David Hales is sucking your tax $$$$

By:  Diane Benjamin

Below are 2 charts from the budget documents on the City of Bloomington website.  Both recap spending just for Administration.

The first chart can be found it:  http://www.cityblm.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2016  Page 143

The second chart can be found at:  http://www.cityblm.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=8224  Page 118

Total Admin spending:

2011   $590,415.95  Actual

2012   $668,452.00 Projected

2013   $884,179.00 Proposed

2014  $1,065,611  Actual

2015  $1,447,000 Projected

2016  $1,256,932 Proposed

The administration budget has more than doubled since 2011!

Admin2012p143a Admin2016a


What are you getting for over $1.2 million a year?  ($1.4 this year!)

A list of the Admin accomplishments was included this year.  (See pages 116-117 – http://www.cityblm.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=8224)

Look at the following 2 pages.  I only see a couple of things that benefit citizens.  What do you see?  Maybe you are supposed to celebrate that 2016 is down below the 2015 projected.

One of my favorites is on page one.  Want to know why there is no press investigating government?  See if you can spot it.


8 thoughts on “David Hales is sucking your tax $$$$

  1. Jimminy Christmas …How did they blow the Benefits budget (2015 Approved Budget vrs. 2015 Projected) by $250,595 (+118% over budget)?

    That is NO small miss. Explanation, anyone?


      1. Well, they wouldn’t have needed to if it was $20,000 or less for each expenditure, right? (which the council just changed a session or two ago by raising that limit to $50,000 or less, thus neutering their own ability to perform any responsible oversight).


  2. that benefits blow out is the payout for the former HR Director’s accrued benefits. Since those don’t show up as accrued liabilities, they have to expense it when presented with a payout. Since the number is going back down for 2015-2016, they do not budget for benefit payments. They’ll “try” to cover the overage in other areas so the budget is balanced (at the fund level), and they’ll also say they had no choice in the matter, so they can’t (from a performance standpoint) be held accountable for being so out of whack on the projection.

    Here’s my problem with it, yes they can. They 100% knew the HR Director was retiring when they adopted the budget. They also 100% knew there would be a substantial accrued benefits payout, yet they 100% ignored it in the adopted budget. Why? Because, it is 100% easier to follow the script of my last sentence, first paragraph, then it is to make cuts required to present a balanced budget for approval which include known costs.

    Also, people would be pissed if they had to cut back hours at the library, or push back hiring an officer for FOUR YEARS, to accommodate the benefit payout. (Her payout was something on the order of $200,000+, erego 50k*4).

    That’s my theory, and I’m sticking to it. Or rather, it got stuck to you.


    1. The City Clerk also retired, but that’s another account. David Hales has a contract assistant City Manger for much of last year, now he has hired a permanent one. He also hired a Community Development person, it may be in Admin or it may be separate. I’m still paging through all the Departments.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s