HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPB agenda 101800ORANGE COUNTY
ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
OCT 1 3 2000
To: Agricultural Preservation Board
From: David Stancil, Environment and Resource Conservation Director
Date: October 12, 2000
Re: October 18 Meeting Agenda
Please find attached the agenda for our next meeting, scheduled for:
At this meeting we will consider the Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan for fiscal
year 2001 -2002, a report on Voluntary Ag District incentives, and discuss the
September 27 joint meeting with the Economic Development Commission.
Please contact Carol Crawford (245 -2597) by Tuesday, October 17 if you will be
unable to attend.
Copies: Fletcher Barber, CES County Director
Brent Bogue, District Conservationist
Tina Moon, Land Use and Preservation Planner
AGENDA
ORANGE COUNTY
AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD
PLANNING AND AGRICULTURAL CENTER
FOOD LAB
306 Revere Road
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Wednesday, October 18, 2000
7:30 p.m.
Time Palle AGENDA ITEM
7:30 1. CALL TO ORDER
7:30 2. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
7:35 02 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — September 27 (2)
7:40 11 6. ITEMS FOR DECISION
a. Recommendations — 2001 -2002 Lands Legacy
Annual Action Plan
8:15 24 7. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
a. September 27 Joint Meeting / Followup Ideas
b. Voluntary Agricultural Districts Incentives Report
c. February 2001 Ag Summit Planning
9:00 8. ADJOURNMENT
n r.
lJ L
DRAFT MINUTES
Joint Meeting of the
AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD and
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
September 27, 2000
PRESENT: APB: Whit Morrow, Nancy Goodwin, Tony Kleese, Marty Mandell, Noah
Ranells, Rodney Recor, Elizabeth Walters, Louise Tate, David Stancil,
Tina Moon, Carol Crawford.
EDC: Jim Gibson, Bob Hall, Diane Reid, Yvonne Scarlett.
Guests: Commissioner Barry Jacobs
ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER
In absence of APB Vice -Chair Strayhorn, Stancil called the meeting to
order at 5:30 p.m.
ITEM #2: INTRODUCTIONS
Stancil asked everyone to introduce themselves and say which board they
serve on, and then described the group's mutual interests in Agricultural
Preservation. The goal of the evening was to talk about three Orange
County topics, which impact economic development and agricultural
preservation. A joint meeting was held last year to discuss ways for the
two commissions to work together to build a more viable local agricultural
economy, to enhance local markets, and to pursue other ways to maintain
agriculture's important role -in Orange County's economy. A follow -up
item from last year's meeting was to build local markets for agricultural
products. It takes a lot of important players to create and maintain a local
market system, the folks who provide products at the farmers market, the
tobacco farmers who diversify into other fields, the middle men or brokers
who link the two together.
ITEM #3: UPDATE ON LOCAL MARKETS FOR AGRICULTURE
PRODUCTS
Barber gave review of on -going work on this project and thanked
Commissioner Jacobs for his interest. Barber reported that they had met
with representatives from the University, Orange County and Chapel Hill
Schools to see if they would be interested in buying local produce. There
are currently four local grower /producers that could supply the quantities
necessary for schools and university. More local farms would be needed
to produce larger quantities to provide the needs of schools and hospitals.
One commission member suggested surveying producers at the farmers
05
market, to see if any farmers in the county would be interested in
converting to vegetable production farm.
Recor suggested analyzing how many acres of each product would be
required to supply the needed amounts of broccoli, tomatoes, potatoes or
other locally grown vegetables. A coordinated effort of gathering enough
local farmers to produce the supply would need to follow.
Barber said that a local broker -type person coordinate what is produced
with what is needed would be critical to the success of any program. The
county also needs to determine which farmers would be willing to try a
new crop.
Kleese noted that there needs to be market data to stimulate farmers to
want to grow more vegetables, and encourage banks to lend money for
these trial crops. The Carolina Farm Stewardship Association believes
that there is more market for organic product than there are growers. A
survey of the North Carolina market during 1997 -1998, funded by the
Reynolds Foundation, collected data over a 15 -month period. The survey,
which recorded product volume, price fluctuation, and where products
came from, documented that over 85% of these products came from out of
state. The project suggested preparing as enterprise budgets as the next
step -- showing what the cost of production is compared to the end -cost
data. This information could be taken to the bank or used to make a
judgement call as to whether it is worth the risk to try new crop projects.
Developing market data is critical factor to stimulate agricultural risk
taking, without risking a substantial loss.
Mandell asked about the possibility of apprentices for the program.
Upcoming farmers could be linked with older farmers with active
farmland, equipment, and experience.
Morrow suggested that if a school /university issued a RFP for the
production of large quantities of vegetables over a certain time frame, the
farmer would have a guaranteed buyer for the product at a given price.
That type of arrangement might provide enough insurance for traditional
farmers to take a risk and switch from tobacco to vegetables. In addition,
if banks see profit margins, they are more likely to lend money.
Jacobs reported that their meetings with university /schools indicated that
institutions prefer to deal with a broker, who could consider locally
produced goods first. Community based childcare services was noted as
another high volume vegetable purchaser. Food shoppers are willing to
work with local producers to provide nutritious meals. A suggestion of
child care services might serve as a model — they are small enough that we
0 4.
could figure out how to target what they need and work out an
arrangement where someone could use local products as much as possible.
A member of the group suggested working with growers to look at their
financial planning. including retirement issues. The average of age of our
farmers is late fifties, which is not the usual age to consider diversifying
operations and taking risks. An economic developer could sit down with
the farmer and prepare a financial analysis, look at ways to deal with
retirement issues and ways to reorient an existing operation to make a
profit. It is critical to keep farmers farming, to pass farms to younger
farmers in order to develop a strong local agricultural economy. The
county should also consider utilizing a Small Business Loan operation.
Stancil noted the importance of developing a resource guide. Recor
suggested having an insert in The Agriculture Review that had information
about Orange County programs. It would provide quick access to all the
people who already receive and participate in farming practices. Reid
suggested a county broker working with the website idea for community
supported agriculture, where people contract with the farmer for produce.
A `share the risk' idea of paying up front to reduce the start up cost was
discussed.
Reid also reported that the county's initial free guide survey of about 500
local producers provided less than 50 responses. Kleese suggested a
buy /sell website where farmers could post items for sale, and buyers could
access. Another idea of "getting publicity for supporting local products"
included selling ads to go in the resource guide to businesses that sell local
products.
Agricultural tourism is another avenue of saving farms. An example was
given of a farm where people could have picnics and buy on -farm
produced products. Processing large amounts of vegetables was noted as a
problem for people. The idea of a community processing facility or
canning/freezing facility could be another program to work in conjunction
with the farmers market.
