HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-11-13Page 1 of 5
Draft 11-13-2013
Agriculture Advisory Committee
November 13, 2013
Members Present: Karen LaMotte, Joe Osmeloski, Doug Barton and Evan Carpenter
(Chairman)
Planning Board Liaison: Craig Anderson
Conservation Board Liaison: Craig Schutt
Planning Department Staff: Jane Nicholson (Interim Planning Director)
Guests: Vaughn, Susan, Jeremy and Trevor Sherman, Nancy Munkenbeck
Town Board Members: Supervisor M. A. Sumner and Jason Leifer
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 PM by Chairman Carpenter.
1. Chairman Carpenter chose to interview the Sherman family at the beginning
of the meeting.
V. Sherman indicated that they have a closing date in the December.
E. Carpenter asked if the Sherman’s had any insight or information to share with the
group.
V. Sherman said it has been almost 7 years since they agreed to apply for the PDR.
Dan Kwasnowski did most of the work on the contract. At this point developmental
values are not as high as farm values, so between the time he first applied and was
approved and now, the agricultural land values have gone up.
Mr. Sherman said that the farmer is donating land and money, 25% of the difference
between the land value and the value of the land if it was sold for development. 75%
comes from the state. He said that Scott Doyle told him the Town of Dryden kicked in
more money than other towns. Mr. Doyle stated that other towns do the paperwork
but don’t kick in any money. Mr. Sherman said that the family has decided they are
going to go through with this even if the Town doesn’t help monetarily.
Mr. Sherman stated that he is a fan of farms and farm land. When he was a kid, he
used to go to Cortland and the whole way there you could see big beautiful farms.
Cortland County used to be one of the top ranked Dairy counties but now the Dairy
industry has left this area. His reason for continuing with the PDR is simply due to his
love of the land and his desire to see agriculture continue in this Town.
C. Schutt asked what the intention was when he went into this? Mr. Sherman replied
that Dan (Kwasnowski) was very vague and he didn’t really have a solid hold on what
the options were. The 25% share, the total owner contribution was $166,000. In the
case of the Stuttle PDR, the Town kicked in half of the owner’s share, 12.5%.
E. Carpenter, after reviewing a document provided by S. Sherman laying out the
financial breakdown of the PDR, asked if the amount the Town has offered to kick was
the $60,000.
The closing date is set for December 17, 2013.
C. Anderson observed that the Sherman’s appear to be ready to move forward and
asked what they would have done differently (in the process). E. Carpenter and Mr.
Sherman both agreed that the numbers need to be nailed down early on. A true
amount could not be set before the assessment was done but an understanding of the
percentages would be helpful.
J. Nicholson said that Dan (Kwasnowski) never set an amount and has offered
between 0-100% of the farmer’s contribution but left it to the Town Board to decide
the final amount. At this point, it appears the town will pay about 9% of the PDR.
Page 2 of 5
Draft 11-13-2013
N. Munkenbeck asked why they are paying less than they paid to the Stuttle’s (about
12.5%). As a member of the Town, she would prefer that her taxes be used to fund the
12.5% rather than 9%. Years ago, they put out a survey amongst members of the
Town which demonstrated that many supported the use of town funds to support
agriculture. She understands that the Town is concerned about this becoming a
precedent and it is a lot of money.
C. Anderson posed the question of whether the Town should set up a reserve fund for
future PDRs. N. Munkenbeck said the town has been trying to spend down the rainy
day fund and she thinks they had talked at one point of putting some of that money
into a reserve fund.
C. Anderson asked Mr. Sherman if the process was too long? Was it the State that
held it up? How can we stream-line the process?
Mr. Sherman said that just when Mr. Kwasnowski thought all the paper work was
done, the State tended to ask for something more. The appraisal took too long; and
now it is a couple years old and no longer accurate. The whole idea of land
conservation is great but it is a mess. The situation makes it difficult to plan for the
future.
C. Anderson asked if the Shermans are interested in putting more land into the PDR
at a later date? Mr. Sherman would be interested in putting in more land but at this
point the process is irritating. The rest of the family is taking over and he is trying to
figure out how to transfer it on down to the next generation.
Supervisor Sumner and Town Board Representative Jason Leifer joined the meeting at
8:15PM.
N. Munkenbeck told Supervisor Sumner that she, as a tax paying resident of the Town
of Dryden, would like to see the Town pay the 12.5% that they paid for the Stuttle
PDR.
Supervisor Sumner suggested that N. Munkenbeck come to the Town Board meeting
the following night, there is nothing like public pressure to sway the board.
J. Osmeloski asked how many acres the Shermans have been preserved in Dryden.
Mr. Sherman said it was about 418 acres. The Stuttle farm preserved over 300 acres.
N. Munkenbeck pointed out that when the State came up with the PDR idea, they
knew it would take a long time for the Towns to accumulate much preserved property.
Supervisor Sumner stated that the PDR contract doesn’t require the Town to
contribute any money. They are only responsible for helping with the paperwork and
paying for the assessment.
Next Wednesday night (the 13th) at the 4H acres, there will be a presentation by
Cooperative Extension about PDRs and what the State’s plan is for the future as well
as Planning for Agriculture in general in the county. The presentation will start at
7PM.
