Appendix D - Questionnaire Results Summary

8/10/2019 Appendix D - Questionnaire Results Summary

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/appendix-d-questionnaire-results-summary 1/44

Appendix DQuestionnaire Summary





Questionnaire Summary

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 D-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION D-2

MUNICIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY D-31. Municipal Open Space Trust Funds D-3

2. Farmland Preservation Program (FP) D-4

3. Flood Mitigation Program (FMP) D-7

4. Historic Preservation Program (HP) D-10

5. Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority (MUA) D-13

6. Morris County Park Commission (MCPC) D-15

7. Open Space Preservation Program (OSTF) D-19

8. Morris County Preservation Trust Fund – Potential Future Uses D-22

9. Economic Impact D-23

10. Additional Comments D-24

NON-PROFIT QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY D-25

1. Non-Profit Organization Information D-25

2. Historic Preservation Program (HP) D-27

3. Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority (MUA) D-29

4. Morris County Park Commission (MCPC) D-31

5. Open Space Preservation Program (OSTF) D-34

6. Morris County Preservation Trust Fund – Potential Future Uses D-37

7. Economic Impact D-38

8. Additional Comments D-39

TABLES

Table D-1 Potential Future Uses for the Trust Fund D-37

Table D-2 Open Ended Responses Summary Table D-40








Questionnaire for Municipalities, Land Trusts and Historic Preservation Organizations Morris County Preservation Trust Fund Analysis and Strategy Report

INTRODUCTION

Questionnaires were sent to each of the 39 municipalities in Morris County, nine (9) land trustnon-profits, and 27 historic preservation non-profit organizations in mid-December 2013. A list ofthe land preservation and historic preservation non-profits can be found in Appendix E. All ofthese organizations returned completed questionnaires the results of which are analyzed in thefollowing text. The questionnaire for the municipalities contained ten sections while thequestionnaire for the non-profits contained eight sections. This report provides a summary of theresponses to these questionnaires. The first section summarizes the municipal responses, andthe second section summarizes the non-profit responses (both land preservation and historicpreservation non-profits). Both municipal and non-profit responses are included in both sectionsfor comparison.

Unless otherwise noted, the numbers and proportions given are based on the number ofrespondents for each question. Many municipal and non-profit responders did not answer allquestions and were given the option to indicate if a particular program was “Not Applicable” to

their municipality and/or organization. All program statistics shown reflect December 2013 data.



Municipal Questionnaire Summary


MUNICIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1. Municipal Open Space Trust Funds

1.1. Does your municipality have its own open space trust fund?

Yes 29 74%

No 10 26%1.2. If yes:

1.2.1. What current trends has your municipality seen lately with its trust fund?

As demonstrated in the frequency of responses in the table above,

municipal open space funds are increasingly focused on maintenance and

debt service of existing properties as well as the development of

recreational facilities. (See Appendix E for full comments)

1.2.2. Does your municipality have any plans to change its trust fund?

Of the 29 municipalities with trust funds, most reported no planned changes

to their trust funds, although some have plans to increase or have recently

increased their open space tax. (See Appendix E for full comments)

3 2

6

97

20123456789

10

No (24)

83%

Increase (3)10%

Reduce (1)4%

Merge (1)3%





2. Farmland Preservation Program (FP)

There are 125 preserved farms totaling 7,709 acres in Morris County (in 14 Municipalities).

2. Applicable

Yes 18 46%

No 21 54%

Of the 14 municipalities with preserved farms, ten (10) or 71% said Farmland

Preservation was applicable to their community while four or 29% said it was not.

All of these municipalities filled out this section of the questionnaire.

2.1. Does your municipality know of any farms which should be preserved in yourmunicipality?

AllMunicipalities

Municipalities withPreserved Farms

Yes 12 63% 9 64%

No 7 37% 5 36%Nine (9) or 64% of the 14 municipalities with preserved farms answered “Yes” to

this question, while five (5) or 36% answered “No.” Three municipalities that

currently do not have preserved farmland have identified farm properties they feel

should be preserved under this program.

2.1.1. If yes, please list:

(Potential acquisitions have been redacted).

2.2. Have the criteria for farmland preservation limited your municipality’s participation

in the program?

AllMunicipalities


Yes 4 24% 2 15%

No 13 76% 11 85%

Limiting only to municipalities with preserved farms, two (2) or 15% responded that

the criteria limited their participation, 11 or 85% said the criteria did not limit their

participations, and one did not respond. Based on the above table, two other

municipalities would have participated if not prevented by current Farmland

Preservation criteria.

