Taking on some PDR questions

What the referendum is and isn’t about

by JOHN TORINUS

March 21, 2007

There are some fascinating elements to the wonderfully democratic debate over the April 3 referendum to save soil and water resources in Washington County. Interestingly, opponents say they are in favor of doing just that.

Don Kempf, a county supervisor and former basketball buddy of mine (I made him look a lot better than he was), has become a vocal opponent. He sums up his position this way: "I’m for preserving farmland, but why should the community pay for this program? It will benefit only a few farmers."

The second area of resistance to the preservation initiative comes from county officials, who are working behind the scenes to undermine the land preservation effort. They would like to spend the county monies in other directions.

Obviously, there is room for respectful disagreement on these points. So, respectfully, let’s look at the opponents’ viewpoints one by one:

n Who Will Benefit? It isn’t about enriching a few farmers; it just isn’t. Who would favor that? Certainly not the intelligent Land Conservation Partnership volunteers, who are mounting the education effort on the referendum. There are more than 500 of them. Most are not directly involved in farming, so they have nothing to gain in their own pocketbooks.

First of all, the farmers who sell their development rights through an easement on their properties, get no more or less than they could get anyway by selling to a developer.

Here’s how it works: if a farmer with 100 acres gets an offer of, say, $7,000 per acre from a subdivider, he or she can take the offer and get a check for $700,000.

If the value of that land for farming is $4,000 an acre, the difference is $3,000 for its development value.

If the farmer chooses (it’s totally voluntary), he or she can keep the land in agriculture and sell an easement to the county or perhaps a land trust.

The farmer would then get a check for $300,000 from the PDR program (purchase of development rights). But he or she would retain title to the 100 acres, now valued at the $400,000 for agricultural purposes.

The total value is the same, whether sold for a subdivision or kept in farming. It’s neutral to the individual farmer, who is sitting on $700,000 whichever path is chosen.

It is not, however, neutral to the citizens as a whole. Here are the benefits they receive for their investment of $300,000 from county, state, federal and privately donated funds.

The economic prosperity generated by the agri-business; it means about 5,000 jobs in Washington County.

Preservation of the sponge effect that soils offer for recharging our aquifers.

Keeping the rural character of our Kettle Moraine landscape, so important to our quality of life and sense of place.

The use of that beauty as a magnet for attracting and retaining talented people for our businesses - the reason almost all business leaders support a "yes" vote.

A lowering effect on property taxes. Every subdivision drives up property tax rates. Look at the new subdivisions at highways 60 and C in Slinger; the increased traffic there - it’s downright dangerous - will require a rebuild of that whole intersection. My guess: more than $10 million in taxpayer money.

At the end of the debate, this referendum is not about farmers as individuals. It’s about whether we as citizens and taxpayers want to save agricultural land for farming in general.

n Now, About Who Pays? Should it be the county?

My conviction is that because soil and water are such vital community assets, it’s the responsibility of all levels of government, as well as each citizen.

Federal matching funds are already available from several programs. Some state funds are already in place for matches, and there is a push on to earmark more under The Stewardship Fund. Private donors, sometimes the farmers themselves, have also shown a capacity to match.

So funding will and should come from all levels, including local government. Why should the county try to shift the responsibility elsewhere? In my view, that’s a cop-out.

n Which Tax to Use? That brings us to the issue of county funding.

The rationale of the pro-PDR people is that the sales tax was created in the first place to pay for capital investments. It went for almost all bricks and mortar in its first seven years of existence.

The PDR proponents see soil, water and air as capital - not free as it was once perceived in this country, but now needing investment. Thus it fits the original purpose of the half-cent sales tax: capital investment.

Further, the sales tax has grown in just the last two years by about the amount the PDR backers are asking for.

Part of the sales tax has been diverted to operating expenses for the county, for things like rapidly growing health care costs. But al least half of it has still been reserved for capital spending.

The PDR program has been pegged at $800,000 per year. The sales tax is pulling in almost $9 million per year. Further, the sales tax has grown in just the last two years alone by what the PDR program would cost. In the end, it’s all about priorities.

Priority setting is the job of the county board and the citizens, which is exactly what Washington County citizens will do on April 3.

(John Torinus is CEO of Serigraph, Inc. in West Bend and a past general manager of the Daily News.)