HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-02-1999 - 10e
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 2. 1999
Agenda Abstract
Item # /O
SUBJECT: FINAL REPORT - 1998 AGRICULTURAL SURVEY
DEPARTMENT: Environment and Resource Conservation PUBLIC HEARING: _ Yes No
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: _ Yes Na
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
Don Belk, Preservation Planner/ 594
Final Report, 1998 Agricultural Survey Sarah Magruder, InterNX2591
PHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Mebane 227-2031
Durham 688-7331
Chapel Hill 967-9251
PURPOSE: To present a report on the 1998 Agricultural Survey.
BACKGROUND: The Agricultural Districts Advisory Board, at the request of the C
Economic Development Commission, participated in the update of
Development Strategic Plan: Sustaining a Quality Community Thro
Economic Growth. During late 1995, ADAB organized a subcommittee
Agriculture component for the Strategic Plan update.
The Economic Development Strategic Plan was adopted by the Boar
Commissioners on May 14, 1996. Within the Agriculture goal, one of 1
Development Commission's stated objectives was to ". encourage
determine the financial viability of farming in Orange County. The study
on ways to improve the financial position of farmers and should inclua
limited to: low interest debt financing, tax options, local subsidies, and pla
related to development rights. A comprehensive survey of local agricult
should be part of the study. "
In addition to adoption of the Economic Development Strategic Plan,
County Commissioners adopted a Farmland Preservation Goal for fiscal
which stated: "Conduct survey of the farm community. Incorporate n
cooperative ARAB/EDC effort to address strategies to preserve econon
Orange County agriculture."
The 1998 Agricultural Survey, Keeping Farmers Farming: A Survey of
Facing Orange County Farmers, is the product of these initiatives.
age County
Economic
t Balanced
produce an
of Counry
Economic
a study to
hould focus
but not be
ping options
al business
Board of
ar 1997-98
lts into the
viability of
Challenges
2
BACKGROiJND: The survey instrument was developed by Alexandra Elias, a graduate student
(continued) from the Department of City and Regional Planning of the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. The survey was refined by the Agricultural Districts
Advisory Board and the Planning Department staff. The survey mailing list was
provided by the Cooperative Extension Service. The Economic Development
Commission covered postage costs for the survey.
The survey was endorsed by the Orange County Soil and Water Conservation District
Board of Supervisors and publicized in local media outlets. It was mailed to 583
Orange County farmers and agriculturists in late January 1998. The results of the
survey were compiled by Sarah Magruder, Planning Intern.
RECOMII~NDATION:
For information and discussion purposes only.
3
1998 Agricultural Survey
Orange County, North Carolina
Sponsored by:
Orange County Agricultural Districts Advisory Board &
Orange Soil and Water Conservation District
Staff:
Don Belk, Preservation Planner
Sarah Magruder, Graduate Intern
Executive Summary
The total number of survey responses received was 165 from a sample size of 535, a response
rate of 30.8%. The first section of the survey related to Finding an Adequate Labor Supply.
Results from the initial tabulations show that more people employed on agriculture operations in
Orange County are from outside the household than within the family unit. Fifty percent (50%)
of survey respondents report having difficulty hiring outside the family. The inability to offer a
competitive wage was the reason most cited.
The second section addressed Environmental Regulations. A majority of farmers noted an
increase in the environmental regulations that affect their operation over the last 10 years. A
majority of respondents cited County watershed regulations as having the most significant
impact on their operation. As related to Taxes, most respondents (79%) are taxed at agricultural
use value. Under Profrtability, 20% of the respondents reported an operation that did not make a
profit. Chemical and fertilizer costs are the largest of several factors limiting the profits of
farmers.
In the section Changes in Land Use, two-thirds (67%) of respondents noted changes in the land
bordering their property, with most citing residential development as the new use. Forty-nine
percent (49%) felt development has adversely affected their operations, while 42% said
development activity near their farm has had no effect on operations. Farmers were asked about
a number of Operational Hindrances. A majority of farmers cited crop loss from wildlife as the
major operational hindrance they face. Over three-fourths (76%) of respondents agreed that
operational hindrances are worse now than a decade ago. A quarter of respondents stated they
get complaints from their non-farming neighbors, primarily related to odors.
Section G of the survey addressed History and Future of the agricultural operation. Orange
County farming families have operated their farms an average of 54 years, and only 8% stated
they had no future plans of continuing their operations. Most (60%) respondents hope to
continue their operation within the family, and most (59%) reported their interest in agriculture
as increasing or remaining the same. When asked what would most influence their decisions to
discontinue farming, 70% of respondents stated that more restrictive planning and zoning
regulations would be the deciding factor. The single largest factor influencing a decision to
1998 Orange County Agricultural Survey
a
discontinue operation was more restrictive planning and zoning regulations, cited by 70% of
respondents.
The final section of the survey described a number of policy proposals and preservation
measures. Respondents mostly (70%) supported the idea of an Agriculture Advocate, who
would serve as a liaison between farmers and various government agencies. Forty percent (40%)
of respondents would like to see a "Farm Link" or Farm Finder program to help young persons
interesting in entering farming as a livelihood.
Three different conservation scenarios were described, where farmers were asked if they would
consider a conservation easement, a purchase of development rights program, or a transfer of
development rights program. Although a majority said no, nearly the same number of
respondents said they would like to find out more about farmland preservation programs.
Introduction
The Agricultural Districts Advisory Board (ARAB) was created in 1987, and charged with advising
the Board of County Commissioners on issues affecting the agricultural economy of Orange
County. The Agricultural Districts Advisory Board applies a comprehensive approach to
farmland preservation, with an emphasis on public education and voluntary landowner
initiatives. ADAB contends that farmland as a resource is best preserved by protecting the properly
rights and property values of the farmland owner. The goals of rural preservation, which
encompass the conservation of prime farmland, the scenic vistas of the agricultural landscape, the
family farm tradition, and the economic viability of agriculture in Orange County, aze best served
by keeping farming a profitable enterprise.
