Powered by PorchPing

Your community

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

Upcoming meeting

City Commission Meeting

Meeting information

October 27, 2026 · 4:30 PM Central Add to your calendar ↗

840 WEST 11 TH STREET

Item 1 of 22

Hera foreclosure-property registry presentation for Panama City

Hera Property Registry is scheduled to present its proposed “Vacant & Foreclosed Property Registration” approach, after the City Commission’s August 12, 2025 discussion of a staff-drafted ordinance and request for narrower, real-world examples.

The City Commission is set to hear a presentation from Hera Property Registry about a possible registration system for properties in foreclosure (and potentially vacant properties later). The presentation says Panama City does not currently have a foreclosure or vacant-property registry, and it describes a “foreclosure-first” approach where the lender or mortgage servicer would register a property soon after a foreclosure is filed, provide a local contact, and keep the property inspected and maintained.

As background, the materials say the City Commission discussed a staff-drafted ordinance on August 12, 2025 and asked staff to come back with real-world examples and a narrower scope. A draft ordinance is included as a supporting document; it outlines how a City registry could work, including what information mortgage companies would have to provide, inspection/maintenance expectations, and a proposed $300 semi-annual registration fee per property.

The City Commission is being asked to receive a presentation from Hera Property Registry about a proposed registry for bank-owned and foreclosing-mortgage properties. In its briefing, Hera says the Commission previously asked for real-world examples and a narrower scope, and it recommends starting with foreclosures first rather than a broader vacancy-based registry.

Why this matters

If the City creates a foreclosure-property registry, the goal described in the materials is to make sure the City has a clear, up-to-date contact for a property early in the foreclosure process, before it becomes vacant and harder to manage. The draft ordinance also proposes a $300 semi-annual registration fee per registrable property, with the ordinance describing how those fees could be used to offset enforcement and foreclosure-related code issues. This agenda item is a presentation, so the materials do not show the City adopting any registry rules at this time.

Give the City of Panama City your feedback and questions
Official wording and sources

Presentation by Hera Property Registration regarding registration of foreclosure(s) properties.

Presentation by Hera Property Registration (Search Sunbiz) regarding registration of foreclosure(s) properties.

17745.pdf

17745 (1).pdf

HERA partners with over 206 communities across the USA. These communities contract with HERA to promote neighborhood health, safety and welfare through property registration.

Supporting link — not incorporated into the explanation

Hera Rigistry Website

Listen to this explanation · 2:30

Learn more about this item

According to the draft ordinance, when would a mortgage company have to register a property?

The draft ordinance says that within ten (10) days of filing a foreclosure action, the mortgagee would have to register the property with the City registry and indicate whether it is vacant, and if it is vacant designate a property manager.

Supporting passages
e. If an inspection shows a change in the property’s occupancy status the Mortgagee shall, within ten (10) days of that inspection, update the occupancy status of the property registration. (c) Within ten (10) days of the date any Mortgagee files a Foreclosure Action, the Mortgagee shall register the Real Property with the City of Panama City Registry, and, at the time of registration, indicate whether the property is Vacant, and if so shall designate in writing a Property Manager to inspect, ma
17745 (1).pdf
intain, and secure the Real Property subject to the mortgage under a Foreclosure Action. A separate registration is required for each property under a Foreclosure Action, regardless of whether it is occupied or vacant. a. Mortgagees who have existing registrable property on the effective date of this ordinance have 30 calendar days from the effective date to register the property as indicated in this section. A separate registration is required for each property, whether it is vacant or occupied
17745 (1).pdf
What fee does the draft ordinance propose for registering a property, and how often would it be paid?

The draft ordinance proposes a non-refundable semi-annual registration fee of $300.00 per property at initial registration, with $300.00 renewal fees due every six months.

Supporting passages
nt shall pay a non-refundable Semi-Annual Registration fee of $300.00 for each property. Subsequent non-refundable Semi-Annual renewal registrations of properties and fees in the amount of $300.00 are due within ten (10) days of the expiration of the previous registration. Said fees shall be used to offset the costs of: (1) registration and registration enforcement, (2) code enforcement and mitigation related to Defaulted properties, (3) post-closing counseling and Foreclosure intervention limit
17745 (1).pdf
the property is sold to a non-related bona fide purchaser in an arm’s length transaction or the Foreclosure Action has been dismissed. Registry shall mean a database of Real Property records maintained and used by the City of Panama City to allow Mortgagees and Owners the opportunity to register properties and pay applicable fees as required in this Chapter. Semi-Annual Registration shall mean six (6) months from the date of the first action that requires registration, as determined by the City
17745 (1).pdf
What does Hera say happened at the City Commission’s August 12, 2025 discussion?

Hera’s briefing says the Commission discussed a staff-drafted ordinance and asked staff to return with real-world examples and a narrower scope.

Supporting passages
e or vacant-property registry. On August 12, 2025, the City Commission discussed a staff- drafted ordinance and asked staff to return with real-world examples and a narrower scope. Next door, Panama City Beach already requires lenders to register foreclosed properties. OCT 2018 2019–2024 AUG 12, 2025 TODAY Hurricane Michael The long recovery The Commission asks The gap remains A Category 5 landfall damages at Damaged and abandoned homes Staff present a draft registry. No registry, and no single
17745.pdf
What scope does Hera recommend starting with, before expanding to other types of properties?

Hera’s briefing recommends narrowing the program to foreclosures first, and says vacant commercial properties in gateway corridors could be added later by amendment if the Commission chooses.

Supporting passages
y to Cutler Bay run registries holds title, until the home sells to a new owner. That is the stretch where on Hera that put responsibility on lenders. The City's properties most often fall through the cracks. August 2025 draft is a strong start. We recommend narrowing it to foreclosures first. 03 · GROW ONLY IF NEEDED Start with foreclosures and measure results. Vacant commercial properties in gateway corridors can follow as a Phase 2 amendment, if the Commission chooses. THE UPKEEP QUESTION Som
17745.pdf
ridors can be added later by amendment, if and when about someone's private property. Occupancy is reported by the the Commission chooses. lender's own inspections. HOW HERA WORKS The Commission adopts it. Hera runs it. 01 Adopt the ordinance CITY ATTORNEY Banks & lenders Mortgage Hera supplies model ordinance language and works with theCOMMISSION servicers City Attorney through adoption. 02 Find the responsible party HERA Our team locates servicers, LLC managers and out-of-state owners and noti
17745.pdf

Item 2 of 22

Huron Consulting Group outlines options for Panama City to run a zero-based budget rebuild

The presentation describes a roughly 10–12 department, 12-week process where each department rebuilds and justifies its budget from the ground up. Huron offered three support levels ranging from about $115,000–$140,000 up to about $392,000–$417,000 total, depending on the option and travel.

Huron Consulting Group (Search Sunbiz) is giving the City Commission a presentation on “zero-based budgeting,” a way to build the city budget by having each department start from scratch and justify what it needs to provide services, instead of starting from last year’s spending. Huron says the goal is to give city leadership a clearer view of what drives costs, which expenses are required versus optional, and where resources could be realigned to city priorities.

Huron’s presentation also lays out three different levels of Huron support for running the process across about 10 to 12 city departments. Huron describes a core timeline of about 12 weeks (Option 3 could extend to 13–14 weeks) and provides estimated fees and travel costs for each option. The presentation asks the Commission to indicate which level of support it wants and to direct staff to finalize a statement of work with Huron.

The Commission is being asked to choose a preferred level of support (Option 1, 2, or 3) for Huron’s proposed zero-based budgeting process and direct staff to finalize the Statement of Work. Huron says the option choice should reflect the City’s goals, decision-making approach, and capacity to carry out the initiative.

Why this matters

If the city uses a zero-based budgeting process, departments would have to rebuild and justify their budgets “from the ground up,” which Huron says can change how the Commission and the public understand what city services cost and why money is allocated the way it is. The Commission’s choice among Huron’s options could also affect the project timeline (about 12 weeks, or 13–14 weeks under one option) and the total consulting and travel costs described in the presentation.

Give the City of Panama City your feedback and questions
Official wording and sources

Presentation by Huron Consulting Group regarding zero-based budget process.

Presentation by Huron Consulting Group (Search Sunbiz) regarding zero-based budget process.

17746.pdf

Listen to this explanation · 2:27

Learn more about this item

What does Huron say is different about zero-based budgeting compared with a typical budget approach?

Huron describes it as a shift away from starting with last year’s budget or actual spending. Instead, each department rebuilds and justifies the resources it needs to deliver its services.

Supporting passages
ic priorities, behind current spending patterns leaders know where real flexibility and long-term financial sustainability. across personnel, operating, and exists. program costs. The shift: rather than starting from last year's budget or actual spending, each department rebuilds and justifies the resources it needs to deliver its services. Huron | © 2026 Huron Consulting Group Inc. and affiliates 3 OCR page 3: City leadership needs a clear, ground-up view of what each department requires to del
17746.pdf
How long does Huron say the core zero-based budgeting exercise takes, and how could that change by option?

Huron says the core exercise runs about 12 weeks, and that Option 3 could extend the timeline to 13 to 14 weeks.

Supporting passages
CONFIDENTIAL Thecoreexerciserunsabout12weeks,withclearrolesforHuronandCitystaffin everyphase Wk 0 Wk 2 Wk 4 Wk 6 Wk 8 Wk 10 Wk 12 Huron 1. Define and 2. Build templates 3. Conduct department working sessions 4. Review findings and facilitates communicate provide insights Citystaff Align on scope and Provide budget and Departments complete templates and assign criticality Calibrate and prioritize with ownanddecide department leads staffing data scores leadership How the options change this pictu
17746.pdf
re: under Option 1, City staff lead facilitation with Huron advising. Option 3 adds independent assessment and decision support, extending the timeline to 13 to 14 weeks. Timeline drivers include the number of funds and departments in scope, data availability, stakeholder engagement, and the pace of leadership decisions. Huron | © 2026 Huron Consulting Group Inc. and affiliates 8 CONFIDENTIAL Threeengagementoptionsexist,anchoredtohowmuchHuronsupportisdesired OPTION1 OPTION2 OPTION3 Advisoryservi
17746.pdf
What fee ranges does Huron list for the three options, including estimated travel?

The presentation lists total estimated costs of $115,000–$140,000 for Option 1, $311,000–$356,000 for Option 2, and $392,000–$417,000 for Option 3, with travel estimated separately within those totals.

Supporting passages
nd prepare deliverables. the findings report, and program management. and a tailored performance dashboard in Excel. 10-12 2 300-360 10-12 2-3 800-1,000 13-14 2-3 1,100-1,300 weeks consultants hours weeks consultants hours weeks consultants hours Professional fees $110,000-$135,000 Professional fees $275,000-$320,000 Professional fees $350,000-$375,000 Travel (2 trips) $5,000 Travel (6 trips) $36,000 Travel (7 trips) $42,000 Total $115,000-$140,000 Total $311,000-$356,000 Total $392,000-$417,000
17746.pdf
What specific direction does Huron say it is requesting from the Commission at this meeting?

Huron says it is requesting the Commission indicate a preferred level of support (Option 1, 2, or 3) and direct staff to finalize the Statement of Work with Huron.

Supporting passages
ay: indicate the preferred level of support (Option 1, 2, or 3) and direct staff to finalize the Statement of Work with Huron. Huron | © 2026 Huron Consulting Group Inc. and affiliates 11 AlexRodriguez JaimeOntiveros KateTrolio Managing Director Managing Director Director [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] (240) 483-2498 (815) 404-9130 (413) 813-7693 Huron|©2026HuronConsultingGroupInc.andaffiliates OCR page 12: Alex Rodriguez Jaime Ontiveros Kate Trolio Huron | © 2026 Huron C
17746.pdf

Item 3 of 22

Light Industrial zoning change would add recycling centers as an allowed use, with a 1,000-foot bay buffer

Ordinance 3315 would amend the Unified Land Development Code to allow recycling centers in Light Industrial (LI) zoning, except on properties within 1,000 feet of St. Andrews Bay and its tributaries. Staff recommends approval after the Planning Board’s unanimous recommendation.

The City Commission is being asked to hold the second and final public hearing on Ordinance 3315 and decide whether to change the city’s zoning rules for the Light Industrial (LI) district. Staff says the change would expand the list of allowed LI uses to include recycling centers.

As written, the ordinance would allow recycling centers in LI zoning but not on properties within 1,000 feet of St. Andrews Bay and its tributaries. Staff says the idea came after City Commissioners discussed expanding LI allowable uses, and staff recommends approval. Staff also reports that the Planning Board first continued the item to further consider a proposed distance requirement and water-body definitions, and later recommended approval unanimously.

City staff is asking the City Commission to conduct the second and final public hearing on Ordinance 3315 and approve it. Staff’s stated reason is to expand allowable uses in the Light Industrial zoning district by permitting recycling centers (with limits tied to St. Andrews Bay and its tributaries).

Why this matters

Zoning rules control what kinds of businesses can open in certain areas, so adding recycling centers as an allowed use in Light Industrial areas could change what types of operations may locate there. The ordinance also proposes a restriction within 1,000 feet of St. Andrews Bay and its tributaries, which could affect where recycling centers could be located inside the city. Staff says this ordinance follows earlier City Commission discussions and a Planning Board review that ended in a unanimous recommendation to approve.

Give the City of Panama City your feedback and questions
Official wording and sources

Second and final of two public hearings on Ordinance 3315, an ordinance amending sec. 104- 39.B, Allowable Uses in Light Industrial (LI) of the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC).

Second and final of two public hearings on Ordinance 3315, an ordinance amending sec. 104-
39.B, Allowable Uses in Light Industrial (LI) of the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC).

17765.pdf

17765 (1).pdf

Listen to this explanation · 2:15

Learn more about this item

What specific new use would Ordinance 3315 add to the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district?

Staff says the amendment would allow recycling centers in the LI zoning district.

Supporting passages
e (ULDC) of the City of Panama City. The amendment is being requested following discussions by City Commissioners to explore the possibility of expanding the allowable uses in Light Industrial Zoning District. The amendment, should it be approved, will allow recycling centers in the LI Zoning District. Staff recommends the City Commission adopt the ordinance. Specifically, the following text change is being proposed (strikethrough text is deleted; underlined/bold text is added): Sec. 104-39. Lig
17765 (1).pdf
ing requested following discussion by the City Commissioners to explore the possibility of expanding the allowable uses in LI Zoning District. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. This item was previously reviewed by the Planning Board on September 14, 2026. The Planning Board voted 4-0 to continue the item to the their regularly scheduled meeting on October 12, 2026 to further consider the proposed distance requirement and definitions concerning water bodies. The Planning Board reviewed
17765.pdf
Does the ordinance propose any location limit on recycling centers near water?

Yes. The ordinance text allows recycling centers in LI zoning except on properties within 1,000 feet of St. Andrews Bay and its tributaries.

