[3:52] Is my mic on? There we go. Welcome to the Panama City Commission for August 25th. We're going to

[3:57] start out with an opening prayer with Reverend Randy John, pastor of Heritage Bible Church,

[4:03] followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Brian Granger. Please rise.

[4:10] Good afternoon everyone. Let's pray. Actually, I was just noticing that threem minute timer. It's

[4:14] good thing my church doesn't have one of those when I'm preaching. Yeah, making me nervous.

[4:19] All right, let's pray. Father, we come before you with grateful hearts for all that you have

[4:25] done. And Lord, we are reminded of your words in Psalm 117:E2 that great is your love for us

[4:33] and the faithfulness of the Lord endures forever. Lord, we consider those principles as we pray this

[4:38] this afternoon for the uh for the commission for the things that need to happen. We recognize that

[4:44] government government was intended by you that it was ordained by you and that its purpose was to

[4:50] administer justice and order and protection. And so I pray for your wisdom this morning

[4:56] uh this afternoon Lord for each and every person here for the decisions that need to be made for

[5:03] the things that need to be considered. Uh Lord we just ask that you would grant your wisdom and

[5:10] your favor in all things and that all of this would recog would ultimately recognize your

[5:16] sovereignty over the affairs of humankind. And we are reminded, Lord, that wisdom comes from you.

[5:25] And so we ask for that in Jesus' name. Amen. Amen. Thank God. You'll join me in the pledge

[5:31] of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic

[5:39] for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[5:52] Please call the role. Mayor Branch present. Commissioner Street here. Commissioner Hughes

[5:58] here. Commissioner Lucas will not be joining tonight. Commissioner Granger, present. Mayor, you

[6:04] have a quorum. You've received the meeting minutes from August 11th. Do I have a motion to approve?

[6:11] Second. Any discussion? Please call the role. Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner Hughes.

[6:15] Yes. Commissioner Granger. Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes. Motion passes four to zero. Any additions,

[6:22] deletions, or modifications? Yes, sir. Staff has a couple. Uh, so item six, Bravo, uh, the first

[6:28] and only public hearing for a proposed gateway overlay. Staff requested that be removed and

[6:33] tabled until September 22nd. And then item 7A, the second and final two public hearings uh regarding

[6:42] uh zoning designation of heavy industrial as well as item 10A regarding discussion of the city clerk

[6:48] treasurer positions uh recommend that item uh 7A and 10A be uh stricken uh without a date to

[6:56] return. Okay. So removal of 6B, 7A and 7 and 10 10 A 10. However, I want to clarify. Six Bravo has

[7:05] the date certain to return September 22nd 10, but only six Bravo. Okay. Six. Okay. What was the date

[7:13] on that? Uh September 22nd meeting. Did you catch all that? That was a lot. Let's go. All right.

[7:20] I'll try again. 6B, 7, and 10. You correct. We're moving 6B, 7 A, and 10 A. However, 6B has a date

[7:28] certain to return of 9:22. The other two does not. And you're strike. You want to strike the

[7:37] which item was that? We're striking 6B and 7A and 10A and 10. 10 A, but 6B is going to be coming

[7:46] back September 22nd. I will make a motion that we move item 6B to September 22nd and that we strike

[7:54] uh 7A and 10A from this meeting. Correct. Second. Second. Discussion. Please call the RO.

[8:01] Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner Granger, yes. Mayor Branch,

[8:06] yes. Motion passes 4 to zero. All right. Uh, registration for the 2026 Youth Basketball League

[8:15] has been extended through August 31st. Practices begin in early September and games start later in

[8:21] the month. So, now is a great time to sign up. Scholarships are still available. For details,

[8:26] please visit the front desk at the MLK Junior Rec Center. You can register by scanning the

[8:31] QR code on the screen or by visiting the MLK Junior Rec Center page at panama city.gov.

[8:38] The 2026 Panama City Christmas Parade will be held Saturday, December 5th,

[8:42] at 6:00 p.m. in downtown Panama City, featuring this year's theme, Christmas Movies. Registration

[8:49] to participate in the parade opens September 1st, next Tuesday. Those interested in joining

[8:54] the parade can visit panalcity.gov gov for registration details, the application link,

[8:59] and more. All city offices will be closed in observance of Labor Day on Monday, September

[9:05] 7th. Normal garbage collection, the blue cans, will continue that day, and then regular office

[9:10] operations for the city, will resume on Tuesday, September 8th. Due to the Labor Day holiday,

[9:16] the September town hall and Monday morning with the manager dates will be rescheduled.

[9:21] The town hall, typically held the first Saturday of the month, will take place now on Saturday,

[9:26] September 12th. Monday morning with the manager, normally held on the first Monday of the month,

[9:30] will be moved to Monday, September 14th. All times and locations remain unchanged. Budget hearings

[9:37] for fiscal year 2027 will be held on September 8th and September 22nd, 2026 at 5:01 p.m. uh central

[9:46] time here at the Bay County Government Center. Residents are encouraged to provide feedback and

[9:51] may attend in person or watch the live stream online on our website. On September 11th, 2026

[9:59] at 8:30 a.m., the city of Panama City will host a solemn 25th anniversary 911 memorial ceremony at

[10:06] the Panama City Marina. Held in partnership with Bay County, the Bay County Sheriff's Office, and

[10:11] Tendle Air Force Base. Their ceremony will honor the nearly 3,000 lives lost on September 11th,

[10:17] 2001, along with ceremonial tributes, including a presentation of colors, a moment of silence,

[10:24] bell tolling, and a 21 gun salute. We invite you to join us as we come together to remember,

[10:30] to honor, and to reflect. Business tax receipt renewals are now open for all

[10:36] businesses operating within the city of Panama City, including storefronts, homebased businesses,

[10:41] food trucks, and short-term rentals. Renewals are due by September 30th to avoid any late penalties

[10:46] and potential code compliance action. Renewal notices are mailed each summer,

[10:51] and businesses are encouraged to renew early. For more information or to renew, visit the business

[10:57] services page at panalcity.gov gov or contact the business services division at 850691-4603.

[11:07] Panama City voters will have the opportunity to consider three proposed charter amendments

[11:12] during the November 3rd, 2026 general election. The proposed amendments address

[11:16] the city's government structure and elections, the administrative and operational provisions,

[11:22] and updates to modernize the city charter and to maintain compliance with applicable state laws.

[11:28] We have provided information and reference materials on our website at panalcity.gov to

[11:33] help voters review the proposed changes and understand the questions that were appeal

[11:38] appear on the ballot. All right. Uh, moving into public hearings, mayor, commissioners,

[11:45] item 6A is the first and only public hearing on the approval of the proposed developer agreement

[11:51] with Zachary Seymour for a property located at 101 East 7th Street with partial ID 200075-0000-00.

[12:02] as background information. Uh, enclosing your packet is the proposed developers

[12:06] agreement which outlines the terms between Zachary Seymour, the developer, the city of Panama City,

[12:12] Florida, and the city of Panama City's Community Redevelopment Agency regarding the purchase and

[12:17] renovation of the historic property at 101 East 7th Street in Panama City, known to locals as the

[12:24] Panama City Grammar School. The developer intends to purchase and redevelop the historic Panama

[12:29] City Grammar School property, which has been in disrepair since Hurricane Michael, and transform

[12:34] it into apartments and town homes to increase the tax base and to preserve its historic value.

[12:40] The agreement requires that after closing, the developer must promptly repair critical

[12:45] elements of the historic building such as the roof, the windows and doors,

[12:50] bringing the property into compliance with city codes and the code enforcement order

[12:56] and requiring completion of these mitigation efforts within one year of closing or the

[13:00] issuance of the permits, whichever is later. A key provision of the agreement is to help

[13:06] provide financial assistance to encourage the development. According to resolution 2020623.3,

[13:14] specifically section 32, settlement of leans on page 22 of the policy and procedures for

[13:20] code enforcement. The city manager has the authority to settle a lean if it is in the

[13:25] best interest of the city to help a respondent of a code enforcement order sell the property

[13:30] to another responsible purchaser or to promote the economy in general. The agreement provides

[13:36] that the city manager will wave the current incurred in fines totaling approximately $374,750

[13:44] and0 in exchange for a promisary note that will be forgiven after the developer complies with

[13:50] the agreement. Without this financial assistance, it is unlikely that the developer could proceed

[13:55] with the project. The agreement further allows a developer to apply for any CRA or other grants

[14:00] available and promises an award of $100,000 under the current CRA grant programs. Note that this

[14:07] agreement will have to be approved by the CRA board. The following documents are enclosed in

[14:13] your agenda packet. The developer agreement, the location map, the proposed conceptual schematics

[14:18] of the future project, and the promisary note. Uh staff recommendation through the director of

[14:24] development services that the city commission conduct the first and only public hearing and

[14:28] approve the agreement. Mr. Mayor, this is a public hearing. If you wish to speak about item 6A,

[14:34] please come forward. Anyone want to speak about item 6A? Seeing none, I'm opposing public

[14:41] comments. I will entertain a motion. Um motion to approve uh with the caveat that if the work

[14:48] is not complete within one year comes back to the commission for discussion. I'll second just so we

[14:55] can talk. Okay. Discussion. Let's go first. You'll have it. Well, now I thought we made some changes

[15:04] to what was read and on what Jonathan read. We changed the timeline to a year without the on the

[15:14] on the permits being initiated. There's a a way when you got to issue that, right? Change that.

[15:22] What what we talked Let me give some background for the commission. Okay. Is that okay? Yes,

[15:27] please. So, Commissioner Hughes uh did review it, had some comments, some questions. I reached

[15:34] out to uh um Dee Rowan, the attorney for Zachary Seymour, and uh we discussed those. Would you like

[15:43] me to talk about what you and I had talked about? Okay. So, one comment that Commissioner Hughes had

[15:50] was uh concerning the uh timeline and just making sure it was clear who had to do what and that it

[15:58] really was a year and it wasn't two years. Um so as as always when you look at things we can reward

[16:06] it and so we rewarded it in a way where first it says that the project has to be completed within

[16:15] um one year. Now in this agreement there was specific provisions that said that um for example

[16:23] when the site plan review was submitted the city had 20 days to review it and u and some I think

[16:32] there may have been one other day period u in that also our code has provisions that once you have a

[16:39] completed application the city is to review it and uh and and process it. So, we added a section that

[16:48] says that in the event um when I say we added it, I added it after talking to Commissioner Hughes

[16:56] and uh Ms. Rowan, in the event the developer files a complete application is required above and and

[17:04] if the city exceeds a time periods for the city's reviews, then the mitigation period of one year

[17:12] shall be extended by the numbers of number of days in excess of the reviewed period. For example, if

[17:19] the developer submits a completed application for a site plan and the city takes 25 days to respond

[17:27] rather than the 20, then the mitigation period is extended by 5 days and that was acceptable to uh

[17:34] Miss Rohan and I believe that that was consistent with the comments that Commissioner Hughes had

[17:41] made on that topic. Yes. So, so Michael, your your department has to make sure they hit the

[17:46] timelines and I wanted the city to have something that they had to do because we're asking the buyer

[17:52] to do something as well. So, we all need to we all need to work together in that and it

[17:56] keeps it moving along. So if if um taking uh the comment or the the motion where it would come back

[18:05] certainly it would come back if we're and and we and that is part of the the emotion it would come

[18:11] back if we're in violation or if the developer is in violation. Would you like me to talk about the

[18:17] um um other grant? We struck a sentence about being able to apply for other grants. Okay.

