Councilors on Monday raised procedural and substantive questions during second reading of the 2026 appropriation ordinance (1-20-25), asking for clarification on several line-item discrepancies and for projected revenues before third reading.

Member Swank pointed out three discrepancies between the first-reading packet and the version before council: the auditor’s line had been amended from $350,000, a law-enforcement trust line fell from $12,250 to $7,700 with no recorded motion, and an ACGP line (account 905) for $6,500,000 appeared in the current document though it was not listed at first reading. Swank asked that the document reflect the amounts the council received in its packet or that the change be explained.

Clerk Chambers and the law director indicated some changes could be handled clerically; the mayor and clerk said the ACGP entry references a legitimate community grant program (the governor’s Appalachian Communities Grant). The clerk said a clerical amendment could be made and the ordinance would return to first reading and could be suspended and passed if necessary.

Council members also asked for revenue projections from the auditor so they can see projected revenues alongside appropriations; the mayor said he would get those projections. Members raised an apparent discrepancy in the opioid fund balance (figures referenced included about $180,000 earlier, a line showing $50,000, and a finance report listing $101,000 for October); the mayor said he would investigate the discrepancy and report back.

Ordinance 1-20-25 remained at second reading while council directed administration and the auditor to provide clarifications and updated financial projections.