Supporting passages
establishments and yards. 7. Recycling centers, except on properties within 1,000 feet of a St. Andrews Bay and its tributaries. C. Additional requirements: 1. Conform to the industrial performance standards as specified in chapter 12, article V of the Municipal Code. 2. Provide off-street parking as specified in chapter 108. 3. Landscaping and buffering is required as specified in chapter 107. 4. Complete a compatibility analysis of the proposed use with the existing adjacent uses and the allo
17765 (1).pdf
feet from the property line. B. The following uses are allowed in LI zoning districts; all other uses are prohibited: 1. Manufacturing and assembly. 2. Private and commercial marinas and marine facilities. 3. Business park. 4. Vocational trade and industrial education. 5. Public utilities. 6. Towing establishments and yards. 7. Recycling centers, except on properties within 1,000 feet of a St. Andrews Bay and its tributaries. C. Additional requirements: 1. Conform to the industrial performance s
17765 (1).pdf
What did the Planning Board do with this proposal before it reached the City Commission for the final hearing?

Staff reports the Planning Board first voted 4-0 to continue the item to a later meeting to further consider the proposed distance requirement and definitions about water bodies, and later recommended approval unanimously (5-0).

Supporting passages
g Board on September 14, 2026. The Planning Board voted 4-0 to continue the item to the their regularly scheduled meeting on October 12, 2026 to further consider the proposed distance requirement and definitions concerning water bodies. The Planning Board reviewed this item on October 12, 2026 and recommended approval unanimously (5-0). Staff concurs. The following document(s) are enclosed: a) Ordinance No. 3315 b) Staff Analysis, Report and Recommendation c) Maps of Properties Zoned Light and H
17765.pdf
ing requested following discussion by the City Commissioners to explore the possibility of expanding the allowable uses in LI Zoning District. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. This item was previously reviewed by the Planning Board on September 14, 2026. The Planning Board voted 4-0 to continue the item to the their regularly scheduled meeting on October 12, 2026 to further consider the proposed distance requirement and definitions concerning water bodies. The Planning Board reviewed
17765.pdf
Who is listed as the applicant for the text amendment in the staff report attachment?

The staff report attachment lists the applicant as the City of Panama City Development Services Department.

Supporting passages
Amendment; Light Attachment (s) Included and Heavy Industry Map Application Summary: CPC-PLN-2026-1857 Case Number Application Type Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) Text Amendment Applicant City of Panama City Development Services Department Text Amendment Request Request to amend Sec. 104-39, Light Industrial (LI) zoning district, Unified Land Development Code to permit Recycling Centers Department and Agency Comments N/A Florida Statutes (“Fla. Stat.”) and Other Relevant Policies: 163.320
17765 (1).pdf

Item 4 of 22

Unimproved Fairy Avenue segment could be vacated north of W 13th Street

Ordinance 3318 would abandon a portion of Fairy Avenue between Lisenby Avenue and Fairland Avenue. Staff says a sewer easement would remain and the change would not affect current or future utilities; the Planning Board recommended approval 4–0.

The City Commission is being asked to approve Ordinance 3318, which would give up (vacate and abandon) an unimproved portion of Fairy Avenue. Staff describes the segment as north of W 13th Street, west of Lisenby Avenue, and east of Fairland Avenue, and says it splits a city-designated parcel (18691-000-000). Staff says a sewer easement along the north part of the property would remain, and that vacating the right-of-way would not jeopardize the current or future location of utilities or infrastructure.

Staff reports the Planning Board reviewed the request on Sept. 14, 2026 and recommended approval unanimously (4–0), and staff concurs. The staff report also says the road segment is not being used for through traffic or vehicle access, and that the applicant wants the road vacated so the parcel can be developed as one piece.

Commissioners are being asked to hold the second and final public hearing and decide whether to approve Ordinance 3318 to vacate and abandon an unimproved portion of Fairy Avenue. The Director of Development Services recommends approval, citing the Planning Board’s unanimous recommendation and staff’s finding that utility and access needs would still be met, including keeping the sewer easement.

Why this matters

Vacating a public right-of-way is a permanent change to how land can be used and can affect future options for travel routes and utility placement. Staff says this Fairy Avenue segment is unimproved and not used for through traffic, and that a sewer easement would remain so existing utility needs are protected. The decision also affects how the referenced parcel can be developed, since staff says the unused road currently splits it.

Give the City of Panama City your feedback and questions
Official wording and sources

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

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

17768.pdf

17768 (1).pdf

Listen to this explanation · 2:23

Learn more about this item

What exactly is the area being proposed for vacation/abandonment?

Staff describes it as an unimproved portion of Fairy Avenue north of W 13th Street, west of Lisenby Avenue, and east of Fairland Avenue, which splits parcel 18691-000-000.

Supporting passages
Second and final of two public hearings on Ordinance 3318, an ordinance to vacate and abandon an unimproved portion of Fairy Avenue. Background information: 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 tha
17768.pdf
donment of Right of Way (ROW) or Easement Applicant (s) M&J Land and Marine LLC (Mark Mulligan) The applicant has requested that the City of Panama City vacate the Request unimproved portion of Fairy Avenue north of W 13 Street, west of Lisenby Avenue, east of Fairland Avenue, and splits the parcel identified as 18691-000- 000 The subject right-of-way is the unimproved portion of Fairy Avenue north of W Location 13 Street, west of Lisenby Avenue, east of Fairland Avenue, and splits the parcel id
17768 (1).pdf
What did staff say about utilities in the right-of-way?

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

Supporting passages
t will remain, vacating the right of way would not jeopardize the current or future location of any 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 Requestor: Jiwuan Haley, Planning Manager Pre
17768.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
17768 (1).pdf
What recommendation has already been made on this request?

Staff reports the Planning Board recommended approval unanimously (4–0), and staff concurs and recommends the City Commission approve the ordinance after the second and final public hearing.

Supporting passages
ation of any 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 second and final of two public hearings and approve
17768.pdf
the ordinance. 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: Date: Date: Reviewed By: Approved By: Date: 2 Approve / Deny: The Director of Development Services recommends the City Commission conduct the second and final of two public hearings and approve the ordinance. Item Title:
17768.pdf
Why did the applicant request the vacation, according to the staff report?

The staff report says Fairy Avenue ends near the property line of parcel 18691-000-000 and the parcel is split by a portion of road not in use; staff says the applicant requested the vacation so the property can be developed in its entirety.

Supporting passages
The existing parcel is currently split by a portion of the road that is not currently in use. The applicant is requesting to have the road vacated so that he is able to develop the property in its entirety. Staff recommends the City of Panama City Planning Board transmit a recommendation of approval to the City Commission, and the City Commission approve the request. 5th St W 15th St W 15 th St 1421 1709 1401 W 15 th St 1707 17 03 v 1711 1623 14 05 A v 1418 1603 v e 1219 r 1815 A 1423 A v 1315 1
17768 (1).pdf

Item 5 of 22

Ordinance 3320 would exempt accessory dwelling units from Panama City’s separate water-meter requirement

Second and final public hearing on a change to Chapter 23, Section 23-21 (“Separate meter required”) so ADUs on the same lot would not need a separate water connection.

This item is the second and final public hearing on a proposed ordinance that would change Panama City’s utility rules so accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are exempt from the city code requirement for a separate water meter.

Staff’s write-up says Ordinance 3320 would amend Chapter 23, Section 23-21 (“Separate meter required”) of the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) to create the exemption for ADUs. The attached ordinance text shows the change would treat “accessory dwelling units on the same lot” as an exception to the separate-units rule for monthly water rates and charges.

The City Commission is being asked to hold the second and final public hearing on Ordinance 3320 and decide whether to approve it. The Director of Development Services recommends approval of the ordinance as proposed.

Why this matters

If approved, this ordinance would change how water service connections are treated for accessory dwelling units on the same lot, by exempting ADUs from a rule that otherwise requires separate metering for separate units. That could affect property owners adding or using ADUs and how monthly water rates and charges are set up for those properties, since the code section covers when separate connections are required. Staff’s agenda form frames this as an amendment to the city’s development code provisions dealing with separate meters for utilities.

Give the City of Panama City your feedback and questions
Official wording and sources

Second and final of two public hearings on Ordinance 3320, an ordinance amending Chapter 23 Section 23-21, Separate Meter Required of the Unified Land Development Code, exempting ADUs.

Second and final of two public hearings on Ordinance 3320, an ordinance amending Chapter
23 Section 23-21, Separate Meter Required of the Unified Land Development Code, exempting
ADUs.

17770.pdf

17770 (1).pdf

Listen to this explanation · 1:54

Learn more about this item

What specific code section would Ordinance 3320 change?

It would amend Chapter 23, Section 23-21 (“Separate meter required”) of the city code’s utilities provisions to exempt accessory dwelling units.

Supporting passages
ordinance amending Chapter 23 Section 23-21, Separate Meter Required of the Unified Land Development Code, 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 second and final of two public hearings and approve
17770.pdf
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
17770 (1).pdf
What is the actual exemption language being added?

The ordinance 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
17770 (1).pdf
What action does staff recommend the City Commission take at this meeting?

The Director of Development Services recommends the City Commission conduct the second and final public hearing and approve the ordinance.

Supporting passages
the ordinance. 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: Date: Date: Reviewed By: Approved By: Date: 2 Approve / Deny: The Director of Development Services recommends the City Commission conduct the second and final of two public hearings and approve the ordinance. Item Title:
17770.pdf

Item 6 of 22

1023 E 15th Street seeks Gateway Overlay special exception for a recycling center

City staff says the site is in the Gateway Overlay along U.S. Highway 98/15th Street, where “recycling yards” are listed as prohibited unless the City Commission grants a special exception. Staff recommends approval at the first and only public hearing.

The City Commission is being asked to approve a Gateway Overlay “special exception” for 1023 E 15th Street so a recycling center can be allowed at that site. Staff’s memo says the applicant is requesting this exception under section 104-66 of the city’s Unified Land Development Code because recycling-related uses are listed as prohibited in the Gateway Overlay unless the Commission grants an exception.

Staff also notes the property is currently zoned Light Industrial and has an Industrial future land use designation. The memo says the applicant is also requesting a separate rezoning from Light Industrial to Heavy Industrial, and it explains that recycling centers are listed as allowed in Heavy Industrial. Staff recommends that the City Commission hold the first and only public hearing and approve the Gateway Overlay special exception.

At this first and only public hearing, the City Commission is being asked to decide whether to approve a proposed Gateway Overlay special exception for 1023 E 15th Street to allow a recycling center. The Director of Development Services recommends approval of the exception, citing the request under the Gateway Overlay rules and describing how the site’s current Light Industrial zoning and requested Heavy Industrial rezoning relate to the proposed use.

Why this matters

The Gateway Overlay sets extra rules for key corridors like U.S. Highway 98/15th Street, including a list of uses that are prohibited unless the City Commission grants a special exception. This decision would determine whether a recycling center can be allowed at 1023 E 15th Street within that overlay area, with any conditions the Commission chooses to add when granting an exception.

Give the City of Panama City your feedback and questions
Official wording and sources

First and only public hearing on the approval of the proposed Gateway Overlay Special Exception for 1023 E 15th Street (Parcel ID 14450-000-000).

First and only public hearing on the approval of the proposed Gateway Overlay Special
Exception for 1023 E 15th Street (Parcel ID 14450-000-000).

17764.pdf

17764 (1).pdf

Listen to this explanation · 2:24

Learn more about this item

Why is a “special exception” needed for this location?

Staff’s memo says the applicant is asking for a special exception under the Gateway Overlay rules to allow a recycling center, and the Gateway Overlay section lists “recycling yards” among prohibited uses while also allowing the City Commission to grant special exceptions on a case-by-case basis.

Supporting passages
irst and only Public Hearing on the Approval of the proposed Gateway Overlay Special Exception for 1023 E 15 Street (Parcel ID 14450-000-000). BACKGROUND: TheapplicantrequeststheCityCommissiongrantaspecialexceptionperSec.104-66oftheUnifiedLand Development Code (ULDC) to allow for a recycling center in the Gateway Overlay. The subject property is zoned Light Industrial (LI) and designated Industrial (I) on the Future Land Use Map. The applicant is currently requesting to rezone the property from
17764 (1).pdf
erial part of its services, provides loans secured by vehicle titles (often known as "car-title loans"); x. Impound yards; automobile wrecking; recycling yards; and similar uses; xi. Recreational vehicle (RV) sales, storage, repair (except for projects approved by the city commission); Created: 2026-08-06 15:29:09 [EST] (Supp. No. 50) Page 1 of 2 xii. Stand-alone car wash facilities (excluding the express and conveyorized, automated tunnel car washes); xiii. Mobile home parks; xiv. Heavy equipme
17764 (1).pdf
y a super majority, on a case-by-case basis, grant a special exception to a prohibited use upon finding that the use is not prohibited by the underlying zoning district. Conditions of approval and safeguards may be imposed by the city commission in order to mitigate potential adverse impacts and to ensure that the intent and purpose of the Gateway Overlay District is maintained. However, under no circumstances will a sexually oriented business be provided a special exception due to the adverse i
17764 (1).pdf
What does staff say about the property’s zoning and the proposed recycling center use?

Staff says the site is zoned Light Industrial and has an Industrial future land use designation, and that the applicant is also requesting a rezoning from Light Industrial to Heavy Industrial. The Heavy Industrial district section lists “recycling centers” as an allowed use.

Supporting passages
irst and only Public Hearing on the Approval of the proposed Gateway Overlay Special Exception for 1023 E 15 Street (Parcel ID 14450-000-000). BACKGROUND: TheapplicantrequeststheCityCommissiongrantaspecialexceptionperSec.104-66oftheUnifiedLand Development Code (ULDC) to allow for a recycling center in the Gateway Overlay. The subject property is zoned Light Industrial (LI) and designated Industrial (I) on the Future Land Use Map. The applicant is currently requesting to rezone the property from
17764 (1).pdf
LI to Heavy Industrial (HI). The IndustrialFutureLandUsecategoryisintendedtoprovideopportunitiesforvariousindustrialoperations which do not cause excessive noise, smoke, pollutants, storage of chemical or petroleum products, excessive traffic by trucks or other similar characteristics normally associated with a heavy industrial operation. While the request is consistent with the provisions of the Industrial Future Land Use category, a text amendment to the LI zoning district will be required for
17764 (1).pdf
gory boundary, except as described in section 104-40.A.4.ii. ii. Industrial uses adjacent to lands designated as Industrial on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) shall have a setback requirement of five feet from the property line. B. The following uses are allowed in HI zoning districts; all other uses are prohibited. 1. All uses allowed in the LI zoning category. 2. Scrap processing. 3. Recycling centers. 4. Any industrial, manufacturing, distribution, storage or warehousing use which is otherwise
17764 (1).pdf
What action does staff recommend the City Commission take at this meeting?

Staff recommends the City Commission conduct the first and only public hearing and approve the Gateway Overlay special exception.

