Panama City officials, builders and nonprofits discuss quick RFPs, lot subdivision and zoning tweaks to deliver starter homes

At a public round table, Panama City elected officials, local builders and nonprofit housing providers discussed concrete steps to convert city-owned land into affordable starter homes and rentals.

Commissioners and staff emphasized turning identified parcels into housing quickly. City staff and presenters said more than 50 public parcels appear available; commissioners proposed a tiered approach that starts with a short list of 10–15 parcels for an initial RFP rather than trying to design one large exhaustive solicitation. "If we put out the RFP, we need to put out a list of all the properties that we're willing to work with," a commissioner said, urging the city to label parcels individually so different proposers can pursue different lots.

Builders at the table described methods for lowering delivered prices: acquiring lots at low cost, building smaller square footage, and using smaller lot footprints or townhouses to reduce per-unit cost. Builder James Golden said he could build houses under $200,000 if the city provided the land. Several builders and Habitat for Humanity representatives described past projects that sold for under $200,000 when land or other subsidies reduced total cost.

Participants also identified program design problems to fix: contract transparency for developer batches, limiting complexity that deters smaller local builders from responding, and ensuring vetting to prevent speculative resale or conversion to short-term rentals. The city discussed changing minimum lot-size and setback rules to allow additional infill lots, and staff and commissioners discussed setting clear restrictions (two-bedroom, two-bath, resale constraints, and non-sale to investors) for certain parcels.

On next steps the group asked staff to identify and label initial parcels eligible for the first RFP round, suggested engaging Florida Housing Coalition to help design an accessible RFP, and recommended short timelines (30–90 days) for a first tranche of actions. No formal vote was taken; the conversation concluded with agreement to follow up on parcel lists and RFP design.