City Commission Meetings - Regular Meeting

Is my mic on? There we go. Welcome to the Panama City Commission for August 25th. We're going to start out with an opening prayer with Reverend Randy John, pastor of Heritage Bible Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Brian Granger. Please rise.

Good afternoon, everyone. Let's pray. Actually, I was just noticing that three-minute timer. It's a good thing my church doesn't have one of those when I'm preaching. Yeah, making me nervous. All right, let's pray. Father, we come before you with grateful hearts for all that you have done. And Lord, we are reminded of your words in Psalm 117, verse 2, that great is your love for us and the faithfulness of the Lord endures forever. Lord, we consider those principles as we pray this afternoon for the commission, for the things that need to happen. We recognize that government orders was intended by you, that it was ordained by you, and that its purpose was to administer justice and order and protection. And so I pray for your wisdom this morning, this afternoon, Lord, for each and every person here, for the decisions that need to be made, for the things that need to be considered. Lord, we just ask that you would grant your wisdom and your favor in all things. And that all of this would ultimately recognize your sovereignty over the affairs of humankind. And we are reminded, Lord, that wisdom comes from you. And so we ask for that in Jesus' name. Amen.

Please call the roll.

Mayor Branch.

Present.

Commissioner Street.

Here.

Commissioner Hughes. Here. Commissioner Lucas will not be joining tonight. Commissioner Granger.

Present.

Mayor, you have a quorum.

You've received the meeting minutes from August 11th. Do I have a motion to approve? Second. Second. Any discussion? Please call the roll.

Commissioner Street?

Yes.

Commissioner Hughes?

Yes.

Commissioner Granger?

Yes.

Mayor Branch?

Yes.

Motion passes 4-0.

Any additions, deletions, or modifications?

Yes, sir. Staff has a couple. So item 6, Bravo, the first and only public hearing for a proposed gateway overlay. Staff requested that be removed and tabled until September 22nd. And then item 7A, the second and final two public hearings regarding zoning designation of heavy industrial. as well as item 10a regarding discussion of the city clerk treasurer positions. Recommend that item 7a and 10a be stricken without a date to return.

So removal of 6b, 7a, and 7... And 10a.

10. However, I want to clarify 6 Bravo has the date certain to return September 22nd. 10a. But only 6 Bravo.

Okay. What was the date on that?

September 22nd meeting.

Did you catch all that? That was a lot. Let's go. All right. I'll try again.

Removing 6B, 7A, and 10A. Correct. Removing 6B, 7A, and 10A. However, 6B has a date certain to return of 9-22. The other two does not.

You want to strike the...

Which item was that? We're striking 6B and 7A. And 10A. And 10A.

But 6B is going to be coming back September 22nd.

I will make a motion that we move item 6B to September 22nd and that we strike 7A and 10A from this meeting.

Correct. Second?

Second. Discussion? Please call the roll.

Commissioner Street? Yes. Commissioner Hughes? Yes.

Yes.

Commissioner Granger? Yes. Mayor Branch? Yes. Motion passes 4-0.

All right, registration for the 2026 Youth Basketball League has been extended through August 31st. Practices begin in early September and games start later in the month. So now is a great time to sign up. Scholarships are still available. For details, please visit the front desk at the MLK Junior Rec Center. You can register by scanning the QR code on the screen or by visiting the MLK Junior Rec Center page at panamacity.gov. The 2026 Panama City Christmas Parade will be held Saturday, December 5th at 6 p.m. in downtown Panama City, featuring this year's theme, Christmas Movies. Registration to participate in the parade opens September 1st, next Tuesday. Those interested in joining the parade can visit PanamaCity.gov for registration details, the application link, and more. All city offices will be closed in observance of Labor Day on Monday, September 7th. Normal garbage collection, the blue cans, will continue that day, and then regular office operations for the city will resume on Tuesday, September 8th. Due to the Labor Day holiday, the September town hall and Monday morning with the manager dates will be rescheduled. The town hall, typically held the first Saturday of the month, will take place now on Saturday, September 12th. Monday morning with the manager, normally held on the first Monday of the month, will be moved to Monday, September 14th. All times and locations remain unchanged. Budget hearings for fiscal year 2027 will be held on September 8th and September 22nd, 2026 at 5.01 p.m. Central Time here at the Bay County Government Center. Residents are encouraged to provide feedback and may attend in person or watch the live stream online on our website. On September 11, 2026, at 8.30 a.m., the City of Panama City will host a solemn 25th anniversary 9-11 Memorial Ceremony at the Panama City Marina. Held in partnership with Bay County, the Bay County Sheriff's Office, and Tyndall Air Force Base, their ceremony will honor the nearly 3,000 lives lost on September 11, 2001, along with ceremonial tributes including a presentation of colors, a moment of silence, bell tolling, and a 21-gun salute. We invite you to join us as we come together to remember, to honor, and to reflect. Business tax receipt renewals are now open for all businesses operating within the City of Panama City, including storefronts, home-based businesses, food trucks, and short-term rentals. Renewals are due by September 30th to avoid any late penalties and potential code compliance action. Renewal notices are mailed each summer, and businesses are encouraged to renew early. For more information or to renew, visit the Business Services page at penamocity.gov or contact the Business Services Division at 850-691-4603. Panama City voters will have the opportunity to consider three proposed charter amendments during the November 3, 2026 general election. The proposed amendments address the city's government structure and elections, the administrative and operational provisions, and updates to modernize the city charter and to maintain compliance with applicable state laws. We have provided information and reference materials on our website at panamacity.gov to help voters review the proposed changes and understand the questions that will appear on the ballot. All right, moving into public hearings. Mayor Commissioners, item 6A is the first and only public hearing on the approval of the proposed developer agreement with Zachary Seymour for a property located at 101 East 7th Street with parcel ID 20075-000-000. As background information, enclosed in your packet is the proposed developer's agreement which outlines the terms between Zachary Seymour, the developer, the City of Panama City, Florida, and the City of Panama City's Community Redevelopment Agency regarding the purchase and renovation of the historic property at 101 East 7th Street in Panama City known to locals as the Panama City Grammar School. The developer intends to purchase and redevelop the historic Panama City Grammar School property, which has been in disrepair since Hurricane Michael, and transform it into apartments and townhomes to increase the tax base and to preserve its historic value. The agreement requires that after closing, the developer must promptly repair critical elements of the historic building, such as the roof, the windows and doors, bringing the property into compliance with city codes and the code enforcement order, and requiring completion of these mitigation efforts within one year of closing or the issuance of the permits, whichever is later. A key provision of the agreement is to help provide financial assistance to encourage the development. According to resolution 2020-0623.3, specifically section 32, settlement of liens on page 22 of the policy and procedures for code enforcement, the city manager has the authority to settle a lien if it is in the best interest of the city to help a respondent of a code enforcement order sell the property to another responsible purchaser or to promote the economy in general. The agreement provides that the city manager will waive the current incurred fines totaling approximately $374,750.00 in exchange for a promissory note that will be forgiven after the developer complies with the agreement. Without this financial assistance, it is unlikely that the developer could proceed with the project. The agreement further allows the developer to apply for any CRA or other grants available and promises an award of $100,000 under the current CRA grant programs. Note that this agreement will have to be approved by the CRA Board. The following documents are enclosed in your agenda packet. The developer agreement, the location map, the proposed conceptual schematics of the future project, and the promissory note. Staff recommendation through the Director of Development Services that the City Commission conduct the first and only public hearing and approve the agreement. Mr. Mayor?

This is a public hearing. If you wish to speak about item 6A, please come forward. Anyone want to speak about item 6A?

with the caveat that if the work is not complete within one year, it comes back to the commission for discussion.

I'll second just so we can talk. We'll discuss it. We'll still first. Well, Nevin, I thought we made some changes to what was read on what Jonathan read. We changed the timeline to a year without the On the permits we initiated, we've got to issue that?

Right. What we talked, let me give some background for the commission. Okay. Is that okay? Yes, please. So Commissioner Hughes did review it, had some comments, some questions. I reached out to Dee Dee Rowan, the attorney for Zachary Seymour, And we discussed those. Would you like me to talk about what you and I had talked about? Yes, sir. Okay. So one comment that Commissioner Hughes had was concerning the timeline and just making sure it was clear who had to do what and that it really was a year and it wasn't two years. So, as always, when you look at things, we can reword it. And so we reworded it in a way where first it says that the project has to be completed within one year. Now, in this agreement, there was specific provisions that said that, for example, when the site plan review was submitted, the city had 20 days to review it. And I think there may have been one other day period in that. And also our code has provisions that once you have a completed application, the city is to review it and process it. So we added a section that says that in the event, when I say we added it, I added it after talking to Commissioner Hughes and Ms. Rowan. In the event the developer files a complete application as required above, And if the city exceeds the time periods for the city's reviews, then the mitigation period of one year shall be extended by the number of days in excess of the reviewed period. For example, if the developer submits a completed application for a site plan and the city takes 25 days to respond rather than the 20, then the mitigation period is extended by five days. And that was acceptable to Ms. Rohan, and I believe that that was consistent with the comments that Commissioner Hughes had made on that topic.

