Consultants present four scenarios for Bay Center district; board presses on financing and market risk

WT Partnership told the Pensacola Community Redevelopment Agency that it had completed a discovery-phase analysis of the 6.86-acre site adjacent to the Bay Center and offered four development pathways: a traditional convention center; a hybrid convention center paired with a privately financed hotel; a public–private mixed-use project including parking and retail; and a district-scale option that layers transit-oriented development (TOD) and enabling infrastructure.

Jose Davila, senior vice president at WT Partnership, described the report’s role as a framework to narrow options and prepare the market for procurement steps. Sana Dadaboy, the project manager, said the team found strong resident support for a convention-center use but flagged constraints around parking, transit connectivity and the site’s proximity to an interstate ramp. The consultants estimated roughly $75,000,000 of publicly discussed funding available for projects in the area but said that amount would not be sufficient to build multiple large facilities without additional federal or private financing.

The consultants explained financing tools that could improve project marketability, including a TIFIA loan (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) and federal TOD grants, and suggested issuing market-sounding materials and an RFI to test developer interest and terms. “You can layer grants, loans and private capital,” Jose Davila said, “but a developer has to come in and build it.”

Board members pressed the consultants on specific risks. Board member Patton warned that a single-purpose convention center could be risky if it cannot host a broad mix of events; she asked whether a facility designed for both conventions and indoor sports would perform well. WT’s team said modular, flexible designs are now common and can be phased, but cautioned that the market must be tested. Vice Chair Bair and other members raised concerns about airport connectivity and whether current flight schedules would support convention-level demand. Consultants pointed to precedent projects that succeeded with modest air service and emphasized that hotel adjacency and parking solutions typically determine viability for convention-related projects.

Several board members urged a staged approach: confirm project objectives and site control, pursue visioning and affordability assessment, then issue an RFI/RFP. City staff and WT recommended an initial visioning phase followed by transaction structuring and market sounding; if the board is interested, staff said they will convene county and FDOT representatives to explore transit and right-of-way issues.

The consultants repeatedly emphasized that the report is a diagnostic tool, not a procurement document: it provides scenarios and financing options but does not commit the city to a single path. Next steps identified in the presentation included clarifying project objectives and metrics, testing the market with an industry day or RFI, and advancing to visioning and transaction structuring if responses indicate feasibility. The CRA did not take a final vote on a specific project at the meeting; staff said related action items and funding reallocations would return to CRA and city council as separate agenda items.