final draft report

i

Acknowledgements

Morris County Preservation Trust Fund Analysis and Strategy Report July 3, 2014

Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders

Thomas J. Mastrangelo, Freeholder Director David Scapicchio, Deputy Freeholder Director Douglas R. Cabana John Cesaro Kathryn A. DeFillippo John Krickus William “Hank” Lyon

County Administration

John Bonanni, County Administrator Cathy Burd, Assistant Administrator

Morris County Department of Planning and Public Works

Deena Leary, Director

Division of Planning and Preservation

Christine Marion, Director Anthony Soriano, Supervising Planner

Program Managers

Barbara Murray, Open Space Preservation Katherine Coyle, Farmland Preservation Ray Chang, Historic Preservation Jennifer McCulloch, Flood Mitigation David Helmer, Executive Director Morris County Park Commission Glenn Schweizer, Executive Director Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority

Office of Information Technology, GIS Section

Stephen Rice, Manager

Morris County Park Commission

Betty Cass-Schmidt, President Barbara Shepard, Vice-President Julie C. Baron Edward G. McCarthy Stuart Lasser

Judith Schleicher Richard Seabury, III Dr. Philip T. Santiago Kim M. Wentworth

Acknowledgements

ii

Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority Board

James Barry, Board Member Christopher Dour, Board Member - Chairman Frank Druetzler, Board Member William Hudzik, Board Member Dorothea Kominos, Board Member

Arthur Nusbaum, Board Member Richard L. Plambeck, Board Member Fletcher Platt, Board Member Laura Szwak, Board Member - Vice Chairwoman

Consultant Team

Brandstetter Carroll Inc. 2360 Chauvin Drive Lexington, Kentucky 40517 (859) 268-1933 VOICE (800) 368-1933 (859) 268-3341 Commonwealth Economics 108 Esplanade, Suite 220 Lexington, Kentucky 40507

University of Kentucky Cartography and GIS Lab 817 Patterson Office Tower Lexington, Kentucky 40506 (859) 257-2931

Architects Project No. 13092

Lawrence W. Brandstetter, AIA, President Patrick D. Hoagland, ASLA, Project Manager Keith Rodenhauser, Planner Lynda Gates, Administrative Assistant Daniel Schaefer, P.E., Water Resource Engineer John Farris, President Casey Bolton, Analyst Matt Wyatt Brett Antle Richard Gilbreath, Director Jeff Levy, Assistant Director Chad Sallee, GIS Technician

Morris County Preservation Trust Fund Analysis and Strategy Report

Executive Summary

iii

Project Purpose

The purpose of this Report is to review the projects completed since the voter approved enactment of the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund (“Trust Fund”) in 1992 and to determine what future investment in land acquisition, historic resource preservation, park development, and farmland preservation is needed based on current inventories, anticipated needs and municipal and non-profit input. The Report will also delineate the parameters of a possible new voter referendum that could address evolving preservation priorities, program requirements and funding needs.

The four main tasks were as follows:

1. Assess the current state of the Trust Fund and meet with program managers to identify individual program trends.

2. Assess present and future Trust Fund needs of all 39 Morris County municipalities, nine (9) land trusts, and 27 historic preservation non-profit organizations, and map existing preserved land.

3. Evaluate and analyze observed trends

4. Present findings to the Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders

The Preservation Trust Fund

On December 22, 1992, the Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders established the Morris County Open Space & Farmland Preservation Trust Fund and collection of funds began in 1993. The County Freeholders annually review and set the current year’s tax rate anywhere from $0.00 to $0.0525 per $100 of equalized property valuation. The levy for 2014 is currently set at 1.00 cent per $100 of equalized assessed value. The Trust Fund is currently allocated as follows:

Historic Preservation (HP) – ¼ cent

Morris County Park Commission Park Improvement Trust (PIT) – ¼ cent

With the remaining funds:

Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Preservation Program (OS) – 35%

Flood Mitigation Program (FMP) – 25%

Farmland Preservation (FP) – 20%

Morris County Park Commission Open Space Acquisition (MCPC) – 15%

Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority (MCMUA) – 5%

Summary of Outreach

A detailed questionnaire was prepared and submitted to the aforementioned municipalities, land trust non-profits, and historic preservation non-profits to help determine local preservation needs. Additionally, in-person interviews were conducted with representatives of each


Executive Summary

iv

municipality and land trust non-profit organization. The findings of these questionnaires and interviews were then analyzed to find trends and determine the needs of these groups as it pertains to the Trust Fund.

What Morris County Municipalities and Non-Profits Said

1. Most municipalities do not plan to make changes to the uses and rates of their municipal open space trust funds and have limited funds for acquisitions.

2. Municipalities believe Farmland Preservation has benefited their communities and want more farms to qualify for the program.

3. Eighteen municipalities reported frequent flooding and would like the Flood Mitigation Program to cover more than just acquisition costs.

4. Most municipalities1 (81%) and all historic preservation non-profits2 believed Historic Preservation benefited their community, and most (72%) municipalities3 and non-profits4 (59%) know of structures that should be preserved.

5. Most municipalities3 (79%) want to work with Morris County Park Commission (MCPC) for trail connectivity, but a majority of municipal trail systems3 (51%) do not connect to MCPC trails.

6. The top reasons municipalities and non-profits acquire open space are for recreational fields and natural resource protection.

7. Most municipalities3 (82%) and all interviewed land trust non-profits have preserved land with funding assistance from the Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Program.

8. Most municipalities3 (62%) and all interviewed land trust non-profits have post-preservation plans that require additional funding.

9. Municipal and non-profits responses overwhelmingly5 indicated improved quality of life and increased property values in Morris County as a result of Preservation Trust Fund Programs.

Current Preserved Lands

The analysis of the Preservation Trust Fund reviewed the projects and properties funded through the Preservation Trust Fund to date based on program records. The total number of properties and acreage with the County costs are listed in the following table.6

To date, the total expenditures for the seven programs of the Preservation Trust Fund1 is $391.6 million for 690 preservation projects covering 24,144 acres, plus numerous park

1 Of 37 responding municipalities. 2 Of 26 responding historic preservation non-profits. 3 Of all 39 municipalities. 4 Of all 27 historic preservation non-profits. 5 Open-ended comments – one respondent suggested no impact. All other comments were positive. 6 See Table 6 for more detailed numbers and Chapter IV for full descriptions.


Executive Summary

v

improvements. The table below provides a summary of the Preservation Trust Fund by program. An additional $94 million2 was provided by match funding from other sources (State Agriculture Development Committee (SADC) for farmland, and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for flood mitigation).

Farmland and Historic Preservation participants indicated they would not be operating without the funds they received and believed Preservation Trust Fund programs positively impacted Morris County businesses and residents.

Economic Impact

The Morris County Preservation Trust Fund yields a variety of positive economic impacts for the citizens, businesses, and municipalities of Morris County. These positive impacts are generated as a direct result of the Preservation Trust Fund’s activities; there are also indirect/secondary beneficial impacts that ripple through the Morris County economy.

Positive economic impacts associated with the Preservation Trust Fund’s activities include:

1 As of May 31, 2014. 2 This number does not include Green Acres contributions or project matches.

Preservation Trust Fund Program1

Municipalities11

Projects2

Acres3

County Cost10

Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space3 35 228 11,731 $176,554,828

Farmland Preservation4 14 125 7,709 $71,385,088

Historic Preservation5 32 80 $20,256,302

Flood Mitigation Program6 7 117 $16,454,519

Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority7

18 47 1,114 $19,770,581

Morris County Park Commission Land Acquisition8

22 93 3,590 $62,754,641

Morris County Park Commission Park Improvement Trust9 $24,447,170

Total12 38 690 24,144 $391,623,129

1. Data provided in this table is current through 5/31/2014.

5. Historic Preservation totals are derived from Historic Preservation Cost Analysis table prepared by Morris County staff.

6. Flood Mitigation Program totals are calculated from closed projects to date.

7. Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority totals are derived from Morris County POSI.

8. Morris County Park Commission (MCPC) totals are derived from Morris County POSI. County Cost from report of Park Commission Land Acquisition projects.

9. MCPC Park Improvement Trust (PIT) totals are derived from PIT Allocation/Disbursement table prepared by Morris County Park Commission (MCPC) staff.

12. Total for "Municipalities" column refers to the total number of municipalities with Preservation Trust Fund projects, not a sum of the numbers for each program.

4. Farmland Preservation totals are derived Easement Values sheet prepared by Morris County Agriculture Development Board (MCADB). Acreage reflects Net Preserved

acreage rather than GIS measurements.

2. These values represent the number of preserved properties/projects located wholly or in part in a municipality, and do not necessarily correspond to applicant to the program.

Non-profit projects are included in this total. "Total" values reflect the total number of projects rather than a sum of these numbers because some properties are located in more

than one municipality. Projects may contain multiple properties/parcels and may extend beyond municipal boundaries.

10. County Cost values other than Park Improvement Trust are from the "Total" row in Table 6: Previous Projects Funded Through the Preservation Trust Fund.

3. Municipal/Non-Profit acreage totals are derived from Morris County Public Open Space Inventory (POSI). Total values are from the "Total" row in Table 6: Previous Projects

Funded Through the Preservation Trust Fund.

11. This column represents a count of the number of municipalities that received funding in each program as represented in Table 6: Previous Projects Funded Through the

Preservation Trust Fund.


Executive Summary

vi

The Morris County Preservation Trust Fund has a significant and positive impact on home property values on average, all else held constant.

A 1% increase in the number of preserved acres in a given Morris County zip code will increase home property values by $1.50 per square foot in that zip code, all else constant.

The Preservation Trust Fund has had a positive budgetary impact on Morris County and its municipalities estimated at more than $18 million direct budgetary impact each year.

The Preservation Trust Fund has a positive impact on the economy of Morris County by preserving open space, farmland, and historic attractions that draw thousands of visitors each year.

Parcels preserved through the Preservation Trust Fund assist in driving tourism to peak levels in Morris County. Tourism in Morris County has been estimated to generate spending of $1.95 billion and employ over 21,000 people annually.

In 2013, Morris County led the state of New Jersey with 6.9% year-over-year growth in tourism direct sales, generating 4.4% growth in tourism employment.

Morris County ranked first in quality of life throughout all of New Jersey, according to the Garden State Quality of Life study. It is safe to conclude that the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund has played a key role in building and maintaining this scenic, appealing, and healthy environment for its residents, businesses, and tourists.

According to FEMA’s cost-benefit analysis computer model, Morris County’s Flood Mitigation Program has generated an estimated $23.2 million in benefits from the $3.6 million in grant funds provided by the Preservation Trust Fund for an overall benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of 7.33 ($7.33 in benefits for every $1.00 invested). Pending projects have an estimated overall BCR of 4.67.

Availability of open space often weighs into the quantitative and qualitative decision making process when a business is deciding where to locate or relocate its operations.

Revenue enterprises occurring on lands preserved through the Preservation Trust Fund often generate revenue and provide direct employment to members of the community (i.e. tour guides, farming jobs, concessions, security and maintenance, etc.).

The Preservation Trust Fund’s investment in farmland has a positive economic impact on the local economy as it maintains local farm activity that otherwise would not be feasible. The ability of farmers to continue operating allows for dollars to circulate through the local economy in many ways including: localizing food purchases, employing farming staff, attracting agri-tourists, etc.

Conservation lands provide benefits to both the environment and human health including: improved air and water quality, healthier and increased biodiversity, cooler air temperatures in the summer, reduction of greenhouse gases, habitat protection, noise reduction, sediment and erosion reduction, and water resource protection.


Executive Summary

vii

Potential Preservation Trust Fund Projects

To analyze the future funding potential of the programs, a list of potential preservation properties and projects was developed and reviewed for each Trust Fund program. Funding for each program was projected using many sources1 to produce an estimate for the County cost for the completion of preservation projects currently in the preservation process and additional projects desired by the municipalities and non-profits over the next ten years. The total number of municipal participants, properties, and acreage with the estimated County costs are listed in the following table.2 Thirty-eight (38) municipalities have potential projects in at least one Trust Fund program plus six (6) of the nine (9) land trust non-profits for a total of 13,982 acres at the cost to Morris County of approximately $617.4 million.

Recommendations

Based on the potential future projects outlined for each of the programs by municipalities, land trust non-profits, and historic preservation non-profits, the primary recommendation of this report is to continue the funding for the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund. The total of these potential projects for the Trust Fund is $617.4 million. Please note that potential additional uses of the Trust Fund are not included in these figures.

This total cost is very substantial when compared to the most recent annual Trust Fund tax collection of $8.94 million (2014). In addition, these needs are distributed throughout Morris County municipalities.

1 Questionnaires, interview summaries, program targets, Municipal Open Space Plans. 2 See Table 27 for more detailed figures and Chapter VI for full descriptions.

Preservation Trust Fund Program1

Municipalities3

Land Trust

Non-Profits4

Properties/

ProjectsAcres County Cost

Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space5 29 6 441 7,180 $143,266,698

Farmland Preservation 18 95 5,080 $70,582,088

Historic Preservation5 36 2 155 $109,585,402

Flood Mitigation Program 28 2,275 $210,509,795

Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority 40 542 $16,000,000

Morris County Park Commission Land Acquisition 16 57 1,181 $30,447,142

Morris County Park Commission Park Improvements (PIT) $51,981,500

MCMUA Partnerships2

($15,004,000)

Total6

38 6 3,063 13,982 $617,368,624

1. Program Projects/Properties, Acres, and County Cost sums are from Table 27: Potential Preservation Trust Fund Projects. See that table for more details.

2. Partnerships represent projects Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority (MCMUA) expects to be collaborations with other Preservation Trust Fund programs.

3. This column represents a count of the number of municipalities that may receive funding in each program as represented in Table 27: Potential Preservation Trust Fund

Projects.

5. Program Projects, Acres, and County Costs include Land Trust Non-Profit totals from Table27: Potential Preservation Trust Fund Projects.

4. This column list the number of land trust non-profits with potential projects.

6. Total for "Municipalities" and "Land Trust Non-Profits" columns refers to the total number of municipalities or land trust non-profits with Preservation Trust Fund projects,

not a sum of the numbers for each program.


Executive Summary

viii

Potential program projects were analyzed to determine the funding level required to meet municipal and non-profit expectations of the Preservation Trust Fund for a ten year period. The ten year forecast for each of the seven Preservation Trust Fund programs can be seen in the table below including a suggested new program1 (Open Space Improvement Program) for post-preservation improvements.

These numbers consider the existing Preservation Trust Fund balances and estimate the annual collection rate over the next ten years to meet these program estimates. An estimated collection rate of 3.84 cents would meet funding requirements of the eight (8) programs. The table also shows the average allocation required for each of the programs over ten years to meet that program’s funding forecast.

These values do not represent a specific allocation recommendation, but rather, the average, estimated allocation required over the next ten years. The allocations should be adjusted annually to reflect program demand and trends rather than annual expenditures. All Preservation Trust Fund programs have greater potential project estimates than will be supplied by their current funding levels.

1 For the purpose of program funding estimates, the allocation of this new program is estimated at 10% of the collection rate after the allocation for the Park Improvement Trust.

Trust Fund Programs with 10 Year Program

Estimates1,6

Current Funding

(2014)

Annual Funding

Needs4

Difference

(Potential - Current)

10 Year Average

Allocation7

Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Acquisition

50% of Potential Projects

Farmland Preservation


Historic Preservation


Flood Mitigation Program



10 Year Program Targets



Morris County Park Commission Park Improvement Trust2


Open Space Improvement Program (New Program)3

10% of Collection Rate

Preservation Trust Fund Total

100% of Collection Rate

2. Targets provided by these programs were based on 10 year projections.

$220,000

$670,000

N/A

$5,198,150

$3,600,072

$2,230,000

$1,600,000

$3,044,714

20%

13%

$1,560,000

$890,000

$2,230,000

$1,120,000

$7,163,335

$4,587,836

$5,479,270

$10,525,490

15%

29%

4%

8%

100%

($5,603,335)

($3,697,836)

($3,249,270)

($9,405,490)

($1,380,000)

($2,374,714)

($2,968,150)

($3,600,072)

($32,278,866)

4. Costs in this table are calculated in 2014 dollars and are not adjusted for inflation.

5. This Collection Rate considers an expansion of the Preservation Trust Fund for Open Space Improvements funded at 10% but not other expanded uses.

0.57 Cents

10%

$8,920,000 $41,198,866

6. See Table 30 for more detailed calculations.

7. These values represent the average allocation needed over a 10 year period to fund all program estimates and are not a recommendation for annual allocations.

cents5Collection Rate Needed to Meet Funding Estimates: 3.84

1. From Table 27: Potential Preservation Trust Fund Projects with estimated completion of stated percentage under (10 Year Funding Estimates) of Potential Projects.

3. Estimated at 10% Allocation of Total Preservation Trust Fund Collections (not including PIT).


Executive Summary

ix

It is recommended that the Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders maintain funding for the Preservation Trust Fund and consider gradually increasing the collection rate from the current one (1) cent rate if application levels increase or in response to changing needs in Morris County with regard to Trust Fund programs. Also, increased funding will be needed if additional uses for the Preservation Trust Fund are allowed. These changes to the Trust Fund received strong support from municipalities. Recommended Strategies include:

1. Establish a periodic review of the Preservation Trust Fund in order to determine municipal and non-profit funding needs and priorities for all Programs and establish a procedure for making adjustments to address these evolving needs.

2. Establish a new allowable funding use, or separate fund, for post-preservation improvements to preserved properties, particularly trail and recreation development and habitat restoration.

3. Allow post-preservation funding for Preservation Trust Fund programs, including funds from the Flood Mitigation Program for demolition and post-preservation site restoration, and site restoration funds for MCMUA, both of which would enhance flood capture and storage abilities of preserved lands.

4. Allow Freeholders to set allotments of the Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Program, Farmland Preservation Program, Historic Preservation Program, Flood Mitigation Program, MCMUA program, and MCPC Land Acquisition Program without maximum allotments per program to best meet the changing needs of Morris County.

5. Increase the maximum allocation for the Park Improvement Trust from ¼ cent to ½ cent and allow this program to benefit from fund reallocations. It is recommended that the annual allocation for this program increase only if the collection rate is increased from one (1) cent.

6. Increase the number of application opportunities in the Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Program to allow more than one application cycle per year.

7. Allow preservation of farms smaller than ten (10) acres to match state minimum criteria.1

8. Maintain and consider increasing the existing collection rate for the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund based on application levels and in response to changing needs in regard to Trust Fund programs.

9. Establish an outreach program to municipalities to raise awareness of Trust Fund programs and funding opportunities available.

1 The County program currently allows for a waiver of the minimum criteria on a case-by-case basis.


Executive Summary

x

This page intentionally blank.

Table of Contents

M o r r i s C o u n t y P r e s e r v a t i o n T r u s t F u n d A n a l y s i s a n d S t r a t e g y R e p o r t xi

I. Introduction 1

A. Project Purpose and Background 1

B. Preservation Trust Fund Overview 2

C. Overview of Programs 6

D. Municipal Open Space Trust Funds 24

E. Other Preserved Morris County Land 27

II. Outreach 29

A. Introduction 29

B. Questionnaires 29

C. Summary of Outreach 37

III. Preserved Land Database and Mapping 39

A. Public Open Space Inventory (POSI) Schema 39

B. Database Verification Process and Results 39

IV. Current Preserved Lands and Facilities 41

A. Overview of Trust Fund Programs 41

B. Total Trust Fund Expenditures 48

V. Economic Impact Analysis 49

A. Executive Summary of Economic Impacts 49

B. Impacts on Nearby Property Values 50

C. Impacts on Municipal Budgets and Resources 52

D. Impacts from Trust Fund-Generated Destination Traffic and Tourism 57

E. Impacts on Local Businesses with Focus on the Agriculture Industry 61

F. Anecdotal Accounts and Additional Case Studies 64

G. Environmental Benefits of Land Preservation 67

H. Secondary Benefits of Land Preservation 69

I. Impacts of Flood Mitigation 73

J. Summary of Economic Impacts 76

VI. Potential Future Preservation Projects 81

A. Open Space Preservation 81

B. Farmland Preservation 88

C. Historic Preservation 90

D. Flood Mitigation Program 93

E. Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority (MCMUA) 95

F. Morris County Park Commission Land Acquisition 95

G. Morris County Park Commission Park Improvement Trust (PIT) 98

H. Potential Costs for All Preservation Trust Fund Programs 98

Table of Contents

M o r r i s C o u n t y P r e s e r v a t i o n T r u s t F u n d A n a l y s i s a n d S t r a t e g y R e p o r t xii

VII. Preservation Trust Fund Recommendations 101

A. Potential Additional Uses of the Fund 101

B. Recommended Preservation Trust Fund Priorities 101

C. Recommendations by Program / Agency 103

D. Recommended Strategies 108

VIII. Bibliography of Sources 109

Appendices (In separate document)

A. Open Space and Historic Preservation Region Maps

B. Community Profile Forms

C. Public Open Space Inventory (POSI) Schema

D. Questionnaire Results Summary

E. Questionnaire Summary of Open End Responses

F. Economic Analysis Methodology

List of Tables

Table 1: Preservation Trust Fund Program Balances 3

Table 2: Preservation Trust Fund Tax Rates (1993 – 2014) 4

Table 3: Municipal Trust Funds 25

Table 4: Open Ended Comments from Questionnaires 33

Table 5: Potential Future Uses for Trust Fund 34

Table 6: Previous Projects Funded through the Preservation Trust Fund 43

Table 7: Average Costs for Previously Funded Projects 45

Table 8: Zip Code 07082 51

Table 9: Land Use in Acres 54

Table 10: Assessed Value per Acre 55

Table 11: Alternate Use of Preserved Acreage 55

Table 12: Theoretical Additional Assessment (Gross Figures) 55

Table 13: Annual County Budget Savings due to Preservation Trust Fund 56

Table 14: Annual Municipal Budget Savings due to Preservation Trust Fund 56

Table 15: Annual School District Budget Savings due to Preservation Trust Fund 56

Table 16: Total Budget Savings 57

Table 17: 2013 New Jersey Tourism Sales by Sector 58

Table 18: New Jersey Direct Tourism Employment 58

Table 19: Direct Tourism Sales Comparison (in millions) 59

Table 20: Morristown NHP Visits and Spending 59

Table 21: Top 10 Counties by Tourism Employment in 2013 60

Table of Contents

M o r r i s C o u n t y P r e s e r v a t i o n T r u s t F u n d A n a l y s i s a n d S t r a t e g y R e p o r t xiii

Table 22: Morris County Tourism Employment 60

Table 23: Examples of Morris County Farmers Markets 63

Table 24: Summary of Preserved Properties 69

Table 25: Detailed New Jersey Quality of Life Survey Results 71

Table 26: The Morris County Park System 73

Table 27: Potential Preservation Trust Fund Projects 83

Table 28: Source of Potential Projects 85

Table 29: County Cost Estimates 86

Table 30: Projected 10 Year Allocation of the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund with New Open Space Improvement Program 107

List of Figures

Figure 1: Preserved Municipal/Non-Profit Trust Fund Properties 8

Figure 2: Preserved Farmland 11

Figure 3: Funded Historic Sites and Resources 13

Figure 4: Preserved Flood Mitigation Properties 17

Figure 5: Preserved Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority Land 19

Figure 6: Preserved Morris County Park Commission Land 22

Figure 7: Morris County Preservation Trust Fund Properties and Other Preserved Properties 28

Figure 8: Existing Regional Trails 46

Figure 9: MCPC Land & Regional Trails 47

Figure 10: Morris County Land Use by Category 54

Figure 11: New Jersey Tourism Industry Sales (in millions) 58

Figure 12: State Map Summarizing Quality of Life Survey by County 72

Figure 13: Potential Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Acquisition Costs to Morris County 87

Figure 14: Potential Farmland Preservation Easement Costs to Morris County 89

Figure 15: Potential Historic Preservation Project Costs to Morris County 92

Figure 16: Potential Flood Mitigation Program Costs to Morris County 94

Figure 17: Potential MCPC Land Acquisition Costs to Morris County 97

Figure 18: Cost of All Potential Preservation Trust Fund Projects to Morris County 99

Table of Contents

M o r r i s C o u n t y P r e s e r v a t i o n T r u s t F u n d A n a l y s i s a n d S t r a t e g y R e p o r t xiv


I. Introduction

M o r r i s C o u n t y P r e s e r v a t i o n T r u s t F u n d A n a l y s i s a n d S t r a t e g y R e p o r t 1

I. Introduction

A. Project Purpose and Background

The purpose of the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund Analysis and Strategy Report (Report) is to thoroughly and objectively study the projects completed since the founding of the Trust Fund and determine what future investment in land acquisition, historic site preservation, park development, and farmland preservation is needed based on current inventories and input from municipalities and selected non-profit land trust and historic preservation organizations.

The Report is a source of information for use in delineating the parameters of a potential voter referendum that may alter the allowable uses of the Preservation Trust Fund tax and range of spending within current and/or new programs.

This analysis includes the following four main tasks:

Task I: Inventory of Available Data/Assessment of Trust Fund Issues

The purposes of this task were to:

1. Assess the current state of the Trust Fund, through review of available data and an initial inventory of all open space, including properties funded by the Trust Fund;

2. Conduct meetings with Program Managers to identify key issues and trends in individual programs ; and

3. Formulate a questionnaire for use in Task II.

Task II – Collection of Information and Outreach


1. Assess the needs of every Morris County municipality and selected non-profit land trust and historic preservation organizations in relation to the Trust Fund’s present and possible future programs utilizing the questionnaire prepared in Task I; and

2. Obtain, map, and authenticate current preserved lands and open space inventory for every Morris County municipality and select non-profit land trust agencies, including projects funded through the Trust Fund.

In order to evaluate the preservation of all open spaces, a complete Public Open Spaces Inventory (POSI) for Morris County was prepared using the spatial database schema outlined by the New Jersey Geospatial Forum Open Space Committee Data Model with modifications made by Morris County.

Task III: Trust Fund Analysis and Strategy Report


1. Evaluate and analyze the trends and data collected in Task II;

2. Conduct a detailed economic and fiscal impact analysis of the specific benefits of land preservation for Morris County; and

3. Prepare a Report summarizing this analysis and providing strategic recommendations for the future funding and use of the Trust Fund.

I. Introduction


Task IV: Presentation of Findings

Preparation of the following:

1. An Executive Summary handout;

2. A PowerPoint presentation summarizing the findings of the Report; and

3. A Formal Report detailing the findings and recommendations to the Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders.

B. Preservation Trust Fund Overview

1. Establishment of the Preservation Trust Fund

On December 22, 1992, the Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders established the Morris County Open Space & Farmland Preservation Trust Fund, and collection of funds commenced on July 1, 1993 with a tax equal to one-half cent per $100 of total county equalized real property valuation. The County Freeholders review the tax rate annually to set the tax anywhere from $0.00 to $0.0525. The levy for 2014 has been set at 1.00 cent.

The following referenda have been approved by the voters:

a. 1992: Established the Trust Fund with a 2.0 cent maximum

b. 1998 (2 referenda): Increased the maximum collection to 3.0 cents and provided 0.25 cents for the Morris County Park Commission (MCPC) Park Improvement Trust (PIT) Fund

c. 2001: Increased the maximum collection to 5.25 cents

Established maximum allocations per program:

3.75 cents to Open Space1 1.25 to Farmland Preservation ¼ cent to Morris County Park Commission Park Improvement Trust (PIT)

b. 2002: Established the Historic Preservation Fund utilizing 1/8 to ¼ cent of existing tax

2. Current Division of the Preservation Trust Fund (2014)

The Fund is divided into seven areas with the following allocations of funds (current balances in Table 1 below):

¼ cent to the Morris County Park Commission Park Improvement Trust ¼ cent to the Historic Preservation Program

Once these amounts have been taken from the annual open space tax collection, the remaining balance of the collected tax is allocated as follows:

a. 35% to Municipal and/or qualified charitable conservancies (i.e., Non-Profits) for Open Space Preservation projects (acquisition only)

b. 25% for the Flood Mitigation Program

c. 20% for Farmland Preservation

1Includes Municipal/Non-Profit, Flood Mitigation, MCMUA, and MCPC Land Acquisition programs.

