City Commission Meetings - Regular Meeting

I am calling to order the Panama City  Commission meeting for October 28th.   Opening prayers by Dr. Pittz, senior  pastor of St. Andrews Baptist Church,   followed by the pledge of allegiance with Brian  Granger, led by Brian Granger. Please rise. Let us pray. Lord, we come to you today thanking  you for the gift of life itself. For a roof over   our head, for clothes on our back, Lord, and  for food on our tables. God, we thank you for   Panama City, for its people, its history, its  resilience. We're grateful for those who lead,   those who serve, and those who work behind the  scenes to make this place a place where families   can plant roots, where children can grow strong,  and where neighbors can look out for one another.   Lord, I'm especially thankful for every person  seated at the table today. You've placed them   here for such a time as this. So, I ask that  you'd give them wisdom beyond their experience,   grace in their conversations, and  clarity in their decisions. Lord,   may they lead well. May they follow your will  and in confidence that you're guiding their   steps. Lord, would you bless this meeting  with unity even when there's difference,   with purpose, and Lord, may peace mark the  way forward. And may we leave this room today   having made choices that bring hope and help  to the people of our city. We give thanks to   you. In Jesus name we pray. Amen. Amen. If  you'll join me in the pledge of allegiance,   please. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the  United States of America and to the republic   for which it stands, one nation under God,  indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Please call the role. Mayor Branch here.  Commissioner Lucas present. Commissioner  

Granger present. Commissioner Street here.  Commissioner Hughes here. Mayor, you have   quorum. You receive the meeting minutes from  October 14th. We have a motion to accept. Motion   to accept. Second. If there's no discussion,  please call the role. Commissioner Lucas,   yes. Commissioner Granger, yes. Commissioner  Street. Yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Mayor   Branch, yes. Motion passes 5-0. Any additions,  deletions, or modifications to the agenda? Yes,   Mr. Mayor. Uh request under the commissioner  section adding 11B as in Bravo. Uh again,   11B as in Bravo. Uh Commissioner Street would like  to propose temporary relief for federal employees.   Again, temporary relief for federal employees  under the commissioner section 11. If I don't have   a mayoral update, do I need to just we can skip it  or I have to actually delete it? Uh on item 10 A.   Uh you would need to vote to remove that if you uh  if you don't want to discuss item 10 A, sir. Yeah,   unless there's I was supposed to have an update on  that. I don't Okay. So So I'll motion to add 11B   for uh temporary relief for federal employees  and remove item 10A. Second. Any discussion?   Call the RO. Commissioner Lucas. Yes. Yes.  Commissioner Granger. Yes. Commissioner Street.   Yes. Commissioner Hughes. Yes. Mayor Branch.  Yes. Motion passes. 5-0. Community. All right. Final reminder that the utility billing  kiosk on the outside of city hall will be   closing permanently this Saturday,  November 1st. Beginning Saturday,   uh the city will permanently discontinue utility  bill payment services at the kiosk located on   Grace Avenue of City Hall. While this particular  service is being retired, residents can still   take advantage of several convenient alternative  payment methods such as online, over the phone,   uh at the payment counter inside city hall, or in  the dropboxes that are also on Grace Avenue. Join  

us Saturday, November 1st from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00  a.m. for our next town hall meeting in the city   hall room 10 on the lower level. In addition  to the commission hearing thoughts, concerns,   and answering questions from the community,  the charter review advisory board will also   be in attendance to hear the same regarding the  charter review process that the city is currently   undertaking. Touch a truck is happening Saturday,  November 15th from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at the   downtown marina. Bring the family for this free  community event where kids and adults can explore   real working vehicles and meet the people who  operate them. From firet trucks and police cars   to construction equipment and ambulances, there's  something for everyone to enjoy. Don't miss this   hands-on day of learning, fun, and community  connection. City offices will be closed in   observance of Veterans Day on Tuesday, November  11th. There will be no trash pickup, but garbage   collections. The blue cans will run as scheduled.  Normal business will resume the next day. The   CRA and the Incremental Development Alliance  are bringing a full day in-person small-scale   development workshop to the Glenwood Community  Center on Friday, November 14th from 8:30 a.m.   to 5:00 p.m. 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 what help is needed and who   to seek assistance from. For more information  and to register for this event, please visit   our website at panama city.gov. Please make note  that during the months of November and December,   there will only be one commission meeting  per month to make accommodations for the   city and staff holiday schedules. Dates for the  upcoming commission meetings will be Tuesday,   November 18th and Tuesday, December 16th. Both  of these meetings will be held here at the Bay   County Government Center and both will begin  at 4:30 p.m. And finally, join us Saturday,  

December 6th, 2025 for our annual downtown  Christmas parade. The parade will start at 6   p.m. on Harrison Avenue from the downtown marina  to Bay High School. Register your float for $75,   your vehicle for $75, or your walk walking group  for $25. Visit our website today at panalcity.gov   gov and exemptions will be given for  nonprofits with proper documentation. That is all the announcements. Moving into public  hearings. Item 6A is the second and final public   hearing and readoption of ordinance 3219, an  ordinance amending the city of Panama City's   comprehensive plans future land use element to  include the neighborhood uh area district MPA um   sorry neighborhood planning area district future  land use category as background information. In   2020, the city initiated a visiting process for  the Glenwood, Milville, and St. and introduced   neighborhoods which resulted in neighborhood plans  for each community respectively. To implement the   strategic vision of the neighborhood plans,  the city commission amended the unified land   development code and adopted the neighborhood  zoning districts in August of 2021. All amendments   to the land development code are required to  be consistent with the local comprehensive plan   per section 163.3194 subsection 1 subsection B  of the Florida statutes. Ordinance number 3219   is a text amendment to the city's comprehensive  plan establishing the neighborhood planning area   district future land use category concerning  the neighborhood plans again for Glennwood,   Milville, and St. Andrews. The neighborhood plan  zoning districts, neighborhood downtown, general,   and residential would implement the future  land use map category. Amen. Amendments to   the comprehensive plan require transmitt to  the state land planning agency, the Florida   Department of Commerce or FCOM. This item was  previously reviewed by the planning board on   May 13th of 2024. The planning board recommended  approval unanimously and staff concurred. The city  

commission held the first of two public hearings  on June 11th, 2024 and a second public hearing   was held and the ordinance was adopted on January  28th of 2025. The development services department   received a notice from FCOM indicating that they  do not have a record of the transmittal following   the second public hearing and adoption  hearing. Rather than send the previously   adopted ordinance to the state land planning  agency, staff instead recommends readopting   the ordinance and then transmitting the readopted  ordinance to the state land planning agency. This   is so that the ordinance can be transmitted  within the 10 working day timeline provided   by section 163 3184 subsection 3 subsection 3  subsection C of Florida statutes. There is no   change to the ordinance except for the adoption  date. The following documents are enclosed in   your packet. Ordinance number 3219, the staff  analysis report recommendation and proposed   amendment. Staff recommendation to the director  of development services that the city commission   conduct the second and final public hearing,  readopt and approve the ordinance. Mr. Mayor,   yes, this is the public hearing. If you wish  to speak on item 6A, please come to the podium. Yes, sir. Good evening. Good evening. Um Derek Thomas 1100  West 10th Street and the uh uh main comprehensive   plan that they're talking about from 2019 to  2020. I was there during the uh the process   and it started out in the in the lobby of the  church where the plan for St. Andrews by St. Joe's   submitted included a a painting of the uh the city  and it showed a condo right where my house was and   their stated goal was to put have a row of condos  in between the marinas. Currently, that's all R1   neighborhoods. Now, moving forward with this  6A, you're very heavily going into let's have  

uh like all of the ordinances respected for urban  blight and you know, letting the properties run   down and stuff. you're very strong on trying to  enforce that and make sure that that is respected,   but you're not mentioning anything again about  issues that I've had and I've brought up several   times where if you're living in a residential  neighborhood like that and a developer comes   along and decides that they want to take over  your property, they know you don't have 20 to   $30,000 to take them to court and they can  just roll right over you and force you out. And   uh I don't I don't think that's right. I don't  think that you're offering any protection to   the people that live in those neighborhoods,  mostly retirees and and people living on fixed   incomes who don't have the option of just money,  $30,000 laying around and a couple of years to   go to court. And they may not know as many  good highric lawyers as the developers. Uh,   I did offer before and I'd like to bring it up  again that if you make it a code enforcement   violation for people to violate the civil codes  of Florida, which means to do to block the runoff   and flood somebody else's property, that that  should be also a code enforcement violation.   When you bring in fil dirt, you should need  to specifically prove that you haven't flooded   somebody else's property. And so that somebody  doesn't have to go to court and spend $25,000 in   years. They can just bring it up with the city and  the city can protect the people that live in these   R1 neighborhoods. Unless you don't want to protect  retirees, you don't want to protect veterans.   You don't want to protect people living on fixed  income. You just want to protect the developers by   using the plan to increase density. Like St. Joe  said when they showed a picture of my house with a   condo on it around the same time that the drainage  started becoming an issue at my property and uh

I guess I'll come back about the environmental  stuff on the next. Thank you. All right. Anyone   else on item 6A? Yeah. Anyone else on 6A? Seeing  none closing public comments. Do I have a motion?   Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion?  Commissioner Lucas? Yes. Commissioner Granger?   Yes. Commissioner Street? Yes. Commissioner  Hughes? Yes. Mayor Branch? Yes. Motion passes   50. Commission has adopted ordinance 3219, an  ordinance of the city commission of Panama City,   Florida, amending the comprehensive plan amending  the future land use element to include the   neighborhood planning area district future land  use category, repealing all ordinances or parts   of ordinances and conflict here with providing  for severability, providing this ordinance shall   take effect as provided by law. Item 6B is the  second and final public hearing and readdoption of   ordinance 3223.1, an ordinance amending the future  land use map of the city to reflect the land use   designation of neighborhood planning area district  for properties located within the Glenwood,   Milville, and St. Andrews neighborhood plans  study areas. Uh similar uh situation and request   from staff as the follow as the previous item uh  in order to uh address that notice we received   from FCOM. Uh staff recommendation to the director  of development services that the city commission   conduct the second and final public hearing,  readopt and approve ordinance 3223.1. Mr. Mayor,   this is a public hearing. If anyone would like  to speak on item 6B, please come to the podium. Yes, sir. Morning, afternoon. Derek Thomas, 1100 West  10th Street. Um, when it comes to changing the   uh the rules about doing a a a test, well, to have  it only be 2 to 4 weeks, I think is is not nearly  

enough. Also, to make it have to be one year  old, means that the historic stuff, including   the 100-year storm from Hurricane Michael and all  the satellite pictures, can't be used to develop a   plan for what is part of the uh flood plan that  you should be able to address. with that. Um,   also, you know, when you when you uh are are going  around and uh fixing up for the next hurricane   and stuff, you should definitely be cleaning out  your ditches. Thank you. Anyone else on item 6B?   Seeing none, closing public comments. Do I have a  motion? Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion?   Please call the RO. Commissioner Lucas, yes.  Commissioner Granger, yes. Commissioner Street,   yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Mayor Branch, yes.  Motion passes 5-0. Commission is adopted ordinance   3223.1, an ordinance amending the comprehensive  plan future land use map of the city to reflect   a land use designation of neighborhood planning  area district within the defined boundaries of the   Glenwood, Milville, and St. Andrews neighborhood  plan study areas, Panama City, Florida. providing   for repealer severability and effective date.  Item 6 C is the second and final reading to   consider and approve ordinance 3274 adopting  the proposed water and wastewater connection   fees of $1,350 per equivalent residential  connection for water and $1,610 per ERC for   wastewater. As background information, the city of  Panama City continues to face increasing capital   investment requirements necessary to expand uh  our water and wastewater system facilities to   serve new growth. Impact or connection fees are  collected from new development to recover the   city's investment in existing and future capacity  needs that are available to serve this growth.  

The city's utilities division um has not updated  their uh connection fees since 2003 and therefore   an updated connection fee increase is proposed to  manage the increase and the demand on the current   uh monthly utility user rates. The current fees  were adopted by the city commission on September   23rd of 2003 pursuant to ordinance number 1914.  During fiscal year 2025, the city hired Rafelis   financial consultants to complete the water and  wastewater uh connection fee study for the city's   water and wastewater utility system. The report  recommended the updated connection fees based   on the cost of capital expenditures for both  existing and new infrastructure uh to provide   capacity to serve new development. The report um  proposes a water connection fee of $1,350 per ERC   uh which represents an increase of $885 to the  existing $465 per ERC and a wastewater connection   fee of $1,610 per ERC which represents an increase  of $360 compared to the existing $1,250 per ERC.   The proposed water and wastewater connection fees  help offset the cost of growth to the system that   otherwise would have to be funded by current  monthly user fees and will become uh effective   on um Friday, January 30th of 2026. Uh staff  recommends that the city commission conduct the   second and final public hearing of ordinance  3274 adopting the new ERC rates for water and   wastewater again beginning Friday, January 30th  of 2026. And I know Mr. Mayor, you did ask that   we crunch a number on a prior one. Uh kind of just  an example, if someone were to say add a bathroom   to their house, that's about a $350 expense uh  to the system. So, uh, staff recommendation, uh,  

through the director of public works in the city  manager's office again is that the, uh, commission   conduct the second and final public hearing and  adopt the new ERC rates, uh, beginning Friday,   January 30th of 2026. Mr. Mayor, yes, this is  a public hearing. If you wish to speak about   item 6C, please come to the podium. I think  there's a few people. We'll make a nice line. Yes, sir. Walt P. Henry, 614 Map Avenue. Um, these  fees when I don't get bothered me about them that   the folk that's outside the city, what are their  prices to hook to the city sewer, to the city   water? What are their prices? I was told y'all had  a price, but y'all don't want us to know what the   price is. It's like you hiding something. Um city  have have hurt yourself down through the years. Y'all let the county talk y'all in  hooking up folks outside the city without   coming into the city. Anyone ever  hooked to the city, outside the city,   had to come into the city. Y'all losing money,  kind of gaining money. Y'all looking for money, but y'all look at something is strange that  you're not been done for years. Nobody had  

anything to say. And now y'all want to  just let it set. Let the county have   this tax money that y'all could have. Don't  make no sense. Don't make it look a certain what was said long ago while much back. Y'all  broke. Y'all need money. Any way you can get   find to get it. But it's you don't have to  find a way. The state is the one who told   these people that they could not hook to those  separate tanks anymore. That's a state law. Y'all   can get that money if y'all y'all want to help  everybody but the folk that is inside of Panama   City. Thank you. Yes, sir. Good evening. Uh my  name is Brian Knox, 1208 Discovery Loop North,   Panama City. Um I'm a builder here in Bay County.  I also represent the Bay Building Industries   Association and as well I serve on the state  Florida home builders association for governmental   affairs. And so we all know especially over this  past year we've the big talk not just with city   of Panama City with all the local municipalities  has been impact fees. And so, and even more so on   a state level through legislation we're trying to  craft to help rein in some of these raises. Um,   and and we're we're hearing horror stories  throughout the state, especially South Florida, of   um impact fees being raised to a level that just  it it stifles growth and is just unsustainable.  

Um, I do understand the enormous weight and  task of what y'all are trying to accomplish   with updating our systems and making it  to where like I have I'm raising a family   here. I have two little girls. I want them  to want and be able to stay here in Panama   City 30 years from now and it to be in a place to  where it continues to grow and be a place that's   uh desirable to live. And I understand that takes  money. Um, while these figures may be fair and   and when you look at other municipalities in the  panhandle, um, in reality, for a three-bedroom,   two- bath home that I typically build, this is a  70% increase in my impact fees. And this immediate   impact uh increase will it will affect my ability  to sell homes, whether they're custom homes or   spec homes. But also, I mean, this is this is a an  increase that will eventually get passed down to   all the anybody buying a new home in Bay County  in Panama City. And so, we talk about afford   affordability. We know that that's so important to  us here. And I I just we need to keep in mind how   we implement this. We know we need to raise the  money, but whether it's phased in or we look at   other ways that we can spread this out so it's not  an immediate hit to to builders to home buyers,   I really would like us to have a conversation  and spend a little bit more time about how do we   actually implement that. Um, the other thing I'd  like to mention is we found out as an associate,   so all year we've talked about wanting to have  a seat at the table with the city and especially   when it comes to transportation impact fee and  we all agreed that yes, that we wanted seats   at the table. We want communication and we feel  especially in this instance that didn't happen   and we got blindsided with this was told hey  this is happening whether you like it or not  

essentially and there was really no conversation  offered around it and so I'd love in the future   to be able to have more conversation have more  conversation to be able to to share the needs   of our association and our membership but  uh thank you all appreciate it. Thank you. Yes, sir. Good evening. I'm Kurt Hartthog with  the Bay Building Industries Association. Uh just   want to what Brian said that heavily is is part of  what we feel at the organization and what he said   really mirrors our our feelings for our members  and uh in that association. But there's a couple   other things I want to talk about. Um, we did  have a great conversation about the transportation   impact fee and there's some some concessions  were made and I would like us to look at the same   concept for this fee. There's a lot of existing  lots in Panama City. A lot of existing lots are   going to be built with affordable homes that were  platted back in the 50s60s. The infrastructure is   there. Why are we going to charge these people in  downtown in Millville and in Glennwood? Why are   you going to charge them this extra fee to hook up  to a system that's been there for 50 60 years? So,   I want us would really want you to consider  doing, you know, looking at that and possibly   doing some exemptions, especially when it comes  to affordable homes. There needs to be some   uh some mechanism to to eliminate that  cost for for those people. Um, also,   um, that same thing would be is if there's a an  existing lot that I'm going to I'm going to raise   I'm going to carry down that house. I'm going  to build a new house. It's going to be exact   same size, exact same fixtures. Would I have  would I have to pay a new impact fee for that   house? Is that something that's in in writing  that going to have to do? Perfect. Perfect.   Um, the last thing I want to talk about a little  bit of a semantics. I guess it has to do with the  

the way the ordinance here with the background.  It says um to shift the financial burden of   constructing new infrastructure to the new  residents whose benefit the infrastructure was or   will be built. I have a I have a home in the Cove.  I want to build a new house in Sweet Bay. I'm I'm   an existing resident. I'm not a new resident. I'm  an existing resident. Am I gonna have to pay in   new Impact Beach for the new house I'm building  there? or it's a person from out of town who's   buying my house in the cove who is going to  be a new resident have to pay impact fees. I mean, I'm not a new resident,  so should I be paying impact fees   even when I'm a resident of the city?  Anyway, something to think about. Again,   I appreciate we understand that there have  to be fees. They have to be increased. We   have to improve the city, but I think  we need to look at it at affordability   standard. Some people can afford it, a lot of  people can't. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. Derek Thomas, 1100 West 10th Street. Um, my  issue with this is similar to the the first   two projects. you you're worried always about the  big guy and protecting that people and the impact   fees and this it's a tripling the water hookups  and one quarter more for the sewer hookups. I kind   of understand the sewer if you're trying to take  everybody off of groundwatering trying to bring   in new sewer lines to existing neighborhoods  that seems like it would be even bigger fee   but it's disproportional on the single family  residents. It's disproportional on the smaller   people where the pe the big apartment complex  that are going up with hundreds of apartments   and massive amounts of water and sewer created.  That is where the real infrastructure is going   to have to come from. But instead of going to  them and saying this is what you need to pay if  

you're going to hook up hundreds of people onto an  existing system, instead we're going to go around   and in neighborhoods and hit up single family  housing for as many houses that are built over   the next 20 years in order to pay for these big  giant massive housing projects or like bringing it   in bringing in water and sewer to the T do all of  a sudden that's the city's responsibility to pay.   if we paying more for single family houses so that  when big projects like that come along that the   uh city doesn't have to worry about it because  the money is going to come from everybody that's   already living here. I mean, I don't see  the T losing the T do being anything that's   going to help the people, although that's  going to be very expensive to hook up all   that plumbing. And when all of these massive  highdensity housing projects come online and   they're getting exempt from the impact fees  and they're only hooking up one connection,   they're not hooking if they want to pay  um, you know, three times as much and   charge them as much as you charge every house  as you're going through the apartment complex,   maybe you can get your money there. But to  go through and and say that everybody at the   bottom should fund everybody at the top and all  the money is going to come from the bottom to   take care of all the problems that the rich  people want to do in the future and all the   big developers and stuff so that their projects  can get finished at the expense of everybody that   doesn't have millions and isn't building hundreds  of apartments. Thank you. Anyone else on item 6 C? Seeing no more comments, closing 6C,  we'll entertain a motion. Motion to   approve. I would like to discuss. Yeah, I'll  second. Discussion. All right. Discussion. Okay. I guess I'll start. Um I do  want to do want to make sure do we  

