City Commission Meetings - Regular Meeting

I am calling to order the Panama City  Commission meeting for September 23rd   at 50:01 p.m. Opening prayers by Pastor  Matt Thomp Thomas of Elevation Life Church   followed by the pledge of allegiance led by  Commissioner Brian Granger. Please stand. Let us pray. Heavenly Father, I love you and  God, I thank you that you're a good God. And God,   we come before you asking for wisdom. And  God, we know that your your word says that   the fear of the Lord is the beginning of  wisdom. So God, recognizing you is where   where wisdom finds its origin. And God, we  need wisdom and heavy decisions. And God,   that even though I know that sometimes there is  not uniformity, God, I pray that there will be   unity. That we will make decisions that better  others. That we will not make selfish decisions,   but we will make selfless decisions. God, be  God in this room and with all these wonderful   leaders and great leaders that you've placed  in positions of authority. And God, I pray for   our great city. God, that the decisions that are  made here will impact people for the better. And   I love you and thank you in Jesus name. Amen.  Amen. Amen. If you'll join me in the pledge of   allegiance. 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. Awesome. Please call the role. Mayor  Branch, present. Commissioner Street,   here. Commissioner Hughes, here. Commissioner  Lucas present. Commissioner Granger present.   Mayor, you have quorum. Awesome. Thank you. You've  received the meeting minutes from September 9th.   Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion?  Please call the RO. Commissioner Street.  

Yes. Commissioner Hughes. Yes. Commissioner Lucas.  Yes. Commissioner Granger. Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes.   Motion passes 5-0. Any additions, deletions,  or modifications to today's agenda? Yes,   Mr. Mayor. Commissioners, uh, staff have three.  Uh think hopefully you all can just consider   these changes in one motion. So the first one is  under 11A under the city attorney the discussion   of a budget impact estimate form. Staff would  recommend and request that that get moved to the   um second meeting in October which would be  October 28th and then add under uh section 11   item 11B. This is actually at the request of of  a couple of our elected officials. uh an update   on the uh sale of the pro uh properties at Beck  and Chestnut and 13th Street uh in St. Andrews.   So that would be added to the section of city  attorney. That's again an update on the properties   that are for sale at both Beck and Chestnut at  13th Street in St. Andrews. And then finally   under city manager a new item uh item 12F would be  the report discussion and consideration of the CMP   agreement for downtown Panama City Marina. Those  are the three items. Mr. Mayor, commissioners.   Okay. Make a motion to accept change agenda.  Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion?   Please call the RO. Commissioner Street, yes.  Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner Lucas,   yes. Commissioner Granger, yes. Mayor Branch,  yes. Motion passes 5-0. Okay. Public hearings.   Yes. Item 5A is consideration and approval of  resolution 20250.1 to adopt the final millage   rate for the city of Panama City and Downtown  Improvement District for fiscal year Oh my god.   for fiscal year 2026. As background information,  the city commission approved the tenative  

millillage rate for the city and the downtown  improvement board or district at the first   public hearing held on September 9th of 2025. Both  rates are the same as previously provided to the   county property appraiser. The final millage  rates are 4.7999 mills for the city's general   fund operating purposes and 3.00 mills for the  downtown improvement board district. Together,   they constitute a current aggregate millage rate  of 4.8626 8626 mills, an increase of 2.80% over   the current aggregate rolled back rate of 4.73000  mills. This serves as the final public hearing   under the trim act for the adoption of the city of  Panama City's millage rate and DIIB's millage rate   for fiscal year 2026. Mr. Mayor, commissioner,  staff recommends approval of this item. Yes,   this is a public hearing. If you wish to discuss  item 5A, the DIB budget, please come forward. Seeing none, do I have a motion to accept?  Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion?   Call the role, please. Commissioner  Street, yes. Commissioner Hughes,   yes. Commissioner Lucas,  yes. Commissioner Granger,   yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes 5-0. We  have a the commission has adopted a resolution   that approves a millage rate for both the city  and the DIB. So, it's resolution 20250923.1, a resolution providing for the adoption of a  final millage rate for the city of Panama City,   Florida, and the Panama City Downtown  Improvement District for the year   beginning January 1,25 and ending December  31, 2025 for operating purposes providing   for allowance of homestead exemption. Item 5B is  consideration and approval of resolution 20250.2   2 to adopt the final fiscal year 2026 budget  for the city of Panama City and the downtown   improvement district. As background information,  the city commission approved the tenative budgets  

for the city and the downtown improvement board at  the first public hearing on September 9th of 2025.   The final budgets under consideration  contain expenditures which total $136,524,276 excluding interf fund transfers for the city and  $242,640 for the downtown improvement board. This   serves as the final public hearing under the  trim act for the adoption of the fiscal year   2026 budgets for the city of Panama City and  the downtown improvement board district. Mr.   Mayor Commissioner staff recommends  approval of this request. This is a   public hearing. If you wish to discuss item 5B,  the Panama City budget, please come forward. Seeing none, do I have a motion to approve?  Motion. Second. Any discussion? Call the RO.   Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner  Hughes. Yes. Commissioner Lucas. Yes.   Commissioner Granger. Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes.  Motion passes 5-0. The commission has adopted.   Resolution 20250923.2, a resolution providing  for the adoption of fiscal year 2526 budget   for the city of Panama City, Florida, and the  Panama City Downtown Improvement District for   fiscal year beginning October 1, 2025 and  ending September 30, 2026. Thank you. Uh,   Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, just want to take a  first uh quick moment and just again express   my appreciation to the staff for all their  hard work on this. uh especially Miss Waldron,   Mr. Jones uh and Miss Perman. Uh Samantha is  our budget manager and she really carried a   lot of the load this time uh as always and  so we deeply appreciate that. I think I would   just say one thing that's let's get to work  on fiscal year 2027 now. So all right. Uh,   item number 5C is the second and final  of two public hearings on ordinance 3283,   an ordinance amending section 1110-4, accessory  structures of the ULDC prohibiting docks in the  

Lake Huntington channel. Relevant background  information is enclosed in your packet. Staff   recommendation to the director of development  services that the city commission conduct the   second and final public hearing and approve the  ordinance as submitted. Mr. Mayor, yes, this is   a public hearing. If you wish to speak about item  5C, please come forward. Yes, sir. Good evening. My name is Joe Pospel. I live on 3208 West 16th  Street, Lake Huntington. I use the Lake Huntington   Channel regularly for pleasure boating. Um, as  you're aware of or some of you may be aware,   there are several of us who live on the lake and  who use Lake Huntington Channel on a regular basis   that are interested in this text amendment.  This is because we've been trying to get a   dock removed that was constructed in the Lake  Huntington channel against our wishes. We made our   position about the dock in question clear as it  adversely affects navigation through the channel.   I note that some of the text amendment includes  the definition of adversely affect and it states   a negative or harmful impact or changed to  land and resources in regards to navigation   and means causing difficulties or challenges in  navigation effectively. Since the first pilings   were installed on this dock, four US Coast Guard  licensed captains, including myself, have stated   that the dock will negatively impact navigation.  So, as you consider approving this text amendment,   I would like to inform you that we're currently  scheduled for an administrative hearing with   the Florida Department of Environmental Protection  with respect to the dock. The hearing is scheduled   for December of this year where we hope the D will  withdraw its permit. So, just wanted to inform the   committee of that. We'd also like to state that  we're glad that the channel to Lake Huntington has   been officially defined in this text amendment.  However, we'd like to make sure that everyone  

understands that there's a huge difference between  the 100 ft width and the 1,000 ft length in your   text and the actual channel. The actual channel  at low tide is approximately 30 to 40 foot wide   and much less in length. And the dock in question  has been constructed well inside the channel. So,   we would be delighted if you would consider  dredging the channel to the full 100 ft width   and 1,000 ft length and that would actually  alleviate the entire uh issue. We note that even   if you pass this change to the channel and the  dock restrictions that anyone can get commission   approval to build a dock anywhere in spite of  these requirements and we've never had any issue   with any docks that that don't negatively impact  the navigation. Thanks for your time. Thank you. Anyone else? Item 5 C, closing public comments. Do I have a motion?  Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion?   Seeing none, call the RO. Commissioner Street.  Yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner Lucas,   yes. Commissioner Granger, yes. Mayor Branch,  yes. Motion passes 5-0. The commission has   adopted ordinance 3283, an ordinance of the city  commission of Panama City, Florida, 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, providing for severability codification,  and providing an effective date. All right. The   Panama City's uh community redevelopment agency  will host a community meeting on Tuesday,   September 30th at 5:30 p.m. in the city hall's  rotunda to discuss its annual work plan for  

fiscal years 2025 to 2026. The Panama City Fire  Department will host its annual open house at Fire   Station 2 located at 2001 Beck Avenue on Friday,  October 3rd from 5 to 9:00 p.m. There will be free   food, kids activities, a live fire demonstration,  and kid-friendly uh agility course, and much more.   Join the Panama City Police Department for  National Night Out at GF Coast State College   on Tuesday, October 7th from 5 to 8:00 p.m. This  free family-friendly event is all about community   and connecting with law local law enforcement  and first responders. The city will plant a   large southern live oak in Oaks by the Bay Park  as a living monument to resilience and hope for   future generations to come. A public dedication  ceremony will take place on October 10th,   the 7-year anniversary of Hurricane Michael to  officially name the tree and commemorate this   important milestone. All are welcome to attend.  The ceremony will kick off at 2 p.m. again,   Oaks by the Bay Park in St. Andrews. The CRA and  local churches are hosting a community restoration   event at the historic Millville Cemetery on  Saturday, October 25th at 8:00 in the morning.   Volunteers are invited to help repaint the  perimeter fence and to clear overgrowth. As part   of phase one of the project, all supplies, snacks,  and refreshments will be provided. The CRA and the   Incremental Development Alliance are bringing  a full-day in-person small-scale development   workshop to the Glenwood Community Center on  November 14th. In this workshop, citizens will get   the big picture view of small-scale real estate  development. Learn how to pick a good development   project and discover where help is needed and  who to seek assistance from. Unlike the free   public lecture early this month, registration for  the workshop comes with a cost. Scholarships are   uh to attend rather are available and applications  will be accepted until the end of the day on   Friday, September 26th. More information can be  found on the city's website, panama city.gov.  

Mr. Mayor, commissioners will now get an update  from the Charter Review Advisory Board Chairman,   Mr. Brandon Berg. Chairman Berg. Yep. He'll have  five minutes to provide an update, sir. Not a   second one. The timer is That's per the mayor. So,  but I get my full five minutes. That's right. Yes,   sir. Take I have thoughts on all kinds of things.  Huh? Comments? He said he throw his mom. But if   I only use two, then I get three minutes to  just say whatever I want. I have some I have   some material. Okay. No. Um on behalf of the uh  the charter review advisory board, we appreciate   the opportunity to serve the community. We've  had two meetings so far. Uh adittedly the first   meeting was largely kind of what have we've  gotten ourselves into. The second meeting was   kind of coming up with a plan of attack for how to  digest this charter, review it because as as it's   written, we kind of compartmentalize it and things  that tend to work together and the things that are   a little bit more in a silo so we could analyze  it in a better way. Uh the first real substantive   discussion that we're going to have is on October  2nd. That's going to be at 8:30. staff's been kind   enough to line up a presentation by the League  of Cities that's going to come talk to us about   different kind of governance structures and the  balance between a commission, mayor, city manager,   and kind of how all those work and just different  examples of how other municipalities do it. Not   necessarily good or bad, but there's a variety  of ways to to structure that. And you know,   for a lot of us, that's not a something that  we research or read in our free time. So,   we appreciate the uh the staff lining that  up so we can get educated on that. Also,   uh council for uh the city also provided us  some information about that as well. So, we   appreciate that. Uh we are actively seeking public  participation for this. Uh staff has also lined it   up so that the uh advisory board meetings can be  via Zoom. So that will be on the notice of meeting   so anybody in the public that wants to attend  can attend it either in person or uh on Zoom.   So we're hoping to encourage more participation  that way as well. Uh there's also several of the   advisory board members that are trying to line up  town hall features where we can solicit input from   the public on that as well. So um we're looking  for as much input and I've had the opportunity   to talk with some of you guys. We're going to  talk later on for other things as well. And so   just appreciate the opportunity to serve y'all.  Uh the schedule that we have is lined up through  

March or April. Uh that's in the meeting minutes  that we just uh that we're going to approve at   the next meeting. Um and everything's lining up  towards having it on y'all's desks for approval   this summertime and then having it on the general  election ballot for citizenship approval in the   general election in November. So I have three  more minutes. So what else? Good. All right.   Thank you guys. Thank you. All right. Item 6B  is consideration and approval of the 2025 2026   fiscal year operating and capital budgets for the  Panama City Port Authority. Mr. Alex King, the   executive director of Port Panama City, is here  to give a presentation and answer any questions   uh from the commission prior to y'all approving  this budget. Mr. King. All right. Thank you. We   got 10 minutes. All right. 10 minutes. We can do  it. Uh good evening, Mr. Mayor, city commission,   and staff. want to thank you for the opportunity  to be before y'all this evening to provide an   update for the port. Uh I think it's timely. You  know, first of all, most important as we work to   uh have our budget approved and we've worked  through the budget process as well. And uh and   then two, we're coming off of a very solid year  uh of our fiscal year for cargo activity. And uh   so I'll begin if I go the right way uh with our  mission and that's where we structure everything   with our port uh and it's to expand regional  economic opportunities by providing modern   port facilities, promoting trade and supporting  industrial development. And we have been very busy   with all three of those this year and it's only  going to get busier. As you can see, our port uh   supports our community and region with 1.6 6B and  an annual economic impact from the cargo activity   and we support over 11,000 jobs uh with cargo  and the onport industries that we have. You know,   one thing that's unique as we look at the port  is at our west terminal is that's the traditional   terminal that was the wayright shipyard in World  War II and today uh handles over 1.8 million tons   of general cargo, container cargo, and bulk cargo.  We also support two large manufacturers that call  

Panama City home. That's Berg Steel Pipe and  Oceanering and really phenomenal industries that   are here that support several hundred jobs uh in  our community. Uh we also are planning additional   improvements there uh that you'll hear more about  as we provide uh we're going to extend the birth   uh where there's an old barge slip to have better  utilization of the births at the port. and we're   working to transform uh one of the uh old bulk  uh container molasses areas into more container   handling area. So really are prime for growth  for the port. Uh at the east terminal as you know   that's our long-term growth strategy for the port.  Uh that has been as you know a decade long project   uh leading up to when we purchased that from  WestRock. our previous director, Wayne Stubs, that   he just worked day and night on that project for  many years, and we're handling over 200,000 tons   of cargo through that. Now, I can tell you real  quickly that uh opened in February of 2020. Uh   cuz as as with everybody with Hurricane Michael,  we we got to build something new twice, it seemed   like. And uh but that was also when CO hit. And so  it really turned the big container lines that ply   the world's oceans upside down. And so we started  handling a lot of cargo through that terminal that   would normally move through other ports. And we've  been able to hang on to some of that. And also   with the closure of the mill, uh we're having new  cargo opportunities move through there and really   uh setting the table for future growth for the  port. Also our interotal distribution center   uh where we are supporting the growth of shovel  ready sites to support port dependent industry.   uh as you know we have distribution capabilities  there uh for port services and supporting local   industry and we also have FedEx and Amazon.  So not only as a port dependent industry and   logistics hub but also an emerging 3PL uh park  for the city of Panama City and uh as it you   know I do want to take this opportunity to thank  uh the city as we work through some improvements  

there uh to support the growth of Panama City  and North Panama City in the park long term.   kind of where are we in the year in review uh  you know from providing modern port facilities as   we're in our permitting stage and really getting  close to breaking ground for the expansion of the   east terminal. That's going to be another landmark  project. That's one that's generational uh where   we're adding a second 200,000t warehouse and uh  also we're going to be extending the birth in the   turning basin. We've completed our new strategic  master plan uh that we're really excited to have   to to guide the port over the next five and 10  year planning period. We're also commemorating   20 years of our short sea container trade between  Panama City and the Yucatan region of Mexico. So   really excited to to reach that milestone. It's  been a strong year for cargo activity. Uh the   port's looking at exceeding 2.1 million tons of  cargo uh moving through the ports terminals and   uh that's really been highlighted by copper  imports uh and uh craft line aerboard exports. Uh   the the tariffs uh you know with the uncertainty  surrounding trade really pushed a lot of cargo   into this port this year in advance of what  might be tariffs that turned out uh to not   happen. Uh so we're really thankful for that. But  it's really generated a lot of activity. And also   for supporting industrial development, Berg Pipe  is investing in a significant expansion at the   Panama City Mill. If you drive over the fly over  and the bridge, you'll see that they've erected   large pile driving equipment and they're working  on that. So really excited about the future uh for   the port and for the industries in this community.  Uh full steam ahead this year. Uh kind of a couple   of of images of what we do at the port day in and  day out. uh the top picture uh was the first uh   containers of pineapples that we handled this past  fiscal year uh coming in. So that's something that   we're really keen on uh pursuing as more coal  chain cargos for the port. Uh if you continue  

clockwise uh we were hosting a new uh copper  importer. We're going to be handling uh more   companies moving copper through the port in the  years ahead. And then in the on the bottom right   hand side is the first loads of lumber loaded on  rail coming from Germany being imported into the   US. So you know we really are not only a local  and a community port but a really global reach   into the US and other countries as we promote more  trade. Also in the middle, this is kind of neat,   is we handled our first cargo from Egypt, uh  import cargos this year of steel, wire, and then   we were all excited to see snow uh in January uh  here in Northwest Florida. Uh tonnage growth for   the port, you look really a landmark year in 2025  highlighted by of course copper activity, imports,   uh wood pellet exports. Uh, another thing that  we did with the copper is we handled our first   shipment uh, from Australia and uh, so we're  really connecting. I think our only continent   left that we do not do trade with is Antarctica.  I'm not sure what we would bring in from there,   but just kind of wanted to let you know our  reach. Um, we'd look for maybe just an ever   so slight normalization of activity next year, a  slight reduction uh, due to so much of some of the   commodities importing ahead of possible tariffs.  but still a really strong year with 2 million   uh tons of cargo activity in the year ahead. So  really our our team has done a fantastic job this   year and we look forward to the year ahead and  and with that I'm going to yield the floor to   John Miller, our director of accounting  and HR to provide the budget summary and   uh close out for us. Thank you. Thank you,  Alex. Starting with our operating budget,   we budgeted 19.8 million in revenues for the  coming year. In total, we project 3.8 8 million   in operating income for fiscal year 2026. As far  as the capital budget goes, we're budgeting 16.3  

million of which 11.9 million will come from  a combination of state and federal grants. Looking ahead, we will break ground on a $28  million warehouse at our east terminal and we will   increase our cargo capacity at our west terminal.  And as we do every year, we will continue to   promote trade, support industrial development to  our community and region. The port is having a   record year, but obviously the past, present, and  future success of the port relies on its strong   partnerships, including the city of Panama City.  Thank you. Any questions for Alex or myself? Does   our logo stay front and center on all of your  presentations? Absolutely. Great. Where are   you going to build another 200,000 foot warehouse  over there? So, we're building that actually. Uh,   if you where you're standing looking at this  image to the to the rear of the ship to the left,   uh, there's going to be another warehouse and a  birth extension. And so, we'll be able to birth   that ship there. She is uh 700 ft long and  she's 106 ft wide. And when we're completely   done with the project in 2028, you'll be able  to simultaneously birth two ships of that size   at the port. So that's really going to double our  capacity longterm there. So really excited about   the future. Uh as I said, that's been a legacy  project and uh something that the the port,   the community, and the region can be very proud  of as we invest here. Awesome. Alex, I just want   to say thank you to you guys and the work and  effort that you guys do as well as your board   um as a a amazing port operation and having  traveled with you is it's truly amazing the   impact that's happening right here in Panama  City. Commissioner Street, thank you so much.   It means a lot and and we uh we really enjoy  what we do. I can say that. And you're right.   We have great leadership in all levels uh from the  city and our board down. And uh we've got to have  

fun while we do this cuz we do a lot every day  and uh but really appreciate uh the impact the   port makes to the community. So thank you. Thank  you. Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion?   Please call the role. Commissioner Street. Yes.  Commissioner Hughes. Yes. Commissioner Lucas.   Yes. Commissioner Granger. Yes. Mayor Branch.  Yes. Motion passes 5-0. Great. Moving into   quasi judicial hearings. During quasi judicial  proceedings, the commission will hear evidence and   render a decision regarding the matter presented  based on the evidence received. The parties before   the commission and the public are entitled to  present evidence such as documents and witnesses,   etc., uh, and cross-examine any witnesses. All  parties and witnesses will be under oath in the   entire proceedings recorded. The commission is  not bound by the strict rules of evidence and may   consider any evidence which it deems relevant and  trustworthy. Any member of the commission may ask   questions of the parties or of the witnesses.  Since quasi judicial proceedings are legal in   nature, everyone is expected to adhere to proper  courtroom decorum and etiquette. Any comments or   objections should be directed to the mayor. The  burden of proof in a quasi judicial proceeding   rests with the applicant. Therefore, the applicant  has the opportunity to address the commission last   after all public participation and before the  commission deliberates. Couple of instructions   prior to accepting evidence on these matters. The  items 7A through 7F. I will swear in the staff   uh who will remain under oath during the tire  proceedings. Also, I will ask uh at the beginning   if if any of you anticipate talking on any of  the items 7A through 7F if you would also stand   and that you could be sworn. If if you need  to come up and you didn't stand initially,   we'll recognize you and then we could swear you  at that time. But if you plan on uh testifying  

or talking, if you could stand at this time.  Okay. Uh please 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 at the  time before we vote, um I will ask you now that   if there are any commissioners, if if there are  any exparte communications which you have had and   exparte simply means that you received information  outside of this city commission meeting that you   intend to utilize and base your decision on. When  you vote, the the only need to do is disclose that   you had such an exparte communication and if  some uh individual wanted to inquire further   that they could at the close of the evidence  and during the deliberation by the commission,   the members of the public uh will not be would  be prohibited from commenting further. Thank   you. Right. Item 7A is the second and final  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 with partial ID 2699-00005-0000. Uh relevant background information is enclosed  in your agenda packet. Staff recommendations   of the director of development services is  that the city commission conduct the second   and final public hearing and approve the  ordinance. Mr. Mayor. Yes. If you'd like   to speak about item 7 A, please come forward.  Item 7 A. Seeing none closing public comments,   I entertain a motion. Motion to approve.  Second. Any discussion? Um I did have a   conversation with the applicant and that  didn't come up. That's fine. Thank you.   Okay. Any other discussion? Please call the  RO. Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner  

