City Commission Meetings - Regular Meeting

Good morning. Welcome to the Panama City Commission meeting for July 14th at 8 a.m. We are going to start off with an opening prayer by Reverend Allison Herity, Rector of St. Andrew's Episcopal Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Brown Granger. Please rise.

Good morning. It's my honor and pleasure to, for the last seven weeks, become a citizen of Panama City. Thank you. And it is also an honor to work across the courtyard from Janice Lucas and LEAD Coalition at St. Andrew's Episcopal Church. Let us pray. We give you thanks, Creator God, for the Mayor and City Commission of Panama City. We give you thanks for the abundance of our human and natural resources. Help us to remember that when we gather to consider the common good, you are in our midst. Guide us to serve all people in this city with compassion and equity, loving our neighbors as ourselves. Remind us always that success is measured by the health of our people and our environment. Bless us all and guide us in the way of goodness and peace. Amen.

Thank you, Reverend. If you'll join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which with liberty and justice for all.

Please call the roll.

Mayor Branch.

Present.

Commissioner Hughes.

Here.

Commissioner Lucas. Present. Commissioner Granger.

Present.

Commissioner Street.

Here.

Mayor, you have a quorum.

You have received the meeting minutes for June 23, 2026. Do I have a motion to accept?

So moved.

Any discussion? Please call the roll.

Commissioner Hughes? Yes. Commissioner Lucas? Yes. Commissioner Granger? Yes. Commissioner Street? Yes. Mayor Branch?

Yes.

Motion passes 5-0.

Any additions, deletions, or modifications on today's agenda? None from staff, Mr. Mayor. Any from the board? Seeing none from the board, we are moving on to community announcements.

With summer in full swing, Panama City is bustling with events, activities, and projects, making this the perfect time to stay informed. Sign up for City Alerts to receive updates straight to your inbox or phone. From road closures and project updates to boil water notices and more, we'll keep you informed year-round. Scan the QR code on the screen or visit panamacity.gov to sign up today. Millville Waterfront Park is officially reopening with a ribbon cutting ceremony today at 4 p.m. Join neighbors, local leaders, and city staff as we celebrate the park's refreshed look, new amenities, and our renewed commitment to public park access. Everyone's invited to come out, enjoy the view, and be part of this milestone moment for Millville. The pre-budget planning and priorities workshop number five will take place this Thursday, July 16th. This workshop gives the commission and city staff an opportunity to meet early in the fiscal year 2027 budget process to discuss direction and priorities. The meeting will be held at 4.30 p.m. in room 10 at City Hall. The Panama City CRA, in partnership with the Incremental Development Alliance, is hosting monthly small developer meetups to help aspiring developers learn, connect, and grow through expert-led discussions and networking. The meetups will occur on the third Tuesday of the month through September at MySpace Downtown on 97 Oak Avenue, beginning at 5.30 p.m. The next meeting will be Tuesday, July 21st. The City of Panama City is running a sweepstakes. When you enroll in auto pay and in paperless billing between now and July 31st, you'll be automatically entered for a chance to win one of five $100 Visa gift cards. If you're already enrolled in auto pay and paperless billing, you're automatically entered to win. No payment or purchase is necessary. Visit PanamaCity.gov for the official rules. The City of Panama City is once again launching its annual City Hall School Supply Drive to help local students begin the school year ready to succeed. All donations will support the Parks, Culture, and Recreation Department's Back to School Backpack Giveaway on Saturday, August 1st. City employees and community members are encouraged to contribute new school supplies, including backpacks and essential classroom materials. Items may be dropped off in the City Hall Rotunda during regular business hours Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. For more information, including a list of accepted items, please visit PanamaCity.gov. The inaugural three-on-three summer hoop classic, our local basketball tournament, will be held on Saturday, August 1st at the MLK Junior Rec Center. We have two divisions for participation, a senior division for ages 16 and older, and a junior division for ages 11 to 15. I don't see one for 40 plus. That's a little disappointing. Registration is open now through July 31st. Sign up by scanning the QR code or by visiting our website at penamalcity.gov. Again, all of this information can be found on our website at penamalcity.gov. Those are all of the announcements. Moving into public hearings. Item 6A is the first of two public hearings on Ordinance 3307, an ordinance to vacate and abandon an alleyway and platted easement directly east of the parcel addressed at 519 East 6th Street with parcel ID 2020220 000000, north of East 6th Street and south of East 7th Street, east of Allen Avenue and west of Massalina Drive. As background information, the applicant is requested to vacate an alleyway and platted easement directly east of the parcel addressed at 519 East 6th Street. north of 6th, south of 7th, east of Allen, and west of Massalina, of land that is designated a city property. This property does not retain any underground utilities or infrastructure. This item was previously reviewed by the Planning Board on June 8th of 2026. The Planning Board recommended approval unanimously. Staff concurs with this recommendation. The following documents are enclosed in your packet. Ordinance 3307, the staff analysis report and recommendation, maps including aerial, location, future land use and zoning, the survey, and the plat. 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 6A, please come forward. Anyone? Yes, sir. Good morning.

Walt P. Henry, 614 Maple Avenue. I'd just like to know if this alley is right there between 6th where the rescue mission is at. Is that the alley y'all told me about closing? If y'all said no, it says north of 6th Street. So it's got to be this way. Now if it's there by rescue mission, it's a water line in there. More likely this is a sewer line. Houses used to sit back there in that same alley. It was owned over in that water main. Little small water main sits back in that alley. I hope y'all done checked it out, looked at it. I don't know if those houses or some of them is still there.

We're moving on to 6B.

First reading of ordinance number 3307. An ordinance vacating, abandoning an alleyway and planted easements located directly east of the parcel address 519 East 6th Street, north of East 6th Street, south of East 7th Street, east of Allen Avenue, west of Massalina Drive, Panama City, as more particularly here and after described, repealing all ordinances in conflict, providing for severability, of any part declared invalid and providing for an effective date. Thank you.

Item 6B is the first reading and public hearing on ordinance 3308 to adopt an amended charter pending approval at the referendum election in November. Mayor and commissioners, attached in your packet is exhibit A. It's the ordinance that places on the ballot for the November 3rd, 2026 general election a referendum question on whether or not the citizens desire to amend the charter as proposed. The charter amendment will be adopted by the commission for ordinance 3308. However, the ordinance is not effective until approved by the electors at the referendum in November. The first reading and hearing is today, July 14th, and the staff will prepare a final, based on any feedback from the commission, for the final hearing on July 28th. Mr. Zimmerman?

If the commission would like, since we only do this every 60 years or so, I would spend just a minute and kind of outline a lot of the things that I brought up in the letter, if you'd like me to do that prior to public participation. Okay. The city's current charter was adopted in 1963 by the Florida legislature and it has not been amended since that time. And over the years, many sections of that charter have been preempted by state law. And so when that happens, the municipal code, who is The group that takes care of all of the codes of the cities in the state of Florida, they just strike it and then give a reference of the state law, which makes it difficult to even read our charter because of that. So on January 14, 2025, the commission met and decided to appoint a commission or a committee to update the charter and then on July 8th actually created the Charter Advisory Board for the purpose of making recommendations for amending the charter and providing a report by July 31 of this year. At the same meeting, the commission approved the appointments of Ron Dancy, JP Ferrara, Brandu Berg, Cecile Schoon, and Brandon Henderson-Gesinius to serve on the board. The board met later that month. They met a total of 16 times during the last 11 months and they had an additional workshop in addition to that. During this period, the board reviewed many other Florida municipal charters and met with the Florida League of Cities about charters. In addition, the board members continue to communicate with the public and would bring that feedback back to the city commission. Just a couple of highlights. There was discussion about separating, keeping separate the role of the treasurer from the city manager. and they landed on keeping that distinction there. Although there is a provision that would transfer some of the ministerial duties of the clerk's office to work underneath the city manager, anything related to the city's finances, receipts, revenues and expenses still would come under a separately appointed directly by the city commission. So in other words, the three charter officers, a comptroller, city manager, and city attorney remains separate and working directly for the city commission. There are other recommendations that the city commission, that the charter commission made, and the committee made those in a report that I think is attached as exhibit C. The commission then considered the report and made a few tweaks to the proposed charter and that's what's attached here. The charter itself doesn't become effective unless the people approve it at a referendum election. That is being called for the general election in November of this year. And there will be a ballot question, and the ballot question, the state law, is that it must have a clear and unambiguous language describing what the charter changes are. And it cannot exceed 75 words in length, and it has to talk about the chief purpose of the measure. And there's a standard in a Dinser versus League of Women Voters case a few years ago. The summary must fairly inform the voter. It cannot be affirmatively misleading, and it has to give fair notice so the voters can cast an intelligent and informed vote. so in crafting the ballot question that's there in your ordinance and then there's a further discussion of it in one of your exhibits that to my letter we believe that it fits that definition and state law requirements for a ballot question so that's it and i just wanted to go over that and there was more information online and attached to the letter but it is public hearing mr mayor

Absolutely. This is a public hearing. If you wish to speak about item 6B, please come forward. Yes, sir. Good morning.

Good morning, commissioners. Good to see you again. I've been attending these charter meetings on and off since they started. I was a huge part in the election change originally and advocating for it to match up with the presidential and the gubernatorial. As you know, Jonathan did some great research on the turnout and the specific numbers. that we see if we have an election in April versus in August or November, the turnout difference is substantial. I think this is arguably one of the most important charter changes we could make to set ourselves up. In 20 years, we could have 75% to 80% turnout on local elections. That's something incredible that I think we should be striving to do. Take a look at it as well. To my understanding, similar to what Mr. Zimmerman said, that there's a possibility of eroding all of these changes under one amendment. I hope that you don't do that. I think, one, by doing that, you take away less will of the voters to give specific input to where they want to see these changes made, as well as you take away the power for the board, which has worked so hard to put all these amendments together, heaven forbid it all gets struck down on one amendment. And then they've spent 16 months on all of this hard work for what? So I believe in your packet you have in exhibit D, you have two options. The first option is one amendment. The second option is splitting it up into three. I read all three. I think that's a great system. I hope that you'll support the three amendments instead of the one. And then I hope you'll support this change also, even if you don't support changing the election. Your people that you appointed to the board supported it and they saw that there was enough support from their Constituents to get it onto the ballot So I hope that even if you don't agree that you'll support it to get it onto the ballot so that the people can have a say Thank you.

Thank you Anyone else on item 6b? 6b closing public comments. Do we want to have any discussion up here on 6b? Seeing none

Let's get some consensus on one versus three.

Well, this is a first reading, obviously.

I'm happy to discuss it. I'm kind of indifferent, but I'm leaning towards one just because it's less complicated. And I think there's a lot of angst in politics currently. And I think there's other things more important. These are all very standard changes. We haven't invented anything new, and there's not any craziness in the charter. And so I'd like to see just one. But honestly, it's not to me. If we go with three, I'm not... I don't have a great sales pitch for one item. I'm kind of indifferent with most of this, actually. So I'm just like, hey, these are good changes.

Well, the reading teacher in me goes for three, for clarity, for breaking it down, so that people can understand. I think we run the risk that if it's one together, people may be hesitant to vote. And we do know that there is such a thing when voters go as voters fatigue, and so they may choose out, just let somebody else decide. But if there's three, I think that would provide the clarity.

More ambiguous or ambivalent, I guess, the same way that the Mayor said. However, what I will say is there is no change in these charter amendments that haven't already been adopted by other municipalities in our area by vast majorities. So I don't think that there's really anything in here that's super controversial. I think Daniel pointed to the biggest change, but also every municipality that's done that, it was widely supported as well. Whether it be four-year midterm, whether it be general election cycles, whether it be standard cleanup, all of those things have been widely supported. So I'm really not concerned either way. The only concern I have is making the ballot even longer. That was one of the things that we talked about as being a significant issue with moving to a general election cycle. And so we have to decide what the priority is, is I guess what I'm saying.

Yeah. I don't think there's anything in this that is groundbreaking or game-changing, so to speak. So I do think there's going to be a lot of items on the ballot. I think that there would be value in putting it into one. Now, if we were doing something that was... very controversial, then I would say let's peel that one thing off and put it as a separate item, but I support one.

I mean, not that I'm going to stand, you know, build the hill and die on it kind of thing, but... To me, it only looks more controversial to break them all up, like, you should really, I mean, it's just, these are all standard things, and we make it look more complicated than it actually is. There's bigger, more important votes, in my opinion, than standard charter changes. My personal opinion. If I was a voter, I'd prefer them And I am a voter. I am a voter. I am a voter. If I had to prioritize my time of studying, the charter changes are normal and conventional. And I would spend more time learning about candidates than I would normal charter changes.

And to point out, everything in this packet does not raise property taxes. It actually reduces costs, not increases them. This is true. This is true.

I tend to lean towards one, however. The he is the only pronoun in the current charter. So we have to update things like that. And I'm afraid that that's an easy win. And I'm afraid if you dump it all together and somebody doesn't like one piece and we vote no on that, then we lose the easy wins. And that's why I'm kind of drawn towards three. But Josh pointed out something that is my major concern is no matter what, we're always going to be last on the ballot because we're going to be in a national election or a state election and or both. And two, in this particular case, Most of the people out there think we're all up here and we're lining our pockets and all of that. So now if it's not explained and laid out, are they trying to hide something? It's odd that you have to think that way today, but you do. But at the end of the day, everything that's in this charter change is good for Panama City. I want to commend the Charter Review Committee. They did an incredible job. We had some really good people on there that really questioned each other, not just made us get up and question, and they brought us those questions. And I really appreciate the way that they went through that process. But I would lean towards three. Here's my biggest fear right now is that the property tax is going to suck up all the air. That's all that's going to be talked about. And we need to make sure we... We need to make sure that we are educating the public about what is inside the charter review. What are we asking you to consider? And that's, yes, it's your job to read and participate, but it's our job to also educate. And I would encourage staff to come up with a nice campaign sooner than later that we start talking about that.

You're not looking for it, but today's just the first reading. We're going to a second reading, correct? That is correct, sir. Okay, so you've got all the discussion you need to answer my question.

Yes, what yield?

Yeah, go for it.

Go ahead, please.

My question is at which point do we decide one or three? Schultz.

He just asked me someone's last name.

Oh, okay. No, I was asking at which point do we decide one or three?

Well, you can just, you can, at the next meeting is when you officially decide if you would like to see anything different than what's been provided, we can do that. But next meeting, it will be the same agenda pack. And the ordinance, unless you want me to, I mean I could put option A and option B in the ordinance. So it would be option A would be one question, option B three questions. Or I could just, I propose just leave it the way it is and then there's an attachment. And the three questions, they go through things that affect city commissioners and mayor. Then the second question, things that affect the charter officers, city attorney, comptroller, city manager. Then the third question is really some cleanup issues, administrative type things. So that's how the questions were broken out trying to logically make it make sense.

So procedurally we'll pass or not pass the ordinance as is the vote and then a vote one how it would go before, how it would be worded on the ballot?

Good question. Procedurally, if someone wanted to, let's say, adopt the ordinance with one question, because the ordinance puts the question in there, then you'd say adopt the ordinance as presented. If someone wanted to do it with three questions, say adopt, I may have a motion to adopt the ordinance with the three question alternatives. Thank you.

