City Commission Meetings - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. I am calling to order the  Panama City Commission meeting for August 26th,   2025 at 4:30. Opening prayers by Dr. Steve Typton,  senior pastor of Covenant Presbyterian Church,   followed by a pledge of allegiance led by  Commissioner Brian Granger. Please stand. Let's pray together. Heavenly Father, we thank you  this day for your presence with us, your goodness,   your grace, your love towards us. Father, we thank  you for the blessings that we enjoy in this city.   Uh for the peace and the quietness, Lord, that is  a gracious gift to us from you. We thank you for   these council members and we pray father that  you would be with them to give them wisdom,   understanding that they might govern well  and pray lord that we would all continue   uh to serve you and to love you and to follow  you. Pray your blessings upon us all in Jesus   name. Amen. Amen. Amen. You'll join me in the  pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to   the flag of the United States of America  and to the republic for which it stands.   One nation under God, indivisible,  with liberty and justice for all. Oh, Mr. Commissioner Lucas on the screen. Miss  Smith, can you call the role? Mayor Branch here.   Commissioner Lucas will join by Zoom. Commissioner  Granger present. Commissioner Street here. And   Commissioner Hughes is probably in route. He's  in route. He's here. He's out. We have a quorum   though. We can still continue. Correct. But  you have forms, sir. Yes. Uh, you received   the meeting minutes from August 12th, 2025. Do I  have a motion to accept? Motion to accept. Second.   Second. Call the roll. Commissioner Granger. Yes.  Commissioner Stre. Yes. Commissioner Hughes. Mayor   Branch. Yes. Motion passes three to zero. Also,  any additions, deletions, or modifications to this  

agenda? None from staff, Mr. Mayor. None from  commissioners. All right, let's move on. Uh,   committee announcements. Yes, sir. Uh, the  offices of the city of Panama City will be closed   on Monday, September 1st in observance of le the  Labor Day holiday. Garbage collection will occur   as scheduled. Those are our blue trash cans. But  trash services, the bulk pickup will be suspended   on the holiday, resuming on Tuesday, September  2nd. The Panama City CRA with support from W   2 Commissioner Janice Lucas invites the public  to a free lecture, Introduction to Incremental   Development, on Thursday, September 4th, 2025 at  the Barbara Nelson Fine Arts Center located at   1200 Harrison Avenue. Doors will open at 5:30 p.m.  and the lecture will begin at 6 p.m. This event   highlights smallcale communitydriven strategies  to help revitalize neighborhoods post Hurricane   Michael. This lecture is free and open to the  public, but registration is required. To do so,   please visit our website at panama city.gov. There  are two upcoming budget hearings in September for   the fisc year 2026 budget. The first hearing will  occur on Tuesday, September 9th, and the second   or final hearing will be on Tuesday, September  23rd. Both hearings will take place right here at   the Bay County Government Center and will begin  at 5:01 p.m. Central time. Registration for the   Fall Slow Pitch Softball League is open through  October 1st of 2025 with the season kicking off on   October 14th. Players or teams of up to 20 players  can register online now through our city website.   There you will also find important dates such as  the upcoming coaches meeting, the schedule for the   games, and the champions reward. That's all of our  announcements, Mr. Mayor. Good. Uh, awesome. Uh,   quasi judicial hearings. Yep. Quasi judicial  hearings. During judicial during quasi judicial  

uh 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 such  as documents and witnesses etc. and cross-examine   any witnesses. All parties and witnesses will be  under oath and the entire proceedings recorded.   The commission is not bound by the strict rules  of evidence and may consider any evidence which   it deems relevant and trustworthy. uh the comm  um sorry any member of the commission may ask   questions of the parties or the witnesses. Since  quasi judicial proceedings are legal in nature,   everyone is expected to adhere to proper courtroom  decorum and etiquette. Any comments or objection   should be directed to the mayor. The burden  of proof in a quasi judicial proceeding rest   with the applicant. Therefore, the applicant  has the opportunity to address the commission   last after all public participation and before  the commission deliberates. Okay. At this time   uh for the section of the agenda that's excuse  me for this time for the section of the agenda   that's under quasi judicial I'll swear in  the staff who will remain under oath during   the entire proceedings. I'd also ask that  if you intend to speak during any of these   um uh items that if you would also stand and  I will swear you in as well. So any of those   that want to testify that would like to please  stand. If during the public hearing you thought   ooh I need to talk that's fine also you come  in and I'll swear you and then anybody okay   uh please stand you 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. All right. Item number  

6A is the second and final public hearing on  ordinance 3276, an ordinance amending the zoning   map of the city to reflect a zoning designation  of neighborhood general or NG for a property   located at 1410 Wilmont Avenue. This is partial  ID 29666- 000000-0000. As background information,   the applicant has requested a zoning change to  neighborhood general NG. Uh staff recommends the   city commission approved the request. This item  was previously reviewed by the planning board   on July 14th of 2025 and the planning board  recommended approval unanimously. Following   documents are enclosed, the ordinance, the staff  analysis report and recommendation and the adopted   map series. Again, staff recommendation through  the director of development services is that the   city commission conduct the second and the final  public hearing and then approve the ordinance.   Mr. Mayor, this is a public hearing. If you wish  to speak on item 6A, please come to the podium. Anyone on 6A? All right. Seeing none,  closing the public comments. Have a   motion. Motion we approve. I'll second that.  Any discussion? Yes. Um there were some there   were some outstanding questions from last time  regarding um specifically zoning of the house   that's there and keeping it residential and  meeting with the neighbors and I think some   etc etc. There were several things. Do we have  any updates on that Michael that you could Michael Fuller director of development services?  Um, yes. So, uh, we did meet with the, uh,   residents, uh, at at the the site, um, with with  the owner and the neighbors there present. Um,   the, um, I think a couple of the questions that  came up at at the last commission meeting were  

dividing the parcel or splitting the parcel. Uh,  it's currently one parcel. The one parcel has a   old church building and a single family home on  the one parcel. Um, the question was asked, could   it theoretically be split? Um, yes, in theory it  could be split. However, the parking situation   would make that difficult uh because they're going  to have to utilize the entirety of the one parcel   for parking. Um, so if you split them, you're  going to have arcing for, say, the old church   building on a separate parcel, which could get  messy. Um, I think the other question that came   up at the last meeting was about buffering.  Um, there is a buffering requirement between   single family and multif family uses. It's 5T in  width and at least six feet in height. Okay. Was   there any agreement between neighbors or anything  else like that? How do you feel like that meeting   went? I think some of the the the neighbors um  um we alleviated or some of their concerns were   alleviated by by meeting with them and the the  owner. Um however, I think some of the at least   a couple of the neighbors were not um totally  satisfied. Okay. Thank you. So, the the only thing   I'll add, we went through a very intentional  process, and it's a very delicate process to   determine where commercial and residential  lines are drawn. Um, this one specifically,   it makes perfect sense to me that uh neighborhood  general would be where the church property is,   but there's a single family home that's right  beside it that would have made sense had they been   separate parcels to be. Um that's personally where  I'm at still with it is I think the single family   home should remain a single family home here. Um  but I could support the um the commercial building  

moving to a different category. Understand the  parking um the parking issue. I don't really know   how to resolve that, but the chances are um it's  not just the usage that's opened up by, you know,   I mean, two apartments is very different, but in  neighborhood general, there's a lot of other uses   that it could potentially be in a single family  home. And so anyway, I think, you know, I worked   through this process with the neighbors and the  neighborhoods for multiple years. We came up with   these lines. um if the neighbors addressing it  directly, you know, don't want it at this point,   then I'm going to support that. So, that's kind  of where I sit with it. Um if we can go back   and divide it or they want to have more time,  but I don't guess the applicant's here. So,   there's no really way for me to to to ask that  question if they want to go try and divide it   cuz once we vote one way or the other, it's done  for a year if I'm correct. So, it won't come back. Mr. Uh, Michael, I have a question. If it's all  under one right now Mhm. and Neighborhood General   allows for single family. It does. It does. So,  if we were to divide it or they were to divide it   afterwards, would they have to go through this  again? If if we divide it into two properties,   do they each get neighborhood general? Excluding  Jo what Josh was saying is separate from what's   being asked. I I I think if I'm hearing correctly  is it's to divide the property then then part of   it neighborhood general and leave the other  part of it neighborhood residential. Okay.   But neighborhood general allows for single family  in it. Correct. Why would we not include that in   there? The other allowable uses. So you can take  a single family home in neighborhood general and   do I mean Michael? We can do multif family.  Yeah. There's other uses in there. And it's   commercial. I mean like you know you could have  a you could have a store you got have retail yeah  

you're right they could do retail and and that and  that's the bulk of the concern even when we went   through this planning process before the bulk of  the concern was around commercial uses encroaching   into neighborhoods and so you know where do you  draw the line we did our best that we could I   mean I'm not saying it's a perfect process and  I think this is one of the places it is. Um I I   think that it isn't perfect. I think that the old  church facility absolutely should be commercial.   No argument with that. I I fully believe that. Um  but the single family home all surrounding it is   single family homes. Okay. Can you limit on the  single family is use in that in that designation   to be single or up to you know a triplex or or do  is that allowable like um um further restrict the   level just the house not give it all because I  mean you're going to open the church up to the   same uses as the house but at least that's it's  starting with a a more correct premise I think   that's it not something we've done that I can  recall as a city um that we restrict particular   uses on the property. Okay. Um I mean I've  heard of Yeah, I know there deed restrictions   that maybe that's something they can impose and  Josh's concern is valid. I mean they walk in and   do a grocery store and there's nothing anybody  can do about that and that's the only concern   and which is a valid concern. I can't really and  those are the issues we work through in creating   these maps in the first place. And so for me to  immediately within 6 months go and start changing   that and saying, "Hey, you know what? I know what  we said, but we're really going to do this." Like,   like I just don't want to put my name behind that  specific thing. I think it it 100% makes sense in   this particular case that an old church facility  would be a commercial use um or a residential use,   whatever they wanted to use it for from that  side. But the single family home, you know,   that's next to a single family home, that makes  sense to me to stay single family. Um it the  

solution I would provide if if everybody's  still if if people agree then what I would   say is like let's table it maybe Michael will  have another com because what I don't want to   do is ultimately derail this applicant with a  one-year stay on doing anything because once   we vote it's done for a year. Yeah. So and  he's not here. He's not you may he doesn't   want to he doesn't want anything here. I don't  see him here. Since the applicant is not here,   I'd like to withdraw my second and I'll withdraw  a motion. And I would make a motion that we table   and give Michael the opportunity to uh talk to the  applicant and uh come to the next meeting. Please   second. Call the RO. Commissioner Granger.  Yes. Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner   Hughes. Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes. Motion passes  four to zero at the table till next meeting.   So this uh this public hearing, it'll be picked  up again uh in two weeks. Item 6B is the second   and final public hearing on ordinance 3277.1,  an ordinance on the voluntary annexation of   approximately 445 acres of property located at  Highway 390, which is parcel ID 26718-195-0000. It's background information. The applicant has  requested an annexation, a future land use change,   and a reasonzoning to general commercial 2 or  GC2. This item was previously reviewed by the   planning board on July 14th of 2025, and staff  concurred. Um the uh approval unanimously. The   following documents are enclosed. Ordinance number  3277.1, staff analysis report and recommendation,   and the adopted map series, including aerial  annexation, future land use, and zoning maps.   staff recommendation to the director of  development services that the commission   conduct the second and final public hearing  and then approve the ordinance. Mr. Mayor,   this is a public hearing. If you wish to speak  about item 6B, please come to the podium. Anyone  

