Community Redevelopment Board - Regular Meeting

All right. The uh April 7th, 2026 Community  Redevelopment Agency board meeting for the   city of Panama City is hereby called to order.  Uh we have the opening prayer by the Reverend   Braden Friday, pastor of Living Word, Living  Waters Ministries, followed by the pledge of   allegiance to the flag led by Deputy uh Executive  Director Randy Waldron. Would you please stand? Let us pray. Father God, we thank you for another  day that you've given us. Thanking you, oh Lord,   for your loving kindness and grace, your mercy,   your infinite wisdom. And Father God,  we come asking for your help right now,   your divine intervention. Father, despite  what's going on in the world and despite my   all of the upheaval, Father, we ask for  your divine instruction here in Bay County,   God, that you would give us instruction and and  wisdom on how to abide together in unity that we   might accomplish the things that may may that need  to be accomplished on behalf of this community,   Father, that we might bring forth honor and glory  unto you. I thank you Lord decreeing by faith that   it will be so as we abide in you and as we follow  your principles in Jesus name I pray. Amen. Amen.   Please join me in the pledge allegiance to the  flag of the United States of America and to   the republic for which it stands one nation under  God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. All right. I know that board member Hughes  and board member Street are both uh running   behind. We will acknowledge them uh when they  arrive, but um Miss Webb, please call the role. Slate.   Board member Granger, present. Board member  Lucas, present. Chairman Branch, present.  

Right, we have a quorum with three voting  members. Uh, present. Uh, board members,   you have the minutes from the March 3rd, 2026  CRA board meeting in your packet. Staff would   entertain a motion to approve. So moved. Is  there a second? Second. There's a motion,   a second. Is there any discussion? Miss Web,  please call the role. Board member Granger, yes.   Board member Lucas, yes. Chairman Branch, yes.  Motion passes. All right. Are there any additions,   deletions, or modifications to this evening's  agenda by either staff or by the board members?   All right, seeing none, moving into item number  six. Item number six is audience participation.   This is open to any issue related to the authority  of the Panama City CRA. Remarks are limited to   three minutes. Please come to the podium.  State your name and address for the record. Good afternoon, Patty. Sunday, 11:15 Fairland.  Um, I just started Congratulations on that   beautiful plan for the CRA. It's wonderful.  I was starting to review it this afternoon   and I noticed on the Oaks by the Park, it calls  for a playground in there. And maybe that was a   typo because my understanding is we're going to  do a playground across the street at the Truell   and I think it was the previous commissioner  before Josh sells insurance. Help me Nichols.   Thank you Commissioner Nichols that told me that  the artifacts that are in the Tallahassee Museum   of the First Nation tribes were from that site  of Oaks by the Park. I need to verify that. But   in my mind, I like it. the way it is. I I do  yoga and things there a lot and I don't see a  

playground being a fit in there. So, it's in your  plan and it seems like it would be duplicitous.   Um, the next question I have in comment is on the  five months for the MLK development extension.   Will you guys be sharing any more detail? Are you  waiting for a grant to come in for infrastructure?   Are you waiting for more tiff  money to acrue? Why the five months   open to anything that will help people be  successful? Thank you. Thank you, Miss Sunday.   Yes, sir. Good afternoon. My name  is Dick Lovejoy. My wife, Reeba,   and I operate the Antique Cottage at 903  Harrison Avenue. Today I'm representing uh the   the mission over in Craft Avenue  which we call um the Baptist Center   and we had a presentation by the Millville CRA  uh executive and she came on a Sunday afternoon   and presented an outstanding presentation to the  board was able to answer all our questions and   encouraged us in in every way that could possibly  be which we need. But I want to say thank you   to the CRA for representing uh at least  allowing her to come on a Sunday afternoon   and make such a great presentation. Thank  you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lovejoy. All right. Michelle Bryant, 409 East 9th Street.  Apologies. I've been running from meeting to   meeting today. Um, so first I just want to start  off by saying thank you to the CRA, specifically   Mel Michelle Zukul. I saw the signage for Henry  Davis Park. It looks amazing. Super exciting   for the ribbon cut in there and all the hard work  that UF extension master gardeners and PC Senior   Living Group has done to make that a really viable  park. And of course, Kowanas for the playground.   There were a lot of kids out there the other day.  I counted about 22. I think that's the most I've  

ever seen out there. Unfortunately, my nephew,  not my nephew, but my grandson likes it a lot. So,   I think we'll probably spend more time there  than at the MLK Wreck playground. But again,   thank you to the CRA for that awesome work.  Um, so kind of piggybacking off of um, Miss   Sunday's comment, my first question is what  is the five month extension request for? Um,   it looks like in the information that was  shared, of course, the mayor has shared as well,   when it comes to property on MLK, storm water is a  big issue and a concern. So, if that is the issue,   how are they looking to resolve it if that's  a part of the fivemonth extension request?   Um, the second thing is for line item eight. Um,  you guys are looking to finalize that today. My   only the comment there is I hope that that is not  going to become a parking lot. That is commercial   prime commercial real estate and that  would be something that [clears throat] um   it looks like could be a business investment if  the opportunity presents itself. Line item three.   Um, question is, is this a part of the spark  program that the CRA is looking to create?   Um, if not, are CPI grants back for the various  businesses and residential residents in a CRA?   If we could get clarification on that. Also,  congratulations on the park line item 10 for the   CRA with a new playground at Trudale Park. Number  11. Um, if you guys could update the community on   how this would benefit the citizens. Um, last  I looked at the projects for the 26, I'm sorry,   2526. I didn't see any information about the  historical uh, preservation of 80 Harris.   And actually, that's not last. The last two things  is is there any traction in the adopt a park?   And tying back into line item nine, are CPI  grants coming back for specific CRAAS? Thank  

you guys so very much. You're welcome,  Miss Bryant. Any other public comments? So, my name is Karen Landry. My address is  5801 Lower Street. uh that's in Callaway,   but property owner Landry Family Trust in um the  downtown North CRA. So, um I want to start off   by saying thank you um for the opportunity um  to participate in the Incremental Development   Alliance workshop. Um so there are several  um astute incremental real estate developers   that um have benefited and are benefiting from um  the opportunity to participate and we hope that   it can be reflected in some of the work that's  being done in the CRAAS going forward. Um in   relation to item number seven regarding um  the extension for due diligence period after   looking at the information. I just have a couple  of questions that I'd like to to um propose.   only. It looks as if only 20% of the proposed  housing um for this new development is affordable.   When um 80% of the population in that area  makes below 75,000 a year, which is also   along the median income for the entire county.  And so with the housing that is proposed,   if um 16 units will be for housing, is that  apartment units or is that going to be condominium  

units or um or townhouse units that that is  being proposed? And if so, will the price points   allow for the opportunity for people um that  may want to move back into the community um to   be able to purchase housing or the workforce.  Um thinking of teachers and police officers and   others that um work in that area. um [clears  throat] ali in alignment with the CRA goals,   the cultural identity of the community um based on  CRA goal number seven should reflect the historic   identity of Glenwood and I am a former resident  of Glenwood. I grew up there and and attended the   first recreation center um that was there. So  um my passion is still for the Glennwood area   where I grew up. um economic inclusion. The  CRA plan does emphasize partnerships between   developers and residents as well as supporting  small businesses. And so as we think about   what we have going forward, is this an opportunity  um for utilizing the cohort of incremental   developers to help reshape a neighborhood  and perhaps with a smaller size um grocery   store and working along with the CRA as well as  others. Thank you, Miss Landry. We appreciate   your comments tonight, ma'am. You're quite  welcome. Thank you. Yeah. Are there any other   public comments this evening? [clears throat] Good  afternoon. Good afternoon. Hello, Mr. Williams. How's everyone today? Good. I'm not going  to regurgitate what everyone else has said.  