have an impact fee credit process in this uh  particular ordinance for existing capacity? tear down your house and you put in a new house.  Yes, sir. You sir credit for the fixtures. Okay.   I just want to make sure. And honestly, I  mean, we'll be able to go back and look at,   you know, Google Maps, but you know, to some  degree it'll be on the honor system, you know,   the number of fixtures that you had in in a  prior house. But yes, um to Mr. Henry's question,   are the fees the same for those inside the city  limits versus outside of the city limits that   connect to our system, or is there Correct. The  search charge is only for the actual water or   sewer services they provide if they're outside  the city. So there's no 25% search charge on   connection fee. That is my understanding. Mr.  Murphy, please correct me if I'm wrong. That is   correct. Is that is that because we can't do that  or is that because we just aren't doing that in   this ordinance specifically? I I don't know the  history behind that, but I mean if I had to make   a decision right now, I don't know that I would  uh necessarily charge more for that. I think the   search charge on the actual services is is, you  know, is is fair. happy to consider an amendment   to that if that's something the commission would  like to see. I don't know. Mr. Zimmerman has been   doing this for just a few decades. He might  know. It was a question. I just want good   good question. That this does not change our  existing ordinance. Our existing ordinance does   not have a search charge for out of uh the people  outside the city that connect. Okay. But it does   for monthly service. Right. Correct. For the for  the water, the sewer, and the garbage. which and   I haven't looked at whether or not it's legally  possible to do a search charge the same way. Yeah,   the if I may the search charges is um by statute  you can charge 25%. I don't know if it includes   impact fees. That that's essentially my question.  I'm not sure about that either. So to answer your   question, Mr. Henry, yes, we do charge 25% more  for people that are outside of the city limits,  

but in a connection fee process, no, that is not  the case. as this is written. Now, um the other   thing that I I just wanted to I I became aware  that the county actually uses their ship program   dollars which come from dock stamps to offset the  cost of connection or impact fees um utilizing um   you know a program to encourage affordability.  I do think that anytime we're raising fees,   it also makes things less affordable. So I would  like to see before we get to the implementation   in January um if this does proceed forward  that we have a program using our SHIP funds   um to offset those costs so we can continue  to encourage affordability in the city. So   essentially it would be a grant process that would  pay utilizing ship funds the impact connection fee   so that it's not increasing the cost of an  affordable home in the city of Panama City   only the impact fee or just is that an add-on the  county's program I think we need to look at that   they have an existing program that they use their  ship allocation for um so I think it's a good you   know solution to encourage affordability still  in the city even though the costs are obviously   cost. And I think we all know the reality that  we're sitting in currently with this specific   um fee. The the other thing that I do think is a  very valid uh point is the communication process.   Um I don't know what we need to do. This is kind  of the second time we've encountered this. So   that we make sure that these whether it's at the  study inception that we do some kind of workshop   with the builders association or those or whether  it's prior to first reading, whatever it is. So it   doesn't feel like our our our current partners in  the city don't feel like we're catching them off   guard. And that does seem to be kind of a trend  that we're having. And so I don't know if Jonathan   you've got a recommendation um whether that's at  hey we're initiating a study let's consult then  

or whether it's at the conclusion of the study  prior to first reading but I would like there to   be some type of dialogue prior to getting to us.  Um so we have an opportunity to answer questions   before we get to the final reading. So understood.  I agree with that and my bad on the builders that   you know I want to hear like y'all up front.  Uh so my bad for not calling on that. Um the   answer on splitting the lots. He had a good idea  on exemptions. If you if a lot's been in a flat   since 1950 and never been built on, could that  be an exemption? Because the way I understand it,   it's only locks that have never had a tap on it,  which is going to hit all of Panama City North,   but down in Panama City proper, I guess we call  it, um there's a lot of lots down there that   might not be, but they're in the flat. But if you  split a lot in two, then you've created a lot that   is not um that has not been in the flat. So, if  we were going to go with something that is not,   that's a way to uh you know, charge them on that  one. Could there be an exemption for something   like that? a platted lot. Um, I mean, I would  think that y'all could put in an exemption,   but the only thing I would say is whether you were  going to build that house platted in 1950 in 1980   or 1990 or 2000 or 2010, you were going to pay an  impact fee. So, if you've never paid an impact fee   on a platted lot before, I think my my advice to  the commission would be to be consistent. Uh, I   don't know that that you would kind of necessarily  want to zero that out. Again, if they had built a   house and then tore it down, they would get the  credit for, you know, any existing fixtures,   if I'm understand question, but I do understand it  on the I do understand it on the um that falls on   the impact fee of 2400 ft ignites a a fee to  be paid, but $23.99 doesn't. So, that's been  

there a long time. Somewhere in there, that lot,  they paid taxes. They they've probably covered an   impact fee. Um and we're talking about saving  that person. Now, think if it changes hands,   I don't know, maybe it's there. That person's paid  enough money in the taxes probably to cover the   $1,300 is just a thought. And uh I'm not following  question. The person has has owned that lot for a   while. Okay. Been platted for forever. They've  paid enough in property taxes to probably cover   the $1,300 increase. Okay. If it's brand new flat,  that's a different that's they have not. We've   been we've been receiving money on somebody's  flat, a co- flat. We've been receiving money   on a lot for a long time. Now, we're asking  them to pay us more money because they want   to build a house. But if I own a lot, then I can  split in two and I had a house on it. I'm going   to get a credit for one and I should pay for the  impact fee on the other because I didn't. It's a   brand new lot. just trying to find an exemption  and that was a good idea. Um, yeah. The tough   part about the whole it's been a vacant lot and  we've been paying for but they have been paying   they haven't been paying for water and sewer  because they haven't been paying for water and   sewer they've been using but they have been using  police services of people that might be camping   out on the property and those sort of things.  So I don't know if that's a great argument. I   um it's uh it's really interesting being up here  um receiving an agenda and item the recommendation   and Allan as a person doesn't want it. I'm like,  I'm I'm not to pay you this thing. I don't like   it. I build stuff. And then and you say, well,  they go, this is how we have this is how we   replace the infrastructure. And you're like, well,  I want that, too. And and then you're like, well,   find a way not to charge anyone. I one of  the problems that I see in general in life,   even with landlords, when they're not slowly  increasing things with a consumer price index,   you have these big jumps where they're like, "Oh,  I got to double your your rent now." They're like,  

I didn't I didn't know you were going to I had  to get caught back up. So, I I I much prefer fees   that just slowly track with consumer price index.  We're not having to do these major adjustments   because people have to then change their business  model. And sometimes they can't. You know,   a landlord thinks, should they doing you a favor  by keeping your rent suppressed and not slowly   raising it and they surprise you by doubling  your rent? They're like, you're thank you. You're   welcome for 10 years of cheap rent. It's not  actually a favor. So, I'm in favor of a sort of   a tiered approach or or phased approach into this.  Um, but if this is how we get infrastructure,   unless there's another way to pay for it, I don't  I don't know how to do that. So, and I'd love for   us to have a competitive advantage over other  cities. I'd rather it to be cheaper and faster   to build here. I'd love that advantage, too.  So, couple of quick points. Number one, um any   u you know, property taxes go to the general fund.  The impact fees would go to the utility fund. So,   um, and, uh, the the impact fees even for, say, a  lot that's never been, you know, never been built,   even though it's been platted on, you know, I  mean, I don't know. Yes, I agree. One or two   houses, you know, doesn't make a big deal. But  if if, you know, you start adding 10 houses,   20 houses, I don't know how many plats have been  or lots have been platted, but never built on.   I mean, you know, additional capacity would be  needed at not only one of the two wastewater   treatment plants, but also the list stations,  the utility lines in and around a potential   neighborhood. So, I mean, I think that's the  big thing that these pay for even in Panama City   proper where we already have two built uh lift  stations uh sorry, two built wastewater treatment   plants and about 140 lift stations that we have  to operate. So, um I those are just just some some   thoughts from myself and the team on on trying to  answer your questions. So, so go ahead. I'd just   like to say thank you for referencing the computer  consumer price index. That's one of the things I  

looked at. Um there's been 121% increase in the  CPI since 2003 and zero in uh in our impact.   When we talk about um exemptions for platted,  we're really talking about apples and oranges,   I think, because it's usage to the system. It's  bringing additional uh usage to the system. And   we all know um that our uh water infrastructure  in the city of Panama City is woefully lacking.   We learned that 7 years ago the hard way and we're  trying to uh to to dig our way out of that. So,   um, the idea coming from, uh, the mayor of a  tiered approach, maybe easing into it. Is it   necessary? Yes. Is it something that we can, um,  say, "Oh, this is extra." No. We're we're trying   to make our system work. Um, I agree with  the comment that we need to do a better job   of communicating with citizens from management  uh and city staff prior to hearing about it uh   at this level. Uh when I was on the other side of  the oath, I called it the arrogance of government,   right? We know what's best for you. And now I'm  on this side of it going doesn't feel good on this   side either. So um so I think that's uh that's  important. and Commissioner Strip uh Street, we   also we're already doing that in our SHIP program  that uh we have those uh fees that are able to uh   be a part of that affordable housing uh mix. So,  um that's not to say I I don't think there should   be affordable housing exemption. Um certainly  I would be in favor of looking at at ways to   mitigate this. So, um, it needed, it hurts, and  I I think the way you've put it, um, mayor, don't   like it. Don't want to pay it, but understand  we need it because we need to improve our water   system. I I was Yeah, I would say where we messed  up as a city is that we took we waited 20 years.  

That was a huge mistake on the city's part. We  probably should be doing this every 5 years. I   think that makes a lot more sense. And so, we'll  definitely do better going forward. we can do   another study in the future that that links it to  the consumer price index and then it just tracks   from that point forward. I think that would be a  much much uh more prudent way of of moving forward   this. I think it's a great idea. Um I do have  a way that maybe we could look at um uh easing   the burden uh without taking away the burden and  that is uh we have two separate problems uh with   with this with impact fees especially water and  sewer. One is is that we have folks that are in   the county that live in a home. The home may  have been built in the 60s,7s, 80s, sometime,   not this decade. And they get told because of  state law that has been changed, they get told   that they they can no longer be on a septic tank.  Now, the only option available to them after that   is to come on to our services. And so, therefore,  they're going to get hit with an impact fee. So,   we do not have a new build house. We have an old  house that is going to have to pay an impact fee   to come onto our water and wastewater system. And  so trying to solve for that problem because when   when you're in that situation and you're told,  hey, your septic tank is is um is broken and and   it is not serviceable anymore. And so therefore,  the state will condemn it. You have to do   something else. And we're the only other option.  It's not that that they're being forced on us by   law, but they're being forced on us by we're the  only option left. And so, uh, what I'd rather not   do is have very, um, upset people with us coming  on board to our water and and sewer system going,   "Why in the world am I paying these thousands of  dollars?" Uh, now when I'm faced with a situation,   we're not literally just called to get my septic  tank cleaned out. And so, I think to to solve  

both of these issues, I would propose that what we  do cuz the other issue is that there's new build   houses. I mean, that's if the if the lot didn't  have water and sewer on it before, it didn't have   a house on it, basically is what it boils down to,  right? So, it's a new build house. So, those are   the two situations that the majority that we'll  find ourselves in with issues with impact fees.   And I think that to solve both of these issues  or at least to ease the burden because there's   no real true solutions here. Um is to say that if  with an impact fee, if it is a uh new build home,   then we are going to charge $2,500 right now  and then the remainder of the fee can be paid   over say four years with a service fee each month  for doing so. I always want to ask administrative   cost for the Yeah, the administrative cost for  for holding it, right? Um the other thing that   I would that I would suggest is if it's not a  new build house that the impact fee could then   just be stretched out over the course of 5 years  with a service fee attached to it. If they want to   pay it all in one month, great. If they want to  make extra payments on it each month, great. Um   that just reduces the service fee that they would  that they would ultimately end up paying. Would   you have to disclose that to a buyer if you were  selling a house? Well, you'd have to um you can   put it on the tax bill like and then because it's  part of the contract, but it's either paid off at   closing or it's transferred over. So, that would  be disclosed stuff. I bought a house in New Mexico   and I was I guess I didn't pay enough attention to  the disclosures, but um yeah, there was an impact   fee that I was paying on on the water on that  brand new house that I bought in in New Mexico.   Um, so that's kind of what got me thinking about  it is like I paid monthly on an impact fee uh   before, you know, I I did that. So why is that not  available here? And I think that that would be a a  

a decent solution, especially for our builders to  make this a a place that has an advantage still to   build. Uh so when they're looking at okay well if  I build in Panama City or if I even build in one   of our you know cities nearby or defuniac I don't  know what's going on there but um the idea is is   that it's not so much of a burden on them. It's  still a it's still a burden because it still has   to be paid. Um, and those that are just surprised  they get to come on board to the city and didn't   expect to and had a septic tank for, you know,  decades, they would then be able to to ease that   a little bit and and then the city's not hurting  if we charge a service fee for doing that. Do we   want to push here and figure out what we want in  this ordinance and potentially change it right   now today or do you want to enable staff to come  back to us with options or do you want them to   workshop it? What do you want to do right now? How  about they just get with some of the builders? Let   There's too much I think uh confusion or change  that we've talked about from this ordinance that   I think we ought to bring that back after some u  some tweaking to it. But I do have a question. How   what's the highest percentage material has gone  up in the last year or two? Like she rock is up x two years. Microphone please. All right.  Um, nobody can hear you online. So, so,   well, what he said was in reality the prices have  dropped. Is that what you said? Okay. So, I redid   my house. It took 5 years to get my insurance  claim done and it cost me 32% more to redo my   house from the hurricane last in 2023 and into 24  um other than 2019. So, so when when we're we know   that the cost of building is up. Um is what are  you already passing? You're already giving some  

passroughs. Um is $2,500 $3,800 makes a difference  when you're building if you're if you're trying to   build a house for $250, $300,000. It's that is a  big number. Well, it's $1,200 more because there's   an existing fee going to the right. Yeah, that's  true. $1,200 more. Um, yeah. And that's, you know,   on a percentage basis, that's on the Well, they  got an example. They got the example, right? Uh,   the example here is if you raise it, we're still  in the middle. If you did the whole thing being   being in last place, you're I'd rather be in last  place than second and second's first loser. So,   we're in last place right now. um is but that  means it's cheaper of the cities that I that Glen   Haven Fedal City Beach County we're we're far for  Springfield but we need the money I get that we're   putting more people on the roads and on water  and sewer but I think not having a conversation   with the people that are affected the most that's  that's where our biggest mess up is I think we we   owe it to the people that are going to help the  people that we're going to ask to live and pay   taxes We need to have a conversation with them and  get some ideas. Can I can I summarize what what I   what I've heard? We've talked about a payment uh  structure. We've talked about uh SHIP funds. I did   check. I don't see anything on our website about  SHIP helping with connection and impact fees. So,   if there is a program, I' I'd like to I'd like to  know what that is. It's part we have to approve   uh the affordable housing um uh it's part of our  our plan our affordable housing plan in the ship   program. So maybe it just needs to get to these  guys cuz they don't know anything about it and   so we just can get people educated on what we  have available you know on how we can get the   fee paid. It's in the LHAP. That's where the local  housing. So maybe we don't have money allocated.   Yeah. That that could be the case. So yes it is  there. Um, and then we talked about infill lots.  

Was there anything else that I missed as far as  three things that we would like to see addressed   or phased in approach I think was the other  one? Phasing of a of phased in um in the fees.   So those were the four. Is that right? I agree.  Do we want to adopt and have it not implemented   until these three thing until these four things  are addressed or do we want to punt have these   four things addressed and then implement? because  you do have to wait 90 days regardless of when   you implement. So if we wait 30 days, it'll be 90  days after that. So I would I would recommend that   we table okay engage with the community partners  and I'll also give staff the time to take a look   at what kind of payment plans I said 2500. Um  but that may not be the best the best number,   right? But the idea being that if it's a brand  new build house that a a portion of the impact   fee gets paid now and then the remainder of it  gets can get that that's really what I I've talked   about I've talked to staff about this a lot and  um the only time I can talk to y'all about it is   right here. So that's why I keep kind of going  in on it. Um, and I get I get uh arguments back,   if that makes sense, like counter arguments and  and devil's advocate arguments back from staff on   things. And so that's really why I've I've kind of  honed in on the two separate solutions. I think we   all walked in wanting to address one thing about  this ordinance, and they're all different things.   Oh, yeah. For sure. And so I I agree. Um I'll  motion to table until uh the November meeting   um pending some type of addressing of payment  infill ship and um a phased in approach on the   fee. So that's a rescion of your whoever moved to  for discussion. Yeah, he rescended the motion. So   I'll resend and and amend my motion to be what  I just stated. Got a second. Any discussion  

on tableabling this item? Please call the ro.  Commissioner Lucas, yes. Commissioner Granger,   yes. Commissioner Street, yes. Commissioner  Hughes, yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes   5-0. Item 60 is the final reading of ordinance  3290, amendment to ordinance number 2603 regarding   Knoxbox requirements. Panama City Fire Department  has requested an update to ordinance number 2603   to streamline the administrative process  for business opting out of the Knox program.   Ordinance number 3290, if adopted, would authorize  the city manager to review and approve or deny   uh any waiver and hold harmless agreements  submitted by commercial businesses seeking   exemption from the Knox requirement. This a uh  this change aims to provide greater efficiency in   handling waiver request while maintaining safety  and legal safeguards. Uh staff recommendation   through the fire chief is that the city commission  conduct the final public hearing and approve the   ordinance. Mr. Mayor, this is a public hearing.  If you wish to speak about item 6D, please come to   the podium. Anyone on 6D? Closing public hearing.  Do I have a motion to accept? Motion to accept.   Second. Any discussion? Please call the role.  Commissioner Lucas, yes. Commissioner Granger,   yes. Commissioner Street, yes. Commissioner  Hughes, yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes   50. Commission has adopted ordinance 3290, an  ordinance to the city of Panama City, Florida,   amending ordinance 2603, amending chapter  6, building and fire safety standards,   article 3, fire safety 6-64, to allow the  city manager to approve a waiver and hold   harmless agreement executed by businesses  that are chosen to install NOX boxes but   choose not to, providing for cotification  and providing an immediately effective date.   Item 6E is the first of two public hearings on  ordinance 3285 and ordinance amending chapter 102   administrative processes. Article 2 development  review few review procedures section 102-37  

final site inspection and acceptance. Chapter  110 supplemental standards section 110-1 uh   determination of density. Chapter 111 subdivision  of land and chapter 116 definitions of the unified   land development code. As background information,  Florida Senate Bill or SB784 was passed in both   chambers of the Florida legislature in April of  2025 and the governor then approved Senate Bill   784 on June 20th of 2025. It went into effect on  July 1st of 2025. The primary intent of Senate   Bill 784 and its amendment to Florida Statutes  177-071 is to streamline the plat and the replat   processes. The amendments require that the plat  or replplat submitts be administratively approved   and requires the city of Panama City Commission to  designate an administrative authority to receive,   review, and process plat or replat submittals by  ordinance or by resolution. This the changes also   require that denials which can cause delays are  justified in writing and applicants are notified   of deficiencies promptly. Ordinance number 3285  is proposed will amend chapter 102 administrative   processes, chapter 110 supplemental standards,  chapter 111 subdivision of land, and chapter 116   uh definitions of the unified land development  code to align local regulations with state   law. It also provides for uniform standards and  transparency regarding the processing and review   of activities exempt from platting requirements  including limited partitions, lot splits,   lot line adjustments, lot combinations, and  recombinations. This item was previously   reviewed by the planning board on October 13th  of 2025. The planning board recommended approval   unanimously. Staff concurs. Uh staff findings uh  in the staff report is enclosed with this agenda   item along with the following documents. the staff  analysis report and recommendation ordinance 3285  

