By Michael Peltier
The News Service of Florida
With lawmakers already frustrated over a lack of oversight, recent reports on the state’s landmark $536 million Everglades agreement with U.S. Sugar Corp. may add momentum for a legislative response in an attempt to prevent a repeat of the controversial deal, a key House lawmaker said Monday.
Meanwhile, a scheduled meeting of the South Florida Water Management District’s Board this week to extend the closing deadline for the contract that ends March 31 is also likely to provide a venue for renewed scrutiny of the May 2009 agreement for the district to purchase nearly 73,000 acres from the sugar company.
Rep. Trudi Williams, R-Fort Myers, and chairwoman of the House Agricultural and Natural Resources Policy Committee, told the News Service of Florida Monday that she will attempt to craft a committee proposal by merging three similar House bills that would require legislative approval before water management districts could make large land purchases in the future.
A vocal critic of the deal penned last year, Williams said the legislation is necessary to ensure that future legislators won’t have to merely sit back and watch the water management district board, the members of which are appointed by the governor. As for the U.S. Sugar deal, however, Williams said the Legislature’s hands may be tied.
“I don’t know any vehicle for the Legislature to intervene right now,” Williams said. “If I had a vehicle, I would certainly try to exercise it.”
Backers say the purchase is critical for Everglades restoration efforts. Critics, meanwhile, characterize it as a sweetheart deal for an otherwise financially strapped company and the law firm that represents it.
The deal originally called for the taxpayers in the water management taxing district’s 16 county area across South Florida to spend $1.75 billion for 187,000 acres, about 300 square miles. Facing tough financial times, though, the agreement was renegotiated. If approved, the state will have the option to purchase an additional 107,000 acres.
Recent articles in The Miami Herald and a weekend piece by The New York Times have re-ignited debate over the already controversial transaction, potentially the most expensive land purchase in state history. Among the questions raised were over the parcel’s appraised value, environmental quality and location of lands slated for purchase.
The land being bought was appraised during the height of the speculation boom, but land values have since plummeted. Yet the agreement is still based on the higher values, The Times reported. Appraisals on the original $1.75 billion purchase had fallen by $400 million.
Also at issue is the district’s ability to pay. The purchase is being paid by property taxes, collections of which have fallen with property values. The tax base has fallen from $549 million in 2008 to an estimated $405 million 2011. The drop in tax base has raised concerns that the district can no longer afford such a pricey item.
On Monday, the chairman of the joint legislative panel overseeing Everglades issues tried to dispel rumors that the district would be on the hook for the purchase even if it couldn’t meet its other obligations. The contract, he said gives the district an easy out.
“We want it to be very clear, if the money is there you can go forward, if not, the deal’s off,” said Rep. Julio Robaina, R-Miami and chairman of the Joint Legislative Committee on Everglades Oversight.
The Florida Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument for April 7 to determine if the water management district is justified in selling $534 million in bonds to pay for the purchase. It’s historically a limited review.
The water management governing board is meeting Wednesday to extend the contract that otherwise would expire March 31. Williams said she expects the board to extend the contract for an additional six months to accommodate the high court’s schedule
