> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://bsquarebulletin.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# 2027 Budget: Bloomington council rejects $2.5M general fund cut, still withholds millions for housing, parking projects
- URL: https://bsquarebulletin.com/2027-budget-bloomington-council-rejects-2-5m-general-fund-cut-still-withholds-millions-for-housing-parking-projects/
- Published: 2026-10-08T09:05:38.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-08T13:36:54.000Z
- Description: Bloomington’s city council rejected a $2.5 million general fund cut, but withheld $5.5 million in housing and parking appropriations and cut vehicle-monitoring funds. The debate exposed tensions over spending oversight and staff morale. A final budget vote is expected Oct. 14.
- Author: Dave Askins
- Tags: Local Government, #no-inline-feature

![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/20/6f/206f9007-c0a7-47d4-b87b-686c21961f22/content/images/2026/10/2026-10-07-city-council-PXL_20261008_003747421.jpg)

![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/20/6f/206f9007-c0a7-47d4-b87b-686c21961f22/content/images/2026/10/2026-10-08-thomson-IMG_4383-processed.jpeg)

****Left:** Bloomington councilmembers front to back: Matt Flaherty, Hopi Stosberg, Isabel Piedmont-Smith, Sydney Zulich, Isak Asare, Courtney Daily, and Andy Ruff. Dave Rollo and Kate Rosenbarger were absent. ****Right:** Bloomington mayor Kerry Thomson. (Dave Askins, Oct. 7, 2026)

Bloomington’s city council rejected a proposal Wednesday night (Oct. 7) to cut $2.5 million from the city’s 2027 general fund budget, but approved six targeted amendments that removed more than $6 million in proposed appropriations.

The most sweeping amendment, proposed by council president Isak Asare, failed 2–5, with only Asare and Matt Flaherty supporting it. The voting tally added to 7 not 9, because Kate Rosenbarger and Dave Rollo were absent.

The final vote on the budget is yet to come, now set for next Wednesday (Oct. 14).

With his amendment, Asare wanted to set a spending target $2.5 million lower than the administration’s proposed amount, leaving mayor Kerry Thomson’s administration to identify the specific cuts.

Instead, the council approved amendments removing $5.5 million in spending authority for housing development and parking system improvements. In both cases, the money could still be spent later, but councilmembers want to review more specific proposals before approving the appropriations sometime during 2027.

Other amendments eliminated $272,000 for technology to monitor city-owned vehicles, cut $10,000 in mayor’s-office branding money and eliminated the $104,683 in salary for a vacant transportation demand manager position. The council also reduced a planned transfer into the sanitation fund by $600,000, anticipating that higher trash-cart fees would replace the subsidy.

Several of the amendments included in the meeting information packet and that were [ready for consideration](https://bsquarebulletin.com/council-president-proposes-2-5m-across-the-board-target-for-bloomington-general-fund/) were not even introduced on Wednesday.

The council did not take a final vote on the budget at its Wednesday night meeting. That is expected a week from now at its next regular meeting, which is [Oct. 14](https://bloomington.in.gov/council/meetings).

Bloomington’s [proposed 2027 budget](https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2026-10-07-Original-Packet-City%5FCouncil-20261007-Packet.pdf#page=87) totals about $171.4 million across all city funds, excluding City of Bloomington Utilities (CBU) and Bloomington Transit (BT). About $63.7 million is in the general fund, which supports much of the city’s day-to-day operations.

The original general fund proposal calls for spending about $6 million more than projected revenues, with the difference covered by cash reserves. That prompted deliberations over whether current spending is sustainable as Indiana’s property tax changes are phased in and new local income tax rules take effect in 2029.

The amendments also exposed differences over the council’s role as the city’s fiscal body: whether to set broad spending limits or exercise more detailed oversight of significant expenditures.

The discussion also drew comment from the public mic by a city employee who criticized the approach the council was taking to budget reductions, because of the impact it is having on staff morale.

Iris Bull, an administrative assistant in the engineering department, put it like this: “I’m not the only one who’s been paying attention this week and has been totally demoralized by the process. And that is also taking up staff time because instead of talking about our work, we’re talking about how bummed out we are, and that sucks.”

### $2.5M general fund cut fails 2–5

Asare’s [Amendment 16](https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2026-10-07-Addendum-1-City%5FCouncil-20261007-Packet%5F.pdf#page=33) would have reduced the general fund appropriation from about $63.7 million to $61.2 million, a reduction of just under 4%.

