Media Story

County’s PDR program under fire - again

Chairman’s plan for new debate ‘unprecedented’

Date: May 10, 2006
By DAVE RANK - Daily News Staff

Backers of the new county-funded purchase of development rights program have one month to list 10 reasons why it should be allowed to continue.

Opponents have the same deadline to explain why it’s a bad idea.

In a move even County Attor-ney Kimberly Nass said was "un-precedented," new County Board Chairman Thomas Sackett scheduled a debate at the next County Board meeting June 13 for the 30-member board to hear both sides of an issue PDR proponents thought was settled in March.

Sackett said he expected a resolution to come out of the meeting either calling for continued county support for the rural land preservation program or elimination of it entirely.

Saying he wanted the board to "seriously consider both sides," Sackett appointed two three-supervisor work groups, one pro-PDR and one anti-PDR, each to compile a three-page report listing 10 points in support of their positions on a program the board approved 17-11 on March 14.

But that was the "old board," serving out the last weeks of its 2004-2006 term under former Chairman Kenneth Miller.

With nine new county supervisors elected April 4 and Sackett stepping in to replace Miller, who retired from the board, the new chairman from Hartford said he wants to give the new supervisors a chance to understand the program, its costs, benefits and possible negative effects on the county.

If implemented, Washington County would be the first county in the state to fund its own PDR program, Sackett said, and he wanted to be sure it would benefit the county. With a divided board on the issue, he said, "all must be heard."

"I strongly object to this process," said County Board Supervisor Daniel Stoffel from the town of Kewaskum, who lead the drive to develop the PDR proposal and its board passage.

He questioned Sackett’s authority to supersede a resolution approved by the full board and said a reconsideration of a vote should come from the floor. "There has been no resolution on this (reconsideration)," Stoffel said.

While Nass agreed Sackett’s plan was "unprecedented," she said the board chairman had the right "to determine how to proceed" once a resolution is passed.

Sackett appointed supervisors Stoffel, Mary Krumbiegel and Herb Tennies to the pro-PDR work group, with Ralph Henzel as alternate member and Donald Berchem as work group monitor. All voted for the the program March 14.

Appointed to the anti-PDR work group were Mark McCune, Charlene Brady and Joan Russell, with Lawrence Hoffman as alternate and David Radermacher as the work group monitor. They voted against the program March 14.

Originally, Sackett appointed James Spindler Jr. to the anti-PDR work group, but after Tuesday’s board meeting, Spindler requested he be relieved of that duty, stating he wished to maintain a neutral position heading into next month’s debate. Brady agreed to replace him.

The monitors are responsible for compiling the 10 debate points and the notes that go along with them, Sackett explained.

Both work groups should work closely with Nass and the board’s Planning, Conservation and Parks Committee, which has the ultimate responsibility to recommend a resolution on the PDR program for the full board to consider June 13, the chairman said.

"I just don’t understand why it’s coming up again," Tennies argued."It’s already been passed."

He disagreed with Sackett’s work group plan, saying "I think the whole County Board should discuss this, not just small groups."

Daniel Knodl, a county supervisor from Germantown and one of the nine newly elected members of the board, said he did "appreciate having an opportunity to learn more and to vote on this."

"My intent is not to block anything," Sackett said of his PDR debate plan. Before funding such a significant new program, he said, he wanted "to try to bring something like consensus to the board.

"This separate committees (plan) is not pulling the board together," Krumbiegel said.

PDR has been discussed for three years in the county, Krumbiegel said, and surveys do show public support for such a program.

Where PDR now stands

The March 14 vote by the Washington County Board was 17-11 to approve a resolution endorsing the creation of a county purchase of development rights program. Since then, however, nine new supervisors were elected to the 30-member board.

Based on how the returning county supervisors voted in March, the support for a PDR program now stands at 11-9, with the nine new supervisors still unheard from.

County Board Supervisors James Schwartz of West Bend did not attend the March 14 meeting.

