City Commission Meetings - Regular Meeting

I am calling to order the Panama City Commission meeting for June the 9th at 8 a.m. Thank you so much for attending. We're going to start out with an opening prayer by Reverend Smith, Sr., pastor of New Bethel Missionary Baptist Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Granger. Please rise.

I want to say good morning to our mayor and to all our commissioners and everyone that's in leadership roles and to take care of our community. May I start by simply saying thank you all for your service. We appreciate you. Father, in the name of Jesus, we do come now on this day, a day that never was, never will be again, to honor you by opening this meeting with prayer. We pray now, God, that everything we say and do in this place will be done decent and in order. I pray, God, for the protection of this city. I pray for wisdom. I pray for knowledge. I pray for integrity. I pray above all, God, that we honor you in all that we say and all that we do. I pray for every family that's represented. And I do pray now, God, that you will continue to encamp your angels of protection all about us, our family, our city, our state, our... president, and everyone that's in authority. I pray for our officers. I pray right now, God, that you will allow them to be able to govern in safety. For God, there's so much for us to pray, and I just thank you right now for this opportunity. It's in Jesus' name I do pray. All of God's children would say amen. Amen.

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

I pledge allegiance.

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 May 26th. Do I have a motion to accept? Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion, please call the roll.

Commissioner Granger?

Yes.

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

Any deletions, additions, or modifications to today's agenda?

And then push it back.

And I would like to add a brief discussion and action on our previous budget workshop. I'll explain what we did.

I'll motion that we turn Item 10, Commissioner's Report 10-Alpha, Commissioner Hughes, into Commissioner Street. Do I have a motion to accept?

Second. That's the first. We have a second. Any discussion? Please call the roll.

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

Any other changes in staff? None from staff, Mr. Mayor. All right. Moving on. We are in committee announcements. All right, summer is here and with more events, activities and projects happening across Panama City, now is the perfect time to stay connected. Sign up for City Alerts to receive updates straight to your inbox or phone. From road closures and project updates to boil water notices and more, we'll keep you informed year round. Scan the QR code on the screen or visit panamacity.gov to sign up today. The city of Panama City is running a sweepstakes. When you enroll in auto pay and enroll in paperless billing between now and July 31st, 2026, you'll be automatically entered for a chance to win one of five $100 Visa gift cards. If you're already enrolled in auto pay and paperless billing, you're automatically entered to win, no payment or purchase is necessary. Visit panamacity.gov for official rules. Panama City's Charter Review Advisory Board continues its work on a thorough evaluation of the city charter. Their next meeting is scheduled for tomorrow, Wednesday, June 10th at 3 p.m. in room 236 at City Hall. For details on the advisory board's efforts to stay informed on upcoming meetings, please visit panamacity.gov. Another pre-budget planning and priorities workshop will take place this Thursday, June 11th. This workshop gives the commission and city staff an opportunity to meet early in the fiscal year 2027 budget process to discuss direction and priorities. The meeting will be held at 4 p.m. in room 10 at City Hall and will also be live streamed on our city website. Next Monday, June 15th, the City Commission will hold a live workshop at City Hall to review the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee report and discuss next steps for the city's park system. Public viewing will be available in room 10 at City Hall. However, public participation will not be included as this is a workshop. The Panama City CRA and Incremental Development Alliance are hosting monthly small developer meetups to help new and aspiring developers learn and connect. Sessions take place on the third Tuesday of each month through September at MySpace Downtown at 97 Oak Avenue starting at 5.30 p.m. The next meeting is Tuesday, June 16th. For details, visit the city calendar at panamacity.gov. All city offices will be closed on Friday, June 19, 2026, in observance of the Juneteenth holiday. Garbage collection services and yard debris collection services will not take place. Regular business and collections will resume on the following Monday, June 22. The city will host a community meeting on Wednesday, June 24th at 5.30 p.m. at the MLK Junior Rec Center. City representatives, along with War II Commissioner Janice Lucas, will gather input from residents regarding the MLK corridor development. This meeting is a continuation of the session held in May. However, the primary focus this time is to receive feedback directly from those who live and work within the MLK corridor community. Summer fun is in full swing at the MLK Junior Rec Center. Registration is open for all of summer 2026 camps, programs, and special events with scholarships available for many programs. Scan the QR code on the screen or visit panamocity.gov for registrations and the full summer lineup. Those are all of our announcements, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners. Moving into public hearings. Item 6A is the second and final of two public hearings on ordinance number 3305, an ordinance establishing the Panama City North Community Development District located east of John Pitts Road and north of Old Majette Tower Road with parcel ID 03875-000-000. As background information, SELand Development LLC, on behalf of the property owner, has petitioned the city to establish a Community Development District, or CDD, pursuant to Chapter 190 of the Florida statutes. Continuing relevant information, and the full packet is available in your agenda here today. Staff recommendation through the Director of Development Services is that the City Commission conduct the second and final public hearing and approve the ordinance.

Mr. Mayor. Yes, this is a public hearing. If you wish to speak about item 6A, please come forward. Anyone on item 6A? Seeing none, I'm closing public comments.

if the staff was able to add language regarding the transfer of roads.

No, but I have a sentence I would like to read to see if that's acceptable to the petitioner. I stuck it at the bottom of page 8, but the concept, Commissioner Street asked, is it clear that the city is Is it clear that the city is never obligated to accept a road from the district? And I believe it's clear because of operation of law, the district owns those roads and the city can't be compelled to accept them at any point in the future. However, I did suggest that maybe we could add a sentence that simply says the petitioner and the district acknowledges that the city is not obligated at any time to accept a road dedication from the district, something like that. Would that be acceptable?

Yes, sir.

I just want to get my name and everything on the record. Roy Van Wyk with Kolinsky Van Wyk on behalf of the petitioner. That would be fine. That is consistent with state law. Thank you. I have no objection to that. Do I need to end my motion? Yes, you do.

If you could amend it to include that sentence, I am placing that sentence at the end of Section 8.

I would amend my motion to include the sentence that the attorney just read.

Thank you. I'll amend the second. Okay. Any discussion? Please call the roll.

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

I'd like to read the ordinance title that's been adopted, Ordinance Number 3305, an ordinance of the Board of City Commissioners of Panama City, Florida establishing Panama City North Community Development District pursuant to Chapter 190 Florida Statutes providing a title providing findings, creating and naming the district, describing the external boundaries of the district, describing the functions and special powers of the district, designating five persons to serve as the initial members of the district's Board of Supervisors, providing for severability, providing for conflicts of law, providing for codification, inclusion in code and Scrivener's error, and providing an effective date.

