City Commission Meetings - Regular Meeting

Good morning. I'm calling to order the Panama City  Commission meeting for April 14th at 8 a.m. We are   going to start by an opening prayer by Reverend  Adam Cabana, First Church of the Nazarene,   lead pastor, followed by a pledge of allegiance  led by Commissioner Brian Granger. Please stand. Let us pray. Heavenly Father, thank you for  another day on your earth. Thank you for the   very breath that we draw today. As the author  of all creation, we ask you to look within our   hearts today and rid ourselves of all selfishness.  We ask that you would pour your Holy Spirit into   us and cleanse us of this selfishness. So that  as we go about business today, it would not be   with selfish desires, but with one to fulfill  your call, your plan, and your will. So Lord,   fill us with your spirit today. Lead us and  guide us as we talk about the many things of   Panama City. And we pray that every decision,  everything done today would not be done for us,   but for you. It's in your name we pray.  Amen. Amen. If you'll join me in the pledge   of 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. Justice for Please call the role. Mayor Branch,  present. Commissioner Granger,   present. Commissioner Street here. Commissioner  Hughes here. Commissioner Lucas present. Mayor,   you have a quorum. You've received the meeting  minutes from March 24th. Do I have a motion  

to accept? So moved. Second. Any discussion?  Please call the role. Commissioner Granger, yes.   Commissioner Street, yes. Commissioner Hughes,  yes. Commissioner Lucas, yes. Mayor Branch,   yes. Motion passes 5 to zero. Any additions,  deletions, or modifications to the agenda? Yes,   Mr. Mayor. We have two from staff. Request item  9C. which is consideration and of acceptance and   support of the Panama City Fire Department's  community risk assessment as well as item 11A   under the clerk for consideration of approval of  budget amendment resolution. Would request that   both of those get removed and brought back at  a time that staff so desires. Again, 9C 118. 9   C 118. Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion?  Please call the role. Commissioner Granger, yes.   Commissioner Street, yes. Commissioner Hughes,  yes. Commissioner Lucas, yes. Mayor Branch,   yes. Motion passes 5-0. Any other deletion  modifications from the board? No. No. Okay.   All right. April is here bringing bright days and  fresh momentum to dive into everything happening   in our community. Sign up for city alerts and  receive updates straight to your inbox or phone.   From our monthly newsletter to road closures, boil  water notices, and more, we'll keep you informed   year round. Don't miss a moment. Scan the QR code  or visit panama city.gov. gov to sign up today.   The city will host a series of public workshops  on April 16th and 17th later this week to gather   community input for its comprehensive plan. The  comprehensive plan is a long range policy document   that guides future growth and development.  It establishes overall goals, objectives,   and policies related to land use, housing,  transportation, infrastructure, and conservation.   Typically looking ahead 10 to 20 years to outline  the city's vision for the future. Sessions will be   held April 16th at 9:00 a.m. at the Garden Club  in central Panama City and then again at 1 p.m.   at the MLK Junior Rec Center over in East Panama  City and then again on April 17th at 9:00 a.m. at  

the Mette Community Center and then later that  day at 1 p.m. at City Hall in downtown Panama   City. Residents are encouraged to attend one of  these four sessions and share their feedback.   Join us at the San Andrews Farmers Market on April  18th from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. for the annual   Earth Day celebration. The Earth Day proclamation  reading will begin at 11:45 a.m. and activities   for the whole family that includes music, dancing,  craft, and food vendors, environmental vendors,   and a tree giveaway. Surveys from the 2026  CRA socials are now available online. We're   accepting responses through April 20th. These  surveys are specific to each CRA district and   your feedback helps shape future priorities.  To participate, visit panama city.gov. Scan the   QR code or visit the website survey link on the  screen. Applications are now open for the summer   2026 World Changers neighborhood improvement  program hosted in partnership with the Panama   City CRA. Applications will be accepted through  May 31st. Eligible hometown uh homeowners rather   in the downtown north and Milville CRA districts  can apply online at panama city.gov. The Panama   City's Charter Review Advisory Board continues  its work on a thorough evaluation of the city's   charter. Their next meeting is scheduled for  Thursday, April 23rd at 12:00 noon in room 30 236   at city hall. For details in the advisory board's  efforts and to stay informed on upcoming upcoming   meetings, please visit panamalcity.gov. The Panama  City Symphony in partnership with our parks,   culture, and recreation department brings live  musical performances to the city hall rotunda once   a month through their musically upclose series.  Join us Friday, April 24th at 3:30 p.m. in the   City Hall Rotunda for the next free performance.  An Arbor Day tree giveaway is happening on  

Saturday, April 25th at Oaks by the Bay Park from  8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. or while supplies last.   Bay County residents can receive up to two trees  per household. For additional details, please   visit our website at panama city.gov. Henry Davis  Park in the Glennwood community is wrapping up   its major revitalization, adding the new Kowanis  Centennial Playground, bankshot basketball court,   Gaga ball pit, updated swings, and a pavilion with  picnic areas. The community garden is also getting   new shade structures, storage, and workstations.  Join us for the park's official reopening on April   25th from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. with food,  drinks, music by DJ Big Boy, and a chance to   enjoy the new amenities. Is all the announcements,  Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, moving into item six,   quasi judicial hearings. During quasi judicial  proceedings, the commission will help evidence   and render a decision regarding the matter  presented based upon the evidence received. The   parties before the commission and the public are  entitled to present evidence such as documents and   witnesses etc. and cross-examine any witnesses.  All parties and witnesses will be under oath and   the entire proceedings recorded. The commission is  not bound by the strict rules of evidence and may   consider any evidence which it deems relevant and  trustworthy. Any member of the commission may ask   questions of the parties or the witnesses. Since  quasi judicial proceedings are legal in nature,   everyone is expected to adhere to proper courtroom  decorum and etiquette. Any comments or objection   should be directed to the mayor. The burden of  proof in a quasi judicial proceeding rest with   the applicant. Therefore, the applicant has the  opportunity to address the commission last after   all public participation and before the commission  deliberates. Mr. Zimmerman. Thank you. And at this  

time uh for items 6A through 6D I will swear in  staff who will remain under oath during the entire   proceedings. Also if there are any additional  parties that intend on uh talking or testifying   during the public hearing I would ask you to also  stand and raise your right hand. So anyone that   would like to speak during these quai judicial  uh hearings and staff if you could please stand.   Okay. Now, if you feel like you need to speak  later, that's fine. You'll come up and I'll swear   you at that time. Uh, do you swear and affirm that  the testimony you're about to give is the truth,   the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes.  Thank you. Uh, also at the time when a vote is   uh if the commissioners have any exparte  communications, they should disclose. That   would be appropriate. A exparty commun exparte  communication is if you received information   uh from an individual that you intend to rely on  for your vote and it had and it's not included   in the agenda package or any of the testimony  then it would be appropriate to to at least   uh tell the commission and the public that you  received the information. You don't have to   indicate exactly what was received, but that would  give people an opportunity to ask you questions   uh at that time. And at the close of the evidence  and during the deliberation by the commission,   um after the evidence is taken, then the public  hearing will be stopped and the commissioners   will deliberate. Thank you. All right. Item  6A is the first, excuse me, of two public   hearings on ordinance 330001, an ordinance on the  voluntary annexation of approximately 2.89 acres  

of property located at 4620 Highway 390 East and  4622 Highway 390 East. Partial IDs are 05916-25-10 and 05916-10-0000. The applicant has requested an annexation,  a future land use change, and a resoning   to general commercial 2 or GC2. This item was  previously reviewed by the planning board on March   9th of this year. The planning board recommended  approval unanimously. Staff concurs. This request   is associated with the proposed development  agreement between the city of Panama City   and Lindsay Crossing PC LLC. And the following  documents are enclosed in your agenda packet.   Ordinance number 33000.1 staff analysis report and  recommendation the adopted map series including   aerial annexation future land use and zoning maps  the survey and the application narrative. Staff   recommendation through the director of development  services is that the commission conduct the first   of two public hearings. Mr. Mayor, this is  a public hearing. If you wish to speak about   item 6A, please come forward. Anyone on item  6A? Seeing none on closing public comments, Mr. Zman, I'd like to read the uh first um the  title which would indicate the first hearing   has been adopted and this is 6A and the title  for ordinance 330.1, an ordinance of the city   approving the voluntary annexation of 2.89 89  acres of unincorporated property located at   4620 Highway 390 East and 4622 Highway 390 East  into the city as further defined here and after   amending the wards and boundaries of the city to  include said land and providing for an effective  

date. Item 6B is the first of two public hearings  on ordinance 33000.2, 2, an ordinance amending the   future land use map of the city to reflect the  land use designation of general commercial for a   property located at 4620 Highway 390 East and 4622  Highway 390 East. These are the same addresses and   partial IDs as the prior item. Relevant background  information is enclosed in your packet. Staff   recommendation through the director of development  services that the commission conduct the first of   two public hearings. Mr. Mayor, this is a public  hearing. If you wish to speak about item 6B,   please come forward. If you wish to speak about  item 6B, please come forward. Seeing none,   Mr. Zimman, closing comments. First reading of  ordinance 33000.2, Two, an ordinance amending   the comprehensive plan future land use map of  the city to reflect the land use designation   of general commercial for a parcel of property  located at 4620 Highway 390 East and 4622 Highway   390 East, Panama City, Florida, providing for  repealer, severability, and effective date.   Item 10 C is the first of two public hearings  on ordinance 33000.3, an ordinance amending   the zoning map of the city to reflect a zoning  designation of General Commercial 2 or GC2 for   a property located at 4620 Highway 390 East  and 4622 Highway 390 East. These are the same   addresses and partial IDs as the prior two items.  Relevant background information is enclosed in   your packet and staff recommendation through the  director of development services that the city   commission conduct the first of two public  hearings. Mr. Mayor. Yes. This is a public   hearing. If you wish to be on item 6 C, please  come forward. Anyone on 6C? Seeing none opposing   public comments. Like first reading of ordinance  number 3300.3. The title is an ordinance zoning  

a parcel of property located at 4620 Highway  390 East and 4622 Highway 390 East Panama City,   Florida having approximately 2.89 acres GC2  providing for severability and providing for   an effective date. Item 6D is the first of two  public hearings on ordinance 3301, an ordinance   amending the zoning map of the city to reflect the  zoning designation of neighborhood general or NG   for a property located at 2209 9th Street East  with partial ID 1915 rather 15-0. As background   information, the applicant has requested a  resoning to neighborhood general NG. This item   was previously reviewed by the planning board on  March 9th of 2026. The planning board recommended   approval unanimously. Staff concurs. The following  documents are enclosed. Ordinance number 3301.   Staff analysis report and recommendation. The  adopted map series including aerial future   land use and zoning maps and a survey. Staff  recommendation to the director of development   services is that the city commission conduct  the first of two public hearings. Mr. Mayor,   this is a public hearing. If you wish to speak  about item 6D, please come forward. Item 6D.   Seeing no comments on closing public comments,  Mr. Zimmerman. First reading, Ordinance 3301,   an ordinance zoning a parcel of property located  at 2209th Street East, Panama City, Florida,   having approximately 0.524 acres, neighborhood  general, providing for severability and providing   for an effective date. All right, moving into  public hearings. Item 7A is the second and final   public hearing on ordinance 3294, an ordinance  amending section 104-66, Gateway Overlay,   of the Unified Land Development Code, or ULDC,  regarding special exceptions to prohibited   uses inside the gateway overlay. As background  information, ordinance number 3294, as proposed,  

will amend section 104-66, the gateway overlay  of the unified land development code by providing   for special exceptions to prohibited uses.  Specifically, this text amendment states that   the city commission may by a supermajority on  a case-bycase basis grant a special exception   to a prohibited use upon finding that the use is  not prohibited by the underlying zoning district.   The amendment further adds that the commission  may impose conditions and safeguards in order   to mitigate potential adverse impacts and to  ensure the intent and purpose of the gateway   overlay is maintained. The prohibited uses now  include the following: gas stations, vape shops,   pharmacies, and dispensaries. Ordinance number  3294 was previously reviewed by the planning   board on November 10th of 2025. The planning board  recommended approval unanimously. Staff concurs.   The item was tabled at the November 18th, 2025  city commission meeting to the December 16th,   2025 commission meeting and was tabled again at  the December 16th, 2025 city commission meeting   to the January 13th, 2026 commission meeting.  This item was tabled at the January 6 13th,   2026 commission meeting to the March 24th, 2026  commission meeting. And here we are today on   April 13th. All right. Ordinance number 3294  is attached. Staff recommendation through the   director of development services recommends that  the city commission conduct the second and final   public hearing and approve of the ordinance.  Mr. Mayor, mayor, could I interject one? Um,   in re reviewing the ordinance one more time,  uh, in case this was adopted today, uh,   we went back through the prohibited uses that were  already listed. uh which is starts at sale and use  

of mo mobile factory manufacturer homes down to  window tinting. There are three new prohibited   uses that have been list talked about today but  it was under item uh 18 adult entertainment that   is prohibited under this ordinance. It's also  prohibited as a sexually oriented businesses.   adult entertainment is within that definition.  But but the reason sexually oriented businesses   are prohibited back in 1997 there was a  series of findings of the adverse impact   of sexually oriented businesses along tourism  corridors. there was a study done and so that   uh our suggestion is now that we're considering  an exception to all of these prohibited uses that   we state clearly that sexually oriented businesses  that no special exception could be given to them.   And so the suggested language at the end of  uh the special exception to prohibited uses   would be however under no circumstances will a  sexually oriented business be provided a special   exception due to the adverse impacts identified  in ordinance 1704 and amended by ordinance 3058.   That's the ordinance back in 1997. So that  just makes it clear that even a four-fifth   vote could not give a special exception to a  sexually oriented business because of this other   ordinance that was adopted in 1997. So thank  you for letting me clarify that. Yes, this is   a public hearing. If you wish to come forward  and speak about item 7A, please come forward. Yes, sir.

