Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPB agenda 092700AGENDA S E P 2 1 2000 ORANGE COUNTY AGRICULTURAL. PRESERVATION BOARD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION CONFERENCE ROOM ir 110 EAST KING STREET HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA Wednesday, September 27, 2000 7:30 p.m. Time Page AGENDA ITEM 7:30 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:35 2. INTRODUCTIONS OF NEW MEMBERS 7:55 3. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 7:55 01 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — August 16 8:00 5. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE -CHAIR 8:10 05 6. ITEMS FOR DECISION a. Resolution - Golden Leaf Foundation Application 8:15 10 7. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION a. Triangle J Regional Principles Project — Agricultural Working Group b. Potential Cost of Community Services Study c. Update on Pilot Project agricultural conservation easement 8:45 8. ADJOURNMENT Page 1 DRAFT MINUTES AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD August 16, 2000 PRESENT: Nancy Goodwin, Elizabeth Walters, Bob Strayhorn, Louise Tate, Whit Morrow, Environment & Resource Conservation Director David Stancil, Preservation Planner Tina Moon, Administrative Assistant Carol Crawford. ABSENT: Trudy Matheny (Resigned) ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER Vice -Chair Strayhorn called the meeting to order at 7:40. ITEM #2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA Stancil reported that a thank you letter had been sent to Chris Hogan for eight years of service on the behalf of the APB. ITEM #3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 21, 2000 MOTION: Goodwin moved to approve the June 21st minutes. Tate seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous. ITEM #4: CHAIR COMMENTS: ITEM #6: ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION a. Voluntary Agricultural Districts incentives report Staff will prepare a report for the APB to review and present to the BOCC in November regarding incentives for the Voluntary Agricultural District program. The report will hopefully include some new thoughts on the subject while summarizing the APB's previous ideas for incentives. Stancil reviewed the five ideas for enhancing Voluntary Agricultural Districts (VAD) that the PAB discussed at its June meeting: 1. Simplify the VAD agreement to make it less "legal." Stancil reported that the County Attorney has agreed to examine a revised agreement drafted by the APB. Staff to provide revision options at the next meeting DRAFT MINUTES o Page 2 2. Find a way to allow farms with less than 80 qualifying acres to participate in the program. Staff will review the state statutory language regarding minimum acreage requirements, compare other county programs such as Durham County, and report back. 3. Examine NCDOT provisions regarding moving farm equipment along roads (speed limit). Staff will contact representatives at NCDOT regarding the procedure to change speed limits in farming communities. 4. Pursue a farmer -to- farmer land transfer program that would be exempt from the tax rollback. This may be a difficult accomplishment since it would likely require special legislation. The APB can continue to promote it as an incentive and see if it could be pushed forward by the legislative delegation. 5. Look at old ideas: 0 Property tax exemption for farm buildings, machinery and equipment; 0 Fifty- percent deferral of use -value assessed property taxes; 0 Abatement of property taxes on land donated as conservation easements; 0 Consideration of agricultural conservation easement eligibility for local, state, or federal farmland preservation programs. The first 3 items require special legislation and were not pursued in the past due to the anticipated negative support, statewide. Stancil asked for other ideas to be included in the report preparation. Strayhorn asked if other states have incentives that could be investigated. Given the statutory restraints in NC, the County may be limited in its ability to use programs from other states. Staff will reexamine the information from Phillip Gottwals, regarding Virginia and Maryland. The idea of incentives for farmland preservation and "keeping farmers farming" has been a hot topic for several years. A lot of this same information has been communicated between Farmland Preservation efforts and Farmland Conservation Trusts. The APB asked Stancil if Agricultural Districts qualify under Governor Hunt's million acre preserve program. Whitt suggested encouraging the governor's office to initiate ways to enhance VAD incentives. Stancil explained that the specifics of the program are still uncertain, however, the program is designed to include state preserves, wildlife refuges, natural parks and state parks, which covers a lot of acreage. The APB agreed that by including active and critical farms in the governor's program, VAD incentives might be improved and local VAD programs enlarged. Staff to explore possibilities. Stancil encouraged the APB to focus on two or three of the more accomplishable goals rather than pursuing several goals and risk not particularly accomplishing any. The APB discussed the idea of a two- tiered approach to VAD incentives. One tier could address local issues that the BOCC could achieve in Orange County, such as simplifying the agreement and working with DOT to reduce speed limits. The other tier could consist of more complicated DRAFT MINUTES 2 Page 3 matters such as statewide legislative changes. APB favored the "two tier" idea and instructed staff to draft a report for review at the September meeting. b. New Consensus for Farmland Stancil reviewed the steps in the process listed in the agenda packet. The next step is to develop a program plan in next two months to discuss how to build trust. The APB should develop a memo to explain more about what and how we are going to do some of the steps on the proposed process outline. Some specific concerns include how to build trust among stakeholders, how to get people involved, and how to proceed favorably. Stancil asked the APB for ideas to inform the work groups to discuss issues to presented at the November initiation meeting listed in step #5. The Agricultural center was noted as an important incentive and that discussion needs to begin regarding its location and use. The mission of the work groups is to discuss specific categories regarding farmland preservation issues and to develop goals for establishing a strong program in Orange County. APB members commented that people have heard so much about an agricultural center, but nothing has ever materialized making it difficult to sell the agricultural center again. Staff suggested that the APB try to convey in the stakeholder materials, that this is the first time an Orange County committee has been asked to develop a plan for an agricultural center. Tate asked about available funds. Staff noted that some funds are in the CIP budget. Morrow suggested doing a presentation to promote the agriculture center that shows other centers around the country and invite input from local residents. A presentation may convey a real tangible center rather than just a future idea and might spark stakeholders' involvement in the work group meetings. One member of the APB suggested creating a future agricultural center flyer to give to stakeholder groups to help promote interest. Another member suggested incorporating part of the old southern states into the agricultural center for use as the farmers' market. Stancil to draft suggested ideas about what APB might do to make #7 work, getting folks to participate in the work groups and bring to next meeting for review. Next check -in with BOCC due in October. c. Update on Economic Development /local markets Stancil reported talking with Economic Development Commission (EDC) Director Dianne Reid, and Fletcher Barber and described their progress. Negotiations with the company that provides food service to UNC in regards to buying local produce were reported as on- going. It difficult for farmers to give a commitment to produce a certain amount of produce at a certain time. Staff is having similar problem getting participation from local producers so that the EDC can produce a local produced goods guide for buyers. Stancil discussed the idea of having a joint meeting with EDC to address a number of projects that involve both commissions, including the agricultural guide, a report on possible strategies to address economic viability of farms, and ways to expand local markets. Stancil noted that a draft report could be prepared by the time a joint meeting occurs. The APB agreed. Moon noted that the Planning Department was also considering a joint meeting with the APB, to discuss upcoming items such as the Upper Eno Protective Watershed area, and possible regulation changes. Stancil asked the APB to consider October 9, 10, as possible joint meetings with EDC or Planning Board. DRAFT MINUTES 04 � Page 4 d. Update on pilot project agricultural conservation easement Stancil reported good news — Soil & Water District Board (S &WDB) received a positive answer to their long- standing liability concerns regarding easements. The county's liability policy will cover the S &WDB for this purpose. Therefore the S &WDB can hold conservation easements and agricultural easements with an agreement between the county and S &WDB that defines the responsibility and actions of each entity. An item in the LLP Action plan is to develop a pilot project conservation easement, in particular in the Cane Creek Watershed area and to work with OWASA and S &WD. Sever4l farms in the area have been identified as possible candidates for this pilot project. The farmland grant is due by December 1St, and our goal is to have Orange County, OWASA, and the Farmland Preservation Trust Fund buy a conservation easement to be held by S &WDB. e. Resignation of Chair Stancil reported the resignation of Chair Matheny due to time restraints with teaching duties. Stancil reported that the chair appointment is due in September and encouraged the APB to consider chair election at the next meeting. Stancil noted that the APB needs to consider what farmland easements and other farmland preservation priorities they would like to see included in the LLP action plan recommendations for the fiscal year 2001 -2002. ITEM #7: ADJOURNMENT Chair reminded that the next meeting to be September 20th. Meeting adjourned at approximately 9:00 p.m. DRAFT MINUTES 4 I c a o The Golden LEAF Foundation announces its first program opportunity for eligible North Carolina organizations to propose activities that will improve social and economic conditions in economically affected or tobacco - dependent regions of the state. The Foundation was established by the State of North Carolina in 1999 for the purposes of receipt and distribution of a portion of the funds North Carolina receives as a result of the settlement of North Carolina v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al. This announcement serves as a request for grant proposals. The conditions of grantmaking are explained in this announcement, along with the procedures required to be considered for a grant award. Applicants should complete the application forms provided and follow the proposal instructions for content and submission of your proposal. p - <�}s:'s16'sa'F. Y.a.':;M!5!5�?a - : aeszxsr7.> au%; ciYY: SSZS9tffi` F' diasrxus' �'.. xS:' rk�= s4i.: asm3rx' y�« .