Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPB agenda 081501-2COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: Agricultural Preservation Board From: David Stancil, ERC Director Date: August S, 2001 Re: August 15th Agenda Please find attached the agenda for our next meeting, scheduled fori /:. � �, r.> rrri3' reSrrrrrr/. �Trrrr/, �rss/ �Yrrr/, dPrr/ rr. �rv�% reS�, �r�+ r, E' rrrrrrr/ b/ er/ �rf> �: Y, �%. 41rd,'/ rr/ �rsrayrrrrr, 6�/ rrr/ rrrrrrrrrr L� / ® /13�,r,��- �,!7rrrrr�' /i�� ;fir- err /.r�"/.®r.3i /.� /e'rr.CYrG ri/E-r�,a PLEASE NOTE THE ENCLOSED IN VITA TION TO A SPECIAL RECEPTION A T 7:00 PM THIS SAME EVENING! Please contact Carol Melton (245 -2597) by Tuesday, August 14 if you will be unable to attend. Copies: Tina Moon, Preservation Planner Fletcher Barber, CES County Director Brent Bogue, District Conservationist Rich Shaw, Land Conservation Manager 0 FW V E AUG rtS 2 ,, I AGENDA Wednesday, August 15, 2001 PLANNING AND AGRICULTURAL CENTER 306 Revere Road, Hillsborough, NC 7:00 SPECIAL RECEPTION - PLANNING AND AGRICULTURAL CENTER LOBBY (please see enclosed invitation) Regular Meeting 7:30 p.m. Time Pate AGENDA ITEM 7:30 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:30 2. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 7:31 02 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — May 16 7:35 07 4. ITEMS FOR DECISION a. Resolution of Appreciation — Nancy Goodwin b. Voluntary Agricultural District application (Schofield) 8:15 09 5. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION a. Farmland GIS Mapping Project/Ag Priority Areas b. New Agricultural Economic Development Specialist Position c. Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan — 2002 -2003 8:55 6. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 9:00 7. ADJOURNMENT G DRAFT MINUTES AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD May 16, 2001 PRESENT: Whit Morrow, Elizabeth Walters, Nancy Goodwin, Bob Strayhorn, Tony Kleese, Marty Mandell, Noah Ranells, Louise Tate, Environment & Resource Conservation Director David Stancil, ERCD Preservation Planner Tina Moon, Administrative Assistant Carol Melton. Guests present: Commissioner Barry Jacobs, Carl Walters. ABSENT: Rodney Recor and Charles Thompson ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER Morrow called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. ITEM #2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA ITEM #3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 21, April 18, 2001 MOTION: Kleese motioned for approval of March 21 and April 18 minutes with noted corrections. Seconded by Walters. VOTE: Unanimous. ITEM #4: ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION a. Farm Voluntary Agricultural District Application — Hunter M. Schofield Stancil introduced the Voluntary Agricultural District application for Hunter Schofield and asked Moon to go through the materials (see attachment) for the APB's consideration. There are three basic requirements for inclusion in a Voluntary Agricultural District: a completed application, qualifying farmland (based on State Statutes), and National Resources Conservation Services certification of suitable soils. Based on the tax supervisor's office, the Schofield property meets criteria for qualifying farmland but Mr. Schofield has not submitted an application to participate in the present use -value taxation program. Likewise, the property contains the appropriate amount of productive soils, but the applicant has not applied for a new farm number since purchasing the farm. The APB agreed that the new landowner should contact the Soil & Water office as well as Farm Service Agency office to ensure that all pertinent records are updated. Specifically the conservation farm plan should be updated to reflect the Schofield ownership, and current acreage and boundaries. The new owner will need to contact NRCS and FSA to revise the ownership documentation in both offices. The current plan shows a tobacco /small grain rotation, if any changes in land use or cropping system is to be made the conservation plan will need to be revised. Draft May 16, 2001 �r MOTION: Kleese motioned to table the recommendation pending the updated conservation plan and actual participation in the use value taxation program. Seconded by Walters. VOTE: Seven yeas, one abstained. Other discussion included districts descriptions, new legislation interpretations, overlay maps, and a possible Lands legacy farm idea. b. Revised Voluntary Agricultural District application The APB reviewed the revised application and voiced concerns regarding the wording in the following passages of the Conservation Agreement section: "If certified by the Agricultural Preservation Board and approved by the Board of Commissioners, I agree to sustain, promote and encourage agriculture in the district, support protection against nuisance suits, undesired non -farm development and other negative impacts on participating farms." "I agree to voluntarily preserve and protect the conservation values of the Property by prohibiting non -farm residential use of the Property for a period of 10 years from the date of signing of this Agreement, except for the creation of not more than three (3) lots that meet applicable zoning and or subdivision regulations." Kleese suggested "I agree to support protection against nuisance suits ". Walters noted that the legislation says that being in an Ag District gives the owner some support or protection against nuisance suits. Stancil clarified that it meant the VAD owner would be supportive of the concept of protection from nuisance suits. Kleese suggested "I agree to sustain, promote, and encourage agriculture in the district and to abide by the requirements of the agricultural district." Members agreed that the specificity is too difficult and signature would be unadvisable with current language interpretations. The APB discussed the potential for different interpretations of the existing language as well as the lengthy verbiage of certain sections. The Broad felt that non -farm uses that are beneficial to farmers should not be excluded, and should perhaps be encouraged. Kleese suggested something like, "I agree to voluntary preserve and protect the beneficial value of the property being residential and other non -farm development or development that would have negative impact on participating farms." Morrow suggested the following "If certified by the Agricultural Preservation Board and approved by the Board of County Commissioners, I agree to sustain, promote and encourage agriculture in the district. The purpose of creation of a district is to support protection against nuisance suits, undesired non -farm development and other negative impacts on participating farms." Ranells suggested "I agree by participating in the VAD, I understand that there will be.public hearings on condemnation of farmland, record notice of proximity of farmland." Ranells also suggested itemizing in a couple bullets what the benefits of the rule are to get away from defining non -farm and making it cumbersome. Draft May 16, 2001 2 4 Morrow suggested "I agree to voluntarily preserve and protect the conservation values of the property by prohibiting substantial non -farm use that alters the agricultural character of the property for a period