Incorporation of Perdido? Part II--Questions and Answers

 

I attended the informational meeting of the “We are Perdido” effort the other night at Liberty Church in District 1.  I thought the event went well, the speakers did a good job, and the venue was comfortable.  The audio-visual system was very good.  A large crowd was on hand as well, to get the information.

Full Disclosure:  I am agnostic on this effort at incorporation; I am neutral.  This is a decision (whether to incorporate Perdido) of the citizens and residents and business owners of that study area and their decision only.  This is exactly what I told Channel 3 when they interviewed me on this very topic, and it is also what I told InWeekly reporter Tommy St. Meyer when he also recently interviewed me on this topic. Yes, it is in my district---but whether the effort to incorporate is successful or not—that won’t change.  It will still be a part of the county and in District 1. 

But I am going to study and examine every aspect of this initiative to learn all that I can about it so that I can speak to constituents with a more informed opinion when I am asked about this effort.  (I am already getting questions about this incorporation)

So, I came to the meeting.  I stayed for about 1 ½ hours and listened to the presentation.  I was particularly impressed with Lynn Tipton, the guest speaker from the Florida League of Cities.  She brought a power point presentation with lots of useful data to relay to the assembled crowed of about 250 or so.

At the end of the presentation, a brief question and answer session was held.

So, the next day I reached out to Ms. Tipton and had the opportunity to speak with her Wednesday evening about some additional questions I had.

I asked about additional revenue sources the new city, if incorporated, would be able to raise.

According to her, the city can receive a share county’s Local Option gas taxes if they take over the county’s roads within the city’s footprint.  At the meeting, one of the organizers stated in answer to a question about Perdido Key Drive that they would not be seeking to take over the roads and the responsibility for the maintenance and repair of the road.  So, this seems to foreclose Perdido’s ability to tap into those funds.  Tipton did mention that it is not uncommon for some cities in Florida to have county roads within their municipalities.

Other takeaways included the following:

--Parks, Boat Launches, and public beach accesses within this Perdido footprint would remain a part of the county—unless the new city negotiated to take them over and purchase them.

--Potential 10 Mill levy—while completely lawful to do for the new city (Pensacola levies over 4 mills on top of the county’s assessment)-- if the elected councilmen/women of Perdido voted to do this---as a practical matter according to Tipton this is highly unlikely as no Florida municipality has levied this high a number on the citizens served because there is an unacknowledged “cap” where if a certain percentage is levied all the councilpersons get voted out.  People don’t like ad valorem tax rate increases.

--How Much will 1 Mill equate to when applied to We Are Perdido’s self-identified  taxable value of $3.5 Billion?  It appears, stripping out the school board tax and only applying the county’s, the Sheriff’s, and the library districts combined rate of 7.6605 mills---that each “Mill” of value will be approximately $3.5 Million. (Or an easier calculation to make to determine the value of just one mill is to take the total taxable value and either divide by 1000 or multiply by .001.  1 mill = $3.5 Million)

--How would the new city tap into the county’s ½ cent sales tax and 8^th cent gas tax revenues?  The new city would have to qualify to tap into these funds through the Department of Revenue by raising an amount of revenue the equivalent of at least levying 3 Mills to the taxable value of the property within its footprint.   Meaning in order for the fledgling city to tap into the ½ cent DOR revenue and 8^th cent in gas tax---important revenue sources to the city because these revenue sources are bondable---the new city would need to show DOR new revenue generation  of $10.5 Million (3 Mill equivalent) via ad

Incorporation of Perdido?

The decision to incorporate a large swath of SW Escambia County will be up to the voters that live in that area.  It's their decision to make and my only advice to them is this: get informed, ask lots of questions, make a wise decsion, and watch your wallet!

There's been a buzz at the end of this past week about a nascent effort by a few folks to "incorporate" areas of the SW portion of Escambia County into a new City of “Perdido.”

Looking at the comments on the Studio 850 facebook site’s post after this article was published-- it appears as if many would be opposed to this.  Not that a few folks posting on facebook is scientific, though.