�fPac�tt��'- X^.t�°�.".fux?'2P� i 1ha are w � � M The Foundation is a public charitable corporation with two basic objectives: > to promote the social welfare of North Carolina's citizens. to receive and distribute funds to be used for economic impact assistance. Funds are to be used on behalf of the citizens in economically affected or tobacco - dependent regions of North Carolina. The Goiden LEAF Foundation h1gy�pp``£� r t;: s vs the r e e +:` ''� The Foundation intends to use the tobacco settlement funds to create an endowment, the income from which will be used consistent with the purposes envisaged by the General Assembly as specified in the Foundation's charter. The Foundation will operate as a public charitable corporation. The Foundation may choose from time to time to make available funds from the principal as well as earnings on the endowment. The Foundation's activities are a matter of public record. Foundation meetings are subject to the Open Meetings Law as provided in Article 33C of Chapter 143 of the North Carolina General Statutes and the Public Records Act as provided in Chapter 132 of the North Carolina General Statutes. The Foundation's annual report, to be filed with the Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations, will be available to the public. It includes information on expenditures and distributions in furtherance of the public, charitable purposes of the Foundation. All funding decisions are the responsibility of the Foundation's Board of Directors. Program Announcement V i3 The Foundation intends to use the funds to fulfill purposes not well served by other sources of funding. The Foundation's articles of incorporation state that activities in which it may engage, but are not limited to, include the following: Education Assistance — Educational programs for tobacco farmers and other workers impacted or projected to be impacted by a decline in demand for and/ or production of tobacco or tobacco products. Job Training and Employment Assistance — Job training and other employment - related programs, available to organizations assisting tobacco farmers and other workers who are dependent on tobacco farming, production and sales so that these people may transition to other sources of income. Scientific Research — Research to develop new uses for tobacco or to develop alternative cash crops. Economic Hardship Assistance — Programs to reduce or remove the economic hardship, poverty or need that tobacco farmers, quota owners, their families and others experience as a result of the decline in quota and /or production of tobacco or tobacco products. Public Worl(s and Industrial Recruitment — Assistance for local governments in upgrading utilities, transportation, and other public service infrastructure to attract new businesses or for more general economic development purposes. Health and Human Services — Health care and other social service improvements needed to maintain the stability of tobacco - dependent communities. Community Assistance — Assistance for economically depressed and deteriorating tobacco - dependent communities (exclusively for public purposes). Applications will be considered and awards will be made under this Announcement with preference given to the expenses directly related to providing a new service or otherwise to a specific activity separable from the regular, on -going operations of the grantee. Requests for operational expenses of established programs, such as salaries, equipment, office supplies, etc., should clearly state how the operational expenses will be used for activities that are directly linked to the Foundation's purposes and how they would otherwise not be carried out without Foundation funding. Examples of direct service activities include workbooks for job training programs and the salary of a coordinator of services. In addition, award decisions made under this Announcement Program Announcement will not include grants for endowments, fundraising/ development campaigns, political campaigns, or lobbying. __.,.. p.0.R L'YS+: `Sim SAiN .`. - �:r:�fYS "!'.�Z t3 'aYtlfMS' $l�t:•w1Y'2gK. T3}._ _... ffle! F" (P`�' (1 (f�. � ,ems � ■G J 1I� e^M Y fJ �4.1 ^J 1 fi In general, the Foundation will issue announcements from time to time actively soliciting applications for either more specific or broader purposes, and may during some time periods focus the funding on only a subset of activities consistent with the charter and legislative intent. The deadline for responding to the current announcement is October 16, 2000, 4:00 p.m. Awards are scheduled to be announced in December 2000. //rte� ��.fiili'' ja p�+ .; . {.f C �,p fi'(,�+ #I�a�sF b7 T) Only KM� Avi ltiM'1111��[7lf M'tn Only established organizations, no individuals, are eligible for activities /projects funded under this Announcement. Only tax- exempt organizations and governmental units are eligible to receive funds under this Announcement. The organization or governmental unit must agree that it will use the funds exclusively for charitable, scientific, educational, or other exempt public purposes. Organizations must be North Carolina organizations, or multi- state organizations based in North Carolina. All activities funded by this announcement must be in North Carolina and/ or directly for the benefit of North Carolina. Organizations must have established accounting systems capable of segregating and maintaining records of funds received from the Foundation under this Announcement, and the expenditures of these funds, separate from all other funds available to the organization. Organizations less than three (3) years old, unless specially created out of one or more pre- existing parent organizations for the purpose of administering a Foundation funded project, must demonstrate with convincing evidence that they can be sustained during the life of the grant Multiple eligible organizations may submit a joint application. However, one of the organizations must serve as the primary grantee. The Golden LEAF Foundation ,``i�K4l Tea' Lr+ d' A< tlAikYF` Ji'!< E% t�«. C G-.#+iY?kR4iAlit:Perilt%- i't. @W# CCU :t3HiYCS� %�dp'iA.3fIR}q�F1M.. "' S: Y�Y" T:A'iJAiFik"W9'i'.G'+•[M�Yat... ?.:' -' ..... -' Depending on the quality and feasibility of activities proposed for funding, the Foundation may award up to approximately $5 million during this funding cycle. The Foundation is not obligated to commit this maximum amount if, in the judgment of the Board, there are insufficient proposals meeting the award criteria. Continuation of funding to applicants whp are awarded multi- year grants is subject to satisfactory progress and funding availability. Activities funded under this announcement are eligible for a maximum of three years, but applications may be submitted during the third year for additional years. Funding will be delivered to the grant recipient semiannually during the Foundation's fiscal year. Following the first installment, the remaining installments will be contingent upon receipt of a written report documenting satisfactory progress on the project. Such a report shall include a financial statement. c A "ukaa F j w ir¢{..k E- dleI�v.�r£,. of The following points highlight the Foundation's grant 3° application procedures. However, please refer to the attached proposal instruction package for complete details. I. Complete the attached Application Form, including the required cover page. 2. Prepare a Narrative Proposal — The proposal preferably should be typed, single- spaced, single -sided on standard -size (8%" x I I "), white paper. The Foundation discourages applicants from unnecessarily expensive color inserts and elaborate presentations. Please do not provide additional materials such as letters of support, videos, cassettes, CDs, books, or similar material. The narrative proposal should not exceed 12 pages, and the following information should be included: a. Organization Information (not to exceed I page) Provide the organization's mission statement, goals, and /or objectives. Also provide a brief summary of the organization's history, its current programs, activities, and accomplishments. b. Application Description (not to exceed 10 pages; should address each of the following, preferably in the order below) (i) Demonstrate that the application meets one or more funding priorities under this Program Announcement. (ii) Identify the constituency and geographic area of North Carolina to be served and explain how the target population will benefit from the project. (iii) Define the specific goals and objectives of the project. (iv) Describe the primary activities and the approach the organization will take in implementing the project. (v) If one or more other organizations will be collab- orating in the project, identify them and describe their programmatic and /or budgetary roles. (vi) Describe how the project will be sustained beyond the term of the grant, or how the results achieved will have lasting value beyond the grant - funded activities. Expected Outcomes (not to exceed I page) Define the expected outcomes of the project and describe the evaluation plan for tracking and measuring the progress and the short, intermediate, and long -term outcomes of the project. Attachments — In addition to the 12 -page narrative proposal, the applicant should submit all information required with the exception of the organization's annual report, if it is unavailable: a. Board of Directors — Provide a list of the organi- zation's Board of Directors and board positions (or similar governing officers or elected officials) along with their occupations and community affiliations. b. Staff — Provide a list of key staff members who will be involved in the grant project and their respective responsibilities. c. Financial Statements — Provide the most recent fiscal year -end financial statements (audited, if available), or the organization's most recent budget. d. Annual Report — Include the organization's annual report, if available. e. Project Timeline — Provide a detailed timeline for the duration of the project. f. Project Budget— Provide an itemized project budget, including information about anticipated costs and sources of funding. All major project expenses such as salaries, fees for special project consultants or staff, facilities rental or other costs, travel expenses, administrative expenses, and printing and publication costs should be itemized. The project budget should The Golden LEAF Foundation Program Announcement 99 I indicate the amount of Foundation funding requested and how such funds will be used over the period requested. The budget should also include actual and anticipated funds from other sources that also will be devoted to accomplishing the project's objectives. g. IRS Letter or Evidence of Tax - Exempt Status — Organizations that have received from the IRS a letter of determination of exemption should attach a copy of the determination letter. Organizations awaiting a determination of exemption 1hould attach written evidence that a determination has been applied for. A governmental unit should attach a copy of statutory or other authority evidencing that it is a unit of government. h. Major Contributors — Provide a list of the organization's major contributors and the amounts contributed (if applicable). i. Volunteer Services — Provide a brief description of volunteer involvement and a list of in -kind contributions (if applicable). Agreement to Use Funds for Exempt Purposes — Attach a statement of agreement to use the funds exclusively for charitable, scientific, educational, or other exempt public purposes, signed by an authorized officer of the organization or a public official authorized to sign on behalf of the governmental unit. 4. Signatures — The application must have an original signature of two officers who have been legally authorized to commit the organization, including the signature of the chief executive officer of the organization. S. Submit original and 2 copies. 