Final Report - Preservation Trust Analysis & Strategy Report

8/10/2019 Final Report - Preservation Trust Analysis & Strategy Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/final-report-preservation-trust-analysis-strategy-report 1/134



i

Acknowledgements

Morris County Preservation Trust FundAnalysis and Strategy Report September 18, 2014

FINAL REPORT

Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders

Thomas J. Mastrangelo, Freeholder DirectorDavid Scapicchio, Deputy Freeholder DirectorDouglas R. CabanaJohn CesaroKathryn A. DeFillippoJohn Krickus

William “Hank” Lyon County Administration

John Bonanni, County AdministratorCathy 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 PreservationKatherine Coyle, Farmland PreservationRay Chang, Historic PreservationJennifer McCulloch, Flood MitigationDavid Helmer, Executive Director Morris County Park CommissionGlenn Schweizer, Executive Director Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority

Office of Information Technology, GIS Section

Stephen Rice, Manager

Morris County Park CommissionBetty Cass-Schmidt, PresidentBarbara Shepard, Vice-PresidentJulie C. BaronEdward G. McCarthyStuart Lasser

Judith SchleicherRichard Seabury, IIIDr. Philip T. SantiagoKim M. Wentworth



Acknowledgements

ii

Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority Board

James Barry, Board MemberChristopher Dour, Board Member - ChairmanFrank Druetzler, Board MemberWilliam Hudzik, Board MemberDorothea Kominos, Board Member

Arthur Nusbaum, Board MemberRichard L. Plambeck, Board MemberFletcher Platt, Board MemberLaura Szwak, Board Member - ViceChairwoman

Consultant Team

Brandstetter Carroll Inc.

2360 Chauvin DriveLexington, Kentucky 40517(859) 268-1933 VOICE(800) 368-1933(859) 268-3341

Commonwealth Economics108 Esplanade, Suite 220Lexington, Kentucky 40507

University of Kentucky Cartography and GIS Lab

817 Patterson Office TowerLexington, Kentucky 40506(859) 257-2931

Architects Project No. 13092

Lawrence W. Brandstetter, AIA, President

Patrick D. Hoagland, ASLA, Project ManagerKeith Rodenhauser, PlannerLynda Gates, Administrative AssistantDaniel Schaefer, P.E., Water ResourceEngineer

John Farris, PresidentCasey Bolton, AnalystMatt WyattBrett Antle

Richard Gilbreath, Director

Jeff Levy, Assistant DirectorChad Sallee, GIS Technician



Morris County Preservation Trust Fund Analysis and Strategy Report

Executive Summary

iii

Project PurposeThe purpose of this Report is to review the projects completed since the voter approvedenactment of the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund (“Trust Fund”) in 1992 and to determinewhat future investment in land acquisition, historic resource preservation, park development, andfarmland preservation is needed based on current inventories, anticipated needs and municipaland non-profit input. The Report will also delineate the parameters of a possible new voterreferendum that could address evolving preservation priorities, program requirements andfunding needs.

The four main tasks were as follows:

1. Assess the current state of the Trust Fund and meet with program managers to identifyindividual 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 existingpreserved land.

3. Evaluate and analyze observed trends

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

The Preservation Trust FundOn December 22, 1992, the Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders established the MorrisCounty 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 $0.00to $0.0525 per $100 of equalized property valuation. The levy for 2014 is currently set at 1.00cent 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, landtrust non-profits, and historic preservation non-profits to help determine local preservation needs.

Additionally, in-person interviews were conducted with representatives of each municipality and




Executive Summary

iv

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

What Morris County Municipalities and Non-Profits Said1. 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 municipalities 1 (81%) and all historic preservation non-profits 2 believed Historic

Preservation benefited their community, and most (72%) municipalities 3 and non-profits 4 (59%) know of structures that should be preserved.

5. Most municipalities 3 (79%) want to work with Morris County Park Commission (MCPC) fortrail connectivity, but a majority of municipal trail systems 3 (51%) do not connect to MCPCtrails.

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

7. Most municipalities 3 (82%) and all interviewed land trust non-profits have preserved landwith funding assistance from the Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Program.

8. Most municipalities 3 (62%) and all interviewed land trust non-profits have post-preservation plans that require additional funding.

9. Municipal and non-profits responses overwhelmingly 5 indicated improved quality of lifeand increased property values in Morris County as a result of Preservation Trust FundPrograms.

Current Preserved LandsThe analysis of the Preservation Trust Fund reviewed the projects and properties funded throughthe Preservation Trust Fund to date based on program records. The total number of propertiesand 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 Fund 7 is $391.6million for 690 preservation projects covering 24,144 acres, plus numerous park improvements.

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 werepositive.6 See Table 6 for more detailed numbers and Chapter IV for full descriptions.7 As of May 31, 2014.




Executive Summary

v

The table below provides a summary of the Preservation Trust Fund by program. An additional$94 million 1 was provided by match funding from other sources (State Agriculture DevelopmentCommittee (SADC) for farmland, and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for floodmitigation).

Farmland and Historic Preservation participants indicated they would not be operating without thefunds they received and believed Preservation Trust Fund programs positively impacted MorrisCounty businesses and residents.

Economic ImpactThe Morris County Preservation Trust Fund yields a variety of positive economic impacts for thecitizens, businesses, and municipalities of Morris County. These positive impacts are generatedas a direct result of the Preservation Trust Fund’s activities; there are also indirect/secondarybeneficial impacts that ripple through the Morris County economy.

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

1 This number does not include Green Acres contributions or project matches.

Preservation Trust Fund Program 1 Municipalities 11 Projects 2 Acres 3 County Cost 10

Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space 3 35 228 11,731 $176,554,828

Farmland Preservation 4 14 125 7,709 $71,385,088

Historic Preservation 5 32 80 $20,256,302

Flood Mitigation Program 6 7 117 $16,454,519

Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority 7 18 47 1,114 $19,770,581

Morris County Park Commission Land Acquisition 8 22 93 3,590 $62,754,641

Morris County Park Commission Park Improvement Trust 9 $24,447,170

Total 12 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 Preservedacreage 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 morethan 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-Profi t acreage totals are derived from Morris County Public Open Space Inventory (POSI). Total values are from the "Total" row in Table 6: Previous ProjectsFunded 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 thePreservation Trust Fund.




Executive Summary

vi

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

A 1% increase in the number of preserved acres in a given Morris County zip code willincrease 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 andits 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 bypreserving open space, farmland, and historic attractions that draw thousands of visitorseach year.

Parcels preserved through the Preservation Trust Fund assist in driving tourism to peaklevels in Morris County. Tourism in Morris County has been estimated to generatespending 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 intourism direct sales, generating 4.4% growth in tourism employment.

Morris County ranked first in quality of life throughout all of New Jersey, according to theGarden State Quality of Life study. It is safe to conclude that the Morris CountyPreservation 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 FloodMitigation Program has generated an estimated $23.2 million in benefits from the $3.6million in grant funds provided by the Preservation Trust Fund for an overall benefit-costratio (BCR) of 7.33 ($7.33 in benefits for every $1.00 invested). Pending projects have anestimated overall BCR of 4.67.

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

Revenue enterprises occurring on lands preserved through the Preservation Trust Fundoften 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 onthe 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 localeconomy 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 airtemperatures in the summer, habitat protection, noise reduction, sediment and erosionreduction, 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 propertiesand projects was developed and reviewed for each Trust Fund program. Funding for eachprogram was projected using many sources 1 to produce an estimate for the County cost for thecompletion of preservation projects currently in the preservation process and additional projectsdesired by the municipalities and non-profits over the next ten years. The total number ofmunicipal participants, properties, and acreage with the estimated County costs are listed in thefollowing table. 2 Thirty-eight (38) municipalities have potential projects in at least one Trust Fundprogram 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.

RecommendationsBased on the potential future projects outlined for each of the programs by municipalities, landtrust non-profits, and historic preservation non-profits, the primary recommendation of this reportis to continue the funding for the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund. The total of thesepotential 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 taxcollection of $8.9 million (2014). In addition, these needs are distributed throughout Morris Countymunicipalities.

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 Program 1 Municipalities 3 Land TrustNon-Profits 4

Properties/Projects

Acres County Cost

Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space 5 29 6 441 7,180 $143,266,698Farmland Preservation 18 95 5,080 $70,582,088Historic Preservation 5 36 2 155 $109,585,402Flood Mitigation Program 28 2,275 $210,509,795Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority 40 542 $16,000,000Morris County Park Commission Land Acquisition 16 57 1,181 $30,447,142Morris County Park Commission Park Improvements (PIT) $51,981,500MCMUA Partnerships ($15,004,000)

Total 638 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 FundProjects.

5. Program Projects, Acres, and County Costs include Land Trust Non-Profit totals from Table 27: 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 meetmunicipal and non-profit expectations of the Preservation Trust Fund for a ten year period. Theten year forecast for each of the seven Preservation Trust Fund programs can be seen in thetable below including a suggested new program 1 (Open Space Improvement Program) for post-preservation improvements.

These numbers consider the existing Preservation Trust Fund balances and estimate the annualcollection rate over the next ten years to meet these program estimates. An estimated collectionrate of 3.84 cents would meet funding requirements of the eight (8) programs. The table alsoshows the average allocation required for each of the programs over ten years to meet thatprogram’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 annuallyto reflect program demand and trends rather than annual expenditures. All Preservation TrustFund programs have greater potential project estimates than will be supplied by their currentfunding levels.

1 For the purpose of program funding estimates, the allocation of this new program is estimated at10% of the collection rate after the allocation for the Park Improvement Trust.

Trust Fund Programs with 10 Year ProgramEstimates 1,6

Current Funding(2014)

Annual FundingNeeds 4

Difference(Potential - Current)

10 Year AverageAllocation 7

Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Acquisition50% of Potential Projects

Farmland Preservation65% of Potential Projects

Historic Preservation50% of Potential Projects

Flood Mitigation Program50% of Potential Projects

Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority 2

10 Year Program Targets

Morris County Park Commission Land Acquisition 2


Morris County Park Commission Park Improvement Trust 2


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.

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.

cents 5Collection 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).

($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

15%

29%

4%

8%

100%

($5,603,335)

($3,697,836)

($3,249,270)

($9,405,490)

($1,380,000)

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

$220,000

$670,000

N/A

$5,198,150

$3,600,072

$2,230,000

$1,600,000

$3,044,714




Executive Summary

ix

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

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

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

3. Allow post-preservation funding for Preservation Trust Fund programs, including fundsfrom the Flood Mitigation Program for demolition and post-preservation site restoration,and site restoration funds for MCMUA, both of which would enhance flood capture andstorage 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 MitigationProgram, MCMUA program, and MCPC Land Acquisition Program without maximumallotments 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 centand allow this program to benefit from fund reallocations. It is recommended that theannual 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 SpaceProgram 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 CountyPreservation Trust Fund based on application levels and in response to changing needsin regard to Trust Fund programs.

9. Establish an outreach program to municipalities to raise awareness of Trust Fundprograms 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 100

G. Morris County Park Commission Park Improvement Trust (PIT) 103

H. Potential Costs for All Preservation Trust Fund Programs 103



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 105

A. Potential Additional Uses of the Fund 105

B. Recommended Preservation Trust Fund Priorities 105

C. Recommendations by Program / Agency 107 D. Recommended Strategies 112

VIII. Bibliography of Sources 113

Appendices (In separate document) A. Open Space and Historic Preservation Region MapsB. Community Profile FormsC. Public Open Space Inventory (POSI) SchemaD. Questionnaire Results SummaryE. Questionnaire Summary of Open End Responses

F. Economic Analysis MethodologyList 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 Responses 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: High Priority Unpreserved Water Protection Areas by Municipality 96

Table 31: Projected 10 Year Allocation of the Morris County Preservation Trust Fundwith New Open Space Improvement Program 111

List of FiguresFigure 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 Projects 19

Figure 6: Morris County Park Commission 22

Figure 7: Morris County Preservation Trust Funded 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: Wellhead Protection Areas 98

Figure 18: High Priority Unpreserved Water Protection Areas and Contaminated Sites 99

Figure 19: Potential MCPC Land Acquisition Costs to Morris County 102

Figure 20: Cost of All Potential Preservation Trust Fund Projects to Morris County 104



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 sitepreservation, park development, and farmland preservation is needed based on currentinventories and input from municipalities and selected non-profit land trust and historicpreservation organizations.

The Report is a source of information for use in delineating the parameters of a potentialvoter referendum that may alter the allowable uses of the Preservation Trust Fund tax andrange 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 aninitial inventory of all open space, including properties funded by the Trust Fund;

2. Conduct meetings with Program Managers to identify key issues and trends inindividual 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 landtrust and historic preservation organizations in relation to the Trust Fund’s present and

possible future programs utilizing the questionnaire prepared in Task I; and2. Obtain, map, and authenticate current preserved lands and open space inventory for

every Morris County municipality and select non-profit land trust agencies, includingprojects funded through the Trust Fund.

In order to evaluate the preservation of all open spaces, a complete Public Open SpacesInventory (POSI) for Morris County was prepared using the spatial database schemaoutlined by the New Jersey Geospatial Forum Open Space Committee Data Model withmodifications 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 recommendationsfor 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 CountyBoard 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 Freeholdersestablished the Morris County Open Space & Farmland Preservation Trust Fund,and collection of funds commenced on July 1, 1993 with a tax equal to one-halfcent per $100 of total county equalized real property valuation. The CountyFreeholders 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 provided0.25 cents for the Morris County Park Commission (MCPC) Park ImprovementTrust (PIT) Fund

c. 2001: Increased the maximum collection to 5.25 cents

Established maximum allocations per program:

3.75 cents to Open Space 1 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 existingtax

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

The Fund is divided into seven areas with the following allocations of funds (currentbalances 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) forOpen 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 SpaceProgram 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 CountyMunicipalities. Only the Boroughs of Victory Gardens and Mountain Lakes haveno land preserved through the Trust Fund. However, Mountain Lakes Boroughhas had one (1) Historic Preservation project.

4. Resolutions

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

a. 1992: Resolution 45 allowed the County to allocate $0.02 per $100 of propertyvaluation to be used exclusively for: the acquisition of land or water areas for thepurposes of providing and/or protecting parkland or green space; protectingecologically sensitive areas such as wetlands, stream corridors, sources ofdrinking water, water aquifers and recharge areas; to provide for public outdoorrecreation and to preserve farmland.

b. 1998: Resolution 38 increased the tax to $0.03 per $100 – for the acquisition oflands for recreation, open space and conservation purposes, the acquisition offarmland preservation purposes or for the payment of debt service or indebtednessissued or incurred for any of the purposes described above.

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

This resolution enabled the County to create an additional dedicated open spacetrust fund to be used by the MCPC for the development of county owned parkfacilities based on a plan, adopted by the County, which would identify the locationand 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) $7.32Farmland Preservation $28.40 20% $0.89 ($5.89) ($14.38) $9.02Historic Preservation $6.75 1/4 cent $2.23 ($1.14) ($4.09) $3.75Flood Mitigation Program $14.16 25% $1.12 ($0.20) ($13.23) $1.85Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority $10.07 5% $0.22 ($0.10) ($1.00) $9.20Morris County Park Commission Land Acquisition $4.33 15% $0.67 ($0.13) ($5.41) ($0.53)Morri s County Park Commission Park Improvement s (P IT) $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 & P reservation, May 2014.

CommittedFunds as of

5/31/14

AccountBalance5/31/14

2014 Tax1 CentProgram 1

AccountBalance1/1/2014

2014Allocation

Debits/Creditsas of 5/31/14



I. Introduction


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

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

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

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

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

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

e. 2002: Resolution 32 amended the Open Space and Farmland Preservation TrustFund to include the purpose of preservation and acquisition of historic properties,structures, facilities, sites, areas, or objects in accordance with P.L. 1997, Chapter24 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 andHistoric Preservation Trust Fund to include a Flood Mitigation Program which willacquire flood-prone properties in accordance with P.L. 1997, Chapter 24, initialfunding of $16 million from unencumbered monies currently allocated to theFarmland Preservation program.

5. Past Funding Levels

Since its adoption in 1992, the tax rate for the Morris County Open Space TrustFund has varied widely from a low of 0.5 cent to a high of 4.75 cents. The fundinglevels, shown in Table 2, started at the lowest level, then slowly increased to thehighest funding level of 4.75 cents where it stayed from 2004 through 2007. Sinceits 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 cent1995 January 1, 1995 1.0 cent1996 January 1, 1996 1.5 cents1997 January 1, 1997 2.0 cents1998 January 1, 1998 2.0 cents1999 January 1, 1999 2.625 cents2000 January 1, 2000 3.25 cents2001 January 1, 2001 3.25 cents2002 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 boardor committee:

The Open Space Preservat ion Program is overseen by the fifteen (15) memberMorris County Open Space Committee consisting of one representative from eachof the eight municipal regions 1 in the county, plus representatives from the CountyPlanning Board, County Agriculture Development Board, County ParkCommission, County Municipal Utilities Authority, County Historic PreservationTrust Fund Review Board, and two members at-large. The Committee reviews,prioritizes and makes recommendations to the Morris County Board of ChosenFreeholders on the funding of projects for the Municipal/Non-Profit grant program.One hundred twenty (120) members have served on the Committee since itscreation in 1994.

