentially,
I think a report was correct, but it didn't match something else that showed in another report. So it's
basically a mismatch between reports. And so the corrective action was to have dual control, was to have one
Submitter and one reviewer. And like I said, that had already been put in place in mid-July 1, 2025.
So that's that issue. Neither of those findings resulted in a qualified opinion, which the 2023 findings
did result in.
But both what I mentioned, the weakness and the deficiency did require corrective action plan, which
I just briefly described. Both of those are also included in the audit report. So again, the reports
are out there and I encourage you to read them. We also have a meeting scheduled after this meeting
today with our auditor and GAP compiler and state board and council to discuss the project plan and
timeline for the 2025.
And then finally, this was something that came up, I think, last meeting where I wasn't in attendance,
but I thought I would mention that the annual financial reports or AFRs have been stored on our website
where we provide both the archived PDF reports as well as a link to the official reports on state's
gateways. So they're both there. And that's all I have on state reports.
Any other questions? Okay. Then finally, I want to talk a little bit about bonds. And this is just kind
of a sneak preview of what we're going to be talking about in more detail in the future. So let me back
up a little bit and talk about broadly, there are two categories of bonds, general obligation and refugee
bonds. And
General obligation in Indiana, a general obligation bond comes with a property tax rate to service that
debt. So in other words, with the general obligation bond, we aren't paying the debt out of existing
revenues. We're actually establishing a property tax rate to pay that debt. And you may remember from
the presentation that we gave back on March 13th, I'm sure you will remember the presentation. But it
is actually, and they have a good chart that shows all of this in the packet,
for that date. We have six outstanding general obligation bonds currently for a total tax rate of 0.0868,
which is usually referred to as 8.68 cents. What was it, 0.08? Yeah, we say 8.68 cents, so 0.0868. That's
a total tax rate. 8.68 cents per $100 on set value of bonds.
Those two general obligation laws. We have six of them. And that's the total. That's the total. And
that packet from the meeting has a list of each of those with the tax rate along with the projected
tax rates for each sub-supervisor. So you can see, for example, when each of them drop off, there are
a lot of restrictions on general obligation dance, some of which can be quite complex.
are described the constitutional debt limit a number of times, but that's actually kind of one of the
less impactful remnants for us because our capacity is so high, but there are lots of other limits to
bombing in addition to the constitutional debt limit, including new restrictions on rates.
And there are also various thresholds for petition for monstrance and for referendum. So if you go above
a certain point, then you're subject to the petition to a monstrance process. If you go above a certain
point beyond that, you're in territory where it helps us change. So it's just kind of, you know, it's
just a matter of
General background, SEA 1 also put in place some additional controls, including a cooling off period
on short-term bonds. You may remember that at that time, we, like all other municipalities, were essentially
told that we could no longer use bonds for annual funding capital projects. And since then, a lot more
clarity has emerged. Bond capsules are telling municipalities that bonds still can be used in the same
way that they used before. They just have to be larger, longer-term bonds.
Because there are so many complexities associated with general obligation bonding, you know, more detailed
discussions need to take place alongside our financial advisor about bond accounts. In general though,
bond, the general obligations are desirable because they're very secure.
So they're going to see the pretty much the lowest interest rates that they would expect. And then also
because they come with their own tax rates of services, so they're not being paid out of existing revenues.
So that's your general obligation bonds. Then the other kind of bonds, the broad category. Again, there's
a ton of nuance here, but the other broad category is revenue.
And that's where you're pledging with some sort of existing revenue stream, which can be user fees,
lit, tax increment finance. But the key is that with revenue bond is that unlike your general obligation
bond, the revenue bonds don't come with a separate and new property tax rate to service. So some examples
of revenue bonds that we have, the convention center, we have a revenue bond that's serviced by food
and beverage tax.
We have the Twin Lakes Recreation Center bond that's serviced by Parks Revenue. The big one we have
is what's known as a general revenue bond that was used to purchase Showers West as well as build a
fire resistance training center with the fire station referred. What did you call it? A general revenue
bond. Isn't that the public safety bond?
I mean, I think that was maybe the term that you used in the administration at that time, but that is,
it is a general revenue bond. It doesn't pledge public safety or pledges economic development. Right,
but the purpose was public safety. So we call it a public safety general bond. So what is the general
revenue bond? The general revenue bond really means that
We're not pledging some very specific type of revenue like parks, parks revenue or food and weather
check. They were really pledging more general revenue source. And that's in this case, that's the economic
development debt. But it's not a general obligation. That's the key. It didn't come with property tax
or anything. So you're paying it out of your, we are paying it out of our existing economic development debt.
And this is the bomb that, honestly, I watched the most carefully because we know that income taxes
could be changing drastically. We know that the economic development is going away by now in 2019. We
still have to pay that bond. So we basically, because it's not a general obligation because it's a general
revenue bond, we have to pay it out of pie regardless of what happens to the economy.
