City Commission Meetings - Regular Meeting

I am calling to order the Panama  City of Panama City Commission   meeting for September 9th at 8:00 a.m.  Opening prayer is by Dr. John Haley,   senior pastor of New Covenant Church  of God in Christ, followed by a pledge   of allegiance of the flag by Chief Master  Sergeant S. Chanchez. Please stand. [Music] Bless you. Let us pray this morning.  Lord, thank you. Thank you, God,   for everything you've done individually, what  you've done collectively. Thank you for past.   Thank you for present and thank you for future  blessings that you have bestowed upon each one   of us. Your infallible word commands us to  be thankful and to give you praise. Yes,   your word declares that everyone who have breath  should praise you. Yes, in some way, some shape,   and in some form, everyone should acknowledge  your goodness, and consequently praise you,   Lord. Therefore, we regard not the location  nor the setting. Nor will we allow the climate,   whether tense or relaxed, to stying, to hinder, or  to obstruct obstruct our praise of you. Thank you,   Lord, for we understand that according to  Acts, excuse me, Psalms 24:1, the earth is   the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world  and that it dwell therein. That speaks of us,   each one of us who you created in your image, and  in your image created you us. You created us for   good works. You created us for good deeds.  You created us to be helpers one to another.   not only helpers but a blessing, a blessing  in word and in deed. Bless these your servants   whom you have exalted to be a blessing. For we  know that promotion cometh not from the east nor  

the west. But promotion cometh from the Lord, you  putth up one, you taketh down another. Grant these   whom you have put up, whom you have placed in  these significant, important and lofty positions,   positions of city manager, positions of mayor,  positions of city commissioner. Grant them the   wisdom from above. Grant them the wisdom of  Solomon to do what is right in your eyesight.   Not my eyesight, not their constituents, not man's  eyesight, but your eyesight. Grant them a doight   spirit, a spirit that will make them iconic  figures of goodness, statues of righteousness   and this wonderful city we live in, founded  in 1909. Lead us, God. Guide us all, Lord,   in the path of righteousness for your name's sake.  And it's Jesus Christ's name we pray. Amen. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the  United States of America and to the republic   for which it stands. One nation under God,  indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Please call the role. Mayor Branch here.  Commissioner Granger present. Commissioner Street   here. Commissioner Hughes here. Commissioner  Lucas present. Mayor you have quum. Uh you've   received the meeting minutes from August 26th  on a motion. Motion second. First and second.   Please call the RO. Commissioner Granger. Yes.  Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner Hughes.   Yes. Commissioner Lucas. Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes.  Motion passes 5-0. Any additions, deletions,   or modifications to the agenda in front of you?  Yes, Mr. Mayor. Staff has two. Uh first off,   item 6E as in Edward under public hearings  would like to move that to the end of the  

city manager section to become item 13G as in  golf and for it to only be a discussion. Again,   item 6E move to city manager section uh last item  13G for discussion purposes only. And then the   second one would be to move item 9 I as an IDA  off of consent and for it to become item 11B,   second item under the city attorney. That would  be again item 9 I as an IDA. Now 11B under city   attorney. Those are the two from staff. Mr. Mayor,  I'd like to add a mayor's report or discussion uh   where appropriate in the agenda. Where would that  be? Uh what I'm sorry. What you say, Mr. Mayor?   I'd like to add a mayor's uh discussion point. Uh  it would probably come at the very beginning of   the commission's reports. That's typically where  we would put uh the mayor's uh a mayor's report.   Perfect. Uh do I have a motion to any other  changes or additions or deletions? Commission.   Yeah, it would be the new 10A. Is there a subject?  Uh just discussion flow of policy. I move that   we uh change item six echo to 13 golf. Change  item 9 India to 11 Bravo and add 10 alpha as a   mayor's report and change 10 alpha to 10 Bravo. 10  Bravo to 10 Charlie. Have a second. Second that.   Please call the RO. Commissioner Granger. Yes.  Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner Hughes.   Yes. Commissioner Lucas. Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes.  Motion passes 5. That's all from staff. Mr. Mr.   Mayor. Okay. So, no community announcements. Yep.  Nope. All right. No. Sorry. I'm sorry. Would Are   we I didn't know if this elected officials had  any more. No. Okay. Good. All right. Moving into   community announcements. There are two upcoming  budget hearings this month for the fiscal year   2026 budget. The first hearing will occur later  today at 5:01 p.m. right here at the Bay County  

Government Center. The second and final hearing  will be on Tuesday, September 23rd, same time   and place. Join us at the Macedonia Missionary  Baptist Church on Saturday, September 13th at   12:00 p.m. to celebrate the rich history of the  Glennwood Business District. Our parks, culture,   and recreation team will unveil unveil six new  historical markers honoring iconic blackowned   businesses and community landmarks that help  shape Glenwood's identity. This free community-   centered celebration highlights the neighborhood's  resilience, entrepreneurial spirit, and lasting   legacy. Looking ahead to October, the Panama City  Fire Department will host their annual open house   at fire station number two on October 3rd from  5 to 900 p.m. And the police department will   participate in the national night out on October  7th at GF Coast State College from 5 to 8:00 p.m.   And the city of Panama City is excited to announce  this year's downtown Christmas parade theme, Under   the Christmas Tree, happening Saturday, December  6th. Registration is now open on our city website.   Sign up today to join in the fun with festive  floats, sparkling lights, and holiday magic.   [Applause] All right, moving into public hearings.  Item number 6A is consideration of approval of   the final assessment resolution for fire services  number 202509.1 and conducting the public hearing.   As background information, the commission adopted  ordinance number 3225 on June 25th of 2024, which   requires annual adoption of the final assessment  resolution for fire services number 20259.1. Prior to adoption, the resolution requires  having a public hearing to hear comments   and objections of all interested parties. A  notice was mailed to each individual party uh  

property owner rather requiring notice on or  before August 19th of 2025. There were 2,213   new properties that required notice this year  due to either a new annexation. I'm sorry that   there is an error in this. I cannot read that. I  there's numbers typed on. Does anybody read that,   Brandy? I don't know if y'all can it.  Okay. Something property. Okay. Yes. To   I don't know if mine's the only one messed up. I  apologize. A new annexation or change in the use   of property. The preliminary rates are estimated  that fire service assessments would total I think   that's the number that somehow messed up. So I  don't want to be able to read that number. 5.7   $5.7 million. So all right. The following  properties were not assessed. government   properties, agricultural lands, properties  receiving additional seniors exemptions,   and properties receiving the veterans exemption.  The following properties received a 50% exemption,   institutional property, which is wholly exempt  from an advalorum taxation and homestead exempt   property. The commission may reduce the  assessment rates at this hearing. However,   any reduction is required to be supplemented by  any legally available funds not derived from the   fire service assessments. Staff recommends the  city commission conduct the public hearing and   adopt the final assessment resolution for fire  services number 202509.1. Mr. Mayor. Yes, this is   a public hearing. If you wish to speak on item 6A,  please come to the podium. Yes, sir. Good morning. Good morning. Morning. Derek Thomas, 1100 West  Street. um this fire assessment is um I don't   think going to be able to go away in the future  unless you start acting a little bit more fiscally  

responsibly with the money that you bring in.  Uh I noticed last year on June 25th, the same   day the marina was all the revenue from marina was  going to be given away for an undisclosed period   of time, which I'm still waiting on you to have  this public meeting that we could discuss that   um that you gave away uh 10.23 23 million  for the hurricane after hurricane Michael   to businesses here. There were 30 families. It  constituted about 54 properties. Most of them   in the downtown area where most of the money  from the hurricane Michael rebuild was being   spent. 10.23 million. And the only thing that  I could see in that that would actually serve   the public is the $175,000 for the church to redo  their parking lot. But they allowed the public to   use that parking lot when they weren't using it.  So that's a benefit to the city. But the other   30 30 families that received over $10 million  received it to invest in their businesses. Well,   the entire money to to rebuild the entire  city didn't go to rebuild the entire city.   It only went to rebuild the downtown and Panama  City North and the uh St. Andrews. It didn't it   wasn't spread out throughout the entire city.  So now you have a a hole where you have to come   up with that money to finish the projects you  already started and to rebuild all the other   stuff around the city. How are you going to do  that? Are you talking about the HRP program? Well,   I don't know what the sounds like it, Mr. Mayor.  That's on June 25th, but that we haven't received   any money. It's they handled the construction  and all the stuff. We don't and some of it some   of it went out at the same time the same time  the marina was being discussed. It's not city   money. We didn't give anyone any money. Completely  wrong. Okay. Well, um, moving forward, if you're   if you're so targeted on finishing the downtown  and spending money in, uh, St. Andrews, what about   the rest of the city? How are we ever going to  come up with the money to do that unless you put  

a limit on the amount of money you're spending  to help specific areas and get, you know, have a   priority list of what you need to get done to get  the roads working for the entire city to to get,   you know, the sidewalks cleared for the entire  city. If you don't make a a plan to get the stuff   you need done finished, I don't see how you're  ever going to get rid of this fire assessment tax,   which is just a tax. It's an extra 10 million  being dumped on everybody else who pays property   taxes. Just like the marinas moving forward,  if you don't have any money coming in from the   marinas, then the people paying property taxes  will have to come up with $20.9 million through   property taxes when that could have been paid for  by the marinas, which should have be able to pay   for themselves since they're very valuable and  should be able to pay for themselves. So again,   I look forward to having a public meeting on just  the marinas. Thank you. And for clarification,   the fire assessment is not $10 million. We're  discussing it's 5.7, but it was 10.1 million   last year. Correct, Mr. Mayor. Um, appreciate the  uh the facts. Also, just I know HRP was kind of   off subject a little bit, but that's there are  HRP resources going into downtown, Glennwood,   Milville, St. Andrews, as you are aware. So,  any other comments related to 6A? Yes, sir. Thank good. Good morning, guys. John the  Plan. I represent the Kelly Apartments. Uh   we currently oppose the special assessment for  fire services. Uh it looks like we're going to   pay property taxes in 2025 of $250,000. So we  just feel like that's an additional burden on   our property that we don't need. 300 per  unit is going to be pretty expensive by   the time we get to a few years down the  road. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir.

Good morning. Oh, Walter P. Henry, 614 Map  Avenue. Um, it's 56 tax. I mean, y'all don't   want to say the tax, but uh that's all it is. Uh,  this money still just go put the fire department. That's it. Y'all will start charging  the raising the taxes on the churches   on this fire assessment and other  home properties that folks have. If   if we would collect the money that all of  these people that have all this property,   y'all would not be stretching and fighting  to get money uh inside of the city.   Y'all got people that that's more able to pay  these assessments as y'all said that y'all do   not collect fund and don't try to but you  burden you burden everybody else with this. Now, I just want to know what will, you know,  I told y'all when Micah came, y'all putting too   much on the plate. Y'all need to empty the plate  before you start adding more to the plate. Now,   you done added too much more to too much  to the plate. You ain't got enough money   to cover what you got on the plate. And  now you trying to take everything out of   everybody else pocket and from everybody  else home that we need we need to divide  

as well at the city. Need to think about it.  Y'all doing y'all doing a little bit too much. You need to take some of the  stuff you got on the plate,   let it come off of the plate or you continue to  keep adding to the plate. As long as you do this,   we going to have these problems and y'all going  to hand them who you will give them to. Y'all   will give them to the citizens of Panama City. We  the one who going to have to be messing with it.   Y'all will be everybody is smiling, but get these  folks got all these property. Stop trying to push   us. We're going to pay cuz we don't have But  if we don't pay, y'all end up trying to take   our property. And I know you ain't going to take  mine cuz I ain't going to let it happen. So y'all   need to take some this stuff off of your plate.  Yes, sir. Thank you. Anyone else on item 6A? Seeing no more comments rather 6A and closing  the public comments. Do I have a motion board? Second. All right. Any discussion? Jonathan, would you um uh live local? Can you  explain that real quick? Live local. Yeah. So, I   mean that's uh obviously a you know something that  was driven by Tallahassee and it does uh you know   put some of our uh apartment complexes I'm trying  to be very simple because that's how I understand   things. You know a lot of um you know apartment  buildings and you know aren't we collect any  

advorum taxes at all. In fact recently uh the St.  introduced Towers located at Harrison and Beach   Drive uh qualified for um old age exemption. And  so um we collected approximately around $120,000   a year in property taxes on that building which  went to support the uh the the uh the city. Um and   uh and we're not collecting that anymore. So the  only thing we really collect on that particular   building is roughly $60,000 or so a year in a fire  assessment. most of our uh long calls for the fire   department are at apartment buildings. Uh and and  so, you know, with a number of them uh that are   exempt, we understand it. I mean, those are those  are the type of buildings that require um extra   time, extra energy, extra resources as opposed  to just a single family dwelling. Uh you know,   also I I know we we mentioned churches and um  you know, uh I I think most people know that uh   my father is a pastor. I cut my teeth on a church  pew. uh and they don't pay any any advorum taxes,   but they still require appropriately uh on the  fire and police protection of the city of Panama   City. Um and so uh I think that to that end,  you know, churches paying fire assessment is   a is a fair and equitable thing in order to help  fund the city to provide the services that that   they need and they rely on and and and deserve as  local government. Is that Thank you, Phil. Yes,   sir. I mean, that's a fun conversation having  your dad around the table. Yes. He he ag he he   agrees render under Caesar what is Caesar. Thank  you for the explanation and I and I asked that   because to your point sir um most department  complexes and most church all churches are   going to use the services and to that point St.  Andrew's Towers the fire departments down there   at least once a day is what it seems like. Um and  so it the operation the city still continues with  

or without the money. We got to have it. Um, and  are and and the reason I asked about live local,   are the are the apartment complexes that do pay  property taxes non- tax credit or are they all   exempt or is it only tax credit that gets it  the exemption of property tax credits? Yeah,   I think it depends. I mean, it's they're not all  going to be taxexempt, right? They're not all they   do not all qualify for the Live Local um act. Um,  but the ones that do are 100% tax exempt. Okay. Just want to understand that a little bit.  Also, our state legislature is going to be   looking at ways of um reducing or getting rid  of property tax. And uh while I support that   if you own your home, you should never have to  pay property taxes based on the valuation of   that home. I support that. um we don't know what  the state legislature is going to come up with   and we have a budget that we have to to provide  for going into 2026 2027. So um uh there's not   a lot of wiggle room here for us. So we don't  really operate in a vacuum and uh it you know   we don't know what's going to come out of the  Tallahassee. That's the other piece to that. Any other discussion? Please call the role.  Commissioner Granger, yes. Commissioner Street,   yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner  Lucas, yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes 5-0.   Commission, excuse me, the commission has adopted  the annual assessment resolution number 202509.1. A resolution of the city commission of the  city of Panama City relating to the provision   of fire protection services, facilities,  and programs in the city of Panama City,  

providing certain findings, authority definitions,  and interpretation. Approving the assessment   role re-imposing fire service assessments against  assessed property located within the city for the   fiscal year beginning October 1, 2025, providing  for hardship assistance, providing for collection,   providing for application of assessment proceeds,  providing for effect, providing for complex   severability and an effective date. Item 6B is the  second and final public hearing on ordinance 3276,   an ordinance amending the zoning map of the city  to reflect the zoning designation of neighborhood   general or NG for property located at 1410  Wilmont Avenue parcel ID 29666-0000-0000. As background information, the applicant requested  a zoning change to neighborhood general. This item   was previously reviewed by the planning board on  July 14th of 2025. The planning board recommended   approval unanimously. Staff concurs. This item  was tabled at the August 26, 2025 city commission   meeting to this September 9th, 2025 meeting.  Relevant uh backup documents are enclosed. Staff   recommendation through the director of development  services is that the city commission conduct the   second and final public hearing and approve the  ordinance. Mr. Mayor, this is a public hearing on   item 6B. If you'd like to if you'd like to speak,  please come to the podium. Yes, sir. Good morning. First of all, thank you guys. Never been part of  this and it's it's pretty amazing to see it. So,   um 1410 your name your name and address  for the record, please. Tony Madano,   1026 Pearson Drive. Could Could you speak up,  sir? I'm not sure that mic is on. Mr. Schwarz,   is it? Yes. Is it on? Try again. Is it on? It  doesn't sound like it. Yeah, it doesn't sound like  

it's on. Sound like it's on to y'all is up here.  We're kind of in a deaf zone up here. [Music] Yeah, that maybe just use that one.  That's good. Yeah, take a seat. You're welcome to. Actually, I'm good. Do you  hear me now? No. That's really odd. That one's   light lit up, too. Check. Oh. Oh, it's just  really quiet. Okay, just speak get really   close to it and speak loud. Thank you. I got to  speak loud then. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Okay,   cool. Um, so 1410 Wilmont Parcel uh kind  of matches everything that's in front of   it and behind it and everything else uh with  neighborhood general when you guys map the uh city   uh in January. So if you see the map, it seems  like everything's already neighborhood in general.   the 1410 parcel uh has been vacant since 2020.  So, it was already it was previously a church   and it was vacant since then. And um the reason  it probably got residential is because nobody   interveneed with it. Um as a community, what I'm  trying to provide is middle housing um for the   growth of Panama City and I'm trying to use it for  multiplex for the college that's next to us. Um,   and I'm trying to implement the vision that  the city has already when you guys planned   the whole map. Um, when we left the last meeting  immediately, um, I emailed the city to see if, uh,   we can split the parcel. Uh, but the city cannot  do oddshaped parcels. So, the very next day,   I went to my next uh, next door neighbor, Mr.  Wilmore, and talked to him about his concerns and   let him know like, hey, what's going on? Um, and  we talked about three concerns. Uh, his property  

value. He thinks that if I put multiplex in that  property, his value is going to go down. And I   explained to him that with the integrity of work  that we do, we have 10 other properties and other   businesses. Uh, more than welcome to go to the  other properties that I have and see the quality   work that we do. I will not just put makeup on a  pig and let it be. um his property value will go   up from a vacant lot to putting something there  that is going to be amazing. It's it's only going   to go up. His other concern was um what can I do  with the house? And I explained to him if we start   uh the parking spaces then there's no room just to  do the housing. It can only be used for housing.   It couldn't be used for anything else. And the  third concern that he had is uh what happens if   I sell it? can someone can just move in and do a  a store or whatever. And I explained to him, well,   and then he said, if I die, and I said, if I die,  then I can't explain it, but if I sell it, which   is not the plan, the plan is this is I'm invested  in Panama City. I moved to Panama City to grow,   and I'm invested in Panama City to grow healthy.  Um, so I explained to him that if I invest that   kind of money in the in the property, unless  someone really just wants to take everything   down and start from scratch, they could, but  it's not it doesn't seem like it's going to   be something that someone wants to do when  something's already built and ready to go. Um,   I I truly do understand his concerns and I told  him that I'm not an investor that's coming in   just kind of changing things. I I told them I have  different businesses and I invited them over. Um   uh we actually the city got together and and  kind of see the property and I told everybody,   all my neighbors, I'm on an open book. Everybody  can have my cell phone. If anything doesn't go   right, you're more than welcome to call me cuz  I'm I'm truly invested in Panama City Growth. So,  

thank you for your time. Thank you. Excuse me.  Could you just wait a second? Yes, please. Uh,   we mistakenly didn't put this under quai judicial.  So, if it's okay with you, I'd like to swear you   in and then you can say that what you've already  said is uh truth to the best of your ability. You   solemnly swear to tell the truth in this matter.  Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? No,   sir. Any other comments related to 6B? Um,  yes. Michael, if you can answer a couple   questions. I know he he said the one more. Will  you want to speak? Yes, ma'am. Please come on. Yeah. Yes, ma'am. Good morning. Jennifer Davis,  3934 West 21st Street, Panama City, Florida. I   am just outside of this neighborhood. And that's  not our only concerns. Our only concerns too is   we don't want these developers coming in here  and building a bunch of stuff like that because   we're a single family home neighborhood. And  right now my kids can leave their toys outside   and nobody bothers them. Not too long ago, if  they left their stuff out, people would steal   it. Now the more people that come in there and  you you you got a a family here. Now you want to   bring in this complex. Now you got 20 people that  are not family. They're two people in this one,   two people in that one, three people in that one.  You know, grandma lets her crackhead son stay with   her and you know, stuff comes up missing. There's  trash in the yard. People walking from McDonald's   throwing the trash down because it they don't  care. They're they know they're temporary there.   So, it's it's more than just worried about our  property values, but we we are worried about that,  

too. And we we don't want these developers  coming in and building all this stuff in our   neighborhood. We don't. Ma'am, excuse me. Could  you come back? I we I need to swear you. I promise   to tell the truth. That was the truth. Thank you.  Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Anyone else ready to 6B   item 6B? Seeing none, closing public comments. Do  I have a motion to accept? Motion to deny so that   we can discuss. Okay. And then a second. I'll  second that. So we can discuss. Yeah. Michael.   Um the Oh, my bad. Cut him off. I moved to write  to a motion. The um everybody's getting sworn. Can   we do a blanket like everybody? We should have  but for now Mr. Oath, do you swear to tell the   truth and affirm the truth in this matter? Yes,  I do. Thank you. And you are Michael Fuller,   director of development services. We'll get  together. 501 Harrison Avenue. So the so the the   gentleman that's that's building this made made  a comment the parcel can't be divided because you   can't do an oddshaped parcel. Could you explain  what's what's transpiring? That was staff's   recommendation was that not to divide the property  because if he did um basically the only way he can   configure it to to provide enough parking for the  um what is the old church would be to park in the   rear of behind where the single family home is.  And and if if if he did that, he he'd have to   provide it would be difficult to to split it and  not have the parking on the same property as the  

