Loading...
CEA_08-28-08_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES • OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY CONSERVATION EASEMENT AUTHORITY Held in the Executive Session Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on August 25, 2008 at 8:00 a.m. PRESENT: Diane Kearns, Chairman; Ritchie Wilkins, Vice - Chairman; Jim Lawrence, Treasurer; John Gavin; Robert Solenberger; and Todd Lodge ABSENT: Gene Fisher, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Cordell Watt, Planning Commission Liaison; and John Marker. STAFF PRESENT: Amber Powers, Planner I; and Bev Dellinger, Secretary 111. OTHERS PRESENT: Patrick Felling; and Kelly PUBLIC MEETING: 1. Minutes and Agenda. Ms. Kearns handed out a contact sheet from Preserve Frederick. Mr. Gavin made a motion to approve the minutes and Mr. Lodge seconded the motion. The motion was unanimous to approve the July 28, 2008 minutes. 2. Recap of the August 12, 2008 event at the Snapp farm. Ms. Kearns stated that this event went really well; about 30 plus people attended and Committee members were able to talk to many people. It was good to see what the property looked like. The area that you drove through before you got to the house is the affected area. The Committee raised between $600 and $700 and there was about $300 in expenses. Ms. Kearns gave a local casement activity update. Marjorie Copenhaver has been very interested and Ms. Kearns and Ms. Powers talked to her. Ms. Copenhaver's property is right next to the old mill by the Opequon Creek; her property surrounds the piece of property where the mill is located. Ms. Copenhaver has about 75 acres plus a home, the Miller house, that's already on the National Historic Register. A Department of Historic Resources (DHR) lady was there to talk to the people who own the mill and Ms. Copenhaver, Ms. Kearns and Ms. Powers talked to her about Ms. Copenhaver's property. DHR believes they should be considered together; DHR is interested in holding the easement. The DHR lady would get most of the information she needs from the Historic Register application, she took pictures, and with a letter of intent from Ms. Copenhaver, it will go before the Easement Committee which will make a recommendation to their Board. Ms. Kearns feels there's no reason why it couldn't be recorded this year. Mr. Solenberger asked if they're looking for a financial benefit and Ms. Kearns responded no, that Ms. Copenhaver will probably donate the property. The only sticking point is that the property is in a Trust, but Ms. Kearns believes that Ms. Copenhaver has everything worked out. is Frederick County Conservation Easement Authority -75- Minutes of August 25, 2008 Mr. Gavitt asked if anyone has any written reports on the Rural Areas Study Committee. Ms. Powers stated she has attended the meetings. The County website has a link to the Study Committee which shows the agendas, minutes and the RA powerpoint presentation. The website is is also seeking comments. Mr. Gavitt asked Ms. Powers if she had any prospective on how this Committee can provide some input and where the study needs to go as far as an easement standpoint. Ms. Powers is putting together a brief explanation of what the PDR program is in Virginia. The RA Study Committee is looking at tools the State has enacted that might be used here to manage growth in the RA. Ms. Powers stated that everyone on this Committee is welcome to attend the RA Study Committee and she feels they would welcome comments. 3. Review of all Submitted PDR applications. Ms. Kearns stated that this Committee has to decide whether they want to ask the Board to co- hold the Snapp PDR and if that decision is yes, do we want to consider purchase money for it. Ms. Kearns has a scoring sheet which, along with the program requirements, she used to determine that the Snapp application qualifies for a PDR easement. Ms. Kearns went through the scoring sheet to explain how she carne up with the score. Ms. Powers noted that the blank scoring sheet came from her files for other scored properties. Ms. Kearns stated that the scoring sheet needs to be altered to go along with what's actually written in the program. Committee members discussed issues of soil and slope percentage on the Snapp property. Mr. Lodge questioned the scoring method they came up with a long time ago. Mr. Lodge doesn't understand why a property would get a bonus for being in the UDA and SWSA and for being zoned. To him, those should be negatives. Ms. Powers stated that's because the threat of development is very high. Mr. Lodge doesn't feel that's what the Committee came up with, but it's been so long ago, he doesn't remember. Mr. Gavitt asked what would be required to change this. Ms. Powers requested that it not be changed now. Mr. Lodge stated he believes the Snapp application should be approved and afterward go through a discussion about the way properties are scored. Ms. Kearns stated that the Snapp application has come to us to ask that the CEA and the Board jointly hold the easement with them. The Potomac Conservancy has worked with the Snapps and they want to hold this easement. The Snapps came to the County and applied to our program to co -hold this easement. The real reason they did that is because the County has State monies for which this would qualify, but step 91 is that the County has to say that they would be willing to hold this. And if they're willing to hold this, will they purchase it, is the next step. Ms. (Kelly) thinks that the Snapps are looking to have the easement purchased, not donate the easement. They (her organization) has some funding in hand so if the Easement Authority couldn't put any money in, they would have to continue to look for money to match the Federal money. Mr. Gavitt clarified with Ms. (Kelly) that they've got some Federal money that requires matching; Mr. Gavitt asked that amount. (Kelly) stated it's through the FRPP Program and it's $260,000. Mr. Gavitt asked if the