The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAPB agenda 081804COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: Agricultural Preservation Board From: David Stancil, ERC Director Date: August 11, 2004 Re: August 18th Meeting Please find attached the agenda for our next meeting scheduled for: At this meeting we will consider the Walter's application to enlarge their existing Voluntary Agricultural District with an additional 173 -acre tract, and review a resolution to forward to the BOCC asking area water /sewer providers to adhere to VFPPO provisions exempting VAD's from water /sewer assessments, please read through the proposed resolution and come prepared to any comments or revisions. Staff will provide status reports on other ongoing projects. Please contact Carol Melton (245 -2590) by the Monday before the meeting if you will be unable to attend. Copies: Dianne Reid, Economic Development Director Fletcher Barber, CES County Director Brent Bogue, District Conservationist Phyllis Ruth, Farm Service Agency Director Rich Shaw, Land Conservation Manager Mike Lanier, Ag Economic Development Specialist APB -Mission Sta temen t To encourage the voluntary preservation and protection of farmland from non- farm developmen4 recognizing the_ importance of agriculture to the economic and cultural life of the county. • Recommend revisions to Voluntary Farmland Preservation Ordinance to reflect new State model ordinance, revisit acreage. limitation for Voluntary Agricultural Districts to allow small /alternative operations to qualify, and re- examine the nature of districts • Prepare for February 2003 Agricultural Summit • Review new Voluntary agricultural District Applications,. and encourage already - approved but not enacted district owners to enter program. • Conduct public outreach programs for Agricultural Districts and Lands Legacy. • Support programs that preserve farmlands through agricultural profitability. • Continue to support and provide feedback on the proposed Orange County 250 Agricultural Heritage Festival. Annual Tasks Review and make recommendation& on the form of the Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program Ordinance, and amendments thereto Review and make recommendations concerning the establishment of Voluntary Agricultural Districts Assist in the production of the annual Agricultural Summit Hold public hearings pursuant to the Voluntary Farmland Preservation Ordinance Advise the Board of County Commissioners on projects, programs or issues affecting the agricultural economy or activities within the County that will affect agricultural districts Perform other related tasks or duties assigned by the Board of Commissioners AGENDA August 18, 2004 Planning and Agricultural Center Revere Road, Hillsborough, NC 7:30 p.m. Time Page AGENDA ITEM 7:30 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:35 2. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 7:40 01 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — (May 19) 7:40 03 4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION a. Status Report on Ongoing Projects (Attachment 1) 8:15 17 5. ITEMS FOR DECISION a. Walters VAD application (Attachment 2) b. Consideration of Resolution to Forward to Board of Commissioners Asking municipalities and/or Water /Sewer Providers to Adhere to Voluntary Farmland Preservation Ordinance (VFPO) (Attachment 3) c. Review of Fall Activities 6. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a. North Carolina Voluntary Agricultural Districts b. Farmland Preservation Report c. "Horsing Around " d. Strategies to Revitalize Rural America 9:00 7. ADJOURNMENT DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD May 19, 2004 PRESENT: Tony Kleese, Don Johnson, Marty Mandell, Elizabeth Walters, Gordon Warren, Noah Ranells; Environment & Resource Conservation Director David Stancil and staff Tina Moon and Carol Melton. ABSENT: Bob Strayhorn, Louise Tate, Whit Morrow and Rodney Recor. ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER Kleese called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ITEM #2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA ITEM #3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 21, 2004 MOTION: Gordon motioned approval of April 21 th minutes. Seconded by Ranells. VOTE: Approved unanimously. ITEM #4: ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION a. Voluntary Agricultural Districts Conference Moon reported attending the conference in Louisburg, with Carol Melton, and shared information from Andrew Brannon of the NC Farm Transition Network a program housed by Farm Bureau organization to promote a transition network for farmers in areas relevant to transitioning from one generation to the next, along with other items on the agenda. b. Update on Proposed Agricultural Conservation Easements and USDA Grant Application Earlier this month Orange County in collaboration with the Orange NRCS /Soil and Water Conservation District applied for $846,000 in federal grant funds from the USDA Farm and Ranch Land Preservation program (FRPP). These funds are available to local governments and land trusts to acquire conservation easements that protect prime agricultural lands. This is the third year funds have been available from the FRPP. In 2002, Orange County was awarded $784,000 of the $2.1 million allocated to N.C. Those funds are being used to protect about 400 acres of farmland in Bingham, Cheeks, and Cedar Grove townships. This year, Orange County has requested $846,000 of the $2.3 million available in N.C. The application was prepared by ERCD in cooperation with the Orange NRCS /Soil & Water Conservation District staff. DRAFT May 19, 2004 Agricultural Preservation Board Meeting Summary I � The $846,000 would be matched by $846,000 in County funds to protect 3 active farm (about 580 acres total) located in Bingham, Cedar Grove and Hillsborough townships. We have been informed that only 3 counties applied for funds this year (Durham, Wake and Orange), in part because those counties have allocated the required matching funds. Applications were also submitted by land trusts. Notification of grant awards is expected by the end of May. c. Status Report on Ongoing Projects Members discussed the ongoing projects matrix prepared by staff, and noted minimal progress in some areas, but substantial progress in other areas. d. Use Value Taxation Update Staff reviewed the information sheet distributed at the VAD conference. Members discussed changes to the use value taxation program, particularly in forestry requirements. e. Agricultural Center Workgroup update Members discussed the charge and mission statement of the Agricultural Center workgroup and recommended Tony Kleese and Gordon Warren to fill the two positions allocated for APB representation. Ranells volunteered to fill an organic Farmer at Large position. Staff was asked to forward this recommendation along with completed Volunteer application forms to the BOCC office. Staff noted that Don Johnson agreed (by phone call) to serve as an alternate if needed. MOTION: Kleese motioned to adjourn at 9:00. Seconded by Warren. VOTE: Unanimous. Meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. DRAFT May 19, 2004 Agricultural Preservation Board Meeting Summary LL o O N L CL w' W C W M Ce L J 0 CL O L CL Attachment #1 r 1 j U = c •c� � � m O 0 U 75 O N x Q. � v ON O —a) 0 C O M Zip a) m ? 0 0 cn C a) 0 L a) N p ;_, U d O CL V Z O (n > 0 C L- m is o Q Q 'O a) E -v p W 4) S3Jl U a) N L U o mZ ES C � •U C E O � O to a) � � 3= ,� a) U >+ C c� O U`O O C p t a) N o °V- O� Q3 L a) cga c U a) O c ° c - vi m 3 C -0 a a) c - E - =L o v Q Q) ry O = U Q' M a) O O () c (u.`'.(n o. a ° '� cu c.Ua) � °'=' = m m ��>. O° C13 U O L O O C � � N � Q �E 0 s U) L °i Eoa _ to U =� O 0 f 3_ CL ac O= U 318d011ddV-NON a) ° U 0 0 O= ('C �� Q) C O C 0 m m N ;a E co O CU p m a) = O_ L C m U C Q C •L ON Cr c (1) .2 E c c N � O X L O 0 U O U Oo U —0 O 3 0 -C a) n. a) p > M O N U) .> . +c O a) Co �. E t' a) m a) C .(3) -o v) scv=)�- 318d011ddV-NON (1)a)� a -0m J a))�� L E D 0 N caimc�u'�o (>u c p. m °;coo +• O cn .n E 0 a) N M ,� > CL r m a) m � a) .� � U ° cu °) .D U c Q). E U ° a) c � Ep c`a =O o �O E c m - m m CA O �c C 0 ° °30a)E0ma)} E U C — U C C N a a) C: c to O c vi V voi a) c s M E Q6 0 C-: E Q 'o ?, M V U +. Q 06 Q.E C C p U p C�— 0 a) c U — O C .� �_ O V i E�.L . _ o Ec.X�. �. °_� "U o m = O >, O (emu U Cm .r C CO CM. > U +� a) U O E a) C O „p c U) a) L- > 0 o EI-U o �� U .- O Q m E .o cn U -0 Q LL a� J '= 0 O N O � E v _� u) c 75 U U- U c= to U L •a� o C E a C Uo a o � 0�=o�) r- N M Itlo CD r 00 (M r �- r W t -C m n E � c =0 C ZoM�o.� �.• -•«. 6. d n- o as W O ao}, m �Cu XU Z U w N C O C E L M U. Attachment #1 r 1 j U = c •c� � � m C 75 O N x Q. � v O —a) 0 C O M U a) m ? 0 0 cn C a) 0 L a) N p ;_, U d O CL V Z O (n > 0 C = U Ui 0) o UO L_ L� v) a) p W 4) — U a) N L U E C � •U C E O � O to a) � � 3= ,� a) U >+ O Q O C p t a) o °V- O� Q3 L a) cga c U a) O c ° c - vi m 3 a a) c - E - =L o v Q Q) Q. 0 (� 0 O = U Q' M a) O O () C L (u.`'.(n m ° c.Ua) � °'=' = m m ��>. O° mom :0— U O L O O C � � N � Q O � Y C 0 s U) L °i Eoa °p w O 0 f 3_ O= U c = 7E3 ai ro o c a) ° U 0 0 O= ('C 3 U Q) C O C 0 m m p O CU p 0 = O_ L C m U C Q C •L ON p Q) (1) .2 E c c = >, a) O X L O 0 U Oo U —0 O 3 0 -C a) n. a) p > M O O U) .> . +c O a) Co �. E t' a) m a) C .(3) -o v) scv=)�- `E -0 -oo> (1)a)� a -0m 3�,0CU'�° a))�� L E D 0 OU V caimc�u'�o (>u c p. m °;coo +• O cn .n E 0 a) N M ,� > CL r m a) m � a) .� � U) c a) ° cu °) .D U c Q). E U ° a) c � Ep c`a =O o �O E c m - m m CA O �c C 0 ° °30a)E0ma)} E (. D C — U C C N a a) C: c to O c vi V voi a) c s M E Q6 0 C-: E Q 'o ?, aci c o 70 Q E o +-- Q.E C C p U p C�— 0 a) c U — O C .� �_ O V i E�.L . _ o Ec.X�. �. °_� "U o m = O >, O (emu U Cm .r C CO CM. > U +� a) U O E a) C O 0 0 a) O „p c U) a) L- > 0 o EI-U o I- �CH C: U MN �r Ov U .- C � C `Z 5ff LL o QO N ®0 ul (C7 �L CL 4W W ii L L O V to J CL O O O L CL O O U 3. ,5 ON za)� V .12:' m 7v L U) Q < -0 o E -o S3A vz ES c 'c U o O N co c 11d a) °c �E E 3 a c W T V � O V � (� -0 N O V 4� 4 O a) s- O O O i� (� O J m c to c�co� 3 4- 4-- a O �� °-ocaQ a) 0 4=, }, O 0�+. Q a) a) -off °LAM o Q °�c �a� ° �Eaocoo c� � c aEmcc ° °+'o o Ia L +• «r O �, L � E p co `+- � O +- �' a) O L ca � c o rte+ O a) 0 0 rn a) (� a L ca 0°;��I- u>,.�� °-�a Co A "� L• C �:i n E C (/i (O L Vim/ O �>% U� O �U L L V+ r IQi •N VU•/ (Q CL '� C C 0 ° E Q� v, Z B O O (� (�/� C O C O 0 O E-a -r Q� N to N C- ° E- N O Z °0- Q�pp ��a)of C: ova) a) — u)Ecaa5c C E ?- a) pU N o O L O (n 0 L 2 CL w O o E O L O C O J 3-113VOilddV-NON o o c 0 -° 4-- ° L fn � mw c� o co a) � — cn 4) - a) N c 0) C,5 o f U o aoi U �' �`� v m avi c a 3 ° c �- o o 0 Uo J LL m vi C O U) c: E O a 0E -0 a)? }'n= O L 0-0 0Oa�" � —c 4-• Q L Lmo co U- U- m m cn �)— o o a Eoa) cn a )0 a U) �— N M d ti co C � CC d C N O od iF .2 '0 N ` Eo a)mCL •L 0 a`i a a N O C. C c as c E L m U. M L Q O NLo co rv�wl L fl. W L L O V W J O CL O L IL . u U) L V J U) Z Q N Q�•L � N E 'o Z O �zED c U o Lo W Cry J N co co co 75- 0� Q� C� c a, .- a Of Q Q Q � N L -0 70 0 C p p °Qp3: °c o,aEEa)0: p o — _ c�� O c c N +- —> L p O c O O c p N ci c O •vcv Ecc-- ° ��cn (0 -C C L L O °a��Eu,�EE O 70 O Q a) o p o d CL C 4-' N o O= 0- fl. p L L L o -p U R7 p a, �- = 4- E U �+ `m o >+ -a a, c0 cn CL t0 1 L N a.� O c c d Y (11 N N N S _N - >, co L c +. -a p C N N C C fn p O I N@ N C p O U -p N p N r'' }' O c L pU f- n Q. Q (n a- L CL O O � � c c U) w O O A X L- W ^L f1 a_ �t cn U E p C U O C O L O cu p a 0 W m U c c. CY) E p p E .O Co co Y L O N G LL c O U L -- p EO > +r 3 ._ = N > . - ' cn L 3 odd- (n � p E OM UCH 70 j (�' —t V (� p too, p Um p U 0U- o � N N C C N M d o 0.. a �N c as c E L M U. . u LL. o QO N c L a W i L O 4— _W s v W J O CL O L IL O ,L Z ry U U Q -0 E 7 E 'a o cLoz ES 'cam Uo O N co co co c c c cy- Q Q Q co E O p N E o N O O i O Q N L _C � U) m O V L 1 Q O CZ C o L a1 °C ) C N �(aD ) -®a O �_ 03� co- 4 - -- o o ® . o >U) � o vi 4-1 4.1 a) O s a) � C c �( += O u;E O "O .O 'p asp a� L tT m O C .-- a) j' L O � o 6 c }' O t jj � N @ 3 O O � wO O> C� W -C E c O N O (0 N U) ;_, _0 >��'> cm.�,ocn�o�.�c_°a a� a� o >,�c�}� : - � cn a) >�c�(Y E�ocLaa�— cn a� °-gym° oL��_�cv.�a�o ��o,E� ��° -'� coo -��oco N O O" CD N. C O U —L N C +' N O _� L D td ono >.s N Q 0 `� j 0 oc=E O C M N i L Z CO L a-- v N ~-- L Vi �--� �-- �A C (� • CCS a"I Q. N L (� V' 0) E O L I �� O ■ 4-� ■ `L O� ■ ■ QL cn� ■ ■ a��,OL�IL COI —(fir QL ■ ■ ■ �►-W ■ O (OJ'OZO. ■ ■ ■ ■ N C O u a) cn N J O _Oj O O co O ^L LL ^^ LL 4 o CO O L L -p cn CL -�-� E U 75 00E� -� H _ O ca Q E v O U C -0 ~ N U > c c N O C — J o E U d W N c (n a) pj E c ai o L- o a� � U) U� u O W " Q — N N N C y m N as :� a Eo o°' as �cn .N c as c E L m U. LO LL o Qo N T- 0 W (A . L CL L 4J W L ce L W s V W m J d7 O L a ro 0 a� � U � c 0 0 co � a� +• co U -p � O 'o E O � O" O U U Cn O � O C o cz �Q U C U � Co co C a co (n +' co C � O O E � n co C co � C L � a� — o ap- C � U (o � r � o � L U O O � Q L C Q •� >, C O co � E a �o O U � (o N C � o c� U � � V) CO '� O O (o C cr V; CM a C .r < C w a cr O O _U L z U •�' co io N _ Q o E -v z z c rvz E_ ? O �; U .= Lo L U o J J O N -j w co � Q Q 0) (n C L O a) c cn o U p L) N E a) C:: O O m N O _ - ' -o O C _C L a) N 0 NU) L O O -p L N O- ) +� E C C "D c N O C O C 'p C C C E O L. C t! CO O O ac a)aip .� p�`+—cn;�OQ- ?oo:�v,c N(n O E�;a�a) O •; U C Cn��a Q) Cl) E c }' N 0 O N ) O. 0 U (� C E c� . N co O N C p) ( U a) a) O -p tq mXO.. > > to ' V co C C U a) N U O C a) p a) cn f_n (� C "� i O cm 2 O� °Ea -� ��0E1000 co o° -4-z o v_, o v, -_ Imo- �� o a Q n° Q t i �F-Cnd O U U..M ° N a y a °c' °' Q) U 4 U) U) Ln J W W ^a) a) N ^� ♦♦ W U c J U CD O C co O =p — ^ C mQ U) �Q LO ti N N N C H � O L a CL in N C C E L m UL ro 0 a� � U � c 0 0 co � a� +• co U -p � O 'o E O � O" O U U Cn O � O C o cz �Q U C U � Co co C a co (n +' co C � O O E � n co C co � C L � a� — o ap- C � U (o � r � o � L U O O � Q L C Q •� >, C O co � E a �o O U � (o N C � o c� U � � V) CO '� O O (o C cr V; CM a C .r < C w a cr 0 LL o o CV ® co r��w/ Low ■_ L W Oro L ce L A� W s V d7 c J O O L a c Q. C O 0-0 N � W N 3 cl7 � C C o N C Qi W a� o -U O . L -0 G c 'C Cd Q L V% L L � c �_ O L C- O O .D C O c � Lm a� � a �4- M � i C L- -Fu � C � C _cm >. -C � o vi N E o _ E o cp O C +L� U (a wa L E� o � o �L� L U. i W cu O L a, O O E c = E s N O} v Tc� C;)•X W a; O O V, N L G C6 = j- cn c U C O L L 3 •> � � VJ Q VJ Q Z Q Z Q 4- >\ V N N NN NN p Q o E Z Z Z Z mZEc O L U ° lf� U r In r r In 0 JW JW JWM JWc? N C r Q ^, W U) (n W U) N U a c (n .4- c v 0 ° � N E ° � c �° O °o � m c m 0 U) _ 06 O (o0 IA cad i C :3 co L U) T oc �P V�°cn�'m= U 70 E L cn °v) 0G >E2c L �. o >�a� _o"- E��co�C /)6 aoca'�cn �' Eo L �n.cooE CL C p O N O 0 3 >' }' cn C a) °N I > vi (0 0 C 0) 0) (n Q N E a) U) C OU 0 (n f!1 + U) U 0 L a >+ N N C �O U) — b' >+ (D CO L C U c -v .O O_ ±' > W vOj , co N _ > N -� Q) cn O fl. C? = C X� 0 O N E C E R3 Y ca ca 7R Q) N a) N co N a) ' .n c L o 0 cn > � �� a� o L Q a o� m cn a) m"0 wLL M c `n ii a cn C 4) �. X U O a) N a L 0 o ° 0m- �'2 ■ ■ °?-r- ■ -c ■ O(n cn�� ■ ■ ■ E co co ■ 2.9 v)0- ■ ■ N d � N U) a) Q Q (n > > N w w � a; U 3 •L U) ° N N U) a) J E M 06 = fn m=3 L Cco E'�� 'co Er - UQ oQ u L@�Q U - U-�U- 0o (m O N N M M UL E o +; CL CL in _A N C C E L m LL c Q. C O 0-0 N � W N 3 cl7 � C C o N C Qi W a� o -U O . L -0 G c 'C Cd Q L V% L L � c �_ O L C- O O .D C O c � Lm a� � a �4- M � i C L- -Fu � C � C _cm >. -C � o vi N E o _ E o cp O C +L� U (a wa L E� o � o �L� L U. i W cu O L a, O O E c = E s N O} v Tc� C;)•X W a; O O V, N L G C6 = j- cn c U C tl- L L CL W L ce L O H.■ _W W CL V J O L IL � •J L vJ Z .� �aZ cn N — Q� o E -o Z cLo Z E S r= Ln �? LO C_ O U o U J U Cc� O W N W N 76 co a) ct Q Q O >' co O -C > U N .. p 0) O p C Q O `t- .0 O N Q4 c ` Q� c O O 0 n p _ 0 C :3 'v ? — U "a N c fn +r L L N cn O = O O •II 0 p E O > me �- ��0Cp�cn 0�3 O- }, Ua�. W �>, Q to �o co O+. � L U O O C N O N E � 3 'tn N >' }' N N -O to _ N OL CO c c >. cn cB v_ c _ O O Cl) _ O O� p C (moo O C O � p p) L. N m C. U O O to p Y E 0 O E n .,.1 4- }' U LO a) E.o>,cnE C Qi . U��cao L N N N E L -0 o ��.SQ U . , . N co Lj �pc�co0`� _C om'��-ot°__°'c , c��Evii�QDWI > O Qc � O � � 4 C � (o � U N C O�-(n >� O 4' cn -0 -- L� N 'O d 7 7C) cn 70 O J M O co ^L I..L U 06 a�Npc o o 00 U) O cLo c N U O O Q O a) U O C O)� O L J Fn o.E°v;Cu- coE O cn O CV L C M N p O U r O ±, aQcn CL U) >� �Q N M M M C C � c� =� a a a in c as c E L m � •J .. LL o O N 4) (A I L C■ W L L t V C J 0 L IL " -0 +- -0 o0.`a� U .> (U m 6 Q o �z E5 c 'c � U o O N co co co c ^ L O1 N CU to `= fn a) >1 N (o C O O O O ' a + Q (� 0 aQ) 0) 0 E E� a � _ o (0 �(yn� � co °OCyn� N = O � 'v N L. L_ p `�� • � O � V) `~ �' U U L� .. L Q 5 W O U L� Q� L"� Q W O 0 —_ V 70 L N d� C iii +, L. cn 0 C L .� {Q a) N om" C "5 m +. a) a) to � p 0 L U) Q^ a) fn w p L� c cn a) C C C C O M 4 co N O p cn U O? C .0 +r (C1 N? C C �, co 3 0 0 U N .� 4) (n CL to° c? o cv � om�° mU ocvoo?mU � Co 7 °oc fA N L a) D) U C U C+ — p O U 'p C1 N C V O 0' V 'p d cu m O- U N N Y O a) cn cncn'vcocvcn��o�'cLC-° � C D c v -v o .� c� L --° Q c vi N p+.�N0-0-� cv Q c vi O ^ U O c-dp�o cn -v a -o Q c U c- c X .� o 3' cn X o 3 E cn o U ca cn c L C: f— O C1 � C1 Q cn O O a z cn a) s �, p U O U 0 0 cn a) >, p U N U L a) O a-- a) — -0 O L Q cv U �p ■ +. a) c �vcOE.�� .E O c �-aNE 4- CL m ■ 'Q 0 C C m C !� U) N ( J Q W W W U) a) E a a� _ E U O N +- o co c a> c � Y O }' O Q J c}n N C-6 0 N c c � r 000 N (Q� _ C� °Q co U 0 a M M M co (D N 0 %- CL a V aa °' cn .N c aD C E L m U- L o NN N LPL\ T- 00 4) .(A CL L W L ce L O 4— s V Yl J O a ,A. I L- -0 4� O 'L Cl) Z oa0E-v z vZE 2 L c � C� o U U 'C J W O N co co co co c O C � c O E cn a� � � o m -O o c� co a �, � L � m c a Qc -c E o a� o U ' o cu iZ • N U D — O C: CO in O .d l,U 4- ,,, �.d U t,.. L Q) m C. C N — N ca rn M p Q) Q) N c , O p vi c0 � O O Q) L U N Q- OO U >, >, N }' L N v U) O �_ —_ +� N ,�+ — L C> >` +r C L Q N >, L _?. +r L C_ N Y L N O C. ' Q) O M c LO ai U O 70 p O C_ O C p j 3 L C E N� O ` U U) 'L .O p) «r W O C N Q) ''" L L (0 Y U N >, C- c� L L U ca >+ Q) cn s C 'v •O Q) :� U E O Q) C_ U V) _� U O ++ L L C O L C_ � Q) L�". >, C V C n. V c _ > c }, C C. � O Q) Q) —.5 (0 C O �= O N L a :n Q) C >' Q) c0 -0 E • � E O Q) Q) O U Q) cp 0 O C_ :03 � C. O Q) `_' .) C_ - _a : a 0 _ I " L > c > O �Q) O � O W O W C_ L 1. Q) o Q � O C_ = J N 'O Q� u0i (n (n) J C_ O C_ O C_ O 4- }, o a) _o 0 Q) O L Q) W p >' O O -0 p) lL O Q) O C U U C N C C C J a� c�oE 3CL 2LO E *0 (D � �� m0 uu" E'cF E L E 9c007 -0 co c O m N _ tC Eo `�aa a CL c as c E L O L~i o QLO N �LO fA L W i 3 ce L 0- _4) 73 s V c J .Q d7 O CL O L CL L 70 4- 10 z Z O m io D �z E c Z� C c U o J 'c W LLJ 0 N m � m � Q � Q a) CD cn cn N N O (LQ m d' L C a) cn � C O 0 a. (� "O m � a) U U Z) �v c m �= N 0 m a� (n _ � a) 0 0 U) 4 -O 'O o 3 c cn cn ;� L >I 0 o Q 0 C C 4- m o cn- m 0 aCEE c00m ��c��a.L0�a) L U ° U o (n (n ( 0 m m vi m CU m a) 0 }, E 0 U _ O�.2-0 a> �Q��mE�� }, Soca!a� :0oQmo O C. Q (n a v y a a) m C J *' O Cl) L X W 0- CD C L L �l a--• cu c a) m c m J cu c U co mC L r E Q C 0 Q. U) 0 u V Im cy 0 mM= ate= d E a E ci O iii ,� L cv 0 (D N ,� v L d aCL v L 0 va .N c a) c E L m U. LL TT Q O 6L ` Ln 0 00 r�W L C■ W L L 75 s V m J 4� O CL O L IL il 70 I fn Q C) Q (n Q Cn Q C/) Q Z Z v ca ca Q O E "O 75z 'c O L f U o 0 N co Q Q Q Q Q QC) to O C L 0 D O C w N i Q 70 O O O > Q) O Q) *�? 4-- iq � i C C C d C Q, ' Q) O L_ ' i .�. p a �. � o «.. :3 a s L U t� -p CL > O V C Q) L = U ^ C cn (A rte.. W U cn C O N O Q) "" U O M 'p C [�' +-� N «► 0) d- C C L � 1 O �" L cp o C� O N Ly c `�a Q) = c� cM =_ C L_ N C CO U +r N- 0 L 0O (� p C '` S L >, 0 p O 0_ p N 0 N m E C N Y '' U L Q) -C U' , Q E 0 M E Q Q) E co O Q) cB L (i3 O L_ d p CO O Q) Z O p O C 0 Q) O o-0. a Q) O L Q) Q Q) O O o- Up I- Cn (0 Cn Cn C/) O= (D N H cn to 2 N U ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ d Q) a) Q) m J =�' N O cn Q1 O X w � ai U 3 L > Q) N 0 : o S� W 0�>> t0 70 (n C V -0 � � Q J O O =3 06 � r a+(� C CO (D p' N E(� 4- L�c(D 70 70 .0 E � Q) Q)— L(� Q] Vvu Uu Q LLLLu N NCO/ (-Q LL LL L.J.. LL u� co � n o 'c E O 'D N L as 0 r .N C C E L m UL il w N LL o O N L fl. W i Ine L 13 V M J LM Vf CL L 70 O 0 •L 70 v/ Q vJ Q VJ Z Q Z V 0 cU ? J lC) C�QZES UW U o Z C O N T- Q Q aa)i 0_ Q U L m Vi _0 m () aE 7 c a) o 0) c m0 � y_ c m� C =3 . Q O O c U O n n "0 U N -p (0 U 4- c to N c a) C > ^> N >+ N( in m c O td Z� C? mOELam' a) O Q - 0 0 .2 -c- O 30L U � 3�L � D) 4- C CL r- N E Qv o a) (n � O vi >.�4- � �+� E c o �.�O c c N Q m � � � 0 (n m � � � � � = � � N � � vi oU N N N E�'a�mm+- _� _� coLE O � 0O� 4- m>,mmUYEU O _^ L U m C: -0 c C a) = O m E m' O O cn c. c m -D U m }.. �? C �n.m�NUacaa !-+ ;, U m >, m +.. U C L c L a) N 0 N �. O `—' � c C na) m amEE'C-: L E � c � .� E � m o -0:3 E ° a) °? ma °U -CMj ) �c� a0 m Ua a� a0— 0" 02 m UQ acn a2 Q) m O O j N > d > J N (1) O (1) CL a) N 0) M L LL LL L c O >, X W (0 CL co L• C 2 m U J O O u' m c O U O U (nJN -0 N OM N >U p ULL V JQa 00 � O N LO o �a a = 0 O C N CO. 0- O v c a) c E L M LL c� LL o Qo N_ Ln 0m L CL W i MoL 0 V c0i J rML O L IL U � 3 'c Cl) zo� a a Q Z 5 Q) j +• 0 E 'p N D �QZ E5 cn c U Lo Q c 0 N � Q ' L Q) (o a >, � �' >' ° ° 0" >' �, a� >' > °' Q) a 3 U : L 3 Q y d 0 CL a C C >> 70 m U ° Q) N N U C N -0 O 0 '� +r " cn CO O C i3 R1 N O 4- O N> O C L c E � ° �E - E� ,�� O a- Co (D C°j E co E L m L a E a>% o Co 0c0.(Lc m O O o N - O _ �- 4 Q) C 0 O Q N E O O) N O .F. L. L Q +. L- ,. Q) Q) U E� C C L "_' L r. u� O N E "O E fn a) ca O. U "a c0 E c N a) >, U a) '0 N O Q] C N E Co C O O O 2 Q ■ ■ O C c ■ C Q) —_ C O O O> 0> O (� CQ ca 4. UUW W Q ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ U N C Q) t(n ■ ■ L C 0 Z ■ a) 0) ■ L (n CL N 'C Qa A N cOn 0 vOi a vOi Q � J = O O O c o +L. U O W O U O O' E W ° C co c0 0n w 0 C Q)U > co :2 �� O _0 O AW Ui 0L— 0 (n v co N (� a) —_ —N O�– N co L N� N =0 .-. v cvE O cv0 v N 0 CL 0. U Q a �� co a .N c d c E L m UL �-0 LL o ,g LO o N �LO W �W L LM. 41 W L L O 4- _O Ma 4) s V O J .O W O a O CL 3 U) U) U) Zo d) Q Q Q Z V i +L+ 76 n E o �Qz S �? c 00 L- chi c? C O N c la) 0� � Q Q Q m o c -v c -p c E O L O C O U= 4L- Qi L U C U C a a--� �o X30 °0 W Q c O M � «_ C ,�O O C co O O _°0 (p U cu 't °O° -C c `O CC N c c c C. E -v O :3 c O 'O - -0 M cn C W U— O w p Cl V U Q N "O N 0 0 1 U LN C L C V N CO co E L wo (� �OOc oa'oQo O C oO C 0 =�c�-ov� w o c� U co cn Q O cn cn 2 2 a d, c o 0 J - X w O o, c o C: U O Q- E c O N O N W N mN � 9 (D COQ _ Co '3 UQ LO Im C N� Q N� C r O t) N v y as fl.