2.3. Has this program benefited your community?

AllMunicipalities


Yes 12 67% 12 92%

No 6 33% 1 8%





Twelve (12) municipalities, 67% of all respondents and 92% of those with

preserved farms, stated that the program benefited their community, and only one

(8%) municipality with preserved farmland replied that it did not benefit their

community. One did not respond

2.3.1. If yes, please discuss how:

Of the eight (8) municipalities that volunteered opened ended responses of

benefits (all with preserved farmland), five reported preservation helps to maintain

community character, and four cited economic benefits.

2.4. How different would your community be without the program?

The responses to the question closely followed the previous question.

Respondents credited the program with reducing municipal costs associated with

residential development and with protecting their municipality from suburbanencroachment. (See Appendix E for full comments)

2.5. Do farmers in your community have a relationship with small businessesthroughout Morris County?

AllMunicipalities


Yes 15 83% 13 100%

No 3 17% 0 0%

All responding municipalities with preserved farms responded “ Yes” to this

question; one did not respond.

2.6. Do farms in your municipality contribute to the local economy?

AllMunicipalities


Yes 16 80% 14 100%

No 4 20% 0 0%

63%50%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Preserved Character Economic Benefits





All municipalities with preserved farms responded “ Yes” to this question.

2.7. Does your municipality have a local farmers market?

AllMunicipalities


Yes 11 50% 7 50%No 11 50% 7 50%

Of the municipalities with preserved farms, seven (7) had farmers markets, while

seven (7) did not, the same proportion as respondents as a whole. Four (4)

municipalities that do not have preserved farms have a farmers market.

2.8. Are preserved farms being used for agri-tourism in your community?

AllMunicipalities


Yes 8 44% 8 67%

No 10 56% 4 33%

For municipalities with preserved farms, eight (8) or 67% responded that the

preserved farms are engaged in agri-tourism, four (4) or 33% did not have agri-

tourism on preserved farms. Two (2) did not respond.

2.9 If your municipality has a staff person or volunteers with responsibility for farmlandpreservation and right to farm, please provide their contact information:

Answers to this question are confidential.

2.10. Does your municipality have an Agriculture Retention / Advisory Board?

AllMunicipalities


Yes 2 11% 2 15%No 17 89% 11 85%

Only two municipalities reported having an Agriculture Retention / Advisory Board.

Both of these municipalities have preserved farms. Of the other 12 municipalities

with preserved farms, 11 responded that they do not have a Board and one (1)

municipality did not respond.

2.11. Other Comments:

Two municipalities reported a reluctance of farmers to sell or preserve land, either

because the prices were too low or because they want to sell for development.

2.12. How can the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund be modified to enhance thisprogram area in your municipality?

Respondents typically requested greater program flexibility to allow smaller farms

to qualify for the program.





3. Flood Mitigation Program (FMP)

This program was created in March 2012 to purchase flood-prone homes and to convertthe land to its natural state so it can absorb and contain future flood waters. There are

currently 117 flood-buyout projects in seven (7) municipalities, 36 of which have closed.3. Applicable

Yes 19 49%

No 20 51%

3.1. Is your municipality aware of the County’s Flood Mitigation Program (FMP)?

Yes 22 92%No 2 8%

3.2. If your municipality has participated in the Flood Mitigation Program, how has yourcommunity benefited? (e.g., increased public safety, lower OEM and DPW costs,

lower infrastructure costs, etc.)

There are currently seven (7) municipalities with projects in the Flood MitigationProgram. Six (6) municipalities discussed specific benefits from participation in

the FMP; one municipality stated they are in the initial stages of the program and

thus have not yet realized benefits. A majority (57%) of participating municipalities

reported multiple benefits within their community. Increased public safety and

reduction of municipal costs were each mentioned four (4) times each, and an

increase in public open space was cited once. (See Appendix E for full comments)

3.3. Does your municipality have areas which flood frequently?

Yes 18 75%No 6 25%

3.3.1. If yes, please indicate locations/neighborhoods:

See Appendix E for lists

50%

83%

17%0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Public Safety Reduced Costs Additional Open Space





3.4 Does your community incur significant municipal costs in the wake of a floodevent? (e.g., OEM response, debris removal, traffic and utility infrastructure repair,mold remediation, etc.)

Yes 10 52%No 14 58%

The FMP provides funding for acquisition and related costs such as: appraisals, surveys,title work and environmental analysis.

Flood mitigation costs that are not covered include: demolition, legal, administrative, post-preservation improvements, and maintenance.

3.5. Would your municipality like to see these additional costs covered by the TrustFund?

Yes 16 73%No 6 27%

3.6. What other specific uses would your community like to see for this flood acquisition

funding?