Supporting passages
The Director of Development Services recommends the City Commission conduct the first and only public hearing and approve the exception. Item Title: First and only Public Hearing on the Approval of the proposed Gateway Overlay Special Exception for 1023 E 15th Street (Parcel ID 14450-000-000). Background information: See attached memorandum. Requestor: Jiwuan Haley Preparer: Jiwuan Haley Date2_af_date: 10/19/26 Date3_af_date: 10/19/26 Date4_af_date: 10/19/26 Reviewer: Michael Fuller
17764.pdf
uct the first and only public hearing and approve this exception. Page | 2 OCR page 2: Cc) Sec. 104-39. - Light Industrial (LI) zoning district. 11.Industrial (I) a) Intent: This category is intended to provide opportunities for various industrial operations which do not cause excessive noise, smoke, pollutants, storage of chemical or petroleum products, excessive traffic by trucks or other similar characteristics normally associated with a heavy industrial operation. b) Impervious Surface Area:
17764 (1).pdf

Item 7 of 22

803 Oak Ave future land-use change to Mixed Use heads to final hearing

Ordinance 3316.1 would amend the City’s Future Land Use Map for 803 Oak Avenue. The Planning Board voted 4-0 to recommend denial, and Development Services staff also recommends denial.

The City Commission is holding the second and final public hearing on Ordinance 3316.1, which would change the City’s long-range Future Land Use Map for the property at 803 Oak Ave from Residential to Mixed Use. The applicant also requested a related rezoning to Mixed Use-2 (MU-2).

City planning staff says the area around the site is mostly single-family homes and that approving a Mixed Use designation here could push more mixed-use development into nearby residential blocks. The Planning Board previously reviewed the request and voted 4-0 to recommend denial, and Development Services staff also recommends denial.

The City Commission is being asked to decide whether to adopt Ordinance 3316.1, which would amend the Future Land Use Map to Mixed Use for 803 Oak Ave (along with a requested rezoning to Mixed Use-2). Development Services staff recommends conducting the second and final hearing and denying the ordinance, agreeing with the Planning Board’s unanimous 4-0 denial recommendation.

Why this matters

A Future Land Use Map change can shape what kinds of development are allowed in the future at 803 Oak Ave and nearby blocks. Staff says this part of the neighborhood is largely single-family and that approving Mixed Use here could set a precedent for mixed-use expansion into adjacent residential areas. The Planning Board and staff both recommended denial, but the final decision is up to the City Commission.

Give the City of Panama City your feedback and questions
Official wording and sources

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

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

17771.pdf

17771 (1).pdf

Listen to this explanation · 2:04

Learn more about this item

What change is being requested for 803 Oak Avenue?

The request is to change the property’s Future Land Use from Residential to Mixed Use, along with a rezoning request from Residential-1 (R-1) to Mixed Use-2 (MU-2).

Supporting passages
n ordinance amending the Future Land Use Map of the City to reflect a designation of Mixed Use for a property 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. The following document(s) are enclosed: a) Ordinance
17771.pdf
Existing Zoning District (s) Residential-1 (R-1) Proposed Future Land Use Mixed Use (MU) Proposed Zoning District Mixed Use-2 (MU-2) Flood and Coastal Summary: Wetlands The subject property is not located in a Wetlands area. Flood Zone X Coastal Hazard Area The subject property is not located in a Coastal Hazard Area. Department and Agency Comments: Development Services Department Floodplain Manager: No comments. Public Works Underground Utilities Division: No comments. Engineering Division: No
17771 (1).pdf
What did the Planning Board recommend, and how did staff respond?

The Planning Board voted 4-0 to recommend denial, and Development Services staff said it concurs and recommends denial to the City Commission.

Supporting passages
n ordinance amending the Future Land Use Map of the City to reflect a designation of Mixed Use for a property 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. The following document(s) are enclosed: a) Ordinance
17771.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
17771 (1).pdf
Why does staff say the Mixed Use request should be denied?

Staff says the surrounding properties are largely single-family with Residential future land use and zoning, and that approving this land-use change would create a precedent of encroachment into adjacent residential areas and undermine long-term planning intended to preserve neighborhood stability and compatible land uses.

Supporting passages
re Land Use Element, COPC Comprehensive Plan). The Development Services Department issued a development order for a single-family home on the subject th th parcel in 2022. The zoning and Future Land Use for the properties bounded by W 8 Street, W 9 Street, Mulberry Avenue and Oak Avenue are Residential and Residential-1. The majority of the properties within the vicinity are single-family homes. The properties immediately south of W 8 Street, zoned Downtown District, serve as a transition from m
17771 (1).pdf
ixed-use oriented development to the Residential-1 zoning district. Approval of the requested land use change would establish a precedent of encroachment into the adjacent residential areas, undermining long-term planning efforts intended to preserve neighborhood stability and maintain compatible land use relationships. Any potential future development will be subject to development review, which will require the implementation of mitigation techniques and satisfaction of the bulk regulations of
17771 (1).pdf
What alternative zoning did staff discuss after the first hearing?

A memo says the City Commission asked staff to look at alternatives, including the older Mixed Use-1 (MU-1) district (which staff recommended not bringing back) and rezoning to Downtown District (DTD), which staff said could allow the property’s use as a multi-family building but could also allow higher density and building height.

Supporting passages
: October 19, 2026 SUBJECT: Rezoning Alternatives for 803 Oak Avenue ______________________________________________________________________________ Theowneroftheproperty at 803OakAvenuehas petitionedtheCitytorezonetheproperty from Residential-1 (R-1) to Mixed Use-2 (MU-2). City staff and the Planning Board have recommended denial of this request. During the first reading of the ordinance held on October 13, 2026, the City Commission directed staff to come back with alternatives to the rezoning a
17771 (1).pdf
ble uses. In fact, the term “mixed-use” is somewhat misleading because the zoning district primarily allows single-family detached uses. Staff recommendation is that the City Commission not bring back the MU-1 zoning district. Please note that applying the MU-1 zoning to 803 Oak Avenue would not bring the property – currently used as a multi-family building – into compliance with city code. 1Ordinance No. 2675 can be downloaded at https://library.municode.com/fl/panama_city/ordinances/code_of_or
17771 (1).pdf
CH104ZODI_ Memo: 803 Oak Avenue October 19, 2026 Page 2 Another alternative is to rezone 803 Oak Avenue from R-1 to Downtown District (DTD). DTD is the predominating zoning district on the south side of 8 Street. This would not constitute “spot zoning” and DTD would allow for use of the property as a multi-family building. The 3 potential drawback is development density and intensity allowed by DTD. Although not likely on this parcels, DTD could potentially allow 30 units per acres and a buildin
17771 (1).pdf

Item 8 of 22

803 Oak Ave would be rezoned to Mixed Use-2 under Ordinance 3316.2

City Commission is holding the second and final public hearing on the zoning-map change. The Planning Board voted 4-0 to recommend denial, and Development Services staff also recommends denying the ordinance.

The City Commission is being asked to hold the second and final public hearing on Ordinance 3316.2, which would change the City’s zoning map to label the property at 803 Oak Avenue as Mixed Use-2 (MU-2). The applicant is also seeking a future land use change to “Mixed Use,” according to the staff agenda form.

City planning staff and the Planning Board both recommended denial. The Planning Board reviewed the request on Sept. 14, 2026 and voted 4-0 to recommend denial, and the Director of Development Services recommends the City Commission deny the ordinance after this second public hearing. A staff memo also explains the Commission previously asked for alternatives at the Oct. 13, 2026 first reading, including whether the former Mixed Use-1 district could be brought back (staff recommends not bringing MU-1 back), and notes another alternative could be rezoning to Downtown District (DTD), which would allow multifamily use but could permit higher density and building height than MU-2.

Decide, after the second and final public hearing, whether to deny Ordinance 3316.2, which would amend the city zoning map to change 803 Oak Avenue to Mixed Use-2 (MU-2). Staff recommends denial and notes the Planning Board also unanimously recommended denial (4-0).

Why this matters

Zoning affects what kinds of buildings and uses are allowed on a property and what nearby neighbors may see built over time. Here, the decision would determine whether 803 Oak Avenue stays Residential-1 (R-1) or is changed to Mixed Use-2 (MU-2), and staff notes the Commission has also asked about other options such as Downtown District zoning, which staff says could allow much higher density and a 120-foot building height. Staff and the Planning Board have recommended denial, so the hearing is where the Commission decides whether to accept or reject that recommendation.

Give the City of Panama City your feedback and questions
Official wording and sources

Second and final 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 at 803 Oak Ave.

Second and final 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 at 803 Oak
Ave.

17772.pdf

17772 (1).pdf

Audio is not available for this explanation yet.

Learn more about this item

What have city staff and the Planning Board recommended on this rezoning request so far?

The Planning Board reviewed the request on Sept. 14, 2026 and unanimously recommended denial (4-0), and Development Services staff says it also recommends denying the ordinance at the second and final hearing.

Supporting passages
n ordinance amending the Zoning Map of the City to reflect a zoning designation of Mixed Use-2 for a property 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 p
17772.pdf
receding agenda item). The following document(s) are enclosed: a) Ordinance No. 3316.2 b) Memorandum - Rezoning Alternatives for 803 Oak Avenue The Director of Development Services recommends the City Commission conduct the second and final of two public hearings and deny the ordinance. 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 $
17772.pdf
___________________________________________ Theowneroftheproperty at 803OakAvenuehas petitionedtheCitytorezonetheproperty from Residential-1 (R-1) to Mixed Use-2 (MU-2). City staff and the Planning Board have recommended denial of this request. During the first reading of the ordinance held on October 13, 2026, the City Commission directed staff to come back with alternatives to the rezoning as currently proposed. In particular, staff was asked to examine the now-obsolete Mixed Use-1 (MU- 1) zon
17772 (1).pdf
Why did staff look at alternatives like the old Mixed Use-1 (MU-1) district?

Staff says that at the Oct. 13, 2026 first reading, the City Commission directed staff to return with alternatives and specifically asked staff to examine the now-obsolete MU-1 district as an option.

Supporting passages
___________________________________________ Theowneroftheproperty at 803OakAvenuehas petitionedtheCitytorezonetheproperty from Residential-1 (R-1) to Mixed Use-2 (MU-2). City staff and the Planning Board have recommended denial of this request. During the first reading of the ordinance held on October 13, 2026, the City Commission directed staff to come back with alternatives to the rezoning as currently proposed. In particular, staff was asked to examine the now-obsolete Mixed Use-1 (MU- 1) zon
17772 (1).pdf
What does staff say about bringing back Mixed Use-1 (MU-1)?

Staff says MU-1 was removed from the city’s land development code in 2019 and recommends the City Commission not bring MU-1 back. Staff also says applying MU-1 to 803 Oak Avenue would not make the property’s current multifamily use compliant with city code.

Supporting passages
ing district to determine if its application to 803 Oak Avenue is a viable option. MU-1 was removed from the Unified Land Development Code via Ordinance 2675 on March 12, 2019. Deletion of this zoning district was part of a series of updates made to the code in 2019. From our research, it appears that this deletion was proposed because MU-1 is very similar to R-1 in terms of density and allowable uses. In fact, the term “mixed-use” is somewhat misleading because the zoning district primarily all
17772 (1).pdf
ows single-family detached uses. Staff recommendation is that the City Commission not bring back the MU-1 zoning district. Please note that applying the MU-1 zoning to 803 Oak Avenue would not bring the property – currently used as a multi-family building – into compliance with city code. 1Ordinance No. 2675 can be downloaded at https://library.municode.com/fl/panama_city/ordinances/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=973683. 2The standards of the R-1 Zoning District can be found at https://library.munico
17772 (1).pdf
What is one other zoning option staff mentioned for 803 Oak Avenue, and what drawback did staff flag?

Staff says another alternative is rezoning from R-1 to Downtown District (DTD), which would allow use as a multifamily building. Staff cautions that DTD could allow higher development intensity, including potentially 30 units per acre and a building height of 120 feet.

Supporting passages
from R-1 to Downtown District (DTD). DTD is the predominating zoning district on the south side of 8 Street. This would not constitute “spot zoning” and DTD would allow for use of the property as a multi-family building. The 3 potential drawback is development density and intensity allowed by DTD. Although not likely on this parcels, DTD could potentially allow 30 units per acres and a building height of 120 feet. 3 3 The standards of the DTD Zoning District can be found at https://library.munic
17772 (1).pdf

Item 9 of 22

Break-N-Ground change order would add 1905 Chestnut Avenue demolition for $8,020.66

The change would increase the Hurricane Sally Voluntary Home Buyout Demolition contract from $56,216.00 to $64,236.66, using funds staff says are covered by the Voluntary Home Buyout Program.

Approve a contract change that adds one more house demolition—1905 Chestnut Avenue—to the City’s Hurricane Sally Voluntary Home Buyout Demolition project. Staff says the City already hired Break-N-Ground (Search Sunbiz) for this demolition work, and this Change Order No. 1 would increase that contract by $8,020.66 to cover demolishing the additional property the City purchased on Sept. 15, 2026. Staff says the added cost is fully covered by the Voluntary Home Buyout Program, and recommends approval.

The Commission is being asked to approve Change Order No. 1 to Break-N-Ground (Search Sunbiz) for the CDBG-DR Hurricane Sally Voluntary Home Buyout Demolition project, adding $8,020.66 to include demolition of 1905 Chestnut Avenue. Staff recommends approval because it adds a newly purchased buyout property and staff says the cost is covered by the program.

Why this matters

If approved, this would increase the City’s demolition contract for the Hurricane Sally voluntary home buyout program so an additional purchased property at 1905 Chestnut Avenue can be demolished. Staff says the added $8,020.66 cost is fully covered by the Voluntary Home Buyout Program, which would avoid needing other funding sources for this change.

Give the City of Panama City your feedback and questions
Official wording and sources

Consideration of approval of Change Order No. 1 to Break-N-Ground on CDBG-DR Hurricane Sally Voluntary Home Buyout Demolition project in the amount of $8,020.66.

Consideration of approval of Change Order No. 1 to Break-N-Ground (Search Sunbiz) on CDBG-DR Hurricane
Sally Voluntary Home Buyout Demolition project in the amount of $8,020.66.

17749.pdf

17749 (1).pdf

Listen to this explanation · 2:00

Learn more about this item

What was the original contract amount before this change order?

Staff says the Commission approved the original Voluntary Home Buyout Demolition contract with Break-N-Ground for $56,216.00 on June 23, 2026.

Supporting passages
ion of approval of Change Order No. 1 to Break-N-Ground on CDBG-DR Hurricane Sally Voluntary Home Buyout Demolition project in the amount of $8,020.66. On June 23, 2026, the Commission approved PC26-035 Project Voluntary Home Buyout Demolition to Break-N-Ground in the amount of $56,216.00. This change order is to add 1905 Chestnut Avenue property that the City purchased on September 15, 2026. The cost of the Change Order ($8,020.66) is fully covered by the Voluntary Home Buyout Program. Staff Re
17749.pdf
66. Background information: On June 23, 2026, the Commission approved PC26-035 Project Voluntary Home Buyout Demolition to Break-N-Ground in the amount of $56,216.00. This change order is to add 1905 Chestnut Avenue property that the City purchased on September 15, 2026. The cost of the Change Order ($8,020.66) is fully covered by the Voluntary Home Buyout Program. Capital: $8,020.66 Requestor: Jennifer Aldridge Preparer: Jennifer Aldridge Date2_af_date: 10/06/2026 Date3_af_date: 10/6/2026 Date4
17749.pdf
cine nacnesnnae sueeatememnaneasnmenenneencanenens $0.00 Item No. 04 A... ee cee cee eec ees eee ce ececeeeeeeeeeseceeceuceuceuseuecueeueeneens $0.00 Not valid until signed by the Contractor, Architect and Owner. Signature by the Contractor indicated his agreement herewith, including any adjustment in contract amount or time. Original Contract SUM WAS............cccesecseeseceeceeeeceecsueceuceeuecssceuneceneees $56,216.00 Net change by previously approved change ONDOM Sis ssancsvccevesuans sxec
17749 (1).pdf
What exactly is being added by Change Order No. 1?