Hughes. Yes. Commissioner Lucas. Yes. Commissioner  Granger. Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes. Motion passes 50.   The commission has adopted ordinance 3268.1. 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 land   located at 2414 Michigan Avenue, Panama City,  Florida. providing for repealer severability   and effective date. Item 7B is the second and  final of two public hearings on ordinance 3268.2,   an ordinance amending the zoning map of  the city to reflect a zoning designation   of residential 2 or R-2 for a property located at  2414 Michigan Avenue. This is the same information   as the prior agenda item and relevant background  information is enclosed in your agenda packet.   Staff recommendation to the director of  development services is that the city   commission conduct the second and final public  hearing and approve the ordinance. Mr. Mayor.   Yes. If you'd like to speak about item 7B, please  come forward. Seeing none, closing public comments   on your motion. Motion to approve. Second. Any  discussion? Call the RO. Commissioner Stre. Yes.   Commissioner Hughes. Yes. Commissioner Lucas.  Yes. Commissioner Granger. Yes. Mayor Branch.   Yes. Motion passes 5. Commission is adopted.  Ordinance number 3268.2, an ordinance zoning a   parcel of land located at 2414 Michigan Avenue,  Panama City, Florida, having approximately 470   acres or two providing for severability and  an effective date. Item 7 C uh is the second   and final 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 with parcel ID3027-118-0. Relevant background information is  enclosing your agenda packet and   staff recommendation through the director  of development services is that the city  

commission conduct the second and final  public hearing and approve the ordinance.   Mr. Mayor. Yes. If you have any comments  related to item 7 C, please come forward. Seeing none, closing public comments. I  entertain a motion. Motion to approve.   Second. Second. Any discussion? Please  call the RO. Commissioner Street. Yes.   Commissioner Hughes. Yes. Commissioner Lucas.  Yes. Commissioner Granger. Yes. Mayor Branch.   Yes. Motion passes 50. Commission has adopted  ordinance 3279.1 and ordinance of the city   approving the voluntary annexation of 436  acres of unincorporated property located   at 2800 Jameon Drive into the city is  further defined amending the wards and   boundaries of the city to include said land  and providing for an effective date. Item 7D   is the second and final of two public hearings  on ordinance 3279.2, Two, an ordinance a sub   amending the future land use of the map of  the city to reflect a land use designation   of residential for a property located at 2800  Jameen Drive with partial ID 13027-118-0000. Relevant background information is enclosed in  your packet and this is the same address as the   prior agenda item. Staff recommendation through  the director of development services that the city   commission conduct the second and final public  hearing and approve the ordinance. Mr. Mayor,   yes. If you'd like to speak about item 7D,  please come forward. Item 7D. Seeing none,   closing public comments. Entertain a motion.  Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion?   Call the role. Commissioner Street, yes.  Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner Lucas,   yes. Commissioner Granger, yes. Mayor  Branch, yes. Motion passes 50- Commission   adopted ordinance 3279.2 Two, 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 Jamean Drive, Panama  City, providing for repealer, severability,  

and effective date. Item 7E is the second and  final of two public hearings on ordinance 3279.3,   an ordinance amending the zoning map of  the city to reflect a zoning designation   of residential 1 or R-1 for property located  at 2800 Jame Drive. Partial ID3027-118- 000000.   Relevant background information is enclosed in  your agenda packet and this item is the same   address as the prior two agenda items. Staff  recommendation to the director of development   services is that the city commission conduct  the second and final public hearing and approve   the ordinance. Mr. Mayor. Yes. If you'd like  to speak about item 7E, please come forward. Seeing none, closing public comments. I'll  enter a motion. Motion to approve. Second.   Any discussion? Call the role. Commissioner Stre.  Yes. Commissioner Hughes. Yes. Commissioner Lucas.   Yes. Commissioner Granger. Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes.  Motion passes 50. Commission is adopted. Ordinance   3279.3. An ordinance zoning a parcel of property  located at 2800 Jamean Drive, Panama City,   having approximately 436 acres, residential  one, providing for severability and providing   an effective date. Item 7F is the second and  final of two public hearings on ordinance 3281,   an ordinance to vacate and abandon the  alleyway rightway easement located on High   Avenue south of West 21st Street. Relevant  background information is included in your   agenda packet and staff recommendation through the  director of development services is that the city   commission conduct the second and final public  hearing and approve the ordinance. Mr. Mayor,   yes. You'd like to speak about item 7F. Please  come to the podium. Yes, ma'am. Good evening. My name is Patricia Freeman. I currently reside at  21101 High Avenue, which is at the corner of High  

Avenue and West 21st Street. That alleyway that  they're trying to abandon and re I guess do away   with. There's also a residence behind me at 21101  and a half High Avenue that the only access to it   is on that um alleyway. So if you uh do away  with that alleyway, the only way they can get   to that residence is through my property. C can  you go back please team to the prior slide? Thank   you. So there's a curb when you come down um West  21st Street. There's a curve that curves around   to High Avenue and there's an alleyway. There's  a house behind mine that sits right on the water.   And you're 21101. I'm 21101 High Avenue. There's  a property 21101 and a half High Avenue, which   is reference. Yeah. This way. Can you can we make  sure that there's not a that it doesn't curve into   this easement? I see that we have an additional  easement above which goes between 101 and one or   2099. It's a dirt road. It's an alleyway and it  goes like the road curves. Yeah. the al there's a   stop sign and it goes this way down the alleyway  and my driveway is right here. My property   literally sits on the corner. My lot stops at that  corner. Okay. We will make sure that this doesn't   impede your access of your neighbor. So this area  So this is what we were concerned about because it   says alleyway and this is the alleyway. South of  Okay. Okay. Okay. I just want to make sure that   I can access their home. Do what? Yeah. I want  to make sure you can too. Did what he show you  

at that one is what he's showing me. And if I'm  correct is there's when you come around the curb,   there's a white house and a green roof here. And  he's saying it's right up next to their chain link   fence that they're requesting, not the alleyway.  Yeah. Google Maps is kind of showing that uh   dwelling to be basically where it says 2099.  It's kind of where it's showing that address. So,   we're talking about the north south alleyway, not  the east west alleyway. Correct. Yeah. Mr. Mayor,   commissioners, I I think I recommend that y'all  table this to the next meeting. I'd like our   team to look at this just to make sure we're  not in heating any access to this property. We   want to double check. We don't want to be cutting  anybody's access off. So, we'll have them double   check and make sure that that's the actual I just  want to make sure. Yep. It's a good thing we do,   too. That's why we have that's why we have  public meetings. So, thank you for coming.   Appreciate it. Thank you. No problem. Mr. Mayor,  I move we tangle this item. Second to the specific   November uh sorry, October 14th. There may be  other folks who want to talk. Probably not.   There might be. Does anyone else want to speak on  this item? October closed public comments. Now,   you make a motion to table it until October what?  14. October 14. I'll second. Any discussion? Call   the RO. Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner  Hughes. Yes. Commissioner Lucas. Yes. Commissioner   Granger. Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes. Motion passes  5-0. The table to October 14th. Sorry. Mayor,   we are in public comments. Public comments  relate to anything on the agenda items going   forward. That includes the Marina term sheet  which got added in the uh the additions. So,   anyone who'd like to speak about further agenda  items, please come forward. Do we need to take a a   break? Do we need a break? We just started. It was  like 40 minutes ago. Just Rob and step out. So,   that's fine. He'll be right back. Yes, sir.  What which item are you speaking on? That's   what Not really not either. Y'all don't have  it on the agenda. This is for agenda items  

only. Yes. Yes. But y'all had a no zoning sign  change on Redwood and 8th Street. Can I have   your name and address for the record, please?  Walter P. Henry, 614 made by every Thank you,   sir. And somewhere y'all move y'all reszoning  sign and other sign that y'all had there belongs   to the city of Panama City. And the neighbors  is complaining about how do y'all let somebody   build a house on a piece of property and then  call for reszoning. The lot is not big enough   even when they bought it to put a house on it.  How the city have changed changed the ordinance   the setback line setback line would not let that  house be built like y'all what y'all set up would   not let that house be rebuilt. And I thought all  of these things supposed to happen uh before the   house is built. Somebody know you got they  got okay from the city to build this house.   Now some way this here didn't did not happen.  I don't know y'all doing some undercover work   but somehow that sign that sign flipp got wings  and flew away. It's not there anymore. So the   house is there and I think it look like the house  done been sold now. I don't know what's going on. It's in part of my neighborhood down the road,  but still it's in Milville and folks is concerned   about it. Y'all got a building on 98 sitting up  there waiting. I don't know y'all done told this  

man that he can set this building where he got it  on 98. It's a shed. I think he'll build an office   out of it. He got it already wired up ready  for gunpowder to come in attached to it. Now   I don't know what's going on but you would let  you would not let me put a shed on 98 for office   and y'all won't let a person put a trailer inside  of Panimo City. A trailer I trust a trailer tied   down. They got this thing tied down as well. They  got it tied down. But I don't think it's the law.   Y'all breaking y'all laws or do doing things  that shouldn't be done. Y'all don't give away   water. But I can my house your day. Y'all  have a truck getting water out of fire hyd my toilet got muddy water, dirty water in it.  I call this city. Thank you for your comments.   Y'all never came out and looked at it. We're going  to try to keep agenda item comments related to   agenda items, not other things. We actually have a  meeting on Saturday, October the 4th. On Saturday,   where you can come talk about anything you'd like  to complain about, concerns, give us feedback.   We really want to keep this meeting related to  things that we're discussing today that are on the   agenda. And that meeting has donuts and coffee.  Donuts and coffee. I love a good donut. Daily   donuts. Anyone else related to agenda items today,  please come forward. Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, does the   agenda item Sorry. I'm sorry. You need to come to  the board. Yes, sir. I just want to make sure that   the the marina You could talk about the marina.  Yes, sir. I can talk about the marina. Thank   you. My name is Joe Posel. So, still. All right.  So, uh, looking at the drawings, uh, that were  

submitted and I realized that those drawings were  included, uh, uh, as part of a marina upland area   that was for basically example only. But I had  a couple of concerns that I'd like to just point   out, uh, in regards to the future development of  the marina. One of them is that any development   that's similar to the one that was provided in  that example appears to me that it would it would   make Marina wet slips and the upland structures  themselves completely out of the income bracket   of your average Panama City person. I remember  what I paid back in the day for a slip at the   marina and I can only imagine what this kind of  development would do to the wet slips there in the   marina. Um secondly, one of the issues I believe  was should you attach the wet slips to the upland   structures? I I understand the rationale for it.  If I had a condo there or whatever, I'd want to   have a slip as well. But I'm adamantly against  that because it would limit what is already going   to be a limited number of slips. It would limit  those slips. And then once they become attached   to an upland structure, they probably would stay  that way forever. And so that limits the amount of   slips available to your average Panama City person  that has a boat that's too big for a trailer.   And then finally, I note that u that drawing, even  though it's an example, only provides one parking   spot per residential house or whatever, which is  unrealistic. And I mentioned in a comment that   uh Mr. Mayor, that you actually commented back on  that, you know, well, you know, I want to preserve   make sure we preserve the Panama City boat ramp.  And I know that's a broken record, been around a   long time, but I get it. the boat ramp has been  there's drawings associated with that boat ramp.  

But if you take the parking away, the boat ramp  goes away. And that would be the first parking   to go if they built these units and and then there  was only one parking spot. This is just my opinion   obviously. There was only one parking spot per  unit and and then people started screaming about   I need more parking. I would be I would be  concerned that that parking would go away.   I I think you're all aware that there's a huge  majority of people um that want to keep that   boat ramp. It's in a perfect location. I hope  it doesn't go away. And thank you very much for   Thank you for your time. Yes, sir. Anyone  else related to agenda items? Yes, ma'am. Good evening. Still afternoon, isn't it? 6:00.  You going to hold the meeting past 6:00? Oh,   it's going to be fun. Okay. Pass. It is. All  right. Good afternoon, mayor and commissioners   and others on the disc as well. Uh, first I  want to give Where is he? Clint Murphy over   there. And can I get your name and address for  the record, please, ma'am? I have to. I'm being   facicious. Yes. Brenda Lewis Williams, 2748  Oak Hammet Drive, Panama City 3241. Thank you,   Mr. Murphy. Thank you. Alan Forbes is doing a  wonderful job filling potholes. I don't have   to dodge the one on MacArthur anymore when  I go to Glenwood. Um, and you have a new   machine truck that's out there that I haven't  looked at yet, but John said I can look at it   when they go to work. So, that's that's a good  thing. I don't know what the name of it is. Um, I'm a little concerned about Commissioner Street  activity. And let me say something before I go   any further. Like Richard Nixon said, let  me be perfectly clear. I've I've had heard  

uh my attention attention has been brought that  I don't like certain commissioners. Let me say   this and please understand, I don't know where  it came from. I really don't care. But I don't   dislike any of you. What I do not care for often  times is your politics. So with that being said,   do not take what I say personal unless I call  you aside and say it to your face. Okay. Now,   with that being said, this affordable housing, I  don't understand how we have $2 million in reserve   and it's it's not costing the city any money. Why  can't we go to the threshold of 2032? And do we   want to sell or give this away? That doesn't  make sense. Uh I don't know that the Panama   City Housing Authority uh per what I read, if I  read it correctly, is the one to bring this to.   And if you take it into um section 8 housing,  there's no openings for section 8 housing for   at least two years according to my research.  And I don't know that that Panama City Housing   Authority is the group to to do this. Why give  away what may be and is considered a reasonably   profitable venture for the city? We're not losing  money. And I'm going give you one of my addages.   You can't make sense out of nonsense. And  this is nonsense in in my observation. Uh and the um the Yes. I'll let it go cuz I  only got 29 minutes left. I'll bring it up   for next time. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else  related to agenda items? Yes, sir. Mr. Kthers. You already ate my name. So I don't George Cor  1702 West Beach Drive. I'm speaking item item  

12A Baker Court. My home backs up onto Baker Court  uh which supplies all USCIT all city utilities. On   December 1st of 2020, uh the city held a meeting  on this project and deemed it the number one   infrastructure project in the city. Uh over the  20 years uh the residents have endured discolored   foul smelling water. Sometimes you had to pick  the right day to do white colored clothes. And   um I know that the city has elected to pursue  other projects, some which benefited homeowners,   some not so much. And has this project  has been delayed many times. On behalf   of all the residents who are depending on  this project, I sincerely hope by the end   of this meeting that this project will finally  move forward. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. Going to make Mr. Kurther's  honorary project manager for   that project. For great and other countries, Dr. John Haley, 601 Cactus Avenue. I want to  take a look at the uh the housing scenario that   the lady just spoke to referencing Commissioner  Street. Uh from a panoramic perspective, typically   after after having been involved in management for  quite some time, typically an employee comes to   her boss and complains about unequal distribution  of task, responsibilities, and duties. And so the   question begs to be answered, did Sheila Wear,  the individual who was responsible for managing   this program, go to her boss, city manager  judge Jonathan Hayes, and say, "Well, hey,   this is too much. I cannot continue to work and  perform effectively in my job and manage all of   these properties." And if that is if that is the  case, then it's his responsibility to eradicate,  

alleviate that responsibility, and pursue an  offramp for her. I don't think that happened.   I don't know that she aware came to Mr. Hayes and  talked. She may have. I'm speaking hypothetically,   you know, and but but for a commissioner to come  in and make the suggestion, it sort of reeks of   impropriity propriety. It it it may cuz one begin  to think, you know, is there an outside person,   a developer, a construction, a contractor involved  in the ear of somebody who will eventually come   in, bid a million dollars, already got the  backing, acquire all of the housing. I don't   know that that's going to happen, but it could.  Um, so that is my concern. and and and the fact   that uh the city uh section 8 uh I've been renting  the section almost 40 years. I manage about 13 or   14 houses and it doesn't cost me 100. It doesn't  cost me a quarter a tenth of that much to manage   my 14 houses. I replace air conditioning  units. I do a lot. Plumbing, electrical,   do it all. it doesn't cost me that much to manage  the properties. So, I'm finding it really really   difficult and hard to understand where the burden  is so heavy financially on the city to manage   these properties, you know, especially if they're  bringing in revenue and that could conceivably pay   for somebody's job. That's all I have to say.  God bless. Yes, sir. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Good evening. Good evening. Amber Tubs, 2716  Okala Avenue. I'm here today to express my   strong support for maintaining the neighborhood  stabilization program rental properties. These   homes have played a vital role in providing  safe, stable, and affordable housing for  

working families, seniors, and individuals in need  throughout Panama City. As housing costs continue   to rise, NSP rentals remain a crucial resource  for residents who might otherwise be priced out   of our community. It's important to emphasize that  this program operates without placing any burden   on the city's general fund. NSP is entirely self-  sustaining funded through program income generated   in prior years. In fact, it continues continued  operation produces administrative revenue that   directly supports the housing and community  services department helping cover staff salaries   enabling us to deliver essential services to  the public. If the city were to relinquish these   properties, if some as some have proposed, we  would not only lose valuable affordable housing,   but also a crucial stream of funding that supports  our department's day-to-day operations. This   would place unnecessary strain on our ability to  serve the people who need us most. I have worked   proudly in the housing and community services  department for nearly 9 years. In that time,   I have firsthand seen the life-changing impacts  these homes have had on families across our city.   Yet in recent months, it has become increasingly  difficult to stay motivated when our department   has been singled out, unfairly accused of  mismanagement or worse. We have complied   fully and transparently with every request  for information, and we were assured that   following Michael Johnson's departure and  the finding that no remaining staff were   involved or aware of any wrongdoing, we would be  moving forward with a clean slate. Despite this,   we continue to be met with skepticism and  mistrust. It is very disheartening to work   so hard to service our community only to feel  like we are constantly under suspicion rather   than supported. I sincerely hope that we can  reset the tone and move forward with mutual   trust and respect. I urge the commission to  continue supporting the NSP rental program and   the housing and community services department  as a whole. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Good evening. Uhoh. My name is Ashley Gross and  I live at 1028 North Center Avenue and I've been   running from community development for about 7  years now and it has been a big help on me. I'm   a single parent. Um I I work just a couple years  ago. I found out my daughter has bipolar disorder.   So it's hard for me to keep a job right now. So  that program has helped me a lot far as being able   to afford things and stuff like that. I have no  help at all. My grandma was my biggest supporter,   but she got down. So the program, like I said, has  helped me far as being able to financially afford   some things and being there for my daughter at the  same time. Um, with me trying to figure out things   with daughter, my daughter, uh, they have all been  supportive. I call for anything in to be fixed,   they come. It It has been wonderful and it has  helped me for the past few years that I have   been trying and I've always been a hardworking  person since I was and I was in your class,   Miss Lucas. But, uh, I really appreciate them  a lot though cuz it really has changed me in   a lot of ways cuz I've been put out of a  lot of places trying to afford to a life   for me and my daughter. So, like I said,  it's it's it's a pleasure and it's a big   help. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else  related to the agenda items? Yes, ma'am. Uh, Tresa Pasqual. Do I need to spell  that for you? I think I got it. Uh,   5920 South Lagoon Drive. Um, the city has over  600 employees. I wouldn't come down here and  

do this for anybody, but I'm coming down here to  show my support for Sheila Wear, who's probably,   you know, a handful of employees I'd come  down here and do this for out of 600. So,   she's a valuable employee to the  city. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. Good morning. Good. Good evening. I James  Shieldry, 163 Vermont Avenue. Uh I am a   vendor with the city of Panama City that  does work with Miss Sheila Wear in that   program. Um that program I get to see every  day when I do work for for the city of what   it does for people and changing their lives. Um,  we have done several renovations, several houses,   several different things that people didn't  have kitchens and bathrooms working. Uh,   didn't have central heat and air,  the electrical, so many things. Uh,   I I understand it's a funded program. Don't  understand where the cost effectiveness come in   there. But uh Miss Sheila holds a uh high standard  with these clientels that she deal with. Very high   standard. She's one that has put them in places  they would not be. Uh so I just wanted to voice my   opinion and tell you that if you if you followed  us around in the work, you'd see some of the the   uh amazing things that's been done there. That's  all I got. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening. Good evening. Terry Gainer, 3002  East Third Street. Good evening,  

commissioners and mayor. I appreciate  the opportunity to speak to you tonight   on behalf of the Housing Community Services  Department. I have served the city for 25   years and in that time I have never worked under  a leader as dedicated, hardworking, honest and   transparent as Sheila Wearer. She consistently  goes above and beyond not only for her staff. Sorry. but also the clients we serve. And I've  had the privilege of witnessing that the   last several years. Respectfully, I would  like to share my thoughts and feelings   about our department. Every dollar we spend,  aside from Miss Wear's well-earned salary,   does not cost the city. In fact, we are actively  regenerating housing dollars to assist the next   family or individual in need. The NSP program  that is a topic topic of discussion this evening   is one small but important pro uh program under  our department. It provides affordable rental   opportunities for individuals and families who are  working towards home ownership. This program has   already helped 13 families transition into their  forever homes. An achievement that should not be   overlooked. Any one of us could find ourselves in  need tomorrow. unable to make ends meet because   we only receive social security or we work a  full-time job and just can't make ends meet. All just while trying to keep a roof over our  family's head and we just don't make enough. Um,   a domestic violence survivor who wants a safe  place to lay their head with their children at   night or someone who seeks cancer treatments  during the day and too sick to work in the   evenings. These are the people we serve. Sometimes  we must look beyond the bottom line and see the  

bigger picture. We are to be the hands and feet of  Jesus and helping people in their most vulnerable   times I believe is what this community is all  about. I respectfully ask you to consider this   motion before you tonight. This decision you  make will have lasting consequences not just   for today but the future of this community. Thank  you so much. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. Good evening. Good evening. Um, I just  want to say I'm a contractor that works   for the program. Your name is Oh, u it's Eric  Orm. Um, 7201 West Lakeland Drive, Pan City,   Florida. Thank you. Um, I've been working  for the program 20 years and um, one thing   I've always said that they always help people  that need the help and um, I think it'd be it,   you know, not only does it help people,  it employs people like me and, you know,   others. And I just think it would be a a mistake  to to take it away cuz I've seen the people   firsthand and it it really is a good program and  they do help the people that need help in this   community. So, I just want to that's all I got to  say. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. Good evening. Good afternoon. Bob Zel's the second 1906 Temple  Drive in the Cove. Um, my favorite subject,   City Marina. Panama City and Bay County both  have a rich heritage and history with working   waterfronts. If it hadn't been for working  waterfront, you wouldn't be in this place   today. That's what helped develop Bay County  and Panama City. The city marina was a critical   component of that. Uh pre Michael City Marina  was operating just fine as it is. There were no  

residents there. There were no private uh condos  there. It's a public facility. It deserves to   remain the same. You don't need to reinvent  this wheel. You can add a few things to it.   You can have facilities that support the vessels.  You put slips in there. You bring boats in there.   You provide fuel. You do everything else that  supports that. That then develops your commerce   that you're really looking for. A private  residence is not going to bring you any more   uh commerce to that area. Uh you need parking. You  get the marina back to where it once was. You will   get your foot traffic. You will get everything  in there. It's necessary. You don't need another   great big restaurant. You got a nice restaurant.  Harrison's right there. You got a facility. People   want to live down there, they can stay in that  hotel. It's very nice hotel that's right there.   You've got everything necessary to get that  thing back up and working and get the working   waterfront established so that you have commercial  fishing operations for our charter operations,   your private wreck operations. You have all that  together. You have a very nice place to do that.   that city marina. We've been here, my family  was here since ' 65. Every fourth of July,   you went there to watch the barge and the  fireworks. You had all the vessels out in   the bay doing the same thing. You didn't have  private residence. You had at one time you had a   really nice restaurant at the end of that marina,  four winds, one of the best places in town. Uh   you had a bunch of other had barber shops. You  had different other facilities there. That's   all you need. You don't need to reinvent this and  make this into some kind of special thing. These   developers that you're partnering with, they don't  care about the history and the heritage. They're   interested in that dollar and that's all that's  there. That facility needs to be done put back for  

the public so the public can use it and keep rates  reasonable so the public can enjoy it and bring   the heritage back to Panama City once again. Thank  you very much. Yes, sir. Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening. Derek Thomas, 1100 West 10th Street. Um, I  don't know what's on 12F. I'm here, I guess,   to talk about 12E and uh the uh let's not forget  the the profit sharing that you're talking about.   The hotel last year paid10,800 and the restaurant  paid $33. 800,000. 800. So 800,000. So this is   less than the than the rent on one of those  houses. And this is the same price you're   talking about giving to the Gorman Group. Zero  for the first 650,000. 2% after that up to 1.2   million and 4% after that. This this is a joke. I  can't believe you guys are even considering this   for more than 30 years. At least that's longer  than that. I didn't see your your discussion on   last Monday. I went down to the library and  tried to look and it wasn't online and so I   haven't seen it. I don't know what it 12F is  going to say because it's not on your website.   So I don't know what you're talking about  there either. But just the fact that you're   considering doing this for more than 30 years  is just disgraceful. And the fact that you're   talking about developing the uplands without  giving that an opportunity to other developers   to to offer to actually pay in to the system by  giving more than zero for the first $650,000. I don't I don't know how you you can consider even  considering this, but uh look at the past from the  