I'll have some reason. Okay. So, all right. So, yeah, my understanding was that it was, it was a public
safety bond because that's part of the project. The projects were public safety. Fire, you know, some
fire offices there, right, for that purpose. But since those are going away, those revenue we're going
to pay from the general,
Yeah, or any additional LIT that you have. So yeah, essential LIT to pay that out of our existing revenue
sources. Can we get the details on that for next time? Like how much we'll still owe, how much people
will still owe after the, yes, the, you know, right there anyway? Or is that in there somewhere?
It should be included in the numbers, but maybe not called out directly. We can certainly go over the
mobilization schedule for that specific bond. That would be helpful. And so in terms of the requirement
of having public safety in there, that's written into the bond language itself, which is different than
categorizing it as they can go bond or out of bond. It's like part of the bond paperwork is, what are
you actually going to spend this money on?
In that, we spent it on public safety through purchase in part of that building. And building of a fire.
What I'm describing here is about the financing and how the bond is being paid. Associated with each
bond is an appropriation ordinance and a bond ordinance specifies exactly what it's going to be spending.
quite strict. So it's just less specific to each individual. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So one thing, oh, and
then the other kind of revenue bond that we have a lot of are TIFR. Not general obligation, but they
don't have separate tax rate, but they're paid out of TIFR. One thing that all these bonds have in common
is that city council wants to move. So it doesn't matter what,
what kind we're talking about if they are tools to come into existence. And the reason why I'm bringing
up the topic of bonds, it's just we're beginning to discuss bonding strategy for this year. And I wanted
to bring you in the loop with the earliest possible stage. So right now we're in the early stages of
planning, but I just wanted to let you kind of know what we're thinking. And I kind of think this committee
is the most appropriate forum for these early stage discussions.
certainly open anything else that they would like. So bonds that we're currently thinking about, one
would be a general obligation bond for a public works health center. This is streets, fleet maintenance,
and covered by heavy vehicles. And I know Public Works Director Wason would be glad to give any of you
tours of the existing facilities and the struggles that they have with them. It's worth a look just
to see how badly they need them. I know. So that's one we're definitely looking at.
and then a parks general obligation bond to address what I think is both your and our top priority in
the administration, maintenance and enhancement of city assets. What did you say, a parks bond? Yeah,
but I want to make it clear that we're talking about a parks bond. We're not talking about buying building
new parks. We're talking about maintenance of existing facilities and parks is still working
on prioritization based on the master plan.
me if there's parks on student is part four they also do maybe you do okay yeah yeah and so i'm assuming
that any go bonds from that are going to be part of essentially their massive money that's exactly that's
what they're working on prioritization basin but again this is what we're talking about taking care
of our our stuff uh and then similarly on the simple city side that we would um
We will probably propose something similar that would be dedicated to maintenance and enhancement of
city assets and this comes back to read these recommendation also that we move capital projects out
of the the operational budgets.
Would that be a GM bond? That would also be a GM bond, yes. And we've not created a list of potential
projects yet, but obviously we're going to involve you in the project prioritization. And again, the
bond would be for capital projects that you already have to be paying out of one of our existing operational
funds to be able to maintain the payments of our existing assets. So those are on the general obligation
side. And we would have multiple go bonds every year? Yes.
Like new ones? Yeah, the restrictions are more on the total rates and size of the project also. So they're
very, and that's why I say when we actually get closer to being specific, we need bond council to really
tell us, give us the details. I just want to know, but it's 929 right now. Yeah, sorry, I literally
have one more bullet. Great. And then you may also see some requests for TIF revenue bonds.
But those would be needed to be initiated by the Redevelopment Commission. The two that you might hear
about, of course, Wednesday night, you'll remember the discussion on the Senate PD. It would not surprise
me to see a request for a Senate TIF bond, but we don't have the timeline or scope on that. And then
similarly, you may see a request for a TIF revenue bond for police station construction. But again,
this would have to be initiated by the artist, a scope or timeline.
So that's where I am. All right, any questions fast on bond before we go to the recovery comment? I'm
just curious about what's the estimated cost of this for the board of operations? We do not have an
estimated cost yet. So I mean, what has been presented is often that it is needed for a put mat,
you know, to protect the put mat. But I wonder if we can do it on a sheet, but just having it covered
Like if you go, if you look over in Bloomington South, they have large cardboard systems for the process,
not all of them, but I mean, is that an option? I mean, should we have other means of, you know, we
can help you? I guess I'm just starting it out there because I don't know when to throw it out, so.
Yeah, I will say that I think that Public Works Department is well aware that
of the need to constrain that. If we're under 15 in the spring, then it would be great to have. Well,
their work environment is terrible. So I mean, just their staff room is like a dingy old basement.
It's not. It's actually a loft, but it's a dingy old basement. Can we bring in the flowers? I mean,
we've got empty space there. No, I mean, the staff room for the mechanics to have their lunch and take a break.
Believe me, there are a lot of constraints on the wish list that one might have for the ideal public
works office center. But yeah, I think it would probably be better to have that conversation with Adam.
