HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPB agenda 051904COUNTY OF ORANGE
ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE~ CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Agricultural Preservation Board
From: David Stancil, ERC Director
Date: May 11, 2004
Re: May 19th Meeting
Please find attached the agenda for our next meeting scheduled for:
At this meeting we will receive an update on a recent conference on Voluntary
Agricultural Districts, consider a resolution to forward to the BOCC asking area
water /sewer providers to adhere to VFPPO provisions exempting VAD's from
water /sewer assessments, and receive a status report on ongoing projects, use
value taxation, and proposed agricultural conservation easements
Please contact Carol Melton (245 -2590) by the Monday before the meeting if you
will be unable to attend.
Copies: Dianne Reid, Economic Development Director
Fletcher Barber, CES County Director
Brent Bogue, District Conservationist
Phyllis Ruth, Farm Service Agency Director
Rich Shaw, Land Conservation Manager
Mike Lanier, Ag Economic Development Specialist
ORANGECOUNTY
2002
NORTH CAROLINA
CELEBRATING 2.50 YEARS
AGENDA
May 19, 2004
Planning and Agricultural Center
Revere Road, Hillsborough, NC
7:30 p.m.
Time Pate
AGENDA ITEM
7:30
1.
CALL TO ORDER
7:35
2.
CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
7:40 01
3.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — (April 21)
7:40 03
4.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
7:40
a. Voluntary Agricultural Districts Conference — Agenda
(Attachment 1)
8:00
b. Update on Proposed Agricultural Conservation
Easements and USDA Grant Application (Attachment 2)
8:15
c. Status Report on Ongoing Projects (Attachment 3)
8:30
d. Use Value Taxation Update (Attachment 4)
8:40
e. Update - Ag Center Work Group
8:45
5.
ITEMS FOR DECISION
a. Consideration of Resolution to Forward to Board of
Commissioners Asking municipalities and /or
Water /Sewer Providers to Adhere to Voluntary
Farmland Preservation Ordinance (VFPO)
6. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a. Farmland Preservation Report
b. Conference brochures
9:00 7. ADJOURNMENT
DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY
AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD
April 21, 2004
PRESENT: Tony Kleese, Whit Morrow, Bob Strayhorn, Elizabeth Walters, Louise Tate,
Gordon Warren, Noah Ranells; Environment & Resource Conservation staff Tina
Moon and Carol Melton.
ABSENT: Don Johnson, Marty Mandell, and Rodney Recor.
ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER
Kleese called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
ITEM #2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
Moon announced a May 4th training workshop for Agricultural Preservation Board
members in Louisburg. Kleese reported the Piedmont Farm Tour for May 1 -2 and distributed
information brochures. Ranells reported the startup of a group of citizens interested in creating
"farm villages." Moon added two items to the agenda - -an update of the Agricultural Summit
and the invitation from the Planning Board meeting to hear Ben Hitchings from last month.
ITEM #3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 18, 2004
MOTION: Gordon motioned approval of February 18th minutes. Seconded by Strayhorn.
VOTE: Approved unanimously.
ITEM #4: Recognition of Appreciation from BOCC
Members received the volunteer appreciation memorandum and gift from the
Board of County Commissioners.
ITEM #5: ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
a. Agricultural Center Workgroup update
Members discussed the charge and mission statement of the Agricultural
Center workgroup and recommended Tony Kleese and Gordon Warren to fill the two positions
allocated for APB representation. Ranells volunteered to fill an organic Farmer at Large
position. Staff was asked to forward this recommendation along with completed Volunteer
application forms to the BOCC office. Staff noted that Don Johnson agreed (by phone call) to
serve as an alternate if needed.
b. USDA Farm Easement Grant Application
Staff reported that the County Commissioners approved staffs' application for
a Grant from the Federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program for Agricultural
Conservation Easements - -an item from April 20th BOCC meeting. Staff was authorized to
submit a grant application to the US Department of Agriculture's Farm and Ranch Land
Protection Program for the purchase of farmland preservation conservation easements in
Orange County in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000. County matching funds are
DRAFT February 18, 2004 Agricultural Preservation Board Meeting Summary
2
earmarked from a combination of alternative financing (for conservation easements) and the
Lands Legacy Fund.
ITEM #6: Updates
a. Junior Livestock Show April 14 -15
Strayhorn reported the exceptional participation this year from students from
ten counties and noted that is it strictly operated by donations and volunteers. APB members
discussed the many assets and dedication of the volunteers who put on this program each
year and applauded them.
c. Report of Joint Meeting with Planning Board
Previously the APB had received an invitation from the Planning Board to attend an
informational session before their meeting March 3, 2004 at 7:3Op. m. The Planning Board
had invited Triangle Land Conservancy's Ben Hitchings to talk about Transfer of Development
Rights (TDR) as a possible tool to include in the updated Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. Members discussed TDR concept and the extensive amount of time
that APB members had spent investigating and studying this topic several years ago. In
conclusion it was noted that unless there is an area willing to serve as a "receiving area," to
accept the development transferred from rural areas, it will be difficult to get a program
underway. Walters reported that Loudoun County Virginia has discontinued their farmland
preservation program according to an article in the Farmland Preservation Report from March
2004.
d. Voluntary Farmland Preservation Ordinance ( VFPPO) Update -
Members requested that staff follow -up with the County Attorney on his
progress reviewing their revisions to the VFPPO and if there are problem sections to advise
the APB so more revisions can begin.
e. APB Projects
Ranells requested a table or list of APB projects that allows members to see
where progress has been made and what needs to be done.
f. Agricultural Summit Update
Moon reported that she had the evaluation information if members were interested.
g. State Law Change for Land Use Value tax requirements
Members reported a change in state law regarding the Use Value Taxation program for
forestland. Beginning with re- evaluation, farmers pursuing Use Value for forestland will be
required to have a management plan or forest stewardship plan to qualify for the tax program.
MOTION: Kleese motioned to adjourn at 9:00. Seconded by Warren.
VOTE: Unanimous.
Meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
DRAFT February 18, 2004 Agricultural Preservation Board Meeting Summary
ATTACHMENT #1
College of Agriculture & Life. Scie nc —es
NC- S-TX t F N.- f VF. h2.SITi..'.
A&1 STA k UNI V E €LSFIV
OOPERATIV
............. US I
fldjAff ,'
North Carolina Voluntary Agricultural District Training:
Louisburg, NC
May 4, 2004
9:30 a.m. Registration and Coffee
10:00 a.m. Welcome and Introductions (Martha Mobley, Franklin County Cooperative Extension; Gerry
Cohn, American Farmland Trust.)
10:05 a.m. Working with Your County: Franklin County
Martha Mobley, Cooperative Extension
Dot Wester and Ingrid Volk, Voluntary Agricultural District Board
Dr. Raymond Stone, Chair, Franklin County Commissioners
Jim Wrenn, Tax Department
Linda Stone, Register of Deeds
11:00 a.m. Preparing for the Next Generation of Farmers (Andrew Branan, NC Farm Transition
Network)
11:30 a.m. Working with the Towns, too: Chatham County (Sam Groce, Chatham County Cooperative
Extension)
12:00 p.m. Lunch
1:00 P.M. Highway Signage (Clarence Bunting, NC Department of Transportation)
1:30 p.m. Use Value Taxation: What You Need to Know (Arnold Oltmans, NC State Department of
Agricultural and Resource Econoncs)
2:00 p.m. County Land Use Planning: An Introduction (Matthew Winslow, Franklin Coimty Planning
Department)
2:30 p.m. Cost of Community Services: Making the Case for Farmland (Gerry Colin, American
Farmland Trust)
3:00 p.m. Questions and Answers (Ted Feitshans, NC State Department of Agricultural and Resource
Economics)
3:30 p.m. Adjourn
This program has been made possible through the support of the North Carolina State
University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and Novozymes North America, Inc.