Gorman Group on Labor Day weekend out there. There  was no parking left for the trailers for people   that wanted to launch their boat. But there were  seven spaces blocked off, unused, unusable. And   for the first four months before they even started  building, they blocked off all the parking for   that. There were 15 boat trailers out there, which  that was it. There was no more room for anybody to   park their boat trailer for the Labor Day weekend.  And now for the last month, they've they've left   it abandoned. They have stopped work. I guess  they're focusing on getting the downtown one,   but if that's how they're treating St. Andrews,  how are they going to treat downtown? Um, the   fact that you're even considering this for more  than 30 years, 7 years or $10 million in profit,   cuz that's what they could be making off of  of a marina that's making $2 million a year.   Why are they not contributing back to this city?  And how come you are making these plans to give   away the marina without informing the public and  in a timely manner? I appreciate that you went   back and added the plans that show pictures of  what they were going to do that on August 22nd   you only provided to the public an hour and  40 minutes after public comment had closed.   But for you to be this secretive about what  you're doing and the math doesn't add up at   the end of the day. the amount of money that  you're asking in return for this valuable   piece of property is pitifully small. I hope you  consider that. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. Good evening.

I'm Douglas Forehand. I actually live in Callaway  and uh I'm here to support Miss Sheila. Uh build   lowincome housing in greater Panama City, mostly  in the Glenwood area. And we have built my partner   and I in the last well since the hurricane  we've built uh 13 I believe lowincome housing.   There's nothing or no one that I would rather  deal with than Miss Sheila Wear. She's the most   honest woman I have ever met and she is so good  with the customers till it just makes our job   easy. So that is where I'm coming from is the  the fluidity from her to the builders and we're   uh and her uh getting our customers because uh we  don't have to look for a customer. They have our   customers and the program that we are using  to build houses for low income has been very   successful. If you don't believe it, ask one of  the people that have been lucky enough to get one   of those houses and can afford them. We're hoping  interest rates will come down a little bit, but   uh that's uh not for us to determine. It's for us  to build a house that is very complimentary to the   people that are wanting to get them. We building  on small lots, so we're building small houses,   but I've not had any complaints from people  that have had the privilege of buying one   of those houses through Miss Sheila, and  she has done an outstanding job and will   continue to do that if given the chance.  Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Anyone else?

Yes, sir. Good evening. Uh good uh evening, Mr.  Mayor and commissioners. I really hadn't planned   to speak, but uh sitting there listening  to everyone, I wanted to uh echo what has   already been said. Hopefully by now you have the  point. Oh, I'm sorry. Ruferswood, 1911 East 10th   Street. Uh thank you. Uh, Miss Sheila Wear uh is  a lady of uh professionalism. I've had dealings   with her and I think what we really wanted to see  in that office is we wanted to see uh integrity,   dignity and humility restored and I think she  has done that. In fact, if I had to say it,   I think she's gone above and beyond. And it's all  about helping people. And we we heard a testimony   here from somebody that she has helped personally.  And so, I would hope that we would uh keep that in   mind and consider that in the decision that you're  going to make, the Bay County branch, NAACP. We   have always been a strong advocate of affordable  housing. And I remember after Hurricane Michael,   we put on uh town hall meetings because we wanted  to make sure that people would have the housing.   And if we're helping people, by all means, that's  what we would want to do is to help them. We   certainly don't want to hope them uh hurt them.  So, I would hope that you would consider what has   been said. And as I said, you've have somebody  that who has been personally impacted and that   that touched me just sitting over there. I  I didn't even plan to say anything, but I   couldn't sit there and not say anything. I hope  that you will take all of this in consideration   as you make the decision that you make on  this issue. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you. Yes, sir. Good evening. Evening. My name is  Roy Morrison. I'm with Sein Construction. Uh   I'm Mr. Forhand's partner. We've had the unique  and privilege to work with Miss Sheila Wear in  

the last three years in the mostly the ship  program, but also some of the redevelopment   uh programs. Her integrity is without question.  uh her and uh and of course work with her and Joe,   you know, and uh in their office and and her  staff, but but they have uh they're an asset   for this city and I just want to voice my  personal opinion of her and she's a fine   of fine character and this program is uh like  Mr. Forhand says, this program is a valuable   program for the city because we build houses  for people that they can't live where I live.   I live in L Haven, you know, but the houses  we build are they're low income houses. And   uh I thank the young lady that said that, you  know, sometimes we got to be the hands and   feet of Jesus. Let's support Miss Sheila.  Thank you all. Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, closing public comments. Moving  to consent agenda. All right. Yeah, Mr. Mayor,   I would uh commissioners, I would like to pull  off item 9A and have that voted separately. Uh,   one of y'all needs to abstain from that  vote, but the others would request that   y'all consider those uh in mass. Motion we  approve nine Bravo through nine India. Second.   Any discussion? Call the RO. Commissioner Street.  Yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner Lucas,   yes. Commissioner Granger, yes. Mayor Branch, yes.  Motion passes 5-0. Item 9A is consideration to   approve the special event permit for the Glenwood  Under the Stars, held the first Saturday of every   month from July of 2025 through July 2026 from  5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at 600 MLK Boulevard,   sponsored by the Lead Coalition of Bay County  Incorporated. As background information,  

on July 8th, 2025, the commission approved  a special event permit for the recurring   Glennwood Farmers Market scheduled every Saturday  from July 2025 through July 2026 from 10:00 a.m.   to 1:00 p.m. at 600 MLK Boulevard. This is  exhibit A in your packet. Since its approval,   the event has continued to grow and the city  has received a request, which is exhibit B in   your packet, to amend the permit to include now  Glennwood Under the Stars. Under this amendment,   the market on the first Saturday of each month  would shift from its usual 10:00 a.m. to 1 pm   schedule to an evening event from 5:00 p. p.m. to  9:00 p.m. This expanded event would feature a DJ,   food vendors, an inflatable movie screen  and alcohol service. The attached alcohol   permit application is attached as exhibit  C. No additional special event fees are   required as they've already been paid.  Per the chief of police recommendation,   law enforcement presence will be required with  one officer assigned through offduty management   from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and two community  police officers providing support during the   event as needed. The cost for police services is  a total of $186 per month paid through ODM. Staff   recommendation is that the commission approve this  request. Uh but I'm going to turn it over to Mr.   Zimmerman because one of the city commissioners  does need to abstain. Mr. Zimmerman. Uh,   Commissioner Lucas did talk to me even though she  would not benefit personally or economically from   this. She is the executive director uh for LEAD  and LEAD is the sponsoring agent for this to avoid   even the appearance of impropriety commissioner.  I did advise Commissioner Lucas it would be a good   idea to abstain. Awesome. We don't have to go into  public comments, but this has been a motion to   accept. Motion move. Second. Any discussion? Call  the roll. Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner  

Hughes. Yes. Commissioner Granger. Yes. Mayor  Branch. Yes. Motion passes 40 with one abstension. Commissioner Ten. All right. So, I kind of  feel like after the public comment period   that we should address one thing like there's  nothing in what has been presented today nor   saying anything having to do with Miss Wear. Um  there's no changes in our budgetary process for   this year. There's been nothing proposed um with  the budget that we just adopted. Um, and you know,   I I do understand that there's a lot of support  for these programs, and it's not about getting rid   of a program. It's about trying to find, is there  a better way for us to be able to do and execute   programs? And so the NSP program was one of the  areas that we looked at and and I had personal   interest in understanding more about the program  as I have with a variety whether it's been with   the CRA whether it's been with other departments  there's been nothing unusual about this process um   other than it's a very complex program and it did  take a quite quite a bit of research to understand   exactly how the program operates. Um, so in the  totality of everything that's being looked at,   we do have organizations in our community that  focus on property management specifically. Uh,   this is the only program that exists in the city  that involves property management, which is an   anomaly when we have other nonprofits as well as  quasi governmental entities that handle that. And   so that was the focus of what we looked at. And  and frankly, I didn't know what we would find when   we started to look at it. And it turns out the  program does have a substantial amount of reserves   um which led to a a greater understanding of what  the funding is available for us to be able to do  

and accomplish. Um were there things that came in  that that hey we we need to address if we continue   moving forward this? Absolutely there were. And I  think those are detailed as far as in the report   as far as what we need to look at so that it  operates similarly to the rest of the way that   we procure things as a city, how we handle things  regarding income and expenses. Um was there any   kind of criminal or anything like that? No. like  that wasn't anything that and that wasn't the   focus and the intent of looking at things as more  as it was in trying to create a more efficient as   a well as a better process for serving um serving  housing needs specifically with this program. So,   I I'll start with just saying this, like this  funding came from an allocation that happened   after the um the the um the Great Recession, and  it was basically funding that was released by   HUD to purchase foreclosed homes to help stabilize  housing markets all around the country. Since that   point in time, there are some that have continued  to operate the programs through the affordability   period. There are others that have divested  themselves and closed out their program. So   um what I proposed today is the question as  we've asked many things is what should the   city be involved in and is do we want the city  to be a property manager? That doesn't mean that   the program goes away but it means it just may be  handled differently. And so that was the focus on   what's been proposed. Um I certainly hate that the  community feels like this is something having to   do with personalities or or personnel. That's not  the case. Um the case is on We have had some major   changes inside of our housing department that we  have to acknowledge. Uh the county program that   existed inside of the city of Panama City is now  with Bay County. That was 80% of the funding. 80%.  

When that happens, this is the first time we've  been able to take a focused look at housing and   say, how do we create a sustainable path forward  for these programs so that ultimately residents   are served not just for a singular budget year,  but ongoing for a long period of time so that   the program can be sustainable. Yes, there are  reserves and yes, it is operating off of reserves.   Um, could it maintain operating off reserves?  Sure, for a period of time, but eventually the   money will run out. And so the point is how do  we create a sustainable process for whether it be   NSP or whether it be any other aspect of housing  moving forward? And it's a great opportunity to   have a discussion when there's not the pressure of  someone having to feel like their jobs on the line   in a budget year. Yeah. Super. Yes, ma'am. Um,  I think that uh this is a wonderful discussion   to have in terms of affordability of housing in  the city of Panama City. Uh, but commissioner,   I think the tone and the words used in your  factf finding um are what has created uh the   outpouring of support for the housing uh and  community services department, most especially   uh the director. Did you at any time in your factf  finding meet directly with the department chair? I   have met multiple times with Sheila over the many  years that I've been here. I mean specifically in   reference to this factf finding for NSP. No, this  this process was taken with city staff um and the   three direct reports that we have here as a Okay.  So if Miss Wear would have liked to meet with me,   I would have happily said yes. So, so the the  structure of how this how we've come to this   point is part of the frustration or anxiety  as we've seen expressed by uh by our staff   here today. Um but that aside, here we are. Uh  your um putting forth that the uh program is not  

sustainable. It has a $2 million reserve. Uh  it has been uh successful over this time. Uh   today's clarification memo uh speaks directly  to the concerns about the uh properties that   had the high repairs this year. They were both  properties that had been um rented to one family   and overtime. And so those were were necessary  repairs that were um that were made. Um the   question should we be in the property management  uh business I don't think is the right question   for talking about affordability and affordable  housing. Uh I think the question is is the   program still needed in the city of Panama City.  And I would dare say the answer is yes because   what contributed to the start of the program  um is also still very much a factor now. the   the need to stabilize neighborhoods. And so the  success of this program not only is offering the   um housing to individuals um and and I requested  and and received who actually are the people   uh leasing our rental units. They work for city of  Panama City. They work for Bay District Schools.   They uh are working folk who can't afford as one  gentleman said where he lives these folks can't   afford to live there but they are contributing  members of our community. Uh the United Way refers   to Alice Group asset limited income constrained  working and so that's what this program seeks to   uh to address. You said 80% of the money uh went  to Bay County when we did the housing shuffle. Um  

we can look at proportionately what how much the  county needs and how much the city needs. Uh the   county is larger. So it would make sense that that  um that that would be uh would be needed there.   I contend that we not only need to keep the  this project uh the NSP program, but actually   look at extending affordability beyond 2032 to  perpetuity. And the way we can do that is to take   these properties and put them into a community  land trust as has been done with properties in   Pensacola, Tallahassee, and many cities around  the state because it is not going to get   uh easier for workingclass folk to afford homes  when salaries are not keeping pace with expenses.   Uh I want to I want to add some that sucks. Okay.  So I want to add something. Um this position up   here is very unusual. It's very unusual in that  a lot of the feedback has to happen in the eye   of the public. That's the way the system  is set up. If this was a private business,   these conversations would be behind closed doors  and it wouldn't be the news here and and it would   just be a lot. It's it's embarrassing to people  to have us talk about their department and that's   not fun for us and but we were elected to ask  questions. No one when I knocked on doors said,   "Hey, I'm going to vote for you. Go up there and  just don't do anything that you get voted to ask   questions." And it's really hard because none of  us have worked in these departments and like I've   never put a fire out, never arrested anybody.  had never you know done their jobs before but   our job is to ask questions and uh it it creates  this friction and um so I'm asking for a little   bit of empathy for us which is we have good  intention I have these same conversations with  

my businesses every year I have 120 employees  my software companies about 60 here locally and   even within our breweries we we have the exact  same conversations of range hoods you know your   your fire suppression over your stove should we  clean those inhouse should we have a third party   clean those. Our front door mats, should we wash  them ourselves? Should we have someone else wash   them? Those are the exact same conversations  any organization has of should we do this thing   in house. It's it's a it's a method to see how  you get the best product. It's not an attempt of   not washing the front door mat. It's can you do it  better uh or more less expensive doing it in-house   or out of house. That's the conversation. It's  not an attempt to not wash the front door mat. So,   I don't think I'm not in favor of um I'm not here  not I want to support the program but in the right   hands and that may be in our hands or it may  be a third party and that's the discussion.   The discussion today I don't believe is to stop  everything and kill the whole department. That   wasn't but the purpose was to have this discussion  because we can't have this discussion amongst   ourselves outside of the public eye which makes  it very unusual because you're always going well   what does the other commissioners think about  this thing? Um, and but it creates this awkward   environment of scrutinizing a department with who  has great intentions that serves the public well,   but our job is to ask questions. So, uh, I don't  know if we're going to have a consensus. I'd like   to hear from everyone else, but I potentially this  gets pushed to a workshop where we can we can all   do more research, ask more questions. I am, you  know, even in parks in Iraq, if if a vendor came   to us and said, I can cut the grass cheaper and  better, we should be exploring that. If we had a   vendor come to us and say, "I can paint all the  park bathrooms cheap more often and cheaper," we   should be we should be having those conversations.  Our job is to have those conversations with the   department head of should we do this in-house  or should we have a third party do it. That is   our job. Um, but I think we're going to end up  pushing this to a workshop where we can have  

deeper discussions that aren't up here. One  of the awkward things even logistically with   this is we're having I'm having discussion like  this, which is just weird because it should be   like a round table where we're talking between  ourselves. Um, but I I would be in favor of   pushing this to a workshop, but I'd love to hear  other commissioners weigh in just philosophically if they want to. I guess I want to um uh yeah, I'd ra I'  I'd like to see this in a workshop as well   because I would like to to have more time  to to deep dive into it and explore. Um it   is my understanding that that this program  is uh funded by the federal government and   um unlike the city uh the federal  government gets to print money.   So if you and also usually for those of you  who've done work with the federal government,   if you don't spend everything you get, then  you won't get any more the next year or you'll   get less the next year. I don't like that. I  didn't make the rules. That's the rules. Um, so I I guess for me it's kind of I'm I'm still  trying to understand the felt need as to why   there's uh so much um effort into this one  because it's uh if the money is coming from   the federal government, it's not coming out of  the the general fund which was what all of the   taxpayers in the city contribute to. Um, and I I'm  I'm I'm not saying I'm not willing to discuss it.   I'm just saying I'm I'm I I need somebody to help  me get to a felt need. That's where I'm at. So,   that's what I'm telling y'all. Um, I think that  makes sense. That's a fair point. You know,   um I philosophically for me, you know, you go into  any organization and typically when you want to  

be really great at something, you find five or  six core things and I just five, six, four, 10,   whatever it is. But focus is really hard for any  any organization. In software, they literally call   it feature creep which is you keep adding things  to the thing and it grows so big it's hard to to   manage and there's a a ministry a focus problem.  I I guess what I'm getting at is um to to kind   of use your example and this would probably never  happen in the in the in the world but um imagine   having a cook that just showed up one day and  said, "Hey, somebody else is paying my salary.   I'm here to cook for you. Yeah. Um you would  probably never say, "Hey, can we get a better   cook or we get a different cook?" Like like you  would probably never if you didn't like that cook,   you probably just put them on some other stuff  to cook, right? And that's not a very perfect   analogy. It's really not cuz there's just not very  good analogies for this type of situation. Um but   this is a program that's being paid for uh by the  federal government. So, it's kind of like somebody   else is saying, "Hey, we're willing to pay this  entire department to do this." Uh, and it's not   coming out of out of city tax dollars. And so,  that's where I'm just kind of like I, you know, I   mean, we've got a lot of other stuff on our plate  that that that is coming out of general fund. Uh,   we've got a lot of even more discussions tonight  about things that that are going to be incredibly   impactful um to to all citizens. And and that's  not to belittle the impact that that Sheila and   her team has had on individuals. Um but I mean  we're talking 13 houses, right? 25 25 houses   um in in a in a city of roughly 40,000 people. So  that's where I'm just kind of Yeah. The felt need   piece for me is is like there's there's a lot  bigger fish that we've got to fry. This one to   me doesn't seem like why why are we why are we  diving? Why are we going down this road? That's   kind of where I'm not to say we shouldn't. I'm  just trying to understand. So, the one thing I'll  

draw attention to is unlike other funding sources,  there is no new allocations coming. And so,   this was a one-time objection. And then from  that point, that to Commissioner Lucas's point,   whether it's a land trust, whether it's those  things, that's not I think there's a thousand   different ways to do it. The core question that I  had is whether or not speaking to to May Branch's   point is this a feature in the complications of  government that we want to continue doing because   what I what my own research as I was going through  it I found things like oh well hey no one knew   that there was a period that insurance wasn't on  that so we started asking questions oh hey legal   wasn't aware that there were leases being executed  oh wait you know clerk wasn't aware there was rent   being forgiven I mean that's not to say that they  were done with bad intent it's to say that it is a   complicated process to be a property manager and  is government's job primary function that we can   do be a property manager or does it look better  for us to partner with the Panama City Housing   Authority, Habitat for Humanity, some other means  or a proper a private property management company   that would be responsible for that. That's not an  attack on the staff. It's an acknowledgment that   there are a lot of different programs we have in  this and with funding consolidating if there's any   place that we can find is this what we want the  primary to be I think that's a valid conversation   and so because it's not just this program we're  talking about six or seven other ones that exist   inside of the housing ecosystem and so I I think  that's where do you start you just start and I   think that's the reason why it started here It  wasn't because there was a specific focus on the   program as much as it was, hey, we need to start  looking at things. This is one. I knew that we   had some properties that hadn't quite gotten to  execution. I wanted to understand why. I mean,   the quadplex that's sitting right over here. I  mean, the 2021, it's come to the commission like  