and chapter 2025-164 staff recommendation to the  director of development services that the city   commission conduct the first public hearing of  this ordinance this is a public hearing if you   wish to speak about item 6E please come to the  podium anyone on 6E seeing none closing public   comments Mr. Zimmerman. All right. Before we  get to there, I would like to table this issue   u moving forward. Uh we've got two members of our  legislative delegation that have sponsored u bills   to revoke um Senate Bill 180 are exempt um our  area. And so, um, pending that, um, legislative   and the success, a hopeful success of that, that  would kind of make this administrative point,   um, truly taking it out of the hands of commission  and just voluntarily giving it to staff. And I   love our staff. Um, but yeah, I also like the  elected body staying in to as much control as   we can. Yeah. I if if I could, Mr. Mayor, if if  Mr. Fuller, director of development services. So,   we talked about this some and we're going to work  on a more formal memo, but I think there actually   might be some confusion with a totally unrelated  Senate bill uh following the hurricanes. If would   that be okay, Mr. Mayor? Sure. Okay. Michael  Fuller, director of development services. Um   so at the last legislative session um  the legislature adopted Senate Bill 180   uh in response to hurricane recovery and that  also same session they adopted Senate Bill 784   which concerns platting or subdivision of  land. Um I think it's Senate Bill 180 that   um they have now determined has gone too far and  really um ties the hands of local governments to  

um adopt u land development code requirements  and uh comprehensive plan requirements, things   like that. Um the uh our local legislature uh or  legislator um Representative Abbott has actually   filed a bill uh House Bill 217 that undoes  undoes part of um the Senate Bill 180. Um,   but separate from all that is is Senate Bill 784,  which concerns the platting of of land. And that's   what this ordinance um pertains to is Senate Bill  784. Is there any language in this that references   Senate Bill 180 or any of the provisions provided  in in supporting? So, I would like to be educated   on it. Obviously, we can proceed forward with  first reading. Uh, but prior to voting, I'd like   to make sure that I understand exactly what we're  um what we're adopting and whether or not it's   required. Is there anything in this ordinance that  is not required by Florida statute to adopt? Um,   there are some um there are some administrative  changes like we are moving some provisions that   are currently in the supplemental standards to the  subdivision chapter of our code. uh and some other   cleanup things. Um there we're making a few tweaks  to clean it up, but uh other than that, no, the   rest of it is pertains strictly to um Senate Bill  784. Okay. So, just in the next two weeks if we   can significant changes in lot size, lot frontage,  um any of that? No. Okay. And in subdivisions,   any what creates a subdivision or what's exempt?  Are there any uh significant changes there? No,   the exemptions are still there. Essentially what  this is changing is essentially plats will be  

um will be approved at the administrative level.  We'll never see them. And so um you know I mean   in some cases that could be a good thing in some  cases that it just depends on whether we agree   with staff opinion. So so um but at any rate I  would like to understand it a more deeper level.   Obviously, we've got a lot of things that are  coming down statewide um that we're kind of in   this spot where we're being forcefully adopting  things. I just want to make sure that we're not   hamstringing ourselves for no reason. We won't  we won't ever vote on the plat. No. Okay. So,   yeah, Commissioner Street did raise a concern with  me and so I kind of, you know, dumped it on Mr.   Fuller to do some research in this preliminary.  So, I I would be supportive of proceeding with the   first reading and then we will ed, you know, meet  with each of you uh one-on-one and then really   address the concerns raised by Commissioner Street  in a memo. Uh and obviously, I know he wanted the   opportunity to share that concern publicly in this  form as well. Sounds good. Awesome. Thank you.   Yeah. Thank you, sir. Mr. resume. First reading  of ordinance 3285, an ordinance of the city   commission of the city of Panama City, Florida,  amending chapter 102, administrative processes,   article 2, development review procedures, section  102-37, final site inspection and acceptance.   Chapter 110, supplemental standard section  110-1 determination of density. Chapter 11,   subdivision of land. Chapter 116, Definitions  of the Unified Land Development Code relating to   the subdivision, combining and platting of land,  providing for modifications, a repealing clause,   severability, cotification, and correction of  scrier's errors, and providing an effective date.   Item 6F is the first of two public hearings on  ordinance 3288, an ordinance amending chapter   106 environmental protection, section 106-12,  developer storm water and erosion control plan,  

and chapter 109 infrastructure and public  improvements, section 109-43 infrastructure   and public improvements of the ULDC. As background  information, ordinance number 3288 is proposed.   will amend chapter 106 environmental protection,  section 106-12 developer storm water and erosion   control plan and chapter 109 infrastructure and  public improvements, section 109-43 infrastructure   and public improvements of the uldc. This  item was previously reviewed by the planning   board on October 13th of 2025. The planning  board recommended approval unanimously. Staff   concurs. Staff findings enclosed in the staff  report with this agenda item. You have the   following items enclosed. staff analysis report  and recommendation ordinance 3288 decision memo   signed by the city manager myself and the uh  staff recommendation through the director of   development services and the city manager's  office is that the city commission conduct   the first public hearing. I'll also note that uh  city engineer Stacy Roush is here this evening   and willing to answer any questions uh from the  commission regarding this ordinance. Mr. Mayor,   yes, this is a public hearing. If you wish to  speak about item 6F, please come to the podium. Yes, sir. There he comes. 1100 West 10th Street.  Um, if you're going to go through the trouble of   redoing all of this, I from what I've read of it,  it seems to be mostly uh along the coastline and   uh it doesn't take into account the problems  in the inner city and the already plotted out   neighborhoods that used to have drainage systems  but now have none and uh the effect that that's   going to have. All the standing water, the raised  water table, especially with all the trees gone,   that's another problem. In addition to that, um,  not encompassing the actual in inner part of the   city and how do you move all of the water,  especially over on 19th Street, you took away  

what used to be wet land and paved it and made a  retention pond. How do you address all of that um,   infrastructure and the changes that that has made  on the environment? And if you're going to make   new rules, you should uh take into account the  the neighborhoods where people actually live in   in the future. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else  on item 6F? Seeing none, closing public comments.   Mr. Zimmerman. First reading of ordinance 3288, an  ordinance of the city commission of Panama City,   Florida, amending sections 106-12 and 109-43  of the unified land development code concerning   developer storm water and erosion control plan  and design standards, repealing all ordinances   and conflict here with providing for severability  providing for codification and effective date.   Item six. Hold on, Jonathan. If I could ask a  question to uh Stacy before um we come on down.   So, Stacy, so you can be prepared as you're  coming down. And we've asked for we're kind   of planning a workshop on alternatives  to storm water, some alternative ideas,   possibly alternative fees rather than um storm  water ponds. Could you give us a quick update on   where we're at with that and how much longer do  you think you need? So this is kind of separate   from that. I do want to address that this is for  the entire city city. This is not for just coastal   areas. This is all of um San Pan city. Our code  requires that all development has to account for   their water. They cannot push water off of their  property that was not going off of their property   before. So um in that we have talked about green  infrastructure, other avenues other than ponds.   Um right now the accepted um norm to attenuate our  water which is making sure that we're not pushing  

more water off of the property than previously  any faster than was previously coming off the   property is a storm water pond. There's some more  creative um less eyesore methods than than we used   to see and those are kind of what we're going to  discuss in our next workshop. Um those would be,   you know, bioailes, rain gardens, tree planters.  We're whenever we have our workshop, I'm going   to kind of gauge how everyone feels about that.  We're going to discuss some of the pros and cons,   some of the reasons why they may not be able to be  used in a certain um avenue and why we still may   need pawns in some situations. But after we have  that workshop, we discussed there will be a larger   um change to the codes that'll be needed beyond  these. So these are kind of some cleanup items   right now. Um I think the last time our codes  were updated were 2019. And honestly, they were   kind of a a basic a very basic guideline for what  we look for. Right now we say you need a pond,   you have to model your 25-year critical storm and  that's it. So, if that 25-y year critical storm   is at the very tip top of your pond, that that's  acceptable to us. Um, so if we were to have a a   major flooding event or multiple rain events back  to back, the resiliency of our city is at risk.   Um, some of these ponds are right next to parking  lots, right next to roads. That's we're going   to have, you know, flooding. So that that's the  type of stuff that's addressed in this are some   small things that Panama City Beach, Bay County  have that we don't and we need to protect our   infrastructure and to protect our neighborhoods  and our and our citizens. So Stacy and and like   Panama City Beach for instance, uh let's say  something that's along the coast like how do  

they handle their storm water from from that? Is  there an ex because I don't see storm water ponds   I guess is what I'm trying to to say. Um so they  they do have storm water ponds. I think they may   um have them more hidden than ours. Maybe their  lots are set up differently. They may have some   coastal restrict or exemptions which we also do  in some areas of the city. They don't have to   do storm water quite the same way as some other  areas. Um downtown is kind of like that. You see   lot line lot line um development which we are  coming up with some really creative solutions.   We had a a great conversation today about  about some really great solutions to handle   that without ponds. Um it really is a case by  case basis depending on what soils are on your   property. If your soils don't allow water to  infiltrate in, you know, it's it's a challenge   for different methods of of green infrastructure.  Yeah. And why I bring this up is like I've done   now three projects in the last 3 years in which  our hydraulic analysis shows that the water table   across the city is drastically different. My  concern with this ordinance is adopting a more   restrictive interpretation of that water table  piece. Um it may end up where we get like a a lot   on 23rd 23rd Street may be 50% on a storm water  pump. Um which I had a project that showed 35%.   Um, and so I I don't know what the answer  is to that, but we do have to take into   account developability and some type of master  stormwater plan or something like that that   can accommodate because the smaller a lot gets,  the more likely it's not going to develop. Um,   and it'll only be people that have 7 8 9 acre  sites that can actually do what the new water   table actually is. Yes. and and I I understand  your concern there, but the 23rd Street portion  

was your problem. That's FDOT. Their restrictions  are by and large three, four times ours. Um they   require multi-day models whereas we require the  25-y year storms up to 24 hours. They require I   think 100year 3-day storms. um which is we we've  just modeled one for the city that discharges to   an FDOT road and it is it's very large but that we  have no control over that if it discharges an FDOT   road our city requirements are a lot less yeah I  think the key is if it doesn't discharge into FDOT   infrastructure so what if FDOT infrastructure  eventually discharges into city infrastructure   though um it depends um there are some areas  um along Beach Drive and that that they have   their own outfalls. Yeah. Yeah. They had a lunch  and learn today about permeable concrete. Yes.   They're interested too. They're on the same page  and we're on the same page as well. Yes. And the   city doesn't survive off of storm water survive  as being safe but not property taxes. Yeah. I   mean like you build what what's happening around  and you're seeing this AC not just us with other   it's kind of like the new parking lot thing. It  used to be in front of every business you had all   these giant parking lots. Why? Because you needed  all this parking cuz that's what's required. My   my fear is with storm water ponds, we're ending  in that same spot where we're going to just see   a line of storm water ponds down every street. And  I don't know that that's necessarily the goal. I   mean, granted, I don't want people flooding. I'm  very anti- flooding as you could possibly get as   I live in one of those neighborhoods. Um, but I  just feel like there's got to be some additional   solutions that we provide alongside this. uh  more than just hey we're changing the rules   on the books which we do not discourage green  infrastructure now you can do green infrastructure   you just have to show the results of it which  is what you have to also show with a pond I  

think right now ponds are easy the math is easily  available people have spreadsheets they can do it   quickly but I think that if you're going to do a  pond you need to make sure that you're protecting   your neighbors and that you're not just doing it  and stamping it and saying yeah that that looks   good and I think that um by making sure that  we are setting good examples by protecting the   citizens that maybe people will start looking at  other avenues like hey maybe if I put in a rain   garden to slow the waters trek across my property  hold it here and then discharge maybe these ponds   will be smaller so the the overall goal would  be to maybe discourage people from ponds make   it not more difficult but make it less appealing  you know this has to be larger that maybe I need   to look somewhere else. All of that stuff is  out there. There's a lot of different avenues   that you can go. It's just the easy solution  right now, but just cuz it's easy and everybody   putting it everywhere, I don't want it to be the  lowest level bar. Yeah. That we're setting. So,   I want to make sure that we're protecting people,  which another um part in here is um that they have   to provide a storm water or a geotechnical report  that is current in the last year whenever they   submit their doo. Um, and that is because I see  people trying to submit geotechnical studies from   before Hurricane Michael, which we all know that's  not where our water table is. And so, but we have   nothing in there right now protecting our citizens  from that. And my hands are kind of tied. And when   I look at these DOS and and I have the engineers  telling me like, I don't want to be the bad guy   with my developer. I wish you guys had stricter  ordinances so that I didn't have to be the one   saying I don't feel comfortable stamping this  because I I like to have more of a free board, but   you don't require it and my developer wants me to  go right up on that line. So, that's that's kind  

of where we got with these. Thank you. Thank you.  Anything else? That's it. That was it. Mr. Zimman,   he already read it. Item 6G is the first of two  public hearings on ordinance 3289. An ordinance   amending section 104-2 mixeduse MU2 of the Unified  Land Development Code. As background information,   Ordinance 3288 is proposed will amend section  104-2 mixeduse MU2 of the ULDC by increasing   the maximum density from 10 to 12 dwelling units  per acre. This item was previously reviewed by the   planning board on October 13th of 2025, and the  planning board recommended approval unanimously.   Staff concurs. Um, relevant background information  is enclosed in your packet. Staff recommendation   through the director of development services is  that the city commission conduct the first public   hearing. Mr. Mayor, yes, this is a public hearing.  If you wish to speak about item 6G, please come   to the public hearing. Anyone for 6G? Seeing none,  closing public comments. Mr. Zimmerman. Thank you.   First reading, ordinance number 3289, an ordinance  to the city commission of the city of Panama City,   Florida, amending the city's unified land  development code, revising chapter 104   zoning districts, amending the bulk regulations  and mixed use to zoning district as provided   in section 104-31. repealing all ordinances in  conflict herewith, providing for severability,   providing for codification, and providing for an  effective date. Right. Moving into quasi judicial   hearings. During quasi judicial proceedings,  this commission will hear evidence and render   a decision regarding the matter presented based  on the evidence received. The parties before   the commission and the public are entitled to  present evidence such as documents, witnesses,   etc., and cross-examine any witnesses. All  parties and witnesses will be under oath and   the entire proceedings recorded. The commission is  not bound by the strict rules of evidence and may   consider any evidence which it deems relevant and  trustworthy. 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   rest with the applicant. Therefore, the applicant  has the opportunity to address the commission   last after all public participation and before  the commission deliberates. Zmen. Thank you.   At this time, uh for items 7A through 7D, I'll  swear in staff who will remain under oath during   the entire proceedings. I'll swear in additional  parties that attend to testify during the public   hearing after the city manager introduces  each item. But I'll go ahead and swear in   the staff. And if you think that you want to  testify or or talk about items 7A through 7D,   if you could stand up and be sworn. If later you  weren't sworn, but you want to talk, that's fine.   You just come on up and we could swear you  at that time. If you'd stand up. Okay. Um,   do you swear and affirm that the testimony you're  about to give is the truth, the whole truth,   and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Thank  you. At also if the city commission at the   time that you do vote uh if you would disclose any  exparte communications and exparte communications   are those communications you receive outside  of this public hearing or a city commission   meeting that you intend to rely on in making  your decision. You only need to disclose the   fact that you had it not really and but not the  substance matter of that particular communication.   Thank you. Item 7A is the second and final  of two public hearings on ordinance 3286.1,   an ordinance amending the future land use map  of the city to reflect the land use designation  

of mixed use for a property located at 1026  Malberry Avenue with partial ID 18575-0000-00. This applicant has requested a future land use  change to mixuse and a reszoning to MU3. This   item was previously reviewed by the planning board  on September 8th of 2025 and the planning board   recommended approval unanimously. Staff concurs.  Relevant background information is enclosed in   your packet. Staff recommendation through the  director of development services is that the city   commission conduct the second and final public  hearing and approve the ordinance. Mr. Mayor, this   is a public hearing. If you wish to speak about  item 7A, please come to the podium. Anyone on   item 7A? Seeing none opposing public comments. Do  I have a motion to accept? So move. I think it's   I'll second. Any discussion? Please call the role.  Commissioner Lucas. Yes. Commissioner Granger.   Yes. Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner  Hughes. Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes. Motion passes 5-0.   The commission has adopted ordinance 3286.1, an  ordinance amending the comprehensive plan future   land use map of the city to reflect the land use  designation of mixed use for a parcel of land   located at 1026 Malberry Avenue, Panama City,  Florida, providing for repealer, severability,   and effective date. Item 7B is the second and  final of two public hearings on ordinance 3286.2,   2, an ordinance amending the zoning map of the  city to reflect a zoning designation of MU3   for property located at 1026 Malberry  Avenue. Again, partial ID 18575-0000. This is the same address as the prior Adam  uh prior item. Uh staff recommends that uh   through the direct development  services the commission conduct   the second and final public hearing  and approve the ordinance. Mr. Mayor,   this is a public hearing. If you wish to speak  about item 7B, please come to the podium.  

Item 7B. Seeing none closing public  comments. Do I have a motion to approve? So moved. Second. Any discussion?  Please call the role. Commissioner   Lucas. Yes. Commissioner Granger. Yes.  Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner   Hughes. Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes. Motion passes  50. Commission has adopted. Ordinance 3286.2.   An ordinance zoning a parcel of property located  at 1026 Malberry Avenue, Panama City, Florida,   having approximately.16 acres, mixed use three,  providing for severability and effective date.   Item 7 C is the second and final of two  public hearings on ordinance 3287.1,   an ordinance amending the future land use map  of the city to reflect a land use designation   of mixed use for a property located at 1018  Oak Avenue with partial ID 18560-0000-0000. As background information, the applicant has  requested a future land use change to mixuse   and a resoning to mixuse 3 or MU3. This item  was previously reviewed by the planning board   on September 8th of 2025. The planning uh  board recommended denial unanimously. Staff   concurs. Uh relevant background uh sorry relevant  documents are enclosed in your packet. Uh staff   recommendations of the director of development  services is the city commission conduct the   second and final public hearing and deny the  ordinance. Mr. Mayor, this is a public hearing.   If you wish to speak about item 7C, please come  to the mic. Anyone on 7C? Seeing none, I'll   entertain a motion to deny the ordinance. Motion  to accept staff's recommendation. I have a second.   Second. Any discussion? Please call the role.  Commissioner Lucas, yes. Commissioner Granger,   Commissioner Street, yes. Commissioner Hughes,  Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes 50. Okay. This uh  

ordinance has been uh denied, which is ordinance  3287.1. I will not read the title uh because of   that. And also mayor and commission, there is no  reason to have the next item considered which is   ordinance 3289 because that legally cannot be  adopted since the comprehensive plan request   was devised. So we are moving past item 7B to  audience participation. Do you wish to speak about   any remaining items on the agenda? That's items  9 through oh my goodness 14 I please come forward   please state the item you are speaking about and  your name and your address you have three minutes Thomas 1100 West 10th Street u sad there's not  more people coming down here about the marina 9J   uh you're paying $49,5 500 to monitor the roads.  I think the problem with the roads is they haven't   been maintained in 40 years and that's would  get fixed if you do that information about the   uh uh historic buildings. You should have a list  and be paying attention to that. 14D your uh I   guess that's the same one from June 25th 24th of  last year where they got $175,000 from hurricane   money and now it's up to $435,000. um 14D. Uh that  guy's one guy has been coming in here for about 6   years complaining about that and he finally got  it. I'm I'm happy for him. I wish that the same   was true for everybody. I I the people across the  street started mowing their property yesterday,   I last week, and they finished ran out of gas  and then the city less than a week later comes   and finishes the job for. I'd like to request  a work order for that. And I'd like to know why   the work orders for all the other property done  on that property have not been given to me yet.  