ATTACHMENT #2
COUNTY OF ORANGE
ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Agricultural Preservation Board
From: David Stancil, ERC Director
Rich Shaw, ERCD Land Conservation Manager
Date: May 12, 2004
Subj ect: USDA Grant Application for Farmland Protection Funds
Earlier this month Orange County, in collaboration with the Orange NRCS/ Soil
and Water Conservation District applied for $846,000 in federal grant funds
from the USDA Farm and Ranch Land Preservation Program (FRPP). These
funds are available to local governments and land trusts to acquire conservation
easements that protect prime, agricultural lands.
➢ This is the 3rd year funds have been available from the FRPP. In 2002,
Orange County was awarded $784,000 of the $2.1 million allocated to NC.
Those funds are being used to protect about 400 acres of farmland in
Bingham, Cheeks and Cedar Grove townships.
➢ This year, Orange County has requested $846,000 of the $2.3 million
available in NC. The application was prepared by ERCD in cooperation
with the Orange NRCS /Soil & Water Conservation District staff.
➢ The $846,000 would be matched by $846,000 in County funds to protect 3
active farms (about 580 acres total) located in Bingham, Cedar Grove and
Hillsborough townships.
➢ We've been informed that only 3 counties applied for funds this year
(Durham, Wake and Orange), in part because those counties have
allocated the required matching funds. Applications were also submitted
by land trusts.
➢ Notification of grant awards are expected by the end of May.
If you have any questions, please contact Rich Shaw or me at 245 -2598.
Environment and Resource Conservation
PO Box 8181 / 306 -A Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(919) 245 -2590
ATTACHMENT #3
x� x
°° o
0
O 4- m
C
>
L O
p
4 cn
L cn
O
D
CCS
4-
� 'p
C (6
cn C O a) ca-
<
(�� •�
aD E c6 E
U
O
LL 2 Qi
m
jC
O>
C C p
L -p
p C
U
p (a -o M
U O ca
'a O V)
Q
.Q
OU
E
N O Q cn
O
N>
(
N
L
C j
U ,_ N C
�
�
c6 (6 O�
U
E U N U
C
O
U)
j
C C
O O (a O
C
O _QO
O"
u)
L
N O
U U
cB
•o
O
a n O
O
+-1
U O
-0 m m U N
U^OOE�
-a)
0 Q)cm
�EcC
a�E a 0�=
—d NN
N E
r
`m C m� N
O
C
M s``— cn-O
O CD C
Q> O 0.
L L
U) Q N C
C6
,,_ Q N
Q = M 'O
70 N (�
+�' �-
cli N c6
U N U -0 , "
•CO
c6 � (a
E�
L
Q c L>
C— O � co
0 Z3
O U i '� ��
ca E C
j O O
C
-a a)
N
O "6
C L-
O m Q Q. N.—
U) O .-: N O O
U N cn
O O
C C cn O p
'E >
C
E
� E�
U C L
o a)
,_,
U L N
N_ o E U Qo Eon
a=' C C (Q
� U
U
ca E
oLU0U)
0U
----a ac�Cn
W ca C� (n
���
•+�'
O
O
0
CD
N
CI3
m
LL
LL
v
Cn
+,
p
0
p
p fn fn
W Q
W Q
a-
Q
Q W
WZL�L
c�
_0
N
.2:
_
L
>
c
>1
Q�
o
o
Q
�o
o
o
�'
.,
L
O
Q
>
Q
>
0-
W
Q)
o
U
L
U
LL
;—>
-o
L
Q
>
Q
N
O
—
m
�--
N
O
r—
N
LO
Q0
x� x
RE,
i.i.
n/
W
�O
L
n.
O
m
O
L
N
L
a.
L
V
2
m
N
E
O
m
(n a)
O p
O
O `- L
O
U }, O Q)
N
L C
O
U_
�U � ( �
�_
E )
z
v�
a)
U
(� N O O
C:
ca
W
4-j 4-1
+
0 Q) ;
(n )
o
m
W
C C
�
a o
O )U
O W
p
O
O
O a) m
` O
.
O
N U
C O
m
N O
O -a -p U)
(
:3
p E
- 4-
(D
O
O
O
6
-- 0 c O
%i
O L_
O
-
>
+♦C +
O
� C (n
O
O
0
�
-a
0
(D
-o o
a) N
E
(a
C
Q)
a)
c
L U)
s
E
" 4
},
a)
U
Q O 0 C
CO
p u)¢'
)
Q) a)
U >,
O cn
U +�
m
�
�. C N cn
O c > C
-� +
Q.
a) �_
Q) cn O�
C
a) O
m 0) �_
U
4-�- (n C
O�
4-- N
C
C a)
C
L C
O
O- C
�
c O
O
>�
U a) (� a)
co C
_�
a)
m
O Q)
(x
O 0
Q
o
+�
n
E
O
U)
o
n
,
o
C U)
U . ,-
C E c:
Q
U
o L
- a) m
a
- c +O
o a
n Q
c U)
m0Ea) �a
C0a
Q- C)
pE�
Q) _
0) cu
)
(
�
V
m
U
L D•- Q�
>
a)
E
0) L C
C
C Q
-- O
L O O
0-O
_0
U °
O Q � Q
E
U
o
CO m
N
N
C
O
O
(D
O
N
N
C
O
I
Q J
U) U
A
Q
Q U)
cj)
a U
C
F193 O
� �
a
a.
0- o -
QWZLL
Q
Q
QUc)co
m U) _O
a)
L-
L
C Q)
E
Q
Q (�6
c E �"
-o
W
O
a" W U c6 C
O
a
p
U L
U
C N
oc ��
(n
o
E
m=
D.
W
L
a) L (n
M Q)
p
a) 2 �'
06
>
.0
W
a)
U
:t-
QQ
a) Q)
O c) C:
O
O m
(L)
a)
m U -n .-
E
a �
c
a7
cn )
p O O
O
^^a)
1 1 2
^^0
L.J..
Q
O
co
r
m
Fl
Y.!
I.L
U)
U)
V
0
CL
L
M'
W
O
a-+
ca
L
L
L
75
V
r
2
M
L
Q
Z3
4—
Q
�
W
vl
rL(
A.. -.
4-
.,r
U
c
L
E
Q
L
Q
L
Q
Ui
M
M
Q
Q
O
Q
Q
Q'
fl
ca-
Q
0 Q
O
'_ O
;
C�6 EO
Q
X
C%) U
Cf)
m
.�
0
Z3
Z3 '
c O
c O
c
CIO
(13 N
(z
N
L
Q
L
Q
L
Q
L.
0
C
c
CC
G
CC
G
m
m
m
Q
Q
Q
L
Q
�
O
_�
c
U U
p O N
cz °
U E ca
—
Q cQ
0
W
J
Q
C m
m
O p U) }'
Q
c
O
� � }, 0
O
O
c c cn X
4—
C)- c �
p M
LO
a—
O0
Q m
m
E� U
-0 O L
0) L c-
a
Q
o
Cn n c0wUum
Q" O
sU
M
f. s.