multiple times. And so, I I want to understand  why so that we can provide better services to   our citizens. How we problem solve for that? open  to all sorts of different suggestions. It's not   about a specific outcome. It's more or less about  a specific hey is this something that we feel   like is a core responsibility of government  to be a property manager. I understand that   uh Commissioner Lucas you say that may not  be the right question. I get it's not the   right managing outcome um with that, but it  is a a valid question to getting to the best   the best book of services that we can provide  our citizens. And I do think there are lots of   other alternatives to property management within  the city. But I I support going to a workshop for   us to discuss it further. I think that's a great  way of handling it. But I hopefully everyone can   kind of see a little bit of like, hey, this isn't  like this isn't singuling out a staff. It's not   singular out even a department for instance. It  is more or less getting down to how can we create   a streamlined government that has a high bar for  quality of service that we provide our citizens.   Very well said there. But it still doesn't answer  the question that uh Commissioner Granger put   forth of all of the things that we could look at  in the city. What is what is it that makes this   one important for us to look at now? So for me,  I would say it's the question of affordability   and the fact that the city of Panama City has the  greatest number percentage-wise of folk who need   service like this and of the people who are Alice.  The question is how do we meet the need? The   technicalities of who manages it is is a you know  a lower level question. But at the policy level,   I think we need to be looking at the the  issue of affordability of housing in the  

city of Panama City, which is the urban core of  Bay County, and how do we best address that? So,   I I would challenge Commissioner Lucas, what  good is $2 million in cash sitting into our   accounts doing for the affordability of people  in our city? That is yet to be determined,   but it's a better problem to have than not having  any money to address the issue. And which then   you've restated, why are we sitting there with it  when we have a great affordability need? So the   policy level direction that staff needs isn't the  management level decisions that are left in the   city manager's purview, but the broad policy  of why we need to be addressing the issue to   start with. And I think that this discussion is  better held in a workshop. I do agree with that. Yes, please. Thumbs up. I've known Sheila  Wear for 30 years. You're an awesome lady.   I've done some work with you. Um, and it's  truly correct. Your your heart's in it. And I   never saw this as something going after Sheila.  I I understand now how the number I I I can get   that. For full disclosure, I'm a real estate  broker. Um, I like to buy and sell houses. Um,   I think from my conversations with people around  town, the philosophical view is should government   be in in competition with private business?  Um, there's a couple of builders here that   have expressed that they they're getting work from  this and it's kind of guaranteed where the private   business is having to generate. Um, so I think  you have to start with that that question first.   um you know, roads, fridges, fire, police, those  are definitely government uh necessities. I think   you I've learned a little bit about this now  that you've gone through the report and I do  

appreciate that. Um I think my major concern is  if we're going to There's 25 people. By the way,   I did some homework last night. This is real  rough. It's not real. They're real numbers,   but they may be off a little bit. All of the  beach and the county properties were given to   us by Bay County. Is that correct? No acquisition  cost. Correct. Okay. Um, and I'm taking the low   number and just went and looked at at I don't know  what the insides look like. And I'm count I gave   zero slab uh value to the slabs on Baloa. Um, if  you sold all those houses today on the low end,   it's a million eight. I'm sorry. If you sold  all those properties today, it's a million8   based on to the 2 million that's already in the  bank, right? Okay. And then Panama City. Now,   we we bought these and varying prices, but  I think the highest price I saw was aboutund   maybe 19,000 somewhere around there. See, I did my  homework. She uh if we sold those on the low end,   that's about a million68. Okay. For about three  $3.5 million in value. That's pretty good. If   you sell it, what do you do with it? You know,  you can't reinvest it for the same have the same   amount, but do you do something else with it?  I don't know. Um, in talking with staff, these   properties have to be owned for 15 years, right?  Is that correct? And then they can sell off. For me, if I'm if I'm trying to rent something  and somebody else, why does this person are they   special and they get to pay below market rate on  rents and I don't and I and I've got to really   work hard. I think that's I I ran into that a lot  talking to people. Why are y'all in the property   management business? Why are y'all discounting  your rents? I said, well, it's affordable program  

that's to start with. But personally,  it affects me because on affordability,   uh, I try to build smack houses in Millville and  I can't compete. Okay? So, I stopped building.   But what I could do is we got the dirt and we  can build houses like we've been talking about,   maybe $1,000 or give in uh the lot to the deal,  and that makes it affordable. I just don't know   why we need to be in the real estate development  business and the property management business.   And I'm I'm brand new at this, so I'm listening a  lot. Um, and it it it's a philosophical question   of do we need to compete? Uh, I I I'm generally  lean towards I would rather not compete against   government. They're always going to beat me. Uh,  they can, but that doesn't mean that that's right   or wrong. So, I think from a workshop perspective,  we can start with everybody loves Sheila.   This is not about you and it's not about your  department. It's about a program that and you   know I' I've been beating the drum about about the  housing. I don't want the housing department to   go away. I heard that that that the other day that  may all think in city hall that I want to shut the   housing department down. I don't. Um I want it to  run efficiently and know that we're helping more   than this person and that person. Why are those  people special? Well, council said yesterday said,   "Well, they're the ones that apply to get there  the fastest." Uh, and that's okay. I would like   some more information on the county, how they're  able to move the money faster than we are and put   more out in because you you had costs go up of of  real estate while we were we still had money and   now those kind of became unaffordable. Okay. So,  uh there's a lot there, but from my perspective,   it's should we compete or not? And are these  properties worth holding on to? And is there  

I've asked staff, did we find out if we sell  these, is there a penalty? Do we know early? We   have not got confirmation back from Department of  Commerce or HUD yet. Okay. And I'm not suggesting   that we sell. I'm just I wanted everybody to  get an idea. It's not an appraisal. It's not   I'm not going to testify in court over it,  but it is here's a here's a number that uh   we could hold on to right now. But but thank you  for bringing this up and and Commissioner Lucas,   I I appreciate your support in this, and I want  to work with you to try to find a a path to better   efficiency and and a program that's a little bit  easier to work in. So, as we frame the workshop,   to your point about the market and competition,  you I think just said it. You tried to build spec   homes for affordability and it wasn't affordable  for you to do it in the uh in your in your   business. The median sales home is over $300,000.  329 to be exact. I knew you'd know that. 98,14K. Uh that's the income required for that home over  $300,000. the median income in the city of Panama   City is way less than that. That's to me the crux  of the matter. And so if we're going to talk about   it, let's talk about what the need is and how  best to address that. Um, and I also want to   just give a shout out to the housing department.  They have four staff and they are not only running   this program with the $2 million reserve, they're  running the other programs as well. programs that   were vetted uh after the fiasco and have had the  audit. And so the question I guess fundamentally   is does the city government have a responsibility  to addressing the hardships that many of the  

residents have because they are caught in the wage  gap through no fault of their own. So, do you need   a motion or anything to to go to a workshop or  just just schedule it? I I don't think so. We   can coordinate one. I'm already been checking  with Mr. Self. I think I agree that around a   table would be best. And so, kind of getting an  update on when room 10 will be done at city hall.   We're hoping in the next three or four weeks,  so maybe towards the latter part of October,   we can schedule um a workshop. A real live in a  real live in person. Yes, ma'am. Sounds good. all   facing each other. So awesome. Thank you so much  for everyone for coming to the department. These   are tough conversations and uh motions are high,  but we're going to move to a fivem minute recess. All right, let's get started. All right, we're now  into section 11. the city attorney, but I'm going   to introduce the the one item. So 11A was actually  tabled to the October 28th uh 2025 uh commission   meeting. And then at our last workshop uh the  commission requested an update uh on the sale of   properties in St. Andrews uh at 1309 Chestnut uh  and that's one lot and then also two other lots uh   one at 1300 Beck Avenue and the other one at 1306  Beck Avenue. Just a quick background before I turn   it over to uh attorney uh Nevin Zimmerman. Um this  was approved for me to sell this just to get us a   little bit of background on o in October of 2024.  Uh March 5th, the first auction went out. Uh that   was all three parcels together. Uh the auctioneer  at the time did recommend that we split them up,   but staff we discussed and decided to leave  them together. Uh and none of that offer uh  

none of the offers came back at meeting reserve.  So, we then split them up um and went back out to   auction on June 4th and split them up into three  different uh parcels uh and sold them out. The one   uh actually during the time that it was out,  we received an offer of $28,000. That's the   one at 1309 chestnut and we brought that to the  commission. Y'all did authorize us to go ahead and   sell that and that was above the approximate value  that the auctioneer estimated it at. Uh and then   uh we did get uh the same person made an offer  on the two parcels on Beck, the 1300 and the   1306. Uh, and I did allude to this at the virtual  workshop, but I just kind of want to um, you know,   just kind of recap for the folks in the room  here and and as a reminder that, you know,   the the expectation uh, was that these properties  cuz there had been a prior effort to do some type   of P3 to generate some retail or some commerce  uh, at this very valuable piece of property at   13th in Beck. Um, and so when we went out to sell  these, I think, you know, it's safe to assume at   the time both staff and the elected officials,  uh, when we discussed it, our expectation was that   someone would purchase that for the purpose of  retail. Well, uh, when they went out for auction,   um, I can tell you that, uh, really both the  first time and the second time, especially, uh,   Commissioner Street because this is in his ward,  and myself received a lot of of concern from the   community in St. Andrews that the city not sell  these properties just for them to sit there empty.   And and we got that overwhelming response. Um and  so also during that time um it became known to us   that the folks that wanted to purchase them had an  intention to make them parking lots and they asked   us is that okay? And you know we kind of talked  through the you know the ulc and being on Beck   and being in the gateway overlay like kind of what  that would require and the answer was yes. It was  

um it was okay. However, uh the expectation of  the city would be uh that you do that um you   know within 3 years uh and that it actually be a a  designed and paved and landscaped parking lot and   not just mowed grass with gravel because if that's  all that was going to happen, I might as well keep   it and the city can do that ourselves. Uh and  so uh during that time I did confer with Mr.   Zimmerman and we did um you know want to put that  forward as kind of a requirement. Uh and we did   you know just brief the commission uh on that. Uh  and then we it's also something that we've talked   about with other properties again just kind of  putting this you know this requirement and because   there are a number of parcels around the city  probably a little bit more in the downtown area   uh where you know properties are purchased and  sat on for a long time. So that was a a very in   my opinion very serious concern uh by uh by the  folks uh in again in the St. Andrews area. And so   um again there was no requirement u that they  that they purchase uh purchase that with these   requirements. I will state that uh the one  property owner that um was the successful   purchaser of 1309 Chestnut uh they immediately  agreed to that. That was their desire again all   along was to do a parking lot and a and a nice one  at that. And so we are all set to close on October   3rd on that piece of property. Uh the other  two um 1300 and 13 Obeck uh still um ongoing   uh negotiations and and discussions and I'll turn  it over to Mr. Zimmerman at this time. Okay. The   report is that we do have a contract, the city  does on 1309 Chestnut, two contracts, purchase   contract, and then op an option uh to repurchase  if the improvements aren't made as promised   uh within 3 years. And that's not an obligation  to repurchase, but it's an option to repurchase  

at the same price. uh this the second uh two cont  the second two parcels 1300 and 1306 Back Avenue.   We do not have a contract at this time. There  hasn't been a meeting of the minds between the   buyer and and the seller for us to to to give  you a report until just now. Um but Mr. Gregs,   I talked to him on the phone today. he would  like to have a meeting with staff again to fully,   you know, make sure uh what the make sure that  we understand his issues and then we and make   sure he understands our issues. But you can  see from the correspondence, his attorney,   uh Mr. Harrison, uh Franklin Harrison, we  went back and forth with far as a definition   of improvement, the definition of a parking lot,  um things like that. So there's not a meeting of   the minds. I think this is a meeting that we could  have before our next city commission meeting and   bring back a report uh hopefully uh the first  meeting in in October as far as whether or not   this you know needs to be rebid or whether or not  uh you'd like to accept other officer offers or   whether Mr. Clubs in and the city staff at least  come to an understanding of what the process is.   So that's that's the report. So I would recommend  that we have the meeting that Mr. Clubs requested   this afternoon and then we can give you a better  report as far as where where we are. Thank you.   Any questions? Um so in reading his uh email and  says that that it was difficult because after the   fact when adding changes um here you got to do  this or he can't do that I guess a once the offer  

was made is that what's his frustration he's  saying up here his frustration is that he it's   it's kind of confusing is what the terms are have  we set the terms before or during the negotiation   or asking for that because that's what he's  alluding to. He's frustrated. I don't I don't know   exactly why. I mean, and that's not a criticism  of Mr. Clubs at all. U so I'd like to know and I'd   like to make sure that we understand uh what that  is. He has he had a different purpose in mind,   not for parking, and he doesn't know if he needs  to use it for the purpose that he had in mind when   he uh made an offer to buy it. uh he's a little  concerned that maybe 600,000 was too much money   for it. I because it may not he may not need  it for the purpose that he had in mind. Uh   so I think all those things uh need to be talked  about. I think um there's no there's no question   that there was a a discussion about purchase price  and then that was immediately there was discussion   about well what are you going to do? you know,  we we really need the city needs to sell this   property to somebody that will do something and  then well, is doing a gravel parking lot really   what the city wants. So, that's yes, there have  been discussions all about that and he may not   even need it for parking now. So, that's all those  things need, you know, warrant further discussion.   and I appreciate you bringing it to a head as  far as, you know, let's figure out where we   are. And as I told Mr. Clubs and his lawyer, he's  under no obligation to buy. You know, there never   has been a meeting of the minds on this thing.  So, uh, he could, uh, choose not to buy and then   we could go to another, you know, alternative,  but I don't think the city's under obligation  

to sell either from what I contract. Didn't the  city buy that for a parking lot originally? Was   it built for parking? It was talked about. I  don't I mean there's Okay. It was talked about   that that would be a good parcel for parking, but  I would just request that next time we let Mr.   uh Hayes choose the real estate company. We  stay inside Bay County. Uh we gave that to   somebody else and we had to go all the way to Mon,  Georgia to find somebody. We got 185 of them here.   But I I I don't like auctioning because it it  keeps a lot of the people that would necessarily   might want um play ball, it keeps them out because  of the upfront cost and and and requirement. But   um and as you saw when you split them apart, too,  it was easier to sell. So good job on getting on   getting the issue done back there. He needs the  parking. Yeah. And you know I I the um I know   that both of them reached out to the city both to  myself and I believe the commissioner street at   least um you know Ishmael did just to confirm that  we were good you know they wanted to kind of talk   about the parking lot before they kind of put in  their final offer. So they knew in advance and and   I spoke to Mr. Clubs as well. Right on. So, and  again, I did just was, you know, it was I have   a responsibility to look over a responsibility  to look out for the city's best interest and,   you know, just a a gravel parking lot. You  know, it I would have come back. First off,   we don't really allow those to to some degree.  There's restrictions inside the gateway overlay.   Um, and you know, I just knew that, you know,  that the expectation was that we wanted to see   those improved and they're already kind of grass  parking lots right now. And so uh but that was you   know that was long before any kind of final offer  and and as Mr. Zimmer said there's no they're not   under any obligation to purchase it nor are we to  sell it. So very good. Thank you. Thank you. 12A.

All right. I think we're good with that.  So we'll bring that back uh report on the   uh 14th of October. All right. Item number 12A  is consideration to award uh to approve rather   the and award the bid and the execution of the  contract for bid PC25-038 SRF project uh the Baker   Court utility and roadway improvements  to ECSC LLC in the amount of 2,964,712 which includes additive alternates A and C and  approving up to 3,112,2 $274.68 which includes a   5% contingency. As background information, the  Baker Court project is located in an area of   aged infrastructure with urgent repair need. This  area is located on Baker Court east of Frankfurt   Avenue. On August 21st, 2025, sealed bids were  received at the city of Panama City and open for   the above reference project. Bids were open in the  presence of biders representatives, city staff,   and SRF lead engineers. We received a total of  nine bids for the project as shown on the detailed   certified bid tabulation and ECS LLC submitted the  lowest responsive bid in the amount of 2,964,712. The city is planning on using advanced payment  for these tasks and thus invoices will pres be   will be presented to SRF for payment and advance  of payment to the contractor. Staff recommendation   to the director of public works is that the  commission approve this item. Mr. Mayor. Yes.   Wait, this is not public discussion though.  No, but no public discussion. Need a motion   and a vote. A motion to vote. Okay. Do I have a  motion? Mr. Kthers, do you want to do the honors?   Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion? Long  time coming. Yeah. Any discussion? Call the RO.   Commissioner Street? Yes. Commissioner Hughes?  Yes. Commissioner Lucas? Yes. Commissioner  

Granger? Yes. Mayor Branch? Yes. Motion passes  5-0. And I'll just note as one item that came   out of the um Saturday morning town halls was some  issues with the Calhoun Park. And so we're going   to kind of look at maybe doing like a a piggyback  off of this to look at paving of parking right   there. Uh I know the community in the neighborhood  will appreciate that. Item 12B is consideration   to approve and execute the renewal proposal from  Preferred Government Insurance Trust or Pigot in   the amount of 3,340,000500 sorry $340,551 for the  city's fiscal year 2026 insurance coverages. As   background information, on September 9th, 2025,  Pidgeot quoted the city $3,340,551 for its FY26   insurance coverages, including workman's  comp, property, general liability, auto,   inland marine, law enforcement liability, public  officials liability, employee practices liability,   and cyber liability. This renewal quote is  about an 8% increase from the previous year,   but it is still over $300,000 less than the 2024  quote from our previous carrier, FIMET. This quote   is within the proposed FY 2026 budget projections.  Staff recommendation through the director of   logistics is that the city commission approve this  request. Mr. Mayor, do I have a motion to accept?   Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion?  Uh, yes. This is um preferred governmental   insurance trust. That's for insurance that's  on city buildings. Correct. Yes. Yes. Yeah. All   all of those things that I that I listed property  alcohol. So there are some cities in the state of   Florida that just don't even have insurance. Don't  even bother with it. Right. I would take your word   at that. I would imagine if they're smaller.  Yes. Well, some of the larger ones don't have   it. They marinas didn't have insurance. Yeah.  They they literally have enough money reserves.  

selfinsure. They selfinsure. They have plenty of  reserves. I understand we are not in a position   right now to self-insure, but I do think that um  that is something that maybe we could aim for in   the future is self-insuring if we can build our  reserves up. Okay. Any other discussion? Call   the RO. Commissioner Street? Yes. Commissioner  Hughes? Yes. Commissioner Lucas? Yes. Commissioner   Granger, yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes  5-0. All right. Item 12 C is consideration to   review and approve a contract agreement with  Redspeed Florida LLC for the implementation of   a school zone speed detection system in 11 school  zones identified as having heightened safety risks   within the city of Panama City. The agreement will  provide an additional enforcement tool to improve   safety for children and families in these areas.  As background information, the proposed contract   with Redspeed Florida LLC provides a turnkey  school zone speed photo enforcement or SPE   system for designated school zones. Redspeed  will install and maintain at least one speed   warning sign with a flashing yellow beacon at  each monitored approach. The ticketing system   will operate 30 minutes before school, during  the school day, and 30 minutes after school,   while the ALPR component will operate 24 hours  a day. That's the license plate reader without   speed enforcement outside of those times. All viol  all violations will be reviewed and verified by a   qualified Panama City Department law enforcement  officer before any citation is issued. The initial   term is 3 years with the city able to terminate  the contract with 30 days notice. If terminated,   Redspeed will remove all equipment at no cost or  penalty to the city. This effort is authorized   under state house bill 657 and supports safer  conditions for students and the community. Um I'll  

just add um that there was a couple of cities that  were flagged in counties um uh by uh one of the   commissioners and so we did ask uh the gentleman  uh and I will state that he's here tonight,   Mr. Greg Parks, who is the senior vice president  of Redspeed USA willing and able to answer any   questions, Mr. Mayor by you and the commissioners.  But there was an issue in Palm Bay uh and and they   acknowledged specifically with Red Speed uh that  there was an isolated error where an engineer   inadvertently coded a site with the incorrect  jurisdiction uh punching in Miami Date County   rather than Palm Bay, which is not far away after  performing routine maintenance. This resulted in a   small number of citations being sent to the Miami  Date Sheriff's Office for review and approval.   Once approved, those citations were mailed to  the registered vehicle owners. As soon as the   error was discovered, uh, Redspeed took immediate  corrective action. All impacted citations were   promptly dismissed. Um, and although the motors  were indeed speeding in Palm Bay, they were not   held accountable due to this technical mistake.  It's important that uh, no citizen was harmed as   a result of the issue. And the city of Palm  Bay then elected to terminate the agreement   for convenience, not for cause. Redspeed has  processed over 500,000 citations across the state   of Florida, more than all the other u similar  vendors combined and mistakes will occasionally   occur. Uh they remain committed to transparency  and accountab accountability. They acknowledge   the issue, took the ownership and resolved it.  Additionally, they have implemented new controls   and failafees in their system to ensure that this  type of error geographically cannot happen again.   The other example was in Manatee County, also  in Florida. Uh shortly after implementation,   Manatee County underwent significant change  in leadership. All the commissioners who had   originally approved the contract were replaced  with the exception of the lone dissenting vote   who then served as chair. The county opted to  ter uh terminate the agreement for convenience  

uh not for cause. Uh these two instances Redspeed  acknowledges occurred early in their expansion   into the state of Florida and some implementation  and installation issues and mistakes did arise due   to the compressed timeline. Since then, they've  hired additional staff, refined their processes,   and add significantly improved operational  processes and performance. So, uh, they continue   to support a growing list of approximately 100  satisfied local government partners who are   successfully using their solution to dramatically  reduce school zone speeding at no cost to the   taxpayers. Examples of ongoing relationships in  the state of Florida today are Hillsboro County,   Miami Dade County, Sarasota, Cape Coral,  Fort Walton Beach, Gwinnet County, Georgia,   and many more. Uh staff recommendation, Mr. Mayor,  commissioners, to the chief of police, is that   the commission approve this recommendation.  Mr. Mayor, yes. Have a motion to approve. Sorry. Motion to approve. Have a second. I  mean, I think everything was addressed that   we asked for in 30 days. Yeah, I I stated that.  Yeah. All the and I should have I should have   extended that. I apologize. Yeah. The specific  requests that were made at the commission, uh,   the red speed met all that in the contract.  Yeah. Yes. Now we can discuss. Okay. There   was a second. Yes. Okay. Go ahead. I was  going to ask Mr. Far. Yeah, it's a good idea. Uh good evening, mayor, commissioners. Uh Greg  Parks, Red Speed, uh 13,000 Laurel Hill Drive,   Tallahassee. Pleasure to be here also.  Thank you for having us. Um so my in theory,   I like the idea if we're protecting kids,  start before school, after school. It's   the middle of school that gets me. Um  because then it becomes about money,  