Of the 16 municipalities which responded to this question, six (6) affirmed their

support for the program’s current focus on acquisition. Ten respondents (63%)

suggested other specific uses desired for flood mitigation funding. Most (70%) of

respondents suggest the use of funding for preventative measures such as home

elevations, river dredging, and stormwater management. Three (3) municipalities

also wanted to use funding for related costs such as demolition, repairs, and

incentives. (See Appendix E for full comments)

3.7 If your municipality has a staff person or volunteers with responsibility for floodmitigation, please provide their contact information:


3.8. Does your municipality have a designated “municipal floodplain manager”?

Yes 7 29%No 17 71%

63%

19%

38%

0123456789

10111213141516

Preventative Related Costs Acquisition Only





3.9. Does your municipality know that NJ-DEP Green Acres Municipal PlanningIncentive Grant funds may be used for flood acquisition projects?

Yes 19 79%No 5 21%

The Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (the Biggert-Waters Act) completely phases outfederal subsidies and discounts for flood insurance. This will result in higher insurancerates and premiums for some flood-prone homes.

3.10. Has your municipality assessed the economic impact of this law on property valuesand buyer interest in some neighborhoods?

Yes 3 13%No 20 87%


Responses generally expected a negative impact from the Biggert-Waters Act in

the form of decreased property values. Also, responses identified an inability to

acquire all affected homes due to limited funding and a desire to use some FMP

funds for associated costs. (See Appendix E for full comments)


Fourteen (14) municipalities responded to this question, 12 of which providedrecommendations for changes to the Flood Mitigation Program. The mostcommon recommendations were related to mitigation measures (6) including:home elevations (2), river dredging (2), stormwater management (1), and generalmitigation measures (1). Other recommendations included: increasing funding (2)

and assistance with the Community Ratings System (CRS) to lower floodinsurance rates (2). Two respondents praised the program as it currently operates.

(See Appendix E for full comments)





4. Historic Preservation Program (HP)

The Historic Preservation Program has awarded $20.3 million since 2003 to 80 historicsites throughout 32 municipalities in Morris County. Historic preservation non-profit

responses are included in tables in this section for comparison.

4. Applicable

Yes 35 90%

No 4 10%

4.1. If your municipality has not participated in the County Historic Preservationprogram, please list reasons:

Nine (9) municipalities volunteered reasons1 for not participating in the Historic

Preservation Program. The most frequently cited reasons for not participating inthe programs were eligibility (private ownership) and opposition to restrictions on

property. (See Appendix E for full comments)

4.2. Have the criteria for the County HP program eligibility or familiarization with HPprogram rules and regulations limited your municipality’s (or organization’s) use ofthe funds? (e.g., 30 year easement, open to the public, etc.)

Municipalities % HP Non-Profits %Yes 5 13% 3 11%No 30 77% 21 78%No Response 4 10% 3 11%

4.3. Has historic preservation benefited your community?

Municipalities % HP Non-Profits %Yes 30 77% 26 96%No 7 18% 0 78%No Response 2 5% 1 4%4.3.1. If yes, please give examples:

1 19 municipalities responded to the question, but most did not provide reasons for not participating.

33%

56%

22%0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Oppose Restrictions Eligibility Problems Lack of Matching Funds





See Table D-2 (Page D-40)

4.4. Has your municipality seen an increase in tourism as the result of historicpreservation?


4.5. Is your municipality aware of the County’s Cultural Resources Inventory

Application?


4.6. Are there any historic sites or structures in your municipality which should bepreserved?




4.7. Has your municipality had any difficulties with funding of the ongoing maintenanceand operations of historic sites/properties?

Municipalities % HP Non-Profits %

Yes 16 41% 13 48%No 20 51% 12 44%No Response 3 8% 2 7%

4.9. If your municipality has a staff person or volunteers with responsibility for historicpreservation, please provide their contact information:


4.8. Has your municipality participated in the Historic Preservation Trust Fund Application Workshops hosted by the County held in late January?

Municipalities % HP Non-Profits %






4.8.1. If yes, how helpful were they?

Municipalities HP Non-ProfitsVery Helpful 10 (67%) 18 (86%)

Somewhat Helpful 5 (33%) 3 (14%)Not Helpful 0 (0%) 0 (0%)


Municipalities used this question to provide updates on the status of projects and

to emphasize their support for the programs, while non-profits typically lauded the

program. (See Appendix E for full comments)


See Table D-2 (Page D-40)





5. Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority (MUA)

Water Resource Protection and Preservation Program

Land trust non-profit responses are included in tables in this section for comparison.

