City Commission Meetings - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. Welcome to the Panama City City Commission meeting for July 28th at 430. We are going to start off with an opening prayer by Reverend Heath Tawes, Senior Pastor of First Presbyterian, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Brian Granger. Please rise.

Let's pray. Heavenly Father, we just thank you for this beautiful day you've given us. Lord, we thank you for just a beautiful place in which we live. We are so thankful for Bay County, Lord, and I'm thankful for the privilege that these men and women have to serve the wonderful people of Bay County. I just ask that everything that's said and done here tonight, Lord, would have a spirit of peace and unity and integrity, Lord, that everything you would just guide these commissioners and our mayor, Lord, just give them wisdom beyond themselves, Lord, to know how that they might... Do what's best here for the people who live in Bay County, Lord. We ask that all this would be pleasing to you and that ultimately would bless the people there have been called to serve. We do pray it all in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen. Thank you, Pastor Paul. You'll join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to you.

Please call the roll.

Mayor Branch.

Present.

Commissioner Lucas. Present. Commissioner Granger.

Present.

Commissioner Street.

Here.

Commissioner Hughes.

Here.

Mayor, you have a quorum.

You've received the meeting minutes for July 14th. Do I have a motion to accept? Motion to accept. Second? Second. Any discussion? Please call the roll.

Commissioner Lucas? Yes. Commissioner Granger?

Yes.

Commissioner Street?

Yes.

Commissioner Hughes?

Yes.

Mayor Branch? Yes. Motion passes 5-0.

Any additions, deletions, or modifications to the agenda today?

None from staff, Mr. Mayor. Any from the board?

We are welcome to talk about this, but I would like to table the item in consent regarding requests for severance pay from the city clerk until we get a formal response from our auditor. That was one of the big reasons why she stayed on was to finish the audit. So I'd like to get a status report on that.

Okay. I'll second that.

I think the auditor is going to provide us back with a response and an update on where we're at.

I can request a status update on the audit from our auditor if the board wishes to do that.

Okay, any other discussion on tabling 9B?

Are we tabling indefinitely, or would you like to bring it back at a certain time, Mayor, Commissioner? I think as soon as we get back a report from the auditor would be fine.

Just put it on the commission meeting after that? Okay, sounds good. And just in addition, since there's only two items on consent, I was planning to talk about 9 Alpha anyway, so I don't know if we need to just strike consent altogether and...

The audience I don't think can hear you guys.

You can't even hear me?

Is it just really low? I think it's just really low. We'll move the mic up closer.

So moving 9A off consent agenda to talk, tabling 9B, waiting for that to be

Yes, I'm in my motion to accomplish making 9A an item for discussion.

And I will second that. Okay. Any other discussion on those two items? Seeing no discussion, please call the roll.

Commissioner Lucas? Yes. Commissioner Granger?

Yes.

Commissioner Street?

Yes.

Commissioner Hughes?

Yes.

Mayor Branch?

Yes.

Motion passes 5-0. Okay.

All right. As summer comes to a close and Panama City eases into a new season, staying informed helps everyone... Keep moving smoothly. Sign up for City Alerts to get updates straight to your inbox or smartphone. 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 panamocity.gov to sign up today. Tomorrow, July 29th, is the final day to drop off donations at City Hall for the annual school supply drive. This effort helps local students start the school year prepared for success. City employees and community members are encouraged to contribute new school supplies, including backpacks and essential classroom materials. Donations can be delivered to the City Hall Rotunda during regular business hours, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. For more details, including a full list of accepted items, please visit panamacity.gov. All donations from the school supply drive will support the Parks, Culture and Recreation Department's Back to School Backpack Giveaway on Saturday, August 1st at Daffin Park from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Each child will receive one backpack filled with supplies and the child must be present to receive it. Since summer break is almost over, we want to remind drivers that the automated school zone speed enforcement program will begin full enforcement when students return for the 2026-2027 school year. Full enforcement, including the $100 notice of violation, will begin on Monday, August 10. Drivers are encouraged to stay alert and obey the speed limit in school zones throughout the day to help keep children and staff safe. For more information about the program, including a list of impacted schools, their school zone hours, and answers to frequently asked questions, visit panamalcity.gov. The next town hall meeting will be held this Saturday, August 1st at 8 a.m. at City Hall. Town halls give citizens an opportunity to share their ideas, raise their concerns, and ask their questions directly with the Panama City Commission and senior city staff. Unlike commission meetings, which limit public comments to agenda items, these informal sessions allow open discussion on any topic. We welcome everyone to join us and be a part of the conversation that shapes our community. Join us for the groundbreaking ceremony at Joe Moody Harris Park on Tuesday, August 4th at 9 a.m. Get a first look at the new design plans and learn more about the timeline for completion as we celebrate this exciting step forward. Business tax receipt renewals are now open for all businesses operating within the City of Panama City, including storefront, home-based businesses, food trucks, and short-term rentals. Renewals are due by September 30 at the end of this fiscal year to avoid any late penalties and potential code compliance action. Renewal notices are emailed each summer, and businesses are encouraged to renew early. For more information or to renew, visit the Business Services page at panamacity.gov or contact the Business Services Division at 850-691-4603. Again, all of this information can be found on our website at panamacity.gov. Moving into public hearings, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, item number 6A is the second and final of two public hearings on Ordinance 3307, an ordinance to vacate and abandon an alleyway in Platted Easement directly east of the parcel addressed at 519 East 6th Street with parcel ID 202220-000-000. north of East 6th Street and south of East 7th Street and east of Allen Avenue and west of Massalina Drive. Relevant background information is enclosed in your packet. Staff recommendation through the Director of Development Services is that the City Commission conduct the second and final of two public hearings and approve the ordinance.

Mr. Mayor? Yes, this is a public hearing. If you'd like to speak about item 6A, please come forward. Anyone want to speak about item 6A? Yes, sir. Good afternoon.

Walter P. Henry, 614 Maple Avenue. Nobody ever answered this question. Is this where y'all would close this alley? Is it behind the rescue mission? It's on Fifth Street. 519 East 6th Street. So I just wanted y'all talking about that and me closing it. The thing I want to ask you, on the school, I want to know if those cameras are running day and night. Nobody cannot admit you. Everybody go try to get around it. And I heard one time back before that you could run through that after school hour.

Oh, this item's about an alleyway abandonment on 6th Street, not cameras.

They're not cameras?

No, there's cameras on this alleyway abandonment.

What are they? What are those sitting there for? Those not cameras sitting there? Everybody pass through that school zone? Taking their... Correct. All right. All right. I'll come back on that. I'd like to get your mind set on seeing. Everybody would like to know about this thing.

Yes, sir. Anyone else want to speak about item 6A, the alleyway abandonment? Seeing none, closing public comments, I will entertain a motion. Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion?

This is a reading. Are we voting? Yes, this is final. Yes.

And Mayor, this is the item you'll be abstaining from?

Correct. Any discussion? Well, just to answer the question, it's not over at the rescue mission, which is in the red. It's to your right in the gray, the black line in the gray, which is not near the rescue mission. It's behind the waffle shop.

Yeah. Yeah. Any other discussion? Please call the roll.

Commissioner Lucas? Yes. Commissioner Granger? Yes. Commissioner Street? Yes. Commissioner Hughes? Yes. Mayor Branch? I abstain. I abstain. And motion passes, board is zero.

If the mayor did abstain, it'll be filed with the clerk to avoid even the appearance of an impropriety because his family is involved with this property. Ordinance number 3307, an ordinance vacating and abandoning an alleyway and platted easements located directly east of the parcel address 519 East 6th Street, north of East 6th Street, south of East 7th Street, east of Allen Avenue, west of Massalina Drive, Panama City, Florida, as more particularly described, repealing all ordinances in conflict, providing for severability of any part if declared invalid, and providing for an effective date.

Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, item 6B is the final reading and public hearing on ordinance 3308 for referendum to amend the city's charter. Attached as exhibit one is the ordinance that places on the general election ballot for this November 3rd, 2026, a referendum question on whether or not the citizens desire to amend the city charter as proposed. The charter amendment will be adopted by the Commission per Ordinance 3308. However, the ordinance is not effective until approved by the electors at the referendum in November 2026. The first reading and hearing was on July 14th, and the staff prepared a final reading based on feedback from the Commission for the final reading and hearing on July 28th here today. This ordinance still includes a single question. However, if you choose the option of three questions, you must refer to Exhibit 4, which contains that optional language. it may be substituted in the ordinance in place of the single question updated changes from july 14th of this year ordinance 3308 exhibit b the clean charter copy now includes the renumbering of articles and sections reflecting how the charter will appear once amended Exhibit 4, in the alternative set of three questions, the added language in competitive elections has been added to question 1, underlined in red, in the attached exhibit for clarity and to match the language in the ordinance title. Relevant additional information and history surrounding this proposed amendment and the work on the charter is enclosed in your packet. That is all from the City Manager's Office, unless Mr. Zimmerman has anything to add.

No, that's good.

All right, Mr. Mayor, over to you.

Yeah, this is a public hearing. If you wish to speak about item 6B, the city charter, please come forward. Does anyone want to speak about the city charter? Seeing none, I am closing public comments. And I will personally kick off the discussion by just saying that I'm not super enthusiastic about either decision. I'm a little bit indifferent, but I am leaning towards one question because the changes in the charter are pretty conventional and normal and expected that other cities have done. And one question is just easier. Easier, in my opinion. I agree. That's why I'm leaning.

The idea of one sounds good, but there are a lot of easy yeses in there. And I'm concerned that if somebody doesn't like one of the issues and they don't know, we don't get the easy yeses. And that directs me back to the three questions. And not that you're trying to set that up, but you're setting up that if the easy ones pass, we can change. If the hard ones don't, and I say easy, adding the pronoun she, because he was the only one that was in there. I mean, that's an easy one. Updating the rules and regs to go with today's environment. Those are easy yeses. But we want to change when we have the election. I'm for it, but somebody might not be, and that would kill the easy yes potentially. So while I agree with you that one sounds good, when I break it down, it might get easier for the voter to get there. So just my thoughts.

Yeah, I do share that concern that if we have just one question, if someone doesn't like one of those, they just vote no. Our charter review committee and the citizens have worked very hard to get us to this point, and I think the option of three questions, but there's no crystal ball to say which will be the better choice. We'll just have to wait till November when the voters come.

Yeah, around these elections, there's so much angst from just everybody. And so to me, the one question, if we were doing some really fancy changes that were like, You know, like some other cities are making some really interesting changes to their charter. Ours are all pretty, to me, basic government 101 stuff, cleanup stuff. So the three questions to me just, yeah, seemed like a little bit much. But I'll entertain a motion if you want.

I'll move that we take option three, approve what's come to us, with option two for three questions, rather.

Say that again?

That we approve the... resolution going forward with option two, including three questions.

So option two is the three questions. Okay. Do I have a second?

I'll second that for a question. If we go with that, does that mean the way that the questions are written today, that's what we're approving? Yes.

For clarification purposes, we did add three words to the first question of the three-question option, just to be crystal clear that it says, and providing, quote, in competitive elections. for two candidates to be on the November ballot. And so what that means is a non-competitive election is that nobody ran. And so it's just one person, I mean, only one person ran. So they would not appear on the ballot. They're elected, you know. Elected at the end of qualifying week, basically. Right, at the end. If there is a competitive election, that mirrors what the ordinance already says. It's nothing new. It's just being crystal clear.

We're within our 75-word limit?

Yes. It's 75 words per question, and we're well within that.

doing three?

No additional costs.

