The public hearing on the proposed relocation revealed a split among council members and attendees. Some argued that moving the city offices to a new building would enhance operational efficiency by consolidating services, while others worried that relocating away from the downtown area could make it difficult for residents, particularly seniors, to access city services. Critics of the relocation voiced concerns over the project’s estimated $1.8 million cost, questioning whether it justified the potential annual $160,000 bond payment, which would be funded by taxpayer dollars.

Council members reassured the public that the $1.8 million figure was a preliminary estimate for planning purposes and not a fixed cost. Clarity was provided that actual bids from contractors were still pending, and the council had not yet committed to this expenditure. The necessity for additional space for the police department was highlighted, citing the need to accommodate a growing workforce and improve storage capacity for evidence and files.

The debate extended to the financial strategy of the proposed project, with a focus on the city’s borrowing capacity based on property values. The council discussed the statutory limit for borrowing, which factors in 0.25% of the county’s estimated market value, thus allowing for a maximum borrowing potential. This financial framework would accommodate a project worth approximately $2 million, should the need arise, without exceeding statutory limits.

Community engagement was emphasized as crucial, with council members encouraging residents to voice their opinions on the relocation. The council also pointed out the importance of transparency in the planning process, urging the community to understand the financial implications of such a project. The urgency of decision-making was underscored by a thirty-day petition period, which allows citizens to challenge the proposed plan.

In other business, the council reviewed a financial plan for capital improvements, stressing prudent spending. Concerns were raised about potential cost overruns, with a council member emphasizing the importance of having a financial cushion in the budget to address fluctuations in contractor bids.

The council also approved a resolution for preliminary approval of issuing general obligation capital improvement plan bonds, not to exceed $1.8 million, which passed unanimously. This step marked progression in the council’s planning, albeit with a clear understanding of the risks and complexities involved in the bidding process.

Additionally, the council addressed employee wages, especially for front desk staff and lifeguards, in light of recruitment challenges and the need to offer competitive compensation. Proposals were made to increase lifeguard wages from $13.59 to $15 per hour, with structured pay raises after specific service years, to improve recruitment and retention.

Further discussions focused on the DECO facility’s part-time employees, who were earning wages lower than entry-level positions at local grocery stores. The council considered raising starting wages to $12.89 per hour and implementing wage increases based on tenure. A comparison to the liquor store employees’ higher wages prompted a motion to align DECO employees’ pay accordingly.

The broader implications of wage adjustments on the city budget were acknowledged, and the potential reinstatement of contracted cleaning services was discussed due to the increased workload on front desk staff. The council agreed to revisit the wage conversation in a month, allowing time to seek bids for cleaning services and evaluate the financial impact comprehensively.

Lastly, the council approved a $500 donation request from local students involved in the Future Career and Community Leaders of America (FCCLA) to support a food drive during the Christmas break. The initiative aimed to alleviate food insecurity among families, with the council’s backing reflecting a supportive stance towards community-driven projects.