Rather than specifying positions or programs to eliminate, the amendment directed the administration to identify $2.5 million in reductions, preferably recurring savings. It recommended distributing the cuts among departments roughly in proportion to their shares of general fund spending.

Asare said preparing individual amendments had demonstrated how difficult it is for councilmembers, who lack the administration’s staff and operational knowledge, to identify specific cuts.

Asare said that the council’s responsibility is to set fiscal boundaries and priorities, not manage departments. “Reserves do not make recurring operating deficits sustainable,” he said. Using reserves can be justified for investments producing identifiable benefits, he said. 

Thomson opposed the amendment, saying that a $2.5 million reduction on the timetable remaining before budget adoption could disrupt services and force poorly considered staffing decisions.

In a [memo](https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2026-10-07-Addendum-1-City%5FCouncil-20261007-Packet%5F.pdf) submitted to the council, Thomson and her department heads committed to bringing a proposal for departmental reorganization, including possible staffing cuts, by June 1, 2027\. Thomson said a responsible review would take at least six months and might improve services without necessarily saving money.

Controller Geoff McKim illustrated the scale of Asare’s proposal. A strictly proportional reduction would mean cuts of about $765,000 from police, $718,000 from fire, $183,000 from information technology services and $120,000 from planning, among others.

McKim said reductions of that magnitude could not responsibly be developed and implemented within the available time.

Hopi Stosberg opposed the amendment, noting that Bloomington has spent several years trying to reduce reserves considered larger than necessary. Actual spending has sometimes fallen enough below budgeted amounts that reserves increased, she said.

McKim acknowledged that the reserves are substantial. He expects to complete a formal reserve policy by the end of the year.

Asked whether the city’s current spending is sustainable, McKim said he believes the proposed budget has reached a sustainable level, particularly with the scheduled end of the city’s $3.8 million annual transfer to BT. But he acknowledged that future local income tax decisions could force substantial reductions.

Isabel Piedmont-Smith agreed with Stosberg that the proposed cuts were unnecessary and impractical on such a short timetable.

Flaherty questioned whether there would ever be an acceptable time for the council to demand significant reductions. Before the administration develops its budget, he said, specific proposals could be dismissed as premature. Afterward, the deadline makes them impractical.

That dynamic, Flaherty contended, makes meaningful council control over spending priorities difficult.

Andy Ruff defended the logic of Asare’s approach but ultimately opposed the amendment, along with Stosberg, Piedmont-Smith, Sydney Zulich and Courtney Daily.

### Housing: $3M withheld pending better strategy

An amendment removing $3 million in appropriations from the housing development fund passed 6–1, with Daily casting the only opposing vote.

Asare, one of the sponsors, emphasized that the objective was not to prevent spending on affordable housing. He said he would support spending the entire amount, potentially even more, if the city had a better-defined strategy for using the money.

He questioned an approach that appeared to be driven largely by requests from developers as opportunities arise.

Piedmont-Smith said the fund has less than $6 million available and is not being replenished quickly enough to maintain its current spending pace. She proposed discussing a revised strategy before the end of the year, potentially allowing a new appropriation in January.

Thomson said the administration was willing to reconsider its strategy but objected to withholding the appropriation. Developers need to know whether assistance is available, she said, and additional council approvals could delay construction or cause opportunities to be lost.

Councilmembers differed over what additional oversight should involve.

Asare favored agreeing on an overall strategy, then allowing the administration to implement it without council approval of every project.

Stosberg wanted large awards to private developers to receive public scrutiny. She noted that the administration’s memo identified projects seeking more than $1 million apiece in city assistance. Flaherty agreed that assistance above some threshold should come before the council.

The amendment does not eliminate the fund or prevent spending the money later. It requires the administration to seek an additional appropriation before doing so.

### Vehicle monitoring: $272,000 cut over surveillance concerns

An amendment from Piedmont-Smith, which was not included in the meeting information packet, eliminated $272,000 for a vehicle telematics system on a 5–2 vote.

The proposed technology could monitor the locations, speeds, braking and other driver behavior on city-owned vehicles. Some systems include cameras capable of detecting cell phone use and other unsafe actions.

Piedmont-Smith opposed the expenditure because of employee privacy concerns, including the prospect of tracking workers’ movements and sharing location information with a third-party vendor. 

A related concern to the one expressed by Piedmont-Smith is reflected in an [ordinance](https://bloomington.in.gov/onboard/meetingFiles/17445/download#page=60) that the council could possible vote to enact at its Oct. 14 meeting, which would ban the use of automatic license plate readers in Bloomington. The ordinance was introduced on Sept. 16\. 

