The primary focus of the meeting was the contentious trash contract, which drew sharp criticism from council members due to the administration’s approach. Concerns were raised about the execution of a contract with a trash company amidst an ongoing 10-year agreement. This move was criticized as “grossly irresponsible,” given the lack of clarity about why the contract required urgent attention when the existing contract would not expire until the following year. They questioned the necessity of rushing into a decision without thorough council involvement, expressing skepticism about the contract’s validity without confirmed funding.

The financial implications of the trash contract and the administration’s communication failures were further scrutinized. Council members voiced concerns about the lack of timely information regarding budget shortfalls and the absence of a city administrator to guide financial decisions. The council’s authority was perceived to have been undermined, with a member stating their frustration over the council’s role being continuously circumvented. The council member’s unwillingness to support upcoming financial votes underscored the deep-seated dissatisfaction with the administration’s handling of financial matters.

Additionally, the council debated a series of financial transfers, including a $2 million transfer from the employee health trust fund to the FY24 surplus budget and a $3 million transfer to the general stabilization fund. Discussions revealed discrepancies in the general fund free cash documentation, with council members seeking clarification on the presented figures. Council members expressed their opposition to certain transfers, particularly those related to trash collection, citing inadequate prior notice and involvement in the decision-making process. This led to further deliberation on treating multi-family units as commercial properties for trash collection, which could potentially save taxpayer money.

In light of these financial challenges, the council addressed the broader issue of communication between the administration and the council. This included dissatisfaction with the responses from the administration regarding the trash contract and a call for greater transparency and accountability in the administration’s dealings with the council. Questions were raised about the city attorney’s role and representation during contractual discussions, highlighting concerns about attorney-client privilege and the need for clear communication channels.

The meeting also touched on other city matters, such as the reappointment of members to the historical commission and preservation committee, and the acceptance of a donation from the Four River Elks Lodge for the fire department’s dive team. The council discussed the establishment of spending limits on revolving funds for fiscal year 2026 and debated the necessity of financial transfers, particularly those aimed at community maintenance expenses and surplus revenue allocations. However, these motions faced resistance, with several failing to pass due to divisions among council members.

Furthermore, the council addressed a resolution related to compliance with the city charter, specifically regarding the appointment of a review committee. The resolution acknowledged past violations concerning contracts awarded without council approval and was adopted to ensure future compliance with charter requirements.