For the most part, I agree. Um, name and address,  ma'am. Brenda Lewis Williams, 2748 Drive, 32401. I   I do disagree with extending Sanccoa for 5 months.  They knew this was there. They should have done   all this their due diligence and taken care of it  then. Additionally, there's no monies out here.   Say what you want. Monies are drying up. We're  moving into a recession big time, but there's   no monies out here for them. So, I believe that's  part of why they want the five-month extension.   That's my thoughts. You don't have to  agree with me. It doesn't matter. Um, I still have heartburn about  the 15th Street property. Uh,   I I don't understand why we're using CRA dollars  to um rehab private property that is being rented   as a PO and this is one of your pet  projects. What is the name of that place?   Get you a box. That's one of your babies again.  But I don't understand why we're using CRA dollars   to uh rehab this building and it's own it's not  owned by the person who has the business in there.   And my understanding is that's not how CRA  dollars. So you all need to revisit that.   I think that's you and Commissioner Lucas's  baby. I put both of you in there. Uh the park presentation is beautiful.   my um [snorts] concern and heartburn with  Trudale Park. There's no children down there.   There's old folks like me. You all need to  revisit that as well. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other public comments this evening?

Greetings, commissioners. Hello.  My name is Melody Johnson Coun   and I am uh here representing the property owner  of my family, my mother who is uh Laura Johnson   and we have a historical relationship with this  uh community. My grandmother's Lady Ethires and   Henry Spires and they own Lady El's Beauty  School for many years here in Panama City.   I'm here because others are here. We're concerned  about this fivemonth extension and the reason   that we need it. Um it appears that from what  I'm hearing that it's going to change the entire   uh residential atmosphere of the community with a  20% housing development and that's way too small   to have any kind of balance with uh the kind of  commercial development that would be coming in. So   that's why I'm here and I'm glad that  we can ask questions and get answers   and we thank you for your service. Thank  you for letting me speak. Thank you, ma'am.   Are there any other public comments  this evening for the CRA board? All right, seeing none, audience participation  is now closed. Moving into item number seven.   Item number seven is consideration and approval of  a five-month extension to the due diligence period   and the development agreement with the  Sanca Group for the Glenwood Town Center   project. As background information, at  the April 15th, 2025 CRA board meeting,   the Sanca Group presented a proposal to redevelop  CRA owned parcels at MLK Boulevard and 15th Street   at known as the Glenwood Town Center, a mixeduse  project, including a community grocery store in   residential units. Following the required public  notice period, the CRA board authorized staff   to begin negotiations with the Sanca Group for a  potential purchase or public private partnership   resulting in the approved development agreement  signed on July 9th 29th rather of 2025.  

As part of the developer six-month due diligence  process, additional engineering analysis was   conducted to evaluate storm water requirements for  the site. A recent storm water analysis identified   potential constraints related to the project's  location along a state designated highway,   actually highways plural, and the need to meet  the Florida Department of Transportation storm   water standards. Several potential storm water  solutions were identified with preliminary cost   estimating ranging from approximately $890,000  to $1.8 8 million depending on the approach   that would be selected to allow time for further  engineering review and coordination regarding   storm water solutions and site design. The  Sanca group has requested a fivemonth extension   to the due diligence period. Staff recommendation  is that the board approve a five-month extension   to the due diligence period for the  development agreement with the Sanca   Group to allow additional time for engineering  evaluation and refinement of the Glenwood Town   Center. Uh Mr. chairman and board members.  I'll just note that um Mr. Pedro Casant   with the Sanca Group has joined us virtually uh  on uh on Zoom. Uh additionally, we have um city   engineer Stacy Roush uh in the audience willing  uh and able to answer any questions about this   as well as Mr. Rush Rodney who's the project  manager with uh Ankor Engineering uh who is   the engineering firm for the Sanca Group.  So, uh, at this time, I would, uh, like to   recognize, uh, Mr. Gasant, uh, to address the  board and the public. Go ahead, Mr. Gassant. Thank you, Mr. Hayes. Are you able to hear me?  Hear me? Yes, sir. Loud and clear. Awesome. Thank   you. Thank you all so much. My sincere apologies  for not being able to to join with video. Uh, I   wish I could be there, but unfortunately,  uh, I'm unable to be there in person.   Um so the short of it is that as we engaged in  due diligence with respect to the site uh one   of the things that we realized um was that the  storm water infrastructure would impact the plan  

that we had provided representation to the to the  city and to the CRA regarding our design for the   property. Um with respect to the storm water that  cost of between uh $850,000 to $1.8 million has a   substantial impact to the development of the site.  And so we we are me myself and my engineering team   are looking at um what can we do to modify  and to address this to ensure that we can   provide for a plan that is concept conceptually  consistent with what we presented to   uh the CRA with respect to our request. And so,  uh, my big thing is always ensuring that I'm   consistent with the representations that I've made  and ensuring that we're, uh, moving forward in a   manner that's consistent with what we said we were  we are going to do. Um, and so what I wanted to   do is be able to put myself in a position where  we could have some additional time to analyze   uh the additional impact that this has and you  know what we're going to do to accommodate the   additional storm water on site while also being in  a position uh to move forward with the plan that   is consistent uh with the project. And so that  that's really our request. I I know that there   are some folks who make comments regarding um the  affordability etc etc. I know that a lot of that   has already been addressed in our initial [clears  throat] um standpoint. That that issue for the   uh commitment was something that I think we we  had already made a commitment to to the city.   Um and any additional costs uh only constrains  us further. So really right now what I'm seeking   to do is ensure that we're in a position to  move forward with the project and that we   can curate it in a manner uh that's going to be  consistent in what we represented to the city.   All right. Thank you so much, Mr. Gasant. All  right. This time I would turn over to board   members for uh any potential questions. Uh we  would also entertain a motion to approve for   the sake of discussion. And again I just  want to reate we do have the engineering  

folks have been working very closely with Mr.  Gassant uh and his team in regards to this.   Uh thank you. I'd like to uh move a motion to  approve the recommendation coming from the CRA   staff. All right. Is there a second? I'll second.  All right. There's a motion and a second. Is there   any discussion from the board? Um, if we could  have Stacy come up and M. Rouse, please come on   down. Um, so Stacy is aware of a discussion we've  been having with FDOT in regards to storm water.   Um, for those that don't know, there's an  expansion of Highway 98 that's going alongside   and so there will be some taking of some property  that is located also at this parcel. Um, and so   it does create some storm water challenges. Could  you communicate to the board what we've discovered   thus far and what you guys are working on now in  conjunction with the new calculations from FDOT?   Yeah. Um Stacy Rash, city engineer, um we  reached out to FDOT to see if there was   additional capacity in some of the ponds that  they have to build as part of this expansion.   Um that is something that they can they can do is  kind of build a little bit extra capacity within   their ponds and then um sell it, share something  like that. and that way we would not have to   encroach into further footprint for other storm  water. Um they did reach back out to us and say   that they did not have capacity for all 155,000  cubic feet of water that we're talking about this   this development would would need. Um but they  did say that they um the Henry Davis pond that   was created as part of the redevelopment of that  park many years ago. When that pond was created,   it was actually only created as kind of to help  out with drainage in the area. It was not created   as a quality or attenuation pond. And with the  addition of their new pond for the widening of 98,  

uh they will be reducing their outfall to the  Henry Davis pond. So they they are going to   essentially be creating additional capacity for  us in that pond. So, it could be repermitted,   potentially modified slightly to create some  capacity. We don't exactly have the numbers.   I think we just got the email back from FDOT, I  think yesterday or or Thursday, I can't remember.   Um, but they they have run some minor models to  show that they will be reducing the amount of   runoff to our pond. Um, so they're just going to a  little bit more of an investigation to see exactly   what that would allow in our pond, if there's any  further modifications. And they didn't exactly   say they don't have capacity in their new pond,  but they just said they did not have enough. So,   that's another conversation that I want to  follow up with them about is is there any   they don't not the whole 155,000, but is there a  portion in that pond that they could offer to us   um for this development or um if if there is  not at all, then we'll have to go down the route   um of trying to find all of it in the future  pond or I know that um Pedro was looking at   acquiring other properties. I know that there  was not a whole lot of traction with a couple of   properties nearby. I haven't been involved in the  details of the internal development, but that's   that's the gist we've gotten from FDOT. So, just  so that everybody understand this is kind of   late to the game as far as engaging with FDOT.  Um, which is why Stacy doesn't have quite 100%   clarity on this. Um, but you know, at least  in the preliminary email, which you know, I   I saw the response as well. What Stacy's saying  is correct. there is a potential um of either   one using Henry Davis Park Pond because of the now  excess capacity of what was due to FDOT's changes   and potentially further discussion with FDOT  to help modify these as a form of practice. Um   I I I would like to see us do this earlier  on into our developments that are along  