Doug Barton offered the following resolution:
Whereas, the Town of Dryden adopted in 2005 a Comprehensive Plan in which the
Purchase of Developmental Rights by the Town is strongly recommended for the
purposes of protecting higher quality farmland thereby stabilizing agricultural land
resources and farm viability in the Town; and
Page 3 of 5
Draft 11-13-2013
Whereas, the Town of Dryden established a precedent when they contributed roughly
12.5% of the total Lew Lin Farms’ PDR contract, which amounts to half of the farmers’
contribution; and
Whereas, during two Dryden Town Board meetings (April 11 and July 11, 2013), the
Director of Planning, Daniel Kwasnowski, recommended that the Town of Dryden
contribute an amount of $95,000 or roughly 13%; and
Whereas, Jerry Dell Farms has faithfully upheld their obligations per the PDR
contract; and
Whereas, the members of the Dryden Agricultural Advisory Committee, as citizens of
the Town of Dryden, support the use of Town money for the purchase of development
rights;
Therefore, be it resolved, the Dryden Agricultural Advisory Committee recommends
the Dryden Town Board fulfill their implied agreement with Jerry Dell Farms and
contribute roughly 12.5% of the PDR contract.
Kim LaMotte seconded the motion which was passed unanimously.
C. Schutt shared that the Conservation Board was approached by Cornell with a
proposition to purchase land on Ringwood road to preserve a wetland. The Town
would then be expected to gift the property to Cornell.
J. Leifer asked whether there should be a permanent funding source for the purchase
of developmental rights.
Supervisor Sumner said that the State can authorize an extra fraction of a percent on
the mortgage recording tax to be set aside for land acquisition. The Board started
talking about that idea 4-5 years ago.
N. Munkenbeck asked if it is possible to generate the funds without an extra income
stream (ie., the mortgage recording tax). Supervisor Sumner said we can create the
fund anyway we like. The only draw back to the funds is they are subject to a potential
public referendum. As explained by Supervisor Sumner and Mr. Leifer, first there has
to be a public notice and a 30 day opportunity to petition for a referendum. We could
use property taxes; we could establish a fund to which a percentage of the town taxes
get funneled directly to the fund for ag-land protection.
J. Osmeloski pointed out that right now the general fund pays the funding.
N. Munkenbeck asked why the Town cannot transfer the “surplus” at the end of the
year to a fund. Supervisor Sumner explained the circumstance and how the fund
balance works.
C. Anderson suggested that we find out how many people are still interested in putting
their land in a PDR. If no one is interested then why start the fund. And if there are a
lot of farmers interested, then maybe we should start moving on the funding.
2. Reading and approval of minutes of the October 9th meeting.
J. Osmeloski moved to approve the minutes and K. LaMotte seconded the motion. All
approved.
3. Review of the Grant application
C. Schutt, J. Osmeloski and J. Nicholson went through the application and it looks
pretty straight forward.
Page 4 of 5
Draft 11-13-2013
C. Schutt called Ag and Markets and spoke to a very helpful Brennan (?) who runs the
program. He said we should stay in touch with him; he will look through the drafts
and had some good ideas on mapping and since we have GIS services here, that the
committee should get on the phone with him and J. Bogdan. He thought they had
some mapping they could do now that will help us with the Open Space Plan.
They (Agriculture and Markets) are just starting a new grant gateway with electronic
submission. It is not official yet but going to be required; it is the same application and
he suggested J. Nicholson get signed up with the website.
Supervisor Sumner asked what the timeline is for submitting an application. C. Schutt
said that there really isn’t a time line, it is a rolling application. Our timeline, J.
Nicholson has a meeting next week with Monica Roth and Debbie Teeter at
Cooperative Extension and she is hoping to have a draft for the Board to read by the
next meeting which would have us ready to submit the application before the end of
the year.
C. Schutt shared that Brennan (?) told him the fact that we have the funding in the
budget will be in our favor and he is very glad we are going to work with Cooperative
Extension.
4. Old Business None
5. New Business
J. Osmeloski pointed out that S. Stelick will not be our Town Board liaison anymore
and asked that J. Leifer be the liaison.
J. Nicholson has established a schedule for her attendance at the Board meetings. It
will probably be every other month.
J. Osmeloski asked about when the board appointments will be made? Supervisor
Sumner said the appointments are made at the first Town Board meeting of 2014.
C. Anderson suggested having alternates for the committee, it will get more folks
involved.
J. Osmeloski asked how many people are on the other boards, is the Ag Committee the
smallest? It is.
The discussion revolved around the requirements for the Ag Committee. The farmers
on the committee are required to be residents in the Town. Brian McGee has
expressed interest.
6. The Open Space Plan
Before the multi-board meeting, J. Nicholson would like to create a definition. She
asked that the Committee members email their ideas of open space to her. She wants
to move toward a common definition to help create a plan.
Supervisor Sumner suggested that the Town Board members be asked for a definition
as well and C. Anderson suggested that we might put the question out to the public. J.
Nicholson said she might put a link on the website.
C. Anderson suggested that as we move forward toward finding farms, the members of
the Ag committee need to pay attention and note the hobby farms and smaller
agricultural activities.
Page 5 of 5
Draft 11-13-2013
Alan Dedrick will be contacted by Evan Carpenter and Brian McGee will be contacted
by Supervisor Sumner for potential positions on the Ag Commission.
J. Osmeloski moved to adjourn at 9:02PM. The motion was seconded by D. Barton and
the meeting was adjourned.
The next meeting will be held December 11, 2013 at 7:30 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Erin A. Bieber
Deputy Town Clerk