One notable issue was the proposed millage rate, with public comments highlighting concerns over deviations from the initially agreed-upon rate of 2.65 to a higher proposed rate of 2.8. Van Caden Head criticized the council for potentially deviating from the 2.65 millage rate, urging them to adhere to their prior commitments to provide substantial savings for taxpayers. He advocated for a zero-based budgeting approach, emphasizing transparency and accountability, particularly in light of confidential executive meetings that had occurred without public insight.

The council’s budget presentation, led by Mr. Cole, aimed to maintain service levels while acknowledging the growing needs of the community. The initial staff proposal started with a 3.0 millage rate, which had been adjusted to 2.8. Finance Director Lisa detailed multiple budget scenarios, including funding allocations for pool renovations and a sinking fund for a fire engine. However, concerns were raised about the exclusion of funds for the Public Works building design and the remodel of the Village Hall.

A council member expressed a preference for separating discussions on the millage rate and the budget. Another council member raised concerns about the lack of a line item budget, a format they were accustomed to for many years, and emphasized the importance of transparency and clarity in financial planning. The council was reminded of the urgency surrounding decisions on the millage rate, as it needed to be submitted to the tax collector by the upcoming Friday to avoid significant consequences, including a potential loss of state funding.

During the meeting, a point of contention was the allocation of funds for land acquisition. One council member emphasized the need to consider the potential consequences of budget cuts, particularly regarding the environment and land acquisition. They expressed the urgency of making a policy decision to avoid future challenges in funding environmental claims. The council debated proposals to set aside funds for land acquisition, with one motion to allocate $1 million failing with a vote of 2 to 3. Eventually, a modified proposal to approve $1 million in land acquisition funding, sourced from the hurricane reserve fund and discretionary sales tax, was passed unanimously.

Public comments also addressed concerns about the council’s procedures. Zom Miller raised allegations about the violation of the “cone of silence” during the procurement process, questioning the compliance with established communication protocols. Miller emphasized the importance of maintaining transparency and trust in government. Several residents echoed similar sentiments, calling for heightened scrutiny of the mayor’s actions and a commitment to procedural integrity.

The council also revisited a prior vote related to RFP 2410, which pertains to the selection of a plan vendor. The procedural steps for reconsideration were outlined by Mr. Quick, resulting in a motion to waive council procedures to allow a reconsideration vote. The council voted to proceed with reconsideration, leading to public comments about the vendors. Ultimately, the motion to select Able City East as the vendor for RFP 24-10 passed with a vote of 3 to 2.