A notable moment during the meeting was the resignation announcement from a public director, who cited dissatisfaction with the mayor’s leadership and a lack of appreciation for their time. This resignation pointed to underlying tensions within the city administration, emphasizing the need for improvements in leadership and communication.

During the guest and citizens forum, a resident from M2 Hampshire Drive brought forward concerns about Hoyt Lakes’ marketing strategies, particularly in promoting its industrial park and tourism. The resident suggested rebranding the city as a “Gateway to Adventure” to enhance its appeal. They noted the absence of short-term rentals on platforms like Airbnb and questioned whether city ordinances might be hindering such listings. This discussion shed light on potential areas for growth in tourism and local business development.

The council also tackled the crucial task of finalizing the floodplain ordinance. The ordinance needs to comply with the Department of Natural Resources’ requirements to maintain eligibility for flood insurance. Discussions focused on the necessity of retaining provisions related to emergency response buildings and the extension of flood districts. The council debated the implications of adopting higher standards than those currently in place, particularly concerning existing building codes. A public hearing was scheduled for March 24 to ensure community input and compliance with DNR requirements.

In new business, the council addressed a payment request from MA GR Construction for recreational projects, amounting to $1,286. Additionally, updates were provided by the water committee regarding the fire department’s plans for the city’s 70th-anniversary celebrations. Due to ongoing road construction, the original location for fireworks had to be reconsidered, with a proposal to shift the camping site to a field near the EMS building. The council acknowledged the importance of coordinating with emergency management officials to ensure safety during the festivities.

The meeting also featured discussions on the scheduling of the public forum segment. A proposal was made to reduce the duration of the public forum from 30 minutes to 15 minutes due to low public participation. Some members argued for maintaining the current duration, especially with the return of elderly residents, who might have more questions about local issues. Concerns were raised about the potential impact on civic engagement and the timing of the public forum in relation to the start of regular council meetings. The council considered leaving the forum at 30 minutes for now, with plans to reassess its effectiveness after a few months.

Communication and awareness of the public forum were also debated. It was noted that current notification methods might not effectively reach all community members, particularly those without internet access. The potential cost of advertising in local publications was discussed as a barrier to promoting the forum, with a suggestion to explore local media options for better outreach.

The council also touched on federal appropriations, noting the absence of shovel-ready projects eligible for funding. While the Joint Water Board was highlighted as a potential source for securing additional funding for water projects, it was clarified that new funding opportunities were limited to those already legislated. The council emphasized the importance of staying informed about meetings related to water project funding and ensuring active participation in these discussions.