On a significant 7–2 vote during its regular Wednesday meeting, Bloomington's city council took a crucial step by approving the issuance of $4.3 million in general obligation (GO) bonds. This decision aims to complete several essential capital projects, which will have a notable impact on the city's infrastructure and development.
Unlocking Capital for Bloomington's Growth through GO Bonds
Financial Considerations and Tax Rates
In the state of Indiana, the city's fiscal body determines the revenue amount (property tax levy), not the tax rate. The required rate is calculated based on the chosen revenue and the total assessed value. State law imposes a maximum levy growth quotient (MLGQ) of 4 percent this year. Bloomington's city council decided to increase the levy by the maximum 4 percent, resulting in $1.43 million more in 2025 for the general and parks funds. Despite the overall net assessed value increasing by about 12.8 percent, the tax rate needed to generate 4 percent more revenue in 2025 is lower than the 2024 rate. For example, the 2024 basic rate of $0.7308 is composed of a $0.5686 general fund rate and a $0.1622 parks rate. Due to the increased assessed value, this basic rate will drop to $0.6737 but still generate 4 percent more revenue. Even at the lower rate, the combined general fund and parks property tax revenue will rise from $35.77 million to $37.20 million. The difference of $0.0678 in rates presents an opportunity for financial advisors to generate additional revenue while maintaining the same rate. As Frische pointed out at Wednesday's meeting, "The last thing we want to do is to allow the tax rates to decrease." The idea is that once property taxpayers are accustomed to a rate, it becomes easier politically to "maintain" it, even if it leads to a substantial increase in tax paid and revenue received by the government.Projects to be Funded and Varying Perspectives
On Wednesday, city council deliberations centered around the latitude to deviate from the list of projects accompanying the ordinance. A question from councilmember Matt Flaherty to bond counsel Thomas Cameron revealed that if a project has a specific description in the list, it cannot be swapped with a similar one. For instance, Flaherty asked if roof replacement at a shelter other than Woodlawn Bryan Park shelter would be allowed, and Cameron's one-word answer was "No." Projects without specific descriptions raised concerns among both supporters and opponents of the GO bonds. Flaherty was concerned that the administration might not fulfill the commitments implied by items like "Projects included in the Bloomington Transportation Plan/Safe Streets for All Plan." He cited past bond issuances where projects were not completed as expected. One example was a 2018 bond issuance (bicentennial bonds) that was supposed to create a non-motorized connection but still does not exist. Another example was the 2022 bond issuance for public safety projects, where the Showers West project was scaled back. Flaherty described this as an issue of "good faith" and expressed concerns about getting burned again if there is too much flexibility.For Dave Rollo, the concern was not about projects not getting completed but about the lack of city council control over which projects were chosen. He was worried about neighborhood greenway projects like Hawthorne-Weatherstone being undertaken without council approval. The Hawthorne-Weatherstone project faced strong opposition from immediate neighbors but was built without explicit council approval. Rollo's initial focus was on the "Community traffic calming projects" list item. City engineer Andrew Cibor clarified that this item was supposed to refer to "resident led" projects. However, Hawthorne-Weatherstone was a "staff led" project. Council president Piedmont-Smith pointed out that such projects are part of the transportation plan. Bloomington resident Greg Alexander countered Rollo's concern, stating that staff has the permission and legal mandate to implement projects. If councilmembers want projects to be done differently, the correct approach is to modify the policy rather than starving them of funding. Rollo later responded by saying he had tried to change the policy but failed in a 4–5 vote in May 2023. He is concerned about the lack of "final say" on specific projects.Andy Ruff agreed with Rollo, calling the Hawthorne-Weatherstone greenway a "tremendous missed opportunity" and a "misallocation of scarce funds." Councilmember Hopi Stosberg pointed out that the lack of project specificity in the list is due to the fact that the "Safe Streets for All" plan has not yet been adopted. She encouraged councilmembers with concerns to participate in the public engagement process.Even though the adoption of the "Safe Streets for All" plan was on the council's agenda for Wednesday, it was postponed. A new version with some changes was provided to the council shortly before the meeting, and its adoption is now set for Dec. 4.