on 6B? Seeing none, do I have a motion? Motion  to approve. Second. Any discussion? I just have   a question because this is three of the same and  uh is that three application that he had to do?   Is there three? Well, it's uh annexation and the  annexation and the and the zoning land and the   land use all that that we can combine that. But  is that three applications that you had to do? No,   it's it's one application. Okay. It's  just done with three ordinances. Okay.   Any other discussion? visit. Please call the RO.  Commissioner Granger, yes. Commissioner Street,   yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Mayor Branch,  yes. Motion passes 40. Commission has approved   ordinance number 3277.1, an ordinance of the city  approving the voluntary annexation of 445 acres   of unincorporated property located at Highway  390 into the city as further defined here. and   after amending the wards and boundaries of  the city to include said land and providing   for an effective date. Item 6 C is the second  and final public hearing on ordinance 3277.2,   an ordinance amending the future land use map of  the city to reflect the land use designation of   general commercial for a property located  at highway 390 partial ID 26718-195-0000. Background information enclosed as this  is the same information as the prior item.   Staff recommendation to the director  of development services is that the   city commission conduct the second and final  hearing and approve the ordinance. Mr. Mayor,   this is a public hearing. If you wish to  speak about item 6 C, please come to the   podium. Anyone on 6C? Seeing none, closing public  comments. Do I have a motion to accept? Motion to   approve. Second. Any discussion? Call the role.  Commissioner Granger, yes. Commissioner Street,  

yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Mayor Branch,  yes. Motion passes 40. Commission has approved   ordinance number 3277.2 and 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 property located at highway 390 Panama  City Florida providing for repealer severability   and effective date. Item 60 is the second  final public hearing in ordinance 3277.3,   an ordinance amending the zoning map of the city  to reflect the zoning designation of general   commercial 2 or GC2 for a property located at  highway 390 with partial ID 26718-195-0000. Background information is enclosed as  this information is the same as the   prior two items. Staff recommendation to  the director of development services is   that the commission conduct the second and final  public hearing and then approve the ordinance.   This is a public hearing. If you wish to  speak about item 6D, please come to the   podium. Seeing none, closing public comments.  Do I have a motion to accept? Motion to   approve. Second. Any discussion? Call the role.  Commissioner Granger, yes. Commissioner Street,   yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Mayor Branch, yes.  Motion passes 40. The commission is approved.   Ordinance number 3277.3 an ordinance zoning a  parcel of property located highway 390 Panama   City having approximately 445 acres GC2 providing  for severability and effective date. We are in   item seven which is audience participation. If  you'd like to speak about any items related to   uh the agenda from items 8 all the  way to 12, please come to the podium. No public comments. Oh, there  we go. Come on, Mr. Henry. Yeah.

Yes, sir. How you doing? Doing well. Walter P.  Henry, 614 Maker Avenue. Uh I was last week we   talking about the restoration on property that  folks own in this inside the city of Panama City   and y'all charging a price to res register these  these properties and I just wonder why we are when   you can go next door and get that same information  without that folks paying is paying for this   region property has no houses on it. Woody city  got down my street. I have the same problem.   city ain't taking care of the in taking care  of their own property that folks give them to   make get the road make a road and everything and  have thing to put power lines and water lines on   and everything any type of utilities um I never  clean it I keep my section in my and some folks   don't think they probably don't supposed to clean  in front of their they property like that I keep   city property clean better than the city keep it.  If I didn't, it'll look like the street. It look   like the same fix on the other side of my house  where there's vacant property and y'all not clean.   Keep it all keeping your own right clean. Another  thing I like to say, I never seen redwood green   wood cemetery like it is in years. I went for city  31 years that that cemetery stayed clean. Never  

seen that cemetery like it is now. Never even open  the oak terrace. Never seen those. Never like they   are now. Y'all could you clean them back in the  70s. Now we we're in 2025. Now we're not able to   clean keep this keep that cemetery clean. I don't  know if you own it or you don't own it. I know I   know you don't own Redwood. I know you don't own  Hillside. Y'all don't clean those. Y'all have one   couple of time y'all went in and cleaned them. But  y'all don't clean those. But y'all but y'all worry   about everything else. Well, I think you need  to go next door and get the paperwork from them.   Thank you for your comments. Anyone else? Comments  relate to agenda items, please. All right,   seeing none, closing public comments. Consent  agenda. [Applause] Motion. A motion we approve   consent agenda. A second. Real quick, I I know I  was late. I'm sorry. There's three items on the   consent agenda that are city and I think we ought  to promote them like we've got we got uh backstage   pass, we've got the the um lighting the Christmas  tree and the Christmas phrase. They're asked let's   talking about it here first helps promote what  we're doing rather than just saying yes and talk   about it later. You see what I'm saying? They're  on the consent agenda because the city didn't   ask for any special favors, any any credits, but  just to say yes and then bring it up later. Now,   we are voting on having um backstage pass. Let's  talk about it. Having the Christmas parade coming   up, not a week before. You said this was an  opportunity for us. Let's think about that  

going forward if if we could start promotion from  up here. Okay. Yes, sir. Any other discussion? The   only thing I'd just make a comment on Robbiey's  comment. You said there's not asking for anything,   but they are asking to put this in the budget.  So, they are asking. Well, that's true. Yes,   that's true. Any other discussion? I mean,  and we will promote them six ways from Sunday,   but if you want me to read them today, I'm happy  to do that. No, no, I just I just thought I was   reading last night. I thought there's an  opportunity to start from up here. Nothing   bad. Just it will eventually they'll end up um  when the time's appropriate on the announcements   just earlier in the agenda. So, we get a little  bit closer. Okay. So, all that information,   it'll be a dedicated slide and a narrative  that I'll read and everything. All right.   Please call the RO. Commissioner Granger, yes.  Commissioner Street, yes. Commissioner Hughes,   yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes 40. We are  down to the city close. So, pass Commissioner.   Yes. Item 10. That's way down. Item 10 A is  consideration to approve resolution 20250826.3 and authorize the refinancing of capital  improvement revenue note series 2023 in the   principal amount of 150 million of tax exempt  short-term debt approving a loan and escrow   account agreement with Truist Bank and authorizing  the mayor to execute all necessary documents to   effectuate debt issuance. As background  information, the city issued the capital   improvement revenue note series 2023 on August  23rd, 2023 with Cruis Bank for an amount not   to exceed $150 million at a fixed interest rate of  5.82% for a period of 36 months with no prepayment   penalty. The note was used to refund $24.5 million  of hurricane recovery lines of credit and is being  

used to fund $275 million worth of projects that  the city was awarded as a result of Hurricane   Michael through FEMA, through the community  development block grant, disaster relief program,   through the hazard mitigation grant program, and  other state of Florida appropriations. The reason   for the refunding is to adjust the interest  rate from a 5.82 82% fixed rate to a variable   rate of 0.79% of 1 month term sofur plus 0.917%  and to extend the term of the loan to September   1st 2027. The remaining terms and conditions of  the series 2023 note are mostly unchanged. The   adjustment to the variable rate of interest  is expected to reduce interest payments by   approximately $2.1 million through September 1st,  2026, assuming market conditions as of August 13,   2025. The loan term extension is necessary  to ensure sufficient time to receive grant   reimbursements that will be used for loan  repayment after the completion of the projects.   The department head recommendation is to approve  the refunding of the capital improvement revenue   note series 2023 pursuant to the terms provided in  substant substantially the form attached approving   a loan and escrow account agreement with truest  bank and authorizing the mayor to execate execute   all necessary documents to effectuate the debt  issuance. And Mr. mayor as the commission is   considering this. We do have in the audience  Joel Tindle. Joel is our financial advisor   with Hilltop Securities and also Alex Fiser  and Alex is with the our bond council is Mark   Mustin with the law firm of Neighbors Giblin and  Alex is here on Mark's behalf. So any questions  

um they are here to answer any questions that you  may have. I just want to give kudos to whoever   went and got a lower interest rate in today's  market. So before next week um before we do a   motion motion to approve second. All right. Now we  discuss the this last sentence here. The loan term   extension is necessary to ensure sufficient time  to receive grant reimbursements that will be used   for the loan to repay. Can you for the benefit  of the public can you kind of walk through the   process just real quick on how that works? Sure.  I'd be glad to. And why we need 150 million is   what that for, right? So the 150 million was to  refund the hurricane uh Michael lines of credit   and to um properly pay for these improvement. This  cap this capital project program of $275 million.   Let's start at $275 million. the um grants work  where you have to pay for the pro you have to pay   for the work that gets done and then you request  reimbursement from the grant. So of all these   grant we have 30 35 projects ongoing right now.  Um so we're paying upfront for all these projects   to to continue then we request reimbursement from  the grants. So once the projects are completed,   which the timeline for completion has been  estimated at December 31st, 2026, it will take   four, five, 6 months of additional time to get the  reimbursements back from the granting agencies. So   that's why it goes out farther than the project  timeline does. Wonderful. Jan, could you um share   with us what the general fund allocation savings  will be as a result of this? That's 2.1 overall,   but what what is that is actually hitting the  generate fund? I think it's 800,000. 800,000,000.   Okay. Thank you. And I was just an estimate and  I asked like how can we borrow less money and  

she was Miss Smith was super responsive and and  very kind listening to all my crazy questions. So,   thank you. Not crazy. You mean close out the  150 and borrow less from us? Yeah. Yeah. Just   borrow less. And that was an option to get our  projects done on timely manners. But it is still   potential if reimbursements come at any time  and we'll be watching. I'll be watching that   closely. As soon as I can start paying it down,  I will start. So the um the carrying cost has   been paid by the interest that's earned on the  investment. Is that right? For the first year for   the 20 fiscal year 2024, the earnings on the  the earnings on the investments paid for the   uh interest costs. But 25 it did not 26 it was.  Okay. How much were we suffering on 25? Is that   $3 million? 8 million. About $6 million. Okay. And  that's because we're doing we have less money in   in the in the kitty earning interest. Right.  That's correct. Okay. Right. As I draw it,   there's less in the portfolio to earn.  Okay. Any other discussion? Call the role.   Commissioner Granger. Yes. Commissioner Street.  Yes. Commissioner Hughes. Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes.   Motion passes four to zero. Thank you. Thank you.  I'd like to read the title to the resolution. And   the title is a long one. Just letting you  know. It's resolution number 20250826.3. A resolution of the city commission  of the city of Panama City, Florida,   authorizing the issuance by the city of not  exceeding 150 million in principal amount   of its capital improvement revenue refunding  note series 2025 to provide funds for capital   improvements within the city and the repayment of  certain prior indebtedness. Authorizing the award   of the sale of the note upon compliance with  certain parameters. Authorizing the execution  

and delivery of the form of attached amended  and restated loan agreement between the city   and truis commercial equity inc as purchaser of  the note covenanting to budget and appropriate   legally available non-abalor revenues to pay  the note providing for repeal of inconsistent   provisions providing for severability  and providing an effective date. Um,   item 10B is a notice of vacancy on the board of  trustees for the city of Panama City Municipal   Police Officer Pension Trust Fund. The board of  trustees for the city of Panama City Municipal   Police Officer Pension Trust Fund has one position  open that expires on June 12th, 2029. The city   clerk's office has received one application  that is in the process of interviews. Um,   her name is Melanie Law and she is in the audience  if if there's any questions for her today. No, she's coming back. I'll just note she's also  a retired captain from the Panama City Police   Department. Very cool. Shane, we can't nominate  her until she's gone through the interview process   or can That's completely your garage. Does  anybody need more time? I don't need I don't   I don't need more time. Okay. Did she go to work  today? I'll motion to approve. I'll second. Any   discussion? Call the RO. All you had to do was  walk down. Thank you very much, Commissioner   Granger. Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner  Hughes. Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes. Motion passes 40.   Congratulations. Thank you, Melanie. Okay.  Item 10 C is the notice of vacancy for the   tenant commissioner on the Panama City Housing  Authority. The Panama City Housing Authority   has one position for a 4-year term that requires  a resident who is current in rent in a housing   project or a person of low or very low income  who resides within the housing authorities's  

