|
Home >
Legislative Tracker
> Bad Babcock Ranch amendment to HB981 State Parks: HB1515 Babcock Ranch Independent Special District
Land Use:
Bad Babcock Ranch amendment to HB981 State Parks: HB1515 Babcock Ranch Independent Special District
Our Position: oppose
Bill Number: HB981 (SB94,SB2054)/HB1515/SB2994
Sponsor:
Legislative Session: 2007
GOVERNOR VETOED HB981
5/4/07:HB981: Ordered engrossed, then enrolled on Friday, May 04, 2007 1:39 PM
5/4/07: HB1515 was voted on by the Senate on 5/2/07 and then ordered enrolled. Because this is a local bill, the rules are different and there does not have to be a companion to have the bill become law. So the Senate Version SB2994 died in committee.
HB981 amendment language sets a precedent for the legislature to step in and modify a contract made between the Ranch and Governor and Cabinet.
5/3/07: HB981, the State Parks bill, was amended with a different version
for revenue generating activities on Babcock Ranch. The bill has been
sent back to the House today, 5/3/07. The bill is now in returning
messages for final vote Friday, by the House.
Here is the amendment language. We still oppose changes to the management plan.
(c) Notwithstanding the prohibition or restrictions
contained in the management agreement, areas of the ranch
historically used for tenant farming may continue to be leased
out by Babcock Ranch Management, LLC. Such leases, extensions or renewal periods shall be for a term of not less than one
year or more than four years, and shall not exceed the total
amount of acreage covered by the tenant leases in existence on July 31, 2006.
(d) Until the management plan developed pursuant to s. 253.034 and s. 259.032, is adopted, hunting for the purposes of reasonable wildlife population and habitat management shall be allowed on the preserve. Such purposes shall include prevention of overgrazing, di sease, and overpopulation. All hunting shall be conducted pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; however, Babcock Ranch Management, LLC., shall have the authority to charge reasonable access fees to the general public. Special opportunity hunts for persons with disabilities and those under 18 years of age shall be a priority. Until the management plan required by the management agreement is adopted, hunting for the purposes of
reasonable wildlife population and habitat management shall be equivalent in purpose to any other recreational use on thepreserve.
(e) The provisions of paragraphs (c) and (d) shall be
contingen t upon Babcock Ranch Management, LLC., meeting the requirements of s. 259.1053(11)(d). The Board of Trustees shall order an audit pursuant to section 27, part V of the management agreement.
(f) For the purposes of paragraphs (c) and (d) the management agreement is that document attached as Exhibit "E"
to that certain agreement for sale and purchase approved by
the Board of Trustees on November 22, 2005, and by Lee County on November 20, 2005
4/28/07: Action needed:HB981/SB2054/SB94: State Parks bill to amend Babcock Ranch statute to harvest cypress is a little better, but still foot in the door. Here is the language click here and go to line number 194 to read the cypress harvesting amendment (c) We continue to oppose this language
Lawmaker backs off plan to cut cypress
Sarasota Herald Tribune, 4/26/2007
TALLAHASSEE -- A Panhandle lawmaker has backed off a quest to allow logging of swamp-land trees at the Babcock Ranch.
Rep. Will Kendrick, R-Carrabelle, blamed environmental groups and the media Wednesday for generating so much controversy that he removed cypress tree logging from a proposal to resume money-making operations at the state's 74,000-acre Babcock preserve.
'It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why I'm doing this,' Kendrick said. 'It was a good bill. I'm always trying to make good bills.'
But environmentalists are still concerned about Kendrick's new plan, which moved forward in the Florida House on Wednesday. Under the latest version, cypress logging would be allowed if Gov. Charlie Crist and the Florida Cabinet approved.
Hunting and tenant farming, which once produced in $1.3 million in annual revenues, would also resume.
The money could help developer Syd Kitson recoup the money he said he has lost since he took over management of the state-owned property.
While the developer would stand to benefit, Kitson lobbyist Sam Ard said he isn't the force behind Kendrick's proposal. Ard said Kitson would be 'lucky to break even' because the hunting and farming operations would be on public land.
Kendrick took heat this week for his original proposal, which would have allowed the state to resume cutting cypress trees on the 80 percent of Babcock's 91,000 acres that the state paid Kitson $350 million for last year.
Kitson plans to build a city of 40,000 people on the remaining land straddling Lee and Charlotte counties.
Under a contract with the state, Kitson is to manage the ranch for at least five years. Money-makers such as hunting and farming were put on hold while the state drafted a management plan.
Babcock's cypress tree logging, which generated $800,000 in 2005, was banned altogether because the trees grow in sensitive wetlands.
Since the operations ceased, Kitson's representatives say the developer has lost about $280,000 managing the ranch.
Kendrick and some other lawmakers feared the state would also lose money once it took over ranch management.
Susie Caplowe, lobbyist for the Sierra Club, said she plans to fight the bill because it doesn't ban cypress cutting.
'It's still bad,' she said. 'The state bragged about buying the land for preservation and now they're going to back out on their agreement.'
The bill faces one more vote in the House before going to the Senate, where its fate is unclear.
Sen. Paula Dockery, R-Lakeland, who led the fight to stop the money-making operations last year, said returning cypress logging to Babcock would be a 'dangerous precedent' to set on state land.
Instead, the state should simply pay more money to run Babcock, she said.
Staff writer Lloyd Dunkelberger contributed to this report.
