Latest Headlines
- Large Crowd Attends Annual Sawmill Day Festival And Car Show
- Mostly Sunny, About 86 Sunday
- Push Continues To Widen Full Length Of Highway 164 Following School Bus And Tractor Crash
- Molino Man Charged With February Homicide
- 379 Students Take Part In Battle Of The Books (With Results, Photo Gallery)
- ECSO: Molino Man Kills Himself During SWAT Standoff
- Fitterer Fantastic In 3-1 Wahoos Win
- Bus, Tractor Crash Near Walnut Hill
- Reports Detail Allegations Against Century Man That Evaded Capture For Months
- Jim Allen Elementary Names April Students Of The Month
Santa Rosa Voters Reject Courthouse Sales Tax; Other Santa Rosa Results
November 5, 2014
Santa Rosa County voters rejected a sale tax increase that would have funding a new county courthouse with 56 percent against.
The current Santa Rosa County Courthouse is located in downtown Milton. Built in 1927, the building size is no longer sufficient for all the necessary courthouse functions and the design of the building creates security issues for the public and staff. according to the county. The parking, heating and cooling system, and telephone and computer network infrastructure are also no longer adequate for daily operations. County officials argued that a new facility that could serve the county today, and up to 75 years in the future, was desperately needed.
The one-cent sales tax increase for the courthouse, if passed, would have been limited to five years.
Here are other complete, but unofficial results, from Santa Rosa County:
Santa Rosa County Commissioner Dist. 2
Bob Cole (R / Inc.) 40,694 80%
Wallis Mahute (NPA) 10,114 20%
Santa Rosa County Commissioner Dist. 4
Rob Williamson (R) 40,523 81%
Etta Lawlor (L) 9,602 19%
Santa Rosa School Board Dist. 3
Carol Boston 30,314 64%
Jim Taylor 16,848 36%
Santa Rosa Sales Tax for Courthouse
Against 29,269 56%
For 23,155 44%
Santa Rosa Downtown Milton Courthouse
No 31,652 64%
Yes 17,437 36%
Santa Rosa East Milton Courthouse
No 34,794 72%
Yes 13,462 28%
Santa Rosa Pea Ridge Courthouse
No 37,801 78%
Yes 10,759 22%
Pictured top: A artist conception of a new Santa Rosa County Courthouse. Voters rejected a tax at the polls Tuesday that would have funded construction.
Comments
7 Responses to “Santa Rosa Voters Reject Courthouse Sales Tax; Other Santa Rosa Results”
The reason this did not pass is that the public did not understand the need and believed that it was all about Judges and Lawyer egos.
Wrong! The voters are not stupid. All over this country modular courtrooms are being put in existing commercial space and government buildings. With four large modular courtrooms in the Administration building where there is ample parking and less than 7 blocks from the existing courthouse, all the civil could be moved over to the county building. 30 years ago I could walk into any door of the courthouse without security, and the recorder and other county offices were in the building. If people who are elected started working for the citizens to solve this problem without a new building…..it already would be paid for and operating efficiently. Beware citizens…..next the scheduling slow down and false flags of compliance on the building. Europe has three hundred year old courts, yet we need something new just over 75 years……..Again, the voters are not stupid.
Escambia approved/renewed two taxes because they know funds will have to be gotten so why not let those that travel our roads, spend on vacation and any other that may assist. OR we will have higher property taxes. Growth cost that’s a fact Jack…
Sorry to disagree with some of you but I DO think that the current building is a mess and needs to be replaced. It was poorly designed and constructed. It has had repeated costly attempts to recover from that poor construction. Of all things the building has a basement. What idiot thought that would be a good idea? Just a place for mold and flooding. Which are the problems it has frequently had.
We need to build something not waste money on temporary buildings that will be replaced with a permanent building at some point anyway.
We have a problem. The state is going to mandate a replacement and force us to pay for it. Soon it will not be a choice and at that point expect some tax changes to hit your pocket.
We need a REASONABLE and not elaborate or extravagant as some of the judges think they need. No one should go to court and think…”oh I’m in trouble now because of how big and expensive the judges desk is”. If they do we need better judges not more expensive furniture. A judge can be taken seriously if they show backbone even if they are sitting at a simple desk.
We need quality because it will last longer. We need good construction to survive storm’s. WE DO NOT NEED IVORY COLUMNS, MAHOGANY, GRANITE, or MARBLE!!!! That is all for show and does nothing for the building itself.
The reason this did not pass is that the public did not understand the need and believed that it was all about Judges and Lawyer egos. Education and a commitment to not waste money would have had a different result.
How about the commissioners quit building horse arenas and soccer fields for the community niche and use those funds to build a new courthouse without voter approval? I certainly never remember voting for horses or soccer.
G. Locust, Have you ever had the need to use the current courthouse? What about jury duty? The current courthouse was designed to serve 15000 people and now there are 150000 people in the county. I just don’t understand why projects that actually make sense do not get the support they need. I hope everyone who voted “no” suddenly will have to use the current courthouse and maybe that will open their eyes a little bit.
The failure of the tax vote falls on the county commission completely. They had a election for the tax payers money with a open end, or a non binding clause and the voters saw it. Fifty million is a unreal amount to spend on the building also.
They have that politicians mentality that the voters have unlimited funds for them to spend. Design a modest building, decide where it will be built, and then have a vote for funding. As usual, the CC dropped the ball.
The voters have made it abundantly clear that they do not think this is necessary. Vacant commercial space is abundant and modular courtrooms can be installed in those buildings within a half mile of the existing courthouse, not to mention better utilizing the administration building where modular courtrooms can be put in the board room and adjacent to the building. It is not the end of the world for judges and lawyers to hop in the car and travel six to eight blocks from the main courthouse. Three or four modular courtrooms take the pressure off the existing courthouse, and instead of brick and mortar…….how about better scheduling of the existing facility, better utilization, and for once listening to the voters.