I was recently made aware of it and have subsequently spoken to numerous folks intimately familiar with the issue and the majority of whom believe a compromise proposal that has been put forward by the island lease holders in the case is fair and would solve the impasse in a way that is beneficial to the taxpayers.
I'm told this particular settlement/lease renewal proposal:
--Allows the leaseholder to renew the lease early
--makes the lease one that renews in perpetuity and therefore will pay ad valorem taxes on improvements and the land
--agrees to an annual lease fee to the SRIA that increases and will be tied to the CPI--which will be memorialized in the lease
Quixotically--it appears and I am told some staffers and others with the island authority are not on board with this settlement and lease renewal proposal and are working against it.
I hope not. I've also heard anecdotally that my name got thrown into the mix as being a commissioner who would not support this settlement.
But nothing could be further from the truth. We need to start getting better terms in these renewals for the owners of the property (the taxpayers of Escambia County) and worry less about the fees for the property managers (SRIA). I've screamed this loudly on multiple occassions in the wake of the Beach Club FIASCO at the SRIA. We desperately need one lease template for these renewals going forward, too.
My simple question is this: Why fight this?? This settlement appears to be a win-win and could serve as a template for many other beach renewals that are in the pipeline. It puts this property on the tax rolls, pays a lease fee with escalator to the SRIA and settles the lawsuit currently arguing this land should not be taxable. (a lawsuit that Escambia County taxpayers are paying for through the BCC's footing of the bill for Chris Jones' attorney to defend this suit)
In speaking with at least 3 different lawyers recently on this very topic--I just do not see why this settlement proposal is languishing. Maximizing the benefit to the property owners (ALL the taxpayers of Escambia County) MUST be the priority---not maximizing lease fees irrespective of the ad valorem taxation implications for the maximization of lease fees to SRIA.
So I am eager to see how this vote for this lease and settlement goes. If it is not approved when it appears all the parties appear to agree it makes sense--then maybe we as the BCC need to veto the rejection and accept the terms of the settlement from these island leaseholder over SRIA's no vote.
Tens of millions of dollars are potentially at stake if this current lawsuit is lost.
Much more to come on this.
This proposal is a monetary windfall for the County and a complete financial loser for the SRIA.
ReplyDeleteJeff,
ReplyDeleteYou, Mr. Barry, and Mr. May blew it a few years ago when you three reversed course on fee simple. Now you understand that embracing populism is easy, but unfortunately, populism rarely results in satisfactory long term solutions. The great citizens of Escambia County elected you; not Dianne Krumel.
You are correct that you need to clean up your mess.
Please explain how the citizens of Escambia County benefit from our absurd lease system.
If the lease system is beneficial, then why doesn’t every community in our country transition to the lease system?
In my opinion, regardless of how much we attempt to modify and revise our absurd lease system, we will ultimately be left with major problems.
Those leases on Pensacola Beach are fatally flawed.
As you know, the lease system results in an annual loss of millions of dollars in ad valorem taxes. Our absurd lease system results in millions of lost school district dollars. The lease system results in expensive lawsuits. Clearly, the lease system does nothing to safeguard public access nor does it restrict private development - Innisfree Hotels is currently in the process of constructing three new enormous private towers, Portofino is in the development stage on two new enormous private towers, and we recently sold a previously unleased 2,755 square foot Casino Beach property for $8,500.
The great citizens of Escambia County are being abused, and you are one of the chief culpable parties.
How, please, will transferring revenue from the SRIA to the County improve things?
Unless you believe that the services performed by the Island Authority can be eliminated, then those services must be funded by either the Island Authority or by Escambia County.
The Island Authority receives $4.5 million in lease fees. They budget 1 million annually for sand replenishment and $500,000 annually for our “free” trolleys. Leaseholders pay for the Visitors Center and for the Blue Angel Airshows, children’s playgrounds, etc..
Personally, I believe that most of those expenses should be paid through Tourist Development Taxes.
The Island Authority pays for many public works projects. Leaseholders paid over $100,000 for crosswalks last year. Leaseholders are paying $700,000 for new public bathrooms at Quietwater Boardwalk. Lease fees are used to dredge LaFitte Cove and Little Sabine. Lease fees pay for an animal control officer, and will likely soon pay for code enforcement.
In reality, Escambia County should pay for public works.
It is true that Escambia County returns to the Beach a significant fraction of the ad valorem taxes paid by the leaseholders. But much of those funds support our county park. For example; a portion of that money pays for lifeguards.
Anyway, I’ll be interested to see what solutions you propose. I predict that your machinations will likely result in additional expensive lawsuits, but you are a talented guy, so we will see.
My advice is that you take the only logical course: Fee Simple.
Admit your mistakes, then move forward.
Good luck!
Like the children's trust the fee simple issue was decided by the voters. They said no to fee simple.
ReplyDeleteAnother ECW er trying to cast blame.