ATTACHMENT #4
Ag Use Valuation Assessment for Property Taxation
Use value legislation in North Carolina allows owners of agricultural, horticultural and forest
lands to have their property taxed at a value tied to current income it produces instead of its current
assessed market value. The difference between use value and market value is usually quite large,
resulting in a substantial reduction in property tax payments for producers of agricultural, horticultural or
timber products. However, assignment of use value is not automatic; owners must apply, meet eligibility
requirements and follow rules associated with the use value program. The following is a "short list" of
important issues and concepts regarding ag use valuation in North Carolina. As such it is intended as
general information to increase awareness of the program rather than a detailed account of the entire ag
use program.
1. Landowners must file a timely and proper application with the assessor of the county in which the
property is located. This must be filed during the regular listing period specified by the county, or within
30 days of notice of a change in valuation, or within 60 days of a change in ownership.
2. Minimum acreage requirements apply as follows: Agricultural land - -- -one tract of at least 10
acres. Horticultural land - -- -one tract of at least 5 acres. Forest land - -- -one tract of at least 20 acres.
3. Minimum income requirements apply as follows: For the three years preceding designation for
use value, the acreage under ag/hort land must have produced an average gross income of at least
pfvi�ils�-�r` 000 /year. There is no yearly gross income requirement for forestland, but the land must be in actual
production under an active forest management plan. (There is an exception to the production or income
"VVIt requirements for land under a qualified conservation easement eligible for the conservation tax credit.)
4. Sound management of the land is required. For ag and hort 'land, the owner must meet one of six
factors which demonstrate the land is being operated under a sound management plan. For forestland the
owner must submit and comply with a written forest management _ plan for producing and selling timber
products.
5. Deferred taxes accrue. The difference between the tax due on a present use value basis and the
tax that would have been payable without such designation becomes a deferred tax lien on the property
for three years. This deferred tax is due and payable if and when the land fails to meet any condition or
requirement for use value classification.
6. Several specific ownership requirements (and exceptions to them) exist that are too detailed to list
here. Special attention should be paid to these requirements by new owners and land owned by a business
entity (e.g., partnership, corporation, LLC, trust, etc.)
7.' Legislation authorizing and governing use valuation in NC underwent some important changes in
2002, with some clarifications and addendums since then. Some practices have changed from previous
decades; they will become more evident and important in revaluation years.
8. Valuation .............
The authority to assess property and collect taxes resides in each individual county. Thus, the
policies for applying ag use valuation may vary slightly from one county to another. Landowners and
persons advising them regarding ag use valuation should direct their questions or comments first to the
tax assessor of the county where the property is located.
prepared by Dr. Arnold W. Oltmans, Associate Professor and Extension Specialist, Department of Ag
and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University -- -May, 2004.
In
ELM Am- nolqk jap�ar IMAM Covering the policies, practices and inid2tives that save farmland
Since 1990 Deborah Bowers, Editor
MARYLAND
Installments in, 25 -year termination out
ANNAPOLIS, MD - The Maryland General
Assembly considered no fewer than a dozen bills
related to land conservation in the 2004 session that
ended April 12. Notable additions to farmland
protection are two bills that will establish installment
purchase agreements as a standard option for
easement payments.
Another bill strongly urged by Maryland Agri-
cultural Lands Preservation Foundation and by a
task force studying the farmland program will erase
the 25 -year buy -back clause from that program's
easements. The move comes not one year too soon,
as this year program trustees expect to see attempts
to terminate some of the state's first easements, now
Farm and Ranch Lands Protection
25 years old.
Installment purchase of easements, first used in
Howard County, Md. in 1989, is now used almost
exclusively in about 10 localities, and is offered as an
Maryland conservation budgets - see state briefs, p. 5
option statewide, with assistance, in Pennsylvania.
The method, devised by local government
consultant Daniel P. O'Connell, allows landowners
to defer capital gains tax and receive tax -free interest
over the term of the agreement and the principal in a
balloon payment at the end of the agreement period.
The Maryland program will at first offer only 15 -year
Continued on page 2
Federals get earful on rules, guidelines
HARTFORD, CT - Rules for gaining federal
assistance for farmland protection have become
erratic and sometimes conflict with state or local
laws, say a number of farmland program administra-
tors in the northeast.
Seven state programs, two local programs and
four land trusts sent emissaries to meet with federal -
level NRCS administrators in Hartford April 14
about what many say are guidelines gone haywire -
rules that change without sufficient notice or input,
and requirements that only changes in state statutes
would satisfy.
Many program requirements and process -
related grievances were aired at the invitational
meeting organized by the American Farmland Trust.
Among the more serious charges against the
program was that requirements are often in conflict
with state and local program rules and laws, necessi-
tating in some cases statutory changes and public
review. "States that do not make the necessary
changes in state policy may end.up with two `distinct
Continued on page 3
VOLUME 14, NUMBER 6 APRIL 2004
NJ passes statewide voluntary TDR - p. 4
Use -value good for developers too - p. 4
State briefs - p. 5
Spotlight: Delaware's Mike McGrath - p. 6
Jobs digest /Conferences - p. 8
Page 2 farmland preservation report April 2004
New laws tweak
Maryland programs
Continued from page I
agreements, but the new law calls for a plan from the
Foundation to establish a 25 -year term. The law
takes effect Oct. 1.
Along with the introduction of installment
purchase agreements to the state program, another
new law will allow the Foundation to make grants to
localities that operate their own installment purchase
programs. Easements under the grant program will
be co -held by the county and the Foundation. This
law takes effect July 1.
Another bill, HB 777, ends the program's 25-
year easement termination provision on Sept. 30,
and for all easements purchased on or before that
date, creates a hearing and appeals process. Coun-
ties are establishing their own review procedures.
Landowners who choose to appeal a denial of
termination will go directly to the county circuit court
where the property is located. The new law holds
that all easements purchased. on or after Oct. 1,
2004.will simply "be held by the Foundation in
perpetuity "
Another new law, HB 164, will prevent ap-
proved lots from being transferred for a period of
five years after a nontransferable building permit is
farmland preservation report
is published monthly exceptforAugust &December by
Bowers Publishing, Inc.
900 LaGrange Road
Street, Maryland 21154
Telephone: 410 692 -2708 Email: bowerspub @hotmail.com
www.fannlandpreservationrepoit.com
Deborah Bowers
Editor &Publisher
Tom Daniels
Senior Contributing Editor
Robert J. Heuer
Contributing Editor
Subscription rate of $205 includes index & hotline services. ISSN:
1050 -6373. Copyright 02004 by Bowers Publishing, Inc. All rights
reserved. Reproduction in any form, or electronic forwarding of this
material requires permission from the publisher.
certified by the Foundation. The transfer prohibition
can be waived in cases of foreclosure.
Last year the Foundation altered its owner's and
child's lot rules, restricting the number of lots ac-
cording to parcel size, with a maximum of three.
Prior law, for the first 24 years of the program,
allowed up to 10 total lots for owners and children.
New law also allows landowners to opt, instead, for
one subdividable and transferrable lot.
Passage of HB 770 allows the Foundation to
consider allowing more than one tenant house per
100 acres (if compelling need is shown), but the
Foundation will now have a say in the size and
location ofthe dwellings.
Under HB 820 land trusts no longer have to co-
hold easements with or convey fee title to a govern-
ment agency in order to be exempt from recordation
tax. The bill also will authorize the Department of
Natural Resources to accept donated easements,
until now the exclusive domain of the Maryland
Environmental Trust, and a move MET opposed.
Nick Williams, acting director at MET, said the
quasi - governmental board, created in 1967, felt it
was best to keep "a clear delineation of who takes
donated and purchased easements.-MET has
traditionally been a unique destination of choice for
donated easements."