Morning. Derek Thomas, 1100 West 10th Street.  I noticed there on your overlay, 15th Street   does not have the capability for somebody in  a wheelchair to navigate that road. You have   telephone poles in the middle of the sidewalk.  Does this relate to the gateway overlay? Yeah,   the gateway overlay, the the middle line right  there on 15th Street. That one you cannot navigate   in a wheelchair because there's telephone poles  on the middle of the sidewalk on both sides of the   road and there's no way to cross over safely  to get to the other side of the road. and it   wouldn't matter because there's over 20 telephone  poles in the middle of the sidewalk which you have   to cross back and forth over 15th Street to get  to. So you're worried about that? Oh, we can't   have strip clubs because they've been here for 50  years. Does this relate to the changes that that's   overlay? You're you're making an overlay for  the city and you don't take into account how the   people can navigate that overlay safely if they're  in a wheelchair, but you're still concerned about   regulating whether or not businesses can be  there and what kinds of businesses can be   there. I think you should pay a little bit of  attention to the people that live here. Thank   you. I'll I'll pass that along to FDOT. As  you know, along 15th Street, the city doesn't   control the sidewalks or poles. Okay. Thank  you. Anyone? Anyone else on item 7A? Yes, sir. Good morning. Good morning. Walter P. Henry, 614 Map Avenue.  Uh, City Gateway. I know that we have other  

buildings that's that been there for years.  Uh we going to those folks that have license   uh to operate at this present time. Um are y'all  going to have them those license revoked? Y'all   don't want those buildings there. Are we going  are y'all going to have them to to beautify their   building more better than what they are to make  this make this pass looks good? So I know cuz   I I knew that one building that was person was  there operating inside of Harrison. Y'all would   not relic that man because of what the because  he had a mechanic shop there. Y'all refused   uh to get him uh to relic him. I just wonder  is anyone else going to have the same problem when this when y'all when we do this what we're  going to do uh to the s to y to the one the owners   that own these properties that trying to make  money as well as anyone else cuz right now you got   a building set on and I'm on 98 and I disagree and  it's a it's a utility shed that somebody making   uh going to make office out of understand that  it's legal for them to do that. I don't see h  

I don't see how we would not let somebody  put a trailer on their own property but a   city where we can put a shed and operate it for  office building in this in the city of Panama   City. So I just like to know what the difference  is. Yes, sir. Jonathan, can you make sure staff   identifies the difference in the shed? Shed is  a use. That's the second time he's talked about   that. We've shared the information with, but I'll  recirculate it again. Everything is legit. Yes,   ma'am. Good morning. Good morning. My name  is Don Blue Brown, 1618 Hamilton Avenue here   in Panama City, 32405. I'm here this morning.  I'd like to discuss the um special exceptions   that you all have for 7A. I've been waiting  for about 7 months on a decision. Um I'm I'm   a bail bondsman and I'm trying to move my bail  bonds. I pay rent. I've paid rent for 20 years,   22 years. And there's a piece of property at  920 MLK Boulevard that I'm very interested in.   And it seems as though I continue to get to be put  off, put off, put off. So, I'd like to know today,   will there be an answer as to if you will allow  me to have that building or not? Because I mean,   it's it's taken I mean, I can't force your  hand, but it's it's taken quite a while.   I've did everything that's been requested of  me and um I just like to know and if approved,   I'd like to know what are these special exceptions  because I don't want to get into anything blind. I   want to know what I'm dealing with before I invest  that type of money. So, I would really hope that  

you all could make a decision today to let someone  know yes, move forward or go in another direction.   Thank you so very much for your time. Yes, ma'am.  Thank you. Thank you for your patience, ma'am. I'm serious. Anyone else on item 7A, gateway  overlay? Seeing no more comments, I'm closing   public comments on 7A and I will entertain a  motion. Motion to approve with the additions um   uh that were added by the city attorney. Second  discussion. Um at the last meeting we discussed   um we did not discuss adding gas station nations  vapes andarmacies. We discussed having a a four   fifth votes. So, I'd like to make a motion that  we remove those three, but leave the u uh I got   to put my glasses on to um the next highlighted  under the special exceptions prohibited uses.   We'll leave that, but remove um numbers 23, 24,  and 25 um in the in the list that we did not   discuss that last time. I recall we did discuss  it. We did discuss voted not. We discussed it.   We voted uh to leave that off and make it a four  fifth vote on another. There's a motion. Yeah,   unless substitute motion would fail. Do what? Are  you willing to amend your motion? I am not. No. I   I think your concern is valid. I just think it'll  be fleshed out with the vote. Okay. If we want to   talk about gas stations, there's two guys out  here in the in the audience that can tell us   about how gas stations have worked and come up  and come down. that's called the free market   enterprise and um and if we'd like to hear about  that they're not building as much right now be   more than happy to ask one of them to come up  here but um for for government to continue to   want to tell people where they can and cannot do  business is just amazing to me and we we need to  

let that work. We're grow we're a growing city  and by by adding um by adding pharmacies which   really after the weed dispensaries you're hurting  you're hurtingarmacies which we we already know   through a study in downtown we need and I just  can't get on board for limiting something that   we've paid somebody to tell us that we need then  we need it. Yeah. I think this this allows us in   situations like a pharmacy downtown to vote with  a supermajority and let that through case by case.   So this allows us some flexibility. It's funny. I  I I agree with the free market stuff as a theory   and the number one complaint I get is too many  gas stations and car washes and and you know,   my family was in the car wash industry, so  I know what that's like. But um it's it's   an interesting when you're up here and you get,  you know, overwhelmingly the biggest complaint I   get is the gas stations and car washes. More  than the budget, more than the fire attacks,   more than the potholes, more than all the other  things that we get complaints about. It's it's a   running joke in our city. You know how many gas  stations from Len Haven to Bunker's Cove Road   have been added since the storm on the right hand  side? Two. That's it. That's the longest stretch   that I can find of gas stations being right in  right out. And you know why we notice it? Because   they're on two acres now. They're not on a small  little sign. Okay. And so it's it's a function of   the national companies do much better demographic  studies than we do visually. And they're and it   said the demand is there. And guess what? as the  demand was there and they kept building them and   guess what you haven't seen is a whole bunch. So  my concern is is that we are picking and choosing   winners and losers based on what we want to see  in our ward versus letting the market enterprise   say that enough's enough. Yeah. We're moving  to these sort of superstations. Exactly. And um   and you know when we met uh in the campaign over a  year ago, we met with a bunch of people and one of   the complaints was you know a lot of gas stations  approaches are to undercut all the locals and lose   money for three or four years and run them all out  of business so that their superstition works and  

and I you know this is one of those things where  it's it's you know conflicting my traditional like   let the free market handle it and um but you know  we get so many complaints about this. I worry that   Panama City is the off-ramp where you get your gas  and groceries before you go to the beach. Here's   another thing like that nice lady that just got  up here. We're going to this might not pass today   because of these things and we started this entire  thing based on as trying to get her her property   one building in front of her. Okay. And I asked  them, can we make it a case by case basis? No,   we can't do that. That was that was four of these  ago. Okay. Um, today we're going to we're trying   to vote on that, but because these are on here,  we might have we might have a vote that turns   it down again. And this nice lady is trying to  buy something from us, put it on the tax roll,   and we can't get okay with gas stations.  Okay, let's set that aside for a moment,   and let's try to do business with the person that  wants to do business with us and put some put a   business on on on MLK. Yeah, this to me allows  for more flexibility than previously like case   by case basis super majority. So to me it gives us  more flexibility to ensure that uh you know maybe   there's concessions of like okay we want you to  add a a bike rack to your thing or your the car   don't add a car wash to the gas station. Then  let's start then let's start adding let's make   the list as long as we can then I mean that the  flexibility part is great but we're picking and   choosing which we want to be flexible with you  know based on based on one ward or other being   more um developed I think I think it was really  interesting so 389 and 390 is a great example   of of why this is a very powerful tool where 389  and 390 okay um I call it the um the ultimate you   no corporate development uh triangle. It has  three gas stations, one of them closed and a  

Dollar General. Mhm. On Maine and Maine. And  so this allows us to create and and keep in   mind some of this is asked for by the mom and pop  businesses. I believe you guys were all circulated   a vape shop owner that's actually asking in  support of this because they are being inundated   with national chains that have deeper pockets  that are pushing mom and pop businesses out of   out of out of business. So So this is not anti-  business. It is more intentional in what we get   as a community. So now we're going to regulate mom  and pop versus national. But when when when do we   regulate who gets to do business and who doesn't?  That's how business works. I mean, I can't help   if if a national company comes in and can and can  outspend me. So, the only way I can help the mom   and pop is to make them go away or not be allowed.  We're doing that. I'm saying the exact opposite.   You're saying the mom and pop wants the  regulation to keep the big the big guy   out or to at least keep space and distancing.  And the city discussed this back in the 60s   um regarding gas stations. And so I I I  understand what you're saying. I think   maybe we have a slightly philosophical difference.  I'm definitely from an open free market, but once   you get to a point where you're oversaturated and  over inundated with things, that that is the time   for us to kind of say, hey, we are the approvers  of what is allowed and what is not allowed in the   city. And some of this that we're considering  isn't whether it's oversaturated or not. It is   uh opinions about what types of businesses we want  on the gateway and what types of businesses uh we   want in the major thorough affairs. And that's  a discussion that we kind of skip around and and   don't have directly and I believe that what we are  saying here is uh we want a certain standard and  

I've said this before we want a certain standard  but do we get there by saying the businesses or do   we get there by saying what the design standards  should be because the aesthetics is what we are uh   most concerned about ostensibly But there are some  moral concerns when you look at this list um as   well. And so uh it's important for us to separate  what our personal opinions are about certain types   of businesses and what the community needs and  what the uh local folk are trying to do in terms   of helping develop neighborhoods. And the reason  we've stuck we're stuck here is because that's   the sticking point. You know what we think ought  to be on the major thorough affairs and trying   to to answer the question for everything in this  one piece of legislation. And so in the meantime   um as has been said we've had a business person  held host hostage to this process for months. Mr. Mayor, I might be able to uh uh answer Miss  Blue Brown's questions real quick and it might   help also frame this discussion if that's okay.  Uh if this is adopted today, Miss Blue Brown,   we we've entered into a contract with her and her  intent is to put a bail sponsor's business on a   piece of property that's within the gateway  corridor. So if this were to adopt a pass,   then very quickly you would have before you the  contract that would say uh she is requesting a   special exception. And if four of the five agree  to that and then if there are any other conditions  

and I believe there are already some conditions  about the uh the use of the property in the the   contract that we have. But those conditions  would be there in front of you. And then if   four of the five approve, then that would allow  this one particular uh piece of property which   is presently city-owned be used by be purchased  and then used for that purpose. So that's how   the the vote today doesn't uh grant the use to  Miss Blue Brown, but it does set up the pathway   for this to be considered at the next meeting  or the meeting after. Well, and adding this   ordinance change allows us to have conversations  by case-by- case basis. We had a window tenning   uh business come on Sixth Street and he rented  a building and started working on construction,   but he didn't realize you couldn't have that  business there and we were going to have to   undo all the ordinances which cost a ton of money  and this allows us to have we could even have the   conversation about case by case basis. This allows  us to have conversations on a case-by case basis.   So, you know, this is not a this is not a this  is an invitation to a conversation. This to me   is not a hard no. This is a except for the adult  entertainment businesses. This is a which actually   brings more friction up here, you know, because  if there's a hard and fast rule, we just go, "Oh,   the rules don't apply." But this allows us to  say, "All right, we're going to battle it out   up here what we believe." And so, it does put more  pressure on us. And I and I'm accepting that's the   job is to have hard conversations in front of  people. So this includes the uh four must have   four votes. Super majority. Super majority uh  if we pass it as it stands now. Mhm. And so   where's the room for the conversation when uh we  commissioners may already have decided what we're   going to do no matter what. Where's that room for  conversation? I mean that's up here and it's up   to the person to persuade others and that's every  agenda item. That's the job is to change opinions.  

So yeah, and I mean my stance as far as as long  that this is not a hard note to anything except   for as a matter of fact this adds more flexibility  not less flexibility but in that same that same   conversation taking into account the areas that  we know we have problems whether it be with   aesthetics whether it be with um distances between  this allows our team to be able to build the   tools that allow us to go forward with creating  exceptions for anything. Am I am I sitting here   saying there'll never be another gas station in  the city of Panama City? Absolutely not. I mean,   I think that there are places probably need  it specifically in Panama City North. I mean,   there's not a lot that's there. So, but to to just  allow um every corner of our city to be overtaken   because people are just transversing through  our city and we're just a convenient stop is   not something that's very pro- resident. Panama  City North and the gateway overlay are apples and   oranges. There's no there's no um um there's no  um comparison because you can put them up there.   Um Dunkin Donuts, Starbucks coffee, Office  Depot, Lowe's, you know what they all do?   They all compete against each other across from  each other. Banks, they like to compete against   each other. That's their model. You're saying  that they're that that the gas station model   that is working for them for the business you'll  like. Okay. But we can't regulate something we   don't like. To to the commit to Commissioner  Lucas's point, just because I don't like it   doesn't mean it's not a good idea. And all  the big corners pretty much taken up in the   in the gateway overlay. So there's not much left  unless you're going to buy it and tear it down.   My concern is this. Let's see. War one and war  two. We need a lot still. And what's going to  

happen is these national companies you're talking  about, they're not used to waiting in line and   saying, "Oh, yeah. I need to get a conditional  use so that I can go into that city." That's not   what they're used to. And that concerns me that  we're that we're we're saying to them, "We're pro   business, but come in. We got we got to tell you  that we're pro business just to you." And that's   my concern. And so I would I would I would like to  ask again if you would amend your motion to remove   those and and keep se and keep the other section  um in there. I'll I'll I'll say I'll respectfully   decline. However, what I will say is I am open to  conversations on what gets allowed where and those   things. This is not trying to create a hard stop  on everything moving forward in our city. This is   creating the flexibility to be intentional and um  and to be um methodical about what we do moving   forward with development in the city of Panama  City specifically on the gateway. Let's be clear,   the addition of the four out of five is putting in  place even more difficulty for you for us but for   you all to say what you want and what you don't  want. Um it's already been stated at least by   one of us absolutely no bellsman in the gateway.  Correct. And uh so this approach doesn't as you   say allow more discussion particularly when you  already have your madeup minds about what you're   going to do when the vote comes. I think I'm very  protective over visually how we portray ourselves   to others and those are design standards. Yeah.  Every business gives a message to the community   and the neighborhood of what they need there. And  there we need all the businesses. Visually, there   are some businesses that don't need frontage. They  can operate as they always have because there's   a need for it. And visually, we should be very  protective over ourselves. You know, a bookstore  

signals we read books. A bail bonds place visually  on the corner of your neighborhood signals this is   where the criminals live. And I don't want any  neighborhood in Panama City portrayed that way.   So you can operate the businesses, you just can't  be visually on our corridors. And that's what I'm   protective over visually. So hearing hearing that  conversation, I think I I think I understand what   you're saying, Commissioner Lucas. And you know,  I think in even in this case that we're we're   looking at here, I I believe that there were some  options that were even presented that I know were   circulated at one point that showed, you know,  visually creating some type of buffer in between   the building and and that operator. And I I think  that there are ways that we can now take a more   nuanced approach where it's been, you know, a hard  no. Perhaps there's landscaping buffering. There's   a different a different approach that can be taken  to get to the same result um without having to   say either a hard no or a hard or a hard yes, if  that makes sense. And what this provides is the   flexibility to say hey look you know in this case  you know visuals matter and so um let's shape that   visual so that we can get to the yes and allowing  it I mine but that doesn't address the hard no   absolutely not I will not support um and what we  we've already talked about the the specifics of   of this particular uh contract request but we  also to entertain the process and we want more   develop velment uh in the wards uh especially  the uh the wards that need more development i.e.   Ward 2 Glennwood corridor um MLK Jr. corridor uh  and yet there isn't anything in our process that   allows staff to move forward to bring us something  that we can entertain. How many times do we really  

as a commission just allow a business person to  hang in the balance for months while we kind of   figure out what we think we might want to do? Yep.  I waited two years as a private citizen for a tax   incentive for one of our projects. Two years. And  so anytime you work with government, especially if   there's not a process and and it's a thing they've  never done before and they're unfamiliar with,   it's super slow and frustrating for everybody.  um you know what on awnings downtown out every   every ordinance change murals there were all  everything we've changed in the city just if if   it's unfamiliar it takes a long time and you know  government moves slow and I wish we move faster   um but that's just how we we move um so I I I  if there's no other discussion since you have   money contracted tied up waited for two years  correct $2.2 $2 million. Why I waited on this   this organization? Yes. I I think this is a  pathway to yes to things. I don't think this   is a pathway to no. Yes. Any other discussion?  Please call the role. Commissioner Granger,   yes. Commissioner Street, yes. Commissioner  Hughes, no. Commissioner Lucas, no. Mayor Branch,   yes. Motion passes 3 to two. I'd like to read  the title. Mayor, ordinance number 3294 has been   adopted. An ordinance of the city commission  of the city of Panama City, Florida, amending   section 104-66, gateway overlay of the uni unified  land development code regarding special exceptions   to prohibited uses, repealing all ordinances in  conflict herewith, providing for severability,   providing for codification, and providing for  an effective date. Item 7B is the first of two   public hearings on ordinance 3302 and ordinance  Commissioner Lucas like to say something before   we move forward. The special exception that you  referred to uh what is the timeline uh attorney  

Zimmerman as far as Miss Blue Brown? Yes. I  believe um my my intent is that now that this has   been adopted, I'll meet with uh city manager Hayes  and uh see about how quickly it could be placed on   the agenda because I know there is a due diligence  period and we need to uh react to that. But at the   same time and Mr. Fuller and see what we can come  up with as far as what Miss Blue Brown is willing   to do to help mitigate some of the issues that  have been raised today. I would ask that we move   uh with all deliberate speed and as much as it has  been months in this regard. Next agenda. Yes. Next   agenda. That's the goal. I mean that's my goal  and I'm sure it's Mr. Hayes. Absolutely. Thank   you. Thank you. Right. Item 7B is the first of two  public hearings on ordinance 3302, an ordinance   to vacate and abandon an alleyway and platted  easement southeast of the intersection of Mound   Avenue and West 21st Street north of West 20th  Court. As background information, the applicant   is requesting to vacate an alleyway and platted  easement southeast of the intersection on Mound   Avenue and West 21st Street north of West 20th  Court of designated as city property. The property   does not retain any longer any underground  utilities or any infrastructure. This item   was previously reviewed by the planning board on  March 9th of 2026. The planning board recommended   approval unanimously. Staff concurs. The  following documents are enclosed. Ordinance 3302,   the staff analysis report and recommendation,  maps including aerial location, future land use   and zoning surveys and the easement exhibit. Staff  recommendation through the director of development   services of the city commission conduct the  first of two public hearings. Mr. Mayor,   this is a public hearing. If you wish to  speak about item 7B, please come forward.  