Last modified: April 26. 2007 4:29AM
4/21/07: Representatives Mayfield and Kendrick are trying to amend the Babcock Ranch statute to permit the harvesting of cypress and other revenue generating activities that we beat back last year, to HB981, State Parks bill.
3/31/07: HB1515/SB2994:This bill would create a new District so that the Charlotte County local government comp plan rules are voided.
|
|
| |
| Charlotte County: Creates Babcock Ranch Community Independent Special District; provides boundaries; provides charter; provides for governing board; provides for special powers to plan, finance, & provide community infrastructure & services; provides for bonds; provides for ad valorem assessments; requires referendum. |
| Effective Date: upon this act becoming law, and the remaining sections shall take effect upon approval by a majority vote of the owners of land within the district who are not exempt from ad valorem taxes or non-ad valorem assessments and who are present in person or by proxy at a landowners' meeting to be held within 90 days after the effective date of this act. Such landowners' meeting shall be noticed as provided in section 5 for the initial landowners' meeting and may be combined with such meeting. However, the provisions of this act that authorize the levy of ad valorem taxation and issuance of general obligation bonds shall take effect only upon express approval by a majority vote of those qualified electors of the Babcock Ranch Community Independent Special District voting in a referendum election held at such time as all members of the board are qualified electors who are elected by qualified electors of the district as provided in this act. |
|
|
Last Event: Filed on Monday, March 05, 2007 6:10 PM | |
Status
GOVERNOR VETOED HB981
5/4/07: HB981 Ordered enrolled.
5/4/07: HB1515 was voted on by the Senate on 5/2/07 and ordered enrolled. The rules are different for local bills and a companion is not needed for local bills to become law, even though the a companion bill SB2994 died in Committee.
5/2/07: a new amendment surfaced by Senators Baker and Dockery to HB981/SB94. This language was adopted and replaced the cypress harvesting by Representatives Mayfield and Kendrick. click here to read the amendment. The Senate voted and sent this bill back to the House. The House voted on it Friday, 5/4/07.
Click here to see the votes. Look at Vote History
4/21/07: Representatives Mayfield and Kendrick are trying to amend to HB981,State Parks, the Babcock Ranch statute to permit the harvesting of cypress and other revenue generating activities that we beat back last year.
3/31/07: On 3/28 the House Bill passed out of the Governmental Efficiency and Accountabiliy Council 10-0 with a committee substitute incoporating several amendments from the first committee of reference hearing.
To learn more about the bill and follow the history click here.
3/24/07:
Action Needed
GOVERNOR VETOED HB981
5/4/07:HB981: Ordered engrossed, then enrolled on Friday, May 04, 2007 1:39 PM
5/4/07: HB1515 was voted on by the Senate on 5/2/07 and ordered enrolled. The rules are different for local bills and a companion is not needed for local bills to become law, even though the a companion bill SB2994 died in Committee.
4/28/07: Action needed:HB981/SB2054/SB94: State Parks bill to amend Babcock Ranch statute to harvest cypress is a little better, but still foot in the door. Here is the language click here and go to line number 194 to read the cypress harvesting amendment (c) We continue to oppose this language
4/21/07: Bad Babcock Ranch amendment by Representatives Kendrick and Mayfield to HB981, State Parks, which will be up in the House Floor sometime week 9. We will let you know.
4/21/07: Bad Babcock Ranch amendment filed against HB981.
Click here to read up on HB981.
3/31/07: to follow the history of the HB1515 click here.
More information
CLICK HERE TO READ HB1515, DIED IN MESSAGES
CLICK HERE TO READ SB2994, DIED IN COMMITTEE
CLICK HERE TO READ HB981, ORDERED ENROLLED
CLICK HERE TO READ HB94, REPLACED BY HB981
Background
Analysis provided by folks from Charlotte Harbor Group:
This ISD legislation is improved in terms of public interest protection from what we saw in the initial legislation considered by Charlotte & Lee Co. boards but it is still bad news. I'm sorry I don't have a great deal of time for review but some key points are:
It does include representation by Lee & Charlotte Co. to the Board ... they will be non-voting.
The most troubling provisions continue to be those that undermine basic democratic principles ... these provisions are not excluded by Florida law ... that doesn't make them right. In particular:
1.. The new quasi-government district will have powers of eminent domain within and outside their boundaries. They may only exercise the power outside their boundaries with approval by the board of the county where the taking will occur. It can be used for "transportation improvements", water, water mgt., sewer. One can easily imagine a "transportation improvement" plan brokered with the counties to the East of the ranch where they might take a private citizen's land (perhaps to connect to the Heartland Expressway ...).
2. Members of the governing board need only be residents of the US and the state. They are not required to be residents of the county or the city itself.
3. It is not clear that the landowners who will elect the board need be real persons.
4. Only landowners elect the board (1 acre / 1 vote) until specific thresholds. They are lower than originally proposed but it will still be a long time before the board (with far reaching powers) will have representatives elected by citizens (think Water Mgt. Districts...only with even more authority).
5. The legislation contains more public interest protection in the form of not allowing the district to levy ad valrom taxes until the board is elected by qualified electors and it tightens up public protection regrading the schools.
However, notice there is one simple sentence regarding mosquito control and regarding waste collection. (pg. 48 of 91 in the house bill). These should be further clarified.
It also give water mgt. authority to the district including the right to build roads and bridges connecting water ways.
This ISD is important to Kitson, et al. primarily for the opportunity for financing. You should have someone with financial expertise look over the bill language on bond financing, etc.
This bill is contrary to public interest and participation in government and I hope you will make clear to the Governor's office the key concerns.
|