jurisdiction and is receiving rent subsidy through  a program administered by the authority or public   housing agency that has jurisdiction for the  same locality served by the housing authority.   The clerk's office has received one application  for the vacancy from Jane Reagan and I believe   she has completed the interview process. If you  are in the mood to appoint this evening motion   to approve. Second. Any discussion? Call the  roll. Commissioner Granger. Yes. Commissioner   Street. Yes. Commissioner Hughes. Yes. Mayor  Branch. Yes. Motion passes four to zero.   Congratulations. Everyone gets fourear terms  but me. You know that's right. They know. Are   you jealous? The the charter review committee  is working on this. Um item 10D is the notice   of term expirations on the board of architects.  The board of architects has three positions for   three-year terms that expire September 12th,  2028. The current members are Madhat Elmei,   Charles Helmer, and Michael Honeyut. They have  they have expressed an interest in retaining   their posess positions on the board.  Their interviews are in process as well. They're already on the board. They're already  on the board and they would like to retain their   spot. We got a motion. Yep. Motion to approve.  Second. We got Okay. Any discussion? Call the   order. Commissioner Granger. Yes. Commissioner  Street. Yes. Commissioner Hughes? Yes. Mayor   Branch? Yes. Motion passes four to zero. And  finally, the notice of term expirations on   the downtown improvement board. Item 10E.  The downtown improvement board has three   positions for three-year terms that expire on  September 12th, 2028. The current board members,   Jacob Sstein, Lesie Todd, and Shantel World  have expressed an interest in retaining their  

positions on the board. They are also  in the interview process. Does anyone   need more time? I haven't I haven't met with  them, but I mean it's your nomination. Yeah,   I'd actually like to put that to the next meeting.  I'll go tomorrow. Okay. All right. So, no need to   read. So, we're going to take a 5m minute recess.  I believe it's signed paperwork. Yes. Thank you. All right, let's get back into  the meeting. We are on item 11,   city manager. Item 11A is consideration to approve  a budget amendment for resolution 20250826.1 to   transfer budgeted funds from CRA fund 180 to  the parks culture and recreation general fund   001 for the DA and park batting cage in the amount  of $9,040. Background information. On March 3rd,   2025, the CRA agreed to provide funding  for the batting cage at Daffen Park.   PCR purchased the batting cage on May 8th,  2025 from Omega Sports in the amount of $9,440. Staff recommends that the commission approve this  request for the budget amendment resolution. Mr.   Mayor, do I have a motion? Motion to approve.  Second. Discussion. Seeing none, call the RO.   Commissioner Granger, yes. Commissioner Street,  yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Mayor Branch,   yes. Motion passes four to zero. Nevin Mr. Z  like to read the uh budget amendment resolution

which is resolution number 20250826.1 a resolution  providing for the amendment of the approved fiscal   year 2425 budget to transfer budgeted funds  from the Millville CRA to the general fund   for the purchase of the DA and park batting cage.  Item 11B is consideration of approval of budget   amendment resolution 20250826.2 to increase the  budget for unexpected freight and posted expenses   in the customer service utility billing division.  It's background information. The customer service   utility billing division has experienced an  unexpected projected cost increase of $40,000   in freight and postage expenses during fiscal  year 2025. This budget amendment will eliminate   the current deficit in the account. uh staff  recommendation through both the city clerk and   the city manager's office that the commission  approve this request in the budget amendment   resolution 20250826.2 Mr. Mayor. Yes. Do I have a  motion? Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion?   See none. Call the RO. Commissioner Granger.  Yes. Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner   Hughes. Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes. Motion passes 40.  Commission is approved. Resolution 20250826.2.   A resolution pro providing for the amendment of  the approved fiscal year 2425 budget to increase   the budget for unexpected freight and postage  expenses in the customer service utility billing   division. Item 11 C is a request to modify  November December meetings due to holidays.   uh recommending collapse November's meeting  into one to be held on Tuesday, November 18th   at 4:30 p.m. and to collapse the two members in  December into one to be Tuesday, December 16th   at 4:30 p.m. Staff recommendations to the city  manager's office. The commission approved the   recommendations as explained here today for the  November December meetings. Do I have a motion?  

Motion. Discussion. Was there actually a motion?  I heard one second. We both That was a motion.   We said motion. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Like you  got one. I said second. Any discussion? Seeing   none. Call the role. Commissioner Granger. Yes.  Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner Hughes.   Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes. Motion passes 40. Item  11D is presentation and discussion of the FEMA   disaster recovery funding options, considerations,  and long-term debt implications. As background   information, approximately one year ago, the city  submitted an errors and admissions amendment for   FEMA project worksheet or PW2202 related to the  Panama City Marina infrastructure project. This   included revised cost estimates and a request  to increase the project's obligated funding.   Recently, FEMA approved the revised cost estimate  and obligated an additional $8.9 million for the   project, increasing the total obligation from  13.5 million to 22.46 46 million, just under   our original request of $25.5 million. This  significant increase has created an opportunity   for the city commission to strategically  realign funding to support key priorities,   including the Martin Theater rebuild project. The  prior commission approved our current funding path   using funds from four nonsection 428 FEMA projects  to help fund the $32 million Martin Theater   reconstruction project. With the additional  obligated funds, the city now has over $40   million allocated to this project for discussion.  There are three funding options to consider or the   city can continue with the current path also  provided. Staff is seeking guidance on how to   maximize the use of the increased funds in a way  that aligns with the commission's long-term vision   while minimizing the amount of money that must  be returned to FEMA. Uh Mr. Mayor, commissioners,  

we do have uh representatives this evening here  from the Integrity Group, uh some of our disaster   um recovery consultants. We have Gary Yates, the  CEO, and Olivia Schmidt, the senior vice president   of program services. And I believe Miss Schmidt  is going to present a uh presentation with some   background uh in history. Uh and then after that  time, both uh Mr. Yates and Miss Schmidt along   with staff uh are willing to answer any questions  that y'all may have. And I know that there's a   desire for y'all to be able to finally uh discuss  this amongst yourselves as well. So, Miss Schmidt,   if you'll come to the podium and just formally  give your name, title, and company. And if you're   ready, we'll jump right into the PowerPoint.  Okay. Um hi, good, good evening. U my name is   Olivia Schmidt, and I'm with the Integrity Group.  And I guess I'm All right, Donald, we're going to   go and jump right to it. Yes, sir. Okay. Um, so  we've put together a PowerPoint and you will see   some of this stuff is kind of the basic background  knowledge of FEMA um and the programs and um stuff   like that. We're starting there not for your  education but for everyone's. I want everyone to   understand the parameters that you guys are under  and the restrictions that you have um so you can   communicate that clearly um with what you can and  can't do because these um uh federal parameters   are um they have to be enforced in order to go  forward with a plan. So we can't there are certain   things we can and can't do. And so I want to make  sure that we explain all of that to everyone um   before we get into the options so everyone knows  why we've selected the options that we have. Okay.   Um so there's three basic types of FEMA projects.  You have a 4 uh the 428. Um it's based the cost   formulation is based on an estimate. There's a  lot of flexibility. It is a capped project and   you have access to excess funding. So um so that  is the 428. The non428 or standard lane project  

um is based on actuals or estimates. There is  no flexibility. You have to build the original   scope of work that's agreed to in the original um  project worksheet. Um there is no cap. So if you   go over on a standard lane project, you can submit  those costs and if it is in line with the original   scope of work, they will pay the overages. There  is no excess funding unless you um use it towards   the scope of work. So you don't get extra money or  you can't just add on to a scope of work and get   extra dollars. And then you have the improved  and alternate project and that is based on an   estimate and there is some flexibility because  you can submit the scope of work that you would   like to do. Um and but it is capped and there  is no access to the funding after the project   is completed. Once you've completed the scope of  work any overages or under if it's under budget   then you have to give back the money to FEMA. If  it's over budget, it comes out of your pocket. Um,   today we are going to be talking about non428  and improved projects. So, a 428 project,   I'm not going to read this to you guys, but  basically, um, applicants will use the 428   project when they have projects that are they're  not really interested in moving forward with   um something that you no longer fits your needs  um or you don't need it in the same capacity,   you would select a 428 project. You would change  the scope of work and you would build the project.   if you come in under budget and you have excess  funding, you can do other things with it. Um,   that is not what we're dealing with today. Um, so  I just wanted to go over that just in case someone   has a question with 428, non428. And 428, just for  the record, is just the policy number. They just   So, um, it really has no other significance other  than that. And you got here, you have any of those   that we've done or are doing right now? Yes, sir.  You do have some 428 projects. Um the MLK building   um is actually all 428 projects. Thank you. And  that and that was combined. How many projects went  

into I think nine nine different projects. Nine  nine or 12. So a lot. It was a few. Yeah. Nine   to 12 something. Yeah. Somewhere in there. It's a  significant amount of your projects went to MLK.   Um the non428 or standard project is a traditional  project is written to replace a facility that   was damaged during a hurricane. Um they write the  project on estimates. If you do not have any work   completed, um they will write it on work completed  if you have it completed. If you follow the scope   of work and you have overages, they will pay out  those overages in so far as they are outlined in   the scope of work. So, if you increase the type  of roofing that you do or you change conduit or   you build thicker walls or add extra rooms, then  you're not eligible for your overages, that's on   you because you've gone outside of the scope of  work. Um so that's the standard project. And then   we have the improved project. So this improved  project starts as a 4 um as a non-428 standard   lane project. This you usually get these projects,  you write them and then after the fact you say,   you know what, I really don't want to go back with  that project. We want to take those funds and go   somewhere else. So you submit a new scope of work  as an alternate or improved project. So improved   would be that you want to build back the same  building building but you want to make it larger   or you want to make some changes to the footprint  or you want to do different things inside the   building where it's not exactly the scope of work  um but it is the same project same type of scope   of work. Then you have an alternate project which  is what we're doing here. We're taking funds from   a an original project and we're putting it towards  a completely separate project. Um, the reason that   we were able to go back with errors and emissions,  um, is because this is a standard lane project. If   it was a 428 project, you agree to a cost estimate  and you are locked into that. You can't go back to   the table. You can't have reconsiderations. You  can't open up the walls and find mold or anything   like that. That's all on you. Um, so we have  the standard lane project and we were able to  

go back and petition FEMA to re-evaluate um the  PC Marina infrastructure project 2202 and they   agreed that some of the infrastructure was not  originally captured correctly and that there was a   discrepancy in the obligated dollars and they were  very generous in giving us the additional eight   $8.9 million. Olivia, the original scope  for the marina wasn't correct. Is that my   understanding? Um, so it it was really the CEF,  the cost estimate, um, left out some things. Um,   and it didn't really capture all of the damages.  Um, we added significant amount of damages. Um,   I think there were a lot of it was pylons  and decking and peers. Um, were not captured   appropriately. I was not here when that was  done, so I I'm not super familiar with um,   the background of how it was created. Um but we  did know that it was significantly low. Um and so   we wanted to at least try our hand at that and  FEMA did agree um that the scope of work uh or   the CF the cost estimate was not encapsulated in  everything that was damaged and they did agree to   reconsider and they they did consider and they  did come forward with additional money. So um   that money just so you know because just in case  this is a question that money has not been finally   obligated. It is going through the cues at FEMA.  Um there is some hazard mitigation money which   we'll talk about later. Um that could potentially  expedite that or however we want to go about that,   but we can discuss that at a later time. Um but I  did want you to know that if you were to go into   Florida PA today and pull it up, it does still  say the original $13 million um 13 and change   just because it hasn't gone through. We have  got no inclination that it is not processing   and that it isn't just stuck in FEMA Q land. So So  to clarify, we're at year I think we're year seven  