church. Mhm. So the only way to get around that  is to have this odd shaped um um lot division   basically creating almost a flag shaped lot which  we discourage. So, so and a question, Michael,   because when we approved these zoning changes,  I do believe we gave you guys some flexibility   in how parking is addressed specifically.  So, so do you, as the development director,   can you consider alternatives um to parking?  The reason why I bring this up in this specific   case is we're talking about creating a parking lot  right next to a virtually unused parking lot right   now that belongs past quorums. And so is there  the potential that they could try to create a   joint use or could there be other exemptions are  provided for parking? We we would accept that if   if he had some sort of agreement with like the  the neighboring property gorms or something that   provides, you know, if he could demonstrate to us  that he has permission to to use that for parking   in perpetuity, we would accept that. Okay. So, I  I think a couple things that that I'm that I'm I'm   drawing attention here is one, it's encroachment.  Um, and you know, I think everybody can reasonably   have an expectation that a church, what was  formerly a church, is not going to convert   back to a single family residential. So, so on  one hand, I agree with the person that's asking   for the zoning change for that specific building,  but when we start to encroach into a single family   home and we're starting to put parking lots on  a single family home lot that currently exists,   that's where it creates some tension with the  neighborhood. And so that's what I was hoping that   we'd get to some kind of resolve, but it sounds  like either there's not going to be a resolve or,   you know, I would amend my motion to to table,  divide the parcel, accomplish what you want  

um on the church facility itself, and then  work through your parking agreements as needed.   Um, so and happy to be a part of that dialogue,  but what I do want to make sure that we protect   like these lines were drawn with very care and  they're not perfect. So that doesn't mean that   it's exactly right like right here. I think in  this case, the argument that a church facility   can't be a single family home is is a pretty good  argument. Um but a single family home converting   to a parking lot is where it creates tension not  only with me but the the surrounding residents and   um and so I don't know how we want to problem  solve that. Um but as it stands that's why I made   the motion to deny and that was the reasoning  why. Um, so if we want to try a different way,   I'm happy to, but I I personally can't support  approving the residential house turning into,   you know, some type of potential commercial use  um um beyond that. So that's it. Two questions.   Yeah. Um why can a church not being used or  blown away not become a residential property   anymore if if the zoning allows for? I mean,  it would have been it'd be a 6,000T house. Uh,   I mean I mean that would in and of itself.  Residential could be multif family. Yeah,   it could. Yeah. Yeah. Residential. Right now,  the zoning allows for for that. Okay. And can the   house be a house without can you do it without the  uh having the parking requirement if you you're   going to make it multif family? Can you separate  the the house property and it just be a single   family home and not have Okay. Yes. But I think  what Michael's alluding to is in order to maintain   the parking on that one parcel, the backyard  would have to go with this parcel. And what I'm   communicating is rather than build a parking lot  on a residential neighborhood, go go find partner   find another way to problem solve your parking  issue cuz I mean there's there's a 100 car parking  

lot sitting right next to this that's unused right  now. And you know, and I'm not going to commit   that owner to anything, but I'm just saying like  there's got to be a more creative problem solving   piece than what what currently presented to just  encroach into the neighborhood. All right. So,   with the current size of the building, making  it multif family, there's not enough parking   on that site in order to accommodate a rehab of  that building. Is that is that right? Okay. Uh,   so the site you're talking about, I mean,  people are home during the day and they're open   and they're in no forms should be open during the  day. Is that a you think it's is that that doesn't   create a parking problem next door? Well, I think  in all of these it's not different than downtown   or historic St. Andrews is, you know, parking is  a shared commodity and in aspects and so I don't   know if they would entertain that. But part of the  beauty behind these zoning regulations is Michael   has a lot of flexibility in how to address parking  requirements in general, right? And um and so,   you know, I just problem solving by taking a  residential lot and turning it into a parking   lot isn't one that I'm willing to consider in  this case. And and again, not to commit Mr. Corn   to to anything, but the parking lot he does have  for his business is uh basically has more than   enough parking for his business. Um especially  when when um when you look at the the zoning   uh the parking requirements and the zoning code,  he has substantially over the amount of required   parking that he needs. Okay. And has anybody had  a conversation with at all about it? Okay. No. No,   I haven't. But but I think this is the case where  it warrants it. You've got an excess parking   um lot next to this particular piece. Why would  you go and create more parking? like it just it   there's got to be some way to problem solve that  I would think. But okay, is that a is that worth   having it come back next meeting and in between  now and and then try to have that conversation?  

I mean I think the question is for the property  owner is you know are you willing to subdivide the   lot and and and commercial, but that's going to be  I don't know that we can consider that right now   because the lot is not subdivided. Yeah. Um right.  I I think um if if the owner's agreeable to it,   table this item or request the commission table  this item so we have an opportunity to to have   that conversation about parking and splitting the  parcel. Yeah. Or I guess the owner could roll the   dice with everybody else and as well. So like so  that's fine as well. And I would I would I would   like to think about if we're going to ask the  owner to subdivide it. Let's not ask the owner   let's not make him go through all the the fees  that ref the ones that are asking him to do that.   It it wouldn't be fair for him to have to do that  if we're ask table it for two meetings. Maybe that   would probably be I'll amend my motion to table  for two meetings. Second and a second. Uh any   discussion on that? Does that include waving of  any fees then? Are you directing us to do that as   well in the event? Yeah, in the event that uh that  that's the option that that came from the city   that I think that would be fair to wave any any of  the applications. And by the way, I think that's   a I think that the neighbors will support that  as well in that in that um and that thought. So,   okay. Table for 60 days. Wave the fees first and  second. Any discussion? Did I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor,   did you say 60 day? I thought we said 30 days.  Two meetings. Two meetings. 30 days. Be the   first meeting in October. Gotcha. Yes, sir. Any  discussion? Call the RO. Commissioner Granger.   Yes. Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner  Hughes? Yes. Commissioner Lucas? Yes. Mayor   Branch? Yes. Motion passes 5-0. All right. Item 6  C is ordinance number 3284 amending the planning   board appointments. Mayor and commissioners  attached for your consideration. It's the  

first reading. Ordinance 3284, which amends how  members of the planning board are appointed.   The commission requested that staff prepare a  proposed amendment so that the city's planning   board members are appointed similarly to how the  county's planning commissioners are appointed. Uh   the biggest challenge is that the terms of the  planning board members would coincide or sorry,   the biggest change rather is that the terms  of the planning board members would coincide   with the terms of the commissioner or mayor uh  that appointed them. Uh should you decide to   have a first reading, the ordinance will then  go to the planning board for a public hearing   similar and the same as all land development  code ordinance. Staff recommends having a first   reading and I will recognize the city attorney,  Mr. Zimmerman, at this time. Mr. Zimmerman, this is a public hearing. Is that I don't know  if you wanted to give any additional background   on on what your staff has done. If there are any  questions be happy to uh answer them. Yes. So they   run if each member runs concurrently with the uh  commissioner the mayor runs every two years and   their term is our terms are four years. So one  member up there could be a two-year term when is   that that's correct. Okay. So the the way this  county is set up and the way this is patterned   is within 30 days after the conclusion of the  term of the commissioner or mayor that that   um who that person represents uh would terminate  and then the next um person either if the mayor   or the commissioner is reelected then the mayor or  the commissioner can reaffirm that appointment or   suggest another appointment. And so can the new if  if that person were to lose the new person coming   in get Exactly. Right. Now the difference in the  county is all five members are four year are for  

your people. Correct. Here we're we're four and  two. So that's correct. Okay. I mean I think   it's a great idea. It keeps it it does keep change  on the planning board as the change comes to the   commission. So uh it's just figuring out who's  who you who which horse belongs to which person   going forward. Absolutely. And this is a this is  a public hearing. So this is a public hearing on   item 6C. If you have any uh comments to make,  please come to the podium. Any comments related   to 6C. Seeing none closing public comments. I'd  like to read. Uh I have the me the current members   list and the wards that they reside in if anybody  would like to get that information. Yes. Um there   are two members whose terms have not expired. that  is Larry Carol in ward one and James Barker in   ward two. There are three members whose terms have  expired and are willing to um remain on the board.   Their names are Aaron Rich in ward three, Chris  Stamps in ward one and Brian Newower in ward one. The uh title for ordinance number 3284 and  ordinance amending ordinance 2675 which adopted   the municipal land development code revising  chapter 103 review authority. Amending how   planning board members are appointed. Amending  terms of planning board members. Providing that   this ordinance shall be codified. Providing  that all ordinances in conflict be repealed.   providing for initial appointment to the planning  board to occur upon adoption and providing for an   immediately effective date. All right. Item 6D  is the first of two public hearings on ordinance  

3281, an ordinance to vacate and abandon the  alleyway right ofway easement located on High   Avenue south of West 21st Street. As background  information, the applicant is requesting to vacate   a portion of High Avenue designated as city  property that does not retain any under any   underground utilities or city infrastructure. This  item was previously reviewed by the planning uh   reviewed by the planning board on August 11th of  2025 and they re recommended approval unanimously.   Staff concurs. Following documents are enclosed.  the ordinance number 3281, the staff analysis   report and recommendation and the maps including  both aerial and location staff recommendations of   the director of development services recommends  that the city commission conduct the first   public hearing and I'm told Mr. Zimmerman uh Mr.  Mayor, if you'll bear with us a moment, this is   also quasi judicial. So, um I don't know if you  just want to go ahead and swear in all relevant   staff for this particular item number 6D. Uh and  then also all of items under number seven. Okay,   we'll go ahead and have if that's okay u the  u uh e explanation of quasi judicial and it'll   apply for this item and then all of the items  in uh number 77 but quasi judicial proceedings   are in nature judicial. uh the strict rules of  evidence don't apply, but there is testimony   that is received, testimony that is relied  upon and and any person would have a right,   a due process right uh concerning this um this  proceeding. The burden of proof and quasi judicial   proceedings rest with the applicant. Therefore,  the applicant has the opportunity to address the   commission last after all public participation  and before the commission deliberates. So,  

at this time, if the planning staff and anyone  that anticipates uh talking for this item or for   any of the items in U article in number section  7, if they could stand and we'll swear you in. Okay. Thank you. uh 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. At the appropriate time, I will if there are any  commissioners that have had exparte communications   upon which they will rely on in their vote,  if they would disclose that at the time any   vote is taken. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Over to you  for 6D, sir. Yes. If this is a public hearing,   if you wish to speak about item 6D,  please come to the podium. Yes, ma'am. So,   this is my neighborhood. I can see this from my  house. Read your name and address for the record,   please. Jennifer Davis, 3934 West 21st Street,  Panama City, Florida, 3245. Thank you. What are   y'all planning on doing here? Why y'all want to  let the city vacated for what? That's I want to   know cuz I I don't like what y'all doing in my  neighborhood. There's a lot of stuff going on   in my neighborhood and I don't like none of it.  Thank you. Anyone else? Oh, we got two people. Yes, sir. Oh, Walter P. Henry 614 may happen here. I  uh I just I want to speak about these ements.  

I just like the city easement that the city has  inside the pen inside Peno City. I don't know   why we would have to go through uh these easement  that is do not have anything any services anything   in them. Probably would never be anything  in them cuz all the utilities that's what   those alleys was made for. said they never use  them. Then folks had to come and meet with you,   pay you to get this get these things closed. I  don't see no need of that. You know, you're not   going to put anything in these alleys. Why you  holding on to these folks properties? Why don't   you just let them have their have their properties  back? There's no need of this. You're not going to   do nothing with it. Never do nothing with it. I  can tell you several alleys even in Millville is   not being used. It would never be used. I'm  not y'all not going to put anything in them.   Why you take peoples have people to come and  talk to you about this problem? There's no   need of it. Not one bit a need of this. Now,  just to get some money, you didn't pay for it.   It was given to you by the the person that  owned on each side owned that and gave that to  

the city for utility and the city not doing that  with it where I keep it. Not even cleaning it. Not cleaning it. Thank you. Anyone else relig? Good morning, local wrestling legend. Uh my name is Mark Mulligan. I live at 116 West  11 Street. I was sworn in. I'm the property owner   requesting the abandonment. Uh, we've cleared the  land there and we want to build something zoned R2   and I really can't get our civil engineer working  on the property without seeing what's going to   happen with High Avenue because the only way we  can access the property is through the undeveloped   area. And so instead of asking the city to here  and pave it for us and put all the underground   utilities if and since it goes down to a dead end  anywhere anyway and the pro and high avenue south   of us is already abandoned. It'd be better for us  to have more flexibility if if we had to control   the property so we can put it in our driveway and  um create our development that way and not ask the   city to pave it for us because that's the only way  we can really access the property is through that   un unimproved easement. So you want us to abandon  that and pave it? No. No, I'm not asking the seat   to ask I I don't want to ask the city to pay it.  If you ban it, then gives us more flexibility to   put in our driveway to access the property to do  what we have to do. Yes, sir. Any other questions   for that? Yeah, I'll just There was a question  that was asked, a fair question. I mean, you know,   what is the city doing with this? I mean, I would  ask the same thing like what are we doing with  

it? I mean, there's there's no infrastructure,  there's no uh utilities. it we our best guess   is it used to be a platted roadway maybe years  and years or decades ago. So I I don't know that   the city just needs to hang on to property and I  believe the board feels the same way. So give it   back to the citizens and the businesses of our  city. So will it be divided in half and each   property owner gets half? Yes. That's what I was  going to ask clarity on. So so the neighboring   property the single family home to the um to  the east to the east east. Yeah. um will get   half and then then your property would have half.  That's typically how it does not all go to the   applicant. That is correct. So, you know, my best  my best interpretation based upon what you said,   it's really just about accessing the property.  It's really not like creating anything more   than what you can you can create now. It's really  just about access. Okay. Yeah. I didn't have the   answer to that question. That's that's what I've  had most feedback from the neighborhood has been   wanting to know and understand what's going on.  I don't know if you've got anything that you can   share. Um but there are residents that are around  your property want to build duplexes. They're just   single family homes and that's all it's um zoned  for. We can't do anything else but that and it's   already zoned for that. So yeah. Okay. Okay.  Thank you. All right. Any other discussion? Anyone else on item 6D? Seeing none closing  public comments, Mr. Zimmerman, back to you. Um,   at this time, it'd be appropriate take This is  the first read, correct? So, I will at this time   read the ordinance. Ordinance number 3281,  an ordinance vacating abandoning a platted   easement and alleyway located on High Avenue  south of West 21st Street, Panama City, is more   particularly described, repealing all ordinances  in conflict, providing for the severability of  

any part of this ordinance declared invalid,  providing for an effective date. Item 6F is the   first of two public hearings on ordinance 3283,  an ordinance amending section 1110-4, accessory   structures of the unified land development code  prohibiting docks in the Lake Huntington channel.   As background information, ordinance number  3283 as proposed will amend section 1110-4. Are y'all limiting my time now of the ULDC? Y'all keep Commissioner Hughes  away from that timer. All right. Uh of the   ulc prohibiting the construction of docks,  boat slips, pilings, and other uh app Wow,   that's a $4 word. Aperttonences. I'll just go with  that. Within the Lake Huntington channel. This   item was previously reviewed by the planning  board on August 11th, 2025. And the planning   board recommended approval unanimously and staff  concurs. The following documents are enclosed.   Ordinance 3283. The staff analysis report and  recommendation. Staff recommendation to the   director of development services is that the city  commission conduct the first public hearing. Mr.   Mayor? Yes, this is a public hearing. If you  wish to speak on item 6F, please come to the   podium. Anyone on 6F? Seeing none, closing public  comments. I'll disclose that yes, many in that   neighborhood have been um desiring this. Right  now, we've got neighbors pitted against neighbors.   And um this creates the clarity that's needed um  to ensure both the channel that the city maintains   as well as the neighborhood um of property owners  um are protected from any further encroachments. Has Sterling and James pick on Has that  has did that uh D hearing happened yet? No,   that's still in process. Okay. Yeah.  So it's just an okay that was just a  

yes. Okay. Any other discussion from the dice?  It's first reading. All right. First reading,   Mr. Zimmerman. First reading of ordinance 3283,  an ordinance of the city commission of Panama   City amending section 110-4G of the Unified  Land Development Code regulating docks and   boat structures, prohibiting dock construction  in the Lake Huntington channel, repealing all   ordinances and conflict herewith, providing for  severability, cotification, and an effective date.   Item 7A um is the first of two  public hearings on ordinance 3268.1,   an ordinance amending the future land use map  of the city to reflect the land use designation   of residential for a property located at 2414  Michigan Avenue. Partial ID 2699-00005-0000. As background information, the applicant has  requested a future land use change to residential   and a resoning to residential 2 or R-2. This  item was previously reviewed by the planning   board on August 11th, 2025. The planning board  recommended approval unanimously. Staff concurs.   Following documents are enclosed. The ordinance,  the staff analysis report, recommendation,   and public comments, and the adopted map series.  Staff recommendation through director development   services is that the city commission conduct  the first public hearing. This is a public   hearing. If you have any comments related to  7A, please come to the podium. Anyone for 7A?   Seeing none closing public comments, any  discussion for the DAS questions? No.   Appreciate the applicant um taking the resident's  feedback and making a change to the request. Okay,   Mr. Zimmerman. Be great. Have this two in the  wood as well. Yeah. This again just in a moment.   Get ready. Yes, sir. First reading. Ordinance  3268.1 and ordinance amending the comprehensive   plan future land use map of the city to reflect  a land use designation of residential for a  

parcel of land located at 2414 Michigan Avenue,  Panama City, Florida, providing for a repealer,   severability, and effective date. Item 7B is the  first of two public hearings on ordinance 3268.2,   Two, an ordinance amending the zoning map of  the city to reflect the zoning designation of   R2 residential 2 for property located at 2414  Michigan Avenue. Partial ID 2699-00005-0000. This is the same information as the prior  item. Staff recommendation to the director   of development services of the city commission  conduct the first public hearing. Mayor public   hearing. If you wish to speak on item 7B, please  come to the podium. Anyone on 7B? Seeing none   closing public comments. No discussion here.  Mr. Zimmerman. First reading. Ordinance 3268.2   and ordinance zoning a parcel of land located  at 2414 Michigan Avenue, Panama City, Florida   having approximately 470 acres R2 providing  for severability and effective date. Item 7 C   is the first of two public hearings on ordinance  3279.1, an ordinance on the voluntary annexation   of approximately 436 acres of property located  at 2800 Jameen Drive, partial ID 1327-118-0000. Background information. The applicant has  requested an annexation of future land use   change and a reszoning to residential 1 or  R-1. This item was previously reviewed by   the planning board on August 11th, 2025.  The planning board recommended approval   unanimously. Staff concurs. The following  documents are enclosed. Ordinance 3279.1,   the staff analysis report and recommendation,  and the adopted map series, including aerial   annexation, future line use, and zoning maps.  Staff recommendation through the director of   development services is that the city commission  conduct the first public hearing. Mr. Mayor, yes,  

this is a public hearing. If you wish to speak  about item 7 C, please come to the podium. 7 C.   Anyone? Seeing none, closing public comments.  Oh, yes, ma'am. I've been going quick today. Good morning. Morning, Jean Steel, 2911 Marin  Drive, Panama City. Um, I just hope that you vote   to approve. Vote for what was that? I hope that  you vote to approve. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?   Item 7C. That was quick. Yeah. Rare. She  She's the applicant. Just for the record,   Mr. Mayor. The neighborhood loves it. Perfect.  Or or just a friendly, supportive neighbor.   She's the applicant. So, okay. Yeah. Miss Steel  is part of the volunteer home buyout program.   She is current owner of one of the flooding  properties and she wishes to stay in the city   and so this is moving a little further down  the road not very far but staying close to   the neighborhood. Perfect. Very cool. Awesome.  Any discussion on the DAS? Oh closing public   comments. Any discussion from the DIS?  See none. First reading. First reading.   Ordinance number 3279.1 with the final reading  coming in two weeks. An ordinance of the city   approving the voluntary annexation of 436 acres  of unincorporated property located at 2800 Jamean   Drive into the city as further defined amending  the wards and boundaries to include the lands and   providing an effective date. Item 7 is the first  of two public hearings on ordinance 3279.2, Two,   an ordinance amending the future land use map  of the city to reflect the land use designation   of residential for a property located at 2800  Jameen Drive, which is partial ID3027-118-0000.

