Doesn't look like a $75,000 lease to me.

You are not considering the terms of the lease not only require Seacrets to pay the yearly lease fee but also all the real estate taxes on the property.

Last August the land was appraised for tax purposes at $3,055,200. Tax for 2010/2011 period estimated at $35,000. Thus the new lease has a net value return to OPA of $75,000 in the first year.

However, what Marty and others have failed to mention is the property was appraised last year by our consultant (Lipman, Frizzell & Mitchell LLC of Columbia) at $2,000,000. Today it would probably appraise at even less. To my knowledge OPA has not taken steps to seek a reduction in the state's appraised tax basis. This is kinda amazing to me, but one board member told me that since Seacrets pays the taxes it makes no difference! True. The mentality is amazing, but typical.

Thus when a board member says OPA is receiving a tax benefit of $35,000 it is extremely misleading, to say the least. The true tax benefit for OPA is closer to $20,000, so the net value overall of the lease to OPA is more in the the neighborhood of $60,000 than $75,000.

OPA would be FAR better off if the lease was for $75,000 and OPA paid its own taxes. OPA would have more money; the cost to Seacrets would be the same; and the county/state would not be receiving a $10,000 or so gift courtesy of OPA association members every year.

Do you think such analysis came up when all the OPA experts were examining this latest lease?