[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6109496,"mediaKeyId","2761232-3bd86db22f330436251b7458edf5946e","parentId",2761232,"title","Commissioners agree to place discussion of alcohol at private events on city property on an upcoming agenda","audioSeconds",230,"startMs",2204000,"endMs",2434000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2761232-3bd86db22f330436251b7458edf5946e&start=2204&end=2434","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2761232-3bd86db22f330436251b7458edf5946e/thumbnail_2204000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6109496/Lynn-Haven/Bay-County/Florida/Commissioners-agree-to-place-discussion-of-alcohol-at-private-events-on-city-property-on-an-upcoming-agenda","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6109496-4b857325ad1b9e3136940bd13d6fe041/orig.mp4?Expires=1775872174&Signature=WoivLssquVSbHc8y7A~5nKYpmoIjFYTXGsRDQPNqYkSxVxfFCmAagl1w~gFEwo0UTgBErrFp7hPZEuOX3Hlyps0pliHQdIcHVvY3LcOtBJ2KUDnAW6CAdtUJcSYn40Z9BHvHG~ASbicIxEBl-aPotYZJbKV1O~y~UXY-4AdEgJKzxnCqq4z4UgmJWs1IA4Pxqe8F1DYiSKVoFSAldI4Zar~NkYuaaLG56KKsBQ4nfuSPbJNPpXNdF84Lkp9oxAulTuYlYy-ovpOw2w-dtm5nH5AIlosD2sKraqQc4p02-j7fbNhmGVD8lTM4eoDjjFpmIl~hUH5qWNFbFzPj-KhaqA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Lynn Haven, FL","date","2025-03-21T13:54:32Z","article","Commissioners agreed to place an item on a future agenda to seek public input about allowing alcohol at private rentals on city property, such as weddings at the Garden Club.

The discussion is significant because it would change what guests at private events on city property are allowed to serve and how the city protects itself from liability.

Commissioners said feedback from citizens has been mixed: some older residents contacted by one commissioner opposed allowing alcohol at private events while younger residents were reported to be more favorable. Commissioners emphasized that any policy change should clearly distinguish between city‑sponsored events and private rentals and should require private renters to provide additional insured coverage naming the city. The commission discussed checking dram‑shop insurance requirements and ensuring the city is not listed as insurer for private events.

Staff and the city manager noted that business entities that already carry appropriate insurance can add the city as an additional insured and that standard event insurance provisions can be required in rental agreements. Commissioners agreed to add the topic to a regular meeting agenda to solicit broader public input; no policy decision was made at the pre‑commission meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","3/25/2025 City of Lynn Haven Commission Pre-Meeting Workshop","oneSentenceSummary","Commissioners agreed to place an item on the agenda to gather public input on allowing alcohol at private rentals on city property; discussion emphasized liability protections, insurance requirements and clear labeling of private events as not city‑sponsored.","taxTitle","Lynn Haven, Bay County, Florida","taxId",52331,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6109500,"Commissioners review nuisance‑abatement lien process for property at 1106 Avenue",48,844000,892000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2761232-3bd86db22f330436251b7458edf5946e&start=844&end=892","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2761232-3bd86db22f330436251b7458edf5946e/thumbnail_844000.jpg","/articles/6109500/Lynn-Haven/Bay-County/Florida/Commissioners-review-nuisanceabatement-lien-process-for-property-at-1106-Avenue","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6109500-3bbc080a2cfbe588125fa327ddb016cf/orig.mp4?Expires=1775872174&Signature=MKE27wn6Em5UpGqYDEkcWF4B6PVC3j7CQqecM5XiSjE~LZx2tS-Z83D~i2DqexGhDCejIru0tFwb07yp7wKif6-v2rIiE4IAqYn7wCJw7HlT-Qjo-kOt9OY00fJgfkuCWzhlTa3xELb5Rmmw24K2LBCJdL6yHKhX0e718VYVxSALOUkJx52ertexgvxNWDAPTi7fo8Q4ZTLnMTWn9jbi5CS3b~a7IjrKpTx9cFjZzcnhZch7uSmq3AloVsf8uDMObpYyp9PouIAq4lYBxLOI0f5l~d8VubS5tZROKSMuUDNjvy0-3~DalT3kfBmYtAZ8t3mLvGDj-ym-RWWr6voy9g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City attorney Cole briefed commissioners on the nuisance‑abatement process related to a property at 1106 Avenue, explaining how the city recovers cleanup costs through an assessment and lien if a property owner does not pay.