of ten years from the date of signing this agreement." Stancil suggested that the APB come up with a working list of what "substantial non -farm use is, without creating a new zoning ordinance. A selection of different wordings were discussed at length concluding with the following: MOTION: Kleese motioned to modify the application language: "If certified by the Agricultural Preservation Board and approved by the Board of Commissioners, I agree.to sustain, promote and encourage agriculture in the district. The purpose of creation of a district is to support protection against nuisance suits, undesired non -farm development and other negative impacts on participating farms." "I agree to voluntarily preserve and protect the conservation values of the property by prohibiting substantial non -farm use that alters the agricultural character of the property for a period of ten years from the date of signing this agreement, except for the creation of not more than three (3) residential lots that meet applicable zoning and or subdivision regulations." Seconded by Mandell. VOTE: Unanimous The APB agreed to forward to the County Attorney for review. ITEM #5. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION a. Follow -up from May 2nd Joint Meeting The APB discussed the May Joint Meeting with the Planning Board and Historic Preservation Commission. Kleese suggested that having one -page handouts explaining what the different groups are doing and more inclusive discussion topics would benefit future joint meeting agendas. b. 2001 -2002 Adopted Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan Stancil noted that the BOCC has adopted the Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan 2001 -02 and referenced the "Farmland Conservation Easement" on the Priority List (working with OWASA or the Soil and Water District to acquire a second farmland conservation easement in Cane Creek, Back Creek or Upper Eno watershed) as primary interest for the APB. The intention is to use funds from the Lands legacy Fund and apply for N.C. Farmland Preservation Trust Fund grant (if available) for remainder. In the fall we will be looking at identifying willing sellers and preparing grant submittal for the December 1 S` grant cycle. C. Upcoming Joint Meeting on Forestry (with Soil and Water Board and Commission for the Environment) Stancil noted that the joint meeting of the Soil and Water Board of Supervisors, Commission for the Environment and Agricultural Preservation Board to discuss the proposed cooperative forestry program is scheduled for August 13, 2001. Mandell asked for a copy of the proposed forestry program. Stancil promised to distribute prior to the joint meeting and explained that the proposed Draft May 16, 2001 3 legislation that came out of the forestry program did not make it out of committee at the legislature. What is envisioned for the joint meeting is that interested commissions including the Soil and Water Board, CFE, APB and possibly the forest service program folks will look at the proposed cooperative program and talk through some of the issues. Hopefully we can strike some balance between folks who are interested in making sure there is more notification in forest management plans and those who want to make sure that there is some understanding that forestry is a product as well as a commodity and resource. d. APB items for Fall 2001 Suggestions for looking at the VAD district requirements as well as the Lands Legacy Action Plan priorities. ITEM #6: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a. "At Ease with An Easement" American Farmland article ITEM #6: ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Draft May 16, 2001 4 Orange County Agricultural Preservation Board RESOLUTION of APPRECIATION - Nancy Goodwin WHEREAS, Nancy Goodwin has served as a member of the Agricultural Preservation Board since May 1994, and WHEREAS, Nancy Goodwin gave many hours on a regular basis over these seven years to agricultural preservation issues, and provided invaluable expertise to the Board and the County, and WHEREAS, Nancy .Goodwin has been an exemplary member of the Board during her terms, which expired on June 30, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Agricultural Preservation Board adopts this resolution of appreciation for Nancy Goodwin and thanks her for her years of voluntary service. This, the 15th day of August, 2001. Whit Morrow, Chair Orange County Agricultural Preservation Board Carol Melton, assistant to the Board 17 52 to 0 D��h eat 6 Z ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: Agricultural Preservation Board From: David Stancil, Environment and Resource Conservation Director Rich Shaw, Land Conservation Manager Date: October 7, 2001 Re: Lands Legacy Action Plan for 2002 -2003 Once again, it is time to begin the process of developing next year's Annual Action Plan for the Lands Legacy program. The plan will identify natural and cultural areas (including prime farmland) that the County will work on protecting by acquisition, conservation easements or other means during FY 2002 -03. Please review the process outlined below in anticipation of the September meeting when the CFE will begin to discuss ideas for what sites it might recommend including in next year's plan. Recommendations from the CFE should be finalized by its October meeting. August Staff begins work to identify possible projects, BOCC asked to provide initial guiding thoughts prior to advisory boards September Initial discussions by the Commission for the Environment (natural areas /wildlife habitat, riparian buffers, parklands), Agricultural Preservation Board (farmland), Historic Preservation Commission (cultural and archaeological), and Recreation and Parks Advisory Council (parklands) October Staff works with each advisory board to finalize proposed projects for coming fiscal year, November Advisory boards approve recommended projects; staff develops into draft Annual Action Plan. December Draft Annual Action Plan submitted to BOCC as part of retreat materials. March -April BOCC reviews draft and revises as desired May Annual Action Plan adopted concurrent with CIP discussions 11 Fall 2001 Agricultural Preservation Board Priorities and Planned Items (in no order) • Identify and recommend Agricultural Priority Areas using new farmland maps, to be incorporated into Lands Legacy program • Develop recommendations on farm easements for Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan 2002 -2003 / recommendations on a second farmland conservation easement for 2001 -2002 • Conduct New Consensus for Farmland initiative (stakeholder meetings, discussion of farmers market, ag center and farmland preservation plan using Lands Legacy) • Planning for 2002 Agricultural Summit • Recommendations on changes to Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program Ordinance (including potential changes to Voluntary Agricultural District guidelines) • Other 13 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS APB AGENDA August 15, 2001 15 r,. � almland preservatio a" ors reff -0 rt Covering the policies, practices and initiatives that save farmland and open space .r Since 1990 • Deborah Bowers, Editor ANNUAL NATIONAL SURVEY OF LOCAL PROGRAMS Sonoma, Berks, Lancaster gain most acres; top 12 named SANTA ROSA, CA — One of