That was my question.

Good. Okay, and I know we've heard from Daniel Schultz today, just to put his name on the record. I'd like to, this is a long title, so just sit back, okay. First reading, ordinance number 3308, an ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Panama City, Bay County, Florida proposing an amended and restated charter entitled Providing for a preamble, providing for home rule and construction of municipal powers, expanding the term of the mayor from two to four years, aligning municipal elections with state and federal elections, moving the next election from 2027 to 2028, clarifying qualifications for commissioners, providing for two candidates to appear on the November ballot in competitive elections, providing for vacancies in commission, providing for commission rules and procedures, requiring charter officers to live in Bay County, register to vote and hold office at the pleasure of the city commission, reorganizing the powers and duties of the city manager, retitling the city clerk collector as city comptroller, moving city clerk duties to city manager duties, eliminating a public hearing for removal of city manager, providing for the city manager to appoint a lead of police fire services, providing for an acting city manager and acting city attorney, requiring city attorney be in good standing with the Florida Bar, providing for clarification of employee compensation, providing for charter review every 10 years, complying with state and federal anti-discrimination laws, eliminating sections superseded by state and federal law, allowing for consistent language throughout, eliminating redundant language, consolidating sections, eliminating obsolete language, articles, sections, and editor's notes, amending other general provisions, providing for renumbering of articles and sections, providing for severability and providing an effective date, calling a referendum election for the electorate to consider approving the amended and restated charter, providing that the amended and restated charter shall not become effective unless approved by the electorate and providing for an effective date.

That was a long title.

My goodness gracious. Item 6C is the first reading and public hearing on Ordinance 3309 to amend legal boundaries of the Sweet Bay Community Development Districts. Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, the Sweet Bay Community Development Districts are requesting amendments to their enabling ordinances number 3155 and 3236. Attach proposed ordinance in your agenda packet. To remove a portion of phase 1D, and to include certain parcels that were inadvertently not included into the original boundaries. The changes are necessary to address issues raised by the Bay County Property Appraiser's Office regarding certain conservation easements left out of the original boundary and some gaps between various districts. William Harrison and Will Randall are at the meeting this morning and happy to answer any questions.

Mr. Mayor? Yes, this is a public hearing. If you wish to speak about item 6C, please come forward.

Mr. Mayor, as people are coming forward, if any, I just wanted to point out the map that you have. The black circles indicate the areas where the boundaries have been changed. Well, they're not actually internal, but they affect no residences, and they are slight adjustments. And of course, Mr. Harrison and Mr. Randall are here to answer any questions you may have.

Awesome. Anyone wish to speak about item 6C, please come forward. Yes, sir.

Walter P. Andrews, 614 May 5th Avenue. I take your question. on that property that used to be the airport, Panama City Airport. The city is this portion which y'all talking about. Same thing to do with the water main that comes from Venetian Villa over to 390. If, I don't know if the city ever decided that they gonna move that line, I had all this property at Sweetbay, put it in, took it and put it on 390. It's not a small main that goes through there. So I just wonder, is this property got anything to do with that, that city main that feeds the Nisshin Villa? It come all the way from Nisshin Villa into 390. It does go to some other places I could tell you to as well, but I just wanted to know y'all got it.

Yes, sir. Staff, does this affect any utility lines coming in, water sewer?

Not to my knowledge, Mr. Mayor.

Anyone else want to speak about item 6C? Seeing none, closing public comments.

I'd like to read it, Mayor, the title. An ordinance of the Panama City... Florida amending Ordinance Number 3155 and Ordinance Number 3236, amending the boundaries and legal descriptions of the Sweet Bay Residential Community Development Districts 1 through 6 and the Sweet Bay Commercial Community Development Districts 1 and 2 reestablishing Sweet Bay Residential Community Redevelopment District 7, amending the geographic boundaries of the Sweet Bay Community Development District Tax Increment Financing District, replacing Exhibit A to each such ordinance with amended legal descriptions attached thereto as Exhibits A-1 through A-C1, providing for severability, providing for codification, and providing for an effective date.

Item 6D is consideration to have a first reading of ordinance 3310 and approval of resolution number 20260714.2, revising the special event handbook including the special event fee schedule. As background information, on April 28th of this year, the city commission approved resolution 20260428.6, adopting the new special events handbook. The handbook established updated procedures for the administration of special events. including the application process, event classification, submission timelines, operational requirements, departmental review procedures, and the special event fee schedule. After working with the new handbook over the past couple of months, staff identified a few additional revisions and received feedback from the community that would improve the permitting process and provide clearer guidance for events that were held during major holidays. While special events play an important role in bringing the community together and celebrating major holidays, events held during those periods require additional planning due to limited staffing and the increased demand for city services. These revisions will help clarify what types of events may be approved during certain holidays and establish holiday service rates when city resources are required. Ordinance 3310 revises section 17-10 of the municipal code, requiring payment of the updated fees to be paid at least 30 days prior to the event and removing the restriction in section 17-13, which prohibits special events on certain holidays. For the commission's consideration, attached is, Ordinance number 3310 and resolution number 20260714.2, adopting the revised special events handbook included as exhibit A. The primary revisions of the special event handbooks include reclassifying parades from tier three to tier one, renaming tier one citywide festival events to tier one, Renaming Tier 3 athletic and parade events to Tier 3 athletic events and updating the fee schedule for that tier. And then adding a new events during holiday section that outlines the city's permitting guidelines during designated holidays. The section clarifies which event tiers may be considered during those periods. and states that event approval remains subject to the availability of city resources. And finally, updating the special event fee schedule to include holiday rates for police and fire department services, as well as revised environmental services and solid waste fees. These revisions are intended to improve the administration of the special events program, provide clearer expectations for event organizers, and to ensure that city resources are managed efficiently while continuing to support successful community events. Staff recommendation through the Director of Parks, Culture, and Recreation is that the Commission conduct the first reading of Ordinance 3310 and adoption of Resolution 20260714.2. Mr. Mayor?

Yes, this is a public hearing. If you wish to speak about item 6D, please come forward. Yes, sir. Good morning.

Good morning, Mayor, Council, and City Manager. My name is Bill Davenport. I run the Panama City Farmers Market. I actually love the intent of the event handbook, kind of unifying and creating clarity out of something that was kind of not as clear. With the new revision, most of the changes actually look very well and well intended but i think there's some ambiguity in the wording on one of the uh proposed revisions and it's on the off duty hours that are gonna be charged during the holiday period. The way it's currently written, I think there's gonna be some unintended consequences, not only for us, but for events across the city and organizations. It's written right now that not only is the holiday gonna get the double charge time, but there's a three day window before that day and a three day window after that day. So basically we're creating a seven day holiday period for every holiday. For us, that's going to affect 11 holidays. We normally don't have events for us that fall on the actual holiday itself, but we have 11 of them that fall within that seven day window. If it's something that we have to charge the double time, I would like to ask the council, what are our options as far as maybe outsourcing to bay county sheriff or a private security firm to handle the road closures during our event i know there's precedent in other florida cities that do that whenever their local police department is tasked and can't meet the manpower requirement but i would just like you guys and gals to consider that that may have long-lasting effects on events not only farmers markets but neighborhoods churches and other things that fall within that seven day window as it's currently written yes sir thank you

Are we having issues getting personnel on holiday events? Is that why this is?

We've never had a holiday. Yeah, we really haven't done it. We don't allow it. But here's my problem. We're turning it on and making it very expensive and very intense. And it's like we're treating it so different and putting a lot of rules on it. And to me, that's the wrong intent. And I expressed this yesterday with staff. So to Bill's point, if the holiday is on a Friday, the way that it's written, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday are all into that time. But if you're having an event on any other time, it's that one day. So I think it ought to be one day. We're not going to penalize somebody for having it open, in my opinion, that way. That's a concern for me. But my biggest one is, and Bill brought it up, it's the cost to have it. And we've got to be more flexible if we're going to do that. And I'm not trying to cut the police out, but going through ODM is driving this cost up. And the person having the event ought to be able to choose how they're going to pay as long as they meet. And then staff comes at you with, are they qualified? If they're a security company, they're qualified. If they work in the state of Florida, the city of Panama City does not need to add any more layers in my opinion. But those are my concerns. I'm very thankful that we're trying to open it up. There's some others that Brandon sent in to us, to Jonathan and I, that I'll get to after we cover this particular topic.

Yeah, I share the same thing of what problem we're solving for. It hasn't happened yet. And I do want to provide, we want safe citizens at events, but we should give the event organizers alternatives, as many alternatives as we can that are approved and meet the requirements. And I don't know anything about security companies, but there's probably a process for them and insurance that they have to have or whatever it takes. But I agree that these event hosts or organizers aren't making a whole lot of money and then they're doing it for, a lot of them will lose money in their events.

Bill's paying $60,000 a year for COPS for the farmer's market. That's a lot of money. They do a great job. They do a wonderful job. But $60,000 a year for the same spot on Harrison Avenue every Saturday, that's a lot of money. I think we can do better than that.

So I go back to our town hall. What problem are we trying to solve for? We were not trying to solve it three days prior, three days after. So I think that should be struck from this ordinance. We're trying to solve for the day of. That was the point in the conversation. The other thing is what was communicated to me is this mirrored other municipalities and then what I saw in the memo that was provided to us in addition to this agenda, it doesn't mirror anyone's. So we would actually be the highest cost on events of any municipality or county in all of bay county so i think that mirroring something like what they kind of sheriff does 20 on top of the on top of the standard rate is is one thing our standard rate is also higher than anybody else too just so that we're aware of where we're actually out in cost And unopposed to private security and utilizing those things if it makes it easier on our PD team having to run shifts and also having to serve on holidays to do security. It does affect, to Bill's point, which I appreciated him giving a call to bring to light some of the things that I didn't notice. I didn't notice the three days before, the three days after. Me either. And so, you know, appreciate that. But he is correct. It would affect other things, like churches that do security, other entities. I mean, even talking about retailers that use security during this time, it affects them as well. Anyway, I think striking the three days, if you guys want to propose something different than double time, that would be appreciated. And mirroring something that someone else is doing is kind of what I think is reasonable because I'm not hearing a bunch of people saying, I can't get anybody to come and serve.

Historically, the problem was 4th of July. when a community wanted to have an event and we had said as a city, Fourth of July is huge, takes a lot of resources and people power. No other events could go on. And so that was the spirit. That was the impetus of us getting to where we are today with the holiday holiday policy. I share the concerns expressed that it is overbearing and too excessive, rather, and that the options, as you expressed, Commissioner Hughes, for choosing and working with police to choose other security options ought to be a part of this as well.

Mayor, Commissioners, I do want to just offer some clarification. The holiday three days before and three days after, we can work to clear that language up, but it was only proposed for Thanksgiving Day and the three days immediately following Thanksgiving Day. So if we need to break that up, I think the intent was if somebody wanted to do Thanksgiving day, the day after Thanksgiving, the Saturday following and the Sunday following who had fallen into those holiday rates. If that's not the will of this board, it just needs to be Thanksgiving day. That's fine. Um, they just classified from our person for our personnel. We classified Thanksgiving day and Thanksgiving the day after Thanksgiving holiday. So it's a benefit or a paid day off. but jared we never had that conversation yeah so yeah if if the commission wants to alter that we're happy to bring back another proposal um and commissioner street you're right i didn't misspeak on the rates lynn haven is the only one currently charging that um the feedback we got was the sheriff and the one other agency we're going to look to mirror what we have proposed So I apologize for that, and have your seat. As far as the ODM comment goes, the only fee that goes to ODM from an event organizer is the $6.75 administrative fee. The rest of the fee right now is $50 an hour on a non-holiday day. Or sorry, yeah, that's right. That $50 an hour goes to the officer. So that's, I just want to clear that up. So it's a $6.70 fee per hour for that.

So what about the other $80 an hour? Where's that going?

I'm talking about on a non-holiday day. On a holiday, the way this is proposed, the $6.75 fee, and Chief Smith, come to the podium if I'm speaking out of turn and I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that $6.75 fee per hour is the only fee that goes to ODM. The rest of that fee on the holiday rate and a non-holiday rate goes to the officer.

but nobody ever says to me, that $6.75 fee is expensive. And they say, my God, is that it's so expensive, I can't even do no, I can't get a permit because it's too expensive because of the police.

I just want to make sure that it's the police rate, not the ODM rate, I think that is... My point is, we shouldn't have to use ODM every time.

I would, Chief can provide us a, here's a list of people that are off duty. Let me hire them straight up. Why do I have to use ODM is my question. There's something about that that's driving the price up. Yes, sir.

Chief Smith, Panama City Police. The ODM administrative fee, ODM pays the officer. They cut the check and pay the officer every Friday. They handle all the monies that need to be paid into it, the vendor does not pay the city. They do not pay the police officer. They do not pay the police department. They pay ODM. ODM then in turn pays the officer on Friday. Even if ODM hasn't been paid at that point, they're still going to pay the officer. Then they'll go after their vendor for their pay. They also, in that, they provide workman's comp, and they provide liability insurance, and that's $6.75. Otherwise, then we would be looking at the city to cover that workman's comp as well as cover that liability. And for putting security guards, you couldn't put security guards, say, on Harrison Avenue and block traffic. The statute says that it requires a police officer in order to block a municipal road, a county road, or a state road. It requires a law enforcement officer.

I thought it was like a DOT certified person because our parks department was talking about doing this at one point.

Correct. So now we do have flexibility with some of our parks employees that are MOT trained or maintenance of traffic trained. It's a DOT standard. They have to be under the supervision of a law enforcement officer so we can supplement road closures with some staff that aren't sworn officers. and and we have and will continue to offer that service on road closures to help drive down the cost of security i will tell you though like for for large crowds like um that's a bad example like bill friday fest that we used to have Those officers that were there for road closures were also there doing the road closure and crowd control. So they do help with the overall security of that as well.

Could we make that training available to other security companies for small events? Certainly we want to provide the crowd control and what is necessary for the huge events in the community. But having other officers or security officers

uh trained and able to do road closures for 5k runs uh would seem plausible yeah yeah certainly public safety is important but you know a 5k at nine in the morning eight in the morning it's totally different than friday fest and um and uh but we do i know that you answer for anything that happens we'd say chief why do you think of this situation and predict it and so he's he's trying to protect the citizens to his best ability and i don't blame him for that and I think there's a balance between hiring trained staff that can do certain jobs. We can use these code enforcement trucks that are two blocks away and line them up across the street if we need to.

Here's what that said to me yesterday. It's a great idea, but it's set up as usual for Panama City to make money. That's how it's read. That's how it's perceived when it's read on the document, and it's about Panama City making money. And that's a problem for me.

I think it's set up so that the citizens of Panama City aren't subsidizing events.

That may be a proper way to say it, but when it's read by three different people and they all have the same feeling... That seems to be a theme these days.

I agree, though. There could be some, and I've argued for this in the past, for MOTD trained personnel to be under the purview of law enforcement at some of these larger events. That doesn't necessarily take away the need for law enforcement, but it may take away the need for so much law enforcement. I think there's a potential for different organizations to get trained and then volunteer to do these kinds of things for the different events that they want to support. I think there's some synergies there, to use probably a well-worn term.

