At the forefront of the meeting was the introduction of a special session to discuss amendments to the 2024 budget. The proposed changes included an additional $500,000 in revenue from the water utility and a public health grant exceeding $300,000. Moreover, the amendments featured reductions in salary and wages across several departments. However, the timing of the meeting drew criticism from the public and some members of the council, with concerns that adequate notice had not been provided, leaving many, including the media, uninformed.

One of the major issues was the lack of public awareness preceding the special meeting, with several community members expressing disappointment. Among the concerns were the potential impact of the budget changes on city employees and the transparency surrounding necessary expenses. Specific inquiries were made about the allocation of funds for rent control litigation and an increase in the housing division’s budget. The need for clarification on whether this was an additional amount to the original budget was also brought up.

In response to these concerns, it was clarified that the amendments under consideration were not the actual budget but adjustments to it. Notably, there was a discussion on the Division of Housing’s salary and wage increases, accounting for a pro-rated increase of $200,000, resulting in a total budget hike approaching $600,000. Another adjustment was the amendment for the water utility amounting to $500,000, coupled with a $170,000 reduction in the fire department’s overtime budget. Additionally, the introduction of a youth coordinator position at a pro-rated annual cost of $35,000 was discussed, equating to a full-year salary of $70,000.

Director Freeman addressed some of the queries from the public, explaining that the grant received facilitated a decrease in the health department’s appropriation line and provided insights into the rise in the housing division’s budget and the hiring of a new employee. Freeman’s explanations were part of the council’s effort to convey transparency and address the public’s desire for clarity regarding the budget amendments.

Another salient point from the meeting was the community’s concern over the potential increase in property taxes. Several residents voiced alarm about the projected 8.5-9% increase in their tax bills and the implications of rising fixed costs on both homeowners and landlords. This led to discussions among the council members, some of whom shared the public’s disappointment with the proposed budget. Suggestions were made about achieving a zero tax increase and the importance of examining the necessity of certain expenditures.

The debate extended to the council’s approach to the budget and tax increase, with some members advocating for more substantial cuts and the efficient use of funds, while others emphasized the need for further discussions to address the concerns raised. There was a particular emphasis on the use of accumulated cash from parking and water utilities to mitigate the tax increase, as well as the need for fiscal restraint to soften the blow for residents.

As the meeting progressed, the divisions within the council became more pronounced, with votes on the amendments reflecting differing opinions. Some council members voted in favor, while others opposed. The public’s participation remained a constant, with residents expressing frustration and urging the council to prioritize the community’s needs in their decisions.