the nation's leading local land preservation efforts approved for purchase July 10 a conservation easement on one of the largest contiguous privately owned ranches in Northern California, valued at $12 million. The Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District approved $6 million to pur- chase at bargain sale the 19,064 -acre ranch owned by the Cooley family for almost a century. Of the acres protected, 4,700 will be reserved for agricul- tural use, with the remainder protected under forever wild and natural area provisions. With the purchase, Sonoma logged an addi- tional 7,313 acres, the largest preserved acreage gain in the nation over last year's national survey conducted by Farmland Preservation Report . Sonoma County encompasses over one million acres of hills, mountains and valleys and impor- tant agricultural lands including prosperous vineyards and wineries. Voters decided in 1990 to protect the county's striking landscapes and thriving agriculture by approving a one - quarter percent sales tax over 20 years. The result is a land preservation effort that is secured by an acquisi- tion plan and a current $49 million to implement it. It is the only such source of funding in the top 12 ranking. Sonoma's gain has shifted the ranking since last July, resulting in Carroll County moving downward from fourth to fifth place. Montgom- ery, Lancaster and Chester Counties retain their first, second and third spots respectively. Marin, Baltimore and Harford. Counties also retain the places they held last year as sixth, seventh and eighth in the 12 -slot ranking. Howard County, Md. But the program in Howard County, Md., first in the nation to use installment purchases, slipped from ninth place to ,12th: while it spent part of the last year without an administrator to lead a pro- gram out of a four -year hiatus with $15 million in new bond money, Berks, York and Burlington Counties were busy with applicants who were ready, willing, and able to do preservation. Howard County hired Jeff Everett in early March and he has been busy reviewing and revamping the program to gear up for major promotion of conservation easements in a county with intense development pressure from both the Washington, D.C. and Baltimore regions. please turn to page 2 Volume 11, Number 9 July -Aug. 2001 inside this issue ... NATIONAL SURVEY CENTERFOLD ..................... p. 45 MALPF cancels Round 2 offers, seeks funds .............. p. 6 Michigan Rural Development Council gets boot .........p. 7 JobPostings ........................................ ............................... p. 8 Farmland Preservation Report is published 10 times per year. Subscription rate of $185 includes index and hotline service. Editorial and Bowers land r circulation offices: 900 La Gran a Rd., Street, Ma Publishing, Inc. g �' 21154 (410) 692 -2708 ISSN: 1050 -6373. ©2001 by Bowers Publishing, Inc. Reproduction in any form, or forwarding o{ this material electronically without permission from the publisher is prohibited. 16 Page 2 farmland preservation report July - August 2001 Most counties retain rankings; some log impressive gains continued from page 1 To help boost participation the county raised its per -acre cost cap from $6600 to $7200, the result of an updated point system that awards credit for participating in the state's Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). "We have revamped our point system valu- ation for our IPA program that includes points for implementing CREP and points for having equine and /or horticultural operations — recognizing the changing nature of ag operations in the county," Everett said. Montgomery County, Md. Montgomery County has placed first for acres preserved since Farmland Preservation Report conducted its first annual survey in 1995. Montgomery County's lead has always been due to its transfer of development rights program, which *has protected to date 41,270 a�-�res. In- recent years, the TDR program has "not been moving as well as we would like," said John Zawitoski, program administrator. "A task force is looking for ways to get it back on track." The county has protected 1,571 acres through Rural Legacy, 2,308 acres through the MALPF program and 6,268 acres through the county's local easement program. Another 2,086 acres are protected through donations to the Maryland Environmental Trust for a grand total of 53,530. Lancaster County, Pa. Ag output powerhouse Lancaster County retains second place with a level of activity and funding that earns high marks for commitment and ability, with the county program gaining 4,843 acres since July 2000, the third highest gain in the ranking following Sonoma and Berks Counties. Last year the program switched into high gear with a points -based easement valuation formula adopted in August and also began offering install- ment purchases, the first locality in Pennsylvania to do so. The $24 million represents commitment by local officials to wipe out a long- standing backlog of applicants. Other agricultural acres are protected by the Lancaster Farmland Trust. Chester County, Pa. Mushroom capital Chester County broke into FPR's national ranking in 1999 when the survey began allowing acres preserved by other entities in the count, as long as those acres were part of an agricultural parcel. The work of the Brandywine Conservancy made it happen for Chester, which entered the top 10 with some fanfare in local media. This year it handily retains its Number 3 position, with the Brandywine Conservancy adding 2,713 acres and Chester's ag program logging 3,600. Carroll County, Md. Carroll County is having its best state program year, despite the glitch in MALPF accounting. Trying to take care of a backlog of applications from last year, Carroll County Commissioners put up $6 million to bring forward a record number of projects — 23 farms, seven to use MALPF funds and 16 to use county funds exclusively, according to program administrator Bill Powel. "The commissioners put up substantial money this year for MALPF easements with all county funding— the biggest year ever," Powel said. Six of the farms were picked up earlier through the county's Critical Farms Program, which fronts 75 percent of the cost of an easement until MALPF funds become available. With these purchases, Carroll County has 274 farms pre- served through the state program. In addition to 34,428 acres in the MALPF program, Carroll has settled or has under contract 20 Rural Legacy easements covering 1,963 acres. Marin County, Ca. The Marin program is one of the oldest in the nation, and operated by a land trust using state and private funds. The Marin Agricultural Land please continue to page 3 July - August 2001 17 farmland preservation report National survey, continued from page 2 Trust (MALT) has had its ups and downs in regards to funding, but is definitely on the up- swing lately, raising $9 million in a capital cam- paign over the last two years. The organization has preserved 30,338 acres with other agricultural acres protected by the Marin Open Space District. Baltimore County, Md. Baltimore County has experienced some ups and downs participating in the state farmland preservation program, with last year being its best and this year its worst, according to program administrator Wally Lippincott. The Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation usually approves a second round of offers in June, using funds remaining from unused first round offers. But due to accounting errors that caused a deficit this year, no second round was voted when the board -met last month. That left some counties, including Baltimore County, w.tLh unmet a pectatloiis for additibna'l ,offers. Baltimore County prepared paperwork for eight farms, with three of those, comprising 389 acres, getting approval in this year's first round. Added to this is 1,697 farmland acres preserved through the state Rural Legacy Program, for a one -year progress report of 2,086 acres. According to program administrator Wally Lippincott, five farms. comprising 568 acres, were in good form for Round Two, with discount ratios of above 50 percent and as high as 72 percent - an important factor for ranking in Round Two. But in the Rural Legacy Program, Baltimore County has fared well, receiving to date $19.6 million. That number includes this year's grant totals of $7.5 million for three designated Rural Legacy Areas. The county has five designated areas, four of which are sponsored by land trusts. The county has $7.3 million for the upcoming year, including new Rural Legacy grants. Harford County, Md. Installment purchase has been the modus operandi of the Harford program since 1993 when a local real estate transfer tax was enacted to pay Page 3 for.a substantial boost in protected acreage that led the nation for rate of activity for several years. The program is currently approving easement purchases at half the rate it approved them two years ago, and problems with the state program has also caused a crunch on activity, with several farms now threatened with pending development while waiting for state preservation dollars that never came, according to Bill Amoss, program administrator. This past year has been likely the least produc- tive of any year in the history of the program, with just 1,063 acres approved through the county and state ag programs, and 690 acres protected under Rural Legacy. Other acres are protected by land trusts. Burlington County, NJ Burlington County, like several others in the ranking, gets help in preservation efforts from The Pinelands Transfer of Development Credit (TDC) Program, which has gained significant acreage in Burlington since last year, going from 6,243 acres to 9,622, and more coming quickly, according to John Ross, executive director. Susan Craft, director of the Burlington County Land Use Office, reports 16,926 acres preserved, up from 14,316 acres last July. Those acres com- bine 13,236 protected outside the Pinelands, 3,127 protected through county - purchased TDCs, and 563 acres protected through a transfer of develop- ment rights program begun in Lumberton Town- ship. Burlington County is using installment purchases with option for lump sum for proper- ties purchased after 1990. The county will also be helped by a new state effort to protect lands inside the Pinelands, using the state's first easement valuation formula. Be- cause of the Pinelands TDC program, land values there were too low to make the state farmland program attractive. With the formula, "they had a flood of applicants," from the Pinelands, Craft said. "That will greatly expand our acreage." please continue to page 6 Is Page 4 July - August 2001 farmland preservation report Nation's Top 12 Local Farmland Preservation Programs Rank County Total preserved acres Ag program acres Ag program gain (since 8-00) Other preserved ag acres` $ available for ag program (in millions) 1 Montgomery (MD) 532503 51,444 2,434 2,086 $6.5 2 Lancaster (PA)# 432701 35,481 4,843 8,220 $28 3 Chester (PA) 402701 14,300 3,600 26,401 $15 4 Sonoma (CA) 393932 37,873 7,313 2,059 $49 5 Carroll (MD)# 372394 34,676 2,156 2,718 $7 6 Marin (CA) 332338 30,338 631 3,000 $9 7 Baltimore (MD) 312438 18,528 389 12,910 $7,3 8 Harford (MD)# 302976 27,843 1,157 3,133 $2 9 Burlington (NJ)# 26,548 16,926 2,613 9,622 $4 10 York (PA) 24,560 20,924 2,647 3,636 $3.47 11 Berks (PA) 232913 21,221 5,676 2,692 $30 12 Howard (MD)# 23,065 19,665 1,577 3,400 $15 Table A # Counties using installment purchases Includes land under easement through other entities or programs; lands are predominantly agricultural. In Maryland counties, figures may be actual acquisition cost per acre through the state program only. "` USDA figure shows how many acres are in agricultural use countywide. Sources: Interviews with county program administrators and land trusts, July 2001, and, USDA 1997 Census of Agriculture. FARMLAND PRESERVATION REPORT 7th ANNUAL SURVEY: PROGRESSIVE LOCAL PROGRAMS How localities qualify for the survey This survey looks at a locality's progress in farm- land preservation in terms of 1) Number of acres permanently preserved; 2) political leadership and administrative skill; and, 3) significant commitment of funds. While the ranking itself considers only number of acres preserved, to be included in the survey all localities must meet the other criteria, How counties are ranked The survey considers a locality's total farmland preservation effort, including the activities of other entities and programs, such as land trusts, and, Maryland's Rural Legacy Program, If preserved acres are agricultural land. For example, Baltimore County has five Rural Legacy Areas, but one of the areas is completely forested and preserved acres there are not counted. New in this year's survey This year Table B confines rankings to northeast- ern states and traditional purchase and transfer of development rights programs funded by state and local government. Also, Table A now shows ag program gains. July - August 2001 Market value, ag products (millions) $28.5 $ 766.7 $342.8 $463.6 $71.2 $53.8 $51.1 $38.8 $87.5 $128.6 $247.7 $19.6 Avg cost per acre" farmland preservation report Land in farms "" $3,565 77,266 $1,809 391,836 $3,900 175,363 $1,603 570,804 $2,009 160,180 n/a 149,663 $3,000 75,795 $2,000 94,112 $4,000 103,667 $1,346 261,164 n/a 221,511 n/a 39,846 FTable Northeastern states local PDR/TDR ranking 1 Montgomery (MD) 51,444 2 Lancaster (PA) 35,481 3 Carroll (MD) 34,676 .4 Harford (MD) 27,843 5 Burlington (NJ) 26,548 6 Berks (PA) 21,221 7 York (PA) 20,924 8 Howard (MD) 19,665 9 Baltimore (MD) 18,528 10 Calvert (MD) 17,527 19 Page 5 Source of funds Ag real estate transfer tax; bonds; TDR State program; local appropriations State program; local bond issue Dedicated 1/4 percent local sales tax State program; local general fund Foundation challenge grant; private matches State program; bond funds; general fund State program; local real estate transfer tax Dedicated property tax State program; local match Bonds Zero coupon bonds; density exchange option Copyright Notice Bowers Publishing Inc. Reproduction of this table for use out- side of a subscriber's agency is prohib- ited. It should not be reproduced or transferred to another location or agency. If you have a request or questions: Call (410) 692 -2708 Or email us at bowerspub@hotmail.com r Page b farmland preservation report New state push in Pinelands will help Burlington effort continued from page 3 York County, Pa. York increased its preserved acreage by a notable 3,060 acres. The county put up $3.47 million to match state funds and the Farm and Natural Lands Trust has been at work protecting