I think, you know, it's a it's about time.  The uh the Marina 7C, you are looking at   uh paying $122,000 on top of the $47,500.  That seems to be just a Google search for the   uh what are the other marinas around? How full are  they? You didn't ask you told them specifically in   that don't evaluate whether or not this is fair  compensation. So, and and then there was a study   before that done that I assume is also about  50,000 that you told that you've come up with   119 page contract which refers to the city paying  for the parking, the city paying for the sewer,   the city paying for the water for anything they  build there, which now makes sense. It wasn't   part of the original document. And the only thing  that in writing about how much they're going to   pay for all this, I assume they could split it up  into three different things. the business for the   marina, the uh stores and the different apartments  on top and have three different businesses which   each pay nothing for the first 650,000 and then  by the end they pay nothing for the whole thing   and the city doesn't get anything back for all  that they have invested in this because they own   it and it is the most valuable piece of property  in the city and the second most valuable is St.   Andrews which they already have. I go there every  day on my bike. I ride through there and more than   half of the time in the last year since they've  started I haven't seen anybody out there working   but they take over the entire area for boat  trailer parking even when they're not using it   for 4 months plus and then now for two and a half  months if they're working on both marinas at the   same time they don't have enough time anything on  land should be given to the public and a CRA for   actually having other people not just the one  person you've picked to become a millionaire   at the expense of tens of millions of dollars of  taxpayer money. We should not be subsidizing this.  

We should be getting something out of this  property. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. W 614 Maple. I bring something to your uh to the  members. Impact fees. When I work for the city,   it they had impact fees. Everybody cried  about them because they were so high. If   y'all just saying y'all just starting the  impact fee that's not so had it when I work   for them for so high cuz they had to pay  for every toilet. They build a house. They   had four toilets in it. They had to pay for  every one of them. bathroom, fourth bathroom   or five whatever restaurants had to pay every  seat that was in that restaurant and pay fees and I have a problem where you know y'all can  show what where we're going to I have to pay on   impact fees but you cannot show the person on the  outside show us fee that y'all want to charge them impact fees as well. So I don't know why why you cannot  show their price what you want to   show the people that's inside  the city what they got to pay. City the state county do not give y'all anything.  Y'all run sue over them to tender field.  

That's That's Bay County. We pay for it. I knew  they ain't they ain't take they ain't taking that   sue from from from meville's uh plant. Y'all  servicing then they servicing it. Have to get   across that water. When the St. Andrew is not  like that, they could dips inside the bait. But   we just I just wonder we just should think about  when y'all start talking off off of these impact   fees. And I think next thing you you ought to do  if folks crying because they don't want to come in   the city because of the city taxes. Well, if that  go do that that go get them let them pay y'all the   same taxes that the city said that that y'all  giving to Bay County that would help P it would   help PennO city not just not just wasting letting  them have it and y'all do without. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Good evening. Good evening. How's  everybody? Doing well. It's time for a bathroom   break. By the way, Brenda Lewis Williams, 2748 Oak  Hammock Drive. I have two things are of that are   of concern to me. 9G the change orders and not  specifically not specifically that particular   um company but the change what I see is  change orders coming up every time somebody   has a contract and that's suspect to me having  done contracting years ago when we submitted a   bid we included all the nuances anything that we  thought might go wrong not just myself but others  

as well. And it just seems to me that  whoever is submitting these bids,   they do a low bid to get the bid and then they  come back with change orders that were probably   there in the first place. Understanding that  I understand that there are things that are   there that may necessitate change orders, but it  appears that this is uh become a trend habit. Uh   I I'm just bringing that to your attention. It's  it's suspect to me quite honestly. And the other   one is 14B First Baptist Church parking lot. I  do recognize that the city is paying a portion of   that from the the block grant, but it seems to me  that that $300 and some thousand could be better   utilized in another area within the city. That's  one of the most affluent churches in this area.   uh they could probably pay for that themselves  on a Sunday morning like they did it during   Hurricane Michael when they took up a donation  for Family of God Baptist Church and Macedonia   Baptist Church. That that's probably pulled just  from the congregation alone. I take exception with   that. Um I pray you don't pass it. Thank  you. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. How are you? I'm doing great. Um Pam Wiggins,  801 Pinerest Avenue. Um I'm the president of   the crew of St. Andrews. So um we're on the agenda  today. Yay. Finally. Um for the Marty girl. I just   want to um say thank you for your consideration  today and just remind you that we are a nonprofit   organization and we give give to this community.  Um we have gone to many community outreach  

um events this year um supporting all of our other  community organizations. So please keep that in   mind when you consider us today. Thank you. Thank  you. Thank you. Anyone else? Any further comments   on the remaining agenda items? Seeing none,  closing public comments. Moving to consent agenda.   Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda?  I would like to pull off nine delta, please,   Mr. Mayor. I'm trying to move nine delta down to  Yeah, just I can just at the end of consent under   section nine just after y'all vote on the other  items. A motion to approve everything but nine   delta. Second. Any discussion? Please call the  RO. Commissioner Lucas, yes. Commissioner Granger,   yes. Commissioner Street, yes. Commissioner  Hughes, yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes   5-0. Item 9D is consideration to approve the  special event permit for the 2025 boat parade   of lights on December 13th from 5 to 7:30 p.m.  at the downtown Panama City Marina sponsored by   Destination Panama City in partnership with the  city of Panama City requiring a road closure on   Harrison Avenue just before Harrison's restaurant  and the parking lot leading to the Panama City   Marina. Uh relevant background information is  enclosed in your packet. Uh staff recommends   approval of this with one caveat. I did speak  with Miss Vigil earlier this week. uh there is   a a potential for a drone show to be added to  this event. And if that is the case, they're   going to need some additional area on the marina  reserve for that. And I would request that the   commission grant me the authority to approve that  for this one-time special event. Uh so we don't   have to bring it back to the commission. Motion be  approved. Staff request. Second. Any discussion?   Please call the role. Commissioner Lucas, yes.  Commissioner Granger, yes. Commissioner Street,   yes. Commissioner Hughes. Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes.  Motion passes 5-0. And that motion was to approve  

9D with that additional extra request. Correct.  So we are skipping 10. Moving to 11A. Commissioner   Granger. Is that my next? No. Thank you, Mayor.  So, um I with the help of the HR department, uh   thank you very much for that help while I was uh  out of town help when we kind of virtually worked   on it. Um the uh I have presented to you all the  city attorney performance evaluation and the city   clerk performance evaluation. It is modeled very  heavily off of the city manager evaluation. And   um so I left room in each for us for you all  to put any recommendations or any changes,   anything that you'd like to sign on it. Um so  that way it's it's not a complete product. It   wasn't intended to be a complete product. It  was intended to be an 80% complete product.   Um so uh that's what I have. If y'all want to to  move forward with the way that it is currently,   then we can just change the math on the forms and  move forward. But if you have any recommendations,   concerns, now's the time, I guess, we get to talk  about it. I'm good with the way that they've uh   formulated them. I think it's good. Uh what I  would like to see like after this is maybe we   um fill out our evaluations prior to the  next meeting and then it can either be   if there's no action to be taken put on  the consent. If there is then it would   just be added as an item. Any one of us  could add an item for action if needed.

I thought it was great additions. Good. Yeah. I  mean we could infinite amount of little changes   and so I I think this is a great first step  at it much improvements and so happy to move   forward with it. Is there a time that we're going  to give that this is going to happen every year   that we're kind of behind the eightball on  on we're already into we're going into new   year and doing evaluations afterwards. It are we  going to try to set something there? I think right   now it's just about this. I get that. But um and  who are we sending these to when we're done? You   brought them up originally. What was your intent?  I mean, traditionally, you would give them to the   clerk. Uh the clerk position is the one that holds  all public records. So, to me, in my mind, that   makes the most sense. And all of them obviously  this I mean, you can do whatever you want to,   but um what I'm going to do is I'm going to talk  to each one of these folks and say, "This is this   is where I've rated you. This is where I've  evaluated you." um before it goes, you know,   to to on a on an agenda um you know, to to give  them the professional courtesy of, hey, this is   this is where I think that's the whole point of  the evaluations is to spark improvement or just,   hey, I think this is um this is what I'd rather  see. Good job here. That kind of stuff, right? So,   that's what I'm going to do and then I'm going  to hand them over to the clerk. All right.   Yeah, I think that each commissioner could do  exactly what Commissioner Granger indicated and   then your completed form you would provide it to  the clerk who would then provide it to. So each   commissioner will see each other commissioner's  completed form and all completed forms will be   attached as part of a consent item at the next  meeting. All right. Okay. I like it. Do you need  

a formal adoption of it? It would. I think it'd  be appropriate to approve the forms. Okay. So,   I'm looking for a motion to approve the forms.  Motion to approve forms with the evaluation date   for next meeting. My bad. Second. Any discussion?  Too much of a pause. Please call the RO.   Commissioner Lucas. Yes. Commissioner Granger.  Yes. Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner   Hughes. Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes. Motion passes  5-0. 11B. Mr. Commissioner Gray or Street,   excuse me. You feel like you could get my name  right at this point. I confuse him all the time.   He really does. So, um, this is obviously we're  kind of in, uh, something that's only happened   a few times. Um, and we do live in an area  that has a significant amount of military,   government contractors, and so on so forth. So,  you know, I I appreciate Jan putting together   a temporary relief policy for federal employees.  And I personally like to see us adopt it. I think   there's some that have gotten paid through this  week, but next week they will not get paid. And   um so this is just kind of the compassionate thing  to do and um just help them through the interimm   until hopefully they get paid back for everything  that they've um they've lost at some point when   the government reopens. Commissioner Street,  would you uh entertain a friendly addition to   this compassionate? Absolutely. Yeah. uh perhaps  and add those who receive SNAP benefits as it is   uh now determined that there will be no SNAP  benefits in November and uh we are expecting a   uh a lot of need as a result. Go ahead. And then  under uh requirements of a SNAP benefits letter.   Yeah. As documented. I think that's a that's  a good way of doing it. All right. So, we have   a motion with an an addition. Is that correct?  Yes. It's a a motion to add um the SNAP benefits  

to this uh same policy um by providing a letter  of of I guess there's a letter available. Yeah,   they receive a SNAP benefit. I'm certain. There  you go. So, we'll add that to it. And you got a   second that second. Any discussion? Yeah. Um,  this is a deferral. Yes. Is it forgiveness or   deferral? Uh, it's a a deferral. Deferral. Okay.  All right. Any other discussion? Please call the   RO. Commissioner Lucas, yes. Commissioner Granger,  yes. Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner   Hughes? Yes. Mayor Branch? Yes. Motion passes  5-0. 12A. Okay. 12 A. or do you need to read   something from 11B? No, I don't think so. I don't  believe so. It was just by motion. Okay. Um,   under 12A is a budget impact statement for capital  improvements. This first came up on August 12th   to the city commission. Uh, Commissioner Hughes  asked that the, uh, city commission consider uh,   filling out some type of budget impact. And the  purpose I believe is that before you approve   a capital project or a capital improvement,  whether it's purchasing a piece of equipment,   a significant piece like the fire truck, or  whether it's building a significant building,   that the city have the information, the commission  has the information in front of it concerning the   cost of the project, the uh annual operating  cost of the project, the annual maintenance   cost of the project. And so when you do make that  decision, there's no question at least there was   an estimate that was made concerning those items.  The uh the draft was considered. I included it  

just so you could see what we looked at before  that the but that is not what's being proposed.   What's being proposed is the uh first item  attached to my letter and it's called the   agenda item request form budget impact and u the  capital improvement is defined by Florida statute   and it just says something that's um long-term  in other words a physical asset constructed or   purchased to provide improve or replace a public  facility which is typically large scale and high   in cost. So the budget impact form uh defines a  capital improvement as 500 something that exceeds   $500,000 that otherwise falls in the definition  of capital improvement in Florida statutes. Then   that there's a requirement to describe what it  is. It'll obviously be attached to the uh budget   impact form which what is being purchased and  also its useful life. It's a building. It's got   a useful life of 40 years. If it's a piece of  equipment, it may be 10 years. Uh what is the   cost? That obviously is what you're being asked to  vote on. So it'll be obvious what the cost for the   purchase or construction is. And then kind and  then what may be uh new to have immediately is   the estimate of annual maintenance and operational  costs. So that's the any maintenance that's that's   uh required. Obviously in a building it'll be  less at the beginning, maybe more later. And then   operational cost. If it's a building, what does it  cost to operate the building? And then replacement   cost. Then u there's a question is the estimated  total cost to purchase or construct the capital   improvement budgeted in this year? Then finally,  is the estimated annual operation and maintenance  

cost budgeted in this year? So that's that's  the four. Uh it's a kind of a work in progress,   but I believe that is uh from uh the comments  that were made at the last meeting that that's   close to what was uh reflected and of course  it's there for your consideration. If you do   adopt this or make modifications and then adopt  it, the thought would be that the motion would be   to prior to entering into a contract to purchase  or construct a capital improvement. that's over   $500,000 that this information would be in front  of the commission at that time. I I really like   it. Um it forces better discussions, I think, and  and for us and and the next set of folks up here   and um and so I I like it. I think it's a good  start, but as I reflect on the MLK rec center,   that was a several year process. So the uh the  center was approved 2 years before ground was   broke broken and now you know in the next fiscal  year it comes online. So while I think this starts   the discussion at at what point do we require that  it be accounted for in the budget if I'm making   you are making myself please. So as as I said I  think this is a good start. It makes us aware,   but you know, we were aware we were building  a $20 million building that had to be staffed,   but but there was no requirement or or process in  place to to plan for bringing that on board. So,   I think this starts it makes us aware of it  in writing should there be more here. And and  

thank you. Um and MLK is the the vote that got  me thinking about this. Mhm. And I was not here.   I was sitting out there and I said and just made  a mistake. There's no way to operate this thing   in that boat. Then it showed back up on for me at  least on the beach drive path if that was going to   happen. So difference in business and government.  All I wanted was a line on the budget that said   savings account. Now I got a five I got a six  page a six question page on one page document.   So that's just how it works. Um my concern here  is that you're the third person to bring up that   it the cost the operating cost may be different  um later on but we've started something. We when   we made that vote we may be halfway home. We may  be 30% home but we've got we're not at zero. And   that to me is the benefit but it has to be  budgeted. The partial or none should not be   an option. We can't move forward with this if we  do not have we do not budget going forward. Now,   we're not it's not in the budget right now, but  going forward it will be in the budget. Otherwise,   why do you have so it it fixes your it should  be in the budget problem on the vote cuz we're   not going to spend that money tomorrow.  We're going to spend that money later. So,   it gives us an it would have given us two years on  MLK to start funding something there. But you have   to know what the costs are on you. We have to know  what the landscaping is, what the what the cost of   security is, what the cost of of operations with  the employees are so that we can say, "All right,   this is what we need to do and every month  we're going to put a savings account." Yeah.   It's not a uh it's not a perfect document. It's  a living document and um it doesn't answer all   the questions potentially because there's so many  different situations. Definitely starts a but it   gets the vote. The vote gets it started and that's  really what I'm after is to try to at the vote. We   either have it or we don't. You know, if we don't,  we don't vote on it. I know that that's tough to  

think that way, but I'm also thinking of later on  down later commissions. Is this easily understood   or the idea um and for me again savings account  line is all I wanted, but this is what I get.   That's okay. It tells a story. Okay. And so that's  really what I'm after there is to tell the story   and have a vote that helps that project and the  taxpayers later on when it when it comes online. I   motion we approve the form so we can discuss. I'll  second. Second. Oh, that's right. You can have my   bad. My bad. My bad. Now, we can discuss. Yeah,  we can discuss. My bad. Any other discussion? See, no other discussion, please call the RO.  Commissioner Lucas, yes. Commissioner Granger,   yes. Commissioner Street, yes. Commissioner  Hughes, yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes   5-0. Thank you. And obviously the form can be  tweaked as we work through the whole the whole   process. Uh it this is information concerning  historic preservation overlay districts. This   uh topic came up at a commission meeting a  few weeks ago and it was requested to do some   research and provide that for you. uh since the um  there's been additional um uh Commissioner Street   provided uh something called incentives available  for historic properties in Florida and I'll refer   to that in a minute. Uh Commissioner Street  provided information as did Mayor Branch on   this topic and because I didn't see a reason  to uh redo the work they had already done,   I attached it for your for your information. What  what I did is that uh Jawan Haley used to work for   PH the city of Tallahassee and I had a in in-house  resource to talk to because they have a historic  

overlay district program there. So, I looked at  their ordinance and I did a a short summary mainly   focused on the process and I won't go over step by  step the process in Tallahassee, but it involves   just, you know, defining a district, an area. It  involves how you get it how a district is created   uh that to include the properties within that  district. uh there's a voting process and then   there's a twothirds approval if at least one half  of the people vote. Uh what I did not immediately   find were the uh was the incentive program in  Tallahassee and I and I appreciate this document   uh that Commissioner Street has provided  that gives us examples of incentives from   other jurisdictions and most of them are tied  around uh similar to a CRA concept. the the   money that was spent, the increased value that  may occur is uh is exempt from taxes or it would   be rebated back to them. But um but either way,  so you have uh two or three programs. Obviously,   they're very popular within the state of Florida  and I think nationwide. Um and then you have um uh   this other document that deals with incentives.  The main purpose today from my perspective at   least is to further dis the discussion. Uh  you may want because Tallahassee if if you're   interested in that approach uh I believe u Miss  Haley could reach out to some of the people she   used to work with and see if somebody could zoom  in or or come to a meeting and talk about their   experiences or whatever you would u prefer to do  as far as looking at this further in the future.

So there's nothing yet. This is just a discussion  item. Yes. For mine. Yeah. I clearly like this. Um   the pattern of any places that you go in America  and you say this is nice. Has a historic district   overlay to protect the buildings. Uh I was  in all over New England two weeks ago, Salem,   uh you know, uh Marblehead, all Brockport,  all those cities protect their buildings.   um even more city in in uh Tampa, you know what  what ends up happening with these interior of   these buildings is uh the developers will actually  come in and do a facadectomy which they'll just   literally frame out the the facade to keep it and  they'll drop a new building inside of it. Um those   are always a little more complicated than ground  up or they'll propose a literal replica rebuilding   of a replica of it. Um but it I I wish we had this  30 years ago an ordinance like this. Yeah. I mean,   we lost most of our historic buildings and  so I'd like to see signage as a part of this   um to acknowledge what was um and the  allowance of uh of buildings that may   not seem historically significant today,  but in 50 years hence, you know, they will   somehow to stop the hemorrhaging, I guess.  Agreed. So, I'm I'm personally fine with   modeling after Tallahassee or seeing what other  cities Okala has a preservation district. Um,   you know, Winter Garden has one, Winter  Park has one, Sanford, Florida has one. Um,   I'm fine with a workshop or presentation of  different ordinances and how they do it. Um,   some people get really I mean Savannah, you know,  you go on their squares and they you can't do this   certain style of windows and they really they're  really aggressive and I'm not proposing that. I  

just don't want people to quickly run to tear down  things anyway like they have been doing. Yeah. So,   I think I think we got we've got two and I was  actually talking to Evan about this when we were   kind of going through this process. I had seen  Tallahassy's um their their approach on how they   do in their historic districts. I think there's  one side the community's already decided we have   historic districts, but there's no point in having  historic districts if you don't have some type of   historic preservation process. Um, so, you know,  I would like to see us focus in the areas that   we've already identified as historic in our our  city and then um, you know, implementing some   type of program that cause that that creates  some type of preservation process. Now, if you   guys saw the additional document, you say, "Why  would somebody want to be a part of that?" Well,   you can clearly see all of these cities that were  given examples, and these were just a few that I   had pulled from across the state of Florida. They  offer anything from 100% property tax exemptions   to u grant matches. There's things available at  this federal level that you become eligible for if   you're inside of these um inside of these historic  districts. So there's a lot of other funding that   it unlocks for these projects and having historic  districts with specific specifically designated   structures inside of it. So I see this is kind  of a two twofold piece. Identify the districts,   create your framework, and then how people get  put into that historic framework. I think that   can be another question of conversation of what  gets included into that as a as a part two in the   discussion. So just so that we don't get wrapped  up into hey I don't want to be in this or hey I   want to be in this or all of those conversations  let's go ahead and set the parameters find a a   ordinance that we we like a process that's liked  around the state and then go from go from there.  