MET will now enter into an agreement with
DNR "about instances where they would like to
acquire an easement through donation."
One bill that did not pass would have allowed
easement donors to transfer (sell) income tax credits
allowed under Maryland law for land conservation.
According to Nick Williams, this would have
allowed persons whose incomes were not sufficient
to take advantage of the credit to sell the credit to a
third party - an individual or a corporation. While
the idea was well received, the state comptroller
indicated "making it a refundable credit, with a tax
refund check, would be a better option," with less
administrative burden, Williams said.
"So we were hopeful the comptroller's enthusi-
asm would carry the day, but it didn't. Nevertheless,
it established a foothold to continue the discussion
next year."
Contacts: Nick Williams, 410 514 -7900.
April 2004
farmland preservation report
Federal program
rules criticized
Continued from page I
classes of easement' =those that include federal
provisions and those that do not," stated a discus-
sion paper prepared by AFT.
Some of the conflicting requirements are a rule
restricting the amount of impervious surface con-
structed on the farm, subdivision and new residential
construction policy, commercial recreation, mining,
amendment and boundary line adjustment policies,
and the use of points -based appraisal systems.
According to FRPP administrator Denise
Coleman, her office has "negotiated those things. It
depends on what it is. Usually we do try to handle
situations on a one -on -one basis ... sometimes we
step aside and sometimes we don't."
NRCS mission vs. state program realities
According to Coleman, the impervious surface
restrictions arise from her agency's mission to
protect soils. She said the rule was further necessi-
tated by at least one grantee that sought to construct
"a farm complex with residential dwellings." She said
in a pre - meeting interview that her office had put out
final waiver guidelines that would use a formula to
allow a higher percentage of impervious surface the
closer a parcel is to an urbanized area, up to six
percent.
While flexibility is often seen as good, Coleman
said the proposal has "created some heartburn
because [programs] don't want federal guidelines
for some farms and state guidelines for others."
According to Mike McGrath of Delaware, the
problems of how the FRPP is administered may be
rooted in language that indicates FRPP's mission is
to protect soils.
"No one who has been running these programs
for the last 20 years thinks that's true."
McGrath, who attended the Hartford meeting,
said his department feels the FRPP would better
serve state and local programs if it was administered
as a cost -share program by the Farm Service
Page 3
Agency through conservation districts.
Administrators have been stating concerns about
the impervious rule since it was initiated. Ohio
program manager Howard Wise, who said he was
not invited to the Hartford meeting, spoke about the
rule at a USDA - sponsored conference in Baltimore
in November 2003.
"Our program is billed as one in which farmers
can engage in any agricultural activity allowed by
Ohio law, but that would change to any activity that
doesn't take up more than two percent of the land,"
Wise said in an interview following the conference.
Paperwork, extra tasks called burdensome
Among chief concerns expressed by program
administrators in Baltimore, according to Wise, "was
that we need to know what the rules are before the
game starts, not during the game and after."
Some administrators say policy changes come
about without a formal input process from state and
local programs that have "extensive histories and
accomplishments" and on. which the FRPP:
"depend[s] heavily," the AFT paper stated. If
changes are announced, the method is inconsistent.
How easement language is reviewed and
amendments approved were criticized as overly
burdensome, and much of the paperwork required
at closing was called costly and duplicative of state
and local procedures. "As NRCS does not fund
technical assistance provided by FRPP partners, the
additional paperwork and documentation require-
ments add to state and local expenses," the AFT
discussion paper stated.
Some said requiring annual monitoring was
financially impractical and unnecessary and appraisal
requirements were called burdensome.
One recent rule change restricts land trusts from
getting cash matching funds from landowners, and
requires entities to certify their source of funds. But
land trusts may get some relief for emergency
acquisitions, with the program paying a portion of
grants up front rather than all as a reimbursement.
Coleman said after the meeting that many of the
concerns discussed will be addressed. "Some things
we will be able to tweak in the manual. Other things
have to come from higher up."
E
I-
Page 4
farmland preservation report
Minnesota effort in
political dead zone
SAINT PAUL, MN - The Twin Cities metropolitan
region can boast one of the nation's few programs
that requires restrictive zoning as the main compo-
nent of a farmland protection effort. But the effort
has no aid from the state, and, recently it has no
enthusiasm from the body that governs it.
The Metropolitan Council has been charged
since 1982 with monitoring enrollment in the seven -
county Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Program
and has the authority to boost program efforts.
Just over a year ago, the Council published
Blueprint 2030, calling for a regional PDR program
and promising to seek a $50 million bond to fund it.
That was before a change in the State House
brought an all -new membership to the Council.
When it reconvened, the new council squelched the
2030 plan and the regional PDR drive.
"The new Council axed a.]1 the argricultural
protection documents," said staffer Tori Dupre.
According to Dupre, only two of the seven
counties - Dakota and Carver - have significant
acreage enrolled in agricultural preserves, which
dwelling units to one per 40 acres in exchange for
use value assessment, property tax credits and other
benefits. About 190,000 acres are enrolled in the
region.
Dakota County has the state's only local PDR
program. Nearby Washington County may consider.
a bond referendum for a program, its second
attempt, Dupre said, but many farmers in the county
are dropping out ofthe Preserves program, and
none of the counties promote it, she said.
Minnesota is "not at all the liberal, progressive
state it once was," said Lee Ronning of 1000
Friends of Minnesota.
"We're going backwards. For farmland preser-
vation, I don't see anything happening at all."
Nevertheless, the group plans to refocus its efforts
on farmland, she said.
Contact: Tori Dupre, 651- 602 -1621; Lee
Ronning, 651312 -1000.
news briefs
April 2004
New Jersey governor signs statewide
transfer of development rights law
TRENTON, NJ —New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey
signed into law March 29 a transfer of development
rights bill that authorizes localities to set up sending
and receiving areas and to transfer rights across
boundaries (see FPR, March 2004). "New Jersey is
the most densely populated state in the nation and we
are losing 50 acres of farmland each day. TDR is the
planning tool we need to accommodate our growing
population without using up all of our open space,"
McGreevey stated.
The new law has rankled the state homebuilders
association, which has already filed its grievances
with the courts, claiming stream protections in the
new law will seal up 80 percent of the state's remain-
ing developable land. The K. Hovnanian Companies
berated the lack of "growth incentives."
A spokesman for the New Jersey Sierra Club
agreed, stating the new law would be stronger if it
included tax incentives to help developers pay for
infrastructure costs.
Other critics said the new law's effectiveness
will be in doubt because program adoption is volun-
tary and has an anti - downzonings clause.
AP investigation turns up millions lost
in use -value breaks to developers
Nationwide, well - intended farmland tax breaks are
being used by developers setting aside land for
development, according to the Associated Press.
Agricultural use assessments, first used by states
in the late 1950's, were designed to tax farmers on
the current use of their land rather than its develop-
ment value. The tax breaks were the first form of
farmland preservation, but they couldn't compete
with developers' offers. Those same developers got
the same tax breaks while planning to build.
According to the March 29 AP report, develop-
ers are saving big, often paying only a tiny fraction of
the tax they would pay if localities had a better way
to monitor sales and intentions.
Many localities don't know how much revenue is
lost to loophole tax breaks annually. Broward County,
FL estimated its losses at $13 million.