Uh, this is the same uh address as the prior uh  item. Staff recommendation through the director   of development services of the city commission  conduct the first public hearing. Mr. Mayor,   yes. If you wish to speak on item 7D, please  come to the podium. Seeing none. All right,   seeing no closing public comments. First reading,  Ordinance 3279.2, an ordinance amending the   comprehensive plan future land use map of the city  to reflect a land use designation of residential   for a parcel of property located at 2800 Jaman  Drive, Panama City, providing for repealer,   severability, and effective date. Item 7E is the  first of two public hearings on ordinance 3279.3,   an ordinance submitting the zoning map of  the city to reflect a zoning designation   of residential 1 or R-1 for a property located  at 2800 Jameen Drive, partial ID 1327-118-0000. This is the same address as the prior two  items. Staff recommendations of the director of   development services is that the city commission  conduct the first public hearing. Mr. Mayor,   yes, this is a public hearing. If you wish to  speak on item 7E, please come to the podium.   7E. Seeing none, closing public comments. First  reading. Go ahead. Yeah. So, a couple things.   This is we've encountered this issue multiple  times in this neighborhood. As a matter of fact,   the city has several par or has a parcel in which  we are building what they want to build. Um,   but it's not zoned appropriately. Um, so what I've  in talking with staff, um, what I've recommended   is a slight tweak to MU2 that would accomplish,  um, making this neighborhood. And Mr. Street,   respectfully, I think you're on 7F. We're not to  7F yet. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Sorry. I thought I was No,   you're good. You're good. I'm sorry. It's the  next one. You are correct. All right. So, any  

discussion? No. No questions on this one. Sorry  to freak you out, Jean. She's like, she's like,   "What's going on?" Is that what you said? First  reading ordinance 3279.3 and ordinance zoning   a parcel of property located at 2800 Jaman Drive  uh having approximately 436 acres R1 provided for   severability and an effective date. Item 7F is the  first of two public hearings on ordinance 3280,   an ordinance amending the zoning map of  the city to reflect a zoning designation   of mixuse 3 or MU3 for a property located at  1906 Louise Avenue, which is parcel ID 28071-   000-0000. As your information, the applicant  has requested a zoning change to mixuse 3 or   MU3. This item was previously reviewed by  the planning board on August 11th of 2025.   The planning board recommended approval by a  vote of 4 to one. Staff concurs. The following   documents are enclosed. Ordinance 3280, the  staff analysis report and recommendation and   the adopted map series, including aerial future  land use and zoning maps. Staff recommendation   to the director of development services that  the city commission conduct the first public   hearing. Mr. Mayor. Yes. If you wish to speak  about item 7F, please come to the podium. Any comments related to 7F? Seeing none,  closing public comments. Mr. street. All   right. Did you have Let's try this again. Would  you have something to say? Um, so MU3 where it's   problematic and why we've had a lot of trouble in  this this specific neighborhood with these areas   is um MU3 allows for commercial activity, which is  not something obviously we want in the middle of,   you know, the middle of a a residential  neighborhood. So, one of the one of the   things that's been suggested is a slight tweak  to MU2 that would bring residential uses into  

compliance, including properties that the  city owns in this exact neighborhood. Um,   and it's basically just a density calculation  is all it is. So, rather than approving a   potential commercial use, changing the uh MU2  language would be the preference that I would   have. I agree. Okay. Well, we're not voting  with Yes. Any other questions? Seeing none,   Mr. Zimmerman, I just like them in the packet  next time. Okay. I I will have a first reading,   but is this um a request to have staff go back  and look at potentially changing the code. So,   this so this resoning would be unnecessary. That  is correct. Okay. So, is that happening already? Michael Fuller, director of development services.  Yes, we've already started to re research that.   Um like Commissioner Street was saying, um part  of the issue with uh reszoning to MU3 is that it   will then allow for additional commercial uses.  That's not the property owner's intent. They   want to build back a duplex, but the MU2 zoning  district does not give them enough density to   build back a duplex given the size of the  parcel. So, if we tweak um the uh the MU2   zoning to allow right now allows 10 units per  acre. If we adjust that to 12 units per acre,   that would then give them the density to build  a duplex and there would be no need for this   zoning reszoning. Could you look at the parcels  that the city owns that also has duplexes to   make sure this would bring them into compliance  as well? Okay. And that's across the board 12   units an acre. Yes. So my question is unintended  consequences. That's what we want to look at. Are  

you already bringing this to us or do you need  us to to to ask you to bring this to us? Um,   a suggestion is that this came up not exactly on  these facts, but another situation I believe in   Commissioner Lucas's award where there was  an adjustment to the underlying code that   eliminated a potential u commercial type use.  Um, and so there, and so if you would like to,   we could have the first reading, then potentially  delay the second reading until after it comes   back from the planning commission with its  recommendation about changing the land use   code to allow additional density. And that would  probably be sometime in maybe last meeting of   October 1st or sometime in November. Um, is  that a fair statement. So, that's just wanted   you to consider consider that and I do believe it  would take action to um to delay this until after   we you get a report back from the planning  commission and staff on increasing density. Okay. it. So I I you proposing So I'm  proposing motion to to do what Nevin   just said. Okay. I second what he said.  Okay. So So the motion is go ahead and   have the first reading but then delay the  final hearing until um the first meeting in   November. Would that be sufficient time, Mr.  Fuller? Until the first meeting in November.   So that's that's all the motion is. Yes. Correct.  Yes. I'm asking the motion. I confirm. I confirm.  

All right. We have a second. Do you have a second?  No. You have a second. Hugh has a second. Has   there any discussion? It just that motion also  includes a request to go back and look at the   density of residential and confirmed again. Okay.  And second's confirmed. Y. Please call the RO.   Commissioner Granger. Yes. Commissioner Street.  Yes. Commissioner Hughes. Yes. Commissioner   Lucas. Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes. Motion passes 5-0.  Okay. The first reading is ordinance number 3280,   an ordinance zoning a parcel of property  located at 1906 Louise Avenue, Panama City,   having approximately 184 acres mixeduse 3  providing for severability and effective   date. And the final hearing on this ordinance will  not occur until the first meeting in November. We   are in audience participation. Oh, just for  we only have one meeting in November as a   reminder. Okay. We are in audience participation.  If you wish to speak about any other agenda items   uh related to this agenda, please come forward.  You have three minutes. Oftent times questions get   answered that you might have in the agenda item as  well. So if we stare at you blankly, it just means   we're going to answer that question later. Yes,  ma'am. Good morning. [Applause] My name is Don.   We'll wait to come to the microphone so it's all  Yeah, no worries. My name is Dawn and is a Nancy   Blue Brown. My current address is 1618 Hamilton  Avenue, Panama City, Florida 32405. Um, you have   to excuse me cuz I am very nervous. I' I've never  been in front of a panel like this, but I'm here   this morning and referenced um I have a request  for relief from Gateway Overway requirements.

I'm here today in regards to 920 MLK Boulevard.  I'm in the process of purchasing this particular   piece of property for Bonds by Dawn LLC. My  current business location is at 723 East 9inth   Court here in Panama City. And this relocation  moves me approximately 200 ft from where I have   successfully operated for more than 20 years.  I'm also a native of Panama City and the Glenwood   community. During the pre-development review, I  learned that the site falls within the gateway   overlay. Based on the standards that apply to the  non-residential properties within the overlay,   the scope of the required improvements  would significantly increase project costs,   potentially doubling my proposed investment in  the property. These costs were not anticipated   at the time of my offer. Given the extremely  short distance of the relocation, my continuous   operation and upkeep at the current site, and  my long-standing local ownership and community   investment, I respectfully request relief in  the form of grandfathering or an exemption   waiver from the gateway overlay requirements  for this project. If a different mechanism   is more appropriate, such as administrative  relief, alternative compliance, or a variance,   I would value your guidance on the best path.  My goal is to continue serving the neighborhood   in a permanent revitalized space consistent with  the city of Panama City. Um, their CRA's broader   revitalization, I'm sorry, objectives along the  MLK corridor. I'm committed to reasonable site   enhancements that support safety and appearance,  but I'm concerned the full overlay package would   make the project financially infeasible for  a small, locally owned business. Thank you  

for your consideration and continued support of  local businesses. Thank you all very much. Yes,   ma'am. You did great here when she's not nervous.  Yeah, you did great. Anyone else? Yes, sir. again, Walter P. Henry, 614 Mapai Avenue. Um, I'm  sure program that the city have. Uh, it's blowing   in the air that y'all thinking about getting rid  of it. And I think the citizen need to know why   y'all getting rid of it. It's going to affect a  bunch of folks that want to build houses not able   to build pay someone else to build one for them  for a higher price. And I just want to know y'all   just sometime y'all just want to slip things under  under the curtain and nobody nobody knows about   it. I just like know how we're going to get rid  of the ship program that's helping citizen that   they could be able to get in their own own home  and paying these renters higher prices for home   that that they have had for years. paid for him  probably 10 times and they still trying to get get   more for him. Nobody trying to help the peoples,  but then y'all want to try to get rid of something  

that is going to help the citizens of Peno  City. I know you probably ain't going to help me and I'm not looking for you to do that.  I'm concerned about the city as a whole,   the people that is in the city. Some folk  will not come and talk to y'all because   they know what y'all are already going to do.  And you're there to help the people's citizens   of Panama City, not to hurt them. They didn't  had enough of that. So when you get up here, make these things in your heart, not just  to do something that helped you to get a   vote from one another. That ain't  the that ain't general why you're   on on this board. You're on this board  to help the citizens of Panama City.   Thank you. Any other comments are related to  the agenda items on this this week's agenda? Good morning. Morning. Derek Thomas, 1100 West  10th Street. Uh come to you to talk about 13A   and 13B. Um, if you're going to be spending around  a million dollars to come up with a flood plan,   you should go to the EPA and ask them if you  declared something a wetland and a year later you   undeclared a wetland. And then the flood plane,  when I moved here, the flood plane was a block   away from the water. It was two blocks from my  house. Now it extends out three and a half blocks   where my neighborhood is just for the block. And  that's exactly where they changed it from being  

a wet land and being part of the drainage system  for a hundred years or so and now it's residential   neighborhood where they're planning on building  on it. And even though when somebody put a like   a what one of those oil tanks that you put right  next to your house, they put one next to the side   of the road and it sunk all the way down till  there was only a couple inches left. And now   they're thinking about putting a house there. I  mean, if you if you're going to do that, you you   should be more responsible. The the original plans  had taken into account when the city was first   designed to handle flooding and to properly drain  neighborhoods and that's gone out the window. And   since Hurricane Michael in in Panama City North  where there's a right next to 231 on top of the   hill there's a residential neighborhood and it's  got two sides of it on the on the uh north east   and the uh southeast. And now on the northeast all  along the edge of that residential neighborhood,   they're building up higher density and they're  building it 5t above the height of everything   else in the neighborhood. And that's right  along the edge of the hill and that blocks   all the water in the neighborhood. And there's  other neighborhoods too and and you're doing   voluntary home buyouts for properties that  are being flooded. I don't think in some cases   those need to be if you just kept in place the  drainage that has been there in the past. If we   had a system that worked in the past and we don't  have a system now, there should be something you   could do like respect the EPA when they declare  something a wetland because that means you're not   supposed to just bury it. And that's what happened  in my neighborhood. And um pass code enforcement   regulations that say if somebody's flooding  somebody else's property, that's a violation   and it does actual damage to other people's  property. So you should not allow it. Right now   they're saying that there's a plan that you can't  just go in it and flood other people's property,   but that's only if you file a permit. People  across the street never filed a permit. And so  

they were allowed to get away with it. If code  enforcement had a rule saying you can't come in   and bury part of the drainage system, then the  public would have had some recourse other than   going to small claims court because it was a civil  code violation to force runoff onto other people's   property. But if you had a system that worked and  for the for more than 10 years that I lived here,   it worked beautifully. I was impressed at how  well it worked and then that was all thrown out   the window because you want higher density and  more housing. So, show R some respect for the   people that live here and and don't take away the  drainage system that works unless you got a plan   to address that. Yes, sir. Thank you. Anyone else?  Any comments related to any agenda items today? Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Mayor and commissioners. And  forgive me if I'm out of Roffuswood, uh, 1911 East   10th Street. I know that you all mentioned about  changing the process for selecting the members of   the planning board and perhaps I should have came  and spoke then but I just wanted to to to bring   uh before you that I'm I'm concerned about  diversity on uh the planning board as well as all   of our committee. So I just hope that you all will  keep that in mind. I know that Reverend Barker is   a part of the um planning board, but I I was just  wondering do we have any females on there? I just   think that we ought to keep in mind diversity  uh as we move forward. And I I know I think   what you're doing in terms of that process with  the planning board is probably a good plan, but I   would hope that as y'all move forward that y'all  would keep that in mind as well as all of the   other boards and committees of the city. I mean,  we are a large city and there's there's a lot of   diversity here and I hope that we would uh keep  that in mind and I'd like to see that reflected  

in our boards and committees. Thank you. Yes,  sir. Thank you, Dr. Wood. Anyone else? Any p any   other public comments? Seeing none, closing public  comments. Mr. Mayor, I'll just add for the record,   um, all of the homes in the voluntary home buyout  program flooded before Hurricane Michael. So,   um, just for the record, so consent agenda, a  motion we approve consent agenda as modified.   Second. Any discussion? Call the RO. Commissioner  Granger, yes. Commissioner Street, yes.   Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner Lucas, yes.  Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes 5-0. Okay, now we   get to all the edits. So 9 I move to Am I up next?  Which one's next? 10. Next. Yeah, you're next, Mr.   Mayor. This is the new 10A, which is you asked for  mayor's report on process flow, I believe. Yeah,   I I want to discuss I've been surprised a few  times uh on on agenda items when I get my briefing   and the agenda for upcoming meeting of things that  I don't know the origin story of. And this kind   of comes up in it's come up multiple times and  relates to the item we move to 13G where we're   talking about fundamental changes in a district  and I mentioned it. I sent an email to Jonathan   that hopefully distributed it. But um you know,  as a as a person who owns property in Harrison   Avenue and the mayor, I I look at this agenda.  I'm like going, where did this come from? Was   it was it an owner or was it another commissioner  or I'm just trying to understand the problem that   we're solving for and who's championing this  idea? If we're elected, we have no, you know,   we don't operate the city dayto-day. We're policy  directors. And so I'm I'm in my head. I'm like,   who's shaping this policy? that affects me not as  a citizen but as a mayor and other cities uh will  

often add and maybe it's not every agenda item but  they'll have almost a sponsoring elected official.   This is the person that's bringing this item  before us. Uh and that way we kind of know who's   passionate about the idea. Um yeah, I just want to  kind of talk about how policy gets shaped and I've   even been surprised a few times related to the  property registration and this not I'm not trying   to throw staff under the bus. They're hardworking.  They care. But we started editing a an ordinance   and we didn't have consensus of the policy  directors that we even wanted to do the thing.   So a lot of lot of my concern is as a person  who leads uh businesses and and every moment   that my staff spends time on is in my personal  business it's my money but in this organization   it's the citizens money every time we start  editing something uh and and I want to make   sure that this board has an opportunity to shape  policy early on but then identify the origin story   of where the policy is coming from as well. What  do you what do you mo what what is your end goal   for I a discussion of a better way or enabling  staff to come back to us and and you know uh I   I haven't researched how potentially Destin does  it if it's codified or if it's just a suggestion   on the agenda or if it's a communication loop. um  I don't really have a a goal besides feeling as   a policy person that I know about things  upfront or I know the person in the the   commissioner of that ward is championing that  thing that they're aware of it and tracking it.   So, a couple suggestions. One would be and this  has happened I think a great example is the the   no smoking and parks ordinance like um you know  you because we can't discuss policy um due to   sunshine sometimes you know I don't know whether  or not that's one of the persons on the das that's   champion it or if it's you know some other issue.  So maybe within our background, we could notate,  

hey, this is based upon feedback staff's gotten,  which I think is where that one came from. It is   based upon some feedback from uh parks and recck  staff. Um or if it's a problem that we're trying   to solve in one of the neighborhoods that we  represent, it would be good to know because a lot   of times if like if I see something, you know,  in something that's happening in in Ward One,   you know, let's just use that. My expectation is  there's already been some type of vetting process   with that elected official before we've gotten to  that point. And so I don't know if there's a way   to list that. Um, you know, but I I think those  are things that could be helpful so that we're not   surprised because there has been times that I've  been surprised. I'm like, "Oh, I thought I thought   I thought for sure this would have already been  vetted through before we got here." And I don't   know that that's a that's a a fault of staff. I  think it's just kind of because we don't discuss   there's assumptions that are going on a lot of  times and um and a lot of times those assumptions   aren't correct. Yeah. And adding that you know  we get our agenda packet was it we got emailed   to us Wednesday evening, Thursday evening which  is earlier than we had been getting it. And so   a lot of times that's the first time we're seeing  some of these things. It's like wait what's this?   And that's why even on when we're talking about  the the Lake Huntington, I'm like, "Hey, did you   reach out to the stakeholders?" Because I only saw  about this three days ago. And so I'm having to   unpack all these agenda items. Make sure every all  the stakeholders in the community understand them   and weigh in, but then I'm also kind of relying on  everyone else up here to do the same thing so we   don't get surprised on things. So, one one of the  problems if you if you tag if you require a name   tagged to it and then you have to decide whether  or not you allow staff to put things on there that   um that none of us are championing. Um smoking  in the parks was one of them. Yeah. And that   maybe that's not we didn't champion it, we just  didn't bring forward. That's not probably the   best example of what I'm looking at. I'm looking  at things like, "Hey, the staff has identified  

that x amount of lift stations need to be repaired  and here's some grant money to help fix that. We'd   like to use this grant money to fix it." I mean,  is that something that that they necessarily need   to seek out an elected official and say, "Will you  champion this for me?" Um, I think not. I think   there's a more efficient way of doing business.  Um, I would suggest a felt needs statement on   everything that comes before us. You know what a  felt need statement like it drives to the heart of   the origination of the of the request cuz when it  comes before us it is literally a request right we   can deny it we can not move forward with it which  is a you know a denial a pocket denial or we can   u modify it or we can move it forward uh you  know there's there's a kind of a spectrum of   choices that we have but everything that comes  before us is a request so I I think a felt   need origination statement, just one sentence that  says, "Hey, this is kind of where this was derived   from, whether it's one of us that's asking for  it." Sure. Or or and if that's the case, then   I would suggest that we craft that statement and  give it to them, cuz obviously we we're not just   trying to dream up crazy stuff to do. Usually,  what we're trying to do is solve issues that   have been brought to us, right? I mean, I don't  know about y'all, I don't sit home and think up   new stuff to do with the city. And there's plenty  of problems to solve. There's plenty of problems   to solve and a lot of times we can't solve all of  them. We just have to pick which ones we think are   the most important ones and the most uh you know  uh urgent ones to solve. And so that's why I just   suggest that they're just maybe maybe we just add  to each request, hey, there's a felt needs like   why why is this coming for us? So specifically I  would I would say ordinances are a lot different   than a purchase order. Um, so ordinances is when  we're codifying something in law um versus an   expense that may be a budgetary requirement  that's required in our procurement policy.  

So I think there should definitely be an extra  step of diligence and ordinances specifically um   and you know what that looks like. I don't know.  The the other thing we could look at um and maybe   this is for one of our workshops is you know the  county has a process in which they appoint elected   officials over specific like that like they have  a they have an elected official over you know   not not departments but it's done in such a way  that like it's they act as a liaison for certain   objectives that are in their governmental process.  That could be an aspect that we look at that it   doesn't have to be board specific, but it could  be topic specific and align with maybe some of   our skills and giftings and talents to assist. I  those are just a couple of ideas. I'm not opposed   to that. I would rather it be more topic specific  than um and projectbased rather than programmatic   based. um you know it it's you picked a specific  topic and like it like it I'm not doing that. So it I don't know that. So like cyber security  that's a big one I've been kind of talking with   staff on is getting the city better and a cyber  security position um better even though every   single thing that the city does well 99% of the  city's business is done in the public with the   exception of security stuff. Um, imagine if if  it was completely wiped away tomorrow. Um, and   that's a that's a risk of cyber security, right?  Um, but yeah, it's hard to answer the citizens   that you represent when you have an entire thing  that another commissioner is is completely over,   if that makes sense. The county doesn't have  single member districts and so they're a little  

bit easier to to answer that. Um but yeah, like  if if we put say uh the mayor over all of paving   uh in the city, then that would be harder for me  to answer those questions to my constituents like   why their roads not getting fixed. Well, you got  to go talk to the mayor, you know, or or what have   you. But I' I'd rather not be put in that kind of  position. No, it could be a bad suggestion. So,   no, it's not a bad suggestion. I just And I'm okay  with that. No, no, I think it's a good suggestion.   the mayor brought up a topic and so I think I just  think it should be more programmatic like like   the water issues that we're dealing with or um you  know uh certain budgetary things, right? Um that's   that's fine. I I think that's wise to use the  skill sets that we uniquely bring to this board   to solve some of the issues that face this board.  Absolutely. I just don't want it to be a longterm   like you're the zar of whatever now, you know,  that kind of thing. I don't want to be zar. Yeah. If if I may, Mr. Mayor, so I will just admit um on  item 6E as an echo uh staff uh specifically me, we   did drop the ball on this one with the mayor. Just  kind of looked over the last few weeks and the way   the schedule fell. Uh you normally should not be  learning about this at elected official when the   agenda goes live the Wednesday before. Uh in this  case, Mayor Branch did because of just his and my   schedule over the few weeks prior. And that's we  should have recognized that we hadn't spoke to him   with that. I I think to me the the I think more  the philosophical question is first off staff I   mean we probably probably only a third comes to  you and I know how much you guys get hit up on   things cuz it's almost always an email or a text  to me to follow up on it. That's probably only a   third of what staff gets hit with on a regular  basis. I think the question is is do do we want   to kind of like I guess get sign off on a on a  concept on the front end or or or working through  

