Powered by PorchPing

Your community

Panama City
Local decisions, explained.Public meeting briefings
← All Panama City briefings

Past meeting

City Commission Meeting

Meeting information

October 13, 2026 · 8:00 AM Central Add to your calendar ↗

This meeting date has passed. This briefing describes agenda proposals, not the meeting’s outcome.

840 WEST 11TH STREET

Item 1 of 22

Unused Fairy Avenue segment could be released for development

Applicant seeks to abandon the right-of-way so a city-owned parcel can be developed as one piece; a sewer easement would remain, and the Planning Board voted 4–0 to recommend approval.

The City Commission is being asked to hold the first of two public hearings on a proposed ordinance that would vacate (give up) a currently unimproved portion of Fairy Avenue. Staff describe the segment as north of W 13th Street, between Lisenby Avenue and Fairland Avenue, and splitting a parcel identified as 18691-000-000 that is designated as city property.

Staff say a sewer easement along the north side of the property would stay in place and that vacating the right-of-way would not jeopardize current or future utilities or infrastructure. The supporting staff report says the unimproved road segment is not being used for through traffic or vehicle access and that the applicant wants the road vacated so the property can be developed “in its entirety.” Planning Board previously reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval, and staff concur with that recommendation.

The City Commission is being asked to conduct the first of two public hearings on Ordinance 3318 to vacate and abandon an unimproved portion of Fairy Avenue. The Development Services Director recommends moving the ordinance forward for its first public hearing, and staff cite the Planning Board’s 4–0 recommendation and staff’s finding that utilities and access would not be harmed.

Why this matters

Public street space is a community asset, even when no road has been built. Giving up this segment would make it available for development, so nearby residents have a stake in what access would remain and what could eventually be built there.

Official wording and sources

First of two public hearings on Ordinance 3318, an ordinance to vacate and abandon an unimproved portion of Fairy Avenue.

Agenda Item Request Form 3318_Fairy Ave VROW.pdf
Agenda Request Packet 3318_Fairy Ave ORDINANCE NO_VROW.pdf

Official agenda wording

17695.pdf

17695 (1).pdf

Listen to this explanation · 2:02

Learn more about this item

Why does staff say vacating this right-of-way would not interfere with sewer service?

Staff say the parcel has a sewer easement along the northern portion of the property that will remain, and that vacating the right-of-way would not jeopardize the current or future location of utilities.

Supporting passages
o vacate and abandon an unimproved portion of Fairy Avenue. The applicant is requesting to vacate and abandon an unimproved portion of Fairy Avenue north of W 13th Street, west of Lisenby Avenue, east of Fairland Avenue, and splits the parcel identified as 18691-000- 000, of land designated as “City Property”. The property currently has a sewer easement along the northern portion of the property that will remain, vacating the right of way would not jeopardize the current or future location of an
17695.pdf
e that splits the parcel 18691-000-000 does not impede traffic and is not being used for vehicle access. The right of way does not provide sole access to any property except to the owner of parcel 18691-000-000. Parcel 18691-000-000 currently has a sewer easement along the northern portion of the property that will remain, vacating the right of way would not jeopardize the current or future location of any utilities. The vacation request would not be detrimental to the public interest because it
17695 (1).pdf
What did the Planning Board do on this request?

Staff report that the Planning Board reviewed the item on September 14, 2026 and unanimously recommended approval (4–0).

Supporting passages
y utilities or infrastructure. This item was previously reviewed by the Planning Board on September 14, 2026. The Planning Board recommended approval unanimously (4-0). Staff concurs. The following document(s) are enclosed: a) Ordinance No. 3318 b) Staff Analysis, Report, and Recommendation c) Maps (Aerial, Location, Future Land Use and Zoning) d) Survey The Director of Development Services recommends the City Commission conduct the first of two public hearings. Source(s) of non-budgeted funds?
17695.pdf
What reasons does the staff report give for supporting the vacation?

The staff report says the unimproved portion of Fairy Avenue is not being used for through traffic or vehicle access, does not provide sole access to other properties, and does not eliminate any public access to water in this area.

Supporting passages
e that splits the parcel 18691-000-000 does not impede traffic and is not being used for vehicle access. The right of way does not provide sole access to any property except to the owner of parcel 18691-000-000. Parcel 18691-000-000 currently has a sewer easement along the northern portion of the property that will remain, vacating the right of way would not jeopardize the current or future location of any utilities. The vacation request would not be detrimental to the public interest because it
17695 (1).pdf
currently is not being used for through traffic. The proposed vacation does not eliminate a public accessway to the water, there is no water access available in this area. Per the local Comprehensive Plan’s Transportation Element, the City is charged with establishing and maintaining a safe, convenient and efficient multi-model transportation system to move people and goods through the City. The City is required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing per capita vehicle miles traveled th
17695 (1).pdf
What hearing dates are listed in the supporting staff report?

The supporting staff report lists the City Commission first public hearing date as October 13, 2026, and the second and final public hearing date as October 27, 2026.

Supporting passages
13, 2026 Date(s) Second and Final Public Hearing: October 27, 2026 Meeting Type Public Hearing Staff Information Orlando Russ,planner II, Planning & Zoning Division, Development Services Department Action Necessary Yes Staff Recommendation APPROVE Attachment (s) Included Vacation/Abandonment of Right of Way (ROW) or Easement Aerial Map and Location Map, Survey, Property Condition Report Application, Location, Site and Land Use Summary: Case Number CPC-PLN-2026-1702 Application Type Vacation/Aban
17695 (1).pdf

Item 2 of 22

Grace Avenue abandonment between West 6th and West 7th streets requested by First Baptist Church

Staff says closing the block would add church parking and reduce pedestrian crossings of West 6th Street.

First Baptist Church of Panama City seeks to close the Grace Avenue block between West 6th and West 7th streets by having the city give up its public right-of-way. The staff report says the church owns both sides of the block. Staff says the change would provide additional parking on site, reduce the number of people crossing West 6th Street to reach the church, and close the block to through traffic. Other routes would remain available.

Staff reports that the Planning Board recommended approval 4–0 on September 14, 2026, and staff agrees. The packet includes the proposed ordinance, staff analysis, maps and survey. Staff says existing utility access would be protected, including a retained sewer easement and the church’s willingness to allow access for utilities crossing the property.

The packet also records AT&T’s objection because it has buried cables in this part of Grace Avenue. That objection remains relevant alongside staff’s position that utilities would not be jeopardized.

The October 13 item is the first of two public hearings on Ordinance 3319, not a recorded approval of the street closure. The Development Services Director recommends holding the hearing. The materials include AT&T’s utility objection but do not document its withdrawal.

Why this matters

Drivers using this block would need another route if it closes. Staff says the change would help the church provide parking and reduce crossings of West 6th Street. Those benefits sit alongside the loss of through access and AT&T’s unresolved concern about buried cables.

Official wording and sources

First of two public hearings on Ordinance 3319, an ordinance to vacate and abandon a portion of Grace Avenue north of W. 6th Street and south of W. 7th Street.

First of two public hearings on Ordinance 3319, an ordinance to vacate and abandon a portion of Grace Avenue north of W. 6th Street and south of W. 7th Street.

Official agenda wording

grace-request.pdf

grace-packet.pdf

Listen to this explanation · 2:03

Learn more about this item

What does the ordinance describe as the segment to be vacated?

It describes the portion of Grace Avenue (a 60-foot right-of-way) between Block 29 and Block 30, with the full boundary described by survey-style bearings and distances.

Supporting passages
anama City, Florida (“City”) hereby vacates and abandons an alleyway and easement being more particularly described as follows: THE PORTION OF GRACE AVENUE (60 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY) LYING BETWEEN BLOCK 29 AND BLOCK 30, GULF COASTDEVELOPMENTCOMPANYFIRSTADDITION,AS RECORDED IN PLATBOOK 4,PAGE 2. OFTHE PUBLIC RECORDS OF BAYCOUNTYFLORIDA. LYING IN SECTION B.TOWNSHIP4 SOUTH, RANGE 14WEST. AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBEDAS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT AN EX/STING IRON ROD MARKING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK
grace-packet.pdf
29 AND BEING ON THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF SEVENTH STREET (60 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY); THENCE SOUTH 01'09'08" WEST ALONG THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID GRACE AVENUE AND THE WEST LINE OF SAID BLOCK 29 , FOR 600.26 FEETTO ANAILANO DISK SET ONTHE NORTH RIGHT OFWAYLINE OFWESTSIXTH STREET (60 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY)AND MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 29; THENCE DEPARTING SAID EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 88'43'48' WEST ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR 60.00 FEET TO A NAIL AND DISK MARKING T
grace-packet.pdf
HE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 30 AND SET ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF AFORESAID CRACE AVENUE; THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 01'09'08" EASTALONG THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY OF SAID BLOCK JO AND THE AFORE SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF GRACE AVENUE FOR 600.27 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON ROD MARKING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 30 AND BEING ON THE AFORE SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SEVENTH STREET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAYLINE SOUTH 88"43'12" EASTALONG SAID SO
grace-packet.pdf
What did staff report about the Planning Board’s prior action on this request?

Staff reports the Planning Board reviewed the item on September 14, 2026 and recommended approval unanimously (4–0), and staff concurs.

Supporting passages
his item was previously reviewed by the Planning Board on September 14, 2026. The Planning Board recommended approval unanimously (4-0). Staff concurs. The following document(s) are enclosed: a) Ordinance No. 3319 b) Staff Analysis, Report, and Recommendation c) Maps (Aerial, Location, Future Land Use and Zoning) d) Survey The Director of Development Services recommends the City Commission conduct the first of two public hearings. Source(s) of non-budgeted funds? Is this a Capital improvement as
grace-request.pdf
ed by the Planning Board on September 14, 2026. The Planning Board recommended approval unanimously (4-0). Staff concurs. The following document(s) are enclosed: a) Ordinance No. 3319 b) Staff Analysis, Report, and Recommendation c) Maps (Aerial, Location, Future Land Use and Zoning) d) Survey Requestor: Jiwuan Haley, Planning Manager Preparer: Jiwuan Haley, Planning Manager Date2_af_date: 10/5/26 Date3_af_date: 10/5/26 Date4_af_date: 10/5/26 Reviewer: Michael Fuller, Director of Development Srv
grace-request.pdf
Were any utility providers documented as objecting or not objecting to the right-of-way vacation?

The staff report says AT&T–BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC objected due to multiple buried cables in the Grace Avenue right-of-way between 6th and 7th, while Comcast reported no objection; several others showed “No Response.”

Supporting passages
. Other Considerations Private Utility Provider Comments: AT&T – BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC AT&T objects to this ROW vacation,CPC-PLN-2026-1634. They have multiple buried cables in the ROW of Grace Ave between 6 and 7th. Comcast No Objection. Florida Power & Light (FPL) No Response. TECO People’s Gas No Response. WOW Cable No Response. Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies: Future Land Use Element Goal 1A: Establish a defined pattern of land use intended to guide the provision
grace-packet.pdf
What meeting dates does the staff report list for the two City Commission public hearings?

The staff report lists the first City Commission public hearing as October 13, 2026 and the second and final public hearing as October 27, 2026.

Supporting passages
elopment Regulations (hereafter referred to as the LDRs) and the Comprehensive Plan (hereafter referred to as the Comp Plan) along with the staff recommendations are as follows: GRACE AVENUE ABANDONMENT OF ALLEYWAY/RIGHT OF WAY/EASEMENT CPC-PLN-2026-1634 Staff Report Date September 4, 2026 Planning Board Meeting Date Public Hearing: September 14, 2026 City Commission Meeting First Public Hearing: October 13, 2026 Date(s) Second and Final Public Hearing: October 27, 2026 Meeting Type Public Heari
grace-packet.pdf

Item 3 of 22

Accessory homes could be exempt from the separate-meter requirement

The proposed water-meter exception would apply to an accessory dwelling on the same lot.

An accessory dwelling unit—an additional home on the same lot—could be exempt from the city’s separate water-meter requirement under proposed Ordinance 3320. Commissioners are scheduled to hold the first of two public hearings on October 13.

The ordinance adds the same-lot exception to the rule for separate lots and building sites. It also strikes out the provision that separately requires connections for garages and other structures converted into living quarters. The rule requiring separate meters when homes supplied through one meter pass to different owners would remain.

The staff request identifies the proposed change, and the ordinance shows the exact additions and deletions. The materials do not estimate savings for individual property owners.

Commissioners are being asked to conduct the first of two public hearings on proposed Ordinance 3320, which would amend Chapter 23, Section 23-21 to exempt accessory dwelling units from the separate-meter requirement. The Director of Development Services recommends holding this first hearing.

Why this matters

For someone adding a small home on their property or converting a structure into living space, this rule could change the utility work required. Removing the separate-meter requirement could reduce one barrier, although the materials do not estimate savings or establish that a particular project would qualify.

Official wording and sources

First of two public hearings on Ordinance 3320, an ordinance amending Chapter 23 Section 23-21, Separate Meter Required of the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC), exempting ADUs.

First of two public hearings on Ordinance 3320, an ordinance amending Chapter 23 Section 23-21, Separate Meter Required of the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC), exempting ADUs.

Official agenda wording

adu-request.pdf

adu-ordinance.pdf

Listen to this explanation · 1:43

Learn more about this item

What specific code section would Ordinance 3320 change?

It would amend Chapter 23 (“Utilities”), Section 23-21, which is titled “Separate meter required.”

Supporting passages
ty Code Amendment. Chapter 23 “Utilities” Section 23-21 of the Panama City Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: (strikethrough text is deleted; underlined/bold text is added) Sec. 23-21. - Separate meter required. (a) The following structures and sites are considered separate units for payment of monthly water rates and charges, and shall require separate connections: (1) Separate lots and building sites; except for accessory dwelling units on the same lot; (2) Garages and other structur
adu-ordinance.pdf
ORDINANCE NO. 3320 AN ORDIANCE OF THE CITY OF PANAMA CITY, FLORIDA AMENDING CHAPTER 23 SECTION 23-21 SEPARATE METERS REQUIRED EXCEPT FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS OF THE PANAMA CITY MUNICPAL CODE ENTITLED “UTILITIES”; REPEALING ANY PART OF AN ORDINANCE IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF ANY PART OF THIS ORDINANCE DECLARED INVALID; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. NOW,THEREFORE,BEITENACTEDBYTHEPEOPLEOFTHECITYOFPANAMA CITY, FLORIDA: Section 1. Ci
adu-ordinance.pdf
How does the ordinance text describe the ADU exception?

It adds an exception stating that separate lots and building sites require separate connections, except for accessory dwelling units on the same lot.

Supporting passages
ty Code Amendment. Chapter 23 “Utilities” Section 23-21 of the Panama City Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: (strikethrough text is deleted; underlined/bold text is added) Sec. 23-21. - Separate meter required. (a) The following structures and sites are considered separate units for payment of monthly water rates and charges, and shall require separate connections: (1) Separate lots and building sites; except for accessory dwelling units on the same lot; (2) Garages and other structur
adu-ordinance.pdf
What action is staff recommending at this meeting?

Staff recommends the City Commission conduct the first of two public hearings on the proposed ordinance.

Supporting passages
mending Chapter 23 Section 23-21, Separate Meter Required of the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC), exempting ADUs. Ordinance No. 3320, as proposed, will amend Chapter 23 Section 23-21, Separate Meter Required, of the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC), exempting Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The following document(s) are enclosed: a) Ordinance No. 3320 The Director of Development Services recommends the City Commission conduct the first of two public hearings Source(s) of non-budgeted f
adu-request.pdf
unds? Is this a Capital improvement as defined in s. 163.3164? If so, what are the estimated future annual maintenance/operational costs: ☐Personnel $ ☐Operating $ ☐Capital $ ☐Revenue $ Requested By: Date: Prepared By: Date: Reviewed By: Date: Date: Reviewed By: Approved By: Date: 2 Approve / Deny: The Director of Development Services recommends the City Commission conduct the first of two public hearings Item Title: First of two public hearings on Ordinance 3320, an ordinance amending Chapter 2
adu-request.pdf

Item 4 of 22

Mixed-use request at 803 Oak Avenue advances to hearing after Planning Board opposition

Staff says the Planning Board voted 4–0 to recommend denial; the request also includes rezoning to Mixed Use-2 (MU-2).