5.1. Is your municipality aware that approximately 90% of Morris County residents

depend on groundwater for their water supply?Municipalities % Land Non-Profits %


5.2. What is your municipality’s source of water? Please check all that apply.

Individual homeowner wells 19Municipal wells 21Public reservoir 7Private water company 12

Morris County MUA 9Other MUA 11

5.3. If your municipality uses wells:

5.3.1. Does your municipality have its own wells?

Yes 20 51%No 14 36%No Response 5 13%

5.3.2. If yes, are those wells surrounded by a wellhead protection area?

Yes 11 50%

No 11 50%5.3.3. Does your municipality have a wellhead protection ordinance?


5.4. Has your municipality partnered with the Morris County MUA in acquiring anyproperties?

Municipalities % Land Non-Profits %Yes 9 23% 5 56%No 27 69% 1 11%

No Response 3 8% 3 33%

The Municipal Utilities Authority has partnered with municipalities and non-profits

on projects in 18 different municipalities in Morris County and has worked directly

with 15 municipalities.

5.5. Has the Morris County Preservation Trust helped your municipality preserve waterquality in your community?





Municipalities % Land Non-Profits %Yes 13 33% 7 78%No 21 54% 0 0%No Response 5 13% 2 22%

5.6. Does your municipality know of properties within your municipality or adjoining

jurisdictions which should be acquired to protect a water supply well, aquiferrecharge area, surface waters, or headwaters?


5.6.1. If yes, please list.



The seven (7) municipal respondents provided project updates (4) or used thisquestion to emphasize support (2) or opposition (1) to preservation efforts. (See

Appendix E for full comments)


Municipalities, (4 of 6 respondents) said they would like to increase the scope of

the program to cover services such as land restoration for groundwater recharge,

flood storage, and associated soft costs. More funding (2 comments) is also

desired along with increased public awareness of needs for water protection. (See






6. Morris County Park Commission (MCPC)


6. Applicable

Municipalities % Land Non-Profits %

Yes 36 92% 7 78%No 3 8% 2 22%

6.1. Is your municipality aware that the Morris County Park Commission is steward of18,700 acres of open space and parkland, with 38 distinct sites, 155 miles ofrecreational trails and 7 facilities on the National/State Register of Historic Places?


6.2. Does your municipality meet with the Park Commission on a regular basis?


6.2.1. If no, would your municipality like to?


6.3. Has your municipality partnered with the Morris County Park Commission on theuse of funds from their program to acquire open space in your municipality?






6.3.1. If yes, how has your municipality used these lands?

Response percentages are calculated by dividing the number of responses by the

number of respondents. Municipalities reported using acquired open space lands

for trail development (8), passive recreation (4), and resource protection (2). (See Appendix E for full comments)

6.4. Does your municipal trail system connect with the Park Commission trails (e.g.,Patriot’s Path)?


6.5. Would your municipality partner with the Park Commission on establishing trailconnectivity with your community?



6.6. Are there properties that your municipality feels should be acquired which arecontiguous to County Parks or that provide linkages between county and municipalparks?



Municipalities desired land for trails, open space, and greenways. Non-

profits focused on trail connectivity. (Potential acquisitions have been

redacted).

6.7. Does your municipality have a Municipal Recreation/Bikeway trails committeeand/or plan?

Yes 19 49%

53%

27%13%

67%

100%

67%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Trails Passive Recreation Resource Protection

Municipalities Land Non-Profits





No 18 46%No Response 2 5%

6.7.1. If yes, please share the plan and targeted routes.


6.8. If your municipality has a staff person or volunteers with responsibility for openspace preservation, please provide their contact information:


6.9. How does your municipality believe the acquisition of open space by the MorrisCounty Park Commission has affected property values in your community and thecounty?

Most responses (64%) indicate a positive impact on property values. (See

Appendix E for full comments and see Table D-2, Page D-40)

6.10. Would your municipality like to collaborate with the Park Commission on recreationbased capital projects?


6.11. What is your overall level of satisfaction with the current County Parks in yourcommunity?

Municipalities % Land Non-Profits %Very Satisfied 22 85% 7 100%Somewhat Satisfied 4 15% 0 0%Not Satisfied 0 0% 0 0%

Not Applicable 10 N/A 0 N/ANo Response 3 N/A 2 N/A

6.11.1. Should improvements be made to these parks to increase their usage?

Municipalities % Land Non-Profits %Yes 12 57% 6 100%No 9 43% 0 0%No Response 18 N/A 3 N/A

6.11.2. If yes, does your municipality know the estimated cost of improvements?(Please list)


6.12. Are there any issues with public safety in the current County Parks in yourmunicipality?






6.12.1. If yes, please identify:

Some respondents indicated a desire for an increased security presence

at county parks. (See Appendix E for full comments)


See Table D-2, Page D-40





7. Open Space Preservation Program (OSTF)

The Open Space Preservation grant program has helped preserve over 10,000 acres ofopen space throughout 36 municipalities in Morris County since 1994.