an addi- tional 413 acres over last year. York retains its Number 10 spot of last year. Berks County, Pa. Berks gets development pressure radiating out from Philadelphia and neighboring Montgomery County where farmland preservation is struggling for a foothold. Berks entered the ranking last year when the number of slots was expanded from 10 to 12, with full expectation it would climb up in the ranking - the county had just passed a $30 million bond issue for farmland preservation and the Berks County Agricultural Preserve Board was looking for a program technician. Expectations can be considered met: the ag program has logged 5,676 acres, the second largest gain in this year's ranking, after Sonoma. Maryland suspends Round Two, seeks funds for accounting -error deficit ANNAPOLIS, MD - In an attempt to correct a funding shortfall brought about by an accounting error, the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF) voted in June to suspend the program's normal Round Two offers. "We decided to reallocate our monies and not have a second round," said Doug Wilson, director of administrative services for the Maryland Depart- ment of Agriculture. "That will make up what we are short. Those with matching funds got hurt more July- August 2001 than others," he said. Wilson said the department will try to make offers to those who expected second round offers by using recently awarded federal grant money and money from the state's new Greenprint program. "That might mean we free up some of the county and state money," he said. Wilson said he was working with the Depart- ment of Natural Resources to use funds from the newly created Greenprint program, which, by amendment to the legislation that created it in April, will send 25 percent of its funds - $36.2 million over five years - to MALPF. The legislature approved $35 million for this year for the program, meaning $8.75 million is available to MALPF immediately. The program will target forested lands. The Department of Natural Resources is cur- rently mapping areas that will qualify for Greenprint. Implemented by the Chesapeake and Coastal Watershed Service, the project will provide a list of MALPF applicants who could receive easement offers using Greenprint funding. The first funds "will go to those who have already applied, up to June 30, then to new applicants," Wilson said. There are 861 MALPF districts that contain some green infrastructure, comprising 117,458 acres, according to David*Burke, director of the Chesapeake and Coastal Watershed Service, an agency with a sizable GIS capability. Of those acres, Burke said 48,779 acres, or about 41 percent of agricultural lands enrolled as districts contain enough forest to qualify for easement purchase with Greenprint funding. While each county has at least some acreage that qualifies, Burke said qualifying acreage "is more heavily concentrated in parts of Southern Mary- land, Western Maryland, the Eastern Shore and the northern coastal plain. Where you have extreme agricultural concentrations, like in Carroll County, there is little forest." Burke said his office is working feverishly to get Greenprint operating to help MALPF with "its backlog from last year" and believes offers could be enabled within a few weeks. please continue to page 7 21 July- August 2001 Page 7 farmland preservation report Maryland program, from page 6 "We are negotiating with DNR and with the Greenprint program to make offers to those left out of Round Two," Wilson said. "If applicants accept Greenprint [criteria], then we can go ahead and do appraisals," for an "alternate Round Two," he said. Contact: Doug Wilson, 410 841 -5881; David Burke, 410 260 -8775. Michigan Rural Development Council booted from state offices, funding terminated LANSING, MI - The Michigan legislature has cut funding for The Rural Development Council of Michigan (RDCM), the state's leading advocate for farmland preservation. Effective Oct. 1, the organi- zation must vacate its offices at the state Depart- ment of Agriculture, according to executive director David Skjaerlund. The Council will become a 501c -3 organization .and continue with private funding sources, Skjaer- lund said. Michigan Commissioner of Agriculture Dan Wyant said the state -is in a "budget crunch" and that the department "made a priority decision" that sent the Rural Development Council packing. "It's a huge loss to us, but Dave's leadership will be established somewhere else. His leadership and his passion will continue to benefit the state of Michigan." Wyant said the RDCM wasn't the only loss to his department, which, due to a projected $700 million shortfall in state revenue, lost over $3 million in funding, five percent of its budget. Food banks, conservation districts, food safety and other budgets were affected and some positions will be removed, he said. Skjaerlund said the move into nonprofit status will be an opportunity to become a political force in advocating adoption of legislation it pursued last year. "The board has a lot of passion and is very determined to be a voice for rural issues including farmland preservation." Skjaerlund said the RDCM, created in 1993, is not in financial straits as a result of the state fund- ing loss, which amounted to just $90,000. It recently received $119,000 from the Kellogg Foundation to "help local communities establish farmland preser- vation programs," and has a number of other grants in hand. The Council will continue sponsoring its Ulti- mate Farmland Preservation Tours to the Mid - Atlantic, with the next tour scheduled for Sept. 6 - 10: The Rural Development Council of Michigan is a collaborative effort of both public and private entities, and one of 35 state councils that comprise the National Rural Development Partnership, which receives federal funds. The Councils were created specifically to find innovative ways to improve rural life and industry. The Michigan council received $130,000 in federal funds this year. Land use is just one of the many diverse issues the Council's three - person staff tackles, but innova- tion in promoting farmland preservation has beer* a hallmark of the organization. Since 1999, the RDCM has conducted, twice yearly, the Ultimate Farmland Preservation Tour, with more than 650 people participating to date in the in- depth, five -day tours. It sponsors a land use leadership training program, as well as a land use tour of the state, taking two days to visit communities that have progressed in their approaches to urban redevelopment, subur- ban development designs and farmland preserva- tion. The RDCM has been instrumental in develop- ing legislation to bring Michigan into line with the rest of the nation in its taxation of farmland with a solid proposal for agricultural use assessment. The organization sponsored the "Ultimate Land Use Conference" in Michigan last year, with more than 500 people attending. This year, the Council is sponsoring regional workshops to help localities set up local farmland programs, a vital activity due to underfunding of the state's farmland program, according to Skjaerlund. Contact. David Skjaerlund, 517 373 -4550. 