No paperwork.

I still prefer one, but I'm not willing to make this massive deal out of it. I think that all of these are going to pass regardless, truly. I think they're pretty ambivalent as far as from the changes. Do I have a second?

You already have a second. I have a second. Any other discussion? Please call the roll.

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

I'd like to read the title, and this will take just a minute to read. But this title calls for the referendum election on the charter, and it will provide in the body of the ordinance the three questions that are called option two that is attached as exhibit four to your ordinance. And here's title two, ordinance number 3308.

Are you still going to read the whole thing? Oh, yeah. Okay. All right. I do want to make a comment once that one's done after 15 minutes. Take a breath.

An ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Panama City, Bay County, Florida proposing an amended and restated charter entitled Providing for a preamble. Providing for home rule and construction of municipal powers. Expanding the term of mayor from two to four years. Aligning municipal elections with state and federal elections. Moving the next election from 2027 to 2028. Clarifying qualifications for commissioners. Providing for two candidates to appear on the November ballot and competitive elections. Providing for vacancies and commission. Providing for commission rules and procedure. requiring charter officers to live in the city of Panama City, register to vote and hold office at the pleasure of the city commission, reorganizing the powers and duties of the city manager, retitling the city clerk collector as city comptroller, moving city clerk duties to city manager duties, eliminating a public hearing for removal of city manager, providing for the city manager to appoint a lead of police fire services, providing for an acting city manager and acting city attorney, requiring city attorney to be in good standing with the Florida Bar, providing for clarification of employee compensation, providing for charter review every 10 years, complying with state and federal anti-discrimination laws, eliminating sections superseded by state and federal law, allowing for consistent language throughout, eliminating redundant language, consolidating sections, eliminating obsolete language, article sections and editor's notes, amending other general provisions, providing for renumbering of articles and sections, providing for severability and providing for an effective date, calling a referendum election for the electorate to consider approving the amended and restated charter, provided that the amended and restated charter shall not become effective unless approved by the electorate and providing for an effective date.

I was just going to ask, I don't know if there's any limitations of what we can do in education, but I did get somebody ask me a really good question. They thought that moving the clerk responsibilities was taking away the fiduciary control of the comptroller position. And then I had to take some time to explain the financial functions are now within its separate reports to the commission, comptroller position, the city clerk, which is mostly agendas and those kinds of things moved over. in this proposal. So what are our limitations, if any, and what we can do to educate?

I think we could get with the supervisor of elections, but she had said that sometimes booklets would be published that had the entire charter. They would be available when they vote, but you're talking about education prior to voting. And what I would suggest is to let us, now that it's been adopted, let us come back with ideas as far as how the public can be educated on what this is, if that's okay with everyone.

Well, we already know we can do frequently asked questions, like we did the referendum roughly a year and a half ago. I can inform. It'll be the, Ms. Kennedy and I have already talked about making it some of our videos stating factually what we plan to do. So FAQs on the website that everyone can share, and then we'll do educational videos from a staff perspective as well.

An entire landing page for this.

Everything, yes, sir.

And remember, what's going to suck up on the air is the property tax, though. So we have to make sure that we're in different areas all over the place bringing the information because they've got more money than we need to put all that information out there.

Understood.

Yeah.

All right, item 6C is ordinance number 3309. It is the final reading and public hearing to amend the legal boundaries of the Sweetbay Community Development Districts. Mayor and commissioners, included in your agenda packet is the same information you received with the first reading and public hearing of ordinance number 3309 that provides for minor modifications to the boundaries of the Sweetbay CDD. Attached is a drawing in this letter from Mr. Zimmerman that circles the areas that are to be modified that are also on your screen. After conducting the public hearing, the City Commission may consider adopting the ordinance requested by the Sweet Bay Community Development District, and that is the recommendation of staff. Mr. Mayor?

Yes, this is a public hearing. If you wish to speak about item 6C, please come forward. Anyone want to discuss 6C? Seeing none, I am closing public comments and I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve. Any discussion? Please call the roll.

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

Commission has adopted Ordinance 3309, an ordinance of the City of Panama City, Florida, amending Ordinance 3155 and Ordinance 3236, amending the boundaries and legal descriptions of the Sweet Bay Residential Community Development Districts 1 through 6 and the Sweet Bay Commercial Community Development Districts 1 and 2, reestablishing Sweet Bay Residential Community Redevelopment District 7, amending the geographic boundaries of the Sweet Bay Community Development District's Tax Increment Financing District, replacing exhibit A to each such ordinance with amended legal descriptions attached here to as exhibits A1 through AC1, providing for severability, providing for codification, and providing for an effective date.

All right, item number 6D is consideration to have the second and final reading of ordinance 3310 and approval of resolution 20260728.4, revising the special event handbook, including the special event fee schedule. As background information, on April 28th of this year, the commission approved resolution 20260428.6, adopting the new special events handbook, which established updated procedures for administrating special events. including application requirements, event classifications, operational standards, departmental review procedures, and special event fee schedule. After several months of using the new handbook, staff identified and received feedback on a few necessary revisions to make the permitting process more efficient and to provide clearer guidance for event organizers. The revisions clarify permitting during designated holidays, opening up more flexibility. Establishing holiday service rates when city resources are needed. An update on food truck fire inspection requirements by accepting current inspections from other jurisdictions while allowing the city to inspect vendors when necessary and on site. Ordinance number 3310 revises section 17-10 of the municipal code to require payment of applicable fees at least 30 days prior to the event and removes the restriction in section 17-13 prohibiting special events on certain holidays. for the commission's consideration attached to ordinance 3310 and resolution number 20260728.4, adopting the revised special events handbook included as exhibit A. Primary revisions included are listed below. The revisions are intended to improve the administration of the special events program, provide clear expectations for event organizers and vendors, and ensure that city resources are managed efficiently while supporting safe and successful community events. Staff recommendation through the Director of Parks, Culture, and Recreation is that the Commission approve the second and final reading of Ordinance Number 3310 and adopt Resolution Number 20260728.4. Mr. Mayor?

Yes, this is a public hearing. We should not have a lot of emails over this. Seeing no public comments, I'm going to close public comments. Let's just go into a discussion because we've had a lot. We got an email distributed from Commissioner Hughes to elected officials, too, related to his thoughts on it. So do you want to kick us off in some discussion?

Yes, sir. Thank you. I have some concerns that we've asked staff, I feel like given pretty clear direction, to go back and make some modifications. And what we got back, there's some major changes that we never talked about. And it took that long to read all the changes. really what we're talking about is we want to make it easy for people to get a permit. And I believe that the current version is exactly the opposite. And so what I'd like to do is we had some success with our charter review and our parks committee is what if we gave it we had an appointment put that back with 60 days we come back and let them take the document that's there because i think the right information's there it's the philosophy of you know we got we're giving you a rule book that you've got to pass first before you get the opportunity to get a permit you know the one that there's two in there that you i don't need to know who's in the band and what songs are going to play and i don't need and but I don't know where that came from. I've got a concern that we had a lot of conversation about trying to make it cheaper with the police force. There's nothing to do with the police other than the cost. And we get back this box that's highlighted that says all fire and police must go through. And so I'm concerned with that. And if we take and put that in the hands of others and come back with recommendations, that seemed to work for us. the politics, I don't know if you will, but we had some really good citizen input. Yeah, we did. But my concern, I don't, what staff is recommending that we approve is not what we asked them to do, and that's my concern.

Yeah, I kind of thought we were going to have our event committee, permit committee, and so I was like sending Jonathan my recommendations for the committee or whatever grouping you wanted to have. So citizens can have input. So I'm in favor of that. And that way the people that host events feel like they know every word and they have the ability to shape this document as well. And there is a balance of like knowing what's happening in public safety and all those things that we want to have obviously safe events. So yeah, I'm up for having a committee or a group that looks over this and recommends.

I feel like we write these trying to protect the city against problems. And that creates a lot of angst out there of trying to come in and work with us. There's going to be a problem. I don't know what it is, but we can't think of them all. But let's not put it in the program up front. So that would be my thought. And this is not about staff did something wrong. This is about there's a lot of people input. And what we found out is if we take us out of the deal, it just seems to gel a little bit more and have a better discussion.

Sure, thank you. Yeah, I like it. Any discussion?

My question is in similar thoughts in some aspects, like we set off onto this to basically fix so you could be able to host events on Thanksgiving for a turkey trot. And if we don't do anything today, is that preventing that event from moving forward? That's my question.

Yes. Yes, sir, because we got to.

We could vote on that separate.

The ordinance, it's an ordinance right now preventing those holidays.

Could we vote on that separate, Nevin, and say we went on that particular case because if this isn't in place, they shouldn't be penalized for the ask that they made, in my opinion.

The question, excuse me, I'm confused. If this were tabled or continued for two more weeks, if that were the desire, what would be the...

I think they're talking about setting up a...

Three or four months committed. No, not three or four months. Yeah, 60 days.

It'll turn into three or four months.

No. No, the other ones were five.

No, they both extended. One by six months.

Okay, but this is, we're not changing the charter. This is all the information.

That was the Parks and Rec one that went six months over.

Well, they have meetings at every school. This is like one meeting, and they get feedback, and they run with it, in my opinion, or two at the most.

I think the question before us, we're posing to the attorney, is what do we need to do to address the ordinance that precludes the original request? I think there's, on the dais, the consensus to approve the turkey pot people to do their thing. What do we need to do to take that action is what we're asking.

Yeah. OK.

I'll ask that again.

The ordinance, there's two things in front of you. One is the ordinance and one is the resolution. And the ordinance has a few changes, and it deals in 3B. It deals with the fees, and those were discussed at the last meeting. And so that deals with the fees. Section 1711 once again talks about the rates. Then in Section 1730, it strikes out the provision that says that no special event will be approved for Good Friday, Easter, etc. So the actual thing that has generated discussion is in the resolution. Isn't that right?

The handbook?

Yeah, the resolution adopts the handbook.

The handbook.

So it is possible.

So if we don't change fees, we're fine to just change the .

Yes, you could adopt the ordinance and then come back and adopt the resolution that changes the handbook. And I think all the discussion has been on the handbook, which is the resolution. So if that's the issue, then I think it would be appropriate to adopt the ordinance, and then you could hold off on the resolution and the handbook until you're ready.

I motion to adopt the handbook.

The handle?

No, I'm sorry, the ordinance. I'm looking at the ordinance. A motion that we adopt the ordinance because, I mean, this is one of my constituents that was wanting to do the turkey drive.

So I'll second that so I can ask this question. So let's say that we did create a committee. If we adopt this ordinance, all those things are in place. Can that change in the ordinance in that committee?

So what I'm seeing is the ordinance says the rate of these services shall be prescribed in the special events handbook. Uh-huh.

The one that's previously adopted.

The one that's previously adopted and then not the one that's before us today.

They're looking at having this on Thanksgiving, so we've got a little bit of time. A little bit of time.

We can adopt the ordinance and set the committee up for 30 days and have them give some input and then adopt the handbook later.

Yeah. I think that's what we're kind of talking about now. I think that makes sense.

But, Josh, you're saying that the handbook that it references is the existing one, not the one we're talking about? That's correct.

Unless we adopt the handbook and then it would be this new rules in place.

So the motion on the table is to adopt the ordinance, but not the handbook. The handbook will still remain, the resolution will remain the previous one, which is the same fees and the same handbook, and we can discuss the handbook later.

Is there anything in the current handbook that precludes the turkey trough?

No trough.

Other than the holiday piece.

Keith's shaking his head no.

Okay.

