Club site improvement/maintenance/retention issues

[Dan T]

Several important topics came up during our annual club business meeting last week. Among those were a discussion on maintaining access to the High Rock LZ beyond the immediate future, creating a paraglider launch at High Rock, improving the launch area at Woodstock and reopening the launch at Edith's Gap.

The family who owns the LZ at High Rock has once again informed us that they are having difficulty meeting their property tax obligations. Apparently the tax obligations are in the neighborhood of $2,800/year. The question put to the members at the meeting was, "do we want to entertain paying some or all of the property taxes on their behalf in order to assure that we do not lose access to the sight through a forced sale of the property. We are reminded that the club and the Foundation for Free Flight just made a significant investment in improving both the launch and access to the LZ. Presumably that investment could be for naught if the family is forced to sell all or a part of the farm in order to meet their tax obligations. Historically voluntary individual contributions have been sufficient to alleviate this problem. However in recent years the drop off in activity has resulted in commensurate reduction in contributions that is not likely to be reversed. (But see the discussion on opening a paragliding launch below).

Several alternatives were discussed, among those were:
A) Hold a fund raiser, perhaps through a fly in/party, then cover some or all of the remainder with club funds.
A1) Do this for this one year only while we investigate other options
A2) Continue doing it as necessary.
Both alternatives assume that the prior practice of providing individual voluntary contributions would be discontinued.

B) Obtain an easement so that we have the right to use the field in the long term.
Presumably this implies that we would contribute towards resolving the tax problem in substantial measure. Whether or not an easement would stand up beyond an impoundment or sale for tax purposes is beyond my knowledge.

C) Maintain the status quo, i.e. do nothing different than we have traditionally done.

I personally favor option C. While I am sympathetic to the land owner's plight, to attempt to resolve it on our own would rapidly deplete our scarce treasury funds and appears to be out of proportion to the benefit received. In addition our recent substantial investment in the road represents a significant benefit to the land owner as well as ourselves. Finally there is no guarantee that undertaking such a financial burden would assure access to the site. On the contrary a change in generational ownership or some other unforeseen event may undo our best intentions anyway.

I'm all in favor of a fund raiser or perhaps two over the course of the flying season. I also think we might be of significant help by investigating how the family might be eligible for property tax relief assistance from the state that their farm resides in. Numerous states have these programs in one form or another. (I believe but am not certain that they reside in Pennsylvania.)

---

A related topic is the possibility of opening a paragliding launch immediately to the North of the High Rock cube. It appears that the Maryland Department of Natural Resources is the owner of the property. There was a little discussion on how best to approach them with such a request or if such a request is even necessary. Perhaps a biwingal or PG pilot who resides relatively near High Rock would be interested in taking up this initiative?

One big advantage to opening up a PG launch at High Rock is that it would significantly increase the level of participation at that site, particularly during the summer months. This, in turn, would enable the club membership to partially overcome the financial concerns addressed above through a continuation of traditional voluntary individual contributions.

---

I will discuss Woodstock and Edith's Gap in a follow on post.

Dan

[dbodner]

Dan,

Nice job of laying out the options. I believe the land is already being taxed at the lower, agricultural, rate through someone's (new-dad Daniel's?) efforts. So, I don't think there's any chance of further lowering the tax bill. Both launch and the LZ are in MD, but we cross over the Mason-Dixon line twice while we drive from one to the other.

You make valid arguments for option C. But, I like option A1 for now. Now that we think we've located the landowner for a PG launch, we might see some renewed interest in High Rock in the future. And, like with the Pulpit, a PG launch could really benefit the HG's, too.

Do we know when property taxes are due?

[John Dullahan]

Dan,

Thanks for the background info on the issue and laying out several well-thought out options.

Both clubs have just presented Emma Jane and the farmer using the field with a professional restoration of her road and a means of accessing the field. How much did the project cost in dollars (from the club's coffers and individual donations) - besides Gary Devan's and other's planning, travel, and sweat equity?

Our investment in the road should have been at least recognized by granting us the occasional use of the field for a year or two.

Has Emma Jane said how much she obtains from leasing the field to the farmer who gets the hay?

If we cough up the $2,800 this year it will guarantee Emma Jane's hand will also be extended to us next year - and not for a hand shake. That amount is far in access of what we should pay for occasional use of the field as an LZ.