� U Q CL .N c m c E L U. Attachment #2 ; i Orange County Environment and Resource Conservation Department MEMORANDUM To: Agricultural Preservation Board From: Tina Moon, Land Use /Preservation Planner Date: August 3, 2004 Subject: Walters Voluntary Agricultural District Application Copies: David Stancil, ERC Director In May, Carl and Elizabeth Walters submitted an application for participation in the County's Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) Program. The Walters currently have three tracts of their farm in the VAD program. The additional 173 acres of the parcel in question, with increase the acreage in their existing district to almost 378 acres. The attached map shows the location of this new tract along with the three tracts currently enrolled in the VAD program. Section V. of the Orange County Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program Ordinance (VFPPO) outlines the required application procedure. Once staff reviews the application for completeness, it is forwarded to the tax assessor and Natural Resources Conservation Service to ensure that the property meets specific criteria. Staff has received the attached memorandum certifying the Walter property as farmland, eligible to participate in the VAD program. The next step in the process is for the Agricultural Preservation Board (APB) to consider the application based on the Tax Assessor and Conservation Service findings. Per the VFPPO, the APB reviews the materials and decides whether or not to prepare a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the establishment of a voluntary agricultural district. The APB Chair will then notify the applicant of the Board's recommendation. Please review the attached supporting materials and VFPPO, and be prepared to consider this application for VAD status. Should the Agricultural Preservation Board decide to recommend that the Walter property be designated as part of their existing VAD, ERCD staff will prepare the appropriate agenda materials for the BOCC. Orange County Agricultural Preservation Board APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION AS QUALIFYING FARMLAND AND DESIGNATION AS AN ORANGE COUNTY VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONS: Before completing the application, please review the provisions of the Orange County Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program Ordinance, then fill out the form as accurately and completely as possible. Please sign and date the form, and return it to the Orange County Environment and Resource Conservation Department, 306A Revere Road, Hillsborough, NC 27278 APPLICANT: Name:—/ s r� r' 17� h � 1/ � 1 �J r Address: e�l j City: �j � f� State:l Zip Code: '7 3 Phone Number (Day):( J & 3 (Evening) E -Mail: PROPERTY INFORMATION: }} Property L,ocztionlAl dress: 6 r C �-� P 14 ; rl � 6 p� L, Township: Tax Map: Block: Lot: -� Parcel Identification Number (PIN) ?e-� ? - C�y - /3 / Y/ Number of Acres: ) �, Deed Book:'M 3 6 1 Page: --), Does this land have a plan on file with the Natural Resources Conservation Service or NC Forest Service? Yes: No: If "No ", please complete back of form Is this land listed for Present Use taxation with the Orange County Tax Office? Yes: No: If "No ", please complete back of form OWNER[S] CERTIFICATION: I [We], the applicant[s], hereby certify that, to the best of my [our] knowledge, the foregoing application is complete and accurate. Signature: L1, Ltjll MI f Date: , r Signature: !�' r- It) a - Date: 5 °� — d Please direct inquiries to: c% Orange County Environment and Resource Conservation Department 306A Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Hillsborough • 732 -8181 Chapel Hill # 967 -9251 Durham • 688 -7331 Mebane • 227 -2031 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SV 4 1`�'11:T�.'° .y„ - .:y.i6': �'� i• /P "' C._f" ,•—x� i:t.�' ?'� i�l � � # 1 +' '._ :• `_ _ -' �1: uc � '�,. i' � ...� - ILA R l�fcts�� 4�(�? V 1 741 eS QN �, ray , E➢l��% i :_'y y !4 j ;5 • .. ti', :S ! '� 1 �' '"`i��r�` ra V c,v�("#es' MCons rVatro'�' n � •7+rultTi, - �i%•("� � G�`' - • �'— �- +4=��3 � S p�.��rc�e7(lo �,i7,y.'•�!�'1+'a:= .?�''r'y�'•; .t��L�(ji .}� � •��.e�.'4�.�1 _ e `� ;ter _�y`�'"_ "� .y� *1 Y•�ip�, yl,- _i:»•,i��q �'..�i} Jr �• i� ?�7' "l:� �'�'. .,.� ti�� t`•"?�� {`1:d .vixT,.i�w(4„A� �,.�.. "'- a l �..� °•' ;'��('M °�v�•'- �.:•a._�'��:- ��[ -•>. Y•r�: ; M. S!4i }Lk:';��tii�y:.T.•�:7',�z�:: 1. How long have you owned your farm? years 2. How long have you lived on your farm? years 3. Has your farm exceeded $1,000 in gross income in each of the past three years? Yes No 4. How many acres on your farm are under cultivation? acres 5. What are the major crops that you plant each year? 6. How many acres on your farm are used for pasture? acres f l ORANGE COUNTY .......:. . ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: Brent Bogue, District Conservationist John Smith, Tax Supervisor From: Tina Moon, Land Use /Preservation Planner Date: June 14, 2004 Subject: Walters Farm Application for Certification as Qualifying Farmland Please find the attached form for Certification as Qualifying Farmland for Carl and Elizabeth Walters which is part of the application for the County's Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) Program. The Walters currently participate in the VAD program based on three other tracts in their farm complex (TM #2.42..5, 2.42..11, and 2.42.AlA); this tract (TM #2.42..5A) is adjacent to (TM #2.42..5) and will increase the existing acreage in their district to almost 378 acres. The property in question (TM #2.42..5A) is not currently enrolled in the use -value taxation program but does not have a plan on file with the Natural Resources Conservation Service or North Carolina Forest Service. To secure such certification, a tract must: 1. Be participating in the present use -value taxation program established by the NC General Statutes, Sections 105 -277.2 through 105 - 277.7, or is otherwise determined by the County to meet all the qualifications of this program set forth in the NC General Statutes, Section 105 - 277.3. [Response to be provided by Tax Supervisor] 2. Be certified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture (NRCS) as being a farm on which at least two- thirds of the land is composed of soils that: a. Are best suited for providing food, seed, fiber, forage, timber, and oil seed crops; b. Have good soil qualities; C. Are favorable for all major crops common to Orange County; d. Have a favorable growing season; and d� v L Walters Application for Certification as Qualifying Farmland Page 2 e. Receive the available moisture needed to produce high yields for an average of eight (8) out of ten (10) years; OR be one on which at least two- thirds of the land has been actively used for agricultural, horticultural or forestry operations as defined in the NC General Statutes, Section 105 -277.2 (1,2, and 3), during each of the five (5) previous years, measured from the date on which the determination must be made as to whether the land in questions qualifies. [Response to be provided by District Conservationisfl 3. Be managed, if highly erodible land exists on the farm, in accordance with the NRCS - defined erosion control practices as specified in the 1985 Food Security Act. [ Response to be provided by District Conservationist) In accordance with Section V of the Orange County Voluntary Farmland Preservation Ordinance, kindly evaluate the application for compliance with the above requirements and return your finding to the Environment and Resource Conservation Department within 30 days. Please be as specific as you can, in your response, regarding how the property complies. Provided the property is certified as qualifying farmland, and the Advisory Board recommends designation as a voluntary agricultural district, the Board of Commissioners could consider the request in September 2004. Please note that the tract in question contains over 173 acres. Thus, the acreage requirement is satisfied, since the farm consists of one tract, or two or more contiguous tracts containing at least 80 acres. Please find the attached vicinity map showing the boundaries of the property and a tabulation of acreage by soil type. You may wish to refer to these when completing your review. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If I can provide additional information, please contact me at extension 2583. /tm attachments cc: David Stancil, Environment and Resource Conservation Director 8540 7 \ | yr GeB Ta GNF� \ / / \ � /~ , � Soils Data for Carl and Elizabeth Walters Property 300 0 300 600 Feet TMBL 2.42..5A Chewacla (Ch) = 8.912 acres Goldston (GIF) = 21.354 acres Georgeville (GeB) 59,849 acres Tatum (TaD) = 34.562 acres A Georgeville (GeC) 46,300 acres Tatu m (Ta E) = 0. 0 18 acres 'Slight variances in acreage calculations using soils data often occur \ | yr GeB Ta GNF� \ / / \ � /~ , � Soils Data for Carl and Elizabeth Walters Property 300 0 300 600 Feet TMBL 2.42..5A Chewacla (Ch) = 8.912 acres Goldston (GIF) = 21.354 acres Georgeville (GeB) 59,849 acres Tatum (TaD) = 34.562 acres A Georgeville (GeC) 46,300 acres Tatu m (Ta E) = 0. 0 18 acres 'Slight variances in acreage calculations using soils data often occur S OIL & WATER C 0 N S E R V A T I 0 N Orange Soil & Water Conservation District Phone: 919- 732 -8181, Ext. 2750 Natural Resources Conservation Service Phone: 919 - 644 - 1079, Ext. 3 June 18, 2004 To: Tina Moon, Land Use/ Preservation Planner From: Brent Bogue, District Conservationist Subject: Walters Farm, Application for VAD USDA PO Box 8181 306 Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Please find the attached forms regarding the qualifications for Voluntary Agricultural Districts in Orange County. This tract appears to be in timber production so no farm plan is required by our office. If the landowner decides to clear this land to make any part of it capable of producing commodity crops he should contact our office to insure that all regulations are considered. zT Brent Bogue District Conservationist (MRCS), Hillsborough Field Office S OIL & WATE R C O N S B R V A T Z 0 N Orange Soil & Water Conservation District Phone: 919- 732 -8181, Ext. 2750 Natural Resources Conservation Service Phone: 919 - 644 -1079, Ext. 3 USDA. PO Box 8181 306 Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 This report serves to document how the proposed farm qualifies for acceptance into the Voluntary Agricultural Districts in Orange County. 1. Two - thirds of the soils on the farm must: a. Be suited for providing food, seed, fiber, forage, timber, and oil seed crops. YES X % 86 NO X % 14 Comments: b. Have good soil qualities. YES X NO Breakdown of soil classes in percent: Class I T Classes I, II, III are primarily used for cropland Class II 35% Class III _52% Classes III -VI are generally best suited for pasture Class IV or woodland. Class V Class VI _0 Class VII 13% Class VIII generally unsuited for agricultural use. Comments: c. Be favorable for all major crops common to Orange County. Major crops are corn, tobacco, small grain, pasture, and loblolly pines. 88 % favorable 12 % unfavorable d. Have favorable growing season. (YES) The growing season for Orange County is approximately 200 days. It begins in approximately the second week of April and runs until about the last week in October. This response will be consistent for all farms in Orange County. e. Receive the available moisture needed to produce high yields for an average of 8 to 10 years. (YES) Orange County receives approximately 42 -45 inches of rainfall annually. This response will be consistent for all farms in Orange County. •' At least two- thirds of the land has been actively used in agriculture, horticulture or forestry operations as defined in the NC General Statutes, Section 105 -277.2 (1,2, and 3) during each of the five previous years, measured from the date on which the determination must be made as to whether the land in question qualifies. Acres in cropland Acres in forestland 173 Acres in homestead, farmstead or other related use Total TRACT acres 173 Greater than two- thirds in designated uses. Yes X % 100 No r Comments: 1. Farm must be managed, if highly erodible land exists on the farm, in accordance with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) defined erosion - control practices as specified in the 1985 Food Security Act as amended. Plan on file in NRCS Office YES NO X If NO, plan will be required before acceptance into the Voluntary Agricultural Districts Program. Comments: If this tract is to remain in timber production no HEL plan will be needed. If any portion of this tract is to be cleared so as to make crop production possible, a plan will need to be developed. Christina Moon - Victor Carl Walters Jr & Elizabeth T Page 1 �1 From: Teresa MOORE To: Moon, Christina Date: 8/3/2004 3:54:38 PM Subject: Victor Carl Walters Jr. & Elizabeth T The Walters have parcel 2.42..5A enrolled in the use value program. This tract participates as forestry. We have a forestry management plan on file for this tract. Hope this is of help, if more information is needed, please let me know. Thanks, Teresa Moore �i I ORANGE COUNTY 2 VOLUNTARY FARMLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE 3 � i 4 5 ARTICLE I 6 TITLE 7 8 An ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH 9 CAROLINA, entitled, "VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT 10 ORDINANCE." 11 12 ARTICLE II 13 AUTHORITY 14 15 The articles and sections of this ordinance are adopted pursuant to authority conferred by the 16 N.C.G.S. Sections 106 -735 through 106 -744 and Chapter 153A. 17 18 ARTICLE III 19 PURPOSE 20 21 Through its plans, ordinances and other programs, it is the expressed policy of Orange 22 County to conserve, protect and encourage the preservation and improvement of agricultural 23 land within the County boundaries as a critical component of the County's cultural and rural 24 character and its economy by virtue of the production of food, fiber and other products. The 25 purpose of this ordinance is to reduce the loss of productive and existing farmland by 26 promoting agricultural values and the general welfare of the County, recognize the existence 27 of important farmlands by seeking to minimize risks of nuisance suits that arise from the 28 onset of other land uses, encourage participation in voluntary programs to preserve and 29 protect farmland from non -farm development and increase identity and awareness of the 30 agricultural community, and its role in the economic and cultural quality of life for all 31 County residents. 32 33 ARTICLE IV 34 DEFINITIONS 35 36 The following are defined for purposes of this ordinance: 37 38 Board: Orange County Agricultural Preservation Board. 39 40 Chair: Chairperson of the Orange County Agricultural Preservation Board. 41 42 District: Voluntary Agricultural District as established by this ordinance. 43 44 Board of Commissioners: Orange County Board of Commissioners. 45 46 Agricultural Region: A section of the County within which participating and qualifying 47 farms are grouped for identification and geography 48 �i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Qualifying_ Farm: A farm that has met the qualification criteria set out in Article VII of this ordinance to be considered for the Voluntary Agricultural District Program ARTICLE V AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD A. Creation An Orange County Agricultural Preservation Board, consisting of seven (7) initial members appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, is hereby established. Thereafter, the Agricultural Preservation Board shall consist of up to seven (7) at -large members plus one member from each Agricultural Region created and existing under this Ordinance, with members selected from approved Voluntary Agricultural Districts within the region, appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. Additional appointments may be made to satisfy the requirements of Section IV.B. l .b.of this ordinance. B. Membership 1. Requirements a. Each Board member shall be a resident of Orange County. b. Each Agricultural Region existing pursuant to this ordinance shall be represented on the Board by a person owning farmland in a District within the Region. The Board of County Commissioners shall appoint the Agricultural Region representatives and shall make its selection of a representative for each Agricultural Region from among District farms within the Region. C. The remaining members of the Board shall be appointed at -large by the Board of County Commissioners to represent a broad range of agricultural interests. 2. Tenure Each member shall serve a term of three (3) years, except that the initial Board is to consist of two (2) appointees for terms of two (2) years, two (2) appointees for terms of three (3) years, and three (3) appointees for terms of four (4) years. Thereafter, all appointments are to be for terms of three (3) years, with reappointments permitted. Notwithstanding the term limits contained in this section, Agricultural Region representatives may be appointed and re- appointed as necessary to insure that each Region is represented as provided in Section B. l .b of this Ordinance. P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 3. Vacancies Any vacancy on the Board is to be filled for the remainder of the unexpired term. C. Removal Any member of the Advisory Board may be removed by the Board of Commissioners upon a two- thirds vote of the Commissioners. No cause for removal shall be required. D. Board Procedure The Board shall develop procedures for the conduct of its meetings, in addition to those listed here, which shall be consistent with this ordinance, other provisions of State law, and Robert's Rules of Order. 1. Chair and Vice -Chair The Board shall elect a Chair and Vice -Chair each year at its February meeting. The Chair shall preside over all regular or special meetings of the Board. In the absence or disability of the Chair, the Vice -chair shall preside and shall exercise all the powers of the Chair. Additional officers may be elected as needed. The Chair and Vice -Chair shall serve terms of one (1) year and shall be eligible for re- election. Both may be eligible to succeed themselves for three (3) terms. 2. Advisory Board Year The Board shall use the Orange County fiscal year as its meeting year. 3. Meetings Regular meetings of the Board shall be held on the third Wednesday of each month at a time established by the Board. When the regular meeting day falls on a legal holiday, the Board may call a special meeting. Special meetings may be called by the Chair or by written request of two (2) members of the Board, submitted to the Board or the Chair. Written or oral notice of special meetings shall be given to all members at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting and shall state the time, place and purpose of the meeting. All meetings shall be open to the public. 3 •� U r� 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 E 4. Quorum and Ma ority Vote A quorum of the Board shall consist of a majority of the appointed members of the Board. All issues shall be decided by a majority vote of the members of the Board, except as otherwise stated herein or in the adopted Rules of Procedure. 5. Records The Board shall keep minutes of the proceedings showing the vote of each member upon each question, or if absent or failing to vote, indicating such fact, and shall keep records of its examinations and other official actions, all of which shall be filed in the office of the Advisory Board and shall be a public record. Duties The Board shall have the authority to: 1. Review and approve the form of the agreement to sustain agriculture required in Section V of this ordinance; 2. Review and approve applications for qualifying farmland certification and make recommendations concerning the establishment and modification of Agricultural Districts and participating farms therein as defined in this Ordinance; 3. Review and make recommendations concerning proposed amendments to this ordinance; 4. Conduct public hearings; 5. Hold joint public hearings with the Orange County Board of Commissioners on public projects likely to have an impact on agricultural operations within Orange County; 6. Advise the Board of County Commissioners on projects, programs or issues affecting the agricultural economy or activities within the county and that will affect Agricultural Districts; 7. Study additional methods of farmland preservation and make recommendations to the Orange County Board of Commissioners; and 8. Perform other related tasks or duties assigned by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners; and 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 a C 9. Provide recommendations and input on modifications to the countywide farmland protection plan, incorporated in the County's Lands Legacy Program, as defined in N.C.G.S. §106 -744 (e) (1) for presentation to the Board of Commissioners. ARTICLE VI CREATION OF VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS Regions Orange County is hereby divided into 7 regions as defined below: 1. Cedar Grove 2. High Rock / Efland 3. Cane Creek / Buckhorn 4. White Cross 5. New Hope 6. Schley / Eno 7. Caldwell Implementation In order to implement the purposes stated in Article III, this program provides for the creation of voluntary agricultural districts that meet the following standards: 1. The District shall contain a minimum of 20 contiguous acres of qualified farmland, or a grouping of farms totaling 20 acres; or 2. The District shall contain one (1) or more qualified farms within areas designated by the Board. All land enrolled as an Agricultural District, as defined above, shall be part of a one region. If a single District farm has acreage in two or more regions, the farm shall participate in the district where the largest acreage is found. To become enrolled; the owners of the qualifying farmland must execute a voluntary conservation agreement with Orange County to sustain agriculture in the District. Qualifying farmland may be added to existing districts upon execution by the owner of an additional agreement. Education The County may take such action as it deems appropriate through the Board or other entities or individuals to encourage the formation of the Districts and to further their purposes and objectives, including the implementation of a public information program to reasonably inform landowners of the agricultural district program. 5 r77 �J 'J 1 D. Addition and Withdrawal 2 3 1. Qualifying farmland in a region with an existing district shall be added to the district 4 as herein provided. 5 6 2. In the event that one or more participants in the District withdraw and the acreage in 7 the District becomes less than the minimum acreage required or results in the 8 remaining land being noncontiguous, a voluntary agricultural district will continue 9 to exist so long as there is one qualifying farm. 10 11 ARTICLE VII 12 CERTIFICATION AND QUALIFICATION OF FARMLAND 13 14 Requirements 15 16 To secure county certification as qualifying farmland, a farm must: 17 18 1. Be participating in the farm present- use -value taxation program established by 19 N.C.G.S. §105 -277.2 through §105- 277.7, or is otherwise determined by the county 20 to meet all the qualifications of this program set forth in G.S. 105 -277.3 ; 21 22 2. Be certified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States 23 Department of Agriculture as being a farm on which at least two- thirds of the land is 24 composed of soils that: 25 26 a. Are best suited for providing food, seed, fiber, forage, timber, forestry 27 products, horticultural crops and oil seed crops; 28 29 b. Have good soil qualities; 30 31 C. Are favorable for all major crops common to the county where the land is 32 located; 33 34 d. Have a favorable growing season; and 35 36 e. Receive the available moisture needed to produce high yields for an average 37 of eight out of ten years; 38 39 OR 40 41 Have been actively used in agricultural, horticultural or forestry operations as 42 defined by N.C.G.S. §105 -277.2 (1,2,3) during each of the five previous years, 43 measured from the date on which the determination must be made as to whether the 44 land in question qualifies; 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 0 a 3. Be managed, if highly erodible land exists on the farm, in accordance with the Natural Resources Conservation Service defined erosion - control practices that are addressed to said highly- erodible land; and 4. Be the subject of a conservation agreement, as defined in N.C.G.S. §121 -35, between the county and the owner of such land that prohibits non -farm use or development of such land for a period of at least ten years, except for the creation of not more than three lots that meet applicable county zoning and subdivision regulations. ARTICLE VIII APPLICATION, APPROVAL, AND APPEAL PROCEDURE Application Procedure Applications for qualifying farmland certification shall be made to the Orange County Environment and Resource Conservation Department on forms provided by that department. 1. A conservation agreement to sustain, encourage, and promote agriculture must be executed by the landowner and recorded with the Board. Approval Process The Environment and Resource Conservation Department shall review each application for completeness. When complete, the application shall be forwarded to: 1. The Orange County Tax Assessor's Office; and 2. The Orange Soil and Water District office, and 3. The local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. Within 30 days of receiving an application, the above offices shall evaluate the application for compliance with the requirements of Section V.D.2. above and return their findings to the Environment and Resource Conservation Department. The Environment and Resource Conservation Department shall present the application for consideration at the first meeting of the Agricultural Preservation Board, following receipt of the findings of the above offices. C. Appeal If an application is denied by the Board, the petitioner shall have thirty (30) days to appeal the decision to the Board of Commissioners. Such appeal shall be presented in writing. The decision of the Board of Commissioners is final. 