By SARIT LASCHINSKY

Special to The Press

After receiving a presentation on the topic in July, Weisenberg supervisors had a lengthy discussion about setting funding caps for farmland preservation at their Aug. 9 meeting.

Township Administrator Brian Carl noted Donna Wright from the Lehigh County Farmland Preservation Board had asked supervisors if the township would contribute funds - “specifically for properties where the appraisal is over the cap” - for land preservation,

Wright addressed the board July 12 about preserving the Wyatt Gehringer Farm, which was chosen for preservation this year and was appraised at $6,610 per acre.

However, the county program’s maximum cap amount is $6,000 per acre.

Carl said if the township were to pay the entire over-cap amount for Gehringer’s farm it would cost about $21,000.

He explained how other municipalities were contributing to land preservation, and noted Wright said Lower Milford Township was paying $100 per acre, but only if the appraisal exceeded the county cap value.

Carl said if a property’s appraisal comes in under or equal to the $6,000 limit, the county would be able to cover the full amount.

“[Real estate] is going crazy here, so there’s a good chance, at least, in the next few years, they [appraisal values] are going to be up there,” Carl said.

He also said municipalities can pay to have farms preserved out-of-order on the county’s ranking list, and through the Municipal Partnership Program, if the township comes up with two-thirds of the cap amount, the land preservation board will cover the other third.

“Well, we started the fund for a reason,” Supervisor Richard Bleiler said, referring to a portion of the township’s budget earmarked for land preservation, and to which the township annually contributed $5,000.

Bleiler said, however, the township was not ready to pay the two-thirds contribution under the MPP.

“Our residents aren’t ready for that kind of dollar amount,” Bleiler said, adding he wished the township could target funds for specific properties the township would like preserved.

Carl said that arrangement was not possible.

In addition to Gehringer’s farm, Weisenberg would likely see an 84-acre property owned by Albert Granger selected for preservation next year.

After that Carl said no other property was likely to be selected for several years, noting the next Weisenberg properties were ranked in the 20s, and only around five to eight farms are chosen yearly for preservation.

Township Treasurer Jeff Strauss reported the township currently has around $15,200 in its preservation account, and Weisenberg still needs to add its $5,000 contribution for this year.

Board Chairwoman Linda Gorgas asked how the township wanted to set a contribution amount, and whether they would want to set a per-acre cap amount or an aggregate limit per property, or both.

Solicitor Peter Lehr said if the board passed a resolution setting a per-acre cap, he did not believe it would limit the township’s ability to increase the cap amount on a project-by-project basis, in case a particular project wanted to be preserved.

As another local example, Lehr noted that Lower Macungie Township had established an aggregate cap model instead of a per-acre system.

Strauss expressed caution saying if a large farm came in for preservation, “it could deplete our money instantly.”

“Let’s say we have a 30-acre farm, say at $1,000 per acre … we’ll give them $30,000. Now a 300-acre farm comes in, they’ll be looking for $300,000,” he said.

In response to a question about whether one project could use up all of Weisenberg’s preservation funds, Lehr said he was not sure the township would be bound to spend all its funds on a single property, but rather he understood the resolution to be a commitment on the township’s part to give up a certain amount of money - whether per-acre or by aggregate - for preservations in 2021-22.

After further discussion about possible farms which could come up for preservation, including some which reside partially in surrounding townships, Bleiler said he would not want to see more than $10,000 spent per property.

Gorgas questioned how this would scale with property size, stating under an aggregate cap, smaller farms would get proportionally more money per acre than larger parcels.

Bleiler responded, saying the township would have time to plan how much money it would be willing to spend, and he called the preservation process, “pretty front-end loaded. We know pretty far ahead of time what’s coming down the pipe.”

Lehr suggested whatever method is chosen be limited to the 2021-22 season, to give the township time to reevaluate in future years and make the necessary increases or decreases.

After further discussion, Bleiler said he found a $200 per-acre cap acceptable so long as the total cap is not too high.

“So if one of these 100-acre ones comes in we won’t get depleted in one year,” Bleiler said.

Carl said at the $200-per-acre rate, if the township wanted to pay the over-cap amounts for the Granger and Gehringer Farms combined, it would cost $23,800.

Carl said Gehringer’s farm would need to be paid out next year, at which point Weisenberg Township’s preservation fund would have slightly over $20,000 saved up.

“So technically, we would have enough [to pay for both farms], but it would deplete it down to zero,” Carl said.

Gorgas noted if a farm were to come in the following year for preservation, the township would only be able to offer its yearly contribution of $5,000 for preservation regardless of the property’s size, or it would have to allocate more money to preservation.

However, if a $10,000 aggregate cap was set for each property, Carl said the combined cost for the two farms would total $17,000, and the township would still have $8,000 in reserve once the annual contribution was added to the fund.

After further discussion, the board approved a resolution to set a per-acre cap of up to $200 if the appraisal value exceeds the county cap, as well as an aggregate limit of up to $10,000 per submission, for 2021-22.