state highways specifically with the amount of  FDOT construction we have going on in the area.   anytime we can partner with them to expand  their ponds um that is a tremendous amount   of saving not only in engineering but also  in available land um which ultimately reduce   the cost of development and allow things to be  more affordable than what they are today. So um   so thank you uh Stacy for your work and continuing  effort with Adam and the team over at FDOT.   So have you worked on this project from the  beginning? So I'm I'm not designing this project.   Um I have been engaged with them. I have been  helping them set up meetings with FDOT and and   you know providing the support that  they need from the city personnel.   Um we did set up a meeting with FDOT uh probably  a couple months ago to talk about, you know,   when they realized that the amount of storm water  and that they weren't going to be able to do it   all on their property. We reached out to FDOT to  see exactly what our boundaries were and if there   was any leniency or anything that thinking out  of the box that we weren't seeing. Essentially at   time at that meeting they they said there really  is nothing beyond our typical rules. There's no um   exceptions if the city allows you to discharge at  this location versus this location. It's it's an   uh we we don't have a whole lot that we can offer  as a city because in in this one it's bound by   you know the FDOT roads on two sides in in a lot  of other scenarios we may be able to offer an   exception of if you know can discharge onto a city  road we may be able to lower the amount of storm   water but unfortunately in every single scenario  of this it eventually gets to FDOT and it's not   far enough away for for our rules to override  FDOT rules. Okay. So, I'll remind everybody that   these projects, FDOT projects were in play when  we went under contract. It was not a surprise that  

the DOT was part of this was going to be part of  this deal. My issue here is is we're acting like   it's a surprise. It's not. And it's what how  much time do we have left on the due diligence   from the original contract? If I could kind of  spread light just to what Stacy said. Um, so   they had already engaged with FDOT early on in the  project, but it was only through a re-engagement   through a more creative maybe mechanism of looking  at different things at a granular level with   people that are higher up in FDOT that there was  some move movement to potentially provide other   options. And so, but this isn't a city problem.  This is a a buyer contract, a buyer that's under   contract problem. It's a city problem only because  we own it, the property. But if if somebody   wasn't trying to work on it right now, they we  would not be having this conversation. Okay.   My concern is they're coming to ask for something  that new was already there. How much time's left   on the due diligence? Do we know that? Wasn't  it 18 months was the total due diligence?   Miss Marlor is checking on that. Okay. Yeah, I  was looking for that. And there's a six-month   due diligence um period from it looks like the  the agreement was signed on the 29th of July. So we already passed that due pass the due  diligence. So if you don't continue then the   the agreement falls apart. Correct. Yes. And so  uh Mr. Cassan has been meeting regularly monthly.   So it's not that it's a surprise. It's that  the um engineers uh as well as our engineer   and the process that it takes uh to to work  toward a resolution. It's just going to require   a little bit more time. But contractually they  have gone beyond the time that they can ask   at their at their risk and their and they're  correct. We we've got to think about what's   inside the contract. What's inside there not and I  want this project to happen. This isn't about that  

just because we're the city. Remember there's  no money there's no money up front. There was no   money in the involved in the in the um to have the  long a longer extent. uh they could close late.   We're going to buy everything back if they don't  close. Uh everything was for the buyer. Okay,   that is not how contracts typically work. So, I  would be okay with this only if the buyer agreed   to buy the time, particularly since they're  past the due diligence period. Um you know,   up to 5 months if that's what they're asking  for. $10,000 a month is not something that's   that's out of out of um ordinary here. If they  did it in three, we give them we'll give them   the 20,000 back or apply it to the sales price,  but they buy the time. That would be a typical   solution in the situation like this in the real  estate world. So, this uh contractor developer   responded to an RFP that we put out as the CRA.  So, we were looking for a partner to work with   us to create this development that this community  has said for more than 20 years that they'd like   to see there. And so, this is a partnership.  This is not just a um regular uh developer deal   that would happen in the in the private market.  The the CRA has come uh representing the community   to get something the community has been  requesting uh for more than 20 years now.   I agree with that. Okay. But the contract is what  drives it now. And to your point about uh whether   there's money upfront, uh there's been monies  that have been expended. He's hired the   local uh engineering company uh and he's done the  begun to do the work to get um the due diligence   that's ne necessary. Was there a chunk of upfront  money put down on the deal as you're suggesting?   No, that it's not uh that wasn't required by us in  our RFP. So, the reality is I didn't find out that  

there was a storm water issue until just how I  don't remember how long ago it was. It wasn't very   long, just a couple weeks ago. And so, as soon as  I found out about it, knowing it was at FDOT Road,   knowing we're in litigation with FDOT cuz  they're taking part of this property. I mean,   the property is smaller because FDOT's engagement  in it that it was reach out, figure out is there   something else? Can we be more creative than what  we've been? And um and through their analysis,   going deeper than what they had done primarily,  they did find other options, you know. Um, I mean,   you know, I hate to say it, but sometimes it takes  that extra that extra push to see things to see   things happen. And, um, as soon as I was made  aware of it, I I called and and I'm sure Janice   has been involved in it all along trying to do  everything that she can as well to to help it. And   I mean, it's I don't know that it's unreasonable  what you're asking for, but I also don't know it's   unreasonable just to extend for five more months  to get through this process knowing what we know   now. So, and I'd also like to take a moment to  address some of the questions that was uh asked   during audience participation. I think uh  our discussion has answered the why is the   extension being asked for? Um is it a storm water  uh runoff issue? Is it a little more complicated?   Yes, that uh that is the case. Uh the uh reference  to the affordable housing piece of it and what has   been uh negotiated. Um the um Pedro, Mr. Gazant,  would you address whether you are at a price   point uh yet to be able to answer the question  about uh what the units will be priced at?   I am not I think the the commitment that I  made to the city early on was a commitment   that I put in the agreement which was  the um the 20% but my my vision as I've  

given it to the city has been that to the extent  that I can do more for affordability I will do so.   Um that of course has to take into account  the numbers that I have to expend in order to   to make the development work. And so I'm not in  a position yet to tell you yes, we'll be able to   have uh more what the rent the the numbers will be  with respect to the rental prices um or the sale   prices on the site given the fact that I have to  take into account both the development costs and   what it will be by the time we go through  the process. And so those are some of the   items that I'm curating in order to ensure that  we're in a position uh to address those issues.   Um but at this point what I what I can say is  that we will continue to abide by the commitment   that we made uh which which will ensure that you  have at least uh 20% of those units affordable   that we're providing on site. So suffice it  to say that is a minimum and not a maximum. That is correct. If I if I can get more units  on here to be affordable that that is the goal.   That's that's everything that I'm seeking to  tailor this development to. I think uh the   Glennwood commu community is very important and  ensuring that uh there's affordability at the   site um is really what I'm trying to achieve here  which is why I'm trying to figure out how do we   how do we address this issue um with respect  to the storm water management in a way that   allows us to to move forward with a development  that has both housing and the grocery store.   So is is your request of five months sir  that you find out at the end in your in the   agenda item it's talked about it's given some  cost factor is your request for five months to   find out what it has to happen and then you're  asking the city to participate in that or you   just trying to figure out the cost for you uh  to do what is going to be required by the DOT Mr. No, no. So, so what? Yeah. What what I'm  what I'm seeking to do is I'm seeking to curate  

the degree of that cost. So, you as you may have  heard from my engineers, the cost is is a matter   of degrees, right? It it ranges from 850 to 1.8  million. And so I think the biggest issue that I'm   trying to that we're seeking to work through  is how do I curate the plan to one take into   account a cost that is um uh on the lower side but  also that allows me to develop the the project in   a manner that is financially feasible. Um it  makes no sense for any of us at at this point.   It's not it's not my intent to come to the city  to ask the city for um any additional things other   than uh what what I would be entitled to ask for  respect to some maybe the commercial aspects um   on certain incentives but nothing for the storm  water management like that's something that I'm   I'm recognizing I'm seeking to figure out how we  deal with it. Uh, at this point I'm not seeking to   ask I'm I am not asking the city to give  me five months so that I can ask you uh   for money to pay for for that at the moment. Like  that's not what I'm seeking to do. I'm trying to   figure out how do we curate it to make sure we can  take care of it on our end and that we can curate.   If I if I could draw attention to a couple  things like that 155,000galon number   like the due diligence that didn't no one knew  that. So the idea that like they knew that   there was 155,000 gallons worth of storm water.  They have to go through a soils analysis which   determines how much the ground perks. They have  to go through all of this statistical analysis   on impervious surface and what way the water  flows and all of those things before they can   even get to that number. And so it did come  out higher than what they're anticipating.   And the two numbers that we're seeing in our  paper is the difference between a surface pond   as represented in the first drawing that we  saw versus having to go underground storage,  

