The council discussed the fire department’s budget in detail, noting that salaries and wages remained unchanged from the previous year despite fluctuations in personnel. A major point of concern was the overspend of approximately $60,000 for Fire Engine 2 and nearly $9,000 for the brush truck. This financial strain was attributed to the costs associated with outfitting the new trucks. A speaker emphasized the need for better monitoring of these expenditures, stating, “this is something that we need to monitor better.”

Additionally, there were issues with previously established budgeting practices, particularly the allocation of funds for utilities like heating, which was set at an insufficient level of $700. Concerns were raised about the accuracy of historical budgeting for these expenses, leading to confusion and the suggestion that adjustments might be necessary as the year progressed. Vehicle repair and maintenance funding also came under scrutiny, with questions about whether the budget of $10,000 would suffice given that $8,200 had already been spent by September. A clearer baseline for future budgeting was anticipated by 2025, especially with the recent acquisition of two new vehicles.

The fire department’s budget discussion also touched upon the need for timely communication regarding grant outcomes, particularly for SCBA air packs, which are essential safety equipment with a limited lifespan. If a regional grant is not secured, the budget for air bottles will need to be reassessed.

The council then turned its attention to the city’s auditing services, which are necessary for maintaining the bonding rating. The auditors, who audit the relief association every two years, had their services budgeted for last year but not utilized as expected. It was suggested that the expense be carried into the next budget cycle, with the understanding that it may not be necessary every year.

There were discussions about the allocation of funds for medical supplies and training, with the training budget increasing from $6,000 to $8,000 due to a higher number of new employees needing training in previous years. As the current staff is already trained, future training costs may decrease. The financial situation of the first responders and fire departments was described as needing careful scrutiny to maintain fiscal responsibility while ensuring adequate funding.

The meeting also addressed the general equipment maintenance budget, noting that some items classified under general equipment needed clarity. Specifics about generator maintenance were discussed, with a new contract initiated for the maintenance of all city generators. There was confusion about how these expenses would be allocated across different departments, with suggestions that it might be split among the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), first responders, and fire departments. A preference for straightforward financial management was expressed, particularly regarding shared resources and expenses.

In terms of the First Responders budget, it showed a reduction of approximately $500 due to fewer personnel and a lack of significant costs this year. The budget still allows for the purchase of new items as needed for recruitment. Retention gatherings remained at $1,500, and continuing education funding was allocated at $4,000 for conferences and training. The communication equipment budget, which includes pagers, had discrepancies that needed correction to reflect accurate quantities and costs.

The Emergency Operations budget remained largely unchanged, with a slight increase in training and generator maintenance, leading to a total budget of $2,400. A new procedure for controlling requests that exceed departmental limits was designed to improve oversight and ensure expenditures are properly monitored without excessive delays.

The overall levy number for the city was reported to be approximately $1.7 million, an increase of about $400,000 from the previous year. This increase was attributed to the rising costs associated with city operations as the municipality grows. A proposed tax increase of 10% was put forth, less than previous years, which had seen increases of over 20%. The council aimed to strike a balance between funding necessary city services and managing taxpayer expectations, acknowledging residents’ concerns about rising taxes while planning for future growth and associated costs.