A House committee on Thursday recommended passage of a bill that would prohibit the sale of 6,300 acres of a state research farm to a private entity.
The House Committee on Education approved House Bill 1694 on a voice vote, with no objections heard. The bill goes to the full House.
Sponsored by Rep. Steve Hollowell, R-Forrest City, HB1694 would scuttle plans by the University of Arkansas system's Division of Agriculture to sell some 6,300 acres of its Pine Tree Research Station in St. Francis County to Lobo Farms LLC. The station, named for the nearby community of Pine Tree, has about 11,000 acres.
Only representatives from the UA system spoke against the bill, saying the Division of Agriculture needed the money and that it had entered into a valid contract to sell the land for some $17 million, plus an endowment of $1 million for research into animal and wetlands conservation.
Three hunters spoke for the bill, saying the property was a rare, and affordable, place in eastern Arkansas for the public to hunt, fish, hike and bird watch. Several more members of the public were unable to testify because of time constraints faced by the committee.
Melissa Rust, a UA system vice president and lobbyist, said $5 million of the sale's proceeds would match a $5 million grant from the Arkansas Rice Research and Promotion Board toward construction of the new Northeast Rice Research and Extension Center near Jonesboro. Proceeds also would go toward infrastructure needs and other programs that need funding, she said.
The university bought the land in 1960 from the U.S. Forest Service.
Hollowell and Sen. Ron Caldwell, R-Wynne, said language in the deed requires the land be used for a "public purpose."
"If we let this land out of public hands, we'll never get it back," said Caldwell, the bill's sponsor in the Senate.
Rust said Congress' approval of the sale also is required, and that Congress can specify a further "public purpose" for the property.
Rust said the sale to a private entity arose only after efforts to sell the land to the state Game and Fish Commission or nonprofit organizations had failed.
Justin T. Allen, an attorney for Lobo Farms, said last week he didn't believe legislation by the General Assembly can legally override a valid contract already agreed upon by Lobo Farms and UA. The impairment contract clause of Article I of the U.S. Constitution expressly prohibits states from passing legislation that retroactively interferes with valid contracts, said Allen, who is with the Wright Lindsey Jennings law firm in Little Rock.
Lobo Farms said it plans to spend $5 million in various improvements, such as to infrastructure and in wetlands restoration and habitat development.
Seasonal public use also would be possible, such as for summer fishing and bird watching from towers erected on the property, Lobo Farms wrote. Lobo also said cabins and other facilities on the Pine Tree property once leased out for a state juvenile rehabilitation program could be renovated and put aside for public use.
Critics of the sale said Thursday nothing in the UA contract requires Lobo Farms to follow through on any of those ideas.
Members of the Joint Budget Committee debated the sale in a meeting early Thursday while discussing Senate Bill 447, an appropriations bill for the UA Division of Agriculture. Special language proposed for the bill by Caldwell specifically prohibits the Pine Tree sale.
Caldwell and DeAnn Lehigh, an attorney for the UA Division of Agriculture, disagreed over whether UA and Lobo Farms have a valid contract.
UA proceeded with the contract to sell the land before getting the exemption from Congress, Caldwell said. "That is not any different than me going to fly an airplane, but next year I am going to go get my pilot's license, or if I want to be a brain surgeon today and then go to medical school next year," he said. "They have their cart before the horse, and therefore it's not a valid contract."
But Lehigh said, "It is our position that, despite the deed restriction, that it is still a valid contract. The reason that the deed restriction doesn't prevent it from being a valid contract is that the deed restriction is in fact waiverable and it has been waived many times in practice by the United States Congress," she said.
Lehigh said she was on the phone on Tuesday with the U.S. Forest Service, which detailed two recent cases in Florida and one recent case in Tennessee in which it participated in a waiver process. UA in the 1996 Farm Bill received a similar waiver for the transfer of some land to a cemetery in Northwest Arkansas, she said.
"We view that based on the practice, the administration of this law and this reversion clause, that as long as we got congressional authority to do that we would have a good contract," she said. "It is the university's contention that the arrangement with the buyer Lobo Farms is going to continue to be a public purpose."
SB447 also grants $16.5 million in spending authority to UA on the new rice research station but doesn't guarantee funding.
Sen. Bart Hester, R-Cave Springs, said that lawmakers are looking to take money that UA wants to educate children, "so people can duck hunt."
"If this sells and goes to the private sector, it will start gathering property taxes to the tune of as much as $150,000 a year to go to the local school districts that desperately need it," Hester said.
But Caldwell said the land is green timberland -- the lowest-valued property land on the tax rolls -- and likely wouldn't generate that much revenue.
People from all over the state, including a large portion of 10 to 12 counties in eastern Arkansas, use the property for public hunting, Caldwell said.
"The university is trying to proceed with this sale even when the congressional delegation does not want it to happen, most citizens in this area do not want it to happen and many people in this room do not want it to happen," Caldwell said.
Sen. Breanne Davis, R-Russellville, also questioned why the sale should be blocked. "We are talking about money that would go to the public schools, jobs that would be created with this development and I don't quite understand how not letting them proceed is good for taxpayers," Davis said.
The Joint Budget Committee took no votes on the matter and agreed to consider Caldwell's proposed amendment at a later date.