which is a much more expensive process because  the storm water calculations, soils analysis,   FDOT requirements, all of those things are  creating a much larger capacity thing to the   point that even FDOT doesn't have enough capacity  to just absorb it in their ponds. to put that into   perspective how much storm water we're talking  about. So, it's not I don't think it's fair to say   that this is a known that everyone should have  known because that's not how engineering works.   You have to go through each step before you  find the known and variables. And right now,   the variable is 890,000 to 1.8. And what  this engagement on Henry Davis Pond FDOT   is seeking to see can we get it back closer to the  number that was anticipated before on a surface   level pond. Is there a way to intenuate some of  it? And so but without the time we're never going   to know that and any other developer is going to  have to go through the same process like what's   the due diligence for? They should have been  doing soil testing right out of the box.   All of that information should have been done  in 6 months. And in January the rules changed.   Okay. So that comes in January and asked for  the extension, not 3 months after the due   diligence is I mean we're not going to follow the  contract. Well, I have one. I I agree with you in   some but the city is not at risk. The developer is  at risk. So they've spent three more months doing   due diligence at their cost on a contract that may  not get approved for an extension tonight. And so   it wasn't really on our table to as far as to  drive to a contract extension. It was on the   developer to drive to a contract extension,  but they operated in good faith to continue   through these conversations. And so now they're  asking to be able to complete the work. I don't   I don't know that that's unreasonable. I I mean,  I understand what you're saying. The contract   should have been extended earlier, but who lost  in that if this contract's not because we're we're  

the buyer is not following the contract and and  the coming they're out of due diligence. So,   what are the damages? Hold on a second. The  damages could be another 5 months and we still   don't close and we have to pay Mr. Gassant back  for all of more money than he's about to spend   and we still don't have a development at the end.  Is that true? Or do we have to pay back for their   work? The contract says that that's what we do  based on the CPI. Remember that conversation   I asked him that that's what the contract says  that we do. We pay him back for the acquisition   expenses and the CPI cost if it doesn't  close. Have we received Well, we haven't   closed on it yet. We haven't I don't think we have  received any money. So, and I just want to add to   Commissioner Street that you know that is what the  due diligence period is for. No developer is going   to go and start paying for a lot of engineering  before they know they're actually under contract   on it. And in addition to the additional storm  water that is needed uh and then the you know the   the other you know engagement with FDOT uh you  know there have been efforts to try to purchase   other properties and other parcels for the which  was we all knew that was the goal all along   and staff has worked hard. Commissioner Lucas has  met out in the field uh with Mr. Gassan on the   phone. You know that has not been as successful  as we'd hope trying to acquire additional property   to further build out this parcel. Um, I don't know  that that's something you would have necessarily   known before, you know, before going into the  due diligence period as well. So, let me correct   you on something. Engineers are involved in  this from the very beginning. Okay, that is   something civil engineers are involved in the very  beginning. If they're busy, the future's bright.   They get to them before they get to anybody else.  So, to say that the engineering happened on the   back end, not true. The DOT was already involved  in this site before when we went under contract.   There are things here that are very relevant  to the question that's being asked because   the contract is driving what we're doing here. If  we're not going to let it drive it, let's just let  

anybody come and do what they want to. Otherwise,  we have they would enforce it on us. If we're not   doing what we're supposed to, a buyer is going to  enforce it and make us do what we're supposed to.   This is this is a big deal, guys. It's just  being talked about publicly. How do we make   people follow the rules? Either this guy can  they can they're asking after due diligence. So,   one option is no. One option is yes. One option is  they can buy time. Okay, that's very common. But   I might have I might look at it different.  I know I would look at it differently if one   we were in the due diligence period or right at  the end when it just ended, not 3 months later.   That's a concern for me because now we're three  months later and now we're asking for five months.   That's eight months. I I hear that is a valid  I mean we should have had this contract to us   what 2 months ago. Is that what when did it  expire? It expired on February the 15th. Okay.   So it should have been on our February CRA agenda  to see this extended. So I I I agree with that and   I want this project. This isn't about that. Okay.  So, so now the question is what are so what do we   do from here? All right. Let me ask you this. You  said that we're already has DOT made an offer to   us on what they're taking. We are in litigation.  Have they made an offer yet or no? I think they've   made some sort of offer, but I don't I think the  city rejected that offer and now we have attorneys   involved. Best state to be in, by the way, on on  on condemnation is the state of Florida. So, um,   we can take some we we don't it's an undetermined  amount, but we can use that amount of money of   what they're going to pay us to put back into the  deal. Okay? There's a way that we can use that   to help this project. And I'm thinking out  loud here how to move forward. Applefields,   for example, across from where the church is, your  church, they sold that and used that money on the   backside to come back to the owner to do do some  improvements that were required. Okay. We can take  

that and give it back to him if he spent the money  up front or put it into the deal to help build   some of that. We just don't know what that looks  like right now. Okay. So So Robert, are you saying   that we should go and pay for the storm water?  No, I'm not saying that at all. So I'm saying   I'm saying Mr. Cassant might want to move  forward, but we have this money coming back that   is affecting this this site. What are we going to  do with that? We can use it in this. [laughter]   Yeah. where deal use it in this deal. We just  don't know what it is. I'm saying that's an option   we could put that could come that could come 3  years down the road. I mean it could we don't know   when that happens like every development is about  finding taking the variables and getting them down   to predictability. And so this process and what's  being talked about here is getting it from 1.8 to   8.90. Uh okay. I mean that that's what he's trying  to solve for. I'm trying to understand what we're   trying to solve for now. Are we not going to  approve the extension? If we cancel the extension,   then what do we do? Are we going back out to  RFP and start this whole process over again?   I'm trying to understand what are we trying to  achieve here. I agree that we should have had the   contract back in February. I I I fully agree with  that. Staff should take note of that for future,   but what do we do from here? And so staff has  been in uh constant communication with uh the   developer uh as this has played out. And so while  it's coming to uh this board uh today, it is not   a surprise. Um so there's been action. We brought  the city staff involved as you can see here. He   brought in um the local uh engineering uh company  uh who I believe is here. we want to bring him   forward to uh to share from that perspective if  you will because you've worked with Mr. Cassant um   since uh since this uh since last summer. Yeah.  As he's coming down, I just want to clarify one  

more thing. So, the engineering firm was involved  from the beginning, but the beginning is after   we're under contract. What I was trying  to communicate is no developer is going to   spend money on engineering until they know they're  under contract on a particular project. And that's   and they did. It was within that first few weeks  is when we engaged with uh with our engineering   team because I wasn't going to have our staff  spend a lot of time on it either until that we had   a particular contract. So, okay. Thanks, Jonathan.  Just give your name and title is fine. Thanks.   Sorry. Name and title. Rush Rodney, anchor  engineering um project manager for the project   as Jonathan mentioned earlier. Um, so I'm going  to just echo what Stacy, Jonathan, and Pedro   has said. Um, pretty much we've been involved with  FDOT trying to see what they can help us with. Um,   as far as the 8.9 number goes, that's mainly  like 100% surface treatment, which is a lot   more cost effective as they mentioned um  rather than going for underground chambers.   So, the the main issue with this project is the  groundwater table is significantly higher um than   what we thought it was originally. Um, and as you  can see, like around that area, there's a lot of   wet ponds. You you pretty much see no dry ponds in  that area. And wet ponds typically have um require   a lot more surface area to be able to provide  the same treatment as um a dry pond would would.   So um that's pretty much what's um bounding  this project from an engineering perspective.   There's not much we can do. Um you know, we  looked at various different um alternatives.   I believe we provided uh four scenarios in that  cost analysis. we provided a couple months ago.   So, we have been um trying to work this out as  best we can. What what kind of alternatives?   Um we've looked at uh Storm Tech. We've looked at  um I believe uh FDP has some new um requirements   as far as um nutrient loading goes. So, we've  looked at um some creative solutions to be able   to um reduce the nutrient loading from the site  and obviously we've looked at uh surface treatment  

