Public - workshop

Awesome. Welcome to, I guess this would be considered a workshop? Correct. About housing and all the things. And it was a great idea that Robbie had the last, was it?

Virtual meeting, that wasn't that. It was virtual. It was virtual.

And you said let's have these conversations in person because they're very personal and important, and we deserve that you all do it here in person. So I appreciate everyone coming and showing up on kind of a drizzly day to discuss all these things. We're going to open up. City Manager Hayes is going to give us a background of where we're at, and then Commissioner Lucas is going to also welcome you as well.

sounds good thank you mr mayor commissioners members of the public welcome uh so just a little bit of a quick background um you know i think kind of going back to 1993 many folks might not know that the after school assistance program was established originally by the panama city police department it originally operated within the panneville apartments housing complex and then in 1998 The city purchased the former Neota Motel in the Glenwood community using CDBG funds, which is a community development block grant, to develop a new dedicated facility at 726 East 14th Court. It's about a 6,200-square-foot building. It was completed in 2000, and about 0.6 acres is that lot. The original Panavilla site, located at 1804 Flower Avenue, In the St. Andrews area, it's now known as Maybell Wetfield Way. It was redeveloped in 2011, and it's got about a 1,700-square-foot structure that's owned by Panavilla Redevelopment. So we have two locations where we run the ASAP program. A number of years ago, a group of community leaders, many of which you see is represented by their board here on our front row, One Positive Place, started raising money to build another facility, moreover in the central Panama City area, called One Positive Place. And they've roughly raised about $1.2 million for the purpose of building that building. And, you know, there's been lots of talks over the last 18 to 24 months on, you know, wanting to kind of move that forward. Obviously, the hurricane put a big wrinkle in some of those plans. But also in the last five years, we've had a number of changeovers and retirements on our commission. And so we've got a lot different commission today than when some of these original efforts began. And so as we continue our recovery from both Hurricane Michael and Hurricane Sally, we've had a lot of conversations around how to move this forward and what does that look like. So it was actually probably about two months ago, six to eight weeks ago, that Commissioner Lucas asked that we put one positive place on one of our two workshops each month that we have virtual. for the purpose of giving the commission the opportunity to discuss this together and come to a consensus on how we want to move this forward and on what timetable. And so as the mayor mentioned last week, as part of the budget workshop, the desire was to shift this from being virtual and to have it in person. And so everybody has a copy of a letter that One Positive Place sent to me this morning. along with some of the plans, preliminary plans for both the site layout itself for their building, as well as the rendering for the building itself. And then we also have, and we'll put this up on the screen later on in the meeting, but we kind of show some of the parcels that are owned by One Positive Place. They have purchased four different parcels over in central Panama City, right off of 17th and Maybale-Whitfield Way. The city also owns four parcels over there. The county owns one parcel over there. And then there's a handful of private owners that own a number of parcels as well. So that's just a real quick overview. I think I got probably all the high-level top points for kind of where we are and what the factors are. And I'm happy to turn it back over to Commissioner Lucas at this time.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Welcome. Mayor, fellow commissioners, city staff, community partners, and residents, thank you for being here today as we discuss the future of one of the city's most important investments, our children. Today's conversation is about a building, it's about a place, it's about a program, but it's really about the children. I want to revisit the need that caused the police department in 1993 to say we need a program like ASAP. So the question I think we need to answer today is has that need been met? Is the reasons that we started the program, are they still valid? And if the case is yes, I believe, and I believe it is yes, then we need to move forward with the one positive place. See, that mission is especially important in the neighborhoods served by our two ASAP sites. The Glenwood site serves children living primarily in Census Track 16, while the St. Andrews site serves children in Track 22. Although each neighborhood has unique strengths and histories, both includes families facing significant economic challenges. These census tracks have household incomes below the citywide average, higher concentrations of children, and greater rates of poverty. than many other areas of Panama City. Across Panama City, nearly 22% of the residents are under the age of 18, and approximately 18% of all residents live below the federal poverty level. Those numbers are not simply statistics. And as these ladies can tell you, their faces, their children, their hearts, and what they've done over these few years have made a big difference. As we consider the proposal from One Positive Place to construct a permanent facility, I believe we should consider the question. And if the answer is yes, and I believe it should be, then the next question becomes how we provide that service most effectively for the next generation. I also want to remind us that while the people who are sitting in these seats are different, than in 1993 or even when one positive place first came to the city and said we want to do this this institution that we now represent made a commitment to our citizens who went in good faith earned good money and are ready to make good on their commitment and it would not be in good light for the city to back out of this at this time. Yes, there are many questions. Yes, there's much to work out. But I think that we can, and I think most definitely that we should. We should evaluate the financial model. We should understand ownership, operations, partnerships, and long-term stability. We should ask difficult questions. But we should also recognize the tremendous value of maintaining and strengthening the city's commitment to serve our youth. And so that's why we're here today. I know One Positive Place has prepared for us to lay out their plan, their proposal, and most, I think, important, their readiness to build this building. And so with that, let's hear from One Positive Place.

new to this microphone thing good afternoon mayor I'm the emotional one of the group I'm just gonna go ahead and put that out there now I have these beautiful pictures in front of me was a bad idea you asked for them to go up i did um i'll get it together good afternoon mayor commissioners city manager and other distinguished members of the panama city commission on behalf of sorry one positive place thank you for the opportunity to be here today and share our vision for the future of the after school assistance program better known throughout our community as ASAP. We sincerely appreciate your time, your service to our city, and your willingness to hear about a project that we believe, as Commissioner Luke has mentioned, will have a lasting impact on the children and families in Panama City's most underserved population. For decades, ASAP, with the help of One Positive Place, has been committed to changing the trajectory of young lives by providing a safe, structured, and nurturing environment where students receive academic support, mentorship, character development, nutritious meals, sometimes it's Kraft mac and cheese and a walk, and opportunities to discover their potential. Since its inception, the ASAP program has served thousands of children, and I believe we have calculated about 4,000 to be exact, becoming much more than an after-school program. It has become a second home, a place of hope, and a foundation for future success. Every day we witness the transformative power of investing in our youth. We see students who improve academically, develop confidence, build meaningful relationships with caring adults, and gain the life skills needed to become productive members of our community. These successes are made possible. Sorry. because of that lady right there, Terry Gaynor, along with the unwavering support of community partners, volunteers, and donors who truly understand that investing in children is investing in Panama City's future. Today, however, we've reached a pivotal moment. The current facility limits the number of children we can serve and the programming we can provide. The demand for high quality after school and summer programming continues to grow, particularly in the urban core where many families rely on ASAP as a critical resource. Our capital campaign represents an investment in the future of our city. By constructing a larger purpose built facility, ASAP and One Positive Place will be able to expand educational programming. provide additional mentoring opportunities, increase access to technology, enhance enrichment activities, and serve significantly more children and families for generations to come, upwards of 100 plus children at this location. Additionally, this building could also serve as a community resource center for other city programming needs. Our vision is simple but powerful. To ensure that every child who walks through the doors has the opportunity to learn, grow, thrive, and ultimately become a positive contributor to our community. Together we can create a lasting legacy that strengthens families, reduces barriers to success, and builds a brighter future for Panama City. We are here today because we care and are invested in the future. Back in March, we sent that letter in front of you to the city. outlining our overarching goals and to garner some direction from the city. So a few questions we'd like for you to consider today. First and foremost, do you want the ASAP program to remain under the city umbrella? Secondly, if that answer is yes, are you willing to partner with us as we build this building? We thank you for your time, your leadership, your consideration. We are honored to share this vision with you today and to look forward to discussing how this project can help shape the next chapter of ASAP and One Positive Place for the benefit of our entire community. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there others who are presenting, speaking?

