MINUTES
TRUSTEES PRESENT:
Lewis R. Riley, Secretary of
Agriculture
James R. Brooks, D.V.M., Assistant
Secretary of Agriculture
Lloyd C. Jones, Jr., Acting Chairman
Douglas H. Wilson, representing
Secretary Maryland Department of Agriculture
Joseph F. Tassone,
representing Secretary of Maryland Department of Planning
Lewis Logan, representing Treasurer
Kopp
Joseph K. Scott
Mildred H. Darcey
Maurice L. Wiles
Allen H. Cohey
Judith C. Lynch
Robert E. Wolf
TRUSTEES ABSENT:
Gerald Thorpe, representing
Comptroller Schaefer
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jim Conrad, Executive Director
Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney
General
Dave Kelleher, Asst. Chief,
Appraisal & Valuation,
Carla
Bill Powel, Carroll
Radhika Sakhamuri,
Queen Anne’s County Program Administrator
David Black, Cecil
Donna Sasscer,
St. Mary’s County Program Administrator
Dan Rosen, Maryland Department of
Planning
Eric Balsely,
Maryland Department of Planning
Sandra Edwards,
Carl
Tina Bowles, St. Mary=s
H. Bayard Williams, Sr.,
Robert
Franklin Wood,
Iva L. Frantz, Administrative Officer
Elizabeth Weaver, Administrative
Officer
Lloyd C. Jones, Jr., Acting
Chairman, called the meeting to order at
I. APPROVAL OF
MINUTES/ADDITION OR DELETION OF AGENDA ITEMS:
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion
#1: To approve the minutes of
Motion: Allen Cohey Second: Mildred Darcey
Status: Approved
B. ADDITION
OR DELETION OF AGENDA ITEMS:
Jim Conrad, Executive Director, stated that there are
additional agenda items. Of these,
Joseph Tassone presented an overview of the MALPF
Task Force recommendations to date. He
further stated that he will be presenting an issue that has come up before the
Board of Public Works (BPW), Doug Wilson will be discussing budget issues coming
before the General Assembly, and Craig Nielsen will be discussing the Mullinix property litigation along with the Newsome tenant
house issue.
Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, stated that in
the case with the Mullinix property, the landowners
had approached the Board with a request to allow a commercial venture on
easement property.
Lloyd C. Jones, Jr., Acting Chairman,
asked Mr. Nielsen what the status is on the Mullinix
property.
Mr. Nielsen stated that the Mullinix
sold an easement to MALPF and contend that they have
had a landscaping business on this property for 20 years.
Mr. Jones stated that a farmer was leasing this property and
that they could have stored their hay in the barn.
Mr. Nielsen stated that the Foundation found out about the
business in the late >90=s and notified
Mr. Conrad stated that the issue is the leased land to the
landscape operation whose status has not change. The Board has ruled on this before as they
are not allowed to do this.
Mr. Nielsen stated that
1.
Task
Force Recommendations
Mr. Tassone
stated that in the report recommended that the Foundation 1) develop guidelines
that would allow compatible supplemental income to the farming operation in
order to keep land in preservation. 2)
Deals with the fact that under the current easement valuation approach, farms
with poor soils, that are otherwise completely equivalent to farms with better
soils, can be in a better position for discount and rank higher. This will also help farms that are in rural
areas attain a better easement value than ones in more metropolitan areas. There is a recommendation for a change in the
easement evaluation approach. 3) What
the program has to do to reach statutory goals. 4) Provide new landowner
options for lot exclusions. This will
give the landowner the option to subdivide 1 unrestricted lot or chose to
subdivide family lots and reduce the number of family lots and acreage. 5) The
Task Force recommends a coherent policy for approving districts where land is
withheld. 6) Recommends change in easement valuation
approach so that the Foundation is not paying close to the fair market value. 7)
Using Bond Funds to replace dedicated funds during the budget crisis.
