City Council - Regular Meeting

Ms. Fazzoni, please call the roll.

Councilman Register?

Yes, ma'am.

Vice Mayor Jarman?

Yes, ma'am.

Councilman Castro?

Yes, ma'am.

Councilmember Coburn? Yes. Mayor Tettemer?

Yes, ma'am. Please rise for the invocation by Pastor Jay Powell from Church of the Beach.

Father God, we come to you this evening thanking you for the day. Thank you for this setting that we have and the celebrations that are going on. Help us always to remember to celebrate people. Thank you for the city council, all the members. Please bless them, give them wisdom, guide them, direct them as they lead our city, especially the mayor. Please allow Paul to have a great birthday and enjoy his special day. And then help all of us in our minds and our hearts reflect on such a big thing that happened 25 years ago tomorrow. Help us keep good perspective and help us continue to lean on you and ask you for protection in everything. But give these people wisdom. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.

Amen. Please join Councilman Register for the pledge.

I 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.

We now move on to item D of our agenda, which is the community announcements. On Thursday, September 24th, is our next city council meeting at 9 a.m. here at City Hall. On Saturday, September 26th, is the Race for Bays 5K, 10K, and Fun Run that is at Conservation Park. Also on Saturday, September 26, whenever you're done running at Conservation Park, you can come to the Fall Festival, which will be at Aaron Besant Park. And then finally, Thursday, October 8, is our subsequent City Council meeting, our first one in October. That is an evening meeting at 5 PM here at City Hall. And those are the community announcements. We now move on to item E, the approval of the meeting minutes. Motion to approve.

Second.

We have a motion to approve and a second. Ms. Lawyer, please call roll.

Councilman Register?

Yes, ma'am.

Vice Mayor Jarman?

Yes, ma'am.

Councilman Casto?

Yes, ma'am.

Councilmember Coburn? Yes. Mayor Tettemer?

Yes, ma'am. We now move on to the approval of the agenda and additions or deletions. Mr. Whitman, do you have anything?

Yes, sir. With your permission and the council's permission, I'd like to add a proclamation to the presentations for recognizing Mark Neitzel under civil service. Okay.

Any other additions or deletions proposed from the council? No, I guess we'll move that to G4 and motion to approve as amended. Second. Okay, we have a motion to approve as amended and a second. Ms. Lawyer, please call roll.

Councilman Register?

Yes, ma'am.

Vice Mayor Jarman?

Yes, ma'am.

Councilman Casto?

Yes, ma'am.

Councilmember Coburn? Yes. Mayor Tettemer?

Yes, ma'am. We now move on to said presentations. Councilman Register, take it away.

Ms. White's going to help them with this as well, with the Citizen's Academy. What's that? Ms. White's going to help them with this with the Citizen's Academy along with Erin and Latoya.

So we're really pleased tonight to be able to recognize the graduates and attendees from the second Citizen's Academy that we had. Hopefully they had an even better experience in year one because they got the benefit of us learning from our mistakes in year one. But they were a great group of people. Clearly, they care about their local government, and they wanted to come out and learn more, and we appreciate them and their willingness to give up nine weeks of their Wednesday nights this summer. I also want to thank our staff, the directors and their staff. I mean, we probably had 80 to 100 of our staff members involved in Citizens Academy over the nine weeks, so they got to meet a lot of people, and our staff got to talk about what they do, and they take a lot of pride in their work, and they got to show off a little bit. And really, special thanks to Erin. and Latoya, Aaron Thrower and Latoya up here that were here every week during Citizens Academy and did a lot of the communications and did all the hard work putting everything together. So with that, I think they want to introduce the members of this year's class. Yep.

Thank you so much. We're going to go ahead and read off the names. And so I want to read your name if you can come up, and we'll get your certificate and also your shirt. And then if you kind of file to the middle, we'll take a group picture of all of us together. So we'll start with Molly Allen. Next, we have Nikki Case. Erica Essek. Natalie Essek. Peter Paschetti. Jason Hall. Fred Hart. Cathy Hulshaw. Iris Neal. Ryan Rothemo. Carlos Sanchez. Bill couldn't be with us tonight, but Janet Tedmer, he's taken. Yes. She's coming.

All right, perfect. Thank you.

Anne Grant Whitstruck. All right, congratulations, everyone. And if we could have the council line up behind them, Miss Holly on one side, Miss Latoya on the other, and we'll do our group photo. All right, if everybody could take one little step together for me. Beautiful.

You guys should graduate more often so we get cake. I get Hudson Bishop to come join me. You want to bring your family up or just you coming? All right. Hudson, whereas Hudson has given exceptional service to the Boys and Girls Club, and whereas the Panama City Beach City Council and the residents of PCB thank you, Hudson, for your dedication, your unselfish service to your club and community, and congratulate you on a job well done. Congratulations, Hudson. Great job. That's what we did after, right?

Erin, I'm going to probably need some help with this one as well.

So can I have the representatives of the Florida Elite 10U team to come up, please? You guys want to do them all together, 12 of you and 10 of you? OK.

I got 10 of you first, and then again, one of the other guys. OK, so just 12 of you.

All right, fantastic. We'll read one of them. Please. Whereas Panama City Beach City Council hereby recognizes and congratulates Florida Elite 12U and 10U on winning the United States Fast Pitch Association National World Series Championship. And whereas the City Council of Panama City Beach is proud to extend its heartfelt congratulations to the 12U Florida Elite and 10U Florida Elite for winning the United States Fast Pitch Association's National World Series Championship. This outstanding achievement reflects the team's dedication, teamwork, and unwavering commitment to excellence both on and off the field. The council recognizes your hard work as athletes, coaches, and staff whose collective efforts have brought great pride to this community. Your sportsmanship, determination, and spirit exemplify the values we celebrate here in Panama City Beach. Congratulations, guys. You coaches want to say anything about your team or talk about your journey to a championship or anything?

My name's Mike Jimenez. I coach the 10U team, which none of the players are here right now because they're all playing school ball. They're at practice right now. But we're a nonprofit, a 501 nonprofit. We're one of the few travel ball organizations that's an actual IRS nonprofit. And we're transparent with our funds. We're transparent with our contributions, donations. And 100% of it goes to developing our youth on the beach. And we have a lot of softball talent on the beach. This is unprecedented that two teams from the same organization would win the national championship. World Series, the United States Fast Pitch Association. And that just reflects the credit of these girls, these dedicated young athletes that are absolutely incredible. They're out there and they're sweating and they're practicing when other kids are not. And it really reflects. So on behalf of Florida Elite, we depend on your tax-deductible donations to make a travel ball affordable for these young athletes. And so if you have any questions at all, just look us up. And then I got Coach Rick Green here. And I have Grant Woodstruck. He's on our board of directors. Does anybody want to?

What I do want to tell you is going back and talking with the USFA World Series folks, this is the first time in history

that a team from Panama City Beach has won two different divisions at the same time. And so it was a big deal. And our two teams outscored their opponents in bracket play 65 to 20. What you're going to see here on the beach in about Five years, six years, there's a lot of young ladies signing college scholarships. Appreciate y'all.

Thank you.

Mr. Knights will come join me up here, please. Surprises are good. Yeah. I think. I hope this says good things. No lawyers involved, I don't think. Cole's over there. Whereas the Panama City Beach City Council hereby recognizes Mark Neitzel. Whereas Mark Neitzel has faithfully served as chairman of the City of Panama City Beach Civil Service Board for nine and a half years, generously giving his time and talents in service to the city and its employees. And whereas throughout his tenure, Mark has demonstrated dedication, fairness, integrity, and a genuine commitment to the important work of the Civil Service Board. And whereas the Panama City Beach City Council recognizes, sincerely appreciates, and thanks Mark Neitzel for his dedication and lasting contributions he has made to the Civil Service Board, the city and its employees during his nine and a half years of service. Thank you so much, Mark.

Well, this is a surprise. Had I known that, I'd dressed a little nicer. I was just going to relax. It's been a journey. I appreciate it. And this was not an I thing. This was a we thing. And many of the folks that helped the civil service board are in the room tonight. I can't call them all out, but they're all here. So we had a lot of successes. We came a long way in that 9 and 1 half years. I will say the last thing that I said that was in my exit speech, and that was that it has been my greatest pleasure and an honor to serve this city that I call paradise and home. And the last thing that I said was time is the one commodity that you'll get no more of. Hug the ones you love.

Thank you, Ethan. Thank you, Mark. Thank you, all the Citizens Academy graduates. Congratulations. to Fast Pitch, and congratulations to Hudson. OK, we now move on to regular agenda item number H, which is public comment on the consent agenda and non-agenda business. So this is for the consent agenda and non-agenda business. If you are planning on making public comment on a regular agenda item, there will be public comment for that later on. This is just for the consent agenda and non-agenda business. Please come up, state your name. Address myself or the council as a whole please keep your comments limited to city business, and you will have three minutes

My name is Captain Gary Wayne Beck. I live at 2601 Beach Street. Well, I'd like to remind the world the facts. They've witnessed all the different times I've been up here in front of this council, and I want the world to know that it's the Panama City Beach mayor and all of the council's position that what happened to the child happened in the county and not on Panama City Beach, therefore it don't matter. All the capital felonies that I've told Chief Telemontes about, That happened in the county. It happened in the county instead of Panama City Beach. You know, we got to talk about jurisdiction, you know? During the meantime, I try to tell Chief Telemontes, no, it happened on Panama City Beach, buddy, when they forged my name. We had the BPO's. Sir, your issues with the courts is not related to Panama City Beach. And during the meantime, if you put anything to me, I'll squeeze your ears. During the meantime... Sir, do not threaten. Sir, do not threaten. Anyway, I'm talking. He's just trying to interrupt me because I've only got three minutes to speak. But let the records clearly indicate, if he's concerned about as much of my speech as he did the rape of a young child, maybe I wouldn't be in the circle. Sir, please keep this limited to Panama City Beach business. I've addressed... Drew over there, when he was the police chief, I've been time and time again. And then they spin me in a circle around and around. Oh, you need to file a police report. What happened to all the police reports I've filed in the last 17 years of dealing with this? And then we're talking about the blatant desecration of the most sacred document we have, which is the Constitution and Bill of Rights. You know, that's you, Mayor. That's you and every dangum last one of y'all that sit up there and let all you dangum inbred kissing cousins put lies out about me telling everybody I'm a drug lord. Please keep your comments directed to Panama City Beach. Please explain to the people, let the people know why it happened in the county and you don't care. Please, I'm listening. Let Chief Telemontes tell everybody how come he can't take his car. I think I've got it recorded. I don't know how many times I say, hey, take your car. We're talking about the children. Sir, please keep your comments limited to Panama City Beach City Business. During the meantime, I try to take and tell Chief Telemontes, you know, I tell them, hey, dude, you got that fancy car? I said, take me over there, you know, because I go in the Sheriff's Department. Oh, yeah, that's it. We've got to go to the Department of Justice. We've got to go to this, every type of alphabet on demand. And I talked to a closed officer, you know, a regular beat cop. He said, it's above my pay grade. You know, it's above my pay grade. Hence the term getting pitched around and around. Sir, please keep your comments limited to Panama City Beach business. This is your last request. I guess you're going to tell that child molester that he has to stay on the other side of the beach.

All right, sir, please sit down. For what? Please sit down. You have failed to keep it limited to Panama City Beach business. Please sit down, sir. Please sit down.

You've got to be proud. Cheating.

Sir, please sit down. Any further comment on the consent agenda or non-agenda business? Any further public comment on consent agenda or non-agenda business? Sir, please.

Please what?

Please, keep it down. Keep the quorum here. Okay. Moving on to the consent agenda, Ms. Lawyer.

A resolution number 26159, a resolution of the City of Panama City Beach, Florida, approving the purchase of three APX8500 mobile radios from Motorola Solutions, Inc., for the public safety command bus, and the total amount of $37,788.56, and agreeing to be bound by the terms and conditions of the State of Washington Department of Enterprise Services NASPO Value Point Master Agreement governing that purchase. Resolution number 26160, a resolution of the City of Panama City Beach, Florida, approving the purchase of one Ford truck from Allen J. Fleet Sales for the Utilities Department in the total amount of $45,203 and agreeing to be bound by the terms and conditions of the City of Tallahassee contract governing that purchase. Resolution number 26161, a resolution of the city of Panama City Beach, Florida, authorizing additional expenditures at set unit prices in an amount not to exceed $80,000 for liquid sodium aluminate for utilities department under the city's existing agreement with Cedar Kim LLC for fiscal year 2026. Resolution number 26162, a resolution of the city of Panama City Beach, Florida, authorizing additional expenditures in an amount not to exceed $200,000 for sewer cleaning, bypass pumping, vacuum truck, and related services for the utilities department under the city's existing agreement with Smith Industrial Services, Inc. for fiscal year 2026. And resolution number 26163, a resolution of the City of Panama City Beach, Florida, approving assignment of the Master Professional Services Agreement with Infrastructure Solution Services to H.R. Green, Inc., and approving a task order with H.R. Green, Inc., relating to the operation permit renewal for the city's wastewater treatment facility, number one, in an amount not to exceed $70,050.00.

I'll entertain a motion to approve. Second. Motion to approve. We have a motion to approve and a second. Ms. Lawyer, please call roll.

Councilman Register?

Yes, ma'am.

Vice Mayor Jarman?

Yes, ma'am.

Councilman Casto?

Yes, ma'am.

Councilmember Coburn? Yes. Mayor Tettemer?

Yes, ma'am. We now move on to the regular agenda. Regular agenda item number one is resolution 26164. Mr. Davis, could you read the title?

Resolution 26-164, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Panama City Beach, Florida, approving the issuance of not exceeding $200 million of bonds by the Panama City Bay County Airport and Industrial District, purposes of Section 147 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, with the acquisition, construction, equipping, rehabilitation, or installation of extensions, improvements, and additions of airport facilities at the Northwest Florida Beaches International Airport, providing certain other matters in connection therewith, and providing for an effective date.