Dave noted that the BOCC is scheduled to receive a report on local
markets for agricultural products later this year. Adding a marketing
strategy component to the Agricultural Resource Guide, generating
awareness of what the market might support and encouraging the
production of produce could be incorporated to the report. A draft of the
report should be presented at the October APB meeting.
Oki
ITEM #4: PROPOSED GRANT APPLICATIOIN TO GOLDEN LEAF
FOUNDATION
ERCD is requesting permission to apply for a Golden Leaf grant at the
BOCC's next meeting. Stancil reviewed the announcement for the Golden
Leaf Foundation. The Foundation was established by the State to
distribute a portion of the funds North Carolina receives as a result of the
settlement of NC v. Phillip Morris Incorporated, to those most affected by
the decrease in tobacco production. The purpose is to fund activities to
improve social and economic conditions in economically affected or
tobacco - dependent regions of the state. Orange County is certainly
economically affected; over five million dollars of tobacco gross sales was
recorded in 1999 alone. Traditionally northern Orange County is a high
producer of tobacco. The Foundation will fund different types of activities
such as: Education Assistance - having an economic specialist help
prepare business plans, job training and employment assistance —
providing business planning operations to keep farmers active; Public
Works and Industrial Recruitment - attracting new business for economic
development purposes or keeping agriculture a viable part of the economy;
Community Assistance — while we're not a tobacco dependent
community, there is a substantial section of the local economy linked to
this agricultural infrastructure. Stancil noted that to be eligible to apply
the organization should be tax exempt or a governmental unit. Typically,
the first year for funding is a good time to begin. As the application is due
October 16, staff will be working hard to comply with the criteria listed in
the announcement.
Orange County located in an urbanizing part of the state that is feeling
tremendous growth pressures. There is great interest for keeping
agricultural viable. Hopefully the pilot project will keep farmers farming
by enhancing the farmers market in Hillsborough. The grant proposal
would also pursue funding for a movable shelter for the market facility.
The second main objective in the proposal is to create an agricultural
economy specialist position funded for three years, to serve as a broker for
OC farmers, child care services, schools, UNC and other possible buyers
of locally produced products. The agricultural economy special wouls
also bring the rest of us up to speed as to what we have in OC, prepare
agricultural resource guide, inventory what produce is available, and
provide business planning resource for farmers.
Ranells noted that the grant application may carry more weight if the pilot
project has a regional effort, and suggested getting letters of intent from
surrounding jurisdictions to that effect.
Other ideas discussed included using tracking tools to look at volumes,
prices, crops most desirable, and farm locations in correlation to growing
zones, link together efforts towards grant application. It is unlikely with
it
the limited time frame that the county will be able to get other
governments to participate in this cycle. However, we can still share
market data with surrounding counties, and work on demonstration
projects with experimental crops for diversification. We can encourage
farmers to lend the use of their land for test crops for educational
purposed. One commission member suggested a program where the
farmer trained the first year, produced the second year and rotated to a
new crop the third year, or trained another farmer. The group discussed
the possibility of small scale slaughtering facility as part of Agriculture
Center, or a community owned processing center. Other suggestions
included an agricultural fair once a year including demonstrations of new
products such as yellow tomatoes, multiple location farmers markets, and
creating a home grown system from partnership with producers and
consumers.
ITEM #5: PROPOSED SURVEY OF FARMER'S MARKETS
In the past, mailings to targeted farming community produced very little
interest in participation. The group discussed other ways to contact
farmers to see if they would be willing to participate such as a phone
survey or a door -to -door visitation program made -up of volunteers from
each community. The idea of small payments or an appreciation dinner
for information gathers was discussed. January or February was noted as
the best time to survey farmers.
ITEM #6: FOLLOW -UP AND NEXT STEPS
Stancil reported that the Agricultural Summit upcoming up in February
2001. Planning efforts should begin soon.
ITEM #7: ADJOURNMENT
The joint meeting was adj ourned at 7:00 p.m.
07
DRAFT MINUTES
Meeting of the
AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD
September 27, 2000
PRESENT: APB: Whit Morrow, Nancy Goodwin, Tony Kleese, Marty Mandell, Noah
Ranells, Rodney Recor, Elizabeth Walters, Louise Tate, David Stancil,
Tina Moon, Carol Crawford.
GUESTS: Commissioner Barry Jacobs
ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER
Stancil reported that upon Matheny's resignation and in absence of Vice -
Chair Strayhorn due to Farm Bureau business, In the interim Vice Chair
has asked Morrow to chair the meeting. Morrow called the meeting was
called to order at 7:30 p.m.
Morrow thanked Jacobs for attending and extended courtesy of having
comments before proceeding with the agenda items. Commissioner
Jacobs thanked the APB for their efforts and gave an update on the Smart
Growth Commission set up by the state legislature empowered for a year,
broken into four work groups: Transportation, Downtown community
revitalization, Regional partnerships and, Farm & open space
preservation. Meetings have occurred all over the state since January with
recommendations due to legislature by Jan/Feb 2001.
Jacobs listed the group principles to date including: state has obligation to
protect natural resources, state must insure the viability of its conservation
programs, educate public on benefits of open space and farms, respect
private property rights, strengthen and development voluntary incentives
to conserve farms, forest and open space, provide tools for flexibility for
control in local government, keep farmers working, support long term
economic viability and farms equal open space, strengthen the present use
value system, should increase participation in voluntary agriculture
districts, encourage partnerships between state and local government,
private organizations and individuals in land trusts, protect sensitive
natural areas on lands owned by public colleges and universities, support
the million acre initiative, provide basic mapping data on prime threatened
and environmentally or culturally important farmland, flood plains and
natural areas, and that hazard mitigation and open space are inter - linked.
The group has stressed that when state programs are put into place they
should be whenever possible voluntary incentive based and locally
controlled. Jacobs asked for comments from the APB. Morrow asked
what is expected to happen after the recommendations. Jacobs explained
0El
that it could include proposals of how the Clean Water Management trust
funds will be administered, possibility of dedicated funding source for
farmland preservation program, or other recommendations that the
legislature will determine to support.
ITEM #2: INTRODUCTIONS OF NEW MEMBERS
As the members had introduced themselves at the earlier joint meeting
with Economic Development, no more introductions were needed.
Morrow suggested at upcoming meetings the old and new members get to
know each other and each others views.
ITEM #3: CONSIDERATIOS FO ADDDITIONS TO AGENDA
ITEM #4: APPROVAL OF MINUTES — August 16
MOTION: Tate made a motion to approve the August 16th, 2000 minutes with noted
correction. Seconded by Walters.
VOTE: Unanimous.
ITEM #5: ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE -CHAIR
Stancil reported that Strayhorn expressed unwillingness to serve a Chair
due to overextended responsibilities and submitted proxy vote to support
Morrow. Morrow opened the floor for nominations for the APB Chair.