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

At this time, I will swear in staff for this item who will remain under oath during the entire proceedings, also any additional parties that intend to testify during the public hearing. And so would you stand and raise your right hand? And if any time somebody else would like to speak, that's fine. We'll swear you at that time. Do you swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you.

Item number 7A is the first of two public hearings on Ordinance 3303.1, an ordinance admitting the future land use map of the city to reflect the land use designation of general commercial use for a property located at Grace Avenue with parcel ID 14327-000-000. As background information, the applicant has requested a future land use change to General Commercial and a rezoning to General Commercial 2 or GC2. This item was previously reviewed by the Planning Board on May 11th of this year. The Planning Board recommended approval unanimously with the condition that the owner consider the effect of their commercial uses on the neighborhood and any restrictions that they, the City Commission, may place on the property. Staff concurs. The following documents are enclosed in your packet. Ordinance 3303.1. the staff analysis report recommendation of public comments, the adopted map series, including aerial future land use and zoning maps, and the survey. 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 7A, please come forward. Anyone on 7A? Seeing none, I'm closing public comments.

I'd like to read the title after the conclusion of the first of two public hearings. The title to the ordinance is 3303.1, an ordinance amending the comprehensive plan future land use map of the city to reflect the land use designation of general commercial for a parcel of land located at Grace Avenue, Panama City, Florida, providing for repeal or severability in an effective date.

Item 7B is the first of two public hearings on Ordinance 3303.2, an ordinance admitting the zoning map of the city to reflect the zoning designation of General Commercial 2, or GC2, for a property located at Grace Avenue with parcel ID 14327-000-000. This is the same piece of property for the prior ordinance. Staff recommendation through the Director of Development Services is that the City Commission conduct the first of two public hearings. Mr. Mayor?

This is a public hearing. Please come forward. Anyone on item 7B? Seeing none, I'm closing public comments.

I'd like to read the title to the first of At the conclusion of the first of two public hearings, Ordinance 3303.2, an ordinance zoning a parcel of land located at Grace Avenue, Panama City, Florida, having approximately .482 acres, GC2, providing for severability and providing for an effective date.

Item 7C is the first of two public hearings on Ordinance 3304, an ordinance amending the zoning map of the city to reflect the zoning designation of Neighborhood General, or NG, for a property located at Magnolia Avenue with parcel ID 18067-000-000. As background information, the applicant has requested a rezoning to Neighborhood General. This item was previously reviewed by the Planning Board on May 11th of this year. The Planning Board recommended approval unanimously with staff concurrence. The following documents are enclosed. Ordinance 3304, the staff analysis report and recommendation, the adopted map series, including aerial future land use and zoning maps, and the survey. Staff recommendation through the Director of Development Services is that the City Commission conduct the first of two public hearings. Mr. Mayor?

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

The title that I'm reading at the conclusion of the first public hearing, ordinance number 3304, an ordinance zoning a parcel of land located at Magnolia Avenue, Panama City, Florida, having approximately .707 acres, neighborhood commercial, providing for severability and effective date.

Thank you. We are in audience participation now. If you wish to speak about any items related on the agenda today, please come forward. Yes, ma'am. Come on down.

Good morning. Patty, Fairland Avenue. Excuse me, Patty Sunday, Fairland Avenue. I want to start with the positives. If you haven't been, it's just exhilarating and wonderful. The MLK Center, if you're over 50, Nevin, and you used to play basketball, I am in that group, as is my husband. It's fabulous.

Oh, he's in that group a few times.

All right. It's all right. It's so fun. And it's just a beautiful moment of community. There weren't enough over 50 last night, so even some ladies got in. And so it's just wonderful. It looks like a four-star hotel to me. And it's just lovely. Second thing I wanted to comment, and this is all back to the budget report that Jeanette prepares. My husband showed me on his Facebook your post of your goals, I think maybe after you all went on that trip or something. Very clear, great communication, and I really support the way that you're sharing the ideas early, and I also support the initiatives that you have posted there, I think as a private individual. On the budget, I have brought this up before, the city manager's report on the very bottom around the ASAP, there's some weird percentages there, and I don't know what they relate to. They're at the very, very bottom. It's 75% this, something that... It was a previous perhaps reading scores when things were being tracked, but I don't like it as an archive journalism kind of person because if anyone ever looks back, we need to tighten that up. I'm not sure what it goes to. It's just sitting there and the other stuff has been out. And I'd like to know what it goes to. And then the last item is Jeanette had prepared a very nice report showing that housing was 330% over budget and had put a line in her narrative that said the reason it is like that is because the funds, federal or state, had not yet been allocated or had not come in, which I really appreciate that as a taxpayer. But what I would like to know is are those funds for sure? And how much are they? You know, once they flush through, will it be 100% of budget? Will it be 90? Because that's a little bit of a flag there, right? And so I would like some more explanation on that. And I'm glad to know that you're going to have another early budget workshop It's just so important because I feel that you all deserve good data to make great decisions. Thank you.

Thank you. Please make sure to get those answers to Ms. Sunday. Yes, sir. Anyone else related to agenda items for today? Come on down. No one else today? I'm going to close public comments for the day. Moving on to the consent agenda. We have a motion to accept items 9A, 9B, and 9C. Motion to accept. Second. Any discussion? Please call the roll.

Commissioner Granger? Yes. Commissioner Street? Yes. Commissioner Hughes?

Yes.

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

We are in item 10A, which is Commissioner Street's

Yeah, so Friday in our one-on-one meetings, it came to my attention, I was just asking for, hey, what are we going to discuss on Thursday? What are you guys preparing? And there seems to be, from what I understand from staff, some confusion on maybe what our expectations were following the previous budget workshop. And so my expectation was I thought we had consensus around the staff was going to present what a 16% budget cut would look like to each one of the departments. I thought that was consensus, but maybe it wasn't. And so because it's a workshop, we couldn't actually take a vote in action. So staff is in this gray area. So my proposal today is we quickly take action so that they understand with clarity what the expectation was in bringing forward a balanced budget. That was 10%.

The 16.7% was an average.

It's an average. We told you when we were doing revenue projections for fiscal year 27 that it was projected at that time in early March that we were going to have a $4.5 million shortfall in the general fund, which amounted to, when we looked at restricted revenues and allocated those out appropriately, it was a 16.7% average reduction across the rest of the departments.

For discretionary spending. Right. Because we can't reduce debt.