OK, we're going to do this one a little different, because it is a TURFA hearing. Mr. Davis, if you could explain what a TURFA hearing is.

I will do my best. This is not my forte. But essentially, you are here because the IRS requires for the airport. The airport is a special district. The members of the board of that special district are appointed by Bay County, the city of Panama City Beach, the Walton County Commission, and Panama City. The IRS code and George Smith, who is bond counsel for the airport, is here to really explain this way better than I can. But what I will tell you is you are here because, as an elected body, you have to want an elected body that appoints members of that board have to hold a public hearing for the airport to issue bonds in furtherance of its current terminal expansion that is undergoing right now. So this is to fund the terminal expansion that's going on at the airport. And quite frankly, someone has to hold a hearing, and we picked you guys because you guys are the best. Yeah.

All right. I guess we're good at hearing. Okay. I have a script here I need to read. This is a public hearing with respect to the issuance by Panama City Bay County Airport and Industrial District. which I refer to as the district of one or more series of notes, bonds, or other obligations as part of a single plan of finance in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $200 million, which I refer to as the bonds. The bonds. will be used to finance and refinance the acquisition, construction, equipping, rehabilitation, or installation of extensions, improvements, and additions of airport facilities pursuant to 142 of the IRS Code of 1986 as amended, located at the Northwest Florida Beaches International Airport, with an address of 6300 West Bay Parkway, Panama City, Florida, 32409, which I refer to as the project. The project is or will be owned and operated by the district. The city of Panama City Beach, Florida, is holding a hearing as an accommodation to the district. The bonds are not an obligation of the city and will not pledge the full faith and credit or the taxing power of the city, but will be payable exclusively from revenues of the district. The public hearing on this matter is now open.

Well, that doesn't cover it. I don't know.

I said something anyway. Mr. Davis, I here present proof.

So I will notify you that the notice requirements for the public hearing were met. We posted the notice on the city's website and calendar on August 31st.

Okay. So this hearing has been noticed. Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to be heard upon this plan of allocation of proceeds of the bonds for the project described? Is there anyone who wishes to be heard? Seeing none. Okay. Do we bring the folks up or close the hearing now?

I'd go ahead and have Mr. Smith come up or Mr. McClellan, whoever wants to come up and answer any questions you may have on the record. Okay. Great. Yep.

Parker?

Come on. You're making us do this. You got to say something. Come on. Yes, sir. Thank you for doing this. We very much appreciate it. The Terminal Expansion Program. is well underway. The $200 million is a not to exceed number. We're not planning on borrowing that much, but in order to make sure we don't have to come back. And George, correct me if I'm wrong. So we don't have to come back and do this again in the future. So it was kind of a bigger number that covered it. So before everybody goes, $200 million, that's never a number we've heard before. So that's where that's coming from. It's about a $112 million terminal expansion program. We've got federal grants. We've got state grants. We've got our money. We've got a state infrastructure loan from FDOT. So this is going to help us move forward with continuing the development of the terminal expansion. It's three new gates, 80,000 square feet, four baggage claim, TVSA relocation. So it's a big improvement to our facility.

How much do you actually expect to borrow out of this $200,000? $75 million. $75 million? Okay.

So what revenues will repay that? We are an independent special district with no taxing ability, so we operate just like a business. So all the revenues will be generated by the airport or through grants.

OK. And it is my understanding you did a feasibility study for this expansion. What did that show?

It shows that we've got the continued demand and growth. It's a draft study right now, but it's being worked on. But it's showing that we have the demand. Just as a point of reference, when the airport opened 16 years ago, 312,000 total passengers. This year, we're looking at ending at just over 2 million, so just about 2.1 million. So there's definitely growth within the one expansion that we've done is the adding gate six and seven. And we had some build-out space that we finished out, and now this is going to go to the north.

OK. And then if I could get Mr. Smith, who's your bond counsel, to come up and confirm the city's protections and approval. Just, Mr. Smith, if you confirm that there's going to be no city guarantee, revenue pledge, contribution commitment, and if you could explain why this government approval is required.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. I'm George Smith. I'm with the law firm of Greenberg Traurig. We are bond counsel to the airport district. It's my pleasure to be with you today. It was my pleasure to draft the script that you just read, so don't be jealous. Oh, I do. As well as a resolution to other material before you and conferring with your city attorney to bring this before you. And I'm happy to confirm that there is no obligation of any type to the city in connection with this debt that the airport is incurring to expand the terminal. As your city attorney explained, the IRS requires a public hearing be held for this type of bond. This is a private activity bond, which requires a public hearing, which you're holding currently. And it requires that that be approved by an elected body. They recognize that many airports and many other private special districts like this have no elected officials, just as the airport. They lay out in the IRS tax code who it goes to to approve then. And it would be somebody, just as your city attorneys described, who appointed, such as the City of Panama, City of Beach, who appointed the members of the board. Or we could have gone to the governor, which requires a lot bigger coordination. We thought, for efficiency's sake, this would be a perfect board to come before. But just as you said earlier, that's the sole purpose of this hearing. There's absolutely no obligation to the city for any of this debt or any other contractual obligation in connection with this proceeding.

OK. And Mr. Davis, can you confirm in the resolution that Section 2 states as much that there's no city obligation?

Yes, sir. The resolution makes it very, very clear that you are not on the hook for any of this.

OK. All right. Any questions or comments from the council? If not, I will close the hearing. Thank you, Mr. Smith, and thank you, Parker. The public hearing for this matter is now closed. Any discussion from the council? You know, the airport, looking forward to the expansion. It's nice to have a local airport, and I always hope to get some intrastate and low-budget carriers. Just notice I didn't ask you while you were up here, Parker, about that.

I was thinking it.

But we appreciate the work you all do over there, and it's an essential resource for the community. I would say if someone's going to submit a motion, I would gladly vote for it.

I think it's great. The airport's been a big, huge success for Bay County since it was relocated, and I'll make that motion to approve.

Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the motion? Okay. A motion and a second to approve. Ms. Lawyer, please call roll.

Councilman Register?

Yes, ma'am.

Vice Mayor German?

Yes, ma'am.

Councilman Casto?

Yes, ma'am.

Councilmember Coburn? Yes. Mayor Tettemer?

Yes, ma'am. Move. All right. That is regular agenda item one. Now we go on to regular agenda item number two. Now, listen, folks in watching or in the audience, they're not all this formal, but we just have two particularly formal ones in a row. Mr. Davis, can you read the title for agenda item number two?

For this one, there is no title for me to read. This is a rehearing of an appeal for the Palm Haven Traditional Neighborhood Overlay District. So you, in accordance with your land development code, you are to hold a quasi-judicial hearing to rehear that matter. And I believe that the applicant and staff will present on that issue.

Okay, great. Another script to read. This is a hearing before the city council concerning the planning board's decision on the traditional neighborhood overlay district master plan for Palm Haven. The hearing is being held pursuant to section 10.17.00 of the city's land development code. This is a quasi-judicial hearing governed by the city's land development code. The City Council is rehearing the Planning Board's decision, not considering the TNOD Master Plan as an original application. The Council may affirm, clarify, modify, or reverse, in whole or in part, the Planning Board's decision. Because the City, through the City Manager, requested the rehearing, the City has the burden of going forward with the evidence and has the privilege of opening and closing the hearing. The applicant, as the party who originally invoked the jurisdiction of the planning board, bears the burden of proof on the TNOD master plan application. We will now begin. Oh, we need to do Jennings disclosures. So Mr. Casto?

Nothing to disclose, Mayor. Nothing to disclose. Nothing to disclose.

I've been to the property. I've spoken to affected parties, and I have spoke to a lot of non-affected parties that just had things to say about it.

Okay. I was at the planning board meeting. I spoke to affected parties, and I also spoke to the developer after the planning board meeting.

Oh, Mr. Mayor, I was at the planning commission meeting as well. I forgot about that.

Okay. We will now begin the rehearing. Will all persons wishing to provide testimony during this rehearing please rise to be sworn in? Okay. Ms. Lawyer, please swear in the witnesses.

Do you swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Mr. Leonard. Mr. Leonard. Were the notice requirements met for this rehearing? Yes, sir, they were. Okay. I also have a note here for doing disclosures, but we just already did our Jennings disclosures. Yes, you did.

Okay.

All right. Planning board record. At this time, city staff will introduce into the minutes and exhibits the minutes and exhibits that were introduced during the planning board hearing. Mr. Leonard. Mr. Leonard.

I do have a copy for the record that I will put down here, which is the complete agenda materials that are part of this package, which reflects what was in front of the planning board.

OK. We now move on to staff presentation. Mr. Leonard. Thank you. Will you please explain the application, planning board action, and relevant LDC criteria?

yes sir as mentioned this is about the palm haven request in front of the planning board for the traditional neighborhood overlay district uh... to uh... get approval for that you have to show that there's three distinct housing types and that the development is compatible with surrounding uses And this involves specifically property that's between Lindell and Clara and Front Beach Road and Hutchinson Boulevard. It's 29.2 acres, 162 lot subdivisions was proposed. It's in the FBO2 district, which limits the height to 45 feet. The planning board heard the request on July the 8th, 2026, and approved it four to three with a condition that the existing vegetation remain along Hutchison Boulevard and along existing residential areas to help with the buffering.

OK. Because the, and I'll move on to the requesting party. Thank you, Mr. Leonard. Requesting party, opening presentation. Because the city requested this rehearing, we'll first hear from the city manager or the city's representatives regarding the grounds for rehearing.

Yes, sir. On behalf of the city, I appealed the planning board's decision. It was brought to my attention during some of our one-on-ones with the council that we were not happy with the density, the lot sizes, the three different distinctions between the building structures or the development. We were concerned about the buffers for the residents that were concerned about it with the traffic. So those are the reasons I appealed that. Okay.

Can I call Mr. Leonard back up here to talk about the three different... You certainly may. Yeah. Mr. Leonard, can we talk about what is required for the TNOD and specifically in the TNOD staff report section B staff comments on distinct types of housing units and what is required?

Yes, sir. As part of this, the traditional neighborhood overlay district is kind of like a residential PUD, whereas in a planned unit development you have a requirement that you have a residential and non-residential uses as part of that, and you have three different uses. Well, in a traditional neighborhood overlay district, you're looking at just residential. And what the distinction is is that there's three housing types that should be chosen. and the land development code gives some suggestions on what those can be listed what they can be chosen from uh... and what it really tries to do when we created the district was create a neighborhood that really would be for all ages that you could have all generations living in a neighborhood when a family's for starting out you have housing types that are more inclined for those types of of living uh... as you get older uh... and Have families, maybe detached single family residential becomes more of the preferred option. And then as you age, maybe you don't want two and three story structures anymore. You want a single story structure. So what it requires a developer to do is to look at three different housing types so that they're all within the same subdivision. They're at least 10% in land area. And it was a multi-generational type of residential development without any requirement for commercial to have to be involved with it. And one of the issues that came up in the planning board meeting is the list of housing types perhaps wasn't specific enough to make a real distinction between those choices. And so that was one of the issues that the planning board discussed.

OK. What were the distinct housing types presented by the applicant?

Probably during the applicant's presentation, maybe have him make that distinction. But from a staff level, and just generalizing, it was more of the stories of the buildings and the design of the buildings, not necessarily the function of them being different housing types.

Okay. Mr. Davis, included in the packet and in your memo right here, you state under Section 4... The master plan must identify each of these three types and show their locations under sections 702, 02, E5, and E6. It must demonstrate that each type comprises at least 10% of the platted area with a tabulation of acreage per housing type in the final development plan under section 702, 02, K1D. Help me understand what that means.

What that means is that, I mean, I think just echoing what Mr. Leonard just said, the issue that came before the planning board that the planning board ultimately voted in favor of, and how I advised the planning board at that time was the land development code in that section refers to distinct types or styles of housing. And so my advice to the board at that time, my advice to you right now, is that it is in your eyes as to whether you think those types and styles are distinct enough, the language is broad enough, to where it, in my opinion, is within the discretion of the planning board and now in your discretion to determine whether the types and styles of housing presented to you are sufficient to justify the approval of a traditional neighborhood overlay district.

Okay. Help me understand with the tabulation of acreage per housing type carried in the final, so that's a final development plan that has to happen at the end? Correct. That's not in the application? Okay. Yes, sir. Yes.

If you look at Ordinance 1479, it does list housing unit types of single-family cottages and bungalows, row houses, apartment buildings, multi-stories, single-family townhomes, multi-family dwellings, and single-family dwellings. We do have somewhat of an idea of what they mean by the different types of units. Correct? Yes.

If that's the question, yes.

Yes.

Okay, any further question for Mr. Leonard before we go to the applicant presentation?

What about the buffer? That's my biggest concern. How much buffer do we have?

Well, it's going to vary, and I think the applicant's going to touch upon that in the presentation. Typically, between different land uses that aren't compatible, a 20-foot buffer is the standard for that.

Is that what they're proposing, or could we get more of a buffer?

I think you will hear that it might be more than that now.

OK.

Yes.

All right.

That's all, Mayor.

OK. Thank you, Councilman. We now move on to the applicant presentation. At this time, we will hear from the applicant or other party to the proceeding as applicable.

Good evening. Mike Burke, 17216 Panama City Beach Parkway, law firm of Burke Blue. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. I'm going to give you just a brief overview of where we are, and then I'm going to turn it over to Robert Carroll, who was the engineer on this matter and presented this to the planning board, and then he can address the specifics of the site plans and the applications that was presented to the planning board. I also want to lets you know, too, that the notice in this matter wasn't very specific. The first time that we really heard what was really in the notice was what Mr. Whitman just described to you. In the interest of getting this matter taken care of this evening and not trying to go through and have an additional hearing, we have at least agreed at this point in time to waive that because we believe we have addressed all of the staff's concerns. And so I'd ask for you in just a moment if you'll listen carefully to what Mr. Carroll has to say regarding his meeting with staff and the matters that were addressed to help bring those concerns to the table. I think you'll find that there have been some concessions that were made. that will be beneficial to the city. Regarding the different housing types.