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

the County Agriculture Development Board and the Morris County Planning Board.The Histor ic Preservat ion Program is overseen by the Morris County HistoricPreservation Trust Fund Review Board (HPTFRB). The HPTFRB reviews,prioritizes, and makes recommendations to the Morris County Board of ChosenFreeholders on the funding of historic preservation projects under the HistoricPreservation Trust Fund. The HPTFRB is made up of eleven members: two (2)

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

2003 January 1, 2003 4.25 cents2004 January 1, 2004 4.75 cents

2005 January 1, 2005 4.75 cents2006 January 1, 2006 4.75 cents2007 January 1, 2007 4.75 cents2008 January 1, 2008 4.25 cents2009 January 1, 2009 3.25 cents2010 January 1, 2010 2.25 cents2011 January 1, 2011 1.75 cents2012 January 1, 2012 1.5 cents2013 January 1, 2013 1.125 cents2014 January 1, 2014 1.0 cent

Tax Rate includes Park Commission Improvement TaxRates are per $100 of total County Equalized property valuationSource: Morris County Department of Planning & Public Works, Division ofPlanning & Preservation

Year Commence Date Rate



I. Introduction


at-large representatives; four (4) municipal representatives (one from each of fourregions of Morris County 1); one (1) member of the Morris County HeritageCommission; three (3) appointees with professional expertise in historicpreservation (one of each from the disciplines of preservation architecture,architectural history and restoration); one (1) appointee with a background as anarcheologist, historic landscape specialist, historic site manager, historic sitecurator or engineer with historic preservation expertise.

The Flood Mit igat ion 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 ChosenFreeholders regarding the Flood Mitigation Program.

The Morris County Mun icipal Ut i li t ies Authori ty portion of the Trust Fund isoverseen by a nine-member MCMUA Board.

The Morr i s County Park Com miss ion Land Acquis i t ion and Morr i s CountyPark Commis sion Park Improv ement Trust (PIT) are administered by the MorrisCounty Park Commission which is made up of nine volunteer Park Commissionersserving 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 openspace since its formation in 1992. The majority of the applications were receivedfrom 1999 to 2008.

The Municipal/Non-profit grant program operates as an annual grant program forthe acquisition of land for recreation and conservation purposes. Applications are

due in June each year. Grants are evaluated by the 15 member Open Space TrustFund Committee.

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

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

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

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

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



I. Introduction


b. Current Trends

Applications for the Open Space Preservation Program have been decreasingrecently, from a peak of $31.2 million in requests in 2008 to a low of $1.7 million in2013. In contrast, funding rewards were highest in 2006 at $23.8 million and lowestat $1.3 million in 1994. Figure 1 illustrates properties preserved through theMunicipal/Non-Profit Open Space Program.

Since the inception of the County Trust Fund, many municipalities have createdtheir own open space trust funds and open space master plans, resulting in a moreproactive, rather than reactive, approach to preservation as demonstrated in earlieryears of the program. However, municipalities have had fewer funds to use foracquisition in the last few years as their municipal trust fund dollars may beallocated to debt service, or collection rates may have decreased.

The Park Commission and MCMUA have provided funding assistance toapplicants 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 developmentapprovals.

Various non-profits have participated in the program. Some organizations are moreregional and therefore have a broader conservation effort. Additional grant dollarsfor acquisition are usually obtained from a Green Acres Non-Profit PlanningIncentive Grant.

c. Benefits of the Program

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

This program has also enhance the quality of life in Morris County by allowingmunicipalities to create and build upon desirable municipal parks and recreationareas.

Other benefits include less demand for municipal services and less trafficcongestion, improved groundwater recharge, protection of scenic vistas, andincreased 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 firstfarm in 1987, a 14-acre parcel. Currently, 125 1 farms are preserved through the

program in the County for a total of 7,709 acres, and 13 farms are in progress fora total of 497 additional acres.

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

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

Appraisals, paid for by the County, are done by two state approved and certifiedappraisers. 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 farmis preserved through the program.

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

The Morris County Agriculture Development Board holds seminars to promote andeducate property owners about the details of the program. The annual CountyPlanning Incentive Grants (PIG) applications to the state have a mid-Decemberdeadline. As of May 31, 2014, 95 properties are targeted in the County ormunicipalities 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 downturnand reduced property values with twelve property closings since 2011. Theprogram 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-HighlandsPreservation Act zoning and regulations, on post-Highland (current) zoning andregulations. The deadline for this dual-appraisal approach has been extendedonce, and is scheduled to end in June of 2014. The deadline may or may not beextended at that time.

While dual appraisals are utilized, farm owners may receive “pre -Highlands” pricesfor their farmland; once this provision ends, they will only be paid post-Highlandvalues, 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 ownersseeking to obtain pre-Highlands values for their land. Thirteen farms are inprogress 1 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, smallerfarms are more prevalent, while the southern areas have much larger farms.

These smaller farms are less appealing to the state funding agency, andoftentimes are ineligible for the county program which has a minimum standard of10 acres. However, the County program allows for a waiver of the minimum criteriaon a case-by-case basis.

Figure 2 illustrates the preserved farmland in Morris County.


The preservation of land for farming creates permanently preserved land andensures the continuation and viability of the Morris County’s agricultural industry.

According to the US Census of Agriculture (data released on May 2, 2014), themarket 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 is40 acres.

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

Farmland preservation lowers municipal service costs and reduces potential peakhour traffic associated with development, improves groundwater recharge, helpsto 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 schoolgroups. 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, providinggrants 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 HistoricPlaces. 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 Secretaryof the Interior’s Standards, and the County maintains a Memorandum ofUnderstanding with the State Historic Preservation Office allowing a CountyConsultant to provide project reviews and help streamline the process.

The program entails a multi-year process which typically includes a preservationplan generated in the first year, construction documents for improvements in thesecond year, and construction work in the third year. The use of Trust Fund dollarstoward the physical restoration, preservation, and rehabilitation of the historicresources is strongly encouraged.

Grant applications for the Historic Preservation Program have an applicationdeadline at the end of March, and the County usually announces the awards inlate June. On average, about 25 to 30 applications are received annually of whichmost would be at least partially funded.

Historic Preservation Trust Fund grants require a 20% match, while acquisitiongrants require a 50% match by the applicant. The applicants can match Countyhistoric preservation grant funds with state funds such as a New Jersey HistoricTrust. Properties preserved through the program must be open to the public for aminimum of 12 days per year. Non-construction grants of $5,000 or less do notrequire a match.

Currently, 32 of the 39 municipalities have participated in the program, and theprogram has funded 80 sites or resources. The Historic Preservation Program alsopartners 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 avariety of historic resources. For example, recent resources being protectedinclude a historic steam locomotive, a historic fire truck, historic landscapes andhomes.

The program started in 2002, and receives anywhere from 1/8 cent to ¼ cent ofthe 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 thepreservation of historic resources in Morris County. Adding the 20% matchprovided by the applicants, a total of about $24 million has been expended onthese historic resources including both design and construction dollars. Propertiesare constantly being added to the eligible list because over time more buildingsreach the milestone of 50 years in age and, therefore, become eligible.

Other benefits resulting from the Historic Preservation Trust Program include thetourism opportunities to historic sites, the creation of jobs to assist visitors, and thecreation of jobs for construction and improvements.

4. Flood Mitigation Program (FMP)


New Jersey is second in the nation in severe repetitive flood losses, and theseverity of flooding in the state is increasing. From 1955 to 1991 there were onlynine major floods, but from 1992 to 2010 there were 14 major floods. 1 Mostrecently, 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 justthe last 11 years.

Created in the wake of Hurricane Irene, Morris County is the first county in thestate to create a dedicated flood buyout program. Bergen County has sincelaunched their own flood mitigation program and other counties in the state areexploring the concept. The Flood Mitigation Program (FMP) is used to buy outflood-prone residential properties. After the home is removed and the infrastructureis removed, the land is converted back to its natural state to act as a flood captureand 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 reducemunicipal costs. This program helps municipalities more effectively manage theirflood risk and post-disaster expenditures for OEM response, infrastructure andutility repair, debris removal, and other costs.

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

Morris County launched the FMP in March 2012 with an initial focus to provide therequired 25% match to FEMA acquisition funding received by four (4) towns in thewake of Hurricane Irene. Morris County reallocated $16 million of unused grantfunds from the Farmland Preservation program for use in the FMP. In 2013, FMPreceived an allocation of 25% of the open space tax collected for a total of $1.44million. The program works closely with NJDEP Blue Acres and FEMA.

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





I. Introduction



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

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

The FMP program has attracted over $32 million in Federal and State acquisitionfunding and derived an estimated $82 million dollars in potential benefits fromMorris County’s $16.5 million investment in this program. Finally, the FMP alsohelps 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 forthe 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 Countyin title, but are maintained by the MCMUA. The Freeholders approve all propertiesthat are purchased through the MCMUA program, and all properties must havewilling sellers.The MCMUA partners with municipalities in the acquisition of properties to protectregional water sources. When applying for grants, applicants must demonstratewater resource value of the property by criteria such as wellhead protection orlocation in a water recharge area. Additional reasons for protection include: itslocation in a sensitive watershed, protection of surface waters, protection ofreservoirs, or location at the headwaters of a river. The primary purpose of theseacquisitions is water supply protection. Therefore, the MCMUA does not allowactive recreation on these properties.

b. Current Trends

The New Jersey Geological Society has prepared wellhead protection maps, andthe MCMUA intends to focus future acquisitions in those areas that are mostvulnerable to contamination. The Green Acres program has concerns about thecurrent requirement that the MCMUA retain the water rights on properties whichuse Green Acres Funds. However, this concern will likely not be an issue in thefuture since MCMUA projects are trending toward partnerships, and the MCMUAdoes not require an interest in water rights on those properties. Some water supplyprotection projects are actually funded through three sources including the CountyOpen Space program, Morris County Park Commission, and the MCMUA.

Additionally, non-profit land trusts also partner with the MCMUA to acquire openspace. Figure 5 illustrates Morris County land preserved by MCMUA.

The MCMUA program has an allocation of $220,000 for 2014. The MCMUA wouldlike to identify important water resource protection properties and desires to beable to use funding for restoration and monitoring of the acquired properties. Lessoutside funding 1 is available of late for land acquisition.


Most of the water in Morris County reservoirs is exported out of the county, makinggroundwater the primary source of potable water for county residents. The

MCMUA is a bulk water wholesaler that sells water to several municipalities andwater 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 criticalwatershed 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 forrecreation, conservation and open space preservation, which includes the

preservation of historic and cultural resources of local, regional, and nationalimportance. Prior to the 1992 voter approved Morris County Open Space TrustFund (MCOSTF) referendum, the Park Commission acquired land throughdonations, New Jersey Green Acres grants and loans, and capital funding.

Currently the MCPC receives 15% of the Preservation Trust funds for landacquisition 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 acquisitionprojects have ranged in size from .255-acres to 455-acres, and project acquisitioncosts have ranged from $3,000.00 to $13.5 million. Nineteen of the ParkCommission’s 38 distinct facilities have benefited from land preservation fundedthrough the Preservation Trust Fund.

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

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

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

b. Current Trends

In recent years, many open space projects have been accomplished by partneringwith municipalities, the MCMUA, and non-profits. The preservation of Clyde PottsReservoir in Randolph and Mendham Townships and the Mine Hill – Canfieldprojects are representative of a growing collaboration in Morris County. It isanticipated that the trend of acquisition partnerships will continue as the MorrisCounty 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 beenreduced and is currently $670,000 per year, the Park Commission has increasinglyworked with towns, non-profits, and the MCMUA to acquire both conservation andtrail easements. In some cases, these partnerships have acquired fee simpleownership on properties identified on the Park Commission’s Land AcquisitionReport. The Egberts Lake project in Rockaway Township is an example of thePark Commission’s need to acquire a trail easement for the West Morris Greenwayand Rockaway Township’s concern for protecting a water resource in itscommunity.



I. Introduction


In recent years, the Park Commission has focused its resources on projects thatare in-holdings (parcels within current park boundaries), contiguous parcels toexisting parks, larger parcels, and connections to parks and trails. Figure 6illustrates 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 HighlandsPreservation Area. Although planned development may benefit the County and itscommunities, changes in demographics, increased intensity of use of parklands,and the impact to sensitive environments need to be considered to ensure thecharacter of Morris County, by way of its open spaces, continues to provide thequality of life that is expected by residents. The Park Commission places thefollowing as higher priority projects: trail connectivity, protection of existing historicand cultural facilities under the Park Commission’s stewardship responsibility,buffer protection to sensitive natural resources, and properties that have causedsignificant encroachment issues.

c. Benefits of the ProgramFrom 1956 to the early 19 90’s , land was obtained through gifts or bond issues withno long term dedicated funding for acquisition. Through its Preservation TrustFund 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, helpingto 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 activerecreational programs and initiatives like additional athletic fields and boatingopportunities.

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



I. Introduction


Figure 6: Morris County Park Commissiond.



I. Introduction


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


The Morris County Park Commission receives, through the Park ImprovementTrust Fund, one quarter cent per hundred dollars valuation for Park Improvement

Trust (PIT) projects. The electorate of Morris County supported the establishmentof this funding source in 1998 when it was approved by a significant majority. Inthe mid 1990’s, it became increasingly clear that the current level of annual Capitalfunding was not enough to preserve, protect, and provide for the future of the parksystem. 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, Parkfacilities were in grave need of improvements, rehabilitation, and restoration.

Projects needing funding ranged from natural resources restoration projects to trailimprovement projects and building improvements to golf course upgrades.Projects of significance included: the rehabilitation of Seaton Hackney Stables, therestoration of the Barnyard Complex at Fosterfields Living Historical Farm, theresurfacing of the Loantaka Brook Reservation Trail System, and ADAimprovements to the Saturn Playground at Lewis Morris County Park. The ParkCommission celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2006, and with an aginginfrastructure and increased park use, the residents of Morris County saw fit toprotect their parkland through the creation of the PIT. In the late 1990’s and early2000’s, the PIT annual allocation reached $1.8 million per year. With the existingCapital funding at the time and the PIT funds, the Park Commission was able toaccomplish its multi-year park improvement planning goals.

b. Current Trends

At its height, the Park Improvement Trust Fund allocation was $3.2 million, andPark 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 parkimprovement projects is $52 million. Over the next 6-years the Park Commissionwill need to invest significant funds in dam rehabilitation/removal projects andaddress Federal Title II ADA improvements throughout the park system. Damprojects 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 willneed to balance expenditures on infrastructure and mandatory improvementsalong with improvements to park amenities, resources, and historic preservationprojects.

With over 3.5 million visitors to facilities under its stewardship, the Park

Commission will continue to strive to provide safe recreational and educationalopportunities to its visitors and maintain its standing in the eyes of its constituency.


The PIT program has provided financial resources to stabilize aging infrastructureand has allowed the Park Commission to search out and obtain matching fundsfor a variety of projects. Park Improvement Trust funds have been used as a matchfor a number of New Jersey Historic Preservation Trust Fund grant projects suchas the restoration of the National and State Historic Registered Gardens atBamboo Brook and a Preservation Plan for the National Landmark Historic



I. Introduction


Speedwell. Park Improvement Trust funds have also been leveraged to obtain noless than five New Jersey Recreational Trail grants and will be used as matchingfunds for NJ Department of Transportation grants for the extension of the TractionLine Recreational Trail and sections of Patriots’ Path in Morristown.

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

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

D. Municipal Open Space Trust Funds

At present, 28 municipalities have their own trust fund. The trust funds are summarizedin Table 3. The table shows the most recent trust fund balance and the tax rate 1 in additionto the allowable uses for the fund and the implementation date. The collection rates andcurrent balances vary greatly between these funds. Morris and Parsippany-Troy Hills

Townships reported the highest balances with $6 million in funds, while Wharton Boroughand Mine Hill Township had under $20,000 in their trust funds. Most 2 municipalities hadbetween $100,000 and $1 million balances in their Trust Funds. Collection rates rangefrom .03 cents in Mine Hill Township to 3.8 cents in Montville Township. Most 3 collectionrates range between ½ cent and 2 cents. Most (86%) of these trust funds allow fordevelopment and improvement of open spaces which is currently not allowed in theCounty program. Florham Park Borough does not have an Open Space Trust Fund, butthe Borough does have a dedicated open space funding source. Between the funds ofFlorham Park and the 28 municipal Trust Funds, the municipalities collectively have openspace 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 TownBoonton Township $1,134,862.64 $0.0300 1991 yes yes yes yes yes yes yesButler BoroughChatham Borough $364,432.96 $0.0050 2001 yes yes yes yes no yes yesChatham Township $430,000.00 $0.0050 1997 yes no yes yes no yes noChester Borough $242,882.43 $0.0100 2004 yes no yes yes no yes noChester Township $379,190.66 $0.0200 1996 yes yes yes yes no yes noDenville Township $561,000.00 $0.0300 2004 yes yes yes yes yes yes yesDover TownEast Hanover Township $264,190.90 $0.0100 1995 yes no yes yes no yes noFlorham Park Borough 3 $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 noHarding Township $1,636,136.45 $0.0350 1997 yes yes no yes no yes yesJefferson Township $455,017.16 $0.0050 1998 yes no yes yes no yes noKinnelon Borough $1,286,044.98 $0.0050 2003 yes no yes no no yes yesLincoln Park Borough $628,102.18 $0.0050 2003 yes no yes yes no no noLong Hill Township $2,609,302.00 $0.0200 1998 yes yes yes yes no yes yesMadison Borough $111,717.00 $0.0180 2004 yes no yes yes no yes yesMendham Borough $725,999.00 $0.0080 1999 yes yes yes yes no yes yesMendham Township $508,792.72 $0.0230 1995 yes yes no no no yes yesMine Hill Township $18,155.52 $0.0003 2001 yes no no no no yes noMontville Township $907,056.01 $0.0380 1990 yes yes yes no no yes noMorris Township $6,191,526.20 $0.0021 1993 yes yes yes no no yes yesMorris Plains BoroughMorristown TownMountain Lakes BoroughMount Arlington BoroughMount Olive Township $116,723.08 $0.0200 1997 yes yes yes no no yes yesNetcong BoroughParsippany-Troy Hills Township $6,000,000.00 $0.0175 1989 yes yes yes yes no yes yesPequannock Township $1,000,000.00 $0.0060 2002 yes no yes no no yes yesRandolph Township $818,398.31 $0.0280 1993 yes no yes no no yes yesRiverdale Borough $136,926.65 $0.0100 2005 yes yes yes yes no yes yesRockaway BoroughRockaway 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 yesVictory Gardens BoroughWashington Township $402,442.19 $0.0127 1994 yes yes yes yes no yes noWharton Borough $16,214.12 $0.0150 1999 yes no yes no no no yesTotal $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 / DebtService

HistoricPreservation

Salaries /Benefits

Allowable Trust Fund Uses

Municipality 2 TF Balance 2 Tax Rate Acquisitions 1 YearImplemented

FarmlandPreservation

Development /Improvements

Maintenance



I. Introduction





I. Introduction


E. Other Preserved Morris County Land

Substantial amounts of land in Morris County have been preserved by either the State ofNew Jersey of by the Federal Government. The total area of federally preserved land inMorris County is 9,233 acres, while the State owns 27,758 preserved acres. 1 Another36,455 acres have been preserved by Morris County municipalities, private individuals(easements), or other organizations. These lands, and those preserved through thePreservation Trust Fund are complementary and have collectively helped preserve97,590 2 acres in Morris County. The location of all preserved properties in the County isillustrated 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 andpossible 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 tothe various stakeholders who have had direct experience with the Morris CountyPreservation 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 2013. 1 In-person interviews were also conducted with representatives of each of the 39municipalities 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 thestakeholders in completing the questionnaires and to assess municipal and non-profitneeds and goals related to each applicable Trust Fund program. The interviews assisted

the municipalities in the completion of a Municipal Community Profile detailing the localopen space trust, if one had been established, and to identify plans and grants that hadbeen completed by the community. The interviews were also used to review mappingdata 2 of preserved municipal lands.