7. Applicable


7.1. What are the purposes of acquiring open space in your municipality?

The above chart shows the percentage of municipalities (of 39) or land trust non-

profit s (of 9) that gave each response. Municipalities favored “Recreational fields

and facilities,” with 87% choosing that option, where non- profits preferred “Natural

resource protection” and “Protect water supplies,” with 100% choosing those

options. See Appendix E for “Other” responses

7.2. Has your municipality partnered with Morris County in the use of this fund toacquire open space?


7.2.1. If your municipality has not applied to the program, why?

See Appendix E for full comments

44%

100%

78%

89%

100%

33%

21%

56%

62%

74%

82%

87%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Other

Protect water supplies

Maintain scenic vistas

Prevent development

Natural resource protection

Recreational fields and facilities








a “lack of capital funds” and a focus only on flood related acquisitions. (See full

comments in Appendix E)

7.6. Based on the above, what changes to the program can be implemented to benefitthe needs of your municipality?

The top responses included:

o Permit funding for maintenance, stewardship, and improvements.

o Provide more opportunities to apply for funding (more than once per year).

o Permit recreation facility development.

o Allow trails development.

See Table D-2, Page D-40 (and full comments in Appendix E)

7.7. Does your municipality have post-preservation plans to improve any propertiesfunded through this program that would require additional funding?

Municipalities % Land Non-Profits %Yes 24 62% 9 100%

No 11 28% 0 0%No Response 4 10% 0 0%

7.7.1. Please identify.

Top responses included:

o Trail development.

o Development of parks and support facilities.

o Athletic fields.

o Maintenance.

o Historic preservation.

o Parking.


7.8. Would it be beneficial to your municipality to have a mechanism to fund theseimprovements?



Comments in this section focused on planned projects, partnerships, and funding

needs. (See Appendix E for full comments)







8. Morris County Preservation Trust Fund – Potential Future Uses

Non-profit responses are included in tables in this section for comparison.

8.1. The following table lists several examples of potential future modifications to theMorris County Preservation Trust Fund. Please indicate if your municipality wouldbe in favor of such changes as indicated (non-profit responses are included forcomparison):

Table D-1: Potential Future Use for Trust Fund

Percentages in this table are out of the total number of respondents for the

potential use. Actual numbers are also given for clarification. (See Appendix Efor “Other” responses).

8.2. Should the unused balances of funds from the various Trust Fund programs bere-allocated to others in the Trust Fund to meet current needs?

Municipalities % Land Non-Profits % HP Non-Profits %Yes 26 67% 6 67% 17 63No 8 21% 2 22% 5 19No Response 5 13% 1 11% 5 19

Municipal-

ities

Land Non-

Profits

HP Non-

Profits2

Municipal-

ities

Land Non-

Profits

HP Non-

Profits2

Municipal-

ities

Land Non-

Profits

HP Non-

Profits2

20 2 8 3 4 2

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

24 5 12 2 2 1

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

26 6 8 3 3 0

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

29 8 7 1 1 0

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

20 4 12 2 4 256% 50% 33% 25% 11% 25%

24 3 6 2 5 2

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

Allow funding:

34 7 4 2 0 0

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

19 3 12 13 0 4 4 4 4

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

26 3 9 3 2 2

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

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

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

For infrastructure improvements such as dam removal and

repair, stream restoration, wetlands mitigation and storm

water management

Allow funding for post-preservation improvement projects:

To plan, design, and construct recreational trails and

bikeways

For Cultural and Heritage Tourism to promote the use of

parkland, agri-tourism, and historic sites

Community Gardens

Field Development

Habitat Restoration

Trails Development

Allow funding for the management and monitoring of open

spaces

Allow use of the Flood Mitigation portion for demolition and

reclamation

Strongly Support1

Somewhat Support1

Do Not Support1

Potential Use





9. Economic Impact

9.1. Are there any businesses that rely either directly or indirectly on the lands orproperties preserved through the Trust Fund in your municipality? (e.g., vendors,bike rentals, restaurants, concessions, bed & breakfasts, gas stations, etc.)

Non-profit responses are included in tables for comparison.


9.1.1. If yes, please explain and list:


9.2. Are there any future acquisitions that would be beneficial to your or Morris County’s

local economy?