If we are contemplating a fund-raiser (besides the one we just did for rebuilding the road and culvert) perhaps we should inquire about the purchase price of the field?

If the purchase price is beyond our reach, then I would be in favor of option b or a variant thereof. If that isn't feasible, perhaps we should consider raising the amount individual pilots pay to Emma Jane for landing in the LZ.

[mcgowantk]

We may end up losing a NW site that has been in use for more than 35 years unless we step up here. Since I have been flying (17 years or so), we have not opened a single new mountain site. Losing a site this close to Washington and one that is open year round with a very friendly owner in the LZ would be tragic. Moreover, I am not aware of a single site that has not or will not come under pressure in the coming years. Most LZs were established more than 25 years ago and landowners are selling or passing on their property to their children. We should be prepared to think about how we can maintain the sites that we have - and that may mean compensating landowners for the right to fly.

I appreciate that not everyone is up for making a significant contribution, but I would like to start a fundraiser for this. If we get close, perhaps the club can also make a contribution. I certainly will step up with a significant contribution to the LZ fund.

Tom McGowan

[Matthew]

OK.

How about just a High Rock Annual Flying Fee? If you fly High Rock 5 days a year-- it would cost you 50 bucks. So why not simply have a 50 dollar High Rock pass that takes the place of the ten dollar donation per flying day.

If 50 members each pay 50 bucks-- that's 2500 bucks.

Matthew

[sailin]

I strongly support a fund raiser to handle the "immediate" need of protecting the High Rock LZ. I also strongly support the club covering any differences that need to be made up if the fund raiser falls short. High Rock is a treasure that we need to protect and continue to invest in. Not only is it a wonderful site to fly today, but its history alone makes it worth the effort to save. Paying for the taxes now will at the very least buy us time to have a much needed discussion to figure out how we will handle things in the long run...whatever shape that might take. And as pointed out, that discussion needs to include all our sites, and the possiblities of losing Launch/LZ rights as ownerships and generations change.
In a perfect world it would be wonderful if we could outright own our LZ's (and launches) , but in the meantime we need to do everything we can to protect our sites.


Jon

[Dan T]

This is a great discussion hitting all the relevant points of the topic. I hope it continues with others participating. At some point in the not too distant future, we as a club, will have to pick an alternative and move out on it.

I'd like to add one clarifying point. To my knowledge the transition to the agricultural based tax rate (great job by the way) does not preclude one from seeking a state sponsored hardship exemption/modification. Based upon my brief research into the subject the states compensate the counties for the lost property tax revenues under these programs. The agricultural tax basis is a completely different animal.

I'm neither a lawyer nor a tax advisor both of whom would probably be far better qualified to address the topic than I am. None-the-less I think there may be an opportunity here that we have not completely explored and I am willing to look further into it. I wonder if the land owner is aware of it at all?

Dan

[Dan T]

I just found the following site for Washington County Maryland, http://www.washco-md.net/treasurer/credits.shtm. Washington County provided home owners over the age of 65 with substantial relief as of just last July. From the table linked inside the website it appears that the home owner may be eligible for a very substantial reduction in her property taxes, on the order of 70% or more. Since it is a recent change it is entirely possible that the home owner is unaware of it.

Do we have a volunteer who knows her well who would be willing to sit down and discuss this with her? We cannot do it without her active participation in the process.

Dan

[hang_pilot]

Maryland property taxes are due semi-annually on 9/30 and 12/31. Emma Jane and Randy's property is currently taxed on an agricultural usage basis and she is receiving the homeowner's tax credit that Dan mentioned (both the state low income and the county senior citizen credits). I remember Steve K telling me that she's fairly savvy about these matters. Her last semiannual payment was in the amount of $954 and she is current. This information can be confirmed in publicly available databases:

http://sdatcert3.resiusa.org/rp_rewrite ... ype=STREET
http://www.washco-md.net/treasurer/reta ... alAmtDue=0

I do see, however, that she has not applied for the homestead tax credit. This credit limits taxable assessment increases to 5% or less each year for Wash Co. Rising assessments are not an issue now, but E.J. and Randy should have this in place for the future when hopefully home values rise again. By the end of the year, someone who knows her better than I do might suggest that she complete this application: http://www.dat.state.md.us/sdatweb/home ... cation.pdf.