The City Commission is being asked to hold the first of two public hearings on a proposed ordinance that would change the City’s Future Land Use Map for 803 Oak Avenue from Residential to Mixed Use. The applicant is also seeking a related rezoning request to Mixed Use-2 (MU-2). This matters because the Future Land Use Map is the City’s long-range guide for what kinds of development are expected in different areas, and “Mixed Use” is described in the staff report materials as allowing a mix of housing and non-residential uses under one category.

Staff reports that the Planning Board previously reviewed this request on September 14, 2026 and unanimously recommended denial (4–0), and staff says it agrees with that recommendation. The draft ordinance and staff report materials included with the agenda item describe the property as 803 Oak Avenue (Parcel ID shown in multiple places in the attachments) and identify the proposal as a small-scale Future Land Use Map amendment and rezoning request.

The City Commission is being asked to conduct the first public hearing on Ordinance 3316.1 to change 803 Oak Avenue’s Future Land Use Map designation to Mixed Use. Staff says the Planning Board recommended denial 4–0 and staff concurs, but staff’s stated recommendation for this meeting is to conduct the first public hearing.

Why this matters

This decision concerns the neighborhood’s long-term direction: whether this property should remain designated for residential use or allow a mix of homes and businesses. Nearby residents have a stake in that choice, including the reasons staff and the Planning Board oppose it.

Official wording and sources

First of two public hearings on Ordinance 3316.1, an ordinance amending the Future Land Use Map of the City to reflect a land use designation of Mixed Use for a property located at 803 Oak Ave.

First of two public hearings on Ordinance 3316.1, an ordinance amending the Future Land Use Map of the City to reflect a land use designation of Mixed Use for a property located at 803 Oak Ave.

Official agenda wording

17693.pdf

17693 (1).pdf

Listen to this explanation · 2:11

Learn more about this item

What change is being requested for 803 Oak Avenue?

The request is to change the future land use from Residential to Mixed Use and to rezone from Residential-1 (R-1) to Mixed Use-2 (MU-2).

Supporting passages
roved Single-Family Development Order, Property Condition Report Application, Location, Site and Land Use Summary: Case Number CPC-PLN-2026-1715 Application Type Small Scale Land Use Amendment & Rezoning Owner ARN Investment Properties, LLC Applicant ARN Investment Properties, LLC (Arthur Ramirez) The applicant has requested a small-scale land use amendment and rezoning Request from Residential-1 (R-1) to Mixed Use-2 (MU-2). Location / Address and Parcel ID Number (s) 803 Oak Avenue (PARCEL ID #
17693 (1).pdf
: 19998-010-000) City Commission Ward Impacted 1 Community Redevelopment Agency Area The subject property is located within the boundaries of the Downtown North CRA District. Property Size (acres approx.) (Source: Bay County Property Appraiser) 0.367 Existing Land Use Classification (Source: Bay County GIS) SINGLE FAMILY (0100) Existing Future Land Use Residential (RES) Page 1 of 5 Existing Zoning District (s) Residential-1 (R-1) Proposed Future Land Use Mixed Use (MU) Proposed Zoning District M
17693 (1).pdf
What did the Planning Board recommend?

Staff reports the Planning Board unanimously recommended denial (4–0), and staff says it agrees with that recommendation.

Supporting passages
2, MU-2 for a property located at 803 Oak Avenue (Parcel ID 13783-040-000). This item was previously reviewed by the Planning Board on September 14, 2026. The Planning Board recommended denial unanimously (4-0). Staff concurs. The following document(s) are enclosed: a) Ordinance No. 3316.1 b) Staff Analysis, Report, Recommendation and Public Comments c) Adopted Map Series (Aerial, Future Land Use and Zoning Maps) Requestor: Jiwuan Haley, Planning Manager Preparer: Jiwuan Haley, Planning Manager
17693.pdf
to prepare and adopt and enforce a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Panama City Planning Board held a Public Hearing to consider Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPC-PLN-2026-1715 on September 14, 2026, and recommended the Amendment be denied by a vote of 4-0 by the Panama City Commission, and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Panama City held a first public hearing on October 13, 2026, and a second and final public hearing on October 27, 2026, to adopt Comprehensive Plan Ame
17693 (1).pdf
In these materials, what does “Mixed Use” mean?

The staff report materials describe the Mixed Use category as intended for medium to high-density residential development in combination with commercial, office, and educational uses, and say it is meant to provide flexibility while using measures like landscaping, fencing, lighting, and noise standards for compatibility.

Supporting passages
n the Future Land Use Map shall be described as follows. (In the following descriptions of Future Land Use categories, density standards shall apply to residential development and intensity standards shall apply to non-residential development.) [See Comprehensive Plan for the full list of Future Land Use Map Categories]. Page 2 of 5 8. Mixed Use Land Use Category This category is intended to provide areas for medium to high-density residential development, in combination with commercial, office,
17693 (1).pdf
and educational uses. The mixed-use concept is specifically intended to provide flexibility in the planning and permitting process by allowing a range of land Intent uses within one district. Emphasis is on performance mitigation such as landscaping, fencing, lighting, noise standards, etc. to promote compatibility among land uses while also providing property owners with a range of options for use of their property. Density Maximum density shall be no more than 20 dwelling units per acre. Impe
17693 (1).pdf
What is the schedule described for the two City Commission hearings?

The ordinance text states a first public hearing on October 13, 2026 and a second and final public hearing on October 27, 2026.

Supporting passages
to prepare and adopt and enforce a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Panama City Planning Board held a Public Hearing to consider Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPC-PLN-2026-1715 on September 14, 2026, and recommended the Amendment be denied by a vote of 4-0 by the Panama City Commission, and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Panama City held a first public hearing on October 13, 2026, and a second and final public hearing on October 27, 2026, to adopt Comprehensive Plan Ame
17693 (1).pdf

Item 5 of 22

803 Oak Avenue owner seeks a change from single-family zoning

Staff and the Planning Board oppose the change, citing protection of the surrounding residential neighborhood.

The owner of 803 Oak Avenue is seeking a change from single-family residential zoning to Mixed Use-2, a category that allows a broader combination of housing and business uses. The request accompanies a separate proposal to change the property’s future land-use designation. This item concerns the zoning map and the rules for what could be developed on the site.

The Planning Board recommended denial 4–0 on September 14, 2026, and city staff agrees. Staff says most nearby properties are single-family homes and that mixed-use development south of West 8th Street already provides a transition to downtown. Staff argues that extending it into this residential block could undermine neighborhood stability and compatible development.

The zoning request and proposed ordinance describe the map change. The shared staff report from the preceding land-use item explains the opposition and the development rules that would apply. Rezoning would not itself approve a specific construction project.

October 13 is the first of two public hearings on Ordinance 3316.2. The Development Services Director recommends conducting the hearing, while staff recommends denying the requested land-use and zoning changes. Both the staff request and ordinance identify 803 Oak Avenue, but they list different parcel numbers; that discrepancy is unresolved in these materials.

Why this matters

Zoning sets the rules for what can be developed beside existing homes. This proposal would allow a broader range of uses at 803 Oak Avenue, making the proposed development rules relevant to neighbors. Rezoning would not itself approve a specific building project.

Official wording and sources

First of two public hearings on Ordinance 3316.2, an ordinance amending the Zoning Map of the City to reflect a zoning designation of Mixed Use-2 for a property located at 803 Oak Ave.

First of two public hearings on Ordinance 3316.2, an ordinance amending the Zoning Map of the City to reflect a zoning designation of Mixed Use-2 for a property located at 803 Oak Ave. Agenda Item Request Form 3316.2_803 Oak Avenue Rezoning.pdf
3316.2_803 Oak Avenue ORDINANCE NO_Rezoning.pdf

Official agenda wording

17693 (1).pdf

oak-rezoning-request.pdf

oak-rezoning-ordinance.pdf

Listen to this explanation · 2:09

Learn more about this item

What zoning change is being requested for 803 Oak Avenue?

The applicant is asking to change the property’s zoning from Residential-1 (R-1) to Mixed Use-2 (MU-2).

Supporting passages
roved Single-Family Development Order, Property Condition Report Application, Location, Site and Land Use Summary: Case Number CPC-PLN-2026-1715 Application Type Small Scale Land Use Amendment & Rezoning Owner ARN Investment Properties, LLC Applicant ARN Investment Properties, LLC (Arthur Ramirez) The applicant has requested a small-scale land use amendment and rezoning Request from Residential-1 (R-1) to Mixed Use-2 (MU-2). Location / Address and Parcel ID Number (s) 803 Oak Avenue (PARCEL ID #
17693 (1).pdf
: 19998-010-000) City Commission Ward Impacted 1 Community Redevelopment Agency Area The subject property is located within the boundaries of the Downtown North CRA District. Property Size (acres approx.) (Source: Bay County Property Appraiser) 0.367 Existing Land Use Classification (Source: Bay County GIS) SINGLE FAMILY (0100) Existing Future Land Use Residential (RES) Page 1 of 5 Existing Zoning District (s) Residential-1 (R-1) Proposed Future Land Use Mixed Use (MU) Proposed Zoning District M
17693 (1).pdf
What did the Planning Board recommend on this request?

The agenda materials say the Planning Board unanimously recommended denial (4-0) after reviewing the item on September 14, 2026.

Supporting passages
amending the Zoning Map of the City to reflect a zoning designation of Mixed Use-2 for a property located at 803 Oak Ave. The applicant has requested a future land use change to Mixed Use, and a rezoning to Mixed Use-2, MU-2 for a property located at 803 Oak Avenue (Parcel ID 13783-040-000). This item was previously reviewed by the Planning Board on September 14, 2026. The Planning Board recommended denial unanimously (4-0). Staff concurs (see "staff findings" in staff report enclosed with prec
oak-rezoning-request.pdf
What does the ordinance do if it is adopted after the hearings?

It would zone the described parcel at 803 Oak Avenue as Mixed Use-2 (MU-2) and amend the city’s official zoning map to match.

Supporting passages
Development Company’s Second Addition to Panama City, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 9, of the Public Records of Bay County, Florida. Address: 803 Oak Avenue Parcel ID #: 19998-010-000 For Map of Property see “Exhibit A” Section 2: The Official Zoning Map is amended to reflect the zoning of the above referenced property. Section 3: All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. Section 4: This Ordin
oak-rezoning-ordinance.pdf
What kinds of uses does the staff report describe for the MU-2 zoning district?

The staff report describes MU-2 as intended for medium-density residential along with professional offices, educational, and low-intensity neighborhood commercial uses, with a list of allowed uses in the code section it cites.

Supporting passages
en located in this category. Unified Land Development Code Regulations: Sec. 104-31. Mixed Use-2 (MU-2) zoning district. The purpose of this zoning district is to provide areas for medium-density residential development, in combination with professional offices, educational, and low-intensity, neighborhood commercial uses: A. The following bulk regulations shall apply to property zoned as MU-2: 1. The impervious surface ratio (ISR) shall be no greater than 0.65 of the total parcel area. 2. The f
17693 (1).pdf
s K—12. 4. Public or noncommercial private recreation. 5. Accessory uses or structures as set forth in Chapter 110. 6. Public utilities customarily found in residential areas; 7. Family day care homes pursuant to F.S. § 125.0109. Page 3 of 5 8. Bed and breakfast inns; 9. Attached dwellings, up to four units attached; 10. Multi-family structures up to 15 dwelling units per acre; 11. Neighborhood-scale commercial uses, not to exceed 20,000 square feet of heated and cooled space in size per parcel.
17693 (1).pdf

Item 6 of 22

General Fund spending reaches 87% of budget through August

A separate General Fund balance analysis projects the City could end FY 2026 with $3.76 million unassigned, about 5.25% of budgeted expenses.

City officials are being asked to review an unaudited “Budget Performance Report” for the fiscal year-to-date through August 31, 2026. In the General Fund (the City’s main operating fund), the report shows total revenue of $63,579,859.61 collected compared with an amended year-to-date budget of $70,243,288.00 (91%), and total expenses of $62,044,238.33 compared with a budget of $71,601,438.80 (87%). The report also shows some revenue lines running above plan (for example, ad valorem taxes and fines/forfeitures) while others are below plan (for example, state revenue sharing and sale of fixed assets).

The governing body is being asked to receive and review the Monthly Financial Statement and General Fund Balance Report for August 2026. Staff’s materials provide an unaudited year-to-date budget performance snapshot as of August 31, 2026 and a separate projection of the General Fund’s unassigned fund balance through September 30, 2026.

Why this matters

This report helps residents see whether money is coming in and going out as the city expected. Those trends matter when officials decide what services and projects the city can afford. The figures are a financial snapshot, not a final audit or proof that money below budget is available to spend.

Official wording and sources

Monthly Financial Statement and General Fund Balance Report - August 2026

Monthly Financial Statement and General Fund Balance Report - August 2026

Official agenda wording

17243.pdf

17243 (1).pdf

Listen to this explanation · 2:06

Learn more about this item

What does the August 2026 report show for the General Fund overall (revenue vs. expenses) year-to-date?

As of August 31, 2026, the General Fund shows $63,579,859.61 in revenue compared with $70,243,288.00 budgeted (91%), and $62,044,238.33 in expenses compared with $71,601,438.80 budgeted (87%).

Supporting passages
(278,728.00) 94% REVENUE TOTALS 70,243,288.00 63,579,859.61 $ (6,663,428.39) 91% EXPENSE Personnel Costs 41,463,029.80 36,444,452.11 5,018,577.69 88% Operating Costs 19,867,503.00 16,038,373.57 3,829,129.43 81% Capital Outlay 1,942,053.00 1,659,354.83 282,698.17 85% Intangible Assets 658,812.00 492,178.31 166,633.69 75% Debt Service 7,660,382.00 7,409,879.51 $ 250,502.49 97% Transfers 9,659.00 - 9,659.00 0% EXPENSE TOTALS 71,601,438.80 62,044,238.33 9,557,200.47 87% Budgetary changes in reserve
17243.pdf
What unassigned General Fund balance is projected at the end of fiscal year 2026?

The fund balance analysis projects an unassigned General Fund balance of $3,760,052 at September 30, 2026, which it lists as 5.25% of budgeted fiscal year 2026 expenses.

Supporting passages
rcentage of total 1 budgeted expenses at 9/30/2025 : 6.82% Per City Policy targets: 7.43% Per GFOA Recommendations: 8.28% 1 Unassigned Fund Balance @ 9/30/2025 $ 5,118,203 Budgeted Reserves in Fiscal Year 2026 (1,358,151) Unassigned Fund Balance @ 9/30/2026 2 $ 3,760,052 Budgeted Expenses in Fiscal Year 2026 $ 71,601,439 Unassigned Fund Balance as a percentage of total 2 expenses : 5.25% Per City Policy targets: 5.45% Per GFOA Recommendations: 6.13% 1 Estimated/unaudited 2 Projected Ordinance No
17243 (1).pdf
What City policy targets are described for General Fund reserves and unassigned fund balance?

The attachment says Ordinance No. 2624 (adopted August 22, 2017) authorizes a target of 30% of annual budgeted operating expenditures committed for disaster/emergency reserves and a target of 10% of annual budgeted operating expenditures as unassigned fund balance in the General Fund.