the process and making a recommendation be told  you know at the end that you there's not support   for it. Um I think that's kind of the question.  Yeah. And I don't know that we always know on the   front end because there's a lot of questions to be  asked. So what now? I think you can do both. Yeah.   Well, I think it's just an ongoing discussion  where we're trying to figure out I'm trying to   avoid surprise, but also avoiding staff working on  things that we haven't built enough consensus on   where they're working on stuff, they're bringing  it to the agenda and they don't have support of it   or that none of us are really wanting to see it  on the agenda. Uh, and so I don't know uh if if   we need more like the charter should be where we  control the agenda where staff isn't able to put   things on the agenda or I'm able to take things  off or the whole something like that. Um, but I   don't want I want to avoid spending tax dollars  on things that come here and everyone's like,   "Where did that come from?" That's not what I'm  hear. And if you're looking for problems to solve,   I can give you a giant list. I get those  via email. Well, I'll just say very often   on these items, just speaking from myself in this  position in a year and a half. I mean, I I mean,   I'm not actively polling y'all before public  meetings to know how you feel about things. I   mean, some of you, you know, will raise concerns  and raise questions, but, you know, very rarely   have I heard I'm not supporting this whatsoever.  And a couple of you sometimes, uh, going back,   you know, sometimes you keep your cards pretty  close to your chest until the public meeting   because you want to hear the formal recommendation  put forward by staff. You want to hear what your   colleagues think in this forum uh, to that end.  So, I'm just saying like I'm I just want to make   sure you I'm not necessarily like pulling you  um because I I believe that's that's a no no   as Mr. Zimmerman would say. So, we kind of talk  through things. We kind of introduce the idea and   the concept and then you know staff will will you  know bake it out and and you know get feedback. We   definitely look at best practices on other items.  We I think there's lots of value in some of the  

organizations that we're a part of, whether it be  the Florida League of Cities or the FCCMA to to   kind of affect some of that. But I think the big  issue is that, you know, some of you may not know   that something's an issue. It may be a unique,  you know, kind of issue in in say you know,   Mr. Hughes part of Millville and and so but you  know, we can't you got to be careful not say,   okay, we're just going to single out Milville  and so this is a broader problem. So staff is   seeking to solve a problem and yes I mean it  it some sometimes it will affect the whole city   and and maybe some may be very limited but a lot  of the limitations are usually just like in our   entertainment districts or you know along certain  corridors like the gateway and so uh yeah I'm just   kind of kind of thinking out loud here on you know  kind of some of the process but I do want to echo   like yeah nobody's we have plenty of work you know  not necessarily just kind of creating work these   are these are items that residents businesses is  in the in the day-to-day operation of the city   that that end up on somebody's desk either from  my desk even down to one of the superintendents   or one of the division managers desks and because  something that that we feel that we as a city   should codify in some way to to solve a problem.  So that that's just the generic genesis of Yeah,   I don't have a real policy. I want to keep looking  into this. We I don't think we're going to find   a a foolproof plan today. But the situation I'm  trying to avoid is what I loved is the story of   that the the awnings over sidewalks. The ordinance  is no post on the sidewalks. And if someone had   come to me and said, "Hey, we got a little problem  here. How do we h how do you think we should as   a policy area? How should we handle an awning  or a gallery under a city right away?" I would   have said, "Let's look at Appalachiccola, Caribel,  Pensacola. There's a dozen examples of how other   cities do it. Let's not outlaw it." And so that  would have prevented us from spending I don't know   how many hours changing the ordinance, getting it  on the agenda. We we went this way when I'm the   person that should have reached out to the DIB and  you and said, "What are we hearing? What is what  

do the downtown owners care about?" Much before we  should have edited the ordinance or put it on the   agenda or even formed the idea. We we're customer  service and so we should have gone out and asked   all the people and come back to here's what we're  hearing and way before staff time was spent.   One of the things that uh you've brought to us,  mayor, is our uh workshops, our virtual workshops.   And uh I think we've I know I've begun thinking  of them as ours, but maybe staff should also think   of it as ours. And if there's something that they  know they're working on that that would be a time   to to channel through the city. That's a really  good idea. In software, we call a roadmap meeting,   which is here's all the things we have to work  on. tell us the three things like you know the the   software team we'll talk to customer support team  we're customer support team they're the product   team and you know we'd say hey what is this what  should we be working on and the customer support   says these four things of the 5,000 that we need  to work on and the most important over x dates so   those meetings are helping the the people building  the machine know what to work on uh efficiently   switch to agile yeah totally sprints yeah and I  see this discussion is part of our city evolving   to a working with rather than just a working for  or as has been expressed over and over again by   citizens who come to us a done to you know that  the city or the city commission is doing things to   uh our constituencies and uh this kind of of  discussion uh that we're having now is is uh   is somewhat of a new thing. Um although I'm told  this commission since Granger came on board has   been more of a discussionoriented. Oh wow. That's  a joke. Okay. Got it. You can let but um but we we  

do discuss things more um and and you've brought  um that we've welcomed uh the virtual workshops   where we're we're discussing things more. So,  uh, I like your idea of a felt need statement,   um, and codifying that as part of what comes  comes forth. Yeah. And I, and I also think,   you know, just from an employee standpoint, it's  disheartening to work on things that don't get   through. And, you know, burnout doesn't happen and  burnout happens when progress doesn't meet effort,   right? And so, we want them to have progress  of knowing what to work on. And so I think   what you're hearing from the board is is not  like a maybe a cautifification or hard policy,   but it's an encouragement of bring ideas to  us sooner so that we could go out and get the   stakeholders opinions on things and bring it back  so that we're able to work with shity instead of   surprises. Yeah. As in the software world um and  IT world, you have what's called user statements   and these are very very similar. is kind of  the idea of a of a belt felt needs statement   and a user statement would go something along  the lines of as a user I want to be able to   use this software to do X Y and Z. Um and then  that kind of tells the developer what what the   end goal needs to be. So I think the felt need  statement should be along those lines like what   is actually being solved here. Define what problem  they're solving. What is the actual issue at hand?   So that's it. That's all I have. All right.  My turn. My turn. Yeah, your turn. Right. So,   um this is probably the third or maybe maybe the  fourth time this has come before this commission.   Um and and what I in the past what what we have uh  discussed this is a very specific um issue a very  

specific um discrepancy or dispute. Um the the the  the Sabbathon family that lives at 4412 Fletcher   Street, they have a very unique air conditioning  system. This air conditioning system uses water.   Um, it is a geothermal waterbased system. Uh,  it's not a very common AC system in the state   of Florida. How many houses have you sold with  water-based geothermal? My dad has it. I grew up   in five. Y'all proved me wrong. But but seriously,  most most air conditioning systems in the state of   Florida have a a heat pump. Most but most of the  most of the geothermals use wells. Yeah, they use   wells, right? And so what I'm what I'm getting at  here is is that I don't want us we're again we're   policy directors. We're not we're not technical  people. I'm here now. We are in our own respective   you know areas but um I don't think any of us is a  plumber uh or a aqua engineer or anything of that   nature. And so what I'm looking at is this is an  enterprise fund which is designed to make money   for the city to further support water issues. And  so when we have a dispute about something that may   have happened or may not have happened that this  board is endowed with the ability to to to handle   that dispute. Um, and again, this is a very very  uh strange and and weird situation that I don't   think we're going to run into again. Uh, because  again, most houses don't have this AC unit type   situation. Um, and so what what I'm asking the  board to do is to uh empower staff to work with  

the Sabistons to come up with an acceptable  solution from an engineering standpoint. We   don't necessarily need to get into the weeds of  what that is, what the specific solution is. It   just needs to be acceptable to staff's engineering  department. Um, and then once they have that green   light, then what I would like to see is for us to  just wave the the disputed amount that that that   they that the city says that they owe and restore  them back to water service because while we have   a specific amount that is set aside that the city  says that they owe um which they dispute, the the   problem here is the mindset moving forward. This  is an enterprise fund thing. If this was a general   fund type item, I would never bring this to you.  But this is an enterprise fund type item. And the   longer that they don't continue to to use the  water and that they don't continue to to to be   serviced by the city of Panama City, which by the  way, they're paying the 25% premium, they can't   vote for us. They don't even live in the city.  Um, so this is not a political issue by any means.   It's more of a of a direction of how do how do we  handle enterprise fund items. Um the longer that   they stay off of water, the the the amount doesn't  change and they're not paying into it and the only   thing that we have to that the only teeth that we  have is you just can't come back on water, which   is teeth, right? But if they were to come back  on water at this point, from my calculations that   I've that I've done from a revenue standpoint, um  they would already be over the amount that they   that they that we say that they owe. We would  already be over that amount. And that number  

continues to increase every month that we get past  that. What's what happened? So the city says that   um the Sisonens had a uh cross connect to from  their well to the city water and uh their meter   ran water through it and that amount basically  skyrocketed their bill. They then brought that   to the city. The city was able to remove the  sewer off of that because they do not have an   irrigation meter. They just got a straight regular  meter and um they contend that that water did not   go into the ground. They contend that um that  there may be another issue somewhere else. The um I'm trying to make sure I have just facts here,  right? Um the city maintains that the meter is   correct. They are on wellwater as well. So they  don't necessarily even need to come back on city   water. They want to come back on city water. They  want to consume our service and pay for it. They   just $25 at a 25% increase. Okay. Right. Because  they they live in the county and they they're as   far as the city is concerned they are only a water  customer. Um and so they're willing to continue to   do that. that they're willing to come back on  board. Um they're willing to allow the city to   to come on the property and verify and validate  that they no longer have a cross connect or that   any potential situation is approved by the city.  Um, so, so I in in software we group problems.   So you find common things and I and I have about  five different families bills that are the I don't  

think I I ran this much water through my reader  like this the dispute of that number simply can't   be correct. I have one that someone's bill jumped  280,000 gallons in one month. Yeah, that's like   five 15 swimming pools. and you would you would  notice that if that was a leak in the backyard.   And so, um I I apparently water is a it's a I'm  getting a lot of these emails now. Yeah. And so   I did some research late yesterday um on the topic  of water bills. Miami Dade has a I mean there's a   policy for someone comes on your property, let's  say if you have a property and they break the hose   bib and it spills. So there's a vandalism policy.  There's one for a person that has a leak that got   repaired, like an oops, I had no idea there was a  leak and here's the bill. And and there's even one   that's like, okay, everybody gets a mortgage.  Everybody gets a gimme if the gimme is six if   your spike is six times more than your average  usage. Which I thought that was interesting,   too. But I've got the same problem with the same  problem of I got a bill. I don't think I use that   much water. I don't can't pay it or I don't want  to pay it. And so I don't know if we should be   grouping that problem or you're we're suggesting  we should group geothermal related issues. I'm up   for anything that that that I'm up for any ideas  that doesn't cause the staff to not have clear   cuz they're in a tough spot too. Just like we are  when we get those emails, they're like, "I didn't   use that much water." And I'm like, "I don't know  if you did either." My goal here is to solve that   issue. Yeah. And that's my goal is to solve the  issue of, wow, I got a $10,000 water bill. How?   Like there I don't I don't understand how this  water could be used. That that's my goal. It's   just all that issue. I like the idea of the  mulligan like one time. Maybe say every five   years you get a a one time. Yeah. And we don't  want people to use that like I got my gimme.   It's my So that's why they have the extraordinary  spike defined by a 6x bill and and we can have it   whatever. But what we don't want to do is cause it  where it's like every 5 years I just dispute one  

of my bills with the city and they cover it. We  don't want to create that either. I think the pro   one of the problems is when the when the citizen  says I didn't use that. Our only answer is well   that's what the meter says. Yeah. That doesn't  matter that to that to that especially if you   can't afford it. I I I was I was hit with 89,000  gallons of water on houses that never nobody   ever lived in. Yeah. The only answer I got was  that's what it says. Well, I've had folks come in   construction that this was brand new construction.  Nobody lived in construction. And so my what we   got to do is find that answer is from the from  the city's side. How do we answer that question   to that person who says there's no way that I I  put 100,000 gallons worth of water through my my   system? What we need to do is provide a policy. I  like the idea of the spike. I like the idea of um   because it it it looks at just wave tops, right?  Like extreme wave tops um like tsunami level wave   tops. And it provides Yeah. It provides staff  direction and more tools to solve these kinds of   issues. Whereas right now the only tool that they  really have is it went through the meter, pay the   money. Yeah. And it's tough. That's a tough job  because they don't they can't just go, I'll just   cut this person's bill in half and you're very  nice. You don't have to pay because that's how   they get fired. That is a tough customer support  job. That is tough. So I' I'd love to So what what   do we need to go from here to enable staff to to  solve these problems? So I would like to solve   their issue today and as part of that uh direct  staff to create maybe look at other communities   on how they because we're not the only ones  that provide water, right? Um to look at other   uh municipalities and water districts to see how  they solve this issue. I do like the idea of of   you get a a mulligan, but the mulligan's got to be  it's got to be a big mulligan. It can't just be,  

oh, you know, it's Christmas. I don't want to pay  water bill. Yeah. You know, well, and um there's   one thing. So, but the the end goal is, so that's  how we solve this problem. The bigger problem is   the automatic billing. What I want is a system.  I want regular updates to get to a point where   a citizen gets an alert on their phone or email.  It's like, whoa, whoa, whoa. what's happening at   your house? Did you open a car wash? And they  know before, you know, they get their bill,   something's happened. Correct, Mr. Mayor. Um I  I will say that that that features, excuse me,   that feature is coming very soon. I hope that's  in place by end of spring uh next year. Um as   we work to restore our remote uh uh meter reading  capability, um that's something that citizens will   be able to sign up for so they can get high usage  alerts like like daytoday, hour to hour. Yeah. Um,   so that that is coming. I'm sorry. Under this new  system, would they be able to monitor their they   could go into the system and see what they're  using. They sign up for text updates and they   can just check a variety of options. And one of  them is uh high water usage alert. And so if their   water is running continuously um whether they're  filling the pool or they're they're washing cars   or or whatever it may be or they've got a leak um  on their side of the meter then then it'll send   them an alert. But would they just be able to like  like FPL FPL we can check our electricity usage?   I I believe so without waiting on them to send  something to us. We can just go into our account   and look at what our I'll work with the vendor  to see if that's possible and report back. Policy   though. Yeah. So I Yeah. So I two things. So I  want to I want regular updates to get that point.   I want to know like tminus 114 days until we've  moved to the new system. We have 46 MXU units left   that need to be fixed. Like I want like almost  like it's been 14 days since our last incident.  

like one of those quarterly monthly so we can  tell citizens like hey here's here's the goal   and here's how we're tracking to that goal that's  my like I would say between that and roads there's   the two biggest water and roads water roads and  we're and we're doing a disservice to the the   water department not having this plan for them to  even point out and say we know this isn't the best   situation here's where we're tracking to here's  how we're getting there here's the progress that   helps them at least have something to say um but  as far as policy I would be in favor of enabling   staff to finds a a uh policy that helps especially  in this situation, other situations of you know   the big spikes. What is that x normal balance  normal usage spike need to be defined? The delta.   Yeah. And I need um a little bit of clarity. So  So we we approve this. We we forget the bill.   What happens next? Um Jan, if you could explain  um what your procedure will be from that point. Um   I would refer every um customer who doesn't like  my decision to the commission for them to decide.   I think so. I mean, honestly, hold on a second. I  know. I want those because if you don't bubble the   problems up, just like if all the beers at history  class were terrible and you just told the staff   and they never told managers that this the French  fries were overcooked. I could never change the   vendor of the French fries. I could never change  the oil. The problems have to bubble up. And so   it's painful to hear the problems, but I 100% want  to hear more problems bubbled up to us so that we   can create policy to one create better jobs for  the staff, right? And also say this is a problem   we're solving versus you because it really is not  a fun job for the staff to to say no and then have   no ability to say yes ever. They they walk through  our policies, we think they're perfect policies   and we never hear that the policies are broken.  So 100% I I want to hear those problems. If I may,  

Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Real quick to  that point and I asked the other day in our   departments, is it okay? Is it allowed if if um  an employee sees a way to be more efficient or   it's something that's not working, take it to the  department head and say, "Look, without, you know,   without this is a good idea and and be accepted  as something to think about, not a not a well,   we'll think about it later." They're the ones  during the in the firing line. They're the   ones that are working every day and that's every  department, not just the water, but this is a good   example of they might see a better way to approach  it, answer it. Um, and all we're giving them is is   A through D. They need, you know, A through D and  they'll come up with that. Um, Jam, will there be   any further process with bond holders, anything  else like that? I will I will refer the policy to   the bond holders to determine whether it violates  our covenant to not give away free water and   um let them decide whether it does or not. Yeah.  Perhaps we have enough information now to hold a   special public hearing. Yeah. On water issues  in the community and let's just have folks who   have the concerns come and we sit as a body who  hear them. Um because if we take the approach of   just letting them bubble up, um that'll be a a  a ground swell over time as opposed to um we're   having this meeting on water issues. If you've  got a dispute, come um give your three minutes,   you know, a special public hearing on uh water.  One last one last question, Jane. How many water   bills do you guys resolve a week, do you think?  Uh probably I would say between 50 and 100 every   week. How many do you have that are unresolved  a week? Uh this is the only one that I'm aware  

of. Okay. Yeah. Maybe the question is how many  do you have where the citizen doesn't like the   resolution? Oh 99%. I mean nobody wants to pay  their water. Yeah. I even passed along uh a pos   some other cities too. You another bucket of  problems. One is the I don't believe this meter   is correct. Other sub cities will actually charge  you to come read reread the meter and say if we   find this thing's right, you're paying a fee for  us to go look at it. If it's wrong, we eat the fee   and fix the meter. Some cities even do there's  there's a bucket of problems of people who go,   man, I keep getting charged late fees. I can't get  ahead. So I push forward an idea of like maybe we   work with uh you know United Way and give people  opportunity to volunteer to buy down the buy down   their their lake fees or something helping somehow  helping people get ahead without just going   everybody gets a free water and we can't do that  cuz then it creates chaos of everyone wanting free   stuff but how do we help people who are in the  situations where they're getting bills and I can't   afford it and then so we we have payment plans  that we that we suggest. We also have a list of   um agencies that people who are truly needy can  we refer them to and they can go uh find some   assistance. Um those are a couple of the things  that we do for people who struggle to pay their   water bill. Um but at the end of the day, you're  going to be the one paying their water. Sure. The   money comes from anything free to one any credit  to one person is someone else's burden. Exactly.   Yeah. So I think though that that to serve the  community that we're trying to serve through an   enterprise fund. So those of you who may not be  aware just listening online uh an enterprise fund   is a specific fund for the cities to make money.  No to cover the cost of their services. To cover   the cost of their services by making money. So um  it's is specifically separate from a general fund.  

uh general funds are not they're not they're  they're ruled by a different set of rules. So   um the an enterprise fund can be more businesslike  than say the general fund. And all I'm trying to   do is say that when we go to solve problems. I  think there needs to be a different mindset that   when we go to solve those problems that they  need to be more businessoriented inside of an   enterprise fund rather than the general fund like  um I you to give an account example I don't think   that we should have somebody who gets a speeding  ticket to come in here and say hey I I I wish wish   we could reduce the speeding ticket was the only  time I sped this month um you know that would be a   general fund type thing um But providing a service  that people have to use like water, I think we   need to have more tools available for staff to  to mitigate and resolve issues. And so with that,   I I want to motion that we empower staff to do  two things. One is to work with the Savons to   come up with this solution that staff approves.  Um, and then upon that approval, um, we will,   um, I don't know what you want to, what should I  call that? Um, wave. I think wave is the propert the amount that we say that they owe and  reestablish their account upon staff's   approval that the solution is is is good.  Um, but then the other thing that we'll   want to hand to staff is come back with  to us with a solution that allows for a  

um a delta event where as a user I all of a sudden  have a $1,000 water bill and I don't know why.   um that that we can look at that and go once  you have a plumber look through your system   or whatever the things that are on that you can  bring those to us that it's not going to happen   again that we can then wave that that large  amount one time in x amount of years or so.   Can I make a suggestion sir? Sure. Um, so one,  uh, work with the Sabbath and if, uh, if if they,   um, if they we get all this worked out, I would  just make part of that motion eliminate any   potential cross connection on their system that  connects to our our meter. I'm leaving it to you   to make that. Yeah. And then a a lot of cities  and I I looked at and and Miss Savon actually   suggested Callaway's water policy. They have a  one-time forgiveness uh, in an event like that.   So, the life of your account, you get one  mulligan. Um, so maybe propose something   like that. I'm I'm leaving this more in y'all's  in y'all's to to come up with a the the crafted   solution for for their specific property, but then  also the crafted solution to bring back to us. Um,   so I'd rather leave that more flexible for for  y'all. I appreciate the uh the the recommendation,   though. But but your motion includes waving  ultimately waving the $888 forgiveness. Yes.   Forgiveness. Yes. So what is there to what is  there for the staff and the saddle saddleston to   agree upon uh the the technical implementation of  how what what is actually going to happen at their   house because they had they had a potent they  had cross connect before they say they don't I   I believe them but I want staff to to be able to  look at that and go this is this is good or this  

isn't. So they're going to look at it and tell you  switch that yeah just for clarity Mr. Granger, you   by staff you mean public works department, just  to be very specific. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So,   um it's been a year. You they were here with  us last October. We're coming up on a year. Um   this is uh uh something I would like to find a an  amicable uh solution to. Um, and I would suggest   that we have staff work as I as we direct before  we wave as a um action because we have so many   unknowns out there. So, we're talking about waving  $888 when you also have people who say, "Hey, wait   a minute. My it's it's $2,000 that you all are  saying. you know, if you wave 88 888 for someone   who isn't in the city because of a dispute, how  do we address that question going forward? So,   so the reason why I want theirs fixed is because  um we've already run into a situation in water   where we have um and they brought their issue  to us. I mean, they did they they came before   us a year ago and and stood at this podium and  talked to us about it. Uh but but what I don't   want to do is create a situation where upon this  date moving forward, this is how it's going to be   and then they get left out of it. That's really  my my concern. And and and I don't think that   we should wave or forgive the the the amount that  they have or that we say that that they owe until   staff has has given the green light. So staff,  public works would take a look at the situation.   Once public works is satisfied, that would then  be the switch to say, "Okay, they're good." Um,  

but I do want to solve these issues moving  forward. Um, but I also don't want to say, "Hey,   we're going to solve these issues moving forward,"  but without a look back, they get left behind.   Um, so I I happen to agree with Janice's Janice's  point, but what I will say a little different take   um with the understanding of what um of what the  mayor said that we are we are okay with receiving   those requests and having them bubble up to  the commission level to the point of creating   urgency to resolving this long term. If that  is truly the case and the um and the support   of the board, I will I I'll I'll yield to going  down this path. But I mean, Janice's concerns are   are very real and very valid and are are shared  by me as in we are creating a precedent that   um that that will affect things. And so we're  going to have to deal with it very quickly and   very timely um to not create a whole other slew  of unintended consequences to come from it. The   urgency has already been expressed not just by the  saddest but by many of uh of our citizens and we   know that they're out there 50 to 90 a week. Um  and we're in transition to a system that will uh   weigh many of these experiences that we're having  now. And how we handle this at this point for the   city is uh is going to be uh key. And I think uh  we need to address that now as opposed to just   with one one situation. So you want I'm trying  to follow what you're saying. You're wanting   to do have policy now like us create policy  now. Not in this very moment. Okay. Today now,  

but in this season now where we know that we are  being um that citizens are expressing a um major   issues and that we need to to resolve it from a  broader perspective rather than one by one. and   the bubble up theory is more one by one and we're  just kicking the can down the street. So that's   that was part of my motion to put it back to staff  to bring us solutions to for similar issues like   that. Um was that not sufficient? I would say  before the next meeting like if you want to I   mean I mean here's the here's here's the aspect  of what that so we are creating policy by create   making this decision regardless of whether or not  we're saying we're implementing a policy what Jan   has communicated is the policy will now be it's  bubbling up to the commission like that is the   policy that we're implementing with this so so I  personally I can support that policy but with the   aspect of like this is meant to to expedite the  resolve and the solution moving forward. And so   I just want to make sure we're all understanding  what I understood in that conversation. Jan, was I   incorrect in that or is that uh I'm just not clear  on how how the the implementation of the meter and   they can get they you're talking about when the  when the meter uh gets implemented dispute dispute   resolution is what I'm specifically okay we we  wrote a policy on that okay you adopted a policy   on that does anything change about that policy  yes because my my I'm not the final say anymore.   That that that policy gives me the final say. Now  it will be the commissioner will have the final   say. I would argue that we've always had that.  Yeah. Well, Mr. Mayor, may I please? Okay. So,  