Mr. Blittenberg, if I could just stop you right there. You indicated that at this point of time you had concerns about the notice, but you wanted to waive that at this point in time?

We have waived that provision with the understanding that the staff and our applicant have come to a consideration, an agreement rather, as to what would address their concerns.

Mr. Davis, can you speak to this? So I have met with Mr. Burke. I've met with Mr. Carroll and talked about this issue. There was a lack of specific reasons for the appeal and the notice. I've talked to Mr. Carroll and Mr. Burke. They would rather move forward with the hearing rather than submit a new notice and have a new hearing at this time.

I mean, chapter 10 specifically states it has to be tied back to the ODC.

I mean, it has to be technically for a formal appeal, correct? Correct. Yes. And he's willing to waive that.

Because we believe we've addressed what staff's concerns were after having met with them when the email appeal was made. So not interested in dragging it out. Mr. Davis?

I mean, my only comment to Mr. Berg is that we can't have a conditional waiver.

If this is a conditional waiver, let's re-notice this thing. This is not a negotiating point.

We'd prefer to go forward with the hearing right now. Have you waived it or not? I've made my point for the record that we believe the notice was deficient, but we're here to speak and be heard this evening.

To be clear, have you waived it or not? We have waived the hearing, but I've made my point. Yes, sir.

uh... the issue being that uh... the planning board actually heard all of this is that they're required there the final decision maker in your code as to whether or not the requirements of the traditional neighborhood district were made there's an order in your package that was submitted to the record that makes all the appropriate findings including the differences between the distinctions of the three different housing types mister carol again will go up here testified a moment as to what those different types are there was a memo that uh... uh... I don't know if it was the mayor or Mr. Jarman, someone just asked Mr. Davis about what the housing types were. He gave you that. That's in your package as well. And we believe that as the planning board determined on their vote and found in the order that indeed those housing types have been met, in an effort, again, to bring this in for a landing and get this property moving based on what the planning board's decision was. There were meetings with staff. We addressed some of those items, and I believe you'll be pleased with what those decisions were made because the developers made some substantial commitments to improvements that will be of a great benefit to the citizens of the city of Panama City Beach and the folks who live in that particular neighborhood. So this time, I'm going to call Robert Carroll up here to give you the testimony on the matters relating to the propriety of why this ought to be upheld. ROBERT CARROLL JR.: Thank you, Mr. Burke. Officer Carroll, please come up here.

Good evening. Robert Carroll, McNeil Carroll Engineering, 17800 Panama City Beach Parkway. I have been sworn in. Thank you for having us here tonight. You got me out of the office much earlier than usual, so my family will be happy once I get home. So we're basically going to present to you the presentation we did before the planning board how we got to where we are and expand upon. So as you all know, the site, 29.2-acre site, it's all what's in purple there. It is all one parcel. Kukla used to divide the property years and years ago. I don't know how that happened, but a portion of Kukla got abandoned, so therefore the property owner, since he owned both sides, got to inherit all of that. So it does not go all the way through the property. We are bound by Hutchinson Boulevard or Middle Beach Road, as those who have been here a long time recall. It will always be Middle Beach Road to the north, which is a state road. We have Clara Avenue, which is a city-owned road to our west. We have... Lindale which is to the far east side which our connector road connects to which is also a city road And then we have front Beach Road Which is still dot but in the process of being converted to the city as you move forward with your CRA projects There we go This is the land use map. This shows everything essentially south of Middle Beach Road or all within the tourist district. Everyone enjoys the same land use that we have. Same thing with the zoning category. The zoning category is CH, high-intensity commercial, which is the same for literally every parcel south of Hutchison Boulevard bound by Front Beach Road, except for there's three pieces that are actually public facilities. So everybody has the same exact zoning category that we have on this parcel. Majority of the parcels in the area are also within the FBO2, as stated earlier, with the exception of a few that are, for whatever reason, either not in the overlay or in FBO3. All parcels within a CH zoning category have an allowable density of 45 units per acre, meaning this parcel, due to its size, we'd be allowed to build 1,314 units. Let's be real. That's completely impossible with the 45-foot height restriction. So if this was on the south side of Front Beach Road, we could achieve those numbers. However, your code still does allow it, and that's the number that we work with. The development we're proposing is 162 units, so about 12% of the allowable density of this property. It shows you the scale is all I'm trying to show is how much we are below what's allowed to be on this site. Just down the street to the east, several years ago, we actually went in front of the planning board and received a large site plan approval to construct a project known as Panama Flats. It's at Grand Panama. It can take 320 units on 21.71 acres. So obviously with 29 acres, we could easily put that product on here, but trying to get the most number of units and density is not the goal of this. So just to kind of put it in perspective. CH is the highest zoning category. I'm going to bore you for just a minute and list for the record all of the allowable uses that can be placed on this property and anything within the CH zoning category. And they are amusement park, arenas, bakeries, bed and breakfast, car wash, cemeteries, civic centers, clinics, medical offices, clubs, lounges, bars, coffee shops, communication towers, construction materials and supplies, big box discount stores, distribution centers, drive-through facilities, multifamily, single family, fire stations, funeral homes, gift shops, golf courses, government buildings, hospital, laundry and dry cleaning, public lodging establishments. low-speed vehicle rental, manufactured homes, modular homes, motorcycle rental, movie theater, office, parking garages, RV parks, repair shops, restaurants, self-storage, gas station, shopping center, townhome, transient residential rentals, and finally, vehicle sales. So there's a wide variety of development that could occur on this property. We think the development we're here before you is the best of all of those. It's going to be the least intense. We're excited to get to share that with you. Just a few years ago, we came before the Planning Board. We got a large site development on this exact site for an RV park. The Planning Board unanimously approved it, I believe. We went to the city. file for development order, got our water management permit, fully entitled, where we could have built a 163-unit RV park. Coincidence, how we're at 162, I don't know how those numbers work, but we were allowed 163 RV park, no connection to Middle Beach Road, therefore all the traffic would have been coming on Clara, Lindale, every single bit of that. The design did not call for a connection to Middle Beach. Therefore, the traffic congestion would have been, I think, worse. Now, it would have been an incredible project. I mean, it is a great project. We'd love to see it somewhere else in the city. But that is definitely all transient rentals. So our project, let's get to the good stuff. This kind of is an overlay. This is the original development that we showed before the planning award, and we'll show you how we have transitioned, and the project has kind of evolved. Before we made our initial submittal, we had community meetings. We met with the public. It was not very well attended, but we did notice it, and the ones that did attend We heard what their concerns were. Their concerns were traffic. That's the biggest concern that probably every single resident in Panama City Beach states. We all have traffic. But this is the original development, kind of shows you the surrounding community. There's still vacant lands to the west, to the north, to the east. There's still lots of vacant properties. Tapestry Park to the north, I believe that's their commercial property. So here, this is the project that was approved from the planning board. As you can see, there was a roadway that came in off of Clair Avenue, kind of hooked down, that stayed within the right-of-way of Kukla, and then turned up. The yellow lots, those are the rear-loaded lots. They're fed by alleyways. They have garages. The ones that are in the brown color are your traditional lots. Those are front-loaded. You pull up to your garage up front. Everything we're proposing to do will have garages. But the concern that we had heard from a resident, so the pink is also, there's three on the top left corner and one in the center. Those are existing residential lots. They're zoned CH. They can be developed as commercial, but they are utilized as residential. The concern was... We don't want all that traffic in front of our house. So therefore, we took the plan and we modified it. We got rid of that roadway down there. So therefore, the traffic that comes in off of Clara will come in, either use an overflow parking lot to the right or go into the development. We will use the existing, or the resident that lives there, she'll be able to drive down the existing road that's there. What we did add, though, is a connector for golf carts that want to come to this community and be able to come all the way through Clara, straight down to our neighborhood park. We're going to show you all the bells and whistles of the park. It'll be a dedicated golf cart parking lot, which I don't believe the city has one of those currently. So that's something that we're excited about and we would love to present and build.

Is the proposal of the developer that that dedicated golf cart parking lot and neighborhood park would be available to the public? Absolutely.

Yes, sir. We've almost doubled the size of the park from what was approved. So if I can figure out how to go back, you can see the green down there which says neighborhood park. That was the minimum amount of area that's required for a dedicated park. Didn't have a lot of bells and whistles. We were going to put in some equipment, some athletic equipment. We have really gone down the design path and enhanced it. That golf cart parking was not part of that neighborhood park before. Now it is. So we're more than willing to dedicate that. Anyone in the surrounding area, Tapestry Park, whoever wants to come down, enjoy the beach, park in the public. How many spaces?

How many golf cart spaces is there? Mr. Kerr? Oh. I was trying to, I was thinking maybe it's written there, but maybe it's not. At least 40. Okay, at least 40. Wow. We will cut.

45. Okay. Perfect. Could you just restate that, because we are in a hearing?

Actually, I said 40. So we are proposing 162 lot single family development. We want to utilize the T&OD standards to provide a flexible alternative district to encourage imaginative and innovative housing types within the overall density and use guidelines as established within your own land development code and within the comprehensive plan. Again, as I stated earlier, we can easily do a multifamily project. That's the simple thing to do. We get 400 units, whatever it needs to be. We have a lot of that type of development already. There's multifamily that's currently in construction, and I think we have quite a bit of it. Our developer, though, this is Fisher Homes. They've done a lot of these projects. They're in our community. They're building here. They're not just coming in on a whim. They're actually building in several communities. They've done their market research. This is the type of product that will sell that will make the city proud. So it's being developed to build homes on separate parcels, individual lots, to individual buyers. It is not the intent to construct the development, to maintain it for ownership and rent the products. These are not rent-owned. These are, you're going to buy it. or build it and sell it to individual homeowners. It's not their model, and it's not going to be on this side either. There will be three distinct types of homes. Each lot is a minimum 30 feet wide. We'll show you some different pictures on the type of houses. They're going to vary two-story, three-story, 1,800 square feet to excess of 2,400 square feet. So someone who doesn't want a larger home, They can buy the smaller product. The three stories will all have elevators inside. So if you're elderly, don't want to climb stairs, you'll have elevators. You have the traditional front load, rear load. So there's a wide variety of these. We're going to show you later that there are at least three other T&ODs within the city. And what type of houses were permitted in those would have been built We understand that if it wasn't done correctly, that we can't follow. But that has been the process. That's what's been approved, and that's what's been developed in other T&ODs.

Mr. Carroll, if I can just interrupt. Mr. Davis, were there three different T&ODs in the city? I would have to defer to Mel on that. OK. I'll wait for Mel's rebuttal then.

OK. Go ahead. There's been two that have gone through the process. Let's see, so Tapestry Park across the street, they've got some alleyways and some smaller lots. And they also utilize the alleys within their development like we're proposing. It's also very popular. Sweet Bay, if you've been in downtown Panama City, the old airport, Parker can testify to that. Landscaping, we are definitely going to do plenty of landscaping. So if we go back to the original, you can see up in the top left, the purple there, There's a gentleman who lives in that house that's adjacent to this, and he complained that he likes to go outside and enjoy his backyard. And anyway, he wanted a large buffer, and so therefore the developer, he said, okay, well, let's give him a larger buffer. So we met the minimum 20 before, but we've now expanded that, and that buffer – as you can see here, ranges anywhere from 20 to close to 50 feet in a buffer now adjacent to that property. So nowhere adjacent to any residential are we less than 20, but it ranges all the way up to 50 feet. We're going to try to preserve as much of the natural vegetation as possible. Obviously, it's good vegetation. There's no sense in tearing it down just to plant something new that's going to take 10 years to develop. Flip to here. These are some of the types that you see. There's all different kinds of styles, from the two-story to the three-story, small porches, large porches, garages front, garages back. And again, they build a quality, quality home that would be very, very, I think you'd be proud to have it in your city. That's one of the three-story with the garage. All right, so what you see here, this is the standards.

Mr. Carroll, if you can kind of go back, because... Part of the reason for this is the three distinct types of homes with each covering at least 10%. Could you help me understand how this is considered three distinct types of homes?

All right. So we have front-loaded house. We have rear-loaded house. We have two-story homes. We have three-story homes. They range, there's a wide variety of them. It's not going to look like you're, I don't want to put them under the bus, but a D.R. Horton subdivision where they're all the same.

Can you go back one slide where it showed all of them? Or maybe two slides. There we go.

They're very distinct in styles. That way, they're not the cookie cutter. And again, we're going to talk about a couple of the other TNODs. You've got the Moonraker development. That's right there at Alf Coleman and Hutchison. That was a TNOD. Those are larger lots or 50-foot lots. But they're all single-family homes, same as this. You've got Margaritaville, which is just to the west. That particular development, those are all single units, individual lots. If you're trying to take some of these and make them into duplexes, then you're going to build a product that they're touching. So the only thing you've done is increase density and take away landscaping by trying to make a multifamily development. They're not as valuable. These are going to be individual-owned lots, single-family lots. We can vary the size of them, the height, the shapes. Not everyone is the same. And, again, from the variety of the styles, the shapes, and what's been approved in all these other developments, the same exact type of styles, it allows that flexibility. And with that being approved historically and with the wide variety of products that we have here, we know we have to have at least 16 of certain kinds of styles to make sure that they're not all cookie cutters throughout the development.

Thank you, Mr. Carroll. Continue.

Sir?

Thank you for answering my question. Oh, yes, sir. Thank you.