Anyone want to speak on item 7B? Seeing none, I'm  closing public comments. Mr. Zimmerman like to um is this to be voted on? No, no, it's just  reading seven first. Oh, I'm excuse me.   I was on still on quite judicial ordinance  number 3302 uh first reading. Thank you. An   ordinance vacating an abandoning an alleyway  and platted easements located southeast of   the intersection of Mound Avenue and West 21st  Street north of West 20th Court. Panama City,   Florida is more particularly here and after  described repealing all ordinances in conflict,   providing for the severability of any  part of the ordinance declared invalid,   and providing for an effective date. Item 7  C is the first of two public hearings on the   approval of the proposed development agreement  with Lindsey Crossing PC LLC for a property   located at 4620 and 4622 East Highway 390 with  partial ID 05916- 025-010 and 05916-10-0000. Background information encloses the proposed  development agreement between the city and   the owner and developer of the property located  at 4620 and 4622 East Highway 390. The proposed   term of the development agreement is 15 years. The  primary purpose of the development agreement is   to establish the pattern and intensity of future  commercial development on the property and freeze   impact fees at the currently assessed rates.  The property consists of approximately 2.99 2.89   89 acres and is zoned general commercial 2  with an underlying future land use of general   commercial. The following documents are enclosed.  The development agreement and the exhibits. Staff   recommendation through the director of development  services is that the city commission conduct the   first of two public hearings. Mr. Mayor, yes. This  is a public hearing. If you wish to speak about  

item 7 C, please come forward. Anyone on item 7 C?  Closing public comments. I'd like to can we have a   quick discussion on this? My my apprehension I  I love this project. I think this is great. Um   my worry is the 15 years and and and sort of the  banking of an entitlement that later than we've   done that before where we have a very long uh  entitlement that then later comes back to back   to bite us and that makes me a little nervous.  15 years. I'd like to see it closer to three or   four. I mean, kind of move the timeline faster  for other projects. And this is larger, but what   I worry about is something in 15 years and 12  years where that we no longer can um, you know,   really handle the entitlement that they've been  given. I I I agree with that statement um that we   are here to help incentivize and help projects,  not to lock in entitlements for, you know,   for 15-year periods and do land speculation. So,  if there's a project that's on hand, absolutely   100% and that should be able to be accomplished  well within the timeline uh that the mayor just   described. But a 15-year agreement ongoing is  not something that I would support. Development   agreements are locking in entitlements, gentlemen.  That's what they're that's what they're designed   for. Yeah. That's what I'm nervous about. The 15  years, we we've we've done 10 year development   agreements in in in the year that we've been  here um more than a handful of times closer   to and they're typically 10 years minimum. Those  are for 1,800 home units. That's not for a couple   acre commercial property. The Buccaneer has a has  a development agreement on it. Uh Timbits Boatyard   has a development agreement on it. And none of  those I didn't do those. Yeah, you did. You you   voted on you voted on the modification for the  development modification to see it move forward.   I did not vote to approve a 15-year or 10-year  agreement for either one of those projects in its   origination. And and that's a great example  because think about how long those projects  

have taken because it just sacked. And so we're  here to help things move across the finish line,   not to let it drag out for that hasn't sat because  of the development agreement. and it sat because   of the market conditions and it sat because of  money had nothing to do with it and because of the   development agreement on both of those projects  you're able to get residential there that today   would not be would under the different definition  so it's actually helping it's not hurting is there   a way to do like a a segment where it's like an  option that they come back and we vote again or   something where it's no I don't mind someone what  I don't want to do is I'm worried about a problem   in 10 years and 15 years where they come back and  go we're doing it now and we Oh, oh, and we've got   a a million dollar bill for an infrastructure  improvement that we don't have money for. And   that has happened. I would suggest that since we  you've spoken about this particular issue that you   allow if they wish for the applicant to come talk  about. Yes. If the applicant would like to speak Hey, good morning. Uh Nick Addison, uh 1571 Ruth  Jackson Road, Bog Bogart, Georgia. Uh I'm here on   behalf of development company. Um no, I mean,  listen, we we're we obviously we the intent   here is not necessarily for a long-term tied up of  entitlements. It's really just to kind of protect   the development that we have. I I mean, I would  suspect that 15 years is going to be more than   sufficient for us to be able to develop this. So  I think we would be open to a shorter timeline.   Obviously, the one thing that as a developer,  you're always concerned about is the swings of   the market and what that looks like. So, we can't  predict what happens tomorrow. So, we're going to   want to make sure that we have sufficient time in  there to protect against if something happens and   we couldn't immediately develop this. But, that's  our plan is not as a speculative land play. This   is a a project that we hope to move forward with  quickly. So, we're not necessarily opposed. Um,  

if all the other terms of the development  agreement are are agreeable to uh this commission,   we're not opposed to a shorter timeline. Great.  Thank you. Thank you. Thanks everything I need to   know. So, how about 15 to 10 since that's what  we since that's what we've done as a customary   uh thing around here. Again, I'd like to see it um  be short enough to complete their project um but   not long enough to obligate the city to unknowns.  Yeah. I mean, if if they came back in three years   and said, "Gosh, we we need an adjustment."  And we said, "Cool. Nothing's really changed   and we're not going to be shooting ourselves in  the foot." I'm I'm up for extending this thing,   you know, the next commission or whoever gets  these seats in next years can keep extending it.   Keep extending it. I'm just worried in 15 years  when new mayor is up here. They go, "Gosh darn,   I wish that previous commission had not really  set us up to fail as a as a commission." So,   what's the number? I guess that's what you just  asked. What's the number? Yeah. I I think a a   project can get started within Yeah. Come on  up. I'm just guessing. I have no idea. They're   bringing something out of the ground. It takes a  while. Okay. Agreed. As you know. No, he doesn't.   He builds. He buys buildings. Less. Okay. There's  there's a difference of bringing it out of the   ground and buying a building. He built car wash.  I'm not I'm not saying I'm not slamming on you,   but there's a difference there. Okay. Built  about $12 million in car washes. Yes. Wait,   didn't we just talk about last meeting that we're  going to cancel the contract because they didn't   meet the requirements in the due diligence period?  Yeah, I wanted to. Okay, then. So, like it's a   valid point to say, hey, look, we're having a  conversation. Yeah. Yes. So, three years is my   concern is I've had projects that are smaller than  this that and acting in good faith, 3 years is not   enough time. And it just is unfortunately that  is just the nature of our business is sometimes   things take longer than they anticipate. It's not  because things had stalled out necessarily. It's   just things take that long. I would suggest if if  if a middle ground of seven years would that be a  

I mean you know I think that would be sufficient  for us even given some delays or market changes   would be enough for us. So I would offer that as  a middle ground. I would recommend a, you know,   three to five with an automatic extension should  you guys prove through your due diligence perhaps   that site plan or something like that. Well, and  I think it'd be helpful in whatever years it would   be that staff could make sure that maybe it's  us still up here, but maybe it's someone else   and and that group needs to know potentially what  factors have caused this project to go bad for us   and for them. And so that way they're educated on  the the topic if it comes back up here, you know,   where it's defined on some when how something's  changed where we're shooting ourselves in the foot   now. So this is the first of two public hearings  and staff is going to take this back and they're   going to make any changes that we that we asked  them to make. We're not voting on this today.   Um but we we've heard from the applicant  that that seven years would be sufficient.   um you're putting out there three to five with an  automatic extension. Um I would I would suggest   for this one in particular, why don't we just do  seven and then we can work with staff on what we   would rather see out of these types of agreements.  I think sometimes we get up here and we want to   try to make the sausage on future deals on the  deal that's in front of us. And a lot of times   that then causes just as we saw with the last  item um that that causes a lot of constrnation and   u back and forth with the applicants who  are actually coming and wanting to invest   in our city. Mhm. Mhm. So, and I think to that  point, um, this body perhaps should entertain   a process that gets the sausage making out of  here because as we are currently chartered,   the five of us have to determine the decision. One  of us can't just drive it um and negotiate. That's  

why we have a city manager. So, I like your  idea. Yeah, I just wish that it was we could   talk about it as a process in and completely  separate from from this issue. I agree and I   think staff is used to going and doing 15-year  agreements and that's been what to Robbie's   point that's been what the example is. But if  you look at what we actually get out of those,   we get a lot of long-term liabilities. We've  entertained uh transportation impact fees. So,   I would hope that the staff would even take that  into account that hey, look, like we're trying   to fix the issues that we've got. We've got to  tighten things up. And that means on development   agreements, too. So, yeah. Thank you. They could  stay in the county and not bring us any money.   We can do it that way, too. I mean, that's that's  the way to run them off. We're not trying to run   anyone. I'm just trying to not create an issue for  future mayor or future commissioners. Okay. So,   I I do want to make a point. Why Why is this Why  is this a point? And it has nothing to do with   this developer. Thank you guys for for um for your  for your comments. We we incentivized the public's   complex right next door and we paid how much, Miss  Waldin? Three half million for the road. That was   a decision by the city manager, not by Yeah.  $3.5 million for the road. 3.9. And we have a   developer here that would like to connect to that  $3.5 million road. Mhm. And not pay anything. So,   so we are being a good partner here trying  to create an agreement. Our taxpayers paid   $3.5 million for a road. The developer wants to  connect for free. It's not unreasonable to have   a shortened timeline that doesn't further obligate  us because the road's deteriorating. Yeah. Yeah.   It's got to be maintained. It's going to have  to be that. And they're paying impact fees,   but that is what's that's what's waved inside of  this agreement. Mhm. infrastructure impact fees,   but they're paying water and sewer all What  about the road? Okay. It's a $3 half million  

road that's going to have to be maintained at  some point. Okay. So, we're we're going to get   them on they're going to get it on 390 and on us  and they're going to do a traffic study to tell   what the impact is going to make. Yeah. My goal  is I love this project. Let's see it, get it done,   and let's move quickly because we're appreciative  of the project. And I I do like your idea. Right.   Thank you. Mr. Zman, there is uh no title to read.  And that concludes the uh first of two public   hearings on the development agreement. Awesome.  We are now in audience participation. This is when   you can come up and speak about anything else on  the agenda for today. Uh you have three minutes.   Please state your name and address for the record  and also the agenda item you wish to speak on so   we can reference the materials you're speaking  about. Please come forward if you'd like to chat.   Don't be shy. Yes, ma'am. I'm Ella Smith.  And the first thing I would like to say,   I would appreciate if you would speak into your  microphone instead of looking at each other. I'm   hard of hearing and I thought if I came up front,  I would hear. And I turn up my hearing aids and I   hear nothing. And I've been coming here for years  and I've always been able to hear up front. I can   barely hear, but I don't hear anything. And I've  been coming here and I've always been able to hear   and I cannot hear you. And I think that's very,  very sad. That's all I got to say. Number two,   I live in the back of Venetian Villa. I read  my notes. I read my notes. I read my notes.   And I also have looked up my information and from  what I see it says that it was advocated the road  

all the way to the end of Venetian Villa with  sidewalks. The money was advocated and it didn't   happen. So I don't understand. So I need to make  an appointment for somebody to tell me why that   didn't happen. Yes, ma'am. Three. I'm running for  district three commission in 2027. As I said, if   someone didn't do a good job, I would be running  for that position. So now I am running four. I   don't understand why things changed and now you  all are not helping drag the canals. As I said,   I don't understand why things are changed and why  District 3 commission is not doing the same things   to help Venetian Bella. We're on the edge. Okay.  And things are not happening for us and we're not   happy. Okay. Four. Uh I wish that you all would  do the same to help townhouse homers homeowners   as you do for homeowners. And you don't do that.  You don't allow for the three yard thing between   the town homes. Um, you don't do that. I've been  complaining for years. Somebody built actually on   my property. Okay, you can go back and look at my  complaints. They're there 1247 Capri Drive. And   my husband's an attorney and you did it anyhow.  It doesn't matter. So, anyhow, my name is Ellis   Smith. I will be seeing you. I am running for  district 3 commission and that's not going to   change. Thank you very much for everything you  do. Uh I'm not real happy. People in Venetian   Villa are very unhappy with the way things have  happened. We're very unhappy with not helping us   with the canals. We're very unhappy you didn't  finish Venetian Way and we're very unhappy with  

all the bumps down there. Come and look. You would  not be happy either. Thank you very much. Yes,   ma'am. Thank you. Anyone else want to speak about  the rest of the agenda items today? Yes, sir. Good morning. Good morning, Wal P.  Henry, 614 Maple. Y'all have already   uh voted on the uh gateway overlay.  I don't know. Miss Brown already have   a building already set in there  on Martin Luther King Boulevard. I could see a I can see a building like that  sitting on a gateway to see a shed setting on   the gateway. I don't know it's 90 business 98  going into Millville as part of your gateway or   not but we can set we can we can prove shed  that is it's authorized to to be there that   can you can have it I don't see that uh Bill  Bunsman you tell me if you ain't going to have   a bail bun you probably ain't going to have  a law official buildings build on the gateway   as well probably. I don't know. I don't know  what y'all decisions are. I know you talking   about gas stations. I think if you don't like  it, they jam together. Everything is separate  

them where they'll be further apart to being  right there together. like we do have some to me I think listen to everyone listen to  you what you're saying city money might be   wrong you get taxes probably get good taxes out  of service stations got folks filling up their   gas tanks right Now, if I fill mine up, if I got  a quarter of tank of gas in it, costing me $70 and it ain't empty for gas. Y'all profits and as  well as the state, as the person that own the gas   station. I don't know how much taxes y'all get  out of gas stations. I believe you get a pretty   good bit. The rate that things are now that our  president have said got us in claiming he's God,   but he's not. Yes, sir. Thank you. Anyone else  want to speak about the remaining agenda items?   Yes, ma'am. Good morning. Good morning,  Patty. Sunday 11:15 Fairland World War II   affordable home cottage commissioner street.  Um I wanted to comment on the gateway overlay   uh commissioner Robbie when I was listening to  it and I I really did enjoy y'all's um robust   robust discourse. I think it's very healthy. I  like it. I also like it when Commissioner Brian  