I think the kind of zooming up to the 30,000 foot  level, I think the premise of the discussion today   is is really clouding everything. This idea that  we have tons of meters that are just going crazy   is an inaccurate assumption. The bigger problem,  but it will become the assumption. Well, I know   that it'll be easy to blame. The my concern,  and again, respect whatever decision y'all make,   but you are potentially going to put yourselves  in a very difficult situation. And here's why. For   example, and I just state I I support us moving  beyond the situation with this absence. Let's   resolve it. However, you're going to look to staff  to weigh in on this and you're going to hear your   public works director, your utilities engineer  with a PhD in this stuff, a utilities operations   manager who unfortunately passed away but had 25  years experience before this all stated there was   a cross connection issue here and they believe  that the water did pass through the meter and   backfill the aquifer through their well. If I may  cities that you even though you use the water, you   you might have a vandalism. You might have had a  break in and it leaked out. You were gone for two   months and the water did run through the meter.  Yeah. You have leak policies where yes, in fact,   the water and the citizens still face with a bill  that they often cannot pay. And there are policies   at other cities to handle that. Just like we have  a policy for the estimated bill getting caught up,   we have a policy for that. we can have a policy  for it. All right, we got a crazy spike that   didn't see any water. Here's how we handle it.  Yeah. So, I would say the other the other example,   just using examples that we used today,  the cuz I looked into that, the 280,000,   we actually have a year of history with them using  about 30,000 a month to irrigate half an acre. So,   that's that's an accurate bill. The other thing  is um I I didn't know this cuz I was it was a   victim and and you know, Miss Smith made me pay my  bill cuz the water went through my meter. Um, but  

people don't realize that a leaking a toilet that  gets hung up can burn 1 to 5 gallons a minute.   That's almost, you know, that's over 7,000 gallons  a day and over 200,000 a month. So, you know,   someone goes on a trip, what's the one of the  last things you do before you leave the house and   lock it up. Everyone use the restroom, a toilet  gets hung up and you're on the road for 10 days,   you've probably burned almost 100,000 gallons  of water during that time and you didn't know   it. So I again the the the I think the point I'm  trying to make is that the the number of meters   that just go crazy and say you burned hundreds  of thousands of gallons or even is is not I mean   that the water 99 times out of 100 most likely  went through that meter. And so I think we are   getting to the point of you're willing to uh  you're considering waving uh a legitimate um   bill sent to a citizen or business of Panama City.  Yeah. I mean the estimated bill catchup is a real   bill. Yeah. And it's still a situation where the  person potentially cannot afford to pay the bill.   So we should never not let them have water ever  again. Yeah. Then hit them with code compliance   cuz they don't have water in there in the city  limits like So okay hearing y'all I think my   motion might have been miscommunicated. Um so I'd  like to kind of delineate what I'm trying to do   here. Uh one is I'm trying to solve the specific  issue with the SAS and provide a way forward. I'm   not looking for staff to come back and report to  us what they found at the SAS's house. I'm looking   for staff to say that we found a resolution and  we're good with that and then that would trigger   the rest of the what's happening. Um and and this  doesn't have to come back to the commission. The   Saviston's issue does not have to come back to  the commission. So, um, the second part of the   motion is to address any future issues where  where people like the Savistans have a random   wild bill and that we can take a look at it and  go their average use over X amount of months.  

This is six times that. And so therefore we are  if they ask for it that we empower Jan and team   to to say under this policy we can give you a  one time or a one time per 5 years or whatever   uh forgiveness so that it doesn't have to come  to this commission but providing another tool   to to Jan and team's uh department to handle  these these giant tsunami type bills Because I understand that you deal with a lot of people  who don't want to pay their water bill and that   ranges from pennies to thousands of dollars,  but when you have a situation like the Sabbaths   have where they've paid their bill dutifully for  over 20 years and then they have a giant spike,   we don't have a policy that can address that.  And that's what I'm looking for as part of the   second part of uh the motion is is a policy that  would have already addressed that or they wouldn't   have had to come to us. We wouldn't have to deal  with this have be talking about it right now. Can   I can I reframe it? So you're saying get their  bill down to where they wipe it and then have a   I say have a policy as them as being one of the  targets of the use cases that we're trying to   solve for. So then we would have to have a um  look back Right. How far? Yeah. This happened   in 2023. Yeah. So that's that's my point is is  that if we don't solve their issues specifically,   then any policy that we create either A will not  cover them or B we'll go back to 2023 and why stop   at 2023? Exactly. and and and so that's where it's  it's that's why I specifically want to solve their   issue today because they were dutiful came to us  asked asked for it a year ago. Um they they went  

through the process that would be thousands but  they they asked for this and so what I'm looking   for is a bill or a a ordinance that would help  moving forward as well. So, if if I understand   what our current process is now, because we did  make some changes that uh allow for uh addressing   some of these issues. Um, someone has a dispute,  they they come to they give you a call city   uh city well, we don't have a water department,  but they call the um customer service. Customer   service, right? Um then if it can't be resolved  there, it goes to the customer service manager.   That's correct. Um if it's not resolved there,  there's some sort of formal hearing or or they   they come to me. Yeah. City treasurer. Um  and so they have to provide evidence the the   um they look at penalties. Um and we added waved  late fees and shut offs during dispute period and   we put in that city cannot go back bill more than  two months of charges. That's something we've done   recently. That was the estimated billing temporary  forgiveness policy. Since implementing those,   have we had what has been the experience in  your office with addressing the issues? Um,   I still get at least two in my office a week,  but there's still hundreds or tens of people in   that are resolved either at customer service or  by the customer service manager before they get   to me. I'll get one or two a week. each. What  is the Sabbath's normal bill? And what was the   bill they received? Uh, their normal bill was  about $150 a month or so. Um, they received a   bill for $880 and that was after the sewage was  dropped off of it. They They don't pay sewage.   Okay. They don't pay sewage. So, yeah, that's  right. Is that would have been an option. That  

is a That was an op that's one of our options. If  there's a leak and somebody has a legitimate leak,   we can we can relieve them of the sewer sewer bill  because the water does not go through the sewer   system if we can validate that there is a leak.  And so $150 a month is about what they were if you   I don't I don't have that included solar. No, they  don't pay. They're not exact. So that's like five   times what they typically would pay in their water  bill. So the policy could be anyone who comes to   us with your bill 5x what your average bill is.  We have a policy to forgive not the average.   So you start you still pay your base. We forgive  the top portion of it. So for them it would be a   forgiveness of $730. If the average was 150 bucks,  they still pay their 150 bucks their average bill.   Or maybe it's you you still paying 10% more or  whatever. Maybe it's partially a sliding scale.   That's why I want to give it back to them so they  can bring it to us and say, "Here's what we found.   Here's what we think will work." Yes. And then  we come back to vote on that policy. So, but I'm   not in favor of just automatically giving them a  giving them a waiver. I'm around building policy   to help them and other people and then we vote on  that again. Okay. So the problem again the problem   that we run into from a legal perspective is is  that if we don't solve their problem specifically   then um you open the door up to to going back to  2023 or even even further back um when they have   been constantly asking for relief. Um so that  that's where I'm I I think you and I agree on   how we should move forward. It's just the problem  is is that when the ordinance gets written, if it   if it doesn't have a look back, they will be left  behind. Correct. If we just forgive their water   bill, we then have and have 25 other people going  similar. Yeah. Maybe path you want commissioners.  

There's there's a solution for that. So, you just  Janice stated that this is the only unresolved   complaint out there. So the policy or whatever  ordinance would come back and to include all   unresolved accounts and that's how you include the  only one I'm aware of there may be thousands there   there was an answer given last year was there  not so there was a resolution right so it's   not unresolved they've come back to us through  uh commissioner he's championing their case so We had a resolution. It It is not uh accepted.  Want to bring back and open the case again. I   mean I mean we're not a judge and jury, but it  that's what it kind of sounds like that came   before this body, got an answer, and now we're  coming back to say, "Hey, that just wasn't right.   Let's reconsider." And so Commissioner Granger is  bringing it back for a reconsideration. Yeah. Or   you could name the account number specifically  when we pass the ordinance as well. So say that   again. Tell us. You could you could name the  their account number specifically when you pass   the ordinance in the motion. They don't they  don't have an account. The the former account   number. Okay. Just use the sound. Mr. Zimman, how  do we navigate this? Mr. Zimman, can you give us a   suggestion? you knew we were coming to you just on  the u on the policy that the commission adopted.   Excuse me. It was on June 25th, 2024. And u  it says that you go through the process and   you file a complaint. Should the customer remain  dissatisfied with the customer service manager's   attempt to resolve the dispute, a request for a  hearing may be made to the city clerk treasurer.  

This hearing is pursuant to section 23-261. All  evidence provided from the customer, the UGU and   the customer service manager will be reviewed,  evaluate and a final decision will be made based   upon the evidence. Um then it talks about meritus  claims by virtue of the authority provided by the   city charter to the city clerk as collector for  all monies belonging to the city. The decision   of the city clerk shall be final and binding. Any  unpaid utility bill will be submitted to an agency   for collection or recorded as a lean in the Bay  County official records. Any person who wishes to   dispute the decision of the city clerk treasurer  may seek any legal remedy available to them.   So it appears that if based upon your policy  and it was not adopted by ordinance. I believe   it was adopted by a motion. So it could be  changed uh at any time with a motion by the   city commission. But it appears that if the  city were to do something specifically today,   you'd need to also amend the policy to uh  provide for this extraordinary situation.   is resolved. Okay. Would you all support a  motion that um we push this back to staff to   resolve the Saveston's issue and provide a um a  a a path forward on the the large bills like like   incredibly large bills especially when we have a  history of of payment. Mhm. so that this doesn't   get resolved today, but that staff can bring us  back some some solutions. I think is that going   to change anything because I thought we already  did that. Well, we weren't asking specifically  

for large Okay. large bill issues. I mean, I was  really trying to get theirs solved today so that   we can get this behind us. Um, it doesn't sound  like I have that kind of support. I don't know.   I've communicated most people that I get it.  You say yesterday five people lining up this   Saturday afternoon. That's as long as we have  that understanding that there will be others   that come. I'm perfectly fine with that. I believe  others will come. I just don't think it's going   to be a delusion. People it may not be and we can  solve that. I just that under the premise of what   of what the mayor said of sometimes you need the  problems to bubble up so that you can solve them.   If that is the attitude towards this process,  100% I am supported. Okay. So, we have a first.   I'll second. All right. Oh, wait, wait. We need to  be very clear on what this motion is. I would like   to ask why we have to not why. Here's what I want  to say. We're telling staff what the solution is.   Mhm. The solution if if we do what you're asking,  we're telling the staff, we're going to wave   it. Just figure out how to make it so that this  doesn't happen again or whatever. So, we're giving   them the solution. I like what you just said prior  to let's put it back. They've heard the discourse.   Have them reconsider. We're willing as a body to  say we'll reconsider the decision made uh with   input from staff to find an amicable resolution  which may not include just waving the fee. Right. Okay. So make a motion.

All right. Who wants to make All right. I'm  going to I'll just make um I'm going to try   to break this up into two different motions um  cuz I think that there's some I'm not I'm not   sure reading the tea leaves here exactly which  direction this is going to go. So um I'm going   to make a motion that deals specifically with  the Sistons. Um and then afterwards whether that   passes or fails I will make a motion that deals  with policy moving forward. Um so that's kind of   my Is there a motion on the floor? It didn't get  seconded. So thank you. I just chair. Yeah. So,   I'm going to make a motion that uh we direct  public works staff to work with the Sistons to   come up with an acceptable solution to the city  uh for their specific home and their specific   implementation. Upon arrival, if they never  arrive, then the rest of this never happens.   But upon arrival to city city city public  works having an acceptable solution   um that we forgive the the uh amount that we say  that they owe and we reestablish their account   moving forward. They are liable for the $150 for  that specific month that they used water. Um but   uh that this issue will be resolved. This is a  one-time thing and um uh they will fall under   future policy of the city moving forward. I'll  second. Any discussion? I just want to say I think   this motion still gives the answer to the staff.  It does and and I don't support giving the answer   to the staff. I will support reconsideration of  our decision a year ago and opening this back up,   but today I'm not prepared to say wave their fee.  There's already there's already a path too. Me,   too. We can call the RO. Uh, call the RO.  Commissioner Granger, yes. Commissioner Street,  

yes. Commissioner Hughes, no. Commissioner  Lucas, no. Mayor Branch, no. Motion fails. Well,   thank you. Um two try again. All right. Um we'll  get it before lunch. All right. So I motion that   um that that staff brings to us consideration  of how to resolve the issue with the Savestons   from a technical and a financial standpoint.  Um, and also that staff separately brings us   uh various ways to look at the uh the the large  Delta bills that that that sometimes people   receive and a path forward looking at other cities  and water districts and how they handle that   um for for onetime forgiveness issues. There we  go. All right, we got a first. Do I have a second?   I'll second. Any discussion? All right,  call the roll. Commissioner Granger, yes.   Commissioner Street, yes. Commissioner Hughes,  yes. Commissioner Lucas, yes. Mayor Branch,   yes. Motion passes 5-0. Yes. Thank you. Josh,  we got that time. Yeah, Josh, you got 30. Yeah,   I got 30 seconds. Moving on to I don't even know  what I guess it's still 10B. Yeah, 10 C now. 10   C. You added A. Yeah, there we go. I'm my ass  right. It's been 2 and a half hours. Mr. Mayor,   mind I request a short restroom break before  everyone 10-minute recess. Oh, what do you got to There we go. Now we're Yes, sir.  10C, I believe it's called. Mr.  

Street NC. Appreciate you guys um letting me put  this on the agenda. I think we're at the point in   um our recovery from Hurricane Michael where um  you know, our citizens are demanding a different   level of intensity um around um neglect, blight.  And this one is specifically important because   it it rests as the oldest building or one of  the oldest buildings that we have left in our   community which are very few and far between.  If you guys saw in the background information,   um this has been under code enforcement since  2023 and there were multiples before that, but   it's been um unmititigated and um unresolved since  2023, the current um the current magistrate order.   and it's been collecting fines since that point in  time. You know, in a normal set of circumstances,   we would have already gone in to mitigate this  property. Um, but due to the cost and the size   of this facility, it's kind of sad. And so what  we have before us today is a potential funding   solution um to allow asking for partnership with  DIIB and the CRA um to go and um mitigate this   building and prevent demolition by neglect for  one of the most historic properties that we have   left in our community. um you know there will take  further um organization between both the CRA board   which we all sit on um as well as the DIIB to see  this come to fruition. Uh the last engineering   report was from 2023. So there is potential  that there could be other things that are found   u when doing an evaluation now. But the reality  is if we don't take action now we are saying we're   okay with this building um just resting. uh it's  currently listed on the market for a very large   amount of money. Um, and you know, I think there  is a significant chance, obviously, any building,  

specifically a historic one that has many wood  beams and those kind of things that doesn't   have a roof. Um, you know, I think the property  owners communicating that they don't care. And so,   um, why would should the rest of us suffer through  that process when there's legal means as well as   legal instruction that's been given, um, to the  owner to, um, to mitigate, uh, the nuisance and,   um, and protect the building and structure. So,  so I'll leave that to discussion and questions,   but the, uh, the reality what our decision today  would be is to send um, a letter uh, requesting   support through the DIB and the CRA. Um, and we  would secure by the city a loan to go do this and   um, their revenues would be pledged to do that.  Um, um, so my I guess my first question is,   is that the highest and best use for that site to  have that building on it? Take historic value out   of it. I don't think you can take historic value  out of it. Yeah, I don't think you the highest and   best use for that building to our community. Yes.  For to the community for the highest and best use   for that site. Uh yes, through adaptive reuse.  I would say the answer is no. From a real estate   perspective, the answer is no. You that site that  that building sits right in the middle of the site   and it mess on 2 and 12 acre site. You have to  build around it under our under our development   guidelines. I'm I'm just asking that because  it also 3 years ago was a million half dollars   to bring that building to the place where you  could then work to to now develop it. And today   that's probably going to be somewhere around $3  million. So I would I would say to that question,   Robbie, is you know, you can go two blocks  up the road and, you know, there's an entire   parking lot that's a larger parcel than that. So  I mean, but you're asking the city and the CRA,   you're asking this the government entities to go  in and fix something that we don't own, but so it  

doesn't get torn down. No, I'm asking I'm asking  us to treat it how we've treated every property   that we've encountered through code enforcement.  The only reason why this one's remained unique is   because of its size. But any private owner  at this point in time that had a roof that   was gaping o open, code enforcement would have  already mitigated it. And we've done that. They   would have either torn it down or they would have  mitigated the structure. And we've done that many   times. We've and so what I'm really saying was  for sale. It wasn't it wasn't a development site   in downtown. There's a difference in what you're  asking of other sites that we've mitigated. We   mitigated the house or we mitigated the commercial  property. You're talking about a centerpiece of   the entrance to downtown. Is that is that the  highest and best use to preserve that site? We   don't have a we don't have a a user for it right  now. So, we're going to fix it up and then a user   comes in and wants to buy it. And I'm just being  hypothetical and says that building doesn't work   in my plan. So, mayor, you probably have the most  experience with historic buildings. Can you demo a   building if it's historic? I don't know about the  National Register. It's not on there. It's not.   No, it's not. It's not a local or something of a  national. It is because they had to take the white   building was on. They had to get it at the level.  I wish Kevin was here. It's on a registry. It's   on a registry. It is on a registry because they  had to go they had to get the the white building   removed off the registry to tear it down the old  classroom. So, it is I don't know if that protects   buildings uh or if it's just a uh a tax credit  program or anything like that. Um but they still   could still tear it down from my understanding.  it. That was one of my questions is why why would   we put money into a building that we don't own?  But I think what I'm hearing from you is is that   uh the reason we would do that is to prevent the  demolition of the building. Well, I mean that it's   mitigating the it's mitigating the structure from  from further decay and demise. So you would Google   demolition by neglect and that's obviously what's  happening here. So, what would prevent the owner  

from doing the same thing? Cuz he's not going to.  He wants to sell it. He wants us to sit through   while he goes through a process of trying to sell  the structure that may take years, Robbie. Um,   and and so the rest of us have to suffer through  watching a historic building that exists in our   city decay and diminish and create, if you look  at the report, there's homeless living in it.   There's all sorts of things that were in that  report that are a nuisance to the entire community   and so if anything like the owner should be saying  thank you so much for not taking action sooner.   Would the owner what I'm saying is by by taking  this position the government is saying that's   the highest and best use and not the private  market. The the use is not my concern. The use   is the nuisance and the historic structure. I'm  not worried about what the highest and best use   is. That is not part of our code enforcement  process. What is part of our code enforcement   process is mitigating mitigating neglect and and  those things. If I went through and I started   determining based upon what buildings are getting  torn down based upon what the highest and best use   is, we do not want to create that as a not part  of our code enforcement to go mit to go for the   government and go mitigate it through the CRA. We  do it and put a lean. No, we go in there clean the   property. We make it a safe structure and we put a  lean on it. We don't go rebuild the inside so that   it can be used. That's not what I'm asking. Would  the owner of this property owe the money back?   A lean on the property. Okay. So, we would put a  lean on the property. So, the owner would do that   through code enforcement. Okay. So, your staff is  is nodding up and down for those of you online.   Um, okay. So, the idea is is that we put a through  code enforcement put a lean on the property. You   you found a funding source, sorry, potential  funding source for to fund that loan. So,   this the taxpayers in the CRA are not necessarily  losing money out of this. um they're just losing   the opportunity cost of where that money could go  elsewhere, right? But currently is not um to fix  

