Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Municipal Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council reviews proposed FY2025–26 budget, sets public hearing and addresses police staffing and automated license-plate cameras

2838412 · April 1, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

City staff presented the proposed fiscal year 2025–26 budget using a levy rate of 11.8705 and recommended publishing the budget and setting a public hearing for April 15, 2025. Council members debated long-term staffing costs, police COPS grant timing and a request for automated “Flock” license-plate cameras and partial city funding.

City staff presented the proposed fiscal year 2025–26 budget and recommended the Le Mars City Council publish the proposed budget and set a public hearing for April 15, 2025.

Staff reported the proposed levy rate of 11.8705, down from last year’s 12.78294 (a decrease of about $0.91). The proposed budget as presented lists total revenues of $95,205,342 and total expenditures of $64,629,220 excluding transfers; the Floyd Valley Healthcare budget of $65,500,000 is included in the materials. Administration recommended the council approve publication of the proposed budget and set a public hearing on April 15, 2025.

Council members pressed staff on what the revenue figures include and on near-term deadlines for certification. Staff said the elevated revenue and expenditure totals reflect possible large capital projects that would increase both anticipated revenues (for example, bond proceeds) and related expenditures if projects proceed. Staff noted that if some projects do not go forward, the revenues and expenses tied to them would not be realized.

Several council members expressed concern about the long-term fiscal impact of adding full-time positions and giving across-the-board raises. One council member described themselves as a “tax hawk” and said permanent staffing additions can bind future councils and may require more conservative decisions in later years. City staff acknowledged those concerns and said the council can continue to discuss unresolved items at the public hearing or in the next council meeting; staff noted certification deadlines create scheduling pressure.

The meeting record also addressed police staffing and technology requests included in budget discussions. Police leadership reported that officer 17 was previously approved to replace a retiring officer effective July 1 and that officer 18 is being requested in the current budget. Police staff said they plan to apply for COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) grant funding when the program opens; staff advised the council that a typical COPS grant process can take about 18–24 months from application to award, so any grant-funded hiring would be delayed. For an approved COPS award, the department said it prefers a 50/50 funding split over three years for grant maintenance, though the city could choose to front-load funding.

Police also described a request to install automated license-plate recognition cameras (described in the meeting by staff as “Flock” cameras) for investigative use only. Staff requested funding for up to eight cameras in the community beginning in July and said local grants would cover some units: one local grant would pay for two cameras for three years and a separate grant application could cover four cameras for 24 months. Staff said the city has requested $25,000 in the current budget for the camera program and that, in a worst-case scenario if additional grants are not secured, $6,000 of that amount would be used over the next two years to maintain the system. Staff emphasized these cameras are not traffic enforcement devices and are designed to capture rear license-plate data only; staff described access to camera data for investigations with a 30-day retention window.

No ordinance or levy certification vote is recorded in the transcript excerpt; the meeting record shows administration’s recommendation and council discussion of publication with a proposed hearing date. Council members asked for additional detail on reserve-day values and the schedule of upcoming meetings to ensure there is sufficient time to review and certify the budget by statutory deadlines.