Mr. Tassone further stated that
some of the items would require support from the Legislature. The specific changes (see pg. 17 of the
report) are:
Legislation to accomplish these objectives has been
requested by Senator Middleton & Dyson and in the House by delegate
James. The bill introduced by the
senators did not include the changes in the easement value system, but is in
the House version.
Mr. Tassone stated that Foundation
staff and other Task Force members have been going to various areas of the
state having conferences to inform interested parties about what is going on
with the Task Force and their recommendations.
Mr. Tassone stated that there is
the Task Force=s recommendation that the
Legislature allow the Foundation to set the cap that is designed to maintain
interest in the program and to set the cost.
He further stated that research indicates that sales of easement
property indicate that these properties in most cases sell for 70% or less of
the fair market value.
Discussion followed.
Mr. Tassone expressed his
appreciation and thanked the Program Administrators for their time and input
into the Task Force recommendations.
2.
Budget
Issues
Mr. Wilson stated that the Governor=s proposed FY =04 budget has funds coming to us
from the Transfer Tax, Ag Transfer Tax, County Matching Funds and Federal
Funds. The GreenPrint
budget is proposed to be only $5 million, funded by bonds, with MALPF getting
25% or $1.25 million. The Transfer Tax
figure at $14.5 million plus. The
Governor is proposing for AG and Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR) to take all
transfer tax dollars and submit a new budget reconciliation act that will take
100% of the remaining money and put it into the General Fund. The Capital Budget has a bond bill that will
replace the $14.5 million; this has not yet been proposed but supposedly is in
the works. The Governor is going to
request that $10 million be given to the General Fund from the Transfer Tax and
the Ag Transfer Tax, from the current budget and return to us $7 million. The Bond Bill next year would be $21 million,
the non-bond portion would be the Ag Transfer Tax, the local government money
and the Federal funds. This is not a dollar
for dollar exchange and there are administrative concerns about the applicants
that have been submitted and appraised for the current
year. At this point some of it can be
used for the FY =03 applicants. He stated that MALPF needed a budget
amendment to bring remaining money into the budget and was submitted to the
Legislature, to make offers for the remaining easement offers from FY=02.
The Legislature has heard the budget amendments. The House of Delegates
is considering monies that are available and putting them in the General
Fund. The legal advisors to the
Legislature have advised them that technically there are MALPF funds that are
not obligated. There are approximately
80 landowners that are expecting to have offers made to them. Secretary Riley has written letters to the
Legislature, to let the Legislature know that these commitments should be
honored with the remaining funds. Half
of the outstanding money is Local Matching Funds which cannot be utilized by
the General Fund as it is county money.
Mr. Conrad stated that this issue will not affect GreenPrint offers. He further stated that in light of the
current budget situation, the Foundation may want to hold the applications for
District Agreement. Once there is more
information as to how the budget is going to shape up, then the Foundation can
proceed with filing the documents.
Mr. Wilson agreed that all District Agreements should be
held and the landowner contacted once the Foundation knows where it will stand
financially for FY =03 and =04. Then the Board will be able to
determine how many offers we will be able to make. He further stated that there is a
recommendation to the Budget Department that has been accepted to circumvent
this situation from happening again. The
accounting will be changed so that the money can roll from one year to another
without having to go back for approval if additional funds become available.
3.
Acreage
Adjustments
Mr. Conrad stated that the MALPF can no longer accept
acreage adjustments beyond 2% that increases funding. This is being discussed now as one of the
agenda items is relevant to this issue.
A meeting has been held with the Department of General Services, Office
of the Attorney General, to discuss what options there are. He passed out a proposal to the Program
Administrators outlining the issue and some possible recommendations for
addressing this matter. When a survey is
submitted and indicates that there is an increase in acreage more than 2%
greater than that of the property deed at the time of easement application, the
BPW will not accept requests for adjustments upwards to get more money for the
excess land. Landowners have two options; they can either withdraw their
application for the year and reapply for the next cycle with the adjusted
acreage or reject the offer. This issue
will be discussed at the February meeting.
II. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT
PETITIONS
A.
1. 11-05-03-05 RODEHEAVER, Terri F., & R. D. Georg 102.50
acres
Mr. Conrad stated that this is being represented to the
Board from the
Mr. Tassone asked if there will be
a tax credit if the property comes under Rural Legacy.
Mr. Conrad stated that the tax credit may be predicated on
the district establishment. It depends
on the county.
Allen Cohey, Board member, asked
who will co-hold the easement.
Mr. Conrad stated that the County is the sponsor and that it
will either hold the easement by itself, with Rural Legacy or co-hold it with
MALPF.
Mr. Tassone stated that if the
district is established, there is a possibility that they may not sell an
easement to MALPF. If the Rural Legacy does
not go through, will they try to sell it to MALPF.
Mr. Conrad stated that they are aware of the decrease in
value due to the withheld acreage. He
further stated that there is a third party interest, Duke Energy which is the
natural gas company. They are a company
that will not subordinate their interest to the easement. This appears to be the reason that they are
applying to Rural Legacy, because Rural Legacy would not require the
subordination.
Mr. Wilson stated that if Rural Legacy takes this easement
and allows Duke Energy, it will cover the Foundation.
Discussion followed.
Mr. Tassone stated that the
Foundation could adopt the Task Force recommendation not to accept this as a
district due to there is a potential for too many development rights on the
withheld land.
Mr. Conrad stated that according to the Task Force
recommendations, that the Foundation could approve more withheld acreage than
what the guidelines suggest as long as the landowners are informed and agree
that an easement may not be purchased.
He further stated that this is being done for tax purposes in
Mr. Tassone stated that this could
be done if it is zoned for conservation and has only 3 development rights.
Motion #2: To approve the request of Terri F. Rodeheaver
and R. D. Georg to establish an agricultural land
preservation district on their property with the understanding the Foundation
will not commit to selling an easement.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second:
Robert Wolf
Opposed: Mildred Darcey, Allen Cohey, Lewis Logan
Status: Approved
B.
1. 06-06-03-01 WEBER, John E. Jr. & Elizabeth B. 62.615 acres
Mr. Conrad stated that this land is in a
Bill Powel, Bill Powel, Carroll County Program
Administrator, stated that this is part of the Manchester by-pass that has been
in the plans for many years and in all likelihood not happen for many
years. He further stated that this
by-pass crosses many properties in that area.
Motion #3: To approve the request of John E. and Elizabeth B. Weber to
establish an agricultural land preservation district on their property.
Motion: Joseph Scott Second:
Judy Lynch
Status: Approved
Mr. Jones stated that Lewis R. Riley, Secretary of
Agriculture would not be at the meeting due to a doctor=s appointment and introduced James
R. Brooks, D.V.M., Assistant Secretary of Agriculture.
James R. Brooks, D.V.M., Assistant Secretary of Agriculture,
greeted the Board. He stated that he is
a practicing vet for 30 years and that he is committed to promoting agriculture
and its concerns. He further stated that
he is an advocate of agriculture and has an Aopen door@ policy.
At this point the Board members introduced themselves to Dr.
Brooks.
Mr. Wilson mentioned that the audience is composed of
Program Administrators, landowners and interested parties in the conduction of
the Foundation=s works.
Dr. Brooks stated that he is from
A.
1. 19-13-84-01e HARTMAN, John V. & Adele B. 97.46 acres
Request for an Agricultural Subdivision B Reconsideration
John and Adele Hartman are the original owners of this 97.46
acre easement property in
The acreage proposed for agricultural subdivision property
has no dwellings. The Hartmans requested and were
approved to exclude a one-acre child’s lot for their son, Joseph (1989). One-acre was excluded around a pre-existing
dwelling in 1994, but the Hartmans were denied a
one-acre lot for their daughter, Lori Goldsborough,
also in 1994, because there was no intent to construct a dwelling, only to
expand the one-acre existing lot excluded around the pre-existing
dwelling. The Hartmans
also requested and had two agricultural subdivisions approved, one for
approximately 125 acres in 1993 (the King property), and one for approximately
51.08 acres for Lori Goldsborough in 1997. The Hartmans’
original parcel when the easement was sold in 1987 was approximately 246
acres. They have not requested any other
lot exclusions and do not own any other district or easement property.