as well. So that range that you've given us  from roughly 800 and something thousand to   includes those options that you uh yes um I don't  believe it includes the land acquisition aspect of   it. Um you can verify that for me Jonathan if you  have it in front of you. Um but yeah it includes   everything else as far as a design and storm water  perspective is to acquire more land. Uh yes ma'am.   Yes ma'am. Have you looked at and I'm sure you  have. I'm just asking the question. Have you   looked [clears throat] at uh installing pvious  surfaces where you were looking at originally   doing imperous surfaces? Um no, we haven't looked  at that. Um I mean you typically don't get that   much uh credit for that. Um I mean I guess we  could look at um swapping out the asphalt and   stuff like that for furious pavement. Just don't  know how um helpful that would be for for this   particular project. Yeah, I mean definitely I  would suggest that Pedro that that y'all do a   uh costbenefit analysis on that up to 100% of  your of your pvious surface and just see if if   uh you may you may find that if you can  reduce uh your I'm not an engineer so um   if you can reduce your your requirements  by about 55% it may be worth the money.   Maybe I don't know. I can't tell you or won't  I don't have all the numbers in front of me,   but from a business perspective, it  it might make sense. All right. Yeah,   we could look at uh different alternatives  depending on what Pedro wants to go with.   How many projects that you guys are working on  are being affected by the new rules that that   came into effect in January? Pretty much  all the projects that we do now. Um, the   only ones that don't get affected by it are  projects that have been grandfathered in,   which obviously this wouldn't apply to this  particular project. So, so I bring that to   the attention. Anything that is now in process  after January 1, 2026 has a completely different  

new [clears throat] calculation that's never been  done before. And it's very extreme. And so the the   reality is what FDP, Northwest Florida Management,  everybody's pushing towards is a master stormwater   plan and strategy. Looking at this with FDOT is a  step in that direction. Looking at vacant parcels   that we have and how we can create our own storm  water bank that would then be sold to developers   is how we can ensure that um that work goes  forward. pretty much anything you saw last   year that was constructed on a small piece of  parcel would probably not happen this year.   And so it is a significant amount of change  that you're now just hearing a little bit   of the effects that's happening. And so but I  would expect us to be involved in storm water   and a tremendous amount um from this point  forward. Why five months? Why is that the number?   I think that's a that's a Pedro. Yeah, I  think that's more of a Pedro. Why five months?   Already eaten two months, haven't we?  Well, that's Yeah. Yeah. So, look, I I   I um I'm always pushing for my team to uh to move  things forward fast. So, if you actually do the   calculations when I when I ran the numbers for my  request, that put put us around July 11. And so,   for me, because I actually have a different u  date. I have August 15th as the date that the   uh agreement was signed. And so from that date  uh to the request that we have is till about July   uh 11th. And so my focus has been on trying to  keep all of this moving without saying hey guys   you know give me another year to to work on  this. I'm doing five months so that I can uh   get everybody on board so that we can focus on  seeing if we can create the solution as soon as   possible and get this item addressed and so  that I can move forward with the site plan,   submit the plan and you know further engage  with the community and the city as to what  

the actual plan is that we're submitting to as  opposed to still talking about the deal and the   agreement. So that's why I asked for five months  instead of uh more months because I wanted to   to keep the pedal to the metal. I think I  could have asked for seven or eight more months   given what we're dealing with, but I wanted to  see if there's a path for me to uh to keep things   moving because I I want to I really do want to see  us get this thing done sooner rather than later.   Thank you, Mr. Gassan. All right, we have a  motion and a second on the table to approve   recommendation for 5 months extension. Is  there any further deliberation? I mean, I   the only thing I'll say is like I'm I'm engaged.  I've not had a single conversation with Pedro.   Um, I I'm engaged because of the fact that  this neighborhood wants a grocery store   and so I'm going to continue to stay engaged and  do whatever we can to help them get to that point.   So, [clears throat] one last  thing I will me mention as uh   Mr. Street said these uh new rules from  FDP, the water management district, it's   um really stringent and a lot of projects have  died because of this or are in um significant um   jeopardy of dying. Thank you. um because of these  new rules. So um this is something that a lot of   engineers have been dealing with for the past  couple months and um it's pretty novel. So you   know we look at different things to be able  to solve this. Um so yeah um this project uh   as the um people have mentioned is going to  be really good for the community I believe. So   anything we can do to to help Mr. Gassan out would  be greatly appreciated. Mr. Chairman, you were   starting to speak, sir. Yeah, I think Robbie's  your points are valid. And I think that um   if we were having the same discussion in five  months, I'm going to say no. Um that this is sort   of I think there's plenty of time in him five  months to you know, he went through the whole   process of can I acquire more property. He seemly  cannot. Now he's forced into this decision. So I'm   I'm in favor of this. Um but it will not it will  not be the same decision in five months for me.  

So it will not be the same decision for  me in five months. My vote will change.   All right. Thank you. Can I ask what what y'all  is there any any thoughts on one let me ask Joy   we're out of our due diligence period so should we  make a motion to extend the due diligence period 5   months because that's what we're extending  so we need to classify it correctly okay   and then what's the appetite if any for to ask  the buyer to put up some money to buy some time   I mean we're we're late coming to the is asking  us to do that. I'm fixed on the contract because   that's what we do, folks. That's what is  making this happen. And if we don't follow it,   what comes next that we're not going to follow?  Okay. And that's what that's why I'm asking this.   Yeah. You would need to make a substitute  motion if you want to add uh any financial   incentives from him. Sir, I do worry that  we're making it even harder, you know. Mhm. So,   and not only that, the um rule change that  we've heard about from our staff as well as the   uh engineering firm that uh Mr. Cassan has  brought forth uh said that there's been a   significant rule change. So it's not um the  usual uh there was a a you should stay away   from sports analogy but a curve curveball  thrown um in this uh in this project and um   yes so uh Commissioner Hughes I understand  what you're trying to do and from a principled   standpoint I agree with you. However, in this  situation, if this were a baseball team coming to   put in a stadium in a in a very um you  know, large parcel and and and you know, uh   I think I think it might be a  different conversation, but but uh  

Pedro here is trying to to put in a grocery store  and and the other things that would support that   uh in this neighborhood. And so I I don't think  that um charging him extra per month is going to   get us the result that we want. And ultimately  we want a grocery store in this part of town.   So while I agree with you, if the situation was  was different, I would probably fully back you   on this. Um but I I do I do think in this  one since he's asking for 5 months and it's   not going to cost us anything to provide that to  him. Um, he's not asking us for money. He's just   asking us for time. And I think I think it would  be in our best interest and his to grant that.   But I do agree that it should be in in the  um uh Oh my gosh, you just said it. The uh the due diligence due diligence. Thank you. That  that that it is an extension of the due diligence   period, which is the which is the uh that's  the recommendation. I agree with that. I mean,   I even called Commissioner Lucas one day and said,  "I'm trying to maybe think about a grocery store   downtown, but I don't want to mess up." She  said, "No, no, no problem. I'm 100% in favor   of this new of this of this project." Um how  it how and it coming alive and and we need it.   All right. That's our job is to look after the  city and that's all I'm looking at contractually.   That's it. Yes, ma'am. All right. Seeing  no more, Miss Webb, please call the role.   Board member Street. Yes. Board member  Granger. Yes. Board member Hughes.   Yes. Board member Lucas. Yes.  Chairman Branch. Yes. Motion passes.   Thank you so much. Uh, Miss Roush and, uh, Rodney.  Um, we are now moving. And, uh, Mr. Cassant,   thank you. Have a good evening, sir.  We'll talk to you again very soon.  