6. Application Submittal —The deadline for responding to the current announcement application submittal is October 16, 2000, 4:00 p.m. Please note that incomplete or late applications will be ineligible if in the judgment of the Board missing information is essential to the review of the appli- cation and /or the late submission unfairly advantages the applicant over other applications sent on time. Electronic or faxed copies will not be accepted. Applications should be mailed to the following address: The Golden LEAF Foundation 4825 Creekstone Drive Suite 200 Durham, NC 27703 to financial audit requirements. Applicants must submit documentation of capability to meet those requirements. Documentation might include, for example, audited financial statements, IRS letter, etc. 14'.4"♦ E° A� ve u h appl avi.T oll bi, s The Foundation will engage a panel(s) of independent reviewers to evaluate applications for activities /projects submitted by eligible organizations for funding under this Announcement. Final decisions on all awards are the responsibility of the Board. For applications to be considered for funding under this Announcement, applicants must meet the eligibility criteria (see What Organizations are Eligible ?), and applications must be postmarked (or other proof of transmission by the deadline) by the application deadline. Applications will be evaluated in terms of the following criteria: I . The potential for the outcomes of the proposed project/ activity to contribute significantly to the long -term sustainable economic and social development of economically affected or tobacco- dependent regions in North Carolina. 2. The extent to which the proposed project /activity is directly related to one or more of the seven (7) activities listed previously (see What Activities May the Foundation Fund ?) The extent to which outcomes and lessons learned are transferable to regions outside the proposed project/ activity region. 4. The extent to which community participation is involved in project /activity planning and implementation. 5. The extent to which Foundation funds will be used to attract or supplement funds from other sources and to foster collaborations with other organizations, thereby leveraging these funds and increasing their impact. 6. The extent to which the applications contain all the required information and follow the proposal instructions (see Proposal Instruction Package). 7. The capacity of the organization to complete the proposed projectlactivity on time and within budget. 8. Previous related experience of the organization and the proposed staff. 7. Cost Accounting Requirements — Successful 9. The financial stability of the organization. applicants will be required to account for Foundation funds separately from all other funds and will be subject Program Announcement The Golden LEAF Foundation ^4 U I c; TRIANGLE REGIONAL PRINCIPLES PROJECT AGRICULTURAL WORKING GROUP WORKING LIST OF FARM AND FARMLAND PROTECTION STRATEGIES (Draft, 9/18/00) Goal To help maintain economically viable and environmentally sustainable farms and farming communities in the Research Triangle as the region grows. Key Objectives • Involve the agricultural community in the decisions that affect it • Improve the economics of farming • Help farmers take advantage of a growing region and the opportunities it provides for value - added agriculture • Educate the public on the economic value of agriculture and the net contributions it makes to the local economy and the local tax base • Educate the public on the resource value of agriculture and the benefits well- managed farmland provides in maintaining rural heritage and rural character, protecting air and water quality, maintaining forests and green space, and providing wildlife habitat • Educate the public on the cultural value of agriculture and the benefits it provides in supporting farm families and maintaining our rural lifestyle and rural heritage • Work to minimize the negative impacts of suburbanization on agriculture and help farmers preserve a critical mass of farmland • Help farmers address common fears regarding farmland protection including increased regulation and possible impacts on property rights such as loss of land value and loss of privacy • Help farmers and other rural landowners plan for retirement and understand the range of options for how to use their land • Help existing farmers continue farming and new farmers get started Involve the Agricultural Community in Local Decisions Encourage counties to establish an Agricultural Advisory Board that advises the County Commissioners and provides a formal channel for communicating between local government and the agricultural community • Help link the work of the Agricultural Advisory Board to local economic development activities by providing a slot on the county Economic Development Commission for a member of the Board • Charge the Board with the responsibility of conducting public hearings on projects that will impact farms enrolled in an Agricultural District, as authorized in the state statutes • Involve the Board in efforts to educate the public on agriculture Educate the Public on the Benefits of Agriculture 2. Conduct studies such as Cost of Community Services studies to help educate the public on the economic benefits of agriculture 3. Educate the public on the resource and cultural benefits of agriculture 4. Educate the public on what it's like to live near a farm 5. Educate the public on the economics of farming and the importance of land as an asset to farmers Improve the Economics of Farming Help farmers develop new markets 6. Encourage local institutions such as schools and hospitals to buy local produce 7. Support the development of farmers' markets that enable farmers to sell directly to the public Provide small business assistance to farmers 8. Help farmers write business plans for their farm Help farmers diversify their operations and develop value -added agricultural enterprises 9. Provide enterprise cost -share grants to farmers in return for a term easement that limits non- farm development of the land for a set period of time 10. Provide additional state cost -share funds for conservation Help ensure the availability of processing facilities 11. Support the appropriate siting of processing facilities as legitimate agricultural operations 12. Invest in mobile processing facilities Support research to develop new agricultural products 13. Explore alternative uses for tobacco and other row crops 14. Research agricultural waste disposal technologies such as composting 15. Facilitate the development of other home -based businesses that help farmers remain economically viable while protecting the rural landscape and rural way of life 16. Encourage counties to develop agricultural economic development programs by providing state funding assistance to do so 17. Educate traditional economic development staff about agricultural economic development Minimize the Negative Effects of Suburbanization and Preserve a Critical Mass of Farmland Enhance the Voluntary Agricultural Districts Program 18. Create tax advantages to provide more financial incentives for farmers to enroll in Voluntary Agricultural Districts 19. Help improve traffic safety for farm vehicles and other vehicles by allowing speed limits to be lowered in Voluntary Agricultural Districts (farm equivalent of a school zone) 20. Allow enrollment in the use value assessment program to pass uninterrupted from one farmer to another if the property is enrolled in a Voluntary Agricultural District Develop Local Farmland Protection Plans 21. Provide state funding assistance to help local governments develop farmland protection plans that describe the current state of agriculture in the community and outline the different measures that local government will take to help support continued farming Support Purchase of Development Rights Programs 22. Increase the amount of money in the N.C. Farmland Preservation Trust Fund 23. Help fund the Trust Fund program with a mitigation fee on each acre of farmland that is developed 24. Provide local governments with the option of establishing a new dedicated revenue source to finance a purchase of development rights program 25. Develop a model Installment Purchase Agreement program to help farmers maximize the financial benefits from a purchase of development rights program 2 26. Prepare studies to examine the long -term financial benefit to farmers of participating in a purchase of development rights program Authorize New Tools to Help Protect Farm Communities 27. Provide explicit state authorization for local governments to develop a transfer of development rights program where there is support for such a measure in the local agricultural community 28. Provide state authorization for local governments to establish agricultural protection standards in areas where there is support for such a measure in the local agricultural community Enhance the Use Value Program 29. Strengthen support for thq use value program through conducting Cost of Community Services studies and other means 30. Expand the use value program to include lands covered by a certified conservation plan 31. Enable counties to reduce the minimum parcel size needed to enroll in the use value program Help Farmers Address Common Concerns 32. Provide assistance to help farmers comply more easily with local, state, and federal regulations 33. Provide information about the components of different farm protection programs and the experiences that farmers have had with them Provide Financial Planning Assistance to Farmers 34. Provide financial planning assistance 35. Provide conservation design assistance Help Existing Farmers Continue Farming and New Farmers Get Started 36. Develop a land link program to connect new farmers with experienced ones 37. Help existing farmers find additional land to cultivate 3 u 14 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS FA A a September 27, 2000 U MICHIGAN 0% J, ` I Covering the poly :les, practices and initiatives that save farmland and open space Since 1990 a Deborah Bowers, Editor After tough legislative session, counties gear up for grants LANSING, MI — Many Michigan farmers and local officials are battling an undercurrent of disap- pointment and, for some, disgust, with state legislators and farm bureau leaders who failed to back a bill this spring to make development pay for farmland preservation. But over the summer, local farmland protection efforts have also stayed afloat, hoping to create local programs to take advantage of a bill that did pass, one that will restructure the state farmland easement program. Despite a tough fight over establishing use value assessment for agricultural land that left Michigan still without it (see FPR, June 2000), the legislature did pass House Bill 5780, creating the Agricultural Preservation Fund, P. A. 262. Beginning Oct. 1, funding and administration of the state farmland preservation program will be transferred from the Department of Natural Resources to the Department of Agriculture under P. A. 262. Purchasing easements just since 1997, the program is down to $5 million in easement funds - less than half of its starting money, with 6,000 to 8,000 acres preserved, according to director Rich Harlow. "We expect to have 12,000 acres by Dec. 30," he said. But not much new easement activity will likely occur while the program is busy revamping its policies and procedures. Following appointments to a seven - member Agricultural Preservation Fund Board, the new Department of Agriculture section will receive funding from the program's original source — cancellation of 10 -year farmland preservation agreements. A new funding