April 2004
state briefs
In Maryland ... The legislature
finally passed a budget - along with
an expected $800 million shortfall
and further cuts to programs this
fiscal year - with the legislature
closing its 2004 session April 12. With
Gov. Robert Ehrlich rejecting new
taxes and the House Democratic
leadership rejecting slot machines as
a revenue booster, program budgets
continue to be vulnerable to severe
cuts, including programs under
Program Open Space despite its
dedicated transfer tax revenue
stream. The state's real estate
transfer tax has once again been
tapped to supplement the general
fund - for this budget, $186 million -
the largest amount ever taken from
land conservation in a single year
according to POS figures.
The Rural Legacy Program,
zeroed out in the governor's budget,
received more sympathy from the
legislature, which transferred $2
million to Rural Legacy from the
Greenprint program, which now has
$3 million instead of $5 million. The
legislature rejected the governor's
budget advisors' suggestion to
delete language in the Rural Legacy
statute that requires a minimum $5
million allocation annually. "I don't
know how they can reconcile the
statutory language with the fact
that Rural Legacy is not getting the
full $5 million;' said Steve Bunker of
The Nature Conservancy. "However,
since the statutory language stays,
Rural Legacy remains an actively
funded program."
MALPF's budget appears
unchanged from the governor's
proposal of $5 million in bond funds,
except it will receive less from its 25
percent portion of Greenprint funds.
The program expects $500,000 from
its ag transfer tax and $7 million in
local matches. According to MDA
administrative officer Doug Wilson,
MALPF fared well in a session where
severity in budget cuts was wide-
spread. "This is Secretary Riley's
cornerstone program - you can't get
much better support than that. So
we're hoping for a better economy. I
farmland preservation report
think next year there will be pressure
to look at transfer taxes again. I
think they like the idea of using
bonds for acquisition."
In Ohio ... The state program
closed its third application cycle,
having received 271 applications
looking for purchases. The program
has $3.1 million from the Clean Ohio
Fund for 2004, and the pilot
program's allocation of $25 million is
now half depleted, according to
director Howard Wise. Ashland,
Fulton and Miami Counties lead the
state in number of applicants, with
more than 25 each.
In the legislature, the state's
new projection of a $300 million
revenue shortfall for FY '05- amidst
an overall $3 billion deficit - ended a
move to offer tax incentives for
agricultural security area formation.
This is the second year financial
incentives were erased from the bill.
In New York ... The New York
Department of Parks coordinated the
sale of state -owned and preserved
agricultural lands on Long Island
Sound in March. More than half of
the 529 -acre parcel, formerly owned
by The Trust for Public Land, was
divided up and development rights
retired. Forty -five Long Island farmers
entered a lottery to win the chance
to purchase the available land. Seven
farmers won and will pay $13,000
per acre for their allotments of tillable
land of between 20.6 and 39.5
acres, according to Marsha Kenny of
Peconic Land Trust. Farmland in the
area sells for $50,000 per acre.
In Pennsylvania ... State program
totals following board approvals in
March show 275,593 acres pre-
served, including March approvals not
yet closed, and 2,370 farms. The
state has spent to date $581 million.
Cumberland County will allocate
$2 million in bond funds to its
farmland preservation program in an
attempt to cut down its backlog of
100 farm applicants. The county may
borrow between $10 and $20 million
to support a farmland and open
space plan to be presented in May.
In Michigan ... The Kent County
Farm Bureau has made a challenge
grant pledge to Kent County of
$10,000 as start-up money for the
county's as yet unfunded PDR
Page 5
program, if the county puts up twice
that sum. According to the Michigan
Farmland and Community Alliance,
several local groups have pledged
money to the Kent program,
including $500,000 from the Wege
Foundation, $50,000 from the Lowell
Area Community Foundation, and
$200,000 from Steelcase. The Frey
Foundation has also approved a 2 -to-
1 challenge grant of $200,000,
contingent on a county allocation of
at least $400,000. The program was
created in 2002. Kent County lies on
the eastern side of Grand Rapids.
Meanwhile in Lenawee County,
where a committee last November
recommended a PDR program,
county commissioners are split in
their support and took no action on
the proposal after discussion April 13.
Two months ago program opponents
brought an extension specialist from
New Mexico to speak against
easement programs (see Feb. FPR).
In New Jersey... The Highlands
Water Protection and Planning Act
will create a 15- member council that
could veto major development
projeds. in -designated preservation
areas. The Council will draft a master
plan which would be updated every
five years for preservation areas. The
bill's protection provisions are
ambitious: it would expand the
authority of the Dept. of Environ-
mental Protection and give it the
right of first refusal on property sales
in the Highland's preservation areas,
and all development projects
affecting more than one acre would
require a special permit.
In Virginia ... Fauquier County
approved $1.3 million for PDR and will
hold a public hearing on a proposed
special taxing district for PDR funding
this month. State PDR guidelines will
be announced at a James City Co.
farm June 30.
ALL States: Both the House and
Senate have passed reauthorizations
of the transportation programs.
Later this month, House and Senate
negotiators are expected to write a
compromise version for the
president's signature. The Transpor-
tation Enhancements Program was
not changed in either version of the
legislation. It will remain a 10% set -
aside from the surface transporta-
tion program.
r i _
Page 6
spotlight
Michael McGrath
farmland preservation report
Delaware farmland
effort started with a
name in a shoebox
Michael McGrath 's career as chief of the Delaware
farmland preservation program was as accidental as it
has been instrumental- his entering government began
with someone putting his name in a suggestion box. Here
he recalls his years in farming prior to his government
career, and the early years of Delaware's farmland effort,
which has now preserved more than 76, 000 acres.
McGrath was interviewed by phone in late March.
FPR: Mike, tell me about how you grew up and where...
McGrath: I grew up on a small vegetable farm in southern New
Castle County. I had a very interesting childhood. I tell people
sometimes, `I'm the only city boy who was raised on a farm'...
My dad made his living on the King Street Farmers Market,
which is one of the oldest farmers' markets in the United
States... my father was a unique character, and had the greatest
influence on my life. He was a vegetable farmer from the time he
was 11 years old —his father — my grandfather, whom I never
knew- was very ill with what would have been called, today,
asbestosis. He was a talc miner from upstate New York. My
father and his older brother had to make the living for the family.
My uncle had heard about the Wilmington Farmers Market,
which is a long way from Salisbury, Maryland, where they lived
— they took a load of cantaloupes to Wilmington in, I guess,
1921, and found out they could make twice as much as they
could wholesale.
My father, then, as they grew up and my uncle left the
farm — 1927 — dad went on his own to the King Street Market
for the first time and from then until 1977 made his living that
way. And in 1944 he moved to Delaware to get closer to
Wilmington — my dad never plowed up more than five acres in
his life and retired comfortably and sent two kids to college.
He was interested in having his children be self - reliant, so I
started, when I was about 10 years old — he gave me a plot of
land and I raised my own crops - to make money, because he
said `this is the way you're going to have to pay your way
through college.' And so I grew Indian corn and marketed it to a
man who ran a roadside stand on Long Island. And he was my
customer the whole time I was growing Indian corn —
FPR: So you had a true niche market...
McGrath: I did... looking back on this it was incredible... when
I was six weeks old my mother took me to the market for the
first time, and really from then on until I left home I went to the
market with them all the time. And looking back now, as a
April 2004
planner, I think that has very much informed my view on smart
growth and so on ...
FPR: Getting back to what your father said, did your
entrepreneurial work pay your way through college?
McGrath: It did. In fact I had money left over. He was big on
finding that niche market - we got good money for things. We
grew high quality stuff. In the case of the Indian corn, we bred
our own colors — I was selling this stuff by the truckload. But
anyway, to answer your question, when I came out of college I
had a couple thousand dollars in the bank and actually bought
some land... you could actually buy land for a couple thousand
dollars then, and it was of course, dirt cheap to go to college —
about $1500 a year for room, board, books and everything at the
University of Delaware.