Potomac Conservancy is willing to match some of that, and (Kelly) responded that is strictly for purchase price. Mr. Gavitt asked if the Snapps have given a bottom line and (Kelly) stated they have talked about that but in the end, it's all based upon the 40 appraisal. The Snapps don't have a firm number. Frederick County Conservation Easement Authority -76- Minutes of August 25, 2008 Ms. Kearns asked if Betty Snapp would be willing to donate a portion of it to offset her tax liability? (Kelly) replied they have pretty much always assumed that she's going to be donating a portion of it. Mr. Solenberger stated if the money for the purchase right of the development rights on this property comes from the State of Virginia and the federal government, and maybe they would donate a little bit, it will cost the County no money. Ms. Kearns stated that technically the County has to put in some money if they're going to use the State money. The idea was to incentivize the County so they can't just do hands -off. But there is no set percentage that the County has to contribute. They can put in $3,000 that the Easement Authority has in our line item. The Easement Authority would have to put in some amount of money; 50% would come from Federal money, 50% minus whatever the CEA puts in would come from the County. If the appraisal makes it greater than what that would be, then Mrs. Snapp hopefully would donate the other percentage and that would generate tax credits for her which would help offset the liability she'll have. Mr. Gavitt asked when the appraisal will be ready. (Kelly) replied she's not planning on ordering it until we need it because it's a couple thousand dollars. Ms. Powers stated that without the appraisal, that puts us in an awkward position going forward, because we have to do is ask the Board to express their comfort level with the estimate of the number and it won't be until the properly is appraised that we'll know what the actual number is. (Kelly) stated in the case of purchase easements, generally there are two appraisals. The purchaser would order an appraisal for them to evaluate the cost and the landowner would get an appraisal for themselves for their tax purposes and that would be for any donated portion. Mr. Gavitt asked if we recommend half of the State money for this, $130,000, would this nix the whole deal because there are no other readily available sources of money for contributions. This is one farm and we're potentially using the entire amount. Ms. Kearns stated that what Ms. Powers brought to her attention was that $515,000 whole amount requested in the application is high for the value of this property. The easement value is probably won't come out to that. We want to be realistic for what we're asking for. We're talking about 89.75 acres, probably 90 acres. If the tax appraisal value right now is $269,300, that works out to be just about $3,000 an acre. So the question becomes, what's the market value of that and what's the value of it with an easement on it, because the difference will be the easement value. Ms. Kearns stated you generally take roughly 30% of the market value and that might be the easement value, depending on road frontage. Ms. Kearns talked to John Scully of Colony Realty and asked him to try to evaluate what the property is worth. Mr. Scully thinks the property is worth quite a bit because of the road frontage and the views that it has. He basically thinks that $6,000 to $7,000 per acre might be market value, closer to $7,000. With an easement and one home site, he believes $2,000 to $3,000 per acre is very buyable. $7,000 per acre for 90 acres is $630,000 and if you take 30% of that, it's $189,000, but that's probably not valid for this property. Mr. Scully's value makes the easement worth $3,000 per acre and that makes the easement worth roughly 50% of the value of the property. You cut that in half, which would be our share, and that means we're not using the entire $265,000. Frederick County Conservation Easement Authority -77- Minutes of August 25, 2008 Mr. Gavitt stated he would not want to use up or even offer the entire amount of the State money this year, but he'd like to get at least two properties under this. He'd like to at least consider half, which would be $130,000 for this particular property, with the understanding that if it exceeds, it's not going to happen and that if it's under, the Snapps should make a donation. There's a tremendous advantage in donating conservation easements in Virginia as opposed to other states because of the tax credit. Mr. Gavitt asked (Kelly) if she has a commitment by the Federal government for $260,000 for one property, and (Kelly) responded yes, $260,000 for one property. 50% of that amount has to be matched in order to use the entire $260,000. If we get less than $130,000, we can't use all of it. Ms. Kearns stated we can choose to recommend to the Board that the Easement Authority would like to hold this property and if we hold it, they've got to co -hold it with us. If we do that, do we want to suggest that they spend money. Ms. Powers pointed out they're two separate Board actions. (Kelly) stated that the USDA may be a co- holder on this as well, if that gives them extra comfort. She has to double -check this, though. Ms. Powers stated it may be better to reverse the order of the requests; first to purchase the easement and by the way, if you think that's a good idea, we have to figure out what the burden will be for who is maintaining the easement and who will enforce it if there's issues and who is holding it. Mr. Gavitt stated that we need assurance from (Kelly) that Potomac Conservancy will work with us internally and (Kelly) said yes. Mr. Gavitt doesn't want the Board to 'get the idea that the responsibility is all on Potomac Conservancy; we need to make sure that they understand that we are a viable part of this partnership. Mr. Solenberger stated they must have gotten an appraisal done on that