almost approaching year eight and we still haven't  technically received this funding yet. Well,   you do you have the 13 million, but we don't have  the actual cost of the Yes, you don't have the 18   million. Um so we just got So we submitted the new  estimate um in August of last year. I think it was   like August 10th, 7th or 10th, something like  that. We submitted it. We did not receive word   back from them until like late May, early June,  um that they were going to potentially consider   giving us more. We actually asked for about 25 and  a half and um we got on a call with FEMA and they   said, "Listen, if you will just agree to the 22  and a half, we will sign it and push you on your   way." And so I went back and reworked it out and  it was the standard uh percentages and everything.   And so, um, we were not going to be able to push  for any higher dollar amount. Didn't see any fruit   in continuing to extend the amount of time we were  in the system just trying to get them to agree to   more money. Um, there was no way they were going  to come off of the 22. So, we could have kept   trying, but um, just didn't see any fruit on  that tree. So, we agreed to the 22 and a half.   So to be clear to everybody in the audience and  everybody who's watching online or in the future,   we don't have this extra money right now, but  these are options that are being presented to us   so that if and when it does hit, we'll be able to  hit. So when it does hit Yes, sir. And and I have   a FEMA estimation between four fourish months  is what they are telling us um before they can   put the check in the state's bank. So, of the $25  million estimate that's on the downtown marina,   um they did not provide us enough money to  actually rebuild back the way it was. We came   to a settlement. Correct. Thanks. So, if I may,  Mr. Mayor, commissioners, I left one key thing   out. There is no vote expected tonight. There is  no decision that the commission is making tonight.   Uh staff working with integrity um desired to uh  kind of go through all this with y'all one-on-one  

as we did over the last week and a half. and then  additional time of discussion this evening. The   desire is to bring this back at the September 9th  commission meeting for y'all to make a decision.   So, just want to make sure there's no decision, no  vote being made on this tonight. Sure. All right.   So the extra money that came from the wetland  or the upland or all of that and you calculated   the the the entire scope of work we basically  re-evaluated and we sent it off to we sent the   original CF or cost estimating um formula to um  panhandle engineering correct panel panhandle   sorry panhandle engineering and they assisted us  in evaluating all of the damages and increasing   those amounts by what was actually damaged  and not what was submitted in the original CF. Um, so this is HMP versus HMGP. You're going  to hear these terms a lot, so just wanted to   go ahead and clear it up. Um, for anyone who has  any questions. HMP, which is hazard mitigation   project. Um, it is a 406 or you will hear HMP or  406 mitigation. This mitigation is related to a   damaged piece of property or facility in in during  the storm. Okay? So if something got broken or   torn down or whatever, you can rebuild it and then  they will give you additional funding to make it   more resilient for the future. They um insist on  uh obtaining and maintaining insurance and so they   want you to have the most resilient facility that  you can have. So they will give you additional   funding um to do that. Um now the HMGP um which  is 404 mitigation is a fund provided by FEMA um   but doesn't necessarily have to have a tieback to  a direct disaster. So um it's a lot of historical   stuff. So, if you have a historical neighborhood  that floods every time it rains more than two   inches in an hour, um then you can do a buyback  program or you can increase a retention pond where   you have expanded your community and you've like  oh no, now we need an additional uh retention pond  

because now we have flooding over here or flood  walls or you know things like that. But it does   not have to be damaged in the storm. So this is  funded through the county's LMS working group. Um,   and so they have they put together they go through  the state, you submit your projects to the state,   the state works with FEMA and they give you 75%  of your hazard mitigation grant. So that's the   difference. So everything we're going to talk  about tonight will be HMP. Okay. So these are   the projects that are up for discussion. The first  one is the Martin Theater project 221. Um, your   original gross obligation was $17.6 million. uh  FEMA anticipated your insurance at 4.3 million and   your actual insurance proceeds were 4.5 million  bringing your anticipated for donation uh your   your originally before today in all the insurance  reconciliation um it was listed at 13.3 so you may   have seen that number in the past but the actual  number available for donation is the 13,95,6866 barely any with that money, sir. Who's donating  that money? Oh, well, you guys are. Um, okay. So,   the next project is the St. Andrews Marina  Infrastructure Project. Um, this is the   marina. Um, and so your gross obligation was  $4.6 million. Your anticipated insurance was   about 126,000 or let's call it 127,000. your  HMP um for a more resilient infrastructure   um was at 117 and a half and then your actual  insurance proceeds were 260,000. And so we   did the adjustments here. You will see that  you have the actual available donation with   the HMP at 4.3 million and the actual  available without HMP at 4.2 million.   This is the bulkhead project which is also  currently slated to go towards the Martin  

theater. All these projects are currently slated  to go to the Martin the um this project was   written originally gross obligation was 13.5 and  you have HMP of um 1.7 million. Um this is over   there where it says revised obligation.  That's where it has the 22,463,21,000 uh $21. Um so you it's it's xed out, but that's  that number. It's just the actual available minus   the HMP. So, um, if you were to go back and  build the, uh, marina infrastructure and you   were going to go back with the original  scope of work and do a marina project,   you would have access to the $1.7 million. Um,  in none of the options that we have here tonight,   have it where this money is going to any kind of  marina. In all three options, this project 2202 is   slated for the Martin Theater. So, I just Okay, so  this is the recap of what we just discussed. Um,   your original obligated amount prior to the  addition was about $36.5 million. Um, today   you have $40.6 million. And this is not counting  the HMP or anything like that. Um, because these   are just the the basic raw numbers. So, here we  go. Okay. So today, our goals and why we're here   today is to maximize your FEMA funding. Um, and to  minimize the amount of funding that goes back to   FEMA. Um, so you um, from what we've been hearing  from our meetings last week, our goals are to   complete the Martin Theater project, minimize  long-term debt, and agree on some alternative   projects to utilize those additional fundings.  Um, so the current projects, the refurbishment   and remodeling of the Martin Theater is estimated  at $32 million and the project is currently under  

construction with a completion date of 2027. I  don't have that's the best date I got. Um, and   then the other um project that we have that this  the city has already slated to complete is the St.   St. Andrews bulkheads and that was estimated at  $12.9 million. The reason this is here is because   um in the previous slide you saw that it says to  minimize debt uh long-term debt and so it needs to   be stated that in this presentation the only debt  that has been considered is the bulkheads and the   Martin because that's what you've already agreed  to pay. Now, if you want to do something else or   you have other projects, we can certainly add  those dollars or those projected estimates into   the long-term debt totals um for a more realistic  picture on all the things that need to be done.   Um but th this is all that's being calculated  right now in our long-term debt. So, anytime you   see long-term debt, it's just considering the 32  million and the 12.9. You I thought the Martin was   paid off when it's done. Well, there are options.  Okay. That's why I think it's like in your   presentation. Thank you. These are like puzzle  pieces, right? Depends on which works best. Yes.   I feel like I'm getting a really bad movie. Yes.  Sorry. I don't practice. You're doing fantastic.   It's just a lot of information. I know. I'm trying  not to talk too quickly. You're doing great. Um,   so this is the current path that you're on. All  four of these projects are currently slated to   go to the Martin Theater. Um, and this would  be $40.5 million going to the Martin Theater.   And as we stated in the previous um slide, it the  estimate currently is at 32 million. Um, leaving a

Okay. Forward. Oh, yep. Okay. So, this is the  pros and cons of your current path. Um, it does   cover the full cost of a Martin theater and you  can submit for reimbursement pretty quickly. Um,   and there's no change in your originally agreed  to timeline as far as we can foresee at this time.   Now, we can't predict a lot of things, but as it  states right now, um, if you went with this path,   there would be no real change. we have not done  a draw down on the Martin theater um to reimburse   you for your already commitments to them. Um and  the reason why is because once you do a draw down   on a project, you cannot change it. And so one  of these um one of these options actually removes   the Martin Theater. And so we didn't want to do  a draw down on the Martin in the event that you   want to move the 13 million to another project.  Um, and so we kind of tried to buy some time   and slow things down. But if you went with this,  you could immediately do a draw down. Um, and the   pro but the con is that you would end up pro if  the 32 million is accurate, you would give back   $8.5 million. And we just begged for $8.9 million.  So it seems a shame um to go through all of that   just to give it right back to FEMA. Um, and so we  will also have to file amendments to move some of   these projects off of their current path onto  a new path. Um, and we can talk about timelines   and stuff that's further on during the thing, but  these are our pros and cons for your current path.   The biggest con being giving back $8.5 million.  Nobody wants to do that. Okay. Option one keeps   2221, which is the Martin Theater project and  the PC Marina project at the Martin Theater.   um and gives you $35.5 million to finish the  Martin Theater. This is a significant amount   of money. It fully covers your um Martin Theater  project and gives you some wiggle room for any  

kind of issues that may arise. It also leaves  you with PW's 2295, which is the St. Andrews   Marina and 1971. In this particular option, this  would be a non-marina project. So you see that the   HMP is not included on 2295 because it would  not be eligible um for a non-marina project. Okay. Um the pros and cons of this option, it  covers the full cost of the Martin Theater. Um   you can submit for reimbursement pretty quickly  because we are not changing the Martin Theater   project that's already been approved. So we can  immediately submit um reimbursements requests and   you can start getting paid back. Um, it allows  for the new project um to Okay. Allows for the   new project not related to Martin Theater. Okay.  So, it gives you another option for a non-marina   project. So, it gives you $5 million roughly um to  go to a project that we have not discussed is not   related to any of the projects that are on our  board. Um, so if you were to come in at budget,   you would return $3.5 million to FEMA,  which is way better um than $8 a.5 million,   but is still a significant amount of money that  you could potentially put somewhere else. Um,   there we will have to do scope revisions, which  we're going to have to do probably with any of   these. Um, so I don't want that to be a huge con,  but I do want you to know and understand that that   will affect timelines. um it does not address  your bulkhead funding and there is a potential   timeline depending on the type of project. So  if you were to go back and build something that   um that breaks pristine ground or is not an  original project where you're going back on   broken ground or if you decide to expand  a footprint of a project more than 20%   you will have to go through a full environmental  assessment um which can take time which we'll get  

into further at another time. Um option two um is  the same as option one in so far as 2221 and 2202   um are still slated for the Martin theater at  $35.5 million. Um but because this is an HM   um because this is a marina type project you would  have access potentially to the HMP. Now I will go   over this a little bit further in in future  slides. Um, but the HMP, you have to fulfill   the scope of work. And so you can't just have  HMP for a new facility and call it HMP because   it's resilient for your new project. It doesn't  work like that. They wrote that HMP on what was   pre-existing and if you can't use that scope of  work, then those funds are not available to you.   Um, so this gives you with the HMP, considering  that you were going to do something that did   utilize the scope of work for the hazard  mitigation, you would have $5.1 million   um for a non-bulkhead project. But if you were  to use this money towards your bulkhead project,   um you would not be able to utilize the HMP  and so you would be back at the 4.8 uh 4.98. Um this one covers uh again covers the full  cost of the Martin. Do let me know what the   117's written for maybe. Um yes sir. I have um  in here when I get to that for considerations.   Um but it's basically um stuff related to um  hold on. I don't want to lie to you. I don't   want to lie to you. We'll get there. Um if I  haven't answered your question um by the end,   please reiterate that. Um so this one um covers  the Martin Theater. Gives you some wiggle room.   Um city can submit for reimbursement. no change  in your timeline for the Martin theater. Um,   you also potentially return the $ three and a  half million dollars if you don't use it all. Um,   it is a revised scope that needs to  be filed and then it does address  