source created by the Agricultural Recapture Tax Act, a bill separate from the use value assessment issue, will not provide funding to the program until tax benefits received under it accrue and are then relinquished by landowners for development purposes. It may be many years before this fund- ing source provides any significant amount of money for the program. Grants format, installment purchases The most significant change in the program is in the way money for easements will be allocated, and why localities are trying to get in shape: grants to localities will now be the format for easement purchase, although state - processed easements will still be an option. To qualify, localities must adopt a purchase of development rights program, with application please turn to page 2 Volume 10, Number 10 Sept. 2000 inside this issue ... Pa. makes IPA available statewide . ............................... p. 4 Federal funds are tied up; USDA holds forums ........... p. 5 Book review: Land ownership- count the ways .......... p: 6 Legislativebriefs ............................. ............................... p. 6,7 Farmland Preservation Report is publishad 10 times per year. Subscription rata of , 185 inc!udes index and hotline service. Editorial and Bowers circulation officas: 900 LaGrange Rd., Street, Maryland 21 154 - r � 2 -27 � � ^1^ P ubfishing, Inc, (`.1i) 09� -108 ISoi�1; 10 0 S�fo. 0) 2000 by Bowers Publishing, Inc. Reproduction in any form, or forwarding of this material electronically without permission from the publisher is prohibited. Page 2 farmland preservation report ;) 1 C September 2000 Michigan counties at work to qualify for farmland grants continued from page 1 procedure, a scoring system for selecting proper- ties, and a method for establishing Basement offers that can include appraisals, a bidding system, or a points -based appraisal, or formula, used now by many localities in Maryland for determining easement values. Localties must also have adopted or updated a comprehensive plan within the last 10 years before applying for a grant. Local funding will also be part of the grant equation. While no per- centage of local matching funds is required in the law, the state board will consider amount of local contribution in its selection criteria. Another significant change is the authorization of installment purchases of easements. Localities will need to show interest to the state in using installment purchase agreements (IPAs) to pay farmers, so that limited money can by stretched. Installment purchase agreements allow farm- ers to receive semi - annual payments of tax -free interest, and payment of principal in 20 to 30 years, enabling them to defer capital gains tax. Local government benefits by stretching limited dollars to purchase more easements more quickly. According to Daniel P. O'Connell of Evergreen Capital Advisors Inc., Michigan's $5 million in current funds could purchase $25 million worth of 30 -year U.S. Treasury obligations, increasing the amount of easement purchasing power immedi- ately by 400 percent. The state program, he said, could help locali- ties by setting up a standardized IPA option, something O'Connell has put together for the Pennsylvania Bureau of Farmland Protection to establish a plug -in finance arrangement all coun- ties can use (see accompanying story). "Pennsylvania is showing the way for a state PDR program to leverage funds. By encouraging its counties to use grants to buy zeros, Michigan could quadruple the number of acres put under easement in its next round," O'Connell said. Counties gearing up Several Michigan counties are gearing up to be first to apply for grants. Ken Mitchell, a farmer in Lenawee County in southern Michigan, said he is urging his county to update of its long -range plan. The county's plan- ning commission, he said, "has just been reaction- ary" in the past. "Hopefully we'll get them to go further." Most counties in Michigan are organized as a "general law" county, with a board of commis- sioners as the chief decision - making body. Most counties also have a planning commission, but effectiveness varies widely throughout the state. In Clinton County, lifelong farmer and retired engineer Russ Bauerly is optimistic about his county's chances "to be first to take advantage of the state program." Bauerly served on the Board of Commission- ers for time and continues to be active in civic affairs. Last year an 18- member committee was appointed to study farmland loss and it recom- mended a PDR program, a parks and recreation plan, an economic development initiative focusing on value -added opportunities, and an advocacy initiative, "to do a little lobbying" for farmland preservation in the state legislature. A subcommittee is working on getting a PDR program established, he said, and an effort is underway to get funding in the 2001 budget to hire someone to draft a greenspace plan. The PDR subcommittee "will put policies together and then go forward with a public information program." Bauerly is even optimistic about taking a millage proposal to voters in two years to fund PDR. "I'd like to see this thing through. I'd like to see Clinton County get in a position to do some- thing." In Lapeer County, near Flint, county adminis- trator John Biscoe said an effort is afoot to estab- lish a local program, but "it's not just farmland preservation in the traditional sense — we're in the early stages of trying to pull together a compre- please continue to next page 1 September 2000 farmland preservation report Michigan, continued from page 2 hensive approach," that will include economic development "like they're doing in Maryland." Louis Martus, a full -time dairy farmer in . Lapeer, has been hard at work shpwing township officials that farmland loss is a problem that can be addressed. As chairman of his county's farm bureau local affairs committee, Martus recently helped organize a bus tour of local farms for township officials. "I think a lot of people are aware of farmland preservation, but it takes officials to get things going." Keeping Lapeer County commissioners inter- ested and involved is a challenge, Martus said. "We've been trying to get the county [involved], but -it might be townships working with other townships that will matter." Martus has been successful in getting his neighbors to apply to sell. their development rights in the existing state program, with :seven. land- owners in a contiguous block. While ten times that number were interested in the program, "every- body is sitting back to see what will happen with the seven individuals" that have received offers from the state program. Martus is one of the applicants. Martus shares with others a lingering sense of despair when he thinks about the disappoint- ments of the past legislative session, when Gov. John Engler started out with a solid, promising proposal to tax farmland at its current use value rather than its development value. The plan included a recapture penalty when land is taken out of agricultural use, with penalty funds to be used for farmland preservation. Then wranglings began over what level of penalty to set. Develop- ment interests bent the ears of legislators and succeeded in eliminating any significant recapture fee that could have been used to provide a mean- ingful level of funding for the program. "Rogue legislature" According to Keith Schneider, project director and founding executive director of the Michigan Land Use Institute, Gov. Engler dropped the ball Page 3 and was less than genuine in his intentions for farmland preservation. "The governor had a good proposal, but he didn't really mean it — which is not unusual for him on these issues." According to Schneider, and others who were involved in the legislative session, the governor never weighed in when ranking Sen. George McManus of Traverse City and Jack Laurie, president of the Michigan Farm Bureau hosted closed -door sessions with the real estate industry that gutted the bill and created "a rogue legisla- ture." That set off mass confusion about a package of bills that were supposed to be about farmland preservation, and instead looked more like a bed of roses for developers. The result was a mess that couldn't be straightened out before session's end. "There was a significant recapture fee that would have brought $20 to $30 million a year," for farmland preservation,.Schneider said. Instead, . McManus' version would have created "a land banking system [for developers] at taxpayers' expense." Use value assessment for farmland has been on Gov. Engler's list of things to do since 1994 when he appointed a task force to strengthen the state's $37 billion ag industry. Last February, speaking before 400 county representatives of the Michigan Farm Bureau, he promised to push the tax break through the legislature and onto the fall ballot. "Something communities can do" David Skjaerlund, director of the Rural Devel- opment Council of Michigan, is working through the maze of where to go from here. Skjaerlund said his part will be to continue grassroots work and help localities get ready to apply for grants from the Agricultural Preserva- tion Fund. Part of Skjaerlund's strategy is leading a semi - annual bus tour to Maryland, Pennsylvania and New Jersey counties to hear about farmland please turn to page 4 Page 4 farmland preservation report Grassroots efforts, UFP tours, to help spur counties to go after Michigan grants continued from page 3 preservation programs, which he is conducting this month for the fifth time since 198 with Scott Everett of the American Farmland Trust. After this "Ultimate Farmland Preservation (UFP) Tour," about 600 Michigan farmers and public officials will be alumni of the tours. With that many people getting the scoop on how farmland preservation can be done, something is bound to take hold, at least at the local level, Skjaerlund said. Localities need to "develop a vision and form leadership. The state fund will be the carrot. For the first time, we've got something that communi- ties can do." Contact: Keith Schneider, 616 882 -4723; Dave Skjaerlund, 517 373 -4550; Rich Harlow, 517 373- 3328. INSTALLMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENTS Pennsylvania counties to boost preserved acres by 400 percent using IPAs WEST CHESTER PA — Pennsylvania counties could soon boost the number of farmland acres they preserve each year by 400 percent by plug- ging in to a finance arrangement offered by the state Bureau of Farmland Protection. Under the program, Pennsylvania counties can begin paying farmers for development rights in installments, with farmers receiving tax -free interest payments over 20 or 30 years and defer- ring capital gains tax until a balloon payment of the principal in the last year. Counties will sub- stantially decrease up -front costs of easements, thereby keeping more money for additional l September 2000 easement purchases. The method is financed by investments in U.S. Treasury obligations. Farmland protection chief Ray Pickering said the program put together by Evergreen Capital Advisors Inc. of Princeton, N.J., has gotten favor- able reviews from county commissioners. "Overall, it's been quite well received by county officials," Pickering said. Pickering and finance consultant Daniel P. O'Connell, have been taking the finance plan on the road, visiting county officials to show how the method works. Chester County Commissioners had plenty of questions for O'Connell at one such session Sept. 7. The commissioners had some concern about the cost of using installment purchase agreements (IPAs) — up to $20,000 per easement, but were far more pleased with how the arrangement will allow them to keep substantially larger sums