PAXTON — The Ford County Board’s farm committee advanced a proposal to the full board Wednesday to seek sealed bids from farmers for the cash-rent leasing of all three county-owned farms for the next five years.
In doing so, the five-member committee voted to recommend the board also move forward with simultaneously seeking sealed bids from nonprofit groups interested in serving for the next five years as the so-called “operator” of just one of the farms — the Hatfield/Bowen Farm, also known as “Farm 3,” in Button Township — upon its potential enrollment into the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve Program.
If the plan is approved by the 12-member board during its next meeting on Monday, Aug. 11, the board would either accept the highest cash-rent lease bids received for each farm, continuing to keep all three in agricultural production, or instead accept the highest cash-rent lease bids for only two of the farms — the Bowen/Grider Farm, or “Farm 2,” in Button Township and the Ford County Nursing Home Farm, or “Farm 1,” in Patton Township — while accepting a CRP operator bid for the third. Or, if no bids are to the board’s liking, it could reject them all.
NIEWOLD
The committee’s chairman, District 2 board member Greg Niewold of rural Loda, said the bidding process would get under way once a proposed CRP operator lease agreement is finalized. The committee agreed to continue its meeting to 4 p.m. Wednesday, Aug. 6, for the sole purpose of reviewing the lease’s language and finalizing the document for board approval on Aug. 11.
Niewold said he has been working on the proposed CRP operator lease since February with State’s Attorney Andrew Killian, who recently indicated it was “90% complete.” Niewold said he planned to meet with Killian prior to the continued committee meeting to finish drafting it.
Niewold noted that the possibility of enrolling Farm 3 into CRP would not only depend on what bids are received but also on whether the USDA will be allowed to enroll more land. If Congress does not extend the 2018 Farm Bill or pass a new one, Niewold said, the USDA will “not be allowed to enroll new acres” into CRP after Sept. 30.
In the event CRP enrollment is possible — and the board pursues a lease with an operator instead of keeping Farm 3 in crop production — Farm 3 would be enrolled into the program for 10 years. The operator lease, though, would be for only five years — the maximum term allowed under state law — which is concerning to Niewold.
Niewold said the county might encounter a “liability issue” if, for example, its CRP operator would choose to not continue its lease beyond five years and the county would be unable to find a replacement, “leaving the county in a federal program that we are financially responsible for.”
“There is a level of risk possibly with that, sure,” District 2 board member Cindy Ihrke of rural Roberts acknowledged.
Even so, Ihrke said, she feels CRP is the best option for Farm 3, which historically has produced lower crop yields than the county’s other two farms. Not only would CRP enrollment be “the best thing for the longevity of the ground,” Ihrke said, but it also would open it up for public use — something she feels the county is constitutionally required to do anyway.
Money, though, may be the deciding factor on whether the board pursues CRP or instead crop production on Farm 3. Years of debate, after all, have centered around that topic.
“We’re going to throw both of (those options) at the wall and see what sticks,” Niewold said.
The proposal to seek bids for Farm 3 originally contained language stating that the county would accept “the bid of the highest net value between the two options.” That language was removed, though, before the committee’s 4-1 vote to advance the proposal.
Ihrke, the lone board member in dissent, questioned how the sealed bidding process would be kept fair when per-acre CRP payment rates are publicly known and posted online. However, other board members then noted that the CRP operator bids would be for a percentage of that rate — not the rate itself.
Five-year lease term
All three of the leases would run from Dec. 1, 2025 — a day after the existing cash-rent leases with farmer Nick Purcell expire — through Nov. 30, 2030.
Board members debated briefly about the term length. Niewold advocated for a five-year term for the cash-rent leases, rather than continuing to enter into two-year leases for Farms 1 and 2 and one-year leases for Farm 3 as it has in the recent past.
“As a farmer, I think one of the biggest problems that we have with maintenance and issues (at the farms) is that there’s no incentive (for the tenant) at all to take care of the farm — none,” Niewold said. “You are more apt to leave it in an unkempt state for the next guy if it is not (a longer-term investment).”
“Or at least do the bare minimum,” District 3 board member Garrett Kerber added.
Niewold also noted that a longer-term lease would allow for the county to budget the projected farm revenue accordingly, years out, giving board members and taxpayers alike some “security.”
“We will know, for the next five years, ‘Here’s the income,’” Niewold told his colleagues.
Ihrke pointed out that a five-year lease was discussed by the board previously, though, but rejected.
