TO: Ruby Edwards FROM: Bob Wagner RE: Report on Hawaii technical working meetings, October 15-17, 2003

Transcription

1 October 28, 2003 MEMORANDUM TO: Ruby Edwards FROM: Bob Wagner RE: Report on Hawaii technical working meetings, October 15-17, 2003 Pursuant to the Letter of Agreement (03-225) between the Office of Planning and American Farmland Trust, a series of technical working meetings of the Agriculture Working Group would be organized to explore in-depth a variety of specific tools, techniques and strategies to advance farmland protection and the economic viability of agriculture. Subsequent to the informational meetings held in mid-may, 2003, the AWG decided that the technical working meetings should concentrate on tax incentives for farmland protection and agricultural investments; agricultural districts and planning; purchase of development rights programs; and, farm viability programs. In consultation with OP staff and the AWG steering committee, AFT gathered a number of specific resource materials on each of these topics; researched existing programs and statutes for consideration as models; and, recommended a range of practitioners to accompany AFT staff as resource providers at the meetings. Prior to the meetings a majority of the resource materials were forwarded and were then made available to the AWG members via the AWG web page ( A list of the resources now available on-line is attached (Appendix 1). Additional materials that were not available on-line were provided in hard copy at the meetings such as a new report from AFT profiling 46 state and local farmland protection programs, information on the general plan of Sonoma County, CA and the agricultural/rural elements of the comprehensive plan for the Lexington/Fayette (KY) Council of Governments. The PowerPoint presentations and handouts from the meetings are now available on the AWG web page. The out of state practitioners that attended the October meetings were Bob Wagner, AVP for field programs at American Farmland Trust, Ellen Dayhoff, Director of the Adams County (PA) agricultural preservation program and Jay Healy, former Massachusetts state representative and Commissioner of agriculture, and President of Working Landscapes, Inc. Report on Hawaii technical working meetings, October 15-17,

2 October 15, 2003: The October 15 th meeting of the AWG was designed to provide ample time for formal presentations and in-depth discussions on four areas of special interest: Purchase of Development Rights and agricultural easements; Agricultural Districts/enterprise zones and Agricultural Plans; Agricultural Tax Incentives; and, Agricultural Viability Programs. Ellen Dayhoff presented detailed information on purchase of development rights (PDR) and agricultural districts; Bob Wagner on agricultural plans and agricultural tax incentives; and, Jay Healy on agricultural viability programs. All three contributed insights, comments and opinions on all the subject areas. The presentations and information on all the subjects were well received with numerous questions and discussion on each. Areas of particular interest were: the mechanics of implementing a PDR program; the valuation procedures for agricultural easements; linking tax incentives to land in an enterprise zone or agricultural district; what type of actions and/or investments to encourage through tax incentives; the different type of agricultural operations benefiting from business planning assistance in farm viability programs; and, the variety of new activities supported by seed capital provided through farm viability programs. This session was purely informational, albeit very detailed on a small number of subjects. There were no decisions reached by the AWG at this meeting on specific actions to take regarding any of the programs, topics or ideas discussed. A very thorough collection of notes from this meeting, compiled by Jane Yamashiro, is posted on the AWG web page ( and attached to this report (Appendix 2). October 16, 2003: On Thursday, October 16 th, the statewide agriculture conference, Changing Times: Growing Opportunities, was held at the Pacific Beach Hotel in Honolulu. Bob, Ellen and Jay had been asked to make a presentation at one of the breakout sessions during the conference. In keeping with the theme of the conference, the group s presentation was entitled, Keeping the 'Farm' in 'Farming': Linking Farmland Protection and Agricultural Viability. Specifically, the session was designed to examine how farmland protection initiatives across the U.S. are resulting in economic development opportunities for farmers with an emphasis on programs that have helped farmers with expanding operations, moving into new markets, stabilizing operations, and passing the farm on to the next generation. Interest in this subject and the issues covered is apparently quite high in the state right now as the session attracted an overflow and very engaged audience. The PowerPoint presentations from this session have been provided to the conference organizers for posting on a special web page for conference proceedings. After the luncheon presentation at the conference, Bob joined OP staff and the AWG Steering Committee to discuss the format and objectives for the AWG meeting the following day. It was decided that Bob would prepare a list of possible actions under Report on Hawaii technical working meetings, October 15-17,