Supporting passages
. 2624 adopted on August 22, 2017, amending Ordinance No. 2549 "Establishing a Fund Balance/Net Position Policy" authorizes a target balance of 30% of annual budgeted operating expenditures to commit for Disaster/Emergency Reserves and a target balance of 10% of annual budgeted operating expenditures as Unassigned Fund Balance in the General Fund. Requires annual review during the budget adoption process.
17243 (1).pdf
Which General Fund revenue items shown are notably above or below the year-to-date budget in the report?

In the General Fund, the report shows ad valorem taxes at 102% and fines & forfeitures at 305% of budget, while state revenue sharing is shown at 72% and sale of fixed assets at 10% of budget.

Supporting passages
Budget Performance Report UNAUDITED Fiscal Year to Date As of August 31, 2026 Amended YTD Budget - YTD % Used/ Account Description Budget Transactions Transactions Rec'd Fund 001 - General Fund REVENUE Ad Valorem Taxes $ 17,992,550.00 $ 18,303,812.62 $ 311,262.62 102% Licenses & Permits 15,020,298.00 13,793,870.91 $ (1,226,427.09) 92% Other Taxes 8,580,319.00 7,647,273.06 $ (933,045.94) 89% State Revenue Sharing 8,192,689.00 5,866,263.03 $ (2,326,425.97) 72% Fire Assessment Revenue 5,189,145.00
17243.pdf
5,456,308.61 $ 267,163.61 105% Franchise Fees 4,695,000.00 4,117,673.60 $ (577,326.40) 88% Charges for Services 1,924,638.00 1,852,537.97 $ (72,100.03) 96% Fines & Forfeitures 210,100.00 641,706.85 $ 431,606.85 305% Interest Earnings 500,000.00 371,574.29 $ (128,425.71) 74% Rents & Royalties 188,500.00 125,319.62 $ (63,180.38) 66% Sale of Fixed Assets 2,800,000.00 276,416.75 $ (2,523,583.25) 10% Miscellaneous 264,960.00 720,741.30 $ 455,781.30 272% Interfund Transfers 4,685,089.00 4,406,361.00 $
17243.pdf

Item 7 of 22

Disaster-recovery contract could increase by $74,978

The added work would install a city-provided replacement pump and new piping at Lift Station 41.

Problems with the existing bypass pump at Lift Station 41 prompted the city to request replacement work under its disaster-recovery contract with Marshall Brothers (Search Sunbiz). The proposed $74,978 change order would pay for removing existing piping, installing new piping and putting a city-provided pump into service.

The commission approved the original $1,199,749 contract on August 25, 2026, with authority for change orders up to $59,987.45. This request exceeds that allowance by $14,990.55, which is why it needs commission approval. The full change order would bring the contract to $1,274,727.

Staff recommends approval. The staff request explains the spending authority, while the change order and contractor’s quote describe the pump work and price. The change order adds no time to the project.

Commissioners are being asked to approve Change Order 1 for $74,978. The $14,990.55 figure is the portion above the previously authorized change-order allowance, not the total cost of the added work.

Why this matters

The condition of equipment at Lift Station 41 matters to the reliability of the system it serves. This request adds $74,978 for bypass-pump work, putting both the repair need and the price before commissioners because the cost exceeds their earlier spending authorization.

Official wording and sources

Consideration of approval of Change Order 1 to Marshall Brothers on Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Project STORM Group I in the amount of $74,978.00.

9.b.
Consideration of approval of Change Order 1 to Marshall Brothers (Search Sunbiz) on Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Project STORM Group I in the amount of $74,978.00.
Documents:
Agenda Item Request Change Order No. 1 STORM Group I 101326.pdf
Backup - Project Storm Group I Change Order 1 101326.pdf

Official agenda wording

storm-request.pdf

storm-backup.pdf

Listen to this explanation · 2:05

Learn more about this item

Why does this change order need City Commission approval instead of being handled under the earlier change-order authorization?

Staff says the original contract approval included executed change orders up to $59,987.45, but this change order is $74,978, which is $14,990.55 over that amount, so it requires Commission approval.

Supporting passages
ion of approval of Change Order #1 to Marshall Brothers on CDBG-DR Project STORM Group | in the amount of $74,978.00. On August 25, 2026 the Commission approved PC26-014 Project STORM Group | to Marshall Brothers in the amount of $1,199,749.00 with executed change orders up to an amount of $59,987.45. Change Order No. 1 requested amount is $74,978.00 with an over amount of $14,990.55 to install a bypass pump for Lift Sation No. 41. This change order for the overrun amount of $14,990.55 requires
storm-request.pdf
8.00. Background information: On August 25, 2026 the Commission approved PC26-014 Project STORM Group I to Marshall Brothers in the amount of $1,199,749.00 with executed change orders up to an amount of $59,987.45. Change Order No. 1 requested amount is $74,978.00 with an over amount of $14,990.55 to install a bypass pump for Lift Sation No. 41. This change order for the overrun amount of $14,990.55 requires approval of this commission. Capital: $14,990.55 Requestor: Jennifer Aldridge Preparer:
storm-request.pdf
What work is included in Change Order No. 1?

The change order summary says the City requested pricing to replace bypass pump piping at Lift Station #41 so a complete bypass pump (provided by the City) can be installed, and it lists this added item at a cost of $74,978.

Supporting passages
ump Installation – Due to issues with the existing bypass pump located at Lift Station #41, the City requested Marshall Brothers to explore the cost of replacing the existing bypass pump with a new bypass pump provided by the City. The proposed scope includes demolishing the existing 14- inch bypass pump piping at the station and replacing with new 12-inch piping necessary for the installation of a complete and functional bypass pump provided by the City. Per the attached quote for new materials
storm-backup.pdf
from Marshall Brothers Construction and Engineering, Inc., the Lift Station #41 bypass pump installation is added at a cost of $74,978.00. No change in project time is associated with this item. 2. Deduction of Contingency – The executed motion (by the City Commission) included $59,987.45. It is hereby reduced ($74,978.00). The remaining balance of the contingency is $0.00. As a result, the change order requires approval from the City Commission to become effective. Change to Contract Price: Wi
storm-backup.pdf
Does the change order change the project schedule or completion date?

The change order form states zero days are added, keeping the same substantial completion date of February 5, 2027.

Supporting passages
th the addition of item (1) and the deduction of item (2), the total cost of $74,978.00 is hereby added to the contract resulting in a new contract price of $1,274,727.00. Change to Contract Time: Zero (0) total days are hereby added to the contract resulting in the same substantial th completion date of February 5 , 2027. EJCDC® C-941, Change Order. Copyright 2018 National Society of ProfessionalEngineers,AmericanCouncil of Engineering Companies and American Society of CivilEngineers.Allrights
storm-backup.pdf

Item 8 of 22

New playground proposed for Joe Moody Harris Park

Staff says the park’s 2024 Land and Water Conservation Fund grant includes new play equipment, and Struthers was the lowest-cost vendor meeting the design request.

The City Council is being asked to approve an agreement with Struthers Recreation, LLC (Search Sunbiz) to buy and install new playground equipment at Joe Moody Harris Park. Staff says the City received a Land and Water Conservation Fund Program grant in 2024 to redevelop the park, and that project includes playground structures for ages 2–5 and 5–12, swings, and other play elements.

Staff reports it sought proposals and estimates from four vendors and selected Struthers Recreation because it met the design request at the lowest cost. The amount described by staff for the playground purchase and installation is $199,561.77, using OMNIA BuyBoard contract pricing and including a stated additional playground discount of $75,867.76. The agenda item also asks to authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement. Staff lists $279,130 as the total budgeted funds and identifies the funding source as Grant Fund 170-7200.

Council is being asked to approve an agreement with Struthers Recreation, LLC (Search Sunbiz) to purchase and install a playground for Joe Moody Harris Park and to authorize the City Manager to sign. Staff recommends approval, saying Struthers was the lowest-cost vendor that met the design request and the quoted total is $199,561.77 under OMNIA BuyBoard contract pricing with a stated discount.

Why this matters

Families using Joe Moody Harris Park would see a direct change: new play equipment intended for younger and older children. The decision commits nearly $200,000 to purchase and installation, making both the play options and their place in the broader park redevelopment relevant to parents and neighbors.

Official wording and sources

Consideration of approval for an agreement with Struthers Recreation, LLC for the purchase and installation of a playground for Joe Moody Harris Park and authorizing the City Manager to sign.

9.c.
Consideration of approval for an agreement with Struthers Recreation, LLC (Search Sunbiz) for the purchase and installation of a playground for Joe Moody Harris Park and authorizing the City Manager to sign.
Documents:
Agenda Item Request Joe Moody Harris Park Playground 10.1.2026.pdf
Joe Moody Harris Park Qoute 107867-A1 Struthers Recreation.pdf
Joe Moody Harris Park Agreement 107867-A1 Struthers Recreation.pdf
Joe Moody Harris Park Design 107867-A1 Struthers Recreation.pdf

Official agenda wording

17675.pdf

17675 (1).pdf

17675 (2).pdf

17675 (3).pdf

Listen to this explanation · 2:22

Learn more about this item

Why is the City buying new playground equipment for Joe Moody Harris Park?

Staff says the City was awarded a Land and Water Conservation Fund Program grant for the park’s redevelopment in 2024, and the grant project includes playground structures, swings, and other play elements.

Supporting passages
eation, LLC for the purchase and installation of a playground for Joe Moody Harris Park and authorizing the City Manager to sign. The City was awarded a Land and Water Conservation Fund Program Grant for the redevelopment of Joe Moody Harris Park in 2024, which includes playground structures for ages 2-5, 5-12, swingsets and other play elements. Design proposals and estimates were sought and received from (4) four vendors. The vendor that met the design request at the lowest cost was Struthers R
17675.pdf
r Joe Moody Harris Park and authorizing the City Manager to sign. Background information: The City was awarded a Land and Water Conservation Fund Program Grant for the redevelopment of Joe Moody Harris Park in 2024, which includes playground structures for ages 2-5, 5-12, swingsets and other play elements. Design proposals and estimates were sought and received from (4) four vendors. The vendor that met the design request at the lowest cost was Struthers Recreation, LLC a Game Time, Playcore dis
17675.pdf
How did staff say it chose Struthers Recreation for this playground purchase?

Staff says design proposals and estimates were requested from four vendors, and Struthers was the vendor that met the design request at the lowest cost.

Supporting passages
eation, LLC for the purchase and installation of a playground for Joe Moody Harris Park and authorizing the City Manager to sign. The City was awarded a Land and Water Conservation Fund Program Grant for the redevelopment of Joe Moody Harris Park in 2024, which includes playground structures for ages 2-5, 5-12, swingsets and other play elements. Design proposals and estimates were sought and received from (4) four vendors. The vendor that met the design request at the lowest cost was Struthers R
17675.pdf
r Joe Moody Harris Park and authorizing the City Manager to sign. Background information: The City was awarded a Land and Water Conservation Fund Program Grant for the redevelopment of Joe Moody Harris Park in 2024, which includes playground structures for ages 2-5, 5-12, swingsets and other play elements. Design proposals and estimates were sought and received from (4) four vendors. The vendor that met the design request at the lowest cost was Struthers Recreation, LLC a Game Time, Playcore dis
17675.pdf
What total price does staff list for the playground purchase and installation, and what discount is included?

Staff lists a total cost of $199,561.77 for the playground and installation and says it includes an additional playground discount of $75,867.76 based on OMNIA BuyBoard contract pricing.

Supporting passages
ecreation, LLC a Game Time, Playcore distributor. The Struthers Recreation estimate is based on pricing from the OMNIA buyboard contract #2017000134 and includes an additional playground discount of $75,867.76 for a total cost for the playground and installation of $199,561.77. Staff recommends approval and authorization for the City Manager to sign the agreement. Total budgeted funds: $279,130 Source(s) of budgeted funds: Grant Fund 170-7200 Source(s) of non-budgeted funds? Is this a Capital im
17675.pdf
tributor. The Struthers Recreation estimate is based on pricing from the OMNIA buyboard contract #2017000134 and includes an additional playground discount of $75,867.76 for a total cost for the playground and installation of $199,561.77. budgeted ammount: $279,130 Funding source: Grant Fund 170-7200 Requestor: Keith Meyerl, Director Parks, Culture & Recreation Preparer: Angie Bates, Admin Parks, Culture & Recreation Date2_af_date: 10/01/2026 Date3_af_date: 10/1/2026 Date4_af_date: 10/1/2026 Dat
17675.pdf
ract: OMNIA #2017001134 Sub Total $268,754.53 Discount $75,867.76 Freight $6,675.00 Grand Total $199,561.77 Comments For Matching Funds Grant - Cash with Order pricing, deduct $19,098.66 from the total. Page 1 of 4 OCR page 1: 107867-01-02 « 08/06/2026 Phone: 850-872-3199 GameTime - 107867-D2 Ages 2-5 Play Structure GameTime - 107867-D1 Ages 5-12 Play Structure GameTime - Spin With Me (With Handle) GameTime - 8' Primetime Swing Add-A-Bay GameTime - Zero-G (2-5) Yellow 8' Height GameTime - Zero
17675 (1).pdf
What funding source does staff list, and how much does staff say is budgeted?

Staff lists $279,130 as total budgeted funds and identifies the funding source as Grant Fund 170-7200.

Supporting passages
ecreation, LLC a Game Time, Playcore distributor. The Struthers Recreation estimate is based on pricing from the OMNIA buyboard contract #2017000134 and includes an additional playground discount of $75,867.76 for a total cost for the playground and installation of $199,561.77. Staff recommends approval and authorization for the City Manager to sign the agreement. Total budgeted funds: $279,130 Source(s) of budgeted funds: Grant Fund 170-7200 Source(s) of non-budgeted funds? Is this a Capital im
17675.pdf
tributor. The Struthers Recreation estimate is based on pricing from the OMNIA buyboard contract #2017000134 and includes an additional playground discount of $75,867.76 for a total cost for the playground and installation of $199,561.77. budgeted ammount: $279,130 Funding source: Grant Fund 170-7200 Requestor: Keith Meyerl, Director Parks, Culture & Recreation Preparer: Angie Bates, Admin Parks, Culture & Recreation Date2_af_date: 10/01/2026 Date3_af_date: 10/1/2026 Date4_af_date: 10/1/2026 Dat
17675.pdf

Item 9 of 22

Expanded Briarcliff sidewalk work would add $196,358.10 to the project

Public Works says public concerns led to expanding from limited sidewalk patches to removing and replacing all 4-inch sidewalk in the Briarcliff Road area.

The City would approve Change Order #1 to Mainline Construction (Search Sunbiz) to remove and replace additional sidewalk as part of the SRF Project Area H construction work. Staff describe Area H (PC26-012) as a Briarcliff Road-area infrastructure project that replaces aging water and sewer lines and then repaves the roadway; the original plan only repaired small sidewalk sections where work disturbed the right-of-way, but staff say public pushback led to a re-check of the plan and this added sidewalk work is now considered needed to finish the project.

The change order amount is $196,358.10, funded with SRF funds. A contractor pricing sheet included in the backup describes removing and replacing 4-inch-thick sidewalk (with demolition and replacement line items), and it also requests 25 additional contract days for the added work.

City officials are being asked to approve Change Order #1 with Mainline Construction (Search Sunbiz) for $196,358.10 to expand sidewalk removal and replacement in SRF Project Area H. Public Works recommends approval, saying the broader sidewalk work became necessary after public outcry and a review of the original limited sidewalk scope.

Why this matters

For people walking through the Briarcliff Road area, sidewalk condition matters alongside the water, sewer and road work. Residents’ concerns prompted staff to expand the proposed sidewalk replacement. The added cost and requested 25 days show the tradeoff involved in changing the project’s scope.

Official wording and sources

Consideration of approval of Change Order 1 to Mainline Construction on SRF Project Area H, "Remove and Replace Project Sidewalk" in the amount of $196,358.10.