this building up. Then is there anything outside  of just their their decision-m process that   would prevent them from knocking this building  down? Well, what I don't want to do is get in a   situation where we fix this building up, we put a  loan on it, we lean on it, we do all this stuff,   and then the owner is just like, "Well, I'm show  you city. I'm just going to knock it down anyway.   Although you'd have to pay us back. I understand.  I get it. Um but then now in in attempts to saving   the building, the current owner or a potential  new owner just inherit. I like the idea. I like   the idea. I'm just they wouldn't because a lot  of the inherited value someone who's buying that   property, if you had this the asking price is like  17. We put a lean on it for 1.2. Now it's at 29.   If they were to wipe the building, they still  are going to be asking 29 on it because that's   what they have onto the property through the lean  and the purchase. And that block of land is not   worth 29. And that the value of the property to a  developer is the historic structure. Not necessar   willing to pay more money to live downtown in  an older building. Uh yes, if we get into the   highest and best use, which I think silly is now  we're looking at a single family home, we go, "Oh,   we can't mitigate it because it might should be a  duplex." Yeah, that's not a good What a duplex on   two and a half tables. Let's let's go back to But  the same theory applies to we're going to start   picking apart every single property on the on  code enforcement. Go, well, maybe that should be   something else and let's not do anything. But what  we're saying is here is we're saying that we're   that it's worth us putting the money into it.  Correct. And saying that it's we're we're saying   what we're taking a position on it, but you're  saying it's not okay to take a position on what's   highest and best use. Is that building worth a  million dollars to our community? Yes, I think it   is. Yeah. There's uh so great cities protect their  buildings and go to great so I that's happened to   talk to three people about that site that's what  I knew no nobody wants that building it doesn't   work for this for the for for what for today and  so essentially we are saying that we would take  

on this building because once you take it and make  it worth three almost 3 million to purchase that   pretty much narrows if not totally negates someone  coming forward to buy it. And so after 3 years,   you know, the lean process, we've we've gotten the  city. I mean, the city owns the building. Is that   essentially how that that goes? The the way that  um if the city were to go forward, and I'll just   make up a number, um $1.2 $2 million is the cost  to repair the building. Then um it could be and if   that number was determined by May of 2026 or 1st  of June, it could be on the tax bill in November   of 2026 as a nuisance assessment for the property  owner. The property owner then, if it pays uh its   taxes, would have to pay the full assessment  of $1.2 million. If the property appraiser   doesn't pay the taxes, which would now be in  property owner, property owner in May of 2027,   uh then a tax certificate would be for sale. A  person may not buy the tax certificate if a person   feels that the property isn't worth $1.2 million.  In other words, the tax certificate will be paid   first. Um but if it's property is not worth $1.2  million, nobody may buy the tax certificate.   Same thing would happen the next year and then in  the third year uh the commission could uh you know   ask pursue a tax deed. The commission could  also at some point u uh file the foreclosure  

of the nuisance assessment lean uh if it wasn't  paid. So that's the that's the process. So Josh,   I'm going to throw you an alternative idea.  Minister Zimmerman, uh you can correct me. Um,   your goal is to keep a a building that many  people have emotional value in, keep it up,   and encourage someone else to take it on and  develop it. Right. So, and we actually can't, even   though the National Register is an awesome thing,  it doesn't protect the building. Mr. German,   can we create a historic preservation ordinance  and define the buildings and protect them through   that as a mechanism instead of instead of doing  a lean and going the other direction? Just saying   literally, you can't tear down buildings x years  old. period would uh that's a good question and   uh other communities have done something  like that. Uh I've personally don't recall   being asked to to to look into it about how we  could do it but I predict there is a mechanism   uh for protecting historic buildings and maybe  providing in incentives to keep them. I I don't   know but that's something like the scuba house in  St. Hendricks is another great example of correct   the right developer would either save the house or  keep it a part of the development or move it but   we beyond just kind of rammer there's a mechanism  to protect other buildings potentially okay not   just that one pass the table and make a motion and  can you in your research can you also look at what   legal ramification that creates for us by saying  to somebody today I'm not doing anything with it   I'm going to create I'm going to create this this  uh this category for you and it's going to make   it harder to develop it's going to make it harder  to sell it's going and and now you've just either   devalued my property or made it harder for me to  to own that property. And that's an unintended   consequence. So does the gateway overlay. I get  I get it. I just I don't My problem here is that   we're you're you got two and a half acres. That's  one of the largest sites in downtown. Okay. Yeah.  

There's a parking lot two blocks north of  park. Never mind. Parking lot. Somebody owns   that parking lot. You're you're after a house.  You're in a building, not after a parking lot. So,   we're trying to we're trying to solve a building  problem that's going to that's going to take away   a 2 and a half acre problem. And then somebody  and and let's just say it's a million dollars   and we and then it sells they want to sell it for  a million two. That site's not worth the 2.2. Now,   you've just made a site not worth not being able  to sell over a million dollar. And I would argue   if you put a temporary roof on it, you know, 5  years ago when you bought it, you wouldn't be   sitting at this much mitigation point. I'm not  it's not my responsibility to to to address the   owner's issue of neglect. My my my responsibility  is to enforce the laws and codes that we have and   it is it qualifies. It's had a court order on it  for for 2 years and nothing has happened. And so   the issue it stands today is do we enforce our  laws or do we not? And this is a mechanism to   do that. And I'm not suggest All I'm saying is the  unintended consequence is the other side. I'm not   The other side is yes, this guy doesn't know what  he's supposed to do. There's a court order. What's   court order say? Fix it. Tear it down. I don't  know. If he hasn't done it, we're going to step   in. We're going to spend the money. He's not going  to do it. It's not going to sell. You know who's   going to own it? The city like like Commissioner  Luke. Not maybe not a bad thing, but at the same   time, maybe not. I don't know. They come. I don't  necessarily want the building, but I I mean,   but I think that's a that's a that is a realistic  u end in end end result because you're taking   you're adding value to something. You're adding  money to something that doesn't have value and   it and then what does that do to the other side of  this? See, that's where we disagree. You're saying   the building doesn't have value and I see value in  the building because of historic designation. I'm   saying that you're going to add if using a million  dollars just to put it so it's safe. that that's   not a value added. That's a you're putting money  into it to make it so it doesn't fall down, okay?  

Or it's safe. Now, that money has to be recovered.  So does what if it's going to be for for sale,   so does what the owner has in it. Okay? That that  one move by us rather than follow I don't think in   the code enforcement it says we go in and we  repair buildings. It says we make them safe.   That's what it says. Yeah. We need to spend a  million dollars to make it safe. um that one move   could make could make that site um be obsolete to  some degree. I think you're arguing the exact same   point. He's arguing that if we wait a year and  a half, two years, there will be no option but   to tear it down because of the little we have a  little window left of the buildings. It's on it's   on the it's like the heartbeats they're going away  and he's arguing if we don't do something now,   we won't have it. And you're arguing the exact  same point going to the end. You're you're you're   okay with not having it there. I from me and  my perspective for the community value I see   value in having it there. I'm okay with it not  having there. I'm bringing to the point that I've   brought I've taken three if you don't do anything  you are okay with it not being No no no I'm not   all I'm saying is I'm just trying to give you the  other side. I've taken three people there that see   a a an opportunity and what opportunity does not  include is that building. It's it is in the wrong   spot to develop that site if somebody wanted to do  that. And I'm just coming from that perspective.   That doesn't mean that's right or wrong. It just  means that's another thing that if we if it stays   there, which hey, I love old buildings. My my  parents love old buildings. They live I sold   the house in 1905. I mean, it was I love it. But  it's sometimes you got to look at does that old   fit with what we got to do today. Yeah. And the  person that buys that old house realizes there's   constraints in that old structure. Just like the  house that you live in say, well, it would be   easier with a groundup construction. I could put  the door exactly where I want it to be, but this   is a part of the constraint that I have. And so  I would say if the people who have looked at the   building can't figure out a way to make it work,  they're not the right buyers on any project. Um,  

and so I'm I'm in favor of protecting the building  through through code enforcement. Um, I I'm hoping   there's more than just uh drying it out. I hope  it's actually a new roof like where it's like   it does add actual value where this one listing  the developer has to do. But I'm also in favor of   avoiding the situation where this developer goes,  well, I'm going to run out and tear this thing   down in the next 30 days. Yeah. Right. And I'll  show you. Right. And so I don't know if we have   a mechanism to stop that. I think we need to do  the same. I think that's a dual-edged approach. I   think the ordinance on historic buildings I think  is a great one that I could support. We've looked   at it a couple times. We've just never gotten  across the finish line. I think that's a great   one. But but the reality is it exists today.  If there is not mitigation that's done to the   building, we are saying we accept that outcome.  And I don't know. And it would be very interesting   to get the DIB's take as well in this process  because I don't think the community at large is   really okay with losing another historic building  and I don't want that to happen while I'm sitting   up on this dis. And so for me um this and putting  it on the agenda is more or less I know what's   important to the citizens. I feel like I know  what's important to the censuses on this specific   issue. And so I think it warrants our attention  to push as much as we can to see if we can we   can help and address it. And it's had and for two  years there's been an opportunity to address this   from the last court order and it hasn't been done.  The question is why? What's the court order say?   I think it's roof, it's windows, it's several  things. A couple of things. the in June of 2023   um there's a magistrate um order. It says that  um I'll just read a couple of parts that are   pertinent here. Within 90 days of June of 2023,  uh the respondent is directed to complete any and   all ABS remediation recommended and to commence  rehabilitation and structural reinforcement and  

repair the building or advise the city that  rehabilitation does not appear to be a viable   option that the respondent intends to demolish  the building at its own cost in accordance   with the guidelines provided by the city. If the  respondent elects demolition, such demolition will   commence within the first 30 days after the 90-day  report period has expired. If respondent elects   to rehabilitate the building such that it can be  repurposed for apartments as testified to by Mr.   Witson who was present representing the owner.  Such rehabilitation shall take place within the   first 120 days subsequent to this June 2023 order.  During such period of rehabilitation, 30-day   reports will be provided to the city. Then it  talks about acquiring uh materials. Then finally,   if the respondent does not elect demolition, but  rather elects rehabilitation and repair within the   time periods, there'll be a an additional special  hearing on October 26, 2023, and fines were uh not   imposed after June during this rehabilitation  period or until further order at the hearing on   October 26, 2023. And of course the uh Mr. Witet  was present there in June. Um nobody representing   the owners to my understanding were present at the  hearing. Uh there was a further order entered that   said that fines will recommence as of that date  which was in October of 2023 and that um uh there   was a finding that of non-compliance. There  is also additional order about security about   making sure that the building was secure from uh  vagrants and and for safety safety type reasons.  

I believe that's the last order that we have as an  October of 2023. And if if none of those were um   completed and then we default back to the code uh  code enforcement of what our options are at that   time. Correct. Right. They um the reports on your  agenda if they are not in compliance uh then the   city can take reasonable action to the code where  it is to abate the nuisance. So, uh, in this case,   the city, um, you know, in some cases, a city has  demolished homes. In other cases, the city can   determine to abate it by preserving what is there.  So, what I'm hearing is that the commission is   asking staff to to uh pursue uh preserving what is  there as far as the different options to actually   go through that process. The process has already  gone through code enforcement, but the city would   retain an engineer, prepare specifications as  far as what needs to be done. Um, get a price,   you know, do a competitive uh pricing for uh  obtaining that relief all the while notifying the   owner that it's been we're going through still go  out and do the work himself. Yes. At any time that   citizens have been cutting their grass for them.  Yeah. So, and it's not that they're evil, it's   just they're out of out of sight, out of mind.  You know, they're nice people. Discussion enough.   And they're probably watching and they're nice  people who do great work. It's just if this was   in their town, they would be a little more perhaps  a little more a little more speedy on getting it   out to date and keeping. Yeah. If it was next  door to your house, you probably wouldn't be   tolerating that we need to fix. Yeah. The owner,  we got to be careful about what what we do to it.  

You might have you might have a pretty building  fixed up that sits there forever just like that.   You okay with that? Then at least it's still  a pretty building. Yeah. Not in at that point.   Yeah. The the owner I'm supportive that we have no  money that we're not getting the money out of. I'm   I'm supportive of of of this effort. Um I'm also  supportive of a uh historical buildings. I I would   like to see out of that uh that the buildings  built before a certain date are protected.   Um but I still would also like to see where if  and I would like it constrained to a geographic   area. St. Andrews could be included historic in  the historic districts. Yeah. Um but I would also   like to see in that provision where they can come  to us and ask can I destroy this building or can I   just keep I'm looking at just facade. Architecture  board. Just facade. Right. We have an architecture   board. Yeah. Do that. But but the idea there  is is that if what I don't want is somebody's   got a building off of one of the random roads in  downtown that the building was built in 1910, but   it's hideous and there's no value in keeping it is  my point right now. That's all subjective. And so   that's why I think it should come back to us uh as  to whether or not they should be able to knock it   down. Well, if it make if a building makes the  list. Yes. If it makes the list and they want   a demo, then they can come and say, "Hey, this is  what the building looks like. This is what it is."   Does the identification of the of the buildings? I  think Alan suggested the uh historic architecture board already. Let's not create another board. You  know, we already have existing boards that waiting   on different parts of town. So, but sentimental  sentimentality is subjective. And so as we're   talking about uh preserving historic buildings uh  which I agree with uh policy, we're we're decades  

too late because we've lost too many of them.  Um I do think that what we put in place could   should also consider that subjectivity of uh of  neighborhoods uh because it's off the street and   down the road. It still has sentimental value and  is historic for that neighborhood. Mhm. Just a   little background on the owner. The owner does  have a track record of of building apartments   from historic buildings similar to this. And the  building was purchased after Hurricane Michael.   So, the owner uh that owns it now bought the  property uh with the intention of developing   apartments not just in the historic building, but  two different uh wings on either side. they had a   site plan done. Builders never, the owners never  said that it wants to tear down the building. It's   always said we want to preserve the building. Um,  so I think that uh this might be good as far as,   you know, opening up the dialogue again as far  as what where we can go. I'd know that the owner   was aware of CRA grants that were available at the  time the property was purchased. those grants are   are probably more robust now than they were at the  time the property was purchased. And so I think it   would all be u a good thing to you know open up  the discussion and and the owner did call me. He   did see this on the agenda and so looking forward  to furthering those discussions with for them to   come back and say what new credits do you have  and and the DI tax credit program that the CR has.   We have some very aggressive tax programs and  this property is in the opportunity zone also   which is another tremendous benefit. Uh so I just  I just want to make sure that it's very clear the  

the option of leaving it as it is is is not the  option that's okay and and I think you know this   this listing of the property is fine if the if  the person doesn't want to loan or carry through   their investment okay um but you know allowing  it to remain in neglect during that process is   not good for our community because it is a gateway  property. I mean, to your point, Robbie, it's like   every time you're bringing somebody downtown,  we've made tens of millions of dollars worth of   investment. And I think it's very important that  um that we follow what we've approved and what   we've said. So, so with that, I'd like to make a  motion we engage with the DIIB and the CRA boards   and and financing, including including Neans with  engaging with the owner currently. Um, I would   like nothing more than to see them self-mmitigate.  Um, and but I think we need to be prepared since   it's been 2 years that it may take our investment  in order to see this building saved. I'll second   the motion. Uh, any discussion? Are we dropping  the idea of a historic preservation district?   No. I I It's a second motion. That's a second  motion. Okay. Uh, any discussion related to this   motion? Just want to So, we're gonna ask DIB and  CRA. Yes. to pay the note, but we're willing to   put the money up front out of the general fund to  start. No, we would use a we'd use a loan. So that   those would be pledged to do a loan specifically  for this property, which my understanding is   interest costs are also recoupable in that in that  process as well. Is that correct? Our cost, yes,   our cost including interest is recoupable. Who's  pledging the money? CRA DIB is who we'd be asking   to share, but through a bond by the city. through  a bond by the city. We have to institute that. Madam clerk, would you mind just stating the the  motion that you understand so that all the staff  

are on crystal clear what we're doing? Thank you.  Uh right now the motion is that we are requesting   to um send a letter to the CRA and DIIB asking  for financing of the repair and mitigation of   the PC Grammar School. Ma'am, uh just uh to make  it clear, we will research the interest cost. I   believe it would be in the overall definition of  cost, but we've just never done it before. So,   I just wanted you to know that that's a goal, but  not a certainty. At the very minimum, principal,   the principle is Yeah, the financing will a whole  separate thing. This is not about the financing.   This is just their they're pledging support for  the financing, right? Oh, yes. The financing would   then come back, right, for for final approval  once it's all worked out, right? Any other   discussion? Call the RO. Commissioner Granger,  yes. Commissioner Stre, yes. Commissioner Hughes,   yes. Commissioner Lucas, yes. Mayor Branch, yes.  Motion passes 5-0. Historic preservation. I' I'd   like to make a motion that we um staff draft a  ordinance policy on historic buildings. what those   parameters are. I'll assume they'll work with  each one of us to kind of come to the language   that makes the most sense. Perfect. Is there a  second? Second. Any discussion? Call the roll.   Commissioner Granger. Yes. Commissioner Street.  Yes. Commissioner Hughes. Yes. Commissioner Lucas.   Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes. Motion passes 5-0. Okay.  City on item 11 A. uh have a light item 11 A and   this is a report concerning opioid litigation. Few  years ago the city commission authorized uh Mr.   Cliff Higgby uh to represent the city and and we  assist but represent the city in as it relates to  

opioid litigation. A lot of class action lawsuits  were taking place all throughout the country.   Um the m the city has uh was authorized the  city manager was authorized to sign settlement   agreements as that was defined in that original  authorization. What we have here is a settlement   uh agreement with uh the slacker. It's called  the slacker release which we felt we needed   to bring specifically to the board for approval  and we recommend approval of it. Um we gave we're   using this ex occasion to give you a short report  on where uh we are on the different litigation   matters. But the as you've seen in the newspapers,  states and other entities have recovered millions   of millions of dollars from the uh opioid industry  uh including the state of Florida Panama. And the   money is typically earmarked for purposes to  address the problems that were created by the   u opioid uh uh abuse. The city has already  received $171,000. We anticipate receiving   approximately another $655,000. The money cannot  be spent and has not been spent until there is   a plan developed. Uh the Panama City Police  Department is working on that. I believe that   Bay County, for example, is utilizing its  recovery to uh construct a a wing onto its   uh jail or at um off of kneeh high road  that deals with um rehabilitation and and   um of drug problems of people that are in jail  because of that. So, our recommendation is to  

uh hear a report, but then to approve the signing  of the uh settlement that's there in your packet. You said you want to motion to hear the report.  I'm sorry. I did not uh word that correctly.   You've already heard the report but the motion the  motion is to authorize the settlement to approve.   All right. So is that a motion to approve? Second  to approve. Any discussion? Does this include the   plan or is the plan? The plan will come back  later. So this is just give me the money vote   right now. Yes. Okay. Give me the money vote. Show  me. Any other discussion? Yeah. Yeah. Show me the   money. Call the role. Commissioner Granger. Yes.  Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner Hughes.   Yes. Commissioner Lucas. Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes.  Motion passes 5-0. All right. Uh item 11B is the   former item 9 I that was pulled off of consent  and it's consideration to approve two infill   program houses. As background information, the  housing and community services department has   reviewed and approved two building projects  as part of the infill program which provides   closing cost and down payments for qualified  buyers. This will bring the department's total   of infill projects covered sorry approved  by the commission to 29. The two building   projects being considered today are at 609 Elm  Avenue, parcel 3, parcel ID 22726-020-0000. The contractor is Southwest Innovations  Construction with a value of the lot at   $15,000 and the cost of the home not to exceed  $225,000. Uh parcel 2 is also at 609 Elm Avenue,   partial ID 22726- 010-0000. The contractor is also  Southwest Innovations Construction Incorporated.   value of the lot is at $15,000 and the cost  of the home is not to exceed $175,000. Staff  

uh request through the director of the housing  and community services department is that the   commission approve uh this agenda item and then  authorize the mayor uh to execute all necessary   documents for the two separate infill program  building projects listed above. I'll just ask   I did have some conversation with Commissioner  Hughes who indicated his support for this but   also had some questions for staff particularly  the city attorney regarding the contracts. Mr.   Mayor. Yes. Do I have a motion? So moved. Second.  You should have it. Oh thank you. Discussion. Oh   I didn't know. I'll stop here. I was pointing  down there sir. Um uh thank you. Uh, I intend   to vote yes for this, Sheila. I just want you  to know that. Although I do have some concerns. Um, 100% I I'm into affordable housing and we need  it. It's very hard to accomplish that under this   um under this program. It's the only program that  I've that I've in my short tenure here that I've   noticed that we do not get appraisals for the  value of the land. We use the property appraisers   website on the day that we are giving the lot  over and that's the absolute worst thing that   we can do. It's the we'd be the only body in Bay  County that uses that uh website for value from a   uh uh an actual market value. So my first question  is is why do we do that? and only on this one. But   more importantly, this contract that we have, the  only person that can lose is Panama City. Okay?   And um the only person the the person that has  the absolute zero um skin in the game and can win   the best is the contractor. Here's what happens.  We give him the we give him the dirt after we've  

