1. The Experience of Term Agreements in Farm and Ranch Land Protection Programs Bob Wagner, American Farmland Trust

2. Term Easements in PDR Programs Pennsylvania: 1988. Provided a 25-year term easement option @ 10% of full value. No takers. Repealed in 1994. Montana: 1999. Offered term easement as an option. No takers. Program has since sunset. West Virginia: 2000. Amended 1990 law to remove term easement as an option in voluntary farmland protection programs authorized by the state.

3. Term Easements in PDR Programs Florida: 2001. 30-year term easement option w/RoFR for properties with significant natural areas. No more than 10% of funds dedicated to program maybe used for this purpose. No funding to date. No experience to date. Arizona: 2002. Program provides for a 25-year term easement option. No details on valuation. No experience to date.

4. Term Agreements in Incentive Programs Federal Farm Bill Programs:  CRP – 10-15 year contracts.  WRP – 30 year easements.  WHIP – 5-10 year contracts.  GRP – 10-30 year contracts or 30 year easements.

5. Term Agreements in Incentive Programs Massachusetts, Farm Viability Program: Encourages farm business planning and farm re-investment. 5 or 10 year covenants depending on grant size. Florida, Resource Conservation Agreements: Annual payments to improve habitat and water restoration/conservation. 5-10 year agreements. Yet to be implemented.

6. Term Agreements in Incentive Programs New Jersey, Ag District Program: 8-year term easement. Eligible for conservation cost- share funds.

7. Term Agreements in Tax Programs California, Williamson Act: “Rolling” 10-year term easement in return for use-value taxation. “Super” Williamson Act: 20-year term = more benefits, including additional 35% property tax reduction. Clifton Park, NY, Local Tax Reduction: 10- 20% additional tax reduction in return for 15-25 term easement.

8. Term Agreements in Zoning Ordinances Southampton, NY, Ag Planned Development District: 10-year term easement in return for development density based on gross acreage for the purpose of PDR, TDR, fee purchase or conservation subdivision.

9. Pros and Cons Pros:  Cheaper.  Potentially attracts more landowners.  Provides landowners with more options in the future.  Good linkage with conservation programs.

10. Pros and Cons Cons:  Not permanent.  Limited return on investment.  May reduce public’s interest in providing funds.  Structural and legal complications – valuation, status at transfer, disruption of funds.

11. Issues to Consider Remember that Development is rarely temporary – match conservation option to the alternative. Use the right tool for the job – temporary agreements do not achieve long-term solutions. Maximize return on investment – link programs to a clear public benefit.

12. Issues to Consider Match term to achieving the desired outcome – length of agreement should = time needed to realize public benefit. Be prepared – organizational issues, legal complications, monitoring and enforcement.