Local Government
A draft agreement with the City of Pensacola surfaced publicly before most of the county commission had even seen it, and today’s Committee of the Whole meeting made clear just how little the board had been told.
This afternoon, Mayor D.C. Reeves pulled the Interlocal Agreement from the Pensacola City Council’s agenda after watching the COW meeting. It made no sense for the council to discuss it if the Board of County Commissioners is still deliberating it. In other words, the City of Pensacola was blindsided by County Administrator Wes Moreno and his leadership team, too.
The Bay Center rehab has cleared plenty of hurdles at the Escambia County Commission this year. This morning, it hit one nobody on the board saw coming: a draft interlocal agreement with the City of Pensacola that Rick’s Blog published before commissioners got a look at it.
- Note: I found the draft on the council’s agenda for its next meeting. County Administrator Wes Moreno published no supporting documents with COW agenda, which I reported earlier this week. Read Interlocal Agreement between City and County – Future of Pensacola Bay Center.
Commissioner Steven Barry was the first to flag it. “This interlocal agreement is going to need some attention,” he said. “The proposed draft being agreed to being approved by county legal—I mean, that’s one thing. That’s not the board. And I don’t know if my colleagues approved that. I certainly didn’t give a stamp of approval to that.”
He wasn’t alone. Commissioner Lumon May said the meeting was the first he’d heard of it.
“I don’t know who negotiated that. I’m not interested in anyone — obviously staff can go — but it’s not ready. I mean, if it’s being negotiated without consultation from all five of us, then that’s just not a good negotiation.”
May said even the county’s talks with Mayor D.C. Reeves caught him flat-footed. “I have not heard anything about an interlocal until today. I didn’t even know anything about the meetings that was being held. Today, this morning is the first time I had any conversation with the mayor. And as I said, he said it was non-binding.”
“They’re not going to negotiate on my behalf”
May argued the agreement is too politically charged to be left to staff.
- Elected officials, not employees, will answer for the outcome
- Staff “don’t put their name on a ballot”
- Any deal needs consultation with all five commissioners before it’s drafted, not after
“If we’re going to negotiate something as political as this is and as public as it is, I mean, it can’t be staff negotiating because they don’t put their name on a ballot and nor are they voted on,” May said. “It has to be the elected officials at some point … I assure you, whatever decision we make, the only people that are going to get beat up are the elected officials. And so if I’m going to have a responsibility to get beat up on it, I’m going to have an informed decision.”
Barry went further, tying the entire phase-one renovation to whether the county and city can actually reach terms. “If we can’t get an interlocal agreement, it’s moot,” Barry said. “I’m not going to vote to put any money on the project.”
Kohler: “That got a lot of brouhaha”
Commissioner Mike Kohler said he shared the frustration but wasn’t ready to sound the alarm.
- “The interlocal agreement, obviously yesterday, that got a lot of brouhaha. I’m not overly worried about that at this point. I think we can probably get to something reasonable. But I was caught off guard on that too. And I think that that should have had a little bit more discussion before today because it obviously was out on social media and ‘city’s going to decide and we’re going to pay’ and all this nonsense that it doesn’t help the project as a whole.”
Kohler said Mayor Reeves reached out to him directly to walk back some of the online reaction. “The mayor texted me earlier saying he believes it’s a little bit out of context, and I’ll take him for his word on that. But it still needs to be defined a little bit more.”
What’s binding, what isn’t: Assistant County Attorney Geoff Brodersen told the board the document has no legal force yet. “That still is an operational document at this point,” he said. “If the board wants to give some direction for a time back, I would think we’d be able to schedule meetings over the next couple months and have a reasonable outcome to be able to bring back to the board, at least in terms of its status.”
The property behind the paperwork
Brodersen also reminded commissioners that the Bay Center site itself sits on borrowed ground, which is part of why the interlocal matters so much. “The property is subject to a lease agreement,” he said.
- “It’s both with the FDOT and City of Pensacola. FDOT owns the majority of the property. The City of Pensacola owns kind of the eastern parking lot area. So it’s actually a sublease and lease agreement all within one lease agreement.
- The operative part of a lease as it relates to us is that any material changes and material alterations to any structures require prior written approval from the city of Pensacola.
- And it must also be expressly approved in advance by Florida Department of Transportation.”
He said that approval requirement has gone essentially untested for four decades.
- “There hasn’t been any contact that I’m aware of with FDOT in the 40 years or any material contact with FDOT in the 40?plus years that the lease is going on. So I don’t perceive any problems with FDOT.
- And also, I’m not aware of any issues with the City of Pensacola over those 40 years either. But just to put that out there, technically there is that prior written approval required under the lease.”
Where it stands
No vote was taken on the interlocal agreement today. Brodersen said his office would resume talks with the city and report back on its status within a couple of months. In the meantime, commissioners signaled they’re willing to keep phase one design work moving, but several made clear that without a signed agreement with the city, the county’s larger Bay Center ambitions don’t get very far.
As Commissioner Barry put it: no interlocal, no vote, no money.
“`