HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-25-2006 - 1ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 25, 2006
Action Agenda
Item No. 1
SUBJECT: Agricultural Center Work Group Report
DEPARTMENT: Economic Development PUBLIC HEARING: (Y!N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Agricultural Center Work Group Report Dianne Reid, 245-2326
Noah Ranells, 245-2330
PURPOSE: The BOCC will receive a presentation summarizing the Agricultural Center Work
Group efforts tc evaluate the need and justification for an Orange County agricultural center,
BACKGROUND: At the request of the Agricultural Preservation Board, the Board of County
Commissioners decided to revisit the need for an agricultural center. In early 2005, the
commissioners appointed citizens to the Agricultural Center Work Group (Work Group) to review
available information, solicit public input, and submit a report to the Commissioners in April
2006,
The Work Group had many thoughtful discussions, visited 2 agricultural centers, 1 agricultural
education facility, and 1 shared used value added facility, conducted 2 surveys, and held 1
community outreach event, The Work Group also reviewed the previous effort to evaluate an
Orange County Ag Center that was conducted in the late 1980's, when the local livestock
market was closed, Records indicate that $350,000 in County funds were designated for the
purchase and construction of an agricultural center facility, however those funds were
transferred for other capital projects and are no longer available,
The Work Group concluded that an agricultural center is needed by Orange County, Short term
needs include parking and confidential meeting space for farmers when they visit County
agricultural agencies, as well as a demonstration area for horticultural and environmental
education purposes.. Long term needs require additional time for evaluation. The Work Group
recommends a thorough examination of local food production and local markets for farm
products,.
The Work Group recommends the following to the Board of County Commissioners. First, the
physical space needs of the agricultural agencies are paramount, with an immediate goal of
providing adequate customer parking and office space.. The current location of Revere Road
allows far limited expansion, but moderate accommodations may provide temporary relief.
z
Second, the Work Group strongly recommends that the BOCC embark on a capital
improvement plan that includes a new freestanding Agriculture and Natural Resources Center to
allow agriculture in Orange County to not just survive, but to thrive well into the future. Adopting
a capital improvement plan to obtain a suitable site and facility that would provide far mast if not
all services related to an "Agriculture and Natural Resources Education Center", preferably in a
single location. Such services and activities include workshop facilities, outdoor field plots,
demonstration areas, and outdoor events such as annual agricultural summits, possible farm-
city days, and annual agricultural breakfasts. It is clear that a single location would provide the
best efficiency of resources, and encourage thorough and continued use of an outdoor area for
horticultural and farm-related workshops, as well as demonstration areas for various agricultural
program components.
Third, to support viable farm enterprises that build on close proximity to Durham and Chapel Hill
and their associated plentiful direct and wholesale market opportunities, to foster young farmers
in farm families, and to create 'new' agricultural entrepreneurs, requires re-invigorated
agricultural services. It is critical that the Commissioners consider feasibility studies for 1)
value-added shared-use processing facilities for locally produces farm products, and 2) a farm
business incubator facility.
The members of the Work Group appreciate the opportunity to have participated in this work
group and are available to discuss any portion of the report with the BOCC, staff, and the
general public. Furthermore, it is hoped that the information contained in this report be included
in the agricultural component of the upcoming revised Comprehensive Plan.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board accept the report and
consider its recommendations.
3
FINDINGS REPORT
Respectfully submitted to the Board of County Commissioners
On 25 May 2QQ6
BY
Agricultural Center Work Group Members
(Appointed by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners)
Betty Tom Davidson, Chair
Vickie Brown
Spence Dickinson
Chris Hogan
Stanley Hughes
Barry Jacobs
Don Johnson
Patricia Kiffney
Tony Kleese
Marty Mandell
Patrick McGarry
Gordan Neville
Russ Seibert
Morris Shambley
Ruffin Slater
Roger Tate
Gordon Warren
Agricultural Center Work Group Report Page 1
Table of Contents
Report
Executive Summary ................................................................................. 3
Introduction .............................................................................................. 5
Charge & Mission ............................................................................ 5
Timetable ...................................................................................... 5
Members &Staff ............................................................................. 6
Guiding Principles ........................................................................... 7
2005 Ag Center Work Group Findings .......................................................... 8
Short Term Subcommittee .................................................................. 10
Long Term Subcommittee ................................................................ 11
Field Trips ..................................................................................... 11
Outreach ....................................................................................... 12
Recommended Action Strategies ................................................................. 14
Appendix 1: Summary of Previous Ag Center Work Group
Appendix 2: Johnston County Ag Center Spare Needs Study
Appendix 3: Long Term Subcommittee Document
Appendix 4: Trip Summary: Wake & Johnston Counties Ag Centers
Appendix 5: Slide Presentation: Wake & Johnston Counties Ag Centers
Appendix 6: Trip Summary: Blue Ridge Food Ventures
Appendix 7: Slide Presentation: Blue Ridge Food Ventures
Appendix 8: Outreach Slide Presentation
Appendix 9: Ag Center Work Group Survey & Results
Appendix 10: Cost of Community Services (Table 2)
Agricultural Center Work Group Report Page 2
5
Agricultural Center Work Group Report
Executive Summary
Across North Carolina, many counties have responded to their respective community
needs for adequate facilities for agricultural programs and constnacted new ag centers to
better serve the farmers as well as the general public. In the late 1980's, Orange County
reviewed the need for an agricultural center when the local livestock market was closed.
Records indicate that $350,000 in county funds were designated for the purrhase and
construction of an ag center facility however, those funds were transferred for other capital
projects and are no longer available.
At the request of the Agricultural Preservation Board, the Board of County Commissioners
decided to revisit the need for an agricultural center. In early 2005, the commissioners
appointed citizens to the Agricultural Center Work Group (Work Group) to review available
information, solicit public input, and submit a report to the commissioners in April 2006.
The Work Group had many thoughtful discussions, visited 2 ag centers, 1 ag education
facility, and 1 shared used value added facility, conducted 2 surveys, and held 1 community
outreach event. The Work Group concluded that an agricultural center is needed by
Orange County. Short term needs include parking and confidential meeting space for
farmers when they visit county ag agencies, as well as a demonstration area for
horticultural and environmental education purposes. Long term needs require additional
time for evaluation. The Work Group recommends a thorough examination of local food
production and local markets for farm products.
A survey conducted by the Work Group indicated strong support far an agricultural center
with 4 of every 5 respondents indicating that they believed the county needs a new
agricultural center. There was especially high support for 4-H and youth programs, as well
as for medium sized meeting rooms.
The Wark Group recommends the following to the Board of County Commissioners. First,
the physical space needs of the agricultural agencies are paramount, with an immediate
goal of providing adequate customer parking and office space. The current location of
Revere Road allows for limited expansion, however, moderate accommodations may
provide temporary relief.
Secondly, the Work Group strongly recommends that the BOGC embark on a capital
improvement plan that includes a new freestanding Agriculture and Natural Resources
Center to allow agriculture in Orange County to not just survive, but to thrive well into the
future. Adopting a capital improvement plan to obtain a suitable site and facility that would
provide for most if not all services related to an "Agriculture and Natural Resources
Education Center", preferably in a single location. Such services and activities include
workshop facilities, outdoor field plots, demonstration areas, and outdoor events such as
annual ag summits, possible farm-city days, and annual ag breakfasts. It is clear that a
single location would provide the best efficiency of resources, and encourage thorough and
continued use of an outdoor area for horticultural and farm -related workshops, as well as
demonstration areas for various ag program components.
Thirdly, to support viable farm enterprises that are blessed with close proximity to Durham
and Chapel Hill and their associated plentiful direct and wholesale market opportunities, to
Agricultural Center Work Group Report Page 3
foster young farmers in farm families, and to create `new' agricultural entrepreneurs,
requires re-invigorated agricultural services. It is critical that the commissioners consider
feasibility studies for 1) added value shared use processing facilities for locally produces
farm products, and 2) a farm business incubator facility.
'T'he members of the Work Group appreciate the opportunity to have participated in this
work group and are available to discuss any portion of the report with the BOCC, staff, and
the general public. Furthermore, it is hoped that the information contained in this report
benefit any future agricultural component of the Comprehensive Plan.
Agricultural Center Work Group Report Page 4
7
I. Introduction
In October 2003, the Agricultural Preservation Board unanimously passed a
recommendation to revisit the agricultural center concept. The recommendation was
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), In December 2004, the
BOCC agreed to create a work group, with the charge and mission outlined below.
A. 2005 Ag Center Work Group Charge & Mission
1. Investigate and explore the potential need and uses for an Orange County
Agricultural Center, utilizing new information and current/future agricultural needs.
2, Develop a process whereby all stakeholders have an opportunity to provide
meaningful input intc the Work Group deliberations.
