The most contentious topic was the proposed millage rate. Council members debated whether to maintain the current rate of 6.53 mills, roll it back to 6.3782 mills, or adopt a new rate of 6.35 mills. Council members discussed the previously reached consensus during a budget workshop to reduce the millage rate to 6.35 mills. Councilwoman Lisa argued for maintaining the rate at 6.53 mills, citing rising costs for residents and the necessity of addressing infrastructure concerns. “I absolutely pay taxes as well, but I would like to keep the millage as it was for this past year at 6.53,” she said.

Despite some members showing agreement with Lisa’s concerns, the motion to keep the millage rate at 6.53 mills failed to receive a second, leading to its failure.

The financial sustainability of the city’s red light camera program also sparked discussion. The program, which had a projected revenue of $1.7 million for the fiscal year, was reported to be short by $800,000. Council members grappled with the implications of this shortfall, questioning the budget’s ability to sustain such a gap. One member remarked, “If we’re running at $800,000 a year and we’ve got $1.7 in the budget, we’re fooling ourselves.” The conversation delved into the variability of revenue from red light cameras, emphasizing that ticket issuance could fluctuate significantly.

Council members speculated on reasons for the decline in ticket revenue, including the widespread use of navigation systems that alert drivers to red light cameras. This change in driver behavior could have led to fewer violations and, consequently, less revenue. Additionally, there were concerns about the fixed monthly fee the city pays to the traffic monitoring company, regardless of the number of tickets issued. The council recognized the need to revisit the terms of the contract with the vendor to ensure it aligns with the city’s current financial situation.

In another crucial discussion, the council addressed the allocation of funds for dredging activities. Two amendments aimed at allocating $200,000 each for dredging were introduced and passed. However, concerns were raised about whether this amount was sufficient to address the city’s long-term dredging needs. One council member pointed out, “we’re taking $200,000 out of a budget to put aside for dredging; that’s like spitting into the ocean because that’s not going to do anything for dredging.”

While some members viewed the funds as “seed money” to secure additional grant funding and start the planning process, others emphasized the need for immediate infrastructure repairs, such as sidewalks and flood mitigation. The council ultimately approved the amendments, acknowledging the necessity of both long-term planning and immediate action.

These included reductions in ad valorem revenues and adjustments to the community redevelopment fund. The council emphasized the importance of minimizing the financial burden on residents while ensuring sufficient funding for essential services and projects.

The council’s discussions highlighted the challenges of municipal budgeting, particularly in balancing tax rates, revenue from programs like the red light cameras, and funding for infrastructure projects.