In keeping with this fundamental principle, the Agricultural Districts Advisory Boazd, at the request
of the Orange County Economic Development Commission, participated in the update of the
Economic Development Strategic Plan: Sustaining a Quality Community Through Balanced
Economic Growth. During late 1995, ARAB organized a subcommittee to produce an Agriculture
component for the Strategic Plan update.
The Economic Development Strategic Plan was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on
May 14, 1996. Within the Agriculture goal, one of the Economic Development Commission's
stated objectives was to "... encourage a study to determine the financial viability of farming in
Orange County. The study should focus on ways to improve the financial position of farmers and
should include but not be limited to: low interest debt financing, tax options, local subsidies, and
planning options related to development rights. A comprehensive survey of local agricultural
business should be part of the study. "
The inclusion of agricultural goals within the Economic Development Strategic Plan will ensure
that agricultural concerns are wholly integrated into the County's economic development policies in
the coming years. It also creates a partnership between agricultural and economic development
interests, which could result in new opportunities for agriculture-related businesses and new
markets for existing agricultural concerns. Most importantly, it demonstrates to citizens of Orange
County that Agriculture is a foundation of the economy that will be vital to the future growth and
prosperity of the County.
1998 Orange County Agricultural Survey
5
In addition to adoption of the Economic Development Strategic Plan, the Board of County
Commissioners adopted a Farmland Preservation Goal for fiscal year 1997-98 which stated:
"Conduct survey of the farm community. Incorporate results into the cooperative ADAB/EDC
effort to address strategies to preserve economic viability of Orange County agriculture."
The 1998 Agricultural Survey, Keeping Farmers Farming:A Survey of the Challenges Facing
Orange County Farmers, is the product of these initiatives.
Development of the Survey Instrument
The survey instrument was developed during Spring 1996 by Alexandra Elias, a graduate student
from the Department of City and Regional Planning of the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill. During a `pilot' survey to a selected group of agriculturists with previous
involvement in County advisory boards and committees, several obstacles to completing a
successful survey were identified.
The issues of concern were confidentiality of responses and the intended purpose of the survey.
These obstacles were indicative of uneasiness. among the farm community about County land use
regulations and policies. There was also a considerable degree of mistrust from farmers about
providing potentially sensitive information to a County agency. Several pilot survey respondents
cited an unfortunate instance that occurred in the late 1980s as a source of this apprehension. A
survey on irrigation practices, conducted by another County agency on behalf of the State, had
garnered a high rate of response. However, approximately a year later, there was a proposal by
the Town of Hillsborough to regulate the amount of water farmers had been pumping from their
ponds. When the survey was cited as evidence of the need for new regulations, farmers were
outraged. This situation severely damaged the credibility of the County among a group of
citizens who are traditionally wary of government. The sensitivity of this issue a decade later
demonstrated the need for the ADAB to be forthright in its communications with the farming
community about the 1998 survey.
The survey was refined by the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board and the Planning
Department staff during the next several months to address the concerns raised during the pilot
survey. The original Elias survey was condensed for both ease of response and to focus the
questions on respondents' attitudes toward the changes to agriculture rendered by the rapid
growth of the County. The final version of the survey is provided as Appendix A.
Survey Sponsorship and Distribution
The ADAB decided to find anagriculture-related entity to sponsor the survey to enhance its
credibility and foster a greater rate of response. In December 1997, a proposal was made to the
Orange Soil and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors to endorse and sponsor the
agricultural survey. In January 1998, the District Board of Supervisors agreed to endorse the
survey. The survey cover letter, signed by the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, is provided
as Appendix D.
A mailing list provided by the Orange County Cooperative Extension Service was utilized for
distribution of the survey. The sample included all known producers of agricultural products in
Orange County. Size of operation was not a factor in developing the list; thus, the sample
included one-person beekeeping or vegetable farm operations, as well as the largest dairy, beef,
1998 Orange County Agricultural Survey
6
and tobacco farms. Equine operations (horse farms) were included in the sample. A total of 583
surveys were mailed in late January 1998.
Methodology of Result Tabulation
The total number of survey responses received was 165. Forty-eight were returned as
undeliverable. In order to find the percentage of response, the undeliverable (48) were
subtracted from 583 (total mailed), yielding a total of 535 surveys delivered. Then, the total of
responses received (165) was divided by the total of surveys delivered (535), yielding a response
rate of 30.8%. Out of the 165 total respondents, 159 surveys were used for tabulation, as some
were returned blank or from citizens who didn't have an agricultural operation.
All surveys included apostage-paid envelope for returning responses. Survey responses were
mailed to the Soil and Water Conservation District office, where they were collected by the
graduate intern. The intern opened all envelopes and entered the responses into a Microsoft
Access database. After tabulations were completed, the individual survey forms were destroyed.
This procedure ensured the confidentiality of responders. (Although not required, several
responders wrote their names and addresses on the survey forms.)
The tabulation of survey responses was performed in order to obtain aggregate results instead of
individual ones. Although the intent of some questions was to find the respondent's individual
preferences ranked in order, this was not possible due to varied methods of answering the
questions. Many respondents did not follow the directions to "rank in order" or "mark only
one". Since more than one choice was often checked, each response received a single count.
Each option presented in the questions had a 100% chance of being chosen. Although the total
number of surveys equaled 159, various respondents did not answer each question. As a result,
the raw numbers of answers in the "total #" column do not always sum to 159.
The figures representing numbers of workers employed by the agricultural operation were not
figured out of 100%. Since they are raw numbers of workers, there is not a maximum number of
employees possible. In addition, the average years of operation was also not figured in terms of
percent.
Lastly, the responses to the policy questions at the end of the survey were often marked with
more than one choice. It was common for the respondent to mark "no" with "need more
information". It was difficult to obtain an accurate gauge of the individual responses in those
categories since there was a higher percentage in each from being consolidated. A spreadsheet
of aggregated results from the survey is provided as Appendix B.
The last page of the survey provided an opportunity for respondents to provide further remarks.