Walters nominated Morrow for Chair. Seconded, by Kleese.
MOTION: Kleese motioned Morrow for Chair and close nominations. Seconded by
Walters.
VOTE: Unanimous.
Kleese nominated Strayhorn for Vice - Chair. Mandell nominated Tate for
Vice- Chair. Tate declined and seconded the nomination for Strayhorn as
Vice - Chair.
MOTION: Ranalls moved to close the nominations and motioned Strayhorn for Vice -
Chair. Recor seconded the motion.
VOTE: Unanimous.
MOTION: Morrow moved for Strayhorn acclamation.
VOTE: Unanimous.
ITEM #6: ITEMS FOR DECISION
a. Resolution — Golden Leaf Foundation Application
aS
As the detailed discussion was concluded at the earlier joint meeting,
Stancil distributed a draft resolution for APB review and revision. As the
grant application goes to the BOCC soon, it would be preferred that an
endorsement from the APB to accompany the grant. A suggested change
was to add number of acres of farms, take out "economic" from the
specialist title and add coordinator and financial planner to the broker
description. Add a statement about providing education to tobacco farmers
on alternative agricultural enterprises. Staff to revise and forward to
BOCC.
MOTION: Kleese motioned to pass the resolution with noted changes. Seconded by
Morrow.
VOTE: Unanimous
ITEM 7: ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
a. Triangle J Regional Principles Project- Agricultural Working
Group
Stancil reported on the Green Space Team, an Agricultural Work
Group and reviewed working list of farm and farmland protection
strategies as listed in the agenda packet. The APB discussed the
listed strategies including: Involve the Agricultural Community in
Local Decisions, Conduct study of cost of community services to
help educate the public on the economic benefits of agriculture,
Support the development of farmers' markets that enable farmers
to sell directly to the public, Help farmers write business plans for
their farm, Invest in mobile processing facilities, enhance the
voluntary Agricultural Districts Program, Create tax advantages to
provide more financial incentives for farmers to enroll in VAD's,
Improve traffic safety for farm vehicles in Voluntary Agricultural
Districts. Other discussion including district size, pros and cons of
zoning of agricultural districts, improving the economics of
farming including converting to organic farming to receive
substances, develop cost share program, environmentally sound
farming and, other agricultural preservation concerns. Stancil
encouraged emailing ideas to staff also. Recor noted a new email
address of "rrecor @rodneyrecor.com ". Kleese expressed receiving
contact at home number as well as Renalls. An updated roster to
be provided in the next agenda packet.
b. Potential Cost of Community Services Study
Stancil report that this topic has been discussed by the APB and
now the Triangle J is planning to do a cost of community services
study across the region..A proposal submitted by the American
Farmland Trust was distributed at a previous meeting, which could
be done as regional report package of all six counties or report
individual county. Recent alternatives researched included a study
done by NC State of Chatham County, A study commission on
homebuilders association looking at residential development in the
triangle also conducted by NC State. In comparison, it was noted
that the study by Phillip Gottwals association Agricultural
Economic and Development Conservation was the most beneficial
for this region to get a sense of how public costs are affected by the
different sectors of the economy, residential, industrial and
farmland. An alternative might be that Orange, Wake and
Johnston might do independent study. APB members expressed
support for the study in Orange County. More to come in
November or December.
C. Update on Pilot Project agricultural conservation easement
Stancil reported on information just received from Conservation
Trust For NC, Chuck Roe — Guidelines for Farmland Preservation
Funds. The focus for this year is to do a pilot project conservation
easement in Cane Creek Watershed working in conjunction with
OWASA and Soil & Water District. A main objective is to do
water quality and farmland protection. Staff will be working on
this grant due December 10tH
ITEM #7 \8: ADJOURNMENT
Stancil announced the- next meeting to, be -held at the Planning and
Agricultural Food Lab on Revere Road in Hillsborough on October 18th at
7:30 p.m. Staff to send out recent criteria adopted by APB for LLP.
The joint meeting was adj ourned at 9:00 p.m.
11
ORANGE COUNTY
ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Agricultural Preservation Board
From: David Stancil, Environment and Resource Conservation Director
Date: September 21, 2000
Re: Lands Legacy — Annual Action Plan 2001 -2002
At your October and November meetings, the APB will be asked to discuss any
projects you would like to recommend to the County Commissioners for inclusion
in the Annual Action Plan for Lands Legacy for the upcoming 2001 -2002 fiscal
year (July 1, 2001 -June 30, 2002). A draft Annual Action Plan will be presented
to the Board at their annual retreat in mid - December.
Attached is the adopted process for developing the Annual Action Plan, as well as
the current 2000 -2001 Interim Action Plan. As you can see, each relevant
advisory board will be making recommendations on projects for land acquisition,
if any. These may include fee - simple acquisitions, conservation easement or
other alternative acquisition methods). These recommended projects from each
board will be compiled into a draft Annual Action Plan for the Commissioners.
At your October meeting, please think about any land acquisitions for famrland
preservation you would like to recommend. You may wish to look at your
adopted criteria for evaluating prime famrland (also attached). Feel free to
identify projects that may offer multiple preservation goals (a farm as part of a
larger park setting, for example). We will attempt to keep you abreast of what
other advisory boards are considering in November.
The following ideas have been previously suggested (please do not limit your
discussion to these topics — these are provided only as a starting point):
• Complete initial pilot project easement
• Acquire a second conservation easement
• Look at a combined farmland /cultural area acquisition
Please feel free to call (245 -2590) if you have any questions.
cc: Rich Shaw, Land Conservation Manager
a r-t
14
Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan
Annual Process
August
Staff begins work to identify. possible projects, BOCC.asked
to provide initial guiding thoughts prior to advisory boards
September
Initial discussions.by the Commission for the Environment
(natural areas and wildlife habitat,' riparian buffers,
...parklands)., Agricultural Preservation Board (farmland),
Historic Preservation Commission (cultural and
archaeological), and Recreation and Parks Advisory Council
(parklands)
October
Staff works with each advisory board to finalize proposed
projects for coming fiscal year.
November
Advisory boards approve recommended projects; staff
develops into draft Annual Action Plan.
December,.
Draft Annual Action Plan submitted to BOCC as part of
retreat materials.
March -April
BOCC reviews draft and .revises as desired
May
Annual Action Plan adopted concurrent with CIP discussions
Lands Legacy Interim Action Plan Adopted 5/3/00
Lands Legacy — Interim Action Plan
For the period May 3, 2000 — June 30, 2001
Introduction
The Lands Legacy program, adopted on April 4, 2000, is activated through an Annual
Action Plan process. In future years, this process will begin in August of each year with
a staff- generated draft which will be reviewed initially by the Board of Commissioners
and then sent to relevant .advisory boards for further development of priorities for the
coming fiscal year. The revised draft would be distributed to the Board of
,Commissioners at the December goal - setting retreat, and finalized during the
budget /CIP process in the spring of each year.