On Wednesday, corporation counsel Margie Rice defended the technology as a way to reduce costly accidents and improve safety. She described an incident involving an excavator that tipped over while being transported, saying better driving data might have helped determine the cause.

Public works director Adam Wason described other possible benefits, including more efficient sanitation and snow-removal routes and reduced fuel consumption.

Asare questioned whether the investment would produce at least $272,000 in savings.

Wason said vendors and systems were still being evaluated. He could not quantify the expected savings or determine how much of the expenditure would be a one-time cost rather than an ongoing subscription.

Stosberg supported the technology, saying she had observed city vehicles driving unsafely and believed monitoring could improve accountability.

Stosberg and Daily voted against the amendment. The other five councilmembers supported eliminating the appropriation.

### Parking meter fund: $2.5M placeholder removed

The council unanimously removed $2.5 million in proposed spending authority for parking system improvements.

Asare said he generally supports improvements recommended in the city’s parking study, but wanted more specific plans before approving such a large appropriation.

Stosberg said the council should provide a recognizable venue for public review of major spending decisions. Piedmont-Smith raised concerns about automatic license plate readers, which were among the technologies recommended in the Walker parking study.

The administration did not object to the amendment. It can request another appropriation when particular improvements are ready to proceed.

As with the housing amendment, the action does not necessarily mean the city will spend less. It means that spending the money will require another council decision.

### Sanitation: $600,000 less in subsidy, higher rates expected

The council unanimously reduced the planned transfer into the sanitation fund from $1.6 million to $1 million. The $1 million remaining in the proposed 2027 budget would help cover the difference between the cost of curbside trash and recycling collection and revenues generated from cart fees.

Stosberg said the reduction anticipates higher trash-cart fees, but emphasized that the amendment does not itself approve any rate increase.

The administration plans to bring a rate proposal to the council this fall. If the increases are rejected, the city could seek an additional appropriation.

Ruff cautioned against treating a reduced subsidy as a savings for residents. The cost of the service would simply shift from the subsidy to household sanitation bills.

### Planning studies spared

Asare’s proposal to eliminate $490,000 for corridor, subarea and other planning studies failed 1–6\. Ruff cast the only vote in favor, while Asare voted against his own amendment.

Asare questioned the value of repeatedly commissioning studies without clear prospects for implementation.

Interim planning and transportation director Lynn Coyne said studies are necessary groundwork for future projects, particularly those requiring state or federal grants. Transportation-related work could also qualify for reimbursement through the city’s $1.44 million Safe Streets for All grant, he said.

The discussion touched on Kirkwood Avenue, where Piedmont-Smith asked whether seasonal closure to vehicles could be considered before completing a broader study. Thomson said the administration wants the corridor study completed first.

Deputy mayor Gretchen Knapp acknowledged the challenge of keeping planning studies grounded in realistic costs. She cited the [College and Walnut study](https://bloomington.in.gov/transportation/cwcs), which produced recommendations with an estimated $120 million implementation price tag. The challenge, she said, is giving consultants room to explore ambitious ideas without producing plans too expensive to carry out.

Stosberg opposed cutting the studies, citing their importance for land use, economic development and traffic safety.

### Mayor’s office: Branding

The council unanimously approved Piedmont-Smith’s amendment eliminating $10,000 for implementation of the city’s branding initiatives.

Piedmont-Smith called the branding effort a waste of time and said she did not want to commit more money to it. She had already expressed that view the night when the branding consultant presented his firm’s work, including a [new logo](https://bsquarebulletin.com/editors-note-proposed-new-bloomington-logo-looks-like-a-butt/). The administration supported the reduction.

### Transportation demand manager: Position defunded

The council unanimously removed salary and benefits funding for the vacant transportation demand manager position in the economic and sustainable development department.

The salary portion totals $104,683, with the controller directed to calculate associated benefit reductions.

Piedmont-Smith said the position had not accomplished enough to justify continuing the appropriation.

Flaherty agreed that the position had fallen short of expectations but wanted the money redirected toward transportation improvements, such as neighborhood traffic calming.

Piedmont-Smith preferred spending the money on climate action priorities involving local food systems and food security.

The position can remain authorized in the salary ordinance without being funded in the 2027 budget.

### Travel and other proposals: Not introduced

Asare withdrew his proposal to cut employee travel appropriations by 25%, or $41,925, following objections about the importance of professional development.