People have now asked my opinion about it; I've received a few emails from a handful of constituents.

I've spoken to state level lawmakers about this topic.

Yes, it's out there as an issue--but it is not the big issue.  The big issues are overdevelopment, traffic infrastructure, and stormwater.  These are the issues constituents come to me about consistently--particularly in the areas of D1 that are rapidly growing.  In fact, I had nearly 350 citizens of this very area at my two town halls in Perdido over the last year since this portion of the county reverted to D1 after the redistricting.

And I had lots of good questions from lots of citizens--more than 120 comment/question cards + verbal questions. Between the two meetings and out of all the questions (on overdevelopment, traffic, and stormwater) ----I only had one (1) question on this proposed idea of incorporation.

So, for my part, I let my own words speak for my thoughts on any incorporation, at 1:29:38 of my most recent town hall where I had the one and only question on this topic posed to me by one of the founders and staunchest supporters of incorporation (and former Doug Underhill planning board appointee) Tim Pyle.  And I gave him my answer, publicly.

Ultimately it will be a decision for those residents to make, those residents that live in this group's study area.  I represent a large portion of that area, and that will not change even if this effort is successful at some point down the line—as these areas will still be part of District 1 in Escambia County.  And as the only commissioner of five that has no part of his district within the footprint of an overlapping municipality--in many respects such an incorporation might make my job easier. 

But at the end of the day it is a question for these citizens-- as they will be the ones seeing higher property tax bills and perhaps even other added taxes, bond indebtedness, fees, surcharges, and cost increases to fund an overlapping Perdido municipality-- if this is ultimately approved.

Now, I'm told that 78% of folks recently surveyed "approved" of the plan.  Really?  I have some questions about who was asked and what question was asked--because a lot of the veracity of a poll's purported results depend upon whom was polled and precisely how such poll question(s) are asked.  Was it asked of all residents of the survey/study area?  Did it capture all income demographics?  Were owners and renters asked? Does this plan meet the requirments of 165.061 Florida Statutes? Does this study area even meet the density threshold necessary in state statutes? Did the poll's questions properly describe the fact that full county taxes, including all fire and school board millage rate taxes—plus library and sheriff MSTU’s, would still be collected post any incorporation and that new taxes would be needed to fund any new municipality's operations/personnel and overlapping services provided? (i.e., some who support incorporation may be of the mistaken belief that if they incorporate, they keep the current taxes assessed and collected of the property tax roll within their boundaries--which is not how this works.  Escambia County still would keep all the current revenue from the property within the footprint and any new incorporated municipality would have to raise EXTRA property tax and other revenue via property rate hikes and generated revenue from within their boundaries via increases in other taxes, sales taxes, fees, surcharges etc.----in order to fund their operations.  We [County] also keep all our property and roads and parks and facilities unless the new municipality purchases these and we agree to such purchases. In summary—it appears this would amount to a big, giant tax increase, not a net neutral proposition for current and future property owners and visitors.)  I'm sure there will be many "ah-ha" moments once those initially expressing support for this plan realize this financial implication/reality. Or maybe not?  Who knows?

Too many questions.

Meanwhile-- some proponents of this incorporation sound glib as they falsely claim on radio interviews

Latest on Perdido Key Public Beach Access: 43 Spaces + Public Safety Enhancements!

The Latest Conceptual Draft of the planned Public Beach
Access in Perdido Key (above)
points to the possibility of achieving as many
as 43 parking spaces PLUS an
enhanced access point for Public Safety
to use for water rescues!

Tim Day from the County's Environmental Department has provided the following update and
timeline for Beach Access #4 at Perdido Key (draft pictured or right ).

