Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm
Reporter – News Analyst
March 23, 2017 3:50 p.m.
The Fernandina Observer doesn’t usually focus on Tallahassee activities, not because they aren’t important, but because we have limited resources. This legislative session, however, we have become alarmed over the number of bills introduced that seem to gut home rule authority of chartered cities and counties throughout the state.
At the March 21, 2017 Regular Meeting of the City of Fernandina Beach (FBCC), City Attorney Tammi Bach updated commissioners on some of the pending legislation that could dramatically alter local government authority to regulate business and address matters of concern only to their community.
Bach, who met with members of the Nassau Delegation in Tallahassee last week, spoke to the following specifics:
- Wireless communication facilities. Small cell towers and boxes would be able to be placed in city rights-of-way with no coordination or approval with local governments.
- Vacation rentals. Because Fernandina Beach has an ordinance in place, Bach believes that the city should not be affected, but the state is once again trying to stop local governments from such regulation.
- Transportation network companies. Local governments would be prohibited from regulating services like Uber and Lyft, but does not mention taxicabs.
- Local government preemption (HB17). This would prevent any local regulation of businesses, professions, and has already been passed by 3 committees.
- CRAs. The state is cracking down on Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRAs). Unless an existing CRA is paying off bonds, SB1770 would eliminate CRAs. An amendment is pending that would allow a local government to keep a CRA in place by a super majority vote of the governing body.
- Drones. Despite Police Chief Hurley’s request that the city develop a policy to deal with the growing drone issues, the state is pushing a measure to prevent local government from regulating drones at all.
- Local business taxes would be capped at $25 per business. The city currently generates about $40,000 from local business taxes. The fee is $75 for a restaurant and $50 for other types of business.
- Stormwater management preemption. No local government could pass a more restrictive ordinance than state law to set standards for clean water. The state would dictate how clean stormwater should be prior to discharge.
Bach ended her recitation by saying, “There is no good news. Yet. But hopefully there will be next meeting.”
Newspapers around the state have written editorials opposing state preemption of local government power. “They take away our local decision-making and make it centralized,” said Carol McCormack, president of the Florida League of Mayors and mayor of Palm Shores, during a recent news conference. “The planning and decision-making, they want to leave that up to the legislators in Tallahassee.”
If you would like to follow the progress of any bill this legislative session, you may do so via House and Senate websites. You may also download an app from the Apple App Store or the Google Play Marketplace– search for FLC Events.
You may contact the members of the Nassau delegation via information provided below.
Editor’s Note: Suanne Z. Thamm is a native of Chautauqua County, NY, who moved to Fernandina Beach from Alexandria,VA, in 1994. As a long time city resident and city watcher, she provides interesting insight into the many issues that impact our city. We are grateful for Suanne’s many contributions to the Fernandina Observer.
Preemption = control. Now that these “Tea Party”/Rick Scott/Trumpster/religious extremist butts have managed to get the Federal referees off their backs and wedge themselves into power, they do what they intended all along – tell everyone else just what to do, what not to do, and when to do it – or not do it. Sounds like a plan for control. Freedom for all is freedom for none.
What Robert said…. ^^^^
The biggest legislative change that you have not heard about is the Stewardship District bill that will transform Nassau County for the next 50 yrs. This bill is a local bill HB 1075 and will create a government controlled by one company or land holder for what could be 20 yrs and will have the power to issue $100 million in revenue bonds. They have negotiated a 12% mobility fee refund that takes away needed funds from the schools for capital formation to build new schools. There is language that the debt cannot be taken on by local government absent its “consent”. So if you get the “consent” of the BOCC and the Stewardship District fails, there is a “back door” that allows the debt to be connected to local property owners. It grants powers for “industrial” uses, which then raises questions about how you will manage issues of this “industrial run off” in such an environmentally sensitive swamp land, they have sovereign immunity from lawsuits, they get to enroll into FRS retirement, have their own fire department and private security to keep out the riff raff and of course there is the question of the no interest loan the school board gave them for the $4 million dollar rad and the $40 million elementary school which is being used as a marketing tool already to help sell homes in the community. The problem with HB 1075 is it is “too big to fail”, no where in the bill does it address “who pays?” when there is a default. We know there is another large Stewardship District moving through at the same time this one is ( Rep LaRosa) and this is the new development gig, create a government that is too big to fail and float $100 million in revenue bonds. So for us in Nassau County, we need to ask “who pays?”