7 .1 w v 1 2 D. Renewal of Conservation Agreement 3 4 Prior to the expiration of the 10 -year. Voluntary Conservation Agreement defined herein, the 5 owners of the District may sign a letter of renewal for an additional 10 -year period which 6 will be attached as an appendix to the original conservation agreement and recorded. 7 Conservation Agreements not renewed prior to the expiration of the 10 year period must file 8 a new application for District designation. 9 to ARTICLE IX 11 REVOCATION OF PRESERVATION AGREEMENT 12 13 By written notice to the Board, a landowner of qualifying farmland may revoke the 14 Conservation Agreement or the Board may revoke the same Conservation Agreement based 15 on noncompliance by the landowner, subject to the same provisions as contained in Article 16 VIII for appeal of denials. Such revocation shall result in loss of qualifying farm status and 17 loss of eligibility to participate in a district. Absent noncompliance by the landowner, neither 18 the Board nor the Board of Commissioners shall revoke any conservation agreements prior 19 to its expiration. 20 21 ARTICLE X 22 PUBLIC HEARINGS 23 24 A. Purpose 25 26 Pursuant to N.C.G.S. §106-740, which provides that no state or local public agency or 27 governmental unit may formally initiate any action to condemn any interest in qualifying 28 farmland within a District until such agency or unit has requested the Board to hold a public 29 hearing on the proposed condemnation. 30 31 B. Procedure 32 33 1. Upon receiving a request, the Board shall publish notice describing the proposed 34 action in the appropriate newspapers of Orange County within five (5) business days 35 of the request, and will in the same notice notify the public of a public hearing on the 36 proposed condemnation, to be held within ten (10) days of receipt of the request. 37 38 2. The Board shall meet to review: 39 40 a. Whether the need for the project has been satisfactorily established by the 41 agency or unit of government involved, including a review of any fiscal 42 impact analysis conducted by the agency involved; and 43 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 0 b. Whether there are alternatives to the proposed action that have less impact and are less disruptive to the agricultural activities of the District within which the proposed action is to take place. 3. The Board shall consult with the Environment and Resource Conservation Department, County Agricultural Extension Agent, the Natural Resources Conservation Service District Conservationist, and any other individuals, agencies, or organizations deemed by the Advisory Board to be necessary for its review of the proposed action. . 4. Within five (5) days after the hearing, the Board shall make a report containing its findings and recommendations regarding the proposed action. The report shall be made available to the public prior to its being conveyed to the decision - making body of the agency proposing the acquisition. 5. There will be a period of ten (10) days allowed for public comment on the report of the Board. 6. After the ten (10) day period for public comment has expired, the Board shall submit a final report containing all of its findings and recommendations regarding the proposed action to the decision making body of the agency proposing the acquisition. 7. The total time period, from the day that a request for a hearing has been received to the day that a final report is issued to the decision making body of the agency proposing the acquisition, shall not exceed thirty (30) days. If the agency agrees to an extension, the agency and the Board shall mutually agree upon a schedule to be set forth in writing and made available to the public. 8. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. §106-740, the Board of Commissioners shall not permit any formal initiation of condemnation by local agencies while the proposed condemnation is properly before the Board. ARTICLE M NOTIFICATION Record Notice of Proximity to Voluntary Agricultural District 1. Procedure The Orange County Land Records Department shall implement and enforce the following requirements outlined in this section. Upon certification of qualifying farmland and designation of real property as a District, the title to that qualifying 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 'Y E+ C 2. 3. farmland and real property, which is contained in the Orange County Land Records System, shall be changed to include a notice reasonably calculated to alert a person researching the title of a particular tract that such tract is located within one -half aerial mile of a voluntary agricultural district. Limit of Liability In no event shall the County or any of its officers, employees, or agents be held liable in damages for any misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance occurring in good faith in connection with the duties or obligations imposed by this ordinance. No Cause of Action In no event shall any cause of action arise out of the failure of a person researching the title of a particular tract to report to any person the proximity of the tract to a qualifying farm or voluntary agricultural district as defined in this ordinance. Signag e Signs identifying approved agricultural districts shall be placed along the rights -of -way of major roads that pass through or next to those districts. Additionally, signs shall be posted at the perimeter of qualifying farms that have executed the Conservation Agreement to participate in the District. 1 Placement of signage shall be coordinated with the N.C. Department of Transportation. Maps Maps identifying approved agricultural districts shall also be provided to the following agencies or offices: a. Register of Deeds; b. U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service / N.C. Soil and Water Conservation District; C. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service; d. Planning and Inspections Department; and e. Any other such agency or office the Board deems appropriate. ARTICLE XII SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW Developers of major subdivisions or planned unit developments shall designate on any final plats to be recorded the existence of the Districts within one (1) aerial mile(s) of the proposed development. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 A. C. N E. F. W ARTICLE XIII WAIVER OF WATER AND SEWER ASSESSMENTS No Assessment A landowner participating in the District as defined herein shall not be assessed for or be required to connect to water and/or sewer systems operated or owned by Orange County. NOTE: This provision may not apply for assessments from other utility providers (towns, other public utilities). Abeyance Water and sewer assessments for systems owned or operated by Orange County shall be held in abeyance, without interest, for farms in an agricultural district, until improvements on such property are connected to the water or sewer system for which the assessment was made. Termination of Abeyance When the period of abeyance ends, the assessment is payable in accordance with the terms set out in the assessment resolution. Suspension of Statute of Limitations Statutes of limitations are suspended during the time that any assessment is held in abeyance without interest. Other Statutory Abeyance Procedures Nothing in this section is intended to diminish the authority of the County to hold assessments in abeyance under N.C.G.S. § 153A -201, or other applicable law. Conflict with Water and/or Sewer System Construction and Improvements Grants To the extent that this section conflicts with the terms of federal, state, or other grants under which county water and/or sewer systems are constructed this section shall not apply. ARTICLE XIV COUNTY LAND USE PLANNING Duty of the Board It shall be the duty of the Board and the Environment and Resource Conservation Department to advise the Board of Commissioners on the status, progress, and activities of 11 n J 1 1 the county's agricultural district program and to also coordinate the formation and 2 maintenance of agricultural districts with the County's comprehensive planning and 3 elements of the County Comprehensive Plan. 4 5 B. Posting of Notice 6 7 The following notice, of a size and form suitable for posting, shall be posted in the office of 8 the Register of Deeds and the Land Records Department: 9 10 Orange County has established agricultural districts to protect and preserve agricultural 11 lands and activities. These districts have been developed and mapped by the County to 12 inform all purchasers of real property that certain agricultural and forestry activities, 13 including standard agricultural practices that may occur in these districts in accord with 14 Federal, State and local ordinances and laws. Maps and information on the location and 15 establishment of these districts can be obtained from the Environment and Resource 16 Conservation Department office. 17 18 ARTICLE XV 19 CONSULTATION AUTHORITY 20 21 The Board may consult with the Environment and Resource Conservation Department, the 22 North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service 23 office, the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and with any 24 other individual, agency, or organization the Board deems necessary to properly conduct its 25 business. The Environment and Resource Conservation Department is designated as the 26 primary staff support to the Board. 27 28 ARTICLE XVI 29 NORTH CAROLINA AGENCY NOTIFICATION 30 31 Annual Resort to the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 32 33 A copy of this ordinance shall be sent to the Office of the North Carolina Commissioner of 34 Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Board of Commissioners, the County Office of the 35 North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, and the Soil and Water Conservation 36 District office after adoption. At least annually the county shall submit a written report to 37 the Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services on the county's agricultural district 38 program, including the following information: 39 40 1. Number of landowners enrolled; 41 2. Number of acres enrolled; 42 3. Number of acres certified during the reporting period; 43 4. Number of acres denied during the reporting period; 44 5. Number of acres for which applications are pending; 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 a 6. Copies of any amendments to the ordinance; and 7. Any other information the Advisory Board deems useful. ARTICLE XVII LEGAL PROVISIONS Severability If any article, section, subsection, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason found invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. A m are rim antes This ordinance may be amended from time to time by the Board of Commissioners. ARTICLE XVIII PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENTS A. As provided in the N.C. General Statutes, Section 106 -744, and included in the County's Lands Legacy Program, Orange County may, with the voluntary consent of landowners, acquire by purchase agricultural conservation easements on qualifying farmland as defined in this ordinance and located within a voluntary agricultural district as defined in this ordinance. This ordinance shall be effective from and after April 1, 1992. Duly adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the County of Orange, North Carolina, this 24th day of March, 1992. Amended: 9/22/92; 5/24/93; 4/17/00, xx /xx /xxxx. ARTICLE XIX ENACTMENT The Orange County Board of Commissioners hereby adopts and enacts the preceding articles and sections of this ordinance. Adopted this the day of Motion for adoption by 13 011 and seconded by `1 J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Chair ATTEST: Clerk to Board of Commissioners Approved as to form: County Attorney 14 Attachment #3 4 A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING ORANGE COUNTY VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL (VA) DISTRICT PROVISIONS REGARDING EXTENSION OF WATER AND SEWER LINES BY MUNICIPALITIES AND PUBLIC UTILITIES WHEREAS, in August 1992, Orange County became one of the first counties in North Carolina to implement a Voluntary Farmland Protection Program Ordinance as permitted by the North Carolina General Statutes, and WHEREAS, since that time, 10 farms totaling 1,631 acres have enrolled in the VA District program, and WHEREAS, one of the provisions protecting farms in these districts is a waiver of water and sewer assessments for the extension of lines that may cross or touch a VA District farm, including an abeyance of assessments, without interest, until improvements on the property are connected to the water or system in question; and WHEREAS, the ordinance containing these provisions currently applies only to Orange County- operated water and sewer systems, and WHEREAS, the protection of farmland and rural character is a goal shared by the municipalities and public utilities of the County, and all of the VA District farms are located in areas of the County projected to remain rural over time: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the agrees that the preservation of farmland through the Voluntary Agricultural District program is of mutual interest to the as well as the County as a whole, and agrees to abide by the provisions in Article XIII of the Orange County Voluntary Farmland Protection Program Ordinance to this end regarding the waiver or abeyance of water and sewer assessments of any future line extensions that may cross or touch a VA District farm. This, the _ day of , 2004. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS APB AGENDA August 18, 2004 North Carolina Voluntary Agricultural Districts July 2004 A Progress Report What Are Voluntary Agricultural Districts? Voluntary agricultural district (VAD) programs allow farmers to form areas where commercial agriculture is encouraged and protected. Authorized by the North Carolina General Assembly in the 1985 Farmland Preservation Enabling Act (61:106 -738) and implemented at the county level, VADs form partnerships between farmers, county commissioners and land use planners. Landowners receive a set of benefits in exchange for restricting development on their land for a specific time period. They establish a quantifiable presence for farmers in counties with active farming communities, raise public awareness of agricultural activity and help leaders plan future development that will support and encourage the continued viability of local agriculture. As of dune 2004, 39 of North Carolina's 100 counties had passed farmland preservation ordinances establishing VAD programs. When an ordinance has passed, county commissioners appoint a board of people who are familiar with local agriculture to administer the program. The board determines eligibility and guidelines for enrollment, selecting the incentives and the restrictions that are most appropriate for local farming conditions. Last year American Farmland Trust organized two VAD training sessions that drew more than 200 people from 48 counties. Attendees learned about other programs across the country, met board members from other counties and became familiar with state farmland protection resources. This progress report will encourage increased communication between county boards and continued improvement of local programs. We encourage you to contact your fellow board members or the resources listed in this publication with questions or ideas on making these programs more effective in assisting local agriculture. A View from the Piedmont: Chatham County By Sam Groce, Extension Agent, Agriculture, NCCES Chatham County, the second fastest growing county in North Carolina, is a rural, agrarian community sandwiched between Triangle and Triad. Its largest city has a population of 7,500. There is limited industry and employment —most of the residents work outside the county. Chatham County consistently ranks in the top 20 counties for agricultural production in North Carolina. Its largest agricultural commodities are poultry and cattle (fourth and fifth in the state, respectively). The poultry and cattle production go hand in hand — chickens produce litter that is used as fertilizer on pastures where cattle graze. With chicken manure comes odor: from the houses themselves, the litter after it is spread on pasture and from the tractors and trucks moving slowly along the highways and rural roads of the county. People new to the county who previously had lived their lives in cities had little idea of the realities associated with agriculture. This became a problem. Farmers here wish to be good neighbors, but they also want the newcomers to the county to realize that farming is their history and their livelihood. MM 1A 1 _ An—ic'rYic:ltcl n Farn-ih-.— c:l Tr tt st Southeast Regional Office 24 Court Square NW, Suite 203 • Graham, NC 27253 336 -221 -0707 - www. farmland, org The VAD program became part of the solution. The Chatham County Board of Commissioners approved the Voluntary Agricultural District Ordinance on November 5, 2001. Now, when a new county resident is preparing to purchase real estate within one mile of a farm enrolled in the VAD program, the purchaser must be notified that a farm is nearby and of the associated factors. This way they are forewarned of the farming operation and if they decide the farm is a nuisance after purchasing the real estate, they have lost their legal right to sue. Chatham County farmers have been more than willing to embrace the program: 175 farms, totaling more than 21,000 acres, have been approved for membership. Currently, two - thirds of the county is within one mile of an enrolled farm. In April 2002, Siler City, the largest town in the county, began to take steps to increase its extra - territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) to the limits allowed by the General Assembly. This would put many farms under the town's planning and zoning control. The town assured the farming community that this would not affect how it managed operations, but there was a great deal of alarm among the farmers. Regulations and changes that farmers have faced over the past several years have created mistrust between the farm community and the town of Siler City. As a token of good faith, the Town board of Siler City unanimously passed a resolution in November 2002, honoring the county's ordinance to ensure protection of the farmers in the ETJ. This was the first municipality in the state to go on record in support of VAD provisions. Bobby Joe Gambill, Alleghany County dairy farmer The ordinance protects enrolled farmers from the cost of implementing public services, such as water and sewer lines. Any cost share charged to a landowner for implementation of these practices has to be held in abeyance for farmers enrolled in the program. The town is not required to abide by this condition under the county ordinance, but with its own resolution it chose to respect the limitations and conditions. What has made the Voluntary Agricultural District Ordinance so popular in Chatham County? The ordinance was written and promoted not as a way to protect farmland, but as a way to protect farmers. Developers and promoters of this program followed the philosophy that if you protect and take care of the farmers, you will protect and take care of the farmland. With this attitude among all parties, this segment of our attempt to protect farmland has been successful in Chatham. The View from the Heartland: Sampson County By George Upton, Cooperative Extension Director Rapid residential growth has driven many counties in the Mountains and Piedmont to adopt farmland preservation ordinances, while, with slower economic growth and less population density, VAD programs have developed more slowly in the eastern areas of the state. Sampson County, however, nestled in the heart of North Carolina field crop and livestock country, has developed an active program. With some help from the county attorney, the commissioners gradually became comfortable with the idea of the program and have since been very supportive. We all realize how important agriculture is to ± t & > a _* 5-.d Anierican Fctz•rnhand, Trust, Southeast Regional Office 24 Court Square NW, Suite 203 • Graham, NC 27253 336 - 221 -0707 - www.farmland.org Sampson County. Our ordinance passed in 2001; we began signing up farms the following year. Our program is a little different from most. We divided the county into five districts, and each district has a representative on the board. Though the main residential encroachment has come from the northern part of the county, most applicants have been from south of Clinton. The $25 application fee covers most of the costs of signs and paperwork. The county provides one sign for each farm, and people can purchase additional signs if they wish. Each farm enrolled costs the county about $5, which is a great investment if we can avoid even one nuisance complaint per year. We contracted with Future Farmers of America and vocational agriculture classes to make signs and posts, so we're also working with our next generation of farmers to make this program successful. The county provided larger signs on major roads to let drivers know that they were entering an agricultural district. Our board would like to see a sign on Interstate -40, but that would require state legislation. It took several meetings with the tax office and the registrar of deeds to figure out how the application and notification systems would work, but they've been very cooperative. They keep a full -sized map on the wall with the districts outlined, and they add a pin whenever we add a new farm. They also have a VAD notebook and other recording books. It has been very helpful for me to learn more about how those offices operate. With livestock production so important in this county, we needed a way to create a more positive approach to agriculture and the occurring changes. We've gotten several calls from real estate professionals who say they like the program because it gives them a sense of where agriculture is most active in the county. It has also given farmers a sense of pride during difficult times. I'm curious how many farms and acres are enrolled throughout the state. Every year we submit a report to the commissioner of agriculture on the number of farms and acres we have enrolled on our county. We would like to use this information for comparison of how we're doing in relation to other counties. A View from the Coast: Brunswick County By Mary Earp, Chair, Brunswick County VAD Board My husband, Wilbur, and I have operated Funston Farms for 45 years. I'm a member of the Cape Fear Resource & Conservation Development Council and a Brunswick Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisor. Despite all of our work on farming and conservation issues, I see a lot of good farmland and forests disappearing to development. Farmers will be paying the price for this development, with higher taxes, more restrictions and newcomers who don't understand working farms. Voluntary agricultural districts are farmer friendly and add value to the rural community. I currently serve as the chair of the Brunswick County VAD Board. This program gives our community an understanding of local farming, gives farmers protection from some costs and complaints from new neighbors and gives us a sense of pride that agriculture is here to stay. We had 69 farms enrolled, covering 8,950 acres, as of January 1, 2004. Where can we go from here? I'm interested in learning how other counties are expanding their VAD program beyond just the original signup. How do you get more