City Commission Meetings - Regular Meeting

I am calling to order the Panama City Commission  meeting for November 18th at 4:30 p.m. We're going   to start by an opening prayer by Reverend  Friday, pastor of Living Waters Ministries,   followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led  by Commissioner Granger. Please rise. Let us pray. Father God, we thank you  for another day that you've given us.   We thank you for your loving kindness and your  grace, your mercy. And Father, I pray that you   would give us your divine insight tonight, even  Lord, as these proceedings go forward. Like, God,   I pray that you would speak into the minds and  the hearts of our commissioners and our our mayor,   God, guiding them, Father, that they might utilize  your righteous agenda and coming up with answers   for this community, God, that you might be  glorified and that your name might be praised.   in Jesus name I pray. Amen. Amen. If you'll  join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge   allegiance to the flag of the United States of  America and to the republic for which it stands,   one nation under God, indivisible,  with liberty and justice for all. Please call the role. Mayor Branch, present.  Commissioner Granger present. Commissioner Street   here. Commissioner Hughes here. Commissioner  Lucas present. Mayor, you have a quorum. You've   received the meeting minutes from October 28th.  Do I have a motion to accept? So move. Second.   Second. Any discussion? Please call the role.  Commissioner Granger. Yes. Commissioner Street.   Yes. Commissioner Hughes? Yes. Commissioner  Lucas? Yes. Mayor Branch? Yes. Motion passes   5-0. Any additions, deletions, or modifications  to Yes, Mr. Mayor. Uh item 6, Bravo. The applicant   has requested it be removed regarding uh  mixed use at uh 1906 Louise Avenue. Again,  

item 6, Bravo. Uh removed at the request of the  applicant. Uh would request the commission remove   it. Uh with no uh no intent or expectation for  to return at this time. Okay. Anyone else? Mayor,   we I would like to defer I'm asking to defer item  9K to the December 16th meeting. Uh that was the   charter re charter officer evaluations. Um the  deadline for the December 16th is December 8th   at end ofend end of business. Okay. So removal  of 9K and the removal of 6B. Do I have a motion   to accept? Uh motion to remove 6B and defer 9K  to the December meeting. Second. Any discussion?   Please call the role. Commissioner Granger. Yes.  Commissioner Stre. Yes. Commissioner Hughes. Yes.   Commissioner Lucas. Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes. Motion  passes 5-0. Community announcements. Please make   note that during the months of November and  December, there will only be one commission   meeting per month to make accommodations for  city and staff holiday schedules. The date   for the next commission meeting will be Tuesday,  December 16th, and the meeting will be held here   at the Bay County Government Center beginning  at 4:30 p.m. The Harrison Avenue streetscapes   project is coming to completion, and the city  is celebrating with a ribbon cutting ceremony   at 2 p.m. on Monday, November 24th. A block party  celebration will follow in downtown Panama City.   The offices of the city of Panama City will be  closed on Thursday, November 27th, and Friday,   November 28th, in observance of the Thanksgiving  holiday. Normal business hours will resume on   Monday, December 2nd at 8:00 a.m. Garbage  and trash collections will not take place   on Thanksgiving Day. Residential and commercial  garbage collections, the blue cans, will resume   the following day. December is full of holiday  fun in Panama City. Celebrate the season with the  

Millville Christmas Parade on Friday morning,  December 5th at 10:00 a.m. The mayor and city   commissioners and staff will participate in this  beloved tradition alongside Bay District School   students. For the parade route, check out our city  website. Also, join us that evening downtown for a   magical evening at the Center for the Arts at Four  Points Plaza starting at 5:30 p.m. for the annual   downtown Christmas tree lining ceremony. Let's  light up the Christmas holiday season together.   Get ready for the 2025 Downtown Christmas Parade  in Panama City. It's going to be Saturday,   December 6th from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. This year's  route begins at the downtown marina and travels   north along Harrison Avenue all the way to Tommy  Oliver Stadium. Also occurring in December is the   39th annual Boat Parade of Lights scheduled for  September, December 13th from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m.   Watch decorative boats travel from St. Andrews Bay  from the yach club west to the Haway Bridge. There   are many ways to give back this holiday season.  The Panama City Police Department will host its   annual Blue Santa gift donation program and the  city is partnering with Bay District Schools for   its giving tree program. Both created to help  children in Panama City this Christmas season.   For more information and to learn how you can  get involved with these two worthwhile efforts,   visit panama city.gov. Come join us for  the MLK Rec Center soft opening on Monday,   December 15th at 2 p.m. A grand opening for the  facility for the public is planned for later in   January 2026. Never miss a beat. Sign up for  city communications to get important updates   straight to your inbox or to your smartphone.  From the monthly newsletter to real-time alerts,   stay informed and engaged with what's happening in  your community. Scan the QR code on the screen or  

visit our newlyesed website at panama city.gov  to sign up today. All right, Mr. Mayor, moving   into public hearings. Item 6A is the second and  final reading to consider and approve ordinance   3274 adopting the proposed water and wastewater  connection or impact fees of $1,350 per equivalent   residential connection or ERC for water and  $1,610 per ERC for wastewater to become effective   February 16th of 2026. I'll just note that that  date is required because it is 90 days from the   time that the comm uh commission would adopt the  ordinance. As background information, the city of   Panama City continues to face increasing capital  investment requirements necessary to expand water   and wastewater system facilities to serve new  growth. Uh connection fees are collected from   new development to recover the city's investment  in existing and future capacity that is available   to serve this growth. The city utilities division  has not updated our connection fees since 2003   and therefore an updated connection fee increase  is proposed to manage the increase and demand on   current monthly utility rates. The current user  fees were adopted by the commission on September   23rd of 2003 pursuant to ordinance 1914. Last  year during fiscal year 2025, the city hired   Ruffellisk financial consultants to complete the  water and wastewater impact 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 to provide   capacity to serve new development. The report  proposes a water connection fee of 1,350 per ERC,   which represents an increase of 8.85 85 compared  to the existing 465 and a wastewater connection   fee of 1,610 per ERC which represents an increase  of $360 compared to the existing $1250. The  

proposed water and wastewater impact fees will  help offset the growth to the system uh the cost   of the growth to the system rather that would  otherwise have to be funded by current monthly   user fees and will not become effective until  Monday, February 16th of 2026. Staff recommends   the city commission conduct the second and final  public hearing of ordinance 3274 adopting the   new ERC rate for water and wastewater beginning  February 16th of 2026. Mr. Mayor, commissioners,   as y'all directed at the last meeting, um I did  get together with representatives from the BBIA uh   as well as uh I know Commissioner Hughes met with  them and Mayor Branch uh as well as city engineer   uh Stacy Roush. Um we were uh willing to put  forward a recommendation to move forward as laid   out here today uh with Panama City North and for  Panama City proper uh move forward except raising   the rate of the increase uh by 25% each year over  the next four years. Uh however, I do know that   Mr. Nevin Zimmerman and Mr. Jared Jones did have a  conversation with Rafelis today. Uh, and I believe   that um, uh, it's it's not quite that simple.  Uh, and another rate study would be required uh,   at a pretty substantial expense. So, I'll turn it  over to Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Jones to to to add   clarity to that. Mr. Zimmerman. Uh, the question  that was asked is, is there a rational basis for   treating Panama City North differently as  far as an impact or connection fee as as   compared to Panama City proper or the historic  Panama City area? And the answer is maybe.   uh because it uh you do have to have a reason and  there are a lot of reasons why the impact on the   system from Panama City north could be greater  than the impact on the system from greater Panama  

City for example you have to bring the flow  uh I'm thinking primarily of uh sewage right   now but the sewer has to go travel 5 six miles to  get to the treatment plants and that is uh infra   transmission infrastructure that's not uh part of  downtown Panamos or the downtown proper. So that   is an additional cost probably lift stations  are more expensive. There's a lot of reasons   why the impact the cost of the impact would be  greater in Panama City North, but it has to be   u something that has been thought through and uh  some rational basis for treating uh the system as   two different service areas. Uh traditionally a  utility system is not separated by service areas.   Everything is treated the same. same cost for  treatment capacity, same cost for lines. Uh but   it is possible to separate it. It has not been  done that way. The study was, you know, treated   everything as one system, but it is possible to  break out and treat Panama City North differently.   There would be a cost. I don't know what the cost  is, but it would it would take time. uh it's not   something that there's the math has already  been done and the analysis has been done and   it just wasn't prepared that way. That analysis  separating the system hasn't been done. Another   point may be that you need to save money for a  future uh wastewater treatment plant in Panama   City North. That's different than what you would  be doing for downtown uh Panama City. So, it's  

not uh we I can't say that uh a 25% u increase of  the impact fee in Panama City proper as opposed to   100% is there's a rational basis that Raph Telus  who who is our rate consultant they they can't   sign off on it because they don't know that might  be right but they'd have to do um an analysis. Did we have an estimate, Mr. Jones, on what that  study might cost or even a slight range? Um,   as it would be an entirely new study, um, these  run between, and this is rough order of magnitude,   between 40 and 60,000 depending on  complexity. Um, treating the service   areas as two different areas would add some  complexity to this. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes,   this is a public hearing. If you wish to speak  about item 6A, please come forward. Yes, sir. Good evening. W 614 Map Avenue City. Uh I thought the city was  already had all these things in order planning.   North. North ain't just thought about. North  has been out there for over 25 years. Got sewer   already out there behind the prison. Got lift got  in manholes already set. Put lift stations in. Uh,   I know that. I know we got to grow and and city  Ben knows that. It ain't just It just not came  

up. Just not came up. These lines are already ran.  Water is already ran. Don't have to run it. Might   have been out there so long. I doubt it have  anything destroyed. it. Uh but I just said that   we are still on that wire that we can take folks  that's not tied in the city sewer and we don't   get the taxes for them. That's how we about lost.  That's why that's why the beach bop took Panama   City over cuz we said sit down didn't do nothing.  We could be a better city than what we are today.   But I just sat there did not do anything. We're  still not doing anything. It's good. The county's   getting a good break. They getting your tax money  where you don't have to where y'all don't want to   put folks in that tithe onto the city line.  Make them a part of the city of Peno City. It helped to build streets. My street, I can  tell you my street hadn't been paid in over   20 close to 30 years that hadn't been paid. I  know y'all going to get ready to tear it out,   but those who are supposed to been dead every 10  years, every commissioner was supposed to make get  

there in their district and get where they want  to have a street paved in their district. It's   had my whole happen might happen somewhere else  but it hadn't happened around my house. I got a   pretty good street but still the job is not being  done. Yes, sir. Thank you. Anyone else on item 6A? [Applause] Good evening. Good evening. Derek Thomas, 1100 West 10th Street.  Um, I feel that the uh the rates are not being   passed along evenly. The like hooking up water  to 19th Street, which used to be a wetland area,   that's going to cost money going into a  residential neighborhood that's already   there that already has the plumbing, is not  going to require as much money. So to charge   everybody the same rate in order to financially  subsidize large housing projects which are causing   uh the actual problem with the infrastructure  and adding a single family house in a residential   neighborhood doesn't really have that same impact.  So to charge everybody the same across the board,   I think that's not right. It's not just Penwell  City North and the main part of the city.   It's new developments as opposed to adding on to  existing um infrastructure. Thank you. Anyone else   on item 6A? Seeing no more comments, closing  public comments. I'll entertain a motion. A   motion that we approve and I would like to discuss  the memorandum that I provided. We have a second.   I'll second for discussion. Okay. So uh I had  provided this memorandum. I hope that you all   had time to digest it. But the basic idea was is  that we raise the rates but that we also make it  

to where people can pay on the the raised rate  over time. Uh depending on who that customer is,   whether they're a new build or whether they're an  older home. uh new bill, they would pay what they   currently pay today and then uh they would be able  to pay monthly on the remainder amount. The the   uh existing older homes they would be able to pay  over the course of many or four years or so the uh   the rate uh that would be just be divided by that  many months. So, it allows for uh two different   scenarios where people would be coming onto the  city's uh water and sewer systems and um not   necessarily hit them with a large bill. So, any  thoughts on the memo? The only um the only comment   I had on that one was how do we prevent a builder  from basically just passing it on as a surprise to   the person that purchases the house? So I would  suggest that in order to get usually you don't   establish a water count as one of the last things  on a construction site because usually you need   water. Um it's not necessarily the first thing you  do, but it's also not one of the last things that   you do. Uh so the builder would wind up paying  several months on the account and therefore on the   uh the uh impact fee but uh they would have to  disclose that at the time of closing otherwise   I mean we have a real estate agent on the board. I  mean disclosure is part of that upfront. Mhm. Yes.   So, uh, and in the event that that somebody has  an older home, they're on a a septic tank, they're  

on a well, and all of a sudden they're forced by  the state to to come on to Panama City water and   sewer, um, and then turn around and sell their  home, they would also have to disclose that. So,   it would just be part of the disclosures of of the  home that, hey, this is uh this is something that   you're buying into. There's there's actually  a section in a contract that allows for any   assessments which I'll call this can either be  paid at closing or paid after and the buyer picks   them up. So that would be written into the it was  a check box on the contract. So that be part of   I kind of have an overarching question like does  everybody we we like walked out last meeting with   like four like mine was like hey let's find  a program set up for ship funds specifically   for this specific piece. I didn't see that in  this. I guess there's this this other component   that's here. There were four things that we  walked out of last meeting of saying like,   hey, alongside this policy decision, having these  programs available um if I recall last time and   um and I I I'm not really seeing those alongside  this. Is that Did I miss something? I just want   to make sure I didn't miss something cuz I kind of  I kind of thought we kind of hit pause because we   had these like four action items to come back with  alongside this. I know you guys have had meetings   so maybe they weren't relevant. So I just love to  hear I think I I have a question for Deon the we   talked about the 25% maybe and then going to 50  and 100. Can we do that if we do it to everybody   in in Panama not separate the two? Yes. Okay.  Um, and so what I think in my conversation with   uh one of members of the homebuilders association,  their angst, if you will, is it just here it   is surprise. And we got to figure that out. But  they're okay with it, but just as it all comes up,  

can we can we parcel it out? And I think the  25 and 50 and go to 25% today, 50% next year,   and and 100% the following year after that. And  that's there's 25% today. That's all you're going   to face. Is that in this this I'm bring as an  example as my conversation with him. And that way   you wouldn't need any of the disclosures or any  of the extra money because it's paid the develop   whoever's building the house pulling the permit  they're paying that right now. So so I would say   that if if support is contingent upon programs for  assistance being provided alongside this then then   we should have that kind of settled. Um, so you  cuz that's what happened last time. Like I walked   in with like one thing and I'm like, "Hey, if we  do this, like I'm I'm good." But then there were   like multiple other things that were with that and  then so we kind of stepped back. But I also didn't   have conversations with the builder association  afterwards. I didn't have those. So if there's   if it's resolved then that's fine. If it's not  then I'd like us to resolve it or have a mapped   plan to resolving it in which it comes back to  the commission at a set date before these things   get implemented. Okay. So, so that's another  way that this could work. From my perspective,   after my conversation with them, they're okay  with that tiered system. Yeah. But Jonathan,   did you get back in touch with them after our  conversation about, you know, Well, I I didn't   get any really feedback that there was an issue  with it until late this afternoon, that the whole   tiered approach. So, what But here's the thing.  So, I'm I think I agree with you, Commissioner   Hughes. Let's just do the tiered approach for  everybody. But I would say potentially let's   drag it out even more. Let's say 50% for like the  next year and a half even maybe all the way into   2027 and then you know and then maybe up to 100%  after that. I I you know I wish there was a way to   only do it for Panama City proper and and not you  know and go full speed for Panama City North but  