I. Introduction


d. 15% for the Morris County Park Commission for eligible Land Acquisition projects

e. 5% to the Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority (MCMUA) Open Space Program for water resource protection projects

Table 1: Preservation Trust Fund Program Balances

3. Preservation Trust Fund Statistics

To date: 24,144 acres have been preserved by the Trust Fund in 37 Morris County Municipalities. Only the Boroughs of Victory Gardens and Mountain Lakes have no land preserved through the Trust Fund. However, Mountain Lakes Borough has had one (1) Historic Preservation project.

4. Resolutions

Six resolutions have been passed since 1992 to establish and modify the scope and funding of the Preservation Trust Fund in Morris County.

a. 1992: Resolution 45 allowed the County to allocate $.02 cents per $100 of property valuation to be used exclusively for: the acquisition of land or water areas for the purposes of providing and/or protecting parkland or green space; protecting ecologically sensitive areas such as wetlands, stream corridors, sources of drinking water, water aquifers and recharge areas; to provide for public outdoor recreation and to preserve farmland.

b. 1998: Resolution 38 increased the tax to $.03 cents per $100 – for the acquisition of lands for recreation, open space and conservation purposes, the acquisition of farmland preservation purposes or for the payment of debt service or indebtedness issued or incurred for any of the purposes described above.

c. 1998: Resolution 45 allowed the Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders to establish an Open Space Trust Fund for the purpose of development of county owned park facilities by the Morris County Park Commission (MCPC), upon completion of a plan, to be funded at a rate not to exceed, ¼ of one cent per $100 of property valuation.

This resolution enabled the County to create an additional dedicated open space trust fund to be used by the MCPC for the development of county owned park facilities based on a plan, adopted by the County, which would identify the location and type of development activities to be undertaken.

All Dollar Amounts in Millions

Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space $8.27 35% $1.56 ($0.39) ($2.12) $7.32

Farmland Preservation $28.40 20% $0.89 ($5.89) ($14.38) $9.02

Historic Preservation $6.75 1/4 cent $2.23 ($1.14) ($4.09) $3.75

Flood Mitigation Program $14.16 25% $1.12 ($0.20) ($13.23) $1.85

Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority $10.07 5% $0.22 ($0.10) ($1.00) $9.20

Morris County Park Commission Land Acquisition $4.33 15% $0.67 ($0.13) ($5.41) ($0.53)

Morris County Park Commission Park Improvements (PIT) $4.74 1/4 cent $2.23 ($1.05) ($5.57) $0.36

Ancillary $18.10 0% $0.00 ($0.05) ($0.20) $17.85

TOTAL $94.82 $8.94 ($8.96) ($45.99) $48.81

1. Morris County Department of Planning & Public Works, Division of Planning & Preservation, May 2014.

Committed

Funds as of

5/31/14

Account

Balance

5/31/14

2014 Tax

1 CentProgram1

Account

Balance

1/1/2014

2014

Allocation

Debits/Credits

as of 5/31/14

I. Introduction


d. 2001: Resolution 38 allowed the County of Morris to modify the Open Space and Farmland Preservation Trust Fund to allocate up to $.0525 per $100 dollars of total County equalized real property valuation and allocated funding to the following purposes:

The acquisition of lands for recreation, open space, and conservation purposes with a maximum allocated of $.0375;

The acquisition of farmland for farmland preservation purposes with a maximum allocated of $.0125

The capital improvement of county-owned park facilities with a maximum allocated of $.0025

Additionally, the resolution allowed funds to be used for the payment of debt service for these purposes.

The referendum permitted the County of Morris to raise the “open space” tax to a maximum of $.0525 per $100 of County total equalized property valuation with a maximum of $.0375 of the Fund allocated to open space land acquisition, $.0125 allocated to farmland preservation, and $.0025 allocated to the capital improvement of county-owned park facilities.

e. 2002: Resolution 32 amended the Open Space and Farmland Preservation Trust Fund to include the purpose of preservation and acquisition of historic properties, structures, facilities, sites, areas, or objects in accordance with P.L. 1997, Chapter 24 and allocate a sum between 1/8 and ¼ cent of the existing tax for this purpose.

f. 2012: Resolution 44 expanded the Morris County Open Space, Farmland and Historic Preservation Trust Fund to include a Flood Mitigation Program which will acquire flood-prone properties in accordance with P.L. 1997, Chapter 24, initial funding of $16 million from unencumbered monies currently allocated to the Farmland Preservation program.

5. Past Funding Levels

Since its adoption in 1992, the tax rate for the Morris County Open Space Trust Fund has varied widely from a low of 0.5 cent to a high of 4.75 cents. The funding levels, shown in Table 2, started at the lowest level, then slowly increased to the highest funding level of 4.75 cents where it stayed from 2004 through 2007. Since its peak, funding levels have steadily decreased to the current 1.0 cent rate.

Table 2: Preservation Trust Fund Tax Rates (1993 – 2014)

1993/94 July 1, 1993 0.5 cent

1995 January 1, 1995 1.0 cent

1996 January 1, 1996 1.5 cents



1999 January 1, 1999 2.625 cents

2000 January 1, 2000 3.25 cents

2001 January 1, 2001 3.25 cents

2002 January 1, 2002 3.75 cents

Year Commence Date Rate

I. Introduction


6. Management of the Preservation Trust Fund

Each of the programs within the Preservation Trust is managed by a related board or committee:

The Open Space Preservation Program is overseen by the fifteen (15) member Morris County Open Space Committee consisting of one representative from each of the eight municipal regions1 in the county, plus representatives from the County Planning Board, County Agriculture Development Board, County Park Commission, County Municipal Utilities Authority, County Historic Preservation Trust Fund Review Board, and two members at-large. The Committee reviews, prioritizes and makes recommendations to the Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders on the funding of projects for the Municipal/Non-Profit grant program. One hundred twenty (120) members have served on the Committee since its creation in 1994.

The Farmland Preservation Program is administered by the Morris County Agriculture Development Board, which is made up of seven voting members, three non-voting advisory members, and three non-voting ex-officio members. The Board’s efforts in the program are guided by the County’s Comprehensive Farmland Preservation Plan, which was adopted following a public hearing by both the County Agriculture Development Board and the Morris County Planning Board.

The Historic Preservation Program is overseen by the Morris County Historic Preservation Trust Fund Review Board (HPTFRB). The HPTFRB reviews, prioritizes, and makes recommendations to the Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders on the funding of historic preservation projects under the Historic

1 See map in Appendix A (Figure A-1).

2003 January 1, 2003 4.25 cents

2004 January 1, 2004 4.75 cents

2005 January 1, 2005 4.75 cents

2006 January 1, 2006 4.75 cents

2007 January 1, 2007 4.75 cents

2008 January 1, 2008 4.25 cents

2009 January 1, 2009 3.25 cents

2010 January 1, 2010 2.25 cents

2011 January 1, 2011 1.75 cents


2013 January 1, 2013 1.125 cents

2014 January 1, 2014 1.0 cent

Tax Rate includes Park Commission Improvement Tax

Rates are per $100 of total County Equalized property valuation

Source: Morris County Department of Planning & Public Works, Division of

Planning & Preservation

Year Commence Date Rate

I. Introduction


Preservation Trust Fund. The HPTFRB is made up of eleven members: two (2) at-large representatives; four (4) municipal representatives (one from each of four regions of Morris County1); one (1) member of the Morris County Heritage Commission; three (3) appointees with professional expertise in historic preservation (one of each from the disciplines of preservation architecture, architectural history and restoration); one (1) appointee with a background as an archeologist, historic landscape specialist, historic site manager, historic site curator or engineer with historic preservation expertise.

The Flood Mitigation Program is administered by the Flood Mitigation Committee (FMC) which is comprised of seven members. The Committee reviews, prioritizes, and makes funding recommendations to the Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders regarding the Flood Mitigation Program.

The Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority portion of the Trust Fund is overseen by a nine-member MCMUA Board.

The Morris County Park Commission Land Acquisition and Morris County Park Commission Park Improvement Trust (PIT) are administered by the Morris County Park Commission which is made up of nine volunteer Park Commissioners serving 5-year terms appointed by the Board of Chosen Freeholders.

C. Overview of Programs

1. Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Preservation

a. Program Background

The Open Space Preservation Program has helped preserve 11,731 acres of open space since its formation in 1992. The majority of the applications were received from 1999 to 2008.

The Municipal/Non-profit grant program operates as an annual grant program for the acquisition of land for recreation and conservation purposes. Applications are due in June each year. Grants are evaluated by the 15 member Open Space Trust Fund Committee.

Applications are evaluated on criteria that includes the proposed use of the property and its consistency with the objectives of municipal and County open space plans; proximity and linkages to other preserved lands, threat of development and natural resource protection.

No matching funds are required. The Open Space Trust Fund Committee recognizes other funding sources potentially available to a municipality and/or non-profit.

An appraisal is required at the time of submission. Each application requires a formal site visit by the Committee, and a 10 minute final presentation on the project.

1 See map in Appendix A (Figure A-2).

I. Introduction


If a grant is awarded, the applicant has 15 months to acquire the property. Up to two (2) grant extensions may be awarded, providing the applicant with a maximum of up to 29½ months to acquire the property.

b. Current Trends

Applications for the Open Space Preservation Program have been decreasing recently, from a peak of $31.2 million in requests in 2008 to a low of $1.7 million in 2013. In contrast, funding rewards were highest in 2006 at $23.8 million and lowest at $1.3 million in 1994. Figure 1 illustrates properties preserved through the Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Program.

Since the inception of the County Trust Fund, many municipalities have created their own open space trust funds and open space master plans, resulting in a more proactive, rather than reactive, approach to preservation as demonstrated in earlier years of the program. However, municipalities have had fewer funds to use for acquisition in the last few years as their municipal trust fund dollars may be allocated to debt service, or collection rates may have decreased.

The Park Commission and MCMUA have provided funding assistance to applicants on projects which also meet their acquisition objectives.

Recent trends in types of acquisitions include smaller tracts, subdivided lots or parts of lots, some partially constructed projects, and projects with development approvals.

Various non-profits have participated in the program. Some organizations are more regional and therefore have a broader conservation effort. Additional grant dollars for acquisition are usually obtained from a Green Acres Non-Profit Planning Incentive Grant.

c. Benefits of the Program

The program has assisted municipalities in the preservation of some key tracts of land that would have been converted to other uses. In some cases, these developments had the potential to change the nature of a municipality.

This program has also enhance the quality of life in Morris County by allowing municipalities to create and build upon desirable municipal parks and recreation areas.

Other benefits include less demand for municipal services and less traffic congestion, improved groundwater recharge, protection of scenic vistas, and increased property values.

I. Introduction


Figure 1: Preserved Municipal/Non-Profit Trust Fund Properties

I. Introduction

M o r r i s C o u n t y P r e s e r v a t i o n T r u s t A n a l y s i s a n d S t r a t e g y R e p o r t 9

2. Farmland Preservation


The Agriculture Development Board was formed in 1983 and preserved the first farm in 1987, a 14-acre parcel. Currently, 1251 farms are preserved through the program in the County for a total of 7,709 acres, and 13 farms are in progress for a total of 497 additional acres.

Most projects are funded at 40% from the County and 60% from the Garden State Preservation Trust. However, when projects do not meet the state requirements, 100% county funding can be used. Additionally, no matching funds are required from the municipalities or non-profits in the Farmland Preservation program.

Applicants can apply directly to the state for funding, but state funding is very competitive and limited. Fewer than five (5) of the 125 farms were preserved through the state program.

Appraisals, paid for by the County, are done by two state approved and certified appraisers. The program also pays for the title work, survey work and the County Attorney’s fees. An application fee of $1,000 is required, but is refunded if the farm is preserved through the program.

The Agriculture Development Board asks municipalities for a list of properties for which preservation is desired. The Board conducts regular landowner outreach through mailings and seminars. Municipalities that want to participate in the Farmland Preservation Program must also have a Right to Farm ordinance.

The Morris County Agriculture Development Board holds seminars to promote and educate property owners about the details of the program. The annual County Planning Incentive Grants (PIG) applications to the state have a mid-December deadline. As of May 31, 2014, 95 properties are targeted in the County or municipalities for the program with a total of about 5,000 acres.

b. Current Trends

The number of applications had slowed down as a result of the economic downturn and reduced property values with twelve property closings since 2011. The program has an open enrollment and applications are accepted at any time.

The Highlands Preservation Act impacts the majority of the farmland in the County. Owners are currently allowed to have two appraisals, one based on pre-Highlands Preservation Act zoning and regulations, on post-Highland (current) zoning and regulations. The deadline for this dual-appraisal approach has been extended once, and is scheduled to end in June of 2014. The deadline may or may not be extended at that time.

While dual appraisals are utilized, farm owners may receive “pre-Highlands” prices for their farmland; once this provision ends, they will only be paid post-Highland values, which are much lower.

1 All program totals in the report are as of May 31, 2014.

I. Introduction


As a result, the number of applications has increased recently with farm owners seeking to obtain pre-Highlands values for their land. Thirteen farms are in progress1 with expected closings later in 2014 and in 2015.

The minimum criteria for farmland preservation has been an issue for some farms, especially with regard to farm size; In the northern counties of the state, smaller farms are more prevalent, while the southern areas have much larger farms.

These smaller farms are less appealing to the state funding agency, and oftentimes are ineligible for the county program which has a minimum standard of 10 acres. However, the County program allows for a waiver of the minimum criteria on a case-by-case basis.

Figure 2 illustrates the preserved farmland in Morris County.


The preservation of land for farming creates permanently preserved land and ensures the continuation and viability of the Morris County’s agricultural industry. According to the US Census of Agriculture (data released on May 2, 2014), the market value of agricultural products sold in Morris County is $28,387,000 (up from $27,312,000 in 2007). The average market value of products sold per farm is $77,560 (up from $64,720 in 2007). The average size of a Morris County farm is 40 acres.

Producing locally grown food is another benefit of the program. Many Morris County farms have ‘pick-your-own’ opportunities and farmstands on site to sell their produce and products. Additionally, many municipalities have farmers’ markets for their citizenry.

Farmland preservation lowers municipal service costs and reduces potential peak hour traffic associated with development, improves groundwater recharge, helps to maintain the rural character that so many enjoy, and increases property values.

Agri-tourism, offers activities to farm visitors such as apple and berry picking, pumpkin patches, corn mazes, hayrides, and educational activities for school groups. This business model brings people to local hotels, bed and breakfasts, restaurants, and other local businesses.

1 As of May 31, 2014.

I. Introduction


Figure 2: Preserved Farmland

I. Introduction


3. Historic Preservation


Historic preservation has been part of the Preservation Trust since 2003, providing grants to municipalities, non-profits, and the County of Morris. Eligibility requires the property to be listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The property must be owned by a local government or non-profit 501(c) (3) organizations, and the non-profit must have a purpose for historic preservation, except for religious institutions. The proposed activities must also meet Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and the County maintains a Memorandum of Understanding with the State Historic Preservation Office allowing a County Consultant to provide project reviews and help streamline the process.

The program entails a multi-year process which typically includes a preservation plan generated in the first year, construction documents for improvements in the second year, and construction work in the third year. The use of Trust Fund dollars toward the physical restoration, preservation, and rehabilitation of the historic resources is strongly encouraged.

Grant applications for the Historic Preservation Program have an application deadline at the end of March, and the County usually announces the awards in late June. On average, about 25 to 30 applications are received annually of which most would be at least partially funded.

Historic Preservation Trust Fund grants require a 20% match, while acquisition grants require a 50% match by the applicant. The applicants can match County historic preservation grant funds with state funds such as a New Jersey Historic Trust. Properties preserved through the program must be open to the public for a minimum of 12 days per year. Non-construction grants of $5,000 or less do not require a match.

Currently, 32 of the 39 municipalities have participated in the program, and the program has funded 80 sites or resources. The Historic Preservation Program also partners with non-profits. Grants can be used for historic buildings or landscapes. Figure 3 illustrates Funded Historic Sites and Resources in Morris County.

b. Current Trends

The program receives an average of four or five new sites each year addressing a variety of historic resources. For example, recent resources being protected include a historic steam locomotive, a historic fire truck, historic landscapes and homes.

The program started in 2002, and receives anywhere from 1/8 cent to ¼ cent of the Preservation Trust Fund tax. Funding is currently at the ¼ cent level yielding $2.23 million for 2014.

I. Introduction


Figure 3: Funded Historic Sites and Resources

I. Introduction



To date, the Trust Fund has provided about $20 million in grants for the preservation of historic resources in Morris County. Adding the 20% match provided by the applicants, a total of about $24 million has been expended on these historic resources including both design and construction dollars. Properties are constantly being added to the eligible list because over time more buildings reach the milestone of 50 years in age and, therefore, become eligible. Other benefits resulting from the Historic Preservation Trust Program include the tourism opportunities to historic sites, the creation of jobs to assist visitors, and the creation of jobs for construction and improvements.

4. Flood Mitigation Program (FMP)


New Jersey is second in the nation in severe repetitive flood losses, and the severity of flooding in the state is increasing. From 1955 to 1991 there were only nine major floods, but from 1992 to 2010 there were 14 major floods1. Most recently, from 2010 to 2012 there were seven major floods. Over the last 90+ years, the average peak flow of Morris County rivers has increased by 30-45%.2 Notably, 50% of the major floods during this 90-year period have occurred in just the last 11 years.

Created in the wake of Hurricane Irene, Morris County is the first county in the state to create a dedicated flood buyout program. Bergen County has since launched their own flood mitigation program and other counties in the state are exploring the concept. The Flood Mitigation Program (FMP) is used to buy out flood-prone residential properties. After the home is removed and the infrastructure is removed, the land is converted back to its natural state to act as a flood capture and storage area and to provide a flood barrier to remaining nearby homes and businesses.

The goals of the program are to remove people from harm’s way and to reduce municipal costs. This program helps municipalities more effectively manage their flood risk and post-disaster expenditures for OEM response, infrastructure and utility repair, debris removal, and other costs.

Major flooding takes place in approximately 19-20 towns in Morris County, mostly along the eastern side. Many of the flood-prone homes the FMP acquires were developed after World War II in floodplain areas where land was relatively inexpensive. Some were originally intended to be summer homes, but nearly all have since been converted to year-round use.

Morris County launched the FMP in March 2012 with an initial focus to provide the required 25% match to FEMA acquisition funding received by four (4) towns in the wake of Hurricane Irene. Morris County reallocated $16 million of unused grant funds from the Farmland Preservation program for use in the FMP. In 2013, FMP received an allocation of 25% of the open space tax collected for a

1 Data from 2013 is not available because so many USGS stream gages were washed away by recent flooding and have not yet been replaced. 2 Analysis of Morris County’s 300+ USGS stream gages.

I. Introduction


total of $1.44 million. The program works closely with NJDEP Blue Acres and FEMA.

Every application to the program is analyzed using FEMA’s Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) computer model. To qualify, a project’s cost to acquire must, at a minimum, equal the benefit to the community as a result of this acquisition; a 1:1 benefit-cost ratio (BCR). An analysis of the 43 projects completed to date yields a 4.77 BCR overall, and a 7.33 BCR for Morris County, specifically. This means that for every $1 Morris County has invested in these acquisitions, the benefit has been $7.33.

The FMP consists of two basic funding tracks: the MATCH program and the CORE program.

The MATCH program provides up to 25% of the acquisition funding to ‘match’ another agency’s grant funding. The lead funder in this situation is usually FEMA. The CORE program is designed to catch those homeowners who “fell through the funding nets” of the bigger agencies, usually because the homeowner does not have flood insurance. As a result, these properties are not on FEMA’s radar of flood-prone properties. The CORE program provides 75% of the funds for the acquisition, and the municipality must determine the source of the required 25% match. The matching funds can be from Municipal Open Space or General Purpose funds, NJ-DEP Green Acres/Blue Acres grants, or a homeowner donation of value.

To access CORE funding, a municipality must have a Flood Acquisition Plan (FLAP), which provides a long-term view of flood risks in the town. The FLAP consists of a narrative and a flood hazard map identifying potential target areas. The County creates a FLAP for the towns free of charge to make it as easy and inexpensive as possible for towns to participate in the FMP. Much of the information used to develop a FLAP comes from FEMA, which will only share this information with another government agency.

b. Current Trends

To date, $16.5 million has been encumbered, with approximately $1.85 million in grant funds remaining. The 2014 allocation from the open space tax for the Flood Mitigation Program was $1.12 million. In 2013, this amount was $1.44 million. In the first year of the program, almost $7.5 million was encumbered, in the second year, an additional $9.0 million was encumbered, an increase of 17%.

Program statistics since program inception: 117 projects in 7 towns. Of these projects, 43 have closed. Additionally, nine FLAPs have been developed. All of the initial towns that participated in the MATCH funding program have come back for funding in the CORE program as well.

The 2012 Biggert Waters Act and 2014 Grimm-Waters Act are critical pieces of federal flood insurance legislation that ultimately remove federal subsidies and discounts for flood insurance premiums. In addition to the increase in insurance rates (capped at 18% per year), an annual fee has been added to flood insurance policies to defray the cost of these subsidies/discounts until they are completely phased out. As a result, homeowners are now experiencing the graduated increases in flood insurance rates and higher standards for obtaining reasonably-priced flood insurance (i.e. a home elevated 4 ft. above the base

I. Introduction


flood elevation); some will likely decide to sell their homes in flood prone areas. Figure 4 illustrates preserved flood mitigation properties in Morris County.


The national benefit-cost ratio (BCR) average for flood mitigation is 5:1, meaning that for every $1 spent to acquire a home, there is a benefit of $5 as result of that acquisition. Morris County has seen an even higher BCR (7.33:1) in their completed FMP projects.

In addition to the financial component, the FMP has moved people (homeowners and OEM staff) out of harm’s way, lowered municipal costs created by intense flooding episodes, created open space that acts as a natural flood capture/storage area, and formed a flood barrier that protects the remaining homes and businesses in flood prone areas.

The FMP program has attracted over $32 million in Federal and State acquisition funding and derived an estimated $82 million dollars in potential benefits from Morris County’s $16.5 million investment in this program. Finally, the FMP also helps to increase property values and improve groundwater recharge.

I. Introduction


Figure 4: Preserved Flood Mitigation Properties

I. Introduction


5. The Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority (MCMUA)


At the formation of the Preservation Trust, 12.5% of the funds were designated for the MCMUA. Recently, this number has been reduced to 5%. Initially acquired properties were located around two main wellfields, Roxbury/Randolph (Alamatong) and the Flanders Valley, to protect the water sources in that area.

The properties originally purchased by the MCMUA are now owned by the County in title, but are maintained by the MCMUA. The Freeholders approve all properties that are purchased through the MCMUA program, and all properties must have willing sellers. The MCMUA partners with municipalities in the acquisition of properties to protect regional water sources. When applying for grants, applicants must demonstrate water resource value of the property by criteria such as wellhead protection or location in a water recharge area. Additional reasons for protection include: its location in a sensitive watershed, protection of surface waters, protection of reservoirs, or location at the headwaters of a river. The primary purpose of these acquisitions is water supply protection. Therefore, the MCMUA does not allow active recreation on these properties.

b. Current Trends

The New Jersey Geological Society has prepared wellhead protection maps, and the MCMUA intends to focus future acquisitions in those areas that are most vulnerable to contamination. The Green Acres program has concerns about the current requirement that the MCMUA retain the water rights on properties which use Green Acres Funds. However, this concern will likely not be an issue in the future since MCMUA projects are trending toward partnerships, and the MCMUA does not require an interest in water rights on those properties. Some water supply protection projects are actually funded through three sources including the County Open Space program, Morris County Park Commission, and the MCMUA. Additionally, non-profit land trusts also partner with the MCMUA to acquire open space. Figure 5 illustrates Morris County land preserved by MCMUA.

The MCMUA program has an allocation of $220,000 for 2014. The MCMUA would like to identify important water resource protection properties and desires to be able to use funding for restoration and monitoring of the acquired properties. Less outside funding1 is available of late for land acquisition.


Most of the water in Morris County reservoirs is exported out of the county, making groundwater the primary source of potable water for county residents. The MCMUA is a bulk water wholesaler that sells water to several municipalities and water companies including: Denville, Jefferson, Mine Hill, Mt. Arlington, Parsippany, Randolph, Roxbury, Wharton, Southeast MCMUA, and New Jersey American Water. The MCMUA also buys water from Southeast MCMUA.

The program provides the MCMUA with the resources it needs to protect critical watershed locations, wellhead protection areas, and recharge areas.

1 State, municipal, and non-profit.

I. Introduction


Figure 5: Preserved Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority Projects

I. Introduction


6. Morris County Park Commission – Land Acquisition


The Park Commission Land Acquisition Program addresses the needs for recreation, conservation and open space preservation, which includes the preservation of historic and cultural resources of local, regional, and national importance. Prior to the 1992 voter approved Morris County Open Space Trust Fund (MCOSTF) referendum, the Park Commission acquired land through donations, New Jersey Green Acres grants and loans, and capital funding.

Currently the MCPC receives 15% of the Preservation Trust funds for land acquisition which equates to $670,000 for 2014. During the height of the program, the Park Commission received as much as $6.5 million per year. Land acquisition projects have ranged in size from .255-acres to 455-acres, and project acquisition costs have ranged from $3,000.00 to $13.5 million. Nineteen of the Park Commission’s 38 distinct facilities have benefited from land preservation funded through the Preservation Trust Fund.

Trust Fund allocations have been used to acquire land for trail easements to extend the nationally recognized Patriot’s Path Trail System, expansion of golf courses, establishment of new greenways like the Waughaw Mountain Greenway, and establishment of new parks like Jonathans Woods. In total, four new parks were established with funds from the MCOSTF: Jonathans Woods, Waughaw Mountain Greenway, Craigmeur Recreation Area, and the West Morris Greenway.

Funds have also been used to protect and increase the size of previously donated properties like the Elizabeth D. Kay Environmental Center at Black River County Park, Fosterfields Living Historical Farm, and Lee’s County Park Marina. Three National and State Historic Registered Sites have been expanded by using funds from the MCOSTF: Fosterfields Living Historical Farm, Cooper Mill, and Mount Hope Historical County Park.

Trust Fund dollars have also been used to leverage other financial resources from private donations to matching New Jersey Green Acres Program grants.

b. Current Trends

In recent years, many open space projects have been accomplished by partnering with municipalities, the MCMUA, and non-profits. The preservation of Clyde Potts Reservoir in Randolph and Mendham Townships and the Mine Hill – Canfield projects are representative of a growing collaboration in Morris County. It is anticipated that the trend of acquisition partnerships will continue as the Morris County Open Space tax collection rate has decreased and the New Jersey Green Acres Program has not established a new dedicated funding source.

As the Park Commission’s share of the County Open Space Funds has been reduced and is currently $670,000 per year, the Park Commission has increasingly worked with towns, non-profits, and the MCMUA to acquire both conservation and trail easements. In some cases, these partnerships have acquired fee simple ownership on properties identified on the Park Commission’s Land Acquisition Report. The Egberts Lake project in Rockaway Township is an example of the Park Commission’s need to acquire a trail easement for the West

I. Introduction


Morris Greenway and Rockaway Township’s concern for protecting a water resource in its community.

In recent years, the Park Commission has focused its resources on projects that are in-holdings (parcels within current park boundaries), contiguous parcels to existing parks, larger parcels, and connections to parks and trails. Figure 6 illustrates MCPC lands preserved in Morris County.

The County in recent years has seen an increase in high density development. The Highlands Act may have reduced development in certain areas of the County, but new pressures have been placed on communities outside the Highlands Preservation Area. Although planned development may benefit the County and its communities, changes in demographics, increased intensity of use of parklands, and the impact to sensitive environments need to be considered to ensure the character of Morris County, by way of its open spaces, continues to provide the quality of life that is expected by residents. The Park Commission places the following as higher priority projects: trail connectivity, protection of existing historic and cultural facilities under the Park Commission’s stewardship responsibility, buffer protection to sensitive natural resources, and properties that have caused significant encroachment issues.


From 1956 to the early 1990’s, land was obtained through gifts or bond issues with no long term dedicated funding for acquisition. Through its Preservation Trust Fund allocation, the Park Commission has been able to plan for the long term, acquire land in a more strategic manner, and purchase larger tracts.

Additional benefits of the Park Commission Open Space program:

Open space and parks are selling points to corporations and their staff, helping to bring jobs to the County.

Living close to parks and open space is very desirable.

The communities, residents, and visitors of Morris County highly support and use recreational trails.

Proximity to parks and open space increases real estate values.

Open space reduces the impact of flooding.

The Preservation Trust Fund has provided the Park Commission with revenue generation opportunities by expanding parks to allow for development of active recreational programs and initiatives like additional athletic fields and boating opportunities.