So it's not necessarily every department would see a 16.7% reduction. It was on average across all would be the 4.5 million. And We share with Commissioner Street, like we did a lot of you, we have all been working hard since March to reduce that $4.5 million shortfall. And we were planning on presenting how far we've come, what we've done since March, and where we're at, and then cuts to represent the new $4.5 million number.

so what i hear is we are consistent as in our expectation is that it would be proposed where this much in cuts would 10 16 whatever that was i i would like us to take action on ensuring that staff has that instruction otherwise what they're going to do is any projection that shows an increase in revenue they're going to take that and propose less in that in that categorizing am i correct miss waldron as in that is the current plan

Well, yes, we would update our projection based on what we've been working on since March. And maybe the 4.5 is not 4.5 anymore. Maybe it's $3 million shortfall. And we would present reductions or adjustments based on that $3 million number.

The point I felt like in the exercise was not for us to adopt, but for the staff to go through and actually create that much margin in their budgetary process.

Yeah, we're not saying that's what we're doing. We're saying the citizens want to see all options. Aggressive, replenishing reserves, they want to see the gamut. And for us, not even to consider the cuts to me is not doing our jobs of showing the options.

What's the appetite of the department heads talking to us about their budget? I've never gone through all the departments. I've never sat down with all the departments. It's the money that they're trying to spend in their department. I would like the exercise just to see how that interacts with the overall flow of the city as well as with us in this process. Is that something that we're up for?

We could do a department discussion in July. Is that something?

I would rather have them go through the exercise first and then whatever kicks off from that and drive the discussion moving forward. That's how I would handle it.

I think what Robbie's, and I'm on the same page as Robbie, which has never done this before, don't know what options we have. Is there a better way that we can help even understand what's going on? Because it's not like we go walking into these departments saying, show me your budget. We don't have that authority. And so I don't know the best situation to help collaboration and understanding if there's another model of another city that's doing it. What I liked years ago, Keith Medford had the best presentation where he benchmarked his spending in acreage and other cities. What I don't want is pat on the back. presentations during budget season like look how great we are because we're we have to make real decisions here of potential loss of major property taxes and even our shortfalls every city's going through this and we have to look at all the options so i'm up for ideas on how we facilitate communication where we understand the departments to our best ability and have them you know explain how they spend money

Is there any further discussion?

I would just say that having sat through a couple of times of all the department heads coming to us and talking to us about their, I could see where that would be very valuable information to somebody who's never been through it before. suggest that there are certain services where we are. We are very unique in the state of Florida. You know, we it is tough sometimes to benchmark the services that we offer our citizens against other cities that may be more dense or may not be a tourism corridor, you know, or may not have the same relationship, good relationship that we have with our county. So all those things come into play. And anyway, I would just say that I'm not against benchmarking. I just don't want us to send the signal to our directors that they have to to find a city that that is similar to them. And then what Because what happens is that you may find a city where they spend, I don't know, a million dollars less in fire every year, and they have more citizens, but then you find out that they actually have a pretty dense downtown with a lot of residential, right? And we don't. So, I mean, you know, those things are really, you get so

Well, and even that can be cognitive bias. You can just be looking for something to confirm your existing beliefs. All research and benchmarking can be used and manipulated.

Not opposed to benchmarking. I'm just saying let's not let that be the enemy of good.

I'd like to see us be clear about what we do want. Often we'll say up here, I don't want this and I don't want that, but let's be clear about what we do want. It was very beneficial and yes, Commissioner Granger, it was long to go through that process, but I think it's worthy to do again, especially with everything that we're facing and the decisions that we have to make so that we are informed. I would support the Mayor and Commissioner Hughes' request for that kind of a meeting. It is really, in the words of a very famous story, it's the best of times and it's the worst of times in Panama City. And so we need to take the time to make the best decisions that we can in this budgetary process.

Let's say, Robbie, one of my pushback on the individualized department had meetings with one on one with us. I'm against that. is we all come to the table asking different questions. And we have different information. And I'm always wondering, well, what questions are other people asking that I'm not asking? And so I'd rather it be together. I'd rather it be brevity. I'd rather it be less about what we did last year and more about possible ways we're going to have to cut back. There's no way of avoiding that. And that's what a competition needs to be about, is how do we get to the budget number we need to get to? And that's where the conversation is today, in my opinion.

I'll let you guys know how the conversation went on Friday. It was, hey, we're going to present you guys a balanced budget, which we're statutorily required to do. So there's no way around that, nor would I want to be around that. But we are not truly prioritizing what we want in this entire process. Exactly. And the point of wanting to see what these cuts and measures are is it gives us the flexibility. If we create $2 million worth of margin, well, that's where you prioritize from. You prioritize, is that reserves? Is that some initiative? Is that something like that? But as long as we're budgeted at the max continuously, it hinders the commission from creating any prioritization other than through just conversations and the great working relationship we have with those on the dais. But I think to get us to the point that we actually have a forward-thinking, zero-based, priority-based budget, we've got to change our process and how we've done it previously. And I felt like the 16%, 10% was a very positive step in that direction. if we want to break up departments and have and have a couple meetings i'm all for that so whatever it takes to help us get on the same page and reinvigorate the budgetary process that we're not operating with no margin we actually have some that we can be opportunistic even in um even in the situations that we're in now so with that i'll i'll make a motion uh that we give a clear instruction to staff on the $4.8 million worth of cuts that were requested at the workshop, as well as preparation for a department-based presentation with us as a commission for us to ask questions and dive into each one of these budgets individually. I'll second that.

Commissioner Street was at 4.5 or 4.8.

What was the number that was presented? It was 4.5. Okay, 4.5. And then my motion. I second that. Discussion?

Yes, I'd like to also add that we have a discussion whether it's at this time But there's some philosophical undercurrents about what departments should go forth, what we should do as a city. And as we're looking at making these budget cuts, it is important that the five of us talk openly about the direction that we think the city ought to go. And this budget process is very key to that.

Commissioner Lucas, if I can add, that was one of the reasons why I was a proponent of the 16.7% process is that was equally treated across every department and every initiative. It wasn't singulary out any specific piece. um currently as as motioned the staff has the flexibility to you know cut certain departments more than other departments and present us something that is that is maybe not across the board so i just what i heard on friday was that we're not we weren't there was definitely some inconsistencies is maybe in our conversations and I felt like we were clear. It sounds like today we were clear, but I would put forward, do we want to do that 16% across the board so that there is not a department single eyes and then have the conversation? Or do we want staff to present something that may be 1% cut to one department and a 50% cut to another department.