The change order adds demolition of the 1905 Chestnut Avenue property to the project.

Supporting passages
ion of approval of Change Order No. 1 to Break-N-Ground on CDBG-DR Hurricane Sally Voluntary Home Buyout Demolition project in the amount of $8,020.66. On June 23, 2026, the Commission approved PC26-035 Project Voluntary Home Buyout Demolition to Break-N-Ground in the amount of $56,216.00. This change order is to add 1905 Chestnut Avenue property that the City purchased on September 15, 2026. The cost of the Change Order ($8,020.66) is fully covered by the Voluntary Home Buyout Program. Staff Re
17749.pdf
OCR page 1: CHANGE ORDER FORM: PROJECT: Voluntary Home Buyout Demo PROJECT NO: PC26-035 CHANGE ORDER NO: CO. 1 INITIATION DATE: 10/5/2026 FROM: Break N Ground 11803 HWY 77 Panama City, FL 32409 TO: City of Panama City 501 Harrison Ave Panama City, FL 32401 You are directed to make the following changes in the contract: Item No. 01 — 1905 Chestnut Avenue Demo Add... ce eec cece eee eeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeseeneeeeseavenseeensers $8,020.66 Item No. 02 - (ee $0.00 Item No. 03 AMG sissuscevs capeassia8 iG
17749 (1).pdf
How would this change order affect the total contract amount?

The change order would increase the contract by $8,020.66, bringing the contract total to $64,236.66.

Supporting passages
wem saemaansavees $0.00 Contract sum prior to this CHANGES) OF OR sccosesusmesscasansnseuswans esas sames ceauees $56,216.00 Contract sum Will INCrEASE DY... ceeeccccccessseeeececaeceeeseceseesusneeeeess $8,020.66 Contract sum after this change OFdel..............ccccceceseeeeeseeeesseeeesuneeeans $64,236.66 Contract time will be extended Contractor: Arehhect Owner: OCR page 2: x Xx xX Break N’Ground (Architect Business} City of Panama City Nick Williams {Architect Name) Jonathan H. Hayes
17749 (1).pdf
Where does staff say the money for the added $8,020.66 would come from?

Staff says the change order cost is fully covered by the Voluntary Home Buyout Program.

Supporting passages
ion of approval of Change Order No. 1 to Break-N-Ground on CDBG-DR Hurricane Sally Voluntary Home Buyout Demolition project in the amount of $8,020.66. On June 23, 2026, the Commission approved PC26-035 Project Voluntary Home Buyout Demolition to Break-N-Ground in the amount of $56,216.00. This change order is to add 1905 Chestnut Avenue property that the City purchased on September 15, 2026. The cost of the Change Order ($8,020.66) is fully covered by the Voluntary Home Buyout Program. Staff Re
17749.pdf
66. Background information: On June 23, 2026, the Commission approved PC26-035 Project Voluntary Home Buyout Demolition to Break-N-Ground in the amount of $56,216.00. This change order is to add 1905 Chestnut Avenue property that the City purchased on September 15, 2026. The cost of the Change Order ($8,020.66) is fully covered by the Voluntary Home Buyout Program. Capital: $8,020.66 Requestor: Jennifer Aldridge Preparer: Jennifer Aldridge Date2_af_date: 10/06/2026 Date3_af_date: 10/6/2026 Date4
17749.pdf

Item 10 of 22

PC25-052 continuing professional services list would add 11 on-call architecture and engineering firms

Staff recommends approving eleven firms under a continuing-basis professional services contract, so the city can solicit qualifications for future projects directly from the approved consultants.

City staff is asking the City Commission to approve a list of 11 architecture and engineering firms for Bid PC25-052, a “continuing contract” professional services arrangement. Staff says this is meant to give the city a ready pool of qualified consultants it can go back to for future projects, rather than doing a full selection from scratch each time.

The staff report says the city’s Purchasing Department requested qualifications from architects and/or engineers under Florida’s Consultants’ Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA). The attachments include example continuing services contract language showing these agreements are intended to be used through separate task orders over time, and they say the city is not required to order a minimum amount of work from any firm.

The City Commission is being asked to approve eleven firms for Bid PC25-052 (Professional Services Contract for Panama City on a continuing basis). Staff recommends approving all eleven firms so the city can solicit qualifications for future projects directly from the approved consultants under this continuing-contract approach.

Why this matters

If approved, the city would have an on-call list of prequalified architects, engineers, and related professionals to support future infrastructure and other projects through individual task orders. That can affect how quickly the city can start design, surveying, or inspection work for upcoming needs, since staff says the purpose is to allow qualifications to be solicited for future projects directly from the approved consultants. The item does not include a dollar amount or specific project list, and the contract language says the city is not obligated to buy any minimum amount of services from any firm.

Give the City of Panama City your feedback and questions
Official wording and sources

Consideration of approval of eleven firms for Bid PC25-052 Professional Services Contract for Panama City - Continuing Basis.

Consideration of approval of eleven firms for Bid PC25-052 Professional Services Contract for
Panama City - Continuing Basis.

17756.pdf

17756 (1).pdf

Three Notch Group Continuing Services Contract PC25-052 10.27.2026.pdf

SSMC Continuing Services Contract PC25-052 10.27.2026.pdf

Panhandle Engineering, Inc. Continuing Services Contract PC25-052 10.27.202.pdf

NOVA Continuing Services Contract PC25-052 10.27.2026.pdf

NFPS Continuing Services Contract PC25-052 10.27.2026.pdf

GM Hill Engineering Continuing Services Contract PC25-052 10.27.2026.pdf

Florida Architects, Inc. Continuing Services Contract PC25-052 10.27.2026.pdf

Donovan-Hill Group Continuing Services Contract PC25-052 10.27.2026.pdf

Dewberry Engineers Inc. Continuing Services Contract PC25-052 10.27.2026.pdf

DAG Architects, Inc. Continuing Services Contract PC25-052 10.27.2026.pdf

Anchor CEI Continuing Services Contract PC25-052 10.27.2026.pdf

Listen to this explanation · 2:22

Learn more about this item

What does the staff report say a “continuing contract” is used for?

Staff says it is meant to let the city solicit qualifications for future projects directly from the consultants that are approved under the contract.

Supporting passages
licit qualifications for future projects directly from the approved consultant(s). The RFQ was issued pursuant to Section 287.055 of the Florida Statutes, the “Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act” (“CCNA”) for continuing contracts. Contracts included for approval are Anchor Consulting Engineering and Inspection, DAG Architects, Dewberry Engineers, Donovan-Hill Group, Florida Architects, G.M Hill Engineering, North Florida Professional Services, NOVA Engineering and Environmental\Panhandle En
17756.pdf
Does the contract language require the city to give a minimum amount of work to an approved firm?

No. The example continuing-services contracts say nothing in the contract obligates the city to procure any minimum amount of services from the consultant.

Supporting passages
will provide engineering and/or other professional consulting services and deliverables as set forth in a mutually acceptable Task Order. Any such Task Order for services shall reference this Continuing Contract, and the terms of this Continuing Contract shall apply to and be part of any Task Order. Nothing in this Continuing Contract shall obligate the Owner to procure any minimum amount of services from the Consultant. The Owner will evaluate all future work and select an engineer to accomplis
Three Notch Group Continuing Services Contract PC25-052 10.27.2026.pdf
Consultant will provide engineering and/or other professional consulting services and deliverables as set forth in a mutually acceptable Task Order. Any such Task Order for services shall reference this Continuing Contract, and the terms of this Continuing Contract shall apply to and be part of any Task Order. Nothing in this Continuing Contract shall obligate the Owner to procure any minimum amount of services from the Consultant. The Owner will evaluate all future work and select an engineer t
SSMC Continuing Services Contract PC25-052 10.27.2026.pdf
How long are these continuing services contracts written to last, according to the attachments?

The contract attachments describe an initial term of three years, with an option (by mutual agreement) to renew for up to two additional one-year terms.

Supporting passages
y 15, 2025 (RFQ PC25-052 Professional Services Contract for Panama City – Continuing Basis), the contents of which are incorporated into this agreement by reference; and WHEREAS, the Owner and Consultant recognize that this contract is a “Continuing Contract” as defined by s.287.055, Florida Statutes, with a term of three (3) years except that with mutual agreement it may be renewed for two (2) additional one-year terms; and WHEREAS, the Owner desires to set forth basic contract terms and condit
Three Notch Group Continuing Services Contract PC25-052 10.27.2026.pdf
r Qualifications on July 15, 2025 (RFQ PC25-052 Professional Services Contract for Panama City – Continuing Basis), the contents of which are incorporated into this agreement by reference; and WHEREAS, the Owner and Consultant recognize that this contract is a “Continuing Contract” as defined by s.287.055, Florida Statutes, with a term of three (3) years except that with mutual agreement it may be renewed for two (2) additional one-year terms; and WHEREAS, the Owner desires to set forth basic co
SSMC Continuing Services Contract PC25-052 10.27.2026.pdf
What kinds of professional categories are shown in the supporting table?

The table lists service areas such as stormwater, roadway, traffic, structural, utility, environmental, geotechnical, construction engineering and inspection, architectural, and surveying/plat review, and marks which firms provide which categories.

Supporting passages
Stormwater Roadway Traffic Subdivision/Site Structural Utility EnvironmenEnvironmental2 Geotech Construction Architectural Landscape Mechanical Electrical Marine Surveying/Plat Anchor Consulting Engineering and InXpection X X X X DAG Architects X Dewberry Engineers X X X X X X X X X X X Donovan-Hill Group X X X X Florida Architects X G.M Hill Engineering X X X X X X X X X X X X X North Florida Professional ServXces X X X X X X X X X X X X X NOVA Engineering and Environmental\Panhandle X X X X X
17756 (1).pdf
Engineering Panhandle Engineering X X X X X X X X X X X X X Southeastern Surveying and Mapping Corp. X Three Notch Group, Inc. X X X X X X X
17756 (1).pdf

Item 11 of 22

Mott MacDonald SRF lead engineer plan would add a $100,000 task order amendment

The city is asked to approve Task Order Amendment 4 for program management help setting standardized methods for design, bidding and construction administration, funded through SRF and capped at a not-to-exceed $100,000.

The City Commission is being asked to approve Amendment 4 to a task order with Mott MacDonald Florida, LLC (Search Sunbiz) for State Revolving Fund (SRF) lead engineer program management work, adding $100,000 to the not-to-exceed amount for this amendment.

Staff says the work helps the city develop a standardized way to run projects from design and review through bidding and construction administration. The staff form also lists earlier amendments and amounts to the same task order, and says SRF funds are the budget source for this request.

Commissioners are being asked to approve Task Order Amendment 4 with Mott MacDonald Florida, LLC (Search Sunbiz) for SRF Lead Engineer Program Management Plan services in the amount of $100,000. Staff recommends approval and lists SRF funding as the budget source.

Why this matters

If approved, the city would spend $100,000 in SRF-funded dollars for outside program-management support tied to how SRF projects are designed, bid, and managed during construction. Staff describes this as help creating a standardized method for executing projects, which can affect how consistently city projects move from design to bidding to construction oversight.

Give the City of Panama City your feedback and questions
Official wording and sources

Consideration to approve Task Order Amendment 4 to Mott MacDonald Florida, LLC for SRF Lead Engineer Program Management Plan in the amount of $100,000.00.

Consideration to approve Task Order Amendment 4 to Mott MacDonald Florida, LLC (Search Sunbiz) for SRF
Lead Engineer Program Management Plan in the amount of $100,000.00.

17755.pdf

17755 (1).pdf

Listen to this explanation · 1:47

Learn more about this item

What work would this amendment pay for?

Staff describes it as help developing a standardized methodology for project execution, including design, review, bidding, and construction administration, along with ongoing support for those phases.

Supporting passages
ion to approve Task Order Amendment 4 to Mott MacDonald Florida, LLC for SRF Lead Engineer Program Management Plan in the amount of $100,000.00. The scope of work associated with this task order includes assistance to the City in the development of standardized methodology for project execution, including design, review, bidding, and construction administration. Prior tasks were billed for time and material not to exceed $100,000 each and were executed on 2/1/2022 & 1/27/2022. Amendment 1 & 2 ha
17755.pdf
OCR page 1: Amendment IV to TASK ORDER No.: 22-010 Program Management Pian (PMP) Project Number. 502101036-001 Section I. BACKGROUND This Amendment IV to Task Order #22-010 is issued between CITY OF PANAMA CITY and MOTT MacDONALD FLORIDA, LLC, pursuant to the SRF LEAD ENGINNER SERVICES Contract between the parties dated October 12. 2021. and subject to all the terms and conditions thereof. Section Il. SCOPE OF SERVICES Mott MacDonald will continue to assist the City by supporting design, bidding
17755 (1).pdf
How much is Amendment 4, and what payment limit is stated in the amendment document?

The agenda item and the amendment both describe a $100,000 amount, and the amendment states time-and-materials compensation on a not-to-exceed basis of $100,000.

Supporting passages
ve been added to the original task order for an extra $100,000 and $300,000 respectively in June 22, 2022. Amendment 3 added $300,000 and was approved on 5/23/23. This Amendment, amendment 4 will add $100,000 to Mott MacDonald for SRF Lead Engineer management. Director recommends approval. Budgeted? Yes:|_ |No:] ~} How Much budgeted? SRF Funding If more, where do you suggest funds come from? SRF Funding Cost Center Affected: 430.8020.56300 ☐Personnel $ ☐Operating $ ☐Capital $ ☐Revenue $ Requeste
17755.pdf
s project. Section IV. DELIVERABLES Deliverables will include monthly SRF meeting agendas and agenda items to facilitate execution of the overall program. Monthly reports include status updates provided at every meeting. Section V. METHOD OF COMPENSATION The ENGINEER shall be compensated as follows: Time and Materials. ENGINEER's compensation shall be time and materials basis for a not-to-exceed amount of $100,000.00 The ENGINEER shall not submit payment requests in excess of the fixed price or
17755 (1).pdf
What funding source does staff list for this request?

The staff form lists SRF funding as both the budgeted amount and the funding source.

Supporting passages
ve been added to the original task order for an extra $100,000 and $300,000 respectively in June 22, 2022. Amendment 3 added $300,000 and was approved on 5/23/23. This Amendment, amendment 4 will add $100,000 to Mott MacDonald for SRF Lead Engineer management. Director recommends approval. Budgeted? Yes:|_ |No:] ~} How Much budgeted? SRF Funding If more, where do you suggest funds come from? SRF Funding Cost Center Affected: 430.8020.56300 ☐Personnel $ ☐Operating $ ☐Capital $ ☐Revenue $ Requeste
17755.pdf
iew, bidding, and construction administration. Prior tasks were billed for time and material not to exceed $100,000 each and were executed on 2/1/2022 & 1/27/2022. Amendment 1 & 2 have been added to the original task order for an extra $100,000 and $300,000 respectively in June 22, 2022. Amendment 3 added $300,000 and was approved on 5/23/23. This Amendment, amendment 4 will add $100,000 to Mott MacDonald for SRF Lead Engineer management. budgeted ammount: SRF Funding Funding source: SRF Funding
17755.pdf
What prior amendments to this task order are mentioned in the staff write-up?