For the initial year of the program, the Board has authorized an Interim Action Plan to
be created to guide Lands Legacy resource land purchases from the present through the
fiscal year 2000 -2001 (which begins on July 1).
The Interim Action Plan that follows is consistent with the template adopted as part of
the Lands Legacy program, and contains goals for the period May 2000 -3une 2001,
more specific objectives and a priority table with timetable and purpose. The document
closes with a performance report for the previous year (which is incomplete in this case,
since the program was just adopted).
Goats for May 2000 - June 2001
(Note: the following goals implicitly include _ continuing to aggressively
pursue grant funding for many of the County's proposed projects.)
1. Purchase parklands (regional, district and community- level)
strategically throughout the County, for both active and low -
impact recreation, to land -bank for future parks that can provide
leisure opportunities for all citizens (and potentially be co- located
with future schools).
2. Partner with the towns and other entities such as OWASA in
acquiring future park sites, where possible.
I Work with a willing seller (and a partner entity, if possible) to
purchase a "pilot" farmland conservation easement in
conjunction with the N.C. Farmland Preservation Trust Fund.
4. Finalize park management and facility development /use plans via
an inter -local agreement with Durham County for the Little River
Regional Park and Natural Area.
5. Protect sensitive natural areas in the Seven -Mile Creek
bottomlands and along New Hope Creek.
14 Lands Legacy Interim Action Plan
Adopted 5/3/00
6. Accomplish preservation of riparian buffers, historic and
archaeological sites, and identified natural areas and wildlife
habitat /prime forest through parkland acquisition, when possible
7. Update the 1988 Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitat.
Specific Acgu sition objectives
A. Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitat
• Work to preserve (through acquisition and other means) identified
Natural Areas in the Seven -Mile Creek .area
• Work to preserve (through acquisition and other means) properties
along the Eno River adjacent to Duke Forest (Hillsboro Division) or Eno
River State Park
• Work with the UNC Botanical Garden and Triangle Land Conservancy
and others to preserve an identified natural area surrounding the
Mason Farm Preserve in Chapel Hill
• Continue to monitor the efforts to preserve Pickard's Mountain natural
area, with standing offer to assist in preservation if needed
• Work in conjunction with Triangle Land Conservancy to pursue
opportunities for preservation of additional lands along the New Hope
Creek Corridor (as they might arise)
B. Farmland Preservation
• Work (with the Soil and Water District and /or OWASA) to identify a
willing seller of a conservation easement "pilot project," preferably in
Cane Creek watershed. Preservation of a farm in the watershed that
also contains riparian buffers would optimize the purchase for all
potential partners .and could meet multiple goals.
• Apply for a grant from the Farmland Preservation Trust Fund by
December 1, 2000, for assistance in purchasing the conservation
easement.
• If practical, finalize arrangements with the Soil and Water District to
hold the conservation easement, with specified monitoring and
maintenance responsibilities worked out through a Memorandum of
Understanding between the County and the District.
C. Parklands and Open Space
• Using existing plans and the comprehensive resource database, pursue
acquisition of park sites in the following areas:
Lands Legacy Interim Action Plan
Adopted 5/3/00
• A district or regional park (with a combination of active and low -
impact and natural area preservation) — in Chapel Hill Township,
between Chapel Hill /Carrboro and Hillsborough. This park could
serve both rural and Town populations.
• Expansion of the "Cedar Grove Park" at Northern Human
Services Center into a district park (with a combination of active
and low- impact recreation)
• A community park (with active and low- impact recreation) — in
Bingham Township
• A community park (with an active recreation focus) — Eno
Township or Schley area (unless needs are met through other
park possibilities in north or east Hillsborough)
• Develop a map and plan for a pilot project trail (paved greenways in
urban settings, rustic woodland trails in rural areas) linking Chapel Hill
and /or Carrboro Town parks, less- sensitive areas of Duke Forest,
future County parks and Eno River State Park.
• Acquire (through easement, donation or purchase) the missing links
for the pilot project trail, as practical.
• In all park acquisitions, be cognizant of the potential for school site co-
location. r
• The County's focus in parkland acquisition and collaboration should be
on community, district and regional -scale parks.
D. Riparian *Buffers -
• With the focus on parklands, natural areas and a farmland easement
pilot project; attempt to accomplish preservation of buffers in water
supply watersheds through parkland acquisitions during this
timeframe.
• Develop possible priorities for riparian buffer acquisitions in 2001 -2002
E. Cultural and Archaeological Sites
• Given the focus on parklands, natural areas and a farmland easement
pilot project, attempt to accomplish preservation of cultural and
archaeological sites through parkland acquisitions during this
timeframe.
• Develop possible priorities for cultural and archaeological site
acquisitions in FY 2001 -2002
�f
O
Q
N
U
Ln
ui L-
ca
O
C' C
O
U 0
m M
CU
O U
N
.a •O
� n
0
Off.+
N
N O
"0 d
O
4-J O
.O c
O
E
>
> C
O
.� W
O
ai..
fa 0
CL O IW
N B
O_ •-'
(!i
•� 0
a.s
�--I 4 :o
Q c
O O U
Ln
>
a v
:FE
o u
�- o
0
-v
O U
CD N 0
Q •+1 to
N o 4, fo
�a
to CU
tn
u 0Q)
L' 2�- o
�O
fa .
ra
m
.U) O vi o
CL
L
C a
•� U
.L O O
O — O o LL .�
�L�Ln�
0-
it t- 5::
ti U
Cd O
U CD
o N
'.0
cn Cd ►
.� w U
cd cd .
.M
.�
Gq >—
cd U 0 U
•�
_O
+~+ U U
.En
Cd
cd
4- 4-C)o r
••
pya� off•
_ p. bo N
�'
O
O o 0 Cd
v
Cd
N
�-+
O
U
4-i
O
U
O
b
COS
F!
bo"
p " 'C7
'C • � Ei
�iU.
Ci
O �,
6s O
0 0 0
'
O°
C°
•�
cd
cd .O
0
� U
69b cUd
69b.�
as r-.
O
4r
U
U b w .-,-
U .-+ U i
�A td
cd cd cd 0
cn En rn
O O �,
.� • • cd
cd u o v cd 0O
C,
..�
U z
CO3
cd " O �. U
0
ecd PU
c 45 x ., O ,
o O
cCd
.,.,
a 'U U
1-ml 'd
O o o
cl, Q. o p" 0
1-4
.� p d
U
�i
Q
m
i. cd C)
--4
U O > U H
c U O
rn O U rn
!�
d 3
a w 0
�..