Yeah. I don't want to put any constraints on them in the sense of that it's flat out across the board. I would much rather see them try to work. They know these programs and systems way better than we do. I'd rather give them the flexibility and just tell them, hey, look, here's the overall budget. We just want to see a 16% cut in that budget. Y'all figure out where it comes from. I'd rather give that to them and let them do the work on that than just flat out say, hey, we're just going to cut 16% across the board. Because what you're going to find is, I think, what you're going to find is if we did that, they're going to give us exactly what we're asking for, and you're going to find that that's not palatable to us. I would also suggest that as we need to tell the directors today kind of the mindset that we are looking for because we're asking them to come up with a budget that is going to be much less than their current operating budget and last year's budget and whatnot. And then we're going to make decisions on that. So I fear that there may be some things that get miscommunicated to them in a negative way. I would just say, what are you all thinking? If you were a director in the city and you had to cut your budget back, how would you want your information to be received, if that makes sense?

Commissioner Granger, what you're expressing now is what I'm asking for, that philosophical discussion. When the mayor proposes, as he's done in his statement of what he'd like to see. There are some philosophical differences in those statements than the way the city currently operates. And so it is confusing for departments to, well, what direction are we going in? For example, I was in a meeting last week with the One Positive Place, and for more than a decade, they have been working to build an ASAP building. And now with the sentiment expressed by the mayor and shared by others that we haven't discussed on the dais in public that our departments are aware of, you're right, there is conflicting information and we can't tell them how they feel based on what we're saying. And so we need to be clear and have that conversation openly for everyone.

Do we have it right now or do you want to have a little workshop?

Well, I mean it's going to have to be before we put them to work doing the thing that we were asking them to do.

Well, I mean I can be very brief with my comments. I mean the lens that I look through is duplication of services. If there's somebody doing it better or the same or similar, that that should always be something that's on our table for consideration. And then third is the area of impact. And so if something affects 5,000 citizens and something affects two, I hate to say it, but there has to be a give and take from the tax base. And so you have to prioritize the things that impact the most people. and so um and that is just the nature of the job and so those are the things that i look at and you know it's really no respecter of the department or initiative or anything else like that as much as it is from the standpoint of I'm not in competition with other governments. I'm not in competition with other agencies and nonprofits. And I'm not in that. And also, I'm not in the, you know, I think that the more people it affects, the more seriously that we should consider it.

Yeah, what I don't think we are up here is the Department Innovation Board, where we come to them with innovation ideas that they should be thinking about. They should be coming to us with those sort of things of, you know, duplicate equipment, duplicate services, and partnerships of nonprofits, other municipalities, and the public, and looking at ways they restructure things. I mean, this is enough of a cut where it's not going to be, oh, we'll paint the bathrooms less often than the offices. This is going to be structural. And in the real world and outside of government, these are the things that keep businesses in business long term. And we're faced with drastic revenue shortfalls that we have to structurally account for. So what I don't want is us to have to go on the dice and say, here's the cuts you should look for. Here's the way I would go. Because we haven't worked in any of those departments. At least I haven't. They should be bringing us those options, saying, well, I can do this, I can do this, we can do this, and letting us, we take the heat for their proposed ideas is the structure of this organization, in my opinion.

And I think y'all have all hit it a little bit, is that by having a meeting with the directors, they know. what they need and what they don't need more than we do. And by being able to ask, do you have to have this or can you live with that? And let them tell us what they're willing to, you put the squeeze on their department for. And if they're willing to do that, I'm willing to back that. If they need something and say, look, we're going to bring it home, we're going to pull through for you, and we're going to make this happen, I'll have their back for it. But without that information, it's hard for me to say yes or no or to determine this is a good cut or not. And so for me, I'm on an information gathering tour, if you will, there. And I think that's what I'm looking for out of these workshops is not as much of a here's what the staff has done for us so far without us having any say-so in it at all. But we're going to have to vote on it. And now we let the staff talk to us about it and then let us... then question whether or not, with the upper staff, if that's a good idea or not. And so I'm open for all the meetings that we can have up until that moment. We have to make it in the budget.

Any other discussion?

Well, just a couple of points, Mr. Mayor, Commissioner. So, I mean, this Thursday, I mean, that's in two days. So, you know, not be with the department heads in two days. That's typically something in the past we've done in July or potentially late June. So, we'll look on finding some schedule for there to be, you know, an interactive workshop with all the department heads. And, you know, I think, so I think this Thursday we'll kind of show some of the preliminary stuff that's been done based on, you know, your conversation here today. You know, the four and a half million in March was an estimate. I mean, it could have been 3.7, it could have been 2.8, you know, and I believe we've all said that as we get closer to the summer, that true number is going to become more clear. And I think that's what we're seeing, which is typically why in July is when we've had that first, in the past, the workshop. And as a reminder, the budget is not voted on until September. So I think that's a clear thing. Nobody's being asked to vote on the budget in July. Still, I would say, in a lot of ways, July is still kind of the beginning part of that process that comes to culmination in September.

Let me just add that there's quite a bit of talk about government should operate more like business. And when it comes to principles of business, you don't spend more than you have. and so forth, yes, I agree with that. But government is not a for-profit business and government is not a non-profit business. We exist as a government to solve those common problems for the greater good. And so when we look at what our departments are set up for and what is the greater good problem challenge that we as a city have determined that these departments should be working toward, That is the kind of discussion and question I think that feeds and guides decisions. And so, yes, we can look at what other cities do, but let's not lose sight of the fact that the city of Panama City is uniquely positioned in Bay County and has a particular set of challenges for our government to solve. And among those, we've talked about it, we've held workshops on it, and we're still working through it, affordable housing and what drives that. It isn't just whether we are a developer, a contractor, a realtor, it is what is the government role in helping to bring that to fruition. And I just want to add that saying that we can put it all on nonprofits who don't have the authority that government has to really solve such a problem is not a thing that we should do. So looking forward to the budget workshops and for these continued in the public discussions. I'm hearing a lot about the one-on-ones and what my colleagues here are saying individually, but collectively we have to make the decision.

What I have is that staff would present $4.5 million worth of budget cuts at the pre-budget workshop on this Thursday. And then following that, we would have a department presentation at a workshop sometime in July.

