A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to the discussion of financial matters related to a longstanding contract with BDM Construction. Council members expressed concern over the city’s expenditure of taxpayer dollars, questioning the financial arrangement that allowed BDM to operate under favorable terms without bearing financial responsibilities such as property taxes. The contract with BDM, which has been in place for 21 years, was criticized for resulting in financial losses for the city. A council member voiced his frustration, stating, “I came here to fight for residents,” and questioned the ethics of using taxpayer money to support a business under these conditions. He noted the incongruity of a business receiving free rent and paid utilities threatening legal action against the city if changes were made, remarking, “I don’t know what business class that ever came out of.”

Another council member echoed these sentiments, expressing disbelief at the situation and emphasizing the need for a fair resolution that would prevent misuse of city funds. The council acknowledged the need for transparency and responsible use of taxpayer funds, with one member suggesting a meeting with BDM to negotiate a solution that would be equitable for all parties involved.

A representative from BDM defended the legitimacy of the contract, which he described as a “rock solid contract” that took five years to establish. The representative urged for open dialogue, stating, “I am willing to sit down with you,” indicating a willingness to engage in discussions with the council to address their concerns.

In addition to financial concerns, the council explored the idea of implementing a crime-free community ordinance. A council member introduced the proposal, highlighting the inadequacy of existing nuisance ordinances in addressing properties that had become problematic due to issues like junk vehicles. The member suggested that a crime-free ordinance could provide law enforcement with more authority to address these issues effectively. However, he also acknowledged the potential legal challenges associated with such ordinances, referencing concerns from organizations like the ACLU about discriminatory applications.

The council engaged in a debate over the merits of pursuing a crime-free ordinance, considering the need for such measures against the risk of infringing on residents’ freedoms. One member expressed a desire to ensure that any ordinance would be specific and targeted at clear criminal activities. Another suggested reaching out to nearby communities, such as Rapids, to learn from their experiences with similar ordinances and gather insights on their effectiveness and implementation.

The council recognized that East Bethel operates as a complaint-based city, with enforcement actions primarily initiated by resident complaints rather than proactive inspections. A council member emphasized the importance of relying on law enforcement professionals to manage these situations, considering the operational constraints they face. The conversation concluded with an agreement to gather more information on the crime-free ordinance concept and to reach out to Rapids for further discussions. The council intends to explore whether such an ordinance would be beneficial for East Bethel without overstepping residents’ rights.

In addition to the major topics, the meeting addressed procedural complaints. One complaint questioned City Administrator Matt Look’s handling of information regarding a six-horse interim use permit, alleging incomplete or misleading disclosures. Look presented documentation clarifying that the original permit, dating back to 1999, had expired, and there were no renewals since. The council debated whether to dismiss the complaint or table it for the next meeting, allowing the complainant an opportunity to provide more detailed information.

Another complaint targeted the mayor’s enforcement of Robert’s Rules of Order, citing inefficiencies and lack of order during meetings. The mayor clarified that procedural rules are designed to protect council members’ rights during discussions. Council members noted the complaint’s vagueness and suggested encouraging the complainant to resubmit with clearer details.

Lastly, the council addressed the rules of conduct for public comments during meetings, agreeing to implement a timer to enforce the three-minute speaking limit for residents. This decision aimed to maintain order and fairness during public forums.