some of the bulkhead but does still leave 7.9  million unfunded for that as long-term debt. Um, option three. So, this is the first one  that is not the same. Um, this one puts the   PC Marina and the St. Andrews Marina and the  Bulkhead project towards the Martin Theater   for $27.4 million going towards Martin Theater  and puts 2221 the actual Martin Theater project   towards the Bulkhead project. Um, and in this  scenario, um, we are, as you can clearly see,   we are shorting the Martin Theater, um, by $4.5  million roughly. Um, and we are covering the   entire bulkhead project for the uh 12.9 and it  gives you a little bit of extra just in case. So,   this covers the pros is it covers your St. Andrews  bulkheads. Um, it minimizes the money returned   to FEMA. Um, because you ultimately you would  use all of the money and then need extra. Um,   so this the smallest impact on your long-term  debt. this project um this um from what I   understand design and permitting is already been  handled. Um so it's pretty shovel ready. Um the   cons are that it shorts your Martin project  by $4.5 million. Um we would have to remove   the Martin theater from that project which could  delay reimbursements. Um because we would have   access to about $4.9 million. Um, but it wouldn't  you wouldn't have access to the 13 right away. So   once we got to the $5 million from the 2295  project drawdowns and the 1971 draw downs,   we would be in a holding pattern until the  full process of the 2202 was obligated. And  

so once it's obligated then we have to submit the  amendment and then they will move it to the Martin   theater and allow us to do draw downs. So that  would be the delay there or that would be the   con there. Um the next slide is um basically the  long-term debt consolidate uh consideration. Um,   long-term debt, again, I'm going to say this, is  being calculated based on estimates of $32 million   for the Martin Theater and does not consider any  possible change orders and the $12.9 million for   the St. Andrews bulkheads, also not considering  any change orders or increase in costs. Um,   so option one leaves you with the full bulkhead,  the 12.9. Um, so that would give you something   different. You would have an additional project.  Um since you've already committed to these two   projects, you can ultimately say that you will  have these projects and then you would have a   third project for the community. Um but it does  leave you um the city covering the 12.9 million   out of city coffers funds general fund. General  fund marina fund. There you go. Okay. Option two   um is the Martin Theater and Marina project.  And if you to if you were to put the money   towards a bulkhead, then it would reduce your  debt to about 7.9 million in debt for the   um for the bulkhead project. But that's  if you used it towards the bulkheads. Now,   there is an option where you could do another  marina project that is not the bulkheads, but then   you would still carry down the 12.9 in long-term  debt. Option three is the Martin Theater and the   Bulkhead project and it covers the full Bulkhead  project and the long-term debt would be associated  

with the Martin theater. Um but it is the smallest  long-term debt total we have at 4.5 million. So   um this is the consideration of long-term debt  only. It's just a different way to look at it.   I know some um commissioners and other members  were concerned about long-term debt and wanted   to see the options strictly from that perspective.  Um again, if you have another project that needs   to be calculated into this, we can certainly  add those numbers in and see where it fleshes   out. Um but as we sitting right now, this is what  the long-term debt looks like. Okay, some things   to remember. long-term debt is only calculated has  already agreed to undertake um additional projects   in option one would eliminate any of the debt from  the projects. It would not. So if you did anything   other than any project that you would do in  option one would not eliminate any of your debt.   So that's basically what that's saying. Um option  two, this is just kind of like a roundup. Option   two, 22.95 does have $117,000 for HMP. However,  if the money is used to offset bulkhead cost,   then the HMP will not be eligible and only 4.9  will go towards that project. Um, so there,   like I said, there is a consideration where option  two does leave you with the 12.9 in long-term debt   if you decide to do another Marina project outside  of the bulkheads. Um, option one and two allow for   the potential, it allows you for a buffer of  the Martin Theater of about $3.5 million. Um,   but any of those funds that are not utilized will  be returned to FEMA. So, if you don't foresee your   project coming to 33 $34 million, I'm not sure  that I mean you guys I just giving back money just   makes me sad. Just makes me sad. But um ultimately  it is significantly less than the 8.5. And then   number three, the bulkhead project is designed and  permanent uh permanent exempt is what I've heard.  

Um these elements will reduce the timeline um by  so we gave out um last week when we were doing   our interview or interviews our meetings we gave  you a um some tables for each option and option   three had a timeline um that had uh project design  and permitting and all of those things listed as   potential uh time. But if that has already been  completed, you can go back and reduce that time   frame to by 12 to 24 months. But it will still  have to go through EHP review Q um just because   everything does. Okay. Timeline considerations.  Timelines are estimates and there are numerous   factors that can contribute to estimating a  timeline such as construction difficulties,   weather, permitting and design issues. the more  shovel ready your project is, the faster we can   get it through the FEMA cues. Um, and the type of  project that you have will impact the duration of   your environmental process. So, EHP is by far the  time suck when it comes to FEMA process. Um, they   can get stuck in there. I have I had one applicant  have their HM their project stuck in HMP from   submission or in the FEMA cues from submission to  completion for 47 months. I do not foresee that   being an issue here because the state has agreed  and confirmed that they have solved the issue for   the delays that were associated with that back in  21 and 22. Um but still um I am not going to come   up here and pray or swear or do anything to tell  you what FEMA's going to do because I have no idea   and they are unpredictable and I couldn't I don't  know. So, I don't want to come in here and tell   you that FEMA will have everything done in a year.  That's what they predict. Typically, they say EHP   lasts about a year. If it's a full environmental  assessment, if it's less than that, it should be 6  

to 8 months. Um, but we have evidence of it taking  considerably longer. So, I'm not I'm not going to   make promises. Not the Martin. Yeah, the Martin  and um MLK rec center took much longer than that.   MLK rec center actually the they passed it through  EHP and then realized oh wait we missed a spot and   it took another 8 to 10 months. So yeah benefit of  the new guys in the public EHP what that process   is and why okay can't spend this money unless the  project is confirmed. Okay. So, um, EHP actually   stands for environmental historical preservation.  Um, and it basically because this is federal   money, we have to protect federal grounds if you  have a project that either is on pristine ground   or if it is um expanding the original footprint by  20%. So, think as small as taking a 4ft sidewalk   and making it a 5ft sidewalk. That would initiate  an environmental a full environmental assessment.   Um, and so basically if you have to go into  a full environmental assessment, you have to   contact every federal agency, every state agency.  There's seven tribes in the state of Florida that   have to be notified. You have to give all of those  people time to respond and um say if they have any   questions if they want further evaluations. Um, so  everybody gets a chance to look at your project on   the federal, state, and tribal level. Um, so that  it's just a slow process. Um, and so if you have   a historical project, which I'm sure the Martin  Theater probably took a little bit extra time   because it got stuck in historical stuff. Um, and  sometimes they'll make requirements for you to go   back with historical historically correct period  time stuff. Um, for the preservation purposes um,   or they will talk about your relinquishing  of your historical um, designation. There's   a bunch of things that can happen in that.  I don't foresee that the historical or the  

preservation part being an issue here. Um, but  any projects at the marinas will probably garner   a full EA because it's in a coastal construction  zone. Um, and it's dealing with water and every   time you get into any kind of coastal area,  environmental goes up and time goes down. So,   um, that is affectionately called the endless  hurdles process. The endless hurdles process. Okay. So, things to consider,  timeline considerations. Um,   option three removes the actual Martin Theater  project 221. It could further delay draw downs   um because we would have to remove the actual  Martin Theater. Right now, the Martin Theater   is the only project that is currently slated to go  to the Martin Theater. Um, but the Martin Theater   has a full environmental record of concern. And  so when we go to put the other projects on there,   we will submit the environmental record  of concern and it should appease the EHP   process. So getting the other projects into the  Martin is not going to be as much of a problem   as getting the Martin Theater out of the Martin  theater, if that makes any sense. You're saying   it would trigger an EHV process over again  if we took 2221 away from the Martin. Sir,   I'm sorry. If we took the the 2221 away from the  Martin, it's going to trigger the HP process.   um only because of the new scope of work that  we'll put on it which would be potentially in   option three it would be the bulkheads so the  bulkhead project would have to process through   EHP now these other ones will have to process so  22.95 if we put it on the Martin um 2202 if we   put it on the Martin they will have to go through  the queue but if we can send it through the queue   with the environmental record saying hey we've  already checked this scope of work we don't have   any problems with it it's met all of the standards  we've already notified everyone. Everybody knows   about this project. It's not a big deal. It  should pass very quickly. I have gotten it from  

the state. I have talked to the state about all of  these options. So, the state is aware and ready to   expedite whatever path we choose as far as they  can. Um, it still has to leave the state and go   to FEMA. And that's where our control um kind of  becomes Neil like we have no control over FEMA.   we can call every single day. Um, but either they  will take it and move forward with it or it will   sit until someone's available to evaluate it. So,  let me can you clarify what what uh Commissioner   Granger's question was? So, if the Martin theater  project moves from the Martin, then the Martin   itself has to go back through EHP review only  because you're going to submit a new scope   of work. Okay. Will that happen on any of these  options or just that one option? No. Any project?   So anytime we change the scope of work, anytime  you submit an amendment to change the scope of   work from what it was originally drafted as in the  original project, it has to go through all the are   going to do this. Um the the caveat with that  is that the Martin scope, the new scope of the   Martin has already been approved and so anything  going into the Martin will be reduced because it's   already gone through the full H EHP review. So is  that the same with any option? Yes. So any as far   as the Martin theat's concerned, right? So if  you were to do a project, a non-marina project,   I think one of them that was pulled out was Joe  Moody Park. And I'm just using it for an example.   Um that one has also already gone through EHP  review. So if you were going to put money at   Joe Moody Park to fulfill the scope of work that  was already approved, then again we would just   attach that environmental record of concern to the  project that we were going 2295 in this case. We   would submit 2295 the new scope of work for Moody  Park and we would submit the environmental record  

and say you've already looked at this. Just get us  through the cues. Gotcha. Okay. So the $5 million   if we put it towards the bulkhead does that have  to go through a review? Um, I don't know. Um,   I wasn't here when all of this was formulated, the  original projects were formulated, so I don't know   what level of environmental record you have.  I also don't know if the new scope of I know   that the bulkheads were looked at um because we  have a bulkhead project. So, they were evaluated   um to what extent and what the new scope  of work looks like as relation to the old   scope of work. Um, again, if it expands, if the  bulkheads are being expanded more than 20%, um,   then it's probably going to have to go through the  full EHP. If they are just replacing in kind, then   that's probably a less time through the system.  Wow. Can we can we start with comm commissioners   just could we the first very first slide to Panama  City goals and I really want to frame that with   where we're trying to get just in general with  projects and for me I don't want to see a dime go   to any more money go to Martin theater. Uh in fact  I'm going to vote no on any change orders that we   get from that launch just saying that. Um, so the  idea that we inject more cash for change orders   into that project to me is off the table for my  vote. Um, and then it the perception of us taking   more money off the marina looks bad to the public.  Oh, you're taking more money from the marina. It   makes sense financially when you look at it like,  oh, we're going to lower the debt in St. Andrews,   but what we're not calculating is how we're  in debt to our potential partners on on our   downtown marina. So, we're looking at like  long-term debt, but we're not looking at like,   oh, the next the partner we have that comes in, we  now are indebted to them for putting the railings   up and infrastructure and sidewalks and all those  things. That's not calculated on here. I'd love  