The request has been reviewed and a favorable recommendation
provided by the Somerset County Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory
Board. The Board finds that the proposed
subdivision will not affect the continued agricultural use of the
property. Also attached for review and
consideration are the Advisory Board’s minutes, landowners’ application,
location maps, and a letter from the Somerset Soil Conservation District.
At the December, 2002 Board meeting a question was raised
about a 17.4 acre parcel at the southwest end of the property, which would be
cut off from the main farm property by the subdivision. According to
Tom Lawton, Somerset County Program Administrator,
recommends that a note be placed on the subdivision plat identifying the deed
of easement on the entire property and an additional statement specifically
precluding development of the 17.4 acre remnant.
Mr. Tassone asked if this would be
precluding development on this parcel.
Mr. Conrad stated that this would be a re-enforcement of the
existing easement and preclude development.
Mr. Tassone stated that his
concern is that the 21.81 acres could go into another easement.
Mr. Conrad stated that the only way this could be subdivided
is if it is attached to the King property, otherwise it is not of a size that
can be subdivided.
Mr. Tassone asked if the 17.4
acres would be subdivided and there needs to be something in the land records
that indicates that the 21.81 acres is now part of the other farm and cannot be
subdivided.
Mr. Conrad stated that
Mr. Tassone wanted clarification
that this parcel will not be subdivided.
Mr. Wilson stated that the 17.4 acres cannot be sold
separately.
Mr. Tassone stated that the motion
should state that the 17.4 acre parcel remain part of the mother parcel.
Mr. Conrad stated that it should be allowed to be subdivided
and attached to the King parcel.
Motion #4: To approve the request of John V. and Adele B. Hartman for
an agricultural subdivision with the 17.4 acre parcel remaining part of the
original parcel.
Motion: Joseph Scott Second:
Judy Lynch
Opposed: Allen Cohey
Status: Approved
B.
1. 07-01-97-01S2 WILLIAMS, H. Bayard, Sr., & Agnes M. 245.90 acres
Request for an Agricultural Subdivision B Reconsideration
Bayard and Agnes Williams are the original owners of this
245.9 easement property. They are
requesting an agricultural subdivision of this parcel into two parcels of
approximately 92 and 155 acres. Both
resulting parcels meet the minimum soils eligibility for the MALPF program B
the smaller parcel has 76% qualifying soils, and the larger parcel also has 76%
qualifying soils. The Williams wish to
retire due to health problems. The farm
is currently rented out to grow corn, beans, wheat, and barley, and part of a
larger farming operation.
The property has one pre-existing dwelling. The Williams requested and were approved to
exclude a one-acre owner=s lot for their personal use at the
April, 2002, Board meeting. This house
will be constructed to be their retirement home. The Williams have not requested any other lot
exclusions and do not own any other district or easement property.
The request has been reviewed and a favorable recommendation
provided by the Cecil County Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board. The
Board finds that the proposed subdivision will not affect the continued
agricultural use of the property. Also
attached for review and consideration are the landowners’ application, location
maps, and the Department of Assessments and Taxation review of continued
eligibility of both parcels for agricultural assessment.
At the December, 2002 meeting, Foundation Board members
asked specific questions regarding the planned use of the subdivided
property. Foundation staff contacted
David Black, Cecil County Program Administrator, to request more information
about the property. According to Mr.
Black, the farmer who currently rents the property, Ronnie Miller, will
continue to farm both tracts in crops after the proposed subdivision. Mr.
Williams will manage the remaining 92 acre parcel and will continue to rent it
to Mr. Miller who will continue to farm it in crops.