Kissinger comes in and smooths it over. Um, but  it reminded me, Robbie, of a PUD and those of us   who have had the pleasure of putting together a  plan unit development, right, that we know what   a PUD is. when when I was listening to all y'all  in this majority, it reminded me of that because   that triggers to do a deeper dive and really get  your qualitative and ask a ton of questions and a   lot of people weigh in on it behind the scenes and  then bring it back to the elected officials. So,   in my vision and listening to y'all, it may  be that quality process that gets all of those   questions out for when it comes back. Next thing  I'm going to tell you, uh, Mr. Sunundy and I are   now members of the MLK center and we both play  basketball and we play hard. Two adults playing   basketball. When we were there a couple times, um,  eventually you need to have a bio break. And when   we went to have that bio break, the staff shared  with us that the bathrooms are locked and they   were very nice to let us both have our bio break,  rehydrate, and go back out and do our drills.   The reason it was locked is because the miners  are vaping in the bathroom. So, I really support   this idea of limiting some of these things. I do  believe gas stations sell vapes as well, but this   is part of that wellness initiative. It hurt me to  think that that was the line of defense, and I so   understand it, but we see the teams coming in and  they're vaping, so the bathroom is locked, y'all.   Um, next item was on the report that you get  from the city manager as it relates to um,   ASAP. On the bottom of the chart, there's a bunch  of NAN and some of it says honor role. Some of it  

says something like reading and I don't know if  that means that the 16 or 19 or 20ome people are   reading books, they're reading pages. Are they in  the honor roll? I'd like to see an upgrade in that   qualitative. Um, the new magistrate, how much  are they being paid? How much was the previous   one being paid? And I remember a long time ago  discussion if that was a break even department   or it needed to come out of the general fund. So,  those are my thoughts. 5 4 3 2 1. Thank you. Good   job. Thank you. Anyone else want to speak? Yes,  sir. Jonathan Upold 1741 Sherman Avenue. I'm   uh employed by a local contractor and part of the  BCCA commission. So, this morning I want to talk   a little bit about the city doing the the paving  internally that y'all had discussed. At one of   our local uh meetings, there was a member of the  city come and speak. That's not on the agenda. We   only speak about agenda items. Is this on the is  on there? Last item. So, uh not not for action.   It's just anformational memo. Just my my update.  Okay. So, uh the uh we had a member from the city   come speak to us about the plan and how that was  going to go. So, at that meeting the the BCCA had   some questions for the city and I don't think we  ever got any responses of those and we had several   several items we just wanted to make aware. So  basically I'm here today kind of go back over   some of those make the commission aware of some  concerns we had and how you guys were coming up   with the amount of money it was going to take  to perform this type of work. So um one of the   first things that we do want to make aware too  paving has um strict specs by Florida Department   of Transportation. So if the city is going to do  this we want to make sure you're going to follow   the same specs that any contractor would be if we  were bidding that work as well. Um, and if you do  

not meet those specs, there's going to be remedial  work that has to be done, which then makes that   cost for that project higher, where if it was a  contractor doing that work, that burden would be   on us to perform that actual redo and it wouldn't  be a cost to the city. But if city does it,   it is going to increase that cost. Um, additional  testing equipment that nobody's mentioned or QC   equipment, those type of positions are skilled as  well. I don't know that you've had that thought   about where employees as well. Um maintenance  on the equipment. It's heavy equipment. Has a   lot of work. It has to be worked every day. So  there's a big cost with that as well. Personnel.   I read through some of this stuff. Like y'all  going to have four or five people on a paving   crew. It's very unrealistic. I have 12 to 15  people every single day to perform this work.   So you're going to have to get some additional  people if you're going to perform this work.   And there's very few skilled people that knows how  to do this work. Um, just with my company alone,   we have people that live in four or five counties  that come to work here. So, just thinking you have   people internally, I don't know that you have  that skill set internally. Something to think   about. Um, some of these prices been put together  as well. there's been no consideration for all the   things that's included such asot devices um stuff  like that certifications for the other people and   just cost of moving your equipment all around  one thing is liquid that I buy in tanker loads   that liquid has a shelf life if you're not paving  every single day that liquid is not going to stay   there so you need to be thinking about that and  what you're going to do about excess liquid or   how you're going to store that I don't know if you  thought about that so considering all the cost I   think it would be a good idea If the city would  put together a package of roads to bid to some   contractors, say two or three contractors,  not one road like you've done in the past,   but a whole group, and then let us bid that work  and you put your cost analysis together and see   how close you are. And if you're way lower than  two or three contractors, there's things that  

you're not considering. I agree. Great questions.  Can we get Thank you very much. Get those   uh questions circulated, answer circulate to us.  Sure. Thank you. So, two things. When we get to   this, if you don't mind staying, um, when we get  to this agenda item, can we allow him and I think   there's some others in here to come up and talk so  we can have have questions rather than just be on   on public participation because I think we there  is some action to be taken on this. We have a we   have a lease that is not signed and it is not what  we were what we were told. So, I'd like for us to   have a deep discussion on on this topic tonight  that I think we I worry we're going to open up 30   comments about every single metric in good because  they loaded it up tonight. I I asked him and they   loaded up with all the all the the tough ones  tonight. So, I'd much rather have those comments   in public participation. Yeah. Well, okay. Any  other comments in public participation? Yes, sir. I definitely want those questions and I  I definitely want those circulate to us   and the BCC as well. No, I'm talking about  publicly. We're going to I think the city   manager suggesting that we're that this  isn't an action actionable item. We have   a lease that has not been signed and it is  not what we were told was going to come to   us. It is $31,000 higher already. We got a  problem and I think we need to have a very   open discussion today about where we're going to  spend money on something that this gentleman just   identified what we shouldn't be buying. I  I think a virtual workshop or a workshop on   that topic would be a much better place than  having a two-hour conversation up here about   every metric that's in that report. Agreed.  Um just for efficiency of conversation. Yes,   sir. Derek Thomas, 1100 West 10th Street. Um,  you know, the county has the opportunity for the   public to speak on agenda items at the beginning  of the meeting and then offers the public the  

opportunity to speak on any item that the ag that  that the the dis can address. I noticed your last   meeting on Saturday had about six people from the  public out of over 40,000 people that live here.   I think that's not a whole lot of participation  and I don't know why you're afraid of the   participation but I I Anyway, number 10A the  marina downtown. Oh, before I talk about that,   the uh the person for the code enforcement  that you're going to appoint, they used to   allow those people to answer questions from the  public. They stopped allowing them to do that.   I've never had a highly paid professional person  like the people that are deciding at that dis   at that uh code enforcement meeting. I've never  seen it take them more than 2 minutes to answer   a question. The only woman working there answered  my question that I had wasted hours dealing with   code enforcement officers on in 38 seconds. But  now you no longer allow that for the public. the   downtown marina. You have uh spent $120,000. Do  you still at this point know how many spaces are   provided for the public for the over 40,000 people  that live here to park in the downtown arena with   your current plan to have 162 apartments. Each one  is going to be rented at more than double what the   uh St. Joe Corporation is paying for their hotel  and restaurant more than double 26,000 and they're   giving you $10,550 in exchange for over $2  million in income because of the location.   You are giving away the most valuable thing  that this city owns. I moved here 21 years ago  

because I was within two miles of two different  marinas, both of which were owned by the public.   The St. Andrews Marina is openly disrespected  by the people that now run it for the next 34   years. More than six months out of the first  year that they were in operation, they closed   off all of the boat parking for the people using  the boat ramp and they ripped out the casino,   the uh covered area. And I guess nine months from  now or whenever you start work on the bulkhead,   you're gonna have to you're gonna have to tear out  the trees, too. I mean, what is for the public?   When are you going to do right by the people  that live here? You are giving away something   very valuable and you are asking for nothing for  the people that live here, but a 2% kickback and I   find it offensive. Thank you. Anyone else want to  speak about the remaining agenda items today? To   clarify, the the boat ramp parking was only closed  for them to do their construction process and   the pavilion was moved by the city uh due to life  safety issues. We definitely want anyone else want   to speak today about the remaining agenda items.  Yes, ma'am. Come on down. Commissioner Gordon. Good morning. Julie Gordon, film Commissioner,  2118 Ben Oak Court, Panama City Beach. I just   wanted to preempt any questions that may come  up over the commercial that we are um going to   be able to shoot hopefully on May 27th. Uh we  are going to allow for marine traffic as well   as pedestrial traffic. So, I just didn't want  anybody to think we're just stopping everything.   The walkers that come through daily, they're  definitely welcome. And we're going to have   some added um bonuses for those people as well,  as well as the folks that are at the marina should   this pass. So, thank you so much. Thank you. I  think it's really cool that y'all have chosen here  

and thank you very much for shooting downtown.  Very cool. Any other participation on the agenda   items remaining? Seeing none, I'm closing public  comments. Moving on to the consent agenda. As a   reminder, items 9 C and was removed. And I will  entertain a motion to accept items 9A through 9F   with the exception of 9 C. Motion to approve.  Second. Any discussion? Please call the role.   Commissioner Granger, yes. Commissioner Street,  yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner Lucas,   yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes 5-0.  We are now on item 10A. Commissioner Hughes,   you are up. Thank you, Mayor. Um, as we step  closer to hopefully getting the the marina   bid out for the slips and we have met Dole and  they've come back. Um, I think it's fair before   the bids start going out and coming back that  we clean the slate and have um the downtown   arena with no obligations from the city to move  forward. For example, um I inherited I and the   mayor inherited um all these projects and one of  which this one had an interim agreement um and   the interim agreement centered around setting  up the fuel down there as well as um with CMP   that we was already in involved with u as well as  doing other work and and planning and projects And it was understood that in the interim  agreement if if they didn't if we didn't   move forward that we would pay  them uh for their time plus 20%. And so 3-2 vote happened and CMP we severed our  relationship with them. And um I'd like to make  

sure that the agreement that we that that  y'all created, the last commission created,   that we honor that and and pay that so that we can  move forward. Just like um we're I would imagine   that we're going to pay St. Joe for the $400,000  that we have contracted with them to design u the   concept for. Just like we paid Wooden Partners,  I'm sure just like we paid do coal, I'm sure.   there's no reason to pay this other partner who  we have a contract with. Uh the I've said before   that the problems with a contract, they start at  the beginning when we're writing it. We just don't   know when they show up. And anything that happens  inside the four corners of that contract is all   that we need to matter be concerned about. All  the other chatter and what I think what I don't   like and or do like that doesn't I don't get  to um u use that as a reason not to pass it.   Uh, for purposes of cost, I thought I would  um just point out that if we do pay St. Joe   what we owe them per slip, we'll be paying $2,666  per slip. If we do pay the $98,000 today to CMP,   we'll pay them $1,963 per slip. Okay? And none  of that would have happened if the city hadn't   asked CMP or actually the Harrison guys to uh  go get the the permits. They're responsible for   that. And and part of that that fee is in here.  So I would respectfully request that today that   we that I'd like to make a motion that we pay the  the the money that has been uh the invoice that's   been submitted and we get that paid off before  the bids go out. um so that the bidding pop the   bidding companies know that there's nothing on  the marina that can be can be a stall point for  

um when the bids are opened up. We have a motion  on the table. Do I have a second? Second. Okay,   let's discuss it. I feel like we've already taken  this action. I'll read our minutes from January.   It says, "Commissioner Street, motion for approval  to get the monetary amount from the city marina   partners and settle up on what expenses were  incurred in on the interimm agreement and allow   city marina partners and any other owners to bid  on the project." City clerk treasurer Janet Smith   clarified the motion is to settle up with Marina  Partners and allow CMP or any other owners to bid   the project. City attorney Zimmerman advised the  commission advised the commission would like to   terminate the interim agreement. There was a roll  call vote. We voted 50. So I don't know what that   agreement said that we paid them money. We did  not that the agreement says that we paid them   the all we did was is all we did was terminate  the agreement. I believe the dispute is on what   is allowable expenses um to be um to be build  to the city. I think that you already took care   of the 20%. You had that removed. Okay. So that  that part, you're right, that did not qualify.   But it's my understanding through talking to staff  and the and the attorneys that everything that's   on there is is allowable. I believe that it's  my understanding that you have a problem with   the with the hourly rate and and so the hourly  rate, which was not anywhere part of the interim   agreement that you helped craft, should not be a  consideration right now because what you crafted   was a $250,000 cap just like with the St. Joe,  just like with Dober Cole and just like with Wind   Partners. So, you're saying that we should pay  $450 an hour for every meeting that they've had.   I'm saying we should pay $98,500. I don't care  what it costs. I don't care the alley rate. I care   about that. We have a contract that says something  and we're not we're not following it. We we did it  

the other day, okay, to bring back your f your  your extension on the due diligence. We have   contracts, gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, and  we need to follow them. And we need to do it with   with with what's inside of there and not create a  reason not to. But this is a perfect example right   here. If I'm a bidder, I'm concerned about bidding  on the marina because this problem I want it to   go away. Not my intent is is to have it cleaned  up so that we can have an open discussion with a   bidder and they know that they can move forward  on this arena. That's it. So, um, you know,   every department, even my own house, actually, we  had a bunch of AC work done about three weeks ago,   and my wife looked down the the quote that we got  and said, "You guys didn't put the air grill in   that you we paid for in this agreement, and they  came and put the air it was $150 little air air   intake grill." But every department at the cities,  their job is when they put out a a a contract that   has a scope of work is when they get a bill back  is to go, did we get what we paid for? And you   know, I played a role in potentially all these  questions because I got I got the hourly rate   time log submitted to us. And my my when I look  at this agreement, it was a figure out how we get   boat slips study. And what was submitted back to  us was line items for amphitheater feasibility,   traffic flow of patterns of traffic on the  marina. It wasn't about the slips. They submitted   a document to me that seemed out of scope that  related to a project that they pitched to us,   not what we asked of them. Now, I'm not an  attorney. But I sent Nevin an email and said,   "Seems like we didn't agree to a lot of this stuff  of like they're figuring out that we're not paying   them to figure out their project. We're figuring  out how how to do a project on in the slips." And   I said, "It seems like this is cuz if I if if you  came in to a car wash, my family owns car used to   own a car wash. you came into the car wash and  I rotated your tires and changed the brake pads   and you were like, I just came here for the car  wash. Um, there would be a problem. And and so  

