Panama City commissioners and staff met in a virtual workshop to discuss a standardized approach for handling unsolicited offers and requests for proposals (RFPs) for city‑owned property, focusing on balancing fair public process with tools to advance affordable housing.

Commissioner Hughes led the conversation, calling for a consistent framework so the city treats unsolicited offers like sealed bids: "The city property is the city property," he said, arguing that unsolicited proposals should be handled in a way that gives all citizens a fair chance without revealing offer numbers up front. Hughes proposed limiting due‑diligence windows to avoid lengthy holds and using standard Florida Bar contracts for residential, commercial and vacant‑land transactions.

Why it matters: Commissioners said an explicit front‑end process would reduce staff workload, limit the appearance of favoritism, and make it easier for local builders and nonprofits to participate. Commissioners stressed different treatment for residential infill lots and larger commercial parcels: several elected officials said residential lots are easier to standardize, while commercial sites may require environmental review, entitlements and tailored p3 (public‑private partnership) strategies.

Purchasing, CRA and housing staff outlined how a process could work. Sean Self, the purchasing/logistics director, described the existing sealed RFP workflow — public posting, sealed submissions (commonly 30 days), then a public opening — and said RFPs can be customized to list allowable uses and contract terms. Self also warned of a trend of extremely low opening offers in recent submissions: "We're getting very, very low bids in the hopes that the commission will approve that," he said, and reported the city currently has "15" unsolicited offers on file.

Housing staff cautioned that parcels purchased with housing program funds have additional constraints. Sheila in the housing department said if the city provides a lot as acquisition assistance, the program must secure it with a lien until the end buyer is income‑qualified. She described two paths: builders who pay the city back for lots return funds to housing, or the lot can serve as in‑kind down‑payment assistance — with program rules and income certification attached.

Points of agreement and difference: Commissioners generally supported a sealed/blind bid approach for unsolicited offers and a single online portal for submissions, while emphasizing the need to retain flexibility to shape neighborhood outcomes. Commissioner Granger urged keeping some parcels in public ownership to leverage development via p3s rather than quick sales; Commissioner Street argued for explicit affordability incentives such as free or deeply discounted lots for builders who commit to low‑income housing and shorter build‑out timelines for residential projects.

Next steps: Commissioners directed staff to centralize unsolicited offers in the purchasing division while the commission develops formal policy language. Purchasing staff offered to provide a breakdown of the 15 open unsolicited offers and said they will draft RFP language that can include allowable uses, timelines, and sealing/confidentiality protections. The commission expects follow‑up one‑on‑one meetings with staff and return of a formal policy (likely incorporated in the purchasing manual rather than an ordinance) for further deliberation.

Closing: The workshop ended with the commission agreeing to continue refining the approach, with staff to return with implementation details and a recommended policy framework.