put a number on it, not through an appraisal.  The buyer's qualified and all this and all of   this is is exactly right how it ought to work.  Buyer gets qualified. We give the dirt to the   uh to the contractor. He goes and gets his loan  because that's how it has to happen. At the end   of the deal, the deal doesn't close. And that  happens, folks. I've had to get up from the   closing table and not close. And in this contract,  well, the memorandum says that we will we will   purchase the property. The contract says that  we'll have 60 days to provide another buyer to   that contractor so that we can close a deal. Okay.  So automatically our memorandum and our contract   don't meet. But at the end of the 60 days, if we  don't if we haven't found that person, the city's   going to buy that property back. Now, go with  me here. Um would you mind giving me slide one,   please? Go with me here. And I use $200,000 as a  as a value. And that's $10,000 for the lot and not   and and 190 for the bill. Okay. If I'm purchasing  the lot, if I'm purchasing this as the as the   city, I have very little closing costs. By the  way, I cut me out of the deal on that one. Cut us,   you know, the realtors out of the deal on that  one. It straight from the from the contractor.   Now, we have $200,000 in the deal. We have a we  have a note and a mortgage on a piece of property   that we're going to take back that we just paid  for. We gave it for free and we just paid for   it back. Okay, that's the first problem. Then  notice that we're into this for about, you know,   we're into it for $122. Now, we're going to  take it back. And in my conversation, one   of the comments was, "Well, we could take it and  put it on the rental program. We got some issues   with that. We don't need to be in the property  management business." Okay. So, let's just say   we're going to sell it. It's a brand new house.  My experience is in Panama City, if you build a   brand new house and price it right, it will sell.  So, if you go to slide two, please. If we sell it,   we're going to have to engage a realtor. We're  going to lose $8,000 right out of the bat. Plus  

the 10,000 that we paid the lot that we paid  for the lot. We bought it back for $18,000 in   the home. Tell me how that's a good idea for our  taxpayers. And that's my concern. Now, the answer   that I get is, well, it's never happened before.  And you're right, it hasn't. And um I can promise   you this. In my world, when there's a problem, the  first thing the person does is they go look they   look in the contract and they find out who's wrong  and how can I blame it on them? And and we're all   sitting up here as they're going to blame it on.  That's a lot of money to lose. And the only way   that that's going to happen is there's no other  there's no other route to us not being in the loss   if that were to happen, okay? In in the negative.  But where would that money be in the We change it.   Here's what we do. We don't buy it back, okay? or  we we let we go ahead and list it. Let let's let   the builder let's let we list it for the builder.  Why do we need to buy it back? This is the similar   the similar thing to when we're when we're doing  a deal and we're selling something and they don't   do right and we we're going to buy it back if  they haven't done what they're supposed to in two   years. We give them 5%. Does that potentially  reward a a contractor like oh the deal fell   through now I can put on the market. Now here's  another contractor gets the the lot for free at   $10,000 and he's built in he's built in profit  in his in his build. So he's making double profit   when he sells and we are paying twice for the lot  and we're paying for a lot that we give him if we   have to buy it back. It is so it is so opposite.  So when you get into this housing things cuz this   money isn't coming out of the general fund. It's  coming out of money specifically reserved for   housing that are that's usually federal dollars.  Am I right Sheila? Yes. She's shaking her head.   Yes. So usually what that means is that there's  all kinds of crazy rules that come with that. And   when I say crazy, I mean just wild stuff that you  as a individual would never do. Um, but in order   to use the money, you got to do that. So I I hear  you. I agree with some of the things crazy to give  

something for free and pay for it to buy it back.  That doesn't make sense to me at all. But is that   a requirement by the programs, I guess, is the  question. Sheila, do you mind coming and talking?   And is it a requirement to use the property  website? I think it's just part of our infill   program that was built. And again, I'm for the  infill program. We can't change it. I mean, like,   look, and but it's got to be I mean, a meeting of  minds is where everybody feels like that they are   they've they've found equality. Commission. I'  I've dabbled in real estate, not done near as   much as you have. Um, but I did something similar  when I first came on board. I was like, uh, why is   this happening? This doesn't make sense. Like,  what is going on here? And then you find that   Sheila has to follow all of these different rules  that are imposed by the state and by the feds. Um,   which a lot of them because they're created by the  government, they don't make any sense. But again,   a lot of the money that comes out of this program  is not out of the general fund and it's not out   of the the the citizens of the cities like their  adorum taxes. It doesn't make it right though. I   didn't say it does. All I'm saying is is that when  you're looking at a situation and you're like this   shouldn't happen or this shouldn't happen, it's  quite possibly this board can't fix it if we're   going to continue to do this type of thing. I  don't know that that is this particular M where is   that is that the case? I'm just saying in general.  Okay, let's address the lot situation, the 15,000.   We don't go by strictly the property appraisers  value. We look at what we have in the lot. So   it says here it's property appraiser. property  appraiser or the amount that the city has in the   lot because the lot was purchased or it may have  been donated. I'm not sure on these particular   lots. I can't remember how we actually got them.  So, we look at an average on what the it's going   to cost the city. Did we have to do a survey on  this property? Did we have to did we have to get  

the lot cleared? Any investment that we have in  it, we recoup that back from the builder. So,   that's how we arrive at like with these lots is  15,000. We haven't done an appraisal on every one   of these lots, but the average cost in that area  is going to be 15,000 for those lots. Can you just   give your name and title for this? Oh, Chilawware  Housing and Community Services Director and and   and do and duly noted and and with due respect,  with all due respect, I would say that 15,000 is   low for that area. But you have to remember what  we're trying to do is promote home ownership for   this family. We get that 15 back. So, it's  of no cost to the program. We receive that   15,000 back from that builder when that house  is completed. Exactly. And that money goes back   in the program to assist another client. But when  it does, that's my my concern is not when it does   when it goes bad. And I know you're going to say  it's never gone bad, Robbie. I know it hasn't,   but and I know where you're getting at. But that's  just I mean, we have the 15. We have the mortgage   on the lot. So even if it does go bad, we we  will get that money back. There's a lean on the   property. There's a lean on the property, but  we're buying something at retail and trying to   sell it at retail. That doesn't make that doesn't  work. The lot that you're hanging on to, we're   we're giving that with a value of 15. And when  we buy it back, we're buying it back at 15. To to   clarify maybe what Robbie is asking, is this a is  this a a state requirement on the buying back the   entire construction of the So, let's say somebody  doesn't purchase at the end. Yes. The city right   now in our infill program is responsible to  purchase that back. My understanding that's just a   policy we created. Exactly. That is something that  we can change if we if we want to change. So So   that is not something that's related to a state.  Right. We could change that and say that is just   what was designed and it's meant it it was meant  originally and its intent and I'm not saying this   is the valid stance and what the board supports  now, but the intent was to reduce the risk in  

developing in these specific areas. And so that  and to encourage people to go through the infill   program. I I think the contractor should have some  more should have more role in this if it doesn't   close. It's it's their construction loan. They own  the dirt that we gave to them. They and they and   they're able to walk away with us writing them a  check if nobody closes. Well, I would agree with   you as long as it's the reason of the contractor.  Sometimes people find themselves in situations   where remember like so like one of the one of the  issues that I first had when I first came in was   um I had somebody who was on a program similar  to this. It wasn't an infill. It was a already   established home. They were renting it NSP. Yes.  NSP. So they were renting the house through NSP,   but they were going to buy the house. Mhm. He quit  his job. A bank ain't going to give you a loan if   you don't have a job. Right. and Sheila had told  him over and over and over, "Don't quit your job.   Like, keep your job." Um, but the the person had  quit their job. And so, because of that, a bank   said, "Well, your timer starts over now." Right?  And so, it was no fault of of the city. It was no   fault in this case. It would be no fault of the  construction. It doesn't matter. The contractor   contractor is the one that gets Can we Can we push  all this to a a virtual meeting? What I really   wanted to do was make this a workshop. I want to  let Sheila know that I'm voting for this. I 100%   believe in affordable housing. I believe in the  program. I just think that we ought to make it so   that the city is in a in a better position if we  have to take something back. It's to be fair. But   if we took it back, where would those monies go?  If we took city, let's say we find ourselves in a   situation where it's we would we would offer this  property to another client. But which understood,   but let's say we can't for some reason. I know  you have people lined up, right? I know this. But   like let's say we just couldn't find somebody. It  wasn't acceptable to them or what have you, right?   And we had to take the money back. Where would  that money go? What cost center would it go into?  

It would go into the housing cost money. Okay. Is  that in a general fund at all? Um, no. It's not in   general fund. Okay. Because it's funded through  grants and other things through So, okay. And on   this particular property, this was we subdivided  this. So, we received we now we have three lots   instead of just one. Yeah. I saw that. Okay.  So, in the spirit of moving this conversation   to the workshop as has been expressed, Mr. Mayor,  I call the question. All right. Yeah. So, we have   a first and a second already. We're in discussion.  Correct. Motion to We have to actually vote on the   call the question, I believe. Have we not called  the question? Okay. Do we have a motion? Yes. Do   we have a motion? Who We have motion to begin the  discussion to end the discussion because I asked   for a call called call to question. We're going to  agree to end the discussion. I I'll withdraw that   and let's just require. Okay. So now we're calling  the role. So and and Mr. Mayor call the question   does not require a second. And who motion? If she  withdraw if you withdraw your motion then there's   no motion to vote on to vote. Call the question  because we are having discussion. I only had one   more thing to say but that was that was fine.  We're we're we're fine. We'll move it to the   virtual workshop. We'll move. So look, please go  Allan to sign this. Yeah. Commissioner Granger,   can we restate the motion? We're approving.  We're just we're moving through to approve two.   We've already been in a situation once rather  than something in project. The the motion,   I believe, is to um uh for the commission to  approve and authorize the mayor to execute all   necessary documents for the two separate infield  program building projects that are listed in your   memorandum. Yes. Yes. Commissioner Street. Yes.  Commissioner Hughes. Yes. Commissioner Lucas,   yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes 5-0.  Thank you. And do we need a motion to put  

this on a virtual or do we just bring it up  at the next virtual meeting? The mayor and I   usually determine those, so we're happy to do it.  It won't be the next one. The next one's going to   be the downtown marina money, but we'll do it  in very near future, sir. Yep. Thank you guys. Oh, sorry. Notice of term expirations  on the downtown improvement board. The   Downtown Improvement Board has three positions for  three-year terms that expire on September 12th,   2028. Their current board members, Jacob  Sausstein, Lesie Todd, and Shantel World,   have expressed an interest in retaining their  positions on the board. The city clerk has   received one additional application from Jenny  Kelly, who is in the process of interviews.   The mayor appoints members of this seven member  board with the concurrence of the city commission.   Board members serve three-year terms  and are subject to term limitations.   None of the current members are subject to any  term limit uh term limitations. Um so mayor,   it's if it's your pleasure, you can uh appoint  these or wait for new applicants. I'd like to   appoint these three the the three remaining  on the board. Uh Jacob Salstein, Leslie Todd,   Shantel World. Okay. So moved. Second. Any  discussion? Call the role. Commissioner Granger,   yes. Commissioner Street, yes. Commissioner  Hughes, yes. Commissioner Lucas, yes. Mayor   Branch, yes. Motion passes 5-0. Item 13A is  consideration of resolution number 202509.4,   adopting the city of Panama City wershed  master plan. Relevant background information   is included in your packet. staff recommendation  through the director of development services,   excuse me, is is that the city commission  approve this ordinance. Goodness gracious,  

I apologize. This resolution rather 20250 9.4  adopting the wershed master plan. Mr. Mayor, do   I have a motion to approve? Second. Oh, you Robbie  can have Josh to Robbie. I give it to Robbie. Any discussion? Call the roll. Commissioner  Granger, yes. Commissioner Street,   yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner Lucas,  yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes 5-0. Like   to read the resolution 202509.4. A resolution  of the city commission of the city adopting   the city's 2025 watershed master plan providing  for implementation providing an effective date.   Item 13B is consideration, approval, and  authorization for the mayor to sign resolution   202509.5 authorizing the grant application  by the city of Panama City under the fiscal   year 2025 resilient Florida program grant from  the state of Florida through the Department of   Environmental Protection for the city to perform  a comprehensive storm water management plan.   Relevant background information is included in  your packet. Staff recommendation through the city   engineer and the director of public works is that  the commission approve this resolution. Motion to   second. All right. Josh Granger. Any discussion?  Please call the role. Commissioner Granger. Yes.   Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner Hughes.  Yes. Commissioner Lucas. Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes.   Motion passes 50. Resolution number 202509.5.  A resolution of the city council of the city of   Panama City authorizing the grant application by  the city under FY2025 resilient Florida program   grant from the state of Florida through the  department of environmental protection for the   city of Panama City to perform a comprehensive  storm water management plan and authorizing the  

city manager and authorizing the grants division  or designate to submit the application and the   city manage manager to execute and implement all  other documents associated with the implement.   mentation, execution of the grant provided and  effective date. Item 13 C is discussion and   review of options for years of service awards  for city employees. As background information,   per the request of the city commission on June  24th of 2025, options related to city employees,   years of service awards are being presented  with recommendation for a path forward. Current   practices as it relates excuse me as it relates  to service awards are attached to the memos   of August 28th, 2025. In summary, city employees  currently receive a certificate on their five, 10,   and 15 year anniversaries with a plaque presented  at commission meetings every 5 years commencing on   year 20. Review of other municipalities reveals  the majority either utilize a plaque, a pen,   or a coin system to recognize years of service  to their employees. Um staff recommendations   of the director of human resources is that the  addition of a one-year certificate and continue   with certificates at 5, 10, and 15 years become  the practice and then recommend providing a coin   or a pin every 5 years commencing at years 20 to  be presented at a commission meeting or uh by the   director or chief uh during a departmental  meeting at the desire of the team member.   This would maintain a budget neutral option to  recognize uh the longerving time of employees.   I'll just state kind of after we presented  this item, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, I had   some additional conversations with Miss Lewis uh  and uh and Mr. Jones and Miss Waldron. I think the   desire was and I think staff would be supportive  of this is actually move all of the recognitions   uh maybe to say like the last Friday of the month  at the rotunda and it would be you know myself and   the respective department head and the mayor uh  in a less formal city commission meeting and staff   would support that recommendation as well. In the  event that an employee didn't want to recognize  

that uh or didn't want to be a part of something  more formal in the rotunda, uh myself or Miss   Waldron or Mr. Jones could go with the respective  department head and recognize him out in the field   to some degree. So I I think the big thing is is  moving forward with the change in how we recognize   them and then moving them away from this meeting.  I think that's what we would want direction from   on the commission. Staff recommends that. Totally.  I'll start the discussion of I I appreciate this   and it came from a a genesis of or with origin of  uh um when we give awards or things to staff and   even in my own business where I'm always looking  at what they see as valuable and and plaque. They   may really want a plaque or a pen, but I'm always  up for changing an award system to the people who   receive the award that they actually value it, not  what we think they value. And so appreciate the   hard work and the research that went into this.  I'm very supportive of any of these changes.   Move we approve. Okay. We have a motion. We have  a second. Any discussion? I just want to say I   thought it was interesting today that you said one  of the reasons you thought about the rotunda was   you're the new mayor and this guy's been there  40 years and you his favorite mayor may have   been three three mayors ago. And I thought that  was very uh telling to say you know the staff   we're in and out they who do they like I don't  know. So, I think it's I think it is important to   keep it more um quaint in in in city hall because  it's it's with it's with their their co-workers,   their peers, and I so I support that idea. It's  for them and about them. So, Exactly. Exactly.   And the mayor has said repeatedly, he goes, if  they would rather one of the commissioners do it,   he goes, "Man, no, no hurt feelings here at all."  Right. Right. Absolutely. Any other discussion?   Please call the RO. Commissioner Granger, yes.  Commissioner Street, yes. Commissioner Hughes,   yes. Yes. Commissioner Lucas, yes. Mayor Branch,  yes. Motion passes 5-0. I do. All right. Item 13   is the discussion of proclamations. Kind of  somewhat, you know, um, related, but very   different. You know, these have historically been  under, uh, the very beginning of the agenda with  

proclamations, awards, and announcements. Uh, I  know that, uh, mayor, you have suggested maybe   moving proclamations off of the official, uh,  business meeting of the commission as well. Um,   you I know some of your colleagues would like them  to stay a part of it. I think it would be good for   it to be consistent. So staff is just seeking  direction from the commission. Yeah. For me,   um again, it's the recipient of the award. What  the award, what do they what do they like? And so,   uh I don't mind having them here. When we're all  here gathered, I see tax dollars going. And so,   I'd much rather see an intimate uh retunda, less  staff, uh all the proclamations at once. Uh,   but again, it's about the the the recipient of the  the proclamation. What do they want to see? So,   I'm not I'm not necessarily in favor in like  moving all of them. You still kind have the   option of bringing them here. If someone wants  the pageantry of being at the city meeting,   but some people I don't know if they really want  to be here to receive, they're kind of like,   what am I doing up here all these people?  So, maybe the fault is in the rotunda unless   somebody wants to bring it forward. And I would  assume that could be any of us. Yeah. I mean,   we gave a proclamation the rotunda two weeks  ago. Yeah. I've done one proclamation or a   couple mostly around salty dog mayor  the best mayor important city business okay yeah um is that a do we need a motion I I  think just to kind of memorialize it that that   basically there is flexibility that you know we  we would we would push for the rotunda potentially   combining it with the last and I'm suggesting  the last Friday of every month for the awards and   uh for employees and then this But if they if they  want or if one of the commissioners would like to   actually do it this meeting, that would be okay as  well. But so we would we would remove this section   five and just make it only community announcements  starting with the next meeting, we would only   add back in proclamations uh on a case-by  case basis. That would be my understanding.  

My motion to approve that. I second that. Any  discussion? All in all, Commissioner Granger. Oh,   he stepped out. Commissioner Street on actually  Commissioner Hughes. Yes. Commissioner Lucas,   yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes 4 Z. All  right. Uh, item number 13E. Um, I know that   um y'all requested um sorry, y'all received  I know I think all of you got a physical copy   uh and then I I did as well. And then I also  scanned and circulated it uh a second time.   There was a letter that was received um from  someone basically stating that the gateway overlay   is is ancient and obsolete and and and cities are  getting rid of them and and uh we we read we did a   lot of research. There was only one city that we  ever found. Um I think the mayor and I had that   conversation. So, um I I'm basically requesting um  kind of direction and approval from the commission   today to basically respond to that letter stating  that uh the this commission disagrees and still is   committed to the gateway overlay. Uh that would  be the first item. And then the second item is   um well, I was probably just pause and address  that one first. So, um I'm personally in strong   support um as being in a district that's greatly  benefited from this. Um, I I can tell you that   this has been we've expanded it inside of the  St. Andrews area and it's been wellreceived by   both residents and commercial property owners. If  anything, I think there's probably some gaps that   need to be addressed. Like we've got landscaping  requirements, but there's really no requirement   to maintain that landscaping. And so what  we see with some of our corporate partners,   and we all know corporations are the greatest  partners all the time that we could get, they'll   install it and then they'll just let it die or  won't maintain it and they'll grow with weeds   and it'll just kind of just go off to the wayside.  So maybe there's a way to implement some policy  

um in regards to that. Now I am sensitive also to  maybe some nuance needs as they may come up but o   overall strong supporter of the gateway overlays  and I think that people in the overlays that are   non-compliant we should give them for example to  your to your point you can put the plants in but   you don't irrigate it well part of that should be  that you have to irrigate it as and you get you   get 12 months to irrigate and after that we you  know whatever but overlays work because everybody   has everybody working towards the uh purpose,  you know, unified unified purpose, right? Uh now,   are there exceptions to the There's always an  exception to the rule, but u overall there there's   going to be minimal. Drive down uh Pete Street  uh street in Midtown in Atlanta, there's green   everywhere and there's buildings everywhere. It's  because they have irrigation, they have landcape,   they have landscape requirements, and  they enforce we do the same thing. I'm supportive of it as well. So, I do support  the gateway overlay um intentions. Uh I think one   point in the letter uh though was that uh there's  they haven't spurred the development that we were   looking for uh along some of the corridors that  are are labeled gateway. And I do think that we   should um address uh those uh possibilities  for development and economic development   um on a case- by case basis as they come to us  um in the gateway uh area. I don't want to see   um you know what this gateway ordinance is  intended to uh preclude. Um and uh but I do want   to support economic development and businesses  that want to come and how they can work to   uh to be a part of uh a part of what it is that  we're that we're seeking to uh to do. And I want  

to add I had a email from a person rather upset  that um previous years ago that they were stopped   from doing a business because it kind of seemed  like it was a fleet. meetings. I I just want to   encourage staff that when they say no and they  bump into a policy that potentially elected   officials are willing to change the policy and  so feel free to bump bubble those up those nos   up to us and say, "Hey, is this something you  would support?" Um and and so that we're not we   don't get blame years later for stay tuned in  about 60 seconds, Mr. Mayor. Yeah. What's up?   So, do you need a do you need a motion or without  going into motion to continue and um strengthen   and modify in such a way that gateways continue  to be good for overall growth? Second. Any   discussion? Call the RO. Commissioner Street? Yes.  Commissioner Hughes? Yes. Commissioner Lucas? Yes.   Mayor Branch? Yes. Motion passes 40. All right.  Uh continuation of the same item. So, you have   a copy that Mr. Fuller uh development services  director passed out section 104-66 the gateway   overlay formerly known as the tourist corridor. So  um what I would point out is that um he and I were   talking and no real decision um today necessarily  um but as we were talking it's our belief that   um staff should work with the elected officials  to make some modifications to this ordinance   and maybe be a little bit more flexible.  Again, this is just a brief conversation,   only the opinion of myself and Mr. Fuller. But we  felt like there were a few items here that that   maybe would help spur that development that maybe  we have been too restrictive in the past. Um,   bail bond agencies, bottle clubs, um, you  know, check cashing, uh, dispatch office,   that's the one that you referred to, Mr. Mayor,  where someone said no, that was years before Mr.   Fuller, though, and myself. window tinninging  the So what we would like and again no voting  

on this particular today although the next item  is impacted by this is we would like to spend the   next maybe month working with each of you and look  at what uh potential rest um easements or kind of   I guess kind of backing off of some of this uh and  maybe least uh lessening the grip on some of the   restrictions and then bring a revised ordinance  to y'all to consider that that will maybe help   spur some more of that development and provide  more flexibility in the gateway overlay. Um,   you know, obviously there are some things  that we wouldn't want to see, you know,   that are restricted. And so we just want to  talk through that. But, um, so, you know,   would love for y'all to take this, uh, that  we handed out today, make some notes on it,   and and over the next couple weeks, we'll we'll  speak about it in our weekly one-on- ons. But,   um, that kind of moves us right into item number  uh, 13F, which is consideration to accept an   unsolicited offer from Dawn N. in blue brown  for the purchase of parcel ID 17132-0000-0000 located at 920 MLK Boulevard for the sum of  $145,000. A little bit of background. Um I was   authorized by the commission about a year ago  to sell this property uh by any means that I   determined necessary. And we also spoke about the  time that Commissioner Lucas and I were going to   work with the homeowner or property owner rather  immediately to the south of this property on MLK   Boulevard where he had about one or a tenth of an  acre. And then below that was the cityowned lot   of.1 acres. And so we were trying to work with him  to flip it so that we could then take our 0.1 and   and add it to that one so that it was almost like  a third of an acre uh in larger in size. we worked   with him um and it's it just hasn't moved quick  enough and and I know that you know that building   continues to sit there unused uh and so it's  it's my opinion and I did talk with Commissioner   Lucas it's we should just move this forward. So  again we did receive an offer from um Miss Blue  