Preservation helps Morris County to continue its current character and charm by protecting historic structures and sites.

I. Introduction


Figure 6: Morris County Park Commission

d.

I. Introduction


7. Morris County Park Commission Park Improvement Trust (PIT)


The Morris County Park Commission receives, through the Park Improvement Trust Fund, one quarter cent per hundred dollars valuation for Park Improvement Trust (PIT) projects. The electorate of Morris County supported the establishment of this funding source in 1998 when it was approved by a significant majority. In the mid 1990’s, it became increasingly clear that the current level of annual Capital funding was not enough to preserve, protect, and provide for the future of the park system. Capital funding levels at the time were annually $1.5 million to $2.1 million, of which $600,000 was annually spent on equipment and vehicles. However, Park facilities were in grave need of improvements, rehabilitation, and restoration.

Projects needing funding ranged from natural resources restoration projects to trail improvement projects and building improvements to golf course upgrades. Projects of significance included: the rehabilitation of Seaton Hackney Stables, the restoration of the Barnyard Complex at Fosterfields Living Historical Farm, the resurfacing of the Loantaka Brook Reservation Trail System, and ADA improvements to the Saturn Playground at Lewis Morris County Park. The Park Commission celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2006, and with an aging infrastructure and increased park use, the residents of Morris County saw fit to protect their parkland through the creation of the PIT. In the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, the PIT annual allocation reached $1.8 million per year. With the existing Capital funding at the time and the PIT funds, the Park Commission was able to accomplish its multi-year park improvement planning goals.

b. Current Trends

At its height, the Park Improvement Trust Fund allocation was $3.2 million, and Park Commission Capital was $2.4 million, for a total of $5.6 million. Currently, the PIT provides $2.23 million per year (2014 allocation), and Capital funding is at $1.05 million, of which $600,000 is used for purchasing maintenance equipment, for a total of $3.28 million per year. The current 10-year projection of park improvement projects is $52 million. Over the next 6-years the Park Commission will need to invest significant funds in dam rehabilitation/removal projects and address Federal Title II ADA improvements throughout the park system. Dam projects alone can cost up to $1.8 million per project, and it is expected that $350,000 will be spent on paving projects annually. The Park Commission will need to balance expenditures on infrastructure and mandatory improvements along with improvements to park amenities, resources, and historic preservation projects.

With over 3.5 million visitors to facilities under its stewardship, the Park Commission will continue to strive to provide safe recreational and educational opportunities to its visitors and maintain its standing in the eyes of its constituency.


The PIT program has provided financial resources to stabilize aging infrastructure and has allowed the Park Commission to search out and obtain matching funds for a variety of projects. Park Improvement Trust funds have been used as a match for a number of New Jersey Historic Preservation Trust

I. Introduction


Fund grant projects such as the restoration of the National and State Historic Registered Gardens at Bamboo Brook and a Preservation Plan for the National Landmark Historic Speedwell. Park Improvement Trust funds have also been leveraged to obtain no less than five New Jersey Recreational Trail grants and will be used as matching funds for NJ Department of Transportation grants for the extension of the Traction Line Recreational Trail and sections of Patriots’ Path in Morristown.

Park Improvement Trust Fund dollars have been used for projects to reduce operating expenses such as new lighting technology at Mennen Sports Arena and a modern irrigation system at Flanders Valley Golf Course.

The Park Commission continues to strive to stretch the PIT funds to prepare the Park Commission for the future and to maintain its credibility with residents and visitors.

D. Municipal Open Space Trust Funds

At present, 28 municipalities have their own trust fund. The trust funds are summarized in Table 3. The table shows the most recent trust fund balance and the tax rate1 in addition to the allowable uses for the fund and the implementation date. The collection rates and current balances vary greatly between these funds. Morris and Parsippany-Troy Hills Townships reported the highest balances with $6 million in funds, while Wharton Borough and Mine Hill Township had under $20,000 in their trust funds. Most2 municipalities had between $100,000 and $1 million balances in their Trust Funds. Collection rates range from .03 cents in Mine Hill Township to 3.8 cents in Montville Township. Most3 collection rates range between ½ cent and 2 cents. Most (86%) of these trust funds allow for development and improvement of open spaces which is currently not allowed in the County program. Florham Park Borough does not have an Open Space Trust Fund, but the Borough does have a dedicated open space funding source. Between the funds of Florham Park and the 28 municipal Trust Funds, the municipalities collectively have open space funding resources of over $30 million.

1 As of December 31, 2013. 2 20 of the 28 trust funds. 3 Also 20 of 28.

I. Introduction


Table 3: Municipal Trust Funds

Boonton Town

Boonton Township $1,134,862.64 $0.0300 33329 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

Butler Borough

Chatham Borough $364,432.96 $0.0050 2001 yes yes yes yes no yes yes

Chatham Township $430,000.00 $0.0050 1997 yes no yes yes no yes no

Chester Borough $242,882.43 $0.0100 2004 yes no yes yes no yes no

Chester Township $379,190.66 $0.0200 1996 yes yes yes yes no yes no

Denville Township $561,000.00 $0.0300 2004 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

Dover Town

East Hanover Township $264,190.90 $0.0100 1995 yes no yes yes no yes no

Florham Park Borough3

$627,413.46 N/A 2006 yes no yes no no yes yes

Hanover Township $474,786.79 $0.0050 2000 yes yes yes yes no yes no

Harding Township $1,636,136.45 $0.0350 1997 yes yes no yes no yes yes

Jefferson Township $455,017.16 $0.0050 1998 yes no yes yes no yes no

Kinnelon Borough $1,286,044.98 $0.0050 2003 yes no yes no no yes yes

Lincoln Park Borough $628,102.18 $0.0050 2003 yes no yes yes no no no

Long Hill Township $2,609,302.00 $0.0200 1998 yes yes yes yes no yes yes

Madison Borough $111,717.00 $0.0180 2004 yes no yes yes no yes yes

Mendham Borough $725,999.00 $0.0080 1999 yes yes yes yes no yes yes

Mendham Township $508,792.72 $0.0230 1995 yes yes no no no yes yes

Mine Hill Township $18,155.52 $0.0003 2001 yes no no no no yes no

Montville Township $907,056.01 $0.0380 1990 yes yes yes no no yes no

Morris Township $6,191,526.20 $0.0021 1993 yes yes yes no no yes yes

Morris Plains Borough

Morristown Town

Mountain Lakes Borough

Mount Arlington Borough

Mount Olive Township $116,723.08 $0.0200 1997 yes yes yes no no yes yes

Netcong Borough

Parsippany-Troy Hills Township $6,000,000.00 $0.0175 1989 yes yes yes yes no yes yes

Pequannock Township $1,000,000.00 $0.0060 2002 yes no yes no no yes yes

Randolph Township $818,398.31 $0.0280 1993 yes no yes no no yes yes

Riverdale Borough $136,926.65 $0.0100 2005 yes yes yes yes no yes yes

Rockaway Borough

Rockaway Township $1,619,693.55 $0.0075 1993 yes yes yes yes no yes yes

Roxbury Township $386,120.00 $0.0200 1994 yes yes yes no no yes yes

Victory Gardens Borough

Washington Township $402,442.19 $0.0127 1994 yes yes yes yes no yes no

Wharton Borough $16,214.12 $0.0150 1999 yes no yes no no no yes

Total $30,053,126.96

1. For conservation, recreation, and easements.

2. Source: Community Profile Forms provided by the municipalities as of December 31, 2013.

3. No Trust Fund, but the municipality has a separate dedicated funding source from Borough's annual budget (Ord. No. 2-06).

Bonds / Debt

Service

Historic

Preservation

Salaries /

Benefits

Allowable Trust Fund Uses

Municipality2

TF Balance2 Tax Rate Acquisitions

1Year

Implemented

Farmland

Preservation

Development /

ImprovementsMaintenance

I. Introduction



I. Introduction


E. Other Preserved Morris County Land

Substantial amounts of land in Morris County have been preserved by either the State of New Jersey of by the Federal Government. The total area of federally preserved land in Morris County is 9,233 acres, while the State owns 27,758 preserved acres.1 Another 36,455 acres have been preserved by Morris County municipalities, private individuals (easements), or other organizations. These lands, and those preserved through the Preservation Trust Fund are complementary and have collectively helped preserve 97,5902 acres in Morris County. The location of all preserved properties in the County is illustrated in Figure 7.

1 Not including properties receiving MCOSTF funding. 2 Numbers derived from Morris County Public Open Space Inventory (POSI).

I. Introduction


Figure 7: Morris County Preservation Trust Funded Properties

II. Outreach


II. Outreach

A. Introduction

As part of the effort to obtain information on local use of the Preservation Trust Fund and possible modifications, an outreach methodology was created at the onset of developing this report. As part of this outreach effort, a questionnaire was prepared for distribution to the various stakeholders who have had direct experience with the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund.

These questionnaires were sent to each of the 39 municipalities in Morris County, nine (9) land trust non-profits, and 27 historic preservation non-profits in December 20131. In-person interviews were also conducted with representatives of each of the 39 municipalities and the nine (9) land trust non-profits between January 6 and February 19, 2014.

The purpose of the interviews was to provide assistance and clarification to the stakeholders in completing the questionnaires and to assess municipal and non-profit needs and goals related to each applicable Trust Fund program. The interviews assisted the municipalities in the completion of a Municipal Community Profile detailing the local open space trust, if one had been established, and to identify plans and grants that had been completed by the community. The interviews were also used to review mapping data2 of preserved municipal lands.

Finalized questionnaires were signed by the Administrator or Mayor of each municipality or by the Executive Director for non-profits. Summaries of the interviews were also provided for review and approval by the municipalities.

B. Questionnaires

The summarized responses to the questions that municipalities and non-profits provided from their experience with the different programs within the Morris County Preservation Trust are outlined below.

1. Municipalities

Morris County’s 39 municipalities, all of which completed questionnaires are:

Boonton Town Mine Hill Township

Boonton Township Montville Township

Butler Borough Morris Plains Borough

Chatham Borough Morris Township

Chatham Township Morristown Town

Chester Borough Mount Arlington Borough

Chester Township Mount Olive Township

Denville Township Mountain Lakes Borough

Dover Town Netcong Borough

East Hanover Township Parsippany - Troy Hills Township

1 Non-profit questionnaires were modified to remove non-applicable sections concerning farmland and flood mitigation as appropriate.

2 For inclusion in the POSI.

II. Outreach


Florham Park Borough Pequannock Township

Hanover Township Randolph Township

Harding Township Riverdale Borough

Jefferson Township Rockaway Borough

Kinnelon Borough Rockaway Township

Lincoln Park Borough Roxbury Township

Long Hill Township Victory Gardens Borough

Madison Borough Washington Township

Mendham Borough Wharton Borough

Mendham Township

a. Municipal Open Space Trust Funds

The use of these funds has been trending toward maintenance and debt service on existing properties and the development of recreational facilities. Municipal trust funds currently have limited funds available for land acquisition, and most (83%) of the 29 municipalities with trust funds reported having no plans to make any changes to their open space funds.1

b. Farmland Preservation

Most municipalities (76% of respondents) reported that the minimum criteria for farmland preservation did not limit their participation; however, the four municipalities reporting limitations to their participation, including two currently without preserved farms, requested greater flexibility in minimum farm size (i.e. less than 10 acres).

Most municipalities2 (92%) with preserved farms responded that farmland preservation benefited their community by preserving rural character and providing economic benefits by reducing municipal costs associated with residential development.

c. Flood Mitigation Program

Eighteen (18) municipalities reported that they have areas that flood frequently with ten (10) reporting that they incur significant costs as a result of this flooding. Support was strong for covering demolition, legal, administrative, post-preservation improvements, and maintenance, with 73% of respondents supporting such changes to the program. When asked about changes they would like to see to the program, municipalities specifically requested funding for preventative measures such as home elevations, river dredging, and stormwater infrastructure.

To date, seven (7) municipalities have participated in the program. Increased public safety and a reduction of municipal costs were the benefits reported most frequently, with each mentioned four times.

1 The question asked about any changes; all but one answered regarding funding levels. That municipality was considering merging the fund with another. 2 14 municipalities have preserved farms.

II. Outreach


d. Historic Preservation

Thirty-five (35) of Morris County’s 39 municipalities (90%) stated that historic preservation was applicable to their community. Municipalities that have not participated in the program most frequently cited eligibility problems (e.g. private ownership) as the reason for non-participation. Others cited opposition to placing restrictions on the property. Few municipalities (13%) cited program criteria or rules as reasons for not participating.

Most municipalities (77%) stated that historic preservation had benefited their community. The most frequently cited benefits were improved community character and increased awareness of local history.1 Most municipalities (72%) have historic structures they believe should be preserved. Many municipalities (41%) cited difficulties with funding the ongoing maintenance and operations of historic sites.

e. Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority (MCMUA)

Twenty (20) municipalities2 (51%) reported having their own wells, but only 11 had wellhead protection areas surrounding those wells and had adopted a wellhead protection ordinance. Nine (9) municipalities acknowledged partnering with MCMUA in the Water Resource Protection and Preservation Program to acquire properties, although the MCMUA reported that they have partnered with 15 municipalities and several non-profits on projects in 18 different municipalities in Morris County.

According to the responses, the Morris County Preservation Trust has helped 13 municipalities preserve water quality, and 13 municipalities knew of properties that should be acquired to protect water resources.3 Municipalities said they would like to increase the scope of the program to cover post-preservation activities. More funding is also desired, as well as increased public awareness of water protection issues.

f. Morris County Park Commission (MCPC)

Eleven (11) municipalities (28%) reported meeting with the Park Commission on a regular basis; however, 16 of the remaining 28 affirmed a desire to do so. Fourteen (14) municipalities reported partnering with MCPC on the use of funds from their program to acquire open space, and these municipalities reported using acquired open space lands for trail development, passive recreation, and resource protection.

Forty-six percent (46%) of municipalities reported that their trail system connects with that of the Park Commission, and most municipalities (79%) reported a willingness to partner with the Park Commission to establish greater trail connectivity. Forty-nine percent (49%) of municipalities reported having a trails committee or trails plan. Additionally, 72% of municipalities would like to collaborate with MCPC on recreation-based capital projects.

1 Other examples of how preservation benefited communities are provided in Table 4. 2 Of 39 in Morris County. 3 Not the same 13 municipalities.

II. Outreach


Most municipal responses1 (64%) indicate a positive impact on property values due to the presence of nearby park facilities. All responding municipalities reported satisfaction with the County Parks in their community, and 12 municipalities claimed that improvements should be made to Park Commission lands to increase usage. Desired changes to the Preservation Trust, as seen in Table 4, included allowing Trust Fund grants to be used for recreational facility development2 (55% of respondents) and improvement costs.

g. Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Preservation Program (OSTF)

The top response municipalities gave as a reason for acquiring open space was for recreational fields and facilities (87%). Eighty-two percent (82%) cited natural resources protection, and 74% sought to prevent unwanted development. Sixty-two percent (62%) cited protection of scenic vistas, and fifty-six percent (56%) cited protection of water supplies.

Most municipalities (82%) have partnered with Morris County to acquire open space through this program. Community benefits from the program included: increased property values (64%), positive impact on businesses (24%), reduced municipal costs (36%), improved quality of life (68%), social opportunities (39%), and improved community fitness (39%).3 Lack of available land for sale was the most common reason municipal responders gave for not applying for funds, followed by limited amounts of desirable land remaining for preservation and lack of application opportunities.

Nearly two-thirds of municipalities (24, or 62%) have post-preservation plans for acquired open space properties that require additional funding and would like to have a mechanism to fund these improvements. By far, the most common post-preservation plan was for trail development (62%) with several responding municipalities identifying plans for field development (19%) and park improvements (50%).4

h. Additional Comments

Municipalities supported most of the possible modifications to use of the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund. Allowing the use of funds for post-preservation trails development and habitat restoration received the highest level of “strongly support” at 78% and 70%, respectively (see Table 5). Reallocation of unused funds from one Trust Fund to another also received a high level of support (67%).

1 38 municipalities volunteered responses about community benefits of open space. 2 22 municipalities volunteered responses about desired changes to open space funding and rules. 3 See Table 4. 4 29 municipalities volunteered responses stating post-preservation plans.

II. Outreach


Table 4: Open Ended Responses from Questionnaires

Municipalities

Historic

Preservation Non-

Profits

Land Trust Non-

Profits

Community Benefits from Open Space Acquisitions

Reduced Municipal Costs7

36%

Increase Property Values7,12

64% 100%

Improved Business Growth7

29%

Quality of Life7,12

68% 44%

Social Opportunities 7,12

39% 11%

Community Fitness/Recreation Opportunities7,12

39% 89%

Safety7,12,15

11% 33%

Desired Changes to Open Space Acquisitions

Increase Funding6,15

18% 56%

Allow Trail Construction6,15

14% 44%

Recreation Improvements/Stewardship/Maintenance6,15

55% 78%

Applications (Prioritize/Streamline/Increase Frequency)6

32%

Increase Awareness6

9%

Community Benefits from Historic Preservation

Bolster Character and Awareness of Local History5,8,13

63% 83% 60%

Improved Business Growth5,8,13

17% 50% 20%

Tourism5,8,13

33% 50% 20%

Desired Changes to the Historic Preservation Program

Increase Funding4,9

58% 20%

Maintenance/Improvement Costs/Signage4,9,14

21% 40% 22%

Increase Eligible Projects/Costs4,9,14

53% 75%

Increase Awareness4,9

21% 50%

Resource Sharing9

20%

Businesses that Benefit from Property Preservation

Restaurants3,11,16

50% 100% 33%

Hotels3,11

14% 43%

Gas Stations3,11

7% 57%

Shops3,11,16

21% 100% 67%

Revenue Generation on Preserved Properties

Event Hosting/Farm/Other Rentals2,10,17

91% 73% 100%

Concerts/Presentations10

27%

Tours10

13%

Merchandise2,10

9% 20%

Post-Preservation Plans

Trail Installation/Improvement1,18

62% 50%

Field Development1

19%

Park Improvements (Facilities/Parking/Signage)1,18

50% 88%

Maintenance1

15%

Historic Preservation1

15%

Invasive Species/Wildlife Management1,18

8% 25%

1. Municipalities - out of 26 respondents stating post-preservation plans

2. Municipalities - out of 11 responses of revenue generation

3. Municipalities - out of 14 respondents with business benefits

4. Municipalities - out of 19 respondents recommending historic preservation changes

5. Municipalities - out of 30 respondents with examples of community benefits of historic preservation

6. Municipalities - out of 22 respondents with recommending open space changes

7. Municipalities - out of 38 respondents with examples of community benefits of open space

8. HP Non-Profits - out of 24 respondents of community benefits of historic preservation

9. HP Non-Profits - out of 10 respondents recommending historic preservation changes

10. HP Non-Profits - out of 15 responses of revenue generation

11. HP Non-Profits - out of 7 respondents with business benefits

12. Land Trust Non-Profits- out of 9 respondents with examples of community benefits of open space

13. Land Trust Non-Profits - out of 5 respondents of community benefits of historic preservation

14. Land Trust Non-Profits - out of 4 respondents recommending historic preservation changes

15. Land Trust Non-Profit - out of 9 respondents with recommending open space changes

16. Land Trust Non-Profit - out of 3 respondents with business benefits

17. Land Trust Non-Profits - out of 3 responses of revenue generation

18. Land Trust Non-Profits - out of 8 respondents stating post-preservation plans

Open Ended Response

Percentage Volunteering Each Response

II. Outreach


Table 5: Potential Future Uses for Trust Fund

Responses indicated that businesses in 15 municipalities relied on preserved lands for sales; restaurants were the most cited as type of business benefiting (50% of respondents).1 Also, 11 municipalities reported that revenue was generated on preserved lands, and event hosting was the most frequent example with 91% of respondents citing such events. Nearly half (49%) of the municipalities believed that land preserved by the Trust Fund attracted visitors from outside of Morris County.

Finally, municipalities that wanted additional uses for the Trust Fund sought funding for recreation improvements, trails, mine collapse remediation, and awareness programs. Those opposed to the expanded use of funds were concerned about the reduced emphasis on open space and historic preservation needs and want to make sure the primary focus of the Trust Fund remains unchanged and that any additional uses utilize only a small percentage of funds.

2. Land Trust Non-Profits

The nine land trust non-profits that completed questionnaires are:

Canal Society of NJ

Harding Land Trust

The Land Conservancy of NJ

NJ Conservation Foundation

1 See Table 4.

Municipal-

ities

Land Non-

Profits

HP Non-

Profits2

Municipal-

ities

Land Non-

Profits

HP Non-

Profits2

Municipal-

ities

Land Non-

Profits

HP Non-

Profits2

20 2 8 3 4 2

63% 29% 25% 43% 13% 29%

24 5 12 2 2 1

63% 63% 32% 25% 5% 13%

26 6 8 3 3 0

70% 67% 22% 33% 8% 0%

29 8 7 1 1 0

78% 89% 19% 11% 3% 0%

20 4 12 2 4 2

56% 50% 33% 25% 11% 25%

24 3 6 2 5 2

69% 43% 17% 29% 14% 29%

Allow funding:

34 7 4 2 0 0

89% 78% 11% 22% 0% 0%

19 3 12 13 0 4 4 4 4

53% 43% 60% 36% 0% 20% 11% 57% 20%

26 3 9 3 2 2

70% 38% 24% 38% 5% 25%

1. Values represent the number of respondents for each potential use and percentages are calculated out of the total respondents.

2. Historic Preservation responses only recorded for the relevant use.

For infrastructure improvements such

as dam removal and repair, stream

restoration, wetlands mitigation and

storm water management

Allow funding for post-preservation

improvement projects:

To plan, design, and construct

recreational trails and bikeways

For Cultural and Heritage Tourism to

promote the use of parkland, agri-

tourism, and historic sites

Community Gardens

Field Development

Habitat Restoration

Trails Development

Allow funding for the management and

monitoring of open spaces

Allow use of the Flood Mitigation

portion for demolition and reclamation

Strongly Support1

Somewhat Support1

Do Not Support1

Potential Use

II. Outreach


NY-NJ Trail Conference

Passaic River Coalition

Protect our Wetlands, Water, Woods

Schiff Natural Lands Trust

Trust for Public Land

a. Organization Background

All of the land trust non-profits participated in the Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space program, while participation in other programs varied. Of the nine land trust non-profits, six (6) said that they maintained ownership of land, and seven (7) reported providing consulting services to municipalities. Land trusts provided consulting services in the form of program development, expertise, and technical services. They reported this collaboration improved implementation, community engagement, and helped renew funding. They also reported improved quality of life as a result of this collaboration. Seven organizations have lists of properties they would like to acquire, and four currently have active projects with Preservation Trust programs.

b. Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority (MCMUA)

Of the six (6) responding organizations, five (5) land trust non-profits have partnered with MCMUA to acquire properties, and all responding organizations believed that the Morris County Preservation Trust has helped preserve water quality and know of additional properties that should be preserved. Non-profits also expressed a desire for more opportunities for partnerships and resource sharing with the MCMUA.

c. Morris County Park Commission (MCPC)

Of the seven (7) responding, four (4) land trust non-profits have met regularly with MCPC, and two others reported a desire to do so. Five (5) of these non-profits have partnered with the Park Commission on the use of funds for trails, passive uses, and resource protection. All responding organizations wanted to partner with MCPC for trail connectivity and all properties that should be acquired for trail connectivity and to increase park usage.

d. Open Space Preservation Program (OSTF)

All non-profits cited natural resource and water supply protection as the top reasons to preserve open space. All but one acquired open space to prevent development, and seven sought to protect scenic vistas. In contrast to municipalities, only 33% desired open space for recreational fields and facilities.

All nine land trust non-profits partnered with Morris County in the use of this fund to acquire open space, and these non-profits cited many of the same benefits to their communities as provided by municipalities (Table 4). All land trust non-profits have post-preservation plans that require additional funding and all respondents1 said they would benefit from funding for these improvements.

1 8 of the 9 land trust non-profits responded to this question.

II. Outreach


e. Additional Comments

Land trust non-profits respondents were generally less supportive than the municipalities of potential future modifications to the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund (see Table 5); however, 89% strongly support the allowance of post-preservation funding for trails development. These non-profit organizations only reported significant opposition to the use of funding for cultural and heritage tourism (57% opposed).

Non-profit responses indicated that future acquisition would benefit the local economy, and all responding organizations1 stated that land preserved by the Trust Fund attracted visitors from outside of the county.

3. Historic Preservation Non-Profits

The 27 historic preservation non-profits that completed questionnaires are:

Ayres/Knuth Farm Foundation

Community of St. John Baptist

The Ferromonte Historical Society of Mine Hill

First Presbyterian Church Boonton

First Presbyterian Church of Hanover

The Growing Stage - The Children's Theatre of NJ

Historical Society of Rockaway Township (HSRT)

Ledgewood Baptist Church

Middle Valley Community Center

Morristown Chapter, Daughters of the American Revolution Schuyler- Hamilton House

Mount Tabor Historical Society

Museum of Early Trades & Crafts

Pequannock Historic District Commission

Presbyterian Church in Morristown

Presbyterian Church of Madison

Ralston Cider Mill Museum

South Street Theater Company

St. Peter's Episcopal Church

Montville Township Historical Society

Morris County Historical Society at Acorn Hall

Morris County Tourism Bureau

The Morristown & Morris Township Library

Stickley Museum at Craftsman Farms

Washington Township Historical Society

Washington Township Land Trust of Morris County, Inc.

Whippany Railway Museum

The Woman's Club of Morristown

a. Organization Background

Of the 27 historic preservation non-profits, 16 said that they maintained ownership of land, and three reported providing consulting services to municipalities in the form of information and administration services. These non-profits reported an improved focus on historic preservation efforts and increased public awareness of local history as a result of this collaboration.

b. Historic Preservation Program

Sixteen (16) organizations (59%) have structures that they would like to preserve and 14 currently have active projects. Additionally, 78% of these non-profits have seen an increase in local tourism as a result of historic preservation.

1 8 of the 9 land trust non-profits responded to this question.

II. Outreach


Only three (3) historic preservation non-profits claimed that the eligibility criteria or program rules for the Historic Preservation Program limited their use of the funds. All of the organizations reported that their historic preservation efforts benefited the community, with 83% finding it bolstered community character and awareness of local history.1 Improved business growth and tourism were each mentioned by five organizations.

c. Additional Comments

The respondents for the historic preservation organizations were supportive of the use of funding for cultural and heritage tourism (60% strongly support).2 Many historic preservation non-profits (54% of respondents)3 found that projects funded through the Trust Fund held regular revenue-generating events, and a large majority of respondents4 (74%) said that their preserved properties attracted visitors from outside of the County.

C. Summary of Outreach

The results of the returned questionnaires were analyzed and compiled into a report which is included in Appendix D. The responses to the open-ended questions were compiled into a single document which is included in Appendix E.

1 See additional open-ended comments in Table 4. 2 See Table 5. 3 24 of 27 HP non-profits responded. 4 19 of 27 HP non-profits responded.

II. Outreach



III. Preserved Land Database and Mapping



A. Public Open Space Inventory (POSI) Schema

The New Jersey Geospatial Forum established a detailed “Schema”, or database, as a new standard to be used throughout the State. Morris County is the first County in New Jersey to take advantage of this format. The detailed format of the POSI is included in Appendix C.

B. Database Verification Process and Results

The University of Kentucky Cartography and GIS Lab (UK-GIS) reviewed the database/GIS information. They began the editing process by creating a topology rule to identify duplicate, overlapping properties. Duplicate records were reviewed to preserve all useful information before the extra record was removed. Basic edits were made to reflect a parcel’s participation in the various grant programs.

The Consultants requested Recreation and Open Space Inventories (ROSI) from each municipality. During the interview process, printed copies of the POSI Schema and maps were provided to the municipalities. The municipalities and non-profits were requested to verify the accuracy of this information, and UK-GIS made edits based on this information. If no ROSI was provided, the municipality’s listing on the Green Acres website was used as a proxy and was duly noted as such.

UK-GIS also utilized data supplied by NJ-DEP Green Acres, NJ Conservation Foundation, Schiff Natural Lands Trust, the Trust for Public Land, Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority, Morris County Park Commission, and the programs within the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund. This process led to the development of a much more accurate database and maps of the preserved properties in the County. This data, along with the Mod IV Tax Records, was then used by Commonwealth Economics in their Economic Analysis efforts.

