The cell tower proposal dominated the meeting, as residents expressed fears that the structure would compromise the area’s small-town charm and potentially affect property values. The proposed tower, which requires six variances, including a significant height allowance and reduced setbacks, would be situated alarmingly close to residential areas and an assisted living facility. A resident highlighted the visual impact, stating that the tower would dwarf the surrounding tree line. The planning commission’s decision to evaluate the six variances collectively, rather than individually, drew criticism for potentially undermining thorough assessment practices.

Safety and regulatory compliance were also central to the debate. Concerns were raised about the outdated documentation provided by Verizon concerning radiation safety, with references to FCC bulletins from 1997. Residents questioned the adequacy of these safety measures, particularly given the proximity to vulnerable populations. Furthermore, the lack of FAA inspection due to pending lease agreements added to the apprehension, as council members worried about the potential for resources to be wasted on a project that might later be deemed unsuitable.

Verizon representatives maintained that the tower’s height was essential for adequate coverage and defended their adherence to FCC regulations. However, the council decided to table the discussion until February to allow for more comprehensive input and ensure all council members could participate in the decision-making process.

Simultaneously, the meeting addressed budgetary issues, with the council examining a proposed 4.23% increase in the property tax levy for 2026. The budget, which allocates significant funding to public works and police, faced scrutiny from both council members and residents. The mayor expressed dissatisfaction with the proposed levy figures, comparing them unfavorably to neighboring towns with much lower rates. Suggestions to use the city’s rainy day fund to alleviate the financial burden on residents were put forward, alongside proposals for strategic budget cuts totaling $168,530.

Public comments reflected concerns over rising property valuations leading to higher tax bills, despite the proposed modest levy increase. Residents argued that the city should be receiving more income due to these valuations, questioning the necessity of further tax hikes. The council acknowledged these concerns, emphasizing their commitment to keeping the levy low and exploring alternative revenue sources, such as a potential local option sales tax.

The council also discussed the reestablishment of an Economic Development Authority (EDA) to manage city-owned land and promote economic growth. This move could offer an alternative to raising taxes by capturing revenue from non-residents, potentially benefiting from sales tax revenue originating from visitors. The formation of the EDA would require a binding resolution and the appointment of board members, with the council considering mixed representation to include both council members and citizens.

In addition to these primary issues, the meeting touched on various administrative and community concerns. Discussions included the finalization of the 2025 tax levy, an update on the city administrator search, and the approval of engineering plans for park improvements. Public comments revealed ongoing dissatisfaction with the council’s handling of governance issues, with calls for greater transparency and accountability.