again absent some some reason to differentiate or  doing a whole another study and I don't think we   want to spend 60 to 80k for that. So I I would be  willing if you're if you guys would support that   even maybe dragging it out a little bit longer  since we're doing it for everybody to to further   help them out rather than having four different  iterations. We could just consider having two and   then maybe putting a longer period in between them  just as another option. Josh, I have a question.   Yeah. I don't remember that part when we were  talking about it. I remember the the extra help   from the home when the house mind stuff. Yeah.  So, yeah. So um yes that that program and someone   correct me if I'm wrong but those options are  already there if you meet certain income that   it's already there and we are working to provide  I guess better appearance on not appearance is   the right word but just more visibility on the  website but that already exists you know like   utility type assistance down payment assistance  all of that stuff. Go ahead Mr. Jones. Yes. So,   our current uh local housing action plan uh does  include uh utility assistance with that includes   uh deposit assistance whether that's power,  water, uh sewer um or um or or anything else   with the exception of like internet or or things  like that. So, let me be clear what I'm looking   for that does not exist today. A a very clear  path that a builder because all the guys that   were here last time, those are all small builders.  they're building for one homeowner. Like that's   it. They're not going out and building a 100  homes or anything else like that. If they don't   know about it, we're obviously not communicating  it. So someplace clearly on the website, how much   money are we allocating to that program? That's  the other thing. I don't want to like get into it   and then all of a sudden we've got, you know,  50 bucks designated to the program. I want to   understand like hey there's this much allocated to  this specific program for utility assistance and   offsetting these impacts for affordable housing  because what we are doing right now if we do not  

have that clearly advertised and clearly notated  we are increasing the cost of affordable housing   in the city as as long as the the builder has  has a buyer that qualifies I don't see any issue   with that. I think that's where it gets a little  tricky is in order to access those ship funds. Um,   if they've got a buyer that that qualifies, it's  no issue. But I'm happy to under the current   program parameters, but I'm also looking for price  point incentives. Like if somebody's building a   home in a certain amount of price point, like  I'm looking for something that says, "Hey,   you don't have to pay utility fee." Or, "Hey, we  we offset this utility fee because you're building   in this exact price point." If that makes sense.  So, what you're suggesting may be a new incentive.   Mhm. Because what is existing has uh program rules  that we have to follow for the existing program.   So what I'm hearing is is an incentive that we  want to create perhaps. Um I'm happy to bring that   back as uh it's I believe it would still fit under  our util like our down payment assistance and   deposit assistance. So I I'll read back through  the LHAP and then I can gladly provide Mr. Hayes a   uh a policy recommendation. uh the overarching the  way to create a mechanism that that helps expedite   the affordable housing is by just focusing on  price point. And so that that includes smaller lot   sizes. It could be smaller homes. Um it could be  these kind of incentive programs that help reduce   that overall cost. Gifting land like th all of  those things work together to creating a a runway   of affordable homes that people can afford to buy.  Um, you know, that that's that's the piece. Yes,   I understand we have income qualified  applicants that come in through our program,   but I'm looking for things that we can equip our  builders to build the type housing stock that   our people need and and that's the that's the  what I'm specifically focused on. And I agree,  

but what you got to get past the impact  fee first before those incentives show up.   So to say we'll we'll give you 50% off to say the  builders and if they're building in an affordable   housing and you build in this price point  and I agree price point is very important and   um uh in a certain you know certain uh size house  now now you're hitting you're getting a family in   there. We'll give you there's some incentives  that you can apply for but you got to get so   you're you're helping on the front end by the  50%. and then they're getting help because their   buyer qualifies or I don't or is it they just get  that because they're building an affordable area?   I don't know. So, I think both work. Yours is a  step two, I think, to get we got to have step one   first to get to that point cuz they're getting a  break up front under under this idea of 50 and 100   if you extend it out. Right. So, back to step  one. If we stretch it out and stretch it out,   we'll be within a year of our next mandated  5year study and having to raise it again.   That would be 2030 because we did it in 2025.  So, just as a point of clarification, it's not   it's it's not mandated, but it is recommended. I  mean, we haven't touched these fees in 20 years,   and so we wouldn't be at the point where  we're ripping the band-aid, if you will,   to the degree we are today. So, we have some  option as to whether we looked at these every   5 years as as law associations recommend, we  this would be an incremental increase instead   of so dramatic as it is today. So just from a  mathematical standpoint, if we go with what I have   presented here, there's no real reason to step it  out and say, well, we're going to do 50% this time   and then 100% later. Because what it allows for  is it allows for the builder to pay what they're   currently paying now and then anything above that  would they would be able to pay on it monthly. So,   but the idea is is that the house would be sold  by a certain point in time in the future. And so   really all they're saving is I mean it's very  it's kind of nominal. So it's a it's a problem  

and there's like four proposed solutions here to  it. I mean that's what I got last time. I'm okay.   And I think that we're at that same spot. You're  at a tiered approach. You're at divided up over   the the bill. I'm at creating Senate programs.  Allan's quiet and uh and Janice is just trying   to figure out how do we navigate through that  to get to get passed on the on the lake. That's   kind of what I'm getting the same thing we  realize. For the purposes of deliberation, for the purpose of deliberation, just know that  impact fees are paid prior to the CO being issued.   So, if we allow people to make payments, I mean,  that's we're going to have to change the system uh   in order to adopt that because we we do require  impact fees to be paid prior to the CO being   issued. Got to be paid up front. Yes, sir. Okay.  Stretch stretching it out 25% 50%. Doesn't that   put us in the same situation? No. He's paying no  it's about 25% of the proposed fees. So we would   we would gradually increase it. Yeah. When we say  the the either when we say the 25 over four years   or the 50% and the 100% as commissioner Hughes  suggested that's 50% of the increase. So it would   be about $600 and then you know I think 2027 it  would then be the 100%. Yes ma'am. they would   pay 100% of the impact fees at only a 50% increase  effective 90 days from now and then whatever date   we pick down the future it would be the 100%. So  and Josh from there there's your incentive package   that comes in for the for the home built for the  buyer of that home builder. So if they're in that   if they're in that area, I recognize you go ahead.  I've been quiet. Uh when we met with the BBIA,   Jonathan and I, they were in favor of a sort of a  tiered approach, which is similar to what you're   mentioning. I like the flexibility of the plans.  My worry is there's a cost to maintain a plan.   What happens if they stop paying for it? Someone's  going to get surprised by it. even though there  

is a disclosure, someone's going to show up  furious with us saying, "I can't afford this   $1,000 water bill or whatever it might be, $500  water bill, including the impact fees." And so,   I'm more more in favor of the of a tiered  approach over the course of a few years. Um,   I think going to your point that we can use the  BBIA and their resource and their network and   every quarter be sending them an email of our  incentives. I've already reached out to CPAR.   I want to be going to CAPAR every quarter talking  about CRA districts and what we have. We should be   going to these networks constantly. They are our  they're the group that spreads the word on things   and so uh we should be utilizing them. That's what  they're there for. So I proposed a tiered payment   option. Tiered payment. Yes. I think what he's  proposing is a tiered roll out. Correct. It's a   tiered payment. Yes. Okay. Tell me what's tiered  about it. you have two different you have the new   build and then you have the existing older homes  actual payments and so when you have somebody who   and this is going to start happening a lot more  frequently um as people's wells and their septic   tanks are um having to be reinspected or fail uh  if they're near Panama City water and especially   if they're near the coast uh they're going the  state will force them to come onto our water   And when that happens, it is going to be a  surprise and they're going to be very upset   with us. We've already had one one gentleman  come and he was very upset with us and I mean   there's not a whole lot we could do about  it, but um I'm trying to solve for that as   well. Any idea the cost? My hang-up is the the  worry of the cost to run the program and and the   pay ongoing payments there from staff. What's  the what's the temperature of a payment plan?   Jan sent me an email. Can you please elaborate?  Yeah. Um I believe Charlotte sent the sent the  

um email to you about um her interpretation of um  making installment payments. Um our our uh system   is set up to make installment payments um by a  systematic um with a systematic approach. So,   anything that varies outside of that systematic  approach is going to is going to entertain a   manual process. You enter manual processes, then  you enter human error factors into the into the   game. Um so that was her main um concern is that  anything outside of the installment payment plan   would it would um could upset the balance of you  know the the system the human interaction with   the system errors we'd have to do you you'd have  be relying on a human to do the math instead of   the system you know all those little other cities  doing little things that can go wrong doing Well,   there's that. Is doing it well, but I mean, there  are other places that do this. Yes. Unlike not   paying your water bill, we can't shut it off. They  haven't. If they don't pay, they're still living   in their house. The impact the impact is gone and  they've already connected. So, my concern there is   if they don't pay, what's what's the consequence?  You're not going to kick them out of your house.   Um, that would be my concern about that. Well,  having just gone through a construction project,   you're shaking every pillow to get every penny  and um it's uh it's pretty tough. And so having   to know that you got more money is a concern, but  it works because it helps it helps move it out.   Um not all up front. But we got to remember the  person building the house, the builder, they're   the ones that are pulling this permit. It's not  the owner. It's not the the ultimate, you know,  

even if now an owner can pull their own permit  and build a house for themselves one time a year,   but um in this particular case, it's going to  be primarily a builder pulling it for somebody   else and paying it. So, they're going to pay  some and then if they aren't, are they going   to pay some and be done? Uh, one thing I'll  add and and you know, I know Mayor Branch was   in the meeting and I know Commissioner Hughes  had a conversation, but uh, as well as again,   Miss Roush, city engineer. Um, but I would I would  describe our interaction with BBIA as that they   um, yes, they would love things to still be this,  you know, as much as they were 20 years ago. They   understand that it costs more to build a house  today than it did 20 years ago. Um, they uh,   understand, uh, the need of this. they understand  the difference between this and the transportation   impact fees. Um, you know, because we can still go  the route of requiring for a larger development,   you know, a transportation study, a traffic study  and and and put that as part of, uh, you know,   the DO or the DA or something like this. So,  um, you know, I don't I don't want to speak   all by myself, but Mayor Branch, I think that's  what what what they communicated back to us and   they they would appreciate anything that we could  do. Y and that's when I said I was willing to to   suggest a tiered approach. Yeah. My worry I was  going to buy my first house or second house and   and you're so excited. You're like, I'm going  to get a rug for this area and you're going to   you have all these things you're doing and you're  working with your wife or your spouse and then you   get hit with a giant bill and you're like, oh no  new rug. Uh and welcome to Panama City. Here's a   giant bill. Um and so I'm I'm in favor of I think  the flexibility of the plans is really creative,   but I'm in favor of the tiered approach. I'm in  favor of this tracking with CPI as I mentioned   before super price index and that way we don't  have these ongoing battles with these large   adjustments uh in 10 years the next commission  you know 10 years goes we got to jump the rates  

up again and you create these battles every year  every 10 years or 20 years you know so I I think   the only thing I would say is that I mean and I  understand that the the the you know the potential   increase in cost and pricing surprise but you know  if if they're not paying it then the your existing   utility account holders are paying it. So  someone's going to pay this. The question is   is it new development in the future or is it folks  in the city right now that are paying a water bill   each and every month? Yeah, I think you hear about  our turn none of us are excited to talk about this   this at all. We're all like, "Oh gosh." Um I'm in  favor of like Robbiey's approach the 2550 100%.   I think if we do have people that are coming to  us with they're coming out to the system with   existing houses, well issues and they're coming  to us, let's address that when that happens and   and potentially might address those as they come  differently. So I just want to be just want to   be clear on the dates, Commissioner Hughes. So  obviously 25% only this is for the whole city.   We're not splitting them up. um at the 90-day  mark, February 16th, uh January 1st of 2026,   it'll go to 50% and then January 1st of 2027  to 100%. Is that is that the understanding? I   just want to make sure that we're talking the  same dates. February 2026, January 2027. Well,   I mean, you're skipping over 2026. Did you mean  to skip over I'm sorry. You're right. 2027. So,   you're correct. I'm still stuck in 2025. Yeah.  So, all right. Yes. February 16th, which is 90   days from today, it can't be even if y'all adopted  everything, it cannot be before that. That's 90   days. That would be 25% of the of the increase.  And then January 1st of 2027, it would be 50. And   then January 1 of 2028, it would be the 100%. Is  that your intention? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you,   sir. I just wanted to clarify that. And that  would be for the entire city of Panama City. Yes,  

sir. Okay. And I'd make a motion to that effect.  We have a motion on the table. Do we need to amend   the motion? Who had the second? Oh, we have a  motion. Was you had you had the second? Yeah,   you had That's right. I had a second to uh motion  was to just approve. So, um what is it that we're   trying to do here? Would you like me to rest it?  I'm happy to restate it. So, it's um we're moving   forward. Uh we are not trying to differentiate  between Panama City North or Panama City proper   in order to avoid another study or to split the  city between. So this applies to everything in   all of the city of Panama City. Um so on February  16th of 2026, which is 90 days from today, only   25% of the increase will be effective and that's  all they will owe. January 1st of 2027, 50% of   the increase will then be effective and that's all  they will owe. And then January 1 of 2028, it will   then go to 100% the number that you have before  you now. And that was what will be effective for   everyone with again no differentiation between  Panama City North or Panama City Proper. Yeah.   So I I didn't like the differentiation there,  but yeah, I'll amend my motion to reflect what   you've just said and I'll second that. Okay. Well,  I think for a procedural standpoint, Lucas has the   second. I thought No, Robbie second. Second. Oh,  my apologies. My apologies. It's been a It's been   a minute. Okay. So, Robbie's in favor of that, I'm  guessing. Any any discussion related to the tiered   approach? I'd like to uh offer some words of that  as far as uh the ordinance because I think it'd   be appropriate to put it in the ordinance. So the  ordinance would read under that approach. Might I   suggest like we did earlier this year that we  table this issue to city manager. Give you and   your team time to square it away or are you ready  to go right now? You love that idea earlier this  

year. I just want to remind you of that. He loves  doing it on the fly though. He loves I'm just   If you needed a few minutes to work with your  team to circle it back since it's an ordinance   change. Up to you, sir. I'm happy uh to delay,  but I still want to read what I've written here.   So, um, just real quick, so right now the water  impact fee is $465. It's being increased to   $1,350. And subject to my math being corrected,  u, it would read, "The water impact fee shall   be determined by multiplying the total ERC value  for water by 1,350." That's exactly what it reads.   Then I would add the increase will be phased in as  follows. $686 water impact fee commencing February   16th, 2026. $97 water impact fee on January 1,  2027. and then 1,350 water impact fee on January   1, 2028. On the sewer uh impact wastewater  impact fee, the language is u as written,   the water impact fee shall be determined by  multiplying the total ERC value for wastewater   by 1,250. That's been stricken. It's now 1,610.  Uh and so the new language is the increase will   be phased in as follows. It would be $1,340 sewer  uh wastewater impact fee as of February 16th,   2026. $1,430 wastewater impact fee commencing  January 1, 2027. and then 1,610 wastewater  

impact fee commencing March 1, 2029. Happy to um  have it tabled and we can bring it back so you   can actually read it rather than just hearing  me verbalize it. Whatever you'd like to do. I mean, if we're good, I'm not trying to delay  it. I just Forward. We got a first and a second.   Any discussion? Call. Commissioner Granger. Yes.  Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner Hughes,   yes. Commissioner Lucas, yes. Mayor Branch, yes.  Motion passes 5-0. And I will work on a policy   for impact PE impact feed um tiered approach  for people impacted by mand mandated hookups   to the water and sewer. Thank you. Thank you.  Thank you. Okay. I'd like to read the title.   Ordinance number 3274 and ordinance amending  Ordinance 1914 and Ordinance 2617 revising   chapter 23 utilities of the municipal code.  Amending division 2 rates and charges of   article 2 water. Amending division 3 rates and  charges of article 3 sewers and sewage disposal.   Providing for increased connection fees for  water and wastewater. Providing that this   ordinance shall be codified. providing that all  ordinances in conflict be repealed and providing   for an effective date. Item 6B was removed.  Item 6 C is the second and final of two public   hearings on ordinance 3285, an ordinance amending  chapter 102, administrative processes, article 2,   development review procedures, section 102-37,  final s inspection and acceptance. Chapter 110,   supplemental standards section 1110-1,  determination of density. Chapter 111,   Subdivision of Land. Chapter 116, Definitions  of the Unified Land Development Code. Relevant   background information is enclosed in  your packet. Uh same reading as the last  