landowners interested? How has this had an impact on the local agricultural community? Sharing our stories and successes across county lines will make this program successful. Please call (910) 253 -5643 or send email to earpmw @atmc.net with your ideas. Southeast Regional Office 24 Court Square NW, Suite 203 - Graham, NC 27253 336 - 221 -0707 - www.farmland.org 3 `Y Is There a Role for VAD Boards in Present Use Valuation? By Steve Woodson, North Carolina Farm Bureau Walter Farm on High Rock Road, a VAD tarm in Cedar Grove Township, Orange County. N.C.G.S. Section 106 - 739(4) allows county commissioners to grant a VAD board the authority to "advise the board of county commissioners on projects, programs or issues affecting the agricultural economy or way of life within the county." County ordinances typically include this language in the grant of authority to their board, but may not actually use their VAD boards to advise them on agricultural issues within the county. The most important issue having an impact on agriculture that commissioners regularly address is likely the - doption of schedules, standards and rules be used by the county tax office in appraising farmland at its present use value for property taxes. The procedures involved in adopting present use value rules and schedules are complicated. They give farmland owners only one opportunity to be heard before the present use value schedules are adopted and a short window of opportunity for appeal afterward. If these schedules were provided to the county's VAD board for review first, it would greatly enhance the opportunity for farmer input. Employing the VAD board in this way would better define the issues raised by the proposed schedules. Although it would not take the place of the public hearing before the commissioners, VAD board review might resolve some landowner complaints before the matter ever comes before the board of commissioners. It also could reduce the likelihood of an appeal. Providing an extra opportunity for farmer involvement in the present use value appraisal process is especially important during the upcoming round of revaluations. In 2002 the General Assembly changed the method of calculating use values. For the past 30 years the "Present Use Value Manual" that has instructed counties on calculating use values based on capitalizing the 10 -year average net income that could be made by growing corn and soybeans. Beginning in 2003, the manual provided that use values will be calculated based on average cash rents paid for comparable farmland. While this change in methodology should not significantly change the tax burden on farmland, some counties may see an increase in present use values. It makes sense for boards of commissioners to seek as much public comment as possible before adopting use value schedules based on this new methodology. If your VAD board would like to review your county's use value schedules, it is important to bring the matter to the attention of your commissioners as early a possible. Your commissioners will have to instruct the tax office to deliver the new use value schedules to them in time for this extra level of review. Resources American Farmland Trust Gerry Cohn (336) 221 -0707 gcohn@farmland.org NCSU Cooperative Extension Service Ted Feitshans, Ag and Resources Economics Dept. (919) 51 5 -51 95 ted-feitshans@ncsu.edu For a list of North Carolina farmland protection laws and ordinances, see the NCSU Land Preservation Notebook: www cals ncsu.edu: 8050 /wq /LandPreservationNotebook/ North Carolina Farm Bureau Steve Woodson (91 9) 782-1705 swoodson @ncfb.net rr Anieryic an, 1=+.c.1,rin1and TrUSt Southeast Regional Office 24 Court Square NW, Suite 203 • Graham, NC 27253 336 - 221 -0707 - www.farmland.org 4 What Next? You've gotten an ordinance passed, the board is in place, applications have been distributed and landowners are enrolling acreage in the program. What else can your county do to increase agricultural viability? Here are a few ideas from around the state: ■ Orange County has focused on agricultural economic development. With a 26 percent increase in population from 1990 to 2000, along with the addition of a hospital and major university, the county decided that increasing the amount of products purchased from local farmers would increase profitability and be its best bet for preserving agricultural land. It now has an agricultural economic development coordinator, hired jointly by Cooperative Extension and the Economic Development Commission. See www.orangecountyfarms.org to find out more about what the county is doing. ■ Henderson County is preparing an agricultural chapter for the update of the county comprehensive plan. Working with the Land of the Sky Regional Council, the county received a Community Innovations Grant from the USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program to demonstrate how to incorporate agriculture more effectively in a county land use plan. Attendees at last winter's trainings will recall how New York state has used this technique to plan for an agricultural future. To learn more, contact Tom Elmore at tom @landofsky.orQ. ■ Currituck, Rowan and Orange counties all recently have allocated money for the purchase of agricultural conservation easements (PACE). These programs compensate landowners willing to permanently restrict non - agricultural development on working farmland. Not only will this put needed capital into the agricultural sector; it can potentially bring matching federal dollars into the county through the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program. A fact sheet on PACE programs is available online at www.farmlandinfo.org/fic/tas/tafs- pace0998.pd . ■ Northampton County's VAD ordinance designates that a county commissioner serve on the VAD board, and that the planning board include a VAD member. It also requires that anyone applying for a building permit sign a statement acknowledging that he or she has seen the VAD map and that subdivision developments designate the location of VADs within a half mile on their final plans. For information on how these rules are working, contact Heather Lifsey at heather_lifsey @ncsu.edu. ■ Be a participant in local decision - making. Keep everyone informed of how their decisions impact local agriculture. Planning boards, citizens advisory groups, farm organizations, newspapers, school boards and state legislators all can use your input about farmland loss. Ask the county commissioners to view you as a valuable resource to help them determine the best course for the county's farms. VAD board member and County Commissioner Brent Hunter can tell you how they work together in Yadkin County: (336) 468 -2575. ■ Make the case for the importance of local agriculture. Farms provide food and fiber, open spaces, wildlife habitat, cultural heritage, economic activity and lower property taxes. For information on materials and studies that can demonstrate these points, contact Gerry Cohn at acohn @farmland.org. This report was produced with the support of the Cemala Foundation, Lovett Foundation and Frank Borden Hanes Charitable Lead Trust, as well as members of American Farmland Trust. i, 40.0�4& L�!b� Southeast Regional Office 24 Court Square NW, Suite 203 - Graham, NC 27253 336 - 221 -0707 - www.farmland.org a � North Carolina Voluntary Agricultural District Programs: Contacts and Acreage as of May 2004 SWCD - Soil and Water Conservation District CE - Cooperative Extension ( -nunty Farms Acres Contact Name Organization Phone E -Mail Alamance 160 9436 Phil Ross SWCD 336- 228 -1753 soilandwater @alamance- nc.com Alexander 43 5147 Ton a Mitchell SWCD 828- 632 -0638 tmitchell @co,alexander.nc.us Alleghany 13 668 Linda Hash SWCD 336- 372 -4645 linda- hash@nc.nacdnet.or Ashe 81 9931 Charles Young CE 3 36-219-26 50 charles oun @ ncsu.edu Ave N/A N/A Mike Pittman CE 828 - 733 -8270 mike ittman @ncsu.edu Brunswick 69 8950 Mary Earp VAD Board 910 - 253 -5643 earprnw@atrnc.net Buncombe Burke 315 43 26132 1200 Gary Higgins Damon Pollard SWCD CE 828 -250 -4785 828- 439 -4460 gary.higginsftuncombecounty.grg damon_r)ollard@ncsu.edu Caldwell Caswell 14 27 1279 51 17 Seth Nagy Mike Cusimano CE County Planner 828 - 757 -1290 336-694-9731_ccplanner@caswellnc.com seth-naqy@ncsu.edu Chatham 175 21000 Sam Groce CE 919 -S42 -8202 sam-groce@ncsu.edu Cherokee N/A N/A Keith Wood CE 828-837 -2210 keith- wood @ncsu.edu Clay 50 3500 Silas Brown CE 828- 389 -6305 silas_ brown @ncsu.edu Cleveland Currituck 107 0 10872 0 Ben Robinson Kim Ferrell SWCD SWCD 704- 471 -0235 252- 232 -3360 ben 'amin.robinson @nc.usda. ov kim- ferrell @nc.nacdnet.or Durham 26 900 Eddie Culberson SWCD 919 -S60 -0558 eddie@co.durham.nc.us Franklin 8 2500 IMartha Mobley CE 919 - 496 -3344 martha moble @ ncsu.edu Guilford 64 6855 Wick Wickliffe CE 336- 375 -5876 wick_wickliffe @ncsu.edu Haywood Henderson 319 518 10242 15000 Leslie Smathers Pace SWCD SWCD 828-4S2-2741—hswcd@pLimeline.com 828 -697 -4949 Cary. Pace@nc. usda. ov Iredell 56 _Cary 9974 Kenneth Vaughan CE 704 - 878 -3165 ken-vaughn@ncsu.edu Lincoln 63 6250 Rick McSwain SWCD 704- 736 -8501 rmcswain @lincolncount .or Macon 29 1974 IKenneth McCaskill CE 828- 349 -2052 kenneth-mccaskill@ncsu.edu Madison N/A N/A Russell Blevins SWCD 828 - 649 -3313 russell.blevins@nc.usda.gov Northampton 0 0 Heather Lifsey CE 252- 534 -271 1 heather-lifsey@ncsu.edu Orange 9 1 879 Tina Moon Orange Co. ERCD 919- 245 -2583 cmoon @co.oran e.nc.us Polk 13 3000 Jeff Bradley CE 828- 894 -8218 ieff-bradley@ncsu.edu Randolph 0 0 Qualls CE 3 36-31 8 -6008 lynne-qualls@ncsu.edu Rowan 31 _Lynne 6946 Jim Cowden CE 704 - 633 -0571 'im cowden@ncsu.edu Rutherford 71 10948 Jan McGuinn CE 828 - 287 -601 1_ian-mcquinn@ncsu.edu Sampson 60 12 919 Geor e Upton CE 910- 592 -7161 eor e u ton@ncsu.edu Stanly Stokes 0 27 0 1 247 Brian Beer Oanice Pack CE SWCD 704 - 983 -3987 336- 593 -2846 brian - beer @ncsu.edu 'anice- ack @nc.nacdnet.or Transylvania 9 89S Bob Twomey SWCD 828 - 884 -3230 bob. twome @nc.usda. ov Union 23 1585 jerry Simpson CE 704 - 283 -3801 ierry-simpson@ncsu.edu Wake 13 2004 Dale Threatt -Taylor SWCD 919 -250 -1068 dthreatttqylor@co.wake.nc.us Watauga 239 6292 Donna Harmon SWCD 828 -264 -3943 don na- harmon @nc.nacd net. or Wilson 0 0 Walter Earle CE 252- 237 -01 11 waiter_earle @ncsu.edu Yadkin 0 1 0 Jack Loudermilk CE 13 36- 679 -2061 ack Loudermilk @ncsu.edi TOTALS 2675 1 204642 Southeast Regional Office 24 Court Square NW, Suite 203 • Graham, NC 27253 336 -221 -0707 • www.farmland.org farmland preservation Covering the policies, practices and initiatives that save farmland report Since 1990 - Deborah Bowers, Editor NATION'S TOP 12 COUNTY PROGRAMS Top 12 preserve over half million acres A nationwide survey of counties with funded farmland preservation programs conducted this month by Farmland Preservation Report has found that the top - ranking programs have placed under permanent protection more than a half million acres, and have more than $98 million to spend. All the counties in the ranking have strong political and financial commitments to land preserva- tion. Many operate highly progressive programs that are rare nationally. Some continue to initiate innova- tions to boost their efforts. All but two of the counties are in the Mid- Atla,1.tic. The nation's best known transfer of development rights (TDR) program in Montgomery County, Md. once again puts that county on top for number of DEVELOPER FILES $12 MILLION CLAIM agricultural acres permanently protected from devel- opment. Lancaster County, Pa., however, leads the nation in number of ag acres preserved through the purchase of development rights, but is listed second in the survey, which ranks counties by number of acres Top counties table, page 3 preserved in multiple agricultural land programs. The third spot in the annual ranking, goes once again to Chester County, Pa., where the acreage tally is substantially boosted by easement donations to the Brandywine Conservancy. According to director Kevin Baer, the county will have a program initiative to announce by this fall. Continued on page 2 Virginia reviewing tax credit claims RICHMOND, VA— Some income tax credit claims made under a 1999 conservation tax incentive law are under review by the Virginia Department of Taxation, according to Bob Schultze, executive commissioner for customer relations. The tax credit allows up to 50 percent of the value of an easement donation to be claimed against the state income tax. The legislature made the credits substantially more valuable two years ago by allowing credits that could not be used due to time constraints in the law to be sold to other taxpayers. According to Estie Thomas of the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, a state - funded nonprofit, the department is "looking at over - inflated appraisals." According to Paul Gilbert, executive director of the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust, a tax credit claim of $12 million has been filed by a developer on a riparian buffer easement that was a condition of a permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under state law, a conservation gift "is not something proffered for a building permit," Gilbert said about the claim by the Silver Companies, whose conserved property is part of a 2,400 -acre commercial project in Stafford County and in Fredericksburg. "Silver Companies is in compliance with the Army Continued on page 6 VOLUME 14, NUMBER 9 • JULY -AUG 2004 Top counties table - p. 3 Farmland on agenda in Canada - p. 4 Michigan House passes ag districts - p. 5 Spotlight: Lee Koppelman, part two - p. 6 Jobs digest /Conferences - p. 8, - f J Page 2 farmland preservation report Hot TDR market in No. 1 Montgomery Continued from page 1 Carroll County, Md., returns to 4th place, overtak- ing Sonoma County by 1,704 ages. Carroll lost the position to Sonoma in 2001, ranking 5th since then. Montgomery County's TDR program has always been an anolmaly. Only a handful of TDR programs nationwide are regularly active, and a countywide program with designated areas for sending and receiving development rights is decidedly rare. The survey also found that some counties in the preservation business for decades are approaching what could be called "preservation build- out." That has already happened in Howard County, Md. where permissive zoning has put land values as high as $40,000 per acre. The latest proposal to entice landowners by offering up to $20,000 per acre didn't bring in many applicants, and those that did apply didn't get the high offer. None have yet accepted the offers they did receive, according to program director Joy Levy. Howard fell off the Top 12- chart last year. Montgomery County is beginning to see preserva- tion build -out too, according to administrator John Zawitoski, who said parcels are hard to find. TDR is driving the remaining preservation to be done, he said. "We've really seen a tremendous increase in TDRs over the last two years. Values are up, and are probably the highest. we've ever seen." Transferrable rights are selling at $25,000 to farmland preservation report is published monthly except for August &December by Bowers Publishing, Inc. 900 La Grange Road Street, Maryland 21154 Telephone: 410 692 -2708 Email: bowerspub@hotmail.com www.farrnlandpreservationrepprt.com Deborah Bowers Editor &Publisher Tom Daniels Senior Contributing Editor Robert J. Heuer Contributing Editor Subscription rate of $205 includes index & hotline services. ISSN: 1050 -6373. Copyright ©2004 by Bowers Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any form, or electronic forwarding of this material requires permission from the publisher. July - Aug. 2004 $35,000 each, he said, double the cost just last year. But cost is not a factor, apparently, when developers have a place to put the additional housing - Clarksburg is serving as a receiving area, and it is a boomtown. Already in 2004, 1,691 rights were transferred there, almost as many as in all of 2003. The transfer activity is likely the nation's hottest. Per -acre values in Montgomery have spurred the county board to push for a higher cap on purchased easements. Currently, $4500 is the top dollar paid. "We suspect that preservation will get more expensive. It's challenging to get the last few acres," Zawitoski said. The county is just 9,000 acres short of the 70,000 -acre goal it set two decades ago. Finishing the job is expected to take about six more years. In 4th - ranking Carroll, the only county to change places in the ranking this year, county commissioners passed an ordinance that gives eligibility to parcels that are too small, or, are not enrolled as ag districts. "For years we only had one program," said Bill Powel. Now, in addition to extended eligibility, the county offers securitized installment purchase agree- ments (IPAs). Some farms switched from state offers to the IPAs, Powel said. "Our commissioners have really stepped up the bond authorization to get acres before they are lost or out of sight," cost -wise, Powel said Other movement in the ranking is the pace of preservation, most notably by Berks County, Pa., which is making quick use of a local bond issue. Last year the program logged more than 5,000 acres, and this year maintains that pace. It remains in 7th place, but with ample funding of close to $10 million and a `round `em up' attitude, the program could easily overtake 6th place Baltimore County next year. In 8th- ranking Harford, applicants are still coming in, attracted to the installment purchase program with the hot funding source: a local transfer tax in a booming housing market, now bringing in $6 million annually to the program. The tax was first levied in 1993 and the program remains popular. The top counties continue to benefit from the federal Farm and Ranchlands Protection Program. Frederick County's notable funding innovations include the use of federal transportation "enhance- ments" funds, which allow for scenic or historic preservation along highways. Farmland programs in Maryland benefit from the state's Rural Legacy Program. Lower Windsor Township in York County levied a landfill tipping fee to boost local preservation. July - Aug. 2004 farmland preservation report Page 3 Nation's Top 12 Rank County Local Total Preserved Acres Farmland Ag Program Acres' Preservation Programs Current Ag Other Funding Program Program Available Gain Ag Acres3 (millions)4 Market Value of Ag Products (millions) 1 Montgomery (MD) 61,394 55,315 11953 61079 5 41.6 2 Lancaster (PA) 55,784 45,175 n/a 101609 8.8 798.3 3 Chester (PA) 48,519 17,908 n/a 30,611 28 376.7 4 Carroll (MD) 44,726 391570 21376 51156 10 68.9 5 Sonoma (CA) 43,022 39,207 1,156 31815 22 571.7 6 Baltimore (MD) 41,267 22,042 1,200 19,225 1.6 62.1 7 Berks (PA) 40,740 37,813 4,773 2,927 9.7 286.9 8 Harford (MD) 37,400 33,568 2,383 31832 8 26.0 9 Marin (CA) 37,237 35,112 21632 2,125 3 43.0 10 Burlington (NJ) 35,750 18,973 1,279 16,777 n/a 83.2 11 York (PA) 32,626 27,561 n/a 5,065 2.2 147.6 12 Frederick (MD) 28,303 211239 11623 7,064 n/a 96.7 TOTALS: 5061768 393,483 16593 113,285 98.3 2.6 billion Notes 1 Ag program acres may include acres preserved through state or county programs, and may include acres under contract but not yet settled. In Montgomery County, lands protected through TDR make up the majority of ag program acres. 2 No gain noted indicates acres adjusted for errors or contracted acres unavailable at presstime. 3Other programs include the Maryland Rural Legacy Program, local land trusts that protect farmlands, TDR programs not operated by the county, and other local programs that permanently set aside agricultural land and allow agricultural use. 4Current local funds available or committed for one or more years. All localities receive, or are eligible to receive, federal Farm and Ranchlands Protection Program funds. Source: Interviews with county personnel and private organizations, July 2004. Other sources of preserved acres, by county Source of funding, by county Montgomery Md. Rural Legacy Prg, MET Lancaster Lancaster Farmland Trust, municipal TDR Chester Brandywine Conservancy, Natural Lands Trust (1,979) Carroll Rural Legacy, MET, Carroll County Land Trust Sonoma Sonoma County Land Trust Baltimore Md. Rural Legacy Prg, MET, local land trusts Berks Berks County Conservancy Harford Md. Rural Legacy Prg, MET Marin Marin Open Space District Burlington Pinelands Development Credit Bank York Farm & Natural Lands Trust Frederick Md. Rural Legacy Prg, MET, ISTEA About the FPR Annual Survey of Local Programs Local general fund; state programs State program; local general fund, municipal TDR Bonds; state program; municipal match State programs; local general fund Dedicated 1/4 percent sales tax State programs; local bond Local bond issue State programs; local real estate transfer tax State grants; private grants; fundraising Dedicated property tax; regional & local TDR State program; local general fund; twp tipping fee State programs; local general fund How localities qualify for the survey This survey, conducted every July, measures farmland preservation by 1) number of acres permanently preserved; 2) political leadership and administrative skill; and, 3) significant funding. While number of acres determine ranking, inclusion in the survey requires meeting the other criteria. At least 200 localities in the U.S. are using, or have used, agricultural conservation easements and many more qualify for assistance to do so under state and federal programs. How counties are ranked The ranking considers a locality's total farmland preservation effort, including activities of other entities and programs, such as land trusts, open space districts that use easements, other state programs that hold easements on agricultural land, and easements assisted with a combination of funding sources. Acres reported are expected to include natural areas that are part of a property under agricultural use. Lands preserved primarily for environmental protection are asked to be excluded. Use of this table: Subscribers are permitted to use this table in a press release. Otherwise, reproduction of this table for use outside of a subscriber's agency is prohibited. It should not be reproduced or transferred to another location or agency. Questions about the survey should be directed to the publisher at 410 692 -2708 or email: bowerspub @hotmail.com. Page 4 farmland preservation report July - Aug. 2004 Farmland on agenda in Canada BY TOM DANIELS Senior Contributing Editor GUELPH, ONT. — On a clear day, more than one - third of Canada's most productive farmland can be seen from Toronto's CN Tower, a point that illustrates that only five percent of Canada is considered prime farmland, and about half of that is in southern Ontario. Finding ways to protect Canada's best farmland was the topic of an international farmland preservation conference held at the end of June at the University of Guelph in Ontario, the massive province that crowns the Great Lakes from New York to Minnesota. While Canadian landowners can voluntarily sell or donate a conservation easement to a government agency or land trust, government has yet to fund the purchase of agricultural conservation easements. It is tempting to think 'that the United States has a monopoly on sprawl, but anywhere there is population growth, there are pressures to develop farmland. About one -third of Canada's 30 million people live in Ontario. The province's population grew from nine million in 1980 to 11 million in 2000 and is projected to reach 16 million in 2030. Greater Toronto alone is expected to increase from 7.4 million people in 2000 to 10.5 million in 2031. In the last two decades of the 20th century, Ontario lost 1.25 million acres of farmland, including 18 percent of Canada's Class One land. Ontario agriculture is especially diverse, from the fruit - producing area of the Niagara Escarpment to the corn - soybean- livestock farming found near Lake Huron. Ontario planners recognize the spread of rural non -farm residences as a threat to farmland and the future of agriculture. According to University of Guelph Professor Wayne Caldwell, more than 12,000 rural