One notable issue arose during a listening session where residents voiced concerns about police activity and its impact on their lives. A resident named Sally brought attention to a series of police reports that included her name in connection with “extra patrol” activities. She questioned the legitimacy of these reports, claiming they did not align with any known events or issues and requesting an internal investigation to clarify why her name appeared in police documentation.

Sally articulated her frustration with the lack of clear answers, emphasizing that the reports dated between December 2019 and January 2020 were not reflective of any actions on her part. Her statements led to a broader discussion about police transparency and community relations. Council members attempted to explain standard police procedures, but the conversation did not yield a resolution, leaving Sally’s concerns unresolved.

Another topic was the ongoing fiber optic installations by a utility company, which drew ire from a resident who accused the company of unnecessary and damaging digging on their property. The resident presented photographic evidence to support their claims, stating, “the last time they came around…they were digging dirt out…there was already grass there…they dug two other spots in my property…around my sewer pipe.” The resident insisted that such actions were unwarranted and disruptive, demanding the council prevent further unauthorized access to their property.

Council members engaged with the resident, explaining the legal rights of utility companies to work in public right-of-ways if they possess the necessary permits. They acknowledged the resident’s frustration but clarified that utility companies are obligated to restore the property post-work. One council member noted, “we can control them…we have to issue a permit…our history with them have not been following the rules.” Despite these assurances, the resident remained adamant that the work did not align with the permit’s intended purpose.

The topic of the new Health and Wellness Center also garnered attention, particularly regarding the allocation of space and affordability for residents. Pat Garen Bacher expressed disappointment that the Park and Recreation Department did not present the results of a survey conducted among seniors. She emphasized the importance of considering senior feedback in the planning process and questioned the decision-making surrounding space allocation within the wellness center. Garen Bacher pointed out, “why would kids club get 1,500 square feet and seniors have to share?”

Council members responded by assuring that no final decisions had been made regarding the design and layout of the wellness center. They stressed the goal of creating a flexible space that could serve multiple community needs. One council member reiterated, “we are…still trying to decide,” indicating that discussions were ongoing to ensure a balanced approach to space allocation.

Garen Bacher also highlighted concerns about the affordability of the wellness center, referencing per capita income statistics to argue that the costs could be burdensome for some residents. She pointed out that while families invest in organized sports, the membership fees for the wellness center could pose financial challenges. In response, a council member mentioned plans to implement a sliding scale for membership fees to ensure accessibility for all income levels.

They encouraged continued dialogue on the impact of utility work on private property and the planning and financial considerations surrounding the Health and Wellness Center. The session ended with a motion to adjourn, leaving several points of debate unresolved and pending further discussion.