Consideration of approval of Change Order 1 to Mainline Construction (Search Sunbiz) on SRF Project Area H, "Remove and Replace Project Sidewalk" in the amount of $196,358.10.
Documents:
AIR - Approval of CO 1 for Sidewalks Area H 101326.pdf
Backup - CO Request Additional Sidewalk Remove and Replace 101326.pdf
Backup - Location Detail for PC26-012 CoPC SRF Project Area H 10052026.pdf

Official agenda wording

17691.pdf

17691 (1).pdf

17691 (2).pdf

Listen to this explanation · 2:10

Learn more about this item

What area of Panama City does “SRF Project Area H” cover, according to staff?

Staff describe Area H (PC26-012) as focused on Briarcliff Road, bounded south of Baldwin Road, north of 23rd Street, east of State Avenue, and west of Jenks Avenue.

Supporting passages
ion of approval of Change Order #1 to Mainline Construction on SRF Project Area H,"Remove and Replace Project Sidewalk" in the amount of $196,358.10. The project, "Area H" (also known as PC26-012), focuses on Briarcliff Road, with boundaries located south of Baldwin Road, north of 23rd Street, east of State Avenue, and west of Jenks Avenue. This long-awaited construction in an area of aging infrastructure replaces underground water lines and services, as well as sewer mains and services, and fin
17691.pdf
, focuses on Briarcliff Road, with boundaries located south of Baldwin Road, north of 23rd Street, east of State Avenue, and west of Jenks Avenue. This long-awaited construction in an area of aging infrastructure replaces underground water lines and services, as well as sewer mains and services, and finishes with full roadway repaving. The project's original scope included minimal sidewalk limited to only those areas of the right-of-way (ROW) disturbed by installation of service lines. Public ou
17691.pdf
Why is the sidewalk work being expanded beyond the original plan?

Staff say the original scope only replaced sidewalk where the project disturbed the right-of-way, but public outcry led to a review and staff concluded a change order was needed for full project completion.

Supporting passages
ishes with full roadway repaving. The project's original scope included minimal sidewalk limited to only those areas of the right-of-way (ROW) disturbed by installation of service lines. Public outcry prompted a review of that scope, and it was determined that this change order is necessary for full project completion. Public Works recommends approval of this Change Order. Budgeted? Yes:| No: “| How Much budgeted? If more, where do you suggest funds come from? SRF Funds Cost Center Name: SRF Are
17691.pdf
tcry prompted a review of that scope, and it was determined that this change order is necessary for full project completion. Funding source: SRF Funds Capital: 196,358.10 Requestor: Suzanne Mandel Preparer: Suzanne Mandel Date2_af_date: 10/05/2026 Date3_af_date: 10/5/26 Date4_af_date: 10/5/26 Date5_af_date: 10/5/26 Date6_af_date: 10/5/26 Reviewer: Clint Murphy Reviewer 2: Angie Lightfoot Approver: Clint Murphy CM cost center: 430.6514.56500 cost center name: SRF Area H
17691.pdf
What does the backup pricing sheet say the $196,358.10 covers?

The backup describes removing and replacing all 4-inch-thick sidewalk, with a demolition line item and a concrete sidewalk replacement line item totaling $196,358.10.

Supporting passages
May 28, 2026 Re: SRF Area H – Requested Pricing for Sidewalk Replacement Attn: Tyler Robinson Scope of work: Remove and replace all of the 4” thick sidewalk. 4" Thick Sidewalk Remove and Replace Unit Description Quantity Unit Cost Total Demolition 1 ls $13,348.50 $13,348.50 Replace 4" Thick Concrete Sidewalk 2130 sy $85.92 $183,009.60 Subtotal $196,358.10 Notes: 1. Items in bold are based on pre-established line item pricing. 2. The quantity provided is the additional amount needed to remove and
17691 (1).pdf
Does the contractor request any schedule change as part of the added sidewalk work?

Yes. The backup notes that Mainline requests 25 days be added to the contract to complete this work.

Supporting passages
replace all of the 4” Sidewalk. 3. Mainline request that 25 days be added to the contract for the completion of this work. Sincerely, Garrett Cullen MAINLINE CONSTRUCTION, LLC. ▪ 2005 Industrial Dr ▪ Panama City, FL 32405 (850) 784-9979 ▪ (850) 397-4321 F 1 OCR page 1: py j,, Mainline pb», Construction Re: SRF Area H — Requested Pricing for Sidewalk Replacement Description Quantity | Unit Cost Total Demolition 1 Is $13,348.50 $13,348.50 oe MAINLINE CONSTRUCTION, LLC. = 2005 Industrial Dr = Pana
17691 (1).pdf

Item 10 of 22

Sewer reroute near Mathison Retirement Community aims to improve service

Staff recommends awarding Bid PC26-040 to CBC Construction, funded by the Infrastructure Surtax, to reroute a sewer line tied to a development agreement.

City staff is asking the commission to award Bid PC26-040 for the Mathison Force Main Reroute Project to CBC Construction (Search Sunbiz) for $199,382.93 and allow the City Manager to sign the contract. Staff says the work would reroute an existing sewer force main between the Mathison Retirement Community and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) property to Highway 390, which staff says would improve sewer conditions in the area and is required under a development agreement with St. Andrew Bay Land Company.

The bid recommendation materials show that 10 contractors submitted bids, with CBC Construction (Search Sunbiz) listed as the lowest bid at $199,382.93. The draft contract documents further describe the route as extending north along the west side, crossing under Highway 390 at the intersection of Florida Avenue, and connecting to an existing sewer manhole; and describe the work as about 2,400 linear feet of 4-inch force main sewer pipe plus fittings and site restoration. The agenda item request form lists the funding source as the city’s Infrastructure Surtax and identifies cost center 105.4111.56500.

The commission is being asked to award Bid PC26-040 to CBC Construction (Search Sunbiz) for $199,382.93 for the Mathison Force Main Reroute Project and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. Staff recommends approval, stating the reroute would improve sewer conditions and is required as part of the development agreement with St. Andrew Bay Land Company, with funding listed as Infrastructure Surtax.

Why this matters

People near the Mathison project have a stake in whether the new route improves sewer conditions as staff expects. The nearly $200,000 cost would use infrastructure surtax funding, so the project also concerns how the city spends public infrastructure money and meets its development-agreement commitments.

Official wording and sources

Approval for Award of Bid PC26-040 Mathison Force Main Reroute Project to CBC Construction in the amount of $199,382.93 and authorization for the City Manager to execute contract.

9.e.
Approval for Award of Bid PC26-040 Mathison Force Main Reroute Project to CBC Construction (Search Sunbiz) in the amount of $199,382.93 and authorization for the City Manager to execute contract.
Documents:
AIR - Mathison FM Reroute 101326.pdf
Backup - PC26-040 Mathison Force Main Award Recommendation.pdf
Backup - 2026.09.21 Detailed Bid Tab.pdf

Official agenda wording

17692.pdf

17692 (1).pdf

17692 (2).pdf

Listen to this explanation · 2:41

Learn more about this item

Why does staff say the city needs to do this reroute?

Staff says the reroute is required as part of the Development Agreement with St. Andrew Bay Land Company and would improve sewer conditions in the area.

Supporting passages
or Award of Bid PC26-040 Mathison Force Main Reroute Project to CBC Construction in the amount of $199,382.93 and authorization for the City Manager to execute contract. The project includes rerouting the existing sewer force main between the Mathison Retirement Community and FDOT properties to Hwy 390. This reroute improves sewer conditions in the area and is required as part of the Development Agreement with St. Andrew Bay Land Company. Staff recommends Approval. Budgeted? Yes:| No: “| How Muc
17692.pdf
ackground information: The project includes rerouting the existing sewer force main between the Mathison Retirement Community and FDOT properties to Hwy 390. This reroute improves sewer conditions in the area and is required as part of the Development Agreement with St. Andrew Bay Land Company. Funding source: Infrastructure Surtax Capital: 199,382.93 Requestor: Stacy Rausch Preparer: Stacy Rausch Date2_af_date: 10/1/2026 Date3_af_date: 10/1/2026 Date4_af_date: 10/1/2026 Date6_af_date: 10/1/2026
17692.pdf
How many bids were received, and who is the lowest bidder listed?

The bid recommendation memo says bids were received from 10 contractors and identifies Extreme Land Clearing & Excavation, doing business as CBC Construction, as the lowest bidder at $199,382.93.

Supporting passages
September 24 , 2026 Via E-mail Mrs. Stacy Rausch City of Panama City 501 Harrison Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401 RE: City of Panama City- Mathison Force Main Re-Route Bid Recommendation for PC26-040 Please find the enclosed Certified Bid Tabulation for PC26-040 Mathison Force Main Re-Route. Bids were received from ten (10) contractors. These Base Bid Amounts are shown in the table below, which is sorted from lowest to highest total lump sum amount. BIDDERS Subtotal A Subtotal B Subtotal C TOT
17692 (1).pdf
AL LUMP SUM GENERAL SEWER SITE RESTORATION BID AMOUNT CONSTRUCTION TRANSMISSION (A+B+C) SYSTEM CBC Construction $41,945.22 $129,611.16 $27,826.62 $199,382.93 Lagniappe $45,900.00 $141,421.00 $26,306.50 $213,627.50 Contracting & Paving Mainline Construction $41,731.50 $157,116.91 $228,824.72 $29,976.31 GCUC $59,800.00 $175,012.50 $32,542.00 $267,354.50 C.W. Roberts $103,235.85 $143,969.40 $29,738.75 $276,944.00 Contracting Marshall Brothers $65,655.30 $194,057.90 $35,785.20 $295,498.40 ESCS, LLC
17692 (1).pdf
$43,984.27 $195,983.55 $58,129.87 $298,097.69 Royal American $65,706.00 $178,753.50 $56,558.89 $301,018.39 Extreme Land $66,500.00 $163,825.00 $87,558.50 $317,883.50 Restoration Badger Underground $150,005.68 $144,839.55 $84,803.50 $379,648.73 Extreme Land Clearing & Excavation, D.B.A. CBC Construction, was found to be the competent and responsible lowest bidder. Dewberry recommends awarding Extreme Land Clearing & Excavation, D.B.A. CBC Construction based on Commission approval, as well as the
17692 (1).pdf
What work does the contract describe, in plain terms?

The contract documents describe installing about 2,400 linear feet of 4-inch sewer force main with fittings and site restoration, with the route crossing under Highway 390 at Florida Avenue and connecting to an existing sewer manhole.

Supporting passages
force main between the Mathison and FDOT properties to Hwy 390, extending north along the west side, crossing under Hwy 390 at the intersection of Florida Avenue, and connecting to an existing sewer manhole. This project involves approximately 2,400 linear feet (LF) of 4” force main sewer main, associated fittings, and site restoration work. The Contract Price of the awarded Contract is $199.382.93. Contract Price is subject to adjustment based on the provisions of the Contract, including but n
17692 (1).pdf
ctorshallcompleteallWorkasspecifiedorindicatedintheContractDocuments.TheWork is generally described as follows: The project includes rerouting the existing sewer force main between the Mathison and FDOT properties to Hwy 390, extending north along the west side, crossingunderHwy390attheintersectionofFloridaAvenue,andconnectingtoanexistingsewer manhole. This project involves approximately 2,400 linear feet (LF) of 4” force main sewer main, associated fittings, and site restoration work. ARTICLE 2
17692 (1).pdf
What funding source is listed for this project?

The agenda item request form lists the funding source as Infrastructure Surtax.

Supporting passages
h budgeted? If more, where do you suggest funds come from? Infrastructure Surtax Cost Center Affected: 105.4111.56500 ☐Personnel $ ☐Operating $ ☐Capital $ ☐Revenue $ Requested By: Date: Prepared By: Date: Reviewed By: Date: Reviewed By: Date: Approved By: Date: 2 Approve / Deny: Staff recommends Approval. Item Title: Approval for Award of Bid PC26-040 Mathison Force Main Reroute Project to CBC Construction in the amount of $199,382.93 and authorization for the City Manager to execute contract. B
17692.pdf
ackground information: The project includes rerouting the existing sewer force main between the Mathison Retirement Community and FDOT properties to Hwy 390. This reroute improves sewer conditions in the area and is required as part of the Development Agreement with St. Andrew Bay Land Company. Funding source: Infrastructure Surtax Capital: 199,382.93 Requestor: Stacy Rausch Preparer: Stacy Rausch Date2_af_date: 10/1/2026 Date3_af_date: 10/1/2026 Date4_af_date: 10/1/2026 Date6_af_date: 10/1/2026
17692.pdf

Item 11 of 22

$20,000 drainage agreement would support flood reduction near Sherman Avenue

The 10-foot-wide easement is tied to the Sherman Avenue Stormwater Drainage project, which staff says aims to reduce flooding in a residential neighborhood.

The City Commission is being asked to buy a permanent strip of property rights (an easement) at 2129 E. 7th Street for $20,000 so the city can build and maintain stormwater drainage improvements as part of the Sherman Avenue Stormwater Drainage project.

City staff says the overall project is meant to move water out of a low-lying wet area to reduce flooding in a residential neighborhood. Staff also states that the Public Works Department handled the design and permitting in-house, and that buying this 10-foot by about 195-foot easement is necessary to finish the project. Staff describes the project as funded through the Hurricane Sally Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, with about $900,000 in grant benefits and a city match of $90,000; staff indicates this $20,000 easement cost would count toward the city’s match and that match funding was budgeted previously through a 2022 budget amendment resolution.

The City Commission is being asked to approve purchasing a 10' by ±195' stormwater easement for $20,000 from the property owner at 2129 E. 7th Street and to sign the purchase agreement. Staff recommends approval because it says the easement is necessary to complete the Sherman Avenue Stormwater Drainage project and the city’s match funding was previously budgeted.

Why this matters

For residents dealing with flooding near Sherman Avenue, this purchase would secure access staff says is needed to complete the drainage project. The $20,000 buys the city the right to build and maintain drainage on a strip of private property. It supports the project’s flood-reduction goal without guaranteeing that every property will stop flooding.

Official wording and sources

Consideration to purchase a 10' by ± 195' easement in the amount of $20,000.00 at 2129 E 7th Street to allow for stormwater drainage as part of the Sherman Avenue Stormwater Drainage project.

9.f.
Consideration to purchase a 10' by ± 195' easement in the amount of $20,000.00 at 2129 E 7th Street to allow for stormwater drainage as part of the Sherman Avenue Stormwater Drainage project.
Documents:
Agenda Item Request 2129 East 7th Street Easement 2026 10 05.pdf
Resolution 20221011.1.pdf
2121 E 7th St. Location Map.pdf

Official agenda wording

17700.pdf

17700 (1).pdf

17700 (2).pdf

Listen to this explanation · 2:12

Learn more about this item

Why does staff say the city needs this easement purchase?

Staff says buying the easement is necessary to complete the Sherman Avenue Stormwater Drainage project, which is intended to remove water from a low-lying wet area and reduce flooding in a residential neighborhood.

Supporting passages
ion to purchase a 10' by + 195' easement in the amount of $20,000 at 2129 E. 7th Street to allow for stormwater drainage as part of the Sherman Avenue Stormwater Drainage project. This project is intended to remove water from a low-lying wet area and reduce flooding in a residential neighborhood. All design and permitting was performed internally by the City's Public Works staff. The purchase of this easement is necessary for the completion of the project. This project is grant-funded through th
17700.pdf
nage project. Background information: This project is intended to remove water from a low-lying wet area and reduce flooding in a residential neighborhood. All design and permitting was performed internally by the City's Public Works staff. The purchase of this easement is necessary for the completion of the project. This project is grant-funded through the Hurricane Sally Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The grant benefit total is approximately $900,000 in addition to a City match of $90,000. T
17700.pdf
How does staff describe the project’s grant funding and the city’s share?

Staff says the project is grant-funded through the Hurricane Sally Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, with an approximate $900,000 grant benefit total and a city match of $90,000, and that the $20,000 easement purchase would be part of the city match.