uh and first reading. Um staff recommendation to  the director of development services that the city   commission conduct the second and final public  hearing and approve the ordinance. Mr. Mayor,   this is the public hearing. If you wish to  speak about item 6C, please come to the podium. Good evening. Even Sarah Thomas, 1100 West  10th Street. I think the uh the the final site   um preparation where you you dig a hole and  put water in it for 2 weeks or something.   That shouldn't be the only thing that you're  using for that. you should look at how the   uh the land has been used over time,  whether it's the wet season or the   dry season might have an effect on that.  And when you're increasing the density,   you're getting rid of all the trees in the  residential neighborhood. So, I don't like that.   Thank you. Anyone else on item 6 C? Seeing none  closing public comments, I entertain a motion. No motion for discussion. Do I have a second?  I'll second discussion. Um I I had sent staff   providing an appeals process to this um to  this state mandate. Um one of the things   that I've experienced is anytime that we give  blanket um ability to the team like we need to   have a process in which our citizens can come if  they disagree with the decision. And so this is   um this one would no leave no no other recourse  other than just accept the way that it is. And   you know, hey, you got a 800 unit development  next door to your property. Guess what? You know,   staff made the decision. There's no formal  appeals process to we still may not be able   to change that decision. It may be something we're  legally required to do. Um but the language that I  

provided the team was please provide this appeals  process. Any person agreved by the decision of an   administrative authority may appeal to the city  commission within 30 days of the decision. The   commission shall review uh shall be the commission  review shall be limited to whether or not the   plat or replat complies with the specific  statute that's listed here in this report and   applicable city regulations. So that was really  the component. I I would I also just like to see   what plats are getting approved as well. like like  a monthly update process something because these   are big decisions. These are not like this is not  like a little tiny thing that's happening. I mean   this is like this is like Panama City North kind  of decisions. So I mean I I want to be informed of   what's going on and I want there to be a process  that our citizens can come and at least air   um their concern if needed. I like that.  Why are we changing what things are called?   The planning board is now going to be a committee.  We're going to be Everybody knows it's a planning   board. Everybody knows we're we're the commission.  Um why are we going backwards and getting back   with people? We're giving from 5 days to 7 days.  Um you might want to answer that. Michael Dam.   Yeah. Come on down. I just it it we might confuse  people is what I'm asking. Michael Fuller,   director of development services. So the TRC is a  the staff um made up of city staff people um and   it's not replacing the planning board. Planning  board is still going to be the planning board.   The name Yeah. You're you're calling it committee  instead of the planning board. That's because the   current method is to take a preliminary plaque  to the planning board. Uh this would change it  

to that it's a staff level determination. Okay.  Uh the staff is the PRC that never goes through   the plan. Never goes through the plan. It never  comes to us. Yeah. And that's a statute now,   right? That is a stat that is Senate Bill  784. I mean, we have to follow it. Well,   until you're caught until you're think,  Josh, it requires us to put to put the   authority into somebody else's hands, right? But  I think what you're getting at is in doing so,   we want that person, if it's Jonathan or one  of you to uh to come back to us and say, "Hey,   this is what's in front of me. What do y'all  think about it?" Right? That's ultimately and   that's a good process and just a process that our  citizens like if they feel agrieved by a decision,   they can come and petition us. We have had  previous accounts where there is not in our land   development code or regulations that allows for  that and this is an opportunity for us to kind of   create that built into this. Yes, we're required  to do this and there's nothing we can do to stop   this from happening. But we can add further rules  on ourselves that require additional steps. Yes,   that's all I'm because they didn't spell out  exactly how it has to happen. They just want us   to change who can sign the plat over to somebody  else. Whether it's Jonathan, whether it's Michael   or or what have you. Right. So, Michael, today  planning, you're going to bring a preliminary   fat flat to the planning board. They're going to  look at it, approve it, a vote on it, bring it us,   we approve it, sign it. Mhm. That's correct.  But now, you're going to have it. Mhm. And who   is the who is the TRC? You say staff. Who's Who  is that? It's made up of city engineer, planning,   uh, fire department, um, uh, utilities. It's  the people that review site plans and plats.   Okay. And everybody, that's not new. That's  not new. They already exist, right? But those  

are the only people that are going to be looking  at it with him. And y'all make that decision and   then you sign it or you give it to Jonathan.  He signs it. Yes. The statute says that now   it has to be a a administrative official. um  to that signs off on it. And in this case,   it would be the city manager. Put a lot of  onus on hiring the right city manager. Mhm.   And creating this process allows us to  keep a prize. Not that I think Jonathan   wants to go and do something that's that's that's  against against the board, but we don't I mean,   heaven forbid Jonathan's not in that position,  you know, 10 years from now, 5 years from now,   whatever it is, 100 years from now, Jonathan,  that you say choose to to live that long. So,   but I I I would feel better with the with the  appeals process defined as well as a reporting   process that allows us to at least have view of  what's actually, you know, um being approved. So, I what I would request is I would do two separate  votes. I would direct staff to bring back it   sounds like an amendment to to the ordinance to  specifically at commission's direction spell out   the appeals process. Um and uh and then second  move forward with this, but we'll move forward   as quick as possible. When do you think you  could have that provision back? We should be   able to have it back the next December meeting.  Okay. It doesn't have to go through the planning   board. Um it might have to be the January meeting.  Yeah. Yeah. I'll defer to our city attorney. There   is that is an excellent approach. Uh, another  approach would be to provide instruction to   include the appeal process and then just have  and then have another final hearing in December   and then adopt the the ordinance with the appeal  process. I like that. Okay. I I'll make a motion  

to to approve this. So, we have we have the motion  on the floor. Motion retracted for discussion.   for um approval of this of this ordinance  with the addition of an appeals process   um to be brought back forth. And I thought  we were deferring or deferred. Yeah,   technically you're not approving the ordinance.  You're signaling you'll approve it if there's   an appeal process that you like, but we're  actually deferring this hearing till the   next meeting and bring back the appeal process.  Motion to defer till our next meeting. um with   a appeals process brought forth back into this  ordinance. Okay, there you have a second. I'll   second that. Any discussion? Please call the RO.  Commissioner Granger, yes. Commissioner Street,   yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner  Lucas, yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes 5-0. I' uh I'll read the title again and uh I know  I read it the first time but it has not been   adopted but this will just be another reading of  the title. An ordinance of the city commission   of the city of Panama City, Florida, a mending.  Chapter 102, administrative processes, article 2,   development review procedures, section 102-37,  final site inspection acceptance. Chapter 110,   supplemental standards. Um, acceptance  determination of density. Chapter 111,   subdivision of land. Chapter 116 definitions  of unified land development code relating to   the subdivision combining and planting of land  providing for modifications a repealing clause   severability codification and correction of  scrier's errors and providing an effective   date. Item 6D is the second and final 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 improvement section   109-43 infrastructure and public improvements  of the unified land development code. Relevant   background information is enclosed in your  packet as this is the second and final reading.   staff recommendation through the director of  development services is uh recommends the city   commission conduct the second and final public  hearing uh and approve the ordinance. I'll just   point out that city engineer Stacy Rouse is here  if there's any additional questions. Uh and the   question was asked and just to be reminded  uh by one of the elected officials that yes,   this would align our u our policy and our uldc  with uh very similar to what the county in Panama   City Beach has. Mr. Mayor. Yes. You'd like to  speak about item 6D, please come to the podium. Yes, sir. Derek Thomas, 1100 West Street. Um,  currently the city doesn't have a plan to address   the uh the the drainage issues in neighborhoods.  If an individual property owner can come in and   flood the neighborhood and change the drainage for  the entire neighborhood, that's a problem. And I   don't see anything in this um amendment that's  going to fix that. Uh when you come in and build   a retention pond in somebody's backyard and block  the flow of water to the drain, that has an effect   on everybody in the neighborhood. if you don't  have to file permits if you're connected with   the right families or you can go to the EPA and  say, "Hey, this was declared a wetland, but now   I want it changed to a marsh land and I want to go  in there and fill it in." You wouldn't have been   allowed to do that. If it was a protected  wetland, but if you can just change that,   then that's not working. If your plan as a city is  to allow people to flood other people's property,   I don't think that that's respectful to the people  that live here. And I would like to see something  

done to prevent that in the future if you can't  do it through code enforcement because some people   the code enforcement you file a complaint and  it's not even recorded with them if you file it   in writing and it's up to the code enforcement  office who they enforce the codes on. I I   think that that if you did in put in place a code  enforcement ordinance that says it's a a violation   to flood other people's property that might  have an effect on it. I know it's a violation   of civil law to do that, but then you have to go  to court, spend years, spend tens of thousands of   dollars fighting it. I don't think that that's  appropriate to put that on the back of somebody   living on a fixed income, a retiree living in an  older home. I don't think that those people should   be forced out of their homes and order to change  the neighborhood into high density or whatever   you want to change it into. I think you should  protect R1 neighborhoods. You should protect the   people's houses that are currently there. And you  should stop people from destroying other people's   property. And I don't see how you're going to  manage to do that with the changes you're making   in this ordinance, but I think you should do that.  Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else on item 6D? Seeing none, closing public comments. I'll  entertain a motion. Oh, yes, sir. Go ahead. Yes, sir. W 614 May Avenue. I just wanted this  uh have anything to do with the letters that   we that was sent out to the to the citizens  of Panimo City about their water pipes. Yes,   sir. All right. But I see you in next meeting  or we going to talk about it. I got a letter,   too. Yes, sir. Anyone else on item 16? Closing  public comments. I'll entertain a motion. Motion   to approve. Second. Any discussion? Mr. Mayor,  I'll just add it's already illegal to to make  

modifications to your property to create adverse  off-site impacts to other people's property. So,   we don't need to add that to this. So, please  please do not um Thank you. Does this get   rid of the or does this have uh enforced the  one-year requirement for um for the geotech?   For the geotech? Yeah, I think it needs to be  out more. Okay. I'm getting a head nod. Yes. So,   can can I I have a question along that same piece  and the requirements on the back side of the road   um rather than just built to city standards. Can  we ask a question? Mr. Mayor, can M sounds like   we sounds like we've got engineers talking to us.  So, I like I had the same thing happen over the   weekend. So, so, so Stacy, I'm going to try to  break this down into a way that name and title   for the public. Thank you. Stacy Ralph, city  engineer. So, I'm not going to pretend that I   understand exactly what I'm going to ask you, but  um what I do understand is there's a way that the   county calculates for freeboard and there's a way  that the city is calculating for freeboard. And it   is possible that when they start road construction  that the water table could be different than when   they finish road construction. Is that correct?  And so it could lead to fully compliant on the   front side but not compliant on the back side.  Is that is that correct? Am I understanding? And   I'm asking question as elementary as I can  because I don't fully understand even what   the question I was being asked. Yes. So that's  freeboard and and the seasonal high water table   for the road are two separate things. Freeboard  is the elevation in of the water in your pond   when it gets to essentially its max modeled  amount and then the top of the burm. Okay. So,   so maybe I'm asking the road questions, but but I  think I know what you're saying is so essentially   is if you have an undeveloped property, you know,  a completely green site, trees and everything,   you go out there and you do a geotech on it  and you know, they'll they'll tell you where  

the seasonal high water table is at that time.  But whenever you get rid of all of the trees,   you add a bunch of homes, you start putting ponds,  the water table can shift. Um, part of engineering   design is a factor of safety. And whenever you're  going to take a green site and completely develop   it, you're obviously going to use a higher  factor of safety than you would if you're,   you know, adding, you know, a minimal amount of  impervious surface. So, in that, we're relying on   the engineers to use good judgment to know, you  know, well, I'm going to be putting a pond right   next to this road. The water table's going to be  higher in this area. I need to account for that.   and we're not really seeing that happening and  that's one of the reasons why this ordinance came   about. And and is that the difference between  the county and the city's ordinance? Um the I   I don't know of anything in the county ordinance  that is any different than that. I know that the   county calculates the distance from the bottom  of the subgrade and we're calculating from the   bottom of the base. So I think the county says  2 foot from the bottom of the subgrade and the   subgrade's 12 in. So where ours says 3T from the  bottom of the base, it's actually the same number.   It's just different. Okay. A different verb.  That sounds like the question I'm asking. And   I think that's where there's some confusion. So I  don't know how like that that is clear. And we're   not saying that you absolutely cannot do it. And I  think I had had this conversation with a couple of   you guys about we're not saying it's an absolute  no rejected you have no chance of building. It's   a it needs to go through the proper channels and  I think it needs to come before you guys because   in reality when you do raise that water table  below a road you are impacting the life of that   road. So it's an ongoing financial responsibility  that the city is taking on. And I think that you   guys need to know when that's happening because a  few of you have those roads in your wards and you  

know how difficult that can be for the citizens.  So I just think that it needs to be brought to   you guys cuz I don't think that's a decision  we should we should really be making when it's   a financial long-term decision. Okay. So so it is  possible that it could be different but it's going   to have to go through us. Yeah, absolutely. Okay.  All right. Thank you. That I think that answered   my question. Freeboard's my favorite women song.  start singing. So heard on the roads done and and   I and I remember you saying the other day you'll  have it to our standard when it's our standard   but afterwards now you're requiring four items  to be completed I guess before CO can be issued   or whatever they issue for a road. Um what what's  what type of expense is that increasing and what   kind of time frame it you think that's going to  put on the So currently we do it. Oh, you knew   it. Yeah. So, currently that kind No, like right  now we do that. We're asking the contractor to   do that to prove to us. So, at this point, we  say you need to build it to our standards for   our us to accept it. And then they say, okay,  here's the road. Take it from me. And you know,   we don't have anything to say, okay, prove to  me that it meets our standards. So we go out   and we look at it and we say by looking at all  these samples that it meets our standards. But   I think that's also a a financial burden that we  shouldn't be taking on. I think that's a financial   burden of the person who is asking us to take  this road. Is that asked upon contractors in   other areas? Uh I'm I'm not sure if Well, so a lot  of this stuff is stuff that they're already doing   in building it. So the asphalt cores, they're  already doing that throughout their project. So,   we're just asking for that data because they don't  provide that info to us. And then the only thing   that I think is kind of maybe unusual or different  or new would be the post construction groundwater  

monitoring because you can't really do a geotech  um right after construction and just say, "Yep,   this is this is it." Because it's a brand new  construction. So, you want to monitor it over   time. So, we've done that in projects. We've  monitored it over time, seen where the water   table sits, and and you can make an accurate  assumption based on on that. So, we're asking   them to come back and do that same thing to tell  us, is this road operating the way your engineer   designed it to operate? If it doesn't, what  happens? So, there are options. Um, there's   different mechanisms we could do. we've there's  also potential maybe a a if we're compensating   for that road maybe there's a discussion there  but um in reality what I'm hoping that happens   is when they know that they have to prove it to  us they don't you know shave it that close they   they use that factor of safety and don't put  that don't just like cross their fingers and   hope that it passes because we don't we don't want  something in the city that has that barely passed So, you're I'm going to build your road.  Mhm. You want me to come back afterwards,   put something in and monitor it, come on down  the line, let's say two years down the road,   it's not meeting your standard, and you're going  to come tell me and I got to pay for it. Not. No,   this would be immediately when you ask me to  accept it. You would provide me all this data,   say, "Hey, I'm ready." It's the same. So, but  you said after the fact, you're monitoring   the the water. Yeah. Right after it's built. So  whenever they built it, whenever it's completed,   they would monitor it, tell me what the water  table is, and they would come back and say, "Hey,   we have all this data. This is what we said  it said it is." It's it's exactly what they   do essentially for a a pond. When they submit  us the asbuilt, so when you survey your pond,   you know, you know whether or not your water cuz  the water table where it's sitting is is a one of   your design parameters. So we can tell whether  or not it's operating the way it's supposed to  

be. So that kind of stuff is done for ponds. It's  done, you know, for water and sewer. They have to   air pressure test. They have to do um flushing  for the for the utility lines. There's all of   this testing that we require on all this other  expensive infrastructure, but not our roads,   the stuff that people see every day and drive on  every day. Yeah. This keeps them from taking on   a a liability. That's true. But time and cost, I  mean, you're doing it now. So, what's what's the   kind of time frame that you're on this is on the  city right now to do these things? So some some of   the testing is already happening so it's not going  to be any additional and it happens as they build   the road. So that's really the only built into  their cost already. Yeah. The only additional   expense would probably be the monitoring wells  depending on the length of the road. Um like I   said we bought monitoring wells. They're reusable.  Um, so Matt and I have installed them in quite a   few places and you know it's we take about 2 weeks  to look it over and I can tell you right now like   that really wouldn't impact most developers  because they build that road and they're not   asking me for acceptance of the road immediately.  Um, there's roads in some of the neighborhoods   here that people are actually already living on  those roads and they have not asked us to accept   the roads yet. So I mean it's not like people are  rushing which means it's still a private road and   so on. Well so it's platted to us but we have not  officially accepted it. So if there's a failure   of that road before we accept it it's on them.  It's on them in that development. Yeah. Which   we do a full a visual inspection but this point  all we have is a visual inspection which is not   really going to tell us a whole lot about what's  going on underneath. Any other questions? Good.   Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am.  Any other discussion? Please call the role.   Commissioner Granger, yes. Commissioner Street,  yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner Lucas,   yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes 50.  Nope. 6E. Oh, excuse me. Got to read it. Is  