3. Develop a report on the findings of the Work Group discussion and investigation, to
be submitted to the Board of Commissioners within ane year of appointment of the
Work Group,
4. Review the recommendations of the previous Agricultural Center work group.
B. Timetable
Activity Proposed Date
BOCC Ag Center Work Group
Schedule
BOCC a tees to create Work Grou Feb 2004 -
Work Grou a ointments made Dec 2004 -
Work Group meetings to develop public
participation process, explore need, visit other
centers, and ex lore otential uses Apr to Oct 2005 Apr 2005 fhru
Apr 2006
Meeting 12 Apr 2005
Meeting 9 Ma 2005
Tour.' Wake & Johnston County Ag Centers 18 Jun 2005
Tour.' Spence's Community Educational Farm 18 Jul 2005
Meeting 18 Jul 2005
Meeting 15 Aug 2005
Meeting 19 Sep 2005
Tour.` Blue Ridge Food Ventures 30 Sep 2005
Meetin 24 Oct 2005
Meeting 28 Nov 2005
Develo ment of Work Grou re ort Oct to Dec 2005 Jan thru Apr 2006
Meeting 11 Jan 2006
Outreach Meeting - Ag Summit, Schle 14 Feb 2006
Outreach Meeting - SHSC, Cha el Hill i5 Feb 2006
Meeting 6 Mar 2006
Final Meetin 10 A ril 2006
Report transmitted to BOCC W/in 1 yr of formation 25 May 2006
Agricultural Center Work Group Report Page 5
C. Members, their `position', and Staff
Vicki Brown
Betty Tom Davidson
Spence Dickinson
Chris Hogan
Stanley Hughes
Barry Jacobs
Don ,)ohnsan
Patricia Kiffney
Tony Kleese
Marty Mandell
Patrick McGarry
Gordon Neville
Noah Ranells*
Russ Seibert
Morris Shambley
Ruffin Slater
Roger Tate
Gordon Warren
Farm Consumer
Farm Consumer
Farmer
Soil & Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors
Cooperative Extension
Commissioner
Livestock & Commodity Association Member
Farmer
Ag Preservation Board
Ag Preservation Board
Farm Consumer
Cooperative Extension
Organic /Alternative Farmer
Economic Development Commission
Farm Association Member
Economic Development Commission
Soil ~ Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors
Ag Preservation Board
*Noah Ranells resigned from the Work Group in August 2005
Staff Support
Fletcher Barber NC Cooperative Extension, Director
Brent Bogue Natural Resources Conservation Service, District
Conservationist
Gail Hughes Orange County Soil & Water Conservation District, Soil
Conservationist
Karen McAdams NC Cooperative Extension, Agent
Tina Moon Environment and Resource Conservation Planner
Noah Ranells Agricultural Economic Development Coordinator
Project Coordinator
Dianne Reid Economic Development Commission Director1
Phyllis Ruth Farm Services Agency County Executive Director
David Stancil Environment and Resource Conservation Director
Agricultural Center Work Group Report Page 6
D. Guiding Principles
The Work Group should use the following guiding principles in its discussion and
deliberations:
1. The intent of this process is to generate a "fresh" look at the concept of an
Agricultural Center and the needs and uses of same in the years to come, Previous
reports and efforts may be useful as background but should not keep the Work
Group from exploring new ideas and concepts for appropriate uses of an
Agricultural Center in the year 2Q05 and beyond.
2. Discussion of the potential uses of an Agricultural Center should include (but not be
limited to): demonstration and meeting space, a potential value-added processing
center (County or regional), office space for farm-related agencies, demonstration
farm plots and community farm fields, new and innovative agricultural concepts
such as Farm Land-Link opportunities and Community-Supported Agriculture
(CSA), and an Agricultural Heritage Museum,
3. The Work Group process should use broad public outreach efforts to engage all
citizens interested in this topic and ensure that all interests and stakeholders have
the opportunity to be heard,
4, The Work Group report should assess needs and potential uses of a Center, as
well as identify potential outside funding sources for such a building.
5. The Work Group report should focus on uses and needs for a Center, and need not
specify a specific location for a proposed center,
6, The Work Group should be aware of land use and environmental standards in
considering the potential of uses for the Center,
Agricultural Center Work Group Report Page 7
io
11. 2005 Aa Center Work Group Findincis
The group received current statistics related to agria~lture and the farming community. In
general, several major concerns were raised during the series of meetings. Current
facilities far agriculture and natural resources programming are inadegtaate. This need is
particularly acute given the tobacco buyout and the need for farmer meetings and
programs to share information on alternative enterprises that might interest farmers.
Furthermore, the upcoming federal 2007 farm bill will likely move away from commodity
programs and towards conservation efforts. Finally, there are greater numbers of non-
traditional farmers who are seeking more programming in the county as they begin their
production and value added enterprises.
Members of the group noted that Orange County is fortunate to have a local consumer
base that places a priority on locally produced and grown farm products. Increasing
energy costs may place additional costs on food that, on average, travels 1,500 miles
from the field to the consumer's plate.
Community food security was noted as a concern for many members of the group. As
Orahge County population continues to grow, it is critical that county leaders consider
ways in which to protect prime farmland throtagh ag programming that fosters viable farm
enterprises. Farmland protection programs are also beneficial to protecting productive ac
lands.
While Orange County is fortunate to have added 50 farmers between 1997 and 2002,
the increase in farming individuals, families, and businesses, increases the requirement
for ag program facilities, programming, and staff (Table 1).
Table 1. Selected Orange County Farm and Agriculture Data,
1997 & 2002 USDA A Census
1997 2002 Chan e
Farms 577 627 U
Land in Farms acres 72,673 71,01D Down
Assets land ~ Bld s $261.2 m $ 326.2 m U
Value of Production $25.6 m $ 22.1 m Down
Harvested Cro land acres 22,373 19,405 Down
Pastureland acres 20,837 22,016 U
Cattle & Calves 14,2989 12,025 Down
Milk Cows 2,475 1,973 Down
Certified Or anic Land acres 0 15 U
Tobacco $ 5.7 m $ 3.4 m Down
Agricultural Center Work Group Report Page 8
A recent study by the American
Farmland Trust indicated that
Orange County possesses high
quality farmland and is also
experiencing high development
(Fig.1).
Based on Farm Services Agency
records in 1996 and 2Q()4, 11,264
acres of cropland were removed
from Farm Services Agency
programs in Orange County.
During the past 2Q years, Orange
County has made great strides to
protect the rural buffer, yet at the
same time the county 'lost' 43% of
its beef cows, 69% of its dairy cows,
and 63% of its pigs,
rARMfNG ON T1iL- EDGL-
Sprawling Development Threotens
America's Best Farmland
Nonh Carolina
v AYM
® ~~
Loeentls
® HphOUaliry famYantld Hlph pevelvpmenl
F4git0ualiM Fam~lvntl6 tax Oevrlopmenl
Fetleml6lntlun lands
UNan Nevs
ONer tends
~r~1~F
I ~ r~w~
v.r.,
Figure 1.. Development and High Quality Farmland
The Work Group welcomed the BOCC charge and guidelines, To fulfill the charge
provided by the BOCC, members reviewed current ag data, discussed possible uses of
an ag center, established short and long term subcommittees, conducted a short term
needs survey and a long term survey, and conducted field trips to Wake and Johnston
County Ag Centers, Spence's Community Educational Farm in Chapel Hill, and the Blue
Ridge Food Ventures processing center near Asheville,
There are a few differences between the current Work Group and the previous
Livestock/Horticulture and Rural Education Center (LHREC), Most notable is that the
issue of the livestock market and scales is no longer an item that Orange County farmers
feel is required. While the issue of local produced and raised farm products was not a
significant issue raised in the documents of the LHREC, the current Work Group noted
that current available market demand for local farm products is a major opportunity for
local farmers. A summary of the LHREC documents is available in Appendix 1.
There are several definite opportunities for agriculture in Orange County, The Work
Group agreed that direct marketing and niche marketing offer definite promise to retain
and possible increase economically viable ag enterprises. Opportunities for certified
organic dairy products have recently become apparent and local farmers markets are
growing fast.
___
Agricultural Center Work Group Report Page 9
~a
A. Short Term
1. The goal of the short term subcommittee was to identify primary functions of offices
at the Planning & Agriculture Building and the physical space needed to better
integrate their services to order to maximize customer service
2, Results of the short-term committee survey indicated the there is an immediate
need for additional parking, counter space, meeting space, and office space.
3. Since the placement of ag agencies at the Revere Road building, there has never
been sufficient space to allow for large farmer meetings, outdoor demonstration
plots, or agricultural workshops for new farmers.
4, Based on current and future space needs, ag agencies provided requests for
optimizing the services they provide to county farmers and other residents (Table
2). Note that the space needs below do not refer to the additional required outdoor
space for ag events, workshops, and demonstration plots.
Table 2. Local Ag Related Agencies, governmental affiliation, staff, and space requirements
Department! Agency
US / NC /Orange
Staff Current
Sq. Ft. RequestedS
q. Ft.