But used correctly in that sense.

As I stated, we're already using some of the resources as in the fire department, public works. We have to use them at Mardi Gras. We have to use them at the Christmas parade just to help supplement the number of intersections that we have to cover. And what we're trying to prevent and what things that people don't realize is we just last week attended the Florida Police Chiefs Conference. And one of the things that they went over was the incident that occurred in Minnesota where 78 people were injured in a Christmas parade by an individual that drove through the Christmas parade. And injured 78 and killed like 16. And when you talk to the police chief that was up there speaking on it, he said he did not have sufficient law enforcement services to deal with stopping that incident from possibly taking place, ending that incident, because the individual drove completely through the Christmas parade from beginning to end and then was able to make it out of there and they found the car abandoned at a later time. but he didn't have enough officers to handle the injured people, there was not enough staff to handle the injured people, not enough staff to protect people. So a lot of what you look at and you may consider is, oh, the police department's going too far, you're pushing too much, you're asking for too many officers, but not when we have to consider what the temperature is across the nation and what we're seeing in bad actors. You know, we have to prepare for the worst and hope for the best for every event that we prepare for. And we build contingencies in and we do things that people don't understand and don't even realize that we're doing to protect them.

Certainly, Chief, I can appreciate that. I think what I'm hearing among my colleagues is a sentiment for the smaller events.

How can we work with those? So I work hard on looking at these to try not to overcost them. You know, if they're running setup times, say, from 8 to 1, at an event, then I try to give them just one officer from that eight to one while they're building their setup, and we'll bring in police cars and block at either end to help keep the road closed and just put the one event or one officer there. And then when the event opens, let's say at one to the public, and it's gonna be an event that needs three officers, Then we bring in two more officers. And then when that event, let's say if it ended at 6 p.m. or 7 p.m., but they had a two-hour breakdown time, we're going to drop back to one officer for that breakdown time. You know, I really look at those, and I don't try to overmass the amount of officers that are there. I work hard to keep that number down. And some of the bigger, well, it is all the bigger events are, I have to absorb because they're the city events, the Mardi Gras and the Christmas parade. I just have to absorb those along with the Fourth of July in my expenses from my budget. And when we address the double pay, the $100 an hour for the holiday, As far as I know, I did not know that we were looking at three days before and three days after. I thought we were looking at the holiday, whether it be Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Thanksgiving Day, you know, those type of days. That's what I'm recommending that we look at the double pay. And why do I look at double pay? It's because the officer, if he was scheduled to work, gets double pay. So why, if he's working his off day, should he not get double pay for working that holiday? That is what I reference, and that's how I come up with the idea of double pay. Lynn Haven Police Department follows that same thing. Everybody across the county charges a minimum of $50 an hour. So we're not the outlier. We're not the most expensive. And when I spoke with the other chiefs, Chief Roberts, Chief Talimentes, who are not doing double pay, they said that they had never really considered it, never thought about it, but liked the idea, and they said it seems appropriate because they are having to work the holiday, and it's the same effect to them as it is to my people. When I spoke to the sheriff about it, He said, we're doing a 20%, but I don't know where we came with 20%. He couldn't say, I don't know how I came up with that number, but I am going to readdress that number because I believe it's too low. So the stir that happened from me making contact to the chiefs on the Friday and the sheriff on last Friday was maybe we do all need to look at the same thing.

Chief, don't we pay on holidays regardless whether an officer works or doesn't?

And he's entitled to that, yes.

I think we should. So what I'm trying to say is the officer is going to get double pay if they work for us or they work for someone else.

But he's entitled to that money whether he sits at home? Yes. or works, and you're asking him to come in to work, or he's being asked to.

You're volunteering to come in.

He's not volunteering for nothing, sir. He's wanting to be paid to come in.

But volunteer to be paid. If you tell him to come in, that's one thing. If Robbie Hughes asks him to come in, that's another.

Chief, my concern is that you're going to have officers that choose not to work their normal shift because they get triple pay working on for a event.

We don't allow officers to take the day off to go work an event. Officers can't take time off to go work an event like the Fourth of July or the beach or something like that or even on a holiday. They can't take the day off to go work the event.

I just wanted to point out, you said that the officer wouldn't get double pay. In every scenario, even keeping the rate the same it is on another day, the officer would get double pay.

Not necessarily when you look at what their pay rate is.

Are you saying that some officers make more than 50?

No, most of the officers make far less than 50. Very few make that kind of money.

I guess what would be nice would be, I think there's going to be more conversations about permit, but particularly even scenarios given to us of how the pay works so there's no confusion of triple, double, single, volunteer. These are all vastly different words.

With the exception of the holidays is what we're trying to open up, and there's not an objection to opening up the holidays. But if we're going to open up the holidays, the officers should be compensated better for working the holiday than working the regular day. Because you're asking for them to give up their time from their family, let's say for Thanksgiving Day, on a turkey trot. that's going to take them away from their house, say, for a minimum of four hours. So what I'm suggesting is that the officer should be compensated for that time.

I agree.

I don't disagree with that. I don't disagree either. I want to get clarification. They're already getting the eight-hour pay or 12-hour pay, whatever their day pay is for a holiday. Correct. If they then come in, are they getting double pay in addition to that holiday pay that's in our payroll?

Through ODM, yes. If we were to accept this.

Hang on. Panama City Pay. I want to be very clear. So when an officer comes into work on a regularly scheduled day, it happens to be a holiday, they're getting their holiday pay plus the regular hourly rate because that holiday pay they're entitled to is a benefit. Now, we did learn through... What if they're home? Yeah. If they're home, they get their regular holiday pay and not their hourly rate because they're not working. Now, we did find out through some other agencies that some agencies issue all of the holiday pay up front and that officer has the ability to schedule those paid days off throughout the year. So let's say they're always scheduled to work Thanksgiving. I'm going to take Thanksgiving in January instead. So they have the ability to flex those holidays. Now, if we move to that type of policy, then this argument's moot. They wouldn't be able, like, if they wanted to work that day, we could just say, well, you can't schedule your holiday pay and your special day. I think there's some other flexibilities that we've... We're complicated.

The feedback you're getting is the charges are too excessive. The more information you guys are giving us, the worse it's looking because now I know that most officers officers make less than the $50 that you're charging already. And so what you're getting from the board is go back, make it more reasonable than what it is right now. The more questions that we keep going into this, the more confusing it becomes because now the officer is actually getting paid less if they work for us than they are for the event. Well, then the question is, why are we charging events more than we're paying our officers?

it's only confusing because because we cannot guarantee that certain officers will be off on certain holidays and everybody else out there that works for an employer that gets holiday days that is calculated through dollars and so all we're doing is we're providing them monetary compensation for having holiday days

have no issue with that.

And they're choosing to do this, folks, not being told to do this.

And because of that, this maximum pay that we're requiring?

I don't think there's a problem with offering officers that want to come in on their own free will to work an event. I don't think there's a problem on a specific holiday day with us saying, hey, this is a double-pay day. And as long as everybody knows that going into it. But I think the aprons are what needs to fall off. That's what needs to go away. The apron days.

Why do we have to have four hours? Hold on. The apron days, and I'm happy to review this and meet with Mr. Davenport, but we had never proposed three days before.

It says three days after on Thanksgiving.

It says three days after Thanksgiving, but I want to be clear. We never proposed three days before. Either way, I think you're hearing that we don't necessarily want it.

yep i got that so happy so on days that are holidays i think it's reasonable to charge more and have anybody do anything because it's a holiday unless their business revolves around a holiday i don't think it's necessarily too far out there to say even though no one is doing this anywhere else charging more for there are some that are charging more but double

I think to your point, Commissioner, it's a lot to hash out on the desk.

Yes. I think this document...

They don't use ODM. The entire document's kind of getting overshadowed by a discussion on whether or not a police officer who's there being, not voluntarily, but has volunteered for the service of that day to serve at an event on a holiday, which previously we have just not allowed. We've just said no. So I think a good path forward is for us to have further conversations with Chief offline to better understand why this pay structure is set up the way that it is. But this document, I think, is 99% done, and we're just getting down the rabbit hole on it. Well, you don't think it's 99% done?

With all due respect, I think as long as we're trying to do double pay, I think it's going to get shot down.

The number one problem with our document and with our permit, we're talking about. We just happen to be doing it over one specific item because that's what brought it to light. This is the first reading. Exactly. While we're on the first reading, if I may, Brandon sent over to us some comments. July the 4th, for example, they have their events has July the 4th on Beach Drive. When this document says you can only have one event, per um holiday well let's say that janice and i sneak in and throw in a july 4th uh permit and we beat cove events that's to me that's not fair because they've been doing it cops have been working down there so we also need to make sure that we show some precedent when we or it's not a race to the finish line okay we got to be careful about that um Tier 1 and how we've reshaped the events. Tier 1 to Tier 5. He expressed some concerns about that. And then finally, and this has happened a couple of times, and I'd still like to meet with the fire chief, is doing inspections of food trucks the day of on site. In there it says that it's the responsibility of the event organizer to make sure the food trucks are inspected. That is not their job. They're not inspectors, they're event organizers, they're planners. Most of them have jobs and they're trying to do this and get this together. So I would like some very clear path on how we're going to work with the food trucks before they get to the site, the day of, and we show up and inspect them and have, whether it be minor or major controversy. So those are my three issues on top of the money here that's in the document.

One of the things that you brought up was about only allowing one event. Yes. Just last July the 4th, there was the main event that occurred at the City Marina, there was the event that occurred at Beach Drive that was permitted, and there was an event occurred in St. Andrews that was permitted. But going forward, we can't do that. That's always been there, sir.

Yes, it's contingent upon...

It has said that, and as long as we have the manpower, we can approve those. And so this last July 4th, there were three events that ran on that day. Right.

And I think it's wonderful. There were three things happening on Harrison Avenue at one time downtown a couple weeks ago. That's great. But when you have in writing that it can happen where it cannot happen, that's the scary part for the public. On a case-by-case basis or approved by the commission or something to those words, now you've got somebody that says, wait a minute, what happens if we've got a different commission than a Wolfpack? Right now we all think it's a good idea.

yeah actually there were four now that you said that because i had forgot that the the farmer's market was running so there was four that ran on july the 4th and it's always been as long as we have the manpower to do it then we'll permit it yes yeah we'll put some flexible language in there commissioner and we're happy to to try the first holiday event at a lower rate i think staff's concern wasn't to make this a poison pill for the whole document or to you know

to inflame anything. I think our concern was when an event gets scheduled, we want to make sure that we have a rate that's competitive with what we're seeing the private market pay our officers for off duty. So we actually have officers that you've been going to cancel it. So I think that's that's our concern. I think we can balance that concern and bring something back that will be More from what we've gotten from the feedback.

And to your point, I'd like to see those private numbers that you're bouncing against.

I mean, just for example, like Walmart, I think, is paying $100 an hour for security. Yeah, an event organizer can pay more.

If you want to get the officer that you want to get, you want to do that. As a matter of fact, I would encourage people just to make the officer feel more... wanted but forcing every single event to to pay the the highest rate in the county of what you guys propose i do not recall a every event during a holiday during a holiday to make it the most expensive place in the county to do events is not something that i think we've ever said as a board that we're trying to make events more affordable and the whole point in opening this up was to allow it to happen and so that we can have events on these days and so so I I think you guys obviously have some clarity you go back work on things and you know I I do believe that an offer should be compensated more on a holiday than what it is on a regular day so just so that that's clear I'm not arguing that what I'm what I'm saying is making it the most expensive is not okay

And that's fine. And for what it's worth, you know, Robbie and I did sit down with Mr. McCants who proposed the turkey trot on Thanksgiving day. And, and I ran that proposal by him and he was, I mean, he was happy to. So that's,

We didn't know what the numbers were at the time.

I mean, I did tell him. I mean, I told him it's $50 right now, and it could be potentially double or somewhere in that range, and he was happy. But that's kind of, I mean, obviously he's not in the people to make the decision, but that's kind of the reason why we felt comfortable with that number. but we're happy to take another look at it.

So other other topics this this document has great intentions every bit of it there's no nefarious activity everyone's kind of good intentions and food trucks are another one and what we're trying to avoid are hazards created by someone who's running a food truck who's not following rules that we're not that we didn't create And we have options of forcing the event organizer to do something or forcing the fire department to do inspections. What we want to avoid is food trucks coming to these events and everyone being surprised by inspections. And so there's even a mention in this document talking about events and performers at events, which I think also is a great intention. We don't want someone showing up blowing fire out of their mouths in front of in front of things and you know motorcycles jumping over harrison avenue clock and we're like what are you doing so i think a lot of this is about us trying to explain rules and best practices to both event organizers so they're not surprised by things there are laws in the books already that people maybe are unaware of or they haven't acknowledged we want to avoid us showing up in any fashion disrupting something that's been planned with great intentions, or forcing processes into government that cost departments money. If we said, chief, go out and inspect all these fire trucks, he's like, I gotta pay for that now, I gotta have a checklist, a spreadsheet, coordination. And I think a lot of this can be explained and the intention can be met through communicating to the event organizers here's laws on the books that if you break these laws we're going to be shutting your event down and here's what you need to do when you have food trucks to ensure that they are compliant with state and federal whatever the rules are and so that nobody is surprised and what i what i don't mind is if everyone acknowledges these rules and we show up we go you didn't here's the rule that you're not following then they're clearly aware of the rule and they've ignored them. And so we have a lot more ability to avoid these sort of moments of hysteria and stress if we're pre-informing these organizers of, I don't care if you have a puppy dog parade, you're not allowed to be nude. uh if you're doing a 5k you're not allowed to have someone on megaphones screaming obscenities down harrison avenue you're not allowed to do these things you're not going to show up with whatever things we outline rules on the books and and purpose and then so when we do show up to pull someone off the stage or show up to address a food truck issue nobody is surprised by it that's what i'd like to see us do is informing event organizers of the rules, not creating more processes that we have to pay for and the staff has to account for.

To your point, sir, I've already asked the fire chief and the fire prevention chief, let's provide a list when they fill out their permit of already pre-inspected food trucks that have their current inspections. We do, and we'll continue to inform those event organizers as well, If they go to Fire Station 1, they can get a fire inspection super quick.

Totally. So we want to create... What does that look like, a food truck inspection? What are we looking for?

Mayor, Commissioners, Dave Collier, Fire Chief, just to cover this part. So in the special event permit application, we already provide that information to them. We put it in writing in our comments section. We also provide them with a handout on every application where they're intending to have food trucks so they know what the requirements are. We tell them very specifically through the event process and when we have pre-meetings before the event, the event organizer is told that if you have food trucks coming to your event, they have to have a current fire inspection. We have always sent out an inspector at the start of those events to verify that. It is 100% on the organizer. We do not know what food truck vendors they are gonna have on site. So until we show up and verify that they have a current fire inspection, that is our only process that we have. So as Jared alluded to, we are going to start incorporating this this list of current vendors that have updated and to date fire inspections. But we still have to continue to go to these events to verify. And if we have to conduct on site, do those inspections on site. Our goal is not to shut down the event, but the event organizers are made very aware of what their role is and what their responsibility is to inform these vendors that they have to have current inspections before the event.

