Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CRA tables sale of 551 E. Sixth St. after questions on restrictions, development timeline
Summary
Staff recommended sale of 551 East Sixth Street to adjacent owner for $42,500 with restrictions and a development timeline; after extensive discussion about required uses, minimum building size and process, the board withdrew its motion and voted to table the matter to Oct. 7 to allow staff and buyer to negotiate non‑blank contract terms.
The Panama City CRA board considered a proposed sale Sept. 2 of CRA‑owned property at 551 East Sixth Street in the Downtown North district. Staff reported the property—an 18,034‑square‑foot vacant parcel acquired by donation in 2015—received one proposal in response to a prior RFP from an adjacent property owner (BNS Liquors) for $42,500.
Staff’s recommended purchase agreement included development restrictions, a requirement that the purchaser obtain a development order within two years and commence construction before the order expires. Attorney Didi Rowan, representing the prospective buyer, asked the board not to impose a minimum building‑size requirement, saying the buyer preferred market flexibility: "part of my client's request is that you not dictate a minimum, simply because that will be dictated by market conditions at that time," she told the board.
Board members debated alternative approaches: sell at market with minimal restrictions; sell below appraised value in exchange for defined public‑benefit uses and build‑out timelines; or set a clear RFP with required uses up front. Concerns included neighborhood fit and avoiding undesirable uses or simple temporary uses (for example, a small shed or parking lot).
After discussion the initial motion was withdrawn and the board voted to table the item to the CRA meeting on Oct. 7, 2025, to allow staff, the buyer and the city attorney to negotiate language (including the square‑foot minimum and development timeline) and return with a non‑blank contract for the board’s consideration.
The board asked staff to provide clear contract language and to show how any discounted sale would deliver a measurable public benefit so the disposition decision can be defended in public and in audit.