Cooperative Extension US / NC /Orange 17 5,892 9,500
Environment & Resource Conservation Orange 7 960 1,600
Farm Services Agency US / NC /Orange 6 1,644 2,748
Forest Service NC /Orange 2 600 700
Rural Development US / NC /Orange 4 200 950
Soil ii< Water Conservation District /
Natural Resources Conservation Service
US / NC /Orange
5
1,496
1,970
All Agencies (Multi-purpose Auditorium) US / NC /Orange 7,500
TOTAL 41 10,792 24,968
Information on the .lohnston County Ag Center is available for reference in Appendix 2
Agricultural Center Work Group Report Page 10
13
B. Long Term
For additional information on the long-term committee products, refer to Appendix 3,
1. The goal of the long-term committee was to identify future needs for Orange
County agriculture. This committee developed three areas of focus.
i. The group noted that additional information was needed and a process was
required to engage the farming community, consumers, & political forces to
develop a collective vision fora 10 to 20 year plan, addressing the six
components of an agricultural plan
• Land
• Farmers
• Water
• Agricultural Genetic Resources
• Processing + Distribution
• Consumers
The Work Group suggests that the commissioners develop a strategy for long
term viability of agriculture that includes preparing young farmers to assume
management responsibility and produce a modest, yet significant proportion of
local products for market, It was suggested that the BOCC establish citizen task
farces to develop status reports and action plans for the six areas above with
continuous input from the Agricultural Preservation Board,
ii, Pursue feasibility studies for ag enterprise development (e.g. local processing
facility, farm incubator)
iii. Continue to support agricultural programs in future county budgets,
C. Field Trips
In order to understand the potential of an ag center, members of the Work Group
requested that visits to other ag centers and at least one ag processing center be
planned, In addition, Spence Dickinson, proprietor of Spence's Community
Educational Farm and member of the Work Group, offered to provide a brief tour of
his farm and host a meeting.
1. Trips to Ag Centers in Wake and Johnston Counties
Members were impressed with the ag centers in Wake County, and especially with
the Johnston County Ag Center that was in the final phase of construction. ,Ken
Bateman, the Johnston County Extension Director, gave the tour. A summary of
the trip is provided in Appendix 4 and a slide presentation is provided in Appendix
5,
2. Trip to Blue Ridge Food Ventures
Early on in the Work Group meeting schedule, members noted the desire to
consider a value added shared-use processing center as part of an ag center, In
addition, the BOCC guiding principles included consideration of a 'potential value
added processing center. This focus resulted in a trip to Blue Ridge Food Ventures
(BRFV) in Candler, NC, just outside Asheville. The director of the BRFV, Mary Lou
Agricultural Center Work Group Report Page 11
l`f
Sergi, provided the tour. A summary of the visit is provided in Appendix 6 and a
slide presentation is provided in Appendix 7.
3. Tour and Meeting at 5pence's Community Educational Farm, Inc.
Spence Dickinson offered his farm as a meeting destination and provided an
informal tour of Spence's Community Educational Farm. Members had an
opportunity to view a possible model for teaching youth about agriculture and food
production. Dinner was graciously provided to Work Group members in the
restored historic farmhouse.
D. Outreach
1. Ag Center Work Group Survey
A survey was developed to fulfill Guiding Principle #3 of the BOCC charge to the 2005
Ag Center Work Grotap that directed the work group to use "broad public outreach
efforts to engage all citizens interested in this topic and ensure that all interests and
stakeholders have the opportunity to be heard "(Appendix 8).
There were 58 respondents to the survey, with good diversity based on self identified
categories of crop, livestock, crop-livestock, gardener, & consumer (Figure 2).
Respondents self-identified category
(n=56)
All
Gardener Crop
Consumer si
~:? Livestock
Crop-
Livestock
Number of respondents who own land (acres)
(n=51)
Figure 2. Type, age, and land tenure of survey respondents
Agricultural Center Work Group Report Page 12
l5
Four of every 5 respondents believed that Orange County needs a new agricultural
resource center, with only 15% indicating that a new ag center is not necessary.
Respondents were afforded the opportunity to rank various potential features of an ag
center (Fig. 3). In general, 4-H program facilities were the mast desired element
followed closely by teaching children about farm animals and how to grow and
preserve food. Respondents also wanted meeting rooms to hold 30 to 75 people.
Review of the data by the Work Group noted that some possible elements of an ag
center were not exclusive of others, such as the meeting room sizes. In addition, other
possible uses of an ag center, such as the vegetable /fruit processing center may not
have been well understood by survey respondents.
4-H programs
Teach children to grow 8 preserve food
Outdoor facilities for events
Teach children about about farm animals
Medium mtg rooms - 30 to 75
~ Sustainability Resource Center
~ Outdoor env.l education learning lab
o Equine exhibition facilities
0- Outdoor urban horticulture facilities
Meat processing facility
Ag Heritage information
Small mtg rooms - 30 people
Vegetable & fruit processing (multi-
county)
Large mtg room - 250 people
10 20 30 40 50
Number of Supportive Respondents
Figure 3. Survey results for desired features of a new agricultural center
2. Outreach Events
Two outreach events were held to obtain public comment on the Work Group effort.
One event was held on 14 February 2006 at the 8th Orange Ccunty Ag Summit at
the Schley Grange Hall and attended by 80 people. A 1-hour presentation by Work
Group Chair Betty Tom Davidson was provided followed by questions from the
attendees. Fifty surveys were distributed at the event and other individuals were
made aware of the survey on the Orange County web page.
A second event was planned for the evening on 15 February 2006 at the Southern
Human Services Center in Chapel Hill. Members of the Work Group canceled the
meeting after no citizens arrived for the event.
Agricultural Center Work Group Report Page 13
~~
E. Recommended Action Strategies
1. Adequate current facilities
Adequate facilities are needed for agricultural programming in Orange County,
While renovation of an existing facility may fulfill the needs, the Work Group
strongly urges the BOCC to embark on a capital improvement plan that includes a
new freestanding ag center. Until such facility is available to serve farmers and
citizens of Orange County, the Work Group recommends that the BOGC:
Address current space needs
i. Meet square foot requirements
ii. Meet parking requirements
iii, Increase agricultural support space
2, New Ag Center
The evidence examined by the Work Group indicated a pressing need for
improved facilities far agricultural programs in the county. Indeed, 80% of survey
respondents indicated that a new ag center is justified, with greatest support for 4-
H & Youth programs that include indoor and outdoor facilities to teach children how
to grow and preserve food as well as teach them about farm animals. In addition,
survey respondents noted the need for medium meeting rooms to accommodate
30 to 75 people.
Shifting federal farm subsidy and conservation programs, diversification of farming
activities by long-time Orange County farm families, as well as an increasing
number of smaller farms being farmed by 'new' farmers, have and will continue to
place large demands on county staff and facilities. The need for state of the art
agricultural facilities is critical to the future of farming in Orange County.
The Work Group strongly recommends that the BOCC embark on a capital
improvement plan that includes a new freestanding Agriculture and Natural
Resources Center to allow agriculture in Orange County to not just survive, but to
thrive well into the future, Tc more accurately denote the services of an ag center,
the building may be considered an 'agriculture & natural resources center'.
Capital improvement plan
i. Initiate a capital improvement plan line item in FY07 Budget to address a future
agricultural center,
ii, Consider that a unified agricultural center represents the most efficient use of
resources and offers the greatest benefit to county farmers and general public,
iii. Conduct feasibility studies for:
a. Added value shared-use agricultural processing facility for locally
produced meat & vegetable farm products for marketing to local
consumers, restaurants, and institutional food services
b, Farm business incubator to train & support new farmers
Agricultural Center Work Group Report Page 14
Appendix 1, page 1 oft
~~
Summary Points of the 1987 Act Center Work Group Report
Excerpted and summarized information is provided as part of this report to conserve paper; A full set of
documents is available upon request.,
A. Historical Record
On 19 May 1987, a Livestock /Horticulture Market & Rural Education Center (LHREC) report was
provided to the Board of County Commissioners. It proposed atwo-phased implementation
schedule (Appendix x). The minutes of this meeting note that the commissioners voted to forward
the report to the County Manager "with a request that it be incorporated into the budget process."
2. Notes from a 22 June 1987 budget session noted that $340,000 for constn~ction and land
acquisition for the LHREC
3. Various budget documents were obtained and confirmed that $340,000 was assigned to the LHREC
project beginning with the FY89 budget. A FY93 capital improvements plan (CIP) document
indicated that $280,000 was dedicated to this project, followed by a FY94 CIP noting only $190,000
and that $90,000 of previously allocated funds were borrowed from this project with anticipated
repayment beginning in FY98, There are currently no funds in the CIP far the LHREC.