So here are the standards. So if we have the traditional CH zoning, if you want to be residential, you have to have a minimum of 6,000 square foot lot. Your T&OD standard says that if you have this district, you can have as small as a 1,250 square foot lot. We're proposing nothing less than 3,000 square feet. You'll see all the setbacks from the CH to T&OD and proposed. We meet or exceed every one of those standards. We're not asking for a deviation. We're about 2 and 1 half times the size of a traditional T&OD lot. We want to be a good neighbor. We want to have a product. We don't come before you every day on projects. We bring you a high-quality project, and that's what we want this to be. Our name's attached to this as well. So it'd be just as easy to come bring you a Walmart up here, but I don't think that's something that would fit well into this site. So what I was telling you earlier about some of these sites, this is Shorewalk. It's literally across the street, 79 over here. It's a 3 and 1 half acre development. It contains 21 units, which the density is about 5.9. Our development is 5 and 1 half. Those lots are 42 by 60, 2,500 square foot lots. You've got the Panama City Margarita that we talked about. That density is about seven units per acre. Again, more density compacted in there. I think it's been a very successful project. People love to come there, enjoy the pools, the amenities, and come and stay. So these lots in here, they're 32 by 76. Those are all approved platted lots that are on the books that have been approved through the city. And that's a recent project. You can see that they call them different things. They call them bungalows. They call them whatever cute names they are. But at the end of the day, it's the same thing. It's a two- to three-story product on a single-family lot, exactly what we're trying to do, except all of our lots are pretty close to the same size. They vary from 104 to 109 for the depth. There's some lots there, 18 by 47. So what we're proposing is larger than that, and that's some of the ones that are there at Margaritaville. Moonraker, that's the other one we talked about. That's 20.3 acres, 85 units. It is a little less dense at four units per acre. There's a big lake amenity in the center. But we are in the category or less of all these other ones that have been approved that have gone through this same process. So I'm going to have Cole. He is the designer of the amenities. I've got a few slides. I don't know if he knows what order we have here, but this is kind of to highlight some of the amenities that we proposed for this project along with the community park. So, Cole, would you like to join me?

How are y'all? I'm Cole Cantrell. I live at 458 Walcott Way, Panama City Beach, Florida. This is the pool and amenity area we've pretty much designed for this development. Really, we kind of wanted a pool that works for everyone.

Cole, if you could just get it a little bit closer to the microphone because a lot of people are watching. Yes, sir. Is this good? Yeah, don't be scared. Perfect.

Thank you. We wanted a pool that kind of works for everybody, whether it be adults or kids or people not even wanting to swim at the pool, just kind of hang out. So we have closer to the bottom of the design is kind of just an adult area. for the older residents just to hang out away from the kids, get away from all the noise. And then on the top of the picture, we have a full kids hangout area, whether it's little toddlers or seven-year-olds that want to play with the bubblers. And then around the full deck, we have a fire pit area. We have two pergolas, just really a pool amenity area for anyone, no matter their age. And then we do have showers there and an outdoor kitchen also. Yeah, this is same design, just different viewpoint of it.

And Cole, this is for the owners of the development? Yes, sir.

And this is the park area that we're still kind of in the works of what's going to utilize the space the best, but that is the golf cart parking area. At the bottom of it, coming off a front beach that's a shower area, then you're not tracking all the sand everywhere. And then there's also a bike rack. There's a dog park that's on the right. And I don't know if there's any public dog parks close to this in Panama City Beach. But then also just a park for the kids as well.

Cole, you indicated that the, or Mr. Carroll, you indicated that this amenity, which will be available to public, Will it include showers?

Yes, sir.

Okay. Go ahead, sir. That's pretty much it.

Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Colton. So just want to run through quickly on all the benefits. You see the park. I mean, that's a magnificent park. But earlier I told you the Kukla Drive, it was abandoned. It's been a dirt road. It's had minor improvements on to it with some millings. However, we're going to pave the rest of that roadway, bring it up to city standards. That way that project will have asphalt all through the end of it. You'll have interconnectivity between Lindale, Middle Beach, Clara throughout the development. I told you about the golf cart path that we would have. So anyone that wants to come to the golf cart, they can come from either Clara or Lindale, open to the community park. This proposed development, design and promote walkability. I mean, as you saw, we've got sidewalks everywhere. We've got pedestrian access. We also, when you come through the park, come to Front Beach, you're going to be standing there waiting. We're proposing we would love to install a mid-block crosswalk, a lighted one like you've seen in front of Sharky's, a few others that have the mid-block ones. We can coordinate that with your CRA. We're going to be way ahead of your CRA in this area, but we'd be more than willing to have that as part of this project.

Mr. Carroll, what is the public beach access right there? There's a public beach access.

I don't know the number, but there's one at the former Hooters and then also at the Bay County Pier. Is it 40? 43. I can go to the overall plan.

I think I've got it at 43. Okay.

Crosswalks at Front Beach. The neighborhood park, as you can see, it has been thought out. That was one of the comments that did come up on the planning board, is that maybe the park should have had more thought to it. I think we've demonstrated that this is an incredible asset. The pond, it's an existing stormwater facility. It's actually a regional stormwater facility. It's part of the modeling process. There's a lot of development from the west side that actually funnels through, makes its way to Clara, through Clara into this. We're going to expand that pond, provide the attenuation, flood control, and treatment as part of a regional facility. We think it's a great transition between the existing residential uses and the commercial corridor. We do have, like I said, multi-families right around the corner from this. There's commercial developments. This is an easy access to go to retail shops, restaurants. I know that the city doesn't officially collect an ad valorem tax, but there is the CRA funds. This commercial city prospers well off 1% sales tax. We understand that. This is not a 1% sales tax generator. However, we think that with this coming on, the CRA dollars that will be generated, the people that are becoming, the dollars, what is it, about four times what the cost of, you know, it's spent in your community. So we're talking several hundred million dollars here that we think is an asset to the community. But we've got accessibility. We've got walkability. We've got the neighborhood park. We've got amenities. We think this is a special development. And we request, I guess, to uphold the plan of board. Or maybe this is a new approval. I don't know what the process is tonight. But we ask for your approval of this project or to uphold the plan of board. OK.

So the presentation you're presenting, the modified suggestion includes, as different from the planning board, the multi-use trail. So it's removed.

You want me to list what we've modified and changed?

Yeah, if you could just go over and summarize the modifications you've made since the planning board.

My pleasure. So from the planning board approval, we have increased the buffers. We've added additional buffering for the existing residential that are in the northwest corner. We've increased the buffers for the house that's in the center there. We've added a pedestrian path that comes – through the Kukla right-of-way to access the neighborhood park. We have almost doubled the size of the neighborhood park. We're dedicating the golf cart parking spaces. We are building the neighborhood park to include playground equipment, showers, bicycle parking. Those are the main things that have changed. And that's coming from the community meeting, from here and from the residents. I think you'll hear from some that They didn't want the development. They probably still don't want the development. But we think that by creating more privacy, I think this helps a lot. Oh, and also, we removed the roadway that cuts through the center there, which you see is no longer there, which reduces the traffic to the one residence there. Also, some of the benefits, we're limited to three stories. We're allowed 45 feet. Most developments that come, you know, we've worked for a lot of developers. We maximize height, maximize density. Everyone's trying to gain as much as they can. But we're not building four floors. We think go on residential instead of commercial. Those are public benefits. So there's a lot more intense development. It's not a scare tactic. It's just a reality. We all know that someone's going to develop it. The current property owners have this about 14 years. It's not been approached about anyone wanting to do commercial use. It's been approved for an RV park. Years ago, there was a development that's going to have several hundred condos on here, water park. There was all kinds of stuff. We think this is the highest and best use, and hopefully you agree.

Any further questions from the council for the applicant?

Let Stonewater Pond have future capacity for CRA improvements for Clara? Not the CRA.

There's already portions of Front Beach that drain to it.

Okay.

And they will continue to when the CRA comes through? I think the CRA, the intent is to remove some of that from this basin. But there is a lot of drainage to the west that naturally goes here and that we had to prove that we can handle all that stormwater.

Okay.

Perfect.

Let's see. Vice Mayor? Do you have any one-story homes? No, sir.

Just to get the square footage. Like I said, all the three stories will have elevators in them. All right. That's all I have for right now.

Thank you, Mr. Carroll. Thank you.

May I ask a question?

Sorry. Of Mr. Carroll?

So is this on here? It says 22-foot road. So you're proposing that the streets are 22 feet wide? Is that what that is?

That's the pavement width. That's the city standard. So the asphalt is 22 feet wide, and you've got your curbs on the outside.

Yeah, I live in a neighborhood like that. And when people park on both sides of the street, there's only eight feet left inside. And our fire trucks are between eight and 10 feet wide, which causes problems. We've actually had a school bus have to back up because he couldn't get through.

So that's kind of why we're creating that overflow parking lot, to encourage people to park in the parking and not have to park in the street. And you know people don't do that. Sure. That's the city standard, so we build on what the city tells us to.

And I would say two cars parked across each other, if they block traffic, that's a ticketable offense.

And again, it doesn't seem to be enforced.

Well, that's another discussion.

Any further questions for the applicant from the council?

Thank you. All right.

Sir Burke, you wanted to come back up?

Yes. I'm going to call up now. I'm going to call up Mr. Pratt, the developer, who's going to address that last comment regarding the parking and the ability to have cars not be parked on the right of way. OK. Thank you.

Good evening. Scott Pratt, 170 North Watersound Parkway, Inlet Beach, 32461. with Fisher Homes. All of these homes will have a minimum of a two-car garage. The driveway's minimum length will be 19 feet, so we're talking four cars that will not be parked on the street. If you're looking at Margaritaville, the beach, not one of those homes has a garage of any kind. Plus, with the overflow parking, I think we can more than accommodate our residents and visitors.

Mr. Pratt, how large is the overflow parking lot?

How many units is the overflow parking lot? Do you recall? Sure. Accurate numbers.

Just to address the council members' concern. Yeah. Aren't you all glad you're watching this rather than football? Not really. Approximately 32. OK, 32. And how many in those 162 units? And then there's 162 units?

162 units with two car garages plus driveways to accommodate two vehicles.

Driveways, OK. Will every one have a 19-foot driveway? I thought you said some of these are rear loaded?

The driveways will be minimum of 19 feet.

But every unit will have a driveway?

Correct.

OK.

Some in the back, some in the front. Correct. OK.

Councilmember, just making sure your question has been addressed?

Yes, thank you.

Any further questions?

I'd just like to ask Council, this developer, they've met all the requirements for this development, in your opinion, is that right? I mean, I don't give that opinion. This is up to you to decide. I just want to make sure they're meeting all of our, maybe this is a mail question, that they've met all the requirements. for this project. I believe that's a Mel question.

Yes, sir. They have not met all the requirements. I believe that's a question better answered by Mel, who's testifying at this hearing. I'm here to give you legal advice, not that one.

Yeah. Mel has been placed on notice for that question.

I personally wish the beach was like it was when I moved here back in 1973. But I think all of us moved here. All of us built houses. and development's going to happen. I personally support this project. I've always supported our planning board. I'm still kind of confused why it's even here, but we are discussing it, and it sounds like the developer and engineers have made genuine concessions to this project. And I do think it's probably the highest and best use of this property, after especially hearing what Mr. Carroll mentioned could be built there. So I'll just go on record, I'm supporting this project and supporting our planning board.

Okay, if there's no further question for Mr. Pratt, we're good. No further question for the applicant in general, because then we'll move on to the affected parties and public comment.

I want to state that I believe now you're going to public comment, and then we would just have a adversely affected parties and that I have an opportunity to rebut that. You will have a rebuttal? Yes, sir. Thank you very much.

We have plenty of time in here. We're not even halfway through.

Okay. At this time, we will hear from any affected parties who wish to present evidence. Please come forward and state your name and address for the record. Mr. Davis, can you help us, or Mr. Leonard, could you help us understand whom is considered an affected party versus who should wait for public comment?

There is a definition of an adversely affected party that I will try to pull up real quick.

Is it 1,000 feet?

No, it is essentially those people that are affected in some distinct and greater way than the general public.

Okay.

The general standard is if someone is going to be affected in some more significant material way by the development than the general public will, those are the adversely affected parties.

Okay.

Thank you. Does that affect renters or homeowners or landowners?

It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Okay. Great. All right, so now we will have public comment after affected parties, but this is affected parties. Okay, please come forward and state your name and address for the record.

Chaz Baxter, 461 Clara. I do have some packets for y'all. I don't know if you want to, because they are going to go along with what I'm saying here. The applicant gets to use the screen.

Yeah, just put them below the thing. All right. I mean, there is plenty of time to email us ahead of this.

As far as the presentation, though, there's a downside. Okay, let's just move on.

Is that what you provided the city clerk?

The packet?

Yeah. That's some of it, yes.

It's what you provided the city clerk, because I believe we have all received it.

There was an email today, and then there was an email previously with other exhibits.

Yeah, we got it. Yeah, we got it. All right, we're good. All right, good.