Supporting passages
e Hurricane Sally Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The grant benefit total is approximately $900,000 in addition to a City match of $90,000. The $20,000 for the easement purchase would be part of the City match. The funds for the City's match were budgeted previously in September 2022 in Budget Amendment Resolution 20221011.1, and the purchase agreement signed by the property owner is included with this agenda item. Approve the purchase of the easement from the property owner and sign the purcha
17700.pdf
nage project. Background information: This project is intended to remove water from a low-lying wet area and reduce flooding in a residential neighborhood. All design and permitting was performed internally by the City's Public Works staff. The purchase of this easement is necessary for the completion of the project. This project is grant-funded through the Hurricane Sally Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The grant benefit total is approximately $900,000 in addition to a City match of $90,000. T
17700.pdf
What prior action is cited for budgeting the city match money?

Staff says the funds for the city’s match were budgeted previously in September 2022 in Budget Amendment Resolution 20221011.1, and the attached resolution describes a fiscal year 2022–2023 budget amendment for acceptance of a Hurricane Sally Hazard Mitigation Grant Program subrecipient agreement and the local (10%) share cost of the project.

Supporting passages
e Hurricane Sally Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The grant benefit total is approximately $900,000 in addition to a City match of $90,000. The $20,000 for the easement purchase would be part of the City match. The funds for the City's match were budgeted previously in September 2022 in Budget Amendment Resolution 20221011.1, and the purchase agreement signed by the property owner is included with this agenda item. Approve the purchase of the easement from the property owner and sign the purcha
17700.pdf
RESOLUTION NO. 20221011.1 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE APPROVED FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 BUDGET FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF A HURRICANE SALLY HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM (HMGP) SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT AND THE LOCAL (10%) SHARE COST OF THE SHERMAN AVENUE STORMWATER DRAINAGE PROJECT – PHASE I. WHEREAS,thelocalmunicipal budget forthe fiscal year 2023was approved on the27th day of September, 2022;and WHEREAS, thepublic hearingon said budget hasbeen held asadvertised;and WHEREAS, it isde
17700 (1).pdf

Item 12 of 22

Mayor seeks independent review of pension costs and lower-cost options

An email shared with the agenda says pension costs tied to FY2026 were about $8.27 million after including a $1.8 million one-time fire pension prepayment.

The mayor is raising concerns about the long-term cost of Panama City’s employee pension plans and is asking for an outside, “employer-side” review to compare options for lowering costs and financial risk. In a memo-style email included with this agenda item, the mayor said the City’s FY2026 budget shows $6.47 million in pension contributions, but that the fire pension number was “misleading” because it used a one-time $1.8 million prepaid contribution; the mayor said that counting the prepayment brings the pension cost attributable to FY2026 to about $8.27 million.

The mayor’s email recommends issuing a request for proposals (an RFP, meaning the City would invite consultants to submit bids) for a consultant who would explain the benefits and costs of each plan and model different paths, such as reducing costs while keeping current plans, closing one or more plans to new employees, consolidating plans where legally possible, or moving eligible groups into the Florida Retirement System (FRS) if it reduces long-term costs and risk. The mayor also proposes limits meant to keep the review independent, such as not using a firm that administers pension plans or sells investment/insurance products, and having the consultant report directly to the City Commission.

This agenda item is a discussion item under the Mayor’s Report about the City pension plans. The mayor recommends the City issue an RFP for a completely independent review of every City pension program to evaluate sustainability and compare options, including possible changes to plan structure or participation in the Florida Retirement System, based on long-term cost and risk.

Why this matters

Pension decisions involve employees’ retirement security and the city’s ability to meet long-term costs. Residents and city workers have a stake in whether an independent review fairly compares costs, risks and benefits. This discussion starts that examination; it does not itself change anyone’s pension.

Official wording and sources

Discussion of the City Pension Plans.

Mayor's Report
10.a.
Discussion of the City Pension Plans.
Documents:
Independent Review of City Pension Costs_A Branch_13OCT2026.pdf

Official agenda wording

17643.pdf

Listen to this explanation · 2:38

Learn more about this item

Why does the mayor say the FY2026 pension cost is higher than the number shown in the budget?

The mayor said the FY2026 budget shows $6.47 million in pension contributions, but that the fire pension amount is “misleading” because the City used a one-time $1.8 million prepaid contribution; the mayor said including that prepayment brings the FY2026-attributable total to about $8.27 million.

Supporting passages
Jonathan Hayes From: Allan Branch Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 9:29 AM To: Brandy Waldron; Jonathan Hayes Cc: Leslie Glaze Subject: Independent Review of City Pension Costs Jonathan, Brandy &Leslie I have been reviewing the City’s pensionprograms, andI believe we need an independent evaluation of theirlong-term cost and sustainability. The FY2026 budget shows $6.47 million in pensioncontributions. However, the Fire pension amount is misleadingbecause the City used aone-time $1.8 million pre
17643.pdf
paid contribution toward its FY2026 obligation.Once that is included, the total pension cost attributable to FY2026 was approximately $8.27 million:  General employee pension: $2.1mil  Police pension: $2.5mil  Fire pension, including the prepaid contribution: $3.6mil  ExistingFRS contributions: $119,000  Supplemental seniormanagement retirement: $16,000 Total: $8,272,458 (these numberswere verified byBrandy) Forperspective, the Citycollects approximately $18.5 million annually in propertyta
17643.pdf
What kinds of options does the mayor want the independent review to analyze?

The mayor said the review should look at options such as reducing costs while maintaining current plans, closing one or more plans to future employees, consolidating plans where legally possible, or moving eligible employee groups into the Florida Retirement System if it reduces long-term costs and financial risk.

Supporting passages
termine whether ourbest option is to maintain the current plans while reducingcosts, close oneormore plans to future employees, consolidate plans where legally possible, ormove eligible employee groups intothe Florida Retirement System if doing so reduces long-term costs andfinancial risk. The RFP should require the consultant to: 1. Explain the benefits, liabilities, funded status, administrative expenses and annual City contributions forevery plan. 1 2. Compare the current plans withFRS, inclu
17643.pdf
What work does the mayor propose requiring from the consultant in the RFP?

The mayor listed tasks including explaining benefits, liabilities, funded status, administrative expenses and annual City contributions for each plan; comparing the current plans with the Florida Retirement System (including the Special Risk Class for police and fire); and modeling options over 5, 10, 20 and 30 years.

Supporting passages
termine whether ourbest option is to maintain the current plans while reducingcosts, close oneormore plans to future employees, consolidate plans where legally possible, ormove eligible employee groups intothe Florida Retirement System if doing so reduces long-term costs andfinancial risk. The RFP should require the consultant to: 1. Explain the benefits, liabilities, funded status, administrative expenses and annual City contributions forevery plan. 1 2. Compare the current plans withFRS, inclu
17643.pdf
ding the Special Risk Class forpolice andfirefighters. 3. Model every optionover5, 10, 20 and 30 years. 4. Separate annual cash costs, unfunded liabilities, administrative expenses and investmentrisk. 5. Evaluate maintainingthe currentplanswith legallypermissible cost reductions. 6. Evaluate freezingexistingplans while protectingbenefits already earned. 7. Evaluate moving future employees and,where legally possible, current employees intoFRS. 8. Address Chapters 175 and185 revenues, collective b
17643.pdf
What independence limits does the mayor propose for the consultant?

The mayor said the consultant should not administer pension plans, manage pension assets, sell investment or insurance products, receive commissions or referral fees, or be eligible for follow-on pension administration or investment-management contracts, and should report directly to the City Commission.

Supporting passages
argaining, employee referendums and other legal requirements. 9. Provide specific recommendations, projected savings and an implementation schedule. The consultantmust notadminister pensionplans, manage pensionassets, sell investment or insurance products, receive commissions orreferral fees, orbe eligible forany follow-on pension administration or investment-management contract. The consultantshould report directlyto the City Commission. This review should notbegin with the assumption that our
17643.pdf

Item 13 of 22

Owner contribution would fund an increase to the Fitzsimmons project contract

Staff says the business owner is adding $2,000.86 in owner-paid funds, requiring a budget change and a matching increase to the T K Vandy LLC contract.

The City Commission is being asked to approve a budget amendment so the City can accept $2,000.86 in owner-contributed money for the Fitzsimmons Holdings Hometown Revitalization project, and then increase the existing contract with T K Vandy LLC (Search Sunbiz) by the same amount.

Staff’s agenda form says the City Commission previously approved entering into a contract with T K Vandy LLC (Search Sunbiz) for this project on September 22, 2026. Staff says the business owner has agreed to contribute $2,000.86 toward project costs, and that a budget amendment is needed to add this contribution into the City’s budget before it can be used. The resolution draft shows the money being added as “Third Party Contributions” revenue and budgeted out to “Construction in Progress” for Project #842.4 in the CDBG-DR fund.

The City Commission is being asked to approve Budget Amendment Resolution 20261013.1 to add $2,000.86 of third-party (owner) contributions into the CDBG-DR capital budget for Project #842.4 and to increase the existing T K Vandy LLC (Search Sunbiz) contract by $2,000.86. Staff recommends approval because the owner contribution requires a budget amendment to be accepted and budgeted for the project.

Why this matters

This change shows who would pay for an increase in a city-managed project. The owner would contribute the full $2,000.86 increase, and the city would add it to the project budget and contract. The proposed additional spending is tied to that contribution.

Official wording and sources

Consideration to approve Budget Amendment Resolution 20261013.1 and to increase the existing contract with T K Vandy LLC, by $2,000.86.

12.a.
Consideration to approve Budget Amendment Resolution 20261013.1 and to increase the existing contract with T K Vandy LLC (Search Sunbiz), by $2,000.86.
Documents:
Agenda Item Request Form Fitzsimmons Holdings.pdf
Resolution 20261013.1.pdf

Official agenda wording

17634.pdf

17634 (1).pdf

Listen to this explanation · 2:11

Learn more about this item

What project is this budget amendment connected to?

Staff ties it to the Fitzsimmons Holdings Hometown Revitalization project that the City Commission previously approved contracting for with T K Vandy LLC.

Supporting passages
ion to approve Budget Amendment Resolution No. 20261013.1 and to increase the existing contract with T K Vandy LLC, by $2,000.86. On September 22, 2026, the City Commission approved to go into contract with T K Vandy LLC for Fitzsimmons Holdings Hometown Revitalization project. The business owner has agreed to contribute own funds in the amount of $2,000.86. A budget amendment is required to accept the owner-contributed funds. Staff recommends approval of Budget Amendment Resolution No. 20261013
17634.pdf
ration to approve Budget Amendment Resolution No. 20261013.1 and to increase the existing contract with T K Vandy LLC, by $2,000.86. Background information: On September 22, 2026, the City Commission approved to go into contract with T K Vandy LLC for Fitzsimmons Holdings Hometown Revitalization project. The business owner has agreed to contribute own funds in the amount of $2,000.86. A budget amendment is required to accept the owner-contributed funds. budgeted ammount: $2,000.86 Capital: $2,00
17634.pdf
Where would the $2,000.86 be recorded in the City budget if approved?

The resolution draft shows the amount added to CDBG-DR fund revenues as “Third Party Contributions” and added to appropriations as “Construction in Progress,” both for Project #842.4.

Supporting passages
RESOLUTION NO. 20261013.1 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE BUDGETING OF CAPITAL FUNDS. WHEREAS, the City of Panama City has an approved contract utilizing Hometown Revitalization Project funds; WHEREAS, the business owner has agreed to contribute funding towards project costs; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PANAMA CITY, FLORIDA, that: Section 1. The following amendments to the approved capital budget be made: INCREASE CDBG-DR FUND REVENUES 301-0000 366.022 – T
17634 (1).pdf
hird Party Contributions $2,001 Project #842.4 CDBG-DR FUND APPROPRIATIONS 301-8024 56500 – Construction in Progress $2,001 Project #842.4 Section 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to expend budgeted funds in furtherance hereof. Section 3. The Mayor and City Attorney are hereby authorized to take such action as may be necessary to implement the purpose and provisions of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Commthsion of the City of Panama City, Florida, at itsregular
17634 (1).pdf
Which cost center and project number does staff list for this change?

Staff lists cost center 301-8024 and Project #842.4 (Harrison Avenue HRP).

Supporting passages
.1 and increase of the existing T K Vandy LLC contract. Budgeted? Yes:|_ |No: “| How Much budgeted? $2,000.86 Cost Center Name: Harrison Avenue HRP Cost Center Affected: 301-8024 Project #842.4 ☐Personnel $ ☐Operating $ ☐Capital $ ☐Revenue $ Requested By: Date: Prepared By: Date: Reviewed By: Date: Reviewed By: Date: Approved By: Date: 2 Approve / Deny: Staff recommends approval of Budget Amendment Resolution No. 20261013.1 and increase of the existing T K Vandy LLC contract. Item Title: Conside
17634.pdf
0.86 Requestor: Jennifer Aldridge, PM Preparer: Jennifer Aldridge, PM Date2_af_date: 9/14/2026 Date3_af_date: 9/14/2026 Date4_af_date: 9/22/26 Date6_af_date: 9/23/2026 Reviewer: Michael Fuller, Director Approver: Brandy Waldron, Asst. CM cost center: 301-8024 Project #842.4 cost center name: Harrison Avenue HRP
17634.pdf

Item 14 of 22

$800,000 state grant would help identify flood risks and prioritize drainage projects

No local matching funds are required; the plan includes preliminary designs for three projects and public input.

An $800,000 state grant would fund a citywide stormwater plan to identify drainage problems and areas at high risk of flooding, then rank projects to improve the system. Commissioners are being asked to accept the grant and add the money to the city budget. Staff recommends approval and says no local matching funds are required.

The work would inventory the existing stormwater system, review relevant policies, recommend improvements and develop preliminary designs for three projects. Public outreach and meetings with people and organizations affected by the work are part of the planning process.

The staff request explains the grant and recommendation. The budget resolution adds $800,000 in grant revenue and the same amount for professional services. The agreement with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection sets out the planning work, required reports and public outreach.

Resolution 20261013.2 would authorize accepting and budgeting the grant. The funding covers planning and preliminary design; the materials do not establish that any resulting construction project has been approved or funded.

Why this matters

For residents dealing with flooded streets, this plan could help shape which drainage problems the city tackles first. It would identify risks, rank improvements and include public outreach, providing a way for local knowledge to inform the planning. The grant pays for planning and preliminary design, not the resulting construction projects.

Official wording and sources

Consideration to approve Budget Amendment Resolution 20261013.2 authorizing the City of Panama City to accept state funded grant for a Stormwater Master Plan in the amount of $800,000.00.

12.b.
Consideration to approve Budget Amendment Resolution 20261013.2 authorizing the City of Panama City to accept state funded grant for a Stormwater Master Plan in the amount of $800,000.00.
Documents:
AIR - Resiliency grant Stormwater Master Plan 101326.pdf
Backup - Res 20261013.2 Stormwater Master Plan 101326.pdf
Backup - 26PLN74-Panama City Stormwater Master Plan-For Execution 101326.pdf

Official agenda wording

17676.pdf

17676 (1).pdf

17676 (2).pdf

Listen to this explanation · 1:59

Learn more about this item

How would this budget amendment change the city’s budget lines?

The resolution would increase grant revenue by $800,000 and increase appropriations by $800,000 for professional services in the Engineering cost center (General Grants Fund).

Supporting passages
SE GENERAL GRANTS FUND REVENUES 170-0000 334.930 – FDEP Grant Revenue $800,000 Project #993.1 GENERAL GRANTS FUND APPROPRIATIONS 170-1620 53100 –Professional Services $800,000 Project #993.1 Section 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to expend budgeted funds in furtherance hereof. Section 3. The Mayor and City Attorney are hereby authorized to take such action as may be necessary to implement the purpose and provisions of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Commission
17676 (1).pdf
What does staff say the grant is for, and is a city match required?