The Foundation staff recommends approval because the
proposed agricultural subdivision meets the criteria set forth in the
Foundation’s Policy on Agricultural Subdivisions.
Mr. Tassone asked if Mr. Miller is
going to continue to farm all of the land.
H. Bayard Williams, Landowner, acknowledged that Mr. Miller
will continue to farm the land.
Mr. Tassone stated that a
subdivision is approved when there is going to be two separate farming operations
on the same parcel of land.
Mr. Wilson asked what the purpose for requesting to
subdivide the property is.
Mr. Williams stated that he and his wife have health
problems but want to retain part of the farm.
Mr. Miller will be purchasing the larger parcel and continue to farm
both.
Mr. Conrad stated that the guidelines for agricultural
subdivision do not state that there needs to be some improvement in the
agricultural operation. It says that it
has to meet the soils qualifications and both parcels have to continue to
qualify for agricultural use assessment.
In this case it will.
Mr. Tassone stated that the
justification for agricultural subdivision is that the land is going to be used
for separate agricultural operations.
Mr. Wilson stated that in this case, it appears that what
the landowner wants to accomplish is to retain the original farm and sell the
newer part and continue to farm.
Mr. Tassone asked if this was
going to be two separate farms.
Mr. Williams stated yes, but that Mr. Miller will farm the
Williams land, too.
Discussion followed.
Motion #5: To approve the request of H. Bayard and Agnes M. Williams
for an agricultural subdivision provided that the 155.0 remaining acres are a
separate farming operation.
Motion: Joseph Tassone Second: Doug Wilson
Status: Approved
C.
ST.
MARY=S COUNTY
1. 18-24-01-04 BOWLES, Leonard T. & Tina L. 129.00 acres
Request to amend a district with a pending easement
Mr. and Mrs. Bowles are the original owners of this district
property. They are also owners of
another 65 acre property on which there is a pending easement offer. According to the original deed provided to
the Foundation, the property was described as 129 acres with one dwelling on
the property. There is currently a
pending easement offer on this property for 128 acres. This property was surveyed after district
establishment and in anticipation of the easement offer. The survey showed the total acreage on the
property to be 139.21 acres.
Because the existing tax map of the property is incorrect,
the appraisals of the property that were done by LouAnne
Cline and James B. Hooper for the FY2001 offer cycle do not include a 10.95
acre parcel that is part of the farm. The
part of the farm including this parcel can be seen in the attached exhibits to
be labeled "(P. 351)" clearly separate from the parcel labeled
"P. 9" that is the subject property.
The specific parcel of concern in this request appears on the survey map
as "Parcel A," with the remainder of the property shown as
"Parcel B." It appears on site
to be separate from the rest of the farm because it is buffered from other
fields by a stream and trees.
Mr. and Mrs. Bowles are requesting that this 10.95 acre Parcel
A be excluded from the district by amendment and, thus, from the pending
easement offer. The stated purpose of
this amendment is "for future financial security." Further, because the value of this property
was not considered in the appraisals and an acreage adjustment would not likely
be approved if submitted at this time to the Board of Public Works (as noted in
the letter from St. Mary's County Advisory Board), they feel that the best
solution would be to exclude the acreage from the easement offer as a matter of
fairness. This would bring the verified
acreage of the property to 128.96 acres (127.96 acres excluding the dwelling),
consistent with the original district agreement and the assumptions made by
both appraisers. The St. Mary's County
Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board has unanimously approved this
request, as seen the included letter.
Donna Sasscer, Program Administrator for St.
Mary's County, notes that, under current zoning regulations, this parcel could
have two residences constructed on it.
As mentioned last month in the agenda memo on the
Mr. Conrad stated that the BPW stated that the acreage is
verified to be greater than 2% when the final property description is obtained,
they will not consider acreage adjustments.
They will no longer consider increasing the offer if there is an
adjustment in the acreage as they have in the past.