He also declined to advance proposed reductions involving financial software replacement, information technology subscriptions and parks program-guide printing.

A broader amendment involving mayor’s-office expenses was withdrawn after the council approved the narrower branding reduction.

Zulich did not introduce her amendment to reduce election-related appropriations.

### Budget debate brings personal tensions to the surface

During discussion of the $2.5 million general fund reduction, city staffer Iris Bull returned spoke from the public mic to oppose Asare’s approach. She described proposing substantial cuts without specifying where they would fall as reckless. “This is like a manufactured hostage situation,” she said. Bull pointed to the negative impact on staff morale.

The comments about staff morale were only one part of an increasingly strained exchange between the council and administration.

During deliberations on the housing development fund, Stosberg criticized the administration’s contention that requiring additional council approval for housing expenditures would impose unnecessary bureaucratic burdens.

She said major expenditures involving public money deserved review by the city’s elected fiscal body, not merely administrative decisions. During her remarks Stosberg observed that Thomson got up and left the council chambers while she was speaking.

Stosberg drew attention to the mayor’s departure: “And for those of you not in this room, Mayor Thomson just walked out of the room instead of listening,” Stosberg said. She called the departure disrespectful to the council and to Bloomington residents who pay taxes.

Thomson later addressed that criticism while discussing Asare’s proposed $2.5 million reduction. The mayor acknowledged that she had left during Stosberg’s comments.

“We have gotten to a point that the cabinet and other staff, and even members of the public, expect to be demeaned when we come to this podium,” Thomson said. She said, “I told myself that I was going to let our cabinet know that when they’re called names or when somebody is speaking down to them in a demeaning way, anywhere, if they’re not in a position to say something, they can leave.”

After giving it a beat, she added, “And I was reminded that if we leave, we don’t get the city’s work done.”

Thomson said employees had described experiences that made the workplace feel hostile. She called for respectful public disagreement, even when councilmembers and the administration hold sharply different views. She said, “I have been told by members of our staff, by members of your staff, that it can be a hostile work environment.” She continued, “That’s not a city I want to be part of, and I think we can do better. ” Thomson added, “The highest priority for me is how we work together.”

Stosberg did not respond immediately to the mayor’s remarks. But after the council had finished voting on amendments, she returned to the issue during final comments on the budget.

She again acknowledged that some amendments had placed employees in an uncomfortable position, particularly when discussions of possible staffing cuts were put into writing. But Stosberg objected to any implication that expressing frustration during council meetings is inherently inappropriate.

“If you want to tone-police me, which I really don’t appreciate in general, and generally speaking, I think is really inappropriate,” Stosberg said, then the tone of the administration’s written communications should also be open to criticism.

She said frustration can be expressed through memos as well as spoken remarks, and elected officials should be able to express it from the dais.

Stosberg defended her approach to the amendments as an effort to make government spending more transparent and accountable to residents. She closed by again apologizing to employees whose jobs had been made to seem uncertain through the budget discussion.

### Final budget vote Oct. 14: Early dissent from Flaherty

The council is expected to take up the amended city budget Wednesday (Oct. 14), after the administration incorporates the approved changes into the final state budget forms.

Flaherty said he will be absent, but would vote against the overall budget if present.

He said his opposition reflects broader dissatisfaction with Thomson’s administration, particularly what he considers failures of governance.

Flaherty cited three concerns: the administration’s continued use of temporary traffic regulations beyond the 180-day period he believes city code allows; inadequate enforcement of sidewalk snow-removal requirements, including on city-owned property; and the decision not to proceed with previously discussed Indiana Avenue safety improvements following opposition from Indiana University representatives.

He said the Indiana Avenue project had been part of an earlier budget negotiation and that abandoning it without returning to the council represented a failure to honor those commitments.

For Flaherty, the budget vote is one of the few available mechanisms for holding the administration accountable over such disagreements.

With Asare’s $2.5 million reduction defeated, the budget heading toward final adoption leaves the administration’s principal operating appropriations largely intact.

But the council’s rejection of that reduction leaves a question for next year. Thomson’s administration has committed to bringing the council a proposal for possible reorganization and staffing reductions by June 1, 2027.

Asare has said on different occasions that such a review could cover the economic and sustainable development department, the community and family resources department, the mayor’s office, the city clerk’s office, and the city council office.

Whether the administration’s proposal will include all those offices, and whether it will produce recurring savings or at least better outcomes for residents, remains to be seen.