Perdido ruling may impact park plan

Originaly Published by the Pensacola News Journal

Published- September, 7, 2007

Referendum may be needed for Maritime Park financing

Kris Wernowsky

A Florida Supreme Court decision Thursday leaves the fate of public funding for the proposed Community Maritime Park and the relocation of the ECUA sewage treatment plant in question.

City Attorney John Fleming said Friday that the ruling could represent a setback for several local redevelopment projects, including the Maritime Park and a plan to move the Emerald Coast Utilities Authority's sewage treatment plant away from the edge of downtown Pensacola.

Fleming did not offer a what's-next timeline, since the park's overall plan has not yet been finalized.The proposed $70 million Maritime Park project is to include a multiuse stadium, maritime museum and retail and commercial space on 30 waterfront acres south of Pensacola City Hall. Public funds are to pay $40 million of the cost; the private sector is to contribute the remaining $30 million.In a referendum a year ago, Pensacola voters gave the city the green light to build the park. But Fleming said a second referendum on the specific issue of financing might have to be held in light of the ruling.

"It has a real potential for impact in that the city agreed to issue tax-increment financing bonds to fund the public-improvement portion of the park project," Fleming said of the Supreme Court ruling.

The ruling - which raises questions about publicly funded projects from Miami to Perdido Key - requires a voter referendum before bonds can be repaid with money generated through special tax-increment finance districts. TIF districts, as they're commonly known, work by earmarking future tax money to pay for public works efforts like road construction and economic development. "In order to pledge tax increments for the repayment of such bonds, approval of the electorate by referendum is required," Justice Kenneth Bell, a Pensacola native, wrote in the unanimous 7-0 decision.

The $40 million public contribution to the Maritime Park is to be funded by bonds issued by the city and repaid with anticipated tax revenue from the Community Redevelopment Agency.

The CRA district is funded with a portion of city and county property tax revenue from a downtown area south of Cervantes Street and between A Street and 17th Avenue. The 10 City Council members comprise the CRA board and decide where the money will be spent within the district. The court ruling says bonds that were validated prior to the opinion's release are not affected. But the $40 million in bonds promised by the city have not been issued. Bob Hart, an attorney for Community Maritime Park Associates, said he hopes the original referendum could eliminate the need to hold a separate vote to approve the financing.

"We are examining now ways in which the CRA funding could be obtained without the necessity of a referendum," Hart said. "It's possible that the previous referendum may be something that enables us to go forward.

"Quint Studer, a businessman who led the local drive for the Community Maritime Park, said the court ruling could be a setback.He said large public works projects, like the Maritime Park, have the potential to stimulate the economy by creating jobs. Anything that puts such a project at risk, he said, could have potential long-term effects throughout the community.

"Any rule that hurts an agreed-upon public project could create damage for the potential to create jobs," Studer said.Fleming said he also will review the city Community Redevelopment Agency's expected $19.5 million contribution to help partially fund the relocation of the ECUA sewage treatment plant. "There's not a commitment to do a bond issue for the ECUA project," he said. "The way the deal is structured, the city would provide payments periodically over a period of years. It's not TIF revenues, but I just want to look into it.

"ECUA Executive Director Steve Sorrell said officials from the authority also are examining details of the opinion to see what effect it might have on the agreement with the city.

"It was somewhat of a ground-shaking decision," Sorrell said. "As far as the way it's going to impact us, we don't know yet. But I'm sure, just like always, we'll find some way to work things out with the city."