•� r r..�
^ o
'
f� � ; U �
CZ "0
to
oo., I ,z a.' a W a
C) �
V
a� � cd -o u
o a U
CIS
LA �°/'1 �o{
0
I'o i 0
0 ox
cz 0•�
En U >
•v �. a
.. o ;8
R.a�b
a>i a 4 o a
b
3 0 0 cd
0
cd u .= 0
0
b x .� ".0
o 0
" u •� d U
V]
;b 0
[fin .t+ ��" A
cd 64 o
P4
cd .-4 cd ..�
fU x
_
O +� >
C's 0
cd U 0 O
Cd
y
0 b
- a� 4°
C's
p� O°
c� cd U U C)
U
Z cd cd
w z ' cd 3 c u R
'D
.�
O
e
O
ti
v
V
�O
CZ
V
M-�
p, o
r. ,.
u
I
iU-'
CZ
M C
tn °
u
° N
` , O
O
U
,7
0 bA a) p
�^ O U
cd
U
yUj
ccnn O
p, �G.�y
p
in
A�\ EnUy/
o Q
U cd
o .. ca
t!�
ci
N °�.
v
3 "
0
�;
b
� 'e�0�y
• .r
�
d . O O O
�>' � r�r rte.; � � o
'En
• � r�y � �
O icy �'y i-ti
En CO
o O o
o W � O° cd
N O
U} cd
Cis
Cn
b
cn
L)
Z 64
En
O
64 b
O f.�
pccl
0
'd U —4
W
A.
C)
`�
C) °.) 0 °^
�,
o
,� u En 64
4o
t 44
o
`�
Cz U
°O Ct
p. o 4
o '�
P!
o W
� L° fC3 f�
cu
�' w ao
o a' cz
M w
o .03
cn�o �-
�, c� U .�
�+ '
.�Ct
4 3
I�
o
cn a) rn d CJ
9 as
cn
En
En
4�4
4
15
0 0 a q
'� .Qy"
'v
M M v'
> a�
rr�y
'�• v
o
o
r, ;�y
CIS
o ct
a) U 64
= � �y m In
Cn
'
a, ?, rd
-d 0
64
�, a� o 3
En
00 �
,
o c�
u cn b
rn U
a� 3 m o
� �"n
W
� � �
►--, P. a �
CCi �•, �. ,-fl P.
• P.�
[ '•+ v .� P, �
Z
CJ
'
a) •.. C93
a)
Ln :4 �
0 � � O cd a)
,
' ~ � U �
� � � U
w
C's En
t4.
64
cri
cz
CIO
LA
rA
3 En
vim, rn r
moo+
vy o `z
� � '� o
Q h `�
°" � °� 3
En
o t.2
o O
'o o '
c o °
°
cz
;.. a3
o o
U)
b ru
,
r.
o b CS
3 U
�?
o 0
cfj
o
O O O ct
O O
a) a)
lc�
O O
U
U
:'° ."
O Q °
o
0
Li
o
Q. ro
u u
o
¢ c
c
� � L
a-+ u
L O
Q1
c
u c
c u
o
L 'II
Ll
O
C)
CD
E
O
O
O
M
LU
o �-
� .ten
c �
c
0
ru >
fu
a
� •c
U -o
.D
a�
Y
a.
EM .N
u °
a�0
CU
E
axi OU
c t a)
o
ci
Ln
ro
a > >
E o
ra c
CU
CU
ch
C N
O' �
L t_CII
L
Vf rp C
L
Maio
E cQ
= LA
nC)
O
U o
IS Lands Legacy Interim Action Plan Adopted 5/3/00
Other Notes and Special Inquiries
• As acquisitions are explored, staff will consider parks and resource lands in
the context of long -term trail linkages with parks as listed in Joint Master
Recreation and Parks Work Group Report (and include these in the update to
County Master Recreation and Parks Plan): Staff will also consider acquisitions
in context of potential school /park co- location, and pursue accordingly.
• Other acquisition inquiries received from landowners and potential partners
during the year will be compiled and periodically presented for the Board's
review and direction on whether to pursue acquisition. At present, there are
four additional inquiries that have been made that have not been broached
with the Board. A summary of these inquiries will be forthcoming. Some may
be in keeping with the goals and objectives listed herein.
• Staff will begin the outreach and educational efforts discussed in the Lands
Legacy program, making available brochures on Lands Legacy, the
advantages of land conservation, and other related issues. Staff will also
solicit speaking engagements to spread the word about the program during
the coming year.
• Discuss conservation easements with Duke on less- sensitive portions of the
forest for future trails.
Performance Report for Previous Year
This is the first year of the program. In future years this section will contain
more detail about accomplishments during the previous year. A Performance
Report will be prepared for the first Annual Action Plan (FY 2001 -02) in
December 2000.
However, there were several opportunities that arose during FY 1999 -2000 that
occurred and can be listed:
• Received grant of $143,000 from Clean Water Management Trust Fund
toward March 31, 2000 purchase of Duke University property in Upper Eno
watershed critical area, adjacent to public water supply. This property is
currently being referred to as the McGowan Creek Preserve (pending
official Board action).
• Received grant of up to $377,000 (Durham and Orange) for the proposed
Little River Regional Park and Natural Area from Clean Water
Lands Legacy Interim Action Plan
Adopted 5/3/00 1 S
Management Trust Fund. Submitted application to Parks and Recreation Trust
Fund for project as well (decision anticipated in early -May, 2000).
• Evaluated consultant work on Greene Tract, which led to eventual
preservation of 60 acres of the property by the Board.
Brought six properties for potential acquisition to the Board for formal review
and direction. Staff�developed an evaluation of each site, based on relevant
criteria.
In addition to these activities, there are other projects that have furthered the
goals of Lands Legacy — in particular the provision of parkland and parks
facilities. The following report, "Report on the Parks Bond and Other Parks -
Related Projects" addresses these activities.
Conclusion
Although the Lands Legacy program was not adopted until April, the draft
program was used to evaluate and pursue two acquisitions of parkland and
watershed riparian buffers. A total of $520,000 in grant money was awarded by
the Clean Water Management Trust Fund toward these projects, with another
application pending before the N.C. Parks and Recreation Trust Fund.
The proposed action plan for the coming 14 months focuses on addressing the
parkland deficit in the County, developing a pair of pilot projects for farmland
preservation and a rustic woodland trail link, and preserving land in what could
become a Natural Area Preserve in the Seven -Mile Creek area. The total cost of
the proposed Priority List of projects for the upcoming fiscal year ranges from a
low of $2.11 million to a high of $5.05 million — depending on the acreage
acquired, the cost of the land, location of the land, and the timing of
acquisitions. This cost estimate is a rough estimate, and will be refined as more -
detail is developed on potential sites. The cost estimate does not reflect grant
funds that might be achieved to pursue the projects, nor does it include
contributions from prospective partner entities.