to know those costs before we kind of brush those  away. Are we not able to keep any of this? Like,   we can't just keep the 9 million on the marina  at all. That's not even an option. Say that one   more time. To keep the money. This is a  marina project. Now, that portion of it,   help me understand how Yeah, absolutely. you  can go back as standard lane project with 2202   and rebuild the marina according to the scope of  work that was agreed upon and if it costs more   than 22 you would also get the $1.7 million of HMP  making it around 24 um 24 million and yeah you if   you had overages and you were stayed inside your  scope of work then you could potentially have $30   million towards that project but that's the gap of  Martin theater and still the long-term debt on the   Correct. And so when we're kind of looking at  debt in general, there's this emotional like,   well, debt on this pro, but debt is debt. Correct,  Miss Smith? Like no matter what projects it's on,   it's it's debt. Well, not exactly. Yeah. Give me  give me explanation. So enterprise debt would be   funded by user charges, right? Only the users of  that of that um service would be the ones paying   the debt. So the users of the marina would pay the  marina debt. The utility users pay utility debt.   General fund debt is paid by all your taxpayers.  So J, let me ask this. If you transferred the debt   from the marina to the general fund, which is the  Martin Theater, then you're transferring debt from   user charges to your general taxpayer population.  In an ideal world, that is correct. Um I I agree   with your statement, but the previous downtown  Marina had a bulkhead project. It was significant   amount. Um, did that all was that all paid by the  users of the Martin of the downtown? It's being   paid by the marina. Yes. Is that always been the  case? Well, I haven't been here always, Brandon.  

Yeah, we've been transferring cuz it the whole  loan. You've been transferring from where? The   Marina Fund to to pay back the general fund for  that. It that that loan was actually secured with   the merchant fee. So, it was a general government  debt. So the the people that are indebted to is   not just the people that use the marina. Correct.  But that project was more than just enterprise.   It was it was also general. It was a general fund  project as well with the park. And can our current   marina fund afford to pay the downtown marina  bulkhead and the $12.9 million from the the St.   Andrew Marina Bulkhead? Not operations. we have  today. And that's what I'm trying to say. That's   what I'm trying to say. There's still going to  be when we get to the budgetary process in this,   there's still going to be some general fund  allocation that's going to have to pay this   cuz that's that's almost $30 million worth of  debt. I can tell you the Marina fund is not uh   close to financial uh distress as the general fund  is. I can tell you that for a fact if that helps. And so just please clarify there was 22 million  originally assigned to our marina. We got nine   more added. We we can't just there was 13 and now  we have we have to then pull back the 13. We can't   just keep the nine on the marina. No, you can't  separate the funds. We said please. Huh? We tried   saying please. Can you go back and ask again? I  like I I liked your your method and approach. I   think we should just start what is what do we want  to accomplish? I mean, I I feel pretty clear that   I don't want any more money to go to the market  there. I think we we've committed what needs to be   committed. We don't need to see more go to there.  Um, ideally, I would like to see less debt, but I   definitely think we should not entertain solutions  that create more debt. So, um, so as long as we're  

not adding to the debt, I can pretty much support  any changes from whatever we need to do in project   pieces. Um, obviously I want to see the St.  Andrew's marina and bulkheads and project and   slips finished and funded. And I also want to see  the same for the downtown marina as well. So how   we problem solve to solve for that doesn't really  matter. Just no more debt than what we've already   committed to and preferably um and definitely  no more money to the market. So on the Martin,   the best we can do on the path is 3.5 million  give back. Is that right? If we that that would   be the worst case scenario is that you stayed at  32 million. You um obligated the the 2202 the PC   Marina and the actual Martin theater project  to give you 35 million cover your 32 but you   would end up giving back three and a half. Which  which option was that? That's one and two. And   you shall be at least you bring that slide up. Um  which one? Josh, I think that meets what you were   talking about. And that's the only that's the only  downside to me cuz I believe I'm like you. Yeah.   Let me know which one, Mr. Mayor. One and two.  One. Yeah. There. That's one. Um, see that? And   so the top part is the same. The only difference  in option one and two is that one does not utilize   any HMP because it is a non-marina project. in  option two potentially uses the $17,000 um of   HMP if you do a marina project that um aligns with  the scope. And here I have that. I found it. Um well, I had it. Yeah, I got I went back  and reread it for the whole thing. Okay,   so the HMP related to 22.95, which is your St.  Andrews. So this 117,000 it is floating docks,   peers including fuel operations, decking, railing,  lights, storage shed, marina building, maintenance  

building, boat ramps, and enclosed ice machine.  So anything that you do at the marina that would   be related to any of those type of things have  scope elements in it. So these elements are in   the scope. These aren't exact things. So I don't  um the maintenance stuff and the decking and the   railing and the fuels that's probably conduit um  stuff like that. the marina building is probably   increase of um thickness of your roofing and  siding. I don't know what kind of building it was,   but I'm assuming it was probably metal to some  degree. Olivia, could I ask a question? Like,   so I think you've heard at least from two of and  maybe three that we don't really like any of these   options that increase the Martin Theater, but we  also don't like the option of leaving the downtown   marina with not receiving anything from those  proceeds. Could we give you guys the opportunity   for us to give feedback and then you guys figure  out a fourth option? Yeah, I mean so really you   can do I mean we can discuss it here. I mean you  can keep the 13 million at Martin Theater and then   you have 22 million to take somewhere else and  you have 5 million to take somewhere else and   you have 7 million to take somewhere else. So or  I'm sorry four. If you combined the 2295 and the   1971 you'd have five $5 million. So potentially  you could have $5 million going to a project,   $22 million going to a project, and $13 million at  this uh at the Martin Theater. Now you've shorted   the Martin Theater significantly, like close to  $18 million. Alternatively, you can leave 22,   you can put 22 million towards the Martin Theater,  and then you have 13 million and 5 million to do   something with. Um, but you've shorted the  Martin Theater by $9.5 million. Um there's   a lot of options to do it. We were just told to  minimize debt and so that's why this is the three   pro the three options that were selected. Can  we take uh the the 5 million down here and put  

it to the uh downtown Marine and keep the 35 at  the Martin under this option? Yeah, sure. Yeah,   it it says marina so it doesn't matter which  marina you use it at. I think what I would love   to hear is what everybody's objectives are because  this I like I've had plenty of conversations with   Olivia and staff at this point but I've not had  any conversations with the with the panel and   group. So So I think mayor if I could interject  just as you're thinking about your objective on   the um a lot of these options deal with utilizing  FEMA funds over on the bulkhead at St. Andrews.   Um we have uh William Harrison and Cooper and some  others from uh SAM St. Andrews Marina Partnership.   Right now there's a contract where it is cost plus  for them to build the bulkhead. That doesn't mean   that we should not entertain that option. I'm just  saying they are a part of the whole discussion   when it comes to utilizing some of the money on  the u on the bulkhead project in St. Andrews. Uh   also we have not negotiated any agreement on the  downtown marina but they're also here interested   in how that would shake out. So that's that's my  only point. It's not it's just that there would be   another party to have a discussion with. So, let  me ask this. If we if we chose to do anything at   the St. Andrews Marina, does that mean that we're  we would be we'd have to go back to say, "Hey,   we need to amend our contract," or is it at our  option whether or not we have them building cost   plus or not? We'd have to go back. All this has  been very fluid and all. Um, I know that they were   planning on building it with cost plus. So, we'd  have to just go back and have a discussion with   them and get there. That's but I I just want for  me on the on the bulkhead though. All we're doing  

is lowering the debt. Why would we have to change  the contract cuz they have to procure? Yeah.   Okay. You have to bid it out and I know that the  Gorman's are part of the ownership right team. So   another one more thing to consider we've already  been kind of preapproved by the bank for the loan   on the on the marina. I don't know if we could get  money for the Martin Theater because supposedly we   had the money to build it. So, oops. I don't know  how that would work, but um just something Mr.   Mayor, commissioners, there's actually one other  question that is percolating out here as now,   and I'm I'm going to ask it. I know it was  determined by the prior commission, but do   we continue to proceed with the full buildout of  the Martin Theater complex, including the theater,   including the Ritz, and including the Tennessee  House because we do have some more pending change   orders uh that are on the horizon, and these  are critical components of this project. And so,   uh, a remodel of this magnitude, um, you know,  we did not approve this project initially like   we did with all of our other projects over the  last 3 years with a level of contingency. So,   each change order comes back. And so, um, you  know, I know there's some strong feelings on that,   but that could that does have the potential to  stall that project. I just want to if three of us   choose not to approve any more change orders, what  do you guys do? Yeah. because we only approved a   contract for what we approved for. I I would say  there's potential for the project to stall and and   and I would assume some potential litigation. It's  like building half a football field. Yeah. So what   now? It's like building half a football field. I  I would agree. You're saying there's obligations   above the amount that we paid that we approved.  Obligations? Yeah. So like I mean when we   approve a $32 million project? Yeah. Change work  typically isn't you go do the work and you're not  

giving me the money. It will be like a pre it's  a pre-approval to doing more work. Well, I mean,   as you know, some of the value engineering,  the complexities of this project. I don't know   if you want to add anything, Mr. Jones. Yeah, I  mean, it's it's kind of uncharted territory. Um,   yeah, change orders are sub uh subject to uh  both the the construction management team or   what DAG's construction team and the city.  Um, so obviously if they weren't approved,   um, if it's already done for work complete and the  contractor's at risk, I don't I don't know where   that puts us legally. I'm going to have to defer  to the city attorney. There should be nobody doing   work that this commission hasn't approved. I'm  saying if that I agree with I agree as well. So   let's make that very clear. But as as far as like  what happens if they propose like a $200,000 or   $800,000, pick your number. I I would say that's  for you guys to go back and try to figure out how   to figure it out. That's my that's my take on it.  Now, the rest of the board may think differently,   but you know, I think that's where you're we're  we're approaching this point of, hey, this is   already we've approved this much. We don't want to  continue to escalate. Yeah. So, or at least that's   where I'm at. Yeah. I just know I just to be fair  to the contract and again I'm I'm saying this like   very generically like I mean we knew there were  going to be surprises going into a 90-year-old   building um as they tore into it as they tore into  the Ritz uh which is the old downtown building.   So um you know I I just I think I don't think  any the change orders are necessarily you know   new things that that were adding to it. It's  it's a lot of them are surprises or things   that that weren't done on the front end which  we've experienced with all of our projects.   Jonathan, I have a tremendous amount of respect  for you. Yes, sir. If you guys are anticipating   change orders when we approve a contract and that  there is potential for unexpected, that should   be in our agenda item and it should say this is  the amount that we are approving now, but we do   expect more. That should at least be clear off the  very beginning because when I approve a contract,   and I think probably everybody on this board feels  that we're approving a contract for a specific  