Many comments were received from survey respondents, covering a range of issues that address
their concerns for the future of farming as well as suggestions for new methods of achieving
their visions. These comments are included as Appendix C.
Highlighted Results of Survey Questions
Several of the results obtained from the survey responses echoed many familiar sentiments
expressed within Orange County. These highlighted results address many of the farmers'
perceptions of changes in land surrounding or otherwise affecting their operations. Also noted
1998 Orange County Agricultural Survey
7
are the responses regarding environmental regulations and factors hindering the individual
agricultural operation. In addition, the survey highlighted responses to policy options for Orange
County including such programs as an agricultural advocate and transfer of development rights.
Why are farmers farming, and what are their plans for the future?
Farmers are farming for a multitude of reasons. Many responses were closely ranked, with 69%
of respondents citing the love of the rural atmosphere as the primary reason. Many farmers
expressed their enjoyment of the independence offered by the farming lifestyle. Over half of
Orange County's farmers are engaged in agriculture in order to support themselves and their
families. When asked what their future plans entailed, 60% stated they were going to continue
agriculture within their families. Fourteen percent (14%) stated they planned to keep part of
their property in agriculture.
Perceptions of changes in land uses surrounding individual farm
When asked about changes in land uses bordering the farmer's operation, two-thirds (67%)
responded that changes have occurred in the last 10 years. Sixty percent (60%) of the changes
noted were new residential developments. This was the majority response, as the next largest
category of uses noted was a change in fanm activity at 19%. Forty-nine percent (49%) of
respondents felt that the activities of the new developments near their operations had adversely
affected their farms. However, 42% of respondents noted no detrimental effects from
development.
Factors hindering the individual operations and perceptions of neighbors
Respondents were asked to rate several problems that hinder their operations, ranging from
property theft and vandalism to crop loss from wildlife. The loss of crops due to wildlife was
rated by 53% of respondents. The next largest problem hindering farmers' operations was
dealing with non-farming neighbors. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of respondents stated this as a
problem. When asked if these problems were worse now than a decade ago, an overwhelming
76% said yes.
Twenty-three percent (23%) of respondents acknowledged receiving complaints from neighbors.
Sixteen percent (16%) of respondents reported receiving complaints about odors from their
agricultural operation.
Perceptions of environmental regulations and those that influence the choice to discontinue
farming
Seventy-two percent (72%) of survey respondents stated that environmental regulations at all
levels affected their operations. While Federal, State, and County regulations all received votes,
the County watershed regulations received the most. Fifty-two percent (52%) of respondents
noted that these regulations affect their operations. Close behind at 45% were the NC waste
management rules. Following in a close third were the Federal Clean Water Act regulations. In
the narrative comments that were permitted at the end of the survey, several respondents
lambasted County watershed regulations. The County's stringent stream buffer requirements,
and the fact that County regulations exceed State requirements, were two points of contention.
1998 Orange County Agricultural Survey
When asked which factors would influence the respondent's decision to discontinue their
operation, 70% noted that more restrictive planning and zoning regulations would contribute to
this choice. The other options followed closely behind, with increasing urban pressures and
environmental regulations receiving 65% of the votes.
The results under Section B -Environmental Regulations suggest that local planning regulations
have a greater influence on the farmer's perception of the burden of environmental regulations
than do state and federal requirements.
Taxes and Profttability
Nineteen percent (19%) of respondents report their agricultural operation is not profitable, while
38% report a profit and 35% indicated their operation broke even. When asked what factors
limit profitability, most respondents indicated equipment and chemical costs as the major
factors.
As expected, a large number (79%) of respondents stated that their land is taxed at agricultural
use value. A large majority of respondents (70%) also stated that taxes are a strong factor in the
profitability of their operation. Although farmers participating in the Present Use program enjoy
a significant tax break on their land, over 75% of the respondents would like to see a reduction in
taxes on farm machinery, buildings, and residences.
Taxes are a testy issue for farmers. In several conversations between active farmers and
Planning staff, it became apparent that many farmers feel the general public misunderstands how
tax issues affect the farming community. Without question, the present use program is a
substantial benefit for farmland owners, greatly lowering their tax liability on large tracts of land.
Clearly, this tax break allows many agriculturists to stay in business. The present use program
also ensures an adequate land supply, as many non-farming landowners keep land in the program
by leasing it to full-time farmers.
Despite this advantage, however, even the reduced taxes on farmland must still be factored into
the farmer's operational costs. Farmers pay taxes at full market value on their dwelling and
houselot, the same as other Orange County citizens, and many farmers also pay property taxes on
dwellings they provide for farmworkers. Furthermore, full time farmers pay taxes on equipment
such as tractors, harvesters, and combines. Many farmers consider this particularly onerous,
especially when other landowners -not full time farmers -can own tractors and other equipment
without this tax liability.
Proposed programs jor Orange County Agriculturists and Citizens
Proposals for new agricultural preservation programs within Orange County were supported,
while others received less favorable responses. Many people responded that they needed more
information concerning the proposals, signaling a need for education programs if these options
were further pursued.
Survey respondents overwhelmingly supported the' idea of an Agriculture Advocate who would
serve as a liaison between farmers and various government agencies. Seventy percent (70%) of
farmers said they would be interested in seeing this position created. Many respondents stated
the individual should have farming experience and be chosen by the farmers. Respondents also
1998 Orange County Agricultural Survey
stressed that additional tax dollars should not be used to fund this position, instead being
supported by existing funds.
Support for a program matching existing farmers with those interested in beginning an operation
was also expressed. Forty percent (40%) of those surveyed agreed that they would be interested
in supporting such a "Farm Link" or "Farm Finder" program. Some respondents expressed
particular interest, citing their own desire to learn how to expand their operations and learn new
aspects of the trade. Some were hesitant, expressing the need to make sure that new farmers
were genuinely interested in the venture while understanding the difficulties of farming today.