Staff notes that Amendments 1 and 2 added $100,000 and $300,000, Amendment 3 added $300,000 (approved 5/23/23), and this Amendment 4 would add $100,000.

Supporting passages
ve been added to the original task order for an extra $100,000 and $300,000 respectively in June 22, 2022. Amendment 3 added $300,000 and was approved on 5/23/23. This Amendment, amendment 4 will add $100,000 to Mott MacDonald for SRF Lead Engineer management. Director recommends approval. Budgeted? Yes:|_ |No:] ~} How Much budgeted? SRF Funding If more, where do you suggest funds come from? SRF Funding Cost Center Affected: 430.8020.56300 ☐Personnel $ ☐Operating $ ☐Capital $ ☐Revenue $ Requeste
17755.pdf
iew, bidding, and construction administration. Prior tasks were billed for time and material not to exceed $100,000 each and were executed on 2/1/2022 & 1/27/2022. Amendment 1 & 2 have been added to the original task order for an extra $100,000 and $300,000 respectively in June 22, 2022. Amendment 3 added $300,000 and was approved on 5/23/23. This Amendment, amendment 4 will add $100,000 to Mott MacDonald for SRF Lead Engineer management. budgeted ammount: SRF Funding Funding source: SRF Funding
17755.pdf

Item 12 of 22

Panama City Utility Billing Division could be moved under the City Manager

Commissioner Grainger is asking for discussion and consideration of changing where the Utility Billing Division reports within city government.

City officials are being asked to discuss and consider moving the Utility Billing Division so it would be under the City Manager. The agenda wording does not include details on what the current reporting structure is, what changes would be made beyond the reporting line, or whether any related policies, staffing, or budgets would change.

The Commission is being asked to discuss and consider an internal organizational change: placing the Utility Billing Division under the City Manager. The supplied wording does not state whether a vote is planned, what form the change would take (for example, a reorganization order or ordinance), or when it would take effect if approved.

No supporting documents were included in this explanation. Only the entered official wording is available; it does not establish discussion details or an outcome.

Why this matters

If the Utility Billing Division is moved under the City Manager, it could change who supervises day-to-day utility billing operations and how issues are handled internally. The provided wording does not say what problem this change is meant to address or what specific operational changes would follow, so the impacts cannot be determined from this item alone.

Give the City of Panama City your feedback and questions
Official wording and sources

Commissioner Grainger – Discussion and Consideration to move the Utility Billing Division to be under the City Manager.

Commissioner Grainger – Discussion and Consideration to move the Utility Billing Division to be
under the City Manager.

Listen to this explanation · 1:33

Item 13 of 22

Citywide paving plan proposal would ask staff to size a 20-year resurfacing program and its annual funding gap

Commissioner Josh Street is asking for staff analysis of Panama City’s paved lane-mile inventory, recent resurfacing costs, available funding sources (including infrastructure surtax), and the annual dollars needed to keep streets on an about 20-year renewal cycle.

This agenda item is a discussion request about Panama City’s long-term street resurfacing (paving) plan. Commissioner Josh Street is asking the commission to direct city staff to figure out what yearly funding level the city would need to keep a roadway resurfacing program on a cycle that renews the whole paved street system about once every 20 years, similar to a long-term pavement-management approach used by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).

In the material provided, the commissioner points to a starting estimate from the city’s Fiscal Year 2024 annual financial report of 227 miles of paved streets (about 454 paved “lane miles” if you assume two lanes). He also cites Panama City’s Fiscal Year 2026 adopted budget projection of about $4.99 million in infrastructure surtax revenue, and notes that the budget allocates only a portion of that directly to transportation capital improvements. He then lays out example cost-per-lane-mile assumptions and asks staff to calculate Panama City’s actual lane-mile inventory, typical local resurfacing costs based on recent bids, how much money is currently available for resurfacing from multiple sources, and whether there is a funding gap.

Commissioners are being asked to discuss and potentially direct staff to produce an analysis of how much annual funding Panama City would need to resurface its streets on an approximately 20-year cycle, including the city’s lane-mile inventory, local cost-per-lane-mile based on recent bids, current funding sources, and any funding gap, with comparisons to nearby jurisdictions. The provided material frames this as a request from Commissioner Josh Street and does not include a documented staff recommendation.

Why this matters

If the commission directs staff to do this analysis, it could shape future city budget choices about how much money to set aside each year for repaving streets versus handling paving project-by-project. The request also highlights that, in the FY2026 adopted budget, only part of projected infrastructure surtax revenue is budgeted as transportation capital improvements, which could affect how much is available for resurfacing if the city sets a long-term paving target.

Give the City of Panama City your feedback and questions
Official wording and sources

Commissioner Street - Discussing of City Paving Plan.

Commissioner Street - Discussing of City Paving Plan.

17758.pdf

Listen to this explanation · 2:57

Learn more about this item

What did the commissioner ask staff to calculate for a long-term paving plan?

He asked staff to determine the city’s actual paved lane-mile inventory, average resurfacing cost per lane mile based on recent Panama City bids, the annual funding needed for a roughly 20-year cycle, current annual funding available from multiple sources, whether there is a funding gap, and comparable data for neighboring jurisdictions.

Supporting passages
ide planning reference, not a Panama City project estimate. Compared with our approximately $4.99 million in annual surtax revenue, gross surtax proceeds would cover roughly: 73% of the estimated need at $300,000 per lane mile 55% at $400,000 per lane mile 41% at $534,000 per lane mile And that assumes every surtax dollar could be devoted to pavement, which our FY2026 budget shows is not the case. What I would like staff to determine is: 1. Our actual paved lane-mile inventory, not including unp
17758.pdf
aved alleys. 2. The appropriate average resurfacing cost per lane mile based on recent Panama City bids. 3. The annual funding requirement necessary to maintain an approximately 20-year resurfacing cycle. 4. The current annual funding available for resurfacing from surtax, gas tax, general fund, grants and other sources. 5. The annual funding gap, if one exists. 6. The same basic data for Bay County, Panama City Beach, Lynn Haven, Callaway and the other municipalities so we can compare our progr
17758.pdf
What street-system size estimate is used as a starting point in the request?

The request cites the city’s FY2024 annual financial report as showing 227 miles of paved streets, which the commissioner describes as a minimum of about 454 paved lane miles assuming two lanes per street.

Supporting passages
FY2024 ACFR reports 227 miles of paved streets, which represents a minimum of approximately 454 paved lane miles assuming two lanes per street. The actual number is higher because some City- maintained roads have more than two lanes. For comparison: Bay County: 494+ paved centerline miles, or at least 988 lane miles. Panama City: 227 paved centerline miles, or at least 454 lane miles. Panama City Beach: 77.11 centerline miles and 163.23 actual lane miles. Callaway: 84.2 street miles, or at leas
17758.pdf
What infrastructure surtax revenue figure is cited, and how does the request describe its current budget allocation?

The request cites the FY2026 adopted budget projection of $4,990,492 in infrastructure surtax revenue and describes the FY2026 surtax budget as allocating about $1,828,253 to transportation capital improvements, with other allocations including transfers and smaller items.

Supporting passages
ows approximately $2.39 million in total street expenditures, compared with approximately $3.13 million in FY2024 actual street expenditures. Its capital plan also identifies recurring ranked paving projects funded by legislative appropriations and ½-cent sales tax revenue. Source: City of Lynn Haven FY2025–26 Approved Budget and Capital Plan. On the Panama City revenue side, our FY2026 adopted budget projects $4,990,492 in infrastructure surtax revenue. Recent figures are: FY2023 actual: $4,747
17758.pdf
,585 FY2024 actual: $4,851,807 FY2025 adopted: $4,735,524 FY2026 adopted: $4,990,492 The FY2026 surtax budget is allocated approximately as follows: Transportation capital improvements: $1,828,253 Infrastructure Surtax Note transfer: $2,157,239 Utility Fund transfer: $600,000 Marina Fund transfer: $400,000 Accounting/auditing: $5,000 So only 37% of current-year surtax revenue is budgeted directly as transportation capital improvement spending. Using the minimum 454 paved lane miles, a 20-year pa
17758.pdf
Where do the example resurfacing cost assumptions come from in the request?

The request lists example assumptions of $300,000, $400,000, and $534,000 per lane mile, and says the $534,000 figure is based on FDOT’s FY2026 statewide resurfacing program and is a statewide planning reference rather than a Panama City project estimate.

Supporting passages
vement renewal cycle would require treatment of approximately: 454 lane miles ÷ 20 years = 22.7 lane miles per year. Using several planning-level resurfacing assumptions: $300,000 per lane mile = approximately $6.81 million annually $400,000 per lane mile = approximately $9.08 million annually $534,000 per lane mile = approximately $12.12 million annually The $534,000 figure is based on FDOT’s FY2026 statewide program of approximately $1.4 billion for 2,622 resurfacing lane miles. It is a statew
17758.pdf

Item 14 of 22

After School Assistance Program advisory board: staff asks to appoint 10 recommended members

A city memo lists 10 recommended appointees (including parent, education, community, and business representatives). A separate draft resolution outlines an alternative structure: a five-member unpaid board appointed by the Mayor and each Commissioner, meeting at least quarterly starting January 2027.

City staff are asking the City Commission to appoint the listed individuals to serve on the After School Assistance Program (ASAP) Advisory Board. In the staff memo, the Housing & Community Services Director says the recommended candidates were chosen for youth-development commitment and experience in education, enrichment, community service, and family engagement, and that the board would provide strategic insight and recommendations to support student success and well-being.

A supplemental legal attachment also provides a sample resolution the City Commission could consider if it wants to formally establish an ASAP advisory board and set rules for how it works (such as membership size, appointment method, and meeting requirements). The sample outlines a different approach than the staff memo’s list, including a five-member unpaid board with one appointment from each Commissioner and the Mayor, with meetings at least quarterly beginning in January 2027.

The City Commission is being asked to approve staff’s recommended appointments to the After School Assistance Program (ASAP) Advisory Board. Staff’s stated reason is that the recommended individuals’ backgrounds would provide strong representation and help the board advise the program; a separate attachment offers a sample resolution with possible board structure and operating rules if the Commission wants that framework.

Why this matters

This item affects who would help advise the city’s After School Assistance Program through an advisory board that, according to staff, would provide strategic insight and recommendations for the program and the students it serves. The supplemental draft resolution shows there may also be a choice about the board’s structure (for example, how many members, how appointments are made, and how often the board meets), which would shape how community input and recommendations are developed.

Give the City of Panama City your feedback and questions
Official wording and sources

After School Assistance Program (ASAP) Advisory Board

After School Assistance Program (ASAP) Advisory Board

17763.pdf

17763 (1).pdf

Listen to this explanation · 2:29

Learn more about this item

Who is staff recommending for appointment to the ASAP Advisory Board?

The staff memo lists these recommended appointees: Ciara Davis, LinCherria Barnes, Billy Carstarphen, Shari Steele, Scott Clemons, Kelly Forehand, Phyllis Grier, Leslie Glaze, and Jan Floyd.

Supporting passages
orandum is to formally present the individuals recommended for appointment to serve on the After School Assistance Program (ASAP) Advisory Board. These candidates are being recommended based on their demonstrated commitment to youth development and their collective expertise in education, academic enrichment, community service and family engagement. Their diverse backgrounds will ensure strong and well-rounded representation on the Board. Recommended Appointees: Ciara Davis – Parent Representati
17763.pdf
ve Affiliated with the ASAP Program for three years with two children currently enrolled. Holds a Master’s Degree in Clinical Social Work and serves as the Director of Client Services for BASIC NWFL. LinCherria Barnes – Parent Representative Affiliated with the ASAP Program for two years with three children enrolled. United States Air Force Veteran specializing in diversity advocacy. Billy Carstarphen – Community Civic Leader Volunteer and mentor with the ASAP Program for 22 years. Captain of th
17763.pdf
e Community Service Section with the Panama City Police Department. RESPECT. INTEGRITY. INNOVATION. COURAGE. EXCELLENCE. OCR page 1: Ciara Davis — Parent Representative LinCherria Barnes — Parent Representative Billy Carstarphen — Community Civic Leader Shari Steele – Local Business Owner Director and owner of Shari’s Children Academy, providing full -time childcare and after-school programs for 13 years, focusing on positive learning environments and family support. Scott Clemons – Community Ci
17763.pdf
What role does staff describe for the ASAP Advisory Board?

Staff says the advisory board would provide strategic insight and recommendations to help the program continue supporting participating students’ academic success and well-being.

Supporting passages
lunteer with hands on experience working directly with youth who attend ASAP. These individuals bring strengths in advocacy, program management, youth development, education, and community engagement. The Advisory Board will provide strategic insight and recommendations to ensure the program continues to support the academic success and well-being of participating students. Staff respectfully request the Commission’s approval of these recommended appointments. Page | 2 OCR page 2: Shari Steele —
17763.pdf
What does the sample resolution say about how an ASAP advisory board could be structured?

The sample resolution describes a five-member, unpaid board with one appointment by each City Commissioner and the Mayor (subject to full-Commission ratification), with meetings at least quarterly beginning in January 2027, and responsibilities that include gathering community input, analyzing data, reporting findings, and making recommendations through the City Manager to the City Commission.

Supporting passages
resolution terms:  Membership and appointments: The Board will consist of five (5) unpaid members, with one appointed by each City Commissioner and the Mayor, subject to ratification by the full Commission. Members must live within Panama City and be registered City voters; members serve at the Commission’s pleasure and may be removed by majority vote.  Meetings and governance: Beginning in January 2027, the Board will meet at least quarterly, with meeting notices published at least four (4) d
17763 (1).pdf
ays in advance. Members will select a chairperson and vice-chairperson, require a quorum consisting of a majority that includes one of those officers, conduct meetings publicly, follow Robert’s Rules of Order as a guide, and maintain official minutes.  Advisory responsibilities: The Board will assess program goals, performance, community needs, facilities, personnel, fundraising, and future growth. It will gather community input, analyze collected data, report findings, and submit its chairpers
17763 (1).pdf
will provide recommendations on program goals, performance, community needs , facilities needed, personnel required, fundraising needed and future growth; B. Officers. The Board shall select from its members a chairperson and vice- chairperson. The chairperson or, in his/her absence, the vice-chairperson shall preside at all Board meetings; C. Terms. The Board shall meet at least once quarterly beginning in January 2027, unless the Commission dissolves the Board earlier. Notice of all regular m
17763 (1).pdf

Item 15 of 22

Port Panama City would seek support letter for changing charter limits on property ownership

The City Manager is asking for approval to sign a letter supporting legislation to amend the Panama City Port Authority’s special act so the Port is no longer restricted from owning property only within Bay County and city limits.