How long do you do on camera? Because I bet we can get a video of you talking about inviting the food truck people to come see you at that station.

They're always welcome.

But let's put you on video. Christian, can you do that? Yeah. Yeah, that's fine.

And we're also working on an ordinance as well because we really don't have something in place to enforce this part. And this is something that is still relatively new for the fire service. So we are working on an ordinance that we hope to present to you here in the coming months that will enforce that mechanism to where they have to come and have an annual fire inspection done by our agency once a year we've already coordinated with all the other fire agencies they are good with us conducting food truck inspections with any food truck in the county we actually have a sticker that we place on each one of these vehicles so if they go anywhere else in the county as long as they see that sticker and it's in date they know it's good to go they've had their inspection and that's it so in that regard the event organizer when accepting vendors could food truck vendors could just simply say

Give us a picture of your sticker. And if you don't have it, this is how you get it. But I don't even accept it if you don't show that. And that sticker is what's relatively new. Is that?

Probably within the last year and a half.

Part of the responsibility of any organization is to teach your clients and customers how to be the best version of themselves for you and for them. And people host events with great intentions, and they show up, and we want to avoid surprises. And a lot of this packet, again, which outlines performances and food, all these things, you might have a food truck drop out the last minute, and you're scrambling to fill it two days before. And if we have some approval process, then it's like, sorry, we can't have you because 12 days ago we couldn't predict it. So I love the idea of informing the citizen on how to be the best version of themselves, the best organizer, and then informing their vendors. And we already have laws in the books that outline all sorts of things. I'll give you an example. If we're listing all the performances that are ever going to be at any event, and I show up to give a proclamation, am I going to be grabbed off the stage because of a last minute change? How do we enforce these? Right. So if we are requiring, if we are requiring, that's a great question. Are we setting up, are we setting up our staff for these crazy situations that we create through policy? You know, if an event organizer is required to give a name and description for every person in that event and there's a last minute change and Jonathan comes in to give a prayer and if Jonathan's not on the list, he can't give the prayer. That's kind of silly, isn't it? However, we have laws in the books that Jonathan can't scream obscenities down Harrison Avenue. Jonathan can't run around naked.

Without consequences. I mean, certainly if he were to want to do that.

Totally. So I'm in favor for not making rigidity of our policies, but informing people how they can be the best version of themselves. And then telling them that they should be telling every performer, every vendor, here's the best practices and what we expect.

I've been told that our pre-event meeting I guess is optional, so that might be something that we kind of insist on, especially with some of these medium and larger events. Because if they decline it, then we're really just relying on emails and the packet. But if we actually have a meeting with them, which we do with the big ones, like with Mardi Gras and the Fourth of July and Oktoberfest, those folks that do that, they come in and we both sides have a checklist. I think we actually have multiple meetings sometimes for some of the big ones. I've been told that one of the recent incidences, the event planner actually declined the pre-event meeting and that probably contributed to this as well. Sure.

I think a docu-sign or some acknowledgement, big red letters, this was official paper and this you really need to acknowledge. Here are the rules.

But you know what's good? that we have so many people in our community wanting to do events. Yes. It is great. We have many more food trucks than we've ever had in this community. And so this, I think, gentlemen, is a good problem to have. Oh, yeah, we are. We're very thankful. I want to say thank you and your staff for their good work.

Thank you. Thank you. Just in concluding, because I think we've beat this horse to death, maybe before at some point in time, similar to what we did with the charter, we should do special events like maybe board of citizens, put people like Bill and the ones that do events and our things to go and review this entire events handbook and give us recommendations on how to make events easier. That's a great idea. I love that.

I agree. I like it.

Any other discussion? All right, moving on to 7A.

I'd like to read the title. Go ahead. It's ordinance number 3310, first hearing today, an ordinance amending chapter 17, protection of public and private rights, providing that all payments for fees must be made at least 30 days prior to the special event, providing that special events are not prohibited on holidays at the discretion of the city, repealing all ordinances in conflict herewith, providing for the severability of any part of this ordinance declared invalid, and providing an immediately effective date.

Moving into quasi-judicial proceedings, the Commission will hear evidence and render a decision regarding the matter presented based on the evidence received. The parties before the Commission and the public are entitled to present evidence such as documents and witnesses and cross-examine any witnesses. All parties and witnesses will be under oath in the entire proceedings recorded. The Commission is not bound by the strict rules of evidence and may consider any evidence which it deems relevant and trustworthy. Any member of the commission may ask questions of the parties or of the witnesses. Since quasi-judicial proceedings are legal in nature, everyone is expected to adhere to proper courtroom decorum and etiquette. Any comments or objections should be directed to the mayor. The burden of proof in a quasi-judicial proceeding rests with the applicant. Therefore, the applicant has the opportunity to address the commission last after all public participation and before the commission deliberates.

At this time for items 7A and 7B, I will swear in staff who will remain under oath during the entire proceedings. Any additional party that intends to speak could also stand at this time and be sworn. If you decide to speak later, that is perfectly fine. Just come and we can swear you at that time. So staff and anybody that you know will speak, if you could stand please. Do you swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. And I will ask the commission at the appropriate time if there is any information that you're relying on to make any decision today that came up as an ex parte communication, just to indicate that fact. So thank you.

Item 7A is the first of two public hearings on Ordinance 3306.1, an ordinance amending the future land use map of the city to reflect the land use designation of general commercial for a property located at 2015 West 23rd Court with parcel ID 13230-030-000. As background information, the applicant has requested a future land use change to General Commercial and a rezoning to General Commercial 2 or GC2. This item was previously reviewed by the Planning Board on June 8th of this year, and the Planning Board recommended denial unanimously. Staff concurred with that recommendation. The following documents are enclosed. Ordinance number 3306.1, the staff analysis report recommendation and public comments, and the adopted map series, including aerial, future land use, and zoning maps. Staff recommendations through the Director of Development Services of the City Commission conduct the first public hearing. Mr. Mayor?

Yes, this is a public hearing. If you wish to speak about item 7A, please come forward. Anyone on item 7A? Seeing none, I'm closing public comments.

This is a first public hearing and it's ordinance number 3306.2, an ordinance zoning a parcel of property located at 2015 West 23rd Court, Panama City having approximately .305 acres, general commercial too, providing for severability and providing for an effective date.

Item 7B is the first of two public hearings on Ordinance 3306.2, an ordinance amending the zoning map of the city to reflect the zoning designation of General Commercial 2 or GC2 for a property located at 2015 West 23rd Court. This is the same address as the prior item. Background information enclosed is that the applicant has requested a future land use change to General Commercial and a rezoning to GC2. This item was previously reviewed by the Planning Board again on June 8th of this year, and the Planning Board recommended denial unanimously. Staff concurs with that recommendation. Following documents are enclosed. Ordinance 3306.2. Staff recommendations of the Director of Development Services is that the City Commission conduct the first public hearing. Mr. Mayor?

Mr. Mayor, I'd like to correct something. I read the wrong ordinance title, which is the one we're talking about now, but the one that we first talked about is Ordinance 3306.1, an ordinance amending the comprehensive plan future land use map of the city to reflect the land use designation of general commercial for a parcel of land located at 2015 West 23rd Court providing for repealer severability and effective dates. So that was changing the property, would change it from residential to commercial. Now we're talking about zoning, whether it would be GC2. Thank you. Sorry for that.

Yes. This is a public hearing on item 7B. If you wish to come forward and speak, please do. 7B, seeing none, I'm closing public. Do you want to speak? You're welcome to. Yeah. You're welcome to come forward and ask us questions or clarify.

Make your prepared statement.

Also, thank you for investing in Panama City.

Of course. Thank you, Mayor Alan Branch. Thank you to the City Council. We appreciate everything that you guys do for the city and making Panama City a better place. And this is kind of what we're here for. We've been at this location adjacent to this property. So that little red square.

Sir, we'll need your name and address, please.

yes mj hadami and the address for the property in question is 2000 2015 west 23rd court and the parcel just to the left of it as you can see on the map is 2326 frankfurt avenue which is our place of business baytown dental center we've been there for over 20 years it's been a dental office for 35 plus years serving bay county and serving the people of panama city and beyond we're thankful that we've got snowbirds that insist on coming to our office here but the purpose of acquiring the land at 2015 west 23rd court was to be able to further improve our facilities uh mainly for our staff uh here our you know thankfully uh We've done well and we've had to grow our number of staff and our team members and they don't quite have a break room big enough for them because the building as it was initially built wasn't to have that big of a team. So that was our main purpose and our main intent. We're new to this and we didn't realize that we'd have to go through all of this red tape and paperwork to get to this point over here. If we had, that may have changed whether we purchased that parcel or not. Our initial intent in meeting with the planning board Juwan has been great and very helpful throughout this whole process, it being our first time. We wanted to rezone this to a GC2. And I think it makes sense now why, because we want to combine it with what's already existing, what's already ours, what we already have. If the two lots are joining one another, we wanted to make it a GC2. And as is a part of the application process, we also wanted to combine the two parcels. Now in meeting with the planning board, we had some great discussions and they told us why they have hesitation in making it a GC2. Once we read more into it, we understand their hesitation and I must agree those are our hesitations as well. So we are willing to concede. making this a GC2 and joining the two parcels. We ask that the planning board and the city council to take that into consideration. We'd like to concede joining the two parcels and we would like to concede making it a GC2. Instead, we ask that we are able to make it a GC1 in keeping with the overall comprehensive plan of the city because this is a city that we grew up in. This is a city that I went to elementary school, middle school, high school. The only reason I ever left Panama City was to go to dental school, and I came right back. So this is my city. I grew up here. I want nothing but the best for this city, and I understand the planning board's reasoning for not allowing us to do a GC2, and I fully respect that, and I'm willing to concede. We are willing to concede that. We just ask that, in return, you also consider allowing us to do a GC1 and keeping the comprehensive plan over here. Thank you, everyone, for your time.

Yeah.

Do we have any questions? Wow. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. Absolutely.

What's the process from here if they want to go GC1? We're going to do that now.

As far as the legal process is that if you down-zone, in other words, GC1 is a neighborhood commercial use. It is less intensive than the GC2 zoning, that that could be done and then it could be noticed for the next public hearing as GC1 with the consent of the applicant. There would be an advertisement for the next hearing. It would be for GC1 rather than GC2. The commission could do that rather than send it back. Sometimes, on occasion, depends on a variety of factors, the commission could. Obviously, it always has the ability to send it back and get the planning commission's thoughts on it as well, but it's not legally required.

Okay. So certainly instead of, you know, us going through another reading of something that they're not advocating for and putting board already voting four to zero, what's, what's the, what's the quickest way to get community feedback is, is going two weeks to come out back. I'm fine with that too. Do we need to do this? Josh, do you need public outreach or is that your award? It's your award. What's the best way to move forward to get them an answer on GC1?

Do you have any feedback? What do you want to say? We have to go through two readings because I bet we can get three votes up here for GC1 on both of them and move that forward.

Yeah. Would the 28th, would that be a first reading or a second reading?

It could be a second reading.

Okay.

Legally, it could be a second reading. By that I mean it was noticed for an intensive use for the first. It would be noticed for the second as GC1 rather than GC2. But it doesn't have to go back to the planning board.

But the planning board doesn't count as a public hearing and this be a public hearing?

It is.

I know, but could this be the second public hearing? My question is, can we use this as a second public hearing and vote on it? Or do we have to notice that it's going from GC2 to GC1? And because it's down zoning, that's not a material change upward. So it should not hurt the public.

Right. This was always contemplated as the first of two public hearings. That's how it was.

I was trying to get you home. I have to come back here.

We appreciate that speed, but also balancing the surprises of the night. Was there any opposition at the planning board meeting? Was there any opposition at the planning board meeting? No. Meaning from the public? Yeah, from the public. Any opposition at all, other than the planning board itself? No, sir. Okay. So I would be comfortable if this was to be a, if you're looking to drop this to GC1, this is just my thoughts on the matter, I would be comfortable with it having the first reading on the 28th and then the second reading on the first meeting in August. So meaning that if nobody comes, because what I'm concerned with is that the neighborhood be well informed of what's happening, right? And have a chance to come tell us what they think about this happening or not happening. I think moving to GC1 is a very smart move here because I think a lot of times people get very, the what ifs, what ifs, right? If this is GC2, there could be all kinds of uses that could get placed there. But by going with the GC1, it limits a lot of those uses, a lot of the scary uses that you could potentially do that you're looking at just expanding the panel office. But it turns into the what-if game. That's what these things tend to do, is it turns into a what-if game. And to some degree, there's nothing wrong with that, because as soon as we approve, you're allowed to do all the acceptable uses. So I would be more comfortable giving the public, because we're changing it, another two shots at coming to talk to us. Does that make sense?

It does make sense what you're getting at. I would say that the public has had proper notice, thanks to the planning board and the letters and the proper procedures that were went through. changing anything drastic over here. I'm not sure why we need to have another two meetings. I mean, we could argue let's extend it out for another six months, another year. There's been proper notice about the fact that, hey, we want to change this to a general commercial zoning. And thankfully, there hasn't been any opposition. If you have the time to drive by that area, I think you will see very clearly why a lot of our neighbors probably want us to do something with this parcel of land. not the nicest parcel of land, unfortunately, in an otherwise nice neighborhood here. So I think just for the sake of not delaying business and what Panama City is about for their commercial partners and the businesses that are local there, my question to you is, Isn't this considered the first hearing over here? And shouldn't the next one be the second hearing? It almost sounds like we're doing three hearings for something that this entire neighborhood and the entire area already knows is a rezoning. For all intents and purposes, it's a rezoning. And if anything, we're conceding and bringing it down to something that's friendly towards a neighborhood there as well.

So you said this is your first time through this process. It is, yes, sir.

Hopefully my greenness doesn't show.

It's not a particularly friendly process, right? It's not a user-friendly process. What I mean by that is being on that side where you're asking to just improve your space, right? But the whole purpose behind this process is to provide public the transparency of what could happen if this board approves it, and to allow them to have the opportunity to come say we support it or we don't. Or just ask questions. Or just ask questions, because a lot of times we'll have an applicant like yourself that's like, hey, I just want to do these things, and people will come in and ask all kinds of questions about it. So it also gives you an opportunity to kind of talk to them as well. What my concern with is not you. It's not with your business. What I mean by that is I don't think you're doing anything nefarious. I don't think you're going to bait and switch us. I don't think you're going to do anything wrong here, so to speak. But my concern is that you've asked for a GC2. The planning board said no, and then if we just go ahead and just approve it, it doesn't give any of that opportunity for the public to have the transparency as to what's happening here. I think that's...

The first is going to show up to your job site when you're breaking the ground going, what are you doing? I thought this wasn't...

I'm not opposed, just to make it clear for the record, I'm not opposed to the second hearing or even the third. I understand your point, Mr.... I'm just trying to explain to you...

From where I sit, I want the citizens to have the opportunity to go through the normal process. And what we are proposing, because normally what would happen is you would go back to the planning board, and it would be three meetings. So what I'm proposing is adding one more meeting. Gotcha. In that case, thank you.

It's a long, confusing process. Yes, it is.