So the first time around, the diagram, it all looks the same. Second time around, it all looks the same. Third time around, it all looks the same. What's changed? Well, you added a couple of feet on the third house at 465, a couple of feet on the outside, and you rearranged the golf cart parking lot. Other than that, nothing has changed. It doesn't matter if it was a large site development. If it's a TNOD, it's still all the same. So I'm not sure what provisions were made to make a significant impact on the production of this new outline, of the new layout. I don't know what was done. I'm going to start off first mentioning evidence that I presented the first time around. I had presented the 1940 aerial photograph of this parcel, and it showed the water stream almost to the gulf, and it goes all the way up into where the water retention, the big pond is there. In that photo, there are 90 degree angles that are adjacent to the beach. I can't go back further and find pictures prior to that, but it certainly does look like it was man-made to cut off from the gulf. So the water that flowed from the gulf to that pond was natural, and man cut it off. What happened when that water, though, was there for thousands of years? It turned that land into Pamlico Dorvan soil. In the first round of exhibits that I sent to you, you will see that the Bay County property appraisers has that listed as Pamlico Dorvan soil. It's also known as a wetland. And that's how it got to be that is because of the stream that came from the Gulf to that pond. It went over the other side. It went over on the north side of Kukla. In the evidence that I submitted this afternoon, I submitted Google aerial photos And it's the same, you can see it here, and you will find it in the email that I sent. But the first one that I'll talk about is from 2019. You can see on the north side of Kukla, there is a second pool of water that forms that is separate from the big pond that you see in this diagram. And then on the curve of Kukla, there's also another dugout spot there that every few years you see, they take the Google photographs and you will see a trail of water where machines have come, but the rain still deposits into there and the water builds up. Why does it build up? It doesn't matter if they put the sand in there. You can go through the Google photos that I added in the exhibits, and you can see the deposits of sand that were put there. But how does the water in the dark soil keep coming back? That's because the Pamlico-Doravan soil. The sand that they put down is heavier than the Pamlico-Doravan. It seeps down. The old prehistoric soil rises up to the top. So the photograph that is 2019, you can see the body of water that's on the north side of Kukla that's different than the body of water you see there. And you will also see the track, the industrial track that's full of water. The second aerial photo that I sent to you this afternoon, and it was also sent the first time around, that's gonna be from 2024. You can still see the water pond that's on the north side of Kukla, and you can still see dark patches in the tracks from machinery, which would further imply that there's water there. Where does this come into play? Why is it so important that I point this out, that this land is Pamlico-Dorovan soil, that it was there for thousands of years? Why is that so important? Because it floods. It's packed full of water, and every time you get a heavy rainstorm, all that water doesn't go anywhere. It's been there. When the applicant got here, when the applicant stood up here before me, the applicant mentioned there was a subdivision, Moonraker, that was approved. I will further add to that that there was other subdivisions in the Glades that have been added in the recent years. When we had our community meeting, from minutes 19 to 23, I have brought the transcripts from that. The applicant has his own recording, as well as do I. So they're not quote unquote official transcripts. But they are transcripts that I have produced and that the applicant certainly can listen to on his own devices. And he can certainly see that these are the words that were said. When it comes to the development, my primary concern was flooding. Traffic yes, that's a huge concern too because they want there's an exit There is a proposed exit on the curve of Middle Beach From Clara to that curve is erasing Well, my biggest concern right now is flooding and I'll tell you why it's flooding because for the reason number one Pamlico Doravan soil To expand on the reasons for reason number two, I will go to that transcript. I start the transcript by words that I said, and I asked, when you take up and you put all this, when you start filling this in, where do you think that water is going to go? Robert answered, to the expanded pond that we're doing down there. I responded, you don't think it's going to go over here at all? And when I said here at all, there was a diagram of the diagram that you see here. And when I said over here at all, that was pointing to our residence that's going to be on the northwest side of this development, where the big purple block is, because that's where I live. Robert responded, no, sir. He responded, no, sir. And that was in blind. No, he did not think water was going to make it to my property. I said, you don't think it's going to go over there at all? No property, no nothing. Again, I said.

Mr. Baxter, you have submitted this as evidence for this. Did you want to read the entire transcript or did you want to?

No, this is just a section of the transcript because it's a reason as to why I'm making this argument about flooding. Okay. I said, how long have y'all done those tests? Like how many years has it taken you to do those tests? Robert said, we don't have to monitor water tables for years and years and years. Her reply, so that's what I'm saying. You don't have to and you haven't, correct? Robert responded, we have not, no sir. Response, correct. And Robert responded, and we haven't in the past at any other development. This is our 30th, 31st year in business. So in 30 years, 30 years he's been in business, he hasn't done the water table test, the one that's on your LTC. It goes, once you get to the development order, there's a big list. And it provides for traffic tests, for water tests, for all the other tests. And it was not done. And I pointed that out the first time around. Applicant says that he's never done that. He hasn't in the past and at any other development. And this is 31 years in business. I presented to you in the evidence submitted an article, and that was by mypainhandle.com, and it's titled, Residents Upset Over Flooding Conditions Ask City for Help. That is flooding inside the glades. Who's the developer for those areas inside the glade? The applicant. So the applicant is in charge of the development of the glades. He didn't run any water tests, and now there's flooding. After the article, I've submitted pictures, and that is a neighborhood that's flooded. This neighborhood is Palm Cove. The pictures that I showed you are from 2020. Next to Palm Cove is a subdivision called Moonraker. Who's in charge of that? The applicant. So they built the Moonraker in 2018, and I would suspect, just like the applicant stated, that there was no water test, that they relied on a proposed retention pond, just like they're proposing here. Well, guess what? It didn't work out for them. They built Moonraker, no tests were done, and Palm Cove was flooded, as you can see in those pictures. The other piece of evidence that I submitted to you today was a Google Maps default version of the area and I put the The distance of these roads from Lindell to Clara from from Middle Beach to Front Beach Mr. Baxter if you're gonna reach a at least pausing point I believe the vice mayor had a question for you the flooding that you have pictures of in 2020 2020 was that Hurricane Sally I I'm not sure if it was a hurricane or not, if it could have been just a major storm. But Palm Cove has flooded three times now, I believe.

I'm just trying to get reference, because I believe 2020 is happening.

And so even if it was.

Vice Mayor, at least for the email I have, August 24, 2020.

Well, that should be able to tell us, shouldn't it?

Yeah.

I'm sorry. I continue, Mr. Baxter. So even if it was a hurricane, We haven't got any hurricanes this season. So the developer wants to take 180 days after the development order and start construction. So where is the time allotment for the test, for the water, for the hurricanes? I would suspect that maybe the same thing happened for the Palm Cove Moonraker. is that there was no test done because no major hurricane. And if it was a hurricane in 2020, well, there's your problem. No tests were done. It was just, hey, we've got this proposal for you. We're gonna bring some nice pictures. We're gonna, who knows, just make up a bunch of stuff. And because we don't know, they don't know. 31 years and no tests have been done. Going back to the Google, though, the Google default map, I have the distances from each roads because there was talk that this might be of public benefit. Tapestry Park, they've already got their own little way. I don't know why anybody would go to Tapestry Park from Tapestry Park to this subdivision. Don't know why. If anybody lives on Laurel, they have a straight shot to the beach. Don't know why they would go one street over, walk through the neighborhood. Raccoon River, they've got their own shot to the beach. Matter of fact, it goes to the pier parking lot. Don't know why anybody would go there. Not really sure why anybody from the surrounding area would go through here. The reason I talk about the Google Maps with the distances is because there was comment by a member on the planning board, and it was, we know people are going to use these roads. It is 0.382 of a mile from Lindell to Clara on Middle Beach. It's 0.225 of a mile from Middle Beach to Cuckla Drive on Lindell.

So if anybody's going to try to- Mr. Baxter, can you just- We are trying to get through this hearing sometime tonight, so can you just make your statements, avoid any cumulative, duplicative, or irrelevant evidence, and just kind of make your point, and let's get on.

I thought that's where I'm going to, sir. I'm making a point that the board, that the last board.

It's been quite a long point, so go ahead.

Well, he actually stopped me to ask a question, so then I'm getting back on there. The board said that we know people are going to use these roads. I don't know of any person in their right mind that's going to bypass 0.382, to go down 0.225, to go in through the road, to go up through the neighborhood more, come back down, get on Clara, and then go back up. 0.115 of a mile. You're taking too long. So the public benefit, I'm not seeing any. There's been no proof of any, and certainly the math doesn't add up to it. I'm trying to stay in order, but it's kind of hard with interruptions. First time around, this didn't change. Five feet on the thing. It's a concluding. I'm concluding. Come on, man. First time around, nothing changed. Second time around, there was a little bit of a barrier in between the last lot and 465. This time around, there's like two feet added there. There's nothing that I don't see any great difference. The tests have not been done. The pictures show that there's flooding that causes when there's no test. You're working on Pamlico Dorvan soil. You're asking for disaster. There's no test to be done. I don't know what else, I mean, I don't know if, I don't know what else to say. I don't know what else to say. And then there's talks of the TNOD that need to be abolished. And we're going to start seeing who's going to do what. Are you going to go off because somebody's got some money to buy some land? Are you going to go off what science says, what history points to? If you don't do the test, you get flooding. If you don't do the test, you get wrecks. Mr. Baxter, question.

Do you want any development on this property? Smart development? How would you define that?

Not 162 on top of Pamlico Doravan soil.

But just define it. What exactly would be smart development?

What are you looking for on this property? Well, I'm not against development. If you want to put me in charge, The house is at an adequate amount. Like if you look across, like 160, none of those houses have yards. None of them. Nobody's going to have a yard. What's going to make that popular? Everywhere else you see around the beach has no yard. They don't do anything. Places that are on 79, those are empty. All right. Thank you, sir. Any other questions?

No, sir. Okay. Any other affected parties? Any other affected parties? Again, please come up, state your name and address for the record, and after affected parties, we will do public comment as well.

My name's Rupert Phillips. I live in Destin, Florida. I own the property. I've owned it for 14 years. Probably for 14 years, the property's been for sale. The first five years.

Mr. Clark, you're the owner?

Yes.

I think you would be a part of the applicant presentation. Oh, OK. And not an affected party. OK. So we're past the applicant presentation. There will be an opportunity for rebuttal. So you can come up then. But this is effective parties.

OK. I just wanted to give you the history of the property.

Yeah. I appreciate it. We're just trying to keep this thing going and keep it straight. OK. All right. Any affected parties? OK. Seeing none, moving on to public comment. At this time, we will take public comment.

Very nervous, I'm sorry. My name is Michelle LaRock. I live at 518 Lindell Lane. I'm here to talk to you just about the project on Clara. My husband and I are one of the only two local resident owners left on Lindell. With the infrastructure that we have right now, we as a community cannot handle the project. I work in Pier Park right now. It takes me about an hour on some days to get to work, which is only 3.1 miles from my driveway. Once I get off Lindell onto Middle Beach, turning left, I then have to take Clara. Don't get me wrong, I make money off the tourism, but sometimes I'm backed up all the way to Hutchinson Elementary because our traffic lights are not sequenced properly. We moved into our house in 2018. There were five houses on our street. Since Hurricane Michael, they built 20 houses and sold them as single family homes to out-of-state residents that are now short-term rentals. There's multiple vehicles at all the houses, so I have problems sometimes even backing out of my driveway to be able to go to work. It has pushed all the other Bay County residents that were there to sell their homes. The over-occupancy, the theft, the verbal harassment, the parties, the garbage, is just some of the items that we deal with at Lindell, which is only a block over from Clara. This new development is literally going to do the same thing. It's not for the citizens of Bay County or the city of PCB for that matter. They will say it is and then turn it into short-term rentals. It does say that there's a clause that will be able to turn them into short-term rentals. That's the only thing that I'm trying to bring to everybody's attention is that it's... Literally, our house is 20 years old. Everybody else's houses are seven and eight years old because we moved when there was no houses on our street. But we, as a city, cannot handle any more short-term rentals, especially on the Clara Lindell area. The worst part is between Clara and Nautilus. If you add 100 more people to that block, that is 100 more cars, 100 more problems that actually residents will have to endure so somebody can make a little bit of money. Not to mention, if they can't seem to catch the light on Clara, Where do you think they're going to go? They're going to take Kukla to Lindell and then try to turn left onto Middle Beach or go straight across to 98. That in itself is a major accident waiting to happen. I've seen it one too many times of people almost hitting me. But I also want to say thank you for all that the City Council does to make our city great and the time to hear my concerns. I'm very sorry that I'm nervous. But I also pray that the Lord will guide the Council to make the wise decision for the great city of Panama City Beach.

Thank you. Further public comment?

Bill Caravello, 407 Dolphin Street, Bitterweed. I didn't come here to speak tonight, but I happen to be here to listen to this BS.

Were you sworn in, Bill? Excuse me? Were you sworn in, Bill? Were you sworn in? You don't have to be sworn in? Do I have to be sworn in? No, I'm sorry. Not for public comment. Not for public comment. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Bill.

Okay. I listened to this crap that's being said here. This guy over here says Panama City Beach residents are going to be happy about this. I can't see that. There's over 100 buildings there, and someone said that there's Four parking spots per building, that's 400 cars. Who's going to be happy about that? All right? And you look at the amount of people that'll be in there, that could be as much as 800 people. Who's going to be happy about that? Good luck. OK.

Thank you, Mr. Caravello. Further public comment?

I'm Phil Donahue. I live in 329 Blue Sage. And I own a piece of property over in the Riviera Beach, which is in Bay County. And they had an issue, I think, much like this. The development started, and people built houses on properties and left very little yards. And what ultimately happened is that the neighborhood, the soil could not absorb the water, and houses started being flooded. And Bay County had to come in and condemn a bunch of houses to build retention ponds. And I think about this, and I'm going, that's a lot of roofs, very little grass to absorb the water. You are going to have a problem with flooding, I think. And somebody's going to be held accountable for it. So I just want you to think about that. Thank you, Mr. Donahue.