My piece is all about the birthday and the parcel.

Just turn that mic on. We have folks online.

Yeah, that's all. People are watching online. I'm sorry. What was that, Robbie? Scott said he had to leave early, so he had to leave. Okay.

began having conversations with some of you with, uh, commissioner street and then later with, uh, mayor branch about the ASAP program and about the best way that it could serve this community. I know there's been some discussion about possibly having ASAP move away from the city and to maybe another not for profit to continue that the work of ASAP that these ladies have described so beautifully. Um, And I've thought about this, and while I wouldn't be, if the decision is made to do that, I'd love to be able to work with you to find a way to do that. But the more I have thought about it, the more I think it does not serve the best interests of ASAP and what it does and what it does for this community. As you know, I once sat in the same seat where you guys are. And my perception always was that as a commissioner, our job was to improve the quality of life for the citizens of Panama City. But what you do for the citizens in St. Andrews, where I live, or the Cove, maybe improving a marina, building nice parks right on the water, that's a little different than what you do to improve the quality of life for the people in Glenwood and the people who live on the hill in St. Andrews. in those situations you're fighting poverty and fighting poverty means a good housing program because in order for people to move themselves out of lift themselves up out of poverty they need a safe place to live a secure place to live likewise having a safe, nurturing place for children to be, to learn how to become productive citizens, that is another key element in that mission of fighting poverty. And if we think that quality of life and fighting poverty is core to the mission of the city, the more I've thought about it, the more I think it should remain with the city. I realize there have been some problems over the past few years. It's not been as stable as it should. You've had to pull more money out of general revenue to help make the fund work and make the programs work. But I want you to step back a second and think about this. The city manager mentioned that this began in 1993. So for more than 30 years, this program has run, and it has run well the vast majority of that time. But over the last six years or so, they have met two difficult to say the least crises that most programs never have to face. Number one, a Cat 5 hurricane. And that had a tremendous effect on ASAP, just like other parts of the city. And straightening that out and straightening out the funding and all the things that came from that, that's been a difficult journey. but how many other organizations have had to go through one of their top level employers, embezzling money, taking money away from those chill that was intended to improve the lives of those children. And so that has created uncertainty in your funding program funding and the way the program is managed. But I'd suggest to you that you please do not judge the program and the, and the benefits of this program, the quality of the program over what's happened over the last five or six years. If you want to take a good look, I know, by the way, the other part of your mission is you have to be good stewards of the few taxpayer, the tax dollars that you get. You have a responsibility to the citizens. So, no, you need to look hard at how the money is being spent. But I'm going to ask you to think about something. Before you move this out, I'm going to suggest that you allow a three-year period of time. I think we might call it a stabilization period because it's been through a lot of instability for the reasons I've discussed. Allow a three-year stabilization period because many of those grants that were in place before have not been renewed. Allow time to renew those. Allow time for the funding to settle back in so that you have a more steady flow of money to support those programs. So I encourage you, before you make that change, Step back, take a look at all 30 years of this program and allow that stabilization period before you move it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm going to tag on to that just to touch. I believe that there is still money sitting aside from the embezzlement debacle that would more than cover a three-year stabilization period. I think it would probably cover about four and a half years. So to his point, there is money there to at least cover it for that period of time. I was asked to bring you all information about the building and the parcels. Mr. Hayes mentioned earlier that we had purchased four parcels. Some of those parcels were actually donated to us by citizens that wanted to see this program grow.

Put up the map, please.

We currently have a lease with the city of ground lease on the four parcels, the purple parcels on the right hand side of that corridor. And one thing that we also need from the city at some point, we need to discuss vacating of that alleyway if at all possible so that we can do away with the setbacks. In your packet, you should also have a preliminary site plan. This site plan was put together prior to the donation of the parcels in green. And you should also have a preliminary floor plan that shows kind of where we're headed and let you see that there'll be a lock off portion of the building that the city will be able to use as a community center or however you see fit. And I did not bring financial statements with me, but we do have approximately 1.2 million in the bank ready to go. So

Okay.

So we're just going to write into discussion. Okay.

Um, if you don't mind, I'd like to have public comment.

If the commission, well, they might want to, they might want to discuss what we had to say. So I thought we'd open that up to, I want to start by just saying that, um, no one up here is anti kids or anti helping. And I've personally been a donor of gift cards and I've been to all the funky food vests as well. And, um, I'm very supportive of the program, and I was even today speaking with juvenile delinquent center children there. And so I'm not anti-kids. No one up here is. No one comes up here in this scene, I believe, with a heart of hate and hardened. You come up here, you actually become softer when you become elected because you get to see all the helpers in the community. You also get to experience how slow this entity moves in general, how slow it is to react, how confusing things are. And so being in the mayor's seat, I thought I knew how slow organizations move until you come into government, and then you're like, wow, this thing moves even slower than I could have imagined. And so I don't want anyone to think that anyone up here is hates children, all the faces, beautiful children, love all the kids. We're just trying to find a way to pay for it. And really the discussion is not about not helping kids. It's the little bit, tiny bit of money that we get What is the best way to facilitate helping more people? That's really the conversation we're trying to have. It's not about helping less. It's about helping more, and those dollars going the furthest. That's how I want to start the conversation off. Robby, did you want to add to that?

Well, I just was going to say I'm glad that you wanted to allow public conversation. I have personal experience of working with ASAP through the clothing closet and going to the mall before school and giving them out and come back the next year and they're wearing the same pair of socks and the same shoes with holes in them. And my experience has been that you are making an impact. I was in a conversation earlier today, and the statement was, we need more customers. We need more kids. And you just said, and that can balance out kind of the, I think one of the things is the delivery of service is expensive. Well, more kids makes that less expensive. And then you throw in the building cost. I like the idea, but we've got to staff it, so now is that a full-time employee? Those types of questions are questions to have later on. My concern is that, and Mary, I've heard you say, have another nonprofit take over and run it for better efficiency, but I don't know of another nonprofit in town that can walk in today and start and it be more efficient. There's gonna be a learning curve. And you're already there and you're a nonprofit.

Oh, I've never suggested that another nonprofit take over.