I find this Troubling and Confusing. On one hand we have the State Republican Party, pushing to eliminate “Home Rule” (take away local control) from our State’s Communities. through this legislation. While on the National level, the Republican Party is saying, “Hey the Affordable Care Act, imposes undue hardship on some through taxes. Our Citizens deserve to have a choice”. Even have a choice,not to have Health Insurance if they don’t want it. I’m confused on the philosophy, on what is driving this.? Could it be the logical suspect, at both the State and Federal levels. Not people’s wishes and needs But MONEY. I’m sure I answered my own question.
Mr. Adkins continues to mislead the public about the Stewardship District legislation. While Rayonier, Inc., does not anticipate the East Nassau Stewardship District would default on its debt obligations, the Special Act expressly explains that if a default were to occur the debt would not become an obligation of Nassau County or the State or any members of the public outside of the District. The legislation expressly provides: “A default on the bonds or obligations of a District shall not constitute a debt or obligation of the state or any general-purpose local government of the state. In the event of a default or dissolution of the District, no local general-purpose government shall be required to assume the property of the District, the debts of the District, or the District’s obligations to complete any infrastructure improvements or provide any services to the District.” These provisions were explained to Mr. Adkins on Tuesday; however, it appears he continues to deny the plain language of the legislation.
The bill proponents also explained to Mr. Adkins the creation of the District does not impair any environmental, land use, or development permitting authority of the County, State or Federal government. The special act provides the District “shall not have or exercise any comprehensive planning, zoning, or development permitting power;… and all applicable planning and permitting laws, rules, regulations, and policies of Nassau County control the development of the land to be serviced by the special district.” Therefore, the County retains all of its power to regulate industrial uses and environmentally sensitive land. In fact, the establishment of the Stewardship District is the best methodology to ensure a comprehensive and complete communities development approach for the 24,000 acres. The single District will allow the management of (i) an integrated stormwater management system, (ii) an interconnected system of multi-use trails and pathways throughout the lands, which will be available to the public, and (iii) a Conservation and Habitat Network, which will provide a network of environmentally sensitive, regionally significant, natural resources and areas that will provide for landscape connectivity and protection of significant natural resources.
In addition, the Special Act does not impact Nassau County’s previous adoption of Chapter 29, Article VII of the Code of Ordinances in 2013, which established the East Nassau Community Planning Area Mobility Network. This ordinance utilizes tax increment revenues for improved roads, bridges, traffic and travel corridors, bicycle/pedestrian facilities, and other means of access to facilitate mobility for current and future residents of Nassau County.
The creation of the East Nassau Stewardship District will provide the best solution to achieve the near and long term goals envisioned by Nassau County. A 2013 fiscal study indicated the District would produce approximately 20,000 permanent jobs and $12 million in recurring annual net fiscal benefit to the County. The establishment of the District is a fiscally responsible and comprehensive method to develop these lands without burdening residents that live outside of the District.
Mike Bell needs to review his own bill on line 155 of his bill it states “it is the legislative intent and purpose that no debt or obligation of the special district constitute a burden on any local general purpose government without its consent”
The proposed bill HB 1075 carries this legislative intent language which if you understand statutory construction at any level you would know that it is superior to the subsections. The “consent” is the problem and we should just clarify the language and make it clear that we will remove that totally so there is no possibility that not now or ever will the debt of a Stewardship District be defaulted upon the property taxpayers of the county. This is a simple amendment, but wait there are other amendments that Mr. Bell should consider, the sensitive environmental areas that surround this property all impact the pristine St Mary’s River which is essential to the Shrimping industry which defines the “low country” lifestyle that Mr. Bell hopes to sell people on as a way of marketing the community. You need to get serious about an environmental clean up fund as part of our “bonding” dollars, for the $100 million that is estimated to be generated form the bonding authority being sought it would be a simple task to create a Riverkeeper supervised workgroup or conservation oversight board to ensure that water quality is tested and run off, especially from any industrial application that is sought is monitored at appropriate levels.
While we are at it how about on page 104 of the bill line 2564 you eliminate the word “leased” with regards to new schools, we understand you want the authority to build and sell new schools to the school board and to build and donate them that all might be great, but leasing schools to the public school board would be a bad deal for the taxpayers as the public no longer owns the schools and the leases are subject to price level increases that create uncertainty.
Let’ see other changes that might serve the taxpayers would be to strike on page 107 line 2651 the word “liberally” as how the statute is being interpreted. Lets just use the plain meaning of the law or the words rather than seeking to expand through interpretation what might have been “meant”. This word is just to “liberal” and should be removed for the sake of clear meaning.
Of course the 12% mobility fee refund you are seeking deprives the school board of 12% in school board taxes which adversely affects the formula for capital formation needed for long term capital construction dollars. I think on page 105 line 2585 the whole reference to mobility fees until you can get consent from the school board and they tell you sure they can give up that 12% in property taxes, no problem. Get the letter from them and then lets put it back in the bill. Its a bad deal for the taxpayers Mike and will adversely affect capital formation for school construction.