But I don't think it should take a very long  period of time. I think these are things that we   already have a sort district, so there's already  been a community push to protect history. We just   need to give it that ex extra step. No, there's  going to be I don't want to and I want to. Oh,   yeah. No matter how we try to to frame it. Um, so  1975 is 50 years ago. Is there anything historic   about 1975? No. Um so who that is 75 beetle is  pretty well I mean I was 5 years old. Yeah. So   so what lots of questions um who defines the  area I mean the area um you said we need to set   the properties which ones are going to be. So are  we going to tell people that own private property   that their house their property is about to  be historic? Is that what you're I mean if   you're in a historic district you're already  in a historic district. We don't have one. So   my question is is are we going to tell Judy that  owns something down there that her property is now   historic? So there are processes in which the city  commission sets what are historic, what are not.   There's processes where an architectural historic  board does it. There's processes where there's a   vote within the the businesses that are in that  district. What's considered? There's all sorts of   different ones. Tallahassee actually is determined  by that specific area. And correct me, I have very   limited understanding of Tallahassee, but but  it it's looked like there's a vote between the   property owners there, what's considered historic  in their district and what's not. So, it gives the   property owners that are in that specific area  the ability to define that for themselves. Um,   and which is something I like. Yeah. So, there's  there's all sorts of mechanisms to do. Yeah. Well,   but if you are in that district under Tallahassee  and you're not a qualifying property, let's just  

say you're not 50 years old. Um non-contributing  property, I think it's called under Tallahassee,   their new uh historic preservation officer. You  still have to go with him if you're going to redo   some of your property. I'm sorry. I'm not going  to do that. I don't want to be in it and I'm not   going to talk to the guy that you're forcing down  my throat. That's my problem here is everything.   We're not we're not creating a district. We're  creating an overlay. And we worked really hard to   get the downtown district overlay so that there's  no, you know, parking requirements are relaxed,   developmental requirements are relaxed, and now  we're going to add another layer. The mayor says   he likes to be business friendly. So do I.  Is that business friendly? Just a question.   Yeah. The pattern of success is that that you  go to every these all these historic districts   that promote history. Okay. You shouldn't don't  buy an old building if you don't appreciate it.   That's that's the envirment. If you buy in a  historic district that is already approved,   that's one thing. If we go in and say from 10th  Street to there, we're going to now make it   historic and then and then say the city commission  is going to make that happen. That's government   overreach. Can't get into that. That's my problem.  As we just discussed, the approach that's used in   Tallahassee engages property owners. And I think  that's very important that we make that a part   of this uh effort that we're doing now. to to  avoid what you're talking but it also gives   the city commission the opportunity to place any  property on the register that they choose. That's   what it says in there that the city commission  the county commission influ and the owner. So,   you know, I would be in favor of the commission  not being able to identify any private property   to go on the on the register only stuff that we  own. I mean, now that's a landmark. If somebody   wants to join it and be in and be on the on  the register, that should be totally voluntary.   it doesn't make sense for me to tell the a private  property owner how they get to use it or I'm going   to change your use. And by the way, everybody in  that in that designation, they have to go through  

a reszoning process because we now have a new  a new zone. It's called the historic district.   We have to they're not now in they're in the  downtown district. We got to go to historic   district. Am I correct? Well, I think it's all to  be figured out right now. These are guidelines,   but we start with the premise that government  is telling the property, private property,   what to do with it. If you agree with that, then  you're okay with that. I'm not. Automatically,   the government is in charge of telling you because  you bought something 40 years ago and you been   owning it and operating it. Now, it's a different  use. What does the planning board enforce? The   planning board gives an opportunity to get to  us. All they do is they vote and it comes to us   or they deny. Reinforce the rules and vision that  the citizens hold near and dear to their heart.   How we want to look, how big they should look,  where they should be, what kind of and so this   is just another layer into the land development  code that further protects the the the asset that   we have and things. My dad actually said the  exact same thing after the hurricane. He said,   "That old thing's not that old. It's only from  the 70s." I'm like, "It will be old very soon."   And and I I wish that the Cove Hotel was still  there and the Dixie Sherman was still there and   all those parking lots you see downtown where  the Grand used to be. It would have been real   cool if we would had an environment where  people appreciate that and kept that and the   city encouraged it and they didn't. And we have  very few buildings left. Um and and I've spent   $10 million saving on old buildings and that's how  much I care about them. And that's the environment   that we're breeding in these historic districts is  people who care about these things. What makes us   mayor caring about something and the government  telling somebody what to do with their property?   Oranges and apples. I how how can you that already  happens with zoning like it happens every sing when y'all did when y'all changed the zoning down  in in St. Andrews on four stories and Okay. Yeah.  

There's already zoning there about the height.  You're just changing the height. They know that   going in that we changed setbacks. We changed all  sort density things. We changed all sorts. But you   didn't tell somebody it's going to cost them an  engineering fee. It's going to cost them. They   have to uh use specific items. They have to get  approval. You're you're now restricting the use   of that property. The government is. And they're  already there. It's not like I'm buying in. Help   me connect those dots that I'm already there and  you're coming in and saying now we're going to   change. We're going to tell you what I mean your  dad pushed the new the DTD district in like the   '90s and that was an overlay on existing buildings  and owners. Right. And when it did is it gave it   went down in parking it may it made it better  and I and I argued with him on but it's restrict   the restrictions that are coming with it are  concerning. Um I I think I think a workshop does   allow us to have these these conversations um on  timelines and and what is allowable and you know   what what we can do as a commission and what an  owner can do and and in and denying that ability   for us to say yes or no. Most vibrant downtowns  inside of um the state of Florida. So let's just   limit it to just our state have this. Mhm. So like  I I don't understand like why we wouldn't want to   take a best practice that's proving itself to be  successful and maybe it needs to change for our   context and we need to make it a little different  as a result. Um but these are very common. I mean,   it didn't take me that it didn't take me but just  a a few minutes to find amazing examples and some   of the things you talk about fees like they create  sponsored and helping do those initial assessments   and those things. Um, would you agree on the front  end for the government not to be able to tell the   private property it's got to be on there that  we can't do that? We can only we can only put  

our properties on there. Would you agree to that?  Can't have a bonfire in Panama City. I'm talking   about I'm talking about we can't say we can't go  to 123 Harrison Avenue and say guess what you're   now and it's private property. We've just put you  on the on the on the register. Land development   code restricts businesses in certain areas. We  do I mean this that's what so I I have similar   concerns. Yeah. Um but I do think that it would  be best for us to just push this to a workshop   so we can discuss it more freely and continue on  the business that we have tonight because we have   a lot more a lot. Is that a Is that a motion  to pick a dot? I know that we need Do I need   a motion to have a workshop? Do you need a motion  for us to have a workshop? I I don't. Do you? No,   we'll schedule. We'll schedule. Don't want it to  be in person or virtual? Uh, in person so the uh   public can come as well. Perfect. Would you like  us to consider uh getting someone to come talk to   us that has had experience? Sure. So we make this  part of our double coal process too that we've got   coming up. I'm sure they got plenty of experience  working with this. Well, I had the thought of   that. We could ask that historic overlays. So  anyway, well, just a thought. We Jonathan will   get you more information. Sounds good. Item 12 C.  12 C. This this is still under city attorney. Um this is professional services agreement for urban  planning and design. It's a task order. Uh do coal   has been under contract with the city in the  past as far as the hurricane recovery effort   and different you type of projects. This is  another one of those type of one-off projects   but a continuation of some work they had done  originally. Uh this is relates to the planning and  

uh community workshops for the uplands  at the uh Panama City Downtown Marina.   Obviously there are wet slips uh to be that have  we've been in discussions with with CMP U LLC.   Uh this is the actual upland's work and what  uh and planning what should be there and what   the community feels is appropriate, what the  city commission feels is appropriate and what   uh the developers could feels could be built  and uh it would make sense financially. The   the uh total cost is I think $122,000 and  the rec and PFM has already been retained.   they that what public finance managers do  is not duplicative of this. They look at the   uh revenue potential of whatever is  planned. They look at cost. They help   uh determine revenue share that might come out of  that with the developer that is doing this work.   this dober coal is actually involved in in  planning what could work there and and the   look and things like that. So that's the u the  the report on that and I know we have uh well we   do have representative CMP here also and this came  out of this this came out of the discussion with   CMP well it's been over a month ago and it related  and PFM was retained and now this is deliber call. Yeah, I I love the shrup. Um, we need public input  and uh I do worry about the timeline not being   quick enough. Yeah, 7 minutes. Mhm. Yeah, it's  my main concern. That was my main concern last  

time is I think in in keeping incorporated the  wetlands and far as in doing slips, it's going   to constantly create a delay in this process. Um,  we desperately need a solution to just doing slips   and marina operations. Um, I don't know about  you guys, but I've had like I'm now getting   people that are reaching out to do that. I would  love to see it continue forward with with CMP,   but if they absolutely do need the uplands and  improvements, we're going to have design ready in   a month. And if we don't get a agreement going for  construction, we're going to be sitting with fully   designed plans and not being able to to construct  what we have. St. Joe's going to be ready in   March, not I mean February, not not next month. I  got December was the last update that I had. Um,   no. Remember we you and I batted back and forth  on dim pay CMP pay for or St. Joe and St. We went   St. Joe and they'll be done in February. There's  there's two dates. There's 50 slips for all of it.   Well, you have 50 slips in December or so and all  of it in February. So, just like in St. Andrews,   we can start construction in December. So, and  that's the timeline that I I was on board with   walking through this process last time to see if  we can get through it with the communication that   like it's a very bold timeline. And now seeing  this schedule, I think it's it's time for us to   get the slips built and we're going to be ready  for construction in December. We need to have   an agreement on this commission's table to just  do slip slips and marina operations so that we   can proceed forward with construction. I hope that  that's with CMP. If it's not, then we need to give   staff the instruction to go forward with finding  some alternative options for us. Who's who's   calling you? Who who's I mean, over the years  there's been multiple ones. Who are they? So,  

I mean, Alliance Marine, the Kings, uh, Knights,  Knights Marine. They do like 13 municipal marinas   all across the state. Um, I I mean there's And  they're calling saying what? This is the first   time. They're just they're just Hey, we see you  guys are stuck in a process. We'd love to be a   part of trying to find a solution. I'm stuck in  the slip process or the upland process. We're   stuck in the uplands process. So, have they said  that they're going to need have they looked at   it? They understand what the what the u there's  $10 million worth of uh of utilities that have to   happen. Do they know that? Well, there's not $10  million worth of utilities because we have a FEMA   process to work through for most 5 million. I'm  sorry. Yes. Um, do we know when Alliance I mean   when that's what I want to give instruction to  staff to start getting those answers. I tell you   what, how about this? I'll make a motion that we  have a special meeting in November to accept CMP's   term sheet on um just to to talk about it and  work through it and uh that way we get we get   them set up with us on on um on slips and it  gives us three months to operate or you know   uh to operate a work on an agreement and it's not  going to be when the term sheet is. It's going to   be line by line. We like this. Okay, we don't  like that. Um so an up so it slips only. No no   no no the term sheet that was presented to us the  last one and I don't have a copy of it. Um the one   that has we have not as a commission we haven't  given a chance to try to make this deal work. We   haven't the reason we are where we are is because  of us nobody else. Okay we get to this point and   then we we there's the gap and you're talking  about what is it? It's the gap. So maybe we   ought to have a meeting public bring them bring  us and let's talk about can we find common ground   because at the end of the day the upland is  never going to get done unless St. Joe does  

it unless there's there's an agreement between  somebody a developer and them. So let's let's   at least have that oper that chance. We haven't  had that chance yet. Can we do that? Can we agree   to have a meeting and try to work through the  the term sheet because we've never voted on it.   So I I'm not voting in favor of any square footage  deal without having a photo. You don't have to.   You don't have to picture. Um I'm So you're saying  the slips only agree? No, sir. I'm saying I'm   saying we this the the CMP sheet that a term sheet  they gave us talking about slips and the up. Okay.   We have never acknowledged that we received it  through a vote. We've never tried to say we like   this idea or don't. The city I'm tired of being  asked the same thing except what I'm hearing is   y'all aren't doing anything. What are y'all doing  up there? Where's the marina? I'm being asked,   why am I so uh hard on getting the marina done? I  love it. I ran on it. It's been part of my life.   I want it done. As a citizen, I'm really mad that  we don't have as a commission commissioner. Yeah,   we we are we are duty bound to give it back to  the to the uh uh the citizens operation in my   opinion. So that's not just the slips, but that's  the sticking point. That's right. Because when we   say give it back to the citizens, the citizens  are very concerned about what goes on that up   and let's have a meeting about it. We never we've  never gone through that to say let's let's talk   about it. No, ma'am. It's not that this proposal  right here. All it does is the slips. What's wrong   with having an open conversation about the term  sheet? I don't care which one it is. I think   there's been two since I've been here. Make  a motion to deny the term sheet from two two   meetings ago. No, we never we've never had vote  on it. I mean, we can vote on it today. I mean,   is is there some I'm just asking what's wrong  with having a meeting to vote on something that   we have not voted on yet? I feel like I voted on  it. I voted on it very clearly if we do not have a  

public process to Upland's. I'm not going to sign  off on 300,000 ft on a on a public marina. And you   get to vote on that. What's wrong with Well, do  we want to vote it today? I mean, like I think   I think what I think what Allan's saying is true.  We can vote today. I mean, I I feel like I already   made that decision. and communicated that very  clearly. This is going to take 7 months to get   through this process. 7 months will put us outside  of the timeline that we already discussed. I'm   just saying let's look at all options. All options  on the table. Okay. You've lived in this in this   um experience longer than I have. You've worked  with CMP. Yep. Which they've been very good   partners over there at Sam. We've had three um  economists tell us two we we paid. So the city   has hired two people and said you have to have the  upland in order for to make it work. But the whole   premise of the study was based on construction  the construction cost that we didn't even have   the plans. And that's what I want to get is how  much does it cost to build the thing that we're   designing? The whole study was based on the it's  not our money. It does matter. Okay. But if you're   not spending a dollar, why does it matter what  it cost? Because we hold the public trust. Okay.   Okay. So, how what ultimately goes there is our  responsibility. That's different than the cost.   Different than the cost. Allan wants to know,  the mayor wants to know what the cost is when   it when we're not spending time. But if we if we  uh if we end up with nobody to help us now, we're   spending our money, which we don't have. How do we  know what the revenue is going to be on a design   that doesn't exist? Cuz different slips cost.  That's what we're paying somebody for. That's   what we're paying these PFM people for. I thought  the economist that's what they did because we get   design we price the design we get public input so  for the uplands we get a cost to build but then we   know the revenue based on what what the slip sizes  are and then we can start making sense of the deal  

and give everyone clarity including C CMP okay  the cost of a slip doesn't matter to me what what   matters to me is the rent of a slip because I make  money as a as a c citizen off the rent not the   cost Okay. What they bring in in in income is how  I'm getting paid as a citizen from revenue share,   not the cost. How does a profit share work  if we don't know what they have in the deal   and what the profit's going to be? Because  it's about the money that's generating. Okay,   I can spend a dollar. I can spend $100 million. If  it's only going to generate because the cost the   the rent is only going to be $15 a foot, whatever  it is, I can only generate that much. What it   costs him to build it. Why does that matter?  that it works off of because why wouldn't we ask   for 25% revenue share? Why would we ask for 50%  revenue share? Because the cost are we get there   Josh we can't even have a negotiation about it man  because we get to this point and it's very obvious   that you don't want the upland to go forward  as it's as it just tied in with this I think   that's the piece that's creating the complication.  I don't have anything to tell citizens of what are   you building on the marina? I can I tell could I  sign a deal based upon slips? Yes, we've done it   already and and and St. Andrews like yes, there  is a definite way to get a path forward on slips   and marina operation. When you say you don't  have anything to tell them like there's going   to be a target down there or there's going to be  or five or five restaurants, what do you mean by   that? You don't it's 3,000 or 300,000 square ft  is right now what was on that term sheet. And so   that is a lot of space to not know what that is.  There are some people that don't want condos down   there. They don't want it. She's sitting right out  there. So, um, but we've never had a negotiation   about that. That's the part y'all are missing.  And you're saying, "This is the temp sheet,   and this is what we're not going to vote on."  But we've never sat down and said, "All right,   guys. We don't like 300. We like 200. Let's have  that open dialogue in a meeting and let the public   hear the public. We get I'm not saying 100, 200,  300, one foot, but until I know what we're going  

to build and what the citizens want us to build,  allow them allow someone else to build. So I'm   not negotiating on the square footage until I  know what citizens would allow there. Do they   want to $20 operator? This this will not get  built. You will not have enough. I mean take   it a wet slip deal. It was a slip deal. So I don't  know why the the deal in St. Andrews doesn't work   here. I'll tell you why. Because they're getting  two and a they're getting 20% on a on a bulkhead   uh job and it's $2 something million. That made  the deal work. Okay. that we don't have that down   there. Okay. Somebody brought up the idea of a  hotel down there and then people got eviscerated.   So then based off of that, the citizens have  traded $2.5 million of cash injection for   300,000 ft on the marina. No, not at all. Sounds  like the repair of a of a repair of a of a seaw   wall versus vertical construction that we own  as an asset. Okay. They build it, we own it. I've seen I've seen big projects happen.  Okay, Wild Heron's one. They did exactly   what we're talking about. They had a meeting.  They said, "Here's some ideas." And they voted   to move forward based on a plan coming back and  has remember everything has to be approved by   us. Planning board. That was citizen owned  property. Wild her was citizen. No, no, no,   no, no. How how to get the citizens involved.  And that's what y'all are. This is this is a   different deal than Robbie selling prop. Robbie,  this is Robbie. Robbie, right? This is Robbie   owned property. Robbie can go make a decision and  go bing bang bing. I love it. Go for it. But this   is example. It went to That's fair. That's fair.  My concern is this. We're at the same point that   we we're farther away than the first time I made  a presentation on this marina in July. And then   I wanted to have 10 days later, I want to have a  public meeting. You know what hasn't happened? No  

public meeting. You know, I'm having a town hall  meeting next Thursday so I can talk to the people   because we can't seem to get to them. It's crazy,  man. And all we're And you're Are you scared to   vote on something cuz you you think it's going to  go bad? You can only put what you can put there.   And remember, we have to say okay to it. So does  the planning board. I mean, there are stop points.   Oh, and by the way, they're not gonna spend the  money if it doesn't work. Yeah. I think that we   need more care than just land development code on  the uplands. I think if if that's how you sell a   piece of property personally, but more care this  more care and concern for that dirt than just do   whatever's in the land, right? So, what's going  to drive it outside of the land development code?   Because those are your allowable uses. Cherrettes,  public input. Here's what they want to see. We   want this much green space. We want this much  parking. We want this much for the boat ramp. We   want that's what it's a citizen design le process.  100%. Let's just say the land code allows for a   100 things. Well, we can't put a hundred things  there. Exactly. And so this process engaged with   the public helps us to determine what goes there  and to uphold our end of the public trust. I'm   trying to get the public involved in a meeting  and I can't get an agreement here. I want them   to come together and let's talk to us, talk to  them, them talk to them and I can't get I can't   get an agreement there. What's wrong with having a  public meeting about public trust? because nobody   has been able to have these discussions with  a developer. The only one we have, by the way,   okay? And if you want to open it back up, let's  see if more than one shows up. Why can't we do   that? What's wrong with having I'm under the  assumption that CMP wanted the shetss to begin   with. And I wish we could go back in time and get  the shreds in the public input meetings two years   ago, but we can't. And I'm unwilling to just make  just go make decisions based on things I can't   control in the past. I can only control what I  do moving forward. And this is a way a path to   us making decisions and clarity in the deal for  citizens and us and CMP. I would love to ink a  

deal next 30 days on the design and the wet slips.  I'd love that. I if they bring us that deal of a   revenue share, whatever they propose similar to  the one in St. Andrews, I would be willing to vote   for that and entertain that. Your your wet sliff's  exactly the same in St. Andrews as it is downtown.   Cool. So there's no upland down in St. Andrew. So  there's nothing exactly um you know I'm we're not   going to put we're not going to offer to put a  hotel on downtown because that's not allowed.   Okay. Because under the St. Joe um lease, they  have the first right of use. They're probably   they're going to probably say no to an hotel down  there. Okay. What we do have the opportunity to do   is present any idea that they today would have to  say yes or no to. It's not a stop for you. Okay. store and a fuel terminal. Huh? A ship store and  a fuel terminal. That's all you want? If that gets   us to the point that we can sign a thing. Yeah.  Like because that's what was there. I know the   citizens are in support of it. That's what we  can do. And then we can follow through with the   rest of this process. Okay. And if that if those  numbers don't work for CN or for Alliance Marina   or whoever, what do we do then? Returns got to  be there, man. Because again, if it doesn't work,   then we start saying, "Okay, well, we're going  to inject cash or we're going to build the thing   for you and you just manage it." Or, "Yes, you  can build this thing here to compensate for the   shortfall of the slips." That will all mean make  more sense when we know what it what we're going   to build, what the cost will go, the management  agreement. Okay, how about let's put it this way.   How about we have a meeting we to talk about  this the term sheet and we fi if we find an   agreement is subject to all of our sharetses  and public input with the with the ability to   modify any agreement that we have now we've had a  conversation with them and we've had sharets what   I I really need I really need help me connect the  dots of what's wrong with me if you can't read the   the the sort of the undertones of what we think  of the term sheet in it existing state. I think  