Staff will continue to aggressively pursue grants to fund these projects, and
solicit the involvement of partner agencies, wherever possible and practical. Co-
location of school and park facilities will be evaluated in each case. While
pursuing the current action plan as adopted by the Board, staff will also begin
developing the first regular Annual Action Plan for 2001 -2002 in the early -fall,
with advisory boards helping draft priorities and initiatives during the fall — to be
presented at the Board's December goal - setting retreat.
rr
ORANGE COUNTY
Farmland Ranking System
The Farmland Ranking System is to be used to rank, or prioritize, applications received from
landowners seeking sale or donation of their development rights. The System can also be used
for evaluating conversion impact.
The System consists of two parts:
1. Site Assessment Criteria:
This part of the system consists of factors, most of which are related to
development pressures and development capability /suitability of a particular farm parcel.
and its surrounding area. Each factor is assigned a point value based on its relative
importance to other factors.
2. Soil Assessment Criteria:
All soils in Orange County have been rated and placed into groups ranging from the
most productive farmland to the least productive. A relative value has been determined
for each group —the best group is assigned the highest value and all the other groups
are assigned lower values.
To determine the total value of a given parcel, the values for the Site Assessment and Soil
Assessment criteria are added together.
Site Assessment Criteria
The following information describes the criteria to be used in site evaluation in administering the
Farmland Preservation Program. Point values and the criteria for allocation of ranking points
are listed below.
1. Probability of Conversion (weight –100 points)
Property subject to potential forced sale
100 points
Property subject to estate settlement sale
75 points
Property actively marketed for voluntary sale
50 points
2. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
a. Proximity to Planned Development
Non - Agricultural development planned adjacent
50 points
Non - Agricultural development planned within % mile
40 points
Non - Agricultural development planned within 1/2 mile
30 points
Non - Agricultural development planned within 1 mile
20 points
Planned agriculture within 1 mile
10 points
b. Proximity to Public Water and Sewer (weight – 50 points)
Existing service area adjacent
50 points
Existing service area within % mile
40 points
Planned service area within % mile
35 points
F:\ PLANNING \T( boon\ ERCD \APS\AgPres \FarmRankSystem2.doc
Existing service area within Y2 mile
30 points
Planned service area within % mile
25 points
Existing or planned service area within 1 mile radius
20 points
No existing or planned service area within 1 mile radius
10 points
3. Proximity to Agricultural Priority Areas (APA) (weight — 50 points)
Included in or adjacent to APA 50 points
Within % 40 points
% to Y2 mile 30 points
More than Y2 mile 20 points
4. Farm Size (weight— 100 points)
A score of one point per acre is given up to a maximum of 100 points.
5. Percentage of Farm In Agricultural Use (weight— 100 points)
A score of one ranking point per percentage point of land in production compared to total
farm size is given up to a maximum of 100 points.
6. Capital Investment in Farm Operation (weight — 200 points)
(Dwellings are not included in this determination or than employee housing)
Substantial capital investment within past 5 years 200 points
Substantial capital investment within past 10 years 100 points
Substantial capital investment within past 15 years 50 points
7. Specialty Products (weight — 50 points)
A score of one -half a ranking point per percentage point of land used for production of a
locally unique crop or product up to a maximum of 50 points.
8. Conservation Program (weight — 200 points)
A score of two ranking points per percentage point of land meeting the "T" formula of
conservation is given up to a maximum of 200 points.
9. Historic, Scenic, Environmental Qualities (weight — 50 points)
Exceptional features favorable to preservation (National Register of Historic Places,
exceptional scenic contribution on major highway corridor, exceptional or special
environmental circumstances.)
Significant features favorable to preservation (Historic Survey Site, significant scenic
contribution of rural roads, significant environmental circumstances.)
Features favorable to preservation (Significant, but undocumented historic features,
moderate localized scenic contribution and /or limited by recognized environmental
features favorable to preservation.)
2
Soil Assessment Criteria
The following table lists the soil types found in Orange County with the pertinent characteristics,
groupings, relative values and ranking system points. This information is used to determine the
relative soil quality of a given parcel of land by the administration of the Farmland Preservation
Program.
Soil Assessment Criteria
SO IL
SLOPE
LAND
FARMLAND
AGRI ..
RELATIVE
RANKING
SYMBOL''`
, SERIES
-
CAPABILITY
CLASS
CULTURAL
1/ALUE .:
`SYSTEM
CLASS
GFOUP
POINTS
Hwb
Hiwassee
2 -6
2E
Prime
1
Aa
Altavista
0 -3
2W
Prime
1
Cp
Congaree
0 -2
3W
Prime
1
ApB
Appling
2 -6
2E
Prime
1
CfB
Cecil
2 -6
2E
Prime
1
GeB
Georgeville
2 -6
2E
Prime
2
HrB
Herndon
2 -6
2E
Prime
3
EnB
Enon
2 -6
3E
Prime
4
Lg
Lignum
0 -3
2W
Prime
4
HhA
Helena - Sedgeville
0 -2
2W
Prime
4
HeB
Helena -
2 -8
2E
Prime
5
CrB
Creedmor
2 -8
2E
Prime
5
ApC
Appling
6 -10
3E
Prime
5
VaB
Vance
2 -8
3E
Prime
5
WsB
White Store
2 -6
2E
State /Local
6
CfC
Cecil
6 -10
2E
State /Local
6
GeC
Georgeville
6 -10
3E
State /Local
6
HrC
Herndon
6 -10
3E
State /Local
6
HwC
Hiwassee
6 -10
3E
State /Local
7
TaD
Tatum
8 -15'
3E
State /Local
7
EnC
Enon
6 -12
4E
State /Local
7
Or
Orange
0 -3
4W
State /Local
8
Ch
Chewacla
0 -1
3W
State /Local
8
IrB
Iredell
1 -4
4S
State /Local
8
WmD
Wedowee
8 -15
4E
State /Local
8
WtC2
White Store
6 -15
4E
State /Local
8
TaE
Tatum
15 -25
4E
Other
9
GID
Goldston
15 -25
4S
Other
9
LoC
Louisburg
6 -15
6E
Other
9
WmE
Wedokee
15 -25
6E
Other
9
WxD
Wilkes
8 -15
6E
Other
9
LoF
Louisburg
15 -45
7E
Other
10
WxF
Wilkes
15 -45
7E
Other
10
GIF
Goldston
15 -45
7S
Other
10
IuB
Iredell -Urban
1 -8
8S
Other
10
WwC
White Store -Urban
2 -8
8S
Other
10
GhC
Georgeville -Urban
2 -10
8S
Other
10
AuC
Appling -Urban
2 -10
8S
Other
10
2 r
Pt
Pits
--
8S
Other
10
Ur
Urban
--
8S
Other
10
W
Water
--
8S
Other
10
Oct -09 -00 04:381? Triangle Land Conservancy 919 755 9356 R.02
�
THE Am & WsnuR 1
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2000 20A
1 advise and &ijoin those wk) direct the p4per in the trnnorrowc
never to advocate any cause for persorial projij or prefernjeltt.