IV. Current Preserved Lands and Facilities



The following is an analysis of properties acquired and projects funded to date by each of the programs of the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund. Trust Fund statistics are derived from a number of sources. The Morris County POSI is used for acreage values for the Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Preservation, MCMUA, and Morris County Park Commission Land Acquisition programs. Farmland acreage is based on Net Preserved acreage as provided by the Easement Values table.1 The County Cost amounts are current as of May 31, 2014 and are derived from data provided by the Program Managers. Table 6 displays these program totals by municipality and Preservation Trust Fund Program. The total for properties, acreage, and County cost are located at the bottom of the table. The figures outlined in this table are described in detail in the following sections.

A. Overview of Trust Fund Programs

The oldest and most active program is the Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Preservation program with 228 projects, 11,731 acres and over $176 million in grants awarded. The average cost per acre for acquisitions in this program is $15,050, as shown in Table 7.

Farmland Preservation is the second most active program with 125 properties, 7,709 acres and over $71 million in grants awarded. The average cost to the County per acre of farmland is $9,260. Fourteen municipalities have participated in the Farmland Preservation Program with the majority of easements acquired in Washington and Chester Townships (4,894 and 1,492 acres respectively).

Due to their more recent establishment or lower allocation rates, the expenditures for three other programs are significantly lower at just over $20 million for the Historic Preservation Program (created by a 2002 referendum), approximately $20 million for the MCMUA Program (5% allocation), and $16.5 million (encumbered) for the Flood Mitigation Program (launched in 2012).

The Historic Preservation Program has funded a total of 80 sites in 32 of the 39 municipalities with an average grant award of $78,1522 per site/resource. Participating municipalities have between one and five projects, except for Morristown with fourteen. Due to the phased nature of historic preservation, most of these projects have only been partially realized and need additional funds in the future for completion. To date, nine projects have been fully completed per the recommendations of their Preservation Plans at an average, cumulative funding cost of $428,116.3 Any of the completed projects may return in the future to seek additional Trust Fund assistance.

The Flood Mitigation Program (FMP) has completed 43 projects for a total of $3.64 million, giving the program an average acquisition cost of $84,105. Projects have taken place in seven (7) municipalities, and three (3) additional municipalities have requested Flood Acquisition Plans, a required pre-cursor to FMP CORE applications.

A total of 117 homes have been granted funds through the program, including the 43 that have closed.

1 Easement Values Table prepared by MCADB. 2 From Historic Preservation Database maintained by Morris County staff. 3 Derived from Historic Preservation Cost Analysis Table prepared by Morris County staff.



Table 6: Previous Projects Funded through the Preservation Trust Fund

Projects2

Acres3 County Cost Properties

2Acres

4 County Cost Projects2 County Cost Properties County Cost Projects

2Acres

7 County Cost Parks2

Acres8

County Cost9 Acres Percentage County Cost

Boonton Town 1,592 2 3 $1,150,000 3 $732,354 2 $528,710 3 0.2% $2,411,064

Boonton Township 5,428 10 290 $10,098,000 3 141 $1,574,575 1 $729,139 2 $450,000 2 267 $4,366,000 697 12.8% $17,217,714

Butler Borough 1,318 3 23 $888,319 1 $543,720 23 1.8% $1,432,039

Chatham Borough 1,533 2 50 $375,000 50 3.3% $375,000

Chatham Township 5,984 7 63 $3,781,000 1 219 $24,795,500 282 4.7% $28,576,500

Chester Borough 1,019 3 105 $6,015,140 1 53 $873,075 1 $15,280 159 15.6% $6,903,495Chester Township 18,701 7 748 $11,869,890 20 1,492 $19,276,958 1 $100,000 1 36 $400,000 2 253 $4,418,000 2,528 13.5% $36,064,848

Denville Township 8,162 22 478 $7,441,000 1 20 $438,454 1 $154,887 11 $1,781,000 1 $750,000 2 460 $2,338,000 959 11.7% $12,903,341

Dover Town 1,746 4 43 $1,228,500 1 $505,175 43 2.5% $1,733,675

East Hanover Township 5,180 3 17 $1,831,500 1 $648,000 1 7 $44,500 24 0.5% $2,524,000

Florham Park Borough 4,833 3 14 $2,712,500 2 $121,266 1 $100,000 14 0.3% $2,933,766

Hanover Township 6,878 5 238 $1,903,750 2 $107,820 1 7 $105,000 245 3.6% $2,116,570

Harding Township 13,162 10 244 $9,763,500 8 276 $11,488,997 2 $840,105 2 $400,000 1 E10

$75,000 520 4.0% $22,567,602

Jefferson Township 27,365 18 1,126 $6,332,500 2 12 $177,800 3 100 $1,065,000 1,238 4.5% $7,575,300

Kinnelon Borough 12,295 3 177 $1,942,500 1 $242,944 2 $300,000 4 1,361 $7,819,527 1,538 12.5% $10,304,971

Lincoln Park Borough 4,426 2 77 $2,177,836 35 $5,035,093 77 1.7% $7,212,929

Long Hill Township 7,701 2 21 $460,000 1 54 $732,055 1 $433,187 14 $3,047,472 1 12 $85,000 86 1.1% $4,757,714

Madison Borough 2,714 5 65 $10,200,000 5 $1,209,848 1 25 $2,038,262 90 3.3% $13,448,110

Mendham Borough 3,827 3 97 $5,210,000 2 60 $802,137 2 $105,000 1 3 $300,000 160 4.2% $6,417,137

Mendham Township 11,534 14 1,282 $16,802,333 5 174 $2,853,351 2 $2,077,266 4 115 $368,000 1 71 $1,000,000 1,642 14.2% $23,100,950

Mine Hill Township 1,927 2 244 $6,250,000 1 $62,330 5 75 $3,230,000 8 $600,000 327 17.0% $10,142,330

Montville Township 12,233 7 357 $7,710,000 1 27 $304,893 3 $541,686 1 157 $2,479,857 541 4.4% $11,036,436

Morris Plains Borough 1,657 5 12 $1,078,600 12 0.7% $1,078,600

Morris Township 10,120 6 106 $8,026,000 4 $287,938 3 30 $1,606,510 2 180 $1,924,294 317 3.1% $11,844,742

Morristown Town 1,923 6 15 $3,341,500 14 $3,983,281 15 0.8% $7,324,781

Mount Arlington Borough 1,783 1 3 $1,645,000 3 0.1% $1,645,000

Mount Olive Township 20,031 9 1,808 $9,929,050 4 206 $1,573,236 5 $697,413 8 45 $1,468,256 1 22 $25,000 2,082 10.4% $13,692,955

Mountain Lakes Borough 1,861 1 $277,000 $277,000

Netcong Borough 568 1 22 $500,000 2 $550,121 22 3.8% $1,050,121

Parsippany - Troy Hills Township 16,216 9 89 $6,065,750 5 $1,367,362 29 $2,371,456 89 0.5% $9,804,568

Pequannock Township 4,535 8 17 $2,953,280 2 $585,520 19 $2,370,788 1 26 $1,256,663 43 1.0% $7,166,251

Randolph Township 13,537 12 1,079 $5,168,476 3 147 $2,216,649 1 $49,980 7 465 $4,106,865 1 22 $681,000 1,712 12.6% $12,222,970

Riverdale Borough 1,319 2 7 $1,265,000 1 $1,062,739 7 $1,320,000 7 0.5% $3,647,739

Rockaway Borough 1,357 2 42 $1,225,000 2 $38,880 2 $240,000 42 3.1% $1,503,880

Rockaway Township 29,405 9 1,292 $7,400,000 1 88 $1,052,280 2 $947,208 5 $160,000 5 163 $4,390,000 1,543 5.2% $13,949,488

Roxbury Township 14,018 12 799 $8,242,884 5 $609,340 9 266 $4,834,450 1,065 7.6% $13,686,674

Victory Gardens Borough 93

Washington Township 28,676 9 617 $6,505,363 73 4,894 $26,020,594 4 $194,167 2 67 $378,700 2 193 $1,079,038 5,772 20.1% $34,177,862

Wharton Borough 1,362 3 139 $888,493 1 $435,346 1 1 $500,000 1 36 $524,000 176 12.9% $2,347,839

Municipality Total1 308,019 228 11,731 $176,554,828 125 7,709 $71,385,088 80 $20,256,302 117 $16,454,519 47 1,114 $19,770,581 24 3,590 $62,754,641 24,144 7.8% $367,175,959

Morris County Park Commission

MCPC Park Improvements11

$24,447,170

Morris County Total 308,019 228 11,731 $176,554,828 125 7,709 $71,385,088 80 $20,256,302 117 $16,454,519 47 1,114 $19,770,581 24 3,590 $62,754,641 24,144 7.8% $391,623,128


3. Municipal/Non-Profit acreage totals are derived from Morris County Public Open Space Inventory (POSI).

4. Farmland Preservation totals are derived Easement Values sheet prepared by MCADB. Acreage reflects Net Preserved acreage rather than GIS measurements.

5. Historic Preservation totals are derived from Historic Preservation Cost Analysis table prepared by MC staff.



8. Morris County Park Commission totals are derived from Morris County POSI.

9. From unaudited report of Park Commission Land Acquisition projects.

10. MCPC funded easement purchase of property but did not maintain ownership.

11. MCPC Park Improvement Trust totals are derived from PIT Allocation/Disbursement table prepared by MCPC staff.

2. These values represent the number of preserved properties/projects/parks located entirely or partially within a municipality, and do not necessarily correspond to the applicantto the program. Non-profit projects are included in this total. Some projects are located in more than one municipality. Projects may contain multiple

properties/parcels and may extend beyond municipal boundaries.

Morris County Park Commission Land

AcquisitionMunicipalityTown Size

(Acres)

Morris County Preservation Trust TotalMunicipal/Non-Profit Open Space

PreservationFarmland Preservation Historic Preservation

5Flood Mitigation Program

6 Morris County Municipal Utilities

Authority



Table 7: Average Costs for Previously Funded Projects

The MCMUA Program has funded 47 different projects, many of which were partnerships with the Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Program or the MCPC Land Acquisition program. The program has preserved 1,114 unique acres or 3,151 acres including partnership in 18 municipalities, helping to protect the water resources of Morris County.

Since 1994, the Morris County Park Commission Land Acquisition program has funded land preservation projects in 22 of the County’s 39 municipalities at a total land value cost of $62.8 million. These acquisitions have yielded a total of 3,590 acres of fee simple ownership, conservation easements, and trail easements and an average County cost of $17,480 per acre. These projects have helped connect trails and expand 24 of the County parks in Morris County. A map of existing regional trails for which the MCPC has a stewardship role can be seen in Figure 8, and Figure 9 shows these trails overlaid on lands under the Park Commission’s stewardship responsibility. This second map demonstrates how acquisitions by the MCPC Land Acquisition program have helped trail connectivity in Morris County.

Per Project2 Per Acre

Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space3 $774,363 $15,050

Farmland Preservation4 $571,081 $9,260

Historic Preservation5 $253,204

Flood Mitigation6 $84,105

Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority7 $420,651 $17,744

Morris County Park Commission Land Acquisition8 $674,781 $17,480

Total9 $532,139 $13,687


3. Municipal/Non-Profit totals are derived from Morris County POSI.

5. Historic Preservation totals are derived from Historic Preservation Cost Analysis table prepared by MC staff.



County CostPreservation Trust Fund Program

1

2. These values represent the per property/project cost, depending on program. Projects may contain multiple

properties/parcels and may extend beyond municipal boundaries.

4. Farmland Preservation totals are derived Easement Values sheet prepared by MCADB. Acreage reflects Net

Preserved acreage rather than GIS measurements.

8. MCPC Land Acquisition totals are derived from Morris County POSI. County Cost from report of Park

Commission Land Acquisition projects.

9. Total Per Project County Cost calculated by dividing total expenditures (not including PIT because project

numbers were not reported) by the total number of projects. Total Per Acre County Cost calculated by dividing

total acres by costs of land acquiring programs (Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space, Farmland Preservation,

MCMUA, and MCPC Land Acquisition).



Figure 8: Existing Regional Trails



Figure 9: MCPC Land & Regional Trails



The Morris County Park Commission Park Improvement Trust (PIT), established in 1998, has funded approximately $24.5 million in improvements to County parks in its 15 years (1999-2013). Without the Preservation Trust Fund allocation, these improvements would have had to be funded through the County Capital Budget.

B. Total Trust Fund Expenditures

The total expenditures to date1 for the seven programs of the Preservation Trust Fund are $391.6 million to preserve 24,144 acres of land, restore 80 historic sites, acquire 117 flood-prone homes, and fund numerous park improvement projects. An additional $94 million2 worth of funds was raised in conjunction with these funds from other sources, primarily from State Agriculture Development Committee (SADC), and FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). Preservation Trust Fund projects have occurred in 38 of Morris County’s 39 municipalities, and the Preservation Trust Fund has preserved nearly 8% of the total land in the County.

1 As of May 31, 2014. 2 This total only includes matching funds from the Farmland and Flood Mitigation Programs. The Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space program also receives matching funds (although not required) as does the Historic Preservation program (20% match) which are not included in this total.

V. Economic Impact Analysis



A. Executive Summary of Economic Impacts

This report concludes, utilizing a statistical model, that land preserved through the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund has a significant and positive impact on home property values on average, all else held constant.

A 1% increase in the number of preserved acres in a given Morris County zip code will increase home property values by $1.50 per square foot in that zip code, on average, all else constant, as shown in the regression analysis performed as a part of this study.

The preservation efforts of the Preservation Trust Fund have had a positive budgetary impact on Morris County and its municipalities. It has been estimated that there is more than $18 million in positive and direct budgetary impact each year to Morris County and its municipalities as a result of the Preservation Trust Fund.

Data and relevant studies provide evidence that the Preservation Trust Fund has a positive impact on the economy of Morris County by preserving open space, farmland, and historic attractions that draw thousands of visitors each year.

Parcels preserved through the Preservation Trust Fund assist in driving tourism to peak levels in Morris County. Tourism in Morris County has been estimated to generate spending of $1.95 billion and employ over 21,000 people annually.

In 2013, Morris County led the state of New Jersey with 6.9% year-over-year growth in tourism direct sales, generating 4.4% growth in tourism employment.

Morris County ranked first in quality of life throughout all of New Jersey, according to the Garden State Quality of Life study. It is safe to conclude that the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund has played a key role in building and maintaining this scenic, appealing, and healthy environment for its residents, businesses, and tourists.

Utilizing FEMA’s cost-benefit analysis computer model, Morris County’s Flood Mitigation Program has generated an estimated $23.2 million in benefits from the $3.6 million in grant funds provided by the Preservation Trust Fund for a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of 7.33 ($7.33 in benefits for every $1.00 invested). Pending projects have an estimated overall BCR of 4.67.

Availability of open space often weighs into the quantitative and qualitative decision making process when a business is deciding where to locate or relocate its operations.

Revenue enterprises occurring on lands preserved through the Preservation Trust Fund often generate revenue and provide direct employment to members of the community (i.e. tour guides, farming jobs, concessions, security and maintenance, etc.).

The Preservation Trust Fund’s investment in farmland has a positive economic impact on the local economy as it maintains local farm activity that otherwise would not be feasible. The ability of farmers to continue operating allows for dollars to circulate through the local economy in many ways, including; localizing food purchases, employing farming staff, attracting agri-tourists, etc.

Conservation lands provide benefits to both the environment and human health. These benefits include: improvement in air and water quality, healthier and increased biodiversity in terrestrial and aquatic habitats, cooler air temperatures in the summer, reduction of greenhouse gases, habitat protection, noise reduction, sediment and erosion reduction, and water resource protection.



As the population of Morris County continues to grow, it will be increasingly important that natural resource areas, especially drinking water resources, are properly protected in order to keep treatment costs down and the water supply sufficient. It is estimated that every 10 percent increase in forest cover in a water resource area (up to 60 percent forest cover) results in an approximately 20 percent decrease in treatment and chemical costs for potable drinking water.

B. Impacts on Nearby Property Values

Preserved space is defined herein as open space, parks, historic sites, flood mitigation properties, and farmland parcels preserved through both state and county programs. According to the updated Morris County Public Open Space Inventory (POSI) data, Morris County has over 97,500 acres of preserved space, spread over approximately 3,449 parcels of land. Funding from the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund (PTF) has helped preserve 24,144 of these acres, or approximately 24.7% of all preserved land in Morris County.

There is a robust literature base supporting the idea that preserved space has a positive impact on the values of nearby properties. This section of the report uses a statistical model to estimate the impact that preserved space in Morris County has on property values. The results show that the preserved space in Morris County, including those acres preserved through the Preservation Trust Fund, has a positive impact on property values.

1. Relevant Studies and Research

The Trust for Public Land (2007) concludes that proximity to open space positively impacts the value of a home. This is known as the ’proximate principal’, which states that the market values of properties located near a park or open space are frequently higher than those of comparable properties elsewhere. In turn, the study finds that the higher property values near open space increases the aggregate amount of property tax received by the municipality.

The study’s results also show that being within 1,500 feet of open space or natural park area accounts for 16% of a home’s sale price on average, holding all other factors constant. Ultimately, the study finds that open space and parks have a positive impact on home property values and therefore, increases gross property tax receipts.

Another study, by Montgomery and Lahr (2005), explains that housing prices in the state of New Jersey are positively impacted by historic preservation. The study uses a statistical methodology in order to understand the impact of preservation activities on municipal-level housing prices and tax bases over time, while controlling for other factors. The study uses data for the years 1990-2005, when various programs in the state of New Jersey were established and/or expanded to promote historic preservation.

The study concludes that historic preservation, among other factors, had driven a 36% increase in housing prices over the time period. The results revealed that municipalities with higher historic preservation ratings experience greater increases in housing prices, all else equal. Based on these results, the study concludes that municipalities can benefit from using historic preservation as a value-enhancing tool for local economic development.



2. Available Data

Building on the body of work of the studies above, this report uses an econometric analysis to estimate the effect of preserved space on home property values in Morris County, New Jersey. In order to perform this analysis, several steps were taken to collect and identify the proper data.

Data for this section comes from various sources, including: updated Morris County POSI data, US Census data, and home sales databases. The following zip code specific data, ranging from acreage data to demographics, is presented in the data set:

Land Square Miles per zip code Water Square Miles per zip code Total Acres Preserved Acres Population Driving Distance to New York City (NYC) Median Household Income 2014 Home Sale Price per Square Foot (P/SQFT)

The data set is very useful for this study, as it provides a uniform basis to estimate the impact that preserved land has on Morris County property values. This section is particularly interested in how P/SQFT changes as the amount of preserved acres increases.

(For the complete sources, data steps, variable definitions, and data set, please see Appendix F.)

3. Summary of Findings

Using computer software, a statistical analysis has been performed in order to estimate the impact that several factors have on home prices in Morris County, particularly the percentage of preserved land within a zip code. The details of this analysis can be found in Appendix F.

a. Interpreting the Results

The analysis and calculations attempt to estimate the amount of change in a home’s price due to the percentage of preserved land comprising a given zip code. The results indicate that for every percentage increase in the preserved acreage in a Morris County zip code, the price per square foot of each house in that zip code would increase by $1.50, all else held constant.

For an example of how to interpret this result, please see the data for zip code 07082 in Table 8.

Table 8: Zip Code 07082

The amount of preserved acreage in zip code 07082 is currently calculated to be 20.98% of the total land acreage in the zip code (“Land Acres” divided by “Preserved Acres”). This value is the “Preserved Ratio” shown in Table 8. Table



8 also shows that the average price per square foot of homes in the zip code was calculated to be $168 per square foot.

The results of this analysis state that if the percentage of preserved acreage within zip code 07082 were to increase from 20.98% to 21.98%, then the average price per square foot of homes within the zip code would increase from $168 to $169.50, all else held constant.

In terms of raw acreage, 811 of the 3,866 land acres are currently preserved in zip code 07082. To increase the percentage of preserved land to 21.98%, 38.66 more acres would need to be preserved within 07082. The regression results suggest that the preservation of these 38.66 additional acres would increase the price per square foot of all homes in the zip code by $1.50, all else held constant. Each of the other 31 zip codes included in the data set can be approached with this same interpretation. (See Appendix F)

b. Conclusion

The analysis presented in this section is an attempt to quantify the impact that preserved acreage has on property values in Morris County. This analysis concludes that preserved acreage, such as that preserved through the support of the Preservation Trust Fund, has a significant positive impact on property values in Morris County, New Jersey.

Further, this report estimates that for every zip code in the data set, increasing the percentage of preserved acres in a given Morris County zip code by one percent will increase all home property values in that zip code by $1.50 per square foot, on average, all else held constant. Based on these results, it is clear that preserving more land in Morris County would increase property values.

C. Impacts on Municipal Budgets and Resources

In general, municipal budgets are impacted by numerous economic and social factors. Morris County, and its municipalities are no different than many others in this regard. The County’s 2013 budget of $336 million in Current Fund expenditures includes expenditures on Public Safety, Public Works, Health and Human Services, Education and Utilities, as well as retirement benefits and the cost of bond debt service.

At the county level, as is the case in most municipalities, nearly two-thirds of the budgeted expenditures are paid for by general-purpose taxes levied each year on the Net Taxable Valuation (NTV) of real property and improvements within the county. According to the 2013 Morris County Ratables, approximately $218 million of general-purpose county taxes were levied based on the NTV, while over $460 million of local municipal and library taxes were levied on the NTV in addition to the county tax. Additionally, nearly $1.2 billion of school taxes were levied to fund the district and consolidated school systems across the county.

Many of the costs funded through these taxes are a function of population density and location, as residents of the community need different types of services and infrastructure to live healthy and productive lifestyles. The business community also requires these tax revenues in order to maintain an educated and productive workforce, as well as to provide the needed infrastructure to effectively produce and deliver many types of goods and services to the community.



This section examines the budgetary impacts of preserved open space, historic sites, and farmland in Morris County.


Several studies1 analyze the governmental revenue and cost impacts of various uses of land within the boundaries of a municipal government. One such study, by the American Farmland Trust (2006) utilizes 1998 New Jersey data. The study focuses on three types of land use and the relative cost to the government for every one dollar of tax revenue generated by each type of use.

The properties are broken down into the following categories:

Residential, including farm houses Commercial and Industrial Open Space and Farmland

Across the various municipalities studied in New Jersey, the study finds that for every $1 of tax revenue generated by a given land use, the average cost to the municipal government is as follows:

$1.30 for residential property $0.24 for commercial and industrial property $0.45 for open space and farmland

This means that, in general, residential property costs $0.30 more in government services than the tax revenues received from the property. On the other hand, commercial and industrial property and open space and farmland, generate more in tax revenues than the required government service costs that are associated with that property.

2. Available Data

The activities of the Preservation Trust Fund affect the land uses that occur within the County. Based on the different direct budgetary impacts of various land uses as shown by the American Farmland Trust, it can be assumed that the Preservation Trust Fund’s impact on the ratio of the various land uses in the County will also impact the County budget. In other words, if land is preserved rather than developed as residential property, it is likely to have a positive budgetary impact to the County because residential property costs the County $0.30 more than the tax revenues it brings in, while open space brings in $0.55 more in tax revenues than it costs the County in necessary services.

In order to estimate the extent to which the Preservation Trust Fund’s impact on land use directly affects the Morris County budget, this section estimates the amount of land used by category in absence of the Preservation Trust Fund, estimates the revenues associated with these alternate uses, and estimates the costs or savings associated with each use based on the ratios shown in the previous section.

1 “Understanding Economic Change in Your Community” by the Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences (1998), Julia Freedgood’s “Cost of Community Services Studies: Making the Case for Conservation” (2002), Penn State’s “Fiscal Impacts of Different Land Uses” (1997), Montgomery County Lands Trust “Saving Land Saves Money” (2002), American Farmland Trust’s “Fact Sheet: Cost of Community Services Studies”(2006).



The Morris County Planning Board’s “State of the County Report” (2013) categorizes land uses throughout the County. While this land use overview categorizes the County’s land into eight distinct uses, this report combines Vacant & Farm and Public & Transportation for calculation purposes, as illustrated by Figure 10.

Figure 10: Morris County Land Use by Category

The county’s 2013 State of the County report only presents the categorized land use in terms of percentages and does not show the underlying number of acres. Since the total number of acres in Morris County is shown in the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (“SCORP) report (2013) as being 307,852, the categorical use percentages are multiplied by the total number of acres to estimate the number of acres by use, as shown in Table 9.

Table 9: Land Use in Acres1

Based on Morris County’s Annual Financial Statements (2013), the NTV for 2013 was just under $79.1 billion. The average per acre assessment by category are then

1 Figures approximate due to rounding. Excludes unmatched parcels.

Vacant & Farm,

17.3%

Residential,

33.5%

Commercial,

4.9%

Public &

Transportation,

16.5%

Parks and

Open Space,

25.3%

Industrial, 2.5%

Land Use % of County Acres

Residential 33.5% 103,130

Vacant & Farm 17.3% 53,258

Commercial 4.9% 15,085

Industrial 2.5% 7,696

Public & Transportation 16.5% 50,796

Parks & Open Space 25.3% 77,887

100.0% 307,852



estimated using 2013 NTV and the breakdown of property assessment records in the State of the County Report (2013), the results of which are displayed in Table 10.

Table 10: Assessed Value per Acre

According to the County’s Annual Budget (2014), approximately 22,000 acres had been preserved through the County’s Preservation Trust Fund at the time. In order to estimate the land use that might occur on this land in the absence of preservation, this study assumes that these preserved acres would be developed proportionately based on the other types of non-Public uses in Morris County (excluding Open Space), as shown in Table 11.

Table 11: Alternate Use of Preserved Acreage

The per-acre assessment value from Table 10 is then multiplied by the estimated acreage by use “in absence of preservation” from Table 11 in order to calculate the theoretical additional tax assessment for each type of use, which is shown in Table 12.

Table 12: Theoretical Additional Assessment (Gross Figures)


In order to determine the incremental budgetary savings/(cost) for each type of use across the various tax types within the County, the estimated theoretical additional assessment by category of land use is used as the value basis to which the various tax rates would be applied. The estimated savings/(costs) exclude open space taxes levied by the County and municipalities. By summing the estimated budgetary

Land Use 2013 Assessment/Acre

Residential 605,061$

Vacant & Farm 38,164$

Commercial 772,278$

Industrial 390,491$

Public & Transportation -$

Parks & Open Space -$

Land Use Distribution of Preserved Acreage

Residential 12,447

Vacant & Farm 6,428

Commercial 1,821

Industrial 929

Public & Transportation -

Parks & Open Space -

Land Use Additional Assessment

Residential 7,531,426,941$

Vacant & Farm 245,320,244$

Commercial 1,406,057,273$

Industrial 362,730,322$

Public & Transportation -$

Parks & Open Space -$



impacts, this analysis can estimate the total budgetary savings resulting from the preserved land.1

An average of the County tax rates levied on all municipalities in 2013 ($0.271 per $100) is then used to estimate the tax revenues, which are then multiplied by the per dollar of revenue cost ratios in order to estimate the incremental annual budgetary savings/(cost) to the County attributable to land preservation that has been funded using the Preservation Trust Fund, as shown in Table 13.

Table 13: Annual County Budget Savings due to Preservation Trust Fund

Using an average of the municipal and library tax rates levied on all Morris County municipalities in 2013 ($0.626 per $100), Table 14 presents the incremental annual budgetary savings/(costs) to the collective municipalities attributable to the land preserved through the Preservation Trust Fund.

Table 14: Annual Municipal Budget Savings due to Preservation Trust Fund

Using an average of the school tax rates levied on all school districts in 2013 ($1.456 per $100), Table 15 presents the incremental annual budgetary savings/(costs) to the collective school districts attributable to the land preserved through the Preservation Trust Fund.

Table 15: Annual School District Budget Savings due to Preservation Trust Fund

As shown in Table 16, the collective estimated annual budgetary savings directly attributable to land that has been preserved using the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund is estimated to be approximately $18 million per year.

1 The estimates also do not take into account county equalization or other adjustments.

Land Use County Budget Savings

Residential 6,123,050$

Vacant & Farm (365,650)$

Commercial (2,895,916)$

Industrial (747,079)$

Total 2,114,405$

Land Use Municipal Budget Savings


Vacant & Farm (844,638)$


Industrial (1,725,726)$

Total 4,884,198$

Land Use School Budget Savings


Vacant & Farm (1,964,525)$



Total 11,360,052$



Table 16: Total Budget Savings

4. Conclusion

The efforts of the Preservation Trust Fund have a positive budgetary impact to Morris County and its municipalities. This analysis shows that there is likely more than $18 million in positive and direct budgetary impact each year to Morris County and its municipalities as a result of the Preservation Trust Fund.