available for additional easements. "It makes a lot of sense for this county at this point in time — the time is exactly right," said County Commissioner Colin Hanna who said the county program needed a boost to compete with persistent development pressure. Commissioner Andy Dinniman agreed, and added that he envisioned IPA's giving the county the ability to target specific communities for increased easement activity. "We know there will be intense pressure on the Route 100 corridor," he said of a highway that connects West Chester with a divided - highway interchange. O'Connell said that counties using state grant funds to purchase U.S. Treasury obligations will quadruple their immediate spending power, for example, $10 million invested will provide $50 million in IPAs, an increase of 400 percent. A number of counties in Maryland and New Jersey are using IPAs, as well as the City of Vir- ginia Beach. O'Connell first devised the program for Howard County, Md., in 1989. The innovation allowed Howard County, a fast - growing suburb of both Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, to attract more easement sellers, and quickly received continue to page 5 i '-.September 2WO ' Page 5 farmland preservation report national awards for excellence and innovation in financial management. Until the finance program was arranged, Pennsylvania counties were only able to offer five - year installment plans for farmers seeking to defer capital gains tax, and, counties had to encumber principal and interest at closini. Under the new program, state grants can be invested in U.S. Treasury obligations, called zeros, that mature at the right time and in amounts that cover the principal of the IPA. Semi - annual inter- est is then paid from county general revenues, but arrangements can also be made to cover both principal and interest on the IPA. Far greater savings are realized, however, from investing only to pay the principal, O'Connell said. O'Connell told his audience of about 15, including representatives from Montgomery County, that Pickering's office has offered to pay for the first easement deal as an incentive for counties to use IPAs. "The idea was to lure you into this program by making it cheap and easy to do," he said. "We don't want to just get you to the closing table, we want to help you with the process afterwards." Pickering said educating elected officials about the finance plan is only half of the job. "We'll come back to meet with farmers next month." Contact: Ray Pickering, (717) 783 -3167; Pat O'Connell, (609) 279 -0068. Federal funds tied up, but USDA hosts farmland protection listening forums WASHINGTON, D.C. — Agriculture. officials say they don't know when $10 million in funding for the Farmland Protection Program will be an- nounced and a request for proposals (RFP) pub- lished, but according to Rich Pazdalski, acting director of the budget division in the Farm Service Agency, the funds cannot be dispersed until the new fiscal year, beginning Oct. 1. An RFP may not come before November, he said. The Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 contained a provision that transferred $10 million from the budget of the Commodity Credit Corpo- ration, but the bill also states the money "shall obligate expenditure of funds only during FY 2001;' Pazdalski said. Another problem with the appropriation was that no "technical assistance language" was _included in the legislation, something Lloyd Wright, a consultant to the Farmland Protection Program, said makes the program technically unable to use the funds. "Usually, technical assistance funds are stated as a percentage of the allocation," he said. "In some cases you can't subsidize one program from another without administrative costs." Since last June when the act was passed, farmland preservation administrators have waited for an RFP to arrive, with information that it would come by the end of July. Meanwhile, staff additions at the Farmland Protection and Urban Community Assistance branch of the Natural Resource Conservation Service will strengthen its ability to administer the Farmland Protection Program and other programs that assist communities in developing farmland protection data, according to Lloyd Wright. A new director for the Farmland Protection Program will be announced soon, he said. Wright, formerly team leader of the section, was hired to help reorganize it, and to coordinate a series of "listening forums" across the country designed to hear citizens' views on how agricul- ture in urbanizing regions can best be assisted. Farmland protection forums At one such forum in Morristown, N.J., speak- ers consistently told a listeners panel that included Agriculture Under Secretary Jim Lyons, that federal funds for farmland preservation should be increased. Liz Thompson of the New Jersey Farm Bureau said the economic and social benefits of farms are well known, and that in urbanizing areas "farms subsidize residential development ... we need to increase funding for PDR. The federal govern- please turn to page 6 Page b farmland preservation report Under Secretary Lyons: New .Jersey is "ground zero" in urban ag debate continued from page 5 ment's contribution has not been so substantial." Hank Stebbins of Scenic Hudson #Inc. explained to the panel that purchase of development rights should be seen by the federal govern- ment as the only realistic land protection method in urban regions. "There is no other alternative in suburbanizing areas," because of allowed densities and availability of land, he said. Under Secretary Jim Lyons, a native of Bergen County, told the 100 or so participants that the Morristown forum was "one of the best forums we've held —[New Jersey] is clearly ground zero in the debate of agriculture and forestry," surviving in an urbanizing region, he said. "In my mind there's something wrong when we're spending $32 billion [in commodity supports] to keep farmers farming, and not to keep farming for the long run," Lyons said. In an interview after the forum, Under Secretary Lyons said a whole host of issues that affect farmland loss were addressed in the forums, including how federal laws such as the mortgage tax deduc- tion affect the housing market and generate sprawl. A report about the forums may be made available. Contact Lloyd Wright or Joan Conanor at 202 720 -8767. Book Review Landownership somewhere between apltaOlsm and socialism A review of Property and Values: Alternatives to Public and Private Ownership. Charles Geisler and Gail Daneker, eds., Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2000, $35., 300 pages. BY TOM DANIELS Contributing Editor It is easy to think of land as either private property or property held in the public realm by some level of government. But as several authors in Property and Values persuasively demonstrate, there is a third type of property ownership with publicly -held interests in private land or privately -held interests in public land. Moreover, this third type of please continue to next page U September 2000 legislative and program briefs ... In Connecticut ... The Working Lands Alliance, successful last spring in getting a reluctant bond commission to release $7 million in farmland protection funds over 18 months, has succeeded in getting Gov. John Rowland to support the program. Last winter, Mark Winne, director of the Alliance, said Gov. Rowland didn't care about farmland, and was holding up funds that were allo- cated to it. That has changed, Winne says. "The governor has actually expressed personal interest in public," Winne said. "We're sensing there will be some kind of initiative over the next several months." Meanwhile, the first funds from the $7 million will be seen in October. In New York... New York localities have requested $63 million in state grants for a total of $84.5 million in preservation projects. But the program will have only $5.5 to $15.5 million to spend, with only $5.5 committed to date. Issues looming large for New York are funding and administration of the program. The state Clean Air/ Clean Water Bond Act runs out this year, making future funding levels uncertain, and there is still no dedicated staff for the program, which has spent $28 million since 1996. In Maryland ... Reorganization at DNR has put the Rural Legacy Program on a par with Program Open Space, with both programs on their own turf, ad- ministratively and budget -wise, "with no impact on the existing level of funds," said DNR Assistant Secretary Mike Nelson. Nelson, who was serving as a regional director for DNR, now oversees Rural Legacy, POS and two other grants -based programs. Chip Price has succeeded Grant Dehart as director of POS. Dehart has become Director of September 2000 Policy for DNR, coordinating federal and state program policy. Price said POS emphasis will be on improving manage- ment of land acquisition. Conservation easement veteran Pam Bush now directs the Rural Legacy Program, with three administrators r assisting grant recipients. "The focus is+ now on production, on getting acres protected," Bush said. "We're all geared up to get sponsor projects to the Board of Public Works." The program, formerly under POS, has been beset with slow activity. A new Rural Legacy policy to reallocate funds that .sponsors have been unable to spend from the pro- gram's first year in 1998 is being announced. Requests for reallocated funds would be due this fall, Bush said, for grant agreements that will expire in January. However, "our first priority is to get the funds spent by the people they were given to." The reorganization has been "very well received," Nelson said. "It will significantly raise [the programs'] profile and give them the visibility they de- serve." Anne Arundel County is settling on its first installment purchase agreements (IPAs) this month. It is the fourth Maryland county to use IPA. A task force charged to study the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation's administration of the farmland preservation program has not yet met; it is to report to the governor in December. In Delaware ... The Delaware program, with uncertain future funds, has a certain big advantage in getting value for its dollars — landowners are selling easements at an average of 53 percent below appraised value. In Kent County, making up the middle of the state, easement purchases in a desig- nated rural area run 64.8 percent below their appraised value. Here, per -acre values range from about $625 to $800, according to administrator Stewart McKenzie. The program currently has 53,783 under permanent easement. Page 7 farmland preservation report continued from page 6 ownership is likely to grow in the future, both to protect landscapes and to provide affordable housing. Readers of FPR familiar with the public purchase of develop- ment rights will recognize that a private landowner voluntarily sells an interest in private real estate to a state or local government. Is the property then still private property? Yes, but there are restric- tions to the property that are monitored and enforced by govern- ment agencies for the benefit of the public -at- large. On the other hand, grazing rights to public lands in the west transfer with a privately -owned ranch; they cannot be purchased directly from the federal government. Property and Values is a timely and thought - provoking book. It is a welcome antidote to the property rights absolutists and the "it's my land, I can do what I want with it" crowd. Geisler and Daneker are to be commended for compiling a volume of 13 essays that express the social goals and functions of property, not just property as investment or property as commodity. The book has a decidely academic tone, but there are some