It is a long and confusing process. And it is set up this way because people in the past and other places have done very, very bad things with this system. And so it's set up this way to help protect the public and help protect you as well, because then it doesn't look like you're trying to slide anything in. Right. Well, this process is not some . This is a standard process across Florida. And we're required to do it by the state.

So do we need a motion for that?

I would appreciate a motion. And the motion would simply be that at the next meeting, which the last meeting of July was the 28th, that that would be the first hearing for this ordinance, but instead of GC2, it would be GC1. I mean, yes, GC1.

So with that motion, I'm looking at Juwan and Michael here. Were you all able to go back out and re-sign this and re-notice as just a GC1 instead of a GC2? Okay. What I don't want is I don't want anybody in this neighborhood to go, they slipped this by me. You know, or, you know, obviously some people may feel that way, but I want us to go through that process that people are noticed properly. Does that make sense? Okay. So with that, I'll motion that we change this to GC1 and have the first reading on July 28th. Do I have a second?

Second.

Any discussion? Yes. With all due respect, the public has had an opportunity, right? They've had a letter, they've had a sign, they've had a planning board meeting, and now they've had this first reading. I would respectfully disagree with the commissioner that we need to give them more time. Is anybody here that lives in this neighborhood right now? Again, and that's not a slam on the public. The public has to participate. And we're giving them that chance. You know what you're supposed to do. You're downgrading and making it better in zoning, not upgrading. So you're, in my opinion, If I could vote on you today, I would vote for it because you're doing what's more than asked. And I even think that staff even brought this up to you and at first you were a little hesitant to it. Thank you for getting across that finish line. So I'll be voting no for that. This motion, not because I don't want to vote for you, but because I don't think we need to move it to two more meetings. I just want you to know that.

We could certainly do it faster. I think there is a clear way to do this faster. But a part of this is, I think, our responsibility to the public to just give them breath. And I think a couple of weeks is not going to ruin the project. That's four weeks. It's two more weeks. That's all it is. So it's four weeks from now.

We can't approve on a first hearing.

We can approve in two weeks, but we're going to make it be four is what we're doing. We can do it in two. We're going to make it be four.

I think we are practicing prudent leadership and citizen engagement, community engagement. I love what you said. I felt your emotion as you were talking about what this project means to you. And I certainly appreciate what you're bringing to our community and wanting to make the neighborhood better. And yes, we're re-voting today. You have my vote. Commissioner Hughes, I understand your position, and I yield to the ward leadership.

Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Please call the roll.

Commissioner Hughes?

No.

Commissioner Lucas? Yes. Commissioner Granger? Yes. Commissioner Street?

Yes.

Mayor Branch? Yes. Motion passes 4 to 1.

If there's an interest meter ticket, charge them, not me.

Mayor, I'd just like to point out that ordinance number 3306.1, which was to amend the comprehensive plan we'll bring that back on the same for the final reading on the in four weeks in other words we won't try we won't bring back 3306.1 for the second and final hearing until we bring back the zoning ordinance in four weeks you're just saying that one and two are tied together yes thank you

audience presentation okay so we are on audience participation if you wish to speak about any of the uh remaining agenda islands please come forward yes sir come on down we got a few calls about to jump out of his chair right there hey man i messed up the two-car funeral man

No, it was a one-car funeral. You gave me too much credit on the two-car funeral.

Mayor, Commissioner, staff, thank you all. Collins Abrams, 443 South Palo Alto. Just a couple issues, or not issues, just kind of bring some things to some attention. Approval for the parking lot on Chestnut. The old diesel, just kind of want to make a note. Can we please delay the project until after Labor Day so we don't have a bunch of pavement equipment down there before kind of, you know, season gets done. All that equipment would probably have to be staged on the current parking lot. I think that would make it a little bit harder to have traffic moving through that community. So please consider that. I think it's certainly a yes to the bid process. Next thing would be the sale of believe it's uh right there on hamilton uh harman sorry um i think y'all put some provisions in there that that sound awesome right uh one year start of construction from uh closed three-year completion that that's outstanding right somebody coming in here to invest in city and making sure projects are done uh that's awesome i think it looks a little bit like a fire sale and a little scary on the city's behalf right when you start selling stuff 35 35 cents on the dollar Typically, companies are in trouble, and that's what that offer is, you know, when it's valued at a little over a million dollars and they're offering 350. If we go back to the parcel we were talking about on Chestnut, I believe the city paid full ask or right there around it, so why are we discounting city property? So just something to consider. It would certainly be alarming if we start shelling off our property at such a low cost. Next thing, I think Josh is addressing the budget. Let's spend less, man. Holy cow. We're taxed to the max. Tax is like a drug to you guys. I know y'all want to spend as much as we can. Well, we would love to get rid of that merchant fee. And again, I looked at it for June. That's over a million dollars. And from federal to state down to city, citizens are taxed. tax to the brim. So if we could look at reducing the budget and really what are those key items that the city needs to focus on, like what are the key things? Is it pay? Is it utilities? And we always want to make things beautiful, but sometimes when the money's not there, some projects have to go on hold. I know there's a bunch of pools of money that we pull it from, whether it be grants from federal government, state government, whatever it is. Let's focus on that and see if we can reduce some of the taxation on the citizens. That's it. Thank you, guys. Y'all have a great day.

Good morning. Frank DiPinto, 801 West 13th Street, Panama City, 4-1. I appreciate the opportunity to address the mayor and the Panama City Commission. I'm addressing Consent Agenda 10-B on the agenda. My request... for Commissioner Robbie Hughes, Ward 1, to introduce a motion to the Mayor and Panama City Commission for a temporary six month ban on all data, AI data center applications in the city of Panama City that are over five megawatts. Reason, I make this request because the recently passed Bay County temporary six-month AI data center ban only covers unincorporated Bay County municipalities, not incorporated municipalities, i.e., city of Panama City. Panama City would not be protected by the Bay County temporary ban. I suggest that Commissioner Hughes request from Wayne Porter, Bay County Planning Manager, to share with Panama City their six-month temporary AI data center bar ban ordinance to the Panama City so that Panama City can apply the Bay County ban ordinance to the city of Panama City. that ordinance for Panama City. Two, Commissioner Hughes' request of Mr. Porter that Bay County share their AI data center research with the city of Panama City. Three, that Commissioner Hughes' request of Mr. Porter that Bay County share their AI data center research generated protective commercial industrial zoning regulations with Panama City. The above sharing so that the city of Panama City does not have to unnecessarily duplicate time, energy, and effort in order to be protected by the same Bay County six month temporary ban. 29 seconds, oh good. Of course, one more sentence. Of course, Panama City would have to officially adapt Bay County's temporary ban within its jurisdiction, thus the request for a more, for a motion from Commissioner Hughes. Thank you.

Anyone else want to speak? Just let us know what agenda items we're discussing today. Good afternoon.

Walter P. Henry, 614 Maple Avenue. AD, I was listening. On those events all outside, what about the inside events that folks have on holidays? So they raised their holidays events on the inside a couple years back to keep people from having an event, a Christmas event, Thanksgiving or birthdays on the holiday. They went up on their buildings, and I wanted just a part of that. If it is, I think y'all should look at it. because whoever, a building, all that person has to do is go there and make sure that building is all set up for these people to have their vent. Lights are working, air conditioners are working. If they got a gas stove in it, the stoves are working. Other than that, nobody would have to call them out from their holiday. That's what everybody claimed it was for. I missed plenty of holidays with my family, was having holidays and I had to work. And sometimes we'd say, I was a superintendent, first black superintendent with the city of Panama City. And when I went out, my meeting called me out. I did not get paid. I was on Saturday. I did not get paid. I was going to come. They gave me some comp pay. That's all it was. And that was time I could take off. Instead of taking my vacation time, I could choose to take my vacation time or my comp time. So we need to think about this. These prices are really too high to scare folks from doing what they want to do with their family. It's really too high. But when I have a little time, number seven, eight, I understand what the young man was saying. Property, somebody needs to be firm and truthful to what's saying. They wanted that because they probably were going to build something in that neighborhood. The neighborhood shouldn't be built. It would not if you bought it just for a parking lot. I don't believe that's so. It might be. That's all they're buying it for, a parking lot. but that to ensure their business, they're going to have to have something better than that's what they bought it for.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Anyone else would like to speak on the remaining agenda item for today? Come on down.

Good morning, Mayor, Commissioners, City Manager. Legislation, I mean, and ladies, appreciate you guys serving. I just wanted to speak on 12D. It's the proposal to purchase the property.

Sir, can we get your name and address, please?

Oh, sure. It's Rodney Friend.

He should know that process.

Yeah, I should. Sorry about that, guys. And council, thank you as well for serving. We appreciate it. Anyway, just want to speak to 12D. I know this is an unsolicited proposal. I'm not going to speak on the amount of the proposal. I'll leave that up to you guys and the people that you represent. But I just looked in the review in the agreement, it doesn't look like, or the proposal, it doesn't look like it addresses the street that's directly behind some of the property owners there, which is Cone Avenue. It's not really on any maps or anything like that, so it may be overlooked. So we just wanted to address that and make sure that the city and commission understands that that street is there. and that we would continue to like to have use of that street. And then also in the proposal, and because it's not in the agreement, but then it does say also in the proposal that they are asking, the developers are asking that they could come back to the city and ask for some variance and stuff like that. So to me, that's just kind of an open door for the opportunity that if you guys approve it, that they could come back and ask for you guys to vacate that street. So we're in opposition of vacating the street. We'd still like to have use of the street, even though it's not typically maintained or anything like that. We'd still like to recognize that the street's there, and we'd like to continue to have access to it. So thank you very much. Appreciate your time. And again, thank you for serving. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else would like to speak today on the remaining agenda items? Please come forward. Seeing none, I am closing public comments. And I will entertain a motion to accept 9A through 9H. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion?

The only thing I would add is I would like staff to reach out to Collins and make sure we coordinate. I'd hate to hurt a business while we're trying to help business at the same time.

And I think we can easily do that project without putting one piece of equipment on the other parking lot. I think that's the... Because I don't book flow of traffic or parking.

So I'm sorry, which item are we discussing now?

Oh, the diesel property. 9H. 9H.

Thank you.

Parking lot. Any other discussion? Please call the roll.

Commissioner Hughes. Yes. Commissioner Lucas. Yes. Commissioner Granger. Yes. Commissioner Street. Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes. Motion passes 5-0.

We're going to take a seven-minute recess. We are back. And we are, oh my gosh, let me see, let me get back down real quick. We just got the consent. We are down to item 10A. Commissioner Lucas, you are up.

Good morning. Thank you, Mayor. Colleagues. So I requested that I have an opportunity to discuss with the mayor and commissioners The MLK corridor, just as a reminder, in May, staff presented to the commission in workshop the challenges and options that investors and developers are facing on the MLK corridor that have to do with infrastructure, stormwater, FDOT requirements, and so forth. And they also presented us some options for addressing that. At my request, we met in June with the community and shared those findings of what staff is proposing. We also had at that meeting Dr. Pedro Cohen, Pedro Cohen, the executive director of LISC, Local Initiative Support Corporation in Jacksonville, who gave us his thoughts based on project boots that they've done in Jacksonville. And he challenged us to think beyond vacant lots. He talked about stabilizing neighborhoods by helping existing homeowners, clearing title issues, supporting local developers with access to capital, and using public land as one tool in a broader strategy. And I think that's the sequence that we should follow. In his discussion about thinking strategically about neighborhood revitalization, he cautioned us not to just look parcel by parcel, but through a comprehensive framework that preserves existing homeowners, expands opportunities for local developers, and uses public land intentionally. And we're having those conversations. I know there was some frustration expressed not only this past town hall meeting by my colleagues, but in previous meetings about how slow government moves and that we are not moving as quickly, particularly as the mayor has said that he'd like to see us moving. And I contend that we are, in fact, moving. And that the community response, though, after that meeting, looking at the proposed ideas for addressing stormwater and so forth, is indicative of what we need to do and heed Dr. Cohen's advice that we bring the community along in there. The residents weren't asking us to simply dispose of land. They were asking us to think strategically about preserving the neighborhoods, creating opportunities for existing residents and building long-term wealth. This tells me that the conversations are not delaying progress. They, in fact, are shaping better policy. So I know later on the agenda we will be discussing the SPARC program. I wanted to ask that we as a commission direct our city manager to follow up formally with Dr. Cohen and Lisk to look at how we incorporate what he has suggested. And I think a revenue stream for us to look at this. would certainly come through our housing and community services department, that we bring the community along with us as we look at development along the MLK corridor. And so that is my ask of this commission today.

I'm trying to understand. So is the request that we enlist Dr. Cohen on a like land disposition plan or something like that?

Is that, is that the around neighborhood revitalization strategies that have been successful, um, in the Jacksonville community? Um, uh, his organization, uh, would, uh, be able to advise us and following that, uh, approach and the sentiment that I received from the community, was an interest in doing what they've seen portrayed in that video. And I know that we individually, many of us have talked with residents, developers, innovators, investors, who are interested in the MLK corridor and I'd like to see us put in place the process that allows us to bring that on and that formalizes for example addressing the air property issue because neighborhood revitalization isn't just about building new but also about bringing up what's there and we've had several efforts through our legal team, through CRA, but LISC has been most successful in addressing those heir property issues, which are not only in the past, but are occurring as people are not addressing current issues. In fact, Judge Smiley is doing yet another workshop about wills and trusts and setting up the families for success in the future and not for probate court.

I think what I really liked about his presentation, plus the air for it and how he has that process, I think I would be very much interested in hiring him for that. Hiring somebody for yet another process to follow when we can't even follow the ones that we try to put in is hard for me to get on board with.

And I can appreciate that, but I think that if we don't bring the community along with us, we're going to have start and stops and start and stops for what we're trying to do as we go forward.

We're going to talk about that again today here on the smart thing. Exactly. I get to have some fun with the mayor. I'm not with tonight, so.

Is this something that could be funded by the CRA?

Yes, it's neighborhood revitalization.

I would be very supportive of it under the CRA funding. So having the CRA potentially fund whether we hire him or whether we hire the services, whatever that looks like. That's what I'm saying. The CRA, I think, would be the proper entity for that.

And I can appreciate that and accept that even, but I do believe we need housing and community services engaged because the projects that he was able to accomplish also included multiple funding streams, not just one.

I don't have an issue with housing being involved with the CRA. I am concerned that we may get a year down the road and be at the same spot where we are today.

Well, my concern is that we make it a year down the road and we've put in place something that has created more neighborhood agitation as opposed to revitalization.

Gosh, I started buying property downtown in 2015 and 16, and everybody thought I was nuts. And I put in probably close to $10 million. My family's put in another $8 million. or more, and I just started studying towns. Springfield, Jacksonville, that's part of Jacksonville, San Marco, all these different little subsets of little towns. They all have very similar stories, and one of the stories that doesn't work is When you have a spark, which is why I named that little program the Spark Program, you really want to help the spark. And I felt like the city didn't really help me. I was basically looked at like the agitator downtown.

Why are you creating all these problems?