[18:25] There is a there was a sentence the developer may also apply for any other applicable grants

[18:30] available in the CRA district where the development is located in CRA agrees that if

[18:35] the criteria are met the developer shall receive the maximum award available. So rather than say

[18:43] um say that statement that the developer may apply we uh Commissioner Hughes thought why not

[18:51] just strike it because they can always apply. it is kind of redundant and Miss Rowan said that that

[18:58] would be acceptable to her client. Then we also added uh that in that same section that further

[19:07] the CRA agrees that the developer has applied for a redevelopment site preparation grant. Now

[19:15] that is attached that application will be attached to your agenda for next week because it has been

[19:22] submitted now and that hadn't been submitted a week ago when this was prepared. So it says that

[19:28] the developer has applied for redevelopment site preparation grant and the CRA agrees that such

[19:36] application meets the existing uh criteria for an RSSP grant award and the developer shall receive

[19:46] uh a minimum of $100,000 toward the development provided. However, nothing herein shall obligate

[19:53] the CRA or the city to award an amount greater than $100,000 pursuant to the RSP grant. Now,

[20:01] that sentence Commissioner Hughes did not did did not u did not agree with and so that's why I

[20:09] haven't passed anything out because we didn't have anything to really but that was also uh talked

[20:15] about. So those were the the anyway commissioner those are the things that we talked about. I

[20:20] just wanted to let you know we talked about Okay. Thank you. And the applicant's representation has

[20:25] approved those changes. They're cool with them. They're you can the changes I think the question

[20:32] is is the applicant okay with the changes that are read? Well, DD is coming up. My my request

[20:38] for just coming back in a year was just really more for an update to ensure that we're following

[20:42] the timeline. That's it. Cool. though. Yes, ma'am. It doesn't change the contract. Good afternoon.

[20:48] My name is Dee Row and I'm here on behalf of the developer, Zach Seymour. Um the changes that Nevin

[20:55] um and I discussed throughout the day. Yes. Uh the one uh last change that I had um asked for a

[21:01] little tweak on um was the way it was presented, I don't know, an hour and a half, two hours ago, was

[21:06] that the award shall be $100,000. And I did not want to box my client into only getting a thous or

[21:14] $100,000 because in his site um redevelopment site application, the site preparation cost that he has

[21:23] provided so far is $1.1 million. And the way that your grant application reads is that the developer

[21:29] can get I think that the award will generally be $100,000 unless there's exceptional community

[21:35] benefit. Now, you all still might stick to the $100,000 depending on what's in the budget, but

[21:40] based on the 20% of the site preparation cost, he would be at $220,000. So, you guys can still stick

[21:47] to the 100,000, but I didn't want to limit him to an agreement that said shall. So, other than that,

[21:52] I'm fine with all the changes. Um, we went back and forth with several different iterations.

[21:57] It's just that that one little piece. May versus shall. No. Uh, let's let me read that one sentence

[22:04] and see if um I know Commissioner Hughes disagreed with the way or it didn't come out exactly what he

[22:11] was thinking, but let me read it to you. The last sentence that we're talking about here is that

[22:17] the CRA agrees that the developer has applied for redevelopment site preparation grant and the CRA

[22:23] agrees that such application meets the existing criteria for an RSCP grant award. So, so far

[22:31] I think we're all in pretty much agreement. And then it says, "And the developer shall receive,

[22:37] and you requested, a minimum of $100,000 towards the development." And then I added, "Provided,

[22:45] however, nothing herein shall obligate the CRA or the city to award an amount greater than $100,000

[22:53] pursuant to the RSCP grant application. Is that acceptable?" Yes, that's fine. I think the version

[23:00] I saw before that it had the developer shall receive $100,000 and that's when I had asked

[23:05] for the minimum of $100,000 language. There's just been some last minute revisions back and forth and

[23:11] um I think that's why we weren't ready to present it to the full commission today. Then we we also

[23:16] I'm up for bringing it back. Bring it back. Most there's three players in this. A buyer,

[23:23] CRA, and the city. And what we're doing today is trying to get something done and then it has

[23:29] to go to the CRA. They're the final approval. I don't It bothers me that we're everybody in here

[23:38] that has something in the CRA can apply for this brand. We're not going to spell out what they're

[23:43] going to get. they're going to apply follow the criteria, but for whatever reason, we're spelling

[23:48] out what that what this applicant can receive that's already in writing and approved. Um,

[23:55] and it's what's going to happen is somebody reads it, going to see $100,000. I'm going to see all

[24:00] the other parts of it and then we're going to line up. It ain't$100, I need 100. That's my

[24:05] concern. If they all have properties that are in this disrepair that are on Harrison Avenue,

[24:11] then let them line up. Well, I get it. I get it. But they he there's no special there's no special

[24:17] uh favor given this guy. Everybody that has property, not CRA, qualifies for this to make

[24:24] an application under this demo grant. Y is that that's correct? Right. Yes. I don't have any

[24:30] objections with any other changes. Anyone else have I don't I mean I I had two quick comments I

[24:37] I hadn't gotten through. Um we know they're quick. Oh, they'll be I'll try to You had a comment,

[24:44] Commissioner Hughes, about impact fees, and so this was changed. It says, "The city agrees to

[24:48] work with the developer in good faith to identify rebate or refund opportunities

[24:52] for impact fees." And then it was added provided such opportunity is available to other similar

[24:59] projects. So no objection to that being treated like everybody else. And then finally to to the

[25:05] point that Commissioner Hughes had made that people we need to make it clear or not that it's

[25:11] not clear but make the point that all that there are three parties and so we added a sentence at

[25:17] the end that just says this agreement shall not be effective unless until it is executed by all

[25:22] parties CRA city commission and the applicant. So, what I'm what I'm hearing is that we're basically

[25:29] saying that yes, we're willing to do an award of at least $100,000, but the applicant may may

[25:35] put in and request more because of the math of the program that we're running under the CRA. So, it's

[25:42] not that this this applicant is receiving anything outside of the the the current program that we're

[25:47] we're running in the CRA um other than just a a guarantee that they'll get at least $100,000.

[25:55] I don't find that in I'm okay with that. I'm told that it is um everybody has an opportunity and

[26:02] we're just restating it or is it and making it a guarantee? Well, as long as you meet the criteria,

[26:08] it's a guarantee, right? Is that your motion? You want It's not my motion. It's his motion.

[26:13] You know, I I think the the only thing I'll add is regardless of what the language says or isn't,

[26:18] even if we were committing $100,000 to save a historic building, I think that's

[26:22] far exceeding the value of what this developer is is committing to do over the next year. So,

[26:29] I wish Mr. Seymour a fantastic um venture. Uh we're rooting for you. The community is rooting

[26:36] for you. Uh we're glad to have your investment in the community. And so, um, just thank you for

[26:42] picking up where somebody couldn't get it across the finish line. So, um, appreciate you picking

[26:46] up the ball. And let me say, I want this project to happen. My job as long as all all of ours is

[26:52] to protect the city. And what matters is what's inside the four corners of that contract. And all

[26:57] I'm trying to do is tighten it up so we don't have any issues coming back. That's all my goal is,

[27:02] not to kill it, not to make it go away. So, and he hired a good lawyer to make sure that happens. So,

[27:07] thank you. Yeah. New motion. Were you are you okay with the changes that I highlighted? That's what

[27:15] you presented originally. Plus, you wanted a year update things that I spelled. Yeah. As long as to

[27:21] me there were tweaks to what was here's and my my hope is city is quick about getting permits,

[27:27] developers quick about getting a roof and windows and all those things on. And the next update a

[27:31] year from now is just, hey, look how amazing it looks and they're on to their project. That's

[27:36] really what my hope is. Um, I just don't want to get down a process that we're dealing with

[27:41] something 8 years after the aftermath and we're still trying to deal with it. So,

[27:46] um, with that, I'll amend to include the changes presented by the city attorney and,

[27:50] uh, add the addition of just, um, bringing it back to us a year from now for an update. Perfect.

[27:55] I have a second. Second. Any discussion? I I'll just add that, uh, Mr. Fuller and Mr. Massie have

[28:01] already started doing some preliminary paperwork in anticipation of the closing, so we are teed up

[28:06] and ready to rock and roll. Love it. All right. Yeah. The closing is scheduled for September 9th.

[28:10] Hopefully, we can bring it in for a landing on that date. This will be back next week. Yes. And

[28:16] we'll be back before the CRA, you'll have the full application that shows what the site plans are and

[28:21] site cost and those those items. Please express to um to your client that when they get their plans

[28:26] and everything else together, we would love to be a part of just announcing to the community what

[28:31] exactly is happening with this historic property. Sure. Absolutely. Thank you all. Thank you.

[28:36] Please call the role. Commissioner Street, yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner Granger,

[28:41] yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes 4 to zero. Item 6B was tabled to September 22nd, moving

[28:48] into item 6 C, which is the first of two public hearings on ordinance number 3314, an ordinance

[28:54] amending ordinance 3305 regarding the Panama City North Community Development District to

[28:59] correct a scrier's error in the legal description. background information. SE Land Development LLC on

[29:06] behalf of the property owner petitioned the city to establish a community development district or

[29:10] a CDD pursuant to chapter 190 of Florida statutes. Ordinance 3305 was adopted by the city commission

[29:16] on June 9th of last year. Ordinance number 3314 is now proposed to correct a scrier's error in

[29:22] the legal description. The CDD encompasses the 12,200 acre uh property owned by CBD Holdings LLC,

[29:30] also known as the Shelton property. The subject property has a future land use designation of

[29:35] urban community in the city's comp plan and is zoned planned unit development. The PUD specifies

[29:41] approximately 1,800 residential dwelling units and up to 450,000 square ft of non-residential

[29:47] use or mixeduse space. A CDD is defined as a special purpose local government that finances,

[29:54] builds, and maintains infrastructure and amenities in planned communities. Essentially,

[29:58] a CDD is a special taxing district which allows a developer to fund roads, water, sewer, storm water

[30:05] management facilities, parks, and other community amenities. A CDD is governed by the board of

[30:10] supervisors elected by the land owners of the CDD. The initial board is a developer/landowner and

[30:17] eventually there is a turnover to the subsequent home purchasers. A CDD has the authority to levy

[30:22] non-advelor assessments that appear on property tax bills separate from regular property taxes.

[30:29] A CDD consists typically or sorry CDD cost rather typically include debt service to repay bonds to

[30:36] issue uh issued to fund initial infrastructure construction and ongoing operations and

[30:41] maintenance cost of the infrastructure. Following items are enclosed in your agenda packet.

[30:45] Ordinance 3314, the adopted map series, including aerial, future land use, and zoning maps. Staff

[30:52] recommendation through the director of development services is that the city commission conduct the

[30:56] first of two public hearings. Mr. Mayor, this is a public hearing. If you wish to speak about

[31:00] item 6C, please come forward. Anyone here to speak about 6C? Seeing none, I closing public comments.

[31:09] like to read. Ordinance 3314, an ordinance of board of city commissioners of Panama City,

[31:17] Florida, a mending ordinance number 3305 regarding the Panama City North Community

[31:22] Development District to correct a scrib's error in exhibit A there too, providing for severability

[31:28] and providing for an effective date. Mr. Mayor, item 7A from quazidual hearings was removed.

[31:33] We're now into audience participation. Yeah, this is audience participation. Um, this is where you

[31:37] get to come forward and speak about any item related to the agenda today with the exception

[31:42] of 12A. I'm going to open up public comments just for that particular agenda item. So, if you want

[31:48] to come forward and talk about anything related to the agenda except for 12A, please come forward

[31:53] and just let us know what you're speaking about. Maybe you may want to tell them what 12 is. Oh,

[31:57] 12A is the marina construction bids. Yes, sir. Come on down, Mr. Derek.

