Saint Joe council tables proposal to explore outsourced economic-development services after residents praise local staff

The Saint Joe City Council voted to table consideration of a proposed partnership with the GSDC to provide "fractional" economic-development services after public comment and council discussion raised questions about the proposal's scope and its impact on local staff.

David, a city staff member who presented the item, told the council he "has been approached by the GSDC president, Nataya Balman, about the possibility of partnering with the GSDC for fractional economic development services." He said the program would likely require some buy-in from member cities but that the exact structure, costs and responsibilities were not yet defined and that he was bringing the issue to the council for direction before doing more detailed work.

Multiple residents and business owners used the public-comment period to urge the council to retain local economic-development capacity rather than outsource it. John Peherst, an investor who said he has worked on local housing and retail projects in town, praised "Rick" for longtime service and thanked staff who help entrepreneurs. "You have a lot to be proud of... Thank you, Rick," Peherst said. Mateo (self-identified as Mateo Mac b), who described plans for a new restaurant, said Nate "has been very instrumental" in communicating with new businesses and urged the council to keep him in his position. Jessica Turner, who said she bought a local property and is working to bring a business to town, said Nate consistently provides information and assistance "we would be lost" without.

Several councilmembers said they worried the outside service might not deliver the "family approach" residents value and asked whether the arrangement could replace or materially change Nate's responsibilities. "How is this going to more finitely impact us as, like, a city, Nate's position," one councilmember asked, requesting clearer information about duties, compensation and effects on current staff. Another councilmember said the proposal was still at a very high level and that detailed terms would need to be developed before any vote.

Councilmember 11 moved to table the item so the new mayor and newly seated councilors could consider the matter; the motion was seconded and declared to have prevailed. The presiding officer said the matter would be revisited in March or after new leadership is seated.

Procedurally, the meeting also approved the agenda and the consent agenda earlier in the session, and members moved to adjourn at the close of business.

The council did not adopt any contract or authorization for the GSDC proposal at the meeting; staff said they would return with more detailed information if the council directs further exploration.