Municipalities % Land Non-Profits % HP Non-Profits %Yes 13 33% 4 44% 2 7%No 22 56% 1 11% 21 78No Response 4 10% 4 44% 4 15



9.3. Are there any regular revenue-generating events held on land or at propertiespreserved through the Trust Fund in your municipality?

Municipalities % Land Non-Profits % HP Non-Profits %

Yes 11 28% 3 33% 13 48No 25 64% 4 44% 11 41No Response 3 7% 2 22% 3 11



9.4. Do any of the lands or properties preserved through the Trust Fund in yourmunicipality attract visitors from outside of the county?

Municipalities % Land Non-Profits % HP Non-Profits %Yes 19 49% 8 88% 14 52

No 18 46% 0 0% 5 19No Response 2 5% 1 11% 8 30

9.4.1. If yes, please provide an estimated number of visitors each generates.






10. Additional Comments

In closing, please share with us any topics we may have missed, input your municipalitywould like to provide, or items your municipality thinks should be considered in this

Analysis and Strategy Report.

Fourteen municipalities provided responses for this section. Half (7) of these comments

specifically mentioned how active their municipality has been in using the program and

that they are pleased with the program. Many reiterated what was discussed earlier in

the questionnaire such as a need of funds for flood mitigation and changes to the

municipal/non-profit program application process.

Most of the comments (11 of 14) discussed potential modifications to the program. Eight

(8) municipalities described allowing additional uses for Preservation Trust Funds, while

three (3) expressed their concerns for expanded uses of program funds. Municipalities

wanting additional uses sought funding for recreation improvements, trails, mine

collapse remediation, and to increase awareness of programs. Those opposed to the

expanded use of funds were concerned about the reduced emphasis on open space andhistoric preservation needs and wanted to make sure the primary focus of the Trust

Fund remains unchanged and that any additional uses utilize only a small percentage of

funds.

(See Appendix E for full comments)









Non-Profit Questionnaire Summary


2.6. Are there any historic sites or structures in your jurisdiction which should bepreserved?

Municipalities % HP Non-Profits %Yes 28 72% 16 59%No 6 15% 4 15%

No Response 5 13% 7 26%2.6.1. If yes, please list (municipalities and non-profits):


2.7. Has your organization had any difficulties with funding of the ongoing maintenanceand operations of historic sites/properties?


2.8. Has your organization participated in the Historic Preservation Trust Fund Application Workshops hosted by the County held in late January?


2.8.1. If yes, how helpful were they?

Municipalities HP Non-ProfitsVery Helpful 10 (67%) 18 (86%)Somewhat Helpful 5 (33%) 3 (14%)

Not Helpful 0 (0%) 0 (0%)2.9. If your organization has a staff person or volunteers with responsibility for historic

preservation, please provide their contact information:



Non-profits used the section to praise the program (six of seven comments). See

Appendix E for full comments

2.11. How can the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund be modified to enhance thisprogram area in your organization?






3. Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority (MUA)

Water Resource Protection and Preservation Program

Municipal responses are included in tables in this section for comparison.

3.1. Is your organization aware that approximately 90% of Morris County residents

depend on groundwater for their water supply?Municipalities % Land Non-Profits %


3.2. Has your organization partnered with the Morris County MUA in acquiring anyproperties?



The Municipal Utilities Authority has partnered with municipalities and non-profits

on projects in 18 different municipalities in Morris County.

3.2.1 If yes, please assist in verifying the site(s) and location(s):


3.3. Has the Morris County Preservation Trust helped your organization preserve waterquality?


3.3.1 If yes, please list project and municipality.


3.4. Does your organization know of properties within Morris County which should beacquired to protect a water supply well, aquifer recharge area, surface waters, orheadwaters?

Municipalities % Land Non-Profits %Yes 13 33% 6 67%

No 23 59% 0 0%No Response 3 8% 3 33%

3.4.1. If yes, please list.



Non-profits listed existing projects and described how projects have helped

communities. (See Appendix E for full comments)





3.6. How can the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund be modified to enhance thisprogram area for your organization?

Non-profits said they desire more opportunities for partnerships and resource

sharing. (See Appendix E for full comments)





4. Morris County Park Commission (MCPC)


4. Applicable


Yes 36 92% 7 78%No 3 8% 2 22%

4.1. Is your organization aware that the Morris County Park Commission is steward of18,700 acres of open space and parkland, with 38 distinct sites, 155 miles ofrecreational trails and 7 facilities on the National/State Register of Historic Places?


4.2. Does your organization meet with the Park Commission on a regular basis?


4.2.1. If no, would your organization like to?


4.3. Has your organization partnered with the Morris County Park Commission on the

use of funds from their program to acquire open space with your organization?


