Staff member, the city manager, opened a public information session on Issue 3 by saying the measure is "a tax for 2.2 mils to provide funding for strictly public safety, public safety being fire, EMS, and police." The presentation explained the levy was designed to close an estimated $610,000 annual funding gap and maintain current public safety service levels rather than expand them.

The nut graf: City officials said Issue 3 would be restricted by the ballot language to public safety uses only and would not fund new city services or general capital projects. "Even though it's long, it says nothing but everything public safety," the city manager said, adding the levy is intended to preserve the service level residents currently receive.

Officials described how the levy amount was calculated. The city manager said a 2.2‑mill levy would generate about $610,000; the presentation broke that amount into an approximate $420,000 subsidy for police and $190,000 for fire and EMS. The city manager explained how mills work and said the levy would first take effect in calendar year 2026 (collected on 2026 tax bills).

Council and staff gave background on why the levy is needed. Mayor Mike Schuler said the city previously sought voter approval for safety levies: a safety levy in 2017 failed by 36 votes, and a fire levy passed in 2018. City staff said federal COVID‑era and ARPA funds had temporarily helped public safety budgets but those funds have been exhausted, leaving the city to address a structural gap.

Officials described the likely consequences if Issue 3 fails. The city manager said the general fund currently has about $3 million in reserves and a roughly $9 million annual budget, and that continuing to subsidize public safety at the present level without additional revenue would rapidly deplete contingency funds. Staff identified roughly $600,000 in reductions that would be required if the levy fails: about $285,000 on the police side (including potential reassignment of officers away from nonessential programs such as school resource officers) and about $190,000 on the fire/EMS side, plus approximately $125,000 of identified capital reductions.

City staff emphasized that most police and fire costs are personnel costs. The presentation included fund‑level figures the city described as estimates: annual police revenues near $2.0 million with expenses approaching $2.4 million (a stated shortfall of about $412,000 for the police fund in the current cycle) and fire fund revenues around $1.5 million with expenses slightly above $1.6 million (a stated shortfall near $160,000).

Officials also explained property‑tax mechanics to residents who asked about recent appraisal increases. Staff said only a portion of municipal mills are "inside" mills that adjust with assessed value (they noted the city receives 3 mills of inside millage), while most of the city’s levies are "outside" or voted mills and are adjusted to collect the fixed dollar amount originally authorized (the presentation said the city has 3 mills of inside millage and 18.25 mills of voted/outside millage, for a total of 21.25 mills and an effective tax rate the presenter listed as 13.94%, an effective reduction of about 38.89% compared with the nominal total). Staff noted a 12.5% homeowner rollback credit applies and that the county auditor’s assessed values underlie the calculations.

On timing and next steps, staff said the levy would be collected beginning in 2026 if approved and encouraged residents to review the city website for detailed budget tables, a Frequently Asked Questions page, and a financial transparency portal with line‑item spending. Mayor Schuler and Councilmember Forrest Greenwood (city council) answered resident questions about prior levies, use of ARPA/COVID funds, development and school impacts, and why the city waited to place a question before voters.

No formal vote was taken at the session; staff described the funding proposal and answered questions. The city scheduled another informational session the following Thursday and noted a regular council meeting on Monday.

Ending: City officials urged residents to review the city’s "Get the Facts" web materials, which the presenter said include the ballot language, revenue estimates and a breakdown of the proposed split between police and fire. Staff reiterated that Issue 3, as written in the ballot language, can be used only for public safety and that residents will decide at the ballot whether to keep current service levels by authorizing the levy.