Articles

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY SOLICITORS' CONFERENCE
June 25, 2004

Open Space Programs for Counties

George M. Aman III

1. Multiplicity of benefits from open space acquisition:
   
   • See "Opportunity Knocks - Open Space is a Community Investment"
     Michael Franks - http://www.heritageconservancy.org/.
     
   • Less-known benefit for counties: programs are used to stimulate inter-municipal coordination.
     
2. Programs may be driven also by perceived risks from failure to preserve open space:
   
   • Pressure from development is intense in most areas operating these programs. See List in Exhibit A.
     
   • Referendum in 2003 in Montgomery County carried by 77%.
     
   • Lehigh and Northampton together are losing 4 square miles of open space per year.
     
   • However, referendum was defeated in Delaware County.
     
   • Will programs be useful in other areas, and why? Discussion
     
3. Referendum approval process:
   
   • No legal obligation for referendum to approve a program, or a borrowing if government is not over its debt limits.
     

   • Without a specific statute, there is no legal power to hold a non-binding referendum. Board of Elections of Schuylkill County v. Blythe Township, 143 Pa. Cmwlth. 341, 600 A2d. 231 (1991).

   • Even if not legally required, voter approval of debt as "electoral debt" may provide public support. 53 Pa. C.S. § 8041 to § 8049.

4. Additional public support may be gained by making open space acquisition programs self supporting:
   

   • Most programs have been approved by referendum to approve a specified tax, under Open Space Land Act. 32 P.S. § 5007.1, without referendum on debt.

   • If specific tax revenue is dedicated, debt may be excluded from net debt as "self liquidating" under Debt Act. 53 Pa. C.S. § 8026. This achieves almost same financial effect as approval of electoral debt.

5. Major policy decisions in establishing programs:
   
   • Determining division of money between projects at the county level and grants to municipalities for their programs.
     
   • County projects may be higher or lower priority:
     - Montgomery County - $150M was divided equally;
     - Chester County - smaller county proportion - See Exhibit B.
     
   • Determining time horizon for program. Once approved, electoral debt may be issued in installments. Northampton County planned to spend $500,000 per year for 10 years.
     
6. Determining types of projects authorized:
   
   • Monroe County - 40% for municipality; 30% for county parkland; and 16% for agricultural preservation.
     
   • Northampton - emphasizes projects for land with unique physical structures: "vernal pools".
     
   • Historical buildings; grants to nonprofit organizations.
     
   • Whether to include projects for park improvements.
     
   • Whether to have separate grants toward cost of preparing plans.
     
7. Allocation of money among local governments:
   
   • Some formulas based upon population, and others based upon area of municipalities.
     
   • Montgomery County has base amount of $540,000 for each municipality plus additional amount based on population.
     
8. Local match requirement: most plans require some local contribution:
   
   • Northampton has 50% local match for townships; only 25% for cities and boroughs.
     
   • Requirement can be varied based upon municipal ability to pay - Chester County has revitalization grants to 15 municipalities, where local match is only 5% or 10%.
     
   • County contribution is increased in some cases where a project is regional in nature.
     
9. County supervision: degree of county involvement varies:
   
   • Most programs require that municipality have a county-approved open space plan prior to receiving grants, and acquisitions must be consistent with plan.
     
   • Most seem to require final approval of each acquisition by board of county commissioners.
     
   • Chester County has detailed application forms, varied by type of project.
     
   • Northampton Plan has list of criteria for eligible projects.
     
   • Some plans provide for county payment only upon completion of project.
     
   • All programs require at least one appraisal of the property to be acquired; since that valuation may not be exceeded, a developer can bid higher and acquire property.
     
   • Some programs require that municipality complete project before county funds are advanced.
     
   • Public access must be assured by a recorded covenant of deed restrictions. Some restrictions on access may be justified in special situations.
     
   • Programs can be used to stimulate coordination by municipalities - Monroe County has persuaded them to form six regional open space planning groups, covering the entire county.
     
10. Administrative burden for county government is significant:
    
    • Probably cannot use bond proceeds for administrative costs.
      
    • Monroe County reports staff meetings with municipalities in some cases almost weekly for one or another on this subject.
      
11. Problems in implementing programs:
    
    • Major problem is predicting timing of applications and expenditure of money in order to establish time for additional financing.
      
    • Variation in land values in different municipalities.
      
    • Difficulty of finding suitable land in built-up municipalities.
      

George M. Aman III
610-275-0700