While a majority of respondents stated that Conservation Easements, Purchase of Development
Rights, and Transfer of Development Rights were not for them, many also responded that they
needed more information before making a decision. Thirty-five to forty percent (35-40%) of
respondents wanted more information regarding these programs, while a similar percentage did
not express support. Between 15 and 20% of farmers support preservation programs such as
these. Some citizens said they felt programs such as these were important in retaining open
space and wildlife habitats, while those opposing easements, PDRs and TDRs, did not want to
donate or sell development rights on any part of their land, instead leaving it unencumbered for
future generations.
Genera! Comments
Survey respondents were invited to express their concerns in the comment section following the
survey questions. A large number of respondents provided remarks that displayed many
heartfelt opinions of their experiences here in Orange County. Concerns covered topics such as
low commodity prices, the dominance of Chapel Hill in county affairs, lack of agricultural
facilities, and regulatory hardships. Farmers were very open about the problems facing their
operations, as well as their dreams of maintaining a successful business for their children and
grandchildren.
Many farmers expressed frustration at land use restrictions in Orange County, particularly
watershed regulations. Because Orange County watershed regulations are stricter than the state
mandated rules, farmers feel they are bearing an undue burden. As a result, many have decided
to move operations outside of the County.
Residential development is also causing some farmers to relocate to neighboring counties.
Farmers are noticing the increases in development near their land, and lament the problems that
usually follow this trend. The influx of new residents into traditional agricultural areas has lead
to increases in complaints about their operations.
The influence of Chapel Hill is also a concern for many farmers in the rural quarters of Orange
County. Many feel that the concerns of Chapel Hillians often dominate the policies of the
County due to greater political representation. With most of the County's population located in
the Chapel Hill township, many farmers feel that policies are decided upon by those living in the
southeastern corner of the County. Farmers feel under-represented in crafting policies ultimately
affecting the mostly rural northern sections of the County.
Taxes are also a large concern for farmers. Most farmers' land is in the Present Use program
with large tax breaks for agricultural land. However, the land under their houses and their
1998 Orange County Agricultural Survey
10
residences are taxed at the same rate as other County property owners. Coupled with the need to
pay taxes on machinery as well, many farmers see taxes as an additional burden to their
operations. Lower taxes on machinery and farm buildings would be beneficial for many.
Farmers have mixed feelings concerning farmland preservation programs here in Orange County.
Some feel that programs such as these would be an excellent way for their farms to be protected
from further development, while others stated they weren't interested in the programs. Many
farmers expressed interest in knowing more about the preservation programs. Lastly, farmers
overwhelmingly support the creation of an agricultural advocate position to act as a liaison
between government and themselves.
1998 Orange County Agricultural Survey
Appendix A
Keeping Farmers Farming:A
Survey of the Challenges
Facing Orange County
Farmers
Keeping Farmers Farming: A Survey of the Challenges Facing Orange County Farmers i2
Keeping Farmers Farming:
A Survey of the Challenges Facing Orange County Farmers
*Note to respondents: Information gathered in this survey will remain the property of the stttd~nt researcher
and be held in strictest confidence. Only the total results will be reported to the Agricultural. Districts
Advisory Board.
Purpose: The purpose of this survey is to determine the major challenges faced by Orange County farmers and
to learn to what extent the county's rapid suburban growth is presenting obstacles to running a successful
agricultural operation. The results of this survey will be used by the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board, a
citizen advisory group, in making recommendations for policy changes that will serve the farmer's interest.
Directions: This survey should be completed by the farm owner or primary farmer in the household. If you
do not understand a question, or do not feel comfortable answering a question, please leave it blank. There is a
section at the end for comments and questions.
ANYINFORMATION YOU CANPROVIDE WILL BE GRATEFULLYAPPRECL4TED.
PLEASE RETURN THE SURVEYIN THE ENVELOPE PROVIDED.
A. Finding Adequate Labor Supply
How many members of the household are employed by your agricultural operation, including yourself
(enter number):
Full-time: Part-time: Retired:
2. How many non-family members are employed by your agricultural operation?
Full-time: Part-time: Retired:
If you hire outside your immediate family, do you have trouble hiring qualified employees?
Yes No
4. If yes, why? (Mark all that apply)
Lack of affordable housing near your agricultural operation Lack of interest
Lack of adequate training Competition in local job
Inability to offer competitive wage market
Other (please sped)
B. Environmental Regulations
Have you seen an increase in the environmental regulations that affect your agricultural operation over the last
10 years? (Mark one) Yes No Do not know
6. Which environmental regulation(s) affect your agricultural operation the most? (Please rank in order,
1=most effect on your operation)
NC Waste Management regulations (.0200 rules)
NC Nutrient Management regulations (Meuse River basin rules)
Federal Clean Water Act regulations
Appendix A
Keeping Farmers Farming: A Survey of the Challenges Facing Orange County Farmers 13
' Other Federal regulations
County watershed regulations
C. Taxes
7. Is your land taxed at its agricultural use value? (Mark one) Yes No
8. Do you consider taxes to be a strong factor in the profitability of your agricultural operation?
(Mark one) Yes No Do not know
9. Which of the following would be most beneficial to your agricultural operation? (Please rank in order, 1=most
beneficial. )
Lower taxes on farmland
Lower taxes on farm buildings
Lower taxes on farm machinery
D. Profitability
10. Is your agricultural operation profitable? (Mark one) Yes No Break-even
11. What aze the factors that limit your profits most? (Please rank in order, 1=most limiting factor)
Equipment costs Fertilizer/chemical costs
Availability of qualified labor at affordable prices Land costs too high to expand operation
Lack of markets for products Taxes
Lack of interest by family members to continue operation
Scale of agricultural operation is too small to be profitable
Other (please specify)
E. Changes in Land Use
12. Have the land uses bordering your land changed in the last 10 years?
(Mark one) Yes No
13. If so, what is the new use? (Mazk all that apply)
Residential Development
Public or private road
Change in farm use activity
Commercial
Industrial
Other (please specify)-
14. Have development activities azound and near your farm affected your agricultural operation?
(Mark one) For better For worse No effect
F. Operational Hindrances
15
What are the major problems hindering your agicultural operation? (Please rank in order, 1=worst problem)
Theft of farm property by trespassers Litter problems/Illegal dumping
Injury to livestock by trespassers Crop loss due to trespassers
Vandalism of equipment vehicles Vandalism of fences/structures
Crop loss due to wildlife Other (please specify)
Non-farming neighbors
Appendix A
Keeping Farmers Farming: A Survey of the Challenges Facing Orange County Farmers i4
16. Do you believe the above-listed problems are worse now than 10 years ago?
(Mark one) Yes No
17. Do you get complaints related to your agricultural operation from your neighbors?
(Mark one) Yes No
18. If you do get complaints, they are primarily related to:
Noise Spray Drift
Dust Stray Animals
Odors Other (please specify)
19. Your use of public roads for agricultural purposes has been most hampered by:
Traffic No, use of roads has not been hampered
Road conditions/up-keep
Bicyclists
G. History/Future
20.