You create all this extra work for us. And if you study Greenville, they had a very similar person named Courtney who bought property downtown in the 90s, the first coffee shop downtown. They were looked at like the agitator. So all my advice, my suggestions come from a place of, my personal experience being successful at this. And I'm on podcasts about revitalization now and our story downtown. Even the CRA grant, that took me two years to get that pushed through City Hall. We could have hired a consultant to pay us 60 grand, but I crafted that whole thing. Gave it to you. Gave it to you. $60,000 or more of work. And so what you don't want to do with revitalization is snuff out the sparks, make the sparks feel like they're not welcome, that we're waiting for a different spark. And then you also don't want neighborhoods built back, you want them built back by the community that is in them. That's the magic sweet spot of revitalization. When it's outside money, you get great developments, but they're not personalized because they're not from the area. The ownership's not local. And my whole mindset of this whole thing is what can we do now to keep the spark going, to build more sparks, and have the neighborhood build themselves back And we have people in this neighborhood who are from there. And that's when I submitted the Spark program. I said, hey, this is me just guessing on a way to get this neighborhood building itself back. Because one spark creates a dozen. And that's what we see downtown. It used to be me creating every event, sponsoring every event. And now I go downtown, I'm like, oh my God, what is this? What's happening? Who's doing this? Because it was me funding everything. And so I'm only applying what I've experienced and seen and studied. And I've spent a massive amount of time studying things. I don't think we have to come up with a plan for all. I mean, it may take us 10 years to get rid of all these properties. And get rid of is defined by whatever board chooses. But I think starting small and incremental and testing and listening is powerful because then you have people start believing in the neighborhood. People did not believe in downtown. I was buying buildings for $10 a square foot and people thought I was crazy.

With all due respect, Major, the spark is a little later on in the agenda. Yeah, totally. And I welcome that. But I do appreciate what you've done for the city. And I've said that to you long before you became mayor. And you've been encouraging to the community. And I'd just like to move a motion that we reach out to Lyft through CRA. and also engage our housing and community services department in a neighborhood revitalization approach in addition to what we may be discussing later on the agenda.

Okay. I have a motion to move forward with LISC.

LISC.

LISC. L-I-S-C. Do I have a second?

Yeah, I'll second that because it's coming down to CRA.

Discussion? Help me understand what the angst is because my impression, and this is just my impression from maybe outside looking in, is the frustration is that nothing's happening. That seems to be the core of the frustration. How does this solve that angst or is there a different angst that I'm not equating for?

So as I said, the concern is also preserving what's there, helping to clear up properties, helping people to stay there when they're in these air properties. That has been a long-identified challenge, particularly so after Hurricane Michael. And LISC is the... resident expert, if you will, in the state for addressing air property issues. And I think this goes along with whatever we may be discussing about making those parcels available, but also addressing the stormwater issues and so forth, that we have a way forward that includes the neighborhood on a regular basis. And this has shown popularity and being able to do that. what heir properties are.

And for me, because I don't know.

So heir property is property that someone who owned it has passed on.

It's H-E-I-R. Yeah.

and their relatives have been maintaining the property, paying the tax bills, but they do not own it. So after Hurricane Michael, when some people living in heir property were trying to get assistance or a loan to fix those properties, they could not because they did not have clear title. It was in an heir at all. So the person who has passed on, has left the property and whereas that might have been one owner or husband and wife, two owners, now it's all the children and maybe the children's children. And so it becomes difficult to get clear title. And some of the properties that we see in Glenwood and Millville that still have tarps on them or that have not come back after Hurricane Michael, we dig a little deeper and we find that they're heir property.

So it's clearing title issues is what this comes from. Right.

You could have a final title suit from here until the end of time on most of that stuff. And the problem is, the time, it's the cost that goes along with it. Because it's a lawsuit in Florida and its state. And so it takes time.

So why wouldn't legal take lead on this since it's a title issue?

Well, because they're private properties. So the city doesn't have the title problems. The owners of the problems. But we're going to pay to help clear those title issues. No, no. They're going to do that.

So as I said, LISC is the resident expert in addressing this multifaceted challenge.

They do that. We don't pay for that. obviously this seems like the issue that's here can completely support helping people clean up the title from what you what you've described i i do get concerned and trying to create another overarching plan on top of the other plans on top of the other plans on top of the other plan so if like is what is the scope of what's being asked that's so the air property issue understand that okay that's what they come in what is there anything else in this scope

So if I may, I'd like to ask Michelle Bryant to come forward. She has worked in community and to share your thoughts about the heir property and about the need to continually have the community engaged as we move forward.

Good morning, everyone. As I'm sitting here taking notes, two parts here michelle bryant for nani's ninth street um it is a huge issue in the glenwood community where many residents especially those who are remaining in the home and have remained in the city to get repairs done we've seen recently three seniors that we know of specifically where they weren't able to get repairs done and their homes were condemned They were our properties. Some family members aren't here. Some family members are in disagreement on what the final results should be in the home. And it has created an issue throughout Glenwood. There were resources before utilized in the CRA. There were resources I believe that may have been used from the housing department in partnership with the legal aid services here in Panama City. that are on 11th Street. But again, the issue is deeper than just getting the deed updated. It's getting the resources to helping the individual that's in the home now. And I believe that is what Commissioner Lucas is looking for lists to do as I've done my research on that organization. to be able to assist them while they're in the home and get that deed updated and that's going to take more than just legal services and more than just um putting the title in their name when it's a process that can take long term while they need services that day or instantly and then the ongoing engagement of the community the one-off meeting like we've had is one way but as we move forward this can go very quickly and i don't want to leave the community Absolutely, definitely have the community input because every situation is going to be different. Some it's a title thing where family aren't agreeing, the other may be they can't reach out to the family and so each situation is going to need individual attention and I think this LISC organization would be instrumental in helping guide that because we don't have the resources here but you do have the community that wants to see those who have those issues be resolved quickly.

Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Does that address your concern?

It does. I would just like to see some type of measurable approach that we know we're actually making progress in it. I mean, I've dealt with title issues before. I mean, if this is a three-, four-year process, I just don't want it to hold up actual revitalization as well.

Well, if we don't start, we can't begin. Thank you.

So we have a motion and a second on the table to bring in the consultant. Is the motion to have them work on the heirs property issue in the CRA area for war?

So we were presented project boots, and that included a several step process. And so first step is keeping the people there who want to stay in the neighborhood.

What does that mean? Like assistance? It's what we just talked about, Commissioner Street.

The air property. So as the example was just given, there were three parcels lost to a family because they couldn't get those issues cleared up. So that's one aspect of keeping people in place.

Okay. So I would like the... the RFP response to include how many houses there are potentially in the area and even an estimate of typical times to clear things up or the funding mechanism, just some general ideas of what we're getting into soon so that way we don't open the can of worms that take 20 years and millions of dollars.

Hearing that, I'd like to have that initial meeting where we craft those things. I think we can't say on the dais today exactly what those metrics should be, but I do share your concern that we have measurable progress.

Okay. I have any other questions?

Discussion? Just a comment. We're going to probably have to vote on this in the CRA as well.

We'll get a task order work with Mr. Cohen and bring it to the CRA board.

Just make sure we've got details that we can understand as far as it sounds like a very complex issue. I am aware that there's title issues, how we address those. The biggest thing is I just want to know, hey, we're spending money bringing consultant in. I just want to be able to communicate. We've actually accomplished something at the end of it. I don't want to just go and make another plan and then all of a sudden. That's my biggest concern.

The difference is Dr. Pedro Cohen lives in the neighborhood that they redeveloped in Jacksonville, that they revitalized. He's a practitioner, and as you said, He has to meet those folks every day just as we do. So this isn't a consultant to tell us about what others have done, but to engage with us in following the process. Also, you'll appreciate perhaps that LISC is also a CDFI that may be able to bring funding to help this community because they're statewide.

I'm interested in hearing more. So please call the roll.

Commissioner Hughes.

Yes.

Commissioner Lucas? Yes. Commissioner Granger?

Yes.

Commissioner Street? Yes. Mayor Branch? Yes. Motion passes 5-0.

Moving on to 10B. Commissioner Granger, you are up. All right. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. Well, we have... had lots of input on AI data centers. I think if you haven't heard of an AI data center, welcome. There's all kinds of information out there. I think there's some misinformation out there. But what I do know is that these can be very impactful to communities and our current zoning and land use development code is not properly equipped to handle this. So because it's a fairly new technology, I mean, it kind of is, but then there's this aspect of it that can use a lot of water, can use a lot of electricity. So I really just wanted to have this discussion with the goal I was planning to motion that we move forward with a moratorium. I've included the Pasco County. I would have included the Bay County one, but I didn't have it at the time of the cutoff for making this meeting. So while Bay County has recently passed one that does, as Mr. DeVinto pointed out, it does cover the unincorporated portions of Bay County. It does not cover Panama City. So in order to best move forward with our citizens in mind, I think it would be prudent to put in a 12 month moratorium based off of the Pasco's or Bay County's ordinance. for this type of development so that we can better look at what our land use development codes are and our zoning, what needs to change there so that we can determine where, if at all, that these developments need to go.

I like it. I think there's a lot of frustration and confusion and all the things. and borrow their research, and that's temporary for 12 months.

I will point out, because there are people who may be watching, maybe in the audience, that would say, well, we want a full-out ban, a permanent ban. There is a legal problem with a permanent ban, and the reason behind that is because Florida law protects property rights very, very well, and rightfully so. And Texas does a very similar thing. And a county in Texas did try an outright ban and was promptly sued and lost. So rather than going down that road, I think we need to be able to tell people who are looking to develop in Panama City where they can develop and where they cannot develop with whatever it is that they want to develop. We already do this. You can't go into a neighborhood and put in an industrial type thing. You can't go into a commercial area and install. GC1 doesn't allow gas stations. We already do this in our zoning and land use, and so I think that's the absolute proper place for us to look at. If somebody wanted to come here and say, we want to do this, well, here's where you can do that. and leave it at that. going to wind up in space. But an outright ban is just not legally tenable. It's not legally defensible. So that's what I got.

And I think more information is going to come out. The town hall we discussed, data centers use a couple million gallons of water. The paper mill was designed for 40 million gallons of water a day. And they would put it out into the bay, too. And they also were designed for a 40 megawatt facility.

It was designed for 40, but we had somebody who worked there who said that it was at 20 million a day. That's a lot of water. That's 10 data centers.

So there is a lot of people with a misunderstanding of, and I'm not pro data centers, but I am pro looking up other things and learning. And the paper mill was quite a drain on water and power.

I don't think anybody up here is championing this particular type of development, but I do think that what we are looking to do is look out for our citizens' best interests. Correct. In the most legally defensive way possible.

I like mirroring Bay County just from a simple city standpoint.

All right. Then I motion that we mirror Bay County's. I would request 12 months because I think we're going to see other cities and counties do other things and it would probably give us some more data to look at. But 12 months buys us the most amount of time. I think county did six. Did they? Yeah. I'll second.

Just a question, Commissioner. Are you limiting it to just mirroring Bay County or does this... is a process that would include looking at the other counties.

So the purpose of my motion today, to be very, very clear, is to establish a 12-month moratorium on this type of development so that the planning team and legal team can take a look at what other municipalities and counties are doing so they can better craft ordinances to change the UDLC and the zoning code. That's what I'm aiming for.

Thank you. I'm not opposed to mirroring Bay County. I just wanted staff to be clear what we are sending from the dance.

Thank you.

I have a question. Yes, sir.

Just a refinement of what Commissioner Granger has indicated there. What I hear is that if we mirror Bay County, and I agree with the way Bay County approached it, it's a change to the land use code. It went to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission then recommended it to the County Commission, and then the County Commission adopted it. The actual moratorium enactment by ordinance would occur maybe in a month from now. However, you are now saying there is a pending ordinance. If there is a pending ordinance that deals with land use, then you instruct staff not to process applications that are contrary to the pending ordinance that you've instructed staff to prepare. And that has the effect of a moratorium. It's just, you're not actually, I would recommend not adopting an emergency ordinance today because it's the land use. But what is happening I believe today is it goes to the planning, you're giving specific instruction to your staff This is what you want to see. We put it into motion and any development order that's contrary to that, wait until the final moratorium is approved by the city commission.

Okay. How do I put that into motion? You did. You did.

When you said mirror the county, that's good.

That's fine with me.

And I apologize.

Oh, you said good job.

Commissioner Granger, for clarification, you want to mirror the county but with 12 months instead of six.

Is that correct? Correct, yes. Okay. So that does it. I just didn't want you surprised how we implemented it.

I do think that we lead the way in some things and other things. I think there's value in looking at how others have changed their land use codes. And I think that we could, you know, in the next 12 months, I think we're going to be able to see some different changes. Obviously, we don't need to do the entire 12 months. We think we've got a good path forward. Please bring it. Please hold the roll.

Commissioner Hughes?

Yes.

Commissioner Lucas? Yes. Commissioner Granger? Yes. Commissioner Street? Yes. Mayor Branch? Yes. Motion passes 5-0. Good job, Commissioner.

I was able to give you guys background. So obviously you guys are aware of our budgetary discussions in that there has been multiple times where it's been communicated that we're not being clear. So really my discussion for today and action is to provide the team with some clarity as far as to what actions we would like seeing take as they finalize their budgetary decisions. One of the things we were presented back in March was a revenue number of $64,400,000. So, the first thing I'd like us to take action on is having that adopted as a revenue that the staff will then build the budget on, which represents about $4.5 million less than what they originally had proposed. Can you say that again?

May I? One more time?

So we were given revenue numbers of $64,400,000 of general fund revenue. The staff presented us a budget. Proposed. Proposed, yes. When? That was in March, right? That was in March. Right.

Yeah. Okay.

So... The staff presented $4.5 million cuts in order to get there from their requested revenue, which was $68 million. So what I'm saying is to make it simplified is they have to have a budgetary number to work on. Otherwise, it continues to fluctuate as we've seen.

Since March, though, we have received our certified taxable value numbers, so we've been able to refine our revenue for Avalorum. We've also been able to see, as months have went on, more of a historical trend in our other revenue sources. we've been able to refine those revenue numbers. They are higher today than they were in March.

And I'm not saying that we should cut taxes as reflected in the numbers being higher. What I'm saying is the Commission should be in control of where that additional revenue goes.

Is that a motion?

Yes, that is a motion.

I will second that motion. Discussion?

Yes.

Yes. Most definitely. Yes.

Okay. So we asked staff, so for the public's edification, property tax, the trim notice goes out roughly October, November time frame. And if you pay it early, you get kind of a discount, right? The city doesn't know how much money it's going to have in revenues until later the following year. So when we ask staff to come up with a guess, basically, of what 2027 is going to look like, we won't know what 2027 looks like until March of 2027. We won't truly know. And so what we did is we asked them a year out to just guess at how much money that we think we're going to have in revenue. It's a guess now.

But it's a bit more of an educated guess now. What's not a guess are expenses. I think the only thing that is not a guess is property values now have been certified. But merchant fees, we technically don't know any of that. We don't know any of that. We don't know what our franchise fees are. There's a lot of variables. Operating with limited to low reserves, we need margin to be able to determine what gets funded, what doesn't.

I see what you're trying to do here. I see what you're trying to do. You're trying to make it where the expenses are basically reduced by 4.5 million. We can backfill. everything beyond what they would need, the 4.5, they're gonna have to come to us and ask.