I heard you say that one day, I'm sorry. But I like Scott's idea. There's a million four or five in an account right now that is actually more money than was intended to go to that program as donations came in and got stolen. Got real estate bought. And when we sold the real estate, we made more money. And made an account that says for the benefit of ASAP. So we had a conversation here a couple weeks ago about is that reserves or is that actual operation money? And I believe it's operation money. It was intended to go there, but we have to have it in a special account. It's got a board that goes with it. It's protected, okay? But that's not reserves as we think of reserves here. We talk about them all the time. Savings account, in my opinion. So... I'm glad to hear you say that we can operate this at no cost in the city for four years or no? You said four and a half years.

If you've got $1.5 million in the bank and the budget is around $300,000. There you go.

So I like that idea of let's do some reorganization. Whatever we're doing there now that means improvement, and everything means improvement. This isn't about that this is in the toilet. Our functions here need improvement. And let's give that an opportunity. If we need more kids, let's go find them. When I was growing up playing baseball, Scott Nabors, he would take me and Jason and we would ride through Glenwood. And he would say, you want to play baseball? And we'd pick them up and we'd go buy gloves and shoes. And that's how I got to know Ernest Lyles. And then we played baseball. We need more kids. We need more customers. So last night, Meg said to me, she said, you need to rebrand ASAP because people don't know what it is. Why don't they go to, say, Bay Base? I couldn't answer that question. And I called Kelly, and here's the question. Here's the answer. Thanks to Sheila and Terry, if your kid goes there, that means you're at work. That means that you have a job, unlike going to Bay Base or all these others where I'm not, sorry, this is going to make the headline, more of a babysitting service than over here. This is educational all the way because your parents have to go work. They're going to make it worth their while. Oh, yeah, and it's $20 a month, and if you can't do it, we might help you out. You're going to pay to be at the other ones. You're making an impact in somebody's life, and I think we need to, if we're going to give an earnest effort to make some change, let's keep it where it is and make some change with where it's been and make an earnest effort to see if we can improve it. So thank you for being here today.

I would like to speak to something I've heard the mayor say today and often about helping the helpers. As an executive director of a nonprofit, yes, we help people, but we don't stay in business because of the charity. The nonprofit is a business. And so in the role of community service, the municipality city, Panama City, is not a helper providing charity to individuals in need. We've got a broader responsibility. You've heard it said in various ways today. But this isn't about charity. This is about meeting a need. And I think Scott, you said it very well in the pockets of poverty. No, we cannot say it. Save everybody. This is true. But in this position that we currently have, we can put our minds and hearts together to make it better in the future and taking time to have the conversations in the public domain where we all have the same facts and information, I think can move us to that. But we're not a charity when we do the ASAP program or provide community services as a municipality.

brandy can you walk us through just setting setting the sort of story of the past five years of costs and the funding mechanisms where the money comes from just to bring everyone into the story of the past few years and i would add to what mr clements said there's been three incidents in covent as well we've mentioned that yeah covet was a big thing as well

Yeah, so Mayor, you asked me these questions, and I think I emailed you the details of the ASAP, the excess cost above what their allocation allows for for CDBG.

Well, I went through the allocations as well, just total cost to the best of your ability and access, just the whole thing.

Well, let me get that out. Hold on. The last five years? Have four with me. Okay. Okay. So in 2023, the actual cost of ASAP was around $275,000. In 2024, it was $291,000. 2025, $302,000. And so far to date, we're at $201,000. So it's averaging about 300,000 a year. The cost.

Brandy, does that include facilities costs?

Yes, that's a cost.

So that's the total building power. Yes. All of those things.

Now, my understanding is they don't pay like insurance or utilities on the Panavilla location. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Yeah. So they really just pay that on the Glenwood or MLK location.

So the Panavilla is free. in terms of facility costs.

So we have a partner who covers those costs.

American has been a wonderful partner for us and they cover all those costs. In our CDBG allocation, the only funds we use 15% as our public service that goes into ASAP and that averages anywhere from 60 to roughly $70,000 a year. That is the only contribution that's being put in from a city grant in that like i said that's from our cdbg allocation so it's not coming out of the general fund and we use the friends of asap has been covering the shortfall with the city um for the last Well, actually five, five years would last two to three years.

Friends of ASAP has covered it in fiscal year 24. The prior year fiscal year 23 are this nonprofit, our Panama city community fund covered the shortfall. And then the two prior years, 22 and 21, the general fund covered the gap. Um, and currently we're, um, finishing up our 2025 fiscal year audit. We're estimated about 245,000 and that will come out of the Friends of ASAP account, which is separate from the city's Panama city community fund that has the 1.5 in it. Right.

Which will leave us with a balance of about possibly one 51 70 that will go into the following year.

And what's that money paid for that coming out of that two 45.

So I, like I just went over the last few years of cost for the ASAP program. So say their costs are 300,000. They are allowed to use 15% of their CDBG annual allocation. to go towards public service. So that's all that they can. Their costs are $300,000, though. So that difference, around $245,000, has got to come from somewhere else. And so for 2025, we're proposing it to come from the Friends of ASAP, just like it did last year.

Salaries, operating supplies.

The whole cost of operating ASAP.

A couple of things that we have to dive in and look at intrinsically exactly ASAP, but then we also have to back out and look at the totality of housing and services. While there is some coverage from ASAP, there's also still shortfalls inside of housing, and so we can't cover everything inside of that too.

I'm sorry. What shortfalls are in housing?

We don't have all salaries inside of housing.

One salary because the department director, which makes sense to me that it would not be there because the director works for the city of Panama, which is where we've shifted.

We shifted and we started sharing staffing with ASAP. So some of our ASAP personnel serve in housing as well as ASAP.

If I'm correct, we have one. Employee Terry comes over because in the morning they're not being utilized all day long. I'm not arguing with. Yeah, but the whole salary. No, it's coming out of ASAP. The whole salary comes out of ACAP.

Her salary is 100% allocated to that part of that $300,000 number.

So what I'm saying, like for us to look at financial, the reality is ACAP is a great program. Everyone has worked incredibly hard to get us to where we are today. Some of the concerns as we've moved on are more important. If you add another facility, you've got more costs. If you're already operating at a shortfall and it's a number of children, you add more children, you end up with a greater shortfall. So it's a perpetuating problem. And every nonprofit gets to this point in time in its history. And. It gets to its point and you have to make a decision on how you structurally operate to be able to sustain yourself long-term. There's a saying that I've heard that I think is great. You can die or you can die giving birth to something. That's the way problems are solved. Whether or not ASAP stays at the city or it goes elsewhere, what I see today is an opportunity. We have an opportunity with a great group of people that have raised a tremendous amount of funding towards a facility. We also happen to have cash in the account that we've set out for this. Now, I was there when we received the cash. We received it because we were going to support this facility. That was the intention. And what we discussed, it was not about operating shortfalls and all of those things. That was never a part of our conversation in the Hurricane Michael nonprofit. It was always how we can partner with one positive place to see this facility move forward. So I would say in whatever decisions are made, sustainability has to be a point. Otherwise, all we are doing waiting three years is just waiting for three years for it to end up fading away. And then we've got another facility and we've got vacant facilities that we're trying to figure out. That's not a dig, that's not an attack, that's not anything of saying that kids aren't important. What it is to say is right now we do not have a sustainable revenue model and we could give, I'm not talking about taking the money for anything else, but if somebody wanted to stand up their own nonprofit right now, essentially the city could write them over a million dollar check. And there's already an organization with a million plus dollars ready to go towards facilities and support. That is not a bad situation. That's a dream situation for anyone. And if we wait three years, all we're going to do is have less resources, more liabilities, and be at the same spot is what I think.