Yes, sir. So, Michael, your department has to make sure they hit the timelines. And I wanted the city to have something that they had to do because we were asking the buyer to do something as well. We all need to work together on that, and it keeps it moving along.

So if taking the comment or the motion where it would come back, certainly it would come back if we're, and that is part of the motion, it would come back if we're in violation or if the developer's in violation. Would you like me to talk about the other grant? We struck a sentence about being able to apply for other grants. There was a sentence, the developer may also apply for any other applicable grants available in the CRA district where the development is located. And CRA agrees that if the criteria are met, the developer shall receive the maximum award available. So rather than say that statement, that the developer may apply, Commissioner Hughes thought why not just strike it because they can always apply. It's kind of redundant. And Ms. Rowan said that that would be acceptable to her client. Then we also added in that same section that further the CRA agrees that the developer has applied for a redevelopment site preparation grant. Now, that is attached, that application will be attached to your agenda for next week because it has been submitted now. And that hadn't been submitted a week ago when this was prepared. So it says that the developer has applied for redevelopment site preparation grant and the CRA agrees that such application meets the existing criteria for an RSSP grant award and the developer shall receive A minimum of $100,000 toward the development provided, however, nothing herein shall obligate the CRA or the city to award an amount greater than $100,000 pursuant to the RSSP grant. Now, that sentence, Commissioner Hughes did not... did not agree with, and so that's why I haven't passed anything out, because we didn't have anything to really, but that was also talked about. So those were the, anyway, Commissioner, those are the things that we talked about.

I just wanted to let you know what we talked about.

Okay, thank you. And the applicant's representation has approved those changes, they're cool with them?

You can... The changes, I think the question is, is the applicant okay with the changes that are read?

Well, DD's coming up. My request for just coming back in a year was just really more for an update to ensure that we're following the timeline. That's it. Yes, ma'am. It doesn't change the contract.

Good afternoon. My name is Dee Dee Rowe, and I'm here on behalf of the developer, Zach Seymour. The changes that Nevin and I discussed throughout the day, yes. The one last change that I had asked for a little tweak on was the way it was presented, I don't know, an hour and a half, two hours ago, was that the award shall be $100,000. And I did not want to box my client into only getting $100,000, because in his site, redevelopment site application the site preparation cost that he has provided so far is 1.1 million and the way that your grant application reads is that the developer can get I think that the award will generally be $100,000 unless there's exceptional community benefit now you all still might six hundred thousand dollars depending on what's in the budget but based on the 20% of the site preparation cost, he would be at $220,000. So you guys can still stick to the $100,000, but I didn't want to limit him to an agreement that said shall. So other than that, I'm fine with all the changes. We went back and forth with several different iterations. It's just that one little piece.

So is it May versus shall? No, let me read that one sentence and see if Commissioner Hughes disagreed with the way, or it didn't come out exactly what he was thinking, but let me read it to you. The last sentence that we're talking about here is that the CRA agrees that the developer has applied for redevelopment site preparation grant and the CRA agrees that such application meets the existing criteria for an RSCP grant award. So, so far I think we're all in pretty much agreement. And then it says, and the developer shall receive, and you requested, a minimum of $100,000 towards the development. And then I added, provided, however, nothing herein shall obligate the CRA or the city to award an amount greater than $100,000 per cent to the RSCP grant application. Is that acceptable?

Yes, that's fine. I think the version I saw before that, it had the developer shall receive $100,000, and that's when I had asked for the minimum of $100,000 language. There's just been some last-minute revisions back and forth, and I think that's why we weren't ready to present it to the full commission today.

Then we also...

I'm up for bringing it back. There's three players in this, a buyer, CRA, and the city. And what we're doing today is trying to get something done, and then it has to go to CRA. They're the final approval. It bothers me that we're... Everybody in here that has something to CRA can apply for this rate. We're not going to spell out for what they're going to get. They're going to apply the criteria. But for whatever reason, we're spelling out what this applicant can receive that's already in writing and approved. And what's going to happen is somebody reads it and wants to see $100,000. They're going to see all the other parts of it. And then we're going to line up. It ain't $100,000. I need $100,000. That's my concern.

If they all have properties that are in this disrepair that are on Harrison Avenue, then let them line up.

I get it. I get it. But there's no special favor given to this guy. Everybody that has property, and that's the RA, qualifies for this property. to make an application under this demo grant. That's correct, right? Yes.

I don't have any objections with any of the changes.

I had two quick comments I hadn't gotten to.

We know they're not quick.

I'll try to. You had a comment, Commissioner Hughes, about impact fees, and so this was changed. It says the city agrees to work with the developer in good faith to identify rebate or refund opportunities for impact fees. And then it was added, provided such opportunity is available to other similar projects. No objection to that language. Being treated like everybody else. And then finally... to the point that Commissioner Hughes had made that we need to make it clear, not that it's not clear, but make the point that there are three parties. And so we added a sentence at the end that just says, this agreement shall not be effective unless until it is executed by all parties, CRA, City Commission, and the applicant.

What I'm hearing is that we're basically saying that, yes, we're willing to do an award of at least $100,000, but the applicant may put in and request more because of the math of the program that we're running under the CRA. So it's not that this applicant is receiving anything outside of the current program that we're running in the CRA other than just a guarantee that they'll get at least $100,000.

I'm okay with that. Everybody has an opportunity and we're just restating it and making it a guarantee. As long as you meet the criteria, it's a guarantee. Right?

It's not my motion.

It's his motion. The only thing I'll add is regardless of what the language says or isn't, even if we were committing $100,000 to save a historic building, I think that's far exceeding the value of what this developer is committing to do over the next year. So I wish Mr. Seymour a fantastic venture. We're rooting for you. The community's rooting for you. We're glad to have your investment in the community. And so just thank you for picking up where somebody couldn't get it across the finish line. So appreciate you picking up the ball.

And let me say, I want this project to happen. My job, as long as all of ours, is to protect the city. And what matters is what's inside the four corners of that contract. And all I'm trying to do is tighten it up so we don't have any issues coming back. That's all my goal is, not to kill it, not to make it go away. And he hired a good lawyer. to make sure that happens. So, thank you.

Are you okay with the changes? Yes. That's what you presented originally.

The things that I spelled out were just tweaks to what was... My hope is Citi is quick about getting permits, developers quick about getting a roof and windows and all those things on, and the next update a year from now is just, hey, look how amazing it looks, and they're on to their project. That's really... what my hope is. I just don't want to get down a process that we're dealing with something eight years after the aftermath and we're still trying to deal with it. So with that, I'll amend to include the changes presented by the city attorney and add the addition of just bringing it back to us a year from now for an update. Perfect. Do I have a second?

Second. Any discussion?

I'll just add that Mr. Fuller and Mr. Massey have already started doing some preliminary paperwork in anticipation of the closing, so we are teed up and ready to rock and roll. Love it.

The closing is scheduled for September 9th. Hopefully we can bring it in for a landing on that date.

This will be back next week.

Yes, and we'll be back before the CRA. You'll have the full application that shows what the site plans are and site costs and those items.

Can you please express to your client that when they get their plans and everything else together, we would love to be a part of just announcing to the community what exactly is happening with this historic property?

Sure, absolutely. Thank you all.

Thank you. Will you install the rule?

Commissioner Street?

Yes.

Commissioner Hughes? Yes. Commissioner Granger? Yes. Mayor Branch? Yes. Motion passes 4-0.

Item 6B was tabled to September 22nd. Moving into item 6C, which is the first of two public hearings on ordinance number 3314, an ordinance amending ordinance 3305 regarding the Panama City North Community Development District to correct a Scrivener's error in the legal description. As background information, Essie Land Development LLC, on behalf of the property owner, petitioned the City to establish a Community Development District, or a CDD, pursuant to Chapter 190 of Florida Statutes. Ordinance 3305 was adopted by the City Commission on June 9th of last year. Ordinance number 3314 is now proposed to correct a Scrivener's error in the legal description. The CDD encompasses the 1,200-acre property owned by CBD Holdings LLC, also known as the Shelton property. The subject property has a future land use designation of urban community and the city's comp plan in its own planned unit development. The PUD specifies approximately 1,800 residential dwelling units and up to 450,000 square feet of non-residential use or mixed-use space. A CDD is defined as a special purpose local government that finances, builds, and maintains infrastructure and amenities in planned communities. Essentially, a CDD is a special taxing district which allows a developer to fund roads, water, sewer, stormwater management facilities, parks, and other community amenities. A CDD is governed by the board of supervisors elected by the landowners of the CDD. The initial board is the developer slash landowner, and eventually there is a turnover to the subsequent home purchasers. A CDD has the authority to levy non-advalorum assessments that appear on property tax bills, separate from regular property taxes. A CDD consists typically, or sorry, CDD costs, rather, typically include debt service to repay bonds to issue to fund initial infrastructure construction and ongoing operations and maintenance costs of the infrastructure. Following items are enclosed in your agenda packet. Ordinance 3314, the adopted map series, including aerial, future land use, and zoning maps. Staff recommendation through the Director of Development Services is that the City Commission conduct the first of two public hearings. Mr. Mayor?