this ordinance 3288? 6 Delta. Yes. Yep. 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  codification and providing an effective date.   Item 6 C is the second and final of two public  hearings on ordinance 3289, an ordinance amending   section 104-2 mixeduse MU2 of the ULDC. Relevant  background information and closing your packet as   this is the second reading. Staff recommendation  to the director of development services is   that the city commission conduct the second and  final public hearing and approve the ordinance.   Mr. Mayor, yes, this is a public hearing. If you  wish to speak about item 6E, please come forward.   Anyone on 6E? Seeing none, I'll entertain a  motion. Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion?   Please call the roll. Commissioner Granger.  Yes. Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner   Hughes. Yes. Commissioner Lucas. Yes. Mayor  Branch. Yes. Motion passes 50. Commission is   adopted. Ordinance 3289, an ordinance of the city  commission of the city of Panama City, Florida,   amending the city's unified land development  code, revising chapters 104 zoning districts,   amending the bulk regulations and mixed use 2  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. Item 6F is the first of two public   hearings on ordinance 3294, an ordinance amending  section 102-40 conditional use permits or cups   and section 104-66 gateway overlay of the unified  land development code. As background information,  

ordinance 3294 as proposed for the commission's  consideration will amend section 102-40   conditional use permits in section 104-66  gateway overlay of the ULDC by allowing for   certain conditional uses in the gateway overlay  district. The proposed amendment will add vape   shops and stores to the list of prohibited  uses in the gateway overlay and will allow   for several several currently prohibited uses such  as bail bonds, pawn shops, bottle clubs, etc. to   be allowed in the gateway overlay. This amendment  provides for specific standards for conditional   uses. This item was previously reviewed by  the planning board in November 10th of 2025 and I assume was recommended for approval. Yep.  Okay. Uh with staff concurrence, the following   documents are enclosed. Staff analysis report  and recommendation ordinance number 3294. Staff   recommendation through the director of development  services that the city commission conduct the   first public hearing. Mr. Mayor. Yes. If you wish  to speak about item 6F, please come to the podium.   Anyone on 6F closing public comments? I would like  to see storage facilities added to this list of   the um to potentially get a sub uh the list for  the bail bonds, pawn shops, bottle clubs. I I   would if we're going to allow those things, then  I would I would like to see us allow storage units   as well. Okay. I would like to absolutely oppose  that this like all of it. Like I mean I I think I   think some of it is like like okay um I get it.  We've got a ton of eight shops. Um fine. I mean   like that's that piece. But a lot of these have  been I'm just going to tell you guys they've been  

helpful in creating more positive momentum in our  corridors. And I I'm getting very nervous like a   self-s storage unit. There is no auxiliary benefit  to the community that's at. It's just a a land   grab and it doesn't ever go away. Um there's no  benefit other than just a building that just sits   there um doing nothing except storing our junk.  And you know, it's not bringing any like community   true value to it. And these gateway overloads  are part of of revitalizing the districts that   that at least I feel like they're a helpful tool  in and how we address, you know, blight and um and   increase economic activity, not decrease it. So  that's that's where I'm at. So, I I'm not I mean,   I don't know where all this is coming from from  all like all these different uses and things   like that, but I'm like I'm like I'm looking  more like a surgical knife, not like a giant   hatchet to the gateway overlay. That's where I'm  at. So, as I understand it, this would still uh   these conditional uses still have to come before  us for uh review. They're not automatic. They're   not added to the gateway automatically. Correct.  They There's a process. Yeah. Yeah. They go to the   planning board. So, can we make them come to us?  They need to come to us. I think they have to. You   You are the bosses. So, yeah. They're going to the  planning board. They need They're going to plan   board, but they don't come to us currently the way  this is written. This overlay is so big that they   need to come to the commission. I I will tell  you this and I think I think um the mayor said   it best one or two meetings ago. Everything is  a good idea and a bad idea at the same time. So,   like like like there are a lot of places like like  like I mean like I think of Steel Boys Bales Bonds   like I I mean I think they're a great community  partner. They've got an auxiliary use that's  

alongside that. Awesome. Great. Um I think about  Dan's Pawn Shop and um and Avery. Great. But I   also think about things that I've seen happen on  the beach and I've seen happen other areas where   it's not a great experience for the community  that's surrounding. And so I think it's very   important if we're going to use like these things.  I'm I'm all for like what you're saying now,   whereas it's like, hey, we can still be surgical  in our approach and how these things happen. Um   versus, you know, this patch of yes, patch of no.  Um but I I would be I would be very apprehensive   to just start slashing these uses and leave it in  the hands of just the planning board or some other   uh some other scenario. So, so the reason I say  storage is because I've had a couple of folks who   have approached me various times in the past about  uh storage in Ward 3, not actually on the road,   but it's just close enough. Well, that's  under the 400 ft, which I want to estimate   why 400 ft off the road. So, for me, a lot of  this is just it's not about the business, it's   about the appearance. And so if there was a liner  building, you know, if he could have self storage,   if there was a liner building of some other use,  uh, that sort of protected the corridor visually   with the facade. Yeah. And it was in a whole  another business, you know, if you're going to   put something out. So to me, it's it's not about  yucky businesses being near us. It's it's a visual   appearance being near the road. And some of that  is outlined in here. You know, the the conditional   use would have to have a smaller sign attached  to the building. no clustering of the same use   of buildings over and over, you know, or the same  businesses over and over again. Um, and so, yeah,   this makes me nervous. Uh, and it's hard telling  someone like, "No, we don't want your business."   Um, but to me, you can still accomplish the  goal of this by having a uh maybe playing with   the footage off the road and saying you can have  an entrance to this business, but you can't have   visual road frontage usage or something like that  or something some way to word that planning wise.  

I don't really know. What if we included the  architectural review board in looking at these   items? I mean, that's how some communities do  it where when we're talking more taste elements,   um, they gets sent into the architecture review  board, they they kind of weigh in as far as like,   yeah, this works, but you like this is how it  needs to needs to look. Storage unit's a great   example. I had one person ask me about it and I  think we worked through some some issues before   is if the bottom's retail I mean what's vertical  doesn't really affect anything you know from that   standpoint. So, I think that there's probably  a lot of ways to Yes. in certain instances,   but I I'm very hesitant to just remove and then  all of a sudden the next corporation I mean guys,   this is what happens with gas stations and what's  happened all across our city is like this is a   good example of you get a hedge fund behind a  certain certain thing and then all of a sudden   you know what before you know it that's all you  have in your entire city. And um so yeah um so   it sounds like they need to do some massaging  of this before they bring it back to I see.   Yeah. And when you're when you're talking about  what it looks like, let's say there's a brand   new build on the 800 block of Harrison Avenue  right now. There's two spots they're going to   they've already rent in one under this. It looks  the facade looks like it's brand new building.   Mhm. but allow you now you're going to have um  whatever is allowed to go in there on a on a   um it has to be conditional use so we have to okay  it but the architectural review board what would   what purpose would they have there and I get why  you're asking that because you're going to have an   old dilapinated building and you want to come in  maybe they have a saying what it looks like from   the outside well some cities will require um gosh  I've seen like that you're talking about climate   control storage multi story they'll even put fake  windows on it to make it look like it's not I'm   a control storage and disguise parking garage  and things like that and kind of push push the  

the aesthetic element a little bit more. Um that's  what I'm in favor of of seeing this could be born   out of the conditional use request. So cuz each  one of these individual types of businesses on   top of every single location, it's going to be a  little bit different. And so I think that that the   probably one of the best ways for it is to have  a condition if somebody wants a conditional use   um v or variation. I don't know what we want to  call that. Um uh for this a gateway overlay that   they they put it forward to staff and then um it  goes to the planning board. Then it comes to us.   We can refer it to the architectural review board,  have them do a report and then come back to us a   second time. I I just that could take 90 days. I  I but it's a conditional use. It's the time. Okay.   But it's a conditional use on a gateway overlay.  And every time you do it, you you set a precedent   every time you do it, right? So it shouldn't be  something that we do very fast. That's true. So,   but yeah, I agree. Uh, Commissioner Street, I I  don't like I don't like changing this, but um,   you know, we have we have uh I think we do need  a a lever here that is allows for some kind of   flexibility. So So let me make sure I understand.  So all the ones that we're removing from from   uh from prohibited uses are all following  underneath the conditional use. So there's   nothing that's automatically granted, right, out  of anything that we're removing? That is correct.   bait shops in your ward they're automatically  it sounds like you're saying bait shops which   is funny you take away a bait shop this whole  one day you'll understand so um you know and   yeah and I mean I even think from from just from  the vape shop owners perspective I mean I've had  

several have reached out to me and said hey we're  getting oversaturated in the market like is there   a way that we can be distances between so this  is a way of addressing that so I don't even I   think there's going to be resistance to that.  But I do think that if we can kind of identify   how we get to the commission for the final  approval and um and I like Brian's idea,   maybe there's some referral process to the  architectural review board or something like that,   but it sounds like we need a little bit more  work, maybe one more meeting. Mhm. Okay. So,   I'll motion to to table this until uh next meeting  and staff has an opportunity to take the feedback   and um shape the final. Would you like to have  another first reading at the next meeting and   then if it if you think on your then it could come  for adoption in January. The the only concern I   have Mr. Zimmerman um that pushes it well into the  new year and I know that we currently have um an   agreement that we've been authorized to negotiate  in the sale of a property on MLK Boulevard in W 2.   Do you have any concern with the timeline that  we are now proposing today to prevent the sale   of that property as we're currently negotiating  or selling? We are the old substation. Yeah. 920   MLK Boulevard, the old police substation. Okay.  There there is what? There's a long due diligence   period. Uh the uh buyer uh desires to relocate  a bale bondsman um business to the site and   um she would actually be moving hers I believe if  I understand it correctly. Um I I don't I can't   remember if it and I bet Miss Mcwain will tell  us here in just a minute, but I believe it was   90 days maybe 120 days due diligence. So,  it's possible uh that January would work,   but uh we'll find out here momentarily. And the uh  one of the unique factors here is that this bells  

bonds is currently operating like 200 ft 300  ft from where she wants to move from. So, it's   not an additional uh bells bonds. It's just that  the uh the place she's chosen is on the gateway. You happen to see that, Miss McWay? Yeah. Okay.  The the what the pause is is to determine if we   could have the first reading today and then see  where we are at in December. That was the path we   were on. Um if if we don't have the first reading  today and delay it until December, which is fine.   It may or may not uh Miss Blue Brown would may  need to ask for an extension of time. That's all.   Or it might not meet her plans. Are we the seller?  Yes. Extension of time. I believe we would. I hope   we would if that solves the issue. Yes, sir. I  just haven't. Yes, sir. The additional um concern   is that the uh buyer has a timeline before she has  to start a new lease and that's the first of the   year and um she initially uh requested last July  like 2024 and it took us uh almost a year to get   to this point and we've approved a contract. So,  we're putting this buyer in a parish position. But   did we approve it subject to this this changing?  No. This being updated? No. But that was that um   we knew we were going through the process and that  drove the length of time for the due diligence. Um apparently we're not going to find out  exactly what what that time period is.  

Ouch. How about Oh, February due  diligence. Did you say February or January? Okay. So, if this were adopted,  the first meeting in January,   it would still be within the due  diligence time period. February. Needs a little background music. 120 days with  the effect of October. Okay. I believe it would   still be in the due diligence period if we were  to have another first reading in December and   with adoption the first meeting in January. It's  within 120 days. Okay. Cuz I feel like there's   going to be enough this that's changed that it's  not going to be it would be too much to have   stay on the first reading. Yep. Potentially. Yes.  We're good. If it's 120, I thought it was 90 days,   which would give me concern. If it's 120,  we're I concur. We're good. All right. So,   we have a first and a second, correct? To  we have a we have a motion to table. I don't   think we got a second. Do I need to change? We  need change. Any discussion? Just declare. So,   we'll bring it back December 16th for the  revised first reading and then the first   meeting in January would be the second reading.  Okay. Please. Assuming it's correct in the 16th.   We'll get it right, sir. I promise. Please call  the RO. Commissioner Granger, yes. Commissioner   Street, yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes.  Commissioner Lucas, yes. Mayor Branch,   yes. Motion passes 50. Item 6G is consideration  to conduct a first reading and public hearing   on ordinance 3297 that adopts the Panama City  Community Redevelopment Agency plan amendments   and comprehensive updates. Relevant background  information is enclosed in your packet. Staff   recommendation through the city manager's office  is that the commission conduct a first reading and   public hearing on ordinance 3297 that adopts  the Panama City Community Redevelopment Plan,  

amendments, and comprehensive updates. Mr.  Mayor, this is a public hearing. If you wish   to speak about item 6G, please come to the  podium. Oh, okay. Thank you. Anyone on 6G? Closing public comments. Read it.  Will there be any testimony? No,   no, no. Read the uh first reading for six uh  G's. Thank you. Ordinance number 3297, first   reading. An ordinance of City of Panama City,  Florida adopting the amended and updated Panama   City Community Redevelopment Plan. Providing for  expansion of boundaries of redevelopment areas,   providing for a community redevelopment plan  amendments, providing for extension of the   termination date. Providing for severability,  providing for codification, and providing for an   effective date. Mr. Mayor, commissioners, moving  into quasi judicial hearings. As a reminder,   during quasi judicial proceedings, the commission  will hear evidence and render a decision regarding   the matter presented based upon the evidence  received. The parties before the commission and   the public are entitled to present evidence,  documents, witnesses, 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 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. Okay. For this  uh at this time for items 7 A, B, C, D, and E, F,   and G. Um, I would like to uh swear in staff  who will remain under oath during the entire  

proceedings. And also, if you intend to speak, if  you would stand also and be sworn at this time,   if for some reason later on you want to speak,  even though you didn't stand and be sworn,   that is perfectly fine. You come on up and  we could swear you at that time. So staff   and anybody else that you intends to speak, if  you could stand. Um there we go. Okay. Please   uh stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear  and affirm that the testimony you're about to give   is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but  the truth? Thank you. I'll ask the commission uh   to disclose any expart communications that before  the vote is taken, which is communications that's   received outside of this public hearing uh that  you intend to rely on in making your decision. Uh   this is information that hasn't been repeated in  the uh staff report or been repeated in any of the   oral comments. Um and you and what is disclosed  is not the substance but just the fact that the   uh exparte communications uh happened. Item 7A  is the first of two public hearings on ordinance   3291.1, 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 1817 Beck Avenue with partial ID 2885-0-0. Relevant background information is enclosed  in your packet. Staff recommendations of the   director of development services that the city  commission conduct the first public hearing. Mr.   Mayor, yes. If you want to speak about item 7A,  please come forward. Anyone on 7A? Seeing none,   closing public comments. First reading. First  reading. First reading. Ordinance 3291.1. An   ordinance amending the comprehensive plan  future land use map of the city to reflect  

a land use designation of mixed use for a parcel  of land located at 1817 Beck Avenue, Panama City,   Florida, providing for repealer, severability,  and effective date. Item 7B is the first of two   public hearings on ordinance 3291.2, an ordinance  amending the zoning map of the city to reflect a   zoning designation of mixuse 3 MU3 for a property  located at 1817 Beck Avenue, partial ID 2885-0. This is the same address as the prior ordinance.  Relevant background information is enclosed   in your packet. Staff recommendation to the  director of development services is that the city   commission conduct the first public hearing. Mr.  Mayor, yes. If you wish to speak about item 7B,   please come forward. Anyone on 7B? Seeing  none, closing public comments. Commission is   uh first reading of ordinance 3291.2  and ordinance zoning a parcel of land   located at 1817 Beck Avenue, Panama City,  Florida, having approximately 0.045 acres,   mixed use 3 providing for severability and  effective date. Item 7 C is the first of two   public hearings on ordinance 3293.1, an  ordinance on the voluntary annexation of   approximately 0.516 acres of property located at  3719 Shoreline Circle with partial ID 26927-0-0. 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, if you wish to speak about item 7 C,  please come forward. Anyone on 7C? Seeing none,   closing public comments. First reading ordinance  30. We're not supposed I I talked to their   builder. Oh, and just wanted to slow and I've done  that a couple times. Okay. Processing. Thank you.  