The briefing matters because it explains the legal and financial steps the city uses to recover costs for abating nuisances on private property.

Cole described the typical procedure: the city contracts for cleanup, records the costs as an assessment, the commission approves recording a lien in the official records, and the lien can be placed on the tax roll if unpaid. He said property owners receive time to remedy the condition before the city proceeds with abatement. Commissioners asked clarifying questions about the nature of the nuisance, and staff said nuisances can include debris, trash, yard mess and similar property conditions.

At the pre‑commission meeting no specific dollar amount for the 1106 Avenue cleanup was read into the record during the discussion; staff indicated the commission will approve the assessment and lien amount at a later point consistent with city procedures.","City attorney described the nuisance‑abatement process and the commission’s role in approving assessments and recording liens; specific dollar amounts for the 1106 Avenue cleanup were not specified at the pre‑commission discussion.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6109505,"City staff recommend awarding beautification Phase 2 contract under DOT‑reimbursable grant",56,911000,967000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2761232-3bd86db22f330436251b7458edf5946e&start=911&end=967","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2761232-3bd86db22f330436251b7458edf5946e/thumbnail_911000.jpg","/articles/6109505/Lynn-Haven/Bay-County/Florida/City-staff-recommend-awarding-beautification-Phase-2-contract-under-DOTreimbursable-grant","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6109505-12add414c95e3032a8b81d93aa603761/orig.mp4?Expires=1775872174&Signature=hKCvtkVY0CfFZWz1MOF4KDP30LUWMiUgWum8JBNZO5k2eszcp7Ch7D9Fw6hm3lMCo5CgXG7Uckuj1FgusoTUtzmCa8xRsP0W9pUhUvDawQcgJNkPgJ8bI~bZxN0GGQ5SXFRT7Rm9kn2zqhG8EVebV~qF~u8D2o9IDn-TuuDGA2zUwTcat22A39tlAU~bMTaqsWEzC5QHXjhx9msUxZ3Vx4Dzjw3anAl9NBc7kQiTVz3B2rEVO3~8RWYMUa1LNAYKZC1NhnNDe2Nyzi~~XOgzifD~wd1Rxe42BzLFLUsri20gVu9Gm6UlNoT9TsJOJqVkVkrYI6vfIiV57zFeEmFppw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff told commissioners that bids have been received for the Beautification Phase 2 project funded by a DOT‑reimbursable grant and recommended awarding the work to the lowest responsive bidder.

The grant matter is significant because it uses state reimbursement to fund landscaping and streetscape improvements at multiple city entrances and intersections.

Staff reported two bids: the low bid was $119,800 and the second bid was $194,000. The DOT grant award for the project is $151,000; staff noted the low bid is below the grant amount. The project scope described in the packet includes additional landscaping at the city entranceways, Moseley Drive, Moet Road and at the intersections of 20th Avenue and 4th and 6th Streets to create consistent planting and color schemes.

Commissioners asked about the grant coverage and staff confirmed that the grant will not cover the full $151,000 for all eligible items and that the low bid came in under the grant amount. No formal award vote was recorded during the pre‑commission discussion; the item was presented for possible approval on the regular agenda.

