Heated public comments, questions over cost and right‑of‑way as Panama City debates Beach Drive multi‑use path

A sustained, sometimes heated public debate on April 8 focused on the proposed Beach Drive multi‑use path and related stormwater 'Baysaver' devices, with residents disputing the project's cost, environmental benefits and impacts to mature trees.

Several speakers urged the commission to halt or revisit the project. Greg Abrams said the project has been confusing and that the city has spent what he described as excessive engineering costs; he said DOT had not agreed to transfer the road to the city and asked the commission to be "truthful" about property transfers and funding. "Where does a referendum come from and the city hasn't give you or the DOT hasn't give you the property? Why you want to falsify to the people that y'all already have this in hand?" Abrams said.

Environmental and tree‑preservation concerns were raised by George Prother, who argued that the path and associated devices will destroy large, mature trees within roughly 15 feet of the curb. "All the trees within approximately 15 feet of the curb on Beach Drive will be destroyed," Prother said, calling the referendum "a hoax in my opinion."

City Manager Jonathan Zimmerman and staff responded with technical clarifications: they said the grant application and award predated any city request to DOT to transfer the road to the city, and that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) had "indicated they don't want to transfer it at this time," according to staff remarks. Zimmerman said staff is working with FDOT on design approvals and that a path could still be constructed inside the state maintenance right‑of‑way but that the width would need to narrow east of Balboa if the transfer does not occur. "If the transfer doesn't happen, it doesn't mean that a path can't happen. It just will have to turn at Balboa," a commissioner summarized.

The funding and cost figures were a point of contention. One public commenter cited an original estimate in the project application of $9.4 million and questioned how the city could now claim a $6.5 million construction figure. Zimmerman replied that staff had updated engineering estimates within the prior two months and that the city remained "confident in the $6.5 million construction cost at this time." He also noted that engineering and legal work (surveys, arborist reports and deed review) were included in the higher design totals presented by residents.

On the roles of the Baysavers and permits, Zimmerman clarified that the environmental resource permit being pursued is required for the Baysaver stormwater devices; without Baysavers the project would not need that particular environmental permit and would be limited to state right‑of‑way approvals. "The only reason that we're going to the DEP to get an environmental resource permit is for the base savers," he said.

Commissioners and staff emphasized they do not intend to ban commercial traffic on Beach Drive and that engineering work has included meetings with affected businesses, including Chevron. City staff said they have been working to keep commerce functional and to maintain truck access while proposing traffic calming and safety improvements.

No formal commission action to adopt or cancel the Beach Drive project occurred at the meeting; staff said the next formal decision point for the commission would be whether to accept a construction bid after FDOT approves the final plans and the project is bid. Several residents urged the city to pause and provide clearer public information before proceeding to a referendum or construction.