Exit. Ordinance number 3293.1, an ordinance of the  city approving the voluntary annexation of 0.516   acres of unincorporated property located at 3719  Shoreline Circle into the city as further defined,   amending the wards and boundaries to  include said land and providing for an   effective date. Item 7D is the first of  two public hearings on ordinance 3293.2,   Two, an ordinance amending the future land use  map of the city to reflect a land use designation   of residential for a property located at  3719 Shoreline Circle partial ID 26927-0. This is the same address as the prior item.  Relevant background information is enclosed   in your packet. Staff recommendation through  the director of development services is that   the commission conduct the first public hearing.  Mr. Mayor, if you wish to speak about item 7D,   please come forward. Anyone on 7D? Seeing  none, closing public comments. First reading,   Ordinance 3293.2 and ordinance amending  comprehensive plan future land use map of   the city to reflect a land use designation of  residential for a parcel of property located at   3719 Shoreline Circle, Panama City, providing  for repealer providing for severability and   effective date. Item 7E is the first of  two public hearings on ordinance 3293.3,   an ordinance amending the zoning map of  the city to reflect a zoning designation   of residential 1R-1 for property located at  3719 Shoreline Circle, partial ID 26927-0. This is the same address as the prior item.  Relevant background information is enclosed   in your packet. Staff recommendation to the  director of development services is that the   city commission conduct the first public hearing.  Mr. Mayor, if you wish to speak about item 7E,   please come forward. Anyone on 7E closing  public comments? Uh, first reading,  

ordinance 3293.3 and ordinance zoning a parcel  of property located at 3719 Shoreline Circle,   Panama City, Florida, having approximately  516 acres R1 providing for severability and   providing for an effective date. Item 7F is the  first of two public hearings on ordinance 3295.1,   an ordinance a sub amending the future land  use map of the city to reflect a land use   designation of recreation for property located  at 1310 Lincoln Drive with parcel ID 17494-0-0. Uh relevant information is enclosed in your  packet. Uh this is an item that is requested by   city staff from development services department  uh parks, culture and recreation department as   well as the city manager's office. Staff  recommendation through the director of   development services is that the city commission  conduct the first public hearing. Mr. Mayor,   if you'd like to speak about item 7F, please  come forward. Anyone on 7F? Seeing none,   closing public comments. First reading. Ordinance  3295.1, an ordinance amending the comprehensive   plan future land use map of the city to reflect  a land use designation of recreation for a parcel   of land located at 1310 F10 Lincoln Drive Panama  City, Florida providing for repealer severability   and effective date. Item 7G is the first of  two public hearings on ordinance 3295.2 2,   an ordinance amending the zoning map of  the city to reflect a zoning designation   of recreation RECC for a property located  at 1310 Lincoln Drive. Partial ID 17494-0. Uh, this is the same address as the prior  item. Relevant background information is   enclosed in your packet. Staff recommendation  to the director of development services that   the commission conduct the first public hearing.  Mr. Mayor, if you'd like to speak about item 7G,   please come forward. Anyone on 7G? Seeing  none, closing public comments. First reading,  

ordinance 3295.2, an ordinance zoning a parcel of  land located at 1310 Lincoln Drive, Panama City,   having approximately.126 acres recreation  providing for severability and effective   date. Audience participation, uh, you have  three minutes to come forward and speak. We   only speak about the items related to the agenda.  There's a lot of new faces in the audience. So,   we're not discussing Marina stuff or Trudell Park  stuff or uh you know um Robert Kane and Mary uh   Kane Park. We're not discussing that tonight. But  anything related to the upcoming agenda items we   are discussing. So, if you wish to discuss  those items, please come forward. Yes, sir. We have a lot of more meetings  related to those topics. kind of   you want to talk? Three minutes for  three minutes for everybody. Yes,   sir. For especially for you, you don't  have to share your three minutes. I walk PN 614 Maple Avenue. Uh I keep hearing  everybody saying uh sometime we pass the bullet.   Uh this thing was done uh years ago and I think  these folks now wish that they had went on and   got into the city. We probably would not have this  what we're having now today. U city never forced   anybody. I know I worked for him for 31 years.  Never forced anybody to get on city sewer. Never.   Which we lay sewer. Which item were we speaking  about today? Yes. You go a the first one. Yes,  

very 6A, I believe. Gotcha. Oh, 6A. All right.  Thank you. You got me? Yes, sir. All right. Uh,   it's a whole lot cheaper then. Folk could get on  SW for $30. Really? They could get on it free.   When we first put it in, they got it on it free.  After that, they did $30. I don't know how the   building department did how they did they added  it to the sewer where on the water with the water   bill but now I the water bill I don't know why we  want to have so make these prices so high. I don't   know. Y'all ought to know how many folks in this  city that is not on city water and sewer. Baba,   most of those folks. Jinx Avenue, most of  those folks had option not to get on s. The state came in, the state did this  to you. The state did this. You know,   you putting it on nobody else. You putting on  the health department. Health department is   part of the state. They're doing their job.  What they been told to do. Anybody that had   a separate tank, they were going to have to  get on sit the sewer. That's not no push on. So, and I hope we're not being reddish from the  from the plant that a plant is showing more water  

sewer usage on water than what we're paying  paying them that some of that water could be   coming from from the ground usage. And I hope  that ain't what y'all y'all planning this on.   Y'all changing outlines. Y'all getting rid of some  of that problem. Most of you got rid of it yet,   but I hope we're not being measured by the  plants that by what they what the usage is on   this sewer. Thank you. Anyone else related  to the upcoming agenda items? Yes, ma'am. Good evening. Good evening. How's everyone  today? Very well. I'm glad to hear that.   Brenda Lewis Williams, 2748 Oak Hammock Drive,  32401. Um, I have a question in reference to item 10A and it's just I read the letter  but to what end and you promised me   we get answers mayor. Okay. The to  our questions. So I just want to   know to what end is is this because the  rescue mission is being not going to be   used or we're supplementing or adding to?  And then the other one it's not it's uh 12H and I made a little tool about that today.  Uh I'm sure some of you saw it. If you didn't   you'll see it later. But it's not my issue. But  what I'm concerned with is that I don't believe   that Mr. Clubs, he's here. He can speak for  himself. But I don't believe that he's getting  

a fair shake with what he asked. He sent in  a letter, rescended his offer because you all   wanted him to jump through some hoops, which I  thought was not equitable at all. Considering   that the gentleman who wanted the parcel to  uh enhance his liquor store came back and   I've been informed that he was able to purchase  that parcel. So, Mr. Club should get the same.   He doesn't even know I'm saying this stuff. So he  should get the same consideration. Right is right,   wrong is wrong. Do the right thing.  Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Anyone else? Closing public comments. On to the consent agenda. Do I have a motion to  accept the consent agenda? Second. Any discussion?   Please call the RO. Commissioner Granger. Yes.  Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner Hughes.   Yes. Commissioner Lucas, yes. Mayor Branch,  yes. Motion passes 5-0 [Applause] tonight. So,   good afternoon everybody. The um rescue mission  um which is doing great work in our community   uh is seeking uh our support in a letter form of a  project they have to um build a emergency shelter   uh for men on the men's campus on Allen  Avenue and for women on the women's campus   um off off of 11th Street. And so that  has come uh before uh the commission   and uh Mr. Ross Clemens is here this  evening, the executive director of the  

um rescue mission and I'd like to ask him to  come forward and speak on behalf of his request. Good evening. Thank you, Mrs. Lucas. Thank you, commissioners.  Ross Clemens, executive director of Panama City   Rescue Mission. I have a additional architectural  designs here if anybody needs to see them. [Applause] As most of you know, I have a business  downtown. Um, in the course of my time downtown,   we've had homeless I've had homeless come  up and relieve themselves in my foyer.   And I've had homeless a homeless gentleman  by the name of Robert pass away behind my   back door. So I I have a choice to make. I  can be outraged by what some of the homeless   are doing downtown and how it might  impact my business. or I can look at   what I would deem an avoidable death and  choose to get involved and try to help. So, I chose the latter, started leaning into the  rescue mission, and I've discovered that helping   the homeless works. We can succeed at helping  them, and we have. We can succeed at helping them   break the cycle of addiction. We can succeed at  helping them reenter the workforce. We can succeed   at helping them process trauma that hasn't been  addressed. Then we can share the love of Jesus   with them and plug them into church communities  in a way that is supportive to them re-entering  

our community. Over the last three years, we  have helped 258 people get clean, get employed,   and get into sustainable housing. Congratulations.  Thank you. Honestly, it's a communitywide effort.   Uh we've discovered that when we collectively  engage in it, we can make a difference.   This is only accomplished through broad support.  I'm just going to rattle off some of it because I   do think it's relevant. Uh we've got St. Andrews  Baptist that provides free medical care. Uh when   it's something that can't be dealt with by them,  band care leans in. Uh I've got First Baptist   that teaches in multiple locations uh addiction  recovery. Life Management provides mental health   screening for the folks and when they identify an  issue, they queue them up for long-term help. Uh,   Northstar Church provides hot meals. Emerald  Coast Fellowship, four grocery stores donate   the food that feeds our folks. 54 churches and  3,500 folks in Panama City support us financially   and then they come down and volunteer. They teach  my classes. They help us pass out food. They help   us feed folks. When we as a community lean in, it  works. When that whole health care, mental health   care, church, food, when that whole community  leans in, it works. Uh I didn't know that 3 years   ago. I had no clue. Uh it's been a privilege to  see the folks in our community that are dedicated   to to helping and doing something about it.  And it's been a great privilege to see folks   get saved, rescued, and reenter the workforce.  The only thing that limits us is infrastructure.  

So that's why I have made or initiated a uh  appropriation request to the state legislature.   Uh state legislator, those are smart folks. You  guys know what it's like to try to push something   through there. It's it's not going to happen  unless they believe you support it. Therefore,   I'm asking you for your for your support.  Specifically, it's for homeless shelters at the   two locations Mrs. Lucas mentioned. We're going to  quickly make a distinction. What we're doing right   now is program. I don't take people in unless  they're clean and they're willing to commit to the   process. That means I turn away 95% of the folks.  There's two reasons for doing homeless shelters in   my mind. One is just the love of Jesus on some  folks that are hurting, but honestly, there's   a tactical reason. 258 folks in 3 years isn't  enough. I believe, oh, I know we can do more.   It's just a limitation of infrastructure. And if  we can have a shelter, if I can have a place where   I can get these people out of the woods, get them  out of the survival defensive huddle that they're   living in, get them into shelter for a bit, where  they can see what's happening in the program,   where I can gain their trust, I'm confident  that we can increase the number of homeless   that enter the program and they get clean  and they can get back into your workforce. I ask your support. Thank you for your time.  Thank you. Thank you. And thank you for the   uh good work that you've done in the past  three years. Um I support this because of   the work that I do in community as well  and know that in many instances we can't   volunteer our way out of the crisis. We need  uh paid staff. We need the infrastructure that  

you're talking about. This helps us to help  uh the citizens in our community, our downtown   uh and other business corridors. And so um I would  ask my colleagues on the desk as well to support   um the letter going forth so that we can  build an emergency shelter. Programming   means that they have to meet criteria. as he said,  emergency shelter is just getting someone shelter,   getting them out of the elements, off the streets,  and as a first step and a and a very needed step.   Um, no matter where we travel in the city on a  given day, I see three to five people that I can   identify as homeless throughout our community and  this is a concerted way to uh to help them. So,   I'd ask my colleagues on the desk to support this  effort. Smith Ross, can you explain to us the the   um reason for ending our support on the grant  because what it's not with uh the the program   in terms of religion versus not. Thank you. Uh I  do think that's an important distinction. Um what   I'm currently doing as I rattled off the list  of our supporters is primarily from churches   uh and from uh church members and we are pursuing  a faith-based program. Our addiction recovery   program is a faith-based program. The shelter  doesn't need to be. Uh I'm conscious of the issues   of going to the state and trying to ask them  to do something that would be faith-based. So,   I'm not doing that. The shelter is purely an  emergency shelter. We will not be attempting   any Bible study classes at the shelter. We are  providing shelter and food and honestly trying   to break the cycle of the lifestyle that they're  in. that there is a there will be a distinction   between the two programs. The and we will  we're talking to doorways uh doorways can  

can provide us with state and federal funds  to staff it because that shelter will not be   faith-based. The program that I'm currently  running will remain faith-based. Thank you. Anyone else? So So Ross, and I I apologize. I  thought that this these questions got sent to you,   but I I don't guess in the in the delay they did.  So, I I have fielded a couple questions and so   um I know you can probably easily answer. So,  there has been obviously concern expressed by   neighboring businesses, residents. So, um I felt  like your explanation was very helpful into kind   of giving the context of what you're exactly  proposing. Um but couple things that you and   I talked about. Are you guys have you guys  looked at other locations? Are you willing   to look at other locations? And do you guys could  you explain to us what it would take to actually   have a different location? Because I know you have  infrastructure that's already built where you're   at. Sure. And and I get it. I get the concerns.  Yep. Um obviously our our preference would be to   do it on our current site because if I move it  somewhere else, I currently got two sites. If   I move somewhere else, I've got three sites.  So, I'm covering down on more locations. Um,   part of the reasoning behind putting it on the  existing sites is so that our existing buildings   can support them. I have commercial kitchens at  both of the existing locations. I have laundry   at both of the existing locations. There's a very  high laundry need for a shelter. That's 43 beds   that you're doing the linens on every night. Uh,  so I was planning on being able to support them   with the additional laundry of the existing  buildings if I move somewhere else. How much   value is like put into those infrastructure?  I'm just curious on a number of like how   much infrastructure you guys have on your campus  currently and if you don't know the answer. Well,  

so I mean I had a broad idea of what was going  to happen tonight. Um, so the insured value of   the existing building at Allen Avenue is  1.5 million. Uh, the insured value of the   building on 11th Street is $495,000. So there's  roughly 2 million in the two existing structures.   Um the value, it was tough to sling together the  value on the plats that currently aren't being   used, but just somewhere between probably $100,000  $200,000 worth of plats around the Allen Avenue   location, not counting the one that my building  sits on. Um so those are the unused properties.   It is possible to put it somewhere else. Uh we  just have to there's a number of considerations.   There's the additional ex expense of the  commercial kitchen. No, I don't know what that is   uh yet. And the additional expense of additional  laundry. Uh as I've explained to several of you,   we need to be on a trolley line. Our goal is  to get people back into employment. Uh so we   need to be at a place where they can readily  access transportation. And I did some checking   uh of our folks right now, particularly the men  on Allen Avenue. We got about 13 guys right now.   Five of them work downtown in the immediate area.  So I do I want you to understand I do have folks   that walk from my building to work. Mhm. Uh and  and in that sense 609 Avenue is a great place.   um where I've got good access to healthcare and  I've got access to the kind of jobs that my kind   of folks are, you know, got a shot at. Uh the  retail and the restaurants in the downtown area.  