This is a public hearing. If you wish to speak about item 6C, please come forward. Anyone here speak about 6C? Seeing none, I'm placing public comment.

I'd like to read. Ordinance 3314, an ordinance of Board of City Commissioners of Panama City, Florida, amending ordinance number 3305 regarding the Panama City North Community Development District To correct a Scrivener's error in Exhibit A thereto, providing for severability and providing for an effective date.

Mr. Mayor, item 7A from the clause of judicial hearings was removed. We're now into audience participation.

This is audience participation. This is where you get to come forward and speak about any item related to the agenda today, with the exception of 12A. I'm going to open up public comments just for that particular agenda item. So if you want to come forward and talk about anything related to the agenda except for 12A, Please come forward and just let us know what you're speaking about.

You may want to tell them what 12A is.

Oh, 12A is the marina construction bids. Yes, sir. Come on down, Mr. Derrick.

Hey, Derek Thomas, 1100 West 10th Street, 12D, the $445,000 for design of the Frankford walkway. I wanted to find out if there's anything going on under the ground that would explain why that's so much. It's basically a straight sidewalk next to a straight road. 425 000 seems like a lot is there any uh 10 inch water main going down at the same time underneath there is there any changes going on underneath where they're putting the multi-purpose walkway

Is that the final question?

The question is, for the design of it, is the part of the design designing putting in plumbing underneath the walkway? Yeah, we'll answer all the questions once you're done.

Is that your final question?

Well, okay. Did you put it down? And then the wet slips 11A, the... They're going to put up $5 million. I think that's great to get it kick-started. But they're going to take that and they're paying up in advance their land fees, their rent, right? And then last year their rent was like $11,000. So that's what I mean. Is it going to be also their taxes, the amount that they pay in in property taxes? Is it going to be the amount they pay in in merchant fees? Any money that they make at all down there? All of it paid up to get to that 5 million? Okay, well, if you understand what my question is, where's the money coming to over time to come up with that 5 million? And if at the end of 50 years they haven't used up their 5 million yet, do they get a refund for it? Because it seems like that's... That's a lot of money, and I'm really grateful that they're putting that up. But what exactly are they paying? And moving forward, what are they designing into it with the plumbing? And if you can open that up later for public comment, I'll be happy to hear that. Also, 9F, I've had art construction. They did the metal roof on my house. And I was not at all happy with the job that they did. So if you look at the particular materials that they use and make sure that you don't use the cheapest screws that they sell and stuff, that would be great. Yes, sir.

Thank you. Anyone else want to come forward and speak today? Yes, ma'am. Come on down. Let's make sure we have those questions to the end so we can answer them.

Mr. Mayor, Patty, Sunday, 1115. If I make a comment now, can I still come back for 12A? Okay, thank you. So my comment on this one is for the proposed budget. I still am wondering about the long-term debt and the detail is what is comprised in that. Hi. And... Wanting to know and understand that as part of the proposed budget and what the interest payment will be and what we spend it on helps me as a taxpayer think clearly or maybe more clearly or understand the need for item 12A, because to me they're both related, right, if we're looking for creative things. So I think this is the third time that I've asked, and it probably takes a little while, for what is the detail of the long-term debt and what did we spend it on. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else want to speak today? Yes, ma'am. Come on down.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Brenda Lewis-Williams, 2748 Oakhamic Drive, 32401. I have a... 9E and 9F. 9D is included, but it's not clear, even on the agenda that was sent out, that we're permitting... Somebody went back and read the city ordinances. I guess you all got tired of hearing me talk about change orders. But is this 10% that is being permitted? Should a change order be... And the wording in the ordinance is cumulative. So is this, they can only ask for 10%? Or can they get the 10% and come back to the commission for additional monies if the 10% doesn't satisfy? And that was on which item? Pardon? Which item was that? 9E and 9F. 9E and 9F, okay. The city ordinance does allow for the city manager to automatically do 10% if necessary. And the word cumulative means once you get there, that's all it is. But can they come back and ask for additional funds once they get that 10%? Still doing change orders.

Anyone else want to speak today on the agenda of 12A? Yes, sir.

Good afternoon. My name is Will Owen, 6701 Yacht Club Drive in Callaway. This was referring to 11 for you, Mr. Zimmerman. That's not so much a question. It's a comment, so I don't know if that's... what we're doing here. This is my first time doing this, so I'll read from my notes here. Mayor, commissioners, and fellow residents of Panama City, my name is Will Owen. I'm a local business owner and the organizer of Jet Set, the world's largest jet boater gathering. Jet Set is an annual event hosted near the marina at Hotel Indigo. Every year, Jet Set brings nearly $1 million in direct economic impact to Bay County. For nearly eight years since Hurricane Michael, the marina has sat largely unusable. And that isn't just an eyesore. It represents millions of dollars in lost tax revenue, suppressed growth, and missed opportunities for downtown Panama City. The mayor raised fair questions in his comments on Facebook the other day about city gains, losses, and what we give up in financing discussions. I'm here today to provide perspective from the front line on what our citizens and local businesses gain when we finally get votes back. in the water every year the number one point of friction for my guests during jet set is the lack of in water boat parking and an easy launch and recovery access for the boats if this marina is restored with ample transient slips overnight docking and efficient ramp capacity events like mine can easily double the economic footprint which is again it's about a million dollars a year More importantly, Bay County is full of boaters who are looking for places to take their boats. And right now, there's no place in our county where someone can dock, step off the pier, and immediately walk to local restaurants, shops, lifestyle events, hotels. Boaters are in a fluent demographic, and when they tie up at a marina, they don't just buy fuel. They eat, they shop, they stay in local hotels, and they keep downtown businesses thriving year round. And regardless of who's behind the development, good development is good for everyone. We're fortunate to have exceptional developers like St. Joe who care about creating communities that are thoughtfully planned, sustainable, and ultimately make the area a better place to live, work, and play. I think that is what sets St. Joe apart from other developers. They genuinely care about long-term success of communities they build and the quality of life they create for the people who call them home. I know the leadership at St. Joe. I've stayed in their hotels. I've eaten in their restaurants. I've swam in their pools. And I can tell you that everything St. Joe does is done with excellence. Their staff, the planning and design, and the execution and management is world class. I believe we are fortunate to have such a world class organization offering to help shape the future of downtown Panama City, especially with this loan. I believe we have a great opportunity before us that is going to outlast all of us. As residents of Panama City, Florida, we enjoy something that only 94% of other US cities do not. We are blessed to be situated on navigable coastal waters, and not just any waters, the most beautiful in the whole world. I believe we should lean into this uniqueness I believe we should invite everyone to come see the beauty that we can at times take for granted. Let's work with St. Joe to get this project moving. And when we join forces to bring this marina back to life, downtown Panama City won't just recover, it will thrive for generations to come. Thank you. Yes, sir.

Thank you. We love jet boat. I actually had a friend come all the way up from South Florida with his jet boat this year.

We had one come from Washington State. Love it. I love it.

Awesome. Anyone else want to speak today related to the agenda items? Yes, sir. Come on down.

George Carothers, 1702. Excuse me, West Beach Drive. I'd like to bring up a question on 9D for Baker Court. It was unclear to me as to where the $181,000 is coming from. Is it coming from the same type of financing that generated the original? So I was curious about that. Secondly, there was a note that said that originally this was part of the West Beach Drive sidewalk improvement project In the design, there was a proposal to go down Farallon with an eight-inch water line and bury it underneath West Beach Drive. This, I understand, is going to be a storm sewer, which was not mentioned in the original West Beach Drive plans, and I understand it's going to need to be have the beach drive cut up to be laid down properly. I gather that requires an okay through the state to break up their brand new paved road. I don't know. That was my question. I also have a question on 12D, which is the Frankfurt Trail. It says here that this is a state-funded project, but I was wondering if this is really a TPO project, which also would involve some federal funds as well. Thank you.

Awesome. Anyone else want to speak today? Yes, sir. Come on down.

My name's Norvin Thibodeau, 206 North McCarthy Avenue. First of all, we've had three ways to pay for the city of Marina to get rebuilt. We had, back in 2019, right after the hurricane, year after hurricane, we had an NRDA grant that would redo the boat ramp and the pier that they were talking about building out there. Then, after the hurricane, We turned down that money. The mayor then, he sent him a letter telling that he did not want the money to put it somewhere else. But he also said that we could take and revisit that anytime we wanted. But anyway, that was back then. Then another way we had to rebuild the marina was we had the FEMA money. We turned that down. That would have built the slips 95%. We turned it down. So here we are. Then we had $15 million that we rescheduled to go to the Martin Theater, which that's great. I love the Martin Theater. I'll never go there because it's going to cost too much money for a ticket. But anyway, there was $15 million. Now we have $5 million that you talked about, I think, in the last meeting. We was going to put that in the 50 slips. Now we're talking again about St. Joe going to give us $5 million with strings attached. That's what I don't like is the strings that are attached. They're talking about the uplands, having say so into that, which in my opinion, the uplands ought not even be built on. We don't need no hotel there. We don't need apartments up there. We could build a nice green space, a nice little amphitheater around there, have nice parking for everybody to go and enjoy. Y'all have got to consider that a lot of people in this town don't make a whole lot of money. I think $37,000 is the mean income. I think you need to go on with your idea of phases. Take the $5 million, put it on the slips for the 50 boat slips, and then see how that goes, and then go on to something else. I know y'all are in a hurry to get this done, but, well, we was in a hurry to get it done, too, and we could have already had it done if we'd have used that FEMA money to put it back, marina back like it was, and then we could rebuild off of that. But anyway, thank you.