Brown. She's the one that spoke earlier during  audience participation. Uh it is her desire to   um relocate her uh bail bonds business to this  building. Uh and so we would obviously need a   revision or an exception to the gateway overlay to  allow this. Um my recommendation is that we we do   uh we do authorize this. And just for background  information, we did receive an appraisal about a   year ago for it came back 160. Uh then we got  another appraisal um about a month ago when we   were ready to bring this back and it was for  140. So, uh, I I would recommend that y'all,   um, authorize, uh, us to sell it to her for for  145, uh, forgo the auction process, and then,   um, I'll probably work with Mr. Zimmer and put  in like a 90-day due diligence to give us, uh,   or maybe 60 days, give us time, uh, to see if  we can amend or revise or work through some   type of exception to the gateway overlay. uh so  that uh so that if we all do that then she can   move forward with her plans because she wouldn't  want to move forward and close on this property   if she's not allowed to do a bell spawn business  in it. Why can't we make that exception today? Uh   that's a good question. I don't know Mr. Perhaps  you can. You are the commissioner. It's question   before that is have we offered this this uh  well we can't now but have we offered this to   the public to to bid on as well as unsolicited?  No, I mean I could go what I would do is Yeah,   I could do an auction if you wanted it to open it  up like that. So, have you published it so that   the anybody else had an opportunity to make an  offer unsolicited like she did? But now we can't   because it's a published number. Was that did that  was that offered before? Well, no, sir. Cuz then   it would be unsolicited offer. Unsolicited offer  comes from her, right? And we offer to the public,   not open it up. We don't tell the public what it  is or tell us what it is. Do we offer it to the   public to make an an offer because there's a city  piece of property unsolicited. It's not for sale.  

I think it was the public that was an offer and  what happened was Yeah, it was Sorry. Go ahead,   Commissioner. I was going to say a year ago  she sent a letter of interest. Okay. And that's   what spurred the first appraisal. Okay. And then  there was the um let's make it a bigger piece of   property. Uh and then, you know, she's come back  and said a year later, hey, I still want this.   Hey, why don't I put money on the table? Let's  talk about it. And so that's where we are now.   And as you have said, there is a a number on  the table. So, uh, this is a a viable option   for taking a piece of property that is been vacant  for a while and making it a viable use. Would also   point out that her current business is located in  the far right of this corner in that building to   the white. So, we're we're not asking for uh a new  bell bonds business new to the corridor. Uh just a   move from a leasing situation to an ownership.  Well, then why do we have to make an exception   if it's already there? Because it's a gateway. Cuz  it's technically not in the gateway. Technically,   yeah, technically she's not in the gateway about  what you mean on the other side. It's like a small   a small. Yeah. I mean, I know, but No, right  there. Right. But if it if there's already a   if there already a veil bondsman company there  oh it's outside we grant can we can we grant   an exception based upon the fact that this is  an existing business re looking to relocate   200 yards. Is that an available option to us that  would not create other problems? You're probably   asking the attorney and not me right attorney  another possibility. So, if this building was   expanded and the Bell Bonds office wasn't on the  roadside, is that also like if it was a duplex   and you had one of these businesses not on the  road frontage, is that a possibility? If sure,  

but I'll say sure just kind of offhand, but the  real issue is um is the city commission interested   in selling the property number one at this price?  Yes. The second is, is the city interested in   staff exploring how there could be a bail bondsman  business on on this piece of property that you're   selling? Whether it's an expansion of existing  business, whether it's an exception, or whether   it's an amendment in which it'll probably require  a tax change to the existing gateway overlay. Not   a long process, but it, you know, that it may be  that. So before we kind of went down the trail of   the intended use, we wanted to make sure that this  is what you'd want. So I would suggest we enter   into a purchase agreement. You authorize that with  a long enough due diligence period because the   uh buyer may not want to buy this property unless  she can use it for what she wants to use it for.   So, um, with a long enough, it'd probably be 60  days might be tight. 90 should give us plenty,   but we'd work hard to to and we might be able  to figure it out in two weeks if it's just an   expansion of an existing use. So, um, that's I  think all those would be looked at if that was   your desire. So, if we made a if we voted today to  say make an exception to it, it passed, she would   still have to wait until a change was a tax change  was made to the to the uh overlay. Yeah. I I would   recommend you not make an exception, okay, to it  today. I would I would recommend that you say we   would be interested in allowing where we would  like this use to be allowed. Staff, tell us how   we can do that. How about we just write an offer  subject to that be the tax change being made to  

uh allow that use? Or how about we just say what  the attorney said. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It would it   would be Yeah. I think we're saying the same  thing, Commissioner. So So two things. I just   want to I just want to make sure that I'm clear so  that someone doesn't think like if it we get too   far down one way that I'm like trying to pull it  back. I I I do not want us to problem solve. This   is me personally through the variance process. The  reason why is it just goes to planning board and   we will never have a say in that again, right? Um  for any other future uses. Whatever you bring back   doesn't need to follow the variance process. Um  and then I would prefer we problem solve it the   way like we did between Jenna and I where the  CRA was a part of solving that problem. So like   looking at it from a district perspective example  is the fencing you know in in most the gateway   corridors vinyl block chain link fencing would  allow with the exception of the CRA areas where   um it is still required to have a more strenuous  fencing area. So maybe there's a way for us to be   a little more nuanced so that we're just not  hey removing a a blanket to everywhere. So,   and along that lines, we did receive a letter  from uh Miss Dawn of Blue Brown this morning   uh referencing that her purchase price suggestion  wasn't she wasn't aware that there was a gate   gateway overlay, which will require additional  um um expenses. And so, I'd like to see us give   uh staff the leeway to move forward to negotiate  uh with her for the purchase of this property.   um and giving the considerations that the uh that  the attorney has said. Uh but we do have an offer   but that offer was not made with the understanding  that there would be more uh city or requirements  

to upgrade that particular would you be giving  them authority to relax some of those additional   cost barriers? Okay. or as uh I think it was you  who said work with the CRA. Yeah. To provide uh   incentives as well. That's what I would prefer.  Yeah. Okay. What we don't want to do is create   an issue where we're we're blanketly granting  exemptions and then all of a sudden weakening   the areas where we need Exactly. So, okay. So I I  believe what we have is a potential a contract to   sell for $145,000. There's an expressed intention  by the city commission to work toward allowing   the requested use. U there will be a due diligence  period of sufficient length to to allow the buyer   to either you know not close if this intended  use can't be accomplished or the permission   or if it can't be accomplished and and the CRA  still would like to assist in the purchase may   well it'll just give us more time to come together  during this due diligence period. period. And then   uh if for some reason it doesn't close, uh  staff will come back. I'm sure the buyer   would come back and request further assistance.  Is there a way to that piece the onetenth of an   acre that the guy owns in between? Is he a have  we been able to talk to him? We have. I mean,   we've asked him several times and he seems to  indicate support and then like to get rid of Well,   no, he wants to keep it. He just wants to flip.  He's amenable to the property flip. However,   the piece he's on is preferable because the other  piece has uh drainage and and so forth. Yeah. So,  

does RF other city Yes. And I want to make sure I  answered your question, Commissioner Hughes. So,   typically what we will do is when I receive an  unsolicited offer, I'll bring it here and let the   commission kind of give direction and and they'll  either I've seen them um like say move ahead with   that unsolicited offer, which seems like we're  going to do today or I've also seen no, let's just   go and offer it. And if I do that, then I would  put it up for auction. Okay. I I would and I'm   going I I intend to bring some uh some framework  for unsolicited offers so that we follow the same   path cuz I'm the only one up here that that has  been through drug through the mud on how to do   this. And um and I think it's fair though that if  somebody unsolicit unsoliciting makes an offer to   our our properties the entire citizen the citizens  have the right to make an offer uh on as well. But   if we if we post the number we can't do that. So,  you got to keep that number down. Okay? You got   to keep it closed up. For example, when I met with  with Nevin and and Mark McQueen, they immediately   said, "Do not show me the offer." Immediately  said, "You hold on to that and we're going to   go and see if the commission wants to sell this  piece of property." And they said, "Yes." So,   they gave the citizens two weeks opportunity to  make an offer on that piece of property. No one   else did. Okay. To me, that's the fair practice  because if you if you put the number out there,   you've just posted the number. Now, if if the  current buyer that's made the made the proposal,   they're going to you're going to ask them to bid  against themselves to go up because every you've   just now all they got to do is one more dollar.  Somebody else does and they win. Does that make   sense? It does. I guess I'm I'm not following  how you would solicit other people to make   offers from the dash. You say, so if they're not  watching the meeting, then they're just out of   luck. They don't know. Okay. Okay. or if they're  not watching it or but you're right but they are   given the opportunity from the dis we we announce  we've got an unsolicited offer okay we didn't ask  

for the offer now it's different if we're asking  for the offer and then over a two or twoe period   3 week period whatever it is other offers are  are available that doesn't mean that any going   to come in it just means that the citizens of  Panama City or anybody has the right to make an   offer on on publicly owned land that's it got  it and and we don't tell the public what that   number That's not fair to the person that's made  the original. Just not fair. Bless you. Ready,   Mr. Mayor? I'd like to make a motion to um  follow the steps as outlined by the attorney.   And if you'll restate those so we all know what  we're voting on um to uh to proceed forward with   purchasing this property or selling this property.  The motion is to accept the uh offer uh as   presented from Blue Miss Blue Brown and authorize  the chairman to sign a contract for $150$145,000 purchase price with the understanding that the  a due diligence period will be in the contract   which would allow the buyer to not close and uh if  the use of of the property cannot be for a bailed   bonds. It' be her option. But if for some also the  city commission expressed an interest in having   this property used for that and directed staff to  work toward uh getting a permission to use it for   a bail bondsman business and did that include CRA  involvement and and include the CRA. Yes. Thank   you. Point of clarification. You said chairman.  Did you mean mayor or city manager? Because   there's no really chairman in this role. Yeah,  I I said mayor. You just misunderstood. Okay.   Chairman sounds like mayor sometimes. Got it. It  would be mayor, not city manager. Yeah. Right. So,  

is that your motion? Is your motion? Yes. Okay.  Is there a second? Any discussion? Call the RO.   Commissioner Street? Yes. Commissioner Hughes?  Yes. Commissioner Lucas? Yes. Mayor Branch? Yes.   Motion passes 40. All right. Uh item number  uh 13G, formerly item 6E, is a discussion on   ordinance 3282, which is an ordinance that would  amend section 104.33. E-8 permitted encroachments   of the ULDC. As background information, uh the  ordinance number 3282 that was proposed will amend   the section referenced uh concerning permitted  encroachments in the downtown district. This   proposed ordinance coordinates with and helps  preserve the streetscape project on Harrison   Avenue. The ordinance provides uh permitted  encroachments in the Harrison Avenue right ofway   um provides that permitted encroachments in the  Harrison Avenue right ofway will be limited to   cantal levered canopies and balconies so that  support columns do not impact the streetscapes   and underground utilities. Galleries such as  column supported structures and stoops will be   permissible on all other streets in the downtown  district except for along Harrison Avenue. The   ordinance also amends to uh amends references to  sidewalk cafes so that is consistent with section   105-14 concerning outdoor dining. Uh this item  was previously reviewed by the planning board   on August 11th. The planning board did recommend  approval unanimously and staff concurs. You have   the following documents enclosed. Again, today is  just the time of discussion. And the genesis of   this again was to uh you know to seek to protect  um our you know $20 million investment in the   streetscapes uh in downtown Panama City.  It kind of came about as part of the HRP,   one of those projects. Um, you know, but  on phase one, uh, we not only have, uh,   the water lines that are on the perimeters, you  also have the sewer lines relocated to that,   uh, phase one from fourth to Governor Street also  has the um, soil cell system, uh, and the soil  

cells along that way. Uh, plus there are, uh, ADA  considerations. Um, it's 5 foot for most phases,   for most parts of phase one. Uh but phase two,  there's a few areas where it is kind of squeezed   a little bit tighter. So, uh maintaining  the walkability and the pedestrian rideway,   protecting our underground infrastructure. Uh and  that was the genesis of this, but understand that   the mayor and the commission would like to discuss  this some. Mr. Mayor, yes. Um I I'm in favor of   posts and there's already stipulations of ADA  and and Florida building code. Uh that build   these buildings aren't meant to be canlevering  things off of. They weren't designed that way.   uh and it just further makes them uh tougher to  survive hurricanes. Uh and every other city that   we love has main streets that have posts in the  sidewalks and they're a little bit of a pain. And   so I I'd love to see staff come back with an  ordinance that has uh follows you know Winter   Garden, Winter Park, Pensacola, you know, the  dozens of Appalachiccola uh how they handle uh you   know posting the sidewalk. Potentially you need  a little footer and so you could hit a utility.   I'm sure there's that's happened before in another  city. I'm sure they've navigated that process and   uh we all want a beautiful Harrison Avenue,  but I want one that, you know, has the same   opportunities that other historic districts have  and doesn't look the same. Um, are we suggesting   that utiling lines are in the sidewalks or on the  they're on the perimeter of the road? There's some   water lines. I mean, everyone's got a water line  that runs out and uh potentially cable line phase   one from the marina to um Four Points Plaza. Both  the water and and the and the sewer lines are on   the side as well as the soil cell system where  you're parking on the side. No, under the over   the under the sidewalks. Okay. And then phase  two, we stuck with the main uh sewer line that   was in the middle. So just new laterals ran out  from the businesses, but the water lines are on   the perimeters uh of the uh of phase 2 as well.  And so now on phase two from fourth to sixth, we  

eliminated the soil cell system, but we still have  the soil cells in there. And so, um, again, the   the I think the genesis was, you know, just trying  to keep that pedestrian area clean and and you   know, the guys got to get in there to potentially  work on it. Our hope is that we go 40 30 or 40   years without any real issues with the utilities,  but you know, I mean, I just that's not, you know,   that's not a reasonable assumption. we're going  to have challenges and so I'm just keeping that   the both the pedestrian and the accutrant area  uh open uh as possible from uh you know from   any type of columns or beams uh what's the purpose  of this so can I ask a question would would it be   amenable to discussing um perhaps implementing a  process for permanent structures versus temporary   structures why why I'm thinking through this I  mean obviously if somebody's building a balcony   It's adding to an amenity that's downtown. It's  a substantial amount of investment. That's not a   small piece that's got structural drawings. It's  got all sorts of other stuff. But somebody that   goes down and, you know, purchases an awning,  you know, from from I'm just going to use Sam's   Clubs as an example. Um, like I don't know that  that that really meets the criteria that you're   talking about. So I I don't know how to word that  in that, but um I kind of understand what you're   saying. Yeah. Uh but I also understand obviously  we don't need to put you know footers over water   lines. Um I will say we were putting um a balcony  on the Tennessee house wraparound balcony right   there at Four Points Plaza. So very cool being  built that way. Being built that way different.   It's not going to have columns though. I'll do a  column. I I think is this are we thinking in terms   of we don't want the from the the main entrance of  the of the building and you're going to make this   long covered area out to the road. Is that what  we're trying I don't what are you trying to stop?  

We're trying to stop out in this sidewalk area,  right? Big like columns that are going to support   some type of balcony. Can't leave or the building  itself holds it out from an engineering. I don't   know how it works but I'm told it works. Is there  is right? Is there a point where I mean I'll use   u I'll use trio for example you've got that sunk  in place but let's just say we're at the at the   front of the building there's that circle if he  came out 2 ft 3 ft and put post down you're saying   is he's he could be hitting utility lines but  that's really where the sidewalk kind of begins   and ends if you will is what are we trying to  avoid there having rather than having just the   shed roof versus going out how far or at all So if  are you talking about doing an actual balcony or   you talking about just like Okay. So I mean those  4x4s or 6x sixes would probably just be surface   mounted because it's not structural. But if you're  doing a legit balcony, I mean you're going to have   to do like that's going to have to go into the  ground and there's going to have to be footers   and that's the concern is you've got water lines,  sewer lines, uh you know, you've got the soil cell   system on phase one. Uh you've got you know the  and they just kind of get in the way. I mean,   right, it's already kind of tight in some areas  right now as well, um, where people have added   plants and, you know, the cafe dining. It's about  about um, going into using post and go that far,   not post that are just surface level. We're  not talking about can versus flat. I'll give   you more background. 2019 or 20, uh, me and Tim  Wher, my partner in history class, who's he's a   city planner, um, pushed the city to have a it's  a gallery or it's what it's called. So, anything   that comes over the it's in the rightway, it's a  gallery. And we copied Pensacola's DPZ ordinance.   I want to say DPZ is a city plating group that his  name's Andre Dwani. He designed Seaside. And so,   I believe he just copied them. And so I don't  know why we've there's all kinds of rules about   you can't put an awning like on the curb cuz you  don't want trucks running into we have trees and  

planter boxes. That's not really an option. And  ADA requires you have a pathway where you can   navigate with a wheelchair or two wheelchairs.  That's all in there. Florida building code. You   can't put on you can't put a balcony 4 ft above  the sidewalk where everyone has to, you know,   shove one. There's there's provisions for that.  Um, but you know when you type in Main Street USA,   what it shows you is the spaces that have these  balconies and galleries. That's when you have   little hanging baskets of flowers and signs. And  so I I what I don't want to do is punish someone   who's just doing a little cloth awning that's  canolvered in a process, but we definitely I   want to see more balconies. That's that's provides  shade. It makes you feel cozy. And I personally as   a citizen advocated for that, you know, four years  ago. We So you're asking instead what I interpret   the ordinance to be right now is a mechanism  to stopping that you're asking for an ordinance   that to allow it to allow it with some type of  parameters with it 100% under this under this the   awning at history class previously wouldn't have  been allowed and but you still had to go through   permitting for that 100%. Like I mean I don't  think that there's any way that somebody could   just go build an awning or a balcony because it's  in the rightway so it's in city property at this   point. This you wouldn't be able to do that.  So yeah it wants everything to be can lever   which works really well for cloth you know style  awnings that you'd see in the 80s and 90s but if   you want to see anything from appallet I there's  two dozen examples of appricola of this. Um, and   so that's what I want. And I know it's a little  bit of a pain to make sure we're not going to   hit a gas line and someone's going to hit a water  line at some point, but I think it's worthy of the   effort. Uh, and it's, you know, quintessential  Main Street of what you see, you know. Agreed.   Yeah. And and happy to to look out to Appalletico.  I mean, my my big questions would be what is the   um what is the material of the road and where  are their utilities? If they're like, "Yeah,   utilities are in the sidewalks and it's a pain in  the butt to work around." And then if Appalachola  

can do it, we can do it too. But they may come  back and be, "Oh yeah, no, the only reason we   allowed this is because all of our utilities  are out in the road and it's just asphalt. So   it's easy to, you know, it's not a big We'll look  into it." Yeah, we'll look into it. Question. So   the action needed is just to table this because  it's going back for um review. That's the case.   I move to table and I would just say table it  indefinitely. Let's not set a time to bring it   back in. Second. Okay. Discussion. Call the role.  Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner Hughes,   yes. Commissioner Lucas, yes. Mayor Branch,  yes. Motion passes 40. Do I have a motion to   adjurnn? Motion second. Commissioner Street,  yes. Commissioner Hughes, Commissioner Lucas,   Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes 4. I blame  Jonathan Hayes for the 4-hour meeting.