APB agenda 051904 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

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