Council members rejected a series of council-proposed amendments and substitute motions aimed at adding four firefighter positions to the 2026 budget, leaving the city to pursue a slower, administratively led plan. The group vote on three six-month funding scenarios failed 5–2, and a later proposal to raise real-estate tax revenue to cover $331,479 in firefighter costs also failed, 4–3.

The debate opened after about a dozen members of the public urged either that the city preserve one-time Community Recovery Fund (CRF) dollars for nonprofits or that the city immediately invest in fire staffing to stop recurring mandatory overtime. Firefighters and union leaders gave detailed accounts of frequent mandation and long overtime runs; one firefighter asked, "Will you as a council or administration take responsibility if one of us is killed?" (Kyle Dalton).

Councilwoman Kramsey Smith introduced six amendment scenarios that would add four firefighter posts by cutting proposed DCED positions, trimming fire overtime and, in some variants, drawing modestly on the CRF; some proposals relied on winning a SAFER grant to repay or offset costs. The administration and the solicitor repeatedly cautioned that permit and plan-review fee increases were structured to fund specific code bureau positions, and under state law and local practice fee revenue can generally be applied only to the services that produced it. Solicitor Stephanie Stewart explained the legal constraint in detail to council during debate.

Administrators also warned that hiring timing matters: recruits added to payroll midyear would not be available on shifts until after academy training (administration estimated July as the earliest realistic start). Chief Griffin and human-resources staff confirmed that recruits hired immediately could be on payroll while in training, which affects how salary savings convert into overtime relief.

Council members who opposed the amendments cited two recurring concerns: (1) legal limits and budget mechanics mean some proposed transfers (notably from fee-funded DCED positions) would be impermissible or would require fee reductions to stay compliant; and (2) the CRF is largely one-time money intended for nonprofits and community projects, not recurring salary commitments. Supporters argued that the overtime strain and near-term safety risks justify a targeted, temporary funding move while the city pursues SAFER grant applications and a longer-term staffing plan.

Procedurally the council took a number of recorded actions: it first voted 7–0 to group amendments 1–6 for discussion, then later rescinded the three full-year scenarios (1, 3 and 5) because hiring for a January academy class was infeasible; the remaining three six-month scenarios (2, 4 and 6) failed 5–2. Multiple substitute motions to shift money from fire overtime, cash balance or the CRF were introduced by Councilman Callahan but did not obtain majority support. A final proposal to raise municipal real-estate tax revenue by $331,479 to cover six months of four positions failed, 4–3.

The administration repeated its commitment to run a five-month operational and staffing study (per the RFP) of fire and EMS to inform longer-term decisions for the 2027 budget. Councilmembers who opposed the amendments said they would prefer to wait for the study’s data and for clearer, legally compliant revenue paths before authorizing recurring personnel costs. The council adjourned with final readings and any last budget votes scheduled for the Dec. 16 meeting.

What happens next: the administration expects to complete a staffing/operations study and to present findings for 2027 budgeting; the SAFER grant remains an option but cannot be counted on in the city’s December budget because the federal application and award windows are not guaranteed. The council outcome leaves the 2026 budget unchanged as of adjournment and preserves the CRF and the advertised fee-funded DCED positions in the form presented by the administration.