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

B. Questionnaires

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

1. Municipalities

Morris County’s 39 municipalities, all of which completed questio nnaires 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 farmlandand 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. Municipaltrust funds currently have limited funds available for land acquisition, and most(83%) of the 29 municipalities with trust funds reported having no plans to makeany changes to their open space funds. 1

b. Farmland Preservation

Most municipalities (76% of respondents) reported that the minimum criteria forfarmland preservation did not limit their participation; however, the fourmunicipalities reporting limitations to their participation, including two currentlywithout preserved farms, requested greater flexibility in minimum farm size (i.e.less than 10 acres).

Most municipalities 2 (92%) with preserved farms responded that farmlandpreservation benefited their community by preserving rural character and providingeconomic benefits by reducing municipal costs associated with residentialdevelopment.

c. Flood Mitigation Program

Eighteen (18) municipalities reported that they have areas that flood frequentlywith 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 respondentssupporting such changes to the program. When asked about changes they wouldlike to see to the program, municipalities specifically requested funding forpreventative measures such as home elevations, river dredging, and stormwaterinfrastructure.To date, seven (7) municipalities have participated in the program. Increasedpublic safety and a reduction of municipal costs were the benefits reported mostfrequently, with each mentioned four times.

1 The question asked about any changes; all but one answered regarding funding levels. Thatmunicipality 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 historicpreservation was applicable to their community. Municipalities that have notparticipated in the program most frequently cited eligibility problems (e.g. privateownership) as the reason for non-participation. Others cited opposition to placingrestrictions on the property. Few municipalities (13%) cited program criteria orrules as reasons for not participating.

Most municipalities (77%) stated that historic preservation had benefited theircommunity. The most frequently cited benefits were improved communitycharacter 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 ofhistoric sites.

e. Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority (MCMUA)

Twenty (20) municipalities 2 (51%) reported having their own wells, but only 11 had

wellhead protection areas surrounding those wells and had adopted a wellheadprotection ordinance. Nine (9) municipalities acknowledged partnering withMCMUA in the Water Resource Protection and Preservation Program to acquireproperties, although the MCMUA reported that they have partnered with 15municipalities and several non-profits on projects in 18 different municipalities inMorris County.

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

f. Morris County Park Commission (MCPC)

Eleven (11) municipalities (28%) reported meeting with the Park Commission on aregular 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 theirprogram to acquire open space, and these municipalities reported using acquiredopen space lands for trail development, passive recreation, and resourceprotection.

Forty-six percent (46%) of municipalities reported that their trail system connectswith that of the Park Commission, and most municipalities (79%) reported awillingness to partner with the Park Commission to establish greater trail

connectivity. Forty-nine percent (49%) of municipalities reported having a trailscommittee or trails plan. Additionally, 72% of municipalities would like tocollaborate 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 responses 1 (64%) indicate a positive impact on property valuesdue to the presence of nearby park facilities. All responding municipalities reportedsatisfaction with the County Parks in their community, and 12 municipalitiesclaimed that improvements should be made to Park Commission lands to increaseusage. Desired changes to the Preservation Trust, as seen in Table 4, includedallowing Trust Fund grants to be used for recreational facility development 2 (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 wasfor recreational fields and facilities (87%). Eighty-two percent (82%) cited naturalresources protection, and 74% sought to prevent unwanted development. Sixty-two percent (62%) cited protection of scenic vistas, and fifty-six percent (56%) citedprotection of water supplies.

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

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

h. Additional CommentsMunicipalities supported most of the possible modifications to use of the MorrisCounty Preservation Trust Fund. Allowing the use of funds for post-preservationtrails development and habitat restoration received the highest level of “stronglysupport” at 78% and 70%, respectively (see Table 5). Reallocation of unusedfunds 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

MunicipalitiesHistoric

Preservation Non-Profits

Land Trust Non-Profits

Community Benefits from Open Space AcquisitionsReduced Municipal Costs 7 36%Increase Property Values 7,12 64% 100%Improved Business Growth 7 29%Quality of Life 7,12 68% 44%Social Opportunities 7,12 39% 11%Community Fitness/Recreation Opportunities 7,12 39% 89%Safety 7,12,15 11% 33%Desired Changes to Open Space AcquisitionsIncrease Funding 6,15 18% 56%

Allow Trail Construction 6,15 14% 44%Recreation Improvements/Stewardship/Maintenance 6,15 55% 78%

Applications (Prioritize/Streamline/Increase Frequency) 6 32%Increase Awareness 6 9%Community Benefits from Historic PreservationBolster Character and Awareness of Local History 5,8,13 63% 83% 60%Improved Business Growth 5,8,13 17% 50% 20%Tourism 5,8,13 33% 50% 20%Desired Changes to the Historic Preservation ProgramIncrease Funding 4,9 58% 20%Maintenance/Improvement Costs/Signage 4,9,14 21% 40% 22%Increase Eligible Projects/Costs 4,9,14 53% 75%Increase Awareness 4,9 21% 50%Resource Sharing 9 20%Businesses that Benefit from Property PreservationRestaurants 3,11,16 50% 100% 33%Hotels 3,11 14% 43%Gas Stations 3,11 7% 57%Shops 3,11,16 21% 100% 67%Revenue Generation on Preserved PropertiesEvent Hosting/Farm/Other Rentals 2,10,17 91% 73% 100%Concerts/Presentations 10 27%Tours 10 13%Merchandise 2,10 9% 20%Post-Preservation PlansTrail Installation/Improvement 1,18 62% 50%Field Development 1 19%Park Improvements (Facilities/Parking/Signage) 1,18 50% 88%Maintenance 1 15%Historic Preservation 1 15%Invasive Species/Wildlife Management 1,18 8% 25%

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

2. Municipalities - out of 11 responses of revenue generation3. Municipalities - out of 14 respondents with business benefits4. Municipalities - out of 19 respondents recommending historic preservation changes5. Municipalities - out of 30 respondents with examples of community benefits of historic preservation6. Municipalities - out of 22 respondents with recommending open space changes7. Municipalities - out of 38 respondents with examples of community benefits of open space8. HP Non-Profits - out of 24 respondents of community benefits of historic preservation9. HP Non-Profits - out of 10 respondents recommending historic preservation changes10. HP Non-Profits - out of 15 responses of revenue generation11. HP Non-Profits - out of 7 respondents with business benefits12. Land Trust Non-Profits- out of 9 respondents with examples of community benefits of open space13. Land Trust Non-Profits - out of 5 respondents of community benefits of historic preservation14. Land Trust Non-Profits - out of 4 respondents recommending historic preservation changes15. Land Trust Non-Profit - out of 9 respondents with recommending open space changes16. Land Trust Non-Profit - out of 3 respondents with business benefits17. Land Trust Non-Profits - out of 3 responses of revenue generation18. 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 preservedlands for sales; restaurants were the most cited as type of business benefiting(50% of respondents). 1 Also, 11 municipalities reported that revenue wasgenerated on preserved lands, and event hosting was the most frequent examplewith 91% of respondents citing such events. Nearly half (49%) of the municipalitiesbelieved that land preserved by the Trust Fund attracted visitors from outside ofMorris County.

Finally, municipalities that wanted additional uses for the Trust Fund soughtfunding for recreation improvements, trails, mine collapse remediation, andawareness programs. Those opposed to the expanded use of funds wereconcerned about the reduced emphasis on open space and historic preservationneeds and want to make sure the primary focus of the Trust Fund remainsunchanged and that any additional uses utilize only a small percentage of funds.

2. Land Trust Non-ProfitsThe 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-Profits 2

Municipal-ities

Land Non-Profits

HP Non-Profits 2

Municipal-ities

Land Non-Profits

HP Non-Profits 2

20 2 8 3 4 2

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

24 5 12 2 2 163% 63% 32% 25% 5% 13%

26 6 8 3 3 070% 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 suchas dam removal and repair, streamrestoration, wetlands mitigation andstorm water management

Allow funding for post-preservationimprovement projects:

To plan, design, and constructrecreational trails and bikeways

For Cultural and Heritage Tourism topromote the use of parkland, agri-tourism, and historic sites

Community Gardens

Field Development

Habitat Restoration

Trails Development

Allow funding for the management andmonitoring of open spaces

Allow use of the Flood Mitigationportion for demolition and reclamation

Strongly Support 1 Somewhat Support 1 Do Not Support 1

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 Spaceprogram, 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) reportedproviding consulting services to municipalities. Land trusts provided consultingservices in the form of program development, expertise, and technical services.They reported this collaboration improved implementation, communityengagement, and helped renew funding. They also reported improved quality oflife as a result of this collaboration. Seven organizations have lists of propertiesthey would like to acquire, and four currently have active projects with PreservationTrust programs.

b. Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority (MCMUA)

Of the six (6) responding organizations, five (5) land trust non-profits havepartnered with MCMUA to acquire properties, and all responding organizationsbelieved that the Morris County Preservation Trust has helped preserve waterquality and know of additional properties that should be preserved. Non-profits alsoexpressed a desire for more opportunities for partnerships and resource sharingwith the MCMUA.

c. Morris County Park Commission (MCPC)

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

d. Open Space Preservation Program (OSTF)

All non-profits cited natural resource and water supply protection as the topreasons to preserve open space. All but one acquired open space to preventdevelopment, and seven sought to protect scenic vistas. In contrast tomunicipalities, 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 fundto acquire open space, and these non-profits cited many of the same benefits totheir communities as provided by municipalities (Table 4). All land trust non-profitshave post-preservation plans that require additional funding and all respondents 1 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 themunicipalities of potential future modifications to the Morris County PreservationTrust Fund (see Table 5); however, 89% strongly support the allowance of post-preservation funding for trails development. These non-profit organizations onlyreported significant opposition to the use of funding for cultural and heritagetourism (57% opposed).

Non-profit responses indicated that future acquisition would benefit the localeconomy, and all responding organizations 1 stated that land preserved by theTrust 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 ofMine 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 HistoricalSociety

Washington Township Land Trust ofMorris 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 ownershipof land, and three reported providing consulting services to municipalities in theform of information and administration services. These non-profits reported animproved focus on historic preservation efforts and increased public awareness oflocal history as a result of this collaboration.

b. Historic Preservation Program

Sixteen (16) organizations (59%) have structures that they would like to preserveand 14 currently have active projects. Additionally, 78% of these non-profits haveseen 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 orprogram rules for the Historic Preservation Program limited their use of the funds.

All of the organizations reported that their historic preservation efforts benefitedthe community, with 83% finding it bolstered community character and awarenessof local history. 1 Improved business growth and tourism were each mentioned byfive organizations.

c. Additional Comments

The respondents for the historic preservation organizations were supportive of theuse of funding for cultural and heritage tourism (60% strongly support). 2 Manyhistoric preservation non-profits (54% of respondents) 3 found that projects fundedthrough the Trust Fund held regular revenue-generating events, and a largemajority of respondents 4 (74%) said that their preserved properties attractedvisitors 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 compiledinto 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 anew 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 thedatabase/GIS information. They began the editing process by creating a topology rule toidentify duplicate, overlapping properties. Duplicate records were reviewed to preserve alluseful information before the extra record was removed. Basic edits were made to reflecta par cel’s participation in the various grant programs.

The Consultants requested Recreation and Open Space Inventories (ROSI) from eachmunicipality. During the interview process, printed copies of the POSI Schema and mapswere provided to the municipalities. The municipalities and non-profits were requested toverify 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 usedas 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 CountyPreservation Trust Fund. This process led to the development of a much more accuratedatabase and maps of the preserved properties in the County. This data, along with theMod 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 theprograms of the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund. Trust Fund statistics are derivedfrom a number of sources. The Morris County POSI is used for acreage values for theMunicipal/Non-Profit Open Space Preservation, MCMUA, and Morris County ParkCommission Land Acquisition programs. Farmland acreage is based on Net Preservedacreage as provided by the Easement Values table. 1 The County Cost amounts are currentas 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 totalfor properties, acreage, and County cost are located at the bottom of the table. The figuresoutlined 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 Preservationprogram with 228 projects, 11,731 acres and over $176 million in grants awarded. Theaverage 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, 7,709acres and over $71 million in grants awarded. The average cost to the County per acreof farmland is $9,260. Fourteen municipalities have participated in the FarmlandPreservation Program with the majority of easements acquired in Washington and ChesterTownships (4,894 and 1,492 acres respectively).

Due to their more recent establishment or lower allocation rates, the expenditures for threeother programs are significantly lower at just over $20 million for the Historic PreservationProgram (created by a 2002 referendum), approximately $20 million for the MCMUAProgram (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. Participatingmunicipalities 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 beenpartially realized and need additional funds in the future for completion. To date, nineprojects have been fully completed per the recommendations of their Preservation Plansat an average, cumulative funding cost of $428,116. 3 Any of the completed projects mayreturn 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 inseven (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 thathave 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

Projects 2 Acres 3 County Cost Properties 2 Acres 4 County Cost Projects 2 County Cost Properties County Cost Projects 2 Acres 7 County Cost Parks 2 Acres 8 County Cost 9 Acres Percentage County Cost

Boonton Town 1,592 2 3 $1,150,000 3 $732,354 2 $528,710 3 0.2% $2,411,064Boonton Township 5,428 10 290 $10,098,000 3 141 $1,574,575 1 $729,139 2 $450,000 2 267 $4,366,000 6 9 7 1 2. 8% $ 17 ,2 17 ,7 14Butler Borough 1,318 3 23 $888,319 1 $543,720 23 1.8% $1,432,039Chatham Borough 1,533 2 50 $375,000 50 3.3% $375,000Chatham Township 5,984 7 63 $3,781,000 1 219 $24,795,500 2 82 4. 7% $28, 576 ,50 0Chester Borough 1,019 3 105 $6,015,140 1 53 $873,075 1 $15,280 15 9 1 5. 6% $6 ,90 3, 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 ,5 28 1 3. 5% $ 36 ,0 64 ,8 48Denville 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 9 5 9 11. 7% $ 12 ,9 03 ,3 41Dover Town 1,746 4 43 $1,228,500 1 $505,175 43 2.5% $1,733,675East Hanover Township 5,180 3 17 $1,831,500 1 $648,000 1 7 $44,500 24 0.5% $2,524,000Florham Park Borough 4,833 3 14 $2,712,500 2 $121,266 1 $100,000 14 0.3% $2,933,766Hanover Township 6,878 5 238 $1,903,750 2 $107,820 1 7 $105,000 245 3.6% $2,116,570Harding Township 13,162 10 244 $9,763,500 8 276 $11,488,997 2 $840,105 2 $400,000 1 E10 $75,000 52 0 4. 0% $22, 567 ,60 2Jefferson Township 27,365 18 1,126 $6,332,500 2 12 $177,800 3 100 $1,065,000 1 ,2 38 4. 5% $7 ,57 5, 300Kinnelon Borough 12,295 3 177 $1,942,500 1 $242,944 2 $300,000 4 1 ,36 1 $ 7, 81 9, 527

