Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bloomington Common Council adopts 2026 civil city budget after controller explains corrections; public raises debt and data concerns
Summary
The Bloomington Common Council adopted appropriation ordinance 2025‑11, establishing the city’s 2026 civil city budget, 7–2, after City Controller Jessica McClellan presented corrected revenue and expense figures that reduced planned general‑fund deficit spending to about $9.4 million and projected a general‑fund cash balance of $26,161,215 (about 40% of operating budget).
The Bloomington Common Council adopted appropriation ordinance 2025‑11, establishing the civil city budget for 2026, following a presentation by City Controller Jessica McClellan and a public comment period in which speakers pressed the council on debt levels and the accuracy of budget reporting. The ordinance passed 7–2 on second reading.
Controller McClellan told the council the city’s DLGF‑reviewed funds total $110,184,108 and non‑DLGF funds total $52,968,449; after corrections to the general‑fund reporting the administration reduced an initially presented $111 million deficit to about $9.4 million of planned deficit spending for 2026 and projects a general‑fund cash balance of $26,161,215 — “40% of the operating budget,” she said.
The numbers mattered in public comment. Eric Oast urged clearer public communication and noted state legislation that he said will constrain short‑term bond access. Kevin Keogh, an auditor, asked the council not to approve the budget until staff publicly explained the spreadsheet/macro error that changed the deficit calculation and provided reconciliations.
McClellan described the error as a formatting macro that produced a mismatch between a summary table in the budget book and the department‑level reports. She said staff reconciled the differences, explained the sources of the changes (including moving certain property‑tax support between funds and adjustments to liability insurance and COLA amounts), and offered to share the reconciliation spreadsheet with members of the council and the public. “We did reconcile every single difference between the general fund in the budget book and the general fund in this adopted budget,” she said.
Council members pressed for and received additional debt details. McClellan read figures she had pulled from Gateway showing outstanding principal balances for city obligations: $125,060,000 for property‑tax, general‑revenue and TIF bonds combined (as a category she presented), $48,071,900 outstanding on wastewater bonds and $39,827,800 on water bonds, yielding a subtotal she reported as $249,959,700 for those items; she said other Gateway reports that list $414,000,000 reflect different reporting conventions (principal plus interest and other items) and invited follow‑up so staff could reconcile the different Gateway reports.
Council discussion touched on reserves, bond ratings and transparency. Several members thanked the controller for the additional work and asked that the reconciliation be added to the meeting packet; McClellan agreed to share the spreadsheet and amortization schedules on request. Two council members explained they would vote against the ordinance because of broader concerns about administration accountability and process; other members said they would support the budget citing the administration’s responsiveness during the budget process.
On the roll call the ordinance passed 7–2. Council members then were asked to sign the ordinance so staff could upload the adopted budget into Gateway.
Why this matters: the civil city budget determines operating funding for city services and sets the reserves and planned deficit for the next year. The controller’s reconciliation and the public questions about debt and reporting will be relevant to future budget oversight and to the city’s communication with residents.
