Utility board rejects outside agreement to reconcile Tyler payment discrepancies

The City of Bloomington Utility Services Board on Feb. 23 declined to approve a proposed service agreement with Reedy Financial Group to help reconcile recurring discrepancies in the utility’s payment-processing accounts.

Staff said the discrepancies appeared after an update to the Tyler Payments platform and amount to roughly “less than $1,000 every month,” according to Matt Haley, the staff member who presented the request. Haley said the engagement letter carried a $30,000 not-to-exceed amount but added, “it will not cost anywhere near that.”

Board members pressed staff on whether the problem affected other city departments and whether the cost should be shared across departments that use Tyler. Several members said they wanted more information about the scope of the discrepancy and whether Tyler’s support could resolve the issue before committing outside funds. One member asked for confirmation that other departments that use Tyler (parking, parks and recreation, etc.) have the same reconciliation problem.

After debate, a motion to approve the Reedy Financial Group contract failed on a voice vote; several members voted no and the item was not approved. The board did not adopt the proposed engagement and left open the option to revisit the request after staff provides additional information on the discrepancy, citywide impacts, or alternative remedies.

What happened
- Staff sought authority to engage Reedy Financial Group on a not-to-exceed basis to reconcile revenue accounts and bank statements following a software change to Tyler Payments.
- Staff described recurring month-to-month reconciliation differences that had not occurred before the Tyler update and said the outside consultant would provide a second set of eyes on complex transaction volumes.
- Multiple board members asked staff to check whether other city departments share the same reconciliation issues and whether cost-sharing is appropriate; some members said they would prefer to delay or vote no until that information was provided.

Next steps
Staff said they will do more research and can bring the item back at a future meeting if further information justifies the engagement. No formal timeline was set for a return vote.