1 ,5 38 1 2. 5% $ 10 ,3 04 ,9 71Lincoln Park Borough 4,426 2 77 $2,177,836 35 $5,035,093 77 1.7% $7,212,929Long 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% $4,757,714Madison Borough 2,714 5 65 $10,200,000 5 $1,209,848 1 25 $2,038,262 90 3.3% $13,448,110Mendham Borough 3,827 3 97 $5,210,000 2 60 $802,137 2 $105,000 1 3 $300,000 160 4.2% $6,417,137Mendham 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 ,6 42 1 4. 2% $ 23 ,1 00 ,9 50Mine Hill Township 1,927 2 244 $6,250,000 1 $62,330 5 75 $3,230,000 8 $600,000 3 27 1 7. 0% $ 10 ,1 42 ,3 30Montville Township 12,233 7 357 $7,710,000 1 27 $304,893 3 $541,686 1 157 $2,479,857 5 41 4. 4% $11, 036 ,43 6Morris Plains Borough 1,657 5 12 $1,078,600 12 0.7% $1,078,600Morris Township 10,120 6 106 $8,026,000 4 $287,938 3 30 $1,606,510 2 180 $1,924,294 3 17 3. 1% $11, 844 ,74 2Morristown Town 1,923 6 15 $3,341,500 14 $3,983,281 15 0.8% $7,324,781Mount Arlington Borough 1,783 1 3 $1,645,000 3 0.1% $1,645,000Mount 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 ,0 82 1 0. 4% $ 13 ,6 92 ,9 55Mountain Lakes Borough 1,861 1 $277,000 $277,000Netcong Borough 568 1 22 $500,000 2 $550,121 22 3.8% $1,050,121Parsippany - Troy Hil ls Townsh ip 16,216 9 89 $6,065,750 5 $1,367,362 29 $2,371,456 89 0.5% $9,804,568Pequannock Township 4,535 8 17 $2,953,280 2 $585,520 19 $2,370,788 1 26 $1,256,663 4 3 1.0% $7,166,251Randolph 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 ,7 12 1 2. 6% $ 12 ,2 22 ,9 70Riverdale Borough 1,319 2 7 $1,265,000 1 $1,062,739 7 $1,320,000 7 0.5% $3,647,739Rockaway Borough 1,357 2 42 $1,225,000 2 $38,880 2 $240,000 42 3.1% $1,503,880Rockaway 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 ,5 43 5 .2 % $ 13 ,9 49 ,4 88Roxbury Township 14,018 12 799 $8,242,884 5 $609,340 9 266 $4,834,450 1 ,0 65 7 .6 % $ 13 ,6 86 ,6 74Victory Gardens Borough 93Washington 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 ,7 72 2 0. 1% $ 34 ,1 77 ,8 62Wharton Borough 1,362 3 139 $888,493 1 $435,346 1 1 $500,000 1 36 $524,000 17 6 1 2. 9% $2 ,34 7, 839

Municipality Total 1 308,019 2 28 1 1, 731 $ 176 ,5 54 ,8 28 1 25 7, 70 9 $ 71, 38 5, 08 8 8 0 $ 20, 25 6, 30 2 11 7 $ 16 ,4 54, 51 9 4 7 1 ,1 14 $1 9, 770 ,5 81 2 4 3 ,5 90 $ 62 ,7 54 ,6 41 2 4, 14 4 7 .8 % $3 67 ,1 75 ,95 9Morris County Park CommissionMCPC Park Improvements 11 $24,447,170Morris 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.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 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 multipleproperties/parcels and may extend beyond municipal boundaries.

Morris County Park Commission LandAcquisitionMunicipality Town Size

(Acres)Morris County Preservation Trust TotalMunicipal/Non-Profit Open Space

Preservation Farmland Preservati on Historic Preservation 5 Flood Mitigation Program 6 Morris County Municipal UtilitiesAuthority










Table 7: Average Costs for Previously Funded Projects

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

Since 1994, the Morris County Park Commission Land Acquisition program has fundedland preservation projects in 22 of the County’s 39 municipalities at a total land value costof $62.8 million. These acquisitions have yielded a total of 3,590 acres of fee simpleownership, 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 Countyparks in Morris County. A map of existing regional trails for which the MCPC has astewardship role can be seen in Figure 8, and Figure 9 shows these trails overlaid onlands under the Park Commission ’s stewardship responsibility . This second mapdemonstrates how acquisitions by the MCPC Land Acquisition program have helped trailconnectivity in Morris County.

Per Project 2 Per AcreMunicipal/Non-Profit Open Space 3 $774,363 $15,050

Farmland Preservation 4 $571,081 $9,260

Historic Preservation 5 $253,204

Flood Mitigation 6 $84,105

Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority 7 $420,651 $17,744

Morris County Park Commission Land Acquisition 8 $674,781 $17,480

Preservation Trust Fund Average 9 $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.

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.

County CostPreservation Trust Fund Program 1

2. These values represent the per property/project cost, depending on program. Projects may contain multipleproperties/parcels and may extend beyond municipal boundaries.

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

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

9. Total Per Project County Cost calculated by dividing total expenditures (not including PIT because projectnumbers were not reported) by the total number of projects. Total Per Acre County Cost calculated by dividingtotal 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 wouldhave had to be funded through the County Capital Budget.

B. Total Trust Fund Expenditures

The total expenditures to date 1 for the seven programs of the Preservation Trust Fundare $391.6 million to preserve 24,144 acres of land, restore 80 historic sites, acquire 117flood-prone homes, and fund numerous park improvement projects. An additional $94million2 worth of funds was raised in conjunction with these funds from other sources,primarily from State Agriculture Development Committee (SADC), and FEMA (FederalEmergency Management Agency). Preservation Trust Fund projects have occurred in 38of Morris County’s 39 municipalities, and the Preservation Trust Fund has preservednearly 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. TheMunicipal/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 MorrisCounty 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 willincrease home property values by $1.50 per square foot in that zip code, on average, allelse 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 budgetaryimpact on Morris County and its municipalities. It has been estimated that there is morethan $18 million in positive and direct budgetary impact each year to Morris County andits municipalities as a result of the Preservation Trust Fund.

Data and relevant studies provide evidence that the Preservation Trust Fund has apositive 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 peaklevels in Morris County. Tourism in Morris County has been estimated to generatespending 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 intourism direct sales, generating 4.4% growth in tourism employment.

Morris County ranked first in quality of life throughout all of New Jersey, according to theGarden State Quality of Life study. It is safe to conclude that the Morris CountyPreservation 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 MitigationProgram has generated an estimated $23.2 million in benefits from the $3.6 million in grantfunds provided by the Preservation Trust Fund for a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of 7.33 ($7.33in benefits for every $1.00 invested). Pending projects have an estimated overall BCR of4.67.

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

Revenue enterprises occurring on lands preserved through the Preservation Trust Fundoften 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 onthe 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 localeconomy 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. Thesebenefits include: improvement in air and water quality, healthier and increased biodiversityin terrestrial and aquatic habitats, cooler air temperatures in the summer, habitatprotection, noise reduction, sediment and erosion reduction, and water resourceprotection.





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

B. Impacts on Nearby Property Values

Preserved space is defined herein as open space, parks, historic sites, flood mitigationproperties, and farmland parcels preserved through both state and county programs.

According to the updated Morris County Public Open Space Inventory (POSI) data, MorrisCounty has over 97,500 acres of preserved space, spread over approximately 3,449parcels of land. Funding from the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund (PTF) hashelped preserve 24,144 of these acres, or approximately 24.7% of all preserved land inMorris County.

There is a robust literature base supporting the idea that preserved space has a positiveimpact on the values of nearby properties. This section of the report uses a statisticalmodel to estimate the impact that preserved space in Morris County has on propertyvalues. The results show that the preserved space in Morris County, including those acrespreserved 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 positivelyimpacts the value of a home. This is known as the ’proximate principal’, which statesthat the market values of properties located near a park or open space are frequentlyhigher than those of comparable properties elsewhere. In turn, the study finds that thehigher property values near open space increases the aggregate amount of propertytax received by the municipality.

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

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

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





2. Available Data

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

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

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 theimpact that preserved land has on Morris County property values. This section isparticularly interested in how P/SQFT changes as the amount of preserved acresincreases.

(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 toestimate 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 thisanalysis can be found in Appendix F.

a. Interpreting the Results

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

For an example of how to interpret this result, please see the data for zip code07082 in Table 8.

Table 8: Zip Code 07082

The amount of preserved acreage in zip code 07082 is currently calculated to be20.98% of the total land acr eage 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 wascalculated to be $168 per square foot.

The results of this analysis state that if the percentage of preserved acreage withinzip code 07082 were to increase from 20.98% to 21.98%, then the average priceper 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 zipcode 07082. To increase the percentage of preserved land to 21.98%, 38.66 moreacres would need to be preserved within 07082. The regression results suggestthat the preservation of these 38.66 additional acres would increase the price persquare foot of all homes in the zip code by $1.50, all else held constant. Each ofthe other 31 zip codes included in the data set can be approached with this sameinterpretation. (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 analysisconcludes that preserved acreage, such as that preserved through the support ofthe Preservation Trust Fund, has a significant positive impact on property valuesin Morris County, New Jersey.

Further, this report estimates that for every zip code in the data set, increasing thepercentage of preserved acres in a given Morris County zip code by one percentwill increase all home property values in that zip code by $1.50 per square foot, onaverage, all else held constant. Based on these results, it is clear that preservingmore 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. TheCounty’s 2013 budget of $336 million in Current Fund expenditures includes expenditureson Public Safety, Public Works, Health and Human Services, Education and Utilities, aswell 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 budgetedexpenditures are paid for by general-purpose taxes levied each year on the Net TaxableValuation (NTV) of real property and improvements within the county. According to the2013 Morris County Ratables, approximately $218 million of general-purpose county taxeswere levied based on the NTV, while over $460 million of local municipal and library taxeswere levied on the NTV in addition to the county tax. Additionally, nearly $1.2 billion ofschool 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 andlocation, as residents of the community need different types of services and infrastructureto live healthy and productive lifestyles. The business community also requires these taxrevenues in order to maintain an educated and productive workforce, as well as to providethe needed infrastructure to effectively produce and deliver many types of goods andservices to the community.





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


Several studies 1 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 focuseson three types of land use and the relative cost to the government for every one dollarof 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 municipalgovernment 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 governmentservices than the tax revenues received from the property. On the other hand,commercial and industrial property and open space and farmland, generate more intax revenues than the required government service costs that are associated with thatproperty.

2. Available Data

The activities of the Preservation Trust Fund affect the land uses that occur within theCounty. Based on the different direct budgetary impacts of various land uses as shownby the American Farmland Trust, it can be assumed that the Preservation Trust Fund’simpact on the ratio of the various land uses in the County will also impact the Countybudget. In other words, if land is preserved rather than developed as residentialproperty, it is likely to have a positive budgetary impact to the County becauseresidential 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 innecessary services.

In order to estimate the extent to which the Preservation Trust Fund’s impact on landuse directly affects the Morris County budget, this section estimates the amount ofland used by category in absence of the Preservation Trust Fund, estimates the

revenues associated with these alternate uses, and estimates the costs or savingsassociated 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 AgriculturalSciences (1998), Julia Freedgood’s “Cost of Community Services Studies: Making the Case forConservation” (2002), Penn State’s “Fiscal Impacts of Different Land Uses” (1997), MontgomeryCounty 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) categorizesland uses throughout the County. While this land use overview categorizes theCounty’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 usein 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 ComprehensiveOutdoor Recreation Plan (“SCORP) report (2013) as being 307,852, the categoricaluse percentages are multiplied by the total number of acres to estimate the number ofacres by use, as shown in Table 9.

Table 9: Land Use in Acres 1

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 andOpen Space,

25.3%

Industrial, 2.5%

Land Use % of County AcresResidential 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 theState 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 hadbeen preserved through the County’s Preservation Trust Fund at the time. In order toestimate the land use that might occur on this land in the absence of preservation, thisstudy assumes that these preserved acres would be developed proportionately basedon the other types of non-Public uses in Morris County (excluding Open Space), asshown 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 thetheoretical additional tax assessment for each type of use, which is shown in Table12.Table 12: Theoretical Additional Assessment (Gross Figures)


In order to determine the incremental budgetary savings/(cost) for each type of useacross the various tax types within the County, the estimated theoretical additionalassessment by category of land use is used as the value basis to which the varioustax rates would be applied. The estimated savings/(costs) exclude open space taxeslevied 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 AcreageResidential 12,447Vacant & Farm 6,428Commercial 1,821Industrial 929Public & Transportation -Parks & Open Space -

Land Use Additional AssessmentResidential 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 thepreserved 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 perdollar of revenue cost ratios in order to estimate the incremental annual budgetarysavings/(cost) to the County attributable to land preservation that has been fundedusing 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 Countymunicipalities in 2013 ($0.626 per $100), Table 14 presents the incremental annualbudgetary savings/(costs) to the collective municipalities attributable to the landpreserved 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 ($1.456per $100), Table 15 presents the incremental annual budgetary savings/(costs) to thecollective school districts attributable to the land preserved through the PreservationTrust Fund.

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

As shown in Table 16, the collective estimated annual budgetary savings directlyattributable to land that has been preserved using the Morris County PreservationTrust 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 SavingsResidential 6,123,050$Vacant & Farm (365,650)$Commercial (2,895,916)$Industrial (747,079)$

Total 2,114,405$

Land Use Municipal Budget SavingsResidential 14,144,020$Vacant & Farm (844,638)$Commercial (6,689,458)$Industrial (1,725,726)$

Total 4,884,198$

Land Use School Budget SavingsResidential 32,897,273$Vacant & Farm (1,964,525)$Commercial (15,558,867)$Industrial (4,013,829)$

Total 11,360,052$





Table 16: Total Budget Savings

4. Conclusion

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

In addition to the direct budgetary impact, there are also indirect budgetary impacts tothe county, municipal, and school budgets attributable to the Preservation Trust Fund.

As was discussed in the previous section, there is a high likelihood that preservationof open space positively impacts the average price per square foot of housing locatednear preserved areas. This finding suggests that the lands preserved through thePreservation Trust Fund have positively impacted the value of real property within theCounty, 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 outsidevisitors. 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 YorkCity, NY and approximately 80 miles from Philadelphia, PA. Proximity to highly populatedcities 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 localeconomies. The positive affect tourism has on the economy is validated by numerousstudies. Historic sites and open spaces, such as those preserved through the MorrisCounty Preservation Trust Fund, serve as an attraction to both citizens and visitors fromnearby and distant locations. As these visitors travel to and from the attractions, theystimulate the local economy by spending dollars at hotels, retail shops, restaurants, gasstations, and more.

It is important to realize that tourism activity does not only mean additional revenues, butit 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 purchasegoods and services, increasing tourism’s impact on the local economy through indirectstimulation. Based on Morris County’s proximity to a large amount of potential touristsand the many positive economic impacts that tourism has on a local economy, it is clearthat the properties preserved by the Preservation Trust Fund are an important part of thelocal economy.

Land Use Total Budget SavingsResidential 53,164,343$Vacant & Farm (3,174,812)$

Commercial (25,144,241)$Industrial (6,486,634)$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 largecontribution 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 oftourism’s impact on Mo rris County. Since 2009, visitation to New Jersey has grown atan annual rate of 5.79%, amounting to 87.2 million visitors in 2013. Visitors havecontributed to outstanding revenue growth and employment opportunities for the state.The report also estimates the impact of tourism on sales and the economy. As shownin 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 thestate of New Jersey. Table 17 illustrates that the lodging, food & beverage, retail,

recreation, and transportation sectors see the greatest benefits from the direct impactsof the tourism industry.Table 17: 2013 New Jersey Tourism Sales by Sector

The growing numbers in visitation and tourism sales have a positive impact onemployment. 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 privatesector employer in the state. When accounting for indirect impacts, the tourismindustry sustains an estimated 511,750 jobs, representing 9.9% of the totalemployment in New Jersey and supporting many important sectors of the economy.Overall, the Tyrell report clearly shows that tourism is of great benefit to MorrisCounty’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 2013Total 309,499 308,801 312,369 318,560 320,238YoY 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 thepast four years (see Table 19). Over the past four years, Morris County has almosttwo 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 positiveeconomic 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 themakeup 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 theMorristown National Historic Park (NHP). A 2014 study by the U.S. Department of theInterior features the NHP, estimating that the park had a total of 294,606 visitors whocollectively spent $15.9 million in 2012. Moreover, nearly all of the tourism dollarsgenerated by the park were from non-local visitors. The study defines local visitors asthose who live within a 60-mile radius of the park, while non-local visitors are thosewho live outside of a 60-mile radius from the park. Visitors to Morristown NHP are16.0% local and 84.0% non-local. Spending at Morristown NHP is 4.5% local and95.5% non-local. Dollars spent per visitor show that non-local visitors spend asignificantly higher amount than local visitors. Table 20 shows the breakdown ofspending for all visitor types. This is just one example that Morris County touristattractions 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-timehigh of 21,161 employees in 2013. This represents 6.6% of the state’s total tourismemployment and places Morris County sixth out of all twenty-one counties in NewJersey (Table 21). The County has also generated 4.4% year-over-year growth intourism 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 inthe state of New Jersey. It is also clear that the Preservation Trust Fund has had apositive impact on the economy of Morris County by increasing the availability of openspace, farmland, and historic sites that draw thousands of visitors each year. Thefollowing is just a sample of the many tourist events made possible through thePreservation 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’sstore, 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 localrestaurants, parks, and cultural activities.

c. For 39 years, the Morris Canal Society has hosted an annual “Canal Day Musicand 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 anestimated $350,000 of economic impact every year 1.