Staff says the engineering division is seeking approval to accept an FDEP-managed state grant for a Stormwater Master Plan using FEMA mitigation-planning standard practices, and that no match is required.

Supporting passages
ion to approve resolution 20261013.2 authorizing the City of Panama City to accept state funded grant for a Panama City Stormwater Master Plan in the amount of $800,000.00. The engineering division is requesting approval of resolution 20261013.2 authorizing the City to accept state funded grant managed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protect (FDEP) for a Stormwater Master Plan in accordance with FEMA standard practices for mitigation planning. This project does not require a match. St
17676.pdf
t of $800,000.00. Background information: The engineering division is requesting approval of resolution 20261013.2 authorizing the City to accept state funded grant managed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protect (FDEP) for a Stormwater Master Plan in accordance with FEMA standard practices for mitigation planning. This project does not require a match. Operating: 800,000.00 Requestor: Stacy Rausch Preparer: Stacy Rausch Date2_af_date: 9/16/26 Date3_af_date: 9/16/26 Date4_af_date: 9/1
17676.pdf
What work products does the grant work plan describe for the Stormwater Master Plan?

The grant work plan describes developing a Stormwater Master Plan that includes an inventory of existing stormwater systems, identification of known problem areas or high flood-risk areas, key findings and recommendations, and a priority list of projects to improve resilience; it also includes public outreach and stakeholder engagement.

Supporting passages
ocated in the City of Panama City within Bay County, Florida. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Panama City (Grantee) will conduct the Panama City Stormwater Master Plan Project (Project) to include the development of a Stormwater Master Plan (SWMP) and a prioritized list of projects that will improve the resilience of the existing stormwater system. The Project will also include public outreach and stakeholder engagement. TASKS AND DELIVERABLES: Task 1: Stormwater Master Plan Description: The Gr
17676 (2).pdf
antee will develop a SWMP in accordance with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) standard practices for mitigation planning to include a narrative that details an inventory of existing stormwater systems, the community’s existing policies and regulations, identification of any known problematic areas and/or areas with high flood risk, and a series of key findings and recommendations for managing stormwater effectively. The SWMP will also include a priority list of projects that will impro
17676 (2).pdf
lly, the report will include which page(s) in the plan or report eachof the items inthe description above is located, what coordination efforts were undertaken to satisfy FDEM and/or CRS requirements, and a summary of outcomes and recommendations. Task 2: Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement Description: The Grantee will conduct public outreach meetings and stakeholder engagement during the SWMP planning and development process. Project meetings will be conducted to ensure effective projec
17676 (2).pdf
What is the reimbursement period stated in the grant’s special terms?

The special terms say the reimbursement period begins on July 1, 2025 and continues through the agreement’s expiration.

Supporting passages
3, Grant Work Plan. 2. Duration. a. Reimbursement Period. The reimbursement period for this Agreement begins on July 1, 2025 and ends at the expiration of the Agreement. b. Extensions. There are extensions available for this Project. c. Service Periods. Additional service periods may be added in accordance with 2.a above and are contingent upon proper and satisfactory technical and administrative performance by the Grantee and the availability of funding. 3. Payment Provisions. a. Compensation.
17676 (2).pdf

Item 15 of 22

Contractor’s $167,465.91 reimbursement would replenish Drake Avenue repair budgets

The resolution would move the reimbursement into Utilities and Engineering cost centers and split it between overtime, services, repairs, and a transfer to the General Fund.

City staff is asking the City Commission to approve a budget amendment that records a reimbursement payment of $167,465.91 the Utilities area received from a contractor for damages previously incurred at Drake Avenue. Staff says the City originally paid for the repairs across multiple divisions within Public Works and Utilities, so this amendment would recognize the revenue and put the money back into the specific division expense accounts that initially covered the costs.

The attached breakdown shows the reimbursement being allocated across several cost centers and expense types, including employee overtime (total shown as $10,031.35) and other repair-related costs (total shown as $157,434.56). The resolution text also shows a transfer amount ($598) that would move from the Utilities Fund to the General Fund and then into a General Fund overtime line item tied to cost center 1620.

The City Commission is being asked to approve Budget Amendment Resolution 20261013.3 to amend the City’s fiscal year 2025–2026 budget to accept and allocate reimbursement funds related to damages at Drake Avenue. Staff recommends approval so the reimbursement revenue can be formally recorded and appropriated back to the division accounts that originally paid the repair costs.

Why this matters

City departments already spent money repairing damage attributed to a contractor. This amendment would return the contractor’s $167,465.91 reimbursement to the accounts that covered those repairs, rather than leaving those costs with the public budgets that initially paid them.

Official wording and sources

Consideration and approval of Budget Amendment Resolution 20261013.3 for the Allocation of Reimbursement Revenue to the Division Expense Accounts.

12.c.
Consideration and approval of Budget Amendment Resolution 20261013.3 for the Allocation of Reimbursement Revenue to the Division Expense Accounts.
Documents:
AIR - Allocation of revenue 101326.pdf
Backup - Cost Center Breakdown DRAKE AVE 101326.pdf
Backup - Res 20261013.3 Allocation of funds 101326 .pdf

Official agenda wording

17690.pdf

17690 (1).pdf

17690 (2).pdf

Listen to this explanation · 2:27

Learn more about this item

How much reimbursement revenue is staff asking the City to recognize and allocate back to division accounts?

Staff reports Utilities received a reimbursement of $167,465.91 from a contractor for damages previously incurred at Drake Avenue, and the amendment would recognize and allocate that reimbursement revenue back to the divisions that originally paid the repair costs.

Supporting passages
ion and Approval of Budget Amendment Resolution 20261013.3 for the Allocation of Reimbursement Revenue to the Division Expense Accounts. Utilities received a reimbursement in the amount of $167,465.91 from a contractor for damages previously incurred at Drake Avenue. The original repair costs were absorbed by multiple divisions within Public Works and Utilities. Approval is requested to formally recognize this reimbursement revenue and to appropriate the funds back to the specific division expen
17690.pdf
and Approval of Budget Amendment Resolution 20261013.3 for the Allocation of Reimbursement Revenue to the Division Expense Accounts. Background information: Utilities received a reimbursement in the amount of $167,465.91 from a contractor for damages previously incurred at Drake Avenue. The original repair costs were absorbed by multiple divisions within Public Works and Utilities. Approval is requested to formally recognize this reimbursement revenue and to appropriate the funds back to the spe
17690.pdf
10.53100 $ 39,500.00 $ 39,500.00 CARRILLO'S $ 98,650.00 $ 98,650.00 EQUIPMENTSHARERENTAL $ 280.56 $ 280.56 AMERICANSAND $ 7,800.00 $ 7,800.00 EPA $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 HYDRASERVICE $ 1,204.00 $ 1,204.00 $ - TOTALS $ 40,046.34 $ 123,468.68 $ 3,142.13 $ 597.72 $ 211.04 $ 167,465.91 $ 167,465.91 $ 167,465.91
17690 (1).pdf
Which cost centers does staff list as affected by this allocation?

Staff lists Utilities & Engineering cost centers 3610, 3630, 3640, 3720, and 1620 as affected.

Supporting passages
se accounts that originally incurred the charges. A detailed breakdown of all affected cost centers is attached for reference. Staff recommends approval. Budgeted? Yes:| w |No: How Much budgeted? Cost Center Name: Utilities & Engineering Cost Center Affected: 3610,3630,3640,3720;1620 ☐Personnel $ ☐Operating $ ☐Capital $ ☐Revenue $ Requested By: Date: Prepared By: Date: Reviewed By: Date: Reviewed By: Date: Approved By: Date: 2 Approve / Deny: Staff recommends approval. Item Title: Consideration
17690.pdf
cific division expense accounts that originally incurred the charges. A detailed breakdown of all affected cost centers is attached for reference. Personnel: 10,031.35 Operating: 157,434.56 Requestor: Angie Lightfoot Preparer: Angie Lightfoot Date2_af_date: 10/1/26 Date3_af_date: 10/1/26 Date4_af_date: 10/1/26 Date6_af_date: 10/1/26 Reviewer: Clint Murphy Approver: Clint Murphy cost center: 3610,3630,3640,3720;1620 cost center name: Utilities & Engineering
17690.pdf
What does the attached resolution show as the main budget lines being increased?

The resolution shows an increase to Utilities Fund claim settlement revenue ($167,466) and increases to multiple Utilities Fund expense lines (including overtime, professional services, rentals and leases, repairs and maintenance) plus a $598 transfer to the General Fund and a matching General Fund overtime appropriation.

Supporting passages
A, that: Section 1. The following amendments to the approved budget of fiscal year 2026 be made: INCREASE UTILITES FUND REVENUES 410.0000.369.301 – Claim Settlement Revenue $167,466 UTILITIES FUND APPROPRIATIONS 410-3610 51400 – Overtime $546 410-3610 53100 – Professional Services $39,500 410-3630 51400 – Overtime $5,534 410-3630 54400 – Rentals and Leases $281 410-3630 54600 – Repairs and Maintenance $117,654 410-3640 51400 – Overtime $3,142 410-3720 51400 – Overtime $211 410-8800 59140 – Trans
17690 (2).pdf
fer to General Fund $598 GENERAL FUND REVENUES 001-0000 381.100 – Interfund Transfers $598 GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS 001-1620 51400 – Overtime $598 Section 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to expend budgeted funds in furtherance hereof. Section 3. The Mayor and City Attorney are hereby authorized to take such action as may be necessary to implement the purpose and provisions of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Commthsionof the City of Panama City, Florida, at i
17690 (2).pdf
How do staff describe the reason for doing this budget amendment?

Staff says the original repair costs were absorbed by multiple divisions within Public Works and Utilities, and approval is requested to recognize the reimbursement revenue and appropriate the funds back to the specific division expense accounts that originally incurred the charges.

Supporting passages
ion and Approval of Budget Amendment Resolution 20261013.3 for the Allocation of Reimbursement Revenue to the Division Expense Accounts. Utilities received a reimbursement in the amount of $167,465.91 from a contractor for damages previously incurred at Drake Avenue. The original repair costs were absorbed by multiple divisions within Public Works and Utilities. Approval is requested to formally recognize this reimbursement revenue and to appropriate the funds back to the specific division expen
17690.pdf
se accounts that originally incurred the charges. A detailed breakdown of all affected cost centers is attached for reference. Staff recommends approval. Budgeted? Yes:| w |No: How Much budgeted? Cost Center Name: Utilities & Engineering Cost Center Affected: 3610,3630,3640,3720;1620 ☐Personnel $ ☐Operating $ ☐Capital $ ☐Revenue $ Requested By: Date: Prepared By: Date: Reviewed By: Date: Reviewed By: Date: Approved By: Date: 2 Approve / Deny: Staff recommends approval. Item Title: Consideration
17690.pdf

Item 16 of 22

Two cottage housing proposals compete to turn a vacant Millville lot into homes

Staff says Marco Design, LLC’s 13-unit concept and $20,000 purchase offer best match what the Commission asked for in the RFP.

The City Commission is being asked to choose which proposal should receive the award for a “cottage court” style housing development on the City’s vacant property at 2215 E 3rd Street. Staff says the City issued Request for Proposals (RFP) PC26-044 after the Commission asked for this type of development in late July, and the City received two qualifying proposals by the September deadline—one from Aday Construction Services and one from Marco Design, LLC.

Staff’s review says Marco Design, LLC’s proposal most closely matches what the Commission said it wanted when it directed staff to advertise the RFP. The evaluation memo describes Aday’s plan as a 12-unit, one-bedroom-only cottage court with parking close to East 3rd Street and an assumed $40,000 land purchase price. It describes Marco’s plan as a 13-unit cottage court with a mix including two-bedroom units, a central courtyard with stormwater features, parking set back farther from the road, and a proposed $20,000 purchase price for the property. A planning/zoning review in the memo says Marco’s site layout better fits Neighborhood General (NG) zoning standards for cottage courts, especially around how parking is placed and how the central courtyard is designed.

The City Commission is being asked to give direction on which proposer to select (award) under RFP PC26-044 so the City can move forward with development of 2215 E 3rd Street. Staff and the evaluation committee state they believe awarding to Marco Design, LLC best aligns with the Commission’s stated design desires and with planning/zoning considerations.

Why this matters

This choice would shape how a vacant city-owned lot becomes housing in Millville. The proposals differ in the number and size of homes, parking, shared outdoor space and payment for the land. Those tradeoffs matter to neighbors and prospective residents, but the materials do not establish what the homes would cost to buy or rent.

Official wording and sources

Consideration of award for Cottage Court Development located on the vacant property at 2215 E 3rd Street.

12.e.
Consideration of award for Cottage Court Development located on the vacant property at 2215 E 3rd Street.
Documents:
Agenda Item Request for RFP PC26-044 2215 East 3rd Street_13OCT2026.pdf
Memorandum_RFP PC26-044 2215 East 3rd Street Decision Memo_02OCT2026.pdf
Aday_VMS Architecture PC26-044 2215_East_3rd_Street_RFP.pdf
Marco Design_Final_RFP_PC26-044_2215_E_3rd_St_Development-KB.pdf

Official agenda wording

17699.pdf

17699 (1).pdf

17699 (2).pdf

17699 (3).pdf

Listen to this explanation · 2:33

Learn more about this item

What did the City ask for through RFP PC26-044, and how many proposals came back?

Staff says the City advertised RFP PC26-044 for a “cottage court” related development at 2215 E 3rd Street and received two responsive proposals: one from Aday Construction Services and one from Marco Design, LLC.

Supporting passages
nformation: At the July 28, 2026, City Commission meeting, the Commission requested an RFP for a "cottage court" related development at 2215 E 3rd Street (parcel 22545-000-000). An RFP (PC26-044) was advertised on July 29, 2026, requesting related proposals. The RFP was closed on September 16, 2026. Two (2) responsive proposals were received from (1) Aday Construction Services and (2) Marco Design, LLC, respectively. The Director(s) of Housing & Community Services, Development Services and Logis
17699.pdf
pment for 2215 East 3 Street DT: October 2, 2026 SUMMARY: At its July 28, 2026, meeting, the City Commission requested an RFP for cottage-court-related development at 2215 E. 3rd Street (parcel 22545-000-000). RFP PC26-044 was advertised on July th th 29 and closed on September 16 , 2026. Aday Construction Services and Marco Design, LLC, submitted responsive proposals. After reviewing both, the Directors of Housing & Community Services, Development Services, and Logistics believes the proposal s
17699 (1).pdf
What purchase price did each proposal assume for buying the property?

The evaluation memo says Aday’s proposal assumed a $40,000 land purchase cost, while Marco Design’s proposal assumed a $20,000 land cost and proposes purchasing the property for $20,000.

Supporting passages
ubmitted by Marco Design, LLC is more in alignment with the design desire(s) of the Commission. They propose (Marco Design) purchasing the property for $20,000. BACKGROUND: The proposals are summarized as follows: A. Millville Cottages/Aday Construction Services, Inc. – proposes a 12-unit cottage court ; 6 units on each side of the property served by a central landscaped walkway/path; a 12-lot rd parking area immediately adjacent to E. 3 Street. The proposal assumes $40,000 in land cost (purchas
17699 (1).pdf
B. 2215 E. 3 Street Development/Marco Design, LLC – proposes a 13-unit cottage court; 4 units facing E. 3 Street and 9 units surrounding a central courtyard/stormwater pond/rain garden; a 10-lot parking area setback from the road ROW behind the front 4 units. The proposal assumes $20,000 in land cost and approximately $2.8 million for the entire development project. The units are all proposed to be two-bedroom units. (1) Based purely on a technical planning/zoning perspective, I (Michael Fuller
17699 (1).pdf
How do the two concepts differ on unit count and unit types?

The memo summarizes Aday’s concept as a 12-unit cottage court with all one-bedroom units. It summarizes Marco Design’s concept as a 13-unit cottage court with all two-bedroom units.