And I can appreciate the thoughts, and I can also agree with you that this is an opportunity time. I disagree on what the three years could do or what even another year could do if we work earnestly together, because what you've just described really just sets up the same scenario to happen under somebody else's watch in a few years. By that, what I mean is... You take the million and the building created and you give it to another nonprofit. They too face the same challenges that we are here.

No, I would actually disagree that.

Well, I don't have a nonprofit in mind, so maybe that's why I have a different perspective.

No, I'd say that right now this board is tied to that board, and your board can move faster if you're not worried about the mayor, the future mayors meddling in what you guys are doing. And they can be less reactionary and plan more. When I met with them, I said, hey, we have NSP houses, neighborhood stabilization. Maybe you come up with a way to create a foundation and take some houses and you use that as a funding mechanism long term. Maybe we hold on to the ASAP building by MLK and lease it to you for 100 years for a dollar. I'm up for any idea. What we want to avoid, what Josh is pointing out, is in five years of continuing to do the same thing, the money's gone. The million dollars is gone. And we go, oopsies, and we go, we lost.

But what you're describing is just one possible scenario.

It's the track that we're heading down.

But you're making the assumption that if you build a building that they're not going to make any, they're not going to add any extra to it or change the structure in that three years. That three years is to try to make changes, structural changes, in that system that's already there.

And to have conversations with people who actually can measure those goals.

And what I would say to that point is what are those structural changes?

What are we solving for in the general out of the box anyway is my first question. What are we trying to solve for other than we're trying to close a gap of about a hundred thousand dollars.

I mean, well, $200,000. I think to Kelly's point, what, what they asked for today is are we willing to commit to a new facility and to being the person that's going to maintain that facility? So my next question is, Well, that sounds like just another liability. It's going to make the problem worse unless we have a sustainable model of creating afterschool care in our communities that does involve private donors that involves a lot of other avenues, I'm sure. But until there's a plan, I don't understand how, how it's, it's seen as, well, let's just keep going and eventually we'll get to a plan.

But, Commissioner, if we do not stop to give direction to make a plan, then no, it doesn't happen. This body can direct collaborative planning to get to the point that you're talking about.

Mayor, at the right moment, if I could just say a word. Yes, sir. I'm going to go back to something I said before, but I want to emphasize it. I think it's not fair to judge any shortfalls that are in the program. that have occurred over the last five or six years and judge the program for that. There's more than 30 years of success of this program, and it's run well. It's changed the lives of kids, and it's been financially responsible. I just wouldn't want you to make a decision right now just based on an organization that faced embezzlement, an international pandemic, and a Cat 5 hurricane. I don't think it's fair to judge it that way and make a decision based on what you're seeing over the last four years, four or five years. The sustainability is going to be there. By the other way, I want to emphasize, too, is remember, and correct me if I'm wrong, Sheila, many of the grants that had been put in place originally, those lapsed during this period of time.

Absolutely.

We were unable to apply for any additional grants. We did apply for the 21st Century Grant, which we're waiting to find out, but we were not able to apply. And the money that we're using is the recovered grant money.

So if you, again, I want to go back to the idea of having a three-year stabilization period. So you can reactivate those grants. Again, that's another reason why I do not think it's fair to judge the program and its financial stability based on what's happened in the last five years.

Give it time to restore those grants. I would ask, why couldn't the organization go after their own grants? Imagine if you controlled your own destiny as a board and you were able to go after your own grants and be able to shape the organization the way you see fit, not the way this board sees fit. They were doing that, and he was stealing it. That's why the city is doing it now. Complexity hides fraud. I think everyone here is wonderful, but this is a very confusing funding organization because it's all HUD and CBGB money.

It's run for 30 years.

And it has. I'm saying that we continue down this path. We're going to run out of money. It's not for me, in my opinion, to go into this organization and tell them how to run your organization and say, Terry, this is how you should spend your money. This is for you guys to figure out. This is your organization that you should be spearheading. You should be crafting. You should be going after grants, not local government. We can't even run a marina. And we're supposed to run after-school programs? I mean, we can't.

But I think your argument would have water if we had not done it successfully prior to, for decades prior to.

I don't know what the financials were for the last 30 years. If I had to guess, there was probably a gap all the way through the process. And it just became exacerbated because we went through a hurricane, and we became tight on finances, and we didn't have the same flexibility that we had 10 years ago because we don't. And so I don't know we're talking about that. Maybe it was sustainable 10 years ago. I don't know whether it was, no one's given me a 30 year look back on, on those things. I do know at one point in time, the, the, the police department was the one that was operating it with some type of community funds. Maybe there is a way for grants, but. I think to the mayor's point is who is more agile and who can actually do things better. And I think it's proven time and time again that government is not the best place for nonprofit work to be completed. We have an opportunity to birth something that

can can run and they've got plenty of run they have the same runway what we just described it's the there's the same runway with a private organization as there is with a public organization it's the birthing process and gentlemen i think the way to get there isn't by having individual conversations but by pulling together experts as as we know the people in the field and say let's have a plan And let's move forward with that. And I don't think that the way we've gone about it to get us to this point is the way to accomplish that.

So when I have my first meetings with Terry and Sheila, I never hid behind any of my words. I said this in the very beginning. I think they should be their own nonprofit, that they control their own destiny. And we help them stand up. When I met with everyone there, this is the first time we get to talk about all this stuff together. And I said the same thing. I said a failure to me is this program does stand itself up and then doesn't sustain. I want to see a sustainable program. But is it on me and this board for us to go figure out how you create your own funding mechanism? We have houses. We have cash. We have facilities. I would love to see this board come up with their own plan, not me force a plan upon you. It's really for you, this three-year plan, let's see the plan and let's figure out how we help them.

But Mayor, it's not an either or because they've come to help us. That was the initial impetus for building the building. Yeah. And so they're here to help kids, not us.

They're here to help the kids.

Well, the ASAP program is housed in the city. So in that regard.

And we do need their help. And I think we need their help now more than ever because I do not believe we have known for four years that we were in an unsustainable track. And every year we propose a budget that is just drawing down on funding that's sitting into an account.

Citywide, not just one area.

Sure. There are other areas in the city that have done the same thing. And so now we're at a point of saying, look, do we want to continue to draw down these funds, or do we want to entrust them to a group that is absolutely passionate and cares, and we know beyond a shadow of a doubt they're going to do what's best for these kids in every single instant? Or do we want to trust it into government system to somehow possibly get through the pragmatics of grant writing and make sure we get through each and every budget process and the elected leaders may change and maybe they have different prioritization. Maybe they, they value after-school care. Maybe they don't. And we just fluctuate back and forth, or it could be in a spot where it can be super healthy and it's the same numbers. It's no different. If the, if the program is covering all its costs right now, out of these accounts, it is the same staying in as it is going out. There is no difference.

