pennsylvania farmland preservation association prof. tom daniels dept. of city and regional planning...
Post on 19-Jan-2016
219 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Pennsylvania Farmland Pennsylvania Farmland Preservation AssociationPreservation Association
Prof. Tom DanielsProf. Tom DanielsDept. of City and Regional PlanningDept. of City and Regional Planning
University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of PennsylvaniaMay 18, 2011May 18, 2011
What Role for PFPA? What Role for PFPA? Self-audit: What is working, what Self-audit: What is working, what
isn’t? What needs to be changed?isn’t? What needs to be changed? Innovate: Like-kind exchange, TDRs, Innovate: Like-kind exchange, TDRs,
partnerships, points-based appraisalspartnerships, points-based appraisals Update programUpdate program Share information: successes as well Share information: successes as well
as failures: Celebrate Successas failures: Celebrate Success Work with Bureau, lobby—state Work with Bureau, lobby—state
legislature and NRCS (Congress)legislature and NRCS (Congress) Don’t get complacentDon’t get complacent
PA Farmland Preservation FundingPA Farmland Preservation Funding
Source: Warwick Township, PA
Issues in the 2008 PA Farmland Issues in the 2008 PA Farmland Preservation StudyPreservation Study
The Weighting of Soils, Development The Weighting of Soils, Development Pressure, and Other Factors (Since 1994)Pressure, and Other Factors (Since 1994)
The current system is a minimum of 40% The current system is a minimum of 40% on soils, and emphasis on preserving on soils, and emphasis on preserving farms under a considerable amount of farms under a considerable amount of development pressuredevelopment pressure
Two key strategies are missing: Preserving Two key strategies are missing: Preserving farmland in large contiguous blocks and farmland in large contiguous blocks and along growth boundaries or boroughsalong growth boundaries or boroughs
25-year Extinguishment Clause25-year Extinguishment Clause
Time to remove thisTime to remove this Maryland has done thisMaryland has done this Make easements really permanentMake easements really permanent
Link ag zoning with Ag PreservationLink ag zoning with Ag Preservation Lancaster County APB does thisLancaster County APB does this Otherwise, risk of preserved farms Otherwise, risk of preserved farms
acting as a magnet for developmentacting as a magnet for development
Farmland Preservation ReportFarmland Preservation Report
A cap of $10,000 per acre was removed A cap of $10,000 per acre was removed from the program in 2001. As of the end of from the program in 2001. As of the end of 2007, according to the audit, the state had 2007, according to the audit, the state had contributed funds to 36 projects totaling contributed funds to 36 projects totaling 2,613 acres costing over $10,000 per acre 2,613 acres costing over $10,000 per acre and a total of $38.3 million. The report and a total of $38.3 million. The report stated that those funds would have stated that those funds would have purchased 23,759 acres using the state’s purchased 23,759 acres using the state’s average per acre cost of $1,612 for average per acre cost of $1,612 for easements costing less than $10,000.easements costing less than $10,000.
Pay to PlayPay to Play
Require local dollar allocation for Require local dollar allocation for farmland preservation in order to farmland preservation in order to receive state matching fundsreceive state matching funds
How much $$$ is reallocated each How much $$$ is reallocated each year from counties that are not year from counties that are not spending their state funds?spending their state funds?
Allocation FormulaAllocation Formula Currently based on county property Currently based on county property
transfer revenues and county transfer revenues and county allocation relative to other counties. allocation relative to other counties.
Should be based on percentage of Should be based on percentage of state ag output and allocation state ag output and allocation relative to other counties—this is the relative to other counties—this is the reallocation formulareallocation formula
1989 Allocation Formula1989 Allocation Formula
A Recent Study at PennA Recent Study at Penn
The real estate transfer tax variable The real estate transfer tax variable was the most important variable with was the most important variable with a Beta value of -.821. This negative a Beta value of -.821. This negative value indicates that a higher real value indicates that a higher real estate transfer tax corresponds with estate transfer tax corresponds with a decrease, or smaller increase, in a decrease, or smaller increase, in agricultural sales from 1987 to 2007. agricultural sales from 1987 to 2007.
More ResultsMore Results
A county’s share of the state’s A county’s share of the state’s agricultural sales had a negative agricultural sales had a negative influence on the percentage of acres influence on the percentage of acres preserved.preserved.
This suggests that more funds should This suggests that more funds should be given to counties with high shares be given to counties with high shares of PA’s agricultural industry so that of PA’s agricultural industry so that counties with a large amount of ag counties with a large amount of ag activity can preserve more farmland. activity can preserve more farmland.