FPR: What was your major?
McGrath: Philosophy.
FPR: No kidding ....
McGrath: I was a philosophy major. Actually, I finished degree
requirements for two majors — philosophy and English
literature. And ultimately later I went back and got a degree in
accounting. I didn't know much about finances...
FPR: You studied philosophy, so you came into farmland
preservation probably with some land ethic you had
developed ...
McGrath: I always joke that if you're going to be in agriculture,
you have to be philosophical about it... but just to back up a
minute, I think the reason I took the philosophy degree and lots
of logic is that by the time I left high school I realized, at least I
thought, that what education was all about was not so much
about imparting information to somebody as it was teaching you
how to learn.
FPR: Right — how to think, how to solve problems ...
McGrath: But let me tell you about how I got into government,
because the land ethic thing wasn't germane until then. We're
talking about the early 70s... inflation had just started. Land
prices had changed only marginally ... this is where a land ethic
or concern about the future of land started to formulate in my
mind — during the 1950s and 60s there had been an exodus of
farmers from Long Island and Bergen County, NJ, and farmers
were moving out because they had lost their land to the
expansion of New York City and Long Island and farmers came
to settle in South Jersey and in Delaware. There were two things
that brought them here. One, they thought this was how far
south they had to go, to get away from the city, and two, the
soils were very similar to what they had left on Long Island... it
became apparent to a lot of farmers in Delaware who had never
thought about this before, that land wasn't always going to be
there. Because now they had neighbors who were telling them
about experiences that were completely foreign to them, stories
of 200 acres of houses with little lawns, you know, sort of
marching out from New York City and onto Long Island, and
there was a lot of money behind this — these guys came to
Delaware and, for a while in the 1950s, were bidding against
each other for the better farms, and land prices went up.
FPR: Because of farmers competing with farmers ...
McGrath: Yeah, yeah, for the best farms, you know, they were
coming in and then wanted the best farms and they had lots of
money in their pockets and I can remember very clearly the local
farmers and my dad saying `these people are nuts — they paid
$2000 an acre for farmland! ... they're crazy...' I mean that was
a lot of money in 1970.
April 2004
farmland preservation report
FPR: What happened to the farm you grew
up on?
McGrath: It's still there, the road went
through it, a guy lives there who's a hobby
farmer.
FPR: How did you get into government,
Mike?
McGrath: I was interested in things that
were going on around us, active in the
community in different ways. In 1969
Delaware passed the farmland assessment act,
the use value assessment, which provided a
huge tax break for actively farmed land, but
taxes were so low, hardly anybody used it, it
just sat there on the books. But anyway, in
1971 New Castle County reassessed, and
agricultural property taxes went up anywhere
from four to 10 times what they had been,
overnight. Well, you can imagine the reaction.
It was torch light parades and loose talk about
hanging people (laughter).
FPR: And were you leading the charge?
McGrath: No, but around 1973, after people
had paid one or two of these bills, the county
council began holding meetings. People were
hot. A councilman had promised they were
going to install someone in the county
executive's office that would be in charge of
lower New Castle County affairs, a sort of
liaison, and they were dragging their feet, so
that was the subject of the meeting. -So the
councilman got a shoebox and put it up on the
table and said, `when the meeting is over, if
there is someone you know in the community
who could fill this job, put their name in
here.' Well, I thought no more of it, I just
went home. Well, the very next day, the
phone rang and Joan came and got me. The
guy on the other end said he was in the New
Castle government, and said `your name was
put in a shoebox last night and we'd like to
talk to you about working with New Castle
County government.' And I said, `no, I'm
busy, I have a business to run...'
FPR: So you didn't have time for a county
job? (laughter)
McGrath: No, no, we had a lot of irons in the
fire. We were anticipating becoming larger, we
were hiring people... so this was like, fooey,
what is this guy talking about... so I got off
the phone and had lunch and Joan said `what
was that about?' and I told her and later that
night she said, `you know, you've really got a
lot more to offer than just figuring out how to
grow chrysanthemums better, maybe you
ought to think about this.' I said, well, OK. I
started thinking about the victimization of
farmers ... Back then, there really was a gap
in how people's interests were being
represented ... I thought if there's going to be a
future for agriculture... and I wasn't looking
Page 7
at it then as a land thing
... if we're going to be
�,. better represented
about the changes that
are occurring, then
�l somebody will have to
step forward and get
involved more.
FPR: What were you
doing when the idea
of farmland
preservation came
along?
McGrath: In the
planning department we
were opening a dialog
Mike McGrath (photo by Mark Davis) with actually some
planners on Long Island
- that was the place where there was the nearest parallel and the Delaware
Tomorrow Commission was trying to take a comprehensive look, for the
.Bicentennial in '76, at the future of Delaware and we got deeply involved with
that, and we got them to articulate the issue of farmland loss ... the next thing was a
committee Gov. DuPont put together about the future of agriculture, and there was
a statement they made about the loss of farmland, and in the early 80s there was an
executive order about that. Then, some of the farmers that had been on the
Commission pushed for a position in the Department of Agriculture to deal with
farmland preservation and land use planning. They had extracted this promise from
DuPont. But there was reluctance to go ahead with it. But DuPont said `if you can
find someone to fill this position you can hire him.'
FPR: So, your name was put into a shoebox?
McGrath: Almost... I got a call from a friend of mine at the University of
Delaware who said `Mike, I just found out about this job - something about
farmland preservation and land use down at the Department of Agriculture and the
closing date for the application is tomorrow ... well, I was the only person who
applied.
FPR: (Laughter) You're kidding...
McGrath: Well, you see, they were just going to close the thing and say, `see, well,
nobody wanted this...'
FPR: Ah huh...
McGrath: Right then I knew I had made a commitment to land preservation and
was paddling up Niagara Falls, and I actually took a pay cut — we had two kids at
this point —
FPR: And you told your kids to start growing Indian corn...
McGrath: Yeah, something like that... so that's really when I said, OK, if this is
important enough — there were subdivision plans being filed and approved in
southern New Castle County, it was clear something was happening and wasn't
going to stop happening, you know, for the rest of my lifetime. That was 1984,
and I was by myself. I didn't even have a secretary.
FPR: Do you recall a defining moment when you became a land preservation
advocate?
McGrath: One thing that solidified my commitment to farmland preservation
came the day my parents moved in with our family. We had added onto our house
to accommodate my mother and father coming to live with us. We had cleaned the
whole farm out and everything was done, it was literally the last suitcase, and Dad
was going to get in the truck with me and come to our house... I couldn't find him.
I went to look for him. He had walked out in the field of his little five -acre area that
he plowed and he was down on the ground kind of looking at the soil as he often
did, you know, looking at the moisture and whatever, and I noticed he was crying. I
realized then that land and preserving land was really personal with people. This
was not a commodity for him, not just an input to producing vegetables, this
meant something to him emotionally. I've never forgotten that picture.
jobs digest
For full information on the following jobs, and for
other postings, see Ita.org.
Congaree Land Trust (SC),
Stewardship Director -a fulltime
position to conduct annual
monitoring... Brandywine Conservancy
(PA), Senior Planner or Associate
Planner- full -time for immediate work in
Environmental Management Center and
the municipal assistance and
conservation design programs...