property to get funding from USDA. (Kelly) said they would have committed that amount without an appraisal. The numbers were based on the numbers that were developed in an easement she closed this year. (Kelly) further stated that the appraisal for the Snapps would be done no more than 60 days before the closing. You can get a preliminary appraisal done; it costs about $700 to $800. That's a step that can be taken to give more assurance, but she hasn't really been willing to order it at this point. Mr. Gavitt suggested we make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors that the Easement Authority co -hold the Snapp farm with Potomac Conservancy and possibly the Department of Agriculture as appropriate. Second, we recommend that matching State funds up to $127,000 be appropriated for this particular property, with the understanding that matching funds will be coming from the Federal government through the Potomac Conservancy and that the Easement Authority donate from its budget $3,000. Ms. Kearns commented that because the easement values have a lot of wiggle room, we could request $130,000 from the State funds, the CEA would put in their $3,000; and that would give them a little bit to help cover an appraisal fee. Ms. Kearns commented further that if we decide Frederick County Conservation Easement Authority -78- Minutes of August 25, 2008 to move forward with this. the County will need to get an appraisal, either a County appraiser or someone else. (Kelly) stated it has to be an appraiser who can appraise conservation easements. Ms. Powers stated we're getting into a situation where we might have a timing issue. Any costs associated with a preliminary action would require approval from the Finance Committee. Not only to use the CFA's own funds, but to tap into any of that $265,000 set - aside. Even if the County has the intent of being reimbursed, because it won't be able to be reimbursed until the easement is established, there is a window of time where the County is going to be responsible for some money and Ms. Powers doesn't know if the County will be willing to accept that. this out that the Snapps are facing a deadline of early to mid - October by which time they would need to have gained Board of Supervisors approval for their participation in the County's PDR program. After that point, they would need to look elsewhere for funding otherwise they could be in jeopardy of losing the Federal PDR matching grant from the USDA's Farm and Ranchland Protection program. 4. August 12"' event at Snapp Farm & PDR Press Release Information Ms. Kearns also pointed out that in order to assure that the PDR program is well publicized and that others have the chance to apply, that it will be important to reach out groups like the Farm Bureau, (which she intends to do). Part of the effort to get the word out, she explained, was the up- coming August 12 fundraising / informational event. The event will highlight local foods including donations from Garber Ice cream, and a local hog for the barbeque. Diane Kearns pointed out that the PDR program announcement letter, (which the group would need to look through and finalize during the meeting) would be ready for the event, and would also be distributed to local easement organizations and farm and forestland related agencies active in the County. In addition to the letter, Diane also mentioned that she would arrange to meet with newspaper reports to try and get things in the paper about the program. John Gavitt then asked if the Announcement letter that Diane had mentioned still needed to be approved. Diane confirmed that it did, and John, along with the rest of the group then took time to look at the letter's language. Minor typos were marked for revision, as well as some change to the language explaining easements on the back side of the letter. In addition to these relatively minor comments, the issues regarding the August 25 cut -off for the first round of applications was discussed in some language. Diane asked the group if she thought anyone would take issue with the deadline being relatively soon. Group members were also concerned about how best to describe the two proposed rounds (the first ending August 25"', and the second ending on December 31' 2008. Of particular note was Frederick County Conservation Easement Authority -79- Minutes of August 25, 2008 the use of the word "priority," and the question of how to appropriately explain that the presence of a second round essentially relies on the availability of funds following the first round. John Gavitt, taking as step back from the discussion, asked Diane to clarify the essential reasons for having two separate deadlines, and what the impact might be of simply forgoing the august date, and establishing December 31' as a single deadline. Diane pointed out that the August deadline was an effort essentially to accommodate the Snapp easement applicant's needs. Todd Lodge, in light of the discussion then asked if perhaps the CEA's timeline excluded the group from accommodating the Snapp request. Diane clarified that if the August deadline is kept, the proposal to the board, and their subsequent up or down vote could be received by October, and thus the CEA could, if it acted quickly, accommodate the Snapp Request. John Gavitt then reiterated his initial question, asking if, aside from the Snapp Applicant's needs, there were any reasons to maintain the August deadline. Staff pointed out that there was in fact no reason other than the Snapp application to have an August deadline. However, staff also pointed out that should the CEA loose the Snapp easement opportunity, the County many not find another PDR application with Federal or other grant dollars attached capable of meeting the County's matching funds obligation. This would ultimately put the burden of funding the PDR matching obligation of up to $265,000 back on the County and the CEA. Realistically, the CEA would find it very difficult to raise enough funds through donations, and the County is, unfortunately, not in a situation to contribute financially towards this program. Diane also noted that if the County was not able to take advantage of the State grant due to the lack of any Federal grant funding or local contributions, it could jeopardize the CFA's ability to qualify for future State PDR and Conservation easement— related grant programs. Ultimately, after the discussion the group determined that the August deadline should be kept, and that any applications received prior to the deadline that were not selected for the first round, would automatically be reconsidered for selection during the second round in December. 