Staff said the contract will be reimbursable by DOT according to grant terms and that the city will follow its competitive bidding and procurement rules when finalizing the award.","City staff reported two bids for the Phase 2 beautification project; the low bid ($119,800) is under the DOT‑reimbursable grant amount ($151,000). The work would add landscaping at several entrances and intersections; staff recommended awarding the contract to the low bidder.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6109510,"Lynn Haven reviews policy on board appointments, considers updates including advertising and liaisons",1069,987000,2056000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2761232-3bd86db22f330436251b7458edf5946e&start=987&end=2056","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2761232-3bd86db22f330436251b7458edf5946e/thumbnail_987000.jpg","/articles/6109510/Lynn-Haven/Bay-County/Florida/Lynn-Haven-reviews-policy-on-board-appointments-considers-updates-including-advertising-and-liaisons","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6109510-ee2e1a8953cb5aa153a358bd61b48838/orig.mp4?Expires=1775872175&Signature=o-qcpCGbXSOgrJ513fsVT4PwMldjxSdnZ5tkQ8mOYVSElrbMy4gl1WnaAhDMbj6jgGmxAjM1r5KzHjinCAXS3tAHWvjPIVquoiQ3AHTXNtZD0w4s2wG9bdfzhd0V~IV6ldxyH7camZFNyRTiaPaRuonkc~QM24ohN0-RdO1gEzxRwBeNzYxd6pIZIa9EgSytA5jJ1qhzrxeXZJ7xrhVOmnifQPMKPZnGuR8Q1knq0aBwsj~FE10FZuThZIiPgokLeV0xWN9d0AqGKI5UQq3Ml8b2ZLFJYcMDsKW3wYHawklourvCmobpU-zX8YltJ4kGLoa5c1QvSifyf5GCb3O2mw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Lynn Haven commissioners discussed Policy 96, the city policy that governs how board and committee appointments are handled, and considered several updates including a mandatory advertisement period, seat assignments tied to commissioner seats, and the role of liaisons.

The review matters because the policy governs how citizens are nominated and appointed to boards such as the planning commission, board of adjustments and other advisory or decision‑making bodies.

City attorney Cole summarized the existing policy and said it appears to predate most current commissioners and likely needs updating. Commissioners raised changes they want to consider: a required advertisement period (staff described a typical two‑week, 14‑day posting used elsewhere, with an option for the commission to waive it for reappointments); explicit seat assignments that tie seats on certain boards to specific commissioners; clearer definitions distinguishing advisory committees from chartered boards; and a formal list of boards in the policy with cross‑references to the city charter where boards are established.

Commissioners also debated whether to dissolve the Board of Adjustments or consolidate its variance decision‑making with the planning board. Several commissioners noted the Board of Adjustments meets rarely — sometimes only once or twice a year — and questioned whether its functions could be combined with the planning board to reduce administrative cost and simplify public noticing. Others said keeping a separate Board of Adjustments preserves an additional decision‑making role for citizens and provides an appeal path to the commission.

The commission discussed liaison roles. Cole described two common approaches: appointing a commissioner as a voting member of an ad hoc or advisory committee, or appointing a commissioner as an ex‑officio, nonvoting liaison. Commissioners expressed a preference for nonvoting liaison attendance for many boards to avoid undue influence while preserving lines of communication.

Staff reported current vacancies for the Board of Adjustments and that advertisements are open through the end of the month; several applicants have applied. Commissioners requested staff include all applicants in the appointment packet when the vacancy window closes and suggested that contested appointments (multiple applicants) be moved to the regular agenda rather than being handled on the consent agenda so the commission can vote publicly. One commissioner recommended a ballot method for contested appointments — commissioners record their preferred candidate and the city manager reads votes aloud — to make choices transparent.

No policy changes were adopted at the pre‑commission meeting. Commissioners asked staff and the city attorney to draft revisions incorporating the advertising period, clearer seat‑assignment language, definitions of boards versus committees, and guidance on liaisons for future consideration.","Commissioners reviewed ‘Policy 96’ governing board appointments, debated whether the Board of Adjustments should remain separate, and discussed adding a standard advertising period and clearer seat assignments; no policy changes were adopted at the pre‑commission meeting.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6109515,"Lynn Haven commissioners discuss Avery Shores development order, utilities and access concerns",772,69000,841000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2761232-3bd86db22f330436251b7458edf5946e&start=69&end=841","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2761232-3bd86db22f330436251b7458edf5946e/thumbnail_69000.jpg","/articles/6109515/Lynn-Haven/Bay-County/Florida/Lynn-Haven-commissioners-discuss-Avery-Shores-development-order-utilities-and-access-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6109515-a9e88f9d5f13291a480f16fd22385788/orig.mp4?Expires=1775872175&Signature=bPdi0aAu8aMKD0zlR-y5OFvE~6EC3Z0zxeOLWRhPxR90OfS1B8~4Q7fw3PF0nrMnvqqQoBsLlXFAqSiPH60998okS1g9NMOBvJxZja1v3PZ4s2ZPxmb8qbB4WvfQwys1~uFomSQV0ziz0Mlq0BLSJE~iyZcUgp5hDJ0R8MrRn0ZhGgF9QCQbgCZN6rPSEd~4dlgOrENAcDb7Y5H~nN3ov6LibEhlPb1-gy2Sxk1t0B8jx~YN2FLM8JSj1pE-OlrFhwJL2wcfeKOTQJuPsm044L4wJFQ9Z-IJwB5n1fjP~vTJz2JI6UnkfHUEHrD-4JbeQi9nkrH7OxU0YkAHWy0BEg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Lynn Haven commissioners reviewed a development order request from Miller Enterprises Inc. for the Avery Shores townhome project during a pre‑commission meeting, focusing on sewer capacity, emergency access and site constraints.