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

1 Figures as provided by Roxbury Township.

1 Atlantic 58,3752 Bergen 24,1963 Ocean 25,6444 Cape May 25,4795 Middlesex 21,9266 Morris County 21,1617 Essex 21,1308 Monmouth 21,0869 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 throughthe Trust Fund assist in driving tourism to peak levels in Morris County, which currentlygenerates tourism spending of $1.95 billion and employs over 21,000 people.Continued preservation of these types of properties will contribute to the futuresuccess 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 propertieshas a positive impact on local businesses. The positive attributes of preserved propertiesweigh into the decision making process of a business deciding where to locate or relocateits operations. Preservation is particularly important when it comes to agriculture, as landacreage is a deciding factor in operating an agricultural business.

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


Businesses seeking to locate or relocate to a new community look at many importantquantitative and qualitative factors during their decision making process. Economicdevelopment professional Dean Uminski , Principal at Crowe Horwath LLP, addressesthe impact and importance of preserved land on businesses by surveying variouscompanies 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 andappropriately skilled workforce.” Qualitative factors include “such features as a lowcrime rate, good healthcare facilities, varied and affordable housing, and other quality-of-life considerations such as strong local schools and inviting recreational and culturalamenities.”

Uminski notes that quality of life surveys were given to business executives in both2012 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. Incomparison to the 2012 results, eight of the nine factors jumped in importance bysignificant amounts, showing that business executives are placing more and moreemphasis on quality of life factors as they choose destinations for their operations.

The Morris County Economic Development Corporation (EDC) often highlights MorrisCounty’s superior quality of life when marketing to corporations considering the areafor expansion or relocation. Local corporations frequently report their use of featureslike the open space and trails in Morris County. For example, Kelli Schanz of theHanover 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 andwalking 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 MorrisCounty.





2. Available Data

It is easiest to examine the impacts of the Preservation Trust Fund on local businesseswhen looking at a specific industry. Farming and agri-tourism in Morris County arehighly impacted by the Preservation Trust Fund. Morris County has preserved 125farms 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 that78% of participants in farm-preservation programs want to preserve their farm to keepit in the family and that 42% rely heavily upon the money generated from their farmoperations. In a 2007 report, Lori Lynch and Joshua Duke of the University ofMaryland highlight four benefits that warrant the implementation of farmlandpreservation programs: 1) food security and local food supply; 2) viable localagricultural economy; 3) environmental and rural amenities; and 4) sound fiscal policyand orderly development.

According to Kurt Alstede of Alstede Farms, located in Morris County, unpreservedfarmland 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 farmlandcosts less per acre, bringing the purchase and operation of a Morris County farm morewithin the reach of the average farmer. Without preservation, Morris County wouldhave less impact from this vital industry.

Through the Farmland Preservation Program, farm owners in Morris County can electto preserve their current farmland and maintain ownership. Funds acquired throughthe preservation process can be used for farm operations to help cover debt paymentsor other costs, such as fertilizer, fuel, and state taxes. Other farm owners use thesepreservation funds to improve their farming operation by purchasing new farmequipment or constructing new farm buildings – both of which benefit local retailersand service companies. Harvey Ort Jr. of Ort Farms states that, “The Farmland

Preservation Program allowed my farm to keep operating. Without the program, thefarm would have serious financial difficulties.” In another example, Dale Davis ofStony Hill Gardens credits the Farm Preservation Program with his ability to continueoperating his farm.

The ability of farmers to continue operating allows for dollars to circulate throughoutthe 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 thesebenefits might not exist.

Additionally, agri-tourism, a niche tourism activity, provides boosted economic benefitson 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 from2002 to 2007 was associated with a nine dollar ($9) increase in overall farm salesthroughout the state.

Farmers in Morris County utilize a diverse number of channels to generate agri-tourismtransactions, 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 localeconomy is growing in importance. The US Department of Agriculture (2013) cites anincrease in farmers markets; from 1,200 in 1980 to 8,144 in 2013 – a seven-foldincrease. Generating nearly $7 billion of sales in 2013, farmers markets located nearmajor 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 MarketChatham Borough Farmers Market Madison Farmers MarketChester Farmers Market Morristown Farmers MarketDenville Farmers Market Netcong Farmers MarketEast Hanover Farmers Market Riverdale Farmers MarketPequannock Farmers Market Morris Plains Farmers MarketMorris County Winter Farmers Market atFosterfields

3. Summary of Findings: Alstede Farms Case Study

Founded by Kurt Alstede in 1982, Alstede Farms’ operates on over 600 acres offarmland 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 500,000visitors generate an estimated $6.5 million in annual direct sales through an extensiverange of offerings, including farm store sales, pick-your-own, events and birthdayparties, and educational group tours. According to Mr. Alstede, without the option ofpreservation provided by the Preservation Trust Fund, Alstede Farms would not stillbe 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 employmentof 165 different people over the course of a year. The same scenario is likely true formany other preserved farms in Morris County.

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

4. Summary of FindingsThe Preservation Trust Fund ’s Farmland Preservation Program offers farmers ofMorris County a unique opportunity to preserve a family business, while alsogenerating a positive impact on the local economy. The case study of Alstede Farms,and the comparative findings of numerous other studies, clearly support that thePreservation Trust Fund’ s funding of farmland preservation has a positive economicimpact on the local economy and maintains local farm activity that otherwise would notbe feasible. Moreover, the fact that quality-of-life is becoming increasingly important





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

F. Anecdotal Accounts and Additional Case Studies

1. Farmland Preservationa. Ort Farms

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

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

b. Stony Hill GardensThe Stony Hill Farm, located in Chester Township, has a farm market, Corn MazeFun Park, Pick-Your-Own Pumpkins, and Christmas Trees. Mr. Dale Davis creditsthe 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 haveled to the development of the property.

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

Between the three preserved farms, Mr. Davis estimates that he has approximately20,000 visitors per year, mostly in the fall. These visitors often patronize localrestaurants, which can be found as posted recommendations on these farms.Without the preservation program, none of these farm operations would bepossible.

c. Tranquility Farm

Tranquility Farm is a horse farm in Chester Township that offers training for horsesand 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 hisfarm to remain viable. The funds he received have helped him continue to operatedespite the high overhead associated with equine farming. Mr. Desiderio sayswithout the program, he would have had to sell his 60 acre farm and believes itwould have been developed into numerous residential properties.

Mr. Desiderio says the preservation program is good for both farmers andresidents. While the funds help him continue to operate the farm, the communityalso maintains its farm heritage and character. He informs his customers aboutthe benefits of farm preservation and thinks that the public should be bettereducated about the Preservation Trust program.





d. Wightman’s Farm

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

Wightman’s Farm, located in Harding Township, has had a farm market since the1940s 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 farmtours. Additionally, the fall market offers pies, cider, painted pumpkins, and apumpkin 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 NewJersey, providing rides to 300 children per hour. Many of the agri-tourismopportunities at Wight man’s farm have inspired other farmers to create similarprograms allowing them to generate additional revenue.

2. Open Space Preservationa. Horseshoe Lake Park

Horseshoe Lake Park in Roxbury Township hosts sports tournaments and otherevents such as: Puptoberfest, Multiple Sclerosis Walk-A-Thon, St. ThereseCarnival, British Car Show, Street Rod Show, and the Lacrosse Festival. Theseevents in Roxbury Township generate an estimated $350,000 in benefits everyyear. Horseshoe Lake is also home to a “destination playground,” calledImagination Station. The park was voted the 13th best park in America in CocaCola’s national "Take It to the Park" Challenge in 2013. The Horseshoe LakeExtension Project connects to the West Morris Greenway and ultimately to Patriot'sPath.

b. Turkey Brook ParkTurkey Brook Park is the central location and starting point for the trails system inMt. 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 andduring special events, and attracts many out-of-town visitors. The park hosts anannual carnival that attracts over 10,000 visitors.

Turkey Brook Park is a community gathering place for events, recreation, andpassive enjoyment. Patrons of all ages use the park for walking, jogging, birdwatching, and dog exercising (at the dog park). The park is a regional destinationand provides support for local restaurants, stores, and hotels. Athletictournaments, including state playoffs, are held at the park for several differentsports, drawing thousands to the park and neighboring businesses. Many of thesebusinesses sponsor events at the park. Non-profits often hold fundraisers,including 5K runs, and developers frequently advertise proximity to the park as abenefit to potential housing purchasers. Revenue generated by the park is usedfor park maintenance and staffing of the Recreation Department. The SewardHouse at Turkey Brook Park has received Historic Preservation funding but stillneeds substantial restoration.






a. Craftsman Farms

The Stickley Museum at Craftsman Farms, located in Parsippany-Troy HillsTownship, 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) areNew Jersey residents from outside of Morris County, and 34% (3,740) are fromout-of-state.

The site of the museum, a National Historic Landmark, was threatened bydevelopment in 1989 before it was acquired through Municipal Open Space funds.The museum received Morris County Historic Preservation funding for Log HouseStabilization in 2003, the Craftsman Farms Master Plan in 2007, and the FireProtection Project in 2010 and 2012. Additionally, in 2007 the site received MorrisCounty Open Space funding to preserve the two western parcels which containthe 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 orrestoration.

Vonda Givens, Active Executive Director, first worked with the HistoricPreservation Program on the Fire Protection Project. She says this firesuppression 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 theproperty. Ms. Givens says the grant allowed the continued existence andoperation of the property.

Ms. Givens also emphasized the importance of the 2007 Master Plan grant to thecontinued preservation of the site. The plan serves as a guide to their continuedpreservation 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 andsupports local businesses by drawing 11,000 annual national and internationalvisitors to the area who eat at local restaurants, stay at local hotels, and visit localshops.

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, theproperty is owned and operated by the Morris County Park Commission (MCPC).

According to Ms. Lynn Laffey, Assistant Director of Historic Sites for MCPC, thefarm 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 thatwithout the grant, the restoration probably would not have been completed orwould have been delayed while funds were sought.

Fosterfields had 27,279 visitors in 2013, and Ms. Laffey says these visitors oftenuse local restaurants as well as other parks and cultural activities. A majority ofthe visitors (60-70%) come from within Morris County; Ms. Laffey estimates thatless than half are from within Morristown itself. The farm participates in programsallowing school children to visit. Ms. Laffey says the Preservation Trust was very





beneficial, and the Park Commission plans to apply again to the HistoricPreservation 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’songoing restoration has various phases, and the Borough seeks continued Historicand Open Space funding as well as involvement from the Morris County ParkCommission.

Without the funds provided by the Morris County Preservation Trust (in addition toother sources), restoration and preservation of the Morris Canal Lock 2 East wouldnot have been possible, says John Manna of the Wharton RedevelopmentCommission. The funds were used to develop a Historic Site Master Plan andFeasibility Study, as well as other services. The funds were also used forreconstruction of lock walls and fabrication of a wood lock miter gate. Currently,visitors experience the site through interpretive signage, but the goal, according toMr. 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 greatlyincrease this number, bolstering heritage tourism in Morris County. The annualCanal Day Music and Craft Festival, now in its 39th year, draws over 5,000 visitorsfrom all over New Jersey as well as surrounding states; these visitors havecontributed to the revitalization of Wharton’s Main Street business district.

Additionally, the site offers educational opportunities for school children who attendthe site as part of an annual local history lesson plan.

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

G. Environmental Benefits of Land Preservation

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


Air quality improvements due to land conservation are demonstrated in the researchof the US Forest Service (2005). Their calculations estimate that “over a 50 -yearlifetime one tree generates $31,250 worth of oxygen, $62,000 worth of air pollutioncontrol, recycles over $37,500 worth of water, and controls $31,250 worth of soilerosion.” Tre es are vital to providing clean air to breath for all living creatures. Treesremove ozone, sulfur dioxides, nitrogen dioxides, carbon monoxide and particulatematter.

A Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (2010) report finds that a contiguousforest can remove up to 15% of ozone, 14% of sulfur dioxides and 8% of nitrogenoxides in addition to filtering dust, gases and soot. It is widely known that parks, forests





an d all types of vegetated open spaces act as “sinks” for carbon by sequestering itand decreasing temperatures in the summer, thus decreasing energy needs of nearbyfacilities whether they are homes, businesses, or public buildings.

Land conservation for water quality protection and improvement is equally asimportant. 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 offfrom impervious surfaces increases in velocity and carries sediments and pollutantsas it moves over the impervious surfaces and through storm water systems. Thesediments and pollutants end up in the waterways and the fast-moving water causesincreased 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 safedrinking water. The costs of providing clean drinking water become an increasingburden to municipalities, well owners, and all tax payers. The same report also findsthat “although advances in treatment technologies allow most suppliers to meet

current drinking water standards, the challenges of storm water runoff from agriculturaland developed lands make treatment more heavy- handed, complex, and expensive.” A subsequent Trust for Public Land (2007) report cites that “for every 10 percentincrease in forest cover in the source area (up to 60 percent forest cover), treatmentand chemical costs decrease by approximately 20 percent.”

In July of 2013, FEMA released its updated “Hazard Mitigation Assistance UnifiedGuidance” in which they have developed quantifiable measures of “economic values for green open space and riparian areas” The estimated benefit for green open spaceis “$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 97,675acres of preserved land located in Morris County. Of those acres, approximately24,137 acres (Table 24) are preserved using grant monies from the Preservation TrustFund.

The funds invested in land preservation will continue to become increasingly importantas 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 increaseof 8.8% from the 2010 population. When combined with the fact that, according to theState of the County Report (2013) only about 15.1% of the land in Morris County isavailable 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 landpreservation, including air quality improvement and decreased temperatures insummer months, but the benefits of water resource protection are of particularimportance to Morris County. Studies find that, “for every 10 per cent increase in forestcover in the source area (up to 60 percent forest cover), treatment and chemical costsdecrease 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 importantthat natural resources, especially drinking water resources, are properly protected inorder 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 waterresources, and significant natural and historic resources is critical to the quality of lifeenjoyed by all New Jerseyans. Preserved open space protects our water supply, protectssensitive habitats for endangered and threatened species, promotes smart growth, and

provides a place for public recreation and connection with community and nature”(NJDEP, 2012).

1. Relevant Studies and ResearchMany 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, thisdoes not take away from the importance of quality of life, as it attracts and impactsboth the residents and visitors of a community.

The presence of open space is a key component across high quality of lifecommunities. Many studies provide evidence of this relationship. A study from GriffithUniversity’s Chu and Simpson (1994) notes that, “Living in comparatively naturalareas, viewing nature, and having outdoor recreation areas and facilities nearbyappears 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 idealresource to support several aspects of human health and well-being.

Specifically, open spaces provide a convenient place for community members toexercise in order to improve their health. The Pennsylvania Environmental Council(2010) notes that obesity is the second largest contributor to death in the UnitedStates. Being obese increases the risk of many other mental and physical healthconditions. Plentiful access to open space offers a natural means for improving andmaintaining health. Health Magazine (2009) also supports the open space / exercise

Preservation TrustFund Program

Municipal/Non-ProfitOpen Space

FarmlandPreservation

HistoricPreservation

FloodMitigationProgram

Morris CountyMunicipal UtilitiesAuthority

Morris County ParkCommission LandAcquisition

Morris CountyPreservationTrust Fund Total

OtherPreservedAcreage

TotalPreservedAcreage

Projects 1 228 125 80 117 47 93Acres 2 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, FloodMitigation 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 sheetprovided by the MCADB staff. Acreage reflects Net Preserved acreage rather than GIS measurements.





relationship. Their research finds that a majority of subjects who exercise in openspace and parks show improved health benefits, such as decreased levels ofdepression, higher self-esteem, and improved mood.

Research also shows that open spaces, such as parks, provide opportunities forresidents to take care of public space and build personal connections with thecommunity. The Trust for Public Land (2010) asserts that assisting in the renewal orimprovement of a park or open space may generate a significant increase in the socialcapital of a neighborhood. Preservation encourages the development of social capitalby raising awareness of a community’s history and allowing residents to directly carefor their parks and communities, often through frequent volunteer cleaning andmaintenance efforts. These opportunities to volunteer are commonly found in highquality 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, theGarden State Quality of Life (QOL) study by Monmouth University (2011) reveals thatMorris County ranks first out of the twenty-one counties in New Jersey for thehighest overall QOL score . This particular study examines resident evaluations ofNew Jersey as a whole, their respective hometown, environmental quality, open spaceavailability, schools in the local community, road conditions, traffic, public transit, jobopportunities, affordable housing, race relations, crime and safety, and the amount ofcultural activities available to residents. Table 25 shows the study’s index score andresults for each county in detail. The most notable figures for Morris County include a64% satisfaction rating for “Open Space,” a 77% satisfaction rating for “EnvironmentalQuality,” and an 89% rating for “Hometown” satisfaction. Figure 12 provides a mapwith the overall results for each county.

Exploring the quality of life data specific to Morris County further, an example can beprovided 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 theenvironment, improved rain water absorption, providing habitat for wildlife, andprotection of historic heritage. Mendham Township highlights the preservation of theButtermilk Falls Natural Area being particularly relevant to these quality of lifemeasures. The survey results also show that leveraging funding through variousprograms, including the Morris County Open Space and Farmland PreservationPrograms, is important to the community.