residential lots were created in Ontario in the 1990s. Some regulations meant to protect against conflicts actually compound the farmland loss problem: barns for livestock operations must be located a certain distance from any non -farm residence, so when a non -farm residence is built, it effectively cancels an area of about one - quarter of a mile radius from expanding livestock farming. The 150 conference attendees included farmers, academics, farm organizations, and local government officials, who debated a number of issues. What is the main goal — preserving farmland or the farmer? Should a proposed greenbelt be put in place around greater Toronto? Should the range of agricultural uses allowed on farms be expanded to include horse boarding, composting, and packaging and processing? Is regulation enough or are American -style easement purchases needed and who would pay for them? Canadian farmland regulation Regulatory powers can be stronger in Canada than in the United States and this is evident in two programs. In Perth County, Ontario non -farm subdivisions have largely been prohibited in agricultural zones since the 1970s. Farm subdivisions must be a minimum of 100 acres to justify a smaller farm- related subdivision. This is essentially an exclusive farm use zone. British Columbia, Canada's far western province, took an aggressive approach to farmland protection in the early 1970s, when the provincial government created the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). The Reserve covers five percent of the province or more than 11 million acres, but protects land located within close proximity to more than four - fifths of the province's population. Land in the ALR generates more than 80 percent of British Columbia's food output, worth $2.2 billion a year, and provides about half of the food consumed in the province. An Agricultural Land Commission was established to administer the ALR lands. Land can be taken out of the ALR and developed, but only with the approval of the commission. Only 40,000 acres have been removed over the past 30 years, even though the commission receives about 500 applications annually. C Ontario Land Trust launched During the conference, the Ontario Land Trust was born, with 15 board members and an executive director. Land trusts are somewhat new in Canada. The Nature Conservancy of Canada has preserved some two million acres, while the nation's other 50 to 60 land trusts have preserved 250,000 acres. Contact: Melissa Watkins, University of Guelph, (519) 824 -4120, ext. 52686 July - Aug. 2004 farmland preservation report news briefs Task force to urge priority preservation areas, doubling of ag transfer tax ANNAPOLIS, NW — While both of its last two meetings were supposed to be its last, a task force studying the Maryland farmland preservation program will meet at least one more time to report on changes needed to meet a legislative mandate to preserve 1.03 million agricultural acres by 2022. While some task force members appeared to be growing impatient with continuing debate, others were ready to form a subcommittee to scrutinize guidelines for creating Priority Preservation Areas (PPAs) that would receive dedicated new funding. Program administrators were keen on preventing mandates they would find difficult to meet. Funds from new sources should be used for landowner incentive grants in PPAs, the draft report states. It recom- mends doubling the state Agricultural Land Transfer Tax, now ranging from 3 to 5 percent. A $300 million bond is also urged. In addition to new funding, a critical farms program and installment purchase option are urged. Michigan House passes ag district, property tax credit law LANSING, MI — In exchange for keeping land in agricultural use for 20 years, Michigan farmers will be eligible to apply for a property tax rebate equalling $5 per acre under legislation passed almost unanimously June 30 by the House. The applicant's locality must have farmland preservation in its master plan, and, structures must be dedicated to ag use. "Farmland in Michigan is taxed at about two to three times the national average," said Jim Fuerstenau, executive director of the Michigan Farmland & Community Alliance. "So the House vote is a huge victory." N] Highlands protection bill robbed of its teeth, environmentalists say TRENTON, NJ — Supporters of landmark legislation aimed at protecting New Jersey's Highlands region say they are being stabbed in the back by Gov. James McGreevey as he signs a "smart growth" bill they say will cancel out the protections the Highlands bill would bring. About 40 environmental groups say S 1368 would "roll back 30 years of environmental protections" by "fast- track- ing" development in other areas of the state. "This bill raises the specter of permits being granted without regard to capacity or protection of natural re- sources...," said Michele Byers, executive director of the New Jersey Conservation Foundation and vice -chair of the State Planning Commission. "In addition, the bill does not require the kind of specific planning envisioned by the State Plan or the State Planning Commission." state briefs In New York ... Program administrator Ken Grudens has accepted a position with the Vero Beach Land Trust in FL. In Maryland ... The recently released 2002 ag census figures for value of ag products sold in some counties is a statistic some say doesn't reflect reality. "We take issue with it," said Baltimore County's Wally Lippincott of a market value of $62.1 million. "We state our number as approxi- mately $250 million — $62 million in census commodities, $125 million in nursery prod- ucts and $63 million in horse sales, not including boarding." Bill Powel of Carroll County said he questions a reported $2.2 million loss in ag value for his county. In Michigan ... Antrim County commissioners approved a farmland preservation program July 9 that will operate jointly with Grand Traverse County. A number of townships are poised to raise millage rates to fund the joint effort. Gov. Jennifer Granholm championed the effort by attending a kick-off fundraiser. In Washington D.C.... In testimony before the Senate Finance Commit- tee, Land Trust Alliance President Rand Wentworth outlined possible reforms in laws governing charitable contributions, including uniform appraisal stan- dards, state licensing of appraisers, and increased penalties for inflated appraisals. According to LTA director of public Page 5 policy Russ Shay, Senate Finance Committee staff are working on reforms that will be specific to land trusts. "We are working hard to see that new reforms are work- able, and that they carry with them the new tax incentives we have been seeking." The IRS issued a notice June 30 regard- ing "improper charitable deductions" from gifts of conservation easements, and warned about improper conservation buyer deals. The American Farmland Trust is under- going a restructuring, according to Jimmy Daukas. Tim Warman, who served as vice president for programs, has departed, and further announcements regarding changes are expected next month, Daukas said. "We have decided to restructure our manage- ment team under a single manager to make it more efficient." The organiza- tion currently has 55 employees and seven field offices. In Pennsylvania ... The legislature failed to vote on Gov. Edward Rendell's much heralded $800 million environmental bond initiative. "It's just sitting there - it never came to a vote,' said Charlie Day of the Greenspace Alliance. According to Andy Loza, executive director of the Pa. Land Trust Alliance, a reluctant legislature more intent on legalizing slot machines failed to approve the governor's request to place the bond issue on this fall's ballot. But a spring 2005 ballot has been men- tioned by key legislators as a possibility. .i � f- OL Page 6 farmland preservation report July - Aug. 2004 VIRGINIA $12 million tax credit under I review by state Continued from page I Corps. The problem is, they took a proffer and construed it as a gift," Gilbert said. "I do know the Virginia Department of Taxation is aware of this issue." According to Schultze, the department is reviewing a number of claims with "valuations that appear to be unreasonable" and "potentially inflated," but no formal audits have begun. He would not comment on individual cases. The Silver Companies easement accepted by Gilbert's organization in 2002 covers 308 acres of woodlands that contain Civil War artillery earthworks across the Rappahannock River from Fredericksburg. Just four of the acres were not required by the Army Corps permit, and are the only acres the company can claim was a donation, Gilbert said. The company is developing a golf course adjacent to the site and a Virginia Outdoors Foundation easement is also adjacent across the river. In a Q &A on its website, Silver Companies asks whether the conservation measures at its development site are merely routine and regulatory, and states "some are, but the donation of the easement - totaling almost one - quarter of the land at Celebrate America North - and measures to protect the quality of the water ... are exemplary." "We certainly told Silver Companies that it was not a qualified gift," Gilbert said. "At the time we did the easement they didn't seem inter- ested in the credit." Gilbert said he did not see the appraisal that valued the easement at $24 million and his effort to contact the Richmond appraiser was unsuccessful. Mary Heinricht of Ag Prospects, a consulting firm in Culpeper, said the transferrability of the conservation tax credit should be reexamined. "The General Assembly created a tradeable commodity without finding a way to utilize it to benefit the state... if you're going to create a tax credit that's transferrable you should control who can buy and sell it. It could be offered to ag industries as an economic development tool. You could stabilize the land base and give incentives to business all with the same pot of money." An attempt to amend the law in that direction this year failed when land trusts argued the changes would slow conservation donations. "Virginia has the best tax credit in the nation," said Paul Gilbert, who said focusing on possible abuses "is counterproductive to the cause of land conservation ... this is not a get rich quick scheme, it is a meaning- ful incentive that is helping more landowners be able to make the conservation gift they would like to." According to the Virginia Department of Taxation, since 2002, the first year tax credits could be transferred, conservation donors have claimed $85.3 million in tax credits on 165 easements registered with the department and $26.6 million in credits were transferred to 838 buyers. spotlight Long Island ag, zoning & Robert Moses Part Two of Two Last issue, Dr. Lee Koppelman, pioneer planner of 1960s Suffolk County NY, talked about hard times for farmers in the nation's fastest growing county at that time, and how the Suffolk purchase of development rights program, the nation's first, came into being. This month, Koppelman, interviewed at his SUNY -Stony Brook office in May, talks about overwhelming odds in farmland loss, zoning and farmers, the IRS, and working with legendary New York City public works czar and landscape architect Robert Moses. FPR: What happened to Suffolk Co. farmland in the booming 1980s? KOPPELMAN: A lot of the farms were no longer in the hands of farmers. They were in the hands of speculators. And the speculators would give the farmers 10 percent down and then agree to pay off the balance over five years and in many cases let the farmer stay in agriculture until the developer was ready to either flip the property to a builder or use the property themselves. The advantage to the farmers, was, in getting the 10 percent down, plus the interest on the balance, that was whittling down the capital value of the farm, so in effect they were avoiding getting hit by IRS in a big way. So a lot of the farmers were selling out, and we discovered that in some areas as much as two- thirds of the agricultural land was now in the hands of speculators. That meant we were going to lose agriculture completely. So we had to modernize the program. One of the things we did do was to get our Congressional delegation to support a ruling from the IRS that the farmers could treat this as a five -year capital gain in order to avoid punitive taxes. FPR: So it was like an installment purchase... KOPPELMAN: In effect ... they got the money up front, but it was treated as if it July - Aug. 2004 farmland preservation report Lee Koppelman was paid out over five years. Yet, the program from that time to the present has sort of limped along. It became clear by the end of the 80's that we had only saved 8,000 acres by way of the county program and close to 2,000 acres by the towns that had similar programs... we had gone from 1972 to 1992 and had only accomplished one -third of the goal. FPR: I understand there was a recent local zoning change that farmers agreed to because TDR was part of the deal. But without a receiving zone, did they know it would be a tough market? KOPPELMAN: Well, I'm not sure they're fully attuned to whether there will be a market, but at least they feel their rights are protected. What they don't understand is that by increasing the zoning requirements there is no loss in value. It's simple supply and demand. If you go from 1:1 to 1:2, they're not losing half their value– in most cases they're enhancing their value because you've diminished the development potential. Therefore, less supply, more value. In Southampton, which was the first town I worked closely with, the supervisor was convinced to zone a good deal of the land to five -acre zoning. When the land was zoned one -acre and then converted to five -acre, instead of there being a loss, in many instances the value increased well beyond the original. It became that exclusive. It's been runaway prices in Southhampton and East Hampton ever since then. FPR: Why haven't farmers realized that before now? KOPPELMAN: Many farmers, every year would have to borrow at the beginning of the planting season and their misunderstanding was that the amount of money they could get on loan from the banks was relative to how the banks would value the land. They had the notion, one that the farm bureau kept pushing Page 7 from the 1970s on, that if the land was one -acre, they knew what they were getting in terms of a loan. If we moved it to two -acre, the banks would cut their loan by 50 percent. Nothing I would tell them could convince them to the contrary. FPR: Why couldn't the bankers tell them that? KOPPELMAN: Well, they could but they didn't. It was a symbiotic relationship, and the farms were not given advice by the banks, and in many cases the directors of the banks were farmers. Most of their customers were farmers. FPR: How could it be that farmers, who are businessmen, could literally be banking on assumptions? KOPPELMAN: That's a very good question. I tried to get the answer to that, myself. And I had discussions with a number of the farmers. I said, `just look at this table showing land values... did you ask the bank about...' and they would say `we don't have to ask the bank — we've been dealing with them for four generations'... they had an adamant attitude, they still do. FPR: Tell me what you recall about working with Robert Moses. KOPPELMAN: Moses lived in the Town of Babylon. He never drove a car, never carried a dollar in his pocket. But what an autocrat...he didn't tolerate anyone crossing him. He thought I crossed him once, he didn't speak to me for six months. FPR: And did you cross him? KOPPELMAN: Well, actually I did. I recommended a bridge to New England, and he thought bridges were his province. We finally resolved it a year later, when we got the regional board to agree to recommend two bridges, my bridge in the east end and his bridge in Nassau County. That's how we reached that compromise. FPR: Neither one of those bridges were built... KOPPELMAN: Neither one, and I'm glad... FPR: That would have brought a lot of people over from Connecticut ... KOPPELMAN: We've got moveable bridges- ferries - that's more than adequate. FPR: You worked closely with Moses on a huge parks plan... KOPPELMAN: He was an interesting guy, and boy, he could deliver! Eight months before the legislature even knew there was going to be a bond issue he already put one of his key people to work closely with me – all the paperwork, forms, applications, etcetera – I had written the first park plan for Suffolk County and the day after the bond election I was down at his headquarters with the whole set of applications, and we were off and running. But that started in a rocky way, too. Being a landscape architect, open space planning was the first element of the comprehensive plan I started on in 1960. We called it "People and Parks " – a 17,000 -acre, $25 million program. And Moses' approach – not that he was against planning, although he always railed against planners – was to propose one park objective at a time. He had no use for quote `professional' planners; although he himself was a brilliant park planner. My agency had a consultant at that time who said that as a courtesy I ought to send a copy of the plan to Robert Moses. I had been on the job just a couple months at the time, and I had met Moses, but I didn't want to be embarrassed. This was `the great Robert Moses,' you know, but I figured, OK .. so I wrote a nice letter, put a copy of the plan into an envelope and sent it to him. About five days later a letter comes in to the Long Island State Park Commission and sure enough it was from Robert Moses. It was not `Dear Lee' or `Dear Dr. Koppelman' ... or anything like that, it started off `Dear Nimcompoop'..: (laughter) And it went on ... how could I `dare to jeopardize the work of truly accomplished park planners by recommending such an outlandish program'... I found out afterwards that his approach was to keep everything inside the vest. It's not that he didn't have a long -range plan... but that he wouldn't let anyone in on the long -range plan. He would sort of slip it in when the time was right one object at a time. He followed the dictum of getting the camel's nose in the tent – and once you got the nose in, then the rest of the body follows. But to outline and say `here's 17,000 acres all over the place' – he felt that would jeopardize the program, would scare the hell out of the politicians — they'd look at $25 million and say forget about it. To make a long story short, we not only got more than 17,000 acres, but he himself gave me more than $25 million. He was quite a character. FPR: He believed in the element of surprise. KOPPELMAN: That's how he worked. Interesting man. jobs digest For full information on the following jobs, and for other postings, see Ita.org. New Jersey Conservation Foundation (NJ), Director of Land Acquisition - manage all aspects of statewide acquisition program and staff. Min. seven years related experience;; Geneva Lake Conservancy (WI), Executive Director - five years experience managing land trusts or comparable organizations, conservation easements, leadership in operational and financial management, fundraising, governance, and environmental advocacy; Northern Virginia Conservation Trust (VA), Stewardship Manager - full time position to oversee baseline studies of conservation easements, management of properties owned by the Trust, monitoring conservation easements... Piedmont Environmental Council (VA), Conservation Officer - The Conservation Officer will develop conservation solutions for the protection of important resources in Loudoun and Northem Fauquier Counties. conferences July 23, Charlottesville, VA: Maintaining the Quality and Integrity of Conservation Easements. Drafting high quality easements and insuring sound appraisals. See PECVA.org. Aug. 31, Lansing, MI: Advancing Farmland Protection Efforts in Michigan, sponsored by the Michigan Farmland & Community Alliance. Call 517 391 -5047 or email jbaker @mfcaonline.com. Sept. 18 -22, Los Angeles: Rail - Volution 2004: Building Livable Communities with Transit. Tenth annual conference. Sixty workshops, wide range of topics. See railvolution.com. Cost: $350, scholarships available. Sept 28 -Oct 3, Louisville, KY: Restore America: Communities at a Crossroads, annual conference of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Many relevant sessions with land and landscape preservation focus. See NTHP.org. Oct. 20 -22, Naples, FL: National Impact Fee Roundtable, 10th annual conference, will be held in renaissance Old Naples. Fee $95 -125. See impactfees.com. Oct. 28 -3, Providence, RI: Land Trust Alliance Rally 2004, National Land Conservation Conference. This year, three new advanced level tracks. See LTA. org. Nov. 15 -17, Lexington, KY: Farming on the Edge, Meeting the Challenge, conference of the American Farmland Trust. See farmland.org. farmland preservation report Land and Community Alan R. Musselman, Land Conservation Practitioner Meadowhawk Farm 153 Hickory Ridge Millerstown, Pa. 17062 717- 589 -7871; 589 -9987; Fax 589 -3080 armussel@aol.com Conservation, Preservation, Planning Custom Land Conservation Easements, Projects, Historic Preservation Easements and Conservation Planning EveivmwGaP&mAdv&ors, INC. Financial 32 Nassau Street advisor to Pnnceton, New Jersey 08542 tel: (609) 279 -0068 governmental Fax: (609) 279 -0065 farmland email: pat @evergreenca.com preservation www.evergreenca.com programs Daniel Patrick O'Connell President Farmland Protection Program Manager New York State Dept. of Agriculture and Markets The NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets administers a Farmland Protection Program that provides competitive grants to municipalities to purchase the development rights on farms which are economically viable and are facing significant conversion pressures. The Manager's responsibilities include administration of the grants process; assistance in developing contracts pursuant to awards; technical assistance to municipalities in implementing funded projects; review of easements and other documents associated with the purchase of development rights; contract compliance review and payout authorization; and the development of program related policy. Candidates must have a bachelor's degree and four years experience in policy analysis /development relating to agricultural resource protection. Preference will be given to individuals with experience in the acquisition of farm conservation easements. Starting salary: $53,104 with excellent benefits. Position located in Albany, NY. E -mail your letter and resume to: Victor Artale at vic. artale @agmkt. state. ny. us hot water hild growing up in 1 south. I have :s of numerous iat we did as a oily that, at the re routine. Today, modern society insider our actions at strange. In fact, Pven be classified right barbaric by °nt generation. lays were usually :her day for farm - involved milking , working the ,ing the chores and her things you do ily farm. Back at e, however. Satur- include some activities that ✓ere not performed days during the activities involved the women of the it also the chll- small to help in farming work. Hers spent much aturdays getting Sunday in my ie woods. Satur- lved washing the leaning house and ration of food for inner. n that always place on our inner table was cen. The preacher ays often went i church mem- ving morning uid at our house mber of our vent into the guess you could ;e, to accomplish )d fried chicken family's table on the "good ole nt that on Satur- id to kill a here was no .e grocery for You grew your 11 as prepared it. chicken involved is head. placing or water so you )ve the feathers, g all the feathers vlother would cut z up and place it gerator so she it ready come ay morning for -e going to 2ss of cutting the .ead off is the this article. It common to hear ment about ho was always in "They are nuid like a h its head cut cpression is not such today due hat most people ow what you about. Modern 'es have re- process from iemakers and us who had to s off the chick -. grateful that been