I mean I I think it's pretty clear that most of  us are unwilling to vote for the term sheet with   bullet points. Um that's I think that's what I'm  saying. I've said it three or four times. Uh I I   would vote for a be interested in a deal with just  the wet slips in 30 days. Let's see it. What does   that look like? Uh if we want to speed the process  up, but Well, our last fact were it was a 9%   return and it was a 7 and 12% on money. So 1 and  12% return. Even our economist said that that's   a bad idea. Mayor, you said listen to our um um on  your video in Facebook. You said you should listen   to your consultants. Uh you know what they've all  said? They've all said this works. Do it based on   a construction number of plans that do not exist.  That's their job. I could say it's going to cost   $4 and then the profit margin goes way up or I  say it cost $10 billion. We need to verify the   number of construction cost. that whole report  falls apart based on that first assumption that   CMP isn't supplied and it's we're doing our  due diligence as elected officials to verify   construction costs then we can validate that study  if we validate the construction costs. Okay. What   does the construction cost do for you when the  when the mass the only rent that you can get is   $20 a foot say on a boat on a on what does that  do for you? You will make me sleep well at night.   Okay. But what did it change from the from the  issue that we have now? They let's say they spend   $20 million and the most they pull out of each  month is $2 million in rents because that's what   the market is. And we will know that when we have  our own data that we can explain to the public and   show them this deal falls apart and we have to do  these things now to make the deal work. Wouldn't   it be nice to be able to have have a conversation  with whoever UCMP and say here's if they agreed   this way we're going to do it we want this and  now we're going through that and saying we've got   an agreement on this but we've got to have this  happen first. Remember when Brian said to get to  

the upland you had to finish the 50 slips that was  a performance um move. Yeah. Okay. That can be an   agreement that we have going just to walk away and  say we've never tried it. We know it's not going   to work, but we're not going to even give it.  We're not even going to have a conversation about   it. Doesn't make sense to me. And you three have  been living with it for the last 2 years. Why not   at least try? I mean, I think that's what we're  doing. No, you're not. You're walking away from   the partner who's offered us walking away from  anybody, potential partners walk who's offered   us that we things we don't vote on. I I that's  what's confusing to me. So, am I hearing that   if we continue the process as we're doing now,  CMP is walking away? So, I don't know. I have   no idea. Okay. So, what are you saying then? I'm  suggesting that we have not given ourselves or CMP   the opportunity to find common ground because when  we get to this point, Commissioner Street and the   mayor say, "I'm not moving forward." They don't  want to have that conversation. Even negotiations   of what has been put in front of us. I can't  negotiate a deal. We But you're negot You're   agreeing to the slips. Okay. You just said it.  You're agreed to the slip without even thought   without any uh design. I want to see I want to I  want to see the design so then we can price out to   build it and then we can talk about the management  agreement and base them. See like when you muddy   everything together it doesn't bring clarity.  That's actually the opposite of transparency. I   want to see singularity of deal points so that I  can I can't explain this deal to anyone and they   haven't we haven't done them a favor. I wish  in years past that we had gotten the sharetses   and gotten the plans done. We were ready for this,  but I can't in good conscious move forward without   those deal points that we verified. So, you got  two links. I never anticipated in the conversation   for rebuilding the marina that we would be  talking about 300,000 square ft with rebuilding  

200 something slips. That was not on my table as  far as what I thought through this process. Okay.   So having that large of an upland development  alongside trying to rebuild the slips was not on   my table at any point in time whether in the RFP  process or anything else like that. That is new   to this specific process. I understand that there  was at a point there was a request for $10 million   worth of improvements, but that is no longer there  and and so now that should shrink in size to what   is needed to make this deal work. And we're not  we are approaching the point in which we will be   construction ready with no agreement to start.  And that is the piece that I am concerned about   because you can't start construction until you  have design. And in December, we're going to have   50 slips that we can start construction. No, you  won't because the mayor wants the design priced   out. He wants to have a public meeting about it  and then you'll be able to do that. So sometime   in July start construction. I want to know the  construction cost if we should build it or have a   partner build it. That's all I know. We don't have  the money to build it. We don't have the money to   build it. We might not. I want to know what it's  going to cost. We've all We've all gone from we   don't want to do anything. We don't want to have  anything. We don't want to manage it and we don't   want to. We don't need to manage it and operate  it. And guess what? Somebody else will pay for it.   Wow. Has Alliance offered to pay for it? No. No.  So again, we could go and have these conversations   with these other mar municipal marina operators  and we could get alternative proposals to see if   that will if it numbers work. If they don't, then  yes, it's a whole another conversation. Um, but I   think what the path forward is right now with what  we have now, we have a working agreement with this   group in St. Andrews and it's working. If Uplands  is required to do this agreement, then yes, I want  

to look at cost. I want to look at what what that  Uplands is going to be. I would want to look at   what other alternatives do we have. And we're not  entertaining any of those right now. Does anybody   know how many square feet the civic center, the  library, and and the city hall? I'm going to guess   civic center was 80. 80. So I'm I'm going to guess  100. Maybe a little over 100. So a third of that   was sitting up front. Then we had four winds. We  had so to say that we the square footage thing is   scary. We had at least probably half of that down  there if not more growing up. Okay. So the square   footage argument I can understand but not all the  way because you're hanging your hat on 300 but we   don't know if it's 300 or not because we're not  negotiating and we and we've had over a hundred   there our entire life until now. So that again  trying to connect the dots on what the holdup is   to have a conversation. I'm not asking us to sign  a document necessarily against the conversation.   I'm just wondering what what is going to be  presented in that that's different than what   we've already said. Well, obviously from your from  your point of view, nothing. Okay. From your point   of view, since you're arguing this hard, what do  you expect? I want to I want to sit down and say,   "All right, guys, what what can you what's the  minimum you can live with on square footage? Where   do you think you're going to put some things?  Let's let's let's move things around on a board.   Let's do whatever, but let's have a conversation  about what you're over. No, sir, it's not. So,   your your your approach is the very thing citizens  are telling us they don't want, which is it's   public. The meeting is Okay, go ahead. Which is to  negotiate with one entity versus of their vision   without the community input? No, ma'am. That's  that's completely wrong. My my vision is to have   the public and us and and CMP because they're the  only ones we have all in the same place to talk  

about vision. We haven't had an opportunity.  What I'm hearing is why can't the public hear   about it? What's going on? Why are y'all doing?  Because we get to this point and quite honestly   I tell them Josh stops the deal. What do we got?  Here's the gap. We've had a we've had a shred on   the marine just we've had we've had a we've had a  proposal for a sharet on the marine stopped. No no   we didn't completely unaware that's incorrect  Robin. You're making incorrect statements. We   have not gotten to this point and stopped it.  This is a new point of the deal. No we get to   the point of we got the slips. We know everybody  wants the upland and there's a gap in there guys.   Everybody's asking about it. Yeah. The gap is  data of build cost and what the citizens want.   That's the gap that we're trying. So, back to  your question, Commissioner Lucas. If we had the   public get up and ask questions about vision, now  you've got the people up here who make decisions.   You got them who want to uh want to spend their  money. So, you're having a group conversation,   not about how we see it, not about how they see  it, and not how about the public sees it. All   of us. Is every is every idea going to come out of  there good or bad? I don't know. And that's before   the sharet because now we're trying to decide.  We may decide when we're new business owner.   They may decide I it'd be easy for me to decide I  want to do business with us, but they may decide   that. Okay. But I don't understand why having  a chat with the public and with the the players   is a bad idea. I think we're doing that right  now. No, sir. We're not. Nobody here is getting   an opportunity to talk. See, public comments,  come on up. Who wants to talk about it? Yes,   sir. Come on up. Can we go to a bathroom?  Yeah, we'll have a bathroom break. Thanks.

Yeah, let's take a recess of uh 10 minutes. William Harrison, 101. Harrison Avenue for CMP.  Uh I guess I've got to cover the waterfront in 3   minutes. Uh so I'm not quite sure how to do that.  Uh I'd like to clarify a few things. Uh first of   all, we started uh with the RFP from the city was  February of 2024. Uh we received we CMP on behalf   of the city the 50 slip permit exemption in April  of 2024. Uh I want you to know that in June of   2024 we submitted the first draft of the long-term  lease to the city for the city to consider. Mayor,   you said that uh if we presented a document that  mirrored what was in St. Andrews, you were ready   to vote on it. We have done that. We did that in  June 2024. Uh now, uh Mr. Street, you have some   comments about it was news to you about the upland  uses um downtown. You know that that was an issue   uh at St. Andrews. Uh because municipal marinas  will not stand on their own with slips only. The   advertisement that the city put out there was for  the entire marina. It was not just for the slips.  

We responded to that. We're the only fools that  responded. And so here we are approaching two   years later uh still negotiating with you. Now,  concerning the language that we proposed for   Upland uses, if you would look at page 15 of the  San Andrew Marina lease that the city has executed   with us, and page 14, uh, beginning with one of  three drafts of this agreement that we sent to   you for your review, which you have not reviewed  and have not voted on, uh, we have sent also an   interim agreement uh, with the prior uh, administ  administration that uh was not considered. We   have sent either two or three uh term sheets  that have not been considered. You have said   that you're concerned about the public's input. We  proposed as mayor, you pointed out in our submitt,   the very beginning nearly two years ago that we  wanted public sheretses at the very beginning.   The city told us they were not interested. And  so we get to this point to where the donkey is   turned around backwards. I would like to suggest  to you for all of you to go look at the do coal   report that was done after a week of cherettes  that started on a Monday and ended on a Saturday   for the downtown marina. Now they can be updated  and they can be modified. They can be improved.   the city commission learned from the public during  all of those cherettes and and I don't know how   many pages this is 30 40 50 pages um what the city  what the citizens are looking for on the downtown  

marina and what the uses are. Now, it does not  get to how many square feet, but also what Do   Cole did as part of the neighborhood plans, they  provided a drawing for what they proposed coming   out of those cherettes, which is in addition to  the John Anderson drawing that all of you are   familiar with, which is in addition to the Wooden  Partners Plan. The city has paid for this three   times and I understand you want to do it one more  time and that's fine and we're happy. We have a   lot of confidence in Dover Cole um and and and and  we can work through those plans um and whatever it   is that comes out of those. We are here to find a  solution. We have been here for two years to find   a solution. It is the city commission that is not  working with us to find solutions. We are shooting   in the dark trying to figure out what in the world  the five commissioners whether it's the previous   commission or this commission is trying to do on  the marina. We have probably we have thousands   of hours unpaid in trying to find a solution  for this commission and for this city and for   our neighborhoods in rebuilding that marina. Now 7  years later, there are proposals on your desk that   you have had on your desk for over a year. Over a  year. You've had three different versions of what   we're proposing and they're only modified because  of the information that we get from you. You have   not responded to any of those. Now, to the point  that is raised about would we move forward for   slips only. Josh, you seem to think slips only.  Let's do slips only and move forward. We can't do  

slips only at St. Andrew's Marina. We've already  been through that. The previous commission looked   through all of the financial modeling, tried to  make that work. It didn't work. The city pledged   and honored to or committed to the public they  were not going to spend another dollar on the St.   Andrews Marina. And so it was our responsibility  to go figure out how to make all that stuff work   even though it's going to lose money. I don't  have the ability to tax. I don't have the ability   to assess. You can. The previous commission can  do that, but the city's decided we're not going   to do this. It's too much of a risk and we can't  afford it. So, we want our fellow citizens to go   take that risk. And so, we have stepped up here  and offered solutions to try to address that at   St. Andrews and now downtown. when the financial  modeling didn't work with our consultant Fishkind   and Associates with your consultant Owen Bice  that said this is a loser from the beginning   and you're going to lose your shirt. You put $20  million into this and you're going to lose 12. The   solution from the city was how about if you put  a hotel on there does that solve the problem? And   so we went and modeled all that and we came back  and said, "Yes, that will work because we need   additional revenue." In this very meeting with  me standing at this very podium, I was short of   being crucified for presenting in a draft lease at  the city's request what a hotel would look like.  

The reason why it was put in there is because that  project slips only loses money. So the city came   back and said, "Okay, we've heard from everybody  in the condo. They don't want a hotel. So how   about if we do a cost plus on the bulkhead?"  So we went and analyzed all of that. We came   back and said, "Fine, we believe it to be $12.9  million cost plus contract." We signed a 30-year   deal. We get on down the road. So, for the sake of  time, you mentioned I have not seen a comparative   analysis of like the the San Marina and the  presented one for downtown. And I'd be willing   to call a special meeting to compare those two and  and work on a deal for justice slips related to   the one because if that's the existing convention  that we vote on previously and if there is a gap,   I'm interested in seeing that. Okay. But you  do have that. We we have provided you with a   a a compare document that shows the differences  between St. Andrews and downtown on those draft   agreements. Now, when we move down here, mayor, it  is the same issue. The mo you can run the models   and has been said here earlier tonight, PFM, your  consultant, looked at the numbers and said, "This   is dangerous. You've got a 8 some odd% return on  a 7 12% cost of funds. You can't take those risk,   right?" All right. And so I I'm So then we move  to the uplands. Okay. Now, we're we're late on   time and so I'm happy to call a workshop for this  and we can go through an hourong discussion. Um I   I think we're talking about greenlighting the do  coal agreement to get the sharetses. Do we want   to get back on that conversation of what this is  and then call a special meeting about comparative   deals of St. Andrews versus downtown. I'm happy to  do that, but I don't want to I don't want to turn  

this into a 12-h hour meeting. Yeah. I just want  to share the do coal team's not available till   December to host a sharet. can totally talk about  marina agreements and comparative and have a whole   conversation mayor. Yes, ma'am. There's a motion  on the table special meeting in November with   CMP on the term sheet. There we go. So, we have a  first and a second. Correct. Just a motion. Nobody   has second. You amend that to I would amend that  to say um that we have a meeting in Sep I mean in   November in the first two weeks of November to  consider the term sheet and the the difference   uh between the St. at Andrews Marina and the  downtown Marina on slips only with the with   uh what you have provided to us, Mr. Harrison, in  the past. Um yeah, I'm willing I'm willing to look   at any term sheet. Sure. Well, that way it gets  it out of the discussion. Sure. Sure. I'll second.   Thank you. Call the RO. Commissioner Lucas. Yes.  Commissioner Granger. Yes. Commissioner Street.   Yes. Commissioner Hughes. Yes. Mayor Branch.  Yes. Motion passes 5-0. Uh Mr. Mayor, are we   still going to consider 12C? Yeah, we still do  recall. We we still have to talk about that. No,   that was what we just did. We vote on that. So,  what we just did was a special meeting on the term   sheet. Yeah, it was this scope of service. Now  we're on 12, right? So, I move to approve. Okay,   we have a second to approve. A second. Any  discussion? Yes. So, we all agreed the seven month   timeline was too long. Yep. So, I'm sorry. We all  agreed that the seven-month timeline was too long.   That is correct. For for this, um I just wanted  to kind of pause for a second. Uh as because we   have a motion to approve in a second and uh so  we can ask do speed it up or we can move forward   with the timeline that's existing or enable staff  to negotiate the I think we work at the timeline  

that is demanded by the citizens which if it  takes seven months it takes seven months. Now,   if we can get to a slips only piece, that could  completely change everything. But if it's going   to involve uplands, I'm in favor of going through  the public process to identify the uses as what   the public will support in having there. I don't  think the public demanded a seven-month process,   though. Um, yeah, I don't I don't think that that  it needs to take 7 months is what I'm getting at,   but we could ask Cole to shorten it if  there's a possibility of doing that. Yeah,   I would I would push back. Don't say cut it in  half. Seven month time. 7 and 1/2 or 3 and 1/2   months is really more more what I would like to  see. So we can we can approve the amount with with   the contingency of shortening the timeline within  a certain time frame for staff to negotiate. Yes.   Does that repeat that? So approving the amount of  money to spend. Okay. The concept of bringing them   in and enable staff uh to work on the dates  with the amount of money uh to shorten it in   half. Yeah. Does that make sense with that?  Yeah. All right. We have a motion. Was that   Jan? Commissioner Lucas. Commissioner Lucas made  the vote. You'll have made your motion. My second   and your second. Okay. Any discussion? I would  just add as a reminder. So this will, you know,   assuming that this was approved tonight, this will  be on the CRA board meeting next week because we   are suggesting that the CRA cover the expense  of this from the new timeline. We can probably   get an updated timeline from to go before they  perfect. Please call the RO. Commissioner Lucas.   Yes. Commissioner Granger. Yes. Commissioner Stre.  Yes. Yes. Commissioner Hughes. Yes. Mayor Branch.   Yes. Motion passes 5-0. Um if I could add one  more thing. Um there were a few things that were   mentioned in that that I have not seen. Interimm  agreements um uh agreements that were presented um   a year ago. Those things if we could get a summary  of all of those things because I just checked my   inbox as well as our agendas and I've gotten three  things and they've been within the last 90 days.  

So yeah, I will send you a link and u and  also summary. Thank you. Will the link have   all the documents? Yes. And when they were  delivered to us? Well, I don't I don't know   if it'll have a date technology. Yeah. Yeah.  Okay. I'll do my best. How about that? So,   little housekeeping issue, too. I just kind of  skimmed the calendar real quick. Are any of you   out of town? Monday, November 10th. That's  really the best date for the first half of   November. It's going into a holiday on November  11, but Monday, November 10th is a regular day. November. Miss Smith, Mr. Zimmerman,  are you all available those days? Yes,   I'm available. How's it doing? I'm good. November 10th. What time?  But you'll be in room 10,   so we could host that here. Okay. All right.  Okay. We'll we'll figure out the location,   but we'll plan for I'm assuming you'd want a  4:30 and not a 8 a.m. Okay. Okay. Item 13A. Item 13A is consideration to approve a one-time  lifetime adjustment for utility bills. Uh,   as background information, at the commission  meeting held on September 9th, 2025, there was   a desire by the city commission to provide relief  for customers who have experienced an unexpected   and unexplained spike in water usage. The attached  policy is in response to commission's request.   The policy has been approved by the city's  holder of revenue bonds and the state of   Florida's Department of Environmental Protection,  the issuer of the state revolving fund loans,   approved the policy with the provision that it  does not interfere with the city's ability to meet   its debt service requirements. Staff recommends  approval of the one-time lifetime adjustment for  

utility bills attached here too. Point of order,  Mr. Mayor, we are beyond 7 p.m. We got rid of   that rule, I think. That's correct. We're here  all night here in midnight. Ice cream at what? All right. So, we do we have a motion to accept?  Uh, second. Who was a motion? I'll motion to   accept. I'll second that. Okay. Any discussion?  I do have a question. So, currently, um, you can   get a you get one time a year for swim. You got  to prove that you need, right? So, you're going   to get onetime forgiveness. Mhm. And document.  They're going to ring in. They're going to say,   "Okay, I've got this. Here's my documentation."  Can we all know can maybe some Where's that going   to be housed? That person came in before they  got done. Is that on the computer? Here's what   did Yeah, it be it'll be in their customer service  file. All right. Be attached to the person and not   the address. It'll be the account number and the  meter number because it's per meter. Okay. So,   the account numbers and numbers, but yeah. Uh,  I want to add to that staff was really great   answering all the questions I had about policies  and all that stuff. So, really appreciate that and   very supportive of this. Any other discussion  related to this item? Please call the RO.   Commissioner Lucas, yes. Commissioner Granger,  yes. Commissioner Street, yes. Commissioner   Hughes, yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes 5-0.  Item 13B is a notice of vacancies on the Panama   Panama City Planning Board. Uh the Panama City  Planning Board has all five positions available as   a result of the changes associated with ordinance  number 3284. The planning the Panama City Planning   Board is a city planning agency and acts in  an advisory capacity to the city commission.  

