A once-contentious tax aimed at preserving land from development in Osceola County is back on the ballot after nearly 20 years — and residents say it’s more controversial than before.
County commissioners Monday approved drafting an ordinance for a referendum on the November ballot to continue funding the environmental land conservation program with a 0.25 mill property tax.
Residents have paid 25 cents for every $1,000 of assessed property value to fund land conservation across the county since 2004. The program is set to expire in 2025 and officials want to add to the 3,300 acres already preserved through it.
Across the state, conservation agencies like The Trust for Public Land and the Nature Conservancy rank the county first on the list of priorities for land preservation. These agencies are working with the county on a feasibility study to determine which lands should be protected next.
Pegeen Hanrahan, Trust for Public Land Southeast conservation finance director who has worked closely with the county, said what makes Osceola special is the vast scope of environmentally sensitive land that’s vulnerable to rapid development.
“It’s a case of now or never if you want to make sure that the beautiful natural parts of Osceola are protected,” Hanrahan said. “It’s worthwhile for people to consider it now.”
The program proved controversial during its inception nearly 20 years ago: Opponents worried residents couldn’t afford the tax and it would only make landowners richer while supporters warned if it wasn’t approved the county’s rural way of life would end.
That fight continues today as residents carry on advocating for land preservation but say it shouldn’t be left in the hands of local governments.
Michael Lella, county resident for nearly 30 years, said watching local governments allow a toll road slice off a 160-acre piece of once-protected Split Oak Forest broke his trust.
Son of ex-Orange elections chief Cowles works for key voting machine vendor
The state purchased Split Oak Forest in 1994 with funds meant to keep environmentally sensitive lands protected.
“Because of what they did to Split Oak I’d vote against it,” Lella said.
But Hanrahan said situations where protected land is taken out of preservation for development, like the portion of Split Oak, are rare and more land can be protected elsewhere.
“I think that is the kind of thing that can create concern on the part of voters,” Hanrahan said. “Sometimes there are changes as a community develops and there’s a need for other public purpose for property.
“And the hope that we have is that first and foremost they avoid development of natural lands but if they must they at least go out of their way to protect a larger amount of natural land.”
During the County Commission meeting over 70 county residents shared Lella’s skepticism in trusting local government with land.
At the same time, those residents desperately want local government to do something.
In a separate issue that drew two hours of public testimony, residents begged commissioners to reduce the number of townhomes going into a subdivision surrounded by their rural two- to five-acre home lots. In the end, commissioners delayed the decision until the developer can meet with the community.
Alexia Scarborough, one of those at the meeting who asked commissioners to slow development, said the subdivision threatens the rural living of generations of county residents.
“We’re frustrated because there’s not one person out there that doesn’t have some chickens, goats, pigs, cows, horses,” Scarborough said. “So they’re going to make it residential and we’re going to be forced to get rid of our lifestyle even though it’s our property.”
She said the pace of development has picked up during the four years she was away in the Army and she supports adding more conservation land to preserve rural living.
But despite seeing fast-paced development threaten her way of life — a sentiment echoed nearly 20 years ago by tax supporters — she might not vote for the tax measure.
“It depends on who’s running that show,” Scarborough said. “I believe [the tax] is a good idea…but I would definitely have to look through it.”
Hanrahan said trust in local government is often the deciding factor if a tax to buy and conserve land passes. She said if Osceola residents fail to renew it, the county has authority to find funding for the program in a different way.
“I mean obviously most elected officials want to follow the will of their voters … but if it was the view of the county Commission they can always do that through a regular annual budget appropriation,” she said.
Hanrahan said another way of funding land preservation is through public-private companies — like Orange County does. Osceola’s neighboring county does not have voter-authorized funding for a land conservation program. Instead the municipally-owned public utility Orlando Utilities Commission funds land conservation efforts in the county.
A public hearing for the referendum is set for the July 15 County Commission meeting.