Yeah. So it also... anyone who comes in, let's say it applies for the turkey trot, they could be given notice that the fees may change depending on the new handbook when it's adopted.

Because they'd be paying less. And the current applicant is aware of that.

Yes, sir.

To the Commissioner and Mayor, that was going to be my response as well, that the fees could change, but other than that, there would be nothing that would preclude it from moving forward. Okay.

We have a motion and a second on the table to adopt the ordinance but not the resolution. Any other discussion?

When you say the fees can change, because the fees in the existing handbook are more expensive than the one in this one.

The fees in the existing handbook are... All right, since you're back, name and title for the public. I'm sorry, Keith Miro, Director of Parks, Culture, Recreation. The fees in the existing handbook are the $58 range. The fees in the proposed handbook that you have before you are $75. The fees in the handbook that was proposed two weeks ago was the $112 range.

For holiday.

Per holiday.

I don't think that's going to harm the turkey trot one way or the other. That's right. They're looking at maybe one to two officers. It's not like a large parade where they're going to have to have 40 officers.

Will any turkeys be harmed in this trot?

Only at dinner that evening.

Any other discussion about the motion on the table?

Is the setting up a committee part of the motion as well? No. Okay. All right.

Okay. Any other discussion? Please call the roll.

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

Commissioners adopted Ordinance 3310, an ordinance amending Chapter 7, protection of public and private rights, providing that all payments for fees must be made at least 30 days prior to the special event, providing that special events are not prohibited on holidays at discretion of the city, repealing all ordinances in conflict herewith, providing for the severability of any part of this ordinance declared invalid and providing an immediately effective date.

Do we, before moving on to 60, if we wanted to have citizen input from some sort of grouping, do we need to pass a motion for that too?

I think that'd be appropriate, Mr. Mayor. Yes, sir.

Do we want to do that?

Before you do that, I would ask that you ask the one who's going to be dealing with all of this. In the middle of this budget season, what would that impact look like? Do you have the capability bandwidth to do this? Yes, sir.

Keith Meyer, Director of Parks, Culture, Recreation. Still. Still. I mean, I believe that we could take that on. There's been robust conversation already. I think we're, you know, we've presented our budget, so I think we're in a space there we would be able to take this on and handle it pretty quickly, hopefully within 60, 90 days.

My thought would be people on the committee that actually are outside of City Hall, invent planners, having some staff input as well. But let's let the public tell us what works best and can we find a common ground. They've told us what works. What's the public need? And that way we make an appointment and they're off and running and they meet and come back and it takes all of us out of the needle. I agree. I like taking us out of the needle.

Do I hear a motion? My concern is just more that we're going into August, and August and September tends to be a very busy time for staff. And so that's why I just wanted to hear it from the directors whether or not you can support it. Okay. Yes, sir. Yeah.

I think my expectation is like two meetings an hour long each kind of thing, like not 12 meetings.

Yeah, just a feedback.

Yeah. I mean, they're going to make a feedback component.

I think there's a lot of misinformation based on emails that I received that, I mean, because I couldn't find anywhere in the handbook as presented that... would do what people were emailing me and saying that it would do. Sure. And so I think that that would be a great opportunity to kind of understand better how we're miscommunicating there. So.

Perfect. Mr. Mayor and commissioners, is this formal advisory board that that like we did with the parks and rec and the citizen uh i'm sorry the charter review or more something that we grab a bunch of these event promoters sit them around the table it's informal you're not advertising board appointments that take a while and you guys have to nominate folks yeah let's do something if we shared like the the members that we like staff was thinking that you guys were thinking it would be part of why don't we call it

i mean we're the ones that are asking for it yeah well i'm i'm just what i would like this is this is just me what i would prefer and i can tell you guys exactly where i would go for the person that i would put on the on the thing is maybe in two weeks we bring back a name each we put them on a board to have two meetings review what we've already been seeing make their comments and then send those comments back to us prior to adopting anything in the event book. I would pick somebody from the crew of St. Andrews. I'm just going to tell you guys I'd pick somebody from Mardi Gras because they'll be hugely affected by anything that we would change. So I'm sure you guys have got ideas of people that would be that. They're doing turkey trots all over the crate.

I mean, I already have my nomination. We can go have a nomination right now. That's a mean turkey trot. So do we have a motion? You want to put a motion?

I'll motion for everyone to bring back names on the next meeting agenda for us to appoint to an advisory review of the special events handles.

I'll second that. Any discussions? Please call the roll.

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

I would like to clarify that it doesn't prevent anyone else from being a part of it. I think it's just good to have.

I agree.

so going forward we just give our names to the well i think we're going to i think are going to formally establish the committee yeah i want to call and ask would you be willing to serve i'll just say i think doing it in a more formal fashion is prudent and and just lays out clear expectations and and how to move forward and the timeline and all that i think that's i think it's wise

What would be convenient is if staff could get the names in a week or so and would do a simple resolution like the charter review and say, this is what they'll do. They'll meet two times. Time limited. And then you'll see everyone else's names. Does that sound like an appropriate path? Will you include a scope on that, too? Yes. Yeah, it'll include the scope.

Perfect. Thank you.

You can give them to us by Monday, August 3rd. We can put it on the agenda for the next meeting.

All right, moving into item 6E. Item 6E is consideration of approval of resolution 20260728.1, the 2026 annual nuisance assessment. Mayor and commissioners, staff recommends the city commission hold a public hearing and then adopt the annual nuisance assessment resolution. The nuisance assessments were established in 2020 with the intent for them to continue annually to collect the cost of abatement that the city spends annually for the benefits of properties with code enforcement violations. This year, the expected assessments total $98,783.87. The amount of annual assessments since the program was started is listed here in your packet. Let's see here. After the nuisance assessment resolution is adopted, the approved assessment roll will then be sent to the property appraiser and the tax collector for collection using the uniform collection method. The tax collector will include the assessment amount on the tax bill for those parcels that are assessed. After allowing for comments from the public and the closing of the public hearing, it is recommended the commission adopt the annual nuisance assessment resolution. Mr. Mayor.

Excuse me.

Look, Derek Thomas, 1100 West 10th Street. What you're saying and what's on the website is 44 properties totaling $98,000. I think if that's all it was, nobody would really be upset about that. The problem is the millions and millions of dollars that are involved in the day fines that are added to the abatement. And if the abatement, in some cases, is less than $10,000 and there's hundreds of thousands of dollars in day fines, that is... is something that it's not sustainable. If the person owes two or three times what the property's worth, they're just not gonna pay it, and then whoever buys it on a tax purchase, because they're not paying taxes anymore, would be stuck with that landmine of hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines that they have to pay. I think that there should be a way, you should first tell the public how much money is involved in day fines in addition to the actual abatement, And how much is this people being charged day fines who have abated the nuisance themselves but they didn't do it fast enough or there was some problem, they were sick or whatever the deal is or the person died. So if the abatement is really a matter of public safety, sitting around for years and not abating it isn't appropriate. And if it's not a matter of public safety and you're going to financially ruin people for not abating it fast enough, there needs to be a limit, a cap put on the day fines. say, whatever the abatement is, or double the cost of the total abatement. There has to be some sort of cap put on it that you can't just say, for this less than $10,000 worth of abatement, now you've got hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay. That just doesn't seem to make sense or be reasonable, and I think you should consider putting some kind of limit on that. Or if you're gonna be able to relieve the fines, If somebody comes to you and says, hey, I want to develop this, can you relieve the fines, and you're going to do that for them, why not do that for any family member that comes up and says, hey, I didn't know that my family's uncle died and now I inherited this property, but now you say, oh, hundreds of thousands of dollars. There has to be a way for them to have that fine relieved, the day fine specifically. And what you're talking about here only lists the actual abatements and... I think that you should consider that. Thank you.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Anyone else want to speak about item 60? Seeing none, I'm closing public comments.

For clarity, the mines are attached as a lien, so you're going to know about it when you buy the house. The money is a direct cost out of the city to improve that site. It might be unsafe structure. It might be there's a rule that's being broken, and that person has not paid it.

It's a yay-boo thing for me because... Can we just circulate a memo? Can you circulate a memo of just how that process works? Like if we can't get ahold of the owner, what do we do? All those kind of things. It would help educate me as well. Now we won't have to move back and forth. A motion to approve.

A motion to approve. Do I have a second? Because I'm not talking about actual abatement. I'm saying that if the house has been knocked down by the owner and now the city says the owner owes three or four times what the property is actually worth, there's no way that they could ever pay that off.

But they knew that. That's not new news. Well, okay, so we're going to get those answers for you because I would have known too. So I appreciate the questions. Yes, sir. Okay. We have a motion and a second on the table to accept or any discussion.

Would you remind me what the motion is?

To accept the nuisance abatement resolution. Oh.

Approve the resolution. I thought it was something different. Okay.

Any discussion? Please call the roll.

Commissioner Lucas? Yes. Commissioner Granger?

Yes.

Commissioner Street? Yes. Commissioner Hughes? Yes. Mayor Branch? Yes. Motion passes five to zero.

Commission has adopted Resolution 20260728.1, a resolution of the City of Panama City, Florida, providing for nuisance abatement assessments within the city, providing authority, definitions, and findings, establishing the method of assessing the nuisance abatement-related service costs against real estate specially benefited by the service approving the nuisance abatement assessment role providing for the imposition of nuisance abatement assessments, providing for the collection of the assessments pursuant to the Uniform Assessment Collection Act, providing severability and providing an immediately effective date.

All right, moving into qualified judicial hearings.

Before we move on, can you get on the website that similar memo of how we handle code enforcement? We also had a question this week about fines and who can waive fines and maybe a little FAQ on just code enforcement processes that would help us and the public know.

All right, moving into quasi-judicial hearing. During quasi-judicial proceedings, the commission will hear evidence and render a decision regarding the matter presented based upon the evidence received. I don't know if that's the right one. Yeah, just hang tight till I get to the item, thanks. All right, sorry, during quasi-judicial proceedings, the Commission will hear 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, documents, witnesses, et cetera, and cross-examine 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 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? For all items 7A and 7B, I will swear in staff who will remain under oath during the entire proceedings, I'll swear in any additional parties that intend to testify during the public hearing after the city manager introduces them. So please stand to be sworn. and that a staff and anybody else that you anticipate may want to speak. Raise your right hand. 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. If anyone later decides they would like to speak, that is perfectly fine. And at that time, I will swear you when you come forward. If there are any ex parte communications at the time that the commission votes that they've received outside of this public hearing, we would ask that it's communications that you're going to rely on commissioners for your vote if you would just disclose the fact that they took place. And after the close of evidence and during the deliberation, members of the public will be prohibited from further commenting. Thank you.

Item 7A is the first of two public hearings on Ordinance 3306.1, an ordinance submitting the future land use map of the city to reflect the land use designation of general commercial for a property located at 2015 West 23rd Court with parcel ID 13230-030-000. 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 june 8 of 2026 the planning board recommended denial unanimously in a 4-0 vote staff concurred with that recommendation at their july 14 2026 meeting the city commission voted 4-1 to schedule a first public hearing for july 28 and a second final public hearing for august 11 to consider instead rezoning the subject property to General Commercial 1 or GC1. Following documents are enclosed in your packet. Ordinance number 3306.1, the staff analysis report, recommendation of public comments, the adopted map series, including aerial, future land use, and zoning maps. Staff recommendation through the Director of Development Services is that the City Commission conduct the first public hearing for Ordinance 3306.1. Mr. Mayor?

This is a public hearing. Anyone here speak about item 7A? Seeing none, I am closing public comments. Mr. Zimbal.

