Escambia commissioners press for firm timeline, legal review in Beulah Town Center negotiations

Escambia County commissioners discussed whether to enter negotiations on competing proposals for the Beulah Town Center site and asked staff and counsel to provide a contract comparison and identify problematic contractual terms; no formal motion or vote was recorded.

The discussion centered on three priorities commissioners said should guide any deal: creation of high-wage jobs, an acceptable return on the county’s investment, and contract terms (down payment, interest and timeline) that limit the county’s long-term liability. County Attorney Allison told the board the proposals submitted so far are one-sided and contain provisions that may be problematic or illegal and warned the county should not accept them wholesale.

Allison said staff would prepare a comparison matrix of the competing offers and attempt to identify provisions that need negotiation. “Please don't just accept any of those as they are because they each contain certain provisions that are either problematic or illegal or are not in your favor,” Allison said. She told the board she would distribute an updated matrix during the day and recommended negotiation of contract language before any final acceptance.

Representatives of the Beulah Town Center told the board they expected principals to meet later the same day to refine terms. “The principals are meeting at 11 o'clock,” Will Dunaway, who identified himself as representing the Beulah Town Center, said.

Commissioners discussed timelines for completing negotiations if they reach agreement to proceed. One commissioner proposed a 60-day window to finalize terms; others said 30 days would likely show whether a viable contract can be produced. Commissioners also discussed whether to retain outside counsel or consultants experienced in large-scale development agreements if negotiations stall.

Board members noted there are multiple bidders (the board indicated two active bidders and referenced Ryan Bell as another party whose status was unclear) and said they did not want to alienate unsuccessful proposers during negotiations. The board asked staff to continue negotiating and to return contract comparisons and identified legal issues to the board before any final vote.

No formal motion to enter negotiations or to select a developer was recorded in the transcript. The board discussed next steps and requested additional staff work and legal review; the matter will return for further consideration at a later meeting.

The discussion followed earlier public-agenda procedural items and came amid broader comments about meeting timing and participant limits.