Mr. Wilson asked if there is a way that prior to taking an
easement to the BPW, is there a way to ensure that all adjustments are taken
care of.
Mr. Tassone stated that the survey
needs to be correct before it goes to the BPW.
Mr. Conrad explained how an easement is processed.
Donna Sasscer, St. Mary=s County Program Administrator,
stated that the both the appraisers did not show the additional 10.95 acres that
showed up in the survey.
Mr. Wilson stated that in this case, the records given to
the appraisers were in error.
Mr. Jones suggested that the Board table the discussion
until more information can be obtained.
Mr. Conrad stated that what the Foundation has is the maps
from the appraisers.
Dave Kelleher, Asst. Chief, Appraisal & Valuation,
Department of General Services, stated this would probably require a new
appraisal.
Motion #6: To table the request of Leonard T. and Tina L. Bowles to
amend a district with a pending easement pending a re-evaluation by the
Department of General Services.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second:
Mildred Darcey
Status: Approved
D.
1. 14-02-02-01 BRYANT, Robert 126.60 acres
Request for an agricultural subdivision of a pending
easement property - Reconsideration
The Bryants are the original
owners of this 126.6 acre district property.
At the
Gregg and Christine Asplundh,
owners of the adjacent 58.085 acre property to which this acreage would be
transferred, have donated a perpetual conservation easement to be co-held by
the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy and the Maryland Environmental Trust. The property meets the minimum soils
eligibility requirements for agricultural subdivision, if the four lots are
considered as a single property. The
easement, included in the agenda material, has already gone to
recordation. This easement is as or more
restrictive than a Foundation easement, limiting residential construction on
the property to one primary residence and restricting commercial, industrial,
and further residential development, while preserving agricultural activities. As seen on the included map, this property is
currently divided into four lots, though under single ownership. A single easement covers the four lots and
requires that the four lots remain in common ownership. The specific language relevant to the division
of this property states:
AThe division, partition or subdivision (ADivision@) of the Property into more than the
four lots that constitute the Property, including the lease of any portion less
than one-hundred percent (100%) thereof for a term in excess of twenty (20)
years, is prohibited. In addition, Lots
1-4 shown on Exhibit A shall remain in common ownership. However, Grantees may approve the Division of
the Property for reasons which Grantees determine, in their sole discretion,
are sufficiently extraordinary to justify an exception to the prohibition.@
(See pages 3-4 of the attached easement.)
The Kent County Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory
Board had voted to recommend approval of the earlier request for the property
line adjustment and is expected to approve the current request. The updated letter from the County=s Advisory Board and the
agricultural subdivision application will be provided at the Board meeting.
The Bryant property currently has a pending easement
application. As mentioned in the earlier
agenda memo, the Foundation has directed staff not to accept requests that will
alter district properties that have a pending easement offer.
Staff recommends the Board approve the request for an
agricultural subdivision to transfer this property to the adjacent easement
parcel because (1) it meets the agricultural subdivision requirements if
the Asplundh property is treated as a single property
rather than four separately deeded parcels, (2) the agricultural subdivision
will clearly not affect the economic viability of the Bryant=s farming operation, and (3) the
property will be under an easement at least as restrictive as MALPF=s B no additional residential rights
will result.
The staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
(1) The
Asplundh property must meet the minimum acreage
requirements of fifty acres to be eligible to incorporate these 2.133 acres
from an agricultural subdivision. The
opinion of the Foundation=s counsel is that the Board has the
discretion to accept the conveyance requirement of the MET/ESLC easement as
sufficient to meet the minimum acreage requirement for agricultural subdivision
without requiring that the Asplundhs incorporate the
four parcels legally into a single parcel.
(2) This
agricultural subdivision will only take place at such time that there is no
easement application or offer pending on the Bryant property. In other words, the 2.133 acres will not be
transferred from the Bryants to the Asplundhs until either an offer extended to the Bryants in the current round (FY 2003) goes to settlement
(or is rejected), the application for easement is withdrawn, or it is clear
that an offer will not be extended for the current round.
