The discussion around the allocation of $1.4 million from the utility fund for a fire truck purchase dominated the meeting, particularly due to concerns expressed by a resident, Janette Howard. Howard challenged the council’s decision, highlighting contradictions with the previously stated necessity to protect the utility fund from being used for non-utility expenditures. She referenced the mayor’s prior statements advocating for an ad valorem tax to avoid depleting the utility fund, essential for addressing infrastructure needs. Howard argued that using the fund to purchase a fire truck undermines this commitment.

Howard’s critique centered on the potential violation of the State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan agreement, which is secured by utility fund revenues. She emphasized the loan’s stipulation that water and sewer rates should cover operational costs and debt service, warning that diverting funds could lead to a default. Her comments raised questions about the absence of an ad valorem tax mention in the final SRF documents, despite its inclusion in the loan application.

The council’s financial deliberations extended to the broader budget context, where the proposed budget anticipates a 21% increase in general government revenue, reaching approximately $4.9 million. This budget encompasses various city services, including police, fire, and street maintenance. Notably, the fire department is seeking significant funding to replace Engine No. 8, estimated at $1.5 million. The department’s need for a new ladder truck, capable of reaching structures over three stories, was also discussed, with assurances given regarding its compatibility with existing facilities.

The council addressed the challenges of managing restricted and unrestricted funds, emphasizing the necessity of strategic allocation to meet diverse city needs. The budget presentation detailed various department allocations, including a projected 55% increase in the street department budget for paving projects funded by infrastructure dollars. Conversely, the code and trash departments anticipate budget decreases of 12% and 1%, respectively.

A point of discussion was the need for new dump body trucks for the street and parks departments, replacing vehicles over 20 years old. The trucks’ frequent breakdowns highlighted the urgency of this purchase. The council considered alternatives, such as a dump trailer, but licensing and weight limit concerns favored the acquisition of dump body trucks to avoid complexities with commercial driver’s licenses.

In the police department, the budget remained largely unchanged. Savings from unfilled positions allowed for the purchase of essential patrol car equipment, with adjustments made to the vehicle budget. Discussions highlighted the need for more funding to hire officers, balanced against the department’s ability to allocate resources for immediate needs.

The meeting also addressed the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) budget and utility fund projections. The CRA expects a 52% revenue increase to $256,000, while the utility funds project a 4% increase in service charges. A decrease in miscellaneous department revenue was noted, attributed to the absence of a recurring CDBG grant.

As the council moved to adopt the tentative millage rate for the budget, procedural discussions ensued regarding the necessary vote majority due to a council member’s absence. Ultimately, the council approved a tentative millage of three mills, aligning with the proposed budget.