B. Proposed Rural Education Center (1987) -Phase 1
1. Rural Education Center- Phase I Justification: Orange County is unable to host regional and district
meetings and activities. A rural education center would recruit programs to the county and
encourage attendance and participation by Orange County residents.
2. Rural Education Center- Phase I Description: A 40 to 60 acre facility for livestock shows, banquets,
and meetings up to 500 people
i, Demonstration plots for Cooperative Extension plantings of forestry, turf, fruit trees, vegetable
production, forage management, tobacco, & irrigation practices; Small pond for bass ar catfish
production and to demonstrate weed control in farm ponds
ii. Environmental Study Area for riparian area around lake with nature trail for environmental
education
iii, Rural Heritage Area with historic building to demonstrate rural agrarian lifestyle
iv. Farmers Market pole building to sell vegetables and home grown commodities from pickup
v. Outdoor horse/livestock show area of 120 by 240 feet ring and associated parking for trailers
and exhibitors; Also to be used far graded cattle sales and livestock shows,
3. Rural Education Center (1987) - Phase I Ag facilities
i. Holding pens for livestock
ii, Large area meeting hall
iii. Livestock show ring with rollout bleachers
4. Rural Education Center (1987) - Phase I Non-Ag facilities
i, Small stage
ii. Judging area
iii. 'Functional' kitchen (caterers)
iv, Restrooms
v. Small changing rooms
vi, Small office spaces
Appendix 1, page 2 of 2
~$
C. Rural Education Center (1987) -Phase II
1. Rural Education Center -Phase II Justification: Revere Road offices were not designed for the
volume of traffic nor provide the atmosphere of land area to conduct effective hands on educational
demonstrations and programs
2, Rural Education Center (1987) -Phase II Ag Agency Offices
i. Ag Extension Service (Cooperative Extension)
ii, Agricultural Stabilization & Conservation Service (Farm Services Agency)
iii. Soil & Water Conservation Service (Natural Resources Conservation Service)
iv. Farmers Home Administration (Rural Development)
v. County Forester (DENR-Forest Resources)
D. Rural Education Center (1987) _ Possible Uses
1, Selected potential uses suggested by the Recreation ~ Parks Department in 1987..
i. Orange County Fair x, Woodworking classes
ii. Hog Day xi. Landscape & architecture classes
iii. BMX track xii. Fishing Rodeo
iv. Archery range xiii. GED classes
v, Ropes course xiv, Square dance hall
vi. Horseshoe pit xv. Cooking classes
vii. Tree farm xvi, Frisbee golf course
viii. Garden plot rentals xvii, Equestrian events
ix, Gardening classes xviii. Environmental education center
2. Selected potential uses suggested by the 1987 Ag Center Work Group:
i. Horticulture workshops x, Health & Nutrition Fairs
ii. Spring garden & lawn shows xi. Horse management workshops
iii. Crop production meetings xii. Orange-Durham Cattlemen's
iv. 4-H achievement night Association Meetings
v. 4-H horse shows xiii, Goat shows
vi. Heritage Skills workshops xiv. Dog shows
vii, Crafts fair xv. Poultry shows
viii. EFNEP Day Camps xvi. Quilt shows
ix. EFNEP retreats
Appendix ~, page ~ of 3
:~gri6usiness Ceuicr Spacr.'r'eeds Study
Count}• oCLiahnston
R4DM1`i.?~It~fE.S: _ ~SQU,4REFEETi
;:Coo eratit~e Extension ~Uffice~ A~eit~~ _ `' ~!
r ~
~?.utt.t0.num & Coufetence Are.i.4Shar^d a th USDAl .~..~___... _ . ~?7 ~
.,..
i$~-tator Closet (fn Ancillary SPa.e) _. __' ..;~......._Q~
Break Rosin 2D1 ~
Ltbrat}~ICoaferenceRcwm• .-`•- ---:::_ __._.__'_ ..._:.: .. _,__'~1 ~
~- -
I1'~'arlJCom;puter Raom 97~
Brochure'Room „ .._ .~.._ _ ? Z?
-- -'_
EytuPmeatRoom a,tp
4dnurttstraurePool(Gail,7ilL'#neclaHarnptan)- _.:____.._.. ~..__ '3i
;SUBTOTAL'.; St133
Coaperatite Extension Office, AG
:_:
_ Livestnc}. Agent s Offce t'Ron Ht.ghts) l ~0:
,.._ o . ... ; ._
Comrnccctal Haruciiltural Agent's Office . _.. _ . ..._ .._ _, ::_ ~_'_'-D
Fsdd Corps Office (Este) _ ' 1't0
1 Consumer Horttculttire Agent s Office (Chariotze Glenn) ,. ;,,_ 120
Cnuttg= Drrector's Drfice (kea Bateman) ' ;~ ?37
f-= . _- _
i AG Hct..tiston Area Agent s OtFce (Bill Lotti) _ ,,,_ . _. ] ~0
',; jMasle Gardeuers OYtee 16~
,_
1 Plant and boil Rc.cetvarag and Labaratary Area 71
Greenhouse SF
Outside Storage Rnom 1 _ _ , ,... _ . _,_ ~... `tG
Dutsttie Swragc,}toom ~ 9D
SUBTOTAL. <1~58
~; 4'oa CC9ti)'C Extension Q1YCC, Famll & Consumer Su.
.~. -.-.
Home Econonucs Laho,arorv ~~hatnd utth ~H) 11(ka.
P,roeram A stsLtttt's O~cc (Rollins} .. ....'DO
FCS Extension Arent s Office 1 (Aebra Stmud) _ .,.., , l w0
ttrFCSbxt4nstonAgcntst]ffice~ ]20
~i l,.Vr ` _ _ -.--- _ .-SUIiTOT41.~y _1S4_8~
~ Cuaperattve ];ttenstan OtTice, d H
~~ Storage Aria ;: ] S~
{pProgram 4sststattts Office (Teresa and Other? '~
l~S-H Extanston A;entti Office 1 (too} _ _ 12G
Acur tty Room fln FC5 Home Econamtes LaUoratary) _ . _ G
~~ SLTBTOTALi 479
~.:
~';;
) i
Page 8J
a~
Appendix 2 ,Page 2 of 3
:'i~rabusSnts3` Ctntrr Spacc ftieeds Study
t~auni7' of Jtrhnstan
iROU)v4 hAl<~ES: - - -'S~UAREFEETj
r------ -_ _ __..
~ [ISDA Farm Services .Agency '
~ADpRaom~Aui mngon7 lBa
_A~tdittmurt {]n Coc~cratti~ E.Klenston) .. _ q
..
1Break Room {Shazcd throu~Jtaui USDA) _ 9~9~
ECED Office ~4S
_._
ICUC ~9c,.un$ Room t5han;d tluauQnout USDa.) ~~~
_, _,
ComRltance Rtatzm (~T/arunQ m Anciltarv Space)- --- _ .. 38~
~ReccauurJCounterArea {~Va unt; m Anctllan Spacel NYC!
Ctnei Program Tech/Adrmmurauve Uffiec oil
_ ..._
Dark-Room
~FarmLaanOflice ---- I$?
Stnta~e Area ~74~
l R'nr}, Area i s9$
J_..~, - SIJBTUTAL 562
(USDA, RuralDerelopment
R non,3rea fS Larrgstan) (VJattniK m Anetlla~~ Space} I,g'
Canfeien~e Ar*u {?n Farm Sen tcc Agency) _ p
~ComnonArea ..,... __ _ ..__.:. ._.'432
'Supply,F~le andSturage,Aran __ ., _.. _._ _.:_... _z. ....448.
Braal.-l..une); Area {In Fa[m Sen~ice_~ency)_ __,:, , ., fl
~RuralbetieTOpment'~ItrnagersOfficc{7ackie'A4ci.atr6) _ __ 124
_.,...._
Ru=a1L~evclapment Spcc~a~zst s Office ~Barlaaza l3intanl ~ -~ ~ 12p
Rural Ue~eloprcnt SpecraItsK's OJrce {Steve Ses~tons) _ 17{3
Rural f3evelo,Ptnt:et Spac~alist"s Uffice ('Beter7y_Cssev)- _..,,• I'4
Rural Developutent Tech's U~ce (Rhonda Toppings) 1 ~0
~r+9ana~emcntAsststantsOffice JanetBlacl,
~ .. _ _... )___._.: _ _..._. _ __...:. ,1112,
Rural Development Assistants Office.{TCathr}n Btmes) 117`
~Camniuru~y Datie7onment Sprcialisi's Office (friar} Tew) I r~
Cotnninnity Devclopmeni Aian3ger's Ornee {Garland $ume[te~ _ 174
.. _...
~ SUBTOTAL- - 7J81.