good practical examples of the third type of ownership, such as the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board (a state agency that splits its money between low- income housing and farmland preser- vation), the community land trust movement with its goal of creat- ing forever affordable housing, and state trust lands in the west that are managed for income as well as public benefit. Margaret Grossman's essay on leasing farmland emphasizes the increase in absentee landlords and the separation of farm owner- ship from control. Ford Runge et al. note that "in agriculture, giv- ings far exceed takings." That is, government farm programs have benefitted farmers far more than zoning restrictions have hurt them. A central theme of the book is that property ownership concepts change over time. For instance, the public purchase of development rights to farmland is barely more than 25 years old. Land trust numbers have tripled in the last 20 years. These are bold experi- ments. While government regulations will continue to affect property and property values, the sharing of ownership interests will con- tinue to be a popular way to protect natural areas, working farm- land, and even some of the built environment. Tom Daniels is a contributing editor of Farmland Preservation Report and Professor of Planning at SUNY- Albany. His latest book is When. City and Country Collide: Managing Growth in the Metropoli- tan Fringe (Island Press, 1999). Page 8 'farmland preservation report pr®f9ssional resources ... Job Postings i Director of Community Planning, Eastern Shore Land Conservancy, Queenstown Md. Experienced professional to manage new regional land use initiative. Facilitate a regional land use vision plan, establish ESLC as a regional planning forum through newsletter, workshops and other means. Work with local governments to develop public preservation funding mecha- nisms. Candidates should have planning, law or related conservation experi- ence, a history of strong teamwork and a commitment to rural landscapes, small towns and clean rivers. Salary commensurate with experience. For more information on ESLC, fax Nina White at 410 827 -9039 or em_ ail eslcnina @usa.net. Fax or email resume by Sept. 20. Conferences & Workshops Oct. 2, Crownsville, MD: Maryland Land Trust Alliance workshop Putting Land Trusts on the Map - GIS Technologies and Options in Maryland. Comprehensive overview as well as nuts and bolts of developing a GIS system. Contact Nick Williams at (410) 514 -7907. Oct. 101 11, Erie, PA: Fall Workshop of the Pennsylvania Farmland Preser- vation Association. Contact Ellen Dayhoff, at 717 337 -5859. Oct. 11 - 13, Atlantic City, NJ: BROWNFIELDS 2000 - Research and Regionalism: Revitalizing the American Community, sponsored by The Engineers' Society of Western Pennsylvania , EPA, AFT and others, this conference is billed as the largest and most comprehensive brownfields conference to date. Last year, over 2300 people attended the conference in Dallas. For those involved in brownfields assessment, cleanup, and redevel- opment, from nonprofits to federal officials. Call Amy Lesko at 412-261 - 0710x32 or see brownfields2000.org. Oct. 19 - 22, Portland, OR: National Land Trust Rally 2000. More than 100 workshops on legal issues, land transactions, easements, stewardship, fundraising, organizational development, ag preservation, etc. Nation's biggest and best land conservation conference. See Ita.org or call 202 638- 4725. Dec. 4 -6, Atlanta, GA: Partners for Smart Growth Conference- Engaging the Private Sector, sponsored by the Urban Land Institute. Keynote speakers, Md. Gov. Parris Glendening, Ambassador Andrew Young. Call 800 -321 -5011 or see www.uli.org. March 1 - 3, 2001, Park City, LIT: 2001 National Green Space Design Conference: Redefining the Legacy of Open Space, sponsored by the Green Space Design organization. Learn practical methods of open space preserva- tion from industry leaders. Keynote speakers: Randall Arendt, president, Greener Prospects; Will Rogers, president, Trust for Public Land; Ed McMa- September 2000 hon, president, The Conservation Fund, and others. Call 1- 877 -GSD- PLAN or see www.greenspacedesign.com. Reports National Main Street Trends Survey National Trust for Historic Preservation The National Trust surveyed 1,500 businesses in 16 downtown com- mercial districts nationwide and found that internet usage is having a signficant positive impact on retail sales. For a copy of the survey, call 202 588 -6324. L /y Filandliser, Srnardar� Tirad of dead ends on the web? Need a quick answer to help fo mulate policy or lead a discus - sion? Call us at (410) 692 -2706 or email lbs. We'ra 'faster, friendlies' and smai ter than the web! - Phone - (410) 692 -2708 -- Fax (410) 692 -9741 Email Bowerspub@a®l.c ®m -- Address Bowers Publishing Inc. 900 LaGrange Rd. Street MD 21154 L� d� a cAIIuzE x1f �Rryresenfaliffro �5laxle Iegizlaltffr 39uilbing ga etg4 27601. logs REPRESENTATIVE VERLA C. INSKO i i 24TH DISTRICT - CHATHAM AND ORANGE OFFICE ADDRESS: 1323 LEGISLATIVE BUILDING RALEIGH, NC 27601 -1095 TELEPHONE: (919) 733 -5775 (919) 733 -2599 FAX E-MAIL: VERLAI @MS.NCGA.STATE.NC.US HOME ADDRESS: 610 SORRY ROAD CHAPEL HILL, NC 27514 August 15, 2000 Dear Friends, COMMITTEES: AGING — CHAIR EDUCATION /UNIVERSITIES SUBCOMMITTEE — CHAIR HEALTH — VICE-CHAIR STATE PERSONNEL — VICE-CHAIR APPROPRIATIONS /EDUCATION SUBCOMMITTEE ELECTION LAW & CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM JUDICIARY I MENTAL HEALTH When the General Assembly convened in May for the short session, legislators had three primary goals— approve a higher education bond issue, adopt a budget before July 1 and finish the session by mid -July. I'm happy to say we accomplished all three goals. We approved a $3.1 billion bond package for higher education in the first two weeks of the session. On June 30, we passed a $14 billion budget the first time in 20 years that legislators passed a budget on time two years in a row. And we adjourned on July 14th. Budget Highlights. The budget picture was not at all bright as we started the session. We faced a $450 million shortfall, and the Governor's proposed budget included no money for new construction, repairs of state buildings or the "rainy day" fund. In addition, he proposed borrcwin g $240 million to pay the intangibles settlement. Legislators were unhappy. So, we went to work and found money by tapping excess reserves in several trust funds and by shifting the budget year for some state employee paychecks. As a result, we were able to pass a $14 billion budget that gives teachers a 6.5% pay raise and all other state employees a 4.2% raise and a $500 bonus. It also refunds $240 million in intangibles taxes, provides $120 million to begin rebuilding the state's "rainy day" fund, and allocates $30 million to the Clean Water Trust Fund and $100 million for repair and renovation of state buildings. ®1r I A$1 We passed and I voted for some important non - budgetary items that are listed below. Those for which I was the sponsor or co- sponsor are shown in parentheses. Health Sanitation Requirements /Food Establishments (HB 1506 — Co- sponsor) Lawmakers approved a bill that requires boarding houses to meet kitchen sanitation requirements if they provide services to 13 or more senior citizens or disabled people. Mental Health System keform (HB 1519 — Primary Sponsor) The House and Senate approved a bill authorizing legislators to begin planning changes to the state's mental health system. The bill creates a legislative oversight committee charged to make initial recommendations to the 2001 session of the General Assembly. Restraints in Facilities (HB 1520 — Primary Sponsor) Mental health institutions, child residential facilities and adult care homes must track the use of restraints and seclusion and report on deaths occurring within seven days of restraint or seclusion. Facilities must also report to DHHS all deaths that occur due to violence, accident, suicide or homicide. Respiratory Care/ Prompt Pay by HMOs (HB 1340) The bill establishes a Respiratory Care Board to oversee respiratory care practices in North Carolina and to issue respiratory care licenses. The bill also requires health insurers to make prompt payment of medical claims. Insurers have 3 0 days after receiving a claim to pay in full, deny the claim or send notice that the claim is inaccurate or incomplete. Juvenile Justice Department of Juvenile Justice (HB 1804 — Co- Sponsor) The House and Senate approved a bill that establishes a Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Currently the Office of Juvenile Justice operates out of the Office of the Governor. Clarify Juvenile Procedures (HB 1609 — Co- sponsor) This bill clarifies procedures for terminating parental rights in juvenile abuse, neglect or dependency hearings. The bill also authorizes a study commission to look into expunging information from the child abuse registry when the alleged abuse is not proven. Tobacco Settlement (HB 1431) The House and Senate compromised on a bill allocating 50% of the money from the state's $4.6 billion share of the national tobacco settlement to two trust funds. A trust fiend for farmers and tobacco workers will receive half of the funds; the other half will go to a health care trust fund. The health care trust fiend must set aside half the money it receives from 2001 to 2005 to establish an endowment. Seven of the 18 members of the farmers and tobacco workers trust fund must be farmers. ►N r ij 11 Environment Million Acres Open Space Goal (SB 1328 — Co- sponsor of House Bill) We approved Gov. Jim Hunt's Million Acre Initiative confirming the state's commitment to preserving one million acres of open space through public and private efforts. The bill provided no money to facilitate this goal. Preserve Farmland /Protect Small Family Farms (HB 1132 — Primary Sponsor) Sets up an incentive program for counties to inventory their farmland and develop a plan to preserve farms in colldboration with landowners. Billboard Moratorium (SB 1275 — Co- sponsor of House Bill) The General Assembly voted to extend a moratorium on new billboards on I -40 east of the Alamance /Orange county line. The one -year moratorium gives lawmakers time to solicit input on regulation of billboards. Some legislators said the moratorium is a prelude to an outright ban on the signs. Emissions Inspections Regulations (HB 1638) This bill established equipment and training requirements for emissions inspections that vary according to the year of the vehicle being tested. Miscellaneous Telephone Solicitation (HB 1493 — Co- sponsor) This new law bans telemarketers from calling between 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. Telemarketers must identify themselves, their employers and a number which consumers can call to complain. Also telemarketers cannot block their numbers from caller ID units. Telephone companies must inform customers how to keep telephone solicitors from calling. Video Poker (SB 1542) The House and Senate approved strict regulations to limit the number of video poker machines in North Carolina and set penalties for people found violating those regulations. Machines that were listed for property taxes in January 2000 and legally operating on June 305 2000 are the only machines still allowed in the state. No more than three machines may be in any location, and those machines must be in plain view. Toll Roads (HB 1630) In a major policy shift, this bill allows developers to fund and build one private toll road in North Carolina. The Department of Transportation can use its eminent domain powers to grant right -of -way to the developer only as a last resort and to control access to the construction project. Interlock/ Open Container Changes (HB 1499) This bill put a ban on open wine and beer containers in the passenger areas of cars. It also requires interlock ignition devices on the vehicles of some repeat drunk drivers. Drivers Points/ No Child Restraints (SB 1347) Drivers who fail to buckle -up children will get two points on their driver's licenses. The measure applies to children under the age of 16 sitting anywhere in a vehicle. Lobbyist Rules/ One Stop Voting (SB 767 — Co-sponsor of House Bill) Lawmakers banned lobbyists from giving campaign contributions during session to campaign treasurers or others acting as agents for candidates. 