The proposal to establish a city clerk position was met with a mix of support and opposition. Proponents argued that a city clerk could provide a crucial layer of oversight. They advocated for a restructuring that would have the city clerk report directly to the commission rather than the city manager, thereby creating a balanced triangle of authority among the city commission, city manager, and city clerk. This change, they suggested, could prevent any single entity from amassing excessive power and mitigate past issues related to unethical practices. However, opponents cautioned that introducing a new administrative role could lead to an overlap of responsibilities, resulting in conflicts of priority and inefficiencies. Concerns were raised about the potential for a city clerk to create division within city governance and the possibility of bias if the clerk were affiliated with either the commission or the city manager.

The debate also touched upon the financial oversight capabilities of a city clerk, with references made to incidents in other jurisdictions where clerks had been implicated in financial misappropriations. Some commissioners suggested that hiring an independent third-party auditor might be a more effective approach to ensuring unbiased oversight. The idea was to explore additional options beyond simply adding a city clerk, recognizing the importance of checks and balances while questioning the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed role. The proposal for a city clerk was ultimately not put to a vote, with some commissioners suggesting that the upcoming charter review would be an appropriate time to reassess the situation comprehensively.

In parallel, discussions surrounding the city manager’s contract highlighted ongoing tensions regarding her compensation and workload expectations. A commissioner expressed concerns about the city manager’s contract, which stipulates a 40-hour workweek exclusive of holidays, despite her reportedly working 55 to 60 hours a week. This raised questions about the equity of the contract terms and the appropriateness of overtime compensation for a salaried and contracted employee. The conversation underscored the need for a performance evaluation, which had not been conducted regularly as required by the contract, to inform any decisions on salary adjustments. The meeting revealed a lack of clarity on the processes followed in approving compensation changes, with calls for greater transparency and public discussion on such matters.

The commission also addressed the extension of the Finance Review Committee, seeking to clarify its structure and the voting rights of its members. A motion was made to approve the extension, yet questions arose regarding whether city staff should have voting privileges, or if the committee should consist solely of citizen members providing feedback. A proposal was put forward to limit the committee to five appointed members, excluding city staff from voting roles to maintain its advisory capacity.

Infrastructure projects also featured prominently in the meeting’s agenda. The commission considered a feasibility study for expanding the city’s wastewater treatment plant in collaboration with Bay County, potentially alleviating the need for a costly city expansion. This study would assess the financial impacts on residents and inform future negotiations, with a motion made to coordinate with Bay County for a rate study. Additionally, the meeting included discussions on stormwater management projects and the approval of budget adjustments for fiscal year 2024-2025, reflecting ongoing efforts to address flooding and infrastructure needs.

A development proposal was also discussed, involving the transformation of a former office building into a restaurant and coffee shop. The project, situated in a Community Redevelopment Area, received approval despite concerns about stormwater management and state requirements. The commission emphasized adherence to regulations and community interests in its decision-making process.