22 Page 8 farmland preservation report professional resources ... Job Postings Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, Agricultural Programs Director - The VHCB is seeking an experienced and motivated individual committed to Vermont agriculture to direct its Farmland Protection Programs. Review and evaluate applications to conserve farmland, help to develop farmland conservation policy, provide technical assistance, work with applicant organizations and state agencies. Strong communication and analytical skills and a background in agricul- ture or land use policies. Experience working with the farm community,�,non- profit organizations, municipalities and state agencies is important. Familiarity with acquisition of development rights programs and land trusts desired. Call (802) 828- 3250 for job description. Reply with cover letter and resume by Aug. 3 to Paul Hannan, VHCB, 149 State St., Montpelier, VT 05602. See www.vhcb.org. (posted 7- 12 -01). Tecumseh Land Trust (OH), Executive Director -We are an 11- year -old land trust working in Clark and Greene counties in west central Ohio. Resume deadline is July 31. For a job description and further information, please call Julia Cady (937) 767- 1586, Scott Fletcher (937) 767-1274, or visit our Web site at www.greenlink.org / tecumseh. You may write us at PO Box 417, Yellow Springs, Ohio 45387. Our e- mail address is TL T OH a voyager.net. (posted 6115101) Southwest Michigan Land Conservancy, Executive Director - Ten - year -old land trust with nine counties, 2,500 protected acres, 1,000 members, six staff, and enthu- siastic volunteers and board is seeking a committed executive director to lead us in our mission of protecting the diversity, stability, and beauty of southwest Michigan by preserving our natural and scenic lands. Position description at www.swmlc.org. Compensation dependent of qualifications and experience. Send cover letter, resume, three references, and salary and benefits requirements to the Southwest Michigan Land Conservancy, 6851 South Sprinkle Rd., Portage, MI 49002. Dead- line July 23. For other positions with land trusts, see the Land Trust Alliance Web Site at www.fta.org. Conferences & Workshops Sept. 5 - 7, Baltimore, MD: Protecting Farmland at the Fringe: Do Regulations Work? National conference sponsored by the Farm Foundation, the Northeast and Western Centers for Rural Development and the C. William Swank Program in Rural -Urban Policy of The Ohio State University. Topics include: Ag zoning - trends and future directions; controlling growth at the fringe; is rural open land zoning politically acceptable; right to farm- has it made a difference? Registration fee $125.Call 614 688 -4890 or visit http: / /aede.ag.osu.edU /programs /swank. Sept. 29 - Oct. 2, Baltimore, MD: Land Trust Rally 2001. More than 1600 land trust professionals, volunteers, attorneys and others expected for the annual conference, the largest for the land conservation field. Registration underway. Cost $300 for LTA sponsors by Aug. 6. See rally @lta.org or call 202 638 -4725. July - August 2001 Report Available Farmland Conversion: Perceptions and Realities, published by the Agricultural Issues Center, University of California, 8 pp, May 2001. For hard copy, email agissues @ucdavis.edu. Also online at aic.ucdavis.edu. It is unlawful to reproduce this publication and distribute it to other locations or agencies. If you have a special need, contact the publisher. Faster, Friendlier, Smarter! Can't find it on the web? Need a quick answer for an update or to lead a discussion? Call or email us. We're faster, friendlier and smarter than the web! T klow' #ol 6hfact W y `J - Phone (410) 692 -2708 -- Fox -- (410) 692 -9741 -NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS - bowerspub@hotmail.com Address a Bowers Publishing Inc. 900 La Grange Rd. Street MD 21154 t t ii- i c� `S , .i}lY � f s +r",� yQ.a {. � .. ♦ . P '3,t. .� C i! s t f 1 .� F y f a' 'R c t i f �; •, s 0 FN- A {, �i. -i; }'� lz.,: �ti. f�. 1s >•� tv'. 1�.� t r �! 4 �. y z A. zi is B designating 81 -acre tract as an easement, the Nutter family can be sure it will not be developed 'By ROB SHAPARD chh @herald- sun.com; 732 -6397 HILLSBOROUGH — The owners of Maple View Farm have agreed to donate a conservation easement on about 81 wooded acres south of Dairyland Road.. All of Chatham The Nutter fami- ly's agreement with County farm is the Triangle Land put under Conservancy conservation means that nearly easement half the farm's 400 agreement/ or so acres are now page 6 under easements, including the initial 107 acres for which the family donat- ed an easement to the conservancy in 1995. The agreement on the 81 acres was finalized June 27, said Kevin Brice, the conservancy's associate director. The easements mean the Nutters Maple View Farm owners Bob and Chris Nutter, pictured here on Saturday, have agreed to a conservation easement on about 81 acres of wooded land (background). or their heirs can never turn those 188 acres into a subdivision or other type of development. The family gets tax benefits, and it retains ownership and the right to continue uses like agriculture and harvesting timber. "I don't know what will happen to it in the future, but they'll never build houses on it," Bob Nutter said Friday about the 81 -acre tract. In the past; the Nutters have sold some of their land for five -acre and 10 -acre home sites. But with. devel- opment pressure reaching from the towns toward the farm's rolling fields, the family also has resisted offers for larger -scale development. Chris Nutter remembers - one developer who approached her and her husband a few years ago. "He made the mistake of saying to us, `Wouldn't it be wonderful to sit here on your front porch and see all the beautiful houses?'" Nutter said. "We looked at him rather blankly, I'm sure, and we said, `No, we, like what we see now' "It's really nice to sit here now and not see it change, except for the sea- sons. We want other people to see that, too." . please see LAND /PAGE 6 THE WPPAI n.CI IN /CAPA DAVIS Sunda' July 15, 2001 FROM PAGE ONE FROM PAGE 1 The desires to preserve open space and keep their land for farm uses, and to lower the estate taxes that will kick in when they die, have all been part of the Nutters' decision. Bob Nutter said that without the easements, he believes his heirs would have had no choice but to sell the land to cover the estate taxes. Easements lower the estate taxes because the land has been devalued, Brice said. Also, the value of such donated easements counts as a deduction from federal income taxes. That value can be calculated as the difference between the assessed value of the property in its current state and another assessment of the property as if it were fully developed. At the state -tax level, North Caroli- na has a program that gives landown- ers a tax credit of 25 percent of the donation's value. The credit is capped at $250,000 for an individual. and $500,000 for a corporation, Brice said. Brice described North Carolina's conservation tax- credit program as the most generous in the United States. But he also said the current state budget proposal calls for ending that program by 2003. He said Triangle Land Conservancy and other organizations are lobbying against that move. The Nutters have taken a phased approach to putting their land in con- servation easements, and they may do more easements in the future. But Bob Nutter also said that will depend on things like the future of North