[32:11] Hey, Derek Thomas, 1100 West 10th Street. Um 12D, the uh $445,000 for design of the Frankfurt

[32:22] walkway. I wanted to find out if there's anything going on under the ground that's uh would explain

[32:29] why that's so so much. It's basically a straight road, straight sidewalk next to a straight road.

[32:36] 425,000 seems like a lot. Is there any uh 10-in water man going down at the same time underneath

[32:43] there? Is there any changes going on underneath where they're putting the multi-purpose walkway?

[32:52] Is that the final question? That that question is for the design of it is the part of the design

[32:59] designing putting in plumbing underneath the the walkway. Yeah. We'll answer all the questions once

[33:04] you're done. Is that the final is that your final question? Well, okay. Did you put it down? The

[33:10] uh the and then the uh the wet slips 11a the uh they're going to put up $5 million. I think that's

[33:20] great to get it kickarted. Um, but they're going to take that and and they're paying up in advance

[33:26] their land fees, their rent, right? And then last year their rent was like $11,000. So how much is

[33:34] So that's what I mean. Is it going to be also their their taxes, the the amount that they pay

[33:38] in in property taxes? Is it going to be the amount they pay in in merchant fees? All of their any

[33:46] money that they make at all down there. All of it paid up to get to that. that item but we're taking

[33:52] your questions and we got them. Okay. Well, that is that if you understand what my question is,

[33:56] where's the where's the money coming to over time to come up with that with that 5 million?

[34:02] And if at the end of 50 years they haven't used up their 5 million yet, do they get a refund for it?

[34:09] Because the uh it seems like that's uh that's a lot of money and I'm really grateful that they're

[34:18] putting that up. But what exactly are they paying and moving forward? What are they designing into

[34:25] it with the the plumbing? And if you're going to open that up later for public comment, I'll

[34:29] I'll be happy to hear that. Um, also 9F, I've had our construction. They did the the metal roof on

[34:36] my house and I was not at all happy with the job that they did. So, if you look at the particular

[34:43] materials that they use and make sure you don't use the cheapest screws that they sell and stuff,

[34:47] that'd be great for all Thank you. Anyone else want to come forward and speak today? Yes,

[34:52] ma'am. Come on down. Let's make sure we have those questions to it so we get answered. Mr. Mayor,

[34:59] uh Patty, Sunday 11:15. If I make a comment now, can I still come back for 12A? Oh, yeah. Okay.

[35:06] Thank you. So, my comment on this one is for the proposed budget. Um I still am wondering about

[35:12] the long-term debt and the detail is what of what is comprised in that. Hi. Um, and wanting to know

[35:22] and understand that as part of the proposed budget and what the interest payment will be and what we

[35:28] spend it on helps me as a taxpayer think clearly or maybe more clearly or understand the need

[35:36] for item 12A because to me they're both related, right? If we're looking for creative things. So,

[35:43] I think this is the third time that I've asked and it probably takes a little while for what is

[35:48] the detail of the long-term debt and what did we spend it on. Thank you. Thank you.

[35:52] Anyone else want to speak today? Yes, ma'am. Come on down. Good afternoon. Good afternoon.

[36:05] Brenda Lewis Williams, 2748 Drive, 32401. I I have a 9E and 9F. 9D is included,

[36:14] but it's not clear even on the agenda that was sent out that we're permitting. Somebody went

[36:20] back and read the city ordinances. I guess you all got tired of hearing me talk about change orders,

[36:25] but is this 10% that is being permitted? Should a change order be uh needed? And the wording in the

[36:36] um ordinance is cumulative. So is this they can only ask for 10% or they can they get the 10%

[36:44] and come back to the to the uh commission for additional monies if the 10% doesn't satisfy.

[36:50] And that was on which item pardon which item was that? 9E and 9F 9. Okay. Gotcha.

[36:58] the city the city the ordinance the city ordinance does allow for the city manager to automatically

[37:05] do 10% if necessary and the word cumulative means once you get there that's all it is but can they

[37:14] come back and ask for additional funds once they get that 10%. Still doing change orders.

[37:20] Yes ma'am. Anyone else want to speak today relate to anything to on the agenda on the agenda except

[37:27] of 12A? Yes, sir. Good afternoon. My name is Will Owen, 6701 Yach Club Drive in Callaway. Um,

[37:36] this was referring to 11 uh for you uh Mr. Zimmerman. It's not so much a question,

[37:45] it's a comment, so I don't know if that's um what we're doing here. It's my first time doing

[37:50] this. So, I'll read from my notes here. Um, mayor, commissioners, and fellow residents of

[37:54] Panama City, my name is Will Owen. I'm a local business owner and the organizer of Jetet,

[37:59] the world's largest jetbo gathering. Jetet is an annual event hosted near the marina at

[38:04] Hotel Indigo. Every year, Jetet brings nearly $1 million in direct economic impact to Bay County.

[38:09] For nearly eight years since Hurricane Michael, the marina has sat largely unusable. And that

[38:14] isn't just an eyesore. It represents millions of dollars in lost tax revenue, suppressed growth,

[38:19] and missed opportunities for downtown Panama City. The mayor raised fair questions in his comments

[38:23] on Facebook the other day uh about city gains, losses, and gives what we give up in financing

[38:28] discussions. I'm here today to provide perspective from the front line on what our citizens and local

[38:33] businesses gain when we finally get boats back in the water. Every year, the number one point

[38:38] of friction for my guests during Jetet uh is the lack of inwater boat parking and an easy launch

[38:44] and recovery access for the boats. If this marina is restored with ample transient slips, overnight

[38:49] docking, and efficient ramp capacity, events like mine can easily double the economic footprint,

[38:55] which is again, it's about a million dollars a year. More importantly, Bay County is full of

[38:58] boers who are looking for places to take their boats. And right now, there's no place in our

[39:03] county where someone can dock, step off the pier, and immediately walk to local restaurants, shops,

[39:08] lifestyle events, hotels. Boers are in a fluent demographic, and when they tie up at a marina,

[39:13] they don't just buy fuel. They eat, they shop, they stay in local hotels,

[39:17] and they keep downtown businesses thriving year round. Regardless of who's behind the development,

[39:22] good development is good for everyone. We're fortunate to have exceptional developers like St.

[39:27] Joe, who care about creating communities that are thoughtfully planned, sustainable, and ultimately

[39:32] make the area a better place to live, work, and play. I think that is what sets St. Joe apart from

[39:36] other developers. They genuinely care about the long-term success of communities they build and

[39:41] the quality of life they create for the people who call them home. I know the leadership at St. Joe.

[39:47] I've stayed in their hotels. I've eaten in their restaurants. I've swam in their pools. And I can

[39:51] tell you that everything St. Joe does is done with excellence. their staff, the planning and design,

[39:55] and the execution and management is worldclass. I believe we are fortunate to have such a

[40:00] world-class organization offering to help shape the future of downtown Panama City, especially

[40:04] with this loan. Uh I believe we have a great opportunity before us that is going to outlast all

[40:09] of us. As residents of Panama City, Florida, we enjoy something that only 94% of other US cities

[40:14] do not. We are blessed with the to be situated on navigable coastal waters and not just any waters,

[40:20] the most beautiful in the whole world. I believe we should lean into this uniqueness. I believe

[40:24] we should invite everyone to come see the beauty that we can at times take for granted. Let's work

[40:29] with St. Joe to get this project moving. And when we join forces to bring this marina back to life,

[40:34] downtown Panama City won't just recover, it will thrive for generations to come. Thank you. Yes,

[40:39] sir. Thank you. We love Jetboat. I actually had a friend come all the way from South

[40:43] Florida with his jet boats. We had one come from Washington State. Love it. I love it. Awesome.

[40:48] Anyone else want to speak today related to the agenda items? Yes, sir. Come on down.

[41:06] George Kather 1702, excuse me, Westby tribe. I'd like to um bring up a question on 9D for Baker

[41:14] Court. Uh it was unclear to me as to where the $181,000 is coming from. Uh is it coming from the

[41:21] same type of fan financing that that generated the original? So I was curious about that. Secondly,

[41:29] um there was a note that said that originally it was this was part of the West Beach Drive

[41:34] sidewalk improvement project. Um there was a uh in the design there was a proposal to go

[41:42] down Farland with an 8 in water line and bury it underneath uh West Beach Drive. This I understand

[41:50] is going to be a storm sewer which was not mentioned in the original West Beach Drive

[41:55] plans and uh I understand it's going to need to be uh have a have the beach drive cut up

[42:03] uh to be laid down properly. I I gather that requires an okay through the state

[42:10] uh to district to break up their brand new pay road. I don't know. That was

[42:15] uh my question. Uh I also have a question on 12D uh which is the uh Frankfurt uh trail. Um,

[42:29] does it it says here that this is a state funded project, but I was wondering if this is

[42:34] really a TPO project, uh, which also does also would involve some federal funds as well. So,

[42:41] thank you. Awesome. Anyone else want to speak to that? Yes, sir. Come on down.

[42:56] My name's Norvin Tibido, 206 North MacArthur Avenue. First of all, we've had three ways to pay

[43:04] for the city of Marina to get rebuilt. We had uh back in 2019, right after the hurricane year after

[43:11] the hurricane, we had an NRDA grant that would redo the boat ramp and the pier that they were

[43:20] talking about building out there. Then after the hurricane, they uh we turned down that money. The

[43:29] uh the mayor then he he he sent him a letter telling that he did not want the money that

[43:33] uh to put it somewhere else. But he also said that we could take and and uh revisit that anytime we

[43:39] wanted. But anyway, that was back then. Then another way we had to rebuild the marina was

[43:45] we had the FEMA money. We turned that down. That would have built the slips 95%. We turned

[43:51] it down. So here we are. Then we had $15 million that we rescheduled to go to the Martin Theater,

[44:00] which that's great. I love the Martin Theater. I I'll never go there cuz it's going to cost too

[44:04] much money for a ticket. But anyway, there was $15 million. Now we have $5 million that you talked

[44:10] about at I think the last meeting. We was going to put that in the 50 slips. Now we're talking again

[44:17] about St. Joe going to give us $5 million with uh with strings attached. That's what I don't

[44:23] like is the strings that are attached. Uh they're talking about the Uplands having say so under that

[44:29] which in my opinion the Uplands ought not even be uh built on. We don't need no hotel there. We

[44:35] don't need apartments up there. We could build a nice green space, a nice little amphitheater

[44:40] around there. Have nice parking for everybody to go and enjoy. Y'all got to consider that a

[44:45] lot of people in this town don't make a whole lot of money. I think $37,000 is the mean income. So,

[44:52] uh, when you I I think you need to go on with your idea of of phases. Take the $5 million,

[45:00] put it on the on the slips for the 50, uh, boat slips, and then see how that goes,

[45:05] and then go into something else. I know y'all are in a hurry to get this done, but well,

[45:09] we was in a hurry to get it done, too. We could have already had it done if we' used that FEMA

[45:12] money to put it back Marina back like it was, and then we could rebuild off of that. Uh,

[45:18] but anyway, thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you. Anyone else want to speak to that? Yes, sir.

[45:34] 9D. I just have a question. I wonder why uh why did the city tennis main

[45:44] tennis main line for 614 may probably knew? Y'all should knew it by heart.

[45:50] She knows. I just wonder why the city even messed with it. That that water man on Baker's Court.

[45:59] Never had a problem with it. I don't I don't think that line is I don't think it's a cast iron.