In addition to the direct budgetary impact, there are also indirect budgetary impacts to the county, municipal, and school budgets attributable to the Preservation Trust Fund. As was discussed in the previous section, there is a high likelihood that preservation of open space positively impacts the average price per square foot of housing located near preserved areas. This finding suggests that the lands preserved through the Preservation Trust Fund have positively impacted the value of real property within the County, which equates to more annual tax revenue for the County, the municipalities, and the school districts.

D. Impacts from Trust Fund-Generated Destination Traffic and Tourism

Located in the northern part of New Jersey, Morris County is easily accessible for outside visitors. It is less than 60 miles driving distance from three major airports – LaGuardia, Newark, and John F. Kennedy – and conveniently located roughly 35 miles from New York City, NY and approximately 80 miles from Philadelphia, PA. Proximity to highly populated cities and easy access from major transportation hubs creates a large potential visitor base for Morris County. This is a great advantage for the County.

Destination traffic and tourism is an integral part of many state, county, and local economies. The positive affect tourism has on the economy is validated by numerous studies. Historic sites and open spaces, such as those preserved through the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund, serve as an attraction to both citizens and visitors from nearby and distant locations. As these visitors travel to and from the attractions, they stimulate the local economy by spending dollars at hotels, retail shops, restaurants, gas stations, and more.

It is important to realize that tourism activity does not only mean additional revenues, but it also creates additional jobs in the local economy. Further, the revenues created and jobs supported by direct tourism activities have an economic multiplier effect, where the money earned by these employees is then deployed in the economy as they purchase goods and services, increasing tourism’s impact on the local economy through indirect stimulation. Based on Morris County’s proximity to a large amount of potential tourists and the many positive economic impacts that tourism has on a local economy, it is clear that the properties preserved by the Preservation Trust Fund are an important part of the local economy.

Land Use Total Budget Savings


Vacant & Farm (3,174,812)$



Total 18,358,656$




Tourism in New Jersey is a substantial and growing driver of the State economy, exhibiting a growing visitor base, a positive impact on state revenues, and a large contribution to the State’s overall workforce. A study by Tourism Economics (2013) highlights several key statistics that are used to understand the scope and scale of tourism’s impact on Morris County. Since 2009, visitation to New Jersey has grown at an annual rate of 5.79%, amounting to 87.2 million visitors in 2013. Visitors have contributed to outstanding revenue growth and employment opportunities for the state. The report also estimates the impact of tourism on sales and the economy. As shown in Figure 11, 2013 tourism industry sales in New Jersey reached $38.3 billion.

Figure 11: New Jersey Tourism Industry Sales (in millions)

In another 2013 report, Dr. Brian Tyrell of Travel and Tourism Research and Training Associates exhibits that tourism sales impact a wide variety of industries across the state of New Jersey. Table 17 illustrates that the lodging, food & beverage, retail, recreation, and transportation sectors see the greatest benefits from the direct impacts of the tourism industry.

Table 17: 2013 New Jersey Tourism Sales by Sector

The growing numbers in visitation and tourism sales have a positive impact on employment. Direct impacts of the tourism industry supported 320,238 jobs in 2013, as shown in Table 18. This direct job impact makes the industry the fifth largest private sector employer in the state. When accounting for indirect impacts, the tourism industry sustains an estimated 511,750 jobs, representing 9.9% of the total employment in New Jersey and supporting many important sectors of the economy. Overall, the Tyrell report clearly shows that tourism is of great benefit to Morris County’s economy.

Table 18: New Jersey Direct Tourism Employment

$32,000

$33,000

$34,000

$35,000

$36,000

$37,000

$38,000

$39,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Total 309,499 308,801 312,369 318,560 320,238

YoY Change -0.2% 1.2% 2.0% 0.5%

Lodging Food & Bev. Retail Recreation Other Trans. Air

28.0% 24.0% 19.0% 12.0% 14.0% 3.0%



2. Available Data

Morris County leads the state with 6.9% year-over-year growth in tourism direct sales. According to Tourism Economics (2013), direct tourism sales in Morris County were $1.96 billion for fiscal 2013, with direct sales averaging 5.0% annual growth over the past four years (see Table 19). Over the past four years, Morris County has almost two times the amount of annual sales growth as the state of New Jersey.

Table 19: Direct Tourism Sales Comparison (in millions)

As visitors come to Morris County in increasing numbers, there is a continuous positive economic impact created from the time they arrive, until the time they leave. Expenditures of tourists visiting Morris County are distributed as follows: Food & Beverage 26%, Traveler Accommodation 21%, Transportation 20%, Shopping 18%, and Recreation & Entertainment 15%. In 2013, approximate dollar figures for the makeup of tourism direct spending in Morris County are:

Food & Beverage: $510 million Traveler Accommodation: $410 million Transportation: $390 million Shopping: $350 million Recreation & Entertainment: $290 million

One such example of a site where these growing tourism dollars are spent is the Morristown National Historic Park (NHP). A 2014 study by the U.S. Department of the Interior features the NHP, estimating that the park had a total of 294,606 visitors who collectively spent $15.9 million in 2012. Moreover, nearly all of the tourism dollars generated by the park were from non-local visitors. The study defines local visitors as those who live within a 60-mile radius of the park, while non-local visitors are those who live outside of a 60-mile radius from the park. Visitors to Morristown NHP are 16.0% local and 84.0% non-local. Spending at Morristown NHP is 4.5% local and 95.5% non-local. Dollars spent per visitor show that non-local visitors spend a significantly higher amount than local visitors. Table 20 shows the breakdown of spending for all visitor types. This is just one example that Morris County tourist attractions are key to supporting the local economy.

Table 20: Morristown NHP Visits and Spending

Tourism employment in Morris County also continues to grow, reaching an all-time high of 21,161 employees in 2013. This represents 6.6% of the state’s total tourism employment and places Morris County sixth out of all twenty-one counties in New Jersey (Table 21). The County has also generated 4.4% year-over-year growth in tourism employment (Table 22).

2010 2011 2012 2013 CAGR*

Morris County $1,607 $1,763 $1,830 $1,957 5.0%

New Jersey $34,577 $36,753 $37,884 $38,379 2.6%

*CAGR - Compound annual growth rate is the year over year growth rate for a specific period of time



Table 21: Top 10 Counties by Tourism Employment in 2013

Table 22: Morris County Tourism Employment


This report finds that Morris County is a leader for tourism growth and employment in the state of New Jersey. It is also clear that the Preservation Trust Fund has had a positive impact on the economy of Morris County by increasing the availability of open space, farmland, and historic sites that draw thousands of visitors each year. The following is just a sample of the many tourist events made possible through the Preservation Trust Fund:

a. The Stickley Museum at Craftsman Farms attracted 11,000 visitors in 2013. Surveys show that 24.4% of visitors are from Morris County and 34% are from out-of-state. Visitors spent their dollars at various attractions, including the museum’s store, local restaurants, and hotels.

b. Fosterfields, a living historical farm, attracted 27,729 visitors in 2013. Over 60% of these visitors were from Morris County. Visitors spent their dollars at local restaurants, parks, and cultural activities.

c. For 39 years, the Morris Canal Society has hosted an annual “Canal Day Music and Craft Festival” which draws over 5,000 visitors from across New Jersey.

d. Horseshoe Lake Park in Roxbury Township is considered the 13th best park in America, according to the Coca Cola “Take it to the Park” 2013 challenge. Horseshoe Lake hosts various sports tournaments, which collectively generate an estimated $350,000 of economic impact every year1.

e. Other preserved properties such as Ort Farms, Stony Hill Gardens, Tranquility Farm, Wightman Farm, and Turkey Brook Park hold various events that attract visitors on both a local and regional basis.

1 Figures as provided by Roxbury Township.

1 Atlantic 58,375

2 Bergen 24,196

3 Ocean 25,644

4 Cape May 25,479

5 Middlesex 21,926

6 Morris County 21,161

7 Essex 21,130

8 Monmouth 21,086

9 Hudson 17,049

10 Burlington 14,888

2010 2011 2012 2013 CAGR*

Morris County 19,302 19,988 20,267 21,161 2.3%

New Jersey 308,801 312,369 318,560 320,238 0.9%

*CAGR - Compound annual growth rate is the year over year growth rate for a specific period of time



The historic sites, farmland, and open space parcels that have been preserved through the Trust Fund assist in driving tourism to peak levels in Morris County, which currently generates tourism spending of $1.95 billion and employs over 21,000 people. Continued preservation of these types of properties will contribute to the future success of Morris County as a leader in the tourism industry.

E. Impacts on Local Businesses with Focus on the Agriculture Industry

The preservation of open space, historic sites, farmland, and flood mitigation properties has a positive impact on local businesses. The positive attributes of preserved properties weigh into the decision making process of a business deciding where to locate or relocate its operations. Preservation is particularly important when it comes to agriculture, as land acreage is a deciding factor in operating an agricultural business.

In addition to helping draw and retain businesses to an area, there are direct impacts on local businesses as the operations of preserved properties often generate revenue and provide direct employment to members of the community (i.e. tour guides, concessions, security and maintenance, farming jobs, etc.). Secondary benefits of preservation are also seen in the indirect impacts created as the dollars from these jobs are circulated throughout the local economy.


Businesses seeking to locate or relocate to a new community look at many important quantitative and qualitative factors during their decision making process. Economic development professional Dean Uminski , Principal at Crowe Horwath LLP, addresses the impact and importance of preserved land on businesses by surveying various companies in a 2014 article in Area Development Online: Site and Facility Planning. The article reports that quantitative factors include “the basics such as highway, rail, air, or port access; energy availability and costs; and the presence of an adequate and appropriately skilled workforce.” Qualitative factors include “such features as a low crime rate, good healthcare facilities, varied and affordable housing, and other quality-of-life considerations such as strong local schools and inviting recreational and cultural amenities.”

Uminski notes that quality of life surveys were given to business executives in both 2012 and 2013. Nine quality of life factors contained in the survey are cited as “important” or “very important” by over half of the survey respondents in 2013. In comparison to the 2012 results, eight of the nine factors jumped in importance by significant amounts, showing that business executives are placing more and more emphasis on quality of life factors as they choose destinations for their operations.

The Morris County Economic Development Corporation (EDC) often highlights Morris County’s superior quality of life when marketing to corporations considering the area for expansion or relocation. Local corporations frequently report their use of features like the open space and trails in Morris County. For example, Kelli Schanz of the Hanover EDC notes that, “the local president of Bayer often rides his bike to work.” The Hanover EDC is currently working on a project to incorporate bike paths and walking trails on the Bayer property. Superior quality of life, attributable to open space, likely has a positive impact on the decision of a business to locate and remain in Morris County.



2. Available Data

It is easiest to examine the impacts of the Preservation Trust Fund on local businesses when looking at a specific industry. Farming and agri-tourism in Morris County are highly impacted by the Preservation Trust Fund. Morris County has preserved 125 farms totaling 7,709 acres through the Preservation Trust Fund.1

Farming and agri-tourism are often family businesses spanning multiple generations. A Maryland-based survey conducted by the Trust for Public Land (2007) states that 78% of participants in farm-preservation programs want to preserve their farm to keep it in the family and that 42% rely heavily upon the money generated from their farm operations. In a 2007 report, Lori Lynch and Joshua Duke of the University of Maryland highlight four benefits that warrant the implementation of farmland preservation programs: 1) food security and local food supply; 2) viable local agricultural economy; 3) environmental and rural amenities; and 4) sound fiscal policy and orderly development.

According to Kurt Alstede of Alstede Farms, located in Morris County, unpreserved farmland property in Morris County ranges in cost from $20,000 - $40,000 an acre, making it very difficult for a typical farmer to acquire new land. Preserved farmland costs less per acre, bringing the purchase and operation of a Morris County farm more within the reach of the average farmer. Without preservation, Morris County would have less impact from this vital industry.

Through the Farmland Preservation Program, farm owners in Morris County can elect to preserve their current farmland and maintain ownership. Funds acquired through the preservation process can be used for farm operations to help cover debt payments or other costs, such as fertilizer, fuel, and state taxes. Other farm owners use these preservation funds to improve their farming operation by purchasing new farm equipment or constructing new farm buildings – both of which benefit local retailers and service companies. Harvey Ort Jr. of Ort Farms states that, “The Farmland Preservation Program allowed my farm to keep operating. Without the program, the farm would have serious financial difficulties.” In another example, Dale Davis of Stony Hill Gardens credits the Farm Preservation Program with his ability to continue operating his farm.

The ability of farmers to continue operating allows for dollars to circulate throughout the local economy in many ways: farmers generate sales tax revenue, create new jobs, and purchase support goods and services such as fuel, insurance, food services, and tractor and truck parts. Without the Preservation Trust Fund, many of these benefits might not exist.

Additionally, agri-tourism, a niche tourism activity, provides boosted economic benefits on farms. A study conducted by Penn State (2014) shows that every one dollar ($1) increase in direct agricultural tourism (agri-tourism) sales at a farm in New Jersey from 2002 to 2007 was associated with a nine dollar ($9) increase in overall farm sales throughout the state.

Farmers in Morris County utilize a diverse number of channels to generate agri-tourism transactions, including:

1 From Easement Values Table prepared by MCADB.



a. Farm Stores and Markets (both on and off-site)

b. Pick-your-own produce and Christmas trees

c. Events & Activities (hay rides, corn mazes, educational farm tours, etc.)

Further, market data suggests that the relationship between farmers and the local economy is growing in importance. The US Department of Agriculture (2013) cites an increase in farmers markets; from 1,200 in 1980 to 8,144 in 2013 – a seven-fold increase. Generating nearly $7 billion of sales in 2013, farmers markets located near major cities across the U.S. have shown increases in local sales of up to $15 million. Table 23 shows a list of various farmers markets located throughout Morris County, sourced from the New Jersey Department of Agriculture (2014).

Table 23: Examples of Morris County Farmers Markets

Town of Boonton Farmers Market Long Valley Green Market

Chatham Borough Farmers Market Madison Farmers Market

Chester Farmers Market Morristown Farmers Market

Denville Farmers Market Netcong Farmers Market

East Hanover Farmers Market Riverdale Farmers Market

Pequannock Farmers Market Morris Plains Farmers Market

Morris County Winter Farmers Market at Fosterfields

3. Summary of Findings: Alstede Farms Case Study

Founded by Kurt Alstede in 1982, Alstede Farms’ operates on over 600 acres of farmland property in Morris County. The farm’s business model is focused on agri-tourism, catering directly to a variety of local and non-local consumers. Over 500,000 visitors generate an estimated $6.5 million in annual direct sales through an extensive range of offerings, including farm store sales, pick-your-own, events and birthday parties, and educational group tours. According to Mr. Alstede, without the option of preservation provided by the Preservation Trust Fund, Alstede Farms would not still be operating in Morris County today, which would be a significant loss to the County, considering his business’s generation of $6.5 million in direct sales and employment of 165 different people over the course of a year. The same scenario is likely true for many other preserved farms in Morris County.

Mr. Alstede also pointed out that, due to the variable, seasonal nature of their work, in addition to the dollars generated by agri-tourism, local farmers are often able to contribute their time to the community as volunteers, such as firefighters, elected officials, and local board members.


The Preservation Trust Fund’s Farmland Preservation Program offers farmers of Morris County a unique opportunity to preserve a family business, while also generating a positive impact on the local economy. The case study of Alstede Farms, and the comparative findings of numerous other studies, clearly support that the Preservation Trust Fund’s funding of farmland preservation has a positive economic impact on the local economy and maintains local farm activity that otherwise would not be feasible. Moreover, the fact that quality-of-life is becoming



increasingly important to business executives makes the prevalence of open space in Morris County even more valuable. Overall, there are several examples of the positive role that the Preservation Trust Fund plays in impacting local businesses, particularly agriculture.

F. Anecdotal Accounts and Additional Case Studies


a. Ort Farms

The owner (Mr. Harvey Ort) reports that the Farmland Preservation Program allowed him to keep operating and that without the program he would have experienced financial difficulties. The funds he received for preservation allowed him to create an estate plan, which will make it possible and affordable for the next generation to take over the farm and keep it in operation.

Ort Farms hosts a story hour for children every Wednesday, provides opportunities for children to meet the animals, offers a hay pyramid, and a picnic area that is open to the public during the summer.

b. Stony Hill Gardens

The Stony Hill Farm, located in Chester Township, has a farm market, Corn Maze Fun Park, Pick-Your-Own Pumpkins, and Christmas Trees. Mr. Dale Davis credits the Farm Preservation Program for his ability to continue operating his family farm. Without the program, he would have had to sell the farm which would likely have led to the development of the property.

Mr. Davis also leases two other preserved farms. Activities on these two properties include: agri-tourism, and a Community Supported Agriculture program (CSA) which provides produce directly to subscription customers. He says this property is successful because of the increased interest in and popularity of locally sourced food.

Between the three preserved farms, Mr. Davis estimates that he has approximately 20,000 visitors per year, mostly in the fall. These visitors often patronize local restaurants, which can be found as posted recommendations on these farms. Without the preservation program, none of these farm operations would be possible.

c. Tranquility Farm

Tranquility Farm is a horse farm in Chester Township that offers training for horses and riders, breeding, boarding, and transportation of horses. Additionally, a horse-riding summer camp is hosted at the farm.

According to owner Rick Desiderio, the Farm Preservation program allowed his farm to remain viable. The funds he received have helped him continue to operate despite the high overhead associated with equine farming. Mr. Desiderio says without the program, he would have had to sell his 60 acre farm and believes it would have been developed into numerous residential properties.

Mr. Desiderio says the preservation program is good for both farmers and residents. While the funds help him continue to operate the farm, the community also maintains its farm heritage and character. He informs his customers about



the benefits of farm preservation and thinks that the public should be better educated about the Preservation Trust program.

d. Wightman’s Farm

According to Ken Wightman, his farm has benefited from farmland preservation funds, which were used for the creation and financing of an estate plan to allow future generations to continue operation of the farm.

Wightman’s Farm, located in Harding Township, has had a farm market since the 1940s and has provided agri-entertainment since the 1990s, before it was popular. The farm provides a number of activities including corn mazes, hay rides, and farm tours. Additionally, the fall market offers pies, cider, painted pumpkins, and a pumpkin slingshot. The farm’s livelihood depends on this agri-entertainment; between October and Christmas, the farm makes 70% of its annual revenue, 80% of which comes from agri-tourism activities.

According to Mr. Wightman, the farm operates one of the largest hay rides in New Jersey, providing rides to 300 children per hour. Many of the agri-tourism opportunities at Wightman’s farm have inspired other farmers to create similar programs allowing them to generate additional revenue.

2. Open Space Preservation

a. Horseshoe Lake Park

Horseshoe Lake Park in Roxbury Township hosts sports tournaments and other events such as: Puptoberfest, Multiple Sclerosis Walk-A-Thon, St. Therese Carnival, British Car Show, Street Rod Show, and the Lacrosse Festival. These events in Roxbury Township generate an estimated $350,000 in benefits every year. Horseshoe Lake is also home to a “destination playground,” called Imagination Station. The park was voted the 13th best park in America in Coca Cola’s national "Take It to the Park" Challenge in 2013. The Horseshoe Lake Extension Project connects to the West Morris Greenway and ultimately to Patriot's Path.

b. Turkey Brook Park

Turkey Brook Park is the central location and starting point for the trails system in Mt. Olive Township. It was one of the first open space acquisitions in the Township, and attracts about 1,000 visitors daily. This number increases on weekends and during special events, and attracts many out-of-town visitors. The park hosts an annual carnival that attracts over 10,000 visitors.

Turkey Brook Park is a community gathering place for events, recreation, and passive enjoyment. Patrons of all ages use the park for walking, jogging, bird watching, and dog exercising (at the dog park). The park is a regional destination and provides support for local restaurants, stores, and hotels. Athletic tournaments, including state playoffs, are held at the park for several different sports, drawing thousands to the park and neighboring businesses. Many of these businesses sponsor events at the park. Non-profits often hold fundraisers, including 5K runs, and developers frequently advertise proximity to the park as a benefit to potential housing purchasers. Revenue generated by the park is used for park maintenance and staffing of the Recreation Department.



The Seward House at Turkey Brook Park has received Historic Preservation funding but still needs substantial restoration.


a. Craftsman Farms

The Stickley Museum at Craftsman Farms, located in Parsippany-Troy Hills Township, attracts thousands of visitors (11,000 in 2013). An internal surveys shows that 24.4% (2,690) of visitors are from Morris County, 41.6% (4,570) are New Jersey residents from outside of Morris County, and 34% (3,740) are from out-of-state.

The site of the museum, a National Historic Landmark, was threatened by development in 1989 before it was acquired through Municipal Open Space funds. The museum received Morris County Historic Preservation funding for Log House Stabilization in 2003, the Craftsman Farms Master Plan in 2007, and the Fire Protection Project in 2010 and 2012. Additionally, in 2007 the site received Morris County Open Space funding to preserve the two western parcels which contain the horse barn, milk house, chicken coop and dairy barn remains.

While the museum would not be possible without the Historic Preservation Program, structures still exist at Craftsman Farms that require renovation or restoration.

Vonda Givens, Active Executive Director, first worked with the Historic Preservation Program on the Fire Protection Project. She says this fire suppression program was critical to the long term public safety of the property. Before this project, the historic log house did not even have hydrants near the property. Ms. Givens says the grant allowed the continued existence and operation of the property.

Ms. Givens also emphasized the importance of the 2007 Master Plan grant to the continued preservation of the site. The plan serves as a guide to their continued preservation efforts, and allowed her to easily take over existing projects when she unexpectedly became the Executive Director.

The museum now serves Morris County residents of all ages with a town park and supports local businesses by drawing 11,000 annual national and international visitors to the area who eat at local restaurants, stay at local hotels, and visit local shops.

b. Fosterfields Living Historical Farm

Fosterfields is a “Living Historical Farm,” still in operation using tools, techniques, and materials from the end of the 19th century. Located in Morris Township, the property is owned and operated by the Morris County Park Commission (MCPC). According to Ms. Lynn Laffey, Assistant Director of Historic Sites for MCPC, the farm received an historic preservation grant for the restoration of three buildings: the engine house, the creamery, and the sheep and hog pen. Ms. Laffey says that without the grant, the restoration probably would not have been completed or would have been delayed while funds were sought.

Fosterfields had 27,279 visitors in 2013, and Ms. Laffey says these visitors often use local restaurants as well as other parks and cultural activities. A majority of the visitors (60-70%) come from within Morris County; Ms. Laffey estimates that



less than half are from within Morristown itself. The farm participates in programs allowing school children to visit. Ms. Laffey says the Preservation Trust was very beneficial, and the Park Commission plans to apply again to the Historic Preservation Program.

c. Morris Canal Lock 2 East

The Borough of Wharton utilized the County Historic Preservation Program to restore portions of the Morris Canal including the Canal Lock, which once restored, will be the only operational lock in the State of New Jersey. The Morris Canal’s ongoing restoration has various phases, and the Borough seeks continued Historic and Open Space funding as well as involvement from the Morris County Park Commission.

Without the funds provided by the Morris County Preservation Trust (in addition to other sources), restoration and preservation of the Morris Canal Lock 2 East would not have been possible, says John Manna of the Wharton Redevelopment Commission. The funds were used to develop a Historic Site Master Plan and Feasibility Study, as well as other services. The funds were also used for reconstruction of lock walls and fabrication of a wood lock miter gate. Currently, visitors experience the site through interpretive signage, but the goal, according to Mr. Manna, is to allow visitors to experience travel on a canal boat into the lock.

The site currently receives at least 20 visitors per day, but additional restoration, including the ability to travel through the lock on a canal boat, should greatly increase this number, bolstering heritage tourism in Morris County. The annual Canal Day Music and Craft Festival, now in its 39th year, draws over 5,000 visitors from all over New Jersey as well as surrounding states; these visitors have contributed to the revitalization of Wharton’s Main Street business district. Additionally, the site offers educational opportunities for school children who attend the site as part of an annual local history lesson plan.

Overall, Mr. Manna praises the Morris County Preservation Trust Program as invaluable to the preservation of sites like Lock 2 East and reiterates that the project would not have been possible otherwise.

G. Environmental Benefits of Land Preservation

When managed correctly, conservation lands can provide benefits to both the environment and human health. These benefits include improvement in air and water quality, healthier and increased biodiversity in terrestrial and aquatic habitats, cooler air temperatures in the summer, reduction of greenhouse gases, habitat protection, noise reduction, sediment and erosion reduction, and water resource protection.


Air quality improvements due to land conservation are demonstrated in the research of the US Forest Service (2005). Their calculations estimate that “over a 50-year lifetime one tree generates $31,250 worth of oxygen, $62,000 worth of air pollution control, recycles over $37,500 worth of water, and controls $31,250 worth of soil erosion.” Trees are vital to providing clean air to breath for all living creatures. Trees remove ozone, sulfur dioxides, nitrogen dioxides, carbon monoxide and particulate matter.



A Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (2010) report finds that a contiguous forest can remove up to 15% of ozone, 14% of sulfur dioxides and 8% of nitrogen oxides in addition to filtering dust, gases and soot. It is widely known that parks, forests and all types of vegetated open spaces act as “sinks” for carbon by sequestering it and decreasing temperatures in the summer, thus decreasing energy needs of nearby facilities whether they are homes, businesses, or public buildings.

Land conservation for water quality protection and improvement is equally as important. As land is developed with impervious surfaces (roads, driveways, rooftops), rain water that would normally be absorbed into the ground and filtered through forests, grasslands, and vegetation, must be managed with storm water systems. The run off from impervious surfaces increases in velocity and carries sediments and pollutants as it moves over the impervious surfaces and through storm water systems. The sediments and pollutants end up in the waterways and the fast-moving water causes increased erosion to the aquatic habitats.

According to the Trust for Public Land (2004), when habitats such as forests, wetlands, and grasslands are lost, so are the natural filters that help to provide clean and safe drinking water. The costs of providing clean drinking water become an increasing burden to municipalities, well owners, and all tax payers. The same report also finds that “although advances in treatment technologies allow most suppliers to meet current drinking water standards, the challenges of storm water runoff from agricultural and developed lands make treatment more heavy-handed, complex, and expensive.” A subsequent Trust for Public Land (2007) report cites that “for every 10 percent increase in forest cover in the source area (up to 60 percent forest cover), treatment and chemical costs decrease by approximately 20 percent.”

In July of 2013, FEMA released its updated “Hazard Mitigation Assistance Unified Guidance” in which they have developed quantifiable measures of “economic values for green open space and riparian areas” The estimated benefit for green open space is “$7,853/acre/year and $2.57/sq. ft.; for riparian areas, these values are $37,493/acre/year and $12.29/sq. ft., respectively.

2. Available Data

According to the updated Morris County POSI data, there are approximately 97,675 acres of preserved land located in Morris County. Of those acres, approximately 24,137 acres (Table 24) are preserved using grant monies from the Preservation Trust Fund.

The funds invested in land preservation will continue to become increasingly important as a method for protecting natural resources and habitat systems in strategic locations. The estimated population for Morris County, according to the N.J. Department of Labor & Workforce Development (2012) in the year 2025 is 535,400 people, or an increase of 8.8% from the 2010 population. When combined with the fact that, according to the State of the County Report (2013) only about 15.1% of the land in Morris County is available to be developed, the need for strategic preservation becomes apparent.



Table 24: Summary of Preserved Properties


It is evident that there are a variety of environmental benefits associated with land preservation, including air quality improvement and decreased temperatures in summer months, but the benefits of water resource protection are of particular importance to Morris County. Studies find that, “for every 10 percent increase in forest cover in the source area (up to 60 percent forest cover), treatment and chemical costs decrease by approximately 20 percent.”

Since Morris County is predominantly dependent on groundwater for its drinking water, as the population of Morris County continues to grow, it will be increasingly important that natural resources, especially drinking water resources, are properly protected in order to keep treatment costs down and water supply sufficient and protected.

H. Secondary Benefits of Land Preservation

“The protection of New Jersey’s environmentally sensitive open space, vital water resources, and significant natural and historic resources is critical to the quality of life enjoyed by all New Jerseyans. Preserved open space protects our water supply, protects sensitive habitats for endangered and threatened species, promotes smart growth, and provides a place for public recreation and connection with community and nature” (NJDEP, 2012).