Sounds good. Any other discussion? So, again, just on what are our expectations out of the directors, I would absolutely agree with Commissioner Street on prioritize the funding the things that impact the most amount of people. But if I were by myself asking for this, what I would ask for is kind of three different proposals, if you will. Maybe three is too many, but I would ask for... just two different ways of looking at your entire department budget and one is what happens say if we get rid of this entire program what would that look like how many people would that be are we able to utilize those people elsewhere or would that would that result in a layoff And that's the kind of information, I know nobody wants to talk about that, I know nobody wants to say those words, but that is the type of information that we need to have. And then maybe a quick synopsis around what that thing is, what does it provide, what does it do for our city, right? Because I know that a lot of times When we get into these things, you may look across the entire portfolio of what you operate and what you run and go, I don't see where to cut. And that's going to be the tougher part of this, I think. Some of you probably will see some things that you can cut. Others may have a harder time with that. So that's all I'm saying is that if it was me, I would try to look at it from two different ways and say, hey, here's two different options for if you wanted to cut this area. So that's kind of what I'm looking for. If I was them, I would be looking for, like, how do you want to see it presented? And I think that kind of goes into what you were saying is we're not here to try to innovate. They know their system better than we do. So if that means that we do without for so many years, maybe that means that we do without for so many years. I don't know. Like any other discussion, please call the roll.

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

11A. 11A. I have in front of you included in the agenda pack is a letter. It's consideration approval of payment to City Marina Partners and then budget resolution number 202606095. This letter contains an invoice from City Marina Partners LLC in the amount of 98,163 and the budget resolution. I sent you a letter that was on the agenda, but then I asked that it be removed because of, you know, questions that were asked about it. But in that letter, I recommended approval of payment of the invoice. And as stated in my letter today, I once again recommend payment and approval of the invoice and adoption of the budget resolution. After sending you the letter, I then requested additional information from Mr. William Harrison as far as backup information to support the invoices, additional support for the invoices. As quick background, the commissioners had requested request for proposals in early 2024 and then selected CMP on May 14, 2024 to enter into discussions for a long-term lease arrangement for the downtown marina wet slips. The idea was that the public-private partnership would contribute the funds necessary to construct and that the city would enter into a long-term lease agreement. On June 18, right after the approval of the selection, the city commission approved an interim agreement with CMP. And this interim agreement was not a typical consulting contract but was also a public-private partnership. And the interim agreement provided to reconstruct the marina fuel docks at the city cost and that was accomplished and the city paid for that. But then also provided for wet slip design and permitting consultant services at CMP's cost And those services would not be paid for unless a long-term lease was not agreed to. And if no long-term lease would be agreed to, then the city would pay CMP for all reasonably incurred engineering and consulting costs associated with the design and permitting of the basins. The interim agreement, like I mentioned, was not a typical consulting contract. It was a public-private partnership where both parties desired to successfully negotiate a long-term It was a desire, though, for the city to continue utilizing the individuals or the principles in the CMP relationship to continue design and permitting efforts. On December 16th, a year and a half later, 2025, the commission determined to terminate the interim agreement and then a request was made. And as indicated previously, the invoice was submitted and then I requested additional The agreement states that the city will pay reasonably incurred engineering consulting costs, also language that is typical for all public-private partnerships. The parties commit in good faith and fair dealings to work in good faith and fair dealings with each other. We'll not go into detail about the use of reasonableness in the contract other than it is a standard legal term that's been recognized for centuries and is codified in what we, the restatement of contracts. So questions that have been asked are were the consultants qualified? Were the fees charged by consultants and their billings reasonable? Was the time spent and the product produced on the design and permitting of the basins reasonable? Was the overall cost in light of the results and other expenditures to redevelop the city marina reasonable? And my answer to all those is yes, but once again, this is a recommendation to you, who you are the decision maker. Real brief, were the consultants qualified? I recommend the answer is yes. These are the same individuals that were selected for the St. Andrew's Marina long-term lease. They were the same individuals that were selected by the city commission to enter into negotiations with a long-term downtown Panama City lease. All of their resumes were attached to the request for a proposal. I believe that they were qualified. Were the fees charged by the consultants in their buildings reasonable? And I believe, I recommend the answer to that yes. There were two consultants that made up the work for CMP. One was Marina Solutions LLC. The other was GC Marina Partners. Marina, there was no requirement that CMP submit hourly billings to demonstrate the work that was performed. In other words, the goal was to, and the obligation was to reimburse cost. As an example is Cypress Environmental LLC and Coastal Waterfront Consulting LLC, both much smaller invoices or lump sum invoices. could have presented a lump sum invoice to look at but they did choose to provide hourly billings as well as a narrative that would describe what the work was so even though there wasn't a requirement for CMP to submit hourly invoices to demonstrate the work performed. They did so and they provided both the narrative as well as the hourly billings. In looking at particular Marina Solutions LLC, that's made up of four individuals, two attorneys, William, Harrison Cooper Harrison, Joe Winkler, a marina consultant, and Scott Burke. And they accounted for 78% of the total consultant billings. They have represented to me that those are the normal customary hourly billings that they have used with other clients. So it did not appear to unreasonable as far as looking at the total fees, whether or not it's hourly or even a lump sum. Was the time and product produced for the design and permitting on the basins reasonable? My recommendation is yes. The CMP had no incentive to incur unreasonable costs because they were hoping never to build the city. They were hoping to have a long-term lease agreement and the work and the effort that they put into would be rolled into the long-term arrangement. So they didn't have an incentive. to just rack up expenses. CMP was involved, involved the city staff and commission throughout the entire process. The staff knew exactly who was working on the efforts for CMP. And CMP has represented that the time spent did not overlap with efforts associated with the negotiations for a long-term lease. For example, it was helpful to know from a, to have a market consultant give advice as far as the size of boat slips, do a market study. But none of that was included in the cost that were billed to the city, primarily because it was also extremely helpful in trying to negotiate a long-term lease. So things that were questionable was represented to me that they were not included. Then was the overall cost reasonable in light of the results and other expenditures in the redevelopment of the city marina? And my recommendation is, well, yes, if you look at the total that has been spent since 19, I mean, 2023, the city has paid or obligated to pay over $825,000. That includes payments to Dover Coal, to St. Joe, to Wooden Partners. Panhandle Engineering, John Anderson, Public Financial Management, and none of these were exactly what CMP was working on, but they were all part of the effort to redevelop the downtown marina. So it did not seem to me and I would recommend that the overall cost is reasonable in light of the results achieved. The CMP was able to assist in developing and obtaining and keeping a permit for the first exemption for the first 50 wet slips. Also, they began work on the overall permitting of the basin. CMP produced a conceptual design for the basin and the city approved on the southeast half of the basin. The city accepted that and that has now been fully designed through the St. Joe efforts. The interim agreement, as I mentioned, is a partnership. which parties are obligated to deal fairly with each other. So in conclusion, I believe the agreement under the circumstances and the goals and objectives stated by the city commission was reasonable. It was a good agreement. I believe that there are criteria that they had to comply with. It was clearly only design and permitting expenditures would reimburse. would be reimbursed. The total amount does not seem disproportionate in relation to what was achieved and what has been charged and this is why I once again recommended approval. However, I'm not the expert in this. That was my analysis and that's the best analysis I can give to you as the Commission. I know that That's why we're here is to adopt a budget resolution and to consider moving forward with taking care of this as the remaining item from the CMP interim agreement. Happy to discuss it further with you.