This item asks whether the City Manager should be allowed to sign a letter, on behalf of the City Commission, supporting a change to the Panama City Port Authority’s special act (its state-law charter for how it operates). Staff says the requested change would remove language that prohibits the Port from owning property outside Bay County and the city limits.

Staff’s agenda form says the request came from the Panama City Port Authority Director, and staff recommends approval. A draft letter included with the agenda describes the change as deleting the current geographic restriction on the Port’s ability to lease, own, or acquire real estate, and it argues the change would give the Port more flexibility for future port-related investments; the letter also says the change would be enabling authority and would not require any specific purchase.

The City Commission is being asked to approve allowing the City Manager to sign a letter of support for legislation amending the Panama City Port Authority’s special act to remove restrictions on owning property outside Bay County and city limits. Staff (the City Manager) recommends approval, stating the Port Authority Director requested the letter to support that amendment.

Why this matters

If approved, the City would formally support a change to the Port Authority’s charter that could allow the Port to consider owning property beyond its current geographic limits, instead of being limited to Bay County and city limits. Staff frames this as a requested support letter rather than a spending item (budget impact listed as not applicable), and the attached draft letter says the amendment would authorize broader options but would not mandate any specific acquisition.

Give the City of Panama City your feedback and questions
Official wording and sources

Consideration of approval for City Manager to sign a letter of support on behalf of the City Commission for amending the special act regarding port operations.

Consideration of approval for City Manager to sign a letter of support on behalf of the City Commission for amending the special act regarding port operations.

17774.pdf

17774 (2).pdf

Audio is not available for this explanation yet.

Learn more about this item

What specific change does the Port Authority want in the special act?

Staff says the goal is to remove language that prohibits the port from owning property outside Bay County and city limits.

Supporting passages
ion of approval for City Manager to sign a letter of support on behalf of the City Commission for amending the special act regarding port operations. The PC Port Authority Director, Robert Majka, has requested to have the City execute a letter of support for amending the special act to remove language prohibiting the port from owning property outside Bay County and City limits. City Manager recommends approval. No; How Much budgeted? N/A ☐Personnel $ ☐Operating $ ☐Capital $ ☐Revenue $ Requested
17774.pdf
he port from owning property outside Bay County and City limits. budgeted ammount: N/A Requestor: Bob Majka, PC Port Preparer: Jonathan H. Hayes Date2_af_date: 10/19/26 Date3_af_date: 10/19/26 Date6_af_date: 10/19/26 Approver: Jonathan H. Hayes
17774.pdf
What does the draft support letter say the current geographic restriction is?

The draft letter says the charter currently limits the Authority from leasing, owning, or acquiring real estate except in Bay County or within 10 miles of the City of Panama City, whichever is greater.

Supporting passages
uire real estate. The current charter provides that the Authority may not lease, own, or acquire real estate except in Bay County or within 10 miles of the City of Panama City, whichever is greater. The Panama City Port Authority's charter otherwise authorizes the Authority to acquire, construct, maintain, equip, operate, and manage port terminal facilities, associated marine structures and facilities, industrial parks, manufacturing plants, and other improvements appropriate to its purposes. Re
17774 (2).pdf
Does the draft letter say this would require the Port to buy property?

No. The draft letter says deleting the restriction would provide enabling authority rather than mandate any particular acquisition or project.

Supporting passages
thority rather than mandate any particular acquisition or project. Individual transactions would remain subject to the Authority's applicable governance, budgeting, contracting, financing, land-use, permitting, and other legal requirements. This amendment would therefore provide the Port with an additional economic- development tool while preserving the review and approval processes applicable to future projects. For these reasons, [AGENCY / ORGANIZATION NAME] supports deletion of the charter la
17774 (2).pdf
Is there a stated budget impact for the City in this agenda item?

The staff form lists the budget amount as not applicable.

Supporting passages
ion of approval for City Manager to sign a letter of support on behalf of the City Commission for amending the special act regarding port operations. The PC Port Authority Director, Robert Majka, has requested to have the City execute a letter of support for amending the special act to remove language prohibiting the port from owning property outside Bay County and City limits. City Manager recommends approval. No; How Much budgeted? N/A ☐Personnel $ ☐Operating $ ☐Capital $ ☐Revenue $ Requested
17774.pdf
he port from owning property outside Bay County and City limits. budgeted ammount: N/A Requestor: Bob Majka, PC Port Preparer: Jonathan H. Hayes Date2_af_date: 10/19/26 Date3_af_date: 10/19/26 Date6_af_date: 10/19/26 Approver: Jonathan H. Hayes
17774.pdf

Item 16 of 22

Downtown Panama City Marina wet slips project would re-bid with a new 3-phase scope including a boat ramp, 99 slips and a breakwater

After the City Commission rejected all bids for ITB PC26-021, the draft re-bid would keep the same bidder qualifications but expand the work to three phases, including a 320-foot breakwater extension described as replacing a section destroyed by Hurricane Michael.

The City Commission is being asked to discuss and consider a revised draft scope of work for a competitive Invitation to Bid (ITB) for the Downtown Panama City Marina “wet slips” project. The draft re-bid would shift from the prior bid’s scope (49 wet slips) to a larger, phased construction package that includes rebuilding the marina boat ramp, adding more wet slips, and extending the marina breakwater.

In the draft scope, Phase 1 would start within 90 days after a bid award and would rebuild the existing boat ramp in the East Basin and build 49 wet slips and related dock utilities in the West Basin. Phase 2 would extend the West Basin breakwater by 320 feet; the draft says this extension would replace a section described as destroyed by Hurricane Michael, and Phase 3 would add 35 more wet slips plus a 430-foot floating dock intended for day and transient vessels in the West Basin. The draft also keeps bidder qualification requirements, including at least five years of marine construction experience and examples of similar completed projects.

Commissioners are being asked to discuss and decide whether they are satisfied with the proposed changes to the scope of work (and keeping the same bidder qualifications) for re-bidding ITB PC26-021 for Downtown Panama City Marina wet slips work. The assistant city attorney’s memo says that if the City Commission is satisfied, staff would complete the bid package and release it for solicitation as soon as possible.

Why this matters

This item would shape what contractors bid on for rebuilding parts of the Downtown Panama City Marina, including the boat ramp, wet slips, and a breakwater extension. The scope and phasing described in the draft would affect what gets built first (boat ramp and 49 slips), what must be finished before later work can start (the breakwater before Phase 3), and what qualifications the City requires from bidders before it re-advertises the project.

Give the City of Panama City your feedback and questions
Official wording and sources

Discussion and consideration of revised draft scope of work for competitive Invitation to Bid for the Downtown Panama City Wet Slips.

Discussion and consideration of revised draft scope of work for competitive Invitation to Bid for
the Downtown Panama City Wet Slips.

17776.pdf

Audio is not available for this explanation yet.

Learn more about this item

What changed in the draft re-bid compared with the prior invitation to bid?

The memo says the earlier ITB invited bids for construction of 49 wet slips in the marina’s West Basin, while the new invitation to bid would seek proposals for phased construction of a boat ramp, 99 wet slips, and a breakwater.

Supporting passages
are the relevant sections, i.e. Section 1. General Information, Section 3. Specifications, and the Statement of Qualifications from the Bid Proposal Form, of the proposed Invitation to Bid. A summary of the attachments follows. Scope of Project ITB PC26-021invitedbidsfortheconstructionof 49wetslipsinWestBasinofthePanama City Marina. If approved, the new invitation to bid seeks proposals for the phased construction of a boat ramp, 99 wet slips and a breakwater. Phase 1 of the Project will begin c
17776.pdf
What are the three phases described in the draft scope?

Phase 1 covers rebuilding the existing boat ramp in the East Basin and building 49 wet slips in the West Basin; Phase 2 is a 320-foot extension of the West Basin breakwater; Phase 3 adds 35 wet slips and a 430-foot floating dock for day and transient vessels in the West Basin.

Supporting passages
onstruction within 90 days of the bid award for reconstruction of the existing boat ramp on the East Basin of the Panama City Marina and 49 wet slips within the West Basin of the Panama City Marina. Phase 2 of the Project is for a 320 foot extension of the existing breakwater on the West Basin of the Panama City Marina. The breakwater must be completed before Phase 3 can begin. The City expects to have the permits for Phase 2 during the construction of Phase 1 and expects to issue a notice to pr
17776.pdf
ITY BEACH co DEFUNIAK SPRINGS 221 MCKENZIE AVE 17216 PANAMA CITY BEACH PARKWAY 694 BALDWIN AVE, STE4A PANAMA CIty, FL 32401 PANAMA CITY BEACH, FL 32413 DEFUNIAK SPRINGS, FL 32435 BURKE BLUE HUTCHISON SMITH ZIMMERMAN BURKE MARLER TELEPHONE: 850-769-1414 FACSIMILE 850-784-0857 Phase 3 will complete the reconstruction of the West Basin of the Panama City Marina with the construction of 35 wet slips and a 430 foot floating dock that can accommodate twenty (20), 20 foot day and transient vessels, but
17776.pdf
fixed dock within the existing Panama City Marina West Basin (Phase 1); construction of a three-hundred twenty foot (320’) extension to existing breakwater destroyed by Hurricane Michael on Panama City Marina West Basin (Phase 2); and, construction of 35 wet slips and a four-hundred and thirty foot (430’) floating dock to accommodate day and transient vessels within the Panama City Marina West Basin (Phase 3) in downtown Panama City, FL (the “Project”) as specified in Section 3. Specifications
17776.pdf
What bidder qualifications would remain part of the re-bid?

The draft says bidders must show evidence they can do the work and must have at least five years of marine construction experience, plus similar experience in scope and magnitude documented through the statement of qualifications.

Supporting passages
nsidered and expected to be performed under this contract. Bidders shall demonstrate a minimum of five (5) years of experience in marine construction which is a material condition of the ITB. Bidders must have consecutive and active experience of work similar in scope and magnitude to this Project as described in Section 3. Specifications. Bidders shall demonstrate that they have provided these services or similar services to private and/or public organizations of similar sizes and requirements
17776.pdf
ers shall be expected to provide a bond for Phase 1 with the submission of its Bid Proposal and provide proof of a bond for Phases 2 and 3 prior to receiving a notice to proceed for each phase. Bidders shall provide proof of evidence, knowledge, and ability to perform the tasks considered and expected to be performed under this contract. Bidders shall demonstrate a minimum of five (5) years of experience in marine construction which is a material condition of this ITB. Bidders must have consecut
17776.pdf
erform satisfactorily. ATTACHMENT 3 STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS Bidder shall demonstrate that the Bidder has at least five (5) years of experience in marine construction. Bidders must have consecutive and active experience of work similar in scope and magnitude to this contract as described in Section 3. Specifications of this ITB. List at least three, but no greater than five, similar projects successfully completed in the past ten (10) years by the Bidder, preferably with the same Key Personne
17776.pdf
How does the draft describe the breakwater work and its timing?

The draft specifications describe Phase 2 as a 320-foot breakwater extension to replace a section described as destroyed by Hurricane Michael, and the memo says Phase 2 must be completed before Phase 3 can begin.

Supporting passages
' and filled with #57 stone, connected with steel sheet pile and capped with a 2' x 4' concrete pile cap to match elevation with existing breakwater. Phase 3 – Docks A and B Phase3 will includetheconstruction ofDockAandDockB. Phase3construction can’t commence until the completion of Phase 2 due to the exposed position of these docks. Phase 3a. Dock B - 35 Wet Slips. Construction of approximately 7,950 SF of wooden fixed dock, aluminum gangways, fixed access platforms, fire suppression standpipes
17776.pdf
onstruction within 90 days of the bid award for reconstruction of the existing boat ramp on the East Basin of the Panama City Marina and 49 wet slips within the West Basin of the Panama City Marina. Phase 2 of the Project is for a 320 foot extension of the existing breakwater on the West Basin of the Panama City Marina. The breakwater must be completed before Phase 3 can begin. The City expects to have the permits for Phase 2 during the construction of Phase 1 and expects to issue a notice to pr
17776.pdf

Item 17 of 22

St. Andrews Marina bulkhead project budget would add $17.4M from the 2025 line of credit

Resolution 20261027.1 would move $17,416,255 from the City’s Debt Service Fund to the Marina Fund (Project #965.1) so the City can pay costs tied to the St. Andrews Marina Partners contract.

Approve a budget amendment that sets up and transfers about $17.4 million so the City can spend money from its 2025 line of credit on the St. Andrews Marina project contract with St. Andrews Marina Partners (Search Sunbiz). The resolution would increase Debt Service Fund reserves and transfer the same amount into the Marina Fund (Project #965.1), where it would be budgeted under “Construction in Progress.”

Supporting paperwork shows this marina work is being handled as a cost-plus contract (the contractor is paid for actual costs, plus a 20% fee, instead of a single fixed price). The contract materials also list a “control estimate” of $14,673,805.24 (before the 20% contractor fee), and a separate calculation sheet shows how the requested budget amendment total was built from that estimate, the 20% fee, and subtraction of prior project expenses.

The City Commission is being asked to approve Resolution 20261027.1 to amend the fiscal year 2026–2027 budget so $17,416,255 from the 2025 line of credit can be transferred into the Marina Fund and spent on the St. Andrews Marina project (Project #965.1). Staff’s resolution also authorizes the City Manager to expend the newly budgeted funds to carry out the resolution.

Why this matters

This action would increase the City’s budget authority by about $17.4 million so work tied to the St. Andrews Marina project can be paid from a 2025 line of credit. The money would be moved into the Marina Fund and booked to the marina project as “Construction in Progress,” which affects how the City plans and tracks a major public waterfront asset’s repair and redevelopment work.

Give the City of Panama City your feedback and questions
Official wording and sources

Consideration to approve Budget Amendment Resolution 20261027.1 to budget and expend funds from the 2025 line of credit for the St. Andrews Marina Partners contract.

Consideration to approve Budget Amendment Resolution 20261027.1 to budget and expend
funds from the 2025 line of credit for the St. Andrews Marina Partners (Search Sunbiz) contract.

17762.pdf

17762 (1).pdf

17762 (2).pdf

17762 (3).pdf

Audio is not available for this explanation yet.

Learn more about this item

How much money would this budget amendment add, and where would it be budgeted?

The resolution lists a total increase of $17,416,255, transferring that amount from the Debt Service Fund to the Marina Fund and budgeting it to the marina project under “Construction in Progress” (Project #965.1).

Supporting passages
ANAMA CITY, FLORIDA, that: Section 1. The following amendments to the approved budget of fiscal year 2027 be made: INCREASE DEBT SERVICE FUND REVENUES 225-0000 370.000 – Budgetary Changes in Reserves $17,416,255 DEBT SEREVICE FUND APPROPRIATIONS 225-8800 59131 – Transfer to Marina Fund $17,416,255 MARINA FUND REVENUES 450-0000 381.100 – Interfund Transfers $17,416,255 Project #965.1 MARINA FUND APPROPRIATIONS 450-7600 56500 – Construction in Progress $17,416,255 Project #965.1 Section 2. The Cit
17762.pdf
How was the $17,416,255 budget-amendment amount calculated in the backup material?

