The most discussions centered around the proposed local option sales tax, which aimed to raise $10 million over 15 years with a half-percent tax rate. The initiative drew criticism from some community members who viewed it as an additional burden on taxpayers, particularly affecting older residents on fixed incomes. One outspoken resident conveyed that they had not encountered any support for the tax within the community and vowed to oppose it vigorously. Despite these objections, the council voted in favor of proceeding with the resolution, with three members supporting the motion and two dissenting. The decision highlighted a clear division among council members and community stakeholders, reflecting broader concerns over fiscal responsibility and community engagement.

In parallel, the council faced a challenging budget workshop where numerous line items were scrutinized for potential reductions. The mayor expressed concerns about property tax increases, advocating for a levy below the inflation index. This discussion spurred a detailed examination of budgetary allocations, with particular focus on the attorney fees, which had escalated due to increased reliance on legal counsel in the absence of a city administrator. The council reached a consensus to set the attorney fees budget at $40,000, acknowledging that legal expenses could decrease with the appointment of a new city administrator.

The budget workshop also tackled the planning and zoning department’s proposed budget, where capital reserves and training expenses were in the spotlight. Some council members questioned the necessity of maintaining high reserves, especially given the intention to establish an economic development authority (EDA). Training costs were also scrutinized, with a decision to reduce these expenses by $4,500, bringing them down to $2,500, in light of anticipated qualifications and certifications for staff.

Additionally, the council reviewed the parks budget, debating whether to adjust the capital reserve allocation. The current reserve of $28,000 was seen as adequate by some members who proposed reducing the proposed allocation of $61,000 to a more moderate range of $30,000 to $40,000. This discussion was framed by the formation of a new community group dedicated to fundraising for park improvements.

In the midst of these financial deliberations, the council also considered the implications of passing credit card fees onto customers, particularly in the context of THC product sales. A proposed increase in the budget due to processing fees sparked a broader conversation about customer reactions and competitive pricing strategies. While some advocated for passing the fees onto consumers, others warned that this could deter business, especially in competitive sectors.

The council also addressed other topics, such as the proposed installation of flock cameras for the police department, which was ultimately removed from the budget pending further evaluation. Discussions concerning the fire department budget, public alerts, and sanitation administration proceeded without major contention.

The meeting concluded with several procedural matters, including the approval of a new bathroom facility for the Gull Lake Trail and a motion to explore additional funding mechanisms, such as grants, to support community projects. The council also addressed administrative matters, including job descriptions for key city positions and the structure of the personnel committee.