Page ~&
a~
Agribusiness Cenfer Space Needs Studs 'Appendix 2- ,Page ~ of 3
Courst}-;'sof Jotynston
ROOM PdA1~fL-S:'- ROOM ."dAlvfE, ''
USDA Soil Coii5ervatinn Sertiice
_:.:: _
R ception Area tT7eut Wlntley) (W airing m Ancillarg SJs.tce). _
X18
'
~Educauon Spa.ctalistsOffice(SusanWoodard) 1~0~
Fducauon StaragelL.nan l~'lirary (Susan W oodard) ~ '
_... IC10~
Sall Consenabontst'sOtfice l..(James hTasser) :.
'
' _:._ 1'()~
170;
2 (I}avld Casli)
s Office
Sall Cnnscrvattoarst '
Soil Coiaserraaontsts OtJice NRCS
. I
p~
_.. _.
i Districi'Consnruationtat 5 Of;sce MRCS 1?D
Neusc River Techmrrazt s Ofiic~ 1 ~D
Bruatc Room (In Farm 5cry~ace Agency} . _ _ .. _ 0~ `
.,
__
114aplComputerJCopy~'Egwptneat Room
--._ .: _ 3I2 < `
General OCfce Storas;e Ranrn
,_ . ....;.. . _ _ _ .._ . $~ '
_ _
.:...:.~
Filc Cabmet Stor~~e Room
.. 'S3i'
Conference Room tIn Farm ben icc Agcncy~ __ ~
Soil Survc,y Stara,~e Building ___ -- ?7D
_. _.__._ . SLSf3TOT.AL
i 196I :
- '
__.... ..
. .. ___.
_ _TOTAL OF ftEQtJIPED_ROONIS _ _I87??, '
SPAC&'t~5w,o of total building)
ANCtLLARY
_ 1(7081
i ,
,_.
_
TOTALFORIIUILI)i:NG 2883
Page 89
Appendix 3, Page 1 of 4
Preamble:
Agriculture is literally the foundation of our' society and our culture. It has an impact on every one of the basic
human needs: clean food, clean water, clean air, and shelter. It is the core of any long-term viability strategy for
a community,
Agriculture is in rapid decline in North Cazolina and Orange County. The average age ofthe farmer in NC is
57, and we are losing over 1000 small fazms per year (2002 USDA Agricultural Census). In Orange County we
currently have 60.3 farmers and have lost over 11000 acres of cropland since 1996 (2005 Orange Co, Farm
Service Agency), Most fanners' children aze not interested in continuing to operate the farm, If this trend
continues we will be below 100 farms in Orange County in the next 30 years.
Agriculture is experiencing fundamental change on many levels, The biotech industry is leading us towazds
genetically engineered crops and livestock. The traditional safety nets provided to farmers by government
programs are being phased out, The global marketplace has become a difficult place for American farmers to
operate as their costs of production are higher than in other countries and the pressure to develop their land
mounts,
However, the news is not all bad. In this region we do have a strong demand for local and organic produce and
livestock, The U.S. organic mazket is projected to reach a value of $30.7 billion by 2007, and it has
experienced an annual growth rate of over 21 percent per yeaz since 1997. National companies are interested in
developing organic enterprises in this region.
One of the charges given to The Ag Center Work Group by the Orange County Board of County
Commissioners was to Ltvestigate m:d explore potezztial need aztd uses for an Orange County Agricultural
Center, utilizing new information and current/future agricultural needs. The Long Term Subcommittee was
approved by the full work group to focus on the long term future agricultural needs of the county. Technically,
we cannot address the long-term use of an Agricultural Resources Center until we answer some fundamental
questions as a community.
The questions are:
• What do we want our food and fazming system to look like in Orange County in 30 years?
• Where do we want our food to come from?
• How do we want it produced?
• What can we do today to set a positive course towards a food and farming system that's good for' farmers,
consumers, and the environment?
The Long Term Subcommittee discussed the components of a food and farming system and strongly urges the
Orange County Board of County Commissioners to support a process to examine factors that will affect the
long term viability of agriculture in Orange County. We believe that this process should be based on a system
of staff and citizen committees that conduct a complete analysis of the six basic components of a food and
fazming system. We also believe that this process will help us answer the questions above as a community.
The Long Term Subcommittee offers the following as a foundation for the analysis.
Appendix 3, Page 2 of 4
as
Six components of a food and farming system in Orange County
1, Soil /Land
a. Erosion
b, Soil quality
c. Land tenure and ownership
2. Water
a. Water quantity
b, Water quality
3. Seed
a, Ownership of genetic resources
b. Accessibility to all seed sources
c. Seed quality /integrity
d. Regional suitability of seed
4. Farmers
a, Age of farmers in Orange County
b. Next generation of farmers
c. Education and training for future farmers
d, Economic viability of farming in Orange County
e. Technical support to fanners
f. Landaccessibility
g, Capitalization of fazm enterprises
5. Processing /Distribution
a. Limited infrastructure
b. Seasonal supply at regional level
c. Fuel costs
d, Product miles
e. Food security
f Quality miles
6, Consumers
a. Health of Orange County citizens
b, Food and product awareness /labeling issues
c, Access to local products
d, Lack of community gardens
e, Lack to access to ag by-products
Appendix 3, Page 3 of 4
a~
Saecific solutions and questions to address the six determinants
to the future of farming in Orange County
1. Soil /Land
a. Land Evaluation & Site Assessment (LESA) to guide purchase of ag easements
b, Tools for land transition
c. Analysis of local soil analysis & amendments
d. Use of waste stream products (eg compost)
Where is our best soil? What volume of land would it take to meet a significant portion
of our food supply? How can we keep this land in farming? How do we improve the soil
for future generations? What inputs will we use and where will they come from?
2. Water
a, Analysis of current water situation
b. Water catchment
c. Water reuse and recycling
d. Water need and quality
e. Access and distribution of water
What volume of water would it take to produce enough food to meet a significant portion
of our food supply? Do we have enough? How would/does agriculture impact our water
supply now and in the future?
3, Seed
a. Analysis of current situation /quality
b. Analysis of current need
c, Protection of genetic integrity
d. Provide access to seed resources
Who owns it? How accessible is it? Is it genetically engineered? Is it adapted to our
region?
4. Farmers
a. Fazmer incubator
b. Training and demonstration gardens and fields
c. Community ag festival
d. Elementary, middle, & high school education programs to teach importance of ag
and farming
e. Farm planning
f Farm capitalization - how to finance a new farming
g. Marketing support
h. Analysis of fair market price of products
i. Opportunity to lease farm land /community land
,j, Fazmprofitability
Who are they? How aze they trained? What is a fair wage for growing food? How do
we insure that farmers receive this wage or better?
Appendix :3, Page 4 of 4
a5
5, Processing /Distribution
a, Analysis of annual food and ag products consumption in Orange County
b, Enhancements to local food system
c. Year-round production tools & technologies
d, Regional processing & distribution facility
e. Local infrastructure analysis
What pieces of infrastructure do we need to support a local food system? Where should
they be located?
6. Consumers
a. Agheritagefestival
b. Education in schools
c. Product labeling /local branding
d, Fann to cafeteria programs
e, Market access for all folks
£ Community gazden space
How much food does our community use? How do we bring about change in the
relationship between consumers and agriculture that results in community support of a
locaUorganic food system? How do we keep the cost of food reasonable and still pay the
farmer a fair wage?
Appendix 4, Page 1 of 1
Notes from Wake County Ag Services Center
County Info a 6
• Sixth largest tobacco county with $55 million in tobacco per year
• Open space farmland preservation target goal of 30,000 acres
• County Priorities are home buying Issues and Food Safety
• Strong support from Cattlemen's Association and beekeepers
Facility Info
• Initiated in 1979; 2 farmers were serving at county commissioners;
• 72 acres were purchased; Moved into new 21,000 $ sq facility in 1986. Each office is 12 x 15
• Reception can be viewed at main entrance to help welcome folks; 4 large conference rooms
• Desire was to have a `mall' type feel to the center
• Large facility can holdup 750 in a single room or 250 people in three rooms
• Adjacent to OakView Plantation
County Ag Agency Staff
• 50 extension (28 in 4-H/youth; 8 EFNEP; 2 FCS; 5 ag/env)
• 10 Soil & Water Conservation District /Natural Resources Conservation Service
• 8 Farm Services Agency
• 1 Rural Development
Notes from Johnston County
County Info
• Annual Fazm City Eanquet
• $64 million in nursery products
• Largest number of farms in a single county in NC
Facility Info
• 32,000 ft sq; including 7,500 ft sq auditorium with 700 person capacity that can split into 3 rooms
($800/day; $100/hr).