I'll entertain a motion to approve. A motion to approve. Second? Second.

Discussion?

I made it very clear I'm not happy about the situation, but if staff has gone and done the due diligence that this is what we should pay and their recommendation is that these line items are justified through the contract that we signed, then I'm in favor of paying it today.

I'd recommend a couple things. One is that in your motion, you adapt a policy that hourly rates must be disclosed in advance on any contracts that the city procures, regardless of what the agreement is. Secondly, that monthly billing must take place on any hourly billing contracts. That shouldn't just be this agreement. That should be every agreement. And had that happened,

To exceed as well? Not to exceed. What's in scope, what's out of scope, all those kinds of things?

I think those, but the real issue that I've got with this contract is the customary fees. If that is the case, I do not see in any of this documentation where other clients have been charged the same amount. So if that can be showed, I do agree with Nevin's component that the costs are probably reasonable. But if it can't be shown, we're presented hourly rates. I don't want the citizens paying a higher hourly rate than some other person. So I think that should be pretty easy to show. So I would prefer that we delay the vote, but if not.

I would caution us to try to set set limits or allowables on an overall basis. Each contract is different because of the participants, because of the terms. Duly noted, I agree with you. We need to make sure that the public knows what those costs are. But at the same time, problems with contracts are made when they're written. not and we just don't know it until they show up and in this particular case it had about three years to brew for for your particular issue um and and so i would also you think about that this was a a partnership not a contract so this partnership all of that was none of that mattered because the partnership they were going to take care of that And so we need to be careful not to try to cross the streams there, that what you're asking for is in a contract, but what they're giving us is something that we were never going to see before, because that was the partnership. They were picking up those costs had that gone through, had we not had that 3-2 vote. So I agree with you that we need to make sure that the public knows and understands, and that we get information, whether it be monthly or bimonthly.

I'm concerned that this is not the first time that this has happened. To the city? To the city. No, it isn't. Well, I mean, it's government.

I mean, when I got elected, it said Panama City is priced for 20% is what everybody told me.

We are here to create policy that prevents things like this. And so what I'm saying is in this action, make policy that doesn't ever repeat it again and restrict our team from being able to do that. The Hagerty contract was a great other example, not to exceed amounts. That's all it was. And we just kept going and kept going and kept going. And then all of a sudden you wake up to a bill one day. I'm just saying that there is a precedent that we are not taking seriously on our contractual obligations, and this is exposed, a very significant one. And my personal opinion, show what hourly rates you're charging other people and that they've been secured in that. And then, yes, I think the contract is completely valid as it is. allowing our team to continue to be able to present to us at times when we may not even notice. I mean, look at the amount of documentation that we just get to review every single week. That is unfair to a commission. That is why we need policy.

Josh, you had this two weeks ago delivered to you in your email. It's been available to you. It's not fair to staff to say to staff and lay this off on staff.

I'm saying we give an amazing amount of volume of paper.

I've heard your request. You're the one that requested all this.

I didn't request this. Somebody did. I've requested hourly rates to be disclosed. That's what I've requested.

So it'd be no different than like, let's say we engaged over coal on Harrison Avenue and they worked 12 streets away and said, well, it's adjacent to the thing that we defined in the contract. The contract could have had provisions of, you know, the basin is defined in this area, nothing outside of this. And so there's a difference in someone working on their stuff or their project and the defined scope. That's my big problem is there was no defined scope of it. And the job of an attorney is to prevent when things go bad to be ready for it.

It's the job of the commission to approve or disapprove, and the last commission approved both examples that Commissioner Street pointed out. There was a contract that was written, vetted, and approved by the commission. Nobody's to blame except everybody if we're going to be matters to them.

How come our staff didn't know they were getting charged for every single meeting that they were in?

Do you expect somebody to go to work for free? I mean, seriously.

We learn from every situation and we move forward. And what we've learned from these situations are improvements in the contract so that we don't have to be, I'm not an attorney. I've never been to law school. So they now know our goal is not to ever be surprised like this. And to me, this was a surprise.

So let's be clear. Part of what we're dealing with here is a culture of how we operate. And when we have commissioners, the mayor, past, current, that are also involved with the deal-making, if you will, that can create situations here when the people who have to uphold it change. And that's the situation we're in. Mayor, I appreciate your comments opening this discussion, that it's not what you like, you would have done it differently, but here we are. And so let's move forward. Commissioner Street as the tenured one on this commission, you've been involved with the Marina to getting us to this point with both marinas. And so I think it is important to say that we, as the commission, have a responsibility as well for reviewing the contracts. Even though we get a lot to look at, it is our responsibility as well. And so going forward, there's each of us as commissioners and the mayor meet and talk individually as we're trying to usher new things that we be mindful of the direct direction that staff gets from the dais and the indirect that happens when each of us is meeting with citizens, with potential folk who we might be in partnership with. And so let's be clear. that where we are happened not just because staff didn't do X, Y, Z. There were commissioners involved as well.

Chair Greg Musil Okay. Any other discussion? Chair Greg Musil Yeah. So I don't think anybody's happy with this, but I would like to move this forward and get it behind us. And I'd rather have staff working on other things, because I don't know, I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze continuing to drive at all of the different things. We may be able to squeeze out and say, well, yeah, we saved maybe $10,000 here, but I think that would be the expense of... how much, right, to staff doing, to trying to figure that out may not be any cost savings whatsoever. If it was a million dollar contract, then yeah, I would absolutely continue to drive at it, at proving everything. I think this is, gets us past all of that. I like your suggestions. I really wish that they would be in a separate motion because I like the clarity of finishing this, being done with it, and then as we move forward with any other contracts, here's the new standard. And I really like the things that you've added to that. I just don't want there to be any confusion that that standard applies to this contract. Does that make sense?