amount. And so if there's already something  that we're expecting that's more than that,   that is not that that should be clearly notated to  us. I would be interested in I mean I don't know   how we get to the point of of seeing if the Martin  could be pulled back a little bit if the what's   the DIIB building the Rits the Rits. Yeah. Yeah.  If there was a way we could do that as a phase two   um and and seal it up and move money, keep it on  the marina. I'd be interested in that. But have   y'all been inside there? Just gutted. Yeah. I mean  there's nothing there, right? But it to do what   you're talking about that's a train wreck. I mean  work harder to meet the number 32 million rather   than stop. Yeah. I mean that's that's a here's  the headline coming out of this. Panama City   says they're going to stop the Martin. That is not  happening folks. Don't don't print that. Don't say   that. But that's what's coming out of this. Um,  and the Martin Theater. Well, it people are mad   about it. Every small town has one. Is it going to  be worth 34 million? I don't know. But it's going   to it's going to bring life to downtown. It's  going to help other businesses to stop that right   now. Um, or to you do it in phases. We're going to  have to pay for the vacant building uh registry.   We're going to have to add vacant building  registry if that were to pass. Uh-huh. Now you're   talking. No. No, cuz that's not going to happen.  I don't think I don't think anybody's wanting   to stop. That's not the intention in the in the  conversation. I think the point is there there's   still things to be finished in the contract. And  so those should be on the table of what we don't   and that could be anything from like maybe there's  not brass fixtures. Maybe that I I don't know what   that looks like. I'll agree with that. Yeah. No  wallpaper, maybe it's paint rather than that. I   don't know what it looks like delicate tile stuff.  But that's the point in communicating now is like,   hey, before you surprise us in two meetings from  now with some change order and and definitely  

before a contractor goes and ex executes work. Um,  that that conversation is I agree. I just wanted   to bring it up because I know those are in the  hopper and I know I've mentioned that, but I just   I wanted to make sure that everybody knew that.  So yeah, the hopper should include reevaluation   of engineering. Agree 100%. Um, so I think  we had a couple more slides, didn't we? Yeah,   just just a couple. Um I don't know that any of  them are super um well, there's one that is pretty   important that I would think I don't think we this  is where we were at. Um that's that's the um scope   for your HMP related to 22.95. Um if you utilize  the H Okay, here's the other catch with the HMP   that I think everybody needs to be aware of. Um  HMP is covered for the rebuild of 22.95. If you do   something else, even if you have um some of these  elements in it like decking or railing or peers,   um you have to expand that HMP scope to the entire  project. You can't just say we're going to do HMP   up to $117,422 and then we're going to stop making  this project resilient. You have to finish it. And   so if the project to upgrade all of the decking,  all of the railing, all of the peers cost you   $500,000, you will only be reimbursed from FEMA  for the $17,000 portion. Now, could it come out   of the regular project as the overall scope?  Absolutely. But as far as additional funds   for HMP, you can't go back and say we've expanded  the HMP. You have that comes out of pocket, those   particular uh scope elements. So Olivia, what I  what I hear you say what I hear you saying is like   if we if we choose whether it goes on downtown  arena whether it goes on St. Andrew's bulkhead. As   long as it's a marina project, we can probably  utilize those funds potentially. But the the   sleeping for money purposes, um I'm going to use  windows cuz it's much easier uh for an analogy.  

If you have a building and you have 20 windows in  it and you get HMP on that facility for to replace   20 windows with hurricane thick windows, but you  improve that project, change the scope of work and   you're going to build another building across town  and that building has 40 windows. You have to fix   and you you say, "I want to use the HMP funds  for the 20 windows." You don't get 40 windows,   you get 20 windows, but you still have to buy 40  hurricane windows. You have to apply the HMP to   the entire project and you do not get additional  money specifically for HMP. So, how would you   problem solve for that at at the marina? It would  just be I would include it as I would look at it   if I was using the HMP, I would look at it as  something you're already staying underneath   the total project value. So, under the 5.1. Yeah.  You you just look to do something you're already   doing in potential, right? Potential. Could you  do Could you do like infrastructure and boat ramp   downtown? Is that Could you Yeah. Or bulkhead  in St. Andrews? I'm just trying to come up with   where you place. I think I think the point what  we're probably hearing here is as long as we use   it on a marina, we have the potential of accessing  more more funding. I mean, it's not a significant   amount of money. Like, if And so, here's the the  bottom line there. The total HMP for both 2202   and 22.95 for both of your marina projects. The  H those are the only projects with HMP. Um, you   would if worst case scenario, you didn't utilize  HMP, we put them on non Marina projects, you're   giving back $1.8 million. And that's not even  that's that's not your gross net. That's just your   So how much are we accessing by putting it on a  mobile? So none of the calculations include this.   So if we were to use all of the HMP if we were  able to use it, which we're not because in none of  

these scenarios currently um have the 2202 going  towards a marina and that's the significant HMP,   right? That's the 1.7. Um, so if you were to um if  you were to utilize everything, let's say you use   2202 and 2295 on marinas, you would have about  $42 million. You have not seen $42 million on   any of these things because we have not utilized  the 1.7 at all because it's every every option to   date. I'm not saying it's the only options, but  the only options to date have the PC Marina money   going towards the Martin Theater and therefore HMP  is not eligible. So, here's what I take out of our   conversation. Um, no more money in Martin and  spend money on Marina like is that like is that   a consensus and come back with a better Janice?  Do you want to land Janice? Hey, what you good? I don't know.

in so far as a non-marina project.  Yes, ma'am. That's correct. Um, yes. Um, if you if you use the 22 million,  if you use 2202, I'm sorry, God, all the 22s. Um,   2202 would be 24 with HMP funds. So if you  wanted to utilize the most maximum amount   of your HMP that would be attached to the 2202  project, $22.95 is $117,000. I would not be so   tied to that that amount of money. I don't think  it's going I think you will end up spending more   on those elements than 17 $17,000. That's what  I'm trying to say. You have to if you say we're   going to execute HMP, you have to execute it  across the entire project. So most of so HMP   will probably end up costing you 200,000 300,000  to fulfill the scope of work at the new location. If you um if you wanted to keep 2202 at the  uh Panama City Downtown Marina um then yes   ma'am you would have $24 million plus potential  overages if you replace the inind. So if you go   cuz it's currently a standard lane project.  So you have 22 million plus 7 uh 1.7 in HMP.   So that gives you about $24 million. If you  go back in kind, that uh HMP scope is geared   towards back in kind. So that would cover your HMP  for going back in kind and then any overage you  

had to replace it as it was on October 9th, 2018.  Yeah. Then as long as it that scope was fulfilled,   if you if it ended up costing you 25, 26,  27 million, we could put we could go back   to FEMA and say cost increased. We fulfilled the  scope of work. It cost us 30 million instead of   24 million. But that absolutely depletes your  Martin budget completely because now you only   have a $13 million project and 5 million. So you  have $18 million going towards the Martin Theater.   Can Can I make just a a quick a quick comment?  I think there's a lot of information that's kind   of going back forth and I'm starting to get lost  in the middle of it. So So I I think I want to go   back to the clarity point of like where we want  to get. I I think that next time this comes back   to us is that we should know how the downtown  Marie is being funded, how those improvements   are being made, funding is in place, and whatever  this final proposal is, how the Martin is funded,   how it's it's the the funding in place for that,  and how the St. Andrews Marina is funded and how   the replacement of that. I think I think if we can  accomplish that and we can see that as a whole,   this is a whole lot less confusing than  trying to move stuff around to do it. And   so my objective is two marinas rebuilt, access  to our citizens, and the Martin theater done   um with no more debt than what we're committing  to today. So So that would be ideal. So

I I think so, James. Yes. On this past one  right now, we took that 5 million and either   did up or bulkhead and kept everything else the  same. How much money are we giving back? Um,   that is we're set up right now. All the money  that's going to the Martin, you got this extra   $5 million. If you keep if you are adamant about  keeping the Martin theater budget at 32 million,   you would give back $3.5 million. Okay. And but  if we went over that three and a half million,   if say we went over 2 million, so we asked for  that 2 million. No. No. Because we've changed the   scope for it. Okay. But you do have an existing  $2 million local cost share on that project on the   Martin. So of that 32.9 2 million and change  is still local money which which we do need   to allocate that from insurance proceeds if we  intend to not debt on that. Correct. That is not   something got lots of notes. Everybody get ready.  Okay. There we go. Roll. Okay. So, one of the   problems that I have is um when when we first made  this decision, we had a very um contentious FEMA   with a contentious administration specifically for  this area. And um we chose to move money off of   uh the marinas and to put them onto the Martin in  part to protect the money that we were receiving.   Um, now I agree with y'all. I don't think that  we should say we're going to do this thing and   then halfway through it change and not do it. Uh,  so I do believe that we need to continue on with   the Martin. And I do believe that um when we when  we say the Martin, we're talking about the Ritz,   the Tennessee House, and the Martin because  without the Tennessee House and without the Ritz,   the Martin just hangs in the middle. We have to  have all three components in order for that to be  

uh a zero sum game to the city or potentially  even to make money there. We have a partner in   discussions with the Panama City Marina. And  so any decisions, and I know we're not coming   to a decision tonight, but any decisions that are  that are made are premature because we don't have   a contract signed with that with that partner.  On top of that, if we decide that we want to put   money towards the Panama City Marina, which I am  all in favor of, however, however, any money we   use with the with FEMA money will kick off a a bid  process, will it not? Uh, potentially. Yeah. So,   what that means is we could come to a a contract  agreement with our uh a partner and then turn   around and mess it up by by moving money to  the to the Panama City Marina, which is what   I want to do, but I also don't want to mess up  a contract with with a with a a partner. So, it   is it is a very tough decision. This is something  that uh we're definitely going to have to talk to   uh the partners, potential partners about and  something we're going to have to continue to   talk to staff about. Um but I think that this  decision doesn't need to be made until we are   either have a contract or we're at an impass with  CMP. That's that's how I feel about it right now.   So, cuz if we have a contract with CNP, well  then there's no decision or that may impact our   decision as to whether or not we are going to  put money on the Panama City Marina or the St.   Andrews Marina and how much. So, if you were um  I'm sorry, I'm not I was not familiar with Panama   City prior to the disaster, so I'm not 100% sure  what I'm talking about, but like it I think that   you guys had a marina store and some other things  down there. So, if you were to go back in the same  

footprint of the Marina store and use like the  $5 million for that, um, you probably are not   looking at a huge lift on your EHP because it's  going back in the same footprint, same area. Um,   or up to 20% bigger. Um, you can go higher, you  just can't impact the ground. It's 3 in into the   ground is considered impact. So, putting back  the sidewalks that were there, putting back the   railing there. Mhm. So I have one more expanding  the boat ramp. Expand. So expanding the boat ramp   potentially could expand 20% 19% 19% we're good.  So the other the last point I have is is that   if we have a partner build this for us then that  doesn't trigger EHP. Correct. And if we use any of   this money then there is potential some maybe not  depending on how we use it. You will you will be   impacted. It's just a matter of how impacted. So,  we're at 7 years almost eight. Um, and what what I   really don't want to do is have to explain to the  public that by moving FEMA money to the marina,   slow it down. There you go. Um, that's a really  really tough thing to explain to somebody who   hasn't been tracking all of this and the majority  of the public isn't tracking all of this. Right.   That's our job. It's our job. There will be there  will be a period where they're getting permits.   Yes. So in that time frame already well that's  true but maybe that if there was an EHV process   that runs concurrently if you have if you have  contractors um that some contractors do provide   like basic environmental assessments when they  do projects. Um we can certainly submit that. You   will have to if it is if you exceed the original  footprint or if you go back in Christine ground,   you will have to notify all the state agencies.  You will have to notify the tribes. You will have   to notify all the federal agencies and they all  have an opportunity to speak at your table because  