On page 121 line 2999 I would suggest we eliminate the words “be required to” just t help strengthen the meaning of this section.
Finally here the biggie question Mike in case your lobbyist in Tally did not share with you when I spoke in committee – Who pays? The bill HB 1075 does not answer the question of who pays in the event of a default? We need to get a straight answer to that question and it needs to be addressed in the bill. You can make the changes Mr. Bell this is your legislation and you should take these suggestion in the spirit of cooperation with which they are intended.
There are other issues and changes that would take too long, but this would be a good start.
Mike Bell needs to review his own bill on line 155 of his bill it states “it is the legislative intent and purpose that no debt or obligation of the special district constitute a burden on any local general purpose government without its consent”
The proposed bill HB 1075 carries this legislative intent language which if you understand statutory construction at any level you would know that it is superior to the subsections. The “consent” is the problem and we should just clarify the language and make it clear that we will remove that totally so there is no possibility that not now or ever will the debt of a Stewardship District be defaulted upon the property taxpayers of the county. This is a simple amendment, but wait there are other amendments that Mr. Bell should consider, the sensitive environmental areas that surround this property all impact the pristine St Mary’s River which is essential to the Shrimping industry which defines the “low country” lifestyle that Mr. Bell hopes to sell people on as a way of marketing the community. You need to get serious about an environmental clean up fund as part of our “bonding” dollars, for the $100 million that is estimated to be generated form the bonding authority being sought it would be a simple task to create a Riverkeeper supervised workgroup or conservation oversight board to ensure that water quality is tested and run off, especially from any industrial application that is sought is monitored at appropriate levels.
While we are at it how about on page 104 of the bill line 2564 you eliminate the word “leased” with regards to new schools, we understand you want the authority to build and sell new schools to the school board and to build and donate them that all might be great, but leasing schools to the public school board would be a bad deal for the taxpayers as the public no longer owns the schools and the leases are subject to price level increases that create uncertainty.
Let’ see other changes that might serve the taxpayers would be to strike on page 107 line 2651 the word “liberally” as how the statute is being interpreted. Lets just use the plain meaning of the law or the words rather than seeking to expand through interpretation what might have been “meant”. This word is just to “liberal” and should be removed for the sake of clear meaning.
Of course the 12% mobility fee refund you are seeking deprives the school board of 12% in school board taxes which adversely affects the formula for capital formation needed for long term capital construction dollars. I think on page 105 line 2585 the whole reference to mobility fees until you can get consent from the school board and they tell you sure they can give up that 12% in property taxes, no problem. Get the letter from them and then lets put it back in the bill. Its a bad deal for the taxpayers Mike and will adversely affect capital formation for school construction.
On page 121 line 2999 I would suggest we eliminate the words “be required to” just t help strengthen the meaning of this section.
Finally here the biggie question Mike in case your lobbyist in Tally did not share with you when I spoke in committee – Who pays? The bill HB 1075 does not answer the question of who pays in the event of a default? We need to get a straight answer to that question and it needs to be addressed in the bill. You can make the changes Mr. Bell this is your legislation and you should take these suggestion in the spirit of cooperation with which they are intended.
Mr Adkins and his followers have made these and other false allegations on numerous occasions before the Nassau Board of County Commissioners, the Local Legislative Delegation, and now before Florida House legislative committees. Each time, every one of his assertions and false narratives have been completely refuted and yet he continues his quest to mislead people about what the bill does. Those wishing to view the latest attempt to derail this legislation by Mr Adkins in which his false narratives were refuted and ultimately defeated in a 10-2 vote may go to the Florida House of Representatives website, click on Committees/Local, Federal, & Veterans Affairs Subcommittee and under the on demand video archive the bill is presented at the 1 hour and 9 minute portion of the hearing.
The “preemption” issue in this proposed legislation is broader and more consequential than just the authority of the “Stewardship District” as batted back and forth between Mike Bell and Doug Adkins.
Mr. Bell is on a quest to pass a bill that creates a government that can then float $100 million (estimated) in bonds. The question he needs to answer in his bill is when there is a default like we see with CDD throughout Florida who will pay? There is no answer to this question. Mr. Bell forgot to mention that the other “Stewardship District” by Larosa passed without objection, obviously there are concerns hence the split vote. The BOCC narrowly passed it here locally on a 3-2 vote and Mr. Bell still has not said whether he will take any of the proposed amendments. Too big to fail is what you get with HB 1075, we need to know what happens if there is a default, its a reasonable question, how about a reasonable answer.