I'm I'm lean I'm asking the attorneys is the work  the time log submitted. We didn't submit it. They   submitted their time log of here's what you owe  us. Here's what we worked on seemed out of scope   to me. The the the non attorney and that's what I  asked seemed out of scope for me too, but I don't   do I mean I'm not an industry expert. How can you  say it seemed out of scope for you when that's not   what you do? Well, it it is what we do when we  have to vote on it. Um, number one. Number two,   what I'm hearing is the hourly rate which was  contracted in the beginning that we agreed to.   Yes or no? No. No. Okay. Then secondly, the scope  concerns that the mayor has just uh addressed. So,   it hasn't been paid and how do we determine what  is to be paid to move it forward? Would you like   I could provide some context for us. Uh this is uh  the issue is the interim agreement and the interim   agreement the purpose of it was to do some work uh  interim work that's why it was called an interim   agreement one was to uh provide some fueling  stations uh or at least one and then the other was   to continue pursuing permitting and design work  of the uh uh of the wet slips and the agreement   And the purpose also was this was during  discussions for a long-term agreement. And the   uh provision was that if uh a long-term agreement  was entered into the work associated with the   permitting and the design would not be paid. It  would be rolled into the long-term agreement.   But then the agreement has a clause that says that  in the event the parties fail to reach a mutually   agreeable long-term relationship within uh the  term of this agreement, the city will reimburse  

CMP for all reasonably incurred engineering and  consultant costs associated with the design and   permitting of the basins basins at actual cost  plus 20%. Um this is work that uh was done by the   actual parties and not independent consultants. Uh  but they were they they were acting as consultants   but they weren't independent they were related.  So when the uh when the agreement was terminated,   the interim agreement was terminated, the request  went to CMP. Uh what cost do you have that haven't   been reimbursed that already been reimbursed for  the fueling station cost? And this is what was   received. Um, I then placed it on the agenda,  but then later removed it because of some good   questions that were answered and the mayor had  asked some questions in particular and and others   and and to take it back and see if there was any  any further information that I could provide for   the commission prior to asking you to vote on it.  And some of the questions were what we've already   heard is that first we got a time sheet and then  we got a narrative description of what was done.   So if you read the two together it tells the  story of of the work that was done and under   the contract then the city is to reimburse for  engineering consultant cost associated with design   and permitting of the basins. I went back to CMP  and I said, 'Look, these questions have come up.   Is there any more information you can provide? Is  there anything you'd like to do different? I had   not pushed the issue. Um, you know, uh, so I I  have not until Commissioner Hughes put it on the  

agenda, I then revisited it with CMP. Um, as far  as is there anything to add? Um and and as of yet   they're not they're not saying they won't give us  it more information. They just haven't and I have   not pushed it. So that's where it is. If it's  something the commissioners would like to you   know get resolved sooner rather than later which  I do think is a good idea in light of the bids   coming back. We can uh go go back and see what  can be accomplished and maybe provide you give   me input now. That would be helpful. And then I  can go back. We should from the if we if we look   at it from the prism of we wanted a clean slate  for the public. Oh no, that's not the I'm looking   through. I want to pay for the scope of work  that we agreed to the contract. But but Alan,   we didn't negotiate that deal. We you got you got  that much of this. If the contract outlined what   we were trying to do and they came back with more  than we anticipated, they should have said, "Hey,   the scope of work has changed." Do we need to add  up all the hours that you got with them? They're   charging points. They did. They charge they charge  a lot. I had no idea actually they would charge me   and that's fine. I I'm willing to pay for those.  I never said I'm not going to me personally I   will always pay for what is in the scope of work  submitted. But if you submit things that seemingly   might be outside the scope of work, we should have  that discussion. That's why So let's talk about   the amphitheater. You know why that happened?  No. And I would partner showed up. Would partner   showed up but nobody knew about. It was a surprise  and they had to have a meeting about it because   they were involved in trying to figure out parking  where that was going to go. But but nobody told   them about it. So you had to have that. Does that  count as they're trying to understand the project   that they're trying to do? That had no effect on  the slips. That is not an eligible amphitheater   next to next to the to the basin and there was  no parking there. That has everything to do with   slips. I mean that's So So Josh, are you looking  at saying not don't pay him at all? No. Oh,  

no. No. Absolutely not. No. I I believe that we  are ow that number. What's your number? Let's   let's let's make a number and see if if that's  something that they'll take. Commissioner,   I'm trying to find something to make it go  away. Commissioner Hughes, you have presented   us today under your commissioner's report section  a discussion. Um, so you're asking us to come up   with a dollar amount in the moment to to pay for  a contract that nobody up here disagrees that they   did work. Right. Nobody nobody is saying that that  that they did work and that they're not supposed   to be paid. Right. Right. So everybody up here is  in agreement that they did work and they should   be paid. Okay. Okay. But to to come and hand us  a stack two stacks of paper and then say, "Hey,   let's decide today and right now." I I'm I am not  prepared for that. I'm prepared for the agenda   at hand, but I'm not prepared for for something  to be dropped in and then say, "Hey, vote to to   potentially spend $100,000 of taxpayer dollars. I  think they should be paid. I think everybody else   up here says that they should be paid." I think  the argument is over how much. And when we have   a when we have a dollar amount on what that should  be from staff, then we can argue about that dollar   amount. But today, I cannot vote on just spending  $100,000 when I haven't spent enough time to be   prepared to discuss this or be to think about it  because of it wasn't on the agenda. That's fair.   Well, it was on the agenda. Well, it it it was  this wasn't Yeah, that's my point is that I'm   getting I'm getting handed stacks of paper and and  hey, decide how to spend $100,000. Uh that's not   how I like to do business. And so, um honestly, I  didn't know their snacks were coming, by the way.   Okay. But as it stands right now, I I want them  to be paid. I want them to be paid for the work   that they performed, and I'm I voted with you that  I think that that was the best path forward. Yes,  

sir. So, I think they know where I stand with  this, but um today I'm I am I'm a no because of   just the and that's fairness. So, I I'll resend my  motion, but can we have would y'all like to we can   put some pressure on it when we'd like to try to  clean this up before we send out the bids for the   slips? That way we know we got it done. I mean,  that now makes now it makes us really think about   it. That doesn't have to happen today. I I think  we've I think personally we have notated that the   contract is canceled. They have the freedom in our  minutes to go and bid the project if they want to.   This isn't about that, Josh. It's not about them.  We are ready to go out to bid on 50 slips. I'm not   willing to just say stop for us to go back and  forth on a negotiation on on whatever pressure   on us. It's putting pressure on us because  if if we say that if we give that to anybody,   if we were to say, "Hey, we we we are not going  to move forward until we have this other contract   squared away and paid off, then uh they could not  saying that they would do that, but we could find   ourselves in a situation where litigation is  lasting so long we're in this another two years   without 50 slips being built." So, no, not on our  on our side of the table's fault, if that makes   sense. I mean, yeah, I think I think I'm talking  about the litigation piece, but I would rather   not get into that. I'd rather move forward with  both efforts. I just think that we should put a   timeline on when this contract should be squared  away. That should be the best thing, not tied   to anything else about before we accept any bid  because it's going out for 60 days. Not putting   a false pressure ourselves to negotiate a cont. So  my biggest thing is from now on I don't want such   vague contracts that don't have caps that I want  much clear contracts of scope of work checkpoints   uh caps uh and I don't like surprise I don't think  anyone likes surprise invoices and that's what we   have here is um is a little bit of a surprise and  so I also go back to process because at some point  

as that process was happening uh we the city knew  they were meeting we knew knew we had them under   contract and we knew it was in reference to the  downtown marina. None of that was clarified. So,   I I don't agree that it was like, oo, it's a  surprise like they're trying to get over on   us. But it was a process that was followed that  um created where we are now. And so if we can   clarify our operating processes and be more  mindful of what we contract people to do and   that we not ask or set up situations where they  operate outside of the scope. I think one of the   things that came out of a conversation I had with  Deon is any consultant that we use should be on a   monthly contract. Like we we should be able to see  invoicing, not see stuff stack up for 6 months and   then be surprised. Oh, I didn't know I was I was  getting charged for that meeting. I had no idea. I   didn't know that. I didn't know that. So, I think  monthly invoicing would have avoided probably a   lot of this and it would have been caught very  early on. Um I would have asked the question   much earlier on. Um so, you know, so I I do think  there's a lesson to be learned here. Uh just for a   couple of things for clarification as we go back  and uh even though I'm still young in my career,   I do learn things and I think this is all very  helpful and uh but but just to put it in context   um you know the offer was made because we have  been involved in permitting u the William Harrison   and Cooper then we can continue working on  permitting and don't worry about the cost because   we're hoping, you know, that we're going to have a  successful conclusion to a long-term relationship,   but only if something happens would we be entitled  to be uh compensated. I think next time we have a  

separate consulting contract rather than trying  to roll it all up into one. And I think that's   an excellent uh idea. And uh and it was just an  unusual situation where you had a proposer that   was also you know had been actively gifted and  getting an exemption from the uh permitting and   all. So that's that's the context but we can  work our way through it. But what I've heard   is that there's u issues about what are those  reasonable hourly rates that a consultant would   charge and that's something that we can obviously  I will go back also the other thing I've heard is   that is the time that was submitted related to  the scope and the scope although it's general   it's also fairly specific it has to be associated  with the design and permitting of the basins. So,   the scope of work has to be related to that.  So, I will go back and get more information on   that. And if you think of anything else after  this meeting, I know you'll let me know and   uh I'll work on that as well. Don't open that  door for them. It applies It doesn't apply to you,   Commissioner Hughes. Thank you. The motion has  been rescended. Yes. And uh we're moving on to   item 10B. Yeah. So I don't I don't plan on making  this a very long discussion. Um you know, as we've   gone through this um we are are maybe getting a  little more refined in what we're trying to tackle   involving historic buildings in our city. I would  like to see us move forward with something that is   one acknowledging the um the national things that  are on the national register. We have about seven   buildings that are in the city. I'd like to see  us protect those from an esmality standpoint. Um,  

and perhaps we want to do further work by  a historic preservation board on additional   items beyond that. So, I I'm really asking for  today is are we at the point where um we can give   instruction to staff to bring us back something  on historic preservation and ordinance for us to   to vote on and craft in the way that um we would  like to see it fit. Um I'm supportive of the the   premise of protecting old buildings and then uh  incentivizing rehabilitation. My concern is the in   the draft findings and research we have um ongoing  requirements of inspections from architects and   engineers on people who own old buildings. I  think there are other ways to do that without   putting a burden because that just that that cost  gets passed through to the the tenant. Um Ocala,   there's a bunch of other examples. That's my only  my only fear. I think it's great feedback as long   as it's as long as it's city buildings only and  no private buildings. No, I will we'll disagree.   Okay. Because Okay. Um no private buildings and  making no mandatory private buildings. It has   to be voluntary. If if somebody's already added  their building to the National Historic Registry,   they have already voluntarily submitted to the  process of getting a governmental designation   for historic. I think that should be very  clear. Voluntary, not mandatory. Yeah. I mean,   and I own a building on the National Register.  I I voluntarily own this. Right. So, so how a   potential path forward because I I'm kind of torn  on this one. A potential path forward could be   uh if if you're if you want to participate, it's  completely voluntary, but if you then go and add   from from this point forward, if you go and you  add your building to the National Registry, then   uh you would fall underneath these things that  we're we're looking to potentially create. I I   would that's not how Josh and the reason why  the the reason why is like St. Andrew School   is a great example of that. Um right now it has a  national historic registry designation on it. Um  

you know the potential of seeing that removed  from that is um is a fear that that all of us   have in the community that want to see historic  buildings protected. Um I would say the same   thing with any of the facilities. If someone  has voluntarily gone through the process of   being on the national registry, that means they  are acknowledging that there is historic value   in the building. We should be willing as a city to  provide the additional protections that are needed   to see that. And you know, there's various ways  to accomplish that. Now, other ones, you know,   what else gets added on to that? I think that  there's there's other ways of accomplishing that,   but I would like a baseline of if you're on  the registry and we have all of the historic   buildings in the entire county and so and so I I  would say we would automatically add those in and   then additional ones could be voluntary, could  be some type of process. Talk to the private   owners. That's where the sticking point is is the  addition and who determines whether it's voluntary   or whether we the city say it's mandatory. Mhm.  Yeah. But these are all private people that you're   going to tell what they got to do with their with  their business. The only thing the only thing I'm   asking for to not be voluntarily is if it is a  national recognized historic building now that   it be protected. Um have you asked every one  of these business property owners, are they   okay with you telling them just because they made  a decision a while back to do something, now they   now we're going to tell them what they can do with  it. Well, you have two that have deed restrictions   on them right now to be a restored. They don't  have a choice. That's because the seller putting   them on there when they sold the property. That  that's not the government telling them. So,   why don't we just have a meeting with them and  and have the conversation instead of putting the   thumb on them and saying you can't do this now at  least owned by government entities. Huh. I think   a couple of them are owned by government. Well,  the San Andrew school is city hall. That's why.   So there there are um this actually is one of the  of of all the historic preservation ordinances  

with the exception of the inspections, one of the  weakest criteria of buildings. Uh most cities when   you walk around you go, "Man, this place looks  cool. They got a lot of old buildings." 20 years   before you arrive, it starts with an ordinance  like this where everyone gets pissed about and   uh and then 10 years later, you go, "Wow, they  got a lot of nice old buildings." And they've   created a culture where they save buildings.  They they cherish their buildings. They tell the   stories of their buildings. But it all goes back  before you've arrived and noticed the buildings,   someone has protected them and upset them. I  agree with you. I think we have as a as a city   lost treasures that we should have preserved.  I I definitely agree with that and I like the   idea of creating the culture. The question  I think Commissioner uh Hughes is raising is   are we going to mandate the culture and before  we move to ordinance having that conversation   with those business owners and with community  or those property owners and with community I   think is a a natural next step together with not  mandated by you know part of it u I agree with   that part of it like uh you know I won't be here  on the earth forever and you're almost protecting   ing my buildings from my children tearing them  down. And so, uh, you know, maybe one day my   my children are like, "My darn dad, you know,  helped push this ordinance that that protects   the buildings that we we own." But I had buildings  on the National Register, you know, the sap houses   is and the and the county was going to tear  that one down for a parking lot for 12 spaces.   And it took uh you know uh the county being  collaborative and and recognizing that structure   and it took you know a couple of us putting in  money where it made no sense and creating the   culture of you know downtown has old buildings  and we don't rush to make things parking lots you   know and it is it's so much easier just to tear  something down and start new construction is way   easier and I believe there are others who share  the sentiment that you just expressed who have   the means who would do it. The process that we  move to get us there I think is what's important.  

