Could there be a BCC VETO on an Upcoming SRIA Decision?

There is litigation ongoing regarding a lease renewal request from one leaseholder group and the Escambia County Property Appraiser's office. 

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.

Who Will be SRIA's Next Executive Director?

 

The Santa Rosa Island Authority met last week to pick their next Executive Director. 

Current Executive Director Paolo Ghio is retiring. 

The SRIA had a pool of 64 applicants from which to choose.

The final three candidates that comprised the short list had credentials that far exceeded the minimum including  MPA's and executive level governmental management.

It was briefly suggested that the pool of applicants be re-opened so that a larger number of these applicants could answer 3 questions instead of the final 7 being asked 22 questions.

District 2 Commissioner's Aide Jonathan Owens submitted his resume and was not selected, and did not make the short list.  Other local applicants were also in the mix, many of whom did not make the final cut either.

The selectee that was eventually picked from the top three candidates was initially notified--however it has since been determined that the vote was flawed.  Apparently-to advance any candidate forward the selectee must have at least 4 votes.  Apparently, of the 5 members that voted--this threshold was not met somehow.  

The SRIA will now have a special meeting next week to once again vote on a selectee for this position from the final three applicants.

The Original Leases Look to Be Perpetually Renewing....

I came across two of the very first, original leases for Pensacola Beach entered into between citizens and the Santa Rosa Island Authority in 1949.

They are interesting documents, I will publish them below.

As we move toward standardizing the renewal language of the beach leases going forward, to prevent the taxpayers from being taken to the cleaner like we were with the Beach Club renewal--it is instructive to look at the language utilized in the very first leases.

The language is straightforward and appears to allow for the perpetual renewing of the leases for consecutive 99 year terms (see highlighted portion of these leases below)

In the period after the late 1940s and through today--the language has changed, modifications have been made, and there is now a hodge-podge, mix and match grab-bag of different leases with different stipulations and language in force for Pensacola Beach properties.

This has created issues and led to litigation.  We need to standardize the process and the language going forward to curtail litigation and to make the leases uniform in the future.

Importantly:  If we make the changes I am suggesting, and make the leases perpetually renewable--it appears as though this language will align with the original leases that were made and also with the lease we made with Santa Rosa County for their portion of Santa Rosa Island.

But as I called for earlier, I am all for allowing the TENANT to choose whether or not they want perpetually renewing lease language, which would result in ad-valorem taxes being charged legally to the land portion---or--a lease subject to renegotiation with an initial 99 year term and with a modern, market rate lease fee that has a cost of living escalation clause written-in as well.

It should be their choice--but the language should be standardized for either scenario going forward to avoid the messy confusion and outright inequity between lease holders on the beach currently.

Check out the language in these first series of leases (residential and commercial), below. Is this language tantamount to a conveyance of the land in perpetuity if the lessee so chooses--?

CLICK "READ MORE"  BELOW TO SEE COMMERCIAL LEASE

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......

Joint Meeting BCC/SRIA Scheduled

There are lots of issues to hammer-out, lots of issues to be discussed.   It's time for a joint meeting of the Escambia County Commission and the Santa Rosa Island Authority.  It will happen next month...

Beach Lease Taxation: What If All Leases at Pensacola Beach Were Changed to be Automatically Renewing Leases?

What would the tax ramifications for Escambia County be if all leases on the beach were changed, by ordinance of the BCC through the SRIA, to automatically renewing leases?

........we are discussing this right now in our meeting, the overall beach issue as it pertains to leases, etc. I just threw an idea out; not sure if it would be good or bad, but since we know the taxation of beach properties in Santa Rosa County is lawful (I know the Circuit Court Judge that ruled on the Accardo v Brown case, the one that was upheld at the DCA and the Florida Supreme Court) because all leases on the Santa Rosa County portions of Santa Rosa Island renew automatically which is tantamount to "ownership" --But here is the million dollar question: What would happen if the BCC through the SRIA made an ordinance that all leases in Escambia County at the Beach shall now and forevermore in perpetuity be automatically renewing (like the ones in Santa Rosa County). If Escambia did this, we could tax all leaseholders in Escambia County for improvements and for land-- because we know from Accardo this would be legal to do--because leases that automatically renew are for all intents and purposes equivalent to "ownership" for taxation purposes. 

---Not saying such a move would be popular or that it would happen or could happen--but it seems it would put the current strife to an end, legally, once and for all......