A key topic at the meeting was the proposed Publix project, which raised concerns among council members about its potential implications for Islamorada. The urgency was highlighted by an imminent county decision scheduled for September 11, while the council’s next regular meeting was set for September 10. The council debated whether to address the issue during the budget hearing or wait until the next meeting. Ultimately, it was decided to include the topic on the agenda for the September 10 meeting to allow for public comment and consideration of a resolution opposing the project based on community impacts.

During public comment, Joe Zimac criticized the village’s reliance on previous budgets rather than adopting a zero-based budgeting approach. He urged the council to explore the “Toyota Way,” emphasizing accountability and efficiency. Zimac also raised concerns about the necessity and usage of village vehicles, noting that there were 14 vehicles for approximately 70 employees. He suggested replacing internal combustion vehicles with hybrids or electric vehicles but warned about the safety risks associated with current technology, providing printed materials on vehicle safety records.

Jill Zborski addressed issues related to the wastewater treatment system, expressing alarm over repeated sewer pipe breaks attributed to Islamorada’s wastewater flow. She noted that the general manager of the Key Largo Wastewater Treatment District reported this was the ninth instance of a break at the same location. Zborski called for improved accountability and performance from the village’s wastewater management to maintain a positive relationship with the treatment district.

Budgetary concerns were a focus of the meeting. Discussions emerged regarding the allocation of funds for charitable contributions, with some council members arguing that residents should decide how to allocate their money to charities rather than the council making those decisions. One member suggested that funds could instead support environmental initiatives, such as tree planting. Others highlighted the importance of the funds for community services, arguing that they represented a vital lifeline for residents in need.

The council also debated the proposed millage rate for the fiscal year. A proposed rate of 2.65 represented a 4.76% increase over the rollback rate of 2.5297. An alternative rate of 2.8 was also mentioned. The budget discussion highlighted key drivers, including the expiration of a SAFER grant that financed six firefighter salaries, which the village would need to assume going forward. There was mention of a 5% cost-of-living adjustment for all village employees and a proposed $3 million land acquisition fund, which sparked debate regarding its appropriateness and financial implications.

Concerns were raised about the $3 million allocation for land acquisition, with one council member questioning the rationale behind starting at such a high figure. Another member defended the proposed allocation, emphasizing the importance of acquiring environmentally sensitive land and addressing long-overdue obligations.

Further discussions centered around the tentative budget and millage rates, with clarification that previous workshops were intended to prepare for the current meeting, where actual votes on the tentative budget and millage rates would take place. The council aimed to pass the tentative budget, acknowledging that changes might occur before the final adoption.

The topic of reallocating funds during emergencies was raised, confirming that the council could declare an emergency and reallocate funds as necessary. The manager explained the prioritization of public safety in such situations.

A council member expressed confusion over the urgency of pool repairs, questioning whether there had been an impression that the repairs were imminent. The manager responded that a contract was in place for engineering work on the pool, with plans to upgrade facilities, including locker rooms and lifeguard stations.

The council also discussed the sustainability of the Wastewater fund, revealing a transfer of $2 million from the capital projects fund to support Wastewater operations. Members acknowledged the necessity of increasing fees to ensure the fund could sustain itself as an Enterprise fund, with a commitment to revisit the fee structure promptly.

Additionally, the council considered the implications of various budgetary decisions, including a proposed budget item of $500,000 for the design of a new Public Works building. Questions were raised about the necessity of this expenditure without a designated property for construction.

The meeting included substantial discussion regarding staff compensation and proposed wage increases. The staff recommended a 5% increase in salaries, emphasizing the need for the Council to base their decision on solid background information. Public comments included insights from Deb Gillis, who emphasized the importance of considering the implications of wage increases on Union negotiations.

As the council deliberated on the budget scenarios, divisions on fiscal priorities emerged, with members advocating for cuts in areas like overtime to allocate funds toward hiring critical personnel. After further debate, a motion to adopt scenario 1B with a millage rate of 2.8 failed, while scenario 2B passed with a majority approval.