5. Fred Co Easement Priorities Meeting on July 29, 2008 Dine Kearns announced that members from the CEA, (no more than five) were invited to participate in the Tuesday, July 29, 2008, from 10am to 2pm at Oakcrest. The goal of the meeting was explained by those coordinating the event, as a chance to share strategies, outreach, etc. to determine how to greatly pick up the pace for donated and purchased easements in Frederick County. CEA members expressed some reservation about the aggressive stance of the meeting's participants in regards to conservation within the County, and were concerned that this may scare -off interested landowners. The group decided to attend, and listen, but that they might use the opportunity to warn against creating targeted landowner lists for distribution between easement organizations. They also agreed that they should not use the meeting to promote the PDR option for any specific property. 6. New Easement Application John Gavitt pointed out that he had had the chance to look over the new format of the CEA's easement application, and that while the format was greatly improved he had noticed that the content itself might be in need of adjustment. Two major issues were: 11 Frederick County Conservation Easement Authority _80- Minutes of August 25, 2008 • whether or not the applicant should be burdened with answering some of the more complicated questions in the package, and • whether or not it would be possible to include as section asking the applicant to express their intentions regarding how the property might be used and not used under the easement — (a specific example being the applicant's desire to reserve building rights, or not). With respect to the first issue, Diane pointed out that she thought it might be a good exercise for landowners to fill out the application, as it might cause them to seek out and better understand the importance of the those answers. CEA members also considered the fact that while the application may be somewhat complicated, it was in fact a copy of the state model and was the version approved by the state as a part of the CFA's PDR program certification. Thus, there was some concern about the group's ability to alter the application. Staff pointed out as a possible compromise, that the note indicating that the Planning Department's staff was available to help with any question the applicant may have, or for help in filling out the form, could be added to every page as a reminder. This suggestion was supported, and the issues regarding the complexity of the question was set aside for the time being. In regards to the second issue, Mr. Gavitt pointed out that the intentions of the land owner should be known to CEA members before choosing an application for priority standing. CEA members agreed that this did seem crucial; however, they were again concerned about deviating from the approved application. It was also noted however, that applicants might feel pressured to give the "right" answer to questions such as: how many building rights, if any would you like to reserve? In response to this, staff suggested that, in order to remain relatively consistent with the current application, it would probably be best not to include such sections as a part of the scored application, but that perhaps a generalized question (what is your vision for your land, how would you like it to be used, or not used in the future ?) might be a way to inform CEA members about an applicant's general intentions, without significantly altering the application, or causing landowners to feel pressured to respond a certain way. Diane pointed out that, within the chart that was included in the June minutes, the applicant's vision is something that considered if the application scores highly initially. She also pointed out that this discussion with the applicant would occur before a final decision about which property the CEA would choose as a priority, and that no change to the application may really be necessary. After some discussion, members seemed to feel that the addition of the note offering Planning department help to applicants should beaded to each page. They seemed to agree that including a generalized question (what is your vision for your land, how would you like it to be used, or not used in the future ?) would be the best way to address Mr. Gavin's concerns, which the group confirmed as being valid. 7. Easement Updates Diane mentioned that she and Amber had met with Marjorie Copenhaver, after Ms. Copenhaver decided to move forward with the process of establishing a conservation easement on her property. Diane noted Ms. Copenhaver would likely be held by the Department of Historic Resources. Frederick County Conservation Easement Authority -81 - Minutes of August 25, 2008 8. Next Meeting Since the next meeting would need to be used to evaluate the applications received as a part of the PDR program, the group confirmed that their normal meeting date of the fourth Thursday in the month should be pushed back. The group agreed to meet on August 28, 2008, (the fifth Thursday of August), at 8:00 a.m. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane Kearns, Chairman Ari er Powers, Secretary • 0 Frederick County Conservation Fasement Authority -82- Minutes of August 25, 2008