Many factors comprise the quality of life of a community, including general health, social and environmental cleanliness, civic pride, and local history. In most studies, quality of life is considered a secondary benefit within a community. However, this does not take away from the importance of quality of life, as it attracts and impacts both the residents and visitors of a community.

The presence of open space is a key component across high quality of life communities. Many studies provide evidence of this relationship. A study from Griffith University’s Chu and Simpson (1994) notes that, “Living in comparatively natural areas, viewing nature, and having outdoor recreation areas and facilities nearby appears to provide health benefits.” A study from Dekin University’s Maller (2005) further supports the claim, by finding that publicly owned natural spaces are an ideal resource to support several aspects of human health and well-being.

Specifically, open spaces provide a convenient place for community members to exercise in order to improve their health. The Pennsylvania Environmental Council (2010) notes that obesity is the second largest contributor to death in the United States. Being obese increases the risk of many other mental and physical health conditions. Plentiful access to open space offers a natural means for improving and

Preservation Trust

Fund Program

Municipal/

Non-Profit

Open Space

Farmland

Preservation

Historic

Preservation

Flood

Mitigation

Program

Morris County

Municipal Utilities

Authority

Morris County Park

Commission Land

Acquisition

Morris County

Preservation

Trust Fund Total

Other

Preserved

Acreage

Total

Preserved

Acreage

Projects1 228 125 80 117 47 93

Acres2 11,731 7,709 1,114 3,590 24,144 73,446 97,590

1. Projects are measured differently by program. Municipal/Non-Profit: Projects, Farmland Preservation: Farms, Historic Preservation: Sites, Flood

Mitigation Program: Properties, MCMUA: Projects, MCPC Land Acquisition: Parks. Number of projects is provided by program managers.

2. All acreages are derived from the Morris County Public Opens Space Inventory (POSI), except Farmland which is derived Easement Values sheet

provided by the MCADB staff. Acreage reflects Net Preserved acreage rather than GIS measurements.



maintaining health. Health Magazine (2009) also supports the open space / exercise relationship. Their research finds that a majority of subjects who exercise in open space and parks show improved health benefits, such as decreased levels of depression, higher self-esteem, and improved mood.

Research also shows that open spaces, such as parks, provide opportunities for residents to take care of public space and build personal connections with the community. The Trust for Public Land (2010) asserts that assisting in the renewal or improvement of a park or open space may generate a significant increase in the social capital of a neighborhood. Preservation encourages the development of social capital by raising awareness of a community’s history and allowing residents to directly care for their parks and communities, often through frequent volunteer cleaning and maintenance efforts. These opportunities to volunteer are commonly found in high quality of life areas, such as Morris County.

2. Available Data

The high quality of life in Morris County New Jersey is well documented. In fact, the Garden State Quality of Life (QOL) study by Monmouth University (2011) reveals that Morris County ranks first out of the twenty-one counties in New Jersey for the highest overall QOL score. This particular study examines resident evaluations of New Jersey as a whole, their respective hometown, environmental quality, open space availability, schools in the local community, road conditions, traffic, public transit, job opportunities, affordable housing, race relations, crime and safety, and the amount of cultural activities available to residents. Table 25 shows the study’s index score and results for each county in detail. The most notable figures for Morris County include a 64% satisfaction rating for “Open Space,” a 77% satisfaction rating for “Environmental Quality,” and an 89% rating for “Hometown” satisfaction. Figure 12 provides a map with the overall results for each county.

Exploring the quality of life data specific to Morris County further, an example can be provided in surveys directed to Mendham Township citizens which find the following factors to be important open space benefits: recreational opportunities, prevention of “sprawl” and overdevelopment, preservation of beautiful views, protection of the environment, improved rain water absorption, providing habitat for wildlife, and protection of historic heritage. Mendham Township highlights the preservation of the Buttermilk Falls Natural Area being particularly relevant to these quality of life measures. The survey results also show that leveraging funding through various programs, including the Morris County Open Space and Farmland Preservation Programs, is important to the community.

Parks and open spaces are also a key contributor to the QOL in Morris County. There are numerous recreation, historic, and conservation facilities throughout the County for its residents and guests to visit and connect with that support a healthy and enriching life style. These parks and open spaces encourage healthy life style behaviors such as hiking, biking, walking, horseback riding and canoeing. As an example, the Morris County Park Commission offers these types of opportunities throughout the County (see Table 26). As noted previously in the report, many studies point to the value that parks and open spaces can provide to a community.



Table 25: Detailed New Jersey Quality of Life Survey Results



Figure 12: State Map Summarizing Quality of Life Survey by County



Table 26: The Morris County Park System

Bamboo Brook Outdoor Education Center Mennen Sports Arena

Berkshire Valley Golf Course Minnisink Reservation

Central Park of Morris County Mount Hope Historical Park

Columbia Trail Mount Paul Memorial Park

Cooper Gristmill Old Troy Park

Craigmeur Recreation Complex Passaic River Park

Elizabeth D. Kay Environmental Center Patriot’s Path

Flanders Valley Golf Course Pinch Brook Golf Course

Fosterfields Living Historical Farm Pyramid Mountain Natural Historic Park

Frelinghuysen Arboretum Schooley’s Mountain Park

Great Swamp Outdoor Education Center Seaton Hackney Stables

Hedden Park Silas Condict Park

Historic Speedwell Sunset Valley Golf Course

James Andrews Memorial Park Tourne Park

Jonathons Woods Traction Line Recreation Trail

Lee’s Park Marina Waughaw Mountain Greenway

Lewis Morris Park West Morris Greenway

Loantaka Brook Reservation Willowwood Arboretum

Mahlon Dickerson Reservation


Many studies point to the positive secondary effects of open space preservation and the ways in which these effects contribute to a community’s quality of life. Morris County clearly enjoys these positive secondary impacts, and the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund plays a key role in building and maintaining this high quality of life for both residents and visitors through its continuing preservation activities.

I. Impacts of Flood Mitigation

As discussed, open space provides a number of different benefits to the community, County, State, and Federal government. An additional benefit of open space preservation is that it has the ability to move residents and emergency responders out of harm’s way while also saving significant amounts of money at the municipality, county, State, and Federal levels through the mitigation of certain natural hazards.

These natural hazards, which include floods, hurricanes, slope failure, etc., threaten the lives of residents and can cause billions of dollars in damage to public buildings, infrastructure, businesses, and homes. Additionally, these events create a large expense as a result of the emergency response that these disasters require.

By spending money upfront on measures used to prevent or minimize the loss associated with these natural hazards, governmental entities are able to, in the long run, save money, save lives, reduce damage to personal property, and minimize loss of business productivity.




As detailed in the National Hazard Mitigation Saves report, an independent study commissioned by Congress and conducted by the National Institute of Building Sciences (2005), money spent on reducing the risk of natural hazards is a sound investment. This study estimates that Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mitigation grants issued between mid-1993 and mid-2003 have yielded an overall benefit-cost ratio (“BCR”) of 4:1. These results indicate that, on average, FEMA-funded project and process mitigation activities have benefit-cost ratios greater than 1 for all hazard types. In fact, for flood projects, the average benefit-cost ratio is 5:1.

The present value of annual savings to the federal treasury emanating from the FEMA mitigation grants studied is $968.5 million. When juxtaposed against the federal share of grant costs, a dollar spent on mitigation grants potentially will lead to an average savings of $3.65 in avoided post-disaster relief and increased federal tax revenues.

This potential benefit to the treasury is in addition to the societal savings considered in the benefit-cost analysis. FEMA grants used to mitigate the effects of floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes between 1993 and 2003 are expected to save more than 220 lives and prevent almost 4,700 injuries over approximately 50 years. As such, FEMA has made natural hazard risk mitigation a primary goal in its efforts to reduce the long-term cost of disasters.

Additionally, FEMA recently released its updated “Hazard Mitigation Assistance Unified Guidance” (2013) in which they have developed quantifiable measures of economic values for green open space and riparian areas. The total estimated benefits from green open space is $7,853/acre/year and for riparian areas $37,493/acre/year.

2. Available Data

New Jersey is second, nationwide, in severe repetitive flood losses; second only to Louisiana. Morris County’s location near the Atlantic Coast, its large number of inland waterways, and areas of low elevation all play a large role in the type of natural hazard that poses the most identifiable, increasing, and preventable threat to the area – flooding.

As outlined in Morris County’s Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010), according to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), Morris County experienced 69 major floods or flash floods and 11 hurricanes or tropical storms between 1950 and June 2008.

Also cited in the Morris County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010), numerous areas within Morris County are susceptible to localized flooding from excess rain events, stormwater runoff, urban flooding, local drainage problems, overbank flooding, and other sources. The majority of the municipalities within the County experience some degree of flooding.

More importantly, overall flood risks continue to increase in intensity and number of occurrences across the State. According to data provided by FEMA (2012), the State of New Jersey experienced only nine (9) major floods in the 36 years from 1955 to 1991, 14 major floods in the 18 years from 1992 to 2010, and seven (7) major floods in the two (2) years from 2010 to 2012.



Utilizing over 250 stream gages in Morris County, an analysis covering the 90-year period from 1922 to 2012 shows an increase in average annual peak flow ranging from 30% to 46% in Morris County rivers. Additionally, this analysis illustrates that 50% of the major floods that have been recorded over this 90-year period occurred in the last 11 years.

Impacts of Flood Mitigation

According to the Morris County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010) floods have been, and continue to be, the most frequent, destructive, and costly natural hazard facing Morris County - and the data only suggests that the flooding problems will continue to worsen over time.

The NCDC database indicates that there have been 69 major flood events in Morris County from 1950 to 2008. Of these flood events, eight separate flood events from 1996 to 2008 resulted in an estimated total of $80.87 million in property damage. However, those costs only represent property damage, and fail to include/quantify the additional secondary costs, as described by the National Institute of Building Sciences (2005):

a. Direct business interruption loss (damaged industrial, commercial, and retail facilities).

b. Indirect business interruption loss (ordinary economic ripple effects).

c. Environmental damage (wetlands, parks, wildlife).

d. Societal losses (casualties, homelessness).

e. Emergency response services (ambulance, fire, police).

There are a number of methods that can be used to help mitigate the effects of flooding, such as building levees/barriers, elevating homes, elevating or flood-proofing of utilities, etc. However, the most effective, permanent mitigation method is governmental acquisition and preservation of properties that are currently located in the most high-risk areas for flooding.

Acquisition and preservation moves residents and emergency responders out of harm’s way, permanently ending repetitive damage to structures and creating flood capture and storage areas to protect remaining homes and businesses. This acquisition method has been shown in several studies, including the National Hazard Mitigation Saves report, to generate a higher cost-benefit ratio on average than any other natural hazard mitigation technique: every $1 spent by FEMA on flood mitigation is estimated to generate an average benefit, or savings, of $5.


After seeing the level of benefit that can be generated through the focused acquisition and preservation of properties located in the most high-risk floodplains, Morris County elected to create a separate program within the Preservation Trust Fund specifically for that purpose, the Flood Mitigation Program (FMP).

To date, the FMP, along with various levels of matching funds from local, state and federal sources, has acquired and preserved $11.9 million worth of properties located in various high-risk floodplains throughout Morris County. By using these State and Federal match funding programs, the Preservation Trust Fund has been able to acquire these properties using only $3.6 million of Preservation Trust Fund dollars.



All FMP projects must have a 1:1 benefit-cost ratio (“BCR”) to qualify for funding. This ensures that the benefits of acquisition are equal to or greater than the cost to acquire (it must make financial sense to remove this ratable property). The FEMA Benefit-Cost Analysis computer model is used to calculate this BCR for every applicant property.

Based on the FEMA-based cost-benefit analysis, the Flood Mitigation Program has generated an estimated $23.2 million in benefits from the $3.6 million in grant funds provided by the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund for closed projects for a Morris County BCR of 7.33 ($7.33 in benefits for every $1.00 invested). In addition to the FMP projects that have already closed, pending FMP projects have an estimated BCR of 4.67 based on the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund’s cost share in these projects.

J. Summary of Economic Impacts

There are a variety of positive economic impacts that the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund has on the citizens, businesses, visitors, and governing bodies throughout Morris County. These positive impacts may be a direct result of the Preservation Trust Fund’s activities, but also include indirect and secondary positive impacts that occur throughout the broader Morris County economy.

As described in the previous sections, the Preservation Trust Fund’s activities positively impact: property values, municipal budgets and resources, destination traffic and tourism, local businesses, and the environment. There are also positive impacts to public safety as a direct result of flood mitigation. Secondary positive impacts include such items as public health, social interaction, civic pride, and overall quality of life and associated economic benefits (such as attracting and expanding businesses).

1. Impacts on Nearby Property Values

There is a robust literature base supporting the notion that preserved space, such as open space or historic sites have a positive impact on the values of nearby properties. In order to estimate the quantitative impact that preserved space in Morris County may have on property values, this report utilizes a statistical model.

Given the available data and resources, this analysis determines with a high degree of confidence that preserved acreage, such as that preserved with the assistance of the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund, has a positive impact on property values in Morris County, New Jersey.

Further, this report estimates that a 1% increase in the number of preserved acres in a given Morris County zip code will increase home property values by $1.50 per square foot in that zip code. Based on these results, it is safe to conclude that the preservation of land in Morris County has a positive impact on property values.

2. Impacts on Municipal Budgets and Resources

In general, municipal budgets are impacted by numerous economic and social factors. Morris County and its municipalities are no different than many others in this regard. At the county level, as well as in most municipalities, nearly two-thirds of the budgeted expenditures are paid for by general-purpose taxes levied each year on the Net Taxable Valuation (NTV) of real property and improvements within the county.



Many of the costs funded through these taxes are a function of population density and location, as residents of the community need different types of services and infrastructure to live healthy and productive lifestyles. The business community also requires these tax revenues in order to maintain an educated and productive workforce, as well as to provide the needed infrastructure to effectively produce and deliver many types of goods and services to the community.

If land is preserved rather than developed as residential property, it is likely to have a positive budgetary impact to the County because residential property costs the County $0.30 more than the tax revenues it brings in, while open space brings in $0.55 more in tax revenues than it costs the County in necessary services. As a consequence, the preservation efforts of the Preservation Trust Fund have a positive budgetary impact to Morris County and its municipalities. This analysis estimates that there is more than $18 million in positive and direct budgetary impact each year to Morris County and its municipalities as a result of the Preservation Trust Fund.

3. Impacts from Trust Fund-Generated Destination Traffic and Tourism

Destination traffic and tourism is an integral part of many state, county, and local economies. The positive effects of tourism on the economy have been validated by numerous studies. Historical sites, farmland, and open spaces, such as those preserved by the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund, serve as an attraction to both citizens and visitors from nearby and distant locations.

As these visitors travel to and from the attractions, they stimulate the local economy by spending dollars at local destinations, hotels, retail shops, restaurants, gas stations, etc. It is important to realize that tourism activity does not only mean additional revenues, but it creates additional jobs in the local economy. Additionally, the revenues created and jobs supported by direct tourism activities also have an economic multiplier effect, where the money earned by these employees is deployed in the economy, furthering tourism’s impact on the local economy through indirect stimulation.

Due to the tourism attraction that is provided and the economic impact that tourism has on an economy, the open spaces, historic, and agricultural sites located in Morris County have become an important part of the local economy.

Data and relevant studies provide evidence that the Preservation Trust Fund has a positive impact on the economy of Morris County by preserving open space, farmland, and historic attractions that draw thousands of visitors each year. These open space, farmland, and historic sites preserved through the Preservation Trust Fund have assisted in driving tourism to peak levels in Morris County, which has recently generated tourism spending of $1.96 billion and employed over 21,000 people.

4. Impacts on Local Businesses with Focus on the Agriculture Industry

The preservation of open space, historic sites, farmland, and flood mitigation properties all have positive impacts on local businesses. Open space often weighs into the quantitative and qualitative decision making process when a business is deciding where to locate or relocate its operations.

Additionally, there are direct impacts on local businesses as the operations occurring on preserved land often generate revenue and provide direct employment to members of the community (i.e. tour guides, concessions, security and maintenance, farming jobs, etc.). Secondary benefits of preservation are also seen in the indirect



impacts created as the dollars generated by these jobs are circulated throughout the local economy.

Morris County has preserved 125 farms totaling 7,709 acres through the Preservation Trust Fund. According to Kurt Alstede of Alstede Farms, farmland property in Morris County ranges from $20,000 - $40,000 an acre, making it very difficult for a typical farmer to acquire new land. Preserved farmland costs less per acre, thus making the purchase and operation of a Morris County farm more within the reach of the average farmer.

The ability of farmers to continue operating allows for dollars to be circulated throughout the local economy in many ways: farmers generate sales tax revenue, create new jobs, purchase from other stores, require support services such as fuel, insurance, food services, tractor and truck parts.

5. Environmental Benefits of Land Preservation

When managed correctly, conservation lands provide benefits to the environment as well as human health. These benefits include improvement in air and water quality, healthier and increased biodiversity in terrestrial and aquatic habitats, cooler air temperatures in the summer, reduction of greenhouse gases, habitat protection, noise reduction, sediment and erosion reduction, and water resource protection.

It is evident that there are a variety of environmental benefits associated with land preservation, but the benefits of water resource protection are of particular importance to Morris County. Studies find that, “for every 10 percent increase in forest cover in the source area (up to 60 percent forest cover), treatment and chemical costs decrease by approximately 20 percent.”

Since Morris County is predominantly dependent on groundwater for its drinking water, as the population of Morris County continues to grow, it will be increasingly important that natural resources, especially drinking water resources, are properly protected in order to keep treatment costs down and water supply sufficient and protected.

6. Secondary Benefits of Land Preservation

Many factors comprise the quality of life (QOL) of a community, including general health, social and environmental cleanliness, civic pride, and local history. In most studies, QOL is considered a secondary benefit within a community. However, this does not take away from the importance of QOL, as both residents and visitors are impacted and attracted by the QOL of a community. The presence of open space is a key component of high QOL communities. Many studies have provided evidence of this relationship.

The importance of preserving open space and related parcels plays a significant role in helping increase the health of the overall community. There are many studies that point to these positive secondary effects and the ways in which they contribute to quality of life. Morris County clearly benefits from these secondary impacts, as the County ranked highest in QOL throughout all of New Jersey according to the Garden State Quality of Life study. The Morris County Preservation Trust Fund has played a key role in building and maintaining this high quality of life.



7. Impacts of Natural Hazards and Flood Mitigation

One benefit of open space preservation is that it has the ability to save significant amounts of money at the municipality, county, state, and Federal levels through the mitigation of certain natural hazards.

These natural hazards, which include floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, landslides, etc., can cause billions of dollars in damage to public buildings, infrastructure, businesses, and homes. Additionally, these events create a large expense as a result of the emergency response that these disasters require.

By spending money upfront on measures used to prevent or minimize the loss associated with these natural hazards, governmental entities are able to, in the long run, save money, save lives, reduce damage to personal property, and minimize loss of business productivity.

After seeing the level of benefit that can be generated through the focused acquisition and preservation of properties located in the most high-risk floodplains, Morris County elected to create a separate program within the Preservation Trust Fund specifically for that purpose, i.e. the Flood Mitigation Program (FMP).

To date, based on information provided by the Preservation Trust Fund, the program, along with various levels of matching funds from local, state and federal sources, has acquired and preserved $11.9 million worth of properties located in various high-risk floodplains throughout Morris County. By using various State and Federal matching programs, the Preservation Trust Fund has been able to acquire this property using only $3.6 million of fund dollars.

All FMP projects must have a 1:1 benefit-cost ratio (“BCR”) to qualify for funding. This ensures that the benefits of acquisition are equal to or greater than the cost to acquire.1 The FEMA Benefit-Cost Analysis computer model is used to calculate this BCR for every applicant property.

Based on the FEMA-based cost-benefit analysis, the Flood Mitigation Program has generated an estimated $23.2 million in benefits from the $3.6 million in grant funds provided by the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund for an overall BCR of 7.33 ($7.33 in benefits for every $1.0 invested). In addition to the FMP projects that have already been funded, pending FMP projects have an estimated overall BCR of 4.67 based on the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund’s cost share in these projects.

1 It must make financial sense to remove this ratable property.

VI. Potential Future Preservation Projects



Analysis of the future of the Preservation Trust Fund requires a collection of prospective preservation properties and projects to produce estimates of what Morris County municipalities and non-profits funding needs might be going forward. Many sources were utilized to produce these estimates which can be seen in Table 27 by municipality or non-profit and Preservation Trust Fund Program. The results outlined in this table are described in detail in the following sections. The source of properties and projects used in these figures can be found in Table 28 and are listed by municipality with totals for each source.

A. Open Space Preservation

1. Methodology

Potential property acquisitions for the Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Program were gathered from municipal open space plans, questionnaires, and interviews with municipalities and non-profits. Properties identified in the questionnaires for their water resources value are included in these numbers because potential acquisitions are not identified by municipality for the MCMUA program.1

If cost estimates were provided by these sources, they were utilized in this analysis. If no estimates were provided, the cost was calculated using the average acquisition cost per acre derived from the average cost of properties in the MCPC Land Acquisition 10 year forecast2. If no acreage was provided for a property, the cost was calculated using the average MCPC Land Acquisition project cost. These figures were used because they are based on appraisals and more accurately reflect the current value of land, and the property sizes more closely represent those that remain unpreserved in Morris County. The values used for these cost estimates can be found in Table 29.

2. Overview of Potential Projects

A total of 407 properties covering approximately 6,749 acres3 with a total estimated cost to the County of just over $115 million were identified by for municipalities. An additional $28.2 million (431 acres) was identified by land trust non-profits, for a total of $143 million of potential acquisitions.

A breakdown of estimated costs by municipality is illustrated in Figure 13. In this map, the darker colors represent higher total acquisition cost. The map shows that potential open space projects tend to be located in the northwestern and central-eastern portions of Morris County. The central and southern portions appear to have fewer potential open space acquisitions. As might be expected, the larger municipalities tend to have more potential properties.

In addition to the 29 municipalities that identified potential open space properties, four (4) others expressed a desire for open space acquisitions but did not provide specific locations. Ten (10) municipalities have substantial potential acquisitions:4 Boonton Township, Denville Township, Florham Park Borough, Hanover Township, Jefferson Township, Mendham Borough, Mendham Township, Mount Olive Township, Parsippany-Troy Hills Township, and Roxbury Township. Jefferson

1 MCMUA also is focusing on partnerships, primarily with the Municipal/Non-Profit Program 2 MCPC projects estimate a per acre cost of $14,887 and per project cost of $230,915. 3 Some properties lacked acreage estimates. 4 Over $5 million in costs to Morris County.



Township has the largest acreage of potential acquisitions with 80 properties covering 1,847 acres with an estimated value of $27.5 million. Mendham Township has the next largest acreage of potential acquisition at 866 and a County cost of nearly $13 million. Mount Olive and Florham Park each identified a little under $10 million in potential acquisitions. Roxbury Township has one large, 800 acre property identified.

3. Potential Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Acquisition Costs to Morris County

The estimated cost to Morris County to fund all potential open space acquisitions assumes a 60% County contribution and is approximately $143 million, over 80% of the $176.6 million spent so far. The total County cost of these potential acquisitions is substantial compared to the current annual Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Program funding of $1.56 million for 2014.1

1 See Table 1, page 3.



Table 27: Potential Preservation Trust Fund Projects

Total County Cost

Properties Acres County Cost7 Total Cost Properties Acres County Cost

8 Total Cost Projects County Cost9 Total Cost Properties

6County Cost

10 Total Cost Projects Acres County Cost (All Programs)Municipalities

Boonton Town 1 16 $238,190 $396,984 3 $2,268,330 $2,835,413 4 $370,064 $560,700 $2,876,585

Boonton Township 92 205 $5,131,304 $8,552,173 3 175 $2,949,647 $7,290,599 1 $197,068 $246,335 14 $1,295,224 $1,962,450 7 102 $3,597,783 $13,171,026

Butler Borough 1 2 $33,496 $55,826 1 $198,099 $247,624 22 $2,035,352 $3,083,850 $2,266,947

Chatham Borough 2 6 $81,878 $136,463 5 $1,653,024 $2,066,280 $1,734,902

Chatham Township 3 13 $655,361 $1,092,268 2 $661,210 $826,512 24 $2,220,384 $3,364,200 5 53 $4,374,900 $7,911,854

Chester Borough 5 $1,545,165 $1,931,456 $1,545,165

Chester Township 10 302 $3,821,597 $9,275,597 1 $330,605 $413,256 2 18 $1,167,863 $5,320,065

Denville Township 30 $6,927,462 $11,545,770 1 $812,528 $2,003,480 2 $661,210 $826,512 194 $17,948,104 $27,193,950 9 13 $1,045,700 $27,395,004

Dover Town 3 11 $163,756 $272,927 7 $2,181,452 $2,726,815 138 $12,767,208 $19,344,150 115 2 $72,256 $15,184,672

East Hanover Township 2 $730,605 $913,256 105 $9,714,180 $14,718,375 $10,444,785

Florham Park Borough 23 657 $9,775,763 $16,292,938 2 $1,051,629 $1,314,536 29 $2,682,964 $4,065,075 $13,510,356

Hanover Township 37 366 $5,444,869 $9,074,781 2 $876,011 $1,095,014 30 $2,775,480 $4,205,250 $9,096,360

Harding Township 7 231 $4,489,854 $11,029,758 2 $5,420,795 $6,775,994 23 $2,127,868 $3,224,025 $12,038,517

Jefferson Township 80 1,847 $27,497,280 $45,828,801 1 $960,000 $1,200,000 69 $6,383,604 $9,672,075 1 59 $205,100 $35,045,984

Kinnelon Borough 4 137 $2,957,212 $4,928,687 1 $640,983 $801,229 9 307 $1,890,067 $5,488,262

Lincoln Park Borough5 3 $692,746 $1,154,577 3 27 $379,679 $865,679 428 $39,596,848 $59,994,900 $40,669,273

Long Hill Township 2 $461,831 $769,718 1 60 $774,560 $1,908,560 4 $1,387,352 $1,734,190 200 $18,503,200 $28,035,000 3 13 $922,500 $22,049,443Madison Borough 13 $7,321,550 $9,151,937 14 $1,295,224 $1,962,450 $8,616,774Mendham Borough 17 507 $7,541,704 $12,569,506 6 227 $3,427,358 $8,401,358 1 $330,605 $413,256 $11,299,667

Mendham Township 22 866 $12,898,457 $21,497,428 6 263 $3,267,358 $8,001,358 2 $8,654,254 $10,817,818 18 $1,665,288 $2,523,150 $26,485,358

Mine Hill Township 2 $461,831 $769,718 1 76 $930,560 $2,298,560 1 $273,060 $341,325 1 6 $820,100 $2,485,551

Montville Township 5 72 $1,071,857 $1,786,428 1 17 $222,560 $528,560 13 $4,297,862 $5,372,328 107 $9,935,107 $15,058,550 4 411 $9,390,175 $24,917,560

Morris Plains Borough 10 24 $363,240 $605,401 16 $1,480,256 $2,242,800 $1,843,496

Morris Township 3 $692,746 $1,154,577 3 $2,437,583 $6,010,439 9 $3,445,710 $4,307,137 45 $4,163,220 $6,307,875 8 76 $3,322,198 $14,061,457

Morristown Town 3 $692,746 $1,154,577 16 $19,887,164 $24,858,955 23 $2,127,868 $3,224,025 $22,707,778

Mount Arlington Borough 2 $661,210 $826,512 $661,210

Mount Olive Township 20 664 $9,886,524 $16,477,541 12 1,737 $21,126,717 $52,482,717 8 $7,186,633 $8,983,291 46 $4,255,736 $6,448,050 1 30 $320,000 $42,775,610

Mountain Lakes Borough 2 $2,469,365 $3,086,706 $2,469,365

Netcong Borough 1 $688,957 $861,196 $688,957

Parsippany - Troy Hills Township 30 440 $6,544,817 $10,908,029 1 $812,528 $2,003,480 16 $19,207,007 $24,008,759 218 $20,168,488 $30,558,150 1 1 $35,100 $46,767,940

Pequannock Township 1 $230,915 $384,859 4 146 $1,826,239 $4,454,239 1 $831,792 $1,039,740 363 $33,583,308 $50,883,525 1 6 $60,100 $36,532,354

Randolph Township 1 25 $364,729 $607,882 1 22 $295,760 $711,560 2 $661,210 $826,512 32 $2,960,512 $4,485,600 $4,282,210

Riverdale Borough 4 30 $677,522 $1,129,204 2 $661,210 $826,512 34 $3,145,544 $4,765,950 2 45 $2,185,200 $6,669,476

Rockaway Borough 4 5 $530,311 $883,851 4 $2,598,923 $3,248,654 5 $462,580 $700,875 $3,591,814

Rockaway Township 1 $230,915 $384,859 4 76 $1,780,207 $4,339,159 4 $2,694,702 $3,368,378 28 $2,590,448 $3,924,900 $7,296,273

Roxbury Township 1 800 $11,909,520 $19,849,200 1 54 $666,560 $1,638,560 5 $3,094,460 $3,868,075 $15,670,540


Washington Township 2 58 $858,974 $1,431,624 30 1,667 $20,560,792 $50,566,792 5 $1,653,024 $2,066,280 40 $3,700,640 $5,607,000 2 38 $1,038,100 $27,811,530Wharton Borough 2 $550,143 $687,679 6 $555,096 $841,050 $1,105,239

Municipality Subtotal 407 6,749 $115,017,957 $191,696,595 95 5,080 $70,582,088 $173,810,456 150 $107,932,378 $134,915,472 2,275 $210,509,795 $318,957,950 57 1,181 $30,447,142 $534,489,359

Land Trust Non-Profits

Canal Society of NJ

Harding Land Trust 17 400 $5,954,760 $9,924,600 $5,954,760

Land Conservancy of NJ $12,000,000 $20,000,000 $12,000,000

NJ Conservation Foundation

NY-NJ Trail Conference 1 $230,915 $384,859 $230,915

Passaic River Coalition 2 31 $190,320 $317,200 3 $991,814 $1,239,768 $1,182,134

Protect our Wetlands, Water, Woods 4 $180,000 $300,000 2 $661,210 $826,512 $841,210

Schiff Natural Lands Trust 3 $692,746 $1,154,577 $692,746Trust for Public Land 7 $9,000,000 $15,000,000 $9,000,000

Non-Profits Subotal 34 431 $28,248,742 $47,081,236 5 $1,653,024 $2,066,280 $29,901,766

Municipal/Non-Profit Sum 441 7,180 $143,266,698 $238,777,831 95 5,080 $70,582,088 $173,810,456 155 $109,585,402 $136,981,752 2,275 $210,509,795 $318,957,950 57 1,181 $30,447,142 $564,391,124

Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority

Targeted Projects13

4 542 $996,000 $996,000 $996,000Potential Partnership Projects

1436 $15,004,000 $15,004,000

MCMUA Land Total17

40 542 $16,000,000 $16,000,000 $16,000,000

Morris County Park CommissionMCPC Park Improvements

12$51,981,500 $51,981,500 $51,981,500

Municipal, Trust Fund, & County Total16

481 7,722 $196,244,198 $291,755,331 95 5,080 $70,582,088 $173,810,456 155 $109,585,402 $136,981,752 2,275 $210,509,795 $318,957,950 57 1,181 $30,447,142 $617,368,624

4. Flood Mitigation targets for municipalities are derived from interviews, questionnaires, FLAPs, and NFIP by FEMA. For NFIP, 50% of total number of properties is used to estimate the number of qualified, willing sellers. Cost estimates from these sources are used if given. Otherwise, costs are estimated by the average County cost of closed projects.