Correct, yes. It puts the commission in the driver's seat as far as what cuts are ultimately made. We've been going through these workshops and we're seeing a lot of cuts that we don't support. And so what we need is the team to set a budget so that we can create and backfill what ultimately matters to the elected body.

So why don't we just take the easier path and just say, hey, staff, we want to see this much money in reserves?

Because they start cutting the things that we disagreed with. Out of the box, it was a bloodbath. We were going to lose people, we were going to lose services. So what Josh is saying is... know that you've got to cut. Revenue should not be in the conversation. Expenses should lead the conversation. That's kind of where I'm at. And let's just cut that. Never mind what we're bringing in. We don't know it. So if we know we've got a $4.5 million problem, let's go find that. And that then sets us up for, all right, we've cut it. Y'all cut it out.

Now we've got to bring it back. Who said we had a $4.5 million problem?

I'm just using Josh's.

Well, the team did originally. Right.

That was back in March when they were a year out. And it was an estimate. Which we still are. The only thing that we know is property taxes, which are also the thing that is probably most in flux moving forward.

But we were guessing at a 100-meter target then, and now we're guessing at a 10-meter target.

No, I think we're still guessing at maybe an 80-meter target. Merchant fees are dependent upon economic output. We follow those every month. Franchise fees are what franchise fees are. Permitting is dependent upon what comes in as far as buildings and not buildings. The reality is government revenue fluctuates greatly in the state of Florida because it's mainly driven based upon sales and activity, which I don't disagree with. The only thing we know is property taxes, which represents

30 of our overall budget so with that on general funds so walking through this walking through this if if we approve this then like i said they're going to have to come to us for every single ask right what do you think that they're going to ask us for hopefully things that we can support So we're going to go through this exercise where fire is going to come to us and say, hey, we need this. This is going to come to us and say, hey, we need this.

We were all at the last meeting. There's 171 landlines in the city. The feedback I'm getting from citizens is not that this is a negative budgetary process. The feedback that I've been getting is like this is the first time that they have felt that the commission is taking seriously, holding the team accountable to making the right kinds of cuts. The easy cut is to say we're just going to eliminate people. That's not what I want to do. And so what does that mean? You have to go through and start identifying things that you can and some of it's vehicles some of its some of its phones and some of its those things obviously the team is still keeping those in there they're not understanding what cuts that the commission's really asking and i think that's the clarity piece that i've gotten from management of saying we're not being clear enough well this i think is clear well i'd like to weigh in uh on that the four and a half million dollar estimate is now down to around two million um and um

We've got approximately $65 million general fund budget. I'm told that by statute, contractual obligations, or other legal requirements, what we can actually address is $13 million. Are my numbers accurate? Mr. Hayes. What do you mean?

What one can address?

That once you take the $65 million and subtract statute contract and other legal requirements we are left with 13 million dollars that we can cut i'd like to see those statute requirements i'd like to say that it's it's your debt requirements your insurance requirements the things we've committed to contractually

We're happy to present that to you all.

And I think we need that information before we give them a number arbitrarily, like $4.5 million.

Statutorily, I've got to have insurance. That doesn't mean I've got to have double. That's my concern if we have too much.

If I may continue my thought. So that leaves approximately $13 million. Now we're talking about a $4.5 million from that $13 million. That's approximately 30-something percent. That's a huge cut. to make, and so I would like to have that information. I would like for all of us to have that information before we say, okay, staff, you have to cut $4.5 million before we get through this budget process. So that's an ask that I have of us to make the best, prudent, wise decision that we can make. Budgets should be on facts, not speculation.

The way that my businesses operate is you give your departments a budget. You say, here's what you can spend. And if you want to make purchases above a certain amount, you come to us. So to me, this is reflective of how you do it. I know government and business are different there because they're different systems. But to me, you go to your departments, you say, you have this much budget to get through your shift. And if you need to spend money on equipment, you come back to us. So this, to me, is us. We still have the money. The money's in the account. But it creates a system where they have to come to us for purchases or other things. And it gives us the flexibility later to say, oh my goodness, we need to go do this thing and we have money in reserves to then go do what they leave us with some flexibility versus just putting it all in the budgets of the department.

In respect to your private business, we have just undertaken a community charter review that we have not addressed changing the system that this government operates under, which is city management. And so what I see us doing in this regard is saying now we want departments coming directly to the city commission as opposed to the city manager. And so that raises for me the question, is this commission moving outside of the city manager commission relationship or arrangement that we have? And if so, why didn't we address that as part of the charter review?

That's a good question. I would say that for me, coming to the commission, we talk about getting surprised. And what I've learned is we create a budget and there's money in that department and they can move that money as they choose, but it's not what they budgeted for when we were talking about budgeting. And so I think for a more line item budget, which is very possible, we can put it in line items and vote it that way and it's not moving unless they bring it to us. But they bring us budget resolutions that are spending inside the departments that's what josh is talking about except we know about it up front rather than it showing up on the agenda and saying hey we want to buy an issue a nice shiny new object but the money's coming from over here versus what we budgeted for and that's and i think that's what he's trying to clear up there does this address the spending authority are we taking that away from the city manager

No, and I mean and the agenda still comes through the city manager's office. So regardless of whether the department's asking for something, it's still going through the city manager. We're not saying, hey, every department come and, you know, talk to your commissioner. What I'm saying, last year we approved a budget that revolved around a reduced payment to the fire pension fund and a sale of a piece of property. Really, all this is asking for is operate within your means, guys. Go back to looking at what property and revenue that you have. We need to get into the line with that, and we need to start rebuilding our reserves and having a more disciplined approach to our finances. In every business and organization, to the mayor's point, you set your budget. Like, sure, yes, you look at your revenue, but your revenue is a yes for any business. You're not guaranteed tomorrow in any organization, nor that government happens to be one where they can come and take your house if you don't pay it. Like, that's a scary proposition to be in that powerful position and not to have a number set that your team sets to. So, like... I think that this is the clearest way to give clarity of saying, hey, guys, like you've got to step back and work into your means. We're not raising taxes and we need to have the flexibility because you're proposing things that ultimately we don't want to cut. So we're going to have to say, hey, you know what? We do need to fund that. And here's the money that's been set aside in the margin to do that.

Well, I think the problem I have is that we're now having to develop something that doesn't exist. Like you said, margin, right? Well, that's not a real thing. So where is this money actually going to be held? And in my opinion, I think it would just be better and much cleaner to just say we pass a resolution that X amount of dollars goes into reserves. Which has the same effect. It has literally the same effect.

But you're basing it off a number we don't even know. We're closer to it, but we don't know.

How about we focus on expenses and have them come back and say, y'all go across your, whatever that is, easily across each department, four and a half million, let's say it's 10%, come back and give us 10%. And start with the fluff and then go to hard. We did that exercise. But they haven't done it. That's why we're having this conversation.

But I think part of why they haven't done it is because of the requirements, the contracts and so forth. And I sat through those department hearings and we did not get uniform information. And so. Let's be clear about what it is, but also let's be clear that there's some unknowns. I think we've all said that. All five of us up here have said there's unknowns. And the $4.5 million is based on a March number. We're now in July, and staff is able to give us a more predictable number. I think we can get there by what Commissioner Granger is saying in terms of addressing building the reserve. without creating a different process of managing than what we currently do.

So this commission would support, from what I'm hearing from both of you, is a motion that required staff in this budgetary process to have $4.5 million placed in reserves. No, that's not what you're hearing from me.

previously it was 64 million and there was a four and a half million dollar gap what what is the operational budget that has been i mean so i want to point that i want to i like robbie's idea of pointing at the expenses and setting the expenses of the departments because what's gonna happen if we say oh four and a half we're gonna get oh, here's a stormwater assessment fee we can stand up. They're going to go create revenue streams and find ways to add more revenue at the top for them to be able to have more reserves. And I am not trying to create more revenue into this organization.

So I will say on the topic of assessments, if we are entertaining any assessments, which I think we should, at least look at them, that we should reduce ad valorem by the amount of the impact of that assessment, right? So that way we're not double tapping our assessments. I like assessments in the sense of it tells you what you're paying for and it's not just this kind of pot of money that it just gets thrown into and you don't know where your money's going.

To me, this is an expense conversation and we can have a whole other conversation on revenue and how we kind of manipulate things around. That is a totally different conversation.

But if the goal is to raise our reserves, that's the goal because that seems to be the problem. We don't have as robust of reserves as we would like, right?

I think that's part of it. But that's an end result. I also think there's a prioritization problem as well. Yeah. I think that that is also a problem. But the reserves is what we've used previously to fix the prioritization problem.

Yeah, and so we're taking that off the table.

We don't have any to use, so it's taken off the table.

It feels like we're creating kind of like a slush fund almost where they've got to come to us and ask us, mother may I, for extra stuff. But again, I think the way that we probably should handle this is to say we, as a board, want this much money in reserves out of this budget, which would then cause expenses to be reduced.

Along that line, I've asked for, when we have the workshop, a plan to, over time, increase. And I think that's the prudent way of directing our staff to give it to us. And I can support that today.

But we haven't gotten it. You're pointing out the exact issue.

But now we're in a meeting where we can take action, not a workshop, by vote and say, let's have staff present us a plan to reduce the... To reduce expenditures.

Which is the second part that's in what I sent you guys, was actually providing us with opportunities for savings and finding through consolidation and all of those things.

That part I like. You want to get us there.

Well, there has been consensus. This is the backwards part of this. And this is why I felt like today we just need to take action. Is we've had consensus that we need to rebuild our reserves. But there's been no action. Like every budget that we've proposed, there's zero dollars going to reserves. So the team did not hear that approach. We passed resolutions saying it needs to be XYZ. No change. So we have policy that's in place that's not currently being met. We get monthly reports. We have had these budgetary workshops like crazy and still not getting there. So yes, the next step is to create an environment in which you have to do what we're asking. And that is what $4.5 million represents.

And so $1.5 million is not a lot of money out of $153 million. It's 3% of the overall budget.

But let's talk apples and apples and oranges and oranges. When you've got the whole pot, what we can really affect is $65 million in the general fund.

I disagree with that. So one of the, and I'm going to back up Robbie on this, and I think this is what Josh is saying, is staff comes to us throughout the year on purchases that are budgeted. And there's so much inertia of that decision. It's budgeted, and we're like, well, I don't think we should buy the thing, the Street Sweeper. You didn't like the Street Sweeper, and I was kind of like, well, it's budgeted. But this gives us the ability of saying, is this purchase important enough to take out of the reserves? It reframes the conversation on expensive purchases of, so if I said, let's go on a trip, and I said, but you have to take the money out of your 401k, you'd go, ooh. versus, oh, let's open a credit card for it. It's a mindset change on how we spend money, and that's what I think we're advocating for.

I can agree with what you're saying here, but that also gives us a part of the responsibility for having not done that when we've been asking them to do something in reserve, and they bring it to us, and we approve it anyway. I'm not talking about you and the AV crew. And so... the the uh individual instructions that we've been giving staff as well as our going along with what they've presented us has gotten us to this point and to say okay staff we're going to do this with a arbitrary four and a half million number that came to us in march when that's no longer the realistic number is not what i can agree Can we change the motion? How about 3.5?

If they're at 2.4 and that's 4.5, how about 3.5? There's got to be a number to reach towards Knoxville. Yes.

What if we present it?

There is another way of handling it. It would be that we just set what your expenses can be set on. And if that's a $64 million, $64.5 million. I mean, that was the number that was presented to us in March. That accomplishes the same thing. So build your budget on $64.5 million, which is still larger. But it's still larger than virtually any budget in our city's history. That's what's bizarre is to feel like you're in a board that you're making cuts when there's more revenue than there ever has been in the history of our city. That is a spending issue. It is not an income issue.

You often cite private business. When does private business say, there's too much money? When does private business say, Revenue, we're not going to make more money.

When your customers are complaining.

That's the difference. So looking at that alone, I can see where you'd say, okay, well, it's the most money that's ever been taken in. But we also have more houses, right, that have been built here. Ward 3 alone in two years increased over $2,500,000. voters i mean that's that's a lot we don't have a everybody says oh we have 38 000 people in the city that was the census from right after the hurricane um so i'm not saying that just because there's more money is necessarily a bad thing we just want we want efficient use of that yes right yes but My question in all this, and it's really for, I guess, Randy, if we were to pass this as the motion is stated, would you have to create anything new in accounting in order to track this?

No, because if it's not budgeted just like it would be now, it would come to the commission for a budget amendment.

Okay, so it just goes into reserves?

Correct.

Okay.

But after hearing and listening, I mean... We're at a point in our budget process where we're ready to present a proposed budget to you guys. You will be setting the millage rate, which is the ceiling of the millage rate at your next commission meeting, July 28th.

But I'm not even, I think we're so far from that, it's not even funny.

Sir, you will, we need to present you with a proposed budget in total. You have received bits and pieces of a proposed budget as we've been building the plane in flight over the last several months. We would like to present you with a proposed budget that would not use any one-time money or reserves to balance the budget. We would use reoccurring revenue to cover our reoccurring expenses with a reserve replenishment plan. And then we can have further discussions about it before you adopt it in September is when you would adopt the budget.

But what y'all brought us so far, I can't get behind because what's been presented to us, presentations are great. It's the numbers. Those numbers are not going to add up to a budget that we're going to agree with.

I think that's the challenge that I'm also drawn to. You guys keep bringing us back a number that doesn't feel like at least what I'm communicating I'm asking for. Now, everybody else could be communicating something different behind the scenes, and that's fine. But that's why I wanted to talk about it today.

And that's fine. I think seeing a proposed budget, and I believe all of this discussion is solely on the general fund. I mean, we do have a greater budget with all the other funds as well. But presenting that to you all where we can have conversations instead of just drilling into the line items, we can move budget around. And we're not adopting a budget July 28th. We're adopting a budget in September for the following fiscal year.

How much do you think it's going to be right now, just off the top of your head? How much is what? The budget.

For the general fund? Around 67. I'd like to see 64.

67 is not a budget. That's income.

no that that would be it's it matches the general fund right okay oh no actually it doesn't match the income it's still two and a half million dollars short of income that was the income from march the income is different today the income today is more like 66. okay So it's still short and we're still working on it. And that's why I would like to continue to work on it.

So the difference that I'm talking about in adopting 64 and a half is from where you're at today is two and a half million dollars. No, it's not even two and a half million. It's a million and a half dollars.

64 to 67 million. two and a half million three so that's less than three percent of the budget i don't understand like how this can feel so catastrophic it does like because to commissioner lucas's point when you take out and i know there's a debate on whether personnel is fixed cost or not but when you look at our fixed costs to get to what's discretionary it is It's actually for next year. We narrowed down in it last night. It's more like $11 million. When you take out the insurance, your debt payments, all of the contracts that we have, It's $11 million in the general fund that is operating dollars. If you cut $4.5 million from it.

Just to make sure that I'm understanding this, just to make sure that I'm very clear for not only my benefit for everybody, you're telling me you've leveraged almost 90% of your general fund dollars on things that you cannot change.

