The most pressing topic was the proposed budget cuts, particularly their impact on the sanitation and code departments. David Renshaw from Teamsters Local 769 voiced strong opposition to the reduction in positions within these departments. He emphasized the necessity of these roles in maintaining city standards and argued for an increase in staffing rather than cuts. Renshaw pointed out the city’s ample financial resources, citing a 20% increase in property taxes and a $271,000 surplus from healthcare insurance. He urged the commission to consider these resources during ongoing negotiations with the bargaining committee.

Following Renshaw, Maria Cruz raised concerns about the disproportionate effect of budget cuts on lower-level employees while higher-level benefits remained untouched. Cruz criticized the reductions in code enforcement and solid waste management positions, stressing their importance in maintaining the city’s aesthetics and services. She highlighted the deteriorating state of city monuments and public assets, advocating for reassessment of executive benefits and elimination of unnecessary expenditures instead of cutting essential positions.

In response, the mayor clarified that the proposed reductions pertained to new positions not currently filled, rather than existing staff. The assistant finance director, Paula Rodriguez, then provided an overview of budget changes, noting an increase in property tax revenue by about $383,000, offset by decreases in the half-cent sales tax and communication services tax. Adjustments in fund transfers included $188,000 allocated for artwork from the AI funds and an increase in parks impact fees for land purchases.

On the expenditure side, Rodriguez outlined an additional allocation of nearly $1.7 million for capital projects and a $145,000 increase to cover cost overruns on the Toledo no Lava Park project. She noted a reduction in salary and benefits of $246,000 due to the proposed cut in new positions, which was redirected to the City Hall project, resulting in a $262,000 increase for City Hall.

The meeting also included a discussion on the implications of budget cuts on city services and employee morale, particularly concerning ongoing negotiations with the bargaining committee for general employees. The mayor emphasized transparency in the budget process and reiterated the commitment to ensuring a balanced budget while addressing the operational needs of city departments. The dialogue revealed differing perspectives on budget priorities, with some advocating for maintaining essential services and others focusing on fiscal responsibility and potential cuts.

Another major topic was the proposed tax levy for the tax year 2024, set on Mills. The collected proceeds from this levy are earmarked for the general fund, specifically for necessary operating and capital expenditures for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025. The ordinance proposing the tax levy required a vote for approval, which was subsequently motioned and seconded, with commissioners present voting in favor.

The annual budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2024, and ending September 30, 2025, was also a focal point. The initial budget estimate submitted by the city manager on July 1, 2024, totaled $283,400,289, later revised to $284,700,000 due to increases in revenues and expenditures. The budget included detailed estimates of revenues and expenditures, with total operating revenues at $265,800,000 and total debt service appropriations at $1,690,000.

Staffing changes were a critical part of the budget discussion. The city manager’s office retained the commission liaison position, while the development services sector saw the removal of a proposed code enforcement officer position, although an additional field supervisor was maintained. In finance, two part-time positions were consolidated into one full-time role, resulting in savings. Public works initially sought to add a part-time maintenance worker for the sign shop but decided to create a second crew through internal staffing adjustments without the new position.

The solid waste department’s staffing was scrutinized, with initial requests being trimmed down. The revised budget maintained one solid waste operator but reduced the number of solid waste workers from two to one. The rationale for not increasing the number of solid waste workers was based on a reassessment of needs.

The conversation also touched on positions related to technology and public safety, with the addition of an IT customer support and GIS analyst position not removed despite adjustments elsewhere. Capital project funding was another area of focus, with attention given to projects like Firehouse 4 and City Hall. The initial estimate for the City Hall project was $15 million but had escalated to $18.3 million due to rising construction costs.