Well, I think that it really sounds like we need to get out of here to talk about sanitation and then
also the public works thing. I do agree that bringing bonds through proposals to this committee
would be a great step. The other things that I think we consider is before we raise tax rates,
before we, you know, cover new bonds through debt, that, you know, we used to have sort of a contingency
plan in case of economic lean times where every department had to basically have a contingency plan
to reduce their spending by 5%, 10%, whatever it was. I mean, I think there were different grades of
reduced spending.
Some of it was just, you know, we're not going to take as many trips. We're not going to take, you know,
we're going to cut back on supplies. You know, some of the things like that are, is that happening as
well. In other words, so if we're going to raise rates, I can say we're trying to, we're working with
only the government.
You know, we're taking the blow that if there's a blow, I don't know if it's a lot of that has already
happened over the years. I will say that we are not the administration. So you're not proposing any
new positions, which I was unusual. I mean, we are we are preparing for the kind of the 2029 cliff already.
And I really anticipate that plans for potential cuts. I mean, we don't want to
Preemptive a cut, especially when the legislative environment is still alive. There's still going to
be additional changes with respect to legislation. So you don't want to lay people off while, you know,
before the fourth student. Yes, I would anticipate that there will be plans for contingencies. And I
don't want to sound like I want to get you to too, but I'm also not favorable to deferred maintenance.
That is what we are fighting. There's a trade off. So anyway, I don't mean to keep us, but that's general.
Any other questions, comments from members about bonding report? All right, great. Thank you so much,
Jeff. Let's go ahead and go to public comment. There's nobody in the room, but if there are any members
of the public online who would like to comment on any parts of the controller updates,
Looks like Mr. Keough has raised his hand. I'll go ahead and time us on my watch for about three minutes.
And whenever you're on mute, if you can go ahead and state your name for the record. Kevin Keough, a
resident of Bloomington, a retired CPA and current IT auditor. I'd like to start by acknowledging the
city's efforts to publish the 2024 Annual Comprehension Financial Report, published this week.
This document is easily accessible to the public and is a critical step towards fiscal transparency
and accountability. However, as a professional,
who has just within the last year started to review these reports closely. I have two specific report
areas concerned where I think believe require further attention to ensure the public is receiving clear,
reliable information. The first is on the general fund budget to actual variance schedule. If you look
at the table of contents of the ACFR, it's page 75. The PDF counter, it's page 94.
I observed significant changes, particularly in the reporting of the fund balance at the beginning of
the year when comparing this line to the previous year's ACFR for the same schedule. There is an error
with the 2023 ACFR schedule. It seems to have been corrected in 2024. Also, such material variances
in financial reports
generally require a clear accompanying narrative to explain these line item variances. Without this
context, the average citizens, or even the seasoned analysts, cannot effectively assess the city's fiscal
health or accuracy of these variances. The next area is Table 12, the legal debt margin.
Following the discussion with the fiscal committee with the Reedy consultants, I'm concerned that the
current presentation of Table 12 lacks the necessary clarity and detail expected of a municipality of
Bloomington size. It doesn't have all the three units in the same way Reedy presented the same information.
I would like to point out that the City of Fort Wade, you can use that as a benchmark, they have three
units much like Bloomington. It is clear that Bloomington can provide a much more transparent
and comprehensive breakdown of our legal debt margins much the way Reedy did.
A public trust is built on a foundation of accurate, transparent, and easy to understand financial data.
I urge the controller's office to provide the missing narrative for budget to actual variances and to
commit to adopting a more transparent, like Fort Wayne, for the debt margin table. That includes all
the units in future reports. Thank you for your time and opportunity to comment on these vital transparency issues.
Thank you. So anybody else on Zoom who would like to make a comment? You can see all the other hands
on the big screen. Claire Crossley, is there? No. Are all people who are up there? Yeah. Okay. Yeah.
I don't see any other answers right now. Okay, fantastic. The only thing left then is the charm vent.
I do before I do that, our next meeting is going to be two weeks from today on, let's see, May 8th.
Is that what's on there? Yes, it is, May 8th, and that one is going to be a council-based one. If you
guys recall, our last one, it's assignments related to the elected official salary stuff. With this
development map, we're going to rewrite that.
This is why there's like a good month we can write this down from the call right the second principles.
Yes, the guiding principles, you're going to assess those and potentially do some some edits around
them. And Dave and I did actually get together, talked about little data already and
looking at comparisons between other second class cities. Updating the spreadsheet that Clark Holden
started a couple years ago in 2004 when we had that ad hoc committee and also we added some other potential
cities in and talked about different data we want to get from those cities. So in two weeks from today
we'll go ahead and start talking about those kind of report out and decide where we want to go next.
I will also work to get in touch with
and we send a version around sanitation stuff and see if they can come in. Maybe a month from now, we'll
talk about that in terms of other than coming in on one of the city days that we have this meeting.
Anything else for the order? Great. You're adjourned. Only nine minutes late.