It does. I would just like to say that if we can't entwine it into this motion, then then I'll obviously be voting not in favor of this, but I would like to make a subsequent motion to make sure that we follow through with those policies moving forward.

Okay, that's fine with me. I was going to suggest that you make that motion.

If you intertwine it, I can support it.

If not, then... Why does intertwining help you support it? It doesn't. You're still paying the bill. What's wrong with paying the bill?

What I'm asking for in paying the bill is a tie-in to a policy that will never repeat this. And by separating them, you are putting them in two separate motions, which the commission could decline the second motion. Does that make sense?

Oh, you're losing leverage.

We can move that one first. Yeah, let's do that.

That sounds great. If we move it first, then that's fine. Does that impact what we're trying to actually do?

Yes, it does.

Let's keep our eye on the ball here, folks. Let's do that, please. Let's vote on something that's on the agenda before we vote on something that's not on the agenda.

Well, this is on the agenda. It's involving a contract. We've saved $400 in six months, to Brian's point. We got this invoice in January, and it's now June. And we're going to save from 98.5 to 98.1. So to your point, Brian, we can continue to fight about it. And by the time we're all dead 100 years from now, we might have saved $1,000.

Mayor, I think you have general consensus.

Let's restate. The motion is just to approve the adjourned item, correct? Correct. We have a motion and a second.

Any discussion, let's call the roll.

Commissioner Granger?

Yes.

Commissioner Street?

Yes. No. No, I'm sorry.

Commissioner Hughes?

Yes.

Commissioner Lucas? Yes. Mayor Branch? Yes. Motion passes four to one.

I'd like to make a subsequent motion.

Just a second. Mr. Zimmerman, will you read the resolution?

I'd like to. And it's a budget resolution. I don't have it right here. Here it is. Resolution 20-26-06-09.5, a resolution providing for the amendment of the approved fiscal year 25-26 budget to utilize marina reserves for payment to city marina partners pursuant to the interim agreement.

I'd like to make a subsequent motion to that all contracts that are going to involve hourly rates in the future, they must be disclosed in advance and monthly billing must occur.

I'll second that. Any discussion?

Yes. How does this affect get what you want when what we had was a partnership that started that wasn't based on hourly rates?

If we're going to use hourly rates as a cost for reimbursement, they should be disclosed in advance, and it shouldn't take three years for them to sign up. I heard what you said.

I'm asking you, how does that, if we go into another partnership?

Oh, okay, great. Like this. I understand. So what would have happened is when the commission approved the contract, we would have had hourly rates disclosed. Staff would have been aware of the amount of billings each month so that they could have They could have caught this sooner versus it's taking three years before and everybody being shocked by it.

But the agreement at the table was we are going to move forward with a partnership. You go to work. We're not going to charge you for the 50 slips. And unless we don't reach an agreement, and so the intention was that they were moving toward an agreement. How does what we're doing now address that? Will that handle it or do we need a different statement?

I think it would have handled it from the standpoint that it would have been seen.

Chance of receiving a bill should be fixed bid or provide your hourly rate with monthly check.

But her point is in that partnership, there was no bill coming.

Well, there is. There was an unless. The word unless.

Right. And so does what we're asking now address the unless? If we put the unless in there, unless is in there, and then we put this statement in that contract? Does this direct staff to make sure that this statement would go into the very same kind of situation that we were in?

Mr. Zimmerman, based upon the motion, would that have affected this contract?

I think it would have affected the billing. You wouldn't have seen an hourly billing. You would have seen a lump sum billing just like the billing that they received and we approved in connection with the Cypress engineering on the permitting and connection with the Marina Solutions. It was a lump sum and so it would affect the billing. but not the hourly because obviously they couldn't bill hourly. Also, it may affect the policy decision. The policy decision that the commissioners or the policy goal was to have the public-private partners working together before we had a long-term agreement. And so if we had a situation where It may be that you just couldn't do that. And that's not a bad policy decision to say, look, let's stop, let's not have our partner going ahead now, even though we're desperate to get work on the downtown marina going, but let's not do that and let's wait until we have a long-term agreement done and then we won't have this situation. From my perspective, if this situation comes up, I'll just remind everyone of what happened this time. And it may not be a good policy decision in the future to try to do both simultaneously. Just work out your long-term agreement, and then you don't have to deal with this. But that wasn't the policy goal. The policy goal was to do both simultaneously, and it worked. on the fuel tanks, and it worked here. It's just that it hasn't been as smooth.

And Commissioner Street, I'm not against what you're proposing. I just want to be certain that what we're doing, and I still think we need that, right? But that what we're doing addresses the heart of the matter that you want to address.

I still think a blanket policy of capping and applying it to everything is a bad idea because you don't know what you're about to affect today. And I agree with that, but you can have a policy of we negotiate with an open hourly rate rather than just making a negotiation piece. Tie it to that as far as why you're putting it together.

I don't buy a steak dinner unless I know what the cost is.

I get that. What I'm saying, Alan, that we should never have had that. Because that 3-2 vote is what created that $98,000. Right. They negotiated the deal.

I totally understand. Just like every legal agreement is shaped in a way with partnership agreements. Having the rules of engagement if things go good or go bad. That's the point is things went bad or things went not the way we intended and we didn't have any good rules of engagement to protect us that we knew what we're going to get into. That's all we're asking. We're not asking for anything nefarious. It's just an expectation of we're going to get billed this much or some sort of cap. I'm asking Mr. Zimmerman, you've heard the conversation, is there a better motion or policy to make that would help reinforce this belief to ensure that we don't have surprises in the future? Could we do enough to exceed amount as well? There have to be lessons learned from something.

I'm not against the motion. It makes my life easier if that's the clear, you know, guidelines. I was responding to the specific question how it would apply to this agreement. And I think it will affect your policy decisions more than it will ever affect your contracts. That's my point. It will affect the policy. And that's okay because you can then change it at the appropriate time if you need to. But that is... You could put a not to exceed number in there and the, you know, the Hagerty contracts all had not to exceed numbers but then they were voted to raise the cap. I mean it's, but yes, you can put a not to exceed, you can do everything that Commissioner Street said and I think that is fine and would be helpful.

You want to amend your motion? I'll amend the motion to also include in cases where there's not an hourly rate, a not to exceed number must be in place.

Any other discussion? Please call the roll.

Commissioner Granger?

Yes.

Commissioner Street?

Yes.

Commissioner Hughes?

Do I cap myself?