"Commissioners:

I have attached the latest iteration of the draft layout for the Sundown beach access. This version will be provided to USFWS and may be modified based on review and comments from the Service. Current notable features include:

• Area of Existing Development –     22,655 square feet
• Area of Proposed Development  – 21,535 square fee 1,120 square feet total reduction of existing development footprint

• 43 parking spaces
• 40’ X 32’ Space dedicated for full bathroom and rinse area  
• Proposed access corridor for Public Safety to transport rescue equipment to the beach

A dune walkover and ADA observation platform will be included in the final design.

Next Steps:

·         Review by USFWS (2-4 weeks)

·         Address any USFWS comments and revise as needed (2 weeks)

·         Obtain EOR (Engineer of Record) probable cost to construct

·         Submit for Escambia County DRC (Development Review Committee) review and approval (4 weeks)

·         Submit to FDEP to obtain state CCCL (Coastal Construction Control Line) permit (Submittal concurrent with DRC submittal, up to 90 days)

·         Staff to evaluate potential funding sources

·         BCC approval of funding source

Known Issues:

• The challenge to the conditional use approval by the Board of Adjustments is working its way through Circuit Court
• SEAFARER OWNERS ASSICIATION INC v ESCAMBIA COUNTY

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best Regards,

Tim"

#Research to #OpenOurBeach, Part II--Site Visit

Sunday afternoon was a beautiful day in Pensacola.  It was especially nice at the beach--where I spent my afternoon.

I started out in Perdido Key at the Crab Trap Restaurant where I parked, went inside, made a purchase, then walked out to the beach.  There is a very nice stretch of beach out behind the Crab Trap that was being enjoyed by dozens of patrons. 

Just to the East of this spot, the Escambia BCC owns 300 feet of beachfront on the Gulf of Mexico. 

This stretch of beach was also being enjoyed by dozens of folks as well!  

Although the parcel of land has a prominently placed "No Trespassing" sign on the front, and despite the fact that the gate is chained shut--a steady flow of residents from the condominium on the North side of Perdido Key Drive walked on a wooden "walkover" that is reserved for their exclusive use only and proceeded to utilize the county's portion of the beach.  Right now, however, the general public taxpayers that paid for this beach cannot access it.  How can this be allowed to continue?

This smacks of unfairness.

 Right now there are Condominium complexes adjacent to our existing three beach access points that have placed "no trespassing signs" all the way down their property lines to the beach.  Access #'s parking lot was lined with cars toting out of state license plates (nearby condo's with limited parking spaces send their guests to our public lot, I'm told).  At acess #1, the condos on the right and left actually had two uniformed sheriff's deputies monitoring the boundary to ensure the general public did not "trespass" and attempt to use "their beach."

Access points #2 and #3 were jamm-packed full of cars--no spaces available.

It was depressing to see, and given a lot of what is going on around the country and the state concerning beach access--it should be setting off alarm bells for all of us in the County.

We need to #OpenOurBeach   We need to

The Intelligent, Cost-Neutral Way to Decrease Beach Traffic Gridlock

Now that the concept of traffic circles on Pensacola Beach is dead on arrival--are there other revenue-neutral ideas that can be implemented to help address beach gridlock?  Answer:  YES 

It is not about getting more revenue out of the beach as was inaccurately portrayed in the PNJ last week.

It's not about "making people pay" for parking--per se

A plan that I discussed at the joint BCC/SRIA meeting last week and also yesterday on Channel 3 is about trying to take steps to address beach traffic congestion in an intelligent, thoughtful manner.

Now that the $25 Million dollar roundabouts are dead and they are not going to be constructed---we can do nothing about the traffic gridlock out at the beach or we can be proactive and do something that reduces traffic while maintaining our revenue stream.

I’m looking for the way to maintain a revenue-neutral position while helping the congestion that is bottle-necked at the toll-booth.  Whether it is eliminating the toll, or reducing the Sun Pass toll to $.50 cents and keeping one, far right lane a cash lane only (at $1.00) combined with the addition of some paid parking at Casino Beach—there are different levers that can be adjusted up and down, back and forth, to find the sweet-spot from a revenue perspective as it pertains to a toll/parking fee mix.