I would wish it alo),R y to be "the tocsin. "and to devote itself to the
policies of equality and justice to the underpri.vilfged. If the paper
Should 4t any time he the voice vfself= jttttrc:st or becn►nc- the
spokecmun ujprivilege or se rt hn.jns it would he antrue to its history.
— *am tho will of Josephus Daniels, Editor and Publisher 1894 -1948
What won't, save the farm
rniers tend to be a cautious Iot,
being the original independent busi-
>ness owners and at the mercy of
weather and other uncontrollable forces.
Some officials in charge of farm preser-
vation, initiatives might be well- inten-
tioned, but some don't seem to grasp
those sensibilities when trying to buy or
lease development rights from fimners.
That probably plays a large role in the
nearly imperceptible pace of farm
preservation efforts in the Triangle and
beyond. Wake, Durham and Orange
counties have farmland ordinances that
offer farmmers payments, tax breaks and
lowered tax values if they formally agree
that they and their descendants will
never sell their farms for housing devel-
opments or office buildings. Governor
Hunt insightfully has vowed that the
state will save} a million acres from the
bulldozer,
Yet farmers often express queasiness
about the contracts they have to sign,
which gives authorities the right to
coarse on their property to ensure that
the contract's terms are being followed.
Ire some cases, owners must agree to
follow "best management" farm prac-
tices and file formal timber plans.
The point of easements is to reward
farmers — who tend to appreciate the
earth more than the average city- slick-
er T who will keep their farms off the
market. Saving farms helps save the
state's rural heritage, provides air- and
water-cleaning benefits and improves a
region's quality of life. But agreements
need to be simple. The Triangle Land
Conservancy, whieh holds four farm
easements, properly tries to tailor con-
tracts to the wishes of landowners.
The public of course needs assurances
that a farmer can't back out of an ease-
ment, but the terms should not be struc-
tured so that farmers are made to feel
that essential hieedoms will be trampled.
Contracts need to be free of threaten
i>ng legalese and heavy- handed- 'rules;_
Farmers have enough reasons to ignore
this newfangled preservatiop movement
without having more legal rocks in the
soil than the family over the ridge.
IRNATI AS i FIELDS FOREVER
Kandall Moore, the 13- year -old grandson of Durham County farmer Howard Moore, tries to coax a cow and
horse into their pen on the Moore family's farm, which Howard Moore wants to protect from development.
BY BARBARA BARRETT
STAFF WRITER
For Howard Moore, the symbol of the
future sits in his carport: a stout, 1960s-
era McCormick Farmall Super A trac-
tor, buffed to a shiny, new-on- Christ-
mas red.
Moore drove the Super A on his 25-
acre cattle farm on South Lowell Road
in Durham County. Today, his son lives
on the farm and drives the tractor. And,
God willing, his grandson will drive it-
someday, too.
To make sure of that, Moore, at age
77, is poised to become the first farmer
in the Triangle to turn over develop-
ment rights on his land to a county
government. But the unyielding atti-
tude that carries farmers through
tough harvests has made Moore sus-
picious of the contract with Durham
County.
For now, he will not sign.
"We never talked about these restric-
tions before," Moore said; nodding at
the papers that would not only keep
his farm from ever being developed but
might also, he fears, put too many
restrictions on his descendants.
That's how it often works with per-
manent easements, and it's one of the
main reasons Triangle counties haven't
had much success with farmland
preservation ordinances, some of
which have been gathering dust for
years.
Preservation programs, also in place
in Wake and Orange counties, are sup-
SEE FARMS, PAGE 6A
'I'm not going t® make it
restrictive so they can't do what
they want t® ado.'
Howard Moore
e
6
v
e a o
-d9
3�o
o e�
ca70
' w,o
to
a
y j to
m .� u
tw o N c E t
J-1- ") u Q
v
m u a,N m 3 •5 ' °�
LP
oE
� ° � E c
o '5: a) m
o s c o E y N° y
UE1c' °uc°'3� E °3
L N O N
3�° E =E.�3o 3no
0 0co =3:0 o o-Oa
■ m� ■ ° ■'O ■s o
o
m O d C
p c
41
p
° s ° y
N Z u N u t O
'=a��
En
oQ.) o ca °mc d
O oL E
��w
y a) to;- O _ .F
`
^v C
m Y
CD -5�
° -°u6D Ea) v
C m
0
.�
S L U L a> ) E
° Fi
O
m -C )
.- o u ° • as
d3 Y
0 ° E
14
a)
(n •0 is c� [°�' ca _°.
• w
0w-T00 -,25 E 0 X � c
E- T
!msW s
p N c O c c D c.d E E E
U+ 'Ly fa
W
m
L p -•O E-c O d -0 -O O a)
~��EsLLw�o
f°nf�aPq
�
axia1°i
®
C
o mM,, $v po
. p y vi
-3c
W0
°crow Nnt o�
3�
w
vY.o °� o �� a w 0007 .
fyn
o
3
°p.n° °c °amp o
ai m O ° °
m
°
o 0
oEo c =w c0-0 ° —°
u u p p p° E. p 3 0
fUi� U p
w .d- O
•.�" R+ N
.O..Cp
O O C p u w E O N E
0 U -s.
c� m m u. p rU�
L sU, yN
a0
a) y U
U co
°
b
w N 4
cz ° a
7 C O
,O
u �
a o
y O
'B
y
N C
b •°�+
U ca ca
N y a)
CD
UCD
p.bD-
0 0 Q
O a)
y3
ca
a)
N p
(1) ^o s7 rn a) !�. q i:.3
cca 3 n'n�Y o u cB a et a v, in o 3 awi �aa) m o °y o
E i o 0) $ � ...D 9 C b D.O u 'U • .;L. .