Car- olina's tax- credit program. "We just have to play it by ear as we go along, because [the government] keeps changing the rules all the time," he said. The Nutter property under ease- ments is partly connected to land near the Dairyland Road- Dodsons Cross- roads intersection that owner Tim Tbben put under a conservation ease- ment last year. That land — about 143 acres — includes part of Pickards Mountain and is part of a 350 -acre tract that Tbben purchased in 1999. The 143 -acre portion is home to the THE CHAPEL HILL HERALD largest stand of chestnut oaks in Orange County, as well as the head- waters of Morgan Creek and a stretch of Cane Creek Thben made the easement agree- ment with the Raleigh -based Conser- vation Trust for North Carolina. And nearby, Charles and Barbara Keith have donated a conservation easement to 'Triangle Land Conser- vancy on about 40 acres that are part of Pickard8 Mountain. The Keith fam- ily donated that easement in 1999 and may do more easements as well, Brice said. Toward Mebane, the Orange Coun- ty government reached its first agree- ment this spring for an easement, on about 70 acres on. High Rock Road owned by the Walters family. As part of its Lands Legacy pro- gram, the county agreed to pay Victor Walters about $215,000 for the ease- ment, with a state grant covering half the cost. im leiuld ,ffie� far. t+..: �v:. r, ��' yrr�:,.:: w: �` a.: ��:;. H. �. ,��;�i:;�i•���#�:sr:i�r"�L��'i� "�" x�= r�� �i• ,� u-�.t?'�. PAGE 6 Sunday, July 15, 2001 Agreement will conserve estate of 320 acres near Siler City By ROB SHAPARD chh @herald- sun.com; 732 -6397 SILER CITY — All 320 acres of Ann Von Gruenigen's Chatham County'farm are under a conservation ease- ment, including her homestead, cattle pastures and forested land. Von Gruenigen donated the easement to the Triangle Land Conservancy in December, and the Chatham County Commissioners officially thanked her for that move Monday. The easement means Von Gruenigen essentially has agreed never to develop the property, which is about five miles south of Siler City. The Triangle Land Con- servancy holds the easement in perpetuity, but Von Gruenigen retains ownership of the property and she can continue uses like agriculture and cutting timber. "I, have always been bothered by development," Von Gruenigen said Friday. "I've been a conservationist since I was a child. I can't remember when I wasn't. "When I saw things developing around here, I became aware of the danger that this land is in," she said. Von Gruenigen, 67, grew.up in northern Ohio, but she was living in Raleigh when she bought the Chatham farm in 1974. She retired after teaching English, writing and public speaking at N.C. State University. "I'm not a city person," Von Gruenigen said. She raises beef cattle on part of the farm, known locally as the Johnson homestead, named after the fam- ily that moved there in the late 1800s, Von Gruenigen said. By donating the easement, she gets both state and fed- eral tax benefits. For starters, the overall value of the property is decreased, which is beneficial when estate taxes are fig- ured, said Kevin Brice, the TLC's associate director. In terms of income taxes, the value of the donated easement counts as a deduction at the federal level. That value is calculated as the difference between the assessed value of her farm as it is now and another assessment of the farm as if it were fully .developed, Von Gruenigen said. And for state taxes, North Carolina has a program that gives landowners a tax credit of 25 percent of the value of the donation. The credit is capped at $250,000 for an individual and $500,000 for a corporation, Brice said. Von Gruenigen said that, with Chatham County con- tinuing to grow, she hopes other landowners will set up easements. "If we could have' pockets of conserved land, I think that in itself would be one of the biggest deter- rents to a developer," she said. "If you have 100 acres [of conserved land] here and a couple hundred acres there, it's just not going to look as inviting." 25 .26 Americaa Farmland Trust: Press release July 11, 2001 http: / /www. farmland .org /news_2001 /071101_survey.htm a HESS 7 RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Robyn Miller: (202) 331 -7300 ext. 3055 Betsy Garside: (202)331 -7300 ext. 3029 Voters Support Farm and Ranch Conservation Efforts National poll shows Americans value U.S. food and will pay to protect farmland Washington, DC, July 11, 2001— America's farms and ranches are important to the nation's voters, and not just for their locally grown food. A new poll released today shows that voters value farms and ranches for the conservation benefits they provide, such as cleaner air and water and wildlife habitat. And not only do voters want the federal government to support programs that secure those values, by linking conservation practices with farm payments, but voters are willing to pay to ensure conservation benefits from farms and ranches. The poll, a telephone survey of 1,024 registered voters nationwide, uncovered strong support for American agriculture, with 81 percent of voters saying they want their food to come from within the United States. Americans professed a close connection to farmers and ranchers, with 70 percent reporting that they have bought something directly from a farmer during the last year, such as at a farm stand or a farmers' market. Voter concern about farm environmental issues registers almost as high as for current "hot" political issues. For example, 71 percent are concerned about pesticide residues on food and 69 percent of American voters say they are concerned about loss of farmland to development, compared with more than 80 percent of voters concerned about public education and gas prices. Seventy -eight percent of the American electorate report they are aware of government income support programs for farmers. Voters strongly approve of these programs when they are used to correct low market prices or in cases of drought or flood damage. The addition of conservation conditions to farm supports, however, received overwhelming approval, as 75 percent of American voters feel income support to the American farmer should come with the stipulation that farmers are required to apply "one or more conservation practices," such as protecting wetlands or preventing water pollution. "We were struck by how many voters make the link between agriculture and conservation benefits," said Ralph Grossi, president of American Farmland Trust. "The public feels strongly about all the values they see in American agriculture; not only do they appreciate America's bounty on their tables, they also realize farms and ranches provide environmental benefits and they are willing to share the cost." Several programs exist to support conservation on farms and ranches, among them the Farmland Protection Program (FPP), Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). For each of these programs, demand has far outstripped federal funding in 2001. For WRP alone, unmet requests from farmers totaled $568 million. This year FPP was only allocated $17.5 million in funding - leaving a gap of $90 million and hundreds of farmers waiting in line to protect their land. "As expected, when we asked voters about how they wanted to increase federal spending, they placed a high priority