First reading of ordinance 3306.1, an ordinance amending the comprehensive plan future land use map of the city to reflect a land use designation of general commercial for a parcel of land located at 2015 West 23rd Court, Panama City, providing for repeal or severability and effective date.

Item 7B is the first of two public hearings on Ordinance 3306.2, an ordinance amending the zoning map of the city to reflect the zoning designation of General Commercial 1 or GC1 for a property located at 2015 West 23rd Court with parcel ID 13230 030-000. 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 June 8th of 2026. The Planning Board recommended denial unanimously in a four to zero vote. Staff concurred with that recommendation. At their July 14th, 2026 meeting, the City Commission voted four to one to schedule a first public hearing for today, July 28th, and a second final public hearing for August 11th, to consider rezoning the subject property instead to General Commercial 1 or GC1. The following documents are enclosed. Ordinance 3306.2, staff recommendation through the Director of Development Services is that the Commission conduct the first public hearing on Ordinance 3306.2. Mr. Mayor?

This is a public hearing. If you wish to speak about item 7B, please come forward. Seeing not, I am closing public comments. Mr. Zoneman.

First reading, Ordinance 3306.2, an ordinance zoning a parcel of land located at 2015 West 23rd Court, Panama City, Florida, having approximately .305 acres, GC1, providing for severability and providing for an effective date.

Yes, we are in public participation. If you wish to speak about any of the remaining agenda items, now would be the time that you would come forward Let us know what agenda item that you're speaking on, and you have three minutes to talk about your agenda item. Does anyone want to speak this afternoon or this evening?

Okay, Michelle Bryant, 490 9th Street. I'm speaking on item 12E, or G, 12EG. So last commission meeting, it was brought up about some properties that you guys were looking at putting into the SPARC program. And during the conversation, I brought up that, hey, the American Legion had put in an RFP. It went through the, I'm sorry, unsolicited bid. And then it went through the RFP process, no one else submitted. And so it was kind of put on hold, and as I explained to Jonathan last night, was we were waiting to see the SPARC program start. So when we saw that our property wasn't on the list at the last city commission meeting, that's why we were a little bit concerned. For the sake of the entire board here, I just want to provide some history here. The lot that we're looking at was previously owned by Mr. Joe Lee. He owned Lee's Motel. He was a veteran that was able to start that business due to his veteran service and veteran status. Let's fast forward to today. The American Legion, post 424, Alvin A. Russ is actually a family member of Mr. Lee. So we thought that Purchasing this property will not only benefit the city of Panama City, but allow it to capture the historical preservation of this property. The American Legion is a veteran service organization that service veterans, as well as their family and the community within it that it resides. Backstory and RFP was submitted back in August. No one else submitted. Because it is a CRA-owned property, it had to go through that process. Again, we were awaiting the start of the SPARC program. So as it looks as the SPARC program is in its infancy, we would like to be also included in that SPARC program initiative start to where we look at that matrix. add up those comps and allow for that full 90% because the American Legion meets all of those qualifications. So I want to add that clarity when we look at that particular line item today. Thank you, guys. Thank you.

Anyone else want to speak on the remaining agenda items today? Yes, ma'am. Come on down.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Good afternoon.

I have some concerns. Yes, ma'am. Brenda Lewis-Williams, 2748 Okanek Drive, specifically on 10A-12EFG&H. I would suggest that these items be tabled because Commissioner Hughes, yes, you did. What? a while ago stated that he was going to come up with a plan for unsolicited bids. We have not seen that plan so I would suggest strongly suggest that these be removed or put out for an RFP. No one's seen it. 11A, where is the $73 million coming from, and how will this impact an already strained budget? The SPARC program reminds me of an old SBA program. I don't know whether you borrowed it from SBA or not, but it sure seems like you did. Program 504, let me give you, It's 504 dot dot dot. Okay, Brenda Schell.

504 is a loan program to SBA.

Excuse me?

504 is a loan program to SBA.

I know what it is. I said it reminds me of the 504. I know exactly what it is. But it still reminds me of that. So there needs to be some clarity in what you're offering people. The unsolicited proposals, as Commissioner Hughes has not clarified what's going to happen with that, as opposed to RFPs, the unsolicited proposals give disproportionate advantage to people, as well as disenfranchising people, and it also gives opportunity for cronyism.

Thank you. Anyone else want to speak on today's agenda items? Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Patty, Sunday, 1115 Fairland. Would it be possible on the balance of the long-term debt, it's exciting that there's a 73 million, is that right? Yeah. Payment that's going to happen. But on the balance, I think the taxpayers would be pleased to know the expenses of what that balance, which will be long-term debt, what it was spent on. line by line by line, and then what the anticipated payment each year is going to be on today's rates, right? Thank you.

Yes, ma'am. Anyone else want to speak? Yes, sir. The shirt says, it's a beautiful day, don't ruin it.

May God bless you. Walter P. Henry, 614 May Avenue. If I could talk on your speed lights for the school zones here that you will set up. It don't make any sense to me. They might not be on every 24 hours. It's kind of hard to believe that you're shutting them off, then you're cutting them back on early in the morning. Now, they don't have to be, what I said. I think those things are still operating. I'm telling folks that they could, white school is closed. Cars can run through it as long as they don't go over 31 miles an hour. I heard that. Might have not been from you. I heard that's what happens. But we want to know where the school zones end. It says school zone end. I think it should be a sign there saying where that speed limit will be. When my car goes through Jink School, the speed limit hits 20 School in or school out. My car would not change until it hit another speed sign that said 35 miles an hour. And everybody believed that 35 miles an hour would come in there through Jenks. If the school is not open, they can run 35 miles an hour. Y'all got signs around here saying school zone in, Don't have no speed signs, where the speed limit is. How can we know that? These things need to be, y'all need to have some signs. Those signs are not too far apart. My car would stay on for a long time until it meets one of those speed signs and tell me what the speed limit. Other than that, I'm going to jump off and tell me there's no speed limit. My car tells me I can run as fast as I want to run, but I know I can't. somebody else probably give me a ticket, they catch me. So we are, so we need to, we need to, we need to declare this thing, that these things going to be on 24 hours. It'll be doing, be running with school. It's in, children's inside the buildings, in the fences, and the signs that these because I figured something got to be wrong anyway. Three months, young kid gave out tickets, just saying, y'all just getting these tickets, letting folks know y'all be running, you done ran the speed limit, but we're not going to charge you for it. We need something better than that.

Yes, sir. Anyone else want to speak on the remaining agenda items today?

Yes, sir. Hello, how y'all doing?

My name is Hank Gaynor. I live at 1265 Capri Drive. And I had a question on 12FG and H. And I believe, actually, it's just what I would like everyone to consider is to just a little bit more transparency with that. I don't know what you're about to go into with that, but Some of these properties, they definitely have something. They're in areas where people have a consideration to what's going on there. So I just would like you guys to be a little bit transparent with how this is happening. That's it. Yes, sir. Thank you.

Anyone else want to speak on today's agenda items?

yes sir good afternoon mr mayor and commissioners uh i just kind of wanted to piggyback on what mr gainer said i was uh in terms of the the property issue i was just wondering is it possible that we could hold some community meetings so people could really be informed about what you're doing because i'm not really sure i understand the fullness of it and i'm not sure that the community is aware of what you're doing so I would really like to recommend that we consider having some community forums so that the community could be aware of what you all are doing and people could raise their questions and get more clarification as Mr. Ganey just made mention of.

Yes, sir. Thank you. That's my request. Yes, sir. Anyone else want to speak to that? Seeing none, closing public comments. Moving on to items nine and 10.

Do I have that right? Yep. So item 9A is consideration of acceptance and support of the Panama City Fire Department's Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover Department. As background information, the PCFD is finalizing its process to achieve accreditation through the Centers of Public Safety Excellence, or CPSE, and the Commission on Fire Accreditation International, CFAI. Accredited agencies are often described as being community oriented, data driven and outcome focused. They exemplify organizations that are strategic minded and well organized or properly equipped, staffed and trained. Agency accreditation is an international recognition of achievement. It shows the community that the PCFD continually self assesses, looks for opportunities for improvement. and efficiency and is transparent and accountable to the application of a true third party verification and validation process. PCFD is submitting today its community risk assessment standards of cover document as the final step to proceed to the accredited status. The CRA provides a comprehensive data driven analysis of the risks present within the city of Panama City including fire, emergency medical services, special operations and community specific hazards. building upon this assessment the soc then establishes a measurable performance objectives deployment strategies and service level benchmarks designed to ensure the effective efficient and equitable delivery of fire and emergency services to our residents our businesses and our visitors pcfd appreciates the continued support of the mayor and city commissioners as we work to uphold internationally recognized best practices and enhance the level of service provided to the citizens of Panama City. We respectfully request your acknowledgement of this document as part of the department's accreditation process and for your continued support. Staff recommendation through the fire chief is that the commission accept the 2025 community risk assessment standards of cover document. Mr. Mayor?

I motion to accept. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? Yes.

I insist.

I just wanted to point out that FIRE put this on consent, and I didn't think that it needed to stay on consent, which when we wound up, usually we don't have two items on consent. We usually have a bunch of items on consent. And so I really wanted to pull this one off and just kind of just showcase it to everybody who's in the room and also those who are watching online. And just point out some highlights here that that fire has has been protecting Panama City since 1912 That's that's a I don't know that anybody remembers 1912, right? Pretty sure we didn't have a fire truck. Yeah And then on top of that, the specialized readiness that is shown in this document is unmatched by anybody around us. I'm not even talking about countywide. I'm talking about several counties out. It is unmatched. And so we truly have something special. We have a gem here in Panama City with our fire department. I just really just kind of wanted to highlight that their local knowledge of our streets and waterways really help mitigate the risks and keep the response times very, very strong and effective. So I just want to say thank you, fire department. I know that it wasn't your intent at all for bringing this document forward, I started reading through that document and I was like, man, that's a lot of stuff. That is a lot. So that's all I really wanted to say about it. So thank you.

I want to echo those comments coming from Commissioner Granger. Our fire department really goes the extra mile to protect us. They're often the very first ones when we call 911 who are on the scene. And you can do a good job. But our fire department strives to be excellent. And this document that they're bringing forward is part of that. And what they do helps us not only to be safe, but also helps us in our liability, our insurance as homeowners. And so, Chief, thank you. And I encourage my colleagues, if you've not hung out at the fire department, do so. And if you're lucky enough to go on a call with them, they'll take you.

So my comments, and I relay these to Chief, our team sets an incredibly high bar for themselves. They are exemplary in their performance, the vast majority being in EMS type situations. What I did encourage the chief to do as we move forward in these reports that ultimately will come to us is that in our benchmarking, we not just see their benchmarking, which is gonna be a very high bar to achieve because of what they put on themselves, but also we see what the national average is on those responses too, so that we can kind of see what level of service our citizens are getting and comparatively to the national average of services too.

So thank you for what y'all do. And the reason the bar is set high is that man sitting back there makes sure it happens and it rises. It makes sure that the guys he hires, they're trained well, they're working hard. People were in a little fender bender last night, and this was not in the city, it was in the county. The fire department showed up first. There were six firemen slash paramedics and one cop. And so they get there, they get there quick, and they triage what needs to happen. And so thank you for your work.

I mean, yes. Very cool document. A lot of data. Very cool stuff. We have a motion and a second on the table. Any discussion? Please call the roll.

Commissioner Lucas? Yes. Commissioner Granger? Yes. Commissioner Street?

Yes.