Alfredo Martin, 13407 Oleander Drive, and prior to that, 116 Crane Drive, Crane Street. Honestly, I swear I was not going to talk today. I just came to watch. If you approve this, you're going to make a big mistake. Mr. Carroll was the same one that did the presentation for Margaritaville on Front Beach Road. He was the one that promised with the attorney not to build houses past pay. They also promised they were going to do a sidewalk on Crane. What's going to happen there? Forget about development. If you're going to have more short terms there, you're going to make a mess of Panama City Beach. And in 10 years, 20 years, you're going to be remembered for making the wrong decisions. I don't know what is the solution, but that should be revised to make it, you cannot keep, I have short terms. You're destroying the city. I'm going to give you the example of Margaritaville because that neighborhood is going underwater. They did the same thing. They sold it for a million and a half, two millions. Now they cannot sell it for 800, 900,000. No sidewalk on crane. You need to start thinking of quality of life. Because if you don't think of quality of life, what's gonna happen, people are gonna come here and they're gonna start thinking of quality of life and they're gonna reverse everything. I beg you, please, you need to sit down, call town halls, call the neighbors. I didn't even know about this. I live about six blocks. We cannot even get pedestrian crossings in Front Beach Road. And you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on that and we cannot cross the street on Front Beach Road? We don't have sidewalks. You're getting a lot of money. Please don't think I'm attacking you. I'm begging you to revise this and think of us. Okay, I'm one of the few that lives on the neighborhood. Everybody's short term. You know what's happening? They're renting houses for $100 a night. You know what's happening? Today we have homeless on the beach. We have people throwing garbage on the beaches. Dogs, all because you keep developing and I understand you don't live there, but please, Take your time, think about it, and make the right decision. I don't care about the water, the traffic, or everything, but there's no way you can have more houses that are short-term and create more traffic on Middle Beach Road and Front Beach Road. Quality of life, that's the answer. I beg you, please. Okay? Thank you so much.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Any further public comment? OK, seeing none, we will move to rebuttals and cross-examine by staff, affected parties, applicants, and the party requesting the hearing. Let's bring Mr. Leonard up. I believe there are a few questions for Mr. Leonard. Yes, sir. Okay. Mr. Leonard, Mr. Carroll had indicated what could be built on the existing zoning, which was CH. Was he substantially correct on that?

substantially but let me answer one thing some of the uses that were listed were conditional uses which require a public hearing in front of the planning board and if they're over three acres would also come to the city council they're not guaranteed by right for that to happen they are listed as allowable uses but they would be a further step that would have to go before that's approved but yes in the ch district it's our our most intense district throughout the city and there's the most allowable uses that are in it and that that was the point okay um

Does the city ensure that stormwater retention is adequate before doing new developments?

Absolutely. Our public works department looks at that, and they also have a model that they input information into that gives them the information that they need to see if the stormwater is adequate or not. And I see oftentimes that they make comments on developmental applications about the stormwater, making it more stringent. Okay.

Mr. Carroll had mentioned that Margaritaville, Shorewalk, and Moonraker were all approved as T&ODs. I believe if I'm not accurately representing you, Mr. Carroll, please correct me when you get it back up here. Were those all approved as T&ODs?

The Moonraker was the Margaritaville was a large site development and then it was further a modification of a large site development where the applicants had to demonstrate that everywhere that they were proposing lots, smaller lots, that there was a building entitlement that was associated with the approval of the large site development plan. So they had to do a comparison of the plan that was approved and then the plan that they submitted for that. But it was a large site development. It was not a TNOD. And then the Shorewalk, was actually approved before the T&OD was adopted. But it had similar elements. In fact, that development led to the creation and the discussion of doing a T&OD.

OK. Some of the comments came up and discussed short-term rentals. Are short-term rentals available in this zoning? Yes, it is. OK. So regardless of what's built here, short-term rentals are available? They are. OK. I think that's all the questions I had. Any questions for Mr. Leonard from the council?

No, you hit on the stormwater. The current density for this project is five per acre?

About five and a half, I believe, per acre.

And CH allows up to 45? Yes, sir.

Councilmember Coburn, Councilman Register, or Councilman Casso, any questions for Mr. Leonard? And I think we've kept this within five minutes. Let's try and keep all the applicant removals to within five minutes.

Okay. One question here. So they're going to be doing short-term rentals here. The lots are going to be 3,000 square feet, whereas if it was CH, they'd have to be 6,000.

That's correct.

Correct. So that's one of the reasons that they chose to use the TNOD. Yes. So they could do smaller lots.

Yes.

And make a higher density.

Yes.

Now the housing stock that they're showing here, it's just a change in the design on the outside. There's no difference in the housing, correct? Other than just architectural.

Yes.

Thank you.

Further questions or comments from Mr. Leonard?

Just so I get clarification, so I understand. The 6,000 square foot, is that for CH or is it residential?

It's to do a single family home in CH, requires a minimum of 6,000 square feet. Okay.

Could you more or less combine these two lots and build duplexes and meet the 6,000 square foot requirement?

Yes, you could.

So you essentially get the same thing in CH that you would get here by just combining the two and building duplexes? Basically the same as you could get there that way so ultimately that's just another way I'm not sure that that's the way to look at it's another way to look at the tnod and And why that would potentially work also in addition to because you get the same density Via duplex that you could also build here correct. Yes Well just because it works doesn't mean it's good for the community No, I'm saying the 6,000 square foot lot portion of it. I'm not not the 3,000 square foot lot I

Further questions or comments, or hopefully comments for Mr. Leonard? No? OK. Trying to keep all of these within a five-minute time period. Thank you, Mr. Leonard. Appropriate cross-examined affected parties. Was there any questions for affected parties? I had a question for Mr. Carroll. Okay. I'm going to restep my little stopwatch here to make sure that we're being fair. Mr. Carroll, can you speak to the concern about the particular type of soil and drainage that the affected party brought up? Sure.

Absolutely. On any development that we have stormwater management, which is essentially every project, we do geotechnical investigation. I think from the conversation that was had, if you listened to the whole recording, it was... They thought the process that we basically had to put basometers and measure water table and over a long period of time find out what the water table was doing. That's just not industry standard. If you want a long-term effect, you can do those type of tests. But typically, you send your geotech out and they do multiple borings. They verify what normal water is, seasonal high water tables are. And that's what we designed to. Panama City Beach, y'all got one of the most stringent stormwater criteria. We have to design to 100-year storms. Most of May County is 25. Panama City is 25. But y'all require 100-year storms. So when we evaluate these stormwater systems, it is to about the highest level.

Okay. And I also, I'm trying to keep you within time here. Mr. Carroll, I know a lot of people said things about previous projects you had done. I just wanted to give you the opportunity to correct any records, any of the record there, because, you know, there's a lot of Mr. Carroll did this project, Mr. Carroll did that project. Is there anything you wanted to say to that?

It was a comment about Margaritaville, about sidewalks. We didn't design that Margaritaville. It had nothing to do with it, so I made no promises about any kind of sidewalks on Crane Street. That was not a development we were... we were part of. I showed you the picture. The engineer's name was on that plat, so we had nothing to do with that project. Moonraker, I think that's been a very successful one. Palm Cove, that was developed a very, very long time ago. We have actually gone and reviewed some of that. There's a lot of swales that have been filled in. Stormwater has not been maintained. Some of those are internal problems with that development. As far as the glades go, that was prior to the development occurring. I don't think you all have had any calls since All the ponds have been dug. All the pipes have been installed since the new development was out there. All that has been fixed. That was actually some city projects. Y'all enhanced some drainage along the circle there. So that drainage was alleviated when all those ponds were expanded as part of the last phase that was built on top of the golf course. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Carroll. Thank you.

Appropriate cross-examination of affected parties, applicant, party requesting the hearing. You want to... Mr. Davis, we call folks up for this?

I mean, so this is the opportunity where if any of the parties want to cross-examine each other, they're allowed to do that. And then they also have an opportunity to make any sort of rebuttal if they want to. They've essentially done that at this point. Okay. And at this point, I think you move on.

Okay. Well, I mean, we haven't... Did you, Mr. Baxter, affected party? You wanted to cross-examine? Okay. And we've been keeping everyone to a five-minute time period, so we're going to keep this one to a five-minute.

That's fine.

The applicant stated that the Glades flooding had been resolved, that the Moonraker and the Palm Cove flooding had been resolved. And I'm curious if that was building and then it flooded? Because that's what it seems like, that the neighborhoods were built and then it flooded. So when it comes to this and the development of this, is it going to build first and then flood second? OK.

Thank you for that question, Mr. Carroll. You want to come back up and respond to it?

I think you'll look at the glades. The glades had a historical flooding problem. But when that new development was done, all the lakes were expanded. We've not got any phone calls that have been continuing flooding out there. The city may. I don't know that you all have. There used to be major, major flooding out there. Back when it was a golf course, the owner of that golf course had these gates that he would open and close because they liked to see the lakes full. So whenever the floods would come or heavy rains, they'd open up the gates to hurry up and get it to drain out. But as far as draining, flooding in there, I'm not aware of anything. Again, there were historical flooding issues and some of these others. My phone's not ringing that all these problems or developments are causing the problems. All these are having to be designed. Again, Penelope City Beach, we have to start with a seasonal high water table, and we do our wet detentions from there. So you all have a very thorough, your staff reviews it. And there's always back and forth. I mean, we go through water management, so there's multiple levels of people reviewing all these documents. This is not just us. I think this will work. That's just not how it works. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Carroll. Okay, we've gone through rebuttal. At this time, we will close the evidentiary portion of the rehearing. Closing arguments. We will hear closing arguments from the staff and the parties. The party requesting the rehearing is entitled to close last. Mr. Burke?

It may seem odd for the person who was dragged here from the appeal to say thank you for the time you've spent here, but on behalf of my client, thank you. You've all been extremely patient. We appreciate that. You're here on an appeal after your planning board considered all the evidence and went through the evidence and then submitted a written order that found that this particular development was indeed within the parameters of your code. identified the housing types that were required, addressed all of the issues that were presented at that particular hearing, and they found that this was a viable project and approved it. And so you're here now on a couple of different issues. As I said when I opened up in the beginning, Mr. Carroll, on behalf of the applicant, has met with staff and addressed issues that staff believe would resolve those issues. Those are the – that's the schematic that's up on your board right now that – increased buffers, added a park that was pretty spectacular looking, talked about the differences between the housing units. There seems to be a bit of a disconnect within the record below and the record here about how many TNODs have been approved. in Panama City Beach. There's a memo in your package there that talks about Moonraker and that an all-single-family T&OD whose three types were one- and two-story homes with differing elevations. You've got two- and three-story homes with differing elevations in this particular project. Also, Shorewalk, which is across the street over here, which was a land condominium and has similar. Those are all very one- and two-story, I believe, mixture over there, approved by the board as a TNOD. This project is similar to that in scale. We would ask that you, again, thank you for your time and patience. You've been here for a while listening to this. And we would just ask that you would support the planning board's determination and their decision and uphold the change with the modifications that have been presented to you tonight. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Burke. Mr. Leonard, no rebuttal? Okay. At this time, we will move to council discussion. The council's decision must be based on the planning board record and any additional competent substantial evidence submitted during this hearing. Moving on to council discussion. We'll say I was concerned that the three, that the, let me see if I have the pictures. The different units did not seem substantially, or the different floor plans did not seem substantially different to qualify for a T&OD. That was my particular concern here. Whether this is a good project or not, in order to qualify for the T&OD overlay district, it needs to qualify for three different, it has to be three distinct housing types, and I believe that's what the staff in their original report indicated. The applicant, and I will let you all correct me if I'm mischaracterizing you, but the applicant had indicated that the different types of housing were two-story and three-story, front-loaded, rear-loaded, two-story, and three-story. It does not seem like three distinct types of housing units. It seems like variations within a product to me. However, I do think that the applicant has gone toward making substantial progress for public benefit with the expansion of the neighborhood park the public golf cart parking and the multipurpose trail. We do not have very much certainly golf cart parking, not free golf cart parking available to the public. We also do not have very much open space at all on that end of the beach. Whether folks like a dog park or not, I know the one at Frank Brown's quite popular. And I know the applicant indicated that they, instead of building something and then handing it over for the city to pay for it to maintain, the applicant indicated that they would, it would not be handed over, it would maintain public accessibility, but essentially the residents of that area would maintain it. So I just think T&ODs are fantastic. are flawed, I am very happy that the planning board is taking up and considering removing them. From my perspective, this was real tight on the three distinct types of housing. But the public benefit is something's going to be built here. I mean, just realistically, something's going to be built here. And the question is, is a developer who has worked with and provided public benefit a couple times because there's some proposals as well at the planning board. Do we want to approve this or just let something that would never see the planning board or the city council go through because it's an approved CH use? So I'm happy we're potentially getting rid of T&ODs. I'm also happy with the changes the developer has made to the project. That's my thoughts. Those are my thoughts. Vice Mayor.

All right. So, I mean... I see the four main things that people have had concern about is the density. For that piece of property, you're not going to get any less dense, pretty much. Like the mayor said, they could put something on there that never sees us that is much more dense than five units per acre. Stormwater, the city's got probably the most stringent stormwater requirements in the county. and there's a reason for that. The Glades is one that was built in the 80s, and we definitely saw what not having good stormwater management can create in a residential area. So now we have very stringent stormwater regulations or requirements. Unfortunately, traffic is not something that we really can take into account. I believe there's, you know, Florida requirements that say we cannot. So please understand that. My biggest crux was, like the mayor, OK, how are these housing types identified? And that's why I was asking if there were one-story houses. example of Margaritaville was brought up. Margaritaville does have bunk loads. They've got three-story houses on the beach side, and then they have two-story houses on the interior. So that argument can be made that those are three distinct units. But then we also have a TNOD at Moonraker that has, I think they're all the same. So that was something that I kind of like the TNOD to a certain extent that it allows someone to develop at this density residential areas in a CH. Now, we definitely need to look at the unit issue or clarify it so that it is absolutely not ambiguous on what we're looking for. I appreciate the developer coming back and listening to people and making changes to their designs. If you look at CH property, in my opinion, maybe it's not the highest and best use for a commercial enterprise, but I think from a resident standpoint, it is very difficult to say it's not a good use at this density and what they're planning on doing. That's what I got.

Okay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Further discussion or council comments? Lost my script. Council Member?

I don't think I have any. I think I've said what I need to say. This may be the best use for that project, but I really don't like seeing all that density there. And frankly, I don't like the way that they just kind of came in with one plan, and then they found a loophole in our codes. So then they came in with the TNOD, which gave them the opportunity to do this. I think that's a lot of units, and they're going to end up being short-term rental. I think we're creating a neighborhood with problems. down the road that we're going to have to deal with. And if there should be stormwater problems, that's something that the city's going to have to do. The city's the one that's paid to clean up down at the glades. I mean, we're the ones that go in and clean up the drainage problems after they happen. And I don't think we have the different housing types that I'd like to see either. All right.

Okay.

