PANAMA CITY — One of the clichés used by Panama City officials about the future of the marina is that the ball is in their court.
And it’s true. The city owns the land and is only committed to paying four consultants $250 an hour and the nearly $750,000 to AECOM to devise a sample plan.
But can the city hold the ball so long that the other players go home? That’s what the city will find out during interviews Oct. 30-31 with the five remaining developers.
One of the developers who applied back in June — Live Work Learn Play — already has dropped their proposal. City Attorney Nevin Zimmerman said Live Work Learn Play President Craige Hoover expressed more interest in a consulting position with the city.
In responses to city questionnaires, some of the other developers are pondering a quick escape.
“Our finger is on the switch so to say,” Great South’s response stated. “We hope to know one way or the other soon.”
Great South (RESPONSE)
Great South is proposing the largest financial commitment of any developer. The company states in its response that it has $100 million lined up from one lender and $50 million from another while including an ambiguous connection to an investor. Its leaders tout their experience with large projects in Atlanta, one being the area around the Olympics and the other being in suburban Smyrna, Ga.
“I saw it literally change the tide of growth in the northern metro area in just seven years,” Primary Project Manager Jason Lewis wrote of the Smyrna development.
Great South has suggested a significant adjustment to its proposed plan. Its questionnaire response includes a map placing six residential developments around downtown outside of the marina area. This would require land acquisition costs, with one adjacent parcel — the site of the old Elks Lodge — owned by the city.
“I’m sure there will be,” Brudnicki said of further land acquisition. “I think all of that will come into play.”
Great South is wary of the developer selection process being dragged out.
“Bringing a well-timed but imperfect product to the market at the proper time is far better than bringing a perfectly planned product to the market at a bad time,” the response said. “More particularly, if it takes too long to plan and execute, that plan is far worse than having to modify the plans a bit as you construct.”
As with lenders, Great South is equally mum about who the potential “anchor” businesses might be for the marina project, although its responses state they have the contacts.
“If you’re willing to invest, you have to have somebody to be anchor, somebody with a draw,” Brudnicki said. “It will be interesting to see if those cards are put on the table.”
Great South is requesting infrastructure improvements provided by the city but was not more specific.
HomeFed and Leucadia (RESPONSE)
HomeFed and Leucadia had a different statement from Great South in its questionnaire responses.
“We believe it is more important to achieve the right structures and uses than it is to construct something for the sake of showing activity,” their response states. “A false start will make further development more difficult.”
But Leucadia’s and HomeFed’s proposal was one of the least specific of the five remaining. Their proposal showed the plans from AECOM with the statement that AECOM’s plan was good.
However, in HomeFed’s and Leucadia’s response, they did outline the following expectations for the city: utility upgrades, improving roads around the marina, which is already in process; increasing transmission capacity of wastewater treatment plants and expanding sidewalks on Harrison Avenue north of Bay High School, Sixth Street and Beach Drive east to Bay Medical Center.
HomeFed and Leucadia also stated: “Funding for the redevelopment of the marina alone could cost $200 million. Funding for construction will include private funds from Luecadia, HomeFed and the city of Panama City. Cash, commercial loans and public financing are available options for the construction of improvements.”
A potential advantage for Leucadia is that it is the landowner of the SweetBay project at the former airport site. St. Andrew Bay Land Co., a subsidiary of Leucadia, would be the responsible party with the marina as well as Sweet Bay, with Jacob Fish serving as the day-to-day project manager.
Both Leucadia and HomeFed provided detailed financial profiles of their companies. Leucadia has $6.2 billion in cash, investments and assets, $2 billion of which is potentially available. HomeFed has $93.7 million in usable cash, cash equivalents and investments.
On top of Fish, the developers also would employ local attorney William Harrison as an intergovernmental coordinator and local engineering firm Preble Rish.
MCM-BAP (RESPONSE)
The developer offering the biggest plan in terms of cost is MCM-BAP at more than $300 million. Their marina proposal is transformative, abandoning the existing T-dock for a semicircle construct, supplying a long ribbon of land right on the water. Their responses state the design is negotiable with the proposed concept meant to create outside-the-box thinking. MCM-BAP also provided banking references.
While MCM-BAP participated in marina projects in New York, Australia and Dubai, they used two projects in West Palm Beach as the most applicable examples to relate to the Panama City Marina. That project cost $39.890 million and set to yield 2.5 percent and increase exponentially after 2017.
MCM-BAP is as wary of the city’s approach as Great South. Under the question about concerns, the developer responded: “The poorly defined process and municipal expectations are a serious concern.” Under the question about risk, it responded: “The loss of time due to inadequate documentation of expectations of protocol.”
MCM-BAP also mentions using parcels outside of the marina area for development, specifically behind the Paul Brent Gallery and Hawk’s Nest. MCM-BAP expects a long-term lease agreement with the city, infrastructure commitment and regulatory changes.
Great South and MCM-BAP are both interested in creating a real estate gold rush — the exact words used by Great South.
Smith Equity Builders (RESPONSE)
Smith Equity Builders is proposing a much slower approach with continual marketing over a 21-year period to hook an anchor and in the meantime incubate local businesses to fill spaces. Like with MCM-BAP, attracting a hotel is key. Smith Equity’s plan requires the cooperation of Gulf Coast State College as the educational incubator. Smith Equity is proposing a $50 to $75 million development.
Smith Equity touts its experience on the Aloha Tower in Honolulu, Channelside in Tampa and Baywalk in St. Petersburg.
But again under a question about risk, Smith Equity responded: “The cost of time and consultants by both parties.”
Bluewater Development (RESPONSE)
The only local developer in the running is Bluewater Development. Bluewater did not provide much specific financial information but did provide a banking reference, one of only two developers to do so. Their questionnaire responses state private equity would be pursued along with tax-increment financing. Bluewater’s plan includes 200 units of multifamily residential, a 100-unit hotel, upgraded civic center, 50,000 square feet of retail space, 23,000 square feet of office space, a lighthouse, splash fountain and outdoor concert stage. In its original proposal, Bluewater expected the city to pay for the civic center, splash fountain and pavilion.
The original cost was slated at $45.98 million, but in the questionnaire response they include the idea of a parking garage and an added cost of $50 million to $60 million. Bluewater also is requesting a long-term lease from the city.
As for relevant experience, Bluewater cites the Bluewater Center office building located downtown. They stress that they’ve helped attract job creators like Applied Research Associates, EDO Corp., iSirona/NantHealth, Inacomp, Baskerville-Donovan Engineers and Thom Adams, PA.
“Bluewater Center is a direct example of how to take 60,000 square feet of ‘white elephant’ warehouse with multiple contamination issues and redevelop it into a 102,000-square-foot waterfront office,” Bluewater said in the response. “It reflects our commitment and belief in downtown.”
Brudnicki said the commission may chose a developer by the Nov. 4 meeting.