Commissioner Hughes?

Yes.

Mayor Branch? Yes. Motion passes 5-0.

Do we need to read anything on that?

No, don't believe so, sir.

It's Commissioner Reports. Commissioner Hughes, you're up with 10-A.

Thank you. If I may. I'd like to address what somebody said. Oh, Ms. Williams, Ms. Lewis-Williams. With respect to unsolicited offers, there has been a document drafted about the process of taking one in and how to work through it. That was last year, I believe. We continued to work through trying to, different presentations, trying to drill down to how to get to what we thought might work. The document that, and so what that's done is bring us to today, and the document that I'm about to talk about, I'm going to offer up 12 lots, city lots, put them out there. I've got a plan for that. Everybody's going to have an opportunity to do that. But unsolicited offers, what we've done with the last one is we're putting it out there for RFP or come on in and make an offer. That's a hard one to do because in an RFP, everybody gets a chance at buying the apple. Doesn't mean you're going to do it, but you can bid on it. So this idea is it's going to go out and everybody has a chance. So if you don't know it, that's OK. But unsolicited seems to be the way that people want to do it, because that's the way it's always been. And the way it's always been is not an answer for me. We've got to have a process. And so you've heard me say up here, when I sell a house, 13 people go to work. And if those 13 people don't understand the process, if you're the buyer, you're never going to get there because nobody's working towards the same goal. I'm about to hopefully have some discussion about this. So at one of the meetings, I made a comment about that I presented how to dispose of lots three times. And the mayor rightfully so said, yeah, but we haven't had a plan yet. Wow, right here.

Yeah.

And what I'm going to ask is, I asked Sheila to give me 12 lots. Now I left one off, I'm sorry folks. It's good that I can tighten this and put it together. And so what I'd like to do is put it out, 12 lots, and have three different ways to buy it, give me the options, but only builders can buy it. Because you have to build on it. We're not buying and sitting. Yes, it's a goal to get on the tax roll, But the bigger goal is to put a family in a home. So the three ways that I have it is you can buy it direct, you can buy it market rate, finance the money, we move on. You can go build what you want, but you've got to start in a year. Second is we might discount the lot. We discount it in a dollar. Then we get to have some rules on it. And the one that I do is At closing, 20% of that lot value as we have it at the beginning comes back to the city for helping to put people in houses through the infill program or a ship program. And then the third is the infill program doing as we have now, and that requires that buyer coming out of the ship program. So that's trying to still connect something to the ship program. In those two cases, oh, and 50% of the lot value comes back in that to the city. Trying to keep some of the money. I heard it's got to, not stabilize.

Self-sustain.

Self-sustain. And so that's part of my thinking. There's some requirements in here on the builder. You're going to get your own loan. You're going to build the house. You're going to start within a year. And that runs across all three opportunities. Buyer requirements, you've got to get qualified. I've talked to lenders. They come in, we get the lenders involved. If you're going to go through SHIP, and SHIP would go through the housing department. Now, if you're buying in a CRA, I've put a limit in here that in getting a discount, or we put a lot in the deal, you can't go get a CRA permit, demo permit, because that way you're double-dipping into getting help twice. Overall, what I'm trying to do is test the market. Are more people gonna buy straight out? Are they gonna ask for help? Are they gonna go what we've been doing with going through ship and doing an infill program? 12 lots, not too many. They're all in a concentrated area and we can see how that works. What it does is it puts money back towards the city. It has a path on how you have to follow. You start with, you build, and you close. And it gives us insight. If everybody buys market rate, we know we've got, that's what we need to do is just put them out there and sell them. If we need a lot of people with help, we also have that option. It's the middle option right now that we, I'm unclear, I'm needing a little bit of discount. and that might make the numbers work for them. That's my goal is to make the numbers work for that builder that's going to come and work with the city. But I want the rules to be as little as possible because there's enough on the contractors as they build and all the requirements to come out of building with the city. So mayor and commissioners, I submit to you a plan and we're going to talk about some other lots today. But these are 12 that are separate from what we're going to talk about tonight. for discussion. What do y'all think about it? And do you think that there could be some success in doing this? First, this is awesome.

You know, cities can receive, just kind of touching on the unsolicited offers, cities can receive unsolicited offers. You could put an unsolicited offer to buy City Hall. You know, it doesn't mean we have to take it. It just means like, hey, you guys haven't asked for this, but someone is willing to do a thing, whatever that thing is. And, you know, and even in the past year, we've sold unsolicited property to unsolicited offers to the liquor store on 6th Street. And we've responded. Every city does that. They either respond to these one-offs, or they respond to the program. And so I'm glad to see a program, you know, initially when I started looking at properties, well, the way I felt as an investor, a hometown local boy investing in his community, is I've often felt like a second class citizen to the organization. Like I was like, hey, why isn't anyone helping me? And I've said it before, the magical needle to thread in revitalization is where the neighborhood does it for themselves and not an outside person who doesn't know. And that doesn't live there. The best ownership is a person right around the corner who's already putting into the area, who loves the area, who's going to be buried there. You're going to bury me in Panama City. And I love this place. And so those are the best investors to have. And so that's the reason when I came up with the Spark idea, I didn't look at the 504. The 504 loan has nothing to do with acquiring properties. 504 loans as a loan to the SBA to buy property, a loan program and not to buy SBA property. But I was looking at, I basically took a spreadsheet and made up numbers of like how do we incentivize people who are already qualified to do the work in their own neighborhood, who are already doing it. And it kind of fits into your auction too. You know, the discounted lot program. What I don't want to do, what makes me nervous is putting a bunch of lots on the property that are swooped up by outside people who, and I want to increase home ownership too. The magic thing is increasing home ownership, but you know, I don't want to see this neighborhood get diluted down by more outside development. We have an opportunity to help the helpers in the area. And so that was me just kind of making up a program and initially i called it the cra program but it could be applicable to anything and it could change but what i want to see is the people that are existing in the neighborhood who are qualified to do that we also don't want to sell a piece of property in this kind of way to someone who is unable we set them up for failure where they've never done a thing before they're like oh my gosh i've never built anything and this is way harder than i thought building something is hard Um, and so, you know, I, I want to help the people that are in this, in the neighborhood, build their neighborhood back, um, and not look to other people. And so I do, I'm, I'm willing to sell some properties. We can talk about what the properties are and why you present to those. But the whole idea was, and the reason why these other agenda items are on there is to help the people that are already, you know, doing stuff in the neighborhood.

That was the idea.

I, specifically talking about the program, I'm happy to insert a discount matrix into option two. I think that's lovely. The pairing is a property on this initial packages. I'm fine with these properties, but to me, if I was building, if I was buying two lots, I want them to be similar. And that way I can almost use the same plan versus two completely different lots.

But it keeps you from buying all the cherries. You buy one, and then you buy another cherry. And that way everybody's treated fairly. as we're not stuck in trouble now. And so that's just an idea.

Yeah, these are all just ideas. And we're all just making up the way that we want to set people up for success and not for failure. And so I think this is a good stab, and I'm ready to move forward and hear more conversation.

I'm ready to prove it as is, Robby. And I think one of the things that I would like to say is we need to have an evaluation point. Let's say that's, you know, I don't know what's reasonable six months from now that we get a full report on what's happened with these 12 lots. I am a little concerned with just keeping all of the restrictions on funding through this turn because that makes it more complex on the person that's actually trying to build and construct. But I think anything that is worth trying, I think that's going to be shown in this six month period. If we find a bunch of people that just want to pay you market rate and get us out of it, I think that's going to be a pretty clear indication that the government folding of so many layers and creating, trying to make things affordable actually may do the opposite inside of that. We don't know until we try. I fully support as it is. I just ask that we have a six-month evaluation and that we get a full report on what happened with each one of these properties.

Thank you. I've said from the beginning that fairness is pivotal. We've heard from some of the speakers here today that say, how do we know how to move forward? How do we know what's there? what's being made available. And you guys talk a lot about selling lots. Creating neighborhoods is not the same as selling lots. We heard from Dr. Cohen out of Jacksonville with LISC how they were able to do both, to invest in the neighborhood, to provide the services. And my concern is that we not just put lots out for sale, but that we look at how we get the whole neighborhood up. Because you could put new houses right next to houses that need repairs, that are air property that can't be prepared. And so if we're going to create neighborhoods, this is a piece of a whole. It's not the end all and be all. And so that's important to recognize. How do you see putting this forward, that we just put it out like this and those who want to submit an RFP, on a particular property? Where do we go from here? This is an idea. What's the process?

So with the Harmon and Six property, we put it out there with inviting people to make an offer with no qualification. On this, we put it out with here are the 12 lots. Here's the location. Here's your legal description. Builders can purchase. If you pick lot one, you've got to pick lot six. You get two. That way we get six different people building. We're trying to let that work. There may be more than one event, but then that's great. We will take who's bidding on lot one and lot six and getting the best one. Not necessarily low bid, just best deal, okay?

What's the criteria? Best is subjective. What's your criteria for best?

Price and terms. So I don't know what terms are right now. I'm going to create some terms, but they're going to tell me, if they get a discount, they're going to tell me, us, what they need the discount for. What is that doing, okay?

I think these are all coming back to the commission before a purchase contract would be executed. We may all have different viewpoints on what valuation of that criteria is. Some, like how you just said, may value a more community building aspect. Others may value the bottom line of what it transacts at and the actual contract amount. you can do a faster timeline than somebody else but i think i think leaving it to the board yeah we'll have a different viewpoint maybe in each thing but we'll eventually have to come to a consensus what are the clear

steps. We've got several folks out there who have the means and the interest. They look at this list. What do they do next?

So what did y'all do when you put Harmon and Six out there?

We did a notice. A notice of disposition.

A notice of disposition. Here are the lots. They're out there for 30 days. Here's how you proceed. You put the contracts that they can use, make it land, because that's what they are. They use that. Or you have to come and meet somebody, write the offer, I don't know. And builders, and you can pick two and show them what the matrix is, and they have to qualify. Meaning the builder has to show that they can do, to Alan's point, that they can get the money, that they're licensed, and that's in the program.

And what's the criteria? When you say that's in the program, it's spelled out? Yes, ma'am, it is.

Builder...

And where does this go at City Hall? Is this business services? Is it CRA?

The notice of disposition went through procurement.

Logistics. And then when they come in, who handles it?

You'll submit your proposal through Bonfire, just like we do for RFPs. This is the same process we've been using for our CRA disposition of property as well. So they would submit their proposal through Bonfire. and then we bring that back to the commission.

So there won't be the step that usually happens where staff would look at it and then bring it forward?

Yeah, I would not. I would say we just get them, and then we pick from that.

And tune them. to your question earlier about unsolicited. What this does is it doesn't require us to send it back out for other people to make that an opportunity to make a proposal. It's there for everybody.

And then that way we know there's no behind the scenes conversations. It is all out in the public and everyone sees it. And whatever offers are made, everyone's going to see all the offers that are made.

If this works, I got another 10 ready to go.

If I can just ask a question, given remarks that this board has made a number of times over the last several months, so you guys want us to bring back responses to potentially six different packages, 10, 15, 20, and y'all want to, deliberate those on the dais?

As soon as you said that, that's what I was thinking. Look, I'm open to trying something, I think, through this process. I'm fine. I'm just pointing that out. We may find a better way of doing it.

I'm open to trying something, but I'm not convinced of experimenting with an L&I neighborhood. And our concern is we can say we want to create neighborhoods, but we're really just still focused on selling lots. I think we need to find a median to doing that. That's a win-win and not just selling lots.