American Chestnut Land Trust(MD),
Land Manager - oversee stewardship
of 2,800 acres, trail maintenance... West
Wisconsin Land Trust (WI), Regional
Protection Specialist, Northern
Lakes Region - responsible for all
aspects of land conservation, protection
...Sonoma County Agricultural
Preservation and Open Space
District (CA), Conservation Program
Manager - responsible for implementing
the District's Acquisition Plan. Society
for the Protection of New Hampshire
Forests, (NH) Land Protection Assistant,
assist five land agents in the acquisition
of lands and conservation easements.
conferences
April 24 -28, Washington, D.C.:
American Planning Association's 2004
National Conference. Rep. Earl
Blumenauer (D- Ore.), a Smart Growth
proponent, will deliver the opening
address, April 25. See Small Town and
Rural Planning track at planning.org.
May 23 -26, Radnor, PA: Advanced
Ballot Training, sponsored by Land Trust
Alliance at the Villanova Conference
Center. How to run a better ballot
campaign. Intense, hands -on, three -day
course for a limited number of
participants. See LTA.org.
June 11 -12, Saratoga Springs, NY:
Northeast Land Trust Conference. See
Ita.org or contact Jennifer Brady- Connor
(518- 587 -0774; jbconnor @lta.org).
Oct. 28 -3, Providence, RI: Land Trust
Alliance Rally 2004, National Land
Conservation Conference. This four -day
conference is the largest gathering of
land conservationists in the country.
More than 1,700 attended last fall. This
year, the Rally will feature three new
advanced level tracks: land trusts, land
use planning, and regulation; radical and
conventional techniques for conservation
finance; and a track devoted to academic
research on conservation.
Nov. 15 -17, Lexington, KY: Farming on
the Edge, Meeting the Challenge,
conference of the American Farmland
Trust. See farmland.org.
farmland preservation report
Land and Community
Alan R. Mussehnan,
Land Conservation Practitioner
Meadowhawk Farm
153 Hickory Ridge Millerstown, Pa. 17062
717 - 589 -7871; 589 -9987; Fax 589 -3080
armussel @aol.com
Conservation, Preservation, Planning
Custom Land Conservation Easements, Projects,
Historic Preservation Easements and Conservation Planning
DAM
RESOURCE GROUP
A Division of The Davey Tree Expert Company
• Natural resource inventories
• GIS mapping
• Environmental planning
1- 800 - 828 -8312, ext. 37
Ana Burns
fax: 330 - 673 -0860
www.davey.com
1500 N. Mantua Street
Kent, Ohio 44240
Land & Organizational Consultant
Farmland, natural areas, and historic site
preservation and sensitive development
solutions for Landowners and
Municipalities. Preparation of
conservation easements, ordinances,
limited development designs, stormwater
and wastewater solutions. Strategic
planning for conservation organizations.
610 - 388 -1731
P.O. Box 121
Pocopson, PA 19366
Email: Land- WaterPian @kennett.net
*Co- Founder, Land Trust Alliance
EvergmenCapita]Advisors7
32 Nassau Street
Financial Princeton, New Jersey 08542
advisor to tel: (609) 279 -0068
governmental fax: (609) 279 -0065
' farmland email: pat @evergreenca.com
www.evergreenca.com
preservation
programs Daniel Patrick O'Connell
President
. A N D,P:O0L AD M i 15TRATO
Enhanc ng thy: Value of Land
Landpool: A partnership among property- owners to unify planning and
development of economically and ecologically linked land parcels.We provide an
effective, market -based approach to regional plan implementation, farmland
protection, and economic development. Contact us today.We implement plans.
David B. Renkert, Managing Partner
215 687 -4141
www.landpooling.com
z >
C
�=A
cr
Ei - CJ D
En
° CJ
.:e C) n
c � �
z
o
o �
m
w
OrQ �
� o�:l CD
CD
0
J
lY. i
O
b
y
O�
cn•
roll.
,
O
K
n•
-P
J
'b
CD
U
n
--
d
n
d
sv
o
CD
'
b
CD
CD
CD
¢`
@
0
.°�
(D
aC�
CD
cr
`c
C�
o'
o
0
cn
C
o
td
o
cu
CC)
cn
y
cn
CD
o
w
cy,
�.
0
r.
co
CD
�,
o.
En
CD
CD
n
.-.
0
►•!
0
�:
CD
CD
Q•
CD
CD
0 •
CD
o
co
0
En.
CD
0
w
o
0
CD
co
c�
0
CD
z >
C
�=A
cr
Ei - CJ D
En
° CJ
.:e C) n
c � �
z
o
o �
m
w
OrQ �
� o�:l CD
CD
0
J
lY. i
O
b
y
O�
cn•
roll.
,
O
K
n•
-P
J
cn
o
r.r
r- W
OBW
roll.
K
n•
�Lj
G
O
�.
CD
ro Ei• (1) -�
n.,_�
�h
o
<,4
'
o
r+
(-D
C
n
O
CD
O
w
ro --I N < co
O
cD
�.
CD
�U
e+
p,
v
c
CD
a-
°
G
G
cv
`c
°
o
o
CD
o
c
o
C
°
o
!ron Q N O c cn U3 � � a N
`d
■ J
►�
��
`C
CD
o�—hCD 0)
��o CD
cv
O
C
o
r+
�C�
CD
o
o
C-D
0 CD
a
o
m��0�
CD
�.
oQ
<ro�"�Q��c�
C) '+
a-
..
En
3
Cn
ro
CD = cQ c " v
��o �c �
-6
3�a rm
CD
CD
o
v
2
CD
0
C
r+
0:�
CD
c
°
""
ro
A=
w
CD
C
pa
>
co
CD
c
ro
cn r+ (n C �- 0 -0 �
c CD (1) '
n � v �
�
�.
t7
O
vA
vim
Cl-
a) ,� =
cv�� �•�o °Q,rno
o (-Q
�rt �
C
(D c- h� F.c
3 c
3
eh
C
v
ro
=j
CD
p'{-
O
",
n
Q-
(TQ
•-+
(n'
Ln
CD
�+,
CD
G
g
w
°•`�
n'
O
c*
C
r CD
LO
CD
CD
w
w
O�
0
b
orQ
5
•
•
•
� 0 =3 =h CD ro cn
3O ro'roN�v'ro
ro Ei• (1) -�
n.,_�
o
<,4
'
o
r+
(-D
U
ro -n N -n
w
n G
CD
° O
0 °
°
ro --I N < co
O
0
CD
�U
e+
3
0
c
CD � ro O 0 cQ
-
ro Cr
kA
n•
CD
0
o
0-p — N
ca
c
r, can
ro
0
!ron Q N O c cn U3 � � a N
ro C7 p- (�
(� n)
■ J
��
`C
CD
o�—hCD 0)
��o CD
C
Uq
(.o
CD
C:L OOH
�C�
uq
o
C-D
0 CD
ro
o
m��0�
CD
�.
oQ
<ro�"�Q��c�
C) '+
a-
..
(n
cn
3
Cn
ro
CD = cQ c " v
��o �c �
-6
3�a rm
CD
o
v
2
CD
0
C
r+
0:�
CD
c
°
ro
CD
0
��='ro�c°DcLCD� - - :3
>
co
CD
c
ro
cn r+ (n C �- 0 -0 �
c CD (1) '
n � v �
�
�.
t7
(n
w
O�
0
b
orQ
5
•
•
•
� 0 =3 =h CD ro cn
3O ro'roN�v'ro
ro Ei• (1) -�
n.,_�
C
C
0
d
�.