[46:11] It's two different two different lines. I I think y'all should have went Beach Drive first. Did what

[46:20] y'all should have done there with the problem they have on Beach Drive itself. I just wonder

[46:26] why y'all money could have been saved, not just on Baker's Court. Uh y'all had talked

[46:35] and listened to somebody. Money could have been saved in this whole city. Y'all got brand new

[46:40] water lines already in this city. Not nobody own it, but we're we're paying paying money

[46:47] on something that we already have. Thank you. Anyone else want to speak tonight? Seeing none,

[46:56] I'm closing public comments. And before we approve the consent agenda, Johnson, there was a couple

[47:01] questions I want to get answered. Miss Lams had a question on 9E and 9 F about change orders and

[47:06] 10% cumulative stuff. Yeah. So referencing 9E for the uh invitation to bid for Project Storm

[47:13] Group I to Marshall Brothers. Uh M Williams is correct. That was an error by staff. I already

[47:18] have the authority to go up to 100,000. Uh I think they just did 5% instead of 10%. Which would be

[47:25] 120,000. A little bit over my approval, but uh I'm fine. Just it doesn't there's no reason to

[47:31] go to 122 or 120. I it's it's fine. But yes, that was just an error. They did 5% instead of 10%.

[47:38] And then uh in regards to let's see what else I wrote notes on the other consent item 10D uh

[47:45] funding mechanism fail which one I'm sorry I'm going to pull 9F off. So question 9D 9 delta.

[47:53] Yes. Okay. Yeah. So that will be uh that'll have to come out of infrastructure cert. So,

[47:58] um, the original Beach Drive, uh, sidewalk proposal, we were going to create kind of like

[48:02] an enhanced crosswalk right there at the very west end of Beach Drive to safely get over and

[48:07] then come up that east side of Frankfurt Avenue and then create some parking right there. Um,

[48:12] because that project's been delayed. Um, and now we're rocking and rolling with uh, the Baker Court

[48:17] project. Uh, we're pulling that uh, back in. It is part of that project. Um, our goal was to you,

[48:23] you know, hopefully utilize a grant, uh, from the state to accomplish some of this. It needed

[48:28] to be done anyway. Uh, and it would have been part of the original project, you know, had we,

[48:32] um, you know, uh, not even had the opportunity for that grant. Um, and just as a reminder,

[48:37] as a state revolving fund project, they don't, it doesn't really cover any storm water unless

[48:42] there is a direct conflict with a water or sewer line. uh therefore uh it is not covered in the

[48:49] bulk of the project which is covered by the state revolving fund. So that's why so there are some

[48:53] some storm water upgrades more on the west end uh of the property uh of the project rather as you

[48:59] get to Frankfurt Avenue uh and then uh and again it'll be some parking as well. So can you explain

[49:05] the state revolving fund how the money comes out and what we have to pay back? Yeah, so uh the

[49:10] state revolving fund is actually a really great program if you're not aware of it. It's uh from

[49:15] the EPA administered through the state department of environmental protection. Uh it's a it's a it's

[49:21] a loan. Uh and what they do is they kind of handle the the prepayment for us, which is awesome. Uh

[49:27] and you know, in the case that it takes a little bit longer for them to process anything. Uh we can

[49:32] kind of fill in the gap uh with our utility fund, but they've been really great at uh reimbursing

[49:36] us, often less than 90 days. But the beauty of it for the city of Panama City is it's a 0% loan. Uh

[49:44] immediately upon the completion of the project, the state forgives 25% of it. Uh and we've already

[49:50] done probably 80 or $90 million worth of projects and we haven't paid one penny yet. Uh the first

[49:57] payment is deferred. I think we're looking at uh next spring, early summer before the first

[50:02] payment is due. So delayed first payment, 25% reduction right off the top of the entire loan,

[50:09] and then a 0% interest to pay that loan back. So again, it's a it's a program from the EPA through

[50:14] the Department of Environmental Protection at the state level in order to help smaller

[50:18] and medium-sized cities rebuild both their water uh and sewer lines uh and repair any roads that

[50:24] have to be redone in order to repair those water and sewer lines. Awesome. Um moving on to consent

[50:31] agenda. Yep. I'd like to pull item 9F off, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, please. Okay. I do have a

[50:36] motion to accept everything except for 9F. Motion to approve 9A through 9E. Second. Any discussion?

[50:44] Please call the RO. Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner Granger,

[50:49] yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes 4 to zero. Item 9F is consideration of approval for

[50:56] award of bid PC26-023 for the Trudedale Clubhouse exterior renovations in the amount of $498,79747

[51:05] to Arc Construction of Northwest Florida LLC. an approval to enter into the attached contract and

[51:11] authorize the city manager to sign any and all documents necessary to complete

[51:14] the contract and the project and approval of a 10% project budget contingency of $49,879.75.

[51:23] as background information and ITB or invitation to bid was advertised by the city on June 8th of

[51:29] this year to secure competitive bids for the CDBGDR which is community development block

[51:35] grant disaster recovery funded through the department of housing and urban development

[51:39] which is called locally the TREL clubhouse exterior renovations. Five bids were received

[51:45] uh by city staff on July 31st of 2026. The lowest responsive bid was submitted by R Construction of

[51:51] Northwest Florida LLC in the amount of $498,797 and47. This project includes but is not limited

[51:59] to exterior facade improvements, additions of outdoor gathering spaces to the southern

[52:04] and western sides of the building, HVAC additions, and limited electrical additions and improvements.

[52:10] The following documents are enclosed with this agenda item. the tabulation of bids,

[52:15] proposed car uh contract with Art Construction of Northwest Florida LLC,

[52:19] and then a letter of recommendation from Florida Architects Incorporated,

[52:23] uh the designer of this project. Staff recommends awarding invitation to bid PC26 Desi Route 23

[52:29] to Arc Construction of Northwest Florida LLC and executing a contract in the amount of $498,79747

[52:38] and approval of a 10% contingency in the amount of

[52:40] $49,879.75 for a total budgeted project cost of $548,67722.

[52:50] Mr. Mr. Mayor, commissioners, the reason I pulled this item off consent

[52:53] uh is I do want to notify both the public and this board that there will be a contract

[52:57] revision that was agreed to uh by city staff and the contractor and that is the substantial

[53:03] completion date will be Jan January 31st of 2027. So substantial completion they have

[53:10] committed to January 31st of 2027. So with that u Mr. Mayor would uh recommend approval

[53:17] um uh by the commission. Motion to approve of those changes. Second. Any discussion? No.

[53:24] Excited to see this project move forward. This is a big deal. Love it. Huge. I just want to say

[53:29] thank you to the contractor for committing to uh to wrap up no later than January

[53:33] 31st. Please call. Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner Hughes has stepped out. There he is.

[53:45] Uh Commissioner Granger.

[53:49] How does that work? I don't I believe Commissioner Hughes. Commissioner Hughes.

[53:58] Yes. Commissioner Granger. Okay. Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes. Motion passes four to zero.

[54:08] All right. Um moving into item 11 A is the consideration of alternative financing option for

[54:14] the construction of the wet slips at the downtown Panama City Marina. As background information,

[54:18] the city of Panama City solicited bids for the construction of the first 50 wet slips for the

[54:23] downtown marine on April 13th of this year. On June 24th of 2026, 14 bids were received. Approval

[54:30] to award this contract is covered later in this agenda on item 12A under city manager section

[54:35] uh here this evening. Truest Bank has already approved the city using a portion of its existing

[54:40] hurricane loan, originally $150 million, to initially fund the construction of phase 1,

[54:45] which represents the first 50 wet slips. After several discussions with Joe PCOZ or JOPC,

[54:51] this agenda item offers an alternative funding option for the commission to consider. The city

[54:56] and JOPC entered into a ground lease dated August 25th of 2020 for a portion of the marina property

[55:03] and JOPC constructed and is presently operating a hotel and restaurant on the lease property. As an

[55:09] obligation of the ground lease, JOPC is presently paying participation rent to the city based on a

[55:15] percentage of gross revenues generated by Hotel Indigo and Harrison's Restaurant. This is section

[55:20] um 2.4 4 titled rent and the ground lease contained in the attachment C in your packet

[55:25] this evening. JOPC again has offered to prepay its participation rent in an amount of up to

[55:30] $5 million to fund construction cost associated with phase 1 wet slips the first 50 slips. If

[55:37] this offer is accepted, the city will receive and approve invoices from the wet slips contractor.

[55:42] JOPC who will pay the invoice amounts to the city. The amounts paid by JOPC are considered

[55:48] prepaid participation rent and the total paid uh will be uh accounted for in the prepaid

[55:54] participation rent agreement. The balance in the prepaid participation rent account will be

[55:59] reduced by the participation rent payments when due under the ground lease. When the prepaid

[56:03] participation rent accounts balance is zero, then JOPC will resume the participation rent payments

[56:09] to the city. As part of this agreement, the city agrees to provide at its expense the electricity,

[56:15] the water, and sewer services needed to support phase 1 wet slips and to pursue development of the

[56:20] T do Upland's area to further support the marina's operations. The estimated cost for this upland

[56:26] work is $3.179 million as addressed in attachment D to agenda item 12A this evening. The Upland work

[56:33] is planned to be funded by the line of credit provided by Truis Bank as previously described.

[56:39] staff this evening request direction from the commission regarding the prepaid participation

[56:43] rent agreement as outlined in the attached and I'll turn it over to Mr. Zimmerman at this time.

[56:48] Thank you. Uh just a couple of points. I won't go over things that have already been talked about.

[56:55] Uh but one point to make is that the commission is already has the ability to fund uh the award

[57:01] of a contract to construct the the wet slips. This is an alternate or another way of doing

[57:09] that which the St. Joe company through Joe PC has offered and without and I believe the agenda item

[57:17] request form covered uh well the participation rent and how that works. There is an existing

[57:24] provision in the agreement that talks about the fact that um that if this is accepted by the city

[57:33] the St. Joe company through Joe PC has indicated obviously their interest and the city's interest

[57:41] are aligned to see that a marina is constructed well and operated well. So they would like to

[57:49] uh enter into a management agreement for um that would be for a period of 5 years. It would pay

[57:58] um a fee of 3%. No. Yeah. 3% of the gross marina revenues. Uh they would have a right of first

[58:09] refusal to manage and operate the subsequent phase that phase two of this would finish out the basin

[58:17] next to hotel indigo and the restaurant. We did have a we meeting staff talk to PFM and P uh this

[58:26] afternoon. And PFM is the uh consultants that we used and that you used when we were entertaining

[58:33] a private uh public partner uh proposal for the downtown marina and they reviewed marina

[58:41] uh agreements throughout the state of Florida when they came up with their uh projections of

[58:47] of uh cost and revenues. They indic and they won. They agreed that if the commission accepts this,

[58:55] we have 60 days to enter into a management agreement. If for some reason that we can't,

[59:02] then uh we go back to ground zero. There's and we just wouldn't be pursuing this funding option.

[59:10] They would agree, PFM would agree to assist in that effort. Also they indicated that 3% of the

[59:18] gross marina revenues is actually somewhat less than what they had been looking at when they made

[59:25] revenue projections. So they felt it was very it was a reasonable market rate uh proposal that Joe

[59:32] PC had made. There are a lot of specifics to be worked out in the management agreement itself. Um,

[59:40] but it is um uh I I did a short review of it there in my letter and it's also in the agreement,

[59:47] but it says that the as far as that we would go and work it out, but certain terms were listed

[59:55] as that it would include. If we can't resolve it, then we'd come back and and we wouldn't have this

[1:00:03] particular agreement. But this is an agreement but it also it has a condition as far as management

[1:00:11] over the uh for over phase one. And Nevin can you for the benefit of the public explain what

[1:00:19] uplands means on this particular item. Well, there is on this item uplands and this item uplands is

[1:00:29] really pertaining to those things that would support the use of the phase one. Phase one is

[1:00:36] 50 slips in the basin next to Harrison Restaurant and Indigo Hotel. The total buildout for that

[1:00:44] basin will be approximately a hundred slips. So, it's the Uplands that are needed to support that.