Um that's what makes 609 Allen good. Can we do  it somewhere else? It's possible. It just has its   additional staffing for me. That's a challenge.  That's a big challenge. I I I barely pull off   what I pull off. Staffing wise, uh, if I got to  run, you know, I got cooks at both locations.   If I got a third location, that's a third cook.  There will be additional increases in staff. So,   hear me. I'm not saying no. Um, but it does  cause me concern. And the additional concern   really would be one of timing. we've gotten this  thing in this state of Florida congressional   budget cycle. It would really be one big question  for me was would be how quickly we could come up   with whatever you're proposing because I wouldn't  want it to slide a budget cycle. Yeah. And and I   don't have anything alternatively to propose. Uh  Ross really really two things that that you know   I I feel like I feel like what you've proposed  is definitely very defined. Um so there's one   aspect that yeah we could ask all the time.  I mean, I'm sure you guys have gotten asked,   why can't we go some why can't we move someplace  else? Why can't we do those things? And I wanted   you to have an opportunity to explain the  infrastructure that exists where you are. Uh,   but the second piece is is maybe there's a way  for us to do, hey, this is what you're proposing,   how it will operate that we mutually agree that  that's how it would operate. So, your leadership   has been fantastic in what you guys have done um  with the program. Your board has been incredibly   active. have taken tours of the facility. Um,  so I understand what you guys are doing and the   care that you put into that. Um, I think a lot of  the angst that exists in the community is because   maybe previous things that have happened. And so  I think what you're proposing, as long as we're  

committed to operating within those parameters, I  think that is that is a key component to keeping   trust with the people that we work with as  well. So So I don't know if that makes sense.   What I'm saying, Ross, is like it's like, hey,  you know, there's one aspect of yes, it would be a   huge investment to try to find a campus that maybe  is larger than what you have, someplace that, hey,   you can build the infrastructure that you need  for a long-term multi-step process that gives   you room to expand. There's another aspect that's  like, hey, what is being agreed to? How does it   operate? And does it stay within those operational  parameters? So, so anyway, that was it. I've not   had any feedback on the women's shelter, too.  So, so like, so as far as that's concerned,   I like I haven't expressed, no one has expressed  any concern um in regards to to that operation   or anything else like that. And like I said, I  think we're all victims. I mean, it happens in   city government, too. We're all we're all, you  know, you we're we're not only measured by our   leadership today, but previous as well. And  so, I commend you guys for what you've done   um in reestablishing your programs and trying to  help the way that you do. Thank you, sir. Uh, it   does bring up one more point I would like to add.  Um, I have wanted to stay tied at the tip with   the city on this. So, when we reopened, we went  and met with chief of police, with Chief Smith,   and we have invited them to attend every board  meeting. So, and they're and they're doing it. So,   we have police presence at every board meeting. We  take their input. Uh, they listen to us. They can   relay it to the chief. uh and they've been they  played a helpful productive role and we will of   course continue to do that and I think that's a  key component to creating successful relationship   because um you know I mean we all know where  things could go wrong um but and often times we   forget where they go right and so and I think  that's a good example of that. Ross, how many  

how many extra women do you have at Bethl to in  the need of there? You said 15 guys. Yeah. uh 23   at that. Yes. Wow. That's right. We have a little  more the men's side open more recently. It took us   longer to rebuild that building. So, uh we already  had the women's fully staffed. That's a function   of staff, not bedrooms. Uh and I have three staff  for the women's side. Uh if I can get to three   on the men's side, I'll bring the men's numbers  up. So, Russ, amazing job what you've done with   the with the rescue mission. And uh as I told you  the other day that that I I believe that uh these   types of actions are best done by nonprofits. And  so I think you're a shining example of that. Um so   I I'm supportive of this. Um it shocks a lot of  people I think uh to find out that Panama City,   Bay County in in our surrounding counties do not  have an emergency shelter. And when people find   themselves in a situation where they are homeless,  they it's, you know, 8:00 PM at night on a Friday,   doorways. I mean, they'll try to help, but  there's really nowhere for you to go. Uh,   which is a very very rough night. And I know that  that's that's not exactly the always the situation   that happens. Um, but the fact that we don't have  an emergency shelter um is concerning to me. So,   um, people people have there there was somebody  in my life that that that would have wound up   homeless had they not had the support from  their family. And um, if they would have been   dropped down here from, you know, Dothan or or  Alabama or Georgia or some northern state and uh,   then abandoned, um, they would have had nowhere to  go that evening. So, uh, that that kind of opened  

my eyes up to the fact that there's nothing. So,  I'm I am supportive of this. Yeah. Thank you,   sir. Yeah. Just kind of echoing what Josh  said. As long as we're not regressing back to   that rescue mission of the 80s and you that that  was also the scapegoat of downtown for decades.   Yeah. It was that's all the rescue mission sp  which I don't believe it truly was. you know,   and I expressed in email what I experienced  growing up at the car wash next door was all the   problems that sort of was was coming through that  area. Um, and so not regressing, but you've done   a marvelous job. I've been to the board meeting.  It's it's fantastic stuff. We've supported the 5K,   that sort of thing. So, I'm supportive. So,  zero motion. Uh, with all that being said, uh,   I'd just like to say there, but by God's grace go.  And so, with that, I move that we uh support the   rescue mission. uh and the excellent work that Mr.  Clemens has done and his staff. I'll second that.   Any discussion? I just want to add Ross, I would  just whatever we you ask in the legislative just   keep your options as broad as you can. Um so as we  continue the conversation, there's a flexibility   um to tackle any options that may come available.  I understand. I can do that. Please call the role.   Commissioner Granger, yes. Commissioner Street,  yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner Lucas,   yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes 5-0.  Commissioners, thank you. [Applause] Uh, item   11 A is a notice of vacancy on the Panama City  Planning Board. Panama City Planning Board has one   position for the mayor's appointee available as  a result of the changes associated with ordinance   number 3284. Terms for members appointed because  of the change will begin on January 1st, 2026.   Do you have a nominee? Not yet. I'm getting closer  to Christmas. It won't be Santa, but it will be   someone else's. One more. I got I got to check  with two more people. You're going to respond with  

the There's no more more qualified. You're going  to respond with there's no one more qualified than   myself. You're appoint yourself. Yeah. Do you want  to recess? Let's do a 10-minute recess. Thank you. Let's get started again. 64 on item 12A. Item  12A is consideration to approve the fiscal year   2025 budget amendment resolution 20251118.1.  background information. This amendment is to   account for any significant revenue and  correlating expenses received during the   fiscal year that were not previously amended in  the budget. Staff recommendation through the city   manager's office of the commission approved this  request. Mr. Mayor, yes. I'll entertain a motion.   So move second. Any discussion? Yes. I just want  to point out that uh this is a much much smaller   amount than in previous years. Thank you very  much. That's it. All right. Please call the role.   Commissioner Granger, yes. Commissioner Street,  yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner Lucas,   yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes 5-0.  That is in uh deep appreciation to Miss Waldin,   Miss Perman, and all of our directors  for all their good work on that. So,   thank you. Title to resolution 20251118.1, a  resolution providing for the final amendment of   the approved fiscal year 2425 budget. Item 12B  is consideration to approve budget resolution   2025118.2 to carry forward fiscal year 2025 funds  into fiscal year 2026. As background information,   this resolution is to account for funds that have  been encumbered by purchase orders and have been  

carried forward by the soft closed general ledger  entries to fiscal year 2026 or were not encumbered   by purchase order in 2025 but will be expended  in fiscal year 2026 utilizing funds budgeted   in fiscal year 2025. staff recommendation to  the city manager's office that the commission   approved this request. Mr. Mayor, I will  entertain a motion. A motion to approve.   I do have a question. Second. Good discussion.  Go ahead. Um I So, so I just want to make sure   are these all of our cuz they're not labeled  by projects. So, are these SRF um you know,   HRP? Um I see all these soft closed numbers. This  looks different than what I'm used to seeing. So,   these are not SRF or HRP. Those are those are  capital budgets that would not need to be come   to you for carry forward. Those automatically  will get carried forward when they were they   were already approved when we initially adopted  the the capital budgets. These are annual carry   forwards. and the journal report that you see  are all purchase orders that were encumbered   in 20 fth year or 2025. They're being carried  over into 26 for operational or grant type. So   So then that's going to lead me to my question  on the on so on the soft ledger report it says   $100 million. What like are you saying that we're  carrying forward that? That's why I thought it   was like a projects or something. That's what it  says. Tom here. Come up. Can you come up here,   Samantha? Because it does look like there are  projects. I hope that there's projects. That's   I understand. It's not not on the detailed the  the one that we just approved before. There's So,   you do need to introduce myself. I'm Samantha  Pierman, budget manager. Hi. This is the first  

time y'all have made me talk up here. Um, you're  doing great. The carry forwards for the purchase   orders do include any capital project purchases  because that is an automatic entry into New World   that we do have to get approved that way. However,  the carry forwards that are presented in the   detail do not include the capital amounts. Those  are just for fiscal funds that we budget such as   the general fund, the CRAAS, housing and community  services, utilities, environmental services,   etc. So, so on your journal report, on the  journal entries, it will have capital entries   because those are encumbered purchase orders, but  on the carry forward amounts that we have, those   are not the capital carry for. So, in the general  report, there could be expenses on here that have   already been incurred from the previous year or  the not expenses, but incumbrances. Okay. So,   when you're saying incumbrances, are you talking  about SRF? Um yes, there will be encumbrances for   SRF, HHRP, all of those acronyms. MLK rec center,  you name it. So, yes, those purchase orders have   been carried forward. If there are any funds not  encumbered on a purchase order, those don't show   up on here because those are capital projects  and those funding that funding has already been   approved. So, this funding has been approved, but  it hasn't been expended yet. Correct. Okay. It's   a little different than we've done it previously  and I we don't mean for confusion but it helps   prevent any kind of um issues in the capital  project accounts so that they can be tred up   and in the fiscal year accounts those are funds  that we statutoily have to have approved and have   to have done and within a certain time frame from  the closing of the budget year. Yes. Okay. So then   I'm going to pivot to you Jaden. So, so there's  a there's $100 million worth of in this journal   entries categories. Anything that we should be  drawing attention to in this or is this just  

this is what we're using the revolving credit  line for? The only thing that I have uh made a   note of is that there you're you're increasing  your general fund budget by another $620,550. And that was on the previous action though,  correct? No, the previous budget amendment was   balanced. So, you did not increase or decrease  the general fund budget. Okay. This this uh   carry forward is car car carrying forward expenses  that were encumbered in 2025. They were approved   in 2025, but now we're moving them into 2026,  but there is no corresponding revenue to offset   these expenses. So, now with that question,  then back over to the budget office. So,   so how are we that revenue was already received in  25? Um, is this the property sale? Is this having   to do with that? Is this not with that? The carry  fords that we have in the general fund for 2025   into 2026 deal with our restricted revenues such  as the fire protection services and the building   permits. That's being carried forward because  we have to. Um the 325,000 was a donation from   the CRA that was received into the general fund  but not expended and could could I think so the   reality is we don't really have a choice whether  we approve this or not without going into default   we don't have so so like what no the budget's  balanced always every day every single day could   approve in fiscal year 25 but what Jan what Jan's  communicating is relevant as in we don't have any   new revenue. I what I don't want to see is our  gap get bigger than what it already was. And so   if you guys could just after this I don't need  this right now. Show me where this additional   $600,000 is going to of of increase in the  budget where we are getting that revenue from.  

So that would have been received in 2025. The  um building services restricted revenue carry   forward was received through building permits for  127,000. The 325,000 again was a donation from the   or contribution from the CRA. Um so that's about  450. The insurance reimbursement for the SurfPro   invoices for the 100,000 was received from the  insurance company. So is this changing reserve   numbers when we're talking about Okay. So that's  so so the reality is it's coming from the research   that you just did in the correct financial report.  So that that's that's what I was looking for. or   I was trying to figure out where the money is  coming from. Right. It'll in the general fund,   but it will come technically from the reserve line  in 26 because it was received previously. Money's   coming in on that load of reserve because it's  it's already been account the books are closed   for 2025. So all the all the revenues and expenses  go away start back over at zero in 2026. So this   we have the money. So, it's I'm not it's not going  to hurt us in our reserves cuz the money's we have   the money to pay for pulling it out. Reserves  are still not healthy. I get it. I I know we are,   but we're not we're not going to jump off. But  we're taking this out. To Jan's point, like like   I this is me personally how I'm tracking things.  I'm trying to figure out what our gap is cuz we're   going to walk into next year with a gap. I want to  know so we can get to a realistic picture before   we get into budget season. I don't want to be  sitting with, you know, 2 months to go before   you got to statutoily approve a budget and then  we're trying to figure out how are we balancing   a budget. So, what I since this this was a change,  so that's why I was a little bit confused with my   questions. Um, I do understand now. Um, but if we  could maybe have a recap like in the next week or   two just to kind of get on the same page and so  I can get a new gap number. What's the gap? Well,  

you get a monthly you're giving a monthly report  now that has a gap number in it every you get it   every month, but I I can't remember off the top  of my head what the reserve number was last month.   So, I'm like I'm You have one You have one in this  package today. Oh, okay. Great. Is it reflected in   that in that report? No. This change? No. So,  whatever we see this is in November. This is   October's report. Thank you. I'm always I'm always  behind cuz I I deal in real numbers, not budget   month numbers. Okay. So, so whatever number we see  in reserve, we should be able to take into account   $640,000 and that should come off of what we're  about to see. Thank you. You'll see it next   month. So, is this because of the service delivery  model budget that we're going to get next year,   right? Yeah. Right. Oh, you created this problem.  Remember when we voted when we voted to have the   service delivery? But you're you're right side by  side. It's much It's a much smaller number than   it has been in the past. Much much smaller. Oh,  yeah. I mean, the first one I got was like like   way more than this. Not because of that, because  of the service delivery. I'm just pointing that   out. I'm just going to blame it on you. Yeah, I'm  used to it. So, all right. Sorry for the confusing   questions, but I was confused. So, if I confused  anyone else, I apologize. We do this report is   different than what we've gotten previously.  So, that's why I had some additional questions.   So will this look different under a service  delivery model? I would imagine so. Uh the   budget delivery that we have now is broken  down into line items and accounts that don't   necessarily take into service program models.  So under a program delivery budget, it would   look slightly different and be possibly a little  easier to understand instead of just a lot easier.   In in summary though, this this is reflective  of our our current work program of work that's   being executed around the facil the city. And so  what it is representative of is there's $und00  

million worth of infrastructure work that's going  on across the city and there's a lot of projects   that are being managed um uh to to move our city  forward. So absolutely. So appreciate everybody   and your work. Um I'll be I'll be having further  conversations on our reserve members. Sure. We   got a motion. Thank you. We have a motion in a  second about the service delivery model budget   that we're supposed to get. Didn't have anything  to do with that. They did not. It was a door that   was open. So, did I already motion to approve?  I'll approve. Let's call the role. Thank you.   Commissioner Granger, yes. Commissioner Street,  yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner Lucas,   yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes 5.  Commission has approved not 12 C 12 B 12   B excuse me uh and it is resolution 20251118.2  a resolution providing for the amendment of the   approved fiscal year 2526 budget to budget for  carry forward amounts from fiscal year 25 to 26.   Item 12 C is consideration to approve resolution  2025118.3 authorizing the city of Panama City to   accept state funded grant for school safety  in the project in the amount of $456,323 and approve the accompanying budget amendment  resolution 2025118.4 Four background information   engineering division is requesting approval  of resolution 2251118.3 authorizing the city   to accept state funded grant managed by the  FDOT for planning of the Panama City Schools   uh school safety zone project. This project is for  the design, rightway acquisition, construction and   CI Panama City School Zone Safety Project related  to Bay High School. This project will consist   of constructing the roadway, extension of 12th  Street from Caldwell Drive to Hamilton Avenue,   um connecting Harrison Avenue with uh MLK  Boulevard, and the closure of East 13th Street  

from Magnolia Avenue to Wilson Street, rightway  acquisition will be required. Staff recommendation   to the director of public works is that the  commission approved this request. Mr. Mayor,   I'll entertain a motion. So moved. Second. Any  discussion? Please call the role. Commissioner   Granger, yes. Commissioner Street. Yes. Yes.  Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner Lucas, yes.   Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes 5-0. Commission  has approved resolution number 20251118.3,   a resolution of the city commission of the city  of Panama City authorizing the city to accept the   state funded grant for Panama City School Zone  Safety Project and enter into the agreement.   Item 12D is consideration to approve budget  amendment resolution 2025118.5 for the purchase of   a small street sweeper in the amount of 218,340.  As background information, this unit will be a   multihog CV 350 sweeper stage 5 from Jetback  Equipment Company through Sourcewell contract   listed here. City currently does not have a  street sweeper uh to clean the new Harrison Avenue   streetscapes without causing damage to the pavers.  The sweeper will give us the ability to not only   sweep the pavers, but also has attachments to  clean the pavers, sidewalks, and multi-use paths   around the city. Staff recommendation to the  director of public works is that the commission   approved this request. And I'll just add there  was an additional memo circulated answering some   questions by one of the commissioners uh earlier  this afternoon. Mr. Mayor, yes. I will entertain   a motion. I'll make a motion. Anyone can have  discussion. Second. Okay. Any discussion? Yes. Um, along with the $214,000 investment is going  to come maintenance and gas and insurance   and care. And if there's a if there's an  adaption adapter that can go in this room,   I bet there's an adapter that go one that I that  we have in the one in the department that has one  