Parks and open spaces are also a key contributor to the QOL in Morris County. Thereare numerous recreation, historic, and conservation facilities throughout the Countyfor its residents and guests to visit and connect with that support a healthy andenriching life style. These parks and open spaces encourage healthy life stylebehaviors such as hiking, biking, walking, horseback riding and canoeing. As anexample, the Morris County Park Commission offers these types of opportunitiesthroughout the County (see Table 26). As noted previously in the report, many studiespoint 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 ArenaBerkshire Valley Golf Course Minnisink ReservationCentral Park of Morris County Mount Hope Historical ParkColumbia Trail Mount Paul Memorial ParkCooper Gristmill Old Troy ParkCraigmeur Recreation Complex Passaic River ParkElizabeth D. Kay Environmental Center Patriot’s Path Flanders Valley Golf Course Pinch Brook Golf CourseFosterfields Living Historical Farm Pyramid Mountain Natural Historic ParkFrelinghuysen Arboretum Schooley’s Mountain ParkGreat Swamp Outdoor Education Center Seaton Hackney StablesHedden Park Silas Condict Park

Historic Speedwell Sunset Valley Golf CourseJames Andrews Memorial Park Tourne ParkJonathons Woods Traction Line Recreation TrailLee’s Park Marina Waughaw Mountain GreenwayLewis Morris Park West Morris GreenwayLoantaka Brook Reservation Willowwood ArboretumMahlon Dickerson Reservation


Many studies point to the positive secondary effects of open space preservation andthe ways in which these effects contribute to a community’s quality of life. MorrisCounty clearly enjoys these positive secondary impacts, and the Morris CountyPreservation Trust Fund plays a key role in building and maintaining this high qualityof 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 preservationis that it has the ability to move residents and emergency responders out of harm’s waywhile also saving significant amounts of money at the municipality, county, State, andFederal 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 expenseas a result of the emergency response that these disasters require.

By spending money upfront on measures used to prevent or minimize the loss associatedwith 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 businessproductivity.






As detailed in the National Hazard Mitigation Saves report, an independent studycommissioned by Congress and conducted by the National Institute of BuildingSciences (2005), money spent on reducing the risk of natural hazards is a soundinvestment. This study estimates that Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) mitigation grants issued between mid-1993 and mid-2003 have yielded anoverall benefit- cost ratio (“BCR”) of 4:1. These results indicate that, on average,FEMA-funded project and process mitigation activities have benefit-cost ratios greaterthan 1 for all hazard types. In fact, for flood projects, the average benefit-cost ratio is5:1.

The present value of annual savings to the federal treasury emanating from the FEMAmitigation grants studied is $968.5 million. When juxtaposed against the federal shareof grant costs, a dollar spent on mitigation grants potentially will lead to an averagesavings 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 consideredin the benefit-cost analysis. FEMA grants used to mitigate the effects of floods,hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes between 1993 and 2003 are expected to savemore 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 toreduce the long-term cost of disasters.

Additionally, FEMA recently released its updated “Hazard Mitigation AssistanceUnified Guidance” (2013) in which they have developed quantifiable measures ofeconomic values for green open space and riparian areas. The total estimatedbenefits 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 toLouisiana. Morris County’s location near the Atlantic Coast, its large number of inlandwaterways, and areas of low elevation all play a large role in the type of natural hazardthat 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 NationalClimatic Data Center (NCDC), Morris County experienced 69 major floods or flashfloods and 11 hurricanes or tropical storms between 1950 and June 2008.

Also cited in the Morris County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010), numerous areas withinMorris 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 somedegree of flooding.

More importantly, overall flood risks continue to increase in intensity and number ofoccurrences across the State. According to data provided by FEMA (2012), the Stateof New Jersey experienced only nine (9) major floods in the 36 years from 1955 to1991, 14 major floods in the 18 years from 1992 to 2010, and seven (7) major floodsin the two (2) years from 2010 to 2012.

Utilizing over 250 stream gages in Morris County, an analysis covering the 90-yearperiod 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% ofthe major floods that have been recorded over this 90-year period occurred in the last11 years.

Impacts of Flood Mitigation

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

The NCDC database indicates that there have been 69 major flood events in MorrisCounty from 1950 to 2008. Of these flood events, eight separate flood events from1996 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 theadditional 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 offlooding, such as building levees/barriers, elevating homes, elevating or flood-proofingof utilities, etc. However, the most effective, permanent mitigation method isgovernmental acquisition and preservation of properties that are currently located inthe most high-risk areas for flooding.

Acquisition and preservation moves residents and emergency responders out ofharm’s way, permanently ending repetitive damage to structure s and creating floodcapture and storage areas to protect remaining homes and businesses. Thisacquisition method has been shown in several studies, including the National HazardMitigation Saves report, to generate a higher cost-benefit ratio on average than anyother natural hazard mitigation technique: every $1 spent by FEMA on flood mitigationis estimated to generate an average benefit, or savings, of $5.


After seeing the level of benefit that can be generated through the focused acquisitionand preservation of properties located in the most high-risk floodplains, Morris Countyelected 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 andfederal sources, has acquired and preserved $11.9 million worth of properties locatedin various high-risk floodplains throughout Morris County. By using these State andFederal match funding programs, the Preservation Trust Fund has been able toacquire 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. Thisensures 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 applicantproperty.

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

J. Summary of Economic Impacts

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

As described in the previous sections, the Preservation Trust Fund’s activities positivelyimpact: property values, municipal budgets and resources, destination traffic and tourism,local businesses, and the environment. There are also positive impacts to public safetyas a direct result of flood mitigation. Secondary positive impacts include such items aspublic health, social interaction, civic pride, and overall quality of life and associatedeconomic 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 asopen 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 mayhave on property values, this report utilizes a statistical model.

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

Further, this report estimates that a 1% increase in the number of preserved acres ina given Morris County zip code will increase home property values by $1.50 per squarefoot in that zip code. Based on these results, it is safe to conclude that the preservationof 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 budgetedexpenditures are paid for by general-purpose taxes levied each year on the NetTaxable Valuation (NTV) of real property and improvements within the county.

Many of the costs funded through these taxes are a function of population density andlocation, as residents of the community need different types of services andinfrastructure to live healthy and productive lifestyles. The business community alsorequires these tax revenues in order to maintain an educated and productive





workforce, as well as to provide the needed infrastructure to effectively produce anddeliver many types of goods and services to the community.

If land is preserved rather than developed as residential property, it is likely to have apositive 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 morein tax revenues than it costs the County in necessary services. As a consequence, thepreservation efforts of the Preservation Trust Fund have a positive budgetary impactto 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 itsmunicipalities 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 localeconomies. The positive effects of tourism on the economy have been validated bynumerous studies. Historical sites, farmland, and open spaces, such as thosepreserved by the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund, serve as an attraction to bothcitizens and visitors from nearby and distant locations.

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

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

Data and relevant studies provide evidence that the Preservation Trust Fund has apositive 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 haveassisted in driving tourism to peak levels in Morris County, which has recentlygenerated 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 mitigationproperties all have positive impacts on local businesses. Open space often weighs intothe 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 occurringon preserved land often generate revenue and provide direct employment to membersof the community (i.e. tour guides, concessions, security and maintenance, farming

jobs, etc.). Secondary benefits of preservation are also seen in the indirect impactscreated as the dollars generated by these jobs are circulated throughout the localeconomy.

Morris County has preserved 125 farms totaling 7,709 acres through the PreservationTrust 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 typicalfarmer to acquire new land. Preserved farmland costs less per acre, thus making thepurchase and operation of a Morris County farm more within the reach of the averagefarmer.

The ability of farmers to continue operating allows for dollars to be circulatedthroughout 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 aswell as human health. These benefits include improvement in air and water quality,healthier and increased biodiversity in terrestrial and aquatic habitats, cooler airtemperatures in the summer, reduction of greenhouse gases, habitat protection, noisereduction, 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 importanceto Morris County. Studies find that, “for every 10 percent increase in forest cover inthe source area (up to 60 percent forest cover), treatment and chemical costsdecrease 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 importantthat natural resources, especially drinking water resources, are properly protected inorder 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 generalhealth, social and environmental cleanliness, civic pride, and local history. In moststudies, QOL is considered a secondary benefit within a community. However, thisdoes not take away from the importance of QOL, as both residents and visitors areimpacted and attracted by the QOL of a community. The presence of open space is akey component of high QOL communities. Many studies have provided evidence ofthis relationship.

The importance of preserving open space and related parcels plays a significant rolein helping increase the health of the overall community. There are many studies thatpoint to these positive secondary effects and the ways in which they contribute toquality of life. Morris County clearly benefits from these secondary impacts, as theCounty ranked highest in QOL throughout all of New Jersey according to the GardenState 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 significantamounts of money at the municipality, county, state, and Federal levels through themitigation 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 largeexpense as a result of the emergency response that these disasters require.

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

After seeing the level of benefit that can be generated through the focused acquisitionand preservation of properties located in the most high-risk floodplains, Morris Countyelected 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, hasacquired and preserved $11.9 million worth of properties located in various high-riskfloodplains throughout Morris County. By using various State and Federal matchingprograms, the Preservation Trust Fund has been able to acquire this property usingonly $3.6 million of fund dollars.

All FMP projects must have a 1:1 benefit- cost ratio (“BCR”) to qualify for funding. Thisensures 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 forevery applicant property.

Based on the FEMA-based cost-benefit analysis, the Flood Mitigation Program hasgenerated an estimated $23.2 million in benefits from the $3.6 million in grant fundsprovided 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 havealready been funded, pending FMP projects have an estimated overall BCR of 4.67based 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 prospectivepreservation properties and projects to produce estimates of what Morris Countymunicipalities and non-profits funding needs might be going forward. Many sources wereutilized 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 describedin detail in the following sections. The source of properties and projects used in these figurescan 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 weregathered from municipal open space plans, questionnaires, and interviews withmunicipalities and non-profits. Properties identified in the questionnaires for theirwater resources value are included in these numbers because potential acquisitionsare 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 acquisitioncost per acre derived from the average cost of properties in the MCPC Land

Acquisition 10 year forecast 2. If no acreage was provided for a property, the cost wascalculated using the average MCPC Land Acquisition project cost. These figures wereused because they are based on appraisals and more accurately reflect the currentvalue of land, and the property sizes more closely represent those that remainunpreserved in Morris County. The values used for these cost estimates can be foundin Table 29.

2. Overview of Potential Projects

A total of 407 properties covering approximately 6,749 acres 3 with a total estimatedcost to the County of just over $115 million were identified by for municipalities. Anadditional $28.2 million (431 acres) was identified by land trust non-profits, for a totalof $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 potentialopen space projects tend to be located in the northwestern and central-easternportions of Morris County. The central and southern portions appear to have fewerpotential open space acquisitions. As might be expected, the larger municipalities tendto 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 specificlocations. Ten (10) municipalities have substantial potential acquisitions: 4 BoontonTownship, Denville Township, Florham Park Borough, Hanover Township, JeffersonTownship, Mendham Borough, Mendham Township, Mount Olive Township,Parsippany-Troy Hills Township, and Roxbury Township. Jefferson Township has the

1 MCMUA also is focusing on partnerships, primarily with the Municipal/Non-Profit Program2 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.





largest acreage of potential acquisitions with 80 properties covering 1,847 acres withan estimated value of $27.5 million. Mendham Township has the next largest acreageof potential acquisition at 866 and a County cost of nearly $13 million. Mount Oliveand 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 acquisitionsassumes a 60% County contribution and is approximately $143 million, over 80% ofthe $176.6 million spent so far. The total County cost of these potential acquisitionsis substantial compared to the current annual Municipal/Non-Profit Open SpaceProgram funding of $1.56 million for 2014. 1

1 See Table 1, page 3.





Table 27: Potential Preservation Trust Fund Projects

Total County CostProperties Acres County Cost 7 Total Cost Propert ies Acres County Cost 8 Total Cost Projects County Cost 9 Total Cost Properties 6 County Cost 10 Tot al C os t P ro je ct s A cr es C ou nt y C os t (All Programs)

MunicipalitiesBoonton Town 1 16 $238,190 $396,984 3 $2,268,330 $2,835,413 4 $370,064 $560,700 $2,876,585Boonton 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 $13,171,026Butler Borough 1 2 $33,496 $55,826 1 $198,099 $247,624 22 $2,035,352 $3,083,850 $2,266,947Chatham Borough 2 6 $81,878 $136,463 5 $1,653,024 $2,066,280 $1,734,902Chatham 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 $7,911,854Chester Borough 5 $1,545,165 $1,931,456 $1,545,165Chester Township 10 302 $3,821,597 $9,275,597 1 $330,605 $413,256 2 18 $1,167,863 $5,320,065Denville 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 $27,395,004Dover 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 $15,184,672East Hanover Township 2 $730,605 $913,256 105 $9,714,180 $14,718,375 $10,444,785Florham Park Borough 23 657 $9,775,763 $16,292,938 2 $1,051,629 $1,314,536 29 $2,682,964 $4,065,075 $13,510,356Hanover Township 37 366 $5,444,869 $9,074,781 2 $876,011 $1,095,014 30 $2,775,480 $4,205,250 $9,096,360Harding Township 7 231 $4,489,854 $11,029,758 2 $5,420,795 $6,775,994 23 $2,127,868 $3,224,025 $12,038,517Jefferson 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 $35,045,984Kinnelon Borough 4 137 $2,957,212 $4,928,687 1 $640,983 $801,229 9 307 $1,890,067 $5,488,262Lincoln Park Borough 5 3 $692,746 $1,154,577 3 27 $379,679 $865,679 428 $39,596,848 $59,994,900 $40,669,273Long 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 $11,299,667Mendham 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 $26,485,358Mine Hill Township 2 $461,831 $769,718 1 76 $930,560 $2,298,560 1 $273,060 $341,325 1 6 $820,100 $2,485,551Montville 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 $24,917,560Morris Plains Borough 10 24 $363,240 $605,401 16 $1,480,256 $2,242,800 $1,843,496Morris 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 $14,061,457Morristown Town 3 $692,746 $1,154,577 16 $19,887,164 $24,858,955 23 $2,127,868 $3,224,025 $22,707,778Mount Arlington Borough 2 $661,210 $826,512 $661,210Mount 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 $42,775,610Mountain Lakes Borough 2 $2,469,365 $3,086,706 $2,469,365Netcong Borough 1 $688,957 $861,196 $688,957Parsippany - 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 $46,767,940Pequannock 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 $36,532,354Randolph 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 $4,282,210Riverdale 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 $6,669,476Rockaway Borough 4 5 $530,311 $883,851 4 $2,598,923 $3,248,654 5 $462,580 $700,875 $3,591,814Rockaway 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 $7,296,273R oxb ur y T ow nshi p 1 800 $11,909,520 $19,849,200 1 54 $666,560 $1,638,560 5 $3,094,460 $3,868,075 $15,670,540Victory Gardens BoroughWashington 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 $1,105,239Municipality Subtotal 4 07 6, 74 9 $ 11 5, 01 7, 95 7 $191,696,595 9 5 5 ,0 80 $ 70 ,5 82 ,0 88 $173,810,456 150 $107,932,378 $134,915,472 2,275 $210,509,795 $318,957,950 57 1,181 $30,447,142 $534,489,359Land Trust Non-ProfitsCanal Society of NJHarding Land Trust 17 400 $5,954,760 $9,924,600 $5,954,760Land Conservancy of NJ $12,000,000 $20,000,000 $12,000,000NJ Conservation FoundationNY-NJ Trail Conference 1 $230,915 $384,859 $230,915Passaic River Coalition 2 31 $190,320 $317,200 3 $991,814 $1,239,768 $1,182,134Protect our Wetlands, Water, Woods 4 $180,000 $300,000 2 $661,210 $826,512 $841,210Schiff Natural Lands Trust 3 $692,746 $1,154,577 $692,746Trust for Public Land 7 $9,000,000 $15,000,000 $9,000,000Non-Profits Subotal 3 4 43 1 $2 8, 248 ,7 42 $47,081,236 5 $ 1, 65 3, 02 4 $2,066,280 $29,901,766Municipal/Non-Profit Sum 441 7,180 $143,266,698 $238,777,831 95 5,080 $70,582,088 $ 17 3, 81 0, 45 6 1 55 $109,585,402 $ 13 6, 98 1, 75 2 2 ,2 75 $ 21 0, 50 9, 79 5 $318,957,950 57 1,181 $30,447,142 $564,391,124Morris County Municipal Utilities AuthorityTargeted Projects 13 4 542 $996,000 $996,000 $996,000Potential Partnership Projects 14

36 $15,004,000 $15,004,000MCMUA Land Total 17

40 542 $16,000,000 $16,000,000 $16,000,000Morris County Park CommissionMCPC Park Improvements 12

$51,981,500 $51,981,500 $51,981,500Municipal, Trust Fund, & County Total 16

4 81 7 ,7 22 $ 19 6, 24 4, 19 8 $291,755,331 9 5 5 ,0 80 $ 70 ,5 82 ,0 88 $173,810,456 155 $109,585,402 $136,981,752 2 ,2 75 $ 21 0, 50 9, 79 5 $ 31 8, 95 7, 95 0 5 7 1 ,1 81 $ 30 ,4 47 ,1 42 $617,368,624

4. Flood Mitigation targets for municipaliti es are derived from interviews, questionnaires, FLAP s, and NFIP by FEMA. For NFIP, 50% of total number of properties is used to estimate the number of qualified, willing sellers . Cost estimat es 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 Boroug h 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. A creage 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 Preservat ion Trust Fund projects. A ccordingly, this value is not included in the Municipal, Trust Fund, & County Total in the bottom row.

2. Farmland targets for municipalities are derived from intervi ews, questionnaires, and SADC - PIG Summaries. Cost estimates from these sources are used if given. Other wise, 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 expectedCounty contribution).3. Historic Preservatio n targets for municipalities and non-profits are derived from intervie ws, 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

Organization Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space 1 Farmland Preservation 2 Historic Preservation 3 Flood Mitigation Program 4

1. Municipal/Non-Pr ofit Open Space targets for municipalities and non-profi ts are derived from interviews, questionnaires, and municipal Open Space Plans (OSP) . Cost estimat es from these sources are used if given. Otherwise, costs are estimated from MCPC 10-year Land Acquisitio n targets presented in this table. The average MCPC Land Acquisit ion cost per acre is used ifacreage 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).