removed. the Chatta- s Free Press on Dlished an Tess story Statesboro, lagers convicted ckens just to they really run their heads cut inooga paper . September ven teens tarted talking er chickens after their Pen cut off and st it out. They Mart, bought tchen knives :t, then drove farm and stole is. aded two, he carnage meowner aid that a Age sentenced cleaning "This method reduces soil erosion and has less impact on water quality. There is less soil compaction. The horses are able to maneuver in tight spaces without damaging the trees." - Andy Bennett Pictured from top to bottom: Clyde and Scotty get in a good day's work as they pull Andy Bennett and newly cut log across an open field; Cathy Bennett, Andy Bennett and Rodn 3y Webb take a break from the job and pose with Nancy Williams and =dward Williams; with the horses, Andy Bennett is able to protect the land better than modern methods are some- times capable of doing; and Rodney Webb unlocks a tree brought out by Old -timey method to logging now seen as alternative to modern practice $Y REBEKAH HARRIS STAFF WRMR Some might say that horse logng is a thing of the past, but Andy Bennett of Doubletree Logging says the method is a practical alternative for now and for the future. In fact, Bennett, who recently harvested some trees for Edward and Nancy Williams of Erwin, said he sees himself as an alterna- tive to mechanical logging, adding that horse logging is both practical, economical and environmentally. friendly. Nancy says she couldn't agree more, adding she came up with the idea to hire Bennett to harvest the land so that she and her husband could build their dream home. "We have seen other property and the effects of mechanical logging," she said. "I didn't want our land and trees to be so torn it p. I like the idea of being sustainable." Bennett said that horse logging enables him to keep the land — and the trees — in good condition while operating at economical costs. According to Bennett, horse logging is ideal for "thrifty" people. In fact, he says he operates at a minimal expense with the help of his friend, Rodney Webb, his two Percheron work horses, Clyde and Scotty, and his custom - made log arch rig, which is similar to those used by the Amish. "This method reduces soil erosion and has less impact on water quality," he said. "There is less soil compac- tion. The horses are able to maneuver in tight spaces without damaging the trees." Bennett explained that because the horses have a lower overhead, he can take fewer trees, while he —and t the landowner — can earn just as much money without taking so many trees. I The method Bennett uses for logging, called single - tree selection, allows him to take one tree in a small t group of trees to preserve t other plant life. I "My goal is to leave the t land in a condition where v there are good trees left o standing," he said. "I would rather leave those trees and i come back in 10 years and harvest again." Bennett added that the c growth potential is great f when using the method of 1 single -tree selection. "It's like weeding a t garden," he said. "By p weeding, you allow more nutrients and water for the y species you want to grow." b While many people might t believe horse logging to be a t lengthy process, Bennett r said the method isn't slow. "A lot of people think le logging with horses is c slower (than mechanical logging)," he said, "but we E can get a lot of timber out f in one day." N Bennett, who considered dr horses for several years before going into the horse - logging business full time. "I used the horses for pulling firewood." lie said. and I built a house and barn and skidded some logs for those things. Then a neighbor called and asked me to do some work for him, and it grew from there. I've been logging full time for nine months now." Nancy said she is glad she decided to �o wiUi llu° horse logging. adding, that the process has taught her to be' more patient. "My husband is a person who always enjoys the process of things," she said. "With me, my goal is always, 'Let's get it done.' This has helped me to slow down and enjoy the pro- cess." She has also enjoyed the quiet method used by Bennett. In fact, Nancv said horse logging is practically silent compared to me- chanical logging. "It's just so quiel," she said, adding that Bennett never even raises his voice to the horses. "I love how we can barely hear him talking, and the horses are just responding to hint." Nancy said that horse logging will also help the quality of her soil in the long run. "A bulldozer won't fertilize your field either." she said. Edward said his favorite part of the harvesting process has been meeting Bennett. "Andy is a very unique man," he said, adding that he believes horse logging is the best wav to harvest trees. "He hasn't torn up the grass like the bulldoz- ers would have. We've done this the natural vay. and that's what I like." Edward added that he and Nancy may sell the timber or have Bennett, who also operates a saw- mill, to come back and saw t. Bennett said he believes horse logging has a real market niche with those, ike him, who want to preserve the environment. "I do this out of a sense of heritage and of conserva- ion ethics," he. said. "I hink that there are a lot of andowners who would like o utilize their timber and alue the aesthetic quality f their land. There are not many options for harvest - ng, and I see myself as an alternative." He added that the practi- ality of the process is his avorite thing about horse ogging. It's far from a thing of he past," he said. "It's a ractical alternative for now and in the future. Anytime ou cut trees, it's messy, ut mine don't look like hat. I can leave trees after he harvest. The land etains a park -like quality after I'm done. I can harvest ss but it's still economi- ally viable." Nancy said that she and dward will celebrate their first wedding anniversary in ovember, adding that [lie eam house thev are b compilation Newsletter CENTER for RURAL AFFAIRS www.cfra.org �J Strategies to Revitalize Rural America CONTENTS Strategy #1: A Federal Rural Policy ................................................... ............................... 1 Strategy#2: Small Entrepreneurship ................................................... ..............................4 Strategy#3: Niche Markets .................................................................. ..............................7 Strategy #4: Land Grant Universities ................................................. ............................... 10 Strategy #5: Making Communities Desirable Places to Live .......... ............................... 14 Strategy#b: A Regional Cooperative ............................................... ............................... 17 Strategy#7: State Policy ..................................................................... ............................... 20 What can we do to reverse decline in agricultural communities? It's a question we hear often. We have presented a series of feature articles in the Center's monthly newsletter that give our strategies for renewing agricultural communities — the communities themselves and the family farms and ranches and small businesses that provide their economic foundation. The articles focus on good ideas to plug into good process. They will reflect these principles: Communities are stronger when more of the people working on farms and in businesses have the opportunity to own them. Quality jobs are also an asset for communities. But we must not overlook self - employment. Local owners are more committed to the community than distant corporations — which often leave at the drop of a hat. Economic development need not and should not come at the expense of environment. To the contrary, environ- mental protection is a development asset. Products produced in ways that protect the environment have an edge in the market. And communities with a quality environment enjoy an edge in keeping and attracting families. Communities that invest in themselves — in quality schools, swimming pools, recreation, etc. — can better keep and attract the young families that energize communities and create new businesses. Community development should serve the entire community. It cannot neglect the needs of the poor. When some are left behind, the community is weakened and all suffer the resulting social and community breakdown. Agriculture and non -farm rural development should be integrated. We must revitalize family farming and ranching and capture more food system profit close to home to enhance the contribution of agriculture to the community. But agriculture alone cannot revitalize our communities. We must also pursue non -farm strategies — especially small business development. Established in 1973, the Center for Rural Affairs is a private, nonprofit organization working to strengthen small businesses, family farms and ranches, and rural communities through action oriented programs addressing social, economic, and environmental issues. For more information, visit the Center's website at www.cfra.org. Published November 2003, $5.00/ #N7 v Center for Rural Affairs, www.cfra.org Strategy #1 A Federal Rural Policy It is time to establish a national rural policy that revitalizes rural communities through new initiatives and re- forms to existing policy. This article will focus on small agricultural communities because they are the Center's focus. But a national rural policy must address the needs of all of America's struggling rural communities. Money, Farm Programs, and Rural Development Discussion of federal rural policy often starts with money and ends with proposals to eliminate farm programs and commit the money to rural development. That won't work. Ending farm programs would cause bankruptcies, farm foreclosures, and bank failures and wreak havoc in agri- cultural communities. We would lose many small and mid -size farms. Some advocate divorcing rural development policy from agriculture policy and removing it from the agricul- tural committees of Congress. That won't work either, at least not for agricultural communities. There's not much new money laying around to be had elsewhere in the federal budget. And a rural policy di- vorced from agriculture won't adequately address the needs of farm and ranch communities. But there are practical steps that can be taken to balance federal spending on immediate income support for farmers with the critical investments that must be made in creating a future for rural communities and family farmers and ranchers. We could start by capping payments to large farms and investing the savings in sustain- able rural community development. Payment caps would keep more small farmers on the land to support rural communities. A payment cap that cut 10 percent of farm program spending would free up sufficient funds for a ten -fold increase in rural development — nearly $10 billion over the life of the farm bill. And it would improve the income of most farm operators by reducing the incentive for large expansion- oriented farms to drive up cash rents and land purchase prices. Likewise, the introduction of modest supply management measures for years of extreme surplus would prevent the kind of free fall in farm commodity prices that fueled record federal farm spending in recent years. That would moderate the level of farm commodity payments and generate some savings for rural development initia- tives without undermining the family farms so important to agricultural communities. Supporting Rural Entrepreneurship There is great potential to enhance rural community viability by investing in entrepreneurship. Agricultural communities often have extraordinarily high rates of self - employment — two to three times the rate of metro- politan areas in the nation's heartland. But funding is sparse for programs that support rural entrepreneurship and small business. The federal Small Business Administration provides funds for loans, technical assistance, and training programs for micro enter- prises — businesses with five or fewer employees. But funding is not adequate to come close to reaching all of the rural areas that need assistance. Page 1 Strategies to Revitalize Rural America The Senate version of the 2002 farm bill provided new funding for such programs in rural communities, but it was dropped in the final version. It is urgently needed. The final farm bill did authorize a Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Authority to support re- search, education, and linking programs to assist beginning farmers and ranchers. But though the program was authorized, it was provided no money to operate. One new program that did get farm bill funding is the Value Added Agricultural Grants program. It received $250 million to establish new value -added initiatives, high value marketing initiatives, and cooperatives that strengthen small and mid -size farms and increase the rural share of food system profit. That $250 million will do far more to create a future for family farming and ranching than it would do in farm program payments. The farm bill also provides financing for rural community investments in high speed Internet access. That is a start, but more policy initiatives will be needed. To succeed, rural small businesses must have quality Inter- net service to link them to the regional and national economy. Integrating Community Revitalization into Existing Policy A national rural policy must ensure that all relevant areas of policy are consciously designed to strengthen rural communities. There will not be enough money to solve the problem through new rural development programs if the rest of federal policy ignores or undermines rural America. Farm policy demonstrates the wrong approach. It is implicitly a policy to depopulate rural America and un- dermine rural communities. Its bias toward consolidating farming into big- units, its structuring of farm payments in a manner that causes them to accrue to often distant landowners instead of local farm operators, and the emphasis in its research programs on approaches that shift food system profit out of agricultural communities and into metropolitan- based input suppliers have all contributed to rural decline. One step in creating a national rural policy is to fix farm policy so it helps rather than hurts rural communi- ties. Key steps include: • farm payment caps, • establishing a competition policy that provides fair market access to family farmers and ranchers, • expansion of value -added programs that enable producers to capture a fair share of food system profit, and • awarding federal applied agricultural research grants based in part on whether the research would strengthen or weaken rural communities. Conservation and Rural Development Rural development can likewise be incorporated in conservation policy. The rural communities that are thriv- ing are those with environmental assets — lakes and mountains. They are thriving because people want to live there, and when they do, they strengthen the local economy by starting businesses or spending retirement income. Page 2 Center for Rural Affairs, www.cfra.org Most small communities are sitting on a potential environmental asset — uncrowded natural space. For exam- ple, communities that work with landowners and federal conservation programs to restore land along streams to a natural state and provide public access would have an asset that would make them more attractive places to live. And though most farm communities will never become tourist economies, providing access to natural space could provide the basis for new small businesses such as bed and breakfasts. The new farm bill gives the Secretary of Agriculture authority to work with communities in adjusting conser- vation programs to fit local needs through the Conservation Partnerships and Cooperation Program. That authority should be used to work with communities that want to use a quality environment as a development asset. The secretary should also use the authority granted by the farm bill to adjust conservation programs to help beginning farmers. It allows the secretary to be creative. For example, beginning farmers could be provided a 10 -year stream of conservation payments up front to finance their start in farming, in return for a legally binding 10 -year commitment to practice conservation. The New Homestead Opportunity Act Historically, Congress has addressed the problems of high unemployment and high poverty communities by establishing "Enterprise Zones" and providing tax incentives for investors and large business to create jobs. Agricultural communities have not been effectively served by that approach. They don't qualify because of their low unemployment levels. The incentives for corporate job relocation and outside investment do not fit what works for them. Job recruitment strategies haven't worked. Their greatest opportunities are in local entrepreneurship. The "New Homestead Economic Opportunity Act" introduced by Senators Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska addresses those limitations. It focuses assistance on counties suffering popula- tion loss. The Act supports entrepreneurship and local ownership by establishing government- matched savings ac- counts called "Individual Homestead Accounts." Funds could be withdrawn to start a small business, pay for educational expenses, make first -time home purchases, and pay medical expenses. This legislation could be strengthened. A 30 percent investment credit up to $2,500 annually could be pro- vided for investments in non -farm micro enterprises and investments by beginning farmers in operating capi- tal, inventory, etc. Land and business owners could be encouraged to sell to beginners by offering them fed- eral guarantees on contract sales to beginners and by exempting the interest income from taxation. Page 3 d ' J Strategies to Revitalize Rural America Strategy #2 Small Entrepreneurship The most effective and desirable economic development strategy for many agricultural communities is small entrepreneurship — development based on locally owned and owner- operated small businesses. Often called micro enterprise development, it has been proven to work in the agricultural areas that have not been successful in attracting manufacturers or other large employers from outside. In Nebraska's farm and ranch counties, over 70 percent of the net job growth is coming from non -farm self - employment, people cre- ating their own jobs. It works because the people in these areas have an entrepreneurial bent. Farm and ranch counties in the na- tion's mid - section have long had two to three times the rate of self - employment as metropolitan counties. It has worked in Nebraska in part because of deliberate efforts to cultivate small business development. Small entrepreneurship is especially important today, as opportunities shrink to attract large employers to remote rural areas. Companies that formerly looked to rural communities for lower wage labor are now mov- ing offshore for even lower wage labor. There are also social advantages to development strategies based on small entrepreneurship. It keeps profits in the community. It creates a mix of opportunities. Small business development creates some low wage jobs, but it also provides significant numbers of opportunities for people to build assets and earn middle class in- comes as business owners. In an era when real wages are falling in many industries, creating a chance for people who work to be business owners creates more equality and opportunity. Finally, nurturing locally owned businesses puts the economic future of the community in the hands of its own members — people committed to its future. That builds local leadership and reduces dependency on out- side forces. The importance of local ownership was recently illustrated for me by a community developer from a rural Appalachian mining community. She said the people of her home community grew dependent on the mining corporations for income and employment. Over time, they lost faith in their capacity to take charge of their own future. So she was working on small business development to break dependency on outside corporations and rebuild the capacity of the community to control its own future. We are not starting from scratch in family farm and ranch communities. We have the good fortune to have inherited communities with strong traditions of self - employment and small scale entrepreneurship. We should never lose sight of the value of that. We should nurture it and build on it. Strategies to Nurture Small Entrepreneurship Most small enterprise development strategies have been based on public /private partnerships — typically non- profit organizations working with rural communities and rural people often with partial government funding. The Center's Rural Enterprise Assistance Program (REAP), which works in rural Nebraska, provides a Page 4 Center for Rural Affairs, www.cfra.org model for nurturing entrepreneurial development in agricultural communities. REAP provides loans, training, networking, and technical assistance opportunities for startup and existing rural businesses (with 5 or fewer employees) across Nebraska. REAP works with communities in forming local associations of entrepreneurs, through which it makes business loans, provides extensive training on business management, and assists entrepreneurs in developing business plans. REAP also makes loans and provides technical assistances to individuals who are not part of local associations. REAP partners with other institutions and service providers. It partners with the University of Nebraska to provide electronic commerce and business management training. It receives grant and loans funds from the U.S. Small Business Administration, the Nebraska Department of Economic Development, the Nebraska Micro enterprise Partnership Fund, and private sources. REAP works closely with local banks. The majority of its clients do not receive loans, but rather training, technical assistance, and business planning services that make them better customers for local banks. More than 2,000 rural businesses have been assisted by REAP. They include, for example, wood craft busi- nesses, bird house makers, a pottery maker, picture framers, a Christmas tree ornament maker, a meeting planner, caterers, day care centers, a fitness center, tanning salons, carpenters, auto repair businesses, makers of wooden barrels and casks for movie sets and many, many others. While REAP is the nation's largest rural provider of such services, it is not alone. There are a number of pro- grams across the region that communities can tap for such services. To learn more about where your commu- nity can obtain these services, in Nebraska contact Jeff Reynolds with the Center 402.656.3091 Oeffr@alltel.net). Outside of Nebraska, contact the Association for Enterprise Opportunity (AEO) at 703.841.7760 or via the web at www.microenterpriseworks.org. There is also a need to expand the types of small enterprise development services available. A large propor- tion of rural business owners are nearing retirement age. The opportunity is ripe for establishing programs to link business owners nearing retirement with potential successors. Such programs could assist the retiree and potential successor in planning a transfer and provide them with model contracts for transferring ownership in a manner that is workable and fair to both parties, including seller financing. Communities can help by actively anticipating retirements and recruiting community mem- bers with entrepreneurial skills or perhaps young people who have left the community to take over. Help in Tapping Bigger Markets One key for increasing opportunities for rural small business is developing strategies to tap markets beyond the local area and link rural small businesses into larger regional economies. Electronic commerce provides one opportunity to expand the market available to rural small businesses. Businesses with unique products have used it reach customers far beyond their home community. Training in electronic commerce is a critical element of small