person. We do not need this. We can farm it out.  And if there's a if there's a a way to u I think   what we ought to do um is go out and see and  do some comparisons. Not tell me that that the   um that somebody in another department is going  to take care of the maintenance, but this is not   a $215,000 investment. It's a quarter of a million  dollars minimum and it it's it's one of those it's   one of those gifts it's going to keep on giving.  and I want to take care of Harrison Avenue and I   bet you if we go investigate our street sweeper  that we have that I've never seen. Um that I bet   there's an adapt adapter we can put on that maybe  do the same thing or have we investigated that? I   I also brought up concerns of uh should this be  privatized? Um cuz I mean it was last Christmas   I came out to after the parade there was just  candy trash blows the next morning blowing   everywhere and I called John like why isn't the  street sweet ruin as it gets broken and so like   to me there I I do also show the concern of like  adding more equipment to something that we should   be discussing privatization potentially uh and  we haven't had those conversations so I did bring   it up as well. Is there a private company that  does street food? We did receive an email from   someone who was interested in expenses that we  currently have. Yeah. So, I'll I'll I'll support   going out and um and research. I will tell you  just from cuz I got managed parking lots. So,   um it is very difficult to find someone that can  operate on the schedule that you needed to. Um,   but you know, I mean, I say that as in  city hasn't gone out to look at privatized   street sweeping since I don't know, it's been a  couple years since we bought the first one. So,   I I think it's prudent to look at all options. And  so, if we want to table this until that point and   getting those quotes just so that we can see a  comparison, I would be prepared that this is a   specialized piece of equipment. That was part  of the discussion. And even whether we did the  

pavers, should we have done asphalt? Like that  was a big part of it at the very beginning because   there is a different kind of maintenance that  has to be done on Harrison Avenue than a normal   asphalt street. So and there again is my reason  for having the savings account when we're going   to manage something. That vote was made and there  was no there was nothing in the backside to take   care of. So, well, and even for the fairness of  of downtown, it's it's maybe the DIB should be   participating in part of this. If they if they  say, you know, Harrison Avenue is not kept up   to the cleanliness that we want, maybe they should  be discussing purchasing this. If this is the only   use of this equipment is it's Harrison Avenue.  I mean, they're already paying for downtown   landscape doing landscaping. So, I think I think  the first step is go let's go get get a quote so   that we can see some comparison in cost. Um, I  think realistically it it probably privatization   is not going to be cheaper than this, but I  like your idea of like maybe we look at how   this gets shared so that it can be maintained in  that area in that district. So, well, what to me   it's everything we do has to have three bids. Why  not this? We didn't even try and we just weren't   going to drop $215,000. It doesn't make sense to  me. And it's specialized so it can be used on one   road and that that one road is going to continue.  That's That's a different way than I was looking   at it before. When we when we did the original  street sweeper, that was actually through an EPA   penalty. So FD was penalizing us for sewer spills  at that point in time and they let us, hey, storm   water is a big component. And so they allowed us  to do street sweeping as part of that process.   And we get paid by FDOT to do street sweepings.  I don't know if everybody knows that, but they   they pay us to do street sweeping in in house. So  there is money involved in it. But this particular   type of equipment doesn't really from what I've  read I don't know that it it truly affects us. So   I think it's good. We can go look at a look at  price and then bring it back to us next month.  

Yes. And I would draw I would draw our attention  to the caveats here in the background that this   specialized sweeper is needed because our current  sweeper is too big and too powerful for what we   need for the pavers. And so if we're going to go  out to bid or at least get uh some uh some quotes,   if not a formal bid, we need to make sure that the  street sweeper that's proposing can particularly   meet the needs that we have of our specialized. I  would ask the DIB, why don't you guys pay to have   the Harrison Avenue blown off with with blowers?  It probably cost 500 bucks and they could pressure   or pressure wash it. Papers cannot be pressure  washers. I'm talking sidewalk sidewalk. They're   already doing that. And so that's my point. If  if the DIIB and the downtown owners want to have   a higher level of cleanliness, the DIB is the  mechanism to bring that to them in my opinion.   So I agree. Wow. Respectfully, Mr. Mayor, I mean,  the the streets are our responsibility. We're not   going to use this on FDOT. If I may, Mr. Murphy,  they've been doing this research for a year. They   have answers to all your questions right now.  I thought we addressed them in our 101 ons,   but we've already done all of this. We've been  working on this for quite a while. Jonathan,   why don't we why don't we go out and get another  bid so we can see what's going I I I this was done   with a state contract which was already done. So,  the pre-bid for this is already done on the front   end. That's how you're using the state contract.  I I don't have an issue with the purchase way that   you guys are doing the purchase contract. So,  the the Sorthwell, I'm familiar with Sorthwell,   great solution on purchasing equipment. I think  what the question I heard was is there a private   company that will do the entire thing and is there  somebody that realistically and I I commit this to   you guys or that it's going to there may be this  equipment may be so specialized it either has to   be manually done like Allan just suggested or um  maybe there is somebody that has a specialized   piece of equipment. Yeah, for me if they said the  real use of this is the five blocks of Harrison  

Avenue or the four blocks to me that have them  blow it off once a week and the payback of that's   decades from now to get to $215,000 or 18. Yeah,  I we're we're not just talking about blowing it   off. That has to be scrubbed in a certain way and  and we're also using this on sidewalks and tighter   areas so it can be used all around the whole  city uh not just on the pavers and I just want   to clarify that. though. Yes. So, we did do a lot  of research on this. Our current name and title   for the public. Yes. Clint Murphy, your director  of public works. Uh, we did do a lot of research   on this. Our current street sweeper is way too big  and powerful. The, uh, wire brushes that are used   on that piece of equipment. It's too abrasive for  paper applications. There is not a We did research   and there's not an apparatus to retrofit onto that  uh, piece of equipment. So this this is our best   plan moving forward. I'm not familiar with any  contractor locally that has the type of equipment   we need for this. That doesn't mean they can go  out and purchase it, but we're getting it taxfree   through the source well contract. And what we see  with Wastro, for instance, they pay their drivers,   you know, they're paying their drivers 30 bucks  an hour, paying 18. So I fail to see how a private   contractor is going to compete with uh with  the pricing we've got here. So it is our and   again as per Jonathan we we will be using this  on our multi-use paths which are going to be   uh increasing hopefully in the near future.  So there are other applications besides just   downtown. So Clint, when you're when you're doing  your analysis, $30 an hour in 18 that's not all   that's all that's not all that's in there. Are  you are you including the maintenance and the   and the expense, the insurance, the gas, all that  that goes with it into your analysis? Because all  

we're doing is paying $30 an hour under your under  your example to another company. Jump to if your   example is $30 an hour versus 18. If I put all the  all the pieces and parts into what it's going to   take to operate this and own it, we're going to be  $30 an hour as well. So, we're equal then, right?   Well, I was just comparing labor. So, a private  contractor would still have maintenance, fuel,   upkeep as as well, right? So, I think it's worth  giving it a shot. Okay. It's not just one shot,   one buy is is a forever is a forever decision. And  if we can save money, let's look at doing that,   right? Yeah. I mean, I I'd love to know how  many miles of multi-use trail we going to have   and and how much we do have that will be used  and then have the DIB weigh in to see if they   want to participate and if they want to provide  the service to downtown themselves. I I do agree   that the streets are our opinion, but if there's a  there's a clear reason that our traditional street   sweeper won't work on the our fancy nice street  and so to me the DIIB should have the alternative   of saying, "Okay, well, we'll we'll hire someone  to blow it off or sweep it with a push button."   But I I think they should be weighing in on  whatever we're about to spend money on. So,   they have an opinion as well. And Clint, I I think  we may we may end up right back at the same spot.   I think somebody said that there's somebody that  sent something that says, "Hey, we could do this   like that." So maybe that could be something you  guys look at whoever that vendor was and then let   us know um from that point of is there anyone  that could do it and what it would cost. So I   do understand it's very specialized. I'm thinking  through like the prominade around the marina. I'm   thinking about several other things that maybe  there is a larger thing and maybe we just need   to get a better picture of what that looks like.  But um you know well maybe we budget for it. I   it's hard for me to just say hey I'm not going to  go price check with somebody. I mean like that's   just that's really what you're getting from me  is like hey you know if there's somebody that's  

saying that I'd like to maybe go one more time and  check before we you know bite it off. But source   well pricing all those things. No issue. What is  source? What is that? It's a purchasing co-op uh   that that it's a state contract. Okay. It means  we've bought it off a previous other municipality   bid. So, it's already been bid out and that's how  we're buying it. That's why purchasing policy. So,   it's gone through a bidding process and these  companies compete so that they can sell 15 of   these and so it typically drives price down. Yeah.  Does our waiting affect the price? For instance, I   don't know how long the quote's good for. I mean,  we won't be back in time. This is p this will push   it into January because we'll have to go out and  competitively post a request for proposal and that   won't be done in time for the December meeting. So  then we'll end up into January. Is that what you   guys are asking? I just don't know that it'll do  a try to do a price check with whoever the spender   was. What would you guys No, I think I think we  can do that on our own. Man, do what on our own?   It's over $100,000. We'll have to competitively go  out and request it. Yeah, because we're if we go   with the if we go with the the pre- bid with this,  we don't because it's through a state contract,   we don't have to go out for a competitive bid.  But if we want to do a request for proposals,   we'll have to run that through the purchasing  division. If it's under $100,000 from to have   a private company do it, we have to put it out for  RFP. It's not like if if staff believes that it's   going to be over $100,000, we have to go out for  competitive bid. I know this is and I believe it   it will be because it's it's only six blocks we're  asking for and I don't know the frequency at which   uh Mr. Murphy is suggesting. Uh but I would say  we would probably have more success bidding out   our everyday larger street sweeping operation um  that that only has one employee associated with  

it than we would with this. Prior to Hurricane  Michael, we had a contract with a vendor. They   swept every city street. We had a a spreadsheet of  how many times they swept it. They used two street   sweepers. They had a lead in a trail vehicle on  on state highways and it was a big operation. Um,   as as a result of Hurricane Michael, obviously our  streets were impassible for for years for street   sweeping at least. And so DP said, "Hey, look,  as part of your MS4 uh permit that allows you   to operate a storm water system, they said we're  not going to require you to sweep your streets   until you guys get whole." So that that period  has come and gone. We went out uh after once   that that waiver expired and went out and bid did  did this competitive bid process and and and we   did it several times without success. That's our  larger street sweeping the big Elgen truck that   we have. Typically street sweeping operations  have two because they do break down. They're   ingesting nails, debris, like the stuff you  wouldn't imagine goes into those hoppers. Um,   this is we don't we don't envision this as being  that type of of vehicle. This would in our mind   be something that we could push button with  with Clint and Clint could say, "Hey, drop what   you're doing." Get in a little, you know, street  sweeper and go and, you know, address this mess.   This would also allow us to mount the sidewalk  and brush and clean and sweep the sidewalks in   addition to go back and seal it. So, it's a little  bit more um we get a lot more bang for the buck,   if you will, from a a maintenance. It's $36,000  a block. That's what I want to point out,   y'all. $36,000 a block is you just said six blocks  we're trying to take care of. That's that's a lot   of money. Talking specific to Harrison Avenue.  That does not include all multi-use paths. You   could we could use this in St. Andrews. We  could use it in Millville on our downtown   areas. There there are a lot of applications for  this particular Let's go get a price. Yes. Quit  

trying to sell me. Yeah. interest in leasing  if that's an option too. I mean I just Yeah.   Yeah. If it's going to be used mostly on Harrison  Avenue, leasing it four times a year makes sense   if that's available. So do we need a motion or  what do we need? We have a motion and a second   to discuss which is approval. So we need to amend  our motion table. We table it and um you know RFP   Brian, are you okay? Oh, who made the motion?  You did. Yeah, that's what I thought. I'll I'll   I'll amend my motion that make that we What is  it amended to? I'm going to amend it to what? To   that we table this and then and put out an RFP for  anybody that wants to uh give us and the scope of   work and come back when the January meeting with  that and we can make a decision from there. And   and realistically, I acknowledge what you guys  are saying. We may end up right back here. So,   you want an RFP for the service? Yeah. The service  provider? Yes, ma'am. Okay. I'm just going to back   out of this one. I I was fine buying it cuz I I  see a utility of it. Y'all can voting. I mean,   I'm on a 41 vote on this one. I have no problem.  You're withdrawing your second? Yes. I'd like just   a couple. I'd like the DIIB if it's mostly the DI  mostly Harrison Avenue. That's the focus. I'd like   the DIB to Wayne. I agree. I agree. Yeah. Yeah,  I'd rather the funding come from them. I just   know that they don't have a ton. Yeah. I mean,  I I would like them to say, "Oh my gosh, yes,   there's such a need that Harrison Avenue needs to  have this much level of care and focus right now,   and we need to spend this money right now."  That's what I want to hear from them. That motion,   is that direction for staff? Yeah. Who do you  want to hear that from, Mr. Mayor? I'd love uh   I'd love I'd love the I'd love for us to present  this idea to the DIIB at their next meeting and  

have them weigh in on what do they do they want  to help pledge some money to us. Do they think   the city should be spending this kind of money  just on Harrison Avenue or they would like to   handle maintenance of that road? Not not resetting  pavers although I've offered that previously but   uh sweeping of it, blowing of it, that sort of  thing. Yeah, just Harrison Avenue. That's the   Yeah, I mean piece that I see. But I mean that's  what was presented here is this is a Harrison   Avenue piece. We will go out for a proposal. But  like in in my mind as the manager of this city,   if they tell me they don't want to clean it,  like I I don't care that. I don't care what   they say because I have engineers that are in  charge of this telling me it needs to be done.   We have to maintain this $16 million investment  that the city made. That's all I'm saying. So,   so we'll have to go off for the RFP, but like  if the DIB says, "Yeah, we don't worry about it.   Don't do that." I'm like, "Oh my gosh." Like that  makes me really nervous. So, I just want to point   out the change and what what the problem is with  the pavers right now with the street sweep people   will do cuz I don't to me it's just a no different  than blowing it off. That's why you got like Well,   for example, because we have special events, you  get grease. Yeah. Alcoholic beverages. We do.   We handle that. We handle mopets and soap. I've  done it before. Look, man. One of the only ways   the only way we're going to change the culture  of things just showing up and surprising us is   we we're going to this surprised me. Didn't know  it's happened. That's and it's a $200,000 here.   It's $400,000. We can slow our spending down. And  this is one way. Let's question things and let's   I mean, we can spend a million dollars just like  that. Let's try to let's try to slow our role.   There's we may end up here. We may we all may  vote 5, but we didn't give it a shot to try to   save some money. And that's my problem is that  we didn't even try and show up here and tell me   here's here's a here's somebody that we gave  a rep a quote from and here's our number cuz   right now I don't know what our number is other  than $213,000. What's it really going to cost me?  