Anyone else want to speak to that?

Yes, sir. 9D, I just have a question. I wonder why the city at Tennis Main Line, 614 May Avenue. Y'all should know it by heart. I just wonder why the city even mess with it, that water main on Baker's Court, never had a problem with it. I don't think that line is, I don't think it's a cast sign. Lines, some folks say cast sign, cast sign and duck line, it's two different lines. I think y'all should have went to Beach Drive first, did what y'all should have done there with the problem they have on Beach Drive itself. I just wonder why y'all, money could have been saved, not just on Baker's Court. Y'all had talked and listened to somebody. Money could have been saved in this whole city. Y'all got burned new water lines already in this city. Not nobody on it. But we're paying money, something that we already have.

Thank you. Anyone else want to speak tonight? Seeing none, I'm closing public comments. And before we approve the consent agenda, there was a couple of questions I want to get answered. Ms. Williams had a question on 9E and 9F about change orders and 10% cumulative stuff.

Yeah, so referencing 9E for the invitation to bid for Project Storm Group I to Marshall Brothers, Ms. Lewis-Williams is correct. That was an error by staff. I already have the authority to go up to $100,000. I think they just did 5% instead of 10%, which would be $120,000, a little bit over my approval, but I'm fine. There's no reason to go to 122 or 120. It's fine. But yes, that was just an error. They did 5% instead of 10%. And then in regards to, let's see, what else? I wrote notes on the other consent item.

It was 10D, funding mechanism, fail amount.

Which one? I'm sorry. I'm going to pull 9F off.

The question was 9D.

9 Delta?

Yes.

Okay, yeah, so that'll have to come out of infrastructure surtax. So the original Beach Drive sidewalk proposal, we were going to create kind of like an enhanced crosswalk right there at the very west end of Beach Drive to safely get over and then come up that east side of Frankfort Avenue and then create some parking right there because that project's been delayed. And now we're rocking and rolling with the Baker Court project. We're pulling that back in. It is part of that project. Our goal was to, you know, hopefully utilize a grant from the state to accomplish some of this. It needed to be done anyway, and it would have been part of the original project, you know, had we, you know, not even had the opportunity for that grant. And this is a reminder, as a state revolving fund project, they don't It doesn't really cover any stormwater unless there is a direct conflict with a water or sewer line. Therefore, it is not covered in the bulk of the project, which is covered by the state revolving fund. So that's why. So there are some stormwater upgrades more on the west end of the property, of the project, rather, as you get to Frankfort Avenue. And again, it'll be some parking as well.

Can you explain to the state revolving fund how the money comes out and what we have to pay back?

Yeah, so the State Revolving Fund is actually a really great program if you're not aware of it. It's from the EPA, administered through the State Department of Environmental Protection. It's a loan. And what they do is they kind of handle the prepayment for us, which is awesome. And in the case that it takes a little bit longer for them to process anything, we can kind of fill in the gap with our utility fund. But they've been really great at reimbursing us, often less than 90 days. But the beauty of it for the city of Panama City is it's a 0% loan. Immediately upon the completion of the project, the state forgives 25% of it. And we've already done probably $80 or $90 million worth of projects. and we haven't paid one penny yet. The first payment is deferred. I think we're looking at next spring, early summer before the first payment is due. So delayed first payment, 25% reduction right off the top of the entire loan, and then a 0% interest to pay that loan back. So again, it's a, It's a program from the EPA through the Department of Environmental Protection at the state level in order to help smaller and medium-sized cities rebuild both their water and sewer lines and repair any roads that have to be redone in order to repair those water and sewer lines.

Awesome. Moving on to consider agenda.

Yep. I'd like to pull item 9F off, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, please.

Okay. I'd like a motion to accept everything except for 9F. Okay.

Motion to approve 9A through 9E. Second. Any discussion? Please call the roll.

Commissioner Street?

Yes.

Commissioner Hughes? Yes. Commissioner Granger?

Yes.

Mayor Branch? Yes. Motion passes 4-0.

Item 9F is consideration of approval for award of bid PC26-023 for the Truesdale Clubhouse exterior renovations in the amount of $498,797.47 to ARC Construction of Northwest Florida LLC and approval to enter into the attached contract and authorize the city manager to sign any and all documents necessary to complete the contract and the project and approval of a 10% project budget contingency of $49,879.75. As background information, an ITB, or invitation to bid, was advertised by the city on June 8th of this year to secure competitive bids for the CDBGDR, which is Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery, funded through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which is called locally the Truesdale Clubhouse Exterior Renovations. Five bids were received by city staff on July 31st of 2026. The lowest responsive bid was submitted by Art Construction of Northwest Florida, LLC in the amount of 498, 797, and 47 cents. This project includes but is not limited to exterior facade improvements, additions of outdoor gathering spaces to the southern and western sides of the building, HVAC additions, and limited electrical additions and improvements. The following documents are enclosed with this agenda item. Tabulation of bids, proposed contract with Art Construction of Northwest Florida LLC, and then a letter of recommendation from Florida Architects Incorporated, the designer of this project. Staff recommends awarding invitation to bid PC26-023 to ARC Construction of Northwest Florida LLC and executing a contract in the amount of $498,797.47 and approval of a 10% contingency in the amount of $49,879.75 for a total budget project cost of $548,677.22. Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, the reason I pulled this item off consent is I do want to notify both the public and this board that there will be a contract revision that was agreed to by city staff and the contractor, and that is the substantial completion date will be January 31st of 2027. So substantial completion. They have committed to January 31st of 2027. So with that, Mr. Mayor, I would recommend approval by the commission.

Motion to approve of those changes? Second. Any discussion? No. Excited to see this project move forward. This is a big deal. I love it. Huge.

I just want to say thank you to the contractor for committing to wrap up no later than January 31st.

Please call the roll.

Commissioner Street?

Yes.

Commissioner Hughes has stepped out.

There he is.

Commissioner Granger?

How does that work? I believe Commissioner Hughes.

Commissioner Hughes?

Yes.

Commissioner Granger?

Yes.

Mayor Branch? Yes. Motion passes four to zero.

All right. Moving into item 11A is the consideration of alternative financing option for the construction of the wet slips at the downtown Panama City marina. As background information, the city of Panama City solicited bids for the construction of the first 50 wet slips for the downtown marina on April 13th of this year. On June 24th of 2026, 14 bids were received. Approval to award this contract is covered later in this agenda on item 12A under city manager section here this evening. Truist Bank has already approved the city using a portion of its existing hurricane loan originally 150 million dollars to initially fund the construction of phase one which represents the first 50 wet slips after several discussions with joe pcoz or joe pc this agenda item offers an alternative funding option for the commission to consider the city and joe pc entered into a ground lease dated august 25th of 2020 for a portion of the marina property and Joe P.C. constructed and is presently operating a hotel and restaurant on the leased property. As an obligation of the ground lease, Joe P.C. is presently paying participation rent to the city based on a percentage of gross revenues generated by Hotel Indigo and Harrison's Restaurant. This is section 2.4 titled Rent. and the ground lease contained in the attachment C in your packet this evening. Joe PC again has offered to prepay its participation rent in an amount of up to $5 million to fund construction costs associated with phase one wet slips, the first 50 slips. If this offer is accepted, the city will receive and approve invoices from the wet slips contractor. Joe PC who will pay the invoice amounts to the city. The amounts paid by Joe PC are considered prepaid participation rent and the total paid will be accounted for in the prepaid participation rent agreement. The balance in the prepaid participation rent account will be reduced by the participation rent payments when due under the ground lease. When the prepaid participation rent accounts balance is zero, then Joe PC will resume the participation rent payments to the city. As part of this agreement, the city agrees to provide at its expense the electricity, the water, and sewer services needed to support phase one wet slips and to pursue development of the TDOC uplands area to further support the marina's operations. The estimated cost for this upland work is $3.179 million as addressed in attachment D to agenda item 12A this evening. The upland work is planned to be funded by the line of credit provided by Truist Bank as previously described. Staff this evening request direction from the commission regarding the prepaid participation rent agreement as outlined in the attached. And I'll turn it over to Mr. Zimmerman at this time.