So, if if it if it's okay with the board, could  we give um just simple verbal instruction to staff   to try to craft something that meets what the  criteria is of the feedback of the board? I'd   rather table follow Commissioner Lucas's um idea  and let's let's talk to these let's talk to these   property owners. We talk to ourselves right now  because you said city hall, but I mean we kind   of need to know what we're asking them to do. Like  exactly, Mr. Granger. It's not either or both. And   uh we can direct them to include these community  conversations as part of what they craft to bring   to us. Fully support that. Well, and and we I  agree. And then we could totally pair that with   and if you're willing to rehab the building and  save it, we have great taxes. We have aggressive   tax incentives in our CRAAS. So I like that.  Okay. Feel like you is there consensus to to   work on that? There's sounds like you know a  few of us. No, there's not. Do we would you like   government was not a good idea. I would appreciate  there's nothing consensus. I would appreciate a   vote. Okay. So Devon appreciates a vote. Um so  I'll I'll motion to um instruct staff to work   towards a historic preservation um ordinance as  well as discussion with each one of the owners   of historic buildings um to get feedback on what  that may look like. Mhm. So, Commissioner Hughes,   you an ordinance or or or a um framework. It's  it's both. It's both. It would be the framework   would be have a problem how it's implemented,  right? You have a problem with telling private   citizens what they can and can't do on their own  property. And I have the same concern, right? But,   um I do think that that there there should  we should tell staff, hey, go ahead and work   on this so that we can see what it looks  like before we before we move forward. So,   um, that's all I'm saying about that is. So, is  that framework going to be mandatory or is it  

going to be volunteer? Sounds like we're going to  discuss it. Sounds like we're going to discuss.   Maybe multiple choice. That works. We need  more to discuss. No, there's a consensus there,   Ne. Okay. I have a I have a motion on the  floor. Do I have a second? I'll second. Oh,   you want you're make That's what Neot discussion  the motion. Yeah, we state the motion to give   instruction to staff crafting working towards  an ordinance um as well as discussion on um   with the historic property owners in the city  um to solicit feedback in the crafting of that. No help. No, because what's the ordinance going to  say? We don't know. That's you create an ordinance   with you're going to get I literally gave no  instruction to what that ordinance looks like. I   mean I can't get any more broad than this. Talk to  staff and provide your inputs into it. Any other   discussion on the at the motion hand? Seeing none,  please call the role. Commissioner Granger, yes.   Commissioner Street, yes. Commissioner Hughes,  yes. Commissioner Lucas, yes. Mayor Branch, yes.   Motion passes 5-0. 12 A. All right. Item 12 A is  consideration to approve budget budget amendment   resolution number 2026 2020 20260414.1 to utilize  infrastructure sir tax funds in the amount of   92,321 and 0 cents for bid PC26-0 generators  for fire stations 1 2 and 6 and when retrofit   is background information on March 10th of 2026  the commission approved invitation to bid PC26010   generators for fire station 12 and 6 win retrofit  to BGN contractors in the amount of $624,000. The   Florida Division of Emergency Management is in  the process of approving the amendment to the HMGP   agreement grant number 800727 and M000093 for the  budget increase and it's just going through the  

uh through the paperwork process right now. The  current construction budget for the grant is   531679. The budget the budget amendment will cover  the budget increase of 92,321000 and director   uh sorry uh staff recommendation um through the uh  fire chief and the city manager's office is that   the commission approved the budget amendment  resolution 2026414.1 and I'll just note that   that is we're just in the interim using the sir  tax funds in order to keep the project moving as   quick as possible but we've already been given  the approval on the budget amendment resolution   we're just working on updating the paperwork and  the uh in the purchase order process. Mr. Mayor,   I will entertain a motion to accept. Motion to  accept. Second. Any discussion? I do. Um so,   one of the things that I I talked to them about  is two things. One is procuring before we have the   grant agreement in place puts the infrastructure  sax money at risk. Um, second is if things don't   go the way that things are described, um, this  will be the second time I've brought this up   specifically with this pocket of funding  is that we need to be notified as a board   when things don't go the way that we intend them.  This I do believe this is an eligible expense for   um, community block development grant funds. Um,  however, you know, we have no way of knowing are   we procuring it the correct way? Are we doing  those things? And I think it would be prudent   to either one wait or two require notification  um if things don't go the way that they they're   they're intended to right now. I'll modify my  motion to include um a requirement for staff to   bring this back to us if they have any reason to  think that it would not be reimbursed by the the   grant that they're seeking. Great. Thank you.  Any discussion? I agree with that amendment.

A modifying second. Any other discussion?  Please call the RO. Commissioner Granger.   Yes. Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner  Hughes. Yes. Commissioner Lucas. Yes. Mayor   Branch. Yes. Motion passes 5. Uh, budget  resolution number 2026414.1. A resolution   providing for the amendment of the approved  fiscal year 2526 budget to utilize infrastructure   sir tax for the fire station 1 2 and six wind  retrofit project. Item 12B is consideration to   approve budget amendment resolution 20260414.2  transferring $93,875 from the law enforcement   training fund to the Panama City Police Department  for training equipment. background information.   The purchase of training equipment and aids will  support a variety of department training programs   including deescalation, defensive tactics, K9,  taser, and firearms training. This equipment be   utilized by all sworn officers to enhance training  capabilities, maintain proficiency, and support   safe and effective service to our community. Staff  recommendation to the chief of police is that the   commission approve this request. I will entertain  a motion. Motion to approve. Do I have a second?   Second. Any discussion? Please call the role.  Commissioner Granger, yes. Commissioner Street,   yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner Lucas,  yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes 5. Like   to read U budget amendment, resolution number  20260414.2, 2, a resolution providing for the   amendment of the approved fiscal year 2526 budget  to utilize funds from the law enforcement training   account for training equipment for the Panama City  Police Department. Uh item 12 C is consideration   to approve budget amendment resolution 20260414.4  four for the use of state forefeiter funds to   purchase a vehicle and equipment for the Panama  City Police Department's mobile command trailer  

in the amount of 105 $105,25. As background  information, the Panama City PD is seeking to   utilize state forfeite funds to purchase a 2026  Ford F450 capable of towing the department's   mobile command trailer along with the materials  and technology equipment needed to outfit the   trailer for operational use. The trailer will  support incident response and large-scale   operations by providing on-site command and  communication platform. Staff recommendation to   the chief of police is the commission approved  this request. Mr. Mayor, I will entertain a   motion. Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion?  Please call the role. Commissioner Granger,   yes. Commissioner Street, yes. Commissioner  Hughes, yes. Commissioner Lucas, yes. Mayor   Branch, yes. Motion passes 50. Commission  has adopted resolution number 20260414.4.   4, a resolution providing for the amendment of the  approved fiscal year 2526 budget to utilize state   forfeite funds to purchase a vehicle and equipment  for the mobile command center for the Panama City   Police Department. Item 12D is consideration to  approve budget amendment resolution 20260414.5 to   accept and expend funds from the 2025 Edward Burn  Memorial Justice Assistance Grant in the amount   of $25,290 and approve a transfer of $1,014 from  the general fund to the grant fund to complete   the purchase of swap ballistic vest for the Panama  City Police Department. Staff recommendations to   the chief of police is the commission approve  this request. Mr. Mayor, I will entertain a   motion to approve. Motion to approve. Second. Any  discussion? Please call the role. Commissioner   Granger, yes. Commissioner Street, yes.  Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner Lucas, yes.   Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes. 5-0. Commission  has adopted resolution number 20260414.5. A resolution providing for the amendment  of the approved fiscal year 2526 budget to  

accept and expend funding from the 2025  Edward Burn Memorial Justice Assistance   Grant for the purchase of ballistic vests  for the Panama City Police Department.   Item 12E is consideration to approve budget  amendment resolution 202604 oh sorry 0414.6   six for the purchase of a small street  scrubber for uh the streetscapes areas   uh parks paths, pedestrian areas, and  other parks in the amount of $218,340. As background information, uh the city currently  does not have the proper equipment to efficiently   claim the new Harrison Avenue streetscape pavers  uh as well as other areas around the city and our   parks uh with smaller sidewalks and paths. This  sweeper scrubber includes a 10,000 liter water   tank will give us the ability to not only again  scrub the pavers, but also has the appropriate   attachments to clean sidewalks, multi-use  path, and other pedestrian and gathering areas   around our entire city as requested by the city  commission at the November 18th, 2025 meeting.   An RFP for outside operators for specialty street  sweeping and cleaning was done and a cost analysis   calculated comparing the cost of purchasing  and operating the equipment in house versus   outsourcing this work to an outside operator. This  comparison has been documented in a memo that is   included in this background information and shows  a significant savings giving assumed service   levels by keeping this operation in house. Staff  recommendation through the director of public   works is that the commission approve this request  in the accompanying budget amendment resolution.   Mr. Mayor, I will take entertain a motion to  accept. Motion to accept. Second. Do I have any   discussion? Yes, we do. If y'all haven't figured  out, I'm the guy who doesn't like a lot of this   stuff up here and tries to change it. So, um, all  right. Can we agree on something? Let me ask yall   a question. In our conversation last time, was our  discussion around in the 2027, was it around every  

every sidewalk and park? Was it around putting out  an RFP that required that you either use the same   scrubber or or uh really the RFP was set up to  really make it be about using the same scrubber.   If you read the RFP, um I don't believe that our  conversation and our vote match the RFP and the   scope of work. And if you you've had to read the  RFP and looked at it in order to get there, that's   my first issue. The second issue is um staff's  comparison. Uh there's some pretty big holes in it   um when it comes to the city side in my opinion.  Uh, and that helps get to the $675,000 savings,   which I think is incorrect. Um, so, so first  question is, would you all agree that that   the scope of work that we asked for and the  conversation that we centered around was Harrison   Avenue? The cobblestone is why we needed this.  Remember it that we are too heavy for this. We we   have two street sweepers that one never works, I'm  told. Um, you know, it's always one is broken. Um,   that's Allan said last time, you know, hey  Jonathan, why didn't we why didn't we clean   that up after the after the Christmas parade? Oh,  it was broken. Um, and so now we need this new one   to take care of the cobblestone, but now it's  expanded into this this massive uh construction   uh sweeping project, but even into 2027. I mean,  there's things in there that we never even were   talked about with us. So it's makes it so that  there's a savings 100% by keeping it in house   because the RFP was also done not on an hourly  basis. Okay, but by a a base bid basis and staff   told us that that the city pays $18 an hour and  that the the company pays $30 an hour. I don't   know how he how that was extrapolated out since  that's nowhere in the bid package which we did  

not receive. Okay, I hadn't asked for a copy of  that. Um, so my concern is is that we're we are   dealing with information that is incomplete and  we and that the staff um um side of this on on   um the in-house part, we don't even factor in the  full-time employment and all that that goes with   that. Okay. So, I'm concerned that we have a  number here that is not correct. And I would   like for us to table this. Um I'd like for us to  not buy it, but um I'd like for us to table this.   But this is proof that remember it's the gift  that keeps on giving. Okay? And we can't get our   numbers right here. And we're we're comparing an  apple to an orange here. And my concern is is that   the numbers are are wrong today and they're going  to be wrong tomorrow. Okay. I'll add some stuff,   you know, cuz I voted against this last time.  Yes. And you know, being a private business owner,   I can make purchases and I don't have to justify  them to anybody. Well, maybe my wife. Yeah.   And so if I want to buy some new equipment and  history classes, my partner and I would go like,   well, it doesn't we don't have to have much  justification. But we as elected officials,   our job is we have to explain the decisions that  we make. And so when this was initially presented,   it was like, we need a street super for  Harrison Avenue. And it was like, okay,   well, we're not buying a piece of equipment just  for Harrison Avenue. And that's when staff went   out and said, okay, well, you can use it for  a whole bunch of other stuff. I said, well,   that has to be in the packet so that the public  can see it, that we can explain, point at it, and   not just verbally. We we need we need our job is  to ask them is to ask questions and their job is   to answer them so that we can answer them for the  public. And so um the other the other thing that   we said was maybe this should be privatized. You  know I'm I'd like to see things privatized when we   can save money and deliver a high higher level of  service. And and it was you are correct. One of my   feedback and my concerns was before I was elected,  it was after the Christmas parade and I was up out  

there picking up trash that was blown all the  way to Jinx Avenue. And so part of our job is   codif making policy is and so for me my policy is  we I my expectation of a vendor is the same of our   staff which is I want uh after just specifically  after parades they should be cleaned up within six   six to 12 hours because what happens is you wait  and they blow everywhere and so to me if if staff   is is doing a street sweeping a failure of that  department is not being able to clean up after a   parade. And so that's that's the lens I go, okay,  if they can't do that, then we should privatize   it. But they did the the exercise and and you're  saying the the exercise of justification of   internal versus external wasn't it was apples to  oranges. Um that I don't know. Um I I know that   they answer the questions I had um with with  putting it out and and showing other uses of   this machine. And so I I went from a no to like  a okay, you answered my questions kind of thing.   though. So, would would you say that would you  say that? Well, have you did anybody look at the   bid package cuz it wasn't given to us? Did you ask  for it? No. Okay. So, let me pull it up here. Um, we asked um in clarifications I think that the bid we did not ask to put out an  RF for somebody to come in and street sweep with   the machine that we're going to buy, did we? That  was not in our that was not our vote. But the bid   requires that. That was it was a clarification  that if you're not that's what we want you to   sweep with. And if not, we have to approve your  your street sweeper. That's what it's that was   in the clarification. Well, the whole point was  the pavers and the and sidewalks and maneuver.   But that drives the cost up. But do you think it  was unreasonable to to have that in the RFP when  

we know that if we don't set those parameters,  then what is used could ultimately destroy or   badly damage the investment that we've made in the  streets. Yeah. Saying you need a dump truck and   then they can be. It has to be It has to be about  the same size. It doesn't have to be that one is   what I'm saying. It can be a similar machine,  same size, but not that make model that that   would be okay. How much cheaper do you think the  an alternative machine would be? I'm not worried   about I'm not worried about the cost there. I'm  worried about the requirement that we did not put   in this this RFP and what we voted on are not  the same. This this whole thing is predicated   on that they did what we asked them to do and  that and I dis 100% disagree that they did what   we asked them to do. We asked them to go out and  get a service contract and then they should have   said these are all the things that we're going to  ask for and that's not what happened. We saw that   only when we got this package and then it did not  show what the actual bid was and now we know why   because it's not an hourly contract. It's a base  bid contract. Did the vendor that that responded,   did they contact you with this information? No,  I wouldn't dude I wouldn't d I've been doing   a lot of homework on this. Yeah. Yeah, I know.  Clearly. I mean, for me on this hill, part part   of what our job is is whenever someone I always  feel a little blind side when someone's like,   "Everyone's complaining about a thing." I'm like,  "I didn't get any complaints." So, if I would have   gotten street sweeper companies from across the  country going, "Man, we could have knocked this   out of the park if this RFP would have been  worded differently," I would have been like,   "Oh, whoa, whoa, whoa." But I didn't get any. No  one said there's no local vendors that said, "Oh,   if you change the specs of the RFP, maybe what  we're hearing is when are y'all going to clean   the pavers because they're starting to look pretty  bad." Look, Mr. Murphy, our public works, did a   lot of work on this. I'm sure be happy to answer  any questions, Mr. Mayor. So, I I would just like  

to to make a a few comments before Clint talks.  One, this is the this is one of the first items   that have come up since we had our vote on giving  backup documentation to um to validate the ongoing   cost when we purchase a piece of equipment. Um I  think this is it's a good moment for refinement.   to some of Robbie's points is like, hey, like  the actual cost of a city employee is not to   $18 and so we need to make sure that we've got an  accurate amount. Um maybe there could have been   alternatives in this. But what what I'm what I  come to because of this exercise is still helpful   even if those those amounts were off because it  shows a almost $700,000 savings over the period   of period of you know 3 years. And you know even  if there was a different machine that was $50,000   difference even if their numbers are off by  twice on on the um on the employee count they're   still showing an in-house savings. Okay. Where  are the call outs on the in-house cost? Where   are the call outs? What we're requiring from the  vendor, we're not requiring them ourselves. Okay,   that's the problem. This this comparison is not  the same. So, so when when it says the contract   up here for $230,000, that's inclusive of all of  his equipment and his insurance and his and his   employees, everything. And all we're showing is a  little bit. And you're and you're saying that you   think our costs are under that this is actually  going to cost us extremely under $675,000 over the   over over. So next year we should be three thou  $300,000 more than what the next we if we save   $675,000 I'll give you my s my next three years  salary. Okay. That ain't a lot from around here,  