21.
How long have you or your family had an agricultural operation? (Enter number of years)
How long do you plan to continue your agricultural operation?
22. What is the intended future for your agricultural operation? (Please check the most likely. use)
Continue it in agriculture and in the family.
Continue it in agriculture, but not in the family.
Continue part of the property in agriculture and in the family.
Continue part of the property in agriculture, but not in the family.
Non-agricultural use in the family.
Non-agricultural use, not in the family.
No future plans for agricultural operation.
23. What is the primary reason you are engaged in agriculture? (Please mark all reasons that apply)
To make a living for my family and myself. To supplement my income.
I inherited my land and business. I enjoy agriculture.
I want to live in a rural atmosphere. I enjoy the independence and way of life.
Other (please specify).
24. If the agricultural economy remains the same, your interest to remain in business would:
Increase Decrease Remain the same.
25. Which of the following factors would most influence your decision to discontinue your agricultural
operation? (Please rank in order, 1=most influential factor)
Increase in environmental regulations.
More restrictive agricultural use-value assessment regulations that would tighten eligibility.
Increasing urban pressures.
More restrictive planning and zoning regulations that would affect potential development of your land.
H. Agricultural Policy Issues
26. A proposal to establish an Agriculture Advocate for the County is being considered. This person could be
appointed jointly by the Soil and Water Conservation District Board, the Farm Bureau, and other farming
agencies or agriculture groups. The advocate would serve as a representative of Orange County farmers,
Appendix A
Keeping Farmers Farming: A Survey of the Challenges Facing Orange County Farmers is
act as a liaison between farmers and County officials, and be apoint-of-contact for farmers and citizens
interested in farming issues. Do you think an Agriculture Advocate is needed?
(Mark one) Yes No
27. A conservation easement is a legal document, recorded on a deed, that describes a voluntary agreement between
a landowner and another entity, such as a conservation group or a government agency. The easement protects all
or part of the land for its conservation value, thereby lowering its taxable value. It can provide significant federal
and state income tax benefits to the landowner and be a valuable part of estate planning. Would you consider
selling a conservation easement on all or part of your land if a fair offer was made to you?
(Mark one) Yes No I need more information about conservation easements
28. Suppose your land has the potential for residential development. Anon-profit conservation group, such as a
land trust, offers you a fair price for your land's development potential. You could, if you choose, sell that
development potential to the land trust, if you agree to keep the land undeveloped or in agricultural use. (You
would retain ownership of the land itself, selling only the rights for developing it.) Would you consider
participating in such a purchase of development rights (PDR) program?
(Mark one) Yes No I need more information about PDR and land trusts
29. Suppose your land has the capacity to be developed into houselots. A private development company offers you
a fair price for your land's development potential. You could, if you choose, sell that development potential to
the company, if you agree to keep the land undeveloped or in agricultural use. (You would retain ownership of
the land itself, selling only the rights for developing it. The company would transfer the rights it purchased from
you to another development site.) Would you consider participating in such a transfer of development rights
(TDR) program?
(Mark one) Yes No I need more information about TDR programs
30. Farm Link or Farm Finder programs seek to match young people interested in starting a farm with established
farmers who are nearing retirement and are interested in selling or leasing their agricultural operation. Do•you
think a Farm Link or Farm Finder program would be worthwhile?
(Mark one) Yes No I want to find out more about these programs
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TI1t~E
(PLEASE USE THE SPACE BELOW FOR ADDITIONAL
Appendix A
16
Appendix B
1998 Agricultural Survey:
Totals and Percentages of
Responses
.--,
Totals and Percentages of Responses for 1998 Ag Survey
Total number of surveys entered 159
Employee structure of operation (Questions 1-2)
Fousehold in Ag (Full-Time) 133
Household in Ag (Part-Time) 131
Household in Ag (Retired) 37
Non-family in Ag (Full-Time) 60
Non-family in Ag (Part-Time) 244
Non-family in Ag (Retired) 12
Problems hiring labor (3-4)
Why? lack of close affordable housing
Why? lack of adequate (raining
Why? lack of interest
Why? local competition
Increased environmental regulations
affect operation (5-6)
NC waste management rules affect operation
Neuse River basin rules effect operation
Federal Clean Water Act regulations affect operation
Other federal regulations affect operation
Changes In bordering land uses (12)
no t 441 [tai°I
What era new uses on bordering land? (13)
(., .., r A, ~ .,
Roads as new use 9 6°~
Change in farm activity as new use 30 19%
Commercial development as new use 6 4%
Industrial development as new use 3 2%
Gray shaded areas =largest percentage In category
Agricultural-Use
affecting profltabllity of
taxes on farm buildings most beneficial?
taxes on farm machinery most beneficial?
the eg operation profitable? (10
78 49% no
16 10% break even
30 19°r6
31
79% Development activity exacts near
better
4 `~3 What factors limit the operation's p-oflts? (11)
44 28% Ulpn~$~rl"abbtb illrlt ptCtit's , ~; 99 u~'' 2°/6
43 27% Finding qualified labor limits profits 68 43`%
_ Lack of product markets limits profits 57 36°I°
Lack of family interest limits profits 49 31
15 72°/, Small size of ag operation limits profits 80 50%
72 45% :~i~~~II,~ ~ ~~.a' -.,ytt "~. 9g .~ ~t °
58 36% High land costs limit profits 92 58%
60 38°~ Taxes limit profits 88 55%
no effect ~ 66~ 42%~
Whet hinders your operation? (15)
Theft of property 41 26%
Injury to livestock 22 14%
Equipment vandalism 27 17%
.~~..r ~r.,~xx~ _..