Thank you. Just a couple of points. I won't go over things that have already been talked about, but one point to make is that the commission already has the ability to fund the award of a contract to construct the wet slips. This is an alternate or another way of doing that, which the St. Joe Company through Joe PC has offered. And with that, and I believe the Agenda item request form covered well the participation rent and how that works. There is an existing provision in the agreement that talks about the fact that that if this is accepted by the city, the St. Joe Company through Joe PC has indicated obviously their interest and the city's interest are aligned to see that a marina is constructed well and operated well. They would like to enter into a management agreement that would be for a period of five years. It would pay a fee of 3% of the gross marina revenues. They would have a right of first refusal to manage and operate the subsequent phase. That phase two of this would finish out the basin next to Hotel Indigo and the restaurant. We did have a ... We, meaning staff, talked to PFM this afternoon. PFM is the consultants that we used and that you used when we were entertaining a private public partner proposal for the downtown marina. They reviewed marina agreements throughout the state of Florida when they came up with their projections of cost and revenues. One, they agreed that if the commission accepts this, we have 60 days to enter into a management agreement. If for some reason that we can't, then we go back to ground zero and we just wouldn't be pursuing this funding option. They would agree, PFM would agree to assist in that effort. Also, they indicated that 3% of the gross marina revenues is actually somewhat less than what they had been looking at when they made revenue projections. So they felt it was a reasonable market rate proposal that Joe PC had made. There are a lot of specifics to be worked out in the management agreement itself. But it is, I did a short review of it there in my letter and it's also in the agreement, but it says that the, as far as that we would go and work it out, but certain terms were listed as that it would include. If we can't resolve it, then we'd come back and we wouldn't have this particular agreement. But this is an agreement. but also it has a condition as far as management over phase one.

Nevin, can you, for the benefit of the public, explain what upland means on this particular item?

Well, there is on this item uplands... This item, uplinks, is really pertaining to those things that would support the use of the phase one. Phase one is 50 slips in the basin next to Harrison Restaurant and Indigo Hotel. The total build out for that basin will be approximately 100 slips. It's the uplands that are needed to support that. There's also an obligation to provide water and sewer and power to support that. There would be an obligation to provide parking, things like that, that would support that. There's no specificity exactly what all that is. But that is what is the, it says it would start working toward that.

So just some points of clarity. This is not a renegade, so the hotel and the restaurant pay property taxes because it's a 99 year lease. They pay bed taxes, they pay merchant fees, and they pay us, and what we're talking about is their rent. And their rent, correct me if I'm wrong, is about $100,000. It's $100,000.

We're budgeting $100,000. We have received more than that, but yes.

So if they're, and so they're potentially paying our invoices from construction of the first 50 slips, reimbursing us, and if their hotel, like let's say any year, suddenly just starts doing terrible under the restaurant, That doesn't, we don't have looming payments to make. It only gets, that fine loan only gets paid down as they are doing rent payments to us. So it may take them 20 years, it may take them 100 years, depending on how well those businesses do. And we're not carrying this looming debt on our head because that's the situation. If we were to borrow this money, it is, $330,000 a year of just interest costs to the city, as opposed to just foregoing the $100,000 a year of estimated rent. So we're already, and if you look at the numbers, we even paid $330,000 a year And for this loan, or we forego the $100,000 in rent. So to me, it was a, I like the deal. And the catch is they have to manage the marina. And they're not, when I say marina, I mean the boat slips. It doesn't change the dirt. That's not talking about the boat ramp. We were talking about managing the boat slips in a marina that would be half built or fourth built. It's not a situation that a lot of people would say, oh goody, let me go stand a team up and work on this marina, these boat slips, and manage them while you're doing construction of other parts of the marina, while you're having potentially gravel parking and putting in sidewalks. It's no ship store, no fuel. It's really a scrappy approach to getting this. We either stand our own team up internally to manage the marina, which I'm really not in favor of, or we go out and start soliciting bids for managing this. And what they've pitched to us is an incredible deal from the financing, in my opinion, and the management. They are a known entity that manages marinas professionally and well, and so I'm very excited about this deal.

Yeah, so I mean, I think from my perspective, I appreciated the amortization schedule that was provided to us in our packet. $5 million of 5% interest is basically $400,000 a year. And over half of that, actually two-thirds of it, is interest expense. And that's over a 20-year period. 20 year amortization comes out to- 3.1, by the way. Yeah, it's basically like $10,000 a slip, which that's gonna be a year. That's a lot for someone to operationally carry, which has always been the tough part in financing of these things. You've gotta get the rest of it built before it actually starts making any kind of substantial revenue. So, you know, I understand that some people, you know, have their thoughts on one way or the other, but the reality is we have an option to not pay interest and we have an option to pay interest. And so with those two together, I mean, I don't know how you pick. you know, one different than that. To the point on operations, I think we would be hard pressed and, you know, I thought to myself, do we go and try to give somebody an opportunity on 50 slips with the financing and all that stuff? But the reality is, no one else has a building down there. And it's five years. It's gone forever. It's five years. And it's at the point where it's the least profitable it absolutely can be. There is no fueling station. There is no ship store. There is no nothing else. There's no office. Yes, there's not even an office there. So, I mean... Frankly, I think where I'm at with it is like it's a good step forward. Is this the end result and the end thing that the whole marine is done and we've got everything figured out? No, we don't. But can we get 50 slips started? Yeah, we can with this as it is today. So I would suggest that if we exercise this option, We revise our budget to remove that revenue from our budget because it will be going toward a debt payment, essentially.

Is that, Randy, is that something that we, in my mind, if we approve this, the revenue has to come in so we can give it back to them?

We're giving that all up. It's $100,000.

I'm talking about procedurally, not in effect.

We'd have to work through, because we would then also have to budget to spend the money on, if the money's going to come through us and we're going to cut the checks to the contractors, we'll need to come back and budget for that anyway.

I think regardless, we're using the temporary line of credit regardless to do it because this is a reimbursement scenario. Correct. Yeah, so we're still, we're funding the construction. The only issue is how does that funding get paid back? And what essentially years ago before us is, no uplands improvements, they're not asking for a condo, they're not asking for anything else. Like they're just saying look we'd like our rent revenue to go dedicated towards paying that debt so we're not saddled with long-term debt. So it's a win-win and um.

What I'm getting at though is when we make a statement like we don't want to see this revenue in the budget um I think the The revenue is still going to come. And I understood it as revenue is still going to come into us. We're just going to be kind of pushed back out.

It's going to come into us as a reimbursement for the project. We'll have to work through that. But it will not come in as, you know, the rent revenue.

Unrestricted fund type stuff, right? And if I understand, you still get your property. All the property taxes are still being paid. So there is a lot more revenue that's associated with these two improvements on the marina than even what we're discussing right now. Correct. But the point that I was making is right now it's spoken for in the general fund budget and this will not be in the general fund.

Yeah, I agree.

I agree. It needs to be. So it needs to be removed from the general fund.

It will. We will remove it. If this is passed, we will remove it for the tentative budget. There's currently $100,000 in the proposed budget for fiscal year 27. But we will need to come back with a budget amendment to budget for the construction and the reimbursement and all of that.

All right. So all your comments are right. I like them. Because one of the things that I didn't think about up front, we're going to take that $5 million. It wouldn't come to us all the time. Put it over here. We're creating a gap. What are we paying that money? Where's that money going? General fund, it sounds like. What are we paying with that $100,000? So I asked Brandon to give me some information, and that money is designated to parks and rec. A department that already is sometimes on life support with people and all that, and they're doing the best they can. We're taking $100,000 away from them. Essentially. How do we fill that gap? What money? That's a first question.

It will be $100,000 less that we would put in reserves.

Oh. Well, the money comes in the general fund. It goes to parks and rec.

It doesn't get it spent out of the revenue account.

You lost hand on that one. Yeah, lost hand. I mean, because you currently have a $1.2 million budgetary. Right. You know it. Okay, why does it go to reserves if we're going into parks and rec?

It's assigned for parks and rec expenditures. But we don't expense items.

I understand what you're saying because reserves doesn't actually exist.

Whenever the previous commission approved the lease with St. Joe, they approved it for the participation rent to go towards parks and rec.

I think y'all are missing each other out.

Can we actually vote on this topic?

Well, hold on. So, St. Joe Company. Contrary to what the social media will tell you, they don't want to take over Panama City, in my opinion. And they don't want to own and operate the marina. They want us to keep owning it. They just want us to do what we're supposed to so people will meet out there. So we can all have a good time down there. 0% interest. We already talked about one we worked with, and that's great, the State Revolving Fund. This is an opportunity to Norman Thibodeau's. We had a grant that we didn't take. We had a participation of a P3 that we didn't do, and now we got money. Again, we can do it our way with interest, $3 million, or we can go the other route. To me, it's a no-brainer business-wise because we get going today. And we have some obligations on our part. We've got to make sure that the upland utilities and the upland lights and railing, all that's there. That is not building vertically, that's building horizontally, just so we all understand. We've got money for that, but somebody asked about, oh, we should go ahead and just build, we should have built the marina. That $5 million that we have has to go through an EHP process. It could take 18 months. So if we waited and took that money, we'd have to wait 18 months to build the slips. Maybe. So this gets us going now. We use that money, plan for it, and y'all will know where it's going once it's approved. We're going to tell them. So you're going to know up front. There's no questions. To me, that's the best transparency you can have. You get a voice in it, we ask FEMA, and they approve it, and we go build it. That's pretty cool. Any other option right now costs you money or creates time. And I think we can all agree on one thing. We don't want to spend as little money as we have to, but move as fast as possible to get the best product on what I believe is the best piece of real estate in Northwest Florida. And to your point, sir, a guy leaned up here one day and said, loopers come by the marina every day. And we're missing them. We're missing day dockers. We're missing overnighters because we don't have anywhere for them to go. And they pay good money to come hang out in our city. Let's open it up for them. If you don't like St. Joe, it's okay that you don't like them. If you don't like that I vote for it, yes, that's okay too. But at the end of it, let's all stand on the dock and shake hands and have a good time and watch the sun go down. That's really what I'm after. So I'm with y'all.

