The Experience of Term Agreements in Farm and

Term Easements in PDR Programs • Pennsylvania: 1988. Provided a 25 -year term easement

Term Agreements in Incentive Programs • Federal Farm Bill Programs: Ø CRP – 10

Term Agreements in Incentive Programs • Massachusetts, Farm Viability Program: Encourages farm business planning

Term Agreements in Incentive Programs • New Jersey, Ag District Program: 8 -year term

Term Agreements in Tax Programs • California, Williamson Act: “Rolling” 10 -year term easement

Term Agreements in Zoning Ordinances • Southampton, NY, Ag Planned Development District: 10 -year

Pros and Cons • Pros: Ø Cheaper. Ø Potentially attracts more landowners. Ø Provides

Pros and Cons • Cons: Ø Not permanent. Ø Limited return on investment. Ø

Issues to Consider • Remember that Development is rarely temporary – match conservation option

Issues to Consider • Match term to achieving the desired outcome – length of

Slides: 12

Download presentation

The Experience of Term Agreements in Farm and Ranchland Protection Programs Bob Wagner, American Farmland Trust (6/20/02)

Term Easements in PDR Programs • Pennsylvania: 1988. Provided a 25 -year term easement option @ 10% of full value. No takers. Repealed in 1994. • Montana: 1999. Offered term easement as an option. No takers. Program due to sunset this year.

Term Easements in PDR Programs • Arizona: 2002. Brand new program. Will provide a 25 -year term easement option. No details on valuation. No experience to date. • Florida: 2001. Rules being written. 30 -year term easement option for properties with significant natural areas. No more than 10% of funds dedicated to program maybe used for this purpose. No experience to date.

Term Agreements in Incentive Programs • Federal Farm Bill Programs: Ø CRP – 10 -15 year contracts. Ø WRP – 30 year easements. Ø WHIP – 5 -10 year contracts. Ø GRP – 10 -30 year contracts or 30 year easements.

Term Agreements in Incentive Programs • Massachusetts, Farm Viability Program: Encourages farm business planning and farm re-investment. 5 or 10 year covenants depending on grant size. • Florida, Resource Conservation Agreements: Annual payments to improve habitat and water restoration/conservation. 5 -10 year agreements. Yet to be implemented.

Term Agreements in Incentive Programs • New Jersey, Ag District Program: 8 -year term easement. Eligible for conservation costshare funds.

Term Agreements in Tax Programs • California, Williamson Act: “Rolling” 10 -year term easement in return for use-value taxation. “Super” Williamson Act: 20 -year term = more benefits, including additional 35% property tax reduction. • Clifton Park, NY, Local Tax Reduction: 1020% additional tax reduction in return for 15 -25 term easement.

Term Agreements in Zoning Ordinances • Southampton, NY, Ag Planned Development District: 10 -year term easement in return for development density based on gross acreage for the purpose of PDR, TDR, fee purchase or conservation subdivision.

Pros and Cons • Pros: Ø Cheaper. Ø Potentially attracts more landowners. Ø Provides landowners with more options in the future. Ø Good linkage with conservation programs.

Pros and Cons • Cons: Ø Not permanent. Ø Limited return on investment. Ø May reduce public’s interest in providing funds. Ø Structural and legal complications – valuation, status at transfer, disruption of funds.

Issues to Consider • Remember that Development is rarely temporary – match conservation option to the alternative. • Use the right tool for the job – temporary agreements do not achieve long-term solutions. • Maximize return on investment – link programs to a clear public benefit.

Issues to Consider • Match term to achieving the desired outcome – length of agreement should = time needed to realize public benefit. • Be prepared – organizational issues, legal complications, monitoring and enforcement.