Public comment and commission discussion on Oct. 20 focused on the Little Jim Bait & Tackle property and a disputed request-for-proposals (RFP) process for selecting a new operator of the site. Several residents and potential proposers told the commission they believed the city had improperly canceled or manipulated the RFP process; others said they had been blocked from talking with staff during a bid protest.

Multiple speakers raised concerns about transparency and the history of procurements for city properties. Contractor and downtown business owners said the public needs clear, timely information about what is happening at Little Jim and asked the commission to explain next steps. "Why was this RFP just now canceled? We went all the way through the evaluation process," one speaker said during public comment.

City Manager Richard Chess described the administrative record: five respondents submitted proposals; in the city evaluation two respondents were later judged nonresponsive because mandatory documentation—such as financial statements or required forms—was missing. Chess said the determination that the two respondents were nonresponsive was made Sept. 22 and that the item was then closed rather than advanced; he told the commission no vendor recommendation had been forwarded to elected officials. Chess said parts of the sequence later appeared in media reporting after a public-records request and that the city did not "select" a vendor and then reverse course.

City Attorney and procurement staff explained the legal and procedural constraints: bid materials that omit mandatory documents must be deemed nonresponsive under procurement rules, and exceptions create legal risk. Commissioners said they want a public, documented review of the property's outstanding issues before reissuing an RFP so respondents know the city has resolved compliance questions and site constraints.

Commissioner Broderick and others asked staff to produce a single, cross-department list of required corrections and outstanding obligations for the Little Jim site—building, code, marina/dock, county/state permits and submerged land issues—so the commission and public can see what the city proposes to fix before restarting competitive selection. City staff reported they had already held an interdepartmental meeting and would return next week with a list of items and proposed responsibilities and costs.

Several public speakers warned the commission that delays and process errors were costing potential operators and suggested the city-owned property should be properly prepared before issuing a new RFP. Commissioners agreed to set a follow-up meeting and to brief the public on required remediation steps and a timeline for a new solicitation.