City Council members met in a budget workshop to review a proposed multi‑fund spending plan and to consider the tax rate to fund it. Staff presented the proposed budget and recommended the lower rate printed in the packet; council members discussed whether to add a cushion above that figure and agreed to publish the statutorily required notices and hold public hearings on the rate.

The budget presentation said proposed changes include a 2.5% salary adjustment across the salary schedule, consolidation of some technology expenses into single maintenance/subscription lines, and proposals for an external accounting review of internal controls. Staff described increases in personnel and maintenance costs and noted a recent debt issuance that increases tax‑supported debt service; staff gave the debt‑supported amount paid by property taxes as $41,850,000 (as presented).

Among department items highlighted were five new police vehicles (two of them 1‑ton replacements and four patrol vehicles to replace older models), continuing technology subscriptions, and ongoing capital projects that reduced capital needs this year compared with the prior year. Staff said some capital costs decreased because of one‑time purchases in the prior year but pointed to ongoing needs such as vehicle equipment, utility bypass pumps and mower replacements. The municipal court technology fund and hotel/motel fund balances were reviewed; staff said the municipal court technology fund typically purchases court computer equipment and that the hotel/motel fund retains about $166,000 if a $20,000 contribution to the sports commission continues.

Council members raised concerns about process and optics: some said residents were expecting the smaller, printed rate and that raising the rate above the figure already publicized could provoke community pushback. Others argued for a modest cushion to cover timing or unforeseen costs. Council discussed using fund balance to avoid raising the rate immediately and asked staff for scenarios showing tradeoffs between rate increases and uses such as street maintenance and staffing increases.

There was no final formal vote adopting a tax rate at the workshop. Council instructed staff to publish the legally required notices for the public hearings and to proceed with the hearing schedule discussed in the meeting (council referenced a first hearing on the 19th and an additional hearing on the 26th during the discussion). Staff said they will present final numbers and recommendations at those hearings and return for a vote on final adoption.

Next steps: staff will post the public‑hearing notices required by statute, provide the council with the updated budget and rate scenarios, and present at the public hearings before any final adoption.