I would like to say to say we're experimenting in LMI neighborhoods is not a fair statement. We are in a place where we've had land in these neighborhoods for a very period of long time that isn't creating a neighborhood for anyone. And so we have the opportunity to allow people that are local, that are people that can come and build and build housing where there'll be a family that moves into that house. And there'll be more of a neighborhood that's built through that. We're not talking about saying, hey, we're going to go experiment by putting a nuclear power plant or something like that. We're talking about residential lots that are building residential houses. That is not an experiment. That's what was there before.

When I made the statement about an experiment, it's what if we get all of these different And the opportunity is there. We've got 12 packages. If we get 30 proposals and they're all coming to the city commission, that is an experiment. We've not done that before. And that's what I'm referring to. Not some willy-nilly nuclear power plant, but just this process so that people understand. And that's what our audience members have asked for.

I would say this is not an experiment. We've had the same experiment going with the infill program where we've tried to match builders with lots and buyers, and we see how slow that process goes. If all of a sudden this unlocks 30 builders, well then let's redo the entire program. But I don't think that's going to be the issue.

When you sell a lot, it's really easy to, if it's your personal money and your personal lot, it's really easy to pick who gets it. It's like who has a dollar more than the other person. And for me, I've said many times, this neighborhood to me is not a maximize the dollar amount. It's neighborhood and getting, especially in the commercial corridor, it's getting things activated.

And by giving them the option, we're testing the market. So I have a question, Janice. Remember I told you all that my informal survey of Glenwood, there's more new construction happening in that block than I gave than anywhere else in any other Panama City neighborhood. That's the attraction for me in picking these because you're piggybacking on something that's already successful. Glenwood is selling more new construction homes than Kings Point, than Forest Park, than anywhere. And they're doing it

the builders that are there should probably also get some sort of favor because they've been doing it on their own nine with no help from the city and now we're going to offer that up and so i think what we're going to i think i think what i'm hearing is and i have this if 12 people all went to the same lot and they have this like we're going to have to have the conversation of who do we help who do we get is it the highest dollar is it some of the experience i've been very clear about mine is the neighborhood and people who've done it before um and so I think if we get multiple offers or multiple packets, we're going to have to just talk those through, just like we would in an RFP.

I hope that that's the problem that we have. Otherwise, we may end up with none six months from now, and then we all step back and say, what about this is not working?

But guys, I do think that we can agree on some criteria. that we say that everybody understands what the criteria is. I think it's unfair if we put it out there and then we decide sitting up here on the dais what the criteria should be.

Okay. If it's... Well, it says in here, if you go market rate, there's no criteria. You build what you want to. That's what these guys have been doing already. If you go get some help, there's some that's going to come back to us money-wise to the city. But are you asking criteria of what they can build?

No, how do we select? We get, we get.

Okay, I'll give you an example. If I'm buying your house, or if I'm listing your house and I got two offers, one's full price cash, closing 75 days.

But that's not what this is.

It's about what, your question. The other is $10,000 off and closing 15 days. Which one's a better deal? Sure. It depends on your motivation, but most people are going to pull the one that comes sooner.

And I contend that when we're building neighborhoods, there's some other criteria in addition to the better deal.

Okay, but that deal is not... That's about... what's presented to us. So today, I can't set criteria on what somebody's gonna, I'm trying to give, get us out of the way, is what I'm trying to do, is get the city out of the way, and let the public tell us how they intend to use it. We do not have to take any offers. That's the other part about this, is I think that giving them that option, that's what I've been hearing from people is, city, stop putting all these rules and regs in there, let us tell you. We work together.

that may work it may not but when we're in this in this neighborhood that has unique challenges um for instance mlk quarter and we've begun talking about about those and what we can bring to bear to lessen those unique challenges and encourage development I'd like that same spirit of thought to go into the neighborhoods as well. And so the city's going to win when we sell these lots, when the neighborhood is redeveloped, the city is going to win. I don't want to win at the expense of the people who are currently living in the neighborhood. And so we got these new houses and right next to them, we've got somebody with a tarp on, we've got somebody with air property that can't fix it. And that's part of the challenge that when people start looking at where they want to buy homes. When you talk to Ms. Ware, she'll tell you that sometimes people don't want to buy in certain neighborhoods because they're looking at what's all around them. So if we want to lift the neighborhood, let's look at a holistic. This is one piece of it.

So if you're advocating to fix... all the titles and all the routes before we have this conversation there's a lot between 10 and all okay i'm not going to 10 years from now so so i have not advocated that we do 100 but we can we are already working on the airs with the consultant we have that working right we can do this in in parallel with that initiative as well. We can't wait on fixing every pothole and fixing everything.

And you take my argument to the extreme of every and 100% and that is not what I'm arguing.

I'm asking you to present a solution and not a hypothetical. My solution, I like Robby's solution and I want to move forward with this solution.

I have another question. Right now. Go ahead.

Nevin. Yes, sir.

Is there anything about those that would be legally insufficient?

I think what I see here is exactly we've spent over a year discussing this topic. Robbie has brought us a plan. He has actually talked with staff in regards to this plan. He's been collaborative and I think we should just try it. And if it fails, then we say it fails. But it has the potential to be successful. And I don't see how it's less successful than just leaving vacant land sitting. I think that any progress towards a single family home, let's be very specific with what we're talking about, is progress for any neighborhood. And I don't see how that can come back as a negative.

And I'm not saying it's a negative. I'm not saying it's a negative. How does this work with Spark? Are we creating two different lanes?

Yes.

I don't, well, this is a specific test of a path of how how we might be able to work with this. SPART is designed, I think, based on what I read, has some rules in it that are helping inside a CRA only. And this may help SPART modify or this may modify. The answer to your question is I don't know if it helps or it hurts, but I have a question. There's four people, five people building right now in low to moderate Glenwood. All I'm doing is giving more options in this plan from a city perspective rather than having to buy a lot here, a lot there. They get to go pick them. They know where they are. You pick one, you get this one. And you can't go in and some dude from out of town goes and buys 12 lots. That's what I'm trying to avoid. And it'd be nice if they were all... But I can't say if you live at the beach, you're not allowed to buy. And what I've also learned is that there's a lot of builders. You've got to be set up for this model. The margins are thinner. So you're going to do them on a I love to do it or you're set up that way.

So if I'm a builder and I put in for this, I'm not, by the way. But if I was and I put in for this, can I put in for all of them?

No, sir. Why not? Only two. Because I don't want you, the builder, to be able to come in, and to Janice's point, you're not going to change the landscape and what it looks like. How do you see it?

I don't want you to tell me that. Not, I'm putting in for these two, and then y'all picked somebody else for these two different ones, and now I've lost out on these other ones.

You're picking one and six.

As a builder or as... Okay, how about this?

You can pick one and six and you can pick five and six and twelve. I like it. I'm just trying to work through it. Five and ten, from there, you're only going to be able to have one of those deals. There's nothing guaranteeing me I'm going to get those.

You're exactly right. So I have to gamble. You have to make an offer. Make an offer. Meanwhile, somebody else could be making a different offer as well.

Or we can put it as an RFP. It's going to be the same thing. Or you can make an unsolicited offer, and we have to send it out for everybody to do it. This way it allows everybody at one time to have the same opportunity.

All I'm saying is I think we'd probably get better response, and I'm just guessing here, but I'm thinking we'd probably get better response if we decided who got what based on that. And knowing that you can only get two.

Like, I think, Brian, I could say four or five other things that I might want to try or maneuver inside of this or, you know, affect or things like that. But, you know, I... Rob has agreed to six month timeframe on evaluation. I mean, that's a normal listing contract of what somebody would experience. So I don't see the negative ramifications that come from trying this and us learning through this process because this will be an education not only for us, the public, everyone. And I think that's a good thing. I think it is vacant land. A lot of it we've had for 30 years. So, I mean, like it is not something that is like, and we're talking about single family homes. I mean, this is the least controversial thing that you could do. I think it's, I think it's worthy of just, just, Hey, you know what? You guys spent time working on it. Let's try it.

Mayor, would you open up for public to just weigh in on this? Absolutely.

Does anyone want to speak?

While she comes down, Mr. Mayor, I do want to clarify one thing. We obviously, staff, would take what we receive and present it in some type of organized manner with appropriate cover sheets and summaries. We wouldn't just give you all 10, 20, 30 packages. So I just wanted to clarify that.

Well, thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes, Michelle Bryant, 490 9th Street. I just want to add, this could go very well in correlation with the SPARC program. I say that because it gives a criteria for potential builders, maybe need to be tweaked a little bit by adding some more builder language, but it allows this to stay in exactly what Commissioner Lucas is saying. I think you're all saying the same thing, just in different ways, of preserving the neighborhood, which is what I thought was the initiative of this program in addition to the infill program that was created a few years ago. which is to allow people in the community to build, builders, and I think we have about two of them in the room right now, who are already doing this. But partnering with the city will allow these properties to be back on the tax roll. And now you're giving incentives to local builders who in previous years, that wasn't the case. And the SPARK program outlines that. Are you from the neighborhood? Did you grow up in this neighborhood you're wanting to build in? And all those other criteria, I don't know all of them. But I think this is a great idea. But incorporating some of the SPARK language and the criteria when this comes to the board will be very important to especially a community like Glenwood. And looking at those lots, it looks like Nine out of 10 of them are in Glenwood. Thank you.

Can we pull up, there's an agenda item further down that is the SPART PDF on agenda item 12E. It's the second attachment.

Yeah, 12 Edward would be the SPART program.

Please, Donald. Put it on the monitor and scroll down to page two and three.

Oh, that's Carla, sorry. Just give me a second to do that. So it's the SPART... Spark attachment. I know there's a lot of attachments with that particular item. Second attachment.

While they're getting that, I think someone else is. Yeah, come on down.

Yes, ma'am. Also, staff, as with our rules and procedures, please use the timer for all public comment. Thank you.

Hi. Restore the neighborhood, not preserve, right? It's restore to its glory. I tend to be an advocate for the consumer. And the city is in ownership of the land, which is a tangible asset. So good job, Commissioner Robby. But I think there is a, I'm sure of it, I don't think, I know. There is a humongous subset of consumers that are not credit worthy and don't know the pathway. So when we go through this process, it's very easy to create a renter profile where investors can create rentals and all of those things, and we're not delivering the dream of home ownership and generational wealth. And so on the other side of this somewhere, and it probably doesn't belong in government, is how to empower those consumers who do not have a 630 credit score. And those of you that know me know that I've worked in this space for years on the border. We did 2,000 homes of non-credit worthy people, not through the HUD profile. So I can pull, actually I have it, the credit scores of legacy citizens of Glenwood, not by name, by little routes. And there are so many that won't be recognized as creditworthy in the ability to gain a mortgage in this economy, but they're already paying that amount in rent that would cover their mortgage. So that's the part that I would love to see explored, or I'm happy to do the research and give it to whoever wants it. But that will empower more people. I have a question.

If government isn't the partner, who is the partner who does this? Who does what? I'm sorry. What you're proposing. And I'll ask the question to suggest that government should be the partner. I'm asking to know who is the partner.

So there are banks that are required to make certain substandard loans. You know that. There are investors. who will carry the note and owner finance the customer for a while and accrue part of their monthly payment until it becomes enough for a down payment and then you roll them out. There are multiple options. It can be private, it can be government. HUD does it in a way, but if that was already successful here, we've already taken the cream of the crop of the people that can qualify for HUD. And that's wonderful. We have to have that. But there is a quicker way to do it to reward people that actually have the cash flow, but it's going to a landlord. It could flip right over to their mortgage. Thank you.