Thank you, board members. All right. Item  number eight is consideration and authorization   to finalize and close on the purchase of  property located at 704 East 15th Street,   partial number 17340- 010-0000 using CRA Downtown  North funds. It's background information. The   commercially zoned property located at the above  address at the southeast corner of 15th Street,   US Highway 98 and MLK Junior Boulevard within the  downtown North Sierra district is currently vacant   and represents a strategic corner parks along  two major corridors that could support future   redevelopment or public use consistent with  the downtown North Sierra plan. An appraisal   dated September 9th, 2025 valued the property at  $250,000 and the owner agreed to a purchase price   with the city of $175,000. The city commission  approved the purchase on October 14th, 2025 and   directed staff to bring the item to the CRA board  for authorization to use downtown North CRA funds.   After the CRA board approval on November 4th,  2025, a phase 1 environmental site assessment   or ESA was conducted during the due diligence  and identified a historic petroleum release   from a former gas station on the site. The  property is enrolled in the Florida Department   of Environmental Protection statef funded  early detection incentive cleanup program   under which the state is responsible for  environmental assessment and remediation.   The D has confirmed the site's participation in  the program and is aware of the CRA's intent to   purchase the property for future redevelopment,  which is acceptable provided the department is   notified of future plans and allowed access as  needed for monitoring or remediation activities.   Purchase of this parcel was unanimously approved  by the city commission at the March 24th,   2026 commission meeting. Staff recommendate  recommendation to the board is that we you all   approve purchase of the property at 704 East 15th  Street for the amount of $175,000 and authorize   the executive director to execute all necessary  documents to complete the transaction. Staff would   entertain a motion to approve. So move. Is there  a second? I'll second that. Let's do this before  

the seller changes their mind. We're walking  in with equity. getting that one done. Yeah.   All right. There is a motion and a second on  the table. Is there uh anything to uh discuss   or do any deliberation from the board? There were  some comments during uh public uh participation.   Uh one in reference to what to put on the property  and as has just been uh read that was a former uh   site of uh a gas station. A gas station. So that  kind of limits what we are able uh to put there.   Although I do share the sentiment that I'd like  to see something there other than a parking lot   um because it is uh you know a uh a parking lot  may not be the highest and best use at that corner   but our highest and best use is limited because of  the history of the site. Yep. So we would actually   uh have a workshop before we planned anything.  I know at the commission meeting we had a little   rendering. I mean, that was something  our engineering division threw together   probably in 30 minutes uh as a concept. As  you all know though, parking is a bit of a   challenge. Uh we do need some additional  parking at the MLK Junior Rec Center. So,   that was one of the reasons, but we would workshop  this, get some feedback from the community and   and and some direction from the board uh prior  to moving forward with it. And one other point,   this acquisition allows us to move that um archway  entrance to the MLK rec center to the corner,   which is a safer uh area for children and adults  to cross the street. Uh right now, we're still   seeing them crossing in the middle of the road and  not at the intersections where they are lighted.   So, yep. Absolutely. So, seeing no further  discussion, Miss Web, please call the role.   Board member Street. Yes. Board member Granger.  Yes. Board member Hughes. Yes. Board member Lucas.   Yes. Chairman Branch, yes. Motion passes. All  right. Item number nine is consideration and   approval of a commercial property uh or CPI grant  in the amount of $15,000 to Antonio Middleton,  

owner of Get You a Box for exterior improvements  to the commercial property located at 1415   East Fifth Street, Panama City,  Florida, with partial ID 2225-0000-00 within the Millville Community Redevelopment Area  District. As background information, the CRA board   approved the commercial property investment  grant program on December 2nd of last year   to encourage exterior improvements to commercial  properties along the US 98 Fifth Street corridor,   enhance the visual appearance of the district,  and to promote reinvestment and strengthen the   area's commercial identity. On March 27th of  2026, Antonio Middleton, owner of Get You a Box,   submitted an application for funding assistance to  the Millville CRA commercial property improvement   grant program for the property located at  the above address. This proposed project   includes exterior improve exterior improvements  consistent with the adopted program guidelines,   which supports facade enhancements and other  visible upgrades that contribute to the overall   revitalization of the Millville CRA district.  The applicant has selected funding option two,   the CRA direct vendor payment in which the CRA  will issue payment directly to the selected   contractor upon completion of the approved  improvements and verification of compliance with   program requirements. The CR staff has reviewed  the application and accompanying requirement   uh required documentation and has determined that  the project meets the eligibility requirements   of the commercial property improvement grant  program. Staff recommends that the CRA board   approve the commercial property improvement grant  in the amount of $15,000 to Antonio Middleton,   owner of Get You a Box for the property located  at 1415 East Fifth Street within the Millville   CRA district. And staff would recommend or uh  would recommend a motion to approve. So moved.   Second. All right. There's a motion and a  second. Is there any discussion or deliberation?   Go eat there if you haven't. It's really  good. Oh yeah. Really good. Yeah. Right.  

Seeing none, Miss Webb, please call the role.  Board member Street, yes. Board member Granger,   yes. Board member Hughes, yes. Board  member Lucas, yes. Chairman Branch, yes.   Motion passes. Thank you. Agenda item number 10 is  discussion, consideration, and approval to execute   a contract with Playmore Recreational Products and  Services for the purchase and installation of the   playground equipment at Trudale Park located  within the St. Andrew Community Redevelopment   District in the amount of $288,154.22 22 cents  utilizing CRA funding and authorization to utilize   a piggyback contract. As background information,  Trudale Park located within the St. Andrew CRA   district is currently being renovated following  the damage from Hurricane Michael. As part of   these improvements, the existing playground  equipment was removed to accommodate construction   of a new parking lot. The Panama City CRA is  proposing to install a new modern playground   designed for ages 2 to 5 and 5 to 12 with an  updated safety surface featuring AstroTurf   to provide improved recreational amenities for the  area. Playmore Recreational Products and Services   has provided a proposal for the purchase  and installation of playground equipment,   site furnishings, surfacing, and related  improvements for the Trudale Park in the   amount of $288,000 154 $288,154.22. The proposed  purchase will be made utilizing a piggyback   contract with the school district of Manatee  County, contract number 26-0041-mr. The project   again includes playground equipment installation,  safety surfacing, site furnishings, and associated   improvements necessary for a complete playground  installation at Trudale Park. Staff recommendation   is that the CRA board approved the contract with  Playmore Recreational Products and Services as   explained above and staff would entertain a motion  to approve. Motion to approve. Is there a second?   Second. All right, there's a motion and a second.  Is there any discussion or questions for staff  

hearing? None. Miss Webb, please call the role.  Board member Street, yes. Board member Granger,   yes. Board member Hughes, yes. Board member  Lucas, yes. Chairman Branch, yes. Motion passes.   Thank you. Item number 11 is an update on the  Incremental Development Alliance or Inc. Dev   smallcale development program. Our partnership  with the Incremental Development Alliance has been   focused on building local capacity for small-cale  development within our CRA districts. The goal is   simple. To give people the tools and understanding  they need to take on real projects that align with   our adopted redevelopment plans. Program  progress over the last many months. Lecture   initiated September 2025. Workshop November  2025. Boot camp completed the end of last month.   Real projects are now beginning to take shape.  We have a better understanding of the process   and we're seeing more local involvement. We'll  be moving into the monthly meetup starting later   this month to keep the momentum going. These  will be topic focused sessions based on what   participants need most, including thing like the  city's RFP and bidding process. This program is   helping to build a pipeline of local developers  who are better prepared to take on projects that   align with the CRA comprehensive plans. As  these projects move forward, participants   will be in a stronger position to pursue long  larger opportunities, including potential P3s,   other financing tools the board may want to  explore. This has been a solid first step in   turning interest into action. We'll continue to  track progress and keep you all updated as these   projects develop. There's no action needed by the  board this evening. This was simply an update that   was requested, but we're happy to answer any  questions or defer to any comments if the board   would so desire. Yeah, one of the comments that  I had from our meeting was uh going to our staff   beyond the CRA department, but all the departments  and say we have scholarships for our entire staff   of like if you're in, you know, parks and wreck,  you can sign up for this course. It's not just   for, you know, non, you know, just Pemma city  residents. It's even for our own employees and our  