but you know that's uh that but that is that is  wrong. It is we are not going to save $675,000.   I think I Clint you've got the opportunity to  kind of explain. Thank you. Uh Clint Murphy, your   director of public works. So uh our staff has done  a considerable amount of work on this. It's been   5 months since we brought this before you before  and uh we've got about between legal purchasing   and public works probably 60 hours worth of  work that we put in since then uh on the piece   of equipment. So we've done a lot of research on  what works with those papers and we came up with   this specific piece of equipment. So what we asked  of the contractor in the bid was that you produce   this machine or something similar. So, we did  not require this particular piece of equipment,   but we wanted the ability to approve something  that we knew would work. The wording in that   clip was not exactly that easy. It was y'all very  much strongly encouraged, okay, that this piece   of equipment be used. That's how or something  similar. Okay. Or but very strongly encouraged and   then or something similar that you had to approve.  Yes. Does that keep a bidder out? No. No, it does   not. We use that kind of language on a pretty  regular basis. Okay. So, in addition, so we did,   and there's a picture of Matt running. Can you  go to the next slide, please? That's great. Um,   so we did establish a basic service level of what  we anticipated needing. And then on top of that,   we did ask for hourly rates associated with  special events and emergencies like a oil spill   or a hydraulic spill. So we anticipated those  and they did provide an hourly rate for those.   We also considered overtime for our employees  that would have to cover the same. So yes,  

we it was apples to apples. No, where where  in your in your comparison are our full-time   employees? There are none. But we're going to use  existing staff. That's we're going to use existing   staff. We're going to cross trainin people in our  PCR department. Y'all char y'all charge us all the   time from people going back and forth. I want it  in here too. If you look at the last line before   the total, it talks about overtime. So that's the  call out. That's the emergencies and that is the   uh special events. Okay. So $50 of overtime at  what number? I don't have I don't have those. But   you required you required it of the of the bidder.  Why don't you have the number for us? I I do have   those numbers. It was provided uh Charles  Gibbs which is our assistant superintendent   uh did these calculations and he had all those  numbers but I can get those for you and I would   have been happy to sit down and talk with you  before this meeting. I'd love to see these   numbers anytime we get promised. I mean the same  with the vendor if we when we ever we get this   um Jonathan same with the asphalt crew anytime  we're given projections we want to know those   ongoing when things are going ary uh and so uh is  there any other questions for Yeah. Yeah. I want   to I just I do want to make sure that moving  moving forward I I understand what Robbie is   saying. Let's make sure that we've actually got  the staff time allocated to whatever's happening.   So if these are if they're spending 40 hours a  week doing this, that would be nice to see in your   comparisons. And so um but I did not catch that.  So that's why I didn't ask. Well, we're not going   to fundamentally move the number agree that it  should be included. Yeah. Yeah. So, originally we   did consider an extra staff member and we did the  same calculation and there was still considerable   savings. It's about roughly $100,000 less than  what we're showing. How about do this? How about   do a comparison the way you asked the bidder to  do the the way you you fill out the the you you  

knew the bid the same way we asked the bidder to  do the bid and not be general like you did here.   Can we do that? We we can. Okay, let's do that.  and let's be let's be transparent in that way   and then then let's come back and talk about it.  Can we do that? I think if you guys are going to   use the existing staff Clint just putting down  the hours like what if it's a level if it's a   maintenance man level two if it's whatever it  is just put those down. I mean I think that's   helpful just just from looking to but I I do agree  with Commissioner Granger's point. I don't think   this is going to fundamentally move the number,  you know, a a massive astronomical amount. So,   I I still agree that there is most likely a  savings bring it in in house. There's a motion   on the table and a second. Any other discussion?  Please call the role. Commissioner Granger, yes.   Commissioner Street, yes. Commissioner Hughes, no.  Commissioner Lucas, yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion   passes 4 to one. Did they make these on a double  X for today? I do have to to leave. I was supposed   to leave 12 minutes ago. Um, thank you very much.  I I do want to say thank you to staff. I hope that   you all support the um what the Bay County um  local agreement the next item coming up and I   also support the girls inc um agreement coming up.  I won't get to vote on it because it won't be here   but I support it. So we'll see what happens. Thank  you. I I would like to read the title. Please do   to the resolution and it is resolution number  20260414.6 Six, a resolution providing for the   amendment of the approved fiscal year 2526 budget  to utilize environmental services fund reserves   to purchase a street sweeper. 12 F. Item 12F is  consideration to approve an interlocal agreement   with the Bay County Board of County Commissioners  and the city of Panama City to apply a roadway   transfers between the two names jurisdictions.  This agreement is authorized by section 163.01 of  

Florida statutes. relevant background information  and the uh local agreements enclosed in your   packet staff recommendations of the director  of public works and the city manager's office   that the uh commission approved this request.  Mr. Mayor, yes, I will entertain a motion to   accept. A motion to approve with the addition of  a reciprocal clause. So, should there be a road   that is 50% uh or above county that the city has,  it should go both ways under the same terms. So,   we're agreeing to the same thing. Do I have a  second? Sure. I'll second it. Any discussion? Please hold the roll. Commissioner Street.  Yes. Commissioner Hughes? Yes. Commissioner   Lucas? Yes. Mayor Branch? Yes. Motion passes  four to zero. Item 12G is consideration of   approval for a long-term lease agreement  with Girls Incorporated of Bay County for   the shared use of the Oakland Terrace Clubhouse  located at 1900 West 11 Street in exchange for   the property located at 1100 Fountain Avenue  with Bay County partial number 18764-10-0000. Relevant background information is enclosed  in your packet. Staff recommendation through   the director of parks, culture, and recreation  as well as the city manager's office is that   the commission approve this long-term lease  agreement and transfer of property. Mr. Mayor,   I will entertain a motion. Motion to  approve. Second. Any discussion? Mayor,   I have a couple of things to add to real  quick. First, I wanted to highlight that   um there's there is a provision in this agreement  uh for payment of the city pays closing costs.   It's not a significant amount. U minimal cost  for uh title insurance, recording fees. Also,   there's a 5% realtor commission based upon the  appraised value of $245,000 and that's shared  

equally between county and reality one group.  That's $12,250 divided by two. So, I mean,   I just wanted to highlight that. The last thing I  wanted to highlight is that there is a provision   that Girls Inc. has requested that I do believe  is reasonable and that is uh in the in the event   there's a hurricane or something else a fire that  renders the Oakland Terrace building unusable that   uh the city would agree to work with Girls Inc.  to find another mutually acceptable space. In   the event that space cannot be find be found,  then remember this is the agreement is it's   uh based upon the fair market value of $245,000.  It's a six-year term and that every year you use a   portion of that $245,000 toward the rental price.  So if in year three the hurricane happens and   and no alternate space can be found then the  unamortized portion of that 245,000 the city   would agree to return to them for example that  would be 1/ half. So it'd be 122,500 would be   given back to Girls, Inc. because they could only  utilize the building for 3 years and not six. And   that would only occur if the city and Girls Inc.  couldn't find an alternate location. That's not   in writing. It's not an unusual provision, but  if you're comfortable, I would suggest that we   add that at the request of Girls, Inc. And did  I fairly state that addition? Okay, I got some   heads nodded. So, yes, we would love for you  guys to be able to find a building sooner if  

you guys get to and I think that's what you guys  would like as well. So, perfect support you guys. Awesome. Is the lease I want to make sure the  lease has all the normal landlord stuff that   specifies who pays for what when things break kind  of stuff, right? It'll it'll be a standard lease.   This is an agreement and I believe that all the  terms we have set out it will not they've worked   with the city on you know the available space for  the city to still use. They've been very easy to   work with and I'm I'm very glad that we're able to  get this done right right before the finish line   of y'all having uh somewhere to go. So yeah, good  to go. Perfect. Anything else? Further discussion.   Please call the RO. Commissioner Street. Yes.  Commissioner Hughes. Yes. Commissioner Lucas.   Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes. Motion passes 4 to zero.  Item 12H is consideration, approval, and execution   of a purchase contract between the city of Panama  City and Jason Cretzer and Katherine Fitz Simmons   Shores concerning the property located at 447  Harrison Avenue known as the Breezeway project.   During our December 16th, 2025 meeting, the  commission voted to approve the proposal submitted   by Jason Cretzer and Katherine Shores request  for proposal PC26-017 for the Breezeway project   located at 447 Harrison Avenue. Staff has met with  the proposal and drafted a property sale contract,   including addendum number one that outlines  the terms of the agreements. In summary,   the city will sell 447 Harrison Avenue for  $10 to Jason Cretzer and Katherine Fitz Simmon   Shores for the development and operation  of retail, restaurant or office spaces,   including two ADA compliant public restrooms and  maintaining the pedestrian walkway. The city will   be responsible for the reasonable maintenance  of the restrooms, including both supplies and   cleaning following completion of the construction  and the seller's acceptance. The closing date   is set for on or before October 30th of this  year. and the construction should be completed  

no later than August 1 of 2027. In the event the  buyer does not meet the development milestones,   the priority the property will revert back to the  city. Staff request direction from the commission   today on their desire for us to move forward with  this proposed agreement between Mr. Cretzer and   Miss Shores. Mr. Mayor. Yeah. The recommendation  is a direction. So, do you want a motion and or   do you want a discussion? going to have random  discussion. Yeah, ultimately there would need if   you want to move forward there a motion before  some direction. I'll make a motion to accept   staff's recommendation to get discussion going.  Okay, I have a second. I'll second uh discussion. Looking for you guys as a lead more than anything.  So, oh, so we're we're asking them to build a   bathroom that we're going to take care of. Um,  so that's giving us an easement on the entire   thing. Is that is are we going to do that? Well,  the easement would exist, Commissioner Hughes,   regardless of the bathrooms. As a reminder, this  is a breezeway. So, you've got the easement for   people to move from Grace to Harrison, but in  addition to that, y'all have said y'all want y'all   want to add bathrooms. Yes. because that it's  going to now be private property in that bathroom.   We're going to make sure that we can have access  to that. I guess that's a good question. Would   the bathroom be considered part of the easement  or separate from that easement? I believe the   easement is for the walkway and uh it would make  sense that we have a use agreement on the restroom   and the use agreement would say it's open to  the public and also that it would the city Yeah.   and the hours in the city would be in in charge  of maintenance obligations. So we will we will we   lock that those doors like we do one at Mackenzie  Park at night. How does that work? Is all that  

how's that going over there at Mackenzie Park? Is  that when my recommendation would be we do similar   hours so that there's a reasonable and consistent  expectation in the public? Um it it's a challenge.   I mean, I think public restrooms are a challenge  in general, but I think based on my observation   that the good outweighs the bad. I mean, I  know a lot of people do use them during times,   but I mean, they they remain a challenge for the  police department and for our parks and recreation   department, but we try to stay on top of it as  much as possible. Would the hours at the park be   uh what's needed in a breezeway given that we've  got restaurants around there? Question. Well,   I think the breezeway would could remain  open, but the bathrooms be secured. So,   you could just like the retail shops would  be secured at, you know, 8 or 9:00. Uh, the   bathrooms could be locked at a different time and  still have that breezeway for say House of Henry   that might be open till midnight. If I understood  your question. Yeah, that was the question. The   bathrooms would be separate doors totally from  the breezeway. I think the breezeway stays open   pretty much all the time. Okay. Ostensibly, we've  got more people circulating after 9 or 10:00.   downtown proper well where the businesses are  located than we do in the park. Makes sense. She   said those stay open later than the ones in the  park the the public restrooms. That makes sense   cuz you're crossing back and forth through that  through the Do we need to craft this language um   in this agreement or is this something that like  we can just have control over operating hours   for the restrooms? Yeah, I I would excellent  question that came up about the use agreement.   uh Miss Shore is here, but I don't believe  that that specifically has been discussed   as far as operating hours. Obviously, she's very  interested in and how that's done as the city. So,   I believe that would come back as far as that  use agreement. Okay. On the restroom goes,   once the construction is done, it would be  appropriate for us to bring that back so that  

both the city and Miss Shores and Mr. Cretzer know  what we're agreeing to as far as the bathrooms.   and and Miss Shores may want it to come back  before closing to make sure that everything's   in alignment as far as how the restroom is is uh  operated and the closing isn't scheduled until   u the end of September I believe or October.  Yeah. And a quick how do we get here? Uh this   property was traded for like two three four years  ago. Yeah. a long time ago with with the point of   having a cut through around that block so you can  get to Grace Avenue quickly because the city's had   plans for like 30 years to put a parking garage  behind the Martin theater. And um you know I   think the fair market value of that building  was like 400 grand or 380 or something at some   point. And to to Robbiey's Commissioner Hughes's  point, uh, when you start putting stipulations   on a property at lowest of value, and so we said,  uh, gosh, we just spent $270,000 for bathrooms in   Mackenzie Park, and we also want this space to  have a hallway right through the middle of it,   and we wanted to have these sort of things.  And they said, "Okay, well, you're driving,   you're adding more burden to the We had a we had  a group in Pensacola say, we can do it." And then   they couldn't do it, and they wanted a whole bunch  of money from us. And so we put it back out to bid   and said, "All we care about is a cut through and  a bathroom. Who wants it?" And so Katherine and   Jason have stepped up um to meet the demands of so  we don't have to build more public restrooms. They   are. We just maintain them. And I think that's  fair. What I wouldn't want um we're going to get   blamed for the bathrooms are public and they're  dirty either way. Uh and we already have staff   cleaning public restrooms downtown. So I'm I'm in  favor of this. It's a it's a collaboration and uh   they're they're taking the burden of building the  thing out and all the above. So people investing   in their hometown is a is a is a good thing. You  know about that, may I? Yeah. All right. We have   a motion and a second on the table. Any other  discussion? Please call the RO. Commissioner  