(3) The
2.133 acre parcel will be incorporated into the adjacent 58.085 acre property.
(4) If
the 2.133 acre parcel is covered only by the district agreement when it is
transferred, the Asplundhs will amend the ESLC-MET
easement on the 58.085 parcel to include these 2.133 acres.
(5) Any
costs associated with this transaction will be assumed by the property owners.
Mr. Wilson asked if the parcels are all unable to be
developed separately.
Mr. Conrad stated that they are treated as a single parcel
and have to be conveyed under common ownership.
Motion #7: To approve the request of Robert Bryant for an agricultural
subdivision of a pending easement property with the conditions recommended by
the Foundation staff.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second:
Judy Lynch
Abstain: Allen Cohey
Status: Approved
IV. PROGRAM POLICY/EASEMENT OFFERS
A.
Certification
of County Agricultural Land Preservation Program
Recertification Request -
Iva
Frantz, Foundation staff, stated that the staff=s
review sheets included in the agenda packet summarize the county=s
goals, attributes of the local program, qualifying expenditures, etc. which are
provided to the Board members for review.
Approval is being requested to certify the operation of the local
programs for another two (2) years.
Motion #8: To approve the request of
Motion: Lewis Logan Second:
Doug Wilson
Status: Approved
B. Lot policy B Proposed Policy on Multiple
Owners/Multiple Properties
Mr. Conrad stated that this policy is parallel to the policy
that is being proposed by the Task Force.
These polices will stand on their own.
He further stated that the way the eligibility was set is if there is a
joint ownership with parents and children, the lot eligibility is determined by
the parents who are considered the owners for purposes of determining how many
children's lots are available. The
children who are co-owners of the property would not be eligible to get lots as
children because they are still owners and you cannot be a child and an owner
at the same time. Any children that are
not owners are eligible to receive a child=s lot up to as many as the property can support,
up to one lot per twenty acres.
Mr. Nielsen stated that the lot rights need to be spelled
out to the land owners prior to settlement.
Mr. Conrad stated that when a property is in a district the
old rules stand, however, if an easement is sold then the rules change.
Mr. Tassone stated that the rules
for lots are now being clarified.
Mr. Nielsen stated that the landowner and the Foundation are
bound by their agreement; however, there is an interpretation that can cause
controversy. The Foundation has been
trying to arrive at a policy for a fair and equitable distribution of lot
rights.
Discussion followed.
Mr. Conrad suggested that there be a meeting with the Program
Administrators to review the policy and make revisions.
Mr. Nielsen stated that if this is adopted, this will be the
agreement that the landowner will have to sign.
Motion #9: To approve the proposed Policy on Multiple Owners/Multiple
Properties.
Motion: Lewis Logan Second:
Robert Wolf
Status: Approved
Mr. Jones introduced Lewis R. Riley, Secretary of
Agriculture.
Lewis R. Riley, Secretary of Agriculture, addressed the
Board. He stated that he was late due to
a doctor=s appointment. He stated that he was pleased to see that the
Foundation is still successful in its operation and that one of his goals is to
continue to preserve farmland.
V. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION
A.
Monthly
Board meeting time change to accommodate Policy Review Committee
(Discussion)
Mr. Conrad asked that that Board consider and vote on the
proposed time change for Board meetings from
Motion #10: To approve the proposed time change of Board of Trustees
meeting from 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. to accommodate the Policy Review Committee meeting
start time of 8:30 a.m.
Motion: Lewis Logan Second:
Robert Wolf
Status: Approved
Motion #11: There being no further business to discuss, the regular
session meeting should be adjourned.
Motion: Joseph Tassone Second: Doug Wilson
Status: Approved
The regular session Board meeting was adjourned at
Respectfully Submitted:
_____________________
James A. Conrad
Executive Director
_____________________
Darlene Athey
Foundation Secretary
*Minutes
corrected