May I have a word? Absolutely. I just want to say that the job I was given to prepare for today was research. So I'm going to stick in a little research. And one of the things I'd like to say is that I have looked at other programs in other cities that are very similar to us in demographics, population, Uh, average income and most of the programs that are successful and work are partnerships with their city. And a lot of what they look at is cost from a different angle. So if you eliminate your city costs for ASAP, it's more like a direct cost transfer. to working families, the schools, law enforcement. So I went down that rabbit hole, found out what the national numbers were, and then Florida, since that's what pertains to us. In Florida, the average cost to keep a juvenile in secure detention for a year averages $55,000 to $118,000 a year. In contrast, the cost of an after-school program that's helped run by their city is between $1,500 and $5,200 annually per child based on city and location. So there's other avenues and other ways to look at your cost. Talk about return on investment for working families. The families that live in these two areas don't often have jobs. And when they get those jobs, they have to have childcare that they can't afford. And a civic responsibility in the eyes of many cities, not just ours, is to help out those people so that they know their kids are safe after school. They're getting all the benefits of the program that we have done so well for, ASAP has done so well for 30 years. They don't have to call out time from work. They don't have to not show up for work. And these things are problems for hourly wage earners more so than others, which is what you generally find in a low income area. So There's other ways to look at your costs, and I don't want that to be left out.

And I thank you for bringing that up because what we've overlooked here is a responsibility that government has to fill a gap where the private market does not correct on its own. And that's what we're talking about here. In neighborhoods where private child care and enrichment programs can be afforded by the people who live there, That model leaves lower income neighborhoods with fewer services, fewer facilities, fewer opportunities. And so that's where we, the city, can act where the market fails. And that's what's been happening with ASAP over this time. Do we look at what's current today and say, hey, I think we could do it better? I can agree with that. And I think the ones who answer that question aren't those of us who sit here and say, I think this is what needs to happen, but convene the folk who are actually working in the field. Because we've got an opportunity not just to give a million or $2 million to one nonprofit, but Let's look at what the problem is that we're trying to address and take that approach to resolving this problem. And I won't call it a problem. It's a challenge. I mean, it's a good challenge to have. Who has a problem and already has money in the bank to solve it?

and then people turn that so so i would like to draw attention to in no way in any of the comments that i've made have i ever suggested cutting for funding to asap yeah i think what we have is it's maybe a disconnect with how it's being funded and how it's been funded There is a CBDG allocation that could continue with any nonprofit that's doing it. It's not something that we have to say. So 100% of the city funds that are allocated today could go with anybody. So it's not an aspect of trying to cut funding. It's a recognition that it's not covering its expense and all it's doing is drawing down on a separate nonprofit. It's already being funded by another nonprofit. It just happens to be one that we sit on the same board for. At some point in time, the intersection is going to happen. And what I'm saying is, is now the time to expand costs or is now the time to innovate and try to find a better way of doing what we're doing? Because I love this idea of maybe some houses go with a program and a nonprofit that they can operate as almost an endowment to the program. That's a new concept that I had not even heard of or thought of. And so I think there's a lot of different solutions rather than just saying, hey, you know what? Let's go for three years. Keep doing what we're doing. And we're going to hope that it's going to be different than what it was the last three years prior. So I would rather see someone trust it. So here's a great example. And this is Scott to your point. Do I trust intrinsically? the municipal government to do everything better than this board right here and i can tell you that with all due respect to everyone that works here i trust this board as it's gone out with its own passion its own energy continues to raise funding has been incredibly gifted at raising funding I would, if today you switch the narrative and said, we have this money to give you, I would rather switch the narrative and say, look, what you have proven to us is you are much better managers and you care more about this than anyone on this board ever will. Please let us help and support you to continue to move forward.

And adding on that, I think it's easy to get in this job being successful at business and say, I can figure this out for you guys. And I'll tell you exactly how to do it.

That's what it sounds like.

No, no, I'm saying I can't do that for you, and I don't trust that I can do that better than you can.

Josh, what has happened in between when y'all brought, when they came before us, because we weren't here, about the building, and Panama City said okay to kind of form this idea and partnership? What's changed from then to now? Because based on the numbers we got, that's within the time frame where we've been having to put some money into it. So to me... All things in the same.

No, it's not. And I'll give you some very practical pieces of the picture. When we started this conversation, we also didn't know that there was fraud going on in the organization. There were some things like that that we were unaware of when we started that. That did uncover some other things. It's like, hey, we need to tighten up operations. We need to tighten up some things to make sure. that we do things well non-profit and city government work together doesn't always operate very cleanly the other thing is we implemented a step program that also increased the cost on salaries increased the cost on that we've gone through multiple budgets where we've had to cut back every single year because we're carrying now the full weight of hurricane michael debt we're carrying all the expenses that have come from the recovery and we've now moved into a tighter budgetary process than what we had before we've expended our own reserves so existing for the city so now we're in a spot where the margin has condensed down and there are less options for us to help solve problems now The massive benefit that came that nobody expected four years ago was the fact that we would be able to not only recover all of those funds, but we could set them aside and be dedicated towards this program and the efforts of this organization. So that was a silver lining in the midst of all of that. So while, yes, there are things that have changed for us budgetarily, there is also a new opportunity that presented itself that did not exist four or five years ago. So essentially, it's double the funding. And so now it's what do you do?

And I'm glad that you pointed out that there's more money there. Based on what I was told, there's almost double in this account than what was recovered because they were able to sell the houses. So check. That was not present. Silver lining. The salaries are on the issue, I think, one of the main issues here, not for me. And I don't think it's fair to penalize the employee and the program because a step-up program was implemented, and both the employees that benefited from it have been here and served this city for 20-plus years. I voted for the program, Robert. You just asked what the difference was, and I told you. I don't think it's fair that that's a penalty. When they, I mean, I guess they could have said no to more money, but they didn't. And so I wouldn't either. So those are my two thoughts there. One, we get a benefit. And two, there's a benefit to the employee. Yes, it hurts a little bit. We're spending money in places in our budget that will not get any return at all. At least here, if we spend $100,000. And two kids come out of there and they go to college and they do something different that they wouldn't have done. We had an impact on the best $100,000 we've ever spent. I just like being able to see something it's going into and I'm going to get something out of potentially like kids. Um, but I'm glad that you did recognize that that money is there. I believe it's not reserved though. I would ask you, do you see that 1.5 is reserved or operating expense?

No, I see it with how the original intent was. And that was to try to get this, this building across the finish line. That was, that was the goal because not their money. yeah it was meant to partner in with them okay that that is that is what the intent was is saying hey let's move forward with this facility that helps with operational costs let's help with those things that at least was the intent now what it's turned into is like hey let's try to sustain the program for multiple years um as it operates um with with a loss

I know Scott's got to leave. I just want to ask you a question because I've heard it restated here on the dais differently than I heard it from you. The three-year stabilization program, were you proposing that we do nothing and just keep operating the way we've been operating?