not about safety in my opinion. In Panama  City, I was looking at it. There's probably   four schools maybe that during that time um  traffic is going to be at a VHA, Jinx, Fall,   those those corridors are going to have faster  cars. But I look at like Cherry Street in in the   code. They're going to they're going to try  they're going to u mark Cherry Street, but   all the loading and unloading is on Harris Avenue  and it's a closed road. You can't drive that. So,   I'm like, well, why are we going to open that  up? And they're not nobody's coming out. Nobody's   going to lunch out of the elementary schools. And  so, I asked is can we shut it down during the day? And I didn't ask the right question. Listen, can  can we um can you get data for us for 30 days like   real data in install it and show us where all the  biggest problems are? Or can we pick the schools   that we want to leave on all day? Like elementary  schools, I don't think they need to be there. Is   there a way to show us the data, real life, real  data that we need that at this certain school? Uh   yes, it's a great question, Commissioner. Uh first  of all, the language of the law is permissive.   It doesn't require certain hours. Those are the  maximum hours that that are in the law. Virtually   all our customers do operate during the full  period for reasons of their own choosing of their   their boards. But yes, we absolutely can deliver  real hard data. We're very data driven. You can't   measure things. You can't make them better. Uh  you can't report back to the people we work for,   which is you all. So, we'd be happy during the  30-day warning period to gather all that data.   It would certainly make sense I believe from  all perspectives to enforce all day during the   warning period uh to gather the data and put  the word out and bring back data for you to   make a decision on whether it's one school, two  schools, four schools, 11 schools. Yes is the  

direct answer. I like the idea of a slow roll  out. Um I I'd love that report to include to   um not just speeders but the various speeds.  That's one thing out of Pensacola does which is   showing like hey here's the top 10 worst speeders  that we have and people are just blown away like   what 85 in the school zone you know that that's  a great idea our customer Sarasota does that   routinely with our support on their uh social  media aspects because you'll hear everyone go   like I was just barely speeding and I was going to  a doctor's appointment that's a great we love that   idea and it does surprise people shock is a better  word and something that wasn't hit on a lot but I   think it's important as part of this effort do at  all our expense. We'll work with the department's   PIO. We'll do custom PSAs here, interviewing  principles, parents, children, posters at the   school, banners, flyers home with the children.  It won't be surprised to anybody. And with this   current agreement, we're able to be flexible with  saying like, okay, let's only do it during uh was   it during the reduced times of the school zones  and then we could later expand it if we wanted to,   right? Are we able to do that in this agreement?  Yes, sir. Okay. and and if one school needs it   in this in a ward but the other one two two two  blocks over whatever doesn't he's you're saying   that we could pick that pull that one out for all  that yeah yeah as I mentioned yes it's good good   question I might not have answered as well as I  should have it's permissive that yeah if you have   I believe you're looking at 11 schools this what  the police department and staff had recommended   uh there's nothing to say you couldn't do seven  four etc yes again is the direct I think half   are in my ward, so I'm going to be getting  Well, great. And I don't think they want to   have cameras and maintain cameras in places  where no one's speedy either. It's like what   infrastructure is actually there? I mean, um it's  um one pole on each end. They're they're I don't   believe invasive. Uh it's a 15t pole. It has a  cabinet on it. Can a speed detection device and  

a video camera. Okay. And a sign says and a sign  is mandated by law 500t ahead. 500 ft out photo   enforcement ahead. And will they all be flashing  lights with the Yeah, that that is typically not   something that's part of our standard offering,  but I did listen or I had someone listen for me   uh to your previous meeting and we took note of  the debate and your all's requirements. We did   incorporate everything that was mentioned uh Greg.  Yes. It's only on people that are speeding over   9 miles over. Is that 11 over? 11 over 11 over.  So So I think the the real question is like So I   guess you can I mean I'm sure there's nobody here  that goes the 5 miles over on the interstate. So   that's not it doesn't affect any of that. It's  only people legitimately speeding well above   what you're right. 11 over I think almost all  reasonable people would would concur as a serious   problem or a very liberal threshold. Yeah. Well,  you just get started 11. You're getting good.   Yeah. And I I just want to clarify though. So the  there's already been studies done and that's why   these 11 schools are are flagged. Just for the  record, there's already been identified as severe   speeding issues. I I don't know what the time I  believe it was a three-day study. Yeah. And the   reason for that was Excuse me. I No, you're fine.  Um part of the I'm sorry. Give me two weeks if   we don't want to do 30 days. I'm just trying  to understand more than a Monday, Wednesday,   Friday. I think we're going to get 30 days. No,  we're happy to do 30 days cuz a 30-day warning   period is required out of best practice. So, we  could kill two birds with one stone or accomplish   two goals during that period. Well, we certainly  appreciate you listening to the concerns from the   last meeting and adjusting the contract. I don't  think this is the standard contract that they give   everybody. No, it's it's very favorable to you  all, but we want to work with you. Yeah, I appre   we appreciate that. Thank you. Great. I was going  to ask would we want to do something subject to  

an approval after 30 days and and execute it so he  doesn't have to come back or and if we say no it's   like it's dead anyway. We can cancel anytime. Well  I believe we're not even looking to doing this   until I think what January 1, right? That's about  the time it will take to go through the permitting   and power acquisition. Okay. Yes. But it has a  30-day termination. Right. Right. So yeah, I read   through that. I was just saying so we didn't have  to worry about getting that signed. Well, just for   just for clarification, we would need an executed  contract to go through the process, but you have   the termination provision. So, it's Yeah. Uh thank  you for accommodating u some of our wishes. Yes,   sir. Or all of our wishes actually. Yes, sir.  So, I have a few questions if I may, please. Um,   so how often is the equipment, um, uh, oh my gosh,  calibrated is probably the word I believe you're   looking for. Yes, I'm sure you've been asked that  before. Yeah, it's a it's a good question. Um,   state law requires annual calibration by an  independent third party, which we pay for. Then   it requires a monthly test, which we exceed, and  we do that daily. So daily test which exceeds the   state law and then an independent third party lab  comes in and independently calibrates it annually.   The daily test is that a remote one or is there  actually somebody out there? It's automated.   Okay. And if it fails it'll shut down within the  system. Okay. And that's all documented as part of   the evidence package. What what I was getting  at with that one is is that there are people   who will drive 5 miles an hour over the speed  limit on the interstate and then get a ticket,   but they get to go to court and say like I there  was no way I was driving 80 m hour or whatever,   right? Because then they the police officer then  has to show that they calibrated the equipment   properly. And if they didn't, then they lose the  case, right? Um so in in all of the discussion   up here, y'all have just kind of assumed that the  equipment would work properly every single time,  

right? And so my point is is that you're going to  get folks who are going to come to you and say,   "I was not speeding." And you're going to go,  "Well, I don't know. Maybe you were." You know,   it says you were going 12 miles over. And then  they're going to say, "Well, I wasn't even   driving that day. Like I wasn't didn't even leave  my house." And um there have been some instances   in the past with not just Red Speed, with other  vendors that have had this issue. Um and that's   the conversation that I don't want to have to have  with citizens. What happens in that situation?   Uh there were a couple different things there I  think I'll try and unpack from there that u it is   calibrated and all that evidence is is presented  for your local hearing or county court however the   alleged violator chooses to request adjudication.  There is also a video of the alleged violation. So   the car will be on video going through there and  then I think the third question was if they're not   driving is that the third question sure that's  specifically addressed in the law. This is   vicarious liability. It's a non-moving violation.  and there's no points or insurance similar to a   parking ticket in a handicap spot toll violation  in Florida. But to accommodate that, the law,   which I worked on, I mentioned I have a house  in Tallahassee that um you can't fill out an   affidavit and say I was not driving and and  say who was driving. You are responsible for   your vehicle, but nobody was driving. What if that  vehicle did not leave the garage that day? Well,   it would be hard to be in the video. Yeah. And  and that has happened in the past. That's what   I'm saying. There have been tickets that have been  issued to people who were not driving at all who   did not have a vehicle outside of their house at  all that day. And and I and I certainly don't want   to contradict you or argue argue with you that it  happened in Miami Dade. Um it also happened where   uh you had mentioned some I forget which one  of y'all said it that um that there was some   tickets that went to the sheriff's department that  they approved. Right. And all the all those were   actually violations. It's just the people in Palm  Bay were fortunate that it was routed to the wrong   department for review and approval. But they  were speeding and they were driving. Okay. But  

I mean what's what's wild is when I look this up  on just Facebook groups for from those areas and   uh it's pretty easy to find people who  are adamantly against this kind of kind of   thing. I love the technology by the way. I just  don't necessarily like the implementation. No,   I respect your opinion. Um I I do believe a lot  of people don't want to be held accountable is   part of the issue for that. But absolutely  respect everything you're saying and I will   say the rounding errors that they are occurring.  But that's the that's the tough part about this,   right? Is it's that um as soon as somebody  gets a ticket then it's kind of like well   you probably shouldn't have been speeding is  the automatic thought process, right? It's the   automatic thing. We shouldn't have been speeding,  right? Until it happens to you and you're like I   wasn't even there. Like I didn't even drive that  way. Like there's a process for disputing water   bills. How is this process different than driving  to Orlando and going through these automated toll   booths? You voluntarily go through the toll  booths. You voluntarily drive through. Uh,   and I would say these are good questions. I  don't take any of these as flippant questions   that there's not really a safety risk for going  through a toll, but there is quite a safety risk   for 111 over in a school zone. Yeah. But I mean,  as far as issuing a ticket and then disputing it,   is there like a how is that process? There's very  well thoughtout adjudication methods. The alleged   violator will have two choices. You can request  a local hearing uh which a magistrate will be   appointed go through a process that's self-unding  or they can if they choose to go to county court   as with anything you certainly have your right to  adjudication. I mentioned we're very data driven.   We've had we've operated under nearly identical  in Georgia for over seven years now and about   a year plus now here again with over 500,000 Nvy  issues. We're seeing about 1% request adjudication   and about half of those don't show up. And you can  argue there's various merits for that, but I would   argue that it is because of video evidence and  people are kind of embarrassed to speed the school   zone. Not that there aren't mistakes, but those  that's the data. So, how much out of the $100  

ticket does Redspeed Florida LLC take? 21. $21.  $21 out of the $100 ticket. Okay. So, who owns   Redspeed Florida LLC? They were privately held.  And who owns them? It's a variety of individuals,   but private. Well, the research that I've  done shows that it's own owned by Red Speed   International. That's not correct. Okay. Well,  we can take a look at filings, but my point is is   that I don't know what your point is. Don't look  at me like I know your point. Well, you're looking   at me. I'm waiting for your point. So my point  is is Redspeed International is owned and it it's   it's headquartered in the United Kingdom. We're  not affiliated with Red Speed International. At   one point, maybe a decade ago, we were, but we're  not. Yes. I I guess my point is is that if y'all   are willing to give $21 out of every $100 ticket  to a company, you probably should know where that   money is going to go. That's all my point is. And  you had brought up something, Commissioner Hughes,   you brought up something earlier tonight about  keeping money local. So, I would just kind of   point that out. If you don't know where the  money's going, then you probably need to find   out. We could start a process where we vet every  pump and and paint manufacturer. And that's not an   ongoing program. Asphalt, the zipper. Who do we  buy the zipper from? Do they have international   ties? That was a per that was a purchase, not a  not an ongoing program that funnels money outside   of the city. See how it's different? Because it's  a singular purchase versus an ongoing program.   that that's how it's different. I don't I don't  get it. Okay. Any other questions? If I may just   clarity because I think Commissioner Granger did  ask one clear point. I want to make sure that you   kind of clarify. So, let's say so my wife, you  know, I'm going to use my wife as an example,   not me. Okay. So, she drives uh a Toyota Sienna  van and it's light blue and there's a five in  

the license plate number. And let's say she is or  is not, but maybe someone with a similar license   plate is speeding and it, you know, it picks up  a f, you know, an S instead of a five. And so,   we get a ticket at our house and she's like, "Wait  a minute, we were out of town that day." Well,   there's going to be a video or a picture, right?  and the likelihood of, you know, another similar   color blue make and model with a nearly identical  license plate is probably very low. So, we'll be   able to say, "No, here's our vehicle. Here's our  registration." And I would think that that ticket   would would be dismissed. Correct. Absolutely  would. And a couple of other things. And again,   not that mistakes can't happen. Nobody's perfect.  But there are three three verification processes   before a notice of violation is mailed. two  humans at red speed will verify it and then   a a Panama City police officer will review  it. So all those people would have to miss   that that it was a five instead of a B or not  a Sienna or whatever. So there's a lot of fail   safes and processes in place. So you're saying  they would actually look at the registration and   see that that doesn't line up like the license  plate they took a picture of is a you know is is   maybe a gray you know Jeep that Mr. Jones drives  and not necessarily the Sienna that Miss Hayes   drives. That is part of the verification process.  Yes. Any other questions? Please call the RO.   Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner Hughes.  What am I voting on the contract? Yes. Subject   to the approve approve a contract agreement. 30  days is But that's not the motion. The motion   is to approve the contract. But if we do that,  there's no 30 days in that vote, right? Well,   we're going to bring back data after the first  30 days. We can cancel through that. Yeah,   that's fair. Uh, yes. Yeah. Commissioner Lucas,  yes. Commissioner Granger, no. Mayor Branch,  

yes. Motion passes 4 to one. Uh, thank you. Thank  you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sparks. All right.   Item 12D is consideration to approve the special  event permit for Blood on the Bay event on October   31st, 2025 from 12 noon to 1:00 a.m. uh the next  morning along uh Bayiew Avenue, specifically at   1118 Bay View Avenue, sponsored by the dive. This  will require road closure on Bayiew Avenue from   11th Court on the South side uh to 11th Street.  as background information for the commission's   consideration and closes the application for the  blood on the bay dive scheduled to take place on   Friday, October 31st from 12 uh p.m. or 12 noon to  1:00 a.m. at 1118 Bay View Avenue. See exhibit A   uh for the application in the site map that's also  on the screen. The event will include a Halloween   party featuring a costume contest and live music  continuing until 1:00 a.m. The total special   event fees amounted to $395, which includes  a $250 security deposit, $25 application fee,   and $120 for use of the electric panels. Per the  police use recommendation, police services will be   required with two officers assigned to work two  7-hour shifts for a total of four officers. The   cost of these services to the event organizer will  be $1,32. staff recommendation through the chief   of police and the city manager's office of the  commission approved this. I did just say I wanted   to I did put this under the city manager rather  than under um consent just so y'all could make   sure uh what you were uh what we were voting on uh  with the road closure. I did confirm that it is a   a DJ. Uh it is not going to be the loud uh thrash  metal that has sometimes caused some frustration   by the neighbors. And I did uh check with some  of the neighbors uh in and around the stretch and   uh they have no uh objection to this event. But  it is uh a much longer event um all day long.   Uh I just wanted to make sure that the commission  had full visibility into it and also just to give   myself and commissioner street the opportunity  to hear from folks that might have concerns with  

it in the downtown St. Andrews entertainment  district. Mr. Mayor. Yes. Do I have a motion to   accept? Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion?  Thank you for the extra diligence. Yes. Yes. Thank   you. Call the And that high quality map, too.  Yeah. Commissioner Street? Yes. Commissioner   Hughes? Yes. Commissioner Lucas? Yes. Commissioner  Granger? Yes. Mayor Branch? Yes. Motion passes   5-0. All right. Item 12E is discussion of FEMA  disaster recovery funding options, considerations,   and long-term debt implications. Uh, as background  information, approximately one year ago,   the city submitted an errors and emissions for  FEMA project worksheet or PW2202 related to the   Panama City or the downtown marina infrastructure  project. This included revised cost estimates   and a request to increase the project's obligated  funding. Recently, FEMA approved the revised cost   estimate and and obligated an additional $8.9  million for this project, including the total   obligate, sorry, increasing the total obligation  rather, from 13.5 million to 22.46 million, just   under our original request of 25.5 million. The  significant increase has created an opportunity   for the city commission to strategically  realign funding to support key priorities,   including the Martin Theater rebuild project  and potential funding projects on the downtown   marina. The prior commission approved our current  funding path using funds from four nonsection 428   FEMA projects to help fund the approximately $32  million Martin Theater reconstruction project.   With the additional obligated funds, the city now  has over $40 million allocated to this project,   which likely results in approximately $5 million  for use on the downtown Panama City Marina or   elsewhere in the city with certain stipulations.  for discussion. There are three funding options   to consider. Or the city can continue with the  current path also provided. At the August 26, 2025  

commission meeting, the integrity group presented  an in-depth analysis on three funding options   which will maximize the use of the increased FEMA  funds while minimizing the amount of money that we   return to FEMA. And the commission voted to bring  this item back to this meeting today. And closed   with this agenda item is a copy of those options  again which was further discussed at the virtual   workshop on September 15, 2025. Uh city staff  this evening recommends that the city commission   uh selects one of the three options that best  aligns with the commission's long-term vision with   regards to the Martin uh project and the downtown  Panama City Marina. And I'll just point out,   Mr. Mayor, commissioners that uh Miss Olivia  Schmidt is here again from the Integity Group   uh willing and able to answer any questions uh if  you so have. Mr. Mayor, all yours. Uh mayor, could   I interrupt just a second? Since I have Thank you.  I have a housekeeping matter. Uh we have a rule   of procedure that predates when the mayor was here  and also when Commissioner Hughes that after 7:00,   uh we are to have a motion to continue the  meeting uh for another hour or so. And I think   uh it's almost past 7:00 and uh it is past 7. Do  I have a motion to uh give us that till 8:30? I   motion we get rid of the rule. Can we do that?  What if we want? Absolutely. Motion we get rid   of the rule. You have a second. I think  Don't we have to extend the meeting first   and then get rid of the meeting? That would  be great. I motion we'll extend the meeting.   Thank you. I'll second that. All right.  Uh call the role on. Commissioner Street.   Yes. Commissioner Hughes. Yes. Commissioner  Lucas, how far are we extending this meeting? Okay. Yes. Commissioner Granger, yes. Mayor  Branch, yes. Motion passes 5-0. I motion we  

get rid of the rule. Second. Uh, any discussion  on getting rid of the rule? I'd like to get rid of   the rule. I see that point. Call the role, please.  Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner Hughes,   yes. Commissioner Lucas, yes. Commissioner  Granger, yes. Mayor Branch. Yes. Motion passes   5-0. Thank you. 4:30 Parliamentarian. We couldn't  we couldn't start this meeting until 501 due to   We will revise the rules and procedures with  that current vote and circulate that by the end   of the week. Thank you. All right. So, now we're  discussing the FEMA options and are we hoping to   build towards an option a motion towards one  of the options? What we're trying I'll make   a motion we accept option number two. That way  we can discuss and apply the $5 million towards   uh the downtown arena. I second that. Second. Any  discussion? No discussion. Y'all got to ask Olivia   something. She drove. Let's give you I'll give you  a couple questions. Name and address. Back in. I   tell you what, you gave us so much information  last time. Yeah. So that means let's keep it   short. That's right. That's I'm I'm knowledge.  She was great. Yeah. So, uh name and address   for the record. Thank you. Uh oh, Olivia Schmidt,  uh 4021 Stefani Road, Pensacola, Florida, 32533.   Thank you. Uh I have a question. So, the only  option we have to keep money on the marina without   shuttering the Martin is option two. Yes. Op  option one and option two are very much similar.   So, yeah. But yes, option two gives us the least  amount to have to give back if we were to Yeah,   they're very similar. One was just written with  the idea that you um would do something other   than a marina project and then option two was just  focused on the marina. And so again, we've gone   over the HMP thing and not to muddy the waters  anymore, hopefully get out of here in less than  

an hour. Um but um the HMP is added on option two.  So it gives you the $117,000 added in depending on   what you decide to do and whether or not those uh  scopes of work are compatible. Um cuz if you don't   do something that's compatible with the original  HMP scope, then you would lose the 77,000 anyway.   If you did something that uh is involved with the  scope but expand it to your new project, it could   end up costing you $500,000 to do the additional  scope and it wouldn't be worth the $17,000. So can   do do we have to identify how where we want to put  that 5 million like infrastructure and payment and   all or do we okay? So this is yeah this is the  first step. the next step. I mean, obviously we   would know what um 2221 and 2202 would be going  through the Martin Martin theater. Um and so we   have that scope of work's already been approved.  It's already gone through environmental. That's   good. It's moving. Um this will just give you a  little bit of extra wiggle room on that project.   Um but we would have to identify and submit a  new scope of work for the other project. So if we   start it to if we tonight if we we vote for option  two then are you coming along this journey with   us to advise on what we came in and I mean that's  up to you guys but yeah I didn't already contract   oh yeah yeah yes sir yes sir okay as long as you  I still work for you then I will do whatever you   need me to do and that's the expectation that's  Olivia would be here in integrity group and there   would be to answer commissioner Hughes's question  not tonight but there would be a development of   a new scope of work and and in that scope  of work would be the identification of the   uh improvements down at the marina. It would come  back to you for approval before it's submitted to   FEMA. Um I I have a question. Um and I don't  know if this is in the point of order or if  

we need to put it on to if we need to put it on  another um another meeting or something. Um but   it has been advised to us if we are going to  keep um the 2202 the new project that we have   uh gotten the increase on it has about six uh  $1.6 million $1.7 million in HMP that will not be   eligible because it's a marina scope and it will  be on Martin the we remove the scope of that the   HMP scope of work with the intention of it moving  quicker through the FEMA cues. Um that's what they   have informed us of. I didn't want to even bring  that up until we had made the decision to that   just went that went over my head. Okay. Um so when  um the project 2202 the $22 million it has a HMP   project or HMP scope of work on it for about $1.6  million and that's applied in the market theater   right now. Well no it's applied to the um downtown  marina. Okay. Oh uh hazard mitigation the hazard   mitigation project. the resil the um resilience  and increase of um to make the property more   resilient, they add on a spec, you know, they do a  calculation and certain things that they will give   you money to make it more resilient. So maybe a a  bigger roof, um changing the door, moving up your   electricals, and there's a whole bunch of things  that could go into it. I think in this one was   um concrete pylons, it was um waterproof or uh  saltwaterproof uh conduit, stuff like that. Um,   so none of that scope of work can transfer to the  Martin Theater because it's apples and oranges and   we would have to, you know, I don't think you want  to put concrete pylons in the Martin theater. So,   you know, it's not going to be eligible for you  to use anyway. Um, and so FEMA has advised us   to withdraw that scope of work, the HMP scope. Um,  and it would leave the project at the 22.4 46. Um,  

