Local Government
Reeves to Pitch Bay Center Handshake Deal to City Council Aug. 13
The draft interlocal agreement commits Pensacola and Escambia County to nothing more than talking to each other about the Bay Center site. That alone makes it worth reading before commissioners meet Aug. 6—a full week before the City Council discusses it.
Mayor D.C. Reeves plans to present a draft interlocal agreement (IA) between the City of Pensacola and Escambia County to the Pensacola City Council at its regular meeting on Aug. 13. The agreement is not yet signed. It would pledge the City and County to work together “in good faith” on the future of the Pensacola Bay Center site, and it formalizes what came out of the April 16, 2026 joint workshop between the Board of County Commissioners, City Council, and Reeves. Read Interlocal Agreement between City and County – Future of Pensacola Bay Center.
- Why it took nearly four months to develop the IA is a mystery. We previously reported that tough negotiations aren’t in County Administrator Wes Moreno’s skill set.
What it actually commits the two governments to do: Talk. Nothing more.
- No project has been approved—not a design, a budget, or a development agreement.
- No money changes hands. Section 7 is explicit: the IA “does not create any present financial obligation on the part of either Party.”
- The County would lead procurement, but the City keeps final say—more on that below.
- Either side can walk away with 30 days’ written notice.
“This IA does not constitute a final approval of any specific project, site plan, design, budget, funding commitment, or development agreement.”
The four things on the table. The agreement lists a “conceptual goal” of exploring:
- Renovations to the existing Bay Center;
- A second multipurpose event facility;
- A parking solution to support both; and
- A possible hotel or other hospitality component “for further study.”
The IA goes out of its way to say that hospitality piece is not part of the publicly funded project unless a future governing-body vote says otherwise.
Staff liaisons, not a board. Each government will designate a point person to coordinate planning and communication. The agreement is careful to say this liaison arrangement is not a new board, committee, or decision-making body, and it doesn’t delegate authority to act on either government’s behalf.
The IA backs up Reeves’ claim on final approval. Section 6 of the draft spells out that the City retains prior written approval authority over any procurement tied to the Bay Center renovation, second facility, or parking components—authority that flows from Section 6 of the 1982 lease between the City and County.
- The draft is explicit that the lease “remains controlling” and that the IA does not modify it. That confirms what Reeves has said publicly: even though the County would lead procurement and the venue sits on County-operated ground, nothing gets built without the City signing off first.
“In connection with any such procurement process for the publicly funded project components…the City shall maintain prior written approval authority pursuant to Section 6 of the Lease.”
The transparency question: This draft is a public record involving two governing bodies, directly touching a facility County Administrator Wes Moreno oversees. The County’s Committee of the Whole meets Thursday, Aug. 6—a full week before Reeves brings the same document to City Council on Aug. 13.
- Nothing about the format, length, or sensitivity of this draft would have prevented Moreno’s office from attaching it as backup material to Thursday’s COW agenda, giving the public an early look before the City acts on it.
Bottom line: The draft Bay Center IA is a political signal dressed up in interlocal-agreement language—a way for the City and County to tell developers and the public they’re rowing in the same direction, without either side actually committing to anything binding yet.
- It’s a legitimate governing tool, but it doesn’t move the needle much from where we were in April.