If you haven't owned a house in three years, you're considered a first-time home buyer. There are amazing programs for financing with 5A credit scores. I did my research to figure out that Those that have the lower credit score can still get in. Everybody has to qualify whether you rent or you own. What the city has the ability to do on what we focused on was the affordability and owning the dirt when you put it in there, that hasn't seemed to catch traction. But guess what, they're building houses at market rate over there and they're selling right now. To me, there are more than, there are enough people to take care of buying 12 houses. And I'm not picking on an area, I'm trying to piggyback on an area that's already doing well in the building.

And that's my point about when I say we're focusing on selling lots at market rate.

No we're not. This is negative change. That's what we've been through.

What about taking that option off the table? No market sales. We go right to the, I mean, if you scroll down, Donald, can you scroll down to the, this is me taking a stab at how to help the neighborhood build itself back. So, Donald, can you scroll down to the gold table?

I'm okay giving the property if somebody's willing to do it affordably. I have no issue.

I'd rather leave them all there because I want to see what the market says to us. I understood that.

That's an example of a criteria that people need to know up front so that we don't get one person who says... Well, that was in his proposal.

It said 100% reduction if they meet the affordability requirements. So I don't... I think that was already built into what Robbie has put together.

It is. If you're the builder, bring us an offer that says, I want you to give the dirt to me, that means that buyer's probably going to come through ship because it's going to require that you follow that qualification. The reason that those are slow is because there's a lot of government bureaucracy you've got to go through. That's wanting to make this. It takes that out. It moves it.

So my suggestion would be to adopt a pricing discount criteria that further helps the neighborhood specifically. If you just kind of scroll through, you'll see family ties in the neighborhood, veterans. These are all just taking a stab at how we further incentivize the neighborhood. Minority, veteran-owned, completed the development alliance workshops. So you're further helping the people who have been through these programs. It's just me taking a stab at how we sort of more granularly look at that discount versus solving that model.

Here's a good idea. His has rules, more requirements than mine. Let's put them both out there in the same way. Not that we're trying to compete. How does the market react to me? We always come up with an idea, and then we just load it up with all these requirements, and then it's too hard.

That's exactly to my point. The more that we keep complicating this, the more nothing happens. That's what we've been really good at, nothing happening. And I see attempts of something trying to happen, and I think it's okay to try something in hopes that something will happen.

Yeah, we might get a whole bunch of submissions, and we go, ooh, we need to iterate on this again.

Or we get none of them, and we go, ooh, we've got to iterate on this again. I don't think that's a bad thing. Either way. I think the worst thing is nobody participates at all because we made it so complicated.

Yeah.

We could ask the builders what they think, and...

Walter P. Henry, 614 Neff Avenue. Yes, sir. Your plan, what you're saying, is fine. I do not believe in trying to force somebody else out of their property. If they're going to sell it, if they're willing to sell it, they can sell it. When you build something, you build it in a neighborhood. You got a lot in a neighborhood. You know what you already have. If you don't like it, you need to become a good neighbor. Help your neighbor. If you don't like how they don't cut their grass, often as you cut yours, Like that way, you ought to cut it yourself for them. Do something. I don't believe not forcing. I tried to tell folks years ago, y'all would not fight the state. That Martin Luther King Boulevard, they done what they did, and they did it. Now you're looking at it, That's property that you can't even hardly put anything on because you widen MLK. We're crying, but we're going to help the people. Everybody is not set in the way that you're set. Somebody cannot do what you can do. If you're going to build something, you're going to help somebody help them. But don't try to destroy them or hurt them. Now, you can talk here all day long. Y'all ain't going to never get to the point where you need to get to. You get your mind up what you're going to do. Not the folks, folks. out of their property.

Thank you. Yes, ma'am, come on down.

Brenda Lewis-Williams, 2748 Oak Hammock Drive. I'm only going to reiterate what some other folks have said. And I know what the 504 SBA program is, so we won't go back there, okay? But aside from that, the local builders in this community should have first pop at this, period. The local builders, you have some setting here. And on most of the time, our local builders, particularly our African American builders get knocked out of the play field. So you need to pay close attention to that. If I'm using the race card, I'm using the race card, but that's what happens.

But you got white and human building in Glenwood right now.

I said the race car, that includes all of them, all ethnic groupings, okay? So, but particularly the African American builders get knocked out. So, as long as it's local builders, to Josh's point, it could work and it would be profitable. You talk about pouring back into the community and rebuilding the community, what other way to do it? by using local builders. Many towns in this country were built using local builders. Eatonville is one of them. Tulsa in Oklahoma is another. Yeah, Glenwood is another one. It had a whole bunch of different adjectives ascribed to it, but used the local builders. Because my mind tells me right now, and you can tell me I'm wrong, but I see cronyism written all over this. I said my mind right now tells me that. And until I see it done otherwise, I'm not going to change my mind. So local builders. And whether they're African American, Hispanic, Asian, it doesn't matter. But local builders.

Everybody in this room will have an opportunity to buy some of these lots. That is not cronyism.

It's not what I said. I said builders. Let's not do this. Let's not do this.

My point is builders. Okay. Mr. Mayor, Commissioner, just prior commission, local preference per city policy set by the commission is not allowed.

Explain what that means.

scoring points if you're local.

But he just said it's not allowed.

Yeah, we took it out of our purchasing policy to comply with state and federal guidelines. So like for any CDBG money, you can't have local preference. It has to be scripted on the basis of the area.

What I would communicate is this goes back to my original point early on. If you want to have more control over how you can award things, remove the funding restrictions that are on the lots prior to doing this. Otherwise, you're going to fall underneath probably some type of housing regulation or federal procurement option or something like that. You're going to be picking probably the highest and best bid is probably what it's going to result in if you don't reimburse the housing program first. Just to point that out in the process.

So some of these lots, all of these lots are housing lots. Yeah. So that does set a minimum of what we can require. So if housing bought it for $25,000, we have to pay that back out of the sale, correct?

Yeah, ma'am. Yeah. If we put a value on there of $25,000 and somebody goes in and does a discount, we get 20% of that value. If the money was actually spent out of housing, like, say, for example, the 805 East Avenue that we were talking about, that came through Florida Housing Corporation. That has to go back through housing to Florida Housing Corporation or be used in that. These lots... I thought you said all of these were housing. They all go to housing, but not the price and the lot.

You're not doing a local preference with housing dollars. It's not going to happen.

So I would like to have Ms. Ware come up and tell us, because this is housing.

Right. What this is doing is it's also, I've got another idea.

Gentlemen, I just don't want unintended consequences that we don't see.

Yeah, I think that's why I'm like six months, try it, see what happens. And if nothing moves or we find there's some kind of crazy.

Does it force us to do anything?

Yeah. We can see what comes up.

Yes, ma'am.

Sheila Ware, Housing and Community Services. Director, all of the lots listed are housing properties. There are some housing funds in every one of these lots.

Little to zero.

Yeah, there's some that may be a minimal amount of $5,000. There's a couple that may have been donated. But we will have to retrieve back the funds that have been put in it from housing. Now, the ones that are listed, for example, on Horizon, What we can do, there are different avenues. If we get market value for it, then we would get paid back automatically if we sell it for market value. But if we do a discount, a mortgage can go back to the client for a portion of the lots. There's a way that we can do it to make it work for the end user.

And let's say the amount of money coming back equals the 20% on one of my examples. That can be the money that we get. We don't get that money and then 20%. We can recoup our money that we have in it And if it equals 20% or greater, under my example of what the city gets back at closing, That could mean that 20%.

So you're saying the money would come at closing? Yes, ma'am.

Yes, the money will come back at the closing once the home is developed and sold. That's right. At the end. Now, of course, the builder would have to sign a mortgage and a note to the city for that property being conveyed to them. So if for some reason in six months he has not built a home, he would have to pay the funds back to the city. That's just securing the city's interest. and the property, and we do that on infill now. Correct, Nevin?

Yes.

Thank you. And one thing that I might suggest is with going through the properties, Housing and Community Service can work with logistics to evaluate the offers that come in so that we make sure that we're getting a home built for a client and it's the best offer and then bring those offers to you all. So we can go through a process of evaluating them so that you're not getting a hundred Offers if some of them if they're not builders that are qualified So that you're not looking through list of people that may not even have a building license well

I mean, that's going to save builders. Right, but we get those all the time. Let's see what comes in first to see how we move through stuff.

Perhaps what we do, gentlemen, is have the criteria of what a builder is. A license. License. Yeah. I think that's already defined as the statute. And that you have to meet all those criteria. Yeah.

Because one important thing that's in here is you cannot transfer the property. You have that in the guidelines. So, you know, Jack the Builder can't put it in his name, then transfer it to someone else and let them do the actual, you know, transfer that property to someone else prior to the construction being completed.

And it has to be a primary resident. Yes. We're not selling to investors. That's how you build the neighborhood, is you put primary resident people in homes

not investors and put renters in there because people take care of what they own and we looked at we looked at the lots that we had not been able to move for years they should just because they are difficult properties so that's why that's a lot of them are on the list those are ones that we've had for the longest amount of time

I'll motion to approve the plan presented to us with a six month trial period.

So gentlemen, thank you. I would like us to put it together and bring it back in two weeks for final at our next meeting after we have had an opportunity to share with community as was requested this evening.

What are we putting together?

This has been available for them. Since Friday. So has all the other stuff that we voted on. But my concern is what is it that we need to put together? Is it the criteria that I'm confused. And I want to help. I want to do that. I'm just trying to figure out what it is.

So we just put this out on the market like this. Where does it go from here? What are the and that's been my question all along, gentlemen. What's the process?

This process, it goes out and does. We already did. and here's what we're offering, here are the rules, here's what we need to follow, and here's the contract you're gonna use. Submit it by X. It's that simple.

Okay, so the intended builders are not necessarily those who are already connected to our city processes. So is that the only method you see of getting this into the community so everyone?

This isn't about just for the builders and panelists that are connected to the housing. This is for anybody that's a builder licensed in Florida. But the idea would be nice, and then it's local. Do we want to set up that you get a preference? I don't want a scoring thing. Is there preference given to people that are doing it now?

Is there concern about just doing the word out? Yeah.

It's about what do we agree? Are we agreeing to what is only in here? Because we've talked about several different things here that we could possibly do that are not necessarily already represented here.

I'm agreeing to what is right there. That was what the motion was.

And what I intentionally did was leave out all of the rules that I just talked about on the special permit. I sent them something on the adopt-a-part. There's all these rules, and it gets bogged down in, I've got to follow this, this, and this. All the rules of contract law are already in place. All I'm asking somebody to do, and they solicit an offer, Pick two lots, send us an offer. No different than what we're going to talk about. All these unsolicited offers, they're doing the same thing except we've chosen the lots for them and said they could buy two only. And you've got to be a builder. From that, I can't tell somebody what to build a house with.

What's the magic number for 12? Could we do... packages one through three instead of one through six so that we have an experiment that is more manageable.

You're going to have six builders. If you knock it down to three, you're going to have three builders. So I'm trying to give the broadest scope of let's give three different ways to buy. You can't get all the cherries. You get one equals six. That way everybody knows they can go drive around and look at them. And you know that you're buying this lot and this lot.

I think it's going to be hard to find six builders. I don't think it will. And that's what I love about what you put together. Let's try it. Let's see what happens.

So the packages have to be exactly as they're here. You want package one, that's 205 East 7th Port and 920 Cycle.