Street approve. Yes. Commissioner Hughes.  Yes. Commissioner Lucas, yes. Mayor Branch,   yes. Motion passes four to zero. Item 12 I is  consideration to appoint Matthew Goldhagen for   a special code enforcement magistrate through the  request for qualifications bid number PC26-26. City recently request uh published a request  for qualifications advertised for two different   30-day periods. During each 30-day period, one  proposal was received each time. Um, pursuant to   section 2-750B of the code of ordinance, the city  manager may recommend to the city commission one   or more candidates to serve as special magistrate.  Before you today is the recommendation through the   director of development services and the city  manager that the council or sorry commission   rather appoint Matthew Goldhagen Esquire as  special code enforcement magistrate for the   city of Panama City. Mr. Mayor. Yes. I will take  to entertain a motion to accept. So move. Second.   Any discussion? Uh just pointing uh Mr. Goldhagen  is here. Uh you might want us there he is and he   did I want to also add a couple questions not  for him but I want to make sure that the public   had questions that gets circulated to us. One was  pay so send us all the stuff about pay and then   anything about public comments being removed in  those meetings. I don't I don't know the context   for that. So it'd be good for us just to have a  email with those questions answered. Sure. Yes,   sir. Come on up. Good morning, commissioners. Mr.  Mayor, thank you for having me here. Um, I think   you had some questions for me. Is that that right?  I can introduce myself. Uh, quickly, you know, you   have your bid packet there. Uh, Matthew Goldhagen  of Gold Hagen Law. We're at 502 Harmon Avenue. Um,   my wife and I, Jillian Goldhagen. And um we are  uh we've been in this community about 7 years  

now since graduating law school. I was a prior  military for 20 years. I retired last February. I   did 10 years active duty, 10 years National Guard.  Um I've I served as a firefighter for three years   up in Georgia. I've served my community for 20  years, my adult whole adult life. Uh this is kind   of my way to come in and try and continue serving  my community. I always look for more and more ways   to get involved. This popped up and I uh I applied  and thank you for considering my application. I   think I think my experience of 20 years military  litigation, firefighting uh makes me a good fit to   apply everything I've learned, experience in law,  experience in life, experience in infrastructure,   everything like that. I think I think makes me  a good candidate to sit and represent the city   and and and everything like that. and um will  not represent the city but decide these code   enforcement matters and and help citizens in the  city come to good results in this situation. Yeah.   I want to thank you for your service to our  country. Excuse and and uh this is not this   is a a seat that I don't take lightly because  my dad's a magistrate and when he got appointed   there were,56 cases and they've been working on  it and working on it and working on it and we   still have a long way to go. Um, beautifification  is something that we we we strive to, you know,   work on every day and and the code enforcement is  a large part of that. Uh, so I uh, as far as pay,   I can promise you he's not charging the city as  much as he's charging his private clients. And so,   uh, so he's doing this is this is more servantled  than, uh, than moneyled. Uh, but I just want to   thank you and and you have my support. Thank  you, sir. And commissioners, there is I will   answer the questions, mayor, uh when you forward  them to me, but it's $290 an hour um that they  

charge that will be in the engagement letter and  evaluation committee looked at Mr. Gold Hagen and   uh he has also had experience in front of the  code enforcement board and and this is being   recommended by them. Awesome. Thank you. Thank  you, sir. Any other discussion? Please call the   RO. Commissioner Street, yes. Commissioner Hughes,  yes. Commissioner Lucas, yes. Mayor Branch, yes.   Motion passes for zero. All right. And item 12J is  just uh our our monthly report that we provide to   each of y'all uh in regards to all of the ongoing  operations. And then additionally uh just in an   effort to continue to share information and kind  of where we are. There's just there's been a lot   of actions around the paving crew going all the  way back to uh to October on multiple different   meetings. So, uh the plan and the thought was  just to kind of just memorialize it all here. Uh   there's no action again needed today. I've already  have authorization to move ahead. Um public works   uh deputy city engineer Matt Dvito is happy  to speak to some of the additional costs. Um   it's just uh after uh we were given approval to  move ahead, then we brought in some additional   demonstrations and there was some equipment uh  that we saw some add-ons that are well within   uh the spending authority of either the assistant  city manager or the director of public works. Uh   and so that was added on to that. Uh but again  just sharing information and uh and putting   that out there and I mean any questions on the  operational report or that uh we're happy to   entertain them but again no uh no no action needed  today from the board. Um we're just again keeping   you guys all apprised. So Mr. Mayor I'd like to  just suggest and I think part of this is Robbie's   point. I'm sorry. What sir? I want to just suggest  um and I think this is part part Robbiey's point   is when we we have uh canankerous issues and it is  within your spinning right and you can totally do   it. It helps us to know and so just sending it to  us of saying I think that was our goal here with  

this kind of backfired but I mean so good point.  Yeah I I I I want to do what you guys want me to   do Mr. Mayor and I I sincerely thought that's  what we were doing with this today trying to   be above board provided the lease that I already  have the authority to sign. There you go. And so,   but you had the authority to sign it, Jonathan, at  $1,700. Okay. The lease now that 1,700 for the for   the benefit of the public, the city wants to buy a  paving machine to pave roads. And in order to buy   it, we're going to take we're going to take money  from the housing department four times. And we're   because you can't buy money with that money, buy  anything with that money, you can lease things.   So, we're going to lease it for 6 months so that  we can use this money and then turn around and   we're going to close on we're going to buy it.  And when it was presented to us the first time,   that fee was $1,700. Do you'all remember that?  Okay. That's turned into $31,000. This at when   we when we're going to do that transaction,  that is not that is a significant difference.   That's 30 times what we were what we were I didn't  vote on it. I didn't vote in favor of it. But what   the votes were yes for that is a significant  change. That is not a minor change. And whether   you have the authority or not to do that, that  is to me that is does not matter because this is   $30,000 of taxpayer money. That is actually  housing money. So we just had a we just had   this thing yesterday about housing and how much  we need to help and we're getting ready to take a   bunch of money. Matt, not right now, please. Okay.  Um, we're getting ready to take a bunch of money   from the housing department to buy something that  this gentleman up here says that we are woefully   underestimating on. Okay. He's the industry  expert. Okay. With all due respect, Matt, you're   an engineer, but this guy, this is what he does  for a living. This is an opportunity for us to  

reconsider spending this amount of money, which we  probably don't need to do, but more importantly,   taking it from places that we don't need to take  it from, particularly the housing department to do   this. But my here's my concern. If we're 30 times  off on the beginning, where have we missed on the   back side? How much is it really going to cost us?  That's my concern. Matt, do I No, Matt. Thank you.   Matt Devito, deputy city engineer and  public works. So, yeah, commissioner,   to answer the question about the 31K, um,  and I'm just going to speak in round numbers,   but so we it's not housing money that's paying  for that. It's CBDG money. No, sir. The the the   pay lease is paid for that on the the beginning.  Nevin, you told me that that money was coming out   of housing for the lease side. Hey, look, it might  be helpful. It would take maybe one minute to go   over my letter because I think that answers  some of these questions. Um, in in my letter,   it uh talks about the terms of the lease. But  first, you know, payments are 43,000 a month for   6 months. Total lease payments are 263,000. That  is the money that's coming from housing, 263,000.   Then there's a purchase optioned price and that  is 296,000. That's the number that is increased   uh because of some additional equipment that was  added. So instead of the purchase option price   being $1,700, it is now $31,000. So it's similar  to buying a piece of equipment that you added to   it. And so that was uh but from the housing funds  it is $263,000 but the 31,000 would come out of  

operating cost I understand it within public works  but the housing money that's coming out we're   using it because we're using it as a lease not  as a purchase we're doing a workaround so that we   can use that money out of housing so that we can  buy something we don't need. That's my concern.   we have to come up with a way to to use it when  it's not allowed for the purchase. Not bothering.   So, have we have we confirmed now to to Robbie's  point, and this was part of my concern early on.   Yeah. Um and and it really doesn't have to do with  the program now that we're talking about it. What   what I am what I'm concerned about is now are we  in a we're utilizing federal funds to purchase   a piece of equipment? Are we going to be under  federal disposition to utilizing the equipment   moving forward? Yes, there are terms uh you have  to use it for low to moderate income areas during   the term of the lease. Um and that is the term of  the lease is 6 months. Um and you cannot purchase   the the uh equipment. the there is Sheila wrote uh  on this onpoint email to HUD on this issue and uh   they in a in a typical federal way they didn't  exactly answer it but they almost answered it   which is that yes uh you can only you can only use  it for a lease and and and the money can be used   for that purpose provided that equipment is used  to service uh low income areas as f as far as the   housing statistics go. Now, is there a possibility  that when there's an audit someday that somebody   may say, "Oh, well, I I don't think this was done  quite right." There's always that possibility.  

If that were to occur, there is funding in the uh  environmental services department to uh pay for   it. But that um I feel comfortable that it is qual  it does qualify for the HUD financing. And this is   uh is a lease payment. So at the end of the lease  term, then what do you do with the property? Do   you turn it back or do you or or would you  exercise the purchase option? The city is   proposing this the proposal is that the purchase  option would be exercised with general fund money   by the city. So it's not housing funds that are  purchasing the property. It's general fund money   that's purchasing it. And it's optional. Just to  be clear, if I may, 43,000 for 6 months is the   uh loan, sorry, the lease per month. Per month.  For 6 months is the lease that totals 263,000   and that comes from the housing department.  Yes, ma'am. Okay. At the end of that time,   if we purchase the equipment, it'll be  an additional 296,000. No, it would be an   additional 30 uh $31,000 and you will take  from what? Take from their their operating   funds within public works. My concern is and and  this was brought to my attention by somebody that   knows way more about this than I do. I like so  I'm not trying to pretend to be an expert here,   but when you get into federal disposition,  there are limitations on internal departments   purchasing certain items. And so that's why  we we've gone back and forth a little bit on   this internally. And this I go back to what I  was saying very early on in this process that   trying to intertwine housing funds into this  this this complex arrangement is ultimately  

setting us up to potentially not have it go  exactly the way it was. And we're already   seeing that. It's already having to change  and modify. and you know, federal dollars   specifically in this pocket of funding really  complex. It's already a complex process. Um,   I don't know how to fix that cuz the only other  option is utilizing other funding as as a result   of it. Don't do it. Just don't do the program. Let  let the private sector Well, with all due respect,   Robbie, I mean, the board has voted to do it.  Regardless of how you and I both felt about it,   there comes a point in time where you're trying to  be a good part. This lease is not executed. Yeah.   So, is that why you changed your position? Because  at first you supported it and I was surprised when   you said no. Uh, we had added um roads roadways in  your ward and without discussion you said no. So,   I I was it's being consistent in it and that  does have a lot to do with it. I I'm I'm I'm   getting more as as we've taken more time to study  and understand these specific pockets of funding.   I've gotten a little bit more information and  I did not solicit an opinion on this particular   thing. Somebody from another community reached  out and said, "Hey, I don't know that this is   that actually what you can do. Have you guys  thought about XYZ?" And so I asked questions and   we started to see some gray areas and I started  to get a little uncomfortable because I mean I've   been through now three audits going through going  through the fourth um since I've been here and   you know there's we got a lot of needs in a lot of  areas. Whether or not this is the right one to use   it for I think is kind of that. So it's really  my critique is not so much of the program. Um,   I mean, granted, I'm very much that staff needs to  deliver on what they said they're going to deliver   on, but this funding is going to continue to kind  of be a little more complicated, and it's only   going up. I mean, I don't know this gentleman's  name, but he's an he is an industry expert. We  

are not. And he just told us that what he what is  in print is wrong. Okay, I'm going to take it for   face value that we that we don't have enough money  built in. We don't have enough employees because   here's the answer. Hire more people. We got too  many people already. That's my problem. The the   disposition and I I go back to the funding issue.  The disposition up until this point has been well,   we'll use it for that and then in the budget  reconciliation process, if it's not eligible,   we'll go back and backfill the funds. And so,  we've done that for many years. And what I'm   saying is like let's make sure we can actually  do this before we go and do it. And that was   that was my my point. But I want to appreciate it.  You're just telling us what you found uh prior to   your your no vote because it caught us. It caught  me. I understand. And um and this is another uh I   say this word a lot but this is another part of  our process where if the five of us have to make   the decision and only one two or three of us know  certain information that drives your positions and   uh we're not at liberty to it no matter what it  is and I'm sure there are some things that I've   said or done that have caught you by surprise as  well. I think we do all that but my disposition is   when the board approves something and they move  forward we move forward together and that's and   that's what I my attempt was even without dialogue  but in I don't know how to reconcile in closing   I'll just point out that the the first year those  are the LMI areas we're obviously going to follow   that rule to to a te uh and again just for clarity  that the price didn't increase we added additional   optional equipment that will be paid for by the  general fund And you know it we may or may not   do it. We'd like to. We just were adding it on for  efficiency sake. But why is that okay? We did not.   We approved something and then you changed it. Oh  staff can go and purchase equipment all the time,   sir. As long as it was within their budget. That  that is something we purchased. Something this  

controversial. You thought that was a good idea.  That's why I brought it here to you today. But   you brought it here with it already baked in.  You didn't bring it in as first. So now it's   now it's okay. I'm over here going this is a bad  idea. But you should have come to us first in my   opinion because now it's already baked in. It's  not baked in respectively. But I understand and   I respect what you say, Commissioner  Hughes. I see both sides. Thank you,   Matt. All right. Do I have a motion to adjurnn?  Motion to Is there a vote? Oh, there's nobody off. Commissioner Street. Commissioner  Street. Yes. Commissioner Hughes. Yes.   Commissioner Lucas. Yes. Mayor Branch.  Yes. Motion passes four to zero. Yep. Five.

All right, we're calling to order the um April  14th board of directors meeting for the Panama   City Community Fund Incorporated. Madam Secretary,  would you please call the role? Director Granger   um is not here. Director Street here. Director  Hughes. I'm here. Director Lucas. Yes,   sir. And seated. Director Branch has stepped  out of the No, he is here. Y we'll highlight   when he when he does return. Board members, you  have the uh the minutes from the February 24th,   2026 special call city Panama City Community Fund  board of directors meeting minutes in front of   you. Front of you. Staff would entertain a motion  to approve those minutes. So moved. Second. Is   there any discussion? Madam Secretary, please  call the role. Director Street. Yes. Director   Hughes. Yes. Director Lucas. Yes. Director  Branch is not here. Not at the time. All   right. So is that three to zero? Four zero.  Thank you. All right. We're now moving into   audience participating. I'm sorry. Three. Three  to zero. Oh, forgot Mr. Granger's not here.   You are correct. Yes. Three is a quorum. All  right, moving into audience participation. Uh,   item number two. If there is anybody in the  audience that would that would like to speak   to anything under the authority of the board of  directors for the Panama City Community Fund,   please come to the podium and state your name and  address for the record. Remarks are limited to   three minutes. Seeing none, audience participation  is closed. Moving into item number three,   uh, confirmation of officers. You have in front  of you the updated officers and directors for the   Panama City Community Fund in front of you. Uh  with the addition of uh Miss Brandy Waldron now   as the secretary. Uh staff and entertain a motion  to confirm these new officers. Motion to approve.  

Second. Okay. There's a motion in a second. Is  there any discussion on item number three? Madam   Secretary, please call the role. Director  Street. Yes. Director Hughes. Yes. Ma'am.   Director Lucas. Yes. Director Branch. Yes. Motion  passes four to zero. Item number four is approval   of the quarterly financial reports for the Panama  City Community Fund. Madam Secretary, sorry. Um,   we have someone who would like to speak. Um, yes,  I'm a member of the public and I didn't get the   opportunity to speak. I don't know how much I  opened it up. You already closed that. I know   you closed it. Nobody else from the public here.  So, I thought I'd speak for the public and say,   "I'd like to know what you're actually going  to do for the public and how much money you're   talking about um throwing around. What's the  what's the dollar amount on this?" We're not   throwing any money around. I'll be happy to share  one of these reports with you. This is the Panama   City Community Fund. This is a nonprofit  for the city of Panama City uh to support   things within the community as well as for the  employees of the city. It's not on your website,   so I don't know how to get this absolutely is  on the website. This agenda is on the website.   It's not on your city calendar. I mean, I don't  have any calendar in front of me. I just I would   like to get the information. If you could give  me the information, DT Panama, email it to me.   Give me the information that you're talking about  today. Here, we'll give you a packet right here.   Thank you. Put it out there in the front.  I appreciate it. Thank you. You're welcome. All right. Still on item number four, Madam  Secretary. Yes. you have um before you the   unodudited interim financial reports um for um the  Panama City Community Fund for period ending March   31st, 2026. Are there any questions for um Miss  Smith or I to answer on the financials? Otherwise,   we would entertain a motion to approve and accept.  So move. Is there a second? Second. All right.  

Seeing no questions, Madam Secretary, please call  the role. Director Street, yes. Director Hughes,   yes. Director Lucas, yes. Director Branch,  yes. Motion passes four to zero. All right.   Staff would entertain a motion to adjurnn  if there's no questions from the board.   All right. Is there a second? Yes. All right.  There's a motion in a second. Madam Secretary,   please call the role. Director Street,  yes. Director Hughes, yes. Director Lucas,   yes. Director Branch, yes. Motion passes  four to zero. Mo meeting is adjourned.