on addressing pressing needs like finding cures for cancer, educating our children and ensuring adequate energy supplies," said Grossi. "What we did not expect was the finding that a majority of voters -53 percent -feel increasing funds to keep productive farmland from being developed should be a national priority." And voters are willing to spend their own money to help farmers protect the environment. When asked whether they would like to get all or some of a possible $100 tax refund, 63 percent said they'd forego some of that money to protect waterways, wetlands or wildlife habitat. I -f) 07/1 ? / ?001 R•16 AM nerican Farmland Trust: Press release July 11, 2001 http:Hwww. farmland ,org /news_2001 /071101_survey.htm 28 "With such strong support for agricultural conservation, policymakers should triple conservation spending in the next farm bill," Grossi pointed out. "The programs are there, and they work. With $21 billion allocated annually to farm support payments by the budget agreement, half should be reserved for conservation programs. It's just a question of putting some financial muscle into making conservation happen." "Over the past 19 years I have repeatedly surveyed farmers and found them very willing to conserve natural resources. These new results strongly indicate that conservation- oriented farm programs will please not just farmers, but most voters," said Dr. J. Dixon Esseks, a political scientist from Northern Illinois University (NIU) who directed the poll. The telephone survey of N =1,024 registered voters nationwide was conducted June 2 through 21, 2001, with a margin of sampling error of +3.1% in 95 out of 100 cases. The poll, directed by Dr. Esseks, was conducted by the Public Opinion Research Laboratory of NIU. The Tarrance Group, Inc., a strategic research and polling firm in Alexandria, Virginia, provided consulting and analytical services. Funding for the poll was provided by The Joyce Foundation and the members of American Farmland Trust. American Farmland Trust is a private, nonprofit farmland conservation organization founded in 1980 to stop the loss of productive farmland and to promote farming practices that lead to a healthy environment. Its action- oriented programs include public education, technical assistance in policy development and demonstration farmland protection projects. For more information, visit AFT's home page at www.farmland.org. 1200 18th Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 202- 331 -7300 info@)farmiand.org 202- 659 -8339 (f) [ << AFT Home ] of'? 07/12/2001 8:36 AM 201 N Union Street, Suite 410 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 (703) 684 -6688 (703) 836 -8256 FAX TO: AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST FROM: BRIAN C. TRINGALI, THE TARRANCE GROUP TAMMI J. SMITH, THE TARRANCE GROUP J. DIXON ESSEKS, PHD. RE: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM A NATIONWIDE SURVEY DATE: JULY 11, 2001 2q The Tarrance Group, Inc., and Professor Dixon Esseks of Northern Illinois University are pleased to present the following findings from this latest survey of registered voters across the country. American Farmland Trust commissioned Dr. Esseks to conduct a telephone survey of N =1,024 registered adults nationwide. A random sample of this type is likely to yield a margin of error of +3.1% in 95 out of 100 cases. Responses to the survey were gathered June 2 through June 21, 2001. The Tarrance Group provided consulting and analytical services. Seventy -eight percent (78 %) of American voters report they are aware of government income support programs for farmers. But what is even more striking is that 78% of voters approve of these payments to correct low market prices and 88% of voters approve of these payments in cases of drought or flood damage. Unlike some other government programs, American voters strongly approve of the current farm subsidy program. But there is a hitch, however, in that 75% of American voters think support to the American farmer should come with the requirement that farmers apply one or more conservation practices. American voters feel that these subsidy payments come with some responsibility on the part of farmers. That said, Americans want to keep food production and farms in the U.S. Eighty -one percent (81%) of American voters want their food to come from within the United States. This high percentage shows the importance that voters place on this issue. Our conclusions are based primarily on the following findings from this latest survey of American voters nationwide: After measuring concern levels across a wide range of issues, Americans are nearly as concerned about their food and water sources as they are about education and gas prices. As the table below illustrates, more than 80% of voters are concerned about education and gas prices, but 71% of voters are concerned about pesticide residues on their vegetables and other foods. Nearly as many American voters say they are concerned about loss of farmland to development (69 %), unsafe meat (67 %), genetically modified food (64 %) and drinking water being contaminated by pesticides or livestock manure (63 %). Page 1 30 Voters in the Midwest and Mountain states regions are the most concerned about the loss of farmland due to development. And, overall, women are more concerned about this issue than men with forty -six percent (46 %) of women saying they are "very concerned" about this issue compared to thirty -five percent (35 %) of men. THE T} RRA E C �;:Rc Uf' -- Jine 2 -21, 2001 N= 1,0241± 3.1% M.O.E Awel -ialll Rvmlaml W71_V% Please tell me how concerned you are about each particular issue. Public schools educating children Gasoline prices Pesticide residue on agriculture Development of farmland Unsafe meat sold In stores Genetically modified foods Contaminated drinking water Family /friends laid off from work Nuclear missile attack 29% 3 29% •, r , 32% z 34% ;., 37% 42% 54% V/o IU /o LV /o JV /o 4V /0 7U /0 ov /o /U /o ou /o 7v /1 Iw /o IN Concerned ❑ Not concerned • Eight}) -one percent (81 %) of American voters want their food to come from within the United States. Furthermore, a majority (52 %) want their food to come from their own state. These statistics help explain pressures on the food industry to label products for their country of origin. • Sixty percent (60 %) of American voters "sometimes" or "frequently" read labels before buying products. Another 44% of voters say that they have bought products that are grown organically within the last year. Seventy percent (70 %) of voters report that they have bought something directly from a farmer during the last year. Fifty -four percent (54 %) report that they have bought from a farmers' market and 40% report that they have bought from a stand. These are high figures, reflecting a strong undercurrent in the American marketplace. Voters in the Northeast, South, and West regions are the most likely to purchase food directly from a farmer, such as at a farm stand or farmers' market. Rural area voters and voters between the ages of 35 and 64 are also more likely to purchase food directly. • Seventy -eight percent (78 91o) of the American electorate is aware of the income support program to our nation's farmers. Awareness is strongest among voters in the Mountain States and Central Plains regions. Page 2