The planning board holds public hearings on all  proposals to change land use and land development   regulations as well as variances and exceptions to  the land development code relating to signage and   other matters. The board makes recommendations  to the commission regarding the adoptions and   amendments of the comprehensive plan and exation  of property and requests for conditional use   of property and changes in zoning of property.  The land use department prepares the agenda for   planning board meetings. The planning board has  five members. Each city commissioner appoints one   member. Board members must be re residents of the  city. Terms of office run concurrently with the   appointing commissioner plus 30 days. Planning  board members are not subject to term limits.   Planning board meetings are held the second meet  Monday of each month at 4 pm and applications   are available on the city's website at ww.panol  city.gov. Are you looking for nominations tonight   or just You are free to make nominations. I have  a list of people who are on the board if you   would like to hear those. Does anyone want to make  nominations tonight? Yeah, I'm fine making mine.   I'm ready. I can be ready. I'm not ready for you  guys. Go ahead. All right. Uh you never know. So,   we get four out of five tonight. I'll I'll  nominate um uh Sterling Anderson. Um he's   been a long time um resident St. Andrews and  look forward to him serving Sterling Anderson.   Mhm. For Commissioner Street. Okay. I'll nominate  Aaron Rich. Aaron Rich for Commissioner Granger.   It's often times confused for me and it makes it  very difficult when he makes yelled out for his   decisions before Mr. Rich is a current and he says  that what the nominees do you have? I don't see  

that. Um I nominate James Barker. James Barker.  And I nominate Brian Newower. Brian Newbower. Mr. Mayor. Nothing for me tonight. Okay.  Congratulations all. We don't have to make   a motion or anything. Motion to accept them or  anything. Um I guess they're making their own.   I don't have to if it's their if that's their  nominee, I don't have to approve it. That's   I didn't hear what you said, Mr. Mayor.  I was saying like if it's their nominee,   it's like we have to approve it as that. That's  not The ordinance does not address that. It says   each each city commissioner appoints one member.  Yeah. We just be appointed. That it is. Shouldn't   there be There should be a vote on that, shouldn't  there? We're going to we're going to hear from the   uh parliamentarian. That's [Laughter] Thank you,  Commissioner. The uh the ordinance was patterned   exactly after the counties and uh it does not say  specifically to have a vote by the county. I mean,   not by the county, by the city commission uh on  that. It would I assumed it would be nice to have   a vote but it's not required. Yeah, we can move  on. Okay. What one thing there's uh three three   of them are reappointments and and obviously I  think uh your appointment would need to fill out   the paperwork and submit. It just seems incomplete  if I'm nominated that the nomination should be   carried. Yeah. A motion to approve all current  nominations. Thank you. But what I was what I   was ask I didn't did you nominate someone,  Mr. Mayor, or you Okay, you did. I nominated   one. I'll nominate it. Uh, please call the role.  Commissioner Lucas, yes. Commissioner Granger,   yes. Commissioner Street, yes. Commissioner  Hughes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes 5-0. Um,  

item 13C is just a housekeeping item. Um, I  have a request to clarify a motion from the   meeting of October 14th, 2025. Item number 12E  uh was erroneously approved. Uh at the motion   was to approve the property acquisition of 705  East 15th Street, but the topic of the item was   actually 704 East 15th Street. So I just need a  another motion to um repeal the 705 East 15th and   um approve the 704 East 15th Street. So move I'll  second that. Any discussion? Please call the roll.   Commissioner Lucas, yes. Commissioner Granger,  yes. Commissioner Street, yes. Commissioner   Hughes, yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes 50.  Uh, Mr. Mayor, just going back to the planning   commission. It's my interpretation of the action  today that there are now four members of the   planning commission until you appoint a fifth. So  you'll I mean or I I would say I'm fine with um my   nominee not starting until Ellen, are you going to  nominate next meeting or you Yes, for sure. So I'm   fine with delaying um that until because that's  that's there's a planning board meeting before   the next meeting. That's that's why I'm bringing  this up. Yeah. Okay. To further complicate things,   why don't I amend and put mine effective. How  about subject two? Yeah. effective December. So,   so to thank you. Okay. So, that means that  the current five members will continue to   serve because three of them got reappointed,  but all five will continue to serve until the   end of November or through their uh November. I  mean, we could say the end of the year. I think   that's fine, too. That's what makes it easier. I  don't know what the planning board is in December.  

Mr. Fuller, is is there going to be a planning  commission meeting in December? I assume so. Um,   but it could be cut off. That's when just start  January. Is that Is that fine? Okay, let's January   1st. Let's do that. Amendment to the motion or  I'll I'll um Yeah, because I I'll motion. Well,   we already approved that. A motion to delay the  term starts for the newly appointed members until   uh first meeting postponing board meeting in  January. Second. Please call the role. Thank you.   Commissioner Lucas, yes. Commissioner Granger,  yes. Commissioner Street, yes. Commissioner   Hughes, yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes  5-0. Effective January 14A. All right. Item 14A is   consideration to approve piggybacking the contract  between Asphalt Paving Systems, APS, and the city   of Gainesville, Florida, to perform microurfacing  pavement preservation in the amount of $243,15 and acceptance of the quote provided  by Emerald Coast Striping ECS to   perform the necessary thermoplastic  striping in the amount of $54,660 and to approve budget amendment resolution  2025102. 28.1 in the amount of $319,975. An additional $22,300 has been included  in the budget amendment request to cover   potential temporary traffic control needs during  construction and potential additional striping   and/or micro surfacing overages. uh background  information. The micro surfacing and uh restriping   project would be performed on Frankfurt Avenue  between Highway 390 and the Robinson Bayou Bridge   which is about 08 miles and also on Florida Avenue  between Bowwin Road and Highway 390 which is 78   miles. Uh additional background information is  enclosed in your packet. Uh just as a reminder,  

this is part of the Sweet Bay or San Andrew  Bay Land Company development agreement and   all of these expenses uh will be covered through  reimbursement uh from St. Andrew Bay Land Company.   Staff recommendation through the director of  public works is that the city commission approve   both APS and ECS to perform the microsurfacing  and restriping of the above specified segments   of Frankfurt Avenue and Florida Avenue and  approve the associated budget amendment.   And I'll just point out that the uh segments  are also uh located on your screen. Mr. Mayor,   a motion to approve. Second. Any discussion?  Please call the RO. Commissioner Lucas, yes.   Commissioner Granger, yes. Commissioner Street,  yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Mayor Branch,   yes. Motion passes 5-0. Like to read the  budget amendment. Uh you have it there.   uh resolution. Thank you. It's  resolution number 20251028.1. A resolution providing for the amendment  of the approved fiscal year 2526 budget   to budget reimburseable funding for the  micro surfacing and striping of portions   of Frankfurt Avenue to Florida Avenue as part  of the uh Sweet Bay development agreement.   All right. Item 14B is consideration to award  bid PC25045, project hometown revitalization,   First Baptist Church parking lot to  Chapel Branch in Lyap and approve   uh to execute the contract and approval rather to  execute a contract in the amount of $435,340.88 and approval of the company budget amendment  resolution number 20251028.2. Uh relevant   background information regarding this bid uh is  included in your packet. Uh this is a uh HRP,   hometown revitalization program grant. Uh I  know there was some public commentary about  

it. Uh these are uh parking lots that will be  uh upgraded. These are shared parking lots.   The public has full access to these parking lots.  Uh even though uh they are owned uh by St. Andrew   Baptist Church, sorry, First Baptist Church. uh  they were able to provide and go after these HRP   grants like many other businesses were in downtown  Panama City and St. Andrews and Lynwood. Uh and so   uh that is the funding source for this. Uh there  was a little bit uh of an of a of a higher quote   than the HRP money. Uh and again u it's my  opinion this provides tremendous value to   residents and businesses and visitors alike in  the downtown Panama City area. So the additional   overage of approximately 60,000 I suggested  that we split that cost 50/50 with the church   uh to which they agreed. So that is also part of  this resolution. So again staff recommendation   um is the commission award the invitation  to bid for bid PC25045 to Chapel Branch   and Laney executing a contract in the amount  of $435,340.88 88 cents for the construction   of the project CDBGDR hometownization program  First Baptist Church parking lot and approval   of the accompanying budget and resolution 2025  1028.2. Mr. Mayor, do I have a motion? I'll   second. Any discussion? Please call the role.  Commissioner Lucas, yes. Commissioner Granger,   yes. Commissioner Street, yes. Commissioner  Hughes, yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes 5-0.   Commission has also adopted resolution 20251028.2,  a resolution providing for the amendment of   the approved fiscal year 2526 budget for the  non-reimburseable portion of the HRP project   hometown revitalization first Baptist parking lot.  Item 14 C is request for approval and adoption of   the revised city of Panama City purchasing policy  and procedures manual and adoption of resolution  

2025128.3 effective today October 28th, 2025.  Relevant background information is enclosed in   your packet. Uh staff recommendation to the  director of logistics and the city manager's   office is that the city commission approve and  adopt the revised purchasing policy and procedures   manual effective October 28th, 2025 as presented.  Mr. Mayor, do I have a motion? Motion to approve.   Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion?  Please call the role. Commissioner Lucas, yes.   Commissioner Granger, yes. Commissioner Street,  yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Mayor Branch,   yes. Motion passes 5-0. Commission is adopted.  Resolution 20251028.3. A resolution of the city   commission of the city of Panama City declaring  a revision of the purchasing manual to be adopted   modifying its policy and procedure manuals to  include the new revision of the purchasing man   manual which will replace any previous versions.  Item 14D is consideration to approve resolution   20251028.4 for authorizing the city of Panama City  to accept state funded grant for the tarpon dock   bridge refurbishment project in the amount  of $650,000 and 0. Background information.   The utilities division is requesting approval  of resolution 20251028.4 for authorizing the   city to accept a state funded grant managed by  the Florida Department of Transportation for   the Tarponoc bridge refurbishment and water  main installation design construction and   CI for $749,712 0 with FDOT's participation not  exceeding 86.7% or $650,000 in the local share at   13.3% or $99,712. This will bring the total cost  including previous approved amounts to1,199,656. Staff recommendation to the director of public  works is that the commission approve this   request in the accompanying resolution.  Mr. Mayor, do I have a motion to accept?  

Second. Any discussion? Please call the role.  Commissioner Lucas, yes. Commissioner Granger,   yes. Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner  Street. Yes. Commissioner Hughes? Yes. Yes.   Mayor Branch. Yes. Motion passes 5-0.  I'd like to read resolution 20251028.4,   a resolution providing for the amendment of the  approved fiscal year 2526 budget to accept and   expend FDOT granting funding, grant funding, and  local share for the Tarpon Bridge refurbishment.   Um item 14E is uh consideration uh to approve  budget amendment resolution 20251028.5 to   the state revolving fund drinking water loan  agreement DW 0302G1 for an addition of 21,653,33. As background information,   the state of Florida D uh has agreed  to an additional financing of 21,653,33 at 0% interest with a 25% principal forgiveness   for the DW302G1 SRF loan for a  total loan amount of 82,714,9000. These loans are used by the city to pay  for portable water infrastructure repair   and construction for various SRF approved city  projects. This request is to approve the budget   amendment resolution 20251028.5 to use these funds  for this project. Staff recommendation through the   director of public works is that the commission  approve this request in the accompanying budget   amendment resolution. Mr. Mayor, do I have a  motion? Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion?   Please call the role. Commissioner Lucas, yes.  Commissioner Granger, yes. Commissioner Street,   yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Mayor Branch,  yes. Motion passes 5-0. Commission is adopted.   Resolution 20251028.5, a resolution providing  for the budgeting of capital funds. Item 14F  

is consideration to approve Dubberry Engineering  teamed with half Associates in Magnum Engineering   as the engineering design team for the Panama  City FEMA road repair project. As background   information, the city applied for public  assistance funds from FEMA, claiming that   675 road segments representing uh roughly 30%  of the city roads had been significantly damaged   by Hurricane Michael and the associated debris  removal operations. In July of 2021, FEMA denied   this application, stating that the applicant  the city had not provided enough evidence to   demonstrate that the damage to the roads was  caused by Hurricane Michael. Through several   appeals and formal arbitration hearing, the city  was ultimately able to get 351 segments approved   for repair. The formal arbitration this formal  arbitration decision dated May 4th of 2023 is   attached to this agenda item for your reference.  The city's public works department working with   the purchasing division in the city attorney's  office uh to uh develop the necessary documents   and advertised a public notice for a request for  qualifications from qualified engineering firms.   The RFQ submission deadline was September 30th  of 2025 at 2 p.m. Central time. Six engineering   firms submitted qualifications by the deadline.  An eval commission an evaluation committee was   assembled consisting of five city staff members  and three advisory members to determine which   firm was best qualified to complete this  project. Uh the decision memo detailing   the specific process is enclosed in your packet.  After a detailed discussion, it was determined   that Deubberry Engineering was the first best  qualified, followed by Barge Design Solutions   as the next best qualified. Again, decision  memo was attached, dated October 14th, 2025.   Staff recommendation through the director of  public works and the city manager's office is   that the city commission approve the evaluations  panel's recommendation of Dubberry Engineering   to be approved by the city commission so that  city staff may enter into negotiations for a   contract or task order which will come to the city  commission for final approval with a goal for that  

to happen November 18th. Mr. Mayor. Yes. Do I have  a motion? I'd like to motion with an addition. Um,   and then we can discuss a motion to approve, but  I would also like uh Dubberry to provide us an a   cost on the sections of road that were not covered  by FEMA um so that we can prepare for either CIRax   or other funding mechanisms with it. And of  course, that cost would come back to us before   it actually got executed. I'll second that. Yep.  We'll bring that back as two separate task orders,   two separate items. November 8th. to the second  one will be a cost to design the under part. Yeah,   cuz we know they're damaged, but FEMA  just wouldn't pay for them. Okay. So, yeah, it doesn't make sense to to just do a tiny  segment on a road that the rest of it probably   needs to be replaced as well. Do I have a  motion in the And I'll just add, Mr. Mayor,   commissioners, this is a um the type of project  and funding this is at least for the the three and   it's actually a little bit less than 351 cuz some  of them have already been handled through either   HMGP or SRF. We're working to get reimbursed for  those and we have a very high expectation not 100%   but a good one that will get reimbursed for that.  Uh and that particular funding could you know be   used for the second half. Um but uh it doesn't  matter what the uh what this particular project   cost. FEMA will pay exact cost. They're going  to cover the engineering, which is why we went   through the formal process. And you know, we  estimate it to be around nine million for this   construction, but doesn't matter if it's eight or  12. FEMA will cover it. Any discussion? Statement.   Please call the role. Commissioner Lucas, yes.  Commissioner Granger, yes. Commissioner Street,   yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Mayor Branch, yes.  Motion passes 50. Uh 14. Item 14G is consideration   to approve the special event permit for Marty Gro  on February 6th and 7th, 2026 from 400 p.m. uh  

beginning on 4 p.m. February 6th, 2026 uh ending  at 10 p.m. on um February 7th in historic St.   Andrews sponsored by the crew of St. Andrews. This  would require road closure on Bayiew Avenue from   9th Street to 12th Street and on 11th Street from  Flower Avenue to Beck Avenue for the commission's   consideration and closes the application for the  St. Andrew Marty Gro Festival and Parade scheduled   for Friday, February 6th and Saturday, February  7th of 2026 and Historic St. Andrews exhibit A for   the application in the site map as displayed on  your screen. This two-day event will include a pet   parade and kids parade uh on Friday followed by  the main parade on Saturday. The parade uh sorry,   the festival will also feature live music and  vendors along Bay View. The total estimated cost   for the special event is $2,100, which includes  $25 application fee, $500 refundable security   deposit, and $600 for the rental of 25 electrical  panels, $450 for 45 trash cans, $72 for two two   yard dumpsters, $53 for one 8yard dumpster,  and $400 for the rental of 20 barricades.   Payment of these special event fees will be  the responsibility of the event organizer. The   estimated cost for the police department services  is $18,135, which includes 105 man hours on Friday   and 285 man hours on Saturday. The estimated cost  for the fire department services totals $2,4795,   which includes six firefighter EMTs at $50  per hour and one fire apparatus at $190.81   per hour from 11:00 a.m. to 400 p.m. on that  Saturday. The overall estimated cost for police   and fire services associated with this event is  $20,6115. As part of the fiscal year 2026 budget,   the commission approved funding in the amount of  $42,500 from the general fund to cover the cost   associated with the Marty Gar events. Uh the crew  of St. Andrews was requesting a waiver of these   events and a sponsor uh and the city continuing  sponsoring this event for the long term. Uh staff   seeks direction of the city commission for the fee  waiver for the police and fire services associated  

with the St. St. Andrews Marty Gall Festival and  Parade Friday, February 6th and Saturday, February   7th, 2026 in historic St. Andrews. Mr. Mayor, yes.  Do I have a motion? I'd like to motion to approve   and that we incorporate this ongoing. Um, it's in  its 27th 28th year. Um, it's 29th year. Thank you,   Pam. So, so we've we've approved it every year.  I don't see why we'd keep revisiting it just   like this. I'll second it for discussion. Oh,  wait. Discuss away. Go ahead. Discuss away. So,   we budgeted $42,500 for for this event. Um, and  uh we're looking to spend uh $20,611 on this. So,   what I would suggest is that in future years,  what we do is we do a match um cuz we have other   parades and other other entities who come to  us and and also want for for their entire cost   to be covered on their parade. And so we have some  excess. So I think the 42,500 being budgeted every   year as a pot of money that if somebody wants  to have a parade and it's not a city like like   the Christmas parade um then it would be matching  funds. Do we have any other parades that are not   city sponsored? Veterans Day parade. Veterans Day.  That's a county. That's a county parade. Yeah,   it's a county parade. But y'all did vote to  wave the fees on the state parade. Y'all,   that's been consistent. Yeah. Yeah.  Why don't we just say new parades? Like I'm not looking to start a new parade. Sure. So, Commissioner Bring, you're  saying for Mr. Mayor, do half of that?