4' The bill also allows loca?boards of election to petition the state Board of Elections to set up one -stop voting locations if the local board is unable to set the foi cations unanimously. The provision will reduce lines on Election Day by increasing the number of locations where voters can cast absentee ballots. Conclusion: We all came away with some disappointments, of course. I didn't like increasing tuition . for university students or cutting Medicaid funding by $30 million. And, we failed to pass bills that would create a state earned income tax credit, allow patients to sue their HMOs for making bad medical decisions and require HMOs to set up external review panels for denied treatments. You can be sure, these bills and many others will be re- introduced in January when we convene for the 2001 session. Meanwhile, we are all on the ballot in the November 7 election. Remember, this year, . you can vote "no- excuse, one - stop" three weeks before the election (October 16 — November 3) at the local Board of Elections office or other one stop voting sites in your county. Thank you for being the active, involved constituents that you are and for making my work so rewarding. Sincerely, Representative Verla Insko House District 24 :leers plant idea for future http: / /www.charlotte.com/ observer / local /catawba/docs /farmland0903.htm li 2 charlotte.com - That's Racin' - Yellow Pages - Just Go - Free E -Mail - Community Local Guide - Health - CareerPath - Real Estate - cars.com - Classifieds LQXUS r Alp V8r. Pruor A- section Nation /World Opinion Siers cartoon Observer Forum Business News Business Update Business Monday Click Technology Industry news Stock Quotes Mortgage Rates Motley Fool Tax value search Todav's Observer Message Boards That's Racin' Latest news Panthers /NFL Hornets /NBA Sting /WNBA' Outdoors Golf The r10 to seer Published Sunday, September 3, 2000 E -mail this story to a friend Farmers plant idea for future Caldwell considers plan to preserve land By ERICA BESHEARS LENOIR -- Being a farmer has never been easy. But it gets harder when the area around the farm starts filling up with homes on half -acre tracts. Just ask John Cassavaugh, a beef cattle farmer who lives between Baton and Gamewell. He used to have six neighbors along the perimeter of his 200 acres. Now he has 26. "It gets to where if you spread manure you get complaints, if you have honey bees you get complaints," he said. "That kind of situation." As growth continues, the farmer, who is only doing what he's done for years, becomes the community nuisance, Cassavaugh said. And when it comes to angering the neighbors or selling the farm to a developer, selling is a more attractive option. So Cassavaugh is working on a project that would make it easier for farmers in Caldwell County to keep farming, which would also preserve some of the county's treasured open space. "Good farmland should not be blacktop," Cassavaugh said. The farmland preservation program would create agricultural districts across the county and a committee to oversee them, said Seth Nagy, agricultural extension agent for the county cooperative extension service, which is organizing the effort in Caldwell County. The farmers would join the districts voluntarily, and they could withdraw from them. There would be signs posted warning people that they've entered an Living agricultural zone, and anyone who bought or built a house in the Health district would be notified the home is in a farming district. Then Food people would have fewer grounds to complain about smellim4 manure .,f 'A 9/6/2000 1:07 PM Farmers plant idea for future http : / /www. charlotte. com/ observer / local /catawba/docs /farmland0903.htm Famil or getting stuck behind a tractor on their way to work. Faith Gardening Home plus, if the state wants to build a road through a farm or the Entertainment government wants to condemn and purchase farmland for a school, it Just Go - must go through the farmland preservation committee first. Arts Book reviews "The general idea is to give the farmer a bigger voice in proceedings Travel - that affect him directly," Cassavaugh said. RESOURCES Story search Farmers haven't had much of a voice in government because they are a Site index minority. But they own what is becoming the county's most valued City Guide Contact us property open space - and their land will be called upon to produce Feedback food for more and more people in future years, Cassavaugh said. charlotte.com The Caldwell County commissioners have authorized the creation of a ft 26 ef r steering committee. The committee, which will have representatives from different the types of farmers in Caldwell County, land "'° development and farm credit, will begin meeting this month to draft i 'CREDIT � t� :k - FILL C-11-IT AN the program' s bylaws. . The program won't preserve the farms forever, but it will encourage farmers to stay in the business, Cassavaugh said. S, '. 1 !! 5 Farmland and open space preservation is a hot issue across the region. 3�, Y� 8 Ten N.C. counties have similar programs to the one Caldwell is Y considering, and some counties have launched more aggressive campaigns. In York County, S.C., a county - funded group called York County Forever is dedicated to preserving one acre of open space for every acre that becomes a strip mall or parking lot. But the project has become somewhat controversial. The group wants to focus on purchasing development rights or easements from farmers. A farmer who sells development rights still owns the land but can't sell it to a developer. The York County Council has balked at the idea of spending tax money on land it wouldn't own. An environmental group in Cleveland County has had a couple of community forums to educate farmers on selling development rights, said Bill McCarter, county planning director. "Our older adults who were large landowners are getting to the point where they're looking at what their options are for estate planning," he said. "Many are not aware of how to go about preserving the farm and being able to obtain the same revenue." While John Thuss, chairman of the Caldwell County commissioners, said the county would pursue the idea of purchasing development rights, Nagy was quick to point out that this preservation project is not about buying easements. 1) 11 9/6/2000 1 :07 PM -mers plant idea for future http: / /www.charlotte.com/ observer /local/catawba /docs /farmland0903.htm The farmers in the area aren't that interested, because they don't know what the future holds, he said. "The problem with easements is in most cases they're permanent," Cassavaugh said. "Farmers are an independent group of people." Staff writer Jennifer Talhelm contributed to this article. t Send this story to a friend Just enter your email address and the address of the recipient"'''` From: To: Send NEWS FEATURES SERVICES Front page I' IH Living Go That's Racin' I' I Go of 3 9/6/2000 1:07 PM County may create agricultural districts Help I Search l 1r . If: tihf"y i�s n •7 n s X11 u F�4ifin j'r;.Sfi tC. �Ai ri-.•. Lk•7 5c v����?I G 6(�127111 '_9r � -� -slr 1 `lip :nii tix''a _r http://www.news-record.com/news/local/fan-nsl7rk.htm NEB - R(ECOM.CoM Piedmont Triad, North Carolina SEARCH; fiJlt� w_ M f s e. w More Local /State News Stories Local/State News Countypay create agricultural districts 8 -17 -00 By BEN FELLER, Staff Writer News & Record Northeast Guilford County has long been known as a home of wheat, corn and tobacco. Now farmers are growing concerned that their area has become the home of, well, too many homes. Many farmers find themselves surrounded by neighbors who moved to the country for peace and never counted on the sounds and smells that come with living near agriculture. The same urban sprawlers who love picturesque settings are far less enamored about the odor of manure. To keep tempers from flaring and lawsuits from starting, Guilford County leaders are considering a buyer- beware law to protect both farmers and developers of ruralland. The law would create agricultural districts that would serve as a red flag for home buyers, alerting them that the county's next subdivision could be within a whiff of a cattle farm. The move fits a bigger picture in North Carolina and around the country, as politicians try to manage growth without hurting their tax base. The proposed law is also timely in two other ways: It meshes with efforts by the county and the state to preserve open spaces, and it comes as developers are planning the huge Reedy Fork mixed -use r. Shop for low trirsrtgaga riates @ Click Here Regional News: Greensboro High Point Rockingham Randolph Fed Ex in the Triad Get the latest news on FedEx's proposal to build a regional shipping hub in Guilford County. Election 2000 Read about all the candidates so you can make an informed decision on election day. Redistrictina Our Schools An In -Depth look at the redistricting process in Guilford County. Triad 2000 A multimedia exploration of the Triad's past, present, and future. R/21/2000 8:31 AM runty may create agricultural districts http: / /www. news - record .com /news /local/farmsl7rk.htm 3 development in northeast Guilford. "People think they like what the countryside has to offer," said Elaine Fryar, president of the Guilford County Farm Bureau. "They think farming is very romantic, so they move out to the country. And when they get there, they find out farming is not so romantic. We want people to know that when they move out to a farming area, you get what comes with farming." What comes with farming may be the dust of a plow, the late -night noise of irrigation pumps or the slow- moving pace of a tractor on a busy two -lane road. Fryar, who lives on a northeast Guilford farm with her husband, Gerald, says her family has great neighbors. What worries her, she said, is the next person who- moves in might not be so cheery about being close to a farm. That's where the proposed law comes in. Under the plan, farmers must own land that meets certain criteria, such as the size and tax - status of the property. If so, they could turn their land into an agricultural district if they agree not to develop most of the property for at least 10 years. In exchange, they could benefit in at least three ways: The county would mark the districts on county maps and display those maps in public places. The county may also put road signs marking the districts. That way, farmers will have more confidence that incoming neighbors have been alerted to the presence of active farms. The county would form an agricultural advisory board, giving farmers a greater say about issues affecting farmland preservation and the rural economy. The county may waive water and sewer , _r e 8/23/2000 8:31 AM County may create agricultural districts fees for farmers in agricultural districts until those farmers connect to public lines. Those fees could amount to tens of thousands of dollars. County staff members are reviewing this part of the proposal. Now, the county requires homeowners in some cases to pay public water and sewer fees even if those owners