Remaining supervisors who voted to approve a PDR program:

Herbert Tennies, West Bend; Ralph Hensel, West Bend; Paul Tuchscherer, town of Trenton; John Stern, town of West Bend; Daniel Stoffel, town of Kewaskum; Brian Bausch, town of Farmington; Kenneth Brandt, town of Hartford; Donald Berchem, town of West Bend; Harold Groth, town of Polk; Mary Krumbiegel, town of Jackson; Maurice Strupp, town of Hartford.

Remaining supervisors who voted not too to approve:

Lawrence Hoffman, West Bend; Donald Kempf, West Bend; Thomas Sackett, Hartford; Joan Russell, Hartford; Mark McCune, town of Erin; David Radermacher, town of Richfield; Daniel Goetz, town of Richfield; Charlene Brady, Germantown; James Spindler Jr., Germantown.

What PDR means

A purchase of development rights program is a voluntary farmland preservation tool that permanently preserves prime farmland and adjacent nature areas, preventing urban sprawl into designated major agricultural areas.

Under such a program, willing landowners maintain ownership of their property but voluntarily sell easements that would keep land in agricultural use, or in the case of woodlands and wetlands, maintain them in their natural state.

PDR programs are being used in more than 25 states, and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is using a similar program to preserve farmland in the Milwaukee River watershed.

Proponents say the county’s $800,000 in sales tax money earmarked for the program would be used to leverage additional funding from state and federal matching grant offerings, private conservation organizations and private donations of money and land.

The county’s money is expected to attract a total of $2.8 million annually, enough to purchase development rights for 500 acres, proponents say.

What was supposed to happen next

On March 14, the Washington County Board voted 17-11 to establish a purchase of development rights rural land preservation program. Here’s what that resolution called for:

Drafting an ordinance to formally establish the program later this year, which will need another vote by the County Board;
Using a minimum of $800,000 annually from the county’s half-cent sales tax revenue, roughly 10 percent, to fund the program, as part of the county’s annual capital improvement plan, which also needs final county board approval;
Creating a committee to oversee the program;
Using the staff of the Land and Water Conservation Division to administer the program.

Media Story

County’s PDR program under fire - again

Chairman’s plan for new debate ‘unprecedented’

Date: May 10, 2006 By DAVE RANK - Daily News Staff

Backers of the new county-funded purchase of development rights program have one month to list 10 reasons why it should be allowed to continue.

Opponents have the same deadline to explain why it’s a bad idea.

In a move even County Attor-ney Kimberly Nass said was "un-precedented," new County Board Chairman Thomas Sackett scheduled a debate at the next County Board meeting June 13 for the 30-member board to hear both sides of an issue PDR proponents thought was settled in March.

Sackett said he expected a resolution to come out of the meeting either calling for continued county support for the rural land preservation program or elimination of it entirely.

Saying he wanted the board to "seriously consider both sides," Sackett appointed two three-supervisor work groups, one pro-PDR and one anti-PDR, each to compile a three-page report listing 10 points in support of their positions on a program the board approved 17-11 on March 14.

But that was the "old board," serving out the last weeks of its 2004-2006 term under former Chairman Kenneth Miller.

With nine new county supervisors elected April 4 and Sackett stepping in to replace Miller, who retired from the board, the new chairman from Hartford said he wants to give the new supervisors a chance to understand the program, its costs, benefits and possible negative effects on the county.

If implemented, Washington County would be the first county in the state to fund its own PDR program, Sackett said, and he wanted to be sure it would benefit the county. With a divided board on the issue, he said, "all must be heard."

"I strongly object to this process," said County Board Supervisor Daniel Stoffel from the town of Kewaskum, who lead the drive to develop the PDR proposal and its board passage.

He questioned Sackett’s authority to supersede a resolution approved by the full board and said a reconsideration of a vote should come from the floor. "There has been no resolution on this (reconsideration)," Stoffel said.

