Councilman Stokes proposes $20 million reallocation for police, fire, Ward 5 zoo and Grove Park

Councilman Stokes proposed reallocating $20 million during Jackson City Council deliberations over the 2025–26 budget, asking colleagues to place the funds in the clerk’s office budget and earmark specific amounts for public safety, neighborhood projects and a rainy-day reserve. "I so moved that we take $20,000,000 out of the budget, place it in the clerk's office, in the clerk's budget," Stokes said.

Stokes outlined a breakdown he said should come from that $20 million: $5 million for the police department, $2.5 million for the fire department, $1 million for the Ward 5 zoo project and $1 million for Grove Park, with the remainder placed in a rainy-day fund. The council clerk, Shaniquia Jordan, restated the proposed allocation: "We have $20,000,000 into the clerk's budget, $5,000,000 for the police, $1,000,000 for Ward 5 Zoo, $1,000,000 for Grove Park, and then the rest the remainder is for rainy day." (Jordan’s restatement did not list the $2.5 million figure for fire that Stokes named earlier; Stokes had included it in his motion.)

Stokes framed the proposal as a response to competing local fiscal pressures, including remarks about county plans for charging the city for inmates and broader tax concerns. "If this city is gonna compete against these small towns and everywhere else, we cannot allow this county nor the schools to raise taxes," Stokes said, arguing the city must prioritize more funding for police and fire. He also urged the council to move forward on the Ward 5 zoo and said Grove Park work should be funded within the budget.

Council leaders did not record a vote on Stokes’s motion during the session. Instead, the council recessed to confer and then announced a special meeting. Council President said the body would "adjourn until 10AM tomorrow for a special council meeting that would give us time to get everything noticed," and asked members to bring written amendments to expedite the next session.

The budget total discussed in the meeting was cited as about $316 million; Stokes argued that $20 million could be found inside that total. The proposal, as presented, was a councilmember motion and had not been seconded or adopted by the full council during the meeting. The clerk’s restatement of the figures and the president’s scheduling of a follow-up session mean the proposal remained under active consideration rather than finalized action.

The deliberations included repeated distinctions between discussion and formal action: Stokes framed priorities and made a formal motion to reallocate funds, the clerk restated the motion, and the council then recessed and scheduled a special meeting to allow members to prepare written amendments. No formal vote on the $20 million allocation was recorded in the transcript.

The council asked members to prepare specific amendment language and figures for the special meeting; the next steps described were administrative (notice of the special meeting and collecting amendments) rather than implementation actions. The record shows active debate about public-safety spending and neighborhood projects, but adoption, legal authority for fund transfers and any related ordinance or budget amendment remained to be determined at the special meeting.