Morris County Park Commission Land Acquisition 11










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 14Butler 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

Victory Gardens Borough

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 tofocus 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 openspace 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 endestimate. For municipal OSPs that outlined all potential properties in the municipality without priorities, only vacant parcels were counted. Properties targeted by Farmland Preservation were alsonot 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 usedinstead as it was the upper end of the number of properties that could likely be funded through the program.

MunicipalitiesMunicipal/Non-Profit

Open Space Farm Preservation Historic Preservation Flood Mitigation





Table 29: County Cost Estimates

Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Per Property 1 $230,915

Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Per Acre 2 $14,887Farmland Preservation Per Property 3 $793,968Farmland Preservation Per Acre 4 $12,600Flood Mitigation Program Per Property 5 $84,105Historic Preservation Per Property 6 $330,605Farmland Preservation Soft Costs Per Farm 7 $18,560Flood Mitigation Program Soft Costs Per Project 9 $8,411MCPC Land Acquisition Soft Costs Per Project 8

$20,100

4. Farmland Per Acre costs are based on average easement cost identified in PIGapplications $31,500 times 40% for expected County contribution.5. Flood Mitigation Costs are based on average County contribution of closedprojects.

6. Historic Preservation Average County Costs is the average of cumulative fundingof 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 from2007-2014.8. MCPC Land Acquisition Soft Costs Per Project are based on average anticipatedcosts.

County Costs EstimatesCounty Costs Estimates

1. Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Per Property values are based on MCPC 10-yearLand Acquisition targets total costs / number of properties ($29,249,285/76). Theresulting 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 resultingnumber is multiplied by 60% to calculate estimated County contribution.

3. Farmland Per property costs are based on average easement cost per property ofCounty identified farms from PIG applications x 40% for expected Countycontribution.

9. Flood Mitigation Soft Costs Per Project are based on an estimate of 10% ofacquisition 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 areaggregated from the SADC Planning Incentive Grant (PIG) application summary

report, questionnaires, and interviews with municipalities. Cost estimates furnished bythese sources are utilized where provided. If no estimates were provided, the cost iscalculated using the average easement cost per acre of $12,600. 1 If no acreage isprovided for a property, the cost is calculated using the average cost to County offarms identified in PIG applications. The values used for these cost estimates can befound in Table 29.


Properties targeted for acquisition under Farmland Preservation are identified in 18municipalities 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 MountOlive and Washington Townships.

Both of these townships have County easement cost estimates of just over $20 millionfor a similar acreage amounts, 1,737 acres in Mount Olive Township and 1,667 acresin Washington Township. While these two municipalities account for two-thirds of thetargeted farm acreage, substantial preservation opportunities exist in 16 othermunicipalities 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 millionfollowed by Chester Township at $3.8 million. Mendham Borough and MendhamTownship combined have a total of $6.7 million and 490 acres. Boonton Townshiphas 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 municipalitieshave 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 canbe 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 westernand southern portion of the County.

More municipalities (18) identified farmland preservation needs than have participatedin the program to date (14). Ten municipalities have both preserved farms andtargeted properties. Mount Olive is notable as the 1,737 potential acres are more thaneight times the amount preserved so far in the township. Only Chester Borough hasa 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







Profit Open Space Preservation Programs, physical size of a municipality is notconnected 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 beenspent in total historic preservation funding by Morris County, which is less than onefifth of the $109.6 million estimated in County costs of potential projects. This disparityis 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 accountbalance of $6.75 million, but has spent $1.14 million so far this year with another $4.09million committed. 1 Potential future participation is expected to increase with fouradditional municipalities expressing interest in Historic Preservation projects inaddition to the 32 that participated in the past, all of which have additional identifiedprojects.

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 fromthe 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 moreaccurately estimate the number of qualified, willing sellers. Estimates from themunicipalities are subtracted from the FLAP and NFIP numbers to avoid duplication.

The average cost to Morris County of acquisitions, based on pending and closedprojects in this program, is $84,105 per project.1 This value provides an accurateestimate because it is based on acquisitions appraised through the program whichhas been in existence for only two years.


Potential acquisitions through the Flood Mitigation Program are identified in 28municipalities and include a total of 2,275 homes with an acquisition cost to MorrisCounty of $210.5 million.2 Additionally, three municipalities report having flood pronehomes but did not provide estimates of the number of properties, leaving only eightmunicipalities 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, EastHanover, Long Hill, Montville, Parsippany-Troy Hills and the Town of Dover haveidentified over 100 homes each that may require flood acquisition. The number offlood prone properties in the remaining municipalities range from four properties inBoonton Town to 69 properties in Jefferson Township.

The location of potential Flood Mitigation Program properties in Morris County can beseen in Figure 16. This map demonstrates that flood mitigation needs are spreadthroughout the County with the greatest concentration of need in the eastern andcentral-eastern portions of the County, plus Long Hill Township at the southernmostpoint of the County.

3. Potential Flood Mitigation Program Costs to Morris County

The estimated County acquisition cost for all identified Flood Mitigation Programprojects 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 havepotential future properties. Since the FMP started acquiring properties only recently,the large number of remaining properties is not surprising. However, the number offlood-prone properties to potentially acquire is immense compared to the presentannual funding of the program of $1.12 million in 2014, even considering the programbalance 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 annualnumber of projects to continue into the future. The MCMUA’s current four projects include542 acres with a total cost of $996,000. The annual needs of this program are estimatedat $1.6 million, putting the ten year needs requirement at approximately $16 million. Asmost MCMUA projects are partnerships, the acquisition projects for this program aregenerally 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 targetedacquisitions, and the account balance of $9.2 million should make their acquisition targetsmore feasible, but is still insufficient to fund the 10 year forecast of $16 million in potentialprojects. It is also important to note that water resource related acquisitions identified inthe questionnaires have been assigned to the Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space programin these estimates since potential MCMUA projects were not identified by municipality. Asa result, the actual number of potential projects for the MCMUA could be higher than theseestimates.

The existing MCMUA acquisition targets are modest because they are based onanticipated funding levels. The following analysis was completed in an attempt to identifyland with water resource implications for the MCMUA and Morris County with a focus onprotection of the public water supply.

Community and Non-Community public water supply areas should be considered as partof an overall strategy to secure property for preservation. The water supply is crucial andprotecting well protection areas, from water recharge source areas to various areas nearwell locations, will prevent risks to future water resources. Primary wellhead locationsshould be a priority. This analysis is focused on the areas of Morris County located nearthese water resources.

In the western region of Morris County, many public water supply sources exist in areaswhere preservation land could likely be obtained. The northwestern section of MorrisCounty contains significant concentrated groupings of public community and public non-community water supply areas of future concern as shown in Figure 17. The central-eastern portion of the County also has a substantial concentration of wellhead locations.

The blue areas represent community wellhead protection areas, while the orange areasrepresent non-community wellhead protection areas. 1 All wells in this analysis are publicwater sources. The different shades of these colors represent a range of travel times forwater to reach the water supply, from 2-years (darkest color) to 12-years (lightest color).

Areas of high priority for preservation are those where water recharge areas overlapcommunity and non-community wellhead protection areas. To get an indication of thelocations of these high priority areas, it is necessary to limit consideration to land that iswithin these wellhead protection areas on lands that most efficiently rechargegroundwater. Figure 18 shows unpreserved lands within a wellhead protection area thatare also located in significant groundwater recharge areas. These significant areas aredefined as those having recharge between 15 and 23 inches per year.

1 Community wells are operated by municipal water sources. Non-community wells are non-municipal wells at locations such as schools or campgrounds.





Thirty-six of the 39 municipalities in Morris County have land that might be considered tobe located in a high priority unpreserved water protection areas which total approximately26,000 acres (Table 30). Approximately 4,500 of these acres are located within the 2-year travel time of a public well, leaving them as a more imminent danger to water suppliesif developed, 1 while 8,000 acres are located in the 5-year travel time. The amount of landvaries between municipalities from under three (3) acres in Chatham Borough to nearly5,000 acres in Mount Olive Township. Mount Olive Township also has the largest amountof land within the 2-year travel time areas with just over 1,000 acres, followed byWashington Township with nearly 800 acres.

Table 30: High Priority Unpreserved Water Protection Areas by Municipality

1 If not already developed.

2-Year Travel Time 5-Year Travel Time 12-Year Travel Time Total

Boonton Township 67 32 18 117Chatham Borough 3 4 7Chatham Township 165 202 368Chester Borough 43 58 77 179Chester Township 64 223 399 686Denville Township 104 311 563 977Dover Town 24 119 110 253East Hanover Township 14 16 87 116Florham Park Borough 244 189 68 501Hanover Township 24 144 196 364Harding Township 262 418 740 1,420Jefferson Township 273 416 816 1,504Kinnelon Borough 1 4 15 20Lincoln Park Borough 1 40 41Madison Borough 61 285 49 396Mendham Borough 95 115 256 466Mendham Township 3 39 111 154

Mine Hill Township 29 66 95Montville Township 58 74 146 279Morris Plains Borough 4 125 28 157Morris Township 65 276 815 1,156Morristown Town 43 57 200 299Mount Arlington Borough 31 32 56 118Mount Olive Township 1,080 1,485 2,424 4,989Mountain Lakes Borough 19 87 180 287Netcong Borough 11 47 31 89Parsippany - Troy Hills Township 256 384 663 1,303Pequannock Township 21 11 36 69Randolph Township 22 44 894 960Riverdale Borough 113 134 34 280Rockaway Borough 22 153 13 188Rockaway Township 199 420 1,002 1,621Roxbury Township 546 648 1,213 2,406Victory Gardens Borough 69 69Washington Township 763 1,532 2,057 4,352Wharton Borough 32 18 6 56Total 4,565 8,094 13,684 26,343

Municipality Acres





These areas may be currently developed or in use for any purpose and should not beperceived as a recommendation for acquisition, but rather as a tool to assist in the locationof potential properties for preservation. For water resources, acquiring property within the12-year travel time areas as shown in these figures will provide opportunities to bettercontrol and monitor water supplies and water quality for environmental needs and humanconsumption. Areas with higher population and density are more difficult to secure, butthis analysis suggests properties that should be considered in both high and lower densityareas.

Also included in Figure 18 are the locations of Tier 1 contamination points. Currently, 112Tier 1 sites, totaling 7,053 acres, are located in Morris County. A Tier 1 site is defined as:all final and deleted Superfund sites in the Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS); all Resource Conservationand Recovery Act (RCRA) identified sites; Known Contaminated Sites (KCS) with aRemedial Level of C3 or D 4; and Known Contaminated Sites (KCS) with a Remedial Levelof C2 located in the Highlands Preservation Area. 1 These sites should be consideredwhen determining land for acquisition for water resources as they pose a significant threat

to water quality for Morris County residents.

The parcels containing 28 of the 112 Tier 1 contamination sites overlap with land identifiedas high priority unpreserved water protection areas in Figure 2, and many others arelocated adjacent to these priority areas. The location of these contaminated sites is animportant consideration when determining land to acquire for water resource protection.

This analysis should help to identify land for water resource protection and may assist inthe determination of potential acquisitions. The analysis indicates that a large amount ofunpreserved land still exists which may be important to the water resources of MorrisCounty. The presence of contamination on or near some of this land only serves toenhance the need for land acquisition.

1 Source: New Jersey Highlands Council





Figure 17: Wellhead Protection Areas












F. Morris County Park Commission Land Acquisition

The Morris County Park Commission’s (MCPC) Land Acquisition Program places potentialacquisitions into three categories: Targeted Projects, Potential Projects, and Projects toMonitor/Long Range Projects. All projects are either adjacent to existing parks or desiredfor 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, andfuture 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 couldhave potential development impact on MCPC stewarded property. A number of theseproperties 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 historicresources. Additionally, many of the property owners on the list have been in contact withMCPC 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 couldnegatively affect MCPC property.

Projects to Monitor/Long Range Projects include potential donations and partial lotacquisitions. These properties have historical significance or may potentially havenegative impacts to regional natural resources.

The Land Acquisition Program has outlined a total of 1,181 acres in 16 municipalities toadd land to 15 different Morris County parks. Montville Township has the highest potentialacquisition cost for the program at $9.4 million for 411 acres. Chatham Township has thenext highest cost at $4.4 million for 53 acres, followed by Boonton Township at $3.6 millionfor 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. Theremaining 11 municipalities have approximately $1 million or less each in potentialacquisition costs.

Figure 19 shows costs to the County for potential MCPC Land Acquisition projects bymunicipality. From this map, acquisitions appear to be focused on the northeasternportion of the County with some projects spread throughout the remainder of MorrisCounty.

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, theprogram 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 anumber of years to build up funding balances to acquire certain properties, depending onfinal appraisal values. The Park Commission would like to be able to access overallunencumbered Preservation Trust Fund balances or draw down against future year’sallocations.





Figure 19: 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 fundinggap between the Park Commission’s annual capital funding level and the capital repairsand park improvements needed to maintain the quality county parks the residents ofMorris County expect. The Park Commission’s annual capital funding has been reducedover 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 fundedthrough 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 anticipatedto be applied to paving projects. The current funding level will meet less than half of theten year project forecast of $52 million noted in Table 27.

A continued stable source of funding from the Park Improvement Trust is needed tomaintain the extensive infrastructure and facilities of the park system which includes:seven (7) National & State Registered Historic Sites, a National Historic Landmark, over20 miles of roadways, 14 dams, 150 structures, an ice skating arena, three (3) nationallyrecognized 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 forPreservation Trust Fund programs is displayed in the right-hand column of Table 27 underthe heading “Total County Cost.” As indicated, with the exception of Victory GardensBorough, all municipalities have identified projects for at least one program of the MorrisCounty Preservation Trust Fund. Moreover, 34 of 39 municipalities (87%) have potentialprojects in more than one program.

The total County cost of potential projects for the Morris County Preservation Trust Fundis $617.4 million. These cost estimates vary greatly by municipality, from under $1 millionto nearly $50 million. The average County cost for Morris County municipalities iscalculated at $13.7 million, with a median cost of $9.8 million. Only 13 of the 39municipalities have under $5 million in potential projects, and only six (6) have under $2million in potential projects.

The range of costs by municipality can be seen in Figure 20. This map shows thatpreservation needs are fairly evenly distributed throughout Morris County. The three (3)municipalities with over $40 million of potential preservation projects are in various partsof the County and include Lincoln Park in the east, Mount Olive Township in the west, andParsippany-Troy Hills Township in the central-eastern portion of the County.

Some properties and projects included on the potential needs table may not currentlyqualify for funding in the respective programs. For example, municipalities identifiednumerous historic properties that they wish to preserve but do not yet own. Some openspace and farmland properties may not have willing sellers presently or might not qualifydue to size requirements despite having preservation potential for trail linkages or toprevent development.

In summary, the total County cost of potential future projects for Preservation Trust Fundprograms is approximately $617 million. These funding cost estimates dwarf the currentannual revenue from the open space tax of just $8.94 million in 2014, even consideringthe unencumbered Preservation Trust Fund balance of $48.8 million. As previously noted,these projects are distributed throughout Morris County.





Figure 20: 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 potentialnew 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 newpotential 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 thestrongest opposition of all potential new uses for municipalities. This opposition camefrom only five (5) municipalities. All municipalities 2 supported using funds for traildevelopment, and only three (3) opposed using funds for habitat restoration. Support wasalso strong amongst Morris County municipalities for using funds for water resourcerelated post-preservation improvements. 3

The land trust non-profits had higher levels of opposition with over 20% in opposition tofive (5) uses, and over 50% opposed to using funds for cultural and heritage tourism. Thenon-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 noopposition 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 futurefunding under existing program rules. However, this survey found an overwhelming levelof support for the additional uses, particularly among municipalities. Potential expansionof 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. Whileprograms have been added, the primary use of for the Morris County Preservation TrustFund (PTF) dollars has not changed. Currently, the Trust Fund may only be used foracquisition, specific functions within historic preservation, or the limited allocation of thePIT. Over half of the other New Jersey counties allow their trust fund dollars to be usedfor post-preservation projects. 4 It may be time to allow Morris County municipalities toprotect and enhance the investment that has been made in creating open spaces withpost-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 PreservationTrust Fund (PTF). It is noteworthy that the total County cost of potential projects for thePreservation Trust Fund is over $600 million, while only addressing current fund uses.

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.





This total does not include any of the new or expanded uses desired by the municipalitiesof the County.

Based on these findings, it is recommended that the Morris County Board of ChosenFreeholders maintain funding for the Preservation Trust Fund at a minimum and considergradually increasing the current collection rate which stands at one (1) cent based onfuture application levels and the changing needs of Morris County with regard to TrustFund programs. To provide funding for the new and expanded uses, increased fundingwill almost certainly be needed, as will a new referendum, since these uses are notpermitted under the presently adopted rules.

The overall conclusion from these numbers is that sufficient potential demand exists forthe continued collection and apportionment of funds by the Preservation Trust. Adding tothe allowable uses of the funds, as supported by the municipalities and non-profits, alsosupports this funding need, with the strong potential to offset any reductions in propertyacquisition plans, if currently identified needs were reduced.

