The decision to set the millage rate at 1.700 mills emerged as a contentious issue, with a close vote of three in favor and two against. A commissioner expressed dissatisfaction with this rate. Another commissioner shared skepticism about the accuracy of the financial data, voicing distrust in the numbers and advocating for direct questioning of the finance director in the future. In defense of the finance director, Tiffany, another commissioner emphasized her high reputation and extensive service to the city, asserting that her figures were not manipulated or incorrect.

The debate extended to the budget process itself, with commissioners discussing ways to improve clarity and public accessibility. One commissioner noted that the city held multiple meetings for public input, acknowledging increased participation but underscoring the need for ongoing community engagement. To facilitate better understanding and avoid surprises, there was a suggestion to explore different millage rate scenarios, such as 1.65 or 1.6, to assess their potential impacts on the budget and city programs.

While some commissioners argued for maintaining the current budgeting practices, which had been in place since the city’s inception, others advocated for more modeling and research during budget workshops. A commissioner shared their independent research, concluding that a millage rate as low as 1.6 could be feasible without financial strain, citing the city’s robust financial reserves and ongoing development efforts.

A commissioner cautioned against making decisions that could hinder future administrations, emphasizing the city’s stable financial situation. The city manager clarified the budgeting process, stating that it was built on the commission’s vision and included ample opportunities for input, emphasizing that it was not developed in isolation.

In addition to the millage rate, the commission also addressed the operating capital improvement budget for fiscal year 2025-2026. This budget accounted for expenditures, grants, law enforcement trust funds, and post-audit measures. Public input was limited, with only a few speakers addressing the commission. Stephen Hirs advocated for adopting a performance-based municipal budget to improve clarity in identifying program cuts during revenue reductions. He argued that performance-based budgeting would provide measurable data to guide decision-making and minimize the impact on community priorities.

Lyall Browse raised concerns about the city’s reserve funds and staffing allocations. He questioned the proposed increase in staffing positions from 48 to 60, urging the commission to align the budget more closely with actual staffing needs for transparency. The commission members discussed these concerns, noting the uncertainty surrounding the exact number of hires and their timing, reflecting fluidity in staffing decisions.

The meeting also touched on safety measures, specifically the implications of budget cuts on the city’s drone program. A commissioner highlighted the potential impact on safety initiatives, emphasizing careful consideration of program funding and staffing levels.

Despite the disagreements and challenges in reaching a consensus, the commission approved the ordinance adopting the budget with a vote of 3 to 1, with one dissenting commissioner. The meeting concluded with this decision, wrapping up the discussions on the budget for the session.