The public comments section of the meeting provided a platform for residents and community members to express their varied opinions on the city manager’s performance and the proposed termination. While some speakers supported the resolution, citing unrepresentation and a lack of accountability, others praised the city manager’s fiscal responsibility and transparency, emphasizing the positive changes enacted during her tenure.

Mary Brown raised concerns about the risk of a costly lawsuit and the impact on taxpayers if the city manager were terminated. Romeo Charles, a small business owner, criticized the city manager for not representing people like himself and emphasized accountability. William Simpson commended the city manager for balancing the budget and urged against her termination. Howard Tonen, also a small business owner, expressed fear of retribution from the council and called for a focus on infrastructure and homelessness.

Kevin Cied displayed disappointment in the decision to terminate the city manager, stressing the need for ethical decision-making. Randy Grace voiced support for retaining the city manager, stating that her removal would steer the city in the wrong direction. Claudia Pasino urged the council to keep the city manager, citing a lack of a concrete reason for her termination. Deborah Davies questioned the timing of the decision and its potential impact on the city’s infrastructure.

Markell, a former resident, emphasized responsible governance and urged the council to consider the implications of their actions. Robin and Marshall Tisdall expressed strong support for the city manager, praising her leadership and fiscal responsibility. Karen Delion described the city manager as intelligent, capable, and a problem solver.

The public comments revealed a spectrum of perspectives, with some emphasizing the city manager’s efforts to improve the city’s financial position and deliver efficient services, and others questioning the justification for her termination. Concerns were raised about potential implications for the city’s infrastructure and federal funding, along with issues of accountability and ethical decision-making.

Supporters of the city manager praised her dedication and effectiveness, with one resident commending the vice mayor and a councilwoman for their decision to support the city manager. The positive impact of the city manager’s work on a local health center and concerns about the consequences of her departure on planned development projects were also noted.

Amid the support, there were also critical voices. One individual stated that the community was functioning better without the city manager. The need for transparency and specific reasons for the potential removal was emphasized, as well as questioning the lack of a clear presentation outlining the reasons for the removal.

The meeting also featured impassioned pleas to let the city manager continue her work, citing her positive impact on the city. Calls for fiscal responsibility and proper governance through difficult times were made, alongside remarks about the efficiency of city staff and the importance of consistency in city management for development.

However, criticism towards the council emerged, with one speaker labeling the council members as “disgusting individuals” and expressing hope for accountability. Another speaker accused the council of disrespecting the community and lacking reasons for the city manager’s termination.