And we still have another 150 slips to go.

But we'll have 50 to stand on the dock. So this might help in the conversation. This is just for the general public. So right now we're getting about $900 a month for slips in St. Andrews. 50 slips, that's $540,000 a year. What essentially St. Joe has offered to front the money in advance on their rent. for a fee to manage of 3%. So basically, it's $16,200 that St. Joe would make if they're fully leased 100% of the time for the full year, $16,200. The city would make $534,000. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, Nevin, but that money has to stay. And we're not paying it. That comes from the slip rentals.

Yeah, and our land lease requires that money be spent on the marina.

So if you're seeing a lot of support that's up here, it's because financially there's no other option that is better than this option. So I'd like... Sure, if somebody else wants to take the next 30 days to throw something that's a better deal than that, that you're willing to make $16,200 on 50 slip rentals for five years while the city makes $530,000, and you're willing to front the money to build all the slips. All of that, then sure, great. But I would be hard-pressed to see if somebody's actually going to be able to do something like that.

I agree.

I'd like to see it. I'll make a motion that we accept. The St. Joe offer, and here's why. We have 60 days to also maybe talk them out. I'm not a big fan of the five years, if that's what we're not. But in the 60 days, we can negotiate with St. Joe. And if we fall flat on our face, we can go pay 5% and $3 million in interest, but we've got no way to pay for it. That's the last option we want. But we have a fallback. So if we go ahead and accept this option today, we've got 60 days of work on it, and I promise we'll keep you updated on how that goes. So I make a motion to accept that offer with a 60-day window to negotiate.

Can we restate the motion, Brandon?

I just want to tell them about that. He's motioning to accept the offer from St. Joe for them to manage, or not manage, come back and succeed days with the management agreement, but for them to finance the 50 slips.

The motion is to accept the proposal, prepayment of participation rent agreement. In that agreement, it allows 60 days to come back with a management agreement. If for some reason that doesn't work out, then the agreement you just approved would terminate by all parties and we just do something else. Thank you.

I'll just like to add the statement was made about, you know, staff city staff not managing the marina.

I just want to state as a city manager, I agree with that. So I think it's important the public see that both the elected officials and the senior appointed officials concur with that. I think we've already moved away from that. I think trying to move back would be unfair and unwise at this point. I think it also should be said that the staff that we had that did manage was awesome.

I think one of the problems is that they worked for a long time. The city, which when they needed to get a, was it a, it was a bait vendor. Like it took them six months to get something that any business, it would take maybe a week to get.

I would like to see a plan by staff to operate the marina on 16,000. All right.

Please call the roll.

Commissioner Street?

Yes.

Commissioner Hughes? Yes. Commissioner Granger?

Yes.

Mayor Branch? Yes. Motion passes 4-0.

Item 12A is consideration of award of bid PC26-021 for the construction of 50 wet slips in the western basin of the downtown Panama City marina. As background information, the city, through the city's purchasing division, solicited competitive bids for the construction of the first 50 wet slips through a formal solicitation Bid PC26-021 on April 13th of this year and open the bids received on June 24th of 2026. These wet slips can be constructed under an exemption from the formal permit requirement documented in a letter from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection or DEP exemption letter dated April 17th of 2024. This exemption letter is contained in your packet as attachment A for your review. After receiving 14 bids, one was determined to be non-responsive as several key required documents were not submitted as required on the formal instructions to bidders. The engineer of record, Terrell Hall and Associates, or THA, determined that additional information was needed from the lowest three bidders to clarify that they had sufficient experience and capacity to complete the scope of work. The request for information was sent out on July 24th of this year and with the responses requested back by July 29th. All three contractors responded by the deadline. Based on their review of this information, THA determined that two of the lowest three bid packages did not satisfy the requirement as stated, a minimum of five years of experience in marine construction to include consecutive and active experience of work similar in scope. leaving HG Harters and Sons as the lowest responsive bid received. Their bid amount was approximately 3% lower than THA's opinion of probable cost. For details of their bid analysis, see attachment C in this document representing a memo from THA on August 3rd of this year documenting their analysis and resulting recommendation. Again, 14 bids were received. See bid tab in attachment B in this packet for your review. H.G. Harder & Sons was determined by THA to be the lowest conforming bid at a price of $3,616,356.05. This agenda item request is for the approval to accept this bid and move forward with the construction of the first 50 wet slips in the western basin, the basin closest to Hotel Indigo. Staff recommendation on behalf of THA Engineering is that the Commission approve bid PC26-021 to H.G. Harder & Sons in the amount of $3,616,356.05. Mr. Mayor, Commission, I just want to point out that Mr. Todd Terrell and Mr. Jake Jowers of THA are here with us this evening, the design engineering firm. and that they are able to answer any questions that you all may have. Mr. Mayor?

Yes. As mentioned previously, I'm going to open up public comments. So if you'd like to speak about item 12A, please come forward. Anyone want to speak about 12A? Yes, sir. Come on down. And just to kind of frame it, the conversation is less about should we build slips and more about which bid do we choose. Just kind of preferential. Yes, sir. Yep. Okay.

Well, I'm very glad that you're not putting the small boats that you had planned up there that belong next to the boat ramp so that you don't have people trying to launch their boat and then having to yield every time a boat, a large boat, comes in or leaves because there would be small boats next to the boat ramp and small boats. I don't know if you're going to give that up forever. I hope you do and stick with this. Glad to see that you're not at least laying the plumbing for the apartments in the upland area. I don't know about the compensation, though. Your document is saying if they're paying up for a $38 million property, paying $100,000 in property tax, I get that.

Well, I'm told that it's for the construction of this bus.

Okay, well, so it's $3 million for the construction, and St. Joe's loaning you $500? $5 million. $5 million? And you're using $3.1 million to build this? I'm not sure why you're getting more money than you're actually using to build the thing.

Good question. Because in the drawing, they have boat lifts, and They put enough money in there. If you want to put a boat lift in, they're going to pay for that.

So the $5 million is for the whole thing if you put in the sea break that you're talking about?

Just for the 50 slips.

Okay, so your $5 million is for the actual lifts and the other ones that I was asking just recently that would be better on the other side next to the boat ramp. That $5 million is to include that portion. You just haven't spent that. You're spending the $3.1 for just these? Is that what you're saying?

Today we're discussing which bid we are choosing. That's the only thing that's the genomes related to. Which construction bid.

So which council?

Thank you. Do you want to clarify potentially?

Yes. The prepayment of rent is for the cost of the construction of the wet slips. Whatever is chosen, it is an up to $5 million number because the amount was not known at the time that the draft was done. It will be for the cost of the construction of the wet slips.

Gotcha. Anyone else want to speak about item 12A? Seeing none, I'll close public comments. Do I have any motion? Do we want to bring up Mr. Allen?

Yeah, I have questions for THA.

Come on down. Podium, table? Yes, sir. Name and address for the record.

Yep. I'm Jake Jowers, engineer at Terrell Hall & Associates. Address, 3625 Cottage Club Lane, Naples, Florida, 34105. All right.

I'm going to kind of go into this a little bit.

Your evaluation used the absence of a marina utility experience. shore power potable water that kind of stuff that's a key reason our ring was not qualified but in addendum 3 the city was asked to define these minimum standards for those exact systems and the city chose not to do that so i'm just curious when i asked this question last night why were those criteria because it seems like those criteria were still used to score the bid correct

Well, I think it's worth pointing out that they were disqualified for two reasons. The first being the lack of five years of experience. It's August, so in order to have five years marine construction experience, you would have had to start something in August of 2021. earliest project they submitted was 2022. So that was one of two reasons they were disqualified. To answer your question about utilities, there's two big reasons that we considered the utilities a big part of this. The first being that if you read all of your bids, not just the low three, all of them that were received, the electric and the fixed stocks are the two big ticket items. With the electric you potable water and fire all the utilities totaling about 35 to 45 percent of the for all these so in our opinion With it being such a big component of the cost we thought it was important to evaluate when we're looking at what projects are considered similar We are aware that it is most likely those utilities will be subbed out to a subcontractor However, if you read the invitation to bid, there's a requirement. It says the city seeks bids from qualified, experienced, licensed marine contractors to provide all supervision, labor, and equipment required for the construction of the slips. They're subcontractors, yes. I still think it's important for them to be experienced in the supervision of those subcontractors. We've seen projects go south due to poor management of subs and inability to coordinate those utilities. So hopefully that answers your question. That's why we thought that was an important criteria.

The next question for you is you scored the Mexico Beach Canal project as similar in scope for harbors. The federal permit for that project authorizes only sheet pile wall and finger piers. None of the three utility systems decided against Art Marine. So how did you determine that that project was more similar than Art Marine's larger structural marine projects?