A calculation sheet ties the total to a control estimate of $14,673,805.24 plus a 20% contractor fee of $2,934,761.05, then subtracts $192,311.69 of prior expenses to reach a budget amendment total of $17,416,254.60 (rounded in the resolution to $17,416,255).

Supporting passages
BA20261027.1Calculations $ 14,673,805.24 Controlestimatepercontract $ 2,934,761.05 20%contractorfee $ 17,608,566.29 $ (192,311.69) Priorexpenses $ 17,416,254.60 BudgetAmendmentTotal CityofPanamaCity BudgetDivision
17762 (3).pdf
ANAMA CITY, FLORIDA, that: Section 1. The following amendments to the approved budget of fiscal year 2027 be made: INCREASE DEBT SERVICE FUND REVENUES 225-0000 370.000 – Budgetary Changes in Reserves $17,416,255 DEBT SEREVICE FUND APPROPRIATIONS 225-8800 59131 – Transfer to Marina Fund $17,416,255 MARINA FUND REVENUES 450-0000 381.100 – Interfund Transfers $17,416,255 Project #965.1 MARINA FUND APPROPRIATIONS 450-7600 56500 – Construction in Progress $17,416,255 Project #965.1 Section 2. The Cit
17762.pdf
What does the contract say about the contractor’s fee and the type of pricing?

The contract language describes the contract sum as cost of the work plus the contractor’s fee, and lists the contractor’s fee as 20% of the cost of work.

Supporting passages
on ofsuch portions by the following dates: PortionofWork SUbstantialCompletionDate § 4.3.3Ifthe Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion as provided in this Section 4.3, liquidated damages, if any, shall be assessed as set forth in Section 5.1.6. ARTICLE5 CONTRACTSUM § 5.1 The Owner shall pay the Contractor the Contract Sum in current funds for the Contractor's performance ofthe Contract. The Contract Sum is the Cost ofthe Work as defined in Article 7 plus the Contractor's Fee. § 5.1.1
17762 (1).pdf
The Contractor's Fee: (State a lump sum, percentage ofCost ofthe Work, or otherprovisionfor determining the Contractor ',Fee.) 20% ofthe Cost ofWork § 5.1.2The method ofadjustment ofthe Contractor's Fee for changes in the Work: 20% ofthe Cost of Work § 5.1.3Limitations. ifany. on a Subcontractor's overhead and profit for increases in the cost ofits portion ofthe Work: Subcontractor compensation for Change Order Work shall be limited to the actual. reasonable, and documented direct costs ofthe Wo
17762 (1).pdf
What project deadline date is shown in the contract material for substantial completion?

The contract paperwork lists a substantial completion date of October 1, 2029.

Supporting passages
ct Documents, the Contractor shall achieve Substantial Completion ofthe entire Work: (Check one ofthefollowing boxes and complete the necessaryinformation.) Not later than ) calendar days from the date ofcommencement ofthe Work. X By the following date: October I, 2029 §4.3.2Subject to adjustments ofthe Contract Time as provided in the Contract Documents, ifportions ofthe Work are to be completed prior to Substantial Completion ofthe entire Work, the Contractor shall achieve Substantial Completi
17762 (1).pdf

Item 18 of 22

Police Department repairs would get $35,055 from city auction proceeds under proposed budget amendment

Resolution 20261027.2 would amend the fiscal year 2026–2027 budget by moving $35,055 labeled as prior-year auction proceeds into the Police Department’s repairs and maintenance budget line.

The City Commission is being asked to amend the city budget so $35,055 in auction proceeds can be used for Police Department repairs and maintenance.

Staff says the Police Department recently sold 10 vehicles and equipment items at a public auction (including six Dodge Chargers, a Dodge Durango, a Ford Interceptor, a low-speed vehicle, and a trailer), and the proceeds would be used to pay for repairs and maintenance costs. The attached resolution shows the budget change as an increase to General Fund revenue (a budgetary change in reserves) and a matching increase to the Police Department repairs and maintenance appropriation.

Commissioners are asked to approve Budget Amendment Resolution 20261027.2, transferring $35,055 in auction proceeds into the Police Department repairs and maintenance budget. Staff recommends approval, stating the money comes from the department’s recent auction sales and would be used for repairs and maintenance.

Why this matters

If approved, this budget change would direct $35,055 of prior-year auction proceeds to the Police Department’s repairs and maintenance budget line, which can affect what maintenance work the department can pay for within the current budget. Staff ties the money to proceeds from recently auctioned police vehicles and equipment and proposes using it specifically for repairs and maintenance rather than leaving it in reserves.

Give the City of Panama City your feedback and questions
Official wording and sources

Consideration of approval of Budget Amendment Resolution 20261027.2 to transfer $35,055.00 in auction proceeds for use toward Police Department repairs and maintenance.

Consideration of approval of Budget Amendment Resolution 20261027.2 to transfer $35,055.00
in auction proceeds for use toward Police Department repairs and maintenance.

17757.pdf

17757 (1).pdf

17757 (2).pdf

17757 (3).pdf

17757 (4).pdf

Audio is not available for this explanation yet.

Learn more about this item

What specific budget lines would change if the resolution is approved?

The resolution shows a $35,055 increase to General Fund revenues under “Budgetary Changes in Reserves,” and a $35,055 increase to the Police Department line for “Repairs and Maintenance.”

Supporting passages
F THE CITY OF PANAMA CITY, FLORIDA, that: Section 1. The following amendments to the approved budget of fiscal year 2027 be made: INCREASE GENERAL FUND REVENUES 001.0000.370.000 – Budgetary Changes in Reserves $35,055 GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS 001.2100.54600 – Repairs and Maintenance $35,055 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 impl
17757 (1).pdf
What did staff say was sold at auction to generate the proceeds?

Staff says the Police Department sold 10 vehicles and equipment items at a public auction, including six Dodge Chargers, one Dodge Durango, one Ford Interceptor, one low-speed vehicle, and one trailer.

Supporting passages
ion of approval of Budget Amendment 20261027.2 to transfer $35,055.00 in auction proceeds for use toward Police Department repairs and maintenance. Through public auction, the Panama City Police Department recently sold 10 vehicles and equipment items, including six Dodge Chargers, one Dodge Durango, one Ford Interceptor, one low-speed vehicle, and one trailer. Proceeds from the sale will be used for repairs and maintenance. Staff Recommends Approval Budgeted? Yes:| No: “| How Much budgeted? If
17757.pdf
tion: Through public auction, the Panama City Police Department recently sold 10 vehicles and equipment items, including six Dodge Chargers, one Dodge Durango, one Ford Interceptor, one low-speed vehicle, and one trailer. Proceeds from the sale will be used for repairs and maintenance. Funding source: Auction Proceeds Operating: 35,055 Requestor: Mark Smith Preparer: Mark Smith Date2_af_date: 10/14/26 Date3_af_date: 10/14/26 cost center: 2100 cost center name: Police Department
17757.pdf
Where did staff say the funding source for this budget amendment comes from?

Staff lists the funding source as auction proceeds.

Supporting passages
more, where do you suggest funds come from? Auction Proceeds Cost Center Name: Police Department Cost Center Affected: 2100 ☐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 of approval of Budget Amendment 20261027.2 to transfer $35,055.00 in auction proceeds for use toward Police Department repairs and maintenance. Background informa
17757.pdf
tion: Through public auction, the Panama City Police Department recently sold 10 vehicles and equipment items, including six Dodge Chargers, one Dodge Durango, one Ford Interceptor, one low-speed vehicle, and one trailer. Proceeds from the sale will be used for repairs and maintenance. Funding source: Auction Proceeds Operating: 35,055 Requestor: Mark Smith Preparer: Mark Smith Date2_af_date: 10/14/26 Date3_af_date: 10/14/26 cost center: 2100 cost center name: Police Department
17757.pdf

Item 19 of 22

Kaiser S8 “walking” excavator purchase would add specialized ditch-maintenance equipment for $693,834.87

Public Works staff says the Kaiser S8 could help a four-person crew maintain drainage ditches more often and more safely, with two weeks of vendor training, a 3-year/3,000-hour warranty, and delivery available within about two weeks.

City commissioners are being asked to approve buying a Kaiser S8 “walking/telescopic” excavator for $693,834.87 for Public Works ditch and stormwater maintenance. Public Works staff says the Stormwater Drainage Maintenance Crew (eight people) is responsible for about 56 miles of drainage ditches plus ponds and other stormwater infrastructure, but that most ditch work is currently done with conventional lawn-care equipment and hand tools, limiting ditch maintenance to about once per year.

Staff says the Kaiser S8 would let a four-person team maintain ditches two to three times per year in the first year (and three to four times per year later), while the other four crew members cross-train and help with other city work. Staff also says the machine could be used on about 41.6 miles of the city’s 56 miles of ditches (with a map and ditch list attached), and that it could improve employee safety on steep or uneven terrain because of its articulating legs.

The City Commission is being asked to decide whether to purchase a Kaiser S8 Walking Telescopic Excavator for $693,834.87. Staff’s stated reasons are to increase how often drainage ditches can be maintained (compared to about once per year now), improve productivity, and improve worker safety on difficult terrain.

Why this matters

Ditch and stormwater drainage maintenance can affect how well stormwater moves away from neighborhoods and roadways. Staff says the current eight-person drainage crew has many responsibilities and can only maintain ditches about once per year with mostly conventional tools, and that this equipment purchase could increase ditch-maintenance frequency and shift some staff time to other public works tasks. The purchase is a large capital cost ($693,834.87), and staff also expects added ongoing costs such as an estimated $3,800 per year in insurance.

Give the City of Panama City your feedback and questions
Official wording and sources

Consideration to purchase a Kaiser S8 Walking Telescopic Excavator for a cost of $693,834.87.

Consideration to purchase a Kaiser S8 Walking Telescopic Excavator for a cost of $693,834.87.

17775.pdf

17775 (1).pdf

17775 (2).pdf

17775 (3).pdf

17775 (4).pdf

Audio is not available for this explanation yet.

Learn more about this item

What work does staff say the Stormwater Drainage Maintenance Crew is responsible for today?

Staff says the eight-person crew maintains about 56 miles of drainage ditches and 52 stormwater ponds, plus other stormwater system items like Bay-Savers, sand traps, pump servicing, storm pipe cleaning, and storm inlet structure cleaning.

Supporting passages
ingmoreproductivewhencombinedwith the resources we already have available. It is with this goal in mind that we started looking at ditch maintenance equipment such as the Kaiser S8 Gator walking/telescopic excavator. Background Information: The City’s Stormwater Drainage Maintenance Crew of eight team members, including one working foreman, is responsible for maintaining the following: • ≈56 linear miles of ditches • 52 stormwater ponds RESPECT. INTEGRITY. INNOVATION. COURAGE. EXCELLENCE. Page 1
17775.pdf
of 3 OCR page 1: advanced equipment technology that could assist us in being more productive when combined with e =56 linear miles of ditches e 52 stormwater ponds • ≈39 Bay-Savers • ≈20 sand traps • Servicing pumps at Beck and 19 Street Pond • Tarpon Dock Bridge maintenance (greasing and cleaning the counterbalance weight pit) • Tree maintenance • Overgrown vegetation in City ROW’s (beyond typical mowing) • ≈100 miles of storm pipe (cleaning and non-structural maintenance) • ≈3,940 storm inlet
17775.pdf
structures (cleaning and non-structural maintenance) • All camera inspection of City stormwater infrastructure • Maintenance of Redwood laydown yard • Special projects, i.e. Beach Drive Lift Station #80 demolition • Assisting other City teams as needed Presently, most of the ditch maintenance work is done using fairly conventional lawn-care equipment and hand tools. Due to the list of responsibilities noted above, ditches are only able to be maintained approximately once per year. The purchase
17775.pdf
How would staff expect ditch-maintenance frequency to change if the City buys the Kaiser S8?

Staff says ditches are only maintained about once per year now, and that the Kaiser S8 would allow a four-person team to maintain ditches two to three times per year in the first year and three to four times per year in later years.

Supporting passages
structures (cleaning and non-structural maintenance) • All camera inspection of City stormwater infrastructure • Maintenance of Redwood laydown yard • Special projects, i.e. Beach Drive Lift Station #80 demolition • Assisting other City teams as needed Presently, most of the ditch maintenance work is done using fairly conventional lawn-care equipment and hand tools. Due to the list of responsibilities noted above, ditches are only able to be maintained approximately once per year. The purchase
17775.pdf
of the Kaiser S8 would allow a team of four to maintain ditches two to three times per year in the first year, increasing to three to four times per year in subsequent years as the team becomes more familiar with handling the equipment and the initial backlog of overgrowth is removed. This would allow the other four members of the drainage crew cross train and assist with other City projects including concrete, ROW maintenance, road grading, asphalt placement, utility cut repair, and to attend t
17775.pdf
What does staff say is included in the $693,834.87 purchase price?

Staff says the price is through the Florida Sheriff’s Association purchasing contract and includes attachments (bucket, mower, mulching head, and articulation attachment), plus a 3-year/3,000-hour warranty and delivery availability within about two weeks.

Supporting passages
enance workers showing how to properly use and maintain the equipment. The purchase price of $693,834.87 is part of the Florida Sheriff’s Association purchasing contract and includes the following implements: • 60” excavation bucket attachment • 50” rotary mower attachment • 36” mulching head • Heavy duty articulation attachment for full implement maneuverability Page 2 of 3 Also included in the purchase price is a 3 year, 3,000 hour warranty and the equipment is available for delivery within 2
17775.pdf
What other costs or alternatives does staff mention besides buying the machine outright?

Staff notes leasing and rental options and says it received a rental quote of $17,350 per month with a purchase option at the end of the rental period. Staff also estimates the added annual insurance premium would be about $3,800.

Supporting passages
weeks. Leasing and rental options are available, and Staff can also explore financing options if the City Commission so desires. Staff received a rental rate of $17,350 per month with a purchase option at the end of the rental period. Based on a review of other comparably priced City equipment, we estimate the additional yearly insurance premium will be approximately $3,800.00 to insure the Kaiser S8. Attachments: 1. Equipment images 2. Equipment quote 3. Map of ditches the equipment would be us
17775.pdf

Item 20 of 22

West Beach Drive and Mulberry Avenue road improvements contract proposed at $2.34M

Commission asked to award Bid PC26-038 to Extreme Land Restoration, LLC for work from 6th Street to 4th Street, with staff also recommending a 10% contingency (total $2.58M) funded by CDBG-DR and the Infrastructure Surtax.

The City Commission is being asked to award a construction bid for roadway and underground utility improvements on West Beach Drive (between 6th Street and 4th Street) and on Mulberry Avenue (between 6th Street and West Beach Drive). Staff’s write-up says the project would be funded by Community Development Block Grant–Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) and the city’s Infrastructure Surtax.

Staff report that 10 bids were received and that one was ruled nonresponsive. Staff say Extreme Land Restoration (Search Sunbiz) submitted the lowest responsive bid at $2,344,112.00. The Public Works director recommends approving the award and adding a 10% contingency, bringing the total to $2,578,523.20, and authorizing the City Manager to sign the contract.

