The commission’s attention was primarily drawn to the proposal to outsource solid waste management to Waste Pro. Gary Volenac, the director of public works, outlined the initiative’s details, emphasizing the potential cost reductions for residents. The proposed contract with Waste Pro, leveraging the city of Seminole’s contract, would last seven years with a two-year extension option already agreed upon. This arrangement includes a notable decrease in residential waste disposal rates from the current $28.50 to $21.80 per month. Volenac explained that Waste Pro would handle invoicing quarterly, rather than through the county water bill, and highlighted the significant offer of $385,000 for the city’s waste collection equipment. In preparation for the transition, the city plans severance packages and employment opportunities with Waste Pro for affected staff.

One commissioner vocalized opposition to the budget in its current draft due to insufficient data on long-term commitments and near-term priorities. They highlighted an 8.1% increase in personnel costs, which they argued should be balanced with reductions to ensure fiscal responsibility. The absence of a comprehensive capital project plan, typically required by the city charter, was also criticized. Commissioners were urged to consider a thorough budget workshop, allowing further scrutiny of financial commitments before voting.

The conversation also touched on the financial state of the building fund, which is projected to face a deficit despite additional budget allocations. The fund’s expenditures have not returned to pre-hurricane levels, leading to continuous deficits. Concerns were raised about the impact of added positions on the budget, with the city manager acknowledging challenges in revenue prediction due to fluctuating construction activity. The potential for FEMA reimbursements was mentioned as a means to alleviate financial strain, though exact figures were unavailable.

Furthermore, the wastewater fund’s anticipated 6% rate increase faced scrutiny. Some commissioners argued that the fund’s balance was sufficient to forgo the hike, but rising costs from St. Petersburg, which treats the city’s wastewater, could necessitate a corresponding rate increase. The finance director emphasized the importance of maintaining fund viability and the cautious approach to rate adjustments.

The commission also reviewed the general fund, projected to end with a balance of $17.7 million by 2026. A proposed three-month reserve, alongside a 10% emergency contingency fund, was discussed to prepare for unforeseen events such as hurricanes. The availability of $12 million for upcoming capital improvement projects was noted, with an $80 million allocation for the 2026 Capital Improvement Plan, including significant infrastructure projects. Concerns about completed projects and financial management underscored the need for strategic planning.

The meeting concluded with a unanimous vote to adopt the budget for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026. However, the commission acknowledged the necessity for further analysis, particularly regarding parking rates and fees. Public comments reflected residents’ concerns about fiscal strategies and potential financial challenges, emphasizing prudent financial management to navigate future uncertainties.