5. Interview and questionnaire are inconsistent with Open Space Plan (Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space program).

6. Chester Township has flooding in 1 area. Netcong Borough has flooding in 3 areas. Roxbury Township has flooding in 3 areas.

7. Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space County costs are estimated at 60% of total cost which reflects the estimated County contribution.

8. Farmland Preservation County Costs are estimated based on a 40% match to SADC per PIG application.

9. Historic Preservation County costs are estimated at 80% of total cost, based on previous County contributions.

10. Flood Mitigation County costs are estimated at 60% of total cost which reflects County contribution of existing projects.

11. MCPC Land Acquisition Estimates are supported by March 5, 2014 MCPC Land Acquisition Committee Report.

12. MCPC Park Improvements is derived from MCPC Capital & Park Improvement Trust Fund Budgeting Forecast Review.

13. MCMUA Target Source: Executive Director Memorandum (April 14, 2014).

14. MCMUA Partnership projects based on current average of 4 projects per year from 2008-2013 - Executive Director Memorandum (April 14, 2014)

15. One project in Dover estimated using average acreage cost of Land Acquisition projects. Acreage source: County of Morris Tax Board.

16. The Municipal, Trust Fund, & County Total is a summation of values for all programs from all sources, and the lower right value of $617,368,624 represents the total requirement to fund all projects in this table.

17. MCMUA Partnership projects are expected to overlap with other Preservation Trust Fund projects. Accordingly, this value is not included in the Municipal, Trust Fund, & County Total in the bottom row.

2. Farmland targets for municipalities are derived from interviews, questionnaires, and SADC - PIG Summaries. Cost estimates from these sources are used if given. Otherwise, costs are estimated by using average cost per acre from PIG applications if acreage is known, or the average per farm acquisition cost of the PIG properties (costs are multiplied by 40% to estimate expected

County contribution).

3. Historic Preservation targets for municipalities and non-profits are derived from interviews, questionnaires, municipal OS Plans, or Cost Analysis table. Cost estimates from these sources are used if given including project balance on Cost Analysis table prepared by MC staff. Otherwise, costs are estimated by the average of cumulative funding by the County of 60 seasoned sites in

OrganizationMunicipal/Non-Profit Open Space1 Farmland Preservation2 Historic Preservation3 Flood Mitigation Program4

1. Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space targets for municipalities and non-profits are derived from interviews, questionnaires, and municipal Open Space Plans (OSP). Cost estimates from these sources are used if given. Otherwise, costs are estimated from MCPC 10-year Land Acquisition targets presented in this table. The average MCPC Land Acquisition cost per acre is used if

acreage is known, and average Land Acquisition cost per property is used if acreage is unknown (costs are multiplied by 60% to estimate expected County contribution).




Table 28: Source of Potential Projects

Q3 I OSP

2 Total Q I PIG Total Q I OSP CA Total Q I F Total

Boonton Town 1 1 2 2 4 4

Boonton Township 7 2 83 92 1 2 3 1 1 2 12 14

Butler Borough 1 1 1 1 22 22

Chatham Borough 2 2 5¹ 5

Chatham Township 1 2 3 2 2 24 24

Chester Borough 3 1 1 5

Chester Township 2 8 10 1 1

Denville Township 30 30 1 1 1 1 0 2 194 194

Dover Town 1 1 1 3 6 1 7 138 138

East Hanover Township 2 2 50 55 105

Florham Park Borough 23 23 1 1 2 29 29

Hanover Township 1 2 34 37 1 1 2 30 30

Harding Township 2 5 7 2 2 23 23

Jefferson Township 80 80 1 1 69 69

Kinnelon Borough 4 4 1 1

Lincoln Park Borough 3 3 1 2 3 428 428

Long Hill Township 2 2 1 1 3 1 4 200 200

Madison Borough 10 3 13 14 14

Mendham Borough 17 17 1 5 6 2 2

Mendham Township 22 22 6 6 2 2 18 18

Mine Hill Township 2 2 1 1 1 1

Montville Township 2 3 5 1 1 13 13 6 101 107

Morris Plains Borough 10 10 16 16

Morris Township 3 3 3 3 6 3 9 14 31 45

Morristown Town 2 1 3 16 16 23 23

Mount Arlington Borough 2 2

Mount Olive Township 2 18 20 12 12 6 2 8 46 46

Mountain Lakes Borough 1 1 2

Netcong Borough 1 1

Parsippany - Troy Hills Township 30 30 1 1 3 13 16 18 200 218

Pequannock Township 1 1 4 4 1 1 363 363

Randolph Township 1 1 1 1 2 2 32 32

Riverdale Borough 2 2 4 2 2 34 34

Rockaway Borough 2 2 4 2 2 4 5 5

Rockaway Township 1 1 1 3 4 2 2 4 28 28

Roxbury Township 1 1 1 1 1 4 5


Washington Township 2 2 30 30 5 5 40 40

Wharton Borough 0 1 1 2 6 6

Municipality Subtotal 32 19 356 407 10 5 80 95 68 10 6 66 150 2 288 1985 2275

Q = Questionnaire

I = Interview

OSP = Open Space Plan

PIG = Planning Incentive Grant

CA = Historic Preservation Cost Analysis Table

F = FEMA data (calculation = # of NFIP homes x 50%, minus Municipal estimate from Q & I)

3. Properties identified by municipalities in questionnaire for acquisition for water quality or County Park linkages are included in Municipal/Non-Profit Program totals because MCMUA expects to

focus on partnerships, and MCPC does not expect to acquire these properties (except one Dover property).

2. Properties identified by municipal Open Space Plans (OSPs) were verified against the Morris County POSI to assure preservation had not occurred since the plan adoption date. Many open

space plans lacked specifically targeted properties; for these municipalities, the number of general or specific areas mentioned (e.g. greenways or park expensions) were used, resulting in a low end

estimate. For municipal OSPs that outlined all potential properties in the municipality without priorities, only vacant parcels were counted. Properties targeted by Farmland Preservation were also

not counted to avoid duplication.

1. Chatham Borough identified 70 historic properties. This number was deemed unrealistic by staff of the Historic Preservation Program for the purposes of this study. The quantity of 5 was used

instead as it was the upper end of the number of properties that could likely be funded through the program.

Municipalities

Municipal/Non-Profit

Open SpaceFarm Preservation Historic Preservation Flood Mitigation



Table 29: County Cost Estimates

Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Per Property1

$230,915

Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Per Acre2

$14,887

Farmland Preservation Per Property3

$793,968

Farmland Preservation Per Acre4

$12,600

Flood Mitigation Program Per Property5

$84,105

Historic Preservation Per Property6

$330,605

Farmland Preservation Soft Costs Per Farm7

$18,560

Flood Mitigation Program Soft Costs Per Project9

$8,411

MCPC Land Acquisition Soft Costs Per Project8

$20,100

4. Farmland Per Acre costs are based on average easement cost identified in PIG

applications $31,500 times 40% for expected County contribution.

5. Flood Mitigation Costs are based on average County contribution of closed

projects.

6. Historic Preservation Average County Costs is the average of cumulative funding

of 60 seasoned sites (80 total sites - 20 newer sites = 60) funded in program.

7. Farmland Preservation Soft Costs are based on average of closed projects from

2007-2014.

8. MCPC Land Acquisition Soft Costs Per Project are based on average anticipated

costs.

County Costs EstimatesCounty Costs Estimates

1. Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Per Property values are based on MCPC 10-year

Land Acquisition targets total costs / number of properties ($29,249,285/76). The

resulting number is multiplied by 60% to calculate estimated County contribution.

2. Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Per Acre values based on MCPC 10-year Land

Acquisition targets total costs / number of acres ($29,249,285/1179). The resulting

number is multiplied by 60% to calculate estimated County contribution.

3. Farmland Per property costs are based on average easement cost per property of

County identified farms from PIG applications x 40% for expected County

contribution.

9. Flood Mitigation Soft Costs Per Project are based on an estimate of 10% of

acquisition costs



Figure 13: Potential Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Acquisition Costs to Morris County



B. Farmland Preservation

1. Methodology

Potential easement acquisitions for the Farmland Preservation Program are aggregated from the SADC Planning Incentive Grant (PIG) application summary report, questionnaires, and interviews with municipalities. Cost estimates furnished by these sources are utilized where provided. If no estimates were provided, the cost is calculated using the average easement cost per acre of $12,6001. If no acreage is provided for a property, the cost is calculated using the average cost to County of farms identified in PIG applications. The values used for these cost estimates can be found in Table 9.


Properties targeted for acquisition under Farmland Preservation are identified in 18 municipalities with a total estimated easement cost to Morris County of $70.6 million. These 95 properties include 5,080 acres, the majority of which are located in Mount Olive and Washington Townships.

Both of these townships have County easement cost estimates of just over $20 million for a similar acreage amounts, 1,737 acres in Mount Olive Township and 1,667 acres in Washington Township. While these two municipalities account for two-thirds of the targeted farm acreage, substantial preservation opportunities exist in 16 other municipalities for a total of 1,676 acres at an estimated cost of $28.9 million.

Harding Township has the third highest easement cost to Morris County at $4.5 million followed by Chester Township at $3.8 million. Mendham Borough and Mendham Township combined have a total of $6.7 million and 490 acres. Boonton Township has three farms covering 175 acres and an estimated easement cost of $2.9 million, the largest total in the northern portion of the County. The remaining municipalities have identified one to four properties each with a total easement costs of $2.5 million or less.

A visual breakdown of estimated easement costs to Morris County by municipality can be seen in Figure 14 with the darker colors representing higher total easement cost. The map illustrates that potential farmland for preservation is mainly in the western and southern portion of the County.

More municipalities (18) identified farmland preservation needs than have participated in the program to date (14). Ten municipalities have both preserved farms and targeted properties. Mount Olive is notable as the 1,737 potential acres are more than eight times the amount preserved so far in the township. Only Chester Borough has a preserved farm but no targeted farmland.

1 Average total easement cost of $31,500 times 40% for expected County contribution.



Figure 14: Potential Farmland Preservation Easement Costs to Morris County



3. Potential Farmland Preservation Easement Costs to Morris County

Although potential Farmland Preservation projects have a lower acreage (5,080 acres) than those farms already preserved (7,709 acres), the $70.5 million cost of these potential projects is nearly equivalent to the $71.4 million spent so far in the Farmland Preservation Program due to increased property values since the program’s inception over 20 years ago.

The $70.6 million in potential costs to Morris County is substantial compared to the Farmland Preservation Program’s current annual funding level of $0.89 million for 2014, even taking into account a balance of $9 million. The program started 2014 with $28.4 million in funds but has spent $5.9 million so far this year and committed another $14.4 million.

C. Historic Preservation

1. Methodology

Potential preservation projects for the Historic Preservation Program are compiled from the Cost Analysis table prepared by the Program Coordinator, the questionnaires, and interviews. The Cost Analysis table lists all of the projects currently in the program and includes the total cost of the project and the amount already funded. The 1551 projects identified in Table 8 include 94 incomplete projects currently in the program with their unfunded remaining balances. An additional 61 projects are identified from the questionnaires/interviews.

County cost estimates are used when provided; otherwise, the average of the cumulative funding amounts of 60 Historic Preservation sites is used, accounting for 20% matching provided by Historic Preservation applicants (i.e. $330,605). These 60 HP sites have been identified by the Historic Preservation Program Coordinator as sites where substantial preservation activities have occurred thus making them suitable for the purposes of estimating cost for potential Historic Preservation projects.2


In total, 155 potential projects for the Historic Preservation program are identified at an estimated cost to Morris County of $109.6 million in 36 different municipalities. Only the Boroughs of Lincoln Park, Morris Plains, and Victory Gardens have not identified potential historic preservation projects.

Four (4) municipalities identified 10 or more potential projects. Morristown has the highest potential project costs to Morris County at $19.9 million for 16 projects, followed closely by Parsippany-Troy Hills Township, also with 16 potential projects and a total estimated County cost of $19.2 million. Madison Borough and Montville Township are next with 13 projects each. Approximately 80% of Morris County municipalities3 have identified five or fewer potential projects.

Figure 15 provides a visual overview of the potential project costs to Morris County by municipality. The degree to which the map is colored in red indicates the program’s activity in the various municipalities. In contrast to the Farmland and

1 150 by municipalities, plus another 5 identified by land trust non-profits. 2 See Table 28 for source of all Historic Preservation projects. 3 Twenty-eight (28) municipalities have between 1 and 5 projects. Three have no projects identified.



Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Preservation Programs, physical size of a municipality is not connected to the number of projects identified.

3. Potential Historic Preservation Project Costs to Morris County

The costs for potential future projects in the Historic Preservation Program are significant compared to previously funded projects. To date, $20.3 million has been spent in total historic preservation funding by Morris County, which is less than one fifth of the $109.6 million estimated in County costs of potential projects. This disparity is considerable compared to the program’s $2.23 million in annual funding for 2014, plus its account balance of $3.75 million. The program began the year with an account balance of $6.75 million, but has spent $1.14 million so far this year with another $4.09 million committed.1 Potential future participation is expected to increase with four additional municipalities expressing interest in Historic Preservation projects in addition to the 32 that participated in the past, all of which have additional identified projects.

1 As of May 31, 2014.



Figure 15: Potential Historic Preservation Project Costs to Morris County



D. Flood Mitigation Program

1. Methodology

Potential properties for acquisition by the Flood Mitigation Program are identified from the municipal questionnaires/interviews, Morris County Flood Acquisition Plans (FLAPs) developed for municipalities, and National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) data provided by FEMA. The NFIP numbers are then multiplied by 50% to more accurately estimate the number of qualified, willing sellers. Estimates from the municipalities are subtracted from the FLAP and NFIP numbers to avoid duplication.

The average cost to Morris County of acquisitions, based on pending and closed projects in this program, is $84,105 per project.1 This value provides an accurate estimate because it is based on acquisitions appraised through the program which has been in existence for only two years.


Potential acquisitions through the Flood Mitigation Program are identified in 28 municipalities and include a total of 2,275 homes with an acquisition cost to Morris County of $210.5 million.2 Additionally, three municipalities report having flood prone homes but did not provide estimates of the number of properties, leaving only eight municipalities with no flood mitigation needs.

Lincoln Park Borough and Pequannock Township have the greatest number of flood-prone properties (428 and 363 respectively). The Townships of Denville, East Hanover, Long Hill, Montville, Parsippany-Troy Hills and the Town of Dover have identified over 100 homes each that may require flood acquisition. The number of flood prone properties in the remaining municipalities range from four properties in Boonton Town to 69 properties in Jefferson Township.

The location of potential Flood Mitigation Program properties in Morris County can be seen in Figure 16. This map demonstrates that flood mitigation needs are spread throughout the County with the greatest concentration of need in the eastern and central-eastern portions of the County, plus Long Hill Township at the southernmost point of the County.

3. Potential Flood Mitigation Program Costs to Morris County

The estimated County acquisition cost for all identified Flood Mitigation Program projects is $210.5 million, over 12 times the $16.5 million committed so far. Additionally, all six (6) municipalities with past acquisitions in the program have potential future properties. Since the FMP started acquiring properties only recently, the large number of remaining properties is not surprising. However, the number of flood-prone properties to potentially acquire is immense compared to the present annual funding of the program of $1.12 million in 2014, even considering the program balance of $1.85 million.

1 See Table 29. 2 See Table 27.



Figure 16: Potential Flood Mitigation Program Costs to Morris County



E. Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority (MCMUA)

The MCMUA has averaged four projects per year since 2008 and anticipates this annual number of projects to continue into the future. The MCMUA’s current four projects include 542 acres with a total cost of $996,000. The annual needs of this program are estimated at $1.6 million, putting the ten year needs requirement at approximately $16 million. As most MCMUA projects are partnerships, the acquisition projects for this program are generally included in the municipal open space estimates in Table 27.

The annual funding level for MCMUA at $0.22 million is low compared to the total targeted acquisitions, and the account balance of $9.2 million should make their acquisition targets more feasible but is still insufficient to fund the 10 year forecast of $16 million in potential projects. It is also important to note that water resource related acquisitions identified in the questionnaires have been assigned to the Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space program in these estimates since potential MCMUA projects were not identified by municipality. As a result, the actual number of potential projects for the MCMUA could be higher than these estimates.

F. Morris County Park Commission Land Acquisition

The Morris County Park Commission’s (MCPC) Land Acquisition Program places potential acquisitions into three categories: Targeted Projects, Potential Projects, and Projects to Monitor/Long Range Projects. All projects are either adjacent to existing parks or desired for greenway preservation and/or trail development.

The MCPC has an extensive trail system that crosses both east to west and north to south. A number of missing links still remain either within or between the different trails, and future efforts can connect municipal trail systems or bike lanes to the regional trails.

Targeted Projects are high priority and contiguous to existing MCPC property and/or could have potential development impact on MCPC stewarded property. A number of these properties are also listed on MCPC’s New Jersey Green Acres Planning Incentive Grant (PIG) and will allow for the protection of significant natural, recreation, or historic resources. Additionally, many of the property owners on the list have been in contact with MCPC and are interested in selling their land.

Potential Projects are also contiguous to existing MCPC land but may not be of high priority for a variety of reasons and may not have specifically identified conservation, recreation, or historic uses. Long-term private development of these lands could negatively affect MCPC property.

Projects to Monitor/Long Range Projects include potential donations and partial lot acquisitions. These properties have historical significance or may potentially have negative impacts to regional natural resources.

The Land Acquisition Program has outlined a total of 1,181 acres in 16 municipalities to add land to 15 different Morris County parks. Montville Township has the highest potential acquisition cost for the program at $9.4 million for 411 acres. Chatham Township has the next highest cost at $4.4 million for 53 acres, followed by Boonton Township at $3.6 million for 102 acres and Morris Township at $3.3 million for 76 acres. Kinnelon Borough has the second highest acreage of potential projects with 307 acres at a cost of $1.9 million. The remaining 11 municipalities have approximately $1 million or less each in potential acquisition costs.



Figure 17 shows costs to the County for potential MCPC Land Acquisition projects by municipality. From this map, acquisitions appear to be focused on the northeastern portion of the County with some projects spread throughout the remainder of Morris County.

Between the three types of projects, the total current value cost of potential projects is $30.4 million which is less than half of the total amount spent by the program so far. Yet, with the MCPC Land Acquisition current annual allocation of $0.67 million for 2014, the program will have difficulty completing these potential projects. Additionally, the MCPC has a $1.2 million NJ Green Acres Planning Incentive Grant; however, as of May 31, 2014, the program had a negative balance of over $0.5 million.

Once the current Targeted Projects have been acquired, the MCPC may need to wait a number of years to build up funding balances to acquire certain properties, depending on final appraisal values. The Park Commission would like to be able to access overall unencumbered Preservation Trust Fund balances or draw down against future year’s allocations.



Figure 17: Potential MCPC Land Acquisition Costs to Morris County



G. Morris County Park Commission Park Improvement Trust (PIT)

The Morris County Park Improvement Trust Fund was established to bridge the funding gap between the Park Commission’s annual capital funding level and the capital repairs and park improvements needed to maintain the quality county parks the residents of Morris County expect. The Park Commission’s annual capital funding has been reduced over the last five years from $2.4 million to $1.5 million with an annual expenditure of $700,000 allocated towards equipment and vehicle replacement that cannot be funded through the Park Improvement Trust Fund. The 2014 PIT allocation was $2.23 million, and the PIT currently has an unencumbered balance of $0.36 million which is anticipated to be applied to paving projects. The current funding level will meet less than half of the ten year project forecast of $52 million noted in Table 27.

A continued stable source of funding from the Park Improvement Trust is needed to maintain the extensive infrastructure and facilities of the park system which includes: seven (7) National & State Registered Historic Sites, a National Historic Landmark, over 20 miles of roadways, 14 dams, 150 structures, an ice skating arena, three (3) nationally recognized arboreta, and over 155 miles of recreational trails.

H. Potential Costs for All Preservation Trust Fund Programs

The total anticipated Morris County contribution to estimated potential costs for Preservation Trust Fund programs is displayed in the right-hand column of Table 27 under the heading “Total County Cost.” As indicated, with the exception of Victory Gardens Borough, all municipalities have identified projects for at least one program of the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund. Moreover, 34 of 39 municipalities (87%) have potential projects in more than one program.

The total County cost of potential projects for the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund is $617.4 million. These cost estimates vary greatly by municipality, from under $1 million to nearly $50 million. The average County cost for Morris County municipalities is calculated at $13.7 million, with a median cost of $9.8 million. Only 13 of the 39 municipalities have under $5 million in potential projects, and only six (6) have under $2 million in potential projects.

The range of costs by municipality can be seen in Figure 18. This map shows that preservation needs are fairly evenly distributed throughout Morris County. The three (3) municipalities with over $40 million of potential preservation projects are in various parts of the County and include Lincoln Park in the east, Mount Olive Township in the west, and Parsippany-Troy Hills Township in the central-eastern portion of the County.

Some properties and projects included on the potential needs table may not currently qualify for funding in the respective programs. For example, municipalities identified numerous historic properties that they wish to preserve but do not yet own. Some open space and farmland properties may not have willing sellers presently or might not qualify due to size requirements despite having preservation potential for trail linkages or to prevent development.

In summary, the total County cost of potential future projects for Preservation Trust Fund programs is approximately $617 million. These funding cost estimates dwarf the current annual revenue from the open space tax of just $8.94 million in 2014, even considering the unencumbered Preservation Trust Fund balance of $48.8 million. As previously noted, these projects are distributed throughout Morris County.



Figure 18: Cost of All Potential Preservation Trust Fund Projects to Morris County

VII. Preservation Trust Fund Recommendations



A. Potential Additional Uses of the Fund

As part of the strategic analysis, municipalities and non-profits were asked about potential new or expanded uses for the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund. The results are discussed in Chapter II and presented in Table 5 (page 34). Overall, the support for new potential proposed uses was strong from both the municipalities and the non-profits. Municipalities responded with “Strongly Support” to every potential new/expanded use. Land trust non-profits responded with “Strongly Support” to five (5) of the nine (9) additional uses.

Use of the Trust Fund for field development received support from 86% of municipalities.1 Opposition to this use was 14%, and while a relatively small percentage, constituted the strongest opposition of all potential new uses for municipalities. This opposition came from only five (5) municipalities. All municipalities2 supported using funds for trail development, and only three (3) opposed using funds for habitat restoration. Support was also strong amongst Morris County municipalities for using funds for water resource related post-preservation improvements.3

The land trust non-profits had higher levels of opposition with over 20% in opposition to five (5) uses, and over 50% opposed to using funds for cultural and heritage tourism. The non-profit opposition is limited to a very small sample size though, one (1) or two (2) organizations for each measure except trail development and habitat restoration with no opposition and the aforementioned cultural and heritage tourism use with four (4) organizations opposed.

Based on the potential future projects for each program (Table 27, Chapter VI, page 83), Morris County has no lack of potential projects on which to spend current and future funding under existing program rules. However, this survey found an overwhelming level of support for the additional uses, particularly among municipalities. Potential expansion of allowable uses is addressed in the following sections.

B. Recommended Preservation Trust Fund Priorities

Morris County has one of the oldest Open Space Tax referendums in the state. While programs have been added, the primary use of for the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund (PTF) dollars has not changed. Currently, the Trust Fund may only be used for acquisition, specific functions within historic preservation, or the limited allocation of the PIT. Over half of the other New Jersey counties allow their trust fund dollars to be used for post-preservation projects.4 It may be time to allow Morris County municipalities to protect and enhance the investment that has been made in creating open spaces with post-preservation funding as well.

Based on the needs outlined for each of the programs by municipalities and non-profits, it is clear that funding, at a minimum, should continue for the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund (PTF). It is noteworthy that the total County cost of potential projects for the Preservation Trust Fund is over $600 million, while only addressing current fund uses. This total does not include any of the new or expanded uses desired by the municipalities of the County.

1 69% “Strongly Support.” 2 One municipality did not respond. 3 94% “Support,” 70% “Strongly Support.” 4 Data compiled by Division of Planning and Preservation Staff.



Based on these findings, it is recommended that the Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders maintain funding for the Preservation Trust Fund at a minimum and consider gradually increasing the current collection rate which stands at one (1) cent based on future application levels and the changing needs of Morris County with regard to Trust Fund programs. To provide funding for the new and expanded uses, increased funding will almost certainly be needed, as will a new referendum, since these uses are not permitted under the presently adopted rules.

The overall conclusion from these numbers is that sufficient potential demand exists for the continued collection and apportionment of funds by the Preservation Trust. Adding to the allowable uses of the funds, as supported by the municipalities and non-profits, also supports this funding need, with the strong potential to offset any reductions in property acquisition plans, if currently identified needs were reduced.

Having identified ample needs for funding for each Preservation Trust Fund program, it is reasonable to wonder why fewer grant requests have been received recently and why several PTF programs have significant account balances.

Several explanations for this phenomenon are immediately apparent:

1. Economic Downturn had an effect on many Preservation Trust Fund programs as decreased property values led property owners to wait for a turnaround in real estate prices before selling. As the economy recovers, this situation appears to be changing. Both Farmland and Historic Preservation have had a recent increase in grant applications. The Flood Mitigation Program is new and never saw a decrease in applications.