Supporting passages
ubmitted by Marco Design, LLC is more in alignment with the design desire(s) of the Commission. They propose (Marco Design) purchasing the property for $20,000. BACKGROUND: The proposals are summarized as follows: A. Millville Cottages/Aday Construction Services, Inc. – proposes a 12-unit cottage court ; 6 units on each side of the property served by a central landscaped walkway/path; a 12-lot rd parking area immediately adjacent to E. 3 Street. The proposal assumes $40,000 in land cost (purchas
17699 (1).pdf
B. 2215 E. 3 Street Development/Marco Design, LLC – proposes a 13-unit cottage court; 4 units facing E. 3 Street and 9 units surrounding a central courtyard/stormwater pond/rain garden; a 10-lot parking area setback from the road ROW behind the front 4 units. The proposal assumes $20,000 in land cost and approximately $2.8 million for the entire development project. The units are all proposed to be two-bedroom units. (1) Based purely on a technical planning/zoning perspective, I (Michael Fuller
17699 (1).pdf
Why does the planning/zoning review say Marco’s site plan fits better?

The planning director’s section says the property is zoned Neighborhood General (NG) and that Marco Design’s proposal better meets those development standards, including setting parking back from the front property line and having a central courtyard feature that better fits cottage-court intent.

Supporting passages
, Director of Planning and Development) recommend the RFP be awarded to Marco Design, LLC. The subject property is zoned Neighborhood General (NG), which allows for development of cottage courts meeting certain design criteria including the following: Cottage courts that meet the following conditions: i. Maximum cottage footprint of 800 square feet per building. ii. Maximum cottage height of one story plus an attic story iii. The central court shall be a green space not more than 1/3rd paved, an
17699 (1).pdf
lications (for new development or building reuse) within the Neighborhood General district that meet all standards of this district, including for building and parking location (Table 104- 36.2.A) and building design (section 105-15), shall be exempt from minimum parking requirements. 2 | P a g e The proposal from Marco Design, LLC better meets the development standards in the NG zoning. In this proposal, parking is setback from the front property line as provided in the table above. In addition
17699 (1).pdf
, the central courtyard/stormwater pond/rain garden better meets the intent of the third condition for cottage courts. (2) Evaluation of Millville Cottages (Shelia Ware, Housing & Community Services Director) General Overview Development consists solely of 1-bedroom cottages, which is very limited for the local housing market. Product type and square footage (approx. 621 sq. ft.) make the project more likely to function as a rental community rather than owner-occupied. Structures appear more lik
17699 (1).pdf

Item 17 of 22

August service report tracks repairs, permits and emergency calls

The City Commission is set to receive a new monthly operational report covering August activity and fiscal-year-to-date figures across multiple departments

The City Commission is being given a “City Manager Monthly Operational Report” that summarizes day-to-day work across departments that report to the City Manager’s Office, using data from August 2026 plus fiscal-year-to-date totals starting in October 2025. Staff notes the report is not a complete list of everything the City did, and that because it is new, more data sets and refinements may be added over time.

The report compiles many activity counts and dollar totals, such as development orders reviewed and approved, permits issued and inspections performed, police and fire calls for service, housing and community-service program activity, purchasing and information-technology workload, parks and recreation participation, and public works statistics like water and sewer repairs, wastewater treated, and street and drainage work. The practical decision for commissioners is whether to accept the update as presented and use it to track city performance and workload trends over time.

Commissioners are being asked to receive the City Manager’s August 2026 monthly operational update, which staff says summarizes department activity and will be provided at the first meeting of every month. Staff also notes the report is new, not exhaustive, and may be expanded and refined as additional data sets are added.

Why this matters

The operational report lets residents look beyond announcements to the work city departments are doing, from repairs and inspections to emergency calls and recreation. Following it over time can help people ask specific questions about service needs and progress. Activity counts alone do not show whether a problem was solved or a service was delivered well.

Official wording and sources

Projects and efforts update.

Projects and efforts update.
Documents:
City Manager_Monthly Operational Report_August_2026.pdf

Official agenda wording

17441.pdf

Listen to this explanation · 2:10

Learn more about this item

What time period does the report cover for the month and for “fiscal year to date”?

Staff says the data for the reporting period is from August 2026, and the fiscal-year-to-date figures run from October 2025 to date.

Supporting passages
to provide this report at the first meeting of every month. The data for this reporting period is from August 2026. This report highlights our department's day-to-day efforts throughout the month but does not provide an exhaustive list of all efforts and projects. As thisreport isnew, additionaldata setsthat have not historicallybeentracked willbeadded,and refinements to this report will continue. CRA/Business Services Aug 2026 FYTD (Oct. ’25 to date) CRA Active Programs 6 10 Active Projects 37
17441.pdf
Does staff describe this report as a complete list of all city work?

No. Staff says it highlights day-to-day efforts during the month but does not provide an exhaustive list of all efforts and projects.

Supporting passages
to provide this report at the first meeting of every month. The data for this reporting period is from August 2026. This report highlights our department's day-to-day efforts throughout the month but does not provide an exhaustive list of all efforts and projects. As thisreport isnew, additionaldata setsthat have not historicallybeentracked willbeadded,and refinements to this report will continue. CRA/Business Services Aug 2026 FYTD (Oct. ’25 to date) CRA Active Programs 6 10 Active Projects 37
17441.pdf
What changes does staff expect to make to this monthly report over time?

Staff says that because the report is new, additional data sets that have not historically been tracked will be added and refinements will continue.

Supporting passages
to provide this report at the first meeting of every month. The data for this reporting period is from August 2026. This report highlights our department's day-to-day efforts throughout the month but does not provide an exhaustive list of all efforts and projects. As thisreport isnew, additionaldata setsthat have not historicallybeentracked willbeadded,and refinements to this report will continue. CRA/Business Services Aug 2026 FYTD (Oct. ’25 to date) CRA Active Programs 6 10 Active Projects 37
17441.pdf
What kinds of results are included in the report?

The report lists department metrics such as permits issued and inspections performed, police and fire calls for service, and public works activity like water and sewer repairs.

Supporting passages
ivision Development Orders Under Review 79 1,127 Development Orders Approved 48 819 Planning Fees $8,960 $163,150 Building Services Permits Issued 189 2,185 Inspections Performed 530 5,546 Permit Fees Collected $260,198 $960,129 Code Compliance New Cases Opened 81 525 Cases Closed 104 768 Cases to Hearing 14 148 Floodplain Mgt. & Disaster Recovery Elevation Cert. Reviewed 7 26 Flood Zone Determinations 57 716 Floodplain Permits Issued 3 49 Fire Aug 2026 FYTD (Oct ‘25 to date) Total Calls for Ser
17441.pdf
vice: 643 6,843 Fire 17 189 Medical 401 4,056 Other 225 2,598 Response to PC North 28 137 Fire Prevention Inspections 249 2,757 Aug 2026 FYTD (Oct. ’25 to date) Housing & Community Services Purchase Assistance (clients) 0 $295,363 (7) Foreclosure Prevention (clients) 0 $12,993 (4) Owner-Occupied Rehab/EM Assist. $5,282 (1) $100,372 (9) Rental Assistance $7,529 (4) $69.021 (46) Demolition/Reconstruction 0 $96,931 (4) Applications Received 18 212 Walk-ins 48 957 Phone Calls 326 3,847 Referrals Pro
17441.pdf
3 of 4 Police Aug 2026 FYTD (Oct ‘25 to date) Total Calls for Service 7,372 87,964 Calls for Service in PC-North 728 7,300 Traffic Stops 1,441 20,544 Arrests 470 5,708 Special Events 5 54 Public Works Aug 2026 FYTD (Oct. ’25 to date) Utilities Water repairs (meters, hydrants, valves, etc.). 119 1,601 Sewer repairs (overflow, cave-in, install, etc.) 128 1,126 Lift Station Acknowledged Alarms 1,659 10,323 Wastewater Treatment (gallons treated) 152.4M 1,127B Lab – samples/tests 647/1,839 6,902/19,
17441.pdf

Item 18 of 22

Veterans Day Parade organizers seek $5,220 in city fee waivers

Parade is planned for Nov. 11, 2026, with a route from Oakland Terrace Elementary to the Bay County Public Library and multiple road closures.

City staff ask the commission to waive $5,220 in city special-event and police fees for the Bay County Veteran’s Day Parade planned for Wednesday, November 11, 2026. The request came from the Bay County Veterans Service Office, which describes the parade as a community tribute honoring veterans and current service members.

The staff form lists the fee waiver total as $5,220, made up of a $620 special-event application fee and security deposit plus $4,600 for police services (26 officers and patrol cars). The route described in the staff materials starts at Oakland Terrace Elementary, travels along Frankford Avenue, West 11th Street, and Wood Avenue, and ends at the Bay County Public Library, with road closures along parts of those streets during the parade.

The city commission is being asked to decide whether to approve a waiver of all applicable Special Event and Police fees totaling $5,220 for the Bay County Veteran’s Day Parade on November 11, 2026. Staff recommend approval of the waiver, and staff list the fee breakdown including $620 for the special-event application/security deposit and $4,600 for police services.

Why this matters

The fee waiver would lower the organizers’ charges for a community event honoring veterans and service members. It also makes the proposed city support visible: $5,220 in event and police fees. Residents and businesses along the route have a separate practical reason to note the planned road closures.

Official wording and sources

Consideration to approve and waive all applicable Special Event and Police Fees for Bay County Veteran's Day Parade, to be held on November 11, 2026, in the amount of $5,220.00.

12.g.
Consideration to approve and waive all applicable Special Event and Police Fees for Bay County Veteran's Day Parade, to be held on November 11, 2026, in the amount of $5,220.00.
Documents:
Agenda Item Request Bay County Veterans Day Parade.pdf
Special Events Application (NEW) - 08312026 856 AM (CDT).pdf
Veteran Fee Waiver Letter Bryant 10.5.26.pdf
Bay County Veterans Day Parade Site Map.pdf

Official agenda wording

17718.pdf

17718 (1).pdf

17718 (2).pdf

17718 (3).pdf

Listen to this explanation · 2:09

Learn more about this item

What fees are being requested for waiver, and how do they add up to $5,220?

The request lists a $620 Special Event Application Fee and Security Deposit and $4,600 for Police Services (26 officers and patrol cars), for a total of $5,220.

Supporting passages
Below is a breakdown of fees. Special Event Application Fee and Security Deposit: $620.00 Police Services: 26 Officers and patrol cars: $4,600.00 Total Fees: $5,220.00 Staff recommends approval. Total non-budgeted funds: $5,220.00 Source(s) of non-budgeted funds? Is this a Capital improvement as defined in s. 163.3164? If so, what are the estimated future annual maintenance/operational costs: ☐Personnel $ ☐Operating $ ☐Capital $ ☐Revenue $ Requested By: Date: Prepared By: Date: Reviewed By: Dat
17718.pdf
Drive, West 12th Street from Frankford Avenue and Fortune Avenue, and Frankford Avenue from West 12th Street to West 11th Street. The total fees requesting to be waived are $5,220.00. Below is a breakdown of fees. Special Event Application Fee and Security Deposit: $620.00 Police Services: 26 Officers and patrol cars: $4,600.00 Total Fees: $5,220.00 Operating: 620.00 Requestor: Keith Meyer, Director PCR Preparer: Angie Bates, Special Event & Budget Administrator Date2_af_date: 10.5.26 Date3_af_
17718.pdf
What parade route and street closures are described in the staff materials?

Staff describe the route starting at Oakland Terrace Elementary and traveling down Frankford Avenue, turning onto West 11th Street, then onto Wood Avenue, ending at Bay County Public Library. Staff also list road closures on parts of Frankford Avenue and West 12th Street during the event.

Supporting passages
t, Fortune Avenue, and 13th Street. The parade will start at Oakland Terrace Elementary and head down Frankford Avenue and turn left onto West 11th Street, then turn left onto Wood Avenue and end at Bay County Public Library. The parade will have road closures of Frankford Avenue between Frankford Avenue and Parker Drive, West 12th Street from Frankford Avenue and Fortune Avenue, and Frankford Avenue from West 12th Street to West 11th Street. The total fees requesting to be waived are $5,220.00.
17718.pdf
of 7:00am-10:00am. The parade will be a tribute to honor the men and women from all periods of service. The parade staging area will be at Oakland Terrace Elementary on West 12th Street, Fortune Avenue, and 13th Street. The parade will start at Oakland Terrace Elementary and head down Frankford Avenue and turn left onto West 11th Street, then turn left onto Wood Avenue and end at Bay County Public Library. The parade will have road closures of Frankford Avenue between Frankford Avenue and Parker
17718.pdf
Who requested the fee waiver, according to the documents?

The staff form says the Bay County Veteran’s office is requesting the fees be waived, and a letter from the Bay County Board of County Commissioners also asks that related fees be waived for the event.

Supporting passages
t and Police Fees for Bay County Veteran's Day Parade, to be held on November 11, 2026, in the amount of $5,220.00. Bay County Veteran's office is requesting all fees to be waived for the Bay County Veteran's Day Parade scheduled for Wednesday November 11, 2026, from 8:30am-10:00pm. With set up and breakdown times of 7:00am-10:00am. The parade will be a tribute to honor the men and women from all periods of service. The parade staging area will be at Oakland Terrace Elementary on West 12th Stree
17718.pdf
son Ave Panama City, FL 32401 The Bay County Board of County Commissioners is preparing for its annual Veteran’s Day Parade on Wednesday, November 11! 2026. This parade celebrates all Bay County Veterans who served their country honorably, and provides an opportunity for our shared community to come together to honor all the men and women who answered this nation’s call to service. For this upcoming event, the Board of Bay County Commissioners is requesting that all related fees, including permi
17718 (2).pdf

Item 19 of 22

$1-a-year lease would allow food trucks while a restaurant site is prepared

Canaan Development Group, LLC would get a two-year lease on the City-owned lot, with an option to buy later at a price the parties would agree on.

City staff is asking the City Commission to approve and let staff sign a ground lease for the City-owned vacant property at 1332 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard with Canaan Development Group, LLC (Search Sunbiz). Staff says the lease was negotiated after prior City Commission direction tied to the SPARK Program, and that the tenant has reviewed and agreed to the terms. The staff report describes the deal as a two-year lease with rent of $1.00 per year and an option for the tenant to purchase the property later.

The attached lease document says the tenant would use the lot for one or more food trucks while working through site issues (including stormwater issues) and preparing plans and a construction timeline for a more permanent restaurant building described as about 800 to 1,100 square feet, offering desserts, beverages, and light food service. The lease draft also states either party could terminate with 30 days’ written notice, and it describes the property as rented “as-is, where-is.”

The City Commission is being asked to approve a ground lease for 1332 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard with Canaan Development Group, LLC (Search Sunbiz) and authorize City officials to execute it. Staff recommends approval so the City can proceed under the negotiated lease terms for redevelopment of the City-owned property.

Why this matters

A city-owned vacant lot could become a place to buy food, starting with food trucks while a restaurant is planned. Rent of $1 a year would support that redevelopment, making the tenant’s progress, the site’s stormwater issues and the terms of any later purchase relevant to how this public property is used.

Official wording and sources

Consideration, approval and authorization to execute a ground lease with Canaan Development Group, LLC for the redevelopment of City-owned property located at 1332 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.

13.a.
Consideration, approval and authorization to execute a ground lease with Canaan Development Group, LLC (Search Sunbiz) for the redevelopment of City-owned property located at 1332 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Documents:
Letter to Commission re 1332 MLK Lease Spark Program.pdf

Official agenda wording

17686.pdf

Listen to this explanation · 2:02

Learn more about this item

What rent amount and lease length are described in the staff report for this ground lease?

Staff describes a two-year lease at a nominal amount of $1.00 each year, with an option for the lessee to purchase the property.