So based on the document that Harder provided the city in response to the request for additional projects, they stated that there was... I don't have the exact wording in front of me. They stated that there was infrastructure for power distribution, power pedestals, and potable water at each slip. To answer your question about the Army Corps permit, the Army Corps doesn't really permit utilities. They look at in-water impacts like piles and over-water shading, so I wouldn't expect to see the utilities in that document.

All right. Last question is your memorandum still references a sewer pump out station and addendum 7 removed that item from the scope of PC 26-021. Was the evaluation performed against the final contract documents after all the addendums?

Could you repeat the last part of that?

Was the evaluation performed against all of the final contracts after Addenda 7? Because it removed the pump out station. So it's kind of, look, both of these contractors are great. I mean, we're going to win if we select either one of them. So I'm not... I don't have a preference either way. But what I have a problem with is that when things show up after other addendas and we're holding bids and contractors over millions of dollars, that's where I start to kind of question what's going on here. So it was a pump out station. We removed that and then you referenced it.

Where did we reference that?

In your memorandum.

Okay, yeah, we probably should have deleted that out of the statement there.

So is that used as a scoring criteria? Yeah. Okay, thank you. Yep. Any other questions?

No. Thank you.

Awesome.

That was it. Any other questions for anyone else?

No, I mean, I've got a lot of respect for all the bidders. This was probably the most bids we've gotten on any project, I think, since I've been here. So I was super excited to see how many people. At the end of the day, it's taxpayer money. And if you got the qualified license, the bank's willing to bond you. We've got a CEI that's going to be on the team to inspect the work. I don't know how we just go and just say, hey, let's move up to higher bidders. I respect the opinions of everybody that's given, but at the end of the day, we put contractors through the ringer when it comes to a bidding process, trying to keep it level, open playing field. I mean, the bottom line is, it's taxpayer dollars. We should go with a low bid. I agree.

Do we want to move into a motion, or do we want to continue the discussion? Do you want to return a motion?

So Commissioner Hughes has asked me to read just a couple of definitions out of our purchasing manual, if that's OK, Mr. Mayor? Absolutely. So the definition of a respondent is a person or entity who submits an offer in response to a solicitation. It can also be referred to as a proposer, an offer, or a bidder. A responsible respondent is an individual or business which has submitted a bid, an offer, a proposal, a quotation, or a response which, as determined by the City, has the capability in all respects to perform fully the contract requirements and the experience, integrity, reliability, and capacity, the facilities, the equipment, and credit which give reasonable assurance of good faith and performance. The city may also consider and give weight to the respondent's previous conduct and performance under previous contracts with the city and other agencies, including but not limited to delinquency, and determine the quality of the respondent's previous work. City staff may, after bid opening, request additional information from the respondent concerning his or her ability to perform and the respondent may voluntarily, after opening, provide additional or corrective information concerning his or her responsibility as a respondent. And then a responsive respondent is an individual or business which has submitted a bid, an offer, proposal, quotation, or response which, as determined by the city, conforms in all material respects to the solicitation which may include but is not limited to pricing, surety, insurance, specifications of the goods or services requested or any other matter unequivocally stated in the invitation for bids as determined as responsiveness. A lack of conformity in these matters which is non-substantive in nature may be considered a technicality or irregularity which may be waived by the city. The purchasing division will notify any respondents of any non-substantive informalities in their response. The respondent will then have 24 hours from the time of the notification to furnish their requested information to the purchasing division. If the opening is on a Friday, they will have until Monday at 5 p.m. to reply. If no response as requested is received within 24 hours of the notification, the respondent will be then deemed non-responsive. And a responsive bid is a bid or a proposal which conforms in all material respects to the competitive solicitation. I think those are the relevant definitions, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners. Thank you. Yes, sir.

I do have a question for you guys. Y'all operated under those definitions, those requirements.

Yeah, you'll have to come back to the microphone.

And then you have to say your name and your address and get to the record.

You want me to say it again?

Yeah. Jake Chowers, 3625 Cottage Club Lane, Naples, Florida, 34105.

So you used both of those definitions. You disqualified them and found reasonable and unreasonable, correct, in all the letters? Yes.

Correct. I mean, again, in the ITB, it says they have to have five years. We didn't see that demonstrated, so that's why we disqualified them. So, yes.

Were there any requests for information that changed any timelines, any requirements, anything that would have made the disqualified person be qualified? I'm learning about these things about, so I'm asking questions just, I would've never thought about. Did y'all change any rules along the way or add anything along the way in the admin?

So there was an additional request where the city sent out to the three lowest bidders a request for additional project experience. I believe the original bid said within five years and that extended the timeline to 10 years.

My concern is this. We want to now make a decision about how to move forward with someone over money. Not over... Is it the right person, wrong person? We need to make sure we're going to have a class A project. We had a chance to do this and it wouldn't cost us any money. And we couldn't make a decision then. I'm concerned that we're rushing to a decision now because of... saving money not taking away from Mr. Bowers at all it's not his fault that he comes in it's our fault that we are having to work off of saving money that's where I'm getting caught in here because are we going to do this entire project this way and it was going to be paid for 100% to Josh's part it was going to be paid for I'm having to break out I'm the last one we had and it was zero dollars for us So that's my angst right now. And maybe Mr. Bowers can help me.

Well, I think you said we're going to continue forward with this, and I plan on continuing forward, choosing the lowest bid when the contractor has proven themselves with their bid, and we have stopped gaps of their bond and all the other things, CEI, to ensure that they're there, and plans to ensure that we're inspecting the work, that we are receiving what we've bidded for. And I believe staff is pretty confident that these bids... They can't go back and change their mind on their price, and they're locked in. So I would just ask, what situation are we What are we saving ourselves from? What are we avoiding? Because the last project, the last presentation was true, no cost, with the exception of 300,000 square feet in the uplands being built.

But take that aside. What we're talking about now is exactly the same except we're zeroed out. Never mind the uplands side. That's the problem I've got.

What is the situation that we are worried that's going to happen if we choose the lowest bid?

It's not about the lowest bid. We're making a decision based on, we got a recommendation, the new one thing. And I feel like that decisions are being made or being passively made based on dollars, not on recommendations. So that's just a concern that I have. Doesn't mean I'm going to go yes or no on that.

Yeah. I don't have any other questions. I've been very clear about my stance, and I'm ready to move forward with the lowest bid. for any bidders or engineers? I'd like to clarify a couple things. Sure, come on up.

David Bowers, Art Marine. The two items that the evaluation team said we were disqualified on, the first one that we don't have five years That's not what the question was. The question was supply three jobs within the last five years. I could have put on the form three jobs in 2026. That doesn't mean that we only have three months of business. Then they extended it out to 10. We didn't have to change it. We already had our qualifications met. So when they're evaluating our experience, And again, if it was only for three months, three jobs of like size in marine construction, we provided that. We didn't fail that evaluation. We passed that with flying colors. We are the most responsive bidder. We are the lowest bidder, and we should be awarded this job. The second item, when they're talking about the evaluation, unfortunately, they went outside of that as well. The evaluation used criteria that was never in the ITB. The ITB asked for a marine construction experience during bidding. A bidder asked the city in writing to define the qualification standard. That bidder named fire suppression, water systems, and electrical. Addendum 3 had an opportunity to add that. Addendum three did not. The city declined to add them. The evaluation team used that anyway. Your purchasing manual of the city of Panama City, section 14, says no criteria may be used that is not in the solicitation. So where did we fail on the two items? Did we have experience in five years? Yes. Did we meet the evaluation? Yes. Any other questions for me?

No, sir.

I'm your lowest bidder.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

I will entertain a motion. I'd like to say something. Sure, come on down.

Hey. Hey, Jacob Harters, HG Harters, 1615 Wahoo Lane, Panama City Beach. So it's not up to me to talk about the qualifications of Art Marine by any means, but I would speak as to the city's position with the ITB process, not knowing the ins and outs of the purchasing manual. This, obviously, being an ITB with an extensive qualification package and reference package desired at bid time. In the bids, I find it curious that the low bidder would have just one named reference or qualification for the three rather than various ones. I would perhaps ask questions about that. You know, from the city's process side, it was deemed as you received the bids and studied them to go to a third party review. So I'd ask the question, you've had the third party review from a credible source, outside source. Does the city dismiss that and say that the folks that they hired, that their opinion is not credible? That the city has more marina experience than a marina engineer? Maybe, maybe not. I would just ask from the ITB process, how did we really review everything? How are we accepting the third party engineer's opinion? It sounds like, you know, perhaps all of that is tentatively dismissed, and I would be curious if that's what's happening.

Mr. Burke, could you come on up for me? I'd like you to define, you know, this is different than private business. This is a governmental bid, and Unfortunately, we, from my understanding, don't have the option of just picking willy-nilly who we think has the biggest cranes and the biggest stuff. What's our criteria? How do we look at these bids and look at the lowest bid to disqualify as elected officials?

Well, we had a question that was similar to this last evening to your virtual workshop. Can you just give your title for the public?

I don't know who you are. God is not the answer.