I'm saying I'm saying um that we we went through  an entire process last year to to try to determine   uh special events. It wasn't just parades, it was  special events because when you start approving   special events and you cover down on all the  cost of it and this is a very large event,   right? So this is have a lot this has a lot of  special event cost to it. And we also at the same   time upped the cost of the police department  to better match what their actual cost was.   And so what we're running into in my opinion  is we're having a a lot of different special   events coming back to us and saying, "I'd like  you to wave our fees." And if I was running a   special event and I saw this and we waved fees  for it, I'd be like, "Oh, you can do you can do   $20,6115 special events. Why don't you do mine?  I'm only asking for a thousand. And so that's what   I'm saying is we have we have a surplus here with  this parade fully funded. And so all I'm saying   is is that I think we should take the money that  the surplus money budget for it every year and   basically say if you want to have a parade or  a special event or you want to do something,   then we have matching funds, but you've got to  come up with half. Aren't you supposed to be   having a special events workshop to address this?  Who can? Yeah. No, I mean we were it was going to   be the conversation at the last virtual workshop,  but um only two of you are able to join. So,   it's going to be the uh November 3rd we'll  discuss storm water and the special events   permit process. So, all right. I'll bring this  back up then. Yeah. Yeah. You want to speak? Yeah. Bay High teacher as well. retired, as my daughter  calls her, Miss Wiggles, 801 Pinerest Avenue,  

Pam Wiggins. Um, I do just want to um point  out and um and I've asked u for a little help   in this um our festival brings 40,000 people  into Panama City or into St. Andrews. We have   people from all over um from Pensacola, Dothan,  all over the people from north. So we bring in   a lot of revenue to all of the hotels in Panama  City, all of the restaurants in Panama City. So,   I would really like to see the tax revenue for  that weekend for the last few years and see how   much tax revenue is the city getting on all of  these people being here and in this location   during this event. So, I would really like to  consider that. Um, when you're looking at us,   we are a nonprofit. We've lost money every year.  Um, we do it because that's what we've been doing   for 29 years. Um, and we are actively seeking  sponsors to help offset some of our cost. But   um, just to please consider that  and I would love to be at that event   u meeting, special events meeting. That would  be great. So, thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. Hi, Chris Smith, crew of St. Andrews. I think  it's also important to take into consideration   that this is the biggest event in Panama City  all year long, and we do it as a 100% volunteer   organization. We're not asking you to do anything  other than help us provide the logistics between   the police and the fire department that we can go  and put on an event that brings people to town,  

that brings our community together and is the  largest event done inside the city limits and   that's what's important. Thank you. Any  other discussion on the dies? Seeing none,   please call the role. Commissioner Lucas, yes.  Commissioner Granger, yes. Commissioner Street,   yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Mayor Branch, yes.  Motion passes 5-0. And so my understanding is we   are now partners ongoing. We always have. I know.  All right. Item 14H is consideration of approval   for staff to enter into contract negotiations  with CBRE Incorporated, Corkran Rey, and the Urban   Group for Real Estate Brokerage Services. Uh, as  background information, on September 30th, 2025,   proposals for the RFP um PC25-054 real estate  brokerage services were evaluated by an evaluation   committee during a public meeting at city hall.  The purpose of the solicitation was to identify   qualified firms to provide um professional real  estate brokerage services to the city of Panama   City. evaluation criteria included active Florida  real estate broker lensure, staffing capacity,   marketing capabilities, experience with  similar transactions, responsiveness,   and proposed compensation structures. Um, a  total of five proposals are received. Uh and   after the review and discussion, the evaluation  committee uh along with input from the city   attorney's office recommended they approve the  proposals from CBRE Incorporated, Corkran Rey,   and the Orurban Group and authorize staff to enter  into contract negotiations with the three firm.   Staff recommends the city commission approved  the evaluation committee's recommendation and   authorize staff to begin contract negotiations  with the three firms listed above. Uh, purchasing   division also recommends reopening the real estate  brokerage service uh, services RFP on a bannual   basis to allow new vendors the opportunity to  submit proposals in the future and we would do  

this in the early part of 2026. Mr. Mayor, yes.  Do I have a motion to accept? Motion to approve. I   have a second. Second. Any discussion? Please call  the role. Commissioner Lucas. Yes. Commissioner   Granger. Yes. Commissioner Stre. Yes. Commissioner  Hughes. Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes. Motion passes 5-0.   All right. And then um item 14 I I just wanted to  have a discussion on our housing workshop that's   currently planned for uh Monday, December  1st. um if if that date is is good with the   commission on the timeline or if we wanted to  move it into the early part of 2026 and also   uh seek to just uh get feedback on to uh you know  what the commission would like to see uh discussed   and and addressed and considered at that workshop.  We have uh reached out to uh the county and to   um Habitat for Humanity, Arc of the Bay. Um  there's another group I'm trying to remember.   Um um obviously we we reached out to um uh the  Panama City Housing Authority uh just to come   and be a part of the conversation as well as um uh  Miss Clark with ECSC. Have sorry um ECRC. Sorry,   I'm thinking ECSC construction. I haven't heard  back from her yet, but I just kind of just want   some feedback as we kind of staff uh starts  planning for that uh and and setting up that   uh that workshop for for success. So, Mr. Mayor,  just looking for some feedback to address your   first question about when to hold it. Perhaps the  first of the year would be uh a better time. uh   given everything that we've got going now, I think  this uh deserves some intentional attention uh by   us and uh and a full understanding of what our  housing and community services department does.  

Um there have been um in this meeting uh recently  some questions raised uh allegations made and I'd   like to see us uh have a full briefing on uh on  our housing and community services uh division. Um   there are some misunderstandings uh even in this  meeting tonight not understanding the full breadth   of what uh what our current department offers. So,  is that a motion to schedule it Q1 of 26? Yes. I'd   like to do it as soon as possible. I think there's  never been a time that affordable housing has been   at a higher need in our community than today. Um,  regardless of whether that happens to December   1st or January 1 or or November 15th, I think that  there's a variety of of people that are serving in   our community, including our housing department,  that are providing a continuum of care. I would   like to see a better integration of that so  that we have to your point like today if we   are offering impact fee um uh reimbursements for  affordable housing it's not posted on our website   our builders don't know about it and so I want to  see if we can get all get in a room and provide   better services to our our citizens but also  um see what what challenges that we can resolve   together and so that's at least what I would like  to see from a housing workshop. Um, I'm open to   alternative dates, but we've already punted it  once at this point in time. So, I I don't want to   just keep punting it down the the road because  we have a critical need in our community and   um I'd like to see us help in whatever way we can.  Um, yes. I I I like December. Um, because I have   a feeling that this spring is going to be Marina  Mania and we'll be talking mostly about the marina   and we're not taking and uh we're not taking  action in December. It's really more of just a  

conversation. I've seen holidays. Yeah. And um and  so that's sort of the start of a conversation. Um,   and there is some quiet time in in around uh  Christmas that I like to kind of sit and think and   research and write when sort of quietness of the  holidays. Um, and I worry I won't have that in the   spring. Um, so that's but again we're not taking  any action in December. So it's not like it's I   mean as long as I want to get the everything  prepared by December the biggest question. Can   people be prepared? And that's that's my concern  the preparation. and I don't want it to be a waste   of opportunity. Um, and after the first of the  year, that gives us time to move forward with   what comes out of that. We meet in November. I'm  sorry, in December. No, we're talking about Yeah,   December 1. Um, and then the holidays happen  and we lose the momentum. True. And it is   important that we uh move forward with uh  coming out of this meeting, moving forward.   Um, and I think it may not be a one meeting that  can address everything. Uh, because there's been   some damage done internally with the way this has  come to fruition. And so I we need to start there   uh with our own community housing and community  services division um and bring in others once   we understand what we have which uh commissioner  street I'm not sure you have a full understanding   of what our current housing and community services  department does. Um and you know it's very clear   you're ready to shut it down. No I I'm not  ready to shut it down. Um, Commissioner Lucas,   I haven't said I'm wanting to shut it down.  What I'm trying to say is I think that there   is a continuum of care. We have separated from the  county in our housing department. It has taken 80%   of the funding away. We have to be more effective  with what resources that we have. And yes, I do  

think that there should be changes. What those  changes are, I'm not 100% certain at this point,   but that's why bringing in the other community  partners is a part of that conversation. We've sat   through a workshop in which we got presented, you  know, an hour and 45 minutes worth of things that   the housing department does. At no point in time  did we talk about impact fees. No point in time do   we talk about that. If that is part of a program,  yes, I want to understand that, but I'm only going   off the information that I have. And to be fair,  in an hour and 45 minutes, you're not going to get   into every specific detail of every aspect of the  program. It's not because they're hiding it. I sit   as our representative on the um affordable housing  planning. It comes to us if we go back to when we   approve this in October 2022nd. It's there and I  agree with you. But that's why I tried to start   with just one program. Like I didn't want to go  through every single aspect of housing. I just   want to let me understand and a deep understanding  of one specific program and work through it that   way. But then at that, you know, hey, look, we  want to do a housing workshop after that. So I'm   like, yes, then let's do a housing workshop.  Then we rescheduled the housing workshop and   now we're talking about we're going to punt  it again. And and I'm fine moving to a date,   but like this is like the second or third date  that we've moved. We're concerned about our   staff having time to be a prisoner. Excellence  to have Habitat, everyone else present first,   but on this date, we're going to have multiple  workshop. We're expecting multiple workshops. Um,   let's have our partners present first. What are we  asking them to present? Well, what they do? Yeah, that that's what I want to understand. Like, I  didn't know that ARC provides long-term housing   for people. I had no idea that that was the case.  I didn't know that Panama City Housing Authority   has rental houses now that they they operate  beyond just the large scale piece. I didn't know  

that Habitat's got programs all around the country  that have been doing things with either NSP or   others to build affordable housing on infill  lots. Like there was a lot of information that   now I'm hearing I want to hear all of what these  are providing so we can provide the best continuum   of care for the citizens that we have in in that  regard. understanding that, I suggest we reach   out to the Florida Housing Coalition for their  catac uh catalyst technical assistance program,   which helps uh guide municipalities through this  very process that you're deciding that you're that   you're describing. I think that's great. I as a  matter of fact, I said to Jonathan, bring whoever   anybody if you've got anybody you want to be  involved. I am happy to put anybody involved   in anything because I want to hear everyone's  viewpoint that's on this board as well. So,   let's start there. December one, if they're  available, bring in the Florida Housing Coalition.   Matthew Heyman is the uh contact. We've uh he  was unable to come for our October 29 meeting   with the Health Department uh housing work group.  Uh let's bring him in then. Um and then that can   help direct and define how we go and also if  we're approved for their catalyst program uh   brings with some funding for technical assistance.  Now, why wouldn't we include our partners as well   in that presentation? We've all gotten to receive  a presentation from our housing department. Why   wouldn't we want to get presentations from our  partners? What we're talking about given what   you just said is a process moving forward where we  can very much do that. So the technical assistance   piece is learning how catalyst can help shape  our direction moving together moving forward   together with our housing department and the  others who provide housing in our community.   I'm trying to understand what exactly is this  meeting then turning into a presentation by   Florida Housing Coalition uh with the uh  move toward techn we're we're requesting   technical assistance for doing this very  process that you're talking about. We don't  

have to reinvent the wheel of how to go about um  expanding housing uh continuum in our community. I'm I'm interested in hearing anybody present  any ideas and things that they're doing,   best practices from other cities. And as long  as it isn't a result that we get to hear from   other people in our community, they're  providing um services to it, I'm I'm fine. So, I just want to be clear then. So in  addition to the Florida Housing Coalition rep,   we would also invite uh ECRC, PCHA, uh ARC,  Habitat, is there any other groups that we would   want to be a part of this workshop roundtable? I  want to make sure that I invite anybody that this   commission would like me to invite. So Rebuild  Bay has a transition housing program. They have   three homes in their program. Sweet. Um, Anchorage  Children's Home has transitional housing. Sure.   Catholic Social Services, if anybody heard me.  Yeah, I do. I do agree. Castle Social Service   has a That one was set up. That's on my list. They  do a lot of rental assistance um on just people   trying to keep up with their rent. So, if that's  the case, they're a subs recipient from Doorways   um as is the lead coalition. Okay. which is  why I'm saying starting with the technical   assistance and Florida housing coalition  and that process to bring all this together   uh moving forward uh I think is a uh is a way  to go. Do you have direction? I I do. So we will   have a workshop roundt uh on December 1st. We will  lead off with the Florida Hing Housing Coalition   kind of a technical presentation and then we'll  we'll see who all can also come from these other   groups. Cool. That's that's how I understand it.  We're good. You don't need a motion or anything  

move forward. And this includes a uh workshop in  January with our community services. Sure. As part   of this motion January 1st. You're talking about  our motion. I just want to be clear though. You're   talking about our housing community services.  Well, my expectation is that Miss Wear is front   and center at this workshop on December 1st, just  to be clear. So, she'll be a part of this as well.   Yeah, we might be multiple ones where they Yeah,  I I've never done this process before and I don't   know what questions to ask and so I'm up for three  workshops or one or dozen or whatever it takes to   answer the questions and, you know, see what what  questions we should be asking and and all that   sort of stuff. So, may I add something here that  hasn't addressed? I'd love to hear. Come on up. Good evening. Huh? I said good evening. Good  evening again. Brenda Lewis Williams, 2748 Drive. There seems to be a hidden agenda with you, Mr.  street. I'm not sure, but it seems to I didn't No,   let me let me let me finish. There seems to be now  addressing the Panama City Housing Authority. The   Panama City Housing Authority has a 2year waiting  list. How do I know that? Cuz I called. They have   a 2year waiting list. They don't have They can't  put the people on that waiting list in housing.   Apparently, we do not have housing in the city  to house these folks. You're you're speaking of   something that takes several months to a year  to build to put them in. Now whether I like   Commissioner Lucas's idea of bringing somebody in  to give us that technical expertise that we need  

to me that should be a one one group workshop and  then you deal with the others thereafter because   they're vying for a piece of the pie that really  does not exist. Habitat for Humanity already   does what you're speaking of but you have to  put sweat equity into that. Not only that,   there has there is a credit criteria and a lot  of folks quite honestly don't want to put sweat   equity into building their home. You want to  know the truth? But uh uh PCA should not be in   the picture because they don't have houses. Two to  threeyear waiting list. They don't have houses at   all. And not only that is section 8 is the same  thing is the same thing. And you're not going   to build homes fast enough to satisfy what those  two groups need. Why? How do I know that? Again,   cuz I researched it to find out what was going  on. Those are just my comments. Thank you. So   my my point is if you don't start now, when are  you going to start? And um we know that there's   a waiting list just to what was being met. So,  we obviously have a greater need and what I'm   looking for is solutions that get us forward as  fast as possible to providing affordable housing   in our community. That's the agenda because that  is the agenda of a housing department in the   first place. And so, that's really it. And, you  know, regardless of what that outcome looks like,   I think yes, there are a lot of things to shape  inside of that. But part of that is hearing from   people that are doing it successfully and trying  to determine, hey, okay, that's a good practice.   And so I love the fact that we're involving  Florida um uh Florida Housing Coalition. That's   great. And so I think we continue to involve as  many people as we can at the table because there   is wisdom in the multitude of council and I don't  think that we should just shut people out. We  

should let people have a voice at the table and I  think this is a great way of doing that. So, this   isn't about shutting anybody out. To Miss Lewis  Williams's point, we don't have the properties.   We don't have the physical properties. So, what  other uh communities are doing, uh Broward County,   they're coming together and raising the funds.  They were um very uh blessed to get a $20 million   grant from M I I believe it was Mackenzie Scott  that got everybody at the table because we are   got to we've got to build what's missing. That's  what's missing. The uh all the players that we've   just mentioned are using money that come from  federal and state coffers for the most part. Um,   and what we have with our housing department  is a place that is uh already receiving those   funds and we can expand what we're doing here  and and I know your concern from the things   that you have said is that maybe we need to  move our operation up to the county and the   concentration on a housing uh workshop about what  housing and community does for the city of Panama   is uh I don't want that lost when we start talking  with all of the nonprofits and what they do   uh because that's not their primary mission  other than the Panama City Housing Authority.   Those other folk are using housing not using  their housing programs are to meet their   broader vision because housing is a problem for  their clients and for what they do. And so when   we talk about moving around or changing our  housing and community services uh department,   I want to do that with a full understanding  of what we currently have before we start   saying let's give to to other people. How do  we coales uh the nonprofit, the municipality,  

the county to bring in the funding necessary to  increase the number of properties? That's what's   missing. The Panama City Housing Authority has now  opened their uh weight list and it has been shared   uh just from my page more than 80 times. That  would and I haven't checked it already today   because the need is that great. What we lost after  Hurricane Michael uh just hypothetically if we had   uh 200 homes, we're building back at 10% per  development. So we're we're not going to get   to the need uh in any quick pace if we don't bring  in a way to address this uh at the root of it and   that is we don't have the properties that people  who work every day can afford. Janice, you know,   with all due respect, I've sat here for 4 years.  We have vacant lots all across the city that have   yet and are available and could be built on  for affordable housing. I want to do whatever   it takes to see those lots transpire to becoming  affordable homes for people that need them. And   uh to say that we don't have property is not true  because we have we alone more land than any other   municipality our size in the state. Like we have  got plenty of property. We do not have the right   continuum to come together to see that vision of  affordable housing come together. And the city   can't do it by itself. I'm not saying that the  city shouldn't do it. Like that's not the point   of this. What I'm saying is we now are a quarter  of the size of what we were in the funding that we   have available. Now is the time to try to bring  as many partners together so that we can see a   vision of affordable housing move forward. And if  we're going to wait until there's no waiting list   before including Panama City Housing Authority, I  think that's I don't know what that's suggesting   that because we I don't know where you just got  that idea of waiting until the wait list goes cuz  

it's not going to go away. It won't. Um and yes,  respectfully to your four years on the commission.   Um there I have been sitting working with doorways  for four years uh providing assistance. We   started out with a $300,000 grant. This year it's  $100,000. So the the the monies available are not   uh meeting the need. And when I say we we don't  have the properties, I meant fully built ready   for people to move in. I not the land. Um and  so how do we get there? That's what our housing   workshop is designed to help us to get to. And  I think we need uh tactical approach to doing   that. I don't think we're as far apart as they  said. Yeah. The the motion is to uh bring in the   Florida Housing Coalition uh Catalyst technical  exper uh uh tech tactical technical assistance.   Thank you. You're welcome. um and to uh reach out  to partners to be a part of the uh the discussion   um as the December workshop and in January a full  workshop with what the Panama City Housing and   Community Services Department offers. Great.  I love it. I'll second. Any other discussion? Come on. Let's Yes, sir. Let's do it. Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I I attended the  uh with Rufus Wood, 1911 East 10th Street. I   attended the um meeting um at at the city hall uh  the first Saturday in October, I believe it was,   and we dealt with some issues with the housing.  And uh I said that day I wasn't really happy  

with a lot of what I was hearing. Uh I'm still  concerned that our housing department is under   attack. The question was raised, is the housing  department being investigated? Uh I still have   some questions and I'm really not happy. Again,  as I said that day with what I heard Mr. Um um um   um Hayes sent an email, but it didn't address  all of the concerns that I had. But it kind of   disturbs me that the h we're putting so much  emphasis on the housing department. Again,   I feel like the housing department is under  attack and unfortunately it's being under   attack and the person that leading it is an  African-American woman. I would submit there   a lot of other departments that we need to look  at, but I don't really like what I'm hearing. I   think the workshop is an excellent idea. I  do agree with Commissioner Lucas and with   the mayor. I think we need to take our time and  make sure whatever we do do that we do it right.   I would respectfully request that you don't  do it on December the 1st. in our community.   We are planning a commemoration uh uh in in um  reference to the civil rights movement beginning   uh with Rosa Parks and the Montgomery bus boycott.  So, our community, we're planning that event. So,   I would certainly hope that you all would not do  it on the 1st of December. Again, I think it's   an excellent idea. Uh, but I would respectfully  request that you select another date. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Any other  discussion? Please call the role. Commissioner   Lucas, yes. Commissioner Granger, yes.  Commissioner Street, yes. Commissioner Hughes,   yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes 5-0.  Motion to adjurnn. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Just  

in light of what uh Reverend Woods just said, can  we perhaps look at timing to see if we can Well,   my understanding is it's really meeting for  us can be recorded, but it's mostly going to   be us asking questions. The public's welcome to  attend obviously, but it's definitely should be   recorded. So, to me, the conflict of the public  not being there, it's going to be recorded. It's   not really a So, the housing workshop was to be  an in-person workshop. Yeah, you're welcome to,   but I don't see a conflict because it's going to  be recorded. It's not going to be a debate for the   with the public. they can listen and it's going  to be recorded. I don't see why that's a big Yeah,   I think I think it'll be in person, but we will  record it. I think Yeah, and we'll stream it live   as well. Yeah, I don't see there being a big  All right, we have a motion and a second. Uh,   any discussion to adjourn? Please call the role.  Commissioner Lucas, yes. Commissioner Granger,   yes. Commissioner Stre, yes. Commissioner Hughes,  yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes 5. [Music]