The discussion matters because the development ties into existing utility infrastructure on the city’s east side and because residents and the planning commission previously raised traffic, elevation and access concerns.

City staff said the lift station to which the project would connect (the Cashelmarra lift station) has adequate capacity for the new units, but a downstream station — Lift Station 47 at the foot of the bridge — requires upgrades for the broader service area on the east side. City attorney Cole characterized those upgrades as part of the city’s master plan and said they are not currently the developer’s responsibility. Planning staff noted the planning commission previously voted the application down 5‑2 at their meeting after residents raised concerns about traffic and the low elevation of the site.

Commissioners discussed an easement dispute that had affected a proposed emergency access point: the developer had purchased a strip of land from a Kashamara property owner to create an emergency exit for service vehicles, but the homeowners association challenged that sale. Planning staff said the parcel was returned and the proposed connection is no longer part of the project.

City staff described the proposed project as 19 duplexes (38 units). They said the units will be elevated to meet floodplain management requirements and that the ground‑level areas under the units will be limited to parking and breakaway walls rather than living space. The city confirmed the road the project would use is a county road; the county initially issued a permit, rescinded it after public objection, and — according to materials in the commission packet — intends to reissue the permit and may require roadway improvements.

Public safety infrastructure was a focal point. Water modeling showed available fire‑flow below the 1,000 gallons‑per‑minute benchmark some jurisdictions use for unprotected buildings; to address that, the commission was told the project will include a dedicated fire service connection stub for each unit and that the buildings will be sprinklered. Staff said developers will provide the service stubs at the building permit stage.

Environmental concerns were raised by commissioners: one asked about bald eagles on the site. Staff said an environmental assessment generally is required for a comprehensive plan amendment or other larger land‑use change; because the parcel already carries a high‑density land‑use designation, the application before the commission was limited to the townhomes applied for and does not currently trigger an additional large‑scale environmental review.

Commissioners also discussed the ethics and disclosure rules that govern contacts with advisory board members after those boards vote. The city attorney explained that commissioners may speak with planning commission members after a vote but must disclose any communications that could be prejudicial (a Jennings disclosure) before taking a quasi‑judicial vote if a hearing is held.

The commission did not take a final vote on the development order during the pre‑commission discussion. Staff indicated the item was expected to return on the regular meeting agenda with further materials, including engineering details and any required disclosures.

Additional details from the meeting: the planning commission had drawn public opposition at its hearing; the developer removed the contested emergency access parcel; and the city flagged Lift Station 47 for future upgrades as part of its master plan rather than as a developer condition.

The commission invited the planning commission to send a representative to the upcoming hearing so commissioners could ask about the earlier 5‑2 recommendation and better understand the planning commission’s objections.","Commissioners reviewed a development order request from Miller Enterprises for Avery Shores, covering sewer capacity, emergency access, planning commission opposition, 38 units and fire-protection requirements; no final vote was taken at the pre‑commission meeting.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commissioners agree to place discussion of alcohol at private events on city property on an upcoming agenda

Commissioners review nuisance‑abatement lien process for property at 1106 Avenue

City staff recommend awarding beautification Phase 2 contract under DOT‑reimbursable grant

Lynn Haven reviews policy on board appointments, considers updates including advertising and liaisons

Lynn Haven commissioners discuss Avery Shores development order, utilities and access concerns