Non-farming neighbors
Litter problems
Trespasser crop loss
Structure vandalism
~
62 39%
51 32"/0
28 18"/°
42 26%
Are problems worse now than ten years ago? (16)
yes ":" 121 76%
no 18 11%
Complaints from neighbors? (17-18) 37 23°~
Complaints noise 6 4°~
Complaints du
s
t 9 6%
g
~
g
~rOrTrDU ,6ra.1t ~~~~~ ~ 1 ~9
Complaints spray drift 2 1%
Complaints stray animals 16 10%
Appendix B, Page 1
Totals and Percentages of Responses for 1998 Ag Survey
uses of public roads have most aNectad the o
Road conditions of public roads
Bicyclist use of public roads
The use of public roads for operation has not been hampered
Years in operation (Average) (20)
Intended time of continued operation (21)
unknown
nterest In remaininn in
increase 9
decrease 43
What factors would influence your decisions to dlscontinuo
Increased environmental regulations 104
Restrictive agricultural use assessment regulations 96
Increasing urban pressures 104
6%
60%
~ I Proposed programs (26-30)
Future plans for agricultural operation (22) _ Agricultural Advocate
Continue ag, outside of (amity f 12 8% no
Continue part ag in family 22 14% Conservation Easements
Continue part ag, outside of family 3 2% yes
Non ag use in family 9 6% ~p ~'"'"" " :'t `-
Non ag use, outside of family 9 6°~ need more info
No ag plans in future 13 8% Purchase of Development Rights (PDR)
Yes
Why are farmers farming9 (23)
Reason - make a living
Reason -inherited business
84
Reason -sup lement income 4g
Reason -enjoy independence of lifestyle 106
19%
I 291 18%I
need more into 56
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
YeS 22
need more into 55
Farm Finder
no
(25)
Appendix B, Page 2
19
Appendix C
General Comments from
Survey Respondents
20
Agricultural Survey General Comments
I don't think that one single problem listed above is putting fauns out of business. The combination of low
milk prices, high feed prices, high taxes, high fertilizer and chemicals, and continued government
regulations combined play a strong pazt in today's agriculture going under.
I have very limited land resources of my own. I answered the questions based on a period of more than ten
yeazs ago when I did own land resources.
My twenty acres is mostly used for pasture and woods. I would be interested in learning more about
programs that would aid in maintaining the property in its natural state. thank you.
Orange County needs an ag center to help farmers show and sell farm products: 4H and FFA calf show,
cattle shows, horse shows, craft shows, farmer's market
Ag advocate: I would need to know more about the cost, duties, and responsibilities and qualifications of
the person to have the job. Farm Finder: not for me. Comments: To me the greatest problem the people in
Orange County or anywhere else have ever had aze the Planning and Zoning regulations along with the
people that support planning and zoning. To me these rules and regulations violate the constitution which
guazantees the right to private property. To deny use of property is to deny the right to property. I don't
see that much difference in planning and zoning here and communism in foreign countries. Under
communism you can't own land under planning and zoning such as we have here. You can own land but
can't use it. What is the difference? Farmers are being hurt by illegal planning and zoning keep us from
supplementing farm operations. Farm businesses such as from Mexico. Zoning outlaws most people from
using land. Rich people do what they want anyway. Zoning is run by despicable bastards! Zoning steals
people's property rights. Zoning is illegal and should be abolished! Money spent to run zoning is a waste
of tax payers money!
Influential reasons to discontinue (restrictive zoning): Presently looking for land elsewhere to relocate ag
operation. Ag Advocate: present extension agents/reps could fill needed position. Do not need expanded
government. General: Orange County restrictive land use/zoning and increase taxation aze reasons this ag
operation is planning to relocate. The local extension reps aren't as active as those of the county tazgeted to
relocation.
Yes and needs more info for last questions. I think Northern Orange County, i.e. north of Hillsborough,
should become a sepazate county or become part of either Caswell or Person County. It has absolutely
nothing in common with southern Orange County. In fact, Chapel Hill is by far the greatest threat to
agriculture in the County.
Orange County used to be an agriculture county. Now it is nothing but new roads and housing
developments. If Orange County keeps going the way it has in the last 20 yeazs, there soon won't be no
agriculture land in the county. Farming is an occupation that needs space. Orange County is running out
of space. People aze continuing to forget that no fanning or agriculture means no food!
We aze only on a 10 acre lot and have a small flock of dairy goats and a few wool sheep, considered a
hobby faun by some. We both work outside our farm and do not rely on our animals for profit.
People have to realize that if they aze going to have food, it has to be produced somewhere. Therefore, it
has to have smell from pastures or hog lots, also a minimum amount to pesticides to kill pests, bugs, etc.
Appendix C
21
The farm is the future. I do not plan to sell any easements, development rights or land. I plan to pass it on
to my children as it is.
Don't know to answer some of the questions. I am not physically able to farm. My son has operated the
farms for last few years. As a result of so many things about the future of farming, he is quitting to get a
job at Duke as an electrical contractor. He is keeping cattle and raising hay for sale also. My son-in-law is
going to farm the balance of it. The tobacco program is primary concern in my neighborhood.
I have on-farm houses. The one full time employee receives ten dollars per hour. As of 3/1/98, dairy will
stop.
We will probably move out of Orange County because of residential development near us.
I am a hobby beekeeper with 4 hives. I live on 9 mostly wooded acres - I don't want to see any regulations
prohibiting keeping bees. I provide water for my bees so they won't be a nuisance to my neighbors. I want
to see farmland in Orange County preserved as much as possible, by encouraging tax policies favorable to
farmers. I might expand my operation and sell some honey in retirement.