Just, I'm sorry, but there was a cap in this one, but it wasn't, that's my point. That's not a novel concept to put a cap not to a state.

No.

Commissioner Lucas? Yes. Mayor Branch?

Yes.

Motion passes four to one.

We are on item 12A.

Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Item 12A is appointment of Mayor Pro Tem. The Panama City Municipal Code includes the following language in the Charter and related laws. Subpart A, Charter, Article 2, City Commission and Mayor Commission, Division 1 in general, Section 30, election duties of Mayor Pro Tem. The commission shall annually elect one of its members to serve as Mayor Pro Tem who shall perform the duties and exercise the powers of the mayor in the mayor's absence. In the event that both the mayor and the mayor pro tem are absent, the commission shall elect one of its members to serve as presiding officer and perform the duties of the mayor. Historically, the position has rotated among the commissioners. Based on the historical trend, the next mayor pro tem in the rotation is Commissioner Josh Street. The term of the position will be from June 9th, 2026 to June 8th, 2027.

I will entertain a motion to accept Commissioner Josh Street as the mayor. So moved. Second.

Second.

Mayor Junior.

Thank you, Mayor. Please call the roll. Commissioner Granger. Yes. Commissioner Street. Yes.

Commissioner Hughes.

Yes.

Commissioner Lucas. Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes. Motion passes 5-0. And item 12B is notice of term expiration on the Panama City Housing Authority Board. The Panama City Housing Authority has one position for a four-year term that expires on June 11, 2030. The current board member does not wish to remain on the board, and the city clerk's office has received one application, which is attached from Mr. Austin Klanjack.

A motion we approve, Austin.

Second.

Any discussion? Please call the roll.

Commissioner Granger?

Yes.

Commissioner Street?

Yes.

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

City Manager. Item 13A is consideration to approve budget amendment resolution number 20260609.3 and M0168, amendment number two, an increase of $3.5 million to the existing subrecipient agreement between the Florida Commerce Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery, or CDBGDR, and the City of Panama City Area AO infrastructure improvements. As background information, on October 5th, 2022, the commission approved the grant. Agreement M0168 for infrastructure repair in area AO in the downtown area of Panama City. The original agreement was to repair and or replace up to 1.75 miles of damaged water, sewer, and stormwater lines in the downtown area of the city. This increase in funds will extend the area of the downtown to repair and or replace 2,300 linear feet of water lines, 2,400 linear feet of sewer lines, and 2,600 linear feet of storm and paved West Beach Drive from 6th Street to 4th Street and Mulberry Avenue from 6th Street to West Beach Drive. In some of our conversations, it was asked, you know, why is the city able to receive these additional funds? And there's a couple of different reasons, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners. Number one, I think following the hurricane, the heat map and the overall assessment of our entire city infrastructure program that was done, identified areas that we needed to focus on. Obviously, a CDBGDR grant has to be used in an LMI area. Additionally, I think since then, the actual execution of these projects, actually getting them underway, getting them designed, and then getting them done and completed has done something that has put us in a very positive light with the Florida Department of Commerce in Tallahassee. So when other city and counties do not spend the money, and you have some money left over like you do in this particular grant, They reached out to city and counties that have executed those successfully, and therefore we were able to get additional money, and this additional grant money to be used downtown in area AO, roughly what you see on your screen is the area AO. We will now be able to not use surtax money for the West Beach Drive roadway improvement project and use that money elsewhere in the city. Therefore, staff recommends to the director of public works and our disaster recovery project manager that the commission approve budget amendment resolution 20260609.3 and the authority to sign the grant agreement M0168 amendment number two.

Mr. Mayor? Yes, I will entertain a motion to accept. So moved. Second. Any discussion? I wanted to mention that so much of this job is actually dealing with problems other people have created on your behalf for you that you're handling. And this is a big win that previous city managers, elected officials have that we actually are celebrating a win that they helped create along with staff as well. So this is an awesome win. Any other discussion? Please call the roll.

Commissioner Granger?

Yes.

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

Commission has approved Resolution 20260609.3, a resolution providing for the budgeting of capital funds.

Item 13B is consideration to approve budget amendment resolution 20260609.4, accepting and expanding grant funds from the 2025 Patrick Leahy Bulletproof Vest Partnership in the amount of $8,645.00 and transferring the required 50% matching funds in the amount of $8,645.00 from the general fund to the grant fund for the purchase of ballistic vests. As back in information, the Panama City Police Department, or PCPD, has participated in the Patrick Leahy Bulletproof Vest Partnership since the year 2000, which provides a 50% reimbursement for eligible ballistic vest purchases. The 2025 award amount was $17,290.00. Ballistic vests have a five-year service life and cost about $1,000 each. These funds will be used to replace expiring ballistic vests for sworn police personnel and support continued officer safety and compliance with equipment standards. Staff recommendation to the chief of police is that the commission approve this request and the accompanying budget amendment resolution. Mr. Mayor.

I will entertain a motion to accept.

So moved.

Second. Any discussion?

Just to say that the property tax proposal would be affecting, I believe, decisions like this where we have matching funds and then we have to match them. And that would hamper our decision to do that when we are looking at property tax cuts because those funds help us to be able to take advantage of these matching grants.

Any other discussion? Please call the roll.

Commissioner Granger? Yes. Commissioner Street? Yes. Commissioner Hughes? Yes. Commissioner Lucas? Yes. Mayor Brant? Yes. The motion passes 5-0.

The Commission has adopted Budget Resolution 20260609.4, a resolution providing for the amendment of the approved fiscal year 2526 budget to accept and expend funding from the 2025 Patrick Lee Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program in the 50% match.

Item 13C is our monthly operational report. It's there for your questions. Otherwise, staff has nothing to add at this time, Mr. Mayor.

The 2% is that Patty Sunday had questions.

Yeah, we'll look into that and circle back to you, sir. I do agree it's not clear. We'll make sure it's clear in the future.

Any questions for the city manager on the project and efforts update?

No, but I'd just like to add, in reference to Patty's question, the honor roll, 36% of the kids are on the honor roll. So that means that they are doing exceptionally well. in the program and 98% of them have good conduct in the program. The reading comprehensions where we could benefit is just knowing what the range is, whether they're, how they fit in the range.

Any discussion, please call the roll.

I've never heard him say motion to adjourn.

Commissioner Granger?

Yes.

Commissioner Street?

Yes.

Commissioner Hughes? Yes. Commissioner Lucas? Yes. Mayor Branch? Yes. Motion passes 5-0. Thank you. I know, I know. I was just trying to delay it. Thank you.