No. And I'm partly answering your question and some of the points that have been brought up before. A little different issue. One of the reasons I hope you don't move it is If it stays here, and we recognize ASAP as one of the most important tools you have to combat poverty, if it stays here, it tells everybody that that's central to your mission. We own that. We're the city of Panama City, and we're going to take care of you regardless of what neighborhood you live in or your station of life. But the Stabilization Fund allows you to get past this crisis that they've been experiencing over the last four or five years. We keep talking about Commissioner Street. I know you've talked about shortfalls and everything. Those shortfalls are largely the result of the fact that these grants expired. And not only did they expire, but in all the confusion that followed that, they were not renewed. so time has gone and some of them i think you could not renew because of the facts that led up to it so now we're getting to that point that allows you to do something you couldn't do over the last two or three years and i suggest to you that if you take three years it allows you to to renew those grants get the program back on its feet and and stabilize and and then it would be more appropriate to look at it and think about whether there's a different way to do it

Thank you for your time.

I think it's just a philosophical belief we all have of is government the most efficient creative organization or is sort of people holding their own destiny is really what it boils down to. And I think, you know, I think honestly it's a disservice to the money you've raised for us to take over a facility where they're going, the paint's faded and the carpet's replaced and we're going, budgetary issues. And we're creating, you should be in control of the building that you funded to take care of it, to ensure it's beautiful in 20 and 30 years. and i think you know when we when we talked you said well what about terry so maybe terry stays on as an employee for the city i'm up for any situation thing you know again i said i even mentioned underneath i said we need to go through to make sure that ac is not going to break in three years on something where you don't take over a building that creates a financial cliff for this organization i don't want to see this organization go away so i'm here to help stand it up but i don't think i am the best person to lead the charge on what this organization needs long-term, funding, financials, budget, grants. I just don't think this organization, nor me as mayor, is equipped to lead a nonprofit among the 10,000 other things that this organization does. It's a disservice to the kids, in my opinion, that I, as the mayor, have influence on their nonprofit.

I would caution the organization. I think what we're seeing across not just locally, state, federally, you name it, that there is a continuing push to streamline and shrink what is serviced through government. now that doesn't mean that we have to step out and we don't support i don't want anybody to interpret that as a lack of support but it is a a particular potential of a different focus and maybe there's a different way of of handling it and so um I think when it does come down to it, I do think it does come down philosophical. I think what Alan said is correct. Is government going to be the solution for all of these things, or are we going to find ways to partner with passionate people that care and find a way to support them rather than being the end-all solution?

So what I hear is the solution coming from the two of you. Did you even ask them if that's what they wanted to do as an organization? It's my understanding that the organization was created with a specific mission and purpose. So if you would, tell us and address that.

We were created to be a capital campaign to raise money to build a building, to build the building, and then out. That was our mission. And I would like to point out that even though we are a nonprofit, you're talking about 20 years down the road when things need to be done. The nonprofit that you foresee taking this over may not be around anymore, but the institution of the city will. And I'd also like to point out that in the research, the grants are often more funded when their cities are involved because it's a constant. There's a constant there. And that has been the case in our city. For 30 years, when the grant application came in, they knew who ran that program and that it was a part of the city and that they were supported by donors and partners, business partners. I didn't answer your question specifically. We are not set up to do what you foresee us doing.

However, I would also like to add that it has never been our intent to build it and walk away. We have talked about that for many, many years. And we want to continue to fundraise. We want to continue to underwrite for the program. Logistically, how much? What does that look like? I don't know yet, but we want to remain as, and kind of switch our mission to grow the program and all the things I mentioned, enhance the program, et cetera, et cetera, impact more kids. So I don't want you to think that we would throw our hands up and say, here you go, right? This, I told the story to Robbie a while ago, and this was born out of before the storm, when they were in the Panavillo apartments with the middle wall cut down, children peering in, right? I want to come. I want to come to the birthday party. I want to be a part of that celebration. And Terry was limited in space. And so we were there. That was our placement as a junior service league back in the heyday. These ladies will remember that. That was my placement. And that was heartbreaking. Here we are. Here we are. And we just need direction.

Mayor, if I can say something. So several times you had mentioned that this program, the program, the program. Well, the program is not OPP's program. It's the city's program. It was started by the city 30 plus years ago. And so the OPP is really good at raising money. They raise a lot of money. they're not so good at operating a business they haven't done that we haven't done any of that over there the city has got all the experience operating this program they have the employees they have the you know the background they have all they have all the operational components of the program and so up you know it would be I think difficult for uh any not-for-profit just to step up and take over the operations of the program especially right now i mean it just would be very difficult to do because the city controls has all the levers of that and and has the experience and and um you know everything that goes with running a program like this the one thing i've seen over the years and evan can probably jump in here too is that you know cities can set up their own not-for-profits that are controlled by the city but are managed separately completely separately you know CRA sometimes do it that way there's there's no reason why you couldn't something like that couldn't happen you could you know then separately budget track give control could possibly qualify for public and private grants depending on how that goes but that's certainly an option to manage the operational part of it along with the fundraising part yeah rather than just a wholesale we don't want to deal with this anymore

Yeah, I think that's probably the direction I'd like to see. Because if we want to keep this, absorb it, and keep this nonprofit, what other nonprofits should we absorb? Should we start absorbing all the nonprofits? I think at what end do we stop doing it? So I would say setting up a nonprofit, having us set a board up of people who can look at budgets, ensure that we're going after grants, have a real focus on the kids is what I'm asking for, and a financial plan of how the thing's funded,

do they you know some sort of endowment would you be willing to explore with non-profit professionals the different possibilities that are out there other than what you have in your mind commissioner street i have nothing yeah i mean i was listening but again this whole job is throwing ideas yeah yeah okay so one idea is let's ask for the um community to to weigh in on this so i would say They want direction. Do we want to support building the building? I would say yes. Let's move forward and parallel these other discussions. Because I don't see that at this juncture we can say, oh, we're just going to keep doing what we're doing. That's not going to happen.

well i can't and i can't see expanding the liabilities on an already strapped organization and i think that's the that's the flip side of the facility you've got to be able to maintain the facility you've got to be able to staff the facility you've got to be able to put the effort into the facility and so that is why we're at this impasse is okay so we go and build a building and then all of a sudden what then like what problem are we solving for And I think we have to solve for both at the same time. Can the facility be built? Absolutely it can. Can it be built without a plan on how to fund it? Sounds very familiar. Sounds very familiar.

Let's not do that.

Let's not do that. And so, but to Rob's point and thinking about different ideas, maybe we transfer the whole program over to the Panama city, a hurricane nonprofit, and maybe that's just where it sits. That's where the funding is. And when the funding runs out, hopefully there's people that are gifted. They're going to raise funding. They're going to, they're going to take the time to, to actually see it get to sustainability. That's an, that's an opportunity. We all sit on that same board. So that is the exact concept that Rob just described, is transfer the program over to the nonprofit and start there. I think what we're going to find is at some point in time, it's going to need its own separate board. It's going to need its own separate entity. But it does at least start moving us into a direction that we can create some certainty. And they can apply for grants. They can apply for all those things.