While Nass agreed Sackett’s plan was "unprecedented," she said the board chairman had the right "to determine how to proceed" once a resolution is passed.

Sackett appointed supervisors Stoffel, Mary Krumbiegel and Herb Tennies to the pro-PDR work group, with Ralph Henzel as alternate member and Donald Berchem as work group monitor. All voted for the the program March 14.

Appointed to the anti-PDR work group were Mark McCune, Charlene Brady and Joan Russell, with Lawrence Hoffman as alternate and David Radermacher as the work group monitor. They voted against the program March 14.

Originally, Sackett appointed James Spindler Jr. to the anti-PDR work group, but after Tuesday’s board meeting, Spindler requested he be relieved of that duty, stating he wished to maintain a neutral position heading into next month’s debate. Brady agreed to replace him.

The monitors are responsible for compiling the 10 debate points and the notes that go along with them, Sackett explained.

Both work groups should work closely with Nass and the board’s Planning, Conservation and Parks Committee, which has the ultimate responsibility to recommend a resolution on the PDR program for the full board to consider June 13, the chairman said.

"I just don’t understand why it’s coming up again," Tennies argued."It’s already been passed."

He disagreed with Sackett’s work group plan, saying "I think the whole County Board should discuss this, not just small groups."

Daniel Knodl, a county supervisor from Germantown and one of the nine newly elected members of the board, said he did "appreciate having an opportunity to learn more and to vote on this."

"My intent is not to block anything," Sackett said of his PDR debate plan. Before funding such a significant new program, he said, he wanted "to try to bring something like consensus to the board.

"This separate committees (plan) is not pulling the board together," Krumbiegel said.

PDR has been discussed for three years in the county, Krumbiegel said, and surveys do show public support for such a program.

Where PDR now stands

The March 14 vote by the Washington County Board was 17-11 to approve a resolution endorsing the creation of a county purchase of development rights program. Since then, however, nine new supervisors were elected to the 30-member board.

Based on how the returning county supervisors voted in March, the support for a PDR program now stands at 11-9, with the nine new supervisors still unheard from.

County Board Supervisors James Schwartz of West Bend did not attend the March 14 meeting.

Remaining supervisors who voted to approve a PDR program:

Remaining supervisors who voted not too to approve:

Lawrence Hoffman, West Bend; Donald Kempf, West Bend; Thomas Sackett, Hartford; Joan Russell, Hartford; Mark McCune, town of Erin; David Radermacher, town of Richfield; Daniel Goetz, town of Richfield; Charlene Brady, Germantown; James Spindler Jr., Germantown.

What PDR means

A purchase of development rights program is a voluntary farmland preservation tool that permanently preserves prime farmland and adjacent nature areas, preventing urban sprawl into designated major agricultural areas.

Under such a program, willing landowners maintain ownership of their property but voluntarily sell easements that would keep land in agricultural use, or in the case of woodlands and wetlands, maintain them in their natural state.

PDR programs are being used in more than 25 states, and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is using a similar program to preserve farmland in the Milwaukee River watershed.

Proponents say the county’s $800,000 in sales tax money earmarked for the program would be used to leverage additional funding from state and federal matching grant offerings, private conservation organizations and private donations of money and land.

The county’s money is expected to attract a total of $2.8 million annually, enough to purchase development rights for 500 acres, proponents say.

What was supposed to happen next

On March 14, the Washington County Board voted 17-11 to establish a purchase of development rights rural land preservation program. Here’s what that resolution called for:

Drafting an ordinance to formally establish the program later this year, which will need another vote by the County Board;

Using a minimum of $800,000 annually from the county’s half-cent sales tax revenue, roughly 10 percent, to fund the program, as part of the county’s annual capital improvement plan, which also needs final county board approval;

Creating a committee to oversee the program;

Using the staff of the Land and Water Conservation Division to administer the program.

Date: May 10, 2006
By DAVE RANK - Daily News Staff