business development programs. Page 5 Strategies to Revitalize Rural America It might also be possible to use electronic commerce to link several small communities together in a single larger market that can support small businesses that otherwise would not be feasible. For example, some have proposed that retail and service businesses in a county or multi -county region link together on a single web - site where customers could go to find any good or service available in the area Perhaps the greatest opportunities for rural small enterprises to expand their markets lie in regional metro- politan centers. Rural areas have traditionally looked to large businesses in such centers to move a factory or call center into a rural community. Perhaps instead, we should look to such businesses as a market for goods and business services provided by rural small businesses. Increasingly large businesses are "out sourcing" — focusing on the things they do best while contracting with outside businesses for other goods and services. In Italy, small rural manufacturers have long worked through established networks to gain contracts to pro- vide "out sourced" components to large Italian corporations based in metropolitan areas. These networks have provided a ready conduit for large companies to gain bids and contracts from many small rural manu- facturing businesses — typically operating 10- person shops. The networks made it possible for small manu- facturing firms to flourish in rural Italy by producing components for larger companies. The Italian networks of small rural manufacturers may provide some lessons for rural small business here, though the opportunities of today are probably not focused in traditional manufacturing. There are opportuni- ties in crafts and specialty manufacturing, and in providing business services to metropolitan businesses. For example, Joy Marshall operates a service business called Performance Planners out of Arthur in the Ne- braska Sandhills. It provides assistance in planning and organizing meetings to businesses in Omaha, Lincoln and across the state. But it's hard for rural businesses to market to metropolitan businesses without established networks for doing so. To overcome that, perhaps consortia sponsored by both large metropolitan businesses and small rural businesses should be formed to help them do business together. Alternatively, rural small businesses within a region could form cooperatives to market goods and services to metropolitan businesses in their region. Small entrepreneurship is one of the most promising strategies for creating genuine opportunity in rural com- munities. But whether it reaches its full potential depends on whether more communities embrace it and pub- lic policy support it. More government funding of small business development programs will be needed if all rural communities are to be served. And tax and business incentives programs now focused on large employers must be modi- fied to provide support and incentives for small business development, as we discussed in our December Newsletter feature on creating a National Rural Policy. Page 6 Center for Rural Affairs, www.cfra.org Stratgey #3 Niche Markets One of the most promising ways to increase family farm and ranch viability is to tap into high -value niche markets. The farm and ranch share of profit in the food systems is falling. But there is an opportunity to turn that around. The "mass market" is breaking up in market segments — groups of consumers seeking unique prod- ucts with specific attributes. Some are willing to pay premiums for those attributes. For example, the nation- wide Hartman survey found that over half of consumers would pay a premium for food produced in a more healthful and environmentally sound manner. That offers an opportunity for farmers to go beyond producing cheap, undifferentiated commodities to adding value and earning premiums by delivering unique products that are highly valued by different groups of con- sumers. That may be food that tastes better. Perhaps it is locally produced and fresher or is produced in a way that improves its flavor. It may be food that is healthier or perceived as consistent with a healthier lifestyle — such as products raised without pesticide, hormones, and antibiotics. Or it could include products that are healthier because of what they have in them such as the beneficial fats in flax and grass fed beef. There is also a growing group of consumers who will vote with their dollars for alternatives to industrial agri- culture. For example, consumer surveys and panels find that about two- thirds of consumers say they would pay premiums for pork produced humanely, on environmentally responsible farms or on family farms. There is opportunity for family farmers and ranchers in these markets, but it is important to keep some basic principles and strategies. Markets with more Difficult Standards Offer Higher Premiums — Farmers will earn and sustain higher incomes by serving niche markets only to the extent it requires more from them — more management and more skilled labor than the conventional market. Premiums for organic crops and unconfined natural pork have generally remained higher because they require more intensive management and more skilled labor in the field and barn than conventional production. In contrast, the premiums for specialty corns — high oil corn, etc. are much smaller because they require a little extra effort, but not enough to force buyers to pay larger premiums. The companies buying it can find enough farmers willing to produce it for only a small premium. Similarly, the premiums for natural beef will be less if they require only withholding hormone use than if they also require meeting standards for family farm, humane, and environmentally sound production. Sometimes our first instinct in agriculture is to tell wary consumers that there is nothing wrong with the way food is produced in this country. But a more profitable approach might be to ask them how they want it pro- duced and what they will pay to get it. Page 7 fa r• r. i U ,j lV Strategies to Revitalize Rural America Look for Markets and Fight for Standards that Fit the Strengths of Family Farms and Ranches — The greatest strength of family farms and ranches is the presence in the field and barn of a motivated, experi- enced, and skilled worker -owner who watches and understands what is happening, exercises judgment, and make decisions. Corporate farms take markets away from family farms when the labor requirements become sufficiently rou- tine and unskilled to be done by low -wage laborers. Hog production used to be the small farmer's niche. It was only when confinement and antibiotics provided a controlled and more predictable environment for hog production that corporations could raise hogs effectively with wage labor. Family farmers and ranchers will find their greatest opportunity in markets that are difficult for corporate agriculture to serve. It is critical to work for a standard for high -value markets that fits the strengths of family farms. For example, family farmers will gain the advantage if markets for organic and humanely raised natu- ral milk and pork preclude conventional total confinement systems. A big corporate farm gained a foothold for its pork in some natural markets by simply stating that its hogs had access to sunshine and fresh air. Confinement buildings with curtains for ventilation provide that. A clear, strong, and meaningful standard for "natural" pork would help family farmers capture that market and ensure more significant and more lasting premiums. It would be especially helpful to have a clear and strong standard for family farm and ranch produced food — to make that term a meaningful product standard that gives small and mid -size farms an edge in the market. Not all niche markets are a good fit for small and mid -size farms. There has been much talk about producing crops that are genetically engineered to produce pharmaceuticals. The primary management challenge in raising them appears to be instituting a regulatory regime to prevent pollen and seed from escaping into other fields. Whether pharmaceutical crops offer opportunities to small and mid -size farms may depend on the nature of .those requirements. In general, larger businesses are more adept at meeting regulatory requirements because they can spread the costs over many more units of production. Banding Together to Market and Bargain — It is to the advantage of family farmers and ranchers to band together in cooperatives or other organizations to collectively market and bargain in niche markets. Only together can small and mid -size producers guarantee food processors or retailers the volume they need when they need it. Most food companies don't have systems to find and do business with many different producers who meet the standards for their niche market. By banding together as a single source that can offer the supplies and quality food companies need, family farmers and ranchers are more likely to get their business. And they are in a far stronger position to negotiate a good price. Banding together may also enable family farmers and ranchers to influence the standards for premium mar- kets. If a family farm cooperative offers natural livestock to a retail or food company and that livestock also Page 8 Center for Rural Affairs, www.cfra.org meets family farm, humane, and environmental standards, that company is likely to use those claims in pro- moting the product. They give that company an edge in the market. Once that product is established using those claims, it will be hard for a corporate farm that doesn't meet those standards to come in and take the market away. There are still opportunities for farmers selling niche products individually in local markets, especially in highly populated areas where they can cost effectively sell to one person at a time. But when family farmers enter larger national and regional niche markets, collective marketing and bargaining pays. Pitfalls to Avoid in Niche Marketing — There are also some pitfalls in niche marketing to avoid. Starting out with a big debt to build or buy processing facilities has been the undoing of many new cooperatives. Like commodity production, the processing business can be a high volume and low margin business. And it falls outside the knowledge and expertise of most fanners and ranchers. In many cases, the best way for farmers and ranchers to add value is by raising crops or livestock in ways that make them worth more, while leaving processing to others who know that business well. If farmers and ranchers need to do the processing, it may be best for them to find a small or mid -size processor that does custom work at a reasonable price. Resources at the Center The Center is working with organizations and producers across the region to develop a multi -state regional cooperative to capture national natural meats markets for family farmers and ranchers. To learn more, contact Wyatt Fraas: ngttf(c cfra.org, 402.254.6983. We are also working with several Nebraska cooperatives developing high value niche markets. To learn more contact Mike Heavrin: mikeh a,cfra.org, 402.846.5428 x 15. Finally, we're working for public policies that provide grants and assistance to family farmers and ranchers in developing new cooperatives and higher value niche markets. For information on the federal Value Added Agricultural Product Development Program contact Kim Leval: kimlevaingwest.net, 541.687.1490. To learn about our efforts to restore the Nebraska value added program, contact Jon Bailey: ionb(gcfra.org, 402.846.5428 x 26. Page 9 t v Strategies to Revitalize Rural America Strategy #4, Land Grant Universities Land grant universities have a critical role in revitalizing agricultural communities. They can focus their research on strengthening family farming and ranching. They can develop outreach pro- grams that support small business, leadership, and community development. And by making education af- fordable and accessible to rural people, they give them access to the knowledge they need to thrive and lead their communities in the 21 st century. Refocusing Agricultural Research Choices about what research is done shape agriculture. The past focus of agricultural research has driven technological change in directions that reduce opportunity in agriculture and rural communities. The emphasis has been on developing expensive new technologies for input companies to sell that enable fewer and larger farms to produce the nation's food. In many cases, private companies developed the prod- ucts, and land grant universities refined the production systems to put them to use. That has helped corporations that sell inputs to farmers capture a bigger share of the profit in the food sys- tem. As their increasingly expensive inputs replace the management and skills of producers, they do more of what is involved in producing food. And their profit share grows. Roundup Ready soybeans for example, have replaced much of the management in corn- soybean production. Seed prices and company profits have risen. Farmers' margins have narrowed, in part because seed costs have risen and in part because the reduced management requirements have enabled large farms to grow faster and drive up cash rents and land purchase prices. The farm and ranch share of food system profit is shrinking at a rate that would take it to zero by the year 2030, according to research by University of Maine Agricultural Economist Stewart Smith. Agricultural research has also enabled the shift to large corporate operations by creating production systems where management can be separated from labor and moved into the office. That allows labor to be provided by unskilled low -wage workers. The development of confinement systems with a controlled environment was the linchpin in the industrializa- tion of hog production because it routinized the work and reduced the judgment that had to be exercised by the person in the barn. Our land grant universities could be powerful tools to steer technology in a different direction. Every relevant poll demonstrates that most people don't want the corporatization of agriculture and dying rural communi- ties. As public research institutions in a democratic society, our land grant institutions have an obligation to seek Page 10 Center for Rural Affairs, www.cfra.org out and prioritize research that responds to the needs and aspirations of their constituents and helps create the kind of future they want. There are promising research avenues for strengthening family farming and ranching. We need research fo- cused on developing new knowledge and production systems that enable producers to increase their incomes by using more intensive management and skilled labor in the field and barn to reduce the need for purchased inputs and add value to their production. Such research would build on the competitive strength of family operations relative to corporate agriculture — the presence of a highly motivated, skilled and experienced owner operator working in the field and barn. More research is needed in new livestock production systems like hoop houses for hogs and intensively man- aged grass -based dairy and beef cattle systems that minimize capital expenditures and maximize management in the field and barn. A great need exists for research in agro ecology — the study of the interactions between living organisms in the field and how they are affected by management practices. Such research would provide new knowledge and management strategies that farmers could use to minimize pest problems, enhance nutrient availability, and reduce the need for purchased inputs. Research is needed to enable family farmers and ranchers to secure premium markets. Today, the best oppor- tunities to increase farm income lie in responding to unique demands of consumers not met by conventional agriculture. There are a variety of high value niche markets. Land grant universities can help family farmers and ranchers capture those opportunities by providing market research — to determine the demand, price, and key product characteristics for premium markets — and pro- duction research on how to produce for them. Although individual researchers have responded to many of these needs, there is a profound absence of insti- tutional leadership. It's time for land grant universities to focus their agricultural research programs on sup- porting the kind of agriculture most of their constituents want. There are good places to start, including: Create an integrated research strategy to reinvigorate family farm and ranch livestock production. Family farm hog and dairy production is particularly under siege. Rural people and the public con- sistently demonstrate a strong preference for family farm livestock production. Our land grant uni- versities should respond. Create an integrated research program on strategies to earn a middle class income on 640 acres. Analyze the strategies being used by. the farmers making it work. Focus research on production strategies and systems that generate more income per acre. • Establish research centers focused on enabling family farmers and ranchers to tap high value mar- kets. Page 11 7 � v Strategies to Revitalize Rural America Create a new research and administrative position with the responsibility of analyzing alternative directions for future research, identifying new research with potential to increase family farm op- portunities, and working with land grant ag researchers to plan their future research so it strengthens family farms and ranches. Land grant universities also have critical roles to play in small business and community development. They have broad expertise and the capacity to deliver it to rural people through their extension services. Provide training and technical assistance to support small business formation Land grant universities can offer small business management courses and technical assistance in business planning. They can offer courses in E- commerce to help family farms and small businesses develop strate- gies to use the Internet to reach new distant customers. They can provide technical assistance in transferring small businesses from retiring owners to new entrepre- neurs, including developing innovative transfer models and contracts that work for both parties. Extension programs could help link retiring business owners with prospective entrepreneurs interested in taking over. Support rural development initiatives and enhance the effectiveness of rural leaders Land grant colleges can provide community -based educational programs on alternative development strate- gies, assist communities in analyzing development options, and link communities to development resources. They can provide technical assistance in community planning that engages the public and develops broad buy -in. They can deliver leadership development programs in rural communities to help rural leaders hone their skills. Provide rural people access to lifelong learning through distance education If rural small businesses and family farms and ranches are to compete with large corporate enterprise, they must have access to educational opportunities. If rural communities are to thrive, rural citizens and leaders must have opportunities to build their knowledge and skills in community development and governance. The Internet makes it possible to deliver college courses directly to the homes of rural people. But it is ex- pensive and time consuming to develop distance education courses. By making distance education a priority, identifying the educational needs of rural people and making those courses available, land grant universities can help build a future for rural people and communities. Keep higher education affordable and accessible A well educated citizenry and work force is a critical development asset to any community. That is no less true in rural communities, where a higher proportion of people are expected to be leaders — in their own busi- Page 12 81 Center for Rural Affairs, www.cfra.org nesses and in community institutions. But incomes are lower in rural areas, making the rising cost of educa- tion a greater burden and barrier. Land grant universities were created to make education affordable and accessible to ordinary people. Fulfill- ing that mission is critical. By keeping tuition at affordable levels and providing financial aid to low and moderate income students, land grant colleges can ensure rural people access to the education that can help rural America thrive in the future. One innovative approach would be to provide college loan repayment assistance to students who work or start businesses within the state but don't make enough money to make their student loan payments. Currently, students who have to borrow heavily to get through college are almost forced to move to metro- politan areas (often out of state) where pay is higher. People's universities Land grant colleges were created to be the people's university — to help people build better lives and stronger communities. That mission is as critical to rural America today as at any time in history. It should remain a priority of land grant universities. Page 13 Strategies to Revitalize Rural America Strategy #5 Making Communities Desirable Places to Live For rural communities to thrive, they must be places that people want to live. Making rural communities desirable places to live is not the whole answer. If there is no economic opportu- nity in an area, young families can't live there no matter how much they might want to. However, economic opportunity is more likely to be created in attractive places to live because they draw young families and entrepreneurs who start new farms and businesses and revitalize existing enterprises. In recent decades, rural communities with natural amenities to draw people — lakes, mountains, rivers, or climate — have grown. Most farm and ranch communities don't have mountains or lakes. They aren't likely to become the next tour- ist- filled Aspen, and most of us wouldn't want that. But each of our communities has assets, strengths, and opportunities we can build on to draw people — native sons and daughters back to raise their families and others seeking a rural life style. Those assets range from natural amenities, to strong schools, to friendly neighbors. The best place to start is with existing strengths. Strong Small Schools. Small schools have long been a drawing card for rural communities. Communities that make a commitment to provide a quality education in small, community -based schools and invest in them will always have a powerful advantage in attracting young families with children. But small rural schools are facing increasing financial pressures and are under growing political pressure to consolidate. Only local people in each community are in a position to make decisions about whether and when to consoli- date schools or override levy limits to increase school funding to enhance educational quality. But the contri- bution of strong, small, community -based schools to the viability of the community should be a strong con- sideration. State policymakers should not blindly force school consolidation that undermines both education and com- munities under the misguided assumption that bigger is better and more efficient in education. The research indicates that small schools have the best educational outcomes for most children. Fewer kids fall through the cracks. And the efficiency gains of consolidation often disappear when construc- tion and transportation costs are counted and efficiency is measured in cost per graduate. Small schools graduate a higher percentage of their students. There are opportunities for communities to work together in ways that enable them to keep and strengthen their schools while holding the line on costs. Some districts are sharing a superintendent. That spreads the costs of the highest salary and perhaps enables each district to gain the advantage of a more talented leader than they could each hire individually. Others are sharing teachers and offering joint