Regarding fundraising, we've generally passed the hat and many people have contributed generously. That program seems to work fine. I'm not sure if the time is right now for passing the hat, it seems a little early for it, but someone should let her know that we'll continue our tradition of helping out.

Blue skies,
Daniel

[hang_pilot]

I do see, however, that she has not applied for the homestead tax credit.

Oops, I see the homestead credits on the tax bill now. Looks like she's receiving all of the credits she's entitled to. ~Daniel

[John Dullahan]

Thank you Daniel for the revealing link to state records of Emma Jane's property assessment, tax bill, and her payments.

Unless I am mistaken, this includes all her property: house, surrounding property, and the LZ. The total state and county annual bill, before all credits, is $2,641.52. When all credits are applied, Emma Jane's total annual property tax bill, not just for the LZ, but also for her house and surrounding property, is $1,909.18, which she pays in semi-annual installments of $954.59.

I appreciate very much the HR flying site, and contributed a healthy sum towards the road improvement. I would gladly contribute a substantial sum to either purchase the LZ, or contribute to a reasonable annual fee for LZ landing rights (waived occasionally if required for harvesting crops).

(Just for the record, how much did the road and culvert restoration cost?)

Again, unless I am mistaken, Emma Jane is attempting to obtain $2,800 annually from the clubs for LZ landing rights. This is far in excess of the $1,909.18 annual tax she pays for all her property. Perhaps someone should gently point out possible math errors in her computations, and arrive at a more reasonable payment for occasional use of the LZ.

[Dan T]

Daniel proved to me that the land owner is getting all the credits to which the land owner is entitled. These include income and senior citizen based caps that are intended to assure that homeowners are not burdened with property taxes that are beyond their ability to pay.

Based upon the fact that they have taken advantage of these safety valves I think it's reasonable to conclude that their taxes are not beyond their means.

I suggest that a continuation of the fund raisers and other voluntary contributions that we have made in the past should suffice. Obviously an aggressive effort to encourage pilots to participate in these activities, particularly the fly ins, would benefit all concerned.

Dan

[mcgowantk]

We can do more to check out the tax issue. Maybe I will have time to do that this weekend. However, it may be hard to conclude that the taxes are not beyond their means unless you know their income. Also, why should they struggle if they can sell the property and earn a nice nest egg? I think we need to be prepared to step up to avoid a sale of the LZ.

Tom

[Joe Schad]

The only way to insure we don't lose the site is to own it. The Henson folks decided they needed to do that for their site a long time ago and have purchased several lzs as well as the launches. If I had the money I would buy the property but I don't. I would support asking pilot for money to purchase the site once we know How much we need to raise. We could also take the same apporach as Hensons, where a $50 three day fee for flying would be required in the future or a $100 annual membership for anyone who wants to fly the site all year long. That way we could recoup some of the cost of the purchase and insure maintenance of the site in the future.

Joe

[pink_albatross]

EJ's entire property (sans buildings) is assessed at a base of $160,390 and value as of 2010 (whatever that means) at $152,800.
I am assuming an approximate land price of $150,000 just for the field.

Assuming we were able to raise the funds to purchase the property, I am wondering if a non-profit status would allow us to skip the yearly taxes?

How much do you think the Freeflight Foundation could contribute to the purchase of the oldest and longest operating East Coast hang gliding LZ?

Opening up a PG launch might open the pool of potential donors

-- ellis

[JohnE]

Assuming that the owner would be willing to sell, it would likely be to the advantage of both Seller and Purchaser to subdivide the property by having a survey done and a new plat recorded. This is not very expensive and would have the benefit of allowing the Club to just be deeded a piece of land for the landing zone, without having to buy the whole property. This should result in much less cost to the Club and leaves the landowner with more land to develop or sell in the future. Once purchased, the Club could permit a local farmer to use it for activities such as grazing pasture (if desired), which might permit a small revenue to offset the Club's ongoing costs of ownership.

There is a possibility but not a guarantee that the land could be made real estate tax exempt. See http://www.dat.state.md.us/sdatweb/exempt.html

But keeping it in agricultural use or granting a conservation easement (perhaps to the Freefilght Foundation) are 2 other ways to keep taxes as low as possible.
I agree with the effects of a PG launch on donors!
John