Panama City commission zeroes in on 50‑slip marina pilot, debates financing and partner terms

The Panama City Commission spent its Nov. 10 special meeting focusing on next steps for rebuilding the downtown marina, centering on a 50‑slip pilot that staff said could be designed by December and built as soon as a permitting exemption or interim finance is secured. City staff and outside advisers outlined two basic approaches: a city‑led bid and build using interim borrowing, or a partner‑led approach under term sheets from City Marina Partners (CMP).

The key operational question was timing and risk. Staff member Nevin Zimmerman told commissioners the design work on the first 50 slips could be completed in December, allowing construction to start next year if an exemption is confirmed. "If you have the design, you can submit for exemption paperwork quickly," Olivia Schmidt of the Integrity Group said. "The exemption paperwork's pretty quick," she added, but cautioned the agency often requires detailed schematic plans before granting an exemption because a deviation of more than 20% of the original footprint can trigger a full NEPA Section 106 environmental assessment.

That environmental review creates a tradeoff: using FEMA‑allocated funds could accelerate work but may bring an EHP/NEPA review that delays construction. "If we don't ask, the answer is always no," a commissioner said about pursuing an exemption; Schmidt urged staff to submit the screening paperwork so the city would have a definitive eligibility answer.

On costs and funding, staff and consultants discussed several levers: the city’s existing Truist Bank interim credit line (cited as a $150 million facility staff has used for FEMA‑funded projects), a roughly $3 million interim finance estimate that was discussed for the 50‑slip pilot, and the designated $5.5 million FEMA allocation for marina‑related work. Staff said the full wet‑slip build could reach higher figures (staff referenced $15 million for wet slips and an estimated $10 million for uplands infrastructure in planning scenarios), and that the city must weigh interest and debt service if using interim borrowing.

Commissioners debated phasing. Mayor Branch and others argued for moving as quickly as possible to get slips built and test the market; other commissioners urged caution, recommending market analysis on slip sizes and a phased approach to avoid locking in an inefficient mix. Marine surveyor Chris Mills advised the commission to review prior layouts and produce clear plans for the 50‑ and the 180‑plus slip scenarios so the city knows counts of 20', 30' and 40' slips before committing to construction.

Management and partner terms were also on the table. Zimmerman summarized CMP term sheets that ranged from a long lease with equity contribution and conduit financing options to shorter management agreements; CMP’s representative said the firm was willing to consider different structures but sought clarity on financing and upland rights. "We haven't drawn any restaurants," William Harrison of CMP said when residents worried renderings showed restaurants on public green space; he told the commission CMP has focused on wet‑slip restoration and that any upland uses would follow public planning and the city's process.

Commissioners asked staff to return with firm cost estimates and specific financing options — including whether the Truist credit line could be tapped for an interim advance, whether CRA bonding would be appropriate, and what a CDD might mean for taxes and owner obligations. The commission directed staff to provide a financing briefing at the next commission meeting and set a Dec. 1 special meeting to continue the discussion.

What’s next: staff will seek a definitive FEMA/NEPA exemption screening, refine cost estimates for the 50‑slip pilot and minimal upland amenities (restrooms/showers, basic utilities and a marina office), and present financing options to the commission at the next meeting so members can decide whether the city or a partner will construct the pilot.