Mayor, can I ask another question? One major concern that we have as an organization is the employees of the program. Many of them, I think the majority of them, are very, very close to their retirement. And that's a concern of ours if the program moves out from underneath the umbrella.

Concern of mine as well. And what I would say to that, and I think to the mayor's point, is this is the type of dialogue there was. This is where I, I kind of in this conversation, because this is not just happened over one year. I mean, this has been multiple years of recognizing we are at a, we, we have an issue. We need to solve it. Sure. We could have written grants two years ago. We could have, we could have done this. We could have done those things. Grant timeout.

Yes, we're applying through the city.

The city is not on a moratorium, and that's where we're applying right now from it. So it's not even the organization that's applying for the grants. It's the city. The city could have done that two years ago. And so what I'm saying is the sense of urgency in the conversation is when you make decisions early, You have the flexibility to be compassionate, to be methodical, and be meticulous in anything that comes. If you wait for three years, it limits your stuff. A PMO office was a great example for us. And what it looks like, the further you keep pushing decisions down the line, the less your options become. The world of possibilities is wide open right now. There's money in the bank. There's an organization that has raised a ton of money. We have the ability to be flexible with staffing, with community block development grant funds. We have all of these things. We will not, I can guarantee you, we will not have another opportunity with as much flexibility as we have today. And so I would encourage us before we move forward on anything that we actually map a plan of where we're gonna be, not just wait and see.

And 100% agree with that. I would say that a plan, why do you want to try, why make a decision without information, which is what you're asking about, is a plan of how to operate, maybe the structural workings inside there, the programming maybe is changed or beefed up, but I'd like to see what we're doing today and what Terry and the group, what do they see that needs to happen? Take cost out of it for right now. What needs to change and what's that going to cost secondly? Let's start with what impacts the kid first. We've got the money to make the changes. Let's put that together. I would recommend we keep it where it is. But I do like the idea of exploring this, creating a not-for-profit and putting it in the community fund potentially because it gets us out of the middle. You can get the city out in the middle. We can agree on that. I think we may have something. The culture around here is I'm trying to learn how for the city to get out of its own way. And that'd be a great thing. And by doing that, now you can put other people on the board that have an interest in it, that know something about it. You know, I've learned a lot about sitting on boards and I'm trying to, you know, Oh, you get on 12 boards when you get this job. It's crazy. Couple of lies.

I would say to you too, Robbie, to your point, if somebody came with us with a concept idea, $500,000, we can get this program to where it needs to be to not only serve more kids, but be sustainable. I'd spend that money tomorrow.

So I think before we just say, if somebody comes to us with a plan that we craft the framework and make it available.

they know if that's what we want i i think i like robbie's concept of transferring it to the hurricane michael non-profit and then allowing the people that are passionate about it to figure to to give us recommendations that doesn't address the concern about the employee status

Well, when it doesn't change, you can check, you can slip, flip it over without any idea of what you're going to do, where it sits doesn't matter. Yeah, it doesn't. It doesn't matter.

The nonprofits already paying for the employees anyway, right now as it stands, according to what I just heard. So it's not, it doesn't change anything for the employee.

They're going to pay the city back for salaries at the end of the year. Yeah. As an employee, your employer,

That's a change of employment status, and it does affect the employee. Maybe. I think what I'm hearing.

Eventually, but not right now. Brandy just asked Nevin.

No.

I looked at Brandy like, whoop.

Sounds like a legal question. I think we take time to research all of this and not decide tonight exactly the direction we want to go and put it on a city commission agenda in the next two weeks or three weeks or a month. But there are some questions that have to be answered that we cannot answer tonight.

Just real quick, if the goal is that the employees remain city employees and that they would then, we could explore lending them or assigning them to work for the not-for-profit. We're not asking them to work for a for-profit company. Mm-hmm. We're asking them to continue the mission that they've been doing. We can explore that and see if that's possible, if that's the goal.

I would voice support for this method of action as soon as possible and that we can move forward with getting to an answer to what Kelly's asking us today and from this board is this facility, how does it move forward? I think it will move forward faster if it is not just the city focused on it. Let's get other people involved.

so i i know once you start volunteering you become on every board you're volunteering for everything it's exhausting and so one of the harder parts of these organizations is bringing new people into the fold that are excited and passionate about their topic and i totally understand that you was a capital project to raise for a facility But you might consider finding other people who are also passionate about this, bringing them into the fold and seeing what their ideas are. Because when I met with you, I said, I have no idea. These are just ideas of what we could do for any sort of conversation on how to get. I mean, we're on, I'm on like a dozen boards at this point. And I feel like I'm doing the children a disservice by being on a board that steers this organization because they should be someone that's passionate, that has all the time to focus on it.

And I would not propose that we make philosophical fundamental changes to the government without taking it to community as well.

I feel like we're talking to the community right now.

No, more so than this.

Your building, you said you could expand up to 100 kids and add more programming. What are the limitations at the current building right now in terms of space, in terms of being able to more programming? What do we need there that the new building will offer? And can that be done cheaper? Or can we add in there? Terry, do you have any thought?

Per DCF license, we can only have that.

I'm sorry. Yeah. My bad. People online.

Thank you. Uh, per DCF license, we can only house 23 children at our current facility in Panabella just due to the square footage. Um, so sure. If we were able to have a larger facility, we would absolutely be able to service more children.

Right. But the current facility right now. Yes. How many has it got?

23 at our max.

This facility, how many MLK?

That's two different. We're talking about building for Panavilla.

So what do you have over there?

Glenwood is at 45 right now. Okay.

So we've got 65 kids. So adding another a hundred. Yes. More expense, more, more staff. That's my concern. FTE is forever, okay? I would hate to eat up programming dollars with a lot of salary. It doesn't mean that you're not supposed to pay. It just means how can we find, is there a volunteer? Are there part-times? Is there a way? Could you craft an idea with these ladies on how to operate that in stages of growth? I'd like to see that because that's my concern. I'm on board for building the building. I get stuck with, now it's time to operate it. Not much different than what I said to the group in my first meeting about MLK Center. We built a nice, shiny object with no way to operate it. And that's the important part. And so I don't want to dig into my pocket, your pocket, or the taxpayer's pocket more than I have to. And we're going to do that no matter what. But if it's worth doing it for anybody, any one group, it's children. But there's got to be a way that we can operate a little bit more efficient. I would never know how to do that. I would 100% lean on you for that. And you ladies to help us. What are you looking for? What's it cost? And maybe we all work together on that. I'd like to see that before we move forward.

I think to the mayor's concept that he floated before, I mean, it could look like there is some type of rental facility that's helping subsidize the program. mean i don't think it has to be just this one this one option but i do think we've got to get it into the hands and so and not asking kelly for you guys to go and figure out how to operate a program but i know there's people inside of your group and probably others and i know some that have reached out to me that are passionate about helping the program continue to operate beyond just building a building. Can we get there? I think we can get there. But are we just going to make a blanket decision just to go build a facility without knowing how much it costs and be able to sustain that cost? I don't think any one of us wants to do that on either side. We've got to solve that issue. prior to saying, let's go construct. But my commitment is absolutely still there to see this built. We just have a new part of the equation to solve.