I am assuming we were sent the survey because we intend to raise bees. Otherwise, we wouldn't be
considered farmers. I mazked a few answers, but most don't apply.
PDR and TDR program would depend on the length of time for the agreement.
Please send me anything you can on question #30. I have very little land or credit to start out on my own
and would like to learn more about these programs if there is anything like that available.
We have a ten acre fazm.
No tax breaks for small farms. Price of surrounding land too expensive to expand operation. I would like
to find out the results of this survey. Also, I would like to expand with 200+ acres available in neaz future,
but can't outbid potential developers. A conservation easement or PDR or possibly TDR would be of great
benefit. I would also like to work with wildlife orgs to preserve as much habitat as possible. Please let me
know what I can do to help!
We own the land, pay the taxes, and preserve and protect it. We should decide its use.
Ag advocate should be a farmer.
I think every farm, small or lazge, should have the opportunity to be free to plant what he wants to plant in
order to make a living. I think a group of farmers is taking advantage of the small fanmer to keep some
farmers from making a living. You know you can't make a living if you cut your operation down so low.
The tobacco company having so much trouble.
Bicyclists aze big problem! # 27-28-29-30 have been defeated by Orange County fanners. Drop the
issues! ! !
The choice of agricultural or developmental use should be the owner; not some group of outsiders.
#28 - OWASA?
The only way I would sell development rights or have a conservation easement would be in 25 yeaz blocks.
At the end of 25 years, if I or my children would want to develop the property or I would have the
opportunity to buy them back at the same price I was paid for them.
Appendix C
22
Happy to have the roads to use. Ag advocate: not if it will cost more taxes
Ag advocate: as long as farmers pick the advocate! Our county leaders need to do something to promote
agriculture. Money was set aside for an ag complex yeazs ago. nothing has been done but talk. We need a
complex for farmers mazket, horse, cattle shows etc. Amulti-purpose ag complex could be used almost
every day. As long as Chapel Hill people run this county there will be little benefit for farmers and no new
industry brought into this county. thank you.
Taxes aze factor in profitability not for land, only buildings.
Ag advocate: if this person was really sincere in working for better farming conditions and had a real
hands-on background
Conservation easements, sale of development rights etc sound great and I support those actions. But, I
have trouble believing that there is enough money available to make much difference. I mean, if we spend
millions and get four or ten farm museums, then so what? The thing that makes farming viable is its ability
to produce income. The most obvious and hardest dilemma is the difference between retail prices and
market prices available to farmers -pork chops aze $5 a pound and pigs aze .30 a pound; steak is $6 a
pound and cows aze .75 a pound; corn is $2.75 a bushel, while corn flakes aze $4 a pound; and so on.
Farmers markets address this somewhat, but they azen't for everyone. Livestock fanners aze especially
challenged, not only by environmental regs, but federal meat processing and marketing regs have shut
down most local slaughter houses and prohibit on-farm processing and sale. This keeps local stockmen
from selling locally and getting part of the retail dollar. Perhaps, as part of the perennially proposed
Hillsborough livestock center, there could be a center for killing and processing animals. Even just being
staffed once or twice a month would probably be enough. Possibly, the staff could work in other counties
across the state on other days (this problem is statewide, if not national) to provide full time employment.
I've read that in England there are completely mobile and self-contained slaughter operations. The idea of
a farm advocate is great. One potential role for this person would be to organize co-operative buying and
selling of products. Stockmen could possibly band together to buy soybean meal and other necessities.
Direct marketing of products might also be done in this manner. Lastly, in thinking of ways to support an
ag community, don't forget the emerging class of micro farms and farmers. Very small farms can be very
productive and there is a potential also for those farms to be part of the support network for lazger farms by
buying hay, straw, grain, manure, and so on. Thank you for your interest and support.
Old age is factor most influencing reason to discontinue operation.
I am tired of government rules and regulations dictated by people who know nothing about farming. I
would like to have some control over prices paid for products produced on my farm. I have to pay set
prices for supplies needed to produce my products.
We need to reduce so many regulations that are of no benefit.
If this area continues to develop, it needs water and sewer service. The farm is being forced to compete
with housing developments and there is no way we can.
I think the PDR and TDR programs have great potential for preserving the rural character of Orange
County while fairly addressing the needs of the farmers for long term fmancial security.
I am not sure that our 10 acres is really "agriculture". I have answered some of the questions. I am retired
so is my husband-we built this house and barn, paddock and fencing for horses. At this time I have 2. I do
the barn work myself. My husband does the maintenance. We hope to remain here for the next 5-10 years.
Hopefully the land will not be split and remain for horse people. There is continuous shrinking of horse
trails. My husband grew up on a farm sold some time ago. My daughter has 53 acres in VA with hay and
horses.
Appendix C
23
High taxes on my property, equipment, and buildings make it difficult to continue farming. The high
values for the land make it impossible for another farmer to buy it. I'd rather it stay as farm, but it is
getting harder and harder to keep it that way in this county. people want to live next to a fatm but they
think they have the right to control what the farmer does with no concern for how hard it is to keep the
farm.
A full-time farmer is one that does not have a spouse or partner employed off farm.
Ag advocate: but we need more than one; maybe three people involved in different types of agricultural
activities.
Problems hindering operation: The sheriffs department has done an outstanding job of patrolling our area
If you are looking to help Orange County farmers -look into damage done by rescue squads (i.e. helicopter
med evac) who do not have owner agreements to use landing sites in emergencies. Why not survey
potential landing sites and mark with white washed 1/2 tires (no water for insects). Then confine
operations to those areas instead of destroying farm fences etc!
Fed CWA regs :these regulations scare me to death. Comments: environmental regs have had bad effects
for me as a small farmer and cause me great anxiety.