Descriptive Statistics of VariablesVariable Minimum Maximum MeanChange in Agricultural Sales 1987-2007*
-70% (Wyoming) 69% (Schuylkill) -2%
Acres Preserved98 acres
(Pike) 63,447 (Berks)7,797 acres
Percent Acres Preserved 1% (Greene) 29% (Berks) 6%
Years in Program5 years (Pike and Greene) 28 years (Lancaster) 18 years
Value of Farmland* (average of 1992-2007)
$1,666 (Warren) $9,527 (Chester) $3,841
Real Estate Transfer** Tax Proxy
$211,379 (Greene) $32,099,063 (Bucks)
$7,633,132
County Contribution**
$0 (Allegheny
and Indiana)$90,949,415 (Lancaster)
$7,772,586
Portion of State's Agricultural Sales* (average of 1987-2007) .4% (Pike) 19% (Lancaster) 2%
Population Change-6%
(Cambria) 66% (Pike) 6%* in 2007
dollars** in 2010
dollars
Other IssuesOther Issues
Backlog of applicantsBacklog of applicants Viability of Preserved FarmsViability of Preserved Farms What uses to allow on preserved What uses to allow on preserved
farms (especially alternative energy farms (especially alternative energy generation)generation)
Farmland pricesFarmland prices Future fundingFuture funding Monitoring and enforcement, Monitoring and enforcement,
especially with 2especially with 2ndnd and 3 and 3rdrd owners owners
Contiguous and Stand Alone Farms by Acreage
Farm Blocks in Acres Number of Blocks Acreage in Block
TOTAL 339 71,910
Contiguous Blocks 231 65,743
1,000 9 20,927
500-999 18 12,112
250-499 37 13,039
250 or Less 275 25,832
Stand Alone Parcels 108 6,167
Within 1/2 Mile of a Contiguous Block 76 4,382
Beyond 1/2 Mile of a Contiguous Block 32 1,785
Nutrient TradingNutrient Trading A possible funding source for A possible funding source for
farmland preservation?farmland preservation? Sewage treatment plants in Sewage treatment plants in
Chesapeake Bay watershed are Chesapeake Bay watershed are being required to lower nitrogen and being required to lower nitrogen and phosphorus emissions.phosphorus emissions.
Sewage treatment plant can upgrade Sewage treatment plant can upgrade or buy credits from farmers or others or buy credits from farmers or others with “certified” credits (certified by with “certified” credits (certified by DEP) DEP)
Nutrient Trading IINutrient Trading II
Farmer sells reduction in nitrogen Farmer sells reduction in nitrogen from BMPs that exceed “baseline from BMPs that exceed “baseline compliance” to sewage treatment compliance” to sewage treatment plant.plant.
DEP and PennVest set up a nutrient DEP and PennVest set up a nutrient trading auction (wrong model)trading auction (wrong model)
Nutrient Trading III—Results So Nutrient Trading III—Results So FarFar
Oct 28-29, 2010: 21,000 pounds of Oct 28-29, 2010: 21,000 pounds of nitrogen removal each year for 3 years nitrogen removal each year for 3 years at $3.04 per credit (lb)at $3.04 per credit (lb)
Nov. 4-5, 2010 41,000 pounds of Nov. 4-5, 2010 41,000 pounds of nitrogen at $2.75 per credit (lb). Sellers, nitrogen at $2.75 per credit (lb). Sellers, E-Town Borough, Lancaster County E-Town Borough, Lancaster County (7,369 credits), City of Lancaster (7,369 credits), City of Lancaster (29,909 credits), Lycoming County (29,909 credits), Lycoming County (3,733 credits). Buyer: PPL EnergyPlus, (3,733 credits). Buyer: PPL EnergyPlus, LLCLLC
Nutrient Trading IVNutrient Trading IV
The big player is Red Barn The big player is Red Barn Trading in LancasterTrading in Lancaster
Website: Website: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/river/http://www.dep.state.pa.us/river/Nutrient%20Trading.htmNutrient%20Trading.htm
Nutrient Trading VNutrient Trading V Pat O’Connell’s idea was to have the Pat O’Connell’s idea was to have the
county buy the credits from the county buy the credits from the farmers and re-sell them to the farmers and re-sell them to the sewage treatment plant operators.sewage treatment plant operators.
The farmers would receive payment The farmers would receive payment over 10 years (Installment Purchase over 10 years (Installment Purchase Agreement).Agreement).
An “enhanced easement” would An “enhanced easement” would include the required BMPs to exceed include the required BMPs to exceed baseline compliance and generate baseline compliance and generate credits. credits.
top related