but it would speed the process potentially. That's  what they're telling us. It would speed it up and   so lose the money regard you will lose the money  regardless unless unless you choose another option   unless with the option that you're talking about  choosing. If you choose another option maybe not   but if you go with the that $22 million on the  Martin theater then yes you will lose that money   anyway. Just amend the motion to remove the  H&GP or the H. Well, y'all can vote on that   other thing first. I just was going to ask that  question. Excuse me. Isn't that already delineated   here in option two? Okay. does not include I  just need the approval to tell FEMA that they   that we'll with formally withdraw it and they  can separate separate my option two does that   yes take care of that aggressive no she says we  need to specifically say to FEMA we don't want no   she's but our parliamentarian is telling us it's  included in the mo in option two already that's   I mean in so far I mean if you want it to be  included it can be included um sure it's included   well it's taken out there taken out there but okay  so I can formally okay I just want everybody to   know that I'm going to formally send an email  to FEMA that says please withdraw our HMP for   what I would state though is is you know once they  pass this vote confirming that what Mr. Zimmerman   says is true um let me send you a letter to that  effect so you have paper trail from us yeah that   letter will come from me and Mr. Zimmerman.  I will do that anyway. Yes, sir. Awesome. Any   other discussion? Call. Commissioner Street.  Yes. Commissioner Hughes? Yes. Commissioner   Lucas? Yes. Commissioner Granger? Yes. Mayor  Branch? Yes. Motion passes five to zero. All   right. Item 12F. Thank you so much, Mith. Item  12F is report discussion and consideration of  

city marina partners agreement for the downtown  Panama City Marina. Countable Mr. Zimmerman. Um at the last workshop meeting uh when you were  discussing the marina grants, you also uh inquired   about a report on negotiations with CMP. There is  a letter dated September 16th that I sent to you,   I believe last Tuesday or or Wednesday and um it  talks about a couple of things and it goes back   to the motion that was made at the last meeting  in July and the I attached the minutes of that   as far as the the way that it was um captured in  that motion. But in that motion, uh there was a   request from CMP city Marina Partners uh to um to  get to obtain approval to acquire to pursue the   uh proposed uplands development and also whether  or not the city would issue bonds that are   conditioned on financing that doesn't negatively  affect the city's future bonding capacity. We call   it conduit financing. um and and things like that.  And so this report is that one conduit financing   is a legally available option for the city and  CMP. And what that means is that the city revenues   would not be pledged to support uh these bonds.  the bonds would be supported by the revenues   from the wet slips and and the uh operator but not  the city. That is legally available. We met with   uh our financial advisor uh Mr. Tindle with  Hilltop Securities. Um they they typically would  

cover seven you could issue debt on 70% of the  cost of the wet slips. a lot of details to re to   work out. Got to review the uh proposed expenses,  proposed revenues, but it is a viable alternative.   Uh the second item is that the uh term sheet that  is provided here uh by CMP is a comprehensive   approach for the development of the entire  downtown marina property, both the uplands and   the marinas. Um so in that term sheet there is a a  mention of a variety of things uh but it includes   uh square footage uh for upland development a  percentage of residential uh 200 wet slip marina   uh site plans would have to be approved but it's  a it's a term sheet. It just kind of goes through   and gives short summaries of of what a basic  uh deal could be between the city and uh CMP   if the city desires to continue negotiations with  CMP along the lines of the proposed term sheet.   And I would back up and say that uh there is a  draft u lease agreement that governs right now   primarily just the wet slips. It does have a the  draft has a concept of a right of second use for   uplands but it's primarily just the wet slips. Uh  so what is left to be done and is u and PFM who is   the uh financial advisor that the city hired to  do a a review of the lease. They um that is what  

they looked at. That is what they reviewed. They  have not reviewed any proposal as far as Uplands   or what or any share of revenues off of Uplands.  Um, and that is something that if you'd like to   pursue this, we would recommend getting PFM back  in and to uh help us with that. They were willing   to look at it before, but that wasn't within the  scope because at the time the wetlands weren't I   mean the uplands weren't actually being u part  of the uh lease. So, if the city would like to   continue negotiations with CMP along these lines,  then I think there'd be a two-step process that   the city could go by, similar to what we did with  uh the city commission did with St. Joe Company.   There was a memorandum of understanding. It's  a short agreement that talked about some basic   deal points, but then most importantly, it  set up a process for sharetses, a process for   time periods for getting to the end of a lease  agreement. Memorandum of understanding, it could   be legally binding. The St. Joe agreement wasn't.  Either party could could terminate it at any time   that they felt uh it was useful. Uh Cooper  Harrison is here tonight representing CMP and   I would like and I think it would be appropriate  mayor and the commissioners for him to come up   and and make sure that I've characterized the uh  term sheet correctly or anything else that he'd   like to add toward that. But then let's say that  we came back with aou within 30 to 45 days. Then   uh see how quickly if that's acceptable then how  quickly a formal lease agreement could be done.  

Right now we're in this window of waiting for uh  the uh consulting the engineering group that the   St. Joe company hired to do the uh design and I  believe that is scheduled to be done midFebruary   for the entire so that gives us a little window of  time if we work aggressively to see if we can get   a full lease done approximately by the time the u  uh the design is finished once I believe that that   lease if that's the process the city commission  says well this is something we want to do. Then   you go to St. Joe and you say, "This is what the  city commission would like to do. What do you   think? Do you want to do it or do you have some  other idea?" There's no uh desire that that's the   first time St. Joe has heard about it. There has  been constant communication with St. Joe and there   will continue to be constant communication. So  when they get something, if we go down this route   uh midFebruary, they'll already know what's in  there and we'll already get some feedback from   St. Joe. But I know that CMP has actively talked  with them uh which uh city staff has encouraged   uh that discussion as well as u uh city manager  Hayes and me talking with their corporate council.   So that's where we are and I think it might be  appropriate for Mr. Harrison. Yeah. Before we open   it up to CMP, I'd like to make sure that well,  first, you know, this is as an item that we added   on to the agenda. And even as of last week, I  thought it was on the agenda, but didn't actually   make it onto the agenda just from the paperwork  issue. And I remember on Monday, I said, I thought   this was going to be on the agenda. I said, we're  going to add it. And from the public standpoint,   it looks a little little odd. Clumsiness gets  mistaken for other things. And so I want to  

reopen public comments to ensure that everyone  who didn't get to speak on this item has gotten to   speak on this item. So Miss M would like to speak  real quick. So come on up. Yes, ma'am. Exercise. Yes, ma'am. Um Judy Stapleton, 542 South Bonita  Avenue, Panama City, Florida. First, thank you,   Mr. mayor for putting a great deal of information  out recently. I'm still trying to wade through it.   Um my immediate reactions um I and others worked  at one time to join with the city and make it a   place where all of the residents could happily  live, work, learn, and play. With the city   for shopping, entertainment, and residential. A  civic center to bring music and theater to enjoy.   Good businesses for the owners and employees.  Naval and air force bases. Good schools,   a technical college, two universities, various  opportunities for play, especially water play.   Promises of a foundation to build on. I cannot  speak for all of us but generally I believe we did   not see the marina as an extension for commercial  district or for residential. We fought son blick   and some who liked his design for that. We  saw that as being we saw that as for being   leisure boating things one would think of when we  thought of a waterfront park. And yet here we are,  

Sun and Blake 2.0. We have a lovely waterfront  marina at the end of our downtown commercial   district. We have many buildings and empty lots  in our downtown commercial district. I don't   believe that commercialization of the marina is  our best use of that precious piece of land for   the residents or for their visitors. It is not  a waste land as someone called it at the end of   Harrison. It would not be if it were a waterfront  park. Perhaps I missed the decision about the   uplands being included from the T dot square.  Um 75% residential, 225 residents. Lucky folks,   best land in town. I would hope that the partners  could find a way to profit on their investments   for just a dock. the docks and the um Mar Romina  marina shop. I have hoped that the commercial   development of our marina was not our alternative,  not your choice, but I and probably others will   feel we should have saved our time and our voices.  Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Did anyone else   want to speak who did not speak previously about  the marina? commercial. All right, seeing none,   we heard Jaylor. Uh, seeing none, uh, Cooper,  you want to come on up? Cooper Marina Partners   is the new name for CMP. Cooper and his team  is what they call him. Oh, that's great.

I put a jacket on today. Cooper Harrison 101  Harrison. Um, I don't know if we want to address   the and I'm just going to jump into the difficult  uh to read. Hold on real quick. The um finance   side of things. So, do we want to talk about that  or do we y'all have just open questions? That's   an interesting place to start. Okay. So, there's  been some comments about we're just hunting around   for the cheapest money. Um, we're really trying to  find a solution to pay for things that we um were   asked by the city, the commission at the time last  year to pay for. Um, parking, utilities, railing,   lighting, things that the everybody knows that the  marina needs, prominade. Um, and so we're trying   to figure out a way to to pay for those things and  for everybody to not have to pay for that. Um, the   conduit financing is a good alternative or good  option. the the rates are same as any market rate,   you know, go to a bank kind of rate. Um the issue  there is what what's called debt coverage. So what   they're asking for is 30 to 50% or 130 to 150%  depending on who you ask and how you describe it   um of that debt coverage. That's going to be  really hard for the just the wet slips to be able   to pay for the wet slips, pay for the ship store,  pay for the paving, utilities, lighting, railing,   etc. and the and the numbers that that we had  told you guys uh I think 62 days ago um in July,   it's anywhere from 25 to 30 million for all of  those things in today's dollars. So that's the   conduit financing. I'm happy to talk about that  more if you'd like. I'm happy to jump into the   term sheet. I'm happy to whatever you guys would  like. I I am interested in us exploring any when   they when they're able to get money, borrow money  more affordably, they can pass the savings on   to us and give us a better deal. I'm personally  interested in any tiff CDD conversations conduit.  

I think that's very interesting and quicker and  quicker. So So before um before we go down that   route, that is where we started um a year or so  ago. Um Commissioner Granger had a great idea of   this is a city asset. The city does have it is  a line of credit and I'll kind of have to lean   on Jan for that with the 150 million, but the city  could kind of play banker and y'all are y'all are   borrowing money for X amount. I don't know what  you're borrowing it for. I don't know if what what   the term is. Um and we would pay CMP would pay you  guys back um with a percentage a quarter point. I   don't I don't we didn't get that far, but that's  another way the city could make money faster. Um,   and there's been some comments too about the  timeline of the ramping up all of the um,   you know, the essentially the date certain has  really been a rubbing point of when the city will   make money. The city's going to make money on day  one from the taxes and there's never been a um,   gross receipts charge on the slips. So, we'll be  doing that for the first time at St. Andrews and   for downtown. Um the we have a ramp up period  and that's where that date comes into play. We   don't expect to take that long. We expect 3 years  um once they're constructed. Um so the goal is to   get permits well I say get not permits submit for  permits in February have them by the end of next   year begin construction of slips 51 through  200 January we'll call it for ease of use.   um January of 2027. That's the goal and then  there's the ramping up for that. So, I don't   know if you want to go into more detail of that or  Well, and and and Cooper's done a marvelous job on   Facebook uh Frey uh going at it and comments  explaining it being kind to people who aren't   kind to him and and so it really is unfair when  people say they don't care cuz they do. They're   all from the community and they all do care and  you know behind graduates and you know all all  

this stuff and they have to look at just like we  do. I'd love a local partner. Um I got you know   Thursday I I thought I sent you my I sent you my  post before I even posted. I said here's what I'm   going to post. You look at it and make sure I'm  explaining this thing fairly and you left comments   on it and I didn't want to be any surprises. about  Thursday or Wednesday, I was like, "Oh, the public   doesn't even realize we're like literally  talking about the Marina deal and there's   so much other turmoil happening in the world  that they're completely distracted from it." Um,   and we haven't really brought this forward enough  to for people to know it was going to happen. Um,   not strategically, from our side. Yeah, y'all  talked about it Monday. Um, Ne and I had talked   about it Monday. I'm sorry, Tuesday. um whenever  I first sent this uh term sheet to you guys and   um I'm really sorry about that. I mean, I know I  guess it's me to get on the agenda, but I I hate   that perception. Yeah, I don't think it's that  I don't you know, we we should have been putting   out more. So, I got I spent a lot of time on the  phone uh this weekend, people calling me, and the   questions they had were them asking me, "Explain  the deal." And I couldn't explain. They would say,   "Well, why do they get 300,000 foot of buildings?"  I would say, "I don't have them. Um the PFM study   if you if you dig down into it is all based on  the estimate of the build of the marina that came   from you guys. Yeah. PFM and and our job is to ask  questions even though we know you and but our job   is to validate the whole study is based off of a  number that we haven't validated as a as a voting   board. And I would be and and fair enough there's  not even a plan yet for the marina. So you're,   you know, the Gormans are estimating, they built  tons of Marines. They're going, "Well, you know,   how much does a car cost?" You're like, "Well, a  car could cost, you know, and so they're trying to   estimate that best they can." And we're, the plans  are coming. So there'll be, and even right now,   we just voted on the option two. We don't even  yet know how we're going to spend that money   yet. We haven't even talked about that. U is it  railing, is it promin? Is it infrastructure? Is  

it what what can we spend it on? How fast can  we execute that? So, there's so much blurriness   right now. There's like a fog of like where do we  go? You guys are doing a great job going, okay,   we can go this way or this way or this way. Uh,  and I appreciate that, but I would I would much   prefer us getting the plans, putting out for bid  so we can establish what that number that number   might be more than what they estimated, but I  want to put that number out when we know what   we're going to build and say, what does this thing  cost to build first? uh and then and then move   into and and in the same time doing sharetses  where the public can say we don't want my own   mother was like I don't want residential. I said  well why and she said people will feel like they   own the place and I'm like I don't know I kind  of like residential. Um and so but I think the   public needs to have their time because this is a  decision that our great grandkids will be seeing.   you know, this is going to outlive all of us and  I need to be able to explain the why more. Um,   and and I don't think I don't think it's even  fair to them. We don't have an economic director   um leading this thing and so it's kind of you guys  going, "What about this? What about this? What   about this?" And there's no one really leading  this project. I would be in favor of having a P3   specialist come in that maybe leads this thing.  Maybe maybe that's what they do. I don't know.   I'm up I'm up for an upland study. I just know  I've never done a marina project. this is a much   bigger deal than I've ever even done my personal  self and I want to make sure it's fair to them and   to the public. Uh and I don't have those answers  and I can't explain the deal currently. Yeah. So   to to kind of address some of that, the 300,000  came from the John Anderson drawing. Yeah. Again,   it's the assumption on the assumption. If this is  the size of the building, then you can only put a   room so big into that building. And so that's how  we backed into that number. Um, and actually I So,   and the background on the drawing, there was  a I I I know a architect who is just fantastic  

at imagining spaces. He's helped me personally.  The city's retained him to help sort of unstick   these sort of situations. And I said, "Draw some  stuff on the marina and tell us what the cuz I   don't I can't even vision what 250,000 ft looks  like on the marina." I was like, "What does it   even look like?" And so, he just drew some quick  script. I had zero revisions on it. We all had   zero revisions. They had zero revisions. It was  like here's a sketch and it was a starting point.   And so and I knew it would breed apprehension cuz  immediately as a citizen I would assume like this   is what's happening. Uh and it was just like a  what is this number of square footage even look   like? Yeah. So the the actual breakdown doesn't  get to 300,000. It's 247,500 averaging,00 ft for   the 225 units. Then there's a 10 to 20% for  sidewalks all the things to get to the unit.   Um, and then he has 27,000 for commercial. That  doesn't include the T do ship store, which our   goal is to put it back where it was and where it's  always been. Um, and that's about 5,000 square ft.   I think it's actually the same exact ship store  as what is at St. Andrews. They just built the   same thing twice. Um, and so, um, I I agree with  the PFM thing. I mean, the numbers in the PFM to   build the marina today are not what they were when  we first talked to PFM. 6 months or 10 months ago.   Um, so I don't see why they couldn't revive both  ends. But the PFM had a 8% return and that only   looked at all 200 slips, right? Just the cost for  the 200 slips and the revenue off 200 slips. So   that's the other issue is the PFM report doesn't  take into account an additional 7 to10 million of   of hard sunk cost on us. So if you consider that  then it's a negative return of investment for a   point and a half. So for the public's benefit um  we have asked CMP to pay for costs that we should  

that we typically would all the infrastructure  the lighting the rails and they've agreed to it.   Now that 5 million that we just talked about we  voted on we can apply that to some of that maybe   uh but that's nonrevenue expense. So part of  the reason for their ask is we're putting $10   million on them and saying go build it but we're  not you're not gonna make any money off of it.   So there's a give back that they then have to go  build something that they then hope rents for the   projection that they made years ago and the bill  cost. So it's it's not like it's free money for   them. They have to then go make the money and and  it might not make them money and everything they   do while they're doing real estate building  it is just the starting point. So it's kind   of like behind the car without the engine, right?  Yeah, it really is, isn't it? It really is. Yeah,   it's does it? Yeah. And in all fairness, again, we  have no economic director and as of a month ago,   we didn't know we're getting extra FEMA money  potentially. Uh, and that's a ve very complicated   deal that we're like, hey, sure, go figure it out.  So, this is their first stab at figuring it out,   kind of a thing. And so, there's there's two  questions I think that that um aren't as deep   uh as some of this financial discussion  that I that I'd like you to address. Um,   one is is that I've seen the very real concern  that a lot of people have that if uh we partner   with you on this and and this moves forward that  they're not going to be able to use that marina   p as a as a public asset. Can you speak to that?  Yeah. It's going to be open to the public. Okay.   What does that mean? Is it public? So I can  read verbatim the in the ground lease if I can   flip through this this lovely 100page document  real quick but essentially that everything is   open to the public as what was open at the right  now. So there's there's no gates there's no you   know pay to parking there's none of that if you  want to go down and fish you know you have to I   guess get a dollar to fish off the end of the  marine or whatever the state statute is there  

it's open to the public. So the next the next  question is then um I guess there's been some   concern expressed over um if if we if we wind up  putting residential on the marina that it will be   uh the the wet slips will be reserved for those  those people. Can you speak to that? Yeah,   that's not that's not going to happen. I I I  understand that. I'm just asking you. Yeah,   it's not it's not a a buy one get one type  situation. Would you be comfortable putting   that into a future contract? Absolutely. There's  been some concern expressed about the ability of   Panama City residents to afford what we built.  So, that's a great question. The um the average   uh 1100 square ft apartment that I could find  in the city is about $15 to $1,700. And then we   felt like this was worth an extra $100. So,  we are expecting it to be about $18 $1,800.   Well, the counterargument is that's I can't afford  a waterfront home personally. So, should we be   helping someone build like subsidized housing on  waterfront? That's I mean, I can't afford it. And   even some of the projects I build, not everyone  can afford them. It's just kind of what the market   drives and the product costs. Yeah. I think more  of the concern is no one who's everyday atmosphere where many of us was were raised being able to go  to the waterfront and afford to be there, right?   And that's the goal. So you saying only from the  residential side, but the shopping and commercial,   they can still go down and do that. We've heard  about it from the boating perspective as well   that what it would cost for someone who's got a  boat in their yard that's too big to get a boat  

slip down there may not be affordable. Those  are some questions. By the time I came along,   the four winds was already knocked down. So, my  entire memory of the marina was a bunch of private   wet slips that I couldn't go on and there I could  afford it because there was nothing else to do   down there other than fish. Um, I remember the  four, right? Yes. I I don't He's the young one.   Yeah, they actually the drawings from 1976 had  the four wins in the RFP or RFQ. It has the 1976   drawings of the four wins. And so it ends where  four winds ends where 9/11 memorial is currently   sitting and then beyond that on the water's edge  was the ship store in the office and all of that.   So it was actually everything that used to be  down there was all the way down there and that   is not our goal. Concerns that Mrs. Stapleton had  was uh sign 2.0. What I remember it was a bunch   of you know concrete and tall buildings. Is that  what you have planned? No. No. the the the goal is   not to have like an Alice Beach 2.0, not to take  her thunder on the sun and blick 2.0. Um the goal   is to to have a connection between the existing  Panama City downtown community. There is whether   you like it or not, there is a gap between we'll  call it Beach and Harrison to the marina. Now,   do you call it Harrison's restaurant? I mean, or  do you want to connect further? Um in the drawing,   there is a restaurant on the Ta Dog. The goal  would be to have all of that feel like downtown.   Um, so real quick on that, um, too, the the height  limit for in the zoning and in the comp plan and   everything is 125 ft, same as St. Andrew's Towers.  Um, our proposal we would have a a pad and it's   it's in the John Anderson drawing of I think  it says parking deck that roughly would be 80  

feet height limit and then most everything else  we are proposing is is 45 ft. That doesn't mean   we're going to go put a giant to your point like a  you know a giant box at 45 ft and then everything   beyond Paris's is under the St. Joe um city  agreement and it's under 3 excuse me under 35 ft.   So, I I have some questions because I mean, Alan,  what you first described, I I've learned more   about this project from your Facebook post than I  have through the 60-day process. And so, this is   actually my first time to ask questions to Cooper  and um and and this team. So, I I want to ask you   you talked about the conduit financing and the  city providing a lower lending rate. I would put   those into two categories. Like, are you talking  about conduit financing? Are you talking about sub   lending? Because those are two very different very  different. It was it was all conduit financing. So   no sub it's no sub lending has been proposed  or back stop. That's correct. Yes sir. Thank   you. That's why I just wanted to clarify that.  That's a good point. Yes, sir. Um the the second   thing is is is CMP um interested in building  and operating 200 slips with financing without   Upland's improvements. How long is the term? What  is the financing? What is the schedule? The rent   schedule? We're not saying I would say I would  say very similarly to how St. Andrews lease was   done. So the St. Andrews is different I would say  cuz um we're doing a cost plus. So, we're actually   capturing some of the it would be like we can't  do it for the FEMA deal, but um we would do a cost   plus for the public improvements that are needed  on downtown. So, we're capturing some of that as   revenue to be able to subsidize the building cost  of the slips at St. Andrews. Okay. That's how that   deal that's how that deal is papered out for us.  So, so are you saying that the marina itself is  