Yes, ma'am. Now, if y'all want to reshuffle that, but changing the plan from one to one and one, that's a bad idea. Because everybody is being treated the same.

Yeah, I mean, I think if we have no one offers made, then you go, well, maybe the package Robbie was wrong. Yeah, and we break them up and we go a different approach. That is very plausible.

But we'll probably get feedback from that action. I'm sure somebody's going to tell us, like, I didn't bid on that because you guys were doing this and that was crazy and that's why. You know, we get feedback. Failure is not always failure as long as it's moving forward.

Yes, any other discussion?

Could I ask a question? Yes. Just trying to keep this, in the event that this does pass and it doesn't come back to the commission before it's published, it's my understanding that this would be like a request for proposal, not unlike what we did with the marina projects. So there will be a cover sheet that goes on top of this and it will say something like this is a request for proposal, submit your proposals by 30 days or some amount of time. There'll be a, not a mandatory, but a voluntary bid would call it a bid, but a meeting where they could come and ask questions and that the commission reserves the right to accept none, to accept some. The best proposal, the best not being the highest, but best meets the needs of the community as set forth in the Exhibit A, then Exhibit A would be the residential lot disposition program. So that doesn't really change the motion, but I wanted, I believe that's what staff would put together on top of exhibit A that just explains it.

Can I help write that? Yes. That'd be great. All I want is for the public to know, here's what we have, here's what we're offering, if you want to buy, here it is, that simple. Yeah. And Janice, I understand that you want the criteria, but it's the criteria that keeps people from participating. It's all these rules, and builders know how to build. All they want to do is get access to the lot, and then they're going to go to work. That's my only goal. I don't want to sell to investors. I don't want to sell to renters. All I want are nice homes that help the neighborhood, that have primary resident people because that's what happens in the neighborhood is they own and they have a home ownership, you just take care of it more. Unless you're in the military and then you rent like you own because there's a CO and all you do is call them, they're not acting right. But that's really my only goal and that's where I came from in the place of trying to put this together. See folks, this is what Sunshine Mall does. We can't have a conversation until we're sitting right here and that's why you're watching this happen.

Robbie, I appreciate what you've done. And don't take my thoughts as being unappreciative of that. But I know that in the Glenwood community, there's a lot more that needs to be done than just selling lots and building houses.

Okay.

And that's my fundamental concern. So we sell these lots. The builders come in. They build the homes. We want them to go to the low to moderate income, the folks that Patty Sunday talked about, but there's no requirement of that in here. There is. No, there's none. This does not have affordability.

It does. There's two options in there. The third one is all about affordability.

Yeah, I would think we get the next 10, 90 days we're doing another 10, and you pick them, and you outline the program that you want to see to help with the segment. I don't want to do a program that It attacks every single facet of housing that's too big.

And why do you always hear me as wanting to do 100% in every and all? I never say that.

I'm always offering a step forward. That's all I ever offer.

But your interpretation is that I want all 100% everything. And that's not what I'm offering.

I said, bring us 10 that you choose on the program that you think would best suit the neighborhood. And we'll just work 10 by 10 and talk through it. And that's what Robbie's done, is offer 10. And we discuss it. If there's any other discussion. Please call the roll. Can we remove option one?

We have a motion and a second. What it does is it tests the market. We do not have to take any offers. If I take that out, now it's all about low to moderate income, and that may not be what sells. But it may be everything. But we don't have to take that. We don't. We don't. And I'm trying to section the market out and say, what's working best without us telling them what they have to do? And us telling the public what they have to do is just kind of a standard, and it just doesn't work that well. I'd rather get information from them that says, hey, guys, you're thinking right, or hey, man, pound of sand, you missed it.

Yeah, and we might get some creative ideas that we are surprised by because we don't know everything. Any other discussion?

I have a question. Sorry, Mayor. Solicit for 30 days? 30?

That's pretty standard.

You've got to close it a certain amount of time.

There's certain due diligence. I think that was all listed in here.

It's all in there.

It'll be advertised for 30 days. Yes. Please call the roll.

Commissioner Lucas? No. Commissioner Granger? Yes. Commissioner Street?

Yes.

Commissioner Hughes?

Yes.

Mayor Branch? Yes. Motion passes 4-1.

We're going to take a five-minute recess. We're back.

All right, we are on item 11a. Somebody needs to order pizza.

11A. All right.

You ready?

Yes, ma'am.

All right. Consideration 11A, consideration of approval of budget amendment resolution 20260728.3 to provide for the first principal payment on the capital improvement revenue refunding note series 2025 in an amount not to exceed $73 million. As background information, on August 23, 2023, the City issued the $150 million Capital Improvement Revenue Note Series 2023 to fund the upfront cost of grant projects awarded by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. On September 5, 2025, the series 2023 note was refunded to extend the term until September 1, 2027. The City has expended the principal amount of the note on the approved grant projects and is now eligible for repayment. This budget amendment will provide for the first principal payment in an amount not to exceed $73 million. Staff recommends approval.

Motion to approve. Do I have a second? I'll second for discussion.

Discuss. So I fully support this. I think this is amazing. I would just like to see the interest savings go to replenish reserves until such time we have terminated the full note.

I as well.

I will note that interest savings is included in our proposed budget we are developing currently. So we would If we could not include that in our proposed budget, we would have to go back and make more cuts to the general fund. Well, to all funds, general fund, utilities fund.

Expense cuts or revenue cuts?

More expense cuts.

Why would it be a cut to expenses when we're already paying these payments? So how is it a cut when we've already, we paid these payments this last year, correct?

Our interest expense?

Yes.

Yes.

Yeah. So how is it a cut if we've been paying these payments?

Because we've budgeted in the budget for 2027 with reflecting the payment of our notes.

So you guys already spent this money is what you're saying?

Once we realized we were going to pay off this money, we did budget in the proposed budget for next year. to reduce our interest expense.

I would just encourage as a practice that don't spend the money before we actually get a chance to discuss it from a board's perspective. That would be helpful.

So if I understand what you're saying, you had a high dollar amount that you budgeted for to pay the interest on this loan in the past year. And then as we move forward, because you kind of expected us to accept this because we kind of been asking for it, right? The budget moving into 2027, you didn't budget for the same amount you budgeted for less?

Correct, for interest expense.

So it's not that money is spent, it's that you're just not budgeting for the higher expenditure?

Correct.

How much money are we talking about? How much money are we talking about, the interest savings that we're talking about?

For the general fund, it's around $1.2 million.

What is it for the utilities fund? I will have to look at it. I think it was another two, if I recall from our meeting.

But that's not money that's just there. That's money that... Do we have less revenue this year than we had last year? The point is that they have to budget for it. So it's like, I think, yeah. No, I agree.

I said that you can budget it to reserves. You don't have to budget it to go spend it on more programming.

I don't think that's how they would view debt.

So if I understand what's going on here, if this payment was $100, we paid off X amount, that brings our payment down to $50. And instead of continuing to put in the budget to pay at the $100 rate, they've budgeted for what the new payment will be. Am I understanding that correct? That is correct. What you're proposing, Commissioner Street, is that they keep paying the 100 and not the 50.

And the difference go to reserves. It goes to reserves. And then that doesn't mean that there's... Oh, not pay on the loan, just go to reserves. Yeah, go to reserves, yes. So I'm saying that we would then replenish, because that's part of the reason why our reserves have gotten to the point where they're at, is we've been paying this interest expense. So it would make sense to me, as you pay off the note, that you take your interest payments and you start replenishing your reserve with those.

But you're also still going to have a payment.

Yeah, you have a reduced payment. We have to pay that.

So we're going to cover that. So we're talking about a dip on top of what we were paying. That's the difference we're talking about.

And so it's $1.2 million? That's just for the general fund.

We're for $4.5 million in reserve.

And I just keep paying it off.

As a reminder, the last direction we got from this board regarding the budget was setting an expenditure cap of $64.5 million. So this would be, in my mind, this would be an additional reduction over that spending cap.

I thought that was revenue. No, that's expenses.

No, a reserve payment is an expense. What I'm communicating is your expense is your loan payment, and rather than taking off 50% or whatever it is, you budget a replacement or reserve payment instead. It's still a payment. I think what I'm watching, and this is where we have revenues going up, but as soon as we find savings, the expenses go up to match. That's an issue. And so even now, we're paying off $73 million of debt that we will not see any effects from to our reserve calculations. It will not change any of that. And so that's where I'm like, hey, at some point in time, we've got to say, look, we're going to make a diligent effort. It would still take multiple years for our reserves to be replenished, even doing this amount.

So what would the reserve get each month under that item?

1.2 would be like 100 a month.

There's that plus the, you said the environmental fund.

A hundred grand a year goes to, would go to the general fund reserve. And I think it's like two something million that would go back to the utility fund. We're going to do a rate study next year. So if we go and spend and we've got underperforming reserves, that means that the rate study is going to show we've got to increase water rates again. And I don't want to be in that spot. I'm just saying I'd rather make the decision now to be a little bit more diligent so we're not sitting here next year Trying to scramble and figure out. Oh, what do we do?

So why don't we just come up with a policy where we say? The city has to operate within a certain percentage of its revenue instead of instead of Well

Because what?

Okay, so they'll find more revenue. Great. But the percentage tracks with the revenue. They'll find more revenue.

But the percentage tracks with revenue.

The city's going to have to have more revenue. The city's growing. It's going to get more revenue. It can.

It can cut expenses and have more revenue. We don't have to spend every dollar a day. Understood.

And that's what I'm saying. That's all I'm saying. Put it at a percentage and just say, hey, and then that percentage of the revenue goes into reserve every year. until we have so much money, we don't know what to do with it.

I can agree with that, Commissioner Granger. We gave them direction, $64.5 million, give us that budget. Now we're saying we want them to do something differently that in the general fund is going to be another $1.2 million reconfiguration.

And $2 million in the utilities fund. I'm sorry? I'm sorry, $2 million in the utilities fund. And there is about, in the marina fund, another, 180 and equipment maintenance fund is about 30.

I just don't think it's fair because sometimes I think we come across as like a schizophrenic boss where like some folks are saying, you know, one thing, other folks are saying another, and then all I'm trying to say is we as a board need to tell them what we expect out of them.

When did you guys get the $73 million loan payoff? When did you guys get that? When did you guys get the documentation of we're paying off $73 million? Like, I got it when I had my meeting last week. So I don't understand how it can already be calculated into the budget when we haven't even discussed it yet. I'm not being schizophrenic. I'm dealing with what I've got in front of me.

This is the first time we've been able to talk about it. But my point is that if the goal is to increase reserves, and we just need to be clear with that goal and just tell staff, we want you to increase reserves. I'm suggesting that if we do that, we do it through a percentage base. That's all I'm saying. So I don't know. It's like every time something happens, there's always something else.

Well, to Josh's point, we're actually doing something good and paying down some debt. We're saving something. And we're turning around and spending that money when we can save it. There's a way to do that. We either talk about it now or at the budget meeting. But I tend to... to ride with you on this where let's talk about where that money is going to go now.

I agree.

So it's like a dead snowball. Because I'm not saying. That's what he's describing.

I get you.

Yeah.

Yeah. For the public, right? So I'm not opposed to that. I'm just saying is that I think we need to tell them as a board what we want. What would be your percentage? Instead of retroactively saying it. Yeah. That is my point.

Do we want to amend the motion?

What would be your percentage? There's already a motion and a second.

Do we want to amend it? Who made the motion? I can't. I didn't make the motion. Who did? Brian. Brian made the motion.

I would rather us just tell them we want this much money or this percentage in reserves.