own teams. How incredible of a story would it be  that you work for the city, you take a course and   you start doing real estate on the side? How  cool would that be? So, I think I'd love to see   the city, you know, offering it directly to our  our staff saying this is for you as well. Okay.   I don't know of anything that would prohibit  that. Do you, Miss Waldron or Miss Mer?   I think he's just looking for the encouragement.  Yeah. Well, I mean, but but paying for it. I   just I don't know if there's I don't know that  there'd be any prohibition of using Well, well,   to the now we're at the part with the monthly  meetups. It's for those participants who have   been participating. But if we ever did this again,  absolutely. I think we could look at scholarships   for city team members. Meetups can be for anyone.  Yeah, meetups are open to the public. Yeah. So,   it's it's the 13 who participated as well as any  others who might want to come along. Um, as uh   as uh Miss Landry uh mentioned in her public  uh presentation, uh she and uh the others were   uh greatly engaged. We saw uh several great  pitches. you know, when when you talk about   a two-hour evening and you get 90 people to  show up and 50 spend a day uh looking at it um   and and delving more into small business,  smallcale development uh and then we've got   a dozen that participated in the u in the  workshop over a a fiveweek period of time. So, uh,   thank you to the colleagues, uh, for voting  for this, uh, to bring it to us and then   for the smallcale development. But this is truly  one of the ways that we level the playing field   by making the tools available to community  members to get engaged and, as I've been saying,   begin in the game. So, the 12 that went through  the are those 12 working to have a business,   do a development? Oh, some of them are  already doing it. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Um   several of them um you know we had the range  from I have an idea that I'm thinking about  

to I've done developments and here's some of what  I've done and you know I'll take you on a tour. All right. Seeing no more questions. Moving on to  item number 12. Item number 12 is discussion and   consideration of establishing a redevelopment  site preparation grant program for all four   community redevelopment agency districts,  including proposed FY26 funding allocations   and a framework for future fiscal year funding.  As background information, the Panama City CRA   has received multiple requests from property  owners, residents, and businesses for assistance   with demolition and site preparation activities  within the CRA districts. These requests have   highlighted a need for a program that helps remove  barriers to redevelopment at the front end of   multiple projects. Staff is proposing a creation  of a redevelopment site preparation grant program   to provide financial assistance for the removal  of dilapidated structures and preparation of sites   for future development. The intent of this  program is to address blighted properties,   improve site readiness, and encourage reinvestment  ac across all four districts. For FY26,   the following funding is proposed. Milville CRA  District 400,000, St. Andrew CRA District, $0,   Downtown North District, uh, CRA District,  TBD, and the Downtown CRA district $100,000.   The proposed program structure would not limit  the amount an individual applicant may request.   However, each CRA district would have a  defined funding allocation per fiscal year.   Funding would be offered on a first come  first- serve basis subject as always   to CRA board approval with the final award  amount determined at the board's discretion.   Establishing annual funding caps by district  supports better budgeting and financial planning   while a formalized grant program framework helps  ensure consistency and reduces potential audit   risk associated with ad hoc funding request.  In addition to the proposed FY26 funding,   staff is recommending the program be structured as  an ongoing redevelopment tool with a predetermined  

percentage of each CRA district's annual budget  allocated to the program in future fiscal years.   A target range of 10 to 15% is recommended as  this level is sufficient to support meaningful   redevelopment activity while not limiting  the CRA's ability to fund other priorities.   This program is intended to uh complement existing  redevelopment tools. While tax increment financing   rebates are typically realized on the back end  of a project through increased property values,   this program focuses on the front end by helping  property owners overcome initial redevelopment   costs that often delay or prevent projects  from even moving forward. By offering both   front-end assistance through redevelopment site  preparation grants and back-end support through   tiff reinvestment, the CRA can create a more  comprehensive approach to redevelopment. This   dual approach is expected to serve as a catalyst  for both commercial and residential improvements,   reduce blight, stimulate economic activity, and  support opportunities for workforce and affordable   housing development. Pending board discussion and  direction, staff anticipates bringing a formal   grant program for consideration and approval  at the May 5th, 2026 CRA board meeting. The CRA   staff has no formal recommendations and is seeking  board direction on the following program elements   in order to finalize the redevelopment site  preparation grant program as desired by the CRA   board and for their consideration at the May 5th  of this year CRA board meeting. We do request the   CRA board to provide direction if they so desire  on the following program elements in order to   finalize the redevelopment site preparation grant  for consideration at the May 5th meeting. We have   the um checklist if you'll also look um after the  demolition and site preparation program examples.   Um and this would be a decision checklist. Uh  and we would appreciate that feedback. don't   necessarily have to complete it this evening,  but if you could complete it and get it back to   uh to myself or Brandy or one  of our C CRA program mentors,  

that would be greatly appreciated. But we  look at certain items uh such as funding   allocation by district uh per applicant funding  limits, funding structure by applicant type,   program administration, eligible activities,  eligible criteria, program safeguards,   program prioritization if is desired. Again, uh  staff uh does request uh feedback and direction   from the CRA board uh and would put this forward  for your discussion and action. If if I may,   I have two things I' I'd like to discuss up front.   One, do we want to get into the grant program  business because there's already four lined up   um and we're gonna be dulling out money. So,  that's another task for um for our staff.   We have 57 projects under the CRA um guide  right now, which is entirely too many. Um   and now we're going to add this. So, I'd like for  us to consider, is that something we want to do?   And if we do, can we set aside the Boys and  Girls Club? because this has been designed   to help the Boys and Girls Club, but we're  designing a demolition grant program for the CRAAS   and and the staff did a great job of giving us  a bunch of information about around around the   state of Florida of other cities which I went  and looked. It's amazing how many people how   many cities use it and how they use it and none  of them give out $400,000. The max is 200 and   based on that you have to you have to have some  criteria to get there. most of them is 100,000.   So my concern here is is that  we're setting up a program that's   tailored to a specific organization asking  for money. And I disagree that many people   have been asking for demolition stuff where  this all came about because of one request.   And if we could set that aside and have a  discussion to build this program about the CRAAS,  

not about a program because if we build it this  way, Josh, it may not work in your in your board   this way and it may not work in another CRA. Is  that something that we can agree on upfront, not   to let's talk about the criteria that it's going  to take for anybody to do it and at the end if the   Boys and Girls Club qualify, we they can get what  what we come up with. Is that something that we   could agree on? Because I think I don't feel like  that's what we're doing. I I agree with that. And   from my perspective is that I was looking at it  through the lens of like what else would apply to   this and I really what my mind goes back to is the  toy box property. Um Jason Meyers, Myers Electric   purchased the property with the intention  to remove that blighted piece. The city was   not able, we had no programming, we had nothing  available to help them with the demolition. Um,   so I'm not typically for demolishing buildings,  but in that case, as the person that swung the   hammer, you could have pushed that building over.  Really truly, it was in that bad of condition.   So, I mean, for me, like I mean, I would love  to offer an incentive to, you know, Gold Nugget   is done in I think another 2 and 1/2 years. So,  on their on their operational agreement, they'll   they will no longer be a um a gentleman's club  after that. Uh although that's ironic to call it   that, but [laughter] but they won't be operating  as that. But this would be a great if they want   to build something different, they want to do  something different besides a strip club. I think   this is a great incentive to help them, you know,  offset their cost and um demolishing what's there.   So, um I can think of a few structures that I that  I could see this applying to in St. Andrews. Not   a lot, but I can think of a couple. Old slabs,  you know, you know, it could be old slap. I like   to keep the program kind of broad. I think the  cap's a good point to make. Um my my worry with,   you know, the goal of the CRA is to add things to  the tax base. And so if we are just helping people  

tear things down, tear things down, we really  should be making sure that if we help them tear   them down that something's getting built in its  place. There's a rule, but that doesn't qualify.   There's a rule. Yeah, I think that's a I think  that's a good incentive. Yeah, exactly. Guys,   I don't want to just demo anything either. Yeah,  totally. Um, and so I think those are all good   precautions, but I want, you know, we want to  keep the programs kind of broad so that we don't   have to come constantly come back and amend  them based on every situation because there's   every project's different and um, but nothing  that they showed us is broad. They all have   specific requirements, financials, site plans, you  know, all of that. And then what is not allowed?   Most of them don't do churches, religious, or  5013C's. Okay? You know why? Because they're not   getting anything back off of it. They don't  do interiors. Okay? um just like we don't   I think this discussion should be about criteria  first and setting up how that looks like. I don't   think we ought to put a come back next month and  have to have this baked in. I think we ought to   really think about this. It's got to it's  got to help all CRAAS and you're right,   every project's different, uh Mayor, but there  are some things that are not going to change. How   they come into the project, I think ought to be  the same. Everybody ought to have to play by the   same exact set of criteria. And um there  was one in here. It's in Delray Beach.   It's um if you get funding through the site,  you can't come back for another 10 years if   if something works that way. So you can't build  your projects based on the backs of the CRA.   You know, those types of things we have to think  through. And I looked at nine different cities on   well, some of these and then others. And  they all center around wanting to help,   wanting to increase tax base and but not  but making sure that there's limits on caps   and most of the people have to put some money in  the deal and that's upfront cost of site plans,   you know, those types of things and they have to  provide that upfront. Yeah. I don't know if I'd be   in favor if someone just said, I want to tear  something down and tear it down, right? And I  

