The meeting commenced with a detailed review of changes to the 2025 budget, led by Finance Director Andrew. One of the most notable discussions revolved around adjustments to the Board of Commissioners’ salaries, Social Security, group insurance, and workers’ compensation, driven by a request from a commissioner. These changes resulted in reductions in these areas based on updated salary figures for the mayor and two commissioners.

An important focus was on the Fire and EMS department’s capital equipment budget, which saw an increase of $112,000 due to the estimated cost of a deputy fire chief’s vehicle. In the Recreation department, proposed increases included a $20,000 allocation for gym equipment purchases and an additional $15,000 for a recreation truck, reflecting higher estimated costs than initially anticipated. A significant change in stormwater management was also highlighted, with a proposed increase of $2.3 million for drainage and roadway improvement projects. These updates were part of a multi-year capital improvement plan, which involved a reallocation of project timelines rather than the introduction of new projects.

A major decision concerned the purchase of a street sweeper, initially planned for 2026. Discussions with the Public Works director and the senior mechanic led to the conclusion that repairs would be inefficient, prompting a decision to replace the vehicle in fiscal year 2025. This decision was part of a broader revision of the overhead cost allocation plan, detailing how personnel and operating expenditures in the general fund support other funds such as sanitation and marina management. This plan was revised to ensure clarity in budgetary transfer amounts.

The sanitation department saw an increase in the budgeted amount for dues and subscriptions from $500 to $14,000 for route management software. Similarly, the marina fund budget was adjusted down from $100,000 to $70,000 for seawall replacement, with the remaining $30,000 redirected to the Archibald fund. Administrative changes in overhead allocations led to a revised transfer amount of $1.67 million from various funds into the general fund.

Public participation in the budget process was a significant topic of discussion. Despite guidelines encouraging public input, no comments were received for items not on the agenda. However, local business owner Doug Andrews provided substantial feedback on the budget. He highlighted the importance of budget preparation, urging the board to ask critical questions and address concerns such as the lack of historical data in the budget presentation. Andrews pointed out that the budget only included one year of actual numbers, making it challenging to assess departmental performance and growth accurately.

Andrews specifically reviewed the parking budget, citing discrepancies between projected revenues and actual collections. He questioned how the budget would balance given these shortfalls and emphasized the need to understand the source of additional funds. Further, he raised concerns about an increase in promotional and public relations expenditures across various departments, totaling $374,500, and requested clarification on these allocations.

In response, it was acknowledged that promotional and public relations expenses varied greatly across departments and were often related to event-driven costs. The city manager’s budget for promotions was notably high at $60,000, which prompted further questions about its use. It was explained that recreation events, such as the seafood festival, contributed to these expenditures, although the income from these events was not directly offset in the budget documents.

The board was encouraged to incorporate more detailed historical data and clearer line-item descriptions in future budgets to enhance transparency. City staff expressed a willingness to adapt future budget workshops based on commissioner feedback.

Further discussions emphasized the importance of financial transparency and community engagement in the budgeting process. Participants expressed a desire for more detailed information regarding the city’s financial reporting and transparency website. It was clarified that while expenditures are posted for public view, they are not specifically allocated to certain expenses, leading to confusion. Efforts to increase community involvement were discussed, with suggestions for improving communication strategies through social media, email subscriptions, and an app to notify residents of upcoming events.