Ln
0
o
ro � Cl) Q
ro -n N -n
w
n G
CD
° O
0 °
°
ro --I N < co
O
can N
N
r+
�U
e+
3
-a
O °
(D
n
CD � ro O 0 cQ
-
ro Cr
N Q.: n. �
—
n•
0
° � �
:3 0 CD r,
0-p — N
N
w
C
r, can
ro
0
!ron Q N O c cn U3 � � a N
ro C7 p- (�
(� n)
■ J
��
`C
CD
o�—hCD 0)
��o CD
C
(.o
C:L OOH
�C�
o
C/)
0 CD
ro
cE�- ,Qa.rocn° =m
m��0�
ro
CD
�,�
c
<ro�"�Q��c�
C) '+
o °��cn
..
(n
cn
3
Cn
ro
CD = cQ c " v
��o �c �
-6
3�a rm
C7
o
o
v
2
--`�cp
�D— cn�(n�,cn��
N 0
CDV -m—I0
v °
C
cn cQ :° v n Q.
�CDCD
ro
n.
0
��='ro�c°DcLCD� - - :3
>
co
-h
N
-,
°
ro
cn r+ (n C �- 0 -0 �
c CD (1) '
n � v �
�
�.
t7
(n
w
a) ,� =
cv�� �•�o °Q,rno
o (-Q
�rt �
C
(D c- h� F.c
3 c
3
eh
C
v
ro
=j
°a -�3 (m 3 0
CDXCD C:
n
Q-
(n cr
1
•-+
(n'
En
w , 0 w
O `
GQ o'
b n
o d
CD
C i
CD
`C
CD
O �d
a
0 0 CD
CD o
•
CD CD
CD 5'D
O
CD
w
0
CD
0
CD
• • • •
rot
x
W
0
d
�.
Ln
0
o
CD
CD
In
o
CD
w
n G
CD
N
�
UP
0
o
°
CD
CD
CD-
CD
C
cn
o
CD
C
0
CD
w
C
w
0
CD
0
UQ
CD
`C
o
CD
C/)
C
cn
CD
..
a
CD
C7
o
Q CD
p
w
Op
CD
En
CD
G
CD
C
G
CD
w
•
°
°
�D
O
w_
w
c�
0
''d
O
0
d
�.
Ln
0
o
CD
CD
In
o
CD
uq
�•
d
CD
0
�-
UP
0
En
�
Lo
°
CD
�.
w
va
CD
C
cn
CD
cn
w
Op
CD
En
CD
G
CD
C
G
CD
w
•
°
°
�D
O
w_
w
c�
0
''d
O
o y�
c� Rr
►".r �i' fO�D
� � O
� � o
0
N �
J
0
d -, ;b
elf-
w
n
C@
�'�
ti
�]. O C
r��� �����z
"•
s � �. W �
w
R. o
a P� �.
r P) Z a, G �-
0
El
CD
k �:r �_* p
y
am]
`C It
b G d z CD (') qq O' b
*�
111
�e O
CD
d -, ;b
elf-
w
l -i
rr• �•
ftQ
0
z
y
0
Mao ol
z
x
cc
y
O
rD
r
O
r
O
/v!
�H
O
7�
O
0 rn p CD O CJ1
°
o
m
�'�
ti
�]. O C
r��� �����z
"•
s � �. W �
w
R. o
a P� �.
r P) Z a, G �-
0
El
CD
k �:r �_* p
y
am]
`C It
b G d z CD (') qq O' b
*�
�e O
CD
6' "'
=s O -t � - FS, cD O
�' C
� °
CD CD R CD
cn
o cry CD Z
.
O bQ `-'
p
CAD -h
h
.-•
. UQ
�..
O
CD
CD t C➢
O
�— OQ
CD PD
Z
T V
l
/�D. /yt
l�
`+
--'
(D'
v In Q �'
$" a
p' CD w
r �r1
CD
�. w�
�.
CD o.
v'
CD
O �
G
P) CD
CD p
C
CD ? b
P,
oo
cn
Ln
CD
CD o
Ln
°
� .
C7
cn
�.
p CD
6 c p-
g cD
cn
O
0
0
�. o
p
o
CD
�j a
�Q
l -i
rr• �•
ftQ
0
z
y
0
Mao ol
z
x
cc
y
O
rD
r
O
r
O
/v!
�H
O
7�
O
0 rn p CD O CJ1
°
o
m
�'�
ti
�]. O C
r��� �����z
"•
s � �. W �
w
R. o
a P� �.
r P) Z a, G �-
0
cr
CD
k �:r �_* p
y
am]
`C It
b G d z CD (') qq O' b
*�
=s O -t � - FS, cD O
o cry CD Z
0...
►�
5.
CAD
0)
Q -1 -1 - G � O � p,
�
z F
Z
T V
l
/�D. /yt
l�
`+
--'
°
l -i
rr• �•
ftQ
0
z
y
0
Mao ol
z
x
cc
y
O
rD
r
O
r
O
/v!
�H
O
7�
O
CD p CD
O O cn G G •-
�. P CD r r �. (DD cn O �< �° -t cn O S n
G O G O G CD O
cn
Q = C CD C7 0GQ can
CD - °, o o � G w CD �
b ID G p a p CD
cn
cn CD
o 0 p t/I o N
CD a cn o n R CD
0 0 =r
0 < cD R. , oQ P a CD
C¢D :D O p �° CD CD (D -1 ° � G cn
Q CD n CD
P oQ O G cn �?
cn
Q y
�' rd rcnn N
O�•
o O °
G cn G'
° a' o
CD n
Q CD
'O �:s p
cr
CAD P)
ITI
CD
c. rd
cn cn a o �]
cn
bGQ r-r
C'D O .
� � Z
CAD
CD
CD o
O
H
Cl1
+, —n y
CD C' CD
G CD �* CD Uq CD �- • or G G
CD A� CD CD 6 (D OOQ `< ~ CAD
Gq (D —h CD . t 0
CD a -p-s G O
�. o
�, cn o
CD
CD
cn cn
PG BCD 0� p CD r*
CD
cn
cn
p CD °, CD o
� �� p -�V � y
:r -1 n � , : ' C-D
Q cn 0 CD
cn • G OQ QQ cn trGQ
cn y a N O (D n� O 0
� O
bQ cn �s r� (Oj CD p. cn 0 CD �h
° G
O O can �+, �p-h
N CD
p cn ►- G G 5C
CD
�-h Sy �' .may ". r •' cn � �' A• rGn � �
C)
cn CD
cn x P) o
� CD
O O n � n n
y O CD COD p Fl
O CAD p cn
CD cn cn �: �' P y O� G
C) CD A. �, CD
(D cD cD cn
cn CL Cl. CD
0
< 0
o
0
_o
7�
b
0
a
0
x�
y�
zr
ry
y
MCI
H
0
•
•
.
•
•
•
•
�cD
c D
' CD
CD
CD
cD
o
�.
... ,�
cn C
cn
0- cD
p
n CD
°
G
�d
G
CD
... p G
o
cD
g
a
(D°
E3
cn
0
w �,
a'
o a, °
CD
N
p
G
r*
n
Q"
can
n
-t
r n
cD
0
o o
�C p
cn
CD
b : d
O
O < PD Q
CD
O
p
. t Ar
C
CD
W cn
G
<
"t CD CD
•-t
CD
N
::3
:
O
cn
CD
A) CD
Q
t
CD
CL
r-r
�:V
p
(fQ
O
0
G CD
n
o
o
(D
CD
Q
o
cn
CD
P)
a
A.
�d
a
w (D
0
0
< 0
o
0
_o
7�
b
0
a
0
x�
y�
zr
ry
y
MCI
H
0