not financially viable without the subsidy? No.  I'm what I'm saying is well what where I'm not   saying no as far as entertaining just the 200  slips. Um I would need to know the rest of of   the deal. Um because if you say go do 200 slips,  you have x amount of years and you don't have to   give the city a dollar, then that's a pretty good  deal. Or is it 6%? Is it 5? I would say exactly   how it is in St. Andrew. So those those terms have  already been like what is the the the equivalent   in this deal to St. Andrews cost plus 20 for  the bulkhead deal. What would be the equivalent? The fact that there would be no bulkhead to  to complete. It's already done. No. No. What   I'm saying is we're capturing the 20% of  revenue. If I may, I think your question   is more of of on the wet slips the terms just  on the wet slips. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Does that   paper out is what you're saying? Yeah.  In us doing nothing else. I mean, yeah,   I would think so. Yeah. As of right now. Who pays  for the 10 million nonrevenue stuff? everything.   Well, that's to be established. I think that's a  separate question. I think part of the reason why   this was so complicated for me to even kind of get  my mind around is we're we're layering Upland's   improvements with the slips. Slips are amortized  at a certain rate. Buildings are amortized at a   different rate. We have lease structures that  are required in financing for uplands. We have   we have financing structures that are required  and and in slips. Um, and the trying to blend all   those together is creating this this complicated  formula. It's very difficult to understand. Well,   it makes it complications make it risky for them,  too. And yeah, and I don't I don't fault you guys   in that. I what I'm trying to do is is like,  hey, can we simplify this to a point that,   hey, we can either have a deal or we can't. Um, so  that ultimately we kind of have clarity with that.   I think the objective that I set out in the RFP  when we originally said was let's build the slips,  

get a ship store and start doing fuel. That's  an operating marina, right? Is there a path to   doing that specifically without Upland's right and  without and you want to terminate the exploration   of Upland altogether right now? Not right now.  Yes. I'd like to to stick with our term sheet and   for us to to navigate that. So you're saying what  what does that answer? I would like for us to to   if y'all are okay with the PFM and proceeding  with PFM, I'd like to to do that first. Let's   let's continue down the road of of of that. Well,  we had PFN come report that to your point is based   off of their numbers. Um that says that that it's  not economically viable. Right. So based on the   number they like a half% but it may not be what to  Allen's point is it may not be the actual number.   because it's al and it's not fair when you chain  assumptions and on assumptions on assumption it   becomes more and more risky and hardect it  doesn't matter what it costs because it's   not our money it's theirs. Yeah. I mean to that  why if if it's going to cost because we want them   to be successful as partners and so like I mean  you never add to a partnership where one partner   is put at a disadvantage of potential failure.  That's not good for Shouldn't they we how much   it costs? No, because what if we only get 50  slips and we don't complete the rest. I mean,   like there is there is a there is an aspect of  Yes, you need to know that you can get through   the full the full Yeah, I would say if we're  if we're opening a restaurant and we're going   to all put in capital contributions, I'm going  to know how much you put into the deal. Yeah,   that's true. Hey, I don't know. But I don't want  to know what you put in the deal. I'm just going   to trust it you put in an equal amount than me,  but don't tell me how much put in there. So,   so I would say I'd say two things. We have a we  have a format with the St. Andrew's lease that   has been executed. We have that. I understand that  that there's some slight differences from where   you guys are in that one. Um but maybe we need  to look at it in a different way than what we did  

with St. Andrews. Um like I I personally have not  looked at, you know, other alternatives in this,   but the 5 million definitely helps reduce the  overall amount that would even be required and   additional additional expenses. Um, so I think  the the danger in continuing with Upland's is   I don't know how to explain what we're doing.  And yet 300,000 ft that's out there. It doesn't   matter what we do, a Judy or, you know, a Joe or  or or anybody is going to be questioning like,   "Hey, I thought you guys were re building Marina.  Well, now you're being you're developing the whole   thing." And I'm not saying I'm anti-UP's  developments. I just think it should be a   separate conversation from the slips. So yeah, so  it's right now it's performance based. So we have   to build the slips before we can even um apply  for a development order for the upland. Yeah,   I had the same concern. That's why I wanted  that in place. Yeah, but I think it's still   what I saw at least from one of these and I don't  remember which document it was. You get 100,000   ft of 50 slopes. What if there's no absorption  to the 100,000 ft? Well, then what happens with   the other 150? Then they don't build anymore.  They don't build any more slips. So we still   get a half 100 square feet 100,000. But there's no  requirement to build the 150. Yes, there is. Yeah,   there is. They have to they have to build those.  What what you may not get is the upland if they   were but you're going to get the you're going to  get we're not required to apply for the up. So can   you define what the 100,000 feet is? Yeah, we can.  I mean, well, and that is kind of the goal, too,   is ideally in the agreement, it would spell out  these zones or these heights. This this is the,   you know, our first pass was 75 to 25 um  of mixture. Um, you can tell us what color   to paint the walls. I mean, we could put all this  into the agreement. Um, there was a comment about   the type of roofing material. Um, that can be  in this agreement. And all that's done through  

all that is done through all that's done through  the public. Absolutely. that is the framework is   in the is in the U long-term agreement and then  we can't I mean we can't apply for a development   order until the slips are completed like co so we  have we have tenants in the slips during that time   the construction timeline the goal is to have the  public chourettes which we've been open to since   the beginning since our RFQ submission um and we  want all the public's involvement as well as the   market study and the numbers to back it up so  Cooper how do we identify what even the revenue   share would be on uplands in a lease agreement.  Yeah. So, what I did was if you were to throw that   um you know, use the same schedule um for the  residential the 225 residential units at $1,800   uh per unit per month. The commercial  space which is at 27,000 square ft. Um,   and it there was a a triple net lease uh number  that I was able to to grab that for downtown. The   yearly revenue for just the upon is 5.7 million.  6% of that goes to the city which is $343,188. Um, that's a general fund. So, so let let  me ask the question in a different way. So,   rents are $1,800 a 6% revenue share. That means  the city off of a resident that's down in on the   marina is getting 100red bucks. So, so if you  want to go further, the advalorum off of what   we're expecting the the value of this structure to  be is 60 I'm sorry, the value is 63.5 million. The   advalorum rate at 4.799 is 405,000. So, we could  have zero tenants and y'all still get 405,000. So,   in a typical land deal, if you were doing a land  lease on a waterfront deal, um would would a land  

deal typically be 6% land cost of the overall  deal? Good question. And I I think those are the   pieces where we could spend a lot of time doing  this. I mean, that that's that's like asking it's   going to be 6% on 30 acres up here, but it's  going to be 10%. That's not its location. So,   so I guess I guess where I'm struggling with is  like, okay, hey, look, we got Fort St. go. They   had a marina that was damaged after Hurricane  Michael. They rebuilt it in 2020 using public   private partnership. I don't understand why it  always comes down to more and more uplands to get   a marina rebuilt. That's where I'm struggling with  it cuz I don't see that happening. Yeah. I mean,   why don't you see it happening? Do you have  something that says these guys aren't going   to do it? No. It's when the public says why  is this deal any different than St. Andrews?   I don't have an answer. Well, because you can't  because y'all got annihilated trying to build on   St. Andrew's Marina, but you can't. Here's why.  When they opened up and built the downtown ring,   you know what they put on it? Commercial to pay  for the bunks. I'm not saying there shouldn't   be some commercial usage down there. But I'm  just saying, why does it have to be tied to the   slips? Well, because if St. Joe gets a shot at  every time, so there are three down there three   projects now into it. St. Joe can come in on the  third time and say, "Oh, we like that idea. Thanks   for doing all the work. We're going to take over."  That is a is a valid concern that I would have if   I'm on that side. So, you you asked St. Joe one  time. So, we want to cut out competition. No,   you want to take you want to do you would you  rather St. Joe come in on the halfway down and   take over? I would rather have something I can  explain to the public of what we're doing. Okay.   You can do that. You draw it up. You say, "Here's  what we're going to do." And you say, "St. Joe,   do you like the idea?" They then can say, "Yes, we  want we want to do the whole thing. Thanks. Thanks   group CMT. See you later." Or, "No, we like this.  We really think it's cool that there's some local  

people live here in Panama City. They want to  do it." Either way, it gets done, but it's one   they get one bite at the apple more so than three,  you know, cuz I think what the mayor had put out,   there's like five or six different breaks.  On break five, St. Joe could show up and then   they'll get they have no recourse. And why do they  deserve that right? Because they built the marina   for us. I I get it, but they haven't What have  they done again? Spent $35 million. And again,   they did the same thing on the San Marina and they  didn't get all the uplands there. Hold on. Yeah.   On the St. Andrews, we do have the development  rights. It's just it somehow got cut out of the   recent zoning change over there. So, we we do have  the development rights there. We would have to   go through a comp plan amendment to change it to  St. Andrews downtown or whatever it's called. and   then apply for ADF and that it's four meetings to  get something done down there. Whereas here we're   suggesting three meetings what plus all the public  sharets would you be open to doing public shares   without an agreement signed but knowing there's  a there's some framework that we agreed on. They   don't have to be involved in our shetss at all.  Yeah, we lead this process. This is our marina.   I I know but I'd like the public to ask them  questions. They can be there. are welcome to be   there. We We should be paying for the shrouds.  We should be leading the shrouds because this   is our job is to protect the marina and and the  citizens%. I mean, that's that's the unfortunate   situation. This is it's too complicated for me  to vote on. Uh it's too big of a term sheet to   have no pictures. I just can't explain this to  the public well enough to be able to say this is   what we do. And this is non-binding, but this is  an agreement. It's like an engagement letter like,   "Hey, we're getting engaged." Well, it would  be. Yeah. To me, complicated is is hard for me   to swallow because you got you're going to build  slips, you're going to build up. I mean, where   where you are, Commissioner Street, is I want to  know more about the up. Well, if I'm going to do a   subdivision, I can't tell you what house is going  to go on lot 64, but I can tell you there's going  

to be a house that's got so many square feet.  Okay? And so, they have to go right now today,   all of us can go form a a company and go to the  city and say, "We want to build uh a tackle shop."   We can do that. and we have to go to St. Joe. They  say, "Okay, then we have to go to the development   order." All that process just like they're going  to have to do. They're going to have to be so   public. Everybody's going to know what's going  on before it happens. They have to go through the   same develop. They're not going to be able to skip  the process. So, the there's two things. But if we   go lease the whole thing, Robbie, like we don't  have the right to do anything else. Like, I mean,   it's we Is it the pad that you're concerned about?  Is it the square footage? Is it the intensity? I I   think two things that I'm concerned about. One is  we went out to RFP for a marina and we're getting   a a lot more uplink than we are. It said you can  do that. And so and so yeah, and I'm not opposed   to it. It's just when you know this was we're  going to do a bait and tackle store and the ship   next to the ship store be like, "No, okay. All  right." But this is a it's a lot. Um, and I can't   explain I can't explain a lot well enough. And  I I think we should be leading with drawings and   leading with, hey, the public's input versus them  reacting to a term sheet with with with two little   sketches. It's just not enough public input and  and we enter to the deal. Like the public wants   to see slips. So that's why I want I want to focus  on the plans. Uh, a quote to build. We may decide   to do a land lease that then finances the build of  the marina. And then we just choose a management   company. I'd really like for the city not to have  anything to do with that venue. It's clear in this   agreement we have nothing to do. We're moving  forward at a rocket pace. The commission did a   great job. The last y'all gave us y'all did a vote  that had you get we're going to get two paid four   buildings and the possibility of two completed  marinas and we're not spending our money. This is   the simplest deal to activate the marina. No doubt  the fastest. This this sets us down a path 100%.  

But I I need to have it's too foggy. I need more  clarity is my personal opinion. Clarity on what is   my on what's being built, what the public wants to  see on that marina. Okay. We we need it's upland.   I don't think there's really question. I was like,  can we have next Friday I want to have a meeting.   That was like 2 months ago. I mean there we need  the public's input 100%. My my hope was at the end   of 60 days we see verified financing. This is what  this is what we're doing and this is how much it's   going to cost and this is where we're going to go.  and then we're in public chares for people to give   input on what those upland improvements would be.  Like that was what I had hoped. Now that may that   was maybe a unrealistic expectation but I do know  that these designs are going to be done here in   the next month and a half, 2 months and we need  to be ready to build a marina. Are we going to   have every question answered the uplands? Probably  not in two months. And so that's why I'm like I'm   like hey like can we get a structure that is based  upon the the and I'm okay talking about upland's   improvement but just in a way that's easier to  absorb. Okay. You know we wouldn't do uplands   until next like a year now. So you're right. It  gives us the opportunity to say go we're going to   build these. We know we're in agreement that while  we're doing that we work with y'all on the upland.   I don't think we need the agreement all together  at one time. Robbie, what's happening even today   is you got people that hear residential units on  the marina. Well, their immediate reaction is,   well, the slips are going to be private to those  residentials. If you cannot define what it is,   it goes people's mind goes to the worst case  scenario. And that's why I'm saying we can   do this in a way like going through the hotel  process with St. Joe. People knew there was a   hotel. They were able to look at it. They got to  see some visuals. And if you look at the visuals   that presented in the public meeting before prior  to the approvals, it ended up looking exactly the   way that they proposed. I think that there's  a way to do that that doesn't feel like, oh,  

hey, you're you're you're signing off on something  the size of Per Park. Like, does that make sense? To get pictures of they can be out. But my point  is is that it's not exactly fair to them if if   we're not going to say that. Yeah, we're we're  willing to to talk to you about that. Which is why   I keep going back to we need to look at something  that's on the slip store and fuels like like we   need to look at something like that and create  another conversation and they can go currently   but not trying to fold them into an agreement  to with slips is what I'm saying. And the second   right is another is is another way of handling  it is like hey you can come and propose at any   point in time. I mean, I I've even communicated  to staff. I would love to work with CMP just on   Upland's improvements themselves, but I want to  make sure we get the slips built because I don't   want to be sitting here. I mean, guys, think about  how long it took us in St. Andrews and we're still   not done with 50. And so, the idea that like,  hey, in December, we're going to get that we're   going to get this and there's going to be slips.  It's going to take time. I would rather not have,   you know, 100,000 square ft undefined in that  same process. And I don't think we have to. The   drawings aren't going to be done till February,  right? Yeah. Yeah. I thought it was December. I   saw that. Was it time? The first 50. The first  50. So, which is the only thing we have permits   for currently? Currently. Yeah. Yes, sir. So,  so we could be ready to construct something with   the with the drawings in December. Yeah. I don't  know if that includes the 50 the the the upland   portion of the 50. So, we can have sticks in the  water. I don't know if we can power or get water   to them. I don't know if that's included in the  design. Why are you behind in Senators? Yeah. So,   that's self-inflicted and I don't know if if I  sent a letter to you guys to the city and and   I've explained that MEP couple things like that  were causing some we were we were running so fast  

the first 50. We designed them exa designed the  electrical for 50 slips uh and then realized that   those same panels needed to power 100 more slips.  So, we had to redesign our electrical. And in the   middle of that, it wasn't the tariff cost, it was  the tariff frenzy and everybody started to buy   these panels. And so the delays went from 5 weeks  to 20 weeks. So we I think we have a solution. I   can't tell you right now that it's been ordered  and it's done, but that's we will have docks   with the p with the tread and water ready by  December 1st. And Cooper, understand like hey,   we're in partnership. Like there nothing going  to change that. Like we're we're here and we're   in partnership. I don't want to see you guys in a  place where you're overextended in both commitment   or a spot where we can't answer questions that  the public is asking us. And and right now we're   in that point of tension. And I I I would just I  would love for there to be a way for us to resolve   this and not have to have an uplands conversation  with the slips piece because I think you guys   can be a great partner on the slips and marina  operations. I really truly do believe that and you   may be a great partner in Uplands. I just don't  know that they need to be folded in together is   really where and the conversation I'd like to have  with the public is unless we're willing to borrow   money and make moves within staff or raise taxes  or we have to have the conversation of if we going   to pay for the marina that's going to be built  or we give them uplands as trade. It needs to be   a clear AB conversation. Right now I can't explain  the AB. Uh and then the other conversation is with   the FEMA money. How do we make how do we use that  money to bring clarity for the deal on both sides   where they're not going well who's doing this  and who's doing that? Yeah. Right now we don't   know cost and I think that there is a way for us  to get some more defined cost and things too. I   think your idea was a good one and PFM and then  PFM and potentially of of visa construction stuff.  

So I have a question. If Indigo wasn't there and  we were going to do the others and we would build   the city city hall, the library and the civic  center and built the buildings down the the   boulevard. Would you be okay with that? Like it  was when we grew up. Would you be okay with that?   What if there doesn't? It's I'm defining what's on  the That's what I'm trying I'm trying to get. It's   We don't know what's going to be there. We just  know. But those are big talk. Those are some big   buildings. There are some low buildings. But we  know what's there. I'm just trying to understand   what what the angst is because angst is this. I  never thought about it that way. Romney. My point   with moving forward with the public. The public  may say, gosh, you know what we love? We have to   have a fishing pier. We have to have a splash pad.  You know, cool. Who pays for it? Or aquarium. Who   pays for it? We may say, well, we can't pay for  it. Or maybe we decided. or we say if you want a   fishing pier or some other thing, they're willing  to pay for it, but we're going to have to give   them more of the dirt, right? And so we have to  we can have that come because the public may say,   "Gosh, I wish you' asked us if we wanted to have  a x y or z thing." And they're willing to do those   things. They're going to get asked that. But we so  far every negotiation that I've been in since May,   we have not agreed to pay $1. We've asked them  and they keep saying yes. Well, we did 5 million   today. Well, yes. But but they've agreed to say  they say yes every time and our job is to put the   dirt in there and have a lease on it that gets us  money back. In my opinion, that's that's where we   should we should. So, a a great example is like  let's say there's a $2 million grant. Let's say   we take this out and we figure out, hey, we're  $2 million short from the uplands improvements   that we need to do on it. Well, we could look at  the uplands and saying, what do we need to do to   get $2 million of value to offset those th those  costs? It's like there's a way to do it in a much  

smaller way without having to buy, you know, $80  million. And I think that's the piece where there   is a way to get there, but big deals often times  fail because of the complexities that are in them.   Um, so we started this with an RFQ or an  unsolicited proposal. RFP. Yeah. An RFP for Marina   and slips. Correct. There was but not the uplands  in our original RFP. There was discussion of the   uplands because there was a discussion of the St.  Joe. Um, but was it in RFP we put out? Yeah. Yeah.   There was there was was it a specific ask for the  uplands? I meant to go look again this afternoon.   I do know that the uplands were discussed whether  or not we specifically asked for a proposal. Yeah.   In the description of the property that was to be  proposed was Marina Uplands. Yeah. Okay. The term   but we didn't specifically ask for construction on  the upper cuz that how about this? This might help   bring some clarity. I feel I feel like I'm like  getting a little crazy because I'm like I don't   remember going out and asking for, you know, the  same language as St. Andrews and how we ended up   at the hotel. So, Marina Uplands, the um what I  interpreted anyway, uh what the instructions were   was to uh come back and and the first and the  draft of the lease that we've worked on, it was   here is the wet slips, how all that works and all,  and then a right of second use on the uplands,   which would give uh the marina CMP a right?  That's different and greater and a first right  

except for the St. Joe right of first use. So the  way that would work is that uh CMP could come and   they could say well we want to do a restaurant and  this is where we we want to have it. This is what   it's going to look like and here's the revenue  share. Um, we then say, "Thank you very much,   city commission. You want to do that?" Yeah,  man. That that that's that's good. So then we go   to St. Joe and um and St. Joe says, "I think it's  great for them to go do that." What whatever that   use is. No other party, no other third party in  this in the city would have a right to, you know,   trump what uh CMP has proposed of St. Joe says,  "I pass. I think they ought to go do it." Now,   since then, CMP has been concerned or has raised  the possibility, well, if you do it peace mill,   then you know, as as things succeed, well, then  maybe uh it's not equitable to them. So, they so   they started talking about, well, what if we do a  development agreement that plans the whole thing?   uh and that is where this you know generates  from. Um but the original concept was that yes   we could deal with the uplands but the way that I  had proposed dealing with it was a right of second   use. Not saying that's the only way to deal with  it but that was trying to shortcut. We don't have   to have the uplands discussion quite yet. So what  I do like about that is like in the same thing   in St. Joe, regardless of what people think and  feel, St. Joe can't tell the city what we can't   do. And so, but if we go and ground lease the  entire rest of the marina, like we're ultimately  

removing ourselves from the conversation of,  hey, we may not want this to happen. And so,   you know, and that's the piece that I'm like,  there's going to be 300,000 ft regardless of   what we think if the measurables are met and the  performance measurables and those kind of things.   That's not this contract though. So explain.  So it's not a guaranteed 300 that we're going   to build 300,000. Our goal is to be able to cover  the public improvement cost that y'all have asked   us to do. And so if we take that off the picture,  if we take that off the table, we're not asking   you to make the public improvement cost. We don't  strictly we So you don't you're you don't want any   uplands at all is what you're trying to get at.  You want a very simple agreement, but it's still   complicated in the sense of you want to entertain  the financial potential financial options for the   wet slips. Yeah, I I think we still should be  more than available to you guys for financial   options that are on on the slips. What I'm trying  to do is we can't define what the uplands is,   but we can define what the slips are. We can  define what a ship store is. We can define what   what fuels is. That's easy to go back out and  tell the public this is what we're doing. But   when we start adding in undefined things is where  it becomes complicated. Yeah. What's undefined?   Is it the you the commercial space that has a a  a a clothing store or is it a commercial space   that you don't know what it's going to be all  the way? It's going to be a commercial space.   They're going to do commercial and residential.  Robbie, our our our citizens knew before before   construction agreements were executed that there  was going to be a hotel and restaurant. So why not   do that process? Why not do that process to get  from A to B on whatever the in in the example was   a hotel and a restaurant, right? So they don't  know exactly what they're going to. You're just   asking square footage, right? We don't we didn't  even So So the idea here is is that what if to  

get from A to B where you're talking about we do  that with the public's involvement. Mhm. Right.   Like very very publicly. So that but they have  to know that they're going to be able to build x   amount of square footage whether that's up whether  that's out whatever that looks like is defined by   the public right but they're asking to they're  asking to build 300 ft because they're doing   things that we haven't even defined yet of what  they're actually doing like the infrastructure   and the railings don't have any cost and how much  they are. But if they're putting all of the money   into it doesn't matter then it doesn't matter how  much it costs. Yeah. If if it does because we're   giving land in trade for the thing that they're  going to do. We're asking for our site. Well,   they're done. Why does it matter? It's like a  black box, right? Like you we're asking for an   end product. So, you have a whole calculation of  returns. You have a whole calculation of like are   you actually getting the value of the property for  that? Let's say we go through this and you know we   can do all the uplands improvements that we need  to do for $5 million. Well, now there's no ask.   Why are we going to give away rights to the  uplands if there's not any contribution for   that? Does that make sense what I'm saying? This  is based off of the the the revenue coming in off   of the upland. We have that, but we don't know  what that usage is to even know what the revenue   should be. Define usage. I've got I'm going to  put a condo over here. I'm put an apartment or   I'm going to put a great bunch of I'll give you  I'll give you a couple examples. So, let's say   it's a retail space. Retail space. We're going  to get revenue off merchant fees. We're going   to get sales tax. We're going to get those kind of  things. And so there's an additional revenue model   that could be laid overside a retail space versus  a residential space where if it's homesteaded,   we might not get anything on property taxes. If  it's in a tiff or a CDD, it might give us nothing   on property taxes again. And we may end up with  6% of an $1,800 uh $1,800 a month apartment. So   these are the kind of questions where you you  have to know the use before you can get to a   revenue model. They they can't go borrow money  without knowing what you're going to build.  