As of May, 31 2014, $8.96 million has been spent, compared to $8.94 million in total allocations for the year, and another $46 million in funds have been committed to Morris County preservation projects that have not yet closed. These numbers indicate an increasing demand for Preservation Trust Fund Programs.

2. Increased Awareness of the programs will also likely increase applications. Questionnaire results from municipalities demonstrate a disparity between the reported participation levels in Preservation Trust programs and actual participation numbers. For example, nine (9) municipalities reported working with MCMUA, yet MCMUA reports having worked directly with 15 municipalities. For the Open Space program, 32 municipalities reported acquiring land in the program, while 35 had actually done so.1

The lack of awareness also holds true for future identified needs, some examples:

a. Farmland Preservation: 12 municipalities reported knowledge of farms needing protection, but needs have been identified in 18 municipalities according the summary table (Table 27 in Chapter VI, page 83).

b. Historic Preservation: 28 municipalities identified historic properties to preserve compared to 36 municipalities with identified needs in the table (Table 27 in Chapter VI, page 83).

c. Flood Mitigation: 20 municipalities did not see a flood mitigation need in their community, yet Flood Acquisition Plans and data from the National Flood

1 A non-profit, rather than the municipality, may have been the direct applicant.



Insurance Program indicate a much greater need, including up to 28 Morris County municipalities.

The outreach portion of this study (questionnaires and interviews) helped improve awareness of the Preservation Trust Fund and may have encouraged increased future participation. An annual or bi-annual reminder of the preservation opportunities and requirements for each program by the Trust Fund would increase participation and help mitigate issues arising from municipal staff and elected official turnover.

3. Post-Preservation Issues have also likely impacted the number of applications. A majority of municipalities (62%) reported post preservation plans for acquired properties, and even more municipalities (67%) desired a mechanism to fund these improvements. It is very possible that municipalities chose not to apply for funds to acquire open spaces because they cannot afford the desired improvements to realize the full potential of these investments in open space. Of municipalities responding, 80% requested the use of PTF funds for post-preservation recreation needs or trail development.

Finally, two-thirds of municipalities (67%) support reallocating unused funds to other programs within the Preservation Trust Fund.

C. Recommendations by Program / Agency

1. Open Space Preservation

Although the Open Space Preservation Program has significant identified needs for future properties, participation in this program has decreased.

Some changes might result in a higher level of municipal participation:

a. More Than One Funding Round per Year would likely increase participation, for several municipalities1 cited the once per year application process as a reason for non-participation in the program. Having a second, additional opportunity each year would address this problem.

Alternately, a second application date could be used as a way to consider additional uses of Open Space Preservation funds such as recreation facility and trail development. Under this scenario, preference would still be given to land acquisition while assuring that the Open Space Preservation allocation of the Trust Fund is not left unused. This process would also address the strong support by municipalities for the use of Open Space funds for habitat restoration and trail development.

b. Creation of an Open Space Improvement Program with a separate fund specifically for these improvements. The program could utilize a ranking system to give priority to certain types of projects reflecting the preferences of local municipalities and non-profits. A park improvement plan with matching funds by the municipality is recommended.

This recommendation would require a new voter approved referendum and cannot be accomplished under the current referenda. However, this change would address the overwhelming support by municipalities and non-profits for allowing funds for other uses, particularly trail development. Less than half of municipalities (46%) reported that their trail system connects to MCPC trails, but

1 Four municipalities.



31 (79%) are interested in doing so. Additionally, this recommendation may also help with the missing trail linkages described previously.


Allow Smaller Farms to Qualify: Morris County’s Farmland Preservation program requires a farm to be a minimum of 10 acres. Many northern farms do not qualify despite their preservation potential and ability to be subdivided into residential lots for development. Of responding municipalities, 60% expressed an interest in this program modification.1 However, it should be noted that the county program allows for a waiver of minimum criteria on a case-by-case basis. The State’s farmland preservation program allows the preservation of farms less than 10 acres in size provided that they meet additional eligibility criteria.


Maintain and Consider Increasing Program Funding: Due to the growing demand for Historic Preservation, it is recommended that the maximum program funding level be increased. Historic Preservation had the highest percentage of municipalities (92%) with identified projects. Increasing funding for the Historic Preservation Program, which might be recommended in the future if applications grow at the estimated rate, requires a new referendum.

Even without increased funding, the Historic Preservation program could benefit from reallocation of unused funds from other programs within the Preservation Trust, which as mentioned above would require a new referendum as the Historic Preservation Program’s funding is capped at the current ¼ cent rate.

4. Flood Mitigation Program

Maintain and Consider Increasing Program Funding: Ninety-four percent (94%) of funds allocated to this program were encumbered within two years of its inception, including 100% of the original $16 million seed money. Applications continue to flow in despite a relatively dry weather season in 2013. Identified needs greatly outweigh the future funding stream. Seventy-two percent of Morris County’s 39 municipalities have flood mitigation needs.

Accordingly, the recommendation for this program is to maintain or increase funding. Recent federal flood insurance reform has removed federal subsidies and discounts for flood-prone homes. As a result flood insurance rates will rise by up to 18% per year until homeowners are bearing the full financial risk for ownership of such flood- prone homes. It is projected that this federal legislation will likely lead to more willing sellers and more municipal applications for this program.

If Flood Mitigation’s annual funding allocation cannot be increased, the earlier recommendation for the reallocation of unused funds to this programs within the Preservation Trust could be implemented to aid this program.

This program utilizes FEMA’s Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) computer model to evaluate potential projects. This assures that these projects make financial sense to the municipality and county over the long term.

Expand Allowable Uses of Funds: Demolition and post-preservation site restoration are recommended to be allowable uses of Flood Mitigation Program

1 Three of five responding municipalities.



funds. Currently, some municipalities have limited their participation in the program due to these expenses.

As stated in Chapter V, municipalities spend $1.30 for every $1 of tax revenue generated from residential properties. While initially counter-intuitive, the reversion of these flood-prone homes to open space to capture and contain flood waters will most likely reduce municipal costs by more than the loss of tax revenue.

5. Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority

The funding level for MCMUA is lower than what is required to meet the program’s needs. Thus, the recommendation for this program is to maintain or increase funding for the program.

Cover Post-Preservation Costs: If the collection rate is increased, it is recommended that MCMUA grant funds be used to cover habitat and other land restoration projects in accordance with requests by several municipalities in their questionnaires.

6. Morris County Park Commission Land Acquisition

Maintain Program Funding: The MCPC Open Space program currently has a negative balance based on committed funds, yet $30.4 million in potential future projects. As discussed, 80% of municipal respondents are interested in changes to the MCPC Land Acquisition program to allow the use of funds for recreation or trail development. These potential trail and recreation improvements are better addressed by the PIT or the proposed Open Space Improvement Program.

The recommendation for the Morris County Park Commission Land Acquisition Program is to maintain and potentially increase the funding level of the program.

7. Morris County Park Commission Park Improvement Trust (PIT)

Increase Program Funding: The funding for the PIT is much lower than what is required to fund proposed projects over the next 10 years at $2.23 million per year compared to $52 million needed for proposed improvements. With a deficit of more than half of what is needed, the PIT cannot fill the potential additional desires for trail and park improvements.

The recommendation for the Morris County Park Commission Park Improvement Trust is to increase the maximum funding level of the program from ¼ to ½ cent which requires a new voter referendum.

8. Funding Requirements to Meet Program Forecast

In order to meet the needs outlined in the preceding sections of this report, additional funding will be required. Table 30 presents the collection rate required to meet the potential Preservation Trust Fund estimates. The 10 year forecast for the MCMUA, MCPC Land Acquisition, and MCPC Park Improvement Trust are set at the numbers provided in Table 27, for these estimates were meant to represent 10 year program costs.

Potential project estimates in Table 27 for the other four programs have an indefinite timeline, so program managers were asked to estimate the percentage of projects that could be expected to be completed in a 10 year timeframe based on the program closings to date. Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space, Historic Preservation, and the Flood Mitigation Program are set at 50% of potential projects, while Farmland Preservation is set at 65% of potential projects.



The calculations in the table consider the existing Preservation Trust Fund balances plus what would potentially need to be collected annually over 10 years to meet these program estimates. The collection rate in line “z” represents the average rate needed over the next 10 years to fund the program estimates for all seven (7) current Trust Fund programs plus the new Open Space Improvement Program.1 The collection rate of 3.84 cents would allow the total funds for the next 10 years (plus the current balances) to equal the funding requirements of the eight (8) programs.

The table also shows the average allocation required for each of the programs over 10 years to meet that program’s funding forecast. These values do not represent a recommendation for next year or any year, but rather, the average allocated required over 10 years. The allocations should be adjusted annually to reflect program application levels, using trends rather than annual expenditures.

These numbers indicate that, if the collection rate is increased to meet all of these funding forecasts, over a 10 year period, collection rate proportions will need to be increased for the Flood Mitigation Program, Historic Preservation, and the Park Improvement Trust, while proportions will be reduced for Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space, Farmland Preservation, and MCPC Land Acquisition. MCMUA allocations should stay at a similar proportion for the 10 year period; however, MCMUA numbers do not include questionnaire derived properties, so the demand may be higher than these numbers indicate. It is also important to note that only the proportion of the collection rate allocated to each program is anticipated to change over 10 years. All Preservation Trust Fund programs have greater potential project estimates than will be supplied by their current funding levels.

1 For the purpose of program funding estimates, the allocation of this new program is estimated at 10% of the collection rate after the allocation for the Park Improvement Trust.



Table 30: Projected 10 Year Allocation of the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund with New Open Space Improvement Program

Current Funds Current or Annual 10 year total

Unexpended tax revenues from prior years $94,820,000

2014 Funding

Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Acquisition $1,560,000

Farmland Preservation $890,000

Historic Preservation $2,230,000

Flood Mitigation Program $1,120,000

Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority $220,000

Morris County Park Commission Land Acquisition $670,000

Morris County Park Commission Park Improvement Trust $2,230,000

Current balance available Sum of lines a through h $103,740,000

Committed funds as of 5/31/2014 ($45,990,000)

2013 Spending as of 5/31/2014 ($8,960,000)

Curent total available for consideration7

Line i + j + k $48,790,000 $48,790,000

Future Income

Anticipated Annual Tax Revenue Based on a Collection Rate of 3.836 Cents $34,819,466 $348,194,662

for the rateable base (line z * n / 100)

Rateable Base 5$90,780,233,689

Total 10 Year Funding Available for Consideration6 Lines l+m $396,984,662

Trust Fund Programs1

10 Year Funding Estimates9

10 Year Average

Allocation10

Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Acquisition 50% of Potential Projects $7,163,335 $71,633,349 20%

Farmland Preservation 65% of Potential Projects $4,587,836 $45,878,357 13%

Historic Preservation 50% of Potential Projects $5,479,270 $54,792,701 15%

Flood Mitigation Program 50% of Potential Projects $10,525,490 $105,254,898 29%


10 Year Program Forecast $1,600,000 $16,000,000 4%


10 Year Program Forecast $3,044,714 $30,447,142 8%

Morris County Park Commission Park Improvement Trust2

10 Year Program Forecast $5,198,150 $51,981,500 0.57 Cents

Open Space Improvement Program3

10% of Collection Rate $3,600,072 $36,000,716 10%

Program Partnerships4

Properties/Projects funded by more ($1,500,400) ($15,004,000)

than one Trust Fund Program

Total Potential Expenditure of Funds for All Purposes Sum of lines p through x $39,698,466 $396,984,662 100%

Notes:

Targets provided by these programs were based on 10 year projections.

Some properties are targeted as partnerships (MCMUA and another program). This value is intended to account for that duplication.

These values represent the average allocation needed over a 10 year period to fund all program estimates and are not a recommendation for annual allocations.

Collection Rate Required to Fund Projections

(For Line y to = Line o)

Funding estimates are provided by Program Directors based on previous project closings within each program.

3.84 cents8

Difference of $20,000 from Table 1: Preservation Trust Fund Balances resulting from rounding.

Costs in this table are calculated in 2014 dollars and are not adjusted for inflation.

Source: State of New Jersey, Department of the Treasury, Division of Taxation web site, Morris County 2013 Abstract of Ratables. Column 11 - Net Valuation for County Tax

Apportionment.

From Table 27: Potential Preservation Trust Fund Projects with estimated completion of stated percentage under (10 Year Funding Estimates) of Potential Projects.

This Collection Rate considers an expansion of the Preservation Trust Fund for Open Space Improvements funded at 10% but not other expanded uses.

Estimated at 10% Allocation of Total Preservation Trust Fund Collections (not including PIT).



D. Recommended Strategies

1. Establish a periodic review of the Preservation Trust Fund in order to determine municipal and non-profit funding needs and priorities for all Programs and establish a procedure for making adjustments to address these evolving needs

2. Establish a new allowable funding use, or separate fund, for post preservation improvements to preserved properties, particularly trail and recreation development and habitat restoration.

3. Allow post-preservation funding for Preservation Trust Fund programs, including funds from the Flood Mitigation Program for demolition and post-preservation site restoration, and site restoration funds for MCMUA, both of which would enhance flood capture and storage abilities of preserved lands.

4. Allow Freeholders to set allotments of the Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Program, Farmland Preservation Program, Flood Mitigation Program, MCMUA program, Historic Preservation Program, and MCPC Land Acquisition Program without maximum allotments per program to best meet the changing needs of Morris County.

5. Increase the maximum allocation for the Park Improvement Trust from ¼ cent to ½ cent and allow this program to benefit from fund reallocations. It is recommended that the annual allocation for this program increase only if the collection rate is increased from one (1) cent.

6. Increase the number of application opportunities in the Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Program to allow more than one application cycle per year.

7. Allow preservation of farms smaller than ten (10) acres to match state minimum criteria.1

8. Maintain and consider increasing the existing collection rate for the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund based on application levels and in response to changing needs in regard to Trust Fund programs.

9. Establish an outreach program to municipalities to raise awareness of Trust Fund programs and funding opportunities available.

1 The county program currently allows for a waiver of minimum criteria on a case-by-case basis.

VIII. Bibliography of Sources



Adams, J. & Tercek, M. (2013, August 27). The Business Case for Nature. Strategy + Business Magazine, Issue 72. www.strategy-business.com/article/00202?pg=all

Alstede, K. (2014, April 25). Telephone Interview, Morris County Preservation Trust Fund.

American Farmland Trust. (2007, August). Farmland Information Center: Cost of Community Services Study. Washington, D.C.

American Planning Association. (2002). City Parks Forum Briefing Papers: How cities use parks for Economic Development. Chicago, Illinois.

“Annual Financial Statement for the Year 2013 (unaudited)” Director of Finance & County Treasurer of Morris County, NJ, February 2014.

Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions. (2004). Open Space Is a Good Investment: The Financial Argument for Open Space Preservation. Mendham, New Jersey.

“Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012”, December 2012.

Brun, C. T. F. de. (2007). The Economic Benefits of Land Conservation. The Trust for Public Land.

Case, K. E. & Mayer, C.J. (1996). Housing Price Dynamics Within a Metropolitan Area. Regional Science and Urban Economics, (vol. 26, no. 3-4), pp. 387- 407.

Center for Watershed Protection (1998). Better Site Design: A Handbook for Changing Development Rules in Your Community. Ellicott City, Maryland: Center for Watershed Protection.

Chang, R. and J. Williams. (2013, October 29). Telephone Interview, Morris County Historic Preservation Program.

Coyle, K. (2013, October 29). Telephone Interview, Morris County Agriculture Development Board and Farmland Preservation.

Davis, D. (2014, April). Telephone Interview, Stony Hill Gardens.

Dente, R. (2014, April 22). Telephone Interview, Hanover Township Economic Development Center.

Desiderio, R. (2014, April). Telephone Interview, Tranquility Farm.

DiNapoli, Thomas P., State Comptroller. (2010, March). Economic Benefits of Open Space Preservation. Office of the State Comptroller of the State of New York.

Duke, J. M. & Lynch, L. (2007). Economic Benefits of Farmland Preservation: Evidence from the United States (Working paper 07-04). College Park, Maryland: Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

Economy League of Greater Philadelphia, Econsult Corporation & Keystone Conservation Trust. (2011). Return on Environment: The Economic Value of Protected Open Space in Southeastern Pennsylvania (Publication No. 11033A).

Ernst, C. (2004). Protecting the Source: Land Conservation and the Future of America’s Drinking Water. The Trust for Public Land.



Ewing, R. & Shoup, L. (2010, May). The Economic Benefits of Open Space, Recreation Facilities and Walkable Community Design. San Diego, California: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Active Living Research.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2013, July). Hazard Mitigation Assistance Unified Guidance.

Freedgood, J. (2002). Cost of Community Services Studies: Making the Case for Conservation. American Farmland Trust.

Freedgood, J. (2002). Cost of Community Services Studies: Making the Case for Conservation. (Appendix A): Summary of Cost of Community Services Studies. pp. 56-78. American Farmland Trust.

FSLR. (2012, February). For fifth year, open space tax is reduced in Morris County. The Star Ledger.

Gilbert, T. and Sargent, J. (2009). The Return on the State of New Jersey’s Investment in a $400 Million Bond to Fund the Green Acres and Farmland Preservation Programs. The Trust for Public Land.

Givens, V. (2014, April). Telephone Interview, Stickley Museum at Craftsman Farms.

Godbey, G. (2009, May). “Outdoor Recreation, Health, and Wellness: Understanding and Enhancing the Relationship (RFF DP 09-21). Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.

Helmer, D. (2013, November 11). Telephone Interview, Morris County Park Commission.

Horowitz, B. (2013, December). Morris County program to help flooded homeowners wins recognition again. The Star Ledger.

Jersey Fresh (Morris County) <http://www.jerseyfresh.nj.gov/>.

Jones, J. (2014, April 28). Telephone Interview, Morris County Economic Development Cabinet.

Kahn, J. A. (2008, September). What Drives Housing Prices? Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports No. 345.

Kelsey, T.W., Pennsylvania State University – College of Agricultural Sciences. (1997). Fiscal Impacts of Different Land Uses: The Pennsylvania Experience. Extension Circular 410 (no. 2M1098ps).

Kelsey, T.W., Pennsylvania State University - College of Agricultural Sciences. (1998). Calculating a Cost of Community Services Ratio for Your Pennsylvania Community: Understanding Economic Change In Your Community. University Park, Pennsylvania: PennState, College of Agricultural Sciences, Cooperative Extension.

Kelsey, T.W., Pennsylvania State University – College of Agricultural Sciences. (2006). Fiscal Impacts of Different Land Uses: The Pennsylvania Experience in 2006. Extension Circular 410 (no. Rev2M10/07mpc3969).

Kelsey, T.W., Shields, M. & Vasertein, G. (2000). Costs and Revenues of Residential Development: A Workbook for Local Officials and Citizens. Pennsylvania State University - College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension.



Koestenblatt, J. (2014, March 24). Morris Has Highest Tourism Sales Growth in New Jersey in 2013. Morristown Patch.

Laffey, L. (2012, November). 2013 - 2017 Long Range Plan: Cooper Gristmill, Chester, New Jersey.

Laffey, L. (2013, January). 2013 - 2017 Long Range Plan: Historic Speedwell, Morris County, New Jersey.

Laffey, L. (2013, March). 2013 – 2017 Long Range Plan: Fosterfields Living Historical Farm, Morris County, New Jersey.

Laffey, L. (2014, April). Telephone Interview, Fosterfields Living Historical Farm.

Land Trust Alliance. (2011). The Economic and Tax-Base Benefits of Land Conservation: What the research shows on how conserving land protects the bottom line. Washington, D.C.

Lichfield, N. & Connellan, O. (2000). Land Value Taxation and Eco-taxation: Their Social and Economic Inter-relationship. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper, (code WP00NL4).

Maller, C., Townsend, M., Pryor, A., Brown, P., & St Leger, L. (2006). Healthy Nature Healthy People: ‘Contact with nature’ as an upstream health promotion intervention for populations. Health Promotion International (vol. 21, no. 1). pp. 45–54.

Manna, J. (2014, April 24). Email Interview, Morris Canal Lock 2 East.

McCulloch, J. (2013, October 31). Telephone Interview, Morris County Flood Mitigation Program.

McCulloch, J. (2014, May 7). Telephone Interview, Morris County Flood Mitigation Program.

McGill, K. and Gray, J. (2010). NJ Tourism 2009-2010: The Great Recession & Tepid Recovery…So Far: NJ Tourism Copes with Incredible Economic Challenges. Annapolis, MD: Vantage Strategy.

Meloro IV, R. T. (2014). Abstract of Ratables Morris County 2013. Morris County, New Jersey: Morris County Board of Taxation.

Mendham Township, Morris County, New Jersey. (2003). Economic Benefits: Development vs. Open Space, Buttermilk Falls Natural Area.

Metz, D. & Weiler, R. (2013, May). Key Findings from Recent New Jersey Conservation Finance Survey. Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates.

Montgomery County Lands Trust. (2001, September). Saving Land Saves Money.

Montgomery, S. & Lahr, M. (n.d.). Historic Preservation, Property Values, and Tax Rates: A Municipal-level Analysis in New Jersey. Bloustein School of Planning & Public Policy, Rutgers University.

Morris County Agriculture Development Board. (2002, December 12). Morris County Comprehensive Farmland Preservation Plan.

Morris County Agriculture Development Board. (2007, December 17). Morris County Comprehensive Farmland Preservation Plan (resolution 2008-11).



Morris County Agriculture Development Board. (2013, October 29). Permanently Preserved Farms. www.morrispreservation.com

Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders. (2013). Freeholders Reduce Preservation Trust Fund Tax.

Morris County Department of Planning & Public Works. Preservation Trust: http://morrisplanning.org/divisions/prestrust/

Morris County, New Jersey - Events of Historic Proportion: Events Not to Miss in Morris County, NJ. (n.d.). from <http://www.morristourism.org/morris_county_annual_ events.php#.U0bVQ-ZdXYm>

Morris County, New Jersey. (2010, May). Open Space, Farmland, Floodplain Protection and Historic Preservation Trust Fund: Rules and Regulations.

Morris County, New Jersey. (n.d.). Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan: Section 6 Hazard Identification, Profiling, and Ranking.

Morris County, New Jersey Park Commission: <http://www.morrisparks.net/parkslist.asp>

Morris County Park Commission. (n.d.). Pathways to Excellence: The Citizen Driven Direction for the Future of The Morris County Park System: Morris County Park Commission Strategic Plan.

Morris County Planning Board. (2013). State of the County Report.

Morris County Preservation Trust Analysis. Morris County Public Open Space Inventory (POSI) Guidelines. Morris County, New Jersey.

Morris County Tourism Bureau, 2010 Year End Report.

Morrisette, P. M. (2001). Conservation Easements and the Public Good: Preserving the Environment on Private Lands. Natural Resources Journal (vol. 41, no. 2) pp. 373-426.

Multihazard Mitigation Council. (2005). Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: An Independent Study to Assess the Future Savings from Mitigation Activities (vol. 2). Washington, D.C.: National Institutes of Building Sciences.

Murray, B. (2013, October 31). Telephone Interview, Morris County Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Program.

Murray, P. (2011). New Jersey's Quality of Life by County: Highest in Morris, Lowest in Cumberland. West Long Branch, New Jersey: Monmouth University Poll.

National Park Service: United States Department of the Interior. (2014, March). News Release: Tourism to Morristown National Historical Park creates $15,853,100 in Economic Benefit: Report shows visitor spending supports 188 jobs in local economy. Morristown National Historic Park.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP): Green Acres Program. (2013). 2013 – 2017 New Jersey Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.

New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development. (2012, December). NJLWD Population Projections by County, 2015 to 2030. see: <http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/lpa/dmograph/lfproj/county_intro2030.doc>



New Jersey Heritage Tourism Task Force. (2010, June). Linking Our Legacy to a New Vision: A Heritage Tourism Plan for New Jersey: Executive Summary. Trenton, New Jersey.

New Jersey Historic Trust. (1997, December). Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation. Trenton, New Jersey.

New Yorkers for Parks. (n.d.). Analysis of Secondary Economic Impacts New York City Parks Capital Expenditures: Final Report: Park Expenditures, Secondary Impact Analysis.

Ort, H. (2014, April). Telephone Interview, Ort Farms.

Pennsylvania Environmental Council (PEC). (2010). Economic Impact and Benefits of Tourism, Recreation, Trails, Conservation, and Healthy Living.

Review of the Morris County Park Commission’s Use of Morris County Open Space Trust Fund and Park Improvement Trust Fund Allocations, Morris County Park Commission, December 2013.

Schweizer, G. (2013, October 29). Telephone Interview, Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority.

Shapiro, R. J. & Hassett, K. A. (2012, June). The Economic Benefits of Reducing Violent Crime: A Case Study of 8 American Cities. Center for American Progress.

Sherer, Paul M. (2006). The Benefits of Parks: Why America Needs More City Parks and Open Space. The Trust for Public Land.

State of Maryland: Department of Natural Resources. (2001). Lesson 9: The Cost of Community Services: Does Development Really Pay?

The State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety: Office of the Attorney General <http://www.njsp.org/info/pdf/ucr/current/042514_1stqtr2014.pdf>

State of New Jersey: Division of Travel and Tourism. (2011, March). New Jersey 2010 Tourism Expenditures Demonstrate Industry Continues on Path to Growth. Trenton, New Jersey.

The Trust for Public Land: Center for City Park Excellence. (2008). How Much Value Does the City of Philadelphia Receive from its Park and Recreation System?

The Trust for Public Land: Center for City Park Excellence. (2010). The Economic Benefits of the Park and Recreation System of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

The Trust for Public Land. (2010). The Economic Benefits and Fiscal Impact of Parks and Open Space in Nassau and Suffolk Counties: A Report by The Trust for Public Land for the Long Island Community Foundation and the Rauch Foundation.

Thomas, C.C., Huber, C. & Koontz, L. United States Department of the Interior - Natural Resource Stewardship and Science. (2014, February). “2012 National Park Visitor Spending Effects: Economic Contributions to Local Communities, States, and the Nation” (Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/EQD/NRR—2014/765). Fort Collins, Colorado: United States Department of the Interior – Natural Park Service.

Tourism Economics: An Oxford Economics Company. (2013). The Economic Impact of Tourism in New Jersey: Tourism Satellite Account, Calendar Year 2012.



Tyrell, B. J.: Travel and Tourism Research and Training Associates. (2013, November). The Economic Impact of Tourism in Morris County. Morris County Tourism Bureau.

Uminski, D. J. (2014, April). Looking Beyond the Numbers When Assessing a Community. Area Development Online: Site and Facility Planning.

United States Census Bureau. (2010). Median and Average Square Feet of Floor Area in New Single-Family Houses Completed by Location.

United States Department of Agriculture: Census of Agriculture <http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/index.php>

United States Department of Agriculture: National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2007 Census of Agriculture: Agricultural Diversification.

United States Department of Agriculture: National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2007 Census of Agriculture: County Profile.

United States Department of Agriculture: National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2007 Census of Agriculture: Economics.

United States Department of Agriculture: National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2007 Census of Agriculture: Farm Labor.

United States Department of Agriculture: National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2007 Census of Agriculture: New Farms, New Farm Operators.

United States Department of Agriculture. (2014, May). 2012 Census of Agriculture: New Jersey State and County Data (vol. 1 Geographic Area Series, part 30).

United States Department of Agriculture: National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2007 Census of Agriculture: State Profile

United States Department of Agriculture: National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2007 Census of Agriculture: Value of Farmland and Buildings.

United States Department of Agriculture: National Agricultural Statistics Service: New Jersey Field Office. (2012). New Jersey Agriculture Annual Report/New Jersey Agricultural Statistics. New Jersey Agricultural Statistics Service.

Veeck, G., Che, D. and Veeck, A. (2006, August). America’s Changing Farmscape: A Study of Agricultural Tourism in Michigan, (vol. 58, no. 3).

Wightman, K. (2014, April). Telephone Interview, Morris County Preservation Trust Fund.

(2011, September). Flood Buyout Program: Cost-Benefit Analysis. Source: “Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves” study by National Institute of Building Sciences.

(2013, August 6). USDA Reports Growth in U.S. Farmers Markets. Farm Futures: Business and Marketing Tools for Profitable Farming.

(2013, August 7). Crime Lab study finds youth employment program has impact on violent crime arrests: 2012 data show value of Chicago’s One Summer Plus program. The University of Chicago News.

final draft report

Documents