During the meeting, council members expressed their concerns over the insufficient federal funding, which amounted to only two million dollars. One member emphasized the challenge, stating, “We were hoping for half of what?” highlighting the difficulty of proceeding without sufficient financial backing. The council discussed the operational timeline and financial implications of the water treatment facility, acknowledging the necessity of securing additional funds to prevent placing the burden solely on residents.

The conversation also addressed specific wells, particularly Well Five, known for high iron content. Despite issues with Well Three, Well Five’s location was noted for its lack of positive sample detections, presenting a mixed situation regarding water quality. The council debated the funding strategy for the water treatment system, including gradual increases to mitigate larger financial impacts later. Funding discussions included ongoing negotiations with higher offices, with one member sharing a recent conversation with Emmer’s office about future funding appropriations. However, there was an acknowledgment that the outlook was uncertain.

In parallel, the council considered the broader implications of water system funding, with some members suggesting a 10% increase in water rates to facilitate future planning. Delinquencies in water payments were exacerbated by postal delays, prompting the council to encourage residents to use auto-pay or direct payments at the city office to avoid further complications.

Aside from water treatment concerns, the meeting also tackled various budgetary considerations. The police department’s staffing and budget constraints were highlighted as issues. Budget adjustments had resulted in the elimination of a permanent part-time officer position, raising concerns about the department’s ability to meet increased service demands due to rising incidents of domestic violence and theft. A police representative emphasized the need for additional part-time staffing, stating that current staffing levels were unsustainable.

The council also deliberated on the staffing needs of the public works department, acknowledging the challenges in maintaining a sustainable workforce amid limited growth in population and revenue generation. The city’s stagnation over the past two decades was a critical factor affecting budget allocations and the ability to hire additional staff. A $15,000 budget allocation was proposed to maintain an 8.98% levy, with considerations for hiring part-time personnel as tax revenues increased.

Infrastructure projects, especially the maintenance of the city’s water tower, were another focal point. The council discussed conducting an inspection to assess the tower’s condition, with suggestions made for possible exterior repainting. Funding for the tower’s maintenance was debated, with a preference to draw from existing fund balances rather than imposing additional fees on residents. The potential for cost-sharing with the local school was considered but deemed unlikely due to the school’s constrained budget.

Finally, the council revisited other infrastructure needs, including street maintenance and the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for upcoming years. Essential improvements, such as a new city hall server and ADA-compliant website redesign, were prioritized. The council recognized the importance of strategic financial planning to address these needs while maintaining fiscal responsibility.