They're borrowing money for the slips and and your  letter said y'all y'all are funding yourself on   the upline. There's no there's no loans is what I  think y'all said. Yeah. We're not asking for money   for the upline. That's all out of their pocket. So  we're we're something. And the other thing too is   residential. I think what's what it sounds like  is everybody assumes this is like a year-to-year   lease or something like that. If y'all don't want  a year to year be short-term rentals and then it's   a completely different calculation. that. Yeah.  And so, but that's where we get a little nervous,   too. We we still I mean, no matter what happens is  this St. Joe cloud over our head, right? And so,   we can whittle this thing all the way down and the  deal could be so bad. That's the reason why St.   Joe doesn't want to do it. So, it it's kind of two  two sides of the same coin, if that makes sense.   The the the other thing too is and this is the  the first pass of the upland is has um the what   is it John Anderson drawing that has no input  from anyone that is no I mean yeah and so yeah   so my goal yeah and so my goal would be my goal  would be if y'all are okay with it PFM come back   on board for Upland and Wateride and then they  are married at the hip to y'all and us through   these public cherettes until the first 50 are  ready to be constructed. That gives us 90ish days   till the end of the year um or through February.  Okay, Cooper, I want to say this and I want to   say this to the rest of the partners. We're in  partnership together. I love you guys. I want to   continue in partnership together. I want it to  be a good relationship. I I do want to be very   transparent that we could go through this process  and there could be no upland improvements that   come with it and and it could be a 324 up. might  decide. I don't know that I do know that there is   a comfortability and a completely I think united  front on doing a partnership on the slips, a ship   store and fuel. I I think that that is there  and I I would I know that there's a desire to  

continue down this path on uplands. Um but it is  complicated and it's going to raise a lot of other   questions and it's also going to get the community  wanting to understand what it is too. Maybe you're   successful in that, but I don't want to I don't  want to leave in a bad a bad scenario in that. So,   just so that that's so So, and that's Yeah. And  so, that's a good point that plays exactly into   what we've done for seven years. November 2018,  CMP, part of us landed on the marina, came up with   a plan to build the marina back within 6 months.  February of of 2019, St. and Joe came in and and   the partnership wasn't quite formalized, but the  the hotel deal had been put out there February   of 2019. Then the deal comes out and St. Joe that  has kind of all the control right now if a third   party were to come in um only had to do the upland  and the city had the requirement to do the marina.   Matter of fact, the city has the requirement to  build the marina before the hotel even opened.   So with all that con and then there's been the son  and blick things in the past and everybody else um   you know prior to the hurricane we've we've split  we the global wheat we've split the marina before   um slips only and tried that and it failed. We've  slip we we've split it to where the city was going   to use the revenue from the upland from St. Joe  and build the marina that so far has failed. we   are trying to unite everything back together and  that's how we ended up here is maybe a suggestion   to to see if there's some commonality that we  could move forward uh so we don't go away and two   weeks later we pick it back up yes yeah one one  is we did talk with PFM uh initially and they said   don't you want us to study uplands uses and that  really wasn't within the scope at the time and  

uh so they have done that throughout the state of  Florida where and and as and we heard it from Owen   Bish's group too. It it is typical for um marinas  and public marinas to to u make everything work   with upland uses. Not that it you can't make  it work without them, but that is that is more   typical than not. So, if we could go back to PFM,  uh see if we could get them re-engaged and start   looking at the the Upland's uses. Meanwhile, we  do have an obligation to build the marina in our   lease with St. Joe. There's no question about  that. And um so you I I what I have learned   through this process is that there's a hesitancy  to do any uplands uh development peace meal like   one pad at a time. They the the hesitancy is not  is not to do that but to do a global plan and then   when it's give shown to St. Joe, that would be  shown as a global plan and then they could make a   decision. Is that really do they want to do that?  Um, but that requires some specificity and that   requires time. And I and I will say that months  ago when we started this process, I was trying not   to to go through that. I don't know if there's  a way, but we could explore it before the next   meeting to come up with u a way where we could  try to make a lot of progress on the marinas and   then also if there was some way uh that CMP would  be comfortable that there they they have a first   seat at the table if the city commission after  it goes through a sharet process because I heard  

that tonight. This is a process that would be  controlled by the city. The city determines what   it wants to do and then it looks over to CMP who  might be out there building the 50 slips and say,   "Do you want to do it and can we come to an  agreement?" I don't know if that's attractive   to CMP. uh but but that's who we'd look to first  and if this idea takes root and then um CMP would   make a decision well yeah that's we do want to do  it we don't now that not knowing that they would   ultimately want to do and where would be awarded  the uplands will influence the agreement on the   marina. So the marina deal would be probably  negotiated not knowing that there would be any   rights to do the uplands but it would have to sit  on it by itself. I don't know if that would work   or not but just sensing from the discussion that  maybe that's something that the five of you would   like to see. So you're saying work a process that  is the marina ship store and and and fuel on its   own while doing this research on potential uplands  improvement. That's I'm trying to sense if if   there are five of you together we that would like  to proximity. Owen Vice said he found five public   marinas from Key West coming up the West Coast and  they all had a public private partnership and an   upload to make it happen. Right. And then one of  their partners who's if you don't know the public,   we've got marine contractors, marine managers  and marine uh owner operators. And their owner  

operator said he knows of one um marina in Florida  that doesn't have an upland that works. And so I'm   just going off the information the city had and  what they have. I've got to believe that that's   right. I'm not a marine operator. Well, I I mean  I could I could point out that maybe in the in   the Port St. Joe Marina, they needed to have  a a dry dock to make their make their numbers,   but I don't know that. And that's an upland, but  that could be something that the public is good   for with having project revenue for a marina that  wasn't even designed. That's that's a job. So,   so let me ask you a question. Cooper, Cooper,  what what I'm wondering is if there was a if   there was another partner that was willing to  do the slips, the ship store, and the fuel,   would you guys still want to consider moving  forward on looking at uplands improvements? Yeah,   I think we're willing to work with the city  and try to help you solve your problems. Like that answer. Okay. Well, then I would like  to see an agreement that is based upon ship store,   fuel, and slips. So, another party. Y'all  introduced these guys over two years ago   and what I just heard was, "Are you okay  with me substituting you?" Is that I mean,   why would No. What I'm trying to understand is I  I'm hearing that the slips, the ship store and the   and the the fuel doesn't make financial sense. I  also understand cuz I'm in business too that it   may be because hey, capital's too high of cost.  Maybe there needs to be more equity to drop down   the cost so that you can get a better margin.  I don't know what those calculations that PFM   did. And and that's a good point. I mean, you know  that rooftops come before amenities. And this is   a this is a hard deal to pencil out when there's  no rooftop. There's I mean, there's grass on the   tea dog. There isn't grass anywhere else. We could  we can't even have a dog park other than what's in   between the basins. And so I guess my question is  Cooper is what I'm trying to get to is what does   a deal look like that just has just the slips  and just those things? We'd have to whittle a  

lot back down, I think. Okay. I I I think that's a  valid question to kind of understand. Well, at the   very least, we present it to the public saying,  "Hey, absolutely. This is not not an option. Let   the public decide, you know, or at least they have  the option." But I want to be able to answer that   question of like these were the two options that  we went with, you know. So, so no, it's not about   a substitution, Robbie, as much as it is about,  hey, look, I'm hearing that there's not that it   it doesn't financially pencil, but then I also  know we have other marinas that don't have large   uplands improvements and they're operating. So,  I'm trying to understand, nor do they have the uh   submerged land fee waved either. So, we're we're  at a there's a lot of things protected arena,   but I do understand that the cost of capital is  the cost of capital. And so I do understand the   financial conundrum that you guys are in with  how much equity is required in a marina versus   an upland deal. I do understand that. Um but I  don't know that we can get there with the public   in a timely manner to actually get it constructed.  So between now and February, you don't think that   can happen? I I don't know that it can. So I just  I'm just I'm just looking at how long it's taken   us to get to where we are today. And and that's  I'm not faulting that on anyone. I'm just saying   it's a very complicated point and I think St. Joe  took probably two years in their process. I would   I'm not saying I want to take two years disagree  and say that the reason we haven't got to an   agreement is because of us. We get here four times  and we cannot we can't get together to to vote on   putting a pile in the water. And it blows me away  that we're talking about piling. We're talking   about three. We're talking We're talking about  overall general thing. They're trying today. If   we were just ready, I would be ready to go today.  They're going to be gone when we're ready to go   because they're going to be like, "Dude, why do I  want to do business with these people?" That's to  

me that's what I see. I get it. I get that. But  it it's to me the reason we're not there is the   five of us sitting up here. It's not they've said  yes. And I've been here very finances. It could be   a lot of other things that are in that equation.  I don't think I think that I think if Cooper could   present something that all five of us would agree  on, he would have probably presented something   that all five of us can agree on. So, I don't like  the idea of of just the marina, just the slips,   even though I want it because I don't think that  I don't think it pencils and just based on what   the economists were saying. And then here we are  again waiting again for one more. We got to get   more cost. It's going to be this time next year  before we're driving a pie. And that's that's   the crazy part. If we if we continue down this  road that you you just echoed what my concern is,   but because it's very complicated, but there's  let's simplify it and then we'll get through it   faster. It is pretty simple though. I mean the  the idea is is that they have to build the wet   slips before they can get any access to any of  the uplands, right? Of which we cannot describe   to the public. But because they we haven't  gone through any public part of it, right? So,   we're going to have to do that. When are you read  is uh tomorrow as a just real quick possibility.   Um, and I have appreciated the goal of CMP to plan  the entire uplands. And I think I heard tonight   that that's a goal of the city commission to plan  the entire uplands going through a sharet process   involve PFM involve CMP and uh so maybe there's an  agreement in there where do them do the wet slips  

based upon the St. Andrew's uh you model somehow  and then CMP works with the city hand in hand and   with PFM. The city decides this is what we want  and then the city agrees that it will exclusively   negotiate with CMP for 3 months, 2 months, I  mean whatever the time period is to arrive at   an agreement that the city and CMP both find is  acceptable. But when that negotiation starts, it   would be kind of after you've kind of decided what  you what you want. Now I realize that what you   want has to make financial sense. It has to the  term it has to pencil. So that's why PF's involved   even in that decision making. But maybe there's  some way in the agreement we could give CMP   comfort if they they obviously are seeking that  comfort because they have uh one goal I believe   of talking about the Uplands is to attract a an  investor to into their partnership that can pay   for all of that $80 million or whatever it might  be to do. And I think they're prepared to talk   about at the appropriate time uh the financial  strength of the investor that they have where that   investor may not be interested in just a marina.  Would not be interested probably in just a marina.   So maybe there's something we could explore. I  don't know if Cooper I'm sure he'd be willing   to sit down with us cuz he wants to solve our  problem. Yeah. Time with all of you. Can I kind   of just put that into a nutshell? Um, are would  you all be open to if they went and using either  

the architect that you have or one of their own  um to have a design of what potentially could look   like for X amount of square footage where it's  dispersed and then maybe another design where it's   tends to be more monolithic where there's less  structures but it's maybe higher. And then that   would be kind of be the two options that we could  kind of say, hey, what do you think about these?   Does this look I think it's just going to lead to  more question. What are we building? Right. Well,   it gives you a kind of an idea of what you are  looking to build. Would would people want to   have more buildings building versus a bunch  of base any point? They didn't have an anchor   going in there until the very end when they they  went ahead and got it done. But they didn't know   that the nail salon and the food places, none of  that was was in place. the city. The city is the   point is Josh is trying to solve around what's  going to be there, it's the square footage, all   the commercial I should expect to get um uh sales  tax and 1% off of of commercial. I think I think   what I can what I can clearly communicate I'm not  comfortable voting for something I can't describe   to the public. So let's let's just say that is  where I'm at with it. Take that for what it is.   Maybe you don't need me. Like that's that's  fine. I'm just saying like that's what I'm   not comfortable with. Yeah. To address that though  that this is the first crack at the upline Apple.   We're not saying we're going to go build anything  at all. What we are the intent of this was to see   where y'all were in the sense of oh well let's run  the numbers or let's see what the public says or   it's kind of we're not even at phase one of this  whole thing. We're not going to engage anybody on   anything until we know there's some sort of warmth  and coziness. Not saying y'all are cozy with any   design you've seen, but just any sort. Right now  it's ice cold. I understand from your perspective,   but it's because you got that. Yeah. It's because  we're not to the next step, which is, well,  

what could that look like? You're not even getting  spending a bunch of money and then it come back   and I'm like, I don't like that. That's not fair.  You know, so I'm being transparent with you and   trying to be a good partner and say, hey, this is  what it is. Yeah, it would be the public deciding   what it looks like, but you're public that we pay  for. Okay. So, um I guess I'll make a motion that   um that we hire PFN to provide a report based  on independently verified numbers because that   was a concern, right? That that we received the  numbers from the partner that we're doing business   with. So, we want to independently verify those  numbers um and tell us whether or not that the   uh the the the wet slips are economically viable  and then also study the uplands and come back with   independently verified numbers on the uplands.  Can I can I be in there? Yeah, absolutely. We   don't Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. What a put  in there. Let me You just said the what they   put in there don't matter. I can ask what y'all  would tell me and I'll I'll say it. Jeez. So what   the typical way that we get a financial analysis  is done upon is this reasonable. And so are you   asking for something that's more specific to this  is the actual kind of this is the actual cost,   not a hypothetical scenario. It's not a reasonable  cost. It's an actual cost such as quoting. I see   what you're saying. Yeah. So I would like to see  examples. I would like to see um what they're   actually basing these numbers off of. I think I  think the problem with asking for actual like this   is actually what it's going to cost is tomorrow  that could be a different number, right? And so   a lot of a lot of professionals don't want  to go down that road. I thought understood.   And and I would I would want to see the the data  where they base their their their numbers off of   on why it's reasonable, if that makes sense. Is  that achievable? Yeah. Yeah. And and not to add  

to your motion, but maybe construction costs cuz  we're not we're not subbing this out to a third   party construction contractor. So, we're we're  paying for the materials ourselves and performing   the work ourselves. So, it's not really the actual  cost of what if the city went out to bid to build   it. We're paying two different numbers. You're  actually paying less than what we would wind up   paying 20 to 30%. What what we've I know at St.  Andrews, they they actually verified the cost   based on other marinas that were presently under  construction. And so something like that, I think,   is what we're asking for is is how can what other  uh what are cost of materials today? You know,   there's other ways to there's other ways to sol  I think I don't want to complicate PF, gentlemen.   We could have had like three sharetses in the  amount of time in the amount of time that we've   been talking about this. Let's plan the sheretses.  We pay for them. I think so. As part of my motion,   I would like to also have staff plan the the  sharets. Would you restate your motion? Yeah,   sure. Um so uh my motion is to hire PFN to  study the wet slips and the uplands with   um you know two separate studies there that and  provide all the information on how they came to   a reasonable amount and for staff to uh schedule  out shits for the public to be fully engaged for   everybody who wants to be engaged on this process  moving forward. I need to ask for one other point   of clarification. So when we're looking at the  slips design, that should also include how much   equity needs to be brought to bring the tootion.  The uh the I'm not asking you to add this. I just   want to make sure I understand. I've looked at  a multiple of these financial reports and I'd   like to have something that actually like shows  that you can come back and you can show me slips  

aren't viable because we're at 100% financing.  Like that's not what I'm looking for. Good point.   So in the St. Andrew's lease and in this one  in the drafts we are required to do 25% equity   out of pocket. So that's the 50 slips for example  at St. Andrews all out of pocket. These 50 slips   would be out of pocket as well. So and and to go  through the conduit financing it's an additional   5%. So to even be able to lock unlock that avenue  of funding it's 30% equity. Okay. So you'll run   about 30% equity on what the profitability is. How  many sharets? Pardon? How many shreds? How many of   you that are needed? As needed. As needed. Until  the public can get comfortable with what we're   doing. Yeah. We do want to get this built right.  That's why I'm saying we're going to have one a   month for the next year. I'm sure somebody with  that. It is a heavy lift. I mean, you're you guys   are taking the most visual piece of property that  we have in the entire city and and going to try   to build public support around doing uplands  improvements. That is not an easy task. No,   it's not. But you also realize that that we will  never get to the point to where the public is was   100% satisfied. That's not the goal. I understand  the um shouldn't the chetses happen before we have   a study so that that can be incorporated on  the upland side. Now you guys go and do the   one without the uplands that one could be done  but the other one would be required the for the   upland I mean for the upland. Yeah I have to do  two studies. Does that make sense? I have to do   two studies. Two studies. Okay. All right. Janice  just told me yes, it made sense and then he said I   didn't hear what you said. So it's non. Yeah. What  what what Janice was saying is you can proceed   forward on an analysis without uplands, but the  uplands analysis would need to wait until the   sharets are complete. I think that PFM could help  us with the sharets, too. Even though they're just  

doing the financial analysis, I think they're part  of it. But you're right, it wouldn't be concluded   until the group not not financial to do the  public, but but planning is you obviously you have   to plan something that can be built financially.  So I I view this as all all players having a part,   CMP having a part. The city PFM will be there  in the background. But I understand the point   completely. Okay. Okay. We have a motion. Do  the second. We don't even know what the motion.   All right. Did we decide how many sharetses,  Mr. Mayor? Like as needed. I mean, I think I   agree with Miss Smith. We need to set a limit.  I mean, if y'all have a timeline on this, that's   what I said. one a month for the next year for a  minimum. So, and and we're only doing sharetses on   the upland though, right? I mean, through sharets  before December. Yeah, that's one. I think that's   probably sufficient if we want this forward until  through December. Three. Yeah. So, meeting before   December before December and just understand  like I may vote in support of going to this,   but if we can't get it defined by the end of this  process, I like I I'll jump off the train. Yeah.   But can we just get the Wait, there's a train on  the marina. Oh jeez. And and we're only talking   about too late. And we're only talking about  sharets on the uplands cuz I mean the the slips   are already like designed. Yeah. You've already  voted on the design. Do you need me to restate   the motion or do you can you I think I can what I  have I'll write I'll read what I have to you. Um   we're going to hire PFM to provide two separate  studies. one on the wet slips um including an   equity require in including equity requirements  and um then we're going to um have the second  

study on the uplands uh after three sharetses  before December um and only it and it should only   be based on construction costs. How'd I do? Are we  not hiring them until after now? We're hiring them   now. Okay. Now, is that based on construction  costs? I would Yeah, I would do double just   because there was a comment by Allen and by the  mayor um that y'all might pay for it on your own   um through an RFP and we might be out of it. So,  that was a comment that the mayor made. I mean,   I don't I don't I'm not jumping at the chance on  the construction project, but I want to be able   to tell the public, here's why we had to do the  uplands because we were we did not want to finance   it and build it ourselves. Yeah. And I don't I  think that PFN is going to come in. They're going   to they're going to do the independent numbers  and we're going to come up with the same result.   We might we but at least we'll have the answers.  Understand that's why we're doing the exercise,   right? Like I think I'm hypo my hypothesis is that  it's going to be the same same result and so then   we just say move on into the uplands and does that  make sense? Well, you'll have had the cherettes so   you'll have an idea of what you want there. I mean  I think that will help move the process along what   the community wants. Let me not speak for you  guys because I don't live in the community. But   um so that will that we'll at least move it  one step further. I think PFM they've done   this before and I think if we go to them and  say let's develop a scope. We're going to bring   it back to you hopefully the next meeting so you  can approve it. Read the motion if they can make   sense out of it. We hire they'll make it what it  needs to be. In other words, they'll say, "This  

is what we need to do." I mean, they they're in  the business. Should the motion be to get PFM to   come back to us with a sharet process or I mean,  should that Well, sharette process what the study,   you know, what the study should be. How about  this? Bring us the scope of work back. Yeah,   I'll I'll resend my motion. And my motion is  just hire PFN to come in and help help us move   this process forward and help us understand  the numbers behind it. That's great. and and   I'll bring back the scope of work for approval.  And bring back the scope of work for approval.   What work has PFM done for us? I'll second. They  they did the work. You got a second. You got a   second right on that motion. PFM did the study  on the downtown marina. I was flagging it out. Call the role discussion. Well, we  don't have struggles. The motion,   all we're doing is we're hiring the financial  analysis team to come back with a scope of work on   on trying to figure out whether this makes sense.  PFN, they're a company that helps with with P3s,   with private partnerships. And so, um, in the  past, all they did was just a study. And so,   we're just bringing them in to actually  do kind of more of what they actually do   to make you feel better a little bit. We can't  actually go to construction until the drawings   are done. So the timeline that we just set is  supposed to be done before we can actually go   to construction. So So all right, call the RO.  Commissioner Street, yes. Commissioner Hughes,   yes. Commissioner Lucas, yes. Commissioner  Granger, yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Did I get   everybody? Not a journey yet. Motion passes  5-0. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Commissioners,   I just want to take a moment to highlight that  unfortunately uh tonight is the last commission   meeting for one of our directors, Mr. Keith  Meford, uh who's going to be living leaving  

us. So, I just wanted to express on behalf  of all of us, the community, the commission,   the senior staff, how much we appreciate all  the work that you've done. Absolutely. Leaving   the parks and recck department better than  you founded. And Godspeed, brother. So, yes. Do I have motion? We move. I call  the role. Commissioner Street. Yes.   Commissioner Hughes. Yes. Commissioner  Lucas. Yes. Commissioner Granger. Yes.   Mayor Branch. Yes. Motion passes 5. I'm  going to vote no on a journey. Step back.