0 fa -0 > O •Sb a o 0,2 ° y S° A '
:j ca L y O COD
T
.0 uu�� y O U O ••� y y (d y O N p iy O q -Yi
q 6. .��, O 0 •! y V O U Q U ca y p y y O
411, ,o aaA O d r. S�U".c��' y� t��>,LfF�� CDO � � C ��'
pr.tyoIn0 > °uyy4)M,cn -rc0 °� ° 80- r'5'0°�$oDo cz
4) •t. •U ca f9 �' O > •�'.u..L" '° ca '° •ai' • y ca cd
to 0 WO A .oay�. y 5oa�aQ &. MO 0' 0- U cucz
d G d O O C Off d c6 � �i v� O w F. 9= Y V N• N •� y U F. u1 O W
ca m z oov CD .� y.'y'y m'4F cz fnA 3 0 c. b N in mQ.a r. 'w6
.5G m a7
! � ^.mow .Li y O .O �' ❑ 61 '� O w P ++
�l •-� ,�O y"' y y (y O N y E O d O w CD
w H °.'o GLO y y��,F� y U2 °
CD CD in a] fa Vi K.' y 7 •� U .i..i.
�� 04 o �� p y ov2 �'U fn��
fa tt�� A �n fn y u a�
f"n
0.0 V UC i o O O g O w V� O A
u� y Y y x m O n 0� O .° � O p or.
.0 �.• (.sj ] -.O "'04 rA d o u f�- �r�A tq•�5" >',�0 v
cz (n 0
D
m
8
D E
Z a`
V
`D m
0 0`
D �
.o .a
m °
cn
-
•� N
.D
a
'tJ 2 �C;z1 —, b CDoxy.-� G
7�3y+'., '[w In U °
a% a�
O1.b'D�.� m
a) CL) caOy o
0-0000;, wow WO
cO c
v U .s 0 a) D W G
> Y!�
.N
W o N N •� •� O
7 N• 6~9
A7.+. o c°4 c ati cz
=.E dd
000uCOa��•, o �yo.c�c bD
i°+�c.�°.= 04do�air� p oa>oai� °c°�a�iv�o
r;
°�c,u�o aa0�A�0 0� cc,�' zs w'30
[�f o='°Of�a°ema�icayi fan 2p:0 y0$oa�i
a '�; ° y a B d� cz
CII r.
O Og Fr' Y FS, 1: W O Si h
0 CO �° c f"„ a' 'y y 3 a° o U o Uri c p,E
En Ell
0 cU.y. 3 x4 N� o m O".b.b° fn ° N
.fSnNc ❑yd °Of�a yo0yo � c�(L) ,Wt❑wc°'. °n °��
y,y .O a -C W E .!J' 5 1 •O y �Y W :A E hD CD O W 49
cz W ca 4 y, fd = a) a1 b f.• �. > a) > [[ .0 cz k " '° o CDx . O SOU
° a;
"Irt ;�,wa 5t Z
! y
S N O1
Q
Q� .D
98 0
LM
cd
+O a.
1- Y � c
Z
CMCZ D,
o
O oL E
��w
y a) to;- O _ .F
`
^v C
m Y
CD -5�
eel
C m
0
.�
g
0
m
z
I
Q
}
dE COD U p,
Q a' c c 3
oW >, d
fi
0 d o� A b R,`° y 14 CD� 7�
ILL ai w a% V � .r • Qw� '�
■ .� W � y ° � O � O d � 7y � Q1 � s. R 'U
C7�9 Z •� A7 �� u .� ,.Sys Fri•• y> }aj ,a� O
O .° y . ; y -9 ° .O fC � O � b5 O 8 �
U a) — N X O .O -r a) as � j '0 .-. c0.� COD
m >, a) y x y 'o N fdn x co aD >. � U .q y .7
r. in CD v cu
12 �� d a 0 M f"a ° cya =:a -8 u 0� 0 m ca b4A� :5 E a> ��
a� O Ga .O
c ai b �� o q4 � o � aa) u o 3� � c �� 0 �
Op °❑o d . cay 36 azz.N d rd
0•emu•� 0 °oca cUfa,�" 7 oU0 faoCUvt. : "0 'fa x y tw
UdbD � E�
cu :s .MC
o
L�r•Y c S" y u fa u N b d° y° O CJ r u >~' ° CD
o fyNa �0,� 0 w y Fi '[q w 9 f y U ! .R .•_• w ,d i+
a U 5 i' V 7 �" 0,,C_ - 0... O
ZI p C. vz N W fa �+ 0 044
0.
E"ay fd �3A:a Ma' OoA 3!•fn a' ° 0'5 N
.U.+ y •O O ' .-. a W 1� O L4
s7 U" � 4) 0 y' cu w co Cl. co i N G b .°. N U O O 'C
°n ti a°� D° 3� 7 f0n by
C o.�
a0tia>i °°'� ua a �uao'd a9 i3a 2
NNE $ w.ti m 0 �? o - M 0 Fi= tw0 $ rn m a)
ca
fa C CD.pC fa 0 aJ c. O N 3 (D 0 — 7 co Or aa) 0 d
'_C�"' y •0 td 0 d wa t' q � 0 Pm o O L. � x' O Ti >a 4) -E "� �N y>s � i'' y I'
�0! O'y.c Li �O+ " N O O 0 .0 �+' ,O i0i 7 �CQy �Qi
.b 4ri +'�•• ° u �+ fO U U N "� .O•' O y y '3 N N .w U FLT°
°oN a �v7, s20viiF�`aocca.«.cadaui�acyi�`�
u u yr o >.0- H a'7 7E' d u cs o
Ufa = 0 .� u Q ca y cz M P. u O .01
cz .� y N FU...., ¢' •,�°•3 w ,, y vOi w .tY O td O O Ei
0 41
•� a) O N�."' 7 G,r„
cm y[y ° c cn ro c G a.-�G 0A 0 0zy o c�
+ °W CD 0faa)oUfa
d .5•'= 3xu 0 0..� u'�
�y°a�f`"a O.C7fCa�= ��oU°c�
cv U 7 6.0 a) Cn ., " C ..., O G ❑
C yx y N °ru O u U �� CD�,O a) O° o N,',
tdwa �ru 0- 0 V Op y qLO" °p,: a.y f�a u°Da3i
o c- :4 u 7 c o ai 5^' >, .� o v
r3 �i f°i,yzw° c°ju° u al 0,aa, 9.9x eyiD3-�
° w 5 0 ca
.0 w V> o 0 O '� 3• p C
E'yyCd- v°,yosu a5 ud
Via°+ Nfa {O-i� fd.
.O o CD L7 ., C'
3 5 � .0 � Ei V2 U2 ci
O S"' to �•+ O U fit „G "° '�."
Q
y F+. 7 CL o
Ao y � r� b a) D El O o
LM
°7'"0.5 a 3s°.
c�
a �° 0 cdi
+ a°� cb.D
m , ca c. Gy rn
y a) to;- O _ .F
❑
. cars
Z
O .0 fib a) y ti sU.
C m
0
.�
U
•O fa'U W W ca ,n
a °u
m sF
(n •0 is c� [°�' ca _°.
gg
C m
y N
$ a E s m
p �j N
m sF