We can change personnel, but we heard from the consensus up here during the budget workshops to not do everything else besides cut personnel.

But yet you still propose cutting personnel.

Because the $11 million, I mean, we could cut $4.5 million out of that and not touch personnel, but then we're going to have people standing around with no tools to do anything.

You just answered a problem that the city had.

Again, again, it would be us that's making the decision. Again, this is not revenue that's gone. This is not, this is not us saying, hey, we're giving a rebate to every citizen. This is money that we're setting aside to be more intentional and better stewards of taxpayer dollars by forcing it to come to the commission in order to see it move forward.

Is the motion on the table clear?

No, not right now.

Can we restate the motion, please? Josh, do you want to restate your motion?

The motion is to follow through with the $4.5 million worth of cuts reflective of $64.5 million in overall expenses for the general fund budget.

How does that get to be four and a half million?

That was what they presented. Those numbers are not my numbers. Those are straight from staff.

In March?

In March.

That have changed. And you do concede that those numbers, those estimates have changed?

Which gives us flexibility in order to backflow.

Could I ask a clarifying question? So the motion you're proposing is $64.5 million expenditure limit? Yes. Okay.

Is that clear? Okay. We have a first and a second on that, I believe. Is that correct? Yeah. Please call the roll.

Commissioner Hughes?

Yes.

Commissioner Lucas? No. Commissioner Granger? No. Commissioner Street? Yes. Mayor Branch?

Yes.

Motion passes 3-2.

All right, moving to, there was a couple other points in your memo, Josh.

Yes, there was. Obviously, the team is going to have to work to bring us back proposals on spending cuts. In that memo, it also shares collaborative efforts and those type things. I know, Commissioner Lucas, you brought up looking at the MLK Rec Center and what other, maybe do an RFP for after-school programming.

No, I did not bring up an RFP for after-school programming.

RFP for services at MLK Rec Center.

Actually, what I've been an advocate of for the MLK Rec Center is taking advantage of the offers that have been made by St. Joe Foundation, FPL, and others who want to sow into the programming that we're doing there to support that organization. I think it's too soon to change the management model that we're using in less than a year and that it is important for us to play that out. Does it need to be tweaked or something? Yes, but I think outsourcing management of the MLK Rec Center within a year is not what we should do.

I didn't say management.

You mentioned the last meeting because we kept bringing up Boys and Girls Club as just an example. You said we need to stop talking about Boys and Girls Club and have an RFP for this process. That's what I was discussing. I'm not suggesting either that we hand over the keys to the building, but potentially there's a hybrid model where some, some of any organization might say, gosh, I'd love to run a base basketball stuff on Sundays and we'll watch the gym for you. Or, Hey, I'd love to utilize this facility this time and open this door. Is there a problem there now?

Yeah.

Is there, are we solving for a problem?

Well, I think we're solving for, you know, the $800,000 costs within a department that does, you know, parks is like 2.2 million. So like 40% of the parks budget is in one facility. And it's an amazing facility. I want the facility to run even more hours. But if there's an ability for a pickleball league and there's a,

people who want to pick a ball or yeah i would encourage you look at the hours when it's you all of that can happen with us running it my fear is this is a community center and you put somebody else in there running it and believe me i'm not about panama city running things y'all know that okay but this is an opportunity where they're doing a good job and You take community out when you put some money in.

That's my concern. Let me give you a good example. The Lynn Haven has a rec center. The Beach has a rec center. They have after school programming that is supported through Boys and Girls Club. It is still a community facility. It still has staffing that goes along with it. I'm not talking about just turning over the keys to management to an organization. What I am saying is if you look at the hours of use, there are significant gaps in times when there is high use and then there's gaps in times where there's virtually nobody that's there.

it's been almost now at this point in time it's been six months for us to be able to say hey look do we need to adjust and how do we adjust and the RFP conversation came up I was just trying to move it forward okay so let me clarify so this is the idea that the city has a facility that we use in conjunction with other other partners we do that with the Linwood Community Center Michelle has her her programs there and that's wonderful and it's a thing that we don't have to actually create because she's inspired to help people and you know we use all these parks for sports games and leagues and training things and this is just an extension of that i don't know why it's this is sacred we can't touch this thing oh it's not a sacred cat but the process that you've just described is already in place yeah so let's openly say i mean as a commission to me we're just saying hey this is also a facility that we can collaborate on we just brought on a new um

Parks, Culture, and Recreation director, we just brought online the MLK Rec Center. Let's direct them to bring us the things that we're talking about here without starting another process. Let's enhance what we have. It has been just six months. So I think we're doing well. And we've asked staff to give us some budget cuts.

So I was at a meeting last night at Cherry Street talking about road closures. And I said, we need feedback. But because this is a new thing, there's going to be some things that go wrong or things that we need tweaking. And we need feedback. Positive feedback is good, too. We also accept that. I think the feedback that I'm getting is the kids are loving it. We've got a full staff. We're trying to figure out how to operate something that a commission voted to that had no money behind it to operate it. And we're going to have to dig ourselves out of that hole. And to me, partnering with somebody this early in the process doesn't necessarily give that place an opportunity. to dig out of the hole, and they didn't create. To the mayor's point about we've got these other places, with all due respect, MLK Center is different than the Lynn Haven Rec Center. It's different than the Panama City Beach Rec Center. It has a history behind it that neither one of those do, but more importantly, That's probably the nicest building in Northwest Florida right now as a sports complex. And I think let's give Panama City the opportunity to let it shine through our own employees and through our own system within a year. And if it comes out and we bomb, we're having to pay money to it and keep it open. Okay, but right now they're implementing programs and kids are coming to them. I just saw there was one today on there. Yeah, it's awesome. I'm having trouble connecting the dots on why a non-profit, what it's going to do to help it that much more than where we are right now.

Well, I think if we want to do like a moratorium on Any new park, any new facility we have, you can't touch it for a year and a half? That's not it. That's not it at all. To me, this is a facility that serves the public and we should be constantly inviting conversations of how can we make this better?

Well, that can come great.

Guys, I was kind of a little disappointed in how this went last year about this time. There was a proposal that never even came to us. Like, I never even got it until after we had already made decisions on MLK Rec Center. and Boys and Girls Club was offering to handle the after-school programming for us. That's concerning that it wasn't, it didn't even make it, and it literally sat in someone's inbox for months. And now we're saying, well, we can't go back and revisit that. Like, that doesn't seem, that seems a little like we're trying to control it to get to where we want it to go versus, like, what is best.

But that can also be looked at the same way from your presentation on Boys and Girls Club. It has been said, to me, it feels like you're pushing Boys and Girls Club over others.

But they're the only ones that have said anything. That's why I said the RFP process, maybe there's others that want to promote those things.

What happens here, these unsolicited proposals puts the city perpetually in a place of being reactive versus proactive.

I think this is part of being proactive. You're going to put out a welcome to, hey, if you want to host a fitness class or if you want to do this or that. We are open to those conversations. We are not giving you the keys to the building.

Let's get a report from the Parks, Culture, and Recreation of how what's happening is happening.

So I'm advocating for a process that you were just advocating for and saying, hey, open to the public. Any ideas you have, any nonprofits, if you want to use this thing, we're excited for you to use it. We're going to engage you. And the commission is going to see what the community wants to do there. And so I don't think this is, to me, this is no different than any other park that we have, any other facility.

I mean, if we're not willing to entertain other people that want to come into our facilities and help us with programming, I mean, we're just trying to build our own kingdom, I guess.

That's what I'm saying, Commissioner Street. We are doing that. If I may ask.

Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, Mr. Myrill actually ran the Panama City Beach with the Boys and Girls Club. So I think he can probably speak with some informed history.

Keith Myrill, Director of Parks, Culture, Recreation. And to your points, RFPs for programming, I think that would be a welcome. There are agencies and groups out there that still may not know that we're accepting these. We have our partner program that we're accepting applications for already. We have a dozen partners that we're engaged with in the community, and we are seeking more.

So how would an RFP process differ from what we're already doing with our partner process?

It's just an extension of that. So the partner program is more of an application. The RFP would be, it would just open it up to more potential advertisement that we're doing it.

So we would take the partner process and make it an RFP?

Correct.

Is that what you're intending, Commissioner Streep?

I mean, I would just like to have a process in which people that have the ideas on programmings at their cost, not the taxpayers, are willing to provide in the facilities that we have. I don't think that that's a, I don't understand why that's so controversial.

So we've got a number of partnerships already? Do we have any pending?

We do. We have partnerships with KPL, and that's an early learning program that we do at the center. We have a dozen. We're poised to be able to actually do kind of some annual report to the commission, if that would be desired. We have that data pretty much ready.

So if that's the case, then why, so then the conversation flips. Why are we against Boys and Girls Club? Like, why haven't they been engaged in this process?

Who is against Boys and Girls Club?

Well, it sounds like there's people that obviously are finding ways to do partnerships and engagement, but there's been no engagement with Boys and Girls Club.

Since the center opened, has the Boys and Girls Club reached out?

We haven't spoken directly with the Boys and Girls Club specifically about MLK, but in my experience...

I mean, no one is preventing them from doing what others are currently doing.

They literally gave us an RFP. And then we went a different management route.

The RFP was for management, correct?

It sounds like that there is a willingness to work with people that can work behind the scenes to work with staff. I understand. There's not an appetite for putting forward an open RFP to any and all that would like to work. That's what I understand.

Well, your understanding is... your understanding. I can't dispute that. There is nothing that's preventing anyone at this point. What Mr. Ryle is saying is that we're going to take our partner process and put it in our RFP form. I'm not against that. To your point, you've said it's not about managing the facility, but making it more available to others. I would also like to see us reach out to St. Joe Foundation. They have expressed an explicit interest. They're waiting on an ask from us to support the Martin Luther King Recreation Center, as are other foundations in the area. And is there any reason why City Manager Hayes, we should not move forward with those requests? With those requests for funding from community partners.

I mean, I think if we're going to consider any facility like this, I think casting a wider RFP is probably prudent, to Mr. Myrill's point, if we'd like to do that and see what opportunities might exist out there.

And in my experience in the nonprofit world, a proposal to a funder such as St. Joe is not the same as an RFP.

That's fair.

So I would have us move forward in all directions. Do we need a motion for that?

So do we have a motion to direct staff to go up for RFP? I yield to Commissioner Lucas.

So we'd like to direct staff to pursue funding opportunities specifically from foundations and corporations in addition to preparing an RFP that allows a greater awareness of our current partner program.

I'll second. Any discussion? Please call the roll.

Commissioner Hughes?

Yes.

Commissioner Lucas? Yes. Commissioner Granger? Yes. Commissioner Street? Yes. Mayor Branch? Yes. Motion passes 5-0. Okay. We are on 11A.

11-11.

11A is notice of vacancy on the Municipal Police Officers Pension Fund Board. Municipal Police Officers Pension Fund Board has one vacancy. The previous board member has resigned and the term ends October 12th of 2027. We've received one application from Mr. Michael Mike Nichols. I believe there was a copy at each one of your stations. It came in late yesterday.

Okay. Do we need to accept Mr. Nichols' volunteerism? I'll make a motion, would you? I will second. Any discussion? Please call the roll.

Commissioner Hughes? Yes. Commissioner Lucas? Yes. Commissioner Granger? Yes. Commissioner Street? Yes. Mayor Branch? Yes. Motion passes 5-0.

Thank you for volunteering. Thank you for volunteering.

All right. And item 11B is notice of term expiration on the Board of Trustees for the Supplemental Retirement Plan for Designated General Employees. The Board of Trustees for the Supplemental Retirement Plan for Designated General Employees has two positions for four-year terms that expire on July 22nd, 2030. The current board members, Jack Lloyd and Kelly Smith, have expressed an interest in retaining their positions on the board.

The motion is approved.

Do I have a second? I'll second. Please call the roll.

Commissioner Hughes?

Yes.

Commissioner Lucas? Yes. Commissioner Granger? Yes. Commissioner Street? Yes. Mayor Branch? Yes. Motion passes five to zero.

All right, item 12A is consideration to approve budget amendment resolution number 2026-0714.1 to accept donations from residents for the purchase and installation of bat houses throughout Panama City Parks. The total amount of donations received as of June 29, 2026 is $7,605.09. As background information, the residents of Panama City have graciously donated $7,605.09 between June 20 and June 29 to assist in the purchase and installation of bat houses and parks throughout the city. Our initial installations will take place at Bay Memorial Park. Subsequent installations will occur, adding one bat house each in Sweet Bay Wetlands Preserves, H.D. Mathis Park, and Joe Moody Harris Park. Once these are in place, we will explore additional parks that could benefit from this initiative.

oh my gosh that's really clever thank you for doing that you're very welcome i needed a good laugh this morning thank you all right mr mayor staff recommends approval oh can we we need to change it because we've raised more money since then so can we just say from from the entirety of their fundraising to today or something

I think we have to have the actual amount, don't we, Ms. Waldron, in order to do the budget amendment?

We'll just bring back any additional that we receive and do a budget amendment.

The back mayor never gets his way.

motion to approve the batman batman i will say mayor um when we were soliciting for donations they were specific to bay memorial park and we are going to update that and change it for city parks instead of just one specific park thank you so much uh we have a first and a second any discussion and one of them needs to be like branch manor oh my gosh all right please call the roll on the supreme commissioner hughes i believe he stepped out commissioner lucas yes commissioner granger yes commissioner street yes mayor branch yes motion passes four to zero make sure the minutes reflect that mayor the commission has adopted resolution 20 26 of 714.1

A resolution providing for the amendment of the approved fiscal year 25-26 budget to accept and expend donated funds for the purchase and installation of bathhouses throughout Panama City Parks.

And the first two are going to be installed starting this Thursday. All right. Item 12B is consideration to approve the special event permit application and waive all applicable special event and facility rental fees for the Halloween Haunted House, sorry, Halloween Haunted Whore in memory of Donna Kinsella to be held at Lake Huntington Clubhouse from October 25th through November 1st of this year. Sparking information enclosed for the commission's consideration is a special event permit application for the Halloween Haunted Horror in memory of Donna Kinsella. The event is proposed to take place daily from October 25th to November 1st from 5 to 8 p.m. at and outside of the Lake Huntington Clubhouse, which is Exhibit A up on your screen. The event is hosted by Joseph Mandeville and will feature an outdoor Halloween display with life-size cemetery and themed props, as well as indoor walkthrough haunted house with electrical props and animatronics. The event is intended to provide a free Halloween attraction for the community. A site map of the event is also attached as it be. The applicable special event fees total $420, consisting of $50 tier four special event application fee, a refundable $250 security deposit, and $120 for the use of five electrical panels. In addition, the organizers reserve the Lake Huntington Clubhouse for eight consecutive days, from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. each day, The applicable rental facility fees for this building is $600. Based on the recommendation of the chief of police, no police services will be required for this event. Therefore, no police service fees will be assessed. The event organizer has requested all applicable special event and facility fees be waived because the event is free and open to the public. The organizer's fee waiver request letter is also attached as exhibit C. Staff recommendation through the Director of Parks, Culture, and Recreation is that the commission provide direction on the approval of the special event permit application and the requested fee waiver as that authority lies solely with them. Mr. Mayor?

Yes, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve.