Lancaster County commissioners Chairman Scott Martin did something Wednesday he hadn't done since he took office in 2008.

He voted against appropriating county money for farmland preservation.

It's not that Martin is against farmland preservation, he said.

Rather, he feels the way the county's preservation program is funded needs to be changed.

"I just can't see how we can continue to borrow money and do things at this pace," he said. "We have to lay down a marker and say in order for the program to be sustainable moving forward we absolutely have to find an alternate revenue source."

Martin added, "In order for us to continue to make this a Lancaster County value, we need to do this a little differently, because right now, quite frankly, we're swimming in debt."

Those were among the comments Martin offered before the board of commissioners voted 2-1 in favor of dedicating $4.13 million to farmland preservation in the county this year.

Of that total, the county likely will have to borrow $3.85 million.

The rest would come from interest earnings, municipalities that preserved farms last year and other sources.

Martin cast the lone "no" vote. Commissioners Craig Lehman and Dennis Stuckey voted in favor of the measure.

"If we want to maintain our agricultural heritage, and if we want to make sure farming remains healthy in Lancaster County, to me, now is the time to maintain a strong program here," Lehman said.

"Granted, the program has been scaled back over the last several years, but that has been done primarily because of resources and the economic times in which we live.

"But now is not the time to unilaterally disarm."

The $4.13 million dedicated to farmland preservation this year is down from the $5 million appropriated last year, and less than half of the $9.3 million pledged in 2008 to forever protect county farmland from development.

The 2012 allocation includes $3.3 million for the county Agricultural Preserve Board, a $700,000 challenge grant for the private, nonprofit Lancaster Farmland Trust and $150,000 in matching funds set aside for townships that want to preserve farmland.

How much the county earmarks for the Ag Preserve Board is critical when the county competes for its share of the state funds annually distributed by the state Department of Agriculture's Bureau of Farmland Preservation.

Lancaster County historically has drawn the most money because it historically has dedicated the most local funds.

This year, the state is expected to divide $23 million — collected via a tax on cigarette sales — among the counties with farmland preservation programs.

With about 91,000 acres of preserved farmland, Lancaster County has more agricultural land protected from development than any other county in the nation.

But Martin said attaining that nation-leading spot has come at a high price to Lancaster County taxpayers.

In 2012, he said, the county's debt service will be more than $23 million — making it the second-highest line item on the county's entire budget, trailing only the courts system.

The county has $251 million in debt principal. With interest, according to Martin, the total is $400 million in debt.

"I'm not saying quit farmland preservation," Martin said. "I'm saying let's slow down a bit while we look for some way to fund it other than just the county taxpayers."

But Lehman countered that taxpayers have told the commissioners through various surveys that farmland preservation is something they are willing to spend money for.

And, he said, the program's impact on the county's debt service is minimal.

"The debt service costs at the county aren't solely being increased by programs like farmland preservation and urban enhancement," he said. "There are other capital projects that are driving that debt service cost, just as much, in fact I would argue, more.

"Unplanned capital projects," Lehman said, are having a bigger impact on the debt service.

He named two — the $8 million settlement with Ira Trocki to resolve his claim that the county paid an unfair price when it took from him by eminent domain in 2004 the building at 150 N. Queen St. that now houses many county departments; and the purchase last year of a 4-acre property on Erin Court in East Hempfield Township for $4.5 million to house the county Children & Youth Agency.

Moving the agency is required since the previous board of commissioners sold Children & Youth's current home as part of the sale of the entire Conestoga View Nursing Home property in 2005.

At the time of the Conestoga View sale, no arrangement was made for relocating Children & Youth, which has been leasing space from Complete HealthCare, which owns the property.

"It's the unplanned capital projects that are driving our debt service more so than the programs that we're talking about here today," Lehman said. "Farmland preservation is a needed program in Lancaster County — it is a supported program in Lancaster County."

preilly@lnpnews.com