[1:00:51] And there's also an obligation to provide water and sewer and power to the to support that. And

[1:00:59] there would be an obligation to provide parking uh things things that like that um that would

[1:01:07] support that. There's no specificity exactly what all that is. Um but that is what is the

[1:01:14] uplands that it says it would would start working toward that. So just some points of clarity. Uh

[1:01:21] this is not a renegot. So the the hotel and the restaurant pay property taxes because it's a 99

[1:01:26] year lease. They pay bad taxes. They pay merchant fees. And they pay us and what we're talking about

[1:01:30] is their rent. And their rent, correct me if I'm wrong, is about $100,000 a year because

[1:01:38] it's 100,000. We're budgeting 100,000. We have received more than that, but yes. So if they're

[1:01:46] and so they would potentially be paying our invoices from construction of the first 50 slips,

[1:01:51] reimbursing us and if their hotel like let's say in a year suddenly just starts doing terrible in

[1:01:57] the restaurant that does we don't have looming payments to it only gets that fine only gets paid

[1:02:02] down as they are doing rent payments to us. So it may take them 20 years, it may take them aundred

[1:02:08] years depending on how well those businesses do. And we're not carrying this looney debt on

[1:02:13] our head because that's the situation we're in. If we were to borrow this money, it is

[1:02:18] $330,000 a year of just interest cost to the city as opposed to just foregoing the $100,000 a year

[1:02:26] of estimated rent. So we're already if you look at the numbers, we either pay $330,000 a year

[1:02:32] and for this loan or we forego the $100,000 in rent. So to me it was a I I I like the deal and

[1:02:41] uh the catch is they have to manage the marina and and they're not when I say marina I mean the

[1:02:46] boat slips. It doesn't change the dirt. That's not talking about the boat ramp. We were talking about

[1:02:50] managing the boat slips in a marina that would be half built or fourth built. Right? It's not

[1:02:56] a situation that a lot of people would say, "Oh goody, let me go stand a team up and work on this

[1:03:01] marina. this this these boat slips and manage them while you're doing construction of other

[1:03:05] parts of the marina while you're you know having you know potentially gravel parking and putting

[1:03:11] sidewalks is not no ship store no fuel you know it's really a scrappy approach to getting this

[1:03:18] we either stand our own team up internally to manage the marina which I'm really not in favor

[1:03:23] of or we go out and start soliciting bids for managing this and what they've pitched to us is

[1:03:29] an incredible deal from financing in my opinion and the and the management. They are a known

[1:03:34] entity that manages marinas professionally and well and so I'm I'm very excited about this deal.

[1:03:42] Yeah. So, I mean I I think from my perspective, I appreciated the um the amortization schedule that

[1:03:48] was provided to us in our packet. Um $5 million of 5% interest is basically $400,000 a year and

[1:03:56] over half of that um actually twothirds of it is interest expense. And um that's over a 20-year

[1:04:03] period. 20-year amortization comes out to 3.1 by the way. Yeah. Interest. It's basically like

[1:04:09] $10,000 a slip, which that's going to be a year. That's a lot for someone to operationally carry,

[1:04:15] which has always been the tough part in financing of these things. you've got to get the rest of it

[1:04:20] built before it actually starts making any kind of substantial revenue. So, you know,

[1:04:25] I understand that some people, you know, have their thoughts um on one way or the other, but the

[1:04:31] reality is we have an option to not pay interest and we have an option to pay interest. And so,

[1:04:37] with those two together, I mean, I don't know how you pick, you know, one different than that. to

[1:04:43] the point on operations. Um I I I think we would be hardressed and you know I've thought to myself,

[1:04:50] do we go and try to give somebody an opportunity on 50 slips with the financing and all that stuff?

[1:04:56] But the reality is no one else has a building down there and it's 5 years. It's forever. It's

[1:05:02] 5 years and and it's at the point where it's the least profitable it absolutely can be. There is

[1:05:07] no fueling station. There is no ship store. There is no nothing else. So there's that. Yes, there's

[1:05:13] not even an office there. So I I I mean, frankly, I think where I'm at with it is like it's it's a

[1:05:20] good step forward. Is this the end result and the end thing that the whole marine is done and we've

[1:05:26] got everything figured out? No, we don't. But can we get 50 slips started? Yeah, we can with

[1:05:32] this as it is today. So I would suggest that if we exercise this option, we revise our budget to

[1:05:40] remove that um revenue from our budget and um and you know because it'll be going towards a a debt

[1:05:47] payment essentially. No, sir. Is that Brandy? Is that something that that we in my mind if we if

[1:05:58] this we approve this the revenue has to come in so we can give it back to them. When are we we're

[1:06:05] giving that all up when we when we it's $100,000. I'm talking about procedurally not not in effect.

[1:06:11] We we'd have to work through because we would then also have to budget to spend the money on

[1:06:17] if the money is going to come through us and we're going to cut the checks to the contractors. We'll

[1:06:21] need to go come back and budget for that anyway. I think regardless we're using the temporary line

[1:06:27] of credit regardless to to do it because this is a reimbursement scenario. Correct. Yeah. So

[1:06:34] so we're still we're funding the construction. The only issue is how does that funding get paid

[1:06:40] back? And what is essentially a years before us is no upands improvements. They're not asking for a

[1:06:46] condo. They're not asking for anything else. Like they're just saying, "Look, we'd like our rent

[1:06:52] revenue to go dedicated towards paying that debt so we're not saddled with long-term debt." So,

[1:06:57] it's a win-win. And um what I'm getting at though is when we make a statement like we don't want to

[1:07:04] see this revenue in the budget um I think the the revenue is still going to come as I understood

[1:07:11] it as revenue is still going to come into us. There's just going to be conduit push back out.

[1:07:15] It's going to come into us as a reimbursement for the project. We we'll have to work through that,

[1:07:21] but it will it will not come in as you know the revenue fund type stuff,

[1:07:26] right? And if I understand, you still get your property all the property taxes are still being

[1:07:30] paid. This is just so there is a lot more revenue that's associated with these two improvements on

[1:07:36] Marina than even what we're discussing right now. But the the point that I was making is right now

[1:07:42] it's spoken for in the general fund budget and this will not be in the general fund. Yeah.

[1:07:47] Agreed. Agreed. It needs to be so it needs to be removed from the general fund. It it will we

[1:07:52] will remove it if this is passed. We'll remove it for the tentative budget. There's currently

[1:07:57] $100,000 in the in the proposed budget for fiscal year 27, but we will need to come back with a

[1:08:03] budget amendment to budget for the construction um and how the reimbursement and all of that.

[1:08:13] Okay. Um all right. So, all your comments, great. I like them because one of the things

[1:08:22] that I didn't think about up front, we're going to take that $5 million that would come to us

[1:08:27] all the time. Put it over here. We're creating a gap. What are we paying that money? Where's that

[1:08:34] money going? General fund, it sounds like. What are we paying with that $100,000? So,

[1:08:40] I asked Brandy, give me some information. And that money is designated to parks and wreck.

[1:08:45] Okay. A department that already is, you know, sometimes on life support with people and all

[1:08:51] that and they're doing the best they can. We take 100 grand away from them essentially. How

[1:08:57] do we fill that gap back up with what money? That's my first question. It will be $100,000

[1:09:02] less that we would put in reserves. Oh, what? The money comes in the general fund. It goes to parks

[1:09:10] and recck. It it doesn't get expensed out of the revenue. Lost me on that one. Yeah. also because

[1:09:15] you currently have a $1.2 million um budgetary right you know okay why does it go why does it

[1:09:24] go to reserves people don't parks and wreck it's assigned for a parks and wreck expenditures but

[1:09:32] we don't we don't I understand what you're saying because reserves doesn't actually

[1:09:35] exist it's just capital whenever the previous commission approved the lease with St. Joe,

[1:09:41] they approved it for the participation rent to be go towards parks and wreck. I think

[1:09:46] y'all are missing each other on Can we Can we actually vote on the list and then move

[1:09:51] on to that? 21 topics. Do we do we have a can we get a motion on 11? Well, hold on.

[1:10:00] So, St. Joe Company. Mhm. Um, contrary to what the social media will tell you, they don't want

[1:10:08] to take over Panama City, in my opinion, and they don't want to own and operate the marina. They

[1:10:13] want us to keep owning it. They just want us to do what we're supposed to so people will be down

[1:10:18] there so they can we can all have a good time down there. Um, 0% interest. We already talked about

[1:10:27] one uh we we work with and that's right the state revolving fund. This is an opportunity to Norman

[1:10:35] Timos. We we had a a grant that we didn't take. We had a participation of a of a part of of P3 that

[1:10:43] we didn't do and now we got money. Again, we can do it our way with interest $3 million or we can

[1:10:51] go the other route. To me, it's a no-brainer business-wise because we get going today and

[1:10:58] we have some obligations on our part. We've got to make sure that the Upland utilities and the

[1:11:03] Upland lights and and railing, all that's there. That is not building vertically. That's building

[1:11:08] horizontally. Just so we all understand, we've got money for that. But somebody asked about,

[1:11:14] "Oh, we should go ahead and just build. We should have built a marina." That $5 million that we have

[1:11:20] has to go through an EHP process. Could take 18 months. So if we waited and took that money, we'd

[1:11:25] have to wait 18 months to build the slips, maybe. So this gets us going now. We use that money, plan

[1:11:32] for it, and y'all will know where it's going once it's approved. We're going to tell them. So you're

[1:11:37] going to know up front. There's no questions. To me, that's the best transparency you can have. You

[1:11:42] get a voice in it. We ask FEMA, they approve it, and we go build it. That's pretty cool.

[1:11:48] any other option right now cost you money or um creates time. And I think we can all agree on one

[1:11:55] thing. We don't want to spend as little money as we have to, but move as fast as possible to get

[1:12:01] the best product on what I believe is the best piece of real estate in Northwest Florida. Okay.

[1:12:07] And to your point, sir, a guy leaned up here one day and said, "Lofers come by the marina every

[1:12:14] day, and we're missing them. We're missing day day knockers. We're missing overnighters because

[1:12:19] we don't have anywhere for them to go and they pay good money to come hang out in our city.

[1:12:24] Let's open it up for them. If you don't like St. Joe, it's okay that you don't like them. If you

[1:12:30] don't like that I vote for, yes, that's okay, too. But at the end of it, let's all stand on the dock

[1:12:36] and shake hands and have a good time and watch the sun go down. That's really what I'm after. So, I'm

[1:12:40] with y'all. And we still have another 150 slips to go. which but we'll have 50 to stand on the

[1:12:45] dock floor. So, so if this this might help in the conversation. This is just for the general public.

[1:12:50] So, right now we're getting about $900 a month for slips in St. Andrews. 50 slips. That's $540,000

[1:12:57] a year. What essentially St. Joe has offered to front the money in advance on their rent for a fee

[1:13:06] uh to manage of point or z of 3%. So, basically, it's $16,200. that St. Joe would make if they're

[1:13:15] fully leased 100% of the time for the full year, $16,000, $200, the city would make $500 and like

[1:13:25] $34,000. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, Nevin, but that money has to marina and come from the

[1:13:32] boat slip rental. It'll go in the marina. Yeah. And our large land lease requires that money

[1:13:37] be spent on the marina. So if you're seeing if you're seeing a lot of support that's up here,

[1:13:42] it's because financially there's no other option that is better than this option. So I like sure if

[1:13:50] somebody else wants to take the next uh the next 30 days to throw something that's a better deal

[1:13:54] than that that you're willing to make $16,200 on 50 slip rentals for 5 years while the city makes,

[1:14:02] you know, 530,000. um and you're willing to front the money to build all the slips

[1:14:09] um and all of that, then sure, great. But I would be hardressed to see if somebody's actually going

[1:14:16] to be able to do something like that. I'd like to see I'll make a motion that we accept the

[1:14:22] St. Joe offer. And here's why. We have 60 days to also maybe talk about I'm not a big fan of

[1:14:28] the five years, but if that's what we not but in the 60 days, we can negotiate with St. Joe.