• $4.7 million cost; Tom Trowbridge of Wooten was designer/architect/coordinator
• Demonstrates water quality and stormwater management; no curb and gutter; has bioretention
areas
• Environmentally sensitive landscaping
• Extension has one full wall for publications opposite their welcome counter; plans for mural
painting
• Extension teaching lab has tv/vcr, sewing machines, and 2 stoves; hosts wide variety of meetings
from babysitting classes to job training
• Extension work room has azea for soil, plant tissue, and master gardener activities
• Common hall far all USDA agency offices
• Future Plans: arboretum, amphitheatre
County Ag Agency Staff
• 15 extension (4 ag; 2 FCS, 1 4-H youth; 1 EFNEP; 3 support)
• 10 Soil & Water Conservation District /Natural Resources Conservation Service
• 15 Farm Services Agency
• 15 Rural Development (houses regional office)
N
w
r
c
w
V
a
M
~g
~~
yW
M
C_
P
u
x
Appendix ~, Page .~ of ~ o~
A
a+
C V
'
~ O
V
.~
.
a.~Ii
•
m ~ .
d
r~ Q
f`
Sp .~
~%~ O
N
~ Q ~ op
4 0~
+~ ^ ~
~
~ ,,~. ~
3 p :
E-~ ~
~4 .
~"
Appendix .~ ,Page ,2 of y
r,
Appendix ~, Page ~ of '
~,
v;; ~ ,
~
~
~ Y
,,
i
q
,r,;;
' 6
I y~ o
tT
_
Y
::
` e.
l"' ~Y,
f:
V t`
..
{. "•
~l, ~~_
Y
~.~
~ D{
~
~' J
V I
f. i "
C
Q f
2
`
] ~
y
N ~
r
,
C Y
rv' • O
y
L
Q W
11
a~
i i
~i
YY
Ji
Appendix h , Page y of
3c~
Appendix 6, Page 1 of 1
Blue Ridge Food Ventures (BRFV): A Shared Use Food Processing Center
Orange County Ag Center Work Group .30 September 2005 Trip Notes
General info
• BRFV is part of AdvantageWest, the western NC regional economic development commission
• Developed in partnership with Madison & Graham Counties
• Main facilitating entities were NC Dept of Ag & Consumer Services (Smithson Mills) and NC Dept
of Commerce
• Provides purchasing, storage, and processing support;
• Some technical support is provided on site and through Dr. Rushing at NC State Univ. Food
Science Department
• Small business support available at adjacent offices on same campus
• Publicity through on-site cooking classes, media coverage, BRFV booth at local festival, and
through stickers on products at retail locations
• First clients in spring 2005; 5 to 10 calls each week; one of 40 to 50 kitchens established across
the country
• Advisory Board provides guidance
Facility information
• 12,000 ftz in a 350,000 ftz building; formerly ENiW /BASF /Asheville-Buncombe Technical
Community College (AB Tech)
• New HVAC, plumbing, and electric
• Purchased used food service equipment; walk in coolers from Ingels; some freezers were donated
Examples of current processing
• Locally produced potatoes from former tobacco farms in a farm to school program
• Apple cider
• Blueberry and blackberry jams, Used church kitchen before for 8 jars at a time compared to 215
jars in 1 hr 15 minutes at BRFV
• Carolina Culinary Craft; prep work for restaurants: cut veggies, fry bacon, slaws & salads
• Hot sauces; client has own smoker
• Sweet Potato Pie Factory; 24,000 pies in 3 weeks
• Gourmet popcorn
• Ice Cream
• Gelatto marketed to restaurants
• Organic fair trade chocolate sauce and truffles
• Mexican baker family markets to local stores
Budget information
• $1.2 million to establish and operate for initial 3 years
• Major donors of $250k of more were GoldenLEAF, Department of Justice, and Appalachian
Regional Commission
• $33k annual fee goes to AB Tech
• Assume 500 users per month; $20 / hr of use not including setup and breakdown
• Shelf-stable items are priced differently than perishable items
• Multiple users at any given time
d
W
Appendix ~ ,Page ~ of 3
3a
G Q o
la ~
n ~ N
`~ ''~ ~
O ^
~ N
,~
3 ~ ¢ n ~'
I¢ ~ ~ ~ o
;+~ su
~ .
ui
^ ,•: o
~ .
a
° = "~
m .
,.
N
y5R
4
C
m
a
M
9
V¢
a
Appendix ~', Page Z of 3
N
C
0
R
Q
a
a.
a:
D
P p "'wt.
' U
{f
~r
~
~~ i.
s"`'
.e
~ ~ Y:
~ sv
~ .~~ `.
~i
~ ;r3
r^
i
~ I
i~ .
~ A
te
~~
i ~ e ~:
l (' :~ ~
.
~~„-. ~ ~. 7
7 r~.9
€ +. ~
,
1 ~i ' r ~
I
~
r
~
~
~ ,> ~ ~
~
Appendix ~' ,Page ~ of 3
~~
~,
P
C
~~
W
G
D
13
rs
a
'e
~
m
~. _
.~
N N
U
~ .`
~
~ Q
Q ~ C U
~
C •n ~
~~ L
a
/
V
N U
y
o
~ ~ ~ m
~ ~ c o ~
m »r Q
~ W O O
L ~ ~ `O C
a~ U
C p ~ t/1 a
~1
W O. C ~ U N
U " °' °'
~ E
~~,
~.N o a
~ o
a ~
o
N
~ N O U O.
G
I ~ _ ~ V ~
` •~ ~ ~ ~ Q)
U ~
> N ` .~0. N N O
SU m cn o ~ 3
~- cV t~ d'
~~
~ ~
Q
~
~U
~ ~
~ o
(~ G1
. >
> o
N
L ~
~ RS
C
~Q N
U
~
^
L
..~ ~
L .. ~ d'
O N +,, ~
U
"`
~ ~
WZ Q
Appendix ~ ,Page 1 of ~
~ o rn
Q c ~ '~ c
m
U ~ o ~
~ rn m
Q Q a ~ _
~y_ ~ ~ a v
V 3 ._ O ._
U m a v
~° m
~ Q m ~ ~
c
m ~ m o m
U o € _ ° y
C = w ~ ~ m
N c U
S. ,L ° urn m m E
c c E ~ m m e
m U m E U O l0 O
(~ w ~acim~m w .6 aci m
N c N O U L !0 C m m U
U N ~~~~ ~ N = m
~c ~ ~~ E °' m ~ ~ a ~ m ~
N ~ w
~ 1'- .c o c n o c :~ o. o m
4- j~~ N m G ~ N U N r- N
Al m ~ in 'O 6 N C ~ W O m ° N
~ V O UJ N O US Q U1 O = ~ O
m m E~ o E 3 v y~ co ~
Nm'~Emm o
~ ~ o> o -o c -G m m 3 E a=i
N ~U
C N~ U 'O N U Q O LL m ~.
.- (V M 'U' N (O
O D_
C O O
li O C
~= ~,
U
O m
¢ ~ C
N ~
O
~ ~
~
O
N O
U
L
r n _
O ~ ~ O
C
w'"
V (~0 U O N 'O
~ mo ~ ~ o
3 ~ a
~ °
o ~
~
~
o o
.~
m c
~ . m
~
a=i
C~
m
o
N ~ ~ E ~ ._
i ~ E
~ o
o. ~ c
o 'o ~ '°
'~"' N o' .N Q 1 N
~ ~ N
E 4S CO
0 N
.Q
VJ
U - `
U N ~ C
N N ~O
.`
c
0~
4 o
a
U o
w.
s .~
. U o
Q ~°~ ~c~ i ~ ~ ~
f o° Y o ° > I ~
n,
A
~ o
N O
U N O
'
'~ N ~
O O O ,
o O
N
.~..
~
C L
~~ >' O
N r
U O .
N N
E
O
N ~ ~
.U =O C .O C
i U C '~ .~ '~. E
U
O U° i ~ Q o Q
Appendix 4 ,Page 2 of ~
c o
Q
C
O
. "J
Z N
~
N
N
O ~
C •~
N O »-~
~. to
E C
o ~ 'p
U U m c
ti N O
~ ..
c ~ G
O
4
- 'N ~ w CJ ~
/
~
(
`v ~ Q N ~
~ ~ C
N L1~ Q L O
~ ~
>m ~
~~~ ....~'~
o
c N .c
~~ O ~ ~ N
~ ~rn~
~ U) ~ U N D: i~
a
E to '~ ~ N m
N m
~ 2
Q.~ m c ~-° o ~ ~ c -~
~ ~°~ ~~m
'
m
~
OILY p~Z jOF- 0- .
_
U
U I I W I I W I I ~ I L' ~( I
" c
m 0
~ ~ O c ~ L ~ O UO7 -OO ~ N "~ ~ a ~ ~
Q~ O N E ~ m E rn N C O U` N~ E N t9
m m~~SU oY~~~ ~~u c ~
~ O ~U m ~~f-~CO N~~ O~~
H o. p) -~ CL ~
~ t~
N ~
CD m
°
.v
.a
=
i .
/
~ ~
vyi ~ ~ ~ ` D
L
~ ~
L !
t
•
4
yy ~u ~~( T
J
C ~',~ ~r.
