City says legal and design costs for Beach Drive path likely eligible for FDOT grant; residents press for cost reconciliation

Residents and business owners on April 24 pressed the Panama City Commission for a detailed accounting of costs tied to the Beach Drive multiuse path, and city officials said work done so far — including legal review, surveying, arborist and environmental work — should be reimbursable under the state grant.

Why it matters: The path is funded primarily by an $8 million state grant. Opponents and some residents said the referendum result was close and asked for a reconciliation of design and legal spending; supporters said the project and grant should proceed to improve pedestrian safety and connectivity.

Speakers who opposed the project noted the referendum was narrowly decided and urged a pause. George Carruthers, who said his exit polling showed confusion about the referendum wording, asked whether legal fees already spent on the project and future legal costs would be covered by the state grant. "Are the legal fees ... covered by the $8,000,000 grant from the state? Did I mention I'd like to have an answer on that today?" Carruthers asked.

City Attorney Zimmerman responded the legal team’s view: legal work necessary to develop the project — title searches, easements and related legal work — is part of the development cost and should be eligible for reimbursement. Zimmerman said the grant contemplates hiring engineers, arborists, surveyors and attorneys to ensure work is on public right of way and that those costs would be included in the reimbursement request.

City staff clarified that earlier expenditures attributed to the project covered multiple categories, not only design: two engineering firms, survey work, arborist and horticultural evaluations, geotechnical work, title searches and legal review, and public outreach including multiple public meetings. The city manager said some earlier estimates did not include expanded design elements and additional arborist or tree-removal allowances, which raised the project estimate when those items were added.

Supporters, including residents from The Cove and other neighborhoods, said the path advances a larger trail network and improves pedestrian safety. Opponents warned design changes and tree removal could create storm vulnerability for homes and questioned the sufficiency of the grant to cover project scope. There was also discussion of whether transfer of state road ownership to the city (a separate action) would change project cost; staff said the grant work does not require transfer of ownership but described scenarios where property or easement purchases could be necessary and reimbursable.

Ending: The commission did not change the project schedule on April 24. City staff and the attorney said they will seek reimbursement from the state for eligible expenses and will provide additional reconciliations of costs to concerned residents on request.