Having identified ample needs for funding for each Preservation Trust Fund program, it isreasonable to wonder why fewer grant requests have been received recently and whyseveral 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 asdecreased property values led property owners to wait for a turnaround in real estateprices before selling. As the economy recovers, this situation appears to be changing.Both Farmland and Historic Preservation have had a recent increase in grantapplications. The Flood Mitigation Program is new and never saw a decrease inapplications.

As of May, 31 2014, $8.96 million has been spent, compared to $8.94 million in totalallocations for the year, and another $46 million in funds have been committed to

Morris County preservation projects that have not yet closed. These numbers indicatean 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 thereported participation levels in Preservation Trust programs and actual participationnumbers. For example, nine (9) municipalities reported working with MCMUA, yetMCMUA reports having worked directly with 15 municipalities. For the Open Spaceprogram, 32 municipalities reported acquiring land in the program, while 35 hadactually 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 needingprotection, but needs have been identified in 18 municipalities according thesummary table (Table 27 in Chapter VI, page 83).

b. Historic Preservation: 28 municipalities identified historic properties to preservecompared to 36 municipalities with identified needs in the table (Table 27 inChapter VI, page 83).

1 A non-profit, rather than the municipality, may have been the direct applicant.





c. Flood Mitigation: 20 municipalities did not see a flood mitigation need in theircommunity, yet Flood Acquisition Plans and data from the National FloodInsurance Program indicate a much greater need, including up to 28 Morris Countymunicipalities.

The outreach portion of this study (questionnaires and interviews) helped improveawareness of the Preservation Trust Fund and may have encouraged increased futureparticipation. An annual or bi-annual reminder of the preservation opportunities andrequirements for each program by the Trust Fund would increase participation andhelp mitigate issues arising from municipal staff and elected official turnover.

3. Post-Preservation Issues have also likely impacted the number of applications. Amajority of municipalities (62%) reported post preservation plans for acquiredproperties, and even more municipalities (67%) desired a mechanism to fund theseimprovements. It is very possible that municipalities chose not to apply for funds toacquire open spaces because they cannot afford the desired improvements to realizethe 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 otherprograms within the Preservation Trust Fund.

C. Recommendations by Program / Agency

1. Open Space Preservation

Although the Open Space Preservation Program has significant identified needs forfuture 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 fornon-participation in the program. Having a second, additional opportunity eachyear would address this problem.

Alternately, a second application date could be used as a way to consideradditional uses of Open Space Preservation funds such as recreation facility andtrail development. Under this scenario, preference would still be given to landacquisition while assuring that the Open Space Preservation allocation of the TrustFund is not left unused. This process would also address the strong support bymunicipalities for the use of Open Space funds for habitat restoration and traildevelopment.

b. Creation of an Open Space Improvement Program with a separate fund

specifically for these improvements. The program could utilize a ranking systemto give priority to certain types of projects reflecting the preferences of localmunicipalities and non-profits. A park improvement plan with matching funds bythe municipality is recommended.

This recommendation would require a new voter approved referendum and cannotbe accomplished under the current referenda. However, this change wouldaddress the overwhelming support by municipalities and non-profits for allowing

1 Four municipalities.





funds for other uses, particularly trail development. Less than half of municipalities(46%) reported that their trail system connects to MCPC trails, but 31 (79%) areinterested in doing so. Additionally, this recommendation may also help with themissing trail linkages described previously.

2. Farmland Preservation

Allow Smaller Farms to Qualify: Morris County’s Farmland Preservation programrequires a farm to be a minimum of 10 acres. Many northern farms do not qualifydespite their preservation potential and ability to be subdivided into residential lots fordevelopment. Of responding municipalities, 60% expressed an interest in this programmodification. 1 However, it should be noted that the county program allows for a waiverof minimum criteria on a case-by- case basis. The State’s farmland preservationprogram allows the preservation of farms less than 10 acres in size provided that theymeet 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 levelbe increased. Historic Preservation had the highest percentage of municipalities(92%) with identified projects. Increasing funding for the Historic PreservationProgram, which might be recommended in the future if applications grow at theestimated rate, requires a new referendum.

Even without increased funding, the Historic Preservation program could benefit fromreallocation of unused funds from other programs within the Preservation Trust, whichas mentioned above would require a new referendum as the Historic PreservationProgram’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 flowin despite a relatively dry weather season in 2013. Identified needs greatly outweighthe future funding stream. Seventy- two percent of Morris County’s 39 municipalitieshave 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 discountsfor flood-prone homes. As a result flood insurance rates will rise by up to 18% peryear 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 willingsellers and more municipal applications for this program.

If Flood Mitigation’s annual funding allocation cannot be incre ased, the earlierrecommendation for the reallocation of unused funds to this programs within thePreservation Trust could be implemented to aid this program.

This program utilizes FEMA’s Benefit -Cost Analysis (BCA) computer model toevaluate potential projects. This assures that these projects make financial sense tothe municipality and county over the long term.

1 Three of five responding municipalities.





Expand Allowable Uses of Funds: Demolition and post-preservation site restorationare recommended to be allowable uses of Flood Mitigation Program funds. Currently,some municipalities have limited their participation in the program due to theseexpenses.

As stated in Chapter V, municipalities spend $1.30 for every $1 of tax revenuegenerated from residential properties. While initially counter-intuitive, the reversion ofthese flood-prone homes to open space to capture and contain flood waters will mostlikely 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’sneeds. Thus, the recommendation for this program is to maintain or increase fundingfor the program. These needs were identified according to the recent level of funding.The analysis in Chapter VI identified thousands of potential acres (see Table 30) toconsider for acquisition for their water resource significance.

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 projectsin 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 anegative balance based on committed funds, yet $30.4 million in potential futureprojects. As discussed, 80% of municipal respondents are interested in changes tothe MCPC Land Acquisition program to allow the use of funds for recreation or traildevelopment. These potential trail and recreation improvements are better addressedby the PIT or the proposed Open Space Improvement Program.

The recommendation for the Morris County Park Commission Land AcquisitionProgram 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 isrequired to fund proposed projects over the next 10 years at $2.23 million per yearcompared to $52 million needed for proposed improvements. With a deficit of morethan half of what is needed, the PIT cannot fill the potential additional desires for trailand park improvements.

The recommendation for the Morris County Park Commission Park Improvement Trustis to increase the maximum funding level of the program from ¼ to ½ cent whichrequires 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, additionalfunding will be required. Table 31 presents the collection rate required to meet thepotential Preservation Trust Fund estimates. The 10 year forecast for the MCMUA,MCPC Land Acquisition, and MCPC Park Improvement Trust are set at the numbersprovided in Table 27, for these estimates were meant to represent 10 year programcosts.

Potential project estimates in Table 27 for the other four programs have an indefinitetimeline, so program managers were asked to estimate the percentage of projects thatcould 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 theFlood Mitigation Program are set at 50% of potential projects, while FarmlandPreservation is set at 65% of potential projects.

The calculations in the table consider the existing Preservation Trust Fund balancesplus what would potentially need to be collected annually over 10 years to meet theseprogram estimates. The collection rate in line “z” represents the average rate neededover the next 10 years to fund the program estimates for all seven (7) current TrustFund programs plus the new Open Space Improvement Program. 1 The collection rateof 3.84 cents would allow the total funds for the next 10 years (plus the currentbalances) to equal the funding requirements of the eight (8) programs.

The table also shows the average allocation required for each of the programs over10 years to meet that program’s funding forecast. These values do not represent arecommendation for next year or any year, but rather, the average allocated requiredover 10 years. The allocations should be adjusted annually to reflect programapplication levels, using trends rather than annual expenditures.

These numbers indicate that, if the collection rate is increased to meet all of thesefunding forecasts, over a 10 year period, collection rate proportions will need to beincreased for the Flood Mitigation Program, Historic Preservation, and the ParkImprovement Trust, while proportions will be reduced for Municipal/Non-Profit OpenSpace, Farmland Preservation, and MCPC Land Acquisition. MCMUA allocationsshould stay at a similar proportion for the 10 year period; however, MCMUA numbersdo not include questionnaire derived properties, so the demand may be higher thanthese numbers indicate. It is also important to note that only the proportion of thecollection rate allocated to each program is anticipated to change over 10 years. AllPreservation Trust Fund programs have greater potential project estimates than willbe supplied by their current funding levels.

1 For the purpose of program funding estimates, the allocation of this new program is estimated at10% of the collection rate after the allocation for the Park Improvement Trust.





Table 31: Projected 10 Year Allocation of the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund with New OpenSpace Improvement Program

Current Funds Current or Annual 10 year totala Unexpended tax revenues from prior years $94,820,000

2014 Fundingb Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Acquisition $1,560,000c Farmland Preservation $890,000d Historic Preservation $2,230,000e Flood Mitigation Program $1,120,000f Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority $220,000g Morris County Park Commission Land Acquisition $670,000h Morris County Park Commission Park Improvement Trust $2,230,000i Current balance available Sum of lines a through h $103,740,000 j Committed funds as of 5/31/2014 ($45,990,000)k 2013 Spending as of 5/31/2014 ($8,960,000)l Curent total available for consideration 7 Line i + j + k $48,790,000 $48,790,000

Future Income

m Anticipated Annual Tax Revenue Based on a Collection Rate of 3.836 Cents $34,819,466 $348,194,662for the rateable base (line z * n / 100)

nRateable Base 5

$90,780,233,689

o Total 10 Year Funding Available for Consideration 6 Lines l+m $396,984,662

Trust Fund Programs 1 10 Year Funding Estimates 910 Year Average

Allocation 10

p Municipal/Non-Profit Open Space Acquisition 50% of Potential Projects $7,163,335 $71,633,349 20%q Farmland Preservation 65% of Potential Projects $4,587,836 $45,878,357 13%r Historic Preservation 50% of Potential Projects $5,479,270 $54,792,701 15%s Flood Mitigation Program 50% of Potential Projects $10,525,490 $105,254,898 29%t Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority 2 10 Year Program Forecast $1,600,000 $16,000,000 4%u Morris County Park Commission Land Acquisition 2 10 Year Program Forecast $3,044,714 $30,447,142 8%v Morris County Park Commission Park Improvement Trust 2 10 Year Program Forecast $5,198,150 $51,981,500 0.57 Centsw Open Space Improvement Program 3 10% of Collection Rate $3,600,072 $36,000,716 10%x Program Partnerships 4 Properties/Projects funded by more ($1,500,400) ($15,004,000)

than one Trust Fund Programy Total Potential Expenditure of Funds for All Purposes Sum of lines p through x $39,698,466 $396,984,662 100%

z

Notes:12 Targets provided by these programs were based on 10 year projections.345

6789

10

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).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 cents 8

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.





D. Recommended Strategies

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

2. Establish a new allowable funding use, or separate fund, for post preservationimprovements to preserved properties, particularly trail and recreation developmentand habitat restoration.

3. Allow post-preservation funding for Preservation Trust Fund programs, including fundsfrom the Flood Mitigation Program for demolition and post-preservation siterestoration, and site restoration funds for MCMUA, both of which would enhance floodcapture 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, HistoricPreservation Program, and MCPC Land Acquisition Program without maximumallotments 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 ½cent and allow this program to benefit from fund reallocations. It is recommended thatthe annual allocation for this program increase only if the collection rate is increasedfrom one (1) cent.

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

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

8. Maintain and consider increasing the existing collection rate for the Morris CountyPreservation 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 ofCommunity Services Study. Washington, D.C.

American Planning Association. (2002). City Parks Forum Briefing Papers: How cities useparks for Economic Development. Chicago, Illinois.

“Annual Financial Statement for the Year 2013 (unaudited)” Director of Finance & CountyTreasurer of Morris County, NJ, February 2014.

Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions. (2004). Open Space Is a GoodInvestment: The Financial Argument for Open Space Preservation. Mendham, NewJersey.

“Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012”, December 2012.

Brun, C. T. F. de. (2007). The Economic Benefits of Land Conservation. The Trust forPublic 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 ChangingDevelopment Rules in Your Community. Ellicott City, Maryland: Center for WatershedProtection.

Chang, R. and J. Williams. (2013, October 29). Telephone Interview, Morris CountyHistoric Preservation Program.

Coyle, K. (2013, October 29). Telephone Interview, Morris County AgricultureDevelopment Board and Farmland Preservation.

Davis, D. (2014, April). Telephone Interview, Stony Hill Gardens.

Dente, R. (2014, April 22). Telephone Interview, Hanover Township EconomicDevelopment Center.

Desiderio, R. (2014, April). Telephone Interview, Tranquility Farm.

DiNapoli, Thomas P., State Comptroller. (2010, March). Economic Benefits of OpenSpace Preservation. Office of the State Comptroller of the State of New York.

Duke, J. M. & Lynch, L. (2007). Economic Benefits of Farmland Preservation: Evidencefrom 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 Spacein Southeastern Pennsylvania (Publication No. 11033A).

Ernst, C. (2004). Protecting the Source: Land Conservation and the Future of America’sDrinking Water. The Trust for Public Land.





Ewing, R. & Shoup, L. (2010, May). The Economic Benefits of Open Space, RecreationFacilities and Walkable Community Design. San Diego, California: Robert WoodJohnson Foundation, Active Living Research.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2013, July). Hazard Mitigation AssistanceUnified Guidance.

Freedgood, J. (2002). Cost of Community Services Studies: Making the Case forConservation. American Farmland Trust.

Freedgood, J. (2002). Cost of Community Services Studies: Making the Case forConservation. (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. TheStar Ledger.

Gilbert, T. and Sargent, J. (2009). The Return on the State of New Jersey’s Investment ina $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 andEnhancing the Relationship (RFF DP 09-21). Washington, D.C.: Resources for theFuture.

Helmer, D. (2013, November 11). Telephone Interview, Morris County Park Commission.

Horowitz, B. (2013, December). Morris County program to help flooded homeowners winsrecognition again. The Star Ledger.

Jersey Fresh (Morris County) <http://www.jerseyfresh.nj.gov/>.

Jones, J. (2014, April 28). Telephone Interview, Morris County Economic DevelopmentCabinet.

Kahn, J. A. (2008, September). What Drives Housing Prices? Federal Reserve Bank ofNew 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. ExtensionCircular 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 ResidentialDevelopment: A Workbook for Local Officials and Citizens. Pennsylvania StateUniversity - College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension.





Koestenblatt, J. (2014, March 24). Morris Has Highest Tourism Sales Growth in NewJersey 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, MorrisCounty, New Jersey.

Laffey, L. (2013, March). 2013 – 2017 Long Range Plan: Fosterfields Living HistoricalFarm, 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 Socialand 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 hea lth promotion interventionfor 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 MitigationProgram.

McCulloch, J. (2014, May 7). Telephone Interview, Morris County Flood MitigationProgram.

McGill, K. and Gray, J. (2010). NJ Tourism 2009-2010: The Great Recession & TepidRecovery…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, NewJersey: 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 ConservationFinance 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 & PublicPolicy, Rutgers University.

Morris County Agriculture Development Board. (2002, December 12). Morris CountyComprehensive Farmland Preservation Plan.

Morris County Agriculture Development Board. (2007, December 17). Morris CountyComprehensive Farmland Preservation Plan (resolution 2008-11).





Morris County Agriculture Development Board. (2013, October 29). PermanentlyPreserved Farms. www.morrispreservation.com

Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders. (2013). Freeholders Reduce PreservationTrust 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 MorrisCounty, 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 Protectionand Historic Preservation Trust Fund: Rules and Regulations.

Morris County, New Jersey. (n.d.). Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan: Section 6Hazard 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 DrivenDirection for the Future of The Morris County Park System: Morris County ParkCommission 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 theEnvironment on Private Lands. Natural Resources Journal (vol. 41, no. 2) pp. 373-426.

Multihazard Mitigation Council. (2005). Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: An IndependentStudy 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-ProfitOpen Space Program.

Murray, P. (2011). New Jersey's Quality of Life by County: Highest in Morris, Lowest inCumberland. West Long Branch, New Jersey: Monmouth University Poll.

National Park Service: United States Department of the Interior. (2014, March). NewsRelease: Tourism to Morristown National Historical Park creates $15,853,100 inEconomic 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 NewVision: A Heritage Tourism Plan for New Jersey: Executive Summary. Trenton, NewJersey.

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 CityParks 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 ofTourism, Recreation, Trails, Conservation, and Healthy Living.

Review of the Morris County Park Com mission’s Use of Morris County Open Space TrustFund 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 ViolentCrime: 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 andOpen Space. The Trust for Public Land.

State of Maryland: Department of Natural Resources. (2001). Lesson 9: The Cost ofCommunity Services: Does Development Really Pay?

The State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety: Office of the AttorneyGeneral <http://www.njsp.org/info/pdf/ucr/current/042514_1stqtr2014.pdf>

State of New Jersey: Division of Travel and Tourism. (2011, March). New Jersey 2010Tourism 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 Doesthe City of Philadelphia Receive from its Park and Recreation System?

The Trust for Public Land: Center for City Park Excellence. (2010). The Economic Benefitsof the Park and Recreation System of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

The Trust for Public Land. (2010). The Economic Benefits and Fiscal Impact of Parks andOpen Space in Nassau and Suffolk Counties: A Report by The Trust for Public Landfor the Long Island Community Foundation and the Rauch Foundation.

Thomas, C.C., Huber, C. & Koontz, L. United States Department of the Interior - NaturalResource Stewardship and Science. (2014, February). “2012 National Park VisitorSpending Effects: Economic Contributions to Local Communities, States, and theNation” (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 ofTourism in New Jersey: Tourism Satellite Account, Calendar Year 2012.





Documents

Final Report - Preservation Trust Analysis & Strategy Report