[1:14:34] And if it if we fall flat on our face, we can go pay 5% and $3 million on FA in interest, but we

[1:14:41] got a way to pay for it. That's the last option we want. But we have a fallback. So if if we go ahead

[1:14:46] and accept this option today, we got 60 days to work on it. And I promise we'll keep you updated

[1:14:51] on how that goes. So I make a motion accept that offer with uh with a 60-day window to negotiate.

[1:14:58] We restate the motion. Brand tell them about that. He's motioning to accept the offer from St. Joe

[1:15:08] for them to manage or not manage come back in 60 days with the management agreement but for them

[1:15:15] to finance the 50 slips or sooner. We got up to 60 days. Yeah, but that's you know been just the the

[1:15:24] motion is to accept the uh proposal prepayment of participation rent agreement. In that agreement,

[1:15:30] it allows 60 days to come back with a management agreement. Yes. If for some reason that doesn't

[1:15:36] work out, then the agreement you just approved would terminate by all parties and we just

[1:15:44] keep do something else. Thank you. Sounds good. We have a motion. Do we have a second?

[1:15:53] I'll second. Okay. Any discussion? I was about to jump up and say somebody. No, any discussion. I I

[1:16:01] would just like to add the statement was made about um you know sta city staff not managing

[1:16:07] the marina. I just want to state as a city manager I agree with that. So I think it's important the

[1:16:11] public see that both the elected officials and the senior appointed officials concur with that.

[1:16:16] I think we've already moved away from that. I think trying to move back uh would be unfair

[1:16:20] and and unwise at this point. I think I think it's it's also should be said that the staff the staff

[1:16:25] that we had that did manage awesome was awesome. I think one of the problems is is that they worked

[1:16:30] for the city which when when they needed to get a uh was it a it was a bait vendor. Um like it took

[1:16:39] them 6 months to get something that that any business it would take maybe a week to get. I

[1:16:44] would like to see a plan by staff to operate the marina on $16,200 a year. Yeah. So, all right.

[1:16:54] All right. Please call the role. Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner Hughes. Yes.

[1:16:59] Commissioner Granger. Yes. Mayor Branch? Yes. Motion passes four to zero. Item 12A

[1:17:05] is consideration of award of bid PC26-021 for the construction of 50 wet slips in

[1:17:11] the western basin of the downtown Panama City Marina. As background information,

[1:17:15] the city through the city's purchasing division uh solicited competitive bids for the construction

[1:17:21] of the first 50 wet slips through a formal solicitation bid PC26-021 on April 13th of

[1:17:27] this year and open the bids received on June 24th of 2026. These wet slips can be constructed under

[1:17:34] an exemption from the formal permit requirement documented in a letter from the Florida Department

[1:17:38] of Environmental Protection or D exemption letter dated April 17th of 2024. This exemption letter

[1:17:46] is contained in your packet as attachment A for your review. After receiving 14 bids, one

[1:17:50] was determined to be nonresponsive as several key required documents were not submitted as required

[1:17:56] on the formal instructions to biders. The engineer of record, Terrar Hall and Associates or THAA

[1:18:02] determined that additional information was needed from the lowest three biders to clarify that they

[1:18:07] had sufficient experience and capacity to complete the scope of work. The request for information

[1:18:13] was sent out uh on July 24th of this year with the responses requested back by July 29th. All

[1:18:19] three contractors responded by the deadline. Based on their review of this information,

[1:18:24] THAA determined that two of the lowest three bid packages did not satisfy the requirement,

[1:18:29] as stated, a minimum of 5 years of experience in marine construction to include consecutive

[1:18:36] and active experience of work similar in scope, leaving HGarters and Suns as the lowest responsive

[1:18:43] bid received. Their bid amount was approximately 3% lower than THA's opinion of probable cost. For

[1:18:50] details of their bid analysis, see attachment C in this document representing a memo from THAA

[1:18:57] on August 3rd of this year documenting their analysis and resulting recommendation. Again,

[1:19:03] 14 bids were received. C bid tab in attachment B in this packet for your review. HG Harter and

[1:19:10] Suns was determined by THAA to be the lowest conforming bid at a price of 3,616,3565.

[1:19:20] This agenda item request is for the approval to accept this bid and move

[1:19:24] forward with the construction of the first 50 wet slips in the western basin,

[1:19:28] the basin closest to Hotel Indigo. Staff recommendation on behalf of THAA Engineering

[1:19:35] is that the commission approve bid PC26-021 to HG Harder Sons in the amount of 3,616,3565.

[1:19:46] Mr. Mayor Commission, I just want to point out that Mr. Todd Terrell and Mr. Jake Jawers of

[1:19:52] uh THA are here with us this evening, the design engineering firm uh and they are able to answer

[1:19:58] any questions that you all may have. Mr. Mayor. Yes. Uh, as mentioned previously,

[1:20:02] I'm going to open up public comments. If so, if you'd like to speak about item 12A,

[1:20:07] please come forward. Anyone want to speak about 12A? Yes, sir. Come on down.

[1:20:17] And just to kind of frame the conversation is less about should we build slips and more about which

[1:20:22] bid do we choose? Just kind preferences. Yes, sir. Yep. Okay. Um, well, I'm very glad that you're not

[1:20:30] putting the small boats that you had planned up there that belong next to the uh um boat ramps so

[1:20:39] that you don't have people trying to launch their boat and then having to yield every time a boat,

[1:20:43] a large boat comes in or leaves because they would be small boats next to the boat ramp and small

[1:20:49] boats. I don't know if you're going to give that up forever. I hope you do and stick with this. Um,

[1:20:55] I'm glad to see that you're you're not at least laying the plumbing for the apartments in the

[1:21:01] upland area. Um, I don't know about the uh the compensation though, the your uh document saying

[1:21:13] um if if they're paying up for 308 million property paying $100,000 in property tax. We're

[1:21:22] only 12 for the construction of this place. Okay. will um so it's $3 million for the construction

[1:21:33] and the the St. Joe's loaning you 500 5 million 5 million and are you using 3.1 million to build

[1:21:43] this? I'm not sure why you're getting more money than you're actually using to to build the Good

[1:21:48] question. Good question because in the uh drawing they have vote lifts and they put

[1:21:55] enough money in there if you when you wanted to put a boat lift in they're going to pay for that.

[1:21:59] So the 5 million is for the whole thing if you do put in the uh the sea break that you're talking

[1:22:05] about 50 slopes. What's Okay. So your 5 million is for the actual lifts and the other ones that

[1:22:11] I was asking just recently that would be better on the other side next to the boat ramp. That 5

[1:22:16] million is to include that portion. You just haven't spent that. You're spending the 3.1

[1:22:20] for just these. Is that what you're saying? We have we're today we are discussing which bid

[1:22:25] we are choosing. That's the only thing that's the only thing this agenda item is related to

[1:22:30] which construction. So which council thank you. Would you want to clarify potentially?

[1:22:38] Yes. Uh the uh prepayment of rent is for the cost of the construction of the wet slips. So,

[1:22:48] whatever is chosen, and it w it is an up to $5 million uh number because the amount

[1:22:55] was not known at the time that the draft was done, but it's a uh it will be for the cost of

[1:23:02] the construction of the wet slims. Gotcha. Anyone else want to speak about item 12A?

[1:23:11] Seeing none, I'll close public comments. Do I uh have any motion? Do we want to go

[1:23:16] bring up Mr. Yeah, I have questions for THA. Come on down. Yes, sir.

[1:23:30] Podium table. Yes, sir. Name and address for the record. Yep. I'm Jake Joers,

[1:23:36] engineer at Terrell Hall and Associates. Address 3625 Cottage Club Lane, Naples, Florida 34105.

[1:23:47] All right. Um, we're going to kind of go into this a little bit. Um, your evaluation used the

[1:23:54] absence of marina utility experience, shore power, portable water, that kind of stuff as

[1:24:01] a key reason our marine was not qualified. But in addendum three, the city was asked to define

[1:24:07] these minimum standards for those exact systems and the city chose not to do that. Um, so I'm

[1:24:14] I'm just curious when I asked this question last night. Why were those criteria because it seems

[1:24:19] like those criteria were still used to score the bid. Correct. Um well, I think it's worth pointing

[1:24:26] out that they were disqualified for two reasons. The first being the lack of 5 years of experience.

[1:24:33] Um, it's August, so in order to have 5 years marine construction experience, you would

[1:24:41] have had to start something in August of 2021. The earliest project they submitted was 2022. So, that

[1:24:51] was one of two reasons they were disqualified. To answer your question about utilities, um,

[1:24:58] there's two big reasons that we considered the utilities a big part of this. The first being that

[1:25:03] if you read all of your bids, uh not just the low three, all of them that were received the electric

[1:25:10] and the fixed stocks are the two big ticket items. Um with the electric, you potable water

[1:25:17] and fire all the utilities totaling about 35 to 45% of the for all these. So, in our opinion, um,

[1:25:26] with it being such a big component of the cost, we thought it was important to evaluate when we're

[1:25:30] looking at what projects are considered similar. Um, we are aware that it is most likely those

[1:25:39] utilities will be subbed out to a subcontractor. However, if you read the invitation to bid,

[1:25:47] um, there's a requirement. It says the city seeks bids from qualified, experienced, licensed marine

[1:25:53] contractors uh to provide all supervision, labor, and equipment required for the construction of

[1:26:00] the slips. Um their subcontractors, yes, I still think it's important for them to be experienced

[1:26:06] in the supervision of those subcontractors. Um, we've seen projects go south due to poor

[1:26:14] management of subs and uh, inability to coordinate those utilities. So hopefully that answers your

[1:26:22] question. That's why we thought that was an important criteria. So next question for you

[1:26:27] is you scored the Mexico Beach Canal project as similar in scope for harders. The federal permit

[1:26:34] for that project authorizes only sheet pile wall at finger peers. None of the three utility systems

[1:26:39] you cited against Art Marine. So, how did you determine that that project was more similar than

[1:26:44] Art Marine's larger structural marine projects? So, based on the document that Harter provided

[1:26:50] the city in response to the request for additional projects, they stated that there was I don't have

[1:26:57] the exact wording in front of me there. They stated that there was infrastructure for power

[1:27:03] distribution, power pedestals, and portable water at each slip. Uh to answer your question about the

[1:27:08] Army Corps permit, the Army Corps doesn't really permit utilities. They look at inwater impacts

[1:27:14] like piles and overwater shading. So I I wouldn't expect to see the utilities in that document.

[1:27:22] All right. Uh last question is your memorandum still references a sewer pumpout station and

[1:27:29] addendum seven removed that item from the scope of PC26-021 was the evaluation performed against

[1:27:38] the final contract documents after all the addend Could you repeat the last part of

[1:27:46] that? was the evaluation performed against all of the final contracts after addenda 7 cuz it

[1:27:53] removed the pumpout station. So that's where it's kind of look I both of these

[1:27:59] contractors are great. I mean we're going to win if we select either one of them. So I'm

[1:28:03] not I don't have a preference either way. But what I have a problem with is that when things

[1:28:08] show up after other agendas and we're holding bids and contractors over millions of dollars,

[1:28:15] that's where I I start to kind of question what's going on here. So it was a pump pumpout station.