We purchased our land from a family who farmed it for many years with the intent of establishing our own
family farm to provide ourselves with organic fruits and vegetables, possibly chickens and goats. We had
hoped to buy additional land nearby to expand as needed, selling surplus produce to neighbors/farmers
market to supplement income. Upon original landowners' death, the nearby land went into an estate
(unfriendly to rural farming) and is now being developed as 27 houses on 30 acres ($175,000+). We are
very interested in preservation of land and family farming, preserving rural areas, and as young farmers,
would be very interested in farm link/fanm finder programs. Orange County is losing much of its rural
character and flavor if more stringent restrictions on development aren't put into place. Growth is already
overwhelming us. In the 2+ years we have been here, it's already changed where we live, in spite of our
(and our neighbor's) efforts to prevent it from being overly developed.
I don't think our county can pay me enough money not to sell my development rights. I foresee the county
telling farmers if we don't sell our development rights there will be no more farm use.
If the people who produce the food for this country were paid a good price for products we wouldn't be
worried about losing land or farms
Question 11: Agriculture is less profitable today than in previous years. The major problem in my view is
the prices for selling products has been either flat or decreased over the last ten years. Inflation runs on
average from 2.5%-3% annually. Gross commodity income does not but expenses do. Question 30: If a
person's extreme desire is to farm it would be a great program. With the uncertainties today I would
question their intent and the way to meet their goals. An ag advisor (financial/planner) for each county
through NCState would be a plus.
Question 6: Developers are fouling the creeks. Erosion is a big problem. Our animals drink from streams
- development is causing us big problems because of runoff from development. We need buffers from
development!!! Question 9: Taxes are very low on use-value land, ours has gone down. Question 11: We
need motivative programs - Ag extension needs to be more helpful and connected to the changes that are
taking place. We need programs to develop local markets and outreach to help water quality (septic and
wells) and streams and conservation of resources. Question 25: If you want to develop your land then you
are not a farmer anymore! This question does not make any sense! Question 26: We would need a lot
Appendix C
24
more specific information for who and what this person would advocate. If it is for farmers that want to
develop their land that would be counter-productive.
Question 7: I think it is too high.
Farmers need to make a profit to keep farming. In a land of plentiful and cheap food there is a big problem
in handling surplus, which aze necessary if food remains cheap. But low prices combined with increasing
costs put farmers in an economic squeeze. Then, when the economics of scale sets in, (bigger and bigger
or mass production, so to speak, as in hogs, poultry) the neighbors complain. The press takes it up etc etc.
Anything to help small fazmers stay in business should be good for the socio economic mix of the
increasingly urban rural countryside. (The three points mentioned in the letter aze good.)
I am very much opposed to any restrictions being put on my land. (# 28, 29)
We have a horse property out in the country. Each year, more and more surrounding land is being
developed- much more traffic goes along our road (at >50-SSmph)-lots of neighborhood animals aze hit by
cars etc. We cannot ride off of our property anymore during peak commute times -diminishing greatly our
original enjoyment of living rural. We have tried to decrease the speed limit, but the county has deaf ears.
If developments aze going to proceed, the speed limits need to be lowered- Also, pazks with bike
trails/walking paths and horse trails need to be included in the process. The area needs to "look" rurat-
that's why we all live here. Pockets of developments hidden in the woods would be ok if people respected
privacy and quiet country life.
Commissioners need to be elected from Townships. County and City schools need to merge to be one
system. OWASA needs to have less power. Non tax-paying citizens should not be allowed to vote.
Question 4: It's hazd to fmd people who realize that animals need feed and care 7 days a week, regardless
of weather etc. Question 11: Inability to afford advertising and continuing education for myself as a riding
instructor/manager. Question 15: both the clear-cutting and the new non-rural lifestyle neighbors have cut
off access to what was a lazge system of horse-trails. New neighbors put fences across the trails; cleaz-
cutting left a dangerous mire, and the lack of access to trails has decreased the attractiveness of my stable
as a training facility. Question 17: I have had 1 complaint in the last 14 yeazs. Question 18: A neighbor
(renting) complained that riding my horses near his house violated his privacy - I had permission from the
previous owner of the land and the trails have been in use for over 30 years. Question 22: very tentative, a
hope and a dream.
Appendix C
25
Appendix D
Letter of Endorsement from
the Orange County Soil and
Water Conservation District
Board of Supej^viso~s
SOIL & WATER zs
CONSERVATION
Orange Soil and Water Conservation District
306 Revere Road • P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278 • Phone: (919) 732-8181 • Ext. 2750
Fax: {919) 732-7559
January 21, 1998
Dear Farmer/Agriculturist:
The attached survey was prepared by the Orange County Agricultural Districts Advisory Board, a citizen
advisory group made up of farmers, developers, and other county residents. The purpose of the survey is
to learn about the concerns of the farming community toward the rapid growth occurring in Orange
County.
This is the first comprehensive County survey of farmer opinion in nearly twenty years, and it is an
opportunity for the Orange County agricultural community to express its thoughts and opinions on the
important issues facing our area.
On behalf of the Soil and Water Conservation District Board, I am asking you to please take the time to
complete this survey.
The Agricultural Districts Advisory Board will use the findings from the survey to make
recommendations to the County Board of Commissioners. Some of the ideas under consideration
include: (1) ask the NC General Assembly to support legislation that can improve the financial position
of farmers, such as eliminating inheritance taxes and deferred taxes for sales of land between farmers.
and eliminating. the property tax on farm equipment for full-time farmers; (2) develop an effective
education proltram to inform our urban/suburban citizens about the value and needs of astriculture; and
(3) develop voluntary and equitable programs for preserving farmland.
You do not need to give your name or address, and all surveys returned will be kept private. Only total
results will be reported. Please complete the survey and return it in the enclosed. postage-paid
envelope by February 9.1998.
Orange County is changing whether we like it or not. We can participate and take an active role in
shaping this change - or we can sit idly while growth overwhelms us. This survey can be the voice of
each and every farmer, and their individual stand on the issues we must confront.
The Soil and Water Conservation District Boazd urges you to let your voice be heard. Thank you.
Sincerely,
G/.
Charles Snipes, Chair
Orange County Soil and Water Conservation District