The public comment section was particularly animated, with residents like Charles “Chuck” Norris recounting personal experiences to highlight the inadequacy of current fire services. Norris detailed a 2018 incident where fire suppression began 19 minutes after his 911 call, criticizing the city’s reliance on neighboring volunteer fire departments and underscoring the need for improved response times. He referenced National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards and emphasized that the community must decide on the adequacy of its fire services.

Jacob Olsen, a mayoral candidate, argued that while the community supports the idea of a fire station, the proposed $22 million cost and projected operational expenses of $4 to $7 million annually could lead to a substantial tax increase of at least 45%. Olsen questioned the council’s decision-making process, particularly the structure of the bond that would only pay interest in 2025.

Martha “Marty” Carol, a long-time resident, voiced concerns about the financial implications for seniors on fixed incomes. She urged the council to consider affordability and timing, stating, “I only ask because I’m a senior citizen and I’m on a fixed income.” Carol’s plea highlighted the broader issue of financial strain on the community’s more vulnerable residents.

Other residents echoed these financial concerns. Chuck Hediger criticized the proposed fire station’s elaborate design, comparing it to a “Taj Mahal” and questioning the necessity of features like acid-etched brick. He accused the council of pushing the project through without adequate public discourse. In contrast, Jozea, a supporter of the fire station with fire service experience, argued that misinformation was hindering community understanding. Jozea emphasized the need for a staffed fire department due to the city’s growing population and urged residents to seek factual information.

The council also discussed the proposed fire station’s design and construction details. The facility is planned to include a drive-thru apparatus bay for improved response times and public-facing areas to facilitate community engagement. The design firm and construction management partner highlighted the importance of operational efficiency and community accessibility, noting that the facility would incorporate features like a storm shelter in compliance with updated building codes.

Financial management was a recurring theme. The project budget was initially estimated at $22 million but has been revised to approximately $21 million, reflecting careful cost tracking and adjustments. The council discussed the possibility of contracting services and the financial benefits of having a limited number of career staff supported by volunteers, compared to the rising costs of current service contracts with neighboring departments.

During the meeting, a motion was made to approve plans and specifications and to order advertisement for bids concerning the fire and emergency services building project. The motion passed with a vote of four to one. This decision was framed as a standard procedure to obtain actual cost estimates, moving the project closer to realization despite ongoing community debate.

Additionally, the council addressed the preliminary property tax levy, noting an 8.29% increase. The assistant city administrator clarified that this was not a final budget but a preliminary figure, with opportunities to adjust until December.

Residents also raised concerns about the council’s transparency and communication strategies. Gabe Davis suggested a referendum to gauge public support for the fire station, arguing that the council knew it would not pass based on current sentiment. Barbara Holberg criticized the council’s communication, stating, “there was never any talk that would be made public to all of the residents about this situation,” emphasizing the need for more detailed information on the project’s costs and benefits.