One of the central issues of the meeting was the midyear budget amendment, referred to as RE3, which was pulled for discussion. The amendment sparked concerns among commissioners about the city’s financial management and long-term planning. A commissioner criticized the city’s spending habits, expressing frustration that any available funds were quickly spent, stating, “the minute we have any kind of money that it’s available, we’re running to take it and spend it and blow it away.” The commissioner highlighted the unfunded approval of hiring more police officers as a significant oversight, questioning, “where are you going to find suggestions and getting the money for 100 more cops?” The discussion also noted the financial strain on senior citizens due to property taxes, with calls for rebates to alleviate their burdens. The commissioner suggested that funds could be better allocated in the upcoming fiscal year’s budget rather than approving the additional $25 million midyear.

Another prominent topic was the financial contributions from the county to various projects, including a significant amount for the soccer association. This led to questions about why the city should contribute an additional $5 million to similar initiatives. One commissioner expressed dissatisfaction, stating, “I’m not going to give five million to that that I’m going to need to put more cops in the streets.” The dialogue on RE3 concluded with a divided vote among the commissioners.

Discussions then shifted to the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and a proposed straw poll to gather resident opinions on taxation and fees imposed on property owners in the DDA district. Concerns were raised about the burden of rising property taxes and insurance rates, which one commissioner described as akin to a “second mortgage” for many residents. The commissioner noted that downtown residents face additional financial responsibilities, including special taxes for the DDA, not applicable to other city residents, highlighting a disparity in financial treatment.

There was debate over the logistics of conducting the straw poll, with one commissioner calling it a “logistical nightmare.” Suggestions were made to amend the resolution so voters could directly participate in the decision-making process rather than through a mail-out to property owners. However, procedural complexities, such as the need for approximately 40,000 mailings to property owners within the DDA boundaries, were discussed. Concerns about the legitimacy and integrity of the poll were raised, especially given properties owned by corporations or investment entities. Despite these discussions, a motion to conduct the straw poll failed for lack of a second, as did a subsequent motion to place the question on the ballot for the upcoming election.

The meeting also addressed charter amendments and the selection of a new manager following the departure of a previous officeholder. A commissioner emphasized the necessity for the new manager to negotiate a reasonable compensation package. Antonio Diaz, a candidate for the position, introduced himself. The motion to approve the resolution regarding the manager’s appointment received unanimous support.

Other charter amendments discussed included a proposal to require all city employees to undergo drug testing, aligning the mayor’s responsibilities with those of other city employees. This proposal faced resistance and failed to garner enough support. Additional discussions involved future mayors adhering to sunshine laws to prevent private conversations about city matters that could lead to conflicts of interest. However, this resolution also faced challenges in achieving adequate support.

The commission considered the order of ballot questions for upcoming elections, agreeing to arrange them alphabetically. A proposed straw ballot question related to the DDA aimed to allow residents to express their opinions on the matter, but the proposal faced feasibility concerns and ultimately did not move forward.