Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Paving topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panama City CRA backs five‑year interlocal paving plan to repave neighborhood streets
Summary
The CRA approved a five‑year interlocal with the city proposing $450,000/year for Millville and $250,000/year for Downtown North to fund city crews to perform soil‑improved full‑depth reclamation paving; staff argued in‑house work could deliver about 2.12 miles in year one and produce significant cost savings versus contractors.
Get email alerts on the Paving topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Panama City CRA on Nov. 4 authorized CRA funding to support an interlocal agreement with the city to repave lower‑volume neighborhood streets using city crews and specialized equipment. The proposal would allocate $450,000 per year for five years for the Millville district and $250,000 per year for five years for the Downtown North district, enabling roughly 4.3 miles of repaving in Millville and 2.4 miles in Downtown North over five years per staff estimates.
Public Works Director Clint Murphy and Deputy City Engineer Matt DeVito presented method options and cost comparisons. Staff said city in‑house mill and full‑depth reclamation with cement stabilization and use of an “asphalt zipper,” a cement spreader and a full‑size paver could complete about 2.12 miles in year one. The presentation included a prospective 6‑month lease/purchase option on a paver ($275,000 buyout) and estimated materials and staffing costs. Staff estimated year‑one in‑house cost just over $1.0 million versus a contractor estimate of about $1.6 million, yielding year‑one savings of roughly $265,000 and longer‑term savings with purchased equipment.
Board members raised procurement and competitive concerns and asked staff to collect contractor cost data for benchmarking; staff committed to quarterly reporting on progress. The board approved the interlocal funding and directed staff to return required interlocal documents to the City Commission; the motion passed 5‑0.

