CMP deal isn’t ready for Council vote
by Derek Cosson April 6, 2009
6 comments
Tags: CMPA / Community Maritime Park / Pensacola City Council
City Manager Al Coby reports that the Community Maritime Park development agreement between the CMPA/City and Maritime Park Development Partners (MPDP) is not finalised and will not be ready in time for the Pensacola City Council to take action at today’s committee meetings.
However, Mr. Coby believes that “significant progress has been made and there is little doubt that an Agreement will be reached.”
City staff plans to give Council a full briefing on the negotiations this afternoon.
Attached below is Mr. Coby’s memorandum to Council:
Subscribe to our feed
Get updates via email
Follow us on Twitter
‘
It’s a shame that the News Journal didn’t give a more in-depth coverage of the sticking points. In spite of the optimistic memo by Al Coby, these may be real “show-stoppers” in this agreement
In an attempt to read between the lines, I do know that the city has some very bizarre insurance requirements. Nevertheless, anyone who has had to deal with the city in the past has had to comply with them. Thus far, however, the city has broken every standing policy on the books to accommodate the folks who to build a baseball stadium with our land and our money. Only time will tell!
This so-called developer (actually, a group of local people with their hands out) may not even be ABLE to obtain the required insurance. In addition, they may have to fork over hard cash to buy the insurance, something they can’t or won’t do.
The “developer” also seems to want to keep on developing the property even after they have been fired.
.
Even non profits holding an ice cream social in one of the city’s parks have to provide insurance.
The city hasn’t upheld the requirement that a restaurant be located at Palafox Pier and couldn’t make a decision on what was considered reasonable time for repairs after IVAN . Is the former lillo’s still empty and molding?
Coby seems much smarter than the previous manager.
I hope they explain how their so called slum district can fund a 50 million deal. Of the 6 highrise condo projects covered in the PNJ ad campaign 0 have been built.
Either the slum district is not a slum district at all but a taxing district slush fund for the city OR somehow the tax assessments must be increased in the that district to fund the plan and take up the shortage created by fact that the proposed new developments presented did not materialize.
Either way, citizens owning property in that district lose the possibility of future improvements to the district as the CRA will be majorly stretched to help fund the sewer plant removal and the CMP for a very long time.
Where did Barker get his numbers when he gave his report that the CRA could also help pay to move the sewer plant? What income was flowing to the CRA then that is not today?
Were his estimates of CRA revenue 50% off actual revenue (as reported by the PNJ?)
Now he’s looking for a deferral of payment from ECUA before the payments even start desperately seeking a way to fund this park and back up the claims the city has made that the CRA can fund it all.
When is Barker’s retirement date? After this house of cards falls?
‘
In 2007, Barker said that the principal and interest for the baseball stadium would be $71 million. The city was the only entity that was using a figure that low.
In 2009, Barker says that the P&I is $91.4 million, even though interest rates have gone down during that period.
.
It was Barker that didn’t notice the Cox Cable tax shortage. And it is Barker that watches and reports on the pension funds . Rick Outzen suggests using pension funds to invest in the ballpark. What a great idea and investment for city employees and councilmembers.
Why no outside CPA reports on the financial stability of this city AFTER it commits to these obligations while facing funding shortages for pension funds and funding shortages from ad valorem taxes?
If values have dropped so that property owners are upside down on mortgages, the assessments must go down and that = less tax for the city to spend.