And my plan is to leave roughly 30-40% of Casino Beach as “free parking” while the front 60-70% pay an hourly, premium market rate.  The other areas of the beach would maintain free-parking status. 

And I would never suggest ugly meters—no way.  There are kiosks that can accept

Pensacola Beach and the BCC: Reasonable Topics for Discussion

Tonight's joint meeting of the Escambia Board of County Commissioners and the Santa Rosa Island Authority is a meeting where, hopefully, reasonable topics can be discussed rationally and reasonably.  I called this meeting so some important, pressing issues could be discussed and also so  that a sense of where individual Commissioners and Authority Members are on these issues can be known.  Leases and renewals, Roundabouts, parking, and the toll booth---Are these reasonable topics for discussion?

I certainly believe they are and I look forward to the dialogue.

1.  Leases and lease renewals:  there are disparities and inequities among and between lease holders on the beach.  Some leaseholders pay taxes on the land and the improvements and lease fees, some pay tax on the improvements and not on the land (but they pay nominal lease fees and a beach fire MSBU), recently an entire condo complex of 93 units renewed their leases (lease fees) for essentially $280 dollars per year per unit--which is significantly, dramatically below market value.  The taxpayers were not treated well at all in that instance.  So what is reasonable here?  I think it is reasonable for the BCC to set some rules for renewals going forward so the taxpayers are treated fairly as these leases come in for renewal.  These $150 yearly leases were designed to incentivize beach development--and that has now happened.  Now it is time for market rate lease fees on new renewals, and  I will suggest that we require a few things of those interested in renewing their leases going forward....

--No master lease renewals? (lease renewals with individual property occupants only--not with master lease holders that charge sub lessees a margin over their cost)--is this reasonable?
--Individual leases to be renewed?  Should individual renewal leases carry either new language stipulating they become a perpetually renewing lease (that requires payment of ad valorem taxes on land and improvements and no lease fees) OR language delineating these individually as  99-year leases with a current, market rate lease fee on land payable yearly to SRIA (in an amount not less than what ad valorem tax on such land would be) and ad valorem taxes payable on improvements--and no lease fees to SRIA.?  Would this be reasonable?
--All leases to be recorded with the clerk.  Is this reasonable-- It is not happening now but I think it is reasonable to expect this going forward.
--Any other stipulations that make sense and are reasonable to guide the actual renegotiation of these leases?

2.  Parking--should we consider carving out some prime parking spots at the casino beach lot (perhaps 50% of the lot) for premium paid parking?  (with 50% of  casino beach and lots outside the beach core remaining "free parking")  How much more parking should we build and where?

3.  Toll Booth--should we make it fully automated, in stages over a two year period?  Should we reduce the cost to $.50 cents and make up the difference with the parking fees?  Should we remove the toll altogether and make 75% of the casino beach lot a paid lot to achieve the same revenue as the toll booth would have generated if we remove the tolls altogether?

4.  Roundabouts--do the residents want these--or would making the toll booth automated or removing the toll booth altogether alleviate the traffic to the point where roundabouts become unnecessary?  Do residents actually want the roundabouts?  Is this reasonable to ask?

I look forward to some interesting and hopefully reasonable conversations at tonight's meeting.

So What is Going to Be Discussed at the Joint BCC/SRIA Meeting next Month?

There will be several topics of great interest discussed at next month's BCC/SRIA joint meeting....

I was asked today, by a member of the media, what sort of topics would be discussed at the joint BCC/SRIA meeting next month....

I replied that the agenda is not yet compiled, and I have no idea what topics my counterparts might bring--but that I will be bringing the following 4 items for discussion:

--Toll Booth (full automation and price reduction to ease congestion at toll plaza)

--Beach Parking (Addition of some paid, premium parking to make up revenue from toll reduction with the goal of achieving a revenue-neutral outcome from the adjustments)

--Lease Renewals (Working toward equity between and among lease holders)

--Roundabouts (Do residents believe these are necessary and do residents want these?)

I anticipate these topics will elicit some robust debate/discussion......