I'd just like to echo what the Vice Mayor said about the city's stormwater ordinance. Back before 1996, the city had no stormwater ordinance, and the Glades is a real good example. The developer came in, didn't really follow any type of drainage plan or the plan he had. Now we have the strictest stormwater ordinance in the county, I believe. Is that right, Mr. Carroll? You do a lot of work in the county and out here. And we've got a stormwater department and a stormwater assessment that we all pay. But there's also impact fees that developers have to pay. And I'm going to quote the mayor, something's going to be built here. And it's not just happening in Panama City Beach. I have four sisters that live all over the state, different places I go visit. It's happening everywhere. Everybody's moving here. We all built houses or we rent a place, clear land that's going on. And I don't like it. I really don't like it. But if we didn't approve this project, I guarantee you we'd be sued. Something is going to be built there one day and I just think this is probably. The best use of the property and Mary you live in the neighborhood is denser than this. I mean it they had clear trees and and. Put stormwater pipes and stuff in your neighborhood. My my neighborhood everywhere and all of us and we got the best stormwater. Ordinance in the county and. Will it ever flood? It possibly could if you have another Hurricane Sally with two feet of rain. I mean, they had, what, eight feet on I-10 over in New Orleans. So I don't like to develop any more than you guys do, but I think it's coming. People are moving here. The property owners have a right to develop if they meet our requirements, and I think this developer has met the requirements and Mr. Burke and Mr. Carroll have answered all my questions and I don't have any more. And I thank the Planning Board for doing their job.

Mr. Davis, Should we approve this order, can we ensure that things like the multi-use trail, the public park, with the showers and the golf cart parking and the additional buffering, as stated by the applicant during this meeting, can we... We do a motion that incorporates all those and requires them for the applicant to do to go forward. Yes, you may.

So your decision, whatever you may decide, is reduced to an order of the city council signed by you, the mayor. And if you so move that they shall comply with the presentation and the master plan as they have presented to you tonight, we would build that into the order, which would then become an enforceable order. As the city goes and reviews the final development plan submitted by the developer, it would have to comply with that order.

Okay. Not that I'm accusing any particular developer here, but there have been cases in which maybe not, I won't say in the city. I have heard of cases where you put restrictions on and they're the last thing to get built. Could we say, for example, that we ask before 50%, 40% of the units are completed, that the park and the golf cart parking adjacent to Front Beach be completed?

That's a little bit more complicated. We may have to get the developer up here because the code says that they can build in the In the TNOD code, it says they can build in the manner in which they choose. It doesn't all have to be built at one time. It can be phased. So I would probably ask the developer to agree to a certain phasing schedule, since that is in the code, if that's something that you want to entertain.

But we can't put stipulations on it. We can't put stipulations based on progress when that neighborhood park's being built.

No, I think that would be something that, I mean, it's a matter that the parties can agree to, but I don't think the code allows it.

Okay, so we can't do it in an order, but the developer could potentially agree to it?

Yes, sir.

Okay. Is there a representative of the developer that could talk about this?

I'll have to speak with my client real quick. My first concern is about the sequencing of when you put those kind of things in is really going to be dependent on how the infrastructure is done. So I would... Let me ask this, Mayor. What would the proposal... You're the one that's proposing it, so I'm going to ask you. What would your proposal be about the sequencing of that?

I will tell you that my goal is to ensure that the public benefit is visible quickly. Right. rather than when the last unit is completed, for example. I could imagine, listen, everyone's a business. We're going to approve or not approve here. One could imagine a business saying, OK, that's going to cost us some money, I'm going to wait till I sell x number of these homes, and then we see it in 5, 10, 20 plus years. If, for example, my vote is dependent on the public benefit, I want to see that the public benefit happens. It happens fairly quickly.

Give me a moment to jump in. Thank you.

Mel, is there a timeline on the development of a TNOD?

I believe it's similar to what we have for the PUD, where I believe it's over a 10-year period, where the infrastructure goes in in the first couple.

After approval of the final development plan provided that in the event of the TNOD is divided into phases, the timeline must show the construction of phase one. I'll get you after Melissa. Substantially completed with one year. Does that make sense? Say again? Yeah, you're correct. And in their application, they commit to meeting that timeline. Okay. So just so everyone knows, I'm reading off of Ordinance 1479 of the TNOD in that after approval of the final development plan, provided that in the event of the TNOD is divided into phases, the timeline must show that construction of the first phase, horizontal improvements, will be commenced and substantially completed within one year and two years, respectively, after approval of the final development plan. All remaining phases will be substantially completed within four years after approval. Is that correct? That sounds like it, yes. Okay. And that timeline must be provided that 90% of the land area of the TNOD, excluding the horizontal, be built within the 10 years.

Yes.

So the building structures must be within, it looks, pretty much four years, four or five years. Okay. Okay.

All right. Mr. Burke.

I didn't get the benefit of all that discussion right there. But regarding the phasing of it, the intention is to do this in one phase. It doesn't make sense under their program to do it in more than one phase. But you never know. So there's a possibility that could happen. So the suggestion was to... agree to do the park with the exception of the showers within the first phase. So if it's either in the first phase, if it's a two-phase project or multi-phase project, I should say, They'll do the park and the parking there within that first phase. If it's only one phase, then they will guarantee that the park will be done by the first 50% of the platting. So they'll have it done there. With the exception of the showers, because that needs to be... That probably needs to be the last thing that goes in, so they don't want to commit to the showers you shed. All the rest of it's okay. It was the showers that were the hang-up. Okay. Got that? That's acceptable to me.

And work that in an order or in a... We would put it in the order.

Okay.

You want to ask?

Just clarification on the timeline. Just a little bit more clarification. I'm sorry, Mr. Burton. And what were you talking about, a phase?

The intention is to do this in one phase. So let me say it that way. The intention is to do it in one phase. And in the first phase, they would make sure that the park is completed with the exception of the shower. By the time the first 50% of the lots are finished. Should it turn into multi-phase? If it goes multi-phase, they'll still commit to do it within the first phase.

And the parking? Correct.

Yeah, with the exception of the showers. I've been told that three times. We got you.

We keep saying park and parking. I just want to clarify a little bit further. Overflow or golf cart parking or both?

We're talking about the golf cart parking is what we're mentioning right there, the public amenity up there.

OK. We've had all the discussion. I can't make it, but I would recommend basically with what the developer has committed to, If I recall, that's the multi-use trail, the public park, golf cart parking, and the additional buffering as presented here. And then the phasing, as mentioned by Mr. Burke, which I'm not going to try to repeat.

That would be in the order as well, correct? Correct. In the order is the number and quantity of golf cart parking spaces in the order.

I mean, I have at least 40 in the record, if that's what you'd like to include in the order.

Developers, that's acceptable to developers? At least 40. At least 40. Okay.

Okay.

All right, thank you. Motion to approve as amended.

Is that enough for you? Is it enough for you? All right, so let me, I mean, the, all right, so the proposal submitted and presented to the council this evening with the requirement that the park and the golf cart parking be built either in the first phase, and if it is multi-phase, that it be included in the first 50% of the first phase, with the exception of the showers, the golf cart parking shall include at least 40 spaces available to the public.

Correct. And... in the order that the changes that they have presented tonight will be correct? Yes. Okay.

Multi-use trail, public park, buffering.

Yep.

Okay. Okay. Fair statement. Okay.

We got a motion. Motion as presented?

Yeah, motion as presented, but yes, motion. The park, 40 spaces. Yes. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Ms. Lawyer, please call roll.

Councilman Register?

Yes, ma'am.

Vice Mayor Jarman?

Yes, ma'am.

Councilman Casto?

Yes, ma'am.

Councilmember Coburn? No. Mayor Tettemer?

Yes, ma'am. Okay, I'm going to propose we take a 10-minute recess. Gosh, we still have more? We now move on to regular agenda item number three, ordinance 1683. Mr. Davis.

An ordinance of the city of Panama City Beach, Florida, amending chapter 19, article 8 of the city's code of ordinances relating to right-of-way permitting and permitting obligations, creating phasing requirements for large right-of-way projects, creating section 19-166 related to damage of city facilities, repealing all ordinances of conflict, providing for severability, criminal errors, liberal interpretation, modification, complication, and providing for an effective date.

OK. Is there any public comment on this item? Any public comment on this item? Please come up, state your name. You'll address myself and the council as a whole.

You'll have three minutes. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Gary Monahan, TECO People's Gas, 3706 West 23rd Street, Panama City, Florida. I just want to say thank you to Mr. Davis and staff for engaging with industry on this. I know that these issues are difficult for the city, and Mr. Davis was more than willing to hear our feedback, took plenty of my calls and emails. I just want to say thank you to He and staff were striking what I feel like is a good balance to meeting the obligations of the serving utilities and protecting the city's infrastructure. So thank you. OK. Thank you, Mr. Monahan.

I'm sorry if I mispronounce your name, Gary. Any further public comment on this item?

Mr. Davis, that's some exceptional work if he stayed through all that to be able to come and thank you and the staff. So great job, guys. I would.

Absolutely exceptional. So thank you. Seeing no further public comment, let's have Mr. Davis describe the work that was just complemented. Mr. Davis, can you help us understand what was going on here, what we're doing in this item?

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Monahan. I am particularly proud of this ordinance because it does feel like a win-win for both the city and the industry. You may recall that you saw this, this is second reading, you saw this first reading on this ordinance back at the end of May. Based upon that ordinance, we engaged with the entire utility, the large utility industry, to make sure that we could make a workable ordinance that also protected the city. This creates a very, very firm timeline. Number one, For the permitting cycle itself, you had asked us to go back and look at all of our right-of-way regulations and to modernize them and to make them as aggressive and enforceable as we could. I think we've done that in a way that the utilities can actually meet. We've put in strict timelines on both sides of the table as far as reviewing permits, denying permits, giving feedback on permits. to where there are strict timelines that everyone has to meet, the city and the utilities included. One of the big things that is a big issue is the phasing of utility projects. So the utilities have to submit in one-mile increments. Those one miles have to get completed, inspected before they can start the next mile. This helps reduce the burden on staff to make sure that they're not getting a giant 10-mile permit that they can't really manage or keep up with. We've included some pavement protection, inspection, and restoration standards. So as you are very well aware, we are doing a lot of redevelopment of roads in the city. And what we've done is put a five-year moratorium on any new road or redeveloped road. We did create some exceptions for emergency work and service restoration work, but in a variance process by which the utilities can come to the city and say, well, we need to cut this new road for these reasons. But it preserves the new roads that you're spending so much money to build from being unnecessarily cut or dug into for utility work. We have enhanced the enforcement tools and the bonding requirements for these projects to allow for the city manager to make claims on bonds and to make it easier for the utilities to just simply pay a standing bond for all of their work rather than have them submitting bond by bond for each project. And then we've also added additional abilities for us to seek payment for damages to our facilities. If our water lines or sewer lines are damaged, those line strikes that we've been plagued by, we have additional tools to go and seek compensation for those.

Okay, so this is just for folks who are, just to sum it all up, for folks who are working in our right-of-way, we're trying to reduce the likelihood of line strikes, and if they do have line strikes, we're going to recoup as much as possible, while also not making it overly burdensome for industry, including... the folks who are actually doing the good work and not hitting our lines. One of the problems, if I recall, when we first discussed this was we would have utility contractors, not necessarily represented by Mr. Moynihan, who would just call in locates for city utilities for five plus miles. and then never get to it, and then there's a Florida statute that says if you don't get to it in a certain amount of time, I guess it's the Wild West, I don't know. Exactly. And so we've limited that to one mile. You can do it for one mile. You have to bond. It is a very great step. I am looking forward to potentially passing it, and if we do pass it, I would love to send it over to Bay County because we have a lot of utilities in Bay County right away for the rest of the island, and those suffer the same line strikes. Well, they use a lot of our stuff, so.

Motion to approve. Second.

We have a motion to approve and a second. Ms. Lawyer, please call roll.

Councilman Register?

Yes, ma'am.

Vice Mayor Jarman?

Yes, ma'am.

Councilman Castro?

Yes, ma'am.

Councilmember Coburn? Yes. Mayor Tettemer?

Yes, ma'am. We now move on to regular agenda item number four, Ordinance 1689, Mr. Davis.

In ordinance of the City of Panama City Beach, Florida, establishing the water, sewer, sewer availability, and reclaimed water rates for fiscal year 2027 and thereafter, increasing the water rates in the amount of 5.5%, and increasing sewer, sewer availability, and reclaimed water rates in the amount of 7%, all as more particularly stated in the body of this ordinance, repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict provided with severability, discriminatory, liberal interpretation, modifications, codification, and providing an effective date.

Okay, any public comment on this item? We did receive emails on this item. They are in the record. Any public comment? Okay, seeing none, Mr. Schaefer, help us understand what we're doing here.

Good. Always enjoy presenting the rate analysis to you, kind of as a testimony to the discipline of our leadership here and the stewardship that you continue to provide. This is our standard comparison of how we stack up against our other utilities in Bay County. This is just the water portion of the monthly bill. This is for a user that's within the city limits that's using 6,000 gallons a month, which is what a typical couple would use in a home in America. Very good comparison relative to our peers. We're about 26% lower than all the neighboring utilities. I'll advance to the next slide, which is sewer rates. This is definitely our strength here. We're about 55% less than the average of all of our neighboring utilities. So you average those two together for a combined water and sewer bill, we're about 45% less than the average of all of our peers here. What you can see there is the proposed change in the amount of the water and sewer bill total is about $4.16 per month. So that's about the rate increase that we're looking for. This reflects the second year of a four-year program that was laid out by a rate consultant that completed that study back in December.

Could we go back to that slide, please?

If I can.

Sorry. So when you say the combined rates, $137.85, that's what people are currently paying now in Panama City?

That's Bay County. That's Bay County.

That's Bay County.

We're in the middle.

Got it.

We're in the royal blue color there in the middle.

We're in the shortest one.

The shortest one.

And that's essentially the default rate. Or no, that's the 6,000. Average use. That's the average use.

Yeah, that's average use. The base rate includes 3,000 gallons. This is another 3,000.

Okay, so this is additional. Okay. So if you're using base rate, it would be less than this? Yes. Okay, this is 6,000. Okay.

