CRA board directs 30‑day outreach and updated cost estimate for Panama City Grammar School stabilization

The Panama City CRA board voted 4-1 to direct staff to get updated mitigation cost estimates and to re-engage the property owner of the Panama City Grammar School, with a report back at the board's November meeting. The action stops short of committing CRA dollars for stabilization but opens a 30-day outreach to evaluate whether owner participation and CRA incentives can produce a viable preservation plan.

Board members said the century-old Grammar School poses public-safety and blight risks after years of noncompliance with magistrate orders. “This is not the CRA nor taxpayer dollars going to invest into a property; this is part of our code enforcement process,” a board member said during deliberations. Tax collector Chuck Purdue earlier in the meeting outlined how unpaid liens and tax certificate processes can leave local governments exposed; that discussion framed concerns about long-term fiscal risk.

The motion, which passed 4–1, directed staff to obtain updated cost estimates for required stabilization and mitigation work listed in code enforcement files and to present available CRA grant, loan or TIF-based incentives to the property owner. The board’s intent is to give the owner an opportunity to accept incentives such as façade or roof programs, low-interest gap financing or a TIF rebate before the CRA considers directly funding mitigation via code-enforcement abatement. The board emphasized it is not pledging funds today; several members said any CRA financial participation would be contingent on a feasible cost estimate and owner willingness to participate.

Public commenters urged preservation of the historic school and raised concerns about prior communication gaps between the owner and city staff. Board members noted the property is already subject to deed restrictions established by the prior owner and that private interest has reemerged: staff reported inquiries from local developers and attorneys about the building. The board also requested staff coordinate with code enforcement and indicated the city could pursue nuisance-abatement steps that could later be recovered through a lien, consistent with the code enforcement and tax processes discussed earlier.

Roll call on the motion: Street, Lucas, Granger and Chairman Branch voted yes; Hughes voted no. The board will reconvene the issue at its November meeting with updated cost estimates and a summary of owner responses and incentive options. No CRA funds were authorized in this action.

The vote preserves options: staff and code enforcement can proceed with abatement activities recoverable through nuisance assessments if owner cooperation does not materialize; alternatively, a negotiated stabilization plan, potentially combining private investment and CRA incentives, could follow.