Mayor, you mentioned a few times other assets transferring with the program. I think at some point there should be conversation about that and what does that look like. And I want to make sure that you all do understand without a shadow of a doubt, this organization does want to be a part of the solution. Whatever that solution is, we do want to be a part of that.

I would tell you that I would be against transferring any of the NSP properties. That needs to stay with housing, and I've got an idea for it. That's going to be another fun conversation, but I would not be in favor of that versus finding another grant, which leads me to how much money was coming in on the three grants that we were getting annually?

The amount for each grant, One was, I think, $750,000. So that's the operating money that we are drawing down from the Friends of ASAP. These funds were in the Michael Johnson recovery. Those were funds that came from the grant. So I know it's looking like we're going against our reserve, but that's what it would have been used for anyway in the beginning.

So the 21st century grant that we just applied for. $350,000. $350,000. That takes care of a full year.

Yes.

All right.

And it's renewable every three years.

Right. Is that operating money? Is that some type of education program? What is that?

It's a combination. What we do already in our budget, that's what that grant would take care of. And this is the first year that 21st century that we've been able to apply for 21st century that has been offered again.

Weren't there several other grants? It seems to me the average grant was somewhere around $200,000 a year. Yeah.

One of them, I think, was $700,000. One was roughly $500,000. So the funds that were left, that's what would have covered all the operational expenses for ASAP.

Which speaks to your question about how ASAP operated without going in the red prior to five years ago.

Well, what was used is they were used, city expenses were still incurring the expense, and then the receipts were submitted, then drawn down. It was a pretty creative way of stealing.

No, stealing? Actually, in the nonprofit world, many grants are cost reimbursement. You expend your funds first, and then you get reimbursed, especially federal grants.

That's the way all of those were set up, to my knowledge, that you had to expend it, and they were reimbursed.

Yeah, I think that was that my point wasn't what you were saying, Janice. My point was that was the, that was what was being utilized to siphon off stuff.

Okay.

So how do we move forward from here?

We can't vote or anything.

No. I mean, I think this has been great feedback. You know, I think if there are options for, you know, potentially utilizing the Panama City Community Fund, I would just point out, though, y'all are the officers of that board as well. So, you know, it's... You know, you wear a different hat. You all are directors rather than commissioners. But, I mean, we can work up, you know, work with Mr. Zimmerman. We can kind of work up what that might look like and, you know, bring some options. I would suggest maybe bringing those options to another workshop rather than a commission meeting. But if you all would like to sit on a commission meeting, we could do that as well, potentially one of the August meetings. Okay.

I would like to ask that we have the one positive place, current ASAP staff and our housing community services director.

work together to craft a way to look at – because we've asked a lot of questions up here tonight. And so I don't think we're going to get there by simply looking back at this and saying, okay, let's answer these specific questions. I think the meat of what we're looking for, they can move forward to –

Just for everyone's awareness, whenever I say Mr. Zimmerman and I, I can assure you it's not just me and Nevin. It always involves the great team that he and I have. So absolutely, we would loop in the appropriate staff to craft anything for that.

And I would like to recognize the birthday group that takes care of the kids there. My birthday is January the 4th, and I'm looking for a present. But that's the kind of stuff that's going on. There are community leaders and partners and just normal people running around wanting to do good. And you know what? You're doing it good as quietly as possible because I've never heard about you. And to me, that's the definition of humility. You're doing good without recognition, and I just want to thank you all for that.

do think we probably need to have some some type of clarity on on philosophically whether the program should stay within the actual city budgetary process or whether it should move to a nonprofit and whatever we need to do to get that conversation back to us that would be that would be that now the city may still control that nonprofit as it seems like that's what we've discussed today but at least it creates a more positive movement forward to getting to answer the question of how do we construct a building and then program and be able to afford sustainability of it and Robbie I would challenge you to to think about whatever this program moves into it's going to have to have revenue associated with it we are statutory limited with how much money we can give to it through community block development grant funds the income that's coming through the affordability of these homes could be something that helps not only once we're out of money in the panama city nonprofit nobody's given us more and so we've got to create sustainable mechanisms to see this program last another 30 years otherwise it's it's it will at some point in time either be greatly diminished or it will be you know what i would hate to see is gone

So, Rob, do you have any experience of setting these up inside of a community fund and have seen that work? Yes. Okay. I'd like him to be part of that conversation as well. I thought that was a good suggestion. I thought that was a great suggestion. I was like, somebody came up with something that's good.

That'd be great. There is no driving force to a specific solution. And hopefully you guys see this. I think right now we just have so many options of opportunity. Pick the best one that ultimately serves the longest. And I don't know that just keeping it as is is what's going to serve the program long term.

And I think we can all agree with that. And everything we've talked about keeps it with the city or around the city and not with the brand new nonprofit that we met.

like that concept that we're keeping it around the city um inside the community this was never meant to be a burden no um and sometimes it has felt like that i'm going to be honest over the years um this was meant to change that area and make an impact so should have never turned this microphone on I guess I just want you guys to understand our hearts our goal we we wanted to be part of the solution we want a positive outcome your chief no captain of community policing over there, Captain Billy Carr Starfin. While he didn't graduate from the ASAP program in the city of Panama City, he was a part of an after-school assistance program in the city of Pensacola. So it changes people's lives. and look at what you got from him you know or with him so i think we feel i know i do um that you're not just ready to cut the program and throw it out the window so that's that's um direction that we didn't always know or have, so that's good. And I do like to hear some of these solutions. The goal is to impact that area for more children in our community, period.

Your hearts are in the right place. You're doing good work. We totally see that. I think Commissioner Granger just arrived. Did you have something to say?

A patient man. Yes. Sometimes just to get a word in.

Challenge in and of itself. What I will say is that what I hear from my colleagues on this dais is that all of us up here are committed to keeping ASAP running. It's just what does that look like moving forward? And so hearing that there's a certain amount of money that is available to the program that will eventually run out without it being backfilled. But I think it's also fair to note that this program in its 30-year history has only a couple of times actually drawn off of the general fund in order to stay afloat. And so keeping that in mind, this isn't necessarily something that is... a burden if you will to the general fund but as we can start standing up grants and other things i i do think that there is a path forward where the city continues to stay involved whatever whether that's with a a partnership that we stand up on our own or whether that's with another another group that comes in or whether that winds up totally in the city's um purview but um again we want to see this this program continue so whatever path that takes i think i think we're i think the program is going to wind up in a good spot is what i'm saying so that's all i have

Let me just say thank you to One Positive Place. Thank you, Director Sheila Ware and Terry Gaynor, for the hard work that you've put into this program. And for all of you who sat quietly and listened, and I know a couple of you, it was not easy to just not talk. But thank you. Thank you for being here. And to my colleagues on the dais, I think this conversation, as many we've had, are healthy conversations. And I do want more of our community to weigh in on decisions we make which are philosophical, and let's make a pathway for that to happen as well.

Sounds good. Awesome. Thank you so much for attending. Meeting adjourned.