Milton council hears three redevelopment proposals for riverfront marina; decision deferred

Milton, Fla. — The Milton City Council heard presentations from three finalist teams on plans to redevelop roughly 3.73 acres of city-owned riverfront at a special-called meeting, then agreed to delay any award while staff compiles follow-up questions and posts materials for public review.

City staff opened the meeting by framing the project as part of the Riverfront Master Plan and Community Redevelopment Area strategy and noting available funds: $250,000 in state appropriations for dock and slip upgrades and $375,000 from the Tourist Development Council for acquisition of the original marina parcel. Staff emphasized that, if council acted tonight, it could only award the “right to negotiate” with a finalist; any development agreement would come back for council approval.

Three teams presented distinctly different approaches. Jeremy Shriver of Anchor & Axle proposed a family-run, phased plan focused on restoring marina operations: an office and marina store in phase 1, covered dry-boat storage launched with a forklift, later wet-slip expansions and waterfront activation with food trucks and community programming. Shriver said the public would retain river access and that current slip tenants would receive updated leases and a first option to return.

Ryan Jones of Jones South Development framed his proposal around local development and job creation. “We anticipate creating over a 105 jobs,” Jones said, adding the team expects 25 to 35 permanent jobs after build-out and targeted a late-2027 opening if permitting proceeds.

John Loftus presented the third team’s public–private partnership approach, which emphasized public access, environmental measures and a mix of amenities: a proposed 62–80 slips, 25 RV spots, a meeting/event space, a fuel and pump-out location placed on higher ground, and phased submerged-land lease modifications. Loftus said his team proposed a three-year lease-to-buy structure: “We want to lease it for $50,000 a year plus a 3% escalator each year with a purchase in the third year,” and cited development-cost estimates of roughly $5.25 million including an associated island concept.

Council members asked detailed operational questions of all three teams: how dry-storage boats would be launched (forklift modifications), whether trailer launches and transient slips would be allowed, anticipated slip rates and required notices to current tenants, parking and event impacts (notably around July 4), fuel-location siting and rezoning needs for two upper parcels. Loftus acknowledged rezoning would be required to allow fuel and some parking uses and said the team would pursue permits prior to purchase.

Safety and environmental concerns surfaced during questioning. Multiple council members raised worry about pontoon-boat rentals and the Blackwater River’s no‑wake zones; Loftus proposed requiring boater-safety cards for rentals and restricting rental routes. Staff and presenters acknowledged DEP, Army Corps and FEMA permit constraints and said designs would aim for FEMA-compliant, flood-resilient features.

Public commenters pressed the council on transparency and valuation. Pam Mitchell asked that all presentation slides and handouts be posted online for the public. “I’m not in favor of donating any of the property to a developer,” said Jimmy Messi, urging the council to seek fair market value in negotiations and noting the county appraiser’s combined total for the four parcels.

City staff gave an infrastructure update: the Quinn Street and Broad Street CDBG reconstruction design packages are complete, NEPA/environmental assessments are being finalized, and the project is expected to go to bid in December; staff said capacity exists in the city system to support waterfront hookups once projects are approved.

Rather than select a finalist at the special call, several council members said they needed more time to digest the proposals and solicit public input. Council members asked staff to consolidate questions for the proposers, circulate any handouts presented at the meeting, and post responses publicly. Staff indicated the consolidated questions and received materials will be published and the item could return for action at a future council meeting (staff suggested a workshop on Nov. 20 and a decision target of Dec. 9). The meeting was adjourned without an award.

What’s next: staff will scan and post presentation materials and consolidate written follow-up questions and answers for the public record; council has an opportunity to ask staff questions before the item returns for potential action on Dec. 9.