ReplyDeleteTom--thanks for calling me a talented guy, thanks for that compliment. I know your issue is fee simple, we all know it. It is like listening to a one string banjo on a fretless instrument playing a song. It is just one note, one trope, one issue. So, once again for your edification, understand this. Fee simple is dead, we lost congressional support. It was that and nothing else. If we wanted fee simple and voted for it, we still needed authorization from congress, which we almost had but lost. Blame yellow shirts, blame Diane Krummel, blame me, blame whoever--but it's nothing but a lack of congressional support and nothing else no matter how often and loudly you screech otherwise. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, having one standardized lease renewal template that insures the properties pay ad valorem taxes on the improvements and LAND in exchange for language which allows for renewal in perpetuity is the next best thing to fee simple---and for all practical purposes is fee simple. And we are actively moving leases that direction. And your breakdown of who pays for what is faulty and inaccurate. Lease fees were lowered a number of years back for purely political reasons and the county has been picking up the tab for the services those lease fees used to cover ever since. That's what happened. You speak as if you are the all knowing oracle, however it is readily apparent that you're quite glib on a host of issues and obvious that your emotion overwhelms the logic frequently. Soon thereafter-- you bring out the one string, fretless banjo and start playing your one note "song" entitled "fee-simple." Do you know how tiresome and boring that song is? Perhaps you need to add a trained parrot to the act after you teach him to squawk the word "populsim" --then you can play a note, have the parrot squawk, play a note, have the parrot squawk, over and over again and we will call this migrane producer "Tom Jardine's Magnum Opus"
ReplyDeleteYet, he goes back over there and the d4 candidate listens to him.
ReplyDeleteJeff,
ReplyDeleteI do indeed think that you are a talented politician. You are intelligent, well-spoken, and you nearly always achieve a “win” politically.
I tell the truth. In my opinion, there is no long term advantage in misrepresenting the facts.
In this case, the facts are that your short-sighted political “wins” rarely result in a win for the great citizens of Escambia County.
And your Achilles’ heel is your two-ton inflamed ego. Your enormous ego might well qualify as a disability. You are likely entitled to a mobility scooter to assist you in carting that giant ego around district one.
In an attempt to deflect blame, you attribute our absurd tax structure on Pensacola Beach to a “loss of congressional support”.
However, our US congressman and senators did NOT attempt to legislate tax policy on Pensacola Beach with an absurd referendum - you did that!
As chairman in 2018, you took advantage of district four Commissioner Robinson as he was leaving the commission to enter a close mayoral race. You frequently lament that officials should “stay in their lanes”, but apparently, you don’t heed your own advice. You are very special.
My understanding is that our absurd 2018 “Beach Referendum”, which you championed, had to be non-binding because it wouldn’t pass the smell test in Tallahassee. You, of course, know more than anyone In Tallahassee, though.
The only congressman who betrayed our great citizens on this issue was Democrat Bill Nelson. In the midst of a challenge from Republican Rick Scott, Nelson compromised his integrity in a dishonorable attempt to win votes (populism, Jeff).
Nelson’s integrity waffled - “He was FOR fee simple before he was against it”. Thankfully, Nelson was voted out of office on November 3, 2018. Nelson’s defeat ended any congressional road blocks.
Unfortunately, the result of your poor governance is that Escambia County forfeited the federal protection of all unleased land on Pensacola Beach.
That enormous debacle has resulted in the sale of a previously unleased Casino Beach property for $8,500 to facilitate the construction of an enormous private tower, private parking garage, and private helicopter pad at 2 Via de Luna immediately east of Crabs.
Likewise, your poor stewardship, Mr. Chairman, has facilitated the construction of two additional enormous private towers at 16 Via de Luna and at 20 Via de Luna, respectively.
And Portofino will soon begin construction of towers six and seven.
Thanks for “Saving Pensacola Beach”, Mr. Chairman.
Your abandonment of fee simple has also led to perpetual annual losses of millions of dollars in ad valorem tax revenue to the Escambia County, and millions of dollars in annual losses to the Escambia County school district, in perpetuity. And your ill-advised tax policy has cost Escambia County millions in legal fees. Those legal fees will likely also continue in perpetuity.
But who cares that your constituents are losing? You achieved another political “win”. Congratulations!
And continue scapegoating the Pensacola Beach leaseholders for your short-sighted tax policy, Mr. Chairman. After all, as chairman of the Escambia County Commission, you should not be held accountable for your poor policy decisions. Continue to deflect the blame towards the hapless citizens.
You are a winner, Jeff.
It’s called an ad valorem tax meaning the county is permitted to tax property owners only. The ad valorem tax is controlled by our state constitution and state statues. This appears to be nothing more than a politician’s cheap shot to appear populist among the Escambia County masses by throwing the property renters of Pensacola Beach under the bus. There is always enough to satisfy the government’s need but never enough to satisfy the government’s greed.
ReplyDeleteI don’t hear this commissioner advocating tax the all renter on the other side of the bridge. Do people who rent houses and apartments in Pensacola refrain from driving on county roads and send their kids to private schools?