Mike Burke, Assistant City Attorney, 221 McKenzie Avenue, Panama City, Florida. Is that right, Mr. Zimmerman? My three minutes is up. I'm sorry. I'll come back later. So the question was asked last night. Why are we here? This is an unusual situation where you've had something like this come to you. And the way I described it to you last night and the way I'll give it to you again is... You are sitting in, this isn't a perfect analogy, but it's a good analogy. You're sitting in almost a quasi-judicial capacity. You have been presented with a set of rules by which we sent out, we being the city, sent out a request or an invitation for bidders to come back. Those bidders have come back. You've had staff come and review that for you, make a recommendation based on their rules and the way they've seen it. based on the timeline and the criteria that are before you, and they've made a recommendation. Now your job, just like you would in a zoning request or something like that, is to take the facts and the rules and compare the two and determine what you think to be the basis for the determination. The evidence was collected, so to speak, to put this back in sort of a judicial determination. The evidence was collected during a certain amount of time period. That was from the invitation to bid until the bid was closed. There was a provision that allowed in the rules that said if we've got some clarifications that we need to make, we'll ask some additional questions of folks. You heard that. That was Mr. Jowers gave that to you. And now it's your determination to, it's your decision or job to make the determined based on that, what you believe to be that the facts bear out for the decision that you want to make. And so, you know, you can have, there may be all kind of different reasons of why you individually think this is to be a, one's more acceptable than the other. But ultimately, as a body, you come together and make that determination when you make your motion and your second and have your vote.

Does anyone have any questions for the legal situation?

We've got a recommendation and we go with a low bid. What is afforded each party if we voted the other way? We went with Carter's Or protest?

What can they do? Again, we have rules regarding how you file a protest. So yes, if someone doesn't like the decision that's made here, they have an opportunity to appeal that decision, make a bid protest to you. No different than, again, I'll use the zoning analogy one more time for you. If somebody didn't like what your zoning decision is, you turned them down or something, they can go and appeal you for that and have someone else make that determination. Who's going to look at this record? going to decide what you've talked about today based on the rules and then determine whether or not, based on substantial competent evidence, that means good evidence, that your decision was the right decision. And that is, you are given great deference as the legislative body to make those decisions. So you're not going to be second-guessed, is the way I would put it, you wouldn't be second-guessed unless there is a really, really good reason to make that second guess of you. And that's because you violated some standard or rule or something along those lines.

Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. I will entertain a motion.

Motion to approve the bid with also instruction staff to hire outside CEI to oversee the process. Do I have a second?

I'll second that. Discussion?

Commissioner Street?

Yes.

Commissioner Hughes?

Yes.

Commissioner Granger?

Yes.

Mayor Branch? Yes. Motion passes 4-0.

Mayor and commissioners, item 12B is no real action is necessary. We just wanted to put the budget as drafted and proposed on the agenda in advance of the September 8th first reading, just to see if there's any additional questions that y'all may have. In order to get clarity ahead of staff, this is We've already had five pre-budget workshops with each and every one of you, but again, just wanted to give another opportunity before we got into the first official reading as required by state law on September 8th for the FY2027 budget.

Can we make sure we get Mrs. Sunday in the long-term debt summary? I don't like that.

Sure. I'll get with her to clarify what information she's wanting.

Well, if she needs to clarify, I'll clarify what information I would like. I'd like to just see where our current debt is right now and what that would convert to if it's long term.

Are you asking for a balance of our $150,000? Yes. Okay, so we paid off around $73,000.

Yep, whatever that balance is and what that would look like in a long-term debt scenario.

Any planned payments before it's paid off? You know, I told us we were going to pay off maybe another $20 or $30 million. I'd like to see that forecast out because what's coming back is the bulk added. And that $5 million for that one there, so that's got to be included back into the future as well.

That's a great point. So that should include any obligations that we have already committed to, such as projects that we have said, and we've approved budgetary expenditures, but they may not have been incurred yet.

Like the 23 million that y'all have approved? Is that what you're referring to?

Yeah, so a great example is St. Andrew's bulkhead. That full project amount should be reflected in the debt and the projected debt balance. Same thing with anything that's on Martin. Same thing with anything that's on any other projects that we have ongoing.

And a potential end date of payment when that loan goes away. So if it's a 30-year loan. Is that possible?

The terms? We're looking at doing a bond for the long term, which would be long term. It would probably be 30 years.

I'd love to see you guys work with staff and decide to come up with a, maybe it's a quarterly debt strategy report we're getting or something that's maybe added on to this or... So yeah, just feel free to center all the comments.

So the balance, Commissioner Street, is $77 million.

Okay. And that includes the 23 that we've approved already?

Correct.

Yeah, we don't have to workshop in this meeting, but just send us. I do have a question for Patty, though. I think you asked... The 73 that we paid off, when did we spend that money on?

It was all reimbursable projects. So it's going to be your CDBGDR projects, your HMGP projects, FEMA projects, and SRF. Awesome.

Let's just give that summary in writing.

You want to see the invoices that we paid? Yes.

Yeah, granulars, you can get it without spending two years doing it. Okay. Next item, 12C.

Item 12C is consideration to approve budget amendment resolution 20260825.1 to transfer $21,000 in funds received from local law enforcement agencies to the Panama City Police Department. As background information, in August of this year, the PCPD hosted an FBI LITA leadership course attended by members of several local law enforcement agencies. The participating agencies reimbursed the PCPD for their members' course fees, while the PCPD paid the full FBI LITA course invoice. The $21,000 received will be applied towards the course invoice. Staff recommendation to the Chief of Police is that the Commission approve this request and the accompanying budget amendment resolution. Mr. Mayor?

I'll entertain a motion. Do we have a second? Yep. Any discussion? Please call the roll.

Commissioner Street?

Yes.

Commissioner Hughes?

Yes.

Commissioner Granger? Yes. Mayor Branch? Yes. Motion passes 40-0.

Commission is approved. Resolution 20-26-0825.1, a resolution providing for the amendment of the approved fiscal year 25-26 budget to receive reimbursement for training hosted at the police department.

Item 12D is consideration to approve Resolution 20260825.2, authorizing the City of Panama City to accept state-funded grant for a Frankfort Avenue trail design in the amount of $425,000.00, and approve Budget Amendment Resolution 20260825.3. As background information, the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department is requesting approval of Resolution 20260825.2, authorizing the city to accept state-funded grant managed by the FDOT for the design and permitting of the Frankfort Avenue Trail from West Beach Drive to Pacifica Avenue northern end of frankfurt avenue the project will consist of a 12-foot multi-use path in areas where existing pedestrian facilities do not exist and to address ada non-compliance issues scope will also include coordination with bayline railroad in review for a pedestrian bridge for crossing of robinson bayou no additional right-of-way will be required for this project And this project does not require a match from city funds. Staff recommendation to the director of public works is that the commission approve this request. Mr. Mayor, there were a couple of questions that came up during audience participation. Just highlight some of those really quick. The distance of this path is 3.2 miles. That's a pretty substantial path. There will be some drainage work and survey work that we need to do. in order to make sure we don't create any offsite adverse impacts on either the roads or people's front yards. There will be some utility poles that need to be removed and relocated. Again, we'll have to survey all of this in order to ensure that it's entirely within the right of way. Again, we're putting in an aluminum pedestrian bridge at Robinson Bayou on the west side in order to keep folks off of the road. And again, there will be some stormwater and drainage work for this. So again, staff recommendation to Director of Public Works is the commission approve this request. Mr. Mayor?

I will entertain a motion. Motion to approve. Jonathan, the bridge, didn't some of that come through appropriations, and that's not all loan money?

Right. So this is totally separate from that. So the actual bridge itself, you're correct, Commissioner Hughes, we got about a $750,000 grant from the state in order to refurbish and kind of beef back up the vehicle bridge over that. The construction of the actual pedestrian bridge will be paid for out of that. But this particular design phase will cover kind of the design of that and the civil engineering around it sticking that particular aluminum bridge to the west side of the Robinson Bayou Bridge. But the state appropriation will pay for it.

Thank you. Yes, sir. For the public, the TPO was brought up. And I kind of wanted to clarify that. The TPO is the local body. A 19-member board that's comprised of the county, this city, and all of the other cities in the county. The city can go seek out this grant if it wants to, but it also can go to the TPO and ask for support from the TPO. The TPO did support this project, and then the state ultimately decided to reward it. So that's how that works. As any other city, I think Callaway's got some pretty good projects through that process as well. the state had i think it was 88 million dollars for sidewalks but there's they don't have a lot of extra money for roads so um what you can get awesome

Yes.

Commissioner Hughes? Yes. Commissioner Granger? Yes. Mayor Branch? Yes. Motion passes 4-0.

Motion to adjourn.

We have two resolutions, Mr. Zimmerman.

Oh, boy.

Sorry.

No problem. I would like to. Thank you.

The commission has adopted resolution number 20250825.2. A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Panama City authorizing the City to accept a state-funded grant for Frankfurt Avenue Trail Project to enter into the agreement. And Resolution 20-26-0825.3, a resolution providing for the budgeting of capital funds. Thank you, Court.

It was both of them.

You read both of them? Yes. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Please call the roll.

Commissioner Street?

Yes.

Commissioner Hughes?

Yes.

Commissioner Granger? Yes. Mayor Branch? Yes. Motion passes 4-0.

Thank you for attending.