[1:28:24] We removed that and then you referenced it. Um where did we reference that? in your memorandum.

[1:28:37] Okay. Yeah, we probably should have deleted that out of the statement there. So,

[1:28:41] is that used as a scoring criteria? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Any questions?

[1:28:52] That was it. Any other pull on the other bids act? Any other questions? Anyone else? No,

[1:28:58] I mean I I've got a lot of respect for all the bidders. Um, this was probably

[1:29:02] the most bids that we've gotten on any project, I think, since I've been here. So,

[1:29:06] I was super excited to see how many people. Um, at the end of the day, it's taxpayer money. And,

[1:29:12] um, you know, if you got the qualified license, the bank's willing to bond you. We've got a CI

[1:29:18] that's going to be on the team to inspect the work. I I don't know how we just go and just say,

[1:29:23] "Hey, let's let's move up to higher biders." Um, I respect the opinions of everybody that's given,

[1:29:30] but at the end of the day, like we we put we put contractors through the ringer when it comes to a

[1:29:35] bidding process, trying to keep it level, open playing field, and um, you know, I mean, the

[1:29:44] bottom line is it's taxpayer dollars. We should go with a little bit. I agree. Do we want to move

[1:29:52] into a motion or we continue discussion? You want to entertain a motion? So, Commissioner Hughes has

[1:29:56] asked me to read just a couple of definitions out of our purchasing manual if that's okay,

[1:30:00] Mr. Mayor. Absolutely. So, um, definition of a respondent is a person or entity who submits

[1:30:06] an offer in response to a solicitation. Also be referred to as a proposer, an offer, or a bidder.

[1:30:12] A responsible respondent is an individual or business which has submitted a bid, an offer,

[1:30:18] a proposal, a quotation or response which as determined by the city has the capability in all

[1:30:24] respects to formally uh sorry to perform fully the contract requirements and the experience,

[1:30:31] integrity, reliability and capacity the facilities, the equipment and credit which

[1:30:36] give reasonable assurance of good faith and performance. The city may also consider and

[1:30:41] give weight to the respondents previous conduct and performance under previous contracts with the

[1:30:46] city and other agencies including but not limited to delinquency and determine the quality of the

[1:30:52] respondent's previous work. City staff may after bid opening request additional information from

[1:30:58] the respondent concerning his or her ability to perform and the respondent may voluntarily

[1:31:03] after opening provide additional or corrective information concerning his or her responsibility

[1:31:09] as a respondent. And then a responsive respondent is an individual or business which has submitted

[1:31:16] a bid, an offer, proposal, quotation or response which as determined by the city conforms in all

[1:31:23] material respects to the solicitation which may include but is not limited to pricing, shity,

[1:31:30] insurance, specifications of the goods or services requested or any other matter unequivocally stated

[1:31:37] in the invitation for bids as determined uh as responsiveness. A lack of conformity in

[1:31:43] these matters which is non-s substantive in nature may be considered a technicality or

[1:31:49] irregularity which may be waved by the city. The purchasing division will notify any respondents

[1:31:55] of any non-substantive informalities in their response. The respondent will then have 24 hours

[1:32:00] from the time of the notification to furnish their requested information to the purchasing division.

[1:32:06] If the opening is on a Friday, they will have until Monday at 5:00 p.m. to reply. If no

[1:32:10] response as requested is received within 24 hours of the notification, the respondent will be then

[1:32:16] deemed non-responsive. And a responsive bid is a bid or a proposal which conforms in all material

[1:32:22] respects to the competitive solicitation. I think those are the relevant definitions. Mr. Mayor,

[1:32:28] commissioners, thank you. Yes, sir. Do have a question for you guys. y'all operated under those

[1:32:34] definitions, those requirements. Okay. Yeah. You'll have to come back to the microphone.

[1:32:42] You have to say your name and your address and give the record.

[1:32:47] Like Mr. Henry, she just knows his name where he lives. He comes here every time.

[1:32:51] You want me to say it again? Yeah. Yeah. Jake Joers, 3625 Cottage Club Lane, Naples,

[1:32:58] Florida 34105. Right. So you use both of those definitions. You disqualify them and and found

[1:33:05] reasonable and non-reasonable. Correct. In in all the notice. Correct. I mean again

[1:33:10] we in the ITB it says they have to have 5 years. We didn't see that demonstrated. So

[1:33:16] that's why we disqualified them. So yes. Were there any um requests for information that

[1:33:23] u changed any timelines any requirements? anything that would have um made the disqualified first

[1:33:30] and be qualified. I'm learning about these things about so I'm asking questions just

[1:33:35] I would have never thought about did did y'all change any rules along the way or add anything

[1:33:40] along the way in the in the men? So there was an additional request where the city sent out to the

[1:33:48] three lowest biders a request for additional project experience. I believe the original bid

[1:33:55] said within 5 years and that extended the the timeline to 10 years. Good. Thank you.

[1:34:05] I don't have any questions. So he said um my concern is this. We want to now make a decision

[1:34:14] about how to move forward with someone over money. Not even is it the right person, wrong person? Is

[1:34:24] it we need to make sure we're going to have a class A project. We had a chance to do this and

[1:34:30] it wouldn't cost us any money and we couldn't make a decision then. I'm concerned that we're rushing

[1:34:36] to a decision now because of um saving money. Not taking away from Mr. Bowers at all. It's not his

[1:34:45] fault that he comes in low. It's our fault that we are having to work off of saving money. That's

[1:34:53] that's where I'm getting caught in here because are we going to do this entire project this way?

[1:34:58] And it was going to be paid for 100% to Josh's part. It was going to be paid for. I'm having to

[1:35:03] break out on the last one we had and and it was zero dollars for us. So that's my angst right

[1:35:10] now. Sure. And maybe Mr. Mowers can um help that. Well, I I think you said we're going to continue

[1:35:16] forward with this and and I plan on continuing forward choosing the lowest bid when the when

[1:35:20] the contractor has proven themselves into their bid and we have stop gaps of their bond and uh and

[1:35:28] all the other things CI to ensure that they're in plans to ensure that uh we're inspecting the work

[1:35:33] that we are receiving what we've bidded for and I believe staff is pretty confident that these bids

[1:35:38] uh they can't go back and change their mind on their price and they're locked in.

[1:35:42] And so I would just ask like what situation are we what are we saving ourselves from? What are

[1:35:48] we avoiding? What what are we avoiding? Because the last project, the last presentation was true

[1:35:54] no cost with the exception of 300,000 ft in the uplands being built. But take that aside,

[1:35:59] what we're what we're talking about now is exactly the same except we're it's we're we're zeroed out.

[1:36:05] Never mind the upland side. That's the problem I've got. What what is the situation that we are

[1:36:10] worried that's going to happen if we choose the lowest bid? It's not about the lowest bid. We're

[1:36:15] making a decision based on we got a recommendation to do one thing and I feel like that decisions are

[1:36:25] are being made or being asked to be made based on dollars, not on recommendations. So that's just a

[1:36:33] concern that I have, you know, doesn't mean I'm going to go yes or no on that. Yeah. Um,

[1:36:37] I I don't have any other questions. I've been very clear about my stance and I'm I'm ready to

[1:36:41] move forward um with the lowest bid and um I don't have any questions for any biders or engineers.

[1:36:47] And I'd like to clarify a couple things. Sure. Come on up. David Bowers, Art Marine. Uh the two

[1:36:56] uh items that uh the evaluation team said we were disqualified on the first one that we don't have

[1:37:03] five years. That's not what the question was. The question was supply three jobs within the

[1:37:10] last 5 years. I could have put on the form three jobs in 2026. That doesn't mean that we only have

[1:37:16] 3 months of business. Then they extended out to 10. We didn't have to change it. We already

[1:37:21] had our qualifications met. So when they're evaluating our experience and I again if it

[1:37:27] was only for 3 months, three jobs of like size in marine construction, we provided that. We didn't

[1:37:34] fail that evaluation. We passed that with flying colors. We are the most responsive bidder. We are

[1:37:41] the lowest bidder and we should be awarded this job. The second item when they're talking about

[1:37:47] uh the evaluation, uh unfortunately they they went outside of that as well. Um the evaluation

[1:37:56] used criteria that was never in the ITB. The ITB asked for marine construction experience

[1:38:04] during bidding. A bidder asked a city in writing to define the qualification standard. That bit

[1:38:12] that bidder named fire suppression, water systems, and electrical. Addendum 3 had an opportunity to

[1:38:22] add that. Addendum 3 did not. The city declined to add them. The evaluation team used that. Anyway,

[1:38:33] your purchasing manual manual of the city of Panama City, section 14 says no criteria may

[1:38:42] be used that is not in the solicitation. So, where did we fail on the two items? Did we

[1:38:48] have experience in five years? Yes. Did we meet the evaluation? Yes. Any other questions for me?

[1:38:59] No sir. I'm your lowest bidder. Yes,

[1:39:01] sir. Thank you. I will entertain a motion. I'd like to say something. Sure. Come on down.

[1:39:12] Hey. Hey. Jacob Harters, HG Harters, 1615 Wahoo Lane, Panama City Beach.

[1:39:20] So there's it's not up to me to uh talk about the qualifications of Art Marine by any means, but I

[1:39:26] would speak as to the city's position with the ITB process, not knowing, you know, the ins and outs

[1:39:33] of the purchasing manual. This obviously being an ITB with an extensive qualification package

[1:39:40] and reference package desired at bid time. In the bids, I find it curious that the low bidder would

[1:39:47] have just one named reference or qualification for the three rather than various ones. Um,

[1:39:55] I would perhaps ask questions about that. You know, from the city's process side, it was deemed

[1:40:03] as you received the bids and studied them to go to a third party review. So, I'd ask the question,

[1:40:10] you've had the third party review from a credible source, outside source. Um, does the city dismiss

[1:40:16] that and say that the folks that they hired that their opinion is not credible, that the city has

[1:40:25] more marina experience than a marina engineer? Um, maybe, maybe not. I would just ask from the

[1:40:33] ITV process, how did we really review everything? Um, how are we accepting the third party engineers

[1:40:44] opinion? Um, it sounds like, you know, perhaps all of that is tenatively dismissed and I would be

[1:40:55] curious if uh if that's what's happening. Mr. B, could you come on up for me? Come on up. Yeah. I'd

[1:41:01] like you to define uh you know this is different than private business. This is a governmental bid

[1:41:07] and unfortunately we from my understanding don't have the option of just picking willy-nilly who

[1:41:12] we think is the has the biggest cranes and the biggest staff. What's our criteria? How do we

[1:41:18] look at these bids and look at the lowest bid to disqualify as as elected officials? Well,

[1:41:25] we had a question that was similar to this last evening to your virtual workshop. You just give

[1:41:29] your title for the public. People might not know who you are. And God's not the answer.

[1:41:35] Mike Burke, uh, assistant city attorney, 221 Mackenzie Avenue, Panama City, Florida. Is that

[1:41:43] right, Mr. Zimmerman? Okay, my three minutes is up. I'm sorry. I'll come back later. Um,

[1:41:51] so the question was asked last night. What What are we Why are we here? This is an unusual

[1:41:55] situation where you've had um something like this come to you. Um, and the the way I described it to

[1:42:01] you last night and the way I'll give it to you again is um you are sitting in this isn't this

[1:42:07] isn't a perfect analogy, but it's a good analogy. You're sitting in uh almost a quasi judicial

[1:42:12] capacity. You have been presented with um a set of rules um by which we sent out, we being the city

[1:42:20] sent out a request or an invitation for biders to come back. Um those biders have come back. you've

[1:42:25] had staff come and review that for you, make a recommendation based on their rules and the way

[1:42:31] they've seen it u based on the the timeline and the criteria um that are before you and they've

[1:42:37] made a recommendation. Now you're your job just like you would in a zoning request or something

[1:42:42] like that is to take the the facts and the the rules and compare the two and determine what you

[1:42:48] think to be um the basis for the determination. um the evidence was collected, so to speak,

[1:42:55] to put this back in sort of a judicial um determination. The evidence was collected during a

[1:42:59] certain amount of time period. Um that was um from the invitation to bid until the bid was closed.