“We felt like we were probably losing out on money by keeping (the agreement locked) in for that long,” Ihrke said. “If you get a low bid, you’re locked into that low bid for five years.”
“We can vote ‘no,’” Niewold replied. “We can accept bids or not accept a bid if we don’t like the bids. … We can just say ‘no.’”
“Historically, nobody’s had the guts to do that,” Ihrke responded, “because everybody just wants to get it done.”
District 1 board member Tom McQuinn of rural Paxton questioned whether soil testing and nutrient replenishment would still be required after each growing season. Niewold told McQuinn that the requirement would remain in each cash-rent lease.
Leases set to expire
Through the end of this November, all three farms are being leased for crop production by Purcell.
In March, the board voted 9-1 to accept Purcell’s $320-per-acre bid for the cash-rent leasing of the 125.7 tillable acres of the 157-acre Farm 3 for just this crop season. Purcell had already been farming the two other farms under two-year cash-rent leases that went into effect in Jan. 2024. Purcell is required to pay $410 per acre for the lease of 104-acre Farm 1 and $380 per acre for the lease of 147-acre Farm 2, along with all three farms’ property taxes.
Farm 3 sat idle in 2024 amid persisting disagreement over its use. As the planting season was already getting under way in June 2024, the board failed to approve Purcell’s bid of $125 per acre — which was well below his winning bid of $370 per acre from the year prior — to farm the land via a one-year cash-rent lease.
Also failing to receive enough votes that month was a separate proposal to enter into a contract with the Loda Sportsman’s Club as CRP operator. The local nonprofit group, the only bidder for the operator contract, would have collected 5% of the county’s CRP revenue — equal to $1,682 of the $33,642 the county would have received annually at a guaranteed federal rate of $267 per acre.
The county needs a nonprofit to assume the role of farm operator because the county is not eligible to directly receive CRP payments due to its annual income exceeding $1 million, board members have said.
Lease language changes
The farm committee also voted Wednesday to recommend the full board approve language changes to the proposed cash-rent lease agreements.
Sections of the lease were amended to add language that requires the tenant to “abide by township road easements and right-of-ways, as marked by township road commissioner,” and to “prevent noxious weeds from going to seed on said premises and … keep the weeds and grass cut.”
Also added: “Ditches are to be cut twice a year at a minimum, but specifically at least once before harvest, and not between dates that coincide with the USDA nesting season. No mowing of road ditches (is) to be done without prior written approval of the township road commissioner. If the tenant wishes to not mow the road ditch due to any actual or perceived right-of-way or easement issues, it will be left to the township to mow their roadways.”
Also, “no hunting of any type is permissible on the property under any circumstances without prior authorization and vote of the Ford County Board.”
Lastly, a change was made to specifically allow for the production of hay on the farms, in addition to corn and soybeans. Niewold noted that a producer of hay for use as animal feed had said last spring that he would be interested in leasing one or more of the farms if he were permitted to grow hay instead.
“That’s why that’s included,” Niewold told the committee.
As for the language pertaining to right-of-ways and easements, Niewold said it was added specifically due to issues that have come up in recent months at Farm 2, including claims by Button Township Highway Commissioner Ron Hilligoss that Purcell planted crops in the township’s roadside right-of-way.
Ihrke and McQuinn said Hilligoss had the area surveyed to confirm the precise location of the right-of-way in question, and they visited the site Wednesday morning to see the surveyor stakes for themselves. The stakes confirmed that the right-of-way is “off-center” from the middle of the roadway and that Hilligoss’ claims appear to be right, Ihrke and McQuinn said.
“If you stand and hold a tape measure right on the peg that the surveyor put in the road and you go (35 feet to the roadside), there are four full rows of corn that are in that easement,” McQuinn said. “Where (Purcell has been) putting the crop kept getting closer and closer and closer to the ditch, and now he’s right there.”
Added Ihrke: “He’s also a certain number of feet on the township property with his crop, according to Mr. Hilligoss. I did not (see) surveyed property lines there, but you can see where the corn has been planted through oil-and-chip that he had put down on his parking lot.”
District 3 board member Sarah Mussman then said: “I don’t understand why, all of a sudden, this is an issue?”
“Part of it is the fact that (Purcell) planted corn through Ronnie’s road there in the back,” McQuinn replied. “It was not that way last year even.”
“I looked down at the ground, and I’m like, ‘Oh, my god — he planted through it,’” recalled Ihrke. “You could tell it was like a tar-and-chip area that was put there, and there’s corn coming up through it.”