That's that's the stuff I'd like to know cuz it's  not it's it's more than a $213,000 investment. And   we got to figure out a way to start slowing start  stop spending money like this. And this is the way   just and there's just little little every every  little piece here and there. That's it. $1 here,   $1 there. So, nobody's done anything wrong.  It's just I'd like to know that information. So, do we need to have a motion  to how we move this forward? Mr.   I have a motion to table and put the um  put the item out for RFP for a service   provider. I do not have a second  for that motion. And I also have   um information to direct staff to con contact  DIIB to gauge interest in the purchase of the   equipment or services. Who gave that motion?  The mayor asked for us to contact gave staff   direction to contact DIIB. You made a motion.  I just kind of put some extra language in it to make sense. So when we do the minutes,  we know what we're talking about. We do   have a motion. So this multihog um is not just  a street sweeper, is it? It's it's the uh Well,   we're doing we're asking for the city back,  aren't we? Is this a device that we could also   add other attachments implementation? There's  other options we get at too. Yeah, I see that   there's multiple things that can be added to it.  I mean, I don't know if any of them would have   any utility here. I don't know. I haven't dove  into it that far, but when would this arrive if   we were to move forward? I think the lead time  is 3 months. There's a mower on it. Okay. So,   it wouldn't be here before the Christmas  parade. It's still clean. It's still clean. So, I'd like to just have this conversation  later when we have some more details. So,  

we have a motion. Do we have a second? I do.  I have to pass the actual gavl. Do you have   a second? No, you can second without  passing the g. Well, I can't. Yeah,   you can't. Wait a minute. Don't tell him  that. Okay. Well, then I'll second that   motion. You didn't know that. I'll second.  I will second the motion then. The mayor   seconds the motion. Any discussion? Please  call the role. Commissioner Granger, yes.   Commissioner Street, yes. Commissioner Hughes,  yes. Commissioner Lucas, yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes 5-0. Item  12E is consideration to approve budget budget   amendment resolution number 2025118.6 six for the  purchase of three 16yard dump trucks in the amount   of $429,7990 from fourstar Freightlininer  through Sourcewell contract number 032828-   D AI. Spagron information is units will be 2027  M2106 Freightlininer chassis with 16 cubic yard   dump bodies. The city is also getting a $65,000  trade-in allowance for four older dump trucks.   The dump trucks that are trading in are  in between 17 and 26 years old and are   unable to obtain parts for them. We are  unable to obtain parts for them should   they break down. In addition to hauling  other materials, these trucks will be used   uh as well to support our in-house paving program  once that crew is in operation in in addition to   uh streets and drainage daily operations.  Staff recommendation through the director of   public works is that the commission approve this  request. Mr. Mayor, yes, I will enter a motion. I'll motion to approve. Second. Any  discussion? So, this will be the four   This will be four dump trucks we bought  today. Mhm. You need 40 dump trucks.  

Yes. Yes. Okay. We can rent them for $8 $800 a  day. That's a lot of That's a lot of $500,000. Are we Are we currently leasing  dump trucks? No. Need to buy them.   So these are 17 between 17 and 26 years old.  Yes. So So I mean from our replace I I'm   kind of curious as why these were already on our  replacement schedule. I mean that's I don't have   the answer to that particular question but I do  know I mean these are used I mean they're 17 to 26   years. I mean they have holes in them that have to  be patched period. Clint Murphy director of public   works. We really, I mean, after Hurricane Michael,  we kind of got got away with our program. So,   we're just kind of trying to recover from that.  So, the trucks that we currently have, I mean,   we can't even get replacement parts for  them. So, these are desperately needed. So,   you're saying that we have dump trucks that are  16 years old and older? 17. Get it right. Yeah.   17 years. So, we get the lifespan here. Let's  just conservative. ly 10 years for $429,799. Your price, even if we did it, you know, 260 days  out of the year, that's 28,000 a year just to rent   or lease based on what you were what you were  suggesting. And I think the lifespan of these   trucks warrants the uh the price that we have  here. So, I I think Robbie, you're asking like   what's the difference between this and the other  one? I mean, dump trucks are a utility. I mean,   there's there's multiple things that'll be used  for a dump truck. We need dump trucks. Yeah. I'm   not worried about that. Just again, are we looking  other ways before we start spending? Yes. It's got   a lot of cool attachments. And I had a question.  What is the environmental services reserve fund?  

What is that? Trash. Solid waste. Solid waste.  Now, I do want to caution cuz I do see multiple   things on our agenda that are using that specific  fund. Yeah. Um, I don't like I think you know,   hey guys, we just made a made a change to  your overall budget and those things. So,   I don't know if there's further capital projects  you guys are trying to pull out of that fund. If   you could give us in advance what you're thinking  about. So, before we get to an actual acquisition,   that would be good. So, we can do that. But  I think this is really it. These I mean,   because we run these things six, seven  days a week and across our division. Yes,   that's correct. And I'm in favor of giving our  staff what they need to do the best job that   they can do. And hampered by outdated, you know,  it may work today, it may not work tomorrow is   frustrating. Uh so if we're expecting the best  from our staff, we need to give them what they   need. So I support it. Thank you. One of the other  advantages, as y'all deliberate, to you know,   to controlling more of our destiny is, you know,  we get messages from all of y'all in the public,   you know, 24/7. And when we control more of it,  you know, myself and Mr. Murphy can say, "Hey,   stop what you're doing right now and go take care  of this problem that's happened." If we're relying   at times on outside folks, they might not be able  to get to us. And that that's always a challenge.   And and when they do, it'll cost us more.  Sorry. What, ma'am? And when they do get to us,   it'll cost us more. Yes, ma'am. Especially at  nights and on the weekends. All right. We have   a motion and a second. Please call the role.  Commissioner Granger. Yes. Commissioner Street?   Yes. Commissioner Hughes? Yes. Commissioner  Lucas. Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes. Motion passes   5-0. Uh Mr. Mayor, I'd like to backtrack  just a second. Okay. Uh we had adopted a   resolution concerning the school zone safety  grant. We adopted two resolutions and I forgot  

to read one of them and I'd like to read that  title and it's resolution number 2025118.4. a resolution providing for the amendment of  the approved fiscal year budget to accept and   expend funding from FDOT and provide the local  match for the planning of Panama City School   Zone Safety Project. So, we approved the grant  and now we amended our budget. Thank you. You   need to read this one, too. And the one that I'd  like to read now is uh budget resolution 2025118.5 or res. That's what I u that's what I meant to  say is 6 and that resolution title is a resolution   providing for the amendment of the approved fiscal  year 2526 budget to utilize environmental service   reserve funds for the purchase of three dump  trucks. Item 12F is consideration to approve   the task order from Dubberry Engineers team  with half Associates and Magnum Engineering to   provide engineering design services for the post  arbitration approved 351 FEMA road segments and to   approve budget amendment resolution 2025118.7 in  the amount of 256,500. As background information,   at the October 28th city commission meeting,  the commission approved evaluation panel's   recommendation of the above specified engineering  firms to provide engineering design services   for the FEMA roads projects, authorizing city  staff to enter to negotiations on a task order   for their professional services. Of the 351  post arbitration approved FEMA road segments,   64 have already either been repaired or  currently being repaired or about to be   repaired as part of the city's multiple other  infrastructure projects. This leaves 287 road   segments that will be addressed under this task  order. 285 which will be milled and overlaid   with the remaining two segments being fully  reconstructed. The services to be provided   under this task order include geotechnical  borings at each of the roadway segments,  

limited survey data as needed at the two full  reconstruction segments and initial engineering   analysis of the results of the geotechnical  borings, the roadway conditions and the survey   data. After the initial engineering analysis is  complete, additional task order will be provided   at that time to provide final designs as well  as construction and bid documents. The fees   for all of the firms involved in this project are  included in this task order. Staff recommendation   to the director of public works uh is that the  commission approve this request and I'll just   note that this is all 100% FEMA reimburseable.  Mr. Mayor, yes, I will entertain a motion. So   move. Second. Any discussion? Call the role.  Commissioner Granger, yes. Commissioner Street,   yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner  Lucas, yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes 5-0. Resolution 20251118.7, a resolution  providing for the budgeting of capital funds.   Item 12G is related and is consideration to  approve a task order from Dubberry Engineers   teamed with half Associates in Magum Engineering  to provide engineering design services for the 274   hurricane recovery road segments in the amount  of $277,500. At the October 28th uh 2025 city   commission meeting, the commission approved the  evaluation panel's recommendation of the above   specified engineering firms to provide engineering  design services for the FEMA roads project and   authorized city staff to enter into negotiations  on a task order for their professional services.   The city's original request to FEMA was to repair  roads that experienced a PCI loss of seven points   or greater between the 2018 prehurricane  Michael transmap report and the 2020 post   Hurricane Michael transmap report. A total of 675  road segments. Following the arbitration process,   only road segments that had a PCI score of 56 and  above before the hurricane and that experienced a  

PCI loss of 10 or greater were eligible for  FEMA PA funding. The design for the roadway   segment repairs under this task order would  be for the road segments not captured by the   FEMA roads project. Of the 675 original road  segments, 351 were deemed eligible for repair   following the arbitration process, leaving 324  damaged road segments remaining. Of those 324   remaining segments, approximately 50 segments will  have already been repaired or are currently being   repaired or about to be repaired as part of the  city's multiple other infrastructure projects.   This leaves 274 road segments that will be  addressed under this task order. 271 which will be   mil and overlaid with the remaining three segments  being fully reconstructed. Services to be provided   under this task order include geotechnical borings  at each of the roadway segments, limited survey   data needed at the three full redep reconstruction  segments and initial engineering analysis of the   results of the geotechnical borings, the roadway  conditions and the survey data. After the initial   engineering analysis is completed, an additional  task order will be provided at that time to   provide final designs, construction documents,  and bid documents. The fees for all the firms   involved in the project are included within  this task order. Staff recommendation through   the director of public works uh is that the  commission approve this request knowing that   the funding will come from the infrastructure tax  funds. Mr. Mayor, I will entertain a motion to   accept. Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion?  Please call the role. Commissioner Granger, yes.   Commissioner Street, yes. Commissioner Hughes,  yes. Commissioner Lucas, yes. Mayor Branch,   yes. Motion passes 5-0. All right. Item number 12  is discussion of the uh public private partnership   uh plan process and other options moving forward  with city-owned property at 1300 1306 Beck Avenue   uh which totals just over 1 acre total uh at the  end of 2024. No, wait. Early part of 2024, I was  

uh provided a memo to the commission to uh sell  a number of properties as part of a long-term uh   strategy in St. Andrews to enhance and increase  parking and selling of these uh two parcels was   part of that. Uh at a recent commission meeting  um y'all voted to reject uh all offers for this   and to uh withdraw the authorization that I had  to sell this property and expressed an interest   from the dis about uh potentially moving forward  with a more of a P3 approach and strategy which   had previously been um uh executed and attempted.  So, I just would like direction tonight uh from   the commission on how y'all would like to move  forward so staff can start making preparations   for this and hopefully hit the ground running  at the beginning of 2026. Mr. Mayor, yeah,   I I this is such a important piece of property  in in Sir Andrews in my opinion and and we have   uh amazing visioning documents by Dover Cole. I'd  love to see us create the best uh P3 documents   that bring clarity and excitement uh to anyone  who's interested. I'd love to see us work with   uh neighborhood revolution or evolution. I can't  remember which one it is. Very affordable group   that can look at our plans, give us multiple  different concepts within a couple days.   uh that can that that will keep us from having  the sort of debates of people look to buy the   property. Uh they'll understand what the city  would love to see. Uh we can talk about incentives   to get us there. Um I would add I I fully agree.  I would add that the one missing component on the   um the lot layout that could make this u  much more developable than what it is is   the the remaining piece. I think we've got  the ability to exercise through a continuing   services contract that we just approved. Will  height? Yep. Will height and approach them uh   seeing what that purchase price would be to  square up bottom right corner. None of you   want to be in the deal though. I don't know.  That's what I keep hearing. I don't know. It'  

be a great opportunity to use our continuing  services contracts for real estate agents to to turn them loose and see if we can get it  squared up. Sure. Yeah. I' I' I'd like to   add that the idea of hiring someone isn't to give  someone a design. It's to get a better product and   of a building that aligns with our plans. And they  should be excited because we basically are like,   "Here's what we want. We can get you these  entitlements quickly. It's already ready   to go." Uh and align these the visioning  documents that Denver call came up with. Yeah. I think as we go through these and we look  at these lots just from a longer term perspective,   you know, I was thinking when we talked about  the dump truck just a little bit ago, you know,   um because we have access to equipment because  we have access to these things, we could help   incentivize certain things moving forward by just  participating. Maybe maybe we go and pick up the   dirt that's on a low-lying lot that we need to  kind of get it graded so that it's ready to build.   um in this scenario maybe we're the ones  that take on the complexity working with   to to assemble the the thing which I think  has been been one of yours is cities can be   very strategic in incentivizing the right kind of  development and I do agree this is this is Beck   um Avenue it's right on the frontage um you know  I really probably not like to see a parking lot   as the as the main frontage on Beck Avenue  I think we got enough parking lots along the   the Beck Avenue frontage. Um some kind of liner  building, but working with Neighborhood Evolution,   I think is a great idea. Um I got introduced to  those guys just a little bit ago and um they're   very creative and they're doing this around the  country and um so if their price is affordable,   that would be a good solution. They're an offshoot  of Neighbor Mountain Development Alliance. What's  

the name again? Uh Neighborhood Evolution.  Evolution. Neighborhood Evolution. Yeah, there's   actually a viral video of one of the founders  uh going through Instagram. He's got millions   of views where he took a old Kmart and divided it  up and made it into incubator. And I saw that took   Yeah, that's it's been sent to me like 500 times  by people. Our old Kmart is a storage. Mhm. Mhm.   But nice. It's the fastest garage door I've ever  seen. So, do we need to have a mot a motion to   move forward? I guess we do. Yeah. I mean I this  is a wonderful conversation but I would like some   direction. I I do want to just add for for the  public's benefit and for the elected officials   because there was some comments made about you  know prior purchasing. So after we went out you   know for purchasing these both Commissioner Street  and I got I would say rushed by a large group of   people in St. Andrews that expressed grave  concern with not allowing to happen in St.   Andrews, what has happened in downtown Panama City  where people purchase property and just sit on   it for years on end without any improvements. And  there was, I believe, legitimate concern that that   could happen in St. Andrews. Uh, and then when we  had folks expressed an interest in purchasing it,   they wanted to do a parking lot. And again,  we were surprised at that because, you know,   this is prime commercial real estate right on Beck  Avenue and a parking lot is not necessarily the   highest and best use. So, the question was the  zoning would allow it. Um, but you know, okay,   if y'all do that, then please make it look nice  because if we're just going to keep it vacant   with grass and gravel, then I could have just kept  that as a city and had our guys mow it, you know,   uh, you know, once a month. And so, a reasonable  expectation was put forth that if you do want   to do a parking lot, then it needs to follow the  example that the city set with the three parking  

lots on the uh the west side of Beck Avenue. So,  just a little bit of history on that um you know   uh to where we are today. But no, I I would um you  know, I would like some some direction if you'd   like us to go and and create some ideas. I guess  you know, if you're getting something specific   from I mean, if are we are we going to sell it  and say we'll only sell it to you if you're going   to do AB and C or something like ABC? Uh I don't  know if that's what you guys want. Yeah. I mean,   I think the neighborhood evolution had creating  somebody that it that has done like this kind   of element um could create a framework rather  than us just trying to take a stab in the dark,   which is what happened on the previous P3. I mean,  it was like, hey, here's property. Tell us what   you want to do with it. That kind of thing. And  um ultimately there were two very good ideas that   were presented inside of those two proposals,  but there was no financing and no ability to   finance in either one of those proposals. And  that's another one developed for the chair. So that's why that's why that one fell apart.  But I think I think you know giving you guys   some tools and somebody to work alongside to kind  of create those parameters that would help us and   I think help the staff too. I I think reaching out  to the group and asking them to even help us write   better P3s in general, not just with this one, but  someone who's teaching us best practices of P3s.   Um, and so I would ask the staff to go out and get  a bid of what does it cost that group for us to to   to write better P3s because we're not getting  them done. We put out P3s and no one responds,   right? So, we want what the goal is to have P3s  and then a ton of people who are qualified are   super excited, beating our doors down to  do it. And so, I'd like to see this group   improve our P3s, not just in this one, teach  us some P3 best practices, and then what the   cost would be to whatever they think visually  would be needed to make this a great P3. So,  

I just would like to see this cost and come back  to us. So, I'll make a motion to um enlist uh   um bring a spec cost on um neighborhood evolution  um for creating P3 processes and helping us   um create better end products. But I would  also add um enlisting an agent to try and   engage on that smaller piece of the parcel so  that we can square this one up and hopefully   get this thing across the finish line and  see something really good happen with it.   Second. Any discussion? Please call the role.  Commissioner Granger, yes. Commissioner Street,   yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner Lucas,  yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes 5. Motion to second. Hugh. Commissioner Granger. Yes. Commissioner  Street. Yes. Commissioner Hughes. Yes.   Commissioner Lucas. Yes. Mayor Branch. Motion.  Motion passes. 5 Z. I'm going say no one.