~"n1 ~ rv arv 1 5
}
•
I
i
k~
' w d
_
~
- ~
C 4' _ ' ,
"" '~
e,
;
•
~
C ~ ~
U ~
~_
O ~
~ KIry' 4
/
~
W
V }y
~~ ~
y
1!
C ~r ~~
- ~.
~~ .
z
to O ~ m- `
,~
-
t ^-~~ c
e
V!
+•
a ,~, i+q .
'x
a ~ °~
~~
`
F = J
i+ .
.tom bbb ~
fl ^ -'r"-,
M 3-~ 3
1' 4 t _ - ~. C
'
R
u
'~
9 °-_
m _-
p L
O n~"+
f :'~ a
m I S ~~ i.
R
In
~ ~
~ .~'~
Q
A~ Q ~
U ~ ~
O
~
~ O
`~-
~
~
.Q ~
=
to
~ U
~ A
.N .c
N ~
~ G 2i
~ ~
~ fq ~ N ~
,~
N c
c
G V 'c
~ N ~
fn ~ o
U vii ~
.c
W
f6
L __
U ~ ~
C ~ U ~
~ ,,,, T ;Q ~ C ` O.
.~'~ ~. ~, ~~y ~ ~ y ~ C
,~ N
- ~
m f6 ~+~- °C ~ C O
°
~
o c
o rn
c -r3
~ 0
~
a~ U
~ ~ C V C G ~ ~
U H F ~ ~ U 5 0
Appendix ~ ,Page 3 of ~?
~ U
Q ~ rn
C >, y
a+
~
~
a. ~ d ~.
~ ~ m ~ o c
O = ° U °'
s- o N E U' c ~
/
V N ~ ~ Y ~ O
~
O
~
~a
~ ~
~
E
~
~
~
,
~ ts- O ~ >
~ U ~ ~ a~
o Q o. cn ,
as= c, ~ ~a ~
' ~m a y m
~ g
a m i,.
'a
(
Q
C
V- ~ fq N om? -
~ ~
/~y L 0 ~ ...
~~ ~~
.: j i
-
.c i C C ~ ~~ ,~~ • ,
~~ ~
-.
Q~ (i ~ r ~~ ~ o
?
~ ~ V C - ~
N
V
~
C ~:
'_'~~
s
~ y
„
O y U t' ; ~ ;
r' ~
~a~
0. (~ ~ '' a ~ E
'
~ ~
6 g
tQ ll. L ~ 3 ~ e
~ :
O (~
._ ,_Y ~ t 2 u. O
J
a
~
~ ~'
a_.' ,
:~i
-.~ s
' j'
.~
O
U
O
~, _
~~
~~
~~
o~
0
~~
~.
o ~
c ~
~ a~i
~ , a~
N ~
~ ~ ~
.~ ~ ~'
~ ~ ~
C C •`
N
~ CJ ~
o ~ ~
a. ~ ~
~~~.
~~
~ ~ ,.
~ ~ c
~ Q ~
rny,~
N C U
> O ~
5 U ca
.~
r ~
~~
`p G
O
H
~ v
E ~
~ ~
U ~j
~ ~
o m
L
(n J
T T
3~
N
O
O
N
L h
~
~ m
~+ N
N
_U
•
N
~
Q
~~
U
O
~
U ~ O
~ ~ 0
~ 0
^ ~ 0
O 0
~ ~ 0
O
N
~O
N
N
(D O
o
r
r, N
(D
N
C7
to E
N
N
~ tf~
~
~
r (O
o
(V
N 10
o
(V
r M
r'
~
t0
r E
V'
to
F/}
m
r
~~.
u7 r~
m
r E
ry
N
H3 E
~
~ r~
~
N r
m
N m
crnv
~"
v
N
0 E
~
h
~
~ v
N
~
U
N
~
'6
m
C
D U
~
V
C
c6
N
`~ .~
C
J
U
~
0
m
C
v
l9
'O
~
~
N
a~
N
O
~
d
O
d
~
l4
O
U
v
N
a~
[0
'O
v
C
N
~
N
l0 N
~
U
w'S
d
_
!0
~
O
U
.Y
=
m
~
O
N
:_
~
N
U
~
~
p
LL J
N
.-1
O
~.
O_
"~
~ ~
~
~ G
O
N
O
~ a
o
U z
0
~ z
~ ~
-
o =
.~ E ~
O ~ U U N
.
C -p
v a
N a
~ v
~ ~
~,
//
/~~
'~/
VJ ~ N ""
C
N ~
~ ~
C
~ '«+
~ ~
p
C
O O
'~ d U ~
E ~
E c
a> o
~ o
~ c
~ ~ N
~ ~ U
~ "r ~ ~.
U
~
~ c
_ ,~ O N
~~ C N ~ N
~ C N
N
n- ~ N
~ .. ~
O
~
~
' ~- X
N 7,
N~~ ~ °
U
U "y ~
N o
~
>, ~ ~ X
L ~ a~
"- ~ ~ ~
~f1 O
C ~ ~ ~ V
ro
o c ~
`~ ~ w
"C
V
U E
~
C ~ '
+
+
w
~ ~ Q -
~
V ~ ~ 47 N ceS ~
.~ N_.+ Cn 'O ,
(6
Q ~ ~ W ~ O.. 'L7
~ :~'~ `T U c o ~
Q c .~ °~
a~ O a> > a
~
~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ W
Appendix P ,Page '~ of (J,r
Appendix $ , Page ~ of
0
N
d
~
N
c ~
-o
//ff~~
W (9 G
U .L O
-O
n
W/ ~= Q N ~
C
~ ~ + U
'~^/~
V! vi O
N N
N
'
~' m
C
~
~
~
~
E "-' -~
.
tD N
O z N o ~ N o
U . p t0 07 ~- U ~ N
Q U ~ .
lII >,
` u O E
z ~_ O
C
~ U N ~
~ N ~
~
~'
~ C O N w ~ ~
~ ~ .N
~ ~ m
O " w ~
O ~ n.
E N N
O j
m N N
~
U N 'p N
V ,..
. N N N
O
E
O.
.N
X
N
J U
~ (0
~ ,N ~ O
m
oo. a~
~o .~m
oS' ~
E ~,
o
o> o o !~ ~ c
w~ av '°~U U
W r.+
C
~1~
W O
„F, U
N
rn
c
m
O
0 0
U N
c
L N
y
~
.
~ ,~
J ~
.
~ ~ ~ N
~
°' ~ w rn
U
~ ~ .L O ~
C9 [ m a ~
~~/~
VJ
~,
`n O
v ~
N
LL.
~ ~
OO
n~ v
^W
W
Q
N
C L
L Q~
C
~ ~
Y ~
U ~
O ~
>_ N
Q ~
O C
U U
~o 0
~ f~ N
d'
L
(ll
.N
C
(v
Q
0 ~
Q- o
Q. _
U O
"~
~ ~
D
~'+ vi
~ N O
L C ~
~ ~ N N tq
r
v/ ~ ~ ~
~
Q ~ ~ > ~
~
L ~
v •N > O
O -
o ~ ~ U
~ ~ o
fn ~ V~ t6 ~
.~ o ~ ~, ~
o ~ '' °
U ~' ~
~
N
L N
~ N ~ ~
a-' ~ D1 ~ O
~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~
~ O v ~ N ~
-a ~
c ~ ~
~ ~ ,O N o o _
U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~
W
N -~
' ~ v ~ '~
Q ~ C
n tL (6
~ p
Z cE
Q X 1 1 1
Appendix 8 ,Page G? of 6
p ~ ~
~ ~
~
'~ ~ _
.~
~ _
~ ~
~ to = O
~ V
> ~ ~
~ ~+
~
_ + i
,N O1 C ~ 0 ~
,~,
~ ~
~ ca
~ V ~
~
~ o ~
:~
L
(/~ O
U
~ ~
~ ~
O
o ~ ~ N
~ ~
~ w
co
S c6
~ N ~ tB
~ C
.
.~-
O C.~Z•-
'
C ~`~
~
O ++ d' f
6 (Tf
~"
~~CE ~~
~
N ~ ~ ~ ~
'
~ ~
C ~
U
_ C NN
~
+•
Q
°
~~
~ `c
~ a
C
N .
v
i
~ ~
w ~
Q-E ` c
~•°~
U o
~~'
~~
O6~ ~
°'
O ~X
Q +-
(
U
p~Q~-J pO
F-
..
~ I I I I = I I
Appendix 9, P~/e 1 of 6
SUMMARY DATA
Totes/ Number of Surveys Received = 58
Orange County Ag Center Work Group Survey
/reformation you provide wil/remain confidentia/.~
In April 2005, the Board of County Commissioners charged the Ag Center Work Group to
"investigate and exp/ore the potentia/need and uses for an Orange County Agricu/tural Center,
uti/izing new information and currentffuture agricu/tural needs."