3 each of the following categories: Property Tax Incentives; Incentives for Long-Term Leases; Agricultural Districts/Security Areas; Agricultural Easements; and, Purchase of Development Rights. The possible actions suggested were drawn from the results of the AWG s internal survey of its members on their interest or lack thereof in various programs, incentives and solutions; the reactions to the presentations made at the October 15 th meeting; and, observations made over the last 6 months of the applicability of various programs in Hawaii. In addition to the issues above, lists of possible actions were also prepared for Agricultural Viability Programs and Agriculture Tax Incentives drawn from suggestions advanced by the AWG s Agriculture Feasibility Committee. These lists would then serve as ice-breakers for a discussion of recommendations to be embraced by the AWG in each of these categories. October 17, 2003: With Jane Yamashiro s capable facilitation, the AWG jumped right into considering the possible actions under each of the issue/subject categories. One by one each category was discussed. As was hoped, the list of possible actions stimulated discussion and debate with the result of some of the actions being left as is, some modified, others dropped from the list and new ideas added. In the end the group seemed very satisfied with its discussion of the issues and overall the set of actions under each of the categories covered. The meeting concluded with each AWG member receiving 5 votes to assign priority status to the plethora of good ideas discussed over the course of the day. The top actions (or recommendations) to pursue are as follows in order of votes received: 1. Agriculture infrastructure investment tax credit (Agriculture Tax Incentives). 23 votes. 2. Encourage transfer of development rights/credits program for landowners in return for easements (Purchase of Development Rights). 16 votes. 3. Authorize funding stream option for dedicated state and county funding sources (Purchase of Development Rights). 14 votes. 4. Priority access to irrigation water allocation (framework for off-stream use support) (Agricultural Districts/Security Areas). 14 votes. 5. Tax credit to landowners to lease terms; base plus, depending on length of lease (Incentives for Long-Term Leases). 13 votes. 6. Create a farm viability program similar to Massachusetts program with business planning services and implementation grants tied to covenants (Agricultural Viability Programs). 13 votes. 7. Provide sufficient tax credits and incentives that work for ag investments and improvements (Agricultural Districts/Security Areas). 12 votes. Report on Hawaii technical working meetings, October 15-17,

4 A full report of the meeting s discussions and the actions considered is available on the AWG web page ( and attached to this report (Appendix 3). Observations: In reviewing the notes that were compiled on the discussions at the meeting on October 17 th, this was a very comprehensive session and it was clear by day s end that a suite of legislative recommendations was emerging. The concentration on incentives, especially via the tax code, to achieve desired actions in support of farmland protection and farming is very much the same tact taken by other states addressing similar issues. Depending on the actual specifics of the measures to be forwarded to the Legislature, there are numerous examples of statute language from other states to model. Hawaii also has a chance to break significant new ground with some of the ideas that were discussed at the October meetings. While there are neither examples from around the country of agricultural districts/security areas that appreciably tie agricultural business tax credits to enrollment in the district nor any good examples of enterprise zone programs that are designed primarily to meet agriculture s needs, the concept of merging these two initiatives is worth serious consideration. In design and practice most agriculture district/security area programs in place around the country are focused solely on the land use needs of agriculture and not enough on the economic development needs of agriculture. And, as was acknowledged at the meetings, enterprise zones are designed to meet objectives based around employment and job creation that are not easily transferable to the agriculture sector. Marrying the land use concerns of agriculture (right to farm; protection from eminent domain; limitations on CC&Rs, etc.) with the economic needs of farmers (investment tax credits; infrastructure development; access to capital; business planning and skill development, etc.) into one program would be a terrific initiative. Such a concept would get at the idea of Planning for Agriculture that was discussed on a number of occasions both in May and October. With regards to the action item, Authorize funding stream option for dedicated state and county funding sources to support the purchase of agricultural easements, it is instructive to review the recent success of funding initiatives around the country for open space, parks and farmland protection activities. The Trust for Public Land in its publication, LandVote 2003, reports despite a weak economy, American voters have shown overwhelming support for conservation-related ballot measures in Overall, 99 measures in 23 states have been approved by voters, creating $1.8 billion in new conservation-related funding. This includes more than $1.3 billion specifically dedicated for land conservation. ( Report on Hawaii technical working meetings, October 15-17,

5 While the majority of the initiatives outlined in the report were ballot measures, it is valuable to note the full range of funding options employed in support of land protection and conservation, including: bonds; sales taxes; rooms and meals taxes; property taxes; surcharges on property taxes; and, income taxes. In Pennsylvania and New Jersey where a large number of communities have provided local funding for farmland protection, there is an important cause and effect relationship to consider -- both states offer seed funding and require a significant local match in order to access those state funds. When the potential for federal funds from the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program and private contributions in the form of grants and landowner discounts are factored into the funding stream, locally raised dollars can be leveraged to a very great extent. It was a privilege to participate in and observe the discussions of the AWG at this very pivotal point in its deliberations. The coalescing of the group around specific action items that will address the issues of landowners and farmers in the state was very exciting to witness. Report on Hawaii technical working meetings, October 15-17,