City officials told the council that the primary fire levy, currently 5.75 mills, expires at the end of the year and that a pending state bill may remove the city’s ability to place replacement levies on the ballot. The mayor said the levy now produces about $2.3 million annually and that a replacement levy tied to current appraised values would bring that to about $3.3 million — a difference the city says is needed to staff stations and cover rising costs.

“We will let the existing 5.75 mill levy expire and put on the ballot a new 5.75 mill levy,” the mayor told council, describing the approach council staff plan if the legislature removes the replacement-levy option. He said a $200,000 house would see roughly a $13-a-month increase under the new levy figures provided in preliminary forecasts.

Council received additional finance items in the same update. Municipal advisors the city retained last year have completed a preliminary review of the city’s finances and will present an assessment and a PowerPoint to council at the second meeting in May (May 21). The presentation will include high-level findings and will lead into a five-year forecast the advisors will prepare.

The mayor outlined a procedural path: staff intends to present a resolution of necessity to council at the next meeting, which starts the county certification process; once certified by the county fiscal office, council would then consider a resolution to place the measure on the ballot. The mayor reminded council the board of elections requires final ballot language 90 days before the election, meaning the timeline is constrained (the mayor cited an August deadline for ballot language submission).

The mayor said the city is monitoring legislation that could bar replacement levies and cited recent developments: House Bill 28 had passed the House and was under consideration in the Senate ways-and-means committee; the mayor said a Senate committee vice chair indicated support. If the law removes the replacement-levy route before the city finalizes plans, the mayor said the city could not rely on a straight replacement and instead would proceed with the new-levy approach described above.

Council did not take a final vote on levy language at this meeting. Staff listed intended next steps: municipal advisors will present to council on May 21; the mayor will bring a resolution of necessity for council consideration at the next meeting; the fiscal office will calculate certified numbers; and, if required, council will consider placing the new 5.75-mill levy on a future ballot.