Supporting passages
2 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard (Parcel #17364-000-000) as part of the SPARK Program. Following Commission direction, a two year lease at a nominal amount each year of $1.00 with an option for the Lessee to purchase the property was negotiated between the City of Panama City and Canaan Development Group, LLC (also known as Jaja Family Foods). Canaan Development Group, LLC has reviewed and approved the proposed lease and agrees to the terms. The lease is now being presented to the City Commiss
17686.pdf
What does the lease say the tenant plans to do on the site during the lease term?

The lease describes using the property for one or more food trucks while the tenant works on site development issues (including stormwater) and finalizes plans and a construction timeline for a more permanent restaurant of about 800 to 1,100 square feet.

Supporting passages
hereto and made a part hereof (the “Premises”); and WHEREAS, Tenant wishes to lease the Premises to be used for the parking of an operational Food Truck and other valid purposes approved by Landlord for the term of this Lease; and WHEREAS, during the term of this Lease, the Tenant will continue to work on the issues with the Premises which have made the Premises not readily available for development, including stormwater issues and will use the term of the Lease to finalize design plans and cons
17686.pdf
ctors,subcontractors,affiliates,andvendorstoutilizetheproperty fortheoperationofoneormorefoodtruckswhiletheTenantworkstofinalizedesign plans and construction timelines for a more permanent restaurant establishment which will be between 800-1,100 square feet and will offer desserts, beverages, and light food service. (e) “Commencement Date”: The Commencement Date shall mean the Effective Date. (f) “Term”: The Term of the Lease shall be for a period of two (2) years, commencing on the Commencement
17686.pdf
What purchase option is included in the draft lease?

The draft lease says the tenant would have an option to purchase the property at the end of the term for a price to be mutually agreed upon by the parties.

Supporting passages
ISES, TERM AND RIGHT TO PURCHASE. Landlord, in consideration of the Rent to be paid and of the covenants, conditions and agreements to be kept and performed by Tenant, hereby leases, lets and demises to Tenant, and Tenant hereby leases and hires the Premises from Landlord for the Term of this Lease. By use of the Premises, Tenant shall be conclusively deemed to have 2 accepted the Premises in its AS-IS WHERE-IS condition, without any obligation or duty of Landlord to undertake any action with re
17686.pdf
Does the draft lease allow early termination, and if so, how?

The draft lease says the landlord and tenant may terminate the contract for any reason by giving the other party 30 days’ written notice.

Supporting passages
Date, and ending on the last day of the calendar month after the twenty-four (24) month term. Landlord and Tenant may terminate this contract for any reason by providing the other party thirty (30) days written notice. (g) “Rent”: Beginning on the Commencement Date and continuing during the Term of this Lease, Tenant shall pay to Landlord base Rent of One and no/100ths Dollars ($1.00) per year, payable on the Commencement Date. (h) “Security Deposit”: There shall be no security deposit. 3. PREM
17686.pdf

Item 20 of 22

American Legion land deal would require construction within three years

Proposed contract says the buyer must get permits and complete construction within 36 months after closing or the property would revert back to the City/CRA.

The City Commission and the Panama City Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) board are being asked to approve and authorize signing a sales contract to transfer a CRA-owned lot at 1342 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to American Legion Post #424 so it can be redeveloped into an American Legion post building. Staff’s agenda form says the CRA previously went through its required disposal process, received a proposal from American Legion Post #424, and the CRA board directed staff to prepare an agreement for the disposition and redevelopment.

Staff’s draft contract materials describe a sale price of $6,100 and say the buyer would have to obtain permits and complete construction within 36 months after closing, or the property would revert back to the City/CRA (with the purchase price paid back to the buyer). Supporting pages also include a city attorney transmittal letter stating the $6,100 price is described as 10% of the appraised value, and the contract language tying the 36-month build requirement to the City and CRA “SPARK” program requirements and the buyer’s proposal.

The boards are being asked to approve the sales contract for the CRA-owned property at 1342 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to American Legion Post #424 for $6,100 and authorize execution. Staff recommends approval so the City/CRA can complete the proposed disposition and redevelopment agreement under the terms presented, including the 36-month construction requirement and reversion condition.

Why this matters

This proposal would put publicly owned land toward an American Legion building at a price described as one-tenth of its appraised value. The intended use and the safeguards attached to that discount both matter to the community. The three-year construction deadline and return-of-property condition provide milestones for checking whether the agreement delivers what was proposed.

Official wording and sources

Consideration, approval and authorization to execute the contract with American Legion Post 424 for the redevelopment of CRA-owned property located at 1342 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.

13.b.
Consideration, approval and authorization to execute the contract with American Legion Post 424 (Search Sunbiz) for the redevelopment of CRA-owned property located at 1342 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Documents:
Letter to Commission re 1342 MLK Sales Contract American Legion Post.pdf

Official agenda wording

17687.pdf

Listen to this explanation · 2:34

Learn more about this item

What happens under the proposed contract if construction is not completed within 36 months after closing?

The contract language says the property would revert back to the seller if the buyer does not complete the stated improvements within 36 months after the closing date, and the seller would pay the buyer back the $6,100 purchase price.

Supporting passages
(36) month time period after the Closing Date, the Property shall revert back to the Seller upon payment by the Seller to Buyer of the purchase price of $6,100.00. A reversionary clause or other appropriate mechanism to trigger and effectuate reversion to the Seller shall be included in the deed of conveyance and shall run with the land. COUNTER-OFFER/REJECTION O Seller counters Buyer's offer (to accept the counter-offer, Buyer must sign or initial the counter-offered terms and deliver a copy of
17687.pdf
What sale price is shown in the contract documents for this property?

The staff briefing describes a sale price of $6,100, and the contract pages list $6,100.00 as the purchase price.

Supporting passages
d. Following the required property disposition process, American Legion Post #424 submitted a proposal for the property, and the CRA Board directed staff to proceed with preparation of an agreement for the proposed disposition and redevelopment. Staff subsequently prepared a contract between the Panama City Community Redevelopment Agency, the City of Panama City and American Legion Post #424 for a sale in the amount of $6,100 with a requirement for the Buyer to construct improvements within thir
17687.pdf
———«6 , 100.00 15 All deposits will be made payable to “Escrow Agent” named below and held in escrow by: 16* Escrow Agent's Name: Burke Blue 178 Escrow Agent's Contact Person: Nevin J. Zimmerman, Esq. 188 Escrow Agent's Address: 221 McKenzie Ave, Panama City, FL 32401 198 Escrow Agent's Phone: (850)769-1414 20 Escrow Agent's Email: [email protected] 21 (a) Initial deposit ($0 if left blank) (Check if applicable) 220 O accompanies offer 23" O will be delivered to Escrow Agent within days (
17687.pdf
When does the contract draft list as the closing date for the sale?

The contract draft lists a closing date of November 30, 2026, unless extended by other provisions of the contract.

Supporting passages
e time for acceptance of any counter-offer will be 3 days after the date the counter-offer is 41 delivered. The “Effective Date” of this Contract is the date on which the last one of the Seller and Buyer 42 has signed or initialed and delivered this offer or the final counter-offer. 43* 4. Closing Date: This transaction will close on__November 30, 2026 ___ (“Closing Date”), unless specifically 44 extended by other provisions of this Contract. The Closing Date will prevail over all other time per
17687.pdf

Item 21 of 22

Commissioners plan legal-advice session on Art Marine lawsuit

The city attorney requested a closed session to discuss litigation strategy or a possible settlement.

Commissioners are being asked to meet with the city’s lawyers about the lawsuit involving Art Marine, LLC, the City of Panama City and H.G. Harders and Son, Inc. The city attorney’s October 2 letter says the purpose is to discuss litigation strategy or a possible settlement.

The letter requests a closed executive session during the October 13 commission meeting and estimates that it will last about an hour. It says a court reporter would record the discussion word for word, with the transcript available for public review after the litigation ends. Commissioners would then return to the public meeting and take action, if any.

This item starts the requested legal-advice session for Bay County case 26001131CA. The supporting letter explains the session’s purpose and procedure; it does not disclose proposed settlement terms or establish that a settlement will be approved.

Why this matters

A lawsuit involving the city can lead to decisions about public money and city responsibilities, even when legal advice is discussed privately. The city attorney’s letter says this discussion would be recorded and its transcript available after the litigation ends. It does not disclose settlement terms or establish a financial outcome.

Official wording and sources

Commencement of Executive Session pursuant to s.286.011(8), F. S., to discuss and receive advice regarding Art Marine, LLC vs. City of Panama City, Florida and H.G. Harders and Son, Inc. Bay County, Case No.: 26001131CA.

13.c.
Commencement of Executive Session pursuant to s.286.011(8), F. S., to discuss and receive advice regarding Art Marine, LLC vs. City of Panama City, Florida and H.G. Harders and Son, Inc. Bay County, Case No.: 26001131CA.
Documents:
agenda item Request Exec Session 10-2-26.pdf

Official agenda wording

executive-session.pdf

Listen to this explanation · 1:36

Learn more about this item

Who did the City Attorney say would attend the executive session?

The City Attorney said the Mayor and City Commissioners would attend, along with City Attorneys Nevin J. Zimmerman, Mike S. Burke, and Natalie A. McSwane, and City Manager Jonathan H. Hayes as the City’s chief administrative officer.

Supporting passages
, prior to adjourning the Commission meeting. In attendance at the Executive Session will be the Mayor and City Commissioners, the City Attorneys,NevinJ.Zimmerman,MikeS.Burke,andNatalieA.McSwane,andJonathanH.Hayes, City Manager, as the Chief Administrative Officer of the City. This meeting is not open to the public pursuant to Florida Statutes section 286.011(8). I estimate the Executive Session will take approximately one (1) hour. Sincerely, Nevin J. Zimmerman, City Attorney cc: Jonathan H. Ha
executive-session.pdf
What did the City Attorney say the executive session is for, and what record would be created?

The City Attorney said the purpose is to discuss litigation strategy and/or settlement, and that a court reporter would transcribe the discussion verbatim, with the transcript available for public review after the litigation ends.

Supporting passages
L32401, at 8:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as the Commission so chooses. The purpose of the Executive Session will be to discuss the litigation strategy and/or settlement of the above-mentioned litigation. A court reporter will be present to transcribe verbatim the discussion during the Executive Session and after the conclusion of the litigation, the transcript will be available for public review. At the conclusion of the Executive Session, the Commission will re-convene and take action, if any
executive-session.pdf
When and where did the City Attorney request the executive session be scheduled?

The City Attorney requested the executive session be scheduled for the City Commission meeting on October 13, 2026 at the Bay County Government Center at 8:00 a.m. (or as soon thereafter as the Commission chooses).

Supporting passages
OARDCERTIFICIT,OUNTY ANDLOCALGOVERNMENTATTORNEY **OTLICENSED PRACTICEFLORIDA Re: Request for Executive Session pursuant to s.286.011(8), F. S., to discuss and receive advice regarding Art Marine, LLC vs. City of Panama City, Florida and H.G. Harders and Son, Inc. Bay County, Case No.: 26001131CA Dear Mayor and Commissioners: I hereby request an Executive Session be scheduled for the meeting of the City Commission, on October13, 2026, at the BayCountyGovernment Center,840 W.11th St, PanamaCity, F
executive-session.pdf
L32401, at 8:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as the Commission so chooses. The purpose of the Executive Session will be to discuss the litigation strategy and/or settlement of the above-mentioned litigation. A court reporter will be present to transcribe verbatim the discussion during the Executive Session and after the conclusion of the litigation, the transcript will be available for public review. At the conclusion of the Executive Session, the Commission will re-convene and take action, if any
executive-session.pdf

Item 22 of 22

Panama City commissioners to consider closed-session discussion on Art Marine, LLC lawsuit

City Attorney Nevin J. Zimmerman requested an executive session on Oct. 13, 2026 to discuss litigation strategy and/or a possible settlement, with any action to occur afterward in public.

The City Commission is being asked to discuss pending litigation in an executive session (a closed meeting) tied to the case Art Marine, LLC vs. City of Panama City, Florida and H.G. Harders and Son, Inc., Bay County (Case No. 26001131CA). The City Attorney requested that this closed-session discussion be scheduled for the Oct. 13, 2026 City Commission meeting.

According to the request letter, the purpose of the executive session would be to discuss litigation strategy and/or a potential settlement. A court reporter would transcribe the discussion, and the transcript would become available for public review after the litigation ends. The letter also states that, after the executive session, the Commission would re-convene and take any action in public before adjourning.

Commissioners are being asked to schedule and hold an executive session under Florida Statutes section 286.011(8) to discuss the Art Marine, LLC litigation, then return to the public meeting to take any action if they choose. The City Attorney requested the session so the Commission can receive legal advice and discuss litigation strategy and/or settlement.

Why this matters

Any public action after the legal session is where residents can learn what commissioners decide about the litigation. If a settlement or other commitment is proposed, its disclosed terms and financial consequences would matter to the public. The agenda does not establish that a settlement will occur or what it would contain.

Official wording and sources

Discussion and possible action regarding litigation.

13.e. Discussion and possible action regarding litigation.

Official agenda wording

17679.pdf

Listen to this explanation · 2:08

Learn more about this item

What lawsuit is tied to this proposed executive session?

The City Attorney’s request says the session is to discuss and receive advice regarding Art Marine, LLC vs. City of Panama City, Florida and H.G. Harders and Son, Inc., Bay County, Case No.: 26001131CA.

Supporting passages
OARDCERTIFICIT,OUNTY ANDLOCALGOVERNMENTATTORNEY **OTLICENSED PRACTICEFLORIDA Re: Request for Executive Session pursuant to s.286.011(8), F. S., to discuss and receive advice regarding Art Marine, LLC vs. City of Panama City, Florida and H.G. Harders and Son, Inc. Bay County, Case No.: 26001131CA Dear Mayor and Commissioners: I hereby request an Executive Session be scheduled for the meeting of the City Commission, on October13, 2026, at the BayCountyGovernment Center,840 W.11th St, PanamaCity, F
17679.pdf
What does the request say will be discussed in the closed session?

The request says the purpose is to discuss litigation strategy and/or settlement of the litigation.

Supporting passages
L32401, at 8:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as the Commission so chooses. The purpose of the Executive Session will be to discuss the litigation strategy and/or settlement of the above-mentioned litigation. A court reporter will be present to transcribe verbatim the discussion during the Executive Session and after the conclusion of the litigation, the transcript will be available for public review. At the conclusion of the Executive Session, the Commission will re-convene and take action, if any
17679.pdf
What record of the executive-session discussion does the request describe?

The request says a court reporter will transcribe the discussion verbatim, and the transcript will be available for public review after the conclusion of the litigation.

Supporting passages
L32401, at 8:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as the Commission so chooses. The purpose of the Executive Session will be to discuss the litigation strategy and/or settlement of the above-mentioned litigation. A court reporter will be present to transcribe verbatim the discussion during the Executive Session and after the conclusion of the litigation, the transcript will be available for public review. At the conclusion of the Executive Session, the Commission will re-convene and take action, if any
17679.pdf
Who does the request say would attend the executive session?

The request lists the Mayor and City Commissioners, City Attorneys Nevin J. Zimmerman, Mike S. Burke, and Natalie A. McSwane, and City Manager Jonathan H. Hayes.

Supporting passages
, prior to adjourning the Commission meeting. In attendance at the Executive Session will be the Mayor and City Commissioners, the City Attorneys,NevinJ.Zimmerman,MikeS.Burke,andNatalieA.McSwane,andJonathanH.Hayes, City Manager, as the Chief Administrative Officer of the City. This meeting is not open to the public pursuant to Florida Statutes section 286.011(8). I estimate the Executive Session will take approximately one (1) hour. Sincerely, Nevin J. Zimmerman, City Attorney cc: Jonathan H. Ha
17679.pdf

AI-assisted explanations reviewed by PorchPing. Follow the official sources for complete details. Public version reviewed October 11, 2026. PorchPing is independent of local government.