The Commission is being asked to approve awarding Bid PC26-038 to Extreme Land Restoration (Search Sunbiz) for $2,344,112.00 for West Beach Drive and Mulberry Avenue road improvements. Staff recommend approval with a 10% contingency (total $2,578,523.20) and authorization for the City Manager to sign the contract, based on staff’s bid opening results and lowest responsive bid.

Why this matters

If approved, this decision would commit city funds (including CDBG-DR disaster-recovery funding and the Infrastructure Surtax) to a major construction project on West Beach Drive and Mulberry Avenue. People who drive, live, or do business along the 6th Street–to–4th Street segment may notice construction activity and scheduling because the contract sets time limits and includes daily liquidated damages for late completion.

Give the City of Panama City your feedback and questions
Official wording and sources

Consideration of approval for award of Bid PC26-038 West Beach Drive Road Improvements to Extreme Land Restoration in the amount of $2,344,112.00.

Consideration of approval for award of Bid PC26-038 West Beach Drive Road Improvements to
Extreme Land Restoration (Search Sunbiz) in the amount of $2,344,112.00.

17761.pdf

17761 (1).pdf

17761 (2).pdf

17761 (3).pdf

Audio is not available for this explanation yet.

Learn more about this item

How many bids did the city receive, and how many were considered responsive?

Staff report 10 bids were received and one was determined to be unresponsive, leaving nine responsive bids.

Supporting passages
ve referenced project. Bids were opened in the presence of bidders' representatives, City Staff and SRF Lead Engineers. We received ten (10) bids for the project, one was determined to be unresponsive. The nine (9) responsive bids are as shown on the detailed certified bid tabulation. Extreme Land Restoration submitted the lowest bid in the amount of $2,344,112.00. Director recommends approval with a 10% contingency for a total project amount of $2,578,523.20 and authorize the City Manager to si
17761.pdf
What is staff recommending as the total project amount after adding contingency?

Staff recommend approval with a 10% contingency for a total project amount of $2,578,523.20.

Supporting passages
ve referenced project. Bids were opened in the presence of bidders' representatives, City Staff and SRF Lead Engineers. We received ten (10) bids for the project, one was determined to be unresponsive. The nine (9) responsive bids are as shown on the detailed certified bid tabulation. Extreme Land Restoration submitted the lowest bid in the amount of $2,344,112.00. Director recommends approval with a 10% contingency for a total project amount of $2,578,523.20 and authorize the City Manager to si
17761.pdf
What work does the draft agreement say is included in the project?

The draft agreement describes replacing about 2,292 linear feet of water line, 2,203 linear feet of sewer line, and 2,528 linear feet of stormwater lines along the project streets.

Supporting passages
ows: This project involves replacement of approximately 2,292 linear feet of water line, 2,203 linear feet of sewer line, and 2,528 linear feet of stormwater lines. This project is located in Downtown Panama City and involves work along W Beach Drive from 6th Street to 4th Street and Mulberry Avenue from 6th Street to W Beach Drive. ARTICLE 2—THE PROJECT 2.01 The Project, of which the Work under the Contract Documents is a part, is generally described as follows: West Beach Drive And Mulberry Av
17761 (3).pdf
How long does the draft contract give for substantial completion and final completion?

The agreement states substantial completion within 270 days and completion ready for final payment within 300 days after contract time begins.

Supporting passages
readiness for final payment as stated in the Contract Documents are of the essence of the Contract. 4.02 ContractTimes:Days A. The Work will be substantially complete within 270 days after the date when the Contract Times commence to run as provided in Paragraph 4.01 of the General Conditions, and completed and ready for final payment in accordance with Paragraph 15.06 of the General Conditions within 300 days after the date when the Contract Times commence to run. 4.03 Milestones A. Parts of t
17761 (3).pdf

Item 21 of 22

Area P-11 water and sewer work would go to Mainline Construction for $6.17 million

The contract would use an “alternate schedule” that lines most sewer pipes instead of replacing them, for work from E Beach Drive to N Bonita Avenue and from Cherry Street to E 2nd Street.

The City Commission is being asked to award Bid PC26-046 (Area P-11 Improvements) to Mainline Construction (Search Sunbiz) for $6,173,449.43 to do water and sewer work using the project’s “Alternate Schedule Water and Sewer.” Staff says this alternate schedule would line most of the sewer pipes instead of replacing them, and that Mainline was the lowest responsive bid received.

Staff says the work area is from E Beach Drive to N Bonita Avenue and from Cherry Street to E 2nd Street. Staff also says the project is planned to be funded by SRF (as stated in the staff report) through March 2027 (or any extension), and if that funding is not enough the remainder would come from the Infrastructure Surtax. Staff notes the bid came in below the engineer’s design estimate of $9.3 million and recommends approval, along with allowing the City Manager to approve change orders up to 5% of the contract amount.

Commissioners are being asked to approve awarding Bid PC26-046 Area P-11 to Mainline Construction (Search Sunbiz) for $6,173,449.43 under the Alternate Schedule Water and Sewer, and to authorize the City Manager to execute change orders up to a cumulative $308,672.47 (5%), for a total project amount of $6,482,121.90. Staff recommends approval because Mainline submitted the lowest bid for the selected alternate schedule and staff says the bid is under the engineer’s $9.3 million design estimate.

Why this matters

If approved, this would commit the city to a $6.17 million construction contract (plus up to 5% in preauthorized change orders) for water and sewer improvements in the Area P-11 neighborhood streets listed in the staff report. Staff says the chosen approach would line most sewer pipes instead of replacing them, which could affect how the work is done and how long disruptions last. Staff also says the project is planned to use SRF funding through March 2027, with Infrastructure Surtax as a back-up funding source if needed.

Give the City of Panama City your feedback and questions
Official wording and sources

Consideration of approval for award of Bid PC26-046 Area P-11 to Mainline Construction in the amount of $6,173,449.43 for the Alternate Schedule Water and Sewer.

Consideration of approval for award of Bid PC26-046 Area P-11 to Mainline Construction (Search Sunbiz) in the
amount of $6,173,449.43 for the Alternate Schedule Water and Sewer.

17773.pdf

17773 (1).pdf

17773 (2).pdf

Audio is not available for this explanation yet.

Learn more about this item

What does the “Alternate Schedule Water and Sewer” mean for the sewer work?

Staff says the alternate schedule would allow lining most of the sewer pipes instead of replacing them.

Supporting passages
Panama City and opened for the above referenced project. Bids were opened in the presence of bidders' representatives, City Staff and SRF Lead Engineers. We received ten (10) bids for the project, one was determined to be unresponsive. All bids are as shown on the detailed certified bid tabulation. Mainline Construction submitted the lowest bid for the Alternate Schedule Water and Sewer in the amount of $6,173,449.43. The Alternate Schedule Water and Sewer allows for lining of most of the sewer
17773.pdf
How many bids were received, and why is Mainline being recommended?

Staff reports ten bids were received and one was ruled unresponsive; staff says Mainline submitted the lowest bid for the Alternate Schedule Water and Sewer at $6,173,449.43.

Supporting passages
Panama City and opened for the above referenced project. Bids were opened in the presence of bidders' representatives, City Staff and SRF Lead Engineers. We received ten (10) bids for the project, one was determined to be unresponsive. All bids are as shown on the detailed certified bid tabulation. Mainline Construction submitted the lowest bid for the Alternate Schedule Water and Sewer in the amount of $6,173,449.43. The Alternate Schedule Water and Sewer allows for lining of most of the sewer
17773.pdf
the presence of bidders' representatives, City Staff and SRF Lead Engineers. We received ten (10) bids for the project, one was determined to be unresponsive. All bids are as shown on the detailed certified bid tabulation. Mainline Construction submitted the lowest bid for the Alternate Schedule Water and Sewer in the amount of $6,173,449.43. The Alternate Schedule Water and Sewer allows for lining of most of the sewer pipes in lieu of replacement. This project came in under the Engineers Design
17773.pdf
What is the maximum total amount if the Commission also preauthorizes change orders?

Staff requests authority for change orders up to $308,672.47 (5% of the contract amount), for a total project amount of $6,482,121.90.

Supporting passages
pipes in lieu of replacement. This project came in under the Engineers Design Cost estimate of $9.3 Million. Director recommends approval. We also request to authorize the City Manager to execute any Change Orders up to a cumulative amount of $308,672.47 (5% of contract amount) resulting in a total project amount of $6,482,121.90. Budgeted? Yes:| w |No: How Much budgeted? If more, where do you suggest funds come from? Surtax funds Cost Center Name: SRF P-11 Cost Center Affected: 6531 ☐Personnel
17773.pdf
e also request to preauthorize the City Manager, Jonathan Hayes, to execute any Change Orders up to a cumulative amount of $308,672.47 (5% of contract amount) resulting in a total project amount of $6,482,121.90. Any Change Order value which exceeds this amount would be brought back to the Commission for approval. If you have any further comments, concerns, or questions feel free to contact me and I will make every effort to address the comments. Respectfully, Mott MacDonald Cale Madden, P.E. Pr
17773 (2).pdf
What funding sources are described for this project?

Staff says the project will be funded by SRF until March 2027 (or an extension date), and if needed the remainder would be funded with Infrastructure Surtax.

Supporting passages
ion of Approval for award of Bid PC26-046 Area P-11 to Mainline Construction in the amount of $6,173,449.43 for the Alternate Schedule Water and Sewer. The P-11 project is located from E Beach Drive to N Bonita Avenue and from Cherry Street to E 2nd Street. This project will be funded by SRF until March 2027 (or until the end of any funding extension date). If needed, the remainder of the project will be funded with Infrastructure Surtax. On October 14, 2026, sealed bids were received at City of
17773.pdf
49.43 for the Alternate Schedule Water and Sewer. Background information: The P-11 project is located from E Beach Drive to N Bonita Avenue and from Cherry Street to E 2nd Street. This project will be funded by SRF until March 2027 (or until the end of any funding extension date). If needed, the remainder of the project will be funded with Infrastructure Surtax. On October 14, 2026, sealed bids were received at City of Panama City and opened for the above referenced project. Bids were opened in
17773.pdf

Item 22 of 22

Hannah Avenue right-of-way agreement would let Panama City Port Authority install and maintain improvements

The proposed Right-of-Way Use Agreement would require the Port Authority to maintain the improvements (including a gate shown in the exhibits) and to indemnify the city for claims tied to its use of the right-of-way.

Approve an agreement that would let the Panama City Port Authority (Search Sunbiz) use the city-owned Hannah Avenue public right-of-way for specific improvements. Staff says that, if the agreement is approved, the property owner (the Port Authority) would be responsible for maintaining those improvements and would have to protect the city from claims or damages connected to the Port Authority’s use of the right-of-way.

The attached draft agreement describes an improvement as a gate and lays out when the city could end the agreement (for example, if the improvements are not maintained to city standards or if the city later needs the right-of-way for a competing public purpose). Staff recommends approval.

The City Commission is being asked to approve a Right-of-Way Use Agreement allowing the Panama City Port Authority (Search Sunbiz) to place and maintain improvements in the Hannah Avenue right-of-way. Staff recommends approval, stating the agreement would shift maintenance responsibility to the property owner and require the Port Authority to indemnify the city for claims related to the right-of-way use.

Why this matters

This decision would set the rules for how a public right-of-way on Hannah Avenue can be used by the Panama City Port Authority, including what improvements can be placed there and who must maintain them. The draft agreement also affects the city’s risk exposure by requiring the Port Authority to indemnify the city for claims tied to the Port’s use of the right-of-way, and it describes when the city could terminate the arrangement if it needs the right-of-way for another public purpose.

Give the City of Panama City your feedback and questions
Official wording and sources

Consideration and approval of a Right-of-Way Use Agreement with the Panama City Port Authority for the Hannah Avenue Right-of-Way

Consideration and approval of a Right-of-Way Use Agreement with the Panama City Port
Authority for the Hannah Avenue Right-of-Way

17760.pdf

17760 (1).pdf

Audio is not available for this explanation yet.

Learn more about this item

What responsibilities would the Port Authority take on if the agreement is approved?

Staff says the agreement would require the property owner to maintain the improvements and indemnify the city from claims, liability, or damages arising out of the permittee’s use of the right-of-way.

Supporting passages
ion and approval of a Right-of-Way Use Agreement with the Panama City Port Authority for the Hannah Avenue Right-of-Way. The Panama City Port Authority (PCPA) is requesting to enter into a Right-of-Way Use Agreement (“Agreement”) with the City for the use of the Hannah Avenue Right-of-Way (“ROW”). If approved, the Agreement would require the property owner to maintain the improvements and indemnify the City from any claims, liability, and/or damages arising out of the Permittee’s use of the ROW.
17760.pdf
How long would the right-of-way agreement last, based on the attached draft agreement?

The draft agreement states an initial term of 39 years with an automatic extension for one successive 99-year term, unless terminated under the agreement’s terms.

Supporting passages
be thirty-nine (39) years and shall automatically extend for one (1) successive twenty (99) year term, concurrent with the pre-existing Port property lease, unless otherwise terminated according to the terms herein. 2) The Port may terminate this Agreement atany time provided they give the City notice and then removes the Improvements that are in the R-O-W and restores the ROW toits original condition. 3) The City may terminate this Agreement at any time if (i) it reasonably determines that the
17760 (1).pdf
What specific improvement is named in the draft agreement exhibits?

The draft agreement says the improvements include a gate, as shown on an attached exhibit.

Supporting passages
mprovements include a gate across the Property as delineated on Exhibit "B" and attached hereto (the "Improvements"); WHEREAS, theCity findsthatthe public would not beharmed byallowing the Port to use all of the ROW for the Improvements. NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the sum of ten ($10.00) dollars, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City and the Port mutually agree to enter into this Right­ of- Way Use Agreement (the "Agreement") asfollows: 1) The term of this Agreement shall
17760 (1).pdf
When could the city terminate the agreement, according to staff and the draft agreement?

Staff says the city could terminate if the improvements are not maintained or if there is a competing public use for the right-of-way; the draft agreement similarly allows termination if the city determines the improvements are not constructed and maintained to city standards or the city has a competing public use.

Supporting passages
The term of the Agreement is in perpetuity and can be terminated by the City if the improvements are not maintained or there is a competing public use for the ROW. The following documents are enclosed: - Proposed Right-of-Way Use Agreement - Description of the property subject to the Agreement — Drawing of the proposed improvements. Director Recommends Approval. Budgeted? Yes:|__|No: How Much budgeted? ☐Personnel $ ☐Operating $ ☐Capital $ ☐Revenue $ Requested By: Date: Prepared By: Date: Review
17760.pdf
Improvements havenotbeenconstructed andmaintained inaccordance withcity standards or (ii) it determines that the City has a competing public use for the ROW; provided, however,beforetheCityterminatesthisAgreement,theCityshallprovidetothePort notice of the meeting in which the City shall make a final decision as to the termination of the Agreement and invite the Port to appear. Upon termination, the Port shall remove the Improvements within thirty (30) days and restore the ROW to its original con
17760 (1).pdf

AI-assisted explanations reviewed by PorchPing. Follow the official sources for complete details. Public version reviewed October 20, 2026. PorchPing is independent of local government.