During a recent council meeting, discussions centered around the city's flag policy, particularly the inclusion of additional flags alongside the city flag. The council reviewed proposed changes to the fraud policy, which now includes a mechanism for flying additional flags, a topic that had garnered consensus in previous meetings.

Council members debated the necessity of defining what constitutes a flag and a flagpole within the ordinance. Some expressed concern that without clear definitions, future councils might interpret the terms in ways that could lead to inconsistencies. Others argued against overcomplicating the policy, suggesting that the community generally understands what flags are and when they should be displayed.

A notable point of contention arose regarding the potential for flying the pride flag, especially in light of recent ordinances passed in other cities, such as Sequim, Washington. One council member voiced strong opposition to the idea of excluding the pride flag, framing it as discriminatory and contrary to the values of inclusivity within the community. This sentiment was echoed by a member of the public who criticized the council for spending time on what they deemed trivial details while emphasizing the importance of celebrating diversity.

In response, some council members highlighted the need for caution in allowing various groups to display their flags, referencing past requests from controversial organizations. They argued that the policy aims to prevent the city from becoming a platform for divisive symbols.

The council ultimately decided to postpone further discussion on the flag policy until their next scheduled meeting on July 23, allowing time for additional input and review of the proposed changes.