classes by distance education or by transporting upper -level students between communities to enable them to offer advanced courses with low enrollments at a reasonable Page 14 Center for Rural Affairs, www.cfra.org cost. A Sense of Community. Many people long to live in a community where people know and care about each other. It's not surprising. Surveys on happiness and life satisfaction suggest the factor most strongly corre- lated with satisfaction is regular contact with a network of friends — community. It's more strongly correlated with satisfaction than income. Communities that create spaces for people to meet and interact and work at being friendly are more likely to attract and keep families and businesses than those that don't. That is especially true of native sons and daughters who have experience living in the community. They are more likely to return home to raise their families if they experienced a strong sense of community and supportive interaction as children. Social Capital. When Christian Science Monitor reporter Laurent Beltsie was interviewed on National Pub- lic Radio about his series, "Alone on the Range," he was asked whether he thought the rural communities of the Heartland could turn it around and survive. He said that while all the trends were against them, he would not count them out because he was so impressed by the people he had interviewed — their spirit, their entre- preneurial bent, and devotion to working together to make their community work. That's social capital. Communities that have it are more attractive places to live because things work better. People work together to solve problems and make things better. They have disputes, but they resolve them rather than letting them simmer. Communities can enhance their future by establishing a culture of working together to solve problems, launch new initiatives, and make the community a better place to live. Young people and families must be involved in the community. If we want them, we need to give them some influence in making the community a place they want to live and raise their families. They have unique needs. They want swimming pools, summer baseball, and other programs to enrich the lives of their children. Perhaps they want better Internet service or have ideas for making the community more attractive by restoring historic buildings and character. Communities that allow them to lead will more likely keep them and draw more like them. High Speed Internet Service. It's a necessity. Young people see it as a contributor to quality of life. It en- ables them to connect to the outside world in a way that brings cultural and other amenities of distant places closer. Access to Nature and a Quality Environment. In the future, access to uncrowded natural land will be in- creasingly hard to come by, and it will be an increasingly valuable asset for communities. Communities that offer it will have a leg up in attracting families to start businesses and drive revitalization. Page 15 r Strategies to Revitalize Rural America Access to a quality environment also offers a base for tourism - related businesses like bed and breakfasts and guest ranches that offer a weekend away within an easy commute of population centers. This is one of the factors where farm and ranch communities have a natural advantage. They are surrounded by land. But often, there is little public access and in some areas, almost every acre is cultivated. Still, almost every community has potential natural assets. Those with small streams could work in partner- ship with landowners to restore the stream corridor to grass and trees and provide public access for hiking, biking, and fishing. Likewise, Conservation Reserve Program acres with farm ponds could be good for hik- ing and fishing. Tyler Sutton of the Conservation Alliance of the Great Plains suggested in the Lincoln Journal Star that re- stored grasslands could draw people to Great Plains communities. He wrote, "Not long ago the Northern Great Plains was one of the most spectacular grasslands on the planet. It was alive with wildlife, rivaled only by Africa's Serengeti. People came from around the world to experience one of the greatest wildlife specta- cles on earth." Sutton proposes changes in management of national grasslands and public - private partnerships to own land, acquire conservation easements, and set wildlife management objectives. These newly created areas would be a natural amenity for local communities — "reasons for people and businesses to stay and to move to the surrounding communities." New public policies can facilitate development of natural amenities. The Conservation Partnerships and Co- operation Program created by the farm bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to undertake conservation projects in partnership with communities and make needed adjustments in conservation program rules to make the projects work. For example, landowners could be provided a bonus through the Conservation Reserve Program for restoring land along a stream and providing public access, in concert with a community plan. The federal government is restoring 40 million acres through the Conservation Reserve Program. Why not manage it creatively to also help communities? It may also be necessary to revisit state laws to ensure that cooperating landowners who provide public access are protected from liability for any injuries that occur. Finally, the growing value of a quality environment in community revitalization should give pause to those who would weaken the authority of local zoning boards to control the location of giant livestock facilities. The economic development benefits of mega - livestock operations are often less than anticipated and out- weighed by the negative influence of such facilities on the decisions of families and businesses about whether to locate in the community. People who want to start businesses, farms, and ranches prefer to do it in good places to live. Making our communities better places to live is one of the critical factors in enhancing their future. Page 16 Center for Rural Affairs, www.cfra.org Strategy #6 A Regional Cooperative A new kind of regional cooperative could be a powerful force for revitalizing family farms and ranches. Such a cooperative could capture high -value "niche" markets for family farmers and ranchers, bargain collec- tively on their behalf, provide technical assistance in meeting quality and production standards, and provide capital for new farmers and ranchers to serve these markets. The Mondragon cooperative in Spain demonstrates the potential of a cooperative to create genuine opportu- nity in a depressed region. l It was established in 1956 by five engineers inspired by the ideas of a Catholic priest about creating a business model responsive to the needs of working people and communities. The co- operative has created 30,000 jobs in 67 enterprises, each owned by its employees in the economically de- pressed Basque region of Spain. Mondragon is a worker -owned industrial cooperative — not a family farmer -owned cooperative. In spite of that difference, it offers some useful insights that can be applied by family farmers and ranchers. Cooperatives can be effective instruments for social change if they have a clear sense of purpose and re- main true to it. Mondragon began with a commitment to building a worker -owned and - controlled company dedicated to the well being of its members and their communities. A new farm cooperative with a commitment to strengthening owner - operated family farms and ranches and their communities could be a powerful force in creating a better rural future. Cooperatives can be engines of development. The Mondragon cooperative works as an umbrella. It spurs formation of new member cooperatives — each with no more than 500 employees — and services them. A regional family farm and ranch cooperative could spur formation of smaller cooperatives, each focused on helping family farmers and ranchers secure a particular market. Equally important, it could assist new family farmers and ranchers by linking them to markets, capital, and technical assistance. Cooperatives can be most effective when they bring together an array of services. Mondragon has its own bank that lends to the cooperative enterprises under its umbrella, runs its own research and development arm, and operates its own university for training cooperative managers. A regional cooperative could be a one -stop shop for family farmers and ranchers to enter premium markets. The Need for a New Cooperative Great opportunity for family farms and ranchers waits in high -value markets — but that opportunity is at risk of being lost. The nationwide Hartman Survey of American consumers found that about half would pay a-premium for food produced in ways they support — particularly food produced in an environmentally responsible manner. Page 17 b Strategies to Revitalize Rural America About two - thirds of participants in a Better Homes and Gardens consumer panel said they would pay a pre- mium for pork raised on a small farm, on an environmentally responsible farm, or humanely. Others will pay a premium for antibiotic -free meat or products with unique flavor or other special attributes. But family farmers and ranchers who want to enter special markets with premium prices — sometimes called niche markets — often find it very difficult. They frequently must develop their own marketing channels from scratch and must also develop new production methods. Those just starting have to line up capital. It's much harder than walking into the office of a corporate integrator and signing up as a contract producer. A cooperative could make it more feasible for family farmers to enter high -value markets and, in the process, capture this opportunity for them. If family farms and ranches don't capture it quickly, it may be lost to cor- porate farms. They have taken note of organic, natural, and other niche markets and responded. Corporate farms are attractive suppliers to food companies wanting to put natural and other specialty prod- ucts on supermarket shelves. It is cheaper and easier to go to one large corporate supplier for raw farm prod- ucts than to find hundreds or thousands of small farmers who can certify that they meet quality and produc- tion standards and provide a steady and adequate supply when it's needed. But a cooperative that markets for many family farmers and ranchers would have those advantages and more. Like a large corporate farm, a family farm cooperative could offer food companies a guaranteed and steady supply of farm products that meet niche market standards in one stop. That would make it far easier for food companies to develop products to serve niche markets, encourage more of them to enter, and in turn create more opportunities for family farmers to sell in these markets. Securing raw farm products from a family farm cooperative would give food companies an added advantage with consumers who want to vote for what they believe in with their food dollars. They could say their food was raised on a small family farm — something many consumers would like to support. For example, there could be a significant market advantage for a cooperative selling high - quality meat, certi- fied as raised on small family farms and ranches without hormones or feed antibiotics, and meeting objective standards for stewardship of the environment and humane treatment of animals. The cooperative with the ability to provide a steady supply of products offering that market edge would be able to secure a significant premium for its members. What Services Should Such a Cooperative Provide? A cooperative could help family farmers and ranches secure premium markets without raising large amounts of capital to build or purchase processing facilities or even a brand name. The key would be offering a core set of strategic services. First, the cooperative would need to provide marketing and collective bargaining services. It would be the vehicle for family farmers and ranchers to collectively market products that meet specific standards — for Page 18 Center for Rural Affairs, www.cfra.org taste, quality, and for the way they were produced. By pooling a steady supply of production from many farmers, the cooperative could gain the economic power to secure markets and negotiate good prices. The cooperative could go the full step of selling its own branded products to retail stores. Or, it could take the less expensive and less risky approach of selling livestock or crops that meet exacting standards to food com- panies already familiar with branding products and getting them on supermarket shelves. Cooperative mem- bers would receive a premium because their production methods increase the price the food company could charge for its product. Second, the cooperative could provide technical assistance on niche market production. Niche markets offer premiums because producing for them requires specialized knowledge and, generally, more intensive management. It is not practical for every family farmer to search out that knowledge and develop those skills from scratch. A cooperative could help by providing information and technical assistance. Third, the cooperative could help link new producers to capital. For example, it might link beginning farmers who want to produce for a niche market with supportive land owners willing to rent to them. It might link beginning farmers and ranchers with socially motivated investors who would buy breeding stock and lease it to them in return for a percentage of production. Or it might find socially motivated investors willing to make loans to beginning farmers in return for a federal income tax break. Finally, the cooperative could have market research staff to search out new premium markets family farmers and ranchers could serve. As potential new markets are identified, the cooperative could organize interested producers and work with them to develop and capture that market. For example, a cooperative with roots as a livestock cooperative might also discover an opportunity in organic medicinal herbs and help a new group of family farmers capture that market. A New Model for the 21st Century The opportunities for family farmers and ranchers in producing undifferentiated commodities are declining. But new opportunities exist in niche markets. To capture them, family farmer and ranchers need a new type of cooperative. 'The discussion of Mondragon draws on the book, From Mondragon to America: Experiments in Commu- nity and Economic Development, by Greg MacLeod. For more information on the Mondragon cooperative, visit their website at http: / /www.modragon.mcc.es. Page 19 1� U Strategies to Revitalize Rural America Strategy #7 State Policy State policy can be a powerful force for economic development that builds strong rural communities and creates genuine economic opportunity for people. It is more difficult in the midst of today's state budget crises. But it's not impossible. States must make the commitment to sustain the most important programs for rural revitalization. That sometimes requires a will- ingness to balance spending cuts with tax increases. And it requires a willingness to scrutinize the use of every dollar available to community and economic development to ensure limited dollars are used in the best way possible. One place to start is by making common sense reforms in corporate job creation tax subsidies — reforms that could generate substantial savings to reinvest in rural revitalization. States can budget and cap the amount spent on job creation tax subsidies. States can cut the costs of such programs by imposing job quality require- ments on beneficiaries and denying subsidies for poor jobs. In addition, a corporate minimum tax would raise revenue and ensure that all profitable corporations — including those receiving job creation tax subsidies — contribute something to educating kids and providing vital services. The revenue raised could be used to balance corporate job creation incentives with investments in more en- trepreneurial development approaches that work in rural communities — small business, cooperative and grassroots leadership development. Key approaches include: Microenterprise development programs provide grants to programs that provide loans, training, technical assistance, and market development assistance to new and established owner operated businesses, typically with five or fewer employees. Studies have demonstrated that microenterprise development programs create jobs at a fraction of the cost of corporate job creation tax subsidies. Agricultural development programs provide funding and technical assistance for cooperatives and new mar- ket development initiatives. There are growing opportunities in higher value products — natural meats, local foods, and other niche products. But family farmers and ranchers must develop new cooperatives and mar- kets to capture those opportunities. Criteria for awarding funds should favor projects that increase the farm and ranch share of food system profit, increase self employment opportunities in farming and ranching, and strengthen small and mid -size operations. Without such criteria, agricultural development programs can eas- ily turn into subsidies for corporate farming and agribusiness development. Grassroots Leadership and Community Development — Community revitalization starts at the grassroots. Community members must come together, develop their leadership skills, and build consensus and commit- ment on moving forward in securing their future. States can provide seed funding for technical assistance and training to help communities make it happen and provide the impetus for neighboring communities to band together to make their efforts more effective. The emphasis should be on initiatives that engage the whole community from the grassroots up. Page 20 ,l Center for Rural Affairs, www.cfra.org Individual Development Accounts are public or privately matched small savings accounts that can only be used for home ownership, small business development, or higher education. They help people build long- term economic well -being by building assets through home ownership, business ownership, or enhanced education. Asset building provides important psychological and social effects that cannot be achieved by simply increasing income. It gives people a stake in their community and encourages them to take responsi- bility for its future. States that appropriate funds for individual development accounts for low and moderate - income people can gain federal matching funds. Tax Incentives for Rural Development States can also shape their tax policy to foster the small entrepreneurial approaches that work in rural com- munities. Few existing businesses tax incentives are designed for the small start-up operations. That could be changed. States could provide an investment tax credit for starting or expanding owner - operated businesses with five or fewer employees. That concept is embodied in proposed federal legislation — the New Homestead Opportunity Act introduced by Senators Byron Dorgan (D -ND) and Chuck Hagel (R -NE). It would provide a tax credit equal to 30 per- cent of the money invested by an individual in starting or expanding their own small business. The maximum tax savings would be limited to $25,000 over five years. The Act has not passed. This approach could be adopted by states. Property tax relief can be designed to strengthen small and medium -size farms and ranches and thereby open opportunity to more beginners. For example, states could provide income tax credits when property taxes on owner - operated farmland take an excessive share of the operator's income. By limiting the relief to a modest amount of land, such a provision could target relief to smaller and beginning farmers and help them compete for land with larger operations. Maintaining small and mid -size fanns and increasing the number of beginners is rural development. Such an "owner- operator tax credit" could be combined with a similar tax credit for modest income home- owners — both rural and urban. That might give it the votes to pass in legislatures that rarely have the rural votes to pass property tax relief targeted only to farmers and ranchers. Tax credits can also provide incentives for landowners to rent land to beginning farmers. The Nebraska Leg- islature created a program to provide a tax credit to landowners who rent land to beginners for a share of the crop. Share rents substantially reduce the capital requirements of getting started, and they provide a means for the landlord to share some of the risk of falling prices and crop failure. The tax credit can offset the risk that a landowner assumes in share renting land to a beginner. Such incentives can be broadened beyond farming and ranching to also encourage innovative and favorable leases of existing non -farm businesses to new operators. Many rural business people are nearing retirement. Incentives for them to transfer their businesses to a new generation could make a critical difference in deter- mining whether businesses are shut down and their assets sold, or new families are offered the opportunity to start businesses and lives in rural communities. Page 21 i J Strategies to Revitalize Rural America Finally, the tax code can provide incentives for charitable giving in support of community development. Many rural retirees hold substantial assets and are in a position to give back to their community. The state of Montana provides income tax incentives for people to donate to community foundations and other nonprofit charitable initiatives to foster community development and community institutions. It is estimated to have created $74 million of endowment for community development over five years at a cost of $24 million. Boost Renewable Energy Opportunities Renewable energy production offers rural communities the chance to become energy producers, rather than energy importers. Recent reductions in the cost of wind generation of electricity combined with federal tax credits open opportunities on the windswept plains. State policy - makers can give a boost to wind energy de- velopment by establishing a requirement for the minimum percentage of a state's electricity that must be generated from renewable sources. In Nebraska, the Legislature may need to revise its longstanding policy of requiring public power producers to provide power at the lowest cost possible, to allow environmentally friendly alternatives that support com- munity development. Other states have adopted tax credits and public funding for generating electricity from renewable resources. States also have numerous tools to promote development of liquid fuels from biomass, including providing incentive funds for developing biofuel projects and requiring that service stations sell gasoline that includes biofuel blends. Encourage E- Business over the Internet States can act to overcome the digital divide — to ensure that rural people have access to high -speed Internet service. The policy options are too numerous and complex to discuss here. New technological developments are reducing, though not eliminating, barriers to quality Internet service in rural areas. The key rural development challenge is ensuring that rural businesses are able to use the full potential of the Internet to sell in large, distant markets. The initial impact of the Internet may be more negative than positive for rural economies by enabling distant retailers to penetrate rural markets formerly controlled by rural busi- nesses. States should consider options for funding or directly providing technical assistance to rural busi- nesses on how to use the Internet to its full advantage in reaching new, distant markets. Distribute State Job Locations State expenditure is a powerful driver of economic development. Where the state spends, the economy grows. Typically, state expenditures are concentrated in the capital city and metropolitan centers. But states can establish explicit policies to distribute state jobs and money to rural areas when feasible. Page 22