In this evening's article in the PNJ-the issue of beach renourishment is hung out as something that is potentially on the BCC's chopping block. This is not true. Nothing could be further from the truth.
This is fear-mongering that is unneccessary and unproductive.
First of all, there is no movement afoot to make all leases 100 year leases. There is a movement afoot to standardize the lease renewal language as these properties come forward to be renewed, as I discussed at multiple meetings and here.
The initiative goes like this: When a property is brought in for a lease renewal to the SRIA we propose that the tenant decide what type of lease they want going forward, one with renewals that are automatic in perpetuity---or---leases that are 99 years in length and that require renegotiation upon expiration.
The perpetual leases are taxable, so if that option is selected upon renewal by the lessee, the property would be subject to ad valorem taxation on both the land and the improvements.
Conversely, if the lessee selected a lease that requires renegotiation upon expiration--the land portion of that leasehold would not be subject to ad valorem taxation going forward (But the land portion would be subject to a lease fee, which we would set at a market rate and index for inflation in the document)
One or the other--it would be at the option of the lessee.
This is to avoid another catastrophically bad renewal of a high value beach property's lease for a price that takes the taxpayers of Escambia county to the cleaners. We had one of those recently (Beach Club) which has spurred this entire initiative in order to prevent such a poor treatment of taxpayers going forward.
Meanwhile, the SRIA is not going anywhere, and even if they did, that renourishment function would just be funded with a different pot of money. Just like Beach Public Works and Lifeguards are funded with a different funding source now that the BCC has taken those functions over.
This is because we value the beach, we understand the value of the beach, and we will fund important aspects of the Beach whether it comes from our authority (SRIA) or the BCC itself.
And to say otherwise is reckless speculation.
Yeah they don't want to pay their fair share and will try every trick in the book won't they? Silver tongued devils..
ReplyDeleteI ascribe no nefarious motives to anyone; this is not about coming after people who already have leases in place, this is about being uniform in our process as these leases come in for renewal going forward. The taxpayers should not absorb the loss by allowing a $700K condominium on the Gulf to pay only $185 dollars per YEAR for the lease payment on the land portion of such a property. That just happened recently, it was a travesty for the owners of the land (you and I, the taxpayers) and we have to insure it does not ever happen again. This is the thought process behind giving the SRIA template leases that carry either a market rate lease fee with escalation, or ad valorem taxation, for the land portion of the leasehold. Either way, it is up to the lessee when he/she come in for the renewal--their choice. To do anything less than this is unfair to the taxpayers. And this has NOTHING to do with whether or not services will be provided at the beach (e.g. trash pick up, raking the beach, renourishing the beach, etc.) The services will be provided regardless where the money comes from.
ReplyDeleteChairman Bergosh,
ReplyDeleteI attended the meeting, and have just read the PNJ article linked by you. I feel it's a fair representation of the conversation and concerns shared by the SRIA board members at the meeting and their concerns regarding the relationship with the county. Those concerns were; can an independent entity be told how they will negotiate contracts (and the legality of that), the changing of 99 year leases to 100 year leases and how that would affect the beach (ownership bringing problems like the "private" beaches at Perdido) and also how it would change getting matching funding from the state for beach renourishing, and how there was an attempt this year by the county to take what the SRIA has been setting aside for the next beach renourishment project so that the county could balance the budget.
As far as paying our "fair share", please look at the revenue generated at the beach, by not only property taxes, but also the police/fire tax, the bed tax, the SRIA fees, the lease fees and more and see what percentage that is generated and paid at the beach comes back to the beach before anyone says that the beach isn't paying it's "fair share". I've been told that the beach is not only the county's shining jewel, but also it's golden goose.
If you could, as a response to this, answer these concerns by the SRIA and show actual numbers about what a beach resident pays and what is returned to the beach?
Finally, I didn't find the PNJ report inflammatory, but informative regarding what transpired at the meeting. We should never blame the messenger for the message, should we?
Bill Ray
Bill Ray,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment. I was referring to the BCC meeting at which the BCC discussed the proposed change to uniform language for lease renewals at the beach. And the discussion about us ever "not" re nourishing the beach is a red herring attempt at fear mongering. When we absorbed the lifeguard function, did we not pay for and provide lifeguards? Ditto for beach public works. To speculate out loud that we wouldn't re nourish the beach was reckless because we value the beach, we know the revenue it generates and we all support doing what is right out there----including maximizing our revenue. I never once used the term "fair share" but since you did--answer this one: Is it fair that the Beach Club renewed their lease and pay what amounts to a $185 PER YEAR lease fee for the land portion of their leaseholds? Was that a fair deal for taxpayers for that Gulf-front property that has some units worth more than $1 Million Dollars? This is the situation we need to prevent going forward Bill.
Chairman Bergosh,
ReplyDeleteOn first pass, the Beach Club renewal seems very low (it's less than half of what we pay), but there are many things about the renewal I don't know. I don't know why it was renewed early, or the original terms and condition of the lease, etc. I don't know if they are part of the lawsuit against the county and Chris Jones who the courts found erroneously put all of the value of the condos at the beach in the building, and no value on the land. The Beach Club may have overpaid property taxes for years. I also don't know how the combined taxes paid by Pensacola Beach owners compare to those at Perdido where leases don't exist. There are too many things I don't know to form a learned opinion based upon facts and data. That being said, I do know Chris Jones' presentation to the BCC comparing beach lease fees and trailer parks was a preposterous!
You are correct, you didn't say anything about "fair share", but the first anonymous person responding to your blog post did. I was combining answers and thoughts regarding what you posted and what anonymous posted. Sorry I wasn't clearer about that.
I sure wish someone with all the information about what it paid by PB residents is compared with what is paid by similar homes and condos near the gulf (and not manufactured home neighborhoods), as well as what revenue is generated at the beach and what returns to the beach by the county would be available so that all could form opinion based upon those facts.
As always, thanks for listening,
BR