don't want those services. t The commissioners have already approved a policy for rural northeast Guilford that requires land records to highlight properties that are next to active farms. The proposed law would be broader in scope, covering the whole county and focusing on farm preservation. At least 14 North Carolina counties -- including urban centers such as Durham, Forsyth and Wake -- have some type of farmland preservation program. Guilford County's plan has been at least three years in the making, led by Commissioner Phyllis Gibbs and Farm Bureau members such as Elaine Fryar. "I know what the farmers are up against," said Gibbs, who grew up on a tobacco farm and has represented a largely rural southern district for four years. "As hard as it is on them today, they don't need any extra aggravation." The commissioners will hold a hearing on the ag- district law Sept. 7. They will likely vote on it the same night. "I don't think this is a big problem now, but it's becoming a problem," said Bob Landreth, chairman of the commissioners and a cattle farmer. "People say, 'We don't want to smell a hog farm, we don't want to smell a chicken house, we don't want the noise or the dust that goes with farming.' This is about protection for them and the farmer, too." http: / /www .news- record.com/news /local /farms 17rlc.htm 0 3 J. I of 1 8/23/2000 8:31 AM unty may create agricultural districts http: / /www. news - record .com /news /local/farms17rlc.htm 0 3 Landreth's only concern is making sure that farmers are not bound to keep their land in agriculture if their plans change. As written, the proposed law is clear: farmers can withdraw from the program at any time. There's no clear downside for the county, either, said Julian Philpott, general counsel for the N.C. Farm Bureau F6deration. The law does not preclude the county from condemning land in an agricultural district for a public purpose, he said. The county would also have more access to farmland preservation trust funds if it forms such a program, Philpott said. Agricultural districts can also offer a side benefit, he said -- creating more awareness about farmers and their role in the community. "It's a recognition program," Philpott said. "Some of the last open space that you've got is farmland, and it's an important part of preserving our heritage." It's also about preserving peace of mind, Elaine Fryar said. Her husband is a fourth- generation farmer who can remember when the stretch from McLeansville Road to U.S. 29 -- more than two miles -- had only a handful of houses. Now that portion of Hicone Road is lined with homes and a shopping plaza. The Fryars own roughly 250 acres and farm land on both sides of McLeansville. They grow turf grass, along with corn and wheat. Elaine Fryar says the signs of urban sprawl are everywhere -- the houses along her property line, the kids who sneak in to fish their pond, the drivers who dangerously pass tractors on the road. "A farmer is an endangered species," she said. "That's all we're doing, trying of 5 8/23/2000 8:31 AM County may create agricultural districts http: / /www.news- record.com/news /local /farms 17rk.htm to protect an endangered species." Return to the Top Contact Us I Web Design &Advertising Info I The Depot Copyright © 2000 News & Record U 3 +� 5 of 5 8/23/2000 8:31 AM — -- — --- , JL-P FJ B, V, li lYl , IN 'J 3, 1 1'V ft Farming Family Giving Up .T©bacco Business uauwq is aNGrnwng ule uay In me news Witn JOSn. The Oakleys intend t0 give. up 8ei54u5 tbV9Wp.fam3ih- ftei. -s_ye r: _ :. n. e a. t was barely 7 a.m., but Danny ��,,,, Oakley had been awake for two ho u--s. Walking along a row of bright -green tobacco plants, he turned around to pick up two leaves that had fallen on the ground. Story "I'm keeping my CLAUDIA AssIs change," the 48- year -old Oakley t. said, carefullyplac- Photography ingtheleavesback tz': ELLEN OZIER into a cart.' That's k ,. the bark." like leaving money in It was already 76 degrees, and the air was heavy with moisture. The Oakley family of Per- son County had started another workday in their last harvest season. After four generations as tobacco farmers, the family is getting out of the business. A week before the tobacco auctions opened in Roxboro, family members and hired workers were priming — pulling the first leaves from the bottom of the stalk It is the most labor - intensive, muscle- wrenching part of the tobacco harvest, he said. Tb reach the bottom leaves, the pickers almost have to touch their toes. And every leaf oozes a gum that leaves hands sticky and wet. fe �. " Tobacco is tough, it is nothing but gh some farmers are rd and resilient as a Falk, many, like the we tired of toiling in ess that nets more and less profit each year a weed," Oakley said. Even though some farmers are as die -hard and resilient as a tobacco stalk, many are tired of toil- ing in a business that nets more criticism and smaller profits each year. Tobacco farmers are always trying to catch up, Oakley said. According to the State Department of Agricul- ture, North Carolina has lost more than a third of its tobacco farms since 1992, when there were 17,625 farms. The latest agricultural census regis- tered 12,095 farms in 1997, but officials estimate that there are now fewer than 11,000 tobacco farms throughout the state. Tbbacco is still the state's top cash crop, howev- er, accounting for nearly 14 percent of North Car- olina's $7.2 billion farm cash receipts last year. Greenhouse and nursery products are next, at 13 percent, with cotton a distant third at 4.8 percent, according to the department. "There is no crop that I know of that has [more] return than one acre of tobacco has," said State Agriculture Commissioner Jim Graham, who is retiring in January after 36 years in office. Rev- enues from tobacco have allowed people to go to other enterprises, he said. "I still believe in a future for tobacco." Not the Oakleys. The two brothers, Danny and Tbd, and their father, Johnnie, own seven acres and lease 28 more in Rougemont, on the Person - Durham coun- ty border. Three years ago, they farmed 75 acres. The Oakleys have tried to diversify. They grew a little corn, they grew wheat to rotate with tobac- please see OAKLEYS Al2 .nc5,9'B� &�b � 3o�^Hdoe 0 M o,m g 3 V 31' $G 6 ^BaaC�w� ana.a NO.-To �W_PSWmw ;se I- VilIRr. Imo b. as n lilt s ^� s x I�1•A j,��S-+ -ftI :7 FL n c as a �a p, -m rr 9 rrR.a°� 3 0 0 0 ��d�^Er �"�a�. sa< ^ O 8 m �'P o.M`Q d ©mB poaq, :amm b m QEN�•n C yC! . yR t ash nf1'�y d ab C an E•c, r•g K'!ag - a g..w`r, 5. §.:g 0' a a. •w+g'�.oBR�o•oo m5a �77 o' C 5•.. o0+ •w°. n7 Vmm�S:ari..,�..T��^.�•�'•e' ,E'S.�o'►m� G'W^�CWa.ac a mo �;�Y oio. ^�• m �mB 7o eao ma' ••n •<^ 'nn n < B RIM-0 �°. °vR Q� a, oil 8 ter,- ���.aw t� =' S'� =99 c " _ §- .9w ^ aw— a• m,<,q m a m S m ° omwowu�m �.,j.R9.Pw a. nBm "�o•m B R$e°�• o i°n a' ^ n 5 u� R z� h'O a'8 •n S ^ w ^ 0 but ^ F ~xm �: tCfl9 o a aB _m g^ g `,ga7mra2S•n7ib' �5 ^T w Om �,:°^ �000 Q�nQQ 3 �oE'2�w Ca Gm n e o• n a m p• g G•'� a •^e o Gi $A "�• � 5•v° o R ly S'•e n a. u� ° n yoiioo9^ e�..g ^ my m iiar+�'m 9wQ��,T 99 r ^O77o �e� xo .agC bB1$ n P. '�. �e ag'Co°racr �. a a� O &5 �2..dg geg-�^m - °�g'Oarn ^xmn �Om ^me 5I' an�''ea^w r6 M Ir is E. 3 ^' Ko .Rm�P• �� a7�R��p `Cy N fa �< si �?• N N c CI 8.:g �v'o.., �.�L° �r.,a e'• -^i,� y.o o'o o.B a o G �'•o R o o m m F n rr �' o �. a• Ey aa� <R���e CAS '* ry °'e.tl Pr2t B a o•m1 �° o °S ^�'^ G] �w�NEo2w o son S 'F�W rrg -s- � a �G, P• r40a 2SSr y k C o $ r D g TIN a9 ALL dw CF F ti b c7,� o xw m a wafin�ne.p�o 0. �R.I. Ri�nIrdBe8gmGn°agb R.I. 22 riCm,o 2mO 9 h^r ^' ^w $E c'a fo °7 �• �F of o��oiT ^e m er o. .e •� �o w �na�^� �n goqgy�yo�oF,m� N�PjaBRd�a<o °GCC_. aE (yOQa�C Z EB �• 5 �c�tin�BCt7o� 0 5.^ 3yroB 8 on �^ti G aK! owes w Awao C°K`r�°�i •f°.o,�'c.�� rr°G �G�f''�„� o.�O c°opP •e° mIv a °� GiCP•�,gS�'G ^� mm ° 5' ���•' �R G .- n m ^ C7 Pn• y, G t' Vl ,,,• ° Yyi ^ C E �. o' tD �" C ••n Ci " 00 R �i3b�p0 b � go ��� Fr. 5�m�rp; a�m�Ba�mm�op ^ m ^ ^o ° .C.bw R 8 mm^ 1m. cF.. S4�.o am g. ° oPm �o 0.9 �, O•e ^"e: °'� w �. `°�o.� m ^o 3 0 ga.m •. o E� B ^.e ^ n ^ �x�� 'g m g � � m w F 9a L�'.5• 80 met 1�4 oq,to en q Fr $S0?5� 7C0t�b'P(`ory°pogUp4 ^ y 007 O ER.< ' ^o gym • p N�P•o"m �1 "r'oRa vrw R = T rt E�=a4B•eR ^oe��Nmm°a7B N yd �'8Ea -.s�� B�' A C @.m m &4 , rt to, M 19 ; mom °g5°�'' .g mom mgemt8 r-- F° oa��aa, on 07 xn °� Go IT°FBu° m w . C• '� 5 tea• O N P' .° a w w 5+ °• 5R. 14 ot J9 S tall _z a m 1 77m .r7im �S.m 07mrrmG O 0�5.O�wo RmO B.dC P. Vag, sr ff e o n a �B.Ew ya.1 g � c ��++,, a.id e C H4 1 gg4T°o �sa°5 ? ^°F� EL m SO w mS'uter���' B ^ ?aa c,mo5..�°•��5�'av1' d° _gym �, a b o S Z°? ^ o - m *o av R em r •a n� Brng g t4. ^ ° O 0�° dam° oa$'n^ry��Nq• 54m�� np`m� vti °a°. ^o Pa 8 e'en o tr •0:5 rr o •° c`' m ° �' r m m m v' a c S .2 I m o•- FF o fk 6: w 3 ...R1' m r a� E e` m°�••. go m �,�•+ B rnm 5- B r z R 5' Brt�wfn'� �eq^mn�7 drv:°�'Ega B�.oaco �d4�geag<" ' °P+ go+r°'' o�`�+'tt� q o .••• o• ^ a. m •< 00 x$: E' o• m S g w 2^ ..,.< �° S B G' 6 C a o B .g,n,.A y P� m �° 5.H i tW. E. B r•5, f'. 8��,• n �'^ e� 2 m m n R 5 moo' 3°o r3 5�nmBoS° ^c °6a5 p w��mwdn^emm��° ° �rg°C7w°nn� C. S �7 7' .D C •< m 7q § 5 o �� 5e a ❑Sbb eg =dw0�° �� w y�< �0 Q. ° yu oc�a�CC��B� ,9oyr R mBik �5'77aS�W2 a on Bm ed wS ° ;? wa7 ° m �. O'c5' S'r ^ 5' �•` E m '�S. er Py^'� y 0. �a.�r 6^,•�• oP�y< �ym °•C.P w ,,,•o,� ,�2 M .e 5. rJ'n J.:i m •n 2 Ir. m ° o•^ o _ ' L^°.m B n o E �,° R m. =m �° n a.a•�^ m = ,� �w .P Si Bo w n a7 :i.c o r+ a`� xaq 'C �7 m• �, c cv B: B 0.00 ° g m i�.f�axga��s n°r 6 a �8jr g^ � o 6' �a s� �3 w C. 3 � m o` m CD m 0 CD c H rS p w � S iii m N m O 0 0 o x X44 �a md�• =p c, my NZ w �Qv x c3. �j C o�x ao yo•m 9 =r it 3 a adG ^ 0 oor o m n o m m m q ^ m t+ �g o, =r m ^O m �a m �w E al 3 X m �a PAGE Al2 Sunda, August 20, 2000 THE LAST HARVEST THE HERALD -SUN, DURHAM, NORTH CIROLINA t �t �♦ H . i v a w CD a ° O O ° r--+ r� Ch W .. O� �-` W a' N pr N - OilO "o "-� N ® oo w oo -�CD w � waN� W a. O O CD p '� CAD x O CD' � ch 00 - O 0 W CD Z CD W ' O � a CD n CD O D CD J ~ 'r- ' CD t"i d W N -P p '-' J P- N J CD r y 00 -A y O n a � J r O a b y � � � O a y � � C� N N N N CD N CD \ rr CAD O O O ��P OI\ O� N o O O O N 00 � o, Q, CN o, � o, 0 0 0 o O w 0 O 0 0 0 0 000 o W CD �p CAD O �' J J � � 00 � J N O_ n O N ~� C� n N CD �O O u C) O O_ .yam rCD rvQ rCD rUQ ro rCD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD ti � x r ®� b � � O d OilO O Ob Q y O�4y d y r y y n O b y � � � O y v G `CY f3. a W oo�'�� �O BCD CD .pA..xco N C1Q N i 0Oo y J v o n O � tQ p. CD 0 a t t C� w U w C) N O CW C) 'N J W O O O W CD `7' O O CD CD O O O O a a aCD n a CD CD CD CD -: o AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD 2000 CALENDAR Meeting /Agenda Schedule - 2000 Meetings at Planning & Agricultural Center Foodlab - 7:30 p.m. Agenda Preparation Agenda Mailout Day Meeting/ Location Tuesday, January 11 Wednesday, January 12 Wednesday, January 19 Tuesday, February 8 Wednesday, February 9 Wednesday, February 16 Tuesday, March 7 Wednesday, March 8 Wednesday, March 15 Tuesday, April 11 Wednesday, April 12 Wednesday, April 19 Tuesda , May 9 Wednesday, May 10 Wednesday, May 17 Tuesda , June 13 Wednesday, June 14 Wednesday, June 21 Tuesday, July 11 Wednesday, July 12 Wednesday, July 19 August 8 Wednesday, August 9 Wednesday, August 16 -Tuesday, Tuesday, September 12 Wednesday, September 20 Wednesday, September 27* Tuesday, October 10 Wednesday, October 11 Wednesday October 18 Tuesday, November 7 Wednesday, November 8 Wednesday, November 15 Tuesda , December 12 1 Wednesday, December 13 Wednesday, December 20 *Sept 27th Joint Meeting with Economic Development Commission meeting to begin at 5:30 pm at Economic Development Conference Room, 110 E. King Street, Hillsborough.