[1:43:05] There was a provision um that allowed in the rules that said if we've got some clarifications that

[1:43:10] we need to make, we'll ask some additional questions of folks. You heard that. That was

[1:43:15] um Mr. Jawers gave that to you. And now it's your determination to to it's your decision or

[1:43:21] job to make the determine based on that what you believe to to be the the the facts bear out for

[1:43:29] the decision that you want to make. Um and so you know you can have there there may be all kind of

[1:43:35] different reasons of of why you individually think this is to be a you know one's more acceptable

[1:43:41] than the other. Um, but ultimately as a body you come together and make that determination when

[1:43:47] you make your motion and your second and and have your vote. Does anyone have any questions for the

[1:43:52] legal situation? So um we got a recommendation and we go with a little bit. Is there a what is

[1:44:02] afforded each party if they if we voted the other way that they think we went with with harders can

[1:44:09] or protest what can they what what can they do again I mean that's that's the same there we

[1:44:15] have rules regarding how you file a protest so yes if someone doesn't like the decision that's made

[1:44:19] here they have an opportunity to to appeal that decision make a bid protest to you um no different

[1:44:25] than again I'll use the zoning analogy one time one more time for you you know if somebody didn't

[1:44:29] what your zoning decision is. You turn them down or something. They can go and appeal you for that

[1:44:35] and have someone else make that determination. Who's going to look at this record going to decide

[1:44:41] what what you've talked about today based on the rules and then determine whether or not based on

[1:44:46] substantial competent evidence that means good evidence that um that your decision um was the

[1:44:53] right decision. and that is um you are given great difference um as the legislative body to

[1:44:59] make those decisions. Um so you're not going to be um second guessed is is the way I would put

[1:45:05] you wouldn't be second guessed unless there is a really really good reason um to make that second

[1:45:10] guess of you and that's because you violated some some standard or rule or something along

[1:45:14] those lines. So very good. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. I will entertain a motion.

[1:45:26] Motion to approve load bid um with also instructions staff to hire outside CI

[1:45:31] to oversee the process. Do I have a second? I'll second that. Discussion.

[1:45:40] Please call the role. Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner Hughes.

[1:45:47] Yes. Commissioner Granger. Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes. Motion passes four to zero. Mayor and

[1:45:57] commissioners. Uh item 12B uh is uh no no real action is necessary. We just um wanted to put

[1:46:04] the budget uh as drafted um and proposed um on the agenda in advance of the September 8th uh first

[1:46:11] reading just to see if there's any additional questions um that that y'all may have um in

[1:46:17] order to get clarity uh ahead of staff. is, you know, we've already had five pre-budget workshops

[1:46:23] uh with each and every one of you, but again, just wanted to give another opportunity uh before

[1:46:28] we got into the um the first official reading as required by state law uh on September 8th uh for

[1:46:34] uh for the FY2027 budget. Can we make sure we get um Mrs. Sunday the long-term debt summary

[1:46:41] kind of like a distrib this far? I'd love to go distribute it. I I'm I'll get with her to clarify

[1:46:50] what information she's wanting. Um well, if she needs to clarify, I'll clarify what information I

[1:46:58] would like. I'd like to just see where our current debt is right now and what that would convert to

[1:47:03] if it's long-term. Are you asking for a balance of our 150? Yes. Okay. So, we paid off around 73.

[1:47:11] you just whatever that balance is and what that would look like in a long-term debt scenario in

[1:47:16] any planned payments before it's paid off. You told us we're going to pay off maybe another 20

[1:47:22] or 30 million. I'd like to see that forecast out because what's coming back is the bulkhead and

[1:47:28] that 5 million for that one there. So that's got to be included back in the future as well. That's

[1:47:32] that's a great point. So that should include any obligations that we have already committed to such

[1:47:38] as projects that we have said and we've approved budgetary expenditures but they may not have been

[1:47:43] incurred yet the 23 like the 23 million that y'all have approved. Is that what you're referring to?

[1:47:50] Yeah. So a great example of St. Andrew's bulkhead that that full project amount be reflected in

[1:47:56] the debt um and the projected debt balance. Same thing with anything that's on Martin.

[1:48:01] Same thing with anything that's on any other projects that we have ongoing and a potential

[1:48:06] end date payment when that loan goes away. So if it's a 30-year loan, is that possible? The terms

[1:48:13] we're looking at doing a bond for the long term um which would be long term. it would, you know,

[1:48:20] probably be 30 years. Yeah, I'd love to see you guys work with staff and this Sunday to come

[1:48:24] up with a maybe it's a quarterly debt strategy report we're getting or something that's maybe

[1:48:29] added on to this or someone just so yeah, just feel free to send the comments and Yeah. So,

[1:48:34] the balance commissioner street is 77 million. Okay. 23 that we've approved already. Correct.

[1:48:42] Yeah. We don't have to workshop in this meeting, but just send send I do have a question for Patty

[1:48:48] though. I think you asked the 73 that we paid off. What did we spend that money on? That was

[1:48:54] a function. It was all reimburseable projects. So, it's going to be your CDBGDR projects,

[1:48:59] your HMGP projects, FEMA projects, and um SRF. Awesome. Let's just get that summary

[1:49:07] and write the details. Yes, ma'am. You want to see the invoices that we paid?

[1:49:15] Yeah. Yeah. granular as you can get it without spending three years doing it. Okay. Okay. Next

[1:49:21] item 12 C. Right. Item 12 C is consideration to approve budget amendment resolution 20260825.1 to

[1:49:29] transfer $21,000 in funds received from local law enforcement agencies to the Panama City

[1:49:34] Police Department. As background information, in August of this year, the PCPD hosted an FBI

[1:49:40] LITA leadership course attended by members of several local law enforcement agencies.

[1:49:45] The participating agencies reimbured the PCPD for their members course fees while the PCPD

[1:49:51] paid the full FBI lead a course invoice. The $21,000 received will be applied towards the

[1:49:56] course invoice. Staff recommendation through the chief of police is that the commission

[1:50:00] approve this request and the accompanying budget amendment resolution. Mr. Mayor, I entertain a

[1:50:04] motion. Motion a second. Yep. Any discussion? Please call the role. Commissioner Street. Yes.

[1:50:12] Commissioner Hughes. Yes. Commissioner Granger. Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes. Motion passes 4 to zero.

[1:50:18] Commission is approved. Resolution 2026825.1, a resolution providing for the amendment of the

[1:50:24] approved fiscal year 2526 budget to receive reimbursement for training hosted at the

[1:50:30] police department. Item 12D is consideration to approve resolution 20260825.2 2 authorizing the

[1:50:38] city of Panama City to accept state funded uh grant for Frankfurt Avenue trail design in the

[1:50:43] amount of $425,000 and approved budget amendment resolution 20260825.3. As background information,

[1:50:52] the engineering division of the public works department is requesting approval of resolution

[1:50:56] 20260825.2 2 authorizing the city to accept state funded grant managed by the FDOT for the design

[1:51:03] and permitting of the Frankfurt Avenue trail from West Beach Drive to Pacifica Avenue, the northern

[1:51:08] end of Frankfurt Avenue. The project will consist of a 12- foot multi-use path in areas where

[1:51:12] existing pedestrian facilities do not exist and to address ADA non-compliance issues. Scope will also

[1:51:19] include coordination with Bayine Railroad and review for a pedestrian bridge for crossing of

[1:51:24] Robinson Bayou. Uh, no additional rightway will be required for this project and this project

[1:51:29] does not require a match from city funds. Staff recommendation for the director of public works

[1:51:34] is that the commission approve this request. Mr. Mayor, there were a couple of questions that came

[1:51:39] up during audience participation. I just highlight some of those really quick. The distance of this

[1:51:43] path is 3.2 miles. That's a pretty substantial path. Um, there will be some drainage work and

[1:51:49] and survey work that we need to do in order to make sure we don't create any uh off-site adverse

[1:51:55] impacts on either the roads or people's front yards. Uh there will be some utility poles that

[1:51:59] need to be removed and relocated. Again, we'll have to survey all of this uh in order to ensure

[1:52:05] that it's entirely within the ride ofway. Again, we're putting in an aluminum pedestrian bridge

[1:52:09] uh at Robinson Bayou uh on the west side uh in order to keep folks off of the road. And again,

[1:52:16] uh, there will be some storm water and drainage work for this. So again, staff

[1:52:20] recommendation to director of public works is the commission approved this request. Mr. Mayor,

[1:52:24] I will entertain a motion. Motion to approve. Second. Jonathan, the bridge, didn't that come

[1:52:29] to some of that come through appropriation? So that's not all loan money, right? So this is a

[1:52:35] totally separate from that. So, the actual bridge itself, you're correct, Commissioner Hughes,

[1:52:39] we got about a $750,000 grant uh from the state in order to uh refurbish uh the uh and kind of

[1:52:47] beef back up the the vehicle bridge uh over that. The construction of the actual pedestrian bridge

[1:52:55] will be paid for out of that. But this uh this particular design phase uh will cover kind of the

[1:53:01] design of that and the and the civil engineering around it sticking uh that particular aluminum

[1:53:06] bridge to the west side of the Robinson Bayou Bridge. Um but uh but the state appropriation

[1:53:11] will pay for it. Thank you. Yes, sir. For the public, the TPO was brought up. Um, and I kind of

[1:53:16] wanted to clarify that the TPO is the local body, a 19 member board that is comprised of the county,

[1:53:23] this city, and all of the other cities in the county. Um, the city can go seek out this uh

[1:53:32] this grant if it wants to, but it also can go to the TPO and ask for support from the TPO. um the

[1:53:40] TPO did support this project and then the state ultimately decided to reward it. So that's how

[1:53:47] that works as any other city. I think Callaway's got some some pretty good projects through that

[1:53:51] process as well. Um the state had I think it was $88 million for sidewalks. Um but uh there's they

[1:54:03] don't have a lot of extra money for roads. So, um, you put in for what you can get. Awesome.

[1:54:09] All right. Any other discussion? Please call the RO. Commissioner Street, yes. Commissioner Hughes,

[1:54:16] yes. Commissioner Granger, yes. Mayor Branch, yes. Motion passes four to zero. Motion to adjourn. No,

[1:54:22] we have two resolutions. Mr. Zimmerman. Oh, boy. Sorry. No problem. I would like to. Thank you.

[1:54:34] Uh, the commission has adopted resolution number 20250825.2, a resolution of the city commission of

[1:54:41] the city of Panama City authorizing the city to accept a state funed grant for Frankfurt Avenue

[1:54:46] trail project to enter into the agreement and resolution 20260825.3, a resolution providing

[1:54:54] for the budgeting of capital funds. Thank you. Awesome. Oh, there's one more. One more. We got

[1:55:03] a motion before. That was both of them. Both. You read both of them? Okay. We have a motion and a

[1:55:08] second. Please call the RO. Commissioner Street. Yes. Commissioner Hughes. Yes. Commissioner

[1:55:12] Granger. Yes. Mayor Branch. Yes. Motion passes four to zero. Thank you for attending.

City of Panama City Commission Meeting 08252026

Transcript