And then I compared... Back the other way. Sorry. We got you going backwards. Then I compared just the water use, the water rate from last year, fiscal year 26, versus what we were able to determine from our neighboring utilities and what they're going to be doing in their changes for this proposed fiscal year coming up. As you can see, everybody's not really making some major movements. In fact, Lynn Haven and I believe Parker are keeping their rates the same. But most of them are making some modest adjustment that's on water Sewer kind of a similar scenario That's fiscal year 26 in the light green and and proposed FY 27 if it's approved in the olive green Now when I pulled out my bill and looked at it today, it looked like my sewer was 4988 as the base and

Maybe I shouldn't have said that.

Now, your base wastewater is $36.05 in the current fiscal year.

Okay. Because I was trying to figure out what type of increase I was going to be looking at. So I figured out I'm probably going to be paying about $2 a month more, $2.20 a month more.

That's where they stack up. This is the combined bill, so as you'd expect. Going backwards.

Backwards again.

That's the beginning of the slideshow. So that's how we stack up amongst our peers. One thing I should point out, the legislature has enacted some changes in the impact fee laws that do limit the rate at which we can increase impact fees in the future. So that is going to limit our ability to collect capital that we need for our future capital expenditures. So we do need to be diligent in making the changes that we can.

OK. OK. Mark, did you have anything further on this presentation?

No, I just appreciate your support in the past.

OK. As you mentioned, and for those following along, there is a study and included capital improvement plan that these rate changes are based on. They're trying to make sure that we not only keep up with growth, but also we're obliged to do things like move all of our utilities on Back Beach. That's correct. When I looked through it, it looked like about $18 million to move the utilities on Back Beach total. And the plan includes not just maintenance. We're at $21 million. And then the important thing for me, in our last item, we addressed some of the line strikes. If we had water redundancy in Panama City Beach, we would still have line strikes, but the impact would be way more localized because we would be able to route around that. This council has already worked with developers, worked with... the federal government, worked with the state government, used impact fees to try and make sure that we have a redundant water system here, which we do not now. So it's not just keeping up with some of the things we have to do with Back Beach expansion, preparing for an expansion of a wastewater treatment plant. It is making sure that these boil water notices and substantial water outages, which we have seen here over the last couple years, sometimes many, many hours, low-pressure situations that we don't have that. And I appreciate this council's continued support on this. Listen, I know it's a challenge. I know things are expensive. We're trying to make sure that we keep up with maintenance so that they don't just get more expensive later on. Do a little bit here. I do have a suggestion for the council, since we have already done a rate increase for this calendar year, I would recommend moving this one to start in calendar year in January. So the order right now takes effect basically immediately on the second passage. I would suggest we modify that so that we're not doing two rate increases in the same year, and we just move it to January.

Remind me, when was the last rate increase?

It was January of this past year. It was in January of this year. That's why I had Retell come in and give you guys the study.

The study took a little while, and so it delayed it. But, you know, we want to keep up with maintenance. We want to get redundancy, but we don't want to.

Look, Mayor, you got a great point. I mean, the dollar doesn't go as far. Gas prices continue to go up. So I think it's a great opportunity. So motion to approve with the next rate increase coming in January of 2027. Second. Hold on.

Is that January 1st?

Yes.

That's what I was about to say. January 1st. Okay. Any further? Thank you, Mark. Sure. No problem. Any further discussion from the council?

No. I mean, we've been doing a great job staying on top of stuff. I mean, we're not under or over capacity in our wastewater. We've got plans to increase it, and this allows us to stay on track.

I like the small incremental steps instead of having to get someone with a really high income.

Well, that has happened in the past.

That's what we don't expect.

Okay. We're done with discussion. We have a motion and a second as amended to start January 1st of next year. Ms. Lawyer, please call the roll.

Councilman Register.

Yes, ma'am.

Vice Mayor Jarman.

Yes, ma'am.

Councilman Casto.

Yes, ma'am.

Councilmember Coburn. Yes. Mayor Teddemer.

Yes, ma'am. We now move on to regular agenda item number five, ordinance number 1690. Mr. Davis.

An ordinance of the City of Panama City Beach Floor amending Chapter 9, Article 1 of the City's Code of Ordinances relating to peddling and solicitation, extending the permit requirement to commercial peddling in or from the public right-of-way, establishing annual permits, renewal procedures, and progressive discipline, providing exemptions, repealing all ordinances in conflict, providing for severabilities, criminal reserves, liberal interpretation, modifications, codification, and providing for an effective date. Okay.

Is there any public comment on this item? in public comment. Seeing none, Mr. Davis, help us understand this 12-page, quite extensive ordinance.

Yes, sir. So this became a professional curiosity of mine. We've had some complaints about solicitation. And so when I started to dig into our solicitation and peddling ordinances, I found a lot of issues. Regulating solicitation and peddling is difficult because it is a First Amendment protected speech. And so there's been an evolution of case law about this topic since this ordinance was last updated. I also noticed some glaring holes in our permitting process. Our permitting process currently covers door-to-door solicitation, but not solicitation from the right of way, like sidewalks, for example. And so what I've done is really there's two big changes that you should know about. One of them is including right-of-way permitting as something that needs to be annual permitted. So currently there was regulations on right-of-way permitting, but you didn't have to get a permit the way you have to do if you're going to do door-to-door. We've added now a right-of-way solicitation permit for those people that are soliciting in the right-of-way. And then the second piece of that is we've made those permits, both the door-to-door permit and the right-of-way permit, annual instead of one time only. And so basically what now there is the ability to either suspend or revoke permits or non-renew permits based on the actions of those solicitors. So if they're violating our ordinances, if they get committed a crime, things like that, we can revoke those permits and prevent them from soliciting either on the right-of-way or door-to-door. What if they have a storefront? If they have a storefront, then they can solicit I think within 10 feet of their business.

Yeah, it says in there that they can do it outside the property.

I guess the only thing that comes to mind is the Wyndham at Pier Park that everybody gets hassled with, that every single person that's running goes, hey, I'm a local, leave me alone. And they go, hey, I've got something for you. I'm a local. I've got a local car. And it's every single time. So they can go. They'll still be able to do that even if they get complaints as long as they're within 10 feet.

Hold on a second. I thought your question was like if I own a business and I solicit outside of my own business, the Wyndham is a kiosk that's not tied to a brick and mortar. But there is a portion of it that is tied.

There's a bunch of it, but it's in the sidewalk. No, there's one that's actually like the visitor center that's where they a lot of times work out directly adjacent to it.

Is that not theirs? No. That's a kiosk, I think, owned by Simon or something like that.

So I know they have the kiosk one, but on the opposite side of the road, there's another small...

There's also a leased item. Yes. But I believe, at least in my reading, and maybe the city attorney can correct me in my reading, that would be off-site solicitation. Correct. The one... Both of them, because the product is not there.

Love it. OK. All right. Great. Thank you. That answers a lot of questions. That's not considered a storefront, because you're not selling the product there.

You're not selling the product there. You are soliciting them to go take advantage of a service or a product somewhere else. You're not selling them a hot dog there. You're advertising a service that they provide in a different place. So it's off-site solicitation. Okay.

So who does the paperwork on this?

For the permits?

Yeah.

The police department.

Okay, so they'll handle all of it.

Yes, sir. And they currently do that already for the existing permits.

Do we have that many?

That's a great question.

Chief, if you want to come up, and we'll try not to keep you up here too long. I know Chief is a very popular guy whenever he gets up there. Yes.

No, we don't. No, you don't what? We don't get many permanent applications for solicitation. We get a few periodically throughout the year, but there's nothing overwhelming that is a challenge for us to manage.

So we don't need staff to administer this, right?

I'll take more people.

Chief, you can sit down.

Next budget cycle. We'll talk about it. We're currently okay right now.

OK. I did have a question on this proposed ordinance or a suggestion change that I would like the council to consider. The applications for permits for both door-to-door and right-of-way permits are then the penalties applied seem to be per applicant, so essentially per employee if you're going door-to-door selling, let's just say, flowers, right? you would have to have basically three complaints, validated complaints for that person, and then that person wouldn't be able to renew their permit. I would, since there are many Employees for a particular business, I would like that you do it by business rather than specifically for the progressive discipline part of this. Consider it so they don't just simply change staff. Because Mr. Davis, in the language of this proposal, it is quite a first violation. I'm in page 8, section 18, 19, 8. Written violation, first warning. Second violation, after written of the first, suspension for 30 days. Then third violation, within written notice of the second. And those things take, usually they take a decent amount of time and staff to even get to a violation. So I would like to consider it per business rather than per applicant.

All right. Question. Would we be, the best way to handle this, would it be to alter the wording in the, for lack of a better term, punishment, or in the actual application side to make it not where you would have an application Change applicant's name, permanent address to the business name, permanent. You see what I'm saying? I think it's both.

Okay. I'm going to do a little bit of surgery on the permit side and then on the progressive discipline side as well.

Okay.

Yeah. That's what I, yeah. I was trying to save you a little more.

We can fix one. You did a great job. I appreciate that. Well, you know. Okay. Motion to approve as amended. Second.

Okay. And Vice Mayor, can you just clarify the amendment?

To make alterations to the permit application and the punishment side to reflect that applying to a business, not an individual.

Okay. We have a motion to approve and a second. Any further discussion from the council? No, it was a great find, though. Yeah. Okay. Ms. Lawyer, please call roll.

Councilman Register?

Yes, ma'am.

Vice Mayor German?

Yes, ma'am.

Councilman Castro?

Yes, ma'am.

Councilmember Coburn? Yes. Mayor Teddemer?

Yes, ma'am. We now move on to regular agenda item number six, resolution 26165, Mr. Davis.

A resolution of the City of Panama City Beach, Florida, approving an agreement with CGCN Group LLC for federal, legislative, and executive branch representation services in the monthly amount of $5,000 and authorizing a budget amendment.

Okay. Any public comment on this item?

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of City Council. My name is Natalie Esselink with the address 21101 Panama City Beach Parkway. I received my Bachelor of Science in Cognitive Science and Education from Yale University, Class of 2017, Davenport College. Thank you for the service you do for the community. I am here as a member of the community and an advocate for animal welfare, environmental protection, and responsible stewardship of our coastal wildlife, as well as the protection and respect of our time and the public understanding of our laws. I just have one question and consideration that you would all consider regarding J6 and the proposed $5,000 per month contract with CGCN Group. I understand the city wants federal representation to model legislation. pursue funding, arrange meetings with federal decision makers, and advocate for the city's priorities. My question for your consideration is, what specifically will CGCN do that the city staff could not reasonably do themselves with the time and resources currently disposable? And why is spending the $60,000 a year the most cost effective option? I would also like to know what measurable results the city expects from this contract, particularly regarding the federal funding for water, wastewater, storm water, disaster resilience, and environmental protection. As the city develops its federal priorities, I hope environmental protection, water quality, coastal resilience, and are included in those priorities i am a full advocate in communication and communicating between parties including you all law enforcement and congress so this is the best solution to unite all voices and communication due to lack of time and resources i am in favor of this j6 however once again the question is What is it going to do that the city staff, with its current resources, could not reasonably do? What is the goal? And I hope that the residents and the environmental life here will be considered. Thank you so much.

Okay. Thank you, Natalie. Further public comment on this item? Any further public comment? Seeing none, who's taking Natalie's question? I'd be happy to. Mr. Davis.

So let me just introduce this item. This is the contract with CGCN. To be clear, the priorities, the scope of the services are included in the agenda packet to show the scope of services and the subject areas that we seek, that we intend to use CGCN to work for us on their behalf. To answer her question, Essentially, having a firm like this in DC allows staff to stay home and to focus on that while they work in Capitol Hill and at the White House and with the federal government on the ground rather than trying to engage with those stakeholders remotely. We have found over the years that it's been much more efficient to have a team in the Capitol to work for us and to work on our behalf. As far as funding goes, we have received, I think to date, $6 million in funding for the city's water redundancy projects. And also, we've had significant help in clearing roadblocks when it comes to red tape at the federal level, which there is an abundance of when it comes to getting permits on projects. Having someone who's on the ground and can meet with agency heads or agency representatives quickly is incredibly valuable to the staff. And I know that they have appreciated help when it comes to trying to get through some sort of thorny issue.

Relationships mean a lot, and it's easier to inform them when you're in the location than somewhere far removed.

Yeah, and I want to particularly thank outgoing Congressman Dunn for his support of the water redundancy projects. He has been a steadfast advocate for the city in Washington, D.C., So we really appreciate his support, and we hope that whoever becomes the future representative will continue that strong support. We look for funding wherever we can. To Natalie's specific question, in the agenda packet, Exhibit B has the subject areas. I believe you mentioned several of them, but a lot of it is around disaster appropriations, wastewater. Wastewater, for me, and I know this council, as we've discussed a couple times now, it's a big lift to get redundancy. It's a big lift. And so all the help we can get at the federal level, the better. Okay. Motion to approve.

Second.

We have a motion to approve in a second. Ms. Lawyer, please call roll.

Councilman Register?

Yes, ma'am.

Vice Mayor Jarman?

Yes, ma'am.

Councilman Castro?

Yes, ma'am.

Councilmember Coburn? Yes. Mayor Tettemer?

Yes, ma'am. We now move on to regular agenda item number seven, discussion action item, retirement of city clerk and succession plan. Mr. Whitman, do you want to introduce this item?

Yes, sir. Our master city clerk, Ms. Lynn, has decided to retire after six and a half years with our city.

But I believe overall you have 21 years of service as a city clerk, Ms. Lynn? Yes, sir.

She's done a great job for the city, but she wants to enjoy some time with the family and enjoy life. So we're wishing her a happy retirement. And I'm just looking for direction how you'd like to proceed to fill her void. She's going to be missed. Like I said, she's a master city clerk. We've never had that in Panama City Beach. And she's done an amazing job, and I've enjoyed working beside her the last five and a half years.