The meeting began with a focus on the legal and procedural intricacies involved in forming an EDA. A council member pointed out that, according to city ordinance, an EDA might already exist, although the enabling resolution required by Minnesota State statute was absent from the city’s records. This lack of documentation led to confusion about whether an EDA had ever been formally established, prompting an immediate search for the missing resolution and raising concerns about transparency and procedural integrity.

The potential taxation powers of an EDA became a focal point of the discussion. Council members expressed apprehension about granting an EDA the authority to impose taxes without direct council oversight. This concern was addressed by Mr. Glenn, who clarified that the EDA could be structured to allow for annual decisions on taxation. This arrangement would permit the EDA to recommend projects but would maintain the council’s control over final decisions, thus addressing worries about unchecked taxation authority.

The debate extended to the comparative roles of an EDA and an Economic Development Committee (EDC). This resistance underscores the public’s apprehension about adding another layer of government with the power to levy taxes.

Procedural steps for establishing an EDA or modifying its structure were also discussed. The council acknowledged that any changes would necessitate a public hearing and notice, which some members feared might delay progress. Despite an inclination by some to expedite the process, there was a general consensus to wait until the next meeting to allow for more input and public awareness. Mayor Jennifer Carnahan suggested that this pause would provide an opportunity for further deliberation and community engagement.

The meeting also touched on the timing and accessibility of special meetings, which had drawn criticism due to scheduling conflicts and the perception that they limited public participation. A council member remarked on the additional costs incurred by taxpayers due to these special meetings, including attorney fees and council member compensation. The necessity of holding the meeting before the regular council session was questioned, but it was argued that moving forward with city business was essential, particularly concerning a property investment that could benefit from an active EDA.

Council members stressed that maintaining transparency and respecting public involvement were paramount, even if state law did not mandate specific steps.