don't have [laughter] any money ever. So, I got a  simple solution. Let's just remove blight removal   like and then it will only be in cases that  there's going to be new construction that the   grant could be applied. What does that does that  work? Just removing the one statement of blight   removal structures that fail to meet safety or  aesthetic standards and then that would mean the   only projects eligible for this grant would be  new construction and the existing structures are   incompatible with with existing or anticipated  redevelopment. Board if I may with all due   respect I'm not asking you guys to go through the  checklist tonight. I think all we really need is   sounds like you guys are in favor of the program.  I think all we need is a motion to set the program   and then again the staff, Miss Circle did a great  job. Y'all each take this worksheet and that's   exactly the feedback that we're asking for you  guys through 13 different items. And if y'all all   don't want to do that, that's we will all  compile this for feedback and action at   the May 5th agenda. Of course, if y'all want to  sit here and go through the checklist tonight,   that's your prerogative. That was I know I know  we're not leaving till we're done. That's right,   Mr. Chairman. That was not that was not staff's  intentions. We have homework that's here. Yes,   sir. To do. Okay. Yeah. And we would love that  feedback. And of course, that will become a   public record, but we would love that feedback.  So, get it in the next week or so so we can have   time to compile it and put it in the next agenda.  I don't I don't think we ought to have to do that.   I don't want us to have the pressure of got  to get it right right now to get back here   because that's where we're going to make a  mistake. We're starting with I believe the wrong   premise to create this. Okay. And let's back down  from that. Move them aside. I think we agree with   that. And let's build a program that works for  everybody. [clears throat] That might take another   meeting of us talking publicly. We might use it  as a in a a virtual meeting, maybe. Let's talk   about it Saturday. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, that'll work.  That'll work. Okay, that works. Okay. Thank you.   But I So is we do need a motion if we do  want because staff's not going to work   on unless y'all do want to establish  the program. Who wants the program? I  

like the program. Did you motion? Yeah, I motioned  to I motioned to actually motion to approve it,   but apparently we have homework to do. So, so  I like Yes, I motioned to establish the program   um for incentivization of demolition and  site preparation. Right. Is there a second?   So, we're approving just that the staff's going  to do more research the program the whole concept   because again, we've heard feedback from y'all.  We don't want to go and spend a lot of time   collecting information from y'all and building  everything if y'all don't even support the   the general concept of the program. That's all  we're doing is the general concept of the program.   No specifics, but we don't have a general concept  yet. So, what what is it that we're are we voting   on that we're approving a program that we don't  know what it looks like? No, we're motioning on   staff expending time on this issue. Okay. Right.  That's correct. That is correct. We're wanting you   all to provide feedback on the specifics. We will  then take that information and consolidate it and   and present it to y'all in a very formal and  official fashion at the May 5th CR board meeting   and y'all are under no obligation to formally  approve it. Y'all can punt it to the June meeting   if you want. Uh but we would love to get feedback  from y'all through this in a very um in a very   deliberative fashion. Very efficient way. Trying  to sir. Trying to. So, all right. We have a we   have a motion. I did. Do we have a second? You got  a second. [laughter] So, no. Do you need a second?   We do need a second. I'll second it. All  right. So, we have a motion to to approve   the general concept and then we'll get feedback  and uh from the board in the coming weeks. That   is correct. There's no specifics. We're waiting  on you guys to share what you want to see. So,   all right. Miss Web, please call the role. Board  member Street. Yes. Board member Granger. Yes.   Board member Hughes. No. Board member Lucas. Yes.  Chairman Branch just opened a door for them. That  

motion passes. All right. Motion passes. All  right. Um item number 13 is project updates.   This report provides a mid-year review and status  update on the projects and programs outlined   in the goals and objectives as well as those  included in the board approved annual work plan.   As part of our statutory requirements, we're  required to track and report this information   to the state at the end of the fiscal year.  This report supports that requirement while   also keeping the board informed on the progress.  In addition to the projects originally identified,   the report also includes any new projects or  programs added during the fiscal year to date,   providing a comprehensive snapshot of all current  efforts across all four districts and where they   stand. If you have any questions on either  specific uh project or program, staff is happy   to provide additional detail this evening. Are  there any questions on these particular projects?   I I would just like to make a comment um on one  of our projects. We had discussed doing a park at   Oaks by the Bay for playground equipment. Um the  Trudedale Park is that uh we will not be putting   another park at Oaks by the Bay. I just want to  make sure everybody's on board for doing that.   Although there has been some just some ancillary  comments about maybe like some swings or something   kind of over in that area like pergola swings that  that kind of as far as a a full-blown playground.   That is correct, Commissioner. Yes. Yeah. Rob, is  this when you said we had too many projects? Yeah,   we have 57 projects. Nine are completed, seven  are pending, 37 are ongoing, one board removed,   one pause, one pursuing, and one was made. That  was what was put in our packet here. These this   and I'd like to ask each uh commissioner to go  through and if something is you thought of and   now it's you come and gone, let's take it off.  Let's not have I mean this is mindboggling. We   can take all the stuff off of W three completely  out of and I'll take it off of W one. How about   that? Make it easy. But there's some that are  important. Look at that. Took quite a few off.  

Yeah. But it's just first. [laughter]   So there are and and correct me if I'm mistaken,  but there are rules that we set the goals, we set   the budget, and we track how we're doing. So it's  not just that we just go, "Oh, done. Let's take   it out of there." It's part of the uh record of  our our annual plan. Yes. So we have to track it. So what we just checked off one today  is now board approved. So So I guess   help me understand this this list. Um  well the percent column where it says   complete is the percentage of completion of the  project. Okay. What is [laughter] district like   I guess I guess I'm I'm trying I'm asking so I  understand the concern. Is the concern there's   some of these that are at 0%. Is that the  concern? Why are some green and some purple?   Yeah, I guess it was on the last page. Purple  is ongoing or completed. The green is pending   or Yeah, I'll take it. I don't know. Uh the  color coding, if you flip to the next page,   it explains that the blue is what is reported  in our annual work plan and the green is what's   reported in our annual goals and objectives.  We're required to report on these. The other   stuff that's in white is just projects that we  took on in addition to those at board request. Got a lot going on. Yeah. Throw it  against the wall. See what sticks and just   Well, I mean, thanks to our great team, a  lot sticks and we're getting a lot done.   We're stretching them. We are. So, if you don't  have any free time, you can't get in trouble.   All right. Any further questions? Mel, is your  cons do you have any concerns with the ones that  

have been added on? Are you comfortable with  the workload to complete all this before the   end of the year? Are we going to have to  carry over some stuff? What do you feel?   I don't have any concerns at all. There  will be a few projects that always go   into the next fiscal year. We can't always  tie them up by the end of the year. Um,   but I don't see any concerns with this list as of  right now. And that's pretty standard across all   CRA across the state. And we're operating within  budget with those parameters. So 57 projects.   So what I hear is we're on budget and the majority  of these at least should be completed by the end.   Yes. December are the government years.  Which one is that? Fiscal year. Year. Okay.   And I would ask the same of Lena as she  is responsible manager for these as well.   Yeah. Lena also did a great job.  They do some of them do have to   you know roll over. They won't get finished  by the end of the fiscal year, but you know,   the budget is already allocated out for us.  So, I mean, this is the first time I've had   a sheet that had percentages. So, I'm sorry  if I seem confused. So, that was that I mean,   that's a good thing. We're trying to provide  more information. So, and to be when I said   that standard, I meant sometimes projects rolling  over from one fiscal year to the next is a common   practice across all CRA. Super helpful. Yeah,  this will work. Matter of fact, I'm going to take   All right. If there's no further questions, we'll  entertain a motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn.   Second. And there's a second. Miss Webb, please  call the role. Board member Street. No. [laughter]   Keep going. Keep going. Board member  Granger. Yes. Board member Hughes. Yes.   Board member Lucas, yes. Chairman Branch,  yes. Motion passes. Meeting adjourned.