We need your help! Please consider taking a few moments to complete this survey to ensure that
your thoughts are shared with the Orange County Ag Center Work Group. Surveys returned by
20 JAN '06 will be tabulated and presented at the Public Outreach Meeting to be held in early FEB.
1. I am a (circle if appropriate)
Crop Farmer livestock Farmer Crop & Livestock Farmer Consumer Gardener
7 77 78 70 3
Other ans wers: a//
2. Age: 5 to 18 19 to 25 26 to 40 41 to 60 60+
7 ~ 8 20 25
3. Land use OWN <2 acres 2 to 10 ac 11 to 50 ac 51 to 100 ac >101 ac
6 7 ~~ 70 77
RENT <2 acres 2 to 10 ac 11 to 50 ac 51 to 100 ac >101 ac
2 0 4 3 73
4. I believe that Orange County needs a new agricultural resource center. _ YES _ NO
45 8
OtherAnswers: M ~; ? 7
If you answered yes, please indicate those features you would like to see included in an
agricultural resource center.
(Show priority using H =high priority; M =medium priority; L= /ow priority)
NOTE.• Some respondents checked the item rather than indicate
high, medium, or /ow priority.
a. _ Small meeting rooms for up to 30 people
Check 7,• H 70; M 4; L 7,• Other answers:
b. _.__ Medium meeting rooms for 30 to 75 people
Check ~ ~; H 72; M 9; L 5; Other ans wers:
Appendix 9, Page 2 of 6
c. ~ Large meeting room for up to 250 people
Check 6; H 7,• M 6; L 8; Other answers: one 7
d. _ Vegetable and fruit processing facility !community kitchen (multi-county)
Check 5; H 7,• M 8; L 8; Other answers: no ~
e. _ Meat processing facility
Check 8; H 9; M 5; L 9; Other answers: no
f. _ Outdoor urban horticulture learning facilities
Check 6; H 6; M 70; L 6; Otheranswers:
g. ~ Ag Heritage information
Check 4; H 7,• M 70; L 2; Other answers: no ~
h. _ Outdoor environmental education learning lab
Check 8; H 70; M 8; L 5; Otheranswers:
i. _ Outdoor facilities for events, fairs, gatherings
Check 76; H 73; M 8; L 3; Other ans veers:
j. _ Learning activities to teach children how to grow and preserve food
Check 75; H 77,• M 5; L 3; Otheranswers: no ~
k. _ Opportunities for learning about farm animals
Check 74; H 75; M 7,• L 3; Otheranswers:
I. ~ 4-H program opportunities
Check 79; H 78; M 5; L 2; Otheranswers:
m. _ Equine exhibition facilities
Check 8; H 70; M 6; L 6; Otheranswers: no
n. ~ Sustainability Resource Center that addresses energy and food systems
Check 7; H 72; M8; L ~; Otheranswers:
o. _ Other
p. Other
~
q. ~ Other
Ag Center
7J H Make center accessib/e -get 4H & FFA to use the center /ots
2J HA//ag agencies in the same building
3) H Curricu/um of workshops/short courses re%vant to small farms &
shifting
4J M Media information
~f3
Appendix 9, Page 3 of 6
Processing Center
5J M Shared use processing facility
6J H Va/ue added production faci/ity -hea/th / ? Natura//y based
7J /fee/ any processing faci/ity - vegetab/e, fruit, or meat needs to be in a
stand-a/one b/dg and mu/ti-county.
8) H Warehouse food storage space
Soi/and Horticu/ture
9J C Soi/hea/th
~OJ Garden p/ots; water & tree conservation
99J C/nvasivespecies
>2J Landscaping
73J Green & natura/,bui/ding
74J H Demonstration p/ots
Livestock
>5J Catt/e hand/ing faci/ities to a//ow sma//scale producers to cooperate with
other sma//producers to se// trai/er loads of catt/e cooperative/y
96J M Catt/e sa/e pavi/ion
97J Livestock sales faci/ity
i. What agriculture-related action can local government take to ensure that Orange county has an
active farming community in the year 2020 (Use other side if necessary)
Aa Program Support
7J Space
2J Verba//y support agriculture
3J Make sure funds are in place
4J Young men wi//have to put forward & work hard to keep agricu/ture going in
2020
5) Funding programs and youth
6J Appropriate funds to add to state funds to assist financia//y the county agents
and their work in the county, he/ping, advising, and educating the pub/ic about
how vita/agricu/ture is to the pub/ic and their community
7J Do anything possible to he/p young farmers survive;
8J ASC CED is doing a greatjob to he/p farmers
9J Support sma//farmers -grants, education, marketing networks so farmers can
coordinate
Appendix 9, Pag~4 of 6
Taxes
70) Lower taxes on farm/and
77) Help with tax incentives for rura/farming operations
72) Reduce "farmed" acreage to quantify as a farm for taxation
73) Lowerfarm taxes
94) Don't want to see more taxes for anything
95J Lower farm tax
>6J Reasonab/e property taxes,
77) Don't tie the hands offarmers with taxes
98) Keep taxes /ow
79) Keep agricu/ture taxes low to keep farmers in business
20) Farm taxes exempt
Added Va/ue/Diversification
27) Diversification
22) Niche marketing
23) Va/ue added enterprises, f/nancia/partnerships
24) Shared use faci/ity
Aa Enterprise Deve/opment
25) /ncentives to keep farmers in business
26) Work w/local farmers on a/ternatives to traditions/farming (/, a agribusiness
opportunities)
27) Make it easy to get produce
28) Creating a support system that tru/y assists farmers as they work to grow -
from the processing to labor issues to regu/story concerns
29J Promote alternative farming
Farm/and Transition
30) Educational & advocacy support for current o/dergeneration farmers on
options forkeeping their/and, transitioning to newgeneration farms, desling
with temptations ofdeve/opment
39) Assistnew/youngfarmers
Appendix 9, Page 5 of 6
Regu/ations & Permits
32J Make changes in government regu/ations as agricu/ture changes and support
a/l types of agricu/ture and forestry activities
33J Don't tie the hands offarmers with so manyregu/ations
34J Less county regu/ations a//ow Weaver Street Market into Hil/sborough without
so much red tape
35J Ag-friend/yzoning & subdivision
36J Zoning; bui/ding restrictions
37J Ordinances to protect farm operations from nuisance legal action
Marketing Farm Products
38J He/p create market demand
39J Ensure that farmers get a reasonable price for their products
40J Contracts (schoo/s etcJ to /oca/producers
47J Promotion of Orange County product '/abe/' "buy /oca/ -buy Orange County
42J Volume needed & price numbers for sa/e to /oca/groceries
Farm/and Protection /Land Use
43J Protect /and
44J Cut back on bui/ding in urban areas
45J S/ow down on bui/ding in urban areas
46J Hold deve/opment pressures back
47J Continue to support & fund conservation easement program.
48J POR and TDR programs
49J Commercia/nodes in Tura/crossroad locations
Community and Agricu/tune .
50J Socia/gatherings at ag center
59J Support bringing in co-ops like Weaver Street that wi//he/p farmers find
consumers
52J Get families to cook more
53J Help affordable health & liability insurance
54J Farmers need representation on countygovernment
55J Be sure to include rural communities in /oca/ politics by district elections for
county commissioners
56J Stop se/ling farms to construction peop/e
y~
Appendix 9, Page 6 of 6
i. ^ Yes, I want to stay informed about this effort (Provide name & address / email)
Name /Address / Email 24 individua/s provided contactinformation
Send completed surveys to:
Ag Center Work Group, Economic Development Commission, PO Box 1177, Hillsborough, NC 27278
Appendix ~D ,Page 1 of?-
y7
THE COST OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
IN nRANGE COUNTY
Prepared by:
Mitch Renkow
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics
North Carolina State University
January 2QQ6
Table 2. Revenues vs. Expenditures in Orange County Appendix fo , Page Z of Z
~~
Residential Commercial Agricultural
Expenditures $138,441,212 $10,063,907 $1,351,755
(92.4%) (6.7%) (0.9%)
Revenues $105,633,103 $42,357,171 $1,866,600
(70.5%) (28.3%) (1.2%)
Revenues/Expenditures ratio° 0.76 4.21 1.38
Revenue/Expenditure ratios from national studiesb
Minimum 0.47 0.96 1,01
Median 0.87 3.57 2.78
Maximum 0.99 20.00 50,00
Revenue/Expenditure ratios from local studies`
Chatham County 0.90 2.13 1.09
Wake County 0.65 5.63 2.12
a. This ratio measures the amount of county revenue contributed by a given land use sector for each
dollaz in public services used by that sector,
b. These figures are derived from 103 Cost of Community Services summarized on the American
Fannland Trust website (htto://farmlandinfo.org/documents/27757/FS_COCS_8-04.pdfl.
a These studies were conducted by the author in 1998 and 2001, respectively,
8