Farming into the roadside ditch is causing erosion and drainage problems, too, board members said.
“Because that has happened, dirt has rolled off and erosion has happened, and it’s gone down into the culverts and it’s starting to change the water flow on the other end of the culvert (on the other side of the road),” Ihrke said.
McQuinn suggested that future leases require tenants to keep their crops out of the right-of-way.
“To me, it may not fix it — it may still happen — but if it’s a problem, you’ve got a way to deal with it,” McQuinn said.
Ihrke suggested asking Hilligoss to “stake off” the right-of-way so that no one is unclear about its location.
IRAP update
The committee also discussed the topic of whether to re-enroll Farm 3’s 30 acres of nontillable pasture into the Illinois Department of Natural Resources’ Illinois Recreational Access Program (IRAP), making the land open for public hunting via a lottery each fall.
The entire 157-acre farm — including all 127 of its tillable acres and about 30 acres of nontillable pasture ground — was already enrolled before the board invalidated its lease with the IDNR earlier this year upon discovering that it was signed by the board’s then-chairman, Debbie Smith of Paxton, but never approved by the board. Meanwhile, a separate, 10-year lease for the nontillable pasture remains in place with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, which is using the ground for a prairie restoration project.
In preparation for potentially re-enrolling the land into IRAP, Niewold said he recently contacted IDNR officials, who answered his questions. First, they told him that the program’s requirement that at least 40 acres be enrolled — more than the 30 available — is only a “general rule of thumb” and “somewhat flexible.”
The IDNR officials also answered his question about whether the program would cover the county’s civil liability in the event of an accident at the enrolled acreage, which would be opened up for youth firearm deer hunting season in early October and archery deer hunting season for adults and youth in late October and late December.
“IDNR cannot provide legal advice and does not indemnify other parties,” Niewold said, reciting their response. “Basically, they’re not going to cover our butts. So that’s on us.”
While the Illinois Recreational Use of Leased Land Act limits liability for recreation-related injuries on private land leased to the IDNR, it does not apply to county land or other public land, Niewold noted, referencing IDNR materials.
“IRAP does not extend its liability coverage to government-owned land, including county property,” Niewold continued. “Therefore, IDNR cannot insure county land through IRAP because the program’s legal framework and funding mechanisms only apply to private land leased to the state.”
Niewold said the board’s chairman, District 3’s Chase McCall of Gibson City, subsequently reviewed the county’s liability insurance policy provided by the Counties of Illinois Risk Management Agency (CIRMA) to determine if the county’s own insurance would cover liability in a hunting accident, for example. According to Niewold, McCall said the policy “excludes indemnification from any claim for damages, whether direct or consequential, for bodily injury, personal injury or property damage.”
“CIRMA told him … that under that clause, they would provide legal counsel, (but) any claim provided would be due on the county to pay,” Niewold said. “So IDNR says, ‘You’re not getting any coverage from us. You’re on your own. Good luck.’ And CIRMA says, ‘We’ll have an attorney in court for you, but if you lose or there’s a judgment, you, Ford County, are paying the judgment.’ … My takeaway is we’re going to get hung out to dry if any incident happens. The state’s not going to cover us, and CIRMA has said, ‘We’re not going to do anything besides give you an attorney.’”
Meanwhile, Ihrke contended that state laws applying to land open for public use — as the farm would be — might protect the county from liability.
Niewold said he planned to meet with the state’s attorney to discuss the legalities further.
Other matters
Also Wednesday, the committee discussed maintenance projects needed on Farm 3. Niewold said a form was submitted to the local USDA Farm Service Agency office seeking approval of the projects because they involve highly erodible soils.
The projects include the removal of trees and hedge rows and the restoration of the farm’s waterways, which have been damaged by farm plows and prolonged neglect. The county continues to await word on the paperwork’s approval, Niewold said.
The committee also discussed a proposal to modify Farm 3’s leased acreage but took no action.
“I have not heard back from Mr. Killian after repeated asks,” Niewold said.
In May, Niewold proposed correcting the cash-rent lease agreement for Farm 3, saying the leased acreage should be lowered to reflect what is actually farmable. According to Niewold, Purcell questioned how the county arrived at its 125.7-acre number, when he ended up planting crops on only 119.8 acres.
Continued meeting
The committee continued its meeting to 4 p.m. Wednesday, Aug. 6, in the board room in the basement of the sheriff’s office and jail at 235 N. American St. in Paxton. The meeting is open to the public.