4.3.1. If yes, how has your municipality or organization used these lands?

Response percentages are calculated by dividing the number of responses by the

number of respondents. Non-profits reported using acquired open space lands for

53%

27% 13%

67%

100%

67%

0%

50%

100%

Trails Passive Recreation Resource Protection






trail development (2), passive recreation (3), and resource protection (3). (See


4.4. Would your organization partner with the Park Commission on establishing trailconnectivity on lands your organization owns?


4.5. Are there properties that your organization feels should be acquired which arecontiguous to County Parks or that provide linkages between county and municipalparks?



Non-profits primarily focused on trail connectivity. (Potential acquisitions

have been redacted).

4.6. If your organization has a staff person or volunteers with responsibility for openspace preservation, please provide their contact information:


4.7. How does your organization believe the acquisition of open space by the MorrisCounty Park Commission has affected property values in Morris County?

All responses indicate a positive impact on property values. (See Appendix E for

full comments and see Table D-2, Page D-40)

4.8. What is your organization’s overall level of satisfaction with the current CountyParks?

Municipalities % Land Non-Profits %Very Satisfied 22 85% 7 100%Somewhat Satisfied 4 15% 0 0%Not Satisfied 0 0% 0 0%Not Applicable 10 N/A 0 N/ANo Response 3 N/A 2 N/A

4.8.1. Should improvements be made to these parks to increase their usage?


Yes 12 57% 6 100%

No 9 43% 0 0%

No Response 18 N/A 3 N/A





4.9. Is your organization aware of any issues with public safety in the current CountyParks?



4.9.1. If yes, please identify:

One organization expressed concerns about unattended campfires. (See



See Appendix E for comments







5. Open Space Preservation Program (OSTF)

The Open Space Preservation grant program has helped preserve over 10,000 acres ofopen space throughout 36 municipalities in Morris County since 1994. Municipal

responses are included in tables in this section for comparison

5. Applicable


5.1. What are the purposes of acquiring open space by your organization?

See Appendix E for “Other” responses

5.2. Has your organization partnered with Morris County in the use of this fund toacquire open space?


5.2.1. If your organization has not applied to the program, why?

See Appendix E for full comments

5.3. How has this program benefited your organization?

5.3.1. Economically? (e.g., increased property values, decreased costs, businessgrowth, etc.)

44%

100%

78%

89%

100%

33%

21%

56%

62%

74%

82%

87%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Other

Protect water supplies

Maintain scenic vistas

Prevent development

Natural resource protection

Recreational fields and facilities






Non-profits claimed the program helped them to achieve their missions and

cited community benefits such as quality of life.


5.3.2. Socially? (e.g., quality of life, public safety, communityengagement, etc.)

No responses

5.4. If your organization has a staff person or volunteers with responsibility for openspace preservation, including maintenance of your inventory, please provide theirname and contact information:


5.5. If your organization has never applied or has not recently applied for OSTF funds,please check the reasons why your municipality has not applied for open spacefunding:

Most non-profits did not answer this question.

5.6. Based on the above, what changes to the program can be implemented to benefitthe needs of your organization?

Non-profits requested reimbursement for soft costs and matching stewardship

grants. One non-profit expressed desire for involvement in the flood mitigation

program.


5.7. Does your organization have post-preservation plans to improve any propertiesfunded through this program that would require additional funding?


5.7.1. Please identify.Top responses included:

o Trail development.

o Signage.

o Parking.

o Wildlife management.

See Table D-2, Page D-40 (and full comments in Appendix E)5.7.2. Would it be beneficial to your organization to have a mechanism to fund

these improvements?







Non-profits supported the creation of a mechanism for post-preservation or

stewardship (trail connections and vegetated buffers). (See Appendix E for full

comments)


These seven comments all referred to stewardship (4), the application process

(3), or funding concerns (4). See Table D-2, Page D-40 (and full comments in

Appendix E)





6. Morris County Preservation Trust Fund – Potential Future Uses

Municipal responses are included in tables in this section for comparison

6.1. The following are several examples of potential future modifications to the MorrisCounty Preservation Trust Fund. Please indicate if your organization would be infavor of such changes as indicated:

Table D-1: Potential Future Uses for the Trust Fund

Percentages in this table are out of the total number of respondents for the

potential use. Actual numbers are also given for clarification. (See Appendix E

for “Other” responses)

6.2. Should the unused balances of funds from the various Trust Fund programs bere-allocated to others in the Trust Fund to meet current needs?