you're using their funds. Um that being said, um  if you go back in kind, some of those things are   eliminated. Some of the long processy things are  eliminated. What I want to tell my colleagues here   is is that where I sit, I want a marina as fast  as possible. Yes, sir. That's what I'm saying. If   we use that 5 million to go to the bulkhead, we're  still doing the EHP potentially, right? Depending   on the EHP review that was done when the project  was originally written. when se 1971 was written   um EHP is always anytime a project is written and  obligated you can absolutely 100% guarantee that   it went through the environmental historical  preservation queue is what they call it um   and so there was environmental done on the  bulkheads at St. Andrews, we have a project. So,   we know that there was some kind of environmental  assessment done there. If you change the scope of   what was assessed and you move the bulkheads out  20 ft or you bring them in or you lengthen them,   um that could potentially trigger an additional  environmental assessment. If you go back in kind   and they have already evaluated all of that,  then potentially we don't have a long hall of   environmental concern. Josh, we have that. We  have a contract. Well, yeah, but do we have I   think probably the biggest thing at St. Andrews is  the contract and how that that's executed. I mean,   it's a bulkhead. I mean I I can't say there would  be some type of historic significance of that but   I can't no one it's not going to be the historical  preservation part for your bulkheads. It's going   to be environmental. So I would just say let's  let's state our objectives have them go back.   I kind of agree from Brian's perspective. We  really can't make a decision until we kind of   have everything laid out because I want whatever  decision I make next to reflect downtown Marina is  

getting rebuilt. St. teenagers marin get rebuilt  and Martin theat's getting complete and so like   that's otherwise it's going to create confusion  trying to go through the the scenarios that got   us to there as long as that's accomplished and  we're not adding more debt to do that great and   if those were in consensus with all of us with  the least amount of debt we I mean payback we   know we're going to have to pay something back  right um potentially just your HMP okay if we can   get to that that'd be great also um if you would  like for the reconsideration if you come up with   costs of what that would look like, how much you  guys want to spend because like I said in this   long-term debt, we've only considered the Martin  Theater at 32 million and we've only considered   the bulkheads. So if you are assuming big bosses,  big bosses here, sorry. Um if you consider um I   have trust issues. No, I'm just kidding. If um  if you consider that you think that your portion   or you talk to the downtown marina partner and  they say, "Look, we're willing to put forward   $20 million towards fixing the marina, but we're  not going to do the store." And so you anticipate   the store costing 4 million, we can add that in as  a long-term debt uh factor. So it gives you a more   whole picture. I just don't know what that looks  like from your perspective. I mean, I'm just here   to do what you guys want. I have absolutely no dog  in the fight. So, um, the more information I get,   the better information I can give back. So, like  the long-term debt is only being considered as   it is. If you want to add other projects or other  ideas to that, like in a perfect world, we'd have   all three elements completed. All three elements  aren't aren't in here, right? We've only got   bulkheads at St. Andrews and the Martin Theater.  If you have a cost idea at the downtown marina,   we can certainly add that in and factor out  what the debt looks like with that included,  

but I don't have that number, so you'll have to  provide that. Okay. I want Great job, by the way,   the presentation. You know, your stuff. That was  that was Yeah. Really knows. Um, one more thing.   Can you go to the second to the last page? Yeah.  Donald, can you switch it back to PowerPoint,   please, sir? Sorry. No, no, you're fine. Hi, Miss  Lucas. I want to uh I'm G uh Mayor Commission. I'm   Gary Yates with Interior Group and we we we we'd  love to end with really great news, but we're not.   Uh and I I'm sitting here for the last hour or so  and listening to the complexity and the non-ommon   sensibility of FEMA. And personally, I was hoping  by now that people looking at fraud, waste, and   abuse in Washington would really have streamlined  this process. And maybe that will happen. I hope   that will happen. But we just want to share with  you there's some things that are sort of counter   to that are happening in the homeland security  department. Sec uh the secretary has ordered any   new expenditures from DHS which includes FEMA.  Anything over $100,000 has to go to her desk for   approval. So anything that has to be uh in this  case uh submitted a scope of work that requires   a new obligation that's like a new expenditure and  uh that's going to be very problematic even beyond   that even things projects that have been obligated  to the state of Florida for seven years for for   seven years in the case of Panama City any before  any money can be drawn down from the state of   Florida it has to go back to FEMA FEMA for review  and approval and we are hearing from other clients   and other people around the state and other  states that is a very very slow process. So,   we have drafted a letter for Congressman Dunn  uh and hopefully he can get every member of the  

congressional delegation in Florida to sign off  on it just expressing concern uh about what will   probably add an enormous amount of time to get  this money actually, you know, provided to Panama   City. So, I just want to mention that to you. uh  it's beyond anyone's control. You know, anyone   here certainly even the state of Florida, it's  a federal uh homeland security issue and we've   seen we've seen many other states have written  letters uh Texas most recently the flooding there,   those kind of issues. So, we we have provided  the congressman a draft and we didn't speak about   Panama City, we just talked about the entire state  of Florida. There's a a whole bunch of applicants   are in the same sub applicants are in the same  position that the city is in. Anything to add?   Yeah, just um just the worst case scenario. We've  seen payments be delayed up to to 97 days and just   already obligated, already approved, everything's  fine, no overages, no no discrepancies. Um just   submit for reimbursement and then 97 days to pay  out. So um that's another hopefully this won't   last very long. Hopefully they will figure out  that this is more cumbersome than helpful. Um,   but currently that is the situation that we are  under and our job is to provide you with all of   the information that we can. Um, and this is not  the best information, but it is information and   you should know it. Mayor, Mayor, Commissioner  Hughes, maybe you're talking about the media   coverage of this meeting. That might be a good  one. is the delays from the federal government   on things that have been obligated for for over  seven years. And that's that's that's a taxpayer   people should be concerned. The 5 million anywhere  it's put that's considered a new expenditure. No.   Um so in this case the only thing that would  be held up based on obligation would be 2202.  

Um because it's going it's which is the original  Marina project. That's the original Marina project   that is increasing the obligation. Right. So,  we're changing the obligated amount. Um it it   will probably have to go back to um congressional  session. It has to sit in the congressional review   for 30 days no matter what. Um so once we can  get it to the congressional review state um   then it will obviously go as it stands today, it  would go to Gnome's desk and be signed off on for   the increase. Um to Mr. To Mr. Ranger's point then  wherever that project is has the longest lead time   currently the 2202 which right now is assigned  to the Martin. Correct. Yes. But right now you   have Martin Theater there with $13 million. From  my understanding you haven't expended $13 million   yet, have you? No, we haven't. And I think that's  an excellent point that Miss Waldron flag for me.   So I think we need to address this because again  my goal commissioners is to make sure y'all have   all the information as y'all process this.  And while we're not making a decision tonight,   we want y'all to have time to figure this out,  but we're not able to draw down on reimbursements   on the Martin Theater until we finalize this  decision. Is that correct? That's correct. Um,   and it's about $6.5 million. Yes, ma'am. That  we've spent. Yes, ma'am. So, if you leave 2221   on the Martin Theater, then you have access to  $13 million virtually as soon as we can invoice.   You need to be closer to the microphone. Oh,  I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. Um, so if you if you   leave 2221 the Martin Theater project on  the Martin theater, um, we could potenti are we going to move 2221. We could start drawing  down on that $13 million expeditiously. I'm not   ready to make any decisions. I I'm not suggesting  that you are. I'm just saying that that money is  

the only reason we haven't drawn down on it is  because once we do, we're locked. So, it sounds   like we need to figure out how we're building the  downtown marina, how it's funding and how that's   getting done. Um, and get the St. Andrew Marina  project going and, you know, figure out how we   stay in budget at the Martin Theater and don't  increase it. I think it's also important to say   that FEMA did say that if we removed the HMP from  2202 um the 7 $1.7 million if we removed that um   that it would probably go faster um because when  you have multiple scopes, so you have the original   project scope and then you have the HMP scope,  they have to go concurrently and then they're   added back together. So you would basically knock  off one whole process if you didn't have to review   the HMP on 2202. That being said, currently  as it sits right now today with the options   that we've provided you, there's no possibility  that you could use the HMP because it's going   to Martin Theater right now. If you decide to go  back and take that $24 million and go down back   to the marina or put that towards the marina, um  then that may not be an avenue that you want to   explore. Um so there is a way to expedite some the  2202. Um but that does lock you into losing that   $1.7 million. Um if I may, Mr. Mayor, real quick,  Commissioner Street, can you clarify when you said   get the Seniors Marina project going, you mean  the bulkheads? Yeah. I mean, okay. I just want   to by the end of this, we should have this is how  this is being funded. This is how this is being   funded. And they're all getting funded and they're  all getting built. Like that's I just wanted to   clarify. You were specifically talking about the  bulkheads. That's all. Yeah, I was talking about   the Okay. Thank you, sir. Mr. Mayor, Commissioner,  let me just add we realize you are not making   decisions. This is a great discussion. And I think  it's been very good for you folks to ultimately  

decide. But the communication on the policy at  Homeland Security, it doesn't matter what you   decide. You know, you don't have to wait and tell  them specifically what you want to do. Uh we would   encourage you to voice the concern about what  is going to be enormous delays with the $100,000   uh dollar limit that the secretary has to sign off  on and then the fact that obligated funds have to   be looked at again. It will it will potentially um  affect all of your draw downs from MLK too. Do we   need to make a motion to send a letter or is that  something that could be done without that? Um I   think if we're just if we're just sending a letter  communicating kind of the the the collective will   that y'all have already expressed in your support  of past projects. I don't think an additional   motion would be needed. Yeah. How about this? How  about if you'all get get with staff, you'll make   draft a letter and then if if you feel like we  need to sign it, bring it to the next meeting.   Yeah, sounds good. We we'll be glad to provide you  the draft letter that we provided to Congressman   Dunn and it might be just a simple uh Mr. Hayes.  It's just a call to tell tell them that you   definitely, you know, want the city of Panama City  want would love to have this letter transmitted.   So, is it possible to have the discussions with  everybody that needs to and come back in two   meetings, one meeting and and have and how how  does that what's the timeline there? I I mean,   I think we'll see. Our goal was September 9th,  but it might have to it might have to be September   23rd. Okay. I don't know if it matters, but I will  not be here on the 9th. It's okay. Well, I think   that they won't be ready. That's all. Thank you  so much. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Zimmerman. 12A. How could we forget we have uh I'd like to talk  about that. We have an executive session. it   is set up in the room uh through that door. Um  we'll have present in that u executive session.  

We'll have the uh Miss McWain and I will be  there representing the city attorney. Also,   we'll have an attorney from Coppins Monroe.  Uh he is the um was uh assigned by FIM,   our insurance carrier to represent the city. We'll  have in that session the uh city uh commissioners   as well and mayor as well as is the city manager?  Yeah, the city manager also we will be talking   about the Bambi's litigation and no action will  be taken at or during the executive session.   you'll be re uh we are asking for uh advice uh  concerning litigation strategy at the conclusion   and we estimate it will be 30 minutes in length.  We'll come back. If there is some action you'd   like to take, we would take it back. Uh we would  take it at this meeting when we reconvene. We're   just pausing this meeting. If there is no action,  we would come back and adjourn the meeting. So,   so at this time it would be appropriate to  uh take a recess and go and then come back.   I might try and push you. Yeah. Pushing  me. Thank you guys. playing together. Oh,

touch have a motion to I have you have to have got  to bring back I got back. Okay, we're back. Motion   to Wait, wait, wait. I'd just I'd just like to  report that the executive session is now concluded   and the commission has reconvened. If there's  any action the commission would like to take,   it could take it at this time. Otherwise, it  would be appropriate for a motion to adjurnn.   A motion to adjurnn. Second. Uh call the role.  Commissioner Granger, yes. Commissioner Street,   yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Mayor Branch, yes.  Motion passes four to zero. Out. Thank you. Okay.