The most significant item on the agenda was the ordinance adopting the millage rate for the upcoming fiscal year. The proposed rate of 2.0732, consistent with the current year, was designed to generate nearly $9.635 million in ad valorem revenue, calculated at a 95% collection rate. A motion to adopt this rate sparked a debate among council members. One member raised concerns about the rising number of homes for sale in the area.

The financial implications of such a reduction were discussed thoroughly. It was noted that a 3% reduction would result in a revenue loss of approximately $289,000. Opposition emerged, with a council member questioning how essential services and infrastructure projects could be maintained with this shortfall. The discussion veered into potential budget cuts and structural changes, including the elimination of positions and scrutinizing contracts to achieve the necessary savings. The attorney provided guidance, emphasizing the council’s discretion in budget allocation but cautioning against hasty staffing decisions, which could have legal implications.

The motion for a 3% reduction ultimately failed after a mixed vote. Following this, the council proceeded to vote on the adoption of the current millage rate, which passed in the first reading despite ongoing concerns about its impact on residents and service levels.

In parallel, the council addressed proposed budget amendments, focusing on the incorporation of the adopted capital budget into the comprehensive plan. A significant adjustment was the reduction of the unallocated fund balance requirement from 16.67% to 15%, freeing up approximately $300,000. This adjustment allowed for the reinstatement of funding for police overtime expenses, including traffic enforcement and the holiday Grinch Busters detail. The newly allocated amount for the sinking fund was set at $366,000.

The council also discussed the transfer of $250,000 from the capital account initially earmarked for a senior center’s interior buildout back into the general fund. This reallocation sparked concerns among council members and the public. A speaker stressed the need to reconsider budget priorities, particularly regarding administrative salaries, arguing that it was unacceptable for essential workers to be denied cost-of-living adjustments while administrative salaries reached six figures. Another council member echoed this sentiment, highlighting the contradictory nature of recent actions compared to earlier commitments to the senior community.

The discussion revealed the need to balance budgetary allocations while maintaining essential services, with parallels drawn to past budget decisions affecting other projects, such as Optimist Park.

Further, the council deliberated on staff salaries compared to similar cities. The mayor encouraged a analysis to provide clarity and transparency in budgetary discussions.

Towards the end of the meeting, the council explored options for funding related to the license plate recognition system, with questions raised about the system’s readiness and its implications for public safety. A police commander confirmed that two intersections still required completion for full operational capability.