Municipalities % Land Non-Profits % HP Non-Profits %Yes 26 67% 6 67% 17 63%No 8 21% 2 22% 5 19%No Response 5 13% 1 11% 5 19%

Municipal-

ities

Land Non-

Profits

HP Non-

Profits2

Municipal-

ities

Land Non-

Profits

HP Non-

Profits2

Municipal-

ities

Land Non-

Profits

HP Non-

Profits2

20 2 8 3 4 2

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

24 5 12 2 2 1

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

26 6 8 3 3 0

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

29 8 7 1 1 0

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

20 4 12 2 4 2

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

24 3 6 2 5 2

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

Allow funding:

34 7 4 2 0 0

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

19 3 12 13 0 4 4 4 4

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

26 3 9 3 2 2

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

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

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

For infrastructure improvements such as dam removal and

repair, stream restoration, wetlands mitigation and storm

water management

Allow funding for post-preservation improvement projects:

To plan, design, and construct recreational trails and

bikeways

For Cultural and Heritage Tourism to promote the use of

parkland, agri-tourism, and historic sites

Community Gardens

Field Development

Habitat Restoration

Trails Development

Allow funding for the management and monitoring of open

spaces

Allow use of the Flood Mitigation portion for demolition and

reclamation

Strongly Support1

Somewhat Support1

Do Not Support1

Potential Use





7. Economic Impact


7.1. Are there any businesses that rely either directly or indirectly on the lands orproperties preserved through the Trust Fund by your organization? (e.g.,vendors, bike rentals, restaurants, concessions, bed & breakfasts, gas stations,etc.)

(Municipal responses are included for comparison).




7.2. Are there any future acquisitions by your organization that would be beneficial toMorris County’s economy?

Municipalities % Land Non-Profits % HP Non-Profits %Yes 13 33% 4 44% 2 7%No 22 56% 1 11% 21 78No Response 4 10% 4 44% 4 15



7.3. Are there any regular revenue-generating events held on land or at propertiespreserved by your organization through the Trust Fund?




7.4. Do any of the lands or properties preserved through the Trust Fund by yourorganization attract visitors from outside of the county?

Municipalities % Land Non-Profits % HP Non-Profits %

Yes 19 49% 8 88% 14 52No 18 46% 0 0% 5 19No Response 2 5% 1 11% 8 30

7.4.1. If yes, please provide an estimated number of visitors each generates.








OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES SUMMARY TABLE

Table D-2: Open-Ended Comments

Municipalities

Historic

Preservation Non-

Profits

Land Trust

Non-Profits

Community Benefits from Open Space AcquisitionsReduced Municipal Costs

736%

Increase Property Values7,12

64% 100%

Improved Business Growth7

29%

Quality of Life7,12

68% 44%

Social Opportunities7,12

39% 11%

Community Fitness/Recreation Opportunities7,12

39% 89%

Safety7,12,15

11% 33%

Desired Changes to Open Space Acquisitions

Increase Funding6,15

18% 56%

Allow Trail Construction6,15

14% 44%

Recreation Improvements/Stewardship/Maintenance6,15

55% 78%

Applications (Prioritize/Streamline/Increase Frequency)6

32%

Increase Awareness6

9%

Community Benefits from Historic Preservation

Bolster Character and Awareness of Local History5,8,13

63% 83% 60%

Improved Business Growth5,8,13

17% 50% 20%

Tourism5,8,13

33% 50% 20%

Desired Changes to the Historic Preservation Program

Increase Funding4,9

58% 20%

Maintenance/Improvement Costs/Signage4,9,14

21% 40% 22%

Increase Eligible Projects/Costs4,9,14

53% 75%

Increase Awareness4,9

21% 50%

Resource Sharing9

20%

Businesses that Benefit from Property Preservation

Restaurants3,11,16

50% 100% 33%

Hotels3,11

14% 43%

Gas Stations3,11

7% 57%

Shops3,11,16

21% 100% 67%

Revenue Generation on Preserved Properties

Event Hosting/Farm/Other Rentals2,10,17

91% 73% 100%

Concerts/Presentations

10

27%Tours

1013%

Merchandise2,10

9% 20%

Post-Preservation Plans

Trail Installation/Improvement1,18

62% 50%

Field Development1

19%

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

50% 88%

Maintenance1

15%

Historic Preservation1

15%

Invasive Species/Wildlife Management1,18

8% 25%

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

2. Municipalities - out of 11 responses of revenue generation

3. Municipalities - out of 14 respondents with business benefits

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

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

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

7. Municipalities - out of 38 respondents with examples of community benefits of open space8. HP Non-Profits - out of 24 respondents of community benefits of historic preservation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Open Ended Response

Percentage Volunteering Each Response



Documents

Appendix D - Questionnaire Results Summary