The debate over the state flag began with Pam Whmer Benedict, a longtime resident, expressing disappointment that the city does not fly the new Minnesota flag. Benedict, who has strong ties to Detroit Lakes, argued for the flag’s adoption, emphasizing its unique design featuring an eight-point star, which she deemed more recognizable and symbolically significant than the previous flag. She urged the council to reconsider their previous decision, drawing parallels between her dissatisfaction with the flag and broader frustrations, such as property tax assessments.

Following Benedict, Jeff Scodmo, another resident, questioned the council’s rationale for not displaying the state flag. He expressed concern that the decision might send a negative message to students and tourists. Scodmo highlighted Detroit Lakes as a wonderful town and encouraged the council to embrace its identity as part of Minnesota.

Janine Schneider, a resident of over 60 years, shared her mixed feelings after attending a community event earlier that day. She reflected on the joy of community collaboration and contrasted it with the disappointment felt over the flag issue at the council meeting. Schneider emphasized the city’s financial benefits from state support and implored the council to reconsider their stance, especially in light of recent moments of grief, such as the tragic shooting of a state legislator and her family.

On the opposing side, Brian Alstein thanked the council for previously deciding not to fly either version of the Minnesota flag. He argued that the flag controversy had become a partisan issue and should be resolved through the ballot box rather than council votes. Alstein warned that a vote in favor of flying the flag could be seen as politically motivated, potentially further dividing the community.

Adding a legal perspective, Gary Cosen questioned the constitutionality of the new flag and urged council members to reconsider their support, citing potential violations of state and federal constitutions. He challenged the legislative process used to adopt the flag and called for a reevaluation of the council’s position.

The public comments highlighted a clear divide within the community, with varying perspectives on identity, tradition, and representation. The council, recognizing the contentious nature of the issue, has yet to reach a consensus on how to proceed.

Beyond the flag discussion, the council meeting addressed several infrastructure and financial matters. A significant topic was the approval of assessments for unpaid street light fees, water, sewer, and stormwater charges. The Finance Chairman led the discussion, resulting in the adoption of a resolution for these assessments after a public hearing.

During the hearing, a resident named Darren raised concerns about being charged for city services he claimed not to have used. He argued that his property should be exempt from charges due to its “unimproved” status. City staff explained that charges apply as long as services are connected, even if the property is vacant. The council advised Darren to resolve the issue with city staff outside the public meeting.

Additionally, the council approved bids for the Lyn View Estates street and utility improvements project, with RL Larson Excavating submitting the lowest bid, below the project’s estimate. The council also authorized a preliminary engineering report for Rosman Avenue’s street and utility improvements, advancing the project for potential construction in 2026.

The meeting included updates on various infrastructure projects, such as the completion of street rehabilitation and progress on the Heartland State Trail. The council discussed future plans for Westlake Drive phase three and the beach improvement project, expected to be presented for approval in November.

Financial matters were also addressed, including the approval of the Detroit Lakes Community and Cultural Center budget rates for 2026. A request for proposal from the tourism board was tabled for further discussion. The council adopted ordinance 545, amending city code chapters related to utility rates, and approved a library construction grant for a new roof.

The council reviewed utility rates, noting a projected 5% increase in electric rates, a 12% increase in water rates, and a 2% increase in sanitary sewer rates. These adjustments were deemed necessary due to inflationary pressures and were approved without opposition.