Several residents used the May 22 commission meeting to urge the city to more tightly protect the municipal golf course from potential future non‑recreational development, citing past lease performance and concerns about unrestricted sale.

Ryan Jones told commissioners the leaseholder had shown "no obvious good faith efforts to uphold their end of the deal" and warned a future owner could wait for political changes to pursue development. Jones asked commissioners to consider a long‑term lease with enforceable performance milestones, deed conditions requiring citizen votes for repurposing, or an independent nonprofit to manage the property.

Melissa (surname not given) asked why the lease had not been enforced over the past year and questioned city staff communications with the leaseholder about a potential purchase. City staff replied that the lessee had until the end of June to present a plan and that if no acceptable plan materializes, city enforcement of the lease provisions would be expected. The city attorney and city manager noted that deed restrictions and comprehensive‑plan designations can be changed by a future commission, and they discussed possible administrative and transactional safeguards: requiring a unanimous commission vote to place a binding referendum before voters, or including specific protective terms in any sale or lease agreement to create stronger barriers to